If Scientists Had The Plates Joseph Used Would You Believe?

[AKS]

The absence of the plates is a major reason why I don't believe in mormonism. So if the plates were found and validated I would very likely go back to church. However, claiming that an angel gave JS the plates (which he couldn't translate and apparently didn't need for the production of the BOM anyway) and then took them back to heaven is just too fanciful for me to take much stock in. The story does fit right in though with a man that might claim a fiery sword wielding angel threatened him with death if polygamy is not practiced. Or sinking treasure. Or magical peep stones... etc

[cdowis]

The absence of the plates is a major reason why I don't believe in mormonism. So if the plates were found and validated I would very likely go back to church. However, claiming that an angel gave JS the plates (which he couldn't translate and apparently didn't need for the production of the BOM anyway) and then took them back to heaven is just too fanciful for me to take much stock in. The story does fit right in though with a man that might claim a fiery sword wielding angel threatened him with death if polygamy is not practiced. Or sinking treasure. Or magical peep stones... etc

And I assume you are not a Christian because the resurrected Christ did not appear to Caesar, the Sanhedrin, to the scribes and Pharasees.

"I'll only believe it if it forced down my throat."

[AKS]

And I assume you are not a Christian because the resurrected Christ did not appear to Caesar, the Sanhedrin, to the scribes and Pharasees.

"I'll only believe it if it forced down my throat."

You assume I'm not christian because the resurrected Christ did not appear to Caesar, the Sanhedrin, to the scribes and Pharasees? Weren't you just beating some guy up for stinking logic?

[ckonrad]

I guess then the question is really not "would you believe?" but "what would you believe". Makes for a messy survey, though.

The heart of the matter, though, is the oft-repeated chestnut that no amount of evidence would convince the skeptic of Mormonism's claims. Of course critics could claim the converse that "no amount of contrary evidence could ever sway the believer", but I see no point in engaging in discussions neither side is even willing to assume the good faith of the other.

My evidentiary standards for supernatural claims are quite high, but even outside of the supernatural claims in the BofM, I find the narrative highly implausible.

Yeah i'm starting to realize that, i never took a poll before on anything so it never occurred to me early on to be more specific, its one of those kind of things where i wasn't really aware that there were so many different ways of understanding the question. Maybe i'll try it again sometime down the road.

-corey

[Honorentheos]

I answered the OP poll as yes. It would be hard to maintain a sketical stance on the prophetic nature of Joseph Smith if the plates were found, proved ancient, and shown to be more or less what he claimed they were. That is about as close to certain as we get. I also do not see it happening any time soon.

The funny thing about ancient historians is that they tended to inflate numbers (especially in military narratives). John, have you read Herodetus' reports on the Battle at Thermopylae and the Persian invasion of Greece? In his Histories he reported that over 2 million Persians invaded Greece. Talk about inflating numbers! And yet we seem to give Herodetus a "get out of jail free" card whilst simutaniously condeming the Book of Mormon as a fraud because it too presents unbelivable numbers in a military context. Does anyone else see a double standard here?

I don't see a double standard here, based on the OP actually. Herodetus gives us a poetic account of an event that has other backing evidence of the actual event. The notion that Greece, Persia, Xerxis, Athens, Marathon, and other persons, places, and context material are authentic are not in doubt. No one reasonably believes the entire matter is a fiction from his own mind. But no one diputes that the account is one of his mind and not of other origin.

The BoM, being translated through means of divine origin, makes it another animal. It is, therefore, right to judge it based on other criteria. If, on the other hand, it was a gold book being translated without divine means involved, there would be a double standard.

[Dr. Sandwich]

I don't see a double standard here, based on the OP actually. Herodetus gives us a poetic account of an event that has other backing evidence of the actual event. The notion that Greece, Persia, Xerxis, Athens, Marathon, and other persons, places, and context material are authentic are not in doubt. No one reasonably believes the entire matter is a fiction from his own mind. But no one diputes that the account is one of his mind and not of other origin.

The BoM, being translated through means of divine origin, makes it another animal. It is, therefore, right to judge it based on other criteria. If, on the other hand, it was a gold book being translated without divine means involved, there would be a double standard.

But you have to remember that from Roomelator's point of view, the BOM was first a history of a civilization, and then, later, it was buried and translated through divine interpretation.

I assume he's granting that the exaggeration was not a strength, just that it doesn't mean it's false per say.

[Rommelator]

Was this honest fellow also a prophet who communed with God, and whose task was to create an accurate record of his people for future generations?

I believe so, yes. However, we need to define accurate in this case. To assume that the standards of historiography were the same anciently then they were today is presentism in its worse. Ancient historians had a different view of what could be passed as accurate than modern historians.

What, exactly, is Mormon's incentive for number-inflating propaganda?

I don't know, you will have to ask him. However, I have an idea. Mark Alan Wright in his 2008 presentation at Olivewood Bookstore discussed how ancient Mesoamerican kings, rulers, historians, generals, etc. like to inflate numbers in their records to establish a sense of power over enemies. Maybe Mormon was doing the same here. Brant Gardner has shown ancient Nephite sociocentrism in the Book of Mormon (another ancient trait amongst historians) so maybe we are seeing something similar.

Further, we need to remember that the Book of Mormon never claims to be perfect. Mormon, Moroni and Nephi all lamented in the flaws and shortcomings in their records. To attack the Book of Mormon on the claims on infallibility is, therefore, a straw man.

The BoM, being translated through means of divine origin, makes it another animal. It is, therefore, right to judge it based on other criteria.

I agree that we have a unique case with the Book of Mormon, but the OP that relayed John Larsen's ideas did not establish that. John was criticizing the Book of Mormon (which claims to be ancient history) for having unrealistic numbers. I showed an example of another ancient history that also inflated numbers. We therefore have a convergence between an ancient history and another book that claims to be ancient history.What I was trying to show is that the problem of inflated numbers vanishes when we realize that this is how ancient histories were written. Or, to put it simply, bad history is not the same as not history. Even if Mormon got details wrong, which he himself admits he might have done, that does not invalidate the Book of Mormon as history because other ancient histories also got stuff wrong.

I assume he's granting that the exaggeration was not a strength, just that it doesn't mean it's false per say.

Correct. This is precisely what I am arguing. As I said before, bad history (in this case Mormon inflating numbers) is not the same as false history (or the Book of Mormon therefore not being historical at all).

[AKS]

Further, we need to remember that the Book of Mormon never claims to be perfect. Mormon, Moroni and Nephi all lamented in the flaws and shortcomings in their records. To attack the Book of Mormon on the claims on infallibility is, therefore, a straw man.

How remarkably convenient. And where are these gold plates? Oh thats right, taken back to heaven...

[Rommelator]

How remarkably convenient. And where are these gold plates? Oh thats right, taken back to heaven...

What, pray tell, does this have to do with the conversation at hand?

[3DOP]

Perhaps I don't appreciate all the implications of "the plates Joseph used". It doesn't seem terribly significant or LDS faith-promoting to me that scientists should come into possession of some artifacts used by Joseph Smith. I would be more impressed if an Apostle walked on the Great Salt Lake.

I have no opinion about these things regarding LDS evidences. I know very little about...I can't think of the word...some sort of poetic meter or rhythm that is supposed to be positive evidence. NHM. The chiasmus, that's what you call it I think. The witnesses. BOA. I almost never look at those "Book of Mormon bullseye" threads. Likewise for DNA. Mountain Meadows. Polygamy. Horses. I almost never look at those "Book of Mormon misses the bullseye" threads.

I pretty much for sake of argument assume that the anti-Mormons are wrong about everything. I presume they are wrong about the plates and Mormons are right about them...whatever it is you say happened to them. I have no negative evidence to offer against LDS claims except for being unimpressed with Latter Day Apostles who after Joseph don't seem to have his mantle. No striking revelation or miracles. Miracles and fulfilled prophecy would have to make me sit up and evaluate things a little more closely even if you failed to persuade me about the apostasy. But Mormons also fail to persuade me that the Catholic Church is apostate. Forgive me, but most of you good folk sound eerily like those anti-Mormons, beginning with good intentions, yet with pre-conceived notions distorting all the evidence, unqualified to speak on a subject, and displaying the most zealous certainty in concluding that the Catholic faith is false.

I already accept that you have reasonable arguments for why the plates are wherever they are. So, how do these plates falling into the possession of science make non-Mormons believe that our own faiths are false?

3DOP

[Tchild2]

I already accept that you have reasonable arguments for why the plates are wherever they are. So, how do these plates falling into the possession of science make non-Mormons believe that our own faiths are false?

3DOP

By the chain of supernatural events leading up to and following the delivery of the plates.

1) A resurrected angel delivered the plates and tutored/prepared Joseph to receive them.

2) if #1 is true, then it stands to reason that the the first vision took place and God really did want to restore his truth again to the earth because "All churches and their professors were corrupt". Unless people are inclined to believe that visiting resurrected beings may not necessarily mean they are working with God? Otherwise, they connect nicely.

3) If God did visit and also Moroni, a real resurrected being , then it stands to reason that later, additional resurrected beings came to confer the various priesthoods and "keys" for the dispensation of the fullness of times, including John the Baptist, Peter, James and John, Elias, Elijiah, and Moses, as was claimed by Joseph Smith.

Disbelieving the supernatural elements, and hypothetically the plates were found, verified and translated by unbiased professionals matching the current BoM narrative, then you would have to ask yourself, what are the odds of Joseph Smith finding rare, historic and precious gold plates, and also having some latent genius to correctly translate them?

I haven't found so much as an old indian head penny, so, it would definitely pique my interest.

[suem]

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

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

I was aware of southern and northern hemispheres but not aware of western and eastern hemispheres. Where is the defining line?

[suem]

I vote, Yes. If scientists had the gold plates and determined that said plates were genuine and translate into the known BoM, then I would agree that the BoM was a legitimate writing by ancient peoples.

That would not make me a believer in Mormonism any more than the discovery and translation of the dead sea scrolls made me a believer in Christianism.

[cjcampbell]

I was aware of southern and northern hemispheres but not aware of western and eastern hemispheres. Where is the defining line?

0

[jonzlaw]

Joseph Smith enjoyed communion not only with Book of Mormon prophets who now are angelic beings, but with biblical prophets who also are angelic beings. He knew Paul, Peter, John and many others and he understood them.

Do you mean to say that he knew them as in he actually met them?

[cinepro]

I am LDS, but the severity of my doubts regarding the historicity of the Book of Mormon probably qualifies me to answer the poll, to which I answered "Yes".

While I would never say I was 100% sure, if the outlined scenario happened, I would absolutely consider it "extraordinary evidence" for Joseph Smith's "extraordinary claim". I would happily acknowledge that the accuracy of the Book of Mormon, and the likely reality of Joseph's angelic encounters and God given (and unusually executed) ability to translate.

I will also add that I would believe in Scientology, or any other religion, if equally supportive evidence were forthcoming for their claims.

[ttribe]

Do you mean to say that he knew them as in he actually met them?

Yes.

[jonzlaw]

Yes.

Wow. Can you explain? Maybe give me the references?

[cinepro]

Wow. Can you explain? Maybe give me the references?

Here ya' go:

Who, then, were the divine messengers who came to the Prophet Joseph Smith?

We know of at least the following:

â??The Father and the Son, who initiated this dispensation and brought a correct knowledge of the Godhead.

â??The angel Moroni, who brought forth the Book of Mormon.

â??John the Baptist, who restored the Aaronic Priesthood.

â??Peter, James, and John, who restored the Melchizedek Priesthood.

â??Moses, who brought the keys of the gathering of Israel.

â??Elias, who brought the dispensation of the gospel of Abraham, thus establishing the patriarchal order of marriage and family.

â??Elijah, who brought the keys of sealing and of turning the hearts of the children to the promises made to the fathers.

No doubt many others came. We do not have an exact record of the date, place, or occasion when some of these messengers extended their particular keys to Joseph Smith, but because we know the rules that govern the system, we know they came. The Prophet alluded to some of these visitations in an epistle to the Saints on baptism for the dead. (See D&C 128:20â??21.)

In addition, associates of the Prophet, such as President John Taylor, indicated that the Prophet Joseph Smith had been visited by many of the ancient prophets. Said President Taylor:

â??If you were to ask Joseph what sort of a looking man Adam was, he would tell you at once; he would tell you his size and appearance and all about him. You might have asked him what sort of men Peter, James and John were, and he could have told you. Why? Because he had seen them.â? (Journal of Discourses, 18:326.)

â??The principles which [Joseph Smith] had, placed him in communication with the Lord, and not only with the Lord, but with the ancient apostles and prophets; such men, for instance, as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Noah, Adam, Seth, Enoch, and Jesus and the Father, and the apostles that lived on this continent as well as those who lived on the Asiatic continent. He seemed to be as familiar with these people as we are with one another.â? (Journal of Discourses, 21:94.)

The Fulness of Times

Ensign, December 1989

[Charactor]

Sure thing. Where would you like me to start? Which discrediting would you like to begin with? Would you like to start with the anthropologists, the geneticists, the biologists, the physicists, the astronomers, the bible scholars, the historians, the archaeologists, the metallurgists, the military scientists, etc. etc. etc.No they haven't.

Concerning the "archaeologists" part of your quote, non Mormons haven't put any effort into translating the Anthon Transcript (besides their assertions that it can't be translated.). This is shown by Prima Facie evidence (or evidence that you can see that speaks for itself) as shown by Ariel Crowley The Caractors as Egyptian plainly shows that reformed Egyptian Charactors appear in Egyptian orthography. But nothing has been done with these because the translation is so esoteric that it's just not a priority for non Mormons and it requires a LOT of effort, accessing materials to which not many people have access to translate. As far as I know, there is only one LDS person working on it at:Evidence for reformed Egyptian I think the average person wants the whole thing handed to them on a silver platter, all wrapped up and neatly packaged- not having to do any of their own work. But works sprung from faith is what we are all about, are we not?

[ckonrad]

Concerning the "archaeologists" part of your quote, non Mormons haven't put any effort into translating the Anthon Transcript (besides their assertions that it can't be translated.). This is shown by Prima Facie evidence (or evidence that you can see that speaks for itself) as shown by Ariel Crowley The Caractors as Egyptian plainly shows that reformed Egyptian Charactors appear in Egyptian orthography. But nothing has been done with these because the translation is so esoteric that it's just not a priority for non Mormons and it requires a LOT of effort, accessing materials to which not many people have access to translate. As far as I know, there is only one LDS person working on it at:Evidence for reformed Egyptian I think the average person wants the whole thing handed to them on a silver platter, all wrapped up and neatly packaged- not having to do any of their own work. But works sprung from faith is what we are all about, are we not?

Thanks for the link on the reformed Egyptian i was looking for some more information on that and decided to check out this thread by chance to see how it was doing hehe, i have looked into egyptian shorthands like Demotic etc its pretty interesting.

-corey

[John Larsen]

Concerning the "archaeologists" part of your quote, non Mormons haven't put any effort into translating the Anthon Transcript (besides their assertions that it can't be translated.). This is shown by Prima Facie evidence (or evidence that you can see that speaks for itself) as shown by Ariel Crowley The Caractors as Egyptian plainly shows that reformed Egyptian Charactors appear in Egyptian orthography. But nothing has been done with these because the translation is so esoteric that it's just not a priority for non Mormons and it requires a LOT of effort, accessing materials to which not many people have access to translate. As far as I know, there is only one LDS person working on it at:Evidence for reformed Egyptian I think the average person wants the whole thing handed to them on a silver platter, all wrapped up and neatly packaged- not having to do any of their own work. But works sprung from faith is what we are all about, are we not?

Written languages have certain characteristics in common. Two main ones influence their production and evolution. First, each character must be readily differentiable from other characters. In other words the language must be easily "readable". Secondly, the characters must conserve effort in production. In other words, they must be as easy to write as possible by using the least amount of strokes.

In this aspect, the Anthon transcript does not appear to be an actual language.

[John Larsen]

I also wish to point out that Russell Littlecreek is unfamiliar with the basics of the history of written languages and language formation and it shows. One thing that Russell has done is look through the characters in the Anthon Transcript and find graphics that seem to be similar or match Egyptian characters from several different time periods and scripting styles. You can actually do the same thing with any other language. I am some what familiar with Lao-Thai scripts, Hindi, Pali and Japaneses as well as the Romantic languages. I can see similarities to characters in all of these languages. That does not establish any sort of connection in and of itself. When you think about it, there are only so many ways to draw a little character and any two languages are bound to have several similarities due to constraints of readability and production methods which imply no cultural contact.

[ckonrad]

Written languages have certain characteristics in common. Two main ones influence their production and evolution. First, each character must be readily differentiable from other characters. In other words the language must be easily "readable". Secondly, the characters must conserve effort in production. In other words, they must be as easy to write as possible by using the least amount of strokes.

In this aspect, the Anthon transcript does not appear to be an actual language.

I've spoken to professionals of linguistics and egyptology and they agree that the characters look like a form of Demotic or Hieratic. Most people who are not Mormon of course don't believe they were copied from gold plates used for the book of Mormon since they don't believe in the Book of Mormon but the people i have talked to feel pretty confident in saying that they were copied from an authentic ancient egyptian text, maybe from one of the papyri Joseph owned.

-corey

[ckonrad]

I also wish to point out that Russell Littlecreek is unfamiliar with the basics of the history of written languages and language formation and it shows. One thing that Russell has done is look through the characters in the Anthon Transcript and find graphics that seem to be similar or match Egyptian characters from several different time periods and scripting styles. You can actually do the same thing with any other language. I am some what familiar with Lao-Thai scripts, Hindi, Pali and Japaneses as well as the Romantic languages. I can see similarities to characters in all of these languages. That does not establish any sort of connection in and of itself. When you think about it, there are only so many ways to draw a little character and any two languages are bound to have several similarities due to constraints of readability and production methods which imply no cultural contact.

Thai Hindi and Pali, Tibetan, etc all have common origins in regards to the writing system, all those writing systems were created by people who sat down and used similar scripts as a foundation. Tibetan is a good example, it was created by using the Brahmi script of India.

-corey