Judicial Proceedings from SeN

[Moksha]

Judge: “Did you witnesses see the plates and how do you know they came from God?”

Witnesses: “We saw them with our spiritual eyes and Joseph Smith is the one who told us they came from God.”

At this point, both defense and prosecution attorneys exclaim, "But Your Honor, these men aren't the actual witnesses! Please put Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, and David Whitmer on the stand, not these imposters! How on earth can we possibly have a fair hearing if you permit phonies to testify?"

"The real witnesses said that they not only saw the plates -- really saw them -- but that they also saw an angel and heard the voice of God testifying to the truth of their contents. And that's not all: Eight others not only saw but "hefted" the plates, and turned their leaves. And even those aren't the only other witnesses. Haven't you read Richard Anderson's article "Attempts to Redefine the Experience of the Eight Witnesses" or... Seriously? You haven't done even the most elementary preparation for this hearing?"

"Good grief, Your Honor. What kind of a courtroom are you running here? Do we need to report you for judicial misconduct to the Utah Supreme Court? Because, if we have to do it, we will."

[Dr. Shades]

Thank you for the naked quote. Assuming it’s actually real and not just made up by you, do you have any sort of commentary or context to provide us?

[Moksha]

Thank you for the naked quote. Assuming it’s actually real and not just made up by you, do you have any sort of commentary or context to provide us?

I was hoping the members of this board may have some commentary. Otherwise, kvetching by the Proprietor or praise for the analysis of Dr. Peterson is also welcome.

[drumdude]

Source:

I get a kick out of this sort of argument against the credibility of the Book of Mormon witnesses, which seems to me transparently selective and self-serving. Imagine how most people would react to a trial in which eleven eyewitnesses testify that they plainly saw Frank repeatedly and fatally stab Charlie.

At trial, Frank’s defense attorney stands and, scarcely able to conceal his haughty contempt for the prosecution’s case, declares to the jury that

“1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. 2. According to the State, though, the best evidence for Frank’s guilt is — brace yourselves and try not to laugh! — eyewitness testimony. Therefore, by the prosecution’s own admission, 3. the best and most convincing evidence that Frank murdered Charlie’s is a kind of ‘evidence’ that is notoriously unreliable.”

Or, alternatively, imagine Bucky himself filing a complaint with the police. Arnold, says Bucky, systematically demolished Bucky’s car with a sledgehammer.

“How do you know that it was Arnold who did it”? asks the police officer.

“Because I saw him do it,” responds Bucky. “With my own eyes.”

“But,” the police officer returns, “do you have any corroborating evidence?”

“Yes! I certainly do!” replies Bucky. “Eleven of my neighbors stood on their lawns and on the sidewalk and watched him do it!”

“Is that really all you’ve got?” says the officer, with obvious irritation. “Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. And yet, according to you yourself the best evidence that Arnold was the one who smashed your car with a sledgehammer is, of all things, eyewitness testimony!

Accordingly, from your very own mouth, the strongest evidence that Arnold destroyed your car is no more than a kind of ‘evidence’ that is famously unreliable. Stop wasting my time. You’re lucky I don’t arrest you for filing a false report. Come back when (and if) you ever have anything that I can take seriously!”

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... or-it.html

In DCP’s analogy, the witnesses should all know each other (most of them from the same family) and they should have an incentive to lie (because they are invested in the outcome of the trial.)

[I Have Questions]

In DCP’s analogy, the witnesses should all know each other (most of them from the same family) and they should have an incentive to lie (because they are invested in the outcome of the trial.)

And all of them should offer the same statement of events that was written by the instigator of the claim and who gathered them together and told them what they were witnessing.

Leading the witness is a legal term used to describe the method of questioning a witness by which he is directed to answer in a particular way expected by the attorney asking the question. In such questioning, the answer is apparent in the question itself, often leading the witness to affirm the attorney's point of view. It is considered an unethical and manipulative legal tactic that could yield false or biased information.

https://legal-explanations.com/definiti ... e-witness/

[Physics Guy]

It’s a real quote from Peterson, in his Comments. It appears to be a grandiose way of denying that the Three Witnesses ever qualified their seeing of the plates as having been with spiritual eyes.

It’s true that we often do give weight to eyewitness testimony, but it is usually accepted about mundane events that often occur—such as various crimes, unfortunately. Sometimes, however, eyewitness testimony can be totally wrong. Such cases may not be typical but they are not all that rare.

For an angel to deliver gold plates to a prophet would be a much rarer kind of event than any common crime. Even people who believe things like that have happened don’t believe they’ve happened more than a few times in all of world history.

Total failures of eyewitness testimony are much less rare than that. So as an explanation of why the Three Witnesses could have claimed what they claimed, a failure of eyewitness testimony is far more plausible than the theory that an angel really gave plates.

Or to put it another way: eyewitness testimony has significant weight. It can tip the scales of judgement against presumption of innocence, or outweigh other evidence. It just doesn't have unlimited weight, because it can be wrong not so rarely. In particular, when you consider how likely eyewitness testimony is to be wrong, and how often angels give people gold plates, the testimony of the Mormon Three Witnesses has nowhere near enough of weight to tip the scales of judgement in favor of believing their story.

And you can't get around that basic and obvious fact just by repeating how often murder cases are decided on eyewitness testimony. Murder cases that are decided that way are all too frequently gross miscarriages of justice. And plates from angels are very much rarer than murders—and even much rarer than gross miscarriages of justice. The fact that eyewitness testimony can be good enough to decide a murder trial does not by any means whatever imply that eyewitness testimony must be good enough to convince us that Moroni was real.

Sledgehammers are often used for pounding things down. That doesn't mean that we can use a hardware store sledgehammer to flatten Mount Everest.

[I Have Questions]

Judge: “Did you witnesses see the plates and how do you know they came from God?”

Witnesses: “We saw them with our spiritual eyes and Joseph Smith is the one who told us they came from God.”

And that’s cutting to the chase. The witnesses are only witnessing what Joseph told them they were witnessing. In reality there’s one witness - Joseph, the other 11 are just saying what Joseph specifically told them to say.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Ah, yes. Make up your own reality and pretend it’s true!

[Doctor Scratch]

Great points, Physics Guy. The thing is: DCP is being disingenuous. He says that it "seems to me transparently selective and self-serving," and it's like, "No, really?" It's not as if he touts the eyewitness testimony for things like UFOs or Bigfoot. And does he really care about the witnesses who testified to the authenticity of the Voree Plates? No: he openly ridicules the Strangites and even said repeatedly that he wanted "Pee-Wee Herman" to play Strang in his movie. Or how about Ellen Gould Harmon's various visions? He's openly hostile to the validity of eyewitness testimony when it suits him, and he's "transparently selective" when it comes to believing in testimony that supports his faith.

[Kishkumen]

I think the witnesses should be taken just as seriously as any witness to a miracle. They experienced a miracle. I can accept that. Beyond that, I don’t know what kind of value the witnesses had or needed to have, for that matter.