Evidences...what does the word mean to you

[_Redefined]

stemelbow, where arst all thou fellow supporters, have ye not even but one?
Simon! Ya know ya want to! Get in here and tell stemelbow what great poise he is demonstrating in the very throws of all these haters, whom he no doubt still loves regardless, apparent with how he ends all of his comments. Come on this is one of the topics that a critic can't possibly denounce, there were WITNESSES! Unless of course he actually is completely on his own in his understanding here? Bcspace, the Nehor. . . anyone??

[_Darth J]

DJ,

And speaking of intellectual dishonesty, you're now wanting to "move on" as if round one is over. There is nothing to move on from because you haven't established anything yet.

Oh boy. This won't end with you, huh? No big deal. I got some thick skin.

Anyway, what's been established? Joseph Smith claimed he had gold colored plates with engravings on them, as part of his story in bringing forth the Book of Mormon. We now have agreed, all except Quasi, that we have evidence Joseph Smith indeed did have gold colored plates with engravings. I agree, it doesn't' support much regarding Joseph Smith's story, but its a start. Considering what we've been through in these pages of seemingly nothingness, that's saying something...we've started.

let's move on.

love ya tons,
stem

No, it's not a start at all. It's an attempt to get hearsay from Joseph Smith considered as evidence. It doesn't matter if the Eight saw an object that was consistent with Joseph Smith's story. If they cannot independently verify what they saw, then they can't say what they saw. They can only say what was represented to them, and that is hearsay---not just in court, but in everyday life.

A person could completely disregard the Eight Witnesses---as they should---and still believe that Martin Harris et al. had a supernatural experience, and on that basis believe that the Book of Mormon is authentic. The reverse is not true. A person could not find the claimed supernatural experiences of the Three Witnesses to be unconvincing, and yet still conclude from what the Eight Witnesses were able to observe that the Book of Mormon is authentic.

[_stemelbow]

The credibility of David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, and Martin Harris in claiming to have had this supernatural experience is the only issue because it is the only claim of authenticating the plates. The claimed experience of three different people does nothing to bolster the scope of what eight other people can say about their own observations. The Eight Witnesses can be summarily discounted regarding the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

Indeed. I take them separately.

love ya tons,
stem

[_stemelbow]

No, it's not a start at all. It's an attempt to get hearsay from Joseph Smith considered as evidence. It doesn't matter if the Eight saw an object that was consistent with Joseph Smith's story. If they cannot independently verify what they saw, then they can't say what they saw. They can only say what was represented to them, and that is hearsay---not just in court, but in everyday life.

You'll excuse the confusion that people will take from your post. They can't say what they saw because they can't "independently verify" what they saw? That's just gobbly-gook. You've already agreed that the testimony of the 8 establishes evidence that Joseph Smith had gold colored plates. Why all the obfuscation at this point?

A person could completely disregard the Eight Witnesses---as they should---and still believe that Martin Harris et al. had a supernatural experience, and on that basis believe that the Book of Mormon is authentic. The reverse is not true. A person could not find the claimed supernatural experiences of the Three Witnesses to be unconvincing, and yet still conclude from what the Eight Witnesses were able to observe that the Book of Mormon is authentic.

Yiptey. What does one have to do with the other? Only that they both supply evidence for the story Joseph Smith told about the plates, and its contents. Can one be more telling than another? Sure. Can one be prove true and another be proven false? Sure. But that has no bearing on the discussion of whether claim evidence is evidence or not.

love ya tons,
stem

[_Darth J]

The credibility of David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, and Martin Harris in claiming to have had this supernatural experience is the only issue because it is the only claim of authenticating the plates. The claimed experience of three different people does nothing to bolster the scope of what eight other people can say about their own observations. The Eight Witnesses can be summarily discounted regarding the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

Indeed. I take them separately.

love ya tons,
stem

So the Eight Witnesses are out as evidence of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Right? Because the OP wasn't asking about evidence that Joseph Smith showed some metal plates with inscriptions on them to his dad, his brothers, his brother-in-law, and a small group of friends.

[_stemelbow]

So the Eight Witnesses are out as evidence of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Right? Because the OP wasn't asking about evidence that Joseph Smith showed some metal plates with inscriptions on them to his dad, his brothers, his brother-in-law, and a small group of friends.

The OP is asking for evidence concerning the authenticity of the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith' story of how it came to be, which just so happens to include his claim to having golden colored plates.

Interesting you're so hung up on this, after you agreed with the majority.

love ya tons,
stem

[_Darth J]

No, it's not a start at all. It's an attempt to get hearsay from Joseph Smith considered as evidence. It doesn't matter if the Eight saw an object that was consistent with Joseph Smith's story. If they cannot independently verify what they saw, then they can't say what they saw. They can only say what was represented to them, and that is hearsay---not just in court, but in everyday life.

You'll excuse the confusion that people will take from your post. They can't say what they saw because they can't "independently verify" what they saw? That's just gobbly-gook. You've already agreed that the testimony of the 8 establishes evidence that Joseph Smith had gold colored plates. Why all the obfuscation at this point?

They can say they saw plates. They can't say what those plates actually were---a custom-made prop, a thing Joseph Smith found somewhere, a real ancient Nephite record, or what.

A person could completely disregard the Eight Witnesses---as they should---and still believe that Martin Harris et al. had a supernatural experience, and on that basis believe that the Book of Mormon is authentic. The reverse is not true. A person could not find the claimed supernatural experiences of the Three Witnesses to be unconvincing, and yet still conclude from what the Eight Witnesses were able to observe that the Book of Mormon is authentic.

Yiptey. What does one have to do with the other? Only that they both supply evidence for the story Joseph Smith told about the plates, and its contents. Can one be more telling than another? Sure. Can one be prove true and another be proven false? Sure. But that has no bearing on the discussion of whether claim evidence is evidence or not.

See how you slipped "and its contents" in there? You're still cheating. You're also cheating when you start mentioning "proving false." People claiming the Book of Mormon is authentic have the burden of proof. Just like my current sig line is satirizing, you don't get to tell a story and declare that it is true because nobody can prove otherwise.

I want you to explain exactly in what way the Eight Witnesses would be able to tell from seeing those plates that Joseph Smith was telling a true story. Tell me why M. Russell Ballard is wrong.

[_stemelbow]

I want you to explain exactly in what way the Eight Witnesses would be able to tell from seeing those plates that Joseph Smith was telling a true story. Tell me why M. Russell Ballard is wrong.

I'll repeat then, Joseph Smith claimed he had golden colored plates, which as anyone remotely familiar with the story know how they relate to the rest of his story regarding how he got them. The 8 witnesses testify they saw and handled gold colored plates.

love ya tons,
stem

[_Darth J]

So the Eight Witnesses are out as evidence of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Right? Because the OP wasn't asking about evidence that Joseph Smith showed some metal plates with inscriptions on them to his dad, his brothers, his brother-in-law, and a small group of friends.

The OP is asking for evidence concerning the authenticity of the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith' story of how it came to be, which just so happens to include his claim to having golden colored plates.

Interesting you're so hung up on this, after you agreed with the majority.

love ya tons,
stem

You are the one who started a thread asking "what is evidence?" and then gets hung up when that question is explored. "Interesting you're so hung up on this" is that internet Mormon tactic of using your own ignorance about what evidence is and how it works to invent this image of unbelievers as deliberately ignoring the overwhelming evidence that Joseph Smith's magic polygamy church is so obviously true. On page 1 of this thread, I said that the Three Witnesses are evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon, and I have explained exactly why the Eight are not.

The Three Witnesses are evidence of the plates being an ancient Nephite record, because they claimed to have had a supernatural experience from which they obtained that knowledge. At that point, it becomes an issue of the credibility of the witnesses.

I'll repeat then, Joseph Smith claimed he had golden colored plates, which as anyone remotely familiar with the story know how they relate to the rest of his story regarding how he got them. The 8 witnesses testify they saw and handled gold colored plates.

So what? You agreed that plates like that could be faked. The Kinderhook Plates were fake. People who are not Strangites dismiss their plates as fake. How exactly would the Eight Witnesses have determined whether Joseph Smith's story about what the plates were and where he got them was true?

[_Polygamy-Porter]

I want you to explain exactly in what way the Eight Witnesses would be able to tell from seeing those plates that Joseph Smith was telling a true story. Tell me why M. Russell Ballard is wrong.

I'll repeat then, Joseph Smith claimed he had golden colored plates, which as anyone remotely familiar with the story know how they relate to the rest of his story regarding how he got them. The 8 witnesses testify they saw and handled gold colored plates.

love ya tons,
stem

So damned what.

hate ya tons,
porter