DonBradley has a Q re: Taves' hypothesis

[_Lemmie]

On MDD, Don Bradley has posted an interesting question* related to Ann Taves' hypothesis re: Joseph Smith and plates.

Grindael is usually the one to keep us abreast of Don's research, but sadly, he has decided to leave us due to the issues that have been discussed recently.

I hope Don and grindael won't mind if, in honor of grindael's usual and already greatly missed contributions, I re-post Don's post here, as I think is is a very interesting question.

(*I am starting this thread in order to have a scholarly discussion of this topic. In that context, I feel that faith-based or testimony-based responses, or responses that one poster defined as of the type "That's Good News...for Joseph Smith," would be a derailment of this particular discussion and would not be appropriate. I am in no way suggesting that that is not a conversation that can take place here. I am just asking that you respect the intent of the OP and start a separate thread if you would like the discussion to go that way.)

Hey Friends,

I could use some thoughts.

Most of you are probably familiar with Ann Taves's hypothesis, published a few years ago, that Joseph Smith made a set of metal plates and then sanctified them to serve as the sacred golden plates. (This summation doesn't do the idea full justice. So, for those not familiar with it, you may want to read Taves's original paper: http://www.religion.ucsb.edu/wp-content ... -Numen.pdf )

What I'm curious about is what kind of reality the plates might be thought to have under such a scenario. I'm assuming that most of those accepting this hypothesis (e.g., Ann Taves herself) would not think the plates had any underlying reality.

I was surprised when one friend, very much a believer in the Book of Mormon's historicity, responded favorably to Taves's idea, suggesting that it could be used to explain how the plates were created in Mesoamerica but Joseph Smith recovered them in New York (i.e., the plates were a material object in Mesoamerica but Joseph Smith instantiated them in New York by a process like what Taves posits.) Apparently one can accept Taves's idea while still embracing the physical reality of the plates.

I'm curious what other views people hold, or could hold, on the reality of the plates under Taves's hypothesis. I can imagine people holding to Taves's hypothesis while attributing to the plates some sort of spiritual reality. But what kind of reality? Archetype? Platonic form? Book that actually exists in heaven? ...?

Have you encountered ideas like this? Or how would you conceptualize the plates if you held to a hypothesis like Taves's?

Note that the question isn't on the merits of Taves's hypothesis. She put it forward as a kind of experiment to see if it was possible to posit that Joseph Smith made the plates and yet was sincere in claiming they were genuine. The idea hasn't been fleshed out in specifics and hasn't been tested against such data as the witness testimonies or Joseph Smith's accounts of finding the plates.

I'm just curious what the interpretive possibilities are here: how might someone running with this idea understand the reality of the plates?

Don

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/697 ... ypothesis/

[_sock puppet]

From my perspective, gyrations like those that Taves posits are a classic example of cognitive dissonance. Not to put too fine a point on it, it seems like mental masturbation to me.

[_RockSlider]

From my perspective, gyrations like those that Taves posits are a classic example of cognitive dissonance. Not to put too fine a point on it, it seems like mental masturbation to me.

I wonder if Taves has ever heard of Occam's Razor?

[_mentalgymnast]

On MDD, Don Bradley has posted an interesting question* related to Ann Taves' hypothesis re: Joseph Smith and plates.

Grindael is usually the one to keep us abreast of Don's research, but sadly, he has decided to leave us due to the issues that have been discussed recently.

I hope Don and grindael won't mind if, in honor of grindael's usual and already greatly missed contributions, I re-post Don's post here, as I think is is a very interesting question.

(*I am starting this thread in order to have a scholarly discussion of this topic. In that context, I feel that faith-based or testimony-based responses, or responses that one poster defined as of the type "That's Good News...for Joseph Smith," would be a derailment of this particular discussion and would not be appropriate. I am in no way suggesting that that is not a conversation that can take place here. I am just asking that you respect the intent of the OP and start a separate thread if you would like the discussion to go that way.)

Hey Friends,

I could use some thoughts.

Most of you are probably familiar with Ann Taves's hypothesis, published a few years ago, that Joseph Smith made a set of metal plates and then sanctified them to serve as the sacred golden plates. (This summation doesn't do the idea full justice. So, for those not familiar with it, you may want to read Taves's original paper: http://www.religion.ucsb.edu/wp-content ... -Numen.pdf )

What I'm curious about is what kind of reality the plates might be thought to have under such a scenario. I'm assuming that most of those accepting this hypothesis (e.g., Ann Taves herself) would not think the plates had any underlying reality.

I was surprised when one friend, very much a believer in the Book of Mormon's historicity, responded favorably to Taves's idea, suggesting that it could be used to explain how the plates were created in Mesoamerica but Joseph Smith recovered them in New York (i.e., the plates were a material object in Mesoamerica but Joseph Smith instantiated them in New York by a process like what Taves posits.) Apparently one can accept Taves's idea while still embracing the physical reality of the plates.

I'm curious what other views people hold, or could hold, on the reality of the plates under Taves's hypothesis. I can imagine people holding to Taves's hypothesis while attributing to the plates some sort of spiritual reality. But what kind of reality? Archetype? Platonic form? Book that actually exists in heaven? ...?

Have you encountered ideas like this? Or how would you conceptualize the plates if you held to a hypothesis like Taves's?

Note that the question isn't on the merits of Taves's hypothesis. She put it forward as a kind of experiment to see if it was possible to posit that Joseph Smith made the plates and yet was sincere in claiming they were genuine. The idea hasn't been fleshed out in specifics and hasn't been tested against such data as the witness testimonies or Joseph Smith's accounts of finding the plates.

I'm just curious what the interpretive possibilities are here: how might someone running with this idea understand the reality of the plates?

Don

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/697 ... ypothesis/

I was reading this thread over there yesterday. This response caught my attention:

I think Taves creates far more problems and questions than she solves. In order for her hypothesis to work, there have to be quite a few lies.

Joseph would seem to have been lying about Moroni altogether, since he was the principal means by which information about the location and the contents of the nonexistent plates.
If the entirety of Joseph's Moroni narrative was not false, then big chunks of it were. For example, Moroni (assuming he even existed and appeared to Joseph) lied about there being "a book deposited, written upon gold plates" (JS-H 1:34).
Joseph would have lied about the vision in which he was shown the location of the plates (JS-H 1:42).
Joseph would have lied about the physical location of the plates (on "a hill of considerable size," on its west side, under a "stone of considerable size" that was "thick and rounding in the middle on the upper side, and thinner toward the edges, so that the middle part of it was visible above the ground, but the edge all around was covered with earth," deposited in a stone box) (JS-H 1:51).
Joseph would have lied about obtaining "a lever" which he "fixed under the stone" and "raised it up" to expose the stone box in which the plates were located (JS-H 1:52).
Joseph would have lied about the composition of the stone box ("was formed by laying stones together in some kind of cement. In the bottom of the box were laid two stones crossways of the box, and on these stones lay the plates") (JS-H 152).
Joseph would have also needed to lie about, and fabricate "the other things" found with the plates (the breastplate, the sword of Laban, the Liahona, the interpreters) (JS-H 1:52, 62; Lyndon W. Cook, ed., David Whitmer Interviews: A Restoration Witness (Orem, Utah: Grandin Book, 1991), 63).
Joseph would have lied about attempting to remove these plates to which he had been led (JS-H 1:53).
Joseph would have lied about the event in which he returned to hill where the plates "were deposited" and the heavenly messenger "delivered them unto {him}" (JS-H 1:59).
Joseph would have lied about returning the plates to Moroni (Smith, Lucy Mack (1853), Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith the Prophet, and His Progenitors for Many Generations, p. 141).
The Three Witnesses would have lied about an angel descending from heaven with the plates and showing the plates to them (The Testimony of Three Witnesses) (unless, I suppose, Taves proposes that an angel of God was in on the whole ruse).
http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/697 ... is/?page=1

The two ways of approaching provenance of the plates don't seen to go together any better than oil and water.

Regards,
MG

[_Analytics]

I find the idea quite intriguing. If I understand both of them correctly, Taves's hypothesis is a pious fraud theory that is a little more specific than Dan Vogel's. There is a lot of evidence that Joseph Smith had something in his possession--there was something underneath the cloth. What was it? Homemade plates made out of tin? A box of sand? An actual ancient Mayan manuscript on gold plates?

We can be sure that whatever it was, it wasn't all that impressive. Thus the need to keep it hidden and controlled. Taves's hypothesis is pretty speculative, but it paints a believable picture of somebody making up a religion that he sincerely believes in. If you grant for the sake of argument that he had visions of ancient Lehites and a desire to write a story about them, creating a set of plates and pretending that they were real could have been a way to deal with writer's block.

[_Analytics]

I was reading this thread over there yesterday. This response caught my attention:

I think Taves creates far more problems and questions than she solves. In order for her hypothesis to work, there have to be quite a few lies.

Joseph would seem to have been lying about Moroni altogether, since he was the principal means by which information about the location and the contents of the nonexistent plates.
If the entirety of Joseph's Moroni narrative was not false, then big chunks of it were. For example, Moroni (assuming he even existed and appeared to Joseph) lied about there being "a book deposited, written upon gold plates" (JS-H 1:34).
Joseph would have lied about the vision in which he was shown the location of the plates (JS-H 1:42).
Joseph would have lied about the physical location of the plates (on "a hill of considerable size," on its west side, under a "stone of considerable size" that was "thick and rounding in the middle on the upper side, and thinner toward the edges, so that the middle part of it was visible above the ground, but the edge all around was covered with earth," deposited in a stone box) (JS-H 1:51).
Joseph would have lied about obtaining "a lever" which he "fixed under the stone" and "raised it up" to expose the stone box in which the plates were located (JS-H 1:52).
Joseph would have lied about the composition of the stone box ("was formed by laying stones together in some kind of cement. In the bottom of the box were laid two stones crossways of the box, and on these stones lay the plates") (JS-H 152).
Joseph would have also needed to lie about, and fabricate "the other things" found with the plates (the breastplate, the sword of Laban, the Liahona, the interpreters) (JS-H 1:52, 62; Lyndon W. Cook, ed., David Whitmer Interviews: A Restoration Witness (Orem, Utah: Grandin Book, 1991), 63).
Joseph would have lied about attempting to remove these plates to which he had been led (JS-H 1:53).
Joseph would have lied about the event in which he returned to hill where the plates "were deposited" and the heavenly messenger "delivered them unto {him}" (JS-H 1:59).
Joseph would have lied about returning the plates to Moroni (Smith, Lucy Mack (1853), Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith the Prophet, and His Progenitors for Many Generations, p. 141).
The Three Witnesses would have lied about an angel descending from heaven with the plates and showing the plates to them (The Testimony of Three Witnesses) (unless, I suppose, Taves proposes that an angel of God was in on the whole ruse).
http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/697 ... is/?page=1

The two ways of approaching provenance of the plates don't seen to go together any better than oil and water.

Regards,
MG

Based upon his response, Smac didn't even read Taves's idea or if he did, he certainly didn't understand it.

[_sock puppet]

From my perspective, gyrations like those that Taves posits are a classic example of cognitive dissonance. Not to put too fine a point on it, it seems like mental masturbation to me.

I wonder if Taves has ever heard of Occam's Razor?

Ha ha ha.

[_Dr. Shades]

Based upon his response, Smac didn't even read Taves's idea or if he did, he certainly didn't understand it.

In what way does Smac incorrectly comprehend Taves's idea?

Sounds to me like he totally nailed it.

[_Analytics]

Based upon his response, Smac didn't even read Taves's idea or if he did, he certainly didn't understand it.

In what way does Smac incorrectly comprehend Taves's idea?

Sounds to me like he totally nailed it.

Have you read Taves's paper? Saying if she is right then the three witnesses must have lied about that event is like saying if the Catholic priest is lying about the cracker really being the body of Jesus, then Juan Dieago must have lied about seeing a vision of the virgin Marry.

[_mentalgymnast]

Joseph would seem to have been lying about Moroni altogether, since he was the principal means by which information about the location and the contents of the nonexistent plates.
If the entirety of Joseph's Moroni narrative was not false, then big chunks of it were. For example, Moroni (assuming he even existed and appeared to Joseph) lied about there being "a book deposited, written upon gold plates" (JS-H 1:34).
Joseph would have lied about the vision in which he was shown the location of the plates (JS-H 1:42).
Joseph would have lied about the physical location of the plates (on "a hill of considerable size," on its west side, under a "stone of considerable size" that was "thick and rounding in the middle on the upper side, and thinner toward the edges, so that the middle part of it was visible above the ground, but the edge all around was covered with earth," deposited in a stone box) (JS-H 1:51).
Joseph would have lied about obtaining "a lever" which he "fixed under the stone" and "raised it up" to expose the stone box in which the plates were located (JS-H 1:52).
Joseph would have lied about the composition of the stone box ("was formed by laying stones together in some kind of cement. In the bottom of the box were laid two stones crossways of the box, and on these stones lay the plates") (JS-H 152).
Joseph would have also needed to lie about, and fabricate "the other things" found with the plates (the breastplate, the sword of Laban, the Liahona, the interpreters) (JS-H 1:52, 62; Lyndon W. Cook, ed., David Whitmer Interviews: A Restoration Witness (Orem, Utah: Grandin Book, 1991), 63).
Joseph would have lied about attempting to remove these plates to which he had been led (JS-H 1:53).
Joseph would have lied about the event in which he returned to hill where the plates "were deposited" and the heavenly messenger "delivered them unto {him}" (JS-H 1:59).
Joseph would have lied about returning the plates to Moroni (Smith, Lucy Mack (1853), Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith the Prophet, and His Progenitors for Many Generations, p. 141).
The Three Witnesses would have lied about an angel descending from heaven with the plates and showing the plates to them (The Testimony of Three Witnesses) (unless, I suppose, Taves proposes that an angel of God was in on the whole ruse).
http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/697 ... is/?page=1

Based upon his response, Smac didn't even read Taves's idea or if he did, he certainly didn't understand it.

Hi Analytics,

Did you engage Smac on any or all of the points/issues in his list? If so, would you point us to the page in the thread in question where you may have done so? To those that may not be fully initiated into Taves' theoretical framework for the plates, beyond the summary, Smac...at least at first blush...seems to have accomplished a 'Smac down', so to speak.

Moroni, and everything connected to him, for example. How does Taves explain/deal with that?

Anyway, I don't necessarily expect that you would tackle each of Smac's points here, but if you did over on the other board it would be helpful to have a link.

Regards,
MG