BECAUSE MORONI'S PROMISE IS NOT AND DOES NOT PURPORT TO BE EMPIRICAL. IF YOU THINK THAT, YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE IS.
I don't think that. I was talking about a double standard among different types of evidence so I don't know why Moroni's promise being empirical or not matters, it is the example of the double standard I am arguing about. I have to utilize a non-empirical example to make my point.
They did not know any of this. They could not possibly have known any of this. The knowledge they purport to attest to comes from God, not from their own experience or observations. They were not witnesses to the truthfulness to the Book of Mormon at all.
Aren't you simply saying here that knowledge from God isn't knowledge? If God imputed knowledge via revelation to the three witnesses and sent an angel to show them and tell them of the truthfulness why would they not be witnesses to the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon at all? The relevant scope of its truthfulness includes and is found under the umbrella of it coming from a divine source, the witnesses experiences and testimony about the divine source is provided in an empirical manner. It would be a distinction of what kind of knowledge and therefore what kind of witness they are. This is why I keep repeating to you you are simply arguing that supernatural experiences can't be veridical, they can't transfer actual knowledge. It is a shell game.
Huh. So what is the knowledge they have from their own observation and experience, independent of a revelation from God, that the Book of Mormon is true?
Observation = an actual emissary/angel from deity.
Is that because of objective, empirical evidence from people who know how to read Egyptian writings, or because you prayed about it?
This is the prejudice I am not understanding. Are you simply saying you reject the ability to gain knowledge via revelation? What's interesting about that? So be it. But that background belief doesn't suddenly make supernatural experiences irrelevant. It is just demonstrates where you are on a bias scale.
Here's what you're asserting: the nature of evidence is such that Egyptologist A knows how to read the writings papyri and says they're funeral documents. I believe that Egyptologist A is correct, so I am an independent witness to what the writings mean. My reliance on Egyptologist A's knowledge is additional, corroborative evidence of what the writings mean. So we now have two pieces of evidence: Egyptologist A's knowledge, and my trust in his knowledge.
Really, mikwut? Really?
I am saying you have a double standard. We can use the Egyptologist's credentials to trust his academic conclusions. If I have based my belief on that academic trust I am not arbitrarily forming beliefs, but basing them on what I consider trustworthy sources. Likewise, if someone has had an experience of discussing the providence of the Book of Mormon with an angel of God who states that he is in fact the afterlife identity of one of the very authors of the Book of Mormon, and that description is corroborated by two other men having the same veridical experience I would be basing my belief on a source that I would consider trustworthy, just like an empircal matter. If that is denied then a double standard regarding the kind of evidence or experience is at play, that was point. Really.
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE VALUE OF OR THE REALITY OF SUPERNATURAL EXPERIENCES. THE ISSUE IS THE SOURCE OF THE KNOWLEDGE. THE KNOWLEDGE CAME FROM GOD, NOT THE THREE WITNESSES. EVEN IF THEIR STATEMENT IS TRUE, THEY HAVE NO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE WHATSOEVER WHETHER THE Book of Mormon IS TRUE. THEY ARE NOT WITNESSES OF ANYTHING EXCEPT THEIR OWN EXPERIENCE.
This is where I read your legal lens into this. They aren't expert witnesses on the characters and translation of the Book of Mormon. I don't think I have ever read an ensign article, heard a conference address, talked to a missionary companion, heard or read an apologist state that the three witnesses had the academic wherewithal to so testify. So what. That's the shell game your playing. No claims they do have academic knowledge. The whole issue is whether the revelatory nature of knowledge has a value just like empirical knowledge has a value. Of course if you eliminate the value of revelation and supernatural occurences as veridical they are not witnesses of anything except their own experience.
But, what is any witness a witness of except their own experience? We put all experiences into a web of connecting pieces to construct our framework of larger beliefs. Saying an actual supernatural angel telling three people that God is indeed having J.S. translate an ancient record and that the record is true is irrelevant, is nonsense. Does it have any probative value towards J.S.'s claims, yes - it is therefore by definition relevant, he claimed an angel gave it to him and instructed him on what to do, that is the claim. They saw the angel he spoke to about that and that angel corroborated that. That is their relevant testimony. They are unqualified in an academic sense, but the testimony doesn't reduce to irrelevancy.
I would suppose no research need ever be done or any argument ever made regarding for example NDEs, one need only say anyone who has one is only a witness to their own experience and it is therefore no evidence at all. Unless one of them is a brain scientist, or some other relevant empirical expert. The seemingness of experiences (our own and others) can be properly relied on to form beliefs unless there is a proper defeater (we in fact live our lives this way). I believe there exists proper defeaters for the 3 witnesses, such as other evidence that makes a natural explanation more likely - but that doesn't eliminate their testimony as significant absent proper defeaters.
mikwut