Evidences...what does the word mean to you

[_Runtu]

Sorry, Q. I'm going to have to move on with the majority rules opinion. Your the only one of the many who have chimed in who says it ain't evidence of nuttin'.

love ya tons,
stem

So, now that we have established that there is at least evidence in the form of testimony that 11 people saw plates, what exactly do you think that counts for?

[_Tchild]

You first have to establish that what we're talking about is evidence of something (anything). I don't believe that you've done that. It sounds like your planning a little debate Ju Jitsu.

Sorry, Q. I'm going to have to move on with the majority rules opinion. Your the only one of the many who have chimed in who says it ain't evidence of nuttin'.

love ya tons,
stem

I am going to side with Stem and provide additional evidences of "gold colored plates", that I found just by googling it on the internet. This ought to make it tougher for critics to counter.



Just teasing you stem.

[_Darth J]

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

No, you misrepresenting what I said does not clarify anything. I did not say anything about "not evidence." I commented on the hearsay remark. This is exactly what I said:

No, it's not tantamount to hearsay. It is hearsay.

Then I cited the Federal Rule of Evidence that defines hearsay.

I then said that their testimony IS evidence that they saw some plates.

On the other hand, if you are merely trying to prove that the Eight Witnesses were shown a set of plates that they could not possibly have authenticated, then it is not hearsay.

You are being blatantly intellectually dishonest. You repeatedly mischaracterize what I say, you act as if you are scoring points by continuing to argue about undisputed issues, and you are being disingenuous about what you are trying to establish in this thread. The OP is asking about evidence of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, but you keep making vague references to "the evidence" without specifying evidence of what. Deliberately equivocating like that is your attempt to look like you are proving things that you haven't.

I'm being serious that this thread is simply a war of attrition for stemelbow to claim victory by out-stupiding everyone else.

What Runtu said is not an analogy. He wasn't comparing one thing to another thing.

Pep pep...you just called Runtu stupid and probably didn't realize it.

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

can we get back on track.

Translation: "Can we move away from arguments directly on point to the OP but that I can't answer?"

Earlier Sock Puppet, by far the most reasonable critic whose participated ont his thread it seems to me, made room for us to move on to another claimed evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith' story regarding it--the 3 witnesses. If you wish, let's consider it, and determine if it can constitute evidence for that which it claims.

Here's that intellectual dishonesty again: "to move on to another claimed evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon...."

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.

[_stemelbow]

So, now that we have established that there is at least evidence in the form of testimony that 11 people saw plates, what exactly do you think that counts for?

I don't' know if this is tongue in cheek or not...I've already explained this. For the 8, in particular it counts for evidence that Joseph Smith had golden colored plates with engravings ont hem, as he claimed. For the 3 it counts for evidence that 3 people heard God tell them Joseph Smith translated the plates, which are of ancient Origin, pretty much.

love ya tons,
stem

[_Darth J]

I am going to side with Stem and provide additional evidences of "gold colored plates", that I found just by googling it on the internet. This ought to make it tougher for critics to counter.

I'll see your gold plates, and raise you evidence that Darth Vader was a real person.

See? Here's his helmet. How could someone have his helmet if he wasn't a real person?

[_Quasimodo]

You first have to establish that what we're talking about is evidence of something (anything). I don't believe that you've done that. It sounds like your planning a little debate Ju Jitsu.

Sorry, Q. I'm going to have to move on with the majority rules opinion. Your the only one of the many who have chimed in who says it ain't evidence of nuttin'.

love ya tons,
stem

Never the less...

The old question: "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?" is usually quoted as a philosophical question. It's actually a lesson in legal confrontation.

You first get your opponent to agree that the definition of "sound" is something making a noise and someone hearing it. Then you have them.

Am I the only one that sees this coming?

[_Runtu]

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).

[_schreech]

It would be nice if it were possible to send DJ and this new character into a thread title "Let's attack stemelbow endlessly". Then we could at least focus on the discussion at hand.

Schreech, I do not hold to the view that if someone claims to see something that means that something ipso facto exists. your strawman is an adorable show if its an attempt to whine about me, but it is a strawman, sadly for your sakes. I encourage you to engage in the topic/subject of the thread.

love ya tons,
stem

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

[_Runtu]

I don't' know if this is tongue in cheek or not...I've already explained this. For the 8, in particular it counts for evidence that Joseph Smith had golden colored plates with engravings ont hem, as he claimed.

True enough.

For the 3 it counts for evidence that 3 people heard God tell them Joseph Smith translated the plates, which are of ancient Origin, pretty much.

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?

[_stemelbow]

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.

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.

love ya tons,
stem