"Inspired Fiction" v. The Plates & The Witnesses

[smac97]

I just came across a very good article: Why Were the Plates Present During the Translation of the Book of Mormon?

A few times as I read it I found my thoughts juxtaposing the reality of the Plates with the "Inspired Fiction" theory, and concluding each time that the existence of the former is fatal to the latter.  From the article:

Quote

People are sometimes surprised to discover that the plates of the Book of Mormon were not regularly used during the process of its translation.1 While translating, Joseph Smith would typically place his face into a hat to block out ambient light.2 He would then, according to witnesses, read aloud the words which miraculously appeared in a seer stone or in the interpreters, and a scribe would record them.3

Footnote 1 notes: "There are some reports that Joseph Smith used the plates during the translation process, but these seem to have mostly come from secondary sources."  In other words, the best evidence appears to support the theory that the Plates were not directly/physically utilized during all (or most) of the translation process.

Quote

As for the plates themselves, Emma Smith reported that they “often lay on the table without any attempt at concealment, wrapped in a small linen table cloth.”4 Other witnesses recalled that on a few occasions they were kept “in a nearby box under the bed or even hidden in the Whitmer’s barn during translation.”5 This has caused some to wonder why the plates were necessary at all. If Joseph Smith wasn’t actively consulting them during the translation, then why were they covered with a cloth and placed in some nearby and usually visible location?

The article proposes a three-part answer.  

First, Joseph transcribed some characters, which Martin Harris took to "several distinguished scholars" to verify the characters' authenticity.  As a result of his experience with this scholarly assessment of these transcribed characters, Martin Harris was personally convinced of the validity of Joseph's claims about those characters, so much so that he mortgaged his farm to pay for the publication of the translation of the ancient work: The Book of Mormon.  The Plates and the actual characters on them, then, seem to have played a pivotal role in the persuading of Martin Harris, and hence in the publication of the translated work.

Second:

Quote

There is also some indication that Joseph was at least occasionally aware of the relationship between the plates and the words he was dictating. He once explained that “the Title Page of the Book of Mormon is a literal translation, taken from the very last leaf, on the left-hand side of the collection or book of plates.” ... How well Joseph Smith regularly understood the correlation between the English text and the characters on the plates, however, is uncertain.

In other words, the relationship between the characters etched on the Plates and the resulting English text is very, very strong, even if not fully understood by Joseph (and even less by us).

Third, and perhaps most importantly, the article addresses the probative value of the Plates as to third parties:

Quote

Another important consideration is that the presence of the plates helped confirm Joseph Smith’s revelatory claims.10 Anthony Sweat insightfully noted, “The Book of Mormon text didn’t just pass through Joseph’s trance-induced revelatory mind; its palpable relics passed through a clothing frock, hollowed log, cooper’s shop, linen napkin, wooden chest, fireplace hearth and barrel of beans.”11 According to Michael MacKay and Gerrit Dirkmaat, the plates were “in essence the body for the spiritual words that fell from Joseph Smith’s lips as he translated,” and they helped instill “confidence in the minds of Joseph and his family and friends” that his words were derived from an actual ancient record.12

...

Drawing upon multiple historical accounts, Neal Rappleye explained, “They felt, lifted, and moved this object around (while covered). They could feel the weight, contours, and shape of the object well enough to discern that it was not blocks of wood or stones. They could lift the individual pages (or plates), hear them make a metallic rustling sound as they moved, and feel that they were bound by three rings.”13

Even though they most often lay covered and unused on the table, they provided a constant visual reminder of the Book of Mormon’s tangible reality.14 As King Benjamin taught, “O my sons, I would that ye should remember that these sayings are true, and also that these records are true. … and we can know of their surety because we have them before our eyes” (Mosiah 1:6).15

The article goes on to discuss other examples of divine interactions which nevertheless had constraints placed on them (like the Plates being covered/hidden):

• The Lord spoke with Moses "face to face" (Exodus 33:11), but otherwise His presence was manifested to the Children of Israel through  "a pillar of a cloud {by day} … and by night in a pillar of fire” (Exodus 13:21).
• The Brother of Jared saw and spoke directly with the Lord (Ether 3:6–20), but as for the rest of the Jaredites, “{the} Lord did go before them, and did talk with them as he stood in a cloud, and gave directions whither they should travel” (Ether 2:5).
• Eventually, others "too may one day see the resurrected body, and feel the marks of the wounds in the hands, feet, and side of Him whom we first only saw with an eye of faith (Doctrine and Covenants 88:68; 93:1)."

The article concludes with this quote from Elder Holland:

Quote

“{T}he reality of those plates, the substance of them if you will, and the evidence that comes to us from them in the form of the Book of Mormon is at the heart, at the very center, of the hope and testimony and conviction of this work that is unshakably within me forever.”

So here are my thoughts:

It is unreasonable, I think, to deny the existence of the Plates (although the provenance of the Plates is clearly still up for principled debate).

The statements from the Witnesses appear to be designed to buttress Joseph's claims for the provenance of the Plates being both ancient and miraculously preserved and discovered.

The Three Witnesses speak principally as to the divine aspects of the Plates (an angel descends with the Plates, they hear a voice from heaven about translation of the Plates, etc.), and the Eight Witnesses speak principally as to the  physical/pragmatic aspects of the Plates (that they actually existed, that they had weight and mass, that they could be "hefted," etc.).

The character and possible motivations of the Witnesses is an important secondary analysis.  I think Richard Lloyd Anderson's Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses does a good job of establishing the character and overall integrity of these men.  Also, this FAIR article does a good job of addressing some of the ad hoc speculations about the Witnesses that come up.

To sum up: I think it is quite difficult to reconcile the reality of the Plates and the testimony of the Witnesses with the "Inspired Fiction" theory.  However, I would be interested in reading any efforts to reconcile these things.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 24, 2017 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

The well-attested presence of the Book of Mormon plates is one piece of evidence the antagonists have never been able persuasively to rebut.

It's even more difficult for the "inspired fiction" theorists.

[Robert F. Smith]

Joseph Smith himself said in 1842 that (at the beginning) he worked directly with the plates:

Quote

. . . immediately after my arrival there [Harmony, PA] I commenced copying the characters off the plates.  I copied a considerable number of them, and by means of the Urim and Thummim I translated some of them, which I did between the time I arrived at the house of my wife’s father, in the month of December [1827], and the February following.  Times & Seasons, III (May 2, 1842), 772 = Roberts, ed., History of the Church, I:19 = JS-H 1:62.

Emma Smith, the Prophet's wife, said:

Quote

Now the first that my husband translated, was translated by the use of Urim and Thummim, and that was the part that Martin Harris lost.  after that he used a small stone, not exactly black, but was rather a dark color, . . .  Letter from Emma Smith Bidamon to Mrs. George W. Pilgrim (from Nauvoo, Mar 27, 1870), CoC-RLDS Archives P4 f20.

David Whitmer later claimed that the plates were open on the table, while using the Nephite interpreters:

Quote

The spectacles were silver rimmed.  Plates were deciphered at table, the volume open, one scribe after another taking dictation (a quartet of scribes in shifts).  “Journey About Ended,” The Chicago Times, Jan 24, 1888, p. 8, col. 1.

Samuel W. Richards, May 25, 1907, recalled that Oliver had told him: 

Quote

This was done by holding the “translators” over the hieroglyphics, the translation appearing distinctly on the instrument, which had been touched by the finger of God and dedicated and consecrated for the express purpose of translating languages.  Every word was distinctly visible even to every letter; and if Oliver omitted a word or failed to spell a word correctly, the translation remained on the “interpreter” until it was copied correctly.  Richards Statement, BYU Special Collections Library, and in Ensign, 7/9 (Sept 1977).

Interview with William Smith by J. W. Peterson and W. S. Pender, July 4, 1891, in Osterdock, Iowa, and for several days thereafter:

Quote

    Among other things we inquired minutely about the Urim and Thummim and the breastplate.  We asked him what was meant by the expression, “two rims of a bow,” which held the former.  He said a double silver bow was twisted into the shape of the figure eight, and the two stones were placed literally between the two rims of a bow.  At one end was attached a rod which was connected with the outer edge of the right shoulder of the breast-plate.  By pressing the head a little forward, the rod held the Urim and Thummim before the eyes much like a pair of spectacles.  A pocket was prepared in the breastplate on the left side, immediately over the heart.  When not in use the Urim and Thummim was placed in this pocket, the rod being of just the right length to allow it to be so deposited.  This instrument could, however, be detached from the breastplate and his brother said Joseph often wore it detached when away from home, but always used it in connection with the breastplate when receiving official communications, and usually so when translating, as it permitted him to have both hands free to hold the plates.  

In answer to our question, William informed us that he had, himself, by Joseph’s direction, put the Urim and Thummim before his eyes, but could see nothing, as he did not have the gift of a Seer.  He also informed us that the instruments were too wide for his eyes, as also for Joseph’s, and must have been used by much larger men.  The instrument caused a strain on Joseph’s eyes, and he sometimes resorted to the plan of covering his eyes with a hat to exclude the light in part.  William Smith imparted to us much information regarding other things, but this is about all I remember with regard to the Urim and Thummim.  J. W. Peterson.  Peterson in The Rod of Iron, I/3 (Feb 1924), 6-7; Saints’ Herald, 79 (Mar 9, 1932), 238, in J. W. A. Bailey’s misleading version of it; cf. Peterson’s accounts of the meeting in Deseret Evening News, Saturday, Jan 20, 1894, p. 11, cols. 3-4, and Zion’s Ensign, 5/3 (Saturday, Jan 13, 1894), p. 6.

 

Edited September 23, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[Atheist Mormon]

42 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The well-attested presence of the Book of Mormon plates is one piece of evidence the antagonists have never been able persuasively to rebut.

It's even more difficult for the "inspired fiction" theorists.

How can you have a chance to rebut something like this? How is it possible to refute claim like this?

[Glenn101]

8 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

How can you have a chance to rebut something like this? How is it possible to refute claim like this?

Maybe by providing persuasive evidence?

 

[Scott Lloyd]

27 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

How can you have a chance to rebut something like this? How is it possible to refute claim like this?

Indeed.

[Scott Lloyd]

18 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Maybe by providing persuasive evidence?

 

Not if he has none.

I think he's spot on: He can't do it.

 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Atheist Mormon said:

How can you have a chance to rebut something like this? How is it possible to refute claim like this?

I think that is the point of this thread.  I don't think you can rebut something as well-attested to as the Plates.  The quality of the historical evidence is simply too good.  I think this excerpt from Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling sums things up well:

Quote

The events surrounding the translation of the Book of Mormon can be pieced together from recollections of a dozen or so contemporaries.  A few non-Mormons wrote brief accounts: Orsamus Turner, Pomeroy Tucker, Isaac Hale, Charles Anthon, Willard Chase, Peter Ingersoll, and others.  The detailed, close-up reports come from Mormons: Lucy Smith, Joseph Knight, Sr., Joseph Knight, Jr., David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, Emma Smith, William Smith, Katharine Smith Salisbury, Martin Harris, and Joseph himself.

The story that emerges from their accounts is perplexing.  The Mormon sources constantly refer to the single most troublesome item in Joseph Smith's history, the gold plates on which the Book of Mormon was said to be written.  For most modern readers, the plates are beyond belief, a phantasm, yet the Mormon sources accept them as fact.  Interspersed with descriptions of journeys, illnesses, business deals, and lost horses are trips to the Hill Cumorah, boxes holding the plates, and times when the plates are hidden, touched, lifted, and translated.  Mundane details mix with an incredible artifact whose very existence is debated.

Here's the important bit:

Quote

To account for the plates' presence in the records, skeptics look for signs of trickery.  Fawn Brodie, the most eminent of Joseph Smith's unbelieving biographers, referred to a neighbor's account of Joseph filling his frock with white sand and telling his family it was gold plates.  Dan Vogel, a recent biographer, hypothesizes that Joseph fabricated plates from tin while he was at Cumorah.  Contemporaries speculated that he wrapped a tile brick in a cloth.  One deception led to another until Joseph had fabricated a fabulous tale.  These explanations keep the story within the realm of the ordinary but require considerable fabrication themselves.  Joseph "may" have done this and "probably" did that.  Since the people who knew Joseph best treat the plates as fact, a skeptical analysis lacks evidence.  A series of surmises replaces a documented narrative.

Here are two resources which attempt to defend a naturalistic explanation for the Plates:

• Problems with the Gold Plates of the Book of Mormon (article by Christian Research Institute)
• Naturalistic Theory of the Gold Plates — building on Ann Taves work (Taves proposes that Joseph fabricated the plates, then asked God to sanctify them, "to materialize them into the ancient gold plates")

Here are two resources which address various issues pertaining to the Plates:

• The Book of Mormon and "gold" plates (FAIR article)
• Telling the Story of the Coming Forth of the Book of Mormon (Intepreter article by Stephen O. Smoot, which includes an assessment of Vogel's theories - see p. 74)

Here's a cogent observation from the above Interpreter article:

Quote

So compelling, in fact, is the historicity of the plates that Joseph Smith’s critics have been forced to invent ad hoc rationalizations for their existence that involve, for example, the Prophet (or perhaps some unknown assailants) forging a set of bogus plates. Fawn Brodie dismissed the experience of the Three Witnesses as a hallucinatory vision “conjured up” by the Prophet but was forced to reluctantly concede that “perhaps Joseph built some kind of makeshift deception” to fool the Eight Witnesses and others. Dan Vogel likewise has brushed aside the experience of the Three Witnesses as more or less hallucinatory but has gone so far as to speculate how Joseph could have fabricated a set of tin plates to satisfy the unequivocal testimony of those who handled the artifacts. This explanation, ingenious though it may be, is of course highly debatable — it is nothing more than a hypothesis developed to meet the a priori demands of a naturalistic worldview. Regardless, what’s significant for our purposes here is that the historical evidence is so compelling for the existence of actual, physical plates in Joseph Smith’s possession that even his skeptics are forced to account for their existence in some manner. This much is therefore clear: one cannot simply dismiss the physicality of the plates without doing gross violence to responsible historiography.

This brings me back to my original summation: I think it is quite difficult to reconcile the reality of the Plates and the testimony of the Witnesses with the "Inspired Fiction" theory.  However, I would be interested in reading any efforts to reconcile these things.  

Ann Taves' essay appears to be  somewhat responsive to this, so I will give it a read.  At first blush, however, there are some fairly big problems with her theory (that Joseph fabricated the Plates, then believed that God sanctified them and actually turned them into something sacred). 

Any others?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 24, 2017 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think it is quite difficult to the reality of the Plates and the testimony of the Witnesses with the "Inspired Fiction" theory.  However, I would be interested in reading any efforts to reconcile these things.

 

 

I'm afraid you've left out a verb twice now, Smac. Do you mean to say, "I think it is quite difficult to reconcile the reality of the plates. ..."?

[mfbukowski]

Everyone please note that fiction is a deliberately made- up story.

No one seems to get this.

Joseph need not have had ANY connection with the plates and they still would NOT be "Inspired Fiction" unless he deliberately fabricated the whole text which I think is impossible.

BIG DISTINCTION

Joseph did not need any props to "translate" for the inspired version of the Bible OR D&C but he did use the prop of the papyrus for the BOA.

Seers often "see" words in patterns in their minds- common examples might be reading tea leaves etc.  Mohammad allegedly received revelation without any devices attached.

Some look at water and feel inspired to create.  This works for me, big time!

Quote

 

While in the restful, contemplative state associated with observing or interacting with water, it’s also common to experience feelings of awe, Nichols’ research has found. The emotion of awe invokes feelings of a connection to something beyond oneself, a sense of the vastness of nature and an attempt to make sense of the experience.

“That switches you from a ‘me’ orientation to a ‘we’ orientation,” says Nichols, citing research findings that feelings of awe can increase our capacity for connection and empathy.

“When you experience that feeling of awe, you get that ‘one with the universe’ feeling,” says Nichols. “You feel connected to yourself, the world around you, and whoever you happen to be with. That puts you in a ‘we’ state of mind.”

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2016/02/25/mental-benefits-water_n_5791024.html

Other meditative techniques have been used through the ages to enable inspiration and a connection with God.

"Inspired Fiction" does not even come close to a good description EVEN IF Joseph had no connection with the plates- and of course there is ample evidence that he did in fact have a lot of contact with them AND his seer stone.

In the East meditation with the assistance of a mandala or other visual object is common.  I have added underlining.

https://www.watkinspublishing.com/how-to-meditate-on-mandalas/

Quote

 

How to Meditate on Mandalas

1. With the chosen mandala placed on a table or on the floor at arm’s length in front of you, perhaps on an improvised easel, level with your eye-line, sit comfortably – either on a chair with your feet flat on the floor, or on a cushion with your legs crossed.

2. Breathe slowly and deeply, from the diaphragm, while emptying and stilling your mind.

3. Gently gaze at the mandala and relax your eyes so that, initially, the image goes slowly out of focus.

4. Sitting quietly, concentrate on the image fully and allow its shapes, patterns and colours to work on your unconscious mind. If distracting thoughts arise, let them drift away and gently bring your focus back to the mandala.

5. Do this for at least 5 minutes initially. In later sessions, gradually try to build up your meditation period to 15 minutes.

6. When you are ready, slowly bring your attention back to the world around you.’

 

Seer stones provide the same results.

There is no need to call the BOM "Inspired Fiction"

Edited September 24, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Bob Crockett]

1 hour ago, Atheist Mormon said:

How can you have a chance to rebut something like this? How is it possible to refute claim like this?

Well, witnesses have refuted Strang's plates.  Seems that with all the frenemies of Joseph Smith somebody might have stepped forth.  Instead we have backhanded proof, like John Whitmer.  He retracted his witness on the ground that he, upon handling the plates, could not read the characters. 

[smac97]

23 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm afraid you've left out a verb twice now, Smac. Do you mean to say, "I think it is quite difficult to reconcile the reality of the plates. ..."?

Thx.  Fixed.

[mfbukowski]

34 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Ann Taves' essay appears to be  somewhat responsive to this, so I will give it a read.  At first blush, however, there are some fairly big problems with her theory (that Joseph fabricated the Plates, then believed that God sanctified them and actually turned them into something sacred). 

Millions of Catholics believe exactly that about the Eucharist at each Mass.

It is not in your tradition, that's all.

[Nevo]

Another naturalistic explanation proposed by Jan Shipps 44 years ago is that, "in connection with his money-digging activities, [Joseph] actually found some Indian artifacts . . . [that] inspired the writing of the Book of Mormon" (see Jan Shipps, "The Prophet Puzzle: Suggestions Leading Toward a More Comprehensive Interpretation of Joseph Smith," Journal of Mormon History 1 [1974]: 11).

[smac97]

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

Millions of Catholics believe exactly that about the Eucharist at each Mass.

It is not in your tradition, that's all.

Yes, Taves draws on the Eucharist as an exemplar of her theory (the other being the Brother of Jared asking the Lord to touch the sixteen stones).

But I think there's more to it than her theory merely not being in our "tradition."  

It requires us to jettison/ignore a lot of what Joseph Smith and his contemporaries said about the Plates.  

It requires us to believe that Joseph Smith was dishonest/insane/delusional when he spoke/wrote about the origins of the Plates.

It requires us to believe that God ratified Joseph's dishonest/insane/delusional statements about the Plates.

It does not account for the testimony of the Three Witnesses (either that, or it requires us to accept that the angel which descended from heaven and showed the Plates to them was in on the chicanery, and that God Himself was lying when His voice testified that the Plates "have been translated by the gift and power of God").

It is devoid of evidentiary analysis or historiography.  It typifies Bushman's characterization: "A series of surmises replaces a documented narrative."

That said, it's about the most coherent counter-explanation I've seen (Vogel's stuff is not impressive at all).

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, Nevo said:

Another naturalistic explanation proposed by Jan Shipps 44 years ago is that, "in connection with his money-digging activities, [Joseph] actually found some Indian artifacts . . . [that] inspired the writing of the Book of Mormon" (see Jan Shipps, "The Prophet Puzzle: Suggestions Leading Toward a More Comprehensive Interpretation of Joseph Smith," Journal of Mormon History 1 [1974]: 11).

But that does not account for the artifact he did have (unless Shipps was proposing that Joseph found an artifact that answered to the physical description of the Plates - does she?).

Thanks,

-Smac

[Benjamin McGuire]

The thing is, Bob, is that having witnesses refute Strang's plates makes little difference in the long run. There are witnesses who speak to the veracity of the claims about the plates - and we are left having to decide which set of witnesses is more trustworthy. The same is true for the Book of Mormon.

There is one big difference though.

We have the complete contents of Strang's plates, to place alongside a translation - and we can see exactly what the correspondence is between the two, and why this correspondence refutes the alleged claims about them. And this evidence is much stronger (and much more convincing) than any statement by any number of witnesses.

We don't have the complete contents of the Gold Plates. In fact, the sample that we have is a tiny portion of the gold plates - and we do not know what part of the Book of Mormon that sample that we have is supposed to correspond to. It makes a big difference. Potentially, if we had the complete contents of the Gold Plates, then we could analyze them, and see what sort of correspondence exists. And that comparison would be much stronger evidence than would these statements from witnesses.

But we still run into a few distinct problems - no matter what our approach is. The Book of Esther is ancient. It was written in a context quite close to the historical milieu that it describes. It is also a work of fiction. We have to be careful to distinguish between notions of historicity and verisimilitude. Can an inspired Book of Mormon be verisimilar and not historical? Smac says as much, and I agree with him.

For me, the fascinating part of the discussion (and something I have published on) is the problem that exists with the process of reading. If we read Cinderella and assume that it is a real history, then we have a narrative of a delusional, and potentially psychotic young woman (as opposed to reading it as a children's fairy tale). There is something fundamentally different in terms of how we read (and consequently the meaning we get from the text) if we read First Nephi as a fictional narrative, narrated by a fictional Nephi instead of reading First Nephi as an authentic autobiographical text. The meaning of texts comes as we read them in a sort of conversation between us (the reader) and the author. But if two readers have effectively two very different authors, then the conversations will naturally be quite different.

On the other side of this discussion, this is also what creates part of the problem (or the divide) between the two groups. As Donald Davidson pointed out: "when two (or, of course, more) creatures can correlate their responses, those responses triangulate the object. It is the common cause of the responses, a cause that must have a location in a shared, interpersonal space. When we can notice that we share reactions, the possibility of a check or standard is introduced, the possibility of occasional failures of expected joint reactions and hence of error." Two competing 'triangulations' for the text and it's place within the community becomes visible through this sort of discourse here.

I think though, that there is a glaring hole in Smac's chain of thought. The Plates can exist. But this doesn't guarantee that it is some historical account - just as Esther is both an ancient text and a work of fiction.

The challenge, I think is that Smac really doesn't get to the issue raised by believers who assert that the Book of Mormon is inspired fiction. They are not like the critics who feel a need to deny the miraculous events by which the plates are given to Joseph Smith (many of them might be quite comfortable with the notion of angelic visitors). The real challenge (in my opinion) isn't the notion of the witnesses who see and touch the plates - it is the identity of the angel who appears to Joseph Smith as Moroni, who claims to be the author of a substantial portion of the gold plates. And it is this connection to a text through an identified author that tends to create a foundation for belief in the text as an authentic history.

But that's just my two cents ...

[Robert F. Smith]

41 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But that does not account for the artifact he did have (unless Shipps was proposing that Joseph found an artifact that answered to the physical description of the Plates - does she?)........................................

Shipps also said:

Quote

If the process is natural enough to be studied, it is nevertheless so very complex–aye, even mysterious–that unless its beginnings are examined within a clear theoretical framework, it can appear to be completely supernatural and thus amenable only to observation, not analysis.  Shipps, Mormonism, 69; a truly phenomenological study brackets the presuppositions which “a clear theoretical framework” requires.  John Gager was equally perplexed in JMH 9:58.

Her theoretical framework is acceptable and successful as far as it goes, but it cannot in any sense account for the truly odd or paradoxical facts which we have taken note of above – particularly when combined with Shipps’ additional observations on (a) the Mormon recapitulation (in “sacred time”) of Old and New Testament events in a 19th century context, and (b) the mysterious and virtually unfathomable circumstances surrounding the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.*  For that we must look to the frightful or at least unsettling specter of a mythic and cosmic Joe Smith.  “[T]he mere existence of mythic configurations” could not, of course, “comprise an adequate evidence to deny the possibility of primary existence.”**  

It is perhaps precisely because he could see some of these further implications of “paradox” that Klaus Hansen was so discomfited by this aspect of Shipps’ book –  see his review in Journal of Mormon History, 11 (1984), 135-145.  Part of the explanation for this may be, as James Sanders has observed, that    

Quote

Myth is by nature multivalent and adaptable to many situations: . . .  Even scholars are subject to the Zeitgeist of whatever age in which they live: it is a part of the limitation as well as gift of humanity.  Sanders, Canon and Community: A Guide to Canonical Criticism [1984], 23.

Sanders discusses various aspects of adaptability in light of “the rather amazing fact of repetition. . . . of a community value in a context other than that of its ‘original’ provenance,” which leads in turn to a “resignification of that value to some limited extent” (22).  “From earliest times, it would appear, the believing community contemporized earlier value-traditions to their own situations” (27).  Just as this process may go on in a scriptural context (cf. I Nephi 19:23-24), so also, on occasion, do entire communities evince the principle as a social and historical process.  Indeed, according to William Richard Stegner, there was the Jewish belief in late antiquity “that the age of salvation would in some measure repeat the first age of deliverance from Egyptian bondage” (Stegner, Narrative Theology in Early Jewish Christianity [1989], 7); TB Pesahim 10:5.  Cf. Thomas F. O’Dea and Janet O’Dea Aviad, The Sociology of Religion, 2nd ed. (1983), 86.
*  Jan Shipps’ comments during the panel discussion on “Prophecy, Canonization and Institutional Authority,” October 21, 2005, at the Claremont Graduate University’s Conference on “Joseph Smith and the Prophetic Tradition.”

**  C. Jolley, doctoral dissertation, 96.  Cf. Edgar C. Snow, “One Face of the Hero: In Search of the Mythological Joseph Smith,” Dialogue, 27/3 (Fall 1994): 233-247.

Edited September 24, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[Atheist Mormon]

1 hour ago, Glenn101 said:

Maybe by providing persuasive evidence?

Do you know any religion that provide Persuasive evidence?

[smac97]

36 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

The challenge, I think is that Smac really doesn't get to the issue raised by believers who assert that the Book of Mormon is inspired fiction. They are not like the critics who feel a need to deny the miraculous events by which the plates are given to Joseph Smith (many of them might be quite comfortable with the notion of angelic visitors). The real challenge (in my opinion) isn't the notion of the witnesses who see and touch the plates - it is the identity of the angel who appears to Joseph Smith as Moroni, who claims to be the author of a substantial portion of the gold plates. And it is this connection to a text through an identified author that tends to create a foundation for belief in the text as an authentic history.

Could you elaborate on the emphasized bit above?  I am interested in what you have to say.

Thanks,

-Smac

[CV75]

37 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

The thing is, Bob, is that having witnesses refute Strang's plates makes little difference in the long run. There are witnesses who speak to the veracity of the claims about the plates - and we are left having to decide which set of witnesses is more trustworthy. The same is true for the Book of Mormon.

There is one big difference though.

We have the complete contents of Strang's plates, to place alongside a translation - and we can see exactly what the correspondence is between the two, and why this correspondence refutes the alleged claims about them. And this evidence is much stronger (and much more convincing) than any statement by any number of witnesses.

We don't have the complete contents of the Gold Plates. In fact, the sample that we have is a tiny portion of the gold plates - and we do not know what part of the Book of Mormon that sample that we have is supposed to correspond to. It makes a big difference. Potentially, if we had the complete contents of the Gold Plates, then we could analyze them, and see what sort of correspondence exists. And that comparison would be much stronger evidence than would these statements from witnesses.

But we still run into a few distinct problems - no matter what our approach is. The Book of Esther is ancient. It was written in a context quite close to the historical milieu that it describes. It is also a work of fiction. We have to be careful to distinguish between notions of historicity and verisimilitude. Can an inspired Book of Mormon be verisimilar and not historical? Smac says as much, and I agree with him.

For me, the fascinating part of the discussion (and something I have published on) is the problem that exists with the process of reading. If we read Cinderella and assume that it is a real history, then we have a narrative of a delusional, and potentially psychotic young woman (as opposed to reading it as a children's fairy tale). There is something fundamentally different in terms of how we read (and consequently the meaning we get from the text) if we read First Nephi as a fictional narrative, narrated by a fictional Nephi instead of reading First Nephi as an authentic autobiographical text. The meaning of texts comes as we read them in a sort of conversation between us (the reader) and the author. But if two readers have effectively two very different authors, then the conversations will naturally be quite different.

On the other side of this discussion, this is also what creates part of the problem (or the divide) between the two groups. As Donald Davidson pointed out: "when two (or, of course, more) creatures can correlate their responses, those responses triangulate the object. It is the common cause of the responses, a cause that must have a location in a shared, interpersonal space. When we can notice that we share reactions, the possibility of a check or standard is introduced, the possibility of occasional failures of expected joint reactions and hence of error." Two competing 'triangulations' for the text and it's place within the community becomes visible through this sort of discourse here.

I think though, that there is a glaring hole in Smac's chain of thought. The Plates can exist. But this doesn't guarantee that it is some historical account - just as Esther is both an ancient text and a work of fiction.

The challenge, I think is that Smac really doesn't get to the issue raised by believers who assert that the Book of Mormon is inspired fiction. They are not like the critics who feel a need to deny the miraculous events by which the plates are given to Joseph Smith (many of them might be quite comfortable with the notion of angelic visitors). The real challenge (in my opinion) isn't the notion of the witnesses who see and touch the plates - it is the identity of the angel who appears to Joseph Smith as Moroni, who claims to be the author of a substantial portion of the gold plates. And it is this connection to a text through an identified author that tends to create a foundation for belief in the text as an authentic history.

But that's just my two cents ...

A key that I have found extremely helpful in resonating (conversing, as you describe it, and most importantly, conversing spiritually) with the author of scripture is this advice from Elder McConkie:

“It takes a prophet to understand a prophet, and every faithful member of the Church should have “the testimony of Jesus” which “is the spirit of prophecy.”” https://www.lds.org/ensign/1973/10/ten-keys-to-understanding-isaiah?lang=eng

If we are resonating with Moroni then the text on the plates must be his abridged history, per his instructions. If we are resonating with Joseph Smith, the text must also be a history according to his word. With whom does the competing ‘triangulation’ identify and converse as the author of a verisimilitude?

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

Drawing upon multiple historical accounts, Neal Rappleye explained, “They felt, lifted, and moved this object around (while covered). They could feel the weight, contours, and shape of the object well enough to discern that it was not blocks of wood or stones. They could lift the individual pages (or plates), hear them make a metallic rustling sound as they moved, and feel that they were bound by three rings.”13

Even though they most often lay covered and unused on the table, they provided a constant visual reminder of the Book of Mormon’s tangible reality.14 As King Benjamin taught, “O my sons, I would that ye should remember that these sayings are true, and also that these records are true. … and we can know of their surety because we have them before our eyes” (Mosiah 1:6).15

So if there really were plates, what were they made of?

Some (Dan Vogle among others, IIRC) have suggested there really were plates, but that Joseph may have fabricated them from common tin sheets. Joseph may have been familiar with tinsmithing and Oliver Cowdery sold tin household objects; however, pure tin sheets are difficult to etch, so filling them with characters would be a daunting task. Tin sheet is not pliable like thick paper. When a stack of tin sheets is rubbed by the thumb it does not rustle like the pages of book. Those who described the plates as having the appearance of gold would have immediately detected they were looking at tin since it was a common material used in households.

So, if not tin, then what? I'm not aware of any other candidate for sheet materials that would have been readily available and meet the descriptions that were given by first-hand observers.

Edited September 24, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Benjamin Seeker]

I hate to be the party pooper, but there is another important angle that is being ignored. Even if JS did truly have ancient Nephite plates, there is little to no reason to believe that he got the translation correct. In fact there are several cases that suggest he got the translation wrong.

Case #1: JS translated some hieroglyphics  from the Egyptian papyri and produced a little known text that began the story of a princess Katumin from Egypt (http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/valuable-discovery-circa-early-july-1835/7). Both the original hieroglyphics and the translation are included in the resulting document, and from what I understand, the translation has nothing to do with the hieroglyphics and the princess and other aspects of the translation appear to have never existed.

Case #2: JS offered a translation of a couple passages of the Book of Mormon into Hebrew at a meeting in Kirtland prior to his Hebrew studies. The text he produced does not appear to relate to Hebrew at all. The document copied by both Oliver Cowdery and Frederick G Williams is titled Questions Answered in Hebrew (http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/appendix-2-document-2a-characters-copied-by-oliver-cowdery-circa-1835-1836/1#source-note).

Case #3: JS translated strings of  heiroglyphics on Facsimiles 2 and 3 from the Egyptian papyri. It appears that his translation of the characters does not relate to the actual heiroglyphics at all.

These are three examples where JS translated and we have both the source and his translation. All three demonstrate that JS didn't actually translate the source language into any semblance of its meaning, and instead his translation is something else entirely.

Edited September 24, 2017 by Benjamin Seeker

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Bernard Gui said:

So if there really were plates, what were they made of?

Some (Brent Metcalfe among others, IIRC) have suggested there really were plates, but that Joseph may have fabricated them from common tin sheets. Joseph may have been familiar with tinsmithing and Oliver Cowdery sold tin household objects; however, pure tin sheets are difficult to etch, so filling them with characters would be a daunting task. Tin sheet is not pliable like thick paper. When a stack of tin sheets is rubbed by the thumb it does not rustle like the pages of book. Those who described the plates as having the appearance of gold would have immediately detected they were looking at tin since it was a common material used in households.

So, if not tin, then what? I'm not aware of any other candidate for sheet materials that would have been readily available and meet the descriptions that were given by first-hand observers.

The physical characteristics of the metal of which the Plates were composed is, as you say, interesting.  It would be interesting to see if we could fabricate plates made of materials that would have been available to Joseph Smith, but which also answer to the descriptions from the various witnesses (as to thickness, malleability, color, etchings, etc.).

Thanks,

-Smac

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Yes, Taves draws on the Eucharist as an exemplar of her theory (the other being the Brother of Jared asking the Lord to touch the sixteen stones).

But I think there's more to it than her theory merely not being in our "tradition."  

It requires us to jettison/ignore a lot of what Joseph Smith and his contemporaries said about the Plates.  

It requires us to believe that Joseph Smith was dishonest/insane/delusional when he spoke/wrote about the origins of the Plates.

It requires us to believe that God ratified Joseph's dishonest/insane/delusional statements about the Plates.

It does not account for the testimony of the Three Witnesses (either that, or it requires us to accept that the angel which descended from heaven and showed the Plates to them was in on the chicanery, and that God Himself was lying when His voice testified that the Plates "have been translated by the gift and power of God").

It is devoid of evidentiary analysis or historiography.  It typifies Bushman's characterization: "A series of surmises replaces a documented narrative."

That said, it's about the most coherent counter-explanation I've seen (Vogel's stuff is not impressive at all).

Thanks,

-Smac

I don't understand how Vogel even gets published

I agree with you, but I can also see it as Taves does

Angels have no wings though and Abraham wrestled with one, and there are many scriptural accounts of not recognizing between angels and mortals.

And I really did believe in the Eucharist.

My skeptical side can see all kinds of conceivable chicanery happening to rather simple minded people.

For me, testimony is everything and that's why I usually do not participate in these kinds of threads.  Perhaps I I know too much of the ways of the world. When it comes to knowledge of Good and Evil I'm afraid I'm rather heavy on the wrong side.