Is Historicity Important To The Book of Mormon?

[LifeOnaPlate]

Did he say Joseph did this while translating? Did he see Joseph do it while translating? Where is this breastplate?

It was returned to Moroni.

I do not see how this is relevant. Joseph gives some characters to take to Prof. Anthon. But did he use the plates while translating? Did anyone see him using them while translating? Everyone that actually saw him translating says they were not present at the time.

Let me break it down a little more:

Joseph Smith copies some characters from the plates and produced a translation for Martin Harris to take to Professor Anthon. During this time there was one main stipulation: don't allow others to see the plates. Martin Harris says Smith produced the translation from behind a curtain. William Smith describes the breastplate as enabling JS to use his hands while translating, presumably to copy characters from the plates, or more pointedly, to be able to handle the plates while translating. Martin Harris returns from the Professor convinced enough that he mortgages his farm to pay for the publication of the book. 116 pages are lost, Joseph is denied the Interpreters and plates for a time. He receives them back and translates with his seer stone in a hat as described by other witnesses who say the plates were either hidden away or covered on the table.

In between all this there are times when the plates aren't used, such as when Isaac Hale forbade JS to have them in the house because he wasn't allowed to see them and so forth. Different witness accounts describe different phases of the translation. To claim that JS never translated directly from the plates on the evidence that no witness account explicitly describes something they were forbidden to see is fallacious.

Maybe, maybe not. No one saw him use them while translating. Did anyone see him copying these characters from the plates? Where are all the characters he copied to translate other than what was taken to Anthon? Those that saw him translating say the plates were not present, plain and simple.

False as well. I only need one counter-claim to prove your statements false if we take the witnesses at face value. And for one of several examples, consider Emma who describes times when the plates were in fact present on the table wrapped in a cloth. To say the plates "were not present, plain and simple" isn't plain and simple, it is inaccurate and false if one takes the witnesses at their word. And again, no one directly witnessed it because no one was to see the plates.

Exaclty, no one saw him use them when he translated.

I've never claimed otherwise. People made conjectures, and based on the Anthon incident and the descriptions surrounding it I believe a good circumstantial case can be made that for a short time the plates were directly used in the translation. I can't imagine why this is such a controversial point for you, and you certainly haven't explained away my case.

[paulpatter]

So why aren't they disciplined for apostasy? Perhaps your position is more strenuous than the church's position

.

And perhaps you believe that the Church moves with blinding speed in matters such as this. It doesn't.

: Edit: And ironically, you do not believe in the historicity of the bible

.

You take liberties here with what I actually said. I said (paraphrasing) that I believe much of the Old Testament is storytelling and theater (because of all the manuscript copying that took place before we arrived at the KJV). I also said that one must temper such a view by recognizing that with God all things are possible. If you're going to assign positions to me, please try for a semblance of accuracy.

[Helmuth]

Yes, historicity is important. Historicity is what the book claims for itself. That is the basis upon which it presents itself. If you do not believe in historicity, you do not believe in the Book of Mormon, as gauged by the book. If one were to ask the Book of Mormon: "Do these not-historical-but-yet-inspired people believe in you?" the answer given in the pages would be a clear no!

mfbukowski, do we really need to take massive disciplinary action against lots of people to establish this as the orthodox position? No! It's quite obviously and evidently orthodox position. No, orthodox is not an exclusionary enough word -- this is the only Mormon position. One cannot believe in Mormonism in a normal Mormon way and not believe the BoM to be what it claims to be: historical.

[mfbukowski]

After reading your post, I would say that it appears to me that we are in agreement on most of the points you make, rather than the contrary. So perhaps the problem here is that you have misunderstood the thrust of my comments.

Well that is certainly possible. I will keep an eye on this guy now that I am aware of him; perhaps you are right.

[mfbukowski]

And again, no one directly witnessed it because no one was to see the plates.

Do you have a theory about why no one was to see the plates? To prevent something like the Anthon thing from happening?

[LifeOnaPlate]

From the start JS was told by Moroni not to let anyone else take a look, or else. JS himself took several years to become ready to take the plates without the view of getting gain by them. Perhaps there is something to that. At any rate, he was greatly relieved after translating the part of the record explaining that there would be witnesses of the plates. But this came later.

[mfbukowski]

I don't think you are in a position to speak with authority concerning my closet.

And as for my "title" of "Vulgar Sciolist," there is no joke associated with it at all. Ask anyone.

Well now that I looked up what it meant, I want that title too. It's just not fair that you thought of that before I had a chance to.

And as far as Dehlin is concerned, after Dr. P's comments on the other thread, I guess I am going to have to agree with you on that one too.

Dang.

Agreeing is just not as much fun as arguing!

[rockslider]

Well now that I looked up what it meant, I want that title too. It's just not fair that you thought of that before I had a chance to.

The vulgar part seemed clear ... appears I'm confused on scatologist verses sciolist, I had assumed some sort of connection, but maybe I'm way out in left field. So, based on William's suggestion:

Dr. P (or anyone else), What's up with William's avatar title? If it is what I think it is, let this be a rhetorical question.

And as far as Dehlin is concerned, after Dr. P's comments on the other thread, I guess I am going to have to agree with you on that one too.

Dang.

Agreeing is just not as much fun as arguing!

Dr. P acknowledged to having been accused by an enemy of his that he held the same view of John Dehlin as that of William. His next statement says that he does not know the man. I read this to say "I don't known the man, how could I judge him as a conscious and deliberate enemy".

mfbukowski, have you followed this John Dehlin, or is your judgment of him as a Fifth Column based on what appears to be two conflicting apologists views of him?

[paulpatter]

[name=paulpatter' date='11 September 2009 - 09:43 PM' timestamp='1252726988' post='1208717298]

. . . .

So we agree, that no witness saw him use the plates.

No, we don't agree. The fact that "no witness[es] saw him use the plates" doesn't mean that he didn't use the plates when witnesses were not present. All you are saying is that x number of witnesses saw him translate without using the plates. You made an unqualified claim that the plates were not used in the translation process, period. As I note in Post #161 you didn't qualify your claim in any way; you stated it as a chiseled-in-granite truth--a "truth" you cannot substantiate.

. . . So I am correct, the plates were not used for the translation.

You err, as I explain above. You do not know that the plates were not used at one or more points during the translation process; you are merely speculating. (As I stated before, the Church has taken no position on the methodology of the translation process; that should tell you something.)

: I take that as a concession from you.

Take it as you wish, fanciful though it is.

[mfbukowski]

mfbukowski, have you followed this John Dehlin, or is your judgment of him as a Fifth Column based on what appears to be two conflicting apologists views of him?

Honestly I don't think I had heard of him until around post 172 on this thread and whatever has been said on the other one. I have never heard or read anything he has done. I am pretty ignorant of all these personalities on the bloggernacle and intend to remain so. I am more interested in the issues than I am about who believes what and who is in who's camp. I am too stupid on the real issues to care about personalities, I just want to learn and grow in gospel knowledge.

I would suggest we get back to the question at hand which is the historicity of the BOM.