Miracles. Scientific Proof.

[Truth in love]

If the letter was written at the time of the event, yes. If it was written by who it claims to have been written by, yes.

So how does one prove who wrote an old letter? We have a lot of letters documents etc on great events, but they are often dismissed when they have content that runs counter to the views of those reading them.

 

[Tiberius]

So do you accept journals of unlikely events?

would a history of people who had miracles be evidence or just dismissed out of hand?

If the source is subject to scrutiny and it withstands that scrutiny, then I will accept it.

If it's just an account that says a person saw such-and-such-a-thing and there's no way to verify it, then no, I will not accept it. If there's a plausible non-miraculous explanation, I'll accept that over a miraculous explanation.

 

[Truth in love]

If the source is subject to scrutiny and it withstands that scrutiny, then I will accept it.

If it's just an account that says a person saw such-and-such-a-thing and there's no way to verify it, then no, I will not accept it. If there's a plausible non-miraculous explanation, I'll accept that over a miraculous explanation.

So we are right back to what I said several posts ago. People reject what they don’t like and pretend that the evidence is not there.

 

[Tiberius]

So how does one prove who wrote an old letter? We have a lot of letters documents etc on great events, but they are often dismissed when they have content that runs counter to the views of those reading them.

We can see if there are any other records of that person.

For example, let's say there is a letter that reads:

Tuesday, January 14, 1954

Dear Anne,

I will come on Monday. I will be travelling by train, and will arrive at the station at 1:15 in the afternoon.

With Love, John Smith.​

And the envelope reads:

Anne Smith
123 West Street
Anywhereville, NSW, 1234

From:

John Smith
Richmond Airbase
Richmond, NSW, 4321
​

It's easy enough to check these details. Was there really a woman named Anne Smith who lived at that address in January 1954? Was there really a John Smith assigned to the Richmond airbase at that time? Are there any other letters between the two? Was there a train from Richmond to Anywhereville that arrived at 1:15pm?

​

 

[Truth in love]

We can see if there are any other records of that person.

For example, let's say there is a letter that reads:

Tuesday, January 14, 1954

Dear Anne,

I will come on Monday. I will be travelling by train, and will arrive at the station at 1:15 in the afternoon.

With Love, John Smith.​

And the envelope reads:

Anne Smith
123 West Street
Anywhereville, NSW, 1234

From:

John Smith
Richmond Airbase
Richmond, NSW, 4321
​

It's easy enough to check these details. Was there really a woman named Anne Smith who lived at that address in January 1954? Was there really a John Smith assigned to the Richmond airbase at that time? Are there any other letters between the two? Was there a train from Richmond to Anywhereville that arrived at 1:15pm?

​

Well I’ll let you take a crack at this one.

Record found and translated. The original source was seen by a dozen guys. It details many miracles including the resurrection of Christ.

It’s been mocked and ridiculed, but it is a record of past events.

We can see if there are any other records of that person.

For example, let's say there is a letter that reads:

Tuesday, January 14, 1954

Dear Anne,

I will come on Monday. I will be travelling by train, and will arrive at the station at 1:15 in the afternoon.

With Love, John Smith.​

And the envelope reads:

Anne Smith
123 West Street
Anywhereville, NSW, 1234

From:

John Smith
Richmond Airbase
Richmond, NSW, 4321
​

It's easy enough to check these details. Was there really a woman named Anne Smith who lived at that address in January 1954? Was there really a John Smith assigned to the Richmond airbase at that time? Are there any other letters between the two? Was there a train from Richmond to Anywhereville that arrived at 1:15pm?

​

We have the Book of Mormon which is a record from precolonial America.

It records various events that defy traditional science including Christ being resurrected.
Book of Mormon

Now its main purpose is spiritual not historical, however there are some interesting bits of information from a historical view point.

1. 11 men besides Joseph Smith declared that they saw the original plates. Several of them had a major falling out with him personally and left the church, but held to their witness.

2. The book is, people having been trying to explain it away from nearly 200 years, but no one has devised a plausible theory for how an uneducated farm boy who could scarcely write a letter could craft such a complex document.

3. The complexity of culture, poetry, language etc which modern science has validated that were unknown at the time the book was published. Including but not limited to people writing on metal plates or sheets, odd names and little culture references all validate the record.

Now this does not prove anything and everything, but it is evidence of the divine that some things can't be explained by traditional science.

 

[Tiberius]

So we are right back to what I said several posts ago. People reject what they don’t like and pretend that the evidence is not there.

I'm sorry, but what part of what I wrote says that I'll accept or reject something based on whether I like it or not?

 

[Tiberius]

Well I’ll let you take a crack at this one.

Record found and translated. The original source was seen by a dozen guys. It details many miracles including the resurrection of Christ.

It’s been mocked and ridiculed, but it is a record of past events.


We have the Book of Mormon which is a record from precolonial America.

It records various events that defy traditional science including Christ being resurrected.
Book of Mormon

Now its main purpose is spiritual not historical, however there are some interesting bits of information from a historical view point.

1. 11 men besides Joseph Smith declared that they saw the original plates. Several of them had a major falling out with him personally and left the church, but held to their witness.

2. The book is, people having been trying to explain it away from nearly 200 years, but no one has devised a plausible theory for how an uneducated farm boy who could scarcely write a letter could craft such a complex document.

3. The complexity of culture, poetry, language etc which modern science has validated that were unknown at the time the book was published. Including but not limited to people writing on metal plates or sheets, odd names and little culture references all validate the record.

Now this does not prove anything and everything, but it is evidence of the divine that some things can't be explained by traditional science.

And how many of those dozen men could actually READ it? And Joe Smith had been put on trial for scamming people with a nearly identical system of seeing stones and what not previously. So it reeks of another scam.

 

[Truth in love]

I'm sorry, but what part of what I wrote says that I'll accept or reject something based on whether I like it or not?

Sadly “scrutiny” often plays out that way.

 

[Truth in love]

And how many of those dozen men could actually READ it? And Joe Smith had been put on trial for scamming people with a nearly identical system of seeing stones and what not previously. So it reeks of another scam.

Like I said before. It does not fit a given world view and the rejections, personal attacks etc start rather than addressing the facts at hand. (Going to have a heart attack and die from that surprise).

 

[Tiberius]

Sadly “scrutiny” often plays out that way.

Well, how about you actually provide it instead of making excuses?

 

[Tiberius]

Like I said before. It does not fit a given world view and the rejections, personal attacks etc start rather than addressing the facts at hand. (Going to have a heart attack and die from that surprise).

Are you serious?

A guy is put on trial for scamming people, and when he claims to discover new holy texts that can only be read by the exact thing he used to scam people before, it doesn't strike you as suspicious?

 

[Truth in love]

Are you serious?

A guy is put on trial for scamming people, and when he claims to discover new holy texts that can only be read by the exact thing he used to scam people before, it doesn't strike you as suspicious?

LOL this is funny. I point out actually evidence and you can't deal with it. You go on the attack of a person who yes was put on trial and accused of pretty much everything one can name, but you won't address the evidence.

You will no doubt conclude that there is none, even though it is plan to be seen. Its utterly dishonest to claim to be open to evidence and then to not even make an effort to look at it.

 

[Tiberius]

LOL this is funny. I point out actually evidence and you can't deal with it. You go on the attack of a person who yes was put on trial and accused of pretty much everything one can name, but you won't address the evidence.

You will no doubt conclude that there is none, even though it is plan to be seen. Its utterly dishonest to claim to be open to evidence and then to not even make an effort to look at it.

What evidence? Your evidence is EXACTLY what he did as a scam! Why should I believe that this isn't just another scam?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Like I said before. It does not fit a given world view and the rejections, personal attacks etc start rather than addressing the facts at hand. (Going to have a heart attack and die from that surprise).

That is a nice bit of word salad. But the facts at hand are that the evidence supports the claims of Joseph Smith being a fraud. Do you think that you have any evidence to the contrary?

 

[Truth in love]

What evidence? Your evidence is EXACTLY what he did as a scam! Why should I believe that this isn't just another scam?

He was accused that's far from proof. Even if a given accusation could be proved that does not mean a person never did anything else.

You have refused to address that fact that the document exists and could not have been a scam (how do you fraudulently include cultural details not discovered to be accurate for a 100 plus years after publication?)

Its pretty clear that your scrutiny prevents you from actually dealing with the facts as they are. Its easy to never see an elephant when your eyes are closed and to keep claiming there are no elephants because you've never seen one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

He was accused that's far from proof. Even if a given accusation could be proved that does not mean a person never did anything else.

You have refused to address that fact that the document exists and could not have been a scam (how do you fraudulently include cultural details not discovered to be accurate for a 100 plus years after publication?)

Its pretty clear that your scrutiny prevents you from actually dealing with the facts as they are. Its easy to never see an elephant when your eyes are closed and to keep claiming there are no elephants because you've never seen one.

You cannot say that he was not proved to be guilty of the first charge of scamming people in the same way that he scammed his followers. There are reports that he was found guilty and some that deny it. Record keeping back then is not the same as it is today. Smith was found guilty of illegal banking. And there were quite a few charges that he was facing when he was killed by a mob:

Joseph Smith and the criminal justice system - Wikipedia