A Secular Theory of Where the BoM Came From

[Ryan Dahle]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Having previously advanced arguments against the probative value of the Three/Eight Witnesses by comparing them to the Strang witnesses, you now seem to be retreating from those arguments via a non sequitur: "I'm not at all interested in defending the actions of James Strang or Joseph Smith."

This was exactly my point as well. 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

No, it is not.

(added:  Irrelevant aside I probably should delete as distracting from the actual topic now I have caught up with the thread…but that means an empty space, which looks off to me, so will leave it to be completely ignored as it should be.)

My experience is the most errors I experience with Chat are in the calculations. It often gets which number is bigger wrong, doesn’t divide correctly, and even adds things up ‘creatively’.  Even the simple stuff like halving a recipe.  I always doublecheck numbers now if it matters.  Maybe because the research I do is pretty basic these days. It hasn’t made up sources yet for me, but it’s made unfounded claims about what ‘people say’.

I have no clue how more professional AI acts as I am too cheap. 

Saying that I still use it to estimate stuff, just never assume it’s right or even close, though often lazy enough to act like it is. 

Edited March 23 by Calm

[Calm]

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

@Analytics, despite his intellect and knowledge, has effectively ended his participation in this thread without having been able to articulate a positive, coherent explanation for The Book of Mormon that accounts for the key data points (physical plates, witness statements, text origins/translation process) without heavy speculation, while claiming empirical rigor.

But that is understandable because so little is known about the plates from a naturalistic context, such as where they were found, what they are made of, etc. Things that are supplied by the narrative that goes with it, but require a prior acceptance of divine involvement…which instantly negates a naturalistic explanation.  Once you exclude the details connected to divine intervention, there’s not much left to work with.

And Analytics is right if Joseph was misrepresenting actual events that it’s Joseph himself that created the problem of too little information given.  However, if Joseph is telling the truth, it’s not like it was his choice.  His preference it seems to me according to him would be to be able to show the plates to everyone.  Of course saying this while refusing to do so fits the naturalistic narrative of a fraud, pious or not.

It’s not a situation that can be decided imo purely on the ‘obvious facts’ if one honestly accepts the possibility that there could be supernatural involvement, but won’t accept Joseph’s explanations without more empirical confirmation.

To me requiring a developed, coherent mundane narrative for the plates is requiring someone to speculate way too much, which allows the defender to dismiss the explanation as not founded on facts.  It’s a no win situation for the critic.  And it’s not the critic who set up the limitations, so the lack of a coherent explanation shouldn’t, imo, be dumped on the critics.  It is just a characteristic built into the provided narrative with the removal of the plates.

I am not saying this means critics should be given a pass. They need to recognize that their assumption the production was purely naturalistic and Joseph’s story not forthcoming is an inherently weak position, explaining little, imo, even if that’s not on them.  There is little reason, imo, for a defender to be impressed.  Unless one assumes that there is no supernatural involved, which is arguing with the conclusion already determined, it is not a superior position to hold. 

Edited March 24 by Calm

[Zosimus]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Instead, you seemed to be critiquing Joseph by mitigating/disparaging his "playbook" (your term) along "Yeah, well, James Strang did the same thing, so the probative weight of the Three/Eight Witnesses doesn't amount to much" lines.  See, e.g., here:

I feel I've responded to all your distinctions, but not your long sprawling requests for clarification and follow up queries. One thing that would help is just responding to two or three questions at a time, in a few sentences. As many have said before me, it's very difficult to respond to your formatting. 

Restricting our focus to plates and witnesses, what did Joseph Smith do that James Strang did not replicate?

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think your "playbook" comparison is a prolonged false-equivalence fallacy, see here:

See above

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

I then went on to itemize some of the more significant differences (as I see them).  See here:

I then responded to all 10

Quote

Having previously advanced arguments against the probative value of the Three/Eight Witnesses by comparing them to the Strang witnesses, you now seem to be retreating from those arguments via a non sequitur: "I'm not at all interested in defending the actions of James Strang or Joseph Smith."

As I explained to Ryan, my comment is not a retreat, it is a clarification of scope. I’m interested in what the Smith and Strang plates and their witnesses can and cannot establish, regardless of which 19th‑century prophet we’re talking about. I am not interested in discussing whether or not Strang was a true Mormon prophet, or the witnesses and villagers who would claim over the next 40 years that Smith or Strang were fallen or false prophets and/or con artists and that they fabricated the plates and duped the witnesses etc.

I hope this is finally clear

Quote

I just pointed out what I see to be ten substantial distinctions between the "motive or execution" of Smith versus that of Strang.  And as soon as I did, you abandoned your argument, except to reiterate its conclusion.

No, as soon as you did, I responded to all 10. Here

Quote

And now here you seem to be abandoning the "Smith Playbook v. Strang Playbook" argument you yourself injected into this thread

I never abandoned my arguments or retreated, but I did request we clarify scope. See above. And even then I was clear if you do want to discuss what witnesses had to say about the moral character or prophetic status of Smith, Strang, you can DM me.

Quote

To an extent, so do I.  A few thoughts:

1. Both the Enlightenment and Romanticism played significant, but indirect and culturally mediated, roles in Joseph Smith’s milieu...

2. Romanticism's emphasis on emotion, intuition, and the individual resistance to fixed systems conflicted with the American Enlightenment's influences (the Revolution, republicanism, and Scottish “common sense” philosophy)....

3. Joseph, not being a particularized student of either philosophy, was nevertheless partially primed by them to become the conduit through which the Restoration would occur...

Nice, I'll respond in another thread because this one seems to be fully dedicated to your conclusions that I have abandoned my arguments and retreated from the discussion

Edited March 23 by Zosimus

[Zosimus]

4 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

This was exactly my point as well. 

Not to beat a dead horse, but let's look at this closer because it feels unresolved somehow, and that will make discussion harder until its cleared up. This is how I see our exchange:

Me: Advances arguments against the probative value of the Smith's plates and witnesses by comparing them to Strang's plates and witnesses.

Smac: OK, but James Strang is not really a prophet and there's evidence that he fabricated his plates.

Me: James Strang was considered a prophet by many Mormons, including Martin Harris and other witnesses to the gold plates, and there's no evidence he fabricated his plates beyond his enemies saying he did. Just like Smith had enemies that said he, for example, only had a smock full of sand or an empty chest or copper plates from the local print shop. But I don't want to waste time discussing what enemies said about either years later.

Smac: OK, since you brought up Smith's moral character, let's look more closely at what all his detractors actually said. 

Me: Like I said, there are statements on both sides that the plates were faked or fabricated, and its too messy to bother with all those statements here. I'm not interested in defending the moral character, motives/actions or prophetic status of either Smith or Strang here. Its too messy and emotionally charged, I prefer not discuss it here.

Ryan: But you brought it up, and now you are retreating from your stated claims? 

Me: No, I haven't retreated from arguments. I'm just not interested in discussing motives and character based on statements of the angry villagers 40 years after the fact. f Smac wants, we can discuss that in DM.

Smac: So your explanation for why you made that statement (about you not being interested in defending actions) seems like a non-sequitur.

Ryan: This was exactly my point as well. 

Edited March 23 by Zosimus

[The Nehor]

It is a bit odd to claim that Smith’s and Strang’s witnesses are fundamentally different when all of the living witnesses to the Book of Mormon (except possibly Cowdery) accepted Strang’s plates and his witnesses. One would think that if the witnesses were fundamentally different and Strang’s witnesses were inferior to the Book of Mormon witnesses that the Book of Mormon witnesses would be uniquely capable of seeing that gap.

[Ryan Dahle]

13 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

Not to beat a dead horse, but let's look at this closer because it feels unresolved somehow, and that will make discussion harder until its cleared up.

In looking at your overview, I still didn't see anyone ask you to "defend" anyone's character in that thread. So it still seems like a non-sequitur, as far as I can tell.

And I still think it is just bizarre that this is such a touchy subject for you. I think we are all adults here. We can handle the fact that people had varying views of the character of these various sets of witnesses. If it is not a topic you want to discuss, fine. But it just seems weird to bring up any controversial topic related to Church history on any level under your own imposed constraints. Just about anything you say will have implications about Joseph Smith, the witnesses, and Latter-day Saints in general. We can can talk about the nature of the witnesses without being nasty or disagreeable. The historical record is what it is, and I don't think Latter-day Saints or anyone else needs avoid the past. But, suit yourself. We all pick and choose what we want to discuss. 

[Zosimus]

47 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

So it still seems like a non-sequitur, as far as I can tell.

This whole exchange has become a non-sequitor. Moving on

17 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

The Tiruvindalur Plates. But the issue isn't about meeting the precise quota. It is about counteracting Analytics claims that the Book of Mormon is effectively impossible. That just isn't so

I've read and written way more than I care to admit about the copper plates of India, and still consider them to be the best evidence for a historical Book of Mormon. Over the years I've even gone to the extreme of constructing a Book of Mormon geography model based on the ancient Jewish and Christian plates of Cochin. So I'll be the first to admit and defend that it was completely possible for ancient Jews and Christians in a foreign land to etch Semitic words on metal and bind them together with rings. 

But over time, this exercise constructing a geography model that fit history (elephants, silk, steel etc.) kinda revealed to me that it won't ever really matter to anyone, critics and skeptics alike, if there is historical evidence for the Book of Mormon. Why? Because it still won't be more plausible than the possibility that Joseph Smith had heard about the Jews of Cochin with their records on metal plates and their elephants and horses and chariots, and wrote an American adaptation about all of it. These accounts were quite popular and widely discussed.

But that's absurd, right? Yet it is exactly what Strang did. Where do you think Strang got the name Rajah Manchou? Rajah is exactly a Sanskrit word for king, and Manchou is of course as Asian a word as one could get in 1820s America. In imitation of Joseph Smith's gold plates, James Strang dug up a set of ancient Indian copper plates in Wisconsin

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

But that is understandable because so little is known about the plates from a naturalistic context,

I concur.  But @Analytics can't really lay claim to be operating "from a naturalistic context."  He has declares that

A) he is a "Bayesian methodological empiricist,"

B) that Joseph's narrative is "just not possible,"

C) that "space aliens" are a "more likely" explanation for The Book of Mormon,

D) that Satan/Demons are a "more likely" explanation for The Book of Mormon, and

E) that Joseph made the Plates out of Tin (but also that he does not "have an opinion" about Vogel's "Joseph made the Plates and did so alone" theory) (but also that "Sidney Rigdon made the plates out of tin"), and

F) that Joseph "led a conspiracy" in which he "was able to manipulate others to support him in this dishonesty"; and 

G) that Joseph may have fabricated two sets of Plates (one for the Three Witnesses, one for the Eight Witnesses) (I am less sure on this, as Analytics has been pretty coy about it); and

H) that "any explanation" (emphasis added) "is more likely than {The Book of Mormon} being an accurate translation of an actual ancient manuscript."

Analytics set aside the limitations of empiricism and naturalism behind a long time ago.

1 hour ago, Calm said:

such as where they were found, what they are made of, etc. Things that are supplied by the narrative that goes with it, but require a prior acceptance of divine involvement…which instantly negates a naturalistic explanation.  

I grant that those seeking to formulate a naturalistic explanation for The Book of Mormon have a tough row to hoe. 

Frankly, I find it fascinating that we are coming up on 200 years of Anti-Mormonism and our critics still cannot formulate a coherent alternative explanation for The Book of Mormon.  Efforts so far sure seem to veer heavily into speculation that is not only evidence-free, but also contravenes extant evidence.

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Once you exclude the details connected to divine intervention, there’s not much left to work with.

I grant that those seeking to formulate a naturalistic explanation for The Book of Mormon have a tough row to hoe.  

1 hour ago, Calm said:

And Analytics is right if Joseph was misrepresenting actual events

Yes.  "If."  Boy, talk about putting the cart before the horse.  

I get that this naturalistic presupposition governs Analytics, but I don't think it necessarily overrides the data.

If Joseph was misrepresenting actual events, then how do we account for the Three/Eight Witnesses, particularly those whom he barely new (Whitmer brothers + Hiram Page) and those who dissociated from him? 

How does we account for David Whitmer? 

How do we account for the Plates?  Were they a cheap and obvious prop that could not withstand any scrutiny (Vogel's theory, which in turn requires him to fabricate evidence, e.g., that the Eight Witnesses only saw the Plates through a cloth)?  If so, why did none of the Witnesses recant or express some reticence about the possibility of having been duped by an obviously phony object?

Or were the Plates an impressive and sophisticated (but still inauthentic) prop?  If so, did Joseph make them, or were others involved?  If Joseph made them, where did he get the skills and money and materials?  If others were involved, who were they, what did they have to gain by conspiring/colluding with Joseph, and why was this conspiracy never detected nor even hinted at?

I acknowledge that Analytics has complained about evidence we don't have, but he's not accounting for the evidence we do have, at least he's not doing so in any sort of empirical, evidence-based way.  Nor is he obligated to.  

1 hour ago, Calm said:

that it’s Joseph himself that created the problem of too little information given.  

My response is "Well, maybe.  That's speculative and devoid of supporting evidence.  But even if it's so, so what?  We're still left with needing to account for the extant evidence.  If Joseph was keen on hiding/destroying evidence, why did he go out of his way re: the Three/Eight Witnesses, particularly those whom he barely knew (such that Joseph-the-Con-Artist would have little reason to A) let them in on the con, or B) think he could get away with them keeping to their attestations for the rest of their lives)?

1 hour ago, Calm said:

However, if Joseph is telling the truth, it’s not like it was his choice.  His preference it seems to me according to him would be to be able to show the plates to everyone.  Of course saying this while refusing to do so fits the naturalistic narrative of a fraud, pious or not.

Daniel Peterson has made what I think is a pretty good point, namely, that he have voluminous amounts of Joseph Smith's writings subsequent to the translation and publication of The Book of Mormon, including extensive private correspondence, journals, etc.  Per DCP, who has reviewed a lot of these materials, there is no indication in these writings of fraudulent intent or mental impairment.  Rather, the best evidence indicates that Joseph was entirely sincere in his declarations and explanations regarding The Book of Mormon.  

I think this creates a bit of a problem for skeptics.  What substantive evidence is there that Joseph was A) insincere/cynical/conniving and/or B) mentally unsound?  And in the absence of such substantive evidence (we do, after all, have quite a bit of documentary and testamentary evidence both from and about Joseph Smith), what explanation works better than "He was sincere in what he believed and declared"?

1 hour ago, Calm said:

It’s not a situation that can be decided imo purely on the ‘obvious facts’ if one honestly accepts the possibility that there could be supernatural involvement, but won’t accept Joseph’s explanations without more empirical confirmation.

Whom are you quoting here?  Who is positing "obvious facts"?

1 hour ago, Calm said:

To me requiring a developed, coherent mundane narrative for the plates is requiring someone to speculate way too much,

I'm not looking for something exhaustive or fully-developed.  I recognize there are gaps in what we know (we Latter-day Saints are in that boat as well, since "the Gift and Power of God" doesn't really lend itself to analysis).  I have, instead, asked for a positive, coherent (ETA: and not necessarily and "exhaustive" or "comprehensive") explanation for The Book of Mormon that accounts (ETA, again, not necessarily an "exhaustive" or "comprehensive" accounting) for the key data points (physical plates, witness statements, text origins/translation process) without heavy speculation (ETA: though an allowance for some speculation must be made), while claiming empirical rigor.

1 hour ago, Calm said:

which allows the defender to dismiss the explanation as not founded on facts.  

Well, I think it is the absence of facts, of evidence-based reasoning and analysis, that allows a counter-theory to be dismissed as "not founded on facts."

1 hour ago, Calm said:

It’s a no win situation for the critic.  

A critic can do what the rest of us do: Analyze extant evidence and draw reasonable inferences therefrom.  

Had Analytics, the self-proclaimed "Bayesian methodological empiricist," abstained from wild-eyed and unserious claims ("Space Aliens" and/or "Satan" and/or "Demons" are "more likely" explanations), I would be fine with his belated "I don't know" schtick.  As it is, though, Analytics hauled his "I'm all about empiricism, baby!" petard into a discussion centering on extant evidence about the Gold Plates and the Witnesses, and he is now being hoisted with it.

1 hour ago, Calm said:

And it’s not the critic who set up the limitations,

No.  Principles associated with empiricism and evidentiary analysis do that.

Note that even Analytics' "Joseph destroyed the evidence!" argument is itself devoid of evidence.

1 hour ago, Calm said:

so the lack of a coherent explanation shouldn’t, imo, be dumped on the critics.

Not on all of them, sure.  But I think some critics invite that expectation, such that it becomes unreasonable for them to disregard it.  As Dr. Peterson noted here:

Quote

I remember my friend Bill Hamblin once being in communication with a one-time, fairly prominent, ex-member critic of the Church and of the Book of Mormon. And he said, “Look, let’s assume for a moment that you’re right and that Joseph Smith did not have plates. Did he know that he didn’t have plates or did he think that he had the plates? In other words, was he a conscious deceiver, or was he in some sense mad?”

To which this critic responded: “I don’t have to lower myself to your simplistic little dichotomies.”

Well, see, I think it’s intellectually incumbent upon people like that to, come on, give us an answer to this. Otherwise it’s like guerrilla warfare. You attack and attack and attack, you always withdraw, you never defend territory. You never have to stake out your own explanation, which then will be subject to criticism and attack.

Well to me, that simple-minded little dichotomy that this person refused to give an answer to. or refused to take part in, is still a really important question. If Joseph Smith didn’t have the plates, did he know that he didn’t have plates, or did he think that he did?

See also these comments from DCP:

Quote

All right, so let’s get with this.

These are the logical options as I see them: That Joseph either had plates or he didn’t have plates. And then there are subdivisions that you can follow through to see possible ways in which each of these might be the case.

I remember my friend Bill Hamblin once being in communication with a one-time, fairly prominent, ex-member critic of the Church and of the Book of Mormon. And he said, “Look, let’s assume for a moment that you’re right and that Joseph Smith did not have plates. Did he know that he didn’t have plates or did he think that he had the plates? In other words, was he a conscious deceiver, or was he in some sense mad?”

To which this critic responded: “I don’t have to lower myself to your simplistic little dichotomies.”

Well, see, I think it’s intellectually incumbent upon people like that to, come on, give us an answer to this. Otherwise it’s like guerrilla warfare. You attack and attack and attack, you always withdraw, you never defend territory. You never have to stake out your own explanation, which then will be subject to criticism and attack.

Now, a matter being "intellectually incumbent" on someone doesn't amount to much in the real world.  But it sure tempers the persuasive capacity of our critics when all they really have is "not that."

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I am not saying this means critics should be given a pass. They need to recognize that their assumption the production was purely naturalistic and Joseph’s story not forthcoming is an inherently weak position, explaining little, imo, even if that’s not on them.  Unless one assumes that there is no supernatural involved, which is arguing with the conclusion already determined, it is not a superior position to hold. 

Yep.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

6 hours ago, Zosimus said:

Restricting our focus to plates and witnesses, what did Joseph Smith do that James Strang did not replicate?

See the distinctions I noted above.

 

6 hours ago, Zosimus said:

No, as soon as you did, I responded to all 10. Here

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

4 hours ago, Zosimus said:

Not to beat a dead horse, but let's look at this closer because it feels unresolved somehow, and that will make discussion harder until its cleared up. This is how I see our exchange:

Me: Advances arguments against the probative value of the Smith's plates and witnesses by comparing them to Strang's plates and witnesses.

Smac: OK, but James Strang is not really a prophet

I don't think I advanced this argument.

4 hours ago, Zosimus said:

and there's evidence that he fabricated his plates.

I did advance this argument, and you did not substantively respond to it.

4 hours ago, Zosimus said:

Me: James Strang was considered a prophet by many Mormons, including Martin Harris and other witnesses to the gold plates, and there's no evidence he fabricated his plates beyond his enemies saying he did. Just like Smith had enemies that said he, for example, only had a smock full of sand or an empty chest or copper plates from the local print shop. But I don't want to waste time discussing what enemies said about either years later.

Smac: OK, since you brought up Smith's moral character, let's look more closely at what all his detractors actually said. 

Not sure I presented this argument.

4 hours ago, Zosimus said:

Me: Like I said, there are statements on both sides that the plates were faked or fabricated, and its too messy to bother with all those statements here. I'm not interested in defending the moral character, motives/actions or prophetic status of either Smith or Strang here. Its too messy and emotionally charged, I prefer not discuss it here.

Ryan: But you brought it up, and now you are retreating from your stated claims? 

Me: No, I haven't retreated from arguments. I'm just not interested in discussing motives and character based on statements of the angry villagers 40 years after the fact. f Smac wants, we can discuss that in DM.

Smac: So your explanation for why you made that statement (about you not being interested in defending actions) seems like a non-sequitur.

Ryan: This was exactly my point as well. 

My interaction with you started with you comment here:

Quote

Strang’s “brass plates of Laban” are a useful comparison because they also involve an angel, they are also Nephite artifacts, and seven witnesses who saw and hefted them.

I thought this was a substantial overstatement of the similarities between the Three/Eight Witnesses and the Strang witnesses.  So I responded:

Quote

"Involve an angel" means what in this context?

The Three Witnesses attested to an angel.  Did Strang's witnesses do something similar?

You then reiterated your statement:

Quote

There statement is clear that they perceived it as a sort of miraculous event.

I thought this was an even bigger overstatement.  I responded:

Quote

Quote

There statement is clear that they perceived it as a sort of miraculous event.

Not sure about that.  See here:
...
What is "miraculous" here?

Quote

Strang, an approved "Prophet and Seer of God" had it "revealed to him in a vision that an account of an ancient people was buried in a hill" The angel had told Strang where to dig the witnesses confirm that the "sole inducement to our digging was our faith in his statement as a Prophet of the Lord that a record would thus and there be found". They went to the spot revealed through a vision, and behold, a box with plates!

Right.  But what "miraculous event" did the witnesses claim to have experienced?

You responded, but in what I felt was a pretty oblique and nonresponsive way:

Quote

Quote

Right.  But what "miraculous event" did the witnesses claim to have experienced?

If I were to tell you that an angel appeared to me and told me there were ancient gold plates buried behind the Creamery on 9th in Provo, 6 feet down at the precise coordinates shown to me by the angel. Would you go look? 

Nevertheless, I responded:

Quote

Quote

If I were to tell you that an angel appeared to me and told me there were ancient gold plates buried behind the Creamery on 9th in Provo, 6 feet down at the precise coordinates shown to me by the angel. Would you go look?

I don't know.  That would depend on my assessment of you.

Meanwhile, let's go back to what you said: "There statement is clear that they perceived it as a sort of miraculous event."

I don't see this in their statement.  Can you clarify?
...

I think you abuse the phrase "Mormon prophet," as I don't think Strang qualifies.  But otherwise, yes, I am okay with skepticism.

However, you originally said: (speaking of the Strang witnesses) : "There statement is clear that they perceived it as a sort of miraculous event."

I respectfully dispute that, and have asked that you clarify.
...

Again, you originally said: (speaking of the Strang witnesses) : "There statement is clear that they perceived it as a sort of miraculous event."

I respectfully dispute that, and have asked that you clarify.

You responded, this time referencing the "playbook" analogy:

Quote

Yes. In short, Strang runs the same Smith playbook, with two different sets of metal plates, and he succeeds both times. That’s a problem for any argument that treats the 8 gold plate witnesses as evidence against a “cheap hoax” model.

First, the Voree plates. Four men testify in plain language that they recovered the ancient record. You are correct, no angel or divine voice appears in their testimony, but Strang’s larger claim is certainly supernatural, an angel revealed the record’s location, Strang received divine interpreters, and translated the plates by the power of God. Their affidavit does the same thing for Strang as the Eight witnesses do for Joseph. This was intentional. Strang intentionally repeated the gold plate witness playbook. The 4 witnesses to the Record of Rajah Manchou provided a mundane naturalistic witness to underwrite Strang's intentional imitation of Smith's extraordinary narrative of ancient American prophets and metal plates.

But then Strang did something even closer to the 8 gold plate witnesses with his follow-up witnesses to the brass plates of Laban. Seven men signed a testimony printed at the front of the book affirming that Strang “has the plates of the ancient Book of the Law of the Lord given to Moses,” from which he translated, and that he “has shown them to us.” They said they “examined them as closely as we could,” found eighteen brass plates about 7⅜ × 9 inches, of brass, “beautiful antique workmanship,” “occasionally embellished with beautiful pictures,” covered in characters resembling “ancient oriental languages.” Again, there's no angel involved, but there is the same familiar pattern. Multiple men in daylight physically handling and inspecting with natural eyes a stack of beautifully engraved metal plates with “curious workmanship,” all in support of supernatural claims about angels revealing ancient metal plates to a modern prophet.

So Strang's witnesses give us two additional concrete examples of a 19th‑century proof‑of‑concept confirming:

• it was possible for two different Mormon prophets to claim angelic revelations of three distinct ancient metal records,
• it was possible to stage multiple discovery and/or show-and-tell event with credible witnesses,
• it was possible to obtain multiple detailed sober, non‑supernatural affidavits describing hands‑on examination of ancient metal plates,
• it was possible that all those witnesses never formally recant,

For anyone framing the evidence provided by the eight gold plate witnesses as important, how to simultaneously dismiss the Strangite witness evidence as unimportant? Because whatever arguments we might make for Smith's witnesses have to be framed so they don't also canonize Strang’s witnesses. 

note: I do acknowledge that you also might assign additional weight to the testimonies of the three witnesses because they claim to have seen an angel, but I agree with Vogel here. We really should discuss Vogel's work on this 

So there was some substance here (which I appreciated), but I disagreed with its fundamental premise: "Strang runs the same Smith playbook, with two different sets of metal plates, and he succeeds both times."  I then laid out what I saw as ten substantive points which differentiate the Strang witnesses from the Three/Eight Witnesses:

Quote

Distinction #1: Strang only ran half of "the Smith playbook." 

Distinction #2: The half of "the Smith playbook" which Strang did not run was the one involving witnesses attesting to a "miraculous event."  Of the two sorts of percipient events described by the Three and Eight Witnesses, the one Strang avoided was obviously the more difficult one.

Distinction #3: The "Smith playbook," if extended beyond the publication of the Three/Eight Witnesses' statements, includes the quite notable point that several of the Witnesses reaffirmed their testimony, many times strenuously so.  David Whitmer is the most notable of these.  Per the above video, there is no corollary evidence in the historical record of the Strang witnesses subsequently reaffirming their statements.: 

Distinction #4: The "Smith playbook," if extended beyond the publication of the Three/Eight Witnesses' statements, includes yet another quite notable point, namely, that none of the Witnesses recanted.  Even the most informed and ardent critics (Vogel, Analytics, etc.) seem to have resigned themselves to this point, and so formulate theories about the Witnesses that work around it.  In contrast, regarding the Strang witnesses, evidence exists that one of them, Samuel Bacon, "denied the work being done was the inspiration of God," and had called it "human invention.”  

These seem to be pretty significant differences between how well the "playbook" worked out to support Joseph's claims as compared to how well the "playbook" worked to support Strang's claims.

Both sets of claims are, I freely admit, remarkable and understandably difficult to accept at face value.  Hence two further distinctions:

Distinction #5: The "Smith playbook" has the Three/Eight Witnesses acting in secondary / subordinate / supplementary capacity to the primary means of confirming the veracity of The Book of Mormon, namely, the Holy Spirit.  Moroni 10:3-5.  In contrast, does Strang have within his "playbook" any mechanism comparable to Moroni 10?  I don't think so.  

Distinction #6: To the extent there was a "Smith playbook," the purpose of it would be to persuade people to accept The Book of Mormon as a divinely-inspired, divine-preserved, and divinely-translated book of scriptures.  Fast forward 200 years, the "playbook" as deployed by Joseph has resulted in many millions of faithful Latter-day Saints, in tens of thousands of congregations around the world, who accept The Book of Mormon for what it claims to be. In contrast, per Wikipedia there were, as of 2019, six (6) Strangite congregations with about 130 active members.  

Distinction #7: The "Smith playbook" can be reasonably extended to historical evidence attesting to the character and credibility of the Three/Eight Witnesses (and the unofficial witnesses like Emma and Mary Whitmer).  We have no such evidence as to the Strang witnesses, or at least nothing close to the quantum of evidence for the Three/Eight Witnesses.
...
Distinction #8: There is historical evidence that Strang fabricated his plates.  There is not, to my knowledge, any historical evidence that Smith fabricated the Gold Plates.  Speculation and conjecture, sure, but no evidence.

Distinction #9: The size and composition of Joseph’s plates and Strang’s plates were very different.

Distinction #10: The length, intricacy, and genre of the resulting translations are vastly different.

I also followed up by repeating my initial query: 

Quote

Finally, this does not clarify you prior statement: "There statement is clear that they perceived it as a sort of miraculous event."

To what "miraculous event" did the Strang witnesses testify?  To what "miraculous event" were they percipient witnesses?

You responded to my Tent Points, a bit:

Quote

Distinction #1 and #2: ...
...
As mentioned above, we'll have to treat the extraordinary claims of the three witnesses in a different conversation, because there are unique problems with those claims.
...
Distinction #3: ...
...
This is where it gets tricky...

See, I did not find any of these responses substantive.  Again, "You aren't really addressing the substance of Distinction #3.  There is no corollary evidence in the historical record of the Strang witnesses subsequently reaffirming their statements.  I don't see what's 'tricky' about this."

Quote

Distinction #4: ...
...
wrt Samuel Bacon, if you want to get into hearsay and antagonists, then there's way too much to sort through. Let me just say that Joseph Smith and the gold plate witnesses had plenty of detractors saying all sorts of things to discredit them. And only then did Smith and the witnesses begin to badmouth and discredit each other. Do you really want to open that can of worms?

Again, not really a substantive response.

Quote

Distinction #5: ...
...
As I keep saying, Strang was a Mormon, he'd been baptized a member of the Church and never excommunicated under Smith's leadership, unlike all of the three witnesses. Strang was a priesthood holder. In other words, he also had the capacity of confirming the veracity of the Book of Mormon through the Holy Spirit and he also had access to the Moroni 10:3-5 mechanism. Strangites to this day, accept the Book of Mormon as canon. (source) So, yes, he did.

I give you credit for this one.

Quote

Distinction #6: ...
...
See above. Strang was a critical part of the movement that Joseph Smith founded. The Brighamites were more successful in the end, but that says nothing about how well Strang ran the Smith playbook.

Not really responsive.

Quote

Distinction #7: ...
...
See above. If we are to extend your analogy properly, Strang was not only a full member of the Chiefs, he was one of the coaches.

Not really responsive.

Quote

Distinction #8: ...
...
Oh come on, you can't pick and choose the evidence you allow, and dismiss. There's just as much, if not more, so called "evidence" that Smith fabricated his plates as there is that Strang fabricated his. For example...

I was not really impressed with the "evidence" you alleged here.

Quote

Distinction #9: ...
...
Youtube videos make this claim a lot, but Strang's brass plates of Laban were quite close and elaborateness in size to Smith's. See Weeble's comment above.

Quite an overstatement, this.

Quote

Distinction #10: ...
...
Have you ever read Strang's translation of the brass plates of Laban?

Not really responsive, this.

I responded in some detail here.

It was at this point that you started to withdraw from the discussion with what I saw as a non sequitur:

Quote

I'll be honest, I'm not at all interested in defending the actions of James Strang or Joseph Smith. Not going to slide down this slope of putting taking on any of that burden.

See, nobody has asked you that.

What I did ask you, repeatedly, was to substantiate this statement (about the Strang witnesses) : "There statement is clear that they perceived it as a sort of miraculous event."

Still haven't seen that.  

I responded:

Quote

Quote

I'll be honest, I'm not at all interested in defending the actions of James Strang or Joseph Smith.

I am not asking you to do that, nor have I thought you were doing that previously.

Instead, you seemed to be critiquing Joseph by mitigating/disparaging his "playbook" (your term) along "Yeah, well, James Strang did the same thing, so the probative weight of the Three/Eight Witnesses doesn't amount to much" lines.
...
Having previously advanced arguments against the probative value of the Three/Eight Witnesses by comparing them to the Strang witnesses, you now seem to be retreating from those arguments via a non sequitur: "I'm not at all interested in defending the actions of James Strang or Joseph Smith."

At this point, the discussion appears to be over.  I'm okay with that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 24 by smac97

[Zosimus]

56 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't think I advanced this argument.

I was paraphrasing your comment: "I think you abuse the phrase "Mormon prophet," as I don't think Strang qualifies."

You poison the well with such things that cannot be so easily defined without back and forth for days. I would ask you how I have abused the phrase "Mormon prophet" and "why does Strang not qualify", but then we're sliding down the slope into definitions that we'll never agree upon.

1. "Absolutely, Strang was a Mormon prophet", I'll say.
2. "No, he was not", you'll say.
3. "Not really impressed with your evidence, so not a substantive response", we'll both say.

BTW These are not actual quotes, so no need to reply with three unique individual replies pointing out we never said the above. This imagined dialogue is only meant to be only an example of how frustrating this discussion has become

56 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I did advance this argument, and you did not substantively respond to it.

Same endless loop. You say you gave evidence Strang fabricated plates. I'll say antagonistic comments by detractors is not evidence, so let's not go that way. You'll say something about me retreating with a non-sequitor, and then you'll still continue saying there's evidence out there that Strang fabricated plates. Ignoring the same comments by detractors of Joseph Smith that he had sand in his frock, or an empty chest. etc etc. 

And then there's this stream of responses from you that are absolutely impossible to respond to without investing hours into sorting out what you are referring to exactly:

- "Quite an overstatement, this."
- "See, I did not find any of these responses substantive."
- "Again, not really a substantive response."
- "I give you credit for this one."
- "Not really responsive" (3x)
- "I was not really impressed with the "evidence" you alleged here."
- "It was at this point that you started to withdraw from the discussion with what I saw as a non sequitur" (even after I've responded to this numerous times)
- "See, nobody has asked you that."

I'm also OK with this conversation being over because I highly doubt anybody can make sense of it. But I'm also happy to continue, just need to respond to this single question:

Restricting our focus to plates and witnesses, what did Joseph Smith do that James Strang did not replicate?

Just focus on that one question, and please don't link me back to our previous conversations, if you can resist the temptation.

One single question. And I'll follow up with one single response. 

Edited March 24 by Zosimus

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

I was paraphrasing your comment: "I think you abuse the phrase "Mormon prophet," as I don't think Strang qualifies."

"Mormon" is, in my view, a reference to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

"Prophet" in this context, is a reference to the Presiding High Priest.

Mr. Strang was never the "Mormon Prophet" or a "Mormon Prophet."

2 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

You poison the well with such things that cannot be so easily defined without back and forth for days.

Except that I think that "Mormon prophet" is rather easily defined.  

2 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

I would ask you how I have abused the phrase "Mormon prophet" and "why does Strang not qualify", but then we're sliding down the slope into definitions that we'll never agree upon.

I'm okay with not agreeing.

2 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

Absolutely, Strang was a Mormon prophet, I'll say. No, he was not, you'll say. 

Indeed.  I think it is substantially misleading to call him that.  But I'm okay with a "agree to disagree" resolution.

2 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

Same endless loop. You say you gave evidence Strang fabricated plates.

Not only did I say that I gave evidence, I did give that evidence.

2 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

I'll say antagonistic comments by detractors is not evidence.

I think that goes to the probative weight of the evidence not whether it qualifies as evidence.  Particularly in a historiographic sense.

2 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

I'll say I agree, but you'll still continue saying there's evidence out there that Strang fabricated plates.

Again, there is historical evidence that Strang fabricated his plates (see, e.g., here and here).  There is not, to my knowledge, any historical evidence that Smith fabricated the Gold Plates.  Speculation and conjecture, sure, but no evidence.

2 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

Ignoring the same comments by detractors of Joseph Smith that he had sand in his frock, or an empty chest. etc etc. 

I think I'll give you this one.  You are correct.  The Hurlbut affidavits are low quality evidence, but they are there.

2 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

- Quite an overstatement, this.
- See, I did not find any of these responses substantive.
- Again, not really a substantive response.
- I give you credit for this one.
- Not really responsive (2x)
- I was not really impressed with the "evidence" you alleged here.
- It was at this point that you started to withdraw from the discussion with what I saw as a non sequitur
- See, nobody has asked you that.

I'm also OK with this conversation being over because I highly doubt anybody can make sense of it. But I'm happy to continue, just need to respond to this single question:

Restricting our focus to plates and witnesses, what did Joseph Smith do that James Strang did not replicate?

Again, see the ten distinctions I noted above (subject to my later acknowledgments).

2 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

Just focus on that one question, and please don't link me back to our previous conversations, if you can resist the temptation.

I can't resist.  I have already answered this question in substantial detail.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Zosimus]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I can't resist.  I have already answered this question in substantial detail.

• See, I did not find any of these responses substantive.
• I was not really impressed with the "evidence" you alleged here.

etc etc

[Calm]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Frankly, I find it fascinating that we are coming up on 200 years of Anti-Mormonism and our critics still cannot formulate a coherent alternative explanation for The Book of Mormon

The question is how much speculation is involved. 

There are plenty of events without coherent explanations out there if one excludes much speculation.  I don’t know how an ancestor got from Germany to Scotland not long before Joseph was born. We can’t find the likely shipping records and if he told the details to anyone and they wrote it down, those records are lost.  I could speculate he traveled under an assumed name to avoid bigotry (he was a Jew), that’s a coherent story but pure speculation.

I could speculate Joseph got hooked up with a family of a long line of scholars whose scholarly conquistador ancestor was secretly given a set of golden metal plates by a native who trusted him.  Worried they would be melted down by others if the plates were discovered, he hid them in his private belongings and took them back to Spain…and then moved north to England where no one knew he had ever left Europe.  The native also had told him the story of the plates and the scholar decided to create an uplifting text that would inspire people based on some of the context of that story as redemption for being involved in the horrors of conquest.  He worked all of his life on it and when dying, still unsatisfied it would do, he passed the effort along with the plates and other keepsakes on to his son with instructions to carry on the work until there came a time and place where not only it was good enough, but new scripture would be accepted and not destroyed as heretical. Several generations later, it was still a closely held secret project of the eldest son of this now completely Anglicized family and when it looked like America was a prime ground for presenting new scripture, the current scholar took the book that had been written secretly for centuries by multiple skilled authors along with the ancient golden plates overseas to New York, where he found a charismatic young man who he visited secretly for several years to train…Joseph, of course.  Shortly after the scholar turned over the plates, heirlooms, and final manuscript to this young man, he suddenly took ill and died, leaving all of his family’s long work in this young man’s hands….who decides to go for it on his own and see if he could convince others since all the work was done, relying on a good memory and notes he hid away and destroyed once used.  Joseph had been cautioned about revealing too much too soon and he kept to the plan.  Once the text was dictated and it looked like he was successful in convincing others it was revelation, he tried his hand at producing witnesses.  The eight were no problem since he had actual ancient plates for them to testify to.  Didn’t even have to be covered.  The three witnesses he wanted to take it to the next level were a bit more difficult, but since they knew him well enough to know he couldn’t have produced the text himself and certainly not the plates, they believed his story they were revealed to him by an angel and agreed to claim an angel had appeared to them as well to increase the appeal…how else would Joseph have produced such a massive, intelligent, inspiring work except with God’s help?  So what was wrong with exaggerating just a bit?  They kept to their story over the years and even when dying because of the humiliation they would experience and the destruction of any legacy they had if they acknowledged they lied, even if sincere in faith and love for humanity in their reasons.

Joseph was about to invite scholars to actually view the plates (he had been told no one would be able to translate them for at least many years and even if they could, how would they explain that Joseph knew so much of the story even if much was also wrong?) when a brother of the scholar showed up having been informed of the plan in the will of the scholar.  He didn’t like what Joseph was setting up much and so insisted on taking the plates and other heirlooms back to England or he would expose Joseph.  Out of respect for his brother, he kept quiet though since Joseph gave everything back.  Figured Joseph would fail eventually without plates to point to, so left it there as less likely to expose his dead brother to gossip and accusations.  On the way back to England the ship sunk and the plates and all knowledge of them of anyone but Joseph were forever lost.

This narrative is purely secular, it accounts for the inconsistency of English language that spans centuries of usage.  It provides real plates for the witnesses and a solid reason for the Three to go along with what they saw as stretching the truth a bit.  It even explains the parts that fit in Central America since the original scholar was given a detailed story that had been passed down over ages by someone who lived there that he adapted.

Of course it’s speculation, so what good does it do even if it’s a coherent and rational alternative explanation that is within the realm of possibility even if one excludes the divine?

Why do you assume there would be documentation or other empirical evidence if the Book of Mormon was a fraud?  It’s possible not all conspiracies fail, not all secrets are exposed. Certainly there are some events and works of the not so distant past there is little physical evidence for even though we are certain they took place or exist even if there are others that we do.  Are you surprised if there is no coherent explanation that can’t be dismissed as too speculative for such things?

There are many coherent stories of the Fate of the Princes in the Tower and yet we have no evidence of how, when, and by whom they were killed…assuming they were killed that is. 

What the heck happened with the Mary Celeste?  No one theory cleanly explains everything known.

Chat pointed me to a Dyatlov Pass Incident where there is tons of data and theories, but so far no theory explains all the details.

As far as texts….they are unsure how the Ossian Poems were created though they are certain it’s not how Macpherson claimed (ancient Gaelic texts of a 3rd century bard of long, epic poems by the name of Ossian he translated). Apparently some authentic fragments of old poetry and folklore are included with the fabrication even…maybe, likely.  Interesting details on what is and isn’t known, what can be explained and what can’t from lack of evidence there.

I don’t think it’s that unusual not to have full coherent, rational explanations for past historical incidents.  Maybe much less likely today with all the CCTVs, cell phones, cameras, documents, etc around, but the 1820s and 30s were far different.

Human behaviour can be pretty complicated and unclear even when not intentionally trying to hide details.  If intentionally trying to hide stuff, it should hardly be surprising sometimes people won’t be able to explain things.  You need data to formulate theories to be tested. If someone destroyed or removed some of that data and much of the rest is lost to time, how do you put a non speculative theory together?  And if it’s speculative, what good is it as part of a discussion of evidence, especially empirical evidence?

This doesn’t mean that critics should be able to just dismiss the discussion with “no such thing as angels” imo, but to put the full responsibility for the lack of a coherent alternative explanation on critics rather than on Joseph who hid what he was doing and lied if it was a fraud seems odd to me. 

Edited March 24 by Calm

[webbles]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Again, there is historical evidence that Strang fabricated his plates (see, e.g., here and here).  There is not, to my knowledge, any historical evidence that Smith fabricated the Gold Plates.  Speculation and conjecture, sure, but no evidence.

The "historical evidence" that Strang fabricated his plates actually speculation and conjecture.  There is no actual evidence.  Chauncy Loomis said he heard Samuel Graham say that he helped fabricate.  He also said he heard Samuel Bacon say that he found pieces of the plates in Strang's ceiling.  This is 3rd hand information at best.  And it is written in 1888 in a RLDS publication who are actively trying to sow doubts about Strang's claims.  This is equivalent to the stories that are told about Joseph fabricating the plates.

[Zosimus]

36 minutes ago, Calm said:

Why do you assume there would be documentation or other empirical evidence if the Book of Mormon was a fraud?  It’s possible not all conspiracies fail, not all secrets are exposed. Certainly there are some events and works of the not so distant past there is little physical evidence for even though we are certain they took place or exist.  Are you shocked there is no coherent explanation that can’t be dismissed as too speculative for such things?

Even the highly-respected scholar Matthew Black wasn't too bothered providing a speculative explanation over an extraordinary one:

"[Matthew Black] then formulated a hypothesis, consistent with his lecture, that a member of one of the esoteric groups he had described previously must have survived into the nineteenth century, and hearing of Joseph Smith, must have brought the group’s Enoch texts to New York from Italy for the Prophet to translate and publish." (source)

Given his expertise, I was intrigued by his suggestion, and poked around to find there was a lot of wild esoteric German, French and Italian material floating around in the 1820's. Anthon was putting some of it in a textbook he was working on in 1827. Since Anthon was also working with Edmund Barker on a compilation of Native American lore at the same time, I don't see it being totally impossible that the gold plate characters triggered a conversation of some of Anthon's wilder speculations on the origins of American Indians coming from Egypt.

No proof for it of course, but since Harris did come back convinced that Anthon saw something authentically Egyptian in the characters, is it really so implausible?

[Calm]

Just so it’s clear, I am a believer the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be, even if I believe the text of the plates is probably not completely parallel to what is in the current text.  I first wrote “firm believer” but I am flexible over what the text is, though firmly believe it’s inspired and is anchored in history at the very least as much as the Bible.  I just see religious texts as different than historical ones as they serve a different purpose and I am open to God allowing his prophets to shape narratives to teach principles, etc.

But I love to come up with stories and solve puzzles and look at things from different angles and this challenge was issued once too often, lol. (I am not saying I answered the challenge, I am just addressing the significance of it imo).

Edited March 24 by Calm

[california boy]

Perhaps one of the biggest reasoning that makes it easy to speculate the plates were just a prop is that Joseph himself treated the plates as just a prop.  the plates sat in a box or hidden somewhere for virtually the whole time while Joseph looked at a rock in a hat to actually produce the BoM.  Those that believe the story of angels and a book made out of pure gold containing the writings of ancient prophets whose even whereabouts of this civilization that left no trace of its reformed Egyptian and DNA behind only have theories and speculation of why the prop was even needed. It makes a good tale, but doesn't make any sense.  

Can anyone explain why the plates were needed for producing the BoM other than relying on pure speculation?  If not, then aren't the plates just a prop used to convince others of some "special" source of this book that should be considered of divine origin?  Probably a better sale than what actually happened.  The book came from a common rock in a hat.  The truth of how the BoM was actually produced is far more difficult to believe than the angels and gold plates.  We are arguing over whether the prop is good enough or of divine origin while completely ignoring whether it was of any value.

 

[Amulek]

46 minutes ago, california boy said:

Can anyone explain why the plates were needed for producing the BoM other than relying on pure speculation?

From a believing perspective, the plates were necessary because they were the source – an actual ancient record – so their existence answers the "where did this come from?" question in a concrete way.

Also, I'm not certain the plates were just there for the purposes of translation mechanics – they were about witness. Multiple people testified they saw / handled them. If Joseph was inventing a story, I tend to think that creating a tangible artifact others could examine actually increases the risk of being exposed, rather than decreasing it.

And stepping back a bit, I would say this fits within a broader pattern we see in LDS theology. God doesn’t tend to work in a purely abstract, disembodied way. He uses physical things as part of how He reveals Himself. Not because He has to, but because that’s how He consistently operates.

You see it all over: tablets for Moses, the Ark for Noah, the temple serving as the axis mundi between heaven and earth, ordinances involving water, bread, oil, hands, etc. I mean, even Jesus had to come to Earth to perform the Atonement. None of those are strictly “necessary” if the goal is simply to transmit information, but they serve to ground the divine in the real, physical world. 

The plates fit that same pattern. They’re not just about needing something to read from. They’re a physical witness that revelation is tied to real history, real people, real records. Even if the translation itself was revelatory rather than academic, the plates still function as an anchor to the claim that this record existed prior to Joseph.

So calling them a “prop” kind of misses the point. If anything, they’re more like a recurring feature (and, hence, additional witness) of how God works.

 

[california boy]

11 minutes ago, Amulek said:

From a believing perspective, the plates were necessary because they were the source – an actual ancient record – so their existence answers the "where did this come from?" question in a concrete way.

But the plates were not used as the source.  

11 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Also, I'm not certain the plates were just there for the purposes of translation mechanics – they were about witness. Multiple people testified they saw / handled them. If Joseph was inventing a story, I tend to think that creating a tangible artifact others could examine actually increases the risk of being exposed, rather than decreasing it.

But the story of the witnesses does have some problems.  If the purpose was to actually show the artifact, why the quick now you see it, now you don't.  More like how a magician shows something than a sincere evaluation of a claim.  Artifacts of this kind of importance are carefully studied and examined.  Of course the argument is that the story has to be taken by faith.  So it still always leads back to faith.  Faith that the witnesses actually saw something authentic.  Faith that the BoM is based on a real civilization.  Faith that prophets received revelation from God.  So having the plates doesn't significantly sway a person's faith in the BoM.  

11 minutes ago, Amulek said:

And stepping back a bit, I would say this fits within a broader pattern we see in LDS theology. God doesn’t tend to work in a purely abstract, disembodied way. He uses physical things as part of how He reveals Himself. Not because He has to, but because that’s how He consistently operates.

You see it all over: tablets for Moses, the Ark for Noah, the temple serving as the axis mundi between heaven and earth, ordinances involving water, bread, oil, hands, etc. I mean, even Jesus had to come to Earth to perform the Atonement. None of those are strictly “necessary” if the goal is simply to transmit information, but they serve to ground the divine in the real, physical world. 

Not sure what you mean here.  The tablets Moses had remained with the Israelites for many years.  Noah's ark was something physical, not hidden.  Or are you talking symbolism???  Then. couldn't the BoM been represented by anything God chose including just a rock?

11 minutes ago, Amulek said:

The plates fit that same pattern. They’re not just about needing something to read from. They’re a physical witness that revelation is tied to real history, real people, real records. Even if the translation itself was revelatory rather than academic, the plates still function as an anchor to the claim that this record existed prior to Joseph.

So calling them a “prop” kind of misses the point. If anything, they’re more like a recurring feature (and, hence, additional witness) of how God works.

Not sure what you mean here either.  Tied to real history???  What real history?  That history recorded in the BoM is only found in what Joseph Smith wrote, not a real historical record.  If it was, then were is the Reformed Egyptian stellas, where are the Nephite coins?  Where is the DNA?  Where is any physical evidence of this once great civilization that the book tells about?  I can't think of a great civilization that had the kind of presence talked about in the BoM that lasted for 1000 years where there is no evidence they ever existed.  Doesn't any historical context only rely on faith? Doesn't the entire story of the gold plates, angels and historical record rely entirely on faith?  Having the prop doesn't really change any of that.

Isn't the idea of the plates functioning as an anchor just speculation on your part?  Are you saying that God was incapable of Joseph not reading the rock without the plates?

I do want to be clear here.  I appreciate your answers.  I am asking these questions not to cast doubt on your faith.  I am genuinely interested in how a believing member sorts out these discrepancies.  So thanks for your response.  

[teddyaware]

If the Book of Mormon itself powerfully testifies that the one and only way anyone can gain a witness of its truthfulness is through revelation from God. That means this thread amounts to nothing more than a whirling hamster wheel of human intellect that’s doomed to provide no satisfactory answers no matter how often one mounts the wheel and how hard he feverishly pedals.

The insight I’m gaining through this thread is that it appears to me there are some former believers who are secretly so worried that the Book of Mormon might actually be true that they will spare no effort in what amounts to a vain quest to quell their nagging fears. The bottom line is that scriptures testify the answers these tormented individuals so desperately seek will eventually be provided to them, but because the Book of Mormon is a sealed book (something that can only be known and understood by revelation from God) the answers they seek will ultimately be provided by God himself, and at that point it will be up to them to decide whether or not they believe the Lord is telling them the truth. But at least for now, Nephi sets forth the conditions whereby the answers the seek can be gained prior to the day of judgment. Ignore at your own risk or be doomed to endlessly trod the hamster wheel to nowhere.

17 And it came to pass after I, Nephi, having heard all the words of my father, concerning the things which he saw in a vision, and also the things which he spake by the power of the Holy Ghost, which power he received by faith on the Son of God—and the Son of God was the Messiah who should come—I, Nephi, was desirous also that I might see, and hear, and know of these things, by the power of the Holy Ghost, which is the gift of God unto all those who diligently seek him, as well in times of old as in the time that he should manifest himself unto the children of men.

18 For he is the same yesterday, today, and forever; and the way is prepared for all men from the foundation of the world, if it so be that they REPENT AND COME UNTO HIM.

19 FOR HE THAT DILIGENTLY SEEKS SHALL FIND; and the mysteries of God shall be unfolded unto them, BY THE POWER OF THE HOLY GHOST, as well in these times as in times of old, and as well in times of old as in times to come; wherefore, the course of the Lord is one eternal round. (1 Nephi 10)

Edited March 24 by teddyaware

[longview]

30 minutes ago, Amulek said:

And stepping back a bit, I would say this fits within a broader pattern we see in LDS theology. God doesn’t tend to work in a purely abstract, disembodied way. He uses physical things as part of how He reveals Himself. Not because He has to, but because that’s how He consistently operates.

You see it all over: tablets for Moses, the Ark for Noah, the temple serving as the axis mundi between heaven and earth, ordinances involving water, bread, oil, hands, etc. I mean, even Jesus had to come to Earth to perform the Atonement. None of those are strictly “necessary” if the goal is simply to transmit information, but they serve to ground the divine in the real, physical world. 

The plates fit that same pattern. They’re not just about needing something to read from. They’re a physical witness that revelation is tied to real history, real people, real records. Even if the translation itself was revelatory rather than academic, the plates still function as an anchor to the claim that this record existed prior to Joseph.

So true. ALL of those things occurred in actual historical settings throughout ALL the history of mankind. The prophet Mormon had access to an extensive library of historical documents and records from a wide variety of sources. He was prompted to create a new record by abridging certain elements out of this vast library while being guided by the Holy Spirit. The result was scripture equal in stature to the Old and New Testaments. The Book of Mormon IS another witness of Jesus Christ and His wondrous works.

It is my impression that Joseph Smith did start out by turning to the first page of the Gold Plates and using the interpreters (the seer stone/rock came later) to begin the "transcription" process. I say transcription because he had ZERO knowledge of the characters or glyphics on gold sheets. But I assume that as he was transcribing, the Spirit may have also occasionally acquainted Joseph with insights into the meaning of some of the symbols. I don't think he became "fluent" in the "reformed egyptian". Later on, he did take courses in learning and writing Hebrew but not necessarily becoming expert at it.

After Joseph had taken a number of days/weeks of transcription, he probably acquired sufficient "conviction" or testimony that he was doing meaningful work. Then I think the Lord  allowed him to keep transcribing without having to turn any more of the pages. Once he realized this, then he may have thought to use his seer stone to see if he could translate the sheets without having to use the cumbersome breastplate and interpreters. Later on, he became so spiritually attuned that he no longer needed the interpreters or seer stone. The Gold Plates became the "Urim and Thummim" to Joseph.

[Ryan Dahle]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Can anyone explain why the plates were needed for producing the BoM other than relying on pure speculation?

Here are ten reasons I came up with in an article I wrote several years ago: 

https://scripturecentral.org/evidence/purpose-of-the-plates

Notice, though, that you seem to be assuming from the outset that a perceived lack of purpose would count as a strong reason to dismiss the accounts of the Book of Mormon, as if your assumption that there wasn't a divine purpose for the presence of the plates isn't itself based on "pure speculation." 

[smac97]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

Perhaps one of the biggest reasoning that makes it easy to speculate

Speculation is always easy.  What is more difficult is examining the extant evidence and its ramifications on our presuppositions.

4 hours ago, california boy said:

the plates were just a prop is that Joseph himself treated the plates as just a prop.  

I don't think that is a fair characterization.

4 hours ago, california boy said:

the plates sat in a box or hidden somewhere for virtually the whole time while Joseph looked at a rock in a hat to actually produce the BoM.  

Was there ever a point at which Moroni, or God Himself, hinted that Joseph would be imbued, Neo-in-The-Matrix style, with a top-notch downloaded command of the written Nephite language used in The Book of Mormon?

 

After the translation was complete, did Joseph claim to have a command of Reformed Egyptian?  Nope.

Or was the plan to facilitate the translation by having Joseph receive a portion of "the gift and power of God," such that he was able to articulate an English translation of the text, and the meaning of the text as engraved on the Plates?

Consider these comments from Daniel C. Peterson:

Quote

A knowledgeable academic friend who does not believe in the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon once asked me, since it seems that the plates were not actually necessary to the translation process and were sometimes not even present in the room, what purpose they served. I responded that I did not know, exactly, except for one thing: They are an indigestible lump in the throats of people like him who contend that there were no Nephites but that Joseph Smith was nonetheless an inspired prophet. If the plates really existed, somebody made them. And if no Nephites existed to make them, then either Joseph Smith, or God, or somebody else seems to have been engaged in simple fraud. The testimony of the witnesses exists, I think, to force a dichotomous choice: true or false?

Perhaps Joseph having physical possession of the Gold Plates was necessary, not because they would be directly used (e.g., Joseph reading the "Reformed Egyptian" directly off the Plates and formulating an English translation thereof), but rather because that possession - confirmed by witnesses - was an attestation of the reality of the Nephite record and, therefore, of the Nephites themselves.

4 hours ago, california boy said:

Those that believe the story of angels and a book made out of pure gold

Not sure "pure gold" is part of the narrative.

But "angels"?  Yep, we believe that.

4 hours ago, california boy said:

containing the writings of ancient prophets whose even whereabouts of this civilization that left no trace of its reformed Egyptian

The Reformed Egyptian appears to be been quite a rare form of record-keeping.  It was expensive and difficult and time-consuming.

4 hours ago, california boy said:

and DNA behind

DNA can't really be used to substantiate or debunk The Book of Mormon.  

This chestnut really needs to be thrown away.

4 hours ago, california boy said:

only have theories and speculation of why the prop was even needed. It makes a good tale, but doesn't make any sense.  

I think it makes sense, see above.

4 hours ago, california boy said:

Can anyone explain why the plates were needed for producing the BoM other than relying on pure speculation?  

Yes.  See above.  I think DCP's point is a reasonable inference based on extant historical evidence.

Further, the Plates were "needed," if for no other reason than to show them to the Three/Eight Witnesses.  This created a basis for onlookers to consider The Book of Mormon on more than Joseph's "Just Take My Word For It" basis (though, in the end, Moroni 10:3-5 is the main mechanism for validating the narrative).

4 hours ago, california boy said:

If not, then aren't the plates just a prop used to convince others of some "special" source of this book that should be considered of divine origin?  Probably a better sale than what actually happened.  

Not sure what the "just" is doing in there.

The entire point and purpose of The Book of Mormon for "the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations."

4 hours ago, california boy said:

The book came from a common rock in a hat.  

If so, then how do you account for the Witnesses?  Did they testify about the Plates, or about "a common rock in a hat"?

4 hours ago, california boy said:

The truth of how the BoM was actually produced is far more difficult to believe than the angels and gold plates.  

All miraculous events can be difficult to believe. 

An angel appeared to shepherds in the fields outside of Bethlehem.  We don't know the particulars of where that angel resided, or the nature of the "matter" comprising his spirit body, precisely where he came from, etc.  Nevertheless, the shepherds followed the instructions of the angel, and thereafter "they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child" (Luke 2:17).

In the intervening 2,000 or so years, many billions of Christians throughout the world have listened to, and accepted as true, this "saying which was told" to the shepherds.  Some find this story difficult to believe, others accept it on faith.

4 hours ago, california boy said:

We are arguing over whether the prop is good enough or of divine origin while completely ignoring whether it was of any value.

I think it had much value.  There are some (many, even) revelations which came to us through the mind and words of Joseph Smith.  The Doctrine and Covenants are chockablock full of 'em. 

Of particular note, D&C 7 purports to be "a translated version of the record made on parchment by John and hidden up by himself."  Joseph did not have this parchment, and so must have only seen it in a vision.  We, as Latter-day Saints, are called upon to take Joseph's word for it.  Same goes for the rest of the Doctrine & Covenants.

The Book of Mormon, however, is a bit different.  Possession of the Plates, and the showing of the Plates to witnesses, took things outside of the "Take Joseph's word for it" realm.  I think there was, and is, great value in this.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 24 by smac97