Decent Post on Proof and Evidence at Sic et Non

[_lulu]

Assuming the 8 were shown plates (and I don't think they necessarily were) and assuming they signed the testimony in Book of Mormon ..then it is not unreasonable to assume their opinion was the plates were ancient..as stem said to their untrained eyes. They can form that opinion without expertise to do so.

You lost me at the 2nd "assume."

[_Drifting]

If only Smith had hired a skilled trial attorney who testified to cross examining the witnesses..skeptics wouldn't be skeptical.

I think we skeptics would yet be skeptical, but a ver batim transcript of such a Q & A would have added to the credence of the 'testimonies'.

Rarely do two people each telling the truth of a similar event, witnessed from even the same vantage point and with the same background to understand what they experienced, tell the event the same way. Different nuances, word choices, details, etc. With the witnesses, the 3 and the 8, we have them purportedly having each subscribed to a single version or account. Not quite the same as if each had himself composed his own testimony. Cf. the differing accounts of OC, EHS, her father and her brother about the rock in the hat translation mechanics. Each is slightly different, adding different details and credibility enhanced by the fact that each composed his or her own version, and many of the same, salient details are in found in each.

In short, the testimony of the 3 and also of the 8 are 'canned'. Who authored them? Did each of the subscribers sign his name (if in fact that ever happened) to it without any reservation, suggestion or hesitation? It has the appearance of a 'canned' version foisted upon the signatory witnesses.

What is the earliest date that the testimonies of the witnesses were used to authenticate the Book of Mormon by being published in the front of it?

[_lulu]

What is the earliest date that the testimonies of the witnesses were used to authenticate the Book of Mormon by being published in the front of it?

They're at the back of the 1830 edition. Are you asking when they were moved to the front?

[_Drifting]

What is the earliest date that the testimonies of the witnesses were used to authenticate the Book of Mormon by being published in the front of it?

They're at the back of the 1830 edition. Are you asking when they were moved to the front?

I wasn't but i think it would be interesting to know that as well.

[_marg]

"assuming they signed the testimony in Book of Mormon"

Lulu, I'm under the impression based upon a number of years ago internet forum discussion that if there is a signed document which the church has in its possession..it is not available to be seen. I'm also under the impression that none of the witnesses talked about seeing the plates other than with spiritual eyes or the supernatural. If that were the case they wouldn't want to sign they had seen them. But whether they signed or not...is not particularly important. The statement from both sets of witnesses is problematic for a number of reasons..in particular in my opinion that the statements make testimony to things they could not possibly have known.

[_Drifting]

"assuming they signed the testimony in Book of Mormon"

Lulu, I'm under the impression based upon a number of years ago internet forum discussion that if there is a signed document which the church has in its possession..it is not available to be seen. I'm also under the impression that none of the witnesses talked about seeing the plates other than with spiritual eyes or the supernatural. If that were the case they wouldn't want to sign they had seen them. But whether they signed or not...is not particularly important. The statement from both sets of witnesses is problematic for a number of reasons..in particular in my opinion that the statements make testimony to things they could not possibly have known.

Hi marg, please can you expand a little on that last line?

[_marg]

3 witnesses could not have known:

- "have seen the plates which contain this record: which is a record of the people of Nephi and also of the Lamanites "...etc
(if they actually had seen plates with foreign language writings they claimed nothing about having an ability to translate..how could they know what was written on the plates )

- we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us (how do they know assuming they even heard a voice that it was God's ...what does God's voice sounds like?)

8 witnesses' statement:

- the plates have "as many leaves as said Smith has translated) how could they possibly know the number of leaves Smith translated if not present during translation)

[_Drifting]

3 witnesses could not have known:

- "have seen the plates which contain this record: which is a record of the people of Nephi and also of the Lamanites "...etc
(if they actually had seen plates with foreign language writings they claimed nothing about having an ability to translate..how could they know what was written on the plates )

- we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us (how do they know assuming they even heard a voice that it was God's ...what does God's voice sounds like?)

8 witnesses' statement:

- the plates have "as many leaves as said Smith has translated) how could they possibly know the number of leaves Smith translated if not present during translation)

Good points.

[_Themis]

"assuming they signed the testimony in Book of Mormon"

Lulu, I'm under the impression based upon a number of years ago internet forum discussion that if there is a signed document which the church has in its possession..it is not available to be seen. I'm also under the impression that none of the witnesses talked about seeing the plates other than with spiritual eyes or the supernatural. If that were the case they wouldn't want to sign they had seen them. But whether they signed or not...is not particularly important. The statement from both sets of witnesses is problematic for a number of reasons..in particular in my opinion that the statements make testimony to things they could not possibly have known.

And there is the problem, and why the statement found in the Book of Mormon is not evidence even of Joseph having metal plates. We don't know if an event or events happened or when. We don't know who made the statement found in the Book of Mormon or when it was made. We don't have any signed documents of the 8 people said to have seen the plates.

by the way There is good evidence that the church does not have any signed documents for either statements found in the Book of Mormon.

[_Themis]

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 am not playing any game. I at least don't try to play the possibility game, but try to see what the evidence says. Much of this thread has been about whether it is evidence that Joseph had plates, and I agree that it is based on the assumption the statement is accurate, but if you read what I posted above it really is not evidence that Joseph had plates for reasons stated.