Could Joseph Smith Make the Plates?

[malkie]

MG, understandably, is hell bent on not challenging the authenticity of these single-witness claims. No surprise there.

Like I've said, he is here to disrupt and troll. It would delight me if Shades would just ban him and get rid of his sorry ass. He's caused so much trouble on this board playing his deceptive games. In my book, he's garbage.

I vote to ban MG and send him to Outer Darkness where he belongs:

[x] Shulem

I'd rather not. He has as many interesting ideas as many of our posters - more than I - and I'd vote against such a ban for that reason alone.

But more important, I believe, is the role that he fulfills as the amateur apologist - ignoring difficult questions, cutting his fingers on double-edged swords, moving goalposts, and a range of other techniques.

[MG 2.0]

Like I've said, he is here to disrupt and troll. It would delight me if Shades would just ban him and get rid of his sorry ass. He's caused so much trouble on this board playing his deceptive games. In my book, he's garbage.

I vote to ban MG and send him to Outer Darkness where he belongs:

[x] Shulem

I'd rather not. He has as many interesting ideas as many of our posters - more than I - and I'd vote against such a ban for that reason alone.

But more important, I believe, is the role that he fulfills as the amateur apologist - ignoring difficult questions, cutting his fingers on double-edged swords, moving goalposts, and a range of other techniques.

On another thread (SS Presidency Handbook change) I've expressed similar thoughts towards banning and/or curtailing the participation of some posters due to their trolling habits. I don't expect to see anything come of it.

Shulem's expression merely fulfills one or more of the traits/actions I've listed on that thread having to do with a certain garden variety of trolls.

Regards,
MG

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

I see the dickless troll has resorted to playing the victim again. Mormonology 101.

[Shulem]

...non-existent tumbaga

My understanding is that Joe's so-called gold Bible was patterned after the Jaredite plates that were said to be made of pure gold and were kept in the secret cave buried under New York Cumorah. Granted, the text of the Book of Mormon does not specifically tell us about the composition of Mormon's plates but it seems reasonable enough to assume he would have patterned them after the Jaredite record which had set the ultimate precedent. Mormon certainly had the resources to forge pure gold to make *his* plates and in doing so they would be in perfect uniformity with that of the Jaredite pure gold Bible. Apologists must acknowledge the streets in heaven are paved with the appearance of pure gold so it's reasonable to conclude that Joe's gold Bible would also have the appearance of gold -- being made of pure gold.

The apologists are on very shaky ground in pushing their tumbaga theory, are they not?

[Shulem]

[Charles] Anthon thought the characters he was shown were squiggles. It's only Joseph Smith's version that has Anthon verifying not only that they were true characters, but that their translation was correct, more so than any he had before seen translated from the Egyptian, which is pure fiction. My own study of the characters shows that they are mostly invented from English letters and Arabic numerals. This isn't really relevant since no one saw the plates uncovered, so nothing had to be engraved on the plates.

Fake Egyptian writing and fake plates go hand in hand, wouldn't you say? The Caractors Document is another (one of many) smoking guns.

I know beyond a shadow of doubt that Joseph Smith's so-called gold Bible was fake and the whole thing was a pious fraud. I know it absolutely as much as I know anything about life and death.

I so testify.

Amen.

[Shulem]

I see the dickless troll has resorted to playing the victim again. Mormonology 101.

Let's put the troll back in his bottle.

[Marcus]

[Charles] Anthon thought the characters he was shown were squiggles. It's only Joseph Smith's version that has Anthon verifying not only that they were true characters, but that their translation was correct, more so than any he had before seen translated from the Egyptian, which is pure fiction. My own study of the characters shows that they are mostly invented from English letters and Arabic numerals. This isn't really relevant since no one saw the plates uncovered, so nothing had to be engraved on the plates.

Fake Egyptian writing and fake plates go hand in hand, wouldn't you say? The Caractors Document is another (one of many) smoking guns...

Anytime there are actual pieces of evidence, they invariably end up being shown to be fraudulent. That's a significant piece of data when it comes to judging the origin stories and the missing artifacts.

[malkie]

[Charles] Anthon thought the characters he was shown were squiggles. It's only Joseph Smith's version that has Anthon verifying not only that they were true characters, but that their translation was correct, more so than any he had before seen translated from the Egyptian, which is pure fiction. My own study of the characters shows that they are mostly invented from English letters and Arabic numerals. This isn't really relevant since no one saw the plates uncovered, so nothing had to be engraved on the plates.

Fake Egyptian writing and fake plates go hand in hand, wouldn't you say? The Caractors Document is another (one of many) smoking guns.

I know beyond a shadow of doubt that Joseph Smith's so-called gold Bible was fake and the whole thing was a pious fraud. I know it absolutely as much as I know anything about life and death.

I so testify.

Amen.

Anytime there are actual pieces of evidence, they invariably end up being shown to be fraudulent. That's a significant piece of data when it comes to judging the origin stories and the missing artifacts.

This is another case of a single uncorroborated - or rather, contradicted - claim that the church and its apologists seem to accept. Martin Harris told the "faithful" version of the story, and the only other person known to be present, Charles Anthon, completely denied what Harris said. For me, Anthon is more credible because as an educated man, and an expert in his field, it's extremely unlikely that he would put his reputation on the line by confirming that the translation of the "Caracors" was correct. Surely he knew that he could not possibly make that claimed statement.

[MG 2.0]

Fake Egyptian writing and fake plates go hand in hand, wouldn't you say? The Caractors Document is another (one of many) smoking guns.

I know beyond a shadow of doubt that Joseph Smith's so-called gold Bible was fake and the whole thing was a pious fraud. I know it absolutely as much as I know anything about life and death.

I so testify.

Amen.

Anytime there are actual pieces of evidence, they invariably end up being shown to be fraudulent. That's a significant piece of data when it comes to judging the origin stories and the missing artifacts.

This is another case of a single uncorroborated - or rather, contradicted - claim that the church and its apologists seem to accept. Martin Harris told the "faithful" version of the story, and the only other person known to be present, Charles Anthon, completely denied what Harris said. For me, Anthon is more credible because as an educated man, and an expert in his field, it's extremely unlikely that he would put his reputation on the line by confirming that the translation of the "Caracors" was correct. Surely he knew that he could not possibly make that claimed statement.

Emphasis on "expert in his field". He was an accomplished classicist (isn't that kind of what Kishkumen would describe himself as?) but that didn't make him an expert in Egyptian in 1828. Isn't that true? Also, didn't Anton give two written accounts? Were they consistent with each other? Why?

Were either one of those written in a hostile, anti-Mormon context? Does that matter?

Always more questions when we look at these things, aren't there? Good thing I'm around to at least ask them ( )...even if there may be satisfactory answers. But maybe not all the time? A bit of conjecture here and there based upon limited information?

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

Which two written accounts can be verified? As far as I'm aware (which is not very far ) one of the "accounts" was only ever claimed to exist by Martin Harris - oops, that's an uncorroborated claim. Actually not just uncorroborated, as it was denied by the only other person present.

Are you implying that Anton described himself as an expert in Egyptian in 1828? Let's see the evidence.

As far as I'm aware (again) there is no objective evidence that Anthon wrote anything in "a hostile, anti-Mormon context". Once again, an uncorroborated claim. Are you perhaps guilty of assuming that any environment that is not pro-Mormon is therefore anti-Mormon?

On the other hand, is it not fairly clear that Harris (due to issues with his wife over Mormonism) was highly motivated in the pro-Mormon direction. He needed something - anything - to give the translation story some backing.