The magic of plates

[Shulem]

Smith was not interested in showing anyone the hole in the ground or paying respect later on by commemorating the hallowed ground in which Moroni dedicated the plates through solemn prayer and laid them to rest in a box of his making.

Couldn't the Church pick a random spot of ground on the Hill Cumorah and erect a golden X marking the spot as a commemoration of the sacred hole?

The Church is not guided by supernatural revelation in which the leaders think they can keep up with Joseph Smith's abilities and claims. Let them try and find the hole in the ground where the plates were buried. Let them try! They will fail. Their Holy Ghost is a holy sham. They got nothing.

Then, they can spend all the money they want combing the entire landscape about that hole and downhill until they find traces of the stone box. They can dig and sift through tons of dirt looking for that box and remnants of the ancient cuts of stone that produced a box stout and large enough to contain what Smith said was therein. But they will not find pieces of that box! It never existed.

And, Daniel C. Peterson, bite me, dude. You're a dodo. U fool.

[Shulem]

They could even claim the seer stone showed them the spot.

They can't claim anything as true based on evidence shown by the facts other than how much money they have in the bank. And they lie about that too. The leaders of Mormonism are corrupt -- all of them. They are handpicked because they have been so conditioned and brainwashed that they will not depart from their training and are willing to lie for the Lord and the Church at any cost. The leaders of the Church are not good people. They are corrupt. All of them. It is a spiritual racket.

[Marcus]

Couldn't the Church pick a random spot of ground on the Hill Cumorah and erect a golden X marking the spot as a commemoration of the sacred hole?

They could even claim the seer stone showed them the spot.

That's what I don't get about that dumb rock. Strategically, the plates are a great myth, right up until you show them. And showing a rock is worse, in my opinion. It's like posting pics of the Ouija board teenagers use, or the crystals that protect your home, or magnets. (my ex-MIL went through a period of selling magnets, so I understand it's not just Mormons.) I even recall one young Mormon op-Ed piece in a Utah paper gushing about how we all follow horoscopes so how's a rock any harder to understand??

One the other hand, the number of Mormon MLMs based on really bad science is ubiquitous, so maybe church leaders just didn't realize how ludicrous exhibiting the rock would look.

[Marcus]

This is a better thread for my comment:

...If the Book of Mormon had its origins in the visionary realm the likelihood of there having been real plates comes up a notch. In other words, if Joseph is telling the truth in regards to the translation being done through the “gift and power of God”…and that seems to be a likely alternative to him doing it on his own…then why would he have lied about the angel and the plates? The translation, the plates, and the angel are all intertwined....

No, that logic doesn't follow. Why would "supernatural" stories, by definition, mean they were written on "natural" i.e. actual, physical sources?

Your other argument requires this to be assumed:
"if Joseph is telling the truth in regards to the translation being done through the “gift and power of God”…"

In order to conclude this:
"then why would he have lied about the angel and the plates?"

Not only does that require an assumption that you have not supported as factual, but you are concluding that one non-supported assertion of truth implies no other lies were told. You'll need to support both your assumption and your implication, neither of which you did.

The main point is still this however, if you want to pick one, why would "supernatural" stories, by definition have to imply that they must have been written on "natural" i.e. actual, physical sources?

[Marcus]

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.o ... y-sources/
...Thanks for the link to that article. Looks like it just came out recently.

I would suggest everyone read it from beginning to end...

I got this far in Hales' paper:

...But the case is more complex because little or no manuscript data (beyond the historical artifacts of the Original and Printer’s manuscripts of the Book of Mormon) supports Joseph Smith’s capacity to do so.121

Lol. So, other than the fact that there are "the historical artifacts of the Original and Printer’s manuscripts", there is "little or no manuscript data."

So, no proof of manuscripts other than the two manuscripts we have.

Can we speak to an Editor here?

Also this:

Telling Stories to Family in 1823
Lucy Mack Smith, Joseph’s mother, describes his storytelling inclinations around 1823 when he was in his seventeenth year:

During our evening conversations, Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined. He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of travelling, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life with them.62

If Joseph’s stories originated in his imagination, this recollection is evidence of his creativity as a youth. They include references to the “ancient inhabitants of this continent,” including “their dress, mode of traveling, and the animals upon which they rode,” details not included in the narrative of the Book of Mormon...

It's interesting Hales picks out the references he did, while leaving out "their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship..."

All of those were mentioned many, many times in the B of M, so what point is Hales trying to make when he picks out the few that he says (with no support and very little accuracy) were not included in the B of M?

It comes back to your point, Gad:

...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...

[Gadianton]

That's what I don't get about that dumb rock. Strategically, the plates are a great myth, right up until you show them. And showing a rock is worse, in my opinion. It's like posting pics of the Ouija board teenagers use, or the crystals that protect your home, or magnets.

Absolutely. The only thing that makes sense to me is, as a fraud, you're stuck between a rock (npi) and a hard place. On the one hand, it's the wonders of real, physical plates of gold from ancient times that holds the peoples' interest. But on the other, you're constantly stringing them along because, of course, you've got nothing, so you don't have a choice but to come up with lame excuses. How do you translate something that you don't have? You've got to find a way out, and hope your initial "hook" was good enough that you can keep the ruse going without people dropping out over it.

He ended up with the Book of Moses and the D&C cutting out the middlemen and just producing the text of his revelations directly. The question is, would it have been less lame to have jumped straight to narrating the Book of Mormon just from the inspiration in his head rather than user a rock and hat?

For our day, almost certainly. For his day, maybe the stone seemed kind of mystical at least, but yeah, it's hard to believe that people would have latched on to that without already having been hooked.

[High Spy]

Why there needs to be plates in principle will be next to impossible for Bushman or DCP to explain.

Not impossible for The Wicker Man (The Wicker Man) to reveal that Sidney Rigdon was the originator of a manuscript that PPP (Parley P. Pratt) took with him on his annual wagon route.

Rigdon couldn’t get it published, so folklore was employed as expected in the traditions of the day, which included PPP annual visits reformulated as Moroni w/ plates, and a whole cadre of shenanigans.

RFM says it was actually a white hat.

Shenanigans was a great restaurant on Saipan

Saipanda was cooL too.

[Moksha]

But they will not find pieces of that box! It never existed.

You are introducing the element of having actually existed. Couldn't they simply build some commemoration for the Unknown Box and leave the imagining to the viewers? Like mourners paying their respects to the Tomb of William Shakespeare in Los Angeles.

[Marcus]

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.o ... y-sources/
...Thanks for the link to that article. Looks like it just came out recently.

I would suggest everyone read it from beginning to end...

I got this far in Hales' paper:

...But the case is more complex because little or no manuscript data (beyond the historical artifacts of the Original and Printer’s manuscripts of the Book of Mormon) supports Joseph Smith’s capacity to do so.121

Lol. So, other than the fact that there are "the historical artifacts of the Original and Printer’s manuscripts", there is "little or no manuscript data."

So, no proof of manuscripts other than the two manuscripts we have.

Can we speak to an Editor here?

Also this:

Telling Stories to Family in 1823
Lucy Mack Smith, Joseph’s mother, describes his storytelling inclinations around 1823 when he was in his seventeenth year:

During our evening conversations, Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined. He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of travelling, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life with them.62

If Joseph’s stories originated in his imagination, this recollection is evidence of his creativity as a youth. They include references to the “ancient inhabitants of this continent,” including “their dress, mode of traveling, and the animals upon which they rode,” details not included in the narrative of the Book of Mormon...

It's interesting Hales picks out the references he did, while leaving out "their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship..."

All of those were mentioned many, many times in the B of M, so what point is Hales trying to make when he picks out the few that he says (with no support and very little accuracy) were not included in the B of M?

I expanded on my disagreement with Hales' analysis and its inconsistency here:

...a problem i find typical in the use of mopologetics in an argument-- the fact that the evidence used to support one argument is not consistent with how others use that same evidence across various other arguments.

Add in the fact that Hales misused a reference from Lucy Mack Smith to incorrectly attempt to support his point and mopologetics becomes even more problematic.

In a nutshell, Hales picks out some elements of Smith's storytelling and argues they are not in the B of M, while ignoring the fact that the next four elements he 'storytells' absolutely are in the book. In fact, the Dales refer specifically to and rely heavily on all 4 in their egregiously incorrect statistical support of the book's historicity.

So, either Smith's storytelling elements NOT being in the book are proof Smith couldn't have written it (Hales) OR, Smith's storytelling elements BEING in the book are proof Smith couldn't have written it (the Dales.)

Can't be both. Plus, Hales fudged the truth, which means the article mg is lauding (even though he has posted in this thread his disagreement with one of Hales' main points!) is not a good reference, but simply another of the bad mopologetics the Interpreter doesn't peer review, but prints anyway.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

I got this far in Hales' paper:


Lol. So, other than the fact that there are "the historical artifacts of the Original and Printer’s manuscripts", there is "little or no manuscript data."

So, no proof of manuscripts other than the two manuscripts we have.

Can we speak to an Editor here?

Also this:

It's interesting Hales picks out the references he did, while leaving out "their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship..."

All of those were mentioned many, many times in the B of M, so what point is Hales trying to make when he picks out the few that he says (with no support and very little accuracy) were not included in the B of M?

I expanded on my disagreement with Hales' analysis and its inconsistency here:

...a problem i find typical in the use of mopologetics in an argument-- the fact that the evidence used to support one argument is not consistent with how others use that same evidence across various other arguments.

Add in the fact that Hales misused a reference from Lucy Mack Smith to incorrectly attempt to support his point and mopologetics becomes even more problematic.

In a nutshell, Hales picks out some elements of Smith's storytelling and argues they are not in the B of M, while ignoring the fact that the next four elements he 'storytells' absolutely are in the book. In fact, the Dales refer specifically to and rely heavily on all 4 in their egregiously incorrect statistical support of the book's historicity.

So, either Smith's storytelling elements NOT being in the book are proof Smith couldn't have written it (Hales) OR, Smith's storytelling elements BEING in the book are proof Smith couldn't have written it (the Dales.)

Can't be both. Plus, Hales fudged the truth, which means the article mg is lauding (even though he has posted in this thread his disagreement with one of Hales' main points!) is not a good reference, but simply another of the bad mopologetics the Interpreter doesn't peer review, but prints anyway.

Marcus, excellent research. Thank you.