Interpreter starts a “new” podcast

[Everybody Wang Chung]

When confirming that, yes, that is exactly what Mopologists do; I came across this absolute gem of an apologetic argument from Dan:

For example, if the 1832 account mentions Jesus only, that doesn’t mean — contrary to certain critics — that the Father didn’t appear. And if an account describes a “vision of angels,” that’s entirely compatible with a vision of the Father and the Son also. (In fact, the Lord himself is sometimes referred to, biblically, as an angel.) As a parallel, if I say that I met Frank at the party, I’m not thereby denying that I also met John. And, for that matter, Jane, Bob, Ellen and Stan, as well.

If I had seen God the father and Jesus appear to me physically in the flesh, I also might leave out one or both of them out of my story. Just as I would if I saw them at a party. I’m really bad with names and faces, like most people are!

Good Lord!! Well folks, you simply cannot script this level of absurdity.

[I Have Questions]

When confirming that, yes, that is exactly what Mopologists do; I came across this absolute gem of an apologetic argument from Dan:

For example, if the 1832 account mentions Jesus only, that doesn’t mean — contrary to certain critics — that the Father didn’t appear. And if an account describes a “vision of angels,” that’s entirely compatible with a vision of the Father and the Son also. (In fact, the Lord himself is sometimes referred to, biblically, as an angel.) As a parallel, if I say that I met Frank at the party, I’m not thereby denying that I also met John. And, for that matter, Jane, Bob, Ellen and Stan, as well.

If I had seen God the father and Jesus appear to me physically in the flesh, I also might leave out one or both of them out of my story. Just as I would if I saw them at a party. I’m really bad with names and faces, like most people are!

It also doesn’t mean Thetans didn’t appear to Joseph Smith, nor <insert anyone else you care to mention>.

Peterson does seem to be arguing for the use of “dishonesty” as far as his own church is concerned.

Lying is intentionally deceiving others. Bearing false witness is one form of lying. The Lord gave this commandment to the children of Israel: “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour” (Exodus 20:16). Jesus also taught this when He was on earth (see Matthew 19:18). There are many other forms of lying. When we speak untruths, we are guilty of lying. We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest.

The fact is that Joseph’s power base was dwindling and he needed something to reinforce his specialness. So he came up with a vision story which he increasingly embellished over time, with each retelling.

[Physics Guy]

If I say I met Frank at a party, that doesn't rule out that I met Frank in the company of John, who was also there.

If I say I met Barack Obama at a party, however, and don't mention Taylor Swift, then that pretty much does rule out that I met Obama and Swift together at the same event. If you're talking about famous people whom you just met at a party, and among them was Taylor Swift, you don't just forget to mention her.

God the Father is not just any old John. Smith meeting both the Father and Jesus, but just not mentioning the Father, is absurd. If this "John and Frank" argument of Peterson's is the best that Mormon apologists can muster, then this point made by "certain critics" is devastating indeed. Smith changed his story in a way that makes no sense at all for a genuine vision. Only a con artist's made-up story could possibly change in this way.

[drumdude]

Dan seems to have missed the point of the criticism. The point is not that what Joseph said is incompatible with seeing two people. The point is that it makes it more likely he was lying.

Dan can see this in Donald Trump but not Joseph Smith. Many statements Donald makes are valid English sentences. They are even logically consistent.

Let’s say tomorrow is a slow news day and Don decides to tell everyone he got a hole in one while playing golf. Then a few months later he says actually he got two holes in one during that game. That’s logically compatible with his first story.

Someone asks me how many holes in one he really got. The fact he couldn’t remember if it was one or two the first time he told the story doesn’t inspire much confidence that his story is true.

Joseph seeing God in the flesh is an extraordinary story. It strains credulity to believe it without extraordinary evidence. Changing such an important part of the story later is evidence against the proposition that he actually saw God and Jesus.

[Doctor Scratch]

One of the savants at the Peterson Obsession Board (hereafter, the POB) suggests that I’m saying that Joseph regarded the appearance of the Father as an insignificant detail that didn’t merit mention in his narrative. But that would obviously be ridiculous. However, since one of the governing assumptions at the POB is that I’m an irrational buffoon, it’s supposedly just the kind of thing that I would say. Unfortunately, though, I didn’t say it.

I said nothing about why the 1832 account mentions only “the Lord.” I don’t know why, although I can think of several speculative but possible explanations.

ROFLOL! "several speculative but possible explanations," which he does not even bother to spell out. Wow. Utter fail.

[I Have Questions]

One of the savants at the Peterson Obsession Board (hereafter, the POB) suggests that I’m saying that Joseph regarded the appearance of the Father as an insignificant detail that didn’t merit mention in his narrative. But that would obviously be ridiculous. However, since one of the governing assumptions at the POB is that I’m an irrational buffoon, it’s supposedly just the kind of thing that I would say. Unfortunately, though, I didn’t say it.

I said nothing about why the 1832 account mentions only “the Lord.” I don’t know why, although I can think of several speculative but possible explanations.

ROFLOL! "several speculative but possible explanations," which he does not even bother to spell out. Wow. Utter fail.

Peterson

There is, thus, nothing illogical or contradictory about saying in one place that the Father and the Son appeared to Joseph Smith in the grove and, in another place, that the Son appeared to Joseph in the grove.

He deliberately reorders them to mislead his readers. It wasn't that way round, and he knows it. Let's be clear about the chronology and what Joseph claimed at each point in regards to who he saw.

1832 Account (12 years after it supposedly happened) "The Lord"
One should note that this was during the Ohio/Missouri leadership rift, when Smith's authority was under specific pressure.

1835 Account (15 years after it supposedly happened) "a personage" and "angels"
One should note that this was during a period when there were serious internal administrative struggles and reorganisation, when Smith's authority was under specific pressure.

1838 Account (18 years after it supposedly happened) "two personages"
One should note this was at the time of the Kirtland Crisis, when Smith's authority was under specific pressure.

1842 Account (22 years after it supposedly happened) "two personages"
One should note that this was during intense scrutiny on the practice of plural marriage after John Bennet was excommunicated for spiritual wifery and Smith was proactively doing the same much to his wife's and close friends consternation, when Smith's authority was under specific pressure.

The pattern of cumulative embellishment at key moments in time when Smith felt threatened is noteworthy. One should also note that memory does not get better over time, it gets worse. The constantly evolving story is a clear indicator of fabrication, even if Smith convinced himself it was accurate, the way people's memory tricks them into believing things that aren't true.

Peterson again...

Another claims that I’m attempting to justify “dishonesty” on Joseph’s part. But, of course, I didn’t say that, either. And I don’t believe that he was dishonest.

Unfortunately for Peterson, whether he chooses to accept it or not, a belated telling of what should have been a momentous event, that gets increasingly embellished over time, is a key hallmark of a false narrative.

[Gadianton]

ROFLOL! "several speculative but possible explanations," which he does not even bother to spell out. Wow. Utter fail.

Would he agree that there are several speculative but possible explanations for why the Lord would send a fictional Book of Mormon?

[drumdude]

Peterson again...

Another claims that I’m attempting to justify “dishonesty” on Joseph’s part. But, of course, I didn’t say that, either. And I don’t believe that he was dishonest.

Unfortunately for Peterson, whether he chooses to accept it or not, a belated telling of what should have been a momentous event, that gets increasingly embellished over time, is a key hallmark of a false narrative.

It was very illuminating discovering Bart Ehrman and realizing that Christianity developed in a very similar way. The story starts simple and you can trace the embellishment over time. I think it’s a big part of why ex-Mormons leave Christianity all together. You see with a lot of detail how the sausage is made with Joseph Smith’s story.

Dan will always be right that there’s a possibility that Joseph Smith is telling the truth. That can’t be disproven. Neither can L Ron Hubbard’s claims. But you don’t see Dan signing up for Scientology classes. And you don’t see most of the world’s population lining up to believe that Jews sailed to the Americas 600 years before Christ.

[malkie]

I met two magnificent entities at a party. One of them said that the other was his son.

Afterwards, people inferred that DCP must have met William and his son Billy, although nobody, including successive prophets, can be sure that either of them was there. In fact, there's no evidence at all for their presence. They could have been ghosts.

Later, people start saying that DCP definitely met William and his son Billy, and these same prophets don't have the integrity to correct the record, or, worse, they lend weight to the story. They then imply that the entities were physical human beings, and that in fact DCP's encounter with the entities proves that the entities were, in fact, human, although DCP didn't say they were.

[I Have Questions]

Dan will always be right that there’s a possibility that Joseph Smith is telling the truth. That can’t be disproven. Neither can L Ron Hubbard’s claims. But you don’t see Dan signing up for Scientology classes. And you don’t see most of the world’s population lining up to believe that Jews sailed to the Americas 600 years before Christ.

If you take the vision accounts in isolation you can sort of say they can’t be disproven. But the changing and increasingly embellished nature of the numerous retellings, make it much less easy to treat them as plausible. They are a good example of how a typical false narrative develops. Then, if you consider Joseph’s unreliability for being honest about important things, there needs to be more than just Joseph’s word about something before you can treat it as reliably accurate. For example, if Trump made the vision claims that Smith made, you could say they can’t be disproven. But is there really a possibility he’d be telling the truth?