"Inspired Fiction" v. The Plates & The Witnesses

[Nevo]

37 minutes ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

This minimizes his role in this particular dig, and it hardly scratches the surface of his money digging activities! JS probably wanted to clear up accusations made in the Hurlbut affidavits (Mormonism Unvleiled, 1834), and so he picks one of the digs he got hired for making it seem like he was peripheral (also one of the best documented ones), and says that it is the whole of the matter, which we all know is false.

Here is what Richard Bushman writes in the explicitly apologetic A Reason for Faith:

Quote

At a trial in 1826, a witness told of Joseph directing money diggers to pursue a trunk that kept sinking deeper into the earth whenever their spades struck it. None of this appeared in Mormon accounts. Joseph admitted to employment by Josiah Stowell (also Stoal) in 1825 to dig for Spanish coins, but he claimed he had little faith in the venture and eventually persuaded Stowell to give it up. Later he implied that the stories about his treasure seeking were unfounded exaggerations of this one incident. 

 

[hope_for_things]

57 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Actually, it would seem we should focus on Mormon, not Nephi.  The Plates were, after all, an abridgement of other, more ancient records by Mormon around 400 A.D.  The very act of abridging would have required Mormon to have access to "blank" plates.  I think it's rather a stretch to suggest that Mormon would have needed to rely on a cache of plates created by Nephi 1,000 years before.  So the purported anachronism wouldn't be 1,500 years off, but instead about 600 years.  

Moreover, consider this item:

And here (emphases added):

So it seems like the purported anachronism may not be quite as problematic as it seemed.

Thanks,

-Smac

What about the small plates of Nephi which were unabridged by Mormon, I thought those were included in the BoM and wouldn't you have to date those to around 600 BCE since Nephi engraved those plates himself.  

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

This minimizes his role in this particular dig, and it hardly scratches the surface of his money digging activities! 

If your complaint is that the official history doesn't go into all those details, then I'd certainly agree. I'm not at all clear why that's an essential part of of his history especially when he's quite upfront he was a money digger. Focusing on what they thought was important in the history isn't being dishonest. The history in no way shape or form pretended to be comprehensive.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

As far as the seer stone goes, JS wasn't open about it in publications, and he was even sometimes reticent with insiders. Oliver Cowdery noted in 1831 that when invited by his brother Hyrum to explain how he translated the Book of Mormon, Joseph "said that it was not intended to tell the world all the particulars of the coming forth of the book of Mormon, & also said that it was not expedient for him to relate these things." Later in his life he tells the story of the Book of Mormon translation and disingenuously left the seer stone out. The 1842 Wentworth letter contains a brief history of the church prepared by Joseph and meant for eventual publication. In it he wrote (or dictated or something along these lines), "With the records was found a curious instrument, which the ancients called "Urim and Thummim," which consisted of two transparent stones set in the rims of a bow fastened to a breastplate. Through the medium of the Urim and Thummim I translated the record by the gift and power of God." Clearly, no mention of the seer stone is made as also there is no mention that, though Joseph did use the Urim and Thummim with the breastplate at first, eventually the Urim and Thummim stones were used in his hat (probably one at a time) the same as the seer stone.

Again though your complaint isn't about deception but about completeness and full transparency. That's fine if you think the history ought to have covered those things. But he's not being deceptive in what he presents. Maybe it's not what you want to know about but I find that a weak criticism. Further as has been noted by most historians by fairly early Urim & Thummim becomes a term to refer to all seer stones whether it be the Nephite spectacles or either of Joseph's stones. Further, as I noted, this use is in D&C 130 where the text explicitly is talking about a single seer stone rather than the Nephite spectacles. (And as I noted, is a description of Joseph's white seer stone)

Now again if your complaint is that Joseph wasn't in the history describing the use of the seerstone after the loss of the 116 pages (although there's still disagreement over whether the spectacles were returned and used for the remainder of the text) then I'll agree. Although that was discussed fairly widely.

My feeling here is that you more object to the change of term from "seer stone" to "Urim and Thummim" to describe seer stone use (such as in certain sections of the D&C) Clearly to Joseph and most of the early Mormons there was no difference which is why they use the term U&T in places like D&C 130 even though the description is a traditional seer stone.

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

What about the small plates of Nephi which were unabridged by Mormon, I thought those were included in the BoM

That's a fair question.  Mormon may not have abridged the Small Plates (Words of Mormon 1:6), so he may have included those physical plate in the compilation eventually delivered to Joseph Smith, or he may have transcribed their contents onto the plates.  It appears that the first proposition is more likely.

In any event, Nephi explicitly claims to have made more plates (1 Nephi 19), so the fabrication of plates would need to go back to circa 600 B.C. after all.

15 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

and wouldn't you have to date those to around 600 BCE since Nephi engraved those plates himself.  

Yes, you are correct.

Here is an interesting article on this general subject, with several additional linked citations to other resources: What Kind of Ore did Nephi Use to Make the Plates?

Thanks,

-Smac

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I saw that, but because this document doesn't use citations well, I don't know which bibliographical references directly talk to this finding, and I didn't see any dates suggesting Tumbaga was used during BoM times, it just says " pre-Hispanic Panama".  Would native American's have used Tumbaga during the BoM time period, 600 BCE to 400 CE, and do we have evidence that it was being used in sophisticated enough ways to have produced something like plates.  

The picture with patina I linked to is from the Book of Mormon era and mesoAmerica. 

[hope_for_things]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That's a fair question.  Mormon may not have abridged the Small Plates (Words of Mormon 1:6), so he may have included those physical plate in the compilation eventually delivered to Joseph Smith, or he may have transcribed their contents onto the plates.  It appears that the first proposition is more likely.

In any event, Nephi explicitly claims to have made more plates (1 Nephi 19), so the fabrication of plates would need to go back to circa 600 B.C. after all.

WoM 1:6 sounds to me like the physical plates made by Nephi were just combined with Mormon's abridgment.  I can't remember where I've read this before, but I seem to recall reading that there are other references that would support this idea that there wouldn't have been a transcription of the small plates of Nephi, but that they were included as written by Nephi and subsequent prophets.  

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

WoM 1:6 sounds to me like the physical plates made by Nephi were just combined with Mormon's abridgment. 

That's my preliminary assessment as well.  It makes sense.  Apparently using the plates was a very difficult, expensive, time-consuming process.  The plates had to be fabricated, then etched on using some sort of stylus-type implement.  If Mormon did not abridge the records in the Small Plates (1 Nephi through Omni), then it would make sense for him to just incorporate the original physical plates into the compendium which ended up with Joseph Smith.  No need to re-invent the wheel, I guess.

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I can't remember where I've read this before, but I seem to recall reading that there are other references that would support this idea that there wouldn't have been a transcription of the small plates of Nephi, but that they were included as written by Nephi and subsequent prophets.  

I think that's correct.

I also remember reading about how the use of plates, owing to the difficulty and expense and time involved, would likely have not been a widespread sort of thing.  There may have even been a priestly prerogative kind of thing (that is, that the use of metal plates was the exclusive province of certain categories of Nephites, such as religious leaders (and perhaps civic leaders).

-Smac

[ksfisher]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That's my preliminary assessment as well.  It makes sense.  Apparently using the plates was a very difficult, expensive, time-consuming process.  The plates had to be fabricated, then etched on using some sort of stylus-type implement.  If Mormon did not abridge the records in the Small Plates (1 Nephi through Omni), then it would make sense for him to just incorporate the original physical plates into the compendium which ended up with Joseph Smith.  No need to re-invent the wheel, I guess.

 

This is assuming that they were compatible size wise.   Words of Mormon 1:6 would seem to read that Mormon in someway attached Nephi's small plates to Mormon's own record.   However it does not seem to preclude that the small plates were copied, without abridgement, onto the type of plate that Mormon was using.   

[Rajah Manchou]

24 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

WoM 1:6 sounds to me like the physical plates made by Nephi were just combined with Mormon's abridgment.  I can't remember where I've read this before, but I seem to recall reading that there are other references that would support this idea that there wouldn't have been a transcription of the small plates of Nephi, but that they were included as written by Nephi and subsequent prophets.  

Seems the plates would have been a hodge podge of different metals and alloys ranging from 6th century BC Jerusalem to wherever Nephi landed, to wherever Mormon dug for ore in the 5th century AD. 

I don't imagine it possible to provide a single description of the plates that would describe the look and feel of the entire stack.

(edit: unless, as ksfisher says above, the small plates were copied, )
 

Edited September 29, 2017 by Rajah Manchou

[Benjamin Seeker]

47 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

If your complaint is that the official history doesn't go into all those details, then I'd certainly agree. I'm not at all clear why that's an essential part of of his history especially when he's quite upfront he was a money digger. Focusing on what they thought was important in the history isn't being dishonest. The history in no way shape or form pretended to be comprehensive.

You're saying he is simply not being complete, but it's more than that. He is saying all of the talk about his money digging stems from the Stowell outing, which is deceptive and false. See Richard Busman's comments agreeing with me quotes by Nevo above.

Quote

Again though your complaint isn't about deception but about completeness and full transparency. That's fine if you think the history ought to have covered those things. But he's not being deceptive in what he presents.

Yes he is, at least in the Wentworth letter! He specifically describes the Urim and Thummim (breastplate bow and stones), and says that he used it to translate the BOM. I beieve all of the BOM we have was translated with the seerstone, which he left out in his detailing of the Urim and a Thummim so that it would look more legit to mainstream society who didn't hold seer stones in high regard. The deception is that a complete story was damning so he made it seem like he translated the BOM with the breastplate device when in reality probably all of the published BOM was translated via seer stone.

Quote

Maybe it's not what you want to know about but I find that a weak criticism. Further as has been noted by most historians by fairly early Urim & Thummim becomes a term to refer to all seer stones whether it be the Nephite spectacles or either of Joseph's stones.

Only he explicitly describes the Urim and Thummim as the Nephite interpreters in both the Wentworth letter and the official history.

Quote

Further, as I noted, this use is in D&C 130 where the text explicitly is talking about a single seer stone rather than the Nephite spectacles. (And as I noted, is a description of Joseph's white seer stone)

Joseph doesn't have to be consistent, especially when he's speaking to different audiences. The Wentworth letter was meant to be used to create a newspaper article, clearly a public audience. What is the publication history of 130?

Quote

Now again if your complaint is that Joseph wasn't in the history describing the use of the seerstone after the loss of the 116 pages (although there's still disagreement over whether the spectacles were returned and used for the remainder of the text) then I'll agree. Although that was discussed fairly widely.

My feeling here is that you more object to the change of term from "seer stone" to "Urim and Thummim" to describe seer stone use (such as in certain sections of the D&C) Clearly to Joseph and most of the early Mormons there was no difference which is why they use the term U&T in places like D&C 130 even though the description is a traditional seer stone.

Hopefully, I've made it clear that the Wentworth letter and the official history use the term Urim and Thummim to specify the Nephite Interpreters, and the seerstone is intentionally left out, particularly in the Wentworth letter, to avoid association with "glass looking," "peep stones," and the like.

Edited September 29, 2017 by Benjamin Seeker

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Seems the plates would have been a hodge podge of different metals and alloys ranging from 6th century BC Jerusalem to wherever Nephi landed, to wherever Mormon dug for ore in the 5th century AD. 

I don't imagine it possible to provide a single description of the plates that would describe the look and feel of the entire stack.

(edit: unless, as ksfisher says above, the small plates were copied, )
 

I found this interesting article.  The author Eldin Ricks, seems to think that Mormon actually engraved the book "Words of Mormon" on the end of the small plates of Nephi.  It sounds like this author also agrees that the actual small plates of Nephi were combined with Mormon's abridgment of the large plates of Nephi. 

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/book-mormon-jacob-through-words-mormon-learn-joy/small-plates-nephi-and-words-mormon

I agree with you that this would represent a hodge podge of metallic pages, and they wouldn't seem to fit together naturally.  But if Joseph never physically received any plates, and only saw them in vision, as I believe he did, then this wouldn't matter anyway.  

 

[Benjamin McGuire]

Benjamin Seeker writes:

Quote

As far as the seer stone goes, JS wasn't open about it in publications, and he was even sometimes reticent with insiders. Oliver Cowdery noted in 1831 that when invited by his brother Hyrum to explain how he translated the Book of Mormon, Joseph "said that it was not intended to tell the world all the particulars of the coming forth of the book of Mormon, & also said that it was not expedient for him to relate these things." Later in his life he tells the story of the Book of Mormon translation and disingenuously left the seer stone out. The 1842 Wentworth letter contains a brief history of the church prepared by Joseph and meant for eventual publication. In it he wrote (or dictated or something along these lines), "With the records was found a curious instrument, which the ancients called "Urim and Thummim," which consisted of two transparent stones set in the rims of a bow fastened to a breastplate. Through the medium of the Urim and Thummim I translated the record by the gift and power of God." Clearly, no mention of the seer stone is made as also there is no mention that, though Joseph did use the Urim and Thummim with the breastplate at first, eventually the Urim and Thummim stones were used in his hat (probably one at a time) the same as the seer stone.

At the end of 1832 (and certainly by January of 1833), the idea that the seer stones and the Nephite Interpreters were equivalent to the Urim and Thummim of the Old Testament was introduced to the Church by Phelps. After this point in time, when we read of the seer stone, we know that it means the seer stone. When we read of the interpreters, we know it means the Nephite Interpreters. When we read of the Urim and Thummim, it can mean either the seer stone, or the Nephite Interpreters, or it can mean all of them collectively, as well as referring to the Old Testament instruments of divination. Phelps determined that the Urim and Thummim was a helpful way to identify the interpreters and the seer stones (both in terms of a label and in terms of the way that they functioned) through his reading of a book titled Jahn's Biblical Archaeology (which he acquired in 1832 and quotes in several places in his writings in 1833). Prior to this, there is no mention of the Urim and Thummim. (I note in passing that the book that Phelps references and consequently Phelps's understanding of the Urim and Thummim was limited and so the comparison doesn't work well at all in our understanding today).

There is little doubt (at least for me) about why this lexical shift takes root so quickly. It served to create some distance between the more traditional views of seer stones and the production of the Book of Mormon. It identified by the Nephite Interpreters and the Seer Stones using an Old Testament term (which fit well into the developing restorationist theology of the time). And while we can discuss possible motivations beyond these two points for the shift in terminology, what doesn't happen is that "He wrote the seer stone out of the translation process entirely in his official history." The reason why this happens is not about what Joseph writes, but about how that history was read by later LDS. In the 1880s, we still had this dual sense of meaning for many (especially those who were first hand witnesses to some of the early events of the Church including the translation of the Book of Mormon). A few decades later, and with an audience with no first hand experience, Joseph Fielding Smith continues this lexical shift, and the term Urim and Thummim is only associated with the Nephite Interpreters and with the oracles used in the Old Testament, and not at all with the seer stone.

And this leads to the conclusion that Benjamin Seeker presents us with - but it is not an accurate conclusion.

Edited September 29, 2017 by Benjamin McGuire

[Benjamin Seeker]

7 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Benjamin Seeker writes:

At the end of 1832 (and certainly by January of 1833), the idea that the seer stones and the Nephite Interpreters were equivalent to the Urim and Thummim of the Old Testament was introduced to the Church by Phelps. After this point in time, when we read of the seer stone, we know that it means the seer stone. When we read of the interpreters, we know it means the Nephite Interpreters. When we read of the Urim and Thummim, it can mean either the seer stone, or the Nephite Interpreters, or it can mean all of them collectively, as well as referring to the Old Testament instruments of divination. Phelps determined that the Urim and Thummim was a helpful way to identify the interpreters and the seer stones (both in terms of a label and in terms of the way that they functioned) through his reading of a book titled Jahn's Biblical Archaeology (which he acquired in 1832 and quotes in several places in his writings in 1833). Prior to this, there is no mention of the Urim and Thummim. (I note in passing that the book that Phelps references and consequently Phelps's understanding of the Urim and Thummim was limited and so the comparison doesn't work well at all in our understanding today).

There is little doubt (at least for me) about why this lexical shift takes root so quickly. It served to create some distance between the more traditional views of seer stones and the production of the Book of Mormon. It identified by the Nephite Interpreters and the Seer Stones using an Old Testament term (which fit well into the developing restorationist theology of the time). And while we can discuss possible motivations beyond these two points for the shift in terminology, what doesn't happen is that "He wrote the seer stone out of the translation process entirely in his official history." The reason why this happens is not about what Joseph writes, but about how that history was read by later LDS. In the 1880s, we still had this dual sense of meaning for many (especially those who were first hand witnesses to some of the early events of the Church including the translation of the Book of Mormon). A few decades later, and with an audience with no first hand experience, Joseph Fielding Smith continues this lexical shift, and the term Urim and Thummim is only associated with the Nephite Interpreters and with the oracles used in the Old Testament, and not at all with the seer stone.

And this leads to the conclusion that Benjamin Seeker presents us with - but it is not an accurate conclusion.

The Wentworth letter does exactly the opposite of what you describe. It uses the term Urim and Thummim to specify only the Interpreters by its own definition included in the text and goes on to say that it was by that specific device that the BOM was translated. There is no room for misunderstanding. The Wentworth letter clearly paints a picture that excludes the seerstone, and I believe purposefully in order to avoid association with seer stones. 

I understand that the early saints used the term Urim and Thummim to refer to the seer stone, and you could argue that the official history is expecting readers to fill in the blank there, however the Wentworth letter is doing something else with its direct statements.

[clarkgoble]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Also, many of the recollections were looking back, and I think we have to give preference to the contemporary evidence first.  Vogel makes a compelling argument just looking at D&C 17, but I think if you combine that evidence with the three witness statement as well as the HIC narrative, it corroborates this interpretation.  For D&C 17 its the use of the word "power" in combination with "faith" that are interesting here.  

I think where I part with Vogel is in applying D&C 17 to all witnesses. I just don't think he makes a compelling argument there. Clearly some were more like the three witnesses - say mother Whitmer. But I think he extends from that to all witnesses were visionary in a very problematic fashion. I completely agree with him on the three - it's just that broader move that's very speculative and that D&C 17 just doesn't support IMO. I'd add that I don't find D&C 17 implying the seeing them is with some inner or creative eye either. We make that connection purely because of how the three witnesses described it. So more or less what Dan is doing (IMO) is taking the descriptions of Cowdery and Harris and expanding them to everyone via D&C 17.

So what Dan is arguing is that anyone seeing it is in a delusional state and that Joseph is pushing the delusional state. However from my perspective the more interesting accounts, as I mentioned, aren't the formal statement but the more incidental views.

[hope_for_things]

4 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think where I part with Vogel is in applying D&C 17 to all witnesses. I just don't think he makes a compelling argument there. Clearly some were more like the three witnesses - say mother Whitmer. But I think he extends from that to all witnesses were visionary in a very problematic fashion. I completely agree with him on the three - it's just that broader move that's very speculative and that D&C 17 just doesn't support IMO. I'd add that I don't find D&C 17 implying the seeing them is with some inner or creative eye either. We make that connection purely because of how the three witnesses described it. So more or less what Dan is doing (IMO) is taking the descriptions of Cowdery and Harris and expanding them to everyone via D&C 17.

So what Dan is arguing is that anyone seeing it is in a delusional state and that Joseph is pushing the delusional state. However from my perspective the more interesting accounts, as I mentioned, aren't the formal statement but the more incidental views.

The word delusional is pejorative, and I don't remember Vogel using that word.  You seem to want to jump to the pejoratives for some reason which I think mischaracterizes these positions that you see as critical, which I think is unfortunate, whether that's using the word fraud or delusion.  

What I read from the article you linked for Vogel on Mormonthink, and I didn't read the whole thing, but just parts, is that he speculates that they may have viewed the plates in both a vision like sense as well as handled something material but under a cloth.  

Joseph describes his experiences as vision and visions sound like something in your minds eye to me.  In the BoM first chapter Lehi saw a vision or had a dream, the text uses those words interchangeably.   It seems like modern proof-texting to describe Joseph's vision as something more tangible,  perhaps its because we've been raised on film representations of the first vision experience that we think of visions in more concrete terms, but look at all the original wording of these experiences and give me evidence for it being something other than an experience in the mind of the person, or in other words, something that can't be viewed by an outside observer, but is rather only seen by the individual experiencing it.  

 

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

You're saying he is simply not being complete, but it's more than that. He is saying all of the talk about his money digging stems from the Stowell outing, which is deceptive and false. See Richard Busman's comments agreeing with me quotes by Nevo above.

Again, as I said, he admits to being a money digger. That's what I was addressing. It's completely true he downplays this. I'm not sure I'd go as far as Bushman regarding that quote I already gave. To me his answer is incomplete but not a lie. Your argument is that this statement is a lie, which I just fundamentally disagree with. To say his statement was deceptive and false is just an exaggeration of what is going on IMO. It's definitely incomplete but what is said isn't dishonest. Now if you mean should we take Joseph's history as non-problematic then of course I'd agree it's biased and doesn't give the type of history I'd want. But that seems a different issue. But I don't see him doing anything particularly worse than what I do with embarrassing things with my past. I think all I'm saying is let's not hold Joseph to a double standard. 

3 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

I beieve all of the BOM we have was translated with the seerstone, which he left out in his detailing of the Urim and a Thummim so that it would look more legit to mainstream society who didn't hold seer stones in high regard. 

I don't believe that myself, but we've discussed that here in the past and there's no need to revisit. But then I also don't think the Urim and Thummim are anything but seer stones in a holder. Indeed I think there's at least reasonable evidence that Joseph found them unweldly and either popped one of the lenses out to use as a seer stone or used his seer stone during parts of the 116 pages as well. i.e. I just dispute people treating them as fundamentally different sorts of objects. Again D&C 130 makes that pretty clear IMO.

Now the terminological change certainly is in part an attempt to make them more respectable with Biblical terminology. But that's just silly expectations based upon familiarity issues. But I don't have a problem with that. That's just good PR. But in terms of describing a rock like object that was used to see words and the like both are basically the same.

 

 

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

The word delusional is pejorative, and I don't remember Vogel using that word.  You seem to want to jump to the pejoratives for some reason which I think mischaracterizes these positions that you see as critical, which I think is unfortunate, whether that's using the word fraud or delusion.  

If it's not a legitimate vision, then it's delusional. Vogel is explicit in The Making of a Prophet. "As is no doubt apparent, my inclination is to interpret any claim of the paranormal - precognition, clairvoyance, telekinesis, telepathy - as delusion or fraud" (xii) Taves tries to make a middle ground but Vogel is pretty forthright on this point. I appreciate that even if I disagree with him. At times he'll acknowledge Joseph as a kind of pious fraud. But he's still a fraud.

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

What I read from the article you linked for Vogel on Mormonthink, and I didn't read the whole thing, but just parts, is that he speculates that they may have viewed the plates in both a vision like sense as well as handled something material but under a cloth.  

He allows for either possibility given his interpretation of the evidence. I don't think he's speculating it was both - at least as I read him. That is he thinks Joseph may have pressured them enough that they put themselves into a hypnotic or delusional state or perhaps Joseph just had props to convince them fraudulently. He thinks those are the only possibilities since he dismisses real revelation and real Nephites. But he appears to think the evidence underdetermines what was going on.

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Joseph describes his experiences as vision and visions sound like something in your minds eye to me.  In the BoM first chapter Lehi saw a vision or had a dream, the text uses those words interchangeably.   It seems like modern proof-texting to describe Joseph's vision as something more tangible,  perhaps its because we've been raised on film representations of the first vision experience that we think of visions in more concrete terms, but look at all the original wording of these experiences and give me evidence for it being something other than an experience in the mind of the person, or in other words, something that can't be viewed by an outside observer, but is rather only seen by the individual experiencing it.  

This gets into tricky issues over distinguishing real beings from visions. Even for people who think there was a real Moroni and real plates, there's disagreement over the nature of the appearance of the angel. This is as true in modern times where people might talk of seeing an angel (say a dead relative) but it's not seen by others. Is this piercing the veil for something actually there that just isn't transmitted by visible light or is it a vision and they may never have actually been there? People disagree.

My problem is that there's a lot of possibility going on in this claim of spiritual eyes that needs unpacked. Usually it's not. There's also big epistemological issues. That is how do we distinguish these more pure mental images from real spatial objects? Joseph seems aware of this problem thus his later emphasis on physical touch like shaking hands with angels.

Now personally I think both the first vision and the appearance of Moroni were real spatial temporal appearances of real people. But I understand why some do not and why some don't even find the question that relevant. It's relevant to me and were I to be in such an experience I'd almost certainly be looking for ways to make such a distinction.

 

 

[Benjamin Seeker]

4 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Again, as I said, he admits to being a money digger. That's what I was addressing. It's completely true he downplays this. I'm not sure I'd go as far as Bushman regarding that quote I already gave. To me his answer is incomplete but not a lie. Your argument is that this statement is a lie, which I just fundamentally disagree with. To say his statement was deceptive and false is just an exaggeration of what is going on IMO. It's definitely incomplete but what is said isn't dishonest. Now if you mean should we take Joseph's history as non-problematic then of course I'd agree it's biased and doesn't give the type of history I'd want. But that seems a different issue. But I don't see him doing anything particularly worse than what I do with embarrassing things with my past. I think all I'm saying is let's not hold Joseph to a double standard. 

I don't believe that myself, but we've discussed that here in the past and there's no need to revisit. But then I also don't think the Urim and Thummim are anything but seer stones in a holder. Indeed I think there's at least reasonable evidence that Joseph found them unweldly and either popped one of the lenses out to use as a seer stone or used his seer stone during parts of the 116 pages as well. i.e. I just dispute people treating them as fundamentally different sorts of objects. Again D&C 130 makes that pretty clear IMO.

Now the terminological change certainly is in part an attempt to make them more respectable with Biblical terminology. But that's just silly expectations based upon familiarity issues. But I don't have a problem with that. That's just good PR. But in terms of describing a rock like object that was used to see words and the like both are basically the same.

Ok, I like your point that they are both rocks, but we are missing an important part of the picture. The Nephite interpreter method makes it seem like they are a pair of "soectacles," while the truth is the rocks spent the majority of the time in the hat. I understand if you don't want to call this lying, however it's at least an example of willful deception, and we can leave the degree of severity up to individual up to individual interpretation. Your on then white lie side of the line and I'm on the partial cover up side.

[Physics Guy]

13 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

[W]e should be very careful of antagonistic witnesses especially in court hearings due to the common use of such avenues to persecute new religions that were sufficiently different. That is the 19th century history of religious persecution is an important context for how to judge witness testimony.

So you're arguing that witnesses would make cagey statements because they were afraid of being persecuted if they were too forthright?

That sounds like a fair point, which is worth considering. Whether they were true witnesses or only dupes, if the witnesses were nervous then perhaps they would have been glad to have the measure of deniability that now lets us read all their statements and still debate about whether the plates were seen physically. The witnesses might not have deliberately thought about keeping things deniable, but they'd instinctively prefer not to stick their necks out too far, given how vicious the neighbors could be.

So perhaps even if witnesses had really seen something incontrovertible they would still have been glad to just sign a terse affirmation that Smith had some plates, and leave it at that. Perhaps. But I guess I just don't really buy it.

Maybe a few witnesses would have been that timid, but out of at least eleven witnesses I think there really ought to have been several who would have loudly and proudly reeled off tons of vivid detail about these amazing ancient relics that they had seen and touched up close, hostile lawyers be damned.

Wouldn't they have expected that the plates could be trotted out in open court to confound disbelievers? And if they knew the plates were definitely real, then wouldn't they realize that the plates themselves, and Smith's story about them, were two separate things? They would never have had to swear to Smith being a prophet, or even to the plates being genuine relics. They could just have described the plates in detail, whatever they were. If it came to being pressed hard in court, they could have shrugged about whether Smith found the plates or just made them.

But that's just it, isn't it? If the plates were genuine relics, then their existence and Smith's story about them would have been two separate things, and people could have sworn in detail about the one, while shrugging over the other. In fact, though, it was just the opposite. The only importance the plates ever had—to anyone at all—was in confirming Smith's story.

Nobody at all seems to have cared enough about the plates themselves to even give us a detailed description of them. Even if Mormons insist that the plates were not just props, all they ever seem to have done was to sit at the back of the stage and establish the scene in which Smith was a prophet. They might as well have been props, for all they actually did.

Edited September 30, 2017 by Physics Guy

[Glenn101]

10 minutes ago, Physics Guy said:

Perhaps. But I guess I just don't really buy it. Maybe a few witnesses would have been that timid, but out of at least eleven witnesses I think there really ought to have been several who would have loudly and proudly reeled off tons of vivid detail about this amazing ancient relic that they had seen and touched up close, hostile lawyers be damned. They ought to have expected, after all, that the plates could be trotted out in open court to confound any disbelievers. So all the shyness about showing the plates, and even telling about them, just makes no sense to me—except on the fraud theory.

The witnesses knew that the plates would never be allowed into an open court. They were called to be a special witness of the reality of the plates, which they did. Now, after all that, if you believe that some of those eleven were made of sterner stuff expose the fraud once they fell away. There has been a pretty strong attempt at character assassination on those witnesses just because none ever denied what they saw and heard. There were many who apostatized that were very happy to turn on the church and Joseph. So why not those who were in on the fraud? That does not make sense either.  But belief and unbelief produces their own types of biases. For everyone that finds a reason to believe, there will probably be five or more that will find a reason to disbelieve. There is no one that is approaching this from an objective viewpoint. Man is subjective by nature.

Glenn

[Physics Guy]

I edited the quoted paragraph a bit after you quoted it, but the earlier version remains an accurate statement of my view.

Why did the witnesses know the plates would never be allowed in open court?

And if they knew they were to be the only witnesses of the plates' reality, surely that would be all the more reason to commit as many details as possible to paper. Everyone loves being the one person in the know, with everyone else hanging on their words. Imagine being one of the few people ever who could tell the world that the golden plates were cold to the touch and as thick as three layers of newsprint, with sharp edges and quarter-inch glyphs filling up each whole page—or whatever it was. That's glory! Who would slip quietly away from glory, with their hat pulled down over their eyes, the way all these witnesses seem to have done?

Edited September 30, 2017 by Physics Guy

[Calm]

"So you're arguing that witnesses would make cagey statements because they were afraid of being persecuted if they were too forthright?"

I got the impression Clark was focusing on "antagonistic witnesses" as being untrustworthy, willing to lie so just because they are in court that is not sufficient reason to accept their statements.  I may not have followed the conversation correctly though.

[Physics Guy]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

I got the impression Clark was focusing on "antagonistic witnesses" as being untrustworthy, willing to lie so just because they are in court that is not sufficient reason to accept their statements.

I'll let Clark clarify what he meant, but your interpretation is at least a point on which our discussion has touched, perhaps without enough emphasis. Both the Mormon and skeptical theories have coherent reasons for discounting some recorded statements. It's not reasonable for either side to ride a high horse over strict respect for documentary evidence, as if we were talking about some mundane historical issue instead of something that is either fraud or miracle.

If one rules out either one of those theories in advance, then there's nothing to discuss; if either one of them is taken seriously, then there's good reason to leap beyond recorded evidence. So it's silly for either side to pretend that it counts as a telling argument, to point out that the other side is postulating mechanisms for which no evidence exists. I think people fail to notice how this principle cuts both ways, because the two sides tend to state it differently. Mormon apologists sneer at skeptics for offering unsupported conjectures about conceivable tricks, while skeptics are apt to express the same point by saying, "An angel? Ha ha!"

I think that skeptics can state for the record that they don't accept angels, but if they're going to go on discussing with Mormons after that, they ought to allow the possibility of angels for the sake of argument—because otherwise there is no point in arguing. By the same token I think that Mormons can testify to their belief that Smith was a prophet, but if they're going to keep trying to argue with skeptics, they should accept fraud as a possibility in principle. And just as accepting angels as a possibility for the sake of argument means forgoing objections of principle to inexplicable angelic miracles, so I reckon that accepting fraud as a possibility in principle means acknowledging that fraud tends to cover its tracks.

If we do move beyond pointless cheap shots about whether the other side has smoking gun evidence for either angels or fake golden plates, I do think it's worth trying to offer coherent explanations for the evidence that we do have. We all know that if push comes to shove a Mormon can say, "God can do anything!", just as a skeptic can say, "They were all crazy!" Those are ways to win the battle by losing the war, however. If the Mormons have to be either utterly crazy or right, then that's admitting that they may well be right. If God does things for no conceivable reason, then there's no sense in trying to follow that God.

I see a lot of funny things about the golden plates story, and the fraud theory tells me that they would have to be pretty much like that, while the angel theory seems to say only that they could be like that. To me that's good grounds for preferring the fraud theory.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Benjamin Seeker writes:

Quote

The Wentworth letter does exactly the opposite of what you describe. It uses the term Urim and Thummim to specify only the Interpreters by its own definition included in the text and goes on to say that it was by that specific device that the BOM was translated. There is no room for misunderstanding. The Wentworth letter clearly paints a picture that excludes the seerstone, and I believe purposefully in order to avoid association with seer stones. 

You are wrong. Let me quote from the Wentworth letter:

Quote

With the records was found a curious instrument, which the ancients called “Urim and Thummim,” which consisted of two transparent stones set in the rims of a bow fastened to a breastplate. Through the medium of the Urim and Thummim I translated the record by the gift and power of God.

This is a fascinating bit. But, there are a couple of things to recognize. The first is that the Book of Mormon never uses the term "Urim and Thummim". This phrasing comes from the Old Testament. When Phelps writes his article in January of 1833, he writes this:

Quote

It was translated by the gift and power of God, by an unlearned man, through the aid of a pair of Interpreters, or spectacles-(known, perhaps, in ancient days as Teraphim, or Urim and Thummim)

And of course, the "gift and power of God" is a direct quote from Omni in the Book of Mormon (verse 20):

Quote

And it came to pass in the days of Mosiah, there was a large stone brought unto him with engravings on it; and he did interpret the engravings by the gift and power of God.

The purpose of this language (which begins being used in the fall of 1829) is not to describe how the translation occurs, but to suggest that what Joseph does in translating the text of the Book of Mormon is no different from what Mosiah did in Omni 20. At any rate getting back to your comments, the term "Urim and Thummim" is not narrowly defined here as you suggest, but is a larger category, of which the Nephite Interpreters are claimed to be an example. And this is exactly what I suggested when I wrote that:

Quote

When we read of the Urim and Thummim, it can mean either the seer stone, or the Nephite Interpreters, or it can mean all of them collectively, as well as referring to the Old Testament instruments of divination.

The ide of Urim and Thummim here isn't meant to be identical to the Old Testament Urim and Thummim. It has instead become something of a category. Another example of this sort of use as a category, more contemporary with the writing of the Wentworth Letter is Section 130 of the D&C:

Quote

8 The place where God resides is a great Urim and Thummim. 9 This earth, in its sanctified and immortal state, will be made like unto crystal and will be a Urim and Thummim to the inhabitants who dwell thereon, whereby all things pertaining to an inferior kingdom, or all kingdoms of a lower order, will be manifest to those who dwell on it; and this earth will be Christ’s. 10 Then the white stone mentioned in Revelation 2:17, will become a Urim and Thummim to each individual who receives one, whereby things pertaining to a higher order of kingdoms will be made known;

So, not only is there a way to read the text of the Wentworth letter quite differently than you read it, I believe that it is the preferable way to read it.

The initial impetus for the shift was not this idea of embarrassment over the use of the seer stone, it was the push to recontextualize these early narratives into a restorationist theology. And this is done here by finding a corollary for both the Nephite Interpreters and the Seer Stones in the Old Testament. And not just these stones, but as we can see in Section 130, the idea is extended to the notion that some of the early LDS members (including Joseph Smith) had about seer stones - that everyone could have their own:

Quote

I met with the Twelve at brother Joseph’s. He conversed with us in a familiar manner on a variety of subjects, and explained to us the Urim and Thummim which he found with the plates, called in the Book of Mormon the Interpreters. He said that every man who lived on the earth was entitled to a seer stone, and should have one, but they are kept from them in consequence of their wickedness, and most of those who do find one make an evil use of it; he showed us his seer stone. (Brigham Young, Journal, Dec 27, 1841)

Here, the idea of seer stones as Urim and Thummim coexists with the idea of the Nephite Interpreter as Urim and Thummim. I think that it's probably not a good idea to take something in between these two and assert something completely different about the way the language is used. These aren't the only examples I can come up, just a couple of handy ones. This is also part of what Clark was referring to yesterday morning.

[Benjamin Seeker]

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Benjamin Seeker writes:

You are wrong. Let me quote from the Wentworth letter:

This is a fascinating bit. But, there are a couple of things to recognize. The first is that the Book of Mormon never uses the term "Urim and Thummim". This phrasing comes from the Old Testament. When Phelps writes his article in January of 1833, he writes this:

And of course, the "gift and power of God" is a direct quote from Omni in the Book of Mormon (verse 20):

The purpose of this language (which begins being used in the fall of 1829) is not to describe how the translation occurs, but to suggest that what Joseph does in translating the text of the Book of Mormon is no different from what Mosiah did in Omni 20. At any rate getting back to your comments, the term "Urim and Thummim" is not narrowly defined here as you suggest, but is a larger category, of which the Nephite Interpreters are claimed to be an example. And this is exactly what I suggested when I wrote that:

The ide of Urim and Thummim here isn't meant to be identical to the Old Testament Urim and Thummim. It has instead become something of a category. Another example of this sort of use as a category, more contemporary with the writing of the Wentworth Letter is Section 130 of the D&C:

So, not only is there a way to read the text of the Wentworth letter quite differently than you read it, I believe that it is the preferable way to read it.

The initial impetus for the shift was not this idea of embarrassment over the use of the seer stone, it was the push to recontextualize these early narratives into a restorationist theology. And this is done here by finding a corollary for both the Nephite Interpreters and the Seer Stones in the Old Testament. And not just these stones, but as we can see in Section 130, the idea is extended to the notion that some of the early LDS members (including Joseph Smith) had about seer stones - that everyone could have their own:

Here, the idea of seer stones as Urim and Thummim coexists with the idea of the Nephite Interpreter as Urim and Thummim. I think that it's probably not a good idea to take something in between these two and assert something completely different about the way the language is used. These aren't the only examples I can come up, just a couple of handy ones. This is also part of what Clark was referring to yesterday morning.

Joseph clearly wants his reader to picture him looking through the Interpreters as "spectacles," not thinking of JS with the interpreter rock or seerstone he dug out of a well in a hat. He purposefully composes the text for that express purpose. It's also worth noting that his intended audience, the general public, is not going to make the connection between what he describes as the Urim and Thummim and glass-looking. I think you successfully argue that he leaves himself an out, particularly understood by 19th century Mormon readers, but it's clear to me that for the more general reader he is hiding behind the image of the spectacles while the real deal is a seer stone or interpreter stone in a hat.

Edited September 30, 2017 by Benjamin Seeker