katherine the great Posted January 21, 2006 Posted January 21, 2006 No, I thought the key to the translation was the other known languages. There's also some evidence that Smith provided more than just a straight translation in the conventional sense. His use of "steel" for strength, "cimiter" as a weapon, and "compass" suggest that there was a certain amount of interpretive license taken in the translation. This may have...umm...queered any attempt to render a usable basis from which to proceed.But even so, I still don't think some people would have bought it. There are people who are convinced that Satan himself wrote the Book of Mormon; others who don't care who wrote it (even if an angel appeared and declared it with a blaring trumpet); and still others who judge everything on faith (God love 'em)."The Bible says it, I believe it, and that SETTLES it!"--Bumper sticker--Cold Steel Of course there would be critics--lots of them. There was only one known language on the Rosetta stone--Greek. Young ended up deciphering the demotic and Champollion the hieroglyphs. Of course it isn't an exact comparison, but if the English were a literal translation of the text on the plates and not just a catalyst, experts would be able to eventually tell if it was a valid translation using the same techniques in spite of some "linguistic license."
Mark Beesley Posted January 21, 2006 Posted January 21, 2006 sunstoned wrote:concrete evidence How about "cement" evidence? Would that suffice?
Chris Jodrey Posted January 21, 2006 Posted January 21, 2006 Does the greatest Being in all the universe really have such petty interests as to obstruct His followers' ability to validate the key foundational claim by taking back the material evidence? Aren't you apologists a little bit ticked off sometimes, with the relatively flimsy evidence that has been scratched up so far, when the real thing was "once upon a time" in the Church's possession? Or maybe you never thought about it that way?Why did God/Moroni take back the golden plates? I'm interested in what you tell yourselves, your children, and especially your non-LDS friends. Random info: Dude, you are a very pretty man.Oops, wrong thread.
katherine the great Posted January 21, 2006 Posted January 21, 2006 Random info: Dude, you are a very pretty man.Oops, wrong thread. The dude doesn't swing that way.
jleavesl Posted January 21, 2006 Posted January 21, 2006 Oooh OOOh OOOH <<Raises Hand>>... It's because they never existed
KevinG Posted January 21, 2006 Posted January 21, 2006 Oooh OOOh OOOH <<Raises Hand>>... It's because they never existed Bzzzzzzzzt!Thank you for playing.As a parting gift you get the Book of Mormon on tape, recorded by Burl Ives!
helix Posted January 21, 2006 Posted January 21, 2006 Does the greatest Being in all the universe really have such petty interests as to obstruct His followers' ability to validate the key foundational claim by taking back the material evidence? Why did God/Moroni take back the golden plates? I'm interested in what you tell yourselves, your children, and especially your non-LDS friends.
SurfDude621 Posted January 21, 2006 Posted January 21, 2006 That's pretty cynical. I believe the truth comes out eventually, whether vindicating Joseph or vindicating his critics, the golden plates in hand would be the key. The truth comes out EVENTUALLY??? In what universe? Sort of like the truth that Abraham Lincoln was honest as the day was long, a god-fearing man, a great President who upheld the Constitution, saved the Union, and freed the slaves? If history still can't get the facts right on a famous man like this 140-years after the fact...RoyP.S. Shh, don't tell anyone, the Ninja is a born Southerner...who is also a real-student of history.
MorningStar Posted January 21, 2006 Posted January 21, 2006 If the plates had remained in Joseph Smith's possession, who would have the plates today? Would it be with the LDS church, the Community of Christ, or some other branch of the church? I think there would've been a lot of fighting over the plates and I don't know how it would've been resolved. It's for the best that they were taken away so they can be returned and the sealed portion translated at a later time.
Widow's Son Posted January 21, 2006 Posted January 21, 2006 I love the Calvin Grondahl cartoon that shows a visitor's center at the Hill Cumorah. In the background is a little old lady with a metal detector in one hand and the plates in the other. In the forground, one missionary guide says to another one "who would have thought that Moroni just put them back in the hill."We don't have the plates because the Lord has a keen sense of humor.
Chris Jodrey Posted January 21, 2006 Posted January 21, 2006 This isn't about the plates at all, if you ask me. It's about demanding proof. If we had the plates then the critics would just say that they were a forgery. They would write articles then about THAT. We would then see comments like "that doesn't look like Egyptian at all!" and "It wasn't enough for Joseph to go make up a story but he had to go and have some fake gold book made too! It was probably some language he invented!" Would seeing the plates convince anyone? Of course not. And why should that be the case anyway?IMO, anyone expecting to see the plates and ergo believe is a fool and an ignuramous. They don't want to see if it's true, they already believe it's not, so by making such demands and getting no results they can justify their disbelief, even if such method is unfounded and just plain stupid.
cinepro Posted January 21, 2006 Posted January 21, 2006 I'm sure the "believing" answer has something to do with God wanting us to have faith. The plates would be a dead giveaway.Just to be clear, the plates would not be a "dead giveaway".Remember, there is a situation where a group of people seperated from the main "Church", and lived in their own society for many years. Then, before their anhialation, they hid up their records (including copies of some of the books of the Old Testament, which they had with them). The records were preserved for over a dozen centuries, until discovered by an uneducated farmboy. But this farm boy wasn't Joseph Smith, and we still have them today. The discoverers of these ancient texts didn't start a Church though. They handed them over to scholars. Thus, researchers the world over are able to learn about this ancient community. No one doubts the origin of the record, because they can be examined. And yet, their existence and publication hasn't "compelled" anyone to change their belief, as far as I know. These records are of course the Dead Sea Scrolls.So, it would have been entirely possible for Joseph to have found a set of buried metal plates in one of his digging expeditions. The real proof wouldn't be in the existence of the plates, it would be in the translation of the plates. And if the translation was shown to be unrelated to the engraven language, then those who had faith would accept their mistake, right?Unfortunately, there is another similar case where Joseph translated some ancient documents, with the subsequent examination producing a non-faith promoting result. The Book of Abraham.So, even if we had the plates, and the translation was shown to be incorrect, I'm sure we would be hearing all about a "catalyst" theory for the Book of Mormon, where these ancient american artifacts weren't the actual record, but instead "inspired" Joseph to channel Mormon's long lost writings. But if we had the plates, and the translation was shown to be correct, that would be pretty incredible. But considering the prevelance of hoaxes involving ancient american artifacts in the last 200 years, and the ability of the hoax to be exposed based on the availability of the artifacts, I think it was the smartest thing Joseph and/or God ever did when they got rid of the evidence.
katherine the great Posted January 21, 2006 Posted January 21, 2006 IMO, anyone expecting to see the plates and ergo believe is a fool and an ignuramous. An ignuramous?
The Dude Posted January 21, 2006 Author Posted January 21, 2006 I assume that Dude is an atheist and has never read any book of scripture in his life. After all, if God really wanted Israel out of Egypt, why did he obstruct Moses the ability to validate the key foundational [sic] claim that he was to lead Israel? Why didn
The Dude Posted January 21, 2006 Author Posted January 21, 2006 Here is another one that is applicable:12 Wherefore, I, the Lord, am not pleased with those among you who have sought after signs and wonders for faith, and not for the good of men unto my glory.I do not consider the case of the missing golden plates to be seeking after a sign. I'm not asking for new evidence, or a demonstration of miracles, or anything like that. All I'm asking for is a good explanation for why real material evidence was taken away, because this action is so unusual in the way God deals with men. "So we have to have faith" is not a good answer, because even if Joseph Smith's testimony could be validated in this one sense, that would guarantee nothing about the rest of his mission. You have to admit this, because history shows that many of the men who "saw" the plates did not keep the faith or endure to the end. So clearly, the golden plates in hand would not thwart the larger role of faith in God's plan.
The Dude Posted January 21, 2006 Author Posted January 21, 2006 I have to sort of agree with both viewpoints on this topic. When Thomas wanted proof, Jesus gave it to him. I don't think the Lord always requires an absence of physical evidence for his followers. Apparently with this, He does.But this is different.I'm more like Thomas looking at Jesus' hands, which Jesus offered without my asking for a sign, and the funny thing is that there aren't any holes, even though he says he was crucified and resurrected. Why are the holes gone? It seems like a trick to test my faith. Is it a trick? I don't know if I should trust that kind of Heavenly Father. In fact, the wiser part of me says I shouldn't fall for this, because I know people have been fooled by this kind of thing before.Do you see the difference, and why this question is not quite the same as seeking a sign?
The Dude Posted January 21, 2006 Author Posted January 21, 2006 If the plates had remained in Joseph Smith's possession, who would have the plates today? Would it be with the LDS church, the Community of Christ, or some other branch of the church? I think there would've been a lot of fighting over the plates and I don't know how it would've been resolved. It's for the best that they were taken away so they can be returned and the sealed portion translated at a later time.Who knows what would have happened. Maybe there would have been fighting. I'm not naively saying the Church would have kept the plates through the struggles in Ohio, Missouri, Illinois and finally Utah. Heck, Joseph Smith might have lost them in a settlement with angry investors. The natural course might have been an ugly one, like Cold Steel said. I find this reasoning more compelling than the "gotta have faith" reasoning, which makes Heavenly Father sound like a trickster.
katherine the great Posted January 21, 2006 Posted January 21, 2006 I'm more like Thomas looking at Jesus' hands, which Jesus offered without my asking for a sign, and the funny thing is that there aren't any holes, even though he says he was crucified and resurrected. Why are the holes gone? It seems like a trick to test my faith. Is it a trick? I don't know if I should trust that kind of Heavenly Father. In fact, the wiser part of me says I shouldn't fall for this, because I know people have been fooled by this kind of thing before.Do you see the difference, and why this question is not quite the same as seeking a sign? I had to read back to the beginning of the thread and look at your original question. I think the first post following your original question was probably the most logical answer. Maybe it didn't really have to do with faith at all.I know what you are saying though. It seems like everything is just out of reach. There are lots of things to raise questions and doubts, but then just enough of an explanation to make it plausible until the next thing comes along. And through it all there is simply no physical proof of anything in our church. If I hadn't had the strong spiritual conversion I did (when I was absolutely not looking for it), I wouldn't believe any of it.
Pokatator Posted January 21, 2006 Posted January 21, 2006 I assume that Dude is an atheist and has never read any book of scripture in his life. After all, if God really wanted Israel out of Egypt, why did he obstruct Moses the ability to validate the key foundational [sic] claim that he was to lead Israel? Why didn
Pokatator Posted January 21, 2006 Posted January 21, 2006 I disagree that if the Gold Plates existed and were in the possession of the Mormon Church that faith would not be needed. I think it would still be a faith issue. It would still be a missionary function of informing the world. Many would still reject it. For the ones that would go far enough to investigate, pray, apply Moroni's promise etc. it would still take faith.For me having the Gold Plates would make a very big difference. I am sure there would be a lot of contraversy the same as the BofA because there would be something tangible to look at, hold, etc. To me the BofA is the biggest chink in the armor of the church and my biggest stubbling block. I have read what I imagine as everything on the subject, pro and con, I feel the apologists have a weak case. If the actual Gold Plates were not a literal translation and it was defended the same as the BofA, I would have another large issue with the church.
why me Posted January 21, 2006 Posted January 21, 2006 I disagree that if the Gold Plates existed and were in the possession of the Mormon Church that faith would not be needed. I think it would still be a faith issue. It would still be a missionary function of informing the world. Many would still reject it. For the ones that would go far enough to investigate, pray, apply Moroni's promise etc. it would still take faith.For me having the Gold Plates would make a very big difference. I am sure there would be a lot of contraversy the same as the BofA because there would be something tangible to look at, hold, etc. To me the BofA is the biggest chink in the armor of the church and my biggest stubbling block. I have read what I imagine as everything on the subject, pro and con, I feel the apologists have a weak case. If the actual Gold Plates were not a literal translation and it was defended the same as the BofA, I would have another large issue with the church. I have to disagree. Perhaps for some it would be a faith issue but for the vast majority the Book of Mormon would signify that Christ lives and is without doubt the son of God, especially if it could be verified that the events as described were written at that timeline as recorded in the BofM. What would there be to argue about? Perhaps for some individuals there would be the great novel angle as literary fiction but the case would be weak. No, without a doubt that if the plates were in salt lake city and independent experts confirmed their antiquity, faith would not be needed. And I do believe that many of the doubting Thomas' on this site would doubt no more...hence we do not have the plates.As for the BofA, there is an interesting active thread by David Bukovy that you might find interesting. But even here I would have to ask why JS would do it...why make the whole thing up? What is there to gain by risking another fraud? Who wrote the book of abraham? Joseoph Smith. I have no idea who the critics claim wrote the bofa. But I have to admit it is one heck of a story. What imagination! I have to tip my hat to the writer <<<or take off my helmet. And here we come to the kinderhook plates...if JS wrote the book of mormon and suddenly someone comes to him and says: 'Brother Joe, they found plates in kinderhook...resembling the plates of Mormon....can you translate them....they must be from god....' I am sure that JS would dismiss the episode without a moment's notice as he would have spotted a fraud in the making. Who wouldn't?
why me Posted January 21, 2006 Posted January 21, 2006 I assume that Dude is an atheist and has never read any book of scripture in his life. After all, if God really wanted Israel out of Egypt, why did he obstruct Moses the ability to validate the key foundational [sic] claim that he was to lead Israel? Why didn
Shore Lady Posted January 21, 2006 Posted January 21, 2006 For katherine the great RFM is the exmormon board called Recovery from MormonismeditedModerator: Do not start board wars by making provocative statements accompanied by a link to another board.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.