Stake President Response Part 4

Previous Entries:

Introduction
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

Here is the audio clip for part 4, and here is its transcript.

For what it's worth, Joseph Smith was not convicted of being a peeping tom, but for being a "glass-looker."

Anyway, the Stake President now introduces Einstein into the equation. Thankfully he didn’t appeal to Einstein’s authority. But he proposes several “gedanken,” or thought experiments. It’s really one big thought experiment with about 5 premises. But anyway, we’re back to the court case thing where we have evidence and witnesses. He calls forth archaeological proof that Lehi et al. existed, the artifacts Moroni buried (various plates, sword, liahona, etc.), the 3 Witnesses, and finally Nephi and Moroni themselves. Let’s take each one individually.

Proof of existance

If we had absolute proof that Lehi and company existed, it would certainly strengthen the argument that the Book of Mormon record is true. The city of Troy an example from actual archaeology. It was thought to be a mythical city made up as part of the tale in the Iliad by Homer. However, in 1868 the ruins of Troy were found, and all of a sudden the legends and references to Troy were cast in a new light. Suppose we were to find a cave in modern day Saudi Arabia where someone had carved into the wall, “Lamen and Lemuel were here, but not our stupid brother Nephi,” and it could be reliably dated to around 600 BC, then that would certainly strengthen the argument.

To compare, nobody argues that Ramses II or Alexander the Great didn't exist because of the plethora of artifacts and accounts of them. But no such evidence of Lehi and crew has been found. No one has found evidence of large battlefields in North, Central, or South America where the combatants used steel swords and armor. Ever. Of course, there’s always the possibility that we just haven’t found it yet (like Troy), but since we haven’t found any evidence that any Native American civilization knew how to make steel I’m not going to hold my breath.

Steel isn't the only problem, by the way. The BoM mentions that horses, chariots, cattle, oxen, donkeys, goats, wild goats, swine, elephants, coins, barley, and wheat were present on the American continent before Europeans brought them. But that’s for another day.

The Plates and the artifacts

If we had the plates themselves, we could examine them. We could see how different the “Reformed Egyptian” was from “regular” Egyptian (there were several varieties). We could have them tested to see of what metal they were made, see how thick they were, how heavy they were, etc. It would go a long way to proving that Joseph Smith’s story was not just hokum. There is always the possibility that Joseph Smith could have manufactured the plates and artifacts himself, or had someone make them for him, but even then they could be tested for dating to show one way or another if they were made in the 19th century by modern metallurgists.

To use a kids’ show as an example, for years and years Big Bird from Sesame Street told everyone about his friend Snuffleupagus but he always disappeared so nobody ever saw him, and assumed Big Bird just had an imaginary friend. But finally in 1985 Snuffy was introduced to the adults, and from then on they believed Big Bird. Likewise, having the actual plates would go a long way to making JS’s story more credible.


The Three Witnesses

I agree with the SP in that calling the Three Witnesses to the stand would be quite interesting. What most members of the church know is that their testimony has been included in every copy of the BoM ever printed. Everyone also knows that all three left the church at some point, but that they never denied their testimony about seeing the plates, which somehow makes it OK. The problem is that this makes them out to look rather petty because they would jeopardize their eternal salvation over some disagreements between colleagues. But also, just because someone never denies something does not automatically make it true. There are people who go to their grave never denying that they were abducted by aliens and had experiments performed on them. Based on what the church says about the 3 Witnesses, we should give the abductees equal credibility since they never denied it.

But if this were a real court case, and we are expected to believe what they saw, we should probably uncover some of the details about them. From a cursory reading of the original Book of Commandments, it appears as if Oliver Cowdery believed in divining rods. Martin Harris told another gentleman “while the translation of the Book of Mormon was going on, that on the way he met the Lord Jesus Christ, who walked along by the side of him in the shape of a deer for two or three miles, talking with him as familiarly as one man talks with another.” David Whitmer is quoted several times (in Ensign articles, no less) that the translation involved a rock placed in Joseph’s hat, yet in all my years of seeing gospel art I have never once seen this depicted (this is discussed in detail in an earlier blog post).

Mormon historian Marvin S. Hill discusses the controversies surrounding the witness’s testimonies in his review of Fawn McKay Brodie’s classic book titled No Man Knows My History. In his article “Brodie Revisited: A Reappraisal,” published in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Hill states;

“What of the prophet's story about gold plates, and what about his witnesses? Given Brodie's assumptions, was there not deception here, if not collusion? Brodie maintains that the Prophet exercised some mysterious influence upon the witnesses which caused them to see the plates, thus making Joseph Smith once more the perpetrator of a religious fraud. The evidence is extremely contradictory in this area, but there is a possibility that the three witnesses saw the plates in vision only, for Stephen Burnett in a letter written in 1838, a few weeks after the event, described Martin Harris' testimony to this effect: ‘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 nor David . . . the last pedestal gave way, in my view our foundations.’”

Hill goes on to note:

“Burnett reported Harris saying that he had ‘hefted the plates repeatedly in a box with only a tablecloth or handkerchief over them, but he never saw them only as he saw a city through a mountain.’ Nonetheless, Harris said he believed the Book of Mormon to be true. In the revelation given the three witnesses before they viewed the plates they were told, ‘it is by your faith that you shall view them’ and ‘ye shall testify that you have seen them, even as my servant Joseph Smith Jr. has seen them, for it is by my power that he has seen them.’ There is testimony from several independent interviewers, all non-Mormon, that Martin Harris and David Whitmer said they saw the plates with their ‘spiritual eyes’ only. Among others, A. Metcalf and John Gilbert, as well as Reuben P. Harmon and Jesse Townsend, gave testimonies to this effect. This is contradicted, however, by statements like that of David Whitmer in the Saints Herald in 1882, ‘these hands handled the plates, these eyes saw the angel.’ But Z. H. Gurley elicited from Whitmer a not so positive response to the question, ‘did you touch them?’ His answer was, ‘We did not touch nor handle the plates.’” (Dialogue, Vol.7, No.4, pp.83-84).

Isn't it odd that these pieces of information about the three witnesses are not included in the church manuals?

Calling Nephi and Moroni to the stand

I don’t even know where to begin with this one. The circular logic is thick here. In order to prove the book is true, he calls a character from the book. Let me paint you an analogy:
J.R.R. Tolkien asserts that the records he translated from the Red Book of Westmarch is the true history of this planet and was the source for the Lord of the Rings.

In order to prove that the information in the book is legit, a court case is held and the defense calls to the stand Bilbo and Frodo Baggins. They are, after all, the principal authors of the Red Book. They could testify to the finding of the One Ring of Power, the Scouring of the Shire, etc. Doesn't it seem silly? Obviously Lord of the Rings is a work of fiction. But while Tolkien is claiming it to be history with his tongue firmly in his cheek, Smith and the LDS church are unabashedly claiming actual, factual history.

So maybe I’ll put it this way that’s perhaps a bit more applicable to something we saw several years ago (oddly enough, involving a member of the Mormon faith). Let’s say that Manti Te’o were to write an autobiography in which he recounts in detail his relationship with Lennay Kekua. It’s a nice story but someone is challenging the authenticity of it, so they hold a court hearing. They call to the stand Manti himself, along with members of his family and friends from Notre Dame to tell about what they observed between Manti and Lennay. They heard stories and saw him talking on the phone to her, but never met her in person, so the question of whether she actually exists arises. Who would be the one person that could settle everything swiftly? Lennay Kekua. If she were to show up and verify everything, court is adjourned. Unfortunately, she is unable to come testify because she doesn't exist. But we could verify whether she exists by other means, such as birth records, DMV records, hospital records, etc. In fact, Deadspin.com took the initiative to do this research and came up with nothing, and that’s when the proverbial crap hit the fan.

Anyway, back to the kangaroo court. In an unseen twist, the Stake President pulls this out: even if we have evidence, all we have is a record, and it doesn't prove a thing. Coincidentally, the Dead Sea Scrolls are in town at the Leonardo Museum. I’d love to hear what he thinks about those. After all, it’s just a record. It doesn't prove that people ever existed, or events happened. It’s just a record. I agree that a record does not necessarily indicate exactly what happened (think of all the shady accounting records and cooked books there have been). But if those records have some corroborating evidence, that's a different story.

In fact we do have a "record" that Joseph Smith "translated" which still exists. It's called the Kinderhook Plates. They were a set of small, bell-shaped metal plates manufactured by a contemporary of Smith. When shown to him, Smith said that they were of Jaredite origin and gave some additional details. The LDS church maintained they were real for quite some time. Later they were found by modern science to be a hoax. So here's a record, but we don't believe it because of the lack of corroborating evidence.


What he’s setting the audience up for in a little bit, is that they shouldn't want or need evidence to believe – just the good feelings we get. He doesn't want them finding out that there is a stunning lack of physical evidence for any of the church’s major claims (no church official does). Does that sound reasonable to you? Can you imagine a defense lawyer arguing in court that the jury should just ignore all physical evidence that convicts his client (or on the flip side, a DA telling the jury to ignore the complete lack of evidence against the defendant)? That, my friend, does not make sense.

Moving on with the court analogy, the SP decides to let the opposition call witnesses, so he calls Lamen, Lemuel, Amalakiah, and Ammoron. Again, this is like saying, “The prosecution calls to the stand Saruman the White, Smeagol/Gollum, and Sauron to testify against the Bagginses.” But back in reality, if he’s calling Truman Madsen, Hugh Nibley, and the like, the other side should be calling Simon Southerton, other DNA experts, other archaeologists, etc., not characters from the book.

Then he claims that just because we don’t have these kinds of hard evidences, it can’t disprove the BoM, and even if we did it won’t prove anything either way. But you can bet your bippy that the second they find a huge pit where thousands of people buried their weapons and armor to promote peace, they’ll be touting it around to everyone saying “toldja so.” So he does his Jedi mind trick: “These aren't the artifacts you’re looking for,” and says you have to get your answer from God. The thing is, we have evidence and artifacts from all kinds of human civilizations (except the fictional ones).

Finally we end with the obligatory threat that if one doesn't accept the words of the BoM, one will perish.


(Authored by Joseph)

Concluded in Part 5