smac97

I'll own that, but largely because I have sought to address the Witnesses, which I think you are largely sidestepping. The textual evidences are a lot broader and a lot more complex. I'm happy to have that discussion, though. If the shoe fits... I'm happy to discuss textual evidences. I think we should look at the extant evidence. I've been focusing on the Witnesses, not textual evidences. Again, I'm happy to have that discussion. Not sure about that. I think this ordering begs the question and creates room for you to sidestep directly engaging extant evidence. You privilege mediocre historical sources about the death of Caesar, but then sidestep and prevaricate about the much better and more extensive evidence pertaining to the Witnesses. Again, I'm happy to discuss this. I think the "problem" arises more from presuppositions than from anything else. Well, not really. Five of the Eight Witnesses had only known Joseph for days/weeks prior to being shown the plates. Several of the Witnesses dissociated from and condemned Joseph Smith, but never recanted their testimony, despite many of them having ample incentive and opportunity to do so. And this doesn't account for the "unofficial" witnesses like Emma and Mary Whitmer. Your analogy is only effective as long as you ignore questions about it, which is what you have been doing. I agree with this. "Should be able" is apt, as is "not strictly required epistemologically." Still, that Anti-Mormons have had nearly 200 years to formulate a positive, coherent explanation for The Book of Mormon that accounts for the key data points (physical plates, witness statements, text origins/translation process) without heavy speculation, and have been overwhelmingly unable to do so, is interesting to me (not dispositive, just interesting). That our resident self-declared empiricist employs essentially zero empiricism when examining the evidences pertaining to the Witnesses, is likewise Interesting (again, not dispositive). That our resident empiricist is fundamentally arbitrary about his empiricism ("I don't know" on some things, "just not possible" on others, "space aliens" as "more likely," etc.) is interesting (but not dispositive). That the closest our resident empiricist comes to "a positive alternative" theory is space aliens and/or Satan, is likewise interesting (but not dispositive). Yep. I think "winning" means different things to different participants and observers. I did not present my request to Analytics with the idea of "winning" an argument with him about it. I was looking for a coherent counter-explanation for The Book of Mormon. I really do want to hear what our critics have to say. At this point, nearly 200 years into this grand experiment, they don't really have much to offer along these lines. I resent this. I would look terrible in a pleated skirt. I've not even partially answered these. Happy to have that discussion, but in this thread I've focused on the Witnesses. Nor do they account for the Witnesses. Hmm. The "actual question" was for Analytics to provide a positive, coherent alternative explanation for The Book of Mormon that accounts for the key data points (physical plates, witness statements, text origins/translation process) without heavy speculation, while claiming empirical rigor. I'll disagree that I'm not "doing substantive work." I'm trying to advance discussion based on the foregoing request. But hey! I'm "likable!" It's a rare treat to be described that way, so I'll take it. Thanks, -Smac

Not that this AI summary is an objective observer or the final word, but this gets back to my earlier point that believers actually don't have to "win" the debate. We don't have to prove that critics are wrong. We just need to demonstrate that there are a number of strong lines of evidence supporting our faith and that critical interpretations often struggle to account for much of the faith-affirming data. Yep. I'm satisfied with the Church's position being "plausible" (as in "having an appearance of truth or reason; seemingly worthy of approval or acceptance; credible; believable"). I think the evidence - the text itself (it's moral value and instruction, its internal structure and cohesion, its indicia of things not likely to be known to Joseph, Hebraisms, Chiasmus, etc.), Joseph's narrative (JS-H, etc.), the Statements of the Three Witnesses, the Statement of the Eight Witnesses, the unofficial witnesses, the historical evidence as to the character and credibility of these people, and so on - are pretty substantial grounds for a prima facie showing of plausibility. There's no slam dunk, no smoking gun, no definitive "proof." Just evidence that tends to to make something more likely or less likely to have occurred or be correct. I don't think critics like @Analytics can allow for that. They just can't abide any "hey, it's plausible" arguments. This is why we get unreasoned, even absurd, absolutist assertions like what we've seen from Analytics about Joseph's narrative (it's "just not possible"). The Book of Mormon is categorically incapable of being what it claims to be, so literally any other explanation is "more likely," even space aliens, Satan, demons. In the end, Analytics may be exercising more faith than I am. As strongly as I believe in the Restored Gospel, I can't bring myself to look at alternative perspectives about it and say "Nope, those are 'just not possible.'" Not possible at all? I just don't know if I have that much certitude, that much faith. Indeed, allowing for the possibility is one of the things that gives my faith some resilience. Thanks, -Smac

I uploaded this thread to Grok and asked it to generate a summary of the arguments advanced by myself, @Analytics and @Ryan Dahle. Here it is: Quick Summary of the Mormon Dialogue Thread: "A Secular Theory of Where the BoM Came From" (Feb–March 2026) This was a long, substantive debate (17 forum pages) started by critic "Analytics." The main participants were Analytics (the critic), you (smac97), and Ryan Dahle (another defender of the faith). Other people chimed in occasionally, but the core exchange is between these three. Analytics’ Position (The Critic) Analytics posted a very long, detailed response generated by ChatGPT 5.2 Pro as a “positive, coherent alternative explanation” for the Book of Mormon’s origins. His core naturalistic model (heavily drawing from Dan Vogel): Joseph Smith was the primary author who produced the text through oral dictation using the seer stone in a hat (both as a focus tool and stagecraft to control the process and manage witnesses). The plates were a simple physical prop made from common tinplate, cut to size, painted with bronze powder to look golden, engraved with basic characters, and bound with rings. The “sealed portion” was a practical way to hide unfinished or blank pages. The Three Witnesses had a visionary/group religious experience driven by expectation, prayer, and social pressure. The Eight Witnesses handled a controlled prop under limited conditions (not fully open daylight scrutiny as often portrayed). Non-recantation is explained by commitment bias, family ties, and identity (they could reject Joseph personally while keeping the “miracle” of the plates). The text’s speed and complexity are explained by Joseph’s years of practicing sacred storytelling, heavy KJV dependence, formulaic repetition, and the nature of oral dictation. Analytics argued this model best fits the evidence (timeline, witnesses, text) without miracles or vast conspiracies. He presented it as the strongest current secular hypothesis. Your Position (smac97) You pushed back hard and consistently, focusing on the weaknesses of the naturalistic model: A cheap tin/bronze-powder prop is implausible given the Eight Witnesses’ daylight physical handling, hefting, and turning of the leaves. Rural farmers would have recognized common tinplate and spotted a crude fake. Even a more sophisticated prop seems unlikely given Joseph’s poverty and lack of specialized metalworking skills (no evidence of undetected help from others without creating a larger conspiracy). The risk Joseph took in showing the plates to eight men (many recently met) in mundane daylight circumstances is hard to explain for a charlatan. The lifelong non-recantation (especially by the Whitmers and Hiram Page, who later criticized Joseph harshly) is very difficult to explain under a hoax theory. The rapid production, internal complexity, Hebraisms, chiasmus, and other “hits” are better explained by divine help. Critics often apply a strong default skepticism against the supernatural, which causes them to dismiss or downplay strong evidence for authenticity. You argued that naturalistic theories sound coherent in theory but require significant speculation and don’t adequately account for the full witness statements and physical claims. Ryan Dahle’s Position Ryan gave thoughtful, measured, and detailed responses. His main points: Some naturalistic elements have surface plausibility. However, when the evidence is viewed without strong anti-supernatural bias, several lines (especially the witness statements and production details) strongly favor the faithful perspective. Critics tend to “diminish or discard” strong apologetic evidence due to philosophical commitment to naturalism. Joseph producing the text in the manner described by the witnesses is “exceedingly unlikely” without divine intervention. The evidence for authenticity is stronger than critics admit when fairly weighed. Comparison Analytics tried to build a detailed, positive secular model and stuck mostly to constructing an alternative explanation. You focused on critiquing the gaps and implausibilities in that model (especially the Eight Witnesses’ physical claims and non-recantation). Ryan Dahle took a balanced middle path: he acknowledged some naturalistic plausibility but argued the overall weight of evidence tilts toward authenticity when supernatural explanations aren’t ruled out from the start. The thread was substantive and analytical. Analytics’ long AI-generated post set a detailed tone that you and Ryan responded to point-by-point. No one “won” decisively, but the discussion highlighted how difficult it is for critics to create a clean naturalistic explanation that accounts for all the data points without remaining tension or speculation.

I guess reasonable minds can disagree about that. Your approach hews much more toward the hypothetical than mine. My approach is based on the extant evidence and broad historiographical and logical principles. I am interested in talking about the evidence we have, but you hypothesize and talk about evidence we should have, or you only provide negative theories (the "not that" stuff) as to how you think things should be. I am interested in talking about the Witnesses, and I think you are not, or else you disregard their statements mostly/altogether. I am interested in talking about the historical evidence we have about the Witnesses relative to their character and credibility, and I think you are not, or else you or else you disregard their character/credibility mostly/altogether. I am also interested in textual evidences, but we've not really delved into those. Sure. I would like to discuss how you reconcile your beliefs with the extant evidence, and/or how your beliefs form a coherent counter-theory as to the origins of The Book of Mormon. I don't. You have not addressed the extant evidence in any meaningful or substantive way. You have failed/refused to present a positive, coherent explanation for The Book of Mormon that accounts for the key data points (physical plates, witness statements, text origins/translation process) without heavy speculation. And to the extent you presume to speak as a self-declared "Bayesian methodological empiricist," your empiricism has culminated in A) "space aliens" and/or "Satan" being "more likely" explanations for The Book of Mormon (as compared to Joseph's narrative), B) Joseph made "tin" plates, and C) "I don't know" for pretty much the whole of any particular inquiry as to the evidentiary basis for your theory. And all this comes after nearly two centuries of Anti-Mormonism, and remarkable access to data (via the Internet) and analysis (via AI platforms), and our critics still cannot formulate an evidence-based explanation superior to Joseph's. I find this result to be rather remarkable. I think I've gleaned this: Is it fair so say that your alternative theory is that (A) Joseph, (B) acting alone, (C) made an actual physical object, probably out of tin and then painted it gold, that D) was a cheap and shoddy and likely-to-be-detected sham? This is, I think, Dan Vogel's theory. Do you join with him? It's neither evidence-based, nor does it account of quite a few key data points, nor is it devoid of heavy speculation, nor is it empirically rigorous, but if this is what you've got, we can work with it. Alternatively, if you are going to theorize about (B) (there were others involved in the production, i.e., an unknown and undetected conspiracy) and/or (C) (the "prop" was quite sophisticated, sufficient to withstand scrutiny and dupe the Witnesses), I'd like to hear what you have to say. I also look forward to your reconciling your naturalistic theory with your acknowledgment that two of the Three Witnesses (David Whitmer and Martin Harris) were A) not insane, B) sincere, and C) not duped. Given what they attested to (particularly David Whitmer), and given that you acknowledge they were neither insane nor duped, I am really curious about this reconciliation. Well, no. You have "formed a belief," a positive and coherent one, about the death of Caesar based on "evidence" that is of far lower quality than the extant evidence we have pertaining to the Plates, the Witnesses, and the Witnesses' character/credibility. Your "I don't know" is not based on a lack of evidence, but because you simply cannot formulate a positive, coherent alternative explanation for The Book of Mormon that accounts for the key data points (physical plates, witness statements, text origins/translation process) without heavy speculation. If you can reach evidence-based conclusions about Caesar, you should be able to reach evidence-based conclusions about the Plates. Well, no, you don't do that. Sometimes, but not always. For example, you have not said "I don't know" as to Joseph's narrative. You have, instead, declared that it's "just not possible." You have not said "I don't know" as to alternative explanations. You have, instead, said that "space aliens" and/or "Satan" and/or "demons" are "more likely" explanations than Joseph's. You also don't know that Caesar was stabbed to death on the Ides of March. You infer it based on extant evidence. And that inference sooner or later comes to be called fact because, well, we only have so much evidence as to things which have happened in the past, and we work with what we've got. You could similarly formulate an evidence-based inference as to the Plates, particularly given that the extant evidence is far better than the evidence you rely on re: Caesar. And yet you won't. You have evidence-based inferences as to Caesar, but "I don't know" as to the Witnesses. And you find "space aliens" to be a "more likely" explanation for The Book of Mormon than Joseph's narrative. These are the fruits of Bayesian methodological empiricism? I find that rather remarkable. Again, you have not said, regarding Joseph Smith, "I don't know." You have, instead, said his narrative is "just not possible." You have not said, regarding alternative explanations for The Book of Mormon, "I don't know." You have, instead, said that "space aliens" and/or "Satan" and/or "demons" are "more likely" explanations than Joseph's. You "know" that Joseph's narrative is "just not possible"? And you can explain that? I'm not really interested in what AI platforms have to say. They just regurgitate stuff. I have asked critics of the Church to present a positive, coherent explanation for The Book of Mormon that accounts for the key data points (physical plates, witness statements, text origins/translation process) without heavy speculation The Latter-day Saints have never claimed to believe the things we do based on strict empiricism. That's your gig. And even then, I'm not looking for an asymmetrical explanation. I think the Latter-day Saints have, for a long time now, presented a positive, coherent alternative explanation for The Book of Mormon that accounts for the key data points (physical plates, witness statements, text origins/translation process) without heavy speculation. I added the "empirical rigor" thing because that's your petard, and I expected you to be hoisted by it. And by gum, I think I was right. Your supposed "empirical rigor" allows for you to account for the death of Caesar based on pretty lousy evidence, but does not allow you to account for the Witnesses based on far better and much more evidence. Seems like empiricism is, for you, an "only when I feel like using it" kind of thing, hence the space aliens, Satan/demons, and "tin." Not really. The gist of the burden shifting fallacy is that it occurs when someone makes a claim but demands that their opponent disprove it, rather than providing evidence to support their own assertion. Here, I am pointing to "evidence to support" my "assertion" about the Plates: The Three Witnesses. The Eight Witnesses. The "unofficial" witnesses. Their statements, both formal and informal. Their subsequent affirmations. Historical evidences about their character and credibility. These evidences having been in view for 200 years or so, I requested (not "demanded") that you, a self-proclaimed empiricist, provide a positive, coherent alternative explanation for The Book of Mormon that accounts for the key data points (physical plates, witness statements, text origins/translation process) without heavy speculation, while claiming empirical rigor. So no, I can't go along with the "burden-shifting" claim here. The Latter-day Saints have presented an evidence-based explanation. You have not (unless you count "space aliens" and "tin" as "evidence-based"). Nope. I have asked that you provide "a positive, coherent alternative explanation." I have never "demanded" it, and I have never required it to be exhaustive or "fully specified." I have asked for an explanation "for The Book of Mormon that accounts for the key data points (physical plates, witness statements, text origins/translation process)." Note that I have asked that you count for key data points, not every jot and tittle. I have asked for an explanation based on extant evidence that is "without heavy speculation." Some speculation is probably a necessity. I have asked for an explanation based on "empirical rigor." This is a unique request for critics who, like you, claim to operate on empiricism. I don't have a corollary requirement for the Latter-day Saints, as their approach is based substantially more on faith than empiricism. Well, not really. While my position ultimately relies on "untestable" things (the Spirit, etc.), the discussion here has been about the Witnesses, their statements, their character and credibility, etc. This stuff is very testable. You just don't want to run the tests. You are not reluctant to cite flimsy historical evidence as the basis for your acceptance of the circumstances of Caesar's death. You are very reluctant to examine much stronger and larger amounts of evidence as to the Plates (largely in the form of the Witnesses, their statements, and evidence about their character and credibility). Your "reluctance" is a choice. I actually chuckled when I read this. Well, yes. What we have here is "an evidentiary asymmetry." My position has more and better evidence in support of it than whatever evidence you suppose you have in support of your position. That's how disputes such as this are "won" or "lost." Evidentiary asymmetry is the name of the game. As an attorney, I win or lose cases based on evidentiary asymmetry. Yesterday I participated in a mediation session. It lasted nearly 5 hours. While it involved a settlement, such that neither side really and objectively "won," the settlement result was very lopsided, in favor of my client, in terms of what each side originally wanted. A big reason for this result was that my client had better facts and better evidence and better legal arguments. The other side "lost" (paid quite a bit of money, whereas they went into the mediation with the expectation that they would be getting paid a lot of money) because, in part, of "evidentiary asymmetry." If I were to play a a pickup game with Lebron James, I think he would win due to "athletic asymmetry." This would not be unfair or untoward. It just is. I have really tried to do that. The scope is narrow (a positive, coherent alternative explanation for The Book of Mormon), as is the ambit of the "evidence" (that accounts for the key data points (physical plates, witness statements, text origins/translation process)" and with relatively reasonable "assumptions" in place (without heavy speculation, while claiming empirical rigor). Nope. The "what if we were in court" schtick has been your thing, not mine. And I've said nothing about "a courtroom-ready reconstruction." The "gap" being that my position is based, in part, on quite a bit of good-quality evidence (re: the Witnesses), whereas your position (space aliens, tin) has effectively no evidence for it. Malarky. We both have the same access to the same body of evidence. I've never said you "owe" us anything. My request has been just that. All the way down. Sure. "Evidence-consistent" being the operative wording. But boy, this sure overlooks a lot of the evidence. The "prop" was made by whom? When? Where? How? And was it a sloppy or sophisticated prop? If sloppy and made of readily-available materials (common tin and bronze powder paint/varnish), how is it that the Eight Witnesses were duped in the first instance and then, after several of them dissociated from Joseph, they never recanted or articulated any notion that they had been duped? And if sophisticated, who was involved? Using what materials? Purchased with what money? Made by whom? Did Joseph have the skills? Or, if a conspiracy, who else was involved? Is there any evidence for any of this? As for "socially reinforced testimony," how does that address the witnesses who left the Church (particularly David Whitmer)? Wouldn't social reinforcement operate towards having them recant? or is social reinforcement only a "it only applies against the Mormons" kind of things? I would really like to see you argue (using evidence, rather than merely assert/declare) that you have a coherent alternative explanation that "better fits the data with fewer assumptions." Please present this. For the time being, I'm speaking of the Plates more than the text. The textual evidences are definitely worth discussion, though. A bit too late for avoiding "overclaiming" stuff, Mr. "{Joseph's explanation is} 'just not possible'" / "'Space Aliens' are a 'more likely' explanation" / "{I'm all about the] Bayesian methodological empiricis{m}." Then why talk about it? A distinction without a difference. Regardless of how the Plates came to be not within our ability to examine, there is still evidence available which we can examine. And that evidence is much better, and there's more of it, as compared to "Brutus's dagger." We don't know whey we don't have Brutus's dagger. Perhaps someone destroyed it intentionally. In the end, it doesn't matter because it's not available. This is the case for a lot of things that happened long ago. Evidence is lost. "Weak evidence" is an eye-of-the-beholder sort of thing, and depends on the context. And the evidence for the Plates is quite a bit better than the evidence of Caesar's death. No, not an "affiliated group." They did not affiliate themselves. And several of the people in this group had only met Joseph days/weeks before becoming witnesses. And several of the people in this group dissociated from Joseph, and thereafter had all sorts of incentives to recant, yet they never did. Meanwhile, you are quite willing to rely on sources about Ceasar's death, even though they were not percipient, had questionable motives, wrote many decades after the fact, relied on unknown/unavailable sources (if any), and so on. Neither you nor ChatGPT addresses this stuff. There's no "independent examination" of the stabbing implements used to kill Caesar, no any percipient witnesses who left "detailed descriptions." No ability to "cross-check" any of this stuff, either. And yet you accept this stuff as valid anyway. As does the appeal to "the stabbing implements were lost to the passage of time." But the sources for Caesar's death are "high" confidence, then? Really? How does that work? I agree. But it's not very probable. Joseph, a young and barely-educated farmer in 1820s New York State, just happened to A) produce a long and complex text that seems to go way beyond his abilities, and also B) discovered an authentically ancient artifact answering to the "Gold Plates" description? I guess. But the coincidences required for this are pretty amazing. And the Three Witnesses? And the Eight Witnesses? And no recantings, even though several had strong incentives and opportunities to do so? Even so, you have a point. The Latter-day Saints take it on faith that the engravings on the Gold Plates = the source of the translated-into-English text of The Book of Mormon. And we don't need or want or demand empirical "authentication." We have Moroni 10:3-5 and supplemental evidences that, for us, are sufficient to enable us to "walk by faith, not by sight." For those who "walk by empiricism," however, the Plates, and the Witnesses, sure seem to be a sticky wicket. "At most," huh? A young and barely-educated farmer in 1820s New York State, just happened to A) produce a long and complex text that seems to go way beyond his abilities, and also B) discovered an authentically ancient artifact answering to the "Gold Plates" description? Boy, New York State in the 1820s sure seems to have hosted some pretty amazing coincidences! It's not. It's a request with several components. A compound question is a single query that joins two or more distinct questions or issues, often using "and" or "or," requiring a single answer to multiple parts. In legal contexts, this is objectionable because it confuses witnesses and prevents clear records, while in research, it creates ambiguous, inaccurate data. I'm not doing that. No. I have presented a request, not a demand. Yes, as in more than a "not that"-style explanation. Only if "highly specific" and "non-speculative" = "accounts for the key data points (physical plates, witness statements, text origins/translation process)." Only if "non-speculative" = "without heavy speculation" (emphasis added). Do you really see these as equivalent? Well, yes. You've announced that petard, so it seems reasonable to let you hoist yourself with it. You can, of course, set aside rigorous empiricism. But then you'd be doing what the Latter-day Saints are doing. I don't think you're willing to go there. And in any event, examining the Witnesses is, if not "empirical," something relatively close to it. Lawsuits often turn on witness testimony. "Demands." Oi. What other "key data points" do you have in mind? Feel free to add them into the mix. Roger: "I'm very confident it wasn't an ancient artifact." Also Roger: "I'm quite comfortable accepting the fact that when I don't know something, the best thing to do is say, 'I don't know.'" We're not asking you what you think the artifact wasn't. We're asking you to explain what you think it was. And that you lay out the evidence and reasoning that gets you there. Roger: "I'm very confident it is of 19th-Century American Origin." Also Roger: "I'm quite comfortable accepting the fact that when I don't know something, the best thing to do is say, 'I don't know.'" I don't know how, specifically, Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon, except that he did so by "the gift and power of God." So I'm very confident it is not of 19th-century American origin. My position is principally borne of faith, but the Witnesses sure do provide a lot of supplementary confirmation. Same goes with textual evidences. One of us is "very confident" based on both faith and evidence. The other is "very confident" based on faith (albeit in the opposite direction) and very little evidence (he hasn't produced in despite the passage of 200 years of Anti-Mormonism, access to the Internet, access to AI platforms, etc.). What I would like to see is a positive, coherent alternative explanation for The Book of Mormon that accounts for the key data points (physical plates, witness statements, text origins/translation process) without heavy speculation, while claiming empirical rigor. And devoid of evidentiary support, I suspect. And lacking in your much-vaunted rigorous empiricism. Oh, brother. I am setting effectively the same "bar" for you as I do for the Church. The only difference is that my request to you, the self-proclaimed empricist, involve "empirical rigor." And "near-forensic reconstruction" is nonsense. As for "fragmentary data," I'm not divvying anything up. The Church has pointed to the quantum of evidence (re: physical plates, witness statements, text origins/translation process) and laid out an explanation for that evidence. I'd like to see critics use that same data and present a positive, coherent alternative explanation for The Book of Mormon that accounts for the key data points (physical plates, witness statements, text origins/translation process) without heavy speculation, while claiming empirical rigor. And I am not "curating 'key points,'" nor am I "constraining" you to the ones I have noted. If you want to present other evidence, have at it. I've said nothing to restrict you from doing so. In fact, you've already done this by speculating about tinplate, which I find to be a reasonable thing to do. And what's with this "advocacy, not neutral inquiry" nonsense? Where have I ever claimed to be anything but an advocate for The Church of Jesus Christ? Will that "modest, ,comparative model" involve "more likely" explanations such as Space Aliens? Satan? Demons? AFAF. Will that model start from a foregoing conclusion (namely, that Joseph's narrative is "just not possible") and work backward? Okay. How does this account for the Witnesses' statements? How would this "produced via oral dictation" account for witness statements about the translation process? The timeframe? Joseph's education and writing skills at the time? Well, I sure would like to see this "fewer assumptions" thing. Will that "uncertainty" include space aliens and/or Satan as being a "more likely" explanation? Where do your "uncertainty" end and your "Bayesian methodological empiricis{m}"-induced declarations about space aliens begin? Where does ChatGPT fit the space aliens into Bayesian methodology? I suspect this thread, or your participation in it, is coming to an end. You're taking off for some weeks. In a sense, this thread has accomplished the purpose I originally had, which was to request that a critic present a positive, coherent alternative explanation for The Book of Mormon that accounts for the key data points (physical plates, witness statements, text origins/translation process) without heavy speculation, while claiming empirical rigor. You have presented what I think is about the most I can expect to get from you: (A) Joseph Smith, Jr., (B) acting alone, (C) made an actual physical object, probably out of tin and then painted it gold, that D) was a cheap and shoddy and likely-to-be-detected sham. This doesn't account for the Eight Witnesses' Statement really at all. Nor does it account for the Statement of the Three Witnesses. From my perspective, this one has a much heavier evidentiary burden given its miraculous content. That burden is mitigated - the extent of which is an eye-of-the-beholder sort of thing - by David Whitmer's decades of continuing and steadfast affirmance while at the same time condemning of Joseph Smith as a fallen prophet. Nor does it account for the "unofficial" witnesses. Nor does it account for the various "unofficial" statements/recollections of the various official Witnesses. Thanks, -Smac

Not sure about that. See here: What is "miraculous" here? Strang, an approved "Prophet and Seer of God" had it "revealed to him in a vision that an account of an ancient people was buried in a hill" The angel had told Strang where to dig the witnesses confirm that the "sole inducement to our digging was our faith in his statement as a Prophet of the Lord that a record would thus and there be found". They went to the spot revealed through a vision, and behold, a box with plates! Right. But what "miraculous event" did the witnesses claim to have experienced? If I were to tell you that an angel appeared to me and told me there were ancient gold plates buried behind the Creamery on 9th in Provo, 6 feet down at the precise coordinates shown to me by the angel. Would you go look? I don't know. That would depend on my assessment of you. Meanwhile, let's go back to what you said: "There statement is clear that they perceived it as a sort of miraculous event." I don't see this in their statement. Can you clarify? I live in Provo. I was at the Creamery with my wife just a few weeks ago. The new digs are quite nice. Right. Not sure what any of this has to do with the witnesses' attestations. Well, no. If Pres. Oaks told me that he had experienced something miraculous, I may well believe him. But that's not me claiming to have witnessed a miraculous event. Yes. It would be mundane because nothing "miraculous" has occurred. It may well be impressive, but not miraculous. Okay. Based on the overall cumulative evidence, I find the Statement of the Eight Witnesses credible, yes. No. I believe that about the Statement of the Three Witnesses, but not the Eight Witnesses. The latter does not describe a "divine experience." I am not "insist{ing}" anything. The statement of the Strangite witnesses does not describe anything other than "mundane" (as in "of or relating to this world or earth as contrasted with heaven; worldly; earthly") events. Nothing in the statement involves them attesting to having experienced a "miraculous" (your word) event ("miraculous" as in "performed by or involving a supernatural power or agency" or "of the nature of a miracle"). The same goes for the Statement of the Eight Witnesses, which I also find to attests to a mundane (not "miraculous") experience by the witnesses. On the other hand, the Statement of the Three Witnesses does describe a "miraculous" experience. An angel. The voice of God. So I think I'm being pretty consistent here. You seem to be under the impression that I see the Statement of the Eight Witnesses as describing a "miraculous event." I do not. I do. The First Vision. His presence at the experience of the Three Witnesses. These and other experiences I view as "miraculous events" (I don't care for "supernatural," as I believe God, being the "God of nature," is within, not above or outside of, nature ("supernatural")). But we are not speaking of what Joseph experienced or said, but rather what the Eight Witnesses experienced and to which they subsequently attested via a written and signed statement. I find their testimony to attest to a mundane, not "miraculous," experience. Take a look: That's it. Nothing here is "miraculous." No attestation that they experienced something "performed by or involving a supernatural power or agency" or "of the nature of a miracle." In contrast, let's take a look at the Statement of the Three Witnesses: I characterize this attestation as being about a "miraculous" experience. Let's keep in mind, though, that none of the Three had, or ever claimed to have, any knowledge of ancient written Egyptian, let alone a "Reformed" version of it. So their attestation as to the contents of the Plates ("a record of the people of Nephi...") does not, strictly speaking, involve them speaking as percipient witnesses. They are not conveying what they have experienced, but what they have been told. However, who did the telling? Read on... Again, here they are attesting to the translation, which is not them attesting to a percipient event. The percipient event, then, is this: "for his voice hath declared it unto us." That is, in my view, an attestation of a "miraculous event." This is the Witnesses speaking of a percipient, and "miraculous," event. Again, this is an attestation of a miraculous event. Not of what they witnesses had seen, but what they heard. And what they say they heard was not Joseph speaking, but the "voice of the Lord." I am not speaking of "Strang's events" (which, if true, would indeed be "miraculous"). I am, instead, speaking of the attestation of the witnesses you have referenced. I find their attestation to be of mundane, not "miraculous," events to which they were percipient. Respectfully, the difference is entirely in the documented testimony, see above. Well, no. First, you are fundamentally mischaracterizing and misstating my position. I have articulated no particular view of Strang. Second, you are substantially mischaracterizing and misstating the content of the statement by the Strang witnesses. You said that their statement was "clear that they perceived it as a sort of miraculous event." I think this is quite incorrect. They were percipient witnesses to a mundane event, not a "miraculous" one. I hold the same view of the Statement of the Three Witnesses. In contrast, I find that the Statement of the Three Witnesses does have them attesting to, as percipient witnesses, a "miraculous" event. Third, my conclusions are based on the cumulative evidence about the truthfulness of the Restored Gospel, which has its origins in my application of Moroni 10:3-5. As a young teenager I did as my parents and Sunday School teachers encouraged me to do: I read The Book of Mormon, thought about it, and prayed about it. I experienced what I at the time perceived to be spiritual confirmation that the book was "true," that it is what it claims to be. So I accepted it as such based mostly on the Spirit, but also on secondary evidences such as my parents' faith. My reliance on the Three Witnesses and the Eight Witnesses, though very much still secondary and supplemental, came quite a bit later. In recent years I have come to find their statements very credible. I have likewise found that critics, despite having 200 years to get their act together, cannot cobble together a positive, coherent explanation for The Book of Mormon that accounts for the key data points (physical plates, witness statements, text origins/translation process) without heavy speculation. Indeed, in this thread and elsewhere I have repeatedly requested that @Analytics, likely the foremost critic of my acquaintance and experience, and in my view at or near the top of the anti-Mormon heap overall (he is far more formidable, in terms of both intellect and information, than lightweights like John Dehlin, Bill Reel, Consigliere, etc.), present such an explanation. And so far all he can do is continue to quote ChatGPT (which I find to be a protracted exercise in plausible deniability), suggest that Joseph made the Plates out of tin, and otherwise say "I don't know." I think you abuse the phrase "Mormon prophet," as I don't think Strang qualifies. But otherwise, yes, I am okay with skepticism. However, you originally said: (speaking of the Strang witnesses) : "There statement is clear that they perceived it as a sort of miraculous event." I respectfully dispute that, and have asked that you clarify. Actually, I don't think I initially accepted the veracity/truthfulness of The Book of Mormon because I "trust Joseph Smith." I accepted it because of what I experienced spiritually after having read and pondered the text per Moroni 10:3-5. Reliance/trust on Joseph Smith came later, along with reliance on the Three Witnesses, the Eight Witnesses, testimonies from other persons, my experiences as a missionary, my further study and investigation, listening to critics and testing their assessments (which I find to be pretty poor in terms of reasoning and evidentiary analysis), and so on. I acknowledge that. Again, you originally said: (speaking of the Strang witnesses) : "There statement is clear that they perceived it as a sort of miraculous event." I respectfully dispute that, and have asked that you clarify. Thanks, -Smac

I wonder if you are referencing this quote: "Smith said the plates containing the Book of Mormon measured about 6 inches wide by 8 inches long and were 'not quite so thick as common tin.'" This was apparently Joseph Smith talking. It seems a bit odd that Joseph, having supposedly fabricated the Plates out of tin, would publicly compare the Plates' thickness to that of tin. Thanks, -Smac

Also according to AI (my query) : The response (Grok) : Follow-up query: The response: Follow-up query: The response: It's almost as if AI platforms tell us what we want to hear. Thanks, -Smac

This apologetic (I see it all over the place in videos and articles about the gold plate witnesses all the sudden) confuses me. Strang's witnesses are not reporting a mundane event. It seems that they are. Not sure about that. See here: What is "miraculous" here? Right. But what "miraculous event" did the witnesses claim to have experienced? Yes. Calm was referencing the experience of the Three Witnesses, and the separate experience of Mary Whitmer. Thanks, -Smac

Strang’s “brass plates of Laban” are a useful comparison because they also involve an angel, "Involve an angel" means what in this context? The Three Witnesses attested to an angel. Did Strang's witnesses do something similar? I'm open to that. I found this interesting: And here: https://lehislibrary.wordpress.com/2009/07/17/the-james-strang-plates-notes-from-dr-peterson/ https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2022/02/24/the-ces-letter-rebuttal-part-49 Quite so. I am ambivalent and/or indifferent about them. In contrast, our @Analytics is anything but ambivalent about The Book of Mormon. He has spent years on this board arguing against the claimed origins. More recently he has declared that Joseph's narrative is "just not possible," and that "space aliens" and/or "Satan" or "demons" are "more likely" explanations. Having staked out an affirmative denial of Joseph's narrative, and having presented some alternatives, I think it becomes an intellectual "obligation" (not an actual or enforceable one) to actually present a counter-theory that addresses the same evidence. I have only a de minimis interest in the Strangite movement. Sure. There is no obligation here. My request has been just that. Thanks, -Smac

Yes, that's where I'm at, except I would say Three Witnesses + Eight Witnesses + Informal Witnesses + historical evidence of the character of the Witnesses + textual evidences (plus Moroni 10:3-5). I agree. I was quite surprised to realize that the five non-Smiths in the Eight Witnesses (the four Whitmer brothers and their BIL, Hiram Page) had only met Joseph days or a few weeks prior to him showing them the Plates. He really did not know them that well, nor they him. You gotta wonder, then, what incentive these men would have had to stick their necks out for Joseph by backing his play on a hoax about the Plates (about which there was already a lot of controversy). Seems like they had little or nothing to gain, and a lot to lose (reputation damage, etc.) by joining in a falsehood. @Analytics is trying to style this circumstance as some sort the 3D chess move by Joseph Smith. As if the farmboy with three years of schooling had a grand scheme mapped out in his brain, spent years fabricating the Plates (and also hiding the fabrication process from everyone), "manipulating" (Analytics' words) the Witnesses to agree to say that saw something they did not (or grossly exaggerate/mischaracterize what they did see), all with an assumption that these folks would all keep to their attestations forever after. That sure seems like a lot of ducks to put in a row and keep in a row. Ozymandias in The Watchmen could pull that off, but Joseph Smith in the 1820s? Nah. The volume of guesses, leaps of logic, disregarding of extant evidence, maintaining a conspiracy, etc., is, for me, too much. I think this is more plausible (from Daniel Peterson) : The subdivisions involved increasingly complex questions like "sloppy hoax v. sophisticated hoax," "the witnesses were all gullible dupes v. the witnesses were all malevolent co-conspirators," "Joseph acted alone in fabricating the plates v. Joseph was part of a never-detected conspiracy in fabricating the plates," and so on. The "simple and elegant" narrative is, I think, the more reasonable one. DCP's framing ("I simply don’t have the faith to disbelieve Joseph Smith’s story") becomes particularly apt relative to @Analytics, who believes that space aliens and/or Satan are "more likely" explanations for The Book of Mormon than Joseph's narrative. I think that position requires more faith than ours does. And that doesn't work for Analytics, since he has conceded they were sincere. Same here. Analytics has conceded they were not insane or duped. And then we have Emma's and Mary's experiences with the Plates, which were incidental and not - as Analytics keeps saying - "curated." I agree. Analytics has veered toward talking about the evidence being "conclusive" ("As I've said over and over, we don't have the evidence that would conclusively answer these questions because Joseph Smith chose to withhold it..."). That is not my position. I am much more amenable to something like "The Church's explanation of the origins of The Book of Mormon opens the door to faith. It is plausible, and can be accepted and acted upon by people of good will and intelligence." That 200 years of anti-Mormonism has utterly failed to produce a positive, coherent explanation for The Book of Mormon that accounts for the key data points (physical plates, witness statements, text origins/translation process) without heavy speculation is a pretty good supplement. Indeed. What amounts to "sufficient" evidence in this context is a very personal and private and eye-of-the-beholder thing. Ultimately, we must each do what we think is right. Austin Farrer: "Though argument does not create conviction, the lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced: but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish." I find it quite interesting that the Latter-day Saints can marshal evidence and reasoning sufficient (subjectively) to present a "rational argument" for The Book of Mormon, but the critics cannot. Indeed, the resident critic here - @Analytics - isn't even really trying. Even to the point of finding space aliens and/or Satan/demons a "more likely" explanation. Frankly, I find that to require far more "faith" to accept than what I need to accept Joseph's narrative. That being the case, the disposition of the evidence seems to turn more on the individual and his presuppositions than on the evidence itself. Thanks, -Smac

Same here. No. I am open to alternative - that is, naturalistic - counter-theories for The Book of Mormon. The Church and its advocates have provided a positive, coherent explanation for The Book of Mormon that accounts for the key data points (physical plates, witness statements, text origins/translation process) without heavy speculation. Note that I am leaving out the "while claiming empirical rigor" part. "Empirical rigor" would, in my view, involve the strict, systematic adherence to scientific methods in data collection, analysis, and interpretation to ensure research findings are reliable, valid, and trustworthy. It involves meticulous documentation, minimizing bias, and using verifiable evidence, rather than mere speculation, to support conclusions. The Latter-day Saints have put out a lot of both devotional and academic/scholarly stuff about the above-referenced data points, but they do this to bolster and supplement faith, and not so much as steering people toward applying strict scientific empiricism as to matters that, ultimately and primarily, are about faith. Empiricism is what Analytics claims guides his reasoning, so that's for his assessment (and for other critics who make similar claims). If they want to be hoisted by their own petard, so be it. See also this (from Grok) : I think this works most of the time. I think assessing the Plates and the Witnesses is something of a sticky wicket. I would like to see "academic treatments of the golden plates focus on the credibility and consistency of the witnesses" as pertaining to the Plates. So far, all @Analytics has come up with "tin" and "I don't know." I think this is largely correct. But here, we aren't scholars, and this is not a scholarly venue, and @Analytics has done anything but "bracket" issues pertaining to Joseph's narrative. He has, instead, declared that Joseph's narrative is "just not possible," and that "space aliens" and/or "Satan/demons" are "more likely" explanations for the text of The Book of Mormon. Empiricism, thy name is Roger. Historiography has its limits. This one is less useful, IMO. It presupposes too much, while pretending not to,. I'm totally fine with that. I am quite open to miraculous things happening to people in other faith traditions. I'm not looking for this from Analytics. Alas, Analytics can't claim to be "agnostic on the miraculous element itself," as he has declared Joseph's narrative to be "just not possible." He and his supposed empiricism have chosen a side. And this thread sure seems to indicate that his petard is warming up its hoisting routine. Sure. I wouldn't expect anything else from secular historians acting in that capacity, just as I would not expect secular judges to adjudicate the truth claims of the Church. On the other hand, a person who is a secular historian and acting in his or her own capacity just might examine the Witness statements and evaluate them with some elements of their training as part of the process. I'd be fine with that. We're 200 years in and the critics really haven't moved their own needle much. Thanks, -Smac

This isn't obvious to me. Okay. This presupposes that the Three Witnesses' experience was a "vision" and not a "in the body" event. David Whitmer: "{W}e were in the body also." "{E}verything was as natural to us, as it is at any time." "I saw the angel as plainly as I see you." "'I saw them {the Plates} just as plain as I see this bed (striking his hand upon the bed beside him), and I heard the voice of the Lord as distinctly as I ever heard anything in my life...'" "No sir! I was not under any hallucination, nor was I deceived! I saw with these eyes, and I heard with these ears! I know whereof I speak!" I think you need to account for these. Also, are you claiming that Joseph had two sets of Plates? One for the Three Witnesses and one for the Eight Witnesses? If so, please be specific, and please lay out your reasoning and evidence? Except it seems you weren't honest in what you described. What you saw was, in your words, an obvious and cheap and comical prop. What you described was, well, we don't know since you have been quite coy about what you actually said (in stark contrast to, say, David Whitmer, who was very clear about what he saw and experienced) : You are markedly vague about what you actually said ("They really had writing on them. They were really of gold color. They really had rings. There really was a sealed section."). But you then describe what you actually saw ("the artifact we saw and handled was made out of balsa plywood painted gold, some common binder rings, and cartoonish writing written with a sharpie. The sealed portion was just a few pieces of wood glued together. It was comically cheap and fake"). You then go on to describe the effect of what you had said ("When the class ended, one girl asked if she could see the plates. The teacher said no. She begged, and the teacher held his ground. She needed to believe the plates under the lectern were real based on our testimony. She was left dying to see this amazing artifact under the lectern that, as far as she knew, was indistinguishable from the authentic plates that the BoM witnesses saw and just maybe somehow were the very same plates the witnesses saw."). See, I put these things together and surmise that you deliberately spoke to mislead, and that you did, in fact, mislead the class, as evidenced by the girl's reaction. What you said made her think that "this amazing artifact under the lectern {}, as far as she knew, was indistinguishable from the authentic plates that the BoM witnesses saw and just maybe somehow were the very same plates the witnesses saw"). You could clear this up by explaining what you said. Was it something along the lines of this: "What I saw was made out of balsa plywood painted gold, some common binder rings, and cartoonish writing written with a sharpie. The sealed portion was just a few pieces of wood glued together. It was comically cheap and fake." Of this: "The 'plates' I saw had writing on them, were of gold color, had rings, and had a sealed section. It was, in form and appearance, indistinguishable from the authentic plates that the BoM witnesses saw, and which the Eight Witnesses described as 'hav{ing} the appearance of gold,' with 'leaves' which they 'did handle with {their} hands,' and with 'engravings thereon,' and 'all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship,' and they both saw and 'hefted' them. In fact, the plates I saw was so amazing that maybe somehow were the very same plates the witnesses saw." Well, Roger? Which one hews closer to what you said? Did you describe something "comically cheap and fake" made of "balsa plywood painted gold" bound by "common binder rings" and with "cartoonish writing written with a sharpie," or did you describe something that made the girl have the reaction you describe? I suspect you fudged then, and you are being deliberately vague now. I suspect you spoke with the intention to mislead. You did not tell the students what you told us (balsa wood, common binder rings, cartoonish writing, comically cheap and fake), as otherwise the girl's reaction would be nonsensical. Okay. Conspiracy time. My ears are wide open. Who else was involved with this conspiracy? Names, please. Also, what was the point and purpose of the conspiracy? And when did it start and stop? Who did what things on behalf of the conspiracy? And given that its existence was never disclosed (since you have no evidence for it), how do you account for the conspirators remaining mum for the rest of their lives? Vogel thinks that Joseph fabricated the Plates on his own, so I'll be interested to see how you address the points Vogel raises. For example, he proposes, without evidence, that the Eight Witnesses only saw the Plates as they were obscured with a cloth, as otherwise they would have figured out that the object was a sham made out of common tin and painted yellow. You seem to be going for a "the sham prop was really sophisticated and impressive" approach, as otherwise a conspiracy would not be necessary. I don't know what you mean here. What "details" are you referencing? Pump the brakes. You previously agreed that both David Whitmer and Martin Harris were not "duped," but now you are saying Joseph "manipulate{d} them? Can you clarify how Joseph "manipulated" them but did not "dupe" them? And also, what sort of techniques do you imagine Joseph had, such that he could "manipulate" David Whitmer - whom you agree was sane, sincere, and not "duped" - into not only attesting to a miraculous experience involving the Plates, but also maintain that attestation for decades afterward, long after he had fallen out with Joseph and considered him a fallen prophet? And also a wildly speculative and evidence-free one. But I guess you're doing the best you can. Good questions. I look forward to your answers, particularly as to David Whitmer. Thanks, -Smac

The problem is that asking for an “alternative explanation for the Book of Mormon” is hopelessly vague. Huh. Well, let's see if we can clear things up. First, let's tackle The Book of Mormon. That is, the book that purports to be a "translation" by Joseph Smith, Jr. of an ancient record which was contained on an ancient metal artifact answering generally to, and generally named, the "Gold Plates." Some Encyclopedia of Mormonism articles which are relevant here: Gold Plates Book of Mormon Plates and Records Book of Mormon Translation By Joseph Smith Book of Mormon Witnesses Plates, Metal Book of Mormon Book of Mormon Authorship Book of Mormon Chronology Here's a nice graphical summary of the purported contents of the Gold Plates: I think this is a bit of a silly exercise, as I'm reasonably confident you are already well familiar with this stuff. Nevertheless, you are (belatedly) complaining that my inquiry ("I have asked that you provide a positive, coherent alternative explanation for The Book of Mormon that accounts for the key data points (physical plates, witness statements, text origins/translation process) without heavy speculation, while claiming empirical rigor") is "hopelessly vague," so this "Book of Mormon 101"-style exercise is apparently necessary. Another very useful resource is "Joseph Smith - History." While the provenance of this text is not in reasonable dispute (nobody seriously denies that this is an accurate recitation of the claims of Joseph Smith), most of the substantive factual elements within JS-H as pertaining to miraculous events and persons are disputed by critics such as yourself. Question #1: Do you dispute the foregoing (bolded) statement? The Church has helpfully augmented its published version of The Book of Mormon with an "Introduction." Let's review it a bit. I think this is a fair and accurate statement about what Latter-day Saints believe about The Book of Mormon. The Bible is indeed "comparable" to The Book of Mormon in that it purports to contain both historical information and theological/religious content. Also, the Bible purports to be a compilation of texts written by various authors, as does The Book of Mormon. Also, the historicity of some/much of The Bible is contested. Effectively 100% of the historicity of The Book of Mormon is contested. Question #2: Do you dispute the foregoing (bolded) statement? This is a contested statement, as there are people, such as you, who categorically reject the origins of the text of The Book of Mormon as explained and espoused by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Joseph Smith spent much of his life claiming to have received the Gold Plates by an angelic ministrant (a resurrected Nephite named Moroni), and that he (Joseph) then translated The Book of Mormon "by the gift and power of God." The Latter-day Saints do not claim to know or understand the particulars of this translation process. We do, however, believe that that the Gold Plates contained the ancient text of what we now call "The Book of Mormon," with the writing being in a unique form called "Reformed Egyptian." The Latter-day Saints believe that following the completion of the "translation" in 1829, Moroni instructed Joseph to return the Plates to him, which Joseph did. The Plates are therefore not available for empirical scrutiny (metallurgical, linguistic, forensic, etc.). Critics reject most of the foregoing. In their view, there was no line of ancient "prophets" in the ancient Americas answering to the text (Lehi down through Moroni), nor that there any "Nephites" and "Lamanites" existed, nor that "Jesus Christ" descended from heaven and visited the inhabitants of the Americas, nor that there was any large compilation of prophetic records pertaining to these matters, nor that there was a "Mormon" who abridged these records on "Gold Plates," nor that Mormon then gave these Plates to his son, Moroni, who carried them about for years before burying them in a drumlin hill in New York State (near Manchester), nor that in the 1800s Moroni, now a resurrected angel, visited Joseph Smith, Jr. and gave him information about the buried plates, eventually letting Joseph take possession of them and "translate" them into English, nor that Joseph thereafter returned the Plates to Moroni. Critics such as yourself do not believe any of this, and instead believe the text to have been written in the 19th century, either by Joseph Smith or another or a group of others, and that Joseph, whether through delusion or ill motive or both, fabricated both the text and the story of its origins. Question #3: Do you dispute the foregoing (bolded) statement? Now let's take a look at the Title Page to The Book of Mormon, which Latter-day Saints believe to be "a literal translation, taken from the very last leaf, on the left hand side of the collection or book of plates." Encyclopedia of Mormonism article about Mormon. Not an "official" source, but as a Latter-day Saint I can tell you that this is quite an accurate summary of what Latter-day Saints believe about Mormon. I assume you affirmatively reject the foregoing as being factual. I am quite okay with that. Wikipedia article about the "Plates of Nephi." Also not an official source, but nevertheless quite useful. An excerpt: Per The Book of Mormon, the Plates of Nephi were comprised of the "Small" plates and the "Large" plates: The "Large" plates are also claimed by the Latter-day Saints to have contained the "Book of Lehi," the translation of which was lost. Nevertheless, most of the text of the The Book of Mormon is purported to be a translation of the Plates of Nephi. The last three "books" (segments of The Book of Mormon") - Mormon, Ether, and Moroni - are purported to be sourced from other records. Again, critics such as yourself don't believe any of this is historical or factual, and that it was instead made up by Joseph Smith and/or his contemporaries. Question #4: You have previously - and belatedly - claimed that Question 4, posed many times now, "is hopelessly vague." The foregoing lays out foundational and contextualizing information about what the Latter-day Saints have to say about The Book of Mormon in terms of its origins and contents. This is far from comprehensive, but it provides ample clarification on what you are now claiming to be "vague." Now that I have laid out the basic underpinnings of and explanations about The Book of Mormon as espoused by the the Latter-day Saints, both as to its origins and content, and operating under the assumption that you categorically or overwhelmingly reject these claimed underpinnings/explanations, I ask that you provide a positive, coherent alternative explanation for The Book of Mormon that accounts for the key data points (physical plates, witness statements, text origins/translation process) without heavy speculation, while claiming empirical rigor. Ah. There's a bit of a pivot here. You are setting aside the physical reality of the Plates as irrelevant ("has almost no bearing") to the question of the origin and content of The Book of Mormon. Many (most?) of the Latter-day Saints believe the Plates to be very important. See, e.g., these comments by Daniel C. Peterson: And also here: I agree with DCP. I think the Plates, both their physical reality and their claimed origins, are extremely important. The truth claims of the Church essentially stand or fall on The Book of Mormon, which claims to be a translation of an ancient record contained in the Plates. I agree with DCP here as well. Our critics have had nearly 200 years to formulate a plausible counter-explanation, but have failed to do so. I found it particularly intriguing when you, a self-described "Bayesian methodological empiricist," offered to answer questions from me about these matters. I have been trying to explore similar issues with you. This is where we end up with critics. Pretty much all the time. They offer some broad counter-theory, but then refuse to defend it when it is scrutinized in any substantive sense. This thread is a good example of this phenomenon. I think DCP makes an important point here. Question #5: You have previously stipulated that David Whitmer and Martin Harris were both A) not "insane" and B) "sincere," and C) not "duped." Do you extend any of these assessments to Joseph Smith, Jr.? If so, which ones? If not, how do you respond to DCP's assessment above (based largely on Joseph's personal writings)? Upon what evidence do you base your assessment of Joseph Smith? Question #6: How do you account for Joseph's behavior as described above? What evidence do you rely on for your assessment? This speaks to the importance of the Plates and the Witness statements (official and unofficial) about the Plates. Question #7: Do you dispute DCP's statement here (that "the evidence that he {Joseph} made them {the Plates} is nil")? If so, what evidence do you have that Joseph (and/or his contemporaries) fabricated the Plates? Question #8: Do you dispute DCP's statement here (that "critics have not been able to come up with a contemporary {who could be plausibly alleged to have fabricated the Plates})? If so, what "contemporary" do you have in mind, and what evidence do you have in support of your position? Question #9: Do you dispute DCP's statement here (that "Joseph Smith’s story {about the origins of The Book of Mormon} is easier to credit than the alternative explanations that have been proposed to account for what he claimed")? If so, what "alternative explanation" do you have in mind, and what evidence do you have in support of your position? I get that you are now claiming that the Plates are effectively irrelevant ("The existence of the some object has almost no bearing on whether or not the object is of authentic ancient origin."). However, for the time being let's go with your "What if we were in a lawsuit" hypothetical. Let's say that you are an interested person to the lawsuit, and that you are being deposed about your perspective on The Book of Mormon. Let's also say that you are represented by an attorney at the deposition. The attorney could, either during or after the deposition, interpose an objection about the relevance of questions about the Plates and the Witnesses. Nevertheless, the deponent (you) would still be obligated to answer such questions in a deposition. Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states (emphases added) : Put another way, a request for information in a lawsuit is allowed if it is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant, admissible, evidence. Something is "relevant" if it tends to prove or disprove something that one of the sides in the lawsuit needs to prove to win their case. If the hypothetical lawsuit is about the purported origins of The Book of Mormon, your apparent objection to inquiries about the Plates would either be overruled as premature or improper, or it would be deferred to a later date after the deposition. Either way, your objection would not excuse you from answering questions about the Plates and the Witnesses. So let's just go with that. Again, if we are using your "lawsuit" framework, your point here would go to the probative weight of the Witnesses' statements, not their admissibility. And the Witnesses were percipient "fact" witnesses, not experts, so they do not need to have or demonstrate any particular "expertise" to offer testimony. As for "independence," I'm not sure what you mean. David Whitmer's statements after he left the Church were not "independent"? How do you figure that? Same goes for several other witnesses. I'm happy to discuss the Witnesses' credibility, but your crowing about "field day having them disqualified" is quite premature and unfounded. We aren't in court, and if we were their statements would still come in because they qualify as fact witnesses. FRE 601 states: "Every person is competent to be a witness unless these rules provide otherwise." You have already agreed that there is sufficient evidence for the propositions that Whitmer and Harris were both A) not "insane" and B) "sincere," and C) not "duped." I have not seen you advance any theory or evidence that any of the other witnesses can be materially differentiated from these assessments (feel free to lay out your argument/evidence, if you have any). In other words, the Witnesses would be presumptively "competent" to testify. FRE 602 states: "A witness may testify to a matter only if evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. Evidence to prove personal knowledge may consist of the witness’s own testimony." If you have evidence disputing that the Witnesses did not have "personal knowledge of the matter(s)" to which they attested, feel free to present it. I think there is ample evidence that would allow their statements in (though, to be frank, the utility of your "what if we were in court" hypothetical is really quite limited). Your tendency to dress up your personal conclusory opinion as evidentiary analysis does not help advance the discussion. You can't just assert stuff like this, you need to demonstrate it. For example, let's look at David Whitmer. You have agreed that there is sufficient evidence for the propositions that both David Whitmer and Martin Harris were A) not "insane" and B) "sincere," and C) not "duped." Having made these concessions, I ask that you review the following compilation of Whitmer's statements about the Plates and his experience relating thereto: Despite having so frequently been questioned about his testimony, sometimes by hostile and skeptical enquirers, toward the end of his life—“standing as it were, in the very sunset of life”—David could honestly proclaim: “That I have never at any time, denied that testimony or any part thereof, which has so long since been published with that book as one of the three witnesses.”[30] Frustrated by the many rumors and misrepresentations circulated about his testimony, in the final years of his life he determined to speak for himself once and for all. “I will say once more to all mankind, that I have never at any time denied that testimony or any part thereof.”[31] According to several witnesses, he again bore one last testimony of the Book of Mormon just before dying less than a year later.[32] Question #10: Given that you have agreed that Whitmer was A) not "insane" and B) "sincere," and C) not "duped," and given the foregoing compilation of Whitmer's statements, the provenance of which is not in reasonable dispute, how do you square these things - particularly the bolded portions of the statements in the compilation - with your assertion that Whitmer's statements are "not well-defined in a real-world context"? Question #11: Please explain this "painfully clear" thing. Please also marshal evidence in support of it. Question #12: How do you reconcile your rejection of the Book of Mormon Witnesses as "weak" and "problematic" "data points" with your acceptance of the historical evidence about the assassination of Caesar? How is it that you accept the latter but not the former? That's simply not so. We do not have the stabbing implements purportedly used to kill Caesar, but you accept historical evidence about that anyway. Moreover, "Data" is plural. We do not have the Plates, but we do have other evidence, such as the various Witness statements and textual evidences. Question #13: Are you arguing that the Witness statements do not constitute "evidence" or "data" regarding the origins of The Book of Mormon? If so, please lay out your reasoning. "Me not having a theory on these things." Question #14: How is it you not only have a "theory," you accept as fact the assassination of Caesar despite not having "empirical" grounds to do so (no stabbing implements, no percipient witness statements, etc.), but you then turn around and declare you are incapable of formulating a theory for the Plates, including the Witness statements and historical evidence about the character and credibility of those people? Quite the opposite. I can give you my own speculations on what I think most likely happened, but this being speculative on my part is not evidence that the religious explanation is the strongest one. I'm not sure what you mean by "Quite the opposite." I would prefer evidence-based assessment over speculation and guesswork. You seem to be acknowledging that you cannot or will not provide the former. Question #15: Assuming that the Church's "explanation" as to the Plates and the Witnesses is not "the strongest one," what alternative explanation do you have that, in your view, is "the strongest one"? Please be specific, including the evidentiary analysis you use to reach this conclusion. Well, no. And this is ultimately irrelevant. By your reasoning "we don't know the answer" to Caesar's death because we don't have the stabbing implements used to kill him, nor chain of custody and established provenance, nor percipient witness statements (and associated chain of custody and provenance authenticators). We have some evidence about Caesar's death, but it's not very good in terms of historiographic quality. And yet you accept it anyway. We have lots of evidence from and about the Witnesses, and it is very good in terms of historiographic quality. And yet you reject it while simultaneously accepting as established fact the far-less-evidenced circumstances of Caesars's death. If you, being the intelligent and informed person that you are, can reach a conclusion about Caesar despite evidentiary shortcomings, you should be able to do the same as to the Plates and the Witnesses. That you cannot, or will not, do so is quite interesting to me. That Joseph Smith deliberately showed the Plates to eleven other people, many of whom he hardly knew, is an indication that Joseph's story is probable, and it's an indication that he was willing to do quite a bit more to provide evidence to others than a "Just take my word for it"-style explanation. Again, you have agreed that there is sufficient evidence for the propositions that Whitmer and Harris were both A) not "insane" and B) "sincere," and C) not "duped." And these men adhered to their statements throughout their lives. This is particularly noteworthy in the case of David Whitmer, who had all sorts of incentives and opportunities and decades to recant or modify or qualify his testimony. Question #16: Can you elaborate any further? Do you have any evidence to support it? Question #17: Can you elaborate any further? Do you have any evidence to support it? I won't ask you to elaborate, since "I don't know" is fairly comprehensive. That's not my question, though. I am not asking you to further your "not that" explanations. I am, instead, looking for a positive counter-theory. Your alternative explanation is, so far, pretty anemic (the Plates were "probably" made of "tin," and "I don't know" as to any other details about the Plates). Nevertheless, how do you account for the the statements of the Three Witnesses, the Three Witnesses and the informal witnesses (Emma, Mary Whitmer, etc.)? This is particularly relevant given that you have previously agreed that David Whitmer and Martin Harris were both A) not "insane" and B) "sincere," and C) not "duped." Let's focus, for the time being, on Whitmer. I look forward to you response to Question #10: Given that you have agreed that Whitmer was A) not "insane" and B) "sincere," and C) not "duped," and given the foregoing compilation of Whitmer's statements, the provenance of which is not in reasonable dispute, how do you square these things - particularly the bolded portions of the statements in the compilation - with your assertion that Whitmer's statements are "not well-defined in a real-world context"? Except that you have demurred on the details. You did not tell us whether you accurately described to the class what you saw. That doesn't answer the question. You are not explaining here how you square your alternative explanation with historical information and evidence we have regarding the character and credibility of the witnesses (both official and unofficial). Question #18: Let's go with this as pertaining to David Whitmer. Given that you have agreed that Whitmer was A) not "insane" and B) "sincere," and C) not "duped," and given the foregoing compilation of Whitmer's statements, what was it you think he was "not completely transparent" about? Please be specific. Also lay out whatever evidence you have to challenge the veracity and competency of Whitmer's statements. I've never asked for "conclusive" evidence, just evidence. All competent, first-hand evidence about Caesar's death has been lost due to the passage of time (stabbing implements, percipient witness reports, provenance confirmation, etc.). Or perhaps some actors deliberately destroyed such evidence. Or perhaps both explanations are in play. In any event, the result is the same: primary evidence is missing. What we have instead are "evidence" in the form of historical and quasi-historical references which are all from late (by decades/centuries) sources, with substantial provenance and credibility issues, based either on mere hearsay/tradition or unstated/unavailable other sources, or some combination of both. Nevertheless, you treat these sources (Suetonius, etc.) as "evidence" and accept their cumulative information as substantially accurate in a limited sense: Caesar. Stabbed to death. Floor of Senate. Ides of March. There are aspects of these late reports I suspect you do not necessarily accept as factually accurate: Nicolaus was biased because of his political leanings (pro-Augustan (pro-Octavian/Caesar's heir)). Suetonius was gossipy and anecdotal, with a taste for the sensational and moralistic. Plutarch was sympathetic to Brutus and the republican cause (tyrannicide as noble), while critiquing Caesar's hubris. Appian wrote for political purposes (structured narrative to show how republican excesses led to monarchy). Cassius Dio depicted the assassins as envious or power-hungry; frames the assassination as a tragic but flawed act that led to worse chaos (civil wars). Heavy on speeches and moral/political commentary. So common patterns of bias/inaccuracy pertain to political, moral/religious, and literary/gossipy affectations, with none of them really striving for impartiality/neutrality in their descriptions of the death of Caesar. Everyone had a bone to pick, but you accept these very late sources as being effectively accurate on the basics. You are willing to reach that conclusion despite the various evidentiary deficiencies I have pointed to time and again. I think you can do the same with the Witnesses to the Book of Mormon, but you don't want to. Some competent, first-hand evidence about the Plates has been lost, namely, the Plates themselves. You attribute this to "because Joseph Smith chose to withhold it." The Latter-day Saints attribute this to God (Moroni retrieved the plates). In any event, the result is sort of the same as above: primary evidence is missing. But not all evidence. If you are entitled to rely on the purported writings of Nicolaus and Suetonius and such as "evidence," then you can also rely on the "evidence" we have been discussing relative to the Plates: The Testimony of the Three Witnesses and the Eight Witnesses is evidence, as is the historical information about the character and credibility of these people. The statements of the "unofficial" witnesses are evidence, as is the historical information about the character and credibility of these people. The subsequent affirmations by the various witnesses (particularly David Whitmer) is evidence. Textual elements are evidence. You are speaking as if we are operating in the absence of any evidence. That doesn't work. You can argue that the extant evidence is insufficient, but you can't credibly say it is absent. And once you do that, you are free to "answer these questions" much in the same way you answer questions about the death of Caesar: by examining extant evidence. Question #19: The stabbing implements used to kill Caesar were also "never independently examined." At least, we have no extant evidence of such. And yet based on late sources (Nicolaus, etc.), you have accepted that such implements existed and were used to kill Caesar. How do you square that acceptance with your apparent requirement that the Plates be "independently examined"? Also, I think the Plates were independently examined. The Witnesses were each shown the Plates and reached their own, never-recanted conclusions. This includes folks like David Whitmer, who was about as "independent" from Joseph Smith as anyone, for decades on end. Same goes for Emma and Mary Whitmer, whose interaction with the Plates was not coordinated or planned by Joseph Smith. The sources about Caesar's death were not "neutral," either, yet you accept their late statements as accurate anyway. Many of which witnesses later dissociated from Joseph and yet never recanted, and instead reaffirmed, their statements about the Plates. Emma's interaction with the Plates was not "under controlled conditions." Joseph did not "control" Mary Whitmer's interaction with the Plates either. You could also speculate that the absence of first-hand information about Caesar's death is also "convenient." Plenty of people had axes to grind, both for and against Caesar. And yet you don't disparage the late sources about Caesar's death on the grounds that the first-hand sources "conveniently disappeared from the world." Moreover, returning the Plates to Moroni makes perfect sense in the Latter-day Saint paradigm. It's a feature, not a bug. We are supposed to accept the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ on faith, not on metallurgical analysis. Yours. The Testimony of the Three Witnesses and the Eight Witnesses is evidence, as is the historical information about the character and credibility of these people. The statements of the "unofficial" witnesses are evidence, as is the historical information about the character and credibility of these people. The subsequent affirmations by the various witnesses (particularly David Whitmer) is evidence. Textual elements are evidence. You are speaking as if we are operating in the absence of any evidence. That's just not so. You can base your assessment of the Plates on the extant evidence pertaining thereto, as you do with your assessment of the death of Caesar and associated "evidence." That's a bad thing. But that's not what happened here. Joseph did not "withhold" evidence. He explained where it went. Moreover, he went out of his way to procure other evidence, namely, the Three Witnesses and the Eight Witnesses. Your spoliation analogy doesn't hold. That is simply not so. We have evidence we can evaluate: The Testimony of the Three Witnesses and the Eight Witnesses is evidence, as is the historical information about the character and credibility of these people. The statements of the "unofficial" witnesses are evidence, as is the historical information about the character and credibility of these people. The subsequent affirmations by the various witnesses (particularly David Whitmer) is evidence. Textual elements are evidence. Joseph went out of his way to facilitate these things. That goes to the sufficiency of the evidence, and I'm not asking you about that. I am, instead, asking that you lay out a positive, coherent alternative explanation for the Book of Mormon, centering on evidence about the Plates, the Witnesses and the Text, and which explanation accounts for key data points without heavy speculation, while claiming empirical rigor. And you are not doing it. The Plates and the Witnesses are very relevant. As relevant as Nicolaus and Suetonius are to the information we have about the death of Caesar. That's just not so. If the "nature of the plates" is as Joseph described them, then the object he had was not an artifact of his own making. If the object was not a hoax, then it was one of the greatest archaeological discoveries in history, on par with the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Rosetta Stone, King Tut's Tomb, etc. If the object was not a hoax, then its origins must be accounted for. Joseph Smith did that accounting. What alternative explanation do critics have? Hard to say, since the one in this thread is effectively stonewalling any inquiry along those lines. Smac, I think you're conflating several things that need to stay separate. Not really. I think discussing the Plates and the Witnesses is a very worthwhile endeavor. We can discuss textual evidences later. Right. But you cannot or will not present a theory as to what that object was, who made it, when, of what materials, for what purpose, etc. The Latter-day Saints have presented their explanation. I am asking critics, with the benefit of nearly 200 years of hindsight, particularly the self-declared "empiricist" in this thread, to present a positive, coherent alternative explanation for The Book of Mormon that accounts for the key data points (physical plates, witness statements, text origins/translation process) without heavy speculation, while claiming empirical rigor. Okay. Now the next narrow question. How did they describe that "something," and do you find their descriptions reliable and accurate? If not, why not? In particular, what do you have to say about David Whitmer? He didn't just say he "saw something." Here is what he did say: You have previously agreed that Whitmer and Martin Harris were both A) not "insane" and B) "sincere," and C) not "duped." And I surmise that you would also postulate that they were D) largely factually inaccurate in their official statement (there was no angel, no voice from heaven). Question #21: Given that Whitmer said a lot more than "I saw something," and given that you agree that Whitmer was sane and sincere and not tricked ("duped"), how do you account for his statements above? As do I. And probably for the same reasons. We have sufficient, albeit deeply flawed, historiographical evidence and information available to allow for a reasonable inference that Caesar was stabbed to death on the floor of the Roman Senate on the Ides of March. History seldom gives us pristine and overwhelming and unequivocal evidence. It's often flawed in one way or another. We work with what we've got. We also have sufficient, and markedly superior, historiographical evidence and information available to allow for a reasonable inference that the Eight Witnesses saw something they described as follows: And the Three Witnesses: If you have evidence of multiple sets of plates (one set for the Three Witnesses, another for the Eight Witnesses), please feel free to share it. I think critics are hard-pressed enough with the burden of rationalizing the notion that Joseph had the means to produce one set. One steeped in ancient Roman politics. Religion and politics are both powerful influences in our lives. We can let our religious and/or our political ideologies and biases affect how we see the world and interpret things. So is The Book of Mormon. Lehi came from Jerusalem. So did Mulek. The Jaredites came from the Tower of Babel. If that's not "an extraordinarily dense web of interconnected history," I don't know what is. Evidence of what? Caesar's death? How do you figure that? So does Joseph's narrative about the Plates. So do the various statements from the Witnesses about the Plates. So do the various historical evidences we have about the Witnesses' character and credibility. This stuff coheres to each other really well. What does not "fit," what does not "cohere" is the critics' various alternative explanations. Were there actual plates, or not? Were the plates a cheap-looking sham, or a highly-sophisticated prop? Were the Witnesses telling the truth or lying? Were the Witnesses percipient or drugged? Were the Witnesses percipient or hypnotized? Were the Witnesses percipient or in a religious frenzy? And on and on. Critics have had 200 years to formulate a coherent alternative narrative about The Book of Mormon. I find it increasingly interesting that not only have they manifestly failed to do so, the best and brightest of them - you - are effectively quitting the field without even trying. I agree, but I think we differ as to the degree of that difference mattering. For that matter, the whole "what if we were in a trial" thing has been largely a waste of time because it posits a venue for examining evidence about a topic that has no business examining either the topic nor the evidence. The difference matters. What "corroboration" do we have for the death of Caesar? Meanwhile, we do have corroboration about the Plates: The Testimony of the Three Witnesses and the Eight Witnesses is evidence, as is the historical information about the character and credibility of these people. The statements of the "unofficial" witnesses are evidence, as is the historical information about the character and credibility of these people. The subsequent affirmations by the various witnesses (particularly David Whitmer) is evidence. Textual elements are evidence. You find this corroboration insufficient, and that's fine. They are increasingly corroborated by what we know. Ancient records engraved on gold-looking metal plates bound by rings and concealed under the earth in a stone box “Land of Jerusalem” Old World Steel in the Book of Mormon Cement in the New World Paanch[i] and Pahor[an] as names derived from ancient Egyptian Alma as an authentic ancient Semitic male name. Etymology of "Jershon" Etymology of "Shilum" Etymology of "Sheum" Etymology of "Nahom" Nahom (location in the Arabian Peninsula) Bountiful (relative to Nahom in the Arabian Peninsula) Barley in the Book of Mormon Chiasmus Hebraisms Colphons Wordprint Studies Internal geospatial consistency Internal chronological consistency Seal of Mulek Complex warfare patterns, fortifications, and military tactics (e.g., earthworks, ditches matching some Mesoamerican sites) And the list keeps growing. See also here (from Matthew Roper) : As Daniel Peterson put it: "It’s amazing what Joseph Smith was able to pick up on the western frontier.” It is indeed. Happy to discuss these another time. For now, I'd like to stick with trying to discern whether critics can, after nearly 200 years, present a positive, coherent alternative explanation for The Book of Mormon that accounts for the key data points (physical plates, witness statements, text origins/translation process) without heavy speculation, while claiming empirical rigor. In particular, I'd like to keep trying to understand your assessment of the Witnesses and the Plates. You can credibly claim this never happened? Are you sure about that? Moreover, the Nephite recordkeepers acknowledge that their writing system was difficult/impractical. They did it anyway for a particular purpose. In any event, the Latter-day Saints don't claim that one person "wrote a long history book." Rather, we claim that a bunch of authors kept records of wildly differing lengths (Chemish wrote one verse, Alma wrote enough to cover 36 chapters), and that Mormon compiled and abridged these various documents into one consolidated record: The Gold Plates. And yet we have quite a few examples of record-keeping on metal plates or scrolls. Examples of Ancient Gold or Metal Plates Book of Mormon Evidence: Egyptian Metal Plates Sacred Writing on Metal Plates in the Ancient Mediterranean Metal Plates Discovered – Evidences It has been done. And so we do. It seems like you are appealing to some sort of argumentum ad populum fallacy, of the "Because most people believe it, it must be so" variety. And not just that, but also the character and credibility of the Witnesses. And their subsequent circumstances and incentives to recant (though none did). David Whitmer sure seems to be worth some scrutiny on your part. Not just their number and sincerity. We also need to look at their character and credibility. Question #20: Also, weren't you just a few pages ago claiming that the narrative about Caesar's death is validated/corroborated because multiple sources talk about it? How does that reasoning not apply to the Witnesses? Not all of them. Emma's interaction with the Plates was not "curated" by Joseph, nor was Mary Whitmer's. I have raised this point numerous times, and you have never addressed it. Further, several of the Witnesses, despite being "curated," thereafter dissociated with and condemned Joseph, and yet still retained their testimonial declarations. That, in my view, heavily counterbalances your "curated by Joseph" line of reasoning (which I find meritorious to some extent). And I have brought this up a lot, and you have never addressed it. Everyone in that community had every incentive to align with Joseph Smith's narrative? Are you sure you want to go with that? Most people in Joseph's community had only scoffs and scorns for his "narrative." And quite a few of the Witnesses fell out with Joseph, and were persecuted and otherwise heavily incentivized to recant their alignment with Joseph's narrative. And yet they did not. You have yet to meaningfully address this issue. That's demonstrably false. Several of the witnesses were "cross-examined" about their statements, most notably David Whitmer. We are also bereft of "independent examination ... by a trained expert" of the death of Caesar, and yet you accept that anyway. You keep saying this as if it is an anomaly that is incongruent with Joseph's narrative. It isn't. God wants us to "walk by faith, not by sight." Christians have no "independent examination ... by a trained expert" of the miracles of Jesus Christ, and they don't expect to. That's not part of the paradigm. It's supposed to not be part of the paradigm. In any event, most things cannot be "settled ... conclusively" via "independent examination ... by a trained expert." Your insistence of that for the Plates and the Witnesses and The Book of Mormon is special pleading. So was the resurrected Jesus Christ. And the stabbing implements used to kill Caesar have never been verified, yet you accept their existence based on uneven and inferior historiographical evidence anyway. Joseph did not "withhold" the Plates. He returned them to Moroni. And you have zero evidence that he did so for spoliation purposes. In a legal setting, sure. In a historiographical setting, what your saying here is impractical. Whether by design or happenstance, most "decisive evidence" of important events of yesteryear are lost without having been independently examined by trained experts. Your ongoing attribution of perfidious intent onto Joseph is understandable, but it doesn't jibe with his extensive efforts to show the Plates to the Three Witnesses, to the Eight Witnesses, giving the translation to Martin Harris, letting Martin Harris take transcribed characters to Charles Anthon, and so on. If Joseph had intended to take a "You'll just have to take my word for it, and mine alone"-style approach to the Plates, he would not have done these things. I don't think so. But I'm okay with differing with you on that. Indeed he would, but not for the reason you imply. She (see how egalitarian I am? ) would "rightly throw it out summarily, without any examination of the evidence one way or another, on Ecclesiastical Abstention grounds. We have seen a real-world demonstration of this in the Gaddy lawsuit. It's not remotely inconvenient for me. I think it's becoming somewhat embarrassing for you to stick with this line of reasoning, as it exposes just how unfamiliar you are with the American legal system. Nope. Judges don't adjudicate religious disputes, so "what if we were in court"-style hypotheticals have very little value. No. I have never argued — and I do not believe — that a competent historian would accept the internal narrative of the Book of Mormon (including the story of Abinadi’s trial and execution by King Noah) with the same or greater certitude as the assassination of Julius Caesar. Those are two different categories of evidence, and I have drawn no such comparison in this thread (though now that you bring it up, it could be an interesting exercise in exploring the rules of historiographical analysis and their limitations when discussing matters of religious faith). I didn’t know that. Um, then why did you impute it onto me? I take historians as they are situated. Just as I take judges for how they are situated. Neither is situated to evaluate, in a polemical/apologetic context, the points we have been discussing about the Plates and the Witnesses. That is not the role they play in society. As it is, though, there are a lot of scientists and lawyers and judges and scholars of various stripes who excel in their respective disciplines and also accept The Book of Mormon for what it claims to be. I have? Where? Yes. And on what basis did they say that? They hadn't the skill to read the text, nor did they affirm this because it was what Joseph told them. Rather... Now, you are free to believe or not believe them. I understand why you would not. That said, I sure would like to see you provide a positive, coherent alternative explanation for The Book of Mormon that accounts for the key data points (physical plates, witness statements, text origins/translation process) without heavy speculation, while claiming empirical rigor. You're all about the empiricism, after all. And you have nearly 200 years of your predecessor critics to draw upon. And you have remarkable resources in terms of online content and AI platforms to help you parse all this out. And you still cannot or will not present an alternative explanation beyond "tin" and "I don't know." Historians qua historians? No. But people who are historians and are also interested in examining the religious and philosophical teachings of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, and who are willing to read The Book of Mormon, ponder its message, pray about it, and seek guidance from God about it? Yes, I think they can and should also review the statements of the Witnesses as part of the truth-finding process. Thanks, -Smac

Evidence pertaining to the Church's narrative about The Book of Mormon, the Plates, and the Witnesses' statements, and of alternative narratives. Again, I have asked that you provide a positive, coherent alternative explanation for The Book of Mormon that accounts for the key data points (physical plates, witness statements, text origins/translation process) without heavy speculation, while claiming empirical rigor. Now you are claiming that you are confused about my request? We've already resolved this issue in a fundamental sense. We both agree that he had a physical object answering to the (physical) descriptions left by Joseph and the various witnesses. We differ in the origins of this object. I think this is actually a pretty big deal, as critics have previously theorized about mass delusion / hallucination, hypnosis, drugs, conspiracy, etc. Yes, I have been asking these questions a lot. I already know what the Church teaches, and what apologists have advanced as contextualizations and such (e.g., tumbaga). The Church's position is based on evidence ("data points") in the form of statements from the Witnesses about the Plates, and from historical evidence pertaining to the witnesses, and also "textual" evidences from the translated work, and also evidences associated therewith (e.g., Bountiful, the seal of Mulek, Chiasmus, Hebraisms, NHM, etc.). I am now asking whether you have a positive (as in, something more than the Dale Morgan-esque "not that" assertions), coherent alternative explanation for The Book of Mormon that accounts for the key data points (physical plates, witness statements, text origins/translation process) without heavy speculation, while claiming empirical rigor. I thought I had been pretty clear about this. But we're on the same page now. In your view, what was the object (the "Plates") made of, when was it made, and who made it? These are all very good questions. Let's systematize them a bit: Assuming the "Plates" were a 19th-century hoax or something comparable (and not, as Joseph claimed, an ancient and authentic artifact), what were the plates made of? We already know what the Church and apologists have to say. What do you have to say? Proceeding on the same foregoing assumption, when was this sham object made/fabricated? Using what materials and resources? Proceeding on the same foregoing assumption, who was involved in the procuring of materials and the fabrication of the object, and when? Was it just Joseph (per Vogel), or were others involved? If others, who were they? What was their motive? Why did they never publicly disclose the hoax? Proceeding on the same foregoing assumption, how do you square your alternative explanation with the statements of the Three Witnesses, the Three Witnesses and the informal witnesses (Emma, Mary Whitmer, etc.)? Proceeding on the same foregoing assumption, how do you square your alternative explanation with historical information and evidence we have regarding the character and credibility of the witnesses (both official and unofficial)? What evidence do you have to support your answers to the preceding paragraphs? You and I have argued a lot over the years, and I have occasionally become uncivil. While direct critiques of arguments are fair game, I have overstepped the bounds of civility far too often. I am working on that, and I apologize for my past excesses. I hope the foregoing questions are formulated in a way that allows you to respond to them in substantive ways. I am happy to explore this issue with you. This seems to be duplicative of Issue 2. Okay. I propose we address Issue 1 and set aside Issues 2 and 3 for another day. I also propose that we include in Issue 1 your assessment of the Witnesses. Joseph Smith aside, virtually everything we know about the Plates come from witnesses who were percipient witnesses of one stripe or another, or second-hand sources about percipient witnesses. Understood. Nevertheless, I would like to hear what alternative explanation you do have and/or hold to, regardless of whether you feel strongly about it, and understanding that you do not have "good evidence" supporting it. I have asked that you provide a positive, coherent alternative explanation for The Book of Mormon that accounts for the key data points (physical plates, witness statements, text origins/translation process) without heavy speculation, while claiming empirical rigor. It looks like "heavy speculation" is going to be fairly abundant in whatever alternative explanation you have, and "empirical rigor" is going to be fairly absent. The best i can hope for, then, is "a positive, coherent alternative explanation for The Book of Mormon that accounts for the key data points (physical plates, witness statements, text origins/translation process)." Yes, you've said this a few times. Let's first establish a baseline for the discussion. I am asking that you provide a positive, coherent alternative explanation for The Book of Mormon that accounts for the key data points (physical plates, witness statements, text origins/translation process). At this point, I am not expecting you to refrain from "heavy speculation" (since it seems you have no choice but resort to it). I am also not expecting anything like "empirical rigor" from your alternative explanation (since it's just going to be guesswork and speculation on your part). If you are unwilling to provide an alternative explanation for The Book of Mormon, just say so and we can wrap up this exercise. But please stop being circumlocutory about it. Just decline my request and we can move on. Alternatively, you can address the bulleted items above. Let's save these for another day. Can you clarify what you mean here? Yes. I wrote this to Grok: The response (substantially tweaked by me) : All this is augmented by textual evidences, IMO. And we aren't even discussing those yet. I am saying that the historical evidence for the plates as described by the Witnesses is, by essentially every metric, cumulatively superior to the historical evidence regarding the assassination of Julius Caesar. I am saying that you, a self-described empiricist, are pretty inconsistent in when and how you deploy your supposed empiricist-minded proclivities. I am saying that you take as established historical fact, without question, that Caesar was murdered in the way described by Suetonius et al. Yet both the quality and quantity of this evidence is markedly inferior to that of the evidence pertaining to the Plates. I am saying that the Witnesses are a very sticky wicket for persons such as yourself. You can't account for them, and also cannot account for the Plates. Nor can you account for the text itself. However you account for these things, your accounting is based on presuppositions and hostile speculation, and not on the substantive evidence. You cannot or will not engage the evidence for the Plates in the same way you engage evidence for other things (such as Caesar's assassination). No. I have never argued — and I do not believe — that a competent historian would accept the internal narrative of the Book of Mormon (including the story of Abinadi’s trial and execution by King Noah) with the same or greater certitude as the assassination of Julius Caesar. Those are two different categories of evidence, and I have drawn no such comparison in this thread (though now that you bring it up, it could be an interesting exercise in exploring the rules of historiographical analysis and their limitations when discussing matters of religious faith). My argument has been focused, more or less, on this: “How strong is the external, documentary evidence that a set of physical plates actually existed in 1829, that they were shown to named witnesses, and that the witnesses’ descriptions of the plates (appearance of gold, ancient workmanship, engravings on both sides, ring binding, substantial weight, etc.) are substantively accurate?” On that limited question, the cumulative external record is materially stronger than the evidence for Caesar’s assassination. We have: Multiple named percipient witnesses (Three + Eight + several unofficial), Immediate publication of their signed testimonies (1830 Book of Mormon), Decades of consistent reaffirmation — even by bitter apostates like David Whitmer, Full biographical transparency and real-time hostile cross-examination by contemporary critics, No recantations despite strong motive to do so. The descriptions of the Plates’ appearance and physical characteristics are not vague or contradictory, and are instead detailed and consistent across independent witnesses. Moreover, what makes the external evidence especially robust is the specificity and sophistication of the witnesses’ descriptions of the artifact. They did not say “Joseph showed us some shiny metal sheets” or (per Vogel) "Joseph had something hidden under a cloth, and he only let us take a quick obscured look." Instead, they described: Plates with “the appearance of gold” (bright, metallic luster), “Fine workmanship” and “curious engravings” on both sides that looked ancient and deliberate, A bound volume (three D-shaped rings) roughly 6 × 8 inches, 4–6 inches thick when stacked, Substantial weight (40–60 lbs), and leaves that could be turned like a book. These are not vague or easily faked details. They describe a deeply impressive and sophisticated physical object — one that would require real metallurgical skill, precise engraving tools, and careful finishing to replicate convincingly, even briefly. A 23-year-old, barely-literate, dirt-poor farmer living in rustic 1820s western New York — with no access to professional metalworking shops, gilding materials, or advanced engraving equipment — producing a convincing sham that matched all these descriptions is extraordinarily difficult to credit. Contemporary critics who knew Joseph personally (and who desperately wanted to expose a fraud) never produced a plausible “how he did it” explanation that fits the witnesses’ consistent, detailed accounts. The sophistication of the object the witnesses described actually militates against the idea of a simple homemade tin prop by an uneducated farm boy. Whatever the ultimate source of the plates, the external evidence points to something far more impressive than a rustic hoax. The Abinadi story (or any other internal narrative in the Book of Mormon), by contrast, is purely internal to the translated text. It has: No external witnesses, No independent corroboration outside the volume itself, No chain of custody or provenance beyond Joseph Smith’s translation claim. A secular historian can therefore accept the plates as a well-attested 19th-century physical object (with accurate descriptions from named eyewitnesses) while remaining entirely agnostic — or skeptical — about the ancient historicity of the stories translated from them. The two issues are separable. Conflating them is a category error. So to answer you directly: I am not claiming any historian should believe Abinadi’s death with more (or even equal) confidence than Caesar’s. I am only saying that the external, documentary evidence for the physical existence of the plates and the accuracy of the witnesses’ descriptions meets or exceeds ordinary secular standards applied to ancient events like Caesar’s death. If your standard is high enough to accept Caesar on the surviving sources, consistency requires acknowledging that the plates’ external evidence is at least as good — or better — on the points I have raised. I would prefer to continue a discussion about the Plates and the Witnesses. Thanks, -Smac

Just asked Grok this: The response: I'm quite curious about this. I wonder if it would be feasible to attempt a Vogel-esque sham by using only those materials and methods likely to be available to Joseph and his contemporaries. Looks like someone already did this (maybe) : Mr. Told used sheet metal (which he says would be pretty close to tin), cut them up with shears (which would have been available in the 1820s), etc. The results: His item "weighs about 37 pounds." "Very difficult to scratch ... very difficult to actually do characters on it without a hammer and engraving tool." He also thinks copper could have worked, and that would have been heavier than tin. The "sealed portion" was probably sealed to eliminate the need to have those plates engraved. Says that gold plates would weigh about 140 pounts. Said he is looking for ways to make plates look "golden." They would rust very easily. He concludes that Joseph could have fabricated the plates. It only took a few hours. They do not discuss tumbaga. This came out 5 years ago (January 2021), with no follow-up video re: engraving, making the plates look "golden," using copper, etc. Thanks, -Smac

Sure. But how did he get these purportedly tin plates to have "the appearance of gold"? Vogel says he painted them yellow. Are you on board with that explanation? Thanks, -Smac

After 200 years, you'd think that critics would have found some sort of alternative, and coherent, and evidence-based explanation that accounts for the extant evidence. Not sure what you are saying here. The text of The Book of Mormon does not exist? The Witness statements do not exist? The historical evidence we have regarding the credibility and character of the Witnesses does not exist? Richard Lloyd Anderson's book does not exist? You have agreed that there is sufficient evidence for the propositions that Whitmer and Harris were both A) not "insane" and B) "sincere," and C) not "duped." Now you are saying that evidence for these conclusions does not exist? How, then, did you reach these conclusions? You have already stated that Joseph had a physical object. We agree on that much. How do you account for that object's origins? What was it made of? Who made it? When? Where? By what means? Using what materials? Was the object, in your theory, a cheap and gaudy and obvious sham, or was it sophisticated and well-made? You seem to be moving the goalposts. The Latter-day Saints don't have the Plates either, but we do have an explanation as to the origins of The Book of Mormon. That explanation accounts for the extant evidence. We have provided a positive, coherent explanation for The Book of Mormon that accounts for the key data points (physical plates, witness statements, text origins/translation process) without heavy speculation, while claiming empirical rigor. I have asked you to provide an alternative explanation along these same lines. You are unwilling or unable to articulate one. Do you also "believe him" when he said these things? "{W}e, through the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the plates which contain this record... And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true. And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates; and they have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man. And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true. And it is marvelous in our eyes. Nevertheless, the voice of the Lord commanded us that we should bear record of it; wherefore, to be obedient unto the commandments of God, we bear testimony of these things." “My testimony to the world is written concerning the Book of Mormon, and it is the same that I gave at first and it is the same as shall stand to my latest hour in life, linger with me in death and shine as Gospel Truth beyond the limits of life.” “My testimony to the Book of Mormon is true and I am admonished neither to add to nor take from my testimony already appended to the Book.” “Those who know me best, well know that I have adhered to that testimony.—And that no man may be misled or doubt my present views in regard to the same, I do now again affirm the truth of all my statement[s], as then made and published.” “I did see the angel of God, and was commanded to testify of these things, and they are true.” “You ask me if I saw the Angel when he brought the plates. I saw the Angel when he brought the plates, and the Angel told us that we must bear testimony to the world, as contained in my testimony written in the Book of Mormon. Doubt not—sister—the Book of Mormon is the word of God.” "I saw the angel as plainly as I see you; he was surrounded by the glory of God, which overshadowed us, and we heard his voice, and we saw the records of the Book of Mormon...My testimony is the same as at the beginning, as is true." "I saw them just as plain as I see this bed (striking his hand upon the bed beside him), and I heard the voice of the Lord as distinctly as I ever heard anything in my life declaring that they (the plates) were translated by the gift and power of God." "How well and distinctly I remember the manner in which Elder Whitmer arose and drew himself up to his full height--a little over six feet--and said, in solemn and impressive tones: 'No sir! I was not under any hallucination, nor was I deceived! I saw with these eyes, and I heard with these ears! I know whereof I speak!'" I don’t know what that means. This is a depressingly common rhetorical gimmick used these days. When a respondent can answer a question, but does not want to because he thinks it will weaken his argument/position, he evades answering it by claiming confusion or ignorance or lack of basic comprehension skills. You said: You are quoting seven words from this quote: So you understand what Whitmer meant, sufficient to allow you to understand his meaning, but only as to those seven words? And you are simultaneously incapable of understand Whitmer's words, recorded in English, as to the rest of the statement? You are also incapable of understanding these statements? When Whitmer said "I saw the angel as plainly as I see you" you don't know what that means? When Whitmer said "'I saw them {the Plates} just as plain as I see this bed' (striking his hand upon the bed beside him)," you don't know what that means? When Whitmer said "I was not under any hallucination, nor was I deceived! I saw with these eyes, and I heard with these ears! I know whereof I speak!," you don't know what that means? The same Plates under discussion in this thread. You said: "He said he saw the plates 'in a vision or in the spirit.' I believe him." So "the plates" were sufficiently defined for you to make this statement when accounting for seven of Whitmer's words, but otherwise "the plates" are "ill-defined" as to anything else Whitmer has to say? Are you sure about that? He's talking about the Plates he saw. The ones you were referencing when you said "I believe him." More of the feigned ignorance/confusion stuff. Yes. This happened on September 22, 1827. This is common knowledge stuff. That you are pretending to be confused about or unaware of it does not strengthen your argument. I don't think we have a day-by-day account of where Joseph kept the Plates while they were in his possession. A Grok summary from this article: The experience of the Three Witnesses occurred in late June 1829 (perhaps on June 28). Joseph was, at this time, staying with the Whitmers at their farm in Fayette, New York, having moved there from Harmony, Pennsylvania around early June 1829. Apparently Joseph returned the Plates to Moroni rather than have them with him on this journey. See here and also here: Per this timeline, Joseph generally had possession of the Plates during June, 1829 in Fayette, which is when the translation was completed, and also when the Three Witnesses and the Eight Witnesses had their respective experiences. During this time it appears that Joseph kept the Plates in a chest or box (see here). I don't think we know the particulars. But c'mon. Joseph only claimed to have one artifact answering to the description of "plates." Yes. Okay. Why would you speculate in that way? Also, what do you mean by "magical"? Anything significant? Or is that just a pejorative dig? Whitmer tied his statements together. His later statements ratified his attestation as one of the Three Witnesses. You can form an opinion about Joseph having an object answering to the description of the Plates, but cannot do so when evaluating Whitmer's statements about the Plates? Why? What is the source of your confusion? You believe Caesar was stabbed to death, right? You have formed an opinion about that topic, even though you don't have much information about the particulars of the stabbing implements. You do? How many stabbing implements were there? Was Brutus one of the ones doing the stabbing, or was he only standing nearby? How do you know "exactly" what we're "talking about" when it comes to Suetonius' record made 165 years after the fact, but not when we're discussing David Whitmer? Whitmer's attestations are far more reliable. Again, you have agreed that Whitmer and Harris were both A) not "insane" and B) "sincere," and C) not "duped." Now you are backtracking in your assessment? David Whitmer, Martin Harris. Gold Plates. Extensively described by Joseph Smith and numerous other witnesses. Their appearance, color, size, dimensions, weight, engravings, binding rings, sealed portion, and so on. Fayette, New York, near the Whitmer farm. June 28, 1829 (or thereabouts). So are David Whitmer, Martin Harris, the Plates, the Whitmer farm, and the date. The Angel was Moroni. I suppose there could have been more than one angelic ministrant, but I doubt it. The "plates" are very well-defined things. "God" is also quite well-defined in the Latter-day Saint paradigm. "The power of God" is, I grant you, not really well-defined. Do you really need me to explain why historians believe Caesar was assassinated on the Senate floor in 44 B.C. but don't believe that Moroni, an ancient Central American, buried a golden book in upstate New York for Joseph Smith to find? Dodge. I have asked that you provide a positive, coherent alternative explanation for The Book of Mormon that accounts for the key data points (physical plates, witness statements, text origins/translation process) without heavy speculation, while claiming empirical rigor. You took some limited steps toward that, and I appreciate that. But you haven't gone very far. And you are stonewalling attempts to examine what little you have provided. Again: No, that's the best you are willing to do. We can examine the evidence for the above witnesses. We can examine their statements and compare/contrast them with each other. We can examine the circumstances surrounding their interactions with the Plates. We can examine the biographical information we have about these people so as to gauge their credibility and character (which we notably can't due for Suetonius, whose gossipy, non-percipient, uncorroborated, unsourced, 165-years-after-the-fact Say-So you nevertheless accept without question). Mighty selective in when and where you deploy this "honesty and epistemic humility." It apparently keeps you from postulating about Joseph's narrative, but not from a "Space Aliens and/or Satan are 'More Likely'"-style assessment. Suetonius presents a gossipy, non-percipient, uncorroborated, unsourced, 165-years-after-the-fact Say-So, and your response is to examine it, contextualize it, and accept its veracity as established. I that's good, since we can only work with what we've got. "Honesty and epistemic humility" allows us to examine historical evidence after all. But only about Caesar, it seems. We have David Whitmer and numerous percipient witnesses (and several second- and third-hand witnesses), who gave official and unofficial statements, both near-in-time to the events and later in their lifetimes (including when several were estranged from Joseph), whose statements have no real provenance issues, and about whom we have substantial biographical information as to their character and credibility, and your response is "we have very, very little reliable evidence of what the witnesses really saw and why they signed the witness statements," and that we have "a dearth of evidence" which precludes us from any substantive examination, so that "the best we can do is speculate or say 'I don't know,'" and that this amounts to "honesty and epistemic humility." I think it amounts to a massive dodge and cop-out on your part. I think you are one of the most well-versed critics of the Church. You are lightyears ahead, in both information and intellect, of lightweights like Dehlin and Reel and anonymous online RFMers and ExMo redditors. With some few exceptions (Sandra Tanner, Dan Vogel, maybe a few others), I think you are at or near the top of the Anti-Mormon heap. You are the best situated to be a resource for someone to approach with a request for a positive, coherent alternative explanation for the Book of Mormon, centering on evidence about the Plates, the Witnesses and the Text, and which explanation accounts for key data points without heavy speculation, while claiming empirical rigor. And you won't do it. Latter-day Saint scholars have brought the receipts. They are willing to examine evidences you deny even exist, despite their historical provenance being beyond reasonable dispute. They have published voluminous resources and made them readily available to the world. You are not willing to examine these same evidences, claiming that "honesty and epistemic humility" prevents you from even trying (except, it seems, for "Space Aliens" and "Satan," which you are willing to publicly declare to be "more likely" explanations). Well, okay. Roger, I know this is a tough topic. Despite what I perceive as rhetorical evasions and distractions, I appreciate your willingness to talk about this stuff. You are operating under a set of atheistic/agnostic/naturalistic presuppositions that you have had for a very long time, that you are very comfortable with and confident in, and so on. But those presuppositions are, I think, impeding you from bringing your otherwise substantial intellect and knowledge based to bear on the topic under discussion, specifically, to articulate a positive, coherent alternative explanation for the Book of Mormon, centering on evidence about the Plates, the Witnesses and the Text, and which explanation accounts for key data points without heavy speculation, while claiming empirical rigor. The Latter-day Saints have done this. You have not. At this point, I am concluding that it's not that you won't respond to my request, but that you can't. Despite decades of study and familiarity with the Church and its doctrines/history, and despite your extensive participation on this board, and despite your formidable intellect, you are demonstrating that you cannot meaningfully engage and address the substantive evidence pertaining to the Witnesses and the Plates (and we have barely touched the text itself and evidences associated therewith). Again, Hugh Nibley nailed it: You scoff and heap scorn on Joseph's narrative and the Latter-day Saints who, through extensive spiritual and intellectual study, have accepted it as substantively true. And yet when you are invited to present a counter-narrative, you can't do it. You are reduced to arguing that Space Aliens and/or Satan are "more likely" explanations, to feigning ignorance/confusion, to issuing serialized "I don't know" responses to questions about your own theory, to resorting to special pleading all over the place, to constant ducking and weaving as to the evidentiary and logical flaws in your position, and so on. Nibley was quite right. The Book of Mormon has worn you out. You have nothing substantive to offer the Latter-day Saints better than what they already have as regarding the origins of The Book of Mormon. My invitation remains open. Thanks, -Smac

Pretty much. I find it interesting that critics, in the end, appear to relegate themselves to a variation on what Dale Mortgage said in 1945: "With my point of view on God, I am incapable of accepting the claims of Joseph Smith and the Mormons, be they however so convincing. If God does not exist, how can Joseph Smith’s story have any possible validity? I will look everywhere for explanations except to the ONE explanation that is the position of the church."" They are free to do that, but I find it intellectually vacuous, which is really interesting to me given that this topic is, in some ways, the sine qua non, the Ground Zero, of the claims of the Church. Pres. Benson really nailed it in 1986: The Latter-day Saints have spent the last 200 years incrementally building a plausible explanatory and evidentiary supplement to the voice of The Spirit. The former must never overshadow or take priority over the latter, but... I really want to "steelman" the critics' alternative theories about The Book of Mormon. We don't do ourselves any favors by only listening to voices who affirm what we already believe. Engaging our critics at their best can help us in our search for truth, including refining our grasp of things we already hold to be true. It's been some years since I read Taves' stuff. I spent a bit of time listening to Vogel's pretty-darn-so-so explanations in his Dehlin interview, but Dehlin is just a cheerleader, not an interlocutor, so perhaps Vogel was not at his best. I need to go back and read his substantive stuff. I'll keep going in this thread, and I hope we can glean some valuable stuff from it. Thanks, -Smac

Or I can remain ambivalent, since I have not given the matter any real thought or investigation. Thanks, -Smac

I have not. No time at all, in fact. @Analytics, in contrast, has spent thousands of posts and who knows how much time and effort in examining the claims of the Church. We have nearly 200 years of criticism of The Book of Mormon. Yet no plausible counter-explanation for it. I find that to be pretty interesting. Or, alternatively, I would have thought he would have reviewed what other critics have postulated as counter theories and ratified/endorsed the better of these as more likely. I wouldn't take a global position on such matters. I am open to some being hoaxes or hallucinatory or some such, and I am also open to some of them being truly miraculous, or grounded in the miraculous. The Lord doesn't work just with the Latter-day Saints. Thanks, -Smac

I am trying. The above questions have been responsive to your various statements in this thread. No, they're not. Yes, they are. Again, you said: "If you give me a list of questions, I'll answer them honestly and directly, just like I did in my prior post." I responded: You have posted your conclusions. Fine. I am asking you to explain the reasoning and evidentiary analysis that has made you reach those conclusions. Or you could just explain those things without being prompted. And you could also explain how extant evidence interacts with your a priori beliefs and your correlated conclusions. I am giving you every opportunity to lay out a positive, coherent alternative explanation for the Book of Mormon, centering on evidence about the Plates, the Witnesses and the Text, and which explanation accounts for key data points without heavy speculation, while claiming empirical rigor. And you are not doing it. You asked for "a list of questions," saying that you would "answer them honestly and directly." I have provided that list, and you are not answering them. I've never heard of it until just now. I am quite open to miraculous events in other faith traditions. I am also open to such events being fabricated or delusional. I neither categorically accept nor reject such things. I also tend to be fairly ambivalent about such things, as I am not really invested in proving or disproving such events. What does this have to do about you laying out a positive, coherent alternative explanation for the Book of Mormon, centering on evidence about the Plates, the Witnesses and the Text, and which explanation accounts for key data points without heavy speculation, while claiming empirical rigor? I have not given this matter any consideration, and have therefore not reached any particular conclusion about it. You have concluded that "some physical object probably existed." What is the evidentiary basis for this statement? I appreciate that you are not speaking definitively. You were not there, nor was I. But you were also not present at the Senate in ancient Rome, yet you have reached a conclusion (that Caesar was assassinated) based on evidence (Suetonius and other sources). So I think we can so something similar with the Witnesses and the Plates. As a Latter-day Saint, I also think that Joseph showed the Witnesses "some physical object." I think the alternative theories positing no physical object (mass delusion, drugging, hypnosis) are implausible applications of the extant evidence (the various Witness statements, and also historical evidence about the character and credibility of those people). So Spencer believes the plates were physical, were authentically ancient, and discovered via miraculous means, and I surmise that you do not believe these things. Instead, I surmise that you believe the plates were a 19th-century fabrication which ended up in the hands of Joseph Smith. Am I correct about that? If so, that is your theory about who fabricated the sham plates? Did Joseph make them, or were others involved? If so, who were these other people? What materials were used? Was the sham artifact an obvious hoax (like what you described in your seminary experience)? Or was it a sophisticated and well-made thing? Okay. What is the evidentiary basis for your proposal that Joseph was involved in the fabrication of sham plates? Were others involved? I don't want unadulterated speculation. I would like to see a positive, coherent alternative explanation for the Book of Mormon, centering on evidence about the Plates, the Witnesses and the Text, and which explanation accounts for key data points without heavy speculation, while claiming empirical rigor. I appreciate that this will entail some speculation, but it should be evidence-based if at all possible. You also don't "know" that Joseph was involved, but you have inferred that he was involved in the fabrication of the plates. Do you infer that he acted alone, or in concert with one or more other people? If the latter, then who else was involved? The knives purportedly used to kill Caesar are also absent, but you have reached evidence-based conclusions on that event anyway. Why are you not able to do the same with the considerably-better-sourced evidence for the Plates and the Witnesses? And if we had forensic evidence of Caesar's purported murder, we'd "know" more about that as well. But we don't have that evidence, so we work with what we've got. Huh. I guess stonewalling is the order of the day. I know either is possible. But which one fits your alternative theory? A sloppy hoax would be harder to reconcile with the Witness statements. A sophisticated hoax would be a better fit for the Witness statements (particularly that of the Eight Witnesses), but is more difficult to explain as far as who made it, of what materials, how, etc. Same here. Do you also "believe him" when he said these things? "{W}e, through the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the plates which contain this record... And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true. And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates; and they have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man. And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true. And it is marvelous in our eyes. Nevertheless, the voice of the Lord commanded us that we should bear record of it; wherefore, to be obedient unto the commandments of God, we bear testimony of these things." “My testimony to the world is written concerning the Book of Mormon, and it is the same that I gave at first and it is the same as shall stand to my latest hour in life, linger with me in death and shine as Gospel Truth beyond the limits of life.” “My testimony to the Book of Mormon is true and I am admonished neither to add to nor take from my testimony already appended to the Book.” “Those who know me best, well know that I have adhered to that testimony.—And that no man may be misled or doubt my present views in regard to the same, I do now again affirm the truth of all my statement[s], as then made and published.” “I did see the angel of God, and was commanded to testify of these things, and they are true.” “You ask me if I saw the Angel when he brought the plates. I saw the Angel when he brought the plates, and the Angel told us that we must bear testimony to the world, as contained in my testimony written in the Book of Mormon. Doubt not—sister—the Book of Mormon is the word of God.” "I saw the angel as plainly as I see you; he was surrounded by the glory of God, which overshadowed us, and we heard his voice, and we saw the records of the Book of Mormon...My testimony is the same as at the beginning, as is true." "I saw them just as plain as I see this bed (striking his hand upon the bed beside him), and I heard the voice of the Lord as distinctly as I ever heard anything in my life declaring that they (the plates) were translated by the gift and power of God." "How well and distinctly I remember the manner in which Elder Whitmer arose and drew himself up to his full height--a little over six feet--and said, in solemn and impressive tones: 'No sir! I was not under any hallucination, nor was I deceived! I saw with these eyes, and I heard with these ears! I know whereof I speak!'" I assume you are not lending credibility and probative weight to this statement. If so, please explain why. Please be specific. Again, I am looking for empirical rigor. Understood. How do you account for his other statements? Do you "believe him" about those? If not, why not? Well, you have said you have no evidence that Whitmer was insane, so that's out as an explanation (in your alternative theory). And now you are saying you do not "doubt" his "sincerity" (as in "free of deceit, hypocrisy, or falseness; earnest"). So if Whitmer was A) not "insane" about his experience with the Plates, and if he B) was also "free of deceit, hypocrisy, or falseness; earnest" about his experience with the Plates, how do you account for, e.g., these statements? "I have adhered to that testimony.—And that no man may be misled or doubt my present views in regard to the same, I do now again affirm the truth of all my statement[s], as then made and published." "I saw the angel as plainly as I see you..." "'I saw them just as plain as I see this bed (striking his hand upon the bed beside him), and I heard the voice of the Lord as distinctly as I ever heard anything in my life.'" "'No sir! I was not under any hallucination, nor was I deceived! I saw with these eyes, and I heard with these ears! I know whereof I speak!'" Do you "believe him" or not? If not, why not? Right. We work with what we've got. We do not have an "independent empirical verification, just as we do not have "independent empirical verification" of the physician autopsy reported by Suetonius. And yet you accept that report as historically accurate, even though it is only referenced in a separate document written many decades after the fact, by a gossipmonger, about the circumstances of the death of a hugely controversial politician, and based on who-knows-what documents that no longer exist for corroboration purposes. Why is that? Why do you accept Suetonius has a reliable historical reference? We do have a number of statements form David Whitmer, many of which came well after he was dissociated from Joseph Smith. And you are now on record saying that Whitmer was A) not inside, and B) sincere. And yet you do not accept those statements. Why? If they are not the product of insanity or dishonesty, and you do not accept them at face value, then how do you account for them? What does this mean? Sane, but deluded? Sane, but tricked? Sane, but in some temporary hallucinatory state? Then what is the right word? You have now said that Whitmer and Harris were both A) not "insane" and B) "sincere," and C) not "duped." And I surmise that you would also postulate that they were D) largely factually inaccurate in their official statement (there was no angel, no voice from heaven). So given A, B, C and D, how do you account for their statements about the Plates? I am asking you how you account for their attestations. You have made some helpful admissions/statements (A, B, C and D above), but you have not yet articulated a positive, coherent alternative explanation that accounts for the key data points (physical plates, witness statements, text origins/translation process) without heavy speculation, while also adhering to empirical, evidence-based rigor. You have looked at the evidence and concluded A, B, C, and D. I agree with A, B and C. D, however, is not a "positive, coherent alternative explanation." We all know that you are denying the factual verity of their Statements, but you are also not attributing those statements to insanity or insincerity or their having been "duped." So how do you account for their statements? Sincerity and good character go along way in terms of establishing the credibility of witnesses. Are you admitting, then, that the Witnesses were "credible"? If not, why not? Please be specific. Is that a "yes" or a "no"? If the former, please specify the evidence in support of that claim. If no, then you have no evidence that Joseph intentionally destroyed or altered the plates, which fundamentally undermines your "spoliation" analogy. Actually, the result is quite different based on how the evidence came to be absent. If evidence is intentionally altered or destroyed, then your comments about spoliation and "adverse inferences" may come into play. On the other hand, if evidence is missing due to reasons outside of these parameters, then spoliation and adverse inferences do not come into play. The result is not the same. I'll continue to quibble about Joseph selecting the witnesses (see, e.g., D&C 17). Also, I'd like to better understand your argument here. IIRC, Joseph had known David Whitmer (and indirectly the family through him) for roughly 5–6 months (from December 1828) before personally meeting the family and moving in with them in early June 1829. However, his firsthand, in-person acquaintance with the broader Whitmer family (including the four brothers and their brother-in-law, Hiram Page) was very brief—only a matter of days to a few weeks—before some of them (starting with David and Mary) were shown the plates in June 1829. I understand and appreciate your skepticism regarding Joseph "curating" family members, as their partiality would be more readily apparent. But that accounts for only three of the Eight. But how did Joseph "curate" the other five, given that he had only known them a few days/weeks prior to showing them the Plates? Again, how did Joseph "curate the evidence" ("curate" meaning "to pull together, sift through, and select for presentation") relative to Emma? What evidence do you have for this? The information is readily available. Mary Whitmer Statements as a Witness A Multiplicity of Witnesses: Women and the Translation Process Another Account of Mary Whitmer’s Viewing of the Golden Plates Mary Whitmer, 12th witness to the Book of Mormon How did Joseph "curate the evidence" relative to Mary Whitmer and the other informal witnesses? Yes. Historical records are often less-than-idea. And yet you accept Suetonius, whose statements are considerably weaker in terms of provenance. Why is that? I have not asked you to provide "independent empirical verification." Suetonius also lacks "independent empirical verification," yet you accept his statement about Caesar's assassination. Why? Right. How did the object come to exist and be in the possession of Joseph Smith? Who made it? With what materials? When? Where? How? Was the object a sloppy/cheap thing, or sophisticated and detailed and impressive one? This is interesting. So far you have acknowledged that the Witnesses 1. not "insane," and 2. were "sincere," and 3. were not "duped," and now that they 4. "had genuine experiences under curated conditions" ("genuine" meaning "possessing the claimed or attributed character, quality, or origin; not counterfeit; authentic; real"). And yet, notwithstanding the foregoing, you dispute that the Plates were what Joseph claimed about them, and you also deny the miraculous elements of the statement of the Three Witnesses. I appreciate and recognize that. What I do not have, though, is a positive, coherent alternative explanation that accounts for the key data points (physical plates, witness statements, text origins/translation process) without heavy speculation, while also adhering to empirical, evidence-based rigor. I see your conclusions, and you are dropping some tidbits of information about how you are assessing evidence. So we are making progress. While I hope we can keep going, I do acknowledge your efforts. Okay, that's the conclusion. How do you account for Joseph's limited education? Emma's assessment of him? The statements of the witnesses who participated in the "translation" process (who said Joseph had no notes or other writings anywhere near him as he dictated the text)? Who else was involved? Authorship of the text is a pretty complex topic, so perhaps we could - for the time being, anyway - keep the focus on the Plates and the Witnesses. Is the painting considered miraculous? What if the person who is said to have painted it lacked any artistic skill beyond stick figures? Or what if he/she was in a coma during the time the painting was created, or in prison, or five years old? I asked for an alternative theory, which would include both conclusions and evidence-based analysis and explanation and reasoning that gets you to those conclusions. But you've otherwise given me some stuff to work with, so I'm glad of that. All very late (many, many decades after). None of them is a "source" in that none was a percipient witness. Most or all of them rely on additional unknown and unvetted sources which are not extant. In contrast, we have "multiple independent sources" for The Book of Mormon. Not just statements from Joseph Smith, but also from David Whitmer, Martin Harris, Oliver Cowdery, Christian Whitmer, Jacob Whitmer, Peter Whitmer, Jr., John Whitmer, Hiram Page, Joseph Smith, Sen., Hyrum Smith, Samuel H. Smith, Emma Hale Smith, Mary Musselman Whitmer, Katharine Smith Salisbury, Lucy Mack Smith, Sally Parker, William B. Smith, John C. Whitmer and Josiah Stowell. Some of these are "interested parties" (their partiality is suspect), but the same can be said for the sources about Caesar's assassination. These are are mostly first-hand, percipient witnesses (some are second-hand or third-hand), and contemporary. In addition, we have extensive biographical information about these witnesses which allows us to gauge their character and credibility (see, e.g., Richard Lloyd Anderson’s Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses, https://witnessesofthebookofmormon.org/). You can't say the same about the sources for Caesar's assassination. Also, there are apparently some contradictions as to Caesar. From Grok: From an evidentiary perspective, we have substantially more, and better quality, evidence for the Plates than we do for the physician's examination of Caesar's body, or even the assassination itself. I'm assuming you do not agree with this. If so, could you explain why? Why does your reasoning justify reliance on Suetonius, but not on the witnesses and corroborating evidences for them? Please be specific. IOW, "independent" of each other. Some remained loyal to Joseph, some did not. They all substantively agreed, however, about the Plates. The historicity of the Plates (that is, their existence while in the possession of Joseph Smith in the 1820s) appears to be beyond reasonable dispute. Do you concur? If so, the next area of inquiry as to your alternative explanation would seem to involve A) participants in the fabrication of the hoax, B) their motives for participating and for remaining silent, C) the materials used, D) the skills needed, E) the overall quality of the object (obviously fake v. sophisticated and detailed), F) plausibility of "painted tin" tricking the Eight Witnesses, and so on. This too makes their attestations stronger. Some were loyal, some were not. Some later had strong incentives to recant, but they did not. The statements of the historical sources for the death of Caesar are also not falsifiable. It seems like this is an unreasonable and arbitrary point of criticism. Same here. The knives used to kill Caesar are not here. Nor is the physician's autopsy report (if one was even done). Nor are any of the sources upon which all of the later sources relied (except, perhaps for Cicero, who might have been a percipient witness, but provenance issues arise there as well). The plates have most of these features. From an evidentiary perspective, we have substantially more, and better quality, evidence for the Plates than we do for the physician's examination of Caesar's body, or even the ***assination itself. Yes, it is a double standard. You rely on Suetonius, though evidentiary problems with his account abound. Same goes for all the other sources re: Caesar. You hold these mediocre sources to a separate, markedly lower/easier standard than you do for the much higher-quality evidence pertaining to the Plates. You said "I don't know" seven times. Your answers skew quite heavily into "conclusory" territory. And they are heavily speculative and mostly bereft of evidentiary analysis and explanation. I already know what your conclusions are. What I am interested in is a positive, coherent alternative explanation for The Book of Mormon that accounts for the key data points (physical plates, witness statements, text origins/translation process) without heavy speculation, while claiming empirical rigor. Yes, I did notice that. You are saying none of these questions can be address at all unless the artifact is available? Could you elaborate? We don't have the blades that killed Caesar, nor do we have the physician's autopsy report. And yet you have pronounced an opinion based on what evidence we do have about that event. Why can't you do the same with the extant evidence we have about the Plates? By way of example, you believe that Joseph had an actual physical object in his possession that answered generally to the "Plates" artifact under discussion. Is that correct? You have reached this conclusion even though we do not have the object, correct? So do you have a theory as to the origins of that object? If not, why not? How is it that you are capable of postulating that the object existed, but you are not capable of postulating where it came from, who made it, how, etc.? You have previously said: I appreciate these, but they are almost entirely conclusory. The above statement does not illuminate the evidence and reasoning you have used to reach your conclusions. My surmise is that your refusal to engage these basic questions about your proposed alternative theory is, to me, an indicator that you are unable/unwilling to articulate such an alternative theory. You do not want it examined because you have no evidence for it, because you are just making stuff up as you go along, because an alternative theory can be picked apart just as readily as the Church's narrative, and because you do not want that to happen. I am happy to be proven wrong. My questions are not out of the blue. They are, instead, inherently related and relevant to your conclusions. For example: I appreciate that this is your conclusion. How did you reach it? Yes. And I am bringing some litigation skills to bear. I also knows what happens when a witness is evasive, when he either outright refuses to answer questions, or provides answers which are not responsive to the questions posed, or else responds with broad conclusory statements rather than specific factual ones. Most of what you have said - I'd say >80% - falls into these latter categories. I say that because, well, I still don't have much from you. And again, there is no evidence that Joseph deliberately concealed the Plates. He said he returned them to Moroni. They are lost to us because of that. The knives purportedly used to kill Caesar, and the Physician's report, and pretty much all first-hand percipient witness statements and evidence, are lost to us. In neither instance is there evidence of someone "deliberately concealing the evidence." The very fact that we have so-called "curated" witness statements belies your argument here. If Joseph was really intending to conceal the evidence, why invite 11 other people, several of whom he hardly knew, to act as witnesses? See my comments above about spoliation. Doesn't work here. I think "Joseph Smith's design" was not his, but the Lord's. And I think that design was to create evidence while still allowing room for doubt and the exercise of free will and agency. But the point of this thread is not to talk about Joseph's narrative, but yours. And yours is pretty darn threadbare. I have asked for a positive, coherent alternative explanation for The Book of Mormon that accounts for the key data points (physical plates, witness statements, text origins/translation process) without heavy speculation, while claiming empirical rigor. You haven't provided a "positive, coherent alternative explanation." Even now you lean way into the "not that"-style conclusory declarations. You haven't accounted for the key data points very well. Hardly at all, really. You returned to the "I don't know" well so many times it ran dry. The level of your usage of the "Special Pleading" fallacy as re: the Witnesses is off the charts. Your reasoning is mostly conclusory, arbitrary, opaque, or some combination of these. You also lean heavy into "heavy speculation." It's all vague guesswork and "I don't know." As for "claiming empirical rigor," just take a look at your lenient accommodations for historical witnesses re: Caesar's death, which you arbitrarily withdraw or revise when it comes to the Witnesses under discussion here. Nevertheless, you have given me some stuff to work with. And I appreciate that. I'm still left with my prior conclusion intact: The critics have nothing substantive to say. Not only is their critique of the Church's Text-and-Witnesses narrative strained and ad hoc and a priori and conclusory, they still cannot, even after the passage of <200 years, formulate a better one. And then the Church invites confirmation not through primarily through empirical analysis, but from the Spirit. I continue to be open to listening to what our critics have to offer. It ain't much, though. Thanks, -Smac

I don't care what you have to say about Ryan Gosling's acting skills, or whether black licorice tastes good, or whether Michael Jordan is the GOAT. I do care what you have to say about "a positive, coherent alternative explanation for The Book of Mormon that accounts for the key data points (physical plates, witness statements, text origins/translation process) without heavy speculation, while claiming empirical rigor." I really really want to hear what you have to say about this. Why else would I keep asking you questions, and then asking questions about your answers? I am trying to understand that. You previously said: "If you give me a list of questions, I'll answer them honestly and directly, just like I did in my prior post." I responded: I think these are reasonable questions. You asked for them, and I have provided them. I am trying. The above questions have been responsive to your various statements in this thread. That simply isn’t true. It is manifestly true. Dale Morgan: "If God does not exist, how can Joseph Smith’s story have any possible validity? I will look everywhere for explanations except to the ONE explanation that is the position of the church." Analytics: "Sidney Rigdon made the plates out of tin," and/or that "the angel was really an alien doing an anthropology experiment on Joseph Smith," and/or that "the devil conjured up the plates" as all being "more likely" than the explanation given by Joseph Smith, which you said is "just not possible." "{A}ny explanation," you said, "is more likely than {The Book of Mormon} being an accurate translation of an actual ancient manuscript." These sure look like kissin' cousins. Sure would like to discuss the evidence. The above bulleted list would be a good place to start. I already know what your conclusions are. I would like you to explain analysis of the evidence that got you there. I am giving you every opportunity to lay out a positive, coherent alternative explanation for the Book of Mormon, centering on evidence about the Plates, the Witnesses and the Text, and which explanation accounts for key data points without heavy speculation, while claiming empirical rigor. And you are not doing it. You a few hours ago: "If you give me a list of questions, I'll answer them honestly and directly, just like I did in my prior post." You after I provided you a list of questions: "You do this by ignoring everything I talk about and asking me obscenely long lists of questions that have nothing to do with my position." And again, virtually all of those questions are responsive to what you have said. You said that you think there were physical, but sham, plates. Do I have that right? I am asking you questions about that. This is your theory, and I am asking you to explain it and marshal evidence to support it. You said that the witnesses were deluded or confused by religious fanaticism ("I think the most plausible explanation combines sincere belief in the project with solemn religious oaths to stand by what they signed..."). Is that more or less correct? I am asking you questions about that. And yet here I am, a Latter-day Saint making all sorts of effort to induce a very smart and well-informed critic of my faith to lay out his reasoning and evidence. I am not asking you to give me "conclusions" that "flatter" my "biases." You and I are both here, speaking freely. So I don't think this forum is an "echo chamber." I have previously expressed my respect about you being willing to go outside of the Anti-Mormon echo chambers and speak to and with Latter-day Saints. So let's keep talking. You asked for questions, and I have provided them. If you like, we can just take one category at a time. Okay. Thanks, -Smac

Yes, but "curated" by whom? Latter-day Saints presuppose that God structured things this way (see D&C 17:1). You presuppose something else. What is the evidentiary basis for that presupposition? And "designed" by whom? Again, Latter-day Saints presuppose that God structured things this way (plenty of scriptures touching on the "walk by faith, not by sight" concept). You presuppose something else. What is the evidentiary basis for that presupposition? Yet another sidetrack. I sure would like to discuss "a positive, coherent alternative explanation for The Book of Mormon that accounts for the key data points (physical plates, witness statements, text origins/translation process) without heavy speculation, while claiming empirical rigor." Okay. What did you say? What was your statement? Below you describe what you saw as "made out of balsa plywood painted gold, some common binder rings, and cartoonish writing written with a sharpie. The sealed portion was just a few pieces of wood glued together. It was comically cheap and fake." Is that what you saw? And is that what you described to the other students? Okay. Was it at this point that you explained that what you had seen was "made out of balsa plywood painted gold, some common binder rings, and cartoonish writing written with a sharpie. The sealed portion was just a few pieces of wood glued together," and that it "was comically cheap and fake"? Did you tell the truth, or did you mislead? Nope. No "force." They had a choice to believe or not believe based on witness statements. Latter-day Saints invite people to accept the witness statements, but also to seek verification from God (see Moroni 10:3-5). I do not understand. The seminary teacher represented the plates as being "indistinguishable from the authentic plates that the BoM witnesses saw and just maybe somehow were the very same plates the witnesses saw"? And you, as a witness, corroborated the foregoing characterization? You described the thing you saw as being "indistinguishable from the authentic plates that the BoM witnesses saw and just maybe somehow were the very same plates the witnesses saw"? How do you square this with your characterization of the prop as "comically cheap and fake"? And he would do this . . . how? By calling you and the other 7 students as witnesses? And how would you testify? Would you describe what you saw as a set of plates "indistinguishable from the authentic plates that the BoM witnesses saw and just maybe somehow were the very same plates the witnesses saw," or as a "comically cheap and fake" prop? How is any of this relevant to the Eight Witnesses? They are all dead, and so they can't be deposed. We're left with the historical record. And the historical record indicates that they say anything but a "comically cheap and fake" prop. So how is your anecdote helpful? What does it illuminate? Did you and the other "witnesses" lie? Did you accurately describe what you saw? So . . . the witnesses lied? Prevaricated? Spoke with an intent to mislead or mischaracterize or obscure? Do you have any evidence that the Eight Witnesses did this? If so, what is that evidence? Please be specific. Also, here you are, years later, exposing the whole thing. How is that relevant to the Eight Witnesses, who did not do that? You did? You told the students that you saw a "comically cheap and fake" prop which was "made out of balsa plywood painted gold, some common binder rings, and cartoonish writing written with a sharpie. The sealed portion was just a few pieces of wood glued together"? How, then, did the girl you describe be so enthused at looking at the prop? How did she A) hear your accurate statement (balsa plywood painted gold, etc.) and then B) come away with the impression that left her "dying to see this amazing artifact under the lectern that, as far as she knew, was indistinguishable from the authentic plates that the BoM witnesses saw and just maybe somehow were the very same plates the witnesses saw"? What on earth are you saying here, Roger? Why did they imagine "something totally different" from what you described? What did you describe, Roger? Please be specific. Thanks, -Smac

This is remarkable. Indeed. This entire thread is noteworthy. We are, I think, at or near the apex of what Anti-Mormonism has to offer to the Latter-day Saints as far as, in my words, a "positive, coherent alternative explanation for The Book of Mormon that accounts for the key data points (physical plates, witness statements, text origins/translation process) without heavy speculation, while claiming empirical rigor." @Analytics being one of the foremost (in terms of both intellect and information) critics of the Church, I would think he would either A) have formulated such an alternative explanation, or else B) ratify and endorse someone else's alternative explanation (Vogel, Taves, etc.). There will, I think, never be a better opportunity for the Anti-Mormons to make their case. I am a willing and relatively informed audience. I want to hear their arguments, their evaluations of the evidence (both for and against their position), and their conclusions. I want to hear what they have to say. And what we are getting is a essentially a redux of what Dale Mortgage said in 1945: "With my point of view on God, I am incapable of accepting the claims of Joseph Smith and the Mormons, be they however so convincing. If God does not exist, how can Joseph Smith’s story have any possible validity? I will look everywhere for explanations except to the ONE explanation that is the position of the church."" Well, his conclusions are here: But yes, his theory is absent. Yep. Unspoken assumptions and presuppositions. We're coming up on 200 years of Anti-Mormonism. The Internet has democratized data about the formative events of the Restoration in amazing ways. Online resources and discussion platforms can facilitate all sorts of collaboration and evaluation efforts regarding competing theories about The Book of Mormon. And we have in this board, and on this thread, one of the smartest and most well-informed critics of the Church alive today. If there ever were a time where Anti-Mormons were ascendant and capable of formulating a Death-Knell-like alternative explanation as to The Book of Mormon, it would be now. And what do we get? Unadorned and unsubstantiated assertions and speculation: On Authorship of the Text: "Joseph Smith is the most likely primary author, possibly with help from people in his immediate circle." On The Plates: "{S}ome physical object probably existed." On The Witnesses: "{S}incere belief in the project with solemn religious oaths to stand by what they signed." On the Existence of Available Evidence: "With little evidence the best we can do is speculate or say 'I don't know.' This is honesty and epistemic humility." Informed Latter-day Saints are apparently supposed to find this stuff persuasive. I don't. And the story about a physician examining Caesar, despite all the shortcomings exhibited (late by 165 years, not percipient, based on unknown and unavailable sources, and comes from a gossipmonger whose character and credibility are either in doubt or impossible to assess), is nevertheless sufficient for us to declare that "We can be confident" that what he said was accurate and dependable. Suetonius is reliable. David Whitmer and the many other witnesses are not. Because reasons. This thread has been a protracted effort to extract that evidence. I'm hoping we can still see something come of it. I am genuinely curious as to what @Analytics has to say. And let's keep in mind that @Analytics is responding to my request for him to "lay out a positive, coherent alternative explanation for the Book of Mormon, centering on evidence about the Plates, the Witnesses and the Text, and which explanation accounts for key data points without heavy speculation, while claiming empirical rigor." I really look forward to Analytics explaining how he brings "empirical rigor" to bear when relying on unspoken assumptions about, as you put it, "God's nature and intention." Thanks, -Smac

Not really. I'd like you to present a a positive, coherent alternative explanation for the Book of Mormon, centering on evidence about the Plates, the Witnesses and the Text, and which explanation accounts for key data points without heavy speculation, while claiming empirical rigor. Suetonius may be useful in the discussion, but really only as a contrast for David Whitmer et al. So far Suetonius has exposed a spectacular double standard you have when examining evidence. You rely on Suetonius as an evidentiary source in ways you categorically reject when applied to the Witnesses. You don't explain why you are doing this. Yes, that is that reason? Please articulate it. Please be specific. Yes. So lay out your reasoning. Why are you lending credibility and probative weight to this statement? Please be specific. I have also provided dozens and dozens of other quotes as well. Including this (emphases added) : "In regards to my testimony to the visitation of the angel, who declared to us three witnesses that the Book of Mormon is true, I have this to say: Of course we were in the spirit when we had the view, for no man can behold the face of an angel, except in a spiritual view, but we were in the body also, and everything was as natural to us, as it is at any time. Martin Harris, you say, called it 'being in vision.' We read in the Scriptures, Cornelius saw, in a vision, an angel of God, Daniel saw an angel in a vision, also in other places it states they saw an angel in the spirit. A bright light enveloped us where we were, that filled [the woods as] at noon day, and there in a vision or in the spirit, we saw and heard just as it is stated in my testimony in the Book of Mormon." I assume you are not lending credibility and probative weight to this statement. If so, please explain why. Please be specific. “My testimony to the world is written concerning the Book of Mormon, and it is the same that I gave at first and it is the same as shall stand to my latest hour in life, linger with me in death and shine as Gospel Truth beyond the limits of life.” “My testimony to the Book of Mormon is true and I am admonished neither to add to nor take from my testimony already appended to the Book.” “Those who know me best, well know that I have adhered to that testimony.—And that no man may be misled or doubt my present views in regard to the same, I do now again affirm the truth of all my statement[s], as then made and published.” “I did see the angel of God, and was commanded to testify of these things, and they are true.” “You ask me if I saw the Angel when he brought the plates. I saw the Angel when he brought the plates, and the Angel told us that we must bear testimony to the world, as contained in my testimony written in the Book of Mormon. Doubt not—sister—the Book of Mormon is the word of God.” "I saw the angel as plainly as I see you; he was surrounded by the glory of God, which overshadowed us, and we heard his voice, and we saw the records of the Book of Mormon...My testimony is the same as at the beginning, as is true." "I saw them just as plain as I see this bed (striking his hand upon the bed beside him), and I heard the voice of the Lord as distinctly as I ever heard anything in my life declaring that they (the plates) were translated by the gift and power of God." "How well and distinctly I remember the manner in which Elder Whitmer arose and drew himself up to his full height--a little over six feet--and said, in solemn and impressive tones: 'No sir! I was not under any hallucination, nor was I deceived! I saw with these eyes, and I heard with these ears! I know whereof I speak!'" I assume you are not lending credibility and probative weight to this statement. If so, please explain why. Please be specific. Again, I am looking for empirical rigor. Okay. Do you also "take him at his word when he said these things? "I have adhered to that testimony.—And that no man may be misled or doubt my present views in regard to the same, I do now again affirm the truth of all my statement[s], as then made and published." "I saw the angel as plainly as I see you..." "'I saw them just as plain as I see this bed (striking his hand upon the bed beside him), and I heard the voice of the Lord as distinctly as I ever heard anything in my life.'" "'No sir! I was not under any hallucination, nor was I deceived! I saw with these eyes, and I heard with these ears! I know whereof I speak!'" I assume you do not "take him at his word" here. If so, please explain, and please be specific. When do you take Whitmer "at his word," and when do you not? By what reckoning do you differentiate which of his statements you accept as accurate and which statements you do not accept as accurate? How do you account for these statements? "I saw the angel as plainly as I see you..." "'I saw them just as plain as I see this bed (striking his hand upon the bed beside him), and I heard the voice of the Lord as distinctly as I ever heard anything in my life.'" "'No sir! I was not under any hallucination, nor was I deceived! I saw with these eyes, and I heard with these ears! I know whereof I speak!'" Please be specific. The Let's-Just-Skip-Over-Examining-the-Evidence-and-Repeat-Conclusory-Assertions schtick. Again. Yes. Your framing seems to require heavy amounts of cherry-picking, decontextualization, refusing to address countervailing evidence, and ad hoc stuff like "I take him {David Whitmer} at his word," except when you don't take him at his word, and don't explain why you don't take him at his word. You cherry-picked one one many statements of David Whitmer and said "I take him at his word." You utterly ignore all the other statements from him, and refuse to explain why you do not "take him at his word" regarding them. And then you return to the Let's-Just-Skip-Over-Examining-the-Evidence-and-Repeat-Conclusory-Assertions schtick. That is nothing but prevarication. I have already asked you a large number of questions, essentially all of which you have ignored. How about you start with those? I can then follow up as necessary. Thanks, -Smac EDIT TO ADD: I went through the last several pages of this thread and copied and pasted most of my questions to you (there are a lot) and asked Grok to re-organize them to reduce/eliminate redundant inquiries, organize them thematically/topically, etc. Here is the list to get you going: Consolidated List of Questions 1. Nature and Fabrication of the Plates Who manufactured the alleged sham plates? Where? When? By what means? Using what materials? How many people were involved? What evidence exists for any of this? Was Joseph Smith involved in making or procuring the plates? If not, how did the fabricators connect with him, and how was he persuaded to promote a fabricated story even when his life was at stake? If Joseph was involved, was he a dupe or a deliberate conniver? If a dupe, who else was involved, and why did none of them ever come forward (as occurred with the Kinderhook Plates hoax)? If a conniver, did he act alone? If so, where was his smithy? How did he acquire metallurgical skills? How did he afford materials given his poverty? Where did he get the raw materials? If acting with others, who were they? Why did none of them recant or expose the scheme? To what purpose did the hoax serve? Who ultimately benefited? Where did these others operate? Which of them made the plates? Using what tools and materials? How did Joseph make the plates appear to be gold (e.g., Vogel's theory is tin painted yellow)? What engravings were applied, and by what means? How was the prop sophisticated enough to fool the Eight Witnesses—who handled, hefted, and examined them in mundane circumstances—into describing them as having "the appearance of gold," "engravings," and "the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship"? Were none of them familiar with common tin (which several witnesses compared the thickness to)? How were they deceived if tin was widely available and recognizable? Was the prop a sloppy, cobbled-together joke? If so, how do skeptics deal with the Eight Witnesses? Were all eight just really dumb? None of them thought or said—either during or after the event—"Hey, this thing just looks like common tin painted yellow"? Alternatively, the prop was apparently sophisticated and well-made. If so, how did Joseph make it? Or did someone else more skilled make it? If so, whom, under what conditions, for what purpose? And why was the sham never discovered? Who stood to gain by taking the secrets of such a fantastic hoax to the grave? 2. Credibility of the Witnesses What is your assessment of David Whitmer? What evidence do you have that he was insane, deluded, or tricked? What sort of super-magician do you think Joseph Smith was to maintain Whitmer's testimony for decades while Whitmer despised him and left the Church? Is that your assessment of this witness? If so, how do you get there? David Whitmer spent decades despising Joseph Smith and declaring his testimony of the Plates. How do you square this with his experience being "a magic show"? Are you saying David Whitmer was duped? If so, how? By what means? And if so, would David Whitmer have been cognizant of that possibility? Wouldn't his antipathy toward Joseph make him more likely to recant or qualify his statement? Why are you not addressing any of this? How do you account for Martin Harris? He returned from Charles Anthon so impressed that he mortgaged his farm to finance publication, had a falling out with Joseph, but never recanted. How do skeptics explain this? If the witnesses were duped by a "magic show" or prop, why did none of them recant—even those who fell out with Joseph and had strong motive to discredit him? Do you have any evidence that any witness thought they were being invited to or participating in something akin to "a magic show"? Richard Lloyd Anderson has examined the witnesses' lives in detail (e.g., in Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses). Are you familiar with his work? Are you interested in exploring his book? How do you reconcile your view with his assessment of their character and credibility? Are you characterizing the Witnesses as hapless dupes? If so, how do you square that with Richard Lloyd Anderson's assessment of these men? And with David Whitmer's voluminous statements over decades? 3. Broader Evidentiary and Logical Issues "Spoliation" is the intentional destruction or alteration of relevant evidence in existing or pending litigation. Do you have any evidence that Joseph Smith intentionally destroyed or altered the plates? That there was "existing or pending litigation" at the time? How did Joseph "curate the evidence" relative to the Eight Witnesses? Please be specific. How did Joseph "curate the evidence" relative to Emma Hale Smith? Please be specific. How did Joseph "curate the evidence" about the "incidental" witnesses (Mary Musselman Whitmer, Katharine Smith Salisbury, Lucy Mack Smith, Sally Parker, William B. Smith, and John C. Whitmer)? Please be specific (e.g., Mary Musselman Whitmer's experience). We have tons of information about the Witnesses, including their official statements and subsequent statements (even after all three were estranged from Joseph), and yet you claim there is a "dearth of evidence." If Joseph "curated it that way," then how do you account for their failure/refusal to recant? Please give extra time and attention to your explanation for David Whitmer. And please marshal evidence for your explanation. What is your alternative explanation for the Plates/Witnesses/Texts? How do you address the evidence that contravenes your position? How do you differentiate between statements from David Whitmer you do accept and find credible, and statements you do not accept or find credible? What actual evidence do you have to support your alternative explanation for the Plates/Witnesses/Texts? What rules of evidence do you apply to the witnesses' statements? Are these rules different from those you apply to Suetonius? If so, why? Thanks, -Smac