Evidences...what does the word mean to you

[_Runtu]

Everyone else, aside from Runtu who hasn't offered his opinion yet, agrees that the testimony of the 8 constitutes evidence in favor of Joseph Smith' claim that he had golden colored plates with engravings on them.

I've said many times before what I think about the witnesses: they saw something that they thought were ancient plates. Other than that, I don't think you can say anything definitive about the witness statements. Even if you grant that they actually did see plates, their testimony is of no value in determining that the plates were made by ancient prophets or that Joseph Smith translated them correctly.

In short, people make way too much of the witness testimony.

My question is...is there evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon's authenticity, including Joseph Smith' story of how he got it and thereby created the Book of Mormon?

Sure, there's evidence, but nothing compelling, and certainly nothing that overcomes the problems with Joseph Smith's story.

[_Runtu]

Its been tough staying on course here. This is discussing whether the evidences claimed in favor of the Book of Mormon and the Book of Mormon story of how it came to be as told by Joseph Smith, can really be considered as evidences for the claims which they address. So in the case of the 8 witnesses, does such provide evidence that Joseph Smith indeed did have golden colored plates with engravings on them? yes or no. Everyone else participating in this thread has offered his/her opinion.

love,
stem

I'm sorry you had trouble with my analogy. In short, testimony that they saw something isn't evidence that what they saw was ancient gold plates. The witness testimony is evidence they saw plates, but says nothing about whether what they saw was the record of the Nephites.

[_stemelbow]

stem elbow,

Perhaps we could simplify this.

It appears this, what you are saying, is only muddying the waters.

Do you believe that Smith showed his friends and family(a.k.a. witnesses) a set of plates?

Sure. Do you?

OK, do you believe that Smith could have made these plates or paid someone to make them?

Sure. Do you?

The hard and fact fact that we have is that these family and friends of Joseph Smith did claim to have seen and handled something that Joseph Smith claimed was ancient records from white/hebrew native americans.

We have zero credible evidence proving what Smith showed his family and friends was what he claimed.

Such is your opinion, I suppose. We can consider all the claimed evidence, as laid out, and determine whether there is really any evidence. Working with DJ and Quasi in this thread, makes me question whether we'll ever be able to do such. I hope you don't follow their path of muddying it up to pointlessness.

Since all of these witnesses were related to Smith either through blood or marriage and that the "plates" were never shown to any unbiased third party, I am confident that the "plates" were nothing more than a prop.

Good. You weighed the evidence, it seems. At least some of the evidence. No big deal. I'm not seeking peoples conclusions based on the evidence. This is about discussing the evidence itself.

Do you believe that Smith could have fabricated a prop elaborate enough to fool his family and friends with their very limited examination?

I've already answered this previously. Of course Smith could have created them.

Now then, do we have any physical evidence from other translations claimed by Smith?

YES, the papyrus, from the Book of Abraham translation.

Does any of the evidence support Smiths claim of his translation?

NO.

Well this can be something considered later on. I think there are plenty who'd disagree with you on this. we can discuss any evidences one by one.

Therefore in my view, and perhaps many here, this points to one thing and one thing only. Smith was a charlatan.

I appreciate your opinion for what it is. Again this is just analyzing claimed evidences and attempts to determine whether they truly are evidence for that which they claim.

love ya tons,
stem

[_stemelbow]

I've said many times before what I think about the witnesses: they saw something that they thought were ancient plates. Other than that, I don't think you can say anything definitive about the witness statements. Even if you grant that they actually did see plates, their testimony is of no value in determining that the plates were made by ancient prophets or that Joseph Smith translated them correctly.

In short, people make way too much of the witness testimony.

this thread is really not going to concern oursevles with questions that lie outside the realm of what the claimed evidence purports to be. I am not saying the 8 witness testimony is anything other than evidence that Joseph Smith had gold-colored plates with engravings on them.

Sure, there's evidence, but nothing compelling, and certainly nothing that overcomes the problems with Joseph Smith's story.

We can weigh the evidence later on. We need to stay focused in this discussion, i think, lest we carry this in directions not intended.

love ya tons,
stem

[_Quasimodo]

I'm sorry you had trouble with my analogy. In short, testimony that they saw something isn't evidence that what they saw was ancient gold plates. The witness testimony is evidence they saw plates, but says nothing about whether what they saw was the record of the Nephites.

At the risk of splitting hairs (and I do argree with most of what you said, Runtu) I have to say at least one more time (promise, the last), that the testimony does not constitute evidence that the witnesses SAW any plates (real or fabricated).

We only have the word of Joseph Smith's pals that they did and only by signing a pre-written statement by Little Joe. It just doesn't hold up as evidence for anything. Sine die

[_stemelbow]

I'm sorry you had trouble with my analogy. In short, testimony that they saw something isn't evidence that what they saw was ancient gold plates. The witness testimony is evidence they saw plates, but says nothing about whether what they saw was the record of the Nephites.

Absolutely no trouble with your analogy. Just trouble with your lack of addressing the questions/points raised. It seems you agreed that the testimony of the 8 provides us evidence that Joseph Smith did indeed have gold-colored plates with engravings on them, but you seem unclear here. which is it? One clear answer, yes or no?

love ya tons,
stem

[_Darth J]

Okay.

It seems Quasimodo has convinced DJ, who formerly admitted that the testimony of the 8 was evidence that Joseph Smith had golden colored plates with engravings on them, that the testimony of the 8 is not evidence of what the 8 claimed to see and touch. So we have Q and DJ saying it is not evidence of such...it is merely hearsay. Everyone else, aside from Runtu who hasn't offered his opinion yet, agrees that the testimony of the 8 constitutes evidence in favor of Joseph Smith' claim that he had golden colored plates with engravings on them.

P.J. O'Rourke said in one of his books that there are some kinds of stupid that can't be faked. The above post is the kind of thing he was talking about.

I specifically said in the post where I quoted Federal Rule of Evidence 801 that the testimony of the witnesses is hearsay with respect to the plates they saw being an ancient Nephite record, but that it is not hearsay with respect to them seeing some metal plates.

"Formerly admitted that the testimony of the 8 was evidence that Joseph Smith had golden colored plates with engravings on them...." Seriously, are you this desperate that you have to act as if I'm "admitting" something that was never in dispute? Sure, I "admit" this. I also "admit" that Joseph Smith was born in Vermont, that he was murdered in 1844, and that he got some Egyptian artifacts from a traveling showman named Michael Chandler. Wow, look at all these points I'm conceding! All these concessions must prove how strong a case the faith-promoting narrative really has!

[_stemelbow]

At the risk of splitting hairs (and I do argree with most of what you said, Runtu) I have to say at least one more time (promise, the last), that the testimony does not constitute evidence that the witnesses SAW any plates (real or fabricated).

We only have the word of Joseph Smith's pals that they did and only by signing a pre-written statement by Little Joe. It just doesn't hold up as evidence for anything. Sine die

I don't' know about anyone else, but I'm clear on your opinion, on the matter.

love ya tons,
stem

[_Runtu]

At the risk of splitting hairs (and I do argree with most of what you said, Runtu) I have to say at least one more time (promise, the last), that the testimony does not constitute evidence that the witnesses SAW any plates (real or fabricated).

Let me clarify. I don't think it's proof that they saw plates, but it certainly is evidence. That it's not very good evidence wasn't my point.

We only have the word of Joseph Smith's pals that they did and only by signing a pre-written statement by Little Joe. It just doesn't hold up as evidence for anything. Sine die

I know what you mean. The witness stuff is very poor evidence and proof of nothing.

[_stemelbow]

P.J. O'Rourke said in one of his books that there are some kinds of stupid that can't be faked. The above post is the kind of thing he was talking about.

I specifically said in the post where I quoted Federal Rule of Evidence 801 that the testimony of the witnesses is hearsay with respect to the plates they saw being an ancient Nephite record, but that it is not hearsay with respect to them seeing some metal plates.

"Formerly admitted that the testimony of the 8 was evidence that Joseph Smith had golden colored plates with engravings on them...." Seriously, are you this desperate that you have to act as if I'm "admitting" something that was never in dispute? Sure, I "admit" this. I also "admit" that Joseph Smith was born in Vermont, that he was murdered in 1844, and that he got some Egyptian artifacts from a traveling showman named Michael Chandler. Wow, look at all these points I'm conceding! All these concessions must prove how strong a case the faith-promoting narrative really has!

DJ, Considering all the confusion you have offered on this topic of discussion I'm not too concerned that I confused what you were saying here. I appreciate the clarification though, 'cause I simply can't figger anyone agreeing with Quasi's opinion on the matter.

This is what Quasi said which you responded to in agreement after he clarified that the testimony of the 8 is not evidence that there were any actual plates:

But, it's NOT evidence. Nor could it be construed that way in any court. It's tantamount to hearsay.

you agreed with him that its not evidence there were ever any plates at all. I hope this clarifies how you confused the issue.

love ya tons,
stem