If plates then God

[Gadianton]

It’s interesting how the critics are always the right minded impartial observers. I suppose it may be due, at least partially, to lines of evidence which are acceptable and focused on vs. others.

Your preliminary issue is that you have no "line of evidence". I'm not talking quality of evidence. A preliminary issue, before we even get to evidence quality, is that you have no coherent line of evidence even offered.

one example: you insist there is physical evidence for the gospel in the form of ancient plates due to witnesses testifying having seen the plates. But at the same time, you insist that seeing the plates would be too much proof, and so nobody is allowed to see them. Did Emma see the plates -- did she leaf through thin sheets of gold filled with ancient-looking writing or not? There is no reason from historical accounts to believe she did more than feel the alleged plates under a cloth in a very simple interaction while moving them. The problem is, that makes perfect sense in light of your belief that we can't go around giving people too much evidence -- and too much would be enough to rationally believe sans faith. And that means that Emma isn't actually a witness to the plates as such that you'd have "in a courtroom". She's someone who just believed there were plates without enough direct evidence to believe in them. Just like us. Any of us can just have faith and believe the plates were real. But then we can just have faith and believe the gospel is real, without having to go through the middleman of the plates. The same faith is required to believe in the so-called evidence that is required to believe in what the evidence is allegedly proving. Even if a witness has a clear, detailed account of examining the plates, your argument for faith prevents any witness from establishing the materiality of the plates because it would take away our faith.

If the witnesses establish the truth of ancient plates with court-room certainty, then they are proven well enough and no faith is needed; if they don't, then the plates are just an unnecessary intermediary we can skip and have faith directly in the gospel, and if witnesses do establish the plates with certainty for anyone who knows how a court of law works, but skeptics have hardened hearts and don't believe it, then skeptics could also disbelieve the plates if Moroni didn't take them back and the Church showed them to us, and so the argument fails that the plates can't be shown as it would take away our faith.

[I Have Questions]

Explain exactly how I’ve misrepresented what you said. If you can.

One more time.

Go back to: Sun Oct 01, 2023 7:55 pm

On this thread.

I think my views were fully expressed there along with other posts before that. You said that I said one thing when I actually said another and then further clarified what I was saying.

You’re beating a dead horse.

Twisting things up in knots.

Regards,
MG

You still haven’t demonstrated that I’ve misrepresented what you said.

[MG 2.0]

There have been a lot of questions coming my way. Sorry I bypassed yours. Could you be somewhat specific as to examples? And how the lines of evidence would necessarily dovetail?

Regards,
MG

Back on my post of 1313 27 Sep, I wrote:

The problem is the evidence can be rationally interpreted in a number of different ways, We can't take the evidence as a whole and say a) Joseph was telling the truth, b) what he described was objective physical reality (this seems to be your notion of "truth"), and c) that this is a justified true belief. There is just far too much room for skepticism, to the point you already have to be inclined to believe a) and b) are true to accept it.

Put another way: Res Ipsa pointed out in a previous post that Joseph "carefully controlled the context in which anyone was permitted to be exposed to the plates." If anyone else in any other context were to do something like that, wouldn't you at least be a little suspicious?

Hi tagriffy,

Thanks for reposting that. The simple answer is yes, I would. I would also agree that a,b,and c can be looked at from various directions/perspectives with differing outcomes/conclusions. That’s what I find interesting in this forum. Getting a deeper perspective on some of those differing views as I alternatively hold up a more supportive position for traditional and faith focused accounts/narratives of the restoration and the value of Christianity in the marketplace of ideas.

Regards,
MG

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

I would also agree that a,b,and c can be looked at from various directions/perspectives with differing outcomes/conclusions.

Lay ‘em out.

- Doc

[MG 2.0]

It’s interesting how the critics are always the right minded impartial observers. I suppose it may be due, at least partially, to lines of evidence which are acceptable and focused on vs. others.

Your preliminary issue is that you have no "line of evidence". I'm not talking quality of evidence. A preliminary issue, before we even get to evidence quality, is that you have no coherent line of evidence even offered.

one example: you insist there is physical evidence for the gospel in the form of ancient plates due to witnesses testifying having seen the plates. But at the same time, you insist that seeing the plates would be too much proof, and so nobody is allowed to see them.

Yes, to the masses.

Did Emma see the plates -- did she leaf through thin sheets of gold filled with ancient-looking writing or not? There is no reason from historical accounts to believe she did more than feel the alleged plates under a cloth in a very simple interaction while moving them.

Although she was directly involved in the translation from said plates.

The problem is, that makes perfect sense in light of your belief that we can't go around giving people too much evidence -- and too much would be enough to rationally believe sans faith. And that means that Emma isn't actually a witness to the plates as such that you'd have "in a courtroom". She's someone who just believed there were plates without enough direct evidence to believe in them. Just like us.

But not just like us. She was in close proximity to everything that was going on. We aren’t.

Any of us can just have faith and believe the plates were real.

But it is more difficult because we are separated by space and time.

But then we can just have faith and believe the gospel is real, without having to go through the middleman of the plates.

But not so if the restoration narrative is real/accurate.

The same faith is required to believe in the so-called evidence that is required to believe in what the evidence is allegedly proving.

It’s faith, but qualitatively different because of where we are and where the original witnesses were.

Even if a witness has a clear, detailed account of examining the plates, your argument for faith prevents any witness from establishing the materiality of the plates because it would take away our faith.

True.

If the witnesses establish the truth of ancient plates with court-room certainty, then they are proven well enough and no faith is needed.

True.

…if they don't, then the plates are just an unnecessary intermediary we can skip and have faith directly in the gospel.

No. Because the plates and the angel are one of those things that are part and parcel to the restoration of the gospel. The restored gospel would not exist without the angel and the plates.

…and if witnesses do establish the plates with certainty for anyone who knows how a court of law works…

Which wasn’t the case.

…but skeptics have hardened hearts and don't believe it…

Which is a valid position because of being separated by time and space.

…then skeptics could also disbelieve the plates if Moroni didn't take them back and the Church showed them to us…

Umm…I don’t think so.

…and so the argument fails that the plates can't be shown as it would take away our faith.

Nice try.

Throughout the thread I’ve explicitly laid out why it is unreasonable to have the evidence of the plates in the here and now.

Regards,
MaG

[MG 2.0]

Whatever the case may be - baby cancer.

- Doc

What one might expect in a natural world. Been through that earlier in the thread also.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

I would also agree that a,b,and c can be looked at from various directions/perspectives with differing outcomes/conclusions.

Lay ‘em out.

- Doc

We’ve seen them laid out on this thread.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

For a person who doesn't trust in "men's" words because "men" can't know truth, you are awfully trusting of the words told to you by "men."

Already explained why.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

One more time.

Go back to: Sun Oct 01, 2023 7:55 pm

On this thread.

I think my views were fully expressed there along with other posts before that. You said that I said one thing when I actually said another and then further clarified what I was saying.

You’re beating a dead horse.

Twisting things up in knots.

Regards,
MG

You still haven’t demonstrated that I’ve misrepresented what you said.

Been there done that.

Done.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

Back on my post of 1313 27 Sep, I wrote:

Hi tagriffy,

Thanks for reposting that. The simple answer is yes, I would. I would also agree that a,b,and c can be looked at from various directions/perspectives with differing outcomes/conclusions. That’s what I find interesting in this forum. Getting a deeper perspective on some of those differing views as I alternatively hold up a more supportive position for traditional and faith focused accounts/narratives of the restoration and the value of Christianity in the marketplace of ideas.

In other words, you assume your conclusions. Tagriffy covered that here:

The problem is the evidence can be rationally interpreted in a number of different ways, We can't take the evidence as a whole and say a) Joseph was telling the truth, b) what he described was objective physical reality (this seems to be your notion of "truth"), and c) that this is a justified true belief. There is just far too much room for skepticism, to the point you already have to be inclined to believe a) and b) are true to accept it.

Moving on to this question:

Put another way: Res Ipsa pointed out in a previous post that Joseph "carefully controlled the context in which anyone was permitted to be exposed to the plates." If anyone else in any other context were to do something like that, wouldn't you at least be a little suspicious?

Your answer:

...The simple answer is yes, I would...

That really sums it up. Going past that is what leads to the illogical permutations required to support a conclusion when the evidence indicates otherwise.

It would be far less embarrasing to just hear someone say "i believe, even though i am aware that a clearminded and rational evauation of the situation suggests I shouldn't." Pretending otherwise really destroys such a poster's reputation as a rational, thinking person interested in truth and knowledge.