Liz wrote:]Darth will have to speak for himself, but I thought I remembered reading one of the threads he commented on that he agreed that Joseph more than likely utilized some type of "prop" which resembled plates. He has stated many times that he does not believe the plates are real, in the sense that they are a genuine ancient work. However, I think it is probably safe to say that, at least for a while, Joseph did have some type of "prop" which, at the very least, looked like the plates described.
Agreed. That help ya, Themis? It's not that I don't' want to answer. It is true I didn't want to play your game. DJ agrees Joseph Smith had plates, or a prop he made. He also seemed to go back and forth a few times as to whether the testimony of the 8 works as evidence of the claim that Joseph Smith had plates. He wasn't very clear. It does seem he also thinks the testimony is evidence that the whole thing was a hoax, somehow. So, you never know with that guy. He is adorable though. I'll give him that.
I realize Darth can answer for himself, but I thought he said that he accepts it as evidence of some kind of plates or prop, but does not accept that plates or prop necessarily existed, but thinks Joseph may have had plates. Again there is a difference. I think Joseph may have had plates, but I also realize that he may not have had plates at all.
How's that persecution, stemelbow? Does it hurt? Is it just like being tarred and feathered when people show that your cherished beliefs cannot be supported by evidence, and you can't show otherwise?
You did manage to type in normal syntax with the voice of a normal person in this thread when you thought you could handle the issues. But I notice that now that you're backed into a corner, you have resumed your ham-fisted trolling with your well-known comments like "DJ is adorable" and your pseudo-bucolic, Larry the Cable Guy persona. Frankly, I'm waiting to see "Git R Done!" on one of your posts when you think you've scored a point, no matter how trivial or meaningless the point might be.
When I played soccer as a kid, there was usually a rule that the game would be ended if one team got so many goals ahead. I bring that up because we're 21 pages into this thread, and you're still not addressing what I said on the first page. So I think we are long past the point to call the game and declare you the loser. Anyone reading this thread can see that is the case, because you still won't address the actual issue in this thread. You still are talking about banal non-issues, and you are supplementing your irrelevancies with misrepresenting what I said, crying persecution, and returning to "Pep Pep! DJ's adorable! Nuthin' much! I'm just a folksy country boy!"
To evaluate whether any proffered fact has any value as evidence, the proponent of that evidence has to establish what exactly the claim is that the evidence is supposed to help prove. That essential principle of reasoning is true in a courtroom, a class room, a laboratory, a television studio, a message board, the floor of the Senate, or anywhere else people are attempting to prove a proposition.
Neither the LDS Church nor its loyal customers---excuse me, believing members---are trying to prove merely that "Joseph Smith the Child Molester (just for identification!) had some metal plates." They are trying to prove that Joseph Smith had some golden plates forged by ancient Nephite craftsman according to their pre-Columbian knowledge of metallurgy, that these ancient metal Nephite plates contain the record of an advanced, 1,000-year Nephite civilization that existed in America, and that Joseph Smith translated those plates. In other words, that the Book of Mormon is true.
The Testimony of Eight Witnesses is not relevant to the claim sought to be proved by the LDS Church and its adherents, and has no foundation to support its use of evidence of that claim. Stemelbow cannot argue otherwise, which is why he is trying to equivocate about what "claim" their testimonial is evidence for. That's also why he keeps trying to spin it as a point for the Church that "an avowed critic" has to admit---by the sheer, overwhelming might of their testimony!!!!---that there is evidence that Joseph Smith (for identification purposes only, I mean Joseph Smith the Child Molester) showed some metal plates to eight of his relatives and close friends who already believed his story about the Book of Mormon.
Stemelbow's equivocation is confusing a fact, a claim, and evidence. Evidence is a fact that tends to prove or disprove a claim. But because he cannot refute the foundational problems of using the testimonial of Joseph Smith's (more specifically, "JSTCM") dad, brother, etc. to help prove that the Book of Mormon is true, he is arguing, quite poorly, that the testimonial of the Eight Witnesses is both fact and evidence of the claim that it is both fact and evidence of itself---that's the tautology I have been referring to.
I agree with Lulu that there are numerous authentication problems with the testimonial of the Eight Witnesses. However, I am willing to accept it as a fact that under suspiciously controlled circumstances, Joseph Smith (TCM), who had already been criminally charged for his schemes to defraud people with his supernatural claims, showed an object appearing to be metal plates to eight men who had very close family ties to him, who already believed his story about the Book of Mormon, and who were totally unqualified to determine what they were really looking at. Then that object conveniently disappeared so that its authenticity could never be assessed. There's your fact. Is this fact evidence of a claim? Yes. Is it evidence (but not proof!) for the claim that the Book of Mormon is true? No, for the reasons I have explained over the course of 21 pages of this thread. Is is evidence (but not proof!) for the claim that the Book of Mormon is a hoax? Yes, for the reasons I have explained over the course of 21 pages of this thread.
Fact: Stemelbow keeps twisting around what I said about the Eight Witnesses, keeps trying to make everything about me or this ludicrous "you hate Mormons" meme, and goes in and out of his folksy "pep pep" persona. Claim: Stemelbow is a disingenuous troll who is incapable of defending Mormonism's truth claims, and so he attempts to stifle non-faith-promoting discussion instead. Is the above fact evidence (but not proof!) of the above claim?: Yes.
Darth J wrote:How's that persecution, stemelbow? Does it hurt? Is it just like being tarred and feathered when people show that your cherished beliefs cannot be supported by evidence, and you can't show otherwise?
You did manage to type in normal syntax with the voice of a normal person in this thread when you thought you could handle the issues. But I notice that now that you're backed into a corner, you have resumed your ham-fisted trolling with your well-known comments like "DJ is adorable" and your pseudo-bucolic, Larry the Cable Guy persona. Frankly, I'm waiting to see "Git R Done!" on one of your posts when you think you've scored a point, no matter how trivial or meaningless the point might be.
When I played soccer as a kid, there was usually a rule that the game would be ended if one team got so many goals ahead. I bring that up because we're 21 pages into this thread, and you're still not addressing what I said on the first page. So I think we are long past the point to call the game and declare you the loser. Anyone reading this thread can see that is the case, because you still won't address the actual issue in this thread. You still are talking about banal non-issues, and you are supplementing your irrelevancies with misrepresenting what I said, crying persecution, and returning to "Pep Pep! DJ's adorable! Nuthin' much! I'm just a folksy country boy!"
To evaluate whether any proffered fact has any value as evidence, the proponent of that evidence has to establish what exactly the claim is that the evidence is supposed to help prove. That essential principle of reasoning is true in a courtroom, a class room, a laboratory, a television studio, a message board, the floor of the Senate, or anywhere else people are attempting to prove a proposition.
Neither the LDS Church nor its loyal customers---excuse me, believing members---are trying to prove merely that "Joseph Smith the Child Molester (just for identification!) had some metal plates." They are trying to prove that Joseph Smith had some golden plates forged by ancient Nephite craftsman according to their pre-Columbian knowledge of metallurgy, that these ancient metal Nephite plates contain the record of an advanced, 1,000-year Nephite civilization that existed in America, and that Joseph Smith translated those plates. In other words, that the Book of Mormon is true.
The Testimony of Eight Witnesses is not relevant to the claim sought to be proved by the LDS Church and its adherents, and has no foundation to support its use of evidence of that claim. Stemelbow cannot argue otherwise, which is why he is trying to equivocate about what "claim" their testimonial is evidence for. That's also why he keeps trying to spin it as a point for the Church that "an avowed critic" has to admit---by the sheer, overwhelming might've their testimony!!!!---that there is evidence that Joseph Smith (for identification purposes only, I mean Joseph Smith the Child Molester) showed some metal plates to eight of his relatives and close friends who already believed his story about the Book of Mormon.
Stemelbow's equivocation is confusing a fact, a claim, and evidence. Evidence is a fact that tends to prove or disprove a claim. But because he cannot refute the foundational problems of using the testimonial of Joseph Smith's (more specifically, "JSTCM") dad, brother, etc. to help prove that the Book of Mormon is true, he is arguing, quite poorly, that the testimonial of the Eight Witnesses is both fact and evidence of the claim that it is both fact and evidence of itself---that's the tautology I have been referring to.
I agree with Lulu that there are numerous authentication problems with the testimonial of the Eight Witnesses. However, I am willing to accept it as a fact that under suspiciously controlled circumstances, Joseph Smith (TCM), who had already been criminally charged for his schemes to defraud people with his supernatural claims, showed an object appearing to be metal plates to eight men who had very close family ties to him, who already believed his story about the Book of Mormon, and who were totally unqualified to determine what they were really looking at. Then that object conveniently disappeared so that its authenticity could never be assessed. There's your fact. Is this fact evidence of a claim? Yes. Is it evidence (but not proof!) for the claim that the Book of Mormon is true? No, for the reasons I have explained over the course of 21 pages of this thread. Is is evidence (but not proof!) for the claim that the Book of Mormon is a hoax? Yes, for the reasons I have explained over the course of 21 pages of this thread.
Fact: Stemelbow keeps twisting around what I said about the Eight Witnesses, keeps trying to make everything about me or this ludicrous "you hate Mormons" meme, and goes in and out of his folksy "pep pep" persona. Claim: Stemelbow is a disingenuous troll who is incapable of defending Mormonism's truth claims, and so he attempts to stifle non-faith-promoting discussion instead. Is the above fact evidence (but not proof!) of the above claim?: Yes.
Hey, DJ. I'll just repeat again to avoid all the person animus, well in hopes to avoid it. You brought up the testimony of the 8 witnesses. I pointed out that their testimony serves the purpose of supporting Joseph's claim of having metallic plates that appeared ancient and had writings on them. You seem to think that's not important at all because no one contests the plates existed, with the caveat that the plates shown to the 8 could have been something that Joseph created to support his claim. At this point, it doesn't matter to me anymore. I get your initial comments in this thread and I think they hold credibility. I really was just trying to point out a weakness in your comments, as little as it may have been. Hopefully you pursue more thought on this topic and refine your argument better. Perhaps if you do it will be worth reading by others.
Thanks.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
stemelbow wrote: Hey, DJ. I'll just repeat again to avoid all the person animus, well in hopes to avoid it. You brought up the testimony of the 8 witnesses. I pointed out that their testimony serves the purpose of supporting Joseph's claim of having metallic plates that appeared ancient and had writings on them.
Pep pep!
No, it doesn't serve that purpose. There is no foundation for the opinion that the object they were shown "looked ancient" or "had writings on them." Such an opinion was entirely outside the scope of their knowledge. They had no qualifications at all to make those determinations.
Will stemelbow ever admit the above, o ye people of the board? Place your bets!
Now gather 'round, ladies and gentlemen, and watch the Amazing Non-Reponse of Stemelbow the Occasional Country Boy!
Stemelbow: is the Testimony of Eight Witnesses evidence (but not proof!) that the Book of Mormon is a hoax? Why or why not?
Just settle down a bit and let's discuss. I'd appreciate it.
That the 8 suggested the plates were ancient looking does not mean that is evidence they were ancient--as I've said many times Joseph could have made them appear ancient as determined by untrained eyes. The suggestion of writings doesn't mean the etchings they saw were writings in some language at all. It means they saw markings that appeared to them to be writings. Their suggestion doesn't equate to evidence that what was on the plates were writings. It's just their choice of words.
DJ wrote:Stemelbow: is the Testimony of Eight Witnesses evidence (but not proof!) that the Book of Mormon is a hoax? Why or why not?
It's not evidence of a hoax. I don't see how it can be, in fact. If the position of hoax is taken the 8 doesn't support that position--not at all. The testimony doesn't exactly refute that position either. So be it.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Just settle down a bit and let's discuss. I'd appreciate it.
That the 8 suggested the plates were ancient looking does not mean that is evidence they were ancient--as I've said many times Joseph could have made them appear ancient as determined by untrained eyes.
You still don't get it. There is no foundation to the statement that the object they were shown appeared ancient. They had no way of knowing what "ancient plates" would have looked like, and their testimonial does not say how they arrived at the conclusion that this object "appeared ancient." No foundation = not evidence.
The suggestion of writings doesn't mean the etchings they saw were writings in some language at all. It means they saw markings that appeared to them to be writings. Their suggestion doesn't equate to evidence that what was on the plates were writings. It's just their choice of words.
Then it's irrelevant to the claim that the Book of Mormon is true, which means it is not evidence--circumstantial or otherwise---that the Book of Mormon is true.
DJ wrote:Stemelbow: is the Testimony of Eight Witnesses evidence (but not proof!) that the Book of Mormon is a hoax? Why or why not?
It's not evidence of a hoax. I don't see how it can be, in fact. If the position of hoax is taken the 8 doesn't support that position--not at all. The testimony doesn't exactly refute that position either. So be it.
If you had a legitimate ancient artifact and were trying to show the world that you had it, which is more likely?
(A) You show the artifact to whomever wants to see it, and allow it to be subjected to skeptical inquiry and examination.
(B) You only show the artifact to your dad, your older brother, and six other close friends and relatives who already believe the artifact is what you claim it to be before they have even seen it. Then, you write a statement for them to sign, in which conclusions are made that your eight credulous intimates are not qualified to make. Then you make sure nobody else ever sees your artifact. Instead, the rest of the world is supposed to rely on the testimonial of your eight credulous intimates that you really had an ancient artifact at one time, but now you conveniently do not have any more.
Darth J wrote:You still don't get it. There is no foundation to the statement that the object they were shown appeared ancient. They had no way of knowing what "ancient plates" would have looked like, and their testimonial does not say how they arrived at the conclusion that this object "appeared ancient." No foundation = not evidence.
That's what I said, wrinkly forehead. it is evidence that Joseph Smith had plates. Not that those plates were ancient.
Then it's irrelevant to the claim that the Book of Mormon is true, which means it is not evidence--circumstantial or otherwise---that the Book of Mormon is true.
I'm getting hopeful that you are now getting my point. We'll see. Yes the question answered by the 8 testimony is Did Joseph Smith have plates. Even you an avowed critic will seem to answer yes.
If you had a legitimate ancient artifact and were trying to show the world that you had it, which is more likely?
(A) You show the artifact to whomever wants to see it, and allow it to be subjected to skeptical inquiry and examination.
(B) You only show the artifact to your dad, your older brother, and six other close friends and relatives who already believe the artifact is what you claim it to be before they have even seen it. Then, you write a statement for them to sign, in which conclusions are made that your eight credulous intimates are not qualified to make. Then you make sure nobody else ever sees your artifact. Instead, the rest of the world is supposed to rely on the testimonial of your eight credulous intimates that you really had an ancient artifact at one time, but now you conveniently do not have any more.
You definitely need more information in your question for it to have any bearing ont he case at hand.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Darth J wrote:You still don't get it. There is no foundation to the statement that the object they were shown appeared ancient. They had no way of knowing what "ancient plates" would have looked like, and their testimonial does not say how they arrived at the conclusion that this object "appeared ancient." No foundation = not evidence.
That's what I said, wrinkly forehead. it is evidence that Joseph Smith had plates. Not that those plates were ancient.
Therefore, their testimony is irrelevant to the Book of Mormon.
Then it's irrelevant to the claim that the Book of Mormon is true, which means it is not evidence--circumstantial or otherwise---that the Book of Mormon is true.
I'm getting hopeful that you are now getting my point. We'll see. Yes the question answered by the 8 testimony is Did Joseph Smith have plates. Even you an avowed critic will seem to answer yes.
Then you'll agree with me that the LDS Church should stop printing their testimonial at the front of the Book of Mormon, since their statement was only meant to prove that Joseph Smith (The Child Molester) had metal plates and does not prove anything else.
If you had a legitimate ancient artifact and were trying to show the world that you had it, which is more likely?
(A) You show the artifact to whomever wants to see it, and allow it to be subjected to skeptical inquiry and examination.
(B) You only show the artifact to your dad, your older brother, and six other close friends and relatives who already believe the artifact is what you claim it to be before they have even seen it. Then, you write a statement for them to sign, in which conclusions are made that your eight credulous intimates are not qualified to make. Then you make sure nobody else ever sees your artifact. Instead, the rest of the world is supposed to rely on the testimonial of your eight credulous intimates that you really had an ancient artifact at one time, but now you conveniently do not have any more.
You definitely need more information in your question for it to have any bearing ont he case at hand.
