"Inspired Fiction" v. The Plates & The Witnesses

[Rajah Manchou]

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

Some have argued, for example, that Joseph Smith manufactured a fake set of plates, even appealing to known forgeries such as the Voree and Kinderhook plates, as analogs. Such arguments suffer from a number of difficulties:

Neal @nealr,  how did you determine that the Voree plates are known forgeries?
There is far more evidence that the Voree Plates were authentic. There were numerous witnesses that handled them and witnesses that were on the scene when they were dug up. The translation seem to match the inscriptions on the plates, and it seems to be an authentic alphabet.

https://bycommonconsent.com/2008/06/23/the-miraculous-plates-of-voree-examined/

What is the evidence that they were fake? Could not those same arguments be used to determine the Golden Plates were forgeries?

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Neal @nealr,  how did you determine that the Voree plates are known forgeries?
There is far more evidence that the Voree Plates were authentic. There were numerous witnesses that handled them and witnesses that were on the scene when they were dug up. The translation seem to match the inscriptions on the plates, and it seems to be an authentic alphabet.

https://bycommonconsent.com/2008/06/23/the-miraculous-plates-of-voree-examined/

What is the evidence that they were fake? Could not those same arguments be used to determine the Golden Plates were forgeries?

Well, there's this:

Quote

Though little remembered today, James Jesse Strang campaigned seriously to lead the LDS Church after Joseph Smith's 1844 assassination.

When the general membership rejected the obscure new convert's claim that a secret letter had appointed him as Joseph Smith's successor, Strang started his own sect, ultimately headquartered on Beaver Island, Mich. Like Joseph, he eventually claimed to have translated ancient metal plates and provided 11 corroborating eyewitnesses.

...

That some Book of Mormon witnesses credited Strang argues for their sincerity, incidentally: Had they been knowing perpetrators of a fraud with Joseph Smith, they would likely have been far more skeptical of Strang.

But does the fact that Strang had witnesses like Joseph's mean that, for consistency's sake, modern believers in Mormonism must either accept Strang's claims or reject both Joseph and Strang?

No. Because the two sets of witnesses and their experiences were very different.

The two sets of inscribed plates that Strang claimed to have found in Wisconsin and Michigan beginning in 1845 almost certainly existed. Milo Quaife's early, standard biography of Strang reflects that, while Strang's angelic visitations "may have had only a subjective existence in the brain of the man who reported them, the metallic plates possessed a very material objective reality."

And they were almost certainly forgeries.

The first set, the three "Voree" or "Rajah Manchou" plates, were dug up by four "witnesses" whom Strang had taken to the plates' burial place. Illustrated and inscribed on both sides, the Rajah Manchou plates were roughly 1.5 by 2.75 inches in size — small enough to fit in the palm of a hand or to carry in a pocket.

Among the many who saw them was Stephen Post, who reported that they were brass and, indeed, that they resembled the French brass used in familiar kitchen kettles. "With all the faith & confidence that I could exercise," he wrote, "all that I could realize was that Strang made the plates himself, or at least that it was possible that he made them." One source reports that most of the four witnesses to the Rajah Manchou plates ultimately repudiated their testimonies.

And this:

Quote

Ex-strangite Isaac Scott, who was once a leader in the Strangite Church, stated that Caleb P. Barnes told him that he and Strang had actually fabricated the plates.  According to Scott, the men,

Quote

made the 'plates' out of Ben [Perce]'s old kettle and engraved them with an old saw file, and ... when completed they put acid on them to corrode them and give them an ancient appearance; and that to deposit them under the tree, where they were found, they took a large auger ... which Ben [Perce] owned, put a fork handle on the auger and with it bored a long slanting hole under a tree on 'The Hill of Promise,' as they called it, laying the earth in a trail on a cloth as taken out, then put the 'plates' in, tamping in all the earth again, leaving no trace of their work visible.

...

{Daniel C. Peterson} concludes,

Quote

 

Thus, Strang's plates were much less numerous than those of the Book of Mormon, his witnesses saw nothing supernatural and his translation required the better part of a decade rather than a little more than two months. (Quite unlike the semi-literate Joseph Smith, Strang was well-read. He had been an editor and lawyer before his involvement with Mormonism.) Perhaps most strikingly, unlike the witnesses to the Book of Mormon, some (at least) of Strang's witnesses later denied their testimonies.

The contrasts work very much in Joseph Smith's favor.

 

In summary, Strang's witnesses:

• had no supernatural component to their witness
• had one who later denounced his project as mere "human invention"
• had one who later confessed to helping fabricate the plates

The collective testimony of the Book of Mormon Witnesses is, in terms of its evidentiary value and strength, far more challenging to critics than is the testimony of James J. Strang's witnesses.

I'm curious how you came to adopt "Rajah Manchou" as your Internet handle.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Rajah Manchou]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Stephen Post, who reported that they were brass and, indeed, that they resembled the French brass used in familiar kitchen kettles. "With all the faith & confidence that I could exercise," he wrote, "all that I could realize was that Strang made the plates himself, or at least that it was possible that he made them." 

This conveniently ignores Post's testimony when he first saw the plates. Strang showed him Post the plates and he confirmed they "contain hieroglyphics and appear to be of ancient workmanship and of this God knows."  After Post left the Strangites to join the Rigdonites he changed his opinion and said it was at least "possible that [Strang] made them". If you believe Post to be a credible source, then you might want to also read what he had to say about Brigham Young and the LDS movement. Let's just put it this way, Post admired Strang more than he admired Young.

It any case, its all weak evidence, considering that many also claimed Joseph also faked the plates using a number of different objects from tea pots to sacks full of sand.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

One source reports that most of the four witnesses to the Rajah Manchou plates ultimately repudiated their testimonies.

One source reports? CFR. I've looked and it seems nobody is able to identify that source.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Ex-strangite Isaac Scott, who was once a leader in the Strangite Church, stated that Caleb P. Barnes told him that he and Strang had actually fabricated the plates.  

We know that the testimony of a disgruntled ex-member is not enough. Especially when that former member said that someone told him such and such. It also conveniently ignores all the witnesses that believed the plates were authentic, and were convinced they were ancient.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Thus, Strang's plates were much less numerous than those of the Book of Mormon, his witnesses saw nothing supernatural and his translation required the better part of a decade rather than a little more than two months. (Quite unlike the semi-literate Joseph Smith, Strang was well-read. He had been an editor and lawyer before his involvement with Mormonism.) 

 

Not sure where Daniel Peterson gets this idea from. It didn't take the better part of a decade for Strang to translate the Voree Plates. CFR.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Thus, Strang's plates were much less numerous than those of the Book of Mormon, his witnesses saw nothing supernatural

Strang was visited by a divine messenger who told him the location of the plates in the hill. He claimed to be visited by angelic messengers in ways that resemble the claims of Joseph Smith. Is it necessary for witnesses to be visited by angels in a supernatural event in order to prove the authenticity of plates pulled out of a hill? Its a bizarre argument.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Perhaps most strikingly, unlike the witnesses to the Book of Mormon, some (at least) of Strang's witnesses later denied their testimonies.

LDS apologists make this claim but I've found no support for it. It could be out there, but I'd like to see it first. CFR.

 

 

[mfbukowski]

13 hours ago, Tacenda said:

http://www.mormonapologies.com/book-of-mormon/october-2017-conference-tad-callisters-talk/ This guy had some answers to Tad Callister's talk from general conference yesterday. I wonder if it even causes a concern or not. Probably not. Just thought I'd share but maybe it's old news. I wonder though, how the witnesses could be as credible as those outside of JS's relations. Why not someone that isn't related to him? 

Not a good article by any means.   There is a lot of equivocation and statements like "we've already proved that" when he did nothing of the kind.  It would be a waste of time to show all the conflicts.  Just the point that Joseph was simple vs the idea that Joseph was a genius.  He comes down on both sides of that one a few times, contradicting himself.  And the issue of how he read the volumes is totally ignored.  The answer was "he picked it up and read it" without even considering the problem of how he was able to get the volume so that he could read it.  It's junk.

[cdowis]

On 9/30/2017 at 6:49 PM, Benjamin Seeker said:

Considering glass-looking/seer stone/peep stone use was illegal and JS had been brought to court for it,

He was charged for being a disorderly person, as a vagrant, without visible means of livelihood.  I see nowhere that the possession and use of a seer stone was illegal, but whether it was being used to commit a crime.  
http://www.lightplanet.com/response/1826Trial/facts.html

Benjamin, you are pretty sloppy with your facts.  I guess we will have to CFR every assertion that you make.  You are not credible.

I think he understood the difference, and the closer to glass-looking his translation process was the more suspect by the public. Also, the non-technical intuitive difference is still felt today when church members are surprised and sometimes disenchanted when they find out JS wasn't looking at the plates through the Urim and Thummim but instead was dictating from his hat with the plates sometimes not even in the room. 

I am on my phone and communicate with a server thousands of miles away.  Ignorant people are outraged that I am not in direct, personal possession of the server itself -- it is not even in the same house, but I am using a smart phone to access it.
I try to explain that I have to have both of them to get my work done, but they insist that I work directly with the server.  

Some people throw away their salvation over stupid things.  Stupid people.

 

Edited October 3, 2017 by cdowis

[Benjamin McGuire]

Rajah Manchou writes:

Quote

Not sure where Daniel Peterson gets this idea from. It didn't take the better part of a decade for Strang to translate the Voree Plates. CFR.

There wasn't any translation going on.

As I pointed out earlier (and you didn't respond to it), the fact that we have the entire text of the Voree Plates, and can demonstrate how the translation relates to the plates shows that the Voree Plates are an encoding of an English text and not some other language. So there isn't any actual translation going on at all. There isn't any movement from one language system into another, because there is only one language system, just concealed by a clever way of encoding the text.

This isn't "weak" evidence. It's not evidence based on subjective personal experience. It's evidence that can be evaluated quite easily and by anyone who chooses to do so. And this sort of strong evidence helps us draw conclusions about which set of witnesses statements more likely accurately represents what happened (as in, it bolsters Caleb's suggestions far more than the others).

Perhaps you would be willing to address the problem created when we find such strong corollaries between the script on the Voree Plates and the alleged translation of the Plates.

Edited October 3, 2017 by Benjamin McGuire

[Rajah Manchou]

21 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

As I pointed out earlier (and you didn't respond to it), the fact that we have the entire text of the Voree Plates, and can demonstrate how the translation relates to the plates shows that the Voree Plates are an encoding of an English text and not some other language.

I'd be interested to read more about this conclusion. Wherever it comes from, I have not heard of it.

The only analysis of the text I have heard of comes from the wiki and a few unreliable websites on the subject. The wiki states:

Keith Thompson, of Manchester, England, alleges that the text on the plates matches Strang's published translation. Although he did not identify the values of specific characters, Thompson claimed to have shown how words such as "and", "in", and "are" appear in multiple places. According to a Strangite website, Derek J. Masson, a non-Mormon scholar, reportedly argued in an unpublished 1977 paper that Strang's translation was sound. This same site alleges that a second non-Mormon scholar, Robert Madison, concluded in 1990 that the text on the plates appears to represent a genuine, albeit unknown, language, and that Strang's translation appeared to be "a superb (if poetic) rendition of that text into English." Independent scholarly assessment of Masson's and Madison's conclusions does not exist.

I've searched for the papers mentioned above with no luck.

[smac97]

7 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

This conveniently ignores Post's testimony when he first saw the plates. Strang showed him Post the plates and he confirmed they "contain hieroglyphics and appear to be of ancient workmanship and of this God knows."  After Post left the Strangites to join the Rigdonites he changed his opinion and said it was at least "possible that [Strang] made them". If you believe Post to be a credible source, then you might want to also read what he had to say about Brigham Young and the LDS movement. Let's just put it this way, Post admired Strang more than he admired Young.

It any case, its all weak evidence, considering that many also claimed Joseph also faked the plates using a number of different objects from tea pots to sacks full of sand.

One source reports? CFR. I've looked and it seems nobody is able to identify that source.

We know that the testimony of a disgruntled ex-member is not enough. Especially when that former member said that someone told him such and such. It also conveniently ignores all the witnesses that believed the plates were authentic, and were convinced they were ancient.

Not sure where Daniel Peterson gets this idea from. It didn't take the better part of a decade for Strang to translate the Voree Plates. CFR.

Strang was visited by a divine messenger who told him the location of the plates in the hill. He claimed to be visited by angelic messengers in ways that resemble the claims of Joseph Smith. Is it necessary for witnesses to be visited by angels in a supernatural event in order to prove the authenticity of plates pulled out of a hill? Its a bizarre argument.

LDS apologists make this claim but I've found no support for it. It could be out there, but I'd like to see it first. CFR.

With respect, I decline your CFRs.  I'm not particularly interested in the Voree Plates.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Rajah Manchou]

55 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Perhaps you would be willing to address the problem created when we find such strong corollaries between the script on the Voree Plates and the alleged translation of the Plates.

Since we haven't yet established such strong corollaries between English and "Vorite" I'll include this link again:

https://bycommonconsent.com/2008/06/23/the-miraculous-plates-of-voree-examined/

[Rajah Manchou]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

With respect, I decline your CFRs.  I'm not particularly interested in the Voree Plates.

Thanks,

-Smac

Fair enough, and yet the claims without sources will remain on FAIRmormon and will be posted here yet again in the not so distant future.

[Tacenda]

 

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Fair enough, and yet the claims without sources will remain on FAIRmormon and will be posted here yet again in the not so distant future.

Fair enough.  I've never been particularly comfortable with the trajectory of LDS apologetics that heads toward proactively attacking/undermining the truth claims of other religious groups, even all-but-defunct ones like the movement founded by Strang.

I suspect that the Voree Plates are being presented here not because anyone actually believes in their contents, but because they are being used to rebut claims relating to the Gold Plates.

Nevertheless, I wouldn't mind seeing further analysis of the Voree Plates.  At present, we appear to lack much of a scholarly assessment of them one way or the other.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Rajah Manchou said:

Fair enough, and yet the claims without sources will remain on FAIRmormon and will be posted here yet again in the not so distant future.

Would you be kind enough to point out where we are missing sources...I am unable to give it the concentration it needs to find the lacks today myself.

I will pass on the info to our wiki editors and hopefully we will get the gaps filled in.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Rajah Manchou writes:

There wasn't any translation going on.

As I pointed out earlier (and you didn't respond to it), the fact that we have the entire text of the Voree Plates, and can demonstrate how the translation relates to the plates shows that the Voree Plates are an encoding of an English text and not some other language. So there isn't any actual translation going on at all. There isn't any movement from one language system into another, because there is only one language system, just concealed by a clever way of encoding the text.

This isn't "weak" evidence. It's not evidence based on subjective personal experience. It's evidence that can be evaluated quite easily and by anyone who chooses to do so. And this sort of strong evidence helps us draw conclusions about which set of witnesses statements more likely accurately represents what happened (as in, it bolsters Caleb's suggestions far more than the others).

Perhaps you would be willing to address the problem created when we find such strong corollaries between the script on the Voree Plates and the alleged translation of the Plates.

I was not aware of the Voree plates but this was exactly my first reaction.  Clearly if there was translation it was from English to "Voree".  There is no other way to explain the high correlation.

When I was in 9th grade I created a new "language" combining English and Latin which I thought would be superior to Esperanto which was all the rage at the time.  Going back and looking at my efforts, they are very similar to Voree in that the syntax and grammar were based totally on English, using mangled Latin words instead of English.  It was "Reformed English" written in what looked like Latin.   Not a success!

But anyone who knew both languages would notice that in a nanosecond.

It was not too bad as a code though since I was the only one on earth fluent in it.

 

[clarkgoble]

On 10/2/2017 at 1:34 AM, Benjamin Seeker said:

- This same concept that appears to be rooted in money-digging culture found its way into the BOM as buried treasures slipped away...

While that's a fair comparison to make when judging the fraud model, it's worth noting that this notion is hardly unique to 19th century America. It's just as likely <i>even with the fraud model</i> to be paralleling Proverbs 23. Kevin Barney noted an Egyptian text usually thought to be the source for Proverbs 23 making an even stronger parallel to Alma 13. I'm not saying we should neglect the treasure myths nor the broader "hermetic" culture that say Brooke brings up, but I'd be careful saying it's rooted in that culture.

On 10/2/2017 at 1:34 AM, Benjamin Seeker said:

- The plates behaved strangely. Like money-digger's disappearing treasure they alluded JS' attempts to remove them.

Not sure I buy that one.

Quote

- Similarly, in accounts of returning the plates, one viewer describes trying to handle some plates in a cave that the men had entered into, but the plates sank into the wall making it impossible for him to obtain them (You can read this account in an article by BYU that collected and addressed the known accounts of this experience).

Not sure which one you're referring too. If it's the one I'm thinking of it's a pretty late recollection and I'm not sure trustworthy.

Quote

- As far as viewing the plates, the D&C states that one must be enabled to view the plates by the power of God.

That's completely ambiguous although Vogel attempts to make a lot of it. This is undermined by the more matter of fact accounts of the plates as merely covered with a cloth. 

Quote

- There are possibly non-mundane elements regarding the eight witnesses' viewing of the plates, again raising potential questions about the nature of the plates. These are suggested by friendly and antagonistic sources. Lucy Mack Smith says that JS first gave the plates to an "ancient Nephite," who then brought the plates for the 8 to view who were gathered in the family's favorite secluded prayer spot in the nearby woods. An ancient Nephite (aka resurrected being or otherwise preserved) adds a heavy spiritual element absent from their witness statement.

The eight witnesses are the big debate. I'm far from convinced they were spiritual. I think there's strong evidence they weren't. (Even Vogel hedges his bets here) But even if they were, again the more mundane matter of fact descriptions are far more valuable than the official witness statement.

Also there's a lot of circularity in how the Lucy Smith account is used since it presupposes the Nephite (presumably Moroni) is only a mental vision and not an actual physical being. This is fin

Quote

- Burnett claims Martin Harris said that the 8 saw the plates in vision and were hesitant to sign the witness statement for that very reason. He also said Harris said that JS had only seen them in vision and references the D&C scripture I alluded to earlier. It's hearsay but an interesting and obvious possibility.

This one is the other one Vogel makes heavy use of, but as you note it's definitely got problem.

Quote

- Josiah Stowell (I think I'm remembering the right name) sees the corner of the plates accidentally as they are passed in through the window and says it looked like a stone of greenish caste. There has been a lot of discussion on this in this thread. Despite the tumbaga idea this statement by Stowell should still raise an eyebrow since the witnesses consistently described the plates as pure gold.

And Stowell also gives account of it being as gold, albeit via describing a description.  There are plenty of easy ways to reconcile the accounts of course.

Quote

- The other artifacts with the plates were also under a strict no viewing policy, including the breastplate and interpreter stones.

Which is more weird since apparently they were seen. Lucy Smith says she saw and carried the breastplate. See the Caswall account and also her history. There's hints others saw them. 

 

[Physics Guy]

My theory is that Smith probably had some kind of crude fake artifact. I allow a small chance that he actually winged it entirely on chutzpah, with nothing at all in his covered box. I also allow a small probability that the fake artifact was somehow a pretty darn good fake. I allow a small probability that Smith was deluded enough to truly think he was doing right with his fake artifact, but I'm pretty sure he was a deliberate fraud. I put his various pious expressions down to acting—perhaps "method" acting—or fantasizing about really being what he knew he was only pretending to be.

Quote

I'm not looking for "exactly how."  The broader contours of the "how" would do.  But fraud theorists cannot even coherently manage that without mangling (and/or utterly ignoring) the extant evidence and utterly abandoning the principles of histographical analysis.

I'm not sure where you draw the line between "exactly" and "broadly". "He made some kind of fake plates" is a "broad contour", to me; I don't expect to be able to get much less broad than that, after all these decades, when Smith would naturally have done all he could to hide his fraud even from close contemporaries. For that matter, I don't even know broadly how stage magicians work most of their tricks, but I can still notice when they work in low light and at a distance from the audience, or produce clouds of smoke to no obvious purpose. I think I'm right in taking that kind of behavior as a pattern that implies trickery, even when I haven't the foggiest notion what the illusionist did.

I'm also unsure what you mean by mangling or ignoring evidence. The only thing I can think of along these lines is that skeptics are prepared to dismiss witness statements, as being made by dupes or confederates. That only goes against the usual principles of historiographical analysis inasmuch as historians are not normally dealing with fraud. Ask a historian who does specialize in historical frauds, and I bet they'll endorse the principles that skeptics apply to witnesses for Joseph Smith. Asking skeptics to take all purported witness statements at face value, which is what all three of Rappleye's arguments seem to require, is simply wishing that skeptics would grant in advance that Joseph Smith is not suspected of fraud. I'm afraid that he is.

My point about the terseness of the witness statements concerns the statements that preface the Book of Mormon. They offer remarkably little information about what these tremendous artifacts were actually like. I understand that there are a few more specific details in other testimony—but my impression is that each such detail is mentioned once, by a separate witness. That's not like having multiple independent detailed accounts that all agree closely enough to be consistent without being so similar as to suggest collusion. With a genuine artifact, independent detailed accounts would be so easy to get, that in fact one would have to work hard to prevent them from emerging. With fraud, you get a few disparate details when different confederates venture to make things up or when different dupes are duped with different tricks. That's the pattern I see in Book of Mormon witness statements.

The idea that witnesses would recant their testimony just because they later broke with Joseph Smith makes no real sense. If the witnesses had been Smith's confederates, then they might recant if they became honest, but if they were still crooked and simply dissatisfied with what they were getting out of the Smith scam, then why would they recant just to get back at Smith? Maintaining that the plates (in which they themselves had a stake) were real, and attacking Smith as a fallen prophet, would be a better plan.

If on the other hand the witnesses were gullible dupes, then they might recant if the reason they broke with Smith was that they came to their senses and swallowed their pride, but they wouldn't have to do either of those things just to get mad at Smith. And if they were mad at Smith but still gullible, well, gullible people are stubborn. That's what makes them gullible, in fact. I happen to be quite good at entertaining unlikely hypotheses, and I consider it one of my strengths as a scientist. I can believe six impossible things before breakfast. Then I have more coffee and think again—and that's the part that gullible people don't do.

Finally there is the argument that Smith would have been just as cagey with his plates if he were a genuine prophet, because he went on record with revelations commanding him to be cagey in those ways, and of course a genuine prophet would be obedient. Okay; but this only moves the argument back a step.

Mormons assume that a genuine prophet would surely obey those divine commandments. Skeptics on the other hand assume that nobody who shrinks from inventing commandments to justify their suspicious behavior, or who doesn't think of inventing such commandments, would come up with a prophet scam in the first place. One way or the other, then, we all agree that the cagey behavior, and the commandments to be cagey, are bound to go hand-in-hand.

So let's lump the behavior and the commandments together and call the combined pattern "commanded caginess". The fraud theory says that commanded caginess was Smith's only option. The genuine prophet theory gives no reason why a prophet would have to engage in commanded caginess, because there's no obvious reason why God could not have commanded Smith to show the plates publicly like Moses, on the one hand, or skipped the plates and simply given Smith visions, like other prophets, on the other.

[clarkgoble]

41 minutes ago, Physics Guy said:

My theory is that Smith probably had some kind of crude fake artifact. I allow a small chance that he actually winged it entirely on chutzpah, with nothing at all in his covered box. I also allow a small probability that the fake artifact was somehow a pretty darn good fake. I allow a small probability that Smith was deluded enough to truly think he was doing right with his fake artifact, but I'm pretty sure he was a deliberate fraud. I put his various pious expressions down to acting—perhaps "method" acting—or fantasizing about really being what he knew he was only pretending to be.

While obviously I have problems with this, ultimately I think this is the strongest argument for non-believers. The delusion models just raise many more questions. I think it pretty well only makes sense if one rejects real plates to have fake plates of tin or lead. It's not at all clear how Joseph would produce this, given his poverty. But at least it makes some coherent sense.

 

41 minutes ago, Physics Guy said:

I'm also unsure what you mean by mangling or ignoring evidence. The only thing I can think of along these lines is that skeptics are prepared to dismiss witness statements, as being made by dupes or confederates. That only goes against the usual principles of historiographical analysis inasmuch as historians are not normally dealing with fraud. Ask a historian who does specialize in historical frauds, and I bet they'll endorse the principles that skeptics apply to witnesses for Joseph Smith. Asking skeptics to take all purported witness statements at face value, which is what all three of Rappleye's arguments seem to require, is simply wishing that skeptics would grant in advance that Joseph Smith is not suspected of fraud. I'm afraid that he is.

This seems fair, although I'd note that people aren't quite as even handed when the question is fraud against Mormons or Joseph.

Again as I've noted the most interesting questions are about descriptions by people more incidental to events.

Quote

So let's lump the behavior and the commandments together and call the combined pattern "commanded caginess". The fraud theory says that commanded caginess was Smith's only option. The genuine prophet theory gives no reason why a prophet would have to engage in commanded caginess, because there's no obvious reason why God could not have commanded Smith to show the plates publicly like Moses, on the one hand, or skipped the plates and simply given Smith visions, like other prophets, on the other.

I don't think this is right. Sacred artifacts are usually kept to a select few. This is also part and parcel of the Old Testament which is what the book purports to have as an initial context. Now you raise Moses, although of course most would say the texts we have are post-exilic. So we have to be careful here. But sacred books in Jewish texts are usually secret in some sense. The obvious examples of that are apocalyptic texts - especially ones from the second temple period. Charlesworth notes "the idea of secret lore, sealed books, hidden knowledge is the stock-in-trade of Jewish apocrypha." We can debate how much this reflects pre-exilic Israel. But the only text I can think of as a counter-example is the mysterious "Book of the Lord" under Josiah. But that's almost the exception that proves the rule especially because the book had been hidden for so long. More significantly the key aspect there is that the book was found, not revealed.

The main question for the fraud model is over the question of why make plates and what the point of the fraud even was. Obviously having actual artifacts makes fraud more compelling, especially in for people like Harris or Stowell. But why persist? What what the goal of the fraud. No one has particularly explained that one to me well. Joseph continues these complex frauds, achieving nothing, but often with no real discernible plan. Further he persists after years of suffering. That strikes me as pretty odd, although obviously skeptics have responses here.

For the delusion model, while one might see why a delusionary person would think there were plates, the artifacts seem harder to explain. Again Taves tries and while she gives the strongest case it still seems very difficult to accept especially relative to the fraud model.

For the religious believer I think there is a good explanation for why plates rather than just following a more Swedenborg model. First off why would anyone believe him if he just produced texts? At least the book makes it seem like there's something tangible and more importantly something that needs explained. Secondly it grounds the revelation by more or less requiring one engage with these objects rather than treat it as inspired fiction. (People try the inspired fiction model today of course, but the plates make that far more difficult)

[Benjamin McGuire]

Rajah Manchou writes:

Quote

I'd be interested to read more about this conclusion. Wherever it comes from, I have not heard of it.

It's something anyone can do. The only thing to be aware of (and the key to understanding these plates) is that they were made using boustrophedon - a form where the lines alternate in the direction you read them, from right to left and left to right. This means that what appears (using my transcription scheme) to be an FK on one line would show up as a KF on the next.

Draw up a little chart. Create an easy to look at (and search) transliteration scheme for the script. I counted 26 different alphabetic characters (although two of them are questionable because they only occur once, and the potential is that they are simply different because of the way the plates were made, or the way that the drawings of the plates were made). Mine looked something like this:

Quote

1 AB CDEA FC 2 FGHIC JKLMNOC 3 P CGFD FQRC FC 4 JAGK * GDF 5 * FK EQFC SGFK 6 GRKT JS RFDGFL 7 P SGFK QKI JS 8 SGFD AR AESF 9 SGFK CDEA SDFN 10 KA GKMTR P FK 11 AEF TIR DHBUE 12 P AJFDG TFRC FKJE

1 CETFE JTAN 2 SGE TGTD CFTJC VG 3 JFACG SE SANRE 4 TUE GKTAB IGJMT 5 CETFE WF TGTD CFT 6 SE AWB ETTCJ AB 7 NXVCR JAGK KA 8 RGXQ AB TRFF 9 AWB TCF CGFIF AF 10 FKLRFT EFA TCKST 11 AMFIJ FKCDIF CF 12 CG AB JFIFV TFRC

1 FKDMS FTJ CHJX 2 WF AN SAND TFRC 3 VKJE ETTCJ ATTC 4 AMHJC CTAEF P CR 5 AM AEFIN DCRM 6 TRCDGF AKS FKMFF 7 TIR SEFGFD TFRC 8 FKJE AB EFK AMT 9 KR P JEF FYSGLC 10 RGAKBUFI RGFF 11 AN CEHE P GFIC 12 DTT FMRIFFGV

1 RGABUI 2 WF STDH ANSFE WF X 3 EDFD AN CAND FK 4 TDISF W RGJNFN KF 5 SDFN P AMFJF AE 6 TJSF QGEJ SGFD 7 FQRS TAJ EF AK 8 GJH GF TESJAF 9 DCEH FIFKX FK 10 FRGCF SEZSJDA 11 P FC FAEFRJ FK 12 MAQK SGFK TR 13 CFK ANDJCDU

I expect there is a typo or two in the mix (I just made this today, and I wasn't taking the time to be too careful). Then we start creating tables of frequencies of 'words' in the text above  and in the translation. Since the word "and" occurs 9 times in the translation, and the word "P" occurs 9 times in the source, it becomes a simple substitution. The 6 instances of "are" can simply replace all of the instances of FK (there's actually only 5 - the 6th is a morphological error, when he got it wrong writing it in reverse as KF). The personal pronoun I is "AB" (in all 5 instance). The two four word sets - there = TFRC, and SGFK = they. If is turned into WF. And after doing just a few of these kinds of substitutions, we can recognize that I have the pages in the wrong order. It should be:

Quote

1 RGABUI 2 WF STDH ANSFE WF X 3 EDFD AN CAND FK 4 TDISF W RGJNFN KF 5 SDFN P AMFJF AE 6 TJSF QGEJ SGFD 7 FQRS TAJ EF AK 8 GJH GF TESJAF 9 DCEH FIFKX FK 10 FRGCF SEZSJDA 11 P FC FAEFRJ FK 12 MAQK SGFK TR 13 CFK ANDJCDU

1 AB CDEA FC 2 FGHIC JKLMNOC 3 P CGFD FQRC FC 4 JAGK * GDF 5 * FK EQFC SGFK 6 GRKT JS RFDGFL 7 P SGFK QKI JS 8 SGFD AR AESF 9 SGFK CDEA SDFN 10 KA GKMTR P FK 11 AEF TIR DHBUE 12 P AJFDG TFRC FKJE

1 CETFE JTAN 2 SGE TGTD CFTJC VG 3 JFACG SE SANRE 4 TUE GKTAB IGJMT 5 CETFE WF TGTD CFT 6 SE AWB ETTCJ AB 7 NXVCR JAGK KA 8 RGXQ AB TRFF 9 AWB TCF CGFIF AF 10 FKLRFT EFA TCKST 11 AMFIJ FKCDIF CF 12 CG AB JFIFV TFRC

1 FKDMS FTJ CHJX 2 WF AN SAND TFRC 3 VKJE ETTCJ ATTC 4 AMHJC CTAEF P CR 5 AM AEFIN DCRM 6 TRCDGF AKS FKMFF 7 TIR SEFGFD TFRC 8 FKJE AB EFK AMT 9 KR P JEF FYSGLC 10 RGAKBUFI RGFF 11 AN CEHE P GFIC 12 DTT FMRIFFGV

Put together a few more of the duplicate words (and using the framework we are creating to identify which multiple instance word is represented by which scrip) we add a few more:

in = FC  my = AN 'shall dwell' = SGFD

And without getting to all of them (I haven't even looked at the words which occur twice in both the source and the destination), I have something that looks like this (replaced text in all lowercase and bolded):

Quote

1 RGABUI 2 of STDH ANSFE of X 3 EDFD my CAND are 4 TDISF W RGJNFN are 5 SDFN and AMFJF AE 6 TJSF QGEJ their 7 FQRS TAJ on AK 8 GJH GF TESJAF 9 DCEH FIFKX are 10 FRGCF SEZSJDA 11 and in FAEFRJ are 12 MAQK they TR 13 CFK ANDJCDU

1 i CDEA in 2 FGHIC JKLMNOC 3 and their FQRC in 4 JAGK * GDF 5 * FK EQFC they 6 GRKT with RFDGFL 7 and SGFK QKI with 8 their AR AESF 9 they CDEA SDFN 10 in GKMTR and are 11 AEF TIR DHBUE 12 and AJFDG there shall dwell

1 CETFE JTAN 2 SGE TGTD CFTJC VG 3 JFACG to SANRE 4 TUE GKTAB IGJMT 5 CETFE of TGTD CFT 6 to me ETTCJ i 7 NXVCR JAGK in 8 RGXQ i TRFF 9 me TCF CGFIF AF 10 FKLRFT EFA TCKST 11 AMFIJ FKCDIF CF 12 CG i JFIFV there

 1 FKDMS FTJ CHJX 2 of my SAND there 3 shall dwell ETTCJ ATTC 4 AMHJC CTAEF and CR 5 AM AEFIN DCRM 6 TRCDGF AKS FKMFF 7 TIR SEFGFD TFRC 8 shall dwell i EFK AMT 9 KR and JEF FYSGLC 10 RGAKBUFI RGFF 11 my CEHE and GFIC 12 DTT FMRIFFGV

Quote

My people are no more.The mighty are fallen, and the young slain in battle. Their bones bleached on the plain by the noonday shadow. The houses are leveled to the dust, and in the moat are the walls. They shall be inhabited.

I have in the burial served them, and their bones in the Death-shade, towards the sun's rising, are covered. They sleep with the mighty dead, and they rest with their fathers. They have fallen in transgression and are not, but the elect and faithful there shall dwell.

The word hath revealed it. God hath sworn to give an inheritance to his people where transgressors perished. The word of God came to me while I mourned in the Death-shade, saying, I will avenge me on the destroyer. He shall be driven out. Other strangers shall inhabit thy land. I an ensign there will set up. The escaped of my people there shall dwell when the flock disown the Shepherd and build not on the Rock.

The forerunner men shall kill, but a mighty prophet there shall dwell. I will be his strength, and he shall bring forth thy record. Record my words, and bury it in the Hill of Promise.

Well you get the idea. This isn't a translation. It is an encoding of English. What is so striking about this structural sameness is that it occurs here in the noncontextual words - the words we would most expect to not have such a close corollary between a source and a translation. And this ancient language (assuming that it isn't English encoded) follows much of the pattern of English in terms of the way sentences are structured and ideas presented. You certainly couldn't do this sort of thing between English and any other ancient language that I am aware of. And it only gets worse as I fill in more words (and there are several more to fill in). Interestingly enough, what does become clear from this is that the first two lines of that first page aren't translated as part of the translation. But it doesn't take an expert to guess that the translation (especially given what has been said about it) is something like "The Record of Rajah Manchou of Vorito" given the number of words we expect, and the occurrence (twice) of the word "of" in that spot in both the source and in the translation. The fact that I can then turn around and discuss morphological problems within the plates (places where the creator makes mistakes) is more or less the final nail in the coffin.

This is not a translation.

Edited October 3, 2017 by Benjamin McGuire

[Physics Guy]

Clark is objecting to my assertion that a genuine prophet would not be expected, a priori, to keep his plates hidden except from a select few:

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I don't think this is right. Sacred artifacts are usually kept to a select few. This is also part and parcel of the Old Testament which is what the book purports to have as an initial context. Now you raise Moses, although of course most would say the texts we have are post-exilic. So we have to be careful here. But sacred books in Jewish texts are usually secret in some sense. The obvious examples of that are apocalyptic texts - especially ones from the second temple period. Charlesworth notes "the idea of secret lore, sealed books, hidden knowledge is the stock-in-trade of Jewish apocrypha." We can debate how much this reflects pre-exilic Israel. But the only text I can think of as a counter-example is the mysterious "Book of the Lord" under Josiah. But that's almost the exception that proves the rule especially because the book had been hidden for so long. More significantly the key aspect there is that the book was found, not revealed.

It is a fair point to make, that there is precedent for keeping sacred things secret. Some of my suspicion of Smith may merely reflect my personal belief that God would not really command that kind of secrecy about an archaeological relic which, if it were real, ought to be studied by scholars and scientists. Even apart from that, though, I feel that putting the plates on a table in plain sight to all visitors, except for a cover, or letting people heft the plates in a box, smack more of the efforts of a con man to gull the gullible, than of a prophet protecting a sacred mystery. Either hide the things, or display them: teasing partial display is suspicious.

Quote

The main question for the fraud model is over the question of why make plates and what the point of the fraud even was. Obviously having actual artifacts makes fraud more compelling, especially in for people like Harris or Stowell. But why persist? What what the goal of the fraud. No one has particularly explained that one to me well. Joseph continues these complex frauds, achieving nothing, but often with no real discernible plan. Further he persists after years of suffering. That strikes me as pretty odd, although obviously skeptics have responses here.

As to the point of the fraud overall, I don't see the puzzle. What years of suffering did Smith have, beyond the kind of suffering that people in his time and place had to take for granted? He was tarred and feathered once, and eventually murdered, but he also got to live in a house known as Mansion House, be mayor of Nauvoo, preach before spellbound congregations, and generally sit in the chief seats at many feasts. He got to have many wives. How many of those desirable goals could he have expected to attain by any honest line of work, given where he started in life? The motivation for fraud seems ample to the point of being obvious. The risks were also real, and in retrospect perhaps excessive, but in Smith's time plenty of honest people died of accident or disease at younger ages than he died, and even now plenty of criminals underestimate the dangers they face. I think he expected he could pull everything off and come out on top, and simply miscalculated.

Why make plates, in particular? My best guess is that Smith stumbled onto or into a half-decent fake relic, and this was what encouraged him to launch the whole fraud. Once he got going, he found that the plates weren't actually even that important, and he soon moved beyond them. I do note, though, that a good fraud can really use a good gimmick, and that establishing the idea that a prophet ought to have ancient plates offered insurance against competition from copy-cats. 

Quote

For the religious believer I think there is a good explanation for why plates rather than just following a more Swedenborg model. First off why would anyone believe him if he just produced texts? At least the book makes it seem like there's something tangible and more importantly something that needs explained. Secondly it grounds the revelation by more or less requiring one engage with these objects rather than treat it as inspired fiction. (People try the inspired fiction model today of course, but the plates make that far more difficult)

These sound more like arguments for fraud than for inspiration!

Why do Mormons today believe in the Book of Mormon? You never hefted the golden plates yourself, Clark. Purely religious motivations, like perception of profound spiritual meaning, have been sufficient to make millions of Mormons believe in Smith's text. Why couldn't Smith—or God, for that matter—trust to the same kinds of motivation for those very first followers? Why sweeten the pot with gold plates, just for those first few?

And so what if people might have taken mere visions to be inspired fiction? Even if you really believe that Nephi and Alma and all were real people who actually did all the things that they're supposed to have done, the important thing about the Book of Mormon is supposed to be that it contains "the fullness of the Gospel". And anyway, ensuring that people got the point about historicity doesn't seem like a good reason for giving Smith ancient gold plates, unless God and Moroni went all the way and let some secular scholars examine the plates. People could still believe in historicity without golden plates, and the few dubious glimpses of plates that have been reported by witnesses don't go much farther than a vision would have towards supporting historicity.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Physics Guy said:

It is a fair point to make, that there is precedent for keeping sacred things secret. Some of my suspicion of Smith may merely reflect my personal belief that God would not really command that kind of secrecy about an archaeological relic which, if it were real, ought to be studied by scholars and scientists. Even apart from that, though, I feel that putting the plates on a table in plain sight to all visitors, except for a cover, or letting people heft the plates in a box, smack more of the efforts of a con man to gull the gullible, than of a prophet protecting a sacred mystery. Either hide the things, or display them: teasing partial display is suspicious.

For some reason all I can think of when you say, "studied by scholars and scientists" is Indiana Jones' line along those lines and then a few scenes later yelling, "Marion, don't look!"

Quote

What years of suffering did Smith have, beyond the kind of suffering that people in his time and place had to take for granted? He was tarred and feathered once, and eventually murdered, but he also got to live in a house known as Mansion House, be mayor of Nauvoo, preach before spellbound congregations, and generally sit in the chief seats at many feasts.

He got relative peace for a few years in Nauvoo, but from the time of the translation until the end of the 1830's it was not a pleasant life that I can see. Even during what you'd call the con he had people chasing him, multiple arrests, and never seemed to have much by way of money. I recognize from our discussion a few months back at the other forum that we both agree con artists aren't necessarily rational thinkers. But it just seems like the sort of thing I wouldn't stand up for if it was all a con. I also think you leave out a lot. He had his children die from exposure due to that incident of tarring and feathering. He had to often be in hiding. People around him were raped and murdered in Missouri. If he had any sense of responsibility, those things ought to have affected him. (Recognizing again that con artists almost by definition don't have normal responses) 

Still, as I read his history, I'll fully admit that on an emotional level it seems very hard for me to buy the fraud model. I can understand it intellectually and I definitely can understand why it'd be appealing especially if one doesn't accept the broad "enchanted world" view that Mormonism requires of real miracles, angels, and semi-regular divine involvement. But as I read even critics like Vogel's writings, it just doesn't feel authentic to me. Just as I know my views don't feel authentic to others. So intellectually I understand the gap.

Quote

Why do Mormons today believe in the Book of Mormon? You never hefted the golden plates yourself, Clark. Purely religious motivations, like perception of profound spiritual meaning, have been sufficient to make millions of Mormons believe in Smith's text. Why couldn't Smith—or God, for that matter—trust to the same kinds of motivation for those very first followers? Why sweeten the pot with gold plates, just for those first few?

I think we spoke of this on the other forum, but to me (speaking for no one else) only empirical evidence matters. It's the culmination of that evidence not "profound spiritual meaning" that counts for me. I recognize that may not be true for most Mormons. But I'm honestly not particularly attracted to the "meaningfulness" type of arguments.

As to why couldn't God trust that? Well, I can't speak for God, but I'd say getting that space so people would take the time to want to find out matters a great deal.

Quote

And so what if people might have taken mere visions to be inspired fiction? Even if you really believe that Nephi and Alma and all were real people who actually did all the things that they're supposed to have done, the important thing about the Book of Mormon is supposed to be that it contains "the fullness of the Gospel".

That's one of the things, but I'm not sure it's the prime thing. It's interesting that it sees convincing Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ is the main function. Further I personally would argue that it'll fulfill it's main role in the future when the warnings and prophecies are more relevant. i.e. the last days. In many ways it's a very apocalyptic text.

Quote

And anyway, ensuring that people got the point about historicity doesn't seem like a good reason for giving Smith ancient gold plates, unless God and Moroni went all the way and let some secular scholars examine the plates. People could still believe in historicity without golden plates, and the few dubious glimpses of plates that have been reported by witnesses don't go much farther than a vision would have towards supporting historicity.

I think it forces a kind of existential decision where one must either accept or reject in a way nothing else (including the Bible) allows. Yes you can read the Bible and decide that despite the gap, that the people writing it should be trusted. But the Book of Mormon can't function in that way. It's not really faith in the traditional protestant fashion but the necessity of a direct religious experience to know. That is there's a demand that it be either fraud or real that can only be answered by that experience. You can either avoid that demand, simply decide the most likely state of affairs is fraud, or turn to God. As such it functions as a catalyst to turn to God and experience personal revelation. I don't think the Bible does that - people typically accept it in terms fo a kind of blind faith rather than reason. With the Book of Mormon, while in theory you could accept on blind faith, I think it pushes for something more by making its origin something that isn't fully decidable yet different from blind faith.

[Benjamin Seeker]

16 hours ago, cdowis said:

 

Cdowis, i write my posts largely from memory, so if I need to be corrected I welcome it as I can misremember and misunderstand things. While my exact statement may not have been true, the general spirit of it is not. Part of the trial dealt with JS' activities finding lost objects or treasure with his seer stone. Also, I'm not convinced that the statement in the law about pretending to find find lost objects doesn't refer to all such activities, meaning it seems likely that the law presupposes all such activities are fraudulent. Either way, I haven't tried to twist facts.

As far as the plates not in the room bit, the discussion we were having was to whether JS was deceptive in his portrayal of the translation process, not whether the actual translation process was viable or not. My point is that JS portrays the translation process as a spectacles type translation, not a translation process where he isn't looking at the plates.

Also, I'm not sure why you are coming off so strongly. "You are not credible," "Stupid people," etc. I apologize if my arguments are rubbing you the wrong way. Let's discuss content, not hurl insults.

[Rajah Manchou]

8 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Well you get the idea. This isn't a translation. It is an encoding of English. What is so striking about this structural sameness is that it occurs here in the noncontextual words - the words we would most expect to not have such a close corollary between a source and a translation. And this ancient language (assuming that it isn't English encoded) follows much of the pattern of English in terms of the way sentences are structured and ideas presented. You certainly couldn't do this sort of thing between English and any other ancient language that I am aware of. And it only gets worse as I fill in more words (and there are several more to fill in). Interestingly enough, what does become clear from this is that the first two lines of that first page aren't translated as part of the translation. But it doesn't take an expert to guess that the translation (especially given what has been said about it) is something like "The Record of Rajah Manchou of Vorito" given the number of words we expect, and the occurrence (twice) of the word "of" in that spot in both the source and in the translation. The fact that I can then turn around and discuss morphological problems within the plates (places where the creator makes mistakes) is more or less the final nail in the coffin.

This is not a translation.

Thanks for that. I'm not in doubt that there aren't correlations between the text and a romance language. Strang (and also Smith) had apparently made comments about the angelic messenger being a Spanish conquistador, and some analysis of the text by John Hajicek identified the language on the Voree Plates as being "some kind of pidgin Spanish written in an invented, or in a Native American alphabet."

One interesting comment by Hajicek is that the "Rajish" name for God had four letters. So the name for God in the Voree Plates does not have an identifiable corollary in English. Hajicek proposed ALAH, in line with his thinking that text could be an authentic Native American text using a pidgin Spanish.

There is also this analysis:

A Preliminary Linguistic Analysis of James J. Strang's Voree Plates
      Robert Ben Madison
      July 7, 1990

As is obvious from a perusal of Appendix 2, it was only after much painful bending around of the English text that I was able to link it to the Manchorian. If my bendings accurately show what Manchorian grammar and syntax look like, then the grammar of Manchorian is, from an English standpoint, downright bizarre.

The Thompson interlineation is more natural, and corresponds to the translation almost word-for-word. However, it is so very similar to the English word order and grammar that this is almost bizarre.

In the introduction to his paper, Madison wrote:

The purpose of this paper is to present a preliminary linguistic analysis of the script, language, and text of the plates which James J. Strang allegedly unearthed and by miraculous means translated into English. It should be noted at the onset that I am not a member of the church which Strang founded, and I have no vested interest in seeing his "translation" or other claims vindicated. My interest in the plates is purely scientific, although the conclusions I draw may prove as surprising to the reader as they did to me.

Madison itemized the possibilities for the relationship of the characters on the plates to Strang's translation as follows:

• The characters on the plates are random scrawlings and bear no connection to any human language.
• The characters are an encipherment of Strang's English.
• The characters are representative of a genuine ancient language, but the translation is not authentic.
• The characters do not represent an ancient human language, but are instead an elaborate hoax.
• The characters are ancient and the translation is authentic.

Madison believed that his analysis had eliminated options 1, 2, and 3. The Thompson interlineation certainly does seem to eliminate these three options. Either James Strang contrived the Voree Plates with exquisite care and elaborate preparation, or else his translation is authentic.

---

We won't resolve this here, but just wanted to point out that the source language of the Vorite Plates is still a matter of discussion in the Strangite community. Not everyone is convinced it is an encoding of English.

Edited October 4, 2017 by Rajah Manchou

[cdowis]

6 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

Clark is objecting to my assertion that a genuine prophet would not be expected, a priori, to keep his plates hidden except from a select few:

It is a fair point to make, that there is precedent for keeping sacred things secret. Some of my suspicion of Smith may merely reflect my personal belief that God would not really command that kind of secrecy about an archaeological relic which, if it were real, ought to be studied by scholars and scientists.

This is the argument,  "if I were god, I would do things differently", which is implying that is your measure of whether something is true or false.  

"I just don't understand."  

 

[Benjamin Seeker]

20 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

While that's a fair comparison to make when judging the fraud model, it's worth noting that this notion is hardly unique to 19th century America. It's just as likely <i>even with the fraud model</i> to be paralleling Proverbs 23. Kevin Barney noted an Egyptian text usually thought to be the source for Proverbs 23 making an even stronger parallel to Alma 13. I'm not saying we should neglect the treasure myths nor the broader "hermetic" culture that say Brooke brings up, but I'd be careful saying it's rooted in that culture.

I like that there is a biblical parallel, but treasures flying away isn't as close as buried possessions slipping away. I'm not familiar with the other places these ideas occur, but I certainly believe you. From my viewpoint, the strength of the parallel and JS direct and heavy involvement in treasure digging makes the 19th century an obvious possibility.

Quote

Not sure I buy that one.

That's ok. I just think the account where he sets the plates down, looks away to grab something else, and then looks back to see that the plates have disappeared and reappeared where they started introduces a non-mundane aspect.

Quote

Not sure which one you're referring too. If it's the one I'm thinking of it's a pretty late recollection and I'm not sure trustworthy.

 I apologize! I completely misremembered this one. I went digging for the source, and the BYU article simply explains that Brigham told a story about Porter Rockwell and treasures slipping away before Brigham continued on to talk about the cave and plates.

However, it is worth noting that these accounts of the cave and plates inside, where the gold plates were supposed to have been returned, are odd. For example, this statement about the experience(s) recorded in Wilford Woodruff's journal: 

"Brigham Young said that when Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith were in the cave this third time, they could see its contents more distinctly than before"

 

Quote

That's completely ambiguous although Vogel attempts to make a lot of it. This is undermined by the more matter of fact accounts of the plates as merely covered with a cloth. 

According to the Burnett account, it appears that Martin Harris cited the scripture or that's Burnett uses it to back up his report of Martin Harris's alleged statement, which gives the interpretation some weight. Again, we recognize this as a problematic source, but at least this interpretation of the scripture can be shown to originate in early Mormonism, even if it's from a disaffected source (Burnett).

Quote

The eight witnesses are the big debate. I'm far from convinced they were spiritual. I think there's strong evidence they weren't. (Even Vogel hedges his bets here) But even if they were, again the more mundane matter of fact descriptions are far more valuable than the official witness statement.

Yeah, there is a lot riding on the problematic Burnett source and the lone John Whitmer statement, but the possibility is there.

Quote

Also there's a lot of circularity in how the Lucy Smith account is used since it presupposes the Nephite (presumably Moroni) is only a mental vision and not an actual physical being. This is fin

Even a regular-appearance Moroni sets off an alarm bell for me. The other would-be-normal encounters with Moroni (not glorified and floating) have strange twists. The two accounts by Mary Whitmer and one of the other Whitmers end abruptly with Moroni disappearing, adding a strange non-mundane element to the story. 

Quote

This one is the other one Vogel makes heavy use of, but as you note it's definitely got problem.

And Stowell also gives account of it being as gold, albeit via describing a description.  There are plenty of easy ways to reconcile the accounts of course.

Which is more weird since apparently they were seen. Lucy Smith says she saw and carried the breastplate. See the Caswall account and also her history. There's hints others saw them. 

I believe they are covered with a cloth in Lucy's history. I'm not sure I know the Caswall account. I'll check it out. 

Clark, honestly I'm not sure why I entered this battlefield. I guess Smac's complete skepticism of any kind of deceptive approach by JS got me started. Anyways, sorry for dragging this out.

Edited October 4, 2017 by Benjamin Seeker

[Benjamin Seeker]

Clark, I'm having trouble figuring out what the Caswall account it (I just keep turning up the Greek Psalter incident). Can you help me?