Decent Post on Proof and Evidence at Sic et Non

[_stemelbow]

I have to say that I find it far more incredible that, even if he was a fraudster, Joseph Smith would not have produced any kind of physical 'prop' designed to lead people to believe he actually had got the plates he claimed to have.

I agree that there is no way that the 8 witnesses were in a position to testify that Smith had translated from the plates (as opposed to testifying that he had told them that he had translated from the plates): the fact that they do none the less testify to this 'with words of soberness' greatly reduces the weight I am willing to place on them as independent witnesses to anything.

To compare here are their words, "And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shown unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken." The with words of soberness is clearly not addressing that which you have claimed. They weren't testifying they know Joseph Smith translated it, nor that it was a record of ancient origin.

[_Kishkumen]

Sure they believed he translated them. But the thrust of your testimony is that they got to look upon the plates. Joseph Smith had some plates. Now as to whether they were ancient, even if they seemed to be ancient to the witnesses, we don't get from the 8 witness testimony at all. Based on the 8 testimony alone, we have no reason to think the plates were actually ancient--only that they appeared to be by untrained eyes.

LOL! Yes, they were untrained eyes, as I have said for years now. Unfortunately, most of the people who received the testimony of the witnesses at the time had no idea why that is significant. Of course, most LDS people today don't understand why that is significant. But, you are, of course, persisting in wriggling around the point that, while technically the major claim is that there were plates, the testimony is constructed to get an attestation of their antiquity through the backdoor. After all, what sense would it make for Joseph Smith to translate plates that he ordered from the local coppersmith? Those who read this would assume that it would not make sense, and they would naturally make the leap to accepting the plates as ancient artifacts, which were translated by Joseph Smith.

The testimony is deliberately misleading. It was written by Joseph Smith, and the witnesses were asked to sign it. One wonders what they might have first attested if there had not been such an intervention on Smith's part. Unfortunately, Smith's authorial intervention represents a significant contamination of their testimony, as does his intervention in many similar visionary and miraculous experiences.

[_Kishkumen]

I agree that there is no way that the 8 witnesses were in a position to testify that Smith had translated from the plates (as opposed to testifying that he had told them that he had translated from the plates): the fact that they do none the less testify to this 'with words of soberness' greatly reduces the weight I am willing to place on them as independent witnesses to anything.

No kidding.

Well said, Chap.

[_stemelbow]

LOL! Yes, they were untrained eyes, as I have said for years now. Unfortunately, most of the people who received the testimony of the witnesses at the time had no idea why that is significant. Of course, most LDS people today don't understand why that is significant. But, you are, of course, persisting in wriggling around the point that, while technically the major claim is that there were plates, the testimony is constructed to get an attestation of their antiquity through the backdoor. After all, what sense would it make for Joseph Smith to translate plates that he ordered from the local coppersmith? Those who read this would assume that it would not make sense, and they would naturally make the leap to accepting the plates as ancient artifacts, which were translated by Joseph Smith.

The testimony is deliberately misleading. It was written by Joseph Smith, and the witnesses were asked to sign it. One wonders what they might have first attested if there had not been such an intervention on Smith's part. Unfortunately, Smith's authorial intervention represents a significant contamination of their testimony, as does his intervention in many similar visionary and miraculous experiences.

oh please. Anyone can make an assessment about whether plates look old or not. That's not deceptive. That was their view. I agree that if all we had was this witness, a good question would be did Joseph work to make them appear ancient?

You are surely taking this too far, I'd say.

[_Kishkumen]

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That Joseph Smith, Jun., the Author and Proprietor of this work, has shewn unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shewn unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken. And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it.

The bolded portion is where assumptions about the antiquity of the work and the claim that Joseph Smith translated the plates are let in the back door.

[_Kishkumen]

oh please. Anyone can make an assessment about whether plates look old or not. That's not deceptive. That was their view. I agree that if all we had was this witness, a good question would be did Joseph work to make them appear ancient?

Ha! Well, stem, that's not all that they sign their name to, is it? Their signature also relates to the part where they say that they touched the very leaves of the plates that Joseph Smith translated. In that, they are affirming that Joseph Smith translated them. It is assumed to be correct, without question.

[_Chap]

I have to say that I find it far more incredible that, even if he was a fraudster, Joseph Smith would not have produced any kind of physical 'prop' designed to lead people to believe he actually had got the plates he claimed to have.

I agree that there is no way that the 8 witnesses were in a position to testify that Smith had translated from the plates (as opposed to testifying that he had told them that he had translated from the plates): the fact that they do none the less testify to this 'with words of soberness' greatly reduces the weight I am willing to place on them as independent witnesses to anything.

To compare here are their words, "And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shown unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken." The with words of soberness is clearly not addressing that which you have claimed. They weren't testifying they know Joseph Smith translated it, nor that it was a record of ancient origin.

The testimony (my emphasis):

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That Joseph Smith, Jun., the Author and Proprietor of this work, has shewn unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shewn unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken. And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it.

I am happy for the reader to judge between stemelbow and me on the point of whether the testimony of the witnesses makes any sense on the basis that they were suspending judgement on whether Smith had or had not translated the plates they claimed to have seen.

by the way, I hope stemelbow is not suggesting that part of the witnesses' testimony was non-sober?

[_Buffalo]

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.

It's a common technique used by scam artists (psychics)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_readi ... _procedure

[_Kishkumen]

I am happy for the reader to judge between stemelbow and me on the point of whether the testimony of the witnesses makes any sense on the basis that they were suspending judgement on whether Smith had or had not translated the plates they claimed to have seen.

by the way, I hope stemelbow is not suggesting that part of the witnesses' testimony was non-sober?

I think stem believes that when he signs a document, he gets to choose which parts of the document he will be bound by.

This must extend to his mortgage, his car loan, his love letters to his spouse... you get the idea.

[_Kishkumen]

It's a common technique used by scam artists (psychics)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_readi ... _procedure

Yes, a lot of psychics use it. Dawkins had a great little BBC tv clip where he visited such folks to demonstrate the problem. I am not sure, however, that they are always cognizant of the problems involved. I actually think a fair number actually think that what they are doing is legitimate.