If plates then God

[MG 2.0]

pEoPlE sAyInG sTuFf Is EvIdEnCe - DCP, MG, and other thickheaded hicks

Any original thoughts?

Care to answer the same questions I’ve asked to Marcus and Scratch and TGriffy?

C’mon, it’s only a game.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

Going back to thethread's original point:


What is so interesting to me about this is that the actual story of the rock in a hat apparently had to be hidden because it wasn't enough of a story for church leaders to get behind? Or maybe it was simply too close to Smith's previous cons. The 'grandiose' claim couldn't simply be a variation on his other frauds.

Marcus, I think we all may be stuck thinking that I see no evidence of plates written by a native over a thousand years ago which translates into the Book of Mormon. MG says there is clear evidence of something heavy in a bag which a few people were shown and said it looked like plates. Two sides talking about two different things.

I am puzzled if there was a change in story telling or is my memory bent. My memory says in seminary and church in general the story I heard was rock in hat and the words miraculously appeared on the stone. I do not remember much of any alternative picture though rock spectacles were mentioned. Perhaps I thought that urim and tummen (sp?) too weird so my memory stuck with the rock in hat as much more practical.

Yet I hear people repeatedly claiming shock about the hat thing as if that story got hidden. Is that some sort of Benson thing. Rock in hat sound leftish? Whatever happened to that nice rock in a hat story?,(with plates angels and ritualized requirements inorder to come into possession of the plates) Good enough theater either way to get people involved.

I thought i was younger than you but now i think maybe i am not! No, i did not hear about the rock in the hat in high school Seminary, nor in any of my three years at BYU. Only plates, angels, and translation was pushed in my Mormon-era classes.

I am aware of the rock in the hat now, but it was not taught as facilitating translation when i was young.

[MG 2.0]

MG says there is clear evidence of something heavy in a bag which a few people were shown and said it looked like plates.

Well, as I’ve presented in some detail, there’s a bit more to it than what you’re describing.

What do you think about Emma’s interview which I posted earlier? She isn’t merely describing plates in a bag.

Something more than that.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Dan thinks the existence of the plates is a foot-in-the-door for Mormon truth claims.

He’s not alone.

But yes, for some that is incredulous.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

I am aware of the rock in the hat now, but it was not taught as facilitating translation when i was young.

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.o ... anslation/

Regards,
MG

[tagriffy]

I’m seeing what I believe to be a certain amount of evasion.

Regards,
MG

It's not evasion. It's dismissal. Mark what I have said previously: It doesn't matter to me whether the plates are a physical reality or a visionary reality. It wouldn't even matter to me if Dan Vogel is right and Joseph fabricated something that he passed off as the plates. It's the mythology of the plates and the stories associated with them that matter. To quote myself yet again:

Think in terms of myths, legends, and folklore, and even real life. Great figures are often associated with iconic objects. Moses and the tablets. Aaron's rod. Arthur and Excalibur. Wizards and their wands. Christians often adorn their houses and bodies with crosses and crucifixes. European royalty wear crowns and carry scepters. In the final break from the Lamanites, Nephi takes the plates of brass, the Liahona, and the sword of Laban (2 Ne. 5:12-14). We could multiply examples practically forever.

So, we have gold plates--gold being a precious metal and has long served a symbol of something's value. The plates existence was revealed to Joseph by an angel. He had an initial problem obtaining the plates because he had pecuniary motive. He had further problems obtaining them because he wasn't accompanied by the right person. Once he did get the plates, other people tried to steal them, in turn requiring sometimes extraordinary measures and even supernatural intervention to keep them safe. The loss of the 116 manuscript pages led to the plates being taken away temporarily and the permanent loss of the Interpreters. Joseph then had to obtain divine forgiveness to get the plates back. Once the translation is done and the plates are shown to God's chosen witnesses, they were taken back and now they will remain forever safe. This is the stuff legends and myths are made of!

Compare to: "One day I put a stone in a hat and this is what I saw. End of story."

The plates--and especially the stories surrounding them--gives the Book of Mormon an intensified importance it might not otherwise have.

So if the plates were produced and scientifically authenticated, my response would be along the lines of, "Cool! What's for dinner?" As I've also indicated earlier, if the plates were produced it would have no impact on my religious belief. Sure, I'd have to interpret the Book of Mormon differently than I do now. But it's not like I'd have to reorient my entire belief system or rip it apart entirely and start from scratch.

This being the case, the question is why should I care how the evidence came about.

[Doctor Scratch]

"Most historical scholarship" doesn't involve an angel conveniently taking the evidence away so that no one except the leader and his inner circle have the opportunity to see it.

Of course you can see/interpret it that way. Same question(s) to you as I have asked some others with no response so far (although Marcus, of course, will say otherwise).

If the angel had NOT taken away the plates after the translation was done what do you see as the ramifications of that? Short term and long term?

Are we assuming that these are legitimate ancient plates? If so, then I guess my immediate follow-up question would be: are we going with the Heartlander's view of things, or the Mopologists'? Depending on who you side with, it would mean that there was a huge civilization in either the present-day US or the Yucatan (or thereabouts) that completely vanished. Really, if the plates were still around, it would just open up a lot more questions. For example: the poster Polygamy Porter used to be fond of asking, "Where is the stone box?" (i.e., the box where Joseph Smith found the plates). Can we assume that this box was there, too, thus further serving to support Joseph Smith's account of what happened? And would Joseph have let others see the plates? Would scholars have been able to examine them and scrutinize the translation? And so on.

How would the gospel of Jesus Christ have to be approached differently? For example, faith. Accountability. Perseverance and enduring to the end. Etc.

I'm not sure that it would. I mean, which of the Lord's commandments would you disregard if the plates were still around? Which aspects of Church doctrine would you set aside? If the plates were still here, you would just have more concrete evidence (presumably) that the founding narrative is "real." Conversely, it's worth remembering that It's possible to believe that the Book of Mormon is "inspired fiction," and that Joseph Smith actually wrote it himself (with inspiration from God, of course), and still stay in the good graces of the Church, no?

The common refrain among many critics is the tune you’re singing. I wonder if that might be a bit unreasonable when it comes right down to it.

I’m interested in your response to both my questions.

Regards,
MG

I've always thought that the plates, the Witnesses, etc., were essentially a "McGuffin" or a red herring from the Mopologists. At the end of the day, your decision on whether or not to follow the teachings of the Gospel and to try and live a saintly life shouldn't depend on whether or not there were "real" plates, or whether the witnesses were 100% telling the truth or not. If those things are bogus but there is still nonetheless a real God, and you are a child of that God, and there was a real Jesus who atoned for your sins, do you walk away? Dr. Peterson has, in my opinion, placed way too much stock in these details, saying that his entire "house of cards" of belief would totally collapse if some aspect of the restoration story turned out to be false. If your faith will go flying out the window just on account of one thing being amiss, then I would say that there is something wrong with your belief--especially given how much money you're paying for the privilege.

[MG 2.0]

This being the case, the question is why should I care how the evidence came about.

So what I think I hear you saying is it doesn’t make any difference whether the plates were real or not.

Literally real. Not mythologically real.

Do I have that right?

Regards,
MG

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

pEoPlE sAyInG sTuFf Is EvIdEnCe - DCP, MG, and other thickheaded hicks

Any original thoughts?

Care to answer the same questions I’ve asked to Marcus and Scratch and TGriffy?

C’mon, it’s only a game.

Regards,
MG

Why live in an endless retarded Mormon recursion? Your stupidities lost any semblance of good faith dialogue after the second run through. People spent a LOT of time answering your questions over the years. And here we are again for the 25th iteration of your ‘golden plates’ dIsCuSsIoN.

No, thanks. You’re just a thickheaded hick, and you’ll die as one. *shrugs* Mormonism is a fraud. Get over it.

- Doc

[tagriffy]

MG says there is clear evidence of something heavy in a bag which a few people were shown and said it looked like plates.

Well, as I’ve presented in some detail, there’s a bit more to it than what you’re describing.

What do you think about Emma’s interview which I posted earlier? She isn’t merely describing plates in a bag.

Something more than that.

Regards,
MG

Sigh.

Emma never said she saw the plates outside of the box they were placed in or the tablecloth they were wrapped in. I tend to agree with you her story should militate against a view that the plates were entirely visionary. Nevertheless, it needs to be pointed out that what she saw and handled could have been anything. So her story resolves nothing.