Decent Post on Proof and Evidence at Sic et Non

[_Kishkumen]

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.

I have to reiterate here that I do not find the Book of Mormon witnesses to be the kind of stuff that tilts even a secular judgment of the truth of Mormonism. In my view, the details surrounding the witnesses, when viewed through contemporary knowledge in the fields of archaeology, anthropology, sociology, psychology, history, and the study of shamanism, do nothing to move me in the direction of seeing the Book of Mormon as a record describing events that actually occurred among a civilization of ancient Hebrews living in the Americas.

Zero.

[_RayAgostini]

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.

I'll perhaps take a closer look at your arguments tomorrow, as I'm still a bit pressed for time (work-wise). Of course there are "other ways" of looking at it, but one must first take into account all of the recorded statements of a firsthand witness, then examine other possible interpretations.

It's Lyndon Cook, by the way, not Don Cook. He's not the author, but the editor.

[Guest]

It's Lyndon Cook, by the way, not Don Cook. He's not the author, but the editor.

Ah yes. Thanks for the correction. I could have sworn that he was in my father-in-law's ward and that he went by the nickname Don, but I might have confused him with someone else.

[_Darth J]

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.

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.

No, I did not "note previously" that the Three Witnesses are more difficult. It is merely that they are different. And it really doesn't matter whether they claimed to have had a supernatural experience confirming that the Book of Mormon is true. If the story told in the Book of Mormon does not match reality about the pre-Columbian Americas, that's the end of the story. You're one of the worst victims of the burden of proof fallacy. If the Book of Mormon is not the ancient historical record it claims to be, then I don't have to offer an alternative explanation for how it was created to know that it is a 19th-century fabrication. The failure to make a prima facie case for itself is sufficient to reject belief in it.

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.

Richard Lloyd Anderson, Book of Mormon Witnesses.

So it wasn't a case of "Joseph's Razor". It wasn't Joseph "who told them what to say", but the angel.

My comment about "Joseph's Razor" was referring to Mormon apologetics.

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.

It's not simply a matter of believing in angels and miracles. Even allowing for the existence of angels and the occurrence of miracles, the issues is whether the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be. If it isn't, then that concludes the argument. I'm really not interested in a God who hides all the evidence supporting a reasonable belief in his message, but sends an angel to three guys whose words I'm just supposed to trust irrespective of objective reality. If God wants us to depend on angels instead of fact, then he can send an angel to me and tell me so.

[_Darth J]

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.

You're not advocating for an open mind. You are advocating for an empty mind. The pious gullibility you so admire can be used to justify belief in anything.

[_RayAgostini]

You're not advocating for an open mind. You are advocating for an empty mind. The pious gullibility you so admire can be used to justify belief in anything.

I think that reveals your whole raison d'etre, which is why it's pretty pointless trying to argue with your dogma. But by all means, enjoy your 15 minutes of fame here.

[_Kishkumen]

I think this is also pretty interesting in the context of the current discussion:

Mrs. Sarah N. Williams Reynolds of Salt Lake City, dictated the following highly important statement to the Compiler of this book: I was a close neighbor of Philo Dibble who visited me very often. He had been very familiar and intimately acquainted with the Prophet Joseph Smith, and took great delight in rehearsing his wealth of information concerning this acquaintance. Brother Dibble stated to me that the Prophet Joseph told him in connection with the others who were present in Father Johnson’s home at the time the Vision was given to the Prophet Joseph and Sidney Rigdon, that (the Prophet speaking): ‘My whole body was full of light and I could even see out at the ends of my fingers and toes.

Again, here we have an account of Joseph describing to others who were present on the occasion of his vision that his whole body was full of light. How are we to take that? Is this something they should have been able to see? Or not? I find it ambiguous. Light is a very visual phenomenon, so those who are asked to envision Joseph as filled with light will likely engage their imaginations such that they come to recall the occasion in that way. The tendency to narrate his internal experience in visual terms to others who are present and thus influence how they perceive the event seems to come as second nature to Joseph Smith.

[_EAllusion]

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

I think that's much more likely. That's why I said, "Are their any other hypotheses that better account for the witness testimony? I bet you say yes."

I'm just pointing out there are perfectly respectable ways to understand what evidence is that would allow for the witnesses' testimony to count as evidence of the existence of ancient plates. You argued that it would only count as evidence for the existence of some sort of plates or objects with heft. In court, probably, but that's because that's what the witness testimony acts as a piece of somewhat decent evidence for.

I don't find DCP's basic assertion all that objectionable. I think he's a bit oblivious to ideas about what constitutes evidence that would kneecap some of his assertions, but it's not that big of a deal to allow for the fact that Mormonism has some evidence in its favor. That's true in the same way that the idea intergalactic dictator Xenu brought billions of his people to Earth in a DC-8-like spacecraft 75 million years ago, stacked them around volcanoes, and killed them using hydrogen bombs has evidence in its favor is true.

[_Darth J]

You're not advocating for an open mind. You are advocating for an empty mind. The pious gullibility you so admire can be used to justify belief in anything.

I think that reveals your whole raison d'etre, which is why it's pretty pointless trying to argue with your dogma. But by all means, enjoy your 15 minutes of fame here.

Yes, Ray. "Dogma" means the failure to believe any story that anyone has to tell.

[_RayAgostini]

Yes, Ray. "Dogma" means the failure to believe any story that anyone has to tell.

I don't believe most of what you have to say or righteously opine about.

Word Story

At the turn of the 17th century, dogma entered English from the Latin term meaning “philosophical tenet.” The Greek word from which it is borrowed means “that which one thinks is true,” and comes ultimately from the Greek dokein which means “to seem good” or “think.”
The origin of the word dogma acts as a reminder to English speakers that now-established principals and doctrines were once simply thoughts and opinions of ordinary people that gained popularity and eventually found their way into the universal consciousness of society. 20th century American academic and aphorist Mason Cooley concisely observed that “Under attack, sentiments harden into dogma, suggesting that dogma is spawned as a defensive act. This idea implies that for every dogma that exists, there is a counter dogma. With so many “truths” out there, there is sure to be a dogma to conveniently fit every set of beliefs.

The bold suits you to a tee.