If plates then God

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
MG 2.0
God
Posts: 5272
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 4:45 pm

Re: If plates then God

Post by MG 2.0 »

Marcus wrote:
Tue Sep 26, 2023 8:18 pm
MG 2.0 wrote:
Tue Sep 26, 2023 7:54 pm

Lol.

That’s a non answer...
No it's not. You are asking other people to imagine what your evidence should look like in order to be credible. To what end? Here in the real world, such imaginary hypotheticals are meaningless.

Bottom line, is there any "actual, factual and credible evidence" for the historicity of the Book of Mormon and the gold plates it supposedly came from?

No, there isn't.
We have the historical record and the narrative surrounding the plates which I have already described and pointed to links that have witness testimony first hand as to the veracity of the plates and also the strenuous exertions that went into protecting the plates after they were retrieved. And then you have the Book of Mormon itself which grew out of the obtaining and translation of the plates.

You can either choose to believe this story from the past or not.

You seem to be a bit hesitant about elucidating what kind of direct evidence you would expect to have in 2023. That is what I am interested in having you describe. The problem, as I see it, is that you already have a ‘block’ set up against any kind of supernatural evidence that might support the Book of Mormon and/or the plates.

Tough to get past that.

Hypothetically, though, if you did believe in the supernatural and angels, would you expect that sort of evidence NOW in order to believe? That is, the physical evidence of the plates with an angel…or something like unto that. And if so, the same question I posed to another poster:

What would the ramifications be?

Wanna play?

I’m wondering if you’re asking for something you know can’t/won’t be delivered on a silver platter.

And you’re OK with that.

Regards,
MG
MG 2.0
God
Posts: 5272
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 4:45 pm

Re: If plates then God

Post by MG 2.0 »

tagriffy wrote:
Tue Sep 26, 2023 8:11 pm
MG 2.0 wrote:
Tue Sep 26, 2023 7:56 pm


In reference to the plates specifically, how would you expect that evidence to come about? And what would be the ramifications of that scenario?

Regards,
MG
I have no particular expectation nor would I particularly care how the plates were produced. If they stood up to scientific examination, how they were produced largely becomes irrelevant anyway.
I think you’re circling around what I’m asking. Wanna join in the same game and answer the questions I’m posing to Marcus?

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

Regards,
MG
drumdude
God
Posts: 7140
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 5:29 am

Re: If plates then God

Post by drumdude »

DCP wrote: I’ve recently noticed an, umm, online “discussion” in which several former Latter-day Saints appear to be taking the position that there is simply no evidence for the existence of Joseph Smith’s Book of Mormon plates. Saying that actual physical plates existed is, they’re saying, merely a faith position. It’s rather like asserting the existence of Bigfoot. It’s no better than circular reasoning.

I find such declarations deeply disheartening. I caught just a few minutes this past Sunday night of CNN’s “Waiting for JFK: Report from the Fringe,” on “The Whole Story with Anderson Cooper.” I hope to be able to see the entire thing. It was stunning, but it disheartened me in much the same way as these confident but unargued declarations of the nonexistence of the plates do.

Let me be clear: Although I find them completely unpersuasive and even, sometimes, somewhat desperate, I can understand arguments that there were no plates or, slightly better, that there were plates but that they were modern forgeries, or something of that type. But to simply assert that no plates actually existed? And, moreover, that no evidence of their reality exists at all?

I had hoped that the stimulus to conversation provided by Witnesses, Undaunted: Witnesses of the Book of Mormon, our still not-yet-complete series of short “Insights” videos on the topic, and our still-under-construction Witnesses of the Book of Mormon website would have made it almost impossible to remain in such willful ignorance.

The blithe dismissal of evidence for the existence of the plates should have lost its already thin veneer of respectability among anti-Mormons more than two decades ago, with the publication of Richard Lloyd Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1981).

Moreover, Professor Anderson wrote many other very important articles on the witnesses—and on other relevant topics—after the publication of Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses. These are available online, including but not limited to “Attempts to Redefine the Experience of the Eight Witnesses,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 14/1 (2005): 18–31; “Personal Writings of the Book of Mormon Witnesses,” in Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited: The Evidence for Ancient Origins, ed. Noel B. Reynolds (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1997), 39–60; and “The Credibility of the Book of the Mormon Translators,” in Book of Mormon Authorship: New Light on Ancient Origins, ed. Noel B. Reynolds and Charles D. Tate (Provo, UT: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1982), 213–37. But Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses remains, I think, the place to start on this vital subject.

Off the top of my head, I would also recommend these:

Lyndon W. Cook, ed., David Whitmer Interviews: A Restoration Witness. Orem: Grandin, 1991.

Andrew H. Hedges, “All My Endeavors to Preserve Them: Protecting the Plates in Palmyra, 22 September-December 1827”

Episode 304 of the Salt Lake Tribune’s “Mormon Land” series: “Live with eminent scholars Richard and Claudia Bushman” (A discussion of the plates commences at about the ten-minute mark.)

Kirk B. Henrichsen, “How Witnesses Described the Gold Plates”

The assertion in such writing that real, tangible plates existed isn’t a mere profession of faith or an appeal to circular reason. It appeals, rather, to eyewitness testimony and other external evidence. The stuff, in other words, of which ordinary, conventional historiography is made and upon which most historical scholarship is based. Simply that. To claim othewise is either ignorant or, I think, a willfully disingenuous pretense.

I realize, of course, that there is such a thing as invincible and militant ignorance, that you can lead a horse to water but can’t make him drink, that there are none so blind as those who will not see, and that even the most widely accepted, effective, and common vaccinations fail in roughly 2-10% of the cases where they’re used. But, really, there is no excuse for such freely-chosen obtuseness.

Moreover, it’s tiresome. I used to enjoy cops and robbers with my neighbors, using either squirt guns or just our fingers. By the age of about six or seven, though, I had had enough of neighbor kids who, although their shirts were completely soaked, continually insisted that “You missed me! You missed me!”
Dan thinks the existence of the plates is a foot-in-the-door for Mormon truth claims. Just like Christians think an empty tomb is a foot-in-the-door for a historical resurrection of a dead person.

Neither eyewitness testimony is very convincing to non-Mormons and non-Christians. There are myriad testimonies to other supernatural events. You believe the ones that confirm your existing beliefs, and discard the others.

They appeal only to the credulous.
Doctor CamNC4Me
God
Posts: 9710
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:04 am

Re: If plates then God

Post by Doctor CamNC4Me »

MG 2.0 wrote:
Tue Sep 26, 2023 8:45 pm
Marcus wrote:
Tue Sep 26, 2023 8:18 pm

No it's not. You are asking other people to imagine what your evidence should look like in order to be credible. To what end? Here in the real world, such imaginary hypotheticals are meaningless.

Bottom line, is there any "actual, factual and credible evidence" for the historicity of the Book of Mormon and the gold plates it supposedly came from?

No, there isn't.
We have the historical record and the narrative surrounding the plates which I have already described and pointed to links that have witness testimony first hand as to the veracity of the plates and also the strenuous exertions that went into protecting the plates after they were retrieved. And then you have the Book of Mormon itself which grew out of the obtaining and translation of the plates.

You can either choose to believe this story from the past or not.

You seem to be a bit hesitant about elucidating what kind of direct evidence you would expect to have in 2023. That is what I am interested in having you describe. The problem, as I see it, is that you already have a ‘block’ set up against any kind of supernatural evidence that might support the Book of Mormon and/or the plates.

Tough to get past that.

Hypothetically, though, if you did believe in the supernatural and angels, would you expect that sort of evidence NOW in order to believe? That is, the physical evidence of the plates with an angel…or something like unto that. And if so, the same question I posed to another poster:

What would the ramifications be?

Wanna play?

I’m wondering if you’re asking for something you know can’t/won’t be delivered on a silver platter.

And you’re OK with that.

Regards,
MG
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Tue Sep 26, 2023 5:07 pm
pEoPlE sAyInG sTuFf Is EvIdEnCe - DCP, MG, and other thickheaded hicks
Marcus
God
Posts: 6574
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:44 pm

Re: If plates then God

Post by Marcus »

MG 2.0 wrote:
Tue Sep 26, 2023 8:45 pm
Marcus wrote:
Tue Sep 26, 2023 8:18 pm

No it's not. You are asking other people to imagine what your evidence should look like in order to be credible. To what end? Here in the real world, such imaginary hypotheticals are meaningless.

Bottom line, is there any "actual, factual and credible evidence" for the historicity of the Book of Mormon and the gold plates it supposedly came from?

No, there isn't.
We have the historical record and the narrative surrounding the plates which I have already described and pointed to links that have witness testimony first hand as to the veracity of the plates and also the strenuous exertions that went into protecting the plates after they were retrieved. And then you have the Book of Mormon itself which grew out of the obtaining and translation of the plates.

You can either choose to believe this story from the past or not.
ya think? :lol: :lol: :lol:
For the record, i don't believe in sasquatch, loch ness, leprechauns, or middle earth either.
You seem to be a bit hesitant about elucidating what kind of direct evidence you would expect to have in 2023. That is what I am interested in having you describe.
No, i've been absolutely clear, as have most others on this thread.
It would look like "actual, factual and credible evidence."
Of which there is none.
...I’m wondering if you’re asking for something you know can’t/won’t be delivered on a silver platter...
lol. No, facts have already been delivered, no silver platter required.
User avatar
Doctor Scratch
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
Posts: 1475
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 7:24 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: If plates then God

Post by Doctor Scratch »

The assertion in such writing that real, tangible plates existed isn’t a mere profession of faith or an appeal to circular reason. It appeals, rather, to eyewitness testimony and other external evidence. The stuff, in other words, of which ordinary, conventional historiography is made and upon which most historical scholarship is based.
"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.
"If, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14
Marcus
God
Posts: 6574
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:44 pm

Re: If plates then God

Post by Marcus »

Going back to thethread's original point:
Gadianton wrote:
Sun Sep 24, 2023 11:23 pm
MG wrote:Wouldn’t it have been a LOT easier to just write the book and bypass all the hardship that resulted from having the plates?
Ahh...so quick we are to forget the lesson of Richard Bushman, young tadpole.

Bushman's point was that nobody would care about a story that wasn't real history and that wasn't packaged into something like the plates that imply "God is an active agent in human affairs".

In other words, the answer to your question is that Joseph didn't have the option of simply making a book without some kind of tangible, grandiose claim to go along with it. All the manufactured drama and slight-of-hand was absolutely necessary in order to generate interest in his claims.
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.
Doctor CamNC4Me
God
Posts: 9710
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:04 am

Re: If plates then God

Post by Doctor CamNC4Me »

Doctor Scratch wrote:
Tue Sep 26, 2023 9:25 pm
The assertion in such writing that real, tangible plates existed isn’t a mere profession of faith or an appeal to circular reason. It appeals, rather, to eyewitness testimony and other external evidence. The stuff, in other words, of which ordinary, conventional historiography is made and upon which most historical scholarship is based.
"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.
It’s just so absurd at this point.
huckelberry
God
Posts: 3333
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:48 pm

Re: If plates then God

Post by huckelberry »

Marcus wrote:
Tue Sep 26, 2023 9:26 pm
Going back to thethread's original point:
Gadianton wrote:
Sun Sep 24, 2023 11:23 pm


Ahh...so quick we are to forget the lesson of Richard Bushman, young tadpole.

Bushman's point was that nobody would care about a story that wasn't real history and that wasn't packaged into something like the plates that imply "God is an active agent in human affairs".

In other words, the answer to your question is that Joseph didn't have the option of simply making a book without some kind of tangible, grandiose claim to go along with it. All the manufactured drama and slight-of-hand was absolutely necessary in order to generate interest in his claims.
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.
MG 2.0
God
Posts: 5272
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 4:45 pm

Re: If plates then God

Post by MG 2.0 »

Doctor Scratch wrote:
Tue Sep 26, 2023 9:25 pm
The assertion in such writing that real, tangible plates existed isn’t a mere profession of faith or an appeal to circular reason. It appeals, rather, to eyewitness testimony and other external evidence. The stuff, in other words, of which ordinary, conventional historiography is made and upon which most historical scholarship is based.
"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?

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

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
Post Reply