Posted by:
Michaelm
(
)
Date: April 25, 2011 07:42PM
Last week Mr. Ash said this:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705370834/Types-of-evidence-and-the-Book-of-Mormon.html“Direct evidence … is evidence of a fact based on a witness’s personal knowledge or observation of that fact."
Now using that definition, Joseph Smith's bedroom tale about Moroni's appearance is direct evidence as long as the source is from Joseph Smith and not from second or third hand accounts.
And there is just such a source in Joseph Smith's own journal from November, 1835. It tells us what Moroni said.
http://beta.josephsmithpapers.org/paperSummary/journal-1835–1836#25
(the link does not work, it cuts off –1836#25. You will need to type that in the address bar to get to the site)
"he said the indians, were the literal descendants of Abraham"
To clarify what "literal descendants of Abraham" meant to Joseph Smith, look at a revelation written on March 28, 1835, before his journal story.
D&C 107:40 "The order of this priesthood was confirmed to be handed down from father to son, and rightly belongs to the literal descendants of the chosen seed, to whom the promises were made."
To Joseph Smith, "literal descendant" meant from father to son. These are from sources of direct evidence. An example of indirect evidence would be a newspaper article written by Oliver Cowdery or someone else. The journal and D&C are direct evidence because they are the words of Joseph Smith.
What these words tell us is that Moroni said the Indians were literally from Abraham, father-to-son, through Isaac and Jacob on down to the tribes in New York in 1835.
Today Mr. Ash said this:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705371307/Challenging-Issues--Keeping-the-Faith-The-Book-of-Mormon-and-modern-science.html"If we forego traditions and folk-assumptions about the Book of Mormon and apply the methods of modern science and scholarship..."
The "direct evidence" from Joseph Smith's own mouth about the visit from Moroni is now "traditions and folk-assumptions."
If we apply the methods of modern science using DNA, it does not support what Moroni told Joseph Smith. It looks like the apologists are now claiming that Moroni's words are just folk-assumptions.
How do apologists get away with denying "direct evidence"? It seems that to admit it as evidence does prove that Joseph Smith lied about Moroni.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/25/2011 09:34PM by Hoggle.