DonBradley has a Q re: Taves' hypothesis

[_Res Ipsa]

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

I read the paper and I agree.

[_Analytics]

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

I don't recall engaging him.

Her theory is a "pious fraud" theory. The way I interpreted it, Joseph Smith had sincere religious experiences. He sincerely believed in the plates and sincerely believed he was translating them. That being the case, why wouldn't he sincerely believe in an angel? Your question doesn't make sense--the point of Taves's theory is to explain the sum total of all of the evidence. In my estimation, her hypothesis as to what really happened ranks with the best of them.

Sincere question. Have you actually read her paper and tried to understand the evidence she lays out?

[_Dr. Shades]

He sincerely believed in the plates and sincerely believed he was translating them. That being the case, why wouldn't he sincerely believe in an angel?

So, he sincerely believed all that in spite of the fact that he knew he had fabricated them himself?

Is that really her point?

[Guest]

From the OP:

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.

If the poster would like to discuss what he is calling " a 'Smac down', so to speak, " of Taves' theories, and concepts such as "Moroni, and everything connected to him, for example, how does Taves explain [or] deal with that?" --
then would that poster please respect my request in the OP and start a different thread.

[_Analytics]

He sincerely believed in the plates and sincerely believed he was translating them. That being the case, why wouldn't he sincerely believe in an angel?

So, he sincerely believed all that in spite of the fact that he knew he had fabricated them himself?

Is that really her point?

No, not really.

Part of the confusion is what is meant by "the plates." Are the plates the artifact that he created? Are they the spiritual essence of the actual records created by the ancient Nephites? Are they actual ancient plates themselves?

Joseph could have believed in the spiritual essence of the plates, in a literal ancient record, and in the thing he created out of tin all at the same time. If a priest can believe that the cracker he purchased from Cavanagh Altar Breads is literally the flesh of Jesus, why couldn't Joseph believe that the tin plates he cut up were "literally" an ancient record? The hypothesis is that for several years he knew he needed to write this story about the civilization he'd been imagining, and going through the process of creating the plates and then having them was the impetus he needed to get past his writer's block and actually write the book.

Granted, it is an odd way of looking at things. We were all trained to think that it all literally happened exactly like is depicted in the dioramas in Temple Square, or it was all a cynical hoax.

But the third option is something entirely different. It is that Joseph Smith was a really credulous guy who lived in a superstitious, credulous community who all believed Joseph had gifts. Joseph made up stories, and everybody believed them, including Joseph himself.

As one of many examples cited in the paper, D&C 17:5 says that the witnesses would see the plates in the same way that Joseph did, by the power of God and by faith.

If it were a simple hoax rather than religious delusion, why would he construe them as something that is only seen by faith?

[_Lemmie]

He sincerely believed in the plates and sincerely believed he was translating them. That being the case, why wouldn't he sincerely believe in an angel?

So, he sincerely believed all that in spite of the fact that he knew he had fabricated them himself?

Is that really her point?

No, not really.

Part of the confusion is what is meant by "the plates." Are the plates the artifact that he created? Are they the spiritual essence of the actual records created by the ancient Nephites? Are they actual ancient plates themselves?

Joseph could have believed in the spiritual essence of the plates, in a literal ancient record, and in the thing he created out of tin all at the same time. If a priest can believe that the cracker he purchased from Cavanagh Altar Breads is literally the flesh of Jesus, why couldn't Joseph believe that the tin plates he cut up were "literally" an ancient record? The hypothesis is that for several years he knew he needed to write this story about the civilization he'd been imagining, and going through the process of creating the plates and then having them was the impetus he needed to get past his writer's block and actually write the book.

Granted, it is an odd way of looking at things. We were all trained to think that it all literally happened exactly like is depicted in the dioramas in Temple Square, or it was all a cynical hoax.

But the third option is something entirely different. It is that Joseph Smith was a really credulous guy who lived in a superstitious, credulous community who all believed Joseph had gifts. Joseph made up stories, and everybody believed them, including Joseph himself.

As one of many examples cited in the paper, D&C 17:5 says that the witnesses would see the plates in the same way that Joseph did, by the power of God and by faith.

If it were a simple hoax rather than religious delusion, why would he construe them as something that is only seen by faith?

Speaking of your third option, (bolded adding above), Rajah from MDD notes that Taves talks about the "Tibetan Treasure tradition," and then adds his take on its presence in 18th century Christianaity:

Taves mentions:

"The Tibetan Treasure tradition also presents a suggestive opportunity for comparison, though beyond the scope of this paper. This tradition maintains that these Treasures (gter-ma) are special teachings, originally preached by a buddha and later hidden (in most cases) by the Indian master who introduced tantric Buddhism to Tibet. The master is “said to have concealed these teachings in such a way that they would be discovered at a later date by various predetermined Tibetan Treasure discoverers (gter-ston), who would then ‘translate’ their revelation into a form comprehensible to their contemporaries” (Gyatso 1993:98). I am grateful to Jesper Oestergaard of Aarhus University for directing me to this literature."

The treasure text tradition possibly leaked into 18th century Christianity through Emmanuel Swedenborg who spoke of a hidden, or cached, set of scriptures in the Great Tartary (Tibet) that predate the Israelite texts. Swedenborg claimed to have visited the angels who preserved these texts.

This further lends credence to your idea of "a superstitious, credulous community," ready to believe Joseph had gifts.

[_Dr. Shades]

If a priest can believe that the cracker he purchased from Cavanagh Altar Breads is literally the flesh of Jesus, . . .

C'mon. They don't really believe that.

. . . why couldn't Joseph believe that the tin plates he cut up were "literally" an ancient record?

Because he knew he made them himself.

[_sock puppet]

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.

This possibility, the pious fraud one, has always troubled me deeply, more so than if JSjr was just your basic scammer. My interest in Mormon roots is not merely academic. I'm not fascinated by this character named JSjr any more than I am Jim Jones from 1978. There have always been and will always be Pied Pipers with charisma that others will be charmed into following.

My interest stems from the fact that I was BIC and essentially programmed to be a young LDS automaton. I did not get out of that rut until I was in my early 20s. To come to terms with and not regret my stolen youth, the one that the LDS teachings and culture stifled, I've wanted to learn about the Mormon scam and why it might be that 4 generation of my ancestors got hoodwinked into it and into remaining in it. Perhaps in understanding that I'll be less resentful towards the complicity of my ancestors with the LDS promoters to create that situation into which I would be BIC and in a deep LDS rut growing up, a rut that is difficult to escape for several reasons.

If JSjr was so ego centric and narcissistic as to believe his concoctions about existence and the future were real, then why didn't my ancestor that joined in the LDS church in Nauvoo see it for what was really going on? The fraud part of a pious fraud is, in my opinion, easier to spot than the conscious-less scalawag that himself knows it is all a farce.

So a pious fraud theory does nothing for my inquiry, because they are not merely academic. I suppose if I was the CaliforniaKid, a never mo that for some reason finds the Mormon movement interesting, I might be intrigued by the possibility that JSjr's fraud was of the pious variety. It may very well have been. He certainly seems to have had the requisite level of narcissism. Even if JSjr sincerely believed the crap he was spewing, it does not make that crap "true".

[_Analytics]

If a priest can believe that the cracker he purchased from Cavanagh Altar Breads is literally the flesh of Jesus, . . .

C'mon. They don't really believe that.

. . . why couldn't Joseph believe that the tin plates he cut up were "literally" an ancient record?

Because he knew he made them himself.

LOL. The point is that in whatever hocus pocus way the Catholic believes the woo woo of Jesus' essence "are" in the cracker, Joseph Smith believed the essence of the real plates "are" in the artifact he created.

That is the theory, at least. Apologists sometimes address the question of why the plates were even necessary to have since they weren't actually used in the translation. In this theory, the reason the plates were necessary is that there existence forced Joseph to get busy and put ink onto paper. If that was the purpose, is it possible that Joseph realized that having some fake plates that he was hiding would serve the purpose just as well as real plates? And if he placed his hands on the fake plates and said a prayer under a full moon on the Spring Equinox, would that somehow cause the spirit of the "real" plates to enter the fake plates and thus work to motivate him?

Yes, all of that is crazy, but crazy compared to what? I have a feeling that Joseph's magical world view was a lot different than what we imagine, and if we layered all of that onto the evidence of what actually happened at the time, before the whitewashed stories were written a decade later, the weird things that were said and done make more sense.

[_Water Dog]