The magic of plates

[Gadianton]

Continuing the plates conversation, but I ask that the mods keep this thread generally about the plates.

From Marcus' quotes in another thread:

The Book of Mormon starts off as a treasure that he and other treasure seers were looking for. The translation springs out of that, and it cannot be divorced from it. He had first to convince others that he recovered the plates. Then he eventually commits to translating them himself. Knowing that this all originated in a ruse, we should instead think it would have been strange for him to do other than he did.

So, yes, the gold plates were made up. But they were tailor made for a culture of sacred and magical books that was not only informed by the Bible (and this is the dominant influence, to be sure), but also by the Sixth and Seventh Books of Moses, Letters from Heaven, the gold plate of Enoch, the Emerald Tablet of Hermes Trismegistus, and the Books of Numa

These support Bushman's belief that real plates are essential to the faithful narrative. Kishkumen, however, makes "the case for why the plates were integral to the bringing forth of the Book of Mormon", whereas more traditional Mormons, Bushman included do not.

Bushman barely makes a case: "The plates imply God is an active agent in human affairs..."

I think Bushman faces a problem. He can claim plates are necessary because they make "God an active agent". But they weren't so necessary when translating the Book of Moses from a vision, now were they? Bushman's argument for "why plates" in principle is barely anything. And it's really a problem when set next to the null hypothesis: Because saying "no plates" implies the tremendous string of lies, which compromises credibility of the founder. Why there needs to be plates in principle will be next to impossible for Bushman or DCP to explain.

But, in the 200 years between the so-called restoration and now, has there been no opportunity for tradition to evolve in another direction?

It seems as time unfolded, the plates turned optional:

https://byustudies.BYU.edu/article/the- ... %20lightly.

In his landmark conference addresses in 1986, President Benson repeatedly cited the passage from the Doctrine and Covenants quoted above and reiterated his long-standing belief that the Church was under condemnation for taking the Book of Mormon too lightly.

Such fervor did not always exist. Early LDS converts were students of the Bible, and with no traditions concerning the Book of Mormon, they did not readily incorporate the new scripture into their devotions.2 The early Saints valued the Book of Mormon as evidence of the Restoration, but by the Nauvoo period, focus on the book had already decreased.3 As recently as the mid-1930s, BYU and the LDS Institutes of Religion only occasionally featured the Book of Mormon in their curricula.

From 1832–38, in publications such as the Evening and the Morning Star and the Messenger and Advocate, the ratio of Bible references to Book of Mormon references averaged nineteen to one. In some publications, such as the Elders’ Journal, the ratio was as high as forty to one.

Both of these studies found that a very low percentage of early LDS speeches and writings overtly encouraged the study or distribution of the book

Though the Book of Mormon was largely overlooked throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, a few leaders emphasized the importance of this newly revealed scripture.

Reynold's speech is catastrophic to Bushman's beliefs, with two key takeaways: 1) For much of the Church's existence, the Book of Mormon and presumably the plates themselves became optional. In other words, it simply isn't true that the Church continued with the fresh activity of the Lord's hand in human affairs (via the plates) in mind. 2) It was Ezra Taft Benson's call to fundamentalism that brought the Book of Mormon back to center of the narrative. This is revealing in the sense that it wasn't the power of the Joseph Smith story, or anything special about having real plates with real history that worked on the hearts and minds of the Saints, but basically the 1986 leader guilt tripping everyone over it, and so people looked for ways to reconnect with the Book of Mormon.

[Marcus]

Both of these studies found that a very low percentage of early LDS speeches and writings overtly encouraged the study or distribution of the book

This is a very interesting quote. I vaguely remember a campaign wherein families were supposed to buy books of Mormon, write inside them, and give them away as a missionary effort. I wonder if this was a result of Benson's 1986 talk.

[Res Ipsa]

Continuing the plates conversation, but I ask that the mods keep this thread generally about the plates.

From Marcus' quotes in another thread:

The Book of Mormon starts off as a treasure that he and other treasure seers were looking for. The translation springs out of that, and it cannot be divorced from it. He had first to convince others that he recovered the plates. Then he eventually commits to translating them himself. Knowing that this all originated in a ruse, we should instead think it would have been strange for him to do other than he did.

So, yes, the gold plates were made up. But they were tailor made for a culture of sacred and magical books that was not only informed by the Bible (and this is the dominant influence, to be sure), but also by the Sixth and Seventh Books of Moses, Letters from Heaven, the gold plate of Enoch, the Emerald Tablet of Hermes Trismegistus, and the Books of Numa

These support Bushman's belief that real plates are essential to the faithful narrative. Kishkumen, however, makes "the case for why the plates were integral to the bringing forth of the Book of Mormon", whereas more traditional Mormons, Bushman included do not.

Bushman barely makes a case: "The plates imply God is an active agent in human affairs..."

I think Bushman faces a problem. He can claim plates are necessary because they make "God an active agent". But they weren't so necessary when translating the Book of Moses from a vision, now were they? Bushman's argument for "why plates" in principle is barely anything. And it's really a problem when set next to the null hypothesis: Because saying "no plates" implies the tremendous string of lies, which compromises credibility of the founder. Why there needs to be plates in principle will be next to impossible for Bushman or DCP to explain.

But, in the 200 years between the so-called restoration and now, has there been no opportunity for tradition to evolve in another direction?

It seems as time unfolded, the plates turned optional:

https://byustudies.BYU.edu/article/the- ... %20lightly.

In his landmark conference addresses in 1986, President Benson repeatedly cited the passage from the Doctrine and Covenants quoted above and reiterated his long-standing belief that the Church was under condemnation for taking the Book of Mormon too lightly.

Such fervor did not always exist. Early LDS converts were students of the Bible, and with no traditions concerning the Book of Mormon, they did not readily incorporate the new scripture into their devotions.2 The early Saints valued the Book of Mormon as evidence of the Restoration, but by the Nauvoo period, focus on the book had already decreased.3 As recently as the mid-1930s, BYU and the LDS Institutes of Religion only occasionally featured the Book of Mormon in their curricula.

From 1832–38, in publications such as the Evening and the Morning Star and the Messenger and Advocate, the ratio of Bible references to Book of Mormon references averaged nineteen to one. In some publications, such as the Elders’ Journal, the ratio was as high as forty to one.

Both of these studies found that a very low percentage of early LDS speeches and writings overtly encouraged the study or distribution of the book

Though the Book of Mormon was largely overlooked throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, a few leaders emphasized the importance of this newly revealed scripture.

Reynold's speech is catastrophic to Bushman's beliefs, with two key takeaways: 1) For much of the Church's existence, the Book of Mormon and presumably the plates themselves became optional. In other words, it simply isn't true that the Church continued with the fresh activity of the Lord's hand in human affairs (via the plates) in mind. 2) It was Ezra Taft Benson's call to fundamentalism that brought the Book of Mormon back to center of the narrative. This is revealing in the sense that it wasn't the power of the Joseph Smith story, or anything special about having real plates with real history that worked on the hearts and minds of the Saints, but basically the 1986 leader guilt tripping everyone over it, and so people looked for ways to reconnect with the Book of Mormon.

Boy, that timeline doesn't square with my recollection of growing up in the church. I think we spent as much time on the Book of Mormon as we did on the Bible. I recall one year of seminary being devoted to the Book of Mormon. When I attended BYU in 1976-77, the required religion class that year was on the Book of Mormon. I left the church while Kimball was still prophet, so I can't speak to the effects of Benson's speech.

[Res Ipsa]

Both of these studies found that a very low percentage of early LDS speeches and writings overtly encouraged the study or distribution of the book

This is a very interesting quote. I vaguely remember a campaign wherein families were supposed to buy books of Mormon, write inside them, and give them away as a missionary effort. I wonder if this was a result of Benson's 1986 talk.

I have a similar vague recollection of campaigns involving giving BofMs to friends and neighbors. Not positive about the writing part. But it would have had to have been in the early to mid 1970s. Somewhere, there was even a Book of Mormon printed with a special cover resembling the plates that believe was part of those campaigns. Pretty fuzzy memories, though.

[Gadianton]

Boy, that timeline doesn't square with my recollection of growing up in the church.

There could definitely be bias in that talk. I did a Google search thinking, "Wait a second, if ETB gave a talk blasting the Saints for the neglect of the Book of Mormon, then how Important has it really been between the so-called restoration and now?"

This was the first solid hit and so I went with it.

I didn't read the entire talk as it is quite long, it's nearly long enough to make it into Interpreter. Reynolds is a FARMS guy, and so he has a vested interest in the Church having neglected the Book of Mormon and then here comes FARMS to save the day and justify it's existence.

But it's something to consider. Perhaps what I've always believed, even now, about the Joseph Smith story being what essentially makes Mormonism Mormonism is wrong. Perhaps it could have gone another way.

[Marcus]

Boy, that timeline doesn't square with my recollection of growing up in the church.

There could definitely be bias in that talk. I did a Google search thinking, "Wait a second, if ETB gave a talk blasting the Saints for the neglect of the Book of Mormon, then how Important has it really been between the so-called restoration and now?"

This was the first solid hit and so I went with it.

I didn't read the entire talk as it is quite long, it's nearly long enough to make it into Interpreter. Reynolds is a FARMS guy, and so he has a vested interest in the Church having neglected the Book of Mormon and then here comes FARMS to save the day and justify it's existence.

But it's something to consider. Perhaps what I've always believed, even now, about the Joseph Smith story being what essentially makes Mormonism Mormonism is wrong. Perhaps it could have gone another way.

Its an interesting point. We are seeing, real time, how the LDS church covers up stories and throws a lot of money at attempts to change the "history" that it has its members tell. I have no doubt this has been happening for decades, so finding the true history will be difficult, but hopefully someone can do it.

(Where's our friend grindael when you need him?!!!
May he rest in peace.)

[huckelberry]

The time of my most involvement in the church was the decade of the 1960s. I remember the Book of Mormon as being an important focus. A year in Seminary was Book of Mormon. I really could not say about attitudes in the 1920s but I do not remember any body saying that the role of the Book of Mormon was a new interest or being given increased value.

I do remember ET Benson gracing conferences with his John Birch Society inspired warnings about communist infiltration. I have heard that he later when president of the church made an emphasis on the Book of Mormon. I am inclined to think the Book of Mormon is more in sync with John Birch than the Bible is so pushing the emphasis was to give people a better grounding in paranoid politics.

The plates, the idea of the plates, is a representation of the Book of Mormon being a historical record and the book being a sure witness to the resurrection of Jesus and his divine role. The book could function for believers as very important without being read from cover to cover many times. I think more people had portions they valued. But it could say the church is true by just sitting on a shelf.

adding a second thought. I have been surprised at the extent and dedication to reading and rereading the Book of Mormon some people have claimed to pursue. I can imagine some more recent devoted students of the book looking at past attitudes and seeing them as relatively casual and lacking proper devotion and diligence.

[Moksha]

The Grand Master of the Order of St John of Jerusalem had to pay an annual tribute to Emperor Charles V for granting Tripoli, Malta, and Gozo. The annual tribute payable on All Saints Day (1 November) was one falcon. The elements of human greed and evil-doing were introduced by making the falcon into an idol of gold in a subsequent fictionalized story. This parallels the golden plates in the Book of Mormon story, except that the original peregrine falcon from Malta was real.

Both the Gold Falcon and the Gold Plates served the purpose of what Alfred Hitchcock would term a MacGuffin.

[Marcus]

The time of my most involvement in the church was the decade of the 1960s. I remember the Book of Mormon as being an important focus. A year in Seminary was Book of Mormon. I really could not say about attitudes in the 1920s but I do not remember any body saying that the role of the Book of Mormon was a new interest or being given increased value.

I do remember ET Benson gracing conferences with his John Birch Society inspired warnings about communist infiltration. I have heard that he later when president of the church made an emphasis on the Book of Mormon. I am inclined to think the Book of Mormon is more in sync with John Birch than the Bible is so pushing the emphasis was to give people a better grounding in paranoid politics.

The plates, the idea of the plates, is a representation of the Book of Mormon being a historical record and the book being a sure witness to the resurrection of Jesus and his divine role. The book could function for believers as very important without being read from cover to cover many times. I think more people had portions they valued. But it could say the church is true by just sitting on a shelf.

adding a second thought. I have been surprised at the extent and dedication to reading and rereading the Book of Mormon some people have claimed to pursue. I can imagine some more recent devoted students of the book looking at past attitudes and seeing them as relatively casual and lacking proper devotion and diligence.

Re your second thought, I recall having YW goals that included daily reading of the Book of Mormon, and I remember trying every possible strategy to alleviate the boredom but still get through the task. I love to read, and back then books were a particular pleasure, but trying to get through Mormon scripture was a slog. I did it though, and multiple times, so I suppose I qualify as one who did read and reread the Book of Mormon, but it was more likely that scrupulosity and ocd made it happen, not a dedication to the Mormon beliefs.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

I read that thing through something like seven times, straight through, and I’m not counting scripture study. It was a total morass. Blech.

- Doc