Defenders: Why didn't Joseph show Isaac Hale the plates?

[_TAK]

Daniel
earlier you said ..

DCP
Dogmatic certainty from nearly two centuries after the event Trump's collective and independent eyewitness testimony, repeated over decades, of people who actually saw, touched, and held the object.

Can you provide any proof the relic in this story is the same relic shown the Whitmer family et.al. later?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Can you provide any proof the relic in this story is the same relic shown the Whitmer family et.al. later?

The standard in criminal trials is "beyond a reasonable doubt."

In civil trials, the standard is "the preponderance of the evidence."

Those standards seem relevant to me in historical discussions.

Unreasonable doubts, brain-in-a-vat epistemological objections, bushy Ockham's-Razor-defying nitpicking beards, etc., don't.

[_TAK]

Can you provide any proof the relic in this story is the same relic shown the Whitmer family et.al. later?

The standard in criminal trials is "beyond a reasonable doubt."

In civil trials, the standard is "the preponderance of the evidence."

Those standards seem relevant to me in historical discussions.

Unreasonable doubts, brain-in-a-vat epistemological objections, bushy Ockham's-Razor-defying nitpicking beards, etc., don't.

I will consider that a No. You can not offer any proof that the relic in this story was the same shown the the so-called Book of Mormon Witnesses.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I will consider that a No. You can not offer any proof that the relic in this story was the same shown the the so-called Book of Mormon Witnesses.

I probably can't.

I probably also couldn't prove beyond all merely conceivable doubt that the Lincoln who delivered the Gettysburg Address was the same Lincoln who debated Stephen Douglas, or that the Titanic that went down in the North Atlantic was the same Titanic that was launched from the Southhampton shipyards, or that the Parthenon that stands in modern Athens is made of the same stones that built the Parthenon back in the days of classical Greece, or that the Gutenberg Bible on display at the Huntington Library was actually printed on Gutenberg's press.

If the standards of "preponderance of the evidence" and "beyond a reasonable doubt" are jettisoned in favor of unrealistic standards that can never really be met, and if any merely conceivable quibble or objection is enough to undermine common sense assumptions without any regard for Ockham's Razor and without any need for supporting evidence, then no, virtually nothing in history can be proven.

Perhaps Joseph and/or his invisible cabal of co-conspirators made multiple sets of fake plates, which probably didn't exist anyway, in their invisible metal foundry on the outskirts of Palmyra (or somewhere on the planet) and amused themselves by switching them around for the heck of it. Or something like that. Or something unlike that. Or something.

[_antishock8]

I probably also couldn't prove beyond all merely conceivable doubt that the Lincoln who delivered the Gettysburg Address was the same Lincoln who debated Stephen Douglas, or that the Titanic that went down in the North Atlantic was the same Titanic that was launched from the Southhampton shipyards, or that the Parthenon that stands in modern Athens is made of the same stones that built the Parthenon back in the days of classical Greece, or that the Gutenberg Bible on display at the Huntington Library was actually printed on Gutenberg's press.

What's the glaring difference between these examples and the golden plates?

[_marg]

I probably also couldn't prove beyond all merely conceivable doubt that the Lincoln who delivered the Gettysburg Address was the same Lincoln who debated Stephen Douglas, or that the Titanic that went down in the North Atlantic was the same Titanic that was launched from the Southhampton shipyards, or that the Parthenon that stands in modern Athens is made of the same stones that built the Parthenon back in the days of classical Greece, or that the Gutenberg Bible on display at the Huntington Library was actually printed on Gutenberg's press.

What's the glaring difference between these examples and the golden plates?

DCP probably won't answer you, at least not straight-up even if he did. The difference is that the claims made in his examples are not extraordinary, do not involve the supernatural so accordingly less evidence is required but of those examples the evidence is in fact strong. Either many people involved to observe and/or no motivation to lie.

Unlike the plates which require the supernatural..an extraordinary claim which requires extraordinary evidence to match to warrant acceptance. There is no physical evidence of the plates. The witnesses are not credible. Few people saw them with typical eyesight and if any did they had a personal vested interest in the claim. etc

[_Daniel Peterson]

Poor antishock8 wants to have serious discussions in which he calls me names and levels juvenile personal insults. He thinks he can do that. He can't. Not with me, anyway.

That's fine. He's made his choice. I've got plenty to do. We're probably both happy.



&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

[_Joey]

I've got plenty to do.

Yes, we know. We see you here 24/7!!!!

Or were you speaking relative to other BYU teachers?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Yes, we know. We see you here 24/7!!!!

Or were you speaking relative to other BYU teachers?

Ah, Pal Joey, I'd forgotten.

You do have a second drum that you like to beat -- subordinate, but equally stupid and intellectually insubstantial.

[_Dr. Shades]

Hi Daniel,

Since we're discussing the plates, now's as good a time as any to ask for your opinion on something.

About the time I began seriously doubting the truth of Mormonism, some concerns about the Book of Mormon witnesses popped into my head. They are these:

1. Instead of choosing members of the Smith and Whitmer families, why didn't Joseph select random people on the street who had nothing to gain or lose either way to whom to show the plates? Better yet, why didn't he select the most skeptical people around--like Isaac Hale--to whom to show the plates? It seems to me that former skeptics-turned-believers would make for the most convincing testimonies.
2. Rather than just printing their testimonies in Books of Mormon, why not also have them signed and sworn in front of a judge?
3. Continuing with the above, I'm aware of no informal original document containing the testimonies of the witnesses and their corresponding signatures; you know, the original from which all other testimonies are reprinted. Does it exist, and if so, where?

I'm not trying to bait you into an argument or insult your intelligence; I'm sincerely wondering how a believer in the Book of Mormon can overcome those concerns, since, to me, they seem somewhat akin to "smoking guns."

Should you choose to respond to this, thanks in advance for taking the time.