Could Joseph Smith Make the Plates?

[Limnor]

Grant Hardy:

So much rides on the plates. No one, as I said earlier, is arguing that....

If I understand this incoherent structure, mentalgymnast is arguing that because of an article he quoted, he thinks everyone agrees there are plates. However, the article he quoted was specifically about whether believing LDS members think there are plates. Well, of course they do. Flat-earthers think the earth is flat, conspiracy theorists believe in their conspiracies, Sasquatch groupies know there's a Sasquatch.

As for everyone else? No, there is not a universal belief in this supernatural event, any more than "everyone" believes in Santa Claus.

Since the plates were “taken back” by the angel—a suspicious story on its own, and very convenient if one doesn’t want additional independent examination—then they’re not really evidence in a testable sense, and what we’re left with is what the witnesses said.

At best, I’d go as far as saying the witnesses “may” have seen something, whether that’s copper printing plates, a tile, or tin plates. What matters is how they interpreted what they saw, or even if they could be trusted to tell the truth. As it has been said, even if the entire Whitmer family testified it wouldn’t be more convincing or settle the issue.

[malkie]

Did any of the witnesses who claimed to see the plates contradict Josiah - declaring that there was no greenish colour anywhere on the plates? Were any of them in a position to say that Josiah could not possibly have seen any green colour? Did they even have such comprehensive and clear access to the plates that such a statement would make sense?

If each witness had been asked to make an independent statement about what they observed, I suspect that there would have been substantial differences in their statements. As is was, the eight and three witnesses to the plates did not write their own testimonies independently of each other. I believe that, if they had done so, their testimonies might have been due greater weight, in spite of differences. That is, if you accept the claims by apologists that the differences in the versions of the First Vision make it more likely that the FV happened as Joseph said, and that nearly identical stories, told at different times, would be "sus".

For the "important point" about statements varying from other witnesses, would it be necessary for all of the "witnesses" to have observed exactly the same greenish colour as Josiah in order to make Josiah's statement valid? Perhaps some of them saw the same colour but just didn't think to mention it - it didn't seem to be of any significance, and would have been thought of as nothing out of the ordinary. But MG seems hell bent on disproving/disparaging the authenticity of Josiah's statement.

Anyway, as I've said - minor detail as far as I'm concerned. I'm much more interested in the claims of fantastic occurrences made by Joseph Smith.

However, I expect that MG will continue to ignore the principle that seemed so important when applied to Josiah's observation: the unreliability of a single-witness uncorroborated claim. I'd like to see the same energy and skepticism applied to:

• Moroni's visit
• First Vision
• Running through the woods with the plates

MG, understandably, is hell bent on not challenging the authenticity of these single-witness claims. No surprise there.

[MG 2.0]

MG seems hell bent on disproving/disparaging the authenticity of Josiah's statement.

I don't have any reason to do so. Essentially I'm saying that there is no there there if you read between the lines.

Critics. Always looking for the 'smoking gun'. Today it's fake plates. Tomorrow?

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

MG seems hell bent on disproving/disparaging the authenticity of Josiah's statement.

I don't have any reason to do so. Essentially I'm saying that there is no there there if you read between the lines.

Critics. Always looking for the 'smoking gun'. Today it's fake plates. Tomorrow?

Regards,
MG

The smoking gun is, as you know, the KJV Bible content found in The Book of Mormon. As for Stowell, he never recanted his testimony of what he saw. Witness testimony is reliable, right?

[I Have Questions]

Did any of the witnesses who claimed to see the plates contradict Josiah - declaring that there was no greenish colour anywhere on the plates? Were any of them in a position to say that Josiah could not possibly have seen any green colour? Did they even have such comprehensive and clear access to the plates that such a statement would make sense?

If each witness had been asked to make an independent statement about what they observed, I suspect that there would have been substantial differences in their statements. As is was, the eight and three witnesses to the plates did not write their own testimonies independently of each other. I believe that, if they had done so, their testimonies might have been due greater weight, in spite of differences. That is, if you accept the claims by apologists that the differences in the versions of the First Vision make it more likely that the FV happened as Joseph said, and that nearly identical stories, told at different times, would be "sus".

Apologists like to retrospectively draw targets around selected bullet holes that happened to hit the barn door, and declare “bullseye!” I do note the hypocrisy in the apologetics that you are pointing out, and applaud you for doing so.

Witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. Witness testimony that is coordinated by an individual with an interest in the outcome, is guaranteed to be not just unreliable, but also interfered with to ensure the witnesses say what it is the interested party wants them to say.

For the "important point" about statements varying from other witnesses, would it be necessary for all of the "witnesses" to have observed exactly the same greenish colour as Josiah in order to make Josiah's statement valid? Perhaps some of them saw the same colour but just didn't think to mention it - it didn't seem to be of any significance, and would have been thought of as nothing out of the ordinary. But MG seems hell bent on disproving/disparaging the authenticity of Josiah's statement.

He has to. He’s in the middle of a sunk cost crisis.

Anyway, as I've said - minor detail as far as I'm concerned. I'm much more interested in the claims of fantastic occurrences made by Joseph Smith.

However, I expect that MG will continue to ignore the principle that seemed so important when applied to Josiah's observation: the unreliability of a single-witness uncorroborated claim. I'd like to see the same energy and skepticism applied to:

• Moroni's visit
• First Vision
• Running through the woods with the plates

MG, understandably, is hell bent on not challenging the authenticity of these single-witness claims. No surprise there.

If you are still expecting intellectual honesty and consistency of principal from MG, then what the hell have you been smoking?

[Shulem]

Critics. Always looking for the 'smoking gun'. Today it's fake plates. Tomorrow?

Not looking for -- but FOUND! And there isn't a damn thing you can do about it, MG. I enjoy rubbing the Book of Abraham in your nose and in the nose of John Gee who is also a liar and a cheat. And then there is Smoot-boy, well, rubbing his nose in Abraham's King-doo-doo-poo-poo-moo-moo.

Smoking guns are on full display here on this board up in the Celestial Forum:

• “King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head”

• Anubis in Facsimile No. 3 and Mormon Deception

• Historical Predynastic Egypt vs. Book of Abraham False Narrative

[Shulem]

Biblical patterns seem to demonstrate that few witnesses are the norm.

1. Christ's resurrection appearances (road to Emmaus and Ascension).
2. Visions to prophets. Moses, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Paul, John (Patmos), Jesus on Mt. of Transfiguration.
3. Ark of the Covenant.
4. Cornelius and Peter.
5. Stephen's vision.
6. Early Apostles went out in pairs. (two witnesses)

In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established. (2 Corinthians 13:1)

Except in the case of the Book of Mormon when the Father's voice is heard by every living soul on the continent saying, "Behold my Beloved Son,  in whom I am well pleased, in whom I have glorified my name—hear ye him."

And then Jesus miraculously appears in the sky and shows himself to everyone at Bountiful in which they receive intimate contact with Jesus wherein no longer is faith required because they walk by sight. The gospel of the Book of Mormon kills faith in Jesus Christ because faith and sight don't operate simultaneously!

That is certainly not within Biblical patterns as MG suggests.

So tell me, MG, are you not a liar?

[malkie]

Did any of the witnesses who claimed to see the plates contradict Josiah - declaring that there was no greenish colour anywhere on the plates? Were any of them in a position to say that Josiah could not possibly have seen any green colour? Did they even have such comprehensive and clear access to the plates that such a statement would make sense?

If each witness had been asked to make an independent statement about what they observed, I suspect that there would have been substantial differences in their statements. As is was, the eight and three witnesses to the plates did not write their own testimonies independently of each other. I believe that, if they had done so, their testimonies might have been due greater weight, in spite of differences. That is, if you accept the claims by apologists that the differences in the versions of the First Vision make it more likely that the FV happened as Joseph said, and that nearly identical stories, told at different times, would be "sus".

Apologists like to retrospectively draw targets around selected bullet holes that happened to hit the barn door, and declare “bullseye!” I do note the hypocrisy in the apologetics that you are pointing out, and applaud you for doing so.

Witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. Witness testimony that is coordinated by an individual with an interest in the outcome, is guaranteed to be not just unreliable, but also interfered with to ensure the witnesses say what it is the interested party wants them to say.

For the "important point" about statements varying from other witnesses, would it be necessary for all of the "witnesses" to have observed exactly the same greenish colour as Josiah in order to make Josiah's statement valid? Perhaps some of them saw the same colour but just didn't think to mention it - it didn't seem to be of any significance, and would have been thought of as nothing out of the ordinary. But MG seems hell bent on disproving/disparaging the authenticity of Josiah's statement.

He has to. He’s in the middle of a sunk cost crisis.

Anyway, as I've said - minor detail as far as I'm concerned. I'm much more interested in the claims of fantastic occurrences made by Joseph Smith.

However, I expect that MG will continue to ignore the principle that seemed so important when applied to Josiah's observation: the unreliability of a single-witness uncorroborated claim. I'd like to see the same energy and skepticism applied to:

• Moroni's visit
• First Vision
• Running through the woods with the plates

MG, understandably, is hell bent on not challenging the authenticity of these single-witness claims. No surprise there.

If you are still expecting intellectual honesty and consistency of principal from MG, then what the hell have you been smoking?

Thanks for your concern about my mental and physical health, IHQ My repetition/recasting of these points is mostly rhetorical: it's to ensure that MG has no possible objection - for example, implying an invalid form of question (i.e., "the old "should we" ...) in order to avoid the issue.

But as I said in my reply to MG's earlier plea for some kind of commitment, one that I suspected he would not honour anyway, neither he nor I is likely to change our posting habits.

I'll just note though, as far as the greenish colour on the "plates" goes, that MG seems to have gone off the idea of discussing the witness, Josiah Stowell. He's moved the goalposts from "single witness is unreliable" to "there's no there there".

[Shulem]

MG, understandably, is hell bent on not challenging the authenticity of these single-witness claims. No surprise there.

Like I've said, he is here to disrupt and troll. It would delight me if Shades would just ban him and get rid of his sorry ass. He's caused so much trouble on this board playing his deceptive games. In my book, he's garbage.

I vote to ban MG and send him to Outer Darkness where he belongs:

[x] Shulem

[malkie]

Thanks, Shulem, for reminding me about this.

...
Biblical patterns seem to demonstrate that few witnesses are the norm.

1. Christ's resurrection appearances (road to Emmaus and Ascension).
2. Visions to prophets. Moses, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Paul, John (Patmos), Jesus on Mt. of Transfiguration.
3. Ark of the Covenant.
4. Cornelius and Peter.
5. Stephen's vision.
6. Early Apostles went out in pairs. (two witnesses)

In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established. (2 Corinthians 13:1)
...

By that standard, the following and more have not been "established":

• Moroni's visit
• First Vision
• Running through the woods with the plates

Room left for others to contribute - MG even might think of a few, except that he seems to have lost his appetite for talking about single witness uncorroborated claims.

So much rides on" these claims. "All based on the testimony on one witness? C'mon.