Metal Plates--Joseph Smith Mocked for His Discription

[Zakuska]

While not exactly what you asked for it is of intrest... beings how it cooberates some of the history about the plates as well as raises some other questions. Its from a Neighbor...

Testimony of William Riley Hine:

Jo and his father were all the time telling of hidden things, lead, silver and gold mines which he could see. I called him Peeker. About the spring of 1828, Jo came in front of my house where several men were pitching quoits. I said, "Peeker, what have you found?" He said he had found some metal plates which would be of great use to the world. He had them in a box in a handkerchief which he carried in one hand. I said, "Let me see them." Jo Smith said they must first be sent to Philadelphia to be translated. He said the only man in the world who could translate them lived there. After they were translated the world could see them. Calvin Smith, whose farm joined mine, said with an oath, he would see them. Jo said if he laid his hands on him he would prosecute him. I told Calvin he better not. Since I have seen the conduct of the Mormons, I have many times regretted that I interfered. Citizens wrote to parties in Philadelphia, where Jo said he had sent the plates and word was returned they had not received them. Jo said they could not be translated in Philadelphia and they had been sent to New York City. Justice N. K. Nobles wrote to New York and could learn nothing about them. Soon I learned that Jo claimed to be translating the plates in Badger's Tavern, in Colesville, three miles from my house. I went there and saw Jo Smith sit by a table and put a handkerchief to his forehead and peek into his hat and call out a word to Cowdery, who sat at the same table and wrote it down. Several persons sat near the same table and there was no curtain between them. Martin Harris introduced himself to me, and said they were going to bring the world from darkness into light. Martin's wife cooked for them, and one day while they were at dinner she put one hundred and sixteen pages, the first part they had translated, in her dress bosom and went out. They soon missed the one hundred and sixteen pages and followed her into the road and demanded them of her. She refused, and said if it was the Lord's work you can translate them again, and I will follow you to the ends of the earth.

http://www.sidneyrig...CA/natruths.htm

So Martins wife basically stole the 116 pages.

[Zakuska]

Heres a modern Christian group that seems to be making the naive claim:

24. In real history there are a very limited number of records of metal plates, e.g.: copper scroll at Qumran (dated ca. 100BC); bronze blades and arrowheads inscribed in Phoenician/Hebrew (ca. 1100BC); Four gold and silver plates found at Persepolis, Iran (excavation of palace of King Darius I, King of Persia 518-515BC); three in gold (Pyrgi, Italy, about 500BC and written in the Phoenician and Etruscan languages); 19 gold plates found in Seoul, South Korea (from the 8th century AD). Where is the evidence for plates of gold or any other metal in the Jerusalem area - or Egypt or America? The roll (made of leather or papyrus - particularly in Egypt of course) was the main method for writing records (Biblical Archaeology, by G. Earnest Wright, Westminster Press, 1957, p.197 and Frederic Kenyon, op. cit. pp. 37-38). New World manuscripts from Central America and Mexico - dating from pre-Columbian times - were found on coarse cloth or crude paper and are known to have been burned by fanatical Spanish priests.

http://www.thechrist...org/page57.html

[kolipoki09]

Heres a modern Christian group that seems to be making the naive claim:

Where is the evidence for plates of gold or any other metal in the Jerusalem area - or Egypt or America? The roll (made of leather or papyrus - particularly in Egypt of course) was the main method for writing records (Biblical Archaeology, by G. Earnest Wright, Westminster Press, 1957, p.197 and Frederic Kenyon, op. cit. pp. 37-38).

http://www.thechrist...org/page57.html

That claim is relatively contemporary to Nibley's 1952 edition of Lehi in the Desert. If Wright was arguing for the notion in 1957 that there were not plates of gold or any other metal being engraved in the ancient Near East or the Americas, I'm persuaded to believe that a "lack of evidence" argument was prevalent at least at the time of Nibley's arguments published in the Improvement Era.

[Zakuska]

Heres a pro Mormon Blog that REEAAALLY over states it.

When the Book of Mormon was first published in English in 1830, it seemed rather an anomaly, despite its biblical tone. No one had ever heard of ancient books being written on metallic plates and hidden in stone boxes. Moreover, it claimed to have been originally written in a

[kolipoki09]

Heres a pro Mormon Blog that REEAAALLY over states it.

http://bookofmormonfacts.com/book-of-mormon/other-ancient-documents/

They link to FAIR and the Maxwell Institute on the blog. Is this one of our own?

[Mike Reed]

I've already told I've seen it in almost every anti-mormon work since the beginning.

Yes... you've already told me so. And I took it for what it was worth.

but sorry, I guess you are just going to have to trust us.

Us? You speaking in behalf of all apologists... as usual.

I know you want proof, but sorry, most of us don't have memory's on this kind of thing or searchable databases in which we can just pull a bunch of quotes.

Why are you still posting on this thread then? Clearly (by your own admission) you are unable to contribute anything substantial.

[Mike Reed]

Perhaps Nibley gives citations in other works?

I checked Lehi in the Desert, and Nibley doesn't seem to cite anything. Maybe he does somewhere in his other volumes. I'll have to check.

There was also a work by Welch or Tvedtnes (sp?) that focused on metal records IIRC. That would seem a likely source for sources if it presented why such things are now seen as relevant to the apologetic arguments...I don't think I have that one---just looked at it in the bookstore--will go look just in case, but if you are really curious, I'd email FAIR as someone there would likely have the book.

Good call. I have Tvedtnes' "The Book of Mormon and Other Hidden Books," which talks a lot about ancient metal plates, but he doesn't seem to cite any of Joseph Smith's contemporaries making the denial. I'll do some more digging, though... and call FAIR if I can't figure out which book you are refering to. Thanks Cal.

[Mike Reed]

Heres a pro Mormon Blog that REEAAALLY over states it.

http://bookofmormonfacts.com/book-of-mormon/other-ancient-documents/

Beautiful blog. Pity to have it tinged by the irresponsible commentary.

[yesucan2]

It's interesting to me that people can believe that God created everything out of nothing, can be everywhere at the same time and still be a human at the same time, can part the Red Sea, but he can't seem to figure out how to tell someone to write it down on metal plates.

[kolipoki09]

It's interesting to me that people can believe that God created everything out of nothing, can be everywhere at the same time and still be a human at the same time, can part the Red Sea, but he can't seem to figure out how to tell someone to write it down on metal plates.

While some critics have highlighted the apparent difficulty of transcribing records on metal plates as an example of the implausibility of Joseph Smith's story, it was S

[thesometimesaint]

Mike Reed:

Thanx for responding.

What I deduce from from the article is that even in mid 1800's the use of metal plates in any part of the printing process was in its infancy. What I can not find is direct evidence that JS or his contemporaries had any knowledge that metal plates were used anciently.

For more information you might find this interesting.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=19&num=1&id=637#10

[Mike Reed]

Mike Reed:

Thanx for responding.

What I deduce from from the article is that even in mid 1800's the use of metal plates in any part of the printing process was in its infancy. What I can not find is direct evidence that JS or his contemporaries had any knowledge that metal plates were used anciently.

For more information you might find this interesting.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=19&num=1&id=637#10

Thanks for the clarification and link, thesometimesaint. Unfortunately, William Hamblin echoes the same argument as Nibley too... without citing contemporary critics.

The alleged absurdity of the Book of Mormon having been written on golden plates and its claim of the existence of an early sixth century BC version of the Hebrew Bible written on bronze (brass) plates1 has long been a favorite target of critics of the book.2 Today, however, the critics tend to admit that there are numerous examples of ancient writing on metal plates. Indeed, they have for the most part dropped the argument that the idea of ancient writing on metal plates is absurd; some ironically now claim instead that knowledge of ancient writing on metal plates was readily available in Joseph Smith's day. Joseph is now pictured as simply having absorbed from his environment an idea originally dismissed as absurd.3 In this regard Hugh Nibley's observation that "it will not be long before men forget that in Joseph Smith's day the prophet was mocked and derided for his description of the plates more than anything else" seems quite prescient.4

Although it is true that some early contemporary skeptics have rejected the possibility of ancient metallic records, it seems that apologists are over-blowing the case. I understand the strategy (I used to do the same thing):

*Insinuate an improbability of Joseph Smith knowing the existence of metallic records by exaggerating the number of contemporary criticisms about it, thereby making it appear that the false assumption was commonly held.

*Point out that we now realize the assumption is false, thanks to 20th-21st century discoveries (while conveniently neglecting to mention early 19th century finds).

*Ask the question, "How could Joseph Smith have known this?"

*Conclude, "Obviously, He couldn't have. Therefore Joseph Smith must've had divine revelation."

Boomerang hit!! But is it really all that impressive? Should we count it as evidence validating Joseph Smith's prophetic calling? I'd say it is no more impressive than the name "Alma" appearing in the Book of Mormon.

[selek]

In Lehi in the Desert Hugh Nibley spends several paragraphs effectively proving that metallic records were used in antiquity. Nibley then predicts, "It will not be long before men forget that in Joseph Smith's day the prophet was mocked and derided for his description of the plates more than anything else." (107) FAIR echoes this same argument here.

Sure... Smith's skeptics mocked him because they associated his

[thesometimesaint]

Mike Reed:

I made no such correlation to "divine revelation".

My personal take on it is that we don't know what if anything JS knew. The circumstances of where and when he was living make fabricating gold plates highly unlikely. With that much gold he could have lived a very comfortable long life.

[Mike Reed]

Mike, your fellow traveller Terry Moe...

And who would that be? And why do you call him my fellow traveler?

(he doesn't specify what happened to Curly or Shemp)

You are a class act, Selek. Why the moderators put with your unremitting insults and caustic tone is beyond me.

does precisely that in his last couple of threads.

No links?

Moe goes out of his way to fudge the "writing on plates" issue (just as you have)

I am guilty of fudging? How so? Because I ask apologists like yourself to show that this was a common criticism "in Joseph Smith's day"? It is hardly my fault that you can't back up the claim.

and then proceeds to crow triumphally about the absurdity of "books written on metal plates", forgetting that information density varies significantly from language to language (particulary between Semetic, Asian, and Western languages.

What are you talking about?

Prior to the first discovery of such writing, it was considered absurd in the extreme. Much like the literal existence of Troy, writing on metal plates was pooh-poohed by the intellectual "giants" of the day- right up until hard archaeological evidence surfaced to support the claims.

CFR.

Jeff Lindsay provides a number of (contemporary and nearly so sources for this criticism).

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSMetal.shtml

The earliest of the quotes you list comes from 1857. Another (which isn't listed here) dates to 1838. If we were to count the 1857 example--which postdates Joseph's death by 13 years--then we would now have a grand total of TWO examples provided so far. Surely... if this was a criticism in "Joseph Smith's day" that was more common "than anything else," as Nibley insinuates, then several more examples need to be cited. And no... the two from 1887 and 1920 do not count as contemporary.

Such ignorant criticism is neither new nor especially ingenious, and each find of metal records has further eroded such spurious claims.

Yes. The criticism has been debunked. But you still have yet to prove that the criticism was commonly made by Joseph's contemporaries.

Attempting to white-wash this criticism now that it is inconvenient however, is disingenuous at best and intellectually dishonest at worst.

Blah, blah, blah. See above.

The criticisms were made and have been documented- to attempt to erase them now that they've been debunked is simply historical revisionism- and quite frankly, I expect better of you.

I am not trying to erase them. I am trying to bring them to the surface by having them gathered and cited in this thread. Pay attention, and take your insults elsewhere. This was a pleasant thread until you arrived.

[Mike Reed]

The circumstances of where and when he was living make fabricating gold plates highly unlikely. With that much gold he could have lived a very comfortable long life.

Agreed. On the other hand, fabricating (or obtaining) plates that had the "appearance" of gold...

[kolipoki09]

Agreed. On the other hand, fabricating (or obtaining) plates that had the "appearance" of gold...

It seems to me that someone would have come forward if in fact Joseph asked them to produce the plates. I have doubts that Joseph could have produced such a thing unless he'd previously created something like it. Given that none of Joseph's contemporaries of which I am aware came forward asserting that they had worked with Joseph to produce the plates, nor any of his family members, I have reason to believe that the plates came from someone outside Joseph's community OR by means of heavenly interaction. As a believer, I choose the latter, but I think in your position Mike, the most "rational" approach would be to pursue the historical record in light of these two propositions.

If perhaps we can find evidence of Joseph's skills in metallurgy or those close to him, a hypothesis for a "fabrication" could immediately begin to be pieced together. There are also multiple explanations as to the validity/fraudulence of the Anthon "Caractors" that should also be taken into consideration.

I think we've fairly well established that such plates "with the appearance of gold" did in fact exist. I think the RSC's recent publication on Oliver Cowdery "Days Never to be Forgotten" does a remarkable job establishing that from the historical record, as did Richard Anderson's book "Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses."

[Hestia]

Mike, your fellow traveller Terry Moe (he doesn't specify what happened to Curly or Shemp) does precisely that in his last couple of threads.

Make your point without such personal pejoratives.

[selek]

Make your point without such personal pejoratives.

Apologies.

No affront was intended.

[why me]

I think we've fairly well established that such plates "with the appearance of gold" did in fact exist. I think the RSC's recent publication on Oliver Cowdery "Days Never to be Forgotten" does a remarkable job establishing that from the historical record, as did Richard Anderson's book "Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses."

Crtics often claim that Joseph could have used props to lull the witnesses into believing what was false to be real. They also claim that the people back then where superstitious and easily fooled. I don't think that frontier people were that stupid to be fooled, especially when it concerns 11 men. If the coming forth of the book of mormon was a fraud, the plans for making it come forth were quite elaborate and risky. I don't believe that no sound fraudster could ever believe in its success with all the people involved.

And to be honest, as a fraud, it was a dismal failure. I see only persecution and loss of property to this fraud. Someone would have given it up publically. Too much death and destruction for a normal conscious to handle, especially when we are looking at a possible 13 people involved if we include sidney and joseph. And the men involved in mormonisms beginnings do not look to be cruel and heartless people. Even John Whitmer when he was riding with antimormons never denied what he saw with his eyes and felt with his hands but confirmed what he saw with his eyes and felt with his hands.

[Tarski]

I've already told I've seen it in almost every anti-mormon work since the beginning. I know you want proof, but sorry, most of us don't have memory's on this kind of thing or searchable databases in which we can just pull a bunch of quotes. I know you haven't noticed it, but sorry, I guess you are just going to have to trust us. It's always been one of the main "science" based contentions against the Church, along with the idea of no Horses, crops, etc.

If we are just talking about the idea tha engraving on metal is absurd, then I have never heard it from a critic. I have often heard from Mormons that anti-Mormons say it, but never heard them (the critics) actually say it.

I am guessing you got it when you read about (or heard about) antiMormon claims but not from actual antiMormons so much. In fact, maybe Nibley is the original source of the notion? LOL

[Zakuska]

Heres another... This one from 1963, So I guess you will whine that its not contemporar, It also only points out the difference of Plate vs Roll.

In the sixth century B.C. the most common forms of writing material in Palestine were papyrus and leather (or animal skin); the Hebrew also wrote on wood and potsherds..... It should of course, be mentioned that writing on metal was not completely unknown, since a copper scroll has been discovered at Qumran. This scroll, however, was not a plate but a roll, and is dated much later than 600 B.C., being generally ascribed to the first century B.C.

In view of the above facts, does it seem likely that brass plates containing a large section of the Old Testament in Egyptian would be found in Palestine in 600 B.C.?

...The only other instance of writing on metal which is commonly known is the copper scroll of Qumran, as noted above; but even this was a roll, not a plate. (Hoekema, 82-83.)

Anthony A. Hoekema, The Four Major Cults (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Erdmans Publishing Co., 1963).

http://www.mormonfortress.com/box1.html

[Vex]

And who would that be? And why do you call him my fellow traveler?

You are a class act, Selek. Why the moderators put with your unremitting insults and caustic tone is beyond me.

No links?

I am guilty of fudging? How so? Because I ask apologists like yourself to show that this was a common criticism "in Joseph Smith's day"? It is hardly my fault that you can't back up the claim.

What are you talking about?

CFR.

The earliest of the quotes you list comes from 1857. Another (which isn't listed here) dates to 1838. If we were to count the 1857 example--which postdates Joseph's death by 13 years--then we would now have a grand total of TWO examples provided so far. Surely... if this was a criticism in "Joseph Smith's day" that was more common "than anything else," as Nibley insinuates, then several more examples need to be cited. And no... the two from 1887 and 1920 do not count as contemporary.

Yes. The criticism has been debunked. But you still have yet to prove that the criticism was commonly made by Joseph's contemporaries.

I'm curious; how stringent were individuals/companies when it came to publishing in the 19th century? Were they more or less relaxed when compared to todays standard? Would they engage in sensationalist stories to encourage profits, or were they parroting the consent of the day?

If it required little more than a parroting we run aground on an understated snap shot of society--If an individual publishes the consent of the general public one may reasonably assume that a portion of the population would have in fact stated the same ideological ideals: In this case, that The Book of Mormon was a hoax because of a number of reasons, chief (Don't you dare CFR, because I can't deliver) among them being that no-ancient civilization wrote on metal plates--As common usage of the day.

Now I may be overstating this, but since one does not give references when stating this critique (besides other contemporary or previous publications) is it reasonable to assume that such critiques were held in a rather large circle during the time of publication?/honest question

[MAsh]

The earliest quote of which I'm aware that belittles engraved metal plates are those made by La Roy Sunderland in 1838 (as poted on my website).

Although it is true that some early contemporary skeptics have rejected the possibility of ancient metallic records, it seems that apologists are over-blowing the case.

Quite frankly, Mike, I both agree and disagree with you. You are correct, I believe, that Nibley may have exaggerated his claim that engraved metal plates were laughed at by Joseph Smith's contemporaries. I also suspect that other apologists simply followed Nibley's lead. That doesn't mean early contemporaries some didn't think the idea was absurd (Sunderland being one such example), but many of Joseph's contemporaries may not have had thoughts on it either way.

It's possible, however, that such an attitude could be inferred from the comments of many contemporaries (as recorded by Lucy Mack Smith) who made fun of Joseph's claim that he had a "gold bible." While this certainly could be understood in a treasure-digging context, it could also be understood as the disbelief that books could be written on gold.

Although it is true that some early contemporary skeptics have rejected the possibility of ancient metallic records, it seems that apologists are over-blowing the case. I understand the strategy (I used to do the same thing):

I think this is unfair, Mike. All of us engage, at times, in hyperbole & exaggeration. It's human nature. Are you really claiming that you've never once "over-blown" anything since exiting the faith?

*Insinuate an improbability of Joseph Smith knowing the existence of metallic records by exaggerating the number of contemporary criticisms about it, thereby making it appear that the false assumption was commonly held.

You might be right, but I don't think this is done intentionally.

*Point out that we now realize the assumption is false, thanks to 20th-21st century discoveries (while conveniently neglecting to mention early 19th century finds).

Even if, however, it wasn't a commonly held assumption in the mid nineteenth-century, it was certainly not an uncommon assumption for other critics in subsequent years. This supposed silly claim that records were recorded on gold (or metal) was repeated (and assumed) by various critics (see my article for a sample of such statements by various critics).

*Ask the question, "How could Joseph Smith have known this?"

*Conclude, "Obviously, He couldn't have. Therefore Joseph Smith must've had divine revelation."

Boomerang hit!! But is it really all that impressive? Should we count it as evidence validating Joseph Smith's prophetic calling? I'd say it is no more impressive than the name "Alma" appearing in the Book of Mormon.

Actually, both the fact that metal was written on and the male name Alam both "count" as "evidence validating Joseph Smith's prophetic calling." Are you sure you meant to say that it doesn't? Does it prove JS? Of course not. But it most certainly counts as evidence (the weight, of which, is often calculated by a variety of other factors including one's inclination to believe or disbelieve JS's supernatural claims).

It really wouldn't matter if everyone in Joseph Smith's day believed that all ancients wrote on metal plates, or if Joseph's next door neighbor's son was named "Alma." Joseph's contemporaries believed in lots of things that we now know are not historically or scientifically accurate. The fact that metal plates were used anciently to record records (both in the right timeframe and general location from which the BoM derived) and the fact that the male name "Alma" also fits properly in the ancient BoM context, is "evidence" in favor of Joseph Smith.

[AKS]

Is there any evidence that writing on plates was accepted by JS contemporaries? Any evidence that writing on plates was known at all?