robuchan Posted August 28, 2012 Posted August 28, 2012 So it sounds like after all this, my initial post is fair, right?So what? Interesting. It sure seems like more than a "so what" to me.Assumptions:--the testimony is correct that he saw treasure and stated that it sunk lower each time they started digging--that there was no actual treasure that sunk lowerFacts:--Joseph used the same peepstone in this event as he did translating the BOM--Joseph used the same technique, head in hat, peering into the peepstone and seeing images--Joseph either lied or was deceived when using this technique to find treasureIt seems it would give a believer at least a pause to think about whether or not Joseph's future use of the peepstone technique were also either cases of fraud or deception.Further, the whole thing with the treasure seeking, treasure guardians, Moroni as treasure guardian, and gold plates as treasure. It all blends together in what appears to be a real mess. 0QuoteMultiQuoteEdit
USU78 Posted August 28, 2012 Author Posted August 28, 2012 (edited) So it sounds like after all this, my initial post is fair, right? 0QuoteMultiQuoteEditNope.You still don't seem to get it that the report of what Thompson said could be accurate, yet untrue, because what Thompson said was untrue. Edited August 28, 2012 by USU78
KevinG Posted August 28, 2012 Posted August 28, 2012 Nope.You still don't seem to get it that the report of Thompson said could be accurate, yet untrue, because what Thompson said was untrue.But, but, but... It's in a history book so it must be true!(Sounds like a J school grad). 1
robuchan Posted August 28, 2012 Posted August 28, 2012 Nope.You still don't seem to get it that the report of what Thompson said could be accurate, yet untrue, because what Thompson said was untrue.Sure that's a possibility. But it's fair to say the gist of what he said is close enough, right? Certainly you don't apply this strict of rules to source statements that are positive to LDS such as First Vision, BOM witnesses, etc.Put it this way, if God revealed the answer to me (whether or not Joseph did that) and I gave you a quiz and you would get $1M if you get it right, what would your answer be? Yes or no?
USU78 Posted August 28, 2012 Author Posted August 28, 2012 Sure that's a possibility. But it's fair to say the gist of what he said is close enough, right? Certainly you don't apply this strict of rules to source statements that are positive to LDS such as First Vision, BOM witnesses, etc.Put it this way, if God revealed the answer to me (whether or not Joseph did that) and I gave you a quiz and you would get $1M if you get it right, what would your answer be? Yes or no?I'm not interested in your money.I don't think I'd be interested in taking your quiz.Let's not get sidetracked by tu quoque hypotheticals, shall we?All I as apologist am interested in is dispelling appearances of implausibility asserted by the boobirds. Demonstrating that the Thompson statement lacks the indicia of reliability simply frees us to balance the data.Repeat: I'm not trying to convince you JSJr's testimony is true. I'm just demonstrating that you have to make up your own mind about such things without having lies and obfuscations and half-truths clouding your analysis. 1
USU78 Posted August 28, 2012 Author Posted August 28, 2012 But, but, but... It's in a history book so it must be true!(Sounds like a J school grad).I see Queen Mab hath been with thee:
volgadon Posted August 28, 2012 Posted August 28, 2012 I see Queen Mab hath been with thee:[media=] One of the scarier movies I have ever seen. Sadly, it is far from outdated.
USU78 Posted August 28, 2012 Author Posted August 28, 2012 One of the scarier movies I have ever seen. Sadly, it is far from outdated.I was in law school when this came out: the theater gave law students at the Ewe-of-Ewe free tix to attend the earlybird showing.Still scares me, too.
robuchan Posted August 28, 2012 Posted August 28, 2012 I'm not interested in your money.I don't think I'd be interested in taking your quiz.Let's not get sidetracked by tu quoque hypotheticals, shall we?All I as apologist am interested in is dispelling appearances of implausibility asserted by the boobirds. Demonstrating that the Thompson statement lacks the indicia of reliability simply frees us to balance the data.Repeat: I'm not trying to convince you JSJr's testimony is true. I'm just demonstrating that you have to make up your own mind about such things without having lies and obfuscations and half-truths clouding your analysis.I had a feeling you wouldn't want to take my quiz. It sounds like you're not interested in what happened. You're interested in what kind of case you can make to prove the conclusion you've made. I'm not interested in balancing data. I'd like to know if Joseph actually looked in a peepstone in his hat and told people he saw treasure and that it slipped lower as they dug.
USU78 Posted August 28, 2012 Author Posted August 28, 2012 I had a feeling you wouldn't want to take my quiz. It sounds like you're not interested in what happened. You're interested in what kind of case you can make to prove the conclusion you've made. I'm not interested in balancing data. I'd like to know if Joseph actually looked in a peepstone in his hat and told people he saw treasure and that it slipped lower as they dug.How would you propose proving such a thing, one way or the other, after so long, without a Flux Capacitor?
volgadon Posted August 28, 2012 Posted August 28, 2012 I was in law school when this came out: the theater gave law students at the Ewe-of-Ewe free tix to attend the earlybird showing.Still scares me, too.Your timing is interesting, as I just had a mass communications class this morning at the Ewe.
selek1 Posted August 28, 2012 Posted August 28, 2012 (edited) It sounds like you're not interested in what happened. You're interested in what kind of case you can make to prove the conclusion you've made. Isn't projection one of the Seven Deadly Sins?If anybody in this thread seems more intent on advancing a cause and vindicating his private and ahistorical view than upon understanding, it's certainly NOT USU78. Edited August 29, 2012 by selek1 1
robuchan Posted August 28, 2012 Posted August 28, 2012 How would you propose proving such a thing, one way or the other, after so long, without a Flux Capacitor?You use that word again. Step out of your lawyer shoes for a minute and pretend you're just trying to figure something out not proving it or disproving it.
Glenn101 Posted August 28, 2012 Posted August 28, 2012 Of course this is about the millionth time (give or take a few thousand) that this issue has been raised. There are a few points to consider.1. Justice Neely's bill notes that it was an examination, not a trial. His bill for the examination is is $2.682. There are no primary documents extant to examine for veracity.3. All of the accounts seem to have a common origin, i.e. the now lost Pearsall documents that she supposedly tore from her uncle's docket book.4. There is no way of determining if those documents were actually from Justice Neely's docket book.5. There is no way of determining if the documents that Pearsall showed Bishop Tuttle were geuine or had been modified.6. The witness accounts of the outcome of the examination are diametrically opposed. Doctor Purple syas that he was acquitted. A.W. Benton says that he was found guilty but designedly allowed to escape because of his youth.7. It is evident from historical sources that Joseph openly remained in the area for several months (great escape, no?).@robuchan, I do not know of any LDS scholar that accepts as a fact that "Joseph said he saw treasure and stated that it sunk lower when they dug for it." The only acceptance is that Thompson allegedly said it.Glenn 1
DavidB Posted August 29, 2012 Posted August 29, 2012 (edited) Selek, my assertions areIt does not matter becuase trial or examination Joseph Smith is still a Prophet of God.It does not matter if he was convicted or if he was released without going to trial, because Joseph Smith is still a Prophet Edited August 29, 2012 by DavidB
cdowis Posted August 30, 2012 Posted August 30, 2012 So what? Interesting. It sure seems like more than a "so what" to me.Assumptions:--the testimony is correct that he saw treasure and stated that it sunk lower each time they started digging--that there was no actual treasure that sunk lowerFacts:--Joseph used the same peepstone in this event as he did translating the BOM--Joseph used the same technique, head in hat, peering into the peepstone and seeing images--Joseph either lied or was deceived when using this technique to find treasureIt seems it would give a believer at least a pause to think about whether or not Joseph's future use of the peepstone technique were also either cases of fraud or deception.Further, the whole thing with the treasure seeking, treasure guardians, Moroni as treasure guardian, and gold plates as treasure. It all blends together in what appears to be a real mess.Interersting, except that we do not have a "sinking treasure" but the text of the BOM. As we have discussed the BOM as "fact or fraud" for at least the last twenty years, it is a fact that it cannot be easily dismissed as a crude, simple fraud. We also have at least eleven witnesses to the plates and various aspects of his divine mission, including the shared vision of the visitation of angels. I know no other claiment of having a divine commission with such a cloud of witnesses. So I guess each of us will have to decide what this all means to us personally. The BOM tells me how to make that decision.
robuchan Posted August 30, 2012 Posted August 30, 2012 Interersting, except that we do not have a "sinking treasure" but the text of the BOM. As we have discussed the BOM as "fact or fraud" for at least the last twenty years, it is a fact that it cannot be easily dismissed as a crude, simple fraud. We also have at least eleven witnesses to the plates and various aspects of his divine mission, including the shared vision of the visitation of angels. I know no other claiment of having a divine commission with such a cloud of witnesses.So I guess each of us will have to decide what this all means to us personally. The BOM tells me how to make that decision.So do you reject my two assumptions or do you just find a reasonable explanation for them?
Pahoran Posted August 30, 2012 Posted August 30, 2012 So do you reject my two assumptions or do you just find a reasonable explanation for them?You have a problem with counting, Rob. Your post actually relied upon five assumptions, not two. Labelling assumptions as "fact" does not make them so.Regards,Pahoran 1
ERayR Posted August 30, 2012 Posted August 30, 2012 You use that word again. Step out of your lawyer shoes for a minute and pretend you're just trying to figure something out not proving it or disproving it.Then what is the point. To just cast aspersions on Joseph Smith. Why don't you pretend for a while that he really did talk with God and angels.
robuchan Posted August 30, 2012 Posted August 30, 2012 You have a problem with counting, Rob. Your post actually relied upon five assumptions, not two. Labelling assumptions as "fact" does not make them so.Regards,PahoranOK, then let's focus on the first two, since the last three are extensions of the first two. Do you accept the first two assumptions?
USU78 Posted August 30, 2012 Author Posted August 30, 2012 You use that word again. Step out of your lawyer shoes for a minute and pretend you're just trying to figure something out not proving it or disproving it.I have no idea what you're getting at. You make no sense at all. You say you want to look at evidence. You take assertions by dead guys recorded by other dead guys from documents that have questionable provenance and call them facts.I'm getting to the point I don't think you can be helped.You are determined to accept whatever nonsense has been asserted for propositions simply because it supports your presuppositions.Yet you worry about my credentials.Sheesh.
Recommended Posts