Talk:Golden plates/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

No Need for Article

There is no need for this article. It is redundant with the Book of Mormon article or articles dealing with Book of Mormon controversies. Any additional material in this article should be moved to an appropriate article, and this article or article variation such as "Gold Plates" should redirect to Book of Mormon. "Golden Plates" or "Gold Plates" is not the proper title for a Book of Mormon related article that covers the origins or authenticity of the Book of Mormon as the current article seems to do. B 15:28, Dec 30, 2003 (UTC)

Completely agree. We are getting some weird pages popping up. Visorstuff 07:49, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I apologize. Educate me on the Wiki way here. Hawstom 22:04, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. I do think there should be an article on the Golden Plates, but it should be quite limited in scope, and there should be a separate article about the Book of Mormon Witnesses. A page on the golden plates should say what the plates are, and give information like their purported contents, size, weight, etc., where Smith said they were found, and details of Smith's bringing the plates from Cumorah and hiding them in logs and barrels, etc. The Witnesses article would be about everyone who said they saw the plates, and what they said, and whether they are credible witnesses. I don't think these articles are redundant at all, because if everything that could be said about the Book of Mormon were put on the Book of Mormon page, it would be a ridiculously long page, and we seem to be moving away from the idea of having "Controversies regarding x" pages. COGDEN 05:10, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I think the content is fine. My major beef is with the name of the article. "Golden Plates?" This could refer to Dixie golden colored paper plates. What if someone did "Red Plates" or "Bluish Plates?" Perhaps something else is more appropriate - Like "Book of Mormon Plates," or even the Mormon's Record article. It seems to me that it should be split into "orgin of the book of mormon," "Mormon's Record" and "Witness of the the Book of Mormon" based on the content that is contained in the article. The topic information can be covered in these other pages, since there is not a lot of information as of yet (the page is mostly an outline as it stands), and we can remove another unecessary page. To me it is like trying to do a whole article on presiding authorities - if the information is relevant then it should roll nicely into existing articles, until the time it should be broken out due to space constraints or the topic is important enough to justify its own. Good thought, but wrong title; Lacking information for an outline article; hard to justify its existence.

Visorstuff 08:31, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

1. Every time I try to call the Golden Plates the "Book of Mormon Source Plates" I am called out of touch. Apparently "The Golden Plates" has been the worldwide colloquial name for 150 years. I don't know that we are really free to change it, unless there is a Wiki way to say "The". 2. I agree big time that the Book of Mormon article is not big enough to contain all that wants to be said about Book of Mormon Source Plates, Book of Mormon Linguistics, Book of Mormon Archealogy, Book of Mormon Theories, Book of Mormon Geography, Book of Mormon Theology, etc. 3. I agree we are moving away from having controversies articles, and breaking things up seems a way to accomplish that. 4. I wanted to make a Book of Mormon Witnesses page, but didn't dare. Should we? And should we move some of the information from the existing BofM pages to this page and a Witnesses page?

We need a Witnesses of the Book of Mormon page, addressing the three and eight witnesses and others that have been shown the plates throughout history. Perhaps we rename this article "Book of Mormon Plates" or something more descriptive? -Visorstuff 02:03, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I don't know of any real ambiguity with the name "Golden Plates", especially capitalized. I don't like "Book of Mormon Plates" because I've never heard them referred to in that way. Moreover, it has a resonance with such potential topics as "Brass plates of Laban", "Kinderhook Plates", etc. If by some coincidence there should arise another article about a different kind of "golden plates", we could change it then. On the witnesses article, should it be Book of Mormon witnesses or Witnesses of the Book of Mormon? I like the latter, because the phrase "Witnesses of the Book of Mormon" is in more common use. COGDEN 03:03, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Works for me Visorstuff 03:05, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Someday I will understand the way these pages are named. Maybe I am just an engineer, but it seems to me the pages should all start with the root words Hawstom 06:59, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

• Book of Mormon Source Plates
• Book of Mormon Original Language
• Book of Mormon Archealogy
• Book of Mormon Witnesses
• Mormonism and Greater Christianity
• Mormon Priesthood
• Mormonism and the Trinity
• Book of Mormon

Contents [show]

• 1 Cut from page
• 2 Toward NPOV
• 3 Weight of plates
• 4 Reports of the Plates and Witnesses
• 5 Other Plates
• 6 Reordering and Elimination of Redundancies
• 7 NPOV Concern
• 8 Angel of Moron
• 9 NPOV

Cut from page

I cut this from the page. I don't know where it might go. Tom - Talk 15:59, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The prophet Moroni wrote in the plates that people can gain a witness of the plates through the Holy Ghost. This is done by reading, pondering, and then praying about them. Millions of people (mostly members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) have done so and bear witness of the plates today. (See Moroni's Promise)

I'm not sure either. I was thinking at one point that creating a new section - "Testimony of the Book of Mormon" to consolidate all the testimonies would be convenient. User:Jgardner - Talk 01:01 2004-10-12 (PDT)

But not on this page, right? This page is about the golden plates. And testimonies of the Book of Mormon are not generally reports of the Golden Plates. Tom - Talk 15:19, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Toward NPOV

I removed the non-witness witnesses section from this page and put it on the talk page. I don't know where or how to fit it in appropriately. I suggest we try to keep specific information about the witnesses in their respective sections. If this doesn't work, please explain on the talk page so we can work together toward a better article. We have to write in conformance with the absolute and non-negotiable Neutral Point of View policy of Wikipedia. Please as at my user page or at this discussion page if you have questions. User:Hawstom Oct 2004

I changed the line claiming that the "three witnesses" never denied their claims to have seen an angel and the plates, replacing it with a statement that they were each later excommunicated, and that there has been claims of evidence they at least later expressed doubts. I removed the claim that "obviously, Smith never changed his testimony", as this is not obvious -- I have read three different accounts of the vision mentioned in this article. These two revisions are more in accordance with the Neutral Point of View, which I have also applied by adding additional "claimed to have" type wording in several places that reinforces that this entry discusses claims that have been made, rather than established facts.

As David Whitmer's publication was mentioned, I provided a link to the online version I discovered. I also included a link to an off-site description of the types of doubts that have been published regarding the Witnesses, which I found on the same site as the David Whitmer publication. I'm uncertain whether the details about the doubts regarding the witnesses need to be added to this entry, and have decided to simply add a pointer in which readers may review one presentation of the data for themselves without replicating these claims in the Wikipedia. User:BarkMe Nov 30, 2004

I don't think it's an improvement in bias avoidance to shift the article from a sympathetic tone to a skeptical tone. In fact, if we refer to the Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View document, we see that articles should have a sympathetic, positive tone. Putting the term "claimed to" in some locations is gratuitous and inappropriate in light of the facts. For example, I don't think there is any dispute that Emma Smith, Martin Harris and his family, Joseph's parents and brothers and sisters, etc. actually saw and lifted some object around the house and as brought in by Joseph Smith. Certainly you, BarkMe, don't dispute that fact, do you? The only opposing perspective that I understand needs to be represented fairly is that most of the world does not believe Joseph Smith actually had a set of ancient writing plates inside that cloth. Secondly, in well honed non-bias style, we can avoid using words like claimed and instead use words like "said", "believed", and "told". A hatchet job by partisans in favor of Smith or opposed to him is not suitable here. Wikipedia must be agnostic and simply report the points of view. We may be able to improve the article by using more directly attributed and documented sources, such as the quote by Catherine Smith that "I was disappointed [when Joseph brought the plates home, because] I thought we would be able to see them." This type of quote shows authentic first person experience with Smith and the object he presented to his family. Tom - Talk 19:54, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

I will look to expand this article - it has factual problems - there should be no skepticism, when each of them on their deathbeds state they never denied their testimonies - each with legally-binding witnesses present. I'll rework -Visorstuff 19:58, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

--

Thank you very much for adding my editing notes to the Talk page, I ran into a "submit timeout" when I made the edit, and mistakenly assumed my notes were here! As regards skepticism and Neutral Point of View, here is the first line regarding fairness and sympethetic tone: "If we're going to characterize disputes fairly, we should present *competing views* with a consistently positive, sympathetic tone." The Golden Plates article needs to present both believing and skeptical points of view about the claims made regarding them in order to be an agnostic encyclopedia article -- not theist, not atheist, but agnostic. Regarding "well honed non-bias style" and use of words like "claimed", there were many instances in the original telling of "claimed" that I merely repeated in other areas where the sentences remained as purported statements of fact, so I am surprised to see it mentioned as a point of contest. In any event, this article must also refer to the beliefs and research of those who are skeptical of the if it is to be an accurate and even semi-complete record on the topic. (I see and agree with the inclusion of information regarding the original 3's testimonies given late in their lives that the claims made against them are false.) BarkMe 14:14, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Further Addendum: I've thought about it more about the discussion of controversies (and how that's sometimes handled in other belief-topic pages) -- the other way I see that could address skepticism on witness' claims would be if there was a separate Witnesses or Witness Controversies page, but I don't find it warranted (as discussed above). The article as-is covers most of the bases well enough without getting too long, and I try to err on the side of consolidation rather than fragmentation. I think just a couple of pointers that there have been other claims without going into them in-depth at least provides a nod to the opposing viewpoint... perhaps not "equal time", but it's something! BarkMe 14:39, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't mind the other views being included, just if they have been proven unreliable or false, or malignant, then we need to state it. How the edits were included, leads the reader to think there may be some validity in regard the the possible doubts of the witnesses, which is not the case. I'm working on some edits - there are too many factual errors in the article - not your edits, I'm sure, but they need to be fixed. Keep on adding information to the article, it is needed, and we'll all clean it up... -Visorstuff 15:15, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ditto both of you pretty much. No split. Fair treatment of all views. No innuendo (which ends up embarrassing the POV it appears to favor). Only solid, respectable, creditable information and conclusions. Regarding factual errors, I apologize for some I added when I created the page, such as that the plates weren't called "gold". I've corrected that. Smith said Moroni called them gold plates. Tom - Talk 15:45, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Weight of plates

Discussion question on weight of plates. Witnesses say "60 lb.", right? Should we attempt to decipher that in SI terms or simply report it quoted and unconverted? My personal perspective is that an intuitive understanding of what 60-lb. means isn't important to me as long as I get to read Martin Harris's statement that "from the heft I knew it was either gold or lead," or his daughter's report from when she and her mother went to check them out that they were "very heavy" and "it was all she could do to lift them". If we try to convert to SI, are there sources, or would we be doing original research? Has somebody figured out what kind of pounds were standard for solid objects in 1820's Palmyra? Thanks, guys. Tom - Talk 15:55, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

I think this says definitely avordupois for the common New England settler. Am I right?

"Since the troy pound was smaller than the commercial pound units used in most of Europe, medieval English merchants often used a larger pound called the "mercantile" pound (libra mercatoria). This unit contained 15 troy ounces, so it weighed 7200 grains. This unit seemed about the right size to merchants, but its division into 15 parts, rather than 12 or 16, was very inconvenient. Around 1300 the mercantile pound was replaced in English commerce by the 16-ounce avoirdupois pound. This is the pound unit still in common use in the U.S. and Britain. Modeled on a common Italian pound unit of the late thirteenth century, the avoirdupois pound weighs exactly 7000 grains. The avoirdupois ounce, 1/16 pound, is divided further into 16 drams.

"Unfortunately, the two English ounce units don't agree: the avoirdupois ounce is 7000/16 = 437.5 grains while the troy ounce is 5760/12 = 480 grains. Conversion between troy and avoirdupois units is so awkward, no one wanted to do it. The troy system quickly became highly specialized, used only for precious metals and for pharmaceuticals, while the avoirdupois pound was used for everything else." http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/custom.html

Reports of the Plates and Witnesses

I reworked the reports of the plates section. I think the multiple headers in the previous version were confusing. Many of the headers lacked text. I re-ordered the reports section chronologically. I then separated the Special Witnesses section and created new articles for the Three Witnesses and the Eight Witnesses. I also increased the articles about Martin Harris and David Whitmer. —John Hamer

Other Plates

I added a section on "Other Plates". —John Hamer

Reordering and Elimination of Redundancies

I reordered much of the article. There didn't seem to be much difference between "Story of the Plates" and "Reports of the Plates" --- since "Story" only covered the beginning of the story, and was principally William Smith's "Report" of the Plates.

I combined those two sections and ordered the Story of the plates chronologically, creating new sub-categories.

The physical description of the plates section had some redundancies (repetition of quotes and statements). I re-ordered them and streamlined it, re-combining the sub-sections.

I moved "Historical Plausibility" to the end and renamed it "Plates Outside of the Latter Day Saint Tradition" since this plausbility argument is that there are plates outside the Latter Day Saint tradition. This might be expanded a bit with other examples of writing on metal. —John Hamer

Thank you for your work! I guess I am one of the "fathers" of this article, and I really appreciate the assistance. Tom H. 15:30, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC) Finished reading article. Again, excellent work! I hope to see more of your great contributions! Tom H.

Tom --- I'm really glad you approve. There was already so much great information in this article, but I just felt like it could use a little reorganization. I'm still pretty new to Wikipedia and so I am a bit hesitant to edit these higher volume articles. Thanks for your encouragement! —John Hamer

Well, this article was a good example of one that needed some energy and a fresh eye to whip it into shape, and you did exactly what was needed. You gave it form and flow. I'm sure you can identify with that glazed-over feeling you sometimes get when you've looked at something a few dozen times too many. I noticed you also touched several related articles, and all your work looks great. I do seem to remember that the name "Martin" in Martin Harris will probably eventually turn into "Harris", but that is the beauty of Wikipedia. You are making what I judge to be lasting improvements. Keep it up. Tom H. 20:58, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV Concern

The criticism section doesn't look like a criticism section to me. It looks like a true believer's POV refutation of a single criticism. It even refers to Joseph Smith as "The Prophet" (capitalized) rather than as "Joseph Smith." Does this bother anyone else? RhesusmanRhesusman 16:52 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I substitued "Joseph Smith" & "Smith" for "The Prophet". The criticism section could be expanded however (cf. South Park ;) Jebba 23:24, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Dum dum dum dum dum! :) RhesusmanRhesusman 23:52 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Completely agree - the section was added by a TBM - no criticism has been added by others to my knowledge, but I haven't been watching that closely since the article's inception, as I was not on board with the article idea to begin with. Hope ya'll can add it in. Happy editing. -Visorstuff 22:04, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree, since the section pointedly ignores the main criticism, the plausability of the plates existence. Without evidence supporting their existence, the plates remain an article faith, rather than an artifact, like the Book of Mormon. My criticisms were here, but they were reverted later that same day. Personally, I think a criticism, should actually criticize.

I can actually see why they were removed - sorry - to agree. I think they have some valid points, but it needs to be better fleshed out and supported. Your edit is as follows:

The main criticism of the plates is doubt of the plates very existence. Gold was not used by any of the indigenous peoples of upstate New York and New England. No evidence of any of the tribes purported by the Book of Mormon has been found by any outside of the Mormon faith. With the lack of any collaborating evidence, as the plates themselves were returned to a secret location, the existence of the Golden Plates remain little more than an article of faith than an actual artifact.

To make a claim that Gold was not used by indigenous people in North America is misleading, as it was, but it was not a common substance, which should be claimed - can you research and add back in? Most TBM archaeologists do not place the BoM setting in North America, so the point to most Mormons would be moot to most LDS. As far of tribes - that seems like it would more appropriately be discussed in Archaeology and the Book of Mormon Third, you state that the plates were returned to a secret location, when the official account states that they were given back to Moroni and that he has them in his charge. Other accounts state that Smith and Cowdery saw them in a hill called cumorah, but it is undetermined if this was where they were taken back to - I assume this is what you are referring to as a "secret place." The last part of the statement is a very valid argument and I'll add back in. The others are too controversial without documented evidence to keep in and most Mormons would easily explain away. Let's see what else we can add in specific to the Gold Plates, such as doubt of witness accounts, weight discrepancies, statements by those who claimed that smith had something (such as the third-hand account of the guy who was "hit" by the plates, and said he knew smith had "something" in his bag, but it didnt' match up to the estimated weight. Etc. Thoughts? -Visorstuff 19:08, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Angel of Moron

This article firmly belongs to UFOlogy, not an encyclopaedia. European people are unable to grasp how can so many silly sects sustain themselves in USA. Americans must not be very bright to be taken by such svindles. Also it should be noted that the popular internet expression of calling someone a "moron" comes from the name of non-existing angel Moroni. 195.70.32.136 09:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

The word "moron" comes from the Greek moros meaning stupid or foolish, which predates the story of Moroni by a few millennia. –Shoaler (talk) 14:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your intellectual presence. The comments above had contributed to human knowledge in accordance with Wikipedia's mission. -Visorstuff 16:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)