Decent Post on Proof and Evidence at Sic et Non

[_Gadianton]

I think Darth J's post is dealing with a notion of evidence as it exists in a legal context rather than it is more broad sense

If this is true, then it's amazing that the Mopologists have honed in on theories of evidence so incompatible with their case. Legal defenses and Kuhn. lol.

I agree with you though, that it's tough to say there is no theory by which evidence could be claimed for the Book of Mormon. You gave a good example, I didn't think about that at all. To say critics can deny evidence for the Book of Mormon as a strong claim would require questions about epistemology and the philosophy of science to be resolved that haven't been resolved and probably won't be resolved.

Of course, where Darth J might be particularly strong -- and bear in mind I have NOT read the essay he is responding to -- is in a competitive interpretation of what appear to be the same basic assumptions about run-of-the-mill evidential reasoning.

[Guest]

An analysis of the Three Witnesses might prove a bit more difficult, as you noted previously, and the same level of skepticism is more difficult to maintain there.

Then they heard the voice of God, and. Joseph reported it exactly as the witnesses remembered it. The Lord said: "These plates have been revealed by the power of God, and they have been translated by the power of God. The translation of them which you have seen is correct, and I command you to bear record of what you now see and hear."6 As the vision closed, Joseph went and found Martin. The two men knelt in prayer, and the same revelation was repeated for them. Then they all returned to the house, as Lucy described.

I have a question for you, Ray. According to the quote you offered here, it looks as though Joseph has appointed himself the mouthpiece for all of the three witnesses to the plates: "Joseph reported it exactly as the witnesses remembered it." Did he? How do we know? Are we to take his word for it?

One of the things about all of the witnesses that troubles me is Joseph Smith's hand intervening all over the place in ways that seem to be designed to fix the results. In my view this just does not look credible.

It wasn't Joseph "who told them what to say", but the angel. Of course, if you don't believe in angels and miracles, that can easily be swept aside as evidence. In fact, you can throw out the whole New Testament too.

Are you sure it wasn't Joseph who told them what to say? We know that he often served as the mouthpiece of God. Who's to say he was not also the mouthpiece of the angel? Look at the vision of the degrees of glory. Was there not talking going on through the vision in which these gentlemen reported out loud what they were seeing? It reminds me very much of the interaction between Samuel Lawrence and Joseph Smith when they were looking into the seerstone to see the plates. Joseph told Samuel what he saw, and then Samuel said he also so spectacles... then presto!: the Urim and Thummim was first born.

It seems to me that shared visions as composed through live reporting of the two participants was not uncommon.

Check this out:

Joseph believed that one Samuel T. Lawrence was the man alluded to by the spirit, and went with him to a singular looking hill, in Manchester, and shewed him where the treasure was. Lawrence asked him if he had ever discovered any thing with the plates of gold; he said no: he then asked him to look in his stone, to see if there was any thing with them. He looked, and said there was nothing; he told him to look again, and see if there was not a large pair of specks with the plates; he looked and soon saw a pair of spectacles, the same with which Joseph says he translated the Book of Mormon. Lawrence told him it would not be prudent to let these plates be seen for about two years, as it would make a great disturbance in the neighborhood. Not long after this, Joseph altered his mind, and said L. was not the right man, nor had he told him the right place.

[_RayAgostini]

I have a question for you, Ray. According to the quote you offered here, it looks as though Joseph has appointed himself the mouthpiece for all of the three witnesses to the plates: "Joseph reported it exactly as the witnesses remembered it." Did he? How do we know? Are we to take his word for it?

No, there's no need to take his word alone.

Daniel C. Peterson, David Whitmer Interviews: A Restoration Witness.

[_Kishkumen]

No, there's no need to take his word alone.

Daniel C. Peterson, David Whitmer Interviews: A Restoration Witness.

Yes, but Ray, you are not taking my entire post into account here. Sure, after Joseph conducted these proceedings and they had come to buy into it all, they were willing to say that this had happened, that they had really seen this stuff, etc. But look at the way these visions work. There is something fishy about Joseph saying to some guy, "hey, do you see "x" now?" and then he replies, "why, yes, I do see "x"!" You see the problem, right?

[_Kishkumen]

Check out Philo Dibble's account of the shared vision of the Three Degrees of Glory:

Joseph would, at intervals, say: ‘What do I see?’ Then he would relate what he had seen or what he was looking at. Then Sidney replied, ‘I see the same.’ Presently Sidney would say, ‘What do I see?’ and would repeat what he had seen or was seeing, and Joseph would reply, ‘I see the same.’ This manner of conversation was repeated at short intervals to the end of the vision, and during the whole time not a word was spoken by any other person. Not a sound nor motion made by anyone but Joseph and Sidney, and it seemed to me that they never moved a joint or limb during the time I was there, which I think was over an hour, and to the end of the vision. Joseph sat firmly and calmly all the time in the midst of a magnificent glory, but Sidney sat limp and pale, apparently as limber as a rag, observing which Joseph remarked, smilingly, ‘Sidney is not used to it as I am.’

Having Joseph say to Sidney, "Hey, Sid, this is what I see, do you see it too?" before other people is, again, highly suspect, since I can think of lots of reasons why Sidney might either be influenced by suggestion or feel pressured to agree that he had seen this stuff even when he had not. I don't think it passes the smell test. It is also remarkable how well this account squares with the Willard Chase account of Samuel Lawrence, Joseph Smith's treasure digging partner, and Joseph, looking at the plates through Samuel's seer stone, and Joseph being told to see the spectacles by Lawrence. You see how this works.

[_RayAgostini]

Yes, but Ray, you are not taking my entire post into account here. Sure, after Joseph conducted these proceedings and they had come to buy into it all, they were willing to say that this had happened, that they had really seen this stuff, etc. But look at the way these visions work. There is something fishy about Joseph saying to some guy, "hey, do you see "x" now?" and then he replies, "why, yes, I do see "x"!" You see the problem, right?

Some kind of skepticism is always in order, but you really have to read Lyndon Cook's book, and Whitmer's statements (I've read it twice). I think this was DCP's point in his blog post. It's not necessarily a "slam dunk", particularly for those who lean heavily to the more skeptical side, but at the same time it's not easy to dismiss outright. Even "Gentile" reporters said believe Whitmer or not, it was impossible to doubt that he believed it.

[_Kishkumen]

Some kind of skepticism is always in order, but you really have to read Lyndon Cook's book, and Whitmer's statements (I've read it twice). I think this was DCP's point in his blog post. It's not necessarily a "slam dunk", particularly for those who lean heavily to the more skeptical side, but at the same time it's not easy to dismiss outright. Even "Gentile" reporters said believe Whitmer or not, it was impossible to doubt that he believed it.

So he came to believe it. OK. And lots of people come to believe lots of things. I want to see where the rubber meets the road here. In Joseph Smith's world, you essentially have a mantic culture in which one seer plays the lead role in a vision, and starts out by saying what he sees, then he asks his compadres to affirm that they have seen it too. This is a blueprint for the entire witnessing structure of not only known situations in the treasure digging group, but also of the Book of Mormon, and other visions. In any of these cases it is very easy to see how suggestion and peer pressure work to turn verbal accounts of visions into witnesses that these things happened and were seen. One can also observe how these things are composed in the process of their unfolding.

I also think it is cool that Samuel Lawrence, not Joseph Smith, was the first to "see" the spectacles with the plates.

There you have it, independent prophetic testimony of the truth of the Book of Mormon plates and Nephite artifacts. The heretofore unrecognized Twelfth Witness. Poor guy got the shaft.

[_RayAgostini]

So he came to believe it. OK. And lots of people come to believe lots of things. I want to see where the rubber meets the road here. In Joseph Smith's world, you essentially have a mantic culture in which one seer plays the lead role in a vision, and starts out by saying what he sees, then he asks his compadres to affirm that they have seen it too. This is a blueprint for the entire witnessing structure of not only known situations in the treasure digging group, but also of the Book of Mormon, and other visions. In any of these cases it is very easy to see how suggestion and peer pressure work to turn verbal accounts of visions into witnesses that these things happened and were witnessed. One can also observe how these things are composed in the process of their unfolding.

Perhaps it would be wise to read Cook first, and then make a decision. I agree with DCP's basic points (I think you did too, in the OP?)

The claims of Mormonism are, I think, right about where they're supposed to be: Not so obviously true as to coerce acceptance, and not so obviously false as to make acceptance illegitimate.

I'm can't agree with my fellow believers who imagine that the evidence for Mormonism is so strong that only deliberate, willful blindness can explain failure to be persuaded. But I also reject the claim of detractors of Mormonism, that its falsehood is so transparently obvious that only naked dishonesty or ignorance can account for failure to recognize it.

All that said, though, I personally think that there are certain pieces of evidence -- I've always ranked the testimonies of the Witnesses high among them -- that tilt even a secular judgment toward the truth of Mormonism. But critics nonetheless can, and do, reject those testimonies.

If your mind is made up, then nothing is likely to change it, but I think it's wise to at least keep an open mind, and if nothing else to at least conclude it's a possibility, maybe even a strong one. Better to remain agnostic, perhaps, than outrightly conclude it's "chicanery". That's my view, anyway, and why I hesitate to rush to the "fraud" argument.

[_Kishkumen]

Perhaps it would be wise to read Cook first, and then make a decision. I agree with DCP's basic points (I think you did too, in the OP?)

Does he directly address the point I have made above about the way visions and witnessing seem to work in Joseph Smith's direct environment? I notice that you have yet to engage my argument.

If your mind is made up, then nothing is likely to change it, but I think it's wise to at least keep an open mind, and if nothing else to at least conclude it's a possibility, maybe even a strong one. Better to remain agnostic, perhaps, than outrightly conclude it's "chicanery". That's my view, anyway, and why I hesitate to rush to the "fraud" argument.

I don't think my mind is totally made up. What bothers me is that apologists come here not being able to address the points I am making. I know you are not an apologist, but I would like you to address my argument. If you think there is a weakness in it, it would be helpful to me for you to point that out.

In any case, what I think I am saying here is that it tends to look like what we would view as chicanery. I actually don't favor that conception of it, and I have tried to formulate other ways of looking at it, which I got slammed for, by the way. What I think it is unwise to do is not to meet the issue head on and deal with the arguments. If you have something to offer by way of refutation, I would appreciate it. At present, the Don Cook suggestion is noted, but on its own it isn't all that compelling.

[_Darth J]

I think Darth J's post is dealing with a notion of evidence as it exists in a legal context rather than its more broad sense. There are perfectly respectable theories of what constitutes evidence that would count Book of Mormon witness testimony as evidence of the reality of ancient plates. It wouldn't be particularly good evidence for the reasons Darth points out, but it would be evidence.

Take a Bayesian definition of evidence:

P(h|e) = P(h) * ( P(e|h) / P(e) )

P(h) is the probability that the hypothesis is true given only the background information. This is often referred to as the prior probability. P(h|e) is the probability that h is true given the the observations under analysis. P(e|h) is the probability we'd see the observations given the hypothesis. And P(e) is the unconditional probability of the observations alone. Because P(h|e) is going to be > P(h) in this case, we can say it counts as evidence support. Evidence is any e where P(h|e) is > P(h).

Granted the witness testimony doesn't add all that much confirmation and the prior probability is quite low, but on this definition of evidential support it qualifies. Witnesses saying they had some sort of physical contact with something plate like is expected given the faithful version events moreso than if it were to occur just randomly. So the theory has received a little bit of confirmation.

Now suppose we add in the comparative principle I mentioned in my first post. Are their any other hypotheses that better account for the witness testimony? I bet you say yes.

See the issue?

It think this is all pretty trivial at the end of the day. The quality of the case of Mormonism doesn't really depend on technical distinctions in what constitutes evidence and it is no coup for the apologist or great fault for the critic to allow their to be some evidence for Mormonism. At the end of the day it's terribly uncompelling no matter the distinction.

Now run the Bayesian analysis of whether the plates the Eight Witnesses saw were a forgery.