Assessng the evidence - conscious fraud?
Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2022 11:22 am
Over on the other board:
"Let's imagine for the moment that Joseph did somehow create the plates. If so, so what? We anoint the sick with oil. Physically speaking, this does nothing besides getting the person's hair or skin greasy. But if someone were to point out this stark fact and call the person doing the anointing a conscious fraud, we could properly counter the accuser was missing the point. What is important about anointing the sick is not what the oil physically does. What is important is the symbol--the sacrament. It is what the sacrament points to, not the oil itself. same would be true if JosephThe created the plates. The plates are a symbol, a way of speaking to us "in [our] weakness, after the manner of [our] language, that [we] might come to understanding" (D&C 1:24). The fact is that, as human beings, we physical in nature. We want to see, we want to heft and feel things in our hands. If Joseph was inspired to give his immediate followers something to see and pick up and feel, so be it. I can live with that. The plates are a symbol--what is important is the Book of Mormon itself.
Let's imagine for the moment it does go the other way. The plates are real, and they are authentically ancient. If so, so what? I think it sufficiently noncontroversial to bluntly point out that the Book of Mormon text was produced using a seer stone. The plates remained on the table under a sheet or in a box or whatever have you. They had nothing to do with the text as we have it. The plates are still a symbol in this case--what is important is the Book of Mormon itself."
https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/74 ... /#comments
This kind of reasoning gives me a headache.
"Let's imagine for the moment that Joseph did somehow create the plates. If so, so what? We anoint the sick with oil. Physically speaking, this does nothing besides getting the person's hair or skin greasy. But if someone were to point out this stark fact and call the person doing the anointing a conscious fraud, we could properly counter the accuser was missing the point. What is important about anointing the sick is not what the oil physically does. What is important is the symbol--the sacrament. It is what the sacrament points to, not the oil itself. same would be true if JosephThe created the plates. The plates are a symbol, a way of speaking to us "in [our] weakness, after the manner of [our] language, that [we] might come to understanding" (D&C 1:24). The fact is that, as human beings, we physical in nature. We want to see, we want to heft and feel things in our hands. If Joseph was inspired to give his immediate followers something to see and pick up and feel, so be it. I can live with that. The plates are a symbol--what is important is the Book of Mormon itself.
Let's imagine for the moment it does go the other way. The plates are real, and they are authentically ancient. If so, so what? I think it sufficiently noncontroversial to bluntly point out that the Book of Mormon text was produced using a seer stone. The plates remained on the table under a sheet or in a box or whatever have you. They had nothing to do with the text as we have it. The plates are still a symbol in this case--what is important is the Book of Mormon itself."
https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/74 ... /#comments
This kind of reasoning gives me a headache.
and I understood that the "plates" were really a manuscript. I also understood that there was not a 116 pages. That was just a story to cover up the fact that Joseph Smith gave the entire manuscript to Martin Harris to show his wife and that it was Martin Harris' wife that sent the manuscript back with PPP so he could bring them back a year later, this last part was knowledge and not in the form of words)