Daniel dodges a dilemma by substituting his own

[drumdude]

The plates, in my view, force the choice: Was Joseph Smith a genuine prophet, or was he a deliberate con-artist? There is no real room here for viewing him as a sincere but chuckleheaded loon.

An academic friend who knew a great deal about the Church and wanted to be sympathetic once asked me many years ago what the point of the golden plates was if, as some accounts seem to suggest, Joseph didn’t need to have them right with him while he was dictating. I replied that I couldn’t really speculate, but that one thing was clear: They’re a major obstacle to people who, like my friend, want to accept Joseph as a sincerely religious man while rejecting his claimed experiences as not literally true.

The peep stone, in my view, forces a choice. Was God intentionally trying to make Joseph look like a con-artist or was Joseph just actually a con-artist?

[dantana]

The evidence for Joseph being a con-man v the evidence against is akin to a mole hill at the foot of Mt. Rainier.

What exactly is the evidence against him being a con-man anyway? Pulling a book out of a hat? Pretty much a yawner. David Copperfield can make a jumbo jet disappear.

[I Have Questions]

Having actual plates, being a con artist, and being a chuckleheaded loon, are not mutually exclusive.

Having the plates, and the Book of Mormon being fiction, are not mutually exclusive.

Accepting Joseph having actual plates does make all the other issues go away. Having actual plates does not, for instance, make the KJV plagiarism magically disappear. It doesn’t make Joseph magically not take advantage of Fanny Alger in the barn. It doesn’t change much of anything at all.

And of course, there’s no evidence for the existence of the plates outside of the say so of some of Joseph’s friends and relatives, all of whom have proven to be unreliable in one way or another.

[Dr. Shades]

Having actual plates, being a con artist, and being a chuckleheaded loon, are not mutually exclusive.

The proprietor’s point, as he himself pointed out, is that the plates leave no room for Joseph being sincerely deluded by his own imagination or mental illness. If the plates never existed, then he (Joseph) was being purposefully deceitful when he said they did. . . No room for being a “pious” fraud.

[I Have Questions]

Having actual plates, being a con artist, and being a chuckleheaded loon, are not mutually exclusive.

The proprietor’s point, as he himself pointed out, is that the plates leave no room for Joseph being sincerely deluded by his own imagination or mental illness. If the plates never existed, then he (Joseph) was being purposefully deceitful when he said they did. . . No room for being a “pious” fraud.

He’d be on sticky ground with that were there other examples where Joseph was shown to have been purposefully deceitful…

[Kishkumen]

An interesting thought occurred to me: what if the plates fit into the tradition of manufacturing sacred relics?

As you all are probably aware, Medieval Christians were big on locating and laying claim to pieces of the True Cross, body parts of the saints, etc., and then storing them in reliquaries 8in their churches. The important relics attract a lot of powerful mojo. I have always wondered about those who manufactured the relics, the pious frauds, as some call them. How did they justify their actions? What makes a sacred relic sacred if it can’t be its authenticity as the item in question? Is Joseph Smith more in touch with that world than we might ordinarily suppose?

I also think of the magical lamens in the Smith family’s possession. They, too, seem like holy relics, but the Smiths either made them or had them made by someone else. Were they interpreted as being something like the vestments of the high priest in Israel?

You see, there are many interesting questions that suggest intriguing possibilities. Was Joseph Smith a con-man is NOT a perennially interesting question. Fraud or authentic is not a good place to start. We should start, based on what Smith himself said, with the assumption that there were no ancient plates. We have to accept, however, that some object or objects were treated AS IF they were the plates.

Where we go from there ought to be closer to questions concerning the making of sacred objects and further away from the realm of archaeology.

[Gadianton]

Didn't Anne Taves have a similar view?

I believe it was her who made the point that the Brother of Jared brought ordinary stones to the Lord who sanctified them.

On the other hand, the Liahona just appeared.

[huckelberry]

Kishkumens observation about sacred relics made me thing of this sanctuary in New Mexico. from wikapedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Santuario_de_Chimayo

Each year some 300,000 people from all over the world make pilgrimages to the Santuario de Chimayó during Holy Week,[14] especially on Holy Thursday and Good Friday, some seeking blessings and some in fulfillment of a vow.[15] Walking is traditional; some pilgrims walk from as far away as Albuquerque, about 90 miles (150 km).[14] While the pilgrimage began in the 19th century, it was revived by survivors of the Bataan Death March after World War II.[16][17][18][19]

Many visitors to the church take a small amount of the "holy dirt", often in hopes of a miraculous cure for themselves or someone who could not make the trip. Formerly, at least, they often ate the dirt.[6] (Likewise pilgrims to the original shrine of Esquipulas eat the supposedly curative clay found there.)[8] Now seekers of cures more commonly rub themselves with the dirt or simply keep it. The Church replaces the dirt in the pocito from the nearby hillsides,[12] sometimes more than once a day, for a total of about 25 or 30 tons a year.[11]

The dirt does its job despite its humble origins. My wife and I visited during an ordinary time of year with only modest groups of people. Attended mass and found it a moving experience. We enjoyed the art a lot.(could be called Mexican Indian hybrid)

I incline to think that faith and participation are more important or effective than any special quality of the dirt.

[I Have Questions]

An interesting thought occurred to me: what if the plates fit into the tradition of manufacturing sacred relics?

As you all are probably aware, Medieval Christians were big on locating and laying claim to pieces of the True Cross, body parts of the saints, etc., and then storing them in reliquaries 8in their churches. The important relics attract a lot of powerful mojo. I have always wondered about those who manufactured the relics, the pious frauds, as some call them. How did they justify their actions? What makes a sacred relic sacred if it can’t be its authenticity as the item in question? Is Joseph Smith more in touch with that world than we might ordinarily suppose?

I also think of the magical lamens in the Smith family’s possession. They, too, seem like holy relics, but the Smiths either made them or had them made by someone else. Were they interpreted as being something like the vestments of the high priest in Israel?

You see, there are many interesting questions that suggest intriguing possibilities. Was Joseph Smith a con-man is NOT a perennially interesting question. Fraud or authentic is not a good place to start. We should start, based on what Smith himself said, with the assumption that there were no ancient plates. We have to accept, however, that some object or objects were treated AS IF they were the plates.

Where we go from there ought to be closer to questions concerning the making of sacred objects and further away from the realm of archaeology.

Very interesting. These thoughts need connecting to tagriffy’s thoughts about the importance of the “mythos” of the plates to the restoration and ongoing.

At what point does something become “sacred”?
At what point does something become “ancient”?
At what point does the reality or otherwise of an object’s existence become immaterial or besides the point?
If Joseph’s tale of the plates was a “parable”, does the church necessarily fail?

And finally, is the reality of the plates neither here nor there now the church is established?

[Marcus]

...one thing was clear: They’re a major obstacle to people who, like my friend, want to accept Joseph as a sincerely religious man while rejecting his claimed experiences as not literally true...

Hmmm... Are there actually people out there who 1)want to accept Joseph as a sincerely religious man, while simultaneously 2) rejecting his claimed experiences as not literally true?

What exactly would a person like that be thinking? Smith was so religious that he had to make up claims to get people to join his religion?

To a person like that, the plates and DCP's deluded insistence that 'witness' means 'fact' are not "a major obstacle," they are simply another (completely ordinary and explainable) part of the imaginary, fantastical story.