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

[omni]

 

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).

 

So you're saying High Priests can be boring...watch out, that's the first step to apostacy   

One of the things I appreciate the most about this board is the differing views, but I have to admit I would like a few more of us apostates to balance things out a bit.

[cinepro]

I've often wondered what the possible "critical" explanation for the plates could be if we don't accept Joseph's story.  How could someone fake such a thing?  It's never been done before or since.

 

Except for this.

 

And this.

 

And this.

 

And this.

 

And this.

 

And this.

 

And this.

 

And this.

 

But other than that, it's simply unbelievable that someone could make such a thing.  It's just not possible.

Edited September 9, 2013 by cinepro

[bdouglas]

So you're saying High Priests can be boring...watch out, that's the first step to apostacy   

One of the things I appreciate the most about this board is the differing views, but I have to admit I would like a few more of us apostates to balance things out a bit.

 

High priests group mtg can be pretty dull. It's interesting for me to look around and see number of brethren reading iPads or Kindles (I'm usually one of them). Every so often someone tosses a grenade and the debate is suddenly brisk and interesting--but this does not happen often. (Since I'm a shy person I never toss any grenades.)

 

Well, you guys are the grenade tossers in the high priests group mtg that is the MDDB. Just don't get yourselves banned. Things would a lot less interesting.

Edited September 9, 2013 by bdouglas

[omni]

The obvious differences include:

No witnesses claim to have seen an angel testify about plates.

 

 

Ah yes, but did they see them with their spiritual eyes or natural eyes?

 

The plates were not made of a rare metal Strang would have had trouble acquiring (Joseph could not get that much gold).

 

 

Or did the witnesses only feel the plates under a cloth and were pressured by Joseph to sign the prewritten statement claiming they saw and turned their pages?

 

Strang was doing this as a sign that he was the successor by copying Joseph but missed the important part of sharing light and knowledge.

 

 

I'm sure his followers (yes, there are still some living today) who would disagree mightily with you that he didn't share light and knowledge.

 

The first two statements imo are the heart of the argument.  Obviously each side is going to come to their respective conclusions based on where their belief paradigm fits within the church.

Edited September 9, 2013 by omni

[omni]

High priests group mtg can be pretty dull. It's interesting for me to look around and see number of brethren reading iPads or Kindles (I'm usually one of them). Every so often someone tosses a grenade and the debate is suddenly brisk and interesting--but this does not happen often. (Since I'm a shy person I never toss any grenades.)

 

Well, you guys are the grenade tossers in the high priests group mtg that is the MDDB. Just don't get yourselves banned. Things would a lot less interesting.

 

I always thought HP would be a little more interesting, with the occasional "blacks were fence-sitters" or "Obama is hastening the coming of the Lord" from the old timers.  In EQ we're strictly vanilla with an extra scoop of glazed-over eyes.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

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?

I try not to be a critic, but I think the piece that is glaring to me is that we no longer have the plates.  Why did the angel take back the plates? If it was because of the sealed portion, why not just take back that part? An angel didn't collect the egyptian papyrus after we got the book of Abraham. An angel didn't take away all the greek manuscripts after we got the King James version. An angel didn't take Joseph's seer stone (though he did take the Nephite interpreters). If the plates were real, why not leave them as evidence for all to see? If I were a critic, this is the tact I would take... 

[The Nehor]

Ah yes, but did they see them with their spiritual eyes or natural eyes?

 

 

Or did the witnesses only feel the plates under a cloth and were pressured by Joseph to sign the prewritten statement claiming they saw and turned their pages?

 

 

I'm sure his followers (yes, there are still some living today) who would disagree mightily with you that he didn't share light and knowledge.

 

The first two statements imo are the heart of the argument.  Obviously each side is going to come to their respective conclusions based on where their belief paradigm fits within the church.

 

I would say both natural and spiritual. The spiritual eyes thing comes from one particular witness (Martin Harris) and I believe he meant miraculously saw or supernaturally beheld.....in other words it was amazing. Neither of the other two made such claims.

 

I have no idea why anyone would invent the idea that the 8 witnesses never saw them when they said they did.

 

I have no idea if Strang shared light and knowledge; I do know there is not anything in the translation of those plates.

 

 

I always thought HP would be a little more interesting, with the occasional "blacks were fence-sitters" or "Obama is hastening the coming of the Lord" from the old timers.  In EQ we're strictly vanilla with an extra scoop of glazed-over eyes.

 

I teach 4th Sunday Elder's Quorum. I warned my President that if I did not get an assignment I would talk about Adam-God. I have no idea whether I am joking or not.

 

 

I try not to be a critic, but I think the piece that is glaring to me is that we no longer have the plates.  Why did the angel take back the plates? If it was because of the sealed portion, why not just take back that part? An angel didn't collect the egyptian papyrus after we got the book of Abraham. An angel didn't take away all the greek manuscripts after we got the King James version. An angel didn't take Joseph's seer stone (though he did take the Nephite interpreters). If the plates were real, why not leave them as evidence for all to see? If I were a critic, this is the tact I would take... 

 

Problems with having the plates:

 

1. We would start getting people publishing "more perfect" translations.

2. Arguments about their authenticity.

3. Arguments about the language (which is dead)

4. Might convince a bunch of faithless people to get baptized and increase our less-active rate.

 

The Book of Mormon tells us that before the end more records will come forth proving the validity of the Bible and the Book of Mormon. I expect that God will go this route (or something like it) to prove His work before the Second Coming as a final appeal that will largely fail and leave people without excuse. Right now we have less evidence which is a kind of blessing. I have to admit I personally sometimes envy people who still have room for doubts.

 

In any case I don't think the gold plates would have that big of a dent. If people acted rationally based on what was best based on available evidence no one would smoke, fat people would be a rare anomaly, and both political parties would fall within the week.

[omni]

 

 

I teach 4th Sunday Elder's Quorum. I warned my President that if I did not get an assignment I would talk about Adam-God. I have no idea whether I am joking or not.

 

 

 

Oh, I'd pay to see that.

[Freedom]

I've often wondered what the possible "critical" explanation for the plates could be if we don't accept Joseph's story.  How could someone fake such a thing?  It's never been done before or since.

 

Except for this.

 

And this.

 

And this.

 

And this.

 

And this.

 

And this.

 

And this.

 

And this.

 

But other than that, it's simply unbelievable that someone could make such a thing.  It's just not possible.

uh ya, right. Not.

[Freedom]

I try not to be a critic, but I think the piece that is glaring to me is that we no longer have the plates.  Why did the angel take back the plates? If it was because of the sealed portion, why not just take back that part? An angel didn't collect the egyptian papyrus after we got the book of Abraham. An angel didn't take away all the greek manuscripts after we got the King James version. An angel didn't take Joseph's seer stone (though he did take the Nephite interpreters). If the plates were real, why not leave them as evidence for all to see? If I were a critic, this is the tact I would take... 

 

I challenge you to provide a single original manuscript for any of the books of scriptures we have. The Egyptian papyrus were destroyed in a fire, the Greek manuscripts are hundreds of years removed from the original and are not in agreement on many points. The seer stone is not an original and ancient record.

[danielwoods]

I challenge you to provide a single original manuscript for any of the books of scriptures we have. The Egyptian papyrus were destroyed in a fire, the Greek manuscripts are hundreds of years removed from the original and are not in agreement on many points. The seer stone is not an original and ancient record.

 The question was why didn't the angel take those back? 

 

The reason the criticism carries any weight at all, is because it matches what a person making up the story would claim. 

[cinepro]

 The question was why didn't the angel take those back? 

 

The reason the criticism carries any weight at all, is because it matches what a person making up the story would claim. 

 

If the story didn't "match what a person making up the story would claim", then it wouldn't require faith to believe it.

 

Although based on what happened with the papyri, I suspect if the plates hadn't been taken back, it would require much, much more faith to believe the story.

Edited September 10, 2013 by cinepro

[MormonMason]

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.

...

In 1827-1829??? Not likely!  When Martin Harris was around that was one of his tests he put Joseph through and knew better.  People tried to tell Harris that Joseph Smith had to have made the Book of Mormon plates to lure him into the trap of giving up his money to Joseph.

 

Harris simply dismissed the claims out of hand.  Why? Because he himself knew Joseph's financial state at the time and knew that Joseph had not credit enough for 40-50 pounds of lead much less any other metal at the time.

[Freedom]

 The question was why didn't the angel take those back? 

 

The reason the criticism carries any weight at all, is because it matches what a person making up the story would claim. 

There is no miracle required in finding some old records and using scholarship rather than divine revelation to translate them. The existence of these old scrolls does not prove the bible true, it does not even prove that these records are genuine. There are many experts who are arguing that the gospels were not written by people who even knew the savior. You cannot compare the discovery of a real world document such as old scrolls to a divinely revealed record such as the golden plates. We do not have any of the original writings of any of the biblical authors. They have all disappeared. We cannot prove any of the people or events in the bible. Contrary to what the religious hacks want to have you believe, we have no more evidence for the biblical record than we do have for the Book of Mormon record.

 

 

God took them all away to require us to live by faith. He has not explained how what is known of the fossil record mixes with the scriptural record, he has not provided DNA to prove Abraham's role, he has not produced the ark of the covenant, talking donkeys, collaborative records that place Israel in Egypt, the list goes on.

[MormonMason]

...

 

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.

A major difference between the Book of Mormon and The Lord of the Rings is that R.R. Tolkien was an accomplished scholar and linguist, and well over 30 years of research went into preparation for the writing of The Lord of the Rings.  Not so for the Book of Mormon, and you know it.

Edited September 10, 2013 by MormonMason

[danielwoods]

If the story didn't "match what a person making up the story would claim", then it wouldn't require faith to believe it.

 

Although based on what happened with the papyri, I suspect if the plates hadn't been taken back, it would require much, much more faith to believe the story.

 

Faith is needed to believe either way. The criticism though, stems from the similarity to what others might do to hood wink people. 

 

There is no miracle required in finding some old records and using scholarship rather than divine revelation to translate them. The existence of these old scrolls does not prove the bible true, it does not even prove that these records are genuine. There are many experts who are arguing that the gospels were not written by people who even knew the savior. You cannot compare the discovery of a real world document such as old scrolls to a divinely revealed record such as the golden plates. We do not have any of the original writings of any of the biblical authors. They have all disappeared. We cannot prove any of the people or events in the bible. Contrary to what the religious hacks want to have you believe, we have no more evidence for the biblical record than we do have for the Book of Mormon record.

 

 

God took them all away to require us to live by faith. He has not explained how what is known of the fossil record mixes with the scriptural record, he has not provided DNA to prove Abraham's role, he has not produced the ark of the covenant, talking donkeys, collaborative records that place Israel in Egypt, the list goes on.

 

We live by faith no matter what, that doesn't change no matter what happened, or with how much evidence we have or don't have. However, when someone says that "the dog ate my homework", or "angels took back the plates", either way it sounds fishy. 

[MormonMason]

...

 

Or did the witnesses only feel the plates under a cloth and were pressured by Joseph to sign the prewritten statement claiming they saw and turned their pages?

 

...

If they had, someone would have spilled the beans when that someone became an enemy of Joseph Smith.  None of them did.  All who were pressed for further information after leaving the Church admitted to seeing actual engravings on metal with the appearance of gold.  The only time the plates were kept covered was during parts of the translation period.  One who never rejoined the Church after being excommunicated (David Whitmer) even had people put aspects of his testimony of the Book of Mormon on his tombstone.  Oliver Cowdery rejoined the Church but died before he could make the trip.  Martin Harris rejoined the Church and went West.  Others also remained outside the Church but still maintained that they saw and held something.

[MormonMason]

I try not to be a critic, but I think the piece that is glaring to me is that we no longer have the plates.  Why did the angel take back the plates? If it was because of the sealed portion, why not just take back that part? An angel didn't collect the egyptian papyrus after we got the book of Abraham. An angel didn't take away all the greek manuscripts after we got the King James version. An angel didn't take Joseph's seer stone (though he did take the Nephite interpreters). If the plates were real, why not leave them as evidence for all to see? If I were a critic, this is the tact I would take... 

Because Joseph kept getting the temptation to melt them down for their gold? He was tempted rather badly, and wasn't even allowed to get possession of them until he could demonstrate some constraint over a few years of time, and even then had to bring someone with him just to get them.  40-60 pounds of gold was a good sum even in that time.

 

The papyrus was burned and we never did get the full Book of Abraham that was promised.

 

No originals of the Greek New Testament manuscripts survived even the first century and no angel was involved as guardian of the King James Version.

 

Big differences all around.

Edited September 10, 2013 by MormonMason

[Tacenda]

If they had, someone would have spilled the beans when that someone became an enemy of Joseph Smith. None of them did. All who were pressed for further information after leaving the Church admitted to seeing actual engravings on metal with the appearance of gold. The only time the plates were kept covered was during parts of the translation period. One who never rejoined the Church after being excommunicated (David Whitmer) even had people put aspects of his testimony of the Book of Mormon on his tombstone. Oliver Cowdery rejoined the Church but died before he could make the trip. Martin Harris rejoined the Church and went West. Others also remained outside the Church but still maintained that they saw and held something.

Is this crazy? What if there were several of these witnesses that believed they were doing a good thing by starting the religion. Thinking there was so much confusion and something needed to change, for instance, babies going to hell if they die before being baptized. What if they like Univeralism. Plus, many were Freemason. Therefore what if they wanted to establish a religion based on Masonry? I think for a good cause many of these men would die before telling. Especially if they've made blood oath covenants.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Right now we have less evidence which is a kind of blessing. I have to admit I personally sometimes envy people who still have room for doubts.

 

 

So less evidence is a blessing? Then why give the 11 witnesses? If their story is as iron clad as some here claim (i.e. no one can honestly examine their story and doubt that JS was telling the truth), why didn't God cause some of them to recant. How does God determine the right amount of evidence?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I challenge you to provide a single original manuscript for any of the books of scriptures we have. The Egyptian papyrus were destroyed in a fire, the Greek manuscripts are hundreds of years removed from the original and are not in agreement on many points. The seer stone is not an original and ancient record.

Indeed.  Many people in our church as well as some conservative protestants think the King James is inspired even though it was translated from some of the poorer manuscripts available.  Why didn't God remove the older manuscripts so that in the words of Nehor "We would start getting people publishing "more perfect" translations."

 

Are you saying that God caused the Chicago fire that destroyed some of the Egyptian papyrus and that God was behind the careless scribes in the first century? He doesn't want us to have those records.  Your argument may hold weight if I was a protestant who believed the bible to be inerrant. Indeed if God went through the trouble to make the original autographs inerrant, you'd think He would have preserved the originals.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Because Joseph kept getting the temptation to melt them down for their gold? He was tempted rather badly, and wasn't even allowed to get possession of them until he could demonstrate some constraint over a few years of time, and even then had to bring someone with him just to get them. 40-60 pounds of gold was a good sum even in that time.

The papyrus was burned and we never did get the full Book of Abraham that was promised.

No originals of the Greek New Testament manuscripts survived even the first century and no angel was involved as guardian of the King James Version.

Big differences all around.

So God took the plates back because Joseph couldn't be trusted to preserve them. Is that your argument?

ETA:Also why restrict the viewing to 11 close friends?

Edited September 10, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Tacenda]

So God took the plates back because Joseph couldn't be trusted to preserve them. Is that your argument?

ETA:Also why restrict the viewing to 11 close friends?

Why restrict Emma completely?

[Robert F. Smith]

There is no miracle required in finding some old records and using scholarship rather than divine revelation to translate them. The existence of these old scrolls does not prove the bible true, it does not even prove that these records are genuine. There are many experts who are arguing that the gospels were not written by people who even knew the savior. You cannot compare the discovery of a real world document such as old scrolls to a divinely revealed record such as the golden plates. We do not have any of the original writings of any of the biblical authors. They have all disappeared. We cannot prove any of the people or events in the bible. Contrary to what the religious hacks want to have you believe, we have no more evidence for the biblical record than we do have for the Book of Mormon record.

 

 

God took them all away to require us to live by faith. He has not explained how what is known of the fossil record mixes with the scriptural record, he has not provided DNA to prove Abraham's role, he has not produced the ark of the covenant, talking donkeys, collaborative records that place Israel in Egypt, the list goes on.

Although it is true that much in the Bible cannot be proven via secular history and archeology, there is quite a bit that can be proven -- and has been -- via secular records and archeology.  The Bible and the Book of Mormon are on a different footing, in that the Bible was transmitted down through time by various scribes and has been translated into many languages, while the Book of Mormon appeared suddenly, through the good offices of an angel, having been buried for about a millennium and a half in northeastern America.  It was translated not by expert linguists, but by a simple farm-boy through the power of God.

 

Owing to a dearth of early New World records (the Spanish destroyed nearly all codices), and not quite as much archeology so far, we are yet able to verify many of the circumstantial claims of the Book of Mormon.  Lingustics and internal analysis (textual & literary) has also provided support for the claim of an ancient Book of Mormon.

[Robert F. Smith]

Why restrict Emma completely?

Emma wasn't "completely" restricted, and had a number of useful first-hand things to say about both the plates and about how they were translated.  She was, you may recall, Joseph's first scribe.

 

As for witnesses, maybe it was a man thing.  Besides, who would believe the testimony of a wife?