Evidence and Mormonism

[Philo Sofee]

The plates become much less impressive when you learn about the rock in the hat and the book of Abraham.

Back in the 1950s it might have been a decent argument. In 2022? Laughable.

Joseph used a rock in a hat, and the work we have of his translation efforts on the papyrus is complete trash.

The real KICKER is Joseph's mom herself indicated that Smith translated the papyrus ALSO with a seer stone! Now put the blatantly incorrect translation of the papyri with the plates, and wala, there is your stone cold story down in metal...

[DrStakhanovite]

The witnesses may be sufficient for him, but in that case, why his life work in apologetics attempting to show there is so much else? He could have done something actually useful for all those years. And, the other idea that struck me rather forcefully is sufficient for whom?! If all he is thinking is his own belief, then sure, but is he satisfied with that? Is that all he will ever bring up and discuss with non-Mormons? Why all the frantic search for all kinds of "evidences" and all the lies about Alma, Nahom, and other issues which have truly been shown to be wrong, yet he attempts to maintain them anyway? NONE of his actions indicate he really believes the witnesses are sufficient in any manner. The reason is simple, he is once again doing the apologetic two step for believers who are beginning to doubt. For the rest of us we all already have a very firm and true testimony that the witnesses alone are nowhere even near sufficient.

My take is that Daniel is merely aping evidentialist apologetics from historical Christianity. The cornerstone of that methodology is the resurrection event and turning it into a historical fact and the closer they inch to that goal the better all the other arguments they use appear. Everything Daniel has to say about the witnesses and the implications that can be drawn from their lives is damn near a carbon copy of what other Christians say about the apostles following the culmination of Jesus’ ministry.

You take a simplistic and intuitive understanding of human nature and behavior, paper it over an event with only documentary evidence and zero forensic material that is temporally and culturally distant from us; then you’ve got yourself a rhetorically effective presentation that can be confidently presented in a pleasant and pious manner.

For an intellectual sloth like Daniel, it becomes a paint-by-the-numbers situation where “Why would the apostles go on to die for the faith if Jesus didn’t really rise from the dead?” can easily be modified into “Why didn’t the witnesses ever recant, even if it was in their best interest?” with minimal effort.

The contingent facts of history can be dressed up as the necessary truths of Divine revelation if you assume God orchestrates human events: Christianity’s rise to prominences towards the end of the Antiquity becomes a miracle unto itself and described in probabilistic terms (“highly unlikely” “nearly impossible”) with the only plausible explanation being it was God’s will all along. (*obligatory nod to Gotthold Lessing*).

All the supposed “bullseyes” concerning Mormon scriptures are just the icing on the cake that can be tacked on at the end.

[drumdude]

The witnesses may be sufficient for him, but in that case, why his life work in apologetics attempting to show there is so much else? He could have done something actually useful for all those years. And, the other idea that struck me rather forcefully is sufficient for whom?! If all he is thinking is his own belief, then sure, but is he satisfied with that? Is that all he will ever bring up and discuss with non-Mormons? Why all the frantic search for all kinds of "evidences" and all the lies about Alma, Nahom, and other issues which have truly been shown to be wrong, yet he attempts to maintain them anyway? NONE of his actions indicate he really believes the witnesses are sufficient in any manner. The reason is simple, he is once again doing the apologetic two step for believers who are beginning to doubt. For the rest of us we all already have a very firm and true testimony that the witnesses alone are nowhere even near sufficient.

My take is that Daniel is merely aping evidentialist apologetics from historical Christianity. The cornerstone of that methodology is the resurrection event and turning it into a historical fact and the closer they inch to that goal the better all the other arguments they use appear. Everything Daniel has to say about the witnesses and the implications that can be drawn from their lives is damn near a carbon copy of what other Christians say about the apostles following the culmination of Jesus’ ministry.

You take a simplistic and intuitive understanding of human nature and behavior, paper it over an event with only documentary evidence and zero forensic material that is temporally and culturally distant from us; then you’ve got yourself a rhetorically effective presentation that can be confidently presented in a pleasant and pious manner.

For an intellectual sloth like Daniel, it becomes a paint-by-the-numbers situation where “Why would the apostles go on to die for the faith if Jesus didn’t really rise from the dead?” can easily be modified into “Why didn’t the witnesses ever recant, even if it was in their best interest?” with minimal effort.

The contingent facts of history can be dressed up as the necessary truths of Divine revelation if you assume God orchestrates human events: Christianity’s rise to prominences towards the end of the Antiquity becomes a miracle unto itself and described in probabilistic terms (“highly unlikely” “nearly impossible”) with the only plausible explanation being it was God’s will all along. (*obligatory nod to Gotthold Lessing*).

All the supposed “bullseyes” concerning Mormon scriptures are just the icing on the cake that can be tacked on at the end.

Excellent point.

The Witnesses just aren't convincing. One Whitmer testimony is as good as 100 Whitmer testimonies.