It is currently Thu Jul 31, 2014 2:38 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 478 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 19, 20, 21, 22, 23
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Decent Post on Proof and Evidence at Sic et Non
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 7:56 am 
God

Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 1:40 pm
Posts: 5872
Themis wrote:
I am not aware that DJ was complaining, but certainly many questioned whether Joseph had plates, some probably believer's as well.


That helps. Sure, people questioned. As DJ pointed out, no one seriously denies it now. There is no question. Largely because the evidence tends to suggest he had some plates.

Quote:
There is no testimony of the 8. That is the point I am making right here. All we have is a statement with 8 peoples names to it. We have no idea who created it, when it was created, when the event or events happened, and who really was there. There is no signed document. If God really wanted 3 and 8 witnesses he did a piss poor job. So did Joseph, unless he was a conman. How hard would it be if the statements are accurate do ask that each person sign a document stating what happened, and even way better ask them to write in their own words and handwriting what happened and then date and sign it, and then get an affidavit. Seems they were familiar with those back then. :eek:


So you deny that Joseph had metallic plates with writings or etchings of some sort on them? That they appeared ancient?

_________________
Love ya tons,
Stem


I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Decent Post on Proof and Evidence at Sic et Non
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 8:11 am 
God

Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 11:43 am
Posts: 7708
stemelbow wrote:

That helps. Sure, people questioned. As DJ pointed out, no one seriously denies it now. There is no question. Largely because the evidence tends to suggest he had some plates.



I am not aware that DJ ever claimed that no one seriously denies it now, since I think many probably do. I think you again are putting your words into DJ's mouth. :redface:

Quote:
So you deny that Joseph had metallic plates with writings or etchings of some sort on them? That they appeared ancient?


I thought I was clear in that the statement in the Book of Mormon cannot be seen as evidence for reasons stated above. The idea that it would be evidence was based on an assumption that the statements are accurate.

_________________
42


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Decent Post on Proof and Evidence at Sic et Non
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 8:20 am 
God

Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 1:40 pm
Posts: 5872
Themis wrote:
I am not aware that DJ ever claimed that no one seriously denies it now, since I think many probably do. I think you again are putting your words into DJ's mouth. :redface:


"Not very many people dispute that Joseph Smith at least had a prop that he showed a very small number of people."

Just read through the thread. This quote, I believe, was his first comment suggesting at least near as much. He made many mentions of it. His complaint was not that the testimony of the 8 did not support the notion that Joseph Smith had plates but that the notion that Joseph Smith had plates did not support Joseph Smith ultimate claim. I realize that, it's just that the ultimate claim is not brought into question with this piece of data. Just the question whether he had plates is brought into question. And, although, this piece of data alone does not prove Joseph Smith had plates, it's largely not even questioned anymore in part because of this piece of data.

Quote:
I thought I was clear in that the statement in the Book of Mormon cannot be seen as evidence for reasons stated above. The idea that it would be evidence was based on an assumption that the statements are accurate.


all right, avoid my question. I don't mind.

_________________
Love ya tons,
Stem


I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Decent Post on Proof and Evidence at Sic et Non
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 8:34 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 3:23 am
Posts: 7137
Location: On the imaginary axis
Are we still talking about 'The Testimony of the Eight Witnesses', as if eight people had come up to the witness stand one by one and said what they thought they had seen and done? We have no reason to think that anything like that happened.

What we do have is a piece of printed material in the introductory section of modern editions of the Book of Mormon, followed by the names of eight of Joseph Smith's family members. We don't know who composed the document, whether all of the eight people named actually saw it before it was printed, or whether they signed their names to a version of it. (If they had signed it, and if that signed document was still in existence, would the church have published a facsimile by now? You bet.

Until those points are cleared up, there is not a lot more that can usefully be said about this document.

_________________
Christopher Ralph: The discovery that the creators of South Park place a higher value on historical authenticity than do the Brethren creates spiritual shock-waves from which some members never recover.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Decent Post on Proof and Evidence at Sic et Non
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 10:02 am 
God

Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 11:58 pm
Posts: 1073
Stem quoting DJ

"Not very many people dispute that Joseph Smith at least had a prop that he showed a very small number of people."

That is correct. There is good evidence that Smith had a box filled with something and covered with a cloth in other words a "prop" which he said contained metal plates. But there is not good evidence that metal plates as described existed and were seen.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Decent Post on Proof and Evidence at Sic et Non
PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2012 3:26 pm 
God

Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 11:43 am
Posts: 7708
stemelbow wrote:
"Not very many people dispute that Joseph Smith at least had a prop that he showed a very small number of people."

Just read through the thread. This quote, I believe, was his first comment suggesting at least near as much. He made many mentions of it. His complaint was not that the testimony of the 8 did not support the notion that Joseph Smith had plates but that the notion that Joseph Smith had plates did not support Joseph Smith ultimate claim. I realize that, it's just that the ultimate claim is not brought into question with this piece of data. Just the question whether he had plates is brought into question. And, although, this piece of data alone does not prove Joseph Smith had plates, it's largely not even questioned anymore in part because of this piece of data.


So according to what you quote of DJ, I am right in saying he didn't say no one as you said he did. :wink:

Quote:
all right, avoid my question. I don't mind.


You mean this question.

Quote:
So you deny that Joseph had metallic plates with writings or etchings of some sort on them? That they appeared ancient?


I am not sure why you want my opinion since the real point is that the statement is not evidence that Joseph had plates for reasons already given. I would think you would want to deal with that problem. I don't deny anything. I just realize the statements in the Book of Mormon are not evidence for plates. There is other evidence but it is not consistent, so we don't really know whether he had metal plates or some other prop. I tend to think he may have had some kind of prop, but the evidence is to weak to be sure of what nature it was.

_________________
42


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Decent Post on Proof and Evidence at Sic et Non
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2012 6:25 am 
Dark Lord of the Sith
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 5:16 pm
Posts: 12563
Location: A castellated abbey
stemelbow wrote:
Guys,

The 8 witness testimony was brought up by DJ.


No, it was brought up by Daniel Peterson, in the blog post discussed in the OP, which you still have never read.

Quote:
It was discussed because that is the example he wished to focus on.


No, it was discussed because in Daniel Peterson's blog post that you have never read, he volunteered the "Book of Mormon witnesses" (of whom there are zero, despite the LDS Church claiming there are 11) as supposed evidence (but not proof!) that the Book of Mormon is true.

Quote:
I think he misses that the testimony serves a purpose.


No, I don't miss that at all. I am very well aware that their testimonial serves a purpose. The use of shills at a traveling medicine show also served a purpose.

Quote:
He can't complain that Joseph Smith had no plates.


Because not only is it completely impossible for stemelbow to frame a single issue accurately, questions of fact must be couched in terms of emotion ("complain").

Quote:
I mean he could, but he admits that no one seriously questions that he had plates.


And the reason why you are stuck like a broken record on the tautology that "evidence he had some plates is evidence that he had some plates" is that you know you cannot address the actual issue. The actual issue is whether the testimonial of Joseph Smith the Child Molester's 8 friends and relatives is evidence of the Book of Mormon's authenticity. Nobody cares that Joseph Smith just "had plates."

Quote:
Whether he cleverly constructed the plates and passed them off as ancient relics the testimony of the 8 doesn't answer.


Image

_________________
And the life of the ebony clock went out with that of the last of the gay. And the flames of the tripods expired. And Darkness and Decay and the Red Death held illimitable dominion over all.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Decent Post on Proof and Evidence at Sic et Non
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2012 6:33 am 
There is really no way to have positive proof that the gold plates actually existed, or, if they did exist, that they were authentic. The witnesses could have lied. If they told the truth, and actually saw plates, how would they vouch for authenticity unless they were experts in archeological readings?


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Decent Post on Proof and Evidence at Sic et Non
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2012 6:34 am 
Dark Lord of the Sith
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 5:16 pm
Posts: 12563
Location: A castellated abbey
So let's re-cap:

We're 23 pages into this thread, and stemelbow finally says this:

stemelbow wrote:
Whether he cleverly constructed the plates and passed them off as ancient relics the testimony of the 8 doesn't answer.


This means that there is no foundation to their testimonial, which means it is not evidence that the Book of Mormon is authentic, which is what I said on the first page of this thread.

Now, who would like to estimate the Bayesian probability that stemelbow is going to admit that according to his own statement, the testimonial of the Eight Witnesses is not evidence that the Book of Mormon is true?

_________________
And the life of the ebony clock went out with that of the last of the gay. And the flames of the tripods expired. And Darkness and Decay and the Red Death held illimitable dominion over all.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Decent Post on Proof and Evidence at Sic et Non
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2012 6:35 am 
Darth J wrote:
So let's re-cap:

We're 23 pages into this thread, and stemelbow finally says this:

stemelbow wrote:
Whether he cleverly constructed the plates and passed them off as ancient relics the testimony of the 8 doesn't answer.


This means that there is no foundation to their testimonial, which means it is not evidence that the Book of Mormon is authentic, which is what I said on the first page of these thread.

Now, who would like to estimate the Bayesian probability that stemelbow is going to admit that according to his own statement, the testimonial of the Eight Witnesses is not evidence that the Book of Mormon is true?

Was he ever arguing that point, or was he merely arguing that the testimonial of the Eight Wintesses was evidence of some type of gold plates existing?


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Decent Post on Proof and Evidence at Sic et Non
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2012 7:04 am 
Dark Lord of the Sith
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 5:16 pm
Posts: 12563
Location: A castellated abbey
liz3564 wrote:
Was he ever arguing that point, or was he merely arguing that the testimonial of the Eight Wintesses was evidence of some type of gold plates existing?


Liz, stemelbow is engaging in a passive-aggressive rhetorical sleight of hand that is common to Mormon internet warriors and apologists (and disingenuous arguments in general).

I agree with Lulu, Chap, and others that there is a significant problem that an actual, signed testimony signed by these 8 men does not seem to exist anywhere. But for the purposes of the argument Daniel Peterson was trying to make in his blog post, I am not disputing that Joseph Smith showed some type of plates to his credulous father, older brother, and 6 other relatives and friends. It has been stated ad nauseum in this thread that I am stipulating to that fact. Since that fact is being accepted as true, there is no valid reason for stemelbow to "argue" an issue that is not disputed.

Other people have defined the rhetorical tactic stemelbow is using as follows:

http://e-ducation.net/fallaciousargumen ... pnoticbait

Hypnotic Bait and Switch - to lull the listener into uncritically accepting more statements, by starting out with a series of unchallengably true statements, creating the expectation that what follows will also be unquestionably true, when it will actually be false

By continuing to "argue" an issue that is not only undisputed, but meaningless ("evidence he had plates is evidence he had plates"), stemelbow can try to characterize the situation as an avowed critic being forced to accept the compelling evidence of.......of an undisputed, meaningless issue. Stemelbow wants to use his "proving" that avowed critics cannot dispute a meaningless issue they never did dispute to get his foot in the door so he can assert, with no factual or logical basis, that the testimonial of the Eight Witnesses is not evidence of the ultimate claim that the Book of Mormon is true, but is a "step" toward it. Go back and read through the thread; he has said so several times, albeit with different wording. But since "whether he cleverly constructed the plates and passed them off as ancient relics, the testimony of the 8 doesn't answer," their testimonial has no foundation for use as circumstantial evidence that the Book of Mormon is true.

If stemelbow were trying to do anything other than set up a disingenuous (or, at best, fatuous) argument that the testimonial of the Eight Witnesses is circumstantial evidence that the Book of Mormon is true, this thread would be a lot shorter. "Joseph Smith had some plates" was stipulated on the first page of this thread, and that stipulation has not been withdrawn. Forgive me for being blunt, Liz, but your desire to give stemelbow the benefit of the doubt after 23 pages of this (let alone the rest of his history here) shows where charity blurs into gullibility.

_________________
And the life of the ebony clock went out with that of the last of the gay. And the flames of the tripods expired. And Darkness and Decay and the Red Death held illimitable dominion over all.


Last edited by Darth J on Thu May 31, 2012 7:14 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Decent Post on Proof and Evidence at Sic et Non
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2012 7:05 am 
God

Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 11:43 am
Posts: 7708
liz3564 wrote:
Was he ever arguing that point, or was he merely arguing that the testimonial of the Eight Wintesses was evidence of some type of gold plates existing?


He was at last arguing it was evidence of plates existing, but of course this is incorrect since neither statements found in the Book of Mormon can be considered evidence.

_________________
42


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Decent Post on Proof and Evidence at Sic et Non
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2012 7:11 am 
Dark Lord of the Sith
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 5:16 pm
Posts: 12563
Location: A castellated abbey
Themis wrote:
liz3564 wrote:
Was he ever arguing that point, or was he merely arguing that the testimonial of the Eight Wintesses was evidence of some type of gold plates existing?


He was at last arguing it was evidence of plates existing, but of course this is incorrect since neither statements found in the Book of Mormon can be considered evidence.


That's right. We have nothing but the assertion of the LDS Church that the statement they print at the front of the Book of Mormon was ever signed by those 8 men. Per his habit of reckless inaccuracies (the deliberateness of which I will let readers decide), stemelbow is mischaracterizing what I'm saying about the "fact" of the Testimony of the Eight Witnesses. I am not saying that I accept the naked assertion of the LDS Church as evidence that those 8 men really did ever sign the statement to which their names are appended. I am saying that even if, for the sake of argument, that statement is accepted as authentic, it still is not evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon being true.

_________________
And the life of the ebony clock went out with that of the last of the gay. And the flames of the tripods expired. And Darkness and Decay and the Red Death held illimitable dominion over all.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Decent Post on Proof and Evidence at Sic et Non
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2012 7:35 am 
\m/ \m/
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 7:52 am
Posts: 11754
Location: somewhere in the stratosphere
marg wrote:
...if there is a signed document which the church has in its possession..it is not available to be seen.
The only value of having a signed document is to display it as evidence/proof to others of the statements made in it. Since 1830, the LDS Church has published a printed version of the testimonials, as part of the Book of Mormon. In my experience, the only time a signed document is held back, when its contents are known, is when the signed document does not exist. Indeed, the intros read, "Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That... ." Odd that they'd only want it known through typeset, not with the ink of their quills in signature on the original.
marg wrote:
I'm also under the impression that none of the witnesses talked about seeing the plates other than with spiritual eyes or the supernatural. If that were the case they wouldn't want to sign they had seen them.
"...we, through the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the plates..." Given Mormon speak, it is a good point that the testimonial did not specify whether it was physical vision or only 'spiritual' vision involved. The artists' renderings of these events do not give the plates an ethereal, angel-like lighting around the plates, suggesting that it was physical plates, with physical eyes. The LDS Church promotes these portrayals by including them in their teaching materials.

"And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; ... ." Is this a physical voice, with sound waves, or in the mind's ear? or perhaps a bosom burning?

"And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates; and they have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man." Very suggestive of supernatural, no physicality to the event. Otherwise, what is meant by 'the power of God, and not man'?

"... an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; " Physical or spiritual?

"and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld..." Is this hearsay via the angel? via JSJr? Is this assumed because it had a supernatural element to it? Or, did god and Jesus appear to these three witnesses?

"the voice of the Lord commanded us that we should bear record of it; ... ." So how do they know it was the Lord's voice?

"we bear testimony of these things." But if anyone has the original bearing signatures by these witnesses, it needs to be kept hidden?

As for the testimonial of the 8, "Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; ... ." More substantial evidence, in my opinion, than the testimonial of the 3 (assuming both could be authenticated and proven genuine). Here, unlike with the 3, the 8 are saying that it was JSJr, known to be a real person, showed them the plates. This does not open itself up as widely to the shake and bake apologetic that it was with 'spiritual eyes'.

"we did handle with our hands;" Never heard any mortal having claimed to touch something with his or her spiritual hands in the way we sometimes hear about 'spiritual eyes'.

"and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship." Ancient work? Could that mean that the plates the 8 saw appeared less skillfully prepared than the technology of 1830 could produce?

"for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken." Haven't heard of 'spiritual hefting' either.
marg wrote:
But whether they signed or not...is not particularly important. The statement from both sets of witnesses is problematic for a number of reasons..in particular imo that the statements make testimony to things they could not possibly have known.

I agree there are a number of problems. But just because there is no possible way that the 3 or 8 could possibly have known some of the things in their statements (lack of foundation), it does not follow that other claims in their statements, claims that they could possibly have known, are necessarily untrue or without foundation too. So, I think that it is particularly important whether those 3 or 8 ever signed a document to the effect purported in the publications of the Book of Mormon.

_________________
Had a friend once in a room,
had a good time but it ended much too soon.
In a cold month in that room
we found a reason for the things we had to do.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Decent Post on Proof and Evidence at Sic et Non
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2012 7:44 am 
Darth wrote:
Forgive me for being blunt, Liz, but your desire to give stemelbow the benefit of the doubt after 23 pages of this (let alone the rest of his history here) shows where charity blurs into gullibility.


Oh, please. :rolleyes: Shoot me for not following 23 pages of thread. I had only read the last few comments, and was going by what appeared to be the case. Sorry for the intrusion on your conversation.

I was backing you, by the way, in case you hadn't noticed.

liz3564 wrote:
There is really no way to have positive proof that the gold plates actually existed, or, if they did exist, that they were authentic. The witnesses could have lied. If they told the truth, and actually saw plates, how would they vouch for authenticity unless they were experts in archeological readings?


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Decent Post on Proof and Evidence at Sic et Non
PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2012 7:49 am 
Dark Lord of the Sith
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 5:16 pm
Posts: 12563
Location: A castellated abbey
liz3564 wrote:

Oh, please. :rolleyes: Shoot me for not following 23 pages of thread. I had only read the last few comments, and was going by what appeared to be the case. Sorry for the intrusion on your conversation.


That's what the tactic stemelbow is employing is designed to do.

Quote:
I was backing you, by the way, in case you hadn't noticed.


For real, Liz, that's nice of you to say, but the issue is not "me." The issue is exactly what you said:

"There is really no way to have positive proof that the gold plates actually existed, or, if they did exist, that they were authentic. The witnesses could have lied. If they told the truth, and actually saw plates, how would they vouch for authenticity unless they were experts in archeological readings?"

_________________
And the life of the ebony clock went out with that of the last of the gay. And the flames of the tripods expired. And Darkness and Decay and the Red Death held illimitable dominion over all.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 478 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 19, 20, 21, 22, 23

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Cicero, Fence Sitter, Google [Bot], mackay11 and 32 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group