Missing Scroll Theory

[Cobalt-70]

I think you're right that Smith's being wrong about the Book of Abraham doesn't entail that he is a fraud. I do think, however, it weighs against Smith's claims to be a prophet/translator such that it makes it more difficult to justify belief that he is a prophet/translator.

I think that's a fair observation. But if anyone thinks that the measure of a true prophet is his ability to actually produce academically-sound translations of ancient records, she is just being naive. The measure of a true prophet is in his charismatic ability to inspire and move large numbers of people toward a path of benign enlightenment. In that sense, Joseph Smith is certainly one of the truest of prophets. That the Book of Abraham and the Book of Mormon are inspired fictional works does not lessen his status as a great prophet.

[Cobalt-70]

What is often overlooked by Kevin and other critics is the motive behind Joseph when they call him a fraudster. He certainly was not that successful with his fraud especially in the beginning. And it seems that this 'fraud' caused him and his marriage a lot of hardship as he and emma were forced to move throughout the marriage. Not to mention a good tar and feathering during the early years. Also, there is a letter to emma where he imagines giving up his calling and going with emma somewhere to escape all the madness. But he continued on. He was a strange 'fraudster' and then when we consider the witnesses and their own testimony, well, early mormonism was certainly a strange 'fraud'.

I agree that the fraud theory of Joseph Smith is very hard to sustain. Smith's actions don't fit the profile of someone whose actions are fraudulently calculated to achieve either fame or fortune. Smith appeared to have doubted himself occasionally, but for the most part seems to have honestly believed that he was a prophet and that he could translate ancient records. If he knew that he could not actually translate ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs, he would have only translated writings, such as the golden plates, that were not accessible to the public.

The only real potential he could have had for plausible fraud was in the very early days with respect to the golden plates, where even he admits that his initial motive was monetary gain. But even if that were the case, certainly by 1830, all the potential for profit in selling the Book of Mormon was gone, yet he still persisted. The Book of Mormon itself is not the type of work one might write if one's purpose was financial gain. For example, if it were a fraud, Smith would probably have omitted the anti-"priestcraft" portions of the book, which work against any desire he might theoretically have had to get rich off of Mormonism. In addition, the only "victims" of his alleged fraud from 1823 to 1827 were his own family. It doesn't seem reasonable that Smith would spend four years perfecting and practicing an intentional deception with his own family, without immediate prospect of monetary gain. Maybe he thought he would get rich by publishing the Book of Mormon, but even if he did, it is hard to argue that he didn't believe (even erroneously) that he was translating a lost ancient record.

[Cobalt-70]

ok, so if they are assigning paragraphs-worth of meaning to a single character in many instances, it doesn't seem like that makes for a very flexible cipher. that is, you're only going to be able to express those big chunks of meaning. you wouldn't be able to use the characters to, say, encipher a letter or a revelation unless it's identical to verses in the BofA. or am i misunderstanding you? how do you see it being operationalized?

This is an important point. If any part of the KEP were intended as a cipher, that is about the most useless set of ciphers in the history of cryptography.

[Brade]

I think that's a fair observation. But if anyone thinks that the measure of a true prophet is his ability to actually produce academically-sound translations of ancient records, she is just being naive. The measure of a true prophet is in his charismatic ability to inspire and move large numbers of people toward a path of benign enlightenment. In that sense, Joseph Smith is certainly one of the truest of prophets. That the Book of Abraham and the Book of Mormon are inspired fictional works does not lessen his status as a great prophet.

I'm not sure I see why I should accept that as the criteria for determining who is getting special communication from God and whose teachings I should follow with my time, money, and energy. But, granting that condition for the sake of argument, it doesn't seem to specially pick out Joseph Smith. Seems to me there are lots of religious and even non-religious figures that would satisfy that condition.

Additionally, the problem with those works' fictional nature, assuming they are fictional, is that he, and the Church today, claims they are not fictional. If, to the contrary, the best non-spiritual evidence weighs against them being non-fiction, then just as I would be skeptical of believing other reports of a friend who told me that he surfed a 20ft wave at Virginia Beach this year (when there is no evidence of there ever being such waves in the past year or years) and asked for my donation to his surfing competition fund I would be (in fact am) skeptical of other of the Church's claims enough to at the very least withhold judgement and commitment.

[Cobalt-70]

I'm not sure I see why I should accept that as the criteria for determining who is getting special communication from God and whose teachings I should follow with my time, money, and energy. But, granting that condition for the sake of argument, it doesn't seem to specially pick out Joseph Smith. Seems to me there are lots of religious and even non-religious figures that would satisfy that condition.

Additionally, the problem with those works' fictional nature, assuming they are fictional, is that he, and the Church today, claims they are not fictional. If, to the contrary, the best non-spiritual evidence weighs against them being non-fiction, then just as I would be skeptical of believing other reports of a friend who told me that he surfed a 20ft wave at Virginia Beach this year (when there is no evidence of there ever being such waves in the past year or years) and asked for my donation to his surfing competition fund I would be (in fact am) skeptical of other of the Church's claims enough to at the very least withhold judgement and commitment.

I didn't say this is the criteria to determine who is actually getting special communication from God. It is the criteria for a great prophet, in a sociological and historical sense. Not every great prophet is everyone's cup of tea, however. For example, it is hard to deny that Muhammad was an objectively great prophet for the Islamic faith. However, I'm not Islamic, and I don't connect with him like I connect with Joseph Smith. Certainly part of it is the fact that I am a multi-generational "baked-in" Mormon, but I also think there is something different about Smith than other prophets. He is the quintessentially American prophet, and I am an American, so he speaks to my Americanism.

I don't really care that the LDS Church currently seems to claim that the Book of Abraham is nonfiction. Maybe that will change in the future. It probably will have to change if the church wants to maintain its proselyting success in the face of widespread internet access, as it has already changed within the Community of Christ. But certainly this belief is not a fraud. And if it is an error, that doesn't mean that I can't trust the LDS Church with my money, as long as I can determine that the money is spent in furtherance of the faith.

[why me]

I agree that the fraud theory of Joseph Smith is very hard to sustain. Smith's actions don't fit the profile of someone whose actions are fraudulently calculated to achieve either fame or fortune. Smith appeared to have doubted himself occasionally, but for the most part seems to have honestly believed that he was a prophet and that he could translate ancient records. If he knew that he could not actually translate ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs, he would have only translated writings, such as the golden plates, that were not accessible to the public.

The only real potential he could have had for plausible fraud was in the very early days with respect to the golden plates, where even he admits that his initial motive was monetary gain. But even if that were the case, certainly by 1830, all the potential for profit in selling the Book of Mormon was gone, yet he still persisted. The Book of Mormon itself is not the type of work one might write if one's purpose was financial gain. For example, if it were a fraud, Smith would probably have omitted the anti-"priestcraft" portions of the book, which work against any desire he might theoretically have had to get rich off of Mormonism. In addition, the only "victims" of his alleged fraud from 1823 to 1827 were his own family. It doesn't seem reasonable that Smith would spend four years perfecting and practicing an intentional deception with his own family, without immediate prospect of monetary gain. Maybe he thought he would get rich by publishing the Book of Mormon, but even if he did, it is hard to argue that he didn't believe (even erroneously) that he was translating a lost ancient record.

One more point. I think that the book of mormon would have had an audience as a work of fiction. If he wrote the book and was looking for a publisher, I do believe that with a little editing, his book would have sold well. And he would have made some money. Most of the local residents boycotted the book because of the religious claims of Joseph. But they certainly would have bought it if it were a work of fiction. The book of abraham is a good book but I also can not see JS writing that book. He was not a good writer and in fact, it seems that he did not like to write at all, if his journal writing is a clue.

[why me]

. That the Book of Abraham and the Book of Mormon are inspired fictional works does not lessen his status as a great prophet.

I can disagree with you on this point. For the book of mormon, the 11 witnesses are difficult to explain away. If it were ever proven to be false, the lds church would fall like a house of cards and JS would be a sociopathic liar.

[Nomad]

This is an important point. If any part of the KEP were intended as a cipher, that is about the most useless set of ciphers in the history of cryptography.

Will Schryver’s hypothesis never suggested that the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar was intended to be used as a cipher. He only argued that it had qualities similar to a cipher in that they were taking existing texts and giving them substitute values. The characters on the left were meant to represent the explanations given on the right. But Schryver was very emphatic that Phelps, Cowdery, and Smith regarded the EAG as some kind of “translation”, and that it was related to their interest in something they called “pure language”. I don’t understand why people keep misrepresenting Schryver’s argument.

But the Phelps letter to his wife illustrates exactly what's going on. It's just like the EAG documents. Here is the image Will posted of it a couple weeks ago:

I think it’s pretty obvious that the EAG is just an extension of what the Phelps letter represents.

Edited November 22, 2011 by Nomad

[Nomad]

Notice "Abraham" (Osris) to the far left holding two scepters in his hands, the fifteen figures above him representing the twelve tribes along with the kingdoms of the earth. Of course much of this is just baseless interpretation Joseph Smith came up with and then shared it with his followers, but we can see from the available papyrus how these images reasonably correspond to the images on the extant papyri.

continued...

Sorry. Don't see it. Here's what Cowdery describes:

The inner end of the same roll, (Joseph's record,) presents a representation of the judgment: At one view you behold the Savior seated upon his throne, crowned, and holding the sceptres of righteousness and power, before whom also, are assembled the twelve tribes of Israel, the nations, languages and tongues of the earth, the kingdoms of the world over which satan is represented as reigning. Michael the archangel, holding the key of the bottomless pit, and at the same time the devil as being chained and shut up in the bottomless pit. But upon this last scene, I am able only to give you a shadow, to the real picture."

I can see where you might get the "seated upon his throne" part. But I think the twelve tribes is a big stretch. And what about Michael the archangel, and a key to the bottomless pit, and the devil being chained?

Sorry, I don't see it. You act like it's plain as day. Maybe you can point out the twelve tribes, Michael the archangel, the key, the bottomless pit, the devil chained up in the pit, etc. I'm sure I'm just missing it.

[Xander]

I won't have time to post much until the weekend again, but wanted to drop in to make sure the thread hasn't derailed too far.

Sorry, I don't see it. You act like it's plain as day. Maybe you can point out the twelve tribes, Michael the archangel, the key, the bottomless pit, the devil chained up in the pit, etc. I'm sure I'm just missing it.

After citing the Cowdery letter, John Gee says, "Jay Todd, years ago, seems to have accurately connected these descriptions with the present papyri fragments." I'm simply accepting what scholarship has already concluded. In this case, Mormon scholarship. I recommend you get up to speed on what has already been conceded on both sides before jumping in with both feet.

But the Phelps letter to his wife illustrates exactly what's going on. It's just like the EAG documents. Here is the image Will posted of it a couple weeks ago

But what Will doesn't share with you is the sample of the pure language, revealed to Joseph Smith three years earlier. The data in Phelp's letter is based on that revelation, not on something Phelps came up with on his own. This means Joseph Smith was the guy behind it all, not W.W. Phelps.

Will Schryver’s hypothesis never suggested that the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar was intended to be used as a cipher. He only argued that it had qualities similar to a cipher in that they were taking existing texts and giving them substitute values.

No, that's not all he said. He said, and I quote:

...the Alphabet, Grammar, and Counting documents appear to have been intended to render the English text of the Prophet’s revelations into some kind of cipher that these men apparently believed to be typical of language as practiced by “the ancients.”

So maybe you should listen to it again.

I don’t understand why people keep misrepresenting Schryver’s argument.

Just going by what he said.

Tell me "Nomad," what was the "meaning and purpose" of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, which William Schryver claimed to reveal in August 2010?

Take a few days to think about it.

[wenglund]

ok, so if they are assigning paragraphs-worth of meaning to a single character in many instances, it doesn't seem like that makes for a very flexible cipher. that is, you're only going to be able to express those big chunks of meaning. you wouldn't be able to use the characters to, say, encipher a letter or a revelation unless it's identical to verses in the BofA. or am i misunderstanding you? how do you see it being operationalized?

That is correct...and perhaps why, in part, the project was abandoned months after its inception.

...as for calling it superfluous, i don't think the scribes thought it so. i just meant that if you're saying that the KEP manuscripts are non-essential to the translation process, then it's superfluous to the book of abraham itself. but maybe it wasn't the best choice of words.

I appreciate the clarification.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Xander]

Real quickly,

That is correct...and perhaps why, in part, the project was abandoned months after its inception.

I don't think the GAEL was "abandoned" any more than the Book of Abraham was abandoned. Obviously, more pressing matters took priority over both projects until 1842. But Joseph Smith wrote in his journal that year suggesting that he get back to work on the Egyptian Grammar. That seems like a strange statement if it was truly abandoned back in 1835.

[wenglund]

This is an important point. If any part of the KEP were intended as a cipher, that is about the most useless set of ciphers in the history of cryptography.

It is understandable that people would associate the word "encipher" with cryptography since cryptography is synonymous with ciphers. However, it, as well as the word "decipher", have a much broader application, and relate to most any translation device or lexicon. These words simply mark the two directions of translation/ciphering--the former (encipher) is used in the creation of a new document, whereas the later 9decipher) is used to translate an existing document. As one may tell from my clarifications to floatingboy, I was using the word "encipher" in this broader sense.

Now, back on topic.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 22, 2011 by wenglund

[wenglund]

Real quickly,

I don't think the GAEL was "abandoned" any more than the Book of Abraham was abandoned. Obviously, more pressing matters took priority over both projects until 1842. But Joseph Smith wrote in his journal that year suggesting that he get back to work on the Egyptian Grammar. That seems like a strange statement if it was truly abandoned back in 1835.

I appreciate you sharing your opinion. However, I have my own reasons to believe otherwise, though I don't wish to pursue this tangent further on this thread, but wish instead to get back on topic.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 22, 2011 by wenglund

[wenglund]

Hi Kevin,

Speaking of getting back on topic, I am posting this again from the first page in case you may have missed it:

Kevin,

You and I agree that the 1835 Abraham manuscripts represent a translation--i.e. there is a translational relationship between the Egyptian characters and the English text.

Where we disagree is whether that translation takes the form of deciphering or enciphering. I view the 1835 Abraham manuscripts as an extension of the EA/GAEL project, and given the many arguments I have presented against the EA;GAEL being intended and used to decipher the BoA from the papyri (see the other thread on the Joseph Smith Egyptian Papers), the same arguments, for the most part, apply to the 1835 Abr. Mss. And, since I don't' view them as a deciphering--meaning that I don't view the characters in the 1835 Abr. Mss. as the source from whence the BoA was translated/deciphered by the gift and power of God, then to me the BoA was translated from some other portion of the papyrus, and therefore the issue of missing papyri is relevant to my point of view.

That you may have a different opinion, is fine for you, but my reasoning isn't based on your opinion, but mine.

Even if one were to believe the 1835 Abr. Mss represent a deciphered translation, one may also conclude that Phelps, Williams, Parrish, and perhaps Joseph, were incorrect in assuming that the revelatory deciphering was derived from the characters represented in the Abr. Mss and the extant portion of the papyri, but rather from some other part of the papyri. This then would make relevant the missing portion of the scrolls.

In short, while you may reasonably view things in a way that would render irrelevant the issue of missing portions of the papyri, there are at least two other reasonable ways that people may view things where this issue is relevant. To each their own.

Does this compute with you?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Nomad]

But what Will doesn't share with you is the sample of the pure language, revealed to Joseph Smith three years earlier. The data in Phelp's letter is based on that revelation, not on something Phelps came up with on his own. This means Joseph Smith was the guy behind it all, not W.W. Phelps.

You're being deceptive here. The "sample of the pure language" doesn't have any characters with explanations. Phelps is the one that came up with that idea, and he made a table like the ones we see in the EAG, and put it in a letter to his wife. Joseph Smith didn't make up any characters and then put them in a table that looks like a cipher key. Phelps did. He did it weeks before the Egyptian stuff ever arrived in Kirtland.

No, that's not all he said. He said, and I quote:

...the Alphabet, Grammar, and Counting documents appear to have been intended to render the English text of the Prophet’s revelations into some kind of cipher that these men apparently believed to be typical of language as practiced by “the ancients.”

Exactly. It was a translation key that Phelps seemed to believe was "typical of language as practiced by 'the ancients'." It's just like he did in the table he put in the letter to his wife. Phelps is the one making up characters that he thinks correspond to "pure language". Just like he did with the EAG. Who knows what he was thinking? None of it makes much sense to me.

I've noticed that you like to make assertions and then pretend that the "evidence" you post supports those assertions. Except that it doesn't.

Tell me "Nomad," what was the "meaning and purpose" of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, which William Schryver claimed to reveal in August 2010?

Take a few days to think about it.

He says his primary theory about the KEP is that they are based on a pre-existing text of the Book of Abraham. The evidence he shows to prove that point is very strong. You can see exactly how the KEP are based on the text of the completed BoA. That explains a lot about their meaning and purpose, if you ask me. For one, it disproves the idea that the KEP were "translation manuscripts" of the BoA or that they were used to translate the papyrus to produce the BoA.

Also, the connection between the EAG and the pure language translation table that Phelps put in the letter to his wife shows that the whole project had a similar purpose to the table in the letter. It appears to be related to their ideas about how "pure language" worked. That a single character could somehow be used to represent entire sentences or even multiple sentences. I think it's ridiculous, and I think that's why they gave it up so quickly. It just didn't work.

Do not accuse others of deception if you want to stay in the thread.

[Cobalt-70]

...The book of abraham is a good book but I also can not see JS writing that book. He was not a good writer and in fact, it seems that he did not like to write at all, if his journal writing is a clue.

Smith was an inelegant writer, but a rather eloquent speaker. That's why he used scribes.

[Cobalt-70]

He says his primary theory about the KEP is that they are based on a pre-existing text of the Book of Abraham. The evidence he shows to prove that point is very strong. You can see exactly how the KEP are based on the text of the completed BoA. That explains a lot about their meaning and purpose, if you ask me. For one, it disproves the idea that the KEP were "translation manuscripts" of the BoA or that they were used to translate the papyrus to produce the BoA.

The only thing that Will shows is that there are correlations between the EA/GAEL and the Book of Abraham. What he does not show is that the dependency goes from the EA/GAEL to the Book of Abraham, rather than the other way around. That's where the hand-waving came in.

[Cobalt-70]

I can disagree with you on this point. For the book of mormon, the 11 witnesses are difficult to explain away. If it were ever proven to be false, the lds church would fall like a house of cards and JS would be a sociopathic liar.

I don't agree. If Smith were mistaken that he had the golden plates, then it's not much of a stretch to suggest that 11 others were under that same impression. Besides, he very well could have dug up some Indian artifact that he kept in the box and let people heft and perhaps look at under a cloth. It wasn't an actual ancient record of Nephite prophets, but maybe he thought it was. Even if the box were just full of sand, or even if Smith replicated a set of plates out of tin (which I think is the least likely possibility, because I don't think any of the witnesses--maybe not even Smith himself--saw the plates other than by their "spiritual eyes"), Smith would not be the first prophet to bolster his otherwise sincere belief in his mystical abilities with a little stage magic.

[Sky]

I don't agree. If Smith were mistaken that he had the golden plates, then it's not much of a stretch to suggest that 11 others were under that same impression. Besides, he very well could have dug up some Indian artifact that he kept in the box and let people heft and perhaps look at under a cloth. It wasn't an actual ancient record of Nephite prophets, but maybe he thought it was. Even if the box were just full of sand, or even if Smith replicated a set of plates out of tin (which I think is the least likely possibility, because I don't think any of the witnesses--maybe not even Smith himself--saw the plates other than by their "spiritual eyes"), Smith would not be the first prophet to bolster his otherwise sincere belief in his mystical abilities with a little stage magic.

I’ll stick with Joseph’s word, thank you.

(Joseph Smith – History: 51-52)

Convenient to the village of Manchester, Ontario county, New York, stands a hill of considerable size, and the most elevated of any in the neighborhood. On the west side of this hill, not far from the top, under a stone of considerable size, lay the plates, deposited in a stone box. This stone was thick and rounding in the middle on the upper side, and thinner towards the edges, so that the middle part of it was visible above the ground, but the edge all around was covered with earth.

Having removed the earth, I obtained a lever, which I got fixed under the edge of the stone, and with a little exertion raised it up. I looked in, and there indeed did I behold the plates, the Urim and Thummim, and the breastplate, as stated by the messenger. The box in which they lay was formed by laying stones together in some kind of cement. In the bottom of the box were laid two stones crossways of the box, and on these stones lay the plates and the other things with them.

[why me]

I don't agree. If Smith were mistaken that he had the golden plates, then it's not much of a stretch to suggest that 11 others were under that same impression. Besides, he very well could have dug up some Indian artifact that he kept in the box and let people heft and perhaps look at under a cloth. It wasn't an actual ancient record of Nephite prophets, but maybe he thought it was. Even if the box were just full of sand, or even if Smith replicated a set of plates out of tin (which I think is the least likely possibility, because I don't think any of the witnesses--maybe not even Smith himself--saw the plates other than by their "spiritual eyes"), Smith would not be the first prophet to bolster his otherwise sincere belief in his mystical abilities with a little stage magic.

I don't think that you understand the story of the 11 witnesses. 8 of the witnesses actually saw and felt the plates and turned the leaves over. John Whitmer is a case in point:

John Whitmer was born August 27, 1802. He was the third son of Peter and Mary Whitmer. John first met Joseph Smith in June 1829 when David Whitmer brought Joseph, Emma, and Oliver Cowdery to the Whitmer homestead in Fayette, New York to complete the translation of the Book of Mormon. He assisted Joseph and Oliver by compiling and transcribing Joseph’s revelations. It was at the end of that same month that John was chosen to be one of the Eight Witnesses. He also kept the first history of the church spanning 1831- 1838. In April 1831 he was called as the church’s first official historian. That same year he was ordained as a High Priest. He followed the church to Kirtland, Ohio, and assisted members who were being persecuted in Missouri. On February 10, 1833, he married Sarah Jackson, in Jackson County, Missouri. They would have 5 children.

John would act as an assistant president of the church in Missouri. The position would go to his head a bit, though. He began to purchase property for personal use in Missouri using church funds, and tried to run the church in Missouri independent of the High Council. This would eventually lead to his excommunication. John Whitmer was officially excommunicated from the Church by the High Council at Far West, Missouri, March 10, 1838. By this time he owned 100’s of acres of land in Caldwell County Missouri. After his ex-communication he left Far West and resided in Richmond, MO, until the Mormons were forced out of Missouri into Illinois. After the Saint’s expulsion in 1839 John moved back to Far West where he lived out the remainder of his days as a successful farmer and livestock rancher. John died July 11, 1878, never officially rejoining the church.

There are two notable times that John Whitmer defended his testimony of seeing the plates, after leaving the church. The first was on April 5, 1835, when he was accompanying 8 of a group of 50 men who had sworn to not eat or drink until they had murdered “Joe” Smith. In other words, he was with a bunch of guys slightly hostile to the church. The 8 of them approached Theodore Turley, an elder in the church. They handed Elder Turley a revelation of Joseph Smith’s that they were convinced would never happen. They taunted him claiming this was proof that Joseph was a false prophet and demanded that he denounce the church once the revelation had passed without fulfillment. Turley scoffed at them defending the revelation then turned to John Whitmer and said,

“There are many things published that they say are true, and again turn around and say they are false?" Whitmer, asked, "Do you hint at me?" Elder Turley said, "If the cap fits you, wear it; all I know is that you have published to the world that an angel did present those plates to Joseph Smith." John replied: "I now say, I handled those plates; there were fine engravings on both sides. I handled them." Then he described in the presence of these bitter enemies how the plates were fastened and he said, "They were shown to me by a supernatural power."

That was a pretty gutsy response considering he was associating with people who were out for violence against Joseph Smith and the Mormons. Incidentally, the revelation did happen when and where it was said to have. But that's a subject for a whole other webpage.

The 2nd account came from what was probably John Whitmer’s final interview before his death. It’s funny how all these witnesses who leave the church keep reaffirming their testimonies on their deathbed. What does that tell you? Anyway, this Q&A was published a few weeks after John’s death.

Q - I am aware that your name is affixed to the testimony in the Book of Mormon that you saw the plates?

A - It is so, and that testimony is true.

Q - Did you handle the plates with your hands?

A - I did so!

Q - Then they were a material substance?

A - Yes, as material as anything can be.

Q - Were they heavy to lift?

A - Yes, and as you know gold is a heavy metal: they were very heavy.

Q - How big were the leaves?

A - So far as I recollect, 8 by 6 or seven inches.

Q - Were the leaves thick?

A - Yes, just so thick, that characters could be engraven on both sides.

Q - How were the leaves joined together?

A - In three rings, each one in the shape of a D with the straight line towards the center.

Q - In what place did you see the plates?

A - In Joseph Smith’s house; he had them there.

Q - Did you see them covered with a cloth?

A - No. He handed them uncovered into our hands, and we turned the leaves sufficient to satisfy us.

http://www.moroni10....hn_Whitmer.html

Likewise for the people involved with the book of abraham. No one thought it a fraud as far as I can see who was involved in it.

Edited November 22, 2011 by why me

[Cobalt-70]

It is understandable that people would associate the word "encipher" with cryptography since cryptography is synonymous with ciphers. However, it, as well as the word "decipher", have a much broader application, and relate to most any translation device or lexicon. These words simply mark the two directions of translation/ciphering--the former (encipher) is used in the creation of a new document, whereas the later 9decipher) is used to translate an existing document. As one may tell from my clarifications to floatingboy, I was using the word "encipher" in this broader sense.

Whether this is a secret code, or just an encoding for translation from English to pseudo-Egyptian or Adamic, it would still have to be just about the useless code in the entire history of codes. What sort of "new document" could ever be created other than the supposed Egyptian or Adamic version of the Book of Abraham itself? And in that case, what is the point? They already thought they had it in Egyptian, directly from the scroll. Their efforts only make sense if the direction of translation is from Egyptian to English.

[Cobalt-70]

I’ll stick with Joseph’s word, thank you.

(Joseph Smith – History: 51-52)

Convenient to the village of Manchester, Ontario county, New York, stands a hill of considerable size, and the most elevated of any in the neighborhood. On the west side of this hill, not far from the top, under a stone of considerable size, lay the plates, deposited in a stone box. This stone was thick and rounding in the middle on the upper side, and thinner towards the edges, so that the middle part of it was visible above the ground, but the edge all around was covered with earth.

Having removed the earth, I obtained a lever, which I got fixed under the edge of the stone, and with a little exertion raised it up. I looked in, and there indeed did I behold the plates, the Urim and Thummim, and the breastplate, as stated by the messenger. The box in which they lay was formed by laying stones together in some kind of cement. In the bottom of the box were laid two stones crossways of the box, and on these stones lay the plates and the other things with them.

Yes, but with which eyes did he see, physical or "spiritual"? The biblical Paul, as smart as he was, was unable to tell the difference. (2 Cor. 12:2). Certainly his other Moroni visions--the ones in his crowded bedroom while his siblings were asleep, and the other one out in the open in his father's field--were in the "spirit." In the Wentworth letter, Smith essentially said that his First Vision was, too. So someone who happened to be in the grove while the vision was happening would presumably have just seen Smith lying face up on the ground with his eyes closed.

[Sky]

Yes, but with which eyes did he see, physical or "spiritual"? The biblical Paul, as smart as he was, was unable to tell the difference. (2 Cor. 12:2). Certainly his other Moroni visions--the ones in his crowded bedroom while his siblings were asleep, and the other one out in the open in his father's field--were in the "spirit." In the Wentworth letter, Smith essentially said that his First Vision was, too. So someone who happened to be in the grove while the vision was happening would presumably have just seen Smith lying face up on the ground with his eyes closed.

I choose to take Joseph at his word. He either saw the plates with his eyes or he didn't. I don't really buy into this whole "spiritual eyes" business. And based on his description in JS-History, the plates were something real and tangible.

[oremites]

Yes, but with which eyes did he see, physical or "spiritual"?

What difference does it make if he saw with physical or "spiritual" eyes?