If you found out that the Golden Plates never existed, would you still be a Mormon?

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by Flystripper

The Book of Mormon in its very introduction claims to be literal translation from gold plates of which 11 people testified actually existed. If you don't believe in the plates existence do you believe that Joseph and the 11 witnesses are liars?

If you believe that Joseph and the 11 were liars and it was a big conspiracy, do you ever ask what else Joseph lied about? Did he lie about the 1st vision? How can you believe in a church that was founded on what you believe are a pack of lies?

Point me to the introduction of the Bilble and the Quran that makes the claims that the into to the book of mormon makes. Either the into is a bunch of lies perpetuated to market the Book of Mormon and convert followers thorugh deception or the plates actually did exist. Which is it?

You're oversimplifying the human mind.

This is an awful analogy, but it's a memorable one, so I've got to use it. Did Andrea Yates lie when she said the devil told her to kill her kids?

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Chapel-Hill-Coug

My understanding is that this evidence is definitively pre-Ice Age (none later than, what, something like 12,000 BC). And, uh, there are way more hooks in the closet. Trust me, I've been wrestling with these and dozens of other issues for years. And the side I was rooting for lost, go figure. I genuinely wanted the other side to win out.

Certainly Joseph in instances would have used word approximations. I don't take "elephants" to necessarily mean "African elephants" or even a close relative of an elephant. An elephant-like or approximating animal.

[Tex]

I'm a little late to the game on this one, but I cannot imagine how the JS story could square with there being no plates. Kinda seems pivotal to the whole thing.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

I believe in a God who inspires people everywhere, but doesn't necessarily intervene a whole lot, other than through people. I believe in a very limited God.

I don't think it's dishonest to inspire people to believe in something that helps them treat each other better. And I think it's actually a problem for people when they feel like faith in the supernatural must rely on something tangible.

Religion is about the supernatural, not the tangible. No religion's scriptures would stand up to solid scrutiny.

So, many roads lead to the top of Fuji-san?

This may well be how it is, but still very arbitrary, and contrary to the teachings of the Book of Mormon.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Certainly Joseph in instances would have used word approximations. I don't take "elephants" to necessarily mean "African elephants" or even a close relative of an elephant. An elephant-like or approximating animal.

I think this is a fair way of looking at things.

[Indy Coug]

There's a lot more mental gymnastics required to hold on to the simultaneous belief that the plates never physically existed while the church is still true than there is to believe that the plates were real, the Book of Mormon is true and that the Jaredites were contemporary with wooly mammoths.

[SoonerCoug]

If there is one thing I learned on my mission, it's that when you bring the Church to a nation/city where the Church has never existed before, approximately 100% of the converts have either severe mental illness or ulterior motives. We had people bearing their testimonies about their suicide attempts every single Sunday. It was scary.

Incidentally, my first Mormon ancestor joined the Church in 1830, because his girlfriend wouldn't marry him unless he converted.

[Chapel-Hill-Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I'm a little late to the game on this one, but I cannot imagine how the JS story could square with there being no plates. Kinda seems pivotal to the whole thing.

True, I think there are two separate things being debated: Did Joseph have and use physical plates? and Were there plates buried in Cumorah in the 5th century? Potentially, different questions, of course.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by Chapel-Hill-Coug

"I [Joseph Smith] have translated a portion of them, and find they contain the history of the person with whom they were found. He was a descendant of Ham, through the loins of Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the Ruler of heaven and earth" (DHC 5:372).

--From the Journal of William Clayton

People have disputed the validity of this statement, but only because Clayton wrote it and not Smith. But he was citing smith when he wrote it and we have no reason to think it was made up. I don't think any of this translation was ever published by the church though.

And you realize that the first person was added much later.

From whence Clayton got his information/interpretation/recollection of what happened, we do not know. True, there was some buzz about the K plates at the time, but nothing came of them. No translation, no new scripture, nothing. No evidence that JS even spent much time on them. They were eventually returned to those that "found" them.

[Flystripper]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

You're oversimplifying the human mind.

This is an awful analogy, but it's a memorable one, so I've got to use it. Did Andrea Yates lie when she said the devil told her to kill her kids?

Maybe she did lie? I don't know. Maybe she was hallucinating and was a crazy person? I don't know.

Are you assuming that Joseph was hallucinating and he was a crazy person and that just happened to write an inspiring religious text?

Are you assuming that he was able to convince 11 others to hallucinate with him? Are you assuming that Joseph continued to have this daily hallucination when he thought he was translating from plates that did not literally exist?

If it was just a vision of the plates, why testify to the world that it was not simply a vision?