Darth J wrote:
Of course we only have his self-serving statement for that, but that doesn't explain why, since the objective was merely to prove that "he had plates."
I realize you are stuck on this attempt to say this is his only claim, and somehow suggest that is what I'm saying, but that was not his only objective. The objective here is clear to me. People were witness the existence of the plates with engravings on them and they appeared ancient to them. As I said, you have to take one thing at a time.
In summary, you have to be predisposed to believing Joseph Smith's story before the testimony of the Eight Witnesses becomes relevant, but if you already believe his story, you don't need their statement.
Whatevers clever to you, I suppose. I didn't say any of this.
Seriously, reading your attempts to reword what other people have said is like watching a first-grader fumbling around, trying to make sense of the world.
It's quite clear Static pointed out a pretty gross error from you in regards to reading me. It's funny, or sad depending on the mood I"m in, how often your complaints attacking people is really just hypocrisy.
That isn't even close to the argument, nor does it indicate that you understand what the issue is. Joseph Smith, like all con men, relied on other people's gullibility and their susceptibility to fallacious thinking. Fast forward 182 years, and it's still working, as Stemelbow is demonstrating.
Suddenly your complaint about me being predisposed to belief Joseph Smith's story sounds incredibly, again, hypocritical. You get so full of yourself as conversations continue actual civil and thoughtful dialogue isn't even possible with you, it seems.