That post was not in response to any question from you. It was not directed to you, either, anymore than Mark Twain anticipated that goldfish would get a lot of meaning out of his writing.



Yes, I have indeed mocked you and your ideas continuously, Ray. The servant is worthy of his hire.

Then don't whine and complain like a nanny when you get it back, and you're going to keep getting it back as long as you persist.

No, see, I'm not willing to indulge in your tautology. "Evidence that some plates existed is evidence that some plates existed" is a meaningless statement.

You're also begging the question when you say that it is evidence that "the" plates existed.

I'm not complaining at all, Ray. I think your uncontrolled meltdowns are hilarious.

If this were shorter I'd make it my Sig line.

Anyway, I give you http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Kgx2b1sIRs

Not so simple. That is why I wrote several sentences, not just a couple of words. See especially the bolded portion.

lol. I'm sipping on an early morning coffee, and as calm as a winter's morning as I write. Message boards are funny places. Have a good day, my pseudoskeptical fiend.

I think you are unwittingly agreeingn to that which you are trying to stay far away from. The question is one of evidence. Joseph Smith claimed he had ancient looking plates with writings on them, no? Sure he did. The witensses testify they had seen the plates and know they exist. Is their testimony evidence of his claim? yes or no?

I don't think you're being very clear. If something is evidence of a claim it's either a yes or no.

Joseph Smith claimed he had ancient looking metalic plates with writings on them. The testimony of the 8 suggests they saw metalic plates that appeared ancient and had writings on them. Does their testimony present evidence to Joseph Smith' claim? yes or no?

and yet you keep responding but won't answer a simple yes or no question for some reason.

Interesting. Note the comments.

DCP at Olivewood on olive trees and evidences.

The answer is no. I already explained how their testimonial lacks foundation. The Eight Witnesses had no way to determine that the inscriptions on the plates they were shown were actual "writings." They also had no qualifications to determine the plates they were shown were "ancient-looking." What do "ancient" plates look like?

You are also continuing to mischaracterize the issue. WHY did Joseph Smith show some plates to the Eight Witnesses? It was not simply to prove he had some metal plates. If that's the end of your story, then big deal. Show them to everyone on Earth. But that isn't what Joseph Smith was trying to get people to believe. He was trying to convince people that he had plates made by the ancient Nephites that an angel gave him and that he translated by miraculous means. The testimony of the Eight Witnesses was supposed to corroborate this claim, not simply, "Yes, Joseph has some metal plates. The End."

And you are continuing to misrepresent what their testimony actually was. They said they they saw as many leaves as Joseph translated. That is an affirmative statement that an event had happened, and they had no possible way of knowing whether he had in fact translated the plates they were shown.

The method and circumstances that Joseph Smith used to procure the Testimony of the Eight Witnesses is consistent with a con game. Showing a prop to a select group of intimates under carefully controlled circumstances, and then using a testimonial to try to get other people to believe your claim, is standard operating procedure for a con artist. The OP you didn't understand, the blog post you didn't read, and the follow-ups that sailed over your head are all about distinguishing between proof and evidence. So, for the third time, are you willing to admit that the Testimony of the Eight Witnesses is evidence that the Book of Mormon is a hoax?

___Yes ___No

Dr. Peterson talked about some his favorite evidences (not proofs!) of the Book of Mormon. He told us the story of how he got interested on reading about guerrilla warfare tactics as a young man and how Book of Mormon authors illustrate the problems that occur when guerrillas try to start occupying territory prematurely. He contrasted that to Joseph Smith and his culture had romantic notions of military, just picture the Nauvoo Legion parades.

And of course guerrilla tactics played no part in the American Revolution, which was certainly foreign to the information environment of New York in the early 19th-century.

EDIT: And I'm sure our soldiers on this board, like MrStakhanovite, Sethbag, and honorentheos, can all confirm that parades and ceremonies are meant as an exercise in infantry tactics.

Interesting. So on what basis do you not doubt the existence of plates? As you said you don't doubt that there were plates.



BUt first he had to establish there were ancient looking plates with writings on them. That is the purpose, it seems clear to me, for the testimony of the 8 Witnesses.



It's not misrepresenting. Perhaps you and I disagree a little. I do not see the wording of saying they saw the plates, as many as were translated, as an attempt to affirm correct or useful translation, but as a way of describing that they saw each plate.



no.

I liked this bit:

No, that's not interesting. That's banal. I never needed convincing that the Eight Witnesses were shown a set of plates.



That's funny, because earlier in this thread you said you were not claiming that the Testimony of the Eight Witnesses is circumstantial evidence that the Book of Mormon is true. viewtopic.php?f=1&t=23924&p=588472&hilit=circumstantial#p588472



Oh, well then it must be the LDS Church that's all confused about what their statement meant.

The Book of Mormon: Introduction

In addition to Joseph Smith, the Lord provided for eleven others to see the gold plates for themselves and to be special witnesses of the truth and divinity of the Book of Mormon. Their written testimonies are included herewith as “The Testimony of Three Witnesses” and “The Testimony of Eight Witnesses.”



Why not?

http://scifi.about.com/od/starwarsgloss ... arsecs.htm



Because when Joseph Smith was criminally charged with being a glass-looker, it proved that the seer stone really worked! Everything proves that the Church is true!

I guess it's time to edit the introduction.

Funny how you and Keller can look at the same thing, yet come to different conclusions. He is, of course, "deluded".

Thanks for sharing your belief that 19th-century American folk magic really worked, Ray. I'm not going to bother asking what your basis is for saying so.

I wouldn't grace you with a reply anyway, my pseudoskeptical fiend.