New Era Casts Some Doubt On The Bom Plates

[Wiki Wonka]

And the comments about handling and turning pages are…?

 

The only witness who is ever attributed to making a comment about "spiritual eyes" is Martin Harris, and the accounts are second- and third-hand.

 

David Whitmer, on the other hand, was absolutely determined to correct the record for those who misrepresented his witness experience, even going to far as to publish rebuttals when he was misrepresented during interviews.

[Wiki Wonka]

 I imagine it would be difficult to get it right or even know for sure..when viewed with spiritual eyes.   Just my opinon but I think all the witnesses saw whatever Joseph wanted them to see..

 

 

David Whitmer (1878): "I saw [the plates and other Lehite artifacts] just as plain as I see this bed"

 

David Whitmer (1884): "I saw with these eyes and I heard with these ears"

 

David Whitmer (1887): "I have never at any time denied that testimony or any part thereof"

 

David Whitmer (1887): "'He that hath an ear to hear, let him hear;' it was no delusion!"

 

David Whitmer (1887): "To behold the vision of the Angel, as recorded in the fore part of the Book of Mormon"

 

David Whitmer (1887): "In regards to my testimony to the visitation of the angel, who declared to us three witnesses that the Book of Mormon is true, I have this to say: Of course we were in the spirit when we had the view, for no man can behold the face of an angel, except in a spiritual view, but we were in the body also, and everything was as natural to us, as it is at any time. Martin Harris, you say, called it ‘being in vision.’ We read in the Scriptures, Cornelius saw, in a vision, an angel of God, Daniel saw an angel in a vision, also in other places it states they saw an angel in the spirit. A bright light enveloped us where we were, that filled at noon day, and there in a vision, or in the spirit, we saw and heard just as it is stated in my testimony in the Book of Mormon. I am now passed eighty-two years old, and I have a brother, J. J. Snyder, to do my writing for me, at my dictation."

 

David Whitmer (1881): "I have never at any time, denied that testimony...which has so long since been published with that book...It was no Delusion"

 

 

Martin Harris: "The Book of Mormon is no fake. I know what I know. I have seen what I have seen and I have heard what I have heard"

 

Martin Harris: "As sure as you see my hand so sure did I see the angel and the plates"

 

Martin Harris: "I saw the plates and the inscriptions thereon. I saw the angel, and he showed them unto me"

 

David Dille on Martin Harris (1855): "As many of the plates as Joseph Smith translated I handled with my hands"

 

John A. Clark, a former pastor who considered Joseph Smith a fraud and the Book of Mormon “an imposture,” states that he heard a "gentleman in Palmyra" repeat something Harris had said: "I did not see them, as i do that pencil-case, yet I saw them with the eye of faith"

 

Martin Harris: "Just as plain as you see that chopping block, I saw the plates"

 

Eber D. Howe on Martin Harris: "He does not pretend that he ever saw the wonderful plates but once"

 

Stephen Burnett, who considered Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon to be "notorious liars," related what he heard Martin Harris say: "But he never saw them only as he saw a city through a mountain"

 

Martin Harris: "I knew from the heft that they were lead or gold, and I knew that Joseph had not credit enough to buy so much lead"

 

William Harrison Homer on Martin Harris: "For I saw the angel, I heard his voice. I saw and handled the plates upon which the Book of Mormon was written"

 

Anthony Metcalf interviewed Martin Harris in the 1873 or 1874 timeframe. Note that Metcalf considered Joseph Smith a "pretended prophet" and was therefore relating Harris's claims from a skeptical perspective: "While praying I passed into a state of entrancement, and in that state I saw the angel and the plates"

 

George Mantle (1888): Martin Harris said "Do you know that is the sun shining on us? Because as sure as you know that...he translated that book by the power of God"

 

Edward Stevenson (1870): Martin Harris said "my belief is swallowed up in knowledge; for I want to say to you that as the Lord lives I do know that I stood with the Prophet Joseph Smith in the presence of the angel"

 

Oliver Cowdery (1829): "We saw the record...brought and laid before us by an angel"

 

Citations and full context of these quotes can be found here: 

 

• David Whitmer/Witness to the Book of Mormon
• Martin Harris/Witness to the Book of Mormon
• Oliver Cowdery/Witness to the Book of Mormon

Edited April 8, 2015 by Wiki Wonka

[Scott Lloyd]

 

David Whitmer (1878): "I saw [the plates and other Lehite artifacts] just as plain as I see this bed"

 

David Whitmer (1884): "I saw with these eyes and I heard with these ears"

 

David Whitmer (1887): "I have never at any time denied that testimony or any part thereof"

 

David Whitmer (1887): "'He that hath an ear to hear, let him hear;' it was no delusion!"

 

David Whitmer (1887): "To behold the vision of the Angel, as recorded in the fore part of the Book of Mormon"

 

David Whitmer (1887): "In regards to my testimony to the visitation of the angel, who declared to us three witnesses that the Book of Mormon is true, I have this to say: Of course we were in the spirit when we had the view, for no man can behold the face of an angel, except in a spiritual view, but we were in the body also, and everything was as natural to us, as it is at any time. Martin Harris, you say, called it ‘being in vision.’ We read in the Scriptures, Cornelius saw, in a vision, an angel of God, Daniel saw an angel in a vision, also in other places it states they saw an angel in the spirit. A bright light enveloped us where we were, that filled at noon day, and there in a vision, or in the spirit, we saw and heard just as it is stated in my testimony in the Book of Mormon. I am now passed eighty-two years old, and I have a brother, J. J. Snyder, to do my writing for me, at my dictation."

 

David Whitmer (1881): "I have never at any time, denied that testimony...which has so long since been published with that book...It was no Delusion"

 

 

Martin Harris: "The Book of Mormon is no fake. I know what I know. I have seen what I have seen and I have heard what I have heard"

 

Martin Harris: "As sure as you see my hand so sure did I see the angel and the plates"

 

Martin Harris: "I saw the plates and the inscriptions thereon. I saw the angel, and he showed them unto me"

 

David Dille on Martin Harris (1855): "As many of the plates as Joseph Smith translated I handled with my hands"

 

John A. Clark, a former pastor who considered Joseph Smith a fraud and the Book of Mormon “an imposture,” states that he heard a "gentleman in Palmyra" repeat something Harris had said: "I did not see them, as i do that pencil-case, yet I saw them with the eye of faith"

 

Martin Harris: "Just as plain as you see that chopping block, I saw the plates"

 

Eber D. Howe on Martin Harris: "He does not pretend that he ever saw the wonderful plates but once"

 

Stephen Burnett, who considered Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon to be "notorious liars," related what he heard Martin Harris say: "But he never saw them only as he saw a city through a mountain"

 

Martin Harris: "I knew from the heft that they were lead or gold, and I knew that Joseph had not credit enough to buy so much lead"

 

William Harrison Homer on Martin Harris: "For I saw the angel, I heard his voice. I saw and handled the plates upon which the Book of Mormon was written"

 

Anthony Metcalf interviewed Martin Harris in the 1873 or 1874 timeframe. Note that Metcalf considered Joseph Smith a "pretended prophet" and was therefore relating Harris's claims from a skeptical perspective: "While praying I passed into a state of entrancement, and in that state I saw the angel and the plates"

 

George Mantle (1888): Martin Harris said "Do you know that is the sun shining on us? Because as sure as you know that...he translated that book by the power of God"

 

Edward Stevenson (1870): Martin Harris said "my belief is swallowed up in knowledge; for I want to say to you that as the Lord lives I do know that I stood with the Prophet Joseph Smith in the presence of the angel"

 

Oliver Cowdery (1829): "We saw the record...brought and laid before us by an angel"

 

Citations and full context of these quotes can be found here: 

 

• David Whitmer/Witness to the Book of Mormon
• Martin Harris/Witness to the Book of Mormon
• Oliver Cowdery/Witness to the Book of Mormon

 

Yeah, but do you think those guys really were sure?

[Wiki Wonka]

Yeah, but do you think those guys really were sure?

 

Well...David Whitmer had his testimony put on his gravestone: "The record of the Jews and the record of the Nephites are one."

 

 

[theplains]

Were does it say they were pure gold? I can't seem to find it.

 

When you look at the GC talks, they don't say anything about gold mixed with another metal.

 

Regards,

Jim

[theplains]

I'll make it easy.  ANY time you find a statement that says gold (the solid metal) as you think, just change it in your head to golden (the color regardless of actual gold percentage content) as the speaker probably meant.

 

Do all Book of Mormon references to gold, silver, and copper need to be re-evaluated in the context

of appearance instead of material?

 

Why is it, as New Era mentions, more appropriate to refer to the ancient metal record as the Golden

Plates, referring to their color and not the material they were made of?

 

Thanks,

Jim

[Scott Lloyd]

When you look at the GC talks, they don't say anything about gold mixed with another metal.

 

Regards,

Jim

Where have they ever said the plates were pure gold? Why are you jumping to conclusions?

[Scott Lloyd]

Do all Book of Mormon references to gold, silver, and copper need to be re-evaluated in the context

of appearance instead of material?

 

Why is it, as New Era mentions, more appropriate to refer to the ancient metal record as the Golden

Plates, referring to their color and not the material they were made of?

 

Thanks,

Jim

Because it neutralizes one of your favorite anti-Mormon talking points.

[theplains]

Where have they ever said the plates were pure gold? Why are you jumping to conclusions?

 

When they said 'gold plates', I take it at face value. The church posted several videos in

2012 (For A Wise Purpose) and 2010 (Witnesses See the Gold Plates) which contradict

the idea of appearance rather than material as 2007 New Era mentions. The 2010 video

says 'gold plates' a significant number of times.

 

This is even spoken of in Religion 341-343 - Church History in the Fulness of Times - Student

Manual (2003):

 

"The messenger introduced himself as Moroni, a prophet who had lived on the American

continent. As holder of the keys of the “stick of Ephraim” (see D&C 27:5), Moroni came at

the appointed hour to reveal the existence of a record written on gold plates which had lain

hidden in the ground for fourteen centuries" (page 39)

 

"The high council also excommunicated David Whitmer, another of the three witnesses to

the Book of Mormon, on charges of usurping too much authority, writing letters of dissension

to apostates, and breaking the Word of Wisdom. David never returned to the Church,

although to his death he maintained his testimony that he saw the angel and the gold plates"

(page 187).

 

recap ...

 

"Neither Joseph nor any of the witnesses said that the ancient record was made from solid

gold. Nor did they use the term “gold plates” or “plates of gold. All Joseph said is that they

had the appearance of gold ... It is more appropriate to refer to the ancient metal record 

as the Golden Plates, referring to their color, not the material they were made of" (New Era).

 

Other LDS Church material shows the opposite.  It does use the term 'gold plates'. I wonder

how many Latter-day Saints believe the 'golden' plates are gold in appearance but not gold

in material...

 

Regards,

Jim

[Robert F. Smith]

 I imagine it would be difficult to get it right or even know for sure..when viewed with spiritual eyes.   Just my opinon but I think all the witnesses saw whatever Joseph wanted them to see..

Joe Smith, the master magician.

 

Reminds me of the late Morton Smith, Jesus the Magician (Harper & Row/Seastone, 1978/reprint Ulysses Press, 1998).

 

Of course, Bill Dever believes that the fundamental basis of religion is magic, and that they cannot be distinguished one from another.  Where does that leave us?

[Robert F. Smith]

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

 

Other LDS Church material shows the opposite.  It does use the term 'gold plates'. I wonder

how many Latter-day Saints believe the 'golden' plates are gold in appearance but not gold

in material...

 

Regards,

Jim

You are altogether too credulous and literal, Jim.  LDS Church material is written by ordinary, falllble humans, as it always has been.  Your observations are meaningless since you draw conclusions from them which are far too extreme -- and obviously unintended by the authors.  The reader should not have to be a metallurgist or to have scientific training in order to understand the way in which English words are in fact used, and the variety of semantic ranges which they may have.  You seem to be straining out gnats and swallowing camels.

 

Even if you designed a poll with which to find the answer to your question, do you realize that the way in which it is worded might very well predetermine the answer?

[theplains]

The reader should not have to be a metallurgist or to have scientific training in order to understand the way in which English words are in fact used, and the variety of semantic ranges which they may have.

 

Do you personally believe in the New Era article that it is more appropriate to refer to the

ancient metal record as the Golden Plates because of their color instead of the material

they were made of?  If yes, why?

 

Thanks,

Jim

[Kenngo1969]

 I imagine it would be difficult to get it right or even know for sure..when viewed with spiritual eyes.   Just my opinon but I think all the witnesses saw whatever Joseph wanted them to see..

I don't think that's consistent with the witnesses' numerous declarations regarding what they experienced.  In the case of the eight witnesses, their description is of a remarkably physical experience: there's a lot of seeing, and hefting and handling going on for an experience that allegedly is only "spiritual." https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/eight?lang=eng.  See also http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/volume-11-number-2-2010/evaluating-book-mormon-witnesses.  My $0.02.

 

P.S.:  See also here: http://www.amazon.com/Investigating-Mormon-Witnesses-Richard-Anderson-ebook/dp/B004BSGPDS/ref=dp_kinw_strp_1

Edited April 9, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[Grudunza]

My understanding is that some witnesses thought they were golden, and others black and blue.

Or did someone already cover that...

[HappyJackWagon]

 

You seem to be straining out gnats and swallowing camels.

It has become a cliche to use these phrases when we want to dismiss an argument because it's something we don't want to deal with. It's the ad hominem equivalent of equating a person with the nazi's. Just dismiss it out of hand because the foolish person is just "straining out gnats". So cliche.

[smac97]

Do you personally believe in the New Era article that it is more appropriate to refer to the

ancient metal record as the Golden Plates because of their color instead of the material

they were made of?  If yes, why?

 

Thanks,

Jim

I do not understand the insistence that the plates must have been gold in either color or composition, but not both. Can you explain your position on this issue?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Do you personally believe in the New Era article that it is more appropriate to refer to the

ancient metal record as the Golden Plates because of their color instead of the material

they were made of?  If yes, why?

 

Thanks,

Jim

Jim,

If you are looking for a valid reason for Mormons to leave Mormonism, this is not it. This whole line of thinking, seriously, is about a big a non issue as the "Adieu" argument is. IOW you are not going win a single convert with this. BUt don't let me stop you from trying. I guess I would rather you waste your time with this than other issues.

[Robert F. Smith]

Do you personally believe in the New Era article that it is more appropriate to refer to the

ancient metal record as the Golden Plates because of their color instead of the material

they were made of?  If yes, why?

 

Thanks,

Jim

Long before that New Era article was published, my own take on the plates came out in print, and is available online:  “The ‘Golden’ Plates,” FARMS Update, October 1984, reprinted in John W. Welch, ed., Reexploring the Book of Mormon: The F.A.R.M.S. Updates (Provo: FARMS/SLC: Deseret Book, 1992), 275-278.  Online at http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=71&chapid=847 .

 

So, Jim.  Does my exploration of the opinions expressed in the early LDS tradition help you understand the issues better?

 .

Edited April 9, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

It has become a cliche to use these phrases when we want to dismiss an argument because it's something we don't want to deal with. It's the ad hominem equivalent of equating a person with the nazi's. Just dismiss it out of hand because the foolish person is just "straining out gnats". So cliche.

It is a cliche, and I could as easily have applied the old saying about being "penny wise and pound foolish."  His tendentious judgment is very much in question.  However, I did not simply dismiss his continued and repeated statements, but engaged his argument -- something which I see you carefully excluded.

[HappyJackWagon]

It is a cliche, and I could as easily have applied the old saying about being "penny wise and pound foolish."  His tendentious judgment is very much in question.  However, I did not simply dismiss his continued and repeated statements, but engaged his argument -- something which I see you carefully excluded.

You're right. I didn't engage that topic because the issue doesn't matter to me personally. What matters more to me is the rudeness and dismissal of a person's question. So I engaged the issue that mattered to me instead pointing out that it doesn't matter to me and therefore it shouldn't matter to him.

[Russell C McGregor]

It has become a cliche to use these phrases when we want to dismiss an argument because it's something we don't want to deal with. It's the ad hominem equivalent of equating a person with the nazi's. Just dismiss it out of hand because the foolish person is just "straining out gnats". So cliche.

And yet it remains a valid criticism. If you dislike the biblical reference, would you settle for "nit-picking?"

It's not that anyone doesn't want to deal with Jim's argument. (And thank you for confirming that it is in fact an argument, and is merely dressed up as a "question." ) It's that we find it entirely un-compelling. Jim's bombshell explodes, not with a blast, but with a shower of pink confetti. There's no "there" there; no substance to even argue about. It's an obsession with trivia.

Straining at gnats.

Regards,

Russell

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You're right. I didn't engage that topic because the issue doesn't matter to me personally. What matters more to me is the rudeness and dismissal of a person's question. So I engaged the issue that mattered to me instead pointing out that it doesn't matter to me and therefore it shouldn't matter to him.

OH I see, you think every question posted in the internets is sincere. Out of personal experience I can testify that that is not true.

 

Jim is here simply to deconvert. He is not here to try and learn anything about mormons. He is here to play gotcha.

Edited April 10, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[smac97]

And yet it remains a valid criticism. If you dislike the biblical reference, would you settle for "nit-picking?"

It's not that anyone doesn't want to deal with Jim's argument. (And thank you for confirming that it is in fact an argument, and is merely dressed up as a "question." ) It's that we find it entirely un-compelling. Jim's bombshell explodes, not with a blast, but with a shower of pink confetti. There's no "there" there; no substance to even argue about. It's an obsession with trivia.

Straining at gnats.

Regards,

Russell

 

I have not followed this thread closely, but I feel that I should own up to something: I made some comments about the metallurgical composition of the Gold Plates because I took the comments made in this thread as sincerely, good faith inquiries about an interesting topic.  However, things began to feel a bit "off" when participants began taking up rigid, nitpicking, gnat-straining positions regarding the plates being made of "pure" gold.  There really isn't a strong historical/evidentiary/metallurgical basis for insisting that the plates were made of "pure" gold.  The only piece of supporting evidence at hand is a single reference to "pure gold" attributed to an eyewitness to the plates (John Whitmer) in a newspaper article regarding Whitmer's comments made about the issue nearly 50 years after the fact.  That ain't much, folks.  In contrast, we have substantial first-person witness testimonies about the appearance of the plates ("appearance of gold", "mixture of gold and copper", etc.) and the weight of the plates (40-60 pounds), as well as corresponding metallurgical and historical evidence favoring a gold alloy like tumbaga as being the most plausible explanation of the metallurgical composition of the plates.

 

So insisting that the plates were made of "pure gold" doesn't make sense from the standpoint of someone honestly and sincerely evaluating historical and scientific evidence germane to this topic.  However, insisting on the Plates being made of "pure gold" does make sense from the standpoint of someone trying to undermine and discount the provenance of Joseph Smith's account of the Plates, the witnesses' accounts, etc.  After all, "pure gold" plates would weigh a lot more than a gold alloy like tumbaga.  Mormonism Research Ministry, for example, has an entire article devoted to debunking the Church's truth claims about the Plates based on the plates being made of pure gold:

 

Gold weighs 1,204 pounds per cubic foot, so if we use the dimensions given by Smith we can correctly conclude that the plates were 1/6 of a cubit foot.  In other words, if the plates were made of gold, they would have weighed 200 pounds. This becomes problematic since no one believes that it is physically possible to carry such a weight for any considerable distance, much less be able to run away from thieves bent on stealing the plates.

 

In response to this dilemma, proponents argue that the plates would have been considerably lighter due to "air space" between the uneven, hand-made plates. While this may seem plausible to some, this rebuttal becomes tenuous given the soft nature of gold. Plates of gold stacked in the manner described by Smith would easily flatten out, thus displacing any arbitrary "air space" suggested by LDS apologists.

 

By assuming the plates had an air gap of 50% (a capricious percentage to be sure), Mormon metallurgist Reed Putnam estimates that if the plates were made of pure gold, they would have probably weighed around 100 pounds.

...

The possibility of the plates being too heavy for Smith to carry has not escaped the notice of LDS apologists. To credit their founder with the ability to carry such a weight while running at "the top of his speed" would seem to conclude that Smith had no idea how heavy gold really was, thus making it appear that he fabricated this story.

...

Keep this in mind the next time you stop at a hardware store. Pick up a bag of cement, tuck it under your arm, and imagine yourself carrying it for a distance of three miles running as fast as you can at least part of the way. For added effect you could jump over a display or two.

 

So is this it?  It appears that the inquiries about the composition of the Plates are just a pretext for arguing that A) they were made of "pure" gold; B) pure gold plates of the dimensions described by Joseph Smith et al. would weigh around 200 pounds; C) various historical accounts of the Plates weighing much less and of Joseph Smith running around with them are therefore not credible; and therefore D) the proper conclusion is, as the anti-mormon folks at MRM summed it up, "that he (Smith) fabricated this story."  This argument falls apart when the actual evidence is fairly considered.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Edited April 10, 2015 by smac97

[theplains]

So, Jim.  Does my exploration of the opinions expressed in the early LDS tradition help you understand the issues better? .

 

Thanks Robert. Yes. The Maxwell Institute article does shed some light on the early LDS tradition.

I found something similar at Shields Research about tumbaga.

 

Putnam says of Joseph, "He must have realized they were not 24-carat gold.  Perhaps he 

noticed some red fracture around the binding holes or realized they were lighter in 

weight than he had expected they would be.  Evidently there were reasons that he thus 

decided to qualify his description of them".

 

It seems this re-qualification may have been the impetus for the New Era statement that 

"Neither Joseph nor any of the witnesses said that the ancient record was made from solid 

gold. Nor did they use the term “gold plates” or “plates of gold".

 

But many other statements in General Conference, church manuals, and videos (see 

attached text) use the terms "gold plates" or "plates of gold", contrary to what New Era

says.  Even JSH 1, between verses 26 and 27, uses the term "gold plates".

 

The New Era article should have been corrected to say ""Neither Joseph nor any of the 

witnesses said that the ancient record was made from solid gold. Nor did they use the term 

"tumbaga plates" or "plates of tumbaga".

 

Thanks,

Jim

gold_bom.txt

[theplains]

I do not understand the insistence that the plates must have been gold in either color or composition, but not both. Can you explain your position on this issue?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I did not understand why New Era would say they never used the terms "gold plates"

or "plates of gold" when they did.  See my reply to Robert just posted (#74).

 

Regards,

Jim