Why did God take back the Plates after their translation?

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
_Fence Sitter
_Emeritus
Posts: 8862
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 3:49 pm

Re: Why did God take back the Plates after their translation

Post by _Fence Sitter »

The CCC wrote:.

Except that we have many witnesses to the fact that he had the plates.


No we don't.

What we have are witnesses to the fact that Joseph Smith had something.

Not one of the witnesses could testify that what Joseph Smith showed them was actually an artifact created 1200 years before, and in fact we know from the Kinderhook plates that there were those who were able to fool people with clumsily made up props even well into the last century.

Given the years Joseph Smith spent conning people into paying him for elaborate treasure hunting rituals, the fact there were so many contemporaries willing to believe any ridiculous story about treasures and supernatural interventions, the years Joseph Smith had to create all sorts of stories about the early American natives, the four years he had creating and telling a story about an angel showing him plates, the complete lack of any physical evidence to connect the Book of Mormon people with any known past peoples from the Americas, the absurdity of the stories within the Book of Mormon describing the manner in which these imaginary people's came across the ocean, the lack on any DNA evidence supporting such an immigration, and so on; it is clear that what Joseph Smith showed people was just a prop.

No missionary I have ever shown my old Latin leather bound book on astronomy has ever denied their testimony of seeing the first Greek Book of Mormon version owned by Orson Hyde.
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
_Maksutov
_Emeritus
Posts: 12480
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 8:19 pm

Re: Why did God take back the Plates after their translation

Post by _Maksutov »

Fence Sitter wrote:
The CCC wrote:.

Except that we have many witnesses to the fact that he had the plates.


No we don't.

What we have are witnesses to the fact that Joseph Smith had something.

Not one of the witnesses could testify that what Joseph Smith showed them was actually an artifact created 1200 years before, and in fact we know from the Kinderhook plates that there were those who were able to fool people with clumsily made up props even well into the last century.

Given the years Joseph Smith spent conning people into paying him for elaborate treasure hunting rituals, the fact there were so many contemporaries willing to believe any ridiculous story about treasures and supernatural interventions, the years Joseph Smith had to create all sorts of stories about the early American natives, the four years he had creating and telling a story about an angel showing him plates, the complete lack of any physical evidence to connect the Book of Mormon people with any known past peoples from the Americas, the absurdity of the stories within the Book of Mormon describing the manner in which these imaginary people's came across the ocean, the lack on any DNA evidence supporting such an immigration, and so on; it is clear that what Joseph Smith showed people was just a prop.

No missionary I have ever shown my old Latin leather bound book on astronomy has ever denied their testimony of seeing the first Greek Book of Mormon version owned by Orson Hyde.


The same burned over district that produced Joseph Smith produced the phenomenon and social movement of Spiritualism. Spiritualism was rife with all kinds of whacky things that people claimed to see. Not just spirits, but objects, sounds, all kinds of "manifestations". Mediums competed with each other in creating more and more elaborate seances.

Although there were skeptics from the beginning, and exposures of frauds became routine, the Spiritualists grew in numbers and influence from about 1850-1880, when they began to splinter into various other groups, including the theosophists. The takeaway is that there was a veritable industry in producing "witnesses" to improbable and impossible things and this fraud-filled enterprise continues, in muted and mutated forms, to the present day. Joseph Smith was an early and effective practitioner. Melding the magical with the biblical was his forté, perhaps influenced by others who had done the same earlier, like John Dee and Swedenborg. It was mental sleight of hand that conceived of creating a bridge from treasure seeking to faithful activity in the form of a gold treasure that was also a spiritual treasure.
"God" is the original deus ex machina. --Maksutov
_The CCC
_Emeritus
Posts: 6746
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2015 4:51 am

Re: Why did God take back the Plates after their translation

Post by _The CCC »

SteelHead wrote:I would evaluate all sources, but relying solely on Chevrolet to tell you about the quality of Chevrolets is so myopic that it is down right stupid. Any smart person would seek out a variety of objective sources, and those both friendly and not friendly.

The church has been less than honest about its history, mormonthink has been more truthful, presenting both sides and including sources. You might not agree with their conclusions, but they do a better job about presenting the facts.

You are turning into a caricature.


Really? You'd go to a Ford dealer to sing the praises of Chevrolet? Do you also go to Donald Trump to sing the praises of Hilary Clinton? Do you go to Answers in Genesis's Ken Ham to sing the praises of Evolution. Being upon minded is fine, but not so upon minded your brain falls out. Mormontalk is not an objective source. Its author has already admitted that he doesn't believe in God.

No Mormontalk has not. He deliberately leaves out statements by contemporary Church officials and revelation accepted, and published by the Church. That is more honest than anything claimed by Mormontalk.

Of what am I turning into caricature of? A believing LDS, who takes a dim view of being told what I believe. If so I plead guilt. :lol: :lol: :lol:
_Maksutov
_Emeritus
Posts: 12480
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 8:19 pm

Re: Why did God take back the Plates after their translation

Post by _Maksutov »

The CCC wrote:Really? You'd go to a Ford dealer to sing the praises of Chevrolet? Do you also go to Donald Trump to sing the praises of Hilary Clinton? Do you go to Answers in Genesis's Ken Ham to sing the praises of Evolution. Being upon minded is fine, but not so upon minded your brain falls out. Mormontalk is not an objective source. Its author has already admitted that he doesn't believe in God.

No Mormontalk has not. He deliberately leaves out statements by contemporary Church officials and revelation accepted, and published by the Church. That is more honest than anything claimed by Mormontalk.

Of what am I turning into caricature of? A believing LDS, who takes a dim view of being told what I believe. If so I plead guilt. :lol: :lol: :lol:


If you won't listen to a Ford dealer about a Chevy, will you listen to a former Chevy owner who now drives a Ford? Hard to imagine, I know. :lol: Dealers have money at stake. So do churches. Ask owners and former owners, members and former members.

Should people listen to the LDS church missionaries talking about the Great Apostasy? That's kind of like dissing all the other brands. Not cool. :rolleyes:
"God" is the original deus ex machina. --Maksutov
_SteelHead
_Emeritus
Posts: 8261
Joined: Tue May 17, 2011 1:40 am

Re: Why did God take back the Plates after their translation

Post by _SteelHead »

The CCC wrote:
SteelHead wrote:I would evaluate all sources, but relying solely on Chevrolet to tell you about the quality of Chevrolets is so myopic that it is down right stupid. Any smart person would seek out a variety of objective sources, and those both friendly and not friendly.

The church has been less than honest about its history, mormonthink has been more truthful, presenting both sides and including sources. You might not agree with their conclusions, but they do a better job about presenting the facts.

You are turning into a caricature.


Really? You'd go to a Ford dealer to sing the praises of Chevrolet? Do you also go to Donald Trump to sing the praises of Hilary Clinton? Do you go to Answers in Genesis's Ken Ham to sing the praises of Evolution. Being upon minded is fine, but not so upon minded your brain falls out. Mormontalk is not an objective source. Its author has already admitted that he doesn't believe in God.

No Mormontalk has not. He deliberately leaves out statements by contemporary Church officials and revelation accepted, and published by the Church. That is more honest than anything claimed by Mormontalk.

Of what am I turning into caricature of? A believing LDS, who takes a dim view of being told what I believe. If so I plead guilt. :lol: :lol: :lol:


No one is speaking for you as to what you believe, but the whole :
"Can't trust mormonthink cause is ran by excommunicated apostates"
And "would you talk to an ex catholic priest" stuff is just cartoonish.

One seeking to get to the bottom of issues needs to go through a variety of sources. Not just the official ones from the church. If you only listen to whoever is trying to sell you a car, then you are a fool.

Somehow you have gone from mormonthink to mormontalk.

I'll challenge you - find a factual inaccuracy at mormonthink.

How does belief in god qualify or disqualify some one from presenting historical facts?
It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener at war.

Some of us, on the other hand, actually prefer a religion that includes some type of correlation with reality.
~Bill Hamblin
_Themis
_Emeritus
Posts: 13426
Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 6:43 pm

Re: Why did God take back the Plates after their translation

Post by _Themis »

The CCC wrote:Really? You'd go to a Ford dealer to sing the praises of Chevrolet?


I would go to a ford dealer to tell me if they think there is something wrong with a chev vehicle I am considering. How is this wrong? I would go to chev and other sources as well. You cannot get to the truth from just looking at sources for or sources against.

Mormontalk is not an objective source. Its author has already admitted that he doesn't believe in God.


Being a believer or non-believer does not make what they say nonobjective. What is so hard to understand this?
42
_The CCC
_Emeritus
Posts: 6746
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2015 4:51 am

Re: Why did God take back the Plates after their translation

Post by _The CCC »

Themis wrote:
The CCC wrote:Really? You'd go to a Ford dealer to sing the praises of Chevrolet?


I would go to a ford dealer to tell me if they think there is something wrong with a chev vehicle I am considering. How is this wrong? I would go to chev and other sources as well. You cannot get to the truth from just looking at sources for or sources against.

Mormontalk is not an objective source. Its author has already admitted that he doesn't believe in God.


Being a believer or non-believer does not make what they say nonobjective. What is so hard to understand this?


Then pay your money and take your chances that that Chevy dealer is objective. You do know that he wants your money, right?
Is there something about having a priori that you don't understand?
SEE #2 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/a%20priori
_Maksutov
_Emeritus
Posts: 12480
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 8:19 pm

Re: Why did God take back the Plates after their translation

Post by _Maksutov »

The CCC wrote:
Then pay your money and take your chances that that Chevy dealer is objective. You do know that he wants your money, right?
Is there something about having a priori that you don't understand?
SEE #2 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/a%20priori


Never mind the dealers. What about former Chevy owners? Or do you have an a priori cause to disregard them? :wink:
"God" is the original deus ex machina. --Maksutov
_spotlight
_Emeritus
Posts: 1702
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2013 1:44 am

Re: Why did God take back the Plates after their translation

Post by _spotlight »

Maksutov wrote:
The CCC wrote:
Then pay your money and take your chances that that Chevy dealer is objective. You do know that he wants your money, right?
Is there something about having a priori that you don't understand?
SEE #2 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/a%20priori


Never mind the dealers. What about former Chevy owners? Or do you have an a priori cause to disregard them? :wink:

Toyota and Honda are so much better that I have erected a small shrine to Amaterasu. :razz:
Kolob’s set time is “one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest” (Abraham 3:4). I take this as a round number. - Gee
_Maksutov
_Emeritus
Posts: 12480
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 8:19 pm

Re: Why did God take back the Plates after their translation

Post by _Maksutov »

spotlight wrote:
Maksutov wrote:
Never mind the dealers. What about former Chevy owners? Or do you have an a priori cause to disregard them? :wink:

Toyota and Honda are so much better that I have erected a small shrine to Amaterasu. :razz:


Counterfeit carriages of the Adversary. I dust my feet at them! :razz:
"God" is the original deus ex machina. --Maksutov
Post Reply