Stone Box

[Palerider]

I was wondering if anyone knew if the church has ever made a serious, concerted effort to find the stone box that supposedly held the gold plates, seer stones, breast plate and sword of Laban?

It seems to me that it would be a fairly large stone box (much larger than depicted in LDS art) and that the large domed stone covering it would be quite a tell-tale marker.

I suspect the church has funded efforts to find archeological B of M evidence in Central America with possibly millions of dollars.

Dosen't it seem strange that, having a nearly pinpointed location for the stone box, they haven't expended the same effort on the hilll Cumorah? I would think that they would surely want that box as prized evidence of Joseph's claims.

[oremites]

I suspect the church has funded efforts to find archeological B of M evidence in Central America with possibly millions of dollars.

Dosen't it seem strange that, having a nearly pinpointed location for the stone box, they haven't expended the same effort on the hilll Cumorah? I would think that they would surely want that box as prized evidence of Joseph's claims.

Do you often base your arguments on what you "suspect"?

Anyway, the church already has prized evidence of Joseph's claims. It's called the Book of Mormon.

Also, let's say a stone box is found. Let's suppose it's even dated to the correct time period by independent professional archaeologists. Would it make one iota of difference to your attitude towards Joseph's claims?

Edited May 16, 2013 by oremites

[thesometimesaint]

I was wondering if anyone knew if the church has ever made a serious, concerted effort to find the stone box that supposedly held the gold plates, seer stones, breast plate and sword of Laban?

It seems to me that it would be a fairly large stone box (much larger than depicted in LDS art) and that the large domed stone covering it would be quite a tell-tale marker.

I suspect the church has funded efforts to find archeological B of M evidence in Central America with possibly millions of dollars.

Dosen't it seem strange that, having a nearly pinpointed location for the stone box, they haven't expended the same effort on the hilll Cumorah? I would think that they would surely want that box as prized evidence of Joseph's claims.

Having served its purpose it was allowed to fall apart.

[bluebell]

I'm not saying it's not true (i honestly have no idea one way or the other), but what is the evidence that the church has spent millions of dollars trying to find evidence for the BOM in central and south America?

It seems like, before that point can be used against the church (in regards to the Hill Cumorah), it needs to be supported with more than what is essentially 'I think'.

[Storm Rider]

^{Yes, but saying "I think" and "I suspect" are such wonderful beginnings to a fallacy of logic. IF the box were found, would you believe Joseph any more than you do? What if God spoke to you and said it was true, would you still believe in the face of such vaunted intelligence in the arm of flesh? It would just be easier to ask the question, "has the box been found?" and leave it at that. I have no knowledge if it was ever sought or anything else, but if it were found it would do nothing to either prove or disprove the revelations claimed by Joseph. Nice try though on casting doubt.}

[Bikeemikey]

Do you often base your arguments on what you "suspect"?

Anyway, the church already has prized evidence of Joseph's claims. It's called the Book of Mormon.

Also, let's say a stone box is found. Let's suppose it's even dated to the correct time period by independent professional archaeologists. Would it make one iota of difference to your attitude towards Joseph's claims?

Yeah, it would make a huge amount of difference to those interested in appraising JS claims for a scientific metric rather than a religious one. It would also be "faith promoting" for those already believing saints.

[Gillebre]

Here's the thing: appraising the claims of Joseph Smith in a way other than the one God provided is foolishness. God gave us the means to know the truth of Joseph's calling, but it seems like people are more interested in being able to study and verify the proof rather than relying on faith.

Those interested in examining spiritual matters through the lens of science will not find the evidence they're looking for. The very nature of God's plan precludes it: that is our walk by faith.

I always find it interesting when people become upset as their sandy foundation wobbles, and they wonder why, when they failed to build on the rock of our Redeemer and the foundation He offers. Too often I hear people criticize based on appendages like the Book of Mormon method of translation, how the Book of Abraham came to pass, Joseph's past, or a host of other issues which bypass the single most important question they need to take to God in humble prayer: was Joseph called by the Lord as a Prophet to restore the Church? Is the Book of Mormon what it claims to be and is the Church really what it says it is?

Asking any question before those will lead one to have a foundation not built on the Savior, and when the tremors of life come, it will not withstand the fury of hell.

Oremites is spot on. You're examining a window in the house when you need to examine the foundation that was laid and first determine the veracity of it before moving to other things.

[danielwoods]

I find it curious, the opposition to finding factual support for claims made by JS. The reason it perplexes me is because even Jesus said, "³⁷ If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.

³⁸ But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him." (John 10:37,38)

And to Thomas he showed himself as a proof of his resurrection. So clearly Jesus isn't opposed to verifying truth claims with facts that support them.

[cinepro]

Also, let's say a stone box is found. Let's suppose it's even dated to the correct time period by independent professional archaeologists. Would it make one iota of difference to your attitude towards Joseph's claims?

Of course it would! It might not convert a disbeliever to a believer, but at least it would be something.

I suspect were it to exist, disbelievers would theorize that Joseph Smith had constructed the box himself. But what's the alternate believing theory for the box not existing? Joseph dismantled it and restored the location to make it unrecognizable? God hid the evidence? This being the same Joseph and God who displayed the sacred papryii on which the Book of Abraham was encoded to public visitors?

And what difference does it make whether it would change someone's mind? Palerider isn't the one who claimed there was an ancient cement box in the Hill Cumorah that held ancient artifacts for 1400+ years. Joseph Smith was.

In other words, saying that you don't have evidence for a claim and it doesn't matter because if you did have the evidence it wouldn't be convincing anyway, isn't a good thing.

Look at it this way. If I told you that last night, a UFO landed in my backyard and some aliens walked out, told me that the world was going to end in 50 years, and gave me a 50 pound brick of solid gold, I suspect your first question would be to ask to see the brick of gold. If my response was that I wasn't going to show it to you because you still wouldn't believe the part about the aliens and the world ending, what would you think?

Edited May 16, 2013 by cinepro

[Palerider]

From Wikipedia:

LDS-funded archaeology [edit]

In 1955 Thomas Ferguson, a Latter Day Saint and the founder of the New World Archaeological Foundation, with five years of funding from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), began to dig throughout Mesoamerica for evidence of the veracity of the Book of Mormon claims. In a 1961 newsletter Ferguson predicted that although nothing had been found, the Book of Mormon cities would be found within 10 years.^{[citation needed]} In 1972, Christian scholar Hal Hougey wrote to Ferguson questioning the progress given the stated timetable in which the cities would be found.^[26] Replying to Hougey as well as secular and non-secular requests, Ferguson wrote in a letter dated June 5, 1972: "Ten years have passed .... I had sincerely hoped that Book-of-Mormon cities would be positively identified within 10 years — and time has proved me wrong in my anticipation."^[27]

During the period of 1959–1961, NWAF colleague Dee Green was editor of the BYU Archaeological Society Newsletter and had an article from it published in the summer of 1969 edition of Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, pp 76–78 in which he acknowledged that the NWAF findings did not back up the veracity of the Book of Mormon claims. After this article and another six years of fruitless search, Thomas Ferguson published a 29-page paper in 1975 entitled Written Symposium on Book-of-Mormon Geography: Response of Thomas S. Ferguson to the Norman & Sorenson Papers where he concluded, "I'm afraid that up to this point, I must agree with Dee Green, who has told us that to date there is no Book-of-Mormon geography".^[28] In referring to his own paper, Ferguson wrote a 20 February 1976 letter to Mr & Mrs H.W. Lawrence in which he stated: "The real implication of the paper is that you can't set the Book-of-Mormon geography down anywhere — because it is fictional and will never meet the requirements of the dirt-archeology. I should say — what is in the ground will never conform to what is in the book."^[29]

^{I guess I just assumed that with a minimum of 5 years of funding from the church, but probably more like 20 years, that the million dollar mark would have been passed. I'm more than open to anyone who can give me an accurate amount.}

[blackstrap]

IIRC the hill was thoroughly gone over by locals soon after the announcement of finding the 'golden plates' . For evidence to have any chance of being dated it must be found undisturbed and even then a rock is a rock is a rock until there is some context.

[Palerider]

Having served its purpose it was allowed to fall apart.

Thank you for that bit of information. I suppose that statement is from a general authority or is recorded as a revelation somewhere?

[Palerider]

IIRC the hill was thoroughly gone over by locals soon after the announcement of finding the 'golden plates' . For evidence to have any chance of being dated it must be found undisturbed and even then a rock is a rock is a rock until there is some context.

However, we're talking about hewn stone that has been cemented together as a box. I would think anyone finding such a box would not have kept it a secret......

If they are willing to fund 5 - 20 years of searching in Central America, why not spend two years going over one end of the Hill Cumorah with a fine tooth comb?

[blackstrap]

Apparently the Church did not have ownership of the property until the 1920s .Farmers love to have folks digging willy-nilly on their property.By the way, incase you missed it, that's almost 100 years from when the plates were received. Would anyone be allowed to be skeptical about anything found there now or even in the 1930s+ ?

Edited May 16, 2013 by blackstrap

[TruthSeeker2013]

Yeah, it would make a huge amount of difference to those interested in appraising JS claims for a scientific metric rather than a religious one. It would also be "faith promoting" for those already believing saints.

I agree. Look at the Book of Abraham papyri for example. When (at least some of them) were rediscovered in the 1960's, the Church published article after article about them in the Improvement Era. Many members were immensely excited to have actual proof now that Joseph could translate ancient languages. Unfortunately it turned out that Joseph's translation was incorrect (and thus the Chruch's recent change to the POGP introduction distancing the BOA from the papyri). But the point is that any physical evidence of spiritual belief is faith promoting.

[TruthSeeker2013]

I find it curious, the opposition to finding factual support for claims made by JS. The reason it perplexes me is because even Jesus said, "³⁷ If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.

³⁸ But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him." (John 10:37,38)

And to Thomas he showed himself as a proof of his resurrection. So clearly Jesus isn't opposed to verifying truth claims with facts that support them.

Great example.

[Questing Beast]

I was wondering if anyone knew if the church has ever made a serious, concerted effort to find the stone box that supposedly held the gold plates, seer stones, breast plate and sword of Laban?

It seems to me that it would be a fairly large stone box (much larger than depicted in LDS art) and that the large domed stone covering it would be quite a tell-tale marker.

I suspect the church has funded efforts to find archeological B of M evidence in Central America with possibly millions of dollars.

Dosen't it seem strange that, having a nearly pinpointed location for the stone box, they haven't expended the same effort on the hilll Cumorah? I would think that they would surely want that box as prized evidence of Joseph's claims.

Nope. It isn't up for grabs. Moroni protects it's location. Gold diggers went all over that hill back in the day and saw nothing whatsoever....

[Questing Beast]

...

I always find it interesting when people become upset as their sandy foundation wobbles, and they wonder why, when they failed to build on the rock of our Redeemer and the foundation He offers. Too often I hear people criticize based on appendages like the Book of Mormon method of translation, how the Book of Abraham came to pass, Joseph's past, or a host of other issues which bypass the single most important question they need to take to God in humble prayer: was Joseph called by the Lord as a Prophet to restore the Church? Is the Book of Mormon what it claims to be and is the Church really what it says it is?

Asking any question before those will lead one to have a foundation not built on the Savior, and when the tremors of life come, it will not withstand the fury of hell.

...

You're being smug and self-satisfied. Easy for you to criticize another's quest for truth, and easy to dismiss because their process doesn't fit your paradigm.

Getting to the position of belief, through faith, isn't easy as reading a book, getting on your knees to mimic the pictures of JS, and asking if the book isn't true, or is true, whatever. The first obstacle might be a lack of belief in Jesus Christ to begin with. If so, the BoM does not really help that much, since it pretty much offers "Jesus' words" straight from the Bible. This raises the question, why? If "not one hundredth part of what Jesus said" is contained in the BoM, why spend so much space retelling what we already have? That is a legitimate beef, imho, of course. The other "core" questions you point out don't even come up if Jesus Christ is questionable, and if the BoM looks shaky as "another testament of Jesus Christ", for obvious reasons, there is a problem believing enough to seriously consider anything further....

[TruthSeeker2013]

You're being smug and self-satisfied. Easy for you to criticize another's quest for truth, and easy to dismiss because their process doesn't fit your paradigm.

Getting to the position of belief, through faith, isn't easy as reading a book, getting on your knees to mimic the pictures of JS, and asking if the book isn't true, or is true, whatever. The first obstacle might be a lack of belief in Jesus Christ to begin with. If so, the BoM does not really help that much, since it pretty much offers "Jesus' words" straight from the Bible. This raises the question, why? If "not one hundredth part of what Jesus said" is contained in the BoM, why spend so much space retelling what we already have? That is a legitimate beef, imho, of course. The other "core" questions you point out don't even come up if Jesus Christ is questionable, and if the BoM looks shaky as "another testament of Jesus Christ", for obvious reasons, there is a problem believing enough to seriously consider anything further....

I like this. Many take different approaches in their quest for truth. For some, feeling the spirit is enough. For others, questions must be answered and knowledge must be gained. Elder Holland spake quite frankly in April's conference about being honest with doubts. He said, “Be as candid about your questions as you need to be; life is full of them on one subject or another.” Also, “Honestly acknowledge your questions and your concerns.” And finally, "In moments of fear or doubt or troubling times, hold the ground you have already won, even if that ground is limited.”

[Wiki Wonka]

I was wondering if anyone knew if the church has ever made a serious, concerted effort to find the stone box that supposedly held the gold plates, seer stones, breast plate and sword of Laban?

It seems to me that it would be a fairly large stone box (much larger than depicted in LDS art) and that the large domed stone covering it would be quite a tell-tale marker.

I suspect the church has funded efforts to find archeological B of M evidence in Central America with possibly millions of dollars.

Dosen't it seem strange that, having a nearly pinpointed location for the stone box, they haven't expended the same effort on the hilll Cumorah? I would think that they would surely want that box as prized evidence of Joseph's claims.

David Whitmer reported that he had seen it and that on his last visit that it had fallen down the hill.

"Three times he [David Whitmer] has been at the Hill Cumorah and seen the casket that contained the tablets and seerstone. Eventually the casket has been washed down to the foot of the hill, but it was to be seen when he last visited the historic place." - Salt Lake Herald (12 August 1875); reprinting from Chicago Times (7 August 1875); cited in Ebbie L V Richardson, "David Whitmer: A Witness to the Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon," (M.A. thesis, Brigham Young University, 1952), 156-58. Also in Lyndon Cook (editor), David Whitmer Interviews: A Restoration Witness (Orem, Utah: Grandin Books, 1991), 7.

WW

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I was wondering if anyone knew if the church has ever made a serious, concerted effort to find the stone box that supposedly held the gold plates, seer stones, breast plate and sword of Laban?

It seems to me that it would be a fairly large stone box (much larger than depicted in LDS art) and that the large domed stone covering it would be quite a tell-tale marker.

I suspect the church has funded efforts to find archeological B of M evidence in Central America with possibly millions of dollars.

Dosen't it seem strange that, having a nearly pinpointed location for the stone box, they haven't expended the same effort on the hilll Cumorah? I would think that they would surely want that box as prized evidence of Joseph's claims.

Actually in the movie, it shows the box with Plates, U&T and Sword of Laban. Not a big as you might suppose. Also as someone else noted; would it matter. People saw Christ and miracles and rejected him...all of the physical evidence in the world cannot replace the Spirit which is needed to believe.

[Bob Crockett]

Snip

Edited May 16, 2013 by Bob Crockett

[cinepro]

I - Where are the plates now?

He - In a cave, where the angel has hidden them up till the time arrives when the plates, which are sealed,

shall be translated. God will yet raise up a mighty one, who shall do his work till it is finished and Jesus

comes again.

I - Where is that cave?

He - In the state of New York.

I - In the Hill Cumorah?

He - No, but not far from that place. I saw the place where the plates were found, and a great many did so,

and it awakened an excitement at the time, because the worst enemies of "Mormonism" stirred up the

confusion by telling about the plates which Joseph found, and the "gold bible" which he was in possession

of, so he was in constant danger of being robbed and killed.

I - How did the place look?

He - It was a stone box, and the stones looked to me as if they were cemented together. That was on the

side of the hill, and a little down from the top.

Dr. P. Wilhelm Poulson Reports

Visit with David Whitmer, 1878

Source: P. W. Poulson to editors of the Deseret News, 13 Aug 1878,

cited from Deseret News, 16 Aug 1878, p. 2.

Again, in 1885, [Whitmer] told a correspondent of the Chicago Tribune that Joseph Smith took Whitmer and Cowdery to the Hill Cumorah where they personally viewed "the receptacle in which Moroni . . . had concealed the history of his father."⁹¹ As early as 1875 Whitmer told a Chicago Times reporter that he had seen the stone box three times and that it had been washed "down to the foot of the hill."⁹² As to what happened to this sacred object after that he does not say.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=47&chapid=270

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I find it curious, the opposition to finding factual support for claims made by JS. The reason it perplexes me is because even Jesus said, "³⁷ If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.

³⁸ But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him." (John 10:37,38)

And to Thomas he showed himself as a proof of his resurrection. So clearly Jesus isn't opposed to verifying truth claims with facts that support them.

That is great and dandy. Did Jesus show him self to you like he did Thomas?

[Palerider]

David Whitmer reported that he had seen it and that on his last visit that it had fallen down the hill.

"Three times he [David Whitmer] has been at the Hill Cumorah and seen the casket that contained the tablets and seerstone. Eventually the casket has been washed down to the foot of the hill, but it was to be seen when he last visited the historic place." - Salt Lake Herald (12 August 1875); reprinting from Chicago Times (7 August 1875); cited in Ebbie L V Richardson, "David Whitmer: A Witness to the Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon," (M.A. thesis, Brigham Young University, 1952), 156-58. Also in Lyndon Cook (editor), David Whitmer Interviews: A Restoration Witness (Orem, Utah: Grandin Books, 1991), 7.

WW

This is interesting and I appreciate the reference.

It does seem strange though that for approx. 1400 years the plates and box stayed where they were buried and for four years after Joseph "was shown" them they remained in the same location and then in a matter of a number of months (maybe a year or so), they "wash down the hill"....?

Also odd that Cowdery never mentions this in his writings. Or does he?

I'm just thinkin'.........

Edited May 16, 2013 by Palerider