Evidences...what does the word mean to you

[_stemelbow]

Ron and Dan Lafferty said they heard God tell them to kill Brenda and Erica. In the mouths of two or three witnesses, it's established, right?

pep pep... like it. I agree, evidence in favor of a claim does not necessarily make all things related to the claim true.

love ya tons,
stem

[_Some Schmo]

Yep, this "stem cell" character has to be a new sock puppet of Simon's. He has the same je ne sais pas... stupide that Simon has.

[_stemelbow]

Lets make this simpler for you...:

Do you believe the testimony of the 11 witnesses is "evidence" that the Joseph Smith had gold colored plates? Yes/No

Do you believe that the testimony of the people people in the video is "evidence" that a leprechaun lives in a tree in Mobile, AL.? Yes/No

I'll just let you know I did not click on the link, or the video to see. It was merely deflection on your part, so I see no point. So you don't wish to participate? No big deal. I can't do nuttin' about your persistent deflections other than to either ignore or point them out.

love ya tons,
stem

[_Darth J]

What were the two things he was comparing to each other? Tell me.

In an earlier post, I compared the plates to a metal box that is claimed to be a time machine. That was the analogy, which I'm sure you probably just didn't see. My point was that, just because someone has plates (or a metal box with blinking lights), it doesn't mean it is an ancient Nephite record (or a time machine).

And that's applicable for both the Eight Witnesses and the Three.

If plates like these people saw could be faked, which no one is disputing, and if none of the Eight or the Three had any way to determine for themselves if the plates were authentic, which no one is disputing, then the plates shown to these people is not evidence that the Book of Mormon is "true." The only question is whether the Three Witnesses are credible in claiming to have had the supernatural experience that we learn about in Sunday School.

[_stemelbow]

And that's applicable for both the Eight Witnesses and the Three.

If plates like these people saw could be faked, which no one is disputing, and if none of the Eight or the Three had any way to determine for themselves if the plates were authentic, which no one is disputing, then the plates shown to these people is not evidence that the Book of Mormon is "true." The only question is whether the Three Witnesses are credible in claiming to have had the supernatural experience that we learn about in Sunday School.

Except the three claimed that God told them they were ancient authentic plates. If they claimed it, then it must hold some amount of weight, even if it be very little in the skeptics mind.

love ya tons,
stem

[_stemelbow]

For all ya haters out there: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=16669

pep pep...have fun. I'm eager to read more of your rants about me. D


love ya tons,
stem

[_schreech]

I'll just let you know I did not click on the link, or the video to see. It was merely deflection on your part, so I see no point. So you don't wish to participate? No big deal. I can't do nuttin' about your persistent deflections other than to either ignore or point them out.

love ya tons,
stem

Typical...Here is the short of it...A bunch of people "witnessed" a leprechaun in a tree, much like 11 people "witnessed" the plates that Joe reported to have. These people actually went beyond just signing a document that someone else wrote for them and explained, in detail, what they saw. In fact, one person even drew an image of the Leprechaun. Now that your predictable dodge has been rendered useless:

Do you believe the testimony of the 11 witnesses is "evidence" that the Joseph Smith had gold colored plates? Yes/No

Do you believe that the testimony of the people people in the video is "evidence" that a leprechaun lives in a tree in Mobile, AL.? Yes/No

[_Darth J]

No, not "another" claimed evidence. Any claimed evidence. You've still failed to establish that the testimony of the Eight Witnesses is evidence of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

Look DJ, I see this has turned itno some heated personal spat for you. Let's just say you don't like me and move on, cool? I'll do it.

No, it's not a heated personal dispute. It's that I don't like deliberate ignorance and I don't like intellectual dishonesty. Your posts on this board demonstrate both.

Anyway, I'lll clarify again, by authenticity of the Book of Mormon I include, implicitly in my mind, the means by which Joseph Smith claimed it came to him and was translated. The testimony of the 8 is evidence, as you've conceded, for the questions it answers--did Joseph Smith have golden colored plates with engravings on them. I think its safe to say, seeing as you agree that we can move on.

There's that intellectual dishonesty again: claiming that I "conceded" something that was never at issue, as if the power of your overwhelming logic cannot be denied.

And speaking of intellectual dishonesty, you're now wanting to "move on" as if round one is over. There is nothing to move on from because you haven't established anything yet. These people seeing "golden colored" plates with engravings is not evidence that the Book of Mormon is true, any more than the description of the Kinderhook Plates in the History of the Church is evidence of their authenticity.

[_stemelbow]

DJ,

And speaking of intellectual dishonesty, you're now wanting to "move on" as if round one is over. There is nothing to move on from because you haven't established anything yet.

Oh boy. This won't end with you, huh? No big deal. I got some thick skin.

Anyway, what's been established? Joseph Smith claimed he had gold colored plates with engravings on them, as part of his story in bringing forth the Book of Mormon. We now have agreed, all except Quasi, that we have evidence Joseph Smith indeed did have gold colored plates with engravings. I agree, it doesn't' support much regarding Joseph Smith's story, but its a start. Considering what we've been through in these pages of seemingly nothingness, that's saying something...we've started.

let's move on.

love ya tons,
stem

[_Darth J]

And that's applicable for both the Eight Witnesses and the Three.

If plates like these people saw could be faked, which no one is disputing, and if none of the Eight or the Three had any way to determine for themselves if the plates were authentic, which no one is disputing, then the plates shown to these people is not evidence that the Book of Mormon is "true." The only question is whether the Three Witnesses are credible in claiming to have had the supernatural experience that we learn about in Sunday School.

Except the three claimed that God told them they were ancient authentic plates. If they claimed it, then it must hold some amount of weight, even if it be very little in the skeptics mind.

"Except?" You're not taking exception by restating what I just barely said.

The credibility of David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, and Martin Harris in claiming to have had this supernatural experience is the only issue because it is the only claim of authenticating the plates. The claimed experience of three different people does nothing to bolster the scope of what eight other people can say about their own observations. The Eight Witnesses can be summarily discounted regarding the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.