Double Documents

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Tex

This is most likely what I saw in the Israeli Museum. Explain to me why an expanded version of this idea couldn't be applied to Nephi.

It can be applied to Nephi, of course, but it all depends on what someone is looking to "prove."

If someone is looking to refute a specific argument, such as "ancient peoples never wrote on metal, let alone gold," then you've got something to work with. You can prove that it was physically possible to write on gold plates 2400 years ago.

But correlation is not causality (or something like that, so the statisticians say). There's no connection with Lehi et al. in content, time, or place - and even the purpose of the text is only loosely connected.

I suppose someone could make an argument that the existence of ancient documents on metal plates makes Joseph Smith's story more plausible, but I think the actual material the book was written on is a minor point of contention vis à vis other components of the story.

To me, it essentially proves nothing - but it doesn't disprove anything either. It's a red herring, other than the limited "physically possible" component I mentioned above.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Simply put, Solon's point is that this is an example of the typicle apologist's modus operandi of taking something that proves nothing and trying to extrapolate "proof" from nothing. To take tooblue's rejoinder as a typical non-response, no, Rome did not rise in a vacuum; its traditions were primarily adapted from Greek culture, but certainly eastern cultures were influential. So what? In the plain light of day Roman practices of making copies of documents proves nothing about the Book of Mormon being a genuine acient document, as purported (as an aside, making duplictes of important documents seems to me just good common sensical practice, but look how long it took for humans to think of the wheel).

But apologists are desparate, as they really have literally nothing to work with in terms of proving their ultimate points, and they are fundamentally dishonest. I've never met an apologist to whom I'd loan the price of a cup of coffee. They're all crooks and liars and this is a prime example.

You are beyond ridiculous at times.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by tooblue

You are beyond ridiculous at times.

Romans made copies of documents. Eastern peoples influenced Roman practices. The Book of Mormon had a sealed section. Ergo, the Book of Mormon must be an ancient document. Is that your non-ridiculous point?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Solon

It can be applied to Nephi, of course, but it all depends on what someone is looking to "prove."

If someone is looking to refute a specific argument, such as "ancient peoples never wrote on metal, let alone gold," then you've got something to work with. You can prove that it was physically possible to write on gold plates 2400 years ago.

But correlation is not causality (or something like that, so the statisticians say). There's no connection with Lehi et al. in content, time, or place - and even the purpose of the text is only loosely connected.

I suppose someone could make an argument that the existence of ancient documents on metal plates makes Joseph Smith's story more plausible, but I think the actual material the book was written on is a minor point of contention vis à vis other components of the story.

To me, it essentially proves nothing - but it doesn't disprove anything either. It's a red herring, other than the limited "physically possible" component I mentioned above.

I think Joseph Smith makes a lot more sense if you put him, alongside the Shelleys, Bram Stoker, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Richard Wagner, and many other geniuses, as a product and perpetuator of the Romantic period. The Enlightenment led to curiosity about our past and our world. Discovery of ancient ruins and documents and greater understanding of these objects as antecedents of our present led to a highly romaticized perception of the past in reaction to the Enlightenment. Random information about the wonders of Egyptian pyramids, mummies, metal plates, Hebrew relics, Greek and Egyptian ruins, etc., was buzzing in the air along with and really part and parce of the the Great Awakenings. The rise of the Masons in America was a reflection of this. I see Mormonism as a feature of the Romantic period. We have many artistic wonders because of this movement. But it has its dark side.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Solon

It can be applied to Nephi, of course, but it all depends on what someone is looking to "prove."

If someone is looking to refute a specific argument, such as "ancient peoples never wrote on metal, let alone gold," then you've got something to work with. You can prove that it was physically possible to write on gold plates 2400 years ago.

But correlation is not causality (or something like that, so the statisticians say). There's no connection with Lehi et al. in content, time, or place - and even the purpose of the text is only loosely connected.

I suppose someone could make an argument that the existence of ancient documents on metal plates makes Joseph Smith's story more plausible, but I think the actual material the book was written on is a minor point of contention vis à vis other components of the story.

To me, it essentially proves nothing - but it doesn't disprove anything either. It's a red herring, other than the limited "physically possible" component I mentioned above.

Maybe I stand alone in this opinion, but I don't ever look at this stuff as proof. I just see it as providing plausibility to the narrative. If there's evidence that folks made engravings on gold plates in 600 BC, then it means that part of the Book of Mormon is possible.

Beyond that, I don't get too worked up about it.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Romans made copies of documents. Eastern peoples influenced Roman practices. The Book of Mormon had a sealed section. Ergo, the Book of Mormon must be an ancient document. Is that your non-ridiculous point?

I'm not making a point -that's the point. But let me counter your ridiculous sweeping generalizations about what you call apologists with a joke; what do you call 10,000 lawyers at the bottom of the sea ...

The joke is just as effective as your juvenile disdain.

[Solon]

Suetonius, Nero 17:

XVII. It was in his [i.e. Nero's] reign that a protection against forgers was first devised, by having no tablets signed that were not bored with holes through which a cord was thrice passed. In the case of wills it was provided that the first two leaves should be presented to the signatories with only the name of the testator written upon them, and that no one who wrote a will for another should put down a legacy for himself.

Nero was Emperor from 54-68.

[All-American]

My first thought when I saw those plates was, "Aw, nuts. Now somebody is going to try to show that this proves the Book of Mormon is true."

For one, trying to relate anything that has to do with the Book of Mormon is only going to detract from what we can learn about the Romans. I'm somewhat biased as a student in Classics, sure, but I don't think we do nearly enough of the latter.

More importantly, the connection is poor, if non non-existent. The idea that the plates show that "one ancient society" used metal plates isn't evidence that another ancient society used metal plates. We denizens of the 21st century use the term "ancient" to describe pretty much anything before 500 AD-- and that's just not a fair way to do it. Trajan was separated from Lehi by about 700 years, chronologically. As far as technology, ideology, culture, et cetera goes, you could make the argument that the Roman Empire during Trajan's reign had more in common with us in the 21st century than Lehi in 600 BC. To use the term "ancient" as a blanket enveloping both Lehi and Trajan belies the significant number of differences between the two.