Decent Post on Proof and Evidence at Sic et Non

[_stemelbow]

Guys,

The 8 witness testimony was brought up by DJ. It was discussed because that is the example he wished to focus on. I think he misses that the testimony serves a purpose. He can't complain that Joseph Smith had no plates. I mean he could, but he admits that no one seriously questions that he had plates. Whether he cleverly constructed the plates and passed them off as ancient relics the testimony of the 8 doesn't answer.

[_Themis]

Guys,

The 8 witness testimony was brought up by DJ. It was discussed because that is the example he wished to focus on. I think he misses that the testimony serves a purpose. He can't complain that Joseph Smith had no plates. I mean he could, but he admits that no one seriously questions that he had plates.

I am not aware that DJ was complaining, but certainly many questioned whether Joseph had plates, some probably believer's as well.

Whether he cleverly constructed the plates and passed them off as ancient relics the testimony of the 8 doesn't answer.

There is no testimony of the 8. That is the point I am making right here. All we have is a statement with 8 peoples names to it. We have no idea who created it, when it was created, when the event or events happened, and who really was there. There is no signed document. If God really wanted 3 and 8 witnesses he did a piss poor job. So did Joseph, unless he was a conman. How hard would it be if the statements are accurate do ask that each person sign a document stating what happened, and even way better ask them to write in their own words and handwriting what happened and then date and sign it, and then get an affidavit. Seems they were familiar with those back then.

[_stemelbow]

I am not aware that DJ was complaining, but certainly many questioned whether Joseph had plates, some probably believer's as well.

That helps. Sure, people questioned. As DJ pointed out, no one seriously denies it now. There is no question. Largely because the evidence tends to suggest he had some plates.

There is no testimony of the 8. That is the point I am making right here. All we have is a statement with 8 peoples names to it. We have no idea who created it, when it was created, when the event or events happened, and who really was there. There is no signed document. If God really wanted 3 and 8 witnesses he did a piss poor job. So did Joseph, unless he was a conman. How hard would it be if the statements are accurate do ask that each person sign a document stating what happened, and even way better ask them to write in their own words and handwriting what happened and then date and sign it, and then get an affidavit. Seems they were familiar with those back then.

So you deny that Joseph had metallic plates with writings or etchings of some sort on them? That they appeared ancient?

[_Themis]

That helps. Sure, people questioned. As DJ pointed out, no one seriously denies it now. There is no question. Largely because the evidence tends to suggest he had some plates.

I am not aware that DJ ever claimed that no one seriously denies it now, since I think many probably do. I think you again are putting your words into DJ's mouth.

So you deny that Joseph had metallic plates with writings or etchings of some sort on them? That they appeared ancient?

I thought I was clear in that the statement in the Book of Mormon cannot be seen as evidence for reasons stated above. The idea that it would be evidence was based on an assumption that the statements are accurate.

[_stemelbow]

I am not aware that DJ ever claimed that no one seriously denies it now, since I think many probably do. I think you again are putting your words into DJ's mouth.

"Not very many people dispute that Joseph Smith at least had a prop that he showed a very small number of people."

Just read through the thread. This quote, I believe, was his first comment suggesting at least near as much. He made many mentions of it. His complaint was not that the testimony of the 8 did not support the notion that Joseph Smith had plates but that the notion that Joseph Smith had plates did not support Joseph Smith ultimate claim. I realize that, it's just that the ultimate claim is not brought into question with this piece of data. Just the question whether he had plates is brought into question. And, although, this piece of data alone does not prove Joseph Smith had plates, it's largely not even questioned anymore in part because of this piece of data.

I thought I was clear in that the statement in the Book of Mormon cannot be seen as evidence for reasons stated above. The idea that it would be evidence was based on an assumption that the statements are accurate.

Alright, avoid my question. I don't mind.

[_Chap]

Are we still talking about 'The Testimony of the Eight Witnesses', as if eight people had come up to the witness stand one by one and said what they thought they had seen and done? We have no reason to think that anything like that happened.

What we do have is a piece of printed material in the introductory section of modern editions of the Book of Mormon, followed by the names of eight of Joseph Smith's family members. We don't know who composed the document, whether all of the eight people named actually saw it before it was printed, or whether they signed their names to a version of it. (If they had signed it, and if that signed document was still in existence, would the church have published a facsimile by now? You bet.

Until those points are cleared up, there is not a lot more that can usefully be said about this document.

[_marg]

Stem quoting DJ

"Not very many people dispute that Joseph Smith at least had a prop that he showed a very small number of people."

That is correct. There is good evidence that Smith had a box filled with something and covered with a cloth in other words a "prop" which he said contained metal plates. But there is not good evidence that metal plates as described existed and were seen.

[_Themis]

"Not very many people dispute that Joseph Smith at least had a prop that he showed a very small number of people."

Just read through the thread. This quote, I believe, was his first comment suggesting at least near as much. He made many mentions of it. His complaint was not that the testimony of the 8 did not support the notion that Joseph Smith had plates but that the notion that Joseph Smith had plates did not support Joseph Smith ultimate claim. I realize that, it's just that the ultimate claim is not brought into question with this piece of data. Just the question whether he had plates is brought into question. And, although, this piece of data alone does not prove Joseph Smith had plates, it's largely not even questioned anymore in part because of this piece of data.

So according to what you quote of DJ, I am right in saying he didn't say no one as you said he did.

all right, avoid my question. I don't mind.

You mean this question.

So you deny that Joseph had metallic plates with writings or etchings of some sort on them? That they appeared ancient?

I am not sure why you want my opinion since the real point is that the statement is not evidence that Joseph had plates for reasons already given. I would think you would want to deal with that problem. I don't deny anything. I just realize the statements in the Book of Mormon are not evidence for plates. There is other evidence but it is not consistent, so we don't really know whether he had metal plates or some other prop. I tend to think he may have had some kind of prop, but the evidence is to weak to be sure of what nature it was.

[_Darth J]

Guys,

The 8 witness testimony was brought up by DJ.

No, it was brought up by Daniel Peterson, in the blog post discussed in the OP, which you still have never read.

It was discussed because that is the example he wished to focus on.

No, it was discussed because in Daniel Peterson's blog post that you have never read, he volunteered the "Book of Mormon witnesses" (of whom there are zero, despite the LDS Church claiming there are 11) as supposed evidence (but not proof!) that the Book of Mormon is true.

I think he misses that the testimony serves a purpose.

No, I don't miss that at all. I am very well aware that their testimonial serves a purpose. The use of shills at a traveling medicine show also served a purpose.

He can't complain that Joseph Smith had no plates.

Because not only is it completely impossible for stemelbow to frame a single issue accurately, questions of fact must be couched in terms of emotion ("complain").

I mean he could, but he admits that no one seriously questions that he had plates.

And the reason why you are stuck like a broken record on the tautology that "evidence he had some plates is evidence that he had some plates" is that you know you cannot address the actual issue. The actual issue is whether the testimonial of Joseph Smith the Child Molester's 8 friends and relatives is evidence of the Book of Mormon's authenticity. Nobody cares that Joseph Smith just "had plates."

Whether he cleverly constructed the plates and passed them off as ancient relics the testimony of the 8 doesn't answer.

[_Yoda]

There is really no way to have positive proof that the gold plates actually existed, or, if they did exist, that they were authentic. The witnesses could have lied. If they told the truth, and actually saw plates, how would they vouch for authenticity unless they were experts in archeological readings?