My Column in the "Mormon Times"

[_Daniel Peterson]

I believe the witnesses had no expertise to judge the plates an ancient American artifact. I don't know how one gets around that.

I don't see their significance as consisting in any purported Mesoamerican expertise.

Their value comes as an important part of a cumulative case. Together, the Eight and the Three make it extremely likely than an actual material object (the plates, leaving aside the other artifacts mentioned in the testimonies of the Three) actually existed, thus greatly reducing the probability that Joseph Smith was merely hallucinating or simply lying. And the testimony of the Eight increases the likelihood that the supernatural was involved.

Those are both major propositions, and the Witnesses help to corroborate both.

[_Kishkumen]

I don't see their significance as consisting in any purported Mesoamerican expertise.

Not knowing what exactly they were looking at, they could have been, and more likely were, looking at a prop.

Their value comes as an important part of a cumulative case. Together, the Eight and the Three make it extremely likely than an actual material object (the plates, leaving aside the other artifacts mentioned in the testimonies of the Three) actually existed, thus greatly reducing the probability that Joseph Smith was merely hallucinating or simply lying. And the testimony of the Eight increases the likelihood that the supernatural was involved.

Those are both major propositions, and the Witnesses help to corroborate both.

Yes, I agree that there is evidence of an object, but there is no way now of discovering what that object was. The fact that there was an object may also point to the likelihood that he was more than simply lying; indeed it may point to the likelihood that he had staged a hoax.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I don't see their significance as consisting in any purported Mesoamerican expertise.

Not knowing what exactly they were looking at, they could have been, and more likely were, looking at a prop.

That's from your point of view, based on your judgment of the related probabilities.

From my point of view, based on my judgment of the related probabilities, they could have been, but almost certainly were not, looking at a prop.

I agree that there is evidence of an object

And that, right there, lessens the credibility of several counterexplanations of Joseph Smith.

Not a small thing.

The fact that there was an object may also point to the likelihood that he was more than simply lying; indeed it may point to the likelihood that he had staged a hoax.

That's certainly a possibility.

A separate line of argument, with distinct evidence, is needed (and is available) to evaluate that option.

[_Kishkumen]

From my point of view, based on my judgment of the related probabilities, they could have been, but almost certainly were not, looking at a prop.

Well, from your point of view, it may seem like they almost certainly were not. I think that chances are better than even that they were.

And that, right there, lessens the credibility of several counterexplanations of Joseph Smith.

Not a small thing.

I don't think it is such a big deal.

That's certainly a possibility.

A separate line of argument, with distinct evidence, is needed (and is available) to evaluate that option.

OK.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Well, from your point of view, it may seem like they almost certainly were not. I think that chances are better than even that they were. . . .

I don't think it is such a big deal.

We disagree.

Who knew?

[_Kishkumen]

We disagree.

Who knew?

I am astounded.

But, next time, could you say "we disagree" with a little less disingenuous viciousness? ;-)

[_Milesius]

No, I would not. Genuinely sorry.

In response to:

Would you care to identify the nameless acquaintance of yours, the philosopher theologian, mentioned in the fourth to last paragraph? I'd like to peruse his/her work to investigate why he/she came to that conclusion.

It is most kind of Dr. Peterson to protect his acquaintance's reputation (whatever there is of it) by declining to put a name to such nonsense.

[_Milesius]

This week's specimen of profundity and deathless prose:

http://www.mormontimes.com/article/1983 ... xperiences

An excellent article. Other than the witness of the Holy Ghost, the testimonies of the 11 witnesses are, IMHO, the most persuasive evidences of the physical reality of the plates and their divinely inspired translation.

Mormon critics have, from the very beginning, tried to discount these witnesses. But I have yet to read a single persuasive argument against the testimony of the 11 witnesses, although I have observed that apostate Mormons are willing to believe just about anything when it comes to this topic, just like many of them are willing to buy into the Spalding/Rigdon theory of Book of Mormon origins, despite the almost non-existent evidence to support such a thesis.

Martin Harris was a lifelong dupe who associated with just about every crazy religious fad with which he came in contact. Brigham Young's brother Phineas wrote of him:

"Martin Harris is a firm believer in Shakerism, says his testimony is greater than it was of the Book of Mormon" (As quoted here.)

It appears Nomad has much in common with him. Perhaps he is a descendant?

[_Milesius]

I'm reminded of a warped version of Jesus' exchange with his disciples on the road to Caesarea Philippi: "Whom do men say that I am?" he asked. And Peter replied, "Thou art the second hypostasis of the incomprehensible metaphysical Trinity, a hypostatic union of unconfused but coexisting deity and humanity, consubstantial with the Father, a separate person but, ontologically speaking, the same transtemporal being." And Jesus said unto him, "What?"

And Peter replied, "Forgive me Lord, I was just kidding, for I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that thou art an eternal intelligence begotten in the spirit by Elohim and a random goddess whilst on Kolob and that thou wast conceived physically when Elohim got it on with thy mother, Mary. And from this all might know thy true gospel, that thou art a polygamist, and that for this thou wilt soon be crucified."

LOL. Mormonism is such an embarrassment.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Today's offering:

http://www.mormontimes.com/article/1992 ... -of-Mormon