The Book of Mormon was written on gold plates. That was the original story. As the estimated weight of the gold became problematic, it was changed to “golden”, implying that Smith could have hefted and ran with them as he claimed.
Like certain other supposedly unique beliefs of Mormonism, gold plates are unoriginal. To support the claim that gold plates could exist, Mormons refer to the gold and silver plates of Cyrus, and other writings (not national histories) on metal. But that doesn’t quite correlate since Mormons decided their plates were neither silver nor gold, but “goldEN.” Although Smith hardly could have known of Cyrus’ plates, still he wasn’t original. Having entered freemasonry and encouraged others to do so, it is possible (I don’t know how probable) that he heard about the plates of Enoch - the gold plates of Enoch. Gold, not golden, as early descriptions of Smith’s plates were likewise gold not golden.
The more the story unraveled, the more digging Mormons needed in order to prove not that the Book of Mormon story is real, but that it *could *be real. (e.g.,
jefflindsay.com/bme10.shtml) I find that curious, having been told so many times that God wants us to prove we can believe in the Mormonism “through faith” rather than “proofs.” If that is so, why bother trying to prove that the Book of Mormon even just *might *be true? That contradiction weakens their argument.
For information on freemasonry’s Enoch:
masonicdictionary.com/enoch.html Like Smith’s plates, Enoch’s were gold. Enoch also had a brass pillar as well as a marble one on which was inscribed in *“hieroglyphics” *the creation and beginning of the world. This reminds us of Laban’s brass plates on which were the writings of Moses and Jewish genealogies, and of the Book of Mormon being written in an unrecognizable “reformed Egyptian”. (Unrecognizable as Egyptian, judging from the Anthon Transcript.)
These are the brass plates for which God allegedly told Nephi to murder an unconscious drunk saying in a diabolical echo of Caiaphas’ excuse for killing Jesus Christ, “It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief.” (1 Nephi 4:13 and John 11:49-50) I say “God allegedly” because the Book of Mormon says only that it was a “spirit” that told Nephi to kill the man; and Nephi tragically never verified who the spirit was! It sounds more in keeping with the spirit of Caiaphas to me, than in keeping with the spirit of God.
If God could reveal lengthy parts of Isaiah to Nephi, could he not have also re-revealed what was on the brass plates? Of course He could! Mormons say, “the plates weren’t big enough.” I say, Well, then, make more or
write smaller! Or just write what was important. For example, Omni wrote, “Behold, it came to pass that I, Omni, being commanded by my father, Jarom, that I should write somewhat upon these plates, to preserve our genealogy,” then proceeds to write *nothing *about genealogy! - only of generic peace and war and he’s a wicked man. Mormons describe the writers of the Book of Mormon as prophets and holy men; I’ve never heard one describe the writers as “wicked” even though that is probably the main point that Omni makes in his futile, painstaking effort to engrave his paltry, uninspiring lines that no one can read anyway.
Where Enoch places his gold plates is a near twin (minus the ring) (or not too distant cousin) of where Smith claims he found his gold/golden plates. Enoch visited his buried plates once a year; so did Smith visit his once a year.
There are more similarities between the Enoch story and Smith’s story. I do not know if Smith actually knew all the freemasonry details. That there is a cave or cavern in both, for example, is not evidence that Smith took from the Enoch story, because caves and caverns are not uncommon, and it is reasonable to imagine something hidden in one for hundreds of years.
Parallels of history do exist. The similarities between the alleged work of Enoch and others, with the alleged findings of Joseph Smith are more than what one normally expects, unless the latter has consciously borrowed from the former.
One might ask, “Is it really better that one man should perish, rather than that a nation dwindle in unbelief?” I believe that is not the proper question to ask. The proper question is, “Is God so base that the only way He can preserve knowledge about Himself, is to have someone murder another person, and steal their things?” My answer to that, unsurprisingly, is no. He isn’t that unimaginative. He is always able to reveal truth, or to remind us of truth, or to wait for us to realize something, or to send a person who can renew our understanding. He doesn’t have to kill anybody to get that done.
As far as the content of the Book of Mormon is concerned, could it be genuine history? From what is currently published on the archaeology, demographics, culture, and history of the inhabitants of North, Central, and South America, there is as much chance that the Book of Mormon is genuine history as there is that Edgar Rice Burroughs’ “John Carter of Mars” series is an actual history of events on Mars. Burroughs mentions the moons of Mars, the canals, the deserts, describes the atmosphere, cities, various races, strange animals (no curelom or cumom though) transportation, and wars. We have only just begun to explore Mars from a distance. Once we get archaeologists there, I’m certain they will find evidence that vindicate Burroughs “Book of Mars: Another Testament of John Carter.”
Mormonism filters the teachings of the Bible through the Book of Mormon. In regards to this, Pope Benedict taught: