Physics Guy Posted October 4, 2017 Posted October 4, 2017 8 hours ago, clarkgoble said: 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) People who launch religious frauds are usually narcissists. Acquiring acclaim and respect is the only thing that matters to them. And anyway, nobody gets to see in advance how all their moves will pan out over the long term, and adjust them accordingly. Everybody just sits in the circumstances of however things have turned out so far, and chooses their next move from there. I think Smith's biggest successes in life came from fraud, and it seems only natural to me that when he encountered setbacks, he doubled down on what he must have seen as his strongest asset. I think people tend to stick to their lasts in that way more often than not. A few crumbs of success offer hope that outweighs many setbacks. That pattern is probably even more true for fraud than for most enterprises, because despite the prevalence of fraud, fraudsters don't normally leave How-To manuals for others to follow, and so most frauds are inventions on the part of their perpetrators. Like inventors, they keep tweaking the gadget, never losing hope that the latest adjustment will attain perfection. Quote [O]n 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. ... I think [having the plates] 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. I don't understand the distinction you're drawing between "blind faith" such as one might put in the Bible, which reports miracles but was itself transmitted by natural means, and the different kind of faith that you think the Book of Mormon requires because it came from miraculously conveyed relic plates. One thing I might guess you to mean is that the plates story lets you squeeze all the blind leaping part of faith into one singular ball, and get it over with, when you swallow the plates. After that you're in an "enchanted world" world view in which angels and seer stones are all perfectly natural, and you can make further decisions in rational and empirical ways. Is this part of what you mean? If so, why couldn't you achieve the same transition of world view without golden plates?
Benjamin McGuire Posted October 4, 2017 Posted October 4, 2017 Quote Thanks for that. I'm not in doubt that there aren't correlations between the text and a romance language. I have two questions for you in regards to this comment. 1: English isn't a romance language, so how do you manage to draw this conclusion? And how does this have any relevance to the correlation I produced (which isn't complete - the actual correlation has more to it). 2: How would you propose to distinguish between encoded English and "correlations between the text and a romance language"? Quote A Preliminary Linguistic Analysis of James J. Strang's Voree Plates Robert Ben Madison Oh yes ..... this Robert Ben Madison: http://micronations.wikia.com/wiki/Robert_Ben_Madison I am curious, do you think he has credibility here? Do you even know what his profession is (I do ...). Has he worked with any other languages? Has he published? I'm curious because this analysis was never formally published or reviewed. And I certainly have never seen a copy. So should I really pay any attention to it? Especially when the evidence I see is so clear and really non-controversial in its application. Later you noted this: Quote 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. You may not recognize the solution, but, that doesn't change the fact that at least from the perspective of anyone involved in linguistics, the idea that this represents a real language is fantasy. And while there certainly is the similarity in the sense that the Strangite community (somewhere between 50 and 300) is fully behind the idea, just as Mormons for the most part support the notion of an authentic historical record behind the Book of Mormon, I think the similarities largely stop there. My point though is this - with the plates to compare, the Voree Plates stop being terribly analogous to the Gold Plates. They can be analyzed in ways that the Book of Mormon can't. And the because of this, the notion of witnesses (and the debate between which set of witnesses we should believe) becomes far less important than what the plates and their alleged translation tell us about the process. 3
smac97 Posted October 4, 2017 Author Posted October 4, 2017 (edited) 4 hours ago, Physics Guy said: People who launch religious frauds are usually narcissists. Acquiring acclaim and respect is the only thing that matters to them. How do you reconcile this with Joseph Smith, whose claims elicited contempt and hatred from most of the society around him? For years? Quote And anyway, nobody gets to see in advance how all their moves will pan out over the long term, and adjust them accordingly. That can be true, which is why some folks abandon their principles when the heat is on. And yet Joseph Smith . . . didn't. He persisted in the face of enourmous persecution. Quote Everybody just sits in the circumstances of however things have turned out so far, and chooses their next move from there. I think Smith's biggest successes in life came from fraud, and it seems only natural to me that when he encountered setbacks, he doubled down on what he must have seen as his strongest asset. He "doubled down" on the claims that brought him tremendous grief and persecution? Okay, I guess I can see that panning out if Joseph's claims were fraudulent. But then, I can also see that panning out if Joseph's claims were sincere, too. So "doubling down" doesn't seem to mean much if it can be construed either way. Quote I think people tend to stick to their lasts in that way more often than not. A few crumbs of success offer hope that outweighs many setbacks. That pattern is probably even more true for fraud than for most enterprises, because despite the prevalence of fraud, fraudsters don't normally leave How-To manuals for others to follow, and so most frauds are inventions on the part of their perpetrators. Like inventors, they keep tweaking the gadget, never losing hope that the latest adjustment will attain perfection. But "that pattern" can just as easily be adapted to people who are sincere in their claims and objectives. It's all just a matter of interpretation, and of preconceived biases one brings to the table. I do it. You do it. Which is why my testimony is based more on the Spirit and its witness of Christ through the Book of Mormon. Examination of Joseph's character came later, not unlike my study of Peter's character, and Paul's, and Abraham''s, and Enoch's, and Moses', and so on. Quote I don't understand the distinction you're drawing between "blind faith" such as one might put in the Bible, which reports miracles but was itself transmitted by natural means, and the different kind of faith that you think the Book of Mormon requires because it came from miraculously conveyed relic plates. Here are my thoughts: Because the Bible’s historical transmission can be discerned and explained naturalistically (that is, without any necessary reliance on “divine” intervention in the transmission of the text), the antiquity of the Bible is not probative of its status as scripture (any more than Homer’s Illiad is probative of the Greek Pantheon). This is why skeptics of the Bible find little or no persuasive value in archaeological artifacts presented as “evidence” for the Bible’s status as scripture and record of miraculous events. After all, Homer’s Illiad has a historical pedigree tracing back to antiquity, as well as some archaeological verification. This does not mean, however, that the descriptions of the supernatural in Homer's work are factual. As one atheist fellow put it: "The only thing all those ancient bible sites prove is {that} the Bible is a really old fraud." In contrast, The Book of Mormon is differently situated from the Bible. There is a built-in gap in its historical transmission, consisting of some 1,400 years from when Moroni buried the plates to 1823, when the plates were re-discovered by Joseph Smith, Jr. This “transmission gap” effectively precludes a naturalistic explanation of the text’s antiquity. Consequently, if we someday discover persuasive archaeological or other evidence for the antiquity of The Book of Mormon, such evidence would have a far more persuasive impact on the veracity of the book's truth claims than would archaeological evidence for the Bible impact that book's truth claims. Put another way, the antiquity and truth claims of The Book of Mormon are intertwined, such that evidence of the former may simultaneously be evidence of the latter. Quote One thing I might guess you to mean is that the plates story lets you squeeze all the blind leaping part of faith into one singular ball, and get it over with, when you swallow the plates. That's not it, not for me, anyway. For me, the reality of the Plates helps anchor my faith to reality. The reality of Jesus Christ, of His divine sonship, His miracles, His resurrection. I think we sometimes run the risk of thinking of the Savior in too abstract of terms, such that He ends up as being just another admirable person, like Lincoln or Atticus Finch, like Thomas More or Gandalf, like Audie Murphy or Captain America. Note that the foregoing pairings are comprised of real and fictional persons. In some ways, Atticus and Gandalf and Steve Rogers are just as admirable as Lincoln and More and Murphy. And yet . . . the former will never measure up to the latter. Ever. Because fact will always trump fiction. Because the rough-hewn reality of Lincoln and More and Murphy will always be preferable to cozy and convenient and contrived characterizations of Atticus and Gandalf and Steve Rogers. When the chips are down, I prefer to evaluate the real guys over the fabricated ones. The real ones had real flaws, but also real humanity and real heroism. The fake ones are heroic, too, but only in a contrived, of-course-they're-written-that-way sense. For me, Nephi and Alma and Captain Moroni and Abinadi and Chemish and Mormon and Moroni are all in the same category as Lincoln/More/Murphy. They are "the real ones." They are all a part of history. The Plates are a large part of why I have put them in this category. Quote After that you're in an "enchanted world" world view in which angels and seer stones are all perfectly natural, and you can make further decisions in rational and empirical ways. No, I don't think you get us. Yes, we have a worldview "in which angels and seer stones are all perfectly natural," but we categorically reject your characterization of this as "an 'enchanted world.'" That phrase conjures images of make-believe. Fiction. Wishful thinking. Magic. The Plates help me see a world in which "angels and seer stones" are real, as much a part of history as are Valley Forge, the Magna Carta, the Gutenberg press, D-Day, and so on. So the world in which Lehi and his descendants exist is not, for us, "enchanted." It is real. That is what the Plates help establish. Quote Is this part of what you mean? If so, why couldn't you achieve the same transition of world view without golden plates? Oh, we could. We have endless numbers of folks who are cajoling us to accept the "world view without golden plates." But for me, that worldview is pretty much on par with the one contemplated in John 6: Quote 41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven. 42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven? 43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves. 44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. ... 60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? 61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? 62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. 64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. 65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. 66 ¶ From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. 67 Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? 68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. There is a worldview available to us, one in which Jesus Christ is either a fable or just another ancient philosopher with a aphorisms and turns of phrase. But He can be set aside or even utterly ignored with no real loss, like Atticus or Gandalf or Captain America. But there is a worldview in which Jesus Christ is real, where He really is who He said He was, where He really did perform miracles, teach the Gospel, atoned for our sins, was killed and resurrected and ascended to heaven, and so on. If these things are "real," then I want to accept them, and keep them near and dear to my heart, and strive to understand and apply the precepts about the Savior found in the scriptures. Atticus and Gandalf can be taken or left with no net consequence to my long-term (as in eternal) destiny. Faith in and acceptance of Christ, however, is at the center of my eschatological perspective. And then there is also an even more focused, more concentrated worldview, in which Jesus Christ is real and has restored the fullness His gospel on the earth. He did that through Joseph Smith, and through the Book of Mormon. The Plates are an integral part of that worldview. So if these things are "real," then I want to accept them as such, and the concomitant ramifications that arise therefrom (restored priesthood authority, present-day prophets and apostles, saving ordinances, temples, eternal families, missionary work, service, and so on). I subscribe to this "worldview." Not blindly. Not irrationally. But based on faith, and the Spirit, and study, and application, and more faith. It's a worldview that is at once thrilling and calming, motivating and comforting, constraining and liberating. And, above all, hopeful. Thanks, -Smac Edited October 4, 2017 by smac97 3
clarkgoble Posted October 4, 2017 Posted October 4, 2017 9 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said: 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? He relates what Lucy Smith said to him in 1842. Here it is: My son Joseph has had revelations from God since he was a boy, and he is indeed a true prophet of Jehovah. The angel of the Lord appeared to him fifteen years since, and shewed him the cave where the original golden plates of the book of Mormon were deposited. He shewed him also the Urim and Thummim, by which he might understand the meaning of the inscriptions on the plates, and he shewed him the golden breastplate of the high priesthood. . . . I have myself seen and handled the golden plates; they are about eight inches long, and six wide; some of them are sealed together and are not to be opened, and some of them are loose. . . . I have seen and felt also the Urim and Thummim. They resemble two large bright diamonds set in a bow like a pair of spectacles. My son puts these over his eyes when he reads unknown languages, and they enable him to interpret them in English. This is from Vogel's Early Mormon Documents 1.220. 2
clarkgoble Posted October 4, 2017 Posted October 4, 2017 4 hours ago, Physics Guy said: People who launch religious frauds are usually narcissists. While that seems plausible, I'm curious as to the basis for your view there. But note I'm not denying that part, but rather why he persists despite the pretty bad times. That's the part that seems more odd to me. Further many of those bad times, such as during the Kirtland Banking Crisis, it seems like it was his reputation among his followers that suffered the most. Quote After that you're in an "enchanted world" world view in which angels and seer stones are all perfectly natural, and you can make further decisions in rational and empirical ways. Is this part of what you mean? If so, why couldn't you achieve the same transition of world view without golden plates? I think I'm saying that the artifacts require one to consider religion as "real" in a way merely having a vague text doesn't. So I think the transitions is much harder without such artifacts. 1
Rajah Manchou Posted October 4, 2017 Posted October 4, 2017 2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said: I have two questions for you in regards to this comment. 1: English isn't a romance language, so how do you manage to draw this conclusion? And how does this have any relevance to the correlation I produced (which isn't complete - the actual correlation has more to it). 2: How would you propose to distinguish between encoded English and "correlations between the text and a romance language"? OK, ok. Germanic and Romance languages. I've understand English to be a hybrid of the two. But anyway. 2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said: Oh yes ..... this Robert Ben Madison: http://micronations.wikia.com/wiki/Robert_Ben_Madison I am curious, do you think he has credibility here? Do you even know what his profession is (I do ...). Has he worked with any other languages? Has he published? I'm curious because this analysis was never formally published or reviewed. And I certainly have never seen a copy. So should I really pay any attention to it? Especially when the evidence I see is so clear and really non-controversial in its application. I know nothing of Ben Madison, and am trying to find more about his analysis and the analysis anybody else might have to offer. Including yours. Which makes sense to me. Thanks.
Physics Guy Posted October 4, 2017 Posted October 4, 2017 (edited) I quoted "enchanted world" from Clark Goble, who seemed to be accepting it as a label for the (or at least his) Mormon world view. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: And then there is also an even more focused, more concentrated worldview, in which Jesus Christ is real and has restored the fullness His gospel on the earth. He did that through Joseph Smith, and through the Book of Mormon. The Plates are an integral part of that worldview. So if these things are "real," then I want to accept them as such, and the concomitant ramifications that arise therefrom (restored priesthood authority, present-day prophets and apostles, saving ordinances, temples, eternal families, missionary work, service, and so on). I agree that the worldviews of Mormonism and mainstream Christianity differ, and differ enough that it makes sense to see this as a difference between just two worldviews because in comparison to the difference between Mormon and mainstream, all differences within Mormon or mainstream are small. I'm curious how you perceive this difference, however—and "focused" and "concentrated" don't convey much to me, in this context. Could you explain these terms more? I'd also like to confirm what you seem to say, that you believe in the authenticity of Smith's plates because they are part of your worldview. It almost seems as though you are saying that what you want is to believe in priesthood authority, saving ordinances, and so on, and so you believe in the golden plates because that's the price of admission to those other beliefs. If this is how you feel, then on one hand I can understand it, but on the other hand it kind of disturbs me. At one point the golden plates were the reason to believe in Smith's prophethood, but now it seems as though Smith's prophethood is the reason to believe in the plates. Doesn't the circularity bother you? Edited October 4, 2017 by Physics Guy
clarkgoble Posted October 4, 2017 Posted October 4, 2017 5 minutes ago, Physics Guy said: I quoted "enchanted world" from Clark Goble, who seemed to be accepting it as a label for the (or at least his) Mormon world view. It's a term Damon Linker used back when he was still with First Things and before his fallout over so-called theocon matters. He ascribed it to Mormonism when he was guest blogging at Times and Seasons. It's more or less the same idea as magic realism but without the baggage that term carries. Basically the argument is that secularism disenchanted the world so it's to be seen only in terms of its normal appearances. I still don't fully like the term as it carries a few connotations I don't agree with. (Not surprising since it arises out of a more or less Catholic world view) I just can't think of a better term that captures a more or less naturalistic stance that accepts categories of phenomena most naturalists don't. 1
Rajah Manchou Posted October 4, 2017 Posted October 4, 2017 2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said: I am curious, do you think he has credibility here? Do you even know what his profession is (I do ...). Has he worked with any other languages? Has he published? I'm curious because this analysis was never formally published or reviewed. And I certainly have never seen a copy. So should I really pay any attention to it? Especially when the evidence I see is so clear and really non-controversial in its application. Decided I should make more of an effort to find the article by Madison. I'm not having much luck yet, but I did learn that he served as General Church Historian for the Restoration Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. And has has published twice before in the The John Whitmer Historical Association Journal. His micronation of Taloosa appears to be an online joke of sorts. But since you are from Northern Michigan, you likely know more about King Ben than I do. So it is your opinion that the Voree Plates could not be an encoded from a Germanic or Romance language other than English?
Physics Guy Posted October 4, 2017 Posted October 4, 2017 (edited) I associate narcissism with religious frauds because I've studied the lives of a few of them, and they've seemed pretty darn self-centered people to me. As to Smith's persistence through hard times, I just don't find it surprising. People who set up religious frauds are inventive entrepreneurs, and those kinds of people tend to be really stubborn, whether they're dishonest or not. I'm not sure what other options Smith had, either. If he gave up his prophet gig, what assets would he have had left? What else could he have done? Would it really have looked, at the time, like a better bet than keeping on playing prophet, and just tweaking his act a bit? Quote I think I'm saying that the artifacts require one to consider religion as "real" in a way merely having a vague text doesn't. So I think the transitions is much harder without such artifacts. This sounds somewhat like smac97's idea of having a focused and concentrated worldview. Perhaps both of you are talking about something like my own view, as a Christian, of the bodily resurrection of Jesus. Although the bodily resurrection has historically been the one essential miracle on which the Christian faith rests, in fact it's quite hard to see why it's important at all, because the official Christian line is that Jesus abandoned bodily presence on Earth shortly afterwards, and Christians have happily believed in and related to an ascended Christ for two thousand years. Why could that phase not have started at Easter? Why give a special miracle temporarily to a handful of disciples? Furthermore the resurrection appearances seem to have been as odd and ambiguous as visions would have been, anyway, with Jesus appearing and disappearing unexpectedly, and everyone having trouble recognizing him. In fact I'm quite willing to consider that the bodily resurrection didn't happen, because it seems to me that if it did happen, it would only be because God essentially put it on as a show for the benefit of the early disciples. But if I think of why God might have put on such a show, my best guesses so far have been something like what you seem to be saying, that the material miracle makes an important point about faith being concrete and not only abstract. So I entertain the possibility of bodily resurrection because I'm a Christian—it's certainly not that I'm a Christian because the evidence for the bodily resurrection of Jesus is compelling. Edited October 4, 2017 by Physics Guy
smac97 Posted October 4, 2017 Author Posted October 4, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Physics Guy said: I quoted "enchanted world" from Clark Goble, who seemed to be accepting it as a label for the (or at least his) Mormon world view. Okay. Thanks for clearing that up. Quote I agree that the worldviews differ, and differ enough that it makes sense to see this as a difference between just two worldviews because in comparison to the difference between Mormon and mainstream, all differences within Mormon or mainstream are small. I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. Quote I'm curious how you perceive this difference, however—and "focused" and "concentrated" don't convey much to me, in this context. Could you explain these terms more? The Mormon "worldview" is a subset of a larger "Christian" or "Judeo-Christian" worldview. Most Christians believe in a worldview where "prophets" and "scripture" are relegated to the past, and which are "closed" and over. Mormons take the foundation of Judeo-Christian thought and build a more specific ("focused" and "concentrated") form of Christianity, one in which prophets and priesthood and revelation and scriptural canon and so on are "open" and ongoing. Quote I'd also like to confirm what you seem to say, that you believe in the authenticity of Smith's plates because they are part of your worldview. Not really. My worldview arises out of faith and the Spirit, not the other way around. I grew up in the Church. To be honest, I do not have much in the way of fond memories. But my parents believed in it, and attending church regularly was as expected as going to school or doing my chores around the house, so I did all three with roughly comparable amounts of enthusiasm (that is, not much). I was, I supposed, somewhat predisposed to accept the truth claims of the LDS Church, since it was what I was raised in. But I could also have easily gone the other way. Easily. But I didn't because . . . I started reading the Book of Mormon on my own and praying about it. Over time I had experiences which cumulatively I decided were promptings of the Spirit. So as I entered high school I started to take things a bit more seriously. I still didn't enjoy the social aspects of church that much, nor did I enjoy seminary. But I stuck with it because, by that point, my "worldview" was starting to coalesce. Then I went into the Army. It was . . . scary. The drill sergeants were mean. I was homesick and physically tired and in a strange new environment. I had never witnessed or experienced real, actual racial hatred before, and then was thrown head-first into it. But during basic training I was allowed to attend church services. They were brief, about 45 minutes total. But there were hymns. And kind voices. And comforting and encouraging talks. And the Sacrament. And . . . the Spirit. So my worldview started to become more clear. After basic training I went to a language school in California for 12 months. I was totally on my own. There was drinking and partying and, ahem, carousing all around me. I had every opportunity to go crossways from the Gospel, but I stuck with it (as best I could). The years of teaching by my parents and by sunday school teachers (and, yes, seminary teachers) started to kick in, to click. I saw how eminently practical the Gospel was, in addition to its moral/spiritual components. My worldview became stronger. Then I served a mission for two years in Taiwan. It was . . . difficult. The language was challenging. Getting along with missionary companions could be hard (I'm sure they would say the same about me). My personal "success" as a missionary, as measured in baptisms, was very, very poor. I felt the message we had was the most important in the world, and yet our efforts to share it were met overwhelmingly with indifference. And yet I worked and prayed, and was obedient to the mission rules, and performed lots and lots of service. I felt the Spirit. A lot. I felt discouragement and malaise. A lot. I perceived the value of persistent obedience. By the end my worldview was a bit grittier, more pragmatic, but stronger overall. After my mission I had a singular experience involving President Hinckley. I won't share the details here, but it "clinched the deal" for me. I threw my lot in with the Church and its claims of prophets and authority and revelation. Then I started to go to school, where I met a wonderful girl from Washington State, with big, beautiful brown eyes, a strong intellect, and a kind and gentle disposition. We got married. She has been a wonderful example to me ever since. We've spent the last 20+ years working together, striving to apply the principles of the Gospel in our lives. We're far from perfect, but we're happy together. We have children together, who are also wonderful examples to us. So that, in a nutshell, is the genesis of my "worldview." Quote It almost seems as though you are saying that what you want is to believe in priesthood authority, saving ordinances, and so on, and so you believe in the golden plates because that's the price of admission to those other beliefs. No, that is not what I am saying. The Plates help me retain the Gospel in in the "real" part of my worldview. Let me clarify: As an attorney, I admire the character Atticus Finch from To Kill a Mockingbird, but I also recognize that he is fictional creation Harper Lee (based on her father, but still fictional). I admire him, but I feel no obligation to retain that admiration. I can take him or leave him. I can leave To Kill a Mockingbird on my shelf for years at a time, or even never read it again. Atticus Finch is a disposable role model, one that is interchangeable with any number of others. In contrast, as a Latter-day Saint, I believe in Jesus Christ. I believe He is the sole source of salvation, the "author and finisher of our faith" (Hebrews 12:2). Unlike Atticus Finch, Christ is real. His value as my Lord and Savior arises from the reality of His divine sonship, His miracles and authority and teachings, His death and resurrection and ascension. Jesus Christ as a fictional, interchangeable role model doesn't do much for me. Jesus Christ as a real, historical person, as the Son of God, is a very different story. Which brings us back to . . . the Plates. Those Plates were real. I believe they were not only real, but were authentically ancient. And not only that, I believe Joseph Smith - also a real, historical person - translated the contents of those Plates into English. The contents of those Plates described actual, historical persons and events, all of which center on and testify of Jesus Christ. So for me, the realness of the Plates speaks to the realness of Lehi and his descendants and their experiences, which in turn speak to the divine sonship of Jesus Christ. The "price of admission" for belief in Mormonism is, I think, faith in Christ and a witness of the Spirit. The catalyst for this is . . . the Book of Mormon. Hence the relevance of the Plates. Quote If this is how you feel, then on one hand I can understand it, but on the other hand it kind of disturbs me. I don't think you have accurately understood my position. I hope the foregoing clears it up a bit. But even so, I'm not sure I understand what is "disturbing" to you. I am a contributing member of society. I obey the law (pretty much). I have a job and pay taxes. I own a home. I am in a happy marriage. I am heavily and actively involved in raising my children. I serve other people. I donate time and money and work to various philanthropic efforts. I do all these things as a direct consequence of my seeking to adhere to the principles taught to me by the LDS Church. And this is "disturbing" to you? Quote At one point the golden plates were the reason to believe in Smith's prophethood, but now it seems as though Smith's prophethood is the reason to believe in the plates. Doesn't the circularity bother you? I do not subscribe to such circular reasoning. I specifically and emphatically reject it. Instead, my testimony is based on the Spirit. And my experiences with the Spirit have centered on the Book of Mormon, and on obedience to its precepts (which, I should note, overwhelmingly - but not completely - overlap with the general precepts of Judeo-Christian thought). Thanks, -Smac Edited October 4, 2017 by smac97 3
clarkgoble Posted October 4, 2017 Posted October 4, 2017 24 minutes ago, Physics Guy said: I associate narcissism with religious frauds because I've studied the lives of a few of them, and they've seemed pretty darn self-centered people to me. As to Smith's persistence through hard times, I just don't find it surprising. People who set up religious frauds are inventive entrepreneurs, and those kinds of people tend to be really stubborn, whether they're dishonest or not. OK, fair enough. I thought your views might have been based off psychological studies.
smac97 Posted October 4, 2017 Author Posted October 4, 2017 44 minutes ago, Physics Guy said: I associate narcissism with religious frauds because I've studied the lives of a few of them, and they've seemed pretty darn self-centered people to me. As to Smith's persistence through hard times, I just don't find it surprising. People who set up religious frauds are inventive entrepreneurs, and those kinds of people tend to be really stubborn, whether they're dishonest or not. I'm not sure what other options Smith had, either. If he gave up his prophet gig, what assets would he have had left? What else could he have done? Would it really have looked, at the time, like a better bet than keeping on playing prophet, and just tweaking his act a bit? I think Joseph Smith had all sorts of options. But characterizing the course of conduct he did take as necessarily indicative of fraud just doesn't work for me. It's also indicative of someone acting based on sincere belief and devotion to principles. 44 minutes ago, Physics Guy said: This sounds somewhat like smac97's idea of having a focused and concentrated worldview. Perhaps both of you are talking about something like my own view, as a Christian, of the bodily resurrection of Jesus. Joseph Smith put it this way (emphasis added): Quote The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it. But in connection with these, we believe in the gift of the Holy Ghost, the power of faith, the enjoyment of the spiritual gifts according to the will of God, the restoration of the house of Israel, and the final triumph of truth. So yes, the resurrection is an extremely important component of faith in Christ. 44 minutes ago, Physics Guy said: Although the bodily resurrection has historically been the one essential miracle on which the Christian faith rests, in fact it's quite hard to see why it's important at all, because the official Christian line is that Jesus abandoned bodily presence on Earth shortly afterwards, and Christians have happily believed in and related to an ascended Christ for two thousand years. The LDS perspective on the importance of the resurrection is quite a bit different. 44 minutes ago, Physics Guy said: Why could that phase not have started at Easter? Why give a special miracle temporarily to a handful of disciples? Furthermore the resurrection appearances seem to have been as odd and ambiguous as visions would have been, anyway, with Jesus appearing and disappearing unexpectedly, and everyone having trouble recognizing him. But He had them physically touch his body, and feel the prints of the nails in his hands and feet and side. And He ate fish and honeycomb in their presence (Luke 24:42). I think think He did these things to remove ambiguity. And I think it works. Physical resurrection was demonstrated. 44 minutes ago, Physics Guy said: In fact I'm quite willing to consider that the bodily resurrection didn't happen, because it seems to me that if it did happen, it would only be because God essentially put it on as a show for the benefit of the early disciples. From Luke 24: Quote 36 ¶ And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. 37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. 38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? 39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. 40 And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet. 41 And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat? 42 And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. 43 And he took it, and did eat before them. 44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. 45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, 46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: 47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48 And ye are witnesses of these things. What "benefit" accrues from such "a show?" What is the point of reuniting body and spirit after death, and taking pains to demonstrate the reality of that union, only to turn around and separate body and spirit again? The LDS perspective on this makes more sense to me: 44 minutes ago, Physics Guy said: But if I think of why God might have put on such a show, my best guesses so far have been something like what you seem to be saying, that the material miracle makes an important point about faith being concrete and not only abstract. The Resurrection is a central theme of Christ's ministry, so I don't understand why it would be characterized as just a temporary thing, a "show." The LDS perspective on this makes more sense to me: Quote In the theology of Judaism and some Christian denominations resurrection has often been spiritualized-that is, redefined as a symbol for immortality of some aspect of man such as the active intellect, or of the soul considered to be an immaterial entity. In contrast, scientific naturalism tends to reject both the concept of the soul and of bodily resurrection. Latter-day Saints share few of the assumptions that underlie these dogmas. In LDS understanding, the spirit of each individual is not immaterial, but consists of pure, refined matter: "It existed before the body, can exist in the body; and will exist separate from the body, when the body will be mouldering in the dust; and will in the resurrection, be again united with it" (TPJS, p. 207). Identity and personality persist with the spirit, and after the resurrection the spirit will dwell forever in a physical body. {T}he Prophet Joseph Smith taught that all beings "who have tabernacles (bodies), have power over those who have not" (TPJS, p. 190; 2 Ne. 9:8). At minimum, this is taken to mean that intellectual and spiritual powers are enhanced by association with the flesh. It follows that a long absence of the spirit from the body in the realm of disembodied spirits awaiting resurrection will be viewed not as a beatific or blessed condition, but instead as a bondage (D&C 45:17;138:50). Moreover, "spirit and element [the spirit body and the physical body], inseparably connected, [can] receive a fulness of joy. And when separated, man cannot receive a fulness of joy" (D&C 93:33, 34). This accounts for the importance of the Resurrection in ways "God was just putting on a show" does not. 44 minutes ago, Physics Guy said: So I entertain the possibility of bodily resurrection because I'm a Christian—it's certainly not that I'm a Christian because the evidence for the bodily resurrection of Jesus is compelling. Oh, same here. Belief in the resurrection is almost purely a matter of faith. Thanks, -Smac 1
Benjamin McGuire Posted October 4, 2017 Posted October 4, 2017 Quote So it is your opinion that the Voree Plates could not be an encoded from a Germanic or Romance language other than English? Yes. I am of the opinion that the relationship between the two is not compatible with any sort of translation process. Languages simply don't have this one-to-one relationship with each other - especially in these sorts of non-contextual words. If we translated this short piece of text back into a language using, say, Google Translate (which i know isn't perfect), would we have this same level of internal correspondence there? Clearly there are duplicate words. But they don't create the same sort of clear structure that we get from the other. It is this structure that is so convincing, and this is why I don't generally feel the need to dig into the other nuts and bolts of potential grammars behind the script. Quote Il mio popolo non è più. I magni sono caduti, ei giovani uccisi in battaglia. Le loro ossa si sbiancavano sulla pianura dall'ombra di mezzogiorno. Le case sono livellate alla polvere e nel fossato sono le pareti. Saranno abitate. Ho in funebre loro servito, e le loro ossa nell'ombra della Morte, verso l'aumento del sole, sono coperte. Dormono con i morti forti e si riposano con i loro padri. Sono caduti in trasgressione e non sono, ma gli eletti e i fedeli ci si dimoreranno. La parola lo ha rivelato. Dio ha giurato di dare un'eredità al suo popolo in cui i trasgressori sono morti. La parola di Dio mi è venuta da me quando ho pianto nell'ombra della morte, dicendo, mi vendiderò sul distruttore. Sarà sparito. Altri stranieri devono abitare la tua terra. Io un ensign ci si metterà in piedi. I fuggiti del mio popolo dovranno abitare quando il gregge nega il Pastore e non costruirà sulla Roccia. I precursori uccideranno, ma un profeta profeta vi abiterà. Io sarò la sua forza, ed egli porterà la tua testimonianza. Registra le mie parole e seppellila nella Collina della Promessa.
Analytics Posted October 4, 2017 Posted October 4, 2017 There are really two issues here. One is whether "the plates" existed, and two is what "the plates" actually were. It's fair to say that something existed, but what that something actually was could be anything from a bona fide ancient manuscript written on gold-like plates to a box of sand. What we do know is that Joseph Smith treated "the plates" (and by "plates", I'm referring to whatever the thing is he actually had), with a weird secrecy not unlike the way a magician guards his tricks. The plates were never allowed to be inspected by neutral third parties. They were always hidden in a box or under a cloth or buried in the earth. There were two special showings, but they were by-invitation-only events in contrived settings where the witnesses signed a statement that Joseph Smith authored, rather than writing their own independent contemporaneous accounts. In one of the accounts, Joseph Smith is with two or three witnesses praying for an angel to teleport itself Joseph Smith's house, retrieve the plates from where Joseph had them hidden, teleport back to the staged event, present the plates to the witnesses, and then presumably return the plates to where Joseph had them hidden again. Because of the contrived nature of these events and witnesses, it's hard to judge any of it the way you would judge more mundane events. For example, it is sometimes argued that the sworn statement of 11 men would be enough to convict somebody of murder in a court case. While that's generally true, say that the 11 particular men were invited to come out to a specific place, and were given a special show that culminated in somebody apparently being murdered. They report what they saw to the police, but the police have no physical evidence--there is no murder weapon. No body. No blood. And there isn't a body or a missing person. The only evidence of the crime being committed is the testimony of the 11 people from their contrived experience. If something like that happened, what would the police make of it? I'm not sure what the police would do, but I doubt they'd convict anybody of murder, and I doubt they'd feel obligated to come up with and prove a specific theory that explains what the witnesses really saw.
Calm Posted October 4, 2017 Posted October 4, 2017 (edited) 8 hours ago, Physics Guy said: People who launch religious frauds are usually narcissists. Acquiring acclaim and respect is the only thing that matters to them. And anyway, nobody gets to see in advance how all their moves will pan out over the long term, and adjust them accordingly. Everybody just sits in the circumstances of however things have turned out so far, and chooses their next move from there. I think Smith's biggest successes in life came from fraud, and it seems only natural to me that when he encountered setbacks, he doubled down on what he must have seen as his strongest asset. I think people tend to stick to their lasts in that way more often than not. A few crumbs of success offer hope that outweighs many setbacks. Have you studied the psychology of conmen at all, religious ones in particular? Just curious. What about narcissists? One of the essential symptoms of narcissism is a general lack of empathy which can lead to less intimacy in relationships. https://www.psychologytoday.com/conditions/narcissistic-personality-disorder I see the above as a major flaw in the claim JS was a narcissist. Edited October 4, 2017 by Calm
smac97 Posted October 4, 2017 Author Posted October 4, 2017 9 minutes ago, Analytics said: There are really two issues here. One is whether "the plates" existed, and two is what "the plates" actually were. Yes. The options appear to be: A. There were no plates. B. There were plates, but they were fabricated by Joseph Smith and/or other unknown persons. C. There were plates which were authentic ancient artifacts. There are variations on this. Option B can be subdivided into "Joseph was a con" and "Joseph was a 'pious fraud'" categories. Option C can, I suppose, but divided into "authentic ancient artifacts which were nevertheless unrelated to the Book of Mormon text and Joseph Smith's claims about them" and "authentic ancient artifacts which are related to the Book of Mormon text and Joseph Smith's claims about them." 9 minutes ago, Analytics said: It's fair to say that something existed, but what that something actually was could be anything from a bona fide ancient manuscript written on gold-like plates to a box of sand. "A box of sand" would, I think, fit into Option A. 9 minutes ago, Analytics said: What we do know is that Joseph Smith treated "the plates" (and by "plates", I'm referring to whatever the thing is he actually had), with a weird secrecy not unlike the way a magician guards his tricks. Or . . . he treated them in the way the Lord wanted them to. Joseph Smith's course of conduct is not axiomatically "weird." What he did is potentially malleable enough to justify either a pro- or anti- interpretation. 9 minutes ago, Analytics said: The plates were never allowed to be inspected by neutral third parties. But the plates were allowed to be inspected by third parties, many of who were later very much estranged from Joseph Smith and/or Mormonism. Such folks, had they been part of a scam or delusion, would have theoretically been better than "neutral third parties," since they had motive and time and opportunity to "come clean" about the scam/delusion, and to distance themselves from a thoroughly unpopular figure and his sect. And yet . . . none of them retracted their statements about what they saw. 9 minutes ago, Analytics said: They were always hidden in a box or under a cloth or buried in the earth. This is not correct. The Witnesses saw (and handled, and hefted) the plates. 9 minutes ago, Analytics said: There were two special showings, but they were by-invitation-only events in contrived settings "Contrived?" You're loading the deck here. 9 minutes ago, Analytics said: where the witnesses signed a statement that Joseph Smith authored, rather than writing their own independent contemporaneous accounts. Witness statements drafted by Party A and signed by Party B happen. All the time. This is not a data point against the statements by the Witnesses to the Book of Mormon. 9 minutes ago, Analytics said: In one of the accounts, Joseph Smith is with two or three witnesses praying for an angel to teleport itself Joseph Smith's house, retrieve the plates from where Joseph had them hidden, teleport back to the staged event, present the plates to the witnesses, and then presumably return the plates to where Joseph had them hidden again. "Teleport?" You're loading the deck. Again. And meanwhile, the Eight Witnesses saw the plates under mundane circumstances. 9 minutes ago, Analytics said: Because of the contrived nature of these events and witnesses, it's hard to judge any of it the way you would judge more mundane events. This accounts for skepticism about the Three Witnesses, but not the Eight, since they saw the plates in mundane circumstances that were not "contrived" (as in "obviously planned or forced; artificial; strained"). That was, I think, the intended purpose of having two different sets of witnesses, testifying about two different events which occurred under different circumstances. The statement by the Eight Witnesses describes a "mundane event," but you are trying to lump it into the miraculous one ascribed to by the Three. That just doesn't work. 9 minutes ago, Analytics said: For example, it is sometimes argued that the sworn statement of 11 men would be enough to convict somebody of murder in a court case. Hmm. Never heard of this one. And not a particularly good analogy, either. Thanks, -Smac 1
Calm Posted October 4, 2017 Posted October 4, 2017 2 hours ago, Physics Guy said: I associate narcissism with religious frauds because I've studied the lives of a few of them, and they've seemed pretty darn self-centered people to me. As to Smith's persistence through hard times, I just don't find it surprising. People who set up religious frauds are inventive entrepreneurs, and those kinds of people tend to be really stubborn, whether they're dishonest or not. My husband's speciality is psychology of entrepreneurs, his doctorate was primarily creating an attitudinal test for them. I will have to ask him to consider your proposition.
cdowis Posted October 4, 2017 Posted October 4, 2017 (edited) 14 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker 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. Fair enough, but when you are uncertain of the facts, may I suggest that you flag it, "I seem to remember" "I understood that... " as opposed to speaking in absolute certainties. No one can fault you for a mistaken memory but they can slam you for not telling the truth. It sets you apart from the garbage that is spouted by critics and apologists (including myself). Edited October 4, 2017 by cdowis 1
clarkgoble Posted October 4, 2017 Posted October 4, 2017 57 minutes ago, smac97 said: But the plates were allowed to be inspected by third parties, many of who were later very much estranged from Joseph Smith and/or Mormonism. Such folks, had they been part of a scam or delusion, would have theoretically been better than "neutral third parties," since they had motive and time and opportunity to "come clean" about the scam/delusion, and to distance themselves from a thoroughly unpopular figure and his sect. And yet . . . none of them retracted their statements about what they saw.This is not correct. The Witnesses saw (and handled, and hefted) the plates. This is where of late critics attempt to hit the Book of Mormon the hardest by arguing Joseph either berated them into delusional experiences or else fraudulently got them to admit to more than they actually saw. Thus the attempt to make visionary experiences imaginary and move the eight into the same experience as the three. While there are some arguments along those lines, I confess I don't find them terribly persuasive as this thread shows. I'm fine with the three being a visionary experience along with others like Mother Whitmer. As valuable as I find the three witnesses, I'm not sure they are nearly as valuable as the more incidental discussions. I'd be careful with the "retraction" claim since the Harris account is often treated as a temporary withdrawal. Quote And meanwhile, the Eight Witnesses saw the plates under mundane circumstances. While I believe that's true, and certainly the document they signed implies that, realistically we don't have any first person accounts really going through the details of the circumstances in time close to the events. We do have later accounts by John Whitmer who testifies to the mundane nature. I find the 1878 account by Whitmer rather significant myself although I can understand why Vogel and others attempt to downplay it.
smac97 Posted October 4, 2017 Author Posted October 4, 2017 (edited) 49 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: This is where of late critics attempt to hit the Book of Mormon the hardest by arguing Joseph either berated them into delusional experiences or else fraudulently got them to admit to more than they actually saw. Which doesn't account for either A) the overall high quality of character of the witnesses (per Richard Lloyd Anderson's assessment), or B) the refusal of the Witnesses, after having become estranged from Joseph Smith and/or the Church, to "come lean" about having been duped ("berated ... into delusional experience") or persuaded to join in a con ("fraudulently got them to admit to more than they actually saw"). If either of these had been the case, then several of the Witnesses would have had all the reason (and time, and opportunity) in the world to retract their statements. And yet they didn't. Quote Thus the attempt to make visionary experiences imaginary and move the eight into the same experience as the three. Yep. That bit of sleight of hand (moving the Eight into the same experience as the Three) is sloppy reasoning and poor historiography. Quote While there are some arguments along those lines, I confess I don't find them terribly persuasive as this thread shows. I'm fine with the three being a visionary experience along with others like Mother Whitmer. Same here. Quote As valuable as I find the three witnesses, I'm not sure they are nearly as valuable as the more incidental discussions. I think their formal statements are valuable. Quote I'd be careful with the "retraction" claim since the Harris account is often treated as a temporary withdrawal. I'm comfortable with Anderson's assessment of Harris. Quote While I believe that's true, and certainly the document they signed implies that, realistically we don't have any first person accounts really going through the details of the circumstances in time close to the events. That happens all the time, though. At the end of the day, the background and character of the witnesses, together with their statement and subsequent affirmations thereof, mean that we have a rather extraordinarily well-documented historical event, far more so than we find in most other circumstances. Thanks, -Smac Edited October 4, 2017 by smac97 1
Physics Guy Posted October 4, 2017 Posted October 4, 2017 Honest witnesses who only believed in the plates because they trusted Joseph Smith, but then later broke with Smith and lost their trust in him, might well have recanted. Honest but gullible witnesses who recognized their own gullibility when they broke with Smith, and reassessed all their earlier conclusions, might have recanted as well. Dishonest witnesses who became honest when they broke with Smith and then wanted to confess all would have recanted. Dishonest witnesses who got so mad at Smith that they would do anything just to hit back at him might perhaps have recanted, if they really thought this would be what hurt him most. So the fact that witnesses didn't recant, despite breaking with Smith, would seem to rule out those particular cases of unreliable witnesses. None of these cases seems all that likely a priori, however. Other kinds of witnesses would have had no particular reason to recant just because they broke with Smith. They could have been honest witnesses who were duped by trickery, but were too vain to accept that they might have been duped. Guys like that would not recant their testimony about the plates, no matter how badly they felt toward Smith. Or there could have been crooked witnesses who were in on it with Smith at the time, and then got angry at Smith, but still felt it wisest to stick to their original story about the plates, because it might be worth something to them in the future. There were other ways of getting back at Smith that didn't involve irrevocably tossing the plates card into the discard pile. So the fact that witnesses stuck to their stories after breaking with Smith provides some additional evidence for the plates, but not very strong evidence. It rules out a few cases but they were unlikely ones anyway.
Benjamin Seeker Posted October 4, 2017 Posted October 4, 2017 1 hour ago, clarkgoble said: This is where of late critics attempt to hit the Book of Mormon the hardest by arguing Joseph either berated them into delusional experiences or else fraudulently got them to admit to more than they actually saw. Thus the attempt to make visionary experiences imaginary and move the eight into the same experience as the three. While there are some arguments along those lines, I confess I don't find them terribly persuasive as this thread shows. I'm fine with the three being a visionary experience along with others like Mother Whitmer. As valuable as I find the three witnesses, I'm not sure they are nearly as valuable as the more incidental discussions. I'd be careful with the "retraction" claim since the Harris account is often treated as a temporary withdrawal. While I believe that's true, and certainly the document they signed implies that, realistically we don't have any first person accounts really going through the details of the circumstances in time close to the events. We do have later accounts by John Whitmer who testifies to the mundane nature. I find the 1878 account by Whitmer rather significant myself although I can understand why Vogel and others attempt to downplay it. 44 minutes ago, smac97 said: Which doesn't account for either A) the overall high quality of character of the witnesses (per Richard Lloyd Anderson's assessment), or B) the refusal of the Witnesses, after having become estranged from Joseph Smith and/or the Church, to "come lean" about having been duped ("berated ... into delusional experience") or persuaded to join in a con ("fraudulently got them to admit to more than they actually saw"). If either of these had been the case, then several of the Witnesses would have had all the reason (and time, and opportunity) in the world to retract their statements. And yet they didn't. Yep. That bit of sleight of hand (moving the Eight into the same experience as the Three) is sloppy reasoning and poor historiography. Same here. I think their formal statements are valuable. I'm comfortable with Anderson's assessment of Harris. That happens all the time, though. At the end of the day, the background and character of the witnesses, together with their statement and subsequent affirmations thereof, mean that we have a rather extraordinarily well-documented historical event, far more so than we find in most other circumstances. Thanks, -Smac Even if we totally throw out Burnett's claims about what Martin Harris said (though personally I think it should be approached both skeptically and with the assumption that it's not a fabrication), we still have John Whitmer's statement that he was shown the plates by a supernatural power and Lucy's account saying an ancient Nephite brought the plates to the 8 (I'm not saying that these neccesitate a visionary experience but they do suggest more than a purely mundane passing of the plates). John Whitmer's statement alone suggests that there is something more going on then what we have accounted for.
cdowis Posted October 4, 2017 Posted October 4, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, clarkgoble said: This is where of late critics attempt to hit the Book of Mormon the hardest by arguing Joseph either berated them into delusional experiences or else fraudulently got them to admit to more than they actually saw. While that may be possible over the short term, many years after the death of Joseph Smith, they would look back on the experience and would have realized that they had been deceived == at least one of them out of eleven witnesses. They were familiar with him, saw how he operated, see his character. His "magic" at work, up close. They would have figured it out. This theory is as unlikely, as the story of an angel appearing to Joseph Smith. They are equally absurd. Edited October 4, 2017 by cdowis
Analytics Posted October 4, 2017 Posted October 4, 2017 What we do know is that Joseph Smith treated "the plates" (and by "plates", I'm referring to whatever the thing is he actually had), with a weird secrecy not unlike the way a magician guards his tricks. 2 hours ago, smac97 said: Or . . . he treated them in the way the Lord wanted them to. Maybe the Lord wanted him to always keep the plates hidden except in a couple of contrived situations with small groups of selected people, but that doesn't negate that this secrecy was a lot like the way a magician guards his tricks. Quote "Contrived?" You're loading the deck here. I'm not loading the deck. I'm pointing out how Joseph Smith loaded the deck. Quote Witness statements drafted by Party A and signed by Party B happen. All the time. This is not a data point against the statements by the Witnesses to the Book of Mormon. Several years ago, a coworker and I witnessed a crime in the workplace. As soon as the H.R. director found out about it, she gave us each a pen and a pad of paper, and instructed each of us to write an independent, full account of what we saw. Are you suggesting that she could have just as easily written a joint statement herself and asked us both to sign it? Are you suggesting that two contemporaneous first-hand accounts have equal evidentiary value as a joint statement written by a third party? I don't believe it. Quote "Teleport?" You're loading the deck. Again. No, I'm pointing out the problems that are inherent in the evidence. Quote And meanwhile, the Eight Witnesses saw the plates under mundane circumstances. This accounts for skepticism about the Three Witnesses, but not the Eight, since they saw the plates in mundane circumstances that were not "contrived" (as in "obviously planned or forced; artificial; strained"). The experience of the eight witnesses was contrived in the same way a magic show is contrived. People are invited to the show, the magician invites people to come on stage, tells them where to stand, hands them something in a particular way and asks them to examine it in a certain way, etc. That is what I mean by contrived. Quote Hmm. Never heard of this one. And not a particularly good analogy, either. It is a great analogy for my point. The point is that the testimony of an eye witness has very little weight in a contrived scenario that deals with things and events that don't clearly connect to the objects and events in the real world. Here is another analogy. According to your argument as you laid out, there is a lot more evidence of the golden plates existing than of the lost 116 pages existing. After all, there is no sworn statement from 8 people that they hefted the 116 pages. An angel never showed anybody the 116 pages. There is no affidavit. The only evidence we have is stories that include their existence from Joseph Smith, Martin Harris, and a few others. So how come nobody doubts the existence of the 116 pages, but do doubt the existence of to golden plates? Think about that. Joseph gave people very good reason to doubt that the plates existed, and then used a couple of contrived events to "prove" that they did in fact exist. But why go to so much trouble to simultaneously cast doubt on the existence of something and to prove that it exists at the same time? It's suspicious. The existence of the plates is troubling--there is no evidence that the ancient Olmec or any of their neighbors wrote records in reformed Egyptian on golden plates bounded with rings, much less then carried them 3,500 miles to be buried. The fact that they were almost always hidden and weren't even used for their purported purpose of being translated is suspicious. The claim that a part of them were "sealed" is suspicious. The concept that when they weren't hidden in a barrel or whatever they always needed to be covered by a cloth (exactly as a magician would do) is suspicious. The fact that one of the witness events included an angel retrieving the plates from where Joseph allegedly had them hidden, appearing to the witnesses with the plates, and then apparently returning them to where Joseph Smith had them hidden is suspicious. And where did the plates go? Did Joseph Smith give them to an angel which teleported them away? Everything about it, including the evidence for their existence, appears contrived, i.e. "deliberately created rather than arising naturally or spontaneously."
Recommended Posts