Witness For The Plates Vs. Witnesses For Resurrection

[Rob Bowman]

Charles,

You wrote:

After the resurrection, Christ appeared to the disciples, ate fish and honey.

Not that it matters, but I'm curious where you are getting the honey.

You wrote:

They felt the wounds on his hands Not a spiritual experience but natural ones..

These are physical events. Now He could have come to Pilot's house and shown himself, and perhaps had dinner with him after the resurrection, Indeed He could have done a great deed by appearing to Caesar and the entire senate. There is good reason to do this simple physical act.

There is obvious differences between Jesus' physical body and the gold plates: Jesus is a person whose redemptive purpose required that he ascend to heaven to rule at the Father's right hand, whereas the gold plates are not a person but are mere inanimate objects, the purpose of which supposedly was to preserve a written record for the benefit of future generations living on the earth. If we're going to compare the gold plates to anything, we should compare them to the biblical manuscripts that were also found in the nineteenth century, not to the resurrection body of the Lord Jesus Christ!

Also, my argument is not merely that the gold plates should be available for everyone to see. That is one piece of the puzzle. There is also the fact that they were supposedly present in the room with various supporters of Joseph on many occasions and yet he would not let anyone see the plates for nearly two years. There is the fact that when people were finally allowed to see the plates this happened under Joseph's control: he arranged for them to see the plates and guided the whole process. And all of the other points I made in earlier posts here, with the contrasting facts about the resurrection appearances. You cannot refute my argument without looking at how these various pieces come together in context.

You wrote:

Your basic argument is "I know how God thinks and what he would do., and if it contradicts my understanding how God works, it is not from God. Using this unassailable logic, I will cleverly prove JS a false prophet."

You likely suppose that this criticism would or at least should shame me into sheepishly admitting that I am not in a position to know how God thinks or what he would do. Actually, though, I do know something about how God thinks and what he would do, because I have his revelation in the Bible. So I can compare what God supposedly did with Joseph Smith to what I already know God did in the Bible. When I do this, I come up with a lot of reasons to be skeptical of Joseph Smith's claims.

[Rob Bowman]

mathonihah,

You wrote:

Not quite. He said they were revealed to him. He didn't just stumble upon them by chance.

I did not suggest he stumbled on them by chance. I was speaking about the physicality and natural properties of the plates, not about how Joseph came to know where they were.

You wrote:

Except that the Lord in his wisdom has decided to do it that way. He has even told us why:

I don't wish to offend you, but your argument at this point assumes what is in question, namely, whether Joseph Smith really was a prophet of God.

You wrote:

Except that when the debate reaches the foundational level of testimony, there is nothing more left to argue about.... Good luck, except that you can't argue against a testimony.

Of course I can. Testimonies can be challenged based on questions of internal consistency as well as coherence with known facts. I think what you mean is that I can't argue against an experience. That is, I cannot prove that you didn't have the experience you claim to have had, since I cannot get inside your head. True enough. However, I can question your interpretation of your experience. You may sincerely believe that you had an experience in which you felt the Holy Ghost confirmed to you that the Book of Mormon is true, but that still leaves the question of whether what you experienced was really the Holy Ghost. If good reasons can be shown for thinking that the Book of Mormon is not true, this calls into question whether what you experienced was really a divine revelation or confirmation of the Book of Mormon.

After all, many people have had spiritual experiences that confirmed to them that the Book of Mormon is not the word of God. That is their "testimony." You cannot deny that they had such experiences, but you can challenge their interpretation of those experiences. Likewise, I don't doubt you had some sort of experience, but I do doubt that it was the Holy Spirit revealing to you that the Book of Mormon is God's word.

[canard78]

You are not getting it. In the case of the Book of Mormon, providing incontrovertible, independently verifiable information about geographical locations in association with it is tantamount to proving the authenticity of the Book of Mormon as a fact.

Hi, thanks for your reply. I guess that would cause me to wonder why you feel the Old and New Testament is not accepted as fact by the world?

Would you apply the same logic to the Book of Abraham? Witnesses saw the original papyri (like the Gold Plates). It was translated by the power of God (like the Book of Mormon). The BoA contains visions, revelations and new theology (like the BoM). The BoA is not accepted as a factually proven historical (like the BoM). The BoA is a book we need a leap of faith to believe and yet I could map Abraham's journey and locations he references. If the American continent BoM cities were mappable, it would still be no different to the BoA in that most would not take it as fact. But it might peak a bit more interest. Given it's 'the most correct' book and the 'key stone' of God's one true church, why would that be a bad thing?

Out of interest, does that mean you reject and ignore any of the FARMs and LDS published research/speculation into geographic settings for the American BoM events? Do you believe we should actively stop looking for a geographic location. If we found a viable Zarahemla would that be a bad thing in your mind?

[mathonihah]

There is obvious differences between Jesus' physical body and the gold plates: Jesus is a person whose redemptive purpose required that he ascend to heaven to rule at the Father's right hand, whereas the gold plates are not a person but are mere inanimate objects, the purpose of which supposedly was to preserve a written record for the benefit of future generations living on the earth. If we're going to compare the gold plates to anything, we should compare them to the biblical manuscripts that were also found in the nineteenth century, not to the resurrection body of the Lord Jesus Christ!

Both are evidences. Showing his body and showing the plates are both evidences of miraculous events. The nature of the evidences are the same, although the substances are different. The logic of the argument is that showing the plates to unbelievers in the days of Joseph Smith were inappropriate for the same reasons that showing his body to the unbelievers was after his resurrection.

Also, my argument is not merely that the gold plates should be available for everyone to see. That is one piece of the puzzle. There is also the fact that they were supposedly present in the room with various supporters of Joseph on many occasions and yet he would not let anyone see the plates for nearly two years.

By the commandment of the Lord. He was sternly instructed by the Lord not to.

There is the fact that when people were finally allowed to see the plates this happened under Joseph's control: he arranged for them to see the plates and guided the whole process. And all of the other points I made in earlier posts here, with the contrasting facts about the resurrection appearances. You cannot refute my argument without looking at how these various pieces come together in context.

The primary witnesses were the three witnesses, who were shown the plates by angelic ministration, and spoken to by the voice of God from heaven. Quibbling again.

You likely suppose that this criticism would or at least should shame me into sheepishly admitting that I am not in a position to know how God thinks or what he would do. Actually, though, I do know something about how God thinks and what he would do, because I have his revelation in the Bible. So I can compare what God supposedly did with Joseph Smith to what I already know God did in the Bible. When I do this, I come up with a lot of reasons to be skeptical of Joseph Smith's claims.

And when I make the same comparison, I come to a different conclusion.

Edited December 13, 2012 by mathonihah

[mathonihah]

I did not suggest he stumbled on them by chance. I was speaking about the physicality and natural properties of the plates, not about how Joseph came to know where they were.

That observation was important because the fact that he didn't just find the plates, but they were revealed to him by the Lord, means that he wasn't free to do what he liked with them either. He was restricted by what the Lord wanted him to do with them.

I don't wish to offend you, but your argument at this point assumes what is in question, namely, whether Joseph Smith really was a prophet of God.

No, that was not the question. The question was:

There's no good reason for these physical artifacts not to be available for public viewing, just as the many biblical manuscripts and other biblical artifacts can be seen with natural eyes.

The answer is that there is a good reason, as shown in my previous post.

Of course I can. Testimonies can be challenged based on questions of internal consistency as well as coherence with known facts. I think what you mean is that I can't argue against an experience. That is, I cannot prove that you didn't have the experience you claim to have had, since I cannot get inside your head. True enough. However, I can question your interpretation of your experience. You may sincerely believe that you had an experience in which you felt the Holy Ghost confirmed to you that the Book of Mormon is true, but that still leaves the question of whether what you experienced was really the Holy Ghost. If good reasons can be shown for thinking that the Book of Mormon is not true, this calls into question whether what you experienced was really a divine revelation or confirmation of the Book of Mormon.

You can challenge my testimony of the Book of Mormon, but you cannot prevail against it.

[Rob Bowman]

mathonihah,

You wrote:

Both are evidences. Showing his body and showing the plates are both evidences of miraculous events. The nature of the evidences are the same, although the substances are different. The logic of the argument is that showing the places {you mean plates} to unbelievers in the days of Joseph Smith were inappropriate for the same reasons that showing his body to the unbelievers was after his resurrection.

Jesus appeared to his brothers, who didn't yet believe in him, and to Saul of Tarsus (Paul), who not only didn't believe in him but actually persecuted his followers. So there goes "the logic of the argument."

The gold plates, if they existed, were not evidences of miraculous events, any more than the Codex Sinaiticus is evidence of miraculous events. They were manufactured by men, engraved by men, and buried by a man. There would be nothing miraculous about them. On the other hand, Jesus' body had died, and it had been buried in a tomb. Seeing and touching his now living body after it had been dead and buried would bring someone into direct contact with something that could only be regarded as the result of a miracle.

Here's something else that bothers me about the gold plates. Why did Joseph even need to see them? He didn't look at them or use them when he dictated his translation. According to the usual LDS theory, Moroni carried the gold plates about three thousand miles (from Mesoamerica to New York State) so he could bury them near what would be Joseph Smith's boyhood home fourteen centuries later. Why bother, if Joseph wasn't going to use the plates to produce the translation and the plates were not to be kept available for people to see the original on which the translation was based?

[Calm]

It would prove that the book is historically true. It would prove that Joseph Smith who translated it was therefore a Prophet, and was telling the truth. It would prove that it was translated by the gift and power of God, as he claimed it was. It would prove that there is such a thing as the angel Moroni—and therefore other angels. It would prove that there is a God, who is behind it all. And the ripple continues as far as you want to take it.

Only if one assumes JS gets the spiritual details with the same accuracy as the geographic or historical details...which assuming errancy, and not inerrancy, would be problematic especially since abstract ideas are harder to convey than concrete ones. Also there would be the possibility that it was not an angel as we think of them, but some sort of being with the historical knowledge...perhaps a long lived alien (don't laugh, I know of an individual who believes something along these lines, that it was not an angel of God but some sort of being that showed the equivalent of advanced videotaping...I heard this theory over a decade ago....to Joseph Smith for his visions and alleged revelations of scripture).

[mfbukowski]

It would prove that the book is historically true. It would prove that Joseph Smith who translated it was therefore a Prophet, and was telling the truth. It would prove that it was translated by the gift and power of God, as he claimed it was. It would prove that there is such a thing as the angel Moroni—and therefore other angels. It would prove that there is a God, who is behind it all. And the ripple continues as far as you want to take it.

The only problem is that this would nullify the plan of salvation. We are here to walk by faith.

Just a small fly in the ointment. I have always felt that there was a reason that the possibility of doubt was an essential part of the plan.

[Nathair/|\]

I guess what really matters is if the principles in the Book of Mormon work for their intended purpose.

[mathonihah]

Jesus appeared to his brothers, who didn't yet believe in him, ...

I was not aware that he did. He appeared to his disciples, whom he called his "brethren," but I was not aware that he appeared to his (unbelieving) brothers. References required.

... and to Saul of Tarsus (Paul), who not only didn't believe in him but actually persecuted his followers. So there goes "the logic of the argument."

Saul was a special case. He was "a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:" (Acts 9:15.) He was foreordained to that particular calling. He was not the typical unbeliever like Pilate or the Sanhedrin at that time.

The gold plates, if they existed, were not evidences of miraculous events, any more than the Codex Sinaiticus is evidence of miraculous events.

Not true. Inasmuch as the plates were revealed to him by God, and translated miraculously by the gift and power of God, they were evidences of miraculous events, just as the resurrected body of Jesus had been.

They were manufactured by men, engraved by men, and buried by a man. There would be nothing miraculous about them....

Wrong. All of that was done by the specific commandment of God, sealed by the command and power of God, to come forth in due time by the commandment of God, the interpretation thereof by the gift and power of God.

Here's something else that bothers me about the gold plates. Why did Joseph even need to see them? He didn't look at them or use them when he dictated his translation.

These are silly questions. You are bringing excuses for not believing. The matter was in the Lord's hands. We don't know all the details of what was done, nor are we privy to the mind of the Lord to know all his thinking behind what was done and the way it was done. We know that the plates were required for witnesses. We know that Joseph copied characters from the plates to show to the "learned" by the commandment of The Lord, and in fulfilment of prophecy. You are quibbling about too many unknowns.

According to the usual LDS theory, Moroni carried the gold plates about three thousand miles (from Mesoamerica to New York State) so he could bury them near what would be Joseph Smith's boyhood home fourteen centuries later. Why bother, if Joseph wasn't going to use the plates to produce the translation and the plates were not to be kept available for people to see the original on which the translation was based?

See above. You are speculating about too many unknowns. We don't know enough about the geography of the Book of Mormon to be able to make such definitive assomptions about it.

[canard78]

The only problem is that this would nullify the plan of salvation. We are here to walk by faith.

Just a small fly in the ointment. I have always felt that there was a reason that the possibility of doubt was an essential part of the plan.

I think mathonihah will agree with you. He was in the process of telling me why we couldn't have a geographic location for the BoM. If I understand correctly, he feels witnesses peak interests but a geographic Zarahemla would prove Joseph is a prophet and take out the need for faith. I asked whether he therefore opposes the work of Sorensen and people at FARMs/NAMI who are actively seeking for a viable location.

The idea that the Book of Mormon having a findable landing beach for Nephi or Zarahemla walls destroying faith bemuses me. If Joseph did that he would be following the pattern of prophets before who gained interest & attention by being amazingly accurate and yet still did not get universal followings. Nephi (in Helaman) told of the dead chief judge (and where he was dead), then of the person who killed him and then even where the blood would be and what the person would say. Some believed as a result... Lots didn't. Even though he was a proven prophet. There's no track record of prophets proving themselves and getting universal acceptance. BoA can followed on a map, but most people dismiss that book before any other.

I guess my point (if there is one) is that the Book of Mormon will always need a witness of spirit, even if it is proven to be historically accurate.

A man can be told to stop smoking, with scientific evidence of his impending death, but still smoke his way into the grave. Laman and Lemuel saw an angel but still rejected the Lord. Proof makes little difference spiritual motivation.

Edited December 13, 2012 by canard78

[rodheadlee]

But at least it comes with a map

it's on the map, El Salvador. The Savior.

[mathonihah]

Only if one assumes JS gets the spiritual details with the same accuracy as the geographic or historical details...which assuming errancy, and not inerrancy, would be problematic especially since abstract ideas are harder to convey than concrete ones. Also there would be the possibility that it was not an angel as we think of them, but some sort of being with the historical knowledge...perhaps a long lived alien (don't laugh, I know of an individual who believes something along these lines, that it was not an angel of God but some sort of being that showed the equivalent of advanced videotaping...I heard this theory over a decade ago....to Joseph Smith for his visions and alleged revelations of scripture).

I have difficulty connecting your reply to my post. If God had provided incontrovertible, independently verifiable historical and geographical evidence for the Book of Mormon, I don't see how the scenario you describe should be likely option. It may be a possible option, but not the most reasonable one.

If somebody was determined not to believe, they could think of any excuse not to, including attributing all of it to the devil impersonating God. They also accused Jesus of casting out devils by Beelzebub, the prince of devils. If people are determined not to believe, they can think of any excuse not to. But that was not my point. Just as the divine source of Jesus' power in casting out devils was so evident that those who accused him of doing it by the power of the devil were in danger of committing the unpardonable sin, it would be possible for God to provide enough external evidence to verify the BoM so that those who tried to find ways of denying it would be committing the unpardonable sin. Providing incontrovertible and independently verifiable historical and geographical evidence for the Book of Mormon comes close to doing that. The fact that unbelieving souls could always find ways to deny it is beside the point.

[canard78]

I have difficulty connecting your reply to my post. If God had provided incontrovertible, independently verifiable historical and geographical evidence for the Book of Mormon, I don't see how the scenario you describe should be likely option. It may be a possible option, but not the most reasonable one.

If somebody was determined not to believe, they could think of any excuse not to, including attributing all of it to the devil impersonating God. They also accused Jesus of casting out devils by Beelzebub, the prince of devils. If people are determined not to believe, they can think of any excuse not to. But that was not my point. Just as the divine source of Jesus' power in casting out devils was so evident that those who accused him of doing it by the power of the devil were in danger of committing the unpardonable sin, it would be possible for God to provide enough external evidence to verify the BoM so that those who tried to find ways of denying it would be committing the unpardonable sin. Providing incontrovertible and independently verifiable historical and geographical evidence for the Book of Mormon comes close to doing that. The fact that unbelieving souls could always find ways to deny it is beside the point.

And yet the BoA, with all it's geographically locatable places is not going to make people commit the unpardonable sin? Why the contradiction about which books of scripture should qualify as a being able to consign someone to outer darkness?

Besides, I thought a denial of the Holy Ghost was the qualifier for the unpardonable sin? Not denial of historical accuracy. Where do you get the idea that denying geographic accuracy would lead to being dumped into outer darkness?

[Rob Bowman]

mathonihah,

I had stated that Jesus appeared to his brothers, who had not believed in him previously. You replied:

I was not aware that he did. He appeared to his disciples, whom he called his "brethren," but I was not aware that he appeared to his (unbelieving) brothers. References required.

We are told explicitly that Jesus appeared to James (1 Cor. 15:7). Although we are not told explicitly about appearances to any of the other brothers, an appearance that included Jude, the author of the epistle bearing his name, is a reasonable inference from the fact that he also became an apostle (cf. Jude 1). That James and his brothers did not believe in Jesus during his mortal lifetime is evident from several statements in the Gospels (Matt. 12:46-49; Mark 3:21, 31-34; Luke 8:19-21; John 7:3-5). Note especially John 7:5, "For not even his brothers believed in him."

Regarding the appearance of the risen Christ to Saul of Tarsus, you wrote:

Saul was a special case. He was "a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:" (Acts 9:15.) He was foreordained to that particular calling. He was not the typical unbeliever like Pilate or the Sanhedrin at that time.

You're right; he was worse than the typical unbeliever, as he himself said (1 Tim. 1:15). But "a special case" is just a fancy way of saying "an exception." The fact remains that Jesus did not appear only to believers. He also appeared to unbelievers. Saul of Tarsus was the most obvious example. James the Lord's brother is another documented example. I have more examples, but let's see if we can agree on this much, which really should be beyond controversy.

You wrote:

Not true. Inasmuch as the plates were revealed to him by God, and translated miraculously by the gift and power of God, they were evidences of miraculous events, just as the resurrected body of Jesus had been.

The way Joseph reportedly found the plates would be miraculous, but not the plates themselves. The way Joseph said that he translated the plates would be miraculous, but not the plates themselves. The existence of the plates is not miraculous; the existence of the living body of Jesus after he had been killed and buried is miraculous. Surely you can see the difference.

I had written: "Here's something else that bothers me about the gold plates. Why did Joseph even need to see them? He didn't look at them or use them when he dictated his translation." You replied:

These are silly questions. You are bringing excuses for not believing. The matter was in the Lord's hands. We don't know all the details of what was done, nor are we privy to the mind of the Lord to know all his thinking behind what was done and the way it was done. We know that the plates were required for witnesses. We know that Joseph copied characters from the plates to show to the "learned" by the commandment of The Lord, and in fulfilment of prophecy. You are quibbling about too many unknowns.

You may think they are silly questions, but your answer appears to be "I don't know and I don't care," which from my perspective shows that the question I raised was not at all silly.

You say that "we know" that Joseph copied characters from the plates to show to the "learned," but in fact we do not know any such thing. In fact, I know with a high degree of certainty that Joseph did no such thing. I would be happy to explain how I know this if you're interested, but since you are increasingly resorting to outright dismissal of everything I say as silly or quibbling I will refrain unless you ask.

I had also wrotten: "According to the usual LDS theory, Moroni carried the gold plates about three thousand miles (from Mesoamerica to New York State) so he could bury them near what would be Joseph Smith's boyhood home fourteen centuries later. Why bother, if Joseph wasn't going to use the plates to produce the translation and the plates were not to be kept available for people to see the original on which the translation was based?" You replied:

See above. You are speculating about too many unknowns. We don't know enough about the geography of the Book of Mormon to be able to make such definitive assomptions about it.

I'm not making definitive assumptions about it; I am simply assuming, for the sake of discussion, the dominant believing LDS view of the subject. Do you agree or disagree with the limited geography theory that the entire Book of Mormon lands were restricted to the area known as Mesoamerica? And if this theory were correct -- hypothetically speaking -- would not the point I raised be at least puzzling?

[mfbukowski]

I guess what really matters is if the principles in the Book of Mormon work for their intended purpose.

Yep.

[mfbukowski]

A man can be told to stop smoking, with scientific evidence of his impending death, but still smoke his way into the grave. Laman and Lemuel saw an angel but still rejected the Lord. Proof makes little difference spiritual motivation.

There is always a way to talk yourself out of any experience you have had. Doubt and faith are two sides of the same coin!

Mark 9:

²³ Jesus said to him, “If you can believe, all things are possible to him who believes.”

²⁴ Immediately the father of the child cried out and said with tears, “Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!”

[pogi]

I had written: "Here's something else that bothers me about the gold plates. Why did Joseph even need to see them? He didn't look at them or use them when he dictated his translation."

I had also wrotten: "According to the usual LDS theory, Moroni carried the gold plates about three thousand miles (from Mesoamerica to New York State) so he could bury them near what would be Joseph Smith's boyhood home fourteen centuries later. Why bother, if Joseph wasn't going to use the plates to produce the translation and the plates were not to be kept available for people to see the original on which the translation was based?"

Perhaps receiving the physical plates was not as necessary for Joseph as it was for us. There needed to be witnesses for one reason or another. That is one possible explanation. As if the story is not hard enough to believe already without a spiritual witness, imagine how hard it would be to believe if Joseph claimed that he translated some Gold plates that are buried down in Mesoamerica somewhere (or wherever) that he has never seen or handled, and never will, but is sure that they exist. Joseph and others apparently needed to be witnesses to the plates for the church to get off the ground.

Another possible explanation is that Joseph did need the plates. If I remember correctly, starting out, he did actually use the plates and urim and thumim for translation. It wasn't until he became familiar with the gifts of translation that he used other methods of translation. He had to learn through touch and tool of the actual physical objects before he could develop his gift further.

Edited December 13, 2012 by pogi

[canard78]

There is always a way to talk yourself out of any experience you have had. Doubt and faith are two sides of the same coin!

Mark 9:

I entirely agree. I hope and pray that my spiritual experiences remain constant and I don't ever talk myself out of them - even though I can see how I could.

Given it's possible to talk ones way out of any evidence (spiritual or tangible), I keep saying to mathonihah that geographic evidence for the BoM setting would make very little difference for most of the world. Witnesses and geography are relatively meaningless given only the spiritual witness will 'do'

(I think we are agreeing with each other but are perhaps using different language to express it)

[Rob Bowman]

pogi,

Thanks for your thoughtful comments. You wrote:

Perhaps receiving the physical plates was not as necessary for Joseph as it was for us. There needed to be witnesses for one reason or another. That is one possible explanation. As if the story is not hard enough to believe already without a spiritual witness, imagine how hard it would be to believe if Joseph claimed that he translated some Gold plates that are buried down in Mesoamerica somewhere (or wherever) that he has never seen or handled, and never will, but is sure that they exist. Joseph and others apparently needed to be witnesses to the plates for the church to get off the ground.

If the plates were taken to upstate New York for our benefit, then there would be no reason not to allow the plates to remain in human custody here on earth. There would still be plenty of room for faith (skeptics would simply conclude that yes, some Israelites apparently found their way to the Americas, but that doesn't mean their religion is true).

Surprisingly, there are examples of other religious texts produced in the past two centuries or so without anyone ever seeing the alleged originals. For example, in 1829, the same year that Joseph dictated the Book of Mormon, a second edition was published of the so-called Book of Jasher. Originally published in 1751, the book claims to be a translation by the eighth-century English abbot Alcuin from the "book of Jasher" mentioned in the Bible (Josh. 10:13; 2 Sam. 1:18). Despite the fact that the book was widely criticized as an obvious hoax, at least one significant religious group, the Rosicrucian Order, regards the book as inspired. And there are no witnesses at all to the existence of Alcuin's supposed manuscript or any copies of it, let alone the supposed ancient Hebrew original!

You wrote:

Another possible explanation is that Joseph did need the plates. If I remember correctly, starting out, he did actually use the plates and urim and thumim for translation. It wasn't until he became familiar with the gifts of translation that he used other methods of translation. He had to learn through touch and tool of the actual physical objects before he could develop his gift further.

This is a more plausible-sounding explanation, though it doesn't quite match the historical information we have. If I remember correctly, there are no testimonies from any of Joseph's associates who actually saw him using the Urim and Thummim to examine the gold plates. At first Joseph seems to have dictated his translation from behind a curtain of some sort. This is apparently how the translation was done for the lost 116 pages with Martin Harris as the scribe. After the 116 pages fiasco, Joseph claimed that the angel had taken away the Urim and Thummim. According to eyewitnesses, Joseph used his seer stone in his hat to dictate the translation of the Book of Mormon (mostly to Oliver Cowdery), never looking at the gold plates--which often were not even in the room.

[mfbukowski]

I entirely agree. I hope and pray that my spiritual experiences remain constant and I don't ever talk myself out of them - even though I can see how I could.

Given it's possible to talk ones way out of any evidence (spiritual or tangible), I keep saying to mathonihah that geographic evidence for the BoM setting would make very little difference for most of the world. Witnesses and geography are relatively meaningless given only the spiritual witness will 'do'

(I think we are agreeing with each other but are perhaps using different language to express it)

I agree and think that as far as geography we will find more and more indications which lead to an interpretation that the Nephites lived among the Maya as LDS live amid the various "gentile" cultures in which you find LDS. That seems to be the current trend among scholars.

That allows God to leave both doors open- an increase in evidence, but still faith will be necessary to see the "evidence" for what it is. There will always have to be a faithful interpretation of the evidence or the plan of salvation would be thwarted.

It is my honest belief that the LDS path is for the elect who have the faith to follow it and of course we know that many so-called "LDS" are not among those who are called to really follow it. I am not sure personally if I am among those who will make it into the celestial kingdom, and I am sure there are many who are not LDS presently who will make it.

This gospel message is not an easy one- it is much simpler simply to say you believe in Jesus and then automatically you are "saved" and you get to play a harp and sit on a cloud praising God for eternity, and for all I know, those folks that believe that will get exactly what they think they will.

But I want something more. But I am not sure I have the "stuff" it takes to get it.

What those folks are after is not the celestial kingdom. That takes faith and sacrifice and repentance and service and a mighty change of heart and over coming the natural man. That's all!

It's there for everyone if they want it, but I wonder how many of us are actually willing to do all that. Maybe sitting on a cloud in cruise control mode isn't that bad after all.

[mfbukowski]

This whole thing about carrying the plates 3000 miles to deposit them for Joseph Smith is just stupid.

"Joseph Smith" could have been "Jose Sanchez" and have been born a mile or two from anywhere God wanted him to be born. Who knows why Moroni had to make the journey? It might have been a trial of his own faith- who knows? It might have been his personal test as Abraham's journey thinking he was to sacrifice Isaac was. Does anyone complain about THAT journey and why he had to travel a distance when he could have sacrificed Issac in his own back yard? It's just silly!

But probably Joseph had to be born in the US because this was the only country which offered freedom of religion.

And clearly, in my opinion, the plates only existed for Joseph's own lack of confidence early on in doing the "translation" which is now regarded by people like Blake Ostler as barely a "translation" at all!

Clearly the Book of Abraham is not a "translation" of anything and it is also clear the Joseph- for whatever reason - liked to use "props" to receive his revelations, like the seer stone, the hat, the papyrus manuscript and the plates. However God did it, what Joseph needed psychologically, God provided. But I don't think that the BOM is a "translation" at all. I think, as Ostler does, that it was essentially a 19th century "re-wright" of an ancient manuscript "given" to Joseph by revelation. I think it has historic roots, but it was essentially fully revealed to Joseph. It came through Joseph's mind and includes many elements of the 19th century mind that gave it to us. But there is also much much that he could not possibly have known about ancient America, and the original gospel

I personally think that with his lack of education he lacked the confidence to just sit down and receive revelation and that he was always fascinated with translation and ancient objects and folk magic and that was part of his upbringing and his personal psychological makeup and that God used that, especially at first, to give him confidence in the project.

That's just my opinion but I have felt that for a long long time and have yet to see an argument or evidence which disproves that theory.

The need for the plates existed only in Joseph's mind, and God provided what was necessary.

Edited December 13, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

This is a more plausible-sounding explanation....

Keep it up Rob. As much as you are trying your arguments out here, we are learning how to counter yours. Thanks for the help.

[Rob Bowman]

Mr. Bukowski,

You wrote:

This whole thing about carrying the plates 3000 miles to deposit them for Joseph Smith is just stupid.

This is the sort of comment that has led me to avoid discussions with you.

[mfbukowski]

Mr. Bukowski,

You wrote:

This is the sort of comment that has led me to avoid discussions with you.

Oh my! You have hurt me to the bone.

Whatever will I do?

It is more likely that you cannot counter my arguments. You seem like a scrappy enough fellow to be able to handle it.

Edited December 13, 2012 by mfbukowski