Inspired Fiction - Did Joseph Smith Believe He Was Translating Real Records?

[Ryan Dahle]

4 hours ago, champatsch said:

A more general point is that if the Book of Mormon does in fact have vocabulary whose meanings were obsolete in Joseph Smith's dialect, then he didn't come up with those word choices himself. This strong possibility is annoying to many scholars, for various reasons. What needs to be shown to overturn this position, in at least 50 instances, is persistent usage up to the 1800s. That will make the OED, as it currently stands, wrong on 50+ counts. The same thing needs to be done with various types of archaic syntax.

And this highlights the problem with assuming that this is all just oral dialect in Joseph's linguistic environment that is hidden from the textual record. That type of explanation would be suitable if it were just a small handful of features.

For instance, in the rural town in which I grew up, people often use non-standard subject-verb agreement. In a past-tense context my dad would often say things like "He come to the office and we talked" (where "come" should be "came). My dad sort of unconsciously uses less of this dialect in more formal settings like when giving a talk or writing a letter. But when telling stories in informal settings, he reverts to the non-standard verb tense. I don't think anyone is discounting this phenomenon or arguing that it is impossible for regional language patterns to not be fully represented in the linguistic record. 

The problem is just the sheer volume of the archaic data. The greater the quantity and variety of archaic features, both biblical and extra-biblical, the more difficult it is too assume these features were all concentrated--and yet have remained textually hidden--in the rural dialect of Joseph Smith's surrounding environment. At some point, it just becomes an untenable thesis. It should be remembered that there are a number of other reasons to reject the notion that Joseph was formulating the Book of Mormon's language, beginning with the fact that he was reportedly reading the text off of a visual medium that was shown to him via his translation instruments (which is also expressed as a prophecy in the Book of Mormon itself). Although it technically wouldn't be impossible, the default assumption shouldn't be that he was reading his own thinking. Instead, the default assumption should be that he was reading a text that he himself didn't create. The EmodE data supports what the historical data already points to. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

7 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

the default assumption should be that he was reading a text that he himself didn't create.

Presupposing that the plates are genuine and Joseph was a prophet of God of course. 

[InCognitus]

50 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

58 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

the default assumption should be that he was reading a text that he himself didn't create.

Presupposing that the plates are genuine and Joseph was a prophet of God of course. 

Wouldn't this [what Ryan Dahle said in your quote from him] be the default assumption strictly based on the data at hand and removed from any presuppositions of prophetic claims?  What else makes sense?  (I feel like I'm channeling Dan McClellan and Data over Dogma).

This is an honest question.  I don't know how else to view the data.

Edited July 11, 2024 by InCognitus
Edit to clarify what I mean by "default assumption"

[SeekingUnderstanding]

26 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

Wouldn't this be the default assumption strictly based on the data at hand and removed from any presuppositions of prophetic claims?  What else makes sense?  (I feel like I'm channeling Dan McClellan and Data over Dogma).

This is an honest question.  I don't know how else to view the data.

Typically, when someone produces a never seen before text, they are assumed to be the author. 

Edited July 11, 2024 by SeekingUnderstanding

[InCognitus]

6 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Typically, when someone produces a never seen before text, they are assumed to be the author. 

Except it appears that the data doesn't support this assumption (and this is completely ignoring any religious claims about the text).  And that's why I'm asking the question.  On a purely academic level one would have to conclude (it would seem) that Joseph got the text from somewhere else, which would still allow you to steer away from any prophetic claims (if that is your inclination). 

In other words, I think your comment, "Presupposing that the plates are genuine and Joseph was a prophet of God of course" was an attempt at reframing this as an apologetic argument rather than the academic case that the data seems to demonstrate.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

20 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

Except it appears that the data doesn't support this assumption (and this is completely ignoring any religious claims about the text). 

I don’t think I agree. 

[Ryan Dahle]

19 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Not looking to get into the data with you, but I am interested in hearing what you both think the data means. Like was there a translator in the 16th century? In England? How and why did he or she get access to the text? Or is pre-kjv English the Lords preferred language? If so, why?

This is obviously an important and understandable question. But I think too much has been made of that fact that there isn't a definitive answer or fully satisfying working theory on this front. I'm not saying that you personally have blown this matter out of proportion (as I don't know what your view is). I'm just speaking in general terms. 

Perhaps the first thing to recognize is that there are unknown or unresolved aspects to many widely accepted theories in many fields of science, history, literature, etc. In fact, at the deepest level, science can never fully explain why things are they way that they are. And, in a lot of circumstances, it just doesn't seem to matter that much. We all know the basic function of gravity and trust in the scientific explanation of that phenomenon, even though we really don't know, on a deeper level, why gravity works the way it does. 

By way of analogy, let's say (hypothetically speaking) that I encounter some preliminary evidence (from a single, third-hand source) that my great grandpa did something I find to be bizarre and out of character, based on everything I know about him. Let's say he purportedly bought a 20,000 dollar painting, despite being poor and having no known interest in art. I brainstorm some possible motivations, but I can't find any fully satisfying explanation for why my grandpa would do such a thing. So, my first reaction might be to dismiss the account. Perhaps the third-hand source simply lied or was mistaken about it. And fair enough, since people sometimes lie or are mistaken about things. In that case, my inability to explain or account for the unexpected action would be sufficient to seriously doubt its reality. 

But then I come across multiple other lines of evidence that all support the bizarre claim. These include (1) multiple eyewitnesses that he possessed the painting, (2) someone who claimed to buy it from him, and (3) even a description of the purchase in a family member's journal. As each successive line of evidence stacks up, my inability to explain my grandpa's behavior would become increasingly irrelevant. Part of this would come from the fact that I actually just don't know my great grandpa that well. I only have a few diaries, letters, and other documents about his life, in addition to family stories. So perhaps I should have been more skeptical, in the first place, of my own ability to predict what my Grandpa may or may not do. There are just too many unknowns and possibilities to place much confidence in my own expectations on this matter. So I choose to go with the evidence pointing towards the purchase, despite not being able to explain the motivation and purpose for it.

Then, years later, I find out that while serving in the military my grandfather's life was saved by a family in a foreign country. He found out that they had a very personal attachment to a piece of art, which he purchased for them at great cost to himself. The reason I didn't know about the story was because my grandpa was humble and asked others not to widely share what he did. Plus, he just didn't like to talk about the war. (Full disclosure, this is a completely made up story.) 

I'm not saying this analogy is precisely similar to the EModE issue. It's not. My point is just that our inability to explain a phenomenon may or may not be that significant when stacked up against other types of evidence. When it comes to the EModE issue, we might first start off by asking ourselves whether we are in a good situation, in the first place, to make strong predictive assessments of how God might carry out a divinely revealed translation. We might, for instance, turn to any known precedents. Unfortunately, there simply aren't any, at least not that have been documented with the type of granularity we would need to reach any firm conclusions. So we are looking at a phenomenon that is basically a singular event in known history. That right away should lead us to question the reliability of our inductive inferences. 

Then we might ask, within the LDS faith tradition, if God has given us any clues as to why or how he produced the Book of Mormon's translation. There are certainly general passages about the translation's purpose and process, and extrapolations could be gathered therefrom, but none of that data is in any way dispositive. D&C 9, for instance, can be interpreted in different ways. So the scriptural evidence is probably a mixed bag. We could also look to historical statements by Joseph Smith and other witnesses and associates. But, again, we get a mixed bag. If anything, these statements to me seem, overall, to favor the idea that he wasn't responsible for the Book of Mormon's wording, but I'm willing to call it a draw for the sake of argument. And then we can look at the text itself. And, in my opinion, the evidence overwhelmingly points to Joseph not being responsible for its wording. This is due to the pervasive archaic grammar, syntax, and lexis, but also other corroborating sets of data. 

So, I guess to me, the issue of whether or not I can explain why the translation has these archaic features is secondary to the evidentiary power of the features themselves. But that doesn't mean I haven't thought about it. We should all probably just be asking ourselves more questions about things that we don't know which could possibly relate to the language of the text. For instance, how many different audiences was the Book of Mormon written for. Was it just meant for 19th century Americans. Or was it meant for later generations? How will people 500 years from now look at the original archaic packaging, or even 1000 years from now? We can make guesses, just like in the analogy I could make guesses about my grandfather's purchase, but that is really all they are. It's just speculation. 

We might also ask if the Book of Mormon is being used in the Spirit World. If it is, that opens up a whole new set of questions. How are societies in that realm constructed? Does anyone speak English there. Are people in different time periods or dispensations segregated from one another in any way? Do they have sacred texts? Do their sacred texts correspond, in any way, to texts on this side of the veil? How is missionary work carried out? Do they have the Book of Mormon there? If so, do they have it in any form of English? If so, who created it and when. Is that text related in any way to the one that was revealed to Joseph Smith? If so, what is that relationship. Did the Spirit World translation come first, or was Joseph Smith's translation first. Did one influence the other in any way? If so, how? And so on. 

Those Latter-day Saints who find this line of reasoning preposterous might do well to remember that some type of continuity between the spirit realm and our realm is already strongly established by the gospel. Moreover, God tends to use angelic intermediaries for almost all of his work, and there is already a type of symbiosis between the realms (D&C 128:15). I'm not suggesting that William Tyndale or any other specific person or group posthumously translated the text. What I am saying is that we don't know squat about what is happening in the Spirit World, and that should probably give us significant pause. If the Book of Mormon was indeed created by some divine entity outside of Joseph Smith, that leaves virtually a whole other unseen world of possibilities that can only be wildly guessed at. There are reasons (and Carmack could explain them better than me) which cast significant doubt on the idea that the text was produced by some mortal in the Early Modern period. The text isn't confined to that period, and its EModE language seems somewhat massaged for modern audiences

In the big picture, though, I just don't think that I (or anyone else) has some sort of reliable predictive capacity in this type of context--as if I can be confident about what a divinely revealed text should look like and how it will be used by God in all different settings and purposes, and for all possible audiences throughout time and space. When God says things like "my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are my ways your ways" (Isiah 55:8), I tend to take him at his word, especially in settings like this where there are a lot of unknowns. 

So, in a nut shell, that is my theory. I don't really have a specific one. I'm just far more confident in our ability to strongly rule out what Joseph Smith was naturally capable of (based on natural linguistic principles and data gathered from the natural world), than I am of my speculations about how God might carry out an unprecedented translation event that may have unparalleled significance on both sides of the veil. 

Edited July 12, 2024 by Ryan Dahle

[smac97]

4 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

the default assumption should be that he was reading a text that he himself didn't create.

Presupposing that the plates are genuine and Joseph was a prophet of God of course. 

Presupposing that the plates are fraudulent and Joseph was a con artist or insane is a superior approach . . . how?

I'm genuinely curious, because I see (and appreciate, and respect) your point.  I surmise that you see (but do not respect) ours.

William Hamblin made some interesting observations about how - or if - or whether - scholars should "bracket" truth claims:

Quote

There is a lot of talk among Mormon scholars about bracketing truth claims regarding the historicity of the Book of Mormon.  This immediately leads to the question: why would one want to bracket truth claims?  The answer is generally that we can understand a particular part of Mormonism better by bracketing truth claims about other parts of Mormonism.
...
Although in our post modern age it may seem passé, to me the purpose of both religion and the academy is precisely to discover and understand truth, not to bracket it.  Our quest should be for the good, the true, the beautiful, and the holy.  If we bracket truth claims about the historicity of the Book of Mormon, for example, I believe many elements of the text become less comprehensible, and, indeed will become misunderstood.  Furthermore, it give non-Mormons a distorted view of what Mormons really believe.  Mormon truth claims are central to the nature of Mormonism and the beliefs of individual Mormons.  Bracketing or ignoring them necessarily distorts what Mormonism is really all about.  It is essentially pretending that Mormonism is something different than it really is.  Bracketing truth claims never helps us understand the truth in the broader sense.  It necessarily masks, hides, or distorts the truth, whatever that truth may be.

It seems to me that if someone has to bracket their truth claims about Mormonism in order to facilitate dialogue, it should be the non-Mormons.  Mormon truth-claims are an integral part of Mormonism.  To understand it properly you need to understand those truth claims.  It really doesn’t help a non-Mormon understand Mormonism better if she doesn’t understand that Mormons believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon, the deity and resurrection of Jesus, or the authentic prophethood of Joseph Smith.  If we bracket truth-claims about these matters, non-Mormons will never accurately understand Mormonism.  Thus, if non-Mormons really want to understand Mormonism, they shouldn’t want or ask Mormons to bracket our truth-claims.  Rather, they should tentatively bracket their own truth claims so they can better understand ours.  

I’m not asking for special treatment for Mormonism in this regard.  This is precisely how I approach any other religion.  Even though I am an outsider to those religions, I seek to understand them as the insiders understand.  What non-Buddhists might think about Buddhism is far less important to me than what Buddhists think about Buddhism.  When I approach the Buddhavacana, I understand that most western non-Buddhist scholars believe that most of the Tripiṭaka does not represent the actual words of the historical Buddha.  I get it.  But when I read that scripture, I try to understand what it means to Buddhists who believe in the historicity of the Tripiṭaka, because that permits me to understand Buddhism better.  I bracket my truth claims in order to better understand Buddhism.  I don’t ask the Buddhists to bracket their truth claims.

That does not mean, of course that there aren’t a lot of things about Mormonism that can’t be discussed without any reference to truth-claims: the social order of a Mormon ward; the colonization of Utah; the impact of the Deseret Alphabet, etc.  But bracketing truth claims about the Book of Mormon will ultimately lead to misunderstanding that book.  Grant Hardy’s wonderful Understanding the Book of Mormon is a case in point.  Although he chose to bracket historicity issues, the fact of the matter is, there was no reason for him to do so.  He could have written precisely the same book, with precisely the same insights, without bracketing historicity.

I commented back in 2022 (same link) :

Quote

Chief Justice John Roberts of the U.S. Supreme Court once famously stated:

Quote

“Judges are like umpires,” John Roberts famously said at his confirmation hearing as Chief Justice. “Umpires don’t make the rules, they apply them ... They make sure everybody plays by the rules, but it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ball game to see the umpire.”

I think he here had in mind "judges" functioning in an appellate capacity.  Appellate judges typically do not suss out the "facts," but rather adjudicate the appropriate application of the law to the facts as established by the fact-finder (the trial judge/jury).  

Ideally, I think "critical bible scholarship" ought to function in a similar way.  As Hamblin put it:

Quote

Thus, if non-Mormons really want to understand Mormonism, they shouldn’t want or ask Mormons to bracket our truth-claims.  Rather, they should tentatively bracket their own truth claims so they can better understand ours.  

I’m not asking for special treatment for Mormonism in this regard.  This is precisely how I approach any other religion.  Even though I am an outsider to those religions, I seek to understand them as the insiders understand.  What non-Buddhists might think about Buddhism is far less important to me than what Buddhists think about Buddhism.

How often do they succeed?  How often to they refrain from injecting personal biases and presuppositions into their exegesis?

Interpreting an ancient text, originating in a different language and time and culture, about matters that are largely untestable, with all sorts of gaps strewn throughout our efforts to understand, is going to be a tricky business.

On this board, we have a apologetic / anti-mormon paradigm that makes bracketing beliefs (ours) and doubts (yours) difficult.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[Ryan Dahle]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Presupposing that the plates are fraudulent and Joseph was a con artist or insane is a superior approach . . . how?

I think he was just trying to accommodate my religious assumptions (for the sake of discussion), but I could be wrong.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Presupposing that the plates are fraudulent and Joseph was a con artist or insane is a superior approach . . . how?

I'm genuinely curious, because I see (and appreciate, and respect) your point.  I surmise that you see (but do not respect) ours.

Well this might surprise you, but the answer is, it doesn’t really matter in my opinion. I just bristled at the word “should”.  I subscribe to a Bayesian epistemology where everyone has some level of credence in certain ideas (see Prior probability). From there evidence should be evaluated using a best go at Bayes Theorem.
 

For myself, I started with a very very high credence in the fact Joseph was a divinely inspired prophet of God. The only way to truly mess up in Bayesian reasoning is to have a credence (belief) that something is absolutely true or false (proofs are for mathematicians as they say). This is where a lot of apologetics goes  awry in my opinion. Kerry Muelstein articulated this best:

”“I start out with an assumption that the Book of Abraham and the Book of Mormon, and anything else that we get from the restored gospel, is true,” he said. “Therefore, any evidence I find, I will try to fit into that paradigm.”

https://www.deseret.com/2014/8/12/20546321/byu-professor-speaks-on-unnoticed-assumptions-about-the-book-of-abraham/

I mean that’s a fine way to do apologetics, but it is anathema to a Bayesian epistemology.

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 

 

 

[mfbukowski]

On 7/10/2024 at 7:45 AM, brownbear said:

Thank you for this question, I think it is at the core of the "inspired fiction" view. Personally, I have not ruled out historicity. However, when I look at the evidence, there are things that point to a 19th-century origin. The coming forth of the plates, the translation, and the content in the book all fit in too well with Joseph Smith's environment and milieu. I am not in expert in all things, @Kevin Christensen has given some amazing evidence in this thread alone. That being said, the coming forth of the plates, the translation, and the content in the book seem to go beyond Joseph Smith's environment and milieu (and I am not alluding to a Spaulding theory). Can we do an Ostler or Ash Expansion or Co-Participation model? Yes, but what constitutes a modern expansion and an ancient core? The book is a puzzle. As Richard Bushman said in his Faith Matters interview, (paraphrasing) "there is evidence for and against", you cannot decide if it is true by scientific methods.

For me, the question is not settled. However, I personally know Bishop's and other very faithful members who believe that the Book is non-historical, but nonetheless inspired of God. What does that mean? It could mean a few things. 1) It could mean that in God's own mysterious way, he influenced the content in the book. But does that make God a liar? 2) It could mean that any work that helps someone draw closer to God, is "inspired". These present issues. That gets to the core of my OP. 3) If Joseph Smith thought that the Nephites were real, that means that he is sincere (even if that means he had to exaggerate or "lie for the Lord" in certain instances". We see him clarify and strengthen his narrative of his early life as he gets older (i.e. first vision & priesthood restoration). It is possible that this was not viewed as "lying". If Joseph Smith was sincere, and thought that it was in fact a Nephite record, than it is possible that he was able to channel his knowledge of the Bible, his knowledge of myths that existed in the environment (mound builder and such), feeling the spirit as a "burning in the bosom", as well as a general magic worldview that makes it possible to believe in such a scenario. If we take this view, it means that Joseph was NOT a pious fraud, rather it means that he sincerely believed and was a "divine syncretist". If we take a broad view of Biblical Criticism, didn't many of the biblical writers take the myths of their day, combine it with their spiritual experiences, and produce text describing their experiences with God?

What are the conclusions of this view (that I am not 100% committed to). Here are a few examples:

• The church is a "good" place, even if not entirely "true". This could be for secular and/or spiritual reasons (i.e. family, community, tradition, spiritual experiences, etc)
• The church is "true", and God works in some mysterious way.
• The Book of Mormon is historical, even though it is ridiculed with anachronisms and others (but this could be alleviated with a modern expansion or a "prophets saw our day" approach).

Overall, this is a working theory. I have multiple "working hypotheses". I am committed to the gospel. I serve in my Branch Presidency. I hope the Book of Mormon is historical but can see a path forward if I can no longer hold that position. I love the church and think it is true.

• Another view could be seen in David Bokovoy's 2016 Sunstone presentation (see below)

 

Hey Mr Bear- good to see you mi amigo! 

I do not take Ann Taves' view as "what happened"personally, but if it were magically proven to be "true"- what ever those words mean- I would have no problem accepting that view.

https://www.religion.ucsb.edu/wp-content/uploads/B-6-Golden-Plates-Numen.pdf

I was raised Catholic and even through my secular studies of philosophy in secular universities, I continued attending mass every Sunday through my sophomore undergrad studies. 

When we think of revelation in terms of being "pious fiction" I think we simply DO NOT UNDERSTAND how people who accept practices  -which seem absurd to outsiders- can not only be accepted, but become treasured beliefs for those who accept them via their own "personal revelations".

Think of Catholicism.

In every Catholic mass- and that includes the Orthodox churches- the mass begins with some bread and wine in containers.

During the course of the mass- it is believed that the bread and wine literally BECOMES the "Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity" of Jesus Christ.

BILLIONS accept this fully knowing how strange the idea seems to others, and they don't care!

No these are not "symbols"- this is the actual PRESENCE of the Lord Jesus Christ right there on the altar where once was bread and wine- the APPEARANCE did not change,  but the "essence" - the "substance" remained the same.  

Think of our temple worship and how the endowment CHANGES us spiritually because we have learned things and have been blessed to become eligible to BECOME LIKE GOD.

Before we entered the temple it was not possible to have the potential to become as God is, and when we leave we now have that blessing.

Are these examples of "pious fiction"?

What about the effort to accumulate the genealogy of the entire human race because they need to have some words said for them?

Can words and gestures change one to be eligible to become like God?

Probably not but the BELIEF in religious practices CAN AND DO CHANGE LIVES in ways that I am personally certain can and do change us.

It is the heart that makes the difference and transforms us just as "golden plates" can be SEEN AS revelation.

As always it depends on personal testimony.

And yes I believe that folks in other "denominations" can, with their own beliefs, be gradually changed to find the "truth".   I do not argue with God,who knows each of us intimately and will change us if we desire, to become like Him, by teaching us personally.  I learned a lot to help me find God through atheism.   It was a necessary step in my spiritual growth.

 

[CV75]

Hiya Folks!

I'm A Translated Record!

Part of Enoch's Collection, City of Enoch Public Library!

Yes, We Can Talk Up Here!

See Ya Real Soon!

[mfbukowski]

On 7/8/2024 at 4:27 PM, bluebell said:

I think he did believe it was a real ancient record.  Ann Taves approach seems to have him lying about them, which I don't think works with the rest of the narrative.  And I think the revelations of JS where he refers to the native americans as nephites and lamanites also cements the notion that he believed the BoM was a historical book. 

No, Taves does not present Joseph as a "liar", in fact she sees him as simply practicing what billions believe about changing the "substance" of a humanly created object into a "sacred object" through faith and prayer.

One example of this is the "placebo effect" when a sugar pill will actually heal a disease because the sufferer believes it will.  This is similar to what is called "faith healing" where an object made by humans is believed to cause apparently supernatural effects, through faith.

We lived in a rural area when I was very young, and once had a fever from a childhood sickness.  Our next door neighbors were old folks- who were born in the 1800's and believed in a lot of folk healing etc- in fact, the location where this occurred is relevant- we lived about a hundred miles from Palmyra NY where folk magic was still a set of very common beliefs.

The neighbor heard that I had a fever, and suggested to my mom that she should put a silver knife under my bed, because silver had the power to "cut fevers" and other sicknesses!   Of course my mom did not do that- we had four MD's in the family at that time!!

But the story remained as an example of the beliefs of the "locals" .

And there was finding a good place for a well through "dousing" - holding two sticks while walking in a field which would suddenly point downward.thus showing where to dig your well, and we actually have examples of Joseph being involved in these kinds of practices.

But the most common example is the Catholic doctrine that human -made bread can be transformed through faith and supernatural powers- into the "boy, blood, soul and divinity" of Jesus Christ.

Another example was Moses creating the "Brazen Serpent" which could cure people simply by looking at it.

Another example would be idolatry - where one could create a "god" by- in one instance- creating a golden calf!

So it would not be sinful- necessarily - to create plates and then hold them up to the Lord as a tool or catalyst for inspiration.  These were common folk beliefs.

So this, IIRC, was the major thesis of Taves, not that Joseph was a liar.

Now we have the catalyst theory.  To me, it serves as evidence that Joseph used objects, like the stone in the hat, which allowed him psychologically to see himself as a "prophet" which he was!   

And so we can be ordained to the priesthood even though we know we are flawed beings, through similar beliefs, one of which is the "atonement".   

But yes, according to Alma 32, it "works", and I KNOW it is a TRUE PRINCIPLE which has changed my life.

 

[ZealouslyStriving]

Where did Joseph retrieve the gold with which he made the plates? Are there some good gold veins around Palmyra?

 

[Doctor Steuss]

On 7/9/2024 at 6:07 PM, blackstrap said:

inspired fiction? Ah yes Joseph Smith ... the J.R.R. Tolkien of his era. 

Perhaps it's because I am a fanboy, and nothing is as easily triggered as a fanboy, but...  

I'm tempted to believe that you've either never read the Book of Mormon, or you've never read Tolkien.  The detailed overarching complexity and consistency of not only civilizations, but plot themes, languages, characters, mythoi, etc. within Tolkien is unparalleled.  The Book of Mormon can't even begin to attempt to occupy the same sphere as a work of fiction as Tolkien's works occupy.  If both are works of fiction, Tolkien is the sun, and the book of Mormon is an incandescent bulb, running on unfavorable wattage.

There're countless pages created by Tolkien laying out geography, language, writing, religious/myth traditions, civilizations, genealogies, flora, fauna, etc., that not only didn't even make it into the books but were never intended to make it into the books, that maintain the same level of consistency and complexity as the books themselves.  He literally created an entire world, and then told a small set of stories from the massive world which he meticulously created first.

Tolkien is an absolute master class on the successful creation of entire civilizations, and all of the complexities and underlying elements we often forget about within the world/civilization/tribe/family we live in.

[blackstrap]

53 minutes ago, Doctor Steuss said:

I am a fanboy

Sarcasm based on an unequal comparison. Sorry to offend. 

[Doctor Steuss]

13 minutes ago, blackstrap said:

Sarcasm based on an unequal comparison. Sorry to offend. 

Oh, there's no need to apologize.  My emotions (and my inability to control them when it comes to cake, Tolkien, puppies, and Paul Simon's "Graceland") are entirely mine.

I sincerely appreciate it though. 

*squeezy-hugs* (Unless you're not a hugger... in which case, *fist-bump*)

[blackstrap]

20 minutes ago, Doctor Steuss said:

Paul Simon's "Graceland")

One of his best. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Tacenda]

18 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Where did Joseph retrieve the gold with which he made the plates? Are there some good gold veins around Palmyra?

 

No, but his family owned a Cooper shop, which made barrels and did have metal plates of some kind I guess he could have flattened to make them look like plates. I Googled what is in a Cooper shop: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooper_(profession)#:~:text=A cooper is a craftsman,steamed to make them pliable.&text=Journeymen coopers also traditionally made,rakes and wooden-bladed shovels.

But no idea, in this article it mentions many that handled or lifted or touched them, not many saw them. One account below mentions seeing them, but what they saw was a greenish tinge or something. In my mind, it would be the green that happens to copper. Here is the link to the article quoted:  https://rsc.byu.edu/coming-forth-book-mormon/hefted-handled-tangible-interactions-book-mormon-objects#_note-26:

"In the summer of 1830, after Joseph Smith was charged with disorderly conduct, Stowell was called by the defense and sworn in as a witness. He testified under oath that he saw the plates the day Joseph first brought them home. As Joseph passed them through the window, Stowell caught a glimpse of the plates as a portion of the linen was pulled back. Stowell gave the court the dimensions of the plates and explained that they consisted of gold leaves with characters written on each sheet. The printed transcript of the trial read: “witness saw a corner of it; it resembled a stone of a greenish caste.” Because Stowell also mentioned in his statement that the record was made of plates of gold, it is difficult to know what he meant by this description. He may have seen the band that sealed two-thirds of the plates together, which may have been made of copper that had oxidized over the years and turned green. Alternatively, he may have seen the breastplate, which could have also been made of copper and appeared green from oxidation. In any case, the point Stowell made to the court was that the plates were real and that he had seen and felt them.[26]"

But no one knows unless we had the gold plates with us. So they very well could have been the real gold plates JS said they were. 

Edited July 13, 2024 by Tacenda

[ZealouslyStriving]

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

No, but his family owned a cooper shop, which made barrels and did have metal plates of some kind I guess he could have flattened to make them look like plates. I Googled what is in a cooper shop:

What types of materials did coopers use?

New England had a plentiful supply of wood for coopers. White oak was used for casks that held liquids. Red oak, ash, chestnut, pine, and spruce were used for dried goods and everything in between – salted meat, butter, oils, paint, white lead, and even dangerous chemicals like arsenic.

But no idea, in this article it mentions many that handled or lifted or touched them, not many saw them. One account below mentions seeing them, but what they saw was a greenish tinge or something. In my mind, it would be the green that happens to copper. Here is the link to the article quoted:  https://rsc.byu.edu/coming-forth-book-mormon/hefted-handled-tangible-interactions-book-mormon-objects#_note-26:

"In the summer of 1830, after Joseph Smith was charged with disorderly conduct, Stowell was called by the defense and sworn in as a witness. He testified under oath that he saw the plates the day Joseph first brought them home. As Joseph passed them through the window, Stowell caught a glimpse of the plates as a portion of the linen was pulled back. Stowell gave the court the dimensions of the plates and explained that they consisted of gold leaves with characters written on each sheet. The printed transcript of the trial read: “witness saw a corner of it; it resembled a stone of a greenish caste.” Because Stowell also mentioned in his statement that the record was made of plates of gold, it is difficult to know what he meant by this description. He may have seen the band that sealed two-thirds of the plates together, which may have been made of copper that had oxidized over the years and turned green. Alternatively, he may have seen the breastplate, which could have also been made of copper and appeared green from oxidation. In any case, the point Stowell made to the court was that the plates were real and that he had seen and felt them.[26]"

Why wouldn't he just refer to them as having the appearance of copper? I'm sure he was aware that gold doesn't tint green.

[Tacenda]

6 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Why wouldn't he just refer to them as having the appearance of copper? I'm sure he was aware that gold doesn't tint green.

I did edit my post, but not enough to make a difference much. But there is a rabbit hole to go down in all of this that I spent a lot of time diving into years ago reading the apologists/critics.

[2BizE]

For many, many years, the church firmly stood by the Book of Abraham being written “by the hand of Abraham.” In more recent years, with evidence showing the parchments were not from or about Abraham, but rather a common funeral text has field the invention of the various theories. These theories were invented to try to explain away the obvious: that Joseph Smith just made it all up. 
That is what I believe. When you remove the supernatural elements, you are left with the most rational explanation: that Joseph Smith made it up.

[webbles]

2 hours ago, 2BizE said:

For many, many years, the church firmly stood by the Book of Abraham being written “by the hand of Abraham.” In more recent years, with evidence showing the parchments were not from or about Abraham, but rather a common funeral text has field the invention of the various theories.

I think we still believe that the Book of Abraham was written by the hand of Abraham.  It still says that in the Pearl of Great Price.

2 hours ago, 2BizE said:

When you remove the supernatural elements, you are left with the most rational explanation: that Joseph Smith made it up.

Totally agree.  If you remove God out of the explanation, then it has to be made up.

[Zosimus]

On 7/13/2024 at 2:34 AM, mfbukowski said:

No, Taves does not present Joseph as a "liar", in fact she sees him as simply practicing what billions believe about changing the "substance" of a humanly created object into a "sacred object" through faith and prayer.

Had recently read this interview with Richard Bushman, discussing his new book on the gold plates. He was asked: "How is Ann Taves’ approach to the gold plates different?". His answer:

Quote

"Ann Taves, who only recently retired from teaching, speaks for a generation of religious studies scholars who make every effort to empathize with religious beliefs and religious experience. They strive not to impose the enlightenment ideology of modern scholarship on the religions of others, but to take this experience at face value. Robert Orsi has been a strong voice for honoring the integrity of religious belief and accepting reports of religious experience as actual. Taves wishes not only to respect Joseph Smith’s accounts of his visions as records of bonafide experiences, but also to insist that he was not deluded in telling his story. Previous scholars like Fawn Brodie and Dan Vogel had acknowledged Smith’s sincerity but insisted that he knew he was lying about the plates.

Taves says no.

His plates were something like the host in the Eucharist. The priest knows it is a mere wafer but at the same time believes sincerely it is also the flesh of Christ. Joseph may have made a set of plates to carry about and let his friends touch, but he believed they were also true gold with characters on them."

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Zosimus said:

Had recently read this interview with Richard Bushman, discussing his new book on the gold plates. He was asked: "How is Ann Taves’ approach to the gold plates different?". His answer:

Thanks.  Told y'all, so neener neener.

I mean I am BUKOWSKI!   Glad there's somebody else out there who is as smart as me.  I mean who is this Bush- guy anyway??   🤓😍