Ann Taves: The "materialization" Of The Golden Plates

[DonBradley]

At last year's Mormon History Association conference, Ann Taves, a distinguished scholar of religious studies at UCSB, presented a paper, now published, on "History and the Claims of Revelation: Joseph Smith and the Materialization of the Golden Plates."

 

Taves, a non-Mormon scholar, has taken up a challenge laid down by Richard Bushman and Terryl Givens. The argument by Bushman and Givens is that the nature of Joseph Smith's claim to have the Nephite golden plates is such that one must either fully accept it or think that he was a fraud: i.e., there is no middle ground on which to reject Joseph Smith's claim to have the Nephite plates while accepting his sincerity. This is an argument I've also made myself, in various discussions online, going back several years.

 

Taves rejects the idea of a necessary dichotomy here and wonders whether non-LDS scholars like her can do all of these four things at once: 1) accept the evidence for the materiality of what Joseph Smith presented to others as the plates; 2) accept Joseph Smith's sincerity in believing that this object was, in fact, the sacred Nephite golden plates; 3) accept Joseph Smith as mentally healthy non-"delusional" person; and 4) yet not believe--i.e. not think that Joseph Smith actually had ancient golden plates.

 

Taves thinks there is a way to reconcile these four things. In making her case she brings together two ideas that are new to discussion of this topic. First, she invokes the idea, manifest in various religious traditions, that a mundane object can become sacred. Second, she uses the idea, from Heidegger, of "skilled seeing."

 

The first idea here is that sacred objects become sacred somehow, and that they may begin as mundane objects and then, through a process accepted by believers, become something more, something sacred. The clearest example she offers is the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, through which it is believed that the sacramental bread and wine are transformed in an utterly real, if non-chemical, way into the body and blood of Christ. While Taves doesn't try to identify an equivalent process in Mormon theology, via which one substance can become another or the mundane can become the sacred, she suggests that just as various other religious traditions have processes by which one thing can be changed into something different and holier, Joseph Smith could well have believed in divine processes that could fill an equivalent role. 

 

Second, Taves accepts the idea of Joseph Smith as a seer, but in secular terms. The Heideggerian notion of "skilled seeing" is that some gifted individuals can see the potential in ordinary life that others do not. Artists and visionaries of various types fit this category. Michaelangelo, for instance, could look at a block of stone and (reportedly) see the Madonna and Child within it: he saw himself as merely chipping away the rock that surrounded it to "liberate" the potential that was already there. Similarly, Taves thinks Joseph Smith was a kind of visionary who saw potential where others could not. In this case, the idea is, Joseph saw the potential for a mundane object to be transformed into the sacred golden plates through some process that, in his belief system, was efficacious.

 

Taves's hypothesis is that Joseph Smith made plates, or a stand-in for plates, and then transformed them, or believed God or the angel transformed them, into the golden plates. 

 

In presenting this idea, she uses another analogy, this time to a narrative in the Book of Mormon itself: that of the brother of Jared. She sees an equivalence, or at least a parallel, between the brother of Jared making stones and offering them to God for his sanctifying, illuminating touch and Joseph Smith making plates and then similarly presenting them to God for sanctification and transformation. Joseph Smith's faith here, as she sees it, would not be a passive faith but an active faith: the plates would not just appear; he had to take a hand in helping to "materialize" them.

 

A couple things about her presentation surprised me. First, it was extremely well presented, and she made a better argument for the possibility of a scholarly middle-ground position on the plates than I had thought possible. I was particularly surprised by the analogy to processes in other traditions of transforming the mundane into the sacred. Second, one of the respondents, the very LDS Steve Harper, praised Taves more than I would have expected for having taken the plates' materiality and Joseph Smith's sincerity so seriously. He also said, as I understood him at least, that he thought Taves's theory had risen to Bushman and Givens's challenge--that it succeeded in giving a secular explanation for the golden plates that was consistent with the historical data but didn't require Joseph Smith to be deluded or insincere. Harper then challenged Taves to try to extend her hypothesis to give a secular explanation also for the Book of Mormon's text, which, as he noted, it does not yet account for, and which he observed was more difficult to account for than the accounts of people seeing and handling the plates.

 

I'd be interested in seeing some thoughtful engagement with Taves's effort (with the emphasis here on the word thoughtful), particularly from people who either heard her paper or who take the time to read it through (since my summary of her ideas is necessarily brief and may interpret her in ways different than she intended).

 

Based on an engagement with the full paper...

 

*Does Taves succeed in offering an academic middle ground that maintains secular distance while still embracing Joseph Smith as non-deluded and religiously sincere? Why, or why not?

 

*Would a hypothesis like this successfully provide more common ground on which believers and sympathetic nonbelievers could talk about Joseph Smith and the coming forth of the Book of Mormon? 

 

- When I posted on this topic the other day on Facebook, my friend Steve Fleming, who works with Ann Taves as his doctoral advisor, says that her acceptance of the existence of (some kind of) plates and of Joseph Smith's sincerity gave them more common ground that allowed him to speak more straightforwardly with her as a believer. Would the hypothesis, if adopted by more non-LDS academics (and possibly others) similarly facilitate positive communication across faith positions? Or is this perhaps an exception, with other effects likely being more prevalent?

 

*When I posted this on Facebook I also had one LDS friend weigh in as accepting Taves' hypothesis while also embracing the reality of the Nephites. Would such a combination of beliefs place an individual within or without the scope of Latter-day Saint faith? 

 

 

I'm fascinated (as I'm sure is obvious) with how Taves's approach might change, or not change, the discussion between those who embrace Joseph Smith having dug the ancient Nephite plates out of Cumorah and those who do not.

 

So, lastly...

 

*Is this a forward step for the larger scholarly discussion on the coming forth of the Book of Mormon? How so and how not? What impact do you think it will it have?

 

Don

[wenglund]

I am not sure how Taves' hypothesis avoids entirely the Bushman/Givens dichotomy. Unlike with the brother of Jared, Joseph Smith's narrative regarding the coming forth of the Book of Mormon makes no mention of him making the mundane plates that would later be made sacred and viewed through "skilled seeing." Rather, it is quite elaborate in ways that suggest otherwise.

 

If the materialization of the plates occurred as Taves supposes, then Joseph, like with the Brother of Jared, would have good reason to declare it as such. But, he didn't. Thus, he was either telling the truth about how he obtained the material plates, or he was deluded or lying about it.

 

To me, it is but a new twist on an old naturalistic theme, though one that allows for a greater measure of divine intervention than most naturalistic hypotheses.

 

Am I wrong about this?

 

But, I see not reason why Taves hypothesis can't add to rather than detract from the ongoing conversation. Openness to new ideas and differing points of view can be healthy and informative and potentially beneficial. At the very least, it may provide a way, faulty or otherwise, for some people weak in the faith to retain faith in the Book of Mormon, which may better enable them to progress therefrom towards Christ as intended.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[BCSpace]

Taves rejects the idea of a necessary dichotomy here and wonders whether non-LDS scholars like her can do all of these four things at once: 1) accept the evidence for the materiality of what Joseph Smith presented to others as the plates; 2) accept Joseph Smith's sincerity in believing that this object was, in fact, the sacred Nephite golden plates; 3) accept Joseph Smith as mentally healthy non-"delusional" person; and 4) yet not believe--i.e. not think that Joseph Smith actually had ancient golden plates.

 

 

To refute the claimed dichotomy, I think she would have to also be able to include a belief in the historicity of whatever was written on the plates and that those words/symbols are translated accurately into what is known as the Book of Mormon. Being historical as claimed, would have to also include a belief that what those prophets wrote was inspired by God as claimed. 

 

If she can't also believe that, she has no argument whatsoever agaisnt the required dichotomy. If she does also believe that, the the point is moot and to her the BoM is true and hence the LDS Church is true.

 

Game, set, match.

[why me]

There is a problem with the middle ground theory and this has already been demonstrated by wade. It seems that the scholar was not that familiar with what joseph said about the coming forth of the book of mormon, complete with angel visitations. Joseph's narrative was very specific and detailed. He left no room for an alternative narrative or for a middle way interpretation. The would make Bushman and Givens more on the mark. It is an either/or understanding with very little wriggle room.

 

However, it is great that a non-mormon scholar has taken up the challenge. We need more such scholars to investigate church history and come to their own interpretations and conclusions of the facts. This is something that lds thought has been lacking over the years. Those who have written about mormonism seem to have some sort of stake in it. Lets hope more scholars with less of a stake will make a contribution.

Edited September 16, 2014 by why me

[The Nehor]

So her argument is that Joseph Smith made the plates and then thought God turned them into a Nephite record. And that Joseph was sincere and just deluded? And also told the story of an angel giving him the plates with equal sincerity? Is Taves using a different definition of the word "sincere" that I wasn't previously aware of?

[MormonFreeThinker]

So her argument is that Joseph Smith made the plates and then thought God turned them into a Nephite record. And that Joseph was sincere and just deluded? And also told the story of an angel giving him the plates with equal sincerity? Is Taves using a different definition of the word "sincere" that I wasn't previously aware of?

 

Taves theory makes sense for non-mormons. 

Edited September 16, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[The Nehor]

Taves theory makes sense for non-mormons. 

 

Only if you can accept a liar as "sincere". I can accept someone believing that Joseph Smith fabricated the plates and believed he was inspired but I am not at the same time going to buy that he was sincere when he tells a very different story of where the plates came from.

[Tacenda]

Only if you can accept a liar as "sincere". I can accept someone believing that Joseph Smith fabricated the plates and believed he was inspired but I am not at the same time going to buy that he was sincere when he tells a very different story of where the plates fame from.

Especially having waited for years before finally retrieving the gold plates in a stone box buried deep in a hill, by way of an angel & permission from God.

[MormonFreeThinker]

Especially having waited for years before finally retrieving the gold plates in a stone box buried deep in a hill, by way of an angel & permission from God.

 

Many critics believe that the witnesses viewed, examined, and handled the plates in a vision (imagination).  So a secular theory is that Joseph Smith imagined the Plates.  

 

Some critics believe that the apostles saw the crucifixion of Jesus in a vision. 

 

Don't misunderstand me, I believe in Jesus and the Book of Mormon. 

[Kenngo1969]

Not only is the Book of Mormon obsessed with its own source material (purporting to be a record abridged partly from this set of plates, and partly from that set of plates, and so on), but Joseph somehow induced delusions in other people, as well, then, thus deluding them into having interactions with people who were purportedly from the world beyond this one, as well as physical interactions (such as seeing, touching, hefting, et cetera), not only with plates, but also with other purportedly-Nephite artifacts such as the sword of Laban, the Liahona, et cetera?

 

As many questions and doubts as people might have about Joseph Smith's story and the Restoration unfolding as he (and others) said it did, it isn't long into the effort to attribute naturalistic explanations for these things that questions quickly continue to mount, leaving one with far more questions than even the original account (however unlikely that account may be) spawned.  Joseph Smith violated the cardinal rule of fraud ("KISS"): "Keep it Simple, Simpleton!"

Edited September 16, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

Many critics believe that the witnesses viewed, examined, and handled the plates in a vision (imagination).  So a secular theory is that Joseph Smith imagined the Plates.  

 

 

God's very accommodating.  Only the experience of one of the two sets of witnesses involved purportedly-supernatural occurrences (to convince those of a spiritualistic bent); the experience of the other set of witnesses is intended to convince those of a less spiritualistic, more naturalistic bent.

[Kenngo1969]

So her argument is that Joseph Smith made the plates and then thought God turned them into a Nephite record. And that Joseph was sincere and just deluded? And also told the story of an angel giving him the plates with equal sincerity? Is Taves using a different definition of the word "sincere" that I wasn't previously aware of?

People have the same problem when they try to defend an "inspired but ahistorical" version of the Book of Mormon.

[why me]

Many critics believe that the witnesses viewed, examined, and handled the plates in a vision (imagination).  So a secular theory is that Joseph Smith imagined the Plates.  

 

 

However, the 8 witnesses testified that they handled the plates so this line of argument by some critics is very flawed and misleading.

[Tacenda]

However, the 8 witnesses testified that they handled the plates so this line of argument by some critics is very flawed and misleading.

Could you be more specific in how they handled them and did the majority not even see them, only feel or lift them? Also, why aren't the signatures of the 8 witnesses their own? They are all signed by one person.

[MormonFreeThinker]

Could you be more specific in how they handled them and did the majority not even see them, only feel or lift them? Also, why aren't the signatures of the 8 witnesses their own? They are all signed by one person.

 

No need to ask questions that are very easy to answer. The Testimony was signed by the witnesses, but what we now have is a copy of the document, not the original. 

 

The Imagination Theory is not falsifiable, nothing that the witnesses say can disprove that theory. 

[Bob Crockett]

An existential philosophy is difficult to refute or prove. Was it real, or did I just perceive it?

For that reason, God produces witnesses. John Whitmer was reported as having denied his testimony on the ground that when he turned the leaves of the plates he could not read the language and, thus, he couldn't tell if it was ancient.

I've longed believed that the First Vision was not an important element of the message of the restoration because there were no witnesses, and Moroni urged Joseph Smith on to a message based upon witnesses, but when witnesses saw the Risen Lord in Kirtland, the First Vision had more significance.

Edited September 16, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[stemelbow]

So her argument is that Joseph Smith made the plates and then thought God turned them into a Nephite record. And that Joseph was sincere and just deluded? And also told the story of an angel giving him the plates with equal sincerity? Is Taves using a different definition of the word "sincere" that I wasn't previously aware of?

I agree. I must be missing something because I admit I only read the OP summary.

Is this a forward step for the larger scholarly discussion on the coming forth of the Book of Mormon?

Beats me. If it is, I don't know that I have much interest in that direction. But I've been wrong about myself before.

How so and how not? What impact do you think it will it have?

Beats me again. I don't even understand how it's a good argument, as per the Nehor's post. Why would he tell a totally different story of what happened if he were sincere? That's deception is it not, the very opposite of sincerity?

[CV75]

*When I posted this on Facebook I also had one LDS friend weigh in as accepting Taves' hypothesis while also embracing the reality of the Nephites. Would such a combination of beliefs place an individual within or without the scope of Latter-day Saint faith? 

 

I'm fascinated (as I'm sure is obvious) with how Taves's approach might change, or not change, the discussion between those who embrace Joseph Smith having dug the ancient Nephite plates out of Cumorah and those who do not.

 

So, lastly...

 

*Is this a forward step for the larger scholarly discussion on the coming forth of the Book of Mormon? How so and how not? What impact do you think it will it have?

I think making and keeping the covenants determines whether one is within the scope of the LDS faith, and the sincerity with which he does that is only one small element of his overall faithfulness. So this question is rightly answered only by oneself, as we do in the temple recommend interview.

 

The Book of Mormon is considered a covenant (D&C 84:57), which still allows non-covenantal considerations of it to be taken from various perspectives, including those mentioned in your post. As in answering the question of faithfulness, the congruency and synergy between keeping the covenant and viewing it from scientific, artistic, technological, scholarly or philosophical perspectives, etc. is evaluated by the individual, and the more awareness of the interplay between the two, the better.

 

I think scholarly discussion can expand and go forward indeterminately, and this is a good example of that (just as discovery of the fruits of keeping the covenants ca).

[Senator]

"Is Taves using a different definition of the word "sincere" that I wasn't previously aware of?"

 

 

Yes. The 19th century use of the word was actually rendered as "sin-seer" or "seer-sin", which allowed for the fallibility of a seer however well intended he may be.

 

No, Wait.........that's the 21s century definition.............

 

 

 

Wait a minute....is she an apologist in disguise?

Edited September 16, 2014 by Senator

[Bernard Gui]

Did she propose the method and material Joseph used to fabricate the plates? (Both meanings of "fabricate")

Edited September 16, 2014 by Bernard Gui

[Hillel2]

Interesting theory. I recall (somewhere, i'm sorry, i don't remember the page) in Rough Stone Rolling that the initial discovery of the plates or artifact was not considered especially astounding by many of those who had heard of it. It seems it was quite common for people in that time and place to come across all sorts of mysterious buried objects...one person even assumed that Joseph Smith had probably just come across a copper kettle or something similar.

 

That being the case, why would it be necessary for Joseph Smith to manufacture anything at all? Using Ann Taves' theory as a starting point, one could conjecture that Joseph Smith came across an object that, for all intents and purposes, suggested some kind of plate and then, through the medium of "skilled seeing" (revelation, if you will) perceived them to be the nephite plates of which he spoke.

 

For the record, I am not LDS. Nevertheless after much reading it does seem to me that Joseph Smith was quite sincere in what he claimed. Dr. Taves' theory provides an explanation which partially allows for that while at the same time explaining the whole matter in a naturalistic fashion. However, the idea of manufacturing plates which were later invested with a "numinous" quality runs counter to the narrative Joseph Smith provided and does suggest that, at some level, he fabricated part of the story. Were I LDS, i would be disturbed by such an assertion coming from someone seeking a middle ground.

 

If, as some believe, the Book of Abraham was "triggered" by the Egyptian papyrus (as opposed to being translated from it). Why couldn't some artifact, e.g. an indian artifact, trigger a revelation which was then written down as the Book of Mormon?

[DonBradley]

The fact that Joseph Smith reports having been led to the plates by the angel has been brought up as a refutation of Taves's argument. While I agree that it may be difficult to reconcile aspects of Joseph Smith's accounts with Taves's model, I think this particular objection may be based in part on 1) relying on my summary, instead of Taves's article and 2) not trying (as she does) to imaginatively understand how someone else could view things differently than how one does oneself.

 

I think I neglected to mention in my summary that Taves uses D&C 17 to argue that while Joseph Smith did see the plates, the other relics, and the angel, he saw them in a visionary way. This revelation, to the Three Witnesses, tells them they will see the plates "even as my servant Joseph hath seen them, by my power...because he had faith." We might easily conclude that this isn't saying Joseph saw the plates in just a visionary way, but that he needed to have faith first in order to see them. But then why does it say he saw them specifically "by my power," rather than, say, "with his natural eyes"? Perhaps it's saying that because they are a sacred object, Joseph needed to be in the Spirit at the time he saw them. But this, to Taves, sounds much the same as saying that he saw the plates in vision. And while that reading may not be the intended one, it's one that's consistent with the revelation's text and not an unreasonable one for her to make.

 

I think there may be some difficulties for Taves in the details. For instance, the stone box, as mentioned by Tacenda, could present real problems for Taves's theory. Or perhaps it only requires greater elaboration on Taves's part. An objection to a theory is only fatal if the theory can't find a good way to accommodate it. And I don't know exactly how Taves would account for the stone box in her theory. Perhaps she has already worked it into her understanding. Or perhaps it would require only tweaks to her model. Or perhaps  it would undermine her model. We'll only know if she further elaborates that model. (Taves's expertise, by the way, is in the study of religious experience, such as the experiences people had during the religious revivals in Joseph Smith's day.)

 

FWIW, I don't think the primary importance of Taves's model is in whether it offers a complete secular account of Joseph Smith's claim to have the golden plates. I think what she is doing overall is making a contribution to scholarly understanding and discussion of religious claims. Even if her theory proves not to provide an adequate explanation of the plates from a secular perspective, it suggests an approach that sympathetic nonbelievers can bring to other religious claims.

 

In other words...

 

We're all nonbelievers in some foundational religious claims believed in by others. We can understand those who put forward the claims we don't believe as deluded, or as frauds. Or we can take an approach that recognizes that another person's religiosity may involve beliefs that open up possibilities for them that aren't possible for us.

 

Imagine that the religious claim under discussion here were not Joseph Smith's possession of the plates but the claim by the leader of a new African Pentecostal new religious movement that he had possession of the Holy Grail, to which he had been led by an angel. I would be highly inclined to not believe that his claim was literally true. But would I need to believe that he was therefore either deluded or a fraud? Now that Taves has pointed out, rather brilliantly, that religion often posits processes for how mundane objects can be made into sacred objects, I would reject a simple dichotomy. I would now be able to accept that the person making this claim could, at least quite plausibly, be both psychologically healthy and religiously sincere, even though I don't think he has possession of the actual cup Christ used at the Last Supper.

 

What Taves is trying to do is open up similar possibilities for people who are skeptical that Joseph Smith excavated plates from an ancient Israelite civilization, and to open up an approach that can be used by secular scholarship when it confronts other revelatory claims. Her desire to develop an approach that can be applied more broadly than on just the golden plates is why she titled her paper "History and the Claims of Revelation." Joseph Smith's claim to have the golden plates serves as a kind of test case for that new approach.

 

I do wonder, along with others, whether all details of Joseph Smith's accounts can be given a sympathetic secular explanation in this way. But either way I think she's suggesting an approach that might be fruitful for scholars examining other religious claims regardless of whether it proves entirely fruitful for such examination of Joseph Smith's reports of having the golden plates.

 

Don

[DonBradley]

 

 

If, as some believe, the Book of Abraham was "triggered" by the Egyptian papyrus (as opposed to being translated from it). Why couldn't some artifact, e.g. an indian artifact, trigger a revelation which was then written down as the Book of Mormon?

 

Hillel2,

 

Interesting. I recall seeing where Jan Shipps, also non-LDS, suggested Joseph may have found an actual Indian artifact, even though Shipps doesn't appear to believe that there were ancient Nephites.

 

Don

Edited September 16, 2014 by DonBradley

[USU78]

Why do I keep running Mahonri's experience with the stones through my inner videotape deck?

 

G-d's touch elevates the mundane to the rare.

 

It works with souls and hearts as well stones and plates.

 

Well . . . it's a start, I guess.

Edited September 16, 2014 by USU78

[USU78]

Did she propose the method and material Joseph used to fabricate the plates? (Both meanings of "fabricate")

 

Bernard, you-know-who has already posited that JSJr, jack-of-all-trades that he was, saved up his money, bought scrap tin, melted the tin down at the local forge/foundry, and hammered out paper-thin plates, which he then, somehow, made to look like gold.

 

USU "I don't think he had the resources, either" 78