SeekingUnderstanding Posted September 19, 2022 Posted September 19, 2022 1 hour ago, Teancum said: That is a pretty subjective conclusion don't you think? The same can be said of Muhammed and his scripture as well as other self proclaimed prophets. I think Mark would agree with you. Philosophers have failed in their search to ground “truth” in something substantial. It’s turtles all the way down. If I understand correctly, Mark’s point is that all we have access to is our subjective experience. That’s all anyone has. So if it works for you, for your life, it’s “true”. The only problem with Mark’s approach is that church leadership (and the vast vast majority of the church) sees things differently.
Teancum Posted September 19, 2022 Posted September 19, 2022 7 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said: How about I just amend that to say I disagree with your views. Sorry for any offense. It is fine to disagree. He disagrees with yours. So do I. But to say there has not been any substantive responses to BoM apologetics is simply not the case. You may disagree. You may dismiss. You can even say it is lousy responses if it makes you feel better about it at all. But there have been substantial responses. 1
Teancum Posted September 19, 2022 Posted September 19, 2022 1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: I think Mark would agree with you. Philosophers have failed in their search to ground “truth” in something substantial. It’s turtles all the way down. If I understand correctly, Mark’s point is that all we have access to is our subjective experience. That’s all anyone has. So if it works for you, for your life, it’s “true”. The only problem with Mark’s approach is that church leadership (and the vast vast majority of the church) sees things differently. Yes and I have noted all the above with him in past disussions.
Popular Post Kevin Christensen Posted September 19, 2022 Popular Post Posted September 19, 2022 (edited) On two of Nevo's points: Quote Joseph Smith had about as much formal schooling as Shakespeare and more than Muhammad. Formal schooling is not the whole story. Maturity and experience count as well. The Quran was begun when Muhammad was forty and was spread over 23 years. Shakespeare's earliest history plays, were being performed and getting known in the early 1590s, when he was at least 5 years older than Joseph Smith, emerge from a period of silence on just what he was doing, draw on the "1587 edition of Raphael Holinshed's Chronicles of England, Scotland, and Ireland". And as plays, they do not challenge his society in nearly the same way as does the Book of Mormon. Bob Rees has a couple of insightful essays comparing Joseph Smith the major writers of the American Renaissance, Melville, Emerson, Whitman, and Hawthorne. https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V35N03_91.pdf https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/joseph-smith-the-book-of-mormon-and-the-american-renaissance-an-update/ Quote King Benjamin's discourse arguably more closely resembles a revival sermon than a "coronation speech." I've seen those arguments. Brent Metcalfe argued for a "nonbiblical pattern contemporary with Smith" In his essay in New Approaches p 421, n 31, he sees a four step pattern as "(1) Revival gathering (Mosiah 2); (2) Guilt-Ridden Falling Exercise (4:1-2a); Petition for Spiritual Emancipation ( (v 2b); and (4) Christological Absolution and Emotional Ecstacy (v.3)" I thought it interesting that Metcalfe actually footnotes essays by Welch, Nibley, Ostler and Ricks, as well as ignoring several other important studies he could have mentioned. He asserted that nineteenth century camp meetings were modeled on the Israelite Feast of the Tabernacles, but did not go on to demonstrate just how this accounted for the observations of Nibley and others. Nibley's chapter on "Old World Ritual in the New World" in An Approach to the Book of Mormon was for me a paradigm changing shift in my thinking and comprehension. Nibley demonstrated that King Benjamin’s discourse was a coronation rite, following a thirty-six element pattern, summarized by Welch like this: Quote … the proclamation, transfer of kingship, assembly around the temple, taking a census, bringing firstlings and offerings, giving thanks for deliverance, dwelling in tents around the temple, the king speaking from a tower, the call or silentium and teaching of the mysteries, hailing the king, homage by the people to the king (which Benjamin rejects), cleansing from sin, acclaiming the king, recounting the story of creation, the king’s ritual farewell and descent into the underworld (which Benjamin refers to as a literal event soon to occur), choirs, ensuring succession to the throne, promises of peace and prosperity, the preservation of records, God preserving his people, promises of never-ending happiness, divination of the future, a day of judgment, falling to the ground before the king, seeing all men as equals, the closing acclamation, making of a covenant, receipt of a new name, begetting of the human race, concern about standing in the proper place, having a seal, recording names in a register, appointing priests to remind people of their covenant, and dismissal.” Professor Welch and Professor Szinc of BYU reported on additional patterns from Hebrew ritual. Benjamin’s discourse seems also to be a Day of Atonement, a Sabbath Year, and a Jubilee Year. Other scholars had theorized that before the exile, these three festivals had originally been combined. The Book of Mormon provides unexpected evidence that the theory is correct. And Welch and Szinc add important details that I have never seen addressed at all by those who argue for a Revival pattern. Quote One of the most striking observations that Professor Welch and Professor Szinc report concerns the divine names used in the text. So holy was the Day of Atonement that on this day the ineffable name of God, YHWH, could be pronounced. During the Yom Kippur service at the temple, the priest could pronounce this sacred name aloud. Later Jewish tradition seems to have the priest utter this name ten times during the Yom Kippur liturgy, and to a similar degree, Benjamin employs the expanded names Lord God and Lord Omnipotent seven and three times, respectively. Seven of these utterances are in the reported words of the angel to Benjamin (see Mosiah 3:5, 13, 14, 17, 18, 21, 23). It seems more than coincidental that it is in the mouth of an angel that such names appear seven times and that the number seven reflects a “spiritual” perfection. The other three utterances come in the words of Benjamin (see Mosiah 2:30, 41, and 5:15). These three utterances come at important ceremonial breaking points in the speech, not merely at random or inconsequential places. The response of the people to the pronouncement of the sacred name was singular. According to the Mishnah, each time the people at the temple in Jerusalem heard the sacred name they would fall prostrate on the ground.113 This can be compared with the reactions to King Benjamin’s speech in Zarahemla. When he finished reciting the words of the angel, “he cast his eyes round about on the multitude, and behold they had fallen to the earth, for the fear of the Lord had come upon them” (Mosiah 4:1). It is possible that Benjamin’s people would have fallen down in profound reverence and awe several times when Benjamin spoke the holy name of God, as the Israelites did on hearing the tetragram, according to the Mishnah. (Welch and Szinc, “King Benjamin’s Speech in the Context of Ancient Israelite Festivals,” 179.) That, I submit, is far more nuanced than can be accounted for than by referring to a "Guilt Ridden Falling Exercise." I noticed that in Palmer's book, he borrow's Metcalfe's four step pattern, without mentioning the published version, citing only correspondance, and while he claimed to speak the consensus of LDS historians, he ignores all of these well known essays. Scholars that make an argument based on a four step Revival pattern seem whispy and pale to me in direct comparison even to just Nibley's 36 step pattern. There is much much more to account for, including chiastic passages and structures just in Mosiah 1-5, as well as surprising comparisons with the San Bartolo murals in Mesoamerica, which, though they are located outside of Book of Mormon Mesoamerican territories (following Sorenson and Larry Paulson) https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Book_of_Mormon/Geography/Models/Limited/Poulsen_2004 they are contemporary with Benjamin's discourse, and depict a coronation on a tower, something which Revival sermons in the 1820s United States, in the wake of the War of 1812, were not wont to do. Quote In a discussion of the content of the murals, a non-LDS scholar, Laura Harbold writes: 13 "The murals, which depict the Maya creation myth, run along two walls of the nine-by-four-meter chamber. “One of the things that’s neat about these murals is that they imply a sort of narrative tradition,” Saturno says. “It looks like a Maya screenfold book just unfolded and painted on the wall. You see the page breaks; you can tell where the gutter is.” Because the murals depict a cyclical, epic tradition, Saturno says, you can start at any corner and read from left to right. "According to Karl Taube, iconographer for the San Bartolo project, the murals represent an early version of a myth that dominated Maya culture for fifteen hundred years. In the first scene, a man stands in water, sacrificing a fish to the principle bird deity, who perches in the first “world tree.” In the second scene, a man stands on land, offering a deer to a second bird in the second world tree; in the third, he floats in the air, presenting a turkey; in the fourth, he hovers in a field of flowers, offering incense. The four trees represent the four cardinal directions or levels of the cosmos: the underworld, the earth, the sky, and the afterlife. "In the final scene, the Maya maize god stands in front of a fifth world tree, establishing the center of the universe. The bird deity lies slain at the bottom of the tree, dispatched for his arrogance and vanity. The maize god crowns himself king, wearing a headdress made from the body of the bird. The wooden scaffold upon which he sits is the same throne depicted in the coronation of Maya kings for centuries, Taube says. "Another series of murals depicts the life cycle of the maize god — his birth in water, his emergence from the earth bearing the harvest, his death represented by diving back into the water, and his resurrection and second coronation. “The whole narrative leads to the coronation of a named individual,” Saturno says, establishing the maize god as the foundation of Maya kingship. Those familiar with King Benjamin’s account should notice the reference to the Tower associated with the coronation (see Mos. 2:7). Other points of interest include the reference to the Mayan “screenfold books,” which are “unfolded.” LDS scholars have urged us to remember that Benjamin tells the attending multitude that “the mysteries of God may be unfolded to your view.” (see Mos. 2:9). Professor’s Szinc and Welch have compared the references to “drive him away, and cast him out” (Mos. 5:14) to the action in the scapegoat ritual form the Day of Atonement. This in turn, resonates with the imagery of the defeated Bird God at San Bartalo. None of these parallels ought to be seen as proof, but as demonstration that major elements and themes from the Mosiah account fit comfortably with both the roots in Ancient Israel but also in the ancient American setting that it claims for itself. Professor Allen Christenson has written of the Maya Harvest Festivals in comparison to Book of Mormon accounts. "Benjamin’s address closely parallels the ancient Mesoamerican pattern of harvest festivals in which the life god, or his earthly representative, descends into the underworld and is overcome by evil powers of death and sacrifice. Benjamin begins by declaring to the people that he intends to unfold “the mysteries of God … to [their] view” (Mosiah 2:9). He announces his imminent death and “descent” into the grave (Mosiah 2:26-30). In his absence, he warns the people to beware of the “evil spirit,” “the enemy of all righteousness,” the “enemy to God” who brings destruction upon mankind (Mosiah 2:32-33, 37-38). "It is precisely the descent of the king into the underworld in the Mesoamerican festival at the end of the calendar year which permits the forces of death and evil to reign upon the earth. Although this is usually only a temporary ritual death on the part of the king, the prospect of his actual death was cause for great concern." 14 https://latterdaysaintmag.com/article-1-1644/ One of the reasons I keep citing Kuhn is Kuhn's recognition that Quote Assimilating a new sort of fact demands a more than additive adjustment of theory, and until that adjustment is completed—until the scientist has learned to see nature in a different way—the new fact is not quite a scientific fact at all. (Structure, 53) That means that anyone can dismiss anything we put up in favor of the Book of Mormon by simply saying "So what?" and looking elsewhere at something else, and commenting that Joseph Smith managed to do it somehow, whether or not they have managed to come up with a testable, accurate, comprehensive and coherent, fruitful, simple and elegant, and promising theory. For skeptics, "Somehow" is sufficient. But, I'm a believer. And for me, these details matter. They keep accumulating in ways no one could have forseen. And I cannot help but notice that skeptics have never accounted for them. FWIW, Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA Edited September 20, 2022 by Kevin Christensen Typos 8
mfbukowski Posted September 19, 2022 Posted September 19, 2022 1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said: On two of Nevo's points: Formal schooling is not the whole story. Maturity and experience count as well. The Quran was begun when Muhammad was forty and was spread over 23 years. Shakespeare's earliest history plays, were being performed and getting known in the early 1590s, when he was at least 5 years older than Joseph Smith, emerge from a period of silence on just what he was doing, draw on the "1587 edition of Raphael Holinshed's Chronicles of England, Scotland, and Ireland". And as plays, they do not challenge his society in nearly the same way as does the Book of Mormon. Bob Rees has a couple of insightful essays comparing Joseph Smith the major writers of the American Renaissance, Melville, Emerson, Whitman, and Hawthorne. https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V35N03_91.pdf https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/joseph-smith-the-book-of-mormon-and-the-american-renaissance-an-update/ I've seen those arguments. Brent Metcalfe argued for a "nonbiblical pattern contemporary with Smith" In his essay in New Approaches p 421, n 31, he sees a four step pattern as "(1) Revival gathering (Mosiah 2); (2) Guilt-Ridden Falling Exercise (4:1-2a); Petition for Spiritual Emancipation ( (v 2b); and (4) Christological Absolution and Emotional Ecstacy (v.3)" I thought it interesting that Metcalfe actually footnotes essays by Welch, Nibley, Ostler and Ricks, as well as ignoring several other important studies he could have mentioned. He asserted that nineteenth century camp meetings were modeled on the Israelite Feast of the Tabernacles, but did not go on to demonstrate just how this accounted for the observations of Nibley and others. Nibley's chapter on "Old World Ritual in the New World" in An Approach to the Book of Mormon was for me a paradigm changing shift in my thinking and comprehension. Nibley demonstrated that King Benjamin’s discourse was a coronation rite, following a thirty-six element pattern, summarized by Welch like this: Professor Welch and Professor Szinc of BYU reported on additional patterns from Hebrew ritual. Benjamin’s discourse seems also to be a Day of Atonement, a Sabbath Year, and a Jubilee Year. Other scholars had theorized that before the exile, these three festivals had originally been combined. The Book of Mormon provides unexpected evidence that the theory is correct. And Welch and Szinc add important details that I have never seen addressed at all by those who argue for a Revival pattern. That, I submit, is far more nuanced than can be accounted for than by referring to a "Guild Ridden Falling Exercise." I noticed that in Palmer's book, he borrow's Metcalfe's four step pattern, without mentioning the published version, citing only corresponance, and while he claimed to speak the consensus of LDS historians, he ignores all of these well known essays. Scholars that make an argument based on a four step Revival pattern seem whispy and pale to me in direct comparison even to just Nibley's 36 step pattern. There is much much more to account for, including chiastic passages and structures just in Mosiah 1-5, as well as surprising comparisons with the San Bartolo murals in Mesoamerica, which, though they are located outside of Book of Mormon Mesoamerican territories (following Sorenson and Larry Paulson) https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Book_of_Mormon/Geography/Models/Limited/Poulsen_2004 they are contemporary with Benjamin's discourse, and depict a coronation on a tower, something which Revival sermons in the 1820s United States, in the wake of the War of 1812, were not wont to do. https://latterdaysaintmag.com/article-1-1644/ One of the reasons I keep citing Kuhn is Kuhn's recognition that That means that anyone can dismiss anything we put up in favor of the Book of Mormon by simply saying "So what?" and looking elsewhere at something else, and commenting that Joseph Smith managed to do it somehow, whether or not they have managed to come up with a testable, accurate, comprehensive and coherent, fruitful, simple and elegant, and promising theory. For skeptics, "Somehow" is sufficient. But, I'm a believer. And for me, these details matter. They keep accumulating in ways no one could have forseen. And I cannot help but notice that skeptics have never accounted for them. FWIW, Kevin Christensen Canonsburg, PA Thanks!! We have an unusual opportunity to compare our temple rituals to coronation rituals now, with the coronation of Charles. I have done some study of these coronation rituals and I think we will have a good opportunity for at least personal study coming up! 1
mfbukowski Posted September 19, 2022 Posted September 19, 2022 (edited) 7 hours ago, Teancum said: That is a pretty subjective conclusion don't you think? The same can be said of Muhammed and his scripture as well as other self proclaimed prophets. Yes of course. That is the point. Subjectivity is how we make our subjective worlds, and everyone lives in their own subjective worlds until we use language which objectifies everything, because it is communal. Science is "objective" because it only discusses communal experiences that can be replicated. It discusses objects, seeing people even, as objects. "The kidney functions as a...." Every kidney is regarded as an interchangeable part of a person. Kidneys become a communal commodity, and interchangeable. Religion is called "subective" because it is only about private experience. So are politics, yet politics are so important because it is about the relationship between public or communal experience and private, personal and subjective experience. Politics often goes with religion because both relate to the interface between communal experience and private experience. Should abortion be legal? It is clearer, imo to think of our experience as either private or communal instead of subjective vs objective. Truth can be either. Your personal PRIVATE reason or PURPOSE in doing things follows your personal private goals, like whom to marry or not, your career choices, your politics You and others here seem to think that God only inspires LDS folks which is actually self contradictory for LDS folks to believe Moroni 10 4 PRESUMES that non- members can get their own answers from God about God, or we would have no converts!! Why are all religions so similar? Because humans ALL NEED answers to the Big SUBJCTIVE private questions, who am I? Where do I come from? What is my purpose in life? How and where should I live? Is there a God? What would HeShe be like? HOW can I find out? Sound familiar? Science answers communal questions. What is the cure for cancer? Where is the best fishing hole? How do you make a house? Is global warming caused partially my MY private behavior? Perhaps that is a better way to see it. Is my question communal, affecting all, or private? Is the BOM "true"? Many are stuck on the communal social question of "How did this dumb kid pull this off?" Others read the philosophy and ask "How do these ideas impact my private values and questions about my private questions in life? Two sides of the sets of questions we all need. Mixing them causes confusion. We don't run naked yet we make private questions communal Edited September 19, 2022 by mfbukowski 2
smac97 Posted September 19, 2022 Posted September 19, 2022 On 9/17/2022 at 11:37 AM, Nevo said: No, these evidences don't help the Book of Mormon's credibility. I think they do. On 9/17/2022 at 11:37 AM, Nevo said: Even collectively, they don't make it more plausible that people migrated to the Americas from the Tower of Babel, that a group of Jewish exiles introduced Christianity to Guatemala in the 6th century BC, and that both migrations produced civilizations that were destroyed down to the last man on the same hill, leaving no trace of their existence apart from a set of gold plates guarded by an angel. This sort of conclusory stuff is, in my view, problematic. It is fine to state a conclusion, but we need to understand how you get there. And as I noted previously: "Of course, the critics/opponents of the Church are not obligated to provide a coherent counter-explanation for The Book of Mormon. But the point is, they have not been able to. We're coming up on nearly 200 years since the original publication of the text, and yet when the chips are down, and when a well-informed person like Daniel Peterson (or Ryan Dahle) argues for the plausibility of the LDS position, we don't get reasoned responses and rebuttals. We get glib sarcasm. We get curt dismissals. We get anything but an engagement of the evidence." For example, regarding the plausibility of ancient transoceanic voyages to the Americas, I would like to see substantive critiques and analysis of what knowledgeable Latter-day Saints have published on the subject. A few examples: Sorenson, John L.. "Transoceanic Crossings." In The Book of Mormon: First Nephi, The Doctrinal Foundation, edited by Monte S. Nyman and Charles D. Tate, Jr., 251-270. Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 1988. Book of Mormon Central: Did Ancient People Sail the Seas? An excerpt: Quote John L. Sorenson is one such scholar whose lifelong work on pre-Columbian transoceanic contacts has appeared in reputable Mormon and non-Mormon scholarly venues.5 Besides arguing for transoceanic contact himself, Sorenson and Martin H. Raish have likewise cataloged an extensive bibliography of non-Mormon academic work that argues, to varying degrees, for possible evidence of pre-Columbian transoceanic contact.6 “It is clear,” Sorenson and Raish maintained, “that the technological capacity for transoceanic voyaging has been available at a number of points in the Old World many times in the past. It is both plausible and probable on nautical grounds that numerous voyagers crossed the oceans at multiple points before the age of modern discovery.”7 Sorenson offers numerous biological evidence of transoceanic contacts as well as cultural parallels between peoples of the Old and New Worlds. Lest one think that Sorenson is overstating his case, Michael D. Coe, an eminent authority of Mesoamerica, stated in a 2011 interview about the Book of Mormon: “I’m not entirely against the idea of transoceanic contacts [between the Old and New Worlds]. In fact, there is beginning to be evidence for it. The leading scholar of this kind of stuff is a Mormon, a friend of mine, John Sorenson, at BYU, who has written extensively on this whole thing—very interesting stuff.” 8 In a letter written to Sorenson regarding his work on transoceanic contact, Coe said, “It’s an enormously impressive piece of scholarship,” and even went so far as to say, “So much of this evidence, I think, is irrefutable.”9 These comments show considerable respect within the academic community for Sorenson’s paradigm-shifting research. Sorenson, John L.. "Ancient Voyages Across the Ocean to America: From “Impossible” to “Certain”." Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 14, no. 1 (2005): 4-17, 124-125. Sorenson, John L., "Transoceanic Voyaging: How Ancient America Became Civilized." John L. Sorenson and Martin H. Raish, "Pre-Columbian Contact with the Americas across the Oceans: An Annotated Bibliography." Sorenson has reached conclusions, and has explained at length how he reached them. I don't see critics doing this much, and I don't see critics addressing the substance of Sorenson's work. Regarding your comment "civilizations that were destroyed down to the last man on the same hill, leaving no trace of their existence," this is loaded with questionable premises. The text doesn't require that the Nephites were "destroyed down to the last man on the same hill." To the contrary, Moroni apparently wrote his book long after the "final battle," and he begins his narrative by speaking of . . . other Nephites. "For behold, their wars are exceedingly fierce among themselves; and because of their hatred they put to death every Nephite that will not deny the Christ. And I, Moroni, will not deny the Christ; wherefore, I wander whithersoever I can for the safety of mine own life." (Moroni 1:2-3.) As for Ramah and Cumorah being the same hill, how is that evidence against historicity? Regarding "leaving no trace of their existence," again, you are not addressing what Latter-day Scholars have presented on this. For example, consider this observation by John Clark: Quote Book of Mormon cities have been found, they are well known, and their artifacts grace the finest museums. They are merely masked by archaeological labels such as "Maya," "Olmec," and so on. The problem, then, is not that Book of Mormon artifacts have not been found, only that they have not been recognized for what they are. Again, if we stumbled onto Zarahemla, how would we know? The difficulty is not with evidence but with epistemology. If you believe we have information sufficient to identify, say, a "Nephite" pottery shard, please share it. If not, the "leaving no trace of their existence" assertion does not work. On 9/17/2022 at 11:37 AM, Nevo said: To address some of the specific claims: The witnesses, as a group, were not a skeptical bunch and were primed to see what they saw. Not unlike witnesses of apparitions of the Virgin Mary. This does not address the evidence. It's conclusory. I think it is difficult to deny the existence of the Plates (although the provenance of the Plates is clearly still up for principled debate). The statements from the Witnesses appear to be designed to buttress Joseph's claims for the provenance of the Plates being both ancient and miraculously preserved and discovered. The Three Witnesses speak principally as to the divine aspects of the Plates (an angel descends with the Plates, they hear a voice from heaven about translation of the Plates, etc.), and the Eight Witnesses speak principally as to the physical/pragmatic aspects of the Plates (that they actually existed, that they had weight and mass, that they could be "hefted," etc.). The character and possible motivations of the Witnesses is an important secondary analysis. I think Richard Lloyd Anderson's Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses does a good job of establishing the character and overall integrity of these men. Also, this FAIR article does a good job of addressing some of the ad hoc speculations about the Witnesses that come up. I wrote this back in 2020: Quote Quote Smart people more knowledgable in this subject than I am: What evidence is there that the BOM is a historical record? Is there any evidence? And to clarify, I'm not asking for proof of anything. Just evidence in support of. Yes, there is evidence. Quite a bit, IMO. The sufficiency and probative value of the evidence is very much in dispute, but the existence of the evidence is pretty hard to deny. Putting aside "evidence" from the Spirit, I would first point to the text overall. Its origins need to be accounted for. I don't think Joseph Smith could have written it at all, let alone in the timeframe involved. Second, I would point to the statements of the Witnesses, and to the credbility of those witnesses (starting, perhaps, with Richard L. Anderson's Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses). Third, I would point to evidences within the text. Its complexity. Its narrative structure. Linguistic elements. It's internal chronological and geographic consistency. Hebraisms. Chiasmus. Lots and lots of good stuff in here. Fourth, there are some evidences which have some sort of interaction with or facet touching on archaeology. See, e.g. this article: Five Compelling Archeological Evidences For the Book of Mormon. The "five evidences" are: Metal Plates The Nahom Altar Cement in Mesoamerica The Seal of Mulek Barley in the Americas Of these, the Seal of Mulek seems to be the one that I think critics would be most likely to construe as "archaeological" (read: artifactual) evidence (though the Nahom Altar seems pretty hard to ignore). But both of these are Old World artifacts, and I think critics want artifacts from Mesoamerica. Fifth, I would point an interested party to the Book of Mormon Central website: https://bookofmormoncentral.org/ Sixth, I would point an interested party to Jeff Lindsay's "Book of Mormon Evidences" page: https://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml Seventh, I would point an interested party to FAIR's page about evidences for the Book of Mormon: https://www.fairmormon.org/evidences/Category:Book_of_Mormon Eighth, I would point an interested party to the following essays: The Reasonable Leap into Light: A Barebones Secular Argument for the Gospel (Daniel Peterson) I Don’t Have a Testimony of the History of the Church (Davis Bitton) The Logic Tree of Life, or, Why I Can’t Manage to Disbelieve (Daniel Peterson) Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon (William Hamblin) These are the resources that immediately come to mind. Much of what is termed "evidence for the Book of Mormon" is better characterized as "assumptions regarding and interpretations of evidence for the Book of Mormon." I just don't see critics interacting with this stuff much. On 9/17/2022 at 11:37 AM, Nevo said: On metal plates, see Ryan Thomas: "Comparison of documented practices of metal epigraphy from throughout the ancient Near East/eastern Mediterranean show that the Book of Mormon tradition of writing extensive literary compositions on metal for archival purposes was conspicuously outside the norm, without historical precedent or parallel. . . . Metal was not employed for the writing of continuous literary text" (Thomas, "Gold Plates and Ancient Metal Epigraphy," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 52, no. 2 [Summer 2019]: 57). I appreciate his effort to argue this point. Here are the points he raises that, in his view, place the Plates "outside of documented practices of ancient metal epigraphy": Quote • consistent use of metal to the exclusion of other epigraphic support materials • extensive use of gold in particular • exceptional length • complex melding of literary genres • archival informational storage function of the plates • incremental addition to plate documents • non-mention of a display role for plates in sanctuary • provenance of metal epigraphy outside of royal power and politics • combination of scribal art and metal craftsmanship into single author • codex form He concludes: Quote Taken altogether, the presentation of metal epigraphy in the Book of Mormon is deeply implausible on historical grounds. It is not simply a matter that the Book of Mormon lacks any credible parallel or antecedent writing on metal from the ancient Near East, since ultimately this is an argument from silence and it is always possible that further metal documents may eventually be found, but the fact that the social, political, economic, technological, and literary features of Book of Mormon metal writing so strongly contradict what we would expect for the time and culture. Multiple lines of evidence all contribute to the case for disconfirmation. I think he's stacking the deck here, though, as he does not account for the instances where the narrative of the Plates does comport with "what we would expect." For example, this BOMC article: Quote Joseph said that an angel, who had custody of the plates, directed him to a hill where they were preserved in a stone box,2 along with other Nephite relics.3 Sacred records in sealed caches guarded by divine beings may seem a bit fantastic to modern societies, but there are a large number of precedents from the ancient world.4 The Ark of the Covenant, for instance, was a box-like structure, symbolically guarded by angelic beings,5 which contained, among other sacred artifacts, an engraved religious document written on non-perishable material.6 Metal documents, including those made of gold and gold-alloys, are well-known in the ancient world and have been discovered in both the Middle East and America.7 According to witnesses, the plates contained both a sealed and an unsealed portion.8 This unusual detail is remarkably consistent with a variety of doubled,9 sealed, and witnessed documents from antiquity.10 ... 2.Several individuals claimed to have seen the stone box where the plates were buried. See Michael Hubbard MacKay and Gerrit J. Dirkmaat, From Darkness unto Light: Joseph Smith’s Translation and Publication of the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2015), 9–10. 3.Although we don’t know how many of the sacred Nephite relics were stored in this stone box, we know for certain that it at least held the breastplate and the Nephite interpreters. For a discussion of these artifacts, see Don Bradley, “Piercing the Veil: Temple Worship in the Lost 116 Pages,” FairMormon presentation, 2012, online at fairmormon.org. 4.See John A. Tvedtnes, The Book of Mormon and Other Hidden Books: “Out of Darkness Unto Light” (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2000). 5.See Exodus 25:19–20; cf. Genesis 3:24; Moses 4:31; Alma 42:2. 6.See Tvedtnes, The Book of Mormon and Other Hidden Books, 33–35, 119–121, 161; Bradley, “Piercing the Veil,” online at fairmormon.org. 7.See Tvedtnes, The Book of Mormon and Other Hidden Books; William J. Hamblin, “Metal Plates and the Book of Mormon,” in Pressing Forward with the Book of Mormon: The FARMS Updates of the 1990s, ed. John W. Welch and Melvin J. Thorne (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1999), 20–22; William J. Adams, Jr., “Notes and Communications: Lehi's Jerusalem and Writing on Metal Plates,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 3, no. 1 (1994): 204–204; H. Curtis Wright, “Ancient Burials of Metal Documents in Stone Boxes,” in By Study and Also By Faith: Essays in Honor of Hugh W. Nibley, Volume 2, ed. John M. Lundquist and Stephen D. Ricks (Salt Lake City and Provo, UT: Deseret Book and FARMS, 1990), 273–334; Paul R. Cheesman, Ancient Writing on Metal Plates: Archaeological Findings Support Mormon Claims (Bountiful, UT: Horizon, 1985); Paul R. Cheesman, “Ancient Writing on Metal Plates,” Ensign, October 1979, online at lds.org; H. Curtis Wright, “Metallic Documents of Antiquity,” BYU Studies Quarterly 10, no. 4 (1970): 457–477; Daniel Johnson, “Metals and Gold Plates in Mesoamerica,” BMAF presentation, 2010, online at bmaf.org; William J. Hamblin, “Sacred Writing on Metal Plates in the Ancient Mediterranean,” FARMS Review 19, no. 1 (2007): 37–54. 8.Kirk B. Henrichsen, “How Witnesses Described the ‘Gold Plates’,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 10, no. 1 (2001): 18–19. 9.In this context, “doubled” simply means duplicated. Often a copy of a document was sealed in some manner while the other copy was accessible to anyone wanting to review its contents. The two copies were typically bound or joined together in some way. The sealed document helped authenticate the accessible one if a question of its legitimacy ever arose. 10.See Book of Mormon Central, “Why Would a Book Be Sealed? (2 Nephi 27:10),” KnoWhy 53 (March 14, 2016); John W. Welch, “Doubled, Sealed, Witnessed Documents: From the Ancient World to the Book of Mormon,” in Mormons, Scripture, and the Ancient World: Studies in Honor of John L. Sorenson, ed. Davis Bitton (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1998), 391–444; John W. Welch and Kelsey D. Lambert, “Two Ancient Roman Plates,” BYU Studies 45, no. 2 (2006): 55–76. Footnote 7 includes quite a bit of material that Thomas does not address. And here (same link) : Quote Several individuals independently reported that the plates were bound together by three D-shaped rings.11 This design was apparently not used for binding written materials during Joseph Smith’s day and was likely unfamiliar to Joseph or anyone in his environment. Yet it is both surprisingly practical and anciently attested. The D shape provided stability, perhaps a way to carry the heavy record,12 and the optimum storage capacity for the plates.13 It is notable that an Etruscan book, dating from the time when Lehi left Jerusalem, was also made from gold plates bound by D-shaped rings.14 See also here: Quote In several ways, the Book of Mormon bears striking similarities with other samples.6 For example, like the Book of Mormon, other ancient metal documents are known (or were reported anciently) to have been written on plates made of gold (or gold alloy),7 protected by angelic guardians,8 buried in boxes (some of which were made of stone),9 bound together with rings (some of them D-shaped),10 doubled (meaning a similar or identical backup copy was created),11 sealed in some manner,12 and authenticated by witnesses.13 William J. Hamblin, a scholar of ancient history, found that the genres of writing on metal in the “Mediterranean world at the time of Lehi” generally fit into the following categories: ritual, laws, prophecies, and histories.14 “These genres,” wrote Hamblin, “broadly match the described contents of the bronze [brass] plates in the Book of Mormon” (see 1 Nephi 5:11–13), which reflect “the Law (torah), the Prophets (nevi’im), and the Writings (ketuvim)” found in the Jewish tradition.15 Hamblin has also noted that metal documents from the regions of the Mediterranean have been written in various Semitic scripts (including Hebrew), as well as adapted forms of Egyptian.16 This gives a plausible ancient context for the Nephites’ perpetuation of Hebrew and what they called “reformed Egyptian” in their metal record keeping tradition (see Mormon 9:32–33). Metal plates. Buried in a stone box as a sealed cache. Ancient record-keeping on metal plates made of gold or a gold alloy. "Sealed" and "unsealed" portions. Bound by d-shaped rings. Regarding length, BOMC concedes that the Plates are unusual, but not unheard of. From the previous link: Quote When it comes to length, the Book of Mormon is rather unique. Its ancient engravings were translated into over 500 pages of English text. In contrast, the amount of text found on most other known metal documents is quite short, often requiring a few pages or less when translated into English.17 Lengthier ancient metal documents, however, are not completely unheard of. In South Korea, a prophetic record of wisdom teachings was found on a set of 19 gold plates that date to the 8th century AD.18 Even more notable, a gold document, which records “a significant portion of the Quran” was found in the tomb of a Chinese emperor. Its “120 gold gilded plates” were “hinged together” in “6 separate sets of 20 ‘pages.’”19 An eastern philosophical work called The Perfection of Wisdom Sutra is also said to have been written on gold plates. According to David B. Honey and Michael P. Lyon, the text’s “6,400,000 Chinese characters” occupy “three full Western-style volumes in its modern critical edition.”20 Assuming the report of its ancient existence is accurate, “copying it on gold plates must have necessitated an extraordinary amount of gold as well as a huge investment in human and monetary resources.”21 There is an ancient eyewitness report that a Greek poem from around the 8th century BC, called Works and Days, was recorded in a lead book.22 Wright described the poem as a “literary opus of some thirty Oxford pages.”23 An ancient Hittite account, called the Deeds of Suppiluliuma, dating to the 14th century BC, was likely written on bronze tablets.24 Although many sections of the document are poorly preserved, the remaining portions suggest it would have been quite long. Even closer to Jerusalem, the famous Copper Scroll (part of the Dead Sea Scrolls) is a substantial Hebrew document that dates to the 1st or 2nd century AD. It was inscribed onto separate copper plates that were riveted together into two continuous scrolls.25 These and other examples demonstrate that lengthy metal documents, while rare, are certainly attested in the ancient world.26 17.For an extensive bibliography of ancient metal records, see Wright, Modern Presentism and Ancient Metallic Epigraphy, 133–346. By their very nature, longer metal documents, such as histories or works of literature, would have been far more costly and time-consuming to create than, say, short monumental inscriptions. It would likely have taken a unique set of circumstances for an ancient ruler or individual to commission or personally inscribe such lengthy records. For discussions of the Book of Mormon as a lengthy metal document, see John A. Tvedtnes and Matthew Roper, “One Small Step,” FARMS Review 15, no. 1 (2003): 160–169; Kevin L. Barney, “A More Responsible Critique,” FARMS Review 15, no. 1 (2003): 104–111. 18.See David B. Honey and Michael P. Lyon, “An Inscribed Chinese Gold Plate in Its Context: Glimpses of the Sacred Center,” in The Disciple as Scholar: Essays on Scripture and the Ancient World in Honor of Richard Lloyd Anderson, ed. Stephen D. Ricks, Donald W. Parry, and Andrew H. Hedges (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2000), 43. Interestingly, the document was “found in a bronze box within a stone box buried under a five-storied pagoda” (p. 43). 19.Caroline Sorensen, “The Metallurgical Plausibility of the Gold Plates,” Summer Seminar on Mormon Culture, Working Papers (2011). 20.Honey and Lyon, “An Inscribed Chinese Gold Plate,” 42. 21.Honey and Lyon, “An Inscribed Chinese Gold Plate,” 42. 22.See Wright, “Metallic Documents of Antiquity,” 461. 23.See Wright, “Metallic Documents of Antiquity,” 461. 24.See Hans Gustav Güterbock, ed. “The Deeds of Suppiluliuma as Told by His Son, Mursili II,” Journal of Cunieform Studies 10, no. 2 (1956): 41–68, 75–98, 107–130. The implication that this record was anciently engraved onto bronze comes from the text itself. One of the colophons in fragment 28 reads “Not yet made into a bronze tablet.” 25.See Wright, “Metallic Documents of Antiquity,” 461; Cheesman, “Ancient Writing on Metal Plates,” online at ChurchofJesusChrist.org; Tvedtnes, The Book of Mormon and Other Hidden Books, 112. It should also be noted that a blessing from the book of Deuteronomy was discovered on rolled up sheets of silver. While quite short in length, the Hebrew-inscribed scrolls date to the 7th century BC, qualifying as the oldest fragments of biblical text ever discovered. See Book of Mormon Central, “Why Did Jesus Allude to the Priestly Blessing in Numbers 6? (3 Nephi 19:25),” KnoWhy 212 (October 19, 2016); Dana M. Pike, “Israelite Inscriptions from the Time of Lehi,” in Glimpses of Lehi’s Jerusalem, ed. John W. Welch, David Rolph Seely, and Jo Ann H. Seely (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2004), 213–215; William J. Adams Jr., “Lehi’s Jerusalem and Writing on Silver Plates,” in Pressing Forward with the Book of Mormon: The FARMS Updates of the 1990s, ed. John W. Welch and Melvin J. Thorne (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1999), 23–26; “Research and Perspectives: Scriptures on 2,600-Year-Old Silver Scrolls Found in Jerusalem,” Ensign, June 1987, online at ChurchofJesusChrist.org. 26.Some might argue that the Book of Mormon’s length alone makes it unlikely to be a product of an ancient society that inherited the Hebrew literary tradition. However, most lengthy ancient metal documents are unique for their time and place. That being the case, there is no logical reason to rule out the possibility that a lengthy metal document could have been produced in Israel or by Israelites displaced from their homeland. Footnote 17 references two articles that further address "the Book of Mormon as a lengthy metal document." From Tvedtnes: Quote Finley does not, however, repeat the argument that the ancients never wrote on metal plates.27 Instead, he uses the backup position established by the critics aer it had been demonstrated that this practice actually existed. “ere is no question,” he admits, “that metal was sometimes used as writing material in the ancient world, including the Near East. However, such examples do not seem to parallel the lengthy Book of Mormon, since they normally contain a small amount of material and imitate standard writing procedures for the time” (p. 340). By not advancing the earlier position held by critics of the Book of Mormon, Finley makes Joseph Smith’s claim to have translated from metal records acceptable, though earlier critics found this claim preposterous. Once the original argument can no longer be maintained, critics concentrate on a narrower aspect.28 In this instance, Finley does not adopt the earlier argument against the concept of writing on metal plates but instead focuses on the narrower claim that none of the other metal records are lengthy accounts like the Book of Mormon. ... Clearly Finley wants to show that, in contrast to the documents described by the Book of Mormon, ancient records on metal were rare, were short, did not contain religious material, and in form normally imitated scrolls, but one wonders how Finley can generalize from a few examples. That some metallic documents had short texts is clear from the Jerusalem silver scrolls and the short text of the Darius plates, yet the Copper Scroll has a much longer text. The tiny silver documents from Jerusalem were clearly made in imitation of scrolls, but the Darius plates certainly were not; and while the Copper Scroll may not contain religious material, the preexilic documents from Jerusalem, although short, contain scripture. Rather than provide a negative contrast with the Book of Mormon, even these few examples show that ancient metallic documents include a variety of elements, forms, and uses. Finley’s discussion of metal plates is inadequate. He fails to deal with several standard Latter-day Saint sources on the subject of ancient metal plates, including studies by Franklin Harris,30 Paul Cheesman,31 Curtis Wright,32 and William Hamblin.33 While the works of Cheesman and Harris are now out of print, the omission of the latter two is curious. Wright’s article is a standard discussion of the issue from a Latter-day Saint perspective. Hamblin has surveyed about thirty examples of plates known from the archaeology and literature of the ancient Near East and Mediterranean region. Although not comprehensive, Hamblin’s survey highlights the variety of plates used in antiquity. He shows that (1) writing on metal plates was a relatively old practice dating back to the third millennium B.C. in Mesopotamia in the general region and at the approximate time of the Jaredite departure, (2) it was known in the Syro-Palestinian region and Israel, (3) some ancient Near Eastern peoples wrote on metal plates in scripts that can reasonably be described as reformed Egyptian, and (4) evidence suggests that the practice of writing ancient sacred law on metal plates was adopted by Greeks and Romans from the ancient Near East sometime between the seventh and sixth centuries B.C., approximately the time when Lehi’s family retrieved the plates of brass and commenced their own tradition of keeping records on metal. Tvedtnes goes on at some length addressing on of the key ("salient") features of the Plates that Thomas finds problematic. Thomas doesn't get anywhere close to Tvedtnes in terms of surveying the evidence. And Tvedtnes was published in 2003, sixteen years before Thomas wrote about the very same topic. And yet Thomas does not address either Tvedtnes or the sources he (Tvedtnes) cites. Again, I just don't see critics interacting with this stuff much. Thanks, -Smac 2
smac97 Posted September 19, 2022 Posted September 19, 2022 On 9/17/2022 at 12:34 PM, Nevo said: I get why you might think that based on my last two posts, but I actually hold the Book of Mormon in high regard. Not as history, but as a scriptural product of Joseph Smith (who I regard as a prophet). Perhaps my tone was too strident. I admit I was a bit triggered by Smac's comment that critics "have not been able" (his emphasis) to come up with valid criticisms of apologetic arguments: "We're coming up on nearly 200 years since the original publication of the text, and yet when the chips are down, and when a well-informed person like Daniel Peterson (or Ryan Dahle) argues for the plausibility of the LDS position, we don't get reasoned responses and rebuttals. We get glib sarcasm. We get curt dismissals. We get anything but an engagement of the evidence." First, I am not sure how my remarks are "triggering." I was not insulting or disparaging anyone. Second, I did not intent to offend anyone. Third, as I apparently have caused offense, I apologize. Fourth, you are not quite accurately stating my position, which was not about "valid criticisms of apologetic arguments," but instead about presenting "a coherent counter-explanation for The Book of Mormon." I think there have been some valid criticisms of apologetic arguments presented by the Latter-day Saints. Fifth, if I am wrong in my assessment, I would like to be corrected. If you think that critics have been able to come up with "a coherent counter-explanation for The Book of Mormon," please point me to it. On 9/17/2022 at 12:34 PM, Nevo said: Similarly, Ryan Dahle wrote: "Those making the case for disbelief have, for the most part, tended to ignore or treat [apologetic arguments] 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." Maybe my counterblast still came across as glib or dismissive, but I wanted to engage the points that Ryan presented. I do take the Book of Mormon and Book of Mormon scholarship seriously. I don't see my comment or Ryan's as being directed at you. Has someone suggested that you do not "take the Book of Mormon and Book of Mormon scholarship seriously"? Thanks, -Smac
smac97 Posted September 19, 2022 Posted September 19, 2022 On 9/17/2022 at 8:37 PM, Nevo said: Well, they were primed. As one contemporary reported of Martin Harris, "no matter where he went, he saw visions and supernatural appearances all around him. He told a gentleman in Palmyra, after one of his excursions to Pennsylvania, while the translation of the Book of Mormon was going on, that on the way he met the Lord Jesus Christ, who walked along by the side of him in the shape of a deer for two or three miles" (Vogel, EMD, 2:271). David Whitmer reported parties unknown plowing his field one night and meeting Moroni walking along the road while riding in a wagon with Oliver and Joseph. According to David, Moroni was carrying a knapsack and told them, "I am going to Cumorah" (Vogel, EMD, 5:45-46). Not sure if this was before or after he saw the plates, but David, like Martin, was clearly no stranger to visionary experiences. Nor was Oliver Cowdery, who also reported visions of Jesus, John the Baptist, Peter, James, and John, Moses, Elias, and Elijah. Do you also think that they "were {later} primed" to recant their statements after they became estranged from Joseph Smith? From Wikipedia: Quote The joint statement of the Three Witnesses—Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, and David Whitmer—has been printed (with a separate statement by the Eight Witnesses) in nearly every edition of the Book of Mormon since its first publication in 1830. All three men eventually broke with Smith and the church he organized, although Harris and Cowdery were eventually rebaptized into the church after Smith's death.[2][3] Whitmer founded his own Church of Christ (Whitmerite). All three men upheld their testimony of the Book of Mormon at their deaths.[4][5] Oliver Cowdery: Quote By 1838, Cowdery and Smith had a number of disagreements, including doctrinal differences about the role of faith and works,[20] the Kirtland Safety Society,[21] and what Cowdery called Smith's "dirty, nasty, filthy affair" with Fanny Alger.[22] Smith's growing reliance on Sidney Rigdon as his first counselor[23] and differences over the management of finances during the gathering of the Latter Day Saints in Jackson County and Kirtland[24] as well as nine documented grievances, ultimately led to Cowdery's excommunication in April.[25] ... After Cowdery's excommunication on April 12, 1838, he taught school, practiced law, and became involved in Ohio political affairs. He joined the Methodist church in Tiffin, Ohio, and, according to a lay leader of that church, publicly declared that he was "ashamed of his connection with Mormonism."[27] Later, Cowdery reaffirmed his role in the establishment of Mormonism, though he lost editorship of a newspaper as a result. In 1848, after Smith's assassination, Cowdery reaffirmed his witness to the golden plates and asked to be readmitted to the church. He never held another high office in the church, in part because he died sixteen months after his re-baptism.[28] Cowdery was "out" for ten years, prior to which he had a severe falling out with Joseph regarding a large number of issues (see above), and during which he purportedly said he was "ashamed of his connection with Mormonism," joined another faith, lost a job when he acknowledged his role in the Church. Was he, during all or part of the decade he was out of the Church, "primed" to fess up and admit he was in on the con, or that he had conspired with the others to fabricate the claims in the Statement, etc.? If not, why not? And if he was "primed" to admit that his statement was a falsehood, and given that he never recanted, what does that mean in terms of his credibility as a witness? Martin Harris (from here and here) : Quote In 1837, dissension arose in Kirtland over the failure of the church's Kirtland Safety Society bank. Harris called it a "fraud" and was among the dissenters who broke with Smith and attempted to reorganize the church, led by Warren Parrish. Smith and Rigdon relocated to Far West, Missouri. In December 1837, Smith and the Kirtland High Council excommunicated 28 individuals, Harris among them.[32] --- {I}n 1853, Harris told one David Dille that he had held the forty- to sixty-pound plates on his knee for "an hour-and-a-half" and handled them "plate after plate."[44] Even later, Harris affirmed that he had seen the plates and the angel: "Gentlemen," holding out his hand, "do you see that hand? Are you sure you see it? Or are your eyes playing you a trick or something? No. Well, as sure as you see my hand so sure did I see the Angel and the plates."[45] In 1870, at the age of 87, Harris accepted an invitation to live in Utah Territory, where he was rebaptized into The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) and spent his remaining years with relatives in Cache County. In his last years, Harris continued to bear fervent testimony to the authenticity of the plates, but a contemporary critic of the church has noted that Harris rejected some important Mormon doctrines and that his sympathy for the LDS Church was tenuous.[46] In a letter of 1870, Harris swore, "no man ever heard me in any way deny the truth of the Book of Mormon, the administration of the angel that showed me the plates, nor the organization of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints under the administration of Joseph Smith, Jun., the prophet whom the Lord raised up for that purpose in these the latter days, that he may show forth his power and glory."[47] Harris was "out" for 43 years. Was he - at any point during these decades - "primed" to recant? David Whitmer: Quote Whitmer continued to live in Kirtland, Ohio, and his counselors, W. W. Phelps and John Whitmer (Whitmer's brother) presided over the church in Missouri until the summer of 1837. After the collapse of the Kirtland Safety Society bank, Smith and his counselor Sidney Rigdon, battered by creditors, moved to Far West, Missouri, to evade arrest.[21] The ensuing leadership struggle led to the dissolution of the presidency of the church in Missouri. Whitmer resigned and separated from the church.[22] He was formally excommunicated from the church {in 1838} on the grounds of breaking the Word of Wisdom, neglecting his leadership duties, meeting with the other "Kirtland apostates," and circulating unfavorable information about Joseph Smith.[8] Whitmer and the other excommunicated Latter Day Saints became known as the "dissenters." Some of the dissenters owned land in Caldwell County, Missouri, which they wanted to retain.[23] The church presidency and other members looked unfavorably upon them. Rigdon preached his "Salt Sermon", which called for their expulsion from the county. A number of Latter Day Saints formed a secret society known as the Danites, whose stated goal was removal of the dissenters. Eighty prominent Mormons signed the so-called Danite Manifesto, which warned the dissenters to "depart or a more fatal calamity shall befall you." Shortly afterward, Whitmer and his family fled to nearby Richmond, Missouri. ... Because Cowdery died in 1850 at age 43 and Martin Harris died in 1875 at age 92, Whitmer was the only survivor of the Three Witnesses for 13 years. At Richmond, Missouri, he sometimes received several inquirers daily asking about his connection to the Book of Mormon, including missionaries of the LDS Church who were traveling from Utah Territory to the eastern United States and Europe. Despite his hostility toward the LDS Church, Whitmer always stood by his claim that he had actually seen the golden plates.[35] Some of the 71 recorded interviews he gave between 1838 and 1888 contained different details than others.[36] Recounting the vision to Orson Pratt in 1878, Whitmer claimed to have seen not only the golden plates but the "Brass Plates, the plates containing the record of the wickedness of the people of the world ... the sword of Laban, the Directors (i.e. the ball which Lehi had) and the Interpreters. I saw them just as plain as I see this bed".[37] In 1880, John Murphy interviewed Whitmer and later published an account suggesting that perhaps Whitmer's experience was a "delusion or perhaps a cunning scheme." Murphy's account said that Whitmer had not been able to describe the appearance of an angel and had likened Whitmer's experience to the "impressions as the quaker [receives] when the spirit moves, or as a good Methodist in giving a happy experience."[38] Whitmer responded by publishing "A Proclamation", reaffirming his testimony and saying, "It having been represented by one John Murphy, of Polo, Caldwell County, Mo., that I, in a conversation with him last summer, denied my testimony as one of the three witnesses to the BOOK OF MORMON. To the end, therefore, that he may understand me now, if he did not then; and that the world may know the truth, I wish now, standing as it were, in the very sunset of life, and in the fear of God, once for all to make this public statement: That I have never at any time denied that testimony or any part thereof, which has so long since been published with that Book, as one of the three witnesses. Those who know me best, well know that I have always adhered to that testimony. And that no man may be misled or doubt my present views in regard to the same, I do again affirm the truth of all of my statements, as then made and published. He that hath an ear to hear, let him hear; it was no delusion!"[39] To the "Proclamation" Whitmer attached an affidavit attesting to his honesty and standing in the community.[40] Whitmer ordered that his testimony to the Book of Mormon be placed on his tombstone.[41] His tombstone: Whitmer spent fifty years out of the Church, during which he had plenty to say in opposition to Joseph Smith. Was he - at any point during these decades - "primed" to recant? Thanks, -Smac 2
smac97 Posted September 19, 2022 Posted September 19, 2022 12 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said: Conclusion Look, I'm sure we could hash this out forever. You've made sure that my so-called slam dunks have now been contested. Nice work. But this isn't my first walk around the apologetic block. I'm well aware that numerous details in these categories have been (and likely will continue to be) contested. I just don't think the critical responses have, by and large, substantively engaged with the collective body of positive evidences in their respective categories. And, so far in our conversation, the points you have raised haven't been moving me any further away from that position. Ditto.
Analytics Posted September 19, 2022 Posted September 19, 2022 On 9/9/2022 at 12:36 AM, Rivers said: This is a question for the non-believers. Do you think Joseph Smith had tangible metal plates of some kind or something that looked like metal plates? Or do you think the plates were completely imaginary? I’m curious to know if there is any consensus among critics on this matter. My hunch is that yes, he did have some sort of tangible artifact. The references within the Book of Mormon itself to a section of the original manuscript (i.e. the collection of gold plates) being "sealed" is extremely suspicious. From a believer's perspective, why would the plates need to be "sealed" for Joseph Smith not to translate it? Couldn't God just turn off the seer stone for the portion He didn't want Joseph to translate? And why go to the extent of creating a record and talking about a record that would end up being "sealed" and would never end up being read or translated by anybody, ever? From a skeptical perspective, why talk about the "sealed" portion to begin with? What makes the most sense to me is that this is an artifact of the tangible plates themselves. Somehow a section of the fabricated plates was defective or incomplete in some way, and rather than taking the time and energy to make the entire thing pristine, they decided to conceal the defect by "sealing" it. They then made up a story about a "sealed" section to explain this characteristic of the plates. 2
smac97 Posted September 19, 2022 Posted September 19, 2022 6 minutes ago, Analytics said: My hunch is that yes, he did have some sort of tangible artifact. The references within the Book of Mormon itself to a section of the original manuscript (i.e. the collection of gold plates) being "sealed" is extremely suspicious. How so? Is it because you think they were blank, such that Joseph "sealed" them so as to prevent discovery of that? BOMC: Why Would a Book Be Sealed? Quote Welch has explained how this is directly relevant to the Book of Mormon. “One portion of the Nephite record was sealed; the other part was open,” he wrote. “Consistent with the ancient practices and requirements” and “for security and preservation, the plates were buried; they were both sealed and sealed up.”5 In other words, part of the Book of Mormon plates were physically sealed, and the entire set of plates were sealed up, that is, hidden in the earth for preservation, following ancient practice. With this we can better understand what the Book of Mormon means when it refers to itself as a “sealed” book. It is a book that, for all intents and purposes, an official agent has notarized, making it binding and authentic. Thus, the compilers of the Book of Mormon can now be seen as being consistent with ancient legal formalities. "To the ancient mind," Welch noted, "formalities such as these were the essence of the validating and conserving documents and proclamations of utmost significance. More specifically, the Book of Mormon is indeed a binding document, a legal warning, a proclamation, a testament, covenant, and contract. Its provisions are about covenants of the Lord." Readers can therefore better understand why Nephi, Mormon, and Moroni "would associate this legal form [of sealing a document], typically used for legal contracts, with the final presentation of the Nephite records.6 John W. Welch, “Doubled, Sealed, Witnessed Documents: From the Ancient World to the Book of Mormon,” in Mormons, Scripture, and the Ancient World Studies in Honor of John L. Sorenson, ed. Davis Bitton (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1998), 391–444. Welch, John W., and Kelsey D. Lambert. "Two Ancient Roman Plates." BYU Studies Quarterly 45, no. 2 (2006): 54-76. 6 minutes ago, Analytics said: From a believer's perspective, why would the plates need to be "sealed" for Joseph Smith not to translate it? As Welch puts it: "To the ancient mind, formalities such as these were the essence of the validating and conserving documents and proclamations of utmost significance." "From a believer's perspective," the purpose of the sealed portion is set forth in the text: Quote When Moroni was finishing the Book of Mormon record, he was commanded to seal up some of the plates, and Joseph Smith was later commanded not to translate them. This sealed portion contains the complete record of the vision of the brother of Jared (see Ether 4:4–5). This vision included “all things from the foundation of the world unto the end thereof” (2 Nephi 27:10–11; see also Ether 3:25). So basically the Lord revealed to the brother of Jared the history of mankind, and the sealed portion of the plates was Moroni’s translated copy of it. Few people have seen the sealed record—for instance, the Nephites in the land Bountiful at the Savior’s coming (see Ether 4:1–2) and Moroni (see Ether 12:24). The Lord said the sealed portion would be revealed to the world “in mine own due time” (Ether 3:27). He also said it would “not go forth unto the Gentiles until the day that they shall repent of their iniquity, and become clean before the Lord” (Ether 4:6; see also 2 Nephi 27:8). According to Joseph Smith’s associates who saw the golden plates, anywhere from half to two-thirds of all the plates were in the sealed portion (see Kirk B. Henrichsen, “What Did the Golden Plates Look Like?” New Era, July 2007, 31). For my part, I think the Lord often does things and leaves the "why" opaque. Can any of us, in the end, explain the processes wherein Jesus turned water to wine, multiplied the loaves and fishes, walked on water, raised the dead, healed a blind man with spittle mud, healed lepers of their disease, healed a woman of her blood issue, and so on? Can we intelligently address why he used these means and not others? Why not just heal the blind man with a touch rather than with spittle mud? Why walk on water rather than fly over the waves? Is the healing of a blind man with spittle mud "extremely suspicious?" If so, why? If not, why not? 6 minutes ago, Analytics said: Couldn't God just turn off the seer stone for the portion He didn't want Joseph to translate? Yes, He could. But how does this render the sealed portion "extremely suspicious?" 6 minutes ago, Analytics said: And why go to the extent of creating a record and talking about a record that would end up being "sealed" and would never end up being read or translated by anybody, ever? You are incorrect in your presupposition. From the above quote: "The Lord said the sealed portion would be revealed to the world 'in mine own due time' (Ether 3:27). He also said it would 'not go forth unto the Gentiles until the day that they shall repent of their iniquity, and become clean before the Lord' (Ether 4:6; see also 2 Nephi 27:8)." 6 minutes ago, Analytics said: From a skeptical perspective, why talk about the "sealed" portion to begin with? Because it is part of the narrative. Why not "talk about the 'sealed' portion"? 6 minutes ago, Analytics said: What makes the most sense to me is that this is an artifact of the tangible plates themselves. I agree. The historical record leans rather heavily in that direction. The provenance of the Plates, however, is still open for healthy debate. 6 minutes ago, Analytics said: Somehow a section of the fabricated plates was defective or incomplete in some way, and rather than taking the time and energy to make the entire thing pristine, they decided to conceal the defect by "sealing" it. Is this sheer conjecture on your part, or do you have any evidence in support of it? 6 minutes ago, Analytics said: They then made up a story about a "sealed" section to explain this characteristic of the plates. And in making up that story "they" (???) just happened to emulate an ancient near east practice involving copying and sealing important documents? Thanks, -Smac 2
Analytics Posted September 19, 2022 Posted September 19, 2022 (edited) 52 minutes ago, smac97 said: How so? Is it because you think they were blank, such that Joseph "sealed" them so as to prevent discovery of that? I don't know. Maybe blank. Maybe a solid piece of metal. Maybe with modern characters on them. Maybe with holes. Maybe suspiciously sloppy. I don't know. 52 minutes ago, smac97 said: BOMC: Why Would a Book Be Sealed? John W. Welch, “Doubled, Sealed, Witnessed Documents: From the Ancient World to the Book of Mormon,” in Mormons, Scripture, and the Ancient World Studies in Honor of John L. Sorenson, ed. Davis Bitton (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1998), 391–444. Welch, John W., and Kelsey D. Lambert. "Two Ancient Roman Plates." BYU Studies Quarterly 45, no. 2 (2006): 54-76. As Welch puts it: "To the ancient mind, formalities such as these were the essence of the validating and conserving documents and proclamations of utmost significance." You are conflating the word "sealed." Two points: 1- Sealing a document so that skeptical readers can authenticate them is ironically different than sealing plates that were taken away by an angel and can't be authenticated. 2- As described by Welch, the sealed portion of real-world documents contain either an abridgment or a duplicate of the unsealed portion. That is categorically different than sealing pages that contain marvelous things above and beyond the unsealed portion. 52 minutes ago, smac97 said: You are incorrect in your presupposition. From the above quote: "The Lord said the sealed portion would be revealed to the world 'in mine own due time' (Ether 3:27). He also said it would 'not go forth unto the Gentiles until the day that they shall repent of their iniquity, and become clean before the Lord' (Ether 4:6; see also 2 Nephi 27:8)." Is that before or after the day pigs fly? 52 minutes ago, smac97 said: Is this sheer conjecture on your part, or do you have any evidence in support of it? Yes, it is conjecture on my part. My point is that the story of the sealed plates, including what they allegedly contain, how they were sealed, and why they were sealed is all anachronistic. Maybe the story of the plates being "sealed" is born out of Joseph Smith's infatuation with Isaiah and what Isaiah 29:11 says about a sealed scroll. But maybe it is simply because Joseph Smith didn't want the witnesses to thumb through all the plates he had. Edited September 19, 2022 by Analytics 1
Bernard Gui Posted September 19, 2022 Posted September 19, 2022 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Analytics said: I don't know. Maybe blank. Maybe a solid piece of metal. Maybe with modern characters on them. Maybe with holes. Maybe suspiciously sloppy. I don't know. Any ideas on what kind of metal was available to Joseph in 6”x8”x3” blocks, where he could get one, how much it would cost, could he afford to buy it, and how he would have drilled holes through it? Edited September 19, 2022 by Bernard Gui 1
Teancum Posted September 19, 2022 Posted September 19, 2022 1 hour ago, smac97 said: Ditto. Call me shocked. 😏
Teancum Posted September 19, 2022 Posted September 19, 2022 3 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Yes of course. That is the point. I know this is your position. Everything is subjective. So really ones spiritual witness is as good as another since it is all subjective anyway. 3 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Subjectivity is how we make our subjective worlds, and everyone lives in their own subjective worlds until we use language which objectifies everything, because it is communal. Ok... 3 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Science is "objective" because it only discusses communal experiences that can be replicated. It discusses objects, seeing people even, as objects. "The kidney functions as a...." Every kidney is regarded as an interchangeable part of a person. Kidneys become a communal commodity, and interchangeable. A kidney is only communal if I give one of mine away. 3 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Religion is called "subective" because it is only about private experience. So are politics, yet politics are so important because it is about the relationship between public or communal experience and private, personal and subjective experience. Politics often goes with religion because both relate to the interface between communal experience and private experience. Should abortion be legal? Religion and politics are both human constructs and imaginary things. They only have relevance so long as there are humans who accept the imaginary rules, doctrine, dogmas, philosophies etc are willing to do so. Same with nations, laws, constitutions, corporations etc. All subjective because they only can be of value or use if humans accept them. 3 hours ago, mfbukowski said: You and others here seem to think that God only inspires LDS folks which is actually self contradictory for LDS folks to believe I am not sure there is a god that inspires anyone. But if there is I don't think God only inspires Latter day Saints. My problem is when people flat out contradictory inspiration which seems to diminish the utility of inspiration. 3 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Moroni 10 4 PRESUMES that non- members can get their own answers from God about God, or we would have no converts!! Yes by following a tightly prescribed formula that blames the inquirer if they don't get the it is true answer. 3 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Why are all religions so similar? They aren't. There are large differences. 3 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Because humans ALL NEED answers to the Big SUBJCTIVE private questions, who am I? Where do I come from? What is my purpose in life? How and where should I live? Is there a God? What would HeShe be like? HOW can I find out? That is because humans CAN ask such questions. As far as we know other species on earth have not intellectually evolved where they can think about and wonder about such things. That does not prove there is God or some best religion as you think about Mormonism. It just means humans are smart enough to wonder about such things. There was a time our ancestors didn't think about such things. 3 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Sound familiar? Science answers communal questions. What is the cure for cancer? Where is the best fishing hole? How do you make a house? Is global warming caused partially my MY private behavior? Perhaps that is a better way to see it. Is my question communal, affecting all, or private? Is the BOM "true"? Many are stuck on the communal social question of "How did this dumb kid pull this off?" Others read the philosophy and ask "How do these ideas impact my private values and questions about my private questions in life? Two sides of the sets of questions we all need. Mixing them causes confusion. We don't run naked yet we make private questions communal Interesting. 2
Analytics Posted September 19, 2022 Posted September 19, 2022 38 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: Any ideas on what kind of metal was available to Joseph in 6”x8”x3” blocks, where he could get one, how much it would cost, could he afford to buy it, and how he would have drilled holes through it? ...or maybe the sealed portion was a block of wood that had been covered in candle wax. 1
mfbukowski Posted September 20, 2022 Posted September 20, 2022 (edited) 47 minutes ago, Teancum said: Religion and politics are both human constructs and imaginary things. Every thing humans know was constructed by a human brain(s). This is what you are not getting. Communal experience can by definition be shared and others may make a a linguistic statement that it was the "same" experience, but who knows. Conditions may differ or not. That is the job of those who analyze "data" and define "same". They are called scientists. POLITICS IS IMAGINARY? No need to vote folks! It doesn't matter! Religion is imaginary? No morality folks! Phew! Yes ANY ethics IS a religion, based on the fact that these choices are private values! No more arguments about human rights, no more traffic tickets! Go out and murder sombody! But they evolved?? IRRELEVANT These are still private FEELINGS and imo, and others, are secular religions, and are justified by communal standards of "Truth". Communal Society doesn't like random murder. It makes people uncomfortable. That ain't sweet. Alma 32 Putin's morality evolved too but it doesn't seem to be working well for him or his culture. Not religion? Still private values. Semantic problem. Private values enforced communally, because everyone agrees. Otherwise revolution. Not sweet Edited September 20, 2022 by mfbukowski 1
mfbukowski Posted September 20, 2022 Posted September 20, 2022 51 minutes ago, Teancum said: That does not prove there is God or some best religion as you think about Mormonism. Show me another religion that in effect worships making humanity perfect, and the idea of emulating perfect humans, and that we can personally have private communications with such entities. I have had those experiences and too many in our culture have as well to start locking us up. I think ALL people have those experiences. No problem God gives us all our own paths, if we don't find it here, we postulate we can find it on the other side See ya sooner or later, mi amigo! So far 1
Analytics Posted September 20, 2022 Posted September 20, 2022 1 hour ago, Teancum said: Religion and politics are both human constructs and imaginary things. They only have relevance so long as there are humans who accept the imaginary rules, doctrine, dogmas, philosophies etc are willing to do so. Same with nations, laws, constitutions, corporations etc. All subjective because they only can be of value or use if humans accept them. You've read Yuval Noah Harari, haven't you! 2
Rivers Posted September 20, 2022 Author Posted September 20, 2022 4 hours ago, Analytics said: My hunch is that yes, he did have some sort of tangible artifact. The references within the Book of Mormon itself to a section of the original manuscript (i.e. the collection of gold plates) being "sealed" is extremely suspicious. From a believer's perspective, why would the plates need to be "sealed" for Joseph Smith not to translate it? Couldn't God just turn off the seer stone for the portion He didn't want Joseph to translate? And why go to the extent of creating a record and talking about a record that would end up being "sealed" and would never end up being read or translated by anybody, ever? From a skeptical perspective, why talk about the "sealed" portion to begin with? What makes the most sense to me is that this is an artifact of the tangible plates themselves. Somehow a section of the fabricated plates was defective or incomplete in some way, and rather than taking the time and energy to make the entire thing pristine, they decided to conceal the defect by "sealing" it. They then made up a story about a "sealed" section to explain this characteristic of the plates. Interesting point about the sealed portion. Never thought of that.
Bernard Gui Posted September 20, 2022 Posted September 20, 2022 (edited) 5 hours ago, Analytics said: ...or maybe the sealed portion was a block of wood that had been covered in candle wax. Maybe. Did anyone say it felt waxy? If one postulates an explanation for the material used in the plates, one might want to defend the position. Edited September 20, 2022 by Bernard Gui
Analytics Posted September 20, 2022 Posted September 20, 2022 8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: Maybe. Did anyone say it felt waxy? If one postulates an explanation for the material used in the plates, one might want to defend the position. David Whitmer said the sealed portion “was as solid to my view as wood.” Was that because it was wood? https://bookofmormonstudynotes.blog/2019/05/25/what-is-the-sealed-portion-of-the-book-of-mormon/
Tacenda Posted September 20, 2022 Posted September 20, 2022 (edited) 17 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Yes of course. That is the point. Subjectivity is how we make our subjective worlds, and everyone lives in their own subjective worlds until we use language which objectifies everything, because it is communal. Science is "objective" because it only discusses communal experiences that can be replicated. It discusses objects, seeing people even, as objects. "The kidney functions as a...." Every kidney is regarded as an interchangeable part of a person. Kidneys become a communal commodity, and interchangeable. Religion is called "subective" because it is only about private experience. So are politics, yet politics are so important because it is about the relationship between public or communal experience and private, personal and subjective experience. Politics often goes with religion because both relate to the interface between communal experience and private experience. Should abortion be legal? It is clearer, imo to think of our experience as either private or communal instead of subjective vs objective. Truth can be either. Your personal PRIVATE reason or PURPOSE in doing things follows your personal private goals, like whom to marry or not, your career choices, your politics You and others here seem to think that God only inspires LDS folks which is actually self contradictory for LDS folks to believe Moroni 10 4 PRESUMES that non- members can get their own answers from God about God, or we would have no converts!! Why are all religions so similar? Because humans ALL NEED answers to the Big SUBJCTIVE private questions, who am I? Where do I come from? What is my purpose in life? How and where should I live? Is there a God? What would HeShe be like? HOW can I find out? Sound familiar? Science answers communal questions. What is the cure for cancer? Where is the best fishing hole? How do you make a house? Is global warming caused partially my MY private behavior? Perhaps that is a better way to see it. Is my question communal, affecting all, or private? Is the BOM "true"? Many are stuck on the communal social question of "How did this dumb kid pull this off?" Others read the philosophy and ask "How do these ideas impact my private values and questions about my private questions in life? Two sides of the sets of questions we all need. Mixing them causes confusion. We don't run naked yet we make private questions communal To the bold, I wonder if Joseph and Hyrum lived if the church would have still gone forth as strong, and it's their martyrdom that kept it going. I watched a youtube about DJT and the cult. Not saying LDS are a terrible cult like the DJT cult is. The news people or ? said if DJT is indicted, it will grow into being a huge uprising and become violent, not saying LDS were. There were some instances like MMM. And in my heart, I totally can get behind the LDS church being a good "cult"ure, not an evil cult. So couldn't God be able to take in any religion that is doing good and no harm and life is good? Your thought process is strikingly different and less authoritative or more inward than others on the board, but put me in my place if wrong. I just wonder if that is how God is and that he lets people choose their religion or faith community to join. And if the LDS wants to believe they have full authority over all the others that is where the kink is. But I understand the huge sacrifice made, been there done that, with time/money that make members want to believe it's the only walk to take, it's the be all end all. If it wasn't then I wonder how many would stay. I've had faithful friends, couple friend the male, say if this church isn't true he was gonna be mad, he used a stronger word. Edited September 20, 2022 by Tacenda
Bernard Gui Posted September 20, 2022 Posted September 20, 2022 44 minutes ago, Analytics said: David Whitmer said the sealed portion “was as solid to my view as wood.” Was that because it was wood? https://bookofmormonstudynotes.blog/2019/05/25/what-is-the-sealed-portion-of-the-book-of-mormon/ And this… Quote “A large portion of the leaves were so securely bound together that it was impossible to separate them.” —David Whitmer 1
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now