If Scientists Had The Plates Joseph Used Would You Believe?

[ckonrad]

Please take this poll if you are a non Mormon.

By "authentic" I mean, if the plates were translated by independant scholars and found to be the Book of Mormon as we have it today.

Would you believe yes, no, if not why not?

Thanks

-corey

[saemo]

Please take the poll if you are a non Mormon and maybe describe why you wouldn't believe.

Thanks

-corey

No, because you didn't take your scenario any further...so, someone has an ancient stack of plates with writings etched on them...doesn't mean anything at that point.

I assume that they get translated and have nothing to do with what is in the BoM.

[Tchild2]

I put NO, but with a little analysis, I think that I might be persuaded to reconsider many of my conclusions about Joseph Smith and the LDS church. If the plates were discovered and verified genuine (rather crucial part), and the language deciphered and found to be very closely resembling the familiar Book of Mormon, then the evidence would be overwhelming in favor of the claims made by Joseph Smith.

A skeptic could assert that J.S. merely found ancient plates and due to some genius or latent savant qualities, somehow possesed the necessary skill to decipher his found plates into the Book of Mormon. However, if that were the case (plates, but no angel), and the plates were authentic, then it stands to reason that real people ages ago were the authors of the BoM (assuming that linguists, metalurgists, etc...the world over were convinced of the plates authenticity).

What would be the chances of Joseph Smith stumbling upon ancient golden records and having some latent genius to decipher them without aid? pretty friggin' slim I would venture. I will have to continue thinking of some scenario where skepticism, luxuriantly applied to Mormonism's foundational claims might be less warranted given the hypothetic appearance of genuine gold plates.

[krose]

It's more than just the existence of the plates. You need to add more details.

IF the plates existed, and IF they were shown by independent scientists to be ancient, and IF the "Reformed Egyptian" were translated by independent scholars who verified that the text matched the Book of Mormon, then of course I would believe that the BoM is the genuine history of ancient people that it claims to be. It would be foolish not to.

So I will vote Yes on the assumption that your scenario includes those.

[ckonrad]

It's more than just the existence of the plates. You need to add more details.

IF the plates existed, and IF they were shown by independent scientists to be ancient, and IF the "Reformed Egyptian" were translated by independent scholars who verified that the text matched the Book of Mormon, then of course I would believe that the BoM is the genuine history of ancient people that it claims to be. It would be foolish not to.

So I will vote Yes on the assumption that your scenario includes those.

Hello

Ok, i suppose i should have been more specific but that is what i meant by "authentic" meaning that as you said they were translated by scholars and found to really be the book of Mormon as we have it today. Otherwise asking this question wouldn't make much sense so i figured it was obvious what i meant, I'm glad you got it.

-corey

[thesometimesaint]

ckonrad:

Being LDS I couldn't answer your poll. But from the responses given it would appear than no amount of physical evidence will convince the critic.

[spinner]

ckonrad:

Being LDS I couldn't answer your poll. But from the responses given it would appear than no amount of physical evidence will convince the critic.

And I could counter that no amount of counter-evidence would convince a believer, no? I think that in fact the responses show a nuanced view on this, not the dogmatic approach you suggest.

I voted 'yes', although the question is difficult to answer because it doesn't specify just what is meant by 'believe'. I would certainly be likely to believe certain things like Joseph's Smith's claims to supernatural powers. I would also probably believe that the Book of Mormon is, to a large degree, what the internal narrative says that it is.

Would I believe the Mormon Church? I assume that was what you meant by 'believe'. That is a tougher question. I would certainly look at it with new eyes, but it is possible to believe the Book of Mormon without believing everything taught by the SLC Church, as many other offshoot branches show. I don't buy into the logic that if the BofM is 'true' then the entire belief structure of the LDS church also has to be true. Mormons have to admit this as well when they hold up the BofM Witnesses as proof of the BofM--many of them stopped believing the SLC church but still (according to Mormon claims) had a testimony of the BofM. If you don't believe that somebody can accept the BofM but reject the LDS Church, their story loses the evidentiary value that Mormons place on it.

[John Larsen]

The Book of Mormon has been thoroughly discredited outside of the physical existence of the plates. This is kind of like asking "what if we discovered that New Jersey was really in Indonesia. We know New Jersey is not in Indonesia from outside evidence.

This hypothetical is the same as me asking you "If thetans were real would you become a Scientologist?" You can see at first pass how this question, like yours, is unfair because it is a classic form of begging the question. The answer is still probably "no" because you do not accept the truthfulness of the entire proposition outside of the premises.

[Analytics]

I put no. At that point Iâ??d accept that the Book of Mormon was a legitimate ancient record, but to me that doesnâ??t imply everything the church says it does (e.g. the Book of Mormon is an accurate translation of an ancient manuscript therefore the Church is â??trueâ?).

First, Iâ??d need to consider whether the religion of the ancient Nephites was actually true. For example, just because Lehi said there was no physical death in the world before Adamâ??s fall doesnâ??t mean there wasnâ??t. I would need to consider the possible ways Joseph could have translated this ancient record (help from God? From the devil? From a genius translator from a secret society? From aliens?)

Iâ??d also compare the religious message of the Book of Mormon to the religious message of Mormonism. Are they the same? Are they even compatible? Given that â??the Churchâ? in the Book of Mormon didnâ??t even exist until Alma baptized himself some 400 years into the story, Iâ??d suggest that a religion based squarely on what the Book of Mormon actually teaches would be different than the modern LDS religion we know today.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

No, because you didn't take your scenario any further...so, someone has an ancient stack of plates with writings etched on them...doesn't mean anything at that point.

I assume that they get translated and have nothing to do with what is in the BoM.

Kind of says it all.

[Tchild2]

ckonrad:

Being LDS I couldn't answer your poll. But from the responses given it would appear than no amount of physical evidence will convince the critic.

Then you didn't read the responses very well. Krose, Spinner, Analytics and myself stated that authentic plates would make a material difference. They wouldn't mean that automatically the church would be believed to be "true", but certain claims most certaintly would.

[thesometimesaint]

I've long maintained that physical evidence by itself will not cause belief.

It was long assumed that Troy never really existed until it was found. I'm not too sure that there are many that still believe in the ancient Greek Gods.

[blueadept]

From everything that I've posted in keeping an open mind about 'new evidence,' I voted yes.

The elephant in the room (JS) would be much more manageable with evidence like this.

[John Larsen]

I've long maintained that physical evidence by itself will not cause belief.

It was long assumed that Troy never really existed until it was found. I'm not too sure that there are many that still believe in the ancient Greek Gods.

I have seen many "believers" assert this about items of faith. But as far as I can tell there is abolutely no grounds whatsoever to make this assertion. As soon as their is evidence produced, all but lunatics believe. Your own example disproves your thesis. People did not believe in Troy when it was a matter of faith (no evidence). When Troy was found, everyone accepted its existence. Can you think of of one tenant of faith that has been shown with evidence to be true that people refuse to believe? No.

Such an assertion is ludicrous and utterly without base.

[Hawkmoon]

The Book of Mormon has been thoroughly discredited outside of the physical existence of the plates. This is kind of like asking "what if we discovered that New Jersey was really in Indonesia. We know New Jersey is not in Indonesia from outside evidence.

This hypothetical is the same as me asking you "If thetans were real would you become a Scientologist?" You can see at first pass how this question, like yours, is unfair because it is a classic form of begging the question. The answer is still probably "no" because you do not accept the truthfulness of the entire proposition outside of the premises.

I would like to see you actually back this little statement up... or was it just typical John Larsen hyperbole?

[thesometimesaint]

John Larsen:

You are incorrect Troy was relegated to the realm of legend and myth, until it was found where Homer said it was.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy

[Tchild2]

John Larsen:

You are incorrect Troy was relegated to the realm of legend and myth, until it was found where Homer said it was.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy

That was John's point; the evidence of Troy made believers of all the skeptics. Are there any disbelievers in Troy now?

[thesometimesaint]

Tchild2:

We're still not absolutely sure that what we think is the Troy of Homer is the Troy we uncovered. But it is a pretty good bet.

As pertain to the BoM. The jury is still out as to its Western Hemisphere location. The Eastern Hemisphere is a done deal. Nahom, and Bountiful have been found.

[Cold Steel]

Had Joseph Smith produced the plates, they almost assuredly would have been taken away from him. The person who owned the land on which they were found may have been able to make a legal case that he was the owner. At any rate, it's not the Lord's way to provide irrefutable evidence to man concerning His will. He could write His will in the Heavens or cause it to groan from the Earth. Still, He has chosen not to do so.

Joseph Smith enjoyed communion not only with Book of Mormon prophets who now are angelic beings, but with biblical prophets who also are angelic beings. He knew Paul, Peter, John and many others and he understood them. But as far as the plates go, the Adversary was committed to their destruction. Certainly, the church's claim on the plates would have been challenged by the state, by scholars and by the land owners.

Look at the difficulties the church had in preserving the Book of Abraham papyrus. Even now, there is much missing and the parts that are still intact are hotly debated.

Even scholars who see that there is more to the church and its claims and ordinances than can be explained have not rushed out and joined the church. And as impressed as Margaret Barker is, she has, as far as I know, not asked to join the church. In the end, only those "warm fuzzies" (as the EVs term it) can witness to man of its truthfulness.

[blueadept]

The Eastern Hemisphere is a done deal. Nahom, and Bountiful have been found.

You don't mind if I leave it at 'a reasonable assumption' for this critic. IMO, it still takes personal revelation to say 'it's a done deal.'

[thesometimesaint]

blueadept:

I have nothing against personal revelation. IMNTBHO it is the best way.

However when it shows up on a satellite picture it is beginning to be in the realm of "Proof".

[John Larsen]

I would like to see you actually back this little statement up... or was it just typical John Larsen hyperbole?

Sure thing. Where would you like me to start? Which discrediting would you like to begin with? Would you like to start with the anthropologists, the geneticists, the biologists, the physicists, the astronomers, the bible scholars, the historians, the archaeologists, the metallurgists, the military scientists, etc. etc. etc.

Nahom, and Bountiful have been found.

No they haven't.

[DH]

Well, I'd believe they are authentic ancient records. However, questions would still remain: Are these records ancient mythology? Are they ancient fictionional accounts? Are they accurate historical records? Are they inspired by God to convey certain messages to people? Are the messages meant for a particular nation or for everybody? And so on.

In other words, yes, if scientists proved these to be authentic documents, I'd believe they are ancient documents. In order to know if they are scripture, or whatever else, further inquiries would still be needed.

[thesometimesaint]

John Larson:

Mere assertion.

Here is the pictures

http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml

[John Larsen]

John Larson:

Mere assertion.

Here is the pictures

http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml

And which peer reviewed journal did Dr. Lindsay publish his paradigm shifting findings in?

Here's proof of bigfoot: The Bigfoot Field Research Organization

And here's proof of alien abduction: Alien Abduction and Experience and Research

How about astro projection?: The Astral Projection and Astral Plane Research Project

Want some more?