Decent Post on Proof and Evidence at Sic et Non

[_Darth J]

So let's re-cap:

We're 23 pages into this thread, and stemelbow finally says this:

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

This means that there is no foundation to their testimonial, which means it is not evidence that the Book of Mormon is authentic, which is what I said on the first page of this thread.

Now, who would like to estimate the Bayesian probability that stemelbow is going to admit that according to his own statement, the testimonial of the Eight Witnesses is not evidence that the Book of Mormon is true?

[_Yoda]

So let's re-cap:

We're 23 pages into this thread, and stemelbow finally says this:

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

This means that there is no foundation to their testimonial, which means it is not evidence that the Book of Mormon is authentic, which is what I said on the first page of these thread.

Now, who would like to estimate the Bayesian probability that stemelbow is going to admit that according to his own statement, the testimonial of the Eight Witnesses is not evidence that the Book of Mormon is true?

Was he ever arguing that point, or was he merely arguing that the testimonial of the Eight Wintesses was evidence of some type of gold plates existing?

[Guest]

Was he ever arguing that point, or was he merely arguing that the testimonial of the Eight Wintesses was evidence of some type of gold plates existing?

Liz, stemelbow is engaging in a passive-aggressive rhetorical sleight of hand that is common to Mormon internet warriors and apologists (and disingenuous arguments in general).

I agree with Lulu, Chap, and others that there is a significant problem that an actual, signed testimony signed by these 8 men does not seem to exist anywhere. But for the purposes of the argument Daniel Peterson was trying to make in his blog post, I am not disputing that Joseph Smith showed some type of plates to his credulous father, older brother, and 6 other relatives and friends. It has been stated ad nauseum in this thread that I am stipulating to that fact. Since that fact is being accepted as true, there is no valid reason for stemelbow to "argue" an issue that is not disputed.

Other people have defined the rhetorical tactic stemelbow is using as follows:

http://e-ducation.net/fallaciousargumen ... pnoticbait

Hypnotic Bait and Switch - to lull the listener into uncritically accepting more statements, by starting out with a series of unchallengably true statements, creating the expectation that what follows will also be unquestionably true, when it will actually be false

By continuing to "argue" an issue that is not only undisputed, but meaningless ("evidence he had plates is evidence he had plates"), stemelbow can try to characterize the situation as an avowed critic being forced to accept the compelling evidence of.......of an undisputed, meaningless issue. Stemelbow wants to use his "proving" that avowed critics cannot dispute a meaningless issue they never did dispute to get his foot in the door so he can assert, with no factual or logical basis, that the testimonial of the Eight Witnesses is not evidence of the ultimate claim that the Book of Mormon is true, but is a "step" toward it. Go back and read through the thread; he has said so several times, albeit with different wording. But since "whether he cleverly constructed the plates and passed them off as ancient relics, the testimony of the 8 doesn't answer," their testimonial has no foundation for use as circumstantial evidence that the Book of Mormon is true.

If stemelbow were trying to do anything other than set up a disingenuous (or, at best, fatuous) argument that the testimonial of the Eight Witnesses is circumstantial evidence that the Book of Mormon is true, this thread would be a lot shorter. "Joseph Smith had some plates" was stipulated on the first page of this thread, and that stipulation has not been withdrawn. Forgive me for being blunt, Liz, but your desire to give stemelbow the benefit of the doubt after 23 pages of this (let alone the rest of his history here) shows where charity blurs into gullibility.

[_Themis]

Was he ever arguing that point, or was he merely arguing that the testimonial of the Eight Wintesses was evidence of some type of gold plates existing?

He was at last arguing it was evidence of plates existing, but of course this is incorrect since neither statements found in the Book of Mormon can be considered evidence.

[_Darth J]

Was he ever arguing that point, or was he merely arguing that the testimonial of the Eight Wintesses was evidence of some type of gold plates existing?

He was at last arguing it was evidence of plates existing, but of course this is incorrect since neither statements found in the Book of Mormon can be considered evidence.

That's right. We have nothing but the assertion of the LDS Church that the statement they print at the front of the Book of Mormon was ever signed by those 8 men. Per his habit of reckless inaccuracies (the deliberateness of which I will let readers decide), stemelbow is mischaracterizing what I'm saying about the "fact" of the Testimony of the Eight Witnesses. I am not saying that I accept the naked assertion of the LDS Church as evidence that those 8 men really did ever sign the statement to which their names are appended. I am saying that even if, for the sake of argument, that statement is accepted as authentic, it still is not evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon being true.

[_sock puppet]

...if there is a signed document which the church has in its possession..it is not available to be seen.

The only value of having a signed document is to display it as evidence/proof to others of the statements made in it. Since 1830, the LDS Church has published a printed version of the testimonials, as part of the Book of Mormon. In my experience, the only time a signed document is held back, when its contents are known, is when the signed document does not exist. Indeed, the intros read, "Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That... ." Odd that they'd only want it known through typeset, not with the ink of their quills in signature on the original.

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.

"...we, through the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the plates..." Given Mormon speak, it is a good point that the testimonial did not specify whether it was physical vision or only 'spiritual' vision involved. The artists' renderings of these events do not give the plates an ethereal, angel-like lighting around the plates, suggesting that it was physical plates, with physical eyes. The LDS Church promotes these portrayals by including them in their teaching materials.

"And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; ... ." Is this a physical voice, with sound waves, or in the mind's ear? or perhaps a bosom burning?

"And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates; and they have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man." Very suggestive of supernatural, no physicality to the event. Otherwise, what is meant by 'the power of God, and not man'?

"... an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; " Physical or spiritual?

"and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld..." Is this hearsay via the angel? via JSJr? Is this assumed because it had a supernatural element to it? Or, did god and Jesus appear to these three witnesses?

"the voice of the Lord commanded us that we should bear record of it; ... ." So how do they know it was the Lord's voice?

"we bear testimony of these things." But if anyone has the original bearing signatures by these witnesses, it needs to be kept hidden?

As for the testimonial of the 8, "Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; ... ." More substantial evidence, in my opinion, than the testimonial of the 3 (assuming both could be authenticated and proven genuine). Here, unlike with the 3, the 8 are saying that it was JSJr, known to be a real person, showed them the plates. This does not open itself up as widely to the shake and bake apologetic that it was with 'spiritual eyes'.

"we did handle with our hands;" Never heard any mortal having claimed to touch something with his or her spiritual hands in the way we sometimes hear about 'spiritual eyes'.

"and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship." Ancient work? Could that mean that the plates the 8 saw appeared less skillfully prepared than the technology of 1830 could produce?

"for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken." Haven't heard of 'spiritual hefting' either.

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.

I agree there are a number of problems. But just because there is no possible way that the 3 or 8 could possibly have known some of the things in their statements (lack of foundation), it does not follow that other claims in their statements, claims that they could possibly have known, are necessarily untrue or without foundation too. So, I think that it is particularly important whether those 3 or 8 ever signed a document to the effect purported in the publications of the Book of Mormon.

[_Yoda]

Forgive me for being blunt, Liz, but your desire to give stemelbow the benefit of the doubt after 23 pages of this (let alone the rest of his history here) shows where charity blurs into gullibility.

Oh, please. Shoot me for not following 23 pages of thread. I had only read the last few comments, and was going by what appeared to be the case. Sorry for the intrusion on your conversation.

I was backing you, by the way, in case you hadn't noticed.

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?

[_Darth J]

Oh, please. Shoot me for not following 23 pages of thread. I had only read the last few comments, and was going by what appeared to be the case. Sorry for the intrusion on your conversation.

That's what the tactic stemelbow is employing is designed to do.

I was backing you, by the way, in case you hadn't noticed.

For real, Liz, that's nice of you to say, but the issue is not "me." The issue is exactly what you said:

"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?"