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

[Dan Vogel]

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.

Assuming such were the case, God manipulated history in such a way as to not leave any evidence of his work, so how is it that you can tell these things? This is a faith statement, not one that belongs in reasoned discussion as this. Unless you can give us some compelling evidence that has some force with critics

[Mike Reed]

Interesting "typo" considering it was commonly used at the other board (and not as a typo).

I don't expect you to understand how this could only compound the problem for someone who participates in both forums.

Well I look forward to your next paper on if Joseph Smith could have known there might have been people on the U.S. Continent during his day.

If you don't have anything of substance to add, go away.

[SkepticTheist]

Well, if I make a statement saying that I believe that God engineers certain circumstances as a choreography, how is that bearing testimony?

I can separate that statement of belief from a statement of "witnessing". Are you saying that I am unable to make statements of belief at all?

[SkepticTheist]

Again, if I make a faith statement is that not ok? Or am I going to get accused of bearing testimony just by making a faith statement. I am aware that it is beyond proof, but hey, Mormons are believers of a kind of supernatural. And is it you that makes the rules for what kind of statements are ok for a reasoned discussion? I don't see why a statement of faith is unreasonable. You have confidence in your lack of faith, do you not? And I see you making statements about your lack of faith and unbelief consistently.

My fellow apologists buy into many other claims that are fundamentally supernatural but not impossible. Why don't you let them be the judge of whether they will buy it or not. I suspect some will and some won't.

SkepticTheist,

Assuming such were the case, God manipulated history in such a way as to not leave any evidence of his work, so how is it that you can tell these things? This is a faith statement, not one that belongs in reasoned discussion as this. Unless you can give us some compelling evidence that has some force with critics

[BookofMormonLuvr]

SkepticTheist,

Assuming such were the case, God manipulated history in such a way as to not leave any evidence of his work, so how is it that you can tell these things? This is a faith statement, not one that belongs in reasoned discussion as this. Unless you can give us some compelling evidence that has some force with critics

[CA Steve]

How arrogant and juvenile of you. In a discussion, especially on a religious board, all views are welcome.

Do you wonder why "regular folks" bristle at scientists? Look in the mirror, Dan.

Please this is not meant to offend, but do you disagree with Dan's assessment that Ed (Skeptic Theist) statements were faith based or do you disagree with Dan' statement that they do not belong on this discussion board or both?

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Please this is not meant to offend, but do you disagree with Dan's assessment that Ed (Skeptic Theist) statements were faith based or do you disagree with Dan' statement that they do not belong on this discussion board or both?

I agree that ST views are faith based (as he himself has acknowledged).

I disagree that faith based views do not belong on this discussion board and should be confined to "Sunday School".

[jskains]

I don't expect you to understand how this could only compound the problem for someone who participates in both forums.

I don't expect you to understand that what is really happening is the evidences (prior use of the term "stains" for my last name plus the fact the T and the K are not very close on a keyboard) point to the fact you simply were trying to be funny by insulting my name, and that claiming it was a "typo" is a cover for the fact you simply violated board policies.

If you don't have anything of substance to add, go away.

Funny. Several people I talked to about you and your paper over the past two days have said the same about your topic. It has no substance other than to add to the volume of critical work being slowly built up against the Church. So can we all jointly tell you to go away from the Internet?

The problem is that I am challenging your illusion that your topic has as much importance as you imagine it to have. This is an important topic because I think the base tatic of critics against the Church is to confuse through bombardment.

Case in point. My wife has let the Jehovah Witnesses into our home. They try to confuse her with an illusion of prepardness. She gets overwhelmed because they tell her all these things are fact and that only an idiot would think otherwise (paraphrasing). When I am there to challenge their ideas, they get angry and fustrated. I go over what they have pushed on my wife, only to find a lot of the things they push are not actually facts, but manipulations and interpretations of evidences they enforce as fact. But they can readily respond so quickly, they create an illusion of authority.

I think that calling out papers of this nature and discussing their relivence and potential abuse is a very valid subject.

Thus I would ask, what is the core motivation? It's a very narrow topic with seamingly dark motives. So instead of namecalling, engage me, and explain why you think this paper adds substance rather than coming off as a nitpicking paper looking for small cracks in the Joseph Smith story?

JMS

[jskains]

I agree that ST views are faith based (as he himself has acknowledged).

I disagree that faith based views do not belong on this discussion board and should be confined to "Sunday School".

I agree. I think faith is a core concept in religion and to extract it is taking an essential ingredient from the cake.

JMS

[BookofMormonLuvr]

My questions about ancient writings on precious metals has still not been addressed.

[Bill Hamblin]

Actually

[Mike Reed]

My questions about ancient writings on precious metals has still not been addressed.

I have several sources asserting that the ancients inscribed "the softer metals." But most of my sources do not specifically mention gold being inscribed. I do have quotes from the Royal Society's publication

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I quote several sources that assert that the ancients inscribed "the softer metals." But most of my sources do not specifically mention gold being inscribed. I do have quotes from the Royal Society's publication

[Bill Hamblin]

I'll make one other observation. For Reed's method to be taken seriously he has to provide a list of hits and misses. That is to say, if 100 books exist that mention ancient writing, and 50 of them mention writing on metal it is much more significant than if only 10 of the 100 books mention ancient writing on metal. So if Reed wants his study to be taken seriously, he has to incorporate this comparative data. The data of hits alone is not statistically significant.

[Mike Reed]

First, note that I am the one who noted that mention of writing on metal plates is found in the Bible, the one book we know Joseph read. As far as I can tell, Metcalfe did not note this, and Reed does not note this.

"Bump" for Hamblin.

In "Sacred Writing on Metal Plates in the Ancient Mediterranean" (Farms Review 19/1 (2007): 37-38, n. 3, I observe:

Metcalfe [and Mike Reed as far as I can tell] ignores the most obvious nineteenth century source for the idea of writing on golden plates, the KJV translation of Exodus 28:36 (discussed below), which states that

[Mike Reed]

I'll make one other observation. For Reed's method to be taken seriously he has to provide a list of hits and misses. That is to say, if 100 books exist that mention ancient writing, and 50 of them mention writing on metal it is much more significant than if only 10 of the 100 books mention ancient writing on metal. So if Reed wants his study to be taken seriously, he has to incorporate this comparative data. The data of hits alone is not statistically significant.

Says the guy who said Nibley's remark "seems quite prescient," while neglecting to quote a single person from "Joseph Smith's day" rejecting the notion.

[Mike Reed]

And "Philosophical Transactions" was widely available so that it could have been accessed by Joseph Smith?

No. It wasn't. The quotes claiming that the ancients inscribed the "softer metals" was more widely available. I suppose it is possible that freemasonry could have served as a conduit for "Royal Society" ideas (like ancient gold records) to be passed along to Smith and his associates. I don't think this conduit was necessary, though, since gold was a "softer metal."

[Bill Hamblin]

Says the guy who said Nibley's remark "seems quite prescient," while neglecting to quote a single person from "Joseph Smith's day" rejecting the notion.

The Grand Quibbler quibbles on.

Why do I need to quote sources demonstrating that some people in the early 19th century knew that ancients wrote on metal plates when I never claimed otherwise? Such an issue is not in dispute and never was! Why should I waste my time proving something that everyone agrees on?!

You are a classic example of precisely the type of person Nibley was talking about. Thanks for demonstrating his prescience.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

No. It wasn't. The quotes claiming that the ancients inscribed the "softer metals" was more widely available. I suppose it is possible that freemasonry could have served as a conduit for "Royal Society" ideas (like ancient gold records) to be passed along to Smith and his associates. I don't think this conduit was necessary, though, since gold was a "softer metal."

Was it a generally supported premise (you know, regular folks) in the early 1800's that the ancients used precious metals (gold, silver, etc.) to inscribe their records? I am trying to understand how the gist of your argument relates to young Joseph Smith.

[Mike Reed]

Why do I need to quote sources demonstrating that some people in the early 19th century knew that ancients wrote on metal plates...

Nibley insinuated/asserted that Joseph Smith was mocked by his contemporaries over the notion of ancient metal records "more than anything else."

when I never claimed otherwise?

You basically said Amen to Nibley's remark. Moreover, you made an assertion about how attitudes "originally" were, and defended the position of other apologists/scholars who presumed that such ideas were limited to "highly educated specialists" since Smith's associates mocked him about the plates so much.

Such an issue is not in dispute and never was! Why should I waste my time proving something that everyone agrees on?!

You appear to be shifting your position now.

[Bill Hamblin]

You appear to be shifting your position now.

Good grief! You finally start to to get a glimmer of what my position really was, and rather than admit that YOU misunderstood and misrepresented my original position, you claim that I am shifting my position? Really?! Do you understand why it is UTTERLY POINTLESS to try to have a discussion with the Grand Quibbler?!

Nibley insinuated/asserted that Joseph Smith was mocked by his contemporaries over the notion of ancient metal records "more than anything else."

Here's another classic example of mis-Reeding. In the quote I provide, Nibley does not say "Joseph Smith was mocked by his contemporaries over the notion of ancient metal records." I provided the entire quote in my article. Here it is again from Lehi in the Desert 107.

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

Note Nibley's "description of the plates" is a different idea from your "the notion of ancient metal records." Joseph was widely derided for claiming to have the "golden bible." Most of the early notices about Mormonism mock this claim. Most of this was simply rejection of the entire story of angels and plates. Only some of the derision was about the idea of ancient writing on golden plates. There are two separate issues where which you are conflating. First, did some anti-Mormons mock Joseph's claim that the ancients wrote on metal plates? Yes, though only some. Second, beyond that, was JS mocked for claiming to have golden plates? Yes, nearly all early anti-Mormons mocked this claim. Ancient writing on metal plates is only one part, and not a universal part, of the overall derision of JS's story of having received a golden bible from an angel. You seem congenitally incapable of accurately reading, understanding, and presenting these arguments.

I am now returning to ignore mode.

[Mike Reed]

Here's another classic example of mis-Reeding. In the quote I provide, Nibley does not say "Joseph Smith was mocked by his contemporaries over the notion of ancient metal records." ...

... Nibley's "description of the plates" is a different idea from your "the notion of ancient metal records."

Nonsense. You know full well that in Nibley's book his statement follows several examples where he "proves" that ancient metal records existed.

There are two separate issues where which you are conflating.

No. It is Nibely who conflated the two, and apologists (indluding yourself) have ran with the conflation ever since. Now you are trying to separate them after I proved you wrong for saying "amen" to the conflation.

Nibley wrote, "Many chapters of the Diaspora remain to be written. But what we want to point out here is that the knowledge and use of metal plates for the keeping of important records is beginning to emerge as a general practice throughout the ancient world. 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." Lehi in the Desert, 107.

I provided the entire quote in my article

No you didn't. See above.

I am now returning to ignore mode.

Your choice.

[Mike Reed]

Finally, it now appears that the debate has degenerated into quibbling over the meaning of "highly educated." If I had said "well-educated" would that make Reed happy? Or would just "educated" have been acceptable?

No. Because you also said "specialist."

So, to avoid endless quibbling, I'll withdraw the term "highly," and clarify my position.

You need to withdraw the word "specialist" too.

Next quibble. You say clarify, I say change. Discuss...

[Bill Hamblin]

Nonsense. You know full well that in Nibley's book his statement follows several examples where he "proves" that ancient metal records existed.

No. It is Nibely who conflated the two, and apologists (indluding yourself) have ran with the conflation ever since. Now you are trying to separate them after I proved you wrong for saying "amen" to the conflation.

Nibley wrote, "Many chapters of the Diaspora remain to be written. But what we want to point out here is that the knowledge and use of metal plates for the keeping of important records is beginning to emerge as a general practice throughout the ancient world. 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." Lehi in the Desert, 107.

Read it again Reed, and try real hard to understand. Nibley describes not mere writing on metal plates, but of family records (105a), writing specifically on bronze and gold (105b), writing on bronze plates in "reformed Egyptian" (106a), metal plates bound with metal rings (106b), and possession of metal plates as a royal charter (106-107a). The issue is not merely writing on metal. It is a range of practices associated with metal plate writings that parallel BOM and JS descriptions of the plates. His summary passage: "the [ancient] knowledge and use of metal plates for keeping of important records is beginning to emerge as a general practice throughout the ancient world" (107). What he is clearly talking about "beginning to emerge" is archaeological evidence of the practice being widespread.

You are mis-Reeding Nibley just as you are mis-Reeding me.

[Mike Reed]

Read it again Reed, and try real hard to understand.

Rolling up sleaves...

Nibley describes not mere writing on metal plates, but....

What he is clearly talking about "beginning to emerge" is archaeological evidence of the practice being widespread.

And according to Nibley this new archeological evidence is supposed to contradict what the critics said in "Joseph Smith's day." Now... unless you can cite certain critics contemporary to Joseph Smith, taking issue with all of these extra details which you propose are so central to Nibley's point... it will continue to appear to me that you are just obfuscating the issue.