What Kind of Reality for the Plates, on a Tavesian Hypothesis?

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

As for your question, I think Ann's hypothesis offers a good explanation for how Joseph could have manufactured/materialized something that he called plates, in order to represent something that he had seen in vision.  This physical material object or objects could have included metal objects, or bricks, or sand or a combination of those substances. 

What about the other Plates-related aspects of Joseph's narrative?  The multiple visitations by an angel?  The spot on the hill where they plates were buried?  The lever he used to lift up the stone?  The stone box?  How does Taves account for these details?  Did Joseph lie about these things?  Or was he deluded about them?  How does Taves account for them?

What about the other artifacts?  Did Joseph fabricate them, too?  How does Taves account for them?

What about the experience of the Three Witnesses?  How does Taves account for that?

7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I like to look at the example of Joseph's claim to be translating a document written by John the beloved apostle that was supposedly located far away in a cave, but that he saw with his spiritual eyes and translated. 

How can that be an example?  We have to take Joseph's word for it both times.

7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Did an actual document ever exist in the physical world?  We have no way of knowing. 

Correct.  The quantum of evidence for that document is very low.  Joseph's say-so.

But we have quite a different quantum as to the evidence for the plates.

7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Did it exist in Joseph's mind?  He claims it did and unless an actual document is found at some point in the future and matched up against Joseph's translation, we'll never know. 

Yep.  It's a question of faith.  Ultimately, so are the issues about the Plates (their authenticity and antiquity, the angelic visitations, the translation, the historicity of the events and persons described in the text, and so on).

7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The same applies to the plates, he saw them "by the power of God" in his mind's eye, and that is how he translated. 

Nope.  Not so.  The quantum of evidence is very, very different.  Joseph never claimed that he only saw them "in his mind's eye."  He claimed to have dug them out of the earth.  To have discovered them.  And kept them in his possession.  And ran way from others while carrying them.  And hid them.  And to have shown them to others.

So no, the same does not apply to the story about the plates.  The two narratives are quite different, both as to substance as to evidence.

7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

It was all through his mind. 

The translation process, yes.  But the physical reality of the plates was not "all through his mind."  

7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The physical object likely wasn't viewed in the flesh by anyone (I know some believe the evidence for the witnesses is strong, but I find it ambiguous).  

The Testimony of the Eight Witnesses is pretty straightforward:

Quote

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shown unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken. And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it.

"Has shown unto us the plates..."

"The appearance of Gold..."

"Many of the leaves...we did handle with our hands..."

"We also saw the engravings thereon..."

"Appearance of an ancient work . . . of curious workmanship..."

"We have seen and hefted..."

"We ... know of a surty that the said Smith has got the plates."

"We bear record with words of soberness..."

Not very ambiguous, that.  So it it is the crebility of the Witnesses, not the purported ambiguity of their statement, that would seem to be relevant.

7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Ultimately, the reality of something spiritual is strongly in the category of the subjective personal religious experience. 

By this reductionist reckoning, everything is subjective.

7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

This doesn't make that thing less real to the person experiencing it.  

So Joseph was deluded or insane.  And so were the Witnesses.

Funny how we always end up at those two conclusions.

7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

However, if we had the plates today and could test them and translate them through academic methods, we could confirm whether Joseph actually translated the plates and the accuracy of his translation.  Scholars have done this already with the Egyptian papyri.  

Quoth Kerry Muhlestein:

Quote

Once the existence of the papyri had been made public, the immediate assumption was that text adjacent to Facsimile 1 must have been the text from which Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham. The idea that the text adjacent to Facsimile 1 was the source of the Book of Abraham was a tantalizing supposition. Because we now have the ability to translate such texts, this idea appealed to Mormon and non-Mormon alike; the former group anxious to have some palpable proof of the prophet’s inspiration and the latter wanting evidence against his revelatory ability. Although many in both groups are still unaware of it, their hopes were based on an assumption, and a problematic assumption at that. While at first glance it seems reasonable to assume that the text adjoining Facsimile 1 would be the place to look for the source of the Book of Abraham, there are many reasons to discard this assumption. The six most salient follow:

1. Even with modern publication software and technology, we often are not able to place an illustration right next to the text with which it is associated.  Hence when textbooks say “see figure 3.2,” that figure is often on a different page. Even with the sophisticated electronic layout abilities we have developed, when I ask my students how many of them have textbooks in which this is the case, almost every hand goes up. This dissonance between text and picture is even more pronounced with ancient papyri...

...

2. Furthermore, during the time period in which the Joseph Smith Papyri were created, it was common not only for the text and its accompanying picture to be separated from each other, but also for the wrong vignette to be associated with a text, or for vignettes and texts to be completely misaligned on a long scroll...

...

3. There is no known case of any vignette remotely like Facsimile 1 that is associated with the type of text that is adjacent to it. No other copies of the Book of Breathings contain anything similar. Based on ancient parallels to the Book of Breathings, the most likely conclusion is that the picture next to the text was not associated with the text.

4. The Book of Abraham itself says that the fashion (or drawing) of the idolatrous gods is “at the beginning” (Abraham 1:14), presumably of the record or papyrus on which the text is recorded. This statement seems to indicate that the vignette depicting the altar and idols is not adjacent to the text, but some distance from it—at the beginning. ...

...

5. A few accounts indicate that the source of the Book of Abraham had some Hebrew characters on it.  None of the fragments we have today contain any Hebrew characters. Thus we must conclude that the eyewitnesses were describing texts other than those we now possess.

6. Finally, eyewitness accounts from Joseph Smith’s day agree that the Book of Abraham was on the long roll. Through museum documents we can corroborate that the long roll was sold to the Chicago museum. Unfortunately, it was destroyed by fire in 1871. ... {W}e are forced to conclude from the historical evidence at hand that the fragments we now have are not the source of the Book of Abraham.

Given the problems with the assumption that the text surrounding Facsimile 1 was the source of the Book of Abraham and the fact that we possess only a small percentage of the original papyrus roll on which Facsimile 1 was drawn (perhaps about 5 percent), we must conclude that it is most unlikely and foolhardy to insist that the text adjoining Facsimile 1 must be the text of the Book of Abraham. Yet critics insist on this faulty assumption.

"Yet critics insist on this faulty assumption."

Yep.

Thanks,

-Smac

[DonBradley]

21 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I like to look at the example of Joseph's claim to be translating a document written by John the beloved apostle that was supposedly located far away in a cave, but that he saw with his spiritual eyes and translated.  Did an actual document ever exist in the physical world?  We have no way of knowing.  Did it exist in Joseph's mind?  He claims it did and unless an actual document is found at some point in the future and matched up against Joseph's translation, we'll never know. 

Hope,

Thanks for the podcast recommendation. I'll have to give it a listen.

The D&C 7 analogy is interesting. John is said to have "hid up" the record. But John was a translated being at the time, suggesting that he could have "hid up" the record on either an earthly or a heavenly plane.

Don

[hope_for_things]

37 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I confess I have a lot of problems with her thesis. It just doesn't seem like there's a lot of positive evidence for it. Also she'd really require not only manufacture of the plates but also the Urim & Thummim, breastplates and so forth. As Robert noted this seems a more broad analysis by her that relates to non-Mormon cases.

Not really, because the witness statement evidence for those other items existing in a physical sense is not strong anyway.  We would also have to account for the caves full of treasure and records that Joseph and others saw.  

39 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Of course the idea that there is a spirit realm more or less in the same place and operating in a manner analogous to matter is a common one. The very idea of an astral body is part and parcel of that metaphysical theory. Indeed I'd go so far as to argue it's still pretty much a theological commitment of Mormonism even if some of the assumptions of the broader culture are rejected. Where I think Taves gets in trouble is having little by way of positive evidence for her case. When I first read it I thought it was done primarily as an academic exercise to see if there was a third option between the faithful view and the fraudulent view. The delusional view always seemed much less plausible to me, although Taves probably makes the strongest case.

I don't think Taves makes any of these claims about a parallel spiritual world.  What's in Smith's mind is in his mind, I can't recall her trying to say this is an astral world that is operating in an analogous manner.  

I also think she did start this as an attempt to bridge a discussion between faithful and fraud perspectives, I believe she even says as much.  

[DonBradley]

I agree that Taves is suggesting a middle ground for discussion. And I think that so far as the bare fact of there being plates is concerned, she does offer such a potential middle ground.

I also agree with Smac that her hypothesis, as presented, doesn't address, and doesn't appear to be intended to address, the details of Joseph Smith's narrative of recovering the plates. If a full middle ground position were to be staked out, it would need to be able to account for those details.

Don

[JLHPROF]

I'm no academic so I don't think I'm qualified to judge from that perspective.

But when you pull the thread of any of the foundational spiritual visions it can cause all the spirituality of Mormonism to unravel. I think Smac did a good job of showing how the narrative would unravel.  Likewise other spiritually established elements would go with it.

[hope_for_things]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What about the other Plates-related aspects of Joseph's narrative?  The multiple visitations by an angel?  The spot on the hill where they plates were buried?  The lever he used to lift up the stone?  The stone box?  How does Taves account for these details?  Did Joseph lie about these things?  Or was he deluded about them?  How does Taves account for them?

What about the other artifacts?  Did Joseph fabricate them, too?  How does Taves account for them?

What about the experience of the Three Witnesses?  How does Taves account for that?

Most of those details are not corroborated by the witnesses and are just part of the narrative Joseph told.  I think we could argue that he took creative license and felt like he was justified in doing so.  

As for other artifacts, I assume you mean things like the Urim and Thummim, but the witness accounts for these other items are much more limited as well. 

Taves does talk about the Witnesses some in her book and brings up the evidence that witnesses were generally experiencing these things through vision, not materially.  For all those material witness statements, those can be narrowed down primarily to the plates, although I'm aware that Lucy Smith has some statements about the Urim and Thummim, claims for physical encounters with the other items are few by comparison.  

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Nope.  Not so.  The quantum of evidence is very, very different.  Joseph never claimed that he only saw them "in his mind's eye."  He claimed to have dug them out of the earth.  To have discovered them.  And kept them in his possession.  And ran way from others while carrying them.  And hid them.  And to have shown them to others.

So no, the same does not apply to the story about the plates.  The two narratives are quite different, both as to substance as to evidence.

You're talking about the narrative told for how Joseph obtained the plates, and I'm talking about the evidence for the translation process when I say it was happening in his mind.  The translation process evidence all points to the plates being covered and/or not even present during the translation.  

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So Joseph was deluded or insane.  And so were the Witnesses.

Funny how we always end up at those two conclusions.

Sorry, its hard to have a discussion with the kind of binary arguments you're presenting.  I'm not saying this at all.  

And lastly on the Egyptian papyri, I'm not going to side track into the apologetic arguments over that one on this thread, can of worms. 

[hope_for_things]

23 minutes ago, DonBradley said:

Hope,

Thanks for the podcast recommendation. I'll have to give it a listen.

The D&C 7 analogy is interesting. John is said to have "hid up" the record. But John was a translated being at the time, suggesting that he could have "hid up" the record on either an earthly or a heavenly plane.

Don

Interesting, I hadn't thought about that as a possibility.  A translated John recording a record, perhaps on translated scrolls with translated ink in a heavenly cave somewhere.   Interesting to speculate about...

[The Nehor]

Book of Mormon theories just get weirder and weirder. I eagerly await the first one that includes leprechauns and/or dragons.

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Most of those details are not corroborated by the witnesses and are just part of the narrative Joseph told.  I think we could argue that he took creative license and felt like he was justified in doing so.  

As for other artifacts, I assume you mean things like the Urim and Thummim, but the witness accounts for these other items are much more limited as well. 

I know that many of the details are not corroborated.  But my question is how does Taves account for them?

9 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Taves does talk about the Witnesses some in her book and brings up the evidence that witnesses were generally experiencing these things through vision, not materially. 

Including the Eight Witnesses?  What evidence does Taves marshal, such that we should take her very late an non-percipient speculation over that of percipient witnesses?

9 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

For all those material witness statements, those can be narrowed down primarily to the plates, although I'm aware that Lucy Smith has some statements about the Urim and Thummim, claims for physical encounters with the other items are few by comparison.  

Pretty much.

9 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

You're talking about the narrative told for how Joseph obtained the plates, and I'm talking about the evidence for the translation process when I say it was happening in his mind. 

But Taves is talking about the plates, and how he fabricated them.  That seems to be the gravamen of her theory.

9 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The translation process evidence all points to the plates being covered and/or not even present during the translation.  

Yep.

9 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Sorry, its hard to have a discussion with the kind of binary arguments you're presenting.  I'm not saying this at all.  

Then make the options trinary.  Or quaternary.  I'm all ears.

9 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

And lastly on the Egyptian papyri, I'm not going to side track into the apologetic arguments over that one on this thread, can of worms. 

As you like.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Kenngo1969]

8 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I wonder, what would, say, a Nibley have to say about Dr. Taves and her theories?  

 

6 hours ago, Gray said:

Probably something irrelevant to this discussion.

Though I have a sneaking suspicion that you'll make me regret asking, why do you say that?

[Gray]

1 minute ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 

Though I have a sneaking suspicion that you'll make me regret asking, why do you say that?

I'm sure it would be something really snarky. "No ma'am, that's not his-theory"

[Kenngo1969]

9 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I wonder, what would, say, a Nibley have to say about Dr. Taves and her theories?  

 

7 hours ago, Gray said:

Probably something irrelevant to this discussion.

 

37 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 

Though I have a sneaking suspicion that you'll make me regret asking, why do you say that?

 

35 minutes ago, Gray said:

I'm sure it would be something really snarky. "No ma'am, that's not his-theory"

So, Prof. Nibley was sexist, therefore, we're justified in dismissing anything he says out-of-hand?  Dr. Taves is a woman, therefore, her theories are immune from criticism?  Sorry, I'm afraid I'm not following your line of ... uh ... reasoning ... here.

[mfbukowski]

Hi Don!

First the Sermon:

In my opinion, I think Taves' view is on strong ground philosophically but represents a point of view not common in the LDS way of seeing the word which divides hard "reality" from representations of the "real" and considers inaccuracies in representation, if judged to be intentional, to be "lies".   In short is is a very Neoplatonic and indeed Cartesian view.  Thoughts are different that things, appearance is different than reality.

Others see "reality" differently - and that camp, as I always point out, is represented by Rorty, social constructivists, Pragmatists and neopragmatists and a host of other theorists and this is clearly the camp that Taves belongs in.   In short, the kinds of view she puts forward are in fact commonplace in the secular academic environment which is virtually never represented by believing Mormons.  Why that is not the case is mystifying to me- honestly I think being raised in the church predisposes one to the Cartesian distinction between appearance and reality while all the time affirming visions etc.

The idea that the first vision itself was a "lie" is inconceivable to Mormons and they actually have had so many problems with the criticism stating that it was a lie that the church has had to put out an essay justifying differences in the first vision accounts.

So Mormons want evidence of "real" plates while accepting a vision of God Himself without question. 

Go figure!   If the plates were not "real" the whole thing is a "lie" yet the various visions of Moroni, the story of where to find the plates, and the first vision itself are accepted virtually without question or ascribed to supernatural events.  Yet could the plates be "supernatural"?  Of course not!!   There were witnesses!!!

But how did Joseph translate the alleged plates?  Supernaturally. 

But what do the supernaturally translated plates reveal?  Real hard history of people who lived --- somewhere---- to be hotly debated--- and yet no real evidence has been found of these very real people.

So in my opinion, cultural Mormons have a reality problem which Taves brings to light.   The cultural view Mormon view of reality is inconsistent and for all the mountains of intelligence available in Mormon culture, no one seems to want to notice the problem.  What is the relationship between spiritual experience and "reality"? 

We want hard science on one side and spirituality on the other and justify it all under the banner of "Well- it's like if we took a television back to the 1500's and people would think it is witchcraft- eventually we will know it is all really science we just don't know now"

What is the "reality" of the plates?

Those kinds of questions were answered over a hundred years ago by William James and others but do Mormons read him?  Of course not!

Anyway I am a TBM who HAS actually read William James and all his philosophical descendants and I see no conflict between the teachings of the church and Taves, those who think the plates were historical or not historical, whether or not Cumorah was here or there or whether the BOM is historical or not historical.

I base my beliefs exclusively on testimony and my personal spiritual experiences as justified by....wait for it.... William James & Co.

The bottom line is that REALITY IS WHAT YOU BELIEVE IT IS.  We have nothing but our beliefs to guide us as to the nature of reality.    

That is a long long story as assimilated by Taves over years of thinking in terms of postmodern reality, and by virtually none here, yet most academics have been thinking in these terms we define as "secular" most of their lives.  This is the conflict between Mormon culture and secular culture which is also epitomized in the difference between apologetics and Mormon Studies.  The conflict between these two realms in Mormon thought victimized Daniel Peterson in that whole mess a few years ago

It is a central culture clash in Mormon thought now in process and frankly it is central in my opinion, to how well Mormonism survives.   If we cannot communicate with the secular world, we will become the Amish.   We will remain quaint tourist attractions to folks who will visit Salt Lake (or Missouri) OR the Millennium will actually happen.

The alternative is to learn to communicate with secularists which is what I am trying to do, usually to the determent of my being understood by cultural LDS folks.  Oh well.  I ain't quttin'.

My Answer to the question:

I think Raha Manchou hit it pretty dang close on this thread.  That is the direction to go.  What I present is the Western philosophical version of what he is describing, and adding another twist.

First of all as to my view of how "reality" might work in this case, let me give you two sources so that I do not have to recount on this thread what I have said elsewhere.

http://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php/2017/08/guest-post-justifying-visions/

The above is a quick summary of a long thread on this board 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/68857-justifying-hallucinations-as-reality/

As far as a naturalistic explanation which I think is compatible with both Taves and could be made to be compatible with Mormonism, I think we need to add another person to the story.

Who was this "person"?   Unknown, but a few possibilities:

This "person" could have been the "Angel Moroni" or some other resurrected personage who appeared to Joseph, told him about the plates, and made them available.

But in Mormon theology, what are angels?

Angels are humans who oftentimes cannot be perceived to be anything but mortal.  Could a mortal person be an "angel" in some cases?  The line is blurry.

The entire presentation of the endowment can be seen as literally a way to "pass the sentinels" who appear as moral humans and yet are "true messengers".  How do we tell which is which?

Jacob physically wrestled with some sort of "human" who later turned out to be at least an angel or perhaps even the Lord himself, and this individual was tangible enough for poor Israel to limp away with a broken leg.  Mormon lore is full of tales of the Three Nephites who appear as totally indistinguishable from mortals and then disappear after their mission is accomplished  The resurrected Lord Himself was at first thought by some of the first visitors to the tomb to be a "gardener" and showed no special "supernatural" qualities

Can a plain old mortal human like you or me, be "sacralized" to appear as an angel when the difference between humans and angels is imperceptible ?  

So some sort of human, resurrected, natural, or "angel"

1) Told Joseph about the plates years in advance of their actual discovery

2) Eventually told Joseph where to find them

3) Provided Joseph, in the same location as the plates, stones to use to translate them, though eventually Joseph used other stones, yet the belief that stones could be used was affirmed by the action.

4) Eventually caused the plates to disappear.

I have no problem seeing this human as the resurrected personage named Moroni.

I have no problem seeing this human as someone else including someone mortal, because my testimony is based on the CONTENT of the translation and its spiritual message.

But if one WANTS to accept a naturalistic and historical explanation - if that is their choice in points of view- is there such an ordinary human mortal  person who might have 

1) "Helped"

or

2)"duped"

Joseph, is there such a historical person who might have fit the bill?

It appears to me, there IS such a person  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luman_Walters

So in short, I believe that something along these lines and those mentioned by Raha Manchou  philosophically justify Ann Taves version as well as providing a plausible naturalistic and historic explanation for your question.

 

 

 

 

Edited October 18, 2017 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

15 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

My research has focused on a similar idea in the Tibetan tradition. Texts are inscribed in a coded language by adepts and are cached either spiritually or physically. When the time is right a treasure finder is given instructions on when and how to reveal the cached text. The treasure finder is usually led to a sacred spot associated with the text and either retrieves a physical scroll or receives the text through a revelation of some sort. Taves mentions:

"The Tibetan Treasure tradition also presents a suggestive opportunity for comparison, though beyond the scope of this paper. This tradition maintains that these Treasures (gter-ma) are special teachings, originally preached by a buddha and later hidden (in most cases) by the Indian master who introduced tantric Buddhism to Tibet. The master is “said to have concealed these teachings in such a way that they would be discovered at a later date by various predetermined Tibetan Treasure discoverers (gter-ston), who would then ‘translate’ their revelation into a form comprehensible to their contemporaries” (Gyatso 1993:98). I am grateful to Jesper Oestergaard of Aarhus University for directing me to this literature."

The treasure text tradition possibly leaked into 18th century Christianity through Emmanuel Swedenborg who spoke of a hidden, or cached, set of scriptures in the Great Tartary (Tibet) that predate the Israelite texts. Swedenborg claimed to have visited the angels who preserved these texts. They informed him that the texts, including the Book of Jasher and other texts mentioned by Moses, would be revealed at a later date.

"Of that ancient Word which existed in Asia before the Israelitish Word, I am permitted to state this new thing, namely, that it is still preserved there among the people who dwell in Great Tartary. In the spiritual world I have talked with spirits and angels from that country, who said that they have a Word, and have had it from ancient times; and that they conduct their Divine worship according to this Word, and that it consists solely of correspondences. They said, that in it also is the Book of Jasher, which is mentioned in Joshua (10:12, 13), and in 2 Samuel (1:17, 18); and that they have also among them the books called the Wars of Jehovah and Enunciations, which are mentioned by Moses (Num. 21:14, 15, and 27-30); and when I read to them the words that Moses had quoted therefrom, they searched to see if they were there, and found them; from which it was evident to me that the ancient Word is still among that people. While talking with them they said that they worshiped Jehovah, some as an invisible God, and some as visible. They also told me that they do not permit foreigners to come among them, except the Chinese, with whom they cultivate peaceful relations, because the Chinese Emperor is from their country; also that the population is so great that they do not believe that any region in the whole world is more populous, which is indeed credible from the wall so many miles in length which the Chinese formerly built as a protection against invasion from these people. I have further heard from the angels, that the first chapters of Genesis which treat of creation, of Adam and Eve, the garden of Eden, their sons and their posterity down to the flood, and of Noah and his sons, are also contained in that Word, and thus were transcribed from it by Moses. The angels and spirits from Great Tartary are seen in the southern quarter on its eastern side, and are separated from others by dwelling in a higher expanse, and by their not permitting anyone to come to them from the Christian world, or, if any ascend, by guarding them to prevent their return. Their possessing a different Word is the cause of this separation.”

In the Tibetan tradition, an object of some sort is usually required to represent the treasure text. Sometimes this object is revealed only to the treasure finder, while at other times it can be revealed to the public.
 

All of which would be consistent with the Luman Walters explanation AND leaves Joseph out of the loop.

In short, either it was Moroni in the traditional explanation or some mortal in the naturalistic explanation- like Luman Walters, or even perhaps we can say that the person known as "Luman Walters" was "actually" one of the Three Nephites, or someone else on the banks of the Sussquehana 

There are all kinds of ways of creating the history to meet our needs.

In either case, it is the supernaturally translated content of the Book of Mormon which I affirm with my testimony that I accept as the Word of God.  For me, that is all that is relevant.

Edited October 18, 2017 by mfbukowski

[blueglass]

15 hours ago, Rajah Manchou said:

They informed him that the texts, including the Book of Jasher and other texts mentioned by Moses, would be revealed at a later date.

Ah - the book of Jasher, I remember quoting from ch 44 to a combined group of yw when I was serving in the bishopric, I was assigned to teach yw, ym, or hpg once per month on rotation, and you could see the kids light up as they heard a new take on joseph and potiphar's wife (Zelicah) story written as a novela.  The sword Zelicah held to Joseph's neck, her girlfriends taken back with delight with how fine he was that they cut their oranges and hands in admiration, or potiphar's 11-mo old baby who cries out to testify at the trial, to the forensics his priests conduct on the tear in his garment to see if the baby's testimony who's tongue was loosed was correct or not.  In the end his sentence is reduced from a penalty of death and he's sent to prison.  I think as rabbi's memorize the torah, the kids and adults they teach will naturally begin asking tons of questions about the personal relationships and interactions with God found in the text and the rabbi's would come up with something to fill the gaps which made sense and midrash or apocrypha was born.  

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Book of Mormon theories just get weirder and weirder. I eagerly await the first one that includes leprechauns and/or dragons.

You don't want my reply to this one.....  

 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

What is the "reality" of the plates?

The brother of Jared mining, smelting and presenting the sixteen stones to the Lord to solve a practical problem using faith and effort is consistent with Taves' idea that Joseph Smith hand-crafted metal plates and presented them to the Lord to solve a practical problem such as Moroni telling him "there was a book deposited, written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent" and someone having lost or stolen them, a secret Joseph kept to his grave.

Where did the sixteen stones go after the voyage? I propose the downfall of the Jaredite civilization began with people questioning their reality rather than their own personal reality in terms of "what is real" in the Alma 32 sense 

 

Edited October 18, 2017 by CV75

[blueglass]

By far the best talk I enjoyed at the gold plates seminar at UT State earlier this year 2017 was by Jared Hickman (time-warp wormhole, wafting from earth to the moon and other planets) and the process of putting aside the problem of the missing physical artifact and finding value in a reading of the text that we've got.  I like to see that non-mormon scholars are finding an interest in the text by taking this approach (margaret barker, liz fenton, peter coviello).  The book of mormon sprints around time and place unlike any text which is actually from antiquity like papyrus P52, or the priestly blessing from numbers on silver scrolls from Ketef Hinnom, 4Q Enoch from the DSS.  The book is so filled with anachronisms that it will make your head split to try to make it work in nibley's ancient world or as an actual meroitic egyptian, tumbaga artifact.  I see the book of mormon as sacred midrash, a heavenly book received in joseph's mind much like the heavenly book Lehi reads from in 1Nephi1.   My view is pearl curran + blake ostler.  The text is a modern expansion of an ancient text received in the mind.  The book is mixed with work from the quran, late war, rights of christ, uncle john's bible, and joseph's own christian midrash.  Joseph used this brown genesis seer stone to scry/translate himself into the mind of mormon/moroni like pearl curran climbed into the mind of patience worth.  Joseph is also a super sponge which pulls from every text and word in his surroundings and remixes the material.   

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I know that many of the details are not corroborated.  But my question is how does Taves account for them?

I don't recall her addressing those other objects specifically in her book, I'll have to see.  I don't think she needs to address them, to me its not a substantial piece of evidence that requires attention, but perhaps she did, I'll see what I can find.  

 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

So in short, I believe that something along these lines and those mentioned by Raha Manchou  philosophically justify Ann Taves version as well as providing a plausible naturalistic and historic explanation for your question.

Mark,

This is an excellent write up, especially the first parts about the clash of Mormon culture and the secular.  I loved it, and I wanted to tell you thank you once again, and I would be interested in hearing more about your ideas on that subject specifically, and where you think apologetics and Mormon studies need to go in the future, as I think this is very important for the future success of the religion as well.  If you are inclined to share more ideas on that topic, please let me know.  Thanks

[hope_for_things]

16 minutes ago, blueglass said:

By far the best talk I enjoyed at the gold plates seminar at UT State earlier this year 2017 was by Jared Hickman (time-warp wormhole, wafting from earth to the moon and other planets) and the process of putting aside the problem of the missing physical artifact and finding value in a reading of the text that we've got.  I like to see that non-mormon scholars are finding an interest in the text by taking this approach (margaret barker, liz fenton, peter coviello).  The book of mormon sprints around time and place unlike any text which is actually from antiquity like papyrus P52, or the priestly blessing from numbers on silver scrolls from Ketef Hinnom, 4Q Enoch from the DSS.  The book is so filled with anachronisms that it will make your head split to try to make it work in nibley's ancient world or as an actual meroitic egyptian, tumbaga artifact.  I see the book of mormon as sacred midrash, a heavenly book received in joseph's mind much like the heavenly book Lehi reads from in 1Nephi1.   My view is pearl curran + blake ostler.  The text is a modern expansion of an ancient text received in the mind.  The book is mixed with work from the quran, late war, rights of christ, uncle john's bible, and joseph's own christian midrash.  Joseph used this brown genesis seer stone to scry/translate himself into the mind of mormon/moroni like pearl curran climbed into the mind of patience worth.  Joseph is also a super sponge which pulls from every text and word in his surroundings and remixes the material.   

I was there too and that was my first time hearing Jared Hickman in person.  I had a hard time following everything he said, but it was pretty cool what I could follow.  Thanks for sharing! 

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Most of those details are not corroborated by the witnesses and are just part of the narrative Joseph told.  I think we could argue that he took creative license and felt like he was justified in doing so.  

That's not true. Most are described explicitly by people. Lucy Mack Smith claimed that Joseph gave her the breastplate and plates covered only by thin muslin handkerchief. She then described in detail what it felt like. "On the morning of September 22, after Joseph had returned from the hill, he placed the article [the Nephite interpreters] of which he spoke into my hands, and, upon examination, I found that it consisted of two smooth three-cornered diamonds set in glass, and the glasses were set in silver bows, which were connected with each other in much the same way as old fashioned spectacles. . . . He [Joseph Smith] handed me the breastplate spoken of in his history. It was wrapped in a thin muslin handkerchief, so thin that I could feel its proportions without any difficulty. It was concave on one side and convex on the other, and extended from the neck downwards, as far as the center of the stomach of a man of extraordinary size. It had four straps of the same material, for the purpose of fastening it to the breast."

One could claim that, as with Mother Whitney, it was all in spiritual vision. But others did claim to see them. Unraveling which accounts aren't explicitly "spirit eyes" is the tricky and controversial part. After all a skeptic might say they all are despite what they claim. (Indeed that's Vogel's argument - although for various reasons we've discussed before I don't think it works)

 

[blueglass]

8 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

That's not true. Most are described explicitly by people. Lucy Mack Smith claimed that Joseph gave her the breastplate and plates covered only by thin muslin handkerchief. She then described in detail what it felt like. "On the morning of September 22, after Joseph had returned from the hill, he placed the article [the Nephite interpreters] of which he spoke into my hands, and, upon examination, I found that it consisted of two smooth three-cornered diamonds set in glass, and the glasses were set in silver bows, which were connected with each other in much the same way as old fashioned spectacles. . . . He [Joseph Smith] handed me the breastplate spoken of in his history. It was wrapped in a thin muslin handkerchief, so thin that I could feel its proportions without any difficulty. It was concave on one side and convex on the other, and extended from the neck downwards, as far as the center of the stomach of a man of extraordinary size. It had four straps of the same material, for the purpose of fastening it to the breast."

One could claim that, as with Mother Whitney, it was all in spiritual vision. But others did claim to see them. Unraveling which accounts aren't explicitly "spirit eyes" is the tricky and controversial part. After all a skeptic might say they all are despite what they claim. (Indeed that's Vogel's argument - although for various reasons we've discussed before I don't think it works)

 

I'm ok with Joseph borrowing from Luman Walters an interesting contraption he made, but other than this breastplate account by Lucy there is nothing else available to compare.  Are there other breastplate witness accounts? 

Edited October 18, 2017 by blueglass

[Gray]

3 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 

 

 

So, Prof. Nibley was sexist, therefore, we're justified in dismissing anything he says out-of-hand?  Dr. Taves is a woman, therefore, her theories are immune from criticism?  Sorry, I'm afraid I'm not following your line of ... uh ... reasoning ... here.

That's not actually where I was going with that. I was trying to say he'd make some snarky polemical response. 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

That's not true. Most are described explicitly by people. Lucy Mack Smith claimed that Joseph gave her the breastplate and plates covered only by thin muslin handkerchief. She then described in detail what it felt like. "On the morning of September 22, after Joseph had returned from the hill, he placed the article [the Nephite interpreters] of which he spoke into my hands, and, upon examination, I found that it consisted of two smooth three-cornered diamonds set in glass, and the glasses were set in silver bows, which were connected with each other in much the same way as old fashioned spectacles. . . . He [Joseph Smith] handed me the breastplate spoken of in his history. It was wrapped in a thin muslin handkerchief, so thin that I could feel its proportions without any difficulty. It was concave on one side and convex on the other, and extended from the neck downwards, as far as the center of the stomach of a man of extraordinary size. It had four straps of the same material, for the purpose of fastening it to the breast."

One could claim that, as with Mother Whitney, it was all in spiritual vision. But others did claim to see them. Unraveling which accounts aren't explicitly "spirit eyes" is the tricky and controversial part. After all a skeptic might say they all are despite what they claim. (Indeed that's Vogel's argument - although for various reasons we've discussed before I don't think it works)

 

I actually mentioned the Lucy Smith Urim and Thummim rememberance earlier and I'm glad you quoted it.  That is the only reference to a physical experience with the other objects besides the plates that came to mind.  One late recollection does not make a significant amount of evidence.  

I think it's reasonable to be skeptical in a measured way.  I'm also skeptical of alien and big foot witness accounts as I imagine you are as well.