"Inspired Fiction" v. The Plates & The Witnesses

[hope_for_things]

30 minutes ago, FearlessFixxer said:

I agree.  If it happens it will be slow and over time.  I think it would start with people like Al Fox or other popular speakers introducing the idea that it is ok to reject the historicity part of the BoM as long as you have a testimony of the message.

They could start by discussing the gospel topics essays in conference, that would be a big step forward. 

I guess you could have a leader condoning this kind of a position, but personally I'd prefer if they don't condone anything.  People need to learn that they are accountable for their opinions and perspectives instead of outsourcing their views to church leaders.  

[hope_for_things]

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Nor can naturalistic ones.  I mean, how would we, in 2017, go about "testing" the "Nearly 200 years ago Joseph fabricated a set of fake plates and passed them off as real" theory?

As I understand it, for the scholarly disciplines, claims of the supernatural are always set aside precisely because we have no means of testing for those claims.  Naturalistic explanations are the only kind that can be explored using the tools we have in a systematic way. 

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think you are substantially mischaracterizing the overall weight of the evidence as to witness statements.  I am not persuaded that the contradictions are sufficiently material as to dismiss all witness statements.  Taken as a whole, these statements provide us with quite a few coherent data points that are "testable" in same sense.  For example, the weight and dimensions of the plates is somewhat testable.  The metallurgical composition is less so, but theories about a tumbaga alloy appear to do a pretty good job of reconciling several interrelated data points (the gold appearance of the plates, their ability to hold etched symbols on the surface, the weight of the plates relative to their dimensions and proposed metallurgical composition, etc.).

I'm not dismissing witness statements, I'm using witness statements and all the evidence I've read brings these questions to mind, and I'm taking things as a whole the best I know how.  I think the difficulties in creating a plausible metallic replica that matches some of the witness statements and that wasn't made out of gold, but would have been light enough to carry, are actually evidence against metallic plates existing, not evidence for their existence.  

36 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, there are limits.  I'd expound, but I'm not persuaded you are interested in a substantive, good faith, civil discussion.

Civil discussion?  I'm open if you are, can't think of anything I've said that wasn't fair or civil.  My suspicion is that you just don't want a discussion that disagrees with your perspective.  

38 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I respect that.  I would be interested in a coherent "naturalistic" explanation for the Plates.  So far the explanations I have seen have been . . . rather poor.

This is part of the reason that the sand explanation shouldn't be dismissed because it may be the simplest explanation and requires the least amount of creative engineering on Joseph's part.  

[hope_for_things]

26 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

You are free to believe what you want. You are also free to accuse me of bad faith due to mere disagreement. However, I didn't equate lying for the lord and what holland did (notice the "or").

I read the Holland story exactly the same way you did, and I think smac97 is up in the night with his interpretation.  

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

As I understand it, for the scholarly disciplines, claims of the supernatural are always set aside precisely because we have no means of testing for those claims. 

What does "set aside" mean?

Quote

Naturalistic explanations are the only kind that can be explored using the tools we have in a systematic way. 

Well, yes and no.  There is no "systematic way" to test naturalistic explanations for the Book of Mormon.  It's all speculation and guesswork.

Quote

I'm not dismissing witness statements, I'm using witness statements and all the evidence I've read brings these questions to mind, and I'm taking things as a whole the best I know how.  I think the difficulties in creating a plausible metallic replica that matches some of the witness statements and that wasn't made out of gold, but would have been light enough to carry, are actually evidence against metallic plates existing, not evidence for their existence.  

Strange, isn't it, that we can look at the same evidence and come away with very, very different conclusions?

Quote

Civil discussion? 

Yes, civil discussion.  These are sacred matters to Latter-day Saints.  This is a board peopled by Latter-day Saints.  So comparisons to "Bigfoot" and such can come across as trivializing or ridiculing those sacred things.

But I jumped to a wrong conclusion, it seems.  My apologies.

Quote

I'm open if you are, can't think of anything I've said that wasn't fair or civil.  My suspicion is that you just don't want a discussion that disagrees with your perspective.  

Well, your suspicion is misplaced.  You don't know me very well.  I've been on this board for, I think, 13 years.  I wouldn't have been here that long if I did not want to have discussions with people who disagree with me.

Quote

This is part of the reason that the sand explanation shouldn't be dismissed because it may be the simplest explanation and requires the least amount of creative engineering on Joseph's part.  

"The sand explanation" is pure, baseless speculation and guesswork.  There is no evidence for it, and the extant evidence contradicts it.  Even the most ardent critics (Brodie, Vogel, etc.) concede the likelihood that plates existed (they just think that Joseph fabricated them).

Thanks,

-Smac

[hope_for_things]

29 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Again though I think it's important to get straight what is being claimed and what is contradictory. I have no trouble with Cowdery or Harris having a visionary experience yet people handling physical plates. Clearly for a time Harris doubted his experience and then later came to stop doubting it. More important are I think the eight witnesses along with other witnesses of the physical plates such as Josiah Stowell. In particular he's significant since he wasn't an insider like Lucy or Emma.

So I disagree I'm devaluing statements that don't align with my view. I'm simply noting what the witnesses claimed to have known and how. For instance when Harris during his period of doubt says no one saw the plates including the eight and Joseph, upon what basis is he able to make that claim?

As to evaluating the witnesses, I think there's a big difference between third hand accounts and direct experience. So an account by an antagonistic witness claiming Joseph told him it was all a fraud and was just sand seems problematic when people testify there were gold looking leafs. That's not just privileging one witness above others but noting the rather common treatment of witnesses in law or history.

Is it possible it's all fraud? Given the public evidence of course one can rationally belief it was a fraud. However rationally believing there were no metal plates of some sort seems much more difficult to argue for. That's why even Taves has Joseph making the plates at a certain point (without really engaging with why that'd be problematic)

Can you share which Josiah Stowell account you find important on the subject, I would like a reminder.  I think Peter Ingersoll is in a similar position, not an insider, no axe to grind and a friend of the family that was close, but not too close.  

The question about Harris making a statement about the eight witnesses is a good one, but assuming he was closely associated with the eight witnesses and perhaps talked to them about their experiences, this is just speculation, but its plausible.

I also agree about third hand accounts vs. direct experience.  But this critique also applies to the witness statements themselves, which weren't affidavits or individual statements written by the witnesses themselves, and weren't even signed directly by the witnesses, but rather those statements were crafted by Oliver & Joseph and not signed at all by the participants, but made to look that way when the book was published.  

Lastly, could you stop characterizing this in terms of fraud or not fraud.  Please, this is not helping the discussion.  

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Can you share which Josiah Stowell account you find important on the subject, I would like a reminder.  I think Peter Ingersoll is in a similar position, not an insider, no axe to grind and a friend of the family that was close, but not too close.  

I think Peter Ingersoll's affidavit is pretty weak.  He characterized the "general employment of" the Smiths as "money diggers," and yet their farm was improved to the point that it was worth more than 9 out of 10 farms in the region.  He claims that Joseph Smith confided in him that the Plates never existed, while at the same time telling everyone else (including people who thereafter were very estranged from him) that the Plates were real.  Isn't that . . . a bit weird?  What was it about Peter Ingersoll that made Joseph Smith impose such confidence about such an explosive issue?  Why trust him with such a tremendous secret?  What was the nature of their relationship?  Well...

As for "no axe to grind," what makes you say that?

Quote

In the month of August, 1827, I was hired by Joseph Smith, Jr. to go to Pennsylvania, to move his wife's household furniture up to Manchester, where his wife then was. 

I'm not sure I would repose the utmost trust in . . . a neighbor I hired to move furniture.  That just seems . . . odd.

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Lastly, could you stop characterizing this in terms of fraud or not fraud.  Please, this is not helping the discussion.  

I don't understand.  The three basic categories for explaining the origins of the Plates are:

• A) Joseph Smith (either alone or as part of a cabal) fabricated them (or lied about their existence) because he was insane/deluded;
• B) Joseph Smith (either along or as part of a cabal) fabricated them (or lied about their existence) because he was intending to deceive/defraud others, and was generally acting in bad faith; or
• C) Joseph Smith's published statements about the origins of the Plates are correct.

Are you seeing other options?

Thanks,

-Smac

[hope_for_things]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What does "set aside" mean?

Meaning they don't try to test the validity of supernatural claims when conducting scholarship at the academy.  

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, yes and no.  There is no "systematic way" to test naturalistic explanations for the Book of Mormon.  It's all speculation and guesswork.

Huh?  Since video recorders didn't exist, now any scholarship of the past is all just guesswork?  Well, lets tell the historians, archaeologists, anthropologists, linguists, etc to all go home, their professions are all based on speculation and guesswork.  

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Strange, isn't it, that we can look at the same evidence and come away with very, very different conclusions?

Actually, this is a good thing.  If everyone thought the same, then we not only wouldn't learn much, but it would be a boring world to live in.  You're entitled to your opinion, the thing we all need to ask ourselves when reviewing evidence and critically analyzing data is what our assumptions are, and that we need to try and understand our biases.  Honest inquiry requires a willingness to be wrong and to change our position based on the weight of evidence.  

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But I jumped to a wrong conclusion, it seems.  My apologies.

No worries, and I wasn't trying to compare a religious believer to a believer in big foot.  I want to show respect for all kinds of beliefs.  

20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"The sand explanation" is pure, baseless speculation and guesswork.  There is no evidence for it, and the extant evidence contradicts it.  Even the most ardent critics (Brodie, Vogel, etc.) concede the likelihood that plates existed (they just think that Joseph fabricated them).

Lots of different opinions in the Mormon studies community, on all sides of these issues.  I'm aware that many believe that metallic plates are a plausible explanation, but I'm not sure if Vogel or Brodie would characterize their positions as "likely" that plates existed, or just possible.  Its interesting and I'm not ruling anything out.  All my points have left open the possibilities, I don't have a strong opinion on this subject, but I'm leaning towards sand or something else, but its very possible there were plates of some kind or something altogether different.  

[hope_for_things]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

while at the same time telling everyone else (including people who thereafter were very estranged from him) that the Plates were real.  

Can you point me in this direction, I would be interested in those later statements by Ingersoll telling people that the plates were real later in life as I couldn't find them in link you provided.  I do think its interesting that you want to agree with Ingersoll's statement about the Smith family farm, but you want to disagree with his statement about the plates.  This seems to be an example of selectively agreeing with those elements that confirm your bias, but disagreeing with those that run contrary.  

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't understand.  The three basic categories for explaining the origins of the Plates are:

• A) Joseph Smith (either alone or as part of a cabal) fabricated them (or lied about their existence) because he was insane/deluded;
• B) Joseph Smith (either along or as part of a cabal) fabricated them (or lied about their existence) because he was intending to deceive/defraud others, and was generally acting in bad faith; or
• C) Joseph Smith's published statements about the origins of the Plates are correct.

Are you seeing other options?

I'm not at all comfortable distilling the options down to these three scenarios.  Its so much more complicated.  

He could have fabricated the plates for altruistic purposes.  He could have been partly deluded, he practiced folk magic which was somewhat common and seemed real to many in this time period.  Do we think everyone who believed in folk magic is deluded?  How do we characterize other religious groups that have different views about reality than we do?  How do Mormons think about those that believe in reincarnation, or the Eucharist.  Do we think they are deluded?  

I don't like using the term fraud when discussing these things.  

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Huh?  Since video recorders didn't exist, now any scholarship of the past is all just guesswork? 

Note what I said: "There is no 'systematic way' to test naturalistic explanations for the Book of Mormon."  

9 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Well, lets tell the historians, archaeologists, anthropologists, linguists, etc to all go home, their professions are all based on speculation and guesswork.  

What I meant was that the naturalistic explanations presented so far have been "all speculation and guesswork."

I'm open to correction, of course.

9 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Actually, this is a good thing.  If everyone thought the same, then we not only wouldn't learn much, but it would be a boring world to live in.  You're entitled to your opinion, the thing we all need to ask ourselves when reviewing evidence and critically analyzing data is what our assumptions are, and that we need to try and understand our biases.  Honest inquiry requires a willingness to be wrong and to change our position based on the weight of evidence.  

Agreed.

9 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Lots of different opinions in the Mormon studies community, on all sides of these issues.  I'm aware that many believe that metallic plates are a plausible explanation, but I'm not sure if Vogel or Brodie would characterize their positions as "likely" that plates existed, or just possible. 

So either there were physical artifacts answering the general description of "plates," or there weren't.

If there were such plates, either they were fraudulent/fabricated, or they weren't.

If they were fraudulent/fabricated, then Joseph Smith was either deluded/insane or fraudulent/dishonest (or, I suppose, he was a dupe).

If they weren't fraudulent/fabricated, they were either an amazing ancient artifact that Joseph Smith (or someone working with him) found, or else . . . the plates were what Joseph claimed them to be.

Those seem like the principal options.

9 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Its interesting and I'm not ruling anything out.  All my points have left open the possibilities, I don't have a strong opinion on this subject, but I'm leaning towards sand or something else, but its very possible there were plates of some kind or something altogether different.  

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Glenn101]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Then there are the accounts of Harris later saying he never saw the plates physically and that even the 8 witnesses didn't see the plates physically either.   There are enough questions out there about the legitimacy of actual plates existing.  I don't have a strong opinion on this subject, only saying that there is enough to reasonably question.  

There are accounts of people saying that Martin never saw the plates physically. Martin himself never said that. None of the other witnesses said that they only saw the plates spiritually either. Joseph himself never said that there was sand rather than plates in the box or bag. If you note, the witnesses that you quote actually contradict each other. One  said sand and one said lead, and one said Joseph told him nothing was in the box. In your zeal you forgot to mention that this was a suit brought against Joseph by Lucy Harris who said that Joseph's only design was to get her husband's money. Martin contradicted that himself. And you forgot to mention that what you seem to be something that causes reasonable doubt is something that the justice hearing the case felt was patently untenable, tore up the affidavits, and dismissed the case. Do you really feel that you are in a better position to make a judgement on that?

 Joseph, at an early stage had people ready and willing to lie under oath about him. Nor were some all too careful with the law.

Take for instance the many legal trials that Joseph went through. Brigham Young said that Joseph went through forty-eight of them. The only action that I am aware of that was successful was civil suit concerning the Kirtland Safety Society.  In 1830 Joseph was put through two trials basically on the same charges in New York, being a disorderly person, etc.. The first was in Bainbridge, Chenango County where twelve witnesses were called against him. He was defended by a non-Mormon by the name of John Reed who crossed them up and Joseph was acquitted, but was immediately arrested again on the same charges and dragged to Colesville to stand trial again. This time there were thirty witnesses, and again John Reed showed them up.

Now if you feel it is more reasonable to take contradictory, second hand accounts about situations rather than the actual words of the people involved, that is your privilege. You and I just have a different viewpoint on what is reasonable.

Glenn

[smac97]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Can you point me in this direction, I would be interested in those later statements by Ingersoll telling people that the plates were real later in life as I couldn't find them in link you provided. 

You misread my remarks.  Go ahead and re-read them.

Quote

I do think its interesting that you want to agree with Ingersoll's statement about the Smith family farm,

No, I don't.  I think that his claim about the Smiths beeing ne'er-do-wells spending all their time on "money digging" is rather hard to reconcile with the documented reality that the Smiths worked their farm to such an extent that it was one of the most highly-valued in the area.

Quote

but you want to disagree with his statement about the plates. 

I find his affidavit generally not very probative.  

Quote

This seems to be an example of selectively agreeing with those elements that confirm your bias, but disagreeing with those that run contrary.  

Nope.  Again, you have misunderstood my remarks.

Quote

I'm not at all comfortable distilling the options down to these three scenarios.  Its so much more complicated.  

And yet if we go through those complications, we'll still end up at these three scenarios.  Right?  There really aren't other conclusions available.  I'm open to correction on this point, so I would like to hear what you have to say.

Quote

He could have fabricated the plates for altruistic purposes. 

Right.  So he was a well-intentioned fraud, but a fraud nonetheless.

Quote

He could have been partly deluded, he practiced folk magic which was somewhat common and seemed real to many in this time period. 

Right.  So he was deluded/insane and fraudulent (this is, I think, often characterized as a "pious fraud" claim).

It sounds like you are operating within those three scenarios, after all.

Quote

Do we think everyone who believed in folk magic is deluded? 

Nope.  But then, we aren't talking about "everyone."

Quote

How do we characterize other religious groups that have different views about reality than we do? 

We aren't talking about "different views."  We are talking about physical artifacts.  The plates.  Either they existed, or they did not.  Either they were authentically ancient, or they were not.

We keep coming back 'round to those three scenarios.

Quote

How do Mormons think about those that believe in reincarnation, or the Eucharist.  Do we think they are deluded?  

We aren't talking about articles of faith.  We are talking about physical artifacts.

Quote

I don't like using the term fraud when discussing these things.  

Same here.  But these are matters of faith, about which we can be correct or not correct, which which are pretty much beyond any sort of testablity.

In contrast, we are talking here about physical artifacts.  The plates.  Either they existed, or they did not.  Either they were authentically ancient, or they were not.  We have evidence as to the existence of the plates, and their weight and appearance and so on.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 28, 2017 by smac97

[Physics Guy]

A coherent naturalistic explanation for the plates—or rather, for the recorded statements about the plates—may be difficult to provide.

It isn't hard to come up with possible scenarios. Wholesale fraud in which every professed witness was lying, for example, is possible. So is Smith finding a stack of lead roofing tiles in somebody's barn, making a prop out of them, and using that prop to hoodwink a few people, after recruiting a few others as confederates. So is hypnosis plus a bag of sand.

Does "possible" count as "coherent"? Does it count as coherent, in particular, if there are points in the hypothetical explanation that seem somewhat unlikely?

Maybe not, if we were talking about ordinary history, and trying to decide whether Joseph Smith voted Whig or Democrat one year. There's not much precedent for people concocting elaborate frauds just to conceal their voting preferences, so we tend to prefer explanations that involve people doing only things that people normally do. There's an awful lot of precedent, however, for people concocting elaborate frauds in order to win prestige and luxury by persuading others that they have supernatural powers. So in a case like Joseph Smith's, I think we really do have to take fraud seriously as an explanation.

And it is the very nature of fraud to do unusual things. Fraud works precisely because it is based on things that no-one expects, because people don't usually do them. So things that would normally count as unlikely are actually likely, for fraud. That includes erasing evidence in ways that people normally never do.

So asking a skeptic to provide evidence for Smith's supposed fake lead plates is a lot like asking a Mormon where exactly Moroni took the plates, when he took them back, and how he got them there. It is the inherent nature of angels to do things in ways that mortals don't understand. So it's unreasonable to say, "I'll believe in your angel theory, if you can just explain exactly how angels move metal objects to heaven." Or, "Mormon theories that an angel took back the plates are incoherent, because they don't explain exactly how the angel did that." That's a bizarre objection, whether you believe in the angel or not.

In the same way it's bizarre and unreasonable to object to fraud theories, just because we can't find evidence to show exactly how Smith worked the fraud, or think of a way that the fraud could have happened without anyone doing anything weird. It's the inherent nature of fraud, that people do unexpected things and then cover their tracks.

[jkwilliams]

57 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't understand.  The three basic categories for explaining the origins of the Plates are:

• A) Joseph Smith (either alone or as part of a cabal) fabricated them (or lied about their existence) because he was insane/deluded;
• B) Joseph Smith (either along or as part of a cabal) fabricated them (or lied about their existence) because he was intending to deceive/defraud others, and was generally acting in bad faith; or
• C) Joseph Smith's published statements about the origins of the Plates are correct.

Human beings are so much more complicated than that, aren't they? 

[RevTestament]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I am not quite sure what a "moral law," is or could be, or how to define it. We know what is moral and what is immoral but that is a different question. Are moral laws real? Are they closing around somewhere in space? Who made the moral laws? Did we agree to any of them?

That is actually a really good question Mark, and thinking about it slightly, I can say, that yes, I believe we probably did agree to them. I believe that as part of the rules for coming here, that yes, we did agree to certain preset rules of justice - that we would all be treated equally under the law of God. You have brought up something for me that I have never quite thought about that way...

Quote

I think more in terms of moral practices. Looking at this from both of secular side in the religious side one can say that on one hand God gave us the rules for a peaceful society and on the other hand that they evolve as practices which have been found to work.

The bottom line for me is that that's exactly what they are. They are rules which society has found are necessary to regulate Behavior.

Theists typically takes them to be given by God.  The secularist may believe that they have evolved. I of course am a theist. But with the notion found in Mormonism of a human God and a string of God's going back into Infinity those distinctions become quite blurry.

But if you're definition of moral law is simply the idea of a principle which always works to produce peace in society then we are in agreement.

Well, that is a good way to put it I think - a preset set of rules which we agree to abide by rather than knocking each other's heads off when we disagree....

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Can you share which Josiah Stowell account you find important on the subject, I would like a reminder. 

His testimony in the court case. He was at the Smith home the night Joseph went to Cumorah to get the plates. Here's his statement:

Quote

Josiah Stowel, being by me sworn, saith, he has been acquainted with Smith, the prisoner, for quite a number of years; that he did pretend to tell, by looking in a stone, or glass, where money and goods and mines were in a manner peculiar to himself; the prisoner had followed digging for money; pretended to find mines, hid treasures, and lost goods, and frequently others would be digging with him; says that about three years since, prisoner was put under arrest by an officer at Bainbridge in Chenango county, for breaking the peace, and that he escaped from the officer and went to Palmyra; and that about two years since, witness was at Palmyra, and saw prisoner; that prisoner told witness, that the Lord had told prisoner that a golden Bible was in a certain hill; that Smith, the prisoner, went in the night, and brought the Bible, (as Smith said;) witness saw a corner of it; it resembled a stone of a greenish caste; should judge it to have been about one foot square and six inches thick; he would not let it be seen by any one; the Lord had commanded him not; it was unknown to Smith, that witness saw a corner of the Bible, so called by Smith; told the witness the leaves were of gold; there were written characters on the leaves; prisoner was commanded to translate the same by the Lord; and from the Bible got from the hill, as aforesaid, the prisoner said he translated the book of Mormon; prisoner put a certain stone into his hat, put his face into the crown, then drew the brim of the hat around his head to prevent light-he could then see, as prisoner said, and translate the same, the Bible, got from the hill in Palmyra, at the same time under a lock and in a chest; and the prisoner, when looking for money, salt springs, hid treasures, &c., looked in the same manner; did not know that prisoner could find money lost, &c.; and that prisoner told witness after he was arrested in Bainbridge, he would not look for money, &c. any more; told witness he could see into the earth forty or fifty feet," &c. 

Here's a link to a copy. (Emphasis mine in the above) Now Stowell isn't completely impartial since of course he remained a Mormon until his death even though he didn't go to Ohio with the Mormons.

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I do think its interesting that you want to agree with Ingersoll's statement about the Smith family farm, but you want to disagree with his statement about the plates.  This seems to be an example of selectively agreeing with those elements that confirm your bias, but disagreeing with those that run contrary.  

Not following you here. What do you mean about the Smith farm? I don't think I've mentioned that.

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm not at all comfortable distilling the options down to these three scenarios.  Its so much more complicated.  

He could have fabricated the plates for altruistic purposes.  He could have been partly deluded, he practiced folk magic which was somewhat common and seemed real to many in this time period.  Do we think everyone who believed in folk magic is deluded?  How do we characterize other religious groups that have different views about reality than we do?  How do Mormons think about those that believe in reincarnation, or the Eucharist.  Do we think they are deluded?  

I don't like using the term fraud when discussing these things.  

Good motives for fraud don't make it any less fraud. I'm not sure what you mean about folk magic here. Certainly that affects ones beliefs regarding what an object can do but not its appearance that I can see. It seems to me you're conflating several separate issues here: motive, appearance, function.

[clarkgoble]

30 minutes ago, Physics Guy said:

A coherent naturalistic explanation for the plates—or rather, for the recorded statements about the plates—may be difficult to provide.

No maybe about it. There is no satisfactory explanation in terms of public evidence everyone accepts.

Quote

Does "possible" count as "coherent"? Does it count as coherent, in particular, if there are points in the hypothetical explanation that seem somewhat unlikely?

I certainly have no trouble with the point you raise. For instance as I mentioned in one of the threads recently I'm fine with reading Vogel as an apologist for the naturalist position. My point isn't that people adopting these positions are behaving irrationally. My point is more they're doing exactly the same sorts of things Mormon apologists do with horses, metal, and so forth. But that's not a criticism of their positions.

Quote

And it is the very nature of fraud to do unusual things. Fraud works precisely because it is based on things that no-one expects, because people don't usually do them. So things that would normally count as unlikely are actually likely, for fraud. That includes erasing evidence in ways that people normally never do.

Certainly you're right. People being taken in by fraud will sometimes come up with outrageous explanations to justify to themselves they've not been acting irrationally. I don't disagree with any of that. I do think that (1) critics are often too loath to forthrightly embrace the fraud claim and (2) everyone ought recognize there's not enough data to really know what's going on. 

Quote

So asking a skeptic to provide evidence for Smith's supposed fake lead plates is a lot like asking a Mormon where exactly Moroni took the plates, when he took them back, and how he got them there.

Exactly. Again my point is that both sides are more or less doing the same sort of thing. Now of course the critic might raise the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" to make Moroni plausible. Again I'm fine with that. I'm not saying the non-Mormon ought believe based upon the public evidence. I am saying that in terms of the public evidence it's not at all clear Joseph was either fraudulent or delusional and that either conclusion involves problematic leaps from the evidence.

[smac97]

40 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Quote

• A) Joseph Smith (either alone or as part of a cabal) fabricated them (or lied about their existence) because he was insane/deluded;
• B) Joseph Smith (either along or as part of a cabal) fabricated them (or lied about their existence) because he was intending to deceive/defraud others, and was generally acting in bad faith; or
• C) Joseph Smith's published statements about the origins of the Plates are correct.

Human beings are so much more complicated than that, aren't they? 

Yes.  And yet despite those complications, we still end up with the above three scenarios.  Those are the potential conclusions to be reached.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Nevo]

25 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Now Stowell isn't completely impartial since of course he remained a Mormon until his death even though he didn't go to Ohio with the Mormons.

Okay, but how is Stowell saying that he saw something resembling a greenish stone evidence that Joseph had metal plates? 

[clarkgoble]

15 minutes ago, Nevo said:

Okay, but how is Stowell saying that he saw something resembling a greenish stone evidence that Joseph had metal plates? 

He also talks about gold foil.

The gold plates almost certainly aren't pure gold and he's describing a patina on the plates which are an alloy. The Mormon position has for many decades been that they were an alloy. Many assume a mixture of copper and gold. That alloy can have a green patina.  

Edited September 28, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Nevo]

7 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

He also talks about gold foil.

Where does he do that?

Anyway, I just find it odd that he would describe a metal book as resembling a stone in appearance, patina or not.

Edited September 28, 2017 by Nevo

[Physics Guy]

58 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

 In terms of the public evidence it's not at all clear Joseph was either fraudulent or delusional and ... either conclusion involves problematic leaps from the evidence.

I'd agree, except that I don't find the leaps from the evidence to be problematic. The fraud theory accounts coherently, to me, for some leaping: people got duped or were in on the fraud. The fraud theory is not infinitely elastic about how much leaping it allows, though. It expects the leaping to fit certain patterns.

The fraud theory expects, for example, that dupes and confederates will be more likely to affirm their belief in somewhat cagey ways, with loopholes and vagueness and outs, because the fraudster never wants to push people too hard for fear of making them balk. Fraud expects group affirmations of official stories, so that everyone can go along with the praise of the emperor's clothes, rather than individual witnesses making detailed statements independently and spontaneously. Fraud expects dupes to be furnished by perpetrators with concocted fake evidence, but in limited form, with controlled access and for a limited time. Fraud expects confederates and perpetrators to benefit from the fraud, whereas dupes will eventually lose. Fraud expects dupes to show a track record of gullibility before and even after the particular fraud in question, whereas perpetrators should show a track record of dishonesty or deviousness.

None of those expectations is a hard and fast rule about what must invariably happen in any fraud, but together they add up to a set of tendencies that can be compared with evidence, even when the face value of the evidence is being denied. To me, by all these softer criteria, Joseph Smith comes off looking very suspicious, because he conforms to the fraud expectations alarmingly well.

The angel theory seems to me to lack this kind of softer comparison with evidence. Fraud expectations are based on ample experience, but we have too little experience of genuine angels and prophets to frame even soft expectations of how they should behave, or how people should deal with them. To the extent that I do have any such expectations, they're generally opposite to my expectations for fraudsters, and Joseph Smith does not seem to fit them.

Edited September 28, 2017 by Physics Guy

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

What I meant was that the naturalistic explanations presented so far have been "all speculation and guesswork."

When reconstructing history based on limited information there are some events that are easier to reconstruct with a certain level of confidence and others with less confidence.  I wouldn't call it speculation and guesswork, that again is disparaging these scholarly disciplines.  What armchair quarterbacks outside the profession disciplines (like you and I) are doing is more like speculation and guesswork.  

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

So either there were physical artifacts answering the general description of "plates," or there weren't.

If there were such plates, either they were fraudulent/fabricated, or they weren't.

If they were fraudulent/fabricated, then Joseph Smith was either deluded/insane or fraudulent/dishonest (or, I suppose, he was a dupe).

If they weren't fraudulent/fabricated, they were either an amazing ancient artifact that Joseph Smith (or someone working with him) found, or else . . . the plates were what Joseph claimed them to be.

Those seem like the principal options.

Some of these questions are binary and should be treated as such, but I think you're confusing those kinds of questions with questions about motivation when you add words like fraudulent to the conversation.  Yes, you can ask the question whether Joseph manufactured the plates (either himself or someone else in the 19th century) or these were plates of ancient american origins that Joseph just discovered, but didn't manufacture.  

What about Ann Taves approach, that Joseph may have seen plates in his mind's eye (visionary experience) something that was very real but that he never actually possessed.  This would be similar to the scroll of John that resulted in D&C 7 that Joseph saw, but that he never tangibly touched in this world, but that he saw in vision and translated.  Taves hypothesis is that Joseph may have created some physical prop to symbolize these tangible plates, but that the real plates for Joseph were the ones in vision that he and other witnesses saw in vision.  For me this is a very persuasive hypothesis and allows for a more complicated Joseph Smith story, but that doesn't have to attribute any kind of fraud labels on him.

 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, FearlessFixxer said:

I see what you are saying and I don't totally disagree.  There would be people who would leave, but when the dust settles then I think in the long term it would be a net positive to membership numbers.  I could be wrong.

Have you paid attention to what is going on in the Community of Christ church?

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

There are accounts of people saying that Martin never saw the plates physically. Martin himself never said that. None of the other witnesses said that they only saw the plates spiritually either. Joseph himself never said that there was sand rather than plates in the box or bag. If you note, the witnesses that you quote actually contradict each other. One  said sand and one said lead, and one said Joseph told him nothing was in the box.

We don't have a direct quote from Martin in 1838, we have second hand accounts.  We also don't have a direct quote from Martin saying that he saw the plates physically, the three witness experience was visionary.  Actually, some of the David Whitmer statements sounds like spiritual only statements from what I've read, but there are others that lean more physical.  Would we expect Joseph to admit something like this, and I already said there are contradicting statements, you're really reaching here.  

2 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

In your zeal you forgot to mention that this was a suit brought against Joseph by Lucy Harris who said that Joseph's only design was to get her husband's money.

I mentioned this in my post, go back and read it again.  I have no "zeal on this matter.    

2 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

And you forgot to mention that what you seem to be something that causes reasonable doubt is something that the justice hearing the case felt was patently untenable, tore up the affidavits, and dismissed the case. Do you really feel that you are in a better position to make a judgement on that?

So there wasn't a legal precedent for any laws broken, what does this mean, should all religious claims be judged by the law?  

2 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Joseph, at an early stage had people ready and willing to lie under oath about him. Nor were some all too careful with the law.

Take for instance the many legal trials that Joseph went through. Brigham Young said that Joseph went through forty-eight of them. The only action that I am aware of that was successful was civil suit concerning the Kirtland Safety Society.  In 1830 Joseph was put through two trials basically on the same charges in New York, being a disorderly person, etc.. The first was in Bainbridge, Chenango County where twelve witnesses were called against him. He was defended by a non-Mormon by the name of John Reed who crossed them up and Joseph was acquitted, but was immediately arrested again on the same charges and dragged to Colesville to stand trial again. This time there were thirty witnesses, and again John Reed showed them up.

Now if you feel it is more reasonable to take contradictory, second hand accounts about situations rather than the actual words of the people involved, that is your privilege. You and I just have a different viewpoint on what is reasonable.

I'm not really interested in making this a legal debate.  Although I think you're forgetting the time in Nauvoo where he punched someone and was found guilty of that, if you don't know what I'm talking about and want a reference I'll do a little searching.  

There are contradictory accounts, that's the point.  We have to measure these accounts with the evidence.  I'm not claiming the evidence is clear, I said that I don't have a strong opinion on this.  The danger is looking for only evidence that supports our predetermined assumptions and biases.  If you're willing to accept certain second hand accounts at preference against other second hand accounts, and you don't have any rational for why those accounts are preferable, other than you like what they say, then your argument isn't built on strong reasoning, its built on your bias.  

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

And yet if we go through those complications, we'll still end up at these three scenarios.  Right?  There really aren't other conclusions available.  I'm open to correction on this point, so I would like to hear what you have to say.

I answered some of this in another post to you just a minute ago talking about Taves thesis, see that post.  

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Right.  So he was deluded/insane and fraudulent (this is, I think, often characterized as a "pious fraud" claim).

It sounds like you are operating within those three scenarios, after all.

I don't like using the word delusion, I'm trying to get you to see that judging people through our present lens of understanding and calling people frauds who honestly came by very different assumptions about the world, is unfair and uncharitable.  

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Same here.  But these are matters of faith, about which we can be correct or not correct, which which are pretty much beyond any sort of testablity.

In contrast, we are talking here about physical artifacts.  The plates.  Either they existed, or they did not.  Either they were authentically ancient, or they were not.  We have evidence as to the existence of the plates, and their weight and appearance and so on.

Some of these questions I addressed in my last post to you, but I do think we're approaching this from different angles for the most part.  I'm trying to understand your position, but its hard for me on some of these because it sounds to me like you are confusing faith claims and motivational claims with factual claims.