If plates then God

[MG 2.0]

Please stop trolling....

The panic and desperation in your post was palpable. I am asking, what was the reason?

Nothing resembling panic. Capitalization was used for emphasis. Now and then I will do that although I try not to over do it.

So again, please engage the actual conversation without simply trying to blow things up through various means that you have at your disposal.

Regards,
MG

[Res Ipsa]

Of course it's an option. The angel can bring them right back. You're just engaging in your "Goldilocks God" argument. Your God is so powerful that he can can control the fundamental forces of the universe but so weak he can't eliminate a disease. He has to use the golden plates as a prop because otherwise, no one would believe in him, but can't leave them around for inspection because it would be too easy to believe. You simply make up stuff about God that you can't possibly know to get the answer you want.

Earlier in the thread, as I’ve said, I have already discussed this. Existing plates would create a number of conundrums that would directly impact the Plan of Salvation and the doctrine of separation from God and living by faith.

Regards,
MG

Oh, so now you know the mind of God? This is your backward rationalization of facts that don't fit the narrative you want to believe. It's pure fabrication that purports to know why your God does what he does.

[Res Ipsa]

Sure there is, but that misses the point. Remember, huckleberry is pointing out the the evidence we have points to the Book of Mormon being fictional, in turn calling into question what the plates were, then contrasting it with Emma's story. So if we grant that they were telling the truth--at least as they knew it--then something else is going on. So the question of what to make of it still stands.

The plates supersede anything that comes thereafter. As I’ve been saying, they are primary. They are key. If the plates were real we can then look at various theories in regards to Book of Mormon geography, nineteenth century anachronisms, and all that.

The plates come first.

It’s Interesting that one of the first things the Lord did, was to tell Joseph Smith to have witnesses to the plates. I wonder if Joseph would have even considered or thought about that on his own.

Regards,
MG

Huh? I thought faith in Jesus Christ came first, not the plates. You mean you worship the plates? The plates supersede the restoration of the priesthood? The restoration of the organization of the original church? Prophecy? Modern prophets?

You really should think through your arguments before you make them.

[MG 2.0]

I'm interested in figuring out the truth to the extent I can, realizing that there are serious limitations on my access to the evidence I need. Yes, if the plates really were what Smith claimed them to be, that would cause me to draw different conclusions about the LDS church than my current conclusions. But that involves assessing all the evidence we have about the plates. And the totality of the evidence about the plates is that, whatever they were, they weren't what Smith claimed they were.

Fair enough. You have your views. I have mine. I think it is through the expression of all viewpoints that we can learn from each other and others can assess the validity and/or sensibleness of what various parties have to say.

I, for one, appreciate honest dialogue. I learn. Others learn. We’re all the better for it.

Also, I will be the first to admit that I’m always in the ‘journey of faith’ mode/seat. Lots of questions and things that I “see through a glass darkly”. But for many reasons I give the benefit of a doubt to the church and its mission and message.

For me, it fits in…generally…with an expanded view of the cosmos/meaning/purpose.

Sometimes, admittedly, the details can be messy. But so was Monet, in a sense.

In the larger picture, to my understanding of the world around me, the plates and angels make more sense than most of the other stuff out there. Including agnosticism and/or atheism. Although I can see how folks can move that direction.

What makes the world so interesting is that there are so many views and positions to be had. I find that very supportive of the whole concept of free will and agency to choose.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Earlier in the thread, as I’ve said, I have already discussed this. Existing plates would create a number of conundrums that would directly impact the Plan of Salvation and the doctrine of separation from God and living by faith.

Regards,
MG

Oh, so now you know the mind of God? This is your backward rationalization of facts that don't fit the narrative you want to believe. It's pure fabrication that purports to know why your God does what he does.

Look at my response (boldface) to tgriffey on previous page of thread.

Regards,
MG

[Res Ipsa]

I know.

I am saying that we ought not to disregard and pass by what her actual words say. We should be open to giving her the benefit of a doubt until we have reason not to. Both Joseph and Emma’s ‘sincerity’ factor should be taken into account. And the sacrifices that they went through over many years.

A lot of ‘stuff’ to support a lie.

They were sincere believers in the restoration and never denied their testimonies.

All I’m saying is that one should not have a closed mind to accepting the facts as they were understood by witnesses at the time.

And they believed the plates were real.

Regards,
MG

No, you are saying that we should discard all of our knowledge and experiences about the reliability of witness statements in your special case. Do you give the same benefit of the doubt -- assumption of sincerity -- to all those critics of Mormonism from the same period of time? Of course you don't -- you label them as "anti" and you do what you accuse me and others of doing: you "diss" and "disregard" them.

You have no consistent standard for evaluating evidence. It's 100% result oriented.

[Res Ipsa]

Incredible. Joseph referring to the enterprise as "the Gold Book business" in 1829. That's probably the term I would have used having had just met Jesus and Heavenly Father and the Angel Moroni.

Jeez. No wonder Daniel Peterson was so opposed to the Joseph Smith Papers project.

To be fair, there is no indication of what Smith was specifically referring to. The context is talking about persecutors.

[tagriffy]

tagriffy, earlier in this thread I asked you if you were an active believing member of the church. Are you willing to share whether you are or aren’t?

I'm sorry. I missed that question somewhere and would have answered it. I am not an active member of the Church. I am a believing though very unorthodox Mormon. The term I typcially use for myself is Mormon-at-large.

To me, your positions seem to be a bit ‘off’. If you are not a believer in the literal restoration narrative I can clearly see why your comments are somewhat out of the mainstream.

They would be. If you want to see just how far I am out of the mainstream of Latter-day Saint thought, just click the link to my blog in my signature.

And that’s OK. I would expect that someone who doesn’t believe in the essential components of the restoration narrative to have views that might contradict the accepted narrative.

That explains a lot of the difference. We have very different notions about what the essential components of the restoration is. To name an obvious example from this thread, I don't consider it essential that the plates be a physical reality. If so, cool. If not, oh well. Besides my blog, you can open my profile and peruse my comments all over this board. To sum it up in a pithy statement, what I consider essential is the mythology--the ideas.

And if you are an active and believing member of the church and in full standing, that’s OK too. There are a lot of us that may not fit the Peter Priesthood mold in all aspects.

So I’m just curious and if you’re willing to share, great. If not, then I guess we’ll/I’ll just have to guess.

Regards,
MG

[Res Ipsa]

I am saying that we ought not to disregard and pass by what her actual words say. We should be open to giving her the benefit of a doubt until we have reason not to. Both Joseph and Emma’s ‘sincerity’ factor should be taken into account. And the sacrifices that they went through over many years.

A lot of ‘stuff’ to support a lie.

They were sincere believers in the restoration and never denied their testimonies.

All I’m saying is that one should not have a closed mind to accepting the facts as they were understood by witnesses at the time.

And they believed the plates were real.

Regards,
MG

No one who is seriously engaging you here is saying we ought to disregard what Emma said. What we are saying is that we need to weigh her story carefully, including keeping in mind her story was recorded some forty to fifty years after the fact, that she had incentive to tell the story the way she did, and that contemporary evidence in some cases shows she was demonstrably wrong. That's not necessarily an impeachment of her sincerity.

It's not impeachment of her sincerity at all. "Attacking poor Emma" is a red herring.

[MG 2.0]

I am saying that we ought not to disregard and pass by what her actual words say. We should be open to giving her the benefit of a doubt until we have reason not to. Both Joseph and Emma’s ‘sincerity’ factor should be taken into account. And the sacrifices that they went through over many years.

A lot of ‘stuff’ to support a lie.

They were sincere believers in the restoration and never denied their testimonies.

All I’m saying is that one should not have a closed mind to accepting the facts as they were understood by witnesses at the time.

And they believed the plates were real.

Regards,
MG

No, you are saying that we should discard all of our knowledge and experiences about the reliability of witness statements in your special case. Do you give the same benefit of the doubt -- assumption of sincerity -- to all those critics of Mormonism from the same period of time? Of course you don't -- you label them as "anti" and you do what you accuse me and others of doing: you "diss" and "disregard" them.

You have no consistent standard for evaluating evidence. It's 100% result oriented.

I am totally on board with you coming to your own conclusions after evaluating the evidence that you find acceptable. Everyone is going to accept or reject certain lines of evidence for one reason or another.

No one can be perfectly objective. But we can try to get as close as we can. Thing is, when it comes to some things there is going to be subjective judgement that plays a part in our decisions and rationale/reasons for doing what we do and believing what we believe or don’t believe.

Believers cannot, I repeat, CANNOT place/overlay their own faith on the head of someone else. As I said in a recent post, we’re each traveling our own path. I personally believe it’s set up that way by an all knowing and wise God.

Who happens to be the God involved in the Resoration

Regards,
MG