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

[Chris Smith]

I don't necessarily want to resist his findings, only account for them, that is, if there are no fundamental flaws in his research.

There's not really anything to account for, unless you're an apologist who is dedicated to the argument that writing on metal plates was an absurd notion in Joseph Smith's day. I.e., Mormons have nothing to lose by accepting Mike's findings except a single, fairly unimpressive evidence for the Book of Mormon.

[LeSellers]

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.

As I read it, that's not quite his position.

He's arguing that the notion of writing on metal (plates, or other forms) was known in the 1820s, and that the apologist claim that this was preposterous as seen from the contemporary is not supportable.

I agree that his cites are not convincing (locations in London; dates in the mid to late 20s and even in 1904) for a book (or books) that Joseph could have seen. I agree that it is more than a stretch that Joseph would have been aware of them.

Now, the issue for me is whether there was widespread knowledge of this, and especially in backwoods, upstate New York. I don't see how anyone in Palmyra could have been as knowledgeable as it would have required.

Furthermore, I question the validity of the premise. In spite of his assertions, I have seen nothing that leads me to believe that a wide swath of USmerica (or even others) had any inkling that Asians, Europeans, Americans, and northern Africans wrote on metal plates. Or, further, that any of them cared one way or the other. This explains why there was no outcry against metal writing.

Finally, "everyone" knew that ancient people wrote on scrolls, not "books" (codices or "three-ring binders"). Yet there were no charges that this was an anachronism. Books, whether bound, Z-folded, or with rings, were not common at all until rather recently, in western history.

Lehi

[Chris Smith]

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.

His paper and his posts on this thread made quite clear that he isn't arguing for that proposition.

[livy111us]

When can we expect the entire article to be posted?

[jskains]

Oh my heck.. No wonder no one takes this internet mormonism seriously anymore. I had a long chat with some folks who ignore the whole thing now because of how silly it has gotten.

The biggest gripe are all these "papers" being written. From Chris Smith and his Pal's silly mathematics venture (to which more papers are supposedly coming out to dispute his understanding of the thickness), to others like this Mike Reed and his paper on if Joseph Smith knew people wrote on metal plates?

As they said, in the end... Who cares? Really... How do you people have so much time to waste on these pointless topics? Joseph Smith must not be a prophet because he said someone breathed air, and since everyone knew people breathed air, it must show he was not a prophet?

Both sides are envisioning mountains out of mole hills... Sometimes I see it like those cartoons, where Bugs Bunny and Yosemite Sam are pulling out bigger and bigger guns until the guns are so impossibly big and silly... And when they finally shoot, it's just a stick with a flag that says "BOOM".

*Shrug*

JMS

[USU78]

If metal plate writing was so well and widely known, and

If there was but the one published criticism of metal plate writing as being absurd, and

Then why would the apologetic literature all the way forward to Nibley address the problem?

The amount of effort put into this particular area of apologetics seems a waste of time if the counterargument could so easily be brushed aside with a haughty sneer.

[Chris Smith]

Then why would the apologetic literature all the way forward to Nibley address the problem?

Because it's easily answered.

[Chris Smith]

As they said, in the end... Who cares?

No one's forcing you to read the thread.

[jskains]

No one's forcing you to read the thread.

I didn't claim I was. I am just making my observations.

JMS

[USU78]

Because it's easily answered.

That's a possibility, of course. The criticism persists, however. I know I encountered it during my mission (though I'm not sharing which decade that occurred in), and, thus, a published answer came in awfully handy when I encountered that German Mennonite Evangelical preacher who spoke in Steyr, Austria against cults [Sekten].

[SkepticTheist]

Good point. My only big concern is about ancient evidences.

There's not really anything to account for, unless you're an apologist who is dedicated to the argument that writing on metal plates was an absurd notion in Joseph Smith's day. I.e., Mormons have nothing to lose by accepting Mike's findings except a single, fairly unimpressive evidence for the Book of Mormon.

[Calm]

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.

Did criticisms of ancient metal records occur post1850s? I remember a few such criticisms (more than likely based on some other criticism and not original) floating around in my youth. It seems strange that if something was known in the 1830s among the 'common' people that such knowledge would be lost.

................................

I see the question being a two parter---was there information accessible out there on this subject. Mike Reed's work seems to indicate yes, there was. The next question is if it was accessed and I'm not talking here about JS or anyone else specifically, but about the general population which if the answer is positive would seem to contradict Dr. Hamblin's view that such knowledge was primarily among the highly educated. At this point I don't see how this has been proved or disproved. If one can show that the metal records criticism was widespread at some point, then I think there needs to be an explanation of why it became widespread if knowledge of metal records was commonly known previously to this point.

PS: having been around universities and schools of lesser degree all of my life, I have come across a number of textbooks that have been printed up only to never really be used much beyond the promotion stage. I think if you could prove that these textbooks were wide bought and used in schools, your argument would be much stronger. Simple publication to my mind does not mean that much. If such textbooks remained in the hands of teachers or professors, then Dr. Hamblin's claim could be said to be closer to the reality....so I think you still have a step or two in your work as presented here (you may have addressed it in your future paper).

[Mike Reed]

Let's take a vote.

Was Bill Hamblin wrong for insisting that the knowledge of ancient Metal records was limited to "highly educated specialists"?

Yes or No.

Mormon apologists, I am especially interested in seeing how you vote.

Bill Hamblin, you can vote too.

Thanks.

[Calm]

Let's take a vote.

Was Bill Hamblin wrong for insisting that the knowledge of ancient Metal records was limited to "highly educated specialists"?

Yes or No.

Mormon apologists, I am especially interested in seeing how you vote.

Bill Hamblin, you can vote too.

Thanks.

How about haven't made my mind up yet because I have more questions about actual distribution of said knowledge (as opposed to publication) and other things?

[Mike Reed]

I agree that his cites are not convincing (locations in London; dates in the mid to late 20s

What dates would be ideal for you?

and even in 1904)

That was a tyo. The year was 1804.

[TAO]

Mike Reed, the question isn't just "highly educated specialists", it is "highly educated specialists in terms of Joseph's geographically located area".

In other words, it doesn't matter if people in China (or Korea/Japan) knew about writing on plates. It only matters if they knew about it in Joseph's area (NE United States).

I'm with jskains on this one - this topic seems to be generating alot of nothing on of all things what Bill and Mike mean. Bill meant it geographically limited, Mike didn't. So we are really comparing two non-comparable things here.

[Sevenbak]

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.

Don't you know about the huge vast Palmyra library? I thought everyone did?

[Mike Reed]

How about haven't made my mind up yet because I have more questions about actual distribution of said knowledge (as opposed to publication) and other things?

Maybe anther footnote woud help you make up your mind, Cal.

I wrote, "Contrary to what Hamblin may want his readers to believe, the ancient practice was mentioned in countless sources including newspapers, magazines, encyclopedias, dictionaries, religious periodicals, biblical commentaries, elementary textbooks, etc." Below is what is found in my footnote for "encyclopedia":

[TAO]

Maybe anther footnote woud help you make up your mind, Cal.

I wrote, "Contrary to what Hamblin may want his readers to believe, the ancient practice was mentioned in countless sources including newspapers, magazines, encyclopedias, dictionaries, religious periodicals, biblical commentaries, elementary textbooks, etc." Below is what is found in my footnote for "encyclopedia":

[Mike Reed]

He has done so not only amply and capably, but almost excessively.

Funny thing is, in the paper you have, I probably didn't even cite a third of the sources I gathered.

When can we expect the entire article to be posted?

Unfortunately I won't be able to post it on my blog for another couple weeks. Not until after April 1st, as this is my deadline to finish writing my paper for MHA. I have to proofread my footnotes, and add MANY more sources to my ancient metal records paper.

[Mike Reed]

Mike, wouldn't this be the sorta things Bill was referring to as fitting into 'highly educated specialists'?

Also, how large are these encyclopedias, and were they commonly used in schools at the time whatsoever?

Sigh...

[Mike Reed]

In other words, it doesn't matter if people in China (or Korea/Japan) knew about writing on plates. It only matters if they knew about it in Joseph's area (NE United States).

I'm with jskains on this one - this topic seems to be generating alot of nothing on of all things what Bill and Mike mean. Bill meant it geographically limited, Mike didn't. So we are really comparing two non-comparable things here.

I didn't cite examples from "China or Korea/Japan." I cited elementary text books published in Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and New York.

[TAO]

I didn't cite examples from "China or Korea/Japan." I cited elementary text books published in Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and New York.

From my second post,

How spread were these books, how many were published, etc, where were they actually used.

More info is needed to draw a conclusion

Best Wishes,

TAO =).

[Mortal Man]

The biggest gripe are all these "papers" being written. From Chris Smith and his Pal's silly mathematics venture (to which more papers are supposedly coming out to dispute his understanding of the thickness), to others like this Mike Reed and his paper on if Joseph Smith knew people wrote on metal plates?

Thanks jskains, for the chuckle before I go to bed.

[Mike Reed]

Whatdoya mean, Mortal Man? You weren't impressed by jskain's scarequotes of "papers"? How can you rebut that?