Case of the Missing Golden Plates

[ZekeTheElder]

I myself find that the mortal situation, now and historically, is ambiguous, and I think this is more or less by design. 

I think I understand your point better now. You

[Matt Andrews]

1dc wrote:

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 . . .

I can understand why God would "use conscience" for humans to know right from wrong, but have a tough time figuring out why He would use faith. It seems like a very strange criterion. How are we to know what to have faith in? There is limited time here on earth, after all. It would be easy to spend one's entire life having faith in any one religions claims, and justify it by claiming God values faith.

[Daniel Peterson]

(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?

Yes.

I realize that this answer may surprise you. Some critics are dogmatically certain that people like myself are dogmatically incapable of open and rational thinking on this and related matters. Perhaps you are one of those critics, or have been influenced by them. (Otherwise, I can't see anything in what I've posted here -- or posted or published or said anywhere else -- that would reasonably give rise to your question.)

I have, to my great satisfaction, received a personal spiritual confirmation regarding the truth claims of Mormonism, which it would take considerable evidence to overturn, but I do not use this private fact in public disputes and do not employ it as transferable public evidence in discussions, and I'm quite capable of both understanding and engaging in rational secular argument.

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

There are any number of possible kinds of evidence that would serve the purpose -- none of them very likely to emerge. I tend to think that the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon is one of those disputed matters to which -- as in the case of the Homeric question, the authorship of the plays of "Shakespeare," and the validity of the classical theistic proofs (e.g., the ontological argument) -- the answers will always be controversial and, pending the life to come, not definitively demonstrable to the satisfaction of all. We are left to deal with plausibilities and probabilities, not final resolutions.

If a signed and authenticated confession turned up in which Joseph Smith admitted that he was a fraud, that would certainly do it. (But, of course, it's hard to imagine the authenticity of such a confession being entirely beyond dispute.) The discovery of a manuscript containing all or most of the Book of Mormon and dating to a period predating, say, 1825, would also definitely settle the question in the negative. (But, once again, there would be arguments about its dating and/or its authenticity.) Various improbable things of that sort would do the trick. But there is unlikely to be any absolute negative archaeological proof, for example, since archaeology seldom provides broad and absolute negative answers. (We're not going to find an ancient Mesoamerican stela reading "Nephi never existed, here or anywhere else," but, even if we did, it would be extremely problematic.) I tend not to expect absolute certainty outside of such disciplines as geometry and deductive logic; history, archaeology, and such fields -- this is true, in fact, of virtually any field that relies upon induction rather than deduction -- offer little comfort to absolutists.

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

I'm pleased to be able to allay your concerns.

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.

Feel free to count me among them. I've had spiritual experiences that heavily tilt the scales. However, as I note above, I do not use them as evidence that should convince others, and they do not figure into my public discussions. (Which, incidentally, should be understood to mean that I will not discuss their content here.)

Also, it appears that the balance of evidence available to each person is different.

[BYU Alterego]

Oh no, not Occam's razor again. That's a principle that very few people apply appropriately and is generally a thread killer. For any about to dive into that pool, please, please do a quickie wiki: Occam's Razor, before proceeding.

Daniel, nice to see you back. I honestly enjoyed your last post. I have to of course also add my two cents, so here it is:

You spoke of Joseph admitting he was a fraud being conclusive evidence. Isn't it possible to prove someone a fraud without them admitting it? Because we have lot's and lot's of that.

Perhaps you mention signed/authenticated confession as being conclusive because only the highest standands of evidence will persuade you. To that i would say, be realistic.

If there's smoke, you'll generally find fire. And there is plenty of fire that we find without a confession.

You mention archeological evidence, but failed to specifically mention DNA. The DNA evidence is quite broad, and very reliable. It clearly disproves any notion of the Hemispheric model. We've discussed this before, but wouldn't the fact that Joseph clearly believed in the Hemispheric model be evidence (albeit inconclusive on it's own)of his fraud?

There are a multitude of occasions that show how Joseph certainly didn't "predict with certainty," ie; prophesy:

1. Kirtland Safety Society (ie; bank). Joseph said it, "shall become the greatest of all institutions on EARTH." The bank lasted less than a year. Joseph was central in the bank's creation.

2. Money digging: Most Gospel Doctrine acolytes know Joseph at one point got paid to dig. But what they don't realize is that Joseph was mostly there because he said he knew where to find the treasure in the first place. There's a huge difference there.

3. Kinderhook plates: The account of Joseph accepting and translating these, though they were absolute forgeries, comes from William Clayton. As to questions of Brother Clayton's reliability, without him he would be without D&C 130, 131 and 132. All of the above were recorded in his diary if I'm not mistaken.

4. Book of Abraham: Many now say that the papyri were merely inspiration for Joseph. That's a convienent theory that only emerged after the originals were translated and shown to be common ceremonial works, nothing close to the book of Abraham

Joseph also lied for selfish reasons: The best example is how he lied to his own wife Emma about polygamy. That she was aware of it existing in a doctrinal sense at an early stage is true. But the number of wives and the subsequent sexual relations with a large portion of those wives apparently came as a surprise to her. Think of Emma throwing Eliza Snow down the stairs and out of the house if you need a good example.

Overall, we have a great deal of history that is problematic with Smith, and little evidence of the same quality that promotes his claim as prophet.

It might surprise you that I still consider myself a man of faith. However, I refuse to detach that faith from the world around me. I don't hold false faith. If a belief of mine is plainly misguided, I have to let it go, though that's easier said then done.

edited for grammar

[Mark Beesley]

Daniel Peterson wrote:

I realize that this answer may surprise you.

It did. Particularly the long answer.

Speaking for myself, the only evidence that would convince me that the Book of Mormon is not true would have to be of the same substance and character as the evidence that convinced me that it is true. In other words, authenticated statements by mere mortals ain't gonna do it.

[charity]

BYU Alterego, you are so unfit to judge Joseph Smith. As any of us are. Even if you knew every fact correctly, made every interpretaiton correctly, you would not know what God knew. And if you don't know now that Joseph was a prophet, as a man of faith as you call youself, you are entitled to a spiritual witness that this is true. And then you won't have to worry about smoke and fire. Unless of the brimstone variety.

[Jarrod]

As the incomparable Hugh Nibley once said, "The Book of Mormon is like a football. You can kick it around all you want, but in the end it's still there."

I mean no disrespect, but what does that mean? Of course it's there, that's why we're talking about it. But its existence alone isn't enough to answer any question.

As I'm sure you already know, over the millennia there have been more writings that purport to be scripture than ever entered the canon. And many of those writings are "still there."

[BYU Alterego]

BYU Alterego, you are so unfit to judge Joseph Smith. As any of us are.  Even if you knew every fact correctly, made every interpretaiton correctly, you would not know what God knew.  And if you don't know now that Joseph was a prophet, as a man of faith as you call youself, you are entitled to a spiritual witness that this is true.  And then you won't have to worry about smoke and fire. Unless of the brimstone variety.

I wholeheartedly disagree with you on this Charity. There is more known about Joseph Smith's life than the vast majority of humans that ever lived. He was well known, and many had contributing opinions about his character for both good and bad. We have a lifetime of well documented actions and decisions taken by him. We have entire volumes dedicated to his words and his beliefs.

Perhaps you think it's unfair to judge him, I know it's hard for you to hear someone criticise Joseph Smith, but that doesn't speak to how difficult it is to judge him. They are separate issues.

Joseph Smith's extraordinary claims make him completely fair game, and among historical figures, he ranks right at the top as far as volume of data about his life is concerned.

How your comment could be anything other than a visceral, knee-jerk response eludes me.

[charity]

BYU Alter ego: I won't argue with anything you said about Joseph Smith. But you left out a lot. There was more reason for Satan to destroy Joseph Smith than most men on earth. Scripuitres record that most of the prophets had the personal attention of Satan in an attempt to prevent the work they were foreordained to accomplish.

This work of Satan put many people into Joseph's life to try to kill him, defame him, ruin his reputaiton. Much of what you think you know, is erroneous material. Lies promologated through evil men at the behest of Satan.

And as much as you think you know, you don't have the complete picture. You should know we have been told over and over that we are not to judge. To men (and women) of faith, Joseph's mission is well attested. That is not a knee jerk reaction.

2 Chr. 36: 16 But they mocked the messengers of God, and despised his words, and misused his prophets, until the wrath of the LORD arose against his people, till there was no remedy.

[xymox]

I'm a card-carrying Mormon who grew up in the Church and I must admit that this has always bothered me just a little. I know that most folks believe they were taken away because it is faith in the BofM and in God that really counts, not physical evidence. But it still would be nice if you ask me.

For one thing, if evidence that proves the Book of Mormon is true is not important, why does BYU and FARMS devote so much time and energy seeking out confirmation of the Book of Mormon's ancient origins? This question is a bit rhetorical, obviously, as most of the research is being done to counteract anti-Mormon accusations, etc. However, it seems like real, concrete proof would only help the Church's cause, not hinder it (although, as some have pointed out in this thread, people could still ignore the proof or find other reasons to rationalize its existence, so it may not be that important anyway).

I also feel that God could have other reasons for taking it away, such as the threat of the plates being stolen, melted down and sold off as gold bars by someone. The early 1800s weren't exactly "safe". Just look at what happened to the saints when they tried to settle the land they had actually purchased in Missouri. There's a bunch of reasons NOT to leave them in Joseph's care for the rest of his life, to be honest. For example, Joseph could have been killed before fulfilling his role as prophet by some folks who saw the plates and knew he had them, etc.

Anyhoo, the one thing that is amazing to me about the 11 witnesses of the gold plates is that none of them EVER denied having seen them. Yes, most of them fell away from the church at one point in time or another, but yet none ever denied the testimony that appears at the beginning of the BofM. In fact, many of them, including David Whitmer, wrote letters late in life (such as in 1881) professing that they have never denied their testimony of having seen the gold plates. They did so because some antis were going around saying they denied it and this actually upset them.

Considering the fact that some of these men were excommunicated or otherwise left the church on bad terms, you'd think at least one of them would deny having seen the gold plates, especially if they never really did.

Yet, none of them denied their testimony. That's pretty astounding if you ask me.

[Mighty Curelom]

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.

And that's precisely what we see, isn't it? The people who actually witnessed the plates forever lost their freedom, forced against their will to believe by witnessing undeniable proof of God's existence. This is born out by their unbending support of the Prophet Joseph for their entire lives, never leaving his side and never denying his prophetic abilities.

And then there's Joseph himself. Meeting and speaking with God and Jesus in person irrevocably deprived Joseph of his free agency, and forever after he was incapable of choosing anything but a flawless, pure life.

Right.

[xymox]

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.

And that's precisely what we see, isn't it? The people who actually witnessed the plates forever lost their freedom, forced against their will to believe by witnessing undeniable proof of God's existence. This is born out by their unbending support of the Prophet Joseph for their entire lives, never leaving his side and never denying his prophetic abilities.

And then there's Joseph himself. Meeting and speaking with God and Jesus in person irrevocably deprived Joseph of his free agency, and forever after he was incapable of choosing anything but a flawless, pure life.

Right.

Maybe you're right on this one, MC. But I don't think empirical evidence convinces anyone of anything they don't want to believe. Pharoah saw Moses work many miracles, and yet it never truly convinced him that Moses was God's prophet. He always found a rational explanation for how Moses was able to perform his "miracles."

I think people are no different today--those who refuse to believe in God would be hard-pressed to believe in him any more if the gold plates were in fact around for inspection. If they turned out to be true, why, heck--the folks who left Jerusalem and wrote them could have just been a bunch of crazy whackos, right? So maybe some ancient Isrealites did write them, but does that make the book's contents true? My guess is that people would still argue that it didn't.

In short, what is contained in the BofM is what's important...not what they were written on. I know having the plates as historical evidence would help us "believers" with our case, but would it seriously convince those who already don't believe our church is true? I doubt it.

[mormon fool]

You mention archeological evidence, but failed to specifically mention DNA.  The DNA evidence is quite broad, and very reliable.  It clearly disproves any notion of the Hemispheric model.  We've discussed this before, but wouldn't the fact that Joseph clearly believed in the Hemispheric model be evidence (albeit inconclusive on it's own)of his fraud? 

[charity]

Mormon fool, no fool you. Well done.

[Jarrod]

I have no beef with you, Charity. In fact, you do a great job in expressing youself and making your points. But I find this argument a bit too tautological:

This work of Satan put many people into Joseph's life to try to kill him, defame him, ruin his reputaiton.  Much of what you think you know, is erroneous material. Lies promologated through evil men at the behest of Satan...  we have been told over and over that we are not to judge.

My point is that if, say, Joseph did in fact make his stories up, and we all just dismissed his detractors as men motivated by Satan, how could we ever know if we were being misled? This is precisely what happened to the followers of Jim Jones, Marshall Applewhite, David Koresh, and countless oher groups who attributed their detractors as people Satan put into their lives to try to kill them, defame them, and ruin their reputations.

I respect your choice of faith and your right to express it here. However, it is my opinion that the argument that says that stories that make Joseph look bad are "lies promulgated through evil men at the behest of Satan" has the same foundation and merit of its opposite: "Satan made Joseph lie and make up Mormonism." I support neither argument because they lack foundation.

[Daniel Peterson]

You spoke of Joseph admitting he was a fraud being conclusive evidence.

[Dale]

There are a multitude of occasions that show how Joseph certainly didn't "predict with certainty," ie; prophesy:

1. Kirtland Safety Society (ie; bank). Joseph said it, "shall become the greatest of all institutions on EARTH." The bank lasted less than a year. Joseph was central in the bank's creation.

2. Money digging: Most Gospel Doctrine acolytes know Joseph at one point got paid to dig. But what they don't realize is that Joseph was mostly there because he said he knew where to find the treasure in the first place. There's a huge difference there.

3. Kinderhook plates: The account of Joseph accepting and translating these, though they were absolute forgeries, comes from William Clayton. As to questions of Brother Clayton's reliability, without him he would be without D&C 130, 131 and 132. All of the above were recorded in his diary if I'm not mistaken.

4. Book of Abraham: Many now say that the papyri were merely inspiration for Joseph. That's a convienent theory that only emerged after the originals were translated and shown to be common ceremonial works, nothing close to the book of Abraham

1.Their was a condition for the success of the bank & that was that the bank was ran wisely. They printed up more money than they could gaurantee.

2.The success in money digging was testing impressions that he recieved. He never found any money & he was decieved.

3.I am not sure Joseph Smith had done more than spke on spiritual impressions he had recieved. He did not test the information about it's authenticity. He just spoke what he recieved, and he felt according to David Whitmer in 1829 "some revelations are of men, others of God, and others of the Devil. And I also understand he felt prior to going forth to the people his revelations should be tested through logic & reason through the leading quorums of the church.

4.The facimile explanations Joseph gave are not conventional Egyptian in fact they were used as a catalyst to present ideas & stories not intended by the Egyptians. John Gee will have to make his case in response to Brent Metcalf that the source is missing & not found which he has ot done in my estimation. Joseph Smith Jr. would take the position that if he used the Book of Breathings it was used as a catalyst & confess today his non-literal translation.

Another story mentioned was the mythical story Emma Smith assaulted Eliza R. Snow which is has been discredited in depth Joseph Smith Fought polygamy at http://www.restorationbookstore.org in the JSFP section. I also saw an article I think from BYU Studies that discredited the story.

[Sparrowhawk]

We don't have the plates because the Lord has a keen sense of humor.

This is a somewhat painful thread to read and I think the above comment may be the best answer.

We are told in the D&C

But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your bmind; then you must cask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.

Clearly we are to use our mind first, and our faith second. Faith is to be used in conjunction with intellect. In my mind this has led to the conclusion on my part that the plates do not exsist and that the Book of Mormon is not a literal, factual history. Ever since I was a child I felt that there was somthing wrong with a story for which all the evidence is convienently missing.

What record we have of Joseph's translation process points to something different than what we typically regard as translation. The real question for me is if Joseph did not translate directly from the plates, why did he need the plates at all if not to convince followers of their exsistence.

As for conserving the sacred writings sealed up... Clearly the Lord gave Joseph the ability to translate documents that he never had in his posession, so why should we worry about this.

The plates could have proved invaluable in saving the Kirtland anti banking societies collapse... Perhaps that is why they were removed, so that we could have that fiasco as another trial of our faith.

I must apologize, I can see that I am getting a little sarcastic.

My main point is that we must each study out the evidence, and then ask the Lord. This makes sense to me. This is what I have done.

As for freedom to make our own decisions... I spent years plagued because I felt I was flawed for using my mind first in order to guide my faith. I was coerced into belief by well meaning family and friends until I got to the point where I asked for a confirmation of somthing I could not logically grasp.

In order to have the freedom that many on this thread have suggested is necessary, we must be well informed on both sides of the fence. If all I know before I ask is Mormonism, I am not prepared to ask.

On another note, I very much appreciated an article I read recently from a FARMS author who talked about the use of apologetics being to create space for rational belief. If I remember correctly it seems s/he indicated that s/he felt this was just beginning to happen (sorry I don't have a reference).

I appreciated his/her sincere acknowledgement of the fact that when some of us study it does not seem rational to us. To others it may. I have found peace with my own study and faith. I hope for the same for others, whatever your persuasion may be.

[Sparrowhawk]

Another story mentioned was the mythical story Emma Smith assaulted Eliza R. Snow which is has been discredited in depth Joseph Smith Fought polygamy at http://www.restorationbookstore.org in the JSFP section. I also saw an article I think from BYU Studies that discredited the story.

The fact that somthing has been discredited by someone does not necessarily mean it is not true. For example... Many people feel that the Book of Abraham has been adequatly discredited, yet many others continue to believe in it.

I believe arguments of this nature are somewhat meaningless, if facts could be presented without much bias people could study it out for themselves and come to their own conclusions and then ask the Lord.

I have particularly enjoyed reading Bushman's new biography. He clearly states his bias, but then just tells the story. I have not found anything there to change my mind about Joseph Smith, in fact, I feel I understand him much better and have new insights into his life and what he felt his mission was. This is the way I see it. Bushman clearly has a different opinion from mine, but has told the story in a way that I am able to draw my own conclusions without feeling coerced into believing like him.

[BYU Alterego]

BYU Alter ego:  I won't argue with anything you said about Joseph Smith.  But you left out a lot.  There was more reason for Satan to destroy Joseph Smith than most men on earth.  Scripuitres record that most of the prophets had the personal attention of  Satan in an attempt to prevent the work they were foreordained to accomplish. 

This work of Satan put many people into Joseph's life to try to kill him, defame him, ruin his reputaiton.  Much of what you think you know, is erroneous material. Lies promologated through evil men at the behest of Satan. 

And as much as you think you know, you don't have the complete picture.  You should know we have been told over and over that we are not to judge.  To men (and women) of faith, Joseph's mission is well attested.  That is not a knee jerk reaction.

2 Chr. 36: 16 But they mocked the messengers of God, and despised his words, and misused his prophets, until the wrath of the LORD arose against his people, till there was no remedy.

[e=mc2]

The Dude:

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.

Kerry:

Actually, no, I don't worry about it all that much. In other non-canonical stories the angels take back the books once the prophets have delivered their contents as well. The reason? Because mankind just would destroy them, and their content is vastly more important than their material worth. We are the carnal, sensual, devilish ones, not the heavenly beings. They know what theuy are doing, don't worry.

Best,

Kerry

[thesometimesaint]

e=mc2:

Hugh Nibley added stupid.

[why me]

BYU Alter ego: I won't argue with anything you said about Joseph Smith. But you left out a lot. There was more reason for Satan to destroy Joseph Smith than most men on earth. Scripuitres record that most of the prophets had the personal attention of Satan in an attempt to prevent the work they were foreordained to accomplish.

This work of Satan put many people into Joseph's life to try to kill him, defame him, ruin his reputaiton. Much of what you think you know, is erroneous material. Lies promologated through evil men at the behest of Satan.

And as much as you think you know, you don't have the complete picture. You should know we have been told over and over that we are not to judge. To men (and women) of faith, Joseph's mission is well attested. That is not a knee jerk reaction.

2 Chr. 36: 16 But they mocked the messengers of God, and despised his words, and misused his prophets, until the wrath of the LORD arose against his people, till there was no remedy.

And strangely Charity, this is still happening today. The situation has not changed and many of us can be led away because of it.

[e=mc2]

The sometimesaint:

Hugh Nibley added stupid.

Kerry:

And justifiably so!

[Gohan]

Did you just honestly pull the Satan card? Satan is equal to Santa Claus honey. Leave poor Satan out of this, he's just a scapegoat.

When envoking the name of Satan what you are really saying is that none of Joseph's persecution was earned, Satan made people hate him. That's patently rediculous. I'm sorry, but that's what people think of frauds. They hate them. They feel lied to, humiliated, cheated, and they want that fraud to pay.

Joseph made enemies easy. He sought power that was all but unprecedented. That always makes people jealous and afraid. More relevant is that because of Joseph people lost money, lost family, lost spouses and even died. Once people realized that those sacrifices were for a lie they were expectedly upset. Many never believed in the first place and abhorred what they saw happening.

I could just as easily say that Satan wanted George Bush and that all the acrimony that surrounds him is the result of Satan stirring up persecution. Wow, poor President Bush, I wish all those 65% of Americans that disapprove of his leadership would just leave him alone. It's not his fault... rofl.

Oooorrrrr, we could both just recognize that President Bush has given people a lot of reason to distrust him and dislike him. Just as Joseph left a wake of contention throughout his life that continues to ripple still today.

First of all, don't bring politics into this, that's an easy way to get this thread shut down. Second, I'm curious about Joseph "seeking unprecedented power", I don't believe I've heard that before, so if you could be kind enough to provide evidence of such (not being a smart aleck, just want some proof). You also said that because of Joseph "people lost money, lost family, lost spouses and even died", you can blame that on Joseph, but you should also probably consider: the Governor who issued the extermination order, the psychotic mobs, man's fear of the unknown, disease, and many other factors. It wasn't Joseph's fault that those things happened, it was the faults of other men. Then there's your claim that many members of the church never believed in it in the first place, some EVIDENCE of that would be highly appreciated.