smac97

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

Well, your constant prevarication and failure/refusal to address the evidence is making things difficult. Instead of addressing the evidence re: The Book of Mormon (as you have previously dodged by instead speaking of Bayesian analysis, what ChatGPT has to say, and what a hypothetical Article III judge in 2026 would say about the depositions of dead people, and now you are talking about Caesar's assassination by citing "evidence." And I indulged you by asking you about this evidence. And you can't bring yourself to examine that evidence either. You are refusing to answer questions about it. I think it's pretty clear why. You invoke nebulous "evidence" that, I think, comes from Suetonius, but you won't say either way. I ask questions about Suetonius (he's the only source for the anecdote about a physician examining the body of Caesar after the supposed assassination), and you utterly ignore them. I think it's pretty clear why. Suetonius was writing about 165 years after the fact. He was not a "witness" in any sense. We only have vague notions of his sources, and those sources are not available for examination/verification. And he was a gossipmonger. So he's not a percipient witness, provenance issues abound, character and credibility issues abound, hearsay issues abound. Nevertheless, he's all you've got. And you take his unvetted, uncorroborated say-so as establishing a historical event anyway. Meanwhile, as regarding the Plates, we have far better information about an event from multiple percipient, first-hand witnesses (not just one), who wrote their accounts quite near the time of the events they are describing. No provenance issues. No source issues. No hearsay issues. And thanks to Richard Lloyd Anderson, we have a far better assessment of these folks' character and credibility. We know the kind of people they were before, during and after their experience as witnesses. You aren't addressing the evidence, even about Caesar's assassination. I think I know why. What "structural features" were you talking about? Please be specific. Where are you getting the idea that these features are integral/necessary to discussing Suetonius and/or the Witnesses? How are these "structural features" present for Suetonius but absent for the Witnesses? Please be specific. Are there any "structural features" that weaken Suetonius as a evidentiary source? Please be specific. How are these "features" present in the evidence from Suetonius? You are not addressing any evidence. Not even Suetonius. And yet you accept the veracity of a single, uncorroborated, gossipy, late-by-165-years source anyway. None of the above "features" of Suetonius affect your willingness to accept him has a credible source about the physician examining Caesar. Why is that? We can "be confident"? How do you know that? None of the others (save, possibly, one) was a percipient and contemporary witness, and we don't have the sources used by these sources, so we can't gauge their reliability either. And is it possible that any of these other sources had compromised motives? They were, after all, talking about a controversial political figure. And Suetonius is, it seems, the sole source of the anecdote about the physician, which you not only accept as established ("we can be confident..."), you heartily endorse it and use that anecdote to explain why you are willing to accept the overall narrative of the assassination of Caesar. Nevertheless, let's go with your reasoning for a bit. I'll reframe it this way: We can be confident of what happened because of the abundant evidence we do have—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}, all independent sources with conflicting loyalties corroborating the same core event. {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/)}. 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. Caesar was not a controversial figure? Are you sure about that? And why is the anecdote about the physician - which you are pointing to as an important indicator of veracity - trustworthy? It's uncorroborated. it was about a controversial figure. It comes 165 years later, from unknown and unavailable sources, and through a gossipmonger whose character and credibility are are in some real doubt or are impossible to assess. And yet you accept this anecdote anyway. Why is that? What is it that makes Suetonius a more credible witness than any of the 19th century witnesses I note above? "In contrast" = "I'm about to toss aside every stitch of analysis and reasoning I apply to Suetonius and refuse to apply any of it to the 19th century witnesses of the Plates, even though the evidence for Suetonius' account is 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." Yes, the "contrast" will, I think, be quite striking. Double standards tend to have that effect. Suetonius did not have any ulterior motives? How do you know? What about the sources he used? Did they have any ulterior motives? How do you know? What about the other sources beyond Suetonius (Plutarch, etc.)? Did they have any ulterior motives? How do you know? Suetonius didn't "deliberately curate the evidence"? How do you know? And what is this "in such a way that the evidence that would definitively answer the questions" stuff? Where are you getting it? What does it mean? 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. Oh, brother. The Let's-Just-Skip-Over-Examining-the-Evidence-and-Repeat-Conclusory-Assertions schtick. Again. Your assertion is spectacularly inaccurate. From David Whitmer alone: FAIR's list of "Quotations from David Whitmer which demonstrate the literal nature of the Three Witness experience": FAIR's longer list of David Whitmer statements as one of the Three Witnesses: David Whitmer interview by Orson Pratt and Joseph F. Smith: Orson Pratt: "Do you remember what time you saw the plates?" David Whitmer: "It was in June 1829, the very last part of the month, and the eight witnesses, I think, the next day. Joseph showed them the plates himself. We (the Three Witnesses) not only saw the plates of the book of Mormon, but the Brass Plates, the plates containing the record of the wickedness of the people of the world, and many other plates. THe fact is, it was just as though Joseph, Oliver and I were sitting right here on a log, when we were overshadowed by a light. It was not like the light of the sun, nor like that of a fire, but more glorious and beautiful. It extended away round us, I cannot tell how far, but in the midst of this light, immediately before us, about as far off as he sits (pointing to John C. Whitmer who was sitting 2 or 3 feet from him) there appeared, as it were, a table, with many records on it, besides the plates of the Book of Mormon; also the sword of Laban, the Directors (i.e. the ball which Lehi had) and the Interpreters. 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."[11] Orson Pratt: "Did you see the Angel at this time?" David Whitmer: "Yes, he stood before us. Martin Harris was not with us at this time. I don't think he saw all that we did, but our testimony as recorded in the Book of Mormon is strictly and absolutely true just as it is there written."[12] When the question was asked David Whitmer if he and the other witnesses did not subscribe their own names to the respective testimonies, he replied that they did. Then he was asked, :'Where are the original documents?' That he did not know, but supposed Oliver had copied them, but this was an exact copy. Someone suggested that he ought to certify to it, he being the only witness left, but the lawyer, Mr. David C. Whitmer, son of Jacob, thought he had better take time to reflect about it. [Whitmer had in his possession the printer's manuscript of the Book of Mormon copied mainly by Oliver Cowdery, not the Original Manuscript.][13] 1879 "I have heard the same from the mouth of Father Whitmer, more than once; and every time I ever heard him tell the particulars of that glorious scene, he always told it just the same; and as far as I have ever heard, from reliable witnesses, he has always told the same story--"straight as a nail."[14] As you read my testimony given many years ago, so it stands as my own existence; the same as when I gave it, and so shall stand throughout the cycles of eternity.[15] 1881 "Did you see the angel?" "Yes; he stood before us [Whitmer, Joseph, and Oliver]. Our testimony as recorded in the Book of Mormon is absolutely true, just as it is written there."[17] At that time Mr. Whitmer saw the tablet, gazed with awe on the celestial messenger, heard him speak and say: 'BLessed is the Lord and he that keeps His commandments;" and then, as he held the plates and turned them over with his hands, so that they could be plainly visible, a voice that seemed to fill all space, musical as the sighing of a wind through the forest, was heard, saying: "What you see is true: testify to the same." And Oliver Cowdrey and David Whitmer, standing there, felt, as the white garments of the angel faded from their vision and the heavenly voice still rang in their ears, that it was no delusion--that it was a fact; and they so recorded it. In a day or two after the same spirit appeared to Martin Harris while he was in company with Smith, and told him also to bear witness to its truth, which he did, as can be seen in the book. Harris described the visitant to Whitmer, who recognized it as the same that he and Cowdrey had seen.[18] 1882 We asked him if his testimony was the same now as it was at the time the Book of Mormon was published, regarding seeing the plates and the angel. He rose to his feet, stretched out his hands and said, "These hands handled the plates, these eyes saw the angel, and these ears heard his voice; and I know it was of God." "That was the strongest testimony I ever heard, and I felt that he was telling the truth...."[20] In answer to questions by the brethren he recited with graphic distinctness the scene in which he received the testimony he bore any years past and still bears to the Book of Mormon; and averred anew that the statement made by him as published in the book is true. No one who listens to him can doubt the sincerity and truthfulness of the man[21] My testimony as published in connection with the Book of Mormon is true--And why Should men ask to know more in regard to all the particulars connected with that all Overshadowing truth--If they will not believe the three and 8 witnesses would they believe though one Should arise from the dead, testify to its truth again.[22] 1883 "I have been visited by thousands of people, believers and unbelievers, men and ladies of all degrees, sometimes as many as 15 in one day, and have never failed in my testimony. And they will know some day that my testimony is true....I heard the voice of the Angel just as stated in said Book, and the engravings on the plates were shown to us, and we were commanded to bear record of them; and if they are not true, then there is no truth, and if there is no truth there is no God; f there is no God then there is no existence. But there is a God, and I know it. "When we were first told to publish our statement, we felt sure the people would not believe it, for the Book told of a people who were refined and dwelt in large cities; but the Lord told us that He would make it known to the people, and people should discover the ruins of the lost cities and abundant evidence of the truth of what is written in the Book."[23] Persons may attempt to describe the presentation of the plates as shown to himself and other witnesses, but there was a glory attending it that no one could describe, no human tongue could tell the glorious scenes that were presented to them. Joseph Smith was there and Oliver Cowdery and himself--Martin Harris did not come as expected, but they were shown to him a short time after."[24] 1884 David Whitmer's response when asked if he "had been mistaken and had simply been moved upon by some mental disturbance, or hallucination, which had deceived them into thinking he saw the Personage, the Angel, the plates, the Urim and Thummim, and the sword of Laban." 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.[26] "Mr Whitmer felt very indignant while speaking of certain statements published recently to the effect that he and Oliver Cowdery had denied their statement as published in the Book of Mormon. This he denounced as false in every particular. He said: "Oliver never wavered in his testimony, and when he was on his death bed, I was there, with many of his friends, until he passed away. He bore the same testimony on his dying bed thathe had always borne through life, and earnestly called upon all to cleave to the truth revealed through the Prophet Joseph, and to serve the Lord. As for myself, I have never denied my testimony that is published in the Book of Mormon, for I know that God has revealed these things for the salvation of the children of men, and to Him belongs all the honor, the power and the glory."[27] He was plowing when Joseph and Oliver came to him and the former told him that he was chosen to be one of the three witnesses to whom the angel would show the plates. He also told him that the Lord had promised to make this manifest and now was the time. They went out and sat upon a log conversing upon the things to be revealed when they were surrounded by a glorious light which overshadowed them. A glorious personage appeared and he showed to them the plates....Human language could not, he said, describe heavenly things and that which they saw. The language of the angel was: Blessed is he taht believed and remaineth faitful to the end. He had his hours of darkness and trial and difficulty, but however dark upon other things[,] that had ever been a bright scene in his mind and he had never wavered in regard to it; he had testified fearlessly always of it, even when his life was threatened. Martin Harris was not with them at the time that he and Oliver saw the angel, but he and Joseph afterwards saw the same, and he thus became a witness also.[28] In June, 1829, [when] I [David Whitmer] saw the angel by the power of God, Joseph, Oliver and I were alone, and a light from heaven shone round us, and solemnity pervaded our minds. The angel appeared in the light, as near as that young man. [Within five or six feet - note in original] Between us and the angel there appeared a table, and there lay upon it the sword of Laban, the Ball of [sic] Directors, the REcord, and Interpreters. The angel took the Record, and turned the leaves, and showed it to us by the power of God....My testimony in the Book of Mormon is true; I can't deviate from it.[29] Mr. Whitmer on being asked if he saw the angel, as stated in some accuonts, opened the book and pointing to a section said, "there is my testimony. Read it; that tells all that is necessary for me to say about it. That contains the solemn testimony of myself and the other persons named."[30] I saw this apparition [the angel] myself and gazed with awe on the celestial messenger and heard him say, "Blessed is the Lord and he that keeps his commandments." Then, as he held the plates and turned them over with his hands so that we could see them plainly, a voice that seemed to fill all space was heard, saying: 'What you see is true. Testify to the same." Oliver Cowdrey and I, standing there, felt, as the white garments of the angel faded from view, that we had received a message from God, and we have so recorded it. Two or three days later the same angel appeared to Martin Harris while he was in company with [Joseph] Smith, and placed the same injunction upon him. He described the sight and his sensations to me, and they corresponded exactly with what I had seen and heard.[31] I did see the angel of God, and was commanded to testify of these things, and they are true.[32] Mr. Whitmer turned his large, kind, but penetrating eyes upon me and, in a very pleasant and considerate, but firm and steady voice said: 'Read the printed testimony of the three witnesses, which you will find on one of the front pages of the Book of Mormon--and I say to you that every word of it is true.[33] 1886 Now, as eight years ago, he [Whitmer] says "As I live and stand upon the earth so sure did I see the angel who stood before us. While we were sitting upon a log (that is Joseph and I and Oliver Cowdery) we were talking when a bright light began to shine around us. It grew bright and brighter until an angel stood before us. A table [was] in front of him on which was the [gold] plates and the other plates, the sword of Laban, ball or compass, etc. The plates were shown [to] us [and the] leaves turned over. A portion of them were sealed. We also heard a voice commanding us to bear a testimony of these things to the world....[34] I asked him if the table, which the angel brought, and upon which the plates lay when he viewed them was a tangible one, and he said that he did not touch it, it had the semblance of a table. The then ex=plained that he saw the plates and with his natural eyes, but he had to be prepared for it--that he and the other witnesses were overshadowed by the power of God and a halo of brightness indescribable.[35] 1887 David bore his testimony of standing in the presence of the angel.... David said to Mrs S[tevenson], "My testimony as found in the Book of Mormon is verily true and I cannot deny it." "I know," he said, "that the Book of Mormon is as true as the Bible." He relates seeing a messenger while plowing who said "Blessed is the name of the Lord and thehy who keep his Commandments." Soon after Joseph Smith and O[liver] Cowdery came along. David tied his team to the fence. The three were about 40 rods from his father's. While sitting on a log and angel appeared in the midst of a brightness that preceeded him. ON a table in front of him was the ball or compass...sword of Laban, Urim and Thummim or INterpreters. Also the plates, which was shown to them and they were commanded to bear testimony of these things, and he said as he lived those things were true. He fired up with zeal."[36] In June, 1829, the Lord called Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, and myself as the three witnesses, to behold the vision of the Angel, as recorded in the fore part of the Book of Mormon, and to bear testimony to the world that the Book of Mormon is true. I was not called to bear testimony to the mission of Brother Joseph Smith any farther than his work of translating the Book of Mormon, as you can see by reading the testimony of us three witnesses.[37] [O]f course [I] would tell you about my vision of the Angel. 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 int he Book of Mormon. Doubt not--sister--the Book of Mormon is the Word of God.[38] I did see the Angel as it is recorded in my testimony in the Book of Mormon. The Book is true (emphasis in original).[39] 1888 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.[40] He [David Whitmer] stated that the Book of Mormon was true, that his statement in connection with that of Oliver COwdery and Martin Harris was strictly correct, he had nothing to add to it, nor to diminish from it.[41] ?Date During our interview, Mr. Whitmer reiterated his testimony as given at the beginning of the Book of Mormon, saying that all he testified to there was true; that he had seen the plates and the Heavenly messenger, as he had stated.[42] Throughout Richmond, Missouri, the non-Mormons knew David Whitmer as an honest and trustworthy citizen. When one anti-Mormon lectured in David’s hometown, branding David as disreputable, the local (non-Mormon) paper responded with “a spirited front-page editorial unsympathetic with Mormonism but insistent on ‘the forty six years of private citizenship on the part of David Whitmer, in Richmond, without stain or blemish.’”[43] ...The following year the editor penned a tribute on the eightieth birthday of David Whitmer, who “with no regrets for the past” still “reiterates that he saw the glory of the angel.” When another anti-Mormon published an article claiming that David had denied his testimony, David printed a “proclamation” testifying to the truth of the Book of Mormon and reiterating the fact that he had never denied that testimony. He wrote: Apostate William E. McLellin wrote: Following Whitmer's death the Richmond Conservator wrote: The Richmond Democrat also added this comment: After talking as he did, so fully and freely he said "I have been asked if we saw those things with our natural eyes. Of course they were our natural eyes There is no doubt that our eyes were prepared for the sight, but they were our natural eyes nevertheless." I asked him if the table was a tangible one, and he said it appeared to be, but they did not touch it.[49] The thing which impressed me most of all was, as we stood beside the grave of Oliver Cowdery the other Witness, who had come back into the Church before his death, and [David Whitmer] in describing Oliver[']s action, when bearing his testimony, said to the people in his room, placing his hands like this upon his head, saying 'I know teh Gospel to be true and upon this head has Peter[,] James and John laid their hands and confer[r]ed the Holy Melchisedic Priesthood.' [50] When Martin Harris came back to them [Joseph, Oliver, and David Whitmer], they knew he had also seen the angel, because his face was radiant and he declared he had received the testimony. David Whitmer told me they knew he had also seen the vision which they had, because he explained what they had themselves seen.[51] Biography of David Whitmer: https://witnessesofthebookofmormon.org/three-witnesses/david-whitmer/biography/ Wikipedia Entry on David Whitmer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Whitmer See also Richard Lloyd Anderson's book. Roger, it is unserious for you to utterly refuse to engage the foregoing statements and evidences and then, apparently with a straight face, declare that "we have very, very little reliable evidence of what the witnesses really saw and why they signed the witness statements." There are mounds of evidence. You are refusing to address these mounds. You whistle past them. You sing and dance around them. You ignore them. You refuse to answer questions about them. And then you declare that we have a "dearth of evidence." The Three Witnesses: David Whitmer, Martin Harris, Oliver Cowdery We have tons of information about these men, including their official statements and subsequent statements (even after all three were estranged from Joseph), and yet you claim there is a "death 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. The Eight Witnesses: Christian Whitmer, Jacob Whitmer, Peter Whitmer, Jr., John Whitmer, Hiram Page, Joseph Smith, Sen., Hyrum Smith, Samuel H. Smith If Joseph "curated it that way," then how do you account for their failure/refusal to recant (particularly those who became estranged from Joseph)? Please marshal evidence for your explanation. The "Unofficial" Witnesses: Emma Hale Smith, Mary Musselman Whitmer, Katharine Smith Salisbury, Lucy Mack Smith, Sally Parker, William B. Smith, John C. Whitmer and Josiah Stowell How did Joseph "curate" the experiences of these people (I'm really looking forward to you explaining Joseph's purported curating of Mary's experience)? Please marshal evidence for your explanation. 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. The Let's-Just-Skip-Over-Examining-the-Evidence-and-Repeat-Conclusory-Assertions schtick. Again. So "abundant" you don't even need to marshal or explain it. It's just there. And no need to address countervailing evidence. A courtroom in which the corpses of David Whitmer and the other witnesses have been exhumed and carted in and propped up? Would the lawsuit be in state or federal court? If state, which state? What causes of action would be in play? Who would the parties be? The plaintiff(s)? The defendant(s)? What would the causes of action be? How would you address the Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine? Statute of limitations? Laches? Would you bring up your "Space Aliens or Satan" proposal as a "more likely" theory of the case? The Let's-Just-Skip-Over-Examining-the-Evidence-and-Repeat-Conclusory-Assertions schtick. Again. You haven't examined the evidence in any meaningful or substantive sense. You have been more curious and forthcoming and explanatory about Suetonius, whose gossipy, non-percipient, uncorroborated, unsourced, 165-years-after-the-fact Say-So you accept as established, than you have about the 19th century witnesses listed above. You say you could, and I truly wish you would, but you aren't, and I suspect you won't. 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. The "anything but that" approach. Except for Space Aliens and/or Satan/Demons, about which you are not agnostic, as you said these are "more likely" explanations. You can trot out Bayesian analysis and come up with Space Aliens as an explanation, but you can't bring yourself to examine, say, David Whitmer's statements and biographical information about him. Why is that? Again, the Anti-Mormons have nothing to offer. When the chips are down, we get a steadfast refusal to address substantial evidences, a song-and-dance routine about "epistemic humility" (though, somehow, Suetonius is trustworthy), and concluding with "I don't know" and "I'm agnostic." Funny that you characterize yourself as "agnostic." That term generally refers to the philosophical view that the existence of God, the divine, or the supernatural is unknown and inherently unknowable due to a lack of empirical evidence. Here, we have all sorts of evidence that can be empirically analyzed. It's not that you lack evidence, but rather you lack the willingness to examine it. You are keeping yourself intentionally "agnostic" about the foundational truth claims of the religion you have spent decades speaking against. I find your incuriosity to be deliberate. And I am drawing some inferences about your deliberate incuriosity. I would prefer that you disabuse me of those inferences by 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. But you won't do it. The Let's-Just-Skip-Over-Examining-the-Evidence-and-Repeat-Conclusory-Assertions schtick. Again. Thanks, -Smac

I'll give it a go. Scholars do not want to be drawn into apologetic debates. There's virtually no upside to doing so (it's not like it would help them in their "Publish or Perish" efforts), and a fair number of downsides (they may not want to be seen as attacking a religious minority's beliefs). Also, the "text" in question was a religious document purportedly translated into English "by the gift and power of God." That added layer is pretty thick, and differentiates The Book of Mormon from this or that codex dug up by Michael Coe. Also, meaningfully engaging Latter-day Saint scholarship would require, to some extent, scholars to study up on the Church. I don't know that they want to do that. Also, I think there's a lot of prima facie indifference/skepticism. Of the "Meh, I don't have a dog in that fight, nor do I want one" variety. Also, I think most scholars have only a broad and shallow perception of the Church and its doctrines, and are not willing to expend the time and resources necessary to bring their skill sets to bear on topics like The Book of Mormon. Also, I think most scholars would conclude, at the outset, that a religious text purportedly translated "by the gift and power of God" is not empirically testable, and so they don't bother. Mainstream scholars likely classify the Book of Mormon as pseudepigrapha or 19th-century scripture (comparable to the Book of Abraham or other restorationist texts), not as an ancient historical record. It is studied in American religious history or sociology of religion, not in ancient history or archaeology. Put another way, scholars are not willing to engage the text for what it claims to be. Also, I think The Book of Mormon is too cross-pollinated across disciplines. Biblical/Ancient Near Eastern scholars focus on texts with manuscript evidence, archaeological context, or linguistic continuity (Dead Sea Scrolls, Nag Hammadi, etc.). American religious historians might, or might not, study the as a 19th-century text (e.g., in the context of Second Great Awakening, folk magic, restorationism), not as an ancient document. Mesoamerican archaeologists and linguists likely reject the text's claims out-of-hand. Also, I suspect there are some substantial institutional and/or publishing barriers. Most peer-reviewed journals and university presses in relevant fields do not publish on the Book of Mormon as a historical text. Studies that do appear are typically in LDS-affiliated outlets (e.g., FARMS/Interpreter Foundation, BYU Studies) or apologetic contexts, which are viewed as confessional rather than secular scholarship. Ritner and Coe did not really do well in their respective forays, I think for some or all of the above reasons. Funny how that works out. We tend to lend more credence to people who agree with our presuppositions. I try to counter this by seeking out input from people who do not agree with my presuppositions, or even actively dislike/oppose them. I sure would like it if those folks obliged and laid out their reasoning. I think those perceptions are probably present, yes. Odd, though, that so many otherwise impeccably credentialed and accomplished scientists, scholars, doctors, lawyers, etc., whose livelihoods depend on their intellectual rigor (including the empiricism which you claim to utilize), and who readily absorb and examine data of all sorts in their professional capacities, and who also openly profess belief in the miraculous foundational events of the Restoration, which you deride as "pseudoscience." For my part, I'm not particularly dazzled by academia these days. Large swaths of it have been compromised by sociopolitical ideological commitments, the pursuit of money more than knowledge, laziness, the reproducibility crisis, illegitimate use of scholarly credentials to bolster personal viewpoints, and so on. Indeed. I've known otherwise smart people who believe that a man can become a woman by "identifying" as one, and/or who cannot define what a woman is. This is the product of powerful external pressures and influences, so these beliefs are formed for psychological and sociological reasons, and then smart people leverage their intellect to rationalize them. I never thought I'd see "The Emperor's New Clothes" play out in real life. And yet a good amount of mainstream scholarship has embraced the deeply weird tenets of radical trans ideology. It's as if "the broader scholarly community" has feet of clay along with the rest of us. Thanks, -Smac

Well, I'm trying to get to a substantive discussion about the evidence. And you are not obliging. You're under no obligation to, of course. Regarding my inquiry (as to evidence relating to the Plates, Witnesses and the text), you've gone from supposed Bayesian analysis, to ChatGPT, to "what would a jurist say." And all the while almost entirely conclusory stuff, with engaging and addressing the evidence being pretty darn limited. I have been asking you to articulate the what (your alternative explanations/conclusions re: Plates/Witnesses/Text), including addressing the evidence and explaining how you reach those explanations/conclusions. I don't think I have berated you. Is noting that you are anti-Mormon a beratement? Would you prefer critic? Skeptic? I first want to understand what you believe. What is your alternative explanation for the Plates/Witnesses/Texts? What evidence do you have to support your position on these issues? How do you address the evidence that contravenes your position on these issues? Again: 1. My Request: My core challenge has been for critics such as yourself to provide a positive, coherent alternative that accounts for the key data points (physical plates, witness statements, text origins/translation process) without heavy speculation, while claiming empirical rigor. You are not responding to this. You are not addressing the key data points. You have prevaricated a lot (Bayesian stuff, ChatGPT, "what would a Jurist say," etc.). You offer conclusory statements, but nothing substantive, and nothing really addressing the data points: "On the text: Joseph Smith is the most likely primary author, possibly with help from people in his immediate circle..." "On the plates: some physical object probably existed..." "On the witnesses: I think the most plausible explanation combines sincere belief in the project with solemn religious oaths to stand by what they signed..." I get the broad naturalistic gist, but that's it. I don't know how you are getting there, and you are persistently refusing to explain yourself. Your most recent exercise in prevarication, hypothesizing what a "jurist" would do, would have you presenting the above to the judge. And the judge would say something like this: "Okay. But these are just conclusory allegations. You need to articulate how you reached them. The reasoning and evidence justifying and supporting these conclusions. And you also need to address countervailing evidence." Again, I am looking for an alternative naturalistic explanation about the Plates/Witnesses/Text, not just conclusory statements about them. Great! Then let's set aside the folderol and get to examining. I propose we start with either the Plates or the Witnesses, as I think those topics are a bit more tractable in an evidentiary sense. Which do you prefer? "On the plates: some physical object probably existed..." Okay. Let's start with that. A few questions: Who was involved with the production of the Plates? Just Joseph? If others were involved, who were they? Why were they involved? What did they stand to gain? Were these others pulling Joseph's strings, or vice versa? If the former, why did none of them ever come forward? If the latter, how was he persuaded to spin a fantastic yarn as to the Plates' origins, and then keep to that yarn even when his life was at stake? Was Joseph deluded or conniving? If deluded, then how did her persuade so many others to join him in his delusion, including the several Witnesses who were later estranged from him and yet stuck to their testimonies? If conniving, how do you account for his personal writings in the many years subsequent, which to my mind are altogether indicative of someone who sincerely believed that what he was saying was real and authentic? What are the particulars of the production process for the sham artifact? When? Where? How? What materials? Do you favor the Painted Tin / Joseph Working Alone theory espoused by Vogel? If something else was involved, what are the particulars? Who did what? Where was the work done? The smithy? The tools? The materials? Between when and when? By what means? Who procured the materials? Who had the metallurgical skills? If painted tin, was the prop a sloppy, cobbled-together joke (per Vogel, as he posits that Joseph obscured the Plates in darkness or under a cloth because they would not stand up to close examination)? If so, how do you deal with the Eight Witnesses? Were all eight just really dumb? They all handled the Plates (literally with their "hands"), hefted them, saw them as having "the appearance of gold," and "saw the engravings" on the Plates, and viewed them as having "the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship." So the Eight Witnesses were familiar with common tin, but they did not recognize the prop - as Vogel would have us believe - as being made of tin? And they spent the rest of their lives - including those who fell out with Joseph - attesting to what they had seen, with nary a one of them saying "Hey, in hindsight I think the Plates were just made of tin and painted yellow"? How do you account for that? Alternatively, do you think the prop was a really sophisticated and well-crafted sham? That could explain how he tricked the Witnesses, but then how did Joseph make it? Or did someone else more skilled make it? If so, whom, under what conditions, for what purpose, etc.? And why was the sham never discovered? Who stood to gain by taking the secrets of such a fantastic hoax to the grave? Most important of all: What actual evidence do you have to marshal support your alternative explanation as to these matters? These are sincere inquiries. I really want to know how you address this stuff in your mind. You're supposed to be all about the empiricism, so let's address the evidence empirically rather than divert to hypotheticals (the "jurist" thing) or abstractions (the Bayesian thing) or broad conclusory stuff generated by AI (ChatGPT). I'm not asking you to abandon skepticism. To the contrary, I want you to explain your skepticism-based alternative explanation for The Book of Mormon, using evidentiary analysis and reasoning. And I tore the analogy apart because it is clunky and doesn't work. It comes across as an ad hoc means of avoiding evidentiary analysis. You would never hypothesize about Caesar's assassination by asking how an Article III judge in 2026 would deploy the Federal Rules of Evidence to adjudicate that event's historicity. It's not apt, because even though it sounds like you want to use that framework to analyze the evidence, you don't. You just jump around and then make broad conclusory declarations about stuff. Answering the bulleted items above would go a long way in advancing this discussion. Sure would like to see you address the topic (Plates/Witnesses/Text, and evidences pertaining thereto). But okay, I'll go along. Okay. What are those structural features? It was? How do you know that? What evidence do you have that this happened? A few questions for you: As I understand it, the primary (sole?) source is Suetonius in The Twelve Caesars (Life of Julius Caesar, 75–76), written about 121 AD. Do you concur? 121 A.D. (the publication date of The Twelve Caesars) - 44 B.C. (the date of the assassination) = 165 years. Why do you find Suetonius to be a credible source? What do we know about him? His character? His veracity? He was obviously not present for the events he described, so what sources did he use, and why do you lend credibility to those? How do you address provenance issues arising over the course of sixteen decades in antiquity? Here's the part of The Twelve Caesars pertaining to the supposed examination of Caesar's body: Why do you lend credence to this passage? How do you know Suetonius was credible? Suetonius is the sole source for the first piece of evidence you point to about the assassination of Caesar. That source is dated 165 years after the event, and is without independent confirmation. And yet you accept the say-so of this guy anyway. Why do you lend more credibility to Suetonius than you to do, say, David Whitmer? Please be specific. They are? Where? Who documented them? Clearly it wasn't Suetonius, since he was writing 165 years later. And where is this documentation? And what corroboration do we have for this documentation? Any concerns about provenance? Please be specific. There were? How do you know that? Where is the evidence? Please be specific. They did? How do you know that? Where are these versions? How do we establish provenance for them? Where is the evidence? Please be specific. How do you know who the witnesses were, and what their motives were / were not? Where is the evidence? Please be specific. How is it that you are more certain of the motives of witnesses from 2000+ years ago, whose statements we do not have, and whose character and veracity are impossible to assess, than you are of the motives and credibility of, say, David Whitmer? Well, I think we can all agree that Caesar died somehow. You posit that he was killed via assassination. What evidence do you have for this proposition? And why do you lend more credence to that evidence than to, say, the cumulative statements of David Whitmer? How do you know this? What evidence do you have? Please be specific. What evidence do you have for "these structural features"? Anything besides Mr. Writing-165-Years-Later-and-Using-Who-Knows-What-Sources Suetonius? Let's consider this: The Enduring Legacy of Suetonius, Rome’s Most Controversial Biographer The imperial biographer Suetonius is an important source for the lives of the Caesars, but how reliable are his accounts based on gossip and sensationalism? Some excerpts: What are your thoughts about this? Do you think that the reliability of Suetonius is in question? Seems like Suetonius is useful not because he was a percipient witness, but because of his supposed "access to imperial libraries, archives, and perhaps even personal testimonies." Do you concur with this? Why do you lend more credibility to the non-percipient Suetonius than you do to say, David Whitmer (or, for that matter, the Eight Witnesses)? Do you acknowledge that your perspective on Caesar (specifically, the bit about his body being examined by a physician) is apparently entirely based on a source writing about 165 years later, and in a tome characterized as having a "unique blend of imperial gossip, moral observation, and political detail"? "Suetonius preserves otherwise unattested details about their lineage, administration, and personal lives." Why do you lend so much credibility to Suetonius? Suetonius' work "{contains} inconsistencies and contradictions for the scholarly reader." "Suetonius is frequently criticized for his uncritical inclusion of gossip, rumor, and salacious detail in Twelve Caesars. Many of his most memorable anecdotes, particularly those involving sexual misconduct or personal cruelty, are presented without clear source evaluation or contextual framing. While these lurid accounts undoubtedly appealed to many contemporary readers, they raise questions of reliability and accuracy for modern historians." Do the foregoing critiques affect your assessment of Suetonius? Why or why not? Sure it is. It's one of many right questions. Did anyone in ancient Rome, including those living decades/centuries later, have motives or incentives to gossip or embellish or fabricate things about a controversial political figure? Other right questions: What sources did Suetonius use when describing the assassination of Caesar? What provenance issues do we have, and can we overcome them? What indicia, if any, exist that taint Suetonius's credibility? Why should we trust Suetonius? There are far more ways to tear apart Suetonius as a credible "witness" than, say, the statements of David Whitmer. Who are the "they" folks here? Please be specific. Where are these attestations? Please be specific. How do you establish provenance/authentication for these attestations? Please be specific. Haven't you reached a "judgment" about Caesar's body being examined by a physician? And didn't you reach this judgment "without a full deposition" of the physician (or Suetonius)? Any chance of sociopolitical pressures/influences arising about the details of Caesar's death? "At the end of the day, we are left with curated sociopolitical experiences, 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 - not fact-based testimony consistent with real-world testimony." Why you are willing to accept the 165-years-after-the-fact, gossipy, derivative, based-on-who-knows-what-sources hearsay say-so of Suetonius as being credible within the framework you are building to assess the statements of The Book of Mormon Witnesses? it seems like Suetonius would fail to satisfy your benchmarks for reliability, yet you rely on him anyway. Why? Sigh. And here again, we get to your conclusion (that evidence for the Plates "fails") without any actual engagement of the evidence pertaining thereto. Bayesian stuff. Then ChatGPT. Then "what would an Article III judge in 2026 say about David Whitmer." And now "Suetonius is a credible source of information but the Witnesses are not because...," well, I don't know, since you aren't explaining yourself. Um, so did Suetonius. Again, this is just conclusory stuff. I don't know what else I can do to induce you into addressing the evidence. I sure would like you to address at least some of the above questions, and/or this: Vogel's theory does not really account for these things. What engravings did he use? Vogel speculates Joseph scratched simple lines or symbols to mimic "reformed Egyptian" (per the "Anthon transcript"). No need for expertise—just random marks on tin sheets, visible enough through cloth edges or brief peeks to seem "engraved." However, the Eight Witnesses described "engravings" as "of curious workmanship." Tin is soft and easy to engrave, but creating convincing "ancient" script without artistic skill is dubious. Vogel say the plates were kept hidden, so engravings were never closely examined. But then there's the "as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands" and "we also saw the engravings thereon" and "the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship" stuff. Again, Vogel's theory does not really account for these things, and even rests on rank speculation which contradicts the extant evidence. Martin Harris and the Anthon Visit / Farm Mortgage: Skeptics like Vogel account for Harris's enthusiasm as a mix of gullibility, religious fervor, and self-interest. Harris was, per the skeptics, a superstitious treasure seeker who believed Joseph's stone had power (even before plates). The Anthon visit (1828) was spun as fulfillment of Isaiah 29 (sealed book to the learned). Anthon called the characters "shorthand Egyptian," which Harris took as validation, ignoring Anthon's later denial. Gullibility does not account for what Harris did next, which was to mortgage his farm ($3,000). The Eight Witnesses' Mundane Experience: The Eight (Smith and Whitmer family members) "saw / handled / hefted" the plates in "mundane circumstances" (June 1829, woods near Fayette). Skeptics argue: Familiarity with tin: They were rural farmers—tin was everyday (buckets, roofs)—but Vogel suggests the plates were covered in cloth during handling, so they "hefted" weight and "turned leaves" without seeing the surface (how would they turn metal leaves covered in a cloth? - Vogel doesn't say). The "appearance of gold" could be Joseph's description, not theirs (again, just speculation and no evidence). How they were taken in: Close family ties and belief in Joseph's charisma. The prop was "good enough" for a quick, controlled showing—tin's weight (40–60 lbs, per Vogel) matches gold estimates; rings allowed "leaf-turning" sound/feel through cloth. No close inspection; group pressure reinforced the experience. And yet this does not jibe with either the Statement or their subsequent dissociations from Joseph. Why did none of them mention a cloth? Why did none of them recant? No recantations: Loyalty to family/faith, even after schisms (4 Whitmers left the Church). They stood by the testimony as "spiritual truth" or avoided disavowing to maintain reputation. Hyrum and Samuel died loyal; others (like Hiram Page) reaffirmed on deathbeds. Skeptics see this as social/psychological commitment, not proof of authenticity. Kind of hard to square this with Richard Lloyd Anderson's work. These guys were sincere, not opportunistic or craven. How Joseph Crafted a "Really Good" Sham Artifact: Vogel's theory assumes a simple prop: 6x8 inch tin sheets (~23 stacked for thickness), holes punched for 3 rings (bent wire), perhaps hammered for "engraved" texture. "Really good" is relative—witnesses were believers in Joseph's visions; the prop didn't need perfection because it was rarely shown uncovered. Joseph controlled access (e.g., "curse if you peek"), using superstition/fear. Okay. But this is all speculation. And if "hefted" uncovered (as some accounts suggest), tin's dullness wouldn't mimic gold—perhaps polished or gilded with cheap brass/yellow paint, but this just compounds the speculation. As for the engravings, they were random scratches mimicking "reformed Egyptian" from Joseph's "Anthon transcript" sketches. Again, this does not account for Martin's enthusiasm and willingness to mortgage his farm. As for Joseph's poverty, tin was cheap (~$1–$2 for sheets); he could have scavenged or bought with family help. Overall, the "trick" relied more on psychology (expectation, group dynamics) than craftsmanship. But this conflicts with the statements of the Witnesses. "{T}he appearance of gold ... as many of the leaves {} we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship." Hard to reconcile this with a "Joseph just made a cheap prop out of tin painted yellow" theory. Vogel's theory is coherent for skeptics, but it relies on assumptions about witness gullibility, and it contradicts the Witness statements, and it does not account for the Witnesses not recanting, and it does not fully account for the human factor (would Martin, who had substantial bouts of doubt and a hugely grouchy wife, really be inclined to mortgage his farm after visiting Anthon if the narrative was inaccurate?). Boy, it sure is hard to get you critics to pony up. I would be happy if you were to lay out your assessment of the evidence however you please, whether in your own way or by responding to the above inquiries. I, the Latter-day Saint, am asking you, the Anti-Mormon, to lay out your reasoning and your evidence as to an alternative explanation for the Plates, the Witnesses, and the Text of The Book of Mormon. Any part of that would be nice. Just lay out your conclusions (which you have sort of done previously), and then marshal the evidence and reasoning that gets you there, and also address the extant evidence that has been cited in this thread. Sure would like to see you actually address the evidence. That matters, too. I was in a hearing yesterday. It was on two competing motions for summary judgment. It's a contract dispute (a commercial lease). A central issue was whether my client (the former tenant) is obligated to re-pay real estate broker commissions totaling about $100,000 (as contemplated in the lease, which my client broke). I presented evidence to the judge that the tenant which preceded my client in the tenancy paid those commissions to the landlord as part of a settlement deal which allowed it (the tenant) to break the lease early. The evidence was A) images of two checks (produced by the landlord) for the commissions (the authenticity of which was not in dispute), and B) the landlord's deposition testimony in which he admitted - apparently accidentally - that the previous tenant's settlement payment included payment of the broker commissions. He even spelled out the names of the two brokerages who were paid from the settlement amount (which names matched the payees on the checks). And he recited the amounts, which added up to the amounts from the two checks. Later in the deposition (curiously, after a break in which the Zoom session was shut down, thus allowing the landlord time to speak with his attorney), the landlord reversed himself 180 degrees and declared that the previous tenant's settlement amount did not include the brokerage commissions. My argument was both factual (the two checks, the landlord's testimony) and legal (U.S. law disallows "double recovery" of a loss). The legal argument being damning and beyond dispute, the landlord's attorney had no choice but to address the factual underpinnings of my argument (that the broker commissions had already been paid). He's a good lawyer (I've litigated against him before), and he's bound by ethical standards (including "candor toward the tribunal"), so he couldn't actually lie about the facts of the case. But neither could he meaningfully rebut the evidence I had marshaled. It was, after all, his own client who had produced the checks and then testified about the payout from the prior tenant. So what could he do? He prevaricated. A lot. A lot. He danced around the evidentiary issues I had presented, neither rebutting nor acknowledging them. He did not address them in any real sense. He instead spoke at length on how my client had broken the lease early, and how this was a bad thing, and that we had not obtained an affidavit from the prior tenant, and that "amortization" is a word so obviously self-descriptive that it did not need to be defined in the lease, and on and on. Again, I have litigated against this attorney a few times before, and have always been impressed with his legal acumen, his reasoning, his writing and oratorical skills, and so on. But yesterday he had to deal the hand that was dealt to him, and it did not come across well. By refusing to address the substantive evidentiary arguments, and by repeatedly prevaricating instead, I think that he ended up confirming and bolstering - in the mind of the judge - both my factual arguments and the legal conclusions based thereon. Not because I am smarter than the other attorney, but rather because I was engaging and addressing and marshaling the evidence, and he was not. I'm having similar vibes in this thread with you, Roger. I don't claim to be smarter than you. in fact, I suspect that your intellect, overall, surpasses mine. But you really are not acquitting yourself well here. I am moving heaven and earth to clear the way, to let you have center stage, to invite you to lay out your assessment of the evidence pertaining to the Plates, the Witnesses and/or the Text of The Book of Mormon. I would like to here more than just broad conclusory declarations. I would like to see you present 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 would really like to hear what the best of the Anti-Mormons have to say about the foundational components of the Restored Gospel. How 'bout it? Can we start with the Plates or with Richard Lloyd Anderson's treatment of the Witnesses? Thanks, -Smac

Yes. Ritner and Coe appear to be exceptions. It's probably not reasonable for us to expect secular scholars to directly address matters regarding the Church's foundational claims. Yes, interesting. And non-Latter-day Saint scholars who do have relevant training are generally avoiding apologetic debates. @Analytics, do you concur with Ryan's assessment here? Thanks, -Smac

There seems to be a fair amount of indifference to Latter-day Saint scholarship about the foundational components Robert K. Ritner was willing to address The Book of Abraham. I found his commentary to be so-so, and also fairly flawed insofar as he often departed from scholarly norms. His unseemly treatment of John Gee was unfortunate. IIRC, Michael Coe rather embarrassed himself by exposing his ignorance of Latter-day Saint scholarship. Heh. Ritner and Coe were the same examples that came to mind for me. The field of non-LDS scholars who have seriously engaged Latter-day Saint scholarship about these matters is pretty barren. Yep. And I can't help but wonder if that rarity is attributable to deliberate and studied avoidance/indifference. An exception: Margaret Barker. Interestingly, I think she is perhaps the most well-versed in Latter-day Saint doctrines. The Church also has oodles of scientists, doctors, lawyers, businessmen, etc. whose livelihoods depend on their intellect, and who readily absorb data in their professional capacities and openly profess belief in the miraculous foundational events of the Restoration. I for one have no problem being both an attorney, whose day-to-day work is steeped in skepticism and evidentiary scrutiny, an a Latter-day Saint. Indeed, my experiences in the former field have had quite a supplementary and confirming effect on my experiences in the latter. Thanks, -Smac

No. We are to evaluate them on their substantive merits. I would be happy to see more scholarly assessments of the items under discussion in this thread, whether or original or responsive to Latter-day Saint scholarship. Thanks, -Smac

"{A}ll of this data" have been publicly available for quite a while, some for many decades. Anyone "outside of the LDS scholarly domain" has had ample opportunity to do "peer review." This has happened a bit, but not much. I think this is mostly attributable to indifference and/or studied avoidance. I'm not particularly inclined to judge an idea based primarily on it having been peer reviewed or not. Here are a few reasons why: Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals Let's stop pretending peer review works When reviewing goes wrong: the ugly side of peer review (Illustrating some of the most common ways that things can go wrong during peer review – and what to do if this happens) Peer Review is Not Scientific (How a process designed to ensure scientific rigor is tainted by randomness, bias, and arbitrary delays.) Is Peer Review A Big Bad Joke? (You, too, could have a paper in a science journal! An investigation reveals that dozens of sketchy titles were happy to publish a study so egregiously flawed it almost had to be fake.) Science Is Suffering Because of Peer Review’s Big Problems (How to reform the journal publication process.) Phony peer review: The more we look, the more we find This Study Just Revealed Why The Peer-Review Process Is in So Much Trouble (In recent years, scientists have been warning us about a reproducibility crisis in science, which has seen many seminal papers - particularly in psychology - failing to hold up when an independent team tries to reproduce the results.) There are significant problems with bias, politics, funding concerns, etc. being implicated in scholarly research and publications. When it comes to scholarly assessment of miraculous claims of a religion as controversial as the Church, I think this problems are augmented significantly. Thanks, -Smac

So do I, particularly when contrasted against each other. The Statement of the Three Witnesses attests to divine intervention in relation to the Plates, but it is also susceptible to "Hey, they must've been tricked or drugged"-style skepticisms because of miraculous nature of the event. As you noted previously, presumptive skepticism about miraculous claims is not unreasonable. But then comes the Statement of the Eight Witnesses, which is an inversion of the above, and which - in my view - mitigates the grounds for skepticism and creates something of an evidentiary quandary for critics like @Analytics. It attests more to the physical reality of the Plates and their actual substantive appearance (the event was in mundane circumstances, no Angel or voice from Heaven, but the object was clearly both there and impressive), but it is also susceptible to "Hey, they must've been tricked by a prop of tin painted yellow"-style skepticisms because of the non-miraculous nature of the event. The two statements, taken together, effectively establish - beyond genuine dispute - the physicality of the Plates. The best evidence for this is, well, the critics. Even the most ardent and highly-motivated skeptics (Vogel, Taves, Analytics) effectively acknowledge that there really was something shown to the Witnesses. That's a pretty big evidentiary deal. So we then pivot to an authentically ancient v. sham discussion. Critics must then accept the latter. But that leads to some further questions that are difficult to address, hence the substantive circumlocutory rhetoric of folks like Analytics and Vogel, who prevaricate and dance around the evidence and seek to replace discussion of it it with speculation and innuendo. That speculation, though, creates some real issues... Who manufactured the sham plates? Where? When? By what means? How many people were involved? What were the Plates made of? What evidence is there of any of this? Was Joseph involved? If not, then who was involved, and how did they get to Joseph Smith? And how was he persuaded to spin a fantastic yarn as to the Plates origins, and then keep to that yard even when his life was at stake? If he was involved, was he a dupe or a conniver? If a dupe, who else was involved? And why did these others never come forward (as happened with the Kinderhook Plates)? If a conniver, did he act alone? If so, where was his smithy? Where did he manufacture them? When? By what means? Using what materials? How did he afford these materials, given his poverty? Where did he get the raw materials? Where did he get metallurgical skills? If a conniver and acting in concert with others, who were these others? And why did these others never come forward (as happened with the Kinderhook Plates)? And to what purpose? Who benefitted by this grand scheme? And where did these others operate? Which of them made the plates? Where? Using what tools and materials and metallurgical skills? How was Martin Harris duped? He took engravings to Anthon and the other guy, and came back so impressed by what they had told him that he mortgaged his farm to pay for the publication of The Book of Mormon. And he then had a falling out with Joseph, but never recanted. How do skeptics account for this? Was the prop a sloppy, cobbled-together joke? If so, how do skeptics deal with the Eight Witnesses? Were all eight just really dumb? They all them handled the Plates (literally with their "hands"), hefted them, saw them as having "the appearance of gold," and "saw the engravings" on the Plates, and viewed them as having "the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship," and none of them thought or said - either during or after the event - "Hey, this think just looks like common tin painted yellow" (Vogel's theory, see below)? Did these men not know what tin looked like? Alternatively, the prop was apparently sufficient to have eight men state that the Plates had "the appearance of gold" and "the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship" with "engravings" of them. So that speaks to a fairly sophisticated and well-made prop. If so, how did Joseph make it? Or did someone else more skilled make it? If so, whom, under what conditions, for what purpose, etc.? And why was the sham never discovered? Who stood to gain by taking the secrets of such a fantastic hoax to the grave? Also, the Plates were described by Emma as "pliable like thick paper, and would rustle with a metalic sound when the edges were moved by the thumb, as one does sometimes thumb the edges of a book." And "[s]everal witnesses compared the thickness of the individual plates to 'common tin' of their day." So the Eight Witnesses were familiar with common tin, but they did not recognize the prop - as Vogel would have us believe - as being made of tin? And they spent the rest of their lives - including those who fell out with Joseph - attesting to what they had seen, with nary a one of them saying "Hey, in hindsight I think the Plates were just made of tin and painted yellow"? And on and on and one. It's no wonder Analytics doesn't want to touch any of these things with a ten-foot pole. I think he sees these questions coming. So he retreats into cerebral references to Bayesian empiricism (though not really deploying it), and then quotes ChatGPT (thus allowing him space to disclaim it if the assessment falls apart under scrutiny), and has now formulated a tortured "Hey, what if we filed a lawsuit in federal court in 2026 and used the rules of evidence to depose dead witnesses" hypothetical. Lots of ducking and weaving, but virtually no examination of the substantive evidence, no addressing hard questions like those above. Yes, you are right, Ryan. "Very strong supporting evidence" is a contextual statement, but even so, I am increasingly impressed by just how well The Book of Mormon stands up to scrutiny. The best and brightest - Vogel, Taves, Analytics - can't really formulate a naturalistic theory that withstands scrutiny. Hugh Nibley nailed it: I think we are seeing this play out in this thread. And while Analytics will scoff at such a suggestion, I don't think he will meaningfully engage the evidence either. Yes. Each category of evidence (testimonial, documentary, forensic, expert) has its strengths and shortcomings. But we work with what we've got. But they might have been duped. Or in on the con. So posits Analytics. And that's fine. But that is all he'll do and say. He won't substantiate it. He won't marshal evidence. He won't address the logical predicates and inferences and extrapolations. He'll just make broad references and conclude with vague stuff like "it was more like a magic act." I'm totally okay if that satisfies his intellectual curiosity. For me, though, I would really like to see him or some other anti-Mormon really dig in and address the evidence, and ask - and answer - hard questions. I just don't see it happening, though, since Analytics presupposition - that Joseph's narrative is "just not possible" is both the beginning and end and middle of his inquiry. Yes, it looks like our critics have more or less been forced to concede both that A) there really was a physical artifact present at the events described by the witnesses, and B) the witnesses were sincere in their beliefs. These concessions, for me, introduce all sorts of follow-up questions, with substantially unsatisfying answers from those doing the conceding. Dan Vogel has, to an extent, articulated a counter-theory for the origins of The Book of Mormon. See, e.g., this three-part interview on MormonStories. A Grok summary: The key parts of Vogel's interview: Part 1: 00:31:46 Dan’s theory that Joseph Smith created a set of plates Part 1: 00:44:05 Dan Vogel’s theory of Joseph Smith created the plates from tin Part 1: 00:48:07 When does Joseph Smith finish making the plates? Part 3: 00:25:24 The Eight Witnesses As with most MS interviews, Vogel is pushing against an open door. He and John chuckle together, and Vogel clearly has a good command of the primary sources. But he's quite selective with them. Vogel suggests they were made of tin. And no conspiracy, so it was just Joseph. And that "there's no reason," apart from deceit, for Joseph to not display the plates (he kept them hidden because they could not pass visible inspection"). And the "Eight Witnesses" saw the plates with "spiritual sight" rather than in mundane circumstances, and/or that they "saw the Plates through {a} cloth." This is speculative (and, as to the Eight Witnesses, at odds with their Statement), but it's at least plausible and addresses a number of issues. Tin does a lot of heavy lifting for Vogel. Tin was widely available, so no metallurgy needed. And widely available means not particularly expensive, so Joseph's poverty is not really an issue. And no conspiracy, so no need to account for others' involvement. And "the Witnesses only saw the Plates with 'spiritual' eyes and/or through a cloth" kinda sorta mitigates the Statement of the Eight Witnesses. But once we get past the speculative superficialities of Vogel's theory, it starts to create more questions than answers: How did Joseph make them have the "appearance of gold"? This is, in my view, a major weakness in Vogel's theory. Tinplate is silvery-gray, not golden. Vogel suggests Joseph kept them covered (in cloth or a box) during "showings," so witnesses "hefted" or "handled" them without seeing the surface. For glimpses, he might have polished them to a shine or used a golden tint (e.g., brass polish or yellow dye), but there's no evidence. Critics like Vogel point to witness accounts describing "ancient appearance" or "gold-like," but believers counter that the plates were never fully uncovered for skeptics to inspect. If uncovered (as some accounts imply), tin wouldn't fool anyone—it's too dull. And the Plates were, according to the Eight Witnesses, pretty out-in-the-open: Vogel's theory does not really account for these things. What engravings did he use? Vogel speculates Joseph scratched simple lines or symbols to mimic "reformed Egyptian" (per the "Anthon transcript"). No need for expertise—just random marks on tin sheets, visible enough through cloth edges or brief peeks to seem "engraved." However, the Eight Witnesses described "engravings" as "of curious workmanship." Tin is soft and easy to engrave, but creating convincing "ancient" script without artistic skill is dubious. Vogel say the plates were kept hidden, so engravings were never closely examined. But then there's the "as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands" and "we also saw the engravings thereon" and "the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship" stuff. Again, Vogel's theory does not really account for these things, and even rests on rank speculation which contradicts the extant evidence. Martin Harris and the Anthon Visit / Farm Mortgage: Skeptics like Vogel account for Harris's enthusiasm as a mix of gullibility, religious fervor, and self-interest. Harris was, per the skeptics, a superstitious treasure seeker who believed Joseph's stone had power (even before plates). The Anthon visit (1828) was spun as fulfillment of Isaiah 29 (sealed book to the learned). Anthon called the characters "shorthand Egyptian," which Harris took as validation, ignoring Anthon's later denial. Gullibility does not account for what Harris did next, which was to mortgage his farm ($3,000). The Eight Witnesses' Mundane Experience: The Eight (Smith and Whitmer family members) "saw / handled / hefted" the plates in "mundane circumstances" (June 1829, woods near Fayette). Skeptics argue: Familiarity with tin: They were rural farmers—tin was everyday (buckets, roofs)—but Vogel suggests the plates were covered in cloth during handling, so they "hefted" weight and "turned leaves" without seeing the surface (how would they turn metal leaves covered in a cloth? - Vogel doesn't say). The "appearance of gold" could be Joseph's description, not theirs (again, just speculation and no evidence). How they were taken in: Close family ties and belief in Joseph's charisma. The prop was "good enough" for a quick, controlled showing—tin's weight (40–60 lbs, per Vogel) matches gold estimates; rings allowed "leaf-turning" sound/feel through cloth. No close inspection; group pressure reinforced the experience. And yet this does not jibe with either the Statement or their subsequent dissociations from Joseph. Why did none of them mention a cloth? Why did none of them recant? No recantations: Loyalty to family/faith, even after schisms (4 Whitmers left the Church). They stood by the testimony as "spiritual truth" or avoided disavowing to maintain reputation. Hyrum and Samuel died loyal; others (like Hiram Page) reaffirmed on deathbeds. Skeptics see this as social/psychological commitment, not proof of authenticity. Kind of hard to square this with Richard Lloyd Anderson's work. These guys were sincere, not opportunistic or craven. How Joseph Crafted a "Really Good" Sham Artifact: Vogel's theory assumes a simple prop: 6x8 inch tin sheets (~23 stacked for thickness), holes punched for 3 rings (bent wire), perhaps hammered for "engraved" texture. "Really good" is relative—witnesses were believers in Joseph's visions; the prop didn't need perfection because it was rarely shown uncovered. Joseph controlled access (e.g., "curse if you peek"), using superstition/fear. Okay. But this is all speculation. And if "hefted" uncovered (as some accounts suggest), tin's dullness wouldn't mimic gold—perhaps polished or gilded with cheap brass/yellow paint, but this just compounds the speculation. As for the engravings, they were random scratches mimicking "reformed Egyptian" from Joseph's "Anthon transcript" sketches. Again, this does not account for Martin's enthusiasm and willingness to mortgage his farm. As for Joseph's poverty, tin was cheap (~$1–$2 for sheets); he could have scavenged or bought with family help. Overall, the "trick" relied more on psychology (expectation, group dynamics) than craftsmanship. But this conflicts with the statements of the Witnesses. "{T}he appearance of gold ... as many of the leaves {} we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship." Hard to reconcile this with a "Joseph just made a cheap prop out of tin painted yellow" theory. Vogel's theory is coherent for skeptics, but it relies on assumptions about witness gullibility, and it contradicts the Witness statements, and it does not account for the Witnesses not recanting, and it does not fully account for the human factor (would Martin, who had substantial bouts of doubt and a hugely grouchy wife, really be inclined to mortgage his farm after visiting Anthon if the narrative was inaccurate?). Don't really have time for and extended look at Taves, but see here. I returned from my mission in early 1995. Online anti-Mormonism was in its infancy, but there was enough to discombobulate me a bit. Nevertheless, I dug in and started to both listen and talk. The Book of Mormon has been central to my thoughts, including listing to alternative theories. Fast forward to 2026, and as you say "no such theory has been forthcoming." And hardly even then, as hallucinations would not account for the failure of any of the witnesses to recant, or for Martin's mortgaging of his farm, etc. I agree. It's a wonder it's still bandied about. And meanwhile, those Latter-day Saints who are willing to let them have the floor and have their say continue to be disappointed that they won't take us up on the offer. Thanks, -Smac

Great. Do you want make a serious examination of the evidence? Yes. Well, no, I don't think we should do that. That would be an unreasonable look. For a few reasons. First, it will not do for you impliedly characterize yourself as just some impartial, emotionally detached "jurist," an umpire who calls 'em as he sees 'em, whereas I am an "apologist." I am an advocate for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and you are one of the most anti-Mormon participants on this board. If we were in a courtroom you would not be sitting on the bench. You would be sitting at the table where advocates and parties sit, all of whom have skin in the game. You are nothing close to impartial, so let's not pretend otherwise. Second, the U.S. legal system, now 200+ years old, is predicated on a well-developed, but still ongoing, system of checks and balances, procedural and evidentiary rules and safeguards, and so on. Two of the most important safeguards are the U.S. Constitution and extrapolated doctrines which constrain the judiciary - state and federal - from getting involved in resolving disputes outside of their sphere and purview. Adjudicating The Book of Mormon is way outside of those parameters. Third, your proposal comes across as a bit of special pleading. You have no expectation or requirement of approaching other topics - arising centuries ago - "as a jurist." Historiography would grind to a halt if modern American rules of procedure and evidence were to be deployed in that context. Same goes for many other - almost all? - fields of study. And yet the only one for which "a serious examination of the evidence" requires playing "jurist" is . . . The Book of Mormon witnesses. Fourth, your proposal does not account for where we are, which is that we are the beneficiaries of lots of very good analysis of the Witnesses. From the DCP article above: Are you willing to address these references? Consider yourself pushed back. Your suggestion of litigating the credibility of the Witnesses utilizing the modern U.S. legal framework is altogether impractical and unworkable. Perhaps, though, there is a way forward. What say we start with Richard Lloyd Anderson? Alternatively, what sort of approach would you take to, say, evidence regarding Troy? Atlantis? Buraq? Olympus? From Grok: Thoughts? The rules of evidence have evolved in a legal ecosystem that can't really work here. See above. There is some patchwork application (e.g., favoring percipient witnesses over hearsay witnesses), but not enough to make things workable here. Nevertheless, I'll go along for a bit. Fact witnesses. The witnesses did not present opinions. They presented their what they experienced. They were percipient witnesses. Most of those "principle{s}" really have no application in the context of historiography, religious studies, etc. I previously commented on Caesar's assassination, including how all, or nearly all, "historical" sources for that event were decades or centuries removed from the event, and only one of them was possibly a "percipient" statement. And yet I really doubt you go around scoffing at people who believe that Caesar was assassinated. I doubt you go about saying "Hey, we can't rely on Nicolaus or Plutarch or Appian or Cassius Dio or Cicero because their historical statements violate almost every principle we use to evaluate the reliability of fact testimony." They were? How do you know? And how do you account for D&C 17:1? For that matter, how do The Federal Rules of Evidence account for D&C 17:1? How would "a jurist" weigh this evidence? Also, the Lord's Twelve Disciples were also "hand-picked." Do you go around seeking to use the Federal Rules of Evidence to discount them? They are even more removed from "almost every principle we use to evaluate the reliability of fact testimony." Sure. But credibility can be augmented or weakened in all sorts of ways. Here, the Rules of Evidence don't have much utility. Richard Lloyd Anderson's book does, though (as does DCP's website referenced above). Are you willing to discuss it? They were? How do you know? Rule 602 objections are based on "lack of foundation." Rule 611 objections pertain to statements or questions which "assume facts not in evidence." This would go to weight, not admissibility. Rules 702 and 401 and 402. Do you know how many times interested parties, particularly fact witnesses, are called upon to testify in court? They are the rule, not the exception. Are you seriously suggesting that familial or other relationships are disqualifiers for fact witnesses? Where did you get that idea? That would depend entirely on each individual witness. As it happens, Richard Lloyd Anderson has done a great job in examining the lives of the Witnesses. Are you interested in exploring his book? Okay. So what? Are you saying that affidavits are only legitimate if they are personally penned by the affiant/declarant? Where did you get that idea? Well, no. That is simply not so. I have been an attorney for 20+ years. I have written up hundreds of affidavits / written declarations for clients and witnesses and such. Every litigator you come across will say they have done the same thing. How does that eliminate the declarant's credibility as a witness? This is particularly relevant where, as here, most of the Witnesses thereafter separated themselves from Joseph Smith, and so would have had every incentive to say "Hey, don't rely on the published witness statement bearing my name, as it does not accurately reflect my experience"? Did any of the Witnesses do anything like that? If not, why not? And if they did not recant, isn't their original and then ongoing attestation - despite likely having all sorts of reasons to recant - relevant to the probative value of their statements? Also relevant: Their character and reputation and behavior, both before and after their attestations. Do you think Richard Lloyd Anderson's book provides any helpful information on these matters? Are you willing to consider that stuff? It is? Are you sure about that? What rule of evidence is in play here? A written statement prepared by X for Y may or may not be less credible because X wrote it, but that's far from a presumptive thing. I've participated in many dozens of depositions, and I don't think I have ever seen such a challenge. Not to say it can't happen, but I think it's quite rare. And saying that "testimony is significantly discounted" because of it is a country-mile overstatement. Again, this goes to weight, not admissibility. Caesar. Do you dispute that he was assassinated? Even though there are (probably) "no {extant} contemporary independent accounts"? "We don't have journals, letters, or other contemporaneous documents from {Nicolaus or Plutarch or Appian or Cassius Dio or Cicero} describing their experiences in their own words at the time they occurred." Would you find this persuasive? And, again, none of them were even present at the event, yet we accept the historicity of Caesar's assassination. Do you discount these historical sources on the same grounds as your statement above? What we do have, though, is extensive historical evidence and statements from the Witnesses, the authenticity of which does not really seem to be in dispute. Are you open to discussing them? There is no rule of evidence lessening the probative value of "prepared statements." If you feel otherwise, feel free to post citations to legal authorities. As for the "later recollections, often decades after the fact," how is that a point against credibility? David Whitmer despised Joseph Smith for the remainder of his days, calling him a "fallen prophet," rejecting his later teachings, etc. His 1887 book, An Address to All Believers in Christ, is a compendium of criticisms of Joseph. And yet... Why are you not addressing these? For pete's sake, David Whitmer was so adamant about his testimony that he had a reference to it engraved and memorialized on this tombstone. What is your assessment of Mr. Whitmer? What evidence do you have that he was insane? Deluded or tricked? What sort of super-magician do you think Joseph Smith was? He was so good at tricking people that David Whitmer spent decades despising him and maintaining his testimony of the Plates. Is that your assessment of this witness? If so, how do you get there? What evidence do you have which countervails the various statements above? And what rules of evidence apply to these statements? How do you propose a "jurist" would handle them? From Grok: Not sure as to accuracy. Will check later. But at first glance it looks like all three of the Three Witnesses reaffirmed shortly after their published testimonies, and eight of the Eight Witnesses reaffirmed in 1830, and John Whitmer and Hyrum Page did in other settings. They were? How do you know? And how would this be handled by a judge? And what rules of evidence are implicated here? Okay. And? And how would this be handled by a judge? And what rules of evidence are implicated here? What rule of evidence is implicated here? Is "independent examination" of an item in litigation a requirement for people to testify about it? Where did you get that idea? Nope. They were returned to Moroni. What rule of evidence is implicated here? Except that nobody claims Joseph "destroyed or removed" the Plates. He returned them to Moroni. You are apparently arguing spoliation, but you have no evidence of it. Moreover, "spoliation" is "{t}he intentional destruction or alteration of relevant evidence in existing or pending litigation." Do you have any evidence that Joseph Smith acted intentionally to destroy or alter the Plates? That there was "existing or pending litigation" at the time? Moreover, spoliation is not a rule of evidence, but a rule of procedure (in a federal setting, Rule 37). Rule 37 imposes sanctions for misconduct pertaining to failure to preserve evidence, but you have no evidence of misconduct by Joseph Smith. Are you sure you want to apply the rules of evidence and procedure here? An affiant's statement is a written instrument, so it can't be cross-examined. Affidavits are, nevertheless, used all the time in a legal setting. What rule of evidence is implicated here? It's really not. This is a protracted "pounding a square peg into a round hole" exercise. Really? Rule of evidence, please. As it happens, today I spent two hours in a summary judgment hearing which involved a review of the plaintiff's affidavits (two of them). I had all sorts of objections and grounds to attack these documents, but their not being "tested by cross-examination" was not one of them. Cross-examination only happens at trial or in depositions, after all. Really? How would we do that when the witnesses are long dead? How would a judge assess the probative weight of their statements? What rules of evidence are in play? How do you get around the Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine? How does the judge have jurisdiction? What venue? Is this a federal or state court? Who is the plaintiff? Who is the defendant? What causes of action are in view? What about the Statute of Limitations? Laches? Estoppel? Are the claims statutory? Common law? Tort? Were these causes of action in existence in 1830s and thereafter? And these are just the flaws in this approach that I am thinking of off the top of my head. I think there are likely a lot more. This would never see the inside of a courtroom, let alone a law firm's office for a deposition. Anyhoo, what questions would this "skilled attorney" ask? Of whom? The witnesses are all dead. About what claims? All sorts of Latter-day Saint scholarship about this stuff. Perhaps Richard Lloyd Anderson's book could qualify as a "learned treatise" for your sake. Are you willing to evaluate these statements in more detail? Sure would like to discuss the evidence directly, rather than just passing references to "may have." A deposition of dead people? How would that work? Because you don't want to have a straightforward discussion about the evidence, and so would rather indulge in thoroughly unrealistic hypotheticals? Much of what you've said above is very technical, and has no business being deployed in this context. Yes. In court. With presupposes federal or state court, jurisdiction and venue, statutes of limitations, common law, statutory law, torts, procedural and evidentiary rules, affirmative defenses, cognizable and non-cognizable causes of action, and on and on and on. The Federal Rules of Evidence can't really be deployed to examine the witness statements of dead people about a religious artifact. There is no federal question, so it would need to be a state court thing. Jurisdiction and venue? Forget about it. Statute of limitations? Long gone. Causes of action? Who knows, since you're just making this stuff up as you go along. Laches? Definitely. Estoppel? Maybe. And on and on and on. Roger, you can't invoke a highly set of technical evidentiary rules promulgated for specific purposes in specific situations when neither those purposes nor situations are in play. To the contrary, the testimony was intended to facilitate verification. See Moroni 10:3-5. How would a judge evaluate Moroni's Promise? But not in anticipation of any lawsuit or legal scrutiny. Witnesses are selected all the time. Weight, not admissibility. Irrelevant. By a farmer in the 1820s in New York? It is altogether unreasonable and unserious to frame Joseph Smith's conduct in a 2026 legal setting. It was returned to Moroni. And not for spoliation purposes, since there was no actual or pending litigation at the time. The knives used to kill Caesar aren't available for forensic examination either. By your reasoning, we should therefore dispute that he was assassinated. All religious claims are extraordinary, and adjudication of them is barred by the Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine. You are not addressing this. So "carefully managed," in fact, that most of the Witnesses ended up estranged from Joseph Smith. Personally, I agree with you. I think God had foreknowledge that many of the Witnesses would dissociate from Joseph. That dissociation, coupled with their enduring declaration of their respective testimonies, bolsters their credibility. Again, Moroni 10:3-5. Again, Ceasar. This is all a massive waste of time, Roger. D&C 17. Most of whom thereafter became estranged from Joseph, and so would have had every incentive to recant. But they didn't. Not destroyed. Returned to Moroni. You can't be so sloppy in your rhetoric in a legal setting. A mischaracterization that severe could get you chewed out by a judge. Right. Feel free to walk us through this "pattern." Where was it established? When? By whom? For what purpose? Please be sure to cite rules of evidence and decisional authority to support your position. We are in court, after all. How often are "historical events" stage-managed in this way? Pretty much never. Oh, that's a really interesting suggestion. Are you sure you want to go with it? See, in a magic show, everyone knows it's not real. It's just for fun. Martin Harris mortgaged his farm to finance the publication of The Book of Mormon. How do you account for that if he was a party to "a magic show"? David Whitmer spent decades both despising Joseph Smith and declaring his (David's) 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? And if that possibility was there, wouldn't his antipathy toward Joseph make him more likely to recant or qualify his statement? Why are you not addressing any of this? Do you have any evidence that any of the Witnesses thought they were being invited to something akin to "a magic show"? So that means you are characterizing the Witnesses as hapless dupes, yes. But then, how do you square that with Richard Lloyd Anderson's assessment of these men? I see all sorts of reasons to give the Witness statements "significant evidentiary weight." So litigation, for you, amounts to merely trading conclusory assertions? You're barely skimming over a few pieces of evidence, and wholesale ignoring vast swathes of it. Yes. Still hasn't happened. All sorts of song and dance about Bayesian empiricism, but no substantive discussion of the evidence. Then you pivot to an absurd and strained "What if we put the Witnesses before an Article III judge in 2026?"-type hypothetical scenario. Lots of verbiage, none of it substantively examining evidence. I propose we take a look at Richard Lloyd Anderson's book and DCP's website. That would let us get pretty granular. How 'bout it? We could go chapter by chapter. That depends, I suppose, on what "kind of scrutiny" is in play. You and your presuppositions call for fraud or delusion or both. I and my presuppositions call for agency and a Plan of Salvation framed by an omniscient and loving and benevolent Heavenly Father who wants us to "walk by faith, not by sight." I'm not asking you to accept my presuppositions, but you are asking me to accept yours. It doesn't work. So how 'bout it? Richard Lloyd Anderson? Thanks, -Smac

What are your thoughts about @Analytics' heavy reliance on Sean Carroll's declaration that "The laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely known"? Do you see any discrepancy between that and "No human theory or explanation is ever truly complete"? The "granularity" component of this discussion merits some attention. The Latter-day Saints vary in their capacity here. For example, the plausibility of the Gold Plates can be scrutinized with more granularity (e.g., tumbaga, physical reproductions, etc.) than, say, the "by the gift and power of God" translation process. We cannot directly test the reality of the Witnesses' described experiences, but we can evaluate their individual credibility as witnesses overall. See, e.g., Daniel Peterson's comments here: A Note on Evidence (Part One) Some excerpts: It is stuff like DCP's approach to evidence that compels me to part ways with @Analytics. I want to examine the evidence in support of the Church's truth claims, and I don't think he does. I want to examine alternative explanations for The Book of Mormon and evidence therefore, and I don't think he does. Instead, I think he is using supposed Bayesian reasoning as a shortcut, as a justification to circumvent any need to actually address the evidence in favor of authenticity for The Book of Mormon, or to formulate a counter-explanation and marshal supporting evidence for it. He just declares, a priori, that Joseph's narrative is "just not possible," and that "any [other] explanation" is "more likely than {The Book of Mormon} being an accurate translation of an actual ancient manuscript" (emphasis added). Hence the "Space Aliens" and/or "Satan" stuff. If supposed Bayesian methodological empiricism can accommodate explanations like these but not Joseph's, then I'm not sure how useful it is as a diagnostic tool in this context. Are you positing that the "shrink ray gun" is, to some extent, analogous to the text of The Book of Mormon? Or the testimonial evidence of the Witnesses (together with their individualized credibility, subsequent opportunities/incentives to recant, etc.)? Both? Neither? I think I have previously touched on this, but by a somewhat different approach and description. I've called it the "Transmission Gap Theory," described here (bold emphases added) : Here are my thoughts: Because the Bible’s historical transmission can be discerned and explained naturalistically (that is, without any necessary reliance on “divine” intervention in the transmission of the text), the antiquity of the Bible is not probative of its status as scripture (any more than Homer’s Illiad is probative of the Greek Pantheon). This is why skeptics of the Bible find little or no persuasive value in archaeological artifacts presented as “evidence” for the Bible’s status as scripture and record of miraculous events. After all, Homer’s Illiad has a historical pedigree tracing back to antiquity, as well as some archaeological verification. This does not mean, however, that the descriptions of the supernatural in Homer's work are factual. As one atheist fellow put it: "The only thing all those ancient bible sites prove is {that} the Bible is a really old fraud." In contrast, The Book of Mormon is differently situated from the Bible. There is a built-in gap in its historical transmission, consisting of some 1,400 years from when Moroni buried the plates to 1823, when the plates were re-discovered by Joseph Smith, Jr. This “transmission gap” effectively precludes a naturalistic explanation of the text’s antiquity. Consequently, if we someday discover persuasive archaeological or other evidence for the antiquity of The Book of Mormon, such evidence would have a far more persuasive impact on the veracity of the book's truth claims than would archaeological evidence for the Bible impact that book's truth claims. Put another way, the antiquity and truth claims of The Book of Mormon are intertwined, such that evidence of the former may simultaneously be evidence of the latter. Thanks, -Smac

Thank you. A few thoughts: 1. My Request: My core challenge has been for critics such as yourself to provide a positive, coherent alternative that accounts for the key data points (physical plates, witness statements, text origins/translation process) without heavy speculation, while claiming empirical rigor. 2. Your Response: Your response here is partially responsive in that you offer "scenarios I find most plausible." I find this falls short of what I had hoped to see in a few ways: You remain "generally agnostic about the specific details of the mechanism of production," which preserves flexibility but avoids committing to a single, falsifiable theory (essentially, you're still exhibiting the "anything but that" approach). Of course, you have no obligation to do this, but it sure comes across as wishy-washy from a supposed empiricist who has spent decades examining and criticizing the truth claims of the Church. Your explanations are vague and broad and hedged ("I can imagine," "most plausible," "I think the most plausible explanation combines..."). You only superficially, if at all, engage primary historical sources (e.g., specific witness accounts over time, dictation details from scribes like Emma Smith or Oliver Cowdery, or manuscript evidence) to show how they fit a plausible alternative model. Essentially, you are not engaging the data and are just jumping to broad conclusions without explaining the reasoning and evidence that got you there. On the text, you reference Carmack's EModE (Early Modern English), presumably because you and Ryan have been discussing it. However, you dismiss its implications casually ("don't require a miracle... require immersion") without addressing why such patterns appear in ways critics argue Joseph couldn't plausibly replicate (e.g., non-biblical EModE syntax not common in 19th-century imitation or Joseph's known writings). This doesn't do much as far as presenting a coherent and evidence-based alternative explanation that grapples with the data head-on, as scholars like Dan Vogel (psychological/family dynamics) or Ann Taves (revelatory events via materialization/cognitive processes) attempt in more depth (though, in my view, with little success). 3. Bayesian Stuff: Bayesian reasoning involves updating beliefs (posterior probability) based on evidence via likelihoods, given priors. As I understand it, a true Bayesian empiricist would: Start with explicit priors (e.g., low prior for supernatural claims due to naturalistic background knowledge). Assign likelihoods to evidence under competing hypotheses (divine translation vs. naturalistic production). Update iteratively with new data. Remain open to evidence shifting probabilities significantly. You invoke Bayesian-style thinking elsewhere (e.g., in broader debates on extraordinary claims), but here your position is not, I think, rigorously Bayesian: No explicit priors, likelihood ratios, or updating process are shown. You appeal to background knowledge (e.g., 19th-century biblical immersion explains EModE; no independent examination of plates fits deception) but do not quantify or compare likelihoods formally. You dismiss "supernatural" alternatives (space aliens/demons) as "extraordinarily unlikely" without Bayesian math, relying on intuition. The Penn & Teller analogy is more frequentist/abductive ("I don’t need to know how the trick to know there is one") than Bayesian—it avoids assigning probabilities to mechanisms altogether. Your comments here come across as informal skepticism (extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; Occam's razor favors naturalism) rather than as strict Bayesian empiricism. Your self-designation, at least as pertaining to the Church's core claims, seems more aspirational than descriptive. 4. Evidence-Based vs. Speculation/Conjecture: Your post leans heavily toward speculation and conjecture, with limited direct engagement with historical evidence. On the text: You assert Joseph ais primary author, possibly with Lucy/Hyrum help. No explanation/reasoning/analysis, no supporting evidence, no engaging contravening evidence. You suggest a "tight translation" via pre-prepared manuscript + immersion in KJV/archaic language. Again, no explanation, no evidence, no engaging with extant evidence. Your position is based on speculation, not empiricism. There is no direct evidence suggesting a pre-dictation manuscript, and ample contrary evidence (witnesses describe no papers during most dictation). You do not address either category. The 5-year gap is real but doesn't establish preparation. Again, no evidence that composition took place during this period. You assert that "immersion" suffices to dismiss EModE, but you do not explain why patterns exceed Joseph's milieu (per Carmack/Skousen analyses) or why dictation witnesses reported no manuscripts/books in use for most of the process. On the plates: "Some physical object probably existed" but constructed secretly in 5 years, concealed, removed. This is conjectural: There is no positive evidence for fabrication (materials, craftsmanship, witnesses to construction). It assumes deception to explain lack of independent exam, but doesn't engage counter-evidence (e.g., weight/handling descriptions, consistent accounts). On the witnesses: You combines "sincere belief" + "solemn religious oaths" + possible "guile" (staged elements) while serving God's purposes (per Moroni 7). You acknowledge maintained testimonies after excommunication/dissociation. This is partly evidence-based (post-church fidelity is documented) but all you have is speculative on motivation/guile, particularly in the face of Richard Lloyd Anderson's work on the Witnesses. You invoke psychological parallels (missionaries "finding testimony") without direct historical parallels for the witnesses' specific experiences (e.g., Three Witnesses' vision, Eight's handling). This is not empiricism. It's just guesswork. Your model has elements of a plausible naturalistic alternative explanation. However, it relies substantially more on assumptions (preparation time suffices for composition; family could produce EModE; witnesses motivated by group piety/guile) and guesswork than on positive evidence and empirical analysis. Your post is indeed a step forward. It is your "best current assessment" and avoids unreasoned alternatives which, it turns out, you presented in an unserious way. However, it doesn't fully satisfy my challenge: It's hedged, speculative in key areas, light on historical evidence engagement, and more conclusory than explanatory. It aligns with broad skeptical priors (natural explanations preferred; so no need for mechanism details if broad allusions to "deception" fit) but doesn't demonstrate rigorous Bayesian empiricism. Compared to more fleshed-out naturalistic models (Vogel's family psychodynamics, Taves' cognitive/revelatory materialization), it's relatively shallow and avoids the substantive and evidence-based empiricism I had hoped to see, and which I had thought you were advertising. This does not disprove your view. Naturalistic origins remain viable. But it's mighty weak tea for people who, like me, have seriously engaged both the substantive evidence and scholarship and arguments both for and against the Church's claims. It highlights why I see you as taking steps to avoid being hoisted by your own petard because, in my view, actually committing to details would expose your position to evidential weaknesses that you do not want to address. Anyhoo, that's my preliminary assessment. I will give it some further scrutiny, and I do appreciate you posting it. Thanks, -Smac

My thoughts? Yes, I would like to hear your thoughts on the Welch article. Would still like to hear your thoughts on the Welch article. When people claim, using various wordings, that God is justifying behavior that is facially problematic, then there is room for reasoned and principled concern/skepticism. Nephi slaying Laban is a good example of that. Welch acknowledges the moral quandary of the scenario. More mundane and recent examples can arise from the Law of Chastity. People feel justified in committing adultery, fornication, etc. by declaring that God is okay with their behavior. When I hear such things, I become skeptical. The above vetting mechanisms become useful. Thanks, -Smac

I totally agree. I provisionally agree. Rote declarations of being commanded by "the Spirit" are not self-authenticating/validating. I think the Latter-day Saints have a particularized advantage in this context. See here: I think we should have a testimony of the fundamentals, as derived from the Spirit, with the Book of Mormon / Moroni's Promise as the catalyst. Everything else is derivative of, is "downstream" from, those fundamentals. A few thoughts: 1. Michael Ash's Four-Legged Stool: I have found this comment from Michael Ash very helpful: The other legs of the stool (scripture, prophets and reason) function well in "vetting" personal revelation. Utilizing all four "legs" is, in my view, a far more reliable mechanism for discerning truth than relying on just one of them exclusively. 2. Hafens' Tripartiate Progression (Untested Simplicity --> Complexity --> Tested/Proven Simplicity): I've posted this a few times now: So we have: Stage 1 ("Innocent and Untested") --> Stage 2 ("Juxtaposing the Ideal and the Real") --> Stage 3 ("Informed Perspective of Complexity-Transcending Simplicity Tempered by Time and Experience"). This seems about right. Stage 2 is, I think, where a lot of members of the Church are struggling and giving up. Part of the answer, I think, is to seek simplicity that transcends, that is on the other side of, complexity. 3. My Attempt at a Framework: Here is a framework I tried to develop a few years ago (responding to a friend's inquiry that was fairly similar to yours) : So there you are. I think a person can differentiate between the Spirit and “mere emotion” by analyzing feelings and considering A) their duration, B) the circumstances in which they occurred, C) their apparent purpose, and D) their effect on behavior. 4. Defining Terms and Parameters: I think it is helpful for us to occasionally re-examine what it means to have a testimony. Consider the Temple Recommend questions (emphases added) : ... Note that the first three pertain to having "a testimony," the rest are "do you sustain," "do you strive," "do you obey," etc. As Joseph Smith put it: And, of course, there is D&C 76: So should a person have a testimony of, say, the Word of Wisdom? Or is that derivative of having a testimony of the "fundamental principles of our religion?" 5. Additional Resources: I would point an interested party to the following essays: The Reasonable Leap into Light: A Barebones Secular Argument for the Gospel (Daniel Peterson) I Don’t Have a Testimony of the History of the Church (Davis Bitton) The Logic Tree of Life, or, Why I Can’t Manage to Disbelieve (Daniel Peterson) Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon (William Hamblin) Reading these have helped me understand some pitfalls, however well-intentioned, can be dug when we dilute the meaning of "testimony." The Restored Gospel has never espoused an unthinking, unvetting approach to making decisions. We have ample guidance from both past and present prophets and apostles: Moroni 7:12–17 (Book of Mormon) “Wherefore, all things which are good cometh of God; and that which is evil cometh of the devil; for the devil is an enemy to God, and fighteth against him continually, and inviteth and enticeth to sin, and to do that which is evil continually. … Wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God. … But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil.” This is a Classic scriptural test: Does it invite good, build faith in Christ, and lead to righteousness? If yes → from God. We can and should "vet" supposed spiritual promptings in this way. D&C 50:23–24 “And that which doth not edify is not of God, and is darkness. That which is of God is light; and he that receiveth light, and continueth in God, receiveth more light; and that light groweth brighter and brighter until the perfect day.” Another vetting angle: Does the influence bring light, edification, and increasing clarity? If it brings confusion or darkness → not of God. D&C 8:2–3 (to Oliver Cowdery) “Yea, behold, I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost, which shall come upon you and which shall dwell in your heart. Now, behold, this is the spirit of revelation…” More vetting: Genuine revelation comes as peaceful thoughts in the mind and confirming feelings in the heart (not just one or the other). D&C 9:8–9 “But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right. But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought…” This is the classic “burning in the bosom” vs. “stupor of thought” test. To sum up, we can vet/validate a spiritual prompting as follows: Does it lead to good, faith in Christ, and righteousness? Does it bring peace, light, edification, and clarity? Does it align with scripture and the teachings of living prophets? Is it accompanied by burning in the bosom (peace/confirmation) or stupor of thought (confusion)? Does it come as both mind (thoughts) and heart (feelings)? Indeed. There are plenty of ways to characterize one's personal preferences as "The Spirit" to justify improper conduct. Hence the value of the foregoing vetting guidelines. And, on a more individualized level, people invoke "The Spirit" to justify disregarding constraints on personal behavior, or shirking affirmative duties and obligations. There are way too many "If It Feels Good, Do It" and/or "I Feel Really Strongly About This, So I Must Be Right"-style justifications that do not hold up well. Thanks, -Smac

The funny thing is, they ended up dwindling and perishing in unbelief anyway. Go figure Not sure about that. How many thousands (millions?) of Nephites and Lamanites had access to, and accepted, the Gospel of Jesus Christ during the roughly 1,000 years of the Nephite record? And 1,400 years later, the record was restored and has facilitating the preaching of the Restored Gospel to many millions of the descendants of Lehi. The Plan of Salvation centers on the Atonement of Jesus Christ, and on God's gift of agency to us, which allows us to choose or not choose to apply the Atonement in our lives. Because of this latter component, the Plan of Salvation has never been about the Lord batting 100.00. Indeed, the Cycle of Apostasy - which includes both "dwindling and perishing in unbelief" and then recovering from that - has long been addressed. Thanks, -Smac

Sounds good. This is incorrect in a variety of ways. First, I have repeatedly said that you have no actual obligation here, just an intellectual one. I think a serious person claiming to be a "a Bayesian methodological empiricist," and who has spent years and years saying "not that" as to the origins of The Book of Mormon, has a logical and intellectual obligation to present a viable alternative explanation. And I have asked, not demanded. Second, I have not asked for a "complete" theory, but rather this: "{A} plausible alternative (and presumably, but not necessarily, naturalistic) explanation" ≠ "a complete theory of the crime." I acknowledge that I have asked for an explanation that accounts for "all the data," and maybe that was an overreach, at least at the preliminary stages of things. I'm looking for a broad framework, something more serious and less flippant that Space Aliens or Satan (unless, of course, you were serious when you posited these as "more likely" explanations than Joseph's narrative). Once you present the framework of an alternative postulated "theory of the case," we could then start to examine it in its particulars. Third, my request presupposes that you have already concluded that "that a crime occurred." I presuppose this because of this: You are on record that "a crime occurred." That is, that Joseph's narrative about the plates and the text is "just not possible," that "the evidence against the Book of Mormon" is "quite literally overwhelming." Got it. Understood. Message received. What I do not understand, and what you have not articulated, is your alternate theory of the crime. If Joseph didn't "do it," then who did? What is your alternative - and presumably (though not necessarily) naturalistic - explanation for A) the physical reality of the Plates, B) the statements from the Three and Eight Witnesses, and C) the source/authorship of the text. I appreciate you analogizing this issue to "a crime," as I think that is a decent analogy. In a crime scenario, something has happened. For example, police discovery a body tied to a chair, with signs of torture and blood loss. That the death was intentional and done by someone else (not suicide) is beyond reasonable dispute. Somebody did it. Somewhat similarly, as regarding The Book of Mormon, something has happened. Someone wrote the text. Witnesses testified as to the translation process and the physical reality of the Plates. Substantial historical evidence exists as to how the text came to be, pertaining to both the method/behavior of Joseph Smith in the "translation" process, and to the physical reality of the Plates. You have presented yourself as "a Bayesian methodological empiricist" and, in that capacity, have declared that Space Aliens or Satan / a demon is a "more likely" explanation for The Book of Mormon as compared to the Joseph's narrative, which, per you, is "just not possible." Well, okay. I am asking - not demanding - that you bring your Bayesian methodological empiricism to bear and present your "alternate theory of the case." Again: That you are unwilling or unable to respond to such a straightforward request is, to me, significant. Okay. Let's see what you've got. I'm listening. Right. "Probability" = "very low." You've gone over this a lot. You've reached a Bayesian-methodology-induced conclusion, which is that Joseph's narrative "just isn't possible." And you have reached this conclusion because, per your claim, "the evidence against the Book of Mormon" is "quite literally overwhelming." So we're well into the "Bayesian analysis" thing. You have examined the evidence for Joseph's narrative, and also countervailing evidence, and found the latter "quite literally overwhelming." Got it. So what is your alternative theory of the case? You've already pointed to Space Aliens or Satan as "more likely." Are you sticking with these? Or do you have something else/more? Not sure you want to go with this. The text includes this: According to the text, it was written by ancient prophets. If the text "accounts for itself," then your position is refuted. If your position is valid, then the text does not account for itself. Meanwhile, you have said nothing about who wrote the text. You already know what I belief, but I do not know what you and your supposed empiricism believe accounts for the authorship. You've previously posited Space Aliens or Satan. Are you sticking with those as being "more likely" than Joseph's explanation? If not, who wrote the text? When? Where? What evidence do you have of this? I have already accounted for them. I am asking how you account for them. That you are unwilling or unable to even try to bring your supposed empiricism to bear and formulate a coherent alternative explanation is, to me, very interesting. So . . . delusion? All the witnesses were all deluded? Was trickery/deceit involved? What evidence do you have to support this alternative theory? I am not asking you to articulate your thoughts on "the evidence against authenticity." That's just more of your "not that" stuff. We already know what you think did not happen. I am asking what you think did happen. I am asking that you present your alternative explanation for the text, the Witnesses, and the physical reality of the Plates. As to miraculous events, they are always based on faith. Christ did not resurrect and then appear before Pontius Pilate, or the Sanhedrin. He appeared to His followers. If the Restored Gospel is what it claims to be, God wants us to accept The Book of Mormon on faith, based on personal revelation. That is the "evidentiary standpoint" before us. And again, you are reverting to your "not that" stuff. So if not that, then what explanation do you favor? How does your supposed empiricism work here? "{F}rom an evidentiary standpoint, the Plates are unavailable for examination by experts. The same could be said about the knives used to assassinate Julius Caesar. Because they are not available, do you deny that the assassination took place? See this conversation from 2022: The same could be said about the knives used to assassinate Julius Caesar. Because they are not available, do you deny that the assassination took place? This reasoning isn't is landing with me. I believe there is an unbroken historical record that A. Julius Caesar existed and B. that he died a tragic death (presumably assassinated). There is also "an unbroken historical record" that A. Joseph Smith and the Witnesses existed and B. that they testified as to the physical reality of the Plates (the Three Witnesses testified of considerably more than that). And yet nobody is saying that this "unbroken historical record" establishes the reality of the Plates, right? So "an unbroken historical record" doesn't seem to get us very far. Moreover, if we look that this historical record, is it based on first-hand, percipient witness testimony of the assassination (in 44 BC)? Well, not so much. See, e.g., here: ... Suetonius was born 114 years or so after the assassination. He was not a percipient witness to the assassination. Nicolaus of Damascus (c. 64 BC - after 4 AD) : ... Very loosey-goosey, this. He was not a percipient witness to the assassination. He was born 20 years after it. Plutarch (c. AD 46 – after AD 119) : ... Not a percipient witness. Born 90 or so years after the assassination. Appian (c. 95 – c. AD 165) : ... Not a percipient witness. Born 130 or so years after the assassination. And yet we rely on him for "detail about the stabbing and the immediate aftermath," such as that "{the} conspirators were covered in blood and left the scene of the assassination still carrying the bloody knifes," that "the conspirators had even stabbed each other in their haste to kill Caesar," and he even attributes specific words to Brutus. Cassius Dio (c. 164-235 A.D.) ... Not a percipient witness. Born about 200 years after the assassination. AFAIK, the only "eyewitness" we may have is Cicero (106 BC – 43 BC), and yet even that is a bit iffy. ... "The sources seem to all agree that Cicero was {present}..." And here: ... None of the foregoing goes much into provenance / chain-of-custody issues. We nevertheless rely on these various (non-percipient-witness) sources . From an evidentiary perspective, we have more competent evidence of the physical reality of the Plates (multiple first-had and relative recent and indisputably authentic first-hand accounts) than we do for the assassination of Julius Caesar. And yet I doubt you dispute that Caesar was, in fact, assassinated. I would take an entirely different tack if that were the case. Legal technicalities have some utility when examining, say, the Witness statements (such as weighing the credibility of witnesses), but not in a legal setting. Secular courts are not situated to adjudicate whether or not miraculous events occurred hundreds or thousands of years ago. Yes: And here: Joseph, acting on instructions from returned the Plates to Moroni some time after June 1829 and before May 1838 (likely much closer to the former date than the latter). But you already know what Latter-day Saints believe about the origins of The Book of Mormon. I am asking you to explain your theory about those origins. Who wrote it? When? Where? What evidence do you have? How do you account for the Witnesses' statements? Do you think there was an actual physical object (the Plates) or not? What evidence do you have for these things? First, I am approaching The Book of Mormon principally as a matter of faith, whereas you are approaching it principally in your supposed capacity as "a Bayesian methodological empiricist." You have invoked empiricism. I have not. Second, I do have an evidentiary basis for the text, the Plates, the Witnesses, etc. I have Joseph's published statements and, by extrapolation, confirmation from the Spirit. I have the Witnesses' statements and ample information about their lives, both prior to and after their statements. I have information about Joseph Smith, his education, his writing ability, etc. I have the text and the indicia of complexity, cohesion, etc. I have access to substantial testimonial evidence regarding the translation process. I have access to portions of the OM and to the PM. And so on. What I do not have, though, is any articulation from you of a coherent, plausible, evidence-based alternative explanation for the text, the Plates, the Witnesses, etc. Third, I have staked out a position as to the text, the Witnesses and the Plates. My position is subject to scrutiny, empirical, logical or otherwise. You have not done this. Instead, you start a thread with a title of "a secular theory of where the bom came from," but you have yet to produce any articulable theory except to quote ChatGPT. I think you are doing this because you are unwilling/unable to articulate an explanation for The Book of Mormon that could be scrutinized using evidence, reasoning, etc. As I said in the other thread: As I said previously, you have no actual obligation to respond to legitimate queries from reasonably intelligent and well-informed Latter-day Saints who, like you, have examined the evidence, who have reached conclusions which depart from yours, and who are nevertheless willing to examine alternative theories about The Book of Mormon. I've listened to Vogel and Taves, and have repeatedly asked you to weigh in. I think you have an intellectual obligation to provide an alternative explanation, but that's about it. You are unwilling or unable to articulate one, and I think that is because you know that in doing so you would be hoisted by your own petard. Your theory would be laden with speculation and guesswork, would not account for the historical evidence/data, would reach a priori conclusions devoid of competent evidentiary support or reasoning, would expose your lack of empiricism despite declaring yourself to be a "Bayesian methodological empiricist," and so on. I would actually like to be proven wrong about this. As a Latter-day Saint, I am throwing open to the doors to my worldview and inviting you to walk in and lay out an alternative explanation for The Book of Mormon. I am willing to listen to what you have to say. You've spent years and thousands of posts railing against the Church and its doctrines, and yet when I ask you to present a viable alternative, you've got nothing. "I'm largely agnostic." You've spent decades on this board, and written thousands of posts under the name "Analytics," all the while speaking against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. But when the chips are down and you are asked to lay out your own reasoning and explanation to counter the Church's narrative, you've gone nothing. "I'm largely agnostic." It seems that the best you can come up with is Space Aliens and/or Satan. Or even worse, you are not even willing to try. You have strengthened my testimony, both today and in years past. I give plaudits to Dan Vogel and Ann Taves, even though I find their alternative explanations to be underwhelming and insufficient to address, as DCP put it, "all the data." In contrast, you, standing at the top of the anti-Mormon heap, have nothing substantive or coherent to say about the sine qua non of the Restored Gospel, apart from "not that." I think you refuse to commit to any alternative explanation because you do not want to end up having to defend it, likely because you anticipate your alternative explanation will fail, that you will be hoisted by your own "I'm all about the empiricism" petard. Penn & Teller aren't claiming "real magic." It's naturalism all the way down. You are presumably indifferent to the particulars of Penn & Teller sleight of hand methods (as am I), whereas you have spent decades and thousands of posts criticizing the Church and its truth claims. So you don't seem indifferent. What you do seem to be, though, is worried about being hoisted by your own petard, and so you refuse to lay out your supposed "analytics" despite various and repeated invitations to lay out a plausible alternative explanation for The Book of Mormon. Thanks, -Smac

I am hoping @Analytics will return to this thread (he started it, after all) and take up the above challenge. Thanks, -Smac Still hoping @Analytics will return to this thread and take up the above challenge. This will be the fourth post inviting/asking @Analytics to return to this thread and follow up on what he said in the OP: Again, I never asked Roger to "pose the question to ChatGPT 5.2 Pro." Any of us can do that. I am, instead, asking Roger to post his alternative explanation for the origins of The Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon exists. The text exists and should be accounted for. The statements of the witnesses should be accounted for. The Plates should be accounted for. Thanks, -Smac

Well, the narrative indicates that Plates were in the custody of Laban's steward/servant, Zoram. Yes. It's effectively impossible for us, living 2,600 years after the events described, to meaningfully speculate about alternative ways for Nephi to obtain the Brass Plates. We can either except Nephi's narrative as accurate, or not. Can't the same be said for virtually everything God asks or commands us to do? Why have us come to earth and be tested? God has no other options? He can create worlds without number, but not come up with an alternate plan that involves His children exercising faith, confronting sin and temptation and moral quandaries, etc.? Why not just create us with built-in perfection as part of us? Seems like God's ways are not our ways, nor His thoughts our thoughts. Thanks, -Smac

You are saying Nephi fabricated the narrative? Which parts? Also, you seem to be advancing a position based on presentism. Am I wrong in surmising that? Also, does the context matter? Also, what are your thoughts about Welch's article? Thank, -Smac

I am curious as to your perspective on this: If you are in a TLDR mood, here's a Grok-generated summary: Thoughts? Thanks, -Smac

I am hoping @Analytics will return to this thread (he started it, after all) and take up the above challenge. Thanks, -Smac Still hoping @Analytics will return to this thread and take up the above challenge.

I'd like to understand this better. Plenty of iniquitous stuff going on now, but I don't think any of us would therefore be okay with a Neph-and-Laban-style event today. While I believe the narrative about Nephi is accurate, I can also understand how it is troubling to people who are spiritually mature and thoughtful. That's a question of faith, I suppose. "Clutching pearls" (or pearl-clutching) "refers to an exaggerated, often performative display of shock, horror, or moral outrage in response to something considered scandalous or improper. It portrays someone acting overly sensitive or prudish, frequently used to mock or criticize those who react strongly to minor offenses." I think the case can be made for Nephi to be justified, both religiously/morally/spiritually and under the laws in place at the time. See here: Legal Perspectives on the Slaying of Laban (John W. Welch) An excerpt: It's a very good article and merits some real attention by those who feel that the Nephi-and-Laban narrative is significant. In the end, though, I can't really agree that is a "perfectly obvious case of right vs wrong." Again, from Welch: "{W}hen analyzed in terms of ancient biblical law, the case is framed within the appropriate set of legal terms and issues. This is not to say that the slaying of Laban presents us as modern readers with an easy case: neither was it an easy case for Nephi." Thanks, -Smac

I also don’t get how killing Laban would prevent pursuit. Laban sent men to kill the brothers. Then Laban is dead so no pursuit? Not sure that this is what Ryan was saying. The stated basis in The Book of Mormon for Nephi to slay Laban is a direct command from the Spirit of the Lord, with context and explicit justifications provided in the text of 1 Nephi 3 and 4 (particularly verses 5–18). Initially, Nephi's return followed both Laban's attempt to murder him to get gain (ch. 3:35), and also the visitation of an angel (ch. 3:29-31). He then states that he "crept into the city and went forth towards the house of Laban," and that he "was led by the Spirit, not knowing beforehand the things which {he} should do" (1 Nephi 4:5-6). The "crept" bit appears to be attributable to Laban having previously tried to murder him him (see 1 Nephi 3). The "not knowing beforehand" also has quite a bit of relevance as to Nephi's state of mind. Nephi then encounters Laban drunk and unconscious in the streets of Jerusalem. He then states that he was "constrained by the Spirit that I should kill Laban" (1 Nephi 4:10), but he hesitates, reflecting his aversion to bloodshed: "Never at any time have I shed the blood of man. And I shrunk and would that I might not slay him" (1 Nephi 4:10). Again, this speaks to his state of mind. The Spirit then provides the following reasons to overcome his reluctance: Divine deliverance — "Behold the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands" (1 Nephi 4:11) and "Slay him, for the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands" (1 Nephi 4:12). This phrasing echoes Old Testament legal principles (e.g., Exodus 21:13), where a killing is excusable if God delivers the person into another's hand without premeditation or ambush. The Lord's purpose in slaying the wicked — "The Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes" (1 Nephi 4:13). Necessity for the preservation of a nation — "It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief" (1 Nephi 4:13). This refers to the importance of obtaining the brass plates (containing the scriptures, genealogy, and law), without which Lehi's descendants would lose spiritual knowledge and "dwindle in unbelief" after leaving Jerusalem. After these promptings, Nephi concludes that the command aligns with the Lord's will and obeys: "Therefore I did obey the voice of the Spirit, and took Laban by the hair of the head, and I smote off his head with his own sword" (1 Nephi 4:18). In summary, the text presents the slaying not as personal vengeance, self-defense, or punishment for Laban's prior crimes (though, again, Laban had attempted to kill Nephi and his brothers earlier), but primarily as a divinely commanded act necessary to fulfill God's righteous purposes—preserving scriptural records essential for the spiritual survival of Nephi's future nation. Nephi emphasizes his initial reluctance and frames the act as obedience to the Spirit rather than his own initiative. Still a very troubling narrative. Thanks, -Smac

I am hoping @Analytics will return to this thread (he started it, after all) and take up the above challenge. Thanks, -Smac

Anthon was afaict, the most knowledgeable about Egypt. For example, read his massive entry on Egyptus and Meroe in his Classical Dictionary. Also check the massive bibliography, the books on his shelf are a good indication of his interests. The only other person that would have been more knowlegable about Egypt was Luther Bradish, who had traveled deep into Egypt, all the way to Sudan, and then to Jerusalem (past the Red Sea) on camel back. Bradish was a friend of Harris, and his family lived in Palmyra. Imagine that, a local Palmyra boy riding on camel back on the trail of the Lehites. See also here: Thanks, -Smac