The Gold Plates

[Ryan Dahle]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure about that.  We have the text.  It needs to accounted for as much, if not more, than the physical reality of the plates.

It is a fair question to ask of how the text came to be.  The options here seem to be (A) a translation of an ancient record, or (B) a fabrication.  But (B) is substantially impaired by a number of salient factors, including Joseph Smith's limited education, the generalized lack of information about the ancient Americas during the translation period, the speed of the translation period, the clues and indicators in the Original Manuscript, the plausible connections between the text and the ancient Americas (tumbaga, Bountiful/Nahom, Valley of Lemuel, Mulek, cement, barley, etc.), and so on.

Exactly, the question isn't whether or not the plates alone provide compelling evidence of the Book of Mormon's authenticity. To my knowledge, no credible voices on either side of the belief spectrum appear to be making that claim. The question is how the plates fit in with the comprehensive picture of evidence both for and against the Book of Mormon's authenticity. For instance, does it help the Book of Mormon's credibility 

• that three people claimed to have been shown a view of the plates by the same angel who delivered them to Joseph Smith, and to hear a voice from heaven verifying the truth of their translation, and to behold the other Nephite artifacts,
• and that eight different individuals claimed to have handled and hefted and viewed the plates under ordinary circumstances,
• and that a handful of additional people reportedly had some sort of sensory encounter with the plates and other artifacts, both covered and uncovered,
• and that the reported form and content of the plates and other Nephite relics have numerous ancient precedents (other examples of writing on metal plates, doubled/witnessed/sealed documents, burying records in stone boxes, etc.),
• and that probably more than a dozen people witnessed Joseph Smith dictate the Book of Mormon, several of whom acted as his scribes,
• and that he accomplished the translation in approximately 60-65 working days,
• and that it has nearly 270,000 words,
• and that Joseph Smith had a very little formal education or prior literary experience, 
• and that he reportedly didn't use notes, outlines, reference materials, etc.,
• and that the original manuscript doesn't show any sign of substantive revisions, rearrangements of sentences, etc.,
• and that the text is surprisingly consistent and complex in a variety of domains (people, places, cultures, migrations, calendars, weights and measures, intertextuality, fulfilled prophecies, editorial promises, doctrinal continuity, flashbacks, embedded documents, multiple literary genres, complex narratives, consistent legal culture, etc.),
• and that the text pervasively uses a variety of poetic forms that also turn up in Hebrew, Egyptian, and Mesoamerican literature but which weren't well-known in the early 1800s,
• and that the text appears to invoke various ancient Near Eastern literary patterns or genres (epistolary protocols, testamental literature, farewell speeches, coronation speeches, prophetic speech patterns, psalms, victory songs, etc.)
• and that the text has over 50 instances of plausible Hebrew or Egyptian wordplay,
• and that a strong case can be made for Hebrew and Egyptian influence in a prominent native American language family (Uto-Aztecan),
• and that we now know that Jewish scribes in Lehi's day were utilizing an Egyptian script in various ways,
• and that many of the text's non-biblical names are now attested in ancient Near Eastern contexts,
• and that many of its narratives appear to invoke ancient Near Eastern legal concepts,
• and that many of its other cultural details are uncannily consistent with ancient Near Eastern and also Mesoamerican cultural features,
• and that Lehi's family's journey is remarkably consistent with the known geography of the Arabian Peninsula in 600 BC,
• and that many of the text's details have interesting scientific plausibility (olive culture, natural disasters--especially volcanic activity--in ancient Mesoamerica, the beheading of shiz, etc.),
• and that stylometric analysis points away from Joseph Smith or his associates as authoring the Book of Mormon,
• and that the text's  Early Modern English lexis, grammar, and syntax also strongly points away from Joseph Smith or his associates authoring the Book of Mormon,
• and so on and so forth. 

I've personally gone through a lot of this data very carefully. In many cases, I find it very persuasive. Collectively, I find it compelling.  I therefore see the reported existence of the plates as just an important piece in a much larger panorama of evidence--evidence which those making the case for disbelief have, for the most part, tended to ignore or treat in a superficial manner. Generally speaking, the cavalier and dismissive attitude of the so-called critics towards serious Book of Mormon scholarship in a variety of domains has increased my suspicions that they just aren't in a good place to evaluate the text's authenticity, much less the relative value of the constituent pieces of evidence which support it. I would even go so far as to say that the asymmetrical interest and engagement with that data has strengthened my faith. 

Until someone can effectively overturn these and other categories of positive evidence AND convince me that my personal spiritual experiences are better explained as natural psychological phenomena (good luck there), I will continue to trust in the testimonies of those who claimed to have seen, felt, hefted, or otherwise examined the plates. I find their reports to be credible, not just on their face, but especially in the broader context of relevant data. 

Edited September 13, 2022 by Ryan Dahle

[SeekingUnderstanding]

16 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

AND convince me that my personal spiritual experiences are better explained as natural psychological phenomena (good luck there)

There is the rub though right? 
 

 Muhlestein summed it up best when he stated that he approaches apologetics assuming that it’s true (like based on his own personal spiritual witness). He says, “Therefore, any evidence I find, I will try to fit into that paradigm. I don’t feel that I need to defend that paradigm, I feel that I want to understand the evidence that I find within that paradigm because to me it’s a given that it’s true.”

That’s fine if it works for him, but that is decidedly not the best way to evaluate truth. Instead of trying to shoehorn evidence to fit our assumptions, we should be searching for the paradigm or theory that best fits the data. 

 

[Stormin' Mormon]

These quotes from Teryl Givens seem apropos to the current discussion:

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/testimonies/scholars/terryl-l-givens

Quote

I am convinced that there must be grounds for doubt as well as belief, for only in these conditions of equilibrium and balance, equally “enticed by the one or the other,” is my heart truly free to choose belief or cynicism, faith or faithlessness. Under these conditions, what I choose to embrace, to be responsive to, is the purest reflection of who I am and what I love.

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/letter-to-a-doubter/

Quote

 

There must be grounds for doubt as well as belief in order to render the choice more truly a choice, and therefore more deliberate and laden with more personal vulnerability and investment. An overwhelming preponderance of evidence on either side would make our choice as meaningless as would a loaded gun pointed at our heads...  What we choose to embrace, to be responsive to, is the purest reflection of who we are and what we love. That is why faith, the choice to believe, is, in the final analysis, an action that is positively laden with moral significance.

The call to faith, in this light, is not some test of a coy god waiting to see if we “get it right.” It is the only summons, issued under the only conditions which can allow us to reveal fully who we are, what we most love, and what we most devoutly desire. Without constraint, without any form of mental compulsion, the act of belief becomes the freest possible projection of what resides in our hearts... The greatest act of self-revelation occurs when we choose what we will believe, in that space of freedom that exists between knowing that a thing is and knowing that a thing is not.

 

 

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Please read my previos reasons why it fails. Wrong color, wrong feel, hard to inscribe, punched or perforated rather than engraved, could not afford this much tin and more.

I did read the comments, but wondered if the tin could be colored a deeper gold or bronze color. But it's really not a concern for me but how about the Kinderhook Plates that some men pranked Joseph Smith with? I wonder if they learned how to alter the tin color. I'd have to research to see what they used. But again, it's not a big deal. I just honestly answered River's question.  

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Exactly, the question isn't whether or not the plates alone provide compelling evidence of the Book of Mormon's authenticity. To my knowledge, no credible voices on either side of the belief spectrum appear to be making that claim. The question is how the plates fit in with the comprehensive picture of evidence both for and against the Book of Mormon's authenticity. For instance, does it help the Book of Mormon's credibility 

• that three people claimed to have been shown a view of the plates by the same angel who delivered them to Joseph Smith, and to hear a voice from heaven verifying the truth of their translation, and to behold the other Nephite artifacts,
• and that eight different individuals claimed to have handled and hefted and viewed the plates under ordinary circumstances,
• and that a handful of additional people reportedly had some sort of sensory encounter with the plates and other artifacts, both covered and uncovered,
• and that the reported form and content of the plates and other Nephite relics have numerous ancient precedents (other examples of writing on metal plates, doubled/witnessed/sealed documents, burying records in stone boxes, etc.),
• and that probably more than a dozen people witnessed Joseph Smith dictate the Book of Mormon, several of whom acted as his scribes,
• and that he accomplished the translation in approximately 60-65 working days,
• and that it has nearly 270,000 words,
• and that Joseph Smith had a very little formal education or prior literary experience, 
• and that he reportedly didn't use notes, outlines, reference materials, etc.,
• and that the original manuscript doesn't show any sign of substantive revisions, rearrangements of sentences, etc.,
• and that the text is surprisingly consistent and complex in a variety of domains (people, places, cultures, migrations, calendars, weights and measures, intertextuality, fulfilled prophecies, editorial promises, doctrinal continuity, flashbacks, embedded documents, multiple literary genres, complex narratives, consistent legal culture, etc.),
• and that the text pervasively uses a variety of poetic forms that also turn up in Hebrew, Egyptian, and Mesoamerican literature but which weren't well-known in the early 1800s,
• and that the text appears to invoke various ancient Near Eastern literary patterns or genres (epistolary protocols, testamental literature, farewell speeches, coronation speeches, prophetic speech patterns, psalms, victory songs, etc.)
• and that the text has over 50 instances of plausible Hebrew or Egyptian wordplay,
• and that a strong case can be made for Hebrew and Egyptian influence in a prominent native American language family (Uto-Aztecan),
• and that we now know that Jewish scribes in Lehi's day were utilizing an Egyptian script in various ways,
• and that many of the text's non-biblical names are now attested in ancient Near Eastern contexts,
• and that many of its narratives appear to invoke ancient Near Eastern legal concepts,
• and that many of its other cultural details are uncannily consistent with ancient Near Eastern and also Mesoamerican cultural features,
• and that Lehi's family's journey is remarkably consistent with the known geography of the Arabian Peninsula in 600 BC,
• and that many of the text's details have interesting scientific plausibility (olive culture, natural disasters--especially volcanic activity--in ancient Mesoamerica, the beheading of shiz, etc.),
• and that stylometric analysis points away from Joseph Smith or his associates as authoring the Book of Mormon,
• and that the text's  Early Modern English lexis, grammar, and syntax also strongly points away from Joseph Smith or his associates authoring the Book of Mormon,
• and so on and so forth. 

I've personally gone through a lot of this data very carefully. In many cases, I find it very persuasive. Collectively, I find it compelling.  I therefore see the reported existence of the plates as just an important piece in a much larger panorama of evidence--evidence which those making the case for disbelief have, for the most part, tended to ignore or treat in a superficial manner. Generally speaking, the cavalier and dismissive attitude of the so-called critics towards serious Book of Mormon scholarship in a variety of domains has increased my suspicions that they just aren't in a good place to evaluate the text's authenticity, much less the relative value of the constituent pieces of evidence which support it. I would even go so far as to say that the asymmetrical interest and engagement with that data has strengthened my faith. 

Until someone can effectively overturn these and other categories of positive evidence AND convince me that my personal spiritual experiences are better explained as natural psychological phenomena (good luck there), I will continue to trust in the testimonies of those who claimed to have seen, felt, hefted, or otherwise examined the plates. I find their reports to be credible, not just on their face, but especially in the broader context of relevant data. 

My doubts came from the thousands of errors in the BoM, and the possible books/map that could have influenced/inspired JS. I found this list on Quora:

1. Contemporary books on Napoleon published before 1830.
2. View of the Hebrews, 1823, 1825
3. The Late War, 1916 (Computer analytics give this one the closest connection)
4. King James Bible, 1769 (including grammar and translation errors)
5. Manuscript Found, Solomon Spalding (discovered late)
6. Captain Kidd (Comoros Island, Port Moroni located southeast Africa).
7. The Travels of Marco Polo
8. Shakespeare  

 

Again this quote from Quora about BH Roberts. 

"BH Roberts who at the time was seen as the Church’s most eminent intellectual was asked to research the book (doing a parallel to the Book of Mormon)and report as to what he found. His study was done in the 1920’s. . I have his book, Studies of the Book of Mormon which covers the issues that arise if Joseph Smith could have used View of the Hebrews as inspiration for the Book of Mormon. Here he carefully asks the same questions that critics would and tries to objectively see them through thoughtfully. He is unashamedly honest. Though he came to no conclusions he gave enough information as to what he found that church authorities would not respond to his work when he met with them. His own study of the matter was not even published until 1985 and only because his descendants pushed for it. When the book came out it was widely criticized within the Church as it was not seen as “faith promoting”. Roberts was not trying to defend his church nor was he saying the Book of Mormon was built on plagiarism from Ethan Smith’s book. He just pointed out what he saw as many parallels that as he is quoted as saying was “beyond coincidence”.

 

Me: I don't think JS was an illiterate farm boy. His father was a school teacher, albeit maybe not for long. And there was a library that had some or all of the books mentioned or Joseph most likely had access to them. And the anachronisms found in the BoM. But lastly, in reading the Happiness Letter Joseph wrote to Nancy Rigdon, I feel like I'm reading scripture. 

https://scholarlypublishingcollective.org/uip/jmh/article-abstract/42/3/94/218544/Searching-for-Happiness-Joseph-Smith-s-Alleged

 

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours ago, Teancum said:

I see the point goes right past your overly pious head.  If the plates were available they could be examined and shown to be authentic, or not, by experts.  See simple. Should not be to tough to comprehend.  I am not sign seeker.  But fantastic claims require fantastic evidence and you don't have it.  Burden of proof is on the one making the fantastic claim.

Shown to be authentic what?
Fantastic evidence of what?
An ancient artifact? A witness of Christ? An ancient Israelite culture on the American Continent? That Joseph Smith was a prophet? An angel named Moroni delivered them to Joseph?

[JustAnAustralian]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I found this list on Quora:

I'm pretty sure I've seen all of those apart from the last two addressed many times over by now.

 

[Ryan Dahle]

5 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

6 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

AND convince me that my personal spiritual experiences are better explained as natural psychological phenomena (good luck there)

There is the rub though right? 
 

Muhlestein summed it up best when he stated that he approaches apologetics assuming that it’s true (like based on his own personal spiritual witness). He says, “Therefore, any evidence I find, I will try to fit into that paradigm. I don’t feel that I need to defend that paradigm, I feel that I want to understand the evidence that I find within that paradigm because to me it’s a given that it’s true.”

That’s fine if it works for him, but that is decidedly not the best way to evaluate truth. Instead of trying to shoehorn evidence to fit our assumptions, we should be searching for the paradigm or theory that best fits the data. 

While I agree with key assumptions in Kerry's statements (such as the unavoidability and preeminent importance of paradigms), I don't think I would express my own approach in quite the same way.

Paradigms don't just pop out of thin air. We develop them overtime. We change them over time. They can be and often are ever evolving. Sometimes, as when a believer decides his or her religious faith has been misplaced, major paradigms can even crumble and then be rebuilt. 

When I attempt to conceptualize my our own major paradigms, I find complex networks of logical arguments. It would appear that the evidence I use to support and form the conclusions in these logic chains comes in many varieties and types, each of which possess idiosyncratic limitations and advantages, which, in turn, necessitates peculiar methods to assess and evaluate them. For instance, the criteria appropriate for evaluating eye-witness testimony is naturally different from that involved in the assessment of an ancient metal artifact or the intentionality of a literary form. And so on and so forth. 

As far as I am consciously aware, I don't view ANY of the logic chains in my paradigm--even those based on spiritual evidence--as being somehow fixed and unmovable by default. Nothing should be viewed as inherently sacrosanct or impervious to error. I see all logic chains as potentially adjustable and even dispensable. Stated simply, I don't think it is ever reasonable to place unreasonable faith in any proposition. So when I included spiritual evidence on my list, it wasn't an admission that my analysis in all other domains is ultimately shaped by or subservient to unreasonable conclusions derived from my subjective spiritual experiences. Rather I see the spiritual domain of evidence as being distinct and possessing its own unique advantages and limitations. I admit that I see spiritual evidence as being of relatively greater value in a lot of ways, but I also recognize the very real potential for self-deception in this area. Which is probably why I value and have intently searched in so many other domains of evidence. I have tried to engage in a concerted effort to triangulate the data as much as possible. 

Edited September 14, 2022 by Ryan Dahle

[Ryan Dahle]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

My doubts came from the thousands of errors in the BoM, and the possible books/map that could have influenced/inspired JS. I found this list on Quora:

1. Contemporary books on Napoleon published before 1830.
2. View of the Hebrews, 1823, 1825
3. The Late War, 1916 (Computer analytics give this one the closest connection)
4. King James Bible, 1769 (including grammar and translation errors)
5. Manuscript Found, Solomon Spalding (discovered late)
6. Captain Kidd (Comoros Island, Port Moroni located southeast Africa).
7. The Travels of Marco Polo
8. Shakespeare 

I'm sorry to hear that, as these are honestly some of the weakest arguments against the Book of Mormon. 

[why me]

On 9/9/2022 at 7:39 PM, JarMan said:

I doubt he had plates. I do think he had a manuscript, though and that’s what he was concealing. 

Paper is much more of a problem. Hard to hide a manuscript from people's eyes. We need to remember how people wrote back in his time. A feather pen, ink wells, etc. Not to mention rough drafts and ink blots. Plus the purchase of paper and pens. And then writing by candlelight. How to cover it all up?

[webbles]

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I did read the comments, but wondered if the tin could be colored a deeper gold or bronze color. But it's really not a concern for me but how about the Kinderhook Plates that some men pranked Joseph Smith with? I wonder if they learned how to alter the tin color. I'd have to research to see what they used. But again, it's not a big deal. I just honestly answered River's question.  

Kinderhook plates weren't tin.  They were brass.

[JarMan]

1 hour ago, why me said:

Paper is much more of a problem. Hard to hide a manuscript from people's eyes. We need to remember how people wrote back in his time. A feather pen, ink wells, etc. Not to mention rough drafts and ink blots. Plus the purchase of paper and pens. And then writing by candlelight. How to cover it all up?

He didn't have to hide the inkwells and pens--just the manuscript. Best way is to stick it in a box, cover the box with a cloth and say it was the plates. And then take care to hide the "plates" or threaten people they would be destroyed if they tried to look at them.

[InCognitus]

15 minutes ago, JarMan said:

He didn't have to hide the inkwells and pens--just the manuscript. Best way is to stick it in a box, cover the box with a cloth and say it was the plates. And then take care to hide the "plates" or threaten people they would be destroyed if they tried to look at them.

Except now you're getting away from the other popular criticism based on witness statements of Joseph using the seer stone placed in a hat during the translation.  (If only Joseph had access to a smart phone back in 1828). 

[JarMan]

1 minute ago, InCognitus said:

Except now you're getting away from the other popular criticism based on witness statements of Joseph using the seer stone placed in a hat during the translation.  (If only Joseph had access to a smart phone back in 1828). 

It's very easy to make it look like you're reading from a stone in a hat while actually reading from something on or near your lap. Just leave a gap between your chin and the hat brim and look down into your lap. I've tried it several times with people watching from the other side of the table and they couldn't detect what I was doing.

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Tacenda said:

The Late War, 1916 (Computer analytics give this one the closest connection)

This one you need to look at closely, it is rather silly imo once you see the randomness of the alleged plagiarism.  If this is the closest connection, pretty easy to dismiss the rest.

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Book_of_Mormon/Plagiarism_accusations/The_Late_War

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Tacenda said:

He just pointed out what he saw as many parallels that as he is quoted as saying was “beyond coincidence”.

And his various suggested arguments have been addressed.  He was taking positions critics would take, such as assuming there was no angel and then reasoning from there as well as there was a limit to his knowledge at the time he did this, so many of his ‘as a critic’ criticisms have been addressed in more detail.  I suspect he would consider them even less impressive than he did at the time (since he didn’t lose faith in the BofM or the Gospel).

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Book_of_Mormon/B.H._Roberts_and_"Studies_of_the_Book_of_Mormon"

Edited September 14, 2022 by Calm

[Tacenda]

9 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I'm sorry to hear that, as these are honestly some of the weakest arguments against the Book of Mormon. 

I need to state though that my first doubt started from the polygamy. And what do you make of the way the Happiness Letter sounds? That's not an illiterate farm boy, or unschooled. I believe Joseph was well read, especially scriptures.

[Teancum]

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

Not sure what you mean by "convenient." 

I am sure you understand. No plates.  No way to test the translation.  Pretty much take it on faith.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

 

As I see it, the Plates were part of the plan, but not in the way you suggest.

You see it this way because there are no plates and likely what were allegedly ancient plates were not.  Sort of like the Kinderhook debacle.

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

I made some comments about the Plates being available today as undermining agency (and, hence, the Plan of Salvation).

"Convenience" doesn't really figure into things.

Thanks,

-Smac

You back into this conclusion because there are no plates.  If there were and they were authentic your position would be different.  

[Stargazer]

On 9/10/2022 at 5:18 AM, Calm said:

Did coopers buy metal hoops already fashioned or make their own?  

I will admit to not knowing this specifically, but the typical industrial processes involving complex products usually mean that certain operations are contracted out, or obtained from more specialized vendors. Constructing barrels involves woodworking skills that are somewhat far removed from the metalworking that the hoops require. So it seems most likely that a cooper would buy hoops from a blacksmith, rather than make them himself. Unless the hoops are made out of wood -- which has also been done.

I found some interesting cooper videos! The first two approach the kind of methods that would have been used in the 1800s. The third one is modern mechanization. Fascinating stuff! The old coopers using rough tools and a "good eye" to form staves just seem so to be much more skillful than the modern coopers.

• Barrel Making And Cooper Initiating (1949) 
• Producing Guiness barrels long time ago! - this video (1954) shows coopers joining some of the hoops from wrought iron bands. Guinness could very well have had metal working done on their property. The Smith family? Naah.
• How the NY Cooperage Makes Up to 100 Whiskey Barrels a Week - this is modern-day coopering, and the methods are quite different. Instead of hand-eye forming of the staves, they use a mechanism, apparently computer-controlled. These folks buy their steel strapping, but form and assemble them into hoops in-house. 

On 9/10/2022 at 5:18 AM, Calm said:

Now you have brought this up, it seems unlikely that a small copper shop would have the tools necessary to roll out and weld a hoop or melt the metal and use a mold or whatever was done to create the hoop itself. 

If the Smiths had blacksmithing skills, it seems to me that they would have done that instead of farming.

On 9/10/2022 at 5:18 AM, Calm said:

I assume the hoop metal is likely pretty dense and difficult to cut given it has to be strong enough to hold a barrel together. It is not just flimsy sheet metal, but relatively rigid.

Metal hoops definitely have to be made of iron. I can't even imagine copper being used for it, or even a copper alloy. Iron requires a great deal of blacksmithing to get right. Again, if the Smiths could do that, that would have been their profession.

[Teancum]

13 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Shown to be authentic what?
Fantastic evidence of what?
An ancient artifact? A witness of Christ? An ancient Israelite culture on the American Continent? That Joseph Smith was a prophet? An angel named Moroni delivered them to Joseph?

I think you know my points and what the answers are to your own questions.

[Ryan Dahle]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

11 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I'm sorry to hear that, as these are honestly some of the weakest arguments against the Book of Mormon. 

I need to state though that my first doubt started from the polygamy. And what do you make of the way the Happiness Letter sounds? That's not an illiterate farm boy, or unschooled. I believe Joseph was well read, especially scriptures.

I think that Joseph's later writings shouldn't be seen as a reliable indicator of what his literary ability was like in 1829. And the so-called "Happiness Letter," in particular, is a bad choice because its provenance is questionable.

The best evidence we have of Joseph's literary ability in 1829 is probably his 1832 history. I don't think he was an inarticulate speaker. He seems able to construct sentences well enough, and his style, undeveloped as it may have been, naturally attempts to imitate the flowery syntax and sentimental diction of his Romantic contemporaries. But that doesn't mean he was well-read in 1829. You have to weigh all the available evidence, and that points strongly towards him being poorly read and only somewhat familiar with the Bible in 1829. Besides, there are a host of other problems with trying to pin the text's authorship on him (stylometry, EModE, poetic forms, complex narratives, etc.). Simply demonstrating that he could construct decently articulate and coherent sentences in the Romantic style doesn't explain very much. 

Here are my thoughts on his education and relative literary ability:

https://evidencecentral.org/recency/evidence/joseph-smiths-education

https://evidencecentral.org/evidence/comparing-authors

And here is an article from Brian Hales that further addresses Joseph's education:

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/theories-and-assumptions-a-review-of-william-l-daviss-visions-in-a-seer-stone/#sdfootnote36anc

Edited September 14, 2022 by Ryan Dahle

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Quote

It has everything to do with the discussion. All to convenient.

Not sure what you mean by "convenient." 

I am sure you understand.

I have my flaws, but playing dumb or being coy is not one of them.

I am not sure what you mean by "convenient."

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

No plates. 

Yes.  But characterizing this as being "convenient" (sarcastically) does not make much sense.  It's a single word that you are using to, it seems, make an argument.  But using a single word allows you to replace substance with sarcasm, to avoid having to articulate and explain the contours of that argument (whatever that argument is).

Taken in context, in the Latter-day Saint paradigm, having the plates would not make sense.  It would undermine agency.  It would remove the need for faith. 

Imagine, for example, if we were born into mortality with a perfect knowledge and recollection of our First Estate.  If we knew precisely where we came from, why we are here, and where we are going, there would be no meaningful opportunity to "choose."  It would be akin to taking a math test with the answer sheet being projected in front of us.  That would be no test at all.

In the context of the Plan of Salvation, the "veil of forgetfulness" is an essential component of our mortal probation.  It is not happenstance or accident.  It ought not be derisively characterized as "convenient."  It's part of the Plan.  It only works if we choose.  It only works if we have a meaningful choice.  We can't have a meaningful choice without the veil.

In my view, something similar can be said about the Plates.  They were, it seems, an essential component of the Restoration.  Way too much effort was put into maintaining the Nephite record over centuries, into Mormon compiling and abridging them, into Moroni taking them (apparently far from his homelands) and burying them, into Joseph Smith being led to and retrieving them, into Joseph keeping them safe, and so on.  They had a purpose in the Plan, but that purpose did not include the Church retaining the physical Plates in its custody.  Again, in the context of the Plan of Salvation, the absence of the Plates is similar to the veil.  In the absence of these things we become situated to make a meaningful choice.  No compulsion.  No cheating.  Choice.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

No way to test the translation. 

With respect, I disagree.  Again, we have the text.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Pretty much take it on faith.

Precisely.  Acceptance of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ is principally and overwhelmingly a matter of faith.  Scientific/scholarly disciplines that could have otherwise been useful in examining the Plates (metallurgy, Egyptology, anthropology/archaeology, etc.) are wonderful and have their place in society, but they are not the foundations upon which faith in Jesus Christ can or ought to be built.

The absence of the Plates is a feature, not a bug, in the Plan of Salvation.  You seem to be treating this absence as a flaw, as a defect, in what the Restored Gospel is.  With respect, I submit that this does not make sense in the context of what the Church is presenting.  This is why your reference to "convenient" does not make much sense to me.  You seem to be decontextualizing the Plates from their circumstances.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Quote

As I see it, the Plates were part of the plan, but not in the way you suggest.

You see it this way because there are no plates

Not really.  I see it this way because I am taking the Church's narrative in context.  I think you are not.  For me, the absence of the Plates makes quite a bit of sense relative to the roles of faith, agency, etc. that are espoused in the Restored Gospel.  Conversely, you seem to be suggesting that the absence of the Plates is a defect in the narrative, such that their absence has been explained away in some sort of ad hoc rationalization.

In context, the Plates being taken back makes perfect sense.  I don't think it was ever part of the Plan for Joseph or the Church to keep them.  

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

and likely what were allegedly ancient plates were not. 

Your use of the word "likely" here seems to confirm my point.  We cannot definitively prove the Plates were what Joseph claimed them to be, nor can critics disprove them.  We are, then, left in a state of equilibrium in which agency and faith can be exercised.  That comports quite well with the Plan of Salvation.  

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Sort of like the Kinderhook debacle.

The historical record does not support this characterization.  See, e.g., here.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Quote

 

I made some comments about the Plates being available today as undermining agency (and, hence, the Plan of Salvation).

"Convenience" doesn't really figure into things.

 

You back into this conclusion because there are no plates. 

I don't think so.  I reach this conclusion because I am construing the absence of the Plates in the context of the Church's narrative.  In that context, the absence of the Plates makes a lot of sense.  A lot.  In fact, I don't see the Plan of Salvation working if the Plates were with us.

If I were a stranger to the Church and its message, and if I were to take the missionary discussions, and if in those discussions the Plan of Salvation was explained, and if in that explanation the centrality of faith and choice were emphasized, then the "veil of forgetfulness" as to our First Estate makes perfect sense.  A skeptic might well come along as say something like "Yeah, it sure is convenient that we have no recollection of living with God before we were born."  This derision, in context, doesn't make much sense.  First, the issue at hand is essentially untestable in any empirical sense.  Second, this derision is misplaced when the necessity of the veil makes sense in the context of the central tenets of the narrative.  Third, this derision comes across as a pretextual or preemptive excuse to avoid meaningfully interacting with the narrative.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

If there were and they were authentic your position would be different.  

Again, you are treating the absence of the Plates as a bug, not a feature.  I see their absence as essential to our capacity to choose, to have faith, as the veil.

In context, the Plates were never intended to remain with us.  That's not an excuse.  It's a sensible extrapolation about the Plan of Salvation and the Restored Gospel.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 14, 2022 by smac97

[Snodgrassian]

If the plates remained with Joseph and the Saints, and still controlled by the church today, does that strengthen the authenticity of the Book of Mormon? if so, by how much? 

Does the existence of the ancient plates harm one's agency to exercise faith?

 

The Bible mentions people, places, and events that are corroborated by others at the time. Does that harm one's free agency to believe the spiritualness of the Bible? 

 

As for Brother Joseph, was he the only person (in the last 200 years) blessed to leverage stones (or any other items) to understand the will of God? Have any of the prophets after Joseph leveraged similar items? 

[Ryan Dahle]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Quote

 

I made some comments about the Plates being available today as undermining agency (and, hence, the Plan of Salvation).

"Convenience" doesn't really figure into things.

 

You back into this conclusion because there are no plates. 

I don't think so.  I reach this conclusion because I am construing the absence of the Plates in the context of the Church's narrative.  In that context, the absence of the Plates makes a lot of sense.  A lot.  In fact, I don't see the Plan of Salvation working if the Plates were with us.

If I were a stranger to the Church and its message, and if I were to take the missionary discussions, and if in those discussions the Plan of Salvation was explained, and if in that explanation the centrality of faith and choice were emphasized, then the "veil of forgetfulness" as to our First Estate makes perfect sense.  A skeptic might well come along as say something like "Yeah, it sure is convenient that we have no recollection of living with God before we were born."  This derision, in context, doesn't make much sense.  First, the issue at hand is essentially untestable in any empirical sense.  Second, this derision is misplaced when the necessity of the veil makes sense in the context of the central tenets of the narrative.  Third, this derision comes across as a pretextual or preemptive excuse to avoid meaningfully interacting with the narrative.

Imagine a criminal trial in which the prosecution claims that the defendant shot another man and then hid the murder weapon. The defense attorney argues that there simply was no murder weapon and then states something like "isn't it convenient that the weapon can't be found."

Well, first of all, no it isn't convenient for the prosecution's case (assuming they really believe there is such a weapon and that it could be confidently traced to the defendant). The prosecution's case would actually be much stronger if the weapon could be found, just like the case for the Book of Mormon could potentially be much stronger if the plates were available for forensic analysis. 

Furthermore, in each situation there is a valid reason for why such evidence might be missing. A murderer may naturally try to hide a murder weapon, so the mere fact that it is missing doesn't mean much. Likewise, a fundamental purpose of the Book of Mormon (i.e., to test people's hearts and faith) may be largely compromised if the evidence for its authenticity was too strong. And 50+ pounds of anciently engraved gold-alloy plates might just do the trick on that front. Since the competing explanations in either scenario can both reasonably account for the absence of evidence, then its absence simply doesn't mean a whole lot.

Let's say that in the murder trial there are 3 people who claim to have clearly seen the defendant shoot the victim with a gun. And let's say there are 8 others who claim that they knew the defendant owned such a gun and had personally seen and handled it themselves when the defendant showed it to them. And yet, in the closing arguments, the defense attorney insists on belaboring the point about how convenient it is that the prosecution can't actually produce the murder weapon. 

[smac97]

40 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Imagine a criminal trial in which the prosecution claims that the defendant shot another man and then hid the murder weapon. The defense attorney argues that there simply was no murder weapon and then states something like "isn't it convenient that the weapon can't be found."

I am currently involved in a lawsuit in which the defendant LLC (I represent the plaintiff) is making extensive legal arguments based on a contract with the federal government.  However, we are ten months into the litigation, and the defendant LLC has so far not only failed to submit the contract into evidence, it has repeatedly emphasized that it has no intention of doing so, and that the court cannot compel its submission into evidence.

As it happens, the defendant's refusal to submit the contract into evidence has been very helpful to my client's legal position, as I have been able to shoot down every argument based on the contract (because the contract is not in evidence).  Moreover, through the course of the litigation it has become apparent that the defendant LLC is not a party to the contract (though its member/owner apparently is).  The defendant LLC has apparently been trying to submit legal arguments to the court based on a contract to which it (the defendant LLC) is not even a party.  For a variety of reasons, this would not work.  If this is the case, then the refusal to submit the contract into evidence is, to borrow a word, "convenient."  It makes sense when the context is considered.

In contrast, Teancum's sarcasm about the absence of the Plates being "convenient" seems misplaced when the context is considered.  The context requires their absence.

40 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Well, first of all, no it isn't convenient for the prosecution's case (assuming they really believe there is such a weapon and that it could be confidently traced to the defendant). The prosecution's case would actually be much stronger if the weapon could be found, just like the case for the Book of Mormon could potentially be much stronger if the plates were available for forensic analysis. 

Much stronger, yes.  And our attention would turn to metallurgy and Egyptology and the like, rather than on the saving truths in the text, Moroni 10:3-5, etc.

40 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Furthermore, in each situation there is a valid reason for why such evidence might be missing. A murderer may naturally try to hide a murder weapon, so the mere fact that it is missing doesn't mean much. Likewise, a fundamental purpose of the Book of Mormon (i.e., to test people's hearts and faith) may be largely compromised if the evidence for its authenticity was too strong. And 50+ pounds of anciently engraved gold-alloy plates might just do the trick on that front. Since the competing explanations in either scenario can both reasonably account for the absence of evidence, then its absence simply doesn't mean a whole lot.

You summed things up better than I did.

Thanks,

-Smac