Case of the Missing Golden Plates

[ZekeTheElder]

And that's very likely much of the reason that they're not here.  The English philosopher of religion John Hick has written some very good materials on the idea of God's seeking to preserve what Professor Hick calls "epistemic distance" between God and humans, so that human freedom is not compromised.   

Daniel

[Baptized1962]

post deleted

(Looks like I'm going to need to create a new login ID after this post!)

[sidewinder]

You checked huh? Well I guess those who have personal experience in a matter are most qualified to speak on it. But let's hope you'll need a new login anyway.

[Gohan]

Let's keep this thread on-topic, okay folks.

But you do bring up an interesting point. Why would JS, who wrote the book of mormon for sake of argument, claim to have found gold plates? Why not paper? After all he was a treasure digger looking for gold or coins. If I were JS, I would never claim to have found gold plates...it would only draw suspision to my fraud.

I would have claimed ancient paper found in a cave or something. Then, I wouldn't have to pretend to carry around a heavy trunk of rocks. In reality, he was quite stupid. But granted, it paid off in the end, if he wrote the book of mormon. But he took quite a risk saying that it came from gold since he had a treasure digging past. ph34r.gif

I definitely would have claimed ancient paper found in a cave. It sounds more plausible. Why draw unwanted attention from gold seeking friends?

The records would not have been kept on paper because paper has a tendency to degrade over the years. The Declaration of Independence can no longer really be taken out and handled by people (with the exception of those that take care of it) due to the fact that it is too old and fragile to do so. The DoI is less than 300 years old, so it's logical to assume that any paper kept over a period of 1000 years would be extremely fragile and not likely to last long. Keep records on a substances such as gold/metal plates was smart because gold/metal doesn't degrade like paper does, and would therefore be intact for others (such as Joseph Smith) to find and translate over a thousand years later. As for his "gold-digging past", gold/treasure seeking seems to have been a fairly common thing in those days, remember the Gold Rush in 1849?

[Tchild2]

Dude wrote:

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?

My question also is why? Why did God allow some sacred texts to be taken back, while allowing other sacred texts to remain? The golden plates are a fantastic discovery of a lost people(s) populating the Americas millenia past, and possesing a rich history of wars, cultural and military advances, while no less seeing the resurrected Jesus Christ in his glory. On the other hand, a lost text of one of christianity's, Islam's and Judaism's principal characters miraculously finds its way from the middle east to a then backwater part of the world, to a waiting and chosen prophet of God. Finally be re-discovered as sacred scripture of no less importance than Abraham the father of prophets.

Two fantastic discoveries, two incredibly important and ancient texts...and one text is apparently taken back for purposes known only to God, while the other is lost to the church and finds its way into general obscurity and later almost complete destruction in a fire.

Why one and not the other? Could it be that one text already existed and didn't need a "story", witnesses or a fantastic tale to explain its origins while the other did not? Now, I would never suggest such a thing, but it does make one wonder and say hmmmm.

.

[Gohan]

My question also is why? Why did God allow some sacred texts to be taken back, while allowing other sacred texts to remain?...

Because we are not spiritually prepared for things that are contained in some of the sacred texts.

[David Bokovoy]

But let's hope you'll need a new login anyway.

[MorningStar]

In fact, since they're so deeply interested in my daily activities, I wonder if they would like me to send them a copy of my daily schedule.

Words ... words ... uhhh ... words ... words ................

Did you say something?

[why me]

Let's keep this thread on-topic, okay folks.

But you do bring up an interesting point. Why would JS, who wrote the book of mormon for sake of argument, claim to have found gold plates? Why not paper? After all he was a treasure digger looking for gold or coins. If I were JS, I would never claim to have found gold plates...it would only draw suspision to my fraud.

I would have claimed ancient paper found in a cave or something. Then, I wouldn't have to pretend to carry around a heavy trunk of rocks. In reality, he was quite stupid. But granted, it paid off in the end, if he wrote the book of mormon. But he took quite a risk saying that it came from gold since he had a treasure digging past. ph34r.gif

I definitely would have claimed ancient paper found in a cave. It sounds more plausible. Why draw unwanted attention from gold seeking friends?

The records would not have been kept on paper because paper has a tendency to degrade over the years. The Declaration of Independence can no longer really be taken out and handled by people (with the exception of those that take care of it) due to the fact that it is too old and fragile to do so. The DoI is less than 300 years old, so it's logical to assume that any paper kept over a period of 1000 years would be extremely fragile and not likely to last long. Keep records on a substances such as gold/metal plates was smart because gold/metal doesn't degrade like paper does, and would therefore be intact for others (such as Joseph Smith) to find and translate over a thousand years later. As for his "gold-digging past", gold/treasure seeking seems to have been a fairly common thing in those days, remember the Gold Rush in 1849?

I was being tongue in cheek. I completely agree with you. I wrote that JS wrote the book of mormon for sake of argument and not because that he actually wrote the book.

However, I wanted to imply that if Joseph wrote the book, he would not benefit from saying that he found gold plates. Much smarter to claim paper. This is more in line with the bible tradition and with the eventual discovery of the dead sea scrolls. Please read my post again and see my point.

[why me]

In fact, since they're so deeply interested in my daily activities, I wonder if they would like me to send them a copy of my daily schedule.

post deleted

(Looks like I'm going to need to create a new login ID after this post!)

No not really. But it is great to see a poster from rfm. You are filled with manners and bring quite a wondeful spirit from those boards. Thanks again for your kind words. It was a pleasure to read them. Do you have anything constructive to say based on the thread?

[Gohan]

However, I wanted to imply that if Joseph wrote the book, he would not benefit from saying that he found gold plates. Much smarter to claim paper. This is more in line with the bible tradition and with the eventual discovery of the dead sea scrolls. Please read my post again and see my point.

Okay, I can understand what you're saying from that point of view. Ashamedly I don't know that much about the Dead Sea Scrolls (either that, or I know them by a different name, or I did know about them and forgot). Could you point out a good source of information on them for me?

[why me]

However, I wanted to imply that if Joseph wrote the book, he would not benefit from saying that he found gold plates. Much smarter to claim paper. This is more in line with the bible tradition and with the eventual discovery of the dead sea scrolls. Please read my post again and see my point.

Okay, I can understand what you're saying from that point of view. Ashamedly I don't know that much about the Dead Sea Scrolls (or I did and forgot). Could you point out a good source of information on them for me.

I think that there are several sources but I cannot mention them right now. But you can google it!

I suppose my point being: Why choose gold plates of all things to carry out a fraud with his background? The bofm story of angel visitations seems so incredible that it must be true. Look at JS trying to hide the plates...hauling them all over the place.

If he wrote that book as some critics claim...JS must have been cursing up a storm for mentioning gold plates. They were quite heavy. Much easier to carry scrolls or papyra 'found' in a cave than to carry something heavy weighing many pounds to bring about a fraud. And this story would have been much more plausible for the local population. Again though I am being tongue in cheek. I am only trying to imagine it from a human perspective and not from an academic point of view.

[Gohan]

Okay, I'll google it when I have a chance later. I agree with your statement by the way, he'd be kicking himself for mentioning a thing that would be such a burden. (50-60 pounds )

[why me]

Okay, I'll google it when I have a chance later. I agree with your statement by the way, he'd be kicking himself for mentioning a thing that would be such a burden. (50-60 pounds )

Exactly...it is almost funny when you see the human side to the story. Very few academics can see the human side to it all. Many are wrapped up in books and reports.

But when one looks at it all from a human perspective, much can be learned as one traces the life of a human being. If the critics are right, JS must have cussed up a storm for his crazy story, filled with regret for sacrificing so much for a fraud, especially the death of his children during the mobbing. Not to mention finally landing in prison where he was to die for nothing....

But if the critics are wrong...then JS was fulfilling his mission on earth and he did it with zeal and with faith and eventually he gave his life as did his brother for god's work.

Which one sounds more plausible to you?

[why me]

And that's very likely much of the reason that they're not here.

[Jarrod]

The greatest single reason why there are no plates among us today, IMO, is the fact that the Book of Mormon cannot be falsified without them. What I mean is, the church is stronger without evidence because evidence can demonstrate that the church is not what it claims to be. This is a huge benefit, because a lack of falsifiability grants the church a de facto veneer of truth, and this makes it very easy for the church to say such things as, "The burden of proof is on the detractors to prove that the church isn't what it claims." In other words, "Prove to me that Joseph didn

[why me]

The greatest single reason why there are no plates among us today, IMO, is the fact that the Book of Mormon cannot be falsified without them. What I mean is, the church is stronger without evidence because evidence can demonstrate that the church is not what it claims to be. This is a huge benefit, because a lack of falsifiability grants the church a de facto veneer of truth, and this makes it very easy for the church to say such things as, "The burden of proof is on the detractors to prove that the church isn't what it claims." In other words, "Prove to me that Joseph didn

[Daniel Peterson]

And that's very likely much of the reason that they're not here.

[Kenngo1969]

They would be very powerful evidence.

[The Dude]

And that's very likely much of the reason that they're not here. The English philosopher of religion John Hick has written some very good materials on the idea of God's seeking to preserve what Professor Hick calls "epistemic distance" between God and humans, so that human freedom is not compromised. I think Professor Hick is right -- his stance certainly strikes a resonant Mormon chord, at least with me -- and that the divine purpose is served when the evidence is roughly balanced for and against belief, so as to allow, precisely, choice -- choice that discloses what it is we want and value, and, ultimately, what we are.

Of course, I think that the sustained collective testimony of the Book of Mormon Witnesses is extraordinarily powerful -- I call attention, yet again, to Richard Anderson's classic book Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses -- and yet there are those who are plainly determined to dismiss them on the basis of what I regard as extraordinarily flimsy hypotheticals and selective use of evidence, so human cussedness preserves a great deal of freedom for us even in the face of strong reasons.

Daniel, it's amazing to me that you posted this within 60 seconds of Sidewinder's otherwordly post about faith last night on another thread.

There is no faith necessary for coming unto Christ or believing the Book of Mormon. At least not the kind of faith as in faith/evidence. There may be faith necessary in the faith/rebel sense. As we've learned from the apologists, there were 11 eye witness of the plates. The credibility of those men, along with the circumstances of their testimony, lays such a solid foundation of the existence of the Gold Plates as to meet the highest standards of evidence our judiciary system demands. Likewise, we know from Christian apologists, that the eye witnesses of the resurrection establishes a case for Christ so solid, no court room could rightfully rule contrary.

Now, it may be that we don't have "absolute proof" of the plates or Christ, and it may that some facts are established more firmly, such as the physics behind boiling water. But as we know, most facts in life aren't quite that fortunate. To deny Jesus or the plates would be to deny the legitimacy of every clear cut court ruling in our nations history. So while we might need a little tiny smidgeon of faith, if we're willing to disbelieve the plates or the resurrection, we might as well throw out our entire legal system right out the window while we're at it.

Is there a connection between you two? Superman/Clark Kent? Dr. Jeckyl/Mr Hyde?

[1dc]

Honestly for me, it would make a difference if the plates were on earth. If they could be seen and felt and touched by everyday people, the foundational story of Mormonism wouldn't be quite so suspicious.

Perhaps then the questions to study and ponder are why God would use conscience and faith for humans to know right from wrong and God?

It would be really easy for God to show Himself to everyone and teach them individually . . He has the knowledge, time, and power . . .

[1dc]

I also found a passage in Terryl Givens's superb recent devotional address at BYU very suggestive in this regard; I have a copy of Terryl's remarks, but I believe that they will appear in an upcoming issue of BYU Studies.)

The audio version of this talk is already available as a download at byu.org, however.

http://speeches.byu.edu/index.php?act=brow...iatype=&year=.5

[JNclone]

I am somewhat puzzled by some of the posts on this board. I don't want to take up all the points made, but I would like to put a direct question to Mr Peterson. It comes in two parts:

(a) Is there any evidence which, if produced, would cause you to cease to believe that the Book of Mormon is, in the commonly accepted sense of the word, true?

(b) If the answer to (a) is 'yes', please specify what that evidence would have to be.

Clearly if the answer to (a) is, effectively, 'none', then there is little point in this thread continuing, is there?

[The Dude]

Clearly if the answer to (a) is, effectively, 'none', then there is little point in this thread continuing, is there?

You mean "little point in Daniel continuing to post on this thread", right?

[Matt Andrews]

(Daniel Peterson @ Jan 20 2006, 09:08 PM)

(Matt Andrews @ Jan 20 2006, 07:54 PM)

  They would be very powerful evidence.  If there really were gold plates, inscribed with some kind of reformed Egyptian, I would most certainly believe.  I really think nearly anyone would. 

And that's very likely much of the reason that they're not here. The English philosopher of religion John Hick has written some very good materials on the idea of God's seeking to preserve what Professor Hick calls "epistemic distance" between God and humans, so that human freedom is not compromised. I think Professor Hick is right -- his stance certainly strikes a resonant Mormon chord, at least with me -- and that the divine purpose is served when the evidence is roughly balanced for and against belief, so as to allow, precisely, choice -- choice that discloses what it is we want and value, and, ultimately, what we are.

Thank you for the response. I will put Hick on my reading list.

A few questions:

Statements made by many Mormon believers seem to imply that the evidence is not "roughly equal" at all, but rather, God has given them a spiritual witness that tips the scales so much that they feel they "know" what to believe.

Also, it appears that the balance of evidence available to each person is different. Some sincere seekers never get a spiritual witness, some do. Some of the things you consider evidence have to be taken on faith for people with different scholastic backgrounds (or aptitudes), and perhaps vice-versa.

Some in this thread have suggested (with scriptural back-up) that evidence is withheld to avoid people sinning against (sure?) knowledge. This would seem to suggest that knowing the truth doesn't take away free will, according to Mormon theology. Thoughts?

Leaving these things aside, it seems you (or possibly Hick) are saying we choose what we want to believe, and this choice reveals something about us. Can you give a useful example?

Are you thinking along the lines of "people choose to not believe so they can sin"?