What Are The Critical Arguments For The Production Of The Plates?

[omni]

We have several witnesses that reported feeling (at least over a cloth material) or lifting the plates. What are the critical arguments for how this was accomplished. Is it believed that Jospeh manufactured the plates himself, or did they exist only in their minds?

[Freedom]

Since the critics have no evidence to suggest that the witnesses saw anything but what they recorded, the critics come up will all sorts of excuses. Everything from Joseph made some plates, they were drunk, they were in on a scam to make money, they were brainwashed. The list goes on.

[prismsplay]

Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses (1981) by Richard Lloyd Anderson has all the information needed to come to the only conclusion that can intelligently be come to, namely, that the witnesses were men of good character, that they meant what they testified of, and that not a single one of them ever denied their printed testimonies, even though many of them later became critical of Joseph Smith.

 

As witness after witness gradually died off without having denied their printed testimonies, a desperation to find just one who would deny became evident. When it all came down to the last surviving witness, David Whitmer, who valiently maintained his testimony, and died affirming that testimony, and leaving a tombstone to continue that affirmation, it was all over for those who desperately sought to undermine the testimonies of the witnesses.

 

Anyone who thinks that it is not all over is either deceiving one's self or trying to deceive others. Nothing now can ever undermine testimonies that were never denied. Move on, get a life, find something valuable to do. It is painful to watch persons wasting the days of their probation trying to undermine the testimonies of Book of Mormon witnesses, whose names have been listed in the numerous languages into which the Book of Mormon has been translated.

[bdouglas]

On the NOM forum a female poster asks how did Joseph Smith come up with plates, in other words how did he pull off his scam? And another poster replies:

 

Emma's description is a bit of an anomaly, however Dan Vogel has published on this subject. Most likely, Joseph made them from tin (works for weight), an endeavor which would have been easy for him to do.

 

This response is interesting to me because the obvious conclusion, the only logical conclusion (i.e., the conclusion arrived at in Richard Anderson's Book Of Mormon Witnesses) is simply dismissed out of hand as impossible (S. McMurrin: "Angels simply do not appear to men bearing gold plates"--not an exact quote). And so we have "most likely, Joseph made them from tin...and endeavor which would have been easy for him to do."

 

Funny. It made me laugh.

Edited September 8, 2013 by bdouglas

[Robert F. Smith]

 

...........................................................   

Dan Vogel has published on this subject. Most likely, Joseph made them from tin (works for weight), an endeavor which would have been easy for him to do.

.....................................................................  

 "most likely, Joseph made them from tin...and endeavor which would have been easy for him to do."

 

Funny. It made me laugh.

Anyone know where Dan published that notion?

I have to laugh too.

Could Joseph even afford to buy the tin?  How did he keep the seller quiet?  Where did he learn blacksmithing?  Just how "easy" would that have been?  The manufacture of thin sheet tin of uniform size and in sufficient quantity to fool those who felt (thumbed) the pages through muslin, would be difficult enough -- aside from the weight problem (too light) -- but to leave them alone with various people in the house and not expect them to take a peek?  C'mon!!

And nobody talked?  Whoever heard of such a scam in which no one ever talked?

 

And a gnome says that it would have been easy for him to do?

[bdouglas]

I don't know where Dan V. says this. I don't pay much attention to him. These guys decide from the git-go that JS claims about plates delivered by an angel are absurd and then work off that assumption never allowing that he might simply have been telling the truth--which in fact is the only viable explanation. But their explanations of how he perpetrated his "fraud" are far more absurd than any angel with plates, and this thing about him  making plates from tin is only one example.

 

The best apologetic reply to the question of did JS really have gold plates is this from Mormon Scholars Testify. At least I like it.

 

http://mormonscholarstestify.org/3026/garold-n-davis

Edited September 9, 2013 by bdouglas

[Calm]

I don't know where Dan V. says this. I don't pay much attention to him. 

http://signaturebooks.com/2012/03/book-of-mormon-witnesses-revisited/

 

 

 

In my essay, I suggested that “it would have been possible for him to make plates out of tin—which would be consistent with the reported weight of between forty and sixty pounds—and allow the chosen few to feel them through a cloth.”103 In my biography of Joseph Smith, I elaborated on this suggestion:

 

 

 

The construction of such a book would have been relatively easy. There were scraps of tin available on the Smith property and elsewhere in the vicinity, and during the several hours Joseph was separated from Emma the night they went to the hill, and on other occasions, he could have easily set up shop in the cave on the other side of the hill or in some corner of the forest. Using a pair of metal shears, it would have been easy to cut a number of 6 x 8 inch sheets. A hole punch, nail, or some similar instrument could have been used to make three holes along one edge of each plate. Then it would have been a matter of passing three wires or rods through the holes and bending them into rings. A book made of tin plates of the dimensions (6 x 8 x 6 inches) described by Smith would have weighed between fifty and sixty pounds, which corresponds to weight that was mentioned by eye‑witness accounts.

 

In a footnote, I calculated the weight of the plates as follows:

 

A block of solid tin measuring 7 x 8 x 6 inches, or 288 cubic inches, would weigh 74.67 pounds. If one allows for a 30 percent reduction due to the unevenness and space between the plates, the package would then weigh 52.27 pounds. Using the same calculations, plates of gold weigh 140.50 pounds; copper, 64.71 pounds; a mixture of gold and copper, between 65 and 140 pounds

 

 

 

 

[iriemon]

I don't know where Dan V. says this. I don't pay much attention to him. These guys decide from the git-go that JS claims about plates delivered by an angel are absurd and then work off that assumption never allowing that he might simply have been telling the truth--which in fact is the only viable explanation. But their explanations of how he perpetrated his "fraud" are far more absurd than any angel with plates, and this thing about him  making plates from tin is only one example.

 

The best apologetic reply to the question of did JS really have gold plates is this from Mormon Scholars Testify. At least I like it.

 

http://mormonscholarstestify.org/3026/garold-n-davis

 

Defenders of the church also have decided from the "Git Go" that their position is correct. It only seems like a viable explanation because that is YOUR pre-conceived belief system and you must support it, despite no evidence. IE: Book of Mormon as a historical document, BOA etc. Joseph Smith's criminal history is ample evidence that he had it in him to do it. Could Joseph Smith have fabricated so called plates...of course he could have. He demostrated the same behaviour when trying to convince people to invest in the illegal bank he chartered. Namely, placing coins in the tops of boxes that were filled below with something else, giving the illusion that the bank had money. It didn't and it went under in a flame. He certainly had people around him who could have fabricated something to look like plates.

[strappinglad]

Defenders of the church also have decided from the "Git Go" that their position is correct. It only seems like a viable explanation because that is YOUR pre-conceived belief system and you must support it, despite no evidence. IE: Book of Mormon as a historical document, BOA etc. Joseph Smith's criminal history is ample evidence that he had it in him to do it. Could Joseph Smith have fabricated so called plates...of course he could have. He demostrated the same behaviour when trying to convince people to invest in the illegal bank he chartered. Namely, placing coins in the tops of boxes that were filled below with something else, giving the illusion that the bank had money. It didn't and it went under in a flame. He certainly had people around him who could have fabricated something to look like plates.

Well, that's that then. Last man out please turn off the lights.

[drums12]

Defenders of the church also have decided from the "Git Go" that their position is correct. It only seems like a viable explanation because that is YOUR pre-conceived belief system and you must support it, despite no evidence. IE: Book of Mormon as a historical document, BOA etc. Joseph Smith's criminal history is ample evidence that he had it in him to do it. Could Joseph Smith have fabricated so called plates...of course he could have. He demostrated the same behaviour when trying to convince people to invest in the illegal bank he chartered. Namely, placing coins in the tops of boxes that were filled below with something else, giving the illusion that the bank had money. It didn't and it went under in a flame. He certainly had people around him who could have fabricated something to look like plates.

Seriously?  Man lay off the kool-aid. 

[Calm]

 He demostrated the same behaviour when trying to convince people to invest in the illegal bank he chartered. Namely, placing coins in the tops of boxes that were filled below with something else, giving the illusion that the bank had money. 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_church_finances/Kirtland_Safety_Society/Boxes_filled_with_sand

 

The Kirtland bank safe was not large enough to accomodate the claims which apostates later made. It seems plausible that in an effort to discredit Joseph Smith, they fabricated a story about him distorting the bank's reserves.

Brodie quotes apostate Mormons for this claim. It does not, however, seem to match other facts in the historical record. In October 1836, Joseph Smith purchased a safe for use in the bank he and other Church leaders were planning:

The safe measured only 25 by 24 by 29 inches. The dimensions of the safe cast a serious shadow on the validity of stories of various apostates cited by Brodie. They claimed that the shelves of the bank vault were lined with many boxes each marked $1,000. These many boxes were supposedly filled with sand, lead, old iron, and stone with only a thin layer of coins on top. As will be pointed out later [in the article], the founders of the bank probably had enough genuine specie when the bank was opened to fill the several small boxes that might have occupied this very modest safe.[1]

It is also telling that such apostates never disclosed Joseph's dishonesty before the bank's collapse, and some may have even participated in the bank. Why would they keep this a secret, and why would they risk their own financial well-being if they knew Joseph was up to no good?

 

Edited September 9, 2013 by calmoriah

[strappinglad]

I have a safe of the approximate size. There is no room for many boxes , unless you are talking ring/watch boxes.

[bdouglas]

Defenders of the church also have decided from the "Git Go" that their position is correct. It only seems like a viable explanation because that is YOUR pre-conceived belief system and you must support it, despite no evidence. IE: Book of Mormon as a historical document, BOA etc. Joseph Smith's criminal history is ample evidence that he had it in him to do it. Could Joseph Smith have fabricated so called plates...of course he could have. He demostrated the same behaviour when trying to convince people to invest in the illegal bank he chartered. Namely, placing coins in the tops of boxes that were filled below with something else, giving the illusion that the bank had money. It didn't and it went under in a flame. He certainly had people around him who could have fabricated something to look like plates.

 

 

Whether you are a believer in the BOM or not (and I am a believer), I think that if you honestly look at the evidence and make every effort to be objective--I don't see how you can do this and come up with something like "Joseph made them from tin", etc., etc. When I say "all of the evidence" I mean the witnesses, both formal and informal, and also the logistics, all of the planning and work he would have had to do to perpetrate a fraud. It just doesn't add up--I mean that he perpetrated a fraud.

 

Now, if the BOM itself was just a piece of garbage, or was something like C. Nemelka's "inspired translation" of the sealed plates--well, then even I would be looking for ways he could have perpetrated a fraud. As the cliche goes, "The proof is in the pudding," and the pudding in this case is an incredibly complex book with plots and sub-plots, and sub-sub-plots, multiple narrators, migrations.... Somebody could write an entire book alone on the different plates and their histories that are mentioned in the book. And yet this entire book hangs together. I have been reading this book for a long time now. I have outgrown lots of authors. I am somebody who reads a lot and there are books on my shelf that I read years back but don't ready anymore because after one or two readings I had exhausted them. But the BOM--this is a book I have been reading consistently for years now, and I will never outgrow it.

 

And so if Joseph Smith really did make plates out of tin, and managed to pull off this fraud, where did he get the BOM from?-- I mean the text, the contents of the book? For it is like no other book in the world.

Edited September 9, 2013 by bdouglas

[Robert F. Smith]

I don't know where Dan V. says this. I don't pay much attention to him. These guys decide from the git-go that JS claims about plates delivered by an angel are absurd and then work off that assumption never allowing that he might simply have been telling the truth--which in fact is the only viable explanation. But their explanations of how he perpetrated his "fraud" are far more absurd than any angel with plates, and this thing about him  making plates from tin is only one example.

 

The best apologetic reply to the question of did JS really have gold plates is this from Mormon Scholars Testify. At least I like it.

 

http://mormonscholarstestify.org/3026/garold-n-davis

Yes, a very nice perspective from Professor Davis, but it does not really deal with the Vogel position, which I have just found at http://signaturebooks.com/2012/03/book-of-mormon-witnesses-revisited/ ,

 

Vogel begins with an apriori assumption: " . . . my discussion of the plates did not begin with a wild speculation about how Joseph Smith could have made them out of tin, but rather, . . with the assumption that the Book of Mormon is not real history."  Which required that he explore the "fake" plates, even it such a concept is nonsensical:, i.e., doesn't actually work out.

 

. . ,  I suggested that “it would have been possible for him to make plates out of tin—which would be consistent with the reported weight of between forty and sixty pounds—and allow the chosen few to feel them through a cloth.”103 In my biography of Joseph Smith, I elaborated on this suggestion:

 

The construction of such a book would have been relatively easy. There were scraps of tin available on the Smith property and elsewhere in the vicinity, and during the several hours Joseph was separated from Emma the night they went to the hill, and on other occasions, he could have easily set up shop in the cave on the other side of the hill or in some corner of the forest. Using a pair of metal shears, it would have been easy to cut a number of 6 x 8 inch sheets. A hole punch, nail, or some similar instrument could have been used to make three holes along one edge of each plate. Then it would have been a matter of passing three wires or rods through the holes and bending them into rings. A book made of tin plates of the dimensions (6 x 8 x 6 inches) described by Smith would have weighed between fifty and sixty pounds, which corresponds to weight that was mentioned by eye‑witness accounts.104

 

In a footnote, I calculated the weight of the plates as follows:

A block of solid tin measuring 7 x 8 x 6 inches, or 288 cubic inches, would weigh 74.67 pounds. If one allows for a 30 percent reduction due to the unevenness and space between the plates, the package would then weigh 52.27 pounds. Using the same calculations, plates of gold weigh 140.50 pounds; copper, 64.71 pounds; a mixture of gold and copper, between 65 and 140 pounds.

105

 

 Had Vogel wished to be fully above board, he would have cited and discussed the work of the metallurgist, Reed Putnam, which I dealt with at http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=71&chapid=847 .  His figures make it clear that Vogel is dealing fast and loose with the data in suggesting that a set of tin plates would fill the descriptive bill as well as a set of gold-copper plates.  One of the reasons why some people have suggested lead is precisely because lead and gold, being similarly very heavy (dense), might be confused.  But no one would have believed that a 6x8x6 set of plates (Joseph's dimensions) made of tin would weigh as much as a set of gold-copper plates.  Merely hefting them in a pillow case would have told the immediate tale, and the jig would have been up.  Would that Vogel had bothered to compare commensurables, i.e., both fitting the weight descriptions of witnesses.

Edited September 9, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[bdouglas]

Defenders of the church also have decided from the "Git Go" that their position is correct. It only seems like a viable explanation because that is YOUR pre-conceived belief system and you must support it, despite no evidence. IE: Book of Mormon as a historical document, BOA etc. Joseph Smith's criminal history is ample evidence that he had it in him to do it. Could Joseph Smith have fabricated so called plates...of course he could have. He demostrated the same behaviour when trying to convince people to invest in the illegal bank he chartered. Namely, placing coins in the tops of boxes that were filled below with something else, giving the illusion that the bank had money. It didn't and it went under in a flame. He certainly had people around him who could have fabricated something to look like plates.

 

I hope it doesn't seem like you're being ganged up on. You've got to be brave to come onto this forum with a contrary argument.

[Robert F. Smith]

Defenders of the church also have decided from the "Git Go" that their position is correct. It only seems like a viable explanation because that is YOUR pre-conceived belief system and you must support it, despite no evidence. IE: Book of Mormon as a historical document, BOA etc. Joseph Smith's criminal history is ample evidence that he had it in him to do it. Could Joseph Smith have fabricated so called plates...of course he could have. He demostrated the same behaviour when trying to convince people to invest in the illegal bank he chartered. Namely, placing coins in the tops of boxes that were filled below with something else, giving the illusion that the bank had money. It didn't and it went under in a flame. He certainly had people around him who could have fabricated something to look like plates.

Well then, if it is so easy, why don't you describe a viable way in which Joseph might have done it?  Who were these people around him who could have done it, and never told the tale (even when they apostatized)?  It is one thing to deal with real world considerations.  It is quite another to simply assume that he made fake plates, and then to provide fake data by which to prove the point.  I have yet to read a reasonable explanation as to how it was done.  As Vogel himself tells us, he assumed at the outset that there could not have been real plates, and then tried to work out the fakery.  He failed because he assumed what had to be proved.  He might have employed induction or deduction, but he preferred neither.

[omni]

Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses (1981) by Richard Lloyd Anderson has all the information needed to come to the only conclusion that can intelligently be come to, namely, that the witnesses were men of good character, that they meant what they testified of, and that not a single one of them ever denied their printed testimonies, even though many of them later became critical of Joseph Smith.

As witness after witness gradually died off without having denied their printed testimonies, a desperation to find just one who would deny became evident. When it all came down to the last surviving witness, David Whitmer, who valiently maintained his testimony, and died affirming that testimony, and leaving a tombstone to continue that affirmation, it was all over for those who desperately sought to undermine the testimonies of the witnesses.

Anyone who thinks that it is not all over is either deceiving one's self or trying to deceive others. Nothing now can ever undermine testimonies that were never denied. Move on, get a life, find something valuable to do. It is painful to watch persons wasting the days of their probation trying to undermine the testimonies of Book of Mormon witnesses, whose names have been listed in the numerous languages into which the Book of Mormon has been translated.

I don't think the testimonies of the witnesses are as ironclad as you would like to believe.

[bdouglas]

I don't think the testimonies of the witnesses are as ironclad as you would like to believe.

 

 

A few years ago I went to a fireside given by Eldred G. Smith, a b-day celebration of Hyrum Smith. And Eldred had there the pine box (I think it was pine), owned by Hyrum, that Joseph used to house the plates. And I remember handling this box, and thinking to myself, "Did this box once really hold gold plates, gold plates that were delivered by an angel?"

 

After that fireside (I was young then) I read Richard Anderson's BOM Witnesses, and I read many other sources as well. My office was close to the church history library in SLC and once a week at least I would go to this library and read everything I could find about the witnesses and about that period of church history. And I read contrary sources also, not available in the library (although it was surprising how much was available in the library). And I concluded after it all that the only conclusion that could be drawn, or that I could draw, the only explanation that worked was the one JS gave: that an angel had delivered to him the plates, etc., etc. This was quite different from the spiritual witness I'd had as a missionary, since at the time I was no longer very active in the church.

 

The only way I can I see any other explanation for the existence of these plates is if someone simply decides it is absurd, i.e., JS getting them from an angel, and so there has to be some other explanation and you are going to find it, one way or another. And so (to choose only one example) you pick apart every one of the 11 witnesses, everything than can be known about them, and you drawn conclusions that are--I'm looking for the right word--conclusions that at best are "stretchers". Because, in my view at least, they really don't hold up very well, taken with everything else.

Edited September 9, 2013 by bdouglas

[bdouglas]

And even if you could explain away the witnesses and prove JS had manufactured tin plates, how would you account for the BOM?--I mean the actual book, the text of the book (which in my view is the most amazing book in existence). The printer's manuscript of this book, the one Grandin used to set the type, is another interesting story, i.e., certain oddities about this ms. that point to divine origins since I don't know how else one could account for these oddities. Someone could write a lengthy paper on this ms. alone and these oddities.

Edited September 9, 2013 by bdouglas

[iriemon]

Whether you are a believer in the BOM or not (and I am a believer), I think that if you honestly look at the evidence and make every effort to be objective--I don't see how you can do this and come up with something like "Joseph made them from tin", etc., etc. When I say "all of the evidence" I mean the witnesses, both formal and informal, and also the logistics, all of the planning and work he would have had to do to perpetrate a fraud. It just doesn't add up--I mean that he perpetrated a fraud.

 

Now, if the BOM itself was just a piece of garbage, or was something like C. Nemelka's "inspired translation" of the sealed plates--well, then even I would be looking for ways he could have perpetrated a fraud. As the cliche goes, "The proof is in the pudding," and the pudding in this case is an incredibly complex book with plots and sub-plots, and sub-sub-plots, multiple narrators, migrations.... Somebody could write an entire book alone on the different plates and their histories that are mentioned in the book. And yet this entire book hangs together. I have been reading this book for a long time now. I have outgrown lots of authors. I am somebody who reads a lot and there are books on my shelf that I read years back but don't ready anymore because after one or two readings I had exhausted them. But the BOM--this is a book I have been reading consistently for years now, and I will never outgrow it.

 

And so if Joseph Smith really did make plates out of tin, and managed to pull off this fraud, where did he get the BOM from?-- I mean the text, the contents of the book? For it is like no other book in the world.

 

He certainly had the know how/recources to fabricate boxes of fake money to decieve people into buying paper in the Kirtland Anti-Banking society. What would one say for example, if today, a leader in the church set up an illegal hedge fund, against US law, falsified information to get people to invest in such, (Like Joseph Smith did, by saying it was a revelation from god that he do it), then when the whole thing collapes, this leader leaves town in the middle of the night, to avoid prosecution. That person is a criminal, and everyone would agree. Yet, somehow Joseph Smith gets a pass, as church supporters who now must try and justify this criminal behaviour. If Joseph Smith fabricated plates, of course he would keep it a secret as much as he could, and those involved would have as well.

 

You wrote:

"The proof is in the pudding," and the pudding in this case is an incredibly complex book with plots and sub-plots, and sub-sub-plots, multiple narrators, migrations...."

 

The same could be said of the Lord of the Rings, or any other epic story line. There is as much historical evidence for Hobbits, Elves, and Galdalf the Grey as there is for Nephites or Lamanites. The evidence simply does not exist. Church supporters have been saying for years that it's impossible for Joseph Smith to have written the book on his own, yet hundreds of other authors have already demostrated the ability. Your arguement by that logic would mean also that the Quran is also true.

[omni]

And even if you could explain away the witnesses and prove JS had manufactured tin plates, how would you account for the BOM?--I mean the actual book, the text of the book (which in my view is the most amazing book in existence).

It comes through in your posts that you have a great love for the BoM which I respect, but a book can be the most amazing book in existence-inspiring millions, without it being of divine origins. When I was younger and I would read the BoM, I would occasionally think there's no way Joseph could of written this because I was placing myself in his shoes and there was no way I could have written it. There's also no way I could ever write a hit song, a best-seller novel, create a piece of art worthy of a museum gallery, or a film with a theatrical release. But of course these are all happening everyday because some people have that ability to create a work or a piece of art that the average person never could dream of accomplishing, and some are even achieving this with very little formal education.

Edited September 9, 2013 by omni

[bdouglas]

iriemon and omni--

 

I don't read "The Hobbit" much but I've read some English lit (especially Shakespeare) and for ten years or so I devoured Tolstoy, Dostoevsky (especially "The Possessed") and Chekhov. I am a businessman and I don't have any kind of specialized expertise in literature but still it seems the BOM is very different, than, say, "The Hobbit". It is incredibly more complex--not to mention the way it deals with ultimate questions.

 

The ultimate questions bit is important. It is extremely difficult to deal with these kinds of questions in a way that is convincing. Lots of movies try to, for example, and the results are just ludicrous. Lots of books do also. I used to like to read Tolstoy's "Death Of Ivan Ilych" because it dealt with some ultimate questions (death). But "The Death Of Ivan" is nothing like the BOM, does not even began to approach what we get in the BOM. Any author can tackle such questions, but to do so convincingly? Well, there are a handful of books, or authors that do--apart from the Bible. Sophocles. Christopher Marlowe. Shakespeare. Tolstoy--at least in "Death Of Ivan". There are a few others. But even these books, or these authors do not even come close to what we get in the BOM.

 

And this is just one aspect of the book--one aspect. And I'm supposed to believe that a 24 year old did this, a 24 old who, from the examples of his writing at that time could not even construct a coherent sentence (as Emma said of him)? No, I think I will look to the explanation he gave for the book, it seems to be a better fit.

 

But at the same time I do recognize that in the end it comes down to choice--and I have made the choice to believe, because it seems like the better choice. (But I have people in my family who think of the book the way you both seem to, they have made the opposite choice. And I'm ok with that.)

Edited September 9, 2013 by bdouglas

[bdouglas]

P.S. - The Koran is a very different kind of animal than the BOM (not to mention that Muhammed took 20 years to complete it), or other kinds of automatic writings some have compared the BOM to, like the "Urantia Book" or "The Book Of Miracles". I don't think they can be reasonably compared at all. But this would be a whole new topic.

 

P.S. 2 - I appreciate your presence on this forum, iriemon and omni. Without you and others like you this forum would be very boring--like a High Priests Group meeting (ha, ha).

Edited September 9, 2013 by bdouglas

[iriemon]

Well then, if it is so easy, why don't you describe a viable way in which Joseph might have done it?  Who were these people around him who could have done it, and never told the tale (even when they apostatized)?  It is one thing to deal with real world considerations.  It is quite another to simply assume that he made fake plates, and then to provide fake data by which to prove the point.  I have yet to read a reasonable explanation as to how it was done.  As Vogel himself tells us, he assumed at the outset that there could not have been real plates, and then tried to work out the fakery.  He failed because he assumed what had to be proved.  He might have employed induction or deduction, but he preferred neither.

 

Real world considerations tell us that setting up an illegal bank, then running out of town to avoid prosecution, creditors, and angry investors who were under the assumption that Joseph Smith was ok, as long as he name dropped god. Someone who stands to make alot of money from this venture is of course going to go to lenghts to make sure the venture gets off the ground. You assume that because there is no "Simple Explanation", that it was impossible. Of course it is possible. 

The Book of Mormon would be no different. He tried to sell the copyright for money. That attempt failed of course. Again demonstrates behaviour. If he is capable of a banking scam, there is no reason to discount the possiblity that he defrauded others along the way in other areas. If the current leader of the church did this, he would be arrested and put in prison. Joseph Smith was not exempt from US law, even though his actions clearly showed he felt he was above it. (Look no further than declaring marshall law and destroying a printing press, in a country with freedom of speech that shows he felt he could do whatever he wanted).

[iriemon]

iriemon and omni--

 

I don't read "The Hobbit" much but I've read some English lit (especially Shakespeare) and for ten years or so I devoured Tolstoy, Dostoevsky (especially "The Possessed") and Chekhov. I am a businessman and I don't have any kind of specialized expertise in literature but still it seems the BOM is very different, than, say, "The Hobbit". It is incredibly more complex--not to mention the way it deals with ultimate questions.

 

The ultimate questions bit is important. It is extremely difficult to deal with these kinds of questions in a way that is convincing. Lots of movies try to, for example, and the results are just ludicrous. Lots of books do also. I used to like to read Tolstoy's "Death Of Ivan Ilych" because it dealt with some ultimate questions (death). But "The Death Of Ivan" is nothing like the BOM, does not even began to approach what we get in the BOM. Any author can tackle such questions, but to do so convincingly? Well, there are a handful of books, or authors that do--apart from the Bible. Sophocles. Christopher Marlowe. Shakespeare. Tolstoy--at least in "Death Of Ivan". There are a few others. But even these books, or these authors do not even come close to what we get in the BOM.

 

And this is just one aspect of the book--one aspect. And I'm supposed to believe that a 24 year old did this, a 24 old who, from the examples of his writing at that time could not even construct a coherent sentence (as Emma said of him)? No, I think I will look to the explanation he gave for the book, it seems to be a better fit.

 

But at the same time I do recognize that in the end it comes down to choice--and I have made the choice to believe, because it seems like the better choice. (But I have people in my family who think of the book the way you both seem to, they have made the opposite choice. And I'm ok with that.)

 

You might read them someday. Then you would agree that The LOTR books are FAR more complex than that BOM is. What they both have in common is, they both describe civilizations for which there is NO historical evidence. The argument that Joseph Smith could not have written the BOM based on his age, education ability etc, is an old arguement that church members are conditioned to repeat when confronted with this question. (Much like the ol', women needed to marry someone because all of the men were killed on the trek to Utah, that's why polygamy was needed)  I've seen it hundreds of times. However, It's simply not true. Of course he could have. He had Oliver Cowdrey, and others around him. There are plenty of explanations, including Spaulding etc. As I mentioned, by that logic, then the Quran is actually more inspired, because Muhammad had less education than Joseph Smith did, and his religion has spread into a world super power.  Joseph Smith read frequently from the bible, so the King James type language was be familiar to him. He was known to tell amazing stories and tall tales as a kid. All of these could be easily used to produce the book.