Sensei Kabukistan @SKabukistan · 2m 689 Followers
Et tu?
Yes, we got into the weeds on the dimensions, elemental composition, & weight of the plates as described by witnesses.
And we’ve also gotten into the weeds on translation.
Why?
Om weight, dimensions, & composition, the OP was about the relevance & value of testimony by BoM witnesses.
We went more narrow to discuss whether their testimony was relevant to authenticity. You & Stack said no.
I said, wait a minute:
1) several witnesses gave descriptions of the plates’ dimensions;
2) several also commented on weight.
I suggested that information may be relevant to authenticity. Why?
Because Gold is much denser, & therefore heavier (on a volume basis) than any commonly available meta.
So we went further into the weeds & discussed the issue conceptually.
The reason it’s relevant, is you can’t fake density. Gold weighs approximately 3x the weight of cast iron & 2x copper or brass. If the plates were Gold it greatly increases the probability of authenticity (as if Joseph had 60lbs of gold laying around to fake plates with).
We discussed various ways witness testimony of dimensions & weight could be used to get some sense of the probability the plates were made of gold.
Admittedly, it isn’t conclusive for several reasons.
First, we can only approximate dimensions based on imprecise witness estimates.
Second, similarly with weight, the weights were estimates, not precision measurements.
Even if inconclusive, the testimony is relevant & has some probative value, including with respect to authenticity.
For example, if testimony pegged weight at 15-30 pounds, for reasons we discussed, it would cut against authenticity.
Estimates at 60 lbs, however, weigh in favor of authenticity.
Again, I emphasize, it’s not conclusive. What we’re doing is investigating the potential relevance & probative value of one specific subset of evidence. That’s what empiricism is. It’s granular. When you’re dealing with ancient history, you’ll never have a perfect evidentiary record. So you work with what you have, and do the best you can with it.
As for translation. Why were we discussing that?
Because Stack took the position that witness testimony is irrelevant if the BOM is a 19th century creation. I pushed back on the vagueness of his description, but ultimately, we got on the same page.
I questioned whether there is a sufficiently reliable method for accurately assessing whether a text like the Book of Mormon is a 19th century creation, and not the translated text of an ancient record.
Stack referenced certain linguistic and other analytical methods employed by scientists & historians to determine origin dates of ancient texts.
You proposed some analytical approaches of your own.
I noted the fact that the BOM purports to be a translation, & I raised the fact that a textual analysis using the methods & approaches you proposed would have to take into account the fact of translation. I also addressed, in broad terms, the implications translation could have on the accuracy & validity of your proposed analytical approaches.
I had begun to outline some of the reasons your approach may not be particularly effective or accurate, when you gave me a patronizing pat on the head and told me to get lost because as a lawyer, I’m out of my depth.
You’re right, I’m a lawyer, but you say that as if it disqualifies me to talk about translation. Was there something that I said about translation that is incorrect or invalid? If so, address the merits. If you don’t feel qualified to comment on the merits of what I’m saying, but doubt my competence as well, you could consider asking.
It seems odd, especially coming from you, to be so dismissive about details & granularity, when we’ve been intentionally engaged in a disciplined (for X) dialogue drilling down to the substance, or as close as we can get to it, on key facets of the big picture issues in the OP.
Why all of a sudden, does that mean I need to pull my head out of my ass?
