stemelbow wrote:It was a claim by Joseph Smith. He felt, and apparently felt God was behind him on this, that there needed to be evidence that he truly did have such plates. Why did he feel the need? I suppose because people didn't believe he had them and he feared people in the future would not believe he had them. He worked to supply evidence.
That no one does contest the claim, indicates the evidence works in this case.
Well, as has been discussed over the course of this thread, it entirely depends on what one means by the word "evidence." Obviously you think that the mere possession of an object that some farmer-treasure hunters believed was book of ancient metal plates is evidence to you that God enabled Joseph Smith to translate the ancient record of a Hebraic civilization that once lived in the Americas. Given that this is the case, you must also believe that the Voree plates were evidence of James Strang's claim to be the true successor of Joseph Smith.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
Kishkumen wrote:Well, as has been discussed over the course of this thread, it entirely depends on what one means by the word "evidence." Obviously you think that the mere possession of an object that some farmer-treasure hunters believed was book of ancient metal plates is evidence to you that God enabled Joseph Smith to translate the ancient record of a Hebraic civilization that once lived in the Americas. Given that this is the case, you must also believe that the Voree plates were evidence of James Strang's claim to be the true successor of Joseph Smith.
Hey, Kish, you are attributing to me something I've never claimed nor supported.
When you here the word evidence in terms of providing support for someone's claim, what do you think is meant by that word? Just curious.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
stemelbow wrote:... No yes or no from you--just a "well I would like to say yes, but if I do then it'll make me look foolish or something so I will just throw out some weird explanation that amounts to a 'beats me'". Nice. ...
I am happy for readers to judge whether stemelbow's characterization of my view and estimation of my motives is accurate:
Chap wrote:... In the last analysis, I'd say that Smith prepared some kind of props as part of an effort to persuade his relations to sign a statement that he had ready for them, saying what he wanted them to say they had seen. Exactly how he did that, and just what the props would have looked like under a close examination by someone free to handle them as they wished, I can't be sure.
Even then, there is said to be evidence that some of them took quite a bit of persuading (though that is something I have only seen stated on this board).
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.
stemelbow wrote: It was a claim by Joseph Smith. He felt, and apparently felt God was behind him on this, that there needed to be evidence that he truly did have such plates. Why did he feel the need?
You believe he felt this way. You don't provide evidence he felt that way.
I suppose because people didn't believe he had them and he feared people in the future would not believe he had them.
A belief not supported by any evidence.
He worked to supply evidence.
Sure many believe he worked to create plates.
That no one does contest the claim, indicates the evidence works in this case.
Contest the claim he had plates. While the witness statements may be seen as evidence he had plates, it does not mean he did. There are other evidences to look at, and the witness statement we have was prepared by Joseph and not signed by anyone.
Themis wrote:Contest the claim he had plates. While the witness statements may be seen as evidence he had plates, it does not mean he did. There are other evidences to look at, and the witness statement we have was prepared by Joseph and not signed by anyone.
I am not addressing other points of data. But you do support my point nicely here, "While the witness statements may be seen as evidence he had plates, it does not mean he did". It is exactly what I've been saying.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Themis wrote:Contest the claim he had plates. While the witness statements may be seen as evidence he had plates, it does not mean he did. There are other evidences to look at, and the witness statement we have was prepared by Joseph and not signed by anyone.
I always wondered why, at the front of the Book of Mormon under the testimony of the witnesses, there weren't any signatures...
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.” Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric
"One, two, three...let's go shopping!" Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator
Themis wrote:Contest the claim he had plates. While the witness statements may be seen as evidence he had plates, it does not mean he did. There are other evidences to look at, and the witness statement we have was prepared by Joseph and not signed by anyone.
I am not addressing other points of data. But you do support my point nicely here, "While the witness statements may be seen as evidence he had plates, it does not mean he did". It is exactly what I've been saying.
To be clear I mean only that he may have had metal plates with scratchings on it. No one seems to dispute this. You of course went to far in your earlier post by incorrectly trying to attach other motives to Joseph.
Hi there, Stemelbow. I see that you are off again on your red herring about personal attacks and people hating Mormons. Let's prove to everyone that you're not yet another Mormon internet warrior who defends the faith by being a passive-aggressive troll who mischaracterizes issues and misrepresents what people are saying. A good way to start would be if you stop avoiding the following:
1. Let's watch and see if stemelbow ever admits that the facts and circumstances of how the testimony of the Eight Witnesses was procured is evidence (but not proof!) that the Book of Mormon is a hoax---or if he continues to axiomatically insist no, if he can explain why not.
2. Stemelbow, from now on I want you to join with me and the rest of the board in referring to Joseph Smith, Jr. (1805-1844) as "Joseph Smith, the Child Molester." Joseph Smith has been called a child molester by some people because of his relationship with teenage girls such as Helen Mar Kimball.
We're not making any claims; we just want to identify who we're talking about. So from this point forward, for the simple purpose of identification, we're all going to refer to the founder of Mormonism as "Joseph Smith, the Child Molester."
Will you agree to this? If not, why not?
And by the way, Stemelbow, what happened to the "pep pep, nuthin' much" schtick? It's just so curious that you've abandoned it.
Darth J wrote:... Stemelbow, what happened to the "pep pep, nuthin' much" schtick? It's just so curious that you've abandoned it.
It would be even more curious if stemelbow suddenly went folksy and semi-literate again after this had been pointed out to him.
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.
