DiscussMormonism.com

A lot of verbiage has been expended by the Mopologists in defense of the Witnesses: Gemli was attacked repeatedly, told that he "didn't understand" history, among other things, due to his skepticism of the Book of Mormon Witnesses. Mopologists at "SeN" explained that modern-day courtrooms would fall to pieces if it wasn't for eyewitness testimony. Hence, *everyone* must assent to the Book of Mormon Witnesses! Eyewitnesses, the argument goes, have validity!!

Of course, critics have been pointing out for years that witness testimony can be unreliable. Is there really a good reason to believe all the "eyewitness" accounts of various supernatural phenomena, ranging from UFOs and Bigfoot, to the Loch Ness Monster, Mothman, and the Chupacabra? But these have all been cheerfully cast aside by the Afore in the interest of continuing to preserve the very flimsy basis for believing the Book of Mormon "eyewitness."

Given all this, it surely comes as a massive shock to see that the Proprietor of SeN is actually quite selective when it comes to believing 1st-person eyewitness testimony, even when it comes to one of his favorite supernatural topics: NDEs:

On the whole, I’m more interested in relevant data than in “inspiration” from such accounts, and I tend not to rely very heavily upon first-person books about an author’s own NDE....But, although I’m skeptical, I don’t discount first person accounts completely or automatically, and this list has alerted me to some titles that I might perhaps want to read.

Whoa! What?? He tends "not to rely very heavily upon first-person" accounts of their own NDEs?? This is shocking! Can you imagine what would happen if he applied this same standard to the Book of Mormon Witnesses? Does he not worry that voicing this tendency (and thus revealing his hypocrisy) might steer some of his readership straight towards apostasy? If the Witnesses should be treated with "skepticism" and curious Latter-day Saints don't need to "rely very heavily" upon the Witnesses's first-person accounts....then what will happen?

Quite interesting, in any case, to see such open admission of brazen hypocrisy.

This is the same guy that states that a small number of first-person accounts are the best evidence for The Book of Mormon, and who spent $millions promoting those first person accounts. Now he can take ‘'em or leave ‘'em.

The same guy who stands in front of some water in South America and proclaims it to be the same waters from the fictional Book of Mormon. With as straight a face as if he was standing in front of some castle ruins in Latvia and calling it Hogwarts.

The same guy who publicly testified that he held the imaginary Second Watson Letter in his formerly Cheetos stained hands.

DCP wrote:Over the fifteen to twenty years that he’s devoted himself to continual, anonymous, disingenuous, and invariably negative online commentary on me and all my works (both real and imagined), my Malevolent Stalker has often struck me as unethical and implacably hostile but rather clever, if not altogether cunning. Sometimes, though — today, for example — he strikes me, quite simply, as intellectually . . . well, limited. (I’m being as diplomatic as I can be, given the facts of the case.) He may be feigning such limitation, of course. But he may not. And he has the advantage of performing for an uncritical and eagerly credulous audience.

Or, "Dr. Scratch r dum tee hee"

Right. Sure. So says the "brainiac" who's still "perplexed" as to why Six Days in August was a total failure at the box office. He *may* actually be that much of an unimaginative nincompoop. Or not?

Well, at least we got yet another moment of "wishful thinking," where he openly muses about how he's going to tidy up his manuscript-length book on NDEs so that it's ready for publication....In, what? 15 years, maybe? Yes: I'm sure we'll all eagerly await this book, so that we can examine it's "intellectual heft."

DCP wrote:And he has the advantage of performing for an uncritical and eagerly credulous audience.

This is a good description of the SeN posters; however, in their favor, they now speak in sentences rather than continuously saying, "Ditto."

Well, when it comes to others testimonies, he gives wiggle room (I mean remember how sourly Mormons treated Betty Eadie's NDE because it didn't "fit" or "match" LDS theology, and so she was fake?!) But witnesses to the Book of Mormon? NO! Iron clad solidity. Everyone else? Meh, not so much. Valid if similar to LDS theology, not so good if it adds anything outside the (invented) narrative they all have a testimony of from the Holy Ghost... It is laughable, myopic and an inch deep and a lightyear wide.

Philo Sofee wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 19, 2024 12:08 am

Well, when it comes to others testimonies, he gives wiggle room (I mean remember how sourly Mormons treated Betty Eadie's NDE because it didn't "fit" or "match" LDS theology, and so she was fake?!) But witnesses to the Book of Mormon? NO! Iron clad solidity. Everyone else? Meh, not so much. Valid if similar to LDS theology, not so good if it adds anything outside the (invented) narrative they all have a testimony of from the Holy Ghost... It is laughable, myopic and an inch deep and a lightyear wide.

You’re quite right, Philo, and his reaction stems from his recognition of this fact, and, simultaneously, his tendency to “dig in his heels” when he thinks he’s right. How many times has he said that the Witnesses “must be dealt with” or that they “cannot be dismissed”? And yet here he is, doing exactly that with NDEs!

Doctor Scratch wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 19, 2024 12:23 am

[You’re quite right, Philo, and his reaction stems from his recognition of this fact, and, simultaneously, his tendency to “dig in his heels” when he thinks he’s right. How many times has he said that the Witnesses “must be dealt with” or that they “cannot be dismissed”? And yet here he is, doing exactly that with NDEs!

Dr. Peterson recognizes that sometimes individuals and groups make things up for personal gain.