The "Golden Plates" and Relative Credibility

Jayhawker Soule · Jul 10, 2006

At the time of this writing, the thread Does anyone know what happened to the golden plates? has accumulated some 140 posts, with more than a few coming from one highly skeptical Christian.

At one point I intervened in the debate as follows ...

Jayhawker Soule said:
a Christian said:

What inconsistencies might that be? I raised a plausible issue relevant to this thread.......Could it be that the golden plates never existed and the credibility and integrity of the pioneer of the LDS Church. It's just a thought, ...

Click to expand...

... though somewhat less than a coherent sentence. Nevertheless, to the question ...
Could it be that the golden plates never existed?
... I suggest that the obvious though underwhelming answer in "Yes". Similarly, to the question ...
Could it be that the virgin birth and resurrection never existed?
... I suggest that one could also answer "Yes" with full justification. Now, can you demonstrate to me why the existential possibility of the former is less than that of the latter?

I invite theists who find New Testament claims somehow more credible and better evidenced than those of the Book of Mormon to address the question.

michel · Jul 10, 2006

I invite theists who find New Testament claims somehow more credible and better evidenced than those of the Book of Mormon to address the question.

I suppose the answer to your question, that, as a theist, "I find New Testament claims more credible than those of the book of Mormon" is in no way based on any evidence, but mere "Faith".

The hub of the question, I suggest, lies on the acceptance of Joseph Smith as a Prophet. I suppose it could be argued (by you) that to accept either the Book of Mormon or The New Testament or both is simply a matter of 'pure unreasoned choice'.

Why should I accept Joseph Smith as a Prophet ?; in a recent thread, I asked a member of our LDS friends here what qualities are necessary to accept and recognise a Prophet, to which the reply was (excuse the fact that I cannot find the thread and therefore quote the answer) something along the lines of "The holy Ghost would reveal to us that the Prophet is indeed one, or a fake".

Could I claim to be a prophet ? I could, but I doubt I would be believed.........

James the Persian · Jul 10, 2006

I would agree with Michel. There are certain things about Joseph Smith and the BoM that I find difficult in the extreme to reconcile with his being a prophet. If he was not a prophet then the whole thing breaks down. Ultimately this is a matter of faith. I have no such probblems of faith when it comes to the early Church, though I should think that you could come up with some, Jay, even if I would likely dismiss them. This, too, is down to faith. My biggest problem with Joseph Smith, however, is his claim of an Apostasy which just does not sit well at all with what I know of Church history, which therefore makes the Golden Plates story (along with Joseph Smith's earlier vision) completely implausible to me. Any revelation from God (and the LDS are just as reliant on early Christian claims being true as I am) should not be either ignorant of great swathes of Church history nor contradictory of said Church history. I see both problems in Joseph Smith's revelations and therefore cannot help but conclude that he was no prophet.

James

Jayhawker Soule · Jul 10, 2006

michel said:
Why should I accept Joseph Smith as a Prophet ?

Indeed but, then again, why should I accept the preachings of Paul or the much later, 'preposterous' claims of the author of gMat? Nevertheless, I agree with you that your choice has no evidenciary basis. So, apparently, your answer to the question ...

Now, can you demonstrate to me why the existential possibility of the former is less than that of the latter?

... is an honest and straight-forward "No".

Jayhawker Soule · Jul 10, 2006

JamesThePersian said:
Any revelation from God (and the LDS are just as reliant on early Christian claims being true as I am) should not be either ignorant of great swathes of Church history nor contradictory of said Church history.

Thanks, James - a very substantive response. Demonstrated ignorance of "great swathes of Church history" would clearly serve as evidence.

michel · Jul 10, 2006

Jayhawker Soule said:
Indeed but, then again, why should I accept the preachings of Paul or the much later, 'preposterous' claims of the author of gMat? Nevertheless, I agree with you that your choice has no evidenciary basis. So, apparently, your answer to the question ...
Now, can you demonstrate to me why the existential possibility of the former is less than that of the latter?
... is an honest and straight-forward "No".

I thought that that was what I had effectively said.

James the Persian · Jul 10, 2006

Jayhawker Soule said:
Thanks, James - a very substantive response. Demonstrated ignorance of "great swathes of Church history" would clearly serve as evidence.

To me, yes. I fully accept that others will see the Church history that I consider the LDS to be ignorant of as being biased in our favour. So, whilst for me the inconsistency of the LDS position with Church history is a substantial piece of evidence against a Great Apostasy and, hence, Joseph Smith being a prophet, it's perfectly obvious that the same evidence will not be compelling to everyone. Ultimately my (and, similarly, anyone else's) view of Joseph Smith will be coloured by my own perception of Christian faith and the Church. Within the framework that I have accepted, over the years, to be correct there simply is no place for Joseph Smith as a prophet. If others do not accept that framework, though, they may well have a different perspective.

James

Jayhawker Soule · Jul 10, 2006

michel said:
I thought that that was what I had effectively said.

... which is why I referred to your bias as honest and straight-forward.

Jayhawker Soule · Jul 10, 2006

JamesThePersian said:
To me, yes. I fully accept that others will see the Church history that I consider the LDS to be ignorant of as being biased in our favour.

I'm sorry, James, but is there a demonstrated ignorance "of great swathes of Church history" or not?

Mike182 · Jul 10, 2006

Jayhawker Soule said:
At the time of this writing, the thread Does anyone know what happened to the golden plates? has accumulated some 140 posts, with more than a few coming from one highly skeptical Christian.

At one point I intervened in the debate as follows ...
I invite theists who find New Testament claims somehow more credible and better evidenced than those of the Book of Mormon to address the question.

i guess one answer would be that if you believe the bible to be the spoken word of God, and that god spoke through all those who translated it, the Bible is correct, and there was a virgin birth - such a stance would allow one to answer yes to the virgin birth, and no to the golden plates.

i don't agree with that view, but it's one view non the less.

James the Persian · Jul 10, 2006

Jayhawker Soule said:
I'm sorry, James, but is there a demonstrated ignorance "of great swathes of Church history" or not?

Certainly is. If you look to the writings of Joseph Smith and others early on in LDS history you'd be forgiven for thinking that Europe ended just east of Rome. There is absolutely no understanding of even the existence of the churches of the Christian east. This causes me some issues when I consider Smith's first revelation because he seems to have said 'Which of these churches is right?', giving a long list of western denominations but not a single representative of eastern Christianity (and I hope that you appreciate that there is a considerable difference between the two in many respects) and was effectively told 'none of them'. I could agree with that without subscribing to the 'Apostasy'.

Then there's the problem of them pinning down when the Apostasy occurred. I've yet to come across a plausible explanation for when that happened and what it concerned and usually the arguments I do hear are peppered with historical inaccuracies. Then there's the Patristic cherry picking, whereby they find Fathers who they claim taught LDS doctrine and quote a few passages out of context. Very often it's readily apparent that the way they determine their interpretation is completely at odds with the extant writings of the Father in question, the millieu in which he lived and the descriptions of contemporaries about him.

I've yet to come across an early LDS argument (obviously modern LDS may know this stuff but it's the early period in particular that convinces me of the non-prophethood of Joseph Smith) that doesn't suffer from exactly the same sort of bias and historical inaccuracy that I would expect from any other 19th century Protestant or Restorationist church. If Joseph Smith's revelation sounds so palpably western and 19th century then I fail to see how I could accept that it was actually Hebrew and ancient.

James

Katzpur · Jul 10, 2006

JamesThePersian said:
If you look to the writings of Joseph Smith and others early on in LDS history you'd be forgiven for thinking that Europe ended just east of Rome. There is absolutely no understanding of even the existence of the churches of the Christian east.

James, we believe the Apostasy took place long before even the Western church was firmly established. If we are correct in this, priesthood authority was lost so long before the split between the East and the West that it is entirely immaterial.

JamesThePersian said:
If Joseph Smith's revelation sounds so palpably western and 19th century then I fail to see how I could accept that it was actually Hebrew and ancient.

Ah, finally a comment worth debating. Specifically, James, what about Joseph Smith's revelation (and I'm assuming you are referring to the Book of Mormon) "sounds so palpably western and 19th century"?

Jayhawker Soule · Jul 10, 2006

Mike182 said:
i guess one answer would be ...

Not if you're answering the question asked.

Jayhawker Soule · Jul 10, 2006

As suggested above, I would prefer it if you would address the question initially asked. Nevertheless ...

JamesThePersian said:
If you look to the writings of Joseph Smith and others early on in LDS history you'd be forgiven for thinking that Europe ended just east of Rome.

Similarly, if you look at Christian scripture (however defined) you'd be forgiven for thinking that God was entirely ignorant of the ancient cultures of India and China.

JamesThePersian said:
I've yet to come across a plausible explanation for ...

And I've yet to come across a plausable explanation for the absence of the virgin birth narrative in the works of Paul and Mark, or the fact that so many found the gMat's resurrection of saints unworthy of comment.

JamesThePersian said:
I've yet to come across an early LDS argument ... that doesn't suffer from exactly the same sort of bias and historical inaccuracy that I would expect from any other 19th century Protestant or Restorationist church.

And I've yet to come across a Christian argument unbiased by the unevidenced claims of Christian scripture.

I am, however, interested in your assertion of historical inaccuracies. Could you referrence some?

FFH · Jul 11, 2006

Jayhawker said:
Could it be that the golden plates never existed?

Could it be that the virgin birth and resurrection never existed?

I was thinking along these same lines yesterday, but was thinking more along the lines of comparing the two stone tablets, containing the ten commandments.

We have no archeological evidence that these two stones ever existed, yet most believe this story is more credible than the account given by Joseph Smith of the "gold" plates.

It all comes down to a question of faith, whether these two records ever existed or not, which is the way God designed it to be. He doesn't want us to have a perfect knowledge of the existence of these things, but wants us to exercise faith in Him, and the existence of the unseen.

MdmSzdWhtGuy · Jul 11, 2006

Jay,

I always enjoy your threads but generally find myself in so much agreement with you on the thread that there is little if anything for me to add to the discussion at hand. I find myself in the same vein here. There is no reason at all to beleive that a virgin birth, and stone tablets are any more likely to have factually occurred than the mysterious golden plates.

The only respone I have ever had from honest theists I have discussed this and similar matters with, is that the LDS sounds incredible and is fairly recent in origin. They seem to have an easier time buying into an equally credible claim that is ancient in origin.

It is to me, quite amazing that people who readily accept that the entire land mass of the Earth was covered with water 4500 years ago, and that the walls of Jericho came down due to trumpet blasts, and that the world was created in one week 5800 or so years ago, et cetera, can so completely dismiss the claims of others who make equally unlikely, but more recent claims of the supernatural.

I don't think you will get any real genuine responses which will claim with any sort of backup that the virgin birth, etc. stories are more likely to be factual than the golden plates, but I anxiously await any who do so respond. Excellent topic Jay.

B.

Katzpur · Jul 11, 2006

MdmSzdWhtGuy said:
The only respone I have ever had from honest theists I have discussed this and similar matters with, is that the LDS sounds incredible and is fairly recent in origin. They seem to have an easier time buying into an equally credible claim that is ancient in origin.

You hit the nail on the head. I'd be the first to admit that the events we believe Joseph Smith to have experienced are extraordinary, to say that least. But it is inevitably the same people who have no trouble whatsoever believing that Moses parted the Red Sea, that Mary miraculously conceived Jesus without losing her virginity and that Jesus Christ himself raised Lazarus from the dead, as who laugh their heads off over the notion that Joseph Smith was visited by an angel bearing an ancient record inscribed on golden plates. The difference is that the latter event supposedly happened in the nineteenth century. Period.

I also find it interesting that when you or Jay bring this to people's attention, it is accepted as a rational observation. If any Latter-day Saint were to have made the same point exactly, we'd have been fending off one stupid comment after another until the debate was closed by the mods. As it turns out, when some people talk, other people listen. And I guess that, given the alternative, that's a good thing after all.

Quiddity · Jul 11, 2006

Jayhawker Soule said:
And I've yet to come across a plausable explanation for the absence of the virgin birth narrative in the works of Paul and Mark, or the fact that so many found the gMat's resurrection of saints unworthy of comment.

Resurrection of saints?

SoyLeche · Jul 11, 2006

Victor said:
Resurrection of saints?

Matthew 27:52-53

Jayhawker Soule · Jul 11, 2006

Victor said:
Resurrection of saints?

See SoyLeche's response ...

The "Golden Plates" and Relative Credibility

-- untitled --

Administrator Emeritus

Dreptcredincios Crestin

-- untitled --

-- untitled --

Administrator Emeritus

Dreptcredincios Crestin

-- untitled --

-- untitled --

Flaming Queer

Dreptcredincios Crestin

Not your average Mormon

-- untitled --

-- untitled --

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Not your average Mormon

UndertheInfluenceofGiants

meh...

-- untitled --