Judicial Proceedings from SeN

[Moksha]

Dr. Peterson's rebuttal to Billy Shear's scenario:

You’re pushing the limited analogy of a trial far beyond the point of relevance or usefulness. Still, the production of a complex, nearly three-hundred-thousand-word book, apparently by a young rustic with about 2.5 months of schooling under his belt, and supposedly taken from the plates, does seem to negate the point of your allegorically elaborated “Charlie.”

Dr. Peterson should have added, "It doesn't matter whether Charlie ever existed. The fact that a barely literate police chief (from Parowan?) was able to assemble his friends to witness this event proves it is true. I can have my disciples on this blog bear their testimonies as to the truthfulness of my statement!!!"

[Rivendale]

Dr. Peterson's rebuttal to Billy Shear's scenario:

You’re pushing the limited analogy of a trial far beyond the point of relevance or usefulness. Still, the production of a complex, nearly three-hundred-thousand-word book, apparently by a young rustic with about 2.5 months of schooling under his belt, and supposedly taken from the plates, does seem to negate the point of your allegorically elaborated “Charlie.”

Dr. Peterson should have added, "It doesn't matter whether Charlie ever existed. The fact that a barely literate police chief (from Parowan?) was able to assemble his friends to witness this event proves it is true. I can have my disciples on this blog bear their testimonies as to the truthfulness of my statement!!!"

We are down to 2.5 months of schooling now? When did that happen?

[I Have Questions]

Dr. Peterson's rebuttal to Billy Shear's scenario:


Dr. Peterson should have added, "It doesn't matter whether Charlie ever existed. The fact that a barely literate police chief (from Parowan?) was able to assemble his friends to witness this event proves it is true. I can have my disciples on this blog bear their testimonies as to the truthfulness of my statement!!!"

We are down to 2.5 months of schooling now? When did that happen?

What schooling would he have needed to regale tall tales? Joseph wasn’t the person doing the writing remember. Joseph was known for inventing elaborate stories about the origins of the native Americans. He was also known for deeply studying the Bible and other religions. The notion of formal schooling is a red herring used by apologists to destract people from considering the 2 points I mentioned.

Here are some story tellers who didn’t have much schooling:

Samuel Clemens, better known by his pen name Mark Twain, is one of America’s most beloved authors. Known for his novels The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Twain left school at the age of 12 after the death of his father. He worked as a printer’s apprentice and later became a riverboat pilot, a job that inspired much of his writing.

https://www.timesnownews.com/lifestyle/ ... 6935.cms/2

Charles Dickens, one of the greatest novelists of the Victorian era, had a difficult childhood. His father was imprisoned for debt, and at the age of 12, Dickens was forced to leave school to work in a factory. Despite this setback, he went on to write classics like A Christmas Carol and Great Expectations, depicting the struggles of the working class in his books.

Irish playwright and political activist George Bernard Shaw is best known for his plays Pygmalion and Man and Superman. Shaw dropped out of school at 15, finding the formal education system uninspiring. However, he became a self-taught intellectual, learning through reading and life experiences. Shaw went on to win a Nobel Prize in Literature and is widely regarded as one of the greatest playwrights in history.

Maya Angelou, the celebrated poet, memoirist, and civil rights activist, dropped out of school at 14 to become a streetcar conductor in San Francisco. Her incredible life story, full of struggle and triumph, became the backbone of her writing. Angelou’s autobiographical work I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings is a powerful reflection on racism, identity, and personal resilience.

The Queen of Crime, Agatha Christie, left school at age 15. Despite this, she became the best-selling novelist of all time, with works like Murder on the Orient Express and The Murder of Roger Ackroyd. Christie’s incredible talent for crafting suspenseful mysteries captivated readers around the world, proving that formal education is not always a prerequisite for literary success.

Jane Austen lived in an era when women’s education was not viewed as a priority. In addition to her own self-education in the form of voracious reading, she received some tuition from her father and older brothers. By her teenage years Austen was experimenting with different literary forms.

http://guyportman.com/2015/06/26/10-fam ... d-authors/

Jack London received little in the way of formal schooling. He started working odd jobs when he was 10. At 13 he was working 12 to 18 hour days at Hickmott’s Cannery. London credited the Victorian novel Signa, which he found and read when he was 9, as sowing the seed for his later literary success.

Iconic Russian author Maxim Gorky was brought up in relative poverty by his grandmother after being orphaned at a young age. At the age of 12 he ran away from home and travelled across the Russian Empire for 5 years, living as a tramp for much of this time.

Pulitzer Prize-winning American novelist and short story writer received little formal education. She started writing poetry at a young age and even tried to write a novel when she was only 11. At the age of 15 her translation of the German poem Was die Steine Erzählen earned her $50.

The suggestion that you cannot produce works of fiction without having formal schooling is utterly without merit.

[Doctor Scratch]

I notice that the Afore is erupting with indignation over the use of the term "ghost" to describe events related to the Witnesses, but he has no problem using the term "apparition" to describe Catholic-themed supernatural occurrences.

[Rivendale]

I notice that the Afore is erupting with indignation over the use of the term "ghost" to describe events related to the Witnesses, but he has no problem using the term "apparition" to describe Catholic-themed supernatural occurrences.

I don't understand why they think ghost is a pejorative when describing a reanimated indigenous being? The distinction between a being that is of refined matter vs a resserected primate seems silly.

[drumdude]

I notice that the Afore is erupting with indignation over the use of the term "ghost" to describe events related to the Witnesses, but he has no problem using the term "apparition" to describe Catholic-themed supernatural occurrences.

He also derogatorily referred to Catholic apparitions like “the face of the Virgin Mary on a flour tortilla or seeing Jesus in a bowl of porridge.” And only parenthetically referred to the serious Catholic miracle stories.

[I Have Questions]

Has Peterson forgotten The Holy Ghost is a member of The Godhead?

[I Have Questions]

I notice that the Afore is erupting with indignation over the use of the term "ghost" to describe events related to the Witnesses, but he has no problem using the term "apparition" to describe Catholic-themed supernatural occurrences.

He also derogatorily referred to Catholic apparitions like “the face of the Virgin Mary on a flour tortilla or seeing Jesus in a bowl of porridge.” And only parenthetically referred to the serious Catholic miracle stories.

This isn’t really very much like discerning the face of the Virgin Mary on a flour tortilla or seeing Jesus in a bowl of porridge. (For the record, I do take Catholic accounts such as those of the visions of Lourdes and of Guadalupe seriously, and I’m still trying to form my final thoughts on them. I don’t rule them out in advance, on the basis of ideology or presuppositions; I think that it would be intellectually dishonest to do so, and I’m quite willing to entertain the thought that the Lord is working in many ways, even beyond his authorized, restored Church. But my confidence in the accounts of the Book of Mormon witnesses doesn’t depend upon what I may decide about, say, Marian apparitions.)

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... imony.html

[sock puppet]

I posted a response to Dr. Peterson’s thread on this topic, and it has been lost in a “Pending” status for the last 9 hours. In case it is never released from pending and you are interested, here is what I wrote:

If Frank were on trial for murdering Charlie and there were 11 eye-witnesses that claim they saw Frank do it, I would hope Frank’s attorney would cross-examine the witnesses and the police chief with questions like these:

Q: So you saw Frank kill Charlie. How did you come to witness this event?

A: Well, my best friend is the police chief, and he thought I’d make an excellent witness, so he invited me to come watch it. That is why I was there.

Q: So you weren’t naturally going about your business and happened to see something, but rather you were personally invited to see a show with 10 other like-minded individuals, all of whom were loyal to the police chief, and that is how you came to witness this event?

A: Yes.

Police Chief on the Stand

Q: So, eleven close, loyal friends of yours are all testifying that they saw this murder, and the reason they are the witnesses is because you invited them to witness the event, is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: Could we see a report from the medical examiner about Charlie’s cause of death?

A: No, we didn’t take the body to the medical examiner--we took it straight to get cremated.

Q: So, because of your own decisions of how this would be handled, we don’t have testimony from a medical examiner that Charlie died of these alleged stab wonds.

A: No, but we have eleven witnesses to the murder, so we know how it happened.

Q: Did the CSI’s take any photos of the crime scene?

A: No. I didn’t send CSI to look at the crime scene, and it is now clean.

Q: So there is no physical evidence that this murder took place?

A: Correct.

Q: Who is this “Charlie” fellow who was murdered? Where did he live? Where did he work? Who were his friends and associates? Where is his birth certificate?

A: Charlie was a loner. He didn’t have a job, didn’t have a house, didn’t have any friends or family members, didn’t have any associates, and other than the 11 witnesses seeing he was murdered, there is no evidence that he even existed.

Q: So based on the witness statements of these 11 witnesses, you want us to convict somebody of murder when there is no body, no physical evidence of a crime, and no evidence that the victim even ever existed in the first place?

Now--2024--it gets more complicated inasmuch as the alleged murder took place in 1829. Not only were the 11's testimonies not then tested by by a rigorous cross-examination pointing out the lack of foundation, frailties of perception, and bias as friends of the police chief who had a motive for their testimony, but those 11 cannot now be examined. Although it would be hearsay, there is not even anyone alive today who did know them and could be called to testify and cross-examined about what the 11 said or what their characters were. Forensically, very, very thin gruel.

[Rivendale]

“Good grief” is your rebuttal to all of known physics?

You think our (everybody minus many Saints) explanation is lame—and yours is as follows?!
(Now I understand that your own good grief was a pre-emptive move).

Good grief.

SP:. "Where did the gold go after the translation?"
It was retrieved and taken somewhere else.
SP:. "Where is the gold now?"
Somewhere else.

SP is correct. DCP uses veiled language because he dosen't want to say heaven. A place where ghosts and reanimated primates live. And I am mystified why he can't let Tumbaga go.