Mike Reed Posted March 3, 2011 Posted March 3, 2011 So you tracked me down over on another message board?Wow.No "tracking" was necessary. I participate in both forums and was already aware of your presence there. I suppose I could have emailed you personally. Would that have been better?If you want me to supply you with a paragraph or two from an unpublished paper -- that is, I think, what you requested above -- you'll have to content yourself with these paragraphs, from an as-yet unwritten paper:Cute. Since you don't have a written paper, would you mind simply correcting/verifying the accuracy of Rondo's notes related to the two points in question?Good luck with your presentation at Sunstone.Thanks.
Daniel Peterson Posted March 3, 2011 Posted March 3, 2011 This is not my claim. Dr. Peterson consistently creates a strawman argument on this matter. I think he knows better, especially since I have stated my position twice in print. My position stems from the simple fact that JS possessed some kind of metallic book-shaped object that he presented in a box or covered in a cloth to various people, and that it was either real gold plates constructed anciently or some prop that he constructed himself. The probability of the latter seems higher if one rejects the BOM
Mike Reed Posted March 3, 2011 Posted March 3, 2011 I'm happy to see you clarifying your position since its first appearance. However, the more you do so, the more specific my criticisms of your position can be.Such as...?
Daniel Peterson Posted March 3, 2011 Posted March 3, 2011 Wait and see!You'll have plenty of time to attack me. Don't worry.
Mike Reed Posted March 3, 2011 Posted March 3, 2011 Wait and see!You'll have plenty of time to attack me. Don't worry.Attack?
Daniel Peterson Posted March 3, 2011 Posted March 3, 2011 Go ahead and take Rongo's notes as expressing my position.Have fun at Sunstone.
Dan Vogel Posted March 3, 2011 Posted March 3, 2011 I'm happy to see you clarifying your position since its first appearance. However, the more you do so, the more specific my criticisms of your position can be. Which is, obviously, fine by me.My position has always been the same, and I'm merely repeating here what I have previously published. But maybe you'll represent my position more clearly in the future.
Obiwan Posted March 3, 2011 Posted March 3, 2011 This has been discussed several times on this board, and you obviously haven
Dan Vogel Posted March 3, 2011 Posted March 3, 2011 Obiwan, I don't have to read your book etc. to read your message board post, and know what I myself have studied of the witnesses, and thus see and know for myself that your statment conflicts "greatly" with the actual full facts of the issue. There is no evidence at all that they handled them while "covered". And if there is some slim evidence of that for some, it certainly doesn't qualify as all given their other comments in history. Plus, I've read some of your stuff before. So, I'm not "unfamiliar" with you.I mentioned that you should read what I have written on the subject so that you wouldn
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted March 3, 2011 Posted March 3, 2011 Obiwan,I mentioned that you should read what I have written on the subject so that you wouldn
Dan Vogel Posted March 3, 2011 Posted March 3, 2011 Do you have first hand evidnce of Martin Harris saying " Eight hesitated to sign the published Testimony, because no one saw the plates uncovered."I would think that 1st hand evidnce might carry a little more weight than that of 2nd hand evidence.You can't always get firsthand statements, and secondhand statements are not dismissed out of hand. This report was given by someone who knew what they were talking about, near the time of the statement, and is also supported by a published statement (also in 1838) by Warren Parrish. Harris made the statement publicly while most of the Eight Witnesses were still alive. Many factors go into assessing historical statements.
Dan Vogel Posted March 3, 2011 Posted March 3, 2011 So this to you says, that they really did not handle them. Because if some one included the phrase "supernatural power" then it really was just a psychedelic episode? It is clear that he did indeed handle the plates contrary to your assertion. I have no issue with the words "supernatural power". Apparently you do and that is your problem not mine.The evidence plainly contradicts your assertion that no one handled the plates with out them being covered.IOW I simply disagree with you.I didn't say the Eight Witnesses didn't handle the plates. I'm saying there is some evidence that they handled the plates with their hands, but saw them through the cloth or box with spiritual eyes, or in vision, or by supernatural power.
rongo Posted March 3, 2011 Author Posted March 3, 2011 Nonsense.Which part? That metal plates in stone boxes are well-attested, or that this was once a "bullet-proof" criticism?
T-Shirt Posted March 3, 2011 Posted March 3, 2011 I didn't say the Eight Witnesses didn't handle the plates. I'm saying there is some evidence that they handled the plates with their hands, but saw them through the cloth or box with spiritual eyes, or in vision, or by supernatural power.While your evidence certainly qualifies as evidence, not all evidence is of equal value. Your evidence consists of hearsay statements by two men who were very bitter apostates, who stormed the Kirtland temple with guns and knives, and, who's anger seemed to have much more to do with their financial losses than whether or not the Book of Mormon witnesses told the truth.Best,T-Shirt
Mike Reed Posted March 3, 2011 Posted March 3, 2011 Which part? That metal plates in stone boxes are well-attested, or that this was once a "bullet-proof" criticism?The part where he insinuates that Joseph's early critics widely rejected the notion of ancient metal records, and that it wasn't until more recent discoveries that Joseph's notion of ancient metal records was vindicated. The notion in Joseph Smith's day was not limited to highly educated specialists, as Dan Peterson's friend and colleague Bill Hamblin has asserted. I have several sources from newspapers, magazines, encyclopedias, elementary text books, and biblical commentaries which promote the idea of ancient metal records--a few of which even mention stone boxes and records of gold.
WalkerW Posted March 3, 2011 Posted March 3, 2011 I have several sources from newspapers, magazines, encyclopedias, elementary text books, and biblical commentaries which promote the idea of ancient metal records--a few of which even mention stone boxes and records of gold.Is there any way I could get a copy of your upcoming "Ancient Metal Records--A Notion Preposterous in Joseph Smith's Day?" and/or "The Mormon Endowment and the 'Christianization of Freemasonry.'" Just send me a private message and let me know. My email is choosedawright@yahoo.com.
WalkerW Posted March 3, 2011 Posted March 3, 2011 More generally, how do I get a hold of these upcoming presentations? Are they all going to be available at the Sunstone website? I'm wasting away in Texas with no way of accessing this stuff.
WalkerW Posted March 3, 2011 Posted March 3, 2011 I swear, I look at this stuff and I don't know whether to be excited because of the wealth of knowledge available or cry because I know I'll never get around to all of it.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted March 3, 2011 Posted March 3, 2011 I didn't say the Eight Witnesses didn't handle the plates. I'm saying there is some evidence that they handled the plates with their hands, but saw them through the cloth or box with spiritual eyes, or in vision, or by supernatural power.Dan,Thanks for your comments. That is interesting.
Mike Reed Posted March 3, 2011 Posted March 3, 2011 More generally, how do I get a hold of these upcoming presentations? Are they all going to be available at the Sunstone website? I'm wasting away in Texas with no way of accessing this stuff.Sunstone is usually pretty good at making mp3 recordings available for purchase. I think their session recordings go for about $3 each. Sunstone won't publish the paper in print, unless they decide they want to include it in their magazine. So I'll probably put my paper up on my blog that you linked to. My MHA presentation on the Christianization of Freemasonry will probably be published in a Mormon studies journal.
rongo Posted March 3, 2011 Author Posted March 3, 2011 Such as...?[in response to Dr. Peterson's comment that the more Vogel, Reed, et. al. refine their arguments in response to apologetic treatments of them, "the more specific my criticisms of your position can be."I'm sure what Dr. Peterson is hinting at is how responses in response to apologists (i.e., Peterson, Richard L. Anderson, etc.) lead to retreating and being painted into a corner. The details of which I'm sure Dr. Peterson is more than happy to point out in gory detail . . .Obviously, critics have to try to somehow discredit the signed witness statement, specifically:1. Joseph Smith has shown unto us the plates2. which have the appearance of gold3. [the leaves of which] we did handle with our hands4. and we also saw the engravings5. all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanshipPointing out that a joint, drafted statement was signed, rather than individual statements, is irrelevant because, at minimum, their names were attached to the statement with their knowledge, and published and promoted as such. The fact that none of them, especially in apostasy and disaffection, sought to distance themselves from or repudiate their signed and published statement, is a tremendous advantage in favor of the veracity of their testimony. Apostates and critics sorely wish that this state of things were otherwise.Given this, Vogel (and apparently Reed) deviate from the conventional "they were delusional/conspiratorial" approach and concede that yes, there must have been an artifact of some sort. Had to have been. How do explain that, then? Vogel speculatesJS could have made a set of plates out of tin, cut from large sheets or scrap pieces, gathered from various places around his community, if not from his own family
Dan Vogel Posted March 3, 2011 Posted March 3, 2011 While your evidence certainly qualifies as evidence, not all evidence is of equal value. Your evidence consists of hearsay statements by two men who were very bitter apostates, who stormed the Kirtland temple with guns and knives, and, who's anger seemed to have much more to do with their financial losses than whether or not the Book of Mormon witnesses told the truth.Best,T-ShirtThen your interpretation can
Mike Reed Posted March 4, 2011 Posted March 4, 2011 The details of which I'm sure Dr. Peterson is more than happy to point out in gory detail . . .Dan Peterson is more than welcome to do so in this thread, but unfortunately, he's been busy with other activities lately.Obviously, critics have to try to somehow discredit the signed witness statement...Actually... no. Critics don't have to. My current theory (which isn't ready to be published yet) does not require discrediting the witnesses.The fact that none of them, especially in apostasy and disaffection, sought to distance themselves from or repudiate their signed and published statement, is a tremendous advantage in favor of the veracity of their testimony. Apostates and critics sorely wish that this state of things were otherwise.Apologists have exaggerated the level in which witnesses apostatized. Some of them were trying to salvage their following after Joseph's death. Besides, there is also an intimidation factor to consider. Whittle-whistlers, danites, blood oaths, etc. I think Dan Vogel's position has been effectively argued and remains quite possible, but (again) the theory I favor is not the same as his, and does not require discrediting the witnesses.Given this, Vogel (and apparently Reed)...Nope. See above.deviate from the conventional "they were delusional/conspiratorial" approach and concede that yes, there must have been an artifact of some sort.My current theory grants the premise that Joseph had a prop. But no
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.