Roger wrote:...
If you and Ben are willing to acknowledge that there never really were ancient plates with ancient
writing on them and that, therefore, Joseph Smith was an imposter, then bring it on. Can you agree
to that or not?
...
I still identify myself as a Latter Day Saint, and I can freely admit "that there never really were
ancient plates with ancient writing on them." I'm not sure that a Mormom is allowed to say that,
without facing a possible church court and excommunication.
Back when I was a little more supportive of the CoC beliefs, somebody demanded that I produce
the Nephite "golden plates" -- as a sort of physical evidence for a truly ancient Book of Mormon.
My reply was that I need not exhibit those particular plates, because nobody on earth has access
to them today -- but that ANY preColumbian artifacts inscribed with Reformed Egyptian characters
should be sufficient "proof" that a truly ancient Book of Mormon was at least a good possibility.
That shut up my anti-Saint kibitzer -- but my victory in that case was a shallow one. He ought to
have demanded of me at least one ancient American plate, thus inscribed -- to demonstrate that
I was talking about real physical evidence.
Inscribed plates of that sort were so common in Book of Mormon times, that a wandering band of
explorers could happen upon 24 of them (containing the record of Ether) purely by chance. But
today we have nothing left but a single "Kinderhook Plate," and B. H. Roberts was the last
notable LDS GA to accept it as a true artifact from Nephite times.
No metal plates inscribed in "Reformed Egyptian" ever existed -- none will ever be found -- none
will ever be exhibited by Mormon defenders as "true evidence."
Were we to assemble 100 of the world's most reliable experts on ancient Near Eastern documents,
and hand them the Book of Mormon, I am convinced that the overwhelming majority of that group
of experts would pronounce the text to be something other than an authentic ancient document.
Remove any BYU professors from that group of 100, and I'm sure their answer would be unanimous.
Show 100 experts on early American literature the Oberlin Spalding manuscript, and I'm sure that
they all would agree that its is an authentic document from the first part of the 19th century.
Now -- combine those two groups of experts and ask them all the simple question: "Is it possible
that text penned by the author of the Oberlin document could have been included in the original
manuscripts for the Book of Mormon?" and I think I know what their answer would be:
That they do not know if such a thing happened -- but, given what they
can (and do) know, a Spalding contribution to the Book of Mormon is NOT impossible.
Finally -- ask the same question of 200 Mormon scholars, academics, PhDs,
or textual experts. All 200 will says that it is IMPOSSIBLE that anything from
Spalding's pen could have made it into the Mormon book.
Why would they say that?
Because it was written before Spalding was born.
Why would they say that?
Because if they did not say it, they would be accused by fellow Mormons of
having lost their testimonies, and thus might face unpleasant consequences
in a church that demands such a testimony from its "best and brightest" members.
Uncle Dale
