Themis wrote:Why wouldn't God just leave behind the plates to be examined for authenticity?
Truth be told, that would really be cool. Although if this was the case, you, I...and EVERYONE ELSE would be left without excuse but to adhere to and accept the Book of Mormon for what it purports to be. I'd call that enforced free agency.
Personally, I don't like to be forced/coerced into doing anything.
That doesn't seem to be the way God works in this world. We make our own choices. And we OWN them.
If the plates remained, I think that would subtract the element of choice to a LARGE if not insurmountable extent.
Regards, MG
How do you get things exactly backwards? Knowing something is true does not force you to accept them, or follow them. People know smoking is very bad for them but do it anyways. Getting better information does not enforce free agency. It enhances it.
MG You are in an area that has no food or water and there is a place that does that you need to get to in order to survive. Seven ghosts claim they know the way to the area with food and water. 6 of them say you need have faith in them and follow their instructions, while the seventh provides really good evidence where to find this area. Which one do you follow? Does knowing the right way take away your ability to choose? If yes explain how, because I am not seeing it.
MG: Makes post implying that the fact that Smith went to great effort to cart around an object means that Smith's stories are likely true.
Fetchface: Turns that around by pointing out that Strang (someone Fetchface and MG can agree was a fraud) went to similar great effort when Strang didn't have to.
MG: Points to some minor irrelevant detail as some big game changer in the argument (special pleading).
MG, sometimes fraudsters go to great effort to perpetrate fraud. Not all of their great effort turns out to be completely necessary. I don't know why they do it in all cases but I suspect that in the cases of Joseph Smith and James Strang it may have something to do with the fact that it led to their financial support, admiration by others, and sexual access to dozens of women.
karl61 wrote:If the church has been transparent in history why did Joseph Fielding McConkie and Craig Olster simply dismiss the rock in the hat version in the year 2000.
"Thus, everything we have in the Book of Mormon, according to Mr. Whitmer, was translated by placing the chocolate stone in a hat into which Joseph would bury his head as to close out the light. While doing so he could see 'an oblong piece of parchment, on which the hieroglyphics would appear,' and below the ancient writing, the translation would would be given in English. Joseph would then read this to Oliver Cowdery, who in turn would write it. If he did so correctly, the characters and the interpretation would disappear and be replaced by other characters with their interpretation".
"Such an explanation is, in our judgement, simply fiction created for the purpose of demeaning Joseph Smith to undermine the validity of the revelations he received after translating the Book of Mormon. We invite the read to consider the following"
They then go into discrediting Whitmer. This is about 3/4 down the page.
And why would the rock in the hat translation "undermine the validity of the revelations he received after translating the Book of Mormon."
Gawd Damn you karl61, Don't you know that the church hates it when you catch them in a lie? Note only that but you've caught Ballard in a lie as well. They're not going to be very happy with you. Expect some coal in your "Please Come Back" cookies this year.
"...The official doctrine of the LDS Church is a Global Flood" - BCSpace
"...What many people call sin is not sin." - Joseph Smith
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away" - Phillip K. Dick
“The meaning of life is that it ends" - Franz Kafka
Themis wrote:Why wouldn't God just leave behind the plates to be examined for authenticity?
Truth be told, that would really be cool. Although if this was the case, you, I...and EVERYONE ELSE would be left without excuse but to adhere to and accept the Book of Mormon for what it purports to be. I'd call that enforced free agency.
Personally, I don't like to be forced/coerced into doing anything.
That doesn't seem to be the way God works in this world. We make our own choices. And we OWN them.
If the plates remained, I think that would subtract the element of choice to a LARGE if not insurmountable extent.
Regards, MG
Incoherent gibberish. So, God stripped the Book of Mormon witnesses of their free agency so that you could have yours? Plus, you’ve already said that you very likely wouldn’t have believed Smith’s claims but for his possession of plates, so God also stripped you of yours by leaving the evidence of plates that he did. The fact us, any manipulation of evidence by an omniscient being necessarily affects the free agency of mere mortals. And neither you nor I have a clue as to the magnitude of that effect for any given person. But this kind of Panglossian nonsense is what you get when you manufacture rationales for imaginary beings.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Res Ipsa wrote:Incoherent gibberish. So, God stripped the Book of Mormon witnesses of their free agency so that you could have yours? Plus, you’ve already said that you very likely wouldn’t have believed Smith’s claims but for his possession of plates, so God also stripped you of yours by leaving the evidence of plates that he did. The fact us, any manipulation of evidence by an omniscient being necessarily affects the free agency of mere mortals. And neither you nor I have a clue as to the magnitude of that effect for any given person. But this kind of Panglossian nonsense is what you get when you manufacture rationales for imaginary beings.
Given how every one of the witnesses left Joseph Smith and the church, it is clear that leaving the plates around would not have taken away anyone's free agency.
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
mentalgymnast wrote: Hey Themis, I would invite you to go back and read my contributions to this thread. I've already laid out where I'm coming from as to why I believe the plates were necessary to the translation and have posted a link or two which back up my basic position.
I would invite others to do the same. I'd just as well not rehash and/or repeat myself or focus on more or less nit picky stuff.
I have been clear in laying things out from where I view things.
It is at this point in a conversation such as this that believers...such as myself...and disbelievers...such as you...are going to part ways. Isn't that par for the course?
Regards, MG
You’ve done no such thing. You’ve simply claimed that the plates were necessary to convince certain folks that The Book of Mormon was a translation of an ancient record, which has nothing to do with the translation. You are blatantly misrepresenting your own posts.
Earlier:
...during the translation process, whether the plates were two feet or two hundred yards away, that wouldn't make any difference in whether or not they were used during the translation process.
and
Isn't it more than likely that the record being found and somehow being used as the artifact/delivery system and/or source of the translation...and Joseph Smith and Co. knowing this to be so...would aid (essentially so) and/or act as the evidence that what they were doing was more than another 'revelatory enterprise' where someone came up with a revelatory scripture/treatise of some kind essentially out of their head and/or dependent on pure revelation? The fact that plates are witnessed to and purportedly existed (according to the witnesses) as the source material for the Book of Mormon and may in some form or fashion been absolutely necessary for its production provides evidentiary and/or foundational 'meat and potatoes' to the narrative of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.
And so on...
You're right. I can't prove that the plates were used in the translation process. I suppose I ought to say...to clarify...that I can't see any reason why they couldn't have been used during the translation process. The fact that they weren't sitting right next to Joseph the whole time translation was taking place needn't be a deal breaker as far as the plates being used as the and/or a resource during that process.
Along with, apparently, text from the KJV Bible and other sources that were available to the 'translation group/committee'...including Joseph Smith.
DrW wrote:Just thought you might want to know what the reaction of many (if not most) on this board is to your blind faith Mormon apologist type posts and proclamations.
First, I wouldn't consider my faith to be blind. But it has evolved and been earned. Second, your reaction and the reaction of other secularists and/or agnostic-atheists on this board doesn't surprise me in the least.
Res Ipsa wrote:Incoherent gibberish. So, God stripped the Book of Mormon witnesses of their free agency so that you could have yours? Plus, you’ve already said that you very likely wouldn’t have believed Smith’s claims but for his possession of plates, so God also stripped you of yours by leaving the evidence of plates that he did. The fact us, any manipulation of evidence by an omniscient being necessarily affects the free agency of mere mortals. And neither you nor I have a clue as to the magnitude of that effect for any given person. But this kind of Panglossian nonsense is what you get when you manufacture rationales for imaginary beings.
Given how every one of the witnesses left Joseph Smith and the church, it is clear that leaving the plates around would not have taken away anyone's free agency.
Although we ought to consider the fact that on the whole the evidence seems to point towards the fact that the witnesses didn't deny their testimony in the Book of Mormon and the way in which it came about.
The angel and the plates may have contributed to that.
mentalgymnast wrote:The angel and the plates may have contributed to that.
If I had been variously induced to let Smith put my name to a statement that I had seen an angel, and a bunch of 'ancient golden plates' (though these thereafter vanished), and if I knew that many people had made life-changing (and in some cases life-losing) decisions in part on the basis of the statement I had supported then ... well, although I might later feel able to say that I thought Smith was never or no longer a prophet, and although I might say that the religion he preached was not true, I might be just a little bit reluctant to say that I had signed up to a bunch of outright lies that had misled thousands of people in really crucial ways.
But maybe that's just me.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
