The Gold Plates

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

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

No. Please explain. 

[smac97]

19 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

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.

In terms of evaluating spiritual/religious claims, I think it's a fine way to proceed.

19 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Instead of trying to shoehorn evidence to fit our assumptions, we should be searching for the paradigm or theory that best fits the data. 

Do you think "shoehorn{ing} evidence to fit our assumptions" is an issue that goes both ways?  That skeptics do this as well, just with a different set of assumptions/presumptions.

In the law, there are "presumptions" in place.  In a criminal case, the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

In a civil lawsuit, the plaintiff almost always presumptively carries the "burden of proof" to establish the probability of his legal claims.  There are some few exceptions to this, though.  Many years ago I was involved in a workers compensation case in which my client, the defendant employer, had not carried workers comp insurance.  The law in Utah is situated to essentially punish employers for not carrying this insurance by shifting the burden of proof.  Thus all the plaintiff, a former employee who had claimed to have been injured on the job, had to do was present the claim to the court (no witnesses.  no photos, nada), and my client had to prove that the injury had not happened.  

Anyway, my point is that we all bring our presumptions and assumptions with us.  None of us is objective.  We all look at life through a preferred lens.  As to the truth claims of the Church, I acknowledge that viewing them through a "lens" of skepticism/cynicism, using presumptions devoid of faith or hope, will almost certainly yield a negative conclusion.  Conversely, a "lense" borne of faith and hope can yield quite different results.

Apparently the Plan of Salvation is predicated on the individual being willing to exercise some measure of faith and hope.  Some willingness/desire to believe.  Alma 32's "seed of faith" discussion is apt:

Quote

27 But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words.

28 Now, we will compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Snodgrassian]

1 hour 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."

Why would a defense attorney argue that there wasn't a murder weapon (gun), if the victim was murdered via gunshot?  Not having the gun as evidence makes it more difficulty identify the perpetrator. 

In the case of the Book of Mormon, not having the plates seriously harms legitimacy of the Book of Mormon. If the plates were still around, their ancientness could be tested, that is one step in the process of determining if the plates are/were authentic.

[mfbukowski]

27 minutes ago, Snodgrassian said:

Why would a defense attorney argue that there wasn't a murder weapon (gun), if the victim was murdered via gunshot?  Not having the gun as evidence makes it more difficulty identify the perpetrator. 

In the case of the Book of Mormon, not having the plates seriously harms legitimacy of the Book of Mormon. If the plates were still around, their ancientness could be tested, that is one step in the process of determining if the plates are/were authentic.

Unfortunately it would not show how to test the authenticity of its wisdom.  Historicism is not truth nor a truth bearer of its wisdom

If you keep looking that way, you will totally miss the point

Moroni 10 urges you to test it differently.

Edited September 14, 2022 by mfbukowski

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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

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

I think I have been clear.  No plates mean that there is nothing to look at to show that there was actually an ancient record.  We cannot examine the plates.  We cannot have experts in languages review then and compare it to the translation.  JS, by tightly controlling ho could see "plates" and then telling everyone the angel took them back can perpetuate a narrative that as you note at great length, has to be faith based.  He can't be challenged on the records authenticity.  That is convenient because it is likely it was not authentic.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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).

See above.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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. 

Again, this is simply your religious narrative and what you have been taught to believe. I get it. I used to believe it as well. Somehow, for some reason faith and choices based on limited knowledge and evidence seems the paramount of virtues for Latter day Saints and most religions. That makes sense because without it they would crumble.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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.

Of course. If there was a first estate. If this life is a " test" to be proven to see if we would obey without being in God's presence. If that narrative is correct then sure.  Though does that make sense?  Is it rational. It would be sort of like taking the bar exam after three years of law school but you have now forgotten everything.  A veil is placed over your mind for legal learning. Now go take your test.  You may have access to inspiration, faith, something called the Holy Ghost and personal revelation. Now go take your test. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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.

Ok.  Similar to my comments above is all I would add.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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

You have a text you cannot compare to anything. How is that helpful?  The Lord  of the Rings is a text as well. If Tolkien claimed it as an authentic record of a real place and written from elvish texts he had found would you be fine just taking his word for it?  Or would having the record be helpful?

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Precisely.  Acceptance of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ is principally and overwhelmingly a matter of faith. 

And this is the crux of it really. As noted faith is paramount because that ultimately is all you have.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 

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.

But boy when evidence shows up are you not happy to use it?

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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.

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.  

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.  

 

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.

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

How many major decisions in your life that require the time, moenny and total devotion of your life would you make in a similar way?

[Ryan Dahle]

2 hours ago, Snodgrassian said:

Why would a defense attorney argue that there wasn't a murder weapon (gun), if the victim was murdered via gunshot?  Not having the gun as evidence makes it more difficulty identify the perpetrator. 

I just wrote imprecisely. I meant for the defense attorney to argue that the defendant didn't possess such a weapon (not that one didn't exist anywhere). 

2 hours ago, Snodgrassian said:

In the case of the Book of Mormon, not having the plates seriously harms legitimacy of the Book of Mormon. If the plates were still around, their ancientness could be tested, that is one step in the process of determining if the plates are/were authentic.

I wouldn't say that the mere absence of plates "seriously harms" the case for the Book of Mormon's authenticity. The presence of such plates could certainly strengthen its case, but the absence of the plates doesn't necessarily harm the case because there is a good reason for them to be absent. 

That is sort of the point of the analogy with the criminal case. The mere absence of the murder weapon doesn't mean a whole lot if (A) a murderer would be expected to hide such a weapon and (B) there is plentiful eyewitness testimony that the defendant possessed such a weapon and used it specifically to kill the victim.

Likewise, the absence of the plates doesn't hurt the case for the Book of Mormon because the presence of such plates is arguably incompatible with the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. In other words, if the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be, then we would expect that such plates would NOT be permitted to go forth into the world as evidence. Yes, that is an inherent limitation in the evidence, but it isn't some type of flaw in the evidence. It doesn't "seriously harm" the case for the Book of Mormon's legitimacy. 

Edited September 14, 2022 by Ryan Dahle

[Teancum]

39 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

No. Please explain. 

No thanks

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Snodgrassian said:

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? 

I think this is not enough to go on.  If the plates remained with Joseph and the Saints, and still controlled by the church today, and if the plates were empirically tested by neutral/objective parties with training and expertise in the relevant disciplines, and if the metallurgical and other scientific tests corroborated the claim that the plates were genuinely ancient, and if the "Reformed Egyptian" was capable of being deciphered to some extent, and if the resulting translation confirmed or approximated the translation of Joseph Smith, then I think the impact of the Plates re: confirming/strengthening "the authenticity of the Book of Mormon" would be considerable (but still, in the end, not insurmountable).

However, if the Church had the Plates but refused to allow them to be viewed/tested by outside experts, then there would not be much value at all.  If anything, the Church claiming possession while refusing examination would likely lead to substantial skepticism.

1 hour ago, Snodgrassian said:

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? 

Relative to the Book of Mormon, I think demonstrated antiquity would have a much stronger corroborating effect as to divine authenticity as compared to the Bible.  I have previously explained my position on this here:

Quote

Some folks familiar with the LDS Church like to compare and contrast the relative "scientific" (read: archaeological) evidences for the Book of Mormon as compared to the Bible. One of the points that frequently gets noted is that evidence of antiquity or historicity doesn't necessarily (or even probably) translate into evidence of divinity.

...

William Hamblin was on a radio program and had the following exchange with a caller:

Quote

William Hamblin: Let me give you an example for instance. The name Alma in Joseph Smith's day was a typical woman's name. Joseph Smith uses it in the BoM for a male. And since that time we have discovered in Hebrew manuscripts that Alma was in fact a perfectly decent name for a Hebrew male. Now, how would Joseph Smith know this? Same thing with Mosiah and Nephi,. All these names have been discovered. They are nonbiblical and yet they are authentic in the setting which the text claims to come from. So there are all sorts of histroical analyses you could do, I don't think you could prove it that way. We're not claiming proof for the Book of mormon. We are claiming some level of plausibility.

Caller: What I'm saying is that in the Bible I can see the maps of Israel, I can see the maps of of, all types of maps.

William Hamblin: Suppose that, well I could show you map where Troy was. Does that prove that Zeus is king of heaven and that we should worship Zeus?

Caller: Well, that has nothing to do with our subject.

William Hamblin: It is precisely to do with our subject. I mean Homer claimed that he had wrote a book about the doings of all the Greek gods. We have now autheticated that in fact the city Homer talked about existed. All the cities Homer talked about existed. It is perfectly good history. Now does that prove Zeus is king of heaven and that we should worship Zeus?

I wonder, though, if this argument yields the same result for the Book of Mormon as it does for the Bible.

The distinction I see between the two is the method of transmission. Speaking broadly, the Bible has a discernable historical pedigree, a pedigree wherein the text can be historically traced back, without significant gaps, to antiquity (though not necessarily to the original authors). This historical pedigree, coupled with the fact that some toponymns mentioned in the Bible are verified or verifiable...makes the Bible comparable in many ways to other ancient texts.

The rejoinder to this is that a historical pedigree + some archaeological verification does not equal evidence in favor of the Bible's truth claims. As Hamblin noted, The Odyssey has a historical pedigree and some archaeological verification, but that doesn't mean that the descriptions of the supernatural in Homer's work are factual.

But what about the Book of Mormon? Could its lack of a traceable historical pedigree + some archaeological verification actually work in its favor? Skeptics aren't persuaded that the Bible's historical pedigree or archaeological finds (like the Pool of Siloam that was recently discovered) mean anything precisely because those things are discernable without looking to God for an explanation (just like we can discern the historical pedigree and/or archaeological verification of The Odyssey, the Epic of Gilgamesh, etc.).

However, the Book of Mormon belies these assumptions. There is a built-in gap, a giant one, in the transmission process for that book. So if (and this is a really big "if") we someday discover persuasive archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon (evidence of toponyms, for example), then the argument used against the Bible wouldn't work.

...

The gap in the historical transmission of the text could only be bridged by divine intervention. So archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon, if found, would have a far more persuasive impact on the veracity of that book's truth claims than would archaeological evidence for the Bible impact that book's truth claims.

Also consider these remarks from Brant Gardner, who characterizes the Book of Mormon as more "dangerous" than the Bible (same link) :

Quote

Quote

Skeptics aren't persuaded that the Bible's historical pedigree or archaeological finds (like the Pool of Siloam that was recently discovered) mean anything precisely because those things are discernable without looking to God for an explanation (just like we can discern the historical pedigree and/or archaeological verification of The Odyssey, the Epic of Gilgamesh, etc.).

That is a major difference in the issue of archaeology and text. The Book of Mormon is more dangerous than the Bible. If the Bible is historical and deals with religion, it can be seen as no different from any other historical text (they usually incorporate the dominant religion in the older traditions). The Book of Mormon, however, is a problem. If it is historical it becomes harder to dismiss. It is much easier to dismiss it at every turn, and therefore the level of archaeological support required by its critics is much different than that required for any other text of similar purported age.

Quote

So if (and this is a really big "if") we someday discovery persuasive archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon (evidence of toponyms, for example), then the argument used against the Bible wouldn't work.

Yes. Dangerous.

Quote

The gap in the historical transmission of the text could only be bridged by divine intervention. So archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon, if found, would have a far more persuasive impact on the veracity of that book's truth claims than would archaeological evidence for the Bible impact that book's truth claims.

Precisely. That is the reason that you won't see many non-believers giving any quarter here. Evidence that would be sufficient for Homer, for instance, is not sufficient for the Book of Mormon (actually - it wouldn't be for me either - I would want more -). Still, there is a point at which more should be sufficient.

Thanks,

-Smac

[mfbukowski]

13 minutes ago, Teancum said:

How is that helpful?  The Lord  of the Rings is a text as well.

Oh gosh and so is CS Lewis and every religious philosophy.

As usual, you are still barking up the wrong tree.  JOSEPH DIDN'T EVEN USE THE PLATES.

Historicity of the plates is irrelevant.

Joseph was a PROPHET

Edited September 14, 2022 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Relative to the Book of Mormon, I think demonstrated antiquity would have a much stronger corroborating effect as to divine authenticity as compared to the Bible. 

Joseph could have found the plates during treasuring hunting activity and then constructed a narrative of an angel directing him to the spot and create a story based on them, so I don’t see how them being ancient in itself makes any difference….unless it was possible to date the earliest of them to 600 BC and none of them later than 400 AD.  (I am assuming the plates were made over time as needed rather than all at once, but I can’t remember if the text specifies that or not).

[Teancum]

14 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh gosh and so is CS Lewis and every religious philosophy.

As usual, you are still barking up the wrong tree.  JOSEPH DIDN'T EVEN USE THE PLATES.

THen why did he need plates?

14 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Historicity of the plates is irrelevant.

Hardly.

14 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Joseph was a PROPHET

You think he was. I don't.

[Ryan Dahle]

16 minutes ago, Teancum said:

You have a text you cannot compare to anything. How is that helpful?  The Lord  of the Rings is a text as well. If Tolkien claimed it as an authentic record of a real place and written from elvish texts he had found would you be fine just taking his word for it?  Or would having the record be helpful?

If Tolkien claimed that he translated a record from an ancient text but that the manuscript was subsequently destroyed, this would certainly raise the question of the text's authenticity. But what if Tolkien could then produce dozens of different lines of evidence, many of which with their own robust sets of confirming data, to help substantiate his claim? It would be somewhat telling if his critics refused to seriously engage with most of that evidence and only focused on the fact that the manuscript was missing. As the story of the Grolier codex demonstrates, an unhealthy preoccupation with seemingly disconfirming (but ultimately inconclusive) pieces of evidence can easily blind one to a much larger and comparatively stronger body of powerful corroborating data. 

[Ryan Dahle]

56 minutes ago, Calm said:

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Relative to the Book of Mormon, I think demonstrated antiquity would have a much stronger corroborating effect as to divine authenticity as compared to the Bible. 

Joseph could have found the plates during treasuring hunting activity and then constructed a narrative of an angel directing him to the spot and create a story based on them, so I don’t see how them being ancient in itself makes any difference….unless it was possible to date the earliest of them to 600 BC and none of them later than 400 AD.  (I am assuming the plates were made over time as needed rather than all at once, but I can’t remember if the text specifies that or not).

Well, there is the antiquity of the artifact itself and also the antiquity of the alleged translation of its engravings. Confirmation of either would certainly help Joseph Smith's overall claims. Confirmation of both, together, would be especially significant, for the skeptic would have to entertain the notion that Joseph stumbled upon a genuine ancient artifact AND somehow separately acquired an English translation of a genuinely ancient record. 

Sure, he could have possibly stumbled upon such artifacts and exploited them for deceptive purposes. But that seems almost as unlikely as him being directed to such items via divine revelation.  While miraculous, Joseph's own explanation doesn't have to account for the unlikelihood of him discovering such artifacts through his own luck, tricking people into believing in their authenticity, and then creating a coherent and enduring religious movement based on them. 

One could suppose that only the plates were authentically ancient, but then one would have to account for the unlikelihood of Joseph fabricating the text to go with them or collaborating with others to create such a text. One could also suppose that only the text is authentically ancient, but then one would have to account for the unlikelihood of Joseph fabricating a set of seemingly ancient artifacts and either duping others into believing in them or engaging in a joint conspiracy to perpetuate the hoax. 

While the antiquity of either the plates or the translation wouldn't provide proof of Joseph Smith's divine calling, they would certainly help corroborate key elements of his miraculous story--and they would do so in a way that wouldn't be true of any known biblical text or manuscript, in relation to those who discovered them. I personally think that the antiquity of the text itself would have the greatest evidentiary mileage. It is really hard to explain where such a text would have reasonably come from and how Joseph acquired it, if it isn't what it claims to be. The plates are somewhat easier--although still difficult--to account for. 

Edited September 14, 2022 by Ryan Dahle

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I think I have been clear.  No plates mean that there is nothing to look at to show that there was actually an ancient record. 

With respect, that is not correct.  We have the text.  And the witness statements.

5 minutes ago, Teancum said:

We cannot examine the plates.  We cannot have experts in languages review then and compare it to the translation. 

Yes.  But how does this merit a derisive "convenient?"  In the context of the Restoration, the absence of the Plates is apparently necessary.

5 minutes ago, Teancum said:

JS, by tightly controlling ho could see "plates" and then telling everyone the angel took them back can perpetuate a narrative that as you note at great length, has to be faith based. 

If Joseph was so intent on controlling the "narrative," and if he was a charlatan, why did he go to the all the effort of fabricating plates and then have witnesses to testify of them? 

Why did he leave them on a table to be touched by Emma when she was cleaning? 

Why put himself and his family in substantial danger by telling other people that he had come into possession of a large quantity of what was apparently "gold?"

Wouldn't it have been easier for him to just claim "God told me in my mind to write this down...", and then proceed with dictation?  (But then that takes us back to . . . the translation process and the resulting text, which also need to be accounted for.)

Accepting the Book of Mormon "on faith" is certainly required, but not just faith.  We have never been asked to just take Joseph's word (or the Church's) for it.  We are instead exhorted to read, study, ponder, and pray.  In 2022, I think such studying/pondering can incorporate secondary, ancillary sources of information, but in the end conversion still requires faith borne of a spiritual confirmation.

5 minutes ago, Teancum said:

He can't be challenged on the records authenticity. 

Sure he can.  He has been "challenged" in this way for nearly 200 years.

5 minutes ago, Teancum said:

That is convenient because it is likely it was not authentic.

Again, in the context of the Restoration, the absence of the Plates makes quite a bit of sense.  

Your statement above is a conclusory assertion.  You are certainly entitled to it, but I find it quite unavailing.  You aren't addressing the evidence.

5 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

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. 

Again, this is simply your religious narrative and what you have been taught to believe.

Well, no.  Not any more.  I've long since grown past what I was "taught to believe."  My belief is based overwhelmingly on my personal experiences.

My comments earlier, to SU, have some application here:

Quote

 

Do you think "shoehorn{ing} evidence to fit our assumptions" is an issue that goes both ways?  That skeptics do this as well, just with a different set of assumptions/presumptions.

In the law, there are "presumptions" in place.  In a criminal case, the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

In a civil lawsuit, the plaintiff almost always presumptively carries the "burden of proof" to establish the probability of his legal claims.  There are some few exceptions to this, though.  Many years ago I was involved in a workers compensation case in which my client, the defendant employer, had not carried workers comp insurance.  The law in Utah is situated to essentially punish employers for not carrying this insurance by shifting the burden of proof.  Thus all the plaintiff, a former employee who had claimed to have been injured on the job, had to do was present the claim to the court (no witnesses.  no photos, nada), and my client had to prove that the injury had not happened.  

Anyway, my point is that we all bring our presumptions and assumptions with us.  None of us is objective.  We all look at life through a preferred lens.  As to the truth claims of the Church, I acknowledge that viewing them through a "lens" of skepticism/cynicism, using presumptions devoid of faith or hope, will almost certainly yield a negative conclusion.  Conversely, a "lense" borne of faith and hope can yield quite different results.

Apparently the Plan of Salvation is predicated on the individual being willing to exercise some measure of faith and hope.  Some willingness/desire to believe. 

 

Earlier in my life I chose to proceed "on faith."  I attended, paid tithing, attended Seminary, collected Fast Offerings, administered the Sacrament, said my prayers, etc. mostly on faith (and also to conform to my parents' wishes).  I also read the Book of Mormon on my own and received some spiritual impressions (again, on my own) which, at the time, helped strengthen my faith and beliefs.

At 17, I went into the Army.  At that point I was away from my parents and could have chosen any number of paths forward.  It was then that my own faith, my own testimony, really started to take hold.  I attended church, (tried to) keep the commandments, etc. but no longer because I had "been taught to believe," but because I chose to believe.  I thereafter served a mission, returned home and married a wonderful woman, had a large family, and have continued to discipleship.  I have plenty of family members who have chosen different paths, even though they differ from what they had "been taught to believe."  I have also spent the last 25+ years on message boards constantly interacting with skeptics and opponents to disagree heartily with my beliefs.  I have listened to what they have to say, which is overwhelmingly at odds with what I was "taught to believe."  I have interacted and debated with them.  I have the bulk of their criticisms and arguments flawed, misplaced, and/or downright incorrect.  

For these reasons I can't go along with your broad tropes and lazy stereotypes.  My devotion to the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ is based on far more than what I have "been taught to believe."

5 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Somehow, for some reason faith and choices based on limited knowledge and evidence seems the paramount of virtues for Latter day Saints and most religions.  That makes sense because without it they would crumble.

We all make "choices based on limited knowledge and evidence."  Including you.

5 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

 

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.

 

Of course. If there was a first estate.

Yes.  "If."  We approach that question with the presumptions of our choosing.

5 minutes ago, Teancum said:

If this life is a " test" to be proven to see if we would obey without being in God's presence. If that narrative is correct then sure.  Though does that make sense?  Is it rational.

In my view, yes.  Very much so.

5 minutes ago, Teancum said:

It would be sort of like taking the bar exam after three years of law school but you have now forgotten everything.  A veil is placed over your mind for legal learning. Now go take your test.  You may have access to inspiration, faith, something called the Holy Ghost and personal revelation. Now go take your test. 

You are forgetting a few important things. 

We are not called upon to take a test having "forgotten everything" relevant to the test.  We have the scriptures (particularly the Book of Mormon) and their substantive teachings.  An open canon.  Prophets and apostles.

5 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

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

You have a text you cannot compare to anything. How is that helpful? 

Again, I respectfully disagree.  We have a lot to which which we can compare the text (and Joseph's statements, and the witness statements, for that matter).  As I noted previously:

Quote

Quote

Whether they were ancient plates or not cannot be determined nor was it ever.

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.

This normally leads to suggestions of collusion/conspiracy.  That's a fair question, but the evidence for it seems pretty poor.  

Much of the last 190 years has been taken up with critics attacking the text of the Book of Mormon.  The text, and the Church's narrative about it, lay out many claims that are, to an extent, testable:

• Onomastic evidences.
• Lehi traveling three days before building an altar.
• The geography of the Lehites' travels in the Arabian peninsuela.
• Nahom (its location and etymology).
• Wadi Sayq (its location and features as to "Bountiful").
• The text's description of the geospatial/directional relationship between Nahom and Wadi Sayq.
• Metal plates as a medium of record-keeping.
• Chiasmus.
• Mulek.
• Hebraisms.
• Olive culture (as described in the Book of Mormon).
• Weights and measures (as described in the Book of Mormon).
• Sheum.
• Cement.
• Silk.

This list could go on for quite a while.  Most or all of these are testable to some extent.  

5 minutes ago, Teancum said:

The Lord  of the Rings is a text as well.

But it's never been presented as anything other than fiction.

5 minutes ago, Teancum said:

If Tolkien claimed it as an authentic record of a real place and written from elvish texts he had found would you be fine just taking his word for it? 

Again, the Latter-day Saints have never been taught to take Joseph Smith's "word for it."

Again, we have the text.  We have the Spirit.  

5 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Or would having the record be helpful?

As "helpful" as an answer sheet to a math test.

This is less a statement about the evidence than it is about your personal expectations, preferences, presumptions and so on.  Life seldom comports perfectly with such things.  As an attorney, I am regularly tasked with litigating a case based on the evidence available, as opposed to the evidence I would like to have.  We work with what we've got.

Yes, we can surmise that God could have allowed the Plates to be retained by the Church, and He could have allowed them to be subjected to metallurgical analysis, scholarly examination, and so on.  He could also have allowed us to come to earth with a perfect recollection of our First Estate.  In fact, He could have skipped this entire Mortal Probation thing and just created us perfect and complete from the get-go.  But none of these surmises are illuminating or helpful, IMO.  We are not situated to competently second-guess God, to dictate what He could and should have done.  Instead, I believe we are situated pretty much as the Plan of Salvation lays out.  We were created by Him and were with Him, then we came to earth to learn and grow, with the possibility of becoming more like Him if we so choose.  

I think the Plan of Salvation makes a lot of sense.  I am not inclined to subordinate what I believe God has done to my expectations of what I think He should have done.  "Wherefore, brethren, seek not to counsel the Lord, but to take counsel from his hand. For behold, ye yourselves know that he counseleth in wisdom, and in justice, and in great mercy, over all his works."  (Jacob 4:10.)  "But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things."  (2 Nephi 2:24.)

5 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Precisely.  Acceptance of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ is principally and overwhelmingly a matter of faith. 

And this is the crux of it really. As noted faith is paramount because that ultimately is all you have.

Faith is an essential component of discipleship, but there is quite a bit more than that.

5 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

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.

But boy when evidence shows up are you not happy to use it?

Happy to use?  Sure.  As I said above: In 2022, I think such studying/pondering can incorporate secondary, ancillary sources of information, but in the end conversion still requires faith borne of a spiritual confirmation.

5 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

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.

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.  

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.  

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.

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.

How many major decisions in your life that require the time, moenny and total devotion of your life would you make in a similar way?

What "similar way" are you referencing here?

I have made some pretty important decisions in my life.  To joint the Army.  To go on a mission.  To marry my wife.  To have children (several times over).  To attend college.  To go back to school for a JD.  To start my own business.  And so on.

I have made these decisions through study, analysis, consultation, prayer, and . . . faith.  So yeah, I have a lot of "major decisions" in my life that have involved processes similar to exercising faith in the Restored Gospel.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

55 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

Relative to the Book of Mormon, I think demonstrated antiquity would have a much stronger corroborating effect as to divine authenticity as compared to the Bible. 

Joseph could have found the plates during treasuring hunting activity and then constructed a narrative of an angel directing him to the spot and create a story based on them, so I don’t see how them being ancient in itself makes any difference….

That's an interesting speculation, but it goes more to the "weight" of the evidence rather than its "admissibility."

55 minutes ago, Calm said:

unless it was possible to date the earliest of them to 600 BC and none of them later than 400 AD.  (I am assuming the plates were made over time as needed rather than all at once, but I can’t remember if the text specifies that or not).

There would undoubtedly be ways to discount the Plates as being probative of Joseph's narrative.  Speculation could be endless.  This is part of why I think the Plates are not with us.

Thanks,

-Smac

[MiserereNobis]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

If Tolkien claimed it as an authentic record of a real place and written from elvish texts he had found would you be fine just taking his word for it? 

Actually, Tolkien claimed to have translated a copy of the Red Book of Westmarch, which was written by Hobbits (Bilbo, Frodo, Sam, and then some others) and came into his possession. His translation gives us The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings (including the appendices), and the Silmarillion.

Personally, I take his word for it.

 

[mfbukowski]

1 minute ago, MiserereNobis said:

Actually, Tolkien claimed to have translated a copy of the Red Book of Westmarch, which was written by Hobbits (Bilbo, Frodo, Sam, and then some others) and came into his possession. His translation gives us The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings (including the appendices), and the Silmarillion.

Personally, I take his word for it.

 

My wife is now reading the Silmarillion and swears it is full of LDSisms.

I don't have time for works labeled "fiction" nowadays.

[Teancum]

46 minutes ago, smac97 said:

With respect, that is not correct.  We have the text.  And the witness statements.

Ok. Agree. You have a text that you can use to see if it seems like an ancient text.  Yet oven if it has ancient attributes it could still be a fabrication.  I think I have acknowledged that the witnesses are your most formidable item for existence of something that looked like ancient plates.  And an angel for the three.

 

 

46 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  But how does this merit a derisive "convenient?" 

our really need to let this one go. I explained quite well why I used the word and in context it is not derisive.  Con men do all sorts of things to perpetuate a fraud that on examination seem convenient.

46 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

 

In the context of the Restoration, the absence of the Plates is apparently necessary.

As noted this is just an affirmation of faith in you gospel.  NOthing more.

46 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If Joseph was so intent on controlling the "narrative," and if he was a charlatan, why did he go to the all the effort of fabricating plates and then have witnesses to testify of them? 

Why did he leave them on a table to be touched by Emma when she was cleaning? 

Why put himself and his family in substantial danger by telling other people that he had come into possession of a large quantity of what was apparently "gold?"

Wouldn't it have been easier for him to just claim "God told me in my mind to write this down...", and then proceed with dictation?  (But then that takes us back to . . . the translation process and the resulting text, which also need to be accounted for.)

People take all sorts of risks to commit fraud that may lead to financial or other power.  I think he needed to build at least a group that he could rely on to "substantiate" his claims.  Did he deceive them?  Were they in on it?  I don't know.

46 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Accepting the Book of Mormon "on faith" is certainly required, but not just faith.  We have never been asked to just take Joseph's word (or the Church's) for it.  We are instead exhorted to read, study, ponder, and pray.  In 2022, I think such studying/pondering can incorporate secondary, ancillary sources of information, but in the end conversion still requires faith borne of a spiritual confirmation.

I understand this.  I think it  more a faith proposition than evidentiary and find the evidence rather weak and grasping. And you essentially admit that.  Which is fine if it works for you.  Does the BoM have some hits?  A few.  Not many though IMO. 

46 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"

We all make "choices based on limited knowledge and evidence."  Including you.

So a certain extent yes and some more than others.

46 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

We are not called upon to take a test having "forgotten everything" relevant to the test.  We have the scriptures (particularly the Book of Mormon) and their substantive teachings.  An open canon.  Prophets and apostles.

Yes I was actually going to mention that there are a few things you have to go on for this grand test.  Still I doubt you would want to take the bar exam with such thin and limited information that you mostly have to take on faith.

46 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, I respectfully disagree.  We have a lot to which which we can compare the text (and Joseph's statements, and the witness statements, for that matter).  As I noted previously:

Much of the last 190 years has been taken up with critics attacking the text of the Book of Mormon.  The text, and the Church's narrative about it, lay out many claims that are, to an extent, testable:

• Onomastic evidences.
• Lehi traveling three days before building an altar.
• The geography of the Lehites' travels in the Arabian peninsuela.
• Nahom (its location and etymology).
• Wadi Sayq (its location and features as to "Bountiful").
• The text's description of the geospatial/directional relationship between Nahom and Wadi Sayq.
• Metal plates as a medium of record-keeping.
• Chiasmus.
• Mulek.
• Hebraisms.
• Olive culture (as described in the Book of Mormon).
• Weights and measures (as described in the Book of Mormon).
• Sheum.
• Cement.
• Silk.

This list could go on for quite a while.  Most or all of these are testable to some extent.  

As noted above you have some hits.  All these have been argued as to their value from both sides don't you think?

46 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

 

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Of course. If there was a first estate. If this life is a " test" to be proven to see if we would obey without being in God's presence. If that narrative is correct then sure.  Though does that make sense?  Is it rational. It would be sort of like taking the bar exam after three years of law school but you have now forgotten everything.  A veil is placed over your mind for legal learning. Now go take your test.  You may have access to inspiration, faith, something called the Holy Ghost and personal revelation. Now go take your test. 

Of course, that is a rationally absurd test.

But your proposed scenario makes the assumption of a tabula rasa. I don't see the "veil" as one of those. When Joseph Smith said, "I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves," he was saying essentially what it says in the scriptures. If you don't get correct principles taught to you, then you're judged at a lower standard. Much like a golfing handicap makes a game fairer for lesser golfers playing against a better golfer.

"And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more." [Luke 12:47,48]

There was once a man of China, and he died without ever so much as having heard the name of Christ, nor having heard of Moses and his laws. Nevertheless he followed what righteous principles he had been taught, and what he knew in his conscience, loved his family, his neighbors, and those he knew. Of course he sinned, knowing not what those others blessed to hear of Moses or Christ knew. And when it came to his opportunity for remedial instruction in the Spirit World, his test consisted in heeding what was taught him then, and whether he would accept it as if he were living. DC 76:71-75 says:

"And again, we saw the terrestrial world, and behold and lo, these are they who are of the terrestrial... Behold, these are they who died without law; And also they who are the spirits of men kept in prison, whom the Son visited, and preached the gospel unto them, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh; Who received not the testimony of Jesus in the flesh, but afterwards received it. These are they who are honorable men of the earth, who were blinded by the craftiness of men."

In other words, they get graded on a curve.

DC 76 seems to say that if you were that man in China you cannot reach the Celestial Kingdom, but when Peter spoke of this topic, he seemed to be saying that the dead who had not heard of Jesus in this life had an equal chance with those who had heard of him.

For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit. [1 Peter 4:6]

And those who do not qualify for the Celestial, will surely qualify for the Terrestrial. I believe there will be many, probably a majority, who never heard of Jesus in this life, who will qualify for the Celestial, and many will be exalted.

I am well aware that all this quotation and citation of scripture is pretty meaningless to you. I am sorry for that. Perhaps you may yet have a Paul/Alma experience. Or something like it to turn things around for you. 

Some things you've written above make it pretty clear that you understand the principles behind our mortal existence, even if you don't believe in the basis for it. When one thinks about the tabula rasa as it applies to this earth life, there are spirits who come here with the tabula rasa. Those are the non-humans. They have little or no choice, and react to stimula and instinct. We are here for a different purpose: to answer the question "what will you do today?" 

 

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Well, there is the antiquity of the artifact itself and also the antiquity of the alleged translation of its engravings. Confirmation of either would certainly help Joseph Smith's overall claims. Confirmation of both, together, would be especially significant, for the skeptic would have to entertain the notion that Joseph stumbled upon a genuine ancient artifact AND somehow separately acquired an English translation of a genuinely ancient record. 

Sure, he could have possibly stumbled upon such artifacts and exploited them for deceptive purposes. But that seems almost as unlikely as him being directed to such items via divine revelation.  While miraculous, Joseph's own explanation doesn't have to account for the unlikelihood of him discovering such artifacts through his own luck, tricking people into believing in their authenticity, and then creating a coherent and enduring religious movement based on them. 

One could suppose that only the plates were authentically ancient, but then one would have to account for the unlikelihood of Joseph fabricating the text to go with them or collaborating with others to create such a text. One could also suppose that only the text is authentically ancient, but then one would have to account for the unlikelihood of Joseph fabricating a set of seemingly ancient artifacts and either duping others into believing in them or engaging in a joint conspiracy to perpetuate the hoax. 

While the antiquity of either the plates or the translation wouldn't provide proof of Joseph Smith's divine calling, they would certainly help corroborate key elements of his miraculous story--and they would do so in a way that wouldn't be true of any known biblical text or manuscript, in relation to those who discovered them. I personally think that the antiquity of the text itself would have the greatest evidentiary mileage. It is really hard to explain where such a text would have reasonably come from and how Joseph acquired it, if it isn't what it claims to be. The plates are somewhat easier--although still difficult--to account for. 

It seems highly unlikely if he came upon ancient plates randomly he wouldn’t go for a quick buck rather than a long con. That is what seems highly improbable to me given his circumstances. 

Edited September 14, 2022 by Calm

[Ryan Dahle]

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

It seems highly unlikely if he came upon ancient plates randomly he wouldn’t go for a quick buck rather than a long con. That is what seems highly improbable to me given his circumstances. 

Well, there is definitely that as well. Good point. 

[Ryan Dahle]

53 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Does the BoM have some hits?  A few.  Not many though IMO. 

You mean just a few hundred. Perhaps a few thousand, depending on how you count. Joseph Smith can always get lucky one more time though. The fact that naturalistic theories require him to be one of the most brilliant and routinely lucky con artists ever to have lived is telling. 

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

My wife is now reading the Silmarillion and swears it is full of LDSisms.

I don't have time for works labeled "fiction" nowadays.

1) It's intentionally and explicitly Catholic, so the LDSisms must be things we share in common.

2) It's not a work of fiction  

[Teancum]

51 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Some things you've written above make it pretty clear that you understand the principles behind our mortal existence, even if you don't believe in the basis for it. When one thinks about the tabula rasa as it applies to this earth life, there are spirits who come here with the tabula rasa. Those are the non-humans. They have little or no choice, and react to stimula and instinct. We are here for a different purpose: to answer the question "what will you do today?"

Well having grown up in the church and being active LDS for all but the past 10 years or so sure I understand the LDS doctrinal issues I  would guess as well as anyone else here.  I am open to direction from God if there is one. As I have  noted I do pray as if there is one. Not every day but often.  And search. What is the tabula rasa?

[Teancum]

7 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

You mean just a few hundred. Perhaps a few thousand, depending on how you count. Joseph Smith can always get lucky one more time though. The fact that naturalistic theories require him to be one of the most brilliant and routinely lucky con artists ever to have lived is telling. 

Not IMO as noted.