Mike Reed Drops Bomb on Metal Plates

[_Themis]

I thought that this was already public knowledge. I always had an understanding that the knowledge of plates being used for writing was already present during Joseph's time. It was just a question as to whether he would have heard about this knowledge. I don't see the problem here at all.

It actually is not knowledge in the sense of being a fact. They believed in these things because many did as Mike has shown through the literature, and it is also mentioned in the Old Testament. What we find though is that records were not kept on metal plates, only very small amounts of information, and these were rare. We also have the problem of Israelites using brass plates, Nephites and Jaredites using Gold plates, and the amount of information claimed to be able to put on these plates.

Also, isn't it amazing that when a critic presents something that seems to contradict something in church beliefs they get kudos and backslaps. But when Don presents an interesting paper on the KP, he gets moans and groans and criticism and disbeliefs.

This only confirms that people seek confirmation of their beliefs and not a critical understanding of knowledge.

You talk about bias challenging, but all I have seen from you is bias confirming. You have to be one of the most biased people I have seen on this site. Why else would you miss so many non-believers here congratulating Don on his research, and many thinking he may have it right, but then it's not ok for us to ask questions as we digest new information he has provided.

[_Kishkumen]

...all I have seen from you is bias confirming. You have to be one of the most biased people I have seen on this site. Why else would you miss so many non-believers here congratulating Don on his research, and many thinking he may have it right, but then it's not ok for us to ask questions as we digest new information he has provided.

why me is the enemy of clear thinking.

[_Nevo]

As for me, I think Mike Reed did solid historical research, and he deserves kudos for it.

Is this just a hunch or have you read Mike's paper?

[_Kishkumen]

Is this just a hunch or have you read Mike's paper?

Don't be an asshole, Nevo. I interact with Mike Reed quite frequently. He always does solid historical research, and every indication points to the fact that he did this time too. So, I would say that it is more than a "hunch," but thanks for demonstrating that you too can be a dickweed.

[_Nevo]

Don't be an asshole, Nevo. I interact with Mike Reed quite frequently. He always does solid historical research, and every indication points to the fact that he did this time too. So, I would say that it is more than a "hunch," but thanks for demonstrating that you too can be a dickweed.

I was just wondering if your rapturous reception of Mike's paper ("great", "credible", "solid", "deserves kudos") was based on, you know, actually reading it or hearing it read, but I guess not.

[_Doctor Scratch]

I think it's reasonable to assume that Mike Reed did "solid" research merely on the basis of his reputation, the reception it got from Roper, Gee, et al., and from the reportage provided by California Kid and the narrator. Your question, Nevo, seemed rather Gee-esque in its implications, and I thought it was strange that you asked it. I guess you must be really rattled and bent out of shape over what went down, eh?

[_Kishkumen]

I was just wondering if your rapturous reception of Mike's paper ("great", "credible", "solid", "deserves kudos") was based on, you know, actually reading it or hearing it read, but I guess not.

Yeah, you're just being a dick. All anyone needs to know to conclude that Mike Reed did solid, credible research that deserves kudos is to consider for a moment that he discovered numerous sources that demonstrated unambiguously something that flatly contradicted a Mormon apologetic truism: that records on metal plates were unheard of in Smith's day. If John Gee had to retreat to concocting fantasies of Hoffman forgeries in an desperate attempt to cast doubt on Mike's work, I would say it is pretty clear that Gee had no real grounds to challenge Mike. I don't know why I would have to read the paper to see that he must have done really good work to uncover things that Mormon scholars have failed to notice over six or more decades.

But do go ahead and make a fool of yourself by insisting that I only have a "hunch" that Mike's paper represented solid, credible work.

[_MsJack]

I don't think Nevo was being an asshole*, nor do I think his question was irrational. That Mike Reed provoked several ill-tempered questions (accusations?) from a couple of FARMS authors who aren't exactly known for tackling controversial matters with temperance and balance doesn't automatically mean he did "solid historical research" here.

My experience with Mike leads me to think there is a high chance that he did good work here, and the fact that he was being sponsored by Richard Bushman is also a good indicator of this. But I see the wisdom in not rushing to praise Mike's work before one has seen it.

(*Seriously, I can think of few posters who rank lower on the "MDB Asshole-o-meter" than Nevo. Give him a little credit.)

[_Doctor Scratch]

I have to say, this is rapidly developing into a full-blown, epic disaster for the Mopologists. Here's a nice sampling from DCP's logorrhea on MDD:

I think both Richard Bushman and Mike Reed deserve kudos. Richard Bushman deserves kudos for the seminar itself, and for encouraging Mike Reed to pursue the topic.

I join in the kudos to Richard Bushman, and I'm certainly happy to look at what Mike Reed has come up with. (Unlike Xander and Hyrum Page, I can't really judge the quality of research from a few sentences of second-hand reports from partisans on a message board. It would certainly make grading papers and sitting on thesis committees much easier if I had that ability!)

Mike Reed deserves kudos for doing excellent research.

Maybe so.

Everyone is a winner here.

Really? But I thought that Midgley and "Mitchell" and Roper and Gee and apologists generally were supposed to be losers here.

Hopefully he will publish his findings so that more people can see the evidence that shows that some people in Joseph Smith's day were aware of the concept of texts inscribed on metal plates.

I agree that he should publish his research.

Of course, I am sure we will all find out various ways to continue fighting over the issue, but that doesn't take away from the fact that Mike really accomplished something worthwhile here.

I would like to see precisely what he did before I join the chorus at full volume.

Here's my question: Did Dan "see precisely" what Richard Bushman did? This seems incredibly chilly towards Mike Reed. It's probably worth pointing out that all Mike Reed did was give a presentation. That's it. Why this would merit the sort of treatment he received from the Mopologists is hard to figure out. (Well, actually it's not, but nevermind.) Elsewhere in the thread, DCP accused Mike Reed, CK, and the narrator of being so "hostile" that they were incapable of accurately summarizing what they witnessed with their own eyes.

But the comments from The Good Professor continue. Here's one just for you, MsJack:

I think Will Schryver has been unjustly demonized.

And for you, too, Mr. Stak:

If somebody asked me... whether I was aware that a source on which I had drawn was suspect, I would regard that as a serious question and a legitimate one. I might have a good answer to it. If I did, I would give it. If I didn't, I would seek to find one.

I think this quote would make a charming addition to your thread, Mr. Stak.

As this continues to unfold, it is seeming more and more like this event is competing neck-and-neck with Schryvergate for the most important Mopologetic Happening of 2011.

[_KimberlyAnn]

I can see why Mormon apologists might be a generally cantankerous bunch. Good grief, if I had to work side by side for hours a day, year after year with ldsfaqs, I'd be angry, too.

Using the word "seemed" in language indicates a "popular" perception, not an entire and full reality. For example, when Brigham Young made the statement about blacks "seemingly" uncoof, lowly in habits etc., he wasn't making a "racist" statement, he was simply stating the general perception and aspect of the black man. He wasn't at all making an absolute judgment of them. That's a perversion of his words. He was simply stating how they actually in general appeared like, which was a factual statement back then. Likewise, you shouldn't use Lindsay's words for more than they are saying.

Just reading the word "uncoof" makes me irritated. Brazen idiocy is grating. I'm sure if I were a Mormon apologist and ldsfaqs represented the quality of folks attempting to ride my coattail, I'd be a red-faced sputtering jerk, too.

Everything ldsfaqs posts is a train wreck. I keep hoping his posts are a hoax, but, sadly, I doubt they are. I'm glad Mike hasn't commented on his thread. To do so would give it some form of legitimacy it doesn't deserve. Using it for entertainment purposes is more apropos.

KA