Does SeN really want Gemli to learn about the plates?

[Dr Exiled]

I did watch that video and it's a real game changer for the theory of witnesses.

Samuel T. Lawrence is described as the senior seer, and Joseph Smith a little wet behind the ears. Samuel wasn't going to just do a favor for Smith without getting something in return. Since you've watched more of these videos, Dr. Exiled, is there any indication how the three witnesses compare to Lawrence? Was it a tough negotiation, or did they follow Smith around like puppy dogs?

I wish Grindael were still around or Dan Vogel would chime in. Anyway, from what I know about the history, I think Lawrence was a different character from the three witnesses, except maybe Cowdery. He was more in on the con and trying to push for a dominant roll in the plates enterprise. Perhaps Martin Harris might have had an ulterior motive. He had a sizable investment, but, he believed in deer Jesus and was a witness for the Voorhees plates, so, I think he was more of a willing, unintelligent dupe. David Whitmer strikes me as a willing religious dupe as well. However, Oliver Cowdery is my candidate for being in on it to some extent, like Lawrence. He tried to push "revelations" of his but wasn't as popular as Joseph Smith. He also, all of a sudden, tried to "humbly" come back after Joseph Smith's murder but suddenly died. I think Oliver, Joseph Smith and Hyrum, wrote, edited the Book of Mormon during the time after the rock & hat show and the publishing of the thing. There was a lot of time during that period to do so, to essentially write the Book of Mormon. I asked Grindael about this possibility once and he said that we just don't know about this period. Anyway, my theory is that the rock & hat show was for the Whitmers and Harris and others, but that the actual work was written and edited during the months in between the rock & hat show and the printing.

Anyway, to answer your question, I think Oliver is the most likely to be like Lawrence.

[Doctor Scratch]

It's very interesting that all of these details were apparently omitted from Witnesses. The film's role as propaganda seems more and more obvious with every post.

[dastardly stem]

Excellent observations, Dean. The Witnesses epitomizes a red herring. The plates were of no use to Joseph in terms of creating the Book of Mormon. The stories about Moroni mean very little and the heroism of Joseph to get them, hide them and treat them as important appear to be nothing more then self-indulgent story telling, it seems to me. God could have sent Joseph the story of the Nephites through the stone and there need not be plates. Oh wait, that's apparently what happened. He didn't even use them. God's thunderous voice rings in the imagination of 3 believers and that ought to be evidence that the Book of Mormon is ancient, recovered from ancient etchings that were seen by a few believers on missing plates?

I recall asking Dr Peterson about the purpose of the plates, since apparently they weren't used in the "translation". He responded by suggesting they were needed as props to bring about the inspiration. Without them Joseph would have failed to believe enough to squint hard enough to see the Old English rendition of what people wrote in a long lost language. He indicated they had to be kept close by, at least, in order to, to further the modern analogy, act as a router and provide a signal to the iphone stones from which he read the content. Please accept that my restatement of his position is a bit flippant but I think it pretty much covers what he said.

That's the problem with apologetics, though. Any old explanation will do.

[Dr Exiled]

Believing the Mormon story is to believe that God is a lousy communicator. First he cannot directly say what he wants to say. He has to go through intermediaries. Then, he needs to subject the thing to translation errors by having the thing translated into Early Modern English, according to DCP and his group of apologists. (Why no Early Modern English in the Witnesses?) Then to make matters worse, God supposedly has the thing beamed to a rock where more errors can creep in. The book itself is too wordy in places (3 Nephi 11 is an example) as a result of this supposed method.

Looks like the safe conclusion is for Joseph Smith making the thing up, probably with help from Oliver Cowdery. The plates weren't used. The spectacles were quickly discarded, supposedly, if ever used. Witnesses to what then? Again, there isn't any good evidence for Nephites in the Americas, so, the witnesses had to be hallucinating.

Obviously, Sic et Non doesn't want Gemli to learn about any of this. Just think if Gemli were to do a deep dive and the questions he would ask DCP and Midge. Gemli would quickly be ushered off the site.

[Gadianton]

Finally got around to part 2 of Vogel's video Dr. E. linked to. I didn't realize what a crock the statement by the eight was.

Anyway, for me, the biggest hole in any attempt to say Joseph Smith produced the plates in a ordinary way for the eight witnesses, is the huge fuzzy state the plates existed in after moving to Emma's father's house. If Joseph Smith had the plates either in the house, or carefully hidden in the forest in "normal reality" mode, why would it take an angel to come to your own property and take the plates out of your storage box and present them in a forest? It's even fuzzier that Moroni miraculously moved them to the Whitmer farm prior to the 3 witness event. And then, there is no information about getting them back from the Whitmer farm to Palmyra. It seems like, Joseph Smith had built up the story so good over the years, that his brief stint in claiming to have them in "normal reality" crashed and burned, and they went back to magic land immediately. That's the only way it can make sense that the three witnesses were apparently fully prepared to only see them in a prayerful and visionary state. It seemed as if everyone understood them to be in the realm of magic land, and that seeing them required some kind of divination.

My own speculation deviates slightly from the scenarios Vogel lays out, although generally working within the information he provided. I see two main possibilities:

1) I don't think Joseph Smith fabricated plates. I think it's very likely he had a tile brick. I think he left the tile brick in Palmyra, and never had it in the move. I think accounts of "moving the plates" for dusting (after the move) are fabricated, since a) the plates were clearly in the forest b) Joseph Smith never would have trusted anyone alone with them beneath a cloth. Back in Palmyra, he took the eight to the forest and let them heft the bagged tile brick after a lot of shenanigans to set the mood.

2) They went to the forest and Joseph Smith induced the eight later to sign off on a visionary experience. (to lie, as the three had done -- I do not believe they hallucinated). Fabricating what's seen is much easier to swallow after understanding the Samuel Lawrence episode of the invention of the glasses.

(1) is tempting, but gun to the head, I'd have to go with (2) for two main reasons. (a) the plates had gone back to "magic land" for years, and nobody was expecting to see them in "normal reality". Why risk it? (b) Vogel's video dwells on Martin Harris' statement that the eight had seen the plates in a vision just had the three had, and just as Joseph had. Can you imagine how pissed Harris and the others would be, if the eight witnesses got a glimpse of real tin with writing, and a hefting episode of a real object with or without a cloth? That's just opening a major can of worms that would have been totally unnecessary -- why would the eight, the lesser important, expect to see something their elders didn't?

[Gadianton]

Looking for ways to put my objection better. My frustration is with critical accounts as much as any.

The nature of the witness events -- spiritual or natural eyes -- must be congruent with the chain of custody of the plates.

example: If I say I have a rare book in my garage and all conversation about it is ordinary -- I read it in my garage, hide it back in the drywall, and it's never anywhere else and better lock the door so nobody steals it -- then if I get to the point where I will show it to a trusted friend, it makes no sense to go into a forest to have it presented by a supernatural being who whisks it from my garage and shows it to us. the friend would never accept the terms.

example: If I say I have a rare magic book, I've perused in my garage, but i've seen it in my dreams also, and there it was one day on the grass on my walk so I crouched down to touch the shimmering halo around it, then if I go into my garage and grab a regular book and show it to a friend and say, 'this is the book' then the friend might not accept that either.

[Gadianton]

By the way, in case anyone is curious, Dan Vogel's videos that Dr. E. linked to trounce Richard Lloyd Anderson's work to redefine the experiences of the witnesses. For instance, Anderson claim that the eight witnesses saw the plates resting on a stump in a natural way is straight from the world of didactic Mormon art, there are no accounts to support the claim.

[Dr Moore]

So in fact, this Samuel Lawrence was the "first witness." Not Mary Whitmer, as is claimed here.

Joseph seems to have confirmed Samuel was the first witness, by confirming Samuel's visualizing of the spectacles.

This is no small thing.

For one obvious implication: what this 1825 episode tells us regarding what, in Joseph's mind, constituted "seeing" the plates. Evidently, imagining the plates in one's mind's eye was a completely valid witness of the plates. Unless it is actually true that Samuel Lawrence possessed the seerific ability.

Either way, a detail that should never be left out of any documentary about witnesses.

[dastardly stem]

I like the Samuel Lawrence story because its funny, well, and when Joseph took him to where the plates were buried they didn't lift the rock up and see them. No Samuel and Joseph looked at their stones to see the plates. The story about Joseph reaching out to touch them and getting shocked plays interesting on that. He's peering through is stone, sees some vision of plates and reaches out to get them, as if by seeing them in a stone they happen to magically be in front of him.

Put on those virtual video game glasses and I suppose you get the picture. Get a little drunk with those on and you feel like you're falling for sure, reaching out trying to grab on to something.

The other interesting aspect of Samuel Lawrence, he seemingly disappeared. If he thought he really saw plates of gold, what makes anyone think he'd drop it and move on to other scammy things?

[Lem]

So in fact, this Samuel Lawrence was the "first witness." Not Mary Whitmer, as is claimed here...

That's the first time i've attempted to read Peterson's full presentation on women as witnesses, but i didn't get far. For some reason, in his extremely lengthy (and completely unnecessary) explanation of why women can also be witnesses, going all the way back to the creation of Eve as a helpmeet, he feels the need to include this delightful little ditty:

When Adam day by day woke up in paradise
he always used to say, “oh this is very nice.”
But Eve from scenes of bliss transported him for life.
The more I think of this the more I beat my wife.

Why? He seems to think this explains it, but it just makes it worse.

This isn’t as funny today, and I take this seriously; it’s the “Me too” moment and spouse abuse is not exactly in, if it ever was.

Sorry for the threadjack, back to the topic...