BYU faculty and the Book of Mormon

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Res Ipsa
_Emeritus
Posts: 10274
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 11:37 pm

Re: BYU faculty and the Book of Mormon

Post by _Res Ipsa »

mentalgymnast wrote:
Lemmie wrote:oh please. not again.

by the way, thanks for the clarification in your earlier post, Lemmie. It has been a few years since I researched this. I had forgotten that Strang claimed to be ordained by an angel to be the new prophet after Joseph died.

The question remains, did he and/or any other receive the gift of ministration of angels in connection with the Voree Plates? That's the corollary I'm referring to in response to sunstone's post.

Regards,
MG

No, that question does not remain. You asked why Smith would go to the trouble of faking plates. Fetchface said he didn’t know, and rhetorically asked why Strang did the same thing. The presence or absence of angels from the narrative has absolutely nothing to do with fetchface’s point. It has everything to do with your Pavlovian response to the name Strang.
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
_mentalgymnast
_Emeritus
Posts: 8574
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 9:39 pm

Re: BYU faculty and the Book of Mormon

Post by _mentalgymnast »

Res Ipsa wrote:It’s very odd to me that any believing Mormon would take the position that the word of God and the power of the Holy Ghost are so weak that they need the equivalent of stage props in order to convince anyone. Nope, a spiritual witness as promised by the book itself just isn’t powerful enough.

Rep Ipsa, back in your believing days was the word of God and a spiritual witness through the power of the Holy Ghost good enough for you?

Res Ipsa wrote:Why did Smith go to the trouble of taking plates? The simple answer is he knew the Book of Mormon wasn’t from God, that Moroni’s promise was a con-man’s fraud, and that he’d need props to convince people otherwise.

Or so you say.

Regards,
MG
_Lemmie
_Emeritus
Posts: 10590
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 7:25 pm

Re: BYU faculty and the Book of Mormon

Post by _Lemmie »

Res Ipsa wrote:It’s very odd to me that any believing Mormon would take the position that the word of God and the power of the Holy Ghost are so weak that they need the equivalent of stage props in order to convince anyone. Nope, a spiritual witness as promised by the book itself just isn’t powerful enough.

It reminds me of Holland's wrong roads story where a revelation from God wasn't enough, he needed physical evidence:
...with some reassurance, with some understanding, that we were on the right road and we didn't have to worry about it, and in this case, the easiest way to do that was to let us go 400 yards or 500 yards on the wrong road, and very quickly know, without a doubt, that it was the wrong road,

Res Ipsa wrote:Why did Smith go to the trouble of taking plates? The simple answer is he knew the Book of Mormon wasn’t from God, that Moroni’s promise was a con-man’s fraud, and that he’d need props to convince people otherwise.

Yes. He used his props fully, and exactly how you would expect a con-man to use them.
_Lemmie
_Emeritus
Posts: 10590
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 7:25 pm

Re: BYU faculty and the Book of Mormon

Post by _Lemmie »

mentalgymnast wrote:by the way, thanks for the clarification in your earlier post, Lemmie. It has been a few years since I researched this.

Mentalgymnast, don't quote parts of my posts and then take my words out of context.
Last edited by Guest on Tue Dec 12, 2017 11:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
_Res Ipsa
_Emeritus
Posts: 10274
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 11:37 pm

Re: BYU faculty and the Book of Mormon

Post by _Res Ipsa »

mentalgymnast wrote:
Res Ipsa wrote:It’s very odd to me that any believing Mormon would take the position that the word of God and the power of the Holy Ghost are so weak that they need the equivalent of stage props in order to convince anyone. Nope, a spiritual witness as promised by the book itself just isn’t powerful enough.

Rep Ipsa, back in your believing days was the word of God and a spiritual witness through the power of the Holy Ghost good enough for you?

Res Ipsa wrote:Why did Smith go to the trouble of taking plates? The simple answer is he knew the Book of Mormon wasn’t from God, that Moroni’s promise was a con-man’s fraud, and that he’d need props to convince people otherwise.

Or so you say.

Regards,
MG


To the best of my recollection, it was enough. My faith was based on, well, faith. I don’t recall requiring evidence as support.

And, once again you lose track of the discussion. You asked for an explanation of why Smith would go to the trouble of faking plates. I gave you one. Whether I claim it as what actually happened has nothing to do with your question or my answer.
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
_mentalgymnast
_Emeritus
Posts: 8574
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 9:39 pm

Re: BYU faculty and the Book of Mormon

Post by _mentalgymnast »

Lemmie wrote:
mentalgymnast wrote:by the way, thanks for the clarification in your earlier post, Lemmie. It has been a few years since I researched this.

Mentalgymnast, don't quote parts of my posts and then take my words out of context.


Pot, meet kettle.

Regards,
MG
_mentalgymnast
_Emeritus
Posts: 8574
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 9:39 pm

Re: BYU faculty and the Book of Mormon

Post by _mentalgymnast »

Res Ipsa wrote:
To the best of my recollection, it was enough. My faith was based on, well, faith. I don’t recall requiring evidence as support.


Was, and has, that been enough?

What I'm saying is that in this material world we folks tend towards touch, feel, and handling things. If there were actual plates they would act as an artifact/evidence that the whole Book of Mormon narrative has/had basis in fact.

With Martin Harris and others the plates were integral to their moving forward in their faith in the divine calling of Joseph Smith. Without the plates I'm not sure we would see that same outcome/picture.

If you were to touch and handle the plates, would that be of any consequence to you?

Regards,
MG
_Lemmie
_Emeritus
Posts: 10590
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 7:25 pm

Re: BYU faculty and the Book of Mormon

Post by _Lemmie »

I've always liked CaliforniaKid's take on the need for props. From a thread last year:
CaliforniaKid wrote:In my opinion the different eyewitness accounts are pretty easy to reconcile if you just allow that Joseph had more than one prop. I suspect he used at least four props: sand, a piece of greenish tile/rock, an empty box, and a fabricated glass or tin mockup.

If anyone wonders why he would use multiple props, consider this: he lived at multiple residences while translating the Book of Mormon, and it was too risky to haul a prop with him from one place to another. Someone might get a good look. So instead he claimed that an angel was transporting them for him. Keeping up this ruse required having at least one prop at each residence.

Plus, having multiple props gave him plausible deniability. If someone discovered one of the props, he could simply pull out one of the others and say, "No; that's not the plates. Look: the plates are right here!" For instance, when the money-diggers dug up his box and found it empty, he simply claimed he had been inspired to move the plates to a different hiding place. This whole fraud was improvised on the go, and I suspect he used whatever props came to hand and discarded them just as quickly. Improvisation was half the thrill.

If he made a tin prop, I suspect it had a very short life span. He couldn't afford to keep something like that around, lest it be discovered. But a rock or some sand? Heck, he could hide those in plain sight without even raising any eyebrows.
viewtopic.php?p=954252#p954252
_Res Ipsa
_Emeritus
Posts: 10274
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 11:37 pm

Re: BYU faculty and the Book of Mormon

Post by _Res Ipsa »

mentalgymnast wrote:
Res Ipsa wrote:
To the best of my recollection, it was enough. My faith was based on, well, faith. I don’t recall requiring evidence as support.


Was, and has, that been enough?

What I'm saying is that in this material world we folks tend towards touch, feel, and handling things. If there were actual plates they would act as an artifact/evidence that the whole Book of Mormon narrative has/had basis in fact.

With Martin Harris and others the plates were integral to their moving forward in their faith in the divine calling of Joseph Smith. Without the plates I'm not sure we would see that same outcome/picture.

If you were to touch and handle the plates, would that be of any consequence to you?

Regards,
MG


Even if that were true, it had nothing to do with the plates being necessary to the act of translation. All you keep saying over and over is that they were used as a prop to help convince folks that Smith was telling the truth. I agree with you. The problem is you keep trying to make that have something to do with the act of translating, which it clearly does not.
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
_fetchface
_Emeritus
Posts: 1526
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2014 5:38 pm

Re: BYU faculty and the Book of Mormon

Post by _fetchface »

How did I know that MG's response to my comment would be special pleading? :lol:
Ubi Dubium Ibi Libertas
My Blog: http://untanglingmybrain.blogspot.com/
Post Reply