No Known "Golden/Metal Plates" In Joseph'S Time....?

[ldsfaqs]

On another thread Xander brought up a claim that I've never really heard from LDS Apologists.

Claim:

He made the claim (by quoting Mike Reed) that it was an old Mormon apologetic claim that Joseph and others of his time period "had no knowledge of golden/metal plates".

Frankly, I don't get where this claim comes from. I'm sure someone may have said it somewhere. But I've been doing LDS Apologetics for some 20 years and I've certainly never said it, and I don't remember seeing any other LDS really ever saying it. I think I might have seen it, but it's been so little that it certainly can't be claimed to be an "old Mormon apologetic claim" as Xander and Mike Reed apparently has claimed.

Reality:

What I have seen however is anti-mormons claiming since the beginning till even know that there was "no such thing" as golden or metal plates, that Joseph just made it up, because everyone knows that scripture was generally written on "parchment" not metal. Then I see LDS responding all these years as far back as I've been alive and more likely that golden like and metal plates most certainly have existed, and some are in similar form to how the Book of Mormon was claimed to be.

Question:

Is this really a "mormon claim", or is it simply something made up by critics or WELL OVERBLOWN as I suspect since it's a critic/anti-mormon that apparently made the claim in a recent conference, i.e. just another anti-mormon straw-man about mormons and mormonism that they then try to tear down?

Warning:

P.S. This thread is NOT about the conference or whatever supposedly happened or didn't happen there, it's about a claim made by anti-mormons. (Yes, Mike Reed is an anti-mormon in my mind.) When you bear false witness of mormonism, your an anti-mormon. "Critics" don't need to make up stuff, and misrepresent stuff, and create straw-men such as the above in order to be critical of a thing. And yes, I've seen Mike Reed do this all the time. Just because he's one of the more respectable and scholarly sounding anti-mormons, doesn't mean he's not anti-mormon.

Edited August 19, 2011 by ldsfaqs

[cinepro]

Claim:

He made the claim (by quoting Mike Reed) that it was an old Mormon apologetic claim that Joseph and others of his time period "had no knowledge of golden/metal plates".

Frankly, I don't get where this claim comes from.

Joseph Smith claimed that the Book of Mormon record was inscribed on metal plates and buried in a stone box in a hill now referred to as the Hill Cumorah. Since their discovery the critics have ridiculed this claim. The critics, in fact, were very adamant that the claim of sacred writings on metal plates was proof of fraud.

------------------------------------------------

First the critics cry that there never was any writing on metal, when some turn up, they concede that perhaps there was the rare instance of writing on metal but only on metal scrolls not on plates. Once again, however, archaeology has come to the rescue of Joseph Smith. What will the critics say now?

------------------------------------------------

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.

Book of Mormon Anachronisms, Michael R. Ash

As you can see, there are many examples of modern day archeological discoveries of ancient writing on metal plates, and I only mention a few. These were unknown in Joseph Smith’s time, yet many attest to the fact that writing on metal plates was a practice during Lehi’s day in and around Jerusalem.

Authentic Ancient Metal Plates, Templestudy.com

Edited August 19, 2011 by cinepro

[Zakuska]

When the Book of Mormon was first printed there was an Anti-Mormon newspaper (IIRC) or some one wrote a book and ridiculed the Book of Mormon saying that the Ancients never wrote on Metal plates. It was one of the first critical questions railed at the BOM. So apologists ever since have made that one of their talking points.

edit: Thanks cinepro. It was the two good Reverends Sunderland and Lamb that I was remembering.

Edited August 19, 2011 by Zakuska

[Chris Smith]

He made the claim (by quoting Mike Reed) that it was an old Mormon apologetic claim that Joseph and others of his time period "had no knowledge of golden/metal plates".

"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." Hugh Nibley, Lehi in the Desert, The World of the Jaredites, There Were Jaredites, vol. 5 in The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and F.A.R.M.S., 1988), 106.

Edited August 19, 2011 by Chris Smith

[thesometimesaint]

ldsfaqs:

http://www.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/gold.htm

[ldsfaqs]

Right correct.... However, it never really was one of our talking points that examples of such plates "never existed in Josephs time".

It was however an anti-mormon talking point that examples of such plates never did exist.

Edited August 19, 2011 by ldsfaqs

[morgan.deane]

When the Book of Mormon was first printed there was an Anti-Mormon newspaper (IIRC) or some one wrote a book and ridiculed the Book of Mormon saying that the Ancients never wrote on Metal plates. It was one of the first critical questions railed at the BOM. So apologists ever since have made that one of their talking points.

edit: Thanks cinepro. It was the two Reverends Sunderland and Lamb that I was remembering.

This was my question too. I thought that charge of "unkown" gold plates came from some of the very first anti mormons who all knew that was ridiculous. So how did this knowledge of ancient metal plates become so familiar to Smith, but so unfamiliar to critics that attacked him for it?

Edited August 19, 2011 by morgan.deane

[Jaybear]

When the Book of Mormon was first printed there was an Anti-Mormon newspaper (IIRC) or some one wrote a book and ridiculed the Book of Mormon saying that the Ancients never wrote on Metal plates. It was one of the first critical questions railed at the BOM. So apologists ever since have made that one of their talking points.

edit: Thanks cinepro. It was the two Reverends Sunderland and Lamb that I was remembering.

What specifically was said by the critics?

[Xander]

Well that didn't take long.

Now, let's see how far the goal posts will be moved back.

[ldsfaqs]

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.

Book of Mormon Anachronisms, Michael R. Ash

Okay, here Ash is sort of "agreeing" with the critics claims. While it may be true that he himself isn't aware of such examples in Joseph's time, he's not actually making the claim himself, he's just conceding the anti-mormon claim. So, from this example it can't be claimed that this is a "common Mormon apologetic claim". There is only a concession here, not a common mormon belief.

Edited August 19, 2011 by ldsfaqs

[cinepro]

It's also discussed quite a bit (and parsed nearly to death) in this FARMS essay. I'm not sure if I understand it completely, but Hamblin seems to be acknowledging that plate-writing was known in Joseph's day, but arguing that Joseph probably didn't know about it. Correct me if I'm wrong.

"Apologists have asserted," [brent Metcalfe] insists, "that Smith and contemporaries could not have known that some ancient peoples engraved on metallic plates" (p. 156). But is this so? Metcalfe's statement of the issue seems to be a misrepresentation. Metcalfe provides twelve sources which he cites as supporting his contention that "apologists have asserted that Smith and contemporaries could not have known that some ancient peoples engraved on metallic plates." In fact, most of the essays cited by Metcalfe do not argue that knowledge of writing on metals was completely unknown, but only that it was not widely known, and that it therefore would be unlikely for a young frontier farm-boy to have had access to this knowledge. Thus Metcalfe himself has transformed the reasonable argument of the traditionalists—knowledge of ancient writing on metal plates was not widely known—into a form of the fallacy of negative proof, "that Smith and contemporaries could not have known that some ancient peoples engraved on metallic plates." Thus it is only Metcalfe's reading of the argument which is fallacious, not the original argument of the historical traditionalists. I have added emphasis throughout the following quotations, which provide the actual statements found in the essays cited by Metcalfe:

1. Paul Cheesman: "This claim [that the Book of Mormon was written on metal plates] was considered by most to be purely nonsensical, not only because of disbelief concerning the ostensible source of these materials, but also because it did not happen to fall within the pale of current archaeological opinion."54 Cheesman is here arguing not that nineteenth-century scholars "could not have known" of writing on metal plates, as Metcalfe claims, but that it was widely considered "nonsensical."

2. Paul Cheesman: "At the time of Joseph Smith's remarkable discovery in 1830, there was probably no knowledge of writing amongst the [North] American Indians, or of any written on metal. In fact, it is evident that a knowledge of any ancient culture writing on metal, anywhere in the world, was not public knowledge at that time."55 Again, Cheesman is not arguing that no one knew of writing on metals, but that American Indian writing on metal was "probably" unknown, and that other writing on metal plates was not widely known, and hence is not making the argument Metcalfe claims he does.

3. C. Wilfred Griggs: "The Book of Mormon deserves the same kind of test, especially in view of the tremendous amount of material relating to the ancient Near East which was recovered during the last century. Because such materials were unknown in the early nineteenth century, they provide a superb control with which to measure the Book of Mormon, for Joseph Smith obviously could not have had access to them in writing the book." Specifically, the Orphic gold plate Griggs is discussing "was not published until 1836."56 Although Griggs could have been clearer, his argument is different than the one Metcalfe claims he is making. Griggs focuses only on specific new archaeological discoveries which have occurred since the translation of the Book of Mormon and suggests that they are important because those specific texts and artifacts—such as the Orphic plate—were not known in Joseph's day. Griggs does not argue that there was no knowledge of writing on metal plates, as Metcalfe claims.

4. Hugh Nibley: "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 [here we might insert "such as Metcalfe"] forget that in Joseph Smith's day the prophet was mocked and derided for his description of the plates more than anything else."57 Nibley is not claiming that knowledge of writing on metal was unknown in Joseph Smith's day, only that it is much better documented and more widely known today, and that Joseph was mocked for his claim of writing on metal plates. Again this source does not assert what Metcalfe claims it argues.

5. Hugh Nibley: "The main obstacle to a fair and unbiased testing of the Book of Mormon in the past has been the story of the golden plates. Scholars have found it hard to be impartial or even serious in the face of such a tale."58 Again, Nibley is only claiming that Joseph was mocked because of his claims of having golden plates—which is certainly true59 —not that examples of writing on plates were unknown.

6. Hugh Nibley: "It is only too easy to forget that nothing in the coming forth of the Book of Mormon excited louder howls of derision than the fantastic idea of a sacred history being written on gold plates and then buried in the ground."60

7. Hugh Nibley: "It is hard for us to realize today that for many years the idea of writing a sacred record on gold plates was considered just too funny for words and that the mere mention of the "Golden Bible' was enough to shock and scandalize the world."61

8. Hugh Nibley: "By now the discovery of writings on plates of precious metal, once the hardest thing to swallow in Joseph Smith's story, has become almost commonplace in the Near East."62

9. Hugh Nibley: "Nothing in the Book of Mormon itself has excited greater hilarity and derision than Joseph Smith's report that the original record was engraved on gold plates, the account being condensed from much fuller records on bronze plates. . . . But it was anything but commonplace a hundred years ago, when the idea of sacred records being written on metal plates was thought just too funny for words."63

10. Hugh Nibley: "Joseph Smith's insistence on books made of metal plates was a favorite target of his detractors; metal plates were strange enough to seem ludicrous, and impractical enough to cause difficulties. This was not the normal way of writing."64 Nowhere in these quotations is Nibley claiming that there was no knowledge of writing on metal plates in Joseph's day, as Metcalfe claims—only that such writing was considered "strange," "impractical," and "not normal."

Only the final two sources make arguments which are close to those he claims are made by all of his "apologists," but even here the sources are ambiguous.65

11. Mark E. Peterson: "Until Moroni came, Joseph was not acquainted with gold or any other metallic plates on which ancient records were made. He had no idea that archaeologists would subsequently find such plates in a hundred different locations, from Java to Spain and from the Near East to Mexico."66 Although the first sentence of this argument is indeed a form of the fallacy of negative proof—there is no way to know for sure what Joseph himself did or did not know—the passage as a whole is not asserting the universal ignorance which Metcalfe imputes to it.

12. Kirk Holland Vestal and Arthur Wallace: "When the Book of Mormon went on sale in A.D. 1830, there were no records on metal plates known in the Western World; the Book of Mormon was derided as the "Golden Bible,' because it claimed to have been translated from written plates of golden metal."67 If by "Western World" Vestal and Wallace have reference to Western civilization including Europe and North America, then they are indeed making a false claim. It is possible, however, that they are referring to the western hemisphere, in which case their argument is sound.

I will admit that there are Latter-day Saint amateur historians and scriptorians who are uninformed and careless in their writings. Furthermore, even trained and usually careful scholars can make mistakes, or phrase arguments ambiguously. But to prove his point that the assumptions of the "apologists" inherently cause methodological errors, it is insufficient for Metcalfe to demonstrate that some uninformed believers in the antiquity of the Book of Mormon have made occasional errors of evidence or analysis. Historical traditionalists have long recognized this, and have repeatedly condemned it.68 Instead, Metcalfe distorts the claims of the careful and professional historical traditionalists in an attempt to create a universal methodological error which in fact is found only in some traditionalist writings. He is attempting to imply guilt by association: if any "apologist" makes a bad argument, then all "apologists" are responsible and methodologically tainted.

An Apologist for the Critics: Brent Lee Metcalfe's Assumptions and Methodologies, William J. Hamblin

FARMS Review: Volume - 6, Issue - 1, Pages: 434-523

Edited August 19, 2011 by cinepro

[ldsfaqs]

"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." Hugh Nibley, Lehi in the Desert, The World of the Jaredites, There Were Jaredites, vol. 5 in The Collected Works of Hugh Nibley (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book and F.A.R.M.S., 1988), 106.

Addresses nothing concerning my question. Only states the known anti-mormon claim.

[Zakuska]

What specifically was said by the critics?

From CInepro's link:

• This book speaks... of the Jewish Scriptures, having been kept by Jews on plates of brass, six hundred years before Christ. The Jews never kept any of their records on plates of brass. (

Sunderland, 46; italics added.)
We are to understand, then, that Nephi and his brothers found in Jerusalem in the sixth century B.C. a set of brass plates containing large sections of Hebrew Scriptures translated into some form of Egyptian. (Hoekema, 77-78.)
The... statement is... objectionable-- that there were found in the possession of a man by the name of Laban... certain brass plates upon which were engraven, in the Egyptian language, the five books of Moses, containing the law, the entire history of the Jews from the first down to Laban's time.... (Lamb, 90-91; italics in original.)
The book of Mormon purports to have been originally engraved on brass plates.... How could brass be written on? (Sunderland, 44.)

[ldsfaqs]

This was my question too. I thought that charge of "unkown" gold plates came from some of the very first anti mormons who all knew that was ridiculous. So how did this knowledge of ancient metal plates become so familiar to Smith, but so unfamiliar to critics that attacked him for it? I look forward to seeing Mike's paper.

Exactly....

Further, it's possible Smith new of such plates, after all, as he later grew much after the BOM came to be, he was very much interested in studying ancient things.

[cinepro]

Addresses nothing concerning my question. Only states the known anti-mormon claim.

Uh...I think that was the whole point of Mike Reed's presentation. He tried to show it wasn't an anti-mormon claim in Joseph's day, and only came up decades later.

[ldsfaqs]

Well that didn't take long.

Now, let's see how far the goal posts will be moved back.

Nothing has been proved yet.... Clearly your aren't comprehending my question.

Further, I've already stated that I've "seen" such a statement before. Just that it's not "common" (from Mormons) as you all claim.

Edited August 19, 2011 by ldsfaqs

[ldsfaqs]

It's also discussed quite a bit (and parsed nearly to death) in this FARMS essay. I'm not sure if I understand it completely, but Hamblin seems to be acknowledging that plate-writing was known in Joseph's day, but arguing that Joseph probably didn't know about it. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Reasonably possible..... But, that still doesn't translation into Mormons going around always claiming that Joseph AND (no one else in his time) not ever knowing of any ancient metal plates with writing, scripture, etc.

This is the anti-mormon claim.

[Xander]

Nothing has been proved yet.... Clearly your aren't comprehending my question.

Further, I've already stated that I've "seen" such a statement before. Just that it's not "common" (from Mormons) as you all claim.

It was claimed to be an "old apologetic claim."

And this has been established.

You insinuated this was based on a straw man, but clearly it isn't. I heard this all the time on my mission shortly after I joined the Church. I haven't heard it in awhile, but it is still something apologists like to throw out there as "evidence." Reed's presentation pretty much refutes this, which is why the immediate response was what it was.

Next?

[Chris Smith]

He tried to show it wasn't an anti-mormon claim in Joseph's day, and only came up decades later.

Exactly. Mike showed that critics found the "Gold Bible" problematic because of the fantastic or treasure-seeking dimensions of the story rather than because of any objection to the notion of ancient metal records. The one contemporary critic who did object to the medium on which the Book of Mormon was written-- LeRoy Sunderland-- did so on very specific grounds. It was not that the ancients never wrote on metal plates, but rather that Jews in 600 B.C. didn't write books on plates of brass. Mike presented many, many sources available in New York prior to 1828 which discuss the notion of ancient metal records, and argued that Joseph's contemporaries therefore would not have considered the concept of writing on metal plates to be unusual. Joseph's narrative of finding ancient inscribed gold plates had resonance with his contemporaries precisely because ancient metal records fit their expectations.

Edited August 19, 2011 by Chris Smith

[Bill Hamblin]

As I have become tired of repeating, the idea of writing on gold plates (Ex. 28:36, 39:30) and brass/bronze plates (1 Macc. 14:18, 27, 48) is found in the Bible.

[ldsfaqs]

Uh...I think that was the whole point of Mike Reed's presentation. He tried to show it wasn't an anti-mormon claim in Joseph's day, and only came up decades later.

Which simply isn't true. As Zakuska has shown, it was one of the very first claims against the Church, and it has been every since and still is.

I've been studying anti-mormonism for some 25 years, and given I was one once, it most certainly was and is a common anti-mormon claim.

Also, the statement Xander made was that Mike Reed claimed that it was/is a "standard mormon claim" that no-one Joseph or otherwise knew of Metal Plates in his time. This also simply isn't true. If it was even close to "common" I would certainly know about it. It's so "non-common" it's barely exists. Understand, I know it HAS been said before by LDS, but the only example so far is simply an LDS "conceding" the point, rather than making the claim himself.

Sometimes LDS do "concede" anti-mormon claims, just as they often concede the claim of the Priesthood ban being "racist" when it wasn't at all.

Of course, don't get me wrong, I understand some LDS here or there have said the claim themselves. But, the problem is, that it's some "common" thing with mormon apologists, and that's simply completely false. The only "common" theme on the issue is the anti-mormon theme.

Edited August 19, 2011 by ldsfaqs

[Chris Smith]

As I have become tired of repeating, the idea of writing on gold plates (Ex. 28:36, 39:30) and brass/bronze plates (1 Macc. 14:18, 27, 48) is found in the Bible.

Great point, Bill. Mike mentioned Maccabees and Job in his paper, but I don't recall him mentioning Exodus.

[Chris Smith]

Which simply isn't true. As Zakuska has shown, it was one of the very first claims against the Church, and it has been every since and still is.

Where has Zakuska shown this? I'm sure Mike would be interested in Zak's sources. However, I doubt Zak has anything beyond what Mike already dealt with in his paper.

ETA: Ah, I see you're referring to Zak's post on the previous page. Sunderland, Lamb, and Hoekema were discussed in Mike's paper. Sunderland was the only critic contemporary with Joseph Smith who objected to the BoM medium. As Mike showed, Sunderland was the exception rather than the rule. Certainly Sunderland's remarks were not "one of the very first claims against the Church".

Edited August 19, 2011 by Chris Smith

[ldsfaqs]

It was claimed to be an "old apologetic claim."

And this has been established.

NO it hasn't. You need to read the thread more carefully.

You insinuated this was based on a straw man, but clearly it isn't. I heard this all the time on my mission shortly after I joined the Church. I haven't heard it in awhile, but it is still something apologists like to throw out there as "evidence." Reed's presentation pretty much refutes this, which is why the immediate response was what it was.

Next?

Yes it is a straw-man in my view. You clearly believe something different, but I'm actually an apologist guy..... and I know what we "hold in common" as far as arguments on Mormon issues.

We do not go around with a common claim that Joseph nor anyone else in Joseph's time DID NOT ever know of "metal plates". That's completely a lie, a straw-man. Someone saying it sometimes, and supposedly on YOUR MISSION people saying it all the time, does not translate into something "apologists" do, and especially do "commonly". Get the difference?

Again, in case you still don't get it. I've never claimed no mormon has said it, I'm contending against your claim that it's somehow "common among apologists". I'm an apologist, and it's simply NOT. I've never once said it myself. I've actually known of the evidences from Joseph's time of metal plates for YEARS now.... Just because some LDS somewhere might not be aware of this, or may concede the point, or simply forgot, or don't have the evidence in front of them to know, doesn't mean it's somehow a "common" believe by LDS Apologists. Sorry, I'm an apologist who's been doing this for years side by side with other apologists, and I've certainly not seen this as a "common" belief among us. I think you and Mike Reed only see what you want to see, not who we really are. In fact, I know it's so, given all your other beliefs about us.

Edited August 19, 2011 by ldsfaqs

[cinepro]

Reasonably possible..... But, that still doesn't translation into Mormons going around always claiming that Joseph AND (no one else in his time) not ever knowing of any ancient metal plates with writing, scripture, etc.

This is the anti-mormon claim.

Frankly, I can't keep straight what apologists are claiming the anti-mormons used to claim, and what the anti-mormons are claiming the apologists used to claim, and what the apologists are claiming the apologists used to claim, or what the anti-mormons are claiming the anti-mormons used to claim, or where and when and to what degree either of them supposedly claimed what they did claim.