Elder Gilbert Interview with Peggy Fletcher Stack

[Limnor]

MG let’s see if I’ve deciphered your objection.

You think people are oversimplifying about rocks in hats and the evidence is more complex than that, citing donkeys as a precedent for use of uncommon mediums. Not only that, people are ignoring other factors like the complexity of the text and acceptance of use of seer stones by religious folks in the early 1800s.

Several people have posted relevant comments as rebuttals that you seem to be choosing not to respond to, including requests for examples of that methodology being demonstrated as reliable, misapplication of confirmation bias, consistency of using the same device that failed to then succeed, Joseph’s reliability as a source, the reliability of other claimed translations, a counter to the acceptability of folk magic while simultaneously suffering persecution for the family's magic practices.

A sustained story (and not as consistent as advertised) doesn’t independently establish that an ancient text was being translated. Especially if the plates were not even used at times during translation. If the process operated independently of the plates, then are we really talking about a “translation” of an ancient text any more?

So. I don’t think commonality of folk magic, text length or internal complexity, or talking donkeys respond to any of these points—nor do those points answer how the same rock that was used to not find treasure was then able to “translate.” Can you show me how those additional factors overcome the credibility hit?

[Rivendale]

MG, you do realize that the church admitting to the rock in a hat is a relatively recent phenomenon, right? Because, much like multiple differing accounts of the first vision, the rock in the hat was incredibly embarrassing.

I’m not that old and I still remember the primary depiction of Joseph as a real translator staring at the plates, translating word by word from the whole text as a real translator would do.



You’re older than me, have you simply forgotten this?

drumdude, the narrative about the rock in the hat was hidden and suppressed by the Church up to the point South Park let the cat out of the bag. The Church didn’t tell the truth by choice - which is now a repeating pattern of deception first, transparency only when absolutely forced to.

Benjamin Franklin wrote a column ridiculing treasure digging. Of course people thought it was lunacy.

“There are amongst us great numbers of honest artificers and labouring people, who, fed with a vain hope of growing suddenly rich, neglect their business, almost to the ruining of themselves and [their] families, and voluntarily endure abundance of fatigue in a fruitless search after imaginary treasures. They wander through the woods and bushes by day to discover the marks and signs; at midnight they repair to the hopeful spot with spades and pickaxes; full of expectation they labour violently, trembling at the same time in every joint, through fear of certain malicious demons who are said to haunt and guard such places. At length a mighty hole is dug, and perhaps several cartloads of earth thrown out, but alas, no cag or iron pot is found! No seaman’s chest crammed with Spanish pistoles, or weighty pieces of eight! Then they conclude, that through some mistake in the procedure, some rash word spoke, or some rule of art neglected, the guardian spirit had power to sink it deeper into the earth and convey it out of their reach.” – Benjamin Franklin, The Busy-Body, No. 8, March 27, 1729

[I Have Questions]

drumdude, the narrative about the rock in the hat was hidden and suppressed by the Church up to the point South Park let the cat out of the bag. The Church didn’t tell the truth by choice - which is now a repeating pattern of deception first, transparency only when absolutely forced to.

Benjamin Franklin wrote a column ridiculing treasure digging. Of course people thought it was lunacy.

“There are amongst us great numbers of honest artificers and labouring people, who, fed with a vain hope of growing suddenly rich, neglect their business, almost to the ruining of themselves and [their] families, and voluntarily endure abundance of fatigue in a fruitless search after imaginary treasures. They wander through the woods and bushes by day to discover the marks and signs; at midnight they repair to the hopeful spot with spades and pickaxes; full of expectation they labour violently, trembling at the same time in every joint, through fear of certain malicious demons who are said to haunt and guard such places. At length a mighty hole is dug, and perhaps several cartloads of earth thrown out, but alas, no cag or iron pot is found! No seaman’s chest crammed with Spanish pistoles, or weighty pieces of eight! Then they conclude, that through some mistake in the procedure, some rash word spoke, or some rule of art neglected, the guardian spirit had power to sink it deeper into the earth and convey it out of their reach.” – Benjamin Franklin, The Busy-Body, No. 8, March 27, 1729

Yes. What to make of someone who first claims his rock can magically find buried treasure, with zero success, and then claims that the failed rock can actually produce words that become a story that sounds a lot like a mish mash of copied and plagiarised contemporary material. After Bernie Madoff’s investment scheme was found to be a fraud, would you invest your life savings in his next scheme?

[MG 2.0]

MG let’s see if I’ve deciphered your objection.

You think people are oversimplifying about rocks in hats and the evidence is more complex than that, citing donkeys as a precedent for use of uncommon mediums. Not only that, people are ignoring other factors like the complexity of the text and acceptance of use of seer stones by religious folks in the early 1800s.

Several people have posted relevant comments as rebuttals that you seem to be choosing not to respond to, including requests for examples of that methodology being demonstrated as reliable, misapplication of confirmation bias, consistency of using the same device that failed to then succeed, Joseph’s reliability as a source, the reliability of other claimed translations, a counter to the acceptability of folk magic while simultaneously suffering persecution for the family's magic practices.

A sustained story (and not as consistent as advertised) doesn’t independently establish that an ancient text was being translated. Especially if the plates were not even used at times during translation. If the process operated independently of the plates, then are we really talking about a “translation” of an ancient text any more?

So. I don’t think commonality of folk magic, text length or internal complexity, or talking donkeys respond to any of these points—nor do those points answer how the same rock that was used to not find treasure was then able to “translate.” Can you show me how those additional factors overcome the credibility hit?

Here is the problem with spiritually related experiences. They are reliable in a given/certain sense and/or venue of acceptability. The problem is, they are not necessarily repeatable in the exact way they may have been experienced initially.

The exception to that would be unless under controlled conditions. You have probably seen some of the controlled studies having to do with prayer/outcomes and creating spiritual experiences in the lab, etc.

In everyday life it's not quite the same. Balaam's donkey, if it did indeed speak, may not...very probably did not...speak the next day, or the day after that. Casting lots may have 'worked' one time, but not the next. Joseph not being able to retranslate the lost 116 pages might fall into the same category. Real revelation, if indeed there is such, doesn't seem to be repeatable 'on demand'. That shouldn't be surprising if it is being given from an external source.

I don’t think it is accurate to treat treasure seeking failure as a controlled negative experiment (is that what you're doing?) that thereby falsifies any later religious use of the same stone. In the folk religious frame Joseph inhabited, the success or failure of a divinatory act depended not only on the object but on God’s will, the worthiness of the participants, and a host of other contingencies. A stone “failing” to yield Spanish gold yet later being part of a sacred text’s emergence is not the clean contradiction it appears to be from a modern materialist standpoint.

We did not live in Joseph Smith's "magical world view".

Reducing everything down to 'a guy with a failed treasure rock making stuff up in a hat' doesn't account for a sustained narrative which as I like to say, "Has many moving parts". Witnesses. Internal complexity of the Book of Mormon. Multiple voices within the different books of the Book of Mormon. Narrative of the plates (hiding, moving, etc.). Collapsing everything into a simple 'fraud story' doesn't do justice to the complete narrative.

I'm not denying that there is a risk to credibility that seer stone treasure seeking introduces. It is indeed a hurdle that needs to be jumped. What I've said previously is that within the historical and religious world Joseph actually lived in (not ours), it is at least plausible to see the same stone used in folk religious practice as a vehicle for what Joseph and the witnesses...and now millions of others...saw/see as scripture. A modern book of scripture in addition to the Bible witnessing of Jesus Christ, His mission, and His Atonement for all mankind.

You would think that this 'second witness' would be given the benefit of a doubt...at least to some degree. The reality is that ever since Joseph's first run through the woods with the plates escaping his enemies there have been folks trying to take those plates out of the picture and the resultant book of scripture which has been the catalyst/keystone for the restored gospel of Jesus Christ.

Regards,
MG

[Everybody Wang Chung]

It is indeed a hurdle that needs to be jumped.

Regards,
MG

Fibber,

As we’ve discussed, the fundamental problem with Mormonism is the sheer volume of intellectual hurdles. I can’t think of another faith in the entire world that demands so much cognitive dissonance. You aren’t just leaping over one or two hurdles, you’re navigating an Olympic track of anachronisms, seer stones, polygamy, complete lack of DNA and archaeological evidence, racism, Book of Abraham translation, false revelations, Reformed Egyptian, Deutero-Isaiah, King James plagiarism, theological contradictions, and on, and on, and on, and on.

If you choose to believe in Mormonism, this is the track you’re signing up to run:

[Limnor]

I'm not denying that there is a risk to credibility that seer stone treasure seeking introduces. It is indeed a hurdle that needs to be jumped. What I've said previously is that within the historical and religious world Joseph actually lived in (not ours), it is at least plausible to see the same stone used in folk religious practice as a vehicle for what Joseph and the witnesses...and now millions of others...saw/see as scripture. A modern book of scripture in addition to the Bible witnessing of Jesus Christ, His mission, and His Atonement for all mankind.

You would think that this 'second witness' would be given the benefit of a doubt...at least to some degree. The reality is that ever since Joseph's first run through the woods with the plates escaping his enemies there have been folks trying to take those plates out of the picture and the resultant book of scripture which has been the catalyst/keystone for the restored gospel of Jesus Christ.

Within Joseph’s worldview, the stone’s use was evident—he was immersed in folk magic and used the same stone in failed previous attempts at finding treasure. That use doesn’t establish credibility or ancient origin. From my perspective, the text reads as a 19th-century composition, and I don’t see independent external corroboration for the ancient setting it describes. For me, a second witness should reinforce the first witness, so when it becomes the foundation for a new structure of authority (particularly with reference to the author and the keys to that authority within the pages), well, that adds to the shadiness.

With all of that context, context, it reads like Joseph hijacked the biblical story and used it to establish his own authority.

[Limnor]

I’d agree with this. I’m not sure if you think that list is supposed to strengthen Joseph’s credibility. Taken together, that list make it harder—not easier—to conclude he was telling the truth about the plates.

There have been many conversations on this board about whether or not Joseph was telling the truth about the plates. Using this list of eight triggers/factors I don't see any one of them alone and/or as a group that really have any impact on the story of the plates. When you really dig, pun intended, in exploring the whole 'plate story' there is just too much there, in my opinion, that leads one to actually doubt that there were not plates.

Of course, then the argument has been, what were those plates, etc. In other discussions we have talked about the fact that if Joseph was putting on an act he went to a LOT of trouble and orchestrated activity, etc., in order to dupe his family, witnesses, and so forth.

I just don't think that he put all these 'moving parts', that have been discussed ad nauseum, together in/as a planned out 'con' to make money or gain power. There are too many things that lead away from that conclusion. If it was a con, for one thing, I don't think we would have a Book of Mormon...such as it is...that has brought so many people to Christ and His church independently of Joseph Smith and who he was and/or what he did or didn't do.

Testimonies are centered on Christ and His gospel. Ask any given member on any given Sunday at an LDS church what their testimony is based on. It's not the church, per se, it's Jesus and His Atonement. It's the Gospel teachings/commandments. It's the witness they receive through the Book of Mormon that Jesus is the Christ (Son of God).

Things are going to look a LOT different from the outside than they do from the inside looking through the eyes of someone that believes...and has good reasons to believe.

Regards,
MG

When someone with a treasure-seeking history claims to discover ancient gold plates by supernatural means, that context matters.

I’m not claiming the list proves there were no plates. I’m saying it lowers the probability of them being ancient plates. I think they were copper printing plates. As we’ve discussed.

[Limnor]

In fact it’s a little strange to have to explain the difference between “sin” and “situational credibility.” But when the discussion turns to “prophets aren’t perfect,” I guess you have to be very explicit.

[Limnor]

I don’t think the issue is Imperfection. It’s behavior relevant to the specific claim. To me there is a big difference between David committing adultery and Moses having anger issues vs a person previously engaged in treasure seeking using the same rocks and method to “translate” buried golden plates. Really increases that hmmm factor.

Another important fact is the preponderance of frauds that are actually caught. Believers for whatever reason usually don't consider that they could be being bamboozled.

I just had a “Sixth Sense” moment. That’s a fair general caution that could apply to all of us. The hard part is checking our own priors.

[Rivendale]

Another important fact is the preponderance of frauds that are actually caught. Believers for whatever reason usually don't consider that they could be being bamboozled.

I just had a “Sixth Sense” moment. That’s a fair general caution that could apply to all of us. The hard part is checking our own priors.

There is a delicate balance (bias tainted) that seems to work for most situations. If one were to focus entirely on checking your priors you would be forever trapped in decision paralysis.