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

[drumdude]

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... 6060640852

Here's an interesting fact: you don't know what the Witnesses witnessed any more than I do. We weren't there. We don't have the experience or the mindset of people who grew up a small town in the early 1800s.

Quite. Rather obviously. That's why we examine the historical evidence, especially the accounts of what the witnesses to the events report they witnessed. Rather inconveniently for you, no serious historian argues that the witnesses were dishonest co-conspirators, precisely because the evidence for their honesty and good character is so abundant.

Now, if you'd like to make a serious case that they were duped, I'm happy to have that discussion. But that would require you to actually read what the witnesses said and repeatedly affirmed, and marshal actual evidence as to how they were duped and why. To me, that means answering the question of where those strange plates came from. Or, if they really didn't exist, dealing with the abundance of positive evidence in the record with a suitable explanation. This is basic historical practice.

You claim to be interested in evidence and discussion, but you're not. You'd rather just insist, over and over and over again, that the witnesses were duped, because there is no God, therefore no plates, therefore they were duped, therefore no God. At no point has being completely ignorant of or in total contradiction to the historical evidence made an iota of difference to your position.

I don't know what your wishy-washy handwaving about either one of us "not being there" is supposed to mean with respect to my arguments, but I'd rather read what the people who were there had to say about what they saw and held and touched, and then build a historical case from there. Your a priori negation of everything they have to say has nothing to do with the fact that you (or I) weren't there, and everything to do with the fact that you simply aren't interested in serious discussion with anyone who claims to have experienced something you flatly believe to be impossible. There is no God, therefore no plates, therefore duped, therefore no God. On and on and on ad nauseam. You're so thoroughly wedded to your anti-theistic priors that you won't even consider the atheistic explanation that the plates were nothing more than a tin forgery in the face of actual historical evidence.

And living as we do in a time when people have walked on the moon, there are still those among us who think that the members of one branch of simian apes are going to live eternally in some celestial wonderland when they die. And it's not just one religion. There are hundreds or thousands of different religions, each one with its own miracles, gods, demons, eternal lives and other such fantasies that would be embarrassing in a bad science fiction movie.

Thank you for reaffirming your commitment to the ridiculousness of the simian celestial wonderland. It's a bit of sentimentality that's completely and utterly irrelevant to the discussion, of course, but I'm glad you haven't wavered a bit in your ideological commitments and that you continue to announce them unasked at every turn.

You can believe anything you like (clearly), but Joseph Smith was not an honorable fellow. He was a petty crook in a backward era

Nope. Merely repeating a statement won't transform it into true history. Sorry. You can assert that he was a convicted con man or a petty crook all you like, but the facts don't support you in that effort. You're simply wrong. Again, if you have specific and material evidence to the contrary, you ought to provide it. You aren't talking to someone who's never looked outside of the nonexistent "Mormon echo chamber".

While you'll probably trot this argument out yet again, because you don't seem to have the temperament or capacity for anything better, I should mention that I assert Joseph Smith's good character not by delusive blind faith in the fairy tales which tell me so, but because I've actually read various biographies of Joseph Smith and of Latter-day Saint history, I know what the facts say, and I've formed my judgment by thoroughly examining that evidence.

If you want to have an honest and material discussion of that evidence, as you so often claim, I'm happy to. If you want to present a case of any substance as to why you disagree and believe Joseph Smith was a petty crook, you're free to do so at any time. But true to form, you have yet to provide even a scrap of evidence for your position, instead arguing by fiat and flat assertion. I'm well aware of the critical perspective of Joseph Smith. Merely appealing to the existence of unnamed nonbelievers is not an argument with the facts on the ground. (I recognize that this approach follows from your transparently absurd and self-serving prior that "if x claim was true, there would be no doubt of it", but I prefer to examine the evidence at hand before coming to conclusions on inconclusive questions.)

Speaking of appealing to nonbelievers...

The Pope, sitting there in a sequined robes in front of a bunch of celibate men and preaching utter nonsense, rolls his eyes at the Mormon story.

Spare me. This is at least the fifth time that I've seen you roll out this ridiculous argument, which means there are probably hundreds more repetitions of it that I wasn't here for. I even personally responded to it, as I recall, which makes me wonder why you're trotting it out yet again without having even acknowledged the critique. (Or it would, at least, if I didn't already know that repeating the same ten clichéd arguments with no regard whatever for your interlocutors is your unflinching modus operandi.)

Unfortunately, much like your other favorite turns of phrase, it doesn't gain credence merely by dint of repetition. 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?

Even if he does know all of these things, why should the Pope's rejection of the Mormon story be any more compelling than yours, or my own family members' who have long since walked away from the church? "High-profile non-Mormon doesn't believe in Mormonism" isn't any more of a compelling argument than "high-profile theist doesn't believe in atheism." If your atheism isn't jeopardized by the Pope's Catholicism, it's not clear to me why my own religious commitments ought to be.

(The predatory "holy gestapo" which swoops upon burgeoning apostates and fills your breast with such righteous smugness was nowhere to be found during my family's deconversions, by the way. That ought to count for something in your reckoning of the merits and demerits of the "theological communities" you incessantly lambaste, but I'm sure it won't, and we'll be hearing about the holy gestapo again as soon as it's convenient for your polemic.)

Wow, Nines. That was a really solid response to poor gemli. Well done. Plainly, too, you're much, much more patient with him than I've come to be.
I would be very pleased if what you've written were to have any positive effect on him. Unfortunately, though, I lack faith. He hasn't changed his approach in years, and he's very unlikely to do so now.

Dan keeps harping on this point over and over. If only people would honestly study the Witnesses, they would have no choice but accept that the plates were real. And if the plates were real, then you have to explain how Joseph made the plates. How he wrote the Book of Mormon so fast. How he fooled everyone around him. How they never recanted their testimonies.

Is this actually Mormonism’s strongest argument?

[Wonhyo]

Dan keeps harping on this point over and over. If only people would honestly study the Witnesses, they would have no choice but accept that the plates were real. And if the plates were real, then you have to explain how Joseph made the plates. How he wrote the Book of Mormon so fast. How he fooled everyone around him. How they never recanted their testimonies.

Is this actually Mormonism’s strongest argument?

It's certainly one of its strongest, yes. For years, many of us here looked to the witnesses as a sort of final line of defense that could not be broken. How else could one explain why men, men who personally fell out with Joseph Smith, never took the opportunity to renounce their testimonies of the Book of Mormon? It's such a strong argument in the eyes of Mopologists that they rounded up the money to produce and release an unintentionally hilarious movie about it.

John Pratt was an astronomer and a physicist who used to write articles for Meridian, an online magazine catering to TBMs, Heartland Theorists, and others from the Mormon goose-pimple crowd. Pratt began to drift off his rocker later in life, and penned overwhelmingly confusing essays on how the movements of planets and other celestial objects could determine, with precision, events such as the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden, the start of the rainfall of Noah's flood, etc.

Before he died, Pratt was privileged to be one of the witness of the sealed portion of the Gold Plates, which had been delivered to a new prophet in Brazil named Mauricio Berger. He recorded his testimony and later died firm in the belief that he was a witness to something special, something spiritually powerful, something which he could never deny.

We obviously don't expect Dan Peterson or any of the current Mopologists to accept John Pratt's testimony, his testimony that he witnessed something special from God. Dan would say that Pratt was deceived. So, perhaps for Moplogists, witnesses only matter when they're your people and when they're witnessing to something meaningful to you.

Below, in case anybody is interested in John Pratt's witness of the plates he saw, are links to his testimony and to his obituary:

https://johnpratt.com/items/docs/2020/witness.html

https://www.dignitymemorial.com/obituar ... t-10398606

[drumdude]

We obviously don't expect Dan Peterson or any of the current Mopologists to accept John Pratt's testimony, his testimony that he witnessed something special from God. Dan would say that Pratt was deceived.

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.

Not only that, but if he wants to be serious and not a hypocrite, he should spend the rest of his life justifying his disbelief in every other supernatural claim that he doesn’t accept as true.

[Wonhyo]

We obviously don't expect Dan Peterson or any of the current Mopologists to accept John Pratt's testimony, his testimony that he witnessed something special from God. Dan would say that Pratt was deceived.

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.

[IHAQ]

The place one is supposed to study the witnesses is at Church, in seminary and institute. Lot's have people have been through those courses and found the witnesses claims unbelievable. Dan is criticising the Church for not doing a good enough teaching job on members. Has he volunteered his services (for free) to rewrite those curriculums so that the witnesses are studied properly? No, he spent everyone else's time and everyone else's money (co)producing a sub standard film that has convinced nobody about the witnesses.

And that’s the best they’ve got. Despite the decades of research, study, trips, etc etc etc Peterson has said on more than one occasion, the testimonies of the witnesses is the best evidence they’ve got in favour of the Book of Mormon being what it claims to be. Think about that. Let it sink in. It’s basically admitting that all those years of research, all that funding, trying to find tangible evidence of Nephites and Lamanites, all those archeology trips to Central America, have turned up nothing more persuasive than the word of 11 of Joseph Smiths close family and friends. I wonder if the Dales can calculate the odds of that…

[IHAQ]

If someone doesn't believe Tom Cruise and John Travolta, it's because they haven't studied auditing.

This is a cheap and easy game to play.

[Informant]

The place one is supposed to study the witnesses is at Church, in seminary and institute. Lot's have people have been through those courses and found the witnesses claims unbelievable. Dan is criticising the Church for not doing a good enough teaching job on members. Has he volunteered his services (for free) to rewrite those curriculums so that the witnesses are studied properly? No, he spent everyone else's time and everyone else's money (co)producing a sub standard film that has convinced nobody about the witnesses.

And that’s the best they’ve got. Despite the decades of research, study, trips, etc etc etc Peterson has said on more than one occasion, the testimonies of the witnesses is the best evidence they’ve got in favour of the Book of Mormon being what it claims to be. Think about that. Let it sink in. It’s basically admitting that all those years of research, all that funding, trying to find tangible evidence of Nephites and Lamanites, all those archeology trips to Central America, have turned up nothing more persuasive than the word of 11 of Joseph Smiths close family and friends. I wonder if the Dales can calculate the odds of that…

No, the “best they’ve got” is the book even the great Tanners couldn’t refute: Anderson’s book. Refute that with actual evidence and I’ll begin to take you seriously. No critic has ever done so.

(And I’m not active anymore, but the Witnesses are pretty rock solid.)

[doubtingthomas]

(And I’m not active anymore, but the Witnesses are pretty rock solid.)

Are you one of those TBMs with a porn addiction? Does your wife know?

No, the “best they’ve got” is the book even the great Tanners couldn’t refute: Anderson’s book. Refute that with actual evidence and I’ll begin to take you seriously. No critic has ever done so.

No critic has refuted the Patterson–Gimlin film, alien abductions, and DMT experiences.

[drumdude]

No, the “best they’ve got” is the book even the great Tanners couldn’t refute: Anderson’s book. Refute that with actual evidence and I’ll begin to take you seriously. No critic has ever done so.

This is what is so frustrating. The null hypothesis is that Joseph made it up, like so many other conmen do.

The burden of proof is on DCP, and you, and anyone else who thinks “no one has refuted Anderson” to actually show your work.

I’m very interested to know what you base that statement on. Which parts of Anderson’s book *specifically* have not been addressed by critics? Because I’m pretty sure they have been addressed, maybe just not to your individual satisfaction.

DCP is claiming that this evidence is good enough to convince an unbiased judge and jury. And that only ex-Mormons with an axe to grind would ever dispute it. That’s a very bold claim that he has zero evidence to back up.

[doubtingthomas]

This is what is so frustrating. The null hypothesis is that Joseph made it up, like so many other conmen do.

Don't take him seriously, he's just another professional troll with a porn and drug addiction.

Are you doing drugs?

Right now? No.

As often as possible? Hell yea!