Evidences...what does the word mean to you

[_stemelbow]

No, talking about the standards by which believing members of the LDS Church reject claims that are similar to their own church's claims is not a deflection from "Evidences...what does the word mean to you." It is entirely on topic.

Its not. its merely a complaint that some FAIR folks might have been wrong, or hypocritical or whatever. It does not define what is evidence for the Book of Mormon or the story Joseph Smith told regarding how it came about, which is what this thread is for.

love ya tons,
stem

[Guest]

It doesn't matter. I simply don't see the point of pursuing this line of reasoning. Have fun...You have already conceded that the testimony of the 8 served its purpose, supplying evidence that Joseph Smith had gold colored plates with engravings on them.

love ya tons,
stem

I think every person here has conceded as much. The problem is that it doesn't get us an inch closer to the truth of the matter concerning whether authentic ancient golden plates were in the posession of Joseph Smith or not.

My point was to show a pattern. A pattern of allowing the plates to be physically felt or touched, but not scrutinized, and employing common tactics used by conmen (like the "Yellow Kid" example provided by Darth J.

I believe that the 3 and 8 witness testimonies should be understood in the larger context of how the plates were witnessed by many others over the course of many months; mostly covered or in a box covered. Their testimony was not in isolation, but as part of a larger pattern of providing a type of "evidence" that was wholly controlled by Joseph Smith.

What do the testimonies of the 3 and 8 mean in that larger context?

[_stemelbow]

It is not credible evidence that the engravings on the plates were ancient. It is not credible evidence that the engravings were a source of translation for JSJr.

Let me just say I think you are being the most reasonable on this thread. To start with. So the testimony of the 3, testifying that the engravings were ancient, and that the plates are the source for the translation that became the Book of Mormon, is not "credible" evidence for those things? Does the caveat of "credible" mean something significant here, that I'm missing?

The 3 can testify of god? Really? How do they now the voice was from god? Maybe it was Hyrum's voice, belowing from behind a curtain. What foundation is there for these 3 knowing what god's voice sounds like?

Good questions, that would have been nice to hear their answers too. Keep in mind there are more senses then seeing that we have to recognize reality. They testified the witness as written was the real experience they had. That serves as something more than your questions.

The 3 can testify that the Book of Mormon's English text correlates to the engravings (ancient or otherwise) on the plates? Not really. None of them professed nor were tested on knowing any ancient languages. None of them professed nor were tested on having used any knowledge of ancient languages to compare the engravings on the plates against the Book of Mormon English text to determine if they correlate to any extent.

If God knows it, and tells them, then they can report it. If you doubt they heard God's words, well then that's something else. But that does not mean the witness as written itself is not evidence in favor of its own claims. It merely means you doubt their witness, right?

Maybe you should do as you profess, but not as you have done in subsequent posts, and stick to the meager point you try to make in the OP.

I'm trying. I'm tryign to discuss any instances of claimed evidence to determine if it is determine evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith' claims regarding the book. Its been very difficult with all the deflections and hand-waving, for sure, but I think I've done fairly well to stick to that end. I would not be surprised if any posts I've offered already do not stick to that goal.

love ya tons,
stem

[_Quasimodo]

Am I behind? I'll scurry then. Once again, the testimony proves NOTHING. NOTHING. It's just the coaxed statements from Joseph Smith's friends.

Have I caught up?

Your "love ya tons" is starting to sound a little disingenuous.

you're missing the boat. this is not a discussion about proof of anything. This is discussing various claimed evidences in favor of the Book of Mormon and the story told by Joseph Smith of how the Book of Mormon came to him.

I'm not concerned whether you don't like me or not, or are cynical of my heart-felt comments. Its up to you to complain about me personally if you like, or stick to the discussion.

love ya tons,
stem

Back to your OP.

With that brief explanation outof the way, I was curious, does anyone who is not LDS recognize that there is anything that can be considered evidence for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon? Now keep in mind I readily admit that there is evidence that the Book of Mormon is not what it claims to be. I am asking anyone to weigh the evidence, or tell e what they think/beleive about the book. Just the one questions.

I would weight the evidence, but there isn't any. The witness statements don't constitute evidence (would not be acceptable in a court of law as evidence).

My comment about your signoff was a reaction to your less then generous remark about my keeping up. Or in this case about my missing the boat.

I'm pretty sure I've followed your comments and see what you're saying. Just can't make much sense of it.

[_stemelbow]

Just an FYI making evidence plural by adding an "s" is done almost exclusively as an apologetic matter.

With that out of the way, it really depends on how you understand evidence to work. There's a view that says that some evidence S is only evidence of P if S best explains P. In that case, then the witnesses wouldn't really be evidence. I only mention this because you seem to think it a matter of hysterical blindness that somebody wouldn't be willing to acknowledge witness testimony as evidence of some view, but there's enough complexity the notion of what constitutes evidence that this might be a reasonable thing to do.

I'm not the only one on that, that is if this is addressed to me. I can't tell. Anyway, it seems all have agreed that the testimony of the 8 is evidence that Joseph Smith had golden colored plates that had engravings on them, confirming Joseph Smith' story that he had golden colored plates with engravings. Would you agree or disagree with everyone here?

love ya tons,
stem

[_stemelbow]

I think every person here has conceded as much. The problem is that it doesn't get us an inch closer to the truth of the matter concerning whether authentic ancient golden plates were in the posession of Joseph Smith or not.

Quasimodo seems to be a hold out for some unknown reason. I can't figure out why. We can discuss the problem you mention by addressing the other claimed evidence--we moved on to the 3 witnesses testimony.

My point was to show a pattern. A pattern of allowing the plates to be physically felt or touched, but not scrutinized, and employing common tactics used by conmen (like the "Yellow Kid" example provided by Darth J.

Indeed. I realize the 8 witness testimony on its own does not give much credibility to Joseph Smith' story regarding the plates or the contents of the Book of Mormon. That is not a question necessarily addressed by the 8 witnesses testimony.

I believe that the 3 and 8 witness testimonies should be understood in the larger context of how the plates were witnessed by many others over the course of many months; mostly covered or in a box covered. Their testimony was not in isolation, but as part of a larger pattern of providing a type of "evidence" that was wholly controlled by Joseph Smith.

What do the testimonies of the 3 and 8 mean in that larger context?

They are two separate accounts, so we should treat them that way. It means regarding the 8 witnesses, as has been established, Joseph Smith had some plates with engravings on them. With the 3 it may mean a lot more. let's discuss.

love ya tons,
stem

[_stemelbow]

Back to your OP.

With that brief explanation outof the way, I was curious, does anyone who is not LDS recognize that there is anything that can be considered evidence for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon? Now keep in mind I readily admit that there is evidence that the Book of Mormon is not what it claims to be. I am asking anyone to weigh the evidence, or tell e what they think/beleive about the book. Just the one questions.

Good catch. I did not realize I left out the "not" in there I fixed it. I meant to say, "I am not asking anyone to weigh the evidence...."

I would weight the evidence, but there isn't any. The witness statements don't constitute evidence (would not be acceptable in a court of law as evidence).

My comment about your signoff was a reaction to your less then generous remark about my keeping up. Or in this case about my missing the boat.

I'm pretty sure I've followed your comments and see what you're saying. Just can't make much sense of it.

Fair enough. I can't quite make much sense of your comments either. Like saying the 8 witnesses testimony is not evidence Joseph Smith indeed had gold colored plates with engravings ont hem.

love ya tons,
stem

[_sock puppet]

Am I behind? I'll scurry then. Once again, the testimony proves NOTHING. NOTHING. It's just the coaxed statements from Joseph Smith's friends.

Have I caught up?

Your "love ya tons" is starting to sound a little disingenuous.

you're missing the boat. this is not a discussion about proof of anything. This is discussing various claimed evidences in favor of the Book of Mormon and the story told by Joseph Smith of how the Book of Mormon came to him.

I'm not concerned whether you don't like me or not, or are cynical of my heart-felt comments. Its up to you to complain about me personally if you like, or stick to the discussion.

love ya tons,
stem

stem, the word proof can either mean the entire set of evidence which led to a conclusion (which I sense is how you are using it as if the only meaning) or be synonymous with evidences--bits and pieces. What I think you may be saying is that you are looking for bits and pieces of proof or evidence, not for a conclusory set of evidences that proves the conclusion. I think when others in this thread have used the word proof, it was meant as a synonym for evidence.

[_Darth J]

The nerve you struck is how much patience I have with idiotic wild goose chases, which is your standard operating procedure.

Since I never disputed that the Eight Witnesses saw some plates that Joseph Smith claimed was the original source of the Book of Mormon, I didn't "concede" anything. There is nothing to concede on an undisputed issue.

Do you want to concede the point that it was possible to fake plates like that in those days, such as the Kinderhook Plates and the Voree Plates? Do you want to concede the point that the Eight Witnesses could not have had any idea whether the plates they saw were genuine or not?

You simply have misunderstood my point. No big deal. From the beginning I've asked if the testimony of the 8 witnesses was evidence that Joseph Smith had plates, which looked like gold and had characters on them. You did not suggest that there were plates until this last response. Initially you said that their witness was merely evidence that there was something that represented plates but were not plates. I realize anyone can fake plates...I've indicated such already. But we are getting somewhere even if your highly cynical of me, personally.

This is a really good example of how believing Mormons are truly desperate in trying to look like they are scoring points. stemelbow, who now seems to have forgotten about the affectation of hillbilly syntax that he wanted to make into his online persona, is ignoring my previous posts to try to make it look as if unbelievers are all hyper-cynical fanatics, and the reasonable people are the ones who believe in a thousand-year long pre-Columbian civilization of Christian Hebrews who had steel weapons and chariots before being wiped out by their cousins whom God punished by turning them into Indians. This is exactly what I already said:

There is nothing from what they said they witnessed that is evidence that the Book of Mormon is true. An LDS apostle affirmed that holding the plates in your hand would not tell you that the Book of Mormon is true any more than not having the plates. The testimony of the Eight Witnesses is hearsay with regard to the historicity of the Book of Mormon: someone else told them what the plates were supposed to be. The only thing the Eight Witnesses could say from personal knowledge is that they saw this object and that a representation was made to them about what this object was supposed to be. They had no independent knowledge of the plates they saw actually being what Joseph Smith said the plates were.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=16554&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=84

.........

No, it is not evidence that "the" plates" existed. It is evidence that something that was represented to be "the" plates existed.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=16554&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=105

I put "the" in quotes, not plates. I explicitly stated that the Eight Witnesses saw some plates. As I explained in the other thread, "the" is in quotes because talking about the Eight Witnesses seeing "the" plates presupposes that the plates Joseph Smith showed them were in fact the same thing that an undead Native American Hebrew gave him in his first successful attempt to find buried treasure with a magic rock.

Or, alternatively, do you want to employ the tactic of the classic internet LDS defender and declare victory based on an illogical inference that you would like to make (the Eight Witnesses are evidence that the Book of Mormon is true and/or the modern LDS Church is true) about an undisputed issue (that the Eight Witnesses were shown plates that were claimed to be an ancient record in another language, the same claim made about the Kinderhook Plates and the Voree Plates)?

You simply did not read the OP, or pay attention when you did. That is not and was never my intention. If you like, I encourage you to reply to the OP in full.

Yes, I did, and I explained why from both the logical use and scope of evidence, and from what was taught by an LDS apostle, the Eight Witnesses are useless in trying to establish the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon.

Worse than useless, actually, for the reasons I have given about why it is suspicious that you would need a testimonial from these people to affirm nothing more than the existence of a set of plates that they have no way to authenticate.

[_Quasimodo]

Fair enough. I can't quite make much sense of your comments either. Like saying the 8 witnesses testimony is not evidence Joseph Smith indeed had gold colored plates with engravings ont hem.
love ya tons,
stem

But, it's NOT evidence. Nor could it be construed that way in any court. It's tantamount to hearsay.