Could Joseph Smith Make the Plates?

[MG 2.0]

Grant Hardy:

The plates, assuming their ancient construction, would have been evidence to Joseph, his early associates, and modern believers that there was some historical basis for the scriptural narrative he published in 1830.
https://byustudies.BYU.edu/article/what ... old-plates

So much rides on the plates. No one, as I said earlier, is arguing that. In fact, they are ALL important. Some of the comments (conclusions?) on this thread are based on the testimony on one witness? C'mon.

Those danged pesky plates.

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

Talking about "a lot of weight to put on one witness", do any other significant Mormon-related events spring to mind? I could think of a few.

Josiah Stowell testified to an observation that he claims to have made - something that doesn't fall into the category of extraordinary in any way. Does that make it any different from events to which Joseph Smith claims to have been the sole witness - including some events on whose reality the religion depends?

If we are to challenge the "stone of greenish caste" because only Josiah is documented as having made the observation, should we not also challenge Joseph's claims of much more unusual occurrences?

Should we start a list:

• Moroni's visit
• First Vision
• Running through the woods with the plates

Room left for others to contribute - MG even might think of a few.

"So much rides on" these claims. "All based on the testimony on one witness? C'mon."

[Limnor]

Talking about "a lot of weight to put on one witness", do any other significant Mormon-related events spring to mind? I could think of a few.

Josiah Stowell testified to an observation that he claims to have made - something that doesn't fall into the category of extraordinary in any way. Does that make it any different from events to which Joseph Smith claims to have been the sole witness - including some events on whose reality the religion depends?

If we are to challenge the "stone of greenish caste" because only Josiah is documented as having made the observation, should we not also challenge Joseph's claims of much more unusual occurrences?

Should we start a list:

• Moroni's visit
• First Vision
• Running through the woods with the plates

Room left for others to contribute - MG even might think of a few.

"So much rides on" these claims. "All based on the testimony on one witness? C'mon."

I do recall recently reading here of an account from Cowdery describing darker or blackened areas on the plates. That at least suggests the appearance wasn’t uniformly “golden,” though it doesn’t really corroborate a specifically green patina. Could have been ink residue?

[MG 2.0]

Talking about "a lot of weight to put on one witness", do any other significant Mormon-related events spring to mind? I could think of a few.

Josiah Stowell testified to an observation that he claims to have made - something that doesn't fall into the category of extraordinary in any way. Does that make it any different from events to which Joseph Smith claims to have been the sole witness - including some events on whose reality the religion depends?

If we are to challenge the "stone of greenish caste" because only Josiah is documented as having made the observation, should we not also challenge Joseph's claims of much more unusual occurrences?

Should we start a list:

• Moroni's visit
• First Vision
• Running through the woods with the plates

Room left for others to contribute - MG even might think of a few.

"So much rides on" these claims. "All based on the testimony on one witness? C'mon."

Ah, the "should we not" argument. I suppose you can go with that.

He is a friendly witness. But he is the only one that gave this particular testimony. He also said...at the same time he made the "green caste" statement...that Joseph told the witnesses that the leaves were of gold and there were written characters on the leaves.

He never denied that the plates were made of a gold like material.

At the end of the day believers hold to an oxidized copper or mixed metal set of plates while at the same time treating Stowell as sincere in what he saw. The fact is, however, his witness in unique and isolated. You folks are taking the position that this description lends itself towards 'fabricated plates'.

And that this is the only possibility.

Again, this is a lot of weight (conclusionary) to put on the testimony of one man.

Anything to falsify those plates!

Regards,
MG

[Shulem]

That's a lot of weight to put on one witness.

Same goes for the so-called First Vision and the varying accounts that followed concerning who appeared to the lone boy, Joseph. I have a thread up in the Celestial forum that discusses the issue and Gadianton said it was "epic."

[malkie]

I don't care about falsifying the plates using Josiah's testimony. After all, a greenish colour on a corner could have come about by multiple means, assuming, for the sake of argument, that the plates existed. in my opinion, the greenish colour on its own is not all that important.

However, since MG introduced the idea of the unreliability of a single-witness uncorroborated claim, should he not examine other "single witness" claims - especially claims that are much more important.

As far as I know, "should we not" is a perfectly valid way of introducing the comparison and contrasting of items with some similar and some different characteristics. Perhaps MG would like to explain why he is disparaging it.

However, to avoid upsetting MG with `the "should we not" argument`, I'll put it this way instead:

If MG challenges the "stone of greenish caste" because only Josiah is documented as having made the observation, for consistency I'd like to see him challenge Joseph's sole-witness claims of much more unusual occurrences.

Let's start a list:

• Moroni's visit
• First Vision
• Running through the woods with the plates

Room left for others to contribute - MG even might think of a few.

"So much rides on" these claims. "All based on the testimony on one witness? C'mon."

[Shulem]

So much rides on the plates. No one, as I said earlier, is arguing that. In fact, they are ALL important.

Which is exactly why the fake plates were never handed over to nonbiased witnesses and examined by men of science. The whole thing was a fraud. I know that with every bit of knowledge that I possess and all the energy of my soul! There is no power on earth or in heaven that can force/make me to believe otherwise.

With arms and hands lifted up.

I so testify.

[Shulem]

Those danged pesky plates.

Ah, you mock the plates.

Good for you, MG, I see right through you.

[Marcus]

Grant Hardy:

The plates, assuming their ancient construction, would have been evidence to Joseph, his early associates, and modern believers that there was some historical basis for the scriptural narrative he published in 1830.
https://byustudies.BYU.edu/article/what ... old-plates

So much rides on the plates. No one, as I said earlier, is arguing that....

If I understand this incoherent structure, mentalgymnast is arguing that because of an article he quoted, he thinks everyone agrees there are plates. However, the article he quoted was specifically about whether believing lds members think there are plates. Well, of course they do. Flat-earthers think the earth is flat, conspiracy theorists believe in their conspiracies, Sasquatch groupies know there's a Sasquatch.

As for everyone else? No, there is not a universal belief in this supernatural event, any more than "everyone" believes in Santa Claus.

[MG 2.0]

I don't care about falsifying the plates using Josiah's testimony. After all, a greenish colour on a corner could have come about by multiple means, assuming, for the sake of argument, that the plates existed. in my opinion, the greenish colour on its own is not all that important.

However, since MG introduced the idea of the unreliability of a single-witness uncorroborated claim, should he not examine other "single witness" claims - especially claims that are much more important.

As far as I know, "should we not" is a perfectly valid way of introducing the comparison and contrasting of items with some similar and some different characteristics. Perhaps MG would like to explain why he is disparaging it.

However, to avoid upsetting MG with `the "should we not" argument`, I'll put it this way instead:

If MG challenges the "stone of greenish caste" because only Josiah is documented as having made the observation, for consistency I'd like to see him challenge Joseph's sole-witness claims of much more unusual occurrences.

Let's start a list:

• Moroni's visit
• First Vision
• Running through the woods with the plates

Room left for others to contribute - MG even might think of a few.

"So much rides on" these claims. "All based on the testimony on one witness? C'mon."

I think any witness statement coming from only one individual...who's statement varies from other witnesses (important point)...ought to be looked over carefully.

The 'green caste' may not be a deal breaker for you but it seems to be for others.

Again, that's a lot of weight to put on one witness when there were other witnesses that claimed to actually see the plates.

Critics, understandingly, are hell bent on disproving/disparaging the authenticity of the plates. No surprise there.

Regards,
MG