Talk:Golden plates/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Bushman's commentary on skepticism of the Plates

I now have a copy of Rough Stone Rolling, thus I can now keep a closer eye on how the Book is being interpreted in regards to articles in association with Joseph Smith.

Firstly, I've noticed that this article seems to be hand picking an awful lot of theories summarizing a possible alternative origin for the Golden Plates, which Bushman mentions other authors have created in previous publications. This page seems to dominantly cite these "alternative origin" theories directly from Bushman and presents them as first hand fact, yet it seems to have completely overlooked a warning from him in regards to theories which are skeptical of the plates existence;

"Since the people who knew Smith treat the plates as fact, a skeptical analysis lacks evidence. A series of surmises replaces a documented narrative."- Page 58.

Likewise, the same problem is persisting in this article. In the lead paragraph, it comments "perhaps manufactured by Smith himself", yet the author of the very book this statement (please note the statement highlighted is not contained the in text and is a personal interpretation) happens to be cited from is summarizing that any such theory of "Smith manufacturing the plates" lacks hardline evidence and is mere speculation. Yet here in this article, speculation is being treated as essential fact.

Thus in accordance with the above, I propose that either the statement "perhaps manufactured by Smith himself" is elimated as it has no grounds of support (as the source says), or we introduce the quote I've selected above from page 58 in Bushman highlighting that the alternative theories of origin lacks hardline evidence therefore should be treat with caution.

It does seem awfully strange that things such as this were overlooked by the editors of this very page who have been quick to cite Bushman's book. Routerone (talk) 21:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The phrase "manufactured by Smith himself" is cited to Vogel's biography rather than Bushman's.--John Foxe (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

In addition to the speculation of Vogel and others (Vogel was not the first) that Smith might have made a mock-up of the plate, the statement "perhaps manufactured by Smith himself" is also supported by Bushman because Bushman notes this is one among the many theories of the book's origin. Bushman notes that this theory has no hard evidence, but he also notes elsewhere that the theory that the plates were an actual Indian artifact is not provable either. COGDEN 19:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Try this..... I think this might answer the objections raised here (but maybe not--hey, it's worth a shot, right??) - Ecjmartin (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to note that idea that the plates ever existed also "lacks hardline evidence" and as such it is perfectly acceptable to include the theory they were manufactured by Smith. In addition, it is a logical progression that if someone claims to have plates given to them by a divine being, that without hard evidence of that interaction, that people could have created the plates. It feels like you want to remove this the article altogether, which would not be appropriate. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 14:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't have any ideological problem with Ecjmartin's suggestion. It's just too long for the lead.--John Foxe (talk) 15:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Wording in intro

Hi. new to Wikipedia. Don't know how to create my own subtopic in the "Talk" page (how embarassing...). "Smith told several stories about the origin and nature of the golden plates that are accepted by most Latter Day Saints as a matter of faith and sometimes also on the basis of apologetic scholarship that thus far has received no mainstream academic recognition." (emphasis mine) last sentence of 1st paragraph. This is not referenced and filled with euphemisms. The latter part (starting with "thus far")goes along with the sentence. That part doesn't concern me, but I feel that the bolded part should be referenced, edited, or altogether deleted. I just don't want to overstep my bounds here or start a revert war.TerraNirvana (talk) 01:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The first paragraph, starting with "It is a matter of speculation", consists of awkward and poorly crafted run-on sentences. Additionally, they do not really reflect the article's contents. It is still important to mention that there is no solid evidence beyond the witnesses, but the wording should be a lot simpler and clearer. The "Joseph told several stories" statement is very unclear and seems to be an attempt at adding a negative spin to the topic. ...comments? ~BF izz 06:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

adjusted. I moved the last two sentences of the first paragraph to the last paragraph of the intro. I also did some rewording. I was scratching my head at footnote #4, which began with a generalized statement about all Book of Mormon witnesses, but then proceeded to focus exclusively on Martin Harris, so I modified that, too. It still seems like a POV-fork-footnote that either needs to be moved into the prose of the article body or removed. ...comments? ~BF izz 06:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The oddities were probably the result of some past edit war.--John Foxe (talk) 10:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It looks much better now! Thank you for all of your help! TerraNirvana (talk) 16:49, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

@Foxe yes that's definitely what it looked like. Thanks for your improvements. ...comments? ~BF izz 17:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding removal of clarification statement in lead paragraph.

User C. A. Russell has engaged in an editing war with me over the removal of the sentence "Therefore, if the plates existed, they cannot now be examined." First, my failure to revert is NOT due to my belief he is correct but in fact my restraint to avoid furthering this edit. I directed user C. A. Russell to the lengthy discussion wherein several members, including my self, had discussed the best lead for this article. It is very clearly discussed that this particular topic, the question of the existence of the plates, is important and should be included, at least to some degree. This statement has been accused of being "out of place apologetic in lead". First, this is as neutral a sentence as can be constructed. If anything I would say that that it was non-apologetic as it clearly indicates that the plates cannot be examined and it casts at least a shadow of doubt to their existence. Also, DRNC was invoked as a reason for apparently ignoring months-long debate on this matter. User C. A. Russell, please explain clearly why you believe this statement should be reverted. While I am not happy to engage in this debate again, you have forced me to do so in order to avoid an editing war. I am willing to get a third party involved but since I believe this particular sentence to be so clearly required in order to keep NPOV, I am hoping a discussion can be had to avoid that. I am willing to accept additional input but I believe it is user C. A. Russell's case to defend. NOTE: I could list at least five Wikipedia policies and precedents that would require us to keep this statement. Again, I want to explain I am not leaving this sentence removed for no other reason then I do not want to start an editing war over something that is so straight forward, but it is not a concession that I believe it should stay removed. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 18:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

For reference, the old discussion: Talk:Golden Plates/Archive 6#New lead paragraph. I concur that we should in some way mention that there is no physical evidence of the existence of the Golden Plates: this is not immediately obvious to the uninitiated. Using the word "therefore" in the lede is a bit strange, though. There might be a less awkward way to word it. ...comments? ~BF izz 20:16, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I also think mention of the current non-existence of the plates is helpful to the uninitiated reader. However, unlike B, the "therefore" makes sense to me: "Smith returned the plates to an angel, so you can't see them now." The "therefore" is simply a formal "so."--John Foxe (talk) 21:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Well I like how it is currently structured but not tied to it. I think "Smith returned the plates so they can't be seen now" is too informal and it does not address the existence issue but over all I agree it could be better written. I think the person put "Therefore" there at the beginning of the sentence to make it "sound" like a better sentence. Something like "Accordingly, they cannot be examined now if the plates existed." but I still feel that is too "strange" if we want to use that word. Maybe we should start but looking at the sentences around this particular one and figuring out a way to put this part in a better context in one of those sentences? -Kirkoconnell (talk) 22:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

From Talk:Golden plates/Comments

The following material was previously found at Talk:Golden plates/Comments, but should have been on this talk page instead, so moving here. Placing this section in this location based on the age of the contribution. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Re Joseph Smith being a 'money digger': should this be interpreted as a statement that he was paid to use a seer stone? He freely admitted helping Josiah Stoal (or Stowell) to dig for silver (see 'Joseph Smith - History'), but to say that he used a seer stone for it seems to be an unwarranted conclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carl.antuar (talk • contribs) 02:35, 8 February 2008‎

How are we doing?

Things have quieted down around here, and at the same time, there have been substantial changes in this article, so as to make the last round of criticism basically obsolete. The quietness either means that people are happy with the way things are going, or they have lost interest. But I think we are ready for some feedback on the latest changes. There are still a lot of minor tweaking issues, particularly in the footnotes and on a micro-level, but are there any structural improvements to be made here? COGDEN 01:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

A minor issue, I know, and trust me I get what you're saying, but "Ostensible witnesses" as a subsection heading is probably too confusing, I think the most neutral wording in this section would simply be "Witness accounts", because even if someone is lying or fabricating the truth, what they say is still, by definition, their "account." I'll give the whole article a run through when I have a few moments and give my two cents worth. Twunchy (talk) 04:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

How about inserting information on the title page of the BOM that is supposedly a translation of the very last leaf of the golden plates? That is missing here...and probably a bit more relevant than it first appears, since this is where the title to the actual "Book of Mormon" supposedly originated. This would marry the two core items together quite well I think. Twunchy (talk) 04:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I thought there was something about the title page at some point, but I can't find anything. Maybe there is something we can copy from the Book of Mormon page. Also, without unduly duplicating info from other pages, maybe we ought to include, within the "Description of the plates" section, some info on reformed Egyptian (maybe an image of the "Caractor" transcript), info about the title page, and maybe an abbreviated description of the plates' organization. COGDEN 16:14, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Please allow me a small sigh. In principle I have nothing against either of these suggestions, but the idea of making this article even longer.... Yes, yes, I know, it's not print. John Foxe (talk) 17:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, c'mon John, it's only a few sentences, we will even let you "tweak" them :). I agree it should be very brief, but these are small details that are easily overlooked, but can add quite a depth of info. Twunchy (talk) 19:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've had my small sigh; go to it.--John Foxe (talk) 20:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a minor point that I am bringing up about Sec. 2.3 Paragraph 6 "REceiving the plates". I read through the document of Martin Harris, and I believe that the cooper shop is a separate building from the Smith home. Also, I believe that the play-by-play is unnecessary, suffice it to say that at the time, Joseph Smith, jr., had a band of treasure hunters ready to mug him, so he had to leave town. to the underlaying unity of all life so that the voice of intuition may guide us closer to our common keeper (talk) 02:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

New picture

I added some new pictures of the golden plates and other Book of Mormon relics. I didn't give much thought to the placement or sizing of the pictures, so feel free to move them around as needed. -- Adjwilley (talk) 19:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I did not mind the picture additions except for the top picture, which seems to be almost the same as another picture deeper in the article and frankly messes with the lay out and general uniformity of the article itself. I only removed the top photo. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 14:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I changed the word "reconstruction" to "artistic representation" because "reconstruction" implies that the objects actually once existed. (I'm certainly impressed by the craftsmanship though. That's beautiful work.) I'm agnostic about where on the page the image would be best situated.--John Foxe (talk) 19:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Is Quinn a reliable source?

Rockclaw1030 has deleted without explanation material cited to Quinn. I'd be glad to discuss the nature of WP:RS here.--John Foxe (talk) 01:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, Rockclaw did give an explanation in the edit summary here and here. The explanation may not be complete enough, but the material was not "deleted without explanation". Further discussion by the editor here would aid understanding as to the reason Rockclaw considers Quinn unreliable. 72Dino (talk) 01:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Rockclaw1030 gave no explanation unless you consider "Unreliable and biased source the go against Wikipedia's objectional standing" an explanation. (Perhaps English is a second language.)--John Foxe (talk) 02:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I looked at the edits in question. It looks like

Smith's translation ability evolved naturally out of his earlier treasure seeking,<ref>{{Harvtxt|Bushman|2005|p=73}}.</ref> and he used a process that was "strikingly similar" to the way Smith used seer stones for treasure hunting.<ref>{{Harvtxt|Quinn|1998|p=171}}</ref>

has been shortened by cropping off the last clause.

I think that in regards to this part of the edit we can resolve the dispute without even discussing whether Quinn is reliable or biased. For instance, the "strikingly similar" bit sounds a lot like WP:EDITORIALIZING, and I think the sentence would read much better without the scare quotes. Just replace "strikingly similar" with similar. I also note that the page number is off (it should be page 173).

The second part of the edit shortened

For the earliest phase of translation, Smith said that he translated using what he called the "Urim and Thummim"—a set of large spectacles with stones where the eye-pieces should be. There is no eye-witness testimony that Smith ever wore the large spectacles, although some witnesses understood that he placed them in his hat while translating. Witnesses did observe Smith using a single seer stone (not part of a set of spectacles) in the translation, the same brown stone Smith had earlier used for treasure seeking.

by removing the last sentence (about the single brown seer stone). The original sentence, I think, was technically accurate but confuses the Urim and Thummim with the brown seer stone, implying that Smith used the brown stone for the "earliest phase of translation". This actually goes directly contrary to Quinn, who says that Smith started with the Urim and Thummim, and then used the brown stone after the 116 pages had been lost. I recommend that the sentence be rewritten to better reflect Quinn's view, so that it reads something like:

For the earliest phase of translation, Smith said that he translated using what he called the "Urim and Thummim"—two stones set in a frame like a set of large spectacles. There is no eye-witness testimony that Smith ever wore the Urim and Thummim, and witnesses said that he placed them in his hat while translating. Later, Smith began using the brown seer stone that he had previously used while treasure seeking.

Note, I've also gotten rid of the although as recommended in the last paragraph of WP:Editorializing, and I replaced understoond which was being used as a synonym for said.

Hope this helps. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I deleted it because Quinn's book is very controversial with many of his claims either not true or critizized. . Also, John undid my first delete he said that it was because "material is cited to Quinn, a scholarly source that many Mormons despise". This make no sense. I belive that this info from Quinn, which is shaky at best, should be deleted permently.Rockclaw1030 (talk) 21:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

@Rockclaw1030: Did you consider the compromise I outlined above? It skirts the issue of whether or not Quinn was controversial (yes IMO), biased (probably), or scholarly (also yes, IMO), while addressing some of the accuracy and NPOV issues that seem to be bugging you. Also, you'll have to forgive (or ignore) John's comment about Mormons despising Quinn's book. While it may be true of many Mormons, it really isn't relevant to the discussion here. Please let me know what you think of my suggestions above. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I still think the last line about the brown stone is based on faulty evidence and not needed. Thanks for the compromise, but that last line is just mostly hearsay.Rockclaw1030 (talk) 22:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

On what basis do you argue that information about the brown stone is faulty and hearsay?--John Foxe (talk) 22:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Because Quinn says it's true, but I don't see the proof. It is just one statment from one guy, Issac Hale, from an anti-mormon book publishsed in 1834 that does not even say, if you read it, that the stone Joseph used for translating was the same stone he supposedly used to "search" for treasure. Here is the quote used in the notes: "manner in which he pretended to read and interpret was the same as when he looked for the money-diggers, with the stone in his hat, and his hat over his face, while the Book of Plates were at the same time hid in the woods!" Now, where does it say he used the same stone?Rockclaw1030 (talk) 22:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors can't argue with reliable sources by appealing to primary sources that may stand behind them. Quinn's book is scholarly, peer-reviewed, and published by a reputable publisher. Therefore, if Quinn is a reliable source, then everything he says is Wikipedia truth unless his position can be challenged by another reliable source. On what authority do you argue that Quinn isn't a WP:RS?--John Foxe (talk) 19:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Here are some reliable sources:

Quinn must have begun his research when he still had the Hofmann letters and the salamander to serve as the rock of his hypotheses. It was those solid, indisputable historical documents that would give credibility to the rest of his data and make his case come together....With the salamander letter and other Hofmann materials, Quinn had a respectable argument; without them he had a handful of fragmented and highly speculative research notes.

—Stephen E. Robinson, "Review of Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, by D. Michael Quinn," Brigham Young University Studies 27 no. 4 (1987), 94–95.

I have not checked every reference in Quinn's book, but every reference that I have checked has been inaccurate in some way. In some cases Quinn has misinterpreted the source. In some cases he proof texts the quotation, and a fuller reading of the text undermines his case. And sometimes he is just plain wrong.

—John Gee, "Review of Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, revised and enlarged edition, by D. Michael Quinn," FARMS Review of Books 12/2 (2000): 185–224. off-site PDF link (footnote 23)

"the fact that Quinn could not discover a single primary source written by Latter-day Saints that makes any positive statement about magic is hardly dissuasive to a historian of Quinn's inventive capacity." William J. Hamblin

Like I said, the passage in the notes does not even mention that the stone he used was the same stone he supposidly used for gold digging, which make this info not true.Rockclaw1030 (talk) 20:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The quotations you've provided are not from reliable sources; they're just Mormon apologetics. In fact, both Stephen E. Robinson and John Gee are called Mormon apologists in the leads of their respective Wikipedia articles. FARMS is notoriously dedicated to Mormon apologetics, and William J. Hamblin is a BYU history professor and former board member of that organization. (Quinn's "revised and enlarged" edition of Early Mormonism and the Magic World View was not published until 1998, so Robinson's review of 1987 wouldn't be applicable in any case.)--John Foxe (talk) 20:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

First off, when I originally deleted this, it was not only because I thought Quinn was an unreliable source, but also because, if, John Foxe, you acctually read my coments, the quote from the book which is on the main page does not SAY that the STONE was the SAME one THAT JOSEPH SMITH used for supposed gold digging. Here it is again: "manner in which he pretended to read and interpret was the same as when he looked for the money-diggers, with the stone in his hat, and his hat over his face, while the Book of Plates were at the same time hid in the woods!" Now, all it claims is that the manner in which Joseph Smith translated the Gold Plates was the same as when supposedly dug for gold. It never mentions the same brown stone. Also, we have to look at the credibility of the person who made this statement, Issac Hale, the father of Emma Hale and Joseph's step-dad. He did not like Joseph, and forbade Emma from mariage with Jospeh. Plus, he never acctually saw Joseph translate the plate, he just heard what other people told him. In a court of law, that would demiss him as a credible witness. Lastly, what make you the expert on wheter or not the people I got the quotes from are reliable? Just because they are Mormon apologists? That is one of the weakest arguments I have ever heard!Rockclaw1030 (talk) 22:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

First, I've added the following quotation from Quinn to the appropriate footnote: "Most of Smith's disciples did not emphasize the fact that he was now using for religious purposes the brown seer stone he had previously used for the treasure-quest."

Second, as I said above, we as Wikipedia editors don't make judgments about the primary sources. Quinn is a WP:RS and can only be challenged by other reliable secondary sources. Primary sources don't count; what's appropriate in a court of law doesn't count.

Third, by rejecting Mormon apologetics I'm following Wikipedia rules about reliable sources: "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible....Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves....Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been at least preliminarily vetted by one or more other scholars." The Mormon apologetics you've cited have not been vetted by the scholarly community, nor has the material been published in "reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." The material was published by the Church or its surrogates with no review by non-Mormon scholars. That's what apologetics is about.--John Foxe (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and Quinn's "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View" is published in "reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." ? Now, I am not saying that magic was prevalent back in the 1820's. Of course it was. But this book makes grandiose claims. Also, with your new quote, you, John Foxe, did the classic trick conspiracy theorist do. Namely, use only info that works for you(though I fail to see the connection). You put in this quote:"Most of Smith's disciples did not emphasize the fact that he was now using for religious purposes the brown seer stone he had previously used for the treasure-quest." But, you did not put in the next line, which states: "However, in 1931 Mormon dissenter Ezra Booth published the earliest claim for the dual use of the Smith's stone" So now what, you are basing this argument on the lone quote from a dissenter? Ooooh, real reliable. According the the Wikipedia page "Identifying reliable sources", it states "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." Don't you think that information based on a dissenter and also from someone who hated Joseph Smith is fishy? A reliable source would be like an original owners manual for a 1965 Cadillac Series 60 special(which I have used). This book, not so much.Rockclaw1030 (talk) 17:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

At Wikipedia, Quinn is a reliable source. Everything he says in Early Mormonism and the Magic World View is Wikipedia truth unless his statements can be challenged by another reliable source—and some of them can. (In passing, you've made four spelling errors in just your last post; surely your computer has spell check.)--John Foxe (talk) 18:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

First off, you keep saying Quinn is true, but so far the only proof you can show is your own word and some vague usage of WS:PS. Like I said before, Quinn got his information about the brown seer stone from a dissenter!!!!! How can you possibly think that it is reliable? Plus your arguments are now repeating them selves and attacks directly at me(by the way, my computer does not)Rockclaw1030 (talk) 23:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Quinn is Wikipedia truth unless refuted by another WP:RS. What you or I think about the sources of his information is irrelevant here. (You've made two syntactical errors and two more spelling errors on this post. If your computer doesn't have spell check, break out your dictionary. I use mine virtually every day.)--John Foxe (talk) 17:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure? Because it seems to me that this is based on what you think about Quinn. What Quinn says is based on some anecdotal evidence, which is not allowed on Wikipedia.Rockclaw1030 (talk) 21:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

If a book is scholarly, peer-reviewed, and put out by a reputable publisher then the presumption is that the author is telling Wikipedia truth even if he got his information from a mad aunt. Of course, in the real world, some other scholarly, peer-reviewed author would immediately note the glaring problems with the first.--John Foxe (talk) 22:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that Wikipedia has a lower standard of credibility? Wow. Plus, I now have proof from a reliable, scholary book the refute what Quinn says: "The eyewitnesses who described translation, Joseph Knight, Martin Harris, Oliver Cowdery, and David Whitmer, who was in the house during the last weeks of translation, understood translation as transcription. Refering to the seerstone as a Urim and Thummin, Knight said:'Now the way he translated was he put the Urim and thummim into his had and Darkend his Eyes then would take a cestance and it would apper[sic]'...while Joseph's head was in a hat looking at the seerstone." (also, a quote from Emma Smith):"The first that my husband translated, was translated by the us of the Urim and Thummim, and that was the part the Martin Harris lost, agter that he used a samall stone, not exactly black, but rather a dark color"^[1] Notice how it does not say that the stone was chocolate-brown or that it was the same one used in by Joseph to hunt for monney.Rockclaw1030 (talk) 21:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Bushman is a fine scholar and his book is certainly a WP:RS, but nothing in the quotation contradicts Quinn.--John Foxe (talk) 22:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I hate to break it to you, but the quote you put in does not say at all that the stone Joseph use to translate was the same one he had when he tried to dig for gold.Rockclaw1030 (talk) 17:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

As I said, the Bushman quotation does not contradict Quinn. If one person says, "The dog was brown," and another says, "The dog was brown and hairy," there's no contradiction. One witness simply provides more information than the other. (Quinn's quotation is in footnote 105: "Most of Smith's disciples did not emphasize the fact that he was now using for religious purposes the brown seer stone he had previously used for the treasure-quest.")--John Foxe (talk) 19:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

How about a compramise? Why not the article say this :"According to David Whitmer, Smith began using a single seer stone (not part of a set of spectacles) during a second phase of translation,[104] which some claim to be the same brown stone he had earlier used in treasure seeking." This will help clear things up, because your quote does not say specifically that is was the same stone.Rockclaw1030 (talk) 19:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

No reliable source says that the brown stone was not the one Smith used earlier. Quinn, a reliable source, says it was "the brown stone he had previously used for the treasure-quest." At Wikipedia a reliable source such as Quinn is conclusive unless another reliable source can be brought into evidence in opposition. (Only one spelling error this time :)--John Foxe (talk) 19:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)How about changing "Smith began using a single seer stone (not part of a set of spectacles) during a second phase of translation, the same brown stone he had earlier used in treasure seeking" to "Smith began using his brown seer stone (which was not part of the set of spectacles) during a second phase of translation". We've already established earlier in the article that Smith used the brown stone for treasure hunting, and there's no need to continue hammering that detail. Especially since we are currently giving that factoid more weight than both Quinn and Bushman. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I've simplified the sentence to read "After the loss of the first 116 manuscript pages, Smith translated with a single seer stone he had previously used in treasure seeking." That wording eliminates discussion about whether the stone was brown but retains the information, important to non-Mormons at least, that Smith had earlier used that stone to scry for gold. (I've also added a reference to Terry Givens' By the Hand of Mormon)--John Foxe (talk) 23:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Wait one momement! This whole time, the information in the note said "Most of Smith's disciples did not emphasize the fact that he was now using for religious purposes the brown seer stone he had previously used for the treasure-quest." Who? And what is this nonsense about "important to non-Mormons at least?" That makes is sound like you keep this sketchy info for anti-mormon reasons. That is not very Wikipedian.Rockclaw1030 (talk) 21:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

We don't have to answer "who." So long as Quinn says it, it's Wikipedia truth unless there's a reliable source that says he's wrong. Wikipedia privileges secondary, not primary, sources.

Actually, Smith's use of a seer stone to translate the BoM is important to both Mormons and non-Mormons. It's just that the 21st-century LDS Church doesn't like that fact emphasized (It didn't bother folks much in the early 19th century).--John Foxe (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

- - - - None of Quinn's books have been recived by other scholars. Plus, now he is attacking Mitt Romney of bogus charges.Rockclaw1030 (talk) 20:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Timeline problem in section on Unsuccessful retrieval attempts

The years presented in this section are not supported by either the Knight or Salisbury account, which are the two main sources cited. Knight does not attach any years to these visits, but one can infer that he's talking about 1825 and 1826 (though this conflicts with Alvin's dying in Nov 1823 or even 1824 as previously believed). The only year Salisbury gives is 1837 and that's for the _first_ visit, which is pretty clearly mistaken. 204.128.230.1 (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

False attempts to disqualify more clearly primary sources

This article has the odd tendency to treat statments reported second-hand as if they can be sourced to when they were allegedly made. A record that dates to 1834 should be identified as such, and not treated as if it is actually an unweqivocal record of statements made in 1828.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Spectacles not neccesarily for wearing

The statement that the Urrim and Thummim were "spectacles" is not neccsarily meant to be that they were to be worn. We should emphasize what witnesses said they saw, not what they never claimed to have seen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

That is correct. In my understanding the word "spectacles" is misleading. I think they were described at one point as looking like "old fashioned spectacles" which is where the name came from; in all the descriptions though they have two lens pieces in a frame, but the frame doesn't connect to the ears in a manner that would allow them to be worn on the head. Instead, there is a single rod extending down from one side that you would hold in your hand, holding them up to your face...like...really, really old-fashioned spectacles. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I have tried doing this revision again. I have to say there is way, way too much detail in this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Witness Statements

The attempts by the article to explain away the witnesses clear claims to having seen, and in the case of the eight witnesses having hefted the plates, strikes me as a biased attempt to slant the article to a particular position. The whole thing seems to be about advancing one particular point of view, that the witnesses never really claimed to see and touch the plates.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

This doesn't surprise me, judging by what I know about some of the history and contributors to this article...but we need to be careful not to let the pendulum swing to far in the other direction as well. I do recommend giving attention to any objections Good Olfactory has to your edits; don't ignore them and keep editing. I'm a bit busy at the moment but I'll have a look at is as well when I get a minute. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit 12 March 2014 reversed

I made the mistake of second-editing an edit I made today, which I later marked as a minor edit. I'd like to re-institute some or all of the changes I had made, but I want to give some time to Talk before doing so. Change https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golden_plates&diff=599343792&oldid=591487801 Slb1900 (talk) 03:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

@Slb1990: probably the most helpful thing that you could do would be to re-do the edit in smaller more manageable parts, while using edit summaries detailing what you're changing and why. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:58, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Right. It's helpful to explain in the edit summaries why you're making changes.--John Foxe (talk) 11:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Gold/appearance of gold

The statements about the plates being called "gold" really seems to be leading by giving us small amount of information. The Eight witnesses statement is the most definitive on the plates as a physical object. It really does not make sense to lead up to that with earlier statements that they were gold. The whole thing seems to be unneccessary, over detail.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The problem is two fold, and I hope I am not getting into a theological debate on metallurgy. The church states in its essay pages about the issue that the plates are made of gold. "Plates made of gold upon which the ancient American prophet Mormon abridged the record of his people. link. The problem is that the page goes out of its way to describe them as golden instead of the church's view that they are gold. The article should be edited to use the term 'gold plates' and have the 'golden plates' redirect to 'gold plates. Even ones close to him says "In 1829, Lucy Mack Smith wrote a letter to Mary Smith Pierce explaining how God showed Joseph “where he could dig to obtain an ancient record engraven upon plates made of pure gold and this he is able to translate.link” also the church says in an official organ that " the LDS Church News printed an editorial titled “Hands on Opportunity” that stated how Joseph Smith was “entrusted with plates of solid gold". To keep using the term Golden plates, while it was used by some, is not in the spirit of wiki honesty. Yes others gave different weight guesses throughout the early church, but the book is from Gold Plates, not golden plates. It is proper to say papyrus scrolls and clay tablets, so if the plates are made of gold, even if it brings up issues of weight verses early weight guesses, we should edit the article for truthfulness. --Gunnerclark (talk) 08:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

From what I can see, the sources are split fairly evenly between "gold" and "golden", with most authors using them seemingly interchangeably. I don't think the difference is terribly meaningful, though to me, "golden" suggests color or appearance, whereas "gold" suggests actual content. Since the plates were reportedly seen by a number of men, but never analyzed for content, it would make sense to me to go with the term ("golden") related to appearance rather than the term that suggests actual content. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:10, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I still see the issue as one of terminology. Like I said 'Golden plates' is descriptive of look, but clay tablets, wooden school blocks and clay tablets are all description of material used. So while some might have used the word 'golden', their description should not take from the fact that the plates are make of gold as described by Lucy Mack Smith and the church itself. ==Gunnerclark (talk) 00:57, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the distinction means as much as you suggest. But anyway, even if we did take the LDS Church's chosen terminology as determinative (which we don't), there are plenty of uses on lds.org of "golden plates", many of them quite recent: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. And I don't see anything coming from the LDS Church that emphasizes that the plates were necessarily solid gold or suggests that this is an important point of Mormon belief. The eight eyewitnesses who handled them said only that they "have the appearance of gold". A perfect word to describe that is "golden". That word can mean they are gold (just as "wooden" means they are made of wood) or, at the very least, they have the appearance of gold. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:06, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I just wanted to lend my voice in support of the very excellent points made by Good Ol’factory. I think the issue has been thoroughly hashed and rehashed ad nauseum, and I see no reason to continue this discussion any further. At least, that's MHO. --Jgstokes (talk) 08:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Golden plates. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://cofchrist.org/docs/NativeAmericanConference/keynote.asp
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081120090052/http://deseretbook.com/personalwritings/ to http://deseretbook.com/personalwritings

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Golden plates. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090210071839/http://content.lib.utah.edu/u/?%2Fdialogue%2C21904 to http://content.lib.utah.edu/u?%2Fdialogue%2C21904

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:27, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

James Strang & Voree Plates

I see no reason to remove that section. Interactios34 (talk) 05:24, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

And I see no reason to include that section. More particularly, it goes against WP:UNDUE with respect to the subject of this article. Strang and Voree plates are already mentioned in the article in the "Significance in the Latter Day Saint tradition" section. IMO, one or two sentences is sufficient weight for the Voree plates in this article. Also, please be aware that you are close to violating WP:3RR. --FyzixFighter (talk) 14:21, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed). I'm trying to disprove Moronism here ok? (Personal attack removed). Interactios34 (talk) 23:36, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Blocked as a sock of Mooters 1563 and probably Wittgenstein. Doug Weller talk 10:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Golden plates. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Golden plates. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Who is supposed to have made the plates

One of the first questions I'd have asked would be "who made them". An angel delivered them in Smith's story, but I see nowhere any claim about their production, which seems strange. There must be some mythology related to that, surely? If not then that's notable IMO. Could anyone with insight in to Mormon mythology give some response and maybe add that small detail in to the page. Aside: there appears to be a lot of repetition internally and between this page and the Book of Mormon page. Pbhj (talk) 20:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Non-existing reference (Marquardt & Walters 1994)

Back in 2012, John Foxe added a reference to Marquardt & Walters (1994), without adding this work to the bibliography. I'm assuming this is: "Marquardt, H. Michael; Walters, Wesley P. (1994). Inventing Mormonism: Tradition and the Historical Record. San Francisco: Signature Books. ISBN 1-56085-039-6. OCLC 28067219.", so I've added it to the article. John Foxe, can you confirm this is the correct book? (CC: Shearonink who found this issue) rchard2scout (talk) 15:06, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

So the Harv error is still there? oh dear, at least we have more eyes on it now. Thanks for looking into it everybody. Shearonink (talk) 18:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, there's several references to Wagoner (1982). Is this supposed to be the same work as Wagoner & Walker (1982), or is this another missing reference? rchard2scout (talk) 15:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I think the Marquardt reference is correct. But it's been an awfully long time, and I don't have the book to check.

The Wagoner reference is to Wagoner & Walker. John Foxe (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Harv cite issues

Something's wrong with the coding/nomenclature of the Harvard cites in this article. If you're not sure what I am talking about and you'd like to see Harv errors, you'll need to install this userscript. The error pops up in Ref 5 but when a fix is attempted that then causes a cascade of errors in other references. Please take a look, let's get this solved. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 22:46, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

The problem ref is {{Harv|Wagoner|1982|pp=59–62}} - have you tried {{Harv|Van Wagoner|Walker|1982|pp=59–62}} instead? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:57, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Try your suggested fix while in Preview mode and while using the userscript...fixing that problem causes a cascade of other "HARV errors" to crop up. (See this Village pump (technical) thread.) Shearonink (talk) 00:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I know about the VPT thread, that's what brought me here (if you look at VPT, you'll see my sig on several threads; it's been on my watchlist this last ten years).

Anyway, I think that there's something about Ucucha's script that is presently causing it to only report one problem at a time. Perhaps it's the sheer number of references, or maybe it's the fact that some are nested inside others. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:48, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Apologies, sorry for my oversight on that, thank you for looking in on the issue. I've never run into a situation where this userscript was overwhelmed by the sheer number of Harv errors/warnings in an article before. But now I know and that's a good thing - I'm sure this situation will probably come up again. Shearonink (talk) 17:59, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

That was probably it, the script only showed a few problems at a time. Lots of "Show preview -> fix next problem" iterations (and actually digging into some of the sources, to see if one {{Harv}} matches a similar-but-not-quite-identical {{Citation}}) later, and it looks like they've all been solved. There's still quite a few "Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation" warnings that are showing up now, but those aren't as harmful. They're basically just unused sources. rchard2scout (talk) 15:37, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I went ahead and converted the Harv warning citations to cite book or cite web - I thought these valid sources should be retained here with the article for possible future use. The only one I was unable to fix is the convoluted Parrish 1838/Vogel 1999 one. The ref is used within the article but something about the coding/nomenclature in the Harv template or in the Citation reference isn't working. Shearonink (talk) 17:59, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Fixed that one as well. There's two different items in the bibliography (Parrish 1838 and Vogel 1999), but only Parrish is used in the article, so I've converted Vogel to Cite book. rchard2scout (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

The problem with doing that is that it mixes Citation Style 1 with Citation Style 2, creating a WP:CITEVAR issue - for one thing, the punctuation between elements differs. A better fix would have been to add |ref=none to each {{citation}} that wasn't the target of a harv/harvnb/harvtxt ref, see Template:Citation#Anchored citations, second paragraph. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your diligent work on this. John Foxe (talk) 21:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Printing numbers

Added print run and production cost, is it too much detail for the introductory paragraph? ConnieBland (talk) 05:10, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I won't delete it, but that information concerns the Book of Mormon rather than the Golden Plates. I just wish I could get a copy of the Golden plates for 60¢. John Foxe (talk) 18:54, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Modern Arguments About the Translation of the Plates

Upon reading this article I did some research into what the Latter Day Saints currently say about the translation, and found an article from Deseret News arguing that the seer stone was similar to a smart phone or tablet, that the Book of Mormon was too long for Joseph Smith to memorize, and that he was unfamiliar with the text. Given that you include other arguments for the translation, and criticisms as well, I added it to the article. Here is the article from Deseret News I'm talking about: https://www.deseret.com/2015/3/27/20561498/joseph-the-stone-and-the-hat-why-it-all-matters#statute-of-the-prophet-joseph-smith-in-salt-lake-city-joseph-smith-used-a-stone-in-a-hat-to-help-him-in-his-translation-of-the-book-of-mormon-critics-have-made-merry-over-this-but-it-makes-sense-and-its-actually-an-indicator-that-he-was-telling-the-truth Emysavage (talk) 15:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

As I said when I reverted, this material might be acceptable on Wikipedia if it were abbreviated and specifically tied to Peterson, who's a noted Mormon apologist. John Foxe (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

John Foxe If I am to include that he is a "noted Mormon apologist", why is nothing included in the same section about ex-Mormons? For the sentence, "the most common explanation was that he copied the work from a manuscript written by Solomon Spaulding", there is only one citation, a book by D. Michael Quinn, an ex-Mormon who was excommunicated and began publishing his works after his separation from the church. While I agree that this was a common explanation, why is this used as a source and not noted as being written by an ex-Mormon? Then for the sentence, "The most prominent modern theory is that Smith composed the translation in response to the provincial opinions of his time", a book is used: No Man Knows My History by Fawn M. Brodie. In the footnote it was not mentioned that this is a biography written years after the events by someone with no familial or experiential connection to Joseph Smith other than being an ex-Mormon, despite numerous well written footnotes in the article. The book itself is another question, being that it has been criticized by Mormons and non-Mormons alike as picking and choosing certain sources and being mainly conjecture about Smith's mental state. But still, no mention of this in your footnotes... yet I must specify that Peterson is a Mormon apologist? Why is Peterson identified but not Brodie or Quinn? The author of those sentences calls these the "most prominent theories" and "most common explanations" with one source to back up each claim. How common or prominent can these theories and explanations be if there is not more evidence? Or even evidence from the time period, rather than written by ex-Mormons? The ideas argued by Peterson (perhaps minus the information about it being similar to a smartphone, but the rest) are well known and understood in the church. The idea that the Book of Mormon was too long to have been memorized, and that Smith was unfamiliar with certain names therefore he was encountering the text for the first time are just as common as these "prominent theories and explanations" you speak of in the article. Why are my sources special enough that they need to be policed and outlined as argued by a Mormon apologist, but yours are allowed to be inserted in the article with no revision? In the article written by Peterson, he provides his own sources by Noel B. Reynolds and Royal Skousen, an expert on textual history of the Book of Mormon. But I suppose, according to you, that because these people are members of the church, they are "Mormon apologists"? Well Mr. Foxe, if we are to point out every Mormon apologist, let's at least be unbiased and point out the ex-Mormons as well, please. Emysavage (talk) 22:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

The footnote you reference includes authors from both sides of the issue. In labeling Brodie an ex-Mormon, you also give Bushman the same label. Furthermore, these ideas are also held by people who don't fall in the ex-Mormon category. The word is inaccurate.

Would it not be better to split this paragraph, making more clear that the first half includes proposals by scholars outside the faith, and the second including proposals from within?

Finally, the section about the need for the hat being comparable to using a smartphone in daylight is misplaced. The paragraph is about how the translations were received, not the physical process. If that part is to be kept, it belongs in either of the previous paragraphs. Although frankly, I don't see that it adds any understanding to the article. The second sentence of the previous paragraph already covered the topic from a more contemporaneous source. Seeker095 (talk) 00:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Seeker095 I would support splitting the paragraph and including both sides. I believe that would be fair coverage. I also see how the piece about it being related to a smart phone is somewhat irrelevant. I support removing that as well. As I said, I’m aware that the ideas are true and factual. But the ideas *are* purported by anti- and ex- Mormons, and the sources provided are from ex-Mormons, which I believe is just as notable as Peterson being a Mormon apologist. That was my point: that the beliefs of the authors (ex-Mormon and Mormon apologist alike) are equally notable and including one but not the other is clear bias. I think splitting the paragraph to include both criticism against and arguments for the BOM’s validity as scripture would be best, and are relevant to the translation section. Emysavage (talk) 02:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

My point is that your usage of the word ex-Mormon in the case of the footnote is misleading because it makes Bushman seem ex-Mormon. As a non-Mormon, I had to look up Bushman because it seemed as though he was ex-Mormon because of your concerns about Brodie. It also leaves out the fact that it isn't just ex-Mormons who hold that belief and adds to the bias. Usage of the word "critics" might be better. It seems more equally matched with the word "apologist" and is the word that Peterman chose for his work that you cited. It encompasses a more accurate definition of the group that would be covered by that first paragraph. Seeker095 (talk) 13:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Including scholars' hypotheses about metals based on color of the plates as reported by Stowell

Alongside relating Stowell's description of the plates as he saw them, my edit noted possible metals that could be associated with such a color. This was removed on the grounds of being "speculation," but it is not my speculation. It is from the source, the Dialogue article written by Larry E. Morris. The point is that scholars providing a naturalistic interpretation of the plates speculate the plates were made of copper, which would be consistent the idea that Smith manufactured the plates (such as hypothesized by Ann Taves in her Numen piece "The Materialization of the Golden Plates"), while scholars providing a miraculous interpretation suggest the plates were made of brass or tumbaga, which they believe could also be consistent with greening at the edges and the premise of Nephite creation (as suggested by Morris in his footnote about Taves's Numen piece).

Would it be better if that dimension of the scholars' speculation were more explicit? For example, perhaps the following:

In a June 1830 court hearing, Josiah Stowell testified that he inadvertently caught a glimpse of a corner of the plates (making him "the only witness to see the plates 'by accident,'") and said the portion he saw "resembled a stone of a greenish caste."^{[Morris note]} Scholars who believe Smith created a set of metal plates have argued this coloration would be consistent with rusting copper^{[Taves note]} while Latter-day Saints have suggested the color could be consistent with a rusting gold-copper alloy like tumbaga.^{[Morris note]}

I do think this would be a meaningful addition to the article. A section about the plates' composition seems to warrant scholars' hypotheses about what the plates were made of. As you made the removal, @John Foxe, does the above proposed edit seem like an improvement upon my earlier version? P-Makoto (talk) 16:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Can we keep speculation--scholarly or otherwise--out of the text and put modern guesses in a footnote? Maybe Stowell caught sight of a slab of green cheese.John Foxe (talk) 18:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

"Maybe Stowell caught sight of a slab of green cheese."

I don't really understand the comparison. If there were multiple, verifiable, reliable academic secondary sources that stated Stowell saw a slab of green cheese, then I would not have added his claim to the article. However, there are multiple verifiable academic secondary sources who interpret the primary sources such to believe that Stowell did see the plates, whatever those plates were.

A reader would naturally be curious to know what material people hypothesize the plates were made of, especially in a section all about their described composition.

Perhaps the hypotheses would fit better at the end of the section, where there is already hypothesis and speculation taking place outside a footnote. Something like this:

Based on descriptions of the plates' dimensions, had the plates been made of 24-karat gold (which Smith never claimed), they would have weighed about 140 pounds (64 kgs).^{[Vogel note]} Based on the plates' lighter weight and Stowell's description of its corner looking green, one scholar has hypothesized Smith made the plates from copper, which weighs less than gold and rusts green.^{[Taves note]} Meanwhile, LDS writers have speculated the plates could also exhibit those qualities if it were made of a copper-gold alloy like Mesoamerican tumbaga.^{[Putnam note][Morris note]} P-Makoto (talk) 20:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry about the green cheese; just a weak attempt at humor. I still think modern guesses about what one 19th-century man thought he saw should go in footnotes. The whole business reminds me of the discussion about whether little green men are actually gray. John Foxe (talk) 21:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for explaining the green cheese; apologies for taking it more seriously than intended.

However, I think the comparison to little green men doesn't quite fit. First, the scholarly secondary sources aren't making hypotheses simply about what "one 19th-century man thought he saw" (emphasis added); rather, they are synthesizing the descriptions of many people who described their interactions with the plates. Both the copper and tumbaga hypotheses are attempts by scholars, both non-Mormons and Mormons (primarily Latter-day Saints in this case), to reconcile as many accounts of the plates as possible, including descriptions of the plates' approximate weight and color, whether the interpretation be naturalistic as in Taves's case or miraculous as in Morris's case. (Naturally one is more likely than the other to achieve scholarly consensus, but readers will likely be curious what Latter-day Saints make of the matter, and the tumbaga hypothesis is already included in the article.) It's about more people than just Stowell.

Second, a big difference between plates hypotheses and quibbling about whether or not little green men were gray is that little green men have no material reality as "little men" (i.e. aliens), whatever their color. The plates, however, did have material reality as plates, and that's something agreed upon across the scholarly spectrum, a remarkable thing for an otherwise contested topic. Dan Vogel and Ann Taves are two non-Mormon writers whose naturalistic interpretations of the historical record posit that Smith crafted physical plates, though golden only in the eyes of the beholder, whether for use as a prop in Vogel's pious-deceiver model or as a faith-act in Taves's skilled-perceiver / community-materialization model. Latter-day Saint writers such as Larry Morris and Robert F. Smith naturally also believe the plates physically existed, though not as Smith's creation. As such, the comparison to little green men does not seem strong. There aren't any such "little men," i.e. aliens, so their coloration is not something of interest. However, for the plates recent scholarship seems to be coalescing around an agreement that there were plates, whatever their origin, so potential material composition is of interest.

As an aside, I found a no-paywall version of Taves's "Materialization of the Golden Plates," so that's a win for reader accessibility. P-Makoto (talk) 09:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I always like no-paywall additions.

Pace Vogel and Taves, I'm not a great believer in the existence of physical plates, beyond perhaps a sometime box full of rocks or metal. If Joseph Smith had spent serious time crafting physical plates, he would have had a better notion about their weight and maybe wouldn't have told those tall tales about running with them under his arm through the woods knocking down assailants as if he were some sort of superhero.

Having said that, if you think guesses about the color of the plates are appropriate to include under "Described composition and weight," I concede the point unequivocally. John Foxe (talk) 15:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I presume you meant material of the plates, not color, as descriptions of coloration are already on the page and our conversation has centered on secondary source discourse on the plates' material composition.

I haven't quite parsed what you mean by "Pace Vogel and Taves" ("pace" as in to walk? To do something steadily?). Nevertheless, I was under the impression that for the purposes of Wikipedia, neither of our thoughts on the materiality of the plates in primary sources one way or another is immediately relevant when there is an apparent scholarly coalescence around the subject. Since summarizing secondary and tertiary sources (verifiability) takes primacy over interpreting primary sources on Wikipedia, it does not seem like it would be the appropriate course of action to present the plates on this page or any other Wikipedia page as if they had no material existence when a surprisingly broad cross-section of Mormon studies scholars agree that on some level they did.

Regardless, thank you for hearing me out. I have added the content under "Described composition and weight." P-Makoto (talk) 19:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Ah, a teaching moment. On "pace" (PAY-see) (definition stolen from some internet site): "The word pace is a Latin word, not an English word with a Latin root. For this reason, it’s usually written in italics when it occurs in an English sentence. It’s a form of pax, which is Latin for “peace”. Pace means “if so-and-so will permit” or “with deference to”, literally “with peace”. In English, it’s a softener for very formal politeness: it means that the person you are about to name would probably disagree what what you are about say or do, but you mean no offense to that person. It’s especially appropriate when the named person has a high reputation; then it means that you don’t think that their probable error in regard to the topic at hand should detract from the respect usually given to them, which is well earned." John Foxe (talk) 21:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

^ Bushman, Richard Lyman (2005). Joseph Smith: Rough stine Rolling. KNOPF.

[1] Bushman, Richard Lyman (2005). Joseph Smith: Rough stine Rolling. KNOPF.

[1]