BYU faculty and the Book of Mormon

[_Lemmie]

If Joseph Smith translated everything that is now in the Book of Mormon without using the gold plates, we are left to wonder why the plates were necessary in the first place. It will be remembered that possession of the plates placed the Smith family in considerable danger, causing them a host of difficulties. If the plates were not part of the translation process, this would not have been the case. It also leaves wondering why the Lord directed the writers of the Book of Mormon to make a duplicate record of the plates of Lehi. This provision which compensated for the loss of the 116 pages would have served no purpose either. Further, we would be left to wonder why it was necessary for Moroni to instruct Joseph each year for four years before he was entrusted with the plates. We would also wonder why it was so important for Moroni to show the plates to the three witnesses, including David Whitmer. Why all this flap and fuss if the Prophet didn't really have the plates and if they were not used in the translation? What David Whitmer is asking us to believe is that the Lord had Moroni seal up the plates and the means by which they were to be translated hundreds of years before they would come into Joseph Smith's possession and then decide to have the Prophet use a seer stone found while digging a well so that none of these things would be necessary at all. Is this, we would ask, really a credible explanation of the way the heavens operated."

I don't see anything here that would discount the need and/or purpose for the plates.

Regards,
MG

I didn't write that. It's a quote from an article from two BYU Professors. That's their thoughts on why the rock in the hat translation process doesn't make sense. Did you read the article?

You'll notice, karl61, that mentalgymnast left off the first sentence of the part you quoted, which was this:

"finally, the testimony of David Whitmer simply does not accord with the divine pattern....

Of course, leaving that sentence out changes the meaning of the excerpt, which then allowed mentalgymnast to argue, albeit extremely weakly, for the existence of the plates. Why an apologist would think that deliberately misconstruing a meaning, especially when their tactics are so obvious, would be helpful to their argument is beyond me. Lurkers are far more likely to interpret it as intellectual dishonesty than as a positive testimony of plates.

[_moksha]

Would he be willing to answer for the insulting way the article deals with David Whitmer?

Look, they were just doing apologetics, not delving into actual substance or truth. If the legend of the day was that the Book of Mormon was red, any claims that the book is actually blue would've necessity be denied and the claimant attacked. If definitive proof was offered that the book cover was indeed blue, apologists would argue that the wavelengths of light have varied over the course of time and place.

[_mentalgymnast]

If Joseph Smith translated everything that is now in the Book of Mormon without using the gold plates, we are left to wonder why the plates were necessary in the first place. It will be remembered that possession of the plates placed the Smith family in considerable danger, causing them a host of difficulties. If the plates were not part of the translation process, this would not have been the case. It also leaves wondering why the Lord directed the writers of the Book of Mormon to make a duplicate record of the plates of Lehi. This provision which compensated for the loss of the 116 pages would have served no purpose either. Further, we would be left to wonder why it was necessary for Moroni to instruct Joseph each year for four years before he was entrusted with the plates. We would also wonder why it was so important for Moroni to show the plates to the three witnesses, including David Whitmer. Why all this flap and fuss if the Prophet didn't really have the plates and if they were not used in the translation? What David Whitmer is asking us to believe is that the Lord had Moroni seal up the plates and the means by which they were to be translated hundreds of years before they would come into Joseph Smith's possession and then decide to have the Prophet use a seer stone found while digging a well so that none of these things would be necessary at all. Is this, we would ask, really a credible explanation of the way the heavens operated."

I don't see anything here that would discount the need and/or purpose for the plates.

It's a quote from an article from two BYU Professors. That's their thoughts on why the rock in the hat translation process doesn't make sense.

Yes, I know that. My comment relies on and/or directs itself to the material that I quoted. And that's all.

The plates had their purpose. And during the translation process, whether the plates were two feet or two hundred yards away, that wouldn't make any difference in whether or not they were used during the translation process. I think that this would be even more clear/evident now that we understand that Joseph had his head in a hat most of the time.

Regards,
MG

[_Lemmie]

My comment relies on and/or directs itself to the material that I quoted.

Not when you leave out the crucial first sentence, thereby changing the meaning that the authors intended.

The church has hid nothing, These men obviously haven't been reading the Ensign. This matter was fully discussed at length in a 1 mm x 1 mm article printed in disappearing ink in the March issue of the 1970 Ensign. All they had to do was hold the magazine up to a mirror, while shining a blue colored flash light through the page, while holding the magazine sideways and sticking their middle finger up their nose at the exact stroke of midnight, during a full moon, when the outside temperature is a crisp 43 degrees. Geez, I'm so sick and tired of all of you apostates claiming that the church has been hiding this information when its been there all along for you lazy bastards to read.

[_canpakes]

The plates had their purpose. And during the translation process, whether the plates were two feet or two hundred yards away, that wouldn't make any difference in whether or not they were used during the translation process. I think that this would be even more clear/evident now that we understand that Joseph had his head in a hat most of the time.

MG, consider that "two feet, or two hundred yards", or even 2000 miles away, is the point being made.

In other words, why bother Joseph with retrieving or hiding plates? There was no need for him to ever have physical possession of anything aside from the rock and the hat to 'translate'.

The other questions remain, such as the necessity of duplication of the plates of Lehi, etc.

[_mentalgymnast]

There was no need for him to ever have physical possession of anything aside from the rock and the hat to 'translate'.

Let's turn things around. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the Book of Mormon was given to Joseph Smith through revelation from God. No plates whatsoever. Not in the hill. Never constructed and/or written on by purported ancient prophets.

But the Book of Mormon ends up still being what it purports to be and is written and published. An ancient record, but without plates. Simply another book written through inspiration/revelation...period.

Isn't it more than likely that the record being found and somehow being used as the artifact/delivery system and/or source of the translation...and Joseph Smith and Co. knowing this to be so...would aid (essentially so) and/or act as the evidence that what they were doing was more than another 'revelatory enterprise' where someone came up with a revelatory scripture/treatise of some kind essentially out of their head and/or dependent on pure revelation?

The fact that plates are witnessed to and purportedly existed (according to the witnesses) as the source material for the Book of Mormon and may in some form or fashion been absolutely necessary for its production provides evidentiary and/or foundational 'meat and potatoes' to the narrative of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.

To me it's always been interesting that Joseph had this relationship with the plates when he could have simply come up with the Book of Mormon whole cloth without going through the whole plate thing...and all that this entailed.

You know THAT story.

Regards,
MG

[_Res Ipsa]

There was no need for him to ever have physical possession of anything aside from the rock and the hat to 'translate'.

Let's turn things around. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the Book of Mormon was given to Joseph Smith through revelation from God. No plates whatsoever. Not in the hill. Never constructed and/or written on by purported ancient prophets.

But the Book of Mormon ends up still being what it purports to be and is written and published. An ancient record, but without plates. Simply another book written through inspiration/revelation...period.

Isn't it more than likely that the record being found and somehow being used as the artifact/delivery system and/or source of the translation...and Joseph Smith and Co. knowing this to be so...would aid (essentially so) and/or act as the evidence that what they were doing was more than another 'revelatory enterprise' where someone came up with a revelatory scripture/treatise of some kind essentially out of their head and/or dependent on pure revelation?

The fact that plates are witnessed to and purportedly existed (according to the witnesses) as the source material for the Book of Mormon and may in some form or fashion been absolutely necessary for its production provides evidentiary and/or foundational 'meat and potatoes' to the narrative of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.

To me it's always been interesting that Joseph had this relationship with the plates when he could have simply come up with the Book of Mormon whole cloth without going through the whole plate thing...and all that this entailed.

You know THAT story.

Regards,
MG

So, the purpose of the plates under your hypothesis was to serve as a misleading prop -- something that served solely to provide credibility but had nothing to do with the translation itself. I could agree with that, but I suspect not in the way you intended.

[_canpakes]

Let's turn things around. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the Book of Mormon was given to Joseph Smith through revelation from God. No plates whatsoever. Not in the hill. Never constructed and/or written on by purported ancient prophets.

But the Book of Mormon ends up still being what it purports to be and is written and published. An ancient record, but without plates. Simply another book written through inspiration/revelation...period.

Isn't it more than likely that the record being found and somehow being used as the artifact/delivery system and/or source of the translation...and Joseph Smith and Co. knowing this to be so...would aid (essentially so) and/or act as the evidence that what they were doing was more than another 'revelatory enterprise' where someone came up with a revelatory scripture/treatise of some kind essentially out of their head and/or dependent on pure revelation?

The fact that plates are witnessed to and purportedly existed (according to the witnesses) as the source material for the Book of Mormon and may in some form or fashion been absolutely necessary for its production provides evidentiary and/or foundational 'meat and potatoes' to the narrative of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.

To me it's always been interesting that Joseph had this relationship with the plates when he could have simply come up with the Book of Mormon whole cloth without going through the whole plate thing...and all that this entailed.

You know THAT story.

Regards,
MG

Res Ipsa has already penned a sufficient response to this, but I'll add a few words.

If the Book represents the inspired instruction of God, then why is any physical artifact necessary to help bolster that belief? *

In a way, you highlight that previous scripture was created without 'props', save for perhaps the claimed stone tablets of the 10 commandments. And if the translation process does not require anything here aside from Smith's rock and hat, then exposing actual plates seems problematic. If anything, actual or authentic plates here would stand the chance of being seized and desecrated, or destroyed. As it was, they are claimed to have been taken back by a heavenly being anyway.

And while in his possession, Smith was highly reluctant to have them examined save for being handled while covered or obscured. Not that a physical examination of them uncovered would have determined anything anyway, except that they would appear to be metal-ish plates, perhaps with untranslatable engravings of some sort on them... something not beyond being forged.

The story of the plates can be processed as being an attempt to 'prove' the validity of Smith's claim by his introduction of something tangible for inspection (with restrictions), but these just end up being as unverifiable as any other component of Smith's story. That such a prop was seen as being necessary becomes a wholly new question for which the answer should be carefully considered.

* This ties into the emphasis on the Book of Mormon and grasping on to and preference of the identification by Church members as 'Mormons' as opposed to merely Christians, which is an entirely separate conversation.

[_mentalgymnast]

So, the purpose of the plates under your hypothesis was to serve as a misleading prop...

No. That's not what I said. I used the word "essential".

-- something that served solely to provide credibility...

They did that, yes. And more, I would suspect.

...but had nothing to do with the translation itself.

Again, that's not what I said. Are you a lawyer of some stripe?

You may want to go back and read what I actually said.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

Res Ipsa has already penned a sufficient response to this, but I'll add a few words.

I've already replied to him. If that isn't enough, go back and read my previous posts.

I've pretty much said what I wanted to say earlier.

But as is often par for the course, I apparently may not have been clear enough. Let it be said again...I think the plates were necessary. Even essential. But it wasn't essential that they were sitting right next to Joseph during the translation the whole time.

Although we should remember that witnesses testified that the plates were right near...close enough to touch, at times.

Regards,
MG