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

[cinepro]

I'm an apologist, and it's simply NOT.

ldsfaqs, I apologize if I missed this somewhere else, but what name have you gone by when you do your apologetics?

[ldsfaqs]

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

And note how all these are dated much after Joseph Smith?

Common scholarship did not know of "metal plates" with scripture writing on them in Joseph's time.

Yes, some discovery's had been made and were known by some, but certainly not most.

We are talking about what "people knew".

But still. My argument is not what existed in Joseph's time, it's what has been claimed by Mike and others what LDS "hold in common" with each other on the issue, but specifically apologists.

I know "some" have had this belief, but certainly not most or many in my view, thus it's a straw-man. It's the same way anti's quote a few statements by LDS leaders from history on whatever subject and then try to claim such was actual LDS beliefs and even Doctrine of the Church. It's simply NOT TRUE.

[ldsfaqs]

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.

I understand.... You seem to bounce between the two sides, so I can understand your position in saying that.

[ldsfaqs]

ldsfaqs, I apologize if I missed this somewhere else, but what name have you gone by when you do your apologetics?

I'm not "published" or anything. I've just been doing this at least 3 hours a day for some 14 years now all over the net, correcting anti-mormon claims against the Church and LDS as a people.

I am however planning on getting my apologetics website up and running soon, under the same name. Although, I just had a huge surprise in my personal life, so that might be a little more delayed still. We'll see how that go's.

Edited August 19, 2011 by ldsfaqs

[ldsfaqs]

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".

Yes....

We will disagree then.... This claim has been all over anti-mormonism for years. Anti's such as Reed are only trying to now claim otherwise because they know the evidence is against them in this issue, and they cannot use it against the Church any longer. Just because "knowledge existed" on a matter, i.e. metal plates doesn't mean anti-mormons didn't preach against us exactly what we claim they have and do. This is a straw-man tactic.

Most anti-mormons are not the Vogel's the Reed's the Southertons, and Metcalfs who use a more "complex" misrepresentative process toward mormonism, they judge more simply and regurgitate each others works. Just because the more "high ended" anti-mormon like Reed doesn't fall for that "particular" anti-mormon claim, doesn't mean he's still not misrepresenting mormonism, when he THEN reverses that claim and try's to make mormons actually the ones "making it up". That's just a more complex methodology of bearing false witness.

Edited August 19, 2011 by ldsfaqs

[Zakuska]

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.

I think where this comes from is the effort by apologists to turn a negative into a positive. LDS Apologists took those words by some of the first Anti-Mormons and used there own references against them. The problem we ran into is we over stated our position, by over generalizing that "No one knew", when obviously there were some who weren't so dogmatic in their assertions as to pronounce that No Hebrew ever wrote on metal plates. So then the Anti-Mormons picked up on that and tried to over turn the postive back to a negative by claiming the LDS Apologists were lying. Thats where this is all coming from.

Edited August 19, 2011 by Zakuska

[ldsfaqs]

I think where this comes from is the effort by apologists to turn a negative into a positive. LDS Apologists took those words by some of the first Anti-Mormons and used there own references against them. The problem we ran into is we over stated our position, by over generalizing that "No one knew", when obviously there were some who were so dogmatic in their assertions as to pronounce that No Hebrew ever wrote on metal plates. So then the Anti-Mormons picked up on that and tried to over turn the postive back to a negative by claiming the LDS Apologists were lying. Thats where this is all coming from.

I would agree..... I'm not going to deny that some LDS have just "conceded" the anti-mormon claim that no evidence of "metal plates" existed in Joseph's time. I'm not stupid. But, I'm also not stupid enough to claim that this is somehow some big apologist claim, by anti's like Reed trying to reverse it back onto us when the issue was always an anti-mormon one just as you state.

If anything, I would agree that "some" LDS instead of conceding the claim, like some LDS do with racism and the Priesthood ban, they could have looked and saw that evidences did exist at the time of metal plates. But, not all LDS fell into this idea, and certainly not most, and certainly not common. That's my only contention.

Reed etc. misrepresents Mormon Apologists by stating that this is a long held common claim by us, and even more so that it wasn't really the anti-mormons making it. Anti-mormons made the claim 1,000's of times more than LDS made it. Thus, his thesis is a straw-man. A false assumption based on his false anti-mormon assumptions, that he then tries to tear the Church down with. Frankly, I'm surprised the Maxwell Institute actually allowed such a promoter of lies in their midst. What I mean by that is just because "some" of his thesis might have some validity, i.e. the fact that some LDS have conceded or stated the anti-mormon belief, that doesn't mean the overall point of the thesis is valid. It's absolutely not. His thesis makes us look stupid, and does so falsely.... That's not promoting mormonism and good LDS scholarship. Just because he has a slick tongue and is scholarly sounding and "learned" but is not wise, doesn't mean LDS scholarship should be propping up the guy. Keep him to Sunstone or whatever relative malarkey, not in the Faith.

Edited August 19, 2011 by ldsfaqs

[Nemesis]

I'm surprised the Maxwell Institute actually allowed such a promoter of lies in their midst.

Really? I think most of us on this board would disagree with this statement. He may have a different opinion but he won't go out of his way to lie. Especially when he has spent a lot of time bringing out good researched information on LDS topics. Lets keep to discussing the topic and not a person.

Nemesis

[ldsfaqs]

Okay, but it's my opinion that most of that "good research" is just vastly complex thinly and directly veiled misrepresentations, i.e. lies about mormonism and mormons.

Lot's of facts used to tell some great lie. That research is only a small step above the Tanners. Yes, lot's of "good research", but still telling a great lie at the end.

Do folks here have such respect for the Tanners? Not likely, thus I think folks should be a little careful with their respect for Mr. Reeds work. Yes, I recognize that he's not Christian, thus his work is slightly more objective in some of it's judgments. But all of the over-riding judgments that I've read from him are completely false. It looks like wolf in sheep's clothing, and shouldn't be involved with the Church. Sunstone was made for such works.

But, I'll keep working on making my judgments about the "fruits", not the person. Still think BYU shouldn't be promoting his works. It's like if they did the same with the Tanners works. Completely inappropriate. Just because he's atheistic'ish and thus doesn't have the religious based bigotry doesn't mean he's somehow more acceptable.

Who's next? Metcalf, Southerton, Vogel, Murphy?

Edited August 19, 2011 by ldsfaqs

[Ariarates]

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.

It can be very confusing but that's the purpose. It draws attention away from the fact there was no gold in Mesoamerica during the BoM timeframe.

[Vance]

So, at first the critics claimed that there were no such thing as metal plates.

And now the critics claim that EVERYONE know that to be false?

Am I getting this right?

[Vance]

It can be very confusing but that's the purpose. It draws attention away from the fact there was no gold in Mesoamerica during the BoM timeframe.

Gee, I wonder where all that "Spanish" gold came from.

[Chris Smith]

So, at first the critics claimed that there were no such thing as metal plates.

And now the critics claim that EVERYONE know that to be false?

Am I getting this right?

No.

[Xander]

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.

Yes, but how do we know Joseph Smith read these verses?

[Zakuska]

Yes, but how do we know Joseph Smith read these verses?

Or more importantly. How did the good "Reverends" Sutherland and Lamb miss that fact?

[cinepro]

Let's get something clear.

I quoted Mike Ash as having written:

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 (emphasis added)

And then you say,

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.

Ash isn't "sort of" "agreeing" (with "agreeing" in "quotes" as if it isn't really an agreement). In the context of the article, Ash is totally agreeing with the critics. The phrase "as the critics have already demonstrated" does not modify the following claim in any way: "the world of Joseph Smith did not believe that ancient records had ever been inscribed on metal plates or kept in stone boxes."

I'm not bringing this up to disparage Mike Ash in any way; I'm only using it as a clear example (and one of the first things I found). I would also go out on a limb and suggest that if we were to rank LDS Apologists for their knowledge and prominence in the field, Mike Ash would be towards the front of the queue, whereas we have nothing to vouch for ldsfaq other than his own claims.

So, to answer the query from the original post as clearly as possible: the claim that Joseph Smith and his contemporaries weren't familiar with ancient records on metal plates is sometimes attributed to some LDS apologists because some LDS apologists (who have studied and publicly published on the issue) have claimed exactly that.

[cinepro]

Here's another prominent (dare I say, infamous?) apologist who categorizes the idea of "writing on metal plates" as "laughable" in 1830:

Writing on Metal Plates

Absolutely laughable in 1830, now not only well established as an ancient practice, but as a particularly significant ancient practice in the Middle East in the era of 600 B.C.--especially for religious documents.

He also writes:

Questions about ancient writing on metal plates

A historically popular anti-LDS question, "Who ever heard of ancient peoples writing on metal plates?!" is now gradually being superseded by the more up-to-date anti-LDS question, "Didn't Joseph Smith just make up the story of the plates based on the well known fact that many ancient peoples wrote on metal plates?" Both questions are addressed on a separate Web page, Metal Plates and the Book of Mormon. As with many other attacks on the Book of Mormon, something that seemed silly in 1830 is strong evidence of authenticity today. (emphasis added)

<- ldsfaqs

Edited August 19, 2011 by cinepro

[Zakuska]

I always liked this:

Jeremiah 32:14

14 Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel; Take these

evidences, this evidence of the purchase, both which is sealed, and this

evidence which is open; and put them in an earthen vessel, that they may

continue many days.

The practice of burying records in a saftey deposit box as to preserve it. Thats a hit for the DSS. But it could also be a hit for the BOM. As far as time frame and burying records for preservation purposes.

[TAO]

Here's another prominent (dare I say, infamous?) apologist who categorizes the idea of "writing on metal plates" as "laughable" in 1830:

He also writes:

<- ldsfaqs

Cinepro, did you follow the references that he cites?

This is his reference to what he says (after following a link or two):

"See for example John Hyde, Jr., Mormonism: Its Leaders and Designs (New York: Fetridge, 1857), 217-18; M.T. Lamb, The Golden Bible (New York: Ward and Drummond, 1887), 11; and Stuart Martin, The Mystery of Mormonism (London: Odhams Press, 1920), 27; see William J. Hamblin, "Sacred Writing on Bronze Plates in the Ancient Mediterranean," available on the order form in this issue of INSIGHTS, for full references and analysis of the issues raised in this Update."

Perhaps we should look at this before we say what he says 'isn't valid'.... if you know what I mean =P.

[Zakuska]

Here's another prominent (dare I say, infamous?) apologist who categorizes the idea of "writing on metal plates" as "laughable" in 1830:

He also writes:

<- ldsfaqs

Well it was "laughed at" as an obsurdity. By several clergymen as I linked earlier.

[cinepro]

Cinepro, did you follow the references that he cites?

This is his reference to what he says (after following a link or two):

"See for example John Hyde, Jr., Mormonism: Its Leaders and Designs (New York: Fetridge, 1857), 217-18; M.T. Lamb, The Golden Bible (New York: Ward and Drummond, 1887), 11; and Stuart Martin, The Mystery of Mormonism (London: Odhams Press, 1920), 27; see William J. Hamblin, "Sacred Writing on Bronze Plates in the Ancient Mediterranean," available on the order form in this issue of INSIGHTS, for full references and analysis of the issues raised in this Update."

Perhaps we should look at this before we say what he says 'isn't valid'.... if you know what I mean =P.

Just so I'm clear, are we counting 1857 as "Joseph Smith's day"?

Cause I wasn't.

[ldsfaqs]

So, at first the critics claimed that there were no such thing as metal plates.

And now the critics claim that EVERYONE know that to be false?

Am I getting this right?

Yep, pretty much..... not all of it, but part of it. Everyone other than mormons anyway.

According to them only one little anti-mormon in all of history or whatever ever said this, and everyone else knew that was wrong, and the mormons were just ignorant not knowing it either. That it was/is Apologists only who primarily promote the idea of no one back then knowing about metal plates.

Edited August 20, 2011 by ldsfaqs

[ldsfaqs]

Here's another prominent (dare I say, infamous?) apologist who categorizes the idea of "writing on metal plates" as "laughable" in 1830:

He also writes:

<- ldsfaqs

These statements by Lindsay only state that the idea seemed preposterous to most who attacked mormonism or the general populous.

He does not state that such evidence didn't exist at all and was known by no one at all back then. He only states that those who attacked mormonism and otherwise in general such seemed preposterous. The usage of the word "seemed" seems to indicate that Lindsay likely knows of evidence of plates back then. Of course, I can't speak for him, but if your usage of his statements were valid, he would have made different words and statements.

Using the word "seemed" in language indicates a "popular" perception, not an entire and full reality. For example, when Brigham Young made the statement about blacks "seemingly" uncoof, lowly in habits etc., he wasn't making a "racist" statement, he was simply stating the general perception and aspect of the black man. He wasn't at all making an absolute judgment of them. That's a perversion of his words. He was simply stating how they actually in general appeared like, which was a factual statement back then. Likewise, you shouldn't use Lindsay's words for more than they are saying.

So far the only evidence is "Ash", and his is indirect, not direct. It's possible for some apologists to sometimes make an incorrect statement without studying it out, accepting certain assumptions. 99.9% of what Ash states is still basically true. Much better than 99.9% of what anti-mormons state as being essentially false.

Edited August 20, 2011 by ldsfaqs

[TAO]

Just so I'm clear, are we counting 1857 as "Joseph Smith's day"?

Cause I wasn't.

That's 13 years, yes.

You can read his response to the claim here: http://www.jefflindsay.com/bme25.shtml

It's a bit down the page, of course. Basically, he shows that the critics of the time implicitly mocked it (rather than stating it directly). He argues this by pointing out that critics would have logically pointed out that he was trying to copy the Bible if they believed that such plates were written upon by the ancients. And yet they don't, thus the implicit mocking.

The exception is the direct mocking is the reference he made to Mike Ash citing La Roy Sunderland's criticism, according to his article.

Best Wishes,

TAO

Edited August 20, 2011 by TAO

[why me]

"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.

And this is true. People did mock JS for the gold plates description. So what is the problem?