It is worth noting at this point that what Peterson classes as “historical evidence” is actually “what a few of Joseph Smith’s family and friends said”. We all know witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. It deteriorates further when those witnesses have close ties to the person they are seeking to support with their testimony. And it deteriorates further still when their testimony is gained in a group and coordinated fashion by an individual with a vested interest in it. Professor Turner it seems, prefers actual historical evidence, the kind that can be tested. And Turner is a believing Presbyterian, so cannot be dismissed as an atheist, nor as an anti-Mormon.Professor Harper predicts that Joseph Smith: The Rise and Fall of An American Prophet will replace Brodie’s famous biography as the interpretation of Joseph Smith favored by people who reject Joseph’s religious claims. However, Dr. Harper finds serious fault with Dr. Turner’s book, especially in two regards: One is its treatment of plural marriage. The other is its discussion of the witnesses and of the translation of the Book of Mormon. I will focus here on the latter. I could not possibly agree more strongly with Harper’s criticism than I do. I was simply astonished at Professor Turner’s casual dismissal of the relevant historical evidence…
Here is what Harper says in his review, as quoted by Peterson
Turner phrasing the witness testimony as some people, close to Joseph, believed they saw or handled the plates, but that those experiences and statements do not clear the bar of being ordinary historical proof of the existence of actual golden plates. And he’s correct in treating such statements with skepticism.Turner rejects the evidence left by those who said Joseph translated the Book of Mormon without the use of books or manuscripts. “Joseph consulted the King James Bible during the translation,” Turner asserts. All the eyewitnesses of translation ascribed the phenomenon to revelation, whereas people who did not watch Joseph Smith translate concluded that “plagiarism from the Old and New Testaments” was the only possible option. Turner favors the interpretation of those who did not witness the translation.
He interprets the evidence to mean “that Joseph did not have golden plates.” Turner grants that the people closest to Joseph believed he had plates but says that because “he did not show his family and friends the plates, there aren’t witnesses in the ordinary sense of the term.” Knowing that Turner knows the historical record well, I initially thought he meant that as of 1827, Joseph had not shown the plates to anyone. Page 39 reads, “Other men stated that they experienced visions of the plates, but Joseph never let anyone examine them in an ordinary way.” I assumed that the never in that sentence was an overclaim that meant Joseph had not yet let anyone examine them, and that in a subsequent chapter, in chronological order, Turner would tell me about the Book of Mormon witnesses, eight of whom said Joseph put the plates into their hands to heft. But I was misreading and misunderstanding.
Turner meant that Joseph never showed anyone the plates—never ever. He simply dismisses the historical record related to the eight witnesses with the word ordinary. All of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon plates only saw them in extraordinary ways, so not really.
Turner, apparently, treats plural marriage in the book as central to, and a historically documented part of Smith’s life as Church Leader. He notes that Smith practiced plural marriage behind his wife’s back. That he pressurised some young women and their families into marriage agreements. And that Smith married already married women who had living husbands. All of which is well known, and well supported by historical evidence.
Peterson closes with the dismissive
There’s that confirmation bias kicking in. Because Turner doesn’t bow and scrape to Peterson’s obsession with glorifying the witnesses as some kind of unimpeachable and definitive panacea in proving his lifelong belief true, Peterson won’t even look at it (petulant behaviour of the kind being exhibited by the orange gentleman currently demolishing a big White House in Washington and writing his name on all sorts of other buildings). But that’s the opposite of what a serious defender of the faith should be doing. Peterson should, and could, but probably won’t, spend some time defending the faith by showing where and how, specifically Turner is incorrect. But he won’t because he can’t. Harper’s review shows him that.I commend Steve Harper’s review to your attention. I’m ambivalent about John Turner’s book.
Other people seem to be less "ambivalent" about Turner's book
“Joseph Smith jumps off the pages as an audacious, visionary, and often reckless character. Turner has expertly portrayed Smith as an endlessly complex figure who can no more be tamed in death than he could in life.”—Patrick Q. Mason
https://johngturner.com
I will acquire Turner’s book, and I will read it. Has anyone here read it?
