Who Else Saw The Plates Besides Smith?

[MelanieAnne]

OK Diana, then following along on the whole ancient artifact thing ~ why is it that there is no such things as “Reformed Egyptian”? The mythical language of the “Golden Plates”. The easiest explanation is that Smith and/or his cohorts made up the entire story. It might be an interesting story, but then many books are, but it’s not SCRIPTURE.

If Mormons told the truth to potential converts ~ i.e. such things as ~
the entire Mormon definition of the Godhead differs from Christianity

the “Golden Plates” were “translated” by Joseph Smith in secret using “magic rocks” that he held in the bottom of a hat

polygamy in Heaven

etc. (there are so many bits of nonsense to choose from!)

~ they would have far fewer converts, instead they’d be laughed out of the room. Instead, such things are hidden. A real religion doesn’t need to hide its doctrine. Mormons routinely hide the weirder parts. That fact alone makes the entire business suspect.

 

[dianaiad]

Your opinion that I am using a double standard is irrelevant. If you do not know the difference between ancient history and modern history, and the artifacts thereof, then perhaps that explains why you buy into Mormonism so easily.

Why yes, I know the difference. You accept that it’s perfectly acceptable to believe in the existence of stone tablets with engraved commandments given to a prophet upon a mountain three thousand or so years ago, because they are written about in a book.

However, you will not believe in a very similar set of divinely acquired items because…why, exactly? They too are written about in a book, and unlike the stone tablets, we have eyewitness accounts that they existed.

But you do not believe them.

(shrug) That’s a double standard. If you do not insist upon the production of the stone tablets in order to believe in them, you cannot demand that we produce the golden plates.

Those who believe in those stone tablets do so for EXACTLY the same reason that we who believe in both–believe in both. Confirmation of religious truth is found outside empirical proof; has to be, or you lay yourself wide open to being required to produce those stone tablets.

 

[dianaiad]

OK Diana, then following along on the whole ancient artifact thing ~ why is it that there is no such things as “Reformed Egyptian”? The mythical language of the “Golden Plates”. The easiest explanation is that Smith and/or his cohorts made up the entire story. It might be an interesting story, but then many books are, but it’s not SCRIPTURE.

If Mormons told the truth to potential converts ~ i.e. such things as ~
the entire Mormon definition of the Godhead differs from Christianity

the “Golden Plates” were “translated” by Joseph Smith in secret using “magic rocks” that he held in the bottom of a hat

polygamy in Heaven

etc. (there are so many bits of nonsense to choose from!)

~ they would have far fewer converts, instead they’d be laughed out of the room. Instead, such things are hidden. A real religion doesn’t need to hide its doctrine. Mormons routinely hide the weirder parts. That fact alone makes the entire business suspect.

First, some of the things you present as ‘stuff we hide’ is incorrect. You are right that we don’t tell people about them, because we don’t believe in them.

Second, of those things that you DO get right, if they are so all fired secret, how come you know about them?

You DO realize that one of the very first lessons we teach investigators is all about the Godhead as we see it? Another one is about the plan of Salvation, as we see it…including eternal marriage? A little hard to accuse us of being secretive about it when it’s THE FIRST THING WE TELL PEOPLE!

By the way, I’d be rather careful about calling the Urim and Thumim ‘magic rocks,’ and you seem to have gotten your anti descriptions of the translation process mixed together a bit.

As to 'reformed Egyptian? Well, since that is a NEPHITE description of a written language that was a combination of Egyption and Hebrew, formed and forged over a thousand years, it’s not surprising that no European has heard the term, nor is it found anywhere. But leave the name assigned to it aside–is there any record of written records that combine Hebrew and Egyptian?

Yep.

How about this? There is a discovery made in at Arad in 1967, an ostracon. It dates from shortly before 600 AD.

You know, about the time the BoM says that Lehi left. That ostracon is written in a combination of Egyption hieratic and Hebrew characters.

The papyrus Amherst 63 contains at text of Psalms 20:2-6 written in Aramaic using Egyptian characters.

So yeah, that form of writing that the Nephites called “Reformed Egyption” very much exists. Sorry.

Now, none of this proves that the Book of Mormon is “true,” or that Mormonism is true. All it does is show that you can’t use THESE things to attack it. Again…sorry about that. The antis will have to come up with some new tactics.

 

[ricko]

So in essence…you believe that the OT is true because the bible says so?

Please forgive me for being the devil’s advocate here, but…that’s considered the defining example of circular reasoning.

But…put it like this; if you consider the existance of the bible to be the proof of its truth, then the fact that the BoM exists is proof of its truth, using the same standards.

I don’t think you want to go there, do you?

Yes I do want to go there. The BOM is a single book written by one man (Smith). None of the events or names have ever been proven. There is absolutely no archeological evidence of any of the cities. Science has proven the BOM to be false as there were no horses, cows, elephants, honeybees, steel and many other things. The bible on the other hand is a collection of writings of different authors from different time periods assembled into a single book. The many different books complement each other in the teachings and beliefs. Many of the events and/or historical sites have been found in many archeological digs. This is not circular reasoning, it is sound reasoning.

 

[ricko]

It makes little difference if there is a Reformed Egyptian writing or not as no one has ever seen the golden plates with the writing on them. Again there is no evidence.

 

[RebeccaJ]

As to 'reformed Egyptian? Well, since that is a NEPHITE description of a written language that was a combination of Egyption and Hebrew, formed and forged over a thousand years, it’s not surprising that no European has heard the term, nor is it found anywhere. But leave the name assigned to it aside–is there any record of written records that combine Hebrew and Egyptian?

We’re not talking about Europe, we’re talking about the Americas.

There is no evidence of Hebrew or Egyptian being used in pre-Columbian Americas.

Yep.

This is the best part.

about this? There is a discovery made in at Arad in 1967, an ostracon. It dates from shortly before 600 AD.

Arad is not in the Americas.

You know, about the time the BoM says that Lehi left. That ostracon is written in a combination of Egyption hieratic and Hebrew characters.

By people who spoke Hebrew. Where are the Hebrew speakers, and contemporary writings, of pre-Columbian America?

Second, this is pure conjecture as you don’t have the original text that you are claiming was written in this language. Take the text from your Israeli pot and compare it to…what? Nothing but your imagination, that’s what.

You can pick and choose any number of ancient texts from anywhere in the world, and claim they are “Reformed Egyptian”.

Like this…

The papyrus Amherst 63 contains at text of Psalms 20:2-6 written in Aramaic using Egyptian characters.

By people who spoke Aramaic. Again, Aramaic speakers in the Americas? Contemporary writings of any quasi-Egyptian origin in the Americas?

So yeah, that form of writing that the Nephites called “Reformed Egyption” very much exists. Sorry.

This is the best thing ever. It just really makes me smile. You take a made up language and start applying it to just any old document or pot shard and voila, the made up language is made real. This is so much fun, it really is. I want to play too!

Now, none of this proves that the Book of Mormon is “true,” or that Mormonism is true. All it does is show that you can’t use THESE things to attack it. Again…sorry about that. The antis will have to come up with some new tactics.

Fun. But sorry. Please try again. The Mormon Apologetics of Jeff Lindsay is in dire need of new tactics.

 

[dianaiad]

Yes I do want to go there. The BOM is a single book written by one man (Smith).

That’s not what it claims for itself, y’know. It’s claims for ITSELF are that it is a compilation of writings from many different people: prophets . Those writings were compiled by Moroni, and translated by Joseph Smith.

Now consider what the Bible claims for ITSELF—things that you believe to be true, why? Because the bible says so.

None of the events or names have ever been proven. There is absolutely no archeological evidence of any of the cities.

Well, none of the miraculous events related in the bible have been proven, either–and HOW long did it take to discover the remains of Sodom and Gomorrah…or wait, HAVE they confirmed the sites of those two cities yet? I think you can give us a little more time with the BoM before you claim that archeology has disproven it.

… Science has proven the BOM to be false as there were no horses, cows, elephants, honeybees, steel and many other things.

not…quite.

The bible on the other hand is a collection of writings of different authors from different time periods assembled into a single book.

So is the Book of Mormon.

The many different books complement each other in the teachings and beliefs.

So does the Book of Mormon.

Many of the events and/or historical sites have been found in many archeological digs. This is not circular reasoning, it is sound reasoning.

Many of the cities in which the stories were set have been found, yes. Nobody has found which Pharoah Moses got free of yet, though, nor have they found any proof of the parting of the Red Sea–or indeed any proof of any of the miracles related in the Bible.

Do we recognize some of the cities? Sure…but blessed few of the names mentioned therein are found in those cities. In fact, there is a WHOLE lot more evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ than there is for Moses–and there is precious little extra biblical proof that Christ lived.

As to the horses, etc., y’know, every year one of the favorite things that anti’s love to beat us over the head with just sorta disappears…like the claim that the ancient americans didn’t have cement (they most certainly did, as archeologists well know, NOW) or barley (yep, they had it) or pollinating bees (yeah, they did.) or Reformed Egyptian (discovering a couple of scrolls and artifacts in Europe written in what can only be called ‘reformed Egyption’ clobbers that one).

The problem here is this: you CAN NOT argue against the Book of Mormon through scientific means unless you are willing to defend the bible against exactly that sort of attack yourself. Both are claimed to be books of scripture. Both have problems when viewed from a strictly scientific POV.

And both have to be examined, not through a scientific empirical eye, but through the eyes of faith; a willingness to allow the Holy Ghost to confirm the truth of them to you.

Now I believe in the bible. I believe that those stone tablets God gave Moses were very real and very solid objects. But everytime someone demands that I produce the golden plates, I WILL insist that they produce the stone tablets, in the hope that doing so will make people do a little bit of (gasp) thinking.

 

[MelanieAnne]

First, some of the things you present as ‘stuff we hide’ is incorrect. You are right that we don’t tell people about them, because we don’t believe in them.

Second, of those things that you DO get right, if they are so all fired secret, how come you know about them?

You DO realize that one of the very first lessons we teach investigators is all about the Godhead as we see it? Another one is about the plan of Salvation, as we see it…including eternal marriage? A little hard to accuse us of being secretive about it when it’s THE FIRST THING WE TELL PEOPLE!

By the way, I’d be rather careful about calling the Urim and Thumim ‘magic rocks,’ and you seem to have gotten your anti descriptions of the translation process mixed together a bit.

As to 'reformed Egyptian? Well, since that is a NEPHITE description of a written language that was a combination of Egyption and Hebrew, formed and forged over a thousand years, it’s not surprising that no European has heard the term, nor is it found anywhere. But leave the name assigned to it aside–is there any record of written records that combine Hebrew and Egyptian?

Yep.

How about this? There is a discovery made in at Arad in 1967, an ostracon. It dates from shortly before 600 AD.

You know, about the time the BoM says that Lehi left. That ostracon is written in a combination of Egyption hieratic and Hebrew characters.

The papyrus Amherst 63 contains at text of Psalms 20:2-6 written in Aramaic using Egyptian characters.

So yeah, that form of writing that the Nephites called “Reformed Egyption” very much exists. Sorry.

Now, none of this proves that the Book of Mormon is “true,” or that Mormonism is true. All it does is show that you can’t use THESE things to attack it. Again…sorry about that. The antis will have to come up with some new tactics.

Interesting story. But there is no such thing as Reformed Egyptian. Someone obviously made that up and Mormons may desperately need to believe that it exists to support their theology, but it does not exist. It’s like the so-called “apostasy” ~ which also never happened.

As for your claims about missionary discussions ~ I’ve heard these discussions presented to others. You’re not describing them accurately. Missionaries do not distinguish the Mormon view of the Godhead from the more traditional Trinitarian understanding. By hiding the truth, and co-opting the language, potential converts may hear what the missionary tells them ~ they may hear the words ~ but they do not necessarily understand how radically the Mormon faith differs from Christianity.

The story of Joseph translating the Book of Mormon using magic rocks held in the bottom of a hat with the scribe sitting behind some kind of screen or curtain (and therefore what Joseph did was hidden from view) didn’t come from anything “anti”. It was taught in a Gospel Doctrine class I attended once with a friend. Maybe you don’t like the term “magic rocks”, as they are often referred to by those who doubt the Joseph Smith story but the substance of that information is that which I myself heard being taught in a Mormon class. Nice try tho’.

I’ll add that the Gospel Doctrine teacher in that class was nearly attacked by some lifelong Mormons in the class. He incited quite a controversy in telling this story because apparently none of them knew about it either. Other members left in hysterics. It was all rather dramatic. I submit that if Missionaries let potential converts know the truth about this business they would be shown the door. Instead it is withheld.

I didn’t say these things were secret, but they are concealed, or at least withheld from potential converts, as are many other things that would prove embarrassing that were spoken by the earlier Mormon “prophets”.

And as for your “anti” comments ~ I’ve never read a word of anti-Mormon literature, never visited such a website ~ and that’s assuming that they exist because I don’t know that they do. I do have a brain though. I can listen to what people say, I can read. It’s unfortunate if that doesn’t line up with your preconceived notions, but on this you are purely and unequivocally WRONG.

 

[Deconi]

Yes. However, if for some reason the family can’t pay the freight, the ward will do it.

That depends on the mission. For instance, with mine the church paid the tickets to and from, and my family and I paid my monthly expenses. I was in England at the time; it ran about $45 per week. I lived cheap.

We don’t have a paid ministry at all, until it gets pretty high up in the organization, and even then it’s not much; a ‘stipend…’ that many of the ‘general authorities’ do not take.

We aren’t in this for the money, y’see. None of us are.

Come to think of it, it’s not so odd an idea; Jesus didn’t pay His apostles anything, either.

Nor did He take 10% off them…

Cheap shot, I know!

 

[Deconi]

Strange how The Almighty God of all creation, writes His Ten Commandments on slabs of stone!..but is later supposed to have used GOLD, of all things, and tabulates them even! Perhaps He forgot he’d made the stuff (gold) already!

(Maybe He realised the price of gold had gone up!)

Not to mention Moses BROUGHT THE SLABS down from the mount and had the people of Israel carry the things around with them for several decades! There’s no mention that ONLY Moses could interpret them either, since all can see for themselves!

You certainly need ‘faith’ to comprehend the BoM, alright. Lots of it !!

That Smith! He was quite a character! He and Mohammed would have gotten on like a house on fire!

 

[dianaiad]

That’s not what it claims for itself, y’know. It’s claims for ITSELF are that it is a compilation of writings from many different people: prophets . Those writings were compiled by Moroni, and translated by Joseph Smith.

Sorry, I was tired; that should read “compiled by Mormon.” (sigh)

 

[pnewton]

(shrug) That’s a double standard. If you do not insist upon the production of the stone tablets in order to believe in them, you cannot demand that we produce the golden plates.

You can continue to spout your opinion of what I should or should not do until your hands cramp. I have explained the difference for anyone here to understand or not. It is only your opinion that a double standard exists. I am free to have one standard for modern history, another for ancient history and a third for contemporary news.

 

[pnewton]

OK Diana, then following along on the whole ancient artifact thing ~ why is it that there is no such things as “Reformed Egyptian”?

I had forgotten about the made up language. Also, Smith had no idea that genetics one day would exist to determine if native Americans have any Egyptian anscestory.

 

[MelanieAnne]

I had forgotten about the made up language. Also, Smith had no idea that genetics one day would exist to determine if native Americans have any Egyptian anscestory.

That’s right, there is not a shred of evidence that Native Americans have Middle Eastern ancestors of any sort. Of course that has been conveniently explained away by some Mormon posters to this forum that they were all killed so they left no descendants, sort of like the plates disappearing, and there being no evidence of Reformed Egyptian, and the whole “apostasy” thing that never happened ~ Mormons often explain the absence of evidence as everything having been destroyed ~ sometimes deliberately by the “apostate” church.

 

[Jerusha]

Sorry, I was tired; that should read “compiled by Mormon.” (sigh)

Sigh :nope:
No, you are wrong in any case. Solomon Spalding compiled historical fiction which told the story of the Vikings in North America. Its structure resembled that of the Bible, to make a point that those stories were sacred to Natives. He also wanted to make a point that some Europeans were similar to many of the Vikings-- after all, they had a history in common.

Sidney Rigdon stole it and then re-compiled it, adding a lot of other stuff, and adding a King James veneer to the whole.

Then he gave it to Joseph Smith, telling him that he had found it and translated it. (He couldn’t publish it under his own name, because Spalding’s text could be traced to him.) He then added his own stuff to it, with the help of Oliver Cowdery and Parley Pratt, his scribes. By the time JS found out that he had been had, he decided to go along for the ride (the alternative could have been prison, for his part in the fraud). What a ride!!! :imsorry:

:grouphug: Now, diana, I know you won’t read this, but I just felt the need to inform others.

Mormonism contains aspects of nearly every theological speculation that the Catholic church has examined and found to be heresy, throughout two thousand years. When things get that bad, it can be accounted for as apostasy. But, again, you won’t read this, so why should I even try?

 

[SirKnight2007]

Good day everyone.

I’d first like to state that I can understand both sides of this discussion, because I have been on both sides of the fence. I was mormon, and I can tell you, the grass is not greener on the other side(mormon side). I converted to the Catholic Church, because I realized that what I was force fed in the mormon church was just not true, and was a compilation of many different beliefs throughout the ages.

For example:

-Mormons believe in polytheism(the plurality of Gods, and the belief that one can become a God or Goddess like unto God Himself-mind you this isn’t taught to “investigators”)

-Only Men and Women who are “sealed”(married) and receive their “endowments”(a stolen Masonic ritual), are permitted to enter the highest “degree” of Heaven which is called the “Celestial Kingdom”. Depending on your “worthiness” you are assigned to either the terrestial kingdom or the telestial kingdom, or maybe even “Outer Darkness”.

-If you are “sealed” in the mormon temple, you will be married in Heaven to your wife and have your own Kinngdom of heaven where you are the God and you make your worlds, and have a son like Christ that will die for the sins of all your worlds.

-Men are told in the temple they are to be over the wives, in fact they take an oath and the wife’s oath is to be “submissive” to her husband.

-They wear “magic underwear” which is supposed to keep them chaste, but also protect them from “antis” and evildoers.

-The account of the book of mormon is looked at as better and more “holy” than the bible, their claim being that the Bible has gone through many hands and translated, thus it loses it’s authenticity, whereas the book of mormon was only translated once, therefore it is better.

-During '“fast and testimony” sundays, you always hear, “I know this church is true, I know Joe Smith is and was a prophet of god, and I know the Book of Mormon is true”. Nothing EVER about the bible or about Jesus Christ, they just end their “testimony” in His name.

-True, the mormon church has unpaid(lay) ministry, but everyone who is somewhat “important” is paid. How can you teach about God and His ways for His children, if you don’t study him out like the Catholic clergy does in its seminaries to prepare it’s priests and deacons for the ministry. The world is changing, we need educated clergy to go out into the world and defend the faith, the Church screens all it’s clergy unlike the mormons.

In closing,

In no means do I mean to tear apart another religious sect who beleives in things Christans do not. Not my point. My point is to educate those on the forum as to what mormons really do “believe” so we can all have common understanding and move forward with this conversation in a way that is fact based. If anyone has any questions, don’t hesitate to PM me, I’d be more than happy to explain anything.

I am glad to have converted to the Catholic faith, and finally my eyes have been open to the ways of God!

 

[MelanieAnne]

SirKnight, thank you for your clarifications. I am sure there are many readers of this forum that will welcome having this information.

One of your points reminded me of something ~ the one where you wrote ~ “During '“fast and testimony” sundays, you always hear, “I know this church is true, I know Joe Smith is and was a prophet of god, and I know the Book of Mormon is true”. Nothing EVER about the bible or about Jesus Christ, they just end their “testimony” in His name.”

This always strikes me as almost cult-like whenever I hear it spoken. It’s true ~ it is virtually word for word the same every time. (Yet they have the temerity to criticize others for things they consider “vain repetition”!)

 

[SirKnight2007]

It’s very interesting, hypocritical, and saddening at the same time. I am glad I came to the truth before it was too late.

 

[MelanieAnne]

It’s very interesting, hypocritical, and saddening at the same time. I am glad I came to the truth before it was too late.

Me too. Thanks be to God!

 

[ricko]

Trying to stay on topic, the answer to the question is no one saw the plates.

Regarding their witness to the BoM to none could say they actually
viewed the “golden plates” with their eyes … only
their “spiritual eyes“.

quote:

“Some of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon, who handled the plates
and conversed with the angels of God, were afterwards left to doubt
and to disbelieve that they had ever seen an angel.” (Brigham Young -
Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p.164).

quote:

“I now say, I handled those plates; there were fine engravings on both
sides. … they were shown to me by a supernatural power” (John
Whitmer - History of the Church, Vol. 3, p. 307).

William Smith stated … “I did not see them uncovered, but I handled
them and hefted them while wrapped in a tow frock and judged them to
have weighed about sixty pounds. … Father and my brother Samuel saw
them as I did while in the frock. So did Hyrum and others of the
family.”
"I have reflected long and deliberately upon the history of this
church & weighed the evidence for & against it loth (sic) to give it
up - but when I came to hear Martin Harris state in public that he
never saw the plates with his natural eyes only in vision or
imagination, neither Oliver [Cowdery] nor David [Whitmer] & that the
eight witnesses never saw them & hesitated to sign that instrument for
that reason, but were persuaded to do it, the last pedestal gave way,
in my view our foundation was sapped & the entire superstructure fell
in heap of ruins. "(Stephen Burnett letter to Lyman E. Johnson dated
April 15, 1838. Typed transcript from Joseph Smith Papers, Letter
book, April 20, 1837 - February 9, 1843, microfilm reel 2, pp. 64-66,
LDS archives.)

I try to be respectful of other religions but the above statements show the whole story of the plates to be stretch of the imagination. The entire Mormon faith is based on faith alone. If you don’t believe something in LDS you are made to feel that the problem lies with you because of your lack of faith. So in the very beginning that’s how it was, with Joseph Smith claiming that he had golden plates but would not remove the cloth that was coverning them. Or they saw them in a vision. Then we have the quote from Dianaiad,

a little bit of (gasp) thinking.