Holy crap. I wish that someone had told me that was a 2 year old thread that amounted to 17 pages. I only read from pages 1-9.
I've yanked out a couple of posts in sequence that I think best demonstrate what took place. Sue me if they don't.
For some unknown reason, MG keeps repeating that there were plates and that two scholars (Dan Vogel and D. Michael Quinn) both believe there were plates. Why? What is the point? One thinks they were fakes and the other thinks they were real.
What is the point of saying that two scholars believe there were plates?
Anyway...here is the problem as I see it.
Dan Vogel himself enters the thread and writes,
I don’t simply default to fake plates, although it is in a sense the default position in light of the Book of Mormon’s lack of historical support. The less likely one judges the Book of Mormon’s historicity to be the more likely the plates were fake. The burden is on believers to prove Book of Mormon historicity to establish the plates were real. Meanwhile, the reported weight of between 40 and 60 pounds is consistent with common tin.
I think the eyewitnesses make it clear that there was a metallic book of plates under the cloth. The Justice Noble’s report of Stowell’s testimony doesn’t make sense, unless Joseph Smith used more than one object. However, it may have been a garbled or misreported account about another story of finding a stone box while digging for treasure and seeing the corner before it slipped away. Anyway, it makes no sense for Joseph Smith to keep the plates hidden under a cloth or in a box unless they could not pass visual inspection.
And in spite of that, MG, who has obviously read Dan's post because he later replies to a portion that he cherry picked out of it, persists in repeating the very same thing that Dan has just denied.
The thing is, there's a lot of time between then and now. Different witnesses. Different perceptions/experiences. You're gonna have folks that will have a natural tendency to lean towards one witness, or group of witnesses, than another because of other variables that come into play. The Book of Mormon itself. Joseph Smith. Magic world views. Angels. Etc.
Just as with a number of other issues (yep, I'm saying it again...
), there seems to be a
flip side...alternate points of view... to the question of were there or were there not plates found in a stone box.
Choose your witnesses.
I think the fact that Dan Vogel defaulted to plates...even if he thinks they were concocted...says something in and of itself. And with all the research and regard that folks have for Michael Quinn, I don't know that his 'opinion' is worthless or without merit.
I don't in anyway dispute that there are witnesses that say otherwise. Over the years I've read/seen some of those same accounts.
Choose your potion.
Regards,
MG
And that is exactly where MG ultimately screwed up and why he's being called disingenuous and a liar by Lemmie and others. One wants to know if Dan Vogel believes there were plates, even if he thinks they were fake....what exactly does MG mean when he says "says something in and of itself".
What exactly does it say? Unfortunately, MG never appears to clarify that. I get the impression from reading throughout the thread pages 1-9, that MG is content to watch others try to nail his jello to the wall and possibly amused by it.
Here comes Lemmie, who replies as follows,
It is rudimentary, MG. And your reputation precedes you. It is dishonest for you to say that 'Vogel posits there may have been plates,' after what has been said the last three pages. So no, not 'plates, nonetheless.'
Please have the integrity to represent his words as he meant them.
"Dan Vogel believes that Joseph made fake plates."
Your refusal to accurately represent his words, now for the fifth time, is utterly lacking in integrity.
Your strategies are entirely predictable, right down to the smiley faces, your use of words like rudimentary (as though you think you can be insulting!), and your feigned puzzlement at why your (what I'm sure you consider to be terribly clever) strategies are being resisted.
The one criticism I have of Lemmie's above comments is that if it had been me, I would have nailed him from the get go asked him point blank. 1) What does it add to your argument to say that 2 scholars believe there were two plates when one of those scholars thinks they were fake? and 2) When you say it "says something in and of itself" what does it say?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now me to MG. I have done your the courtesy of reading the exchanges as you requested. I'm going to reply to the following as if I were on the thread and I'd like you to reply to my comments and/or questions.
MG wrote:Why do you say this stuff? I'm here to learn and get at the truth. Are you? Or have you arrived...
Clutch those pearls when you say that. Maybe put a quaver in your voice. At least try to make that s*** believable.
She is saying "this stuff" because you refuse to acknowledge that you are misrepresenting Dan Vogel's position on the plates and failing to communicate just what difference it makes to anyone or anything if two scholars believe there were plates when one of them thinks they were
fake.
Not quite sure what to say to you, Lemmie. We'll have to let things be as they may. As I've said now...a number of times...I know what I'm all about. And it's not what you're trying to portray. I'm comfortable in letting others hear what I say without any pretense.
Here you are giving up the exchanges because you don't like that she's pressuring you and you're reluctant to admit that you not only continued to misrepresent Dan Vogel even after he himself addressed his lack of "default' position but that you failed to make any valid argument regarding your statement that 2 scholars believed there were plates.
You can be your own judge and jury.
Me too.
Although I am somewhat perplexed as to what is driving you to come at me like this. Your purpose seems to be one of steering a topic off course and/or misrepresenting what is actually being said. But you really don't seem to have anything of real substance to contribute.
She misrepresented nothing. You're trying to push her away because in your own words, she is coming at you and you don't want to admit error.
I have NO idea what drives you or what you might think. I only know that you are out to misrepresent and slander another.
I think what drives her is intellectual honesty.
What's the point? Too bad we can't meet up in real life so that I could somehow communicate/share my honest intent person to person so as to convince you that I'm not trying to speak out of both sides of my mouth at the same time. The written word can be SO twisted and misrepresented.
Stop trying to soften her up. You can communicate honestly right on the thread. I didn't see her accuse you of speaking out of both sides of your mouth at the same time. Those are your words, not hers and in my estimation, you fail to accurately portray what has taken place.
It becomes somewhat tiresome and even a waste of time to make efforts to 'straighten things out'.
Oh well. It is what it is.
Regards,
MG
And there you give up.
I have two questions for you, MG.
1. What does it add to your position (the position you've never stated) if 2 scholars believe that there were plates when one of them thinks the plates were fake?
2. When you say that Dan Vogel, believes that fake plates existed "says something in and of itself"....what does it say?