Hi there, Stemelbow. I see that you are off again on your red herring about personal attacks and people hating Mormons. Let's prove to everyone that you're not yet another Mormon internet warrior who defends the faith by being a passive-aggressive troll who mischaracterizes issues and misrepresents what people are saying. A good way to start would be if you stop avoiding the following:

1. Let's watch and see if stemelbow ever admits that the facts and circumstances of how the testimony of the Eight Witnesses was procured is evidence (but not proof!) that the Book of Mormon is a hoax---or if he continues to axiomatically insist no, if he can explain why not.

2. Stemelbow, from now on I want you to join with me and the rest of the board in referring to Joseph Smith, Jr. (1805-1844) as "Joseph Smith, the Child Molester." Joseph Smith has been called a child molester by some people because of his relationship with teenage girls such as Helen Mar Kimball.

We're not making any claims; we just want to identify who we're talking about. So from this point forward, for the simple purpose of identification, we're all going to refer to the founder of Mormonism as "Joseph Smith, the Child Molester."

Will you agree to this? If not, why not?

And by the way, Stemelbow, what happened to the "pep pep, nuthin' much" schtick? It's just so curious that you've abandoned it.

It would be even more curious if stemelbow suddenly went folksy and semi-literate again after this had been pointed out to him.

Hey DJ, You've already helped my case when you stated, "No, I don't dispute that the Testimony of the Eight Witnesses is evidence that Joseph Smith showed them a set of plates."

So Joseph Smith had desired, or God did, to have evidence that plates existed. His claim of having such plates, is supported by evidence. You an avowed critic agrees that he had plates. I suggest you aren't taking into account your own words in your previous explanation of relevance and foundation. The 8 Witnesses testifies of seeing the plates. They ddi not testify that Joseph Smith' translation was true or correct. Thus, we can be sure that the data here can be evidence of that which it claims to be--evidence that Joseph Smith had plates, ancient in appearance, and had writings on them.

Folks here got all worked up because I substituted "pep pep" in place of lol. So I stopped. I decided to stop it so I won't see tons of replies complaining about me because I attempted a bit of a change. "nuttin'" is in my sig line. I ain't nuttin'. No particular schtick. I liketo play around a little with the way I type things out. I mean no offense, even if it gets you all worked up. It's called getting all worked up over nuttin'.

No. It won't wash. You used to post in a way that consistently suggested that you were a rather naïve and unsophisticated guy who just couldn't see why those danged anti-Mormons were so weird - "what is it with you guys?". And your sentence construction was of the simplest kind.

Now in recent posts you show a normal college-level standard of English vocabulary, prose construction and general expression. You have stepped out of the stemelbow role, and it is really not convincing for you to try to re-assume it.

Are there any theories regarding what happened to the gold plates after Joseph's death?

Joseph, I believe, claimed that the Angel Moroni took them. Does anyone know off-hand when, exactly, this happened in the timeline of Joseph's life?

And, if the Moroni story is made up, what are the theories involving why he would want the plates to disappear? Was the "prop" just so poorly constructed that he didn't want anyone to really study it? Could it have been stolen?

I am just genuinely curious here...and too lazy to look things up. LOL

Actually, I am enjoying the "new and improved" posting style of Stem. He is much easier to read.

He might have melted them down. But maybe he buried them somewhere. I'd love to hear the apologetic scramble if someone were to dig up Joseph's prop someday.

I agree. I think he should stick to it now he has shown he can write as formally and fluently as anybody else here.

But I think it is a point in favor of considering him to be a troll that he kept up the old pose for such a long time - and much of his posting so far has been no more than derailment, typical troll stuff.

If it was God he didn't do a very good job. He didn't get any of the 8 to write there witness and sign it. He didn't even get them to sign anything. Joseph was very insistent that no one can see the plates. This doesn't really pass the smell test.



It's actually weak evidence, and points more to fraud then real ancient plates.



Darth has been quite clear that he does not agree that Joseph had plates, and neither do I.



There is no testimony from the 8 witnesses as a group.



Actually ancient in appearance is meaningless since none of them had the knowledge to determine this any more then did those viewing the kinderhook plates. Since none of them could read what they may have seen, we have no evidence that writings were on the plates.

Funny how neither Smith nor God saw a need to round up eleven of his friends and relatives to testify as to the existence of the papyrus scrolls containing (no, wait--appearing to contain) the writings of Abraham and Joseph. How is it that even avowed critics are today unable to deny the existence of said scrolls without such evidence?

Liz, do you know of any theories about what happened to the toy submarine that was used for the Surgeon's Photo of the Loch Ness Monster?

Because until we have a cogent working theory of what happened to that toy submarine, I don't think we can completely rule out that photo as being genuine.

And of course Joseph Smith did not want his plates examined by a skeptical eye. That's why he only showed them to eight of his close friends and relatives who already believed his story before they were shown the purported Nephite records. Everything about the circumstances under which the testimony of the Eight Witnesses was obtained is consistent with a con game.

Regarding actions that are consistent with a con game, Mortal Man has discussed how Martin Harris was led into deeper credulity over Joseph Smith's claims: https://scrutablescriptures.wordpress.c ... -the-wise/

And LDS Truthseeker has talked about how plates like the ones at issue with the Eight Witnesses can be faked: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=19194&p=476320#p476320

No, I didn't, because neither you nor the LDS Church is merely trying to prove that Joseph Smith, the Child Molester, had a set of plates. (You never responded to my suggestion that for the simple purpose of identity, we refer to "Joseph Smith, the Child Molester." So I am taking that to mean that you conceded the point.)

It's really sad that Mormonism's truth claims are so indefensible that you think you've scored a point by stating a tautology. "Evidence that Joseph the Child Molester had metal plates is evidence that Joseph the Child Molester had metal plates." (I am not making any affirmative claims; I just want to be clear who I'm talking about. Thus, "Joseph the Child Molester.")



And if he ended his claim at, "I, Joseph the Child Molester, have some metal plates," then you would indeed carry the day on this undisputed point. But as Joseph the Child Molester did not end his claim there, your victory is so banal that only your desperation to grasp at anything explains why you keep talking about it.



That's because you are being deliberately obtuse. If the Book of Mormon is not a real historical account of pre-Columbian America, it doesn't matter if Joseph the Child Molester showed 8 of his close friends and relatives who already believed his story some unidentifiable metal plates. On the other hand, if you believe Joseph the Child Molester's story, you necessarily believe that an undead Hebrew American prophet gave him some plates, so you don't need the testimony of the Eight Witnesses. In addition to lacking foundation to the claim at issue (that the Book of Mormon is true), their testimony is irrelevant to the claim.



And that testimony has no foundation, because they could not possibly have known if what they were shown were "the" plates.



Yes, they did, and I am not going to play your game that they were merely trying to identify who Joseph Smith was. They also had to believe Joseph Smith the Child Molester's story as a precondition to be shown the object he purported to be the plates, and the LDS Church touts their testimony as evidence of the divinity and authenticity of the Book of Mormon.



See, the reason it's obvious you're being disingenuous is that you keep returning to the same rhetorical sleight of hand. There is no foundation for the claim that the object Joseph the Child Molester's dad and older brother and so on were shown was "ancient in appearance." They would have had no way of determining what ancient plates would look like, and they never said how the plates they were shown looked "ancient." A conclusory statement with no explanation is not evidence of anything. The same is true with "writing." They had no possible way of knowing if the scratchings or etchings or whatever on the object they were shown were real, actual writing from another (non-English) language.

But I am perfectly happy for our internet Mormon warriors to make themselves look foolish and disingenuous to any reasonable observer who is browsing message boards like this one. So by all means, please continue as you have been.

EDIT: minor typographical corrections that in no way affect the truth that the foregoing was the most correct post on Earth.

Stem, what is the quality of the alleged 8 witnesses' alleged statement that "he had the plates?"

There's an account, I think re-published in Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon? The Spalding Enigma (Vanick et. al., 2005) of a person who said that Cowdery and Smith traded the golden plates prop to a local merchant for a few cigars, and (paraphrasing) "both parties considered themselves much better off for the transaction."

I would try to look it up for you to verify, but I mailed my copy to RayAgostini.

I really hate those guys for not providing an index.

Interesting, Shades.

I had never heard this before. Cigars, huh? LOL

I am going to see if there is an ebook edition of "Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon? The Spalding Enigma". Thanks!

Speaking of "Sic et Non," it appears that Dr. Peterson spent the weekend with Will Schryver. He has posted photos of all of them sporting special eyeglasses that allowed them to stare at yesterday's solar eclipse. I hadn't realized that DCP was on such close terms with Schryver--it suggests that rumors about Will's impending publication are true. Further, it makes me wonder about the things Dan was saying behind Will's back--e.g., about him being a "loose cannon" and whatnot. Perhaps he has had a change of heart.

Okay--sorry for the derailment.

My understanding is that Dan does feel that Will is a loose canon, but he does have a "soft spot" for him....kind of like the "soft spot I have for you.