An LDS apologist says the gold plates are a fly in the critics’ potato salad.

There was a bit of a kerfuffle this week as Michael Ash, an LDS apologist, published a brochure named “Bamboozled by the CES Letter”. There was nothing new here as it contained the same old apologetics I’ve read before. Maybe it makes some members feel better about the attacks on the historicity of the Book of Mormon by the extremely potent CES Letter, but for non-members and any others who don’t believe the Book of Mormon is historically accurate, the arguments are very unconvincing. One thing I found a little amusing was this statement about the gold plates:

The Book of Mormon plates are the fly in the critics’ potato salad. You can’t just eat around it, you have to get rid of it in a way that still makes the salad palatable to the dinner guests. If there were no golden plates, then Joseph Smith simply made up the whole story of the Lehites and the Jaredites. It all came from his imagination—call it lies, call it delusional.

A fly in the critics’ potato salad? Hardly. More like evidence many would say makes the whole truth claims of the Book of Mormon sound pretty fishy.

So riddle me this, LDS true-believers. Why did God choose to have the Book of Mormon written on gold plates that almost no one was allowed to see? Why were the writings of the Nephite prophets more important than the ten commandments? The tablets of the ten commandments were supposedly written by the finger of God, and yet Moses was able to show those to everyone. Also, the scriptures of the Old Testament were written and passed down for centuries. The scriptures of the New Testament are said to have been written by either actual witnesses to Jesus Christ, or by followers who knew witnesses of Jesus. Never at any time did we hear these writings were too sacred to show other people.

And then we have the Book of Abraham. Joseph Smith said the Egyptian papyri that he used as the source of the Book of Abraham was written by the actual hand of Abraham. Wouldn’t that have been more amazing to have than the records of the Nephites? The Nephites were cool and all, but Father Abraham! And yet Joseph Smith was more than happy to show off the papyri to members of the church and to visitors. Why didn’t the Lord see fit to keep these hidden from the world like he did the gold plates? Joseph Smith thought the papyri were so great that he made copies of the drawings included in the record so that the pictures could be published. Why not also make a copy of a gold plate to preserve for posterity? God apparently needed to take back the gold plates (I’m not sure why he needs gold, but we’re told the angel took the gold plates back), but wouldn’t it be nice to have a copy of a Nephite gold plate so we could see some of the original engravings?

Why did Joseph Smith only choose witnesses of the gold plates who were either in his family, or were bank rolling the operation (Martin Harris), or were all related to the Whitmers? As Mark Twain sarcastically said in his review of the Book of Mormon:

And when I am far on the road to conviction, and eight men, be they grammatical or otherwise, come forward and tell me that they have seen the plates too; and not only seen those plates but “hefted” them, I am convinced. I could not feel more satisfied and at rest if the entire Whitmer family had testified.

Why not get some impartial witnesses? Surely they could have found a reporter or two who could be trusted, or other people who had no vested interests in the success of the church or the Book of Mormon. They could then even get affidavits from these impartial witnesses.

Why were the plates buried in a hill for 1,400 years for Joseph Smith to dig up, only for an angel to take them away when the 116 pages were lost? After a year or so, the angel conveniently just brought them back. Why didn’t the angel just give them to Joseph Smith in the first place? Why all the intrigue with going back to the hill every year for four years when it turns out the angel could carry them back and forth at will? The fact that Joseph Smith was a treasure hunter, and then scored the greatest treasure find of all time, in the very hill where he previously failed to find treasure, doesn’t set off any alarm bells?

To me the only explanation is the plates didn’t exist. All of these witnesses believed in “second sight”, where they could “see” things with their spiritual eyes. There are enough witnesses beyond the three and the eight who were allowed to lift the “plates” in a box that I believe Joseph Smith had something that represented the plates. Emma said she felt the plates through a cloth but was never allowed to see them. Maybe even Joseph Smith got to the point where he believed what he had in the box represented actual gold plates…somewhere. But if he had had actual gold plates, he would have been thrilled to show them off, and not to just people closely tied to him.

So are the gold plates a fly in my potato salad like Michael Ash suggests? If by “potato salad” he means my former testimony of Joseph Smith being a true prophet, then yes. The plates are one of many flies that tell me Joseph Smith was not what the LDS church claims he was.


Why Gold Plates? — 4 Comments

  1. Wait… You think the book of mormon has to be false because they were written on Gold and Joseph Smith didn’t show many people? You know that as soon as word spread around that Joseph had found the plates, people had tried to either find them or steal them? So it can be assumed that Joseph wasn’t to keen on the idea of showing everyone. I mean they were freaking GOLD. Usually you dont parade that stuff around. Also, all of the sworn witnesses NEVER denied seeing the plates even after some of them left the church. I think this is hilarious… Moses could show eveyone the ten commandments but Joseph couldn’t, so the book of mormon must be false… Plus, the book of mormon was all about gearing up for the coming of christ… Many of the prophets in the bible never knew or saw him… This is so stupid. you are trying to find reasons to convince yourself this testimony that YOU had for years is gone and that it must be false. You will find any reason to trash or prove the church wrong. The church didn’t need to show a “trusted reporter” or anybody for that matter. And for the mark twain… He apologized and came back to Salt lake, after which released a glowing report about the saints and their faith…

    Good Day

    • I think the Book of Mormon is not historically accurate because of all the proof that shows it’s not historical. See my post here that discusses it: It may contain truth that resonates with many people, but it’s not a historically accurate book.

      The fact that the Book of Mormon allegedly came from magical gold plates that no one was allowed to see except close confidants to Joseph Smith just makes the whole thing seem more fishy. As for Mark Twain’s apology, do you have a link for that? All I could find about his visit to SLC was this, and he doesn’t bring up his review of the Book of Mormon:

  2. Pingback: Sunday in Outer Blogness: Mental health edition! » Main Street Plaza

  3. Hey John, Check out a series of experiments in psychology called the “Asch Conformity Experiments” Although I can’t prove that the same phenomenon contributed to the witnesses testimony, it does seem possible. And Joseph could hand pick his test witnesses.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *