Writing on Metal Plates

[Solon]

Can somebody please point me to all of these people who have historically refuted the possibility of the Book of Mormon’s ancient origins by claiming that ancient people did not write on metal plates? It seems quite ingrained in LDS apologetic culture and is an easy argument to refute. Problem is, I can’t find any record of anyone making this argument.

Paul Cheesman’s book Ancient Writing on Metal Plates (Bountiful: 1985) works very hard to compile examples of ancient Mediterranean peoples scratching letters onto metal sheets or tablets. The BYU’s glorious “double documents” display seems to imply as much to me as well, since it describes the artifact as “one of the world’s finest examples of ancient writing on metal plates.” Yesterday, Indy posted a similar assumption that this was a point of contention against the historicity of The Book of Mormon. This is not to call out Indy at all, but rather a plea for someone to direct me to the genesis of this criticism.

For the time being, I think it’s a straw-man, artfully constructed by apologists who wish to deflect from the larger issue: ancient Americans did not write on metal plates; at least not with any regularity. I’m sure if they had had access to metal they would have used them for important records and inscriptions. But they didn’t. (EDIT: not that this is a deal-breaker for the book's historicity or divine message; this is just the case in light of the presently established archaeological record)

I’m open to correction here. If someone can direct me to the polemics directed against The Book of Mormon that claim that ancient people did not write on metal plates, I’ll gladly revise my position. But no self-respecting historian of the ancient world would claim something so stupid. Although archaeology has discovered many examples of ancient writing on metal, there is no reason to believe that this "refutes" any type of criticism. There are plenty of literary references to ancient laws, victor-lists, religious texts, curse tablets, etc. that were easily available in the 19th century.

So, help me out here.

[SeattleUte]

Can somebody please point me to all of these people who have historically refuted the possibility of the Book of Mormon’s ancient origins by claiming that ancient people did not write on metal plates? It seems quite ingrained in LDS apologetic culture and is an easy argument to refute. Problem is, I can’t find any record of anyone making this argument.

Paul Cheesman’s book Ancient Writing on Metal Plates (Bountiful: 1985) works very hard to compile examples of ancient Mediterranean peoples scratching letters onto metal sheets or tablets. BYU’s glorious “double documents” display seems to imply as much to me as well, since it describes the artifact as “one of the world’s finest examples of ancient writing on metal plates.” Yesterday, Indy posted a similar assumption that this was a point of contention against the historicity of The Book of Mormon. This is not to call out Indy at all, but rather a plea for someone to direct me to the genesis of this criticism.

For the time being, I think it’s a straw-man, artfully constructed by apologists who wish to deflect from the larger issue: ancient Americans did not write on metal plates; at least not with any regularity. I’m sure if they had had access to metal they would have used them for important records and inscriptions. But they didn’t.

I’m open to correction here. If someone can direct me to the polemics directed against The Book of Mormon that claim that ancient people did not write on metal plates, I’ll gladly revise my position. But no self-respecting historian of the ancient world would claim something so stupid. Although archaeology has discovered many examples of ancient writing on metal, there is no reason to believe that this "refutes" any type of criticism. There are plenty of literary references to ancient laws, victor-lists, religious texts, curse tablets, etc. that were easily available in the 19th century.

So, help me out here.

Didn't Brodie say that if the Book of Mormon were written on golden plates with average sized script, Joseph would have needed a wagon to carry it around or some such thing?

[Fiyero]

Didn't Brodie say that if the Book of Mormon were written on golden plates with average sized script, Joseph would have needed a wagon to carry it around or some such thing?

Assuming the "plates" were really a solid brick of 7"x8"x6" gold, it would have weighed 200 lbs.

[Moliere]

Didn't Brodie say that if the Book of Mormon were written on golden plates with average sized script, Joseph would have needed a wagon to carry it around or some such thing?

Does this also assume the writing on the plates was in English?

Assuming the "plates" were really a solid brick of 7"x8"x6" gold, it would have weighed 200 lbs.

That would make it tough to turn the pages.

[Fiyero]

That would make it tough to turn the pages.

Yes, and people like Fawn Brodie who hope to fool their small-minded, bitter followers, tend to only tell half of the story: that the weight of gold of that size would weigh over 200 lbs.

[Indy Coug]

Why is the assumption that the plates were made of pure gold?

[TripletDaddy]

Why is the assumption that the plates were made of pure gold?

it is based on the same supposition that nephi literally existed, that ammon literally cut off all the arms, that jonah was literally swallowed by a whale, and that all living creatures were literally crammed onto a boat (with a rowboat attached for that rascal Cain!).

You are correct...why do people make all these assumptions?

[SeattleUte]

Does this also assume the writing on the plates was in English?

Are you saying that Reformed Egyptian is a more compressed form of written expression? Please elaborate.

[falafel]

Are you saying that Reformed Egyptian is a more compressed form of written expression? Please elaborate.

Its pictures, man! You can say a thousand words with a picture. They probably only needed a few plates.

[falafel]

Wrong book.

[Indy Coug]

Are you saying that Reformed Egyptian is a more compressed form of written expression? Please elaborate.

I'm curious how Joseph Smith came to the conclusion that it made more sense for the plates to be engraved using a form of Egyptian rather than in Hebrew.

I'm sure the answer has profound allegorical implications.

[Art Vandelay]

it is based on the same supposition that nephi literally existed, that ammon literally cut off all the arms, that jonah was literally swallowed by a whale, and that all living creatures were literally crammed onto a boat (with a rowboat attached for that rascal Cain!).

You are correct...why do people make all these assumptions?

I have heard you and others reference your belief that some, if not most, of the Book of Mormon is allegorical. Could you point me to a post where you have elaborated on this. I'm interested in reading more of your thoughts on this.

[TripletDaddy]

I have heard you and others reference your belief that some, if not most, of the Book of Mormon is allegorical. Could you point me to a post where you have elaborated on this. I'm interested in reading more of your thoughts on this.

Actually, I have only offered it as a possibility. A rhetorical question, if you will. Are parts of the BoM allegorical (we already know that parts are...see Zenos and the Olive Tree, for example). How much of it is allegorical? And if parts were to be allegorical, what changes?

I'm not sure Ammon cut off everyone's arms. Not sure it matters, either. There are central messages in the BoM that would require some literalism...3 Ne 11, for example (at least in that Christ came to America....not sure darkness and ground shaking is necessary).

The partial allegory approach certainly would go a long way in undermining silly attempts to detract from the historicity of the BoM...as well as silly efforts to prove the historicity thereof.

I wonder if literalism is a critical component for FARMS types because many of them would be out of a job without such a belief.

[Moliere]

Are you saying that Reformed Egyptian is a more compressed form of written expression? Please elaborate.

Does Brodie say whether they were double spaced and in courier font? How wide were the margins?

[Sleeping in EQ]

Solon, I can't think of a single critic of the Church who stakes out such an argument. The world is jam-packed with idiots, though, so there could be someone.

I have heard that argument stood up as a straw man by LDS apologists.

As some of you know, I went down the Book of Mormon historicity trail some years ago. Although I am sure there are facts and arguments I am not aware of, I was quite immersed in the study.

As of now, I think the plates existed as an object. In my judgment, one of the most interesting pieces of evidence is Emma Smith's 1879 interview with Joseph Smith III. Here's a clip from that interview:

----------------------

Question. What of the truth of Mormonism?

Answer. I know Mormonism to be the truth; and believe the Church to have been established by divine direction. I have complete faith in it. In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us.

Question. Had he not a book or manuscript from which he read, or dictated to you?

Answer. He had neither manuscript nor book to read from.

Question. Could he not have had, and you not know it?

Answer. If he had had anything of the kind he could not have concealed it from me.

Question. Are you sure that he had the plates at the time you were writing for him?

Answer. The plates often lay on the table without any attempt at concealment, wrapped in a small linen tablecloth, which I had given him to fold them in. I once felt of the plates, as they thus lay on the table, tracing their outline and shape. They seemed to be pliable like thick paper, and would rustle with a metallic sound when the edges were moved by the thumb, as one does sometimes thumb the edges of a book.

Question. Where did father and Oliver Cowdery write?

Answer. Oliver Cowdery and your father wrote in the room where I was at work.

Question. Could not father have dictated the Book of Mormon to you, Oliver Cowdery and the others who wrote for him, after having first written it, or having first read it out of some book?

Answer. Joseph Smith [and for the first time she used his name direct, having usually used the words, "your father" or "my husband"] could neither write nor dictate a coherent and well-worded letter, let alone dictate a book like the Book of Mormon. And, though I was an active participant in the scenes that transpired, and was present during the translation of the plates, and had cognizance of things as they transpired, it is marvelous to me, "a marvel and a wonder," as much so as to anyone else.

Question. I should suppose that you would have uncovered the plates and examined them?

Answer. I did not attempt to handle the plates, other than I have told you, nor uncover them to look at them. I was satisfied that it was the work of God, and therefore did not feel it to be necessary to do so;

Major Bidamon here suggested: Did Mr. Smith forbid your examining the plates?

Answer. I do not think he did. I knew that he had them, and was not specially curious about them. I moved them from place to place on the table, as it was necessary in doing my work.

Question. Mother, what is your belief about the authenticity, or origin, of the Book of Mormon?

Answer. My belief is that the Book of Mormon is of divine authenticity - I have not the slightest doubt of it. I am satisfied that no man could have dictated the writing of the manuscripts unless he was inspired; for, when acting as his scribe, your father would dictate to me hour after hour; and when returning after meals, or after interruptions, he could at once begin where he had left off, without either seeing the manuscript or having any portion of it read to him. This was a usual thing for him to do. It would have been improbable that a learned man could do this; and, for one so ignorant and unlearned as he was, it was simply impossible.

------------------------

My thinking, as of now, lends me to believe that Joseph Smith had plates. It's also possible that they were in a breastplate of sorts, as James Adair described a breast plate carrying a Urim & Thumim in his 1775 book, History of the Indians. Joseph could have found a breastplate similar to the one Adair described or could have gotten the idea from Adair and made one himself. There are a number of possibilities. The following is a quote from pages 83-84 of Adair's book:

------------------------

The Mosaic ceremonial institutions, are acknowledged by our best writers, to represent the Messiah, under various types and shadows; in like manner, the religious customs of the American Indians, seem to typify the same; according to the early divine promise, that the seed of the woman should bruise the head of the serpent; and that it should bruise his heel. -- The Levitical high-priest wore a breast-plate, which they called Hosechim, and on it the Urim and Thummim, signifying lights and perfections; for they are the plurals of [???], Awóra, (which inverted makes Erowa ) and [???],

Thòràh, the law, as it directed them under dark shadows, to Messiah, the lamp of light and perfections. In resemblance of this sacred pectoral, or breast-plate, the American Archi-magus wears a breast-plate, made of a white conch-shell, with two holes bored in the middle of it, through which he puts the ends of an otter-skin strap, and fastens a buck-horn white button to the outside of each, as if in imitation of the precious stones of Urim, which miraculously blazoned from the high-priest's breast, the unerring words of the divine oracle. Instead of the plate of gold, which the Levite wore on his forehead, bearing these words, [???], Kadesh li Yohewah, "holy, or separate to God," the Indian wears around his temples, either a wreath of swan-feathers, or a long piece of swan-skin doubled, so as only the fine snowy feathers appear on each side.

-------------------------

As of now, I suspect that Joseph Smith's creation of the Book of Mormon was more than a little like his creation of the Book of Abraham. The trappings of folk magic are more obvious in the earlier work (stone in hat, as it were), but the idea of Joseph going again and again over plates, as though listening to a tape that has recorded sounds of incredible frequencies and amplitudes that are not detectable with usual hearing, doesn't seem far fetched to me (although Joseph says he was seeing, i.e. a seer, and not a hearer). The repetitions in the book first steered me into the "tape" direction. Also, I am a communications person and often look at problems from a media angle.

I think Joseph let his imagination work, stuck in things like his father's dream of the tree of life (see Lucy Mack Smith's memoir), and drew from the popular knowledge of findings such as those of Adair. I think Joseph Smith understood this process to be divine in some sense, and I believe he thought it was historical too. Therefore, I think he was a shaman (or prophet, in LDS parlance), although I believe he was mistaken about the historical part. I don't think there's a "smoking gun" out there waiting to be found--i.e., a source that Joseph copied from--but I do think that all the pieces are in place to conclude that he was a shaman or mystic who may have tapped into Jung's collective unconscious (a psychoanalytic concept I find credible because of Jung's arguments, my own experiences, and its foundational place in some Eastern thought), and mixed that with his own understandings of the history of the Indians, folk magic, the King James Bible, a frustration with early 19th century Christianity, and his own vivid storytelling (which Lucy Mack documents). I am willing to take a leap of faith and see this process as inspiration. "Translation" doesn't seem accurate to me, although "translation" has aquired a more formal understanding over time and in scholarly circles, so that's my bias.

In the end, like Emma, I find the miraculous in the work. I find something that pulls at me in a spiritual way. That doesn't mean, though, that I'm going to ignore what I find to be the overwhelming arguments against its historicity.

At least, that's where I am coming from today.