Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

The Gold Plates


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

I think you may be misunderstanding me. It's not my intention to criticize the plates.

What is your intention? I’m not a mind reader.🙂

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

The nature of the universe is the backdrop for it all, without which it would all be completely different

We know nothing about the "reality" of the nature of the universe, just what our paltry little senses tell us ABOUT what our our senses and devices CAN tell us about alleged data that is thousand to millions, to who knows how many "light years" ago. (Edit: apparently 13.7 billion year old light)

Certainly that suspect "objective data" tells us nothing about how we interact with God in our "subjective" understanding of our hearts.

Astronomy is the worst possible place we can go to examine personal religious experience of the here and now about a God who dwells in our hearts. :)

 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
37 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

I think you may be misunderstanding me. It's not my intention to criticize the plates.

It appears that neither of you intend to criticize the plates, therefore on some level you must agree on something.... !  ;)

 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

And my surmise is that God places each of us in exactly the right place where we can exercise that limited agency to enable God to judge us as to our fitness for exaltation. By placing us here at all, He must have pre-judged us as capable of it.

Yeah but...

The argument is question begging.

You "surmise" that he "places" us and then conclude that we WERE placed.

Link to comment
On 9/9/2022 at 12:36 AM, Rivers said:

This is a question for the non-believers.  Do you think Joseph Smith had tangible metal plates of some kind or something that looked like metal plates?  Or do you think the plates were completely imaginary?  
 

I’m curious to know if there is any consensus among critics on this matter.

I am sorry to get to this thread so late, Rivers.

As a non-believer, I have not formed an opinion about this subject.

But I hadn't considered that it might be a weighty subject for the faithful Latter-day Saint. Would it be a problem for the faithful LDS should it somehow be discovered that these plates were not physical, but imaginary, as you asked? Images from the mind after all, while arguably non-physical, are nevertheless realities. This might seem silly, but why would it be problematic if the plates existed only within the "true" imaginations of those who were witnesses?

3DOP

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

I am sorry to get to this thread so late, Rivers.

As a non-believer, I have not formed an opinion about this subject.

But I hadn't considered that it might be a weighty subject for the faithful Latter-day Saint. Would it be a problem for the faithful LDS should it somehow be discovered that these plates were not physical, but imaginary, as you asked? Images from the mind after all, while arguably non-physical, are nevertheless realities. This might seem silly, but why would it be problematic if the plates existed only within the "true" imaginations of those who were witnesses?

3DOP

 

Agree totally, and you gave me an important insight!

Catholics are used to thinking in the way you have written this, with apparitions, the stigmata, and "supernatural" events which could be quite questionable, seen as perhaps "true imaginations", looking at things pragmatically : "If it's faith promoting, don't doubt God's purpose in giving us 'true imagination' "

Yet LDS folks, since we don't believe in the "supernatural", just in yet unknown natural laws, tend try to figure out what kind of natural law it would take for God to do things.

Respectfully, you see bread become the embodied Christ every Sunday, PERHAPS by "true imagination" (not doctrinally, but as ordinary Catholics MIGHT see it), while we see that bread as a reminder of Jesus' sacrifice for us.

So I still see the world through the theological eyes of my Pragmatism professors, mostly all Fordham guys, instead of BYU guys reading the same philosophers! 

SO one side of the same coin, or the other?  The world of visions, perhaps stigmata, Fatima and Guadalupe, Lourdes, etc., all "true imagination" ??

VERY INTERESTING insight!

Both sides can fit into the same religious paradigm: visions and science are both reality as we know it 

Both are products of our God-given minds and hearts, just with different perspectives!  Both provide us with truths that are "sweet" and for our good.

"Only descriptions of the world can be true or false.  The world on its own- unaided by the describing activities of human beings- cannot."   Richard Rorty- Contingency Irony and Solidarity, P 5."- Richard Rorty

Thanks mi amigo!  ;)

 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment

Not sure I want to get in the middle of all of this, but to me, the biggest problem with relying on the existence of the Gold Plates based on 11 witnesses is that if you are willing to rely on witnesses to determine the truth of anything, then you have to also accept every other single claim of events that have witnesses testifying of the truthfulness of that event.  

For me, there are a LOT of stories, confirmed by witnesses that I really doubt are true.

Link to comment
On 9/19/2022 at 11:41 AM, Kevin Christensen said:

Nibley demonstrated that King Benjamin’s discourse was a coronation rite, following a thirty-six element pattern . . . . Scholars that make an argument based on a four step Revival pattern seem whispy and pale to me in direct comparison even to just Nibley's 36 step pattern.

I guess once your paradigm has shifted there's no going back. I don't know of anyone else who thinks Nibley's 1957 article, "Old World Ritual in the New World," still holds up. Even at the time, as Szink and Welch note, Nibley's year-rite theory "attracted few fully settled followers."

Of course, as common sense would suggest, there is no 36-element "pattern" that all New Year rites in the ancient world followed. Even the most die-hard Myth and Ritual proponents never went that far. Here, for comparison, is S. H. Hooke:

Quote

The annual festival which was the centre and climax of all the religious activities of the year contained the following elements:

  • The dramatic representation of the death and resurrection of the god.
  • The recitation or symbolic representation of the myth of creation.
  • The ritual combat, in which the triumph of the god over his enemies was depicted.
  • The sacred marriage.
  • The triumphal procession, in which the king played the part of the god followed by a train of lesser gods or visiting deities.

These elements might vary in different localities and at different periods, some being more strongly stressed than others, but they constitute the underlying skeleton, so to speak, not only of such seasonal rituals as the great New Year Festivals, but also of coronation rituals, initiation ceremonies, and may even be discerned in occasional rituals such as spells against demons and various diseases.

— S. H. Hooke, "The Myth and Ritual Pattern of the Ancient East," in Myth and Ritual, ed. S.H. Hooke (London: Oxford University Press, 1933), 8.

The early 20th-century scholarly fad of "patternism," which informed the Myth and Ritual school and much of Nibley's work, has long since faded into oblivion.

Kent Jackson's critique of the Old Testament Studies volume of Nibley's collected works applies equally well to Nibley's year-rite theory. Some relevant excerpts:

  • "Nibley shows a tendency to gather sources from a variety of cultures all over the ancient world, lump them all together, and then pick and choose the bits and pieces he wants. By selectively including what suits his presuppositions and ignoring what does not, he is able to manufacture an ancient system of religion that is remarkably similar in many ways to our own."
  • "If we define an artificial collection like this—which spans hundreds of years, thousands of miles, and widely diverse societies and religions—as all being the same, we can bring forth proof that 'the ancients' believed anything we want them to believe. This kind of method seems to work from the conclusions to the evidence—instead of the other way around. And too often it necessitates giving the sources an interpretation for which little support can be found elsewhere." 

Metcalfe's 4-element "revivalistic conversion form," while having less elements than Nibley's 36 or even Hooke's 5, at least has the virtue of being historically defensible.

There's nothing in Mosiah 2–6 that indicates a new year or harvest festival setting. The people gather at the temple because King Benjamin summoned them (on less than 24-hours' notice) for a special meeting. The stated purpose of this ad hoc meeting is to proclaim Mosiah king and to give the people a name (Mosiah 1:10–11). After King Benjamin delivers his farewell message, the people are convicted of their sins. He invites them to repent and receive Christ. They make a covenant with God and take upon themselves the name of Christ. At the conclusion of this mass conversion event, Benjamin takes down the name of everyone who made the covenant. Only then, almost as an afterthought, does Benjamin "consecrate" Mosiah "to be a king and ruler over his people" (Mosiah 6:3). The text is silent on any ritual that may have been involved.

I'm no expert on Kuhn, but I don't think a paradigm shift has much value if it leads you to see things that aren't there.

Edited by Nevo
Link to comment
3 hours ago, 3DOP said:

I am sorry to get to this thread so late, Rivers.

As a non-believer, I have not formed an opinion about this subject.

But I hadn't considered that it might be a weighty subject for the faithful Latter-day Saint. Would it be a problem for the faithful LDS should it somehow be discovered that these plates were not physical, but imaginary, as you asked? Images from the mind after all, while arguably non-physical, are nevertheless realities. This might seem silly, but why would it be problematic if the plates existed only within the "true" imaginations of those who were witnesses?

3DOP

 

There has been a lot of discussion on the physicality of the plates.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Agree totally, and you gave me an important insight!

Catholics are used to thinking in the way you have written this, with apparitions, the stigmata, and "supernatural" events which could be quite questionable, seen as perhaps "true imaginations", looking at things pragmatically : "If it's faith promoting, don't doubt God's purpose in giving us 'true imagination' "

Yet LDS folks, since we don't believe in the "supernatural", just in yet unknown natural laws, tend try to figure out what kind of natural law it would take for God to do things.

Respectfully, you see bread become the embodied Christ every Sunday, PERHAPS by "true imagination" (not doctrinally, but as ordinary Catholics MIGHT see it), while we see that bread as a reminder of Jesus' sacrifice for us.

So I still see the world through the theological eyes of my Pragmatism professors, mostly all Fordham guys, instead of BYU guys reading the same philosophers! 

SO one side of the same coin, or the other?  The world of visions, perhaps stigmata, Fatima and Guadalupe, Lourdes, etc., all "true imagination" ??

VERY INTERESTING insight!

Both sides can fit into the same religious paradigm: visions and science are both reality as we know it 

Both are products of our God-given minds and hearts, just with different perspectives!  Both provide us with truths that are "sweet" and for our good.

"Only descriptions of the world can be true or false.  The world on its own- unaided by the describing activities of human beings- cannot."   Richard Rorty- Contingency Irony and Solidarity, P 5."- Richard Rorty

Thanks mi amigo!  ;)

 

Heh.

 

19 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

There has been a lot of discussion on the physicality of the plates.

Right. The physicality of the plates. 14 pages. I do not regret that I did not read it all. I don't find that question to be of interest to me.

I thought perhaps after this time, a slightly different question might be welcome: If the critics could show that the plates were imaginary, what would this mean for the faithful Latter-day Saint? Is it even necessary for the LDS to believe in physical plates?

Edited by 3DOP
Link to comment
4 hours ago, 3DOP said:

I am sorry to get to this thread so late, Rivers.

As a non-believer, I have not formed an opinion about this subject.

But I hadn't considered that it might be a weighty subject for the faithful Latter-day Saint. Would it be a problem for the faithful LDS should it somehow be discovered that these plates were not physical, but imaginary, as you asked? Images from the mind after all, while arguably non-physical, are nevertheless realities. This might seem silly, but why would it be problematic if the plates existed only within the "true" imaginations of those who were witnesses?

3DOP

 

It would be a little problematic because the gold plates represent a tangible object connecting heaven and earth as Richard Bushman puts it.  Saying the plates are are in the imagination of the witnesses is like saying the resurrection of Christ was in the imagination of the apostles.  And the term “true imagination” sounds like an oxymoron.

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, Rivers said:

It would be a little problematic because the gold plates represent a tangible object connecting heaven and earth as Richard Bushman puts it.  Saying the plates are are in the imagination of the witnesses is like saying the resurrection of Christ was in the imagination of the apostles.  And the term “true imagination” sounds like an oxymoron.

Rivers, hi.

I agree. And I could not go that direction as a Traditional Catholic. Where does one stop with regards to historical claims? One doesn't stop, if I understand correctly. If it works, it must be true! I am not trying to mock, but want to see this different way of thinking as it plays out for all of us. I suspect that many Catholics, especially in the hierarchy, if pinned down, doubt the historical claims of their Church. Perhaps they think Catholicism works regardless of doubtful historicity? In the end, I believe that the Catholic Church is too far committed to historical facts/realities to easily transition to the pragmatism that mfbukowski references as being compatible with the LDS worldview. I am just wondering how far Latter-day Saints here, (my only point of contact), are willing to go. 

Take care.

Rory

  

Link to comment
3 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Rivers, hi.

I agree. And I could not go that direction as a Traditional Catholic. Where does one stop with regards to historical claims? One doesn't stop, if I understand correctly. If it works, it must be true! I am not trying to mock, but want to see this different way of thinking as it plays out for all of us. I suspect that many Catholics, especially in the hierarchy, if pinned down, doubt the historical claims of their Church. Perhaps they think Catholicism works regardless of doubtful historicity? In the end, I believe that the Catholic Church is too far committed to historical facts/realities to easily transition to the pragmatism that mfbukowski references as being compatible with the LDS worldview. I am just wondering how far Latter-day Saints here, (my only point of contact), are willing to go. 

Take care.

Rory

  

As I said, I first learned this from Fordham boys, Eugene Fontinell and John McDermott, both experts on William James.

And from a COJCLDS perspective, our own Dr Paulsen 

https://philarchive.org/rec/PAUTGO

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
2 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Rivers, hi.

I agree. And I could not go that direction as a Traditional Catholic. Where does one stop with regards to historical claims? One doesn't stop, if I understand correctly. If it works, it must be true! I am not trying to mock, but want to see this different way of thinking as it plays out for all of us. I suspect that many Catholics, especially in the hierarchy, if pinned down, doubt the historical claims of their Church. Perhaps they think Catholicism works regardless of doubtful historicity? In the end, I believe that the Catholic Church is too far committed to historical facts/realities to easily transition to the pragmatism that mfbukowski references as being compatible with the LDS worldview. I am just wondering how far Latter-day Saints here, (my only point of contact), are willing to go. 

Take care.

Rory

  

I’m willing to have some epistemological humility and say there’s a lot of things that can’t be ascertained using historical tools.  Foundational religious beliefs like the divinity of Christ require faith.   
 

But if even if I lost that faith, I would still acknowledge that the Judeo-Christian religious tradition has been a force of good in the world.  I wouldn’t ever become an angry ex-Mormon because I know that the tradition I was raised in had a positive influence on me.

So while historical inquiry on religious topics is really interesting, I separate that from my lived experience in the church.  

Link to comment
9 hours ago, 3DOP said:

One doesn't stop, if I understand correctly. If it works, it must be true! I am not trying to mock, but want to see this different way of thinking as it plays out for all of us. I suspect that many Catholics, especially in the hierarchy, if pinned down, doubt the historical claims of their Church. Perhaps they think Catholicism works regardless of doubtful historicity? I

I don't think you understand the concept, because you have not studied it.

How does history prove the Eucharist? Visions, the stigmata etc?

Yet my view can solve those problems once you understand it. Trust me, it almost works better for you guys than us! :)

Do you feel different after taking communion?  Is that feeling justified by history?  Does the rosary "work"?

Of course!

You would not follow these procedures if they did not subjectively "work" to help you feel closer to Christ!

I'm on your side!

Think of the smell of roses. The beauty of a sunset. The love you feel for your dear ones.

Are those "real"?  If not, how can such feelings bring you closer to Christ?  They change lives and yet they need historical support?

Quote

Rorty: Truth cannot be out there- cannot exist independently of the human mind- because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there.  The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not.  Only descriptions of the world can be true or false.  The world on its own- unaided by the describing activities of human beings- cannot."  

How can one describe the smell of a rose, the color of the sunset, the pleasures of Godly love?  How about feelings of abject fear upon of hearing a growl outside your tent while camping in bear country?  Yet are these feelings "real"?   Yet if we cannot describe them, can they be "true" independent of how these feelings can change lives?

Alma 32 explains it all.   We cannot describe the feelings or pronounce these experiences as "true" or "real" to others objectively any more than we can describe the color red to a blind man! 

Are these not real? 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I don't think you understand the concept, because you have not studied it.

How does history prove the Eucharist? Visions, the stigmata etc?

Yet my view can solve those problems once you understand it. Trust me, it almost works better for you guys than us! :)

Do you feel different after taking communion?  Is that feeling justified by history?  Does the rosary "work"?

Of course!

You would not follow these procedures if they did not subjectively "work" to help you feel closer to Christ!

I'm on your side!

Think of the smell of roses. The beauty of a sunset. The love you feel for your dear ones.

Are those "real"?  If not, how can such feelings bring you closer to Christ?  They change lives and yet they need historical support?

How can one describe the smell of a rose, the color of the sunset, the pleasures of Godly love?  How about feelings of abject fear upon of hearing a growl outside your tent while camping in bear country?  Yet are these feelings "real"?   Yet if we cannot describe them, can they be "true" independent of how these feelings can change lives?

Alma 32 explains it all.   We cannot describe the feelings or pronounce these experiences as "true" or "real" to others objectively any more than we can describe the color red to a blind man! 

Are these not real? 

God love you Mark. I know you have been thinking/editing about what I said above. Thinking with hope for me. Surely I may hope your good will shall be eternally rewarded.

Rory

Edited by 3DOP
Link to comment
19 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Right. The physicality of the plates. 14 pages. I do not regret that I did not read it all. I don't find that question to be of interest to me.

I thought perhaps after this time, a slightly different question might be welcome: If the critics could show that the plates were imaginary, what would this mean for the faithful Latter-day Saint? Is it even necessary for the LDS to believe in physical plates?

IMO yes. 

Link to comment
On 9/24/2022 at 7:43 AM, Stargazer said:

If the 4th dimension is time

It isn't. In general, time became a "4th dimension" only when we concluded that to fix a point in the universe we had to not only fix it in our normal three dimensional space but to also fix it as a point in time. This is because time is relative - and doesn't move at the same rates everywhere. Time was considered a 4th dimension because it was viewed that we could simply slice the universe into an infinite number of snapshots by using time as an independent variable. Thus creating a 4th dimensional space in which the infinite time slice progression of our 3rd dimensional universe could be imagined. But this isn't the sort of 4th dimensional space we speak of today when we speak of extra dimensions. A true 4th dimensional space would allow for an infinite number of three-dimensional spaces to exist with independent time-frames.

On 9/24/2022 at 7:43 AM, Stargazer said:

Do you see why I said that Leibniz's argument about evil was like a kindergartner's conception of the universe?

The challenge is that you haven't differentiated your own view from Leibniz's conclusions. Unless, I have misread you, and you don't believe that God is omniscient in any sense.

Link to comment
7 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

The challenge is that you haven't differentiated your own view from Leibniz's conclusions. Unless, I have misread you, and you don't believe that God is omniscient in any sense.

I don't see my view and Leibniz's as at all similar. 

God must be omniscient in order to be God. You're entitled to believe that's wrong, of course.

Link to comment
On 9/24/2022 at 7:44 PM, Calm said:

Or maybe midterms…JS said it would be a long time after death before we comprehended what we need to comprehend.

Midterm or not, it is crucial. Perhaps it is baccalaureate. 

Link to comment
On 9/24/2022 at 3:56 PM, mfbukowski said:

Yeah but...

The argument is question begging.

You "surmise" that he "places" us and then conclude that we WERE placed.

So you think it's random then?

Link to comment
On 9/24/2022 at 3:35 PM, mfbukowski said:

We know nothing about the "reality" of the nature of the universe, just what our paltry little senses tell us ABOUT what our our senses and devices CAN tell us about alleged data that is thousand to millions, to who knows how many "light years" ago. (Edit: apparently 13.7 billion year old light)

Certainly that suspect "objective data" tells us nothing about how we interact with God in our "subjective" understanding of our hearts.

We do the best we can. What I have seen of the universe so far convinces me of the reality and nature of God.

I look at the universe that God has created, and marvel.

On 9/24/2022 at 3:35 PM, mfbukowski said:

Astronomy is the worst possible place we can go to examine personal religious experience of the here and now about a God who dwells in our hearts. :)

 

Fortunately, then, that's not where I get my religious experience! :D 

Edited by Stargazer
Link to comment
On 9/24/2022 at 2:33 PM, Saint Bonaventure said:

Yes, you seem to understand what I'm saying. If Raiders never showed the Ark, and we only had a film of people talking about the Ark, gesturing the the Ark off-screen, the story being fitted around the audience never seeing the Ark--yes.

There's plenty we never see, but which are attested to by others. Moses dividing the Red Sea. Jesus raising Lazarus. The Risen Lord telling Mary Magdalene to tell the Apostles that he will check in with them soon.

I've not seen the plates of the Book of Mormon. Nevertheless, I am convinced through my experience with the Spirit that they existed and were what Joseph's translation of them said they were.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...