Evidence That Bom Was Written By Js Or Some Other 19Th C Per

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

We still have the witnesses to the plates. Though several left the Church, never to return. NONE ever recanted their witness even when it would have been to their advantage to do so.

In the "Real" world there is no evidence that Socrates actually lived. All we "Really" have is the writings of his alleged pupils principlly Plato.

[Nevo]

The Book of Mormon recognizes and champions...a merits-based theology of obedience as a means for God’s grace.

That's what I like about you, Bob. You're a straight-shooter.

[Jaybear]

Jaybear:

We still have the witnesses to the plates. Though several left the Church, never to return. NONE ever recanted their witness even when it would have been to their advantage to do so.

That is a supposition, not a fact. Moreover the supposition is contrary to human nature. Again I am open minded. I am still waiting for some historical examples that show that people are naturally inclined to acknowledge being an active participant in a fraud, without having been caught.

In the "Real" world there is no evidence that Socrates actually lived. All we "Really" have is the writings of his alleged pupils principlly Plato.

Did Socrates purportedly come into existence by supernatural means, was not allowed to be seen by anyone who doubted his existence, and teleported off the planet? If not, then I don't see the relevance of your example.

[Mortal Man]

3- I still find it astonishing that, assuming all your dating claims are accurate, Paul would only quote this innocuous passage from the Gospel of Luke which he supposedly had read. Wouldn't he find something more significant and important in Luke to quote?

Luke: "pneuma sarka kai ostea ouk echei kathOs eme theOreite echonta" --> "a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have"

Paul: "sarx kai haima basileian theou klEronomEsai ou dunantai" --> "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God"

[Mortal Man]

The idea that Joseph Smith made fake plates is astonishingly bogus. The most clear reason is that if JS had gone through the effort and expense to make fake plates, why didn't he show them to lots and lots of people instead of just a few?

Why is there nothing in either statement about any portion of the plates being sealed? On first inspection, this would have been the most striking feature of the plates, yet neither the 3 nor 8 witnesses made any mention of it in their canonized statements. They describe less obvious features of the plates in detail but fail to note the most distinguishing characteristic. How did they manage to miss this obvious curiosity, despite handling and hefting "many of the leaves"?

Here's a hint.

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

No it is established fact that not one recanted their testimony of the plates actual existance..

Human nature is many things including sticking by your story even if it would personally profit you to recant. IIRC you are some type of mathematican. Would you change your beliefs about math if it would profit you personally?

Your supposition is that they know it is a fraud. Again not one of the witness recanted even when it would have profitted them personally.

We have no way of knowing if Socrates was a real person or not other than to believe principlly Plato. The manner of his alleged existance is irrelevent. Same as with the BoM witnesses. You can believe the plates existed or not what we do have is the witness of those people.

[Bob Crockett]

That is a supposition, not a fact. Moreover the supposition is contrary to human nature. Again I am open minded. I am still waiting for some historical examples that show that people are naturally inclined to acknowledge being an active participant in a fraud, without having been caught.

Bernie Madoff's son.

Various MMM participants acknowledged participation and were never caught.

Various Strangite followers acknowledge participation in Strange's excesses and were never caught.

Game theory teaches that complex and large conspiracies tend to break down because there is a natural incentive for the first to go to cheat the conspiracy. Lots of studies on OPEC's behavior in the 1970s.

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You wrote:

Why didn't Christ appear to the High Priest in the temple after his resurrection? Or to the emperor at Rome? Indeed, why doesn't he appear to everybody now and solve all the religious disputes.

Do I detect a double standard? Naw, not from Rob!

I am delighted to have the opportunity to address this argument.

First of all, Bill, my position is not that Joseph Smith, or that God, should have ended all disputes by performing miracles or doing something else that would silence all doubts or objections. My position is that everything about the gold plates, considered as a whole, raises serious, legitimate questions about Joseph’s claims. These questions are not born out of skepticism about God’s existence or power, disbelief in God’s ability to reveal himself or perform miracles, a desire to protect religious institutional power (I have none), lack of faith in Christ (I absolutely believe in, trust, and love Jesus Christ), or any other such motive. I am not daring God to overturn my unbelief. I reject the Book of Mormon’s claim to be scripture for reasons quite similar to my reasons for rejecting The Life of Issa, The Archko Volume, A Course in Miracles, or The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ.

Second, the eyewitness testimonies to the resurrection of Christ and the eyewitness testimonies to the existence of the gold plates are different in some very significant ways.

1. In the case of Christ’s resurrection, Christ appeared to at least one family member who had rejected him during his mortal ministry and to Saul of Tarsus when he was the archenemy of the Christian movement. The two disciples on the Emmaus road had heard about Jesus’ resurrection but were so hardened to the possibility that they were walking away from Jerusalem, where he had appeared, so Jesus came after them and surprised them. Peter had denied Jesus three times. Thomas missed the first appearance to the apostolic band and expressed skepticism about the Resurrection, insisting he would not believe unless he saw for himself. These facts negate the argument, which others have made, that the plates were only shown to select individuals because one had to be worthy in order to be allowed to see them. That criterion obviously did not apply in the case of the Resurrection. By contrast, no one saw the gold plates except people who had already agreed to support Joseph Smith. The contrast is dramatic.

2. According to Paul, Christ appeared to hundreds of people (1 Cor. 15:6), whereas only a dozen people or so claimed to have seen the gold plates (and only four claimed to see the angel). Even if one dismisses Paul’s statement as puffery (though I know of no good reason to do so), the texts inform us that a fairly large number of people saw the risen Jesus. These included the five or more women at the tomb; the two men on the road to Emmaus; the eleven apostles; James the Lord’s brother; Joseph Barsabas, Matthias, and others among the 120 that gathered after the Ascension; and later Saul (Paul). So even apart from 1 Corinthians 15:6 we can count at least two dozen men and women who saw the risen Jesus.

3. It isn’t just the larger number of people who saw the risen Christ that is significant but the lack of any mortal human’s involvement in deciding or orchestrating those appearances. Jesus appeared to various individuals of his choosing when and where and how he wished. Those appearances were never announced in advance; no one knew ahead of time when they would happen. No spiritual “preparation” was needed (recall what is said above about Thomas, the two on the Emmaus road, and Saul). The appearances took place just outside the tomb, in locked rooms, on open roads, by the lake shore, under varying conditions not subject to any mortal’s control. By contrast, the eleven witnesses were evidently shown the plates with advance notice and preparation, under closely controlled circumstances.

4. Then there is the contrast between the makeup of the collection of publicly identified witnesses to the Resurrection and the publicly identified witnesses to the gold plates.

a. The witnesses to the Resurrection included at least five women (with Mary Magdalene as the first such witness); the witnesses to the gold plates included no women.

b. The witnesses to the Resurrection identified as family members of Jesus actually consisted only of perhaps two such family members, James and Cleopas (if as some scholars think he was the man by that name elsewhere identified as a family member). An appearance to Jude may be implied, and it isn’t unreasonable to speculate that Jesus also appeared to other family members such as Mary. Still, the named individuals who functioned as public witnesses to the Resurrection included only one or two family members of Jesus. The rest of the named witnesses were drawn from a dozen or more families, with at most two individuals from any one family (such as Simon Peter and Andrew, or James and John the sons of Zebedee). By contrast, the witnesses to the gold plates were drawn almost entirely from two families, the Smith family and the Whitmer family. Hiram Page married into the Whitmer family, which means that all of the “eight witnesses” were from the Whitmer and Smith families. Oliver Cowdery was Joseph Smith’s second or third cousin. David Whitmer was one of the “three witnesses.” Thus, ten of the eleven witnesses were relatives of either Joseph Smith or David Whitmer!

5. The witnesses to the Resurrection gained credibility after their experience, becoming consistently reliable, faithful witnesses to Jesus Christ and honorable members of the Christian movement. Cowardly Peter, doubting Thomas, and persecuting Paul each became unwavering witnesses to Christ and remained so for the rest of their lives. Peter and Paul were both martyred for their faith, as were some of the other apostles (e.g., James the son of Zebedee in Acts 12). Not one of the known witnesses of the Resurrection ever undermined his or her testimony. Not one ever left the Christian church. Not one was ever excommunicated or excluded from the church. Not one ever tarnished his or her witness by engaging in wicked behavior. Not one ever diluted his or her witness by also bearing witness to other religious claims in conflict with the Mormon faith.

You probably know that the witnesses to the gold plates, far from gaining in credibility following their signing the testimonies, lost credibility over the years. Martin Harris diluted his witness by also bearing witness later to the Shakers and the Strangites. Hiram Page had his own seer stone and claimed to receive revelations that Joseph condemned as from the devil! Several of the witnesses were excommunicated (some eventually returned, others did not). Several of the witnesses over the years gave conflicting testimony as to whether they actually saw the plates with their natural eyes or physically handled the plates. Joseph claimed that God had commanded him to take over thirty women, some of them already married to living men, as his wives. David Whitmer maintained, not without cause, that Joseph was a fallen prophet. Joseph and Hyrum were killed not for their testimony to the Book of Mormon but because of violent mob reaction to their polygamy and other illegal activities.

Mormons routinely argue that the checkered history of the witnesses all the more underscores the fact that they never disavowed their testimony that Joseph did have the plates. There is some question about this claim with regard to Cowdery and Harris, but letting that pass, one may accept that Joseph had something like metal plates without concluding that the whole story is true and Joseph really did translate gold plates with Egyptian characters by the gift and power of God. The lack of credibility of the witnesses is a real evidential difficulty that cannot be turned into an apologetic asset.

6. Whereas the resurrection of Jesus and his appearances were obviously miraculous, supernatural occurrences, there is nothing supernatural or miraculous about a set of metal plates with engravings on them. Showing skeptics the metal plates should not have been any more problematic than showing skeptics the Great Isaiah Scroll today is. Joseph had no hesitation or reluctance to show people the Egyptian papyri on which he claimed were the writings of Abraham and Joseph, even to complete strangers. Yet someone could be in a room with Joseph, with the plates supposedly sitting right there on the table under wraps, and Joseph would not allow them to look at the plates. If we’re going to compare the Resurrection appearances with the gold plates, it’s a bit like Peter telling Thomas, “Jesus is right behind that wall over there—Hi, Lord!—but I’m sorry Tom, you’re not allowed to see him now.”

Bill, in another post, you wrote:

The idea that Joseph Smith made fake plates is astonishingly bogus. The most clear reason is that if JS had gone through the effort and expense to make fake plates, why didn’t he show them to lots and lots of people instead of just a few?

It isn’t clear how many people actually saw the plates or closely inspected them. The three witnesses say they saw the plates but give no details, and evidently did not even touch them. The testimony of the eight witnesses appears to have been written out for them to sign; it claims they handled the plates and saw the engravings, but there are reasons to find this claim dubious. The simplest explanation for Joseph’s behavior is that he had something, perhaps metal plates of some kind, but not gold plates with modified Egyptian characters. I don’t think we have enough information to determine if Joseph found the plates somewhere or if he made them, or what. But the best explanation for why he didn’t show the plates openly was that they weren’t what he claimed they were. That explains why the only people who testified to seeing the plates were a small group—people in his family and a few others, people who were either invested in the project in some way or were easy to manipulate or convince or both—such as Martin Harris.

[Buzzard]

That is a supposition, not a fact. Moreover the supposition is contrary to human nature. Again I am open minded. I am still waiting for some historical examples that show that people are naturally inclined to acknowledge being an active participant in a fraud, without having been caught.

You seem obsessed in this demand. So I will try to give you an example from my own professional career. For several years, I managed people who arrested shoplifters for a major retailer. About 3-5 times a year, someone would come into the store and either return an item they had stolen or bring in payment for said item, because the guilt they were feeling overcame their fear of consequences. Several expressed surprise that they were not arrested, which is important to my point, because an arrest is a public record that stays with you. So, while evading responsibility for bad choices is human nature, I have seen the pangs of regret and desire for absolution override it firsthand. Somehow I suppose this will not assuage your desire for a worthy example, but one can only do what one can do.

[why me]

No, if it was logical, then we wouldn't have to have people pray about the issue. You need to have faith in the book and it's origins. Angels just don't give gold books away every day and I don't know too many people who would call it logical, let alone honest. JS was an amazing person. You can't put forward that JS was an amazing person from ages 25-39 but before then he was just an ignorant farmboy. He was amazing all the years of his life, and there are some theories of natural origins. It is up to others to see if those are more logical than angels appearing and giving gold books. Angels may have done exactly that, but it isn't logical. It is completely out of the realm of human experience.

The fact that people have to pray about the issue makes the truth claim all the more believeable. What crazy author would have people pray over a book that they know is a fraud? Also, it seems that critics have JS to be a true believer in god. Why would he mock the god he believes in? JS was not at all remarkable. No one found him remarkable. In fact, critics have him money digging, cheating people and a rogue in his young years. And certainly no one has him being overtly intelligent. And so who was JS to the critics? It seems that criitcs make him out to be whatever they want him to be to fit their own agenda.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 24 February 2012 - 09:21 AM, said:

I suppose if one were myopic enough the statement would be true. But, lets think about how society would have welcomed him back as a reformed individual, how much he could have profited monetarily from speaking fees as he railed against the insidious falsity of the Book of Mormon. He would have been celebrated as someone who "saw the light" and came forth to battle against these horrible people.

Of course we might be asked to believe that none of this occurred to him, or was even offerred to him when he left. But, given the anger towards Mormons by others, that is almost more incredible than a book of gold plates found in North America.

Jeff, the world that your are describing is a "myopic" fantasy.

In the real world, people don't ordinarily publicly confess to having lied and committed fraud, unless and until they have been caught. At that point, they will express regret, remorse and seek forgiveness, and then seek to gain profit.

Since you seem to believe just the opposite, please provide some examples to think about. I am willing to revisit my assumption of human nature.

The fantasy lies in the belief that motivation does not exist. In the real world people often do confess and often do seek to do damage by confession against organizations they feel have wronged them, it happens all the time in the military and other internationally. It is one of the skills used to turn people against their country in intelligence work.

In the public I have seen people openly reveal all kinds of secrets, ex Scientologists are a fine example of such. As do former members of the church sometimes

It seems the fantasy resides within your own view and somewhat strained attempt to overlook an inconvenient fact.

[why me]

I don't think that Cowdery could have convinced people that when he claimed to have been visited and baptized by resurrected beings, by an angel, handled the plates, or when he claimed God spoke to him he was duped by Smith.

Sorry, but that is simply not a credible explanation.

Those events either happened, or Cowdery knowingly and willingly lied about them. The mere fact that he did not later publicly confess to having lied, is not proof that he was telling the truth, as you seem to believe.

I think that we need to look at this more deeply. Oliver left over a disagreement with Joseph Smith. He returned after JS was murdered. I see no psychopathic behaviour in Cowdery and he would need to be a pyschopath to reaffirm his testimony before wife and child and friends. And then go meet his maker. He would be the scum of the earth if he lied. And I see no evidence that Oliver was the scum of the earth.

[Rob Bowman]

inquiringmind,

You wrote:

What about metal plates?

We now know that ancient peoples did sometimes write on metal plates (not just on Papyrus, Vellum, and clay tablets). is there any evidence that Joseph Smith could have known this in 1820?

Allow me to quote:

"According to various accounts, some of the North American mounds also contained metal plates. Plates constructed by the Indians were usually made of hammered copper or silver and were sometimes etched. Plates made of other metals were most likely of European manufacture. In 1775 Indian trader James Adair described two brass plates and five copper plates found with the Tuccabatches Indians of North America. According to Adair, an Indian informant said 'he was told by his forefathers that those plates were given to them by the man we call God; that there had been many more of other shapes,... some had writing upon them which were buried with particular men.' The Reverend Thaddeus Mason Harris stated in 1805 that 'plates of copper have been found in some of the mounds, but they appear to be parts of armour.' Orsamus Turner reported that in 1809 a New York farmer ploughed up an 'Ancient Record, or Tablet.' This plate, according to Turner, was made of copper and 'had engraved upon one side of it … what would appear to have been some record, or as we may well imagine some brief code of laws.' The Philadelphia Port Folio reported in 1816 that 'thin plates of copper rolled up' were discovered in one mound. In 1823 John Haywood described 'human bones of large size' and 'two or three plates of brass, with characters inscribed resembling letters' found in one West Virginia mound. In 1883 John Rogan of the Smithsonian Institution's Bureau of Ethnology excavated a mound near Peoria, Illinois, and discovered ten stone boxes, several containing a single skeleton and 'a thin copper plate ornamented with stamped figures.'" Dan Vogel, Indian Origins and the Book of Mormon, 18.

So it seems that the idea of old metal plates containing writing was an idea floating around in Joseph Smith's culture.

[Jaybear]

Bernie Madoff's son.

The Maddoff son that claims that he did not know about the fraud?

Bernard Madoff’s wife and surviving son say in a new book that they didn’t know of his $65 billion Ponzi scheme, the largest in history, until the day in December 2008 when he confessed his crimes to them. LInk

Various MMM participants acknowledged participation and were never caught.

CFR. When and how, what circumstance and how many? Were they the exception, or the rule?

Various Strangite followers acknowledge participation in Strange's excesses and were never caught.

CFR. Which of the Strangite's who denied having seen the plates? None?

Game theory teaches that complex and large conspiracies tend to break down because there is a natural incentive for the first to go to cheat the conspiracy.

How large, how complex. And what do you mean by break down? Break down, as in Whitmer starting a new church and telling people that Smith was a fallen prophet.

Lots of studies on OPEC's behavior in the 1970s.

Not germane.

Nonetheless, I applaud your effort.

[why me]

inquiringmind,

So it seems that the idea of old metal plates containing writing was an idea floating around in Joseph Smith's culture.

I am sure that many things were floating around during the time of JS. The question is just how much he knew. It seems that all the critics have him well read and intune with much knowedge. However, I dont find any evidence of this. I just see him as a money digger who read the bible and who was interested in religion as were many people in his town. And as someone who needed to make money to support his family. But I dont see him in the library doing research.

[thesometimesaint]

Rob:

All we have for the Bible is a collection of stories written long after the events alledgedly happened. You can believe the stories or not, I personally believe them. But the fact remains that we have no original source material for anything in the Bible.

Just as we have no original source material for Socrates, or Homer, or nearly every other ancient book including the BoM. You are free to believe that Socrates existed, and I personally do, but that doesn't establish as fact that he did.

The fact remains that several individuals did leave JS and the church he help establish never to return. Not one recanted the testimony of the plates existance. Does their testimony suddenly become of no valuable compared with the testimony of the Resurrection. Which BTW JS does testify of.

All we have is the testimony of the witness to the Resurrection. All we have is the testimony of the witness to the plates. BTW JS also testifies to the Resurrected Jesus the Christ.

Not true. http://www.moroni10.com/witnesses/Mary_Whitmer.html

More later.

[altersteve]

CFR. Which of the Strangite's who denied having seen the plates? None?

Samuel Graham, one of Strang's witnesses, admitted to helping him forge the plates from which the Book of the Law of the Lord was translated.

[thesometimesaint]

why me:

IF he was a money digger it didn't make him very much money. The law of the time was that the employer got to keep any finds, not the digger.

[Tepui]

Why is there nothing in either statement about any portion of the plates being sealed? On first inspection, this would have been the most striking feature of the plates, yet neither the 3 nor 8 witnesses made any mention of it in their canonized statements. They describe less obvious features of the plates in detail but fail to note the most distinguishing characteristic. How did they manage to miss this obvious curiosity, despite handling and hefting "many of the leaves"?

Here's a hint.

Let's see some of the less obvious features noted by the three witnesses:

• The plates were shown by the Power of God and not of man
  
• An angel of God came down from heaven
  
• This angel brought and laid the plates before their eyes
  
• They saw the engravings
  
• They knew the plates had been translated by the Gift and power of God, because the voice of God declared it unto them
  
• It was marvelous in their eyes
  
• The voice of God commanded them to bear record of what they had seen
  

Yes, the three didn't mention the plates were sealed. The three didn't mention the plates had the appearance of gold.

But they mentioned the boring less obvious features above.

It was the eight witnesses who mentioned a more "secular" experience.

[Rob Bowman]

why me,

You wrote:

I am sure that many things were floating around during the time of JS. The question is just how much he knew. It seems that all the critics have him well read and intune with much knowedge. However, I dont find any evidence of this. I just see him as a money digger who read the bible and who was interested in religion as were many people in his town. And as someone who needed to make money to support his family. But I dont see him in the library doing research.

I don't see him in the library doing research, either, at least not for most of what we find in the Book of Mormon. But look, Joseph was a money digger in a part of the country where people were buzzing about Indian finds, buried treasure, etc., and the various discoveries of metal plates found buried in the ground were part of that buzz. A money digger would surely know about those stories.

[Bob Crockett]

Not germane.

Nonetheless, I applaud your effort.

I provide CFR responses to people with real names.

[cdowis]

You believe the plates were real and genuine, independent of the witness statement. The statements serve to confirm your preexisting belief. I get it.

I don't believe that the plates were real because they were purportedly delivered to Smith by an angel, kept hidden from the world, translated by use of a seer stone, and then taken back to heaven. Common sense tells me that screams of fraud. Produce the plates for examination, and I will gladly reconsider.

What people here don't seem to understand is that the witness statement are only necessary because the plates could not or would not be produced publicly for inspection. They are a very poor substitute for the absence of the plates.

Jaybear,

Impossible!

But I find your post sensible and I have no problem with it. May I point out that the evidence/proof of the existence of the plates is irrevelant. A discussion of the witness statements, etc, is not revelant to my faith.

It only relates to an apologetic discussion. It is "important" to me, only because the antis make a big deal about it. For me it's merely a talking point, with no real significance.

[why me]

why me,

You wrote:

I don't see him in the library doing research, either, at least not for most of what we find in the Book of Mormon. But look, Joseph was a money digger in a part of the country where people were buzzing about Indian finds, buried treasure, etc., and the various discoveries of metal plates found buried in the ground were part of that buzz. A money digger would surely know about those stories.

And how old was Joseph at that time? The point is quite simple really. He had no time to write a book nor would there be a clear goal to do so. To assume that he would be slaving away somewhere writing a book to dupe people is quite a stretch. I see no clear goal in writing a book, establishing a faith and being persecuted by mobs.

[why me]

why me:

IF he was a money digger it didn't make him very much money. The law of the time was that the employer got to keep any finds, not the digger.

I think that he was in it to support his family. And he was quite young. It just shows him to be hardworking when one also considers the work on the farm.

[Mortal Man]

Yes, the three didn't mention the plates were sealed.

They later gave contradictory accounts. Sometime before 19 March 1831, David Whitmer reported that "the back part remained stationary and immovable and in this manner remained to him and the other witnesses a sealed book". However, Martin Harris disputed reports that any of the plates were sealed; he claimed that "the leaves or pages of the book are not cut, and a part of them sealed, but that it opens like any other book, from the edge to the back, the rings operating in the place of common binding. " In 1835, Oliver Cowdery said the plates were "sealed by the prayer of faith". Emma didn't seem to notice any sealed portion when she thumbed the edges of the leaves and heard their "metallic sound". Second Nephi 27 and JST-Isaiah 29 speak of a metaphorical sealing in the same sense that the records of John were "sealed up to come forth in their purity". Joseph Smith never claimed that the plates were physically sealed nor described the sealing in any way.

So we are left with the unpleasant fact that no two witnesses agree on the nature of the sealing.

This mirrors the situation with the Gospels, where no two authors agree on the story of the empty tomb (who was there, what was said etc.)

There is a very good explanation for the sealed plates, which accounts for the differing descriptions.

And there is a similar explanation for the empty tomb, which accounts for the contradictions.

Edited February 25, 2012 by Mortal Man