"Undisputed Historical Facts"

[_Some Schmo]

You're confusing exmos with the folks in your ward.

Then that's a step up. I usually confuse them with a herd of sheep.

Completely understandable.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Your "recollection" is totally beside the point. It has nothing to do with material facts. Whether or not you remembered to turn off the stove does not change the fact that said stove does in fact exist, and that, in fact, it is capable of being turned off or on.

I don't know what that has to do with historical objectivity or "undisputed historical facts."

We may have certain writings, etc. from the past but they are products of particular people with particular preunderstanding, worldview, opinions, prejudice, etc.

That may be true, but, again, none of this really alters the facts as they are.

I don't understand what you are saying here.

Likewise we have witnesses who claim they literally saw an angel and golden plates. This evidence, then would be equal to the accounts of having wine at Carthage, and Joseph Smith's pepperbox pistol.

How do you figure? Probably each of us has seen, or knows about the existence of, pistols and wine. Nobody (as far as I know) would dispute the claim that these things exist, and are real. Probably, you can head down to your local Walmart and purchase both of these things. On the other hand, I doubt that many---if any of us---has seen an angel or the golden plates.

And we get to the real issue. Those witnesses don't count to you because "angels don't exist."

Then we'll bring out the other star witnesses, those who say they've seen Elvis, or aliens, or something like that. Even still, these witnesses and their statements would have to be compared to the statements of the witnesses of the actual physical gold plates.

I take it you believe that there is objective history, then?

[_Mister Scratch]

Your "recollection" is totally beside the point. It has nothing to do with material facts. Whether or not you remembered to turn off the stove does not change the fact that said stove does in fact exist, and that, in fact, it is capable of being turned off or on.

I don't know what that has to do with historical objectivity or "undisputed historical facts."

Well then, let's put it this way: in the above scenario, does the stove exist? Y/N? If "yes," then, at the very least, within the context of this discussion, the existence of said stove is an "undisputed historical fact."

Likewise we have witnesses who claim they literally saw an angel and golden plates. This evidence, then would be equal to the accounts of having wine at Carthage, and Joseph Smith's pepperbox pistol.

How do you figure? Probably each of us has seen, or knows about the existence of, pistols and wine. Nobody (as far as I know) would dispute the claim that these things exist, and are real. Probably, you can head down to your local Walmart and purchase both of these things. On the other hand, I doubt that many---if any of us---has seen an angel or the golden plates.

And we get to the real issue. Those witnesses don't count to you because "angels don't exist."

I didn't say that "angels don't exist." I said that your analogy was false.

Then we'll bring out the other star witnesses, those who say they've seen Elvis, or aliens, or something like that. Even still, these witnesses and their statements would have to be compared to the statements of the witnesses of the actual physical gold plates.

Um, okay. If you really want to go there. Though I have to say, it seems like rhetorical suicide to put Mormonism's foundational story on a par with alien abductees and nutty Elvis fans.

I take it you believe that there is objective history, then?

Where did I ever say that? I've merely been pointing out that some facets of history aren't really debatable except in a very abstract, non-practical, PoMo sense. Your argument, LoaP, depends pretty heavily on the "whacko factor." Sure, you might find some person somewhere who is willing to "debate" against the claim that Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492, but does this make that particular element of history "debatable" in any meaningful sense? No.

[Guest]

Well then, let's put it this way: in the above scenario, does the stove exist? Y/N? If "yes," then, at the very least, within the context of this discussion, the existence of said stove is an "undisputed historical fact."

Not really. The stove still exists in the present for all to come and see at any time. That the same stove was always in the same place is something to be disputed on historical grounds, however. I'm not talking about existence in general, I am talking about historical inquiry.

I didn't say that "angels don't exist." I said that your analogy was false.

It wasn't false in the least.

Um, okay. If you really want to go there. Though I have to say, it seems like rhetorical suicide to put Mormonism's foundational story on a par with alien abductees and nutty Elvis fans.

Amen to that.

Where did I ever say that? I've merely been pointing out that some facets of history aren't really debatable except in a very abstract, non-practical, PoMo sense. Your argument, LoaP, depends pretty heavily on the "whacko factor." Sure, you might find some person somewhere who is willing to "debate" against the claim that Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492, but does this make that particular element of history "debatable" in any meaningful sense? No.

Another great example. The details of that trip, destination, landing location, results, etc. have been a matter of historical debate because of the inherent difficulty in presenting "undisputed historical facts."

[_Mister Scratch]

Well then, let's put it this way: in the above scenario, does the stove exist? Y/N? If "yes," then, at the very least, within the context of this discussion, the existence of said stove is an "undisputed historical fact."

Not really. The stove still exists in the present for all to come and see at any time.

Well, there you go, then. An "undisputed fact."

That the same stove was always in the same place is something to be disputed on historical grounds, however.

Not necessarily, since I think we can both agree that the stove was not "always in the same place." The basic fact of the stove's existence remains the same, and is, for all intents and purposes, "indisputable." If you want to tack on qualification, then yes, perhaps we'll be able to find something "disputable." But the basic fact, in and of itself, is not disputable except in the most absurd way.

I didn't say that "angels don't exist." I said that your analogy was false.

It wasn't false in the least.

Oh? So we can go and visit an angel any time? We can go view the Golden Plates at the Smithsonian? *That* is why your analogy is false, my friend.

Where did I ever say that? I've merely been pointing out that some facets of history aren't really debatable except in a very abstract, non-practical, PoMo sense. Your argument, LoaP, depends pretty heavily on the "whacko factor." Sure, you might find some person somewhere who is willing to "debate" against the claim that Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492, but does this make that particular element of history "debatable" in any meaningful sense? No.

Another great example. The details of that trip, destination, landing location, results, etc. have been a matter of historical debate because of the inherent difficulty in presenting "undisputed historical facts."

Sure: some of the "details" are debatable. The trip itself, though? No, not really---except in a completely absurdist sense.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

You're completely off topic by now. I'm talking about historical inquiry, not the existence of stoves. If you do not believe in objectivity in the writing of history then we really don't have much to disagree with on the subject of this thread.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Sure: some of the "details" are debatable. The trip itself, though? No, not really---except in a completely absurdist sense.

Fair enough. The details of the trip, however, are what make the trip in its entirety. I see what you mean, though, and regardless of the other posts, I think we are relatively on the same page in regards to objectivity, history, and "undisputed historical fact."