mentalgymnast wrote:In multiple posts I've stated my opinion and those of others as to why the plates were essential and why they may not always have been in close proximity to the translators. Let me post one more extract from the Book of Mormon Central site I linked you to.
These insights—both practical and spiritual—suggest that rather than being unnecessary, the physical plates may have been essential to the translation process. The engraved characters copied from their pages helped strengthen the faith of Martin Harris and others. Their tangible reality was an ever-present reminder that Joseph’s words were derived from an actual record of ancient prophets. And their veiled presence meaningfully symbolized Jesus Christ’s full participation in the translation.
As Elder Jeffery R. Holland testified, “the reality of those plates, the substance of them if you will, and the evidence that comes to us from them in the form of the Book of Mormon is at the heart, at the very center, of the hope and testimony and conviction of this work that is unshakably within me forever.”
mentalgymnast wrote: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.
OK, so what we seem to be arriving at is that the plates were in no way necessary for the
translation process.
But what they are necessary for, in your opinion, is to help convince Smith's family and confederates that what Smith was saying was originating from something tangible.
Holland's quote above is interesting, but what have past resources had to say about the need for physical artifacts when considering the 'truth' of the Book of Mormon and its story?
From Gordon B. Hinckley:
I can hold [the Book of Mormon] in my hand. It is real. It has weight and substance that can be physically measured. I can open its pages and read, and it has language both beautiful and uplifting. The ancient record from which it was translated came out of the earth as a voice speaking from the dust. . . .
“The evidence for its truth, for its validity in a world that is prone to demand evidence, lies not in archaeology or anthropology, though these may be helpful to some. It lies not in word research or historical analysis, though these may be confirmatory. The evidence for its truth and validity lies within the covers of the book itself. The test of its truth lies in reading it. It is a book of God. Reasonable individuals may sincerely question its origin, but those who read it prayerfully may come to know by a power beyond their natural senses that it is true, that it contains the word of God, that it outlines saving truths of the everlasting gospel, that it came forth by the gift and power of God
Ezra Taft Benson:
We do not have to prove the Book of Mormon is true. The book is its own proof. All we need to do is read it and declare it.
And then there's this Moroni guy:
Moroni 10:4-5 wrote:And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.
Is physical evidence really required to believe? And
what here is the thing to be believed - that something that looks like it could be an 'ancient record', as claimed by someone, appears to be placed there on a table, or in a box, or wrapped in cloth? Or that the
content of whatever the man is supposedly translating - while not even referring to that item - is 'true'?
And if physical plates were required by God to get folks to believe in the Book of Mormon narrative, why bother to supposedly instruct Smith to
hide them? Rather, why not have Smith translate from these plates
in the open, as was depicted so often in Church literature from past days?
On a related note, and given the numerous images of the process provided in Church literature over the decades, isn't it interesting that the depiction of Smith translating directly from the plates was, in the opinion of the Church, a better mechanism for getting people to believe in the story than what the people within the Book supposedly have to say about belief and faith?
