For Dan Peterson Witnesses to the Book of Mormon

[Analytics]

I think uninterested parties find the testimony strange and intrinsically unconvincing. Mark Twain thought the statements were funny enough to bear quoting in Roughing It, needing no other rebuttal than the following sarcasm:

Some people have to have a world of evidence before they can come anywhere in the neighborhood of believing anything; but for me, when a man tells me that he has "seen the engravings which are upon the plates," and not only that, but an angel was there at the time, and saw him see them, and probably took his receipt for it, I am very far on the road to conviction, no matter whether I ever heard of that man before or not, and even if I do not know the name of the angel, or his nationality either.

And when I am far on the road to conviction, and eight men, be they grammatical or otherwise, come forward and tell me that they have seen the plates too; and not only seen those plates but "hefted" them, I am convinced. I could not feel more satisfied and at rest if the entire Whitmer family had testified.

The question I have is how do you articulate why this is so unconvincing.

I think it is because the testimonies exist to prove the plates existed. But the only reason it was necessary to prove the plates existed is because Joseph Smith refused to show them to anybody who was independent or an expert. Then the plates vanished, allegedly taken away by an angel. But why did they vanish? So that nobody who was independent or an expert would ever see them. It’s incredibly suspicious.

Billy Shears posted this on Peterson’s blog:

For all the attorneys here who think eyewitness testimony is so powerful: is the eyewitness testimony of eleven people strong enough to convict someone of murder?

Before you answer that, let me flesh out some more details to illustrate how extraneous details can make the witness statements problematic. What if there was no corroborating evidence of a murder taking place? What if there was no body, no forensic evidence, no missing person, no positively identified victim. Just 11 friends who said they witnessed somebody commit murder, and then claimed there is no other evidence because an angel cleaned up the crime scene and removed the body.

Would that be sufficient to justly convict somebody of murder?

[Dr Exiled]

I think uninterested parties find the testimony strange and intrinsically unconvincing. Mark Twain thought the statements were funny enough to bear quoting in Roughing It, needing no other rebuttal than the following sarcasm:

Some people have to have a world of evidence before they can come anywhere in the neighborhood of believing anything; but for me, when a man tells me that he has "seen the engravings which are upon the plates," and not only that, but an angel was there at the time, and saw him see them, and probably took his receipt for it, I am very far on the road to conviction, no matter whether I ever heard of that man before or not, and even if I do not know the name of the angel, or his nationality either.

And when I am far on the road to conviction, and eight men, be they grammatical or otherwise, come forward and tell me that they have seen the plates too; and not only seen those plates but "hefted" them, I am convinced. I could not feel more satisfied and at rest if the entire Whitmer family had testified.

The question I have is how do you articulate why this is so unconvincing.

I think it is because the testimonies exist to prove the plates existed. But the only reason it was necessary to prove the plates existed is because Joseph Smith refused to show them to anybody who was independent or an expert. Then the plates vanished, allegedly taken away by an angel. But why did they vanish? So that nobody who was independent or an expert would ever see them. It’s incredibly suspicious.

Billy Shears posted this on Peterson’s blog:

For all the attorneys here who think eyewitness testimony is so powerful: is the eyewitness testimony of eleven people strong enough to convict someone of murder?

Before you answer that, let me flesh out some more details to illustrate how extraneous details can make the witness statements problematic. What if there was no corroborating evidence of a murder taking place? What if there was no body, no forensic evidence, no missing person, no positively identified victim. Just 11 friends who said they witnessed somebody commit murder, and then claimed there is no other evidence because an angel cleaned up the crime scene and removed the body.

Would that be sufficient to justly convict somebody of murder?

The angel didn't clean up the crime scene. Angels can't do that. Just like they need to shake your hand when you ask them to, they are limited in clean up duties. Also, everyone knows the body was left in Nahom.

[Moksha]

The angel didn't clean up the crime scene. Angels can't do that.

What if that evidence was translated to the phantom zone together with the Long Scroll and the Second Watson Letter?

[Kishkumen]

Billy Shears posted this on Peterson’s blog:

For all the attorneys here who think eyewitness testimony is so powerful: is the eyewitness testimony of eleven people strong enough to convict someone of murder?

Before you answer that, let me flesh out some more details to illustrate how extraneous details can make the witness statements problematic. What if there was no corroborating evidence of a murder taking place? What if there was no body, no forensic evidence, no missing person, no positively identified victim. Just 11 friends who said they witnessed somebody commit murder, and then claimed there is no other evidence because an angel cleaned up the crime scene and removed the body.

Would that be sufficient to justly convict somebody of murder?

You could leave the angel out and the problems with this would still be sufficient to stop this case cold. The interesting thing is that this is not the first time such examples have been raised to counter apologetic perspectives.

A lot of what RFM has had to say in the Mormonism Live! episode on Hofmann has got me reflecting on the way in which the Church's dealings with Hofmann prove unequivocally that the LDS Church would not accept Joseph Smith's claims today. After all, they required experts to authenticate Hofmann's forgeries. We know what happens when people today come forward claiming to have new plates, or translations of the sealed portion, etc., the Church doesn't give them the time of day. I think it is pretty clear that they would not give Joseph Smith the time of day today, were he an outsider claiming to have evidence of ancient Nephites but refusing to show it because "angel" or some such.

You just can't get around the lack of credibility attached to the plates and the witnesses.

[Dr Exiled]

The angel didn't clean up the crime scene. Angels can't do that.

What if that evidence was translated to the phantom zone together with the Long Scroll and the Second Watson Letter?

I think you might be on to something here. Just like the Devil planted all those dinosaur bones to trick the faithful, God sent his holy angels to take away evidence like the plates, the long scroll, the second watson letter, and Midge's stalking notebook, so the faithful could exercise their faith in Him.

[Dr Exiled]

I wonder what a good apologetic response would be to Billy Shear's question? If 11 witnesses came forward today claiming they saw a murder but that an angel came and disposed of the body and cleaned up the crime scene, would there be enough to convict Kiwi (waterboy) 57 of the crime? Well, Kiwi57 is always in attack mode, barking like a little dog at those who enter DCP's beloved Sic et Non home. He has been known to bite people on occasion. He can't help himself at times and little yappy dogs gotta do what they do. Even so, it's very difficult to convict without a body.

However, we are talking about religion here and the rules are different when convenient to make them so. It's already made up so the D&D master can invent whatever he/she wants. So, God works in mysterious ways? We don't know all the answers? Some day we will? Is that where Billy's example goes? It just so happens that on Kolob, the Kolobian state code doesn't require a body to convict poor Kiwi57 of the murder. Sorry buddy, but your reputation as an attack dog for the Lord and waterboy for your BYU apologist buddies precedes you. Guilty as charged under Kolob criminal code section 1.

[Rivendale]

Billy Shears posted this on Peterson’s blog:


Would that be sufficient to justly convict somebody of murder?

You could leave the angel out and the problems with this would still be sufficient to stop this case cold. The interesting thing is that this is not the first time such examples have been raised to counter apologetic perspectives.

A lot of what RFM has had to say in the Mormonism Live! episode on Hofmann has got me reflecting on the way in which the Church's dealings with Hofmann prove unequivocally that the LDS Church would not accept Joseph Smith's claims today. After all, they required experts to authenticate Hofmann's forgeries. We know what happens when people today come forward claiming to have new plates, or translations of the sealed portion, etc., the Church doesn't give them the time of day. I think it is pretty clear that they would not give Joseph Smith the time of day today, were he an outsider claiming to have evidence of ancient Nephites but refusing to show it because "angel" or some such.

You just can't get around the lack of credibility attached to the plates and the witnesses.

Which is exactly what they did with the Brewer's cave findings in the 70's and 80's.

[Fence Sitter]

You could leave the angel out and the problems with this would still be sufficient to stop this case cold. The interesting thing is that this is not the first time such examples have been raised to counter apologetic perspectives.

A lot of what RFM has had to say in the Mormonism Live! episode on Hofmann has got me reflecting on the way in which the Church's dealings with Hofmann prove unequivocally that the LDS Church would not accept Joseph Smith's claims today. After all, they required experts to authenticate Hofmann's forgeries. We know what happens when people today come forward claiming to have new plates, or translations of the sealed portion, etc., the Church doesn't give them the time of day. I think it is pretty clear that they would not give Joseph Smith the time of day today, were he an outsider claiming to have evidence of ancient Nephites but refusing to show it because "angel" or some such.

You just can't get around the lack of credibility attached to the plates and the witnesses.

It isn't just the Church today that rejects this type of claims, it started almost as soon as the Church was founded. Initially Church members were open to Pentecostal manifestations, glossolalia, baptism for the sick, dusting off the feet, patriarchal blessings promising exaltation or being alive to see the second coming, apotheosis, revelations received by members other than Smith and such. Once Smith realized he could not control the Church when it acted that way he quickly squelched such behavior by others and transitioned his own behavior away from the more radical aspect of such behavior like using seer stones in a hat.

Guess which members objected the most to Smith stopping the use of the stones? The Book of Mormon witnesses. People who were most likely to be convinced of the authenticity of behavior that even then was seen as bizarre. The witnesses weren't even credible in their own time.

[Philo Sofee]

Analytics
I think it is because the testimonies exist to prove the plates existed. But the only reason it was necessary to prove the plates existed is because Joseph Smith refused to show them to anybody who was independent or an expert. Then the plates vanished, allegedly taken away by an angel. But why did they vanish? So that nobody who was independent or an expert would ever see them. It’s incredibly suspicious.

An incredibly useful observation!

[Philo Sofee]

Kishkumen
You could leave the angel out and the problems with this would still be sufficient to stop this case cold. The interesting thing is that this is not the first time such examples have been raised to counter apologetic perspectives.

A lot of what RFM has had to say in the Mormonism Live! episode on Hofmann has got me reflecting on the way in which the Church's dealings with Hofmann prove unequivocally that the LDS Church would not accept Joseph Smith's claims today. After all, they required experts to authenticate Hofmann's forgeries. We know what happens when people today come forward claiming to have new plates, or translations of the sealed portion, etc., the Church doesn't give them the time of day. I think it is pretty clear that they would not give Joseph Smith the time of day today, were he an outsider claiming to have evidence of ancient Nephites but refusing to show it because "angel" or some such.

You just can't get around the lack of credibility attached to the plates and the witnesses.

If for no other reason than to have this post, this thread has well been worth starting and reading! Thanks for sharing!