DonBradley has a Q re: Taves' hypothesis

[_Lemmie]

What if Joseph fashioned a set of plates for "show" so that he could keep the real plates safely hidden?

Like the real plates were hidden in the trunk of a tree, and some fake plates were on the desk under a cloth?

If the fake plates are ever found, I can see this theory gaining a lot of traction very quickly.

A lot of stories would have to change, but nothing new there.

I don't recall Taves considering this, but please correct me, analytics, if I missed something.

Her focus is more a metaphysical existence for the artifact; making fakes to protect real ones is more practical, and, from a distance, Indistinguishable from fraud.

I do like her assessment of the historical setting; as Analytics pointed out, the sanitized stories, understood within the current (today's) mindset, simply doesn't capture the world of superstition and mysticism swirling around Joseph Smith in the early 19th century.

[_mentalgymnast]

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.

I'm not sure I'm following you in respect to why "it wasn't all that impressive". Why is that the takeaway?

If the plates were ancient and had the appearance of gold (one of the alternatives in the mix), why would that negate the need to keep them hidden and controlled?

If they had the appearance of gold then they would be "all that impressive". I don't know why we are defaulting to sand or tin as being THE reasons that the purported plates wouldn't be all that impressive. It's possible that they WERE, and that's the reason they were hidden and controlled.

I think we ought to at least keep that option on the table along with the other options of sand and tin.

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.

I'm not sure I'm following you in respect to why "it wasn't all that impressive". Why is that the takeaway?

If the plates were ancient and had the appearance of gold (one of the alternatives in the mix), why would that negate the need to keep them hidden and controlled?

If they had the appearance of gold then they would be "all that impressive". I don't know why we are defaulting to sand or tin as being THE reasons that the purported plates wouldn't be all that impressive. It's possible that they WERE, and that's the reason they were hidden and controlled.

I think we ought to at least keep that option on the table along with the other options of sand and tin.

Regards,
MG

Perhaps that is just my bias. But I have to think that if the plates were real and the prophesy in Isaiah 29:11 was intended to be filled, Joseph Smith would have taken the plates to Charles Anthon and said, "read this, I pray thee."

The way Joseph was always hiding the plates and then only showing them in two highly controlled situations where the hand-picked witnesses only signed a paper that was prepared by Joseph Smith leaves me suspicious.

And whether "the appearance of gold" the witnesses described was talking about the tangible object under the cloth or a different spiritual object is an open question. Quoting Dr. Taves:

In 1837-38 a number of well-placed believers left the church when Martin Harris allegedly testified, according to Warren Parish, that “he never saw the plates except in vision, and . . . that any man who says he has seen them in any other way is a liar, Joseph [Smith] not excepted” (EMD 2:289) and, according to Stephen Burnett, that neither the three nor the eight witnesses had seen “the plates with his natural eyes only in vision or imagination” (EMD 2:291). Although Harris’s testimony apparently caused considerable consternation, Parrish noted that it was supported by the revelation Smith received in June 1829, preserved in the canonized Doctrine and Covenants (D&C 17:5), which indicated that the three witnesses would see the plates, “as my servant Joseph Smith, jr has seen them; for it is by my [God’s] power that he has seen them, and it is because he had faith…” (EMD 2:289, n. 2, emphasis added).7

Page 10.
http://www.religion.ucsb.edu/wp-content ... -Numen.pdf

Taves talks for several pages on the nature of the plates according to the people who were around them.

[_mentalgymnast]

But I have to think that if the plates were real and the prophesy in Isaiah 29:11 was intended to be filled, Joseph Smith would have taken the plates to Charles Anthon and said, "read this, I pray thee."

Why the plates themselves rather than a sampling from the plates?

Regards,
MG

[_Analytics]

But I have to think that if the plates were real and the prophesy in Isaiah 29:11 was intended to be filled, Joseph Smith would have taken the plates to Charles Anthon and said, "read this, I pray thee."

Why the plates themselves rather than a sampling from the plates?

Regards,
MG

Isiah says they delivered a book that was sealed to a learned man and asked him to read it, and he replied he couldn’t because it was sealed.

The way the story went down is he never asked Anthon to read the book, much leas the sealed part. Anthon allegedly said, “I can’t read a sealed book,” to which Martin Harris would have naturally responded, “that’s okay, I didn’t ask you to.”

[_Jesse Pinkman]

A lot of stories would have to change, but nothing new there.

Amen to that! LOL

[_Lemmie]

The way Joseph was always hiding the plates and then only showing them in two highly controlled situations where the hand-picked witnesses only signed a paper that was prepared by Joseph Smith leaves me suspicious.

And whether "the appearance of gold" the witnesses described was talking about the tangible object under the cloth or a different spiritual object is an open question. Quoting Dr. Taves:

In 1837-38 a number of well-placed believers left the church when Martin Harris allegedly testified, according to Warren Parish, that “he never saw the plates except in vision, and . . . that any man who says he has seen them in any other way is a liar, Joseph [Smith] not excepted” (EMD 2:289) and, according to Stephen Burnett, that neither the three nor the eight witnesses had seen “the plates with his natural eyes only in vision or imagination” (EMD 2:291). Although Harris’s testimony apparently caused considerable consternation, Parrish noted that it was supported by the revelation Smith received in June 1829, preserved in the canonized Doctrine and Covenants (D&C 17:5), which indicated that the three witnesses would see the plates, “as my servant Joseph Smith, jr has seen them; for it is by my [God’s] power that he has seen them, and it is because he had faith…” (EMD 2:289, n. 2, emphasis added).7

Page 10.
http://www.religion.ucsb.edu/wp-content ... -Numen.pdf

Taves talks for several pages on the nature of the plates according to the people who were around them.

Thanks for the page references. I re-read her probable conclusion about materials:

The fact that insiders do not describe the golden plates as an ordinary material object, but rather as one that ancient Nephites display, deliver, and take away as appropriate; the fact that Lucy Smith says that ancient Nephites – not Joseph – brought the plates to the grove where some argue the eight saw them with their natural eyes; and the fact that most believers testified to seeing the ancient plates either directly in vision or indirectly while hidden in a box or covered by a cloth suggests to me that there was a material artifact, but that it was most likely neither ancient nor gold.

[emphasis added]

She re-iterates a key hypothesis that I think is necessary to understand Don's OP question:

I think Vogel (2004: 98-99) is probably correct in speculating that Smith made the plates himself, but, and this is the crucial question, is there any way he could have done this and still viewed them -- in some non-delusory sense – as ancient golden plates?

Clearly, here's where Occam's Razor would suggest a simpler explanation, but Don is asking us to take her hypothesis as a starting assumption.

It's a hard position to consider, since to me any supernatural reasoning by definition involves delusion, self or otherwise. I'm still thinking it through. It helps considerably to consider the extent of Joseph Smith' environment of superstition and mysticism, as you pointed out, Analytics.

[_mentalgymnast]

It's a hard position to consider, since to me any supernatural reasoning by definition involves delusion, self or otherwise.

Why?

Regards,
MG

[_Analytics]

Thanks for the page references. I re-read her probable conclusion about materials:

The fact that insiders do not describe the golden plates as an ordinary material object, but rather as one that ancient Nephites display, deliver, and take away as appropriate; the fact that Lucy Smith says that ancient Nephites – not Joseph – brought the plates to the grove where some argue the eight saw them with their natural eyes; and the fact that most believers testified to seeing the ancient plates either directly in vision or indirectly while hidden in a box or covered by a cloth suggests to me that there was a material artifact, but that it was most likely neither ancient nor gold.

[emphasis added]

She re-iterates a key hypothesis that I think is necessary to understand Don's OP question:

I think Vogel (2004: 98-99) is probably correct in speculating that Smith made the plates himself, but, and this is the crucial question, is there any way he could have done this and still viewed them -- in some non-delusory sense – as ancient golden plates?

Clearly, here's where Occam's Razor would suggest a simpler explanation, but Don is asking us to take her hypothesis as a starting assumption.

It's a hard position to consider, since to me any supernatural reasoning by definition involves delusion, self or otherwise. I'm still thinking it through. It helps considerably to consider the extent of Joseph Smith' environment of superstition and mysticism, as you pointed out, Analytics.

The narrative I have in my head is the 2-sets-of-plates theory: there was an imaginary set of plates and a fake set of plates. The idea is that for years the plates were imaginary, but when it came time to actually write the book, he came up with a prop to put under the cloth so that there would be something physical there to remind him about the imaginary plates and to motivate him.

Given that he never got busted with the plates (fake or otherwise), maybe the tangible object in the box really was sand. His preoccupation with boxes suggests that perhaps the box is all there really was.

[_orangganjil]

Taves' book, Revelatory Events, is a pretty interesting addition to her paper. The book looks into the religious experiences of three people who created religious texts, one of whom is Joseph Smith. Her perspective is fascinating.