Decent Post on Proof and Evidence at Sic et Non

[_stemelbow]

Of course we only have his self-serving statement for that, but that doesn't explain why, since the objective was merely to prove that "he had plates."

I realize you are stuck on this attempt to say this is his only claim, and somehow suggest that is what I'm saying, but that was not his only objective. The objective here is clear to me. People were witness the existence of the plates with engravings on them and they appeared ancient to them. As I said, you have to take one thing at a time.

In summary, you have to be predisposed to believing Joseph Smith's story before the testimony of the Eight Witnesses becomes relevant, but if you already believe his story, you don't need their statement.

Whatevers clever to you, I suppose. I didn't say any of this.

Seriously, reading your attempts to reword what other people have said is like watching a first-grader fumbling around, trying to make sense of the world.

It's quite clear Static pointed out a pretty gross error from you in regards to reading me. It's funny, or sad depending on the mood I"m in, how often your complaints attacking people is really just hypocrisy.

That isn't even close to the argument, nor does it indicate that you understand what the issue is. Joseph Smith, like all con men, relied on other people's gullibility and their susceptibility to fallacious thinking. Fast forward 182 years, and it's still working, as Stemelbow is demonstrating.

Suddenly your complaint about me being predisposed to belief Joseph Smith's story sounds incredibly, again, hypocritical. You get so full of yourself as conversations continue actual civil and thoughtful dialogue isn't even possible with you, it seems.

[_stemelbow]

Well, there you go, stemelbow. Darth J. has driven the final nail into your coffin. He definitely proved that your position was that this was Joseph Smith's only claim. (LOL!)

I know. He's a marvel to behold sometimes. Sadly for him I do think his ego is far too large for thoughtful conversation to take place. He's only looking for a weakness in another so he can go after the other person, but he'snot very mindful that he carries weakness too. Kind of a goon, like unto Buffalo, I'd say.

[_stemelbow]

It think this is all pretty trivial at the end of the day. The quality of the case of Mormonism doesn't really depend on technical distinctions in what constitutes evidence and it is no coup for the apologist or great fault for the critic to allow their to be some evidence for Mormonism. At the end of the day it's terribly uncompelling no matter the distinction.

+1. If I was as smart as this guy I'd have been saying the same damn thing.

[_Chap]

[Darth J.is ] only looking for a weakness in another so he can go after the other person ...

I am sorry to have to say that you are not normally very good at giving the impression that you have an interesting and well-based point of view to put over, either in terms of the style of your posts or of their content. Sometimes your posts look suspiciously like derails: it does not much matter whether they are deliberate or inadvertent - the effect is the same.

I am not very surprised, therefore, that Darth J. tends to treat your contributions as if they were plastic ducks popping up on a shooting range, rather than as stimulating opportunities for dialogue.

[_brade]

It think this is all pretty trivial at the end of the day. The quality of the case of Mormonism doesn't really depend on technical distinctions in what constitutes evidence and it is no coup for the apologist or great fault for the critic to allow their to be some evidence for Mormonism. At the end of the day it's terribly uncompelling no matter the distinction.

+1. If I was as smart as this guy I'd have been saying the same damn thing.

I recently had a conversation with a friend of mine who also happens to no longer be active. He sort of scratches his head when I say that for many of the Church's claims I don't believe that their false. He thinks the whole of the evidence proves that they are. But I think that's just as dogmatic a view as lots of believers, just in the other direction.

My approach is more nuanced and I don't think it's giving up any ground, as EA has said, to grant that there is evidence for many of the Church's foundational claims, because I don't think the best available evidence warrants belief and commitment.

[_stemelbow]

I recently had a conversation with a friend of mine who also happens to no longer be active. He sort of scratches his head when I say that for many of the Church's claims I don't believe that their false. He thinks the whole of the evidence proves that they are. But I think that's just as dogmatic a view as lots of believers, just in the other direction.

My approach is more nuanced and I don't think it's giving up any ground, as EA has said, to grant that there is evidence for many of the Church's foundational claims, because I don't think the best available evidence warrants belief and commitment.

I agree. I appreciate this perspective, because at least it makes sense. Spiritual witness has to be a part of one's life in order for belief, and even then I wouldn't say belief is a given.

[_stemelbow]

I am sorry to have to say that you are not normally very good at giving the impression that you have an interesting and well-based point of view to put over, either in terms of the style of your posts or of their content. Sometimes your posts look suspiciously like derails: it does not much matter whether they are deliberate or inadvertent - the effect is the same.

I am not very surprised, therefore, that Darth J. tends to treat your contributions as if they were plastic ducks popping up on a shooting range, rather than as stimulating opportunities for dialogue.

What a silly hypocritical post, Chap. I know its much easier to go on the attack and attempt derails, but we can be sure your attempts are deliberate. For me, I'm just a dummy.

[_Chap]

Well, there you go, stemelbow. Darth J. has driven the final nail into your coffin. He definitely proved that your position was that this was Joseph Smith's only claim. (LOL!)

I know. He's a marvel to behold sometimes. Sadly for him I do think his ego is far too large for thoughtful conversation to take place. He's only looking for a weakness in another so he can go after the other person, but he'snot very mindful that he carries weakness too. Kind of a goon, like unto Buffalo, I'd say.

I am sorry to have to say that you are not normally very good at giving the impression that you have an interesting and well-based point of view to put over, either in terms of the style of your posts or of their content. Sometimes your posts look suspiciously like derails: it does not much matter whether they are deliberate or inadvertent - the effect is the same.

I am not very surprised, therefore, that Darth J. tends to treat your contributions as if they were plastic ducks popping up on a shooting range, rather than as stimulating opportunities for dialogue.

What a silly hypocritical post, Chap. I know its much easier to go on the attack and attempt derails, but we can be sure your attempts are deliberate. For me, I'm just a dummy.

So I am derailing if I respond to a comment such as the one you posted above about Darth J.?

Good try at a 'tu quoque', though.

[_stemelbow]

If that is what you think, stem, then I feel a touch badly for you, unless you really do believe he was capable of translating an ancient Book of Mormon from plates that he simply ordered from the local coppersmith, in which case you are basically admitting that he was deceiving these poor fellows, since he wanted them to attest to their ancient appearance. You are in a bad tangle that can't be undone by your wishing to take the single claim out of the context that Joseph purposely situated it in. Joseph got these fellows to attest to the plates' ancient appearance in a text wherein they also affirmed that he translated the same plates. The connection between those two claims in inseparable.

Sure they believed he translated them. But the thrust of your testimony is that they got to look upon the plates. Joseph Smith had some plates. Now as to whether they were ancient, even if they seemed to be ancient to the witnesses, we don't get from the 8 witness testimony at all. Based on the 8 testimony alone, we have no reason to think the plates were actually ancient--only that they appeared to be by untrained eyes.

[_Chap]

If that is what you think, stem, then I feel a touch badly for you, unless you really do believe he was capable of translating an ancient Book of Mormon from plates that he simply ordered from the local coppersmith, in which case you are basically admitting that he was deceiving these poor fellows, since he wanted them to attest to their ancient appearance. You are in a bad tangle that can't be undone by your wishing to take the single claim out of the context that Joseph purposely situated it in. Joseph got these fellows to attest to the plates' ancient appearance in a text wherein they also affirmed that he translated the same plates. The connection between those two claims in inseparable.

Sure they believed he translated them. But the thrust of your testimony is that they got to look upon the plates. Joseph Smith had some plates. Now as to whether they were ancient, even if they seemed to be ancient to the witnesses, we don't get from the 8 witness testimony at all. Based on the 8 testimony alone, we have no reason to think the plates were actually ancient--only that they appeared to be by untrained eyes.

I have to say that I find it far more incredible that, even if he was a fraudster, Joseph Smith would not have produced any kind of physical 'prop' designed to lead people to believe he actually had got the plates he claimed to have.

I agree that there is no way that the 8 witnesses were in a position to testify that Smith had translated from the plates (as opposed to testifying that he had told them that he had translated from the plates): the fact that they do none the less testify to this 'with words of soberness' greatly reduces the weight I am willing to place on them as independent witnesses to anything.