Defenders: Why didn't Joseph show Isaac Hale the plates?

[_Daniel Peterson]

Here's a nice medical study of two-mile runs carrying a 30kg (i.e., 66 pound) backpack:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_q ... i_n8897301

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10834253

The most common estimates of the weight of the plates put them at about 60 pounds, concentrated very densely into an extremely compact area.

[_Scottie]

I have seen mention of the weight of the plates as being 240 lbs. based on the dimensions and the heaviness of gold.

There is some speculation that the plates may have been an alloy rather than gold (tenisum or tumbaga or something like that?) which would have appeared to be gold, but much lighter.

[_Sethbag]

Wasn't it Isaac Hale who wanted nothing to do with the plates?

I think he wanted nothing to do with Joseph Smith, whom he regarded as a charlatan. Had the plates actually been real, however, I reckon his attitude would have been different.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Wasn't it Isaac Hale who wanted nothing to do with the plates?

I think he wanted nothing to do with Joseph Smith, whom he regarded as a charlatan. Had the plates actually been real, however, I reckon his attitude would have been different.

I think you may have mis-phrased this. Had the plates been real, you say, Hale would have had a different attitude about Smith. It almost appears as though you are saying that we can guess, from Hale's opinion of Smith, that the plates were not actually real.

[_harmony]

Are there any reviews online of his book of which you might be aware?

Here's one, by Matthew Bryde, who has done several reviews for Amazon, dated Sept. 5, 2008 from Amazon.com (Daniel didn't like it much):

Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses
by Richard L. Anderson
Edition: Paperback
Availability: Out of Print--Limited Availability
8 used & new from $10.00


This author wants to have his cake AND eat it too!!!, September 5, 2008
First, to say something positive, this book is one of the rare few books one can purchase that specifically discusses in detail the lives of the Witnesses of the Book of Mormon, and not a broader history of the Mormon Church. As such, it does a reasonable job.

However, having read many books on church history, this book is one of the most blatantly biased books I have read. As a Mormon, I obviously have no problem with the beliefs of the author, but I do have a low tolerance of historical accounts biased by an author's personal beliefs. This book is entirely agenda driven, and I really struggled to get to the end.

A common occurrence throughout the book is whenever the author quotes a source unfavourable to his beliefs he quotes only the part that he agrees with, using favourable adjectives, but then in the footnotes will state the rest of what the quoted source had to say could not possibly be believed, with negative adjectives used to back his personal beliefs/agenda:

e.g. "irresponsible rumour", "irregular statements", "undoubtedly bends words", "convenient revelation"

Some other examples of the subjective commentary:

p33, footnote #15: "Martin Harris seems responsibly reported by Tiffany, with the exception of..."
p57: Oliver Cowdery "logically affiliated himself with a Christian congregation". Joseph Smith was told to join none of the churches because of their corruptness. How then is it possibly "logical" for Oliver to join one?
p58: On Oliver's courtroom testimony, the author describes how inaccurate the sources are, but because they back his point of view, he then states: "Yet history is filled with examples of authentic events not very accurately described..."
p64, footnote #18: "There is every reason to trust Lang's personal reminiscences but every reason to distrust Lang's theories on the origin of the Book of Mormon"
p144: "Though filled with inaccuracies..."

Other inconsistencies:

p162: "A source to be quoted..." ????
p142: To use the author's own words - "...to take certain vindictive testimonials as historical fact is the height of irresponsibility". No, to quote the parts you agree with and discard the parts you don't, would be the "height of irresponsibility".

As a historian, you cannot simply extract what you like from someone's account and dismiss everything else they had to say, labelling the source as hostile or unreliable because the rest of their account contradicts your personal beliefs.

The final two chapters make up the conclusion of the author's message and are more scholarly than the remainder of the book, and are actually quite convincing in their effort to convey the fact that 1st hand accounts directly from the witnesses themselves carry more weight than all other accounts. Based on these accounts, there is no conclusive record (according to the author) of any of the Three Witnesses ever denying what they stated in the official testimony, in spite of all three leaving the official LDS organisation.

On a final note, I personally struggle with the fact that based on those last two paragraphs (above), we are left with someone like David Whitmer, a man of solid integrity, who in his published account proclaims his testimony of the Book of Mormon to be true, and then also states Joseph Smith was led astray (by Sidney Rigdon) and introduced doctrines not of God, and that David Whitmer had this all confirmed via a revelation involving a visitation from an angel.

Do we believe it all, do we believe none, or only the parts we want...?

link: http://www.amazon.com/review/R1PPNID1F8 ... NID1F8UP5O

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Are there any reviews online of his book of which you might be aware?

Here's one, by Matthew Bryde, who has done several reviews for Amazon, dated Sept. 5, 2008 from Amazon.com (Daniel didn't like it much):

Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses
by Richard L. Anderson
Edition: Paperback
Availability: Out of Print--Limited Availability
8 used & new from $10.00


This author wants to have his cake AND eat it too!!!, September 5, 2008
First, to say something positive, this book is one of the rare few books one can purchase that specifically discusses in detail the lives of the Witnesses of the Book of Mormon, and not a broader history of the Mormon Church. As such, it does a reasonable job.

However, having read many books on church history, this book is one of the most blatantly biased books I have read. As a Mormon, I obviously have no problem with the beliefs of the author, but I do have a low tolerance of historical accounts biased by an author's personal beliefs. This book is entirely agenda driven, and I really struggled to get to the end.

A common occurrence throughout the book is whenever the author quotes a source unfavourable to his beliefs he quotes only the part that he agrees with, using favourable adjectives, but then in the footnotes will state the rest of what the quoted source had to say could not possibly be believed, with negative adjectives used to back his personal beliefs/agenda:

e.g. "irresponsible rumour", "irregular statements", "undoubtedly bends words", "convenient revelation"

Some other examples of the subjective commentary:

p33, footnote #15: "Martin Harris seems responsibly reported by Tiffany, with the exception of..."
p57: Oliver Cowdery "logically affiliated himself with a Christian congregation". Joseph Smith was told to join none of the churches because of their corruptness. How then is it possibly "logical" for Oliver to join one?
p58: On Oliver's courtroom testimony, the author describes how inaccurate the sources are, but because they back his point of view, he then states: "Yet history is filled with examples of authentic events not very accurately described..."
p64, footnote #18: "There is every reason to trust Lang's personal reminiscences but every reason to distrust Lang's theories on the origin of the Book of Mormon"
p144: "Though filled with inaccuracies..."

Other inconsistencies:

p162: "A source to be quoted..." ????
p142: To use the author's own words - "...to take certain vindictive testimonials as historical fact is the height of irresponsibility". No, to quote the parts you agree with and discard the parts you don't, would be the "height of irresponsibility".

As a historian, you cannot simply extract what you like from someone's account and dismiss everything else they had to say, labelling the source as hostile or unreliable because the rest of their account contradicts your personal beliefs.

The final two chapters make up the conclusion of the author's message and are more scholarly than the remainder of the book, and are actually quite convincing in their effort to convey the fact that 1st hand accounts directly from the witnesses themselves carry more weight than all other accounts. Based on these accounts, there is no conclusive record (according to the author) of any of the Three Witnesses ever denying what they stated in the official testimony, in spite of all three leaving the official LDS organisation.

On a final note, I personally struggle with the fact that based on those last two paragraphs (above), we are left with someone like David Whitmer, a man of solid integrity, who in his published account proclaims his testimony of the Book of Mormon to be true, and then also states Joseph Smith was led astray (by Sidney Rigdon) and introduced doctrines not of God, and that David Whitmer had this all confirmed via a revelation involving a visitation from an angel.

Do we believe it all, do we believe none, or only the parts we want...?

link: http://www.amazon.com/review/R1PPNID1F8 ... NID1F8UP5O

I would question that reviewers general understanding of historical methodology.

[_gramps]

Thanks, Harmony! And, he was a member, too. Did DCP somewhere explain already whether he agrees with the review and why or why not?

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Thanks, Harmony! And, he was a member, too. Did DCP somewhere explain already whether he agrees with the review and why or why not?

How would you answer the reviewer's question:

Do we believe it all, do we believe none, or only the parts we want...?

[_antishock8]

I have seen mention of the weight of the plates as being 240 lbs. based on the dimensions and the heaviness of gold.

There is some speculation that the plates may have been an alloy rather than gold (tenisum or tumbaga or something like that?) which would have appeared to be gold, but much lighter.

And what weight would that be? Let's be charitable, and grab a 30 lbs kettle bell, and try to jog 1/4 of a mile with it. Now juxtapose that experience against Mr. Smith's dashing story of daring-do. The reality check definitely puts Mr. Smith's "golden" plates story into perspective.




%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

[_Sethbag]

I think you may have mis-phrased this. Had the plates been real, you say, Hale would have had a different attitude about Smith. It almost appears as though you are saying that we can guess, from Hale's opinion of Smith, that the plates were not actually real.

That's not quite what I was trying to say, though I suppose that would be a reasonable corollary.

Hale had a very low opinion of Smith, based on his disbelief of Smith's treasure-hunting claims and the belief that Joseph was a charlatan and was making up the stuff about being able to see and find buried treasure.

I believe that this opinion of Smith would have been different, if the golden plates had turned out actually to exist, and Isaac Hale had confirmed this to his own satisfaction by holding them and thumbing through them and whatnot.

So, in a manner of speaking, the fact that Hale didn't think well of Joseph at least demonstrates that Hale didn't believe that the plates existed, and this was one stumblingblock Joseph could easily have remedied by showing Hale the plates. Why didn't he? I guess the excuse is "cuz God didn't want Hale to see the plates". I believe Joseph didn't show Hale because he didn't have any the plates to show.