gemli on the silliness of angel-borne 'plates'

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
Marcus
God
Posts: 5033
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:44 pm

gemli on the silliness of angel-borne 'plates'

Post by Marcus »

gemli responds to Peterson's blog entry, which includes this:
Peterson wrote:...The precise opposite of invincible ignorance in Catholic moral theory is vincible ignorance. It refers to people who were or are in a position that renders them capable of knowing x by means of reasonable effort, especially where knowledge of x is in some sense obligatory, but who freely choose not to do so. People in a state of vincible ignorance may be granted some excuse for it if they made at least some effort to overcome their lack of knowledge but, if they made no serious effort at all to correct their error, it actually renders their culpability for it greater and more serious.

These are some of my thoughts, contemplating a few folks who claim to know for certain, without any shadow of doubt or any trace of awareness that there is evidence against their position, that absolutely no physical Book of Mormon plates of any kind, whether miraculously provided or not, ever existed.
You'll notice that Peterson backs off on the concept of ignorance when it comes to actual ancient plates documenting actual historical events, delivered and then removed by an actual angel. Rather, he seems to be chiding people for not at least acknowledging that Smith could have forged fake plates, and that one or the other, angelic plates or earthly forgeries, MUST have occurred.

Odd, but typical of Peterson's logical processes.Gemli, however, seems to have reached his limit for the ludicrous, and is more specific in his objections to this nonsense than I've seen him be in a long time.
gemli • 2 days ago

The truth of a claim typically hinges on examining evidence that would justify it. But for all theologies, and for the LDS faith in particular, we're left following a chain of non-evidence. Golden Plates provided by an angel and translated by a dubious fellow looking at special stones in a top hat seems to stretch credulity to well past the breaking point. The evidence offered for the truth of such claims consists of more of the very same mystical assertions and unavailable artifacts that are the very thing that require evidence to demonstrate their existence. If one has the temerity to ask witnesses for proof, one is left reading the terse and mechanical assertions of those who have been duped to certify that they have not been duped.

But I suppose if one grows up in what amounts to a theological compound one might succumb to the pervasive and persistent assertions of bizarre events in the dim past because they come at one from all directions by trusted members of society who have a sort of exalted status in the community....

http://disq.us/p/2m9dywz
And it continues, when 'evidence' is mentioned:
gemli > Michael R. Loveridge, J. D. • 2 days ago

No, it would not be sufficient evidence to conclude that golden plates were provided by an angel. Such a claim would require a great deal more evidence than that. The "plates" would have to be examined by someone with the ability to determine their authenticity. In fact, it's the lack of evidence that makes the plates compelling to susceptible souls. It seems if you tell mortals that they're going to be immortal you don't need to do a whole lot of convincing.

-
DanielPeterson Mod > gemli • 2 days ago

gemli: "No, it would not be sufficient evidence to conclude that golden plates were provided by an angel. Such a claim would require a great deal more evidence than that."

Fortunately, a great deal more evidence was provided.

gemli: "It seems if you tell mortals that they're going to be immortal you don't need to do a whole lot of convincing."

You keep asserting this. You never provide any supporting evidence. Of course, that's pretty much what you do: unsupported assertions.

-
gemli > DanielPeterson • 2 days ago

If there's more evidence, I've read your column for many years and I haven't seen it.

On the face of it, it appears that a man who was not unknown to the authorities for perpetrating various frauds struck the mother lode when he declared himself to be a Prophet of the most high God. You'd think that any god who went out of his way to make His presence known could do better than revealing himself to a con man in a small backwoods town.

And if you're going to leave plates, then leave the dadgum plates so people can know the True Truth. When non-affiliated theists roll their eyes at the Mormon story, you've got to wonder what's going on.

http://disq.us/p/2m9w5nc
User avatar
Physics Guy
God
Posts: 1557
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 7:40 am
Location: on the battlefield of life

Re: gemli on the silliness of angel-borne 'plates'

Post by Physics Guy »

Who the heck professes absolute certainty that no plates of any kind, not even a stack of lead shingles wrapped in a sheet, ever existed? If really there are any skeptics of Mormonism who leap bizarrely to such strong but irrelevant conclusions, then I fully agree with Peterson that they are foolish.

There might never have been any actual plates. Perhaps what people hefted was really a solid chunk of something, or perhaps there was never even anything heavy, and people who said there was were just deluded or lied. It's certainly fair enough to point out that the evidence we have for the plates consists only of statements that are either ambiguous about whether metal plates were actually handled or else explicitly say that the plates were not seen or touched. And it's fair to object that the reliability of the professed witnesses is open to doubt.

But even for a skeptic who doesn't doubt for a moment that Smith faked everything, the most likely scenario has got to be that he made or found some fake plates of some kind. Why even get started on the notion of engraved ancient plates if you don't have something that could pass for some plates? Smith could easily just have claimed to have seen things in visions. That's what the Biblical prophets all did, after all. They didn't dig up metal plates. The obvious reason for putting a Maguffin like the plates into the story is that Smith had some kind of prop that he could use to attract—and divert—attention.

So if Peterson is railing against people for being certain that no plates of any kind ever existed, then he's simply kicking against a straw man. No sensible critic would actually hold that position.
I was a teenager before it was cool.
Alphus and Omegus
Area Authority
Posts: 603
Joined: Thu May 13, 2021 8:41 pm

Re: gemli on the silliness of angel-borne 'plates'

Post by Alphus and Omegus »

Physics Guy wrote:
Sat Jan 22, 2022 9:12 am
Who the heck professes absolute certainty that no plates of any kind, not even a stack of lead shingles wrapped in a sheet, ever existed? If really there are any skeptics of Mormonism who leap bizarrely to such strong but irrelevant conclusions, then I fully agree with Peterson that they are foolish.

There might never have been any actual plates. Perhaps what people hefted was really a solid chunk of something, or perhaps there was never even anything heavy, and people who said there was were just deluded or lied. It's certainly fair enough to point out that the evidence we have for the plates consists only of statements that are either ambiguous about whether metal plates were actually handled or else explicitly say that the plates were not seen or touched. And it's fair to object that the reliability of the professed witnesses is open to doubt.

But even for a skeptic who doesn't doubt for a moment that Smith faked everything, the most likely scenario has got to be that he made or found some fake plates of some kind. Why even get started on the notion of engraved ancient plates if you don't have something that could pass for some plates? Smith could easily just have claimed to have seen things in visions. That's what the Biblical prophets all did, after all. They didn't dig up metal plates. The obvious reason for putting a Maguffin like the plates into the story is that Smith had some kind of prop that he could use to attract—and divert—attention.

So if Peterson is railing against people for being certain that no plates of any kind ever existed, then he's simply kicking against a straw man. No sensible critic would actually hold that position.
It's just another attempt to create irrelevant debate. Whether there were fake plates, a box, or some other object, it really doesn't matter. The stories in the Book of Mormon are self-discrediting, as are Smith's ever-change tales of how he acquired the alleged plates.
Post Reply