Metal Records--Was the Notion Preposterous in Joseph Smith's Day?

[Mike Reed]

This probably deserves its own thread.

Anijen: I am the opposite. I find the claim of Gold Plates a strength which has been verified by other writings on metal which we know now did exist.

Me: Know NOW, eh? As though the notion of ancient metal records wasn't already circulating widely in Joseph's day.

Aniden: Was it circulated widely? You make it sound as if everyone was aware of writings on metal

Me: Yes. It was. Spend more time researching Joseph Smith's 19th century environment and you would know too.

semlogo: Something more specific than that would be nice.

William Hamblin maintains that the notion of ancient metal records was almost certainly unknown to average poor

[SkepticTheist]

I fail to see how the fact that ideas exist in the cultural matrix of Joseph Smith's environment means that there were no metal scrolls or codices in antiquity, and how that is the most significant point.

This probably deserves its own thread.

William Hamblin maintains that the notion of ancient metal records was almost certainly unknown to average poor

[Mike Reed]

I fail to see how the fact that ideas exist in the cultural matrix of Joseph Smith's environment means that there were no metal scrolls or codices in antiquity

Of course you fail to see that.

That's because my argument is not what you assume.

and how that is the most significant point.

Apolologists/scholars have treated the discovery ancient metal records as a "boomerang hit" confirming the authenticity of the BoM and Joseph's prophetic calling. The notion of ancient metal records was rather common knowledge in Joseph's day.

It is not a boomerang hit.

The BoM mentions rocks. Does the "discovery" of rocks in the New World count as evidence confirming the historicity of the BoM? No. Of course not, since people already knew about rocks in the Americas when the BoM was written. The same goes for the notion of ancient metal records.

[Deborah]

It would be nice for Hamblin to admit that he has been wrong about this, but sadly I am on his "ignore list"... so maybe someone should forward this info to him.

Because something exists doesn't mean it's well-known. In fact even if it's published in "newspapers, magazines, encyclopedias, dictionaries, religious periodicals, biblical commentaries, elementary textbooks, etc." why would you assume a farm family near the frontier would have access to this? It is evident from the history that Joseph's family were poor and worked pretty much all day on the farm. Their main source of reading seemed to be the Bible itself and most schooling was probably done at home.

[thesometimesaint]

Mike:

Yes those vast personal and public libraries that JS spent hours upon hours studying in.

[Deborah]

Michael Ash refutes the supposition of the OP.

Criticisms of BOM

He concludes with "As the critics have already demonstrated, the world of Joseph Smith did not believe that ancient records had ever been inscribed on metal plates or kept in stone boxes. Today, however, we have hundreds of examples of ancient writings on metal plates (and many stored in stone boxes), some of which date back as early as 2450 B.C. (Cheesman [1985], 69, 82.)"

[Jeff K.]

How many of those documents go into the European culture, however, what was the consensus at the time for the American cultures?

[Mike Reed]

Because something exists doesn't mean it's well-known. In fact even if it's published in "newspapers, magazines, encyclopedias, dictionaries, religious periodicals, biblical commentaries, elementary textbooks, etc." why would you assume a farm family near the frontier would have access to this? It is evident from the history that Joseph's family were poor and worked pretty much all day on the farm. Their main source of reading seemed to be the Bible itself and most schooling was probably done at home.

Hamblin insists that the notion of ancient metal records was limited to "highly educated specialists." This is balderdash.

How many sources would I need to cite before you will concede that Joseph probably already knew about ancient metal records (before the BoM was written)? What would it take to convince you? Anything?

[Mike Reed]

Mike:

Yes those vast personal and public libraries that JS spent hours upon hours studying in.

Hamblin insists that the notion of ancient metal records was limited to "highly educated specialists." This is balderdash.

How many sources would I need to cite before you will concede that Joseph probably already knew about ancient metal records (before the BoM was written)? What would it take to convince you? Anything?

[volgadon]

Mike, your research looks good. I must say that I've only usually encountered this issue in the context of criticism on facebook and such, claiming that the idea of writing on metal is preposterous. Among the sources I've used to counter this notion were several early 19th century reports of the metal plates in possesion of Cochin Jews and Christians. Of course, there is always Josephus too.

[Deborah]

How many sources would I need to cite before you will concede that Joseph probably already knew about ancient metal records (before the BoM was written)?

I haven't seen any of your sources. I do know everything I've read has indicated that Joseph's family pretty much worked from dawn to dusk and then read at home.

[SkepticTheist]

What you fail to see, I think is that the real significance of things being in Joseph Smiths cultural matrix around him in the 19th century really means that he had cues to work with to seek further revelation on. You conclude that he must have copied these ideas wholesale. It was actually God engineering the circumstances to give him cues he needed. For example, the whole mound builders stuff that Vogel makes so much out of in his Indian Origins book was really God setting up the circumstances for elements of the Book of Mormon history to be among the people he was surrounded with to work on Joseph Smith's mind to prepare the way for the revelation. The spirits guarding treasure in the money diggers lore is the same type of thing that prepared Joseph Smith's mind and the minds of his family for Moroni. Masonic Lore for the Enoch and the gold plate dug up in the Royal Arch degree. And of course, Masonry for the endowment, and so forth.

http://www.ldsmag.com/index.php?option=com_zine&view=article&Itemid=3&ac=1&id=7639

For example, this descendant of Joseph Smith who converted to the Church calls it God's "choreography" of the circumstances. It is literally God working behind the scenes to create synchronicity.

Of course you fail to see that.

That's because my argument is not what you assume.

Apolologists/scholars have treated the discovery ancient metal records as a "boomerang hit" confirming the authenticity of the BoM and Joseph's prophetic calling. The notion of ancient metal records was rather common knowledge in Joseph's day.

It is not a boomerang hit.

The BoM mentions rocks. Does the "discovery" of rocks in the New World count as evidence confirming the historicity of the BoM? No. Of course not, since people already knew about rocks in the Americas when the BoM was written. The same goes for the notion of ancient metal records.

[Mike Reed]

How many of those documents go into the European culture, however, what was the consensus at the time for the American cultures?

I don't understand your question. Please write more coherently.

[Mike Reed]

Mike, your research looks good.

Thanks.

Among the sources I've used to counter this notion were several early 19th century reports of the metal plates in possesion of Cochin Jews and Christians. Of course, there is always Josephus too.

Yes indeed. I mention both of these examples (and dozens of others) in my paper. What is given here in this thread is just the tip of the iceberg.

[Mike Reed]

I haven't seen any of your sources. I do know everything I've read has indicated that Joseph's family pretty much worked from dawn to dusk and then read at home.

Question is, what did he read at home? Moreover, what did his family/friends/associates read? What was discussed by word of mouth?

Again... what would it take to convince you that Joseph Smith likely already knew about the notion of ancient metal records?

Do you admit that Hamblin was wrong when he insisted that knowledge of ancient metal records was limited to "highly educated specialists"?

[Mike Reed]

What you fail to see, I think is that the real significance of things being in Joseph Smiths cultural matrix around him in the 19th century really means that he had cues to work with to seek further revelation on. You conclude that he must have copied these ideas wholesale. It was actually God engineering the circumstances to give him cues he needed. For example, the whole mound builders stuff that Vogel makes so much out of in his Indian Origins book was really God setting up the circumstances for elements of the Book of Mormon history to be among the people he was surrounded with to work on Joseph Smith's mind to prepare the way for the revelation. The spirits guarding treasure in the money diggers lore is the same type of thing that prepared Joseph Smith's mind and the minds of his family for Moroni.

Now you are essentially bearing your testimony.

Believe what you want. If you want to believe the above... that is fine with me. What bothers me is when apologists/scholars assert things that are false. Again... it is not true that knowledge of ancient metal records was limited to "highly educated specialists," as Hamblin claims. The notion of ancient metal records was widely known in Joseph's culture. This will be all the more apparent to readers when I post my entire SunstoneWest paper on my blog.

[Mike Reed]

Michael Ash refutes the supposition of the OP.

No he doesn't. You are confused.

[volgadon]

Thanks.

Look forward to reading it.

Yes indeed. I mention both of these examples (and dozens of others) in my paper. What is given here in this thread is just the tip of the iceberg.

I figured it was. In a world where the Bible was indisuptably THE book, the reasons for Josephus' popularity are obvious. Josephus provided an ancient witness to the biblical narrative, and was one of the only available sources depicting the world in the days of Jesus and the apostles, as well as describing the fate of the temple.

[Jeff K.]

I don't understand your question? Please write more coherently.

Many of those documents go into the European culture, however, what was the consensus at the time for the American cultures?

[Mike Reed]

I figured it was. In a world where the Bible was indisuptably THE book, the reasons for Josephus' popularity are obvious. Josephus provided an ancient witness to the biblical narrative, and was one of the only available sources depicting the world in the days of Jesus and the apostles, as well as describing the fate of the temple.

Glad we are in agreement.

Here is what I wrote about Josephus:

William Hamblin makes another unfair criticism, saying that Brent Metcalfe

[Deborah]

No he doesn't. You are confused.

The supposition is that Joseph had access to all these supposed notation of ancient records. Maybe in later years but not in the early years. It seems the critics of the time didn't believe such things existed so you are assuming after the fact that there was widespread knowledge of these things. I'd like to see the proof that he did have access. Do you have documentation of how many times he visited the library in his early life? You are making a lot of assumptions that can't be supported by the circumstances of his early years, particularly given the hardships of his family life.

[SkepticTheist]

Why should I not bear testimony? This board is about "Mormonism" is it not?

False assertions are things that go against evidence.

Explanations are things that account for evidence, "supernatural" or not.

If you have been following the KEP threads, you would see what my position is on the Book of Abraham issues, and you would see how apologetics that go against evidence bothers me just as much.

Ed Goble

Now you are essentially bearing your testimony.

Believe what you want. If you want to believe the above... that is fine with me. What bothers me is when apologists/scholars assert things that false. Again... it is not true that knowledge of ancient metal records was limited to "highly educated specialists," as Hamblin claims. The notion of ancient metal records was widely known in Joseph's culture. This will be all the more apparent to readers when I post my entire SunstoneWest paper on my blog.

[Chris Smith]

It seems the critics of the time didn't believe such things existed so you are assuming after the fact that there was widespread knowledge of these things.

In his paper, Mike points out that the notion of ancient metal records was criticized only once prior to the 1850s, and even then it was a criticism specifically of the Hebrews writing biblical texts on plates of brass rather than of the notion of ancient records more generally. If this was a presposterous notion in Joseph's day, then we would expect to find criticism of it. But it seems nobody found the idea particularly objectionable.

From my own point of view, the idea of writing important records on metal plates makes perfect sense, and in fact is quite intuitive. Metal is a durable material that also carries considerable value and prestige. I can't imagine why anyone should consider the idea absurd.

Since Mike is only rebutting a bad apologetic, not attempting to disprove the Book of Mormon, all he needs to prove is that the idea of writing on metal plates was non-absurd in 1830s New York. He has done so not only amply and capably, but almost excessively. The fact that people on this thread are still resisting his findings is just crazy.

[SkepticTheist]

I don't necessarily want to resist his findings, only account for them, that is, if there are no fundamental flaws in his research. But I have to wonder what his agenda is, and I bet it is the same as Vogel's.

I have yet to have it demonstrated to me that he is just a scholar that merely wants to get to the facts.

In his paper, Mike points out that the notion of ancient metal records was criticized only once prior to the 1850s, and even then it was a criticism specifically of the Hebrews writing biblical texts on plates of brass rather than of the notion of ancient records more generally. If this was a presposterous notion in Joseph's day, then we would expect to find criticism of it. But it seems nobody found the idea particularly objectionable.

From my own point of view, the idea of writing important records on metal plates makes perfect sense, and in fact is quite intuitive. Metal is a durable material that also carries considerable value and prestige. I can't imagine why anyone should consider the idea absurd.

Since Mike is only rebutting a bad apologetic, not attempting to disprove the Book of Mormon, all he needs to prove is that the idea of writing on metal plates was non-absurd in 1830s New York. He has done so not only amply and capably, but almost excessively. The fact that people on this thread are still resisting his findings is just crazy.

[Deborah]

all he needs to prove is that the idea of writing on metal plates was non-absurd in 1830s New York. He has done so not only amply and capably, but almost excessively. The fact that people on this thread are still resisting his findings is just crazy.

But he still hasn't shown amply and capably that Joseph Smith actually had some foreknowledge of this and used that in "creating" the BOM, which seems to be the premise he's trying to support.