"Inspired Fiction" v. The Plates & The Witnesses

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Physics Guy said:

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.

I have a hard time going to a strict fraud explanation, and even critical researchers like a Vogel for example give Joseph the benefit of the doubt as a pious fraud.  I just don't think very many people exist in this world that we can caricature in this way.  People are complex, and the more we research the human mind the more we understand that even within the brain we have competing interests (look into split brain studies). 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split-brain

Joseph was sincerely moved and cried after he baptized his dad.   Was he so glad that he has just tricked his Dad into believing in his fraudulent endeavor that he cried out of some kind of joy that he had deceived his dad?  Joseph was a complicated person, experienced childhood trauma (leg operations, deaths of siblings, poverty, religious strife in the family).  Joseph was a human being, with multiple personality facets.  Fraud is used in financial legal discussions.  Are there elements of some of Joseph's activities that could be considered fraudulent, yes, absolutely, but I hesitate labeling the person a "fraud" when it comes to all of his religious endeavors.  

[smac97]

20 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

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 quite agree.  I have very little confidence in the reconstructions offered by the "Inspired Fiction" folks.  They are not based on competent evidence or historiography, and are instead entirely based on sheer guesswork and speculation.

20 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I wouldn't call it speculation and guesswork, that again is disparaging these scholarly disciplines. 

I am not speaking of "scholarly disciplines."  I was referring to the naturalistic explanations presented so far, which have plainly been "all speculation and guesswork."  See Bushman's and Smoot's assessment of Brodie and Vogel and others.

If you disagree, then by all means prove me wrong.  Please show me a naturalistic explanation for the origins of the Book of Mormon which is not "all speculation and guesswork."  That functions within standard historiographical norms.  I'm all ears.

20 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

What armchair quarterbacks outside the profession disciplines (like you and I) are doing is more like speculation and guesswork.  

I think it is entirely possible for "scholars" to present crapola as "scholarship."  They are not some separate species.  They are subject to the same sorts of prejudices and limitations as the rest of us.

20 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

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. 

Not really.  Joseph Smith could have been a malevolent fraud, or a well-intentioned fraud.  Or he may have been deluded/insane, such that he could not formulate fraudulent intent.  Or he could have been duped.  Nevertheless, there is a manifest discrepancy between what Joseph Smith said about the Plates and what the "Inspired Folks" are proposing.  There are only so many permutations as to how this discrepancy can be explained.

20 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

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. 

That theory doesn't account for the statements of the Witnesses, or the character of the Witnesses as indicated in Anderson's Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses.  In fact, that theory contradicts that historiographical evidence.

If anything, Taves' approach is less coherent, not more, than Vogel's.  At least he attempts to account for the evidence.

20 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

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. 

So not only was Joseph Smith deluded, but so where the Three Witnesses?  And the Eight? 

And then when several of these witnesses became estranged from Joseph Smith, none of them came forward and exposed the whole ordeal as being a mass delusion?  They all remained befuddled to the end of their days?

All twelve men were collectively tricked?  By whom?  How many people were involved?

20 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

For me this is a very persuasive hypothesis

Why?  Is it that God tricked these men, and tricked them into seeing things that weren't there?  Surely that can't be what you are advocating, since at the beginning of your post you said: "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'd say evidence-free guesswork about mass delusions involving twelve different men, many of whom later had all sorts of reasons to recant their previous statements, is something that should be met with "less confidence."

So what approach are you taking here?  Why are you privileging Tave's evidence-free conjecture over competent (but clearly still disputable) first-hand and contemporary evidence?  I do not understand your approach at all.

20 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

and allows for a more complicated Joseph Smith story, but that doesn't have to attribute any kind of fraud labels on him.

Yes, it does.  What Taves is describing is a "pious fraud" theory.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

22 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

Joseph Smith said X about the Plates.  You are proposing a Not-X theory about the Plates.  Part of that theory must therefore account for the discrepancy between X and Not-X.  You can't just sidestep the ramifications of the Not-X theory because they are uncomfortable.  That is what the "Inspired Fiction" folks seem to do.  In spades.  But it only demonstrates the innate problems with the theory.  Smoot sums it up this way:

Quote

No matter how ingenious, or sympathetic, these attempts to deny the Book of Mormon’s historicity and yet maintain its “inspiration” may be, they simply don’t work. The logical flaws in any Inspired Fiction reading of the Book of Mormon are not only too numerous and fail to account for the historical evidence concerning the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, but also grotesquely deform the Book of Mormon into something neither it nor its millions of faithful adherents ever claimed it to be. “For a variety of reasons,” Givens succinctly explains, “such efforts [to read the Book of Mormon as inspired fiction] may be well intentioned, but they are untenable.”

"Well intentioned, but ... untenable."

That about sums it up.

Quote

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.  

"Motivational" claims can be part of "factual" claims (as evidenced by . . . your own assessment of motivations).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 28, 2017 by smac97

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

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.

Thanks for the link.  Isn't Stowell saying that he saw a corner of the "plates" and that it "resembled a stone of a greenish caste; should judge it to have been about one foot square and six inches thick".  From that description by Stowell, what he saw differs from what Joseph told him about the plates.  He saw a stone of greenish cast and he describes the object in terms of size, but doesn't say anything about metal or sheets or plates from his description all those descriptors come from what Joseph told him about the object, not from Stowell's personal description, if I'm reading this statement correctly.  

 

[ksfisher]

7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks for the link.  Isn't Stowell saying that he saw a corner of the "plates" and that it "resembled a stone of a greenish caste; should judge it to have been about one foot square and six inches thick".  From that description by Stowell, what he saw differs from what Joseph told him about the plates.  He saw a stone of greenish cast and he describes the object in terms of size, but doesn't say anything about metal or sheets or plates from his description all those descriptors come from what Joseph told him about the object, not from Stowell's personal description, if I'm reading this statement correctly.  

 

It should be noted that we do not have Stowell's account.  What we have is John K Nobel's account of what Stowell said.  Yes, Nobel is a Justice of the Peace, but the account is still second hand. 

[hope_for_things]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I quite agree.  I have very little confidence in the reconstructions offered by the "Inspired Fiction" folks.  They are not based on competent evidence or historiography, and are instead entirely based on sheer guesswork and speculation.

It sounds like you've set up camp with a certain tribe and that's fine, I just don't consider this objective thinking that's open to evidence based arguments.  

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am not speaking of "scholarly disciplines."  I was referring to the naturalistic explanations presented so far, which have plainly been "all speculation and guesswork."  See Bushman's and Smoot's assessment of Brodie and Vogel and others.

If you disagree, then by all means prove me wrong.  Please show me a naturalistic explanation for the origins of the Book of Mormon which is not "all speculation and guesswork."  That functions within standard historiographical norms.  I'm all ears.

I mentioned this earlier, the Taves hypothesis is the most convincing to me.  You can read some of in an essay she wrote, and more of it in her latest book, Revelatory Events.  

http://www.religion.ucsb.edu/wp-content/uploads/B-6-Golden-Plates-Numen.pdf

https://www.amazon.com/Revelatory-Events-Studies-Emergence-Spiritual/dp/0691152896/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1506635064&sr=8-1&keywords=revelatory+events

Other than that, I would issue a similar challenge in that I'm not familiar with any supernatural explanations that make any reasonable sense to me.  I'd be interested in knowing what you think the most reasonable explanation for the existence of the plates from a logical argument perspective.  The burden of responsibility for a plausible explanation for the plates existence rests primarily on the shoulders of those who make these kinds of claims, and not on the shoulders of those who question these claims.  I haven't read any theories that have convinced me, so I'd be interested in knowing what explanation you find the most credible.  

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That theory doesn't account for the statements of the Witnesses, or the character of the Witnesses as indicated in Anderson's Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses.  In fact, that theory contradicts that historiographical evidence.

If anything, Taves' approach is less coherent, not more, than Vogel's.  At least he attempts to account for the evidence.

I don't think you've understood Taves hypothesis, because I don't remember her talking about the witnesses.  How would the witnesses know whether the plates they saw (either in vision or in the physical world) were of ancient origins or manufactured by Joseph?  Also, can you explain why you think Vogel's theory accounts for the evidence better than Taves, I'm interested in understanding this better.  

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Why?  Is it that God tricked these men, and tricked them into seeing things that weren't there?  Surely that can't be what you are advocating, since at the beginning of your post you said: "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'd say evidence-free guesswork about mass delusions involving twelve different men, many of whom later had all sorts of reasons to recant their previous statements, is something that should be met with "less confidence."

So what approach are you taking here?  Why are you privileging Tave's evidence-free conjecture over competent (but clearly still disputable) first-hand and contemporary evidence?  I do not understand your approach at all.

What someone sees in vision, I can't explain.  Who knows what it is, its a vision/dream inside your mind.  Is it real in the tangible world or not, who can say.  Doesn't mean God tricked them.  There are multiple people that have attested to all kinds of supernatural phenomena throughout history.  I don't think that means they are automatically frauds or deluded or conspiring.  

Also, first hand witness statements are notoriously inaccurate, and science has been showing evidence of this quite a bit in recent years.  We should doubt first hand witness statements for their ability to recall factually accurate information.  

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Physics Guy said:

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.

Again, I don't either anymore than I find the leaps for horses or metal problematic.

Quote

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.

And the historicity theory assumes words don't necessarily get translated the way people expected, points to existing words for things like bows, horses and so forth and how they are used for pre-columbian items.

All sides have explanations for why their model isn't irrational.

Quote

To me, by all these softer criteria, Joseph Smith comes off looking very suspicious, because he conforms to the fraud expectations alarmingly well.

And to believers Joseph Smith comes off looking very plausible due to the way minority religions and beliefs were treated in 19th century America.

Quote

The angel theory seems to me to lack this kind of softer comparison with evidence.

I'm not sure I buy that. Look at what happens with people with a big variance towards the mainstream religious expectations of a location. Mormons were hardly the only religion to face mobs nor to have religious figures lied about. In contrast to the usual LDS narrative of unique persecution, I'd argue that Catholics faced far worse treatment than Mormons. A convent near Bunker Hill was burnt to the ground in 1834 by a mob who believed reports of abuse in the school. In Philadelphia the Bible Riots of 1844 burned houses and churches with at least 20 people killed again wrapped up with conspiracy theories. Treatment and conspiracy of Jews during this era is of course rather well known as well. There were expulsion orders of Jews from Tennessee again tied to conspiracy theories. Physical assaults were commonplace as were false charges. Much like Mormons faced in Missouri there were attempts by state governments to prevent Jewish voting. With these persecutions you find the clever use of mobs and the courts to legitimize the persecution, much as with Mormons.

If Joseph's history parallels expectations of fraud it also parallels expectations of persecution with associated lies. Trumped up charges were a rather common fixture of 19th century life. Especially with unpopular political or religious movements. 

Edited September 28, 2017 by clarkgoble

[hope_for_things]

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Joseph Smith said X about the Plates.  You are proposing a Not-X theory about the Plates.  Part of that theory must therefore account for the discrepancy between X and Not-X.  You can't just sidestep the ramifications of the Not-X theory because they are uncomfortable.  That is what the "Inspired Fiction" folks seem to do.  In spades.  But it only demonstrates the innate problems with the theory.  Smoot sums it up this way:

Warning, small rant here because you're getting under my skin.  Who said I couldn't account for it.  It came from Joseph's mind, he dictated it after all.  What is there that can't be accounted for?  It's the historicity proponents that have literally no evidence for historicity that can't account for the BoM's claims.  No Israelites in America, no evidence for Nephites and Lamanites anywhere, anytime, anyhow.  They keep shrinking the models to try and explain away the lack of evidence.  There are a gazillion models for BoM lands, but no actual evidence other than geographical parallels.  Its crazy, honestly, and your claims are getting frustrating. 

No legitimate scientists have found anything credible to support BoM claims for historicity, and no, its not some conspiracy against poor persecuted Mormons, its just the reality.  Join the real world people.  Believe what you want to believe as a matter of faith only, you won't find scholarly evidence to support these kinds of claims, don't look for it, that's the delusion.  Find evidence for spiritual claims and how these claims work in your life, but don't look for the science to support your world view, its not that Satan has co-opted the academy and is suppressing the evidence, its not that God is keeping the evidence hidden so that people of faith have to exercise real faith in him, its that there is no evidence it doesn't exist.  

[clarkgoble]

36 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks for the link.  Isn't Stowell saying that he saw a corner of the "plates" and that it "resembled a stone of a greenish caste; should judge it to have been about one foot square and six inches thick".  From that description by Stowell, what he saw differs from what Joseph told him about the plates. 

I don't think that's accurate. It all depends upon how to take the later line. It's worth noting that Stowell accepted Joseph's statements about the plates. So if he was arguing they didn't line up that wouldn't make a whole lot of sense. Also, as Kingfisher noted, we don't have a verbatum transcript but a summary by a third person. I read it as his describing what he saw and asserting it was gold plates. i.e. the metal had a rock like appearance much like that photo I posted.

[ksfisher]

10 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

 

No legitimate scientists have found anything credible to support BoM claims for historicity,

The Book of Mormon, first and foremost, is a religious document.  To understand it it has to be approached from that perspective.  (You could also try reading the works of Gardner and Sorenson, but I doubt you consider them "legitimate.")

Legitimate scientists have found no evidence of Christ's birth, death, or resurrection.  Even the second and third hand accounts we have of Him are from documents that are copies of copies. 

If we approach anything that demands faith to accept from a scientific perspective none of this makes sense.  It is only when we first have faith that our understanding is opened.

[hope_for_things]

9 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I don't think that's accurate. It all depends upon how to take the later line. It's worth noting that Stowell accepted Joseph's statements about the plates. So if he was arguing they didn't line up that wouldn't make a whole lot of sense. Also, as Kingfisher noted, we don't have a verbatum transcript but a summary by a third person. I read it as his describing what he saw and asserting it was gold plates. i.e. the metal had a rock like appearance much like that photo I posted.

Nevo seems to agree with me that this statement does not prove anything with respect to what Stowell was saying about the plates.  Listen to the wording from the transcript again.  The witness is Stowell, and the words of person recording this court record say that Smith "told the witness the leaves were of gold; there were written characters on the leaves;"  Throughout the record the "witness" is Stowell and the "prisoner" is Smith.  I think its clear which parts are referring to Stowell's testimony of what he saw himself, that is the part about the green cast stone, and the parts that Joseph Smith told to Stowell.  He even mentions that Smith didn't know that Stowell saw part of the plates and that the Lord commanded Smith to not let anyone see them.  

Also, he said a "stone of a greenish caste", not a green object made of metal like a copper or something else.  You're making a conjecture, but that is not what the testimony states.  

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Other than that, I would issue a similar challenge in that I'm not familiar with any supernatural explanations that make any reasonable sense to me.  I'd be interested in knowing what you think the most reasonable explanation for the existence of the plates from a logical argument perspective.  The burden of responsibility for a plausible explanation for the plates existence rests primarily on the shoulders of those who make these kinds of claims, and not on the shoulders of those who question these claims.  I haven't read any theories that have convinced me, so I'd be interested in knowing what explanation you find the most credible. 

If you don't have any evidence for what you call the supernatural then of course nothing will be convincing for it. I'm not aware of any public evidence for the supernatural since of course it'd immediately be called natural. LOL. Which is why I hate the supernatural/natural distinction since it's not terribly helpful. I'll use it simply because it's completely sensical to be skeptical of people with technological abilities we don't have.

Quote

I don't think you've understood Taves hypothesis, because I don't remember her talking about the witnesses.  How would the witnesses know whether the plates they saw (either in vision or in the physical world) were of ancient origins or manufactured by Joseph?  Also, can you explain why you think Vogel's theory accounts for the evidence better than Taves, I'm interested in understanding this better. 

She discusses them in her book on pages 39-40 and 65.

Both Vogel and Taves require dismissing the eight witnesses and related witnesses more than I think the evidence warrants. To be fair, I'm not sure Vogel and Taves have that different of views at this point. Vogel pushes a hypothetical view of the 8 having only a spiritual (i.e. imaginary) view of the plates although he allows for the possibility of real plates of some sort out of tin or lead. The key difference between Taves and Vogel relies on a questionable reading of Jesse Smith's statement that Joseph "has eyes to see things that are not, and then has the audacity to say they are." i.e. their models are pretty similar they only differ as to whether the plates function for Joseph in a fashion akin to the eucharist in Catholicism. The problem for Taves is the lack of any explicit comment that really gets to that functionality. She postulates that Joseph, like the witnesses, bring themselves to be able to see items in this way. (She discusses this around page 65) 

Quite the contrary to seeing Taves as offering a new position to me she offers just a slight variant on the traditional merger of delusion and fraud that goes back to Brodie if not before. (Although to be fair Brodie dates the transition between fraud to delusion as much later than Taves)

 

 

Edited September 28, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

23 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Also, he said a "stone of a greenish caste", not a green object made of metal like a copper or something else.  You're making a conjecture, but that is not what the testimony states.  

That's fair although fits with the description in the record. Again though the question becomes why Stowell himself doesn't see a conflict. To read it as implying a conflict is at odds with Stowell's own behavior. Taves reading more or less has Stowell seeing it as both stone and metal with the latter being the spiritual nature of rock. I'm just denying that sort of dualism as a natural way to read the text. To me the only reasonable interpretations are either it was both metal and green rock looking as descriptions or Stowell intrinsically thought Joseph was lying about what he saw. Taves theory of an inner eye view seems deeply questionable to me.

Edited September 28, 2017 by clarkgoble

[hope_for_things]

27 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

The Book of Mormon, first and foremost, is a religious document.  To understand it it has to be approached from that perspective.  (You could also try reading the works of Gardner and Sorenson, but I doubt you consider them "legitimate.")

Legitimate scientists have found no evidence of Christ's birth, death, or resurrection.  Even the second and third hand accounts we have of Him are from documents that are copies of copies. 

If we approach anything that demands faith to accept from a scientific perspective none of this makes sense.  It is only when we first have faith that our understanding is opened.

I like Gardner a lot and respect what he's doing, definitely one of my favorite scholars who also is employed by the church.  Sorenson, I don't find his work as persuasive.  

I largely agree with everything else you said.  Faith claims are and should be independent from fact claims.  Our understanding spirituality will be opened up, but not our understanding about historical facts, that understanding is separate from spiritual understanding.  

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

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.  

Hi Clark. Is this a picture of an actual gold alloy item? If so, can you provide it's source? Thanks.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

If you don't have any evidence for what you call the supernatural then of course nothing will be convincing for it. I'm not aware of any public evidence for the supernatural since of course it'd immediately be called natural. LOL. Which is why I hate the supernatural/natural distinction since it's not terribly helpful. I'll use it simply because it's completely sensical to be skeptical of people with technological abilities we don't have.

I largely agree with this, and it's why I told smac97 that most scholars table the faith claims altogether.  But he continues to want to debate faith claims as if they can be lined up against naturalistic theories even though these two methods of orientation are clearly different.  

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

She discusses them in her book on pages 39-40 and 65.

Both Vogel and Taves require dismissing the eight witnesses and related witnesses more than I think the evidence warrants. To be fair, I'm not sure Vogel and Taves have that different of views at this point. Vogel pushes a hypothetical view of the 8 having only a spiritual (i.e. imaginary) view of the plates although he allows for the possibility of real plates of some sort out of tin or lead. The key difference between Taves and Vogel relies on a questionable reading of Jesse Smith's statement that Joseph "has eyes to see things that are not, and then has the audacity to say they are." i.e. their models are pretty similar they only differ as to whether the plates function for Joseph in a fashion akin to the eucharist in Catholicism. The problem for Taves is the lack of any explicit comment that really gets to that functionality. She postulates that Joseph, like the witnesses, bring themselves to be able to see items in this way. (She discusses this around page 65) 

Quite the contrary to seeing Taves as offering a new position to me she offers just a slight variant on the traditional merger of delusion and fraud that goes back to Brodie if not before.

Thanks for the pages reference, I just read that section again.  I don't know where Vogel's argument is specifically articulated to compare and contrast, is it in his biography on JS or somewhere else?  

As for the eight witnesses there are problems with taking their experience as a tangible/physical experience.  Also, can you explain how you would read the Jesse Smith statement?  

I like Taves construction because it removes fraud from the discussion and bridges a conversation between believers and non believers.  It's not perfect, but has been praised by many Mormons and I appreciate her work and the respectful approach she takes.  

[Glenn101]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

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

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

4. 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.  

5. 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.  

1. On Martin Harris we have second and third hand accounts. The one where he supposedly said that the he saw the plates with his spiritual eyes is a third hand account. And it was made in 1827 and 1828, before Martin, David, and Oliver had their experience in 1829. How credible is that? Maybe some of David Whitmer's statements do sound like a spiritual only to you. But there is one where he said "Of course we were in the spirit when we had the view, for no man can behold the face of an angel, except in a spiritual view, but we were in the body also, and everything was as natural to us, as it is at any time." This was not a second hand account but in a letter he wrote to a gentleman named Anthony Metcalfe. 

2. Correct. Strike one on me.

3. We were not talking about religion. We were talking about a suit which was dismissed because of witnesses that the justice of the peace felt were incredible but which you seem to have some credibility.

4. You are correct. He had a run in with a tax collector who called him a liar. Joseph got out of the buggy that he was in whereupon the tax collector picked up a rock but Joseph punched the man two or three times, in front of witnesses, then went and admitted to the "skirmish" and paid a fine. Brigham must not have been around for that one. So we are at 48-1.

5. When there are contradictory accounts I tend to go with a primary accounts first and "preponderance of evidence" for both primary and secondary accounts. That is my rationale. Martin Harris is quoted by several different people at different times where he affirms that he saw the plates just as plainly as he saw his hands, etc.

Glenn

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

That's fair although fits with the description in the record. Again though the question becomes why Stowell himself doesn't see a conflict. To read it as implying a conflict is at odds with Stowell's own behavior. Taves reading more or less has Stowell seeing it as both stone and metal with the latter being the spiritual nature of rock. I'm just denying that sort of dualism as a natural way to read the text. To me the only reasonable interpretations are either it was both metal and green rock looking as descriptions or Stowell intrinsically thought Joseph was lying about what he saw.

I'm not sure we know what Stowell thought by 1829, perhaps he was starting to question Joseph's abilities, this was the second time he was called to testify in court for Joseph.  It just makes me wonder why his description of a green cast stone is given right along side with what Joseph told him about the description, from my reading the two descriptions are at odds with each other.  

Can you elaborate on Stowell's behavior, I'm not as familiar with his life story and what played out after this time period.

[hope_for_things]

18 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

1. On Martin Harris we have second and third hand accounts. The one where he supposedly said that the he saw the plates with his spiritual eyes is a third hand account. And it was made in 1827 and 1828, before Martin, David, and Oliver had their experience in 1829. How credible is that? Maybe some of David Whitmer's statements do sound like a spiritual only to you. But there is one where he said "Of course we were in the spirit when we had the view, for no man can behold the face of an angel, except in a spiritual view, but we were in the body also, and everything was as natural to us, as it is at any time." This was not a second hand account but in a letter he wrote to a gentleman named Anthony Metcalfe. 

2. Correct. Strike one on me.

3. We were not talking about religion. We were talking about a suit which was dismissed because of witnesses that the justice of the peace felt were incredible but which you seem to have some credibility.

4. You are correct. He had a run in with a tax collector who called him a liar. Joseph got out of the buggy that he was in whereupon the tax collector picked up a rock but Joseph punched the man two or three times, in front of witnesses, then went and admitted to the "skirmish" and paid a fine. Brigham must not have been around for that one. So we are at 48-1.

5. When there are contradictory accounts I tend to go with a primary accounts first and "preponderance of evidence" for both primary and secondary accounts. That is my rationale. Martin Harris is quoted by several different people at different times where he affirms that he saw the plates just as plainly as he saw his hands, etc.

Glenn

For Marin's claim about the eight witnesses seeing with spiritual eyes that was in Kirtland around 1838 I believe and there are two accounts of it as well as an apology from Martin for the impact of his statement and an attempted clarification.  All those elements add to the strength of the evidence.  

With Martin you need to look at his life after his break from Joseph and the many different claims he made and religious communities he identified with.  I recommend this essay.  

https://user.xmission.com/~research/mormonpdf/4martinharris.pdf

For David, I read that quote you gave as evidence he admits his experience was spiritual, but that he is asserting to its reality to him.  With David Whitmer the thing is, many LDS members want to selectively use his claims to bolster the LDS narrative, but if we are to believe him we need to consider the many claims he makes that poke serious holes in the LDS construction of Mormon history.  

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Hi Clark. Is this a picture of an actual gold alloy item? If so, can you provide it's source? Thanks.

https://www.paleodirect.com/pcx002-ancient-pre-columbian-death-mask-tumbaga-gold/

It's made of tumbaga which is what apologists since the 60's have thought the plates were made of.

I should add that it's quite possible and maybe even likely that the plates Mormon and Moroni wrote were made of different material than the small plates of Nephi. 

Edited September 29, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

40 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

For Marin's claim about the eight witnesses seeing with spiritual eyes that was in Kirtland around 1838 I believe and there are two accounts of it as well as an apology from Martin for the impact of his statement and an attempted clarification.  All those elements add to the strength of the evidence.  

Except the obvious question of how Martin would know they only saw it spiritually. So it's like you saying I didn't have an experience I claimed to have despite your not being there.

 

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I'm not sure we know what Stowell thought by 1829, perhaps he was starting to question Joseph's abilities, this was the second time he was called to testify in court for Joseph.  It just makes me wonder why his description of a green cast stone is given right along side with what Joseph told him about the description, from my reading the two descriptions are at odds with each other.  

Can you elaborate on Stowell's behavior, I'm not as familiar with his life story and what played out after this time period.

As I suggested, this can be reconciled by looking at Tumbunga which can have a green patina due to the copper content.

For Stowell FAIR has up a brief discussion: https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Question:_What_happened_to_Josiah_Stowell%3F_Did_he_conclude_he_had_been_defrauded_after_the_court_hearing%3F

[hope_for_things]

7 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Except the obvious question of how Martin would know they only saw it spiritually. So it's like you saying I didn't have an experience I claimed to have despite your not being there.

It's a legitimate question, how would Martin know about the eight witnesses experience, we don't have any evidences expanding on that question to my knowledge.  Seems plausible he may have talked to them about it, close knit early Mormon community.  That's just speculation on my part though.  

[hope_for_things]

11 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

As I suggested, this can be reconciled by looking at Tumbunga which can have a green patina due to the copper content.

For Stowell FAIR has up a brief discussion: https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Question:_What_happened_to_Josiah_Stowell%3F_Did_he_conclude_he_had_been_defrauded_after_the_court_hearing%3F

Thanks for the link on Stowell, sounds like he never had a fall out, but maybe wasn't an ardent follower, who knows.  

As for the Tumbunga I guess that's possible.  Could have been green lichen for all we know.  

[hope_for_things]

20 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

https://www.paleodirect.com/pcx002-ancient-pre-columbian-death-mask-tumbaga-gold/

It's made of tumbaga which is what apologists since the 60's have thought the plates were made of.

Why do apologists think the plates were made of this?  Is the Stowell account part of the reason, or is it the lighter weight of this alloy, or is there some evidence that this metal was used by ancient Americans?