Mr. S.
Mr_Spinkles said:
I'll outline my points for clarity. The point I was originally trying to make was:
1) The author of the website you provided implies that the fact that Joseph Smith claimed to have translated an ancient religious text from metal plates is significant evidence for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. I disagree. (Though I do not think that, had Joseph Smith claimed to have translated from a number of other mediums, that would have constituted significant evidence *against* the Book of Mormon, either.)
First of all, I'm really starting to think that this whole issue is not worth the time we're devoting to it. If Joseph Smith had claimed to have found a roll of papyrus or some stone tablets containing ancient writings, I would say that this would neither be evidence for or against the
Book of Mormon. The idea that ancient peoples wrote their histories on metal plates was positively laughable in 1830. This is why it seems so strange to me that today, now that other such plates have been discovered, the same folks who would have died laughing over such "nonsense" in 1830 don't see Joseph's claims as extraordinary in any way. Obviously, you disagree.
I supported this by arguing
a) The fact that there were no historical records at the time of ancient writings on metal plates is irrelevant, since Joseph Smith was not aware of the historical records (and therefore did not know of this lack of evidence). If the Book of Mormon was a fabrication, it would not be surprising that he claimed to have translated it from a medium that was not evidenced. If he did know about the lack of historical evidence for metal plates, however, and still claimed to have translated from metal plates, that would have been intriguing. As it is, Joseph Smith's ignorance of the lack of historical evidence for metal plates is neither good evidence for or against the Book of Mormon's authenticity.
Well, if he didn't know about the lack of evidence for writing on metal plates when he made his claim, you can be sure it was pointed out to him right away. It would have been a lot "safer" guess for him to have claimed to find some stone tablets. Most grade school kids that I know are aware that the Ten Commandments were engraved on stone tablets.
b) Throughout history, many mediums have been used to record religious texts, including papyrus, stone and clay tablets, metal plates (stored in all sorts of containers, including stone boxes and clay pots)--even walls and coffins. If a person were to fabricate an ancient religious text, it would not be too surprising if they were to select a medium which has been used to record religious texts in the past, even if they had no knowledge of the most common mediums. Thus, the fact that metal plates are an historical medium for recording religious texts is not evidence either in favor or against the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.
I disagree, for the reasons I've enumerated several times already.
c) Human creativity and imagination is quite remarkable.
Yes, it is.
H.G. Wells wrote about steel tank-like machines years before the advent of tank warfare, and Europeans wrote about giant lizards years before they had knowledge of the komodo dragon. We can accept these and other examples as imagination combined with coincidence (rather than the result of the Divine inspiration/special knowledge of the authors). Thus, it should not be difficult for us to accept that the actual historical use of metal plates might have been coincidental to an imaginative story about metal plates.
Good for them. I don't see them in the same league at all, though.
The Book of Mormon is far more complex than any H.G. Wells novel. Besides, H.G. Wells wrote works of fiction, with no intention of trying to "pass them off" as historical. His work didn't have to stand the test of time. The Book of Mormon, on the other hand, has held up to intense scrutiny for 175 years. Dozens and dozens of the "proofs" that it couldn't even conceivably be a true ancient document have been countered within just the last half century. I don't believe that archealogical evidence will ever prove it true. But I would bet my life that it won't ever be able to prove it false.
I want an open and critical exchange of ideas.
That makes two of us.
Do you really think that, had Joseph Smith claimed his translations came from papyrus in a clay pot, or clay tablets, or stone tablets, or the inscriptions in a crypt, that would have constituted evidence against the authenticity of the Book of Mormon? (I don't.)
Nor do I.
That's perfectly understandable, but to be fair, the title of the thread is "Book of Mormon is true scripture" and it is located in the debate forum.
You're right. I'm wrong. But from where I sit, it doesn't really look like we're debating whether or not the
Book of Mormon is true scripture. It looks more like we're debating whether or not you like my evidence. It all gets down to your opinion against mine. I find the evidence compelling and impressive. You see it as completely inconsequential. That is really the only reason I would be inclined to simply agree to disagree on this subject.
If you would like to continue our discussion, I suggest addressing the points that I brought up in my previous posts, which I have outlined and expanded upon above.
I hope I've covered everything now.
Kathryn
