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

[The Nehor]

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?

 

No, the right amount is a blessing. It seems God gives us enough to make it plausible but not assured. To those who seek and a few who do not he gives witness in various degrees (Theophany to angels to visions to witnesses of the Holy Ghost).

 

To give binding proof would (to many) be damning.

[bdouglas]

Emma's informal witness to the reality of the plates is interesting to me because of her personality. She was very much her father's (Isaac Hale) daughter. She was practical, and had a lot of common sense. She was not at all a romantic like, say, Eliza R. Snow, and she was never carried away by her emotions. When asked why she married JS, she said something like, "Preferring him to any other man I knew, I consented to marry him." This was a very intelligent, practical, straightforward woman who, I think, would have known before anyone else if JS was pulling a fraud, out making plates of tin, etc. But on contrary, in-spite of everything she continued to believe and affirm the truth of the BOM and its peculiar origins till the end of her days.

[MormonMason]

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

 

...

Since there was no angel involved in the creation of the papyri and copies of Greek New Testament manuscripts in the first place, why would an angel take back what was never in an angel's custody? In the case of the Book of Mormon, the angel who had custody of the plates and brought them to the attention of Joseph Smith was also one of the main writers who put the final product together and who buried the plates in the first place.

 

In the case of the papyri, there was no chance an angel was getting those back.  Most of them were burned.  Or, did an angel actually come and rescue the important ones from the fire? Can we possibly know otherwise? And, of the originals of those texts written by original authors of the New Testament, do we know that angels did not take those from earth? Can we know for a certainty that such did not happen?

 

As to the Greek manuscripts that the KJV translators/revisors used, they were nothing but corrupt multi-generational copies of the originals.  And those only were consulted.  They actually used for most of their work of revision a printed Greek text.  Why would an angel want any of them?

Edited September 10, 2013 by MormonMason

[SeekingUnderstanding]

No, the right amount is a blessing. It seems God gives us enough to make it plausible but not assured. To those who seek and a few who do not he gives witness in various degrees (Theophany to angels to visions to witnesses of the Holy Ghost).

 

To give binding proof would (to many) be damning.

I think you are right that God decides not to give too much evidence, but I don't subscribe to your reason (not saying you're wrong). I prefer Given's approach and the value that God places on human agency.  I prefer to think that God provides enough evidence so that we can choose our path without being compelled one way or the other (at least that's my ineloquent summary of Givens).

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Since there was no angel involved in the creation of the papyri and copies of Greek New Testament manuscripts in the first place, why would an angel take back what was never in an angel's custody? In the case of the Book of Mormon, the angel who had custody of the plates and brought them to the attention of Joseph Smith was also one of the main writers who put the final product together and who buried the plates in the first place.

I wasn't aware that they were in Moroni's custody.  I thought they were buried in a concrete box in a hill near Joseph's Palmyra home. 

 

All I'm saying is that while the 11 witnesses (+Emma and Mrs Witmer and maybe a couple of others?) provide strong evidence for the existence of the plates, if I take a step back and take an outsiders view I realize that the 11 witnesses are only needed because the plates themselves are not available for reasons known only to God.

[omni]

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.

 

Dan Vogel has a great article discussing this.

 

Stephen Burnett’s Reporting of Martin Harris

In an April 1838 letter to Lyman E. Johnson, a former member of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles living in Far West, Missouri, Stephen Burnett explained the cause of his recent disillusionment with Mormonism. According to Burnett, Martin Harris declared at a public meeting in Kirtland, Ohio, that he “never saw the plates with his natural eyes,” and that “the eight witnesses [also] never saw them [with their natural eyes] & hesitated to sign that instrument for that reason, but were persuaded to do it.” Upon hearing Harris’s statement, Burnett said “the last pedestal gave way” and concluded: “if the witnesses whose names are attached to the Book of Mormon never saw the plates as Martin [Harris] admits, [then] there can be nothing brought to prove that any such thing ever existed.”

Three weeks later at another public meeting, according to Burnett, Harris said he was “sorry for any man who rejected the Book of Mormon for he knew it was true, he said he had hefted the plates repeatedly in a box with only a tablecloth or a handkerchief over them, but he never saw them only as he saw a city through a mountain.” He also expressed regret about revealing the true nature of the experience of the eight witnesses, stating that “he never should have told that the testimony of the eight [witnesses] was false, if it had not been picked out of [h]im but should have let it passed as it was.”

Burnett’s account is supported by Warren Parrish, a fellow dissenter who was also present and heard Harris’s statements. Parrish reported in August 1838 that “Harris, one of the subscribing witnesses, has come out at last, and says he never saw the plates, from which the book [of Mormon] purports to have been translated, except in vision, and he further says that any man who says he has seen them in any other way is a liar, Joseph [smith] not excepted.”40 So there are two independent witnesses to Harris’s public statements.

 

 

Does that make sense that an apostle would suddenly leave the church if Martin hadn't really stated he and the others had only seen them with their spiritual eyes?

In another, we have Joseph's own brother William stating:

 

I did not see them uncovered, but I handled them and hefted them while wrapped in a tow frock and judged them to have weighed about sixty pounds. ... Father and my brother Samuel saw them as I did while in the frock. So did Hyrum and others of the family.“ (Zion's Ensign, p. 6, January 13, 1894, cited in Church of Christ broadside.)

 

Edited September 10, 2013 by omni

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Dan Vogel has a great article discussing this.

 

 

Does that make sense that an apostle would suddenly leave the church if Martin hadn't really stated he and the others had only seen them with their spiritual eyes?

In another, we have Joseph's own brother William stating:

 

 

Martin's testimony "Tis enough, Mine eyes have beheld itself could be read critically in the following way (which I remembered reading on some random and non-religious message board):

 

The fact that Harris said "Tis enough, tis enough! Mine eyes have beheld," does imply two things: the 2nd sentence implies that the nature of the experience was such that Harris had to verbally communicate the moment when he his eyes had beheld the vision, and the first sentence implies that Harris felt externally pressured and impatient. And one assumes that this 2nd episode follows a similar structure to the first episode.

 

Again, I find the witness testimony compelling.  Just not iron clad.  

Edited September 10, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding

[MormonMason]

Emma's informal witness to the reality of the plates is interesting to me because of her personality. She was very much her father's (Isaac Hale) daughter. She was practical, and had a lot of common sense. She was not at all a romantic like, say, Eliza R. Snow, and she was never carried away by her emotions. When asked why she married JS, she said something like, "Preferring him to any other man I knew, I consented to marry him." This was a very intelligent, practical, straightforward woman who, I think, would have known before anyone else if JS was pulling a fraud, out making plates of tin, etc. But on contrary, in-spite of everything she continued to believe and affirm the truth of the BOM and its peculiar origins till the end of her days.

As did Martin Harris.  He put Joseph to the test at every opportunity.  I highly doubt that he would have escaped Harris' tests had he been perpetrating a fraud.

 

There are many things of interest in the way of the witnesses, particularly those who became enemies of Joseph Smith and never "spilled the beans" or "let the cat out of the bag," as it were--even in their anger against Joseph Smith and the Church over tossing them out on their rear ends.  No conspiracy of fraud could survive something like that in my opinion.

 

But, then there are interesting little things that come up in studying the Book of Mormon text that really make one pause for thought.  The growing numbers of such things should give pause to anyone before condemning the book as a pious fraud on the part of Joseph Smith.  One I was just thinking about today while reading my scriptures, and having a marginal note that I added years ago catch my eye again today, is the following.

 

In Isaiah 13:3, the verse ends with the words: "for mine anger, even them that rejoice in my highness."

In 2 Nephi 23:3, the verse ends with the words: "for mine anger is not upon them that rejoice in my highness."

 

Want to know the difference between these two partial sentences if both were set side-by-side in Hebrew?

 

Isaiah 13:3c: לאפי עליזי גאותי

2 Ne. 23:3c: לא אפי על־עליזי גאותי

 

What would account for such a difference is either haplography in the later Hebrew manuscripts of Isaiah (after the brass plates version was translated to Egyptian and written) or dittography in the Hebrew text that underlay the Egyptian translation on the plates of brass.  But, Joseph Smith knew no Hebrew at that time whatsoever.  How would he know to do something like that with the English text that actually would work and have a probable cause in underlying Hebrew? Or, was this just a cosmic coincidence? Things that make one go, "Hmmm..."

[MormonMason]

I wasn't aware that they were in Moroni's custody.  I thought they were buried in a concrete box in a hill near Joseph's Palmyra home. 

 

...

They were still under Moroni's custody and guardianship.  He wrote a large part of them, put the whole together, and buried them in that box.  He also was the one who brought them to Joseph's attention and was involved with them the entire time--even protecting them when Joseph was being foolish with them and the translation.

[MormonMason]

Dan Vogel has a great article discussing this.

 

 

Does that make sense that an apostle would suddenly leave the church if Martin hadn't really stated he and the others had only seen them with their spiritual eyes?

In another, we have Joseph's own brother William stating:

 

Yes, it makes perfect sense.  These men were on the way out, anyway.  They had already become unbelievers.  The curious thing is that there was someone else there who allegedly was denying his testimony, too.  His name was John Whitmer.  When another member confronted him about the things he was saying he immediately reversed himself and admitted that he saw them with his eyes, and that he saw the engravings thereon.  But, then he said that he may have seen the plates but he had no way of knowing what was on them and whether the translation was true, so he was able to excuse himself for unbelief.  But when pressed he stuck with the original story.

 

But then again, compare that with Laman and Lemuel in the Book of Mormon.  They both saw an angel but turned around later and claimed that Nephi was using trickery.  People in apostasy tend to make all sorts of claims that may or may not be true as excuses for unbelief.  Someone I know tried to prove himself crazy or mentally ill so he could deny he had seen visions and had revelations and prophecies, and thus find an excuse to leave the Church (the visions were the only thing keeping him in the Church at a very difficult period in his life).  To his dismay, all medical and other tests he underwent showed him normal.  He never was able to leave the Church.

 

But as to Harris, it must be understood that he did see a vision, apart from both David Whitmer and Oliver Cowdery, and under differing circumstances.  Both Oliver Cowdery, on the other hand, maintained that they saw the Book of Mormon as they see the sun with their eyes.

 

As to William Smith's statement, be careful of time frame.  Have you the original of that statement of William Smith or only that which is quoted third-hand at best from the broadside? For instance, during the time when the translation was going on, they did not yet see the plates but were permitted to heft them and feel them while wrapped in the frock, as did Emma.  That was a different time frame than the time when the plates were shown to the witnesses for their eyesight and handling.  It is true, on the other hand, that William Smith never saw them in the open.  But, he wasn't one of either the three or the eight witnesses, either.

Edited September 10, 2013 by MormonMason

[The Nehor]

I think you are right that God decides not to give too much evidence, but I don't subscribe to your reason (not saying you're wrong). I prefer Given's approach and the value that God places on human agency.  I prefer to think that God provides enough evidence so that we can choose our path without being compelled one way or the other (at least that's my ineloquent summary of Givens).

 

I thought that was what I said........

[WmLaw]

So what was the purpose of always having the plates covered in cloth?  Was it a trial of faith, or would it have been physically damaging for the ordinary person to view?  (because of their spiritual importance or something like that)

[MormonMason]

I thought that was what I said........

Jesus also certainly implied that in the New Testament and Book of Mormon as well.  He appeared to just over 500 people in the Old World as evidence that he rose again.  The rest of the people of that day and most today have to take their word on faith.

[MormonMason]

So what was the purpose of always having the plates covered in cloth?  Was it a trial of faith, or would it have been physically damaging for the ordinary person to view?  (because of their spiritual importance or something like that)

Probably a little of both, based on the eyewitness accounts.

[iriemon]

This is a very serious accusation.

 

CFR -- that this was "fake" money, that JS falsified information, that he committed a criminal act.  What are your sources.

 

To avoid derailing this thread, please bring your case in a separate thread, so you can discuss this in detail.

 

WHat I am referring to, as you know about I am sure, were the bank executives who testified in court later on, that Joseph Smith and Rigdon lined boxes with coins on top, with fake money....AKA: Sand, lining the bottoms. I know those here don't trust an apostate testimony. However, there was more than one, and for those who think that it was somehow suspicious that no one seemed to mention this while the bank was going on...well it should be obvious that if you have a financial interest in the bank, and if Joseph Smith said that by revelation in the Millennial Star that the bank was approved by god, and not only that but would swallow up other banks. Anyone invested in the bank surely would want the bank to be successful, and would not be in a hurry to hang Joseph Smith out to dry. When the Bank DID fail, and everyone lost their money, i'm sure the attitude changed among JS's followers. THey were promised in the name of God, and when that did not happen, of course they came forward. Apostates or not, fact remains, he was arrested and had many angry people whom he promised the venture would make them all rich.

[iriemon]

Then please explain why the huckster Joseph threw his own money into the Kirtland bank while it was on its last legs to try to stabilize it. Did he fall for his own con?

Your last paragraph is kind of insane. You claim Joseph thought he was exempt from US (federal) law but Joseph was arrested under state law (and never convicted). The constitution was a federal document and was meant to shackle the federal government not the state government. Only much later following the civil war was the constitution seen to completely supersede state law. It is also "martial law" and the printing press would have fallen under freedom of the press not freedom of speech.

 

 

Why would any business investor throw money into their own failing business? It doesn't take paragraphs of explanation to figure that out.

 

My claim is that Joseph Smith demonstrated that he felt he was above the law, when he ran from lawsuits, declared martial law, summoned the legion for his own rescue from prison, etc. IE Carthage.

[iriemon]

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 t

 

1827 - 1829 was not the time period for the Kirtland Banking scandal, which is what the statement was about that you replied to.

[iriemon]

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.

 

Simple, the papyri that the church has, and published in the Improvement ERA in 1968. After admitting they were the documents that Joseph Smith had, not to mention the filled in drawings Joseph Smith made that match the POGP, and the Egyptian Alphabet and grammar. The church has the papyrus JS used.

[iriemon]

 

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).

 

Appreciate that. I have been lurking here for years, not often, maybe once a month or so. Actually suprised I wasn't banned yet.

[Calm]

 summoned the legion for his own rescue from prison

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Martyrdom/Nauvoo_Legion_to_rescue_Joseph

 

 

 

There is little good evidence from the extant documents that Joseph attempted to have the Nauvoo Legion rescue him. By contrast, he repeatedly ordered the militia to stay home and his followers to avoid assembling. He repeatedly expressed resignation as to his fate, and just prior to his martyrdom was seeking to add more legal help to his hearing two days distant—a strange choice if he expected to be liberated by the militia.

That Dunham would receive orders from Joseph and refuse to follow them seems incredible. It would also be strange for Stout to be the only primary source to learn of such orders. Why would Dunham tell anyone that he had refused an order from the prophet? Why would he tell Stout, a fierce supporter of Joseph? Why did others not hear of this and report it? Why was Dunham not blamed by other LDS members later?

Stenhouse tells the story, and claims that the order was found discarded on the ground—again, this seems incredible. Why would Dunham dispose of such an incriminating bit of evidence so carelessly? If it was found, why did Brigham Young or other Church leaders never hear of, mention, or save it? The entire tale sounds more like gossip or grumbling among a few who felt that the Mormons militia could have rescued Joseph if given the chance.

 

 

[savedbygrace]

Since there was no angel involved in the creation of the papyri and copies of Greek New Testament manuscripts in the first place, why would an angel take back what was never in an angel's custody? In the case of the Book of Mormon, the angel who had custody of the plates and brought them to the attention of Joseph Smith was also one of the main writers who put the final product together and who buried the plates in the first place.

 

In the case of the papyri, there was no chance an angel was getting those back.  Most of them were burned.  Or, did an angel actually come and rescue the important ones from the fire? Can we possibly know otherwise? And, of the originals of those texts written by original authors of the New Testament, do we know that angels did not take those from earth? Can we know for a certainty that such did not happen?

 

As to the Greek manuscripts that the KJV translators/revisors used, they were nothing but corrupt multi-generational copies of the originals.  And those only were consulted.  They actually used for most of their work of revision a printed Greek text.  Why would an angel want any of them?

If the manuscripts that you mention were corrupt, why is the KJV so widely quoted in the BoM? And if there were errors in the KJV is it possible that these errors were transported to the BoM, if so why didn't Joseph Smith correct them when he was revising the bible, which I believe he did without the benefit of having access to the original manuscripts?

[iriemon]

So you have no evidence? Just poor arguments from non-historians without professional training in interpreting historical documents? They don't happen to be critics of the church do they? Hmmm.

 

Again, evidence for what? Joseph Smiths attempt to sell the copyright?  I posted the Hiram Page quote, and there are many others. Based on your statements, apparently only Mormon "Scholars" are the only historians who are able to intereperate mormon history. I don't need to be a "Historian with professional training in interpereting historical documents", in order to read the accounts of say Joseph Smith soliciting Sarah Whitney for sex while Emma was out of town, pretty easy to interperet. Or say a statement from a close associate, who went on the actual trip to try and sell the copyright, namely Hiram Page, when he says that Joseph Smith was trying to sell the copyright for money. It demonstrates behaviour that makes sense later in his life...IE: Illegal Bank, illegal destruction of a printing press etc.

 

On the flip side, these so called scholars, who are the only ones able to apparently tell us what mormon historical documents say, according to you, would those happen to be mormons with a pre-concieved belief system, who's interest is in aggrandizing the church and Joseph Smith? Hmmmm

[The Nehor]

Why would any business investor throw money into their own failing business? It doesn't take paragraphs of explanation to figure that out.

 

My claim is that Joseph Smith demonstrated that he felt he was above the law, when he ran from lawsuits, declared martial law, summoned the legion for his own rescue from prison, etc. IE Carthage.

No. You can't switch back and forth like that. You can't make it a con job when it suits you to slander Joseph and turn it into a business later to explain his actions away.

I dispute the second point. Joseph did not consider himself above the law. He did consider those administering the law as untrustworthy scoundrels. He was proved right. The situation should have involved a civil suit against the city for the destroyed press. in discussions with the governor Joseph offered to pay for the press if the law found against him. The governor was either a liar and a naive fool or a liar and complicit in the assassination. As to declaring martial law the purpose of martial law is to defend an area from lawless elements threatening the population. Lawless elements were threatening the population.

[omni]

As did Martin Harris.  He put Joseph to the test at every opportunity.  I highly doubt that he would have escaped Harris' tests had he been perpetrating a fraud.

 

 

Well it seems James Strang was able to escape Harris' tests as Harris was one of his special witnesses.  Harris had a reputation as an honest man of good character, but also of one prone to supernatural experiences, including the claim of him seeing Jesus in the form of a deer while walking and talking with him for three miles.  Not only that, but Harris joined four or five different chuirches before meeting Joseph and three or four after Joseph's death.   Not exactly an ideal special witness.

 

There are many things of interest in the way of the witnesses, particularly those who became enemies of Joseph Smith and never "spilled the beans" or "let the cat out of the bag," as it were--even in their anger against Joseph Smith and the Church over tossing them out on their rear ends.  No conspiracy of fraud could survive something like that in my opinion

 

 

I don't think most critics believe it was a conspiracy fraud between all the witnesses, but rather a combination of seeing the plates/angels with their spiritual eyes, props, and wanting to believe what they were told they were seeing.

 

Yes, it makes perfect sense.  These men were on the way out, anyway.

 

 

This sounds a little like, "oh they just left the church because they were lazy or wanted to sin."  Not only did three apostles leave the church after Harris told them of seeing the plates/angel with his spiritual eyes, but the type setter for the BoM, an entire congregation in Ohio, and residents in both Palmyra and Kirtland all made similar claims.

 

As to William Smith's statement, be careful of time frame.  Have you the original of that statement of William Smith or only that which is quoted third-hand at best from the broadside? For instance, during the time when the translation was going on, they did not yet see the plates but were permitted to heft them and feel them while wrapped in the frock, as did Emma.  That was a different time frame than the time when the plates were shown to the witnesses for their eyesight and handling.  It is true, on the other hand, that William Smith never saw them in the open.  But, he wasn't one of either the three or the eight witnesses, either.

 

I couldn't find what time period William was referring to, so you may have a good point.  However in the quote William specifically mentions by name his father, Samuel and Hyrum (who were all witnesses) which could indicate he was speaking about the experience involving the eight witnesses. 

[cdowis]

I don't need to be a "Historian with professional training in interpereting historical documents", in order to read the accounts of say Joseph Smith soliciting Sarah Whitney for sex while Emma was out of town,

 

CFR that he "solicited sex"

 

pretty easy to interperet. Or say a statement from a close associate, who went on the actual trip to try and sell the copyright, namely Hiram Page, when he says that Joseph Smith was trying to sell the copyright for money. It demonstrates behaviour that makes sense later in his life...IE: Illegal Bank, illegal destruction of a printing press etc.

 

CFR that he engaged in **illegal banking activities", "illegal destruction of a printing press"

 

On the flip side, these so called scholars, who are the only ones able to apparently tell us what mormon historical documents say,

 

No need to be a scholar.  Just become educated on history and possess an open mind and common sense.  For example, was the destruction of the press illegal under the laws at that time -- acting within the authority of the mayor and city council, was the Banking SocietyIllegal under the laws at that time (hint: NO).

 

 

 

according to you, would those happen to be mormons with a pre-concieved belief system, who's interest is in aggrandizing the church and Joseph Smith? Hmmmm

 

These are very serious accusations, and this is a formal CFR.