If plates then God

[MG 2.0]

If the plates WERE available for your perusal what impact do you think that would have on religious FAITH ?

Regards,
MG

In my case, none. It's irrelevant to me whether the plates were physical or visionary.

This was an interesting comment.

On another thread you posted this link:

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.o ... y-sources/

I would think that it matters whether or not the text of the Book of Mormon was ‘physical’ (originating in the mind of Joseph’s brain) or ‘visionary’ (originating from a supernatural source).

If so, might we make a connection? That much depends on whether the plates were physical vs. purely visionary?

Many witnesses in the Interpreter article you linked to seem to have a common theme. Joseph pre 1830 would have been more than unlikely to compose the Book of Mormon ‘physically’ at that point in time. If this is true we ought to be then be open to other alternatives. One being the ‘visionary’ alternative.

And here is the connection. If the Book of Mormon had its origins in the visionary realm the likelihood of there having been real plates comes up a notch. In other words, if Joseph is telling the truth in regards to the translation being done through the “gift and power of God”…and that seems to be a likely alternative to him doing it on his own…then why would he have lied about the angel and the plates? The translation, the plates, and the angel are all intertwined.

This article you linked to makes it clear that at the very least the jury ought to be out on Book of Mormon origins. If so, it seems unreasonable to simply cast off the plates as being a hoax.

Occam’s razor comes in there somewhere. But only if we acknowledge that there is a creator God. It all starts there.

Thanks for the link to that article. Looks like it just came out recently.

I would suggest everyone read it from beginning to end.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

Comment moved to better thread for this discussion

[Res Ipsa]

In my case, none. It's irrelevant to me whether the plates were physical or visionary.

This was an interesting comment.

On another thread you posted this link:

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.o ... y-sources/

I would think that it matters whether or not the text of the Book of Mormon was ‘physical’ (originating in the mind of Joseph’s brain) or ‘visionary’ (originating from a supernatural source).

If so, might we make a connection? That much depends on whether the plates were physical vs. purely visionary?

Many witnesses in the Interpreter article you linked to seem to have a common theme. Joseph pre 1830 would have been more than unlikely to compose the Book of Mormon ‘physically’ at that point in time. If this is true we ought to be then be open to other alternatives. One being the ‘visionary’ alternative.

And here is the connection. If the Book of Mormon had its origins in the visionary realm the likelihood of there having been real plates comes up a notch. In other words, if Joseph is telling the truth in regards to the translation being done through the “gift and power of God”…and that seems to be a likely alternative to him doing it on his own…then why would he have lied about the angel and the plates? The translation, the plates, and the angel are all intertwined.

This article you linked to makes it clear that at the very least the jury ought to be out on Book of Mormon origins. If so, it seems unreasonable to simply cast off the plates as being a hoax.

Occam’s razor comes in there somewhere. But only if we acknowledge that there is a creator God. It all starts there.

Thanks for the link to that article. Looks like it just came out recently.

I would suggest everyone read it from beginning to end.

Regards,
MG

When you presuppose an omnipotent creator God, anything other than logical contradictions are impossible. But the God you presuppose is a significant violation of Occam's Razor: "Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" The God you presuppose is an entity. Therefore, unless your God is necessary to explain the events being discussed, Occam's Razor should leave God on the cutting room floor. That translates into your burden of proof being "prove it is impossible for the events to occur without your creator God." Occam's razor cuts against your argument, not in favor of it.

Your entire argument consists of different ways of saying: If there is an omnipotent Creator God, my interpretation is possible. That requires no reasoning at all -- it's trivially true. In fact, all interpretations are trivially true, so you have no basis to claim that yours is superior to the a claim that God works through invisible fairies. No matter how hard you try to frame what you're doing as some kind of reasoning -- it isn't.

[MG 2.0]

This was an interesting comment.

On another thread you posted this link:

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.o ... y-sources/

I would think that it matters whether or not the text of the Book of Mormon was ‘physical’ (originating in the mind of Joseph’s brain) or ‘visionary’ (originating from a supernatural source).

If so, might we make a connection? That much depends on whether the plates were physical vs. purely visionary?

Many witnesses in the Interpreter article you linked to seem to have a common theme. Joseph pre 1830 would have been more than unlikely to compose the Book of Mormon ‘physically’ at that point in time. If this is true we ought to be then be open to other alternatives. One being the ‘visionary’ alternative.

And here is the connection. If the Book of Mormon had its origins in the visionary realm the likelihood of there having been real plates comes up a notch. In other words, if Joseph is telling the truth in regards to the translation being done through the “gift and power of God”…and that seems to be a likely alternative to him doing it on his own…then why would he have lied about the angel and the plates? The translation, the plates, and the angel are all intertwined.

This article you linked to makes it clear that at the very least the jury ought to be out on Book of Mormon origins. If so, it seems unreasonable to simply cast off the plates as being a hoax.

Occam’s razor comes in there somewhere. But only if we acknowledge that there is a creator God. It all starts there.

Thanks for the link to that article. Looks like it just came out recently.

I would suggest everyone read it from beginning to end.

Regards,
MG

When you presuppose an omnipotent creator God, anything other than logical contradictions are impossible. But the God you presuppose is a significant violation of Occam's Razor: "Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" The God you presuppose is an entity. Therefore, unless your God is necessary to explain the events being discussed, Occam's Razor should leave God on the cutting room floor. That translates into your burden of proof being "prove it is impossible for the events to occur without your creator God." Occam's razor cuts against your argument, not in favor of it.

My point is that a creator God should not be left on the cutting room floor even though the existence of that God cannot be proven explicitly. But there are implicit proofs if one stands back from the Monet and looks at things from a larger perspective without relying wholly on hard logic applied to individual dabs/splotches of paint.

Larger perspective:

Anthropic/Goldilocks origins of the universe.
Purpose vs. no purpose (life has real meaning). Why is there something rather than nothing?
Scriptural records of the creator revealing Himself to mankind through prophets.
Jesus Christ revealing God in the flesh and laying out God’s plan and our relationship to Him.

Sure, each of these is based on soft logic (intuition) based on looking at a larger whole. But when looked at with an eye of faith it appears to have a certain sense of logic and congruity. Some have that eye of faith and others are blind to it. Without faith one is left to create something out of nothing.

Hale’s article, if it has merit, brings the plates and the translation into sharper focus as I mentioned in my previous post. Otherwise, as is the position of the critics, everything is rather fuzzy. That’s why I’m appreciative of tagriffy making everyone aware of this recent essay.

Regards,
MG

[Res Ipsa]

"looking through the eye of faith" begs the question.

[MG 2.0]

"looking through the eye of faith" begs the question.

Yes and no. I listed four reasons that come to mind off the top of my head to have faith in God.

Anthropic/Goldilocks origins of the universe.
Purpose vs. no purpose (life has real meaning). Why is there something rather than nothing?
Scriptural records of the creator revealing Himself to mankind through prophets.
Jesus Christ revealing God in the flesh and laying out God’s plan and our relationship to Him.

The last two do make an assumption before hand that the God of the Bible exists. The second is more or less an ontological argument. The first doesn’t seem to be an a priori argument/reason to believe in God.

So it’s a mix. So faith itself is…or can be…a mish mash of both logic and reason based on experience, facts, history, intuition, and what have you.

Yes, at this point in my life…because of my own life experiences in learning and growth…I do start with the end in mind that there is a creator God. But I didn’t come at it willy nilly.

As far as Occam’s razor is concerned and using the Anthropic Principle/Goldilocks Principle I don’t see it as unreasonable to make an educated and reasonable default/turn to ‘God’.

But to each his or her own I guess.

Hale’s essay indirectly is another soft proof or evidence for something beyond the norm that can’t easily be explained. This, in turn, as I’ve said, can then lead to a more serious focus of the plates and the angel being what Joseph testified of them being.

Real.

But yeah, faith is still involved/necessary at the end of the day.

Regards,
MG

[Res Ipsa]

"looking through the eye of faith" begs the question.

Yes and no. I listed four reasons that come to mind off the top of my head to have faith in God.

Anthropic/Goldilocks origins of the universe.
Purpose vs. no purpose (life has real meaning). Why is there something rather than nothing?
Scriptural records of the creator revealing Himself to mankind through prophets.
Jesus Christ revealing God in the flesh and laying out God’s plan and our relationship to Him.

The last two do make an assumption before hand that the God of the Bible exists. The second is more or less an ontological argument. The first doesn’t seem to be an a priori argument/reason to believe in God.

So it’s a mix. So faith itself is…or can be…a mish mash of both logic and reason based on experience, facts, history, intuition, and what have you.

Yes, at this point in my life…because of my own life experiences in learning and growth…I do start with the end in mind that there is a creator God. But I didn’t come at it willy nilly.

As far as Occam’s razor is concerned and using the Anthropic Principle/Goldilocks Principle I don’t see it as unreasonable to make an educated and reasonable default/turn to ‘God’.

But to each his or her own I guess.

Hale’s essay indirectly is another soft proof or evidence for something beyond the norm that can’t easily be explained. This, in turn, as I’ve said, can then lead to a more serious focus of the plates and the angel being what Joseph testified of them being.

Real.

But yeah, faith is still involved/necessary at the end of the day.

Regards,
MG

"Beyond the norm" isn't justification to invoke the supernatural. Life is filled with events that are contingent on a multitude of other events -- we have no ability to retrodict the odds that Smith wrote the Book of Mormon. History is full of events that had not been "normal" before they happened. Likewise, especially when we are talking about complex historical events, it is nearly certain that we will not have access to every detail. Again, the argument you describe requires presupposing it's ultimate conclusion. Inability to access sufficient information to explain some aspect of a cluster of events does not provide a rational basis to invoke the supernatural. We call that "God of the Gaps," and it's fallacious. It's a classic argument from ignorance, which is fallacious.

Presuming the existence of your creator God permits you to invoke a supernatural explanation that supports your claim to a creator God. It's completely circular.

[huckelberry]

Mg, I do not see any reason to leave God out of consideration but believing in God does little to help me believe in plates or the Book of Mormon.

I think you are trying to make an end run to avoid the question of how the Book of Mormon fits historical realities.

Considering that article pointing out that Joseph Smith had no official training in creative writing I think that is an empty digression. I think he was not hampered by a bunch of academic rules which would have prevented him from creating the book. You do not need a college degree to be a good story teller. Talent lacked by most people, myself included, is what is needed along with drive, imagination, and ego.

[Gadianton]

And here is the connection. If the Book of Mormon had its origins in the visionary realm the likelihood of there having been real plates comes up a notch

You're really outdoing yourself, MG. if the Book of Mormon had its origins in the "visionary realm" (like the Book of Moses), then Joseph himself possessing real plates is unnecessary. Ockham's Razor.

why would he have lied about the angel and the plates?

Really taking the scenic route, bud. You've jumped ship on any meaningful connection between the plates and the Book of Mormon, and fall back on necessity of plates simply because Joseph claimed to have them (you've done this several times). In your argument, the Book of Mormon is as arbitrary with respect to the plates as anything else in his life. You could make the same point by wondering if D&C section 42 was really a revelation from the Lord to Joseph. If so, then by the same reasoning, you could ask, why would he have lied about the angel and the plates? The point being, if ANYTHING in Joseph's life is actually a direct verbal communication from Jesus Christ himself, then that seems to give a lot of credibility to Joseph and so if he said he had plates, then he likely had plates, and if he said he ate beacon for breakfast, one would think somebody so privileged wouldn't lie about it.

But this is a horribly un-interesting, mind-numbing argument. Nobody would write a paper to Interpreter to make this point.

[MG 2.0]

Yes and no. I listed four reasons that come to mind off the top of my head to have faith in God.

Anthropic/Goldilocks origins of the universe.
Purpose vs. no purpose (life has real meaning). Why is there something rather than nothing?
Scriptural records of the creator revealing Himself to mankind through prophets.
Jesus Christ revealing God in the flesh and laying out God’s plan and our relationship to Him.

The last two do make an assumption before hand that the God of the Bible exists. The second is more or less an ontological argument. The first doesn’t seem to be an a priori argument/reason to believe in God.

So it’s a mix. So faith itself is…or can be…a mish mash of both logic and reason based on experience, facts, history, intuition, and what have you.

Yes, at this point in my life…because of my own life experiences in learning and growth…I do start with the end in mind that there is a creator God. But I didn’t come at it willy nilly.

As far as Occam’s razor is concerned and using the Anthropic Principle/Goldilocks Principle I don’t see it as unreasonable to make an educated and reasonable default/turn to ‘God’.

But to each his or her own I guess.

Hale’s essay indirectly is another soft proof or evidence for something beyond the norm that can’t easily be explained. This, in turn, as I’ve said, can then lead to a more serious focus of the plates and the angel being what Joseph testified of them being.

Real.

But yeah, faith is still involved/necessary at the end of the day.

Regards,
MG

"Beyond the norm" isn't justification to invoke the supernatural. Life is filled with events that are contingent on a multitude of other events -- we have no ability to retrodict the odds that Smith wrote the Book of Mormon. History is full of events that had not been "normal" before they happened. Likewise, especially when we are talking about complex historical events, it is nearly certain that we will not have access to every detail. Again, the argument you describe requires presupposing it's ultimate conclusion. Inability to access sufficient information to explain some aspect of a cluster of events does not provide a rational basis to invoke the supernatural. We call that "God of the Gaps," and it's fallacious. It's a classic argument from ignorance, which is fallacious.

Presuming the existence of your creator God permits you to invoke a supernatural explanation that supports your claim to a creator God. It's completely circular.

I suppose I may not have been very clear. I’m not presuming…along a linear timeline…an A priori position the existence of God. There has been a significant amount of foot work that has gone into the presumption that I gravitate towards nowadays. There were a few years in which my A priori was that it was unlikely that there was a God.

Alas, I did not remain in that place. Mainly through intellectual reasoning and looking at what I felt to be somewhat incontrovertible evidence of the likelihood of a supreme intelligence of some sort. I then reasoned…using purpose and meaning as a guiding star…that this supreme intelligence might very well be the God which Joseph Smith and other prophets claimed to interact with.

That, then, made all the difference. So yes, when it comes to the plates and angels I’m open to these things.

I don’t see the discipline of logic as being the beginning and the end. I leave room for faith and lack of complete understanding when it comes to many things. I am not committed to getting stuck in a logic rut even though logic and reasoning have their place

Makes things more interesting.

You seem to be stuck in a rut of all powerful logic. A faith of sorts.

Regards,
MG