DCP equates the Witnesses of the plates to witnesses of the Lincoln assassination

[drumdude]

https://latterdaysaintmag.com/why-we-ca ... witnesses/

I find it interesting that Dan so often publishes anonymous exchanges in unnamed forums to Mormon publications. The readers must be wondering “why doesn’t he say where these conversations are taking place, and who are all these anonymous people he is obsessed with?”

[IHAQ]

Peterson's double standard in relation to witnesses is glaring. 8 witnesses closely related to Joseph, witnessed what Joseph wanted them to witness. And that's rock solid proof of what they witnessed. A plethora of witnesses to the fact that the Church has an institutionalised child sex abuse problem, well, Peterson isn't convinced there's any real problem whatsoever. The man is intellectually dishonest.

[Philo Sofee]

Peterson's double standard in relation to witnesses is glaring. 8 witnesses closely related to Joseph, witnessed what Joseph wanted them to witness. And that's rock solid proof of what they witnessed. A plethora of witnesses to the fact that the Church has an institutionalised child sex abuse problem, well, Peterson isn't convinced there's any real problem whatsoever. The man is intellectually dishonest.

I have thought along the same lines. The bias is crystal clear. And he will go all out to learn anything about the Book of Mormon witnesses, but is perfectly comfortable remaining in ignorance concerning the child sexual abuse ones. I don't see a man here wanting to get to the bottom of things to acquire the truth of them. I see a Mormon apologist paid (in whatever way) at the work of deception.

[Marcus]

this lapse in Peterson's logic is stunning:

First of all, he said, they claimed to have witnessed “supernatural” or “spiritual” events. Accordingly, their testimonies are “merely subjective.”

But this doesn’t seem to follow at all. “Supernatural” events aren’t, by definition, “subjective” events.

So his argument is calling a testimony "subjective" is the same thing as saying "supernatural" events are "subjective" events. No, it is calling the testimony itself subjective.

Bad form on Peterson's part. This is a BYU professor, publishing this. If i had a student write this in a paper, it would get rejected in our pre-presentation meeting, there would be a discussion about logic, and they would be sent back to re-write. Why Peterson thinks this is acceptable thinking is beyond me.

[dastardly stem]

The witnesses of the Book of Mormon cannot be lightly dismissed. Not, at least, by anybody who cares about intellectual integrity.

The Book of Mormon is absolutely meaningless to most of humanity. Until or if it ever becomes something more interesting than a spiritual book tied to a particular religion, there is no need at all to even consider the witnesses. Claiming God did something sounds interesting, but what if that something means next to nothing to most people?

[Tom]

https://latterdaysaintmag.com/why-we-ca ... witnesses/

I find it interesting that Dan so often publishes anonymous exchanges in unnamed forums to Mormon publications. The readers must be wondering “why doesn’t he say where these conversations are taking place, and who are all these anonymous people he is obsessed with?”

Peterson:

My attention was recently caught by an online exchange (explicitly responding to the “Witnesses” film project) between two anonymous but deeply disaffected members (or ex-members) of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I know the real-life identity of one of them, and I happen to know that he has seen “Witnesses.” The other, I’m reasonably certain, has not. But I was disappointed in reading what both of them had to say.

The exchange begins when the one who, I think, has not watched the film denigrates the testimonies of the Book of Mormon witnesses. Their accounts, he says, are no more valid than are the accounts of people who say they’ve been abducted by space aliens aboard UFOS, or that they’ve seen Bigfoot. (Plainly, he regards both UFO abductions and Bigfoot sightings as obviously false and ridiculous; but such claims are not my topic here.)

....

More disappointing to me, though, than that rather disingenuous maneuver was the response of the other participant in the exchange, the one who, I know, had actually seen “Witnesses.”

He immediately agreed with the first commenter that the witness testimonies bear no weight at all as evidence. And he proceeded to lay out his reasons for dismissing them:

First of all, he said, they claimed to have witnessed “supernatural” or “spiritual” events. Accordingly, their testimonies are “merely subjective.”

....
This second person then goes on to make a more substantial additional point: He observes that the witnesses to the Book of Mormon weren’t trained archaeologists or specialists in ancient metallurgy. Thus, he declares, they possessed no expertise that would equip them to identify the plates as authentically ancient. Accordingly, in his view, their testimony is of no value for establishing the historicity of the Book of Mormon.

He has a point here. ...

What really surprised and disappointed me, though, was the second writer’s overall evaluation of the significance of the witnesses’ testimonies: He pronounces them “fine” evidence of their sincere conversion to Joseph Smith and his teachings. They felt, he says, that they had a “spiritual confirmation” of Joseph’s message. “Period.” And because they felt positive vibes about him and his doctrines, “they chose to follow him in faith.”

Peterson seems to be referring to this exchange on this board, although "merely subjective" does not appear in either comment.

[Dr Exiled]

The witnesses can be dismissed like we dismiss other people who claim to have seen big foot or aliens or other religious experience. Note two of the witnesses didn't go around proclaiming their angelic visitation after they left Joseph Smith. To the contrary, Cowdery quietly formed a law practice and David Whitmer settled down in Missouri. Both, reluctantly, later would admit what they claimed to have seen, but, it was only done after people questioned them and coaxed it out of them. It's almost as if they wanted to distance themselves from the nonsense. Martin Harris on the other hand loved witnessing whatever was around him. He believed pretty much anything from the Shakers to Mormonism to the Voree plates and James Strang. And we cannot forget Martin Harris and Deer Jesus: https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comme ... earing_to/



Is that a deer I see? Why it's Deer Jesus!

[drumdude]

He recently stated that the Witnesses were the most convincing evidence for the truth of the Book of Mormon.


If that’s true, the Book of Mormon is in big big trouble.

[Dr Exiled]

He recently stated that the Witnesses were the most convincing evidence for the truth of the Book of Mormon.


If that’s true, the Book of Mormon is in big big trouble.

The mopes have rested on the witnesses for some time, since at least the 80's. https://www.amazon.com/Investigating-Mo ... 0875792421

It's the only thing they have given the dearth of corroborating evidence from the DNA, archaeology, anthropology, internal contradictions, and the fact that it is obvious Bible fan fiction from the 19th century.

[Kishkumen]

Witnessing is an action that requires an object and an audience.

To what and to whom is one witnessing?

If I am witnessing to other "Christians" that I believe I saw an angel, that is one thing. I think it is fair in the context to represent my beliefs in what I experienced to likeminded people. And, I think that for its time the Book of Mormon witnesses make a fair amount of sense.

Now, fast forward to a world of secular scholarship where a plurality of beliefs and unbelief rule the day. What exactly do the witnesses of the Book of Mormon say in this age? And to whom?

Do the Book of Mormon witnesses authenticate Joseph Smith's translation?

No.

The ancient date of the plates?

No.

The historicity of the peoples who are credited with writing what Joseph Smith claimed they wrote?

No.

The witnesses should only be given credit for those things to which they are testifying and are able to testify of. Their testimony ought to be weighed within its own tradition, not against practices and views with which it has little or nothing in common.

The Lincoln assassination is an absurd comparison. That is, unless someone is claiming there were people who believed Lincoln was cut down by an angelic sword, which an angel showed to these people before leaving with said sword and returning to heaven.

THAT would be a fair comparison, but I am completely unaware of such a claim.