“Nines on the SeN blog comments” wrote:Quite. Rather obviously. That's why we examine the historical evidence, especially the accounts of what the witnesses to the events report they witnessed. Rather inconveniently for you, no serious historian argues that the witnesses were dishonest co-conspirators, precisely because the evidence for their honesty and good character is so abundant.“Gemli” wrote: Here's an interesting fact: you don't know what the Witnesses witnessed any more than I do. We weren't there. We don't have the experience or the mindset of people who grew up a small town in the early 1800s.
Now, if you'd like to make a serious case that they were duped, I'm happy to have that discussion. But that would require you to actually read what the witnesses said and repeatedly affirmed, and marshal actual evidence as to how they were duped and why. To me, that means answering the question of where those strange plates came from. Or, if they really didn't exist, dealing with the abundance of positive evidence in the record with a suitable explanation. This is basic historical practice.
You claim to be interested in evidence and discussion, but you're not. You'd rather just insist, over and over and over again, that the witnesses were duped, because there is no God, therefore no plates, therefore they were duped, therefore no God. At no point has being completely ignorant of or in total contradiction to the historical evidence made an iota of difference to your position.
I don't know what your wishy-washy handwaving about either one of us "not being there" is supposed to mean with respect to my arguments, but I'd rather read what the people who were there had to say about what they saw and held and touched, and then build a historical case from there. Your a priori negation of everything they have to say has nothing to do with the fact that you (or I) weren't there, and everything to do with the fact that you simply aren't interested in serious discussion with anyone who claims to have experienced something you flatly believe to be impossible. There is no God, therefore no plates, therefore duped, therefore no God. On and on and on ad nauseam. You're so thoroughly wedded to your anti-theistic priors that you won't even consider the atheistic explanation that the plates were nothing more than a tin forgery in the face of actual historical evidence.
Thank you for reaffirming your commitment to the ridiculousness of the simian celestial wonderland. It's a bit of sentimentality that's completely and utterly irrelevant to the discussion, of course, but I'm glad you haven't wavered a bit in your ideological commitments and that you continue to announce them unasked at every turn.And living as we do in a time when people have walked on the moon, there are still those among us who think that the members of one branch of simian apes are going to live eternally in some celestial wonderland when they die. And it's not just one religion. There are hundreds or thousands of different religions, each one with its own miracles, gods, demons, eternal lives and other such fantasies that would be embarrassing in a bad science fiction movie.
Nope. Merely repeating a statement won't transform it into true history. Sorry. You can assert that he was a convicted con man or a petty crook all you like, but the facts don't support you in that effort. You're simply wrong. Again, if you have specific and material evidence to the contrary, you ought to provide it. You aren't talking to someone who's never looked outside of the nonexistent "Mormon echo chamber".“Gemli” wrote:You can believe anything you like (clearly), but Joseph Smith was not an honorable fellow. He was a petty crook in a backward era
While you'll probably trot this argument out yet again, because you don't seem to have the temperament or capacity for anything better, I should mention that I assert Joseph Smith's good character not by delusive blind faith in the fairy tales which tell me so, but because I've actually read various biographies of Joseph Smith and of Latter-day Saint history, I know what the facts say, and I've formed my judgment by thoroughly examining that evidence.
If you want to have an honest and material discussion of that evidence, as you so often claim, I'm happy to. If you want to present a case of any substance as to why you disagree and believe Joseph Smith was a petty crook, you're free to do so at any time. But true to form, you have yet to provide even a scrap of evidence for your position, instead arguing by fiat and flat assertion. I'm well aware of the critical perspective of Joseph Smith. Merely appealing to the existence of unnamed nonbelievers is not an argument with the facts on the ground. (I recognize that this approach follows from your transparently absurd and self-serving prior that "if x claim was true, there would be no doubt of it", but I prefer to examine the evidence at hand before coming to conclusions on inconclusive questions.)
Speaking of appealing to nonbelievers...
Spare me. This is at least the fifth time that I've seen you roll out this ridiculous argument, which means there are probably hundreds more repetitions of it that I wasn't here for. I even personally responded to it, as I recall, which makes me wonder why you're trotting it out yet again without having even acknowledged the critique. (Or it would, at least, if I didn't already know that repeating the same ten clichéd arguments with no regard whatever for your interlocutors is your unflinching modus operandi.)The Pope, sitting there in a sequined robes in front of a bunch of celibate men and preaching utter nonsense, rolls his eyes at the Mormon story.
Unfortunately, much like your other favorite turns of phrase, it doesn't gain credence merely by dint of repetition. In case you missed my prior response, does the Pope have a thoroughgoing understanding of the "Mormon story" and well-informed judgments as to why he believes in the Catholic tradition instead? Can you point me to evidence that he knows any more about what Mormons believe, and why, than you do? Has he read about the 1826 trial, since you clearly haven't?
Even if he does know all of these things, why should the Pope's rejection of the Mormon story be any more compelling than yours, or my own family members' who have long since walked away from the church? "High-profile non-Mormon doesn't believe in Mormonism" isn't any more of a compelling argument than "high-profile theist doesn't believe in atheism." If your atheism isn't jeopardized by the Pope's Catholicism, it's not clear to me why my own religious commitments ought to be.
(The predatory "holy gestapo" which swoops upon burgeoning apostates and fills your breast with such righteous smugness was nowhere to be found during my family's deconversions, by the way. That ought to count for something in your reckoning of the merits and demerits of the "theological communities" you incessantly lambaste, but I'm sure it won't, and we'll be hearing about the holy gestapo again as soon as it's convenient for your polemic.)
Dan keeps harping on this point over and over. If only people would honestly study the Witnesses, they would have no choice but accept that the plates were real. And if the plates were real, then you have to explain how Joseph made the plates. How he wrote the Book of Mormon so fast. How he fooled everyone around him. How they never recanted their testimonies.“DCP” wrote: Wow, Nines. That was a really solid response to poor gemli. Well done. Plainly, too, you're much, much more patient with him than I've come to be.
I would be very pleased if what you've written were to have any positive effect on him. Unfortunately, though, I lack faith. He hasn't changed his approach in years, and he's very unlikely to do so now.
Is this actually Mormonism’s strongest argument?