DCP - your June 4 Mormon Times article on John Whitmer

[_moksha]

Did Joseph Smith's mother actually lift these plates up through her window? If so, that should stand as proof of something.

[_Dan Vogel]

Dan P.,

It’s not ad hoc because the theory is entailed in the evidence we already have.

As you know, I couldn't possibly disagree more strongly.

Disagree with my use of the John Whitmer and Martin Harris statements, but you can’t say it’s ad hoc.

I didn’t make it up to escape counter evidence.

I think that's precisely what you did.

You have to neutralize the testimonies of the witnesses.

I have always maintained that the best counter evidence to the testimony of the witnesses is the lack of direct historical support for the Book of Mormon. If the Book of Mormon’s historicity is rejected, then the testimony of the witnesses is false. That’s why my theory has greater scope, explanatory power, and plausibility. The statements of Whitmer and Harris fit nicely with a non-historical Book of Mormon, and I didn’t invent them to escape counter evidence. So, it’s not ad hoc.

It’s based on the statement of John Whitmer in 1839 and Martin Harris’s in 1838 about the Eight Witnesses. Dispute my use of these sources all you want,

As you know, I reject utterly your use of those sources. I regard it as an abuse or misuse of them.

I don’t believe I’m misinterpreting them. In April 1838, Theodore Turley question John Whitmer about his testimony. Whitmer replied:

“I now say, I handled those plates; there were fine engravings on both sides. I handled them;” and he described how they were hung, and “they were shown to me by a supernatural power;” he acknowledged all. --History of the Church 3:307.

According to Stephen Burnett, Harris told an Ohio congregation in 1838 that

"he never saw the plates with his natural eyes only in vision or imagination," adding that “the eight witnesses never saw them [with their natural eyes] & hesitated to sign that instrument for that reason, but were persuaded to do it” (S. Burnett to L. E. Johnson, 15 Apr. 1838, Joseph Smith Letterbook, 2:64, 65 [EMD 2:291, 292-93]).

I’ve added words in brackets that I believe are appropriate to the context of Harris’s statement.

but it’s not an ad hoc theory.

Again, I disagree.

You must have a different definition of ad hoc.

The weight according to witnesses was between 40 and 60 pounds, which is consistent with tin but not gold.

It is also consistent with a gold alloy that would, unlike tin, have the appearance of gold that was reported by the witnesses.

According to Whitmer, he saw the gold-color by “supernatural power.”

In his reverse engineering of the plates, Putnam does a lot of manipulating but still can’t get the weight within a reasonable range. He starts with a solid block of an 8-carat-gold alloy at the dimensions of Joseph Smith mentioned, which would weigh 106.88 pounds. He assumes the plates are hammered, creating an estimated 50% reduction due to air space between plates. By this procedure, he gets 53 pounds. This is questionable. Finally, he concludes that the plates may have been between 8- and 12- carat gold, or between 53 and 86 pounds. This theory is certainly better than the 200 pounds of pure gold, but not completely satisfactory.

by the way, the witnesses’ statement that the plates had the “appearance of gold” is just a description what was seen, and does not imply anything about the plates’ construction.

Tumbaga is an ad hoc theory to account for the lighter weight of the plates.

And yet, somehow, your "tin" is not?

It’s an explanation that fits the evidence without the difficulties that exist for the other explanations. I didn’t suggest tin because the gold theory was counter evidence to my theory. Tumbaga was suggested because the gold theory needed rescuing.

It’s better than the gold plates theory in scope and explanatory power.

I note, with interest, the Kuhnian language. But I disagree completely.

I wasn’t thinking of Kuhn at all, more like C. Behan McCullagh’s seven conditions for a successful argument to the best explanation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method

[_Daniel Peterson]

Disagree with my use of the John Whitmer and Martin Harris statements, but you can’t say it’s ad hoc.

I do, and I can.

my theory has greater scope, explanatory power, and plausibility

I think not.

I don’t believe I’m misinterpreting them.

I believe that they're outliers, that you're misusing John Whitmer's statement, and that Stephen Burnett's account of Martin Harris is almost certainly distorted through the prism of Burnett's own cynicism.

I find it impossible to reconcile Harris's alleged statement with his numerous other recorded statements, and find it inconceivable that he went around bearing fervent testimony of the Book of Mormon because (he himself believed that) he had seen the plates in his "imagination."

According to Whitmer, he saw the gold-color by “supernatural power.”

Good grief. You put far, far more weight on that statement than it's able to bear.

by the way, the witnesses’ statement that the plates had the “appearance of gold” is just a description what was seen, and does not imply anything about the plates’ construction.

Of course.

My point is that there is no statement obliging us to defend them as pure, unalloyed gold.

I think if a civilisation was skilled enough to produce gold plates that were an alloy (your suggestion) then I would say that they would be skilled in the use and manipulation and mixing of metals.

And I think that the fact that a family or guild was skilled enough to produce gold plates that were an alloy, that would not demonstrate that their civilization as a whole possessed those metallurgical skills, and it would not necessarily demonstrate that their civilization used metal weapons.

Tin painted with gold paint also has the appearance of gold. That's, um, you know, what gold paint is for. Giving things the appearance of gold.

Giving things a gold color isn't the same thing as giving them the appearance of polished metallic gold. (And probably wasn't in the late 1820s, either.)

No--wooden weapons and rattan armor proved extremely ineffective against the steel armor of the conquistadors.

I said nothing about armor. I was talking specifically about Aztec swords, which were wielded to great effect (e.g., cutting off a horse's head with a single stroke).

In every engagement between conquistadors, Aztecs, and Incas the deciding factor was the presence of armored warriors atop similarly armored horses. The conquistadors also possessed small numbers of primitive firearms and crossbows but their impact in combat has been greatly exaggerated.

Irrelevant to my point.

In military terms, steel is a force multiplier. The efficacy of steel arms and armor is such that I must reject the assumption that a warlike people like the Nephites simply lost this technology, or that they failed to re-invent it when the need arose.

It's not particularly clear to me that the Nephites ever had or used metallic weapons on a large scale, or possessed the technology generally -- MM's verses notwithstanding.

[_Corpsegrinder]

Disgusting Anti-Human Pseudonym…

Yeah, I thought it was a cool name, too.

I said nothing about armor. I was talking specifically about Aztec swords, which were wielded to great effect (e.g., cutting off a horse's head with a single stroke).

Then your point is disingenuously narrow, because my statement addresses weapons and armor; wherever you have the one you will also have the other. And as for using a wooden “sword” to cut off a horse’s head in a single stroke…you shouldn’t believe everything you read.

Irrelevant to my point.

Perfectly relevant to your point, because the wooden “swords” wielded by indigenous natives had little or no effect against Spanish cavalry. Conversely, the mounted conquistador’s steel-tipped lance and steel Toledo sword cut the enemy to pieces. (The harquebus and crossbow were relegated to the foot soldier.)

It's not particularly clear to me that the Nephites ever had or used metallic weapons on a large scale, or possessed the technology generally -- MM's verses notwithstanding.

Why not? Does the Book of Mormon specifically indicate the Nephites lacked large numbers of steel weapons despite their utility in combat? It seems highly unlikely that warriors who understand the efficacy of such weapons would forgo their use. In the military we have a name for reluctant warriors like this: causalities.

PS--Please accept my prayers and well wishes for your son's recovery. What an awful experience to go through!

[_jon]

The Aztecs and certain other Pre-Columbian cultures certainly used wood for swords. And very effectively, too. At least if the conquistadores are to be believed.

I have no reason to believe that the Nephites as a whole and/or throughout their history were "skilled metallurgists." Do you?

As you avoided answering the questions I asked I'll repeat them:
1. Why do you think a Nephite sword hasn't been found?
2. Do you believe Nephites used wood or steel for swords?

I will answer your question.
I think if a civilisation was skilled enough to produce gold plates that were an alloy (your suggestion) then I would say that they would be skilled in the use and manipulation and mixing of metals.

Bumped to see if Mr Avoidance C Peterson will answer the questions or just continue his merry, well known dance, of fudge and dodge and duck and dive....

[_Dan Vogel]

Dan P.,

Disagree with my use of the John Whitmer and Martin Harris statements, but you can’t say it’s ad hoc.

I do, and I can.

You can if you want to misuse that term.

my theory has greater scope, explanatory power, and plausibility

I think not.

It does.

I don’t believe I’m misinterpreting them.

I believe that they're outliers, that you're misusing John Whitmer's statement, and that Stephen Burnett's account of Martin Harris is almost certainly distorted through the prism of Burnett's own cynicism.

I find it impossible to reconcile Harris's alleged statement with his numerous other recorded statements, and find it inconceivable that he went around bearing fervent testimony of the Book of Mormon because (he himself believed that) he had seen the plates in his "imagination."

To be outliers, you have to have inliers, of which there are none. There are only ambiguous reaffirmations of their published testimony. To use them only begs the question.

No one denies Burnett’s account is biased, but don’t forget his “cynicism” came from Harris’s statement, which he is reporting. So, again, to construe it in that way begs the question.

Of course Harris’s “numerous other recorded statements” includes the claim that he saw the angel and plates with his “spiritual eyes.”—which is not significantly different. I don’t dispute the wording of Burnett’s report reflects his conclusions about what Harris had said, and is not a direct quote of what he said. Hence, he states: ]"he never saw the plates with his natural eyes only in vision or imagination." Burnett’s account is supported by Warren Parrish’s published in the Evangelist in nearby Carthage, Ohio, 1 Oct. 1838.

So, if you handle this source as you would any historical source, it’s not impossible to “reconcile” Harris’s other accounts with Burnett’s claim that Harris said "he never saw the plates with his natural eyes only in vision or imagination." Moreover, any good historian would use these two sources to understand the Testimony of Eight Witnesses.

According to Whitmer, he saw the gold-color by “supernatural power.”

Good grief. You put far, far more weight on that statement than it's able to bear.

And you are reading too many assumptions into the Testimony of Eight Witnesses, which is clearly a generalized, ambiguously-written, non-historical document. My detailed analysis of the Testimony of Three Witnesses showed the dangers of using either Testimony to reconstruct the historical setting. David Whitmer’s and Harris’s subsequent statements are far more historically relevant and accurate than the published Testimony. Similarly, the statements of John Whitmer and Harris about the eight witnesses should carry more weight than the published Testimony.

by the way, the witnesses’ statement that the plates had the “appearance of gold” is just a description what was seen, and does not imply anything about the plates’ construction.

Of course.

My point is that there is no statement obliging us to defend them as pure, unalloyed gold.

Perhaps not, although Hyrum Smith reportedly said the breastplate was “not so good gold as the plates for that was pure” (Sally Parker to John Kempton, 26 Aug. 1838, quoted in EMD 3:466; BYU Studies 44/2 [2005]: 115). My point was that no one ever explained the plates as being anything other than gold. Apparently, no one was troubled by the weight until later, largely because no one had any idea how much the plates should weigh if they were pure gold. This problem came up later, and the apologetic response was tumbaga.

[_Buffalo]

2 Nephi 5:15

Very early. First generation. Small group.

This goes very little distance to address my question about whether the Nephites generally, throughout their history, were skilled metallurgists.

Jarom 1:8

Again, quite early. And no mention of a general Nephite expertise in metallurgy.

Ether 7:9

Pre-Nephite, and nothing to do with the Nephites.

Mosiah 11:8

No evidence that Nephites generally were expert metallurgists, nor that they made metallic swords. Jewelry is not weaponry, and, as we know from the accounts of the conquest, wooden swords were extraordinarily effective.

Mosiah 11:3

No evidence for "skilled metallurgy" at all, nor for metallic weapons.

Alma 11:6

Weights of metal. Not even said to be minted coins.
6 A senum of silver, an amnor of silver, an ezrom of silver, and an onti of silver.

3 Nephi 24:3

A quotation from Isaiah -- pre-Nephite and Old World.

3 Nephi 27:32

No real evidence for general Nephite metallurgical skill, nor for metallic Nephite weapons.

Helaman 7:21

No real evidence for general Nephite metallurgical skill, nor for metallic Nephite weapons.

3 Nephi 6:2

No real evidence for general Nephite metallurgical skill, nor for metallic Nephite weapons.

Alma 1:29

No real evidence for general Nephite metallurgical skill, nor for metallic Nephite weapons.

Helaman 12:2

No real evidence for general Nephite metallurgical skill, nor for metallic Nephite weapons.

Helaman 6:9

No real evidence for general Nephite metallurgical skill, nor for metallic Nephite weapons.

4 Nephi 1:46

No real evidence for general Nephite metallurgical skill, nor for metallic Nephite weapons.

Metallurgy tended, in ancient times, to be a restricted guild craft, passed from father to son -- and, hence, easily lost. Moreover, the ability to make trinkets or decorations with metal is not the same thing as the ability, or willingness, to make weapons of metal (especially when perfectly adequate alternatives are readily available and well known).

Did you notice, by the way, that, of your fourteen quotations, only two refer to the period after the disruptions that accompanied the coming of Christ? And that one of those seems to be a more or less metaphorical prophecy?

I'm amazed at your ability to dismiss the Book of Mormon when it suits your ad hoc defense. In Helamen they have "All manner of precious metals" and "precious things of every kind and art." I suppose you think that must mean they used stone tools to dig for gold and silver, and once they got it they just let it sit lumped in with the surrounding minerals, not having the ability to refine it. :D

[Guest]

No evidence that Nephites generally were expert metallurgists, nor that they made metallic swords. Jewelry is not weaponry, and, as we know from the accounts of the conquest, wooden swords were extraordinarily effective.

Conquest refers to the Spanish conquest of South & Central America, right?

No--wooden weapons and rattan armor proved extremely ineffective against the steel armor of the conquistadors. In every engagement between conquistadors, Aztecs, and Incas the deciding factor was the presence of armored warriors atop similarly armored horses. The conquistadors also possessed small numbers of primitive firearms and crossbows but their impact in combat has been greatly exaggerated.

In military terms, steel is a force multiplier. The efficacy of steel arms and armor is such that I must reject the assumption that a warlike people like the Nephites simply lost this technology, or that they failed to re-invent it when the need arose.

Yes - steel, horses and grain would have given them such and advantage over their neighbors (the ones apologists say were already there, though unmentioned in the Book of Mormon) that they Nephites would have become, in short order, the dominant people in the land, in both population and power. Guns, Germs and Steel, baby.

No one just loses that sort of advantage.

[_Buffalo]

No real evidence for general Nephite metallurgical skill, nor for metallic Nephite weapons.

Metallurgy tended, in ancient times, to be a restricted guild craft, passed from father to son -- and, hence, easily lost. Moreover, the ability to make trinkets or decorations with metal is not the same thing as the ability, or willingness, to make weapons of metal (especially when perfectly adequate alternatives are readily available and well known).

1 Nephi 4:9 And I beheld his sword, and I drew it forth from the sheath thereof; and the hilt thereof was of pure gold, and the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine, and I saw that the blade thereof was of the most precious steel.

2 Nephi 5:14 And I, Nephi, did take the sword of Laban, and after the manner of it did make many swords...

Jacob 1:10 The people having loved Nephi exceedingly, he having been a great protector for them, having wielded the sword of Laban in their defence...

Words of Mormon 1:13 And it came to pass also that the armies of the Lamanites came down out of the land of Nephi, to battle against his people. But behold, king Benjamin gathered together his armies, and he did stand against them; and he did fight with the strength of his own arm, with the sword of Laban.

Good catch!

[_Buffalo]

Tin painted with gold paint also has the appearance of gold. That's, um, you know, what gold paint is for. Giving things the appearance of gold.

Giving things a gold color isn't the same thing as giving them the appearance of polished metallic gold. (And probably wasn't in the late 1820s, either.)

This is what's known as "moving the goal posts."