Decent Post on Proof and Evidence at Sic et Non

[_stemelbow]

You have conceded in this thread that nobody seriously disputes that claim. So what's the reason for trying to prove an undisputed claim?

You are correct, as far as I can tell, no one poses a serious dispute when they say Joseph Smith didn't have plates. The evidence for such a claim is too solid. he did. Even you, an avowed critic, must take the position that he had some plates.

(Noting, of course, that the plates "appeared ancient" according to the assumptions of 8 people unqualified to determine what ancient plates would have looked like.)

Considering the qualified statements around here, their assessment should fit in well amongst this crowd. Odd that you keep complaining about it.

[_Darth J]

I don't think he has established any case apart from the fact that Mormon apologetics requires dialectical flexibility of a high order.

Oh brother....they whole discipline is bad, therefore everyone involved it in it bad--is that it? Oh brother.

"Huh? Duh? Wut?"

[_keithb]

These Mopologist sermons on evidence invariably leave out two crucial concepts: foundation and relevance...

This post deserves to be forever pinned as its own closed thread. It should be required reading for anyone who visits MDB. It is, simply put, fantastic. You really should write something more formal on this and submit it to Sunstone or Dialogue. I kid you not.

+1,000,000

[_Buffalo]

It's sad that Stem feels he needs to misrepresent the witnesses testimony just to further his arguments.

But it was happy when you and Dehlin attempted to misrepresent the words of DCP--suggesting DCP was calling a writing in criticism of Dehlin as alleged rather than calling a "hit piece" or "smear" alleged. Don't worry I find your words here to be very disingenuous, not as anything to be helpful.

That's exactly what DCP said. When pressed you were unable to explain how to separate the "alleged" from its hit pieceness or articleness. If you've figured out how to do it now, do so, otherwise you cannot claim misrepresentation.

[_keithb]

I am sorry if my last post was ambiguous. I also appreciated Darth J's post, and I think that he should write an article for Sunstone on the subject. Thank you.

[_Darth J]

You have conceded in this thread that nobody seriously disputes that claim. So what's the reason for trying to prove an undisputed claim?

You are correct, as far as I can tell, no one poses a serious dispute when they say Joseph Smith didn't have plates. The evidence for such a claim is too solid. he did. Even you, an avowed critic, must take the position that he had some plates.

You keep reiterating this "avowed critic" thing, as if I was born this way and have never been any different. You also keep saying "even you" must acknowledge that Joseph Smith had some plates, as if you've scored a point. Not only do you not score points by claiming to have proven an undisputed issue, you're still oblivious to how "Joseph showed some plates to a small group of his close friends and relatives" doesn't help Mormonism. It hurts it. It is consistent with standard operating procedure in a con game. I've said that many times, including in this thread.

(Noting, of course, that the plates "appeared ancient" according to the assumptions of 8 people unqualified to determine what ancient plates would have looked like.)

Considering the qualified statements around here, their assessment should fit in well amongst this crowd. Odd that you keep complaining about it.

Stemelbow, please state with specificity what qualifications the Eight Witnesses, individually or collectively, had to determine what ancient metal plates would have looked like. (Hint: that the plates looked conveniently like what they assumed ancient plates would have looked like does not help you. Cf. the Kinderhook Plates.)

[_Kishkumen]

But, to go after FAIR folks for doing as much and then cheering on DJ while he does the same thing, without any attempt to condemn makes your complaints seem hollow.

Stem, I try more than most people to give you the benefit of the doubt, in spite of the abundant evidence of your trolling behavior. That you want to make me out to be DJ's cheering section in slamming you, when I have tried to engage on the issues of the text is pretty lame.

Not really. They can say Joseph translated the plates and not really know if he did. They assume he did. That is not deception.

As I have said multiple times on this thread, I am not attributing a deceptive act to them. Clearly, I have argued that the deception would be Joseph Smith's, since he is the one who authored the document.

By signing this I do not suppose my testimony is to confirm he really is a professor at a school.

Darth J already handled this well. The testimony says clearly that he "translated" the leaves. This is a verb, not a title.

Unbeknownst to me or you, a little later down the road of life, people also protest that Kishkumen is/was a professor at a school, "bona fide" as they say. Well my statement should not be used to verify your status of professor because even though I agree in part that you are a professor I do not have any verification. My statement is not evidence of the claim that you are a professor. Also, there is no reason to think you or I had attempted any deception in the signed statement, because neither of us really used your status as professor as the thrust of what I was to testify too.

Stem, your imaginary scenario does not address in any way the elephant in the room: the translation of the plates is not some incidental fact. It is an astounding and incredible claim. The act of slipping it in as though it were something akin to referring to the fact that I am a professor is, again, highly suspicious. The claim is not incidental. The claim to have translated the plates and the claim that they existed are related to each other in a substantive way that cannot be dismissed as your ludicrous example would have us believe. Your suggestion is pure idiocy.

[_Darth J]

Kishkumen:

The problem appears to be that Stemelbow wants to say in effect that "professor of classics" and "slayer of the Minotaur" are both merely descriptive titles that are not question-begging in any way whatsoever.

[_Kishkumen]

Kishkumen:

The problem appears to be that Stemelbow wants to say in effect that "professor of classics" and "slayer of the Minotaur" are both merely descriptive titles that are not question-begging in any way whatsoever.

I had no idea he saw professors as beings of such mythological and awesome status. Well, we do wear steel underpants to prevent our fans from stealing our virtue!

[_Darth J]

Kishkumen:

The problem appears to be that Stemelbow wants to say in effect that "professor of classics" and "slayer of the Minotaur" are both merely descriptive titles that are not question-begging in any way whatsoever.

I had no idea he saw professors as beings of such mythological and awesome status. Well, we do wear steel underpants to prevent our fans from stealing our virtue!

Well, see, I know you're a professor of classics, so when I say you are the "slayer of the Minotaur" and that you showed me the bones of "the Minotaur that you slew," those are just descriptive terms to identify who you are. No reasonable person would take that as an implication that the Minotaur was a real thing and you killed it.

However, my statement is still valid circumstantial evidence that the Minotaur was real and you are its slayer.