Converts to Limnor's Book of Mormon Origins?

[MG 2.0]

Emma Smith described the plates as “pliable like thick paper” and said they would “rustle with a metallic sound” when thumbed. This statement comes from her 1879 interview published in The Saints’ Herald.

Full excerpt:


Regards,
MG

MG, in the interview you drew this quote from, Emma Hale proves herself to be hopelessly unreliable. In it, she repeatedly and shamelessly lies through her teeth. You already knew this, but you chose to use this source anyway. Why is that?

She describes the composition and/or the feel of the plates and also the part she played in the translation and some of the details concerning the time she spent helping in the translation.

I suppose what you're saying is that because she did not tell the truth in regard to Joseph's practice of plurality of wives then she shouldn't be trusted with what she said about the plates and her part in the translation. As I read the complete text of the 1879 interview, I believe that there was and/or may have been a compartmentalization which was taking place/occuring in Emma's mind. Polygamy was a practice that had cost her dearly. Whether she was reframing, forgetting, or protecting, it’s clear she was speaking from a place of pain. Her testimony may have been and internal negotiation between what happened and what she could bear to say. As many years had passed since this time of trauma she may have seen this also as a time in which she could shield her family and new faith community from a divisive legacy.

On the other hand, Emma’s testimony about the plates is tactile, mundane, and tied to her domestic role. It’s not emotionally fraught, and she had no reason to distort or hide it. Also, her tactile description is consistent with other witnesses.

Emma’s testimony, in my opinion, was a blend of faith, belief, trauma, loyalty, and memory. She may have honestly thought at that point in time that she had good reason to withhold the truth in regard to polygamy and yet tell the truth in regard to the plates. More or less a coping mechanism within the framework of her current life trajectory in 1879.

Beyond that, I don't know that I have anything else to contribute on this score. It's a matter of how one thinks this little snapshot of time fits in with the larger bird's eye view of the Restoration and everything that has come about since that time.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

... Also, her tactile description is consistent with other witnesses....

It is? Here's hoping the mental gymnast will ask the AI he cut-and-pasted this from to provide documentation for this.

[Limnor]

If Emma could bend the truth about polygamy, she could’ve done the same about the plates. Though in this case, I don’t think she did. She was describing exactly what she felt—copper printing plates

[malkie]

MG, in the interview you drew this quote from, Emma Hale proves herself to be hopelessly unreliable. In it, she repeatedly and shamelessly lies through her teeth. You already knew this, but you chose to use this source anyway. Why is that?

She describes the composition and/or the feel of the plates and also the part she played in the translation and some of the details concerning the time she spent helping in the translation.

I suppose what you're saying is that because she did not tell the truth in regard to Joseph's practice of plurality of wives then she shouldn't be trusted with what she said about the plates and her part in the translation. As I read the complete text of the 1879 interview, I believe that there was and/or may have been a compartmentalization which was taking place/occuring in Emma's mind. Polygamy was a practice that had cost her dearly. Whether she was reframing, forgetting, or protecting, it’s clear she was speaking from a place of pain. Her testimony may have been and internal negotiation between what happened and what she could bear to say. As many years had passed since this time of trauma she may have seen this also as a time in which she could shield her family and new faith community from a divisive legacy.

On the other hand, Emma’s testimony about the plates is tactile, mundane, and tied to her domestic role. It’s not emotionally fraught, and she had no reason to distort or hide it. Also, her tactile description is consistent with other witnesses.

Emma’s testimony, in my opinion, was a blend of faith, belief, trauma, loyalty, and memory. She may have honestly thought at that point in time that she had good reason to withhold the truth in regard to polygamy and yet tell the truth in regard to the plates. More or less a coping mechanism within the framework of her current life trajectory in 1879.

Beyond that, I don't know that I have anything else to contribute on this score. It's a matter of how one thinks this little snapshot of time fits in with the larger bird's eye view of the Restoration and everything that has come about since that time.

Regards,
MG

My underscoring and colouring.

Lots of very detailed speculation on your part about Emma's possible mental state, all, interestingly, supporting your preferred conclusion.

Just my opinion ( ), but I don't think that all of that detail really strengthens your case. You could condense all of the coloured part into "I believe what Emma said about the plates", and probably be just as convincing, without inventing descriptions of Emma's supposed emotions.

In spite of all that you say, it's also possible that:

• there was no compartmentalization taking place in Emma's mind
• she was not reframing, forgetting, or protecting, any more than "memory" is routinely subject to reframing and forgetfulness
• she was not speaking from a place of pain, having resolved that pain long before
• her testimony may not have been an internal negotiation between what happened and what she could bear to say
• she may not have seen any need to shield her family and new faith
• she may not have thought there was any reason to withhold the truth in regard to polygamy and yet tell the truth in regard to the plates

[I Have Questions]

I suppose what you're saying is that because she did not tell the truth in regard to Joseph's practice of plurality of wives then she shouldn't be trusted with what she said about the plates and her part in the translation.

Can you explain why that isn’t a reasonable, sensible, conclusion? Or explain on what basis one can trust her testimony on the plates whilst knowing her testimony on Joseph’s philandering is wilfully untrue?

It’s like holding a position that Joseph was a “mere boy” (your description) when he had the First Vision so as to explain why the account varied so much over time. But refusing to accept that a 37 year man married and had sex with a mere girl, despite Helen Mar Kimball being the same age Joseph was when he had the First Vision.

[MG 2.0]

If Emma could bend the truth about polygamy, she could’ve done the same about the plates. Though in this case, I don’t think she did. She was describing exactly what she felt—copper printing plates

At least we are in agreement that she may have felt the plates.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

She describes the composition and/or the feel of the plates and also the part she played in the translation and some of the details concerning the time she spent helping in the translation.

I suppose what you're saying is that because she did not tell the truth in regard to Joseph's practice of plurality of wives then she shouldn't be trusted with what she said about the plates and her part in the translation. As I read the complete text of the 1879 interview, I believe that there was and/or may have been a compartmentalization which was taking place/occuring in Emma's mind. Polygamy was a practice that had cost her dearly. Whether she was reframing, forgetting, or protecting, it’s clear she was speaking from a place of pain. Her testimony may have been and internal negotiation between what happened and what she could bear to say. As many years had passed since this time of trauma she may have seen this also as a time in which she could shield her family and new faith community from a divisive legacy.

On the other hand, Emma’s testimony about the plates is tactile, mundane, and tied to her domestic role. It’s not emotionally fraught, and she had no reason to distort or hide it. Also, her tactile description is consistent with other witnesses.

Emma’s testimony, in my opinion, was a blend of faith, belief, trauma, loyalty, and memory. She may have honestly thought at that point in time that she had good reason to withhold the truth in regard to polygamy and yet tell the truth in regard to the plates. More or less a coping mechanism within the framework of her current life trajectory in 1879.

Beyond that, I don't know that I have anything else to contribute on this score. It's a matter of how one thinks this little snapshot of time fits in with the larger bird's eye view of the Restoration and everything that has come about since that time.

Regards,
MG

In spite of all that you say, it's also possible that:

• there was no compartmentalization taking place in Emma's mind
• she was not reframing, forgetting, or protecting, any more than "memory" is routinely subject to reframing and forgetfulness
• she was not speaking from a place of pain, having resolved that pain long before
• her testimony may not have been an internal negotiation between what happened and what she could bear to say
• she may not have seen any need to shield her family and new faith
• she may not have thought there was any reason to withhold the truth in regard to polygamy and yet tell the truth in regard to the plates

I suppose that's true from a critic's point of view.

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

She describes the composition and/or the feel of the plates and also the part she played in the translation and some of the details concerning the time she spent helping in the translation.

I suppose what you're saying is that because she did not tell the truth in regard to Joseph's practice of plurality of wives then she shouldn't be trusted with what she said about the plates and her part in the translation. As I read the complete text of the 1879 interview, I believe that there was and/or may have been a compartmentalization which was taking place/occuring in Emma's mind. Polygamy was a practice that had cost her dearly. Whether she was reframing, forgetting, or protecting, it’s clear she was speaking from a place of pain. Her testimony may have been and internal negotiation between what happened and what she could bear to say. As many years had passed since this time of trauma she may have seen this also as a time in which she could shield her family and new faith community from a divisive legacy.

On the other hand, Emma’s testimony about the plates is tactile, mundane, and tied to her domestic role. It’s not emotionally fraught, and she had no reason to distort or hide it. Also, her tactile description is consistent with other witnesses.

Emma’s testimony, in my opinion, was a blend of faith, belief, trauma, loyalty, and memory. She may have honestly thought at that point in time that she had good reason to withhold the truth in regard to polygamy and yet tell the truth in regard to the plates. More or less a coping mechanism within the framework of her current life trajectory in 1879.

Beyond that, I don't know that I have anything else to contribute on this score. It's a matter of how one thinks this little snapshot of time fits in with the larger bird's eye view of the Restoration and everything that has come about since that time.

Regards,
MG

In spite of all that you say, it's also possible that:

• there was no compartmentalization taking place in Emma's mind
• she was not reframing, forgetting, or protecting, any more than "memory" is routinely subject to reframing and forgetfulness
• she was not speaking from a place of pain, having resolved that pain long before
• her testimony may not have been an internal negotiation between what happened and what she could bear to say
• she may not have seen any need to shield her family and new faith
• she may not have thought there was any reason to withhold the truth in regard to polygamy and yet tell the truth in regard to the plates

I suppose that's true from a critic's point of view.

Regards,
MG

You know that I'm talking about possibilities, right?

Are you saying that the bulleted statements cannot possibly be true from the PoV of anyone but a critic? If so, isn't that a bit of a stretch?

[Morley]

MG, in the interview you drew this quote from, Emma Hale proves herself to be hopelessly unreliable. In it, she repeatedly and shamelessly lies through her teeth. You already knew this, but you chose to use this source anyway. Why is that?

She describes the composition and/or the feel of the plates and also the part she played in the translation and some of the details concerning the time she spent helping in the translation.
I suppose what you're saying is that because she did not tell the truth in regard to Joseph's practice of plurality of wives then she shouldn't be trusted with what she said about the plates and her part in the translation.

She was self-serving in denying her husband's polygamy. It's reasonable to suppose this same self-serving impulse asserted itself in her description of the so-called plates.

As I read the complete text of the 1879 interview, I believe that there was and/or may have been a compartmentalization which was taking place/occuring in Emma's mind.

What, other than your need to defend the Church, would and/or may have caused you to 'believe that there was and/or may have been a compartmentalization which was taking place/occurring in Emma's mind'?

Polygamy was a practice that had cost her dearly. Whether she was reframing, forgetting, or protecting, it’s clear she was speaking from a place of pain.

Obviously, she was an abused woman. Her husband and her God both abused and exploited her, wouldn't you agree?

Her testimony may have been and internal negotiation between what happened and what she could bear to say. As many years had passed since this time of trauma she may have seen this also as a time in which she could shield her family and new faith community from a divisive legacy.

And, as malkie points out, she 'may' not have done any of this.

You have to admit, if Emma wanted to shield her sons from her husband's infidelity, she'd probably also want to shield them from his falsehoods about angels and Hebrew Indians and golden plates.

On the other hand, Emma’s testimony about the plates is tactile, mundane, and tied to her domestic role.

Probably in the same way that her husband bedding the hired help in her own home became tactile, mundane, and tied to her domestic role.

It’s not emotionally fraught, and she had no reason to distort or hide it. Also, her tactile description is consistent with other witnesses.

She had every reason to distort and hide it. She wanted her son to inherit her husband's place in the nascent religion.

As Marcus has already requested, maybe you can show how her 'tactile description' is consistent with the descriptions of other witnesses.

Emma’s testimony, in my opinion, was a blend of faith, belief, trauma, loyalty, and memory. She may have honestly thought at that point in time that she had good reason to withhold the truth in regard to polygamy and yet tell the truth in regard to the plates. More or less a coping mechanism within the framework of her current life trajectory in 1879.

Or she may have just lied about both. As you say, 'more or less a coping mechanism within the framework of her current life trajectory in 1879.'

Beyond that, I don't know that I have anything else to contribute on this score. It's a matter of how one thinks this little snapshot of time fits in with the larger bird's eye view of the Restoration and everything that has come about since that time.

Indeed.



Edits: Formatting & grammar.

[Limnor]

If Emma could bend the truth about polygamy, she could’ve done the same about the plates. Though in this case, I don’t think she did. She was describing exactly what she felt—copper printing plates

At least we are in agreement that she may have felt the plates.

Regards,
MG

Sure, I’ll concede that, because of the timeline and what those plates actually were.

I think the 3 and 8 saw plates too, they just weren’t ancient golden plates.

It’s more likely that Joseph obtained copper printing plates following the Morgan affair—and I think a critical reading of the actual text as compared to happenings in the 19th century within Joseph’s sphere supports that view.