Mike Reed Drops Bomb on Metal Plates

[_why me]

Is it proper to have apologists on hand to critique scholarly presentations? Can you imagine Aquinas or Darwin having the Grand Inquisitioners in the audience looking for doctrinal purity rather than a greater understanding. Usually new information added to a subject simply deepens our understanding of that subject. Why not embrace this new information?

-

Critics are embrassing this information but only in a sense that it may put the LDS church in an awkward position. I have never known critics to embrass information that may be in favor of the LDS church without criticism and mocking. It has nothing to do with new understanding. But it has much to do with supposed vindication. Such is life on the internet where people seek bias confirmation and not bias challenging. These boards on the internet whether it be an ex board, a post board, a catholic taliban board, Carm, etc are not about bias challenging. But they are about bias confirmation.

[_why me]

Also (lol!), I see that DCP tried to defuse the situation by claiming that Gee et al. had to "flee" the presentation in order to attend an MI-sponsored dinner:

You must be not married. When one is going out to dinner and this dinner is a public event, and when one is at a seminar and the wife at home and she may be a little nicely put off about the seminar because of a dinner party rush, one must usually be home early enough for the wife to get ready and give support to make up, zip up, and a small host of other things. She may even want a little action before the party. Better to be home early in any case.

[_Dr. Shades]

. . . one must usually be home early enough for the wife to get ready and give support to make up, zip up, and a small host of other things.

That makes sense. The off-chance that a wife might need a "zip up" has a much higher claim on one's time than spending fifteen minutes sharing one's sources with the person who asked to see them.

[_why me]

. . . one must usually be home early enough for the wife to get ready and give support to make up, zip up, and a small host of other things.

That makes sense. The off-chance that a wife might need a "zip up" has a much higher claim on one's time than spending fifteen minutes sharing one's sources with the person who asked to see them.

Actually, we have no idea why he had to leave. But certainly doing things before the party would be a good reason. And having a dinner party with the wife would be a good reason to leave early and do the things that need to be done before the party.

[_Kishkumen]

I don't care who had to leave when and for what reason. The bottom line for me is this: Gee asked a stupid question that was in keeping with the usual LDS apologetic tactic of throwing up any obfuscation, confusion, or distraction when faced with uncomfortable information. In this case, it was so obvious to all present that even his fellow apologists didn't have much to say in his defense when it was first brought up on Facebook. It was an embarrassment.

Richard Bushman deserves kudos for supporting good research. Mike Reed deserves kudos for doing great research. And why me's statement that he already knew all of this is stupid. He wasn't there, so why me has no clue what he is talking about. Obviously, if the information had been old hat, then one wouldn't have seen Roper and Gee panicking about it. Punkt.

[Guest]

I don't care who had to leave when and for what reason. The bottom line for me is this: Gee asked a stupid question that was in keeping with the usual LDS apologetic tactic of throwing up any obfuscation, confusion, or distraction when faced with uncomfortable information. In this case, it was so obvious to all present that even his fellow apologists didn't have much to say in his defense when it was first brought up on Facebook. It was an embarrassment.

Richard Bushman deserves kudos for supporting good research. Mike Reed deserves kudos for doing great research. And why me's statement that he already knew all of this is stupid. He wasn't there, so why me has no clue what he is talking about. Obviously, if the information had been old hat, then one wouldn't have seen Roper and Gee panicking about it. Punkt.

http://www.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/gold.htm

I don't see the problem. Now was this known at the time of Joseph Smith that people wrote on plates? I would think so. But the issue is what is in the Book of Mormon. The issue is not whether what was known at the time of Joseph Smith about writing on plates but with the Book of Mormon and the 11 witnesses plus emma.

[_why me]

I don't care who had to leave when and for what reason. The bottom line for me is this: Gee asked a stupid question that was in keeping with the usual LDS apologetic tactic of throwing up any obfuscation, confusion, or distraction when faced with uncomfortable information. In this case, it was so obvious to all present that even his fellow apologists didn't have much to say in his defense when it was first brought up on Facebook. It was an embarrassment.

Richard Bushman deserves kudos for supporting good research. Mike Reed deserves kudos for doing great research. And why me's statement that he already knew all of this is stupid. He wasn't there, so why me has no clue what he is talking about. Obviously, if the information had been old hat, then one wouldn't have seen Roper and Gee panicking about it. Punkt.

Nobody wants to make a fool of themselves. I would give the guy a break and move on. Or the next time you attend a conference and ask a stupid question, hopefully all will mock you also. Treat people well that is my motto. As I said, it is good to write the question down before hand and think about it before asking the question or before even making a statement. But when one is in a rush, mistakes can happen.

[_harmony]

Treat people well that is my motto.

Sounds like those are words Drs Gee and Midgley could take to heart.

[_Kishkumen]

Nobody wants to make a fool of themselves. I would give the guy a break and move on. Or the next time you attend a conference and ask a stupid question, hopefully all will mock you also. Treat people well that is my motto. As I said, it is good to write the question down before hand and think about it before asking the question or before even making a statement. But when one is in a rush, mistakes can happen.

why me, I know you have made an a hobby out of being deliberately obtuse where it suits your apologetic agenda, but this is ridiculous. This wasn't just a "stupid" question. It was a hostile question, malicious even. It was the pathetic attempt of a defensive and frightened man with brittle faith to throw unwarranted doubt on the honest work of a scholar who did credible research at the behest of the head of the seminar. You are either being dishonest here, or you are stupid.

[_Kishkumen]

http://www.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/gold.htm

I don't see the problem. Now was this known at the time of Joseph Smith that people wrote on plates? I would think so. But the issue is what is in the Book of Mormon. The issue is not whether what was known at the time of Joseph Smith about writing on plates but with the Book of Mormon and the 11 witnesses plus emma.

why me, can you locate your rear end with your hands? Just checking.

That link has little to nothing to do with the point at issue here. No one is disputing that modern scholars know of ancient records on metal plates. The point of Reed's presentation was to show just how well known the concept was in Joseph Smith's day, contrary to what some apologetic writings, including Ash's, have stated in the past.

Mike Reed was given this assignment by Bushman. That should tell you something, if you could pause and reflect for a moment. Obviously Bushman did not see this as a huge problem for Mormonism, and Reed wasn't out to take down Mormonism by demonstrating this. Do you think he believed that Bushman had nefarious designs?

If you want to reassure anyone that this is no big deal, go reassure Matt Roper and John Gee, who seemed to have had a problem with Reed's presentation. As for me, I think Mike Reed did solid historical research, and he deserves kudos for it.