Mike Reed Drops Bomb on Metal Plates

[_beefcalf]

As a bystander, is it safe for me to conclude that Mike Reed's paper isn't so much a direct blow against LDS doctrine or truth-claims as it is a blow against LDS apologetics? Am I getting that right?

[_Kishkumen]

I continue to find all of this really perplexing. Mike Reed does a project on early 19th century knowledge of metal records, Richard Bushman is intrigued and asks him to do more work, and Mike does. His results were to find that, contrary to the assumptions of some apologists, which have been quoted (e.g. Mike Ash's work), the idea was known.

I really don't get what the big controversy was all about. Especially when the apologists assure us that they really did know this, that the idea is right there in the Bible, which we all know that Joseph Smith knew quite well before he translated the Book of Mormon. If all of this was no problem whatsoever, then why did Gee behave as he apparently did? Was this performance just for the benefit of the unsuspecting member who walked into the seminar that day and had no clue before she or he got there that Joseph Smith might have taken this idea from well available sources?

And now we have this continuing dog and pony show about whether Joseph Smith might have had access to the idea in a Bible Dictionary. I'm sorry, but if the concept was already available in the Bible itself, we don't need to look any further. So, once again, we have suffered through another pointless waste of time and dramatic show thanks to the apologists, who evidently think that making a scene is necessary, so long as no one calls them on it.

The more I observe this bad joke, the more I feel like I am hearing about the tedious proceedings of a club of conspiracy theorists or the Tea Party talking about death panels and Obama the Muslim foreigner. Any stupid crank theory with the right conclusion is touted as groundbreaking, but anything that sounds like it might lead to the wrong conclusion is treated to a histrionic performance in response. It is completely bonkers.

[_Kishkumen]

As a bystander, is it safe for me to conclude that Mike Reed's paper isn't so much a direct blow against LDS doctrine or truth-claims as it is a blow against LDS apologetics? Am I getting that right?

Who knows, eh? Different apologists send different signals. They seem to be confused about whether this makes any difference or not, or whether they knew about it or not. My money is on them concluding that they already knew all of this and it is inconsequential. They are just taking a little time to find unity in that message.

[_Mortal Man]

Dr. Peterson is over on MDD trying very hard to convince everyone that the attack on Mike Reed was in no way a coordinated effort on the part of the Maxwell Institute, which in and of itself is intriguing. (He tends to only put in this level of effort when something's at stake. Think of his denials/exaggerations, etc. w/r/t the 2nd Watson Letter.) So my question here is this: Did Jack Welch "order" the harassment of Mike Reed? We already know the following:

--Jack Welch was a founder of FARMS.
--Quite a bit of negative prose has been devoted to attacking Dan Vogel in the pages of the FARMS Review.
--Nevo relied on Vogel and was criticized by Welch such that he was left "awe-struck."
--Mike Reed was personally criticized by Jack Welch.
--Mike Reed used some of Vogel's scholarship for his presentation, and--lo and behold--he's criticized on precisely those grounds.
--Both Roper and Gee exhibited odd behavior in the wake of their aggressive questions.

Sure: it's possible that all of this is pure coincidence. Nevertheless, I'll go ahead and borrow from Dr. Gee in suggesting that, perhaps unknowingly, the apologists coordinated an effort to sandbag Mike Reed's presentation.

I'd like to know why Midgley and Roper wouldn't sit with Gee. Is this evidence of a schism within the MI or was it part of the plan to bombard Mike from all corners of the room?

[_Joseph Antley]

I think this would have been my only complain about Mike's presentation. He repeatedly referenced a Bible dictionary that referenced ancient metal records, and went on to imply that Joseph Smith had to be aware of it because he donated the Bible dictionary to the Nauvoo library in 1844.

The obvious problem is that we're talking about Joseph Smith pre-1828, and I think it's extremely unlikely that Joseph Smith had that same book in his possession in the 1820s. That Joseph Smith possessed the Bible dictionary in 1844 seemed almost completely inconsequential, yet the way that Mike presented it made it seem (to me, at least) like he thought it was a home run.

I think Mike's overall thesis is certainly correct, but I think the ideas would have circulated to Joseph and his neighbors through oral means rather than through Joseph Smith's copious adolescent book reading or that of his family members.

It appears the only two publications of John Brown's Dictionary of the Holy Bible prior to January 31, 1844 (http://www.xmission.com/~research/about/books.htm) were 1816 and 1824 (http://books.google.com/books/about/A_d ... 1AAAAAIAAJ). Both before 1828. That does not prove Mike Reed correct, but it helps him. It would be much different if the first publication was after 1830.

EDITED TO CORRECT GRAMMAR.

True, and that was clear in the presentation. But the question is, did Joseph or his family purchase a Bible dictionary in the 1820s or did he spend his free time reading one? That just seems out of character from what we know about the teenage Joseph Smith. Rather, it sounds much more like the Joseph Smith of the 1830s, when he was in a much better position to obtain a book like this.

What seems most likely is that Joseph Smith purchased the Bible dictionary in the 1830s and donated it in 1844. In my opinion it seems very, very unlikely that he was introduced to the idea of ancient metal records by it. And of course this doesn't affect Mike's thesis at all. Obviously some people must have been aware of the concept, and the ideas may have been transmitted orally to Joseph Smith and company. That seems much more plausible.

[_Kishkumen]

But the question is, did Joseph or his family purchase a Bible dictionary in the 1820s or did he spend his free time reading one? That just seems out of character from what we know about the teenage Joseph Smith. Rather, it sounds much more like the Joseph Smith of the 1830s, when he was in a much better position to obtain a book like this.

Why does this matter, Antley?

[_Simon Belmont]

Yes, it was a real tour de force performance on Dr. Peterson's part.

I feel a moral obligation to refer you to this, and only because you asked.

[_Kishkumen]

Yes, it was a real tour de force performance on Dr. Peterson's part.

I feel a moral obligation to refer you to this, and only because you asked.

Thanks, Simon. I am not attacking Dr. Peterson. I am complimenting him for his excellent apologetic fancy footwork. I respect professional work when I see it.

[_Nevo]

Can someone give me the reference for metal plates in the Bible.

Exodus 28:36 "And thou shalt make a plate of pure gold, and grave upon it, like the engravings of a signet, HOLINESS TO THE LORD"

Exodus 39:30 "And they made the plate of the holy crown of pure gold, and wrote upon it a writing, like to the engravings of a signet, HOLINESS TO THE LORD"

1 Maccabees 8:22 "And this is the copy of the epistle which (the senate) wrote back again, in tables of brass..."

1 Maccabees 14:18 "They wrote unto him in tables of brass, to renew the friendship and league which they had made with Judas and Jonathan his brethren"

1 Maccabees 14:27 "So then they wrote [it] in tables of brass, which they set upon pillars in mount Zion..."

1 Maccabees 14:48 "So they commanded that this writing should be put in tables of brass, and that they should be set up within the compass of the sanctuary in a conspicuous place"

[_Kishkumen]

And so we see that all the fuss is over NOTHING.