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

[why me]

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

So what is the fuss all about?

[why me]

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.

But then again, just how learned where the people in Palmyra? Most likely not very learned. And if this is so, some mocking could have occured about the gold plates. To assume that all the people of Palmyra and the surrounding area were familiar with gold plates would be a stretch.

I would believe that for the great many people in that area, the whole story as told by JS would sound crazy, including gold plates.

[why me]

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

We don't. But the point is: the knowledge was there in the bible. An interesting fact which the critics can not comprehend at this moment. But I am sure that with time it will all sink in.

Let me put it this way: lets say that I am a Rigdon freak and believe rigdon wrote the book of mormon and came up with the complete picture about how to present it. Would Rigdon know those verses? Now, I could be a wonderful critic right?

But here is the catch: I would need to find twelve people to go along with the story and this would include JS. And then if we add his wife, it would be 13 people. Quite problematic for any fraud.

[Chris Smith]

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

Of course Joseph was mocked for his claim to possess gold plates. But the question is, what was the reason for the mockery? Was it because of the fantastic elements of the story, such as being commanded by an angel not to show anybody? Or was it because Joseph's contemporaries doubted "the knowledge and use of metal plates for the keeping of important records" existed in ancient times? According to Mike's paper, the answer is the former, not the latter. This was fairly explicitly recognized by Orson Pratt.

We don't. But the point is: the knowledge was there in the bible. An interesting fact which the critics can not comprehend at this moment. But I am sure that with time it will all sink in.

Actually, the presence of metal records in the Bible strongly supports Mike's argument that the concept would have been well-known in Joseph Smith's day. I'm not sure why you think this is a point for your side.

But then again, just how learned where the people in Palmyra? Most likely not very learned. And if this is so, some mocking could have occured about the gold plates. To assume that all the people of Palmyra and the surrounding area were familiar with gold plates would be a stretch.

If anything, unlearned people would be more likely to just accept the idea that the ancients wrote on metal plates, because they're unaware of any information that would suggest otherwise.

Peace,

-Chris

Edited August 20, 2011 by Chris Smith

[LeSellers]

Of course Joseph was mocked for his claim to possess gold plates. But the question is, what was the reason for the mockery? Was it because of the fantastic elements of the story, such as being commanded by an angel not to show anybody? Or was it because Joseph's contemporaries doubted "the knowledge and use of metal plates for the keeping of important records" existed in ancient times?

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Doubtless the majority of the persecution over the Golden Plates was about their origins and provenance. I suppose it would not be wrong to claim that nearly all of those who rejected Joseph's prophetic calling took this approach.

In addition, however, those who had some knowledge of the subject of ancient records would have coupled the first tack with the other, that no one kept records on metal, and especially not on gold plates.

The false dilemma rears its ugly head.

Lehi

[Stargazer]

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.

You're not the only one, lol.

[Stargazer]

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.

My own first experience with LDS apologetics online was many years ago on AOL, in the LDS discussion forum that AOL briefly allowed to exist (I think this was about 1995). One of those who posted regularly there was Kathryn Kidd, who once co-wrote a novel with Orson Scott Card.

I remember spending a few hours crafting a response to some poster who brought up a whole pile of scritpure citations to prove that the LDS were wrong. I addressed every single point he made, again using the scriptures, showing how he had not got it right, and his response? "That a bunch of bull." Of course, since that was unanswerable, I guess the argument was over. Not sure if his statement was intended to be a statement of concession, but perhaps not.

[Mike Reed]

"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.

I noted and explained each of these quotes in my presentation, including the one from LaRoy Sunderland. So you guys can look at these quotes now, if you'd like.. or you can just wait for my paper, since I've already done the work for ya. Only the Sunderland quote is contemporaneous, and (contrary to what some apologists may have asserted) none of them make sweeping denials of ancient metal records. The criticisms are quite specific, and some of them even concede the ancient practice of inscribing metal records..

[Mike Reed]

In addition, however, those who had some knowledge of the subject of ancient records would have coupled the first tack with the other, that no one kept records on metal, and especially not on gold plates.

You don't know what you are talking about.

[Mike Reed]

Of course Joseph was mocked for his claim to possess gold plates. But the question is, what was the reason for the mockery? Was it because of the fantastic elements of the story, such as being commanded by an angel not to show anybody? Or was it because Joseph's contemporaries doubted "the knowledge and use of metal plates for the keeping of important records" existed in ancient times? According to Mike's paper, the answer is the former, not the latter. This was fairly explicitly recognized by Orson Pratt.

Thanks Chris. Just one correction: Parley Pratt.

[Loran Blood]

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.

Mike seems to be a capable scholar and is also quite tenacious when he thinks he's discovered an anti-Mormon point of substance. I and some others here tangled with him a few years ago during a period when he was quite exercised over the Church's non-use of the cross in its worship and symbolism, his main thesis then being that the church had a "cross aversion." As I recall, pointing out to him repeatedly that the cross did not become a major theme in Christianity as to its use as the core symbol of Christianity as a religious system until the 4th century did little good. One can always find little historical or textual tidbits, here and there, to inflate into a tolerable argument, from one's own perspective.

Thanks to ldsfaqs for some needed clarity and perspective here, as some folks on another board, as well as a few critics here, are blowing Mike's material into an anti-Mormon coup d'état.

[Loran Blood]

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.

To be fair, I did hear some similar claims back in the seventies,about metal plates etc. having been unknown to Joseph, in an apologetic vein, although I can't remember where exactly this may have been (book, oral discussions etc.) I also remember, over those years, a number of very contentious anti-Mormon books and/or pamphlets (mostly of the EV variety) that repeated the old 19th century claim that ancient people's did not use metal plates for this purpose. The "purpose" in mind was not for plaques such as "holiness to the Lord" or otherwise for brief statements, exclamations, or lists of something, but of entire narratives and/or doctrinal expositions, of some length. That would seem to be the primary issue here, and certainly, until much later than Joseph's time, few if any examples of that kind of usage of metal plates were known.

Edited August 21, 2011 by Loran Blood

[Hestia]

ldsfaqs is taking a break from this thread as he can't refrain from accusations and name calling.

[Brent Metcalfe]

Hi folks,

Not only was the notion that ancients wrote on metallic plates known among JS’s secular and sectarian contemporaries, but also among his fellow Mormons. In 1833, for instance, William W. Phelps compared such sources to BoMor traditions of writing on metallic plates:

It may be well to state, that the prophet of God, in ancient days, according to the accounts of men, kept their sacred records on plates of gold, and those of less consequence on plates of brass, copper, wood, &c., see Jahn's biblical archeology, Josephus, and others. These plates were generally made from the sixteenth to the thirty second part of an inch thick (of metal) and something like six by eight inches square, and fastened at the back with three rings through which a rod was put to carry them, or hang them. The word of the Lord, the history of the doings of the children of God, and their genealogy was engraved in a nice workmanlike manner, upon them, in Hebrew, reformed Egyptian, &c. Such was the condition of the plates, from which came the book of Mormon. As may be seen by an allusion in the book of Ether, all that was on them is not translated; wherefore, as they are sacred, when the Book of Mormon was translated from them, they were again hid up to the Lord, to come forth again in his own due time. The Ark of the covenant containing the sacred stone tables, was hid up to the Lord, in the cave where Moses climbed up to view the heritage of God, and was not to come forth till God received his people again unto mercy, when all these things and the cloud shall return, and the glory of God shall rest upon his temple. The present generation is great with events.

[Evening and Morning Star 1/8 (Jan. 1833): np.]

Bible commentaries from JS’s era noted mention of metallic writing plates in the Hebrew Scriptures, as in Job 19:23–24. Adam Clarke (1760?–1832) suggested that this pericope alludes to an ancient writing method, one of which was,

Cutting with an iron stile on plates of lead.

[Adam Clarke, The Holy Bible... with a Commentary and Critical Notes (New York: N. Bangs and J. Emory, 1826), s.v. Job 19:23, italics in original, bold red emphasis added.]

Much earlier, Mathew Poole (1624–1679) opined that v. 24 may refer to,

The writing-table; for the ancients did uſe to write divers things in lead, as is well known.

[Mathew Poole, Annotations upon the Holy Bible (Edinburg: Thomas and John Turnbull, 1800), s.v. Job 19:24, the long s in “uſe” in original, bold red emphasis added.]

Methodist minister Joseph Benson (1748–1821) thought it “very probable” that Job refers to writing on metallic plates because,

... it was customary in those times to engrave inscriptions on plates of lead as well as on stone.

[Joseph Benson, The Holy Bible... with Notes, Critical, Explanatory, and Practical (London: J. Kershaw, 1825), s.v. Job 19:23–24, bold red emphasis added.]

John Gill (1697–1771) also chimed in, thinking that v. 24 involves writing with an iron stylus,

... upon a sheet of lead, as the Vulgate Latin version; for it was usual in ancient times, as Pliny and others relate, for books to be made of sheets of lead, and for public records to be engrossed, as in plates of brass, so [= “or”?] sometimes in sheets of lead, for the perpetuity of them[.]

[John Gill, An Exposition of the Old Testament (London: Mathews and Leigh, 1810), s.v. Job 19:24, bold red emphasis added.]

Those are a few citations from my personal library; I’m confident there’re many more such sources.

Food for thought...

Best regards,

</brent>

Edit: Clarified what I mean by JS’s contemporaries; also fixed a minor punctuation typo.

http://mormonscripturestudies.com

(© 2011 Brent Lee Metcalfe.)

——————————

The thesis of inspiration may not be invoked to guarantee historicity, for a divinely inspired story is not necessarily history.

—Raymond E. Brown

Edited August 22, 2011 by Brent Metcalfe

[TAO]

I noted and explained each of these quotes in my presentation, including the one from LaRoy Sunderland. So you guys can look at these quotes now, if you'd like.. or you can just wait for my paper, since I've already done the work for ya. Only the Sunderland quote is contemporaneous, and (contrary to what some apologists may have asserted) none of them make sweeping denials of ancient metal records. The criticisms are quite specific, and some of them even concede the ancient practice of inscribing metal records..

Coolbeans! I'll probably have to wait for the paper though =P.

Yes, very few or none do seem to talk about the metal... but I'm not sure that it so means that they didn't think it was ridiculous, all the same.

Lindsey's site guesses that because they are not using it against him (saying he copied plates from the Bible), that they did think it was ridiculous... but not sure... it could go either way. I could see that being the case... but I could also see it being the case that the people persecuting him weren't observant enough, perhaps, to notice such plates were in the Bible. So the psychoanalysis, while good, has another possibility... more will have to be looked into it =).

Best Wishes,

TAO

[Pahoran]

Hi folks,

Not only was the notion that ancients wrote on metallic plates known among JS’s secular and sectarian contemporaries, but also among his fellow Mormons. In 1833, for instance, William W. Phelps compared such sources to BoMor traditions of writing on metallic plates:

Yes, this is very important. After all, as everyone knows, Phelps and Joseph had similar levels of education and consequently whatever Phelps knew is a very reliable predictor for what Joseph must have known.

It may be well to state, that the prophet of God, in ancient days, according to the accounts of men, kept their sacred records on plates of gold, and those of less consequence on plates of brass, copper, wood, &c., see Jahn's biblical archeology, Josephus, and others. These plates were generally made from the sixteenth to the thirty second part of an inch thick (of metal) and something like six by eight inches square, and fastened at the back with three rings through which a rod was put to carry them, or hang them. The word of the Lord, the history of the doings of the children of God, and their genealogy was engraved in a nice workmanlike manner, upon them, in Hebrew, reformed Egyptian, &c. Such was the condition of the plates, from which came the book of Mormon. As may be seen by an allusion in the book of Ether, all that was on them is not translated; wherefore, as they are sacred, when the Book of Mormon was translated from them, they were again hid up to the Lord, to come forth again in his own due time. The Ark of the covenant containing the sacred stone tables, was hid up to the Lord, in the cave where Moses climbed up to view the heritage of God, and was not to come forth till God received his people again unto mercy, when all these things and the cloud shall return, and the glory of God shall rest upon his temple. The present generation is great with events.

[Evening and Morning Star 1/8 (Jan. 1833): np.]

And this was Joseph's source, was it?

Regards,

Pahoran

[why me]

Hi folks,

Not only was the notion that ancients wrote on metallic plates known among JS’s secular and sectarian contemporaries, but also among his fellow Mormons. In 1833, for instance, William W. Phelps compared such sources to BoMor traditions of writing on metallic plates:

Bible commentaries from JS’s era noted mention of metallic writing plates in the Hebrew Scriptures, as in Job 19:23–24. Adam Clarke (1760?–1832) suggested that this pericope alludes to an ancient writing method, one of which was,

Hi Brent!

I have known that the knowledge has been around during JS's time. But I think that the question has always been just how much did JS know. It doesn't seem that he was a studious fellow when he was a young man. And we need to remember the age of JS at this timenand his work habits. No one saw him with academic books in hand. I know that jeff lindsay did a parody of JS and his helpers wriitng the book of mormon and the punch line to the parody was that the knowledge and books just were not there.

Also, we will need to get our heads around the 11 witnesses and the supernatural visitation that they claimed happened and the group of witnesses that actually handled the plates and turned the leaves over. Who wrote that book on metal plates that was shown the witnesses. And who played the part of an angel?

Being that the knowledge of plates are in the bible, I think that the subject who knew what about plates is rather moot.

I think that some of the dates of the references you provided are a little problematic since they are a little late for the book of mormon unless I am reading them wrong.

Edited August 22, 2011 by why me