If someone doesn’t believe the Witnesses, it’s because they haven’t studied them

[Philo Sofee]

Oh, sorry. I meant successfully refuted.

Pfft. Word games? I expected better.

[huckelberry]

The question about the witnesses to the plates should have always been one not of their credibility or character but of their expertise. What is their witness good for? If we want to know whether they believed they saw something miraculous, well, sure, why not? If we want to know whether the plates truly were ancient and the product of an ancient Hebrew civilization in the New World, then who cares what they testified to? They were completely unqualified to weigh in on the authenticity of the plates as artifacts or historical evidence of anything.

I guess to my mind this is the point.

I suppose one could make it again as it somehow seems to get laid aside

These people knew the plates contained the Book of Mormon and were old? Just how?

[drumdude]

The question about the witnesses to the plates should have always been one not of their credibility or character but of their expertise. What is their witness good for? If we want to know whether they believed they saw something miraculous, well, sure, why not? If we want to know whether the plates truly were ancient and the product of an ancient Hebrew civilization in the New World, then who cares what they testified to? They were completely unqualified to weigh in on the authenticity of the plates as artifacts or historical evidence of anything.

I guess to my mind this is the point.

I suppose one could make it again as it somehow seems to get laid aside

These people knew the plates contained the Book of Mormon and were old? Just how?

Is it widely assumed by non-believers that Joseph did have something physical resembling plates to show the witnesses?

[IHAQ]

Grant Palmer studied the Witnesses. Grant Palmer doesn't believe the Church's version of their experiences, and places their claims amidst the common trend of that time and place - to claim visions and to practice the occult. If someone believes the Witnesses, it's because they haven't studied them objectively.

[Kishkumen]

Grant Palmer studied the Witnesses. Grant Palmer doesn't believe the Church's version of their experiences, and places their claims amidst the common trend of that time and place - to claim visions and to practice the occult. If someone believes the Witnesses, it's because they haven't studied them objectively.

Sure, but that kind of argument gets you stuck on the Mopologetic Merrygoround.

[Moksha]

In case you missed my prior response, does the Pope have a thoroughgoing understanding of the "Mormon story" and well-informed judgments as to why he believes in the Catholic tradition instead? Can you point me to evidence that he knows any more about what Mormons believe, and why, than you do? Has he read about the 1826 trial, since you clearly haven't?

Why is Nines going on about the Pope? Does he think Gemli is advocating for Catholicism? Wish these Mormon firebrands were better informed. Gemli could easily deconstruct Nine's faith, even if he is belching out Nibley fire.

[dastardly stem]

The witnesses are still best explained on a naturalistic perspective. That is as much explained by Martin Harris as anyone. From The Witnesses website:

Martin struggled to exercise the requisite faith and humility, even as he went into the woods to seek for the promised vision with Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and David Whitmer. Martin withdrew from the group, and Joseph, Oliver, and David received the vision without him. Then Joseph sought out Martin, whom he found praying in the woods. The vision was then revealed to Joseph and Martin. Ecstatic at finally being granted a view of the plates, Martin cried out, “’tis enough, ’tis enough, mine eyes have beheld, mine eyes have beheld.”[3]

This was all visionary. Visions occur, and there's no reason to think they are supernatural. Many people have visions. You may ask, how did Joseph inspire a vision for others? Who knows, but since visions are natural events there is no reason to assume magic here. Let us assume there was a boy named Timmy, hiding in the woods. He witnessed the whole event. he saw the 3 and Joseph. He saw them pray and saw Martin leave. He saw the remaining 3 pray. They prayed and a minute or two later they got up and excitedly chatted with each other. he watched Joseph leave and followed him. He then saw Joseph and Martin talking, and then kneel down and pray. A minute or so later he heard Martin shout out "tis enough...tis enough..." To the boy there was no plates, there was no angel. That's what visions are. They are happening inside the person's head. These visions are likely nothing more than gullible people convincing themselves. They wanted so badly to "hear the voice of God" and "see an angel" they manufactured such occurrences in their heads. Once you've convinced yourself of having seen something in a vision, you can't really change that. The story becomes more magical, not only because there's no one to counter it but because you really want it. I'd still say I don't know how Joseph got those visions to happen, but I still think its more likely they created a vision in their heads and attempted to write down and agreed upon story about it. To me its that simple.

You see though the problem isn't small here. It's not a minor quibble with some vision that may or may not be nothing more than some person imagining things, because the plates aren't interesting. The result hasn't captured most people's attention. It's a sacred text only important to a few million people. But, as it is, the plates have no apparent connection to the Book of Mormon anyway. From what we can gather from those who participated, the translation process didn't involve the plates.

From Book of Mormon Central:

People are sometimes surprised to discover that the plates of the Book of Mormon were not regularly used during the process of its translation.1 While translating, Joseph Smith would typically place his face into a hat to block out ambient light.2 He would then, according to witnesses, read aloud the words which miraculously appeared in a seer stone or in the interpreters, and a scribe would record them.3

Well...sure...and that's the story. There's nothing really to connect the plates to the Book of Mormon story, aside from visions had by very gullible people. That is the type of stuff that is the making of religion.

Christians typically reference witnesses to Jesus after death, for his resurrection. But we have none. We have exactly zero witnesses. We have a vision by Paul. But visions happen. And are explainable as natural phenomena. Essentially we have zero evidence for Jesus' resurrection but we have scholars today, and many defenders repeating it, saying there is so much evidence it is only reasonable to conclude Jesus was resurrected. But there's zero evidence. This I think explains what convinces believers. For the plates, we have evidence. But, its sketchy and meaningless (since the plates weren't used).

I would suggest exactly the opposite as DCP on this. Those who believe the witnesses haven't studied them, for the most part, since most members haven't. Those who have studied them and find it good evidence are simply willing to believe and are likely willing to take anything as evidence. We ought to be reasonable...that's all I'd say about it.

[Rivendale]

The witnesses are still best explained on a naturalistic perspective. That is as much explained by Martin Harris as anyone. From The Witnesses website:

Martin struggled to exercise the requisite faith and humility, even as he went into the woods to seek for the promised vision with Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and David Whitmer. Martin withdrew from the group, and Joseph, Oliver, and David received the vision without him. Then Joseph sought out Martin, whom he found praying in the woods. The vision was then revealed to Joseph and Martin. Ecstatic at finally being granted a view of the plates, Martin cried out, “’tis enough, ’tis enough, mine eyes have beheld, mine eyes have beheld.”[3]

This was all visionary. Visions occur, and there's no reason to think they are supernatural. Many people have visions. You may ask, how did Joseph inspire a vision for others? Who knows, but since visions are natural events there is no reason to assume magic here. Let us assume there was a boy named Timmy, hiding in the woods. He witnessed the whole event. he saw the 3 and Joseph. He saw them pray and saw Martin leave. He saw the remaining 3 pray. They prayed and a minute or two later they got up and excitedly chatted with each other. he watched Joseph leave and followed him. He then saw Joseph and Martin talking, and then kneel down and pray. A minute or so later he heard Martin shout out "tis enough...tis enough..." To the boy there was no plates, there was no angel. That's what visions are. They are happening inside the person's head. These visions are likely nothing more than gullible people convincing themselves. They wanted so badly to "hear the voice of God" and "see an angel" they manufactured such occurrences in their heads. Once you've convinced yourself of having seen something in a vision, you can't really change that. The story becomes more magical, not only because there's no one to counter it but because you really want it. I'd still say I don't know how Joseph got those visions to happen, but I still think its more likely they created a vision in their heads and attempted to write down and agreed upon story about it. To me its that simple.

You see though the problem isn't small here. It's not a minor quibble with some vision that may or may not be nothing more than some person imagining things, because the plates aren't interesting. The result hasn't captured most people's attention. It's a sacred text only important to a few million people. But, as it is, the plates have no apparent connection to the Book of Mormon anyway. From what we can gather from those who participated, the translation process didn't involve the plates.

From Book of Mormon Central:

People are sometimes surprised to discover that the plates of the Book of Mormon were not regularly used during the process of its translation.1 While translating, Joseph Smith would typically place his face into a hat to block out ambient light.2 He would then, according to witnesses, read aloud the words which miraculously appeared in a seer stone or in the interpreters, and a scribe would record them.3

Well...sure...and that's the story. There's nothing really to connect the plates to the Book of Mormon story, aside from visions had by very gullible people. That is the type of stuff that is the making of religion.

Christians typically reference witnesses to Jesus after death, for his resurrection. But we have none. We have exactly zero witnesses. We have a vision by Paul. But visions happen. And are explainable as natural phenomena. Essentially we have zero evidence for Jesus' resurrection but we have scholars today, and many defenders repeating it, saying there is so much evidence it is only reasonable to conclude Jesus was resurrected. But there's zero evidence. This I think explains what convinces believers. For the plates, we have evidence. But, its sketchy and meaningless (since the plates weren't used).

I would suggest exactly the opposite as DCP on this. Those who believe the witnesses haven't studied them, for the most part, since most members haven't. Those who have studied them and find it good evidence are simply willing to believe and are likely willing to take anything as evidence. We ought to be reasonable...that's all I'd say about it.

John Hammer was first to introduce me to the concept of guided visions. Intense social pressure by saying things like, " do you see that object over there?" and other types of stage magician tactics. Which is substantiated by physiological tests regarding group consensus. RFM likes to use the analogy of telling people what they are going to see rather than allowing them to describe what they do see. He uses a twist of words , "sometimes believing is seeing."

[dastardly stem]

John Hammer was first to introduce me to the concept of guided visions. Intense social pressure by saying things like, " do you see that object over there?" and other types of stage magician tactics. Which is substantiated by physiological tests regarding group consensus. RFM likes to use the analogy of telling people what they are going to see rather than allowing them to describe what they do see. He uses a twist of words , "sometimes believing is seeing."

Yep. Certainly possible. More likely than an angel that appears in a vision is an actual character in heaven or in outspace, magically, appearing in one's mind's eye.

[Alphus and Omegus]

Shouldn’t Dan do all of the work he is asking US to do before he dismisses it?

Either Dan has dismissed it without intense study, which is hypocritical, or he has studied it intensely and he should be able to articulate it on his blog.

Herein lies the chasm between Dan's claims and all other sectarian claims (even Mormon claims with which he disagrees, like the Heartland Theory):

Dan's version of Mormonism is true in Dan's worldview. And so he's worked to prove its truthiness with classic FARMS, his online output at Sic et Non, the Interpreter Foundation, etc. (Still waiting for those two books you promised BYU that you'd complete, by the way, Dan...)

All other sectarian claims outside Dan's preferred flavor of Mormonism are untrue and, therefore, not worthy of any serious effort to study them out, other than to build up a reservoir of information with which to attack them.

Peterson can't seem to realize here that firm belief in something is not proof that it happened. For instance, after the 2000 U.S. presidential election, there were news reports that some Democratic voters in Florida accidentally voted for the Reform Party candidate by mistake instead of Democrat Al Gore. Someone ran a poll in the state of Democrats and found that there were more Democrats who believed they'd mistakenly voted for the wrong candidate than the total number of votes that the candidate received.

Even people's first-hand experiences and perceptions can be wrong. And that hypothesis is even more likely when considering the viewpoints and mindsets of uneducated farmers who are confirmed to have believed in all kinds of other nonsensical things, such as Deer Jesus.

Peterson is deliberately blinding himself to Mormonism's fact claims. He does use his brain and logic to deduce that other faiths' factual claims are incorrect. What he considers the "strongest" Mormon argument is really just an example of his own will to believe, or less charitably, his own religious delusions. It's not proof of anything.