Decent Post on Proof and Evidence at Sic et Non
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 12064
- Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:33 pm
Re: Decent Post on Proof and Evidence at Sic et Non
Ray, God knows I love ya, but you have some serious rage issues.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 21373
- Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm
Re: Decent Post on Proof and Evidence at Sic et Non
liz3564 wrote:Actually, I think that Kish has done a very nice job in balancing opposing points of view on the topic without attacking Dan personally, and, even giving kudos to Dan on portions of his article.
Thank you, Liz.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
Re: Decent Post on Proof and Evidence at Sic et Non
Kishkumen wrote:I think that these things are worthy of serious consideration.
And they are seriously considered, Kish, and still under consideration. Life is a journey.
Re: Decent Post on Proof and Evidence at Sic et Non
Buffalo wrote:Ray, God knows I love ya, but you have some serious rage issues.
Meet me in the square at lunchtime. If I'm not there, start without me.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 5872
- Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:40 pm
Re: Decent Post on Proof and Evidence at Sic et Non
Darth J wrote:Yes, Board Readers, stemelbow is serious. I have repeatedly stated in this thread it is an undisputed fact that Joseph Smith showed some plates to the Eight Witnesses, and that I think this hurts Mormonism instead of helping because it is consistent with a con game.
Who cares if it helps or hurts Mormonism. The positive is, the 8 witness testimony was indeed evidence that convinced even you, an avowed critic. 'Tis cute that you continue to miss that. You claim it can't be evidence, but when you consider you are convinced, in part, I'm sure, due to this testimony, that Joseph Smith had plates that at least appeared ancient to untrained eyes, and had writings on them, then your complaint of no evidence is refuted. A claim by Joseph Smith was that he had metalic plates, that appeared ancient, with writings on them, no? I know you won't answer, but I'll put it out there again.
It certainly did in your case, in Daniel Peterson's case, and in many others. You are trying to use the Testimony of the Eight Witnesses as circumstantial evidence that the Book of Mormon is true because you are buying into fallacious reasoning as intended.
I guess we'll see when you answer my question. I haven't said anything about what you keep trying to say I say or am trying to do. Did Joseph Smith claim he had metalic plates, that appeared ancient, with writings on them?
There is no foundation for the Eight Witnesses having any idea as to the authenticity of the object they were shown, so their testimony is not valid evidence.
Yet, even you an avowed critic is happy to concede that their testimony worked--you think Joseph Smith did have ancient looking plates with writings on them.
Additionally, you have to believe Joseph Smith's story to believe that the Testimony of the Eight Witnesses establishes anything. But if you believe Joseph Smith's story, you necessarily believe he had the golden plates, making the Eight Witnesses irrelevant.
And yet, you are forced to accept it as relevant in that Joseph Smith" claim of having metalic plates that appeared ancient with writings on them is true. No? Or are you going to go back on that?
If your only purpose is to show that "Joseph had some plates that had inscriptions on them," you don't purport to havea revelation from God about it, you don't get a small inner circle of relatives and close friends and take them off by themselves somewhere, and you don't write up a statement from them affirmatively stating a fact they could not have known (that Joseph Smith was the translator of the plates they were shown) and an opinion they were not qualified to give (that the plates they were shown were consistent with what ancient plates would look like). You just show the plates to whomever cares to see them.
Surely, if God tells you not to show them to anyone and requires to go about gaining witnesses by the means he did, then you do it just as he did. But that's his story that you seem to deny. Consider the data, then make observations--that's my advice to you, anyway.
Love ya tons,
Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 14190
- Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am
Re: Decent Post on Proof and Evidence at Sic et Non
stemelbow wrote:Surely, if God tells you not to show them to anyone and requires to go about gaining witnesses by the means he did, then you do it just as he did. But that's his story that you seem to deny. Consider the data, then make observations--that's my advice to you, anyway.
... and following that advice I come to a conclusion that quite a lot of other people share: this looks like just the kind of thing a scam artist would do, including claiming that God told him to act in that very convenient way.
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 5872
- Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:40 pm
Re: Decent Post on Proof and Evidence at Sic et Non
Chap wrote:... and following that advice I come to a conclusion that quite a lot of other people share: this looks like just the kind of thing a scam artist would do, including claiming that God told him to act in that very convenient way.
Then skepticism reigns. But that's not a surprise at all. The point is, is there evidence to suggest that Joseph Smith had metalic plates that appeared ancient and had writings on them, as he claimed? I'd say yes. you?
Love ya tons,
Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 21373
- Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm
Re: Decent Post on Proof and Evidence at Sic et Non
In order to bring greater clarity to the problem of the witnesses, I think it is useful to outline the parallels between the treasure digging enterprise and the discovery of the Book of Mormon. Suspicions regarding the former color perceptions of the latter. In this I don't think that those who are suspicious have no good reason for being so.
Consider some elements of the treasure digging enterprise:
1) Seer claims to see treasure in seer stone
2) A company of treasure diggers employs him to assist in retrieving the treasure, for which he is paid
3) In the course of the dig the seer dramatizes interactions with unseen forces that control access to the treasure
4) The seer arranges for or identifies some piece of hard evidence that convinces the group that there was indeed a real treasure (piece of wood or metal, coin, etc.)
5) The evidence increases the commitment of the treasure group to continue the dig and convinces them that the seer has real abilities
Now consider some elements of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon:
1) Joseph Smith claims to see the gold plates in a seer stone
2) A company of treasure diggers assists him as seer in retrieving the plates
3) In the course of the attempts to retrieve the plates, Joseph dramatizes interactions with unseen forces (Nephi/Moroni) that control access to the plates
4) Joseph arranges for a group of witnesses to handle the plates in order to prove to them that they exist
5) This evidence increases the commitment of Joseph Smith's supporters to press forward in assisting him in bringing forth the Book of Mormon, which he plans to sell with their help
Now, given the fact that most people view the elements of the first scenario as clear evidence of a con, can you understand why the second scenario is viewed similarly?
Consider some elements of the treasure digging enterprise:
1) Seer claims to see treasure in seer stone
2) A company of treasure diggers employs him to assist in retrieving the treasure, for which he is paid
3) In the course of the dig the seer dramatizes interactions with unseen forces that control access to the treasure
4) The seer arranges for or identifies some piece of hard evidence that convinces the group that there was indeed a real treasure (piece of wood or metal, coin, etc.)
5) The evidence increases the commitment of the treasure group to continue the dig and convinces them that the seer has real abilities
Now consider some elements of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon:
1) Joseph Smith claims to see the gold plates in a seer stone
2) A company of treasure diggers assists him as seer in retrieving the plates
3) In the course of the attempts to retrieve the plates, Joseph dramatizes interactions with unseen forces (Nephi/Moroni) that control access to the plates
4) Joseph arranges for a group of witnesses to handle the plates in order to prove to them that they exist
5) This evidence increases the commitment of Joseph Smith's supporters to press forward in assisting him in bringing forth the Book of Mormon, which he plans to sell with their help
Now, given the fact that most people view the elements of the first scenario as clear evidence of a con, can you understand why the second scenario is viewed similarly?
Last edited by Guest on Thu May 17, 2012 4:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 5872
- Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 8:40 pm
Re: Decent Post on Proof and Evidence at Sic et Non
I have no problem saying that there is no reason to accept Joseph Smith' story outside of personal faith. That does not suggest there is no evidence. So I ask, is there evidence to confirm that Joseph Smith did indeed have metalic plates, which appeared ancient, and had writings on them as he claimed?
Love ya tons,
Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 8417
- Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 6:01 pm
Re: Decent Post on Proof and Evidence at Sic et Non
Ask God to show them to you.stemelbow wrote:I have no problem saying that there is no reason to accept Joseph Smith' story outside of personal faith. That does not suggest there is no evidence. So I ask, is there evidence to confirm that Joseph Smith did indeed have metalic plates, which appeared ancient, and had writings on them as he claimed?
"You lack vision, but I see a place where people get on and off the freeway. On and off, off and on all day, all night.... Tire salons, automobile dealerships and wonderful, wonderful billboards reaching as far as the eye can see. My God, it'll be beautiful." -- Judge Doom