Doctor Scratch wrote:If you have the time or inclination, Mike, I'm sure that a number of us would be interested in hearing more about this "butt[ing] heads." I.e., what was the nature of the disagreement(s)?
If my memory serves me correctly, the issue had something to do with whether gold plates were known of in Joseph's day (and Mike has argued persuasively that they were). Welch, seemingly unaware of Mike's developing work on the subject over the past year (s)? obviously butted heads (certainly not in the Metcalfe/Hamblin sense of the term).
"'Dislike' him? What would I do without him! [Daniel Peterson] completes me." - Doctor Scratch, Loquacious Witness: Scratch on Himself, Others, and More About Himself, (Salt Lake City: Cassius University Press, 2011), 57-58.
DaniteMason wrote:If my memory serves me correctly, the issue had something to do with whether gold plates were known of in Joseph's day (and Mike has argued persuasively that they were). Welch, seemingly unaware of Mike's developing work on the subject over the past year (s)? obviously butted heads (certainly not in the Metcalfe/Hamblin sense of the term).
That's about right, DM. Except it wasn't about Gold Plates specifically, but rather *metal* records more generally. Welch did include *sealed* records in his discussion, but these sort of details were also widely available in Smith's day. After talking with Dr. Welch and Givens, they seemed to be interested in seeing evidence supporting my position (beyond what I was referencing from the top of my head). Bushman is also interested, and after seeing a little bit of what I had, even recommended that I change my paper to this topic. So if all goes as planned, my approach will be different from the sort of point/counter point exchanges so often found on these forums. I won't be calling out FARMS or other scholars for past bad assumptions. I doubt there will be any polemics in my paper at all.
Mike Reed wrote: I won't be calling out FARMS or other scholars for past bad assumptions. I doubt there will be any polemics in my paper at all.
That's because you are a gentleman.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
DaniteMason wrote:If my memory serves me correctly, the issue had something to do with whether gold plates were known of in Joseph's day (and Mike has argued persuasively that they were). Welch, seemingly unaware of Mike's developing work on the subject over the past year (s)? obviously butted heads (certainly not in the Metcalfe/Hamblin sense of the term).
That's about right, DM. Except it wasn't about Gold Plates specifically, but rather *metal* records more generally. Welch did include *sealed* records in his discussion, but these sort of details were also widely available in Smith's day. After talking with Dr. Welch and Givens, they seemed to be interested in seeing evidence supporting my position (beyond what I was referencing from the top of my head). Bushman is also interested, and after seeing a little bit of what I had, even recommended that I change my paper to this topic. So if all goes as planned, my approach will be different from the sort of point/counter point exchanges so often found on these forums. I won't be calling out FARMS or other scholars for past bad assumptions. I doubt there will be any polemics in my paper at all.
I don't know if this is helpful, (or even correct), but I seem to recall George Miller discussing the details of gold plates found in Masonic literature during one of the recent Mormon Expression interviews. Mr. Miller infers that Joseph Smith drew upon this literature for the development of the Book of Mormon and the temple endowments.
Patriarchal gripe wrote:I don't know if this is helpful, (or even correct), but I seem to recall George Miller discussing the details of gold plates found in Masonic literature during one of the recent Mormon Expression interviews. Mr. Miller infers that Joseph Smith drew upon this literature for the development of the Book of Mormon and the temple endowments.
As you may know, George participates on this forum now and again, so maybe he will chime in here. I will say this... George Miller and I have been working together on this possible connection for several months now. Early on when we started working together, I shared with him some evidence for this possibility, at first he wasn't sure, but now he thinks I was on to something, so we have been searching for better evidence ever since. I haven't listened to all of George's interviews yet... so I don't know all that he shared, but I think a good argument for this will eventually be published coauthored by us both. That has been the plan, anyway. I will continue to research this further while here (in my spare time), but that argument won't be ready for primetime just yet. I will probably mainly focus my seminar paper on treasure seeking, which is still very related since both George and I are convinced that the Smith's saw their quests in a quasi-Masonic context.
Mike Reed wrote:As you may know, George participates on this forum now and again, so maybe he will chime in here. I will say this... George Miller and I have been working together on this possible connection for several months now. Early on when we started working together, I shared with him some evidence for this possibility, at first he wasn't sure, but now he thinks I was on to something, so we have been searching for better evidence ever since. I haven't listened to all of George's interviews yet... so I don't know all that he shared, but I think a good argument for this will eventually be published coauthored by us both. That has been the plan, anyway. I will continue to research this further while here (in my spare time), but that argument won't be ready for primetime just yet. I will probably mainly focus my seminar paper on treasure seeking, which is still very related since both George and I are convinced that the Smith's saw their quests in a quasi-Masonic context.
I did discuss the Masonic setting for the coming forth of the Book of Mormon. However, what Mike has found I have only hinted at in the past. What he has found will literally astound the Mormon history community. I was deeply skeptical of Mike's theory in the beginning, and I even believe I tried to dissuade him from going down his route of investigation. When he called me and showed me his amazing findings I was almost apoplectic at what he had found. Since that time there have been more amazing discoveries.
As Mike has said, the story is not ready for "prime time" but the the initial evidence is in fact compelling and far reaching in its explanatory power of early Mormonism. It is an honor to call Mike a colleague and a dear friend. In fact some of the research discussed in the ME podcast will eventually be coauthored by the both of us.
for what it's worth he sent me a copy of the presentation he is giving at Sunstone; and if you are going to be there on Saturday then mark your schedule to attend his session. His findings will delight you to the core.