Too Many Credible Witnesses, Says Daniel Peterson

[_Infymus]

“F” Daniel C. Peterson. Seriously. “F” Daniel C. Peterson. Nobody outside of the Cult of Mormonism really gives a damn what this asshole Professor really thinks. He is a nobody, a no one. He is alone in his little world of Mormonism - a cult that is shrinking day by day, year by year. He's nothing but a has been, an old guard, a "Portly Professor".

Life goes on without him.

[_Blixa]

More than 120 witnesses must have falsely testified about Brigham Young's transformation before their eyes upon his succession to the presidency of the church.

So in an article arguing that so many people would have to lie for Joseph Smith to have lied (or something; the logic is, shall we say, imprecise), Peterson himself generates a new lie--that 120 witnesses testified about a so-called "transformation before their eyes." The first mention of any sort of "transformation" of BY into Joseph Smith came 13 years after the incident allegedly occurred. There are no "120 witnesses" to the event. The fact that no one mentioned this myth for more than a decade after the event is strong and compelling evidence that nothing of the kind occurred.

Why does DCP deceive in this way? Why does he continue to perpetuate a lie, to lead the Saints into continuing to believe in this story of highly dubious historical provenance? He must be familiar with the Van Wagoner article linked above. He must know there are not 120 witnesses testifying about it. He must know he is peddling a falsehood. And how ironic that he is doing it in an article where he is trying to defend Mormon honesty.

No Dan is correct. Brigham Young did undergo a transformation upon his succession. He transformed from a humbly born carpenter, blacksmith and missionary, and one of several contenders to the throne, into an iron-fisted Theocrat seeking to establish an Anti-American Empire.* (And in the process he transformed Mormonism itself from something different than its genesis under Smith.)


*some exaggeration for rhetorical effect (I learned this trick from Old Boss himself!)

[_sethpayne]

No Dan is correct. Brigham Young did undergo a transformation upon his succession. He transformed from a humbly born carpenter, blacksmith and missionary, and one of several contenders to the throne, into an iron-fisted Theocrat seeking to establish an Anti-American Empire.* (And in the process he transformed Mormonism itself from something different than its genesis under Smith.)


*some exaggeration for rhetorical effect (I learned this trick from Old Boss himself!)

I often daydream about what the Church would look like today had Joseph not been murdered.

Read an article a few years back in Sunstone -- the five grand keys of Mormonism? Something like that.

Anyway, it was a phrase borrowed from Masonry but the way Joseph described it sounded like he was looking to create an egalitarian haven.

[_Bob Loblaw]

I often daydream about what the Church would look like today had Joseph not been murdered.

Read an article a few years back in Sunstone -- the five grand keys of Mormonism? Something like that.

Anyway, it was a phrase borrowed from Masonry but the way Joseph described it sounded like he was looking to create an egalitarian haven.

I suspect that it would have ended up a small remnant, like the Strangites. Joseph's pattern was a series of crises, followed by a furious attempt to reinvent himself and his religion. And knowing Joseph's intolerance for dissent, I just can't see him creating anything approaching egalitarianism.

[_angsty]

Would anyone care to comment on this article? He seems to make a good case.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7656 ... -lied.html

A good nutcase perhaps.

Others have cited references that challenge the strength of various witness accounts Peterson mentions. I'd like to add that I found "The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark" by Carl Sagan to be a useful introduction to the kinds of skeptical methods that show how clearly inadequate Peterson's claims here are.

Also, while I'm sure some would and do describe various witnesses as "liars" or "crazy" one need not believe those more extreme characterizations in order to challenge the credibility of their claims. One need not be a liar or crazy person in order to be mistaken. Otherwise-rational people who are upright and honest believe all sorts of untrue things for various reasons.

I think that Peterson makes his case appear a bit more persuasive (if it can be described that way at all) by addressing it in very black and white terms, but there's a huge swath of grey he ignores that doesn't serve his point well. The credibility of various witnesses isn't a simple matter of "Either all these people are liars or these people are credible and the gospel is true". There are many ways people can be mistaken, and/or not credible, without being characterized as liars or crazy people.

for what it's worth, I don't actually think Peterson is a nutcase, and I don't even I think this article is even a serious effort on his part. He's writing to bolster the faith of the already-converted. If he was writing a more general readership, I'd like to think he'd try a little harder. Of course my hopes on this point have been continually disappointed lately.

[_Blixa]

No Dan is correct. Brigham Young did undergo a transformation upon his succession. He transformed from a humbly born carpenter, blacksmith and missionary, and one of several contenders to the throne, into an iron-fisted Theocrat seeking to establish an Anti-American Empire.* (And in the process he transformed Mormonism itself from something different than its genesis under Smith.)


*some exaggeration for rhetorical effect (I learned this trick from Old Boss himself!)

I often daydream about what the Church would look like today had Joseph not been murdered.

Read an article a few years back in Sunstone -- the five grand keys of Mormonism? Something like that.

Anyway, it was a phrase borrowed from Masonry but the way Joseph described it sounded like he was looking to create an egalitarian haven.

Was it perchance this brilliance?

[_sethpayne]

Was it perchance this brilliance?

Indeed!!!

[_sethpayne]

I suspect that it would have ended up a small remnant, like the Strangites. Joseph's pattern was a series of crises, followed by a furious attempt to reinvent himself and his religion. And knowing Joseph's intolerance for dissent, I just can't see him creating anything approaching egalitarianism.

Read the article, Bob. I think you might be surprised. I think Joseph Smith was a true idealist and this led him to make, as demonstrated by his demise, deadly errors of judgement.

I actually think I'd like to have a beer with Joseph some day. Even with all his many shortcomings you have to be impressed with what he did by the age of 38.

[_moksha]

This lends credence to both the Angel with the flaming sword and her second cousin the FSM (may you bask in his marinara).

Joseph Smith established the Church and that's good enough. Let's not get bogged down with unnecessary effluvia.

[_Quasimodo]

I actually think I'd like to have a beer with Joseph some day. Even with all his many shortcomings you have to be impressed with what he did by the age of 38.

I think it would be great fun to have a beer with Joseph. In the same way that it would be fun to have a beer with Brigham Young, L. Ron Hubbard, Jim Bakker, Ted Haggard, Jimmy Swaggart and several more.

I would have so many questions for each one.