Converts to Limnor's Book of Mormon Origins?

[Marcus]

Consistency per se is not necessarily a plus. The witnesses were not independent of each other, and their experiences happened in groups of three and eight.

Their testimonies also were not their own individual statements: they each "signed on" to a statement that had been created for them - or perhaps by them as a group.

It's worth noting, I think, that there's a good reason why, when police arrest several people, or call several in for questioning, they try to isolate them from each other. There's a valid concern that, given the opportunity, they may collaborate on a story that is consistent, but that none of them may have come up with on their own. Group pressure may also cause reluctant witnesses/suspects to "go along" with the group consensus, or the story proposed by the stronger members of the group. The group members then internalise the story.

Repetition of a statement, accurate or not, tends to cement it in the memory of the person making the statement.

You, MG, have complained on this board about people putting words in your mouth. It can be argued that the pre-written statement(s) put words in the mouths of all of the witnesses.

There’s limited evidence that a charismatic leader can implant shared, enduring, and consistent false memories in multiple adults, especially when those memories involve physical interaction with an object.

"limited evidence" = "not impossible", right? Many of your statements on this board fall into that category, often preceded by a hypothetical.

I don't think that I've come across any critic who denies that the two groups of witnesses experienced something, but it's far from clear that all of them had a "physical interaction with an object". It's also not clear if the eight witnesses encountered the same object as the three, or any other later unofficial witnesses.

As previously noted, what limited interaction any may have had with a physical object left them unable to say much about what the object was. The eight said that the plates were of ancient, curious workmanship, but none was qualified in any way to attest to their ancient nature...

These are key points. A statement, written by someone else, asserting a description that none of the witnesses have any background to judge, is extremely suspect.

[Limnor]

The eight said that the plates were of ancient, curious workmanship, but none was qualified in any way to attest to their ancient nature.

While you make a good point, malkie, about the opportunity to question the witnesses regarding their expertise, reading carefully, the testimony isn’t quite as clear cut as at first glance.

has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold;

The “appearance” of gold.

and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands;

Grammatically, “as many as the said Smith has translated” could be read as “none.”

and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship.

The “appearance of ancient work.” Not ancient, but appeared to be so.

“Of curious workmanship.” The “engraved works” would be curiously backward to them.

All consistent with copper printing plates.

[Limnor]

Although, on second thought and in line with your point, what would qualify the witnesses to know how an ancient plate would appear?

[Marcus]

Although, on second thought and in line with your point, what would qualify the witnesses to know how an ancient plate would appear?

I'm not sure who you are asking, but the fact that the witnesses jointly signed a statement written by someone else will, to me, always indicate a problem with the testimony.

[Limnor]

Although, on second thought and in line with your point, what would qualify the witnesses to know how an ancient plate would appear?

I'm not sure who you are asking, but the fact that the witnesses jointly signed a statement written by someone else will, to me, always indicate a problem with the testimony.

I was thinking through malkie’s comments about cross-examining witnesses to establish their expertise.

I understand and agree with your identification of the witnesses signing a prepared document as problematic.

I think the language was specifically chosen to allow for the statement to be “true,” but not “too true.” In fact, it’s how I view the whole book.

[malkie]

The eight said that the plates were of ancient, curious workmanship, but none was qualified in any way to attest to their ancient nature.

That is true. There statement was testimonial rather than technical. It sort of comes down to whether or not they were considered to be honest, consistent, and never recanted that testimony. Including the other three beyond the eight.

Regards,
MG

Their honesty, consistency, and testimony amounts to saying that they maintained their ignorance of the significant properties of the object.

Since they were not testifying to ancientness, all that they are consistently and verifiably saying is that they had an experience. They were not, and could not be, testifying about anything relevant to the provenance of the Book of Mormon. Sorry, but saying an angel told you something doesn't really count in the real world.

[MG 2.0]

That is true. There statement was testimonial rather than technical. It sort of comes down to whether or not they were considered to be honest, consistent, and never recanted that testimony. Including the other three beyond the eight.

Regards,
MG

Their honesty, consistency, and testimony amounts to saying that they maintained their ignorance of the significant properties of the object.

Since they were not testifying to ancientness, all that they are consistently and verifiably saying is that they had an experience. They were not, and could not be, testifying about anything relevant to the provenance of the Book of Mormon. Sorry, but saying an angel told you something doesn't really count in the real world.

If you say so.

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

Their honesty, consistency, and testimony amounts to saying that they maintained their ignorance of the significant properties of the object.

Since they were not testifying to ancientness, all that they are consistently and verifiably saying is that they had an experience. They were not, and could not be, testifying about anything relevant to the provenance of the Book of Mormon. Sorry, but saying an angel told you something doesn't really count in the real world.

If you say so.

Regards,
MG

Thank you! May I quote you on that? Oh, actually I did!

[MG 2.0]

If you say so.

Regards,
MG

Thank you! May I quote you on that? Oh, actually I did!

I understand that angels and plates are a nonstarter for unbelievers. So I'm handing that to you. It's not worth arguing about.

Not that I agree with where you're coming from. I'm open to that which is beyond my natural comprehension/senses.

But I'm kind of picky. I'm a skeptic at heart.

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

Although, on second thought and in line with your point, what would qualify the witnesses to know how an ancient plate would appear?

Another excellent question - I had not thought of that angle.

Perhaps being credentialed historians, and/or having worked with records that were considered by other experts to be ancient?

The world of the 1820s and 30s was very different from today's world, so perhaps the witnesses should be cut a little slack in this regard. However, I'm not aware of any of them, or anyone on their behalf, claiming that they had any relevant training or experience in making that determination. They appear to have been ignorant laymen with respect to evaluating an object's ancientness, so I'm returning to the idea that, regardless of any other consideration, their testimonies were of no value concerning the relationship between the object they testified about and the provenance of the Book of Mormon.