Could Joseph Smith Make the Plates?

[I Have Questions]

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.

Harris was pumping significant money into the scheme in the hopes of getting a big financial return. He was desperately trying to give The Book of Mormon legitimacy for financial reasons. He’s an early example of the sunk cost fallacy. His wife, on the other hand, saw more clearly that their money was going down the drain.

[Gadianton]

The 'green caste' may not be a deal breaker for you but it seems to be for others.

I think the deal breaker is the fundamental story of getting gold plates from an angel. It just can't be taken seriously. It's about as likely true as the world having been created in a butter churn. Sure, it's possible the JWST will spot a gigantic butter churn in the cosmic background, and people will need to rethink things. But until then, Mormonism will be understood in the ways any other religion is understood, which is as a human composition. The puzzle isn't whether he had real gold plates or not, obviously he didn't, it's what did he really have as a prop or props, if anything at all? And I'm sure some historians wouldn't even think that is a very interesting question. If all of the explanations for tin or copper plates or bricks or blocks of wood fail, for whatever reasons, it just means we don't have enough information to say. It doesn't make the possibility of real gold plates from an angel .001% more likely.

this is another reason why critics and debunkers are a good thing for storytellers. It superficially seems to put believer and doubter of a claim on an equal footing. If the claim is completely audacious, and a critic seeks to explain the claim in ordinary terms and is mistaken, then it feels like the likelihood of the claim increases somewhere between a little bit and substantially. But this is incorrect.

[Limnor]

The 'green caste' may not be a deal breaker for you but it seems to be for others.

I think the deal breaker is the fundamental story of getting gold plates from an angel.

For me it’s “An angel gave you plates? Let’s see them.” “Uh sorry yeah the angel took them back.”

Right.

[Shulem]

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?

If Charles Anthon had seen the Joseph Smith papyri in 1828 he would have recognized that there was no royal Cartouche in the writing of Facsimile No. 3 and therefore no King's name was contained in the labels. Full decipherment came from Champollion in the 1820's but other experts had already recognized the value of the Cartouche, namely Thomas Young.

The fact there is no Cartouches in the writing of Facsimile No. 3 is all the proof we need that there is no earthly King or Prince portrayed in the vignette and that Joseph Smith's pretended revelations were utterly false.

I so testify to that fact in the name of Jesus Christ and rebuke Joseph Smith's translations as a sham.

Amen.

[Limnor]

this is another reason why critics and debunkers are a good thing for storytellers. It superficially seems to put believer and doubter of a claim on an equal footing. If the claim is completely audacious, and a critic seeks to explain the claim in ordinary terms and is mistaken, then it feels like the likelihood of the claim increases somewhere between a little bit and substantially. But this is incorrect.

I think you are spot on here.

As a thought experiment, it’s interesting to consider how the plates function internally within the book, particularly in Limhi’s case. They seem to give him a kind of authority. Not because he can read them, but because he possesses something that connects him to authority.

In my theory, if Martin Harris is reflected in that role as Limhi, he is painted as a king, flattered, even though he has to rely on another for interpretation. The plates do more than just serve as evidence, they describe who holds authority and how it’s transferred. Martin and Limhi both experience gain.

[Gadianton]

In my theory, if Martin Harris is reflected in that role as Limhi, he is painted as a king, flattered, even though he has to rely on another for interpretation. The plates do more than just serve as evidence, they describe who holds authority and how it’s transferred. Martin and Limhi both experience gain.

In your theory, who wrote this section of the Book of Mormon.

[Limnor]

In my theory, if Martin Harris is reflected in that role as Limhi, he is painted as a king, flattered, even though he has to rely on another for interpretation. The plates do more than just serve as evidence, they describe who holds authority and how it’s transferred. Martin and Limhi both experience gain.

In your theory, who wrote this section of the Book of Mormon.

I think Joseph wrote Mosiah 8.

But the reference to earlier 24 plates reflect what Alvin wrote—as Abinadi.

[Gadianton]

Do you see this as subconscious on Smith's part, is this a psychoanalysis of Joseph Smith or is it consciously revealing life lessons people around him need to pick up on?

[Limnor]

Do you see this as subconscious on Smith's part, is this a psychoanalysis of Joseph Smith or is it consciously revealing life lessons people around him need to pick up on?

I see it as deliberate on Joseph’s part—he is describing to Martin that Martin is really a king and Harris believes him. There are lines in the book that describe the use of flattery to sway people and I think this episode is a demonstration of that effort.

In fact I think the idea has persisted and even increased—instead of simply kings and queens, people are really eternal beings who are becoming gods. That’s a big use of flattery

[Marcus]

I think the deal breaker is the fundamental story of getting gold plates from an angel.

For me it’s “An angel gave you plates? Let’s see them.” “Uh sorry yeah the angel took them back.”

Right.

I sense a little "Who's On First" action bubbling up.