Where did Joseph Smith get the idea of ancient scriptures written on metal plates?

he got it from god

I don't really believe in any of those claims. The guy wrote it in a 17th century style english and the guy lived in the 19th century. Makes no sense! A god doesn't need a human to translate anything and to write it down. He can make his own book (or DVD or VHS). Now, that makes more sense! Also, you do know that the church modifies the BoM once in a while? How many revisions has it gone through? There is no reformed egyptian. Archeology doesn't support Joe Smith. No golden plates have ever been found and never will be. ~~~~atheist, serving the atheist agenda

That's a good point. Keep bringing up the evidence that shows the truth. I think it will help others to understand that it's possible for God to add to His word when He feels it is necessary. I don't ever remember God saying He was done talking to His children. Saying such limits God.

To put this in a modern perspective, records are kept in mountains even today for safe keeping. Deep underground, or even a few feet, it's always going to be cool, and the moisture is going to remain the same, as long as what is housed there is encased in rock. If you think about it, a rock box would be perfect for just about everything. Why do you think they put coffins in rock vaults? It keeps everything contained, and the elements can't get to it. Perfect idea for storage, I say!!

June 17, 1825 - The REPUBLICAN ADVOCATE of Batavia, New York publishes an article titled "GOLD:" "Gold is beaten into leaves upon a smooth block of marble. . . These pieces are then fitted into books. . . It was anciently the custom to beat gold into thin plates..."

Maybe Lindsay missed that one?

That is easy. He didn't get an "idea". That would be implying that he made up a story. He got the plates from the ground, exactly where the angel Moroni instructed him to go and do. He described the plates exactly as they were when he found them.

christian race- it's funny that you mention those adding to the bible are cursed- it shows your lack of study. that statement most likely refers to the book of revelation alone. the books in the bible weren't compiled in order as written- it has been proven that revelation was not written last, so what do you make of the books in the bible written later? it also says that in the old testament (about not adding scripture).

edit- spaulding info guy- even well studied anti-mormons say that the spaulding theory is made up!!

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon_and_Spauld...

http://www.lightplanet.com/response/spalding.htm

He first got the idea from Jesus Christ who told him about it, and was later directed to the hill by Moroni, one of the Book's Authors.

He didn't according to lds beliefs. The Angel Moroni an prophet in the Book of Mormon showed him the golden plates. so there is what really happened!

As usual, all your information comes from LDS scholars and sources. There are no non LDS sources that are cited because there are none that agree with this supposition.

Smith likely got a copy of Spalding's second manuscript from Rigdon (who stole it), via Cowdery. They decided that since Smith was a well known gold digger, and had a long history of tall tales involving native tribes, he should say he found gold records in the ground and 'translate' them.

The old records couldn't be paper, that would have rotted. They couldn't be stone, he couldn't have carried them. (They couldn't have been gold for that matter, it is far too heavy in that volume, but never mind). Metal was the only remotely possible medium.

In 1823 when Smith was starting the book, another event occurred in Detroit. A manuscript was found buried under a building. No one could identify the hieroglyphics it was written in. The story was wildly popular and covered in newspapers around the country. It was finally decided to be some sort of Catholic document from priests in the area much earlier, perhaps an Irish shorthand.

It seems that Smith's maternal uncle, Stephen Mack was a partner in the business that found the document. Smith would certainly have heard of such a famous family event. He would have heard that the Detroit manuscript was taken to one Dr Mitchill for identification.

When Smith invented the humorously named 'reformed Egyptian' language that his plates were supposedly written in, he copied some off and sent them to Mitchill too. Mitchill couldn't identify that language either.

It was all about publicity.

By the way, why would Hebrews write their records in a modified form of the language of their bitter and ancient Egyptian enemies? They had their own language. Why is nothing else written in 'Reformed Egyptian"?

http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/saga/saga02b.htm

(Edit to add: There was an old Spalding theory about 100 years ago that wasn't ever true and few believed it. Much newer research finds a better theory. Apologists perfer to talk about the bogus first theory, naturally. It's like they think continual revelation is only granted to them!)

I don't know about that idea; but I once worked for a very responsible editor who said the ideas Smith started with were part of some fictional work, written in the New York area in that era, by one of his own relatives and plagiarized by Smith.

Always wished I had followed up on our brief conversation. Just a research note. I have a name if anyone is really interested.

Wow, On posting I wonder if the guy I worked for was related to the Spaulding family in some way. First I heard of them by name.

Where did Joseph Smith get the idea of ancient scriptures written on metal plates?

Possible answers are: (1) He actually had metal plates on which the Book of Mormon was written, (2) He had metal plates, but they did not contain the Book of Mormon, which he got from another source, (3) He never had metal plates but he knew that ancient people wrote on them, (4) He never had gold plates and he was lucky to guess that ancient people kept records in that manner. My answer is number 1.

"Over the last century more than 8,000 texts have been discovered, many of which are plates of metal and gold, and none are exactly alike."

www.zacfactor.com/

http://www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/gold.htm

http://www.utlm.org/images/newsletters/105dariuspl...

http://users.tpg.com.au/etr/etrusk/pi/PYRGI.JPG

http://romanplates.byu.edu/images/image_main.jpg

Most (7) of the negative responses to this question violate the terms of YA! and Christianity by not responding directly to the question. Instead, they change the subject and attempt to use another means of smearing the subject, such as innuendo, insults, or gossip. No primary references are provided in any of these responses, just rumors repeated without verifiable sources.

Question: Where did Joseph Smith get the idea of ancient scriptures written on metal plates?

kosm - "Its not the fact that he found writings..."is not an answer to the question.

Beavis - does not answer this question either. Instead he poses two new unrelated questions.

christian - states "I don't know" the answer and does not offer one.

Vincent - at least offers an oft-repeated rumor about the author of an alternative manuscript, but still not not respond to the question about the reality of metal plates. (He does offer a secondary citation of the story that he cites.)

Juice - is completely non-responsive to the topic.

Mike - is completely non-responsive to the topic.

Tommy - states that he does not have an answer in his "answer" with the words "I don't know about that idea..."

The tone of hatred and the attacks in these respondents words seem rather un-Christian to me. Each one not only has skirted the question and topic, but used this factual forum of questions and answer as a platform for spewing bigotry and popular hatred not based on any concrete evidence. Is that sincere Christianity? ...to seek out demeaning rumors against other groups and post them without any research into primary sources? If so, it seems that winning at all costs is more important than factual truth. Was Christ about winning all arguments with no concern with the truth or facts?

Not only do these Mormon-haters and professed Christians not answer the question and not provide their own evidence, they do attack those associated with the subject, Mormonism.

kosm - "its the fact that he has made a lot of false prophecies." Never names a single one!

"Much of what he said never came true." Never gives a single example! "Mormonism has a lot of holes in it." Doesn't name a single hole! That is three general statements, again with no specifics and no evidence. Then, he makes the attack more personal claiming that he "never get(s) an adequate response" to those unnamed holes. How could he, when no one knows what specifically he is talking about! Then, two more attacks, stating that Mormons are not Christians and that "their own book contradicts the Bible" without giving a single instance where such is the case.

Beavis - does not answer the posted question, but asked two valid questions: "Why was the introduction to the Book of Mormon changed?" and "Where is the proof of a huge battle at Cumorah?" It would be appropriate to post these as questions, not as answers. It is worth noting that both questions assume negative facts.

The first question includes an assumption that the introduction was changed. It also does not elaborate on what those changes allegedly were or why they are being claimed as significant. Also, no statement is made about relevance to the question about metal plates.

The other question, about archaeological proof, assumes that no artifacts have been unearthed near Cumorah. It also implies as an assumption that the absence such artifacts is positive proof that such battles did not occur. That is a logical fallacy as anyone in logical argumentation or archaeology can attest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy

christian - states that "I know that the Bible is against this teaching of mormanism." That is a very demeaning and general statement. Where exactly in the Bible does it say any specific "teaching" of Mormonism is not true? How is the reader supposed to know what "this" teaching is that is being referred to?

"The Bible tells us that those who add to the Bible are cursed." Well, that is not a direct quote. It is an interpretation without a reference. Revelations 22: 18 warns that any man who reads or hears "the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book." Since the Bible was not compiled when that line was written, and since other Biblical books were written after Revelations, it clearly references the singular Biblical book of "prophecy" and "plagues" of which the Book of Revelations is famous. See also Deut. 4: 2 and Prov. 30: 6.

christian then jumps to the conclusion "This is exactly what Joseph Smith did" without any analysis. Should the same conclusion be jumped to by anyone who wrote the Gospel of John, or in time after the books of Deuteronomy or Proverbs?

Vincent - instantly dismisses the Mormon explanation for metal plates as an "absurd, fictitious yarn," placing his conclusion at the beginning of his post. He is the only detractor that even remotely addresses the topic of "plates." He makes the amazingly informed statement that there is "not a particle of foundation" of truth in the gold plates story. He must have been present in the 1800's every moment to know that. He adds, further, that "there was no angel." How did he prove that? Next, he states, as fact, that "The only plates Joseph Smith ever dug out of the hill of Cumorah, or any other hill, were put there by himself or by one of his agents." Again, Vincent must have been present or had some other witnesses who saw that occur to make such a claim founded in any way. Finally, he posits that an associate of Joseph Smith provided one of four manuscripts to Joseph Smith that was allegedly the text for the Book of Mormon. He criticizes Mormon leaders for not making another Spaulding manuscript available for examination. Yet, he fails to provide a link to the Solomon Spaulding text of "Manuscript Found" so that we can compare that to the text of the Book of Mormon.

Juice - is completely non-responsive to the topic. He simply insults "he got it from his mama."

Mike - is completely non-responsive to the topic. He sarcastically alludes to the rumors of alleged treasure-digging by Joseph Smith by saying that he "was 'lucky' a lot that way." He then rallies another hate-monger with the cheer "Keep up the good work munchkin."

Tommy - states that he can not answer the question posted, "but" then makes attempts to do so. Firstly, he states "but I once worked for a very responsible editor who said the ideas Smith started with were part of some fictional work...plagiarized by Smith." Notice the appeal to authority logical fallacy "a very responsible editor" -- without a name. This unnamed editor, now given credence as a first-hand witness of something, is now allowed to judge the Book of Mormon as a "fictional work" and one that was copied or "plagiarized by Smith." Well, that should be easy to prove. Just give us the name of the man who actually saw Smith copy it and a link to the evidence. No need to allude to alleged facts; just provide them! Anticipating a request for evidence, Tommy dispels the need for evidence or factual detail with "Always wished I had followed up on our brief conversation. Just a research note. I have a name if anyone is really interested." Of course, evidence is interesting. Let us know! This lack of detail and lack of evidence is then followed by more mere speculation "Wow, On posting I wonder if the guy I worked for was related to the Spaulding family in some way. First I heard of them by name." Well, maybe. Maybe not. Facts would clear it up. Are we interested in facts, or just idle speculation and defamation?

In summary, seven responders felt compelled to defame Joseph Smith, instead of answer the posted question. What motivates people to do this? Is it because their brand of "Christianity" justifies the type of hate-inciting and rumor promoting against certain groups? Maybe, some of these seven posters are not even Christian, perhaps they do not belive in any religion. That would at least be easier for me to accept, because it would represent a greater degree of integrity and consistency in ones views and arguments. I do not know what motivates these people, nor have they identified their biases, but they could still represent that themselves directly to each of us here.

Would it have just been better for all of us to have answered the question directly, and done so based on some kind of factual data?