stemelbow wrote:Darth J wrote:No, that's not interesting. That's banal. I never needed convincing that the Eight Witnesses were shown a set of plates.
And why do not need convincing? Tell the truth? Is it because the evidence points you to think that he really did have plates? Without the testimony of the 8 one might still conclude he had some plates, right? But with it, the evidence mounts that much more.
You keep acting as if evidence is a self-existent thing, and you can just point to various facts and call them "evidence." "Donna Summers died today! That's evidence!" "I saw a bag of Cheetos at the store! That's evidence!" "There's a cloud in the sky today! That's evidence!"
The concept of evidence only means something in relation to a given claim. Because you can't wrap your brain around that idea, you're continuing with your tautology of "Evidence that Joseph Smith had some plates is evidence that Joseph Smith had some plates." No, I don't dispute that the Testimony of the Eight Witnesses is evidence that Joseph Smith showed them a set of plates. The testimony of James Strang's witnesses is also evidence that he had some plates. The
Patterson film is also evidence that Patterson had some footage. Charles Ponzi's postal reply coupons are also evidence that he had some postal reply coupons. But in none of these cases was the proponent of the evidence trying to prove the bare fact that they had a tangible object. Joseph Smith did not start a church based on, "I have some metal plates! Ta-dah! The End!"
EDIT: fixed another typo in the above paragraph
It's one claim at a time.
That's what circumstantial evidence means, stemelbow. Fourteen pages into this thread and you're still showing that you don't understand basic, commonly accepted terminology.
Did he have plates that appeared ancient and had writing on them? Even you, an avowed critic have said yes to that.
No, I specifically said no to that. The Eight Witnesses had no way to know what ancient plates would look like, and they had no way of knowing whether the etchings on the plates were in fact writing. EDIT: fixed a typo in this sentence.
I say you say yes because the evidence suggests he did, as he claimed.
A statement by eight people who had no idea what they were looking at and had no way to verify what Joseph Smith claimed about the plates has no foundation as evidence. I think there's a thread about that on this board somewhere.
Thus, one claim is considered true, as you say, by all serious people looking into it. And why is it considered true? Because the evidence is too strong for you, an avowed critic, to dispute it.
No, stemelbow, it's not a separate claim. It is one element of Joseph Smith's claim. On my mission, I never told people, "Here's the testimony of Eight Witnesses. This statement is completely independent of the Book of Mormon."
Oh, well then it must be the LDS Church that's all confused about what their statement meant.
The Book of Mormon: Introduction
In addition to Joseph Smith, the Lord provided for eleven others to see the gold plates for themselves and to be special witnesses of the truth and divinity of the Book of Mormon. Their written testimonies are included herewith as “The Testimony of Three Witnesses” and “The Testimony of Eight Witnesses.”
Let's not try and redirect this, just yet, DJ. You have yet to acknowledge the simple facts here.
No, you don't get to argue about evidence in a vacuum. You still don't understand what the OP is about or what this thread is about. A thing's value as evidence can only be assessed in relation to the ultimate claim to be proved. The primary consideration---whether a proffered item of evidence is relevant---cannot be decided independent of the claim that is at issue. You have to look at what the claim is to determine whether alleged evidence tends to prove or disprove that claim.
Why not?
The testimony of the 8 is in itself a piece of data. This piece of data on its own does not in anyway suggest there was fraud. It does suggest that were plates.
Umm, stemelbow, this thread is about the distinction between proof and evidence. I'm not asking if it is
proof of fraud. I am asking if it is
evidence of fraud. "Evidence" means a piece of data related to a given claim. "Proof" means a given claim has been shown to be true. Let's show everyone you're wearing your big boy pants today and you understand what this thread is about after you have babbled on and on purporting to address the OP.
Is the Testimony of Eight Witnesses evidence that the Book of Mormon is a fraud?
___Yes ___No