Decent Post on Proof and Evidence at Sic et Non

[_stemelbow]

Just curious, then. DJ claims it is not a claim that there were plates with engravings on them. I say it is a claim. He suggests if it does not support the notion that the Church is true, then it has no relevance, or something. Joseph claimed he had plates with engravings, no? Sure he did. Is there relevance here? Sure. he claimed it, no one can see them now. But we have witness from others that he did indeed have them.

[_Morley]

No. You are exemplifying the problem with evidentiary foundation and relevance I talked about.

Joseph Smith merely having metal plates with engravings on them is not an LDS truth claim. Not very many people dispute that Joseph Smith at least had a prop that he showed a very small number of people. A truth claim is that Joseph Smith had metal plates with engravings on them that were made by ancient Nephite prophets.

Just curious, then. DJ claims it is not a claim that there were plates with engravings on them. I say it is a claim. He suggests if it does not support the notion that the Church is true, then it has no relevance, or something. Joseph claimed he had plates with engravings, no? Sure he did. Is there relevance here? Sure. he claimed it, no one can see them now. But we have witness from others that he did indeed have them.

Not a "claim," Stem. A "truth claim."

[_stemelbow]

Not a "claim," Stem. A "truth claim."

Play it however you like. Truth claim by Joseph Smith=had in his possession metal plates with engravings on them.

[_Darth J]

Just curious, then. DJ claims it is not a claim that there were plates with engravings on them. I say it is a claim. He suggests if it does not support the notion that the Church is true, then it has no relevance, or something. Joseph claimed he had plates with engravings, no? Sure he did. Is there relevance here? Sure. he claimed it, no one can see them now. But we have witness from others that he did indeed have them.

No. Joseph Smith did not merely claim "he had plates with engravings." Nobody seriously disputes that he had "plates." Joseph Smith claimed that he had plates that were made by ancient Nephites and inscribed by ancient Nephite prophets, and he translated those plates into what we have as the Book of Mormon. You're equivocating between what the actual claims are in attempt to get your foot in the door to say that the testimony of Eight Witnesses is circumstantial evidence that the Book of Mormon is true. Otherwise, you would just toss this aside and not care if they merely saw "plates with engravings." You're also misrepresenting what the Testimony of the Eight Witnesses actually says.

The foundational problem is found within the statement that someone else wrote and had the Eight Witnesses put their names on (note the underlined part):

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That 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; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shown unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken. And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it.

Christian Whitmer
Jacob Whitmer
Peter Whitmer, Jun.
John Whitmer
Hiram Page
Joseph Smith, Sen.
Hyrum Smith
Samuel H. Smith

These eight people had absolutely no way of knowing that Joseph Smith, Jr. was "the translator of this work." They had no way to authenticate that the plates were what Joseph Smith told them the plates were. They had no way to determine if the engravings were a real ancient language. They had no way of comparing the engravings to the Book of Mormon and determining that the latter was a translation of the former. They also had no qualifications to determine what plates "of ancient work" would look like, and did not explain how they arrived at that conclusion independent of Joseph Smith telling them a story about the plates.

The problem is bigger than the logical fallacy of "Joseph Smith had unidentifiable and unauthenticated plates with engravings that he showed a very few of his close friends and relatives, so this corroborates that the Book of Mormon is true." The bigger problem is what this gambit says about Joseph Smith. Showing a select few people a prop, obtaining testimonials, and then inviting people to jump to conclusions not warranted by the testimonials, is a classic con game technique.

It is similar to how Charles Ponzi showed a few people that he had some international postal reply coupons. From this, investors were meant to infer that Ponzi had vast amounts of postal reply coupons that he was making millions of dollars on by arbitrage. Nobody ever really disputed that Ponzi had some postal reply coupons, but that wasn't the point. The dispute was whether he really was making all the money he claimed to by speculating in those coupons. Likewise, with Joseph Smith, nobody disputes he had "plates with engravings." The dispute is whether he had Nephite plates with reformed Egyptian engravings, and the Eight Witnesses were not competent to address that question.

I'll tell you what, Stemelbow. Go ahead and prove that you're not trying to engage in rhetorical sleight of hand by explaining specifically how the undisputed claim that "Joseph Smith had unidentifiable, unauthenticated plates with engravings on them" is relevant to the claim that "the Book of Mormon is a translation of an ancient Nephite record."

[_stemelbow]

No. Joseph Smith did not merely claim "he had plates with engravings."

I certainly did not suggest that was his only claim.

Nobody seriously disputes that he had "plates."

Some seriously dispute it, but the disputes aren't very serious in part due to the evidence for his claim.

Joseph Smith claimed that he had plates that were made by ancient Nephites and inscribed by ancient Nephite prophets, and he translated those plates into what we have as the Book of Mormon. You're equivocating between what the actual claims are in attempt to get your foot in the door to say that the testimony of Eight Witnesses is circumstantial evidence that the Book of Mormon is true.

I didn't claim this.

Otherwise, you would just toss this aside and not care if they merely saw "plates with engravings." You're also misrepresenting what the Testimony of the Eight Witnesses actually says.

The foundational problem is found within the statement that someone else wrote and had the Eight Witnesses put their names on (note the underlined part):

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That 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; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shown unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken. And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it.

Christian Whitmer
Jacob Whitmer
Peter Whitmer, Jun.
John Whitmer
Hiram Page
Joseph Smith, Sen.
Hyrum Smith
Samuel H. Smith

These eight people had absolutely no way of knowing that Joseph Smith, Jr. was "the translator of this work." They had no way to authenticate that the plates were what Joseph Smith told them the plates were. They had no way to determine if the engravings were a real ancient language. They had no way of comparing the engravings to the Book of Mormon and determining that the latter was a translation of the former. They also had no qualifications to determine what plates "of ancient work" would look like, and did not explain how they arrived at that conclusion independent of Joseph Smith telling them a story about the plates.

The problem is bigger than the logical fallacy of "Joseph Smith had unidentifiable and unauthenticated plates with engravings that he showed a very few of his close friends and relatives, so this corroborates that the Book of Mormon is true." The bigger problem is what this gambit says about Joseph Smith. Showing a select few people a prop, obtaining testimonials, and then inviting people to jump to conclusions not warranted by the testimonials, is a classic con game technique.

It also worked to convince avowed critics like you that he definitely had some plates. Without such evidence you'd be whimpering and whining that he no plates at all. Instead you're left to complain that the witness of the 8, though good evidence that Joseph Smith had some plates, does not give you good evidence that the plates contained writings of the ancient Nephites. Alrighty then. That is obviously not the claim found within the testimony of the 8.

It is similar to how Charles Ponzi showed a few people that he had some international postal reply coupons. From this, investors were meant to infer that Ponzi had vast amounts of postal reply coupons that he was making millions of dollars on by arbitrage. Nobody ever really disputed that Ponzi had some postal reply coupons, but that wasn't the point. The dispute was whether he really was making all the money he claimed to by speculating in those coupons. Likewise, with Joseph Smith, nobody disputes he had "plates with engravings." The dispute is whether he had Nephite plates with reformed Egyptian engravings, and the Eight Witnesses were not competent to address that question.

I'll tell you what, Stemelbow. Go ahead and prove that you're not trying to engage in rhetorical sleight of hand by explaining specifically how the undisputed claim that "Joseph Smith had unidentifiable, unauthenticated plates with engravings on them" is relevant to the claim that "the Book of Mormon is a translation of an ancient Nephite record."

Its relevant in that it fits with the rest of his story. If he had plates with engravings, then we know he at least covered his story that well.

[_Kishkumen]

It also worked to convince avowed critics like you that he definitely had some plates. Without such evidence you'd be whimpering and whining that he no plates at all. Instead you're left to complain that the witness of the 8, though good evidence that Joseph Smith had some plates, does not give you good evidence that the plates contained writings of the ancient Nephites. Alrighty then. That is obviously not the claim found within the testimony of the 8.

That is exactly what this testimony is intended to persuade others-that Joseph Smith translated the book from these ancient plates. It is a masterly bit of chicanery in that way.

[_stemelbow]

That is exactly what this testimony is intended to persuade others-that Joseph Smith translated the book from these ancient plates. It is a masterly bit of chicanery in that way.

I would say the testimony was given to persuade people that he did have plates. That they appeared to be ancient is perhaps something, but not near enough to convince that the plates were ancient. Plates could have been made to look old. That the testimony reports that doesn't discount that the thrust of it is to confirm they saw plates with engravings.

[_Darth J]

No. Joseph Smith did not merely claim "he had plates with engravings."

I certainly did not suggest that was his only claim.

Yes, you did. "Joseph claimed he had plates with engravings, no? Sure he did. Is there relevance here? Sure. he claimed it, no one can see them now. But we have witness from others that he did indeed have them."

Nobody seriously disputes that he had "plates."

Some seriously dispute it,

Who?

but the disputes aren't very serious in part due to the evidence for his claim.

So you'll agree with me that Charles Ponzi had evidence for his claims, since there was evidence that he bought some postal reply coupons.

Joseph Smith claimed that he had plates that were made by ancient Nephites and inscribed by ancient Nephite prophets, and he translated those plates into what we have as the Book of Mormon. You're equivocating between what the actual claims are in attempt to get your foot in the door to say that the testimony of Eight Witnesses is circumstantial evidence that the Book of Mormon is true.

I didn't claim this.

Yes, you did. "The testimony of the 8 witnesses is evidence of an LDS truth claim--there were metal plates with engravings on them in Joseph Smith' possession, as he claimed. It's one piece."

The problem is bigger than the logical fallacy of "Joseph Smith had unidentifiable and unauthenticated plates with engravings that he showed a very few of his close friends and relatives, so this corroborates that the Book of Mormon is true." The bigger problem is what this gambit says about Joseph Smith. Showing a select few people a prop, obtaining testimonials, and then inviting people to jump to conclusions not warranted by the testimonials, is a classic con game technique.

It also worked to convince avowed critics like you that he definitely had some plates.

There's that internet Mormon disingenuousness that we all know and love. I believed the Book of Mormon was true for the vast majority of my life, and only stopped believing it two years ago. That is easy to document between my posts on this board and my posts on MADB/MD&D.

Without such evidence you'd be whimpering and whining that he no plates at all. Instead you're left to complain that the witness of the 8, though good evidence that Joseph Smith had some plates, does not give you good evidence that the plates contained writings of the ancient Nephites. Alrighty then.

Yes, I'm very aware that in the funhouse known as the LDS Church, rational evaluation of evidence and reasonable conclusions about it are "complaining." And the witness of the Eight is not just "not good evidence" that the plates were an ancient Nephite record. It isn't evidence of that, period, full stop.

That is obviously not the claim found within the testimony of the 8.

Yes, it is. The statement they put their names on says that Joseph Smith is the translator of the work, and that the plates appear to be ancient. They had no qualifications to make either of those determinations.

I'll tell you what, Stemelbow. Go ahead and prove that you're not trying to engage in rhetorical sleight of hand by explaining specifically how the undisputed claim that "Joseph Smith had unidentifiable, unauthenticated plates with engravings on them" is relevant to the claim that "the Book of Mormon is a translation of an ancient Nephite record."

Its relevant in that it fits with the rest of his story. If he had plates with engravings, then we know he at least covered his story that well.

The Testimony of the Eight Witnesses is a ploy to give the appearance of having 8 independent witnesses to the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, when in fact the relevance of their testimony depends entirely on Joseph Smith's story being accepted as true. The testimony is entirely self-referential: in order to make the connection to the Book of Mormon being true, you have to believe Joseph Smith's story. But if you believe Joseph Smith's story, you don't need a testimonial from 8 of his friends and relatives to say he had "plates."

However, I appreciate your refuting my point by confirming it.

The sun is shining here in Utah today. That alone doesn't prove that the Book of Abraham is true, but it does fit in with Joseph Smith's story. The Book of Abraham says that our sun receives its light from a greater star, and so on up to Kolob. So the sun necessarily would have to be shining for the Book of Abraham to be true, and it is! How could Joseph Smith have known?????

[_Darth J]

I would say the testimony was given to persuade people that he did have plates.

I wonder why he didn't just show the plates to everyone, then.

[_stemelbow]

I wonder why he didn't just show the plates to everyone, then.

Me too. Oh he said he wasn't supposed to.

So let's see his story is, at least at this point (remember the first vision hadn't been mentioned in writing at this point):

He was visited by an angel who revealed to him where to find plates which were engraven anciently.
He eventually bot the plates into his possession and eventually translated them into english.
he was told not to share the plates with just anyone.
People didn't beleive he had ancient plates or believe his story, at least in part.
Three witnesses were shown miraculous things to help confirm his story about ancient messengers and plates being translated.
Eight witnesses were shown the physical plates confirming he actually had plated that looked old and had writings on them.

Fast Forward 180 years and ol' DJ, in some effort to discredit the possibility of the witness testimony of being evidence of his story claims The testimony doesn't work because he could have shown everyone the plates;therefore, says he, the testimony does not in any way provide evidence of Joseph Smith' claim that he had plates.

Oh brother.