If plates then God

[tagriffy]

If the plates were available and were used/proven as evidence for the Book of Mormon being the work of God we would no longer have the kind of faith that matters. We would have direct knowledge. The other things you then refer to wouldn’t require any real faith to obey/do because we would have more or less perfect knowledge that God exists as the LDS Church teaches and that the commandments are actually given by God for our eternal welfare and happiness.


Regards,
MG

No, it wouldn't. If I recall correctly, it was Res Ipsa who pointed out that it could be Satan who's responsible for the Book of Mormon. So you'd still have to have faith it was God's work.

Setting that possibility aside, look at the testimonies. Nearly all of the Three and Eight Witnesses left the Church at some point without recanting their testimonies. Many of them held that Joseph was a "fallen prophet" and either started their own movements or joined other existing Restoration movements. Going from memory, there are around seventy sects stemming from Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. So even if the plates existed, that wouldn't necessarily prove that it is the LDS Church that's the right one.

Now to get to the point where I talk about the plates not proving the ideas are true, saying they wouldn't require any real faith ignores the Book of Mormon itself. In the Book of Mormon, God tells prophets to write--and then leaves them to it. He doesn't dictate their writing. So they write. According to their knowledge. Acknowledging they could be making errors. Having to depend on the reliability of the records that came before them. Complaining they weren't very good at it. Whining if they could only have written in Hebrew...! No wonder the Title Page warns us to distinguish between the "mistakes of men" and "the things of God"!

So in light of this, let's ask a couple questions:

How do we know that Lehi's discussion of the necessity of oppostion in all things isn't one of those "mistakes of men?"

and

How would the availability of the plates demonstrate our answer is correct?

[Moksha]

But when things got rough in Harmony and they moved to New York to Joseph Smith's parents, how did he hide the plates?

He didn't! The angel Moroni moved them!

Just as well, imagine what a task it would be for the Church since then to keep them hidden. People would be clamoring to break into the Little Cottonwood Vault despite the presence of LDS security guards, huge spiders, a moat, lasers, and Cerberus. All just to see and heft the plates, all the while the Ark of the Covenant, the Holy Grail, The Robe, the Sorting Hat of Prophecy, and the Spear of Destiny would remain unmolested in the same vault.

[Gadianton]

M.G. is echoing the exact things that the Mopologetic leadership has been saying for years. DCP, Midgley, Hamblin, etc. have all said repeatedly that the whole edifice will crumble if the plates aren’t real. Jesus’ atonement; the sermon on the mount; the doctrine of eternal progression—all of that gets tossed if the plates were phony.

Yeah, they really take this to the extreme. Thanks for bringing it up. This is not the same argument Bushman made. Bushman said that most TBM can't accept a non-literal Book of Mormon with no plates. He didn't say it's not possible that the Church is true and there were no plates, only that people generally can't accept it. And that's the point I agree with.

Here it gets very interesting. Bushman maintains plates with literal history. Strangely, the apologists are happy to throw it out as real history so long as it is ancient. They may not throw out the whole thing as history, but anything is on the chopping block if they can't work it into the LGT. And we see Bushman was sort of correct here, given the Heartlanders disdain for the apologists "apostate" model. Weirdly the apologists are revisionists when it comes to history; but double down on the necessity of the basic founding narrative, unless it's about Book of Mormon geography like the final battle and Zelph, then that gets thrown out. You would think that as revisionists themselves, they'd have more charity for those who negotiate other aspects of the Joseph Smith story, but not in the least.

[MG 2.0]

If the plates were available and were used/proven as evidence for the Book of Mormon being the work of God we would no longer have the kind of faith that matters. We would have direct knowledge. The other things you then refer to wouldn’t require any real faith to obey/do because we would have more or less perfect knowledge that God exists as the LDS Church teaches and that the commandments are actually given by God for our eternal welfare and happiness.


Regards,
MG

No, it wouldn't. If I recall correctly, it was Res Ipsa who pointed out that it could be Satan who's responsible for the Book of Mormon. So you'd still have to have faith it was God's work.

Honestly? It’s a bit frustrating over time as I see a shotgun approach…narrow trajectory…on each topic that comes up. I brought up Monet, and have before. I like to look at the larger picture rather than narrowly focus on the bit of paint in front of my nose.

The scriptures tell us that a bad tree cannot produce good fruit and that a good tree will not bring forth bad fruit. The Book of Mormon has brought forth righteous and good fruit into the lives of those that take its message seriously and put their faith in God and the Fullness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

That you and Res Ipsa would even entertain that the Book of Mormon is the product of the father of lies and misery is not sustainable as one observes the growth of the church and the impact for good it has had in the lives of millions of souls.

In fact, I would go as far as to say that you guys are a bit whacko in even looking at this as a possibility. That being said, it then comes as no surprise that some of the other things expressed on one topic or another are also ‘off’.

Regards,
MG

[drumdude]

That you and Res Ipsa would even entertain that the Book of Mormon is the product of the father of lies and misery is not sustainable as one observes the growth of the church and the impact for good it has had in the lives of millions of souls.

If the church stops growing is that evidence to the contrary?

[tagriffy]

No, it wouldn't. If I recall correctly, it was Res Ipsa who pointed out that it could be Satan who's responsible for the Book of Mormon. So you'd still have to have faith it was God's work.

Honestly? It’s a bit frustrating over time as I see a shotgun approach…narrow trajectory…on each topic that comes up. I brought up Monet, and have before. I like to look at the larger picture rather than narrowly focus on the bit of paint in front of my nose.

The scriptures tell us that a bad tree cannot produce good fruit and that a good tree will not bring forth bad fruit. The Book of Mormon has brought forth righteous and good fruit into the lives of those that take its message seriously and put their faith in God and the Fullness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

That you and Res Ipsa would even entertain that the Book of Mormon is the product of the father of lies and misery is not sustainable as one observes the growth of the church and the impact for good it has had in the lives of millions of souls.

In fact, I would go as far as to say that you guys are a bit whacko in even looking at this as a possibility. That being said, it then comes as no surprise that some of the other things expressed on one topic or another are also ‘off’.

Regards,
MG

And I'm a bit disappointed you focused on that one bit at the expense of everything else that goes closer to home. Again, the overarching point is that one still has to exercise faith in a great many things even if the plates were available for everyone's perusal. That the Book of Mormon is actually from God is simply one of them.

[Gadianton]

That you and Res Ipsa would even entertain that the Book of Mormon is the product of the father of lies and misery is not sustainable as one observes the growth of the church and the impact for good it has had in the lives of millions of souls.

I don't know tagriffy so can't speak for him, but I can speak for Res Ipsa -- Res Ipsa doesn't not believe in the devil, MG. Most people in modern times with minimal education levels do not believe in a devil. Res is speaking in the hypothetical. In fact, many times have church leaders said that either the Book of Mormon is the word of God, or the greatest and most evil deception by Ole Scratch yada yada yada -- are you going to say you've never heard these quotes? Shall I look up an example for you?

I believe the point Res and probably Tag is making to you regards the problem of induction. Even if we had videotape of the angel coming down, or if even if the angel appeared to us personally, there are options other than God -- an alien pulling a hoax, for instance. In fact, God isn't even necessarily the best explanation. God really needs to take a basic class in epistemology before putting so much at stake for the mortals he fools around with. Anyway, I believe these responses are to you, who is trying to lock in meaningful verification as absolute proof that leaves no room for faith. And so you're getting responses that show there is still room for faith.

How you go in circles. Because you say seeing the actual plates would leave no room for faith (after trumpeting about the witnesses who saw the plates), and then turn around and say that the many lives blessed fills all gaps and proves the Book of Mormon true -- no faith required.

In fact, I would go as far as to say that you guys are a bit whacko in even looking at this as a possibility.

You are are now calling LDS General Authorities and prophets wackos.

[Physics Guy]

Claiming I have dog is evidence that I have a dog. No further evidence is needed for the truth claim to be superficially believed. Claiming I have Roland the closet goblin in my room that eats subway sandwiches might need a little bit more tangible support. That is exactly what apologists are doing when they focus on the witnesses.

I think that's right. A lot of apologists seem to be invoking standards of evidence that are appropriate in other circumstances, like history or criminal law, and blithely assuming that the same standards apply to their stories of gold plates brought back and forth between Earth and Heaven by an angel, in a scenario that conveniently let Joseph Smith and his friends and family live comfortable lives without manual labour despite lacking any professional training. I bet that most apologists wouldn't accept testimony from interested parties if they were buying used cars, especially if the sellers had track records of scamming.

Figuring out how to weigh evidence is a big challenge. It's hard to be sure what is true. Useful standards and methods have been hammered out over centuries in different contexts, and within those contexts they may work well enough that people just take them for granted. It's worth trying to understand how and why those methods work, though, where they work, so that you don't foolishly try to apply the wrong tools to problems for which they are as useless as a Bic lighter in space.

Standards of evidence in physics, for example, are high enough that we hardly use any statistics. We expect the points to cluster so tightly around the independently derived theory curve that you don't need to say more. If you need to calculate a confidence level then you don't need to do that, what you need is more data, so just go back to the lab and get more. Applying that sort of standard in other fields would just be stupid, however. If you're studying something more complicated than the ultra-simple subjects of physics, you don't have a quantitative theory that implies a definite curve, and you can't repeat the same experiment millions of times and know that it really is exactly the same experiment because all the relevant factors are precisely controlled. So you use other standards in other fields, not because you're not smart enough or sufficiently dedicated to truth to use the standards of physics, but precisely because you're smart enough and keen enough to find truth that you know you can't use physics tools in your field.

Just as you can't apply the evidence standards of physics to other disciplines, though, so you also can't get away with applying other standards to physics. You'd get laughed off the stage at a physics conference for claiming a 95% confidence level about a vague hypothesis from a sample of a hundred random objects. You don't get a Nobel prize for discovering a new class of particles just because eight witnesses swear that you had some of them.

The standards of evidence that apply in law courts or history aren't the same ones that apply to stories about angels around a suspected con artist. These different standards aren't just arbitrary rules that anyone invented just to reject Mormon claims. The different standards are there for excellent reasons that aren't hard to see if you just think seriously and realistically about what standards you need in order to become confident that something is true.

I think that maybe the only universal ground rule we really need for epistemology is the used car test. Would I be impressed by this evidence, in this context, if a used car were at stake?

[I Have Questions]

If the plates were available and were used/proven as evidence for the Book of Mormon being the work of God we would no longer have the kind of faith that matters.

So you’re saying Joseph and the witnesses lacked the kind of faith that matters?

[I Have Questions]

I think that maybe the only universal ground rule we really need for epistemology is the used car test. Would I be impressed by this evidence, in this context, if a used car were at stake?

Exactly.