DiscussMormonism Triumphs Again as "Witnesses" Garners Top Prize

[IHAQ]

If you have a copy of Grant Palmer's "Insider View...." his chapter on the witnesses is excellent- 15 pages worth ,heavily documented and citing many of Dan Vogel's "Early Mormon Documents" tome- he pretty much nails the coffin shut,concluding those witnesses' events were visionary. What is excellent is how he shows the environment in which the plates and the use of seer stones was extremely widespread and the context becomes as MQ puts it a magical worldview with seer stones, visions, and remote viewing /second sight dominating the geographical areas around the drumlin Cumorah- worth the read as we prepare for the Witnesses movie.
k

I agree. Palmer does an excellent job of providing the context.

[Lem]

Peterson is really pushing hard on his "Evidence" posts to justify his movie. For example, in his third blog entry devoted to 'evidence', he states this:

“Evidence can be divided into two general types,” says one legal website devoted to the topic:

“Testimonial evidence is a statement made under oath. An example would be a witness pointing to someone in the courtroom and saying, ‘That’s the guy I saw robbing the grocery store. This is also called direct evidence or prima facie evidence.

“Physical evidence can be any object or material relevant in a crime. It can be any tangible thing, large or small. This is also called real evidence.”


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

The part I put in blue is a hyperlink, and when you click on it, what is the site Peterson defines as "one legal website devoted to the topic"?

It is this:

https://www.casdschools.org/site/handle ... idence.pdf

Or, to use their title, it is the "Coatesville Area School District."

If you go to their home page, they feature regularly changing quotes, such as:

"My favorite part of school is lunch, because I eat ice cream every day...."
Javier. 5th grade student, Reeceville Elementary School

Adorable. Apparently, the definitions of evidence Peterson is relying upon are taken from a text designed for use in a children's school class. This is Prof. Peterson's "legal website devoted to the topic."

And finally, note what the second learning objective is for this children's chapter he quoted:

Objectives

After reading this chapter, you will understand:

.... That eyewitness accounts have limitations.

You canNOT make this stuff up.

[Dr Exiled]

Peterson is really pushing hard on his "Evidence" posts to justify his movie. For example, in his third blog entry devoted to 'evidence', he states this:

“Evidence can be divided into two general types,” says one legal website devoted to the topic:

“Testimonial evidence is a statement made under oath. An example would be a witness pointing to someone in the courtroom and saying, ‘That’s the guy I saw robbing the grocery store. This is also called direct evidence or prima facie evidence.

“Physical evidence can be any object or material relevant in a crime. It can be any tangible thing, large or small. This is also called real evidence.”


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

The part I put in blue is a hyperlink, and when you click on it, what is the site Peterson defines as "one legal website devoted to the topic"?

It is this:

https://www.casdschools.org/site/handle ... idence.pdf

Or, to use their title, it is the "Coatesville Area School District."

If you go to their home page, they feature regularly changing quotes, such as:

"My favorite part of school is lunch, because I eat ice cream every day...."
Javier. 5th grade student, Reeceville Elementary School

Adorable. Apparently, the definitions of evidence Peterson is relying upon are taken from a text designed for use in a children's school class. This is Prof. Peterson's "legal website devoted to the topic."

And finally, note what the second learning objective is for this children's chapter he quoted:

Objectives

After reading this chapter, you will understand:

.... That eyewitness accounts have limitations.

You canNOT make this stuff up.

One would think Dr. Peterson would consult his lawyer friends at the interpreter to get better references for his evidence blog entries. Here is a good one: https://lrus.wolterskluwer.com/store/pr ... -evidence/

The BYU Law Library should have it available to check out or peruse while there.

[Philo Sofee]

If witnesses really established religious truth, what about the guy who has witnesses that he has now translated the missing 116 pages of the Book of Mormon?! What about the witnesses of the Snufferites? What about witnesses in the early Mormon history that didn't follow Brigham Young, but went with Joseph Smith's own family as successors? How could that have even been possible if witnesses established once and for all how truthful Joseph Smith's Mormonism was?

I mean, the subjectivity of witnesses in Mormonism is as strong as witnesses in Scientology, but I don't see Peterson running over there to get the truth. Every single religion has witnesses of their truth, yet Peterson won't give any others the time of day. It is unconvincing this witnesses thingy he keeps trying to ramp up.

We have witnesses of UFO's too, a whole LOT and LOT and LOT and LOT of them. What is this proof of though?

We have direct present day living witnesses against...... yes firmly and with evidence against dowsing, yet Peterson believes in it and has said he has done it and it works. So which is it? Others say it doesn't work. Just what does witnesses demonstrate? Did Peterson ever really call Randi to get with him and demonstrate that dowsing actually works?! I mean, there is literally ONE MILLION DOLLARS in the bank for him when he demonstrates to Randi in person that it works. Who WOULDN"T knock down doors to get Randi to watch him and get that money if they were really sure?! Would Randi give him the money if Peterson gave him mere witnesses testifying Peterson dowsed and it worked?

Honestly, if witnesses really were that significant and overwhelming in establishing truth, why has not the world yet joined Mormonism? Peterson knows he can tout witnesses to each and every single Islam and Muslim scholar, friend, and acquaintance he has and not one of them will see the light and join Mormonism. Why is that if this is supposed to be the one objective way to see the truth of the Book of Mormon? Come on, realistically...

I am having conversations with a solid Jewish gent right now online, shall I bring up the witnesses and try to convert him through that issue? I think I will, and I will try my very gosh golly darned best to convert him to Mormonism using the CHURCH's version of the witnesses and their significance, and I shall share his comments back to me. If I do this with honesty and real intent of giving the very best foot forward of the church (which means leaving out entirely anything Vogel and Metcalfe have said, because, of course, they see things differently than the church), and if I do it wrong, I WELCOME anything Peterson can bring up so I can share with this guy in full intent on getting him into the true Israel, Mormonism. I shall focus exclusively on the witnesses and all the ramifications and see what a Jewish gent thinks of it all.

Has Peterson ever discusses the witnesses with anyone in the Bahai faith?! Now THERE is a challenge! How come none of them convert, they LOVE witnesses!!!

[Philo Sofee]

Is the movie of Peterson's Witnesses online at all? Is there a link I can begin to share and try to get folks converted? Does anyone have any ideas on where I can get really good, quality, solid materials on the witnesses to begin testing how the world views this for real? Lets do a real test and actually try, very hard, to convince people of the truth of Mormonism through the Book of Mormon witnesses. If any Mormons on Sic et Non wish to join the efforts, then please fell free to! Send me links, online articles, defense information, anything and everything. Lets see how many people we can truly get converted to Mormonism through these witnesses.....

[Lem]

....I am having conversations with a solid Jewish gent right now online, shall I bring up the witnesses and try to convert him through that issue? I think I will, and I will try my very gosh golly darned best to convert him to Mormonism using the CHURCH's version of the witnesses and their significance, and I shall share his comments back to me. If I do this with honesty and real intent of giving the very best foot forward of the church (which means leaving out entirely anything Vogel and Metcalfe have said, because, of course, they see things differently than the church), and if I do it wrong, I WELCOME anything Peterson can bring up so I can share with this guy in full intent on getting him into the true Israel, Mormonism. I shall focus exclusively on the witnesses and all the ramifications and see what a Jewish gent thinks of it all....

Be sure to first send him the middle school textbook Peterson is using for his 'witnesses' definition.

Nevermind. I'm sure he's a nice person, and unless you guys just want to enjoy a chuckle together I'd leave DCP out of it. And definitely don't tell him that Peterson considers Mormons to be treated the same way Jews in 1940s Germany were.

[Moksha]

And finally, note what the second learning objective is for this children's chapter he quoted:

Objectives

After reading this chapter, you will understand:

.... That eyewitness accounts have limitations.

You canNOT make this stuff up.

Dr. Peterson must scour reams of sources to make his apologetic arguments. You cannot expect him to also be familiar with those sources. Besides, those in the chapels who count on the Interpreter do not care if the source comes from some evangelical intelligent design site, a Texas school district, or the Malleus Maleficarum. Even if the next sentence contradicts the quoted material, the point has been made for the faithful.

[Doctor Scratch]

Hoo, boy, are you ever right, Lem. ROFLOL! You really cannot make this stuff up, and sometimes the Mopologists rain gold down upon you like this, like gold spilling from a St. Patty's day leprechaun's cauldron-like pot. Here's a question for you: if three of us bear witness that we all saw a leprechaun, is this the sort of thing that would hold up in court? What if we got Richard Lloyd Anderson to say that we were credible? Did you know he has a degree from Harvard?

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Did DCP stealth edit his blog thanks to Lem's sharp eye?

- Doc

[Lem]

Did DCP stealth edit his blog thanks to Lem's sharp eye?

- Doc

Apparently so. The stealth edit:

“Evidence can be divided into two general types,” says one educational website in a very straightforward passage devoted to the topic, simple enough even for some of my most determined critics to understand:

Compared to the original:

quote]
“Evidence can be divided into two general types,” says one legal website devoted to the topic:

And the link still goes to a pdf of the middle school textbook, and the source is still the school district website where the front page features fifth graders who like lunch.

It cracks me up that when caught referencing a children's textbook, not only does Peterson STILL reference the kiddie source, but he doubles down by saying his source is "simple," as though that were a positive attribute. How in the first place did he come to think that the middle school link was "a legal website devoted to the topic"????? And even now, he still relies on the kiddie source that says a main objective is to learn that eyewitness accounts are problematic. Talk about shooting oneself in the foot.

A middle school text on witnesses takes down the whole premise for DCP's movie, and HE is the one who posts it.