Stone Box

[bluebell]

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.}

I had never heard of Ferguson before, so I did a little research on him on fairlds.org. For those who were like me and are interested, here's what i've found so far. It does not match what is available on wiki, and I think helps to clarify both Ferguson and the purposes of NWAF, which was not to prove the BOM:

From Jeff Lindsay's site/an answer to a question about Ferguson's work and loss of testimony-

"This is a popular but rather misleading claim of anti-Mormons. Here is an example from Kurt Van Gorden, Mormonism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995, p. 9, note 9):

"Recent attempts to authenticate the Book of Mormon through archaeology have failed miserably. Most notable is the work of Thomas Steward Ferguson, founder of the Archaeology Department at Brigham Young University. His revealing manuscript at the close of his career shows that no coins, cities, people, plants, animals, or languages of the Book of Mormon have ever been discovered."

Daniel C. Peterson has responded to this charge in his essay, "Mormonism" in FARMS Review of Books, Vol. 8, No. 1, 1996, pp. 96-97:

It is revealing that Mr. Van Gorden chooses the late Thomas Stewart Ferguson as his star archaeological witness against the Book of Mormon. And, furthermore, that he inflates Mr. Ferguson's credentials in the process. (Mr. Ferguson was a lawyer, not an archaeologist. He never taught at Brigham Young University, let alone founded the University's department of archaeology.) [see Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, 4 (1992): 117-119.] Why does Mr. Van Gorden [like many other anti-Mormons] focus on him? Why does he avert his gaze from, say, Professor John L. Sorenson's work on the geography and archaeology of the Book of Mormon? Isn't his behavior a bit reminiscent of the wolf, seizing the stragglers of the flock, taking on the weakest Latter-day Saint arguments while avoiding the strongest ones?

And, by the way, for the umpteenth time, the Book of Mormon never claims that there were "coins" in the ancient New World.... The reference to "Nephite coinage" in the chapter heading to Alma 11 is not part of the original text and is mistaken. Alma 11 is almost certainly talking about standardized weights of metal....

Ferguson engaged in some expeditions with unrealistic and simplistic expectations (see John Gee, "The Hagiography of Doubting Thomas," FARMS Review of Books, Vol. 10, No. 2, 1998, pp. 158-183). He thought he should find Book of Mormon artifacts just by picking a "reasonable" place and digging. But even when trained archaeologists manage to pick the right place, they often fail to find what they expect, if they find anything at all. (Ferguson's approach was naive, but not as bad, certainly, as those who say we should readily find massive ancient steel mills were the few Book of Mormon references to metal working to be taken seriously.) He was disappointed - as most researchers and explorers - especially amateurs - will be in the early, ignorance-rich stages of their work. His frustrations as an amateur and apparent loss of his testimony have little bearing on the authenticity of the Book of Mormon and merit little attention. His impact on LDS scholarship was negligible and he remains largely unknown among Latter-day Saints. Those wishing to understand the state of scholarship in the Book of Mormon should look at actual scholarship, not Mr. Ferguson's misinformed complaints. There is abundant evidence supporting the authenticity of the Book of Mormon."

From FAIR, on Ferguson's credentials-

"As John Sorensen, who worked with Ferguson, recalled: [stan] Larson implies that Ferguson was one of the "scholars and intellectuals in the Church" and that "his study" was conducted along the lines of reliable scholarship in the "field of archaeology." Those of us with personal experience with Ferguson and his thinking knew differently. He held an undergraduate law degree but never studied archaeology or related disciplines at a professional level, although he was self-educated in some of the literature of American archaeology. He held a naive view of "proof," perhaps related to his law practice where one either "proved" his case or lost the decision; compare the approach he used in his simplistic lawyerly book One Fold and One Shepherd. His associates with scientific training and thus more sophistication in the pitfalls involving intellectual matters could never draw him away from his narrow view of "research." (For example, in April 1953, when he and I did the first archaeological reconnaissance of central Chiapas, which defined the Foundation's work for the next twenty years, his concern was to ask if local people had found any figurines of "horses," rather than to document the scores of sites we discovered and put on record for the first time.) His role in "Mormon scholarship" was largely that of enthusiast and publicist, for which we can be grateful, but he was neither scholar nor analyst. Ferguson was never an expert on archaeology and the Book of Mormon (let alone on the book of Abraham, about which his knowledge was superficial). He was not one whose careful "study" led him to see greater light, light that would free him from Latter-day Saint dogma, as Larson represents. Instead he was just a layman, initially enthusiastic and hopeful but eventually trapped by his unjustified expectations, flawed logic, limited information, perhaps offended pride, and lack of faith in the tedious research that real scholarship requires. The negative arguments he used against the Latter-day Saint scriptures in his last years display all these weaknesses. Larson, like others who now wave Ferguson's example before us as a case of emancipation from benighted Mormon thinking, never faces the question of which Tom Ferguson was the real one. Ought we to respect the hard-driving younger man whose faith-filled efforts led to a valuable major research program, or should we admire the double-acting cynic of later years, embittered because he never hit the jackpot on, as he seems to have considered it, the slot-machine of archaeological research? I personally prefer to recall my bright-eyed, believing friend, not the aging figure Larson recommends as somehow wiser.^[1]"

Information on FAIR about NWAF-

"Assertions or intimations that NWAF archaeologists have striven to find “proof” for the Book of Mormon are completely false. Nothing could be further from the truth. Starting with the first season of the NWAF (in 1953), even before it had any connection with the LDS Church, the operational guidelines were that the research be conducted according to professional standards without any reference to the Book of Mormon, although the funding was from private LDS donors. Pedro Armillas was chosen as the first year’s field director upon the advice of Drs. Alfred V. Kidder, Gordon Willey, and Gordon Ekholm, who constituted a professional advisory committee for Tom Ferguson. Gareth Lowe and I were the only archaeological people aboard the first season who were LDS. Other student staff members included Bill Sanders and Román Piña Chan (both of whom later became premier Mesoamericanists), who could hardly be supposed to be closet Mormons. From the beginning, non-LDS archaeologists working for the NWAF have outnumbered the archaeologists there who were LDS believers.

From 1955 on, after Ferguson had appealed to the church for support funds (having exhausted his private funding sources), the eminent J. Alden Mason, an emeritus professor at the University of Pennsylvania who had become editor of NWAF publications (and who also assisted with archaeology), supported a judgment from Ed Shook (Carnegie) about the NWAF when Mason made a definitive statement on the noninvolvement of the LDS Church authorities in planning or reporting the NWAF research.<a href="http://www.fairlds.org/authors/sorenson-john/an-open-letter-to-dr-michael-coe#en39">³⁹ That position never varied from then to the present. With such powerful professional assurances, your own assessment visit to the Chiapas operation was hardly necessary. Moreover, your current intimation that there was a hidden church agenda behind its generous support of the NWAF is both flat-out wrong and prejudicial to any fair discussion of the foundation’s role."

And reference 39 spoken of in the above passage on the purposes of NWAF-

"Mason’s statement reads in part as follows: “No statement respecting the landing places of these groups or the identification of any of the lands settled and cities established by them has ever been officially made by the Church. Nevertheless, some individual Mormons have made speculative deductions attempting to identify ethnic groups, archeological ruins, and geographical features of the New World with those described in the Book of Mormon. None of these interpretations to date has received either ecclesiastical or scientific approval.

“As advocates of advanced education, Mormons always pride themselves for maintaining the doctrine that ignorance should be replaced by knowledge gained through intelligent research and study. Observing the lack of unanimity in professional opinions respecting the development of the early high civilizations in America as well as the dearth of scientific data, many Mormons hope that archeological research may be effective in filling this void in our knowledge. Support of the present New World Archaeological Foundation investigations is a demonstration of that attitude.

“The stated purpose of this Foundation is not to seek corroboration of the Book of Mormon account, but to help to resolve the problem of whether civilization in Middle America developed autochthonously or as a result of diffused or migrated influence from some area of the Old World, and to shed light on the culture and way of life of the ancients during the formative period.

“There should be no underestimation of the difficulty of this assignment to reconstruct through archeology the lost history of the once great early Mesoamerican civilizations. The task is tremendous.” J. Alden Mason, foreword to Research in Chiapas, Mexico, Papers of the New World Archaeological Foundation, nos. 1–4, ed. J. Alden Mason (Orinda, CA: NWAF, 1959), iii."

Given all that, there seems a lot of reasonable doubt concerning how much money the church has actually provided for archaeological research as well as the purposes of that money.

[ERayR]

I find that those who choose to disbelieve often do so on the most whimsical of excuses.

[danielwoods]

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

Not sure why you'd say that? I'm not here to try and start a fight.

[omni]

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?

I think you know the answer to your question. I would think from a historical perspective the church would want the box in its possession. The church owns many objects from its early history which it doesn't use to prove its truth claims but rather for their historical value or for teaching purposes. Discovering the stone box that held the gold plates would be one of the most if not the most significant objects of the restoration. Now of course if they didn't find anything that could cause some problems.

[Wiki Wonka]

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'.........

I don't have any references handy, but I recall reading that after Joseph reported finding the plates, a lot of people visited that hill to search for more treasure. In fact, I would be surprised if they didn't search the hill for treasure, since they believed that Joseph had actually found some (I think that Martin Harris may have talked of this) If the box was readily visible (and it probably would be after having been opened), it wouldn't surprise me if it was completely dug up as part of a search for treasure. However, that is pure speculation on my part.

When the Nauvoo Temple was destroyed by a tornado, practically all of the stone was hauled off and put to other uses. Nobody even knows where all of it went. There are only a few pieces of the original stone that were preserved - from the entire temple. So it wouldn't surprise me that the stone from the box disappeared. At that time, they weren't really thinking along the lines of preserving relics.

WW

Edited May 17, 2013 by Wiki Wonka

[Stone holm]

Seems like I remember reading something like in a National Geographic or something of them doing some type of ground sonar tests on the Hill at Palmyra, supposedly there is a room somewhere with the brass plates in it. But thus far it hasn't been found. Finding the remnants of the stone box would be wonderful, but not finding it doesn't really prove anything. More curious, when was the last time that you heard of a Prophet using the "peep stone" that the Church does have in its possession?

[Wiki Wonka]

Seems like I remember reading something like in a National Geographic or something of them doing some type of ground sonar tests on the Hill at Palmyra, supposedly there is a room somewhere with the brass plates in it.

A bunch of people reported seeing a cave opening up in the hill after the plates were returned, but it is likely that it was a vision. The hill in New York is a drumlin, which is simply a big pile of gravel that was placed there by an ancient glacier. There are no caves in drumlins.

But thus far it hasn't been found. Finding the remnants of the stone box would be wonderful, but not finding it doesn't really prove anything. More curious, when was the last time that you heard of a Prophet using the "peep stone" that the Church does have in its possession?

The last prophet that used the "peep stone" was Joseph Smith. He eventually gave it to Oliver Cowdery and told him that he no longer needed it. All of the revelations received after that were without the use of the stone. In fact, that is one of the reasons why David Whitmer fell into disagreement with Joseph - he didn't believe that Joseph should have stopped using the stone to receive revelation. However, since Joseph no longer needed it, I'm not sure why any subsequent prophet would need it either.

WW

[Gillebre]

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 understand that there are people who have the need to get answers to questions, and I respect their desire for knowledge and insight.

However, the method we have been given to know the truth ought to be good enough, right? Like Elder Holland said, life will be full of questions at one point or another, on various subjects, and the resolution to those questions does matter.

My point is that looking for answers to appendages of truth instead of the foundation on which those truths rest is where people run into problems, in my opinion. I appreciate that people do take steps to try and get to a point where they can try to develop faith in something that will never be seen with the light of knowledge until He stands in front of us.

As a matter of personal progress I'm trying, slowly unfortunately, to not begrudge or even come across as begrudging someone with faith issues that simply can't just believe, or take their concerns to prayer and be comforted enough that it can be laid to rest. I'm quite imperfect, but it's a work in progress.

Having said that, it is still my belief that even if someone has this deep mental need for proof of a verifiable kind, perhaps through some empirical means, that they won't find what they seek for reasons I stated before.

Scripture commends the one who seeks knowledge and learning from the best books, but it has been my experience that no matter what issues we have, we can always demonstrate faith and kneel in prayer and try to trust Him, even with the imperfect and flawed faith we are deeply struggling to develop or maintain. I can't speak to the experience of others if that has not been the case for them, and I won't try to do so nor presume anything based on what they went through.

At the very heart of the Gospel will always be faith in what we don't readily understand nor that which can be proven through the means we traditionally use to do so. That, to my understanding, is an eternal principle that we absolutely must grow in.

In the quest for truth we all find ourselves in, we have been given one excellent way in the Book of Mormon to determine whether or not the message is true, if Joseph Smith really was a Prophet of God. It is my belief that our quest for truth as it pertains to the Restoration will always come full circle to the means contained in Moroni 10:3-5. To any who find themselves unable to receive an answer based on the promise contained within that scripture, you should be applauded for taking steps in faith to do as it directs. It has been my experience that when someone does test that promise and they are failing to receive (or recognize) an answer, it is not because the promise is false or that God chose not to answer.

That's not to say that someone who seeks truth by means other than the one contained in the text itself is wrong or has cause to repent, but rather the answers they seek are most readily and easily found in the given way. I applaud all who seek to find evidence of a more physical nature, because for them it demonstrates a desire for knowledge (whether or not it's sincere is something I can't speak to, as each person is different with their own experiences and paths taken).

I just don't want people to overlook the plain and precious truth on which the Book of Mormon rests: that any truly sincere seeker of truth, no matter who they are, if they will act on the answer received, can and will get the answer He gives. Don't not ask because of how simple it seems, or the easiness of the way, as scripture talks about. To the academic the method may seem childish and absurd, but it has been tested and proven in the sacrifices of many, including Joseph Smith himself, that the Book of Mormon is everything it claims to be.

Milk before meat is a divine precept, as is considering the way physical houses are built and relating that to the spiritual houses God intends to build out of us, to to speak. Every house must begin on a solid foundation of prayer, studying the scriptures, and regularly attending Church meetings. Without those three critical elements any attempt to build will ultimately be hazardous and unstable, just as obvious in the physical sense with a physical house, so too in the spiritual sense with the metaphorical spiritual house of the life we live.

Edited May 17, 2013 by Gillebre

[Kenngo1969]

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

I suspect the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is colluding with the federal government, and is secreting such evidence at Area 51, along with the alien remains, saucer remains, et cetera.

Edited May 17, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[DBMormon]

The angel once having taken back the plates placed them in the stone box and carried them back to the actual Hill Cumorah in Guatemala.

[bluebell]

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.

Jesus did show Himself to some of His believers, which does suggest that there are times when He isn't opposed to such measures.

However, I think we can all agree that for the vast majority of His believers, He does not provide proof of His existence, but instead requires them to function on faith. In fact, in John 20:29 Jesus teaches that those people who are able to have faith without proof are more blessed than those who are are not. So, we can also say that such things suggest that Jesus is not opposed to expecting people to be very comfortable following Him and His gospel without physical proof, and that being able to do so is better for us than finding physical evidences.

While that doesn't mean that we should be against adding to our knowledge (in regards to physical examples of spiritual events), it might explain what some of the other posters meant in regards to wanting factual proof of spiritual claims.

[EllenMaksoud]

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.

Perhaps the best evidence for the church is your own experience? Some have not had good experiences with the church and to hear their side of the matter, the church has done horrendous things to them. Or, was it their own intransigence in obedience on gospel matters that caused their pain? Why are there so many people who absolutely love Jesus Christ's church? I doubt that complete obedience is the key.

Then there are those who were desperate to be rescued by someone who followed Jesus Christ, such was their plight. Perhaps some were so completely grateful, that they adored and thanked Heavenly Father in the most sincere way possible; by obedience.

If someone was even born to the covenant, but push the limits of obedience at every turn. Will their way be easy?

[Questing Beast]

...

Milk before meat is a divine precept, as is considering the way physical houses are built and relating that to the spiritual houses God intends to build out of us, to to speak. Every house must begin on a solid foundation of prayer, studying the scriptures, and regularly attending Church meetings. Without those three critical elements any attempt to build will ultimately be hazardous and unstable, just as obvious in the physical sense with a physical house, so too in the spiritual sense with the metaphorical spiritual house of the life we live.

I think it is reasonable to assume that one BIC, studying specifically to know more about Jesus Christ, through a study of the prophet of the restoration and his immediate successor, has, during that process, arrived at the point where "meat" is served up in the place of "milk". I never put my studying in that context anyway: I never thought, "I am into meat now, yea me."

The core trouble with believing a limited paradigm is the expanding view of a bigger paradigm. How can you go back to trying to believe in the limited religious world view? Why would you even try? When the answer to Moroni's "formula" for knowing is negative vis-a-vis the book itself, and it follows that JS is not a prophet in the dogmatic sense, which leads to the belief that Jesus Christ is different from what most believers represent him to be, then the lesser questions (like stone boxes) fall by the wayside....

[cinepro]

FWIW, this box, noted as "Alvin's toolbox", is claimed to have housed the plates after their recovery.

http://www.josephsmi...-the-first-time

If that's true, we can at least establish that God doesn't have a problem with the public viewing and touching of boxes that once housed the plates. So there would have been no supernatural impediment to the stone box having been found and inspected.

Edited May 17, 2013 by cinepro

[ERayR]

Seems like I remember reading something like in a National Geographic or something of them doing some type of ground sonar tests on the Hill at Palmyra, supposedly there is a room somewhere with the brass plates in it. But thus far it hasn't been found. Finding the remnants of the stone box would be wonderful, but not finding it doesn't really prove anything. More curious, when was the last time that you heard of a Prophet using the "peep stone" that the Church does have in its possession?

Sounds like urban legend material to me.

[thesometimesaint]

The Hill Cumorah in New York is just the remains of a glacial moraine(Drumlin). There is no cave there.

Edited May 17, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[cursor]

Aztec stone box 1: [ link ]

Aztec stone box 2: [ link ]

Stone box 1 from Tenochtitlán: [ link ]

Stone box 1 from Tenochtitlán: [ link ]

Another pre-Hispanic stone box: [ link ]

[cinepro]

Aztec stone box 1: [ link ]

Aztec stone box 2: [ link ]

Stone box 1 from Tenochtitlán: [ link ]

Stone box 1 from Tenochtitlán: [ link ]

Another pre-Hispanic stone box: [ link ]

I wonder how much rain it would take to move one of those boxes an inch, let alone down the side of a hill.

[thesometimesaint]

I wonder how much rain it would take to move one of those boxes an inch, let alone down the side of a hill.

Maybe a little less than it takes to move whole continents.

[Tacenda]

Sounds like urban legend material to me.

I think Joseph needed a prop for the religion to be restored, I believe the plates were his answer. I do believe he thought there needed to be a restoration brought forth. In the religious ferver of his time he wasn't satisfied with people going to hell for not being baptized into a certain faith, especially since the minister told him his brother Alvin will be in hell. But I think it odd that he would bring back polygamy, that was more Jewish and Old Testament than Christian and New Testament. Plus so much law instead of Grace. I think LDS align a lot with what the Jewish believe, and talk of the Jewish converting immediately to Mormonism in the hereafter. I think, Joseph was either prompted spiritually to start the church or came up with it on his own, I believe he was a brilliant man, and did have the best intentions. Edited May 17, 2013 by Tacenda

[ERayR]

I think Joseph needed a prop for the religion to be restored, I believe the plates were his answer. I do believe he thought there needed to be a restoration brought forth. In the religious ferver of his time he wasn't satisfied with people going to hell for not being baptized into a certain faith, especially since the minister told him his brother Alvin will be in hell. But I think it odd that he would bring back polygamy, that was more Jewish and Old Testament than Christian and New Testament. Plus so much law instead of Grace. I think LDS align a lot with what the Jewish believe, and talk of the Jewish converting immediately to Mormonism in the hereafter. I think, Joseph was either prompted spiritually to start the church or came up with it on his own, I believe he was a brilliant man, and did have the best intentions.

I think Joseph Smith told it exactly as it happened. No need for props, not a pious fraud. He told just what happened. Visitation from God, Jesus Christ and angles. You seem to have been visiting anti sites again.

[Tacenda]

I think Joseph Smith told it exactly as it happened. No need for props, not a pious fraud. He told just what happened. Visitation from God, Jesus Christ and angles. You seem to have been visiting anti sites again.

No, I still think he may have been inspired to start the church. No, I haven't been on anti sites. Realistically, I don't see how he needed the plates if he never used them except for the first 116 pages, which we don't have. You must haved missed it, but in my post I mentioned that he might have been spiritually driven to restore the church.

[Stargazer]

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'.........

Just keep thinkin'...

The stone box sat there undisturbed for 1400 years. Then it was disturbed. The coverning stone was removed and replaced several times (the first time broke whatever "seal" might have existed), and then the materials it housed were removeed permanently. Did Joseph take great care to replace the cover stone when he took the contents? He knew the materials would not be returned to the box, so there was no need to take care of it. The box had done its job and was no longer needed. Following up other comments, many people knew from where the plates had come from and they dug all around the hill to see if there were more treasures. The box, especially if left open, was now subject to erosion, human interference, and time. Whitmer said he found it had washed down the hill -- it rains in New York, and sometimes it rains a lot. It is not surprising that the box did not remain intact.

[Stargazer]

I think Joseph needed a prop for the religion to be restored, I believe the plates were his answer. I do believe he thought there needed to be a restoration brought forth. In the religious ferver of his time he wasn't satisfied with people going to hell for not being baptized into a certain faith, especially since the minister told him his brother Alvin will be in hell. But I think it odd that he would bring back polygamy, that was more Jewish and Old Testament than Christian and New Testament. Plus so much law instead of Grace. I think LDS align a lot with what the Jewish believe, and talk of the Jewish converting immediately to Mormonism in the hereafter. I think, Joseph was either prompted spiritually to start the church or came up with it on his own, I believe he was a brilliant man, and did have the best intentions.

Sometimes I think you are starting to "get" it, and then you post something like this and it is clear you do not.

Sister Tacenda, the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ is what saves. The Church has taught this for its entire existence. It is a fact however that we do not believe in "cheap" grace, meaning that we don't believe we're "in" if all we do is say "I believe". The Lord does not apply His grace until "after all we can do". Keeping in mind that ALL we can do isn't even minimally acceptable to obtain forgiveness -- because there is nothing we can do to merit it. But while the works do not save us, true repentance is required to obtain the grace.

As to the other, why on earth would the Lord inspire Joseph to lie about a physical artifact? You might as well describe the tables of the Law that Moses received as a holy fiction, a prop, as well. Moses was a stone mason and built them himself -- but God inspired him to say that he received them miraculously. And Jesus really didn't resurrect, because he really wasn't killed. Peter, James and John paid Pilate a large sum to have his soldiers fake Jesus' crucifixion. So this enabled him to appear to die and then resurrect, so that he could show up three days later in great health. And afterwards, in order to keep the story from unraveling, he traveled to India and lived to a ripe old age and sired many children.

AAARRRRGGGGGHHHH!!!!

[Palerider]

Just keep thinkin'...

The stone box sat there undisturbed for 1400 years. Then it was disturbed. The coverning stone was removed and replaced several times (the first time broke whatever "seal" might have existed), and then the materials it housed were removeed permanently. Did Joseph take great care to replace the cover stone when he took the contents? He knew the materials would not be returned to the box, so there was no need to take care of it. The box had done its job and was no longer needed. Following up other comments, many people knew from where the plates had come from and they dug all around the hill to see if there were more treasures. The box, especially if left open, was now subject to erosion, human interference, and time. Whitmer said he found it had washed down the hill -- it rains in New York, and sometimes it rains a lot. It is not surprising that the box did not remain intact.

This certainly answers all of my questions and issues. I feel better already.

An ancient 1400 year old, stone box artifact that suddenly has no earthly value whatsoever, so much so that no one thinks to hold it in any esteem and then it sloshes down the hill in a mudslide (even thought the hill was covered in trees at the time) and for all intents and purposes it pretty much ......dissolves.

That is very inconvenient........or is it?