[Tex]

Originally Posted by Solon

It can be applied to Nephi, of course, but it all depends on what someone is looking to "prove."

If someone is looking to refute a specific argument, such as "ancient peoples never wrote on metal, let alone gold," then you've got something to work with. You can prove that it was physically possible to write on gold plates 2400 years ago.

But correlation is not causality (or something like that, so the statisticians say). There's no connection with Lehi et al. in content, time, or place - and even the purpose of the text is only loosely connected.

I suppose someone could make an argument that the existence of ancient documents on metal plates makes Joseph Smith's story more plausible, but I think the actual material the book was written on is a minor point of contention vis à vis other components of the story.

To me, it essentially proves nothing - but it doesn't disprove anything either. It's a red herring, other than the limited "physically possible" component I mentioned above.

Maybe I stand alone in this opinion, but I don't ever look at this stuff as proof. I just see it as providing plausibility to the narrative. If there's evidence that folks made engravings on gold plates in 600 BC, then it means that part of the Book of Mormon is possible.

Beyond that, I don't get too worked up about it.