Ryan Dahle Posted March 16 Posted March 16 19 minutes ago, Analytics said: Is his request reasonable? Because if you want to be intellectually honest, the fact that I've told you about the Tilma forces you to make a decision. You can either take the faithful story at face value, or presume that it is fake. Despite knowing very little about the tilma, I'm presuming you think it is a fake. In order to refrain from believing in the tilma with intellectual honesty, do you need to have a robust, evidence-supported explanation of who painted it, when, where, and why? Or can you just look at the claim, recognize the pattern, and draw a reasonable conclusion? I'm certainly skeptical, but I'm also reserving judgment until I know more about it. There could be some truth to it. I have no idea. I'm certainly not going on the internet to debate those who believe in this story. I don't feel prepared to make such claims or defend a critical stance against the claims of believers. I know virtually nothing about this topic. Again, it is not your mere disbelief in the Book of Mormon that seems to interest Smac. It is that you seem rather strident in your disbelief, that you seem to have spent a lot of time engaging with research in this area, and that you continue to take adversarial positions against the Church online. In contrast, I'm doing none of those things in connection to the Tilma. It therefore seems obvious why I should have less of a burden to present a credible counter-explanation. The same, I presume, would be true of Smac. 2
longview Posted March 16 Posted March 16 1 hour ago, Analytics said: That tilma hangs today in the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe. Ten million people visit it every year. The image has survived nearly 500 years on fabric that should have disintegrated within decades. Believers point to studies claiming no brushstrokes are detectable. Here is a photograph of the tilma. Like you, I have submitted questions to chatGPT (see quote box below): Quote what are the different parties that have examined the supposed miraculous origin of the tilma containing the image of the Lady of Guadalupe? what assessments have been made? The tilma bearing the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe (associated with Juan Diego) has been examined repeatedly since the 17th century. The investigations come from several different types of parties: colonial Church commissions, painters/art experts, restorers, and modern scientific investigators. Their conclusions vary widely—from declaring the image miraculous to attributing it to ordinary painting techniques. Below is a structured overview of who examined the tilma and what they concluded. 1. Early Church Investigations (17th century) 1665–1666 canonical inquiry Ordered during the process of establishing liturgical recognition for the devotion. Participants A commission of seven painters Three royal physicians of Mexico Findings The painters reported that it was “impossible that any artist could paint… on such a rough fabric” as the tilma. They also emphasized the unexpected preservation of the image despite climate and age. The physicians said the brightness of the colors after more than a century could not be explained by environmental conditions. Assessment Official report leaned toward supernatural origin. 2. 18th-Century Artist Commissions 1751–1756 investigation led by Miguel Cabrera A group of artists was allowed to inspect the image. Observations The cloth consisted of two pieces sewn together. The image showed multiple painting techniques. Cabrera claimed the fabric had no preparatory coating, unusual for painting. Conclusion Cabrera believed the work was not explainable by normal artistic methods and published the pro-miracle study Maravilla Americana. 1787 commission of painters Another examination requested by a doctor and mathematician. Observations The cloth appeared to be palm fibers. Investigators noticed human touch-ups in parts of the image. Conclusion The original image might be divine, but later repairs were human. 3. 20th-Century Restorers and Art Experts Work by José Antonio Flores Gómez (1947, 1973) He restored or examined the tilma. Observations Visible cracks in paint, possibly from folding. Evidence of retouching and repainting. Pigments appeared to be natural materials. Conclusion The need for restoration suggested the image was humanly painted, not miraculous. 4. Modern Scientific Examination (Late 20th century) Infrared analysis (1979–1981) Conducted by Philip Serna Callahan and Jody Brant Smith. Method Infrared photography used in art conservation. Findings No preliminary sketches or sizing layer detected. Some areas showed later additions or repairs. The main image remained well preserved compared to the retouched areas. Assessment They could not explain why the original sections were so well preserved, but did not definitively claim a miracle. 1982 technical study by José Sol Rosales Commissioned by the basilica’s abbot. Findings Fabric likely linen and hemp, not maguey fiber. Image was painted on a prepared white ground. Multiple tempera painting styles were used. Pigments were common natural materials available in 16th-century Mexico. Conclusion The image was human-made artwork. 5. Historical Scholarship Some historians propose a specific painter. Example hypothesis: Marcos Cipac de Aquino has been suggested by several scholars as a possible artist of the image. This view treats the image as a colonial-era religious painting created by Indigenous artists trained in European techniques. 6. Summary of Major Positions Across the centuries, the examinations fall into three broad interpretations: View Supporting investigators Miraculous / inexplicable 1666 inquiry painters & physicians; Miguel Cabrera Mixed: original mysterious but later retouched 1787 painters; Callahan infrared study Human artwork Flores Gómez; Sol Rosales; many modern historians ✅ Key takeaway: There has never been a single definitive scientific consensus. The tilma has been studied by artists, clergy, restorers, and scientists for centuries, and the conclusions depend largely on methodology, interpretation of the materials, and prior assumptions about the tradition. From this I get the impression that there has NOT been a "heavy duty" investigation of the origins of the Tilma. When the Catholic Church gets wind of claims of miraculous events, it usually waits several decades before launching an "investigation" and deciding the matter. Personally, I take it with a grain of salt. However, the Shroud of Turin has been heavily and more thoroughly examined with findings being more and more astonishing. Such as the forensic discovery of the dislocations of both shoulders in the image. Several weeks ago I watched an interview by Glen Beck which greatly impressed me. I no longer remember the name of the person he interviewed but here is the list of Glen's interviews on this topic: AI Summary To explore the Shroud of Turin, Glen Beck interviewed notable figures in the field. Here are the key individuals he spoke with: Dr. John Jackson: A physicist and co-founder of the Turin Shroud Research Project. Fr. Andrew Dalton: A theologian and expert on the Shroud's historical significance. Dr. Gary Habermas: A scholar specializing in the resurrection and its implications related to the Shroud. Dr. Mark Antonacci: An author and researcher who has studied the Shroud extensively. Dr. Barrie Schwortz: The official photographer of the Shroud and a leading expert on its authenticity.
california boy Posted March 16 Posted March 16 On 3/15/2026 at 10:14 AM, webbles said: No, I'm not seeing the Voree Plates must be a hoax and Joseph's plates must be real. But it gives us an indication of the effort it would take for Joseph to create the hoax. But with effort we have two contemporary examples of people creating props out of metal to deceive others into believing they were of religious importance. On 3/15/2026 at 10:14 AM, webbles said: Most attempts to explain away the plates is to say they were just a quick facsimile, like painted wood or tin with a yellow paint. But it had to have been more, since the men of the day could see that. With Voree and Kinderhoook, they could tell what material it was (both were brass). For Joseph's plates, it is "gold-like" (some say pure gold, some say an alloy, some say it has the appearance of gold). So what ever Joseph used, it wasn't a common metal that they would recognize as a fake. I think most believe the plates were metal. There is no analysis of what the "gold-like" plates were actually made of. Like the witnesses, you are just guessing what metal they might be. One thing to keep in mind is that gold leafing had been practiced for centuries. It is not a difficult process. I actually recently did some gold leafing on our Victorian house in San Francisco. It is common throughout the city. Never took any classes in how to do it. And it was only the second time I ever tried doing it. My point is, there are many ways to make something appear to be "gold -like". Joseph Smith had 4 years to figure it out. Possibly the more troubling questioning to consider is that Joseph Smith treats the plates like a prop. He doesn't actually use it to translate the BoM. He uses a rock in a hat for that. So as the story goes, just why did all those Nephite prophets go to all that effort for something that would never actually be used for anything other than a prop? Making real solid gold plates in 600bc in the Americas wouldn't have been all that easy either. And why gold when the plates they stole were made of brass, a much more common material in 600bc. Yeah there are some problems with the whole story. I am not saying that it is impossible, or that a person like yourself could not believe in such a tale. But what I am saying is using the gold plates story to confirm your beliefs isn't rock solid physical proof of anything. On 3/15/2026 at 10:14 AM, webbles said: You've mentioned before of how Joseph showed them to close friends. I don't think we can consider the Whitmers to be close friends. Joseph first heard about David Whitmer when Oliver Cowdery showed up in April 1829. He didn't actually meet him till end of May 1829. He met the whole Whitmer family by the beginning of June 1829. And he showed them the plates by the end of June 1829. That's a really short time to be friends and trust them into this fraud. So none of those people were actively involved or connected with Joseph Smith and participating in the coming forth of the church??? On 3/15/2026 at 10:14 AM, webbles said: I believe Joseph had something. It was similar to the Voree plates and the Kinderhook plates but was larger, more extensive, and with different material. Why Joseph went through this process just to not use it, I don't know. How he could have done that at his age and situation, I don't know. I can't figure out a naturalistic theory that makes sense for what Joseph did. He was both stupid (spend all this time to create a supposedly ancient artifact that he would never use) and smart (show them to witnesses and then make them disappear). I've tried and keep trying. I'd love for it to be naturalistic. But I just can't find one that makes sense to me. I was curious when people started using lead sheets for construction. Here is what Google came up with. Quote People began using lead sheets in construction as early as the Roman era (circa 2nd Century BC - 500 AD) for plumbing, roofing, and structural lining. While earlier civilizations like the Babylonians used lead, Romans popularized sand-cast lead sheets for large-scale aqueducts, cisterns, and roofs Doesn't sound that hard to me to get some lead sheets and gold leaf them. I could put together a very convincing replica in less than a month. It doesn't require any special skills. Any 14 year old could do this without any special skills. I think you are relying on this whole idea of it being soooo difficult, when in fact it is all not that hard to do.
california boy Posted March 16 Posted March 16 12 hours ago, Zosimus said: The Book of Mormon is impressive, but it has nothing on this guy. Annius of Viterbo didn’t produce just one ancient book, he forged a entire library of lost Babylonian, Egyptian, Chaldean, Greek and Latin texts all cross‑referencing each other to neatly fool Europe’s top scholars for centuries. Annius' Biblical chronologies are still occasionally cited today by people that mistake his forgeries as authentic. And on top of that, as evidence for the claims found in his texts, Annius secretly buried counterfeit inscriptions, carved pillars, and marble statues all around Viterbo. He'd sit it out until an opportunity (like a hunting trip through the forest with the Pope) for a big reveal. His forged books authenticated his forged props and the forged props authenticated his forged books. It was a massive pious fraud designed to do things like link his tiny hometown of Viterbo to Noah and give Pope Alexander III Egyptian ancestry. In a way the Book of Mormon links America to Noah and the Mosaic chronology in the same way Annius' books linked Europe to Noah and the Mosaic chronology, only in a way that was not quite as elaborate and complicated wow that is impressive.
cujo22 Posted March 16 Posted March 16 10 minutes ago, california boy said: Possibly the more troubling questioning to consider is that Joseph Smith treats the plates like a prop. He doesn't actually use it to translate the BoM. My memory might be off, but I think he did spend time with plates early in the process in early translation attempts or early in the process. 1
Calm Posted March 16 Posted March 16 (edited) nvm, don’t have the time to invest at the moment Edited March 16 by Calm 2
smac97 Posted March 16 Posted March 16 34 minutes ago, Analytics said: Quote Quote You’d at least try to understand how I’ve come to the conclusions I’ve come to, despite not having a detailed, comprehensive, bullet-proof theory explanation for precisely how the Book of Mormon was written. I am trying. The above questions have been responsive to your various statements in this thread. No, they're not. Yes, they are. Again, you said: "If you give me a list of questions, I'll answer them honestly and directly, just like I did in my prior post." I responded: Quote 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? You have posted your conclusions. Fine. I am asking you to explain the reasoning and evidentiary analysis that has made you reach those conclusions. 34 minutes ago, Analytics said: If you were responding to what I said, you'd ask about my a priori beliefs first, then how I concluded from the text itself that the BoM is 19th century fiction, and then about how I don't know the specifics of the witness statements because the evidence was curated. Or you could just explain those things without being prompted. And you could also explain how extant evidence interacts with your a priori beliefs and your correlated conclusions. I am giving you every opportunity to lay out a positive, coherent alternative explanation for the Book of Mormon, centering on evidence about the Plates, the Witnesses and the Text, and which explanation accounts for key data points without heavy speculation, while claiming empirical rigor. And you are not doing it. You asked for "a list of questions," saying that you would "answer them honestly and directly." I have provided that list, and you are not answering them. 34 minutes ago, Analytics said: In December 1531, an Aztec peasant named Juan Diego was walking to Mass near Tepeyac Hill in what is now Mexico City when the Virgin Mary appeared to him. She told him to ask Bishop Juan de Zumárraga to build a church in her honor. The bishop didn't believe Juan Diego really saw the Virgin. Juan Diego returned to the hill, and the Virgin told him to gather roses, roses that had no business blooming in December, and carry them in his tilma (a tilma is a rectangular apron cloth he had, made of cactus fiber). He brought them to the bishop, opened the cloak, and the roses fell to the floor. Imprinted on the rough cactus-fiber cloth was a full-color image of the Virgin Mary. That tilma hangs today in the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe. Ten million people visit it every year. The image has survived nearly 500 years on fabric that should have disintegrated within decades. Believers point to studies claiming no brushstrokes are detectable. Here is a photograph of the tilma. Smac, I presume you don't believe this is a genuine miracle. I've never heard of it until just now. I am quite open to miraculous events in other faith traditions. I am also open to such events being fabricated or delusional. I neither categorically accept nor reject such things. I also tend to be fairly ambivalent about such things, as I am not really invested in proving or disproving such events. What does this have to do about you laying out a positive, coherent alternative explanation for the Book of Mormon, centering on evidence about the Plates, the Witnesses and the Text, and which explanation accounts for key data points without heavy speculation, while claiming empirical rigor? 34 minutes ago, Analytics said: And I presume you reached that conclusion without first constructing a positive, coherent alternative explanation that accounts for the key data points (the tilma's survival, the witness statements, the image's origin), without heavy speculation, while claiming empirical rigor. You don't know who painted it, when, where, with what materials, or why Juan Diego and the bishop said what they said. You just look at the totality of the evidence and draw a reasonable conclusion. I have not given this matter any consideration, and have therefore not reached any particular conclusion about it. 34 minutes ago, Analytics said: That said, you asked me questions, and I told you I'd answer them. So here goes. 1. Nature and Fabrication of the Plates Q: 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? A: I don't know. The one artifact that would have answered all of these questions was deliberately removed from examination. You have concluded that "some physical object probably existed." What is the evidentiary basis for this statement? I appreciate that you are not speaking definitively. You were not there, nor was I. But you were also not present at the Senate in ancient Rome, yet you have reached a conclusion (that Caesar was assassinated) based on evidence (Suetonius and other sources). So I think we can so something similar with the Witnesses and the Plates. As a Latter-day Saint, I also think that Joseph showed the Witnesses "some physical object." I think the alternative theories positing no physical object (mass delusion, drugging, hypnosis) are implausible applications of the extant evidence (the various Witness statements, and also historical evidence about the character and credibility of those people). So Spencer believes the plates were physical, were authentically ancient, and discovered via miraculous means, and I surmise that you do not believe these things. Instead, I surmise that you believe the plates were a 19th-century fabrication which ended up in the hands of Joseph Smith. Am I correct about that? If so, that is your theory about who fabricated the sham plates? Did Joseph make them, or were others involved? If so, who were these other people? What materials were used? Was the sham artifact an obvious hoax (like what you described in your seminary experience)? Or was it a sophisticated and well-made thing? 34 minutes ago, Analytics said: Q: Was Joseph Smith involved in making or procuring the plates? If not, how did the fabricators connect with him? A: Almost certainly yes. Beyond that, I don't know the specifics. The artifact that would have told us was removed. Okay. What is the evidentiary basis for your proposal that Joseph was involved in the fabrication of sham plates? Were others involved? 34 minutes ago, Analytics said: Q: If Joseph was involved, was he a dupe or a deliberate conniver? A: I don't know. I suspect some combination of sincere belief and deliberate showmanship, but I'd be speculating, and you've told me you don't want speculation. I don't want unadulterated speculation. I would like to see a positive, coherent alternative explanation for the Book of Mormon, centering on evidence about the Plates, the Witnesses and the Text, and which explanation accounts for key data points without heavy speculation, while claiming empirical rigor. I appreciate that this will entail some speculation, but it should be evidence-based if at all possible. 34 minutes ago, Analytics said: Q: If a dupe, who else was involved, and why did none of them ever come forward? A: I don't know. You also don't "know" that Joseph was involved, but you have inferred that he was involved in the fabrication of the plates. Do you infer that he acted alone, or in concert with one or more other people? If the latter, then who else was involved? 34 minutes ago, Analytics said: Q: If a conniver, did he act alone? Where was his smithy? How did he acquire metallurgical skills? How did he afford materials? A: I don't know. The artifact that would have answered this was removed. The knives purportedly used to kill Caesar are also absent, but you have reached evidence-based conclusions on that event anyway. Why are you not able to do the same with the considerably-better-sourced evidence for the Plates and the Witnesses? 34 minutes ago, Analytics said: Q: How did Joseph make the plates appear to be gold? What engravings were applied, and by what means? A: I don't know. If the plates were available for examination, we'd know. And if we had forensic evidence of Caesar's purported murder, we'd "know" more about that as well. But we don't have that evidence, so we work with what we've got. 34 minutes ago, Analytics said: Q: How was the prop sophisticated enough to fool the Eight Witnesses into describing them as having "the appearance of gold," "engravings," and "the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship"? A: The Eight Witnesses signed a joint statement prepared by Joseph Smith using the language Joseph Smith led with. As I described with my seminary story, curated witnesses using curated language can create impressions far beyond what the underlying evidence supports. I handled a comically cheap prop and truthfully testified that it had the appearance of gold, had engravings, and could be hefted and handled. The class imagined something miraculous. A skilled deposition would have revealed the truth; the joint statement format precluded that. Huh. I guess stonewalling is the order of the day. 34 minutes ago, Analytics said: Q: Was the prop sloppy or sophisticated? A: I don't know. Either is possible. If sloppy, the joint statement format and the language Joseph led with would have been sufficient to obscure that. If sophisticated, someone with skills was involved. Either way, the artifact that would have settled this was removed. I know either is possible. But which one fits your alternative theory? A sloppy hoax would be harder to reconcile with the Witness statements. A sophisticated hoax would be a better fit for the Witness statements (particularly that of the Eight Witnesses), but is more difficult to explain as far as who made it, of what materials, how, etc. 34 minutes ago, Analytics said: 2. Credibility of the Witnesses Q: What is your assessment of David Whitmer? What evidence do you have that he was insane, deluded, or tricked? A: I have no evidence he was insane. Same here. 34 minutes ago, Analytics said: I take him at his word that he had a powerful religious experience. He said he saw the plates "in a vision or in the spirit." I believe him. Do you also "believe him" when he said these things? "{W}e, through the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the plates which contain this record... And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true. And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates; and they have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man. And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true. And it is marvelous in our eyes. Nevertheless, the voice of the Lord commanded us that we should bear record of it; wherefore, to be obedient unto the commandments of God, we bear testimony of these things." “My testimony to the world is written concerning the Book of Mormon, and it is the same that I gave at first and it is the same as shall stand to my latest hour in life, linger with me in death and shine as Gospel Truth beyond the limits of life.” “My testimony to the Book of Mormon is true and I am admonished neither to add to nor take from my testimony already appended to the Book.” “Those who know me best, well know that I have adhered to that testimony.—And that no man may be misled or doubt my present views in regard to the same, I do now again affirm the truth of all my statement[s], as then made and published.” “I did see the angel of God, and was commanded to testify of these things, and they are true.” “You ask me if I saw the Angel when he brought the plates. I saw the Angel when he brought the plates, and the Angel told us that we must bear testimony to the world, as contained in my testimony written in the Book of Mormon. Doubt not—sister—the Book of Mormon is the word of God.” "I saw the angel as plainly as I see you; he was surrounded by the glory of God, which overshadowed us, and we heard his voice, and we saw the records of the Book of Mormon...My testimony is the same as at the beginning, as is true." "I saw them just as plain as I see this bed (striking his hand upon the bed beside him), and I heard the voice of the Lord as distinctly as I ever heard anything in my life declaring that they (the plates) were translated by the gift and power of God." "How well and distinctly I remember the manner in which Elder Whitmer arose and drew himself up to his full height--a little over six feet--and said, in solemn and impressive tones: 'No sir! I was not under any hallucination, nor was I deceived! I saw with these eyes, and I heard with these ears! I know whereof I speak!'" I assume you are not lending credibility and probative weight to this statement. If so, please explain why. Please be specific. Again, I am looking for empirical rigor. 34 minutes ago, Analytics said: I don't believe that a vision or spiritual experience constitutes empirical evidence of a physical artifact's ancient provenance. Understood. How do you account for his other statements? Do you "believe him" about those? If not, why not? 34 minutes ago, Analytics said: Q: David Whitmer spent decades despising Joseph Smith and declaring his testimony. How do you square this? A: I don't doubt Whitmer's sincerity. Sincerity is not the issue. Well, you have said you have no evidence that Whitmer was insane, so that's out as an explanation (in your alternative theory). And now you are saying you do not "doubt" his "sincerity" (as in "free of deceit, hypocrisy, or falseness; earnest"). So if Whitmer was A) not "insane" about his experience with the Plates, and if he B) was also "free of deceit, hypocrisy, or falseness; earnest" about his experience with the Plates, how do you account for, e.g., these statements? "I have adhered to that testimony.—And that no man may be misled or doubt my present views in regard to the same, I do now again affirm the truth of all my statement[s], as then made and published." "I saw the angel as plainly as I see you..." "'I saw them just as plain as I see this bed (striking his hand upon the bed beside him), and I heard the voice of the Lord as distinctly as I ever heard anything in my life.'" "'No sir! I was not under any hallucination, nor was I deceived! I saw with these eyes, and I heard with these ears! I know whereof I speak!'" Do you "believe him" or not? If not, why not? 34 minutes ago, Analytics said: The issue is that sincere belief in a curated religious experience is not the same as independent empirical verification. Whitmer never had the opportunity to examine the plates under conditions that would satisfy basic evidentiary standards — and that was by Joseph's design, not Whitmer's. Right. We work with what we've got. We do not have an "independent empirical verification, just as we do not have "independent empirical verification" of the physician autopsy reported by Suetonius. And yet you accept that report as historically accurate, even though it is only referenced in a separate document written many decades after the fact, by a gossipmonger, about the circumstances of the death of a hugely controversial politician, and based on who-knows-what documents that no longer exist for corroboration purposes. Why is that? Why do you accept Suetonius has a reliable historical reference? We do have a number of statements form David Whitmer, many of which came well after he was dissociated from Joseph Smith. And you are now on record saying that Whitmer was A) not inside, and B) sincere. And yet you do not accept those statements. Why? If they are not the product of insanity or dishonesty, and you do not accept them at face value, then how do you account for them? 34 minutes ago, Analytics said: Q: How do you account for Martin Harris? A: Same answer. Sincere believer, powerful religious experience, curated conditions. What does this mean? Sane, but deluded? Sane, but tricked? Sane, but in some temporary hallucinatory state? 34 minutes ago, Analytics said: Q: If the witnesses were duped, why did none of them recant? A: I don't think "duped" is the right word. Then what is the right word? You have now said that Whitmer and Harris were both A) not "insane" and B) "sincere," and C) not "duped." And I surmise that you would also postulate that they were D) largely factually inaccurate in their official statement (there was no angel, no voice from heaven). So given A, B, C and D, how do you account for their statements about the Plates? 34 minutes ago, Analytics said: I think they had genuine religious experiences under curated conditions and described those experiences using language Joseph led with. People don't recant sincere religious experiences. I am asking you how you account for their attestations. You have made some helpful admissions/statements (A, B, C and D above), but you have not yet articulated a positive, coherent alternative explanation that accounts for the key data points (physical plates, witness statements, text origins/translation process) without heavy speculation, while also adhering to empirical, evidence-based rigor. 34 minutes ago, Analytics said: The seminary students in my story wouldn't recant either — they told the truth about what they saw. The problem isn't that the witnesses lied. The problem is that curated testimony under controlled conditions doesn't tell us what we need to know. You have looked at the evidence and concluded A, B, C, and D. I agree with A, B and C. D, however, is not a "positive, coherent alternative explanation." We all know that you are denying the factual verity of their Statements, but you are also not attributing those statements to insanity or insincerity or their having been "duped." So how do you account for their statements? 34 minutes ago, Analytics said: Q: Are you familiar with Richard Lloyd Anderson's work? A: I'm broadly familiar with it. Anderson demonstrates that the witnesses were sincere, consistent, and of generally good character. I don't dispute any of that. Sincerity and good character don't resolve the structural problems with curated evidence. Sincerity and good character go along way in terms of establishing the credibility of witnesses. Are you admitting, then, that the Witnesses were "credible"? If not, why not? Please be specific. 34 minutes ago, Analytics said: 3. Broader Evidentiary and Logical Issues Q: Do you have any evidence that Joseph Smith intentionally destroyed or altered the plates? A: Joseph's own narrative says the plates were returned to an angel and permanently removed from the possibility of examination. Is that a "yes" or a "no"? If the former, please specify the evidence in support of that claim. If no, then you have no evidence that Joseph intentionally destroyed or altered the plates, which fundamentally undermines your "spoliation" analogy. 34 minutes ago, Analytics said: Whether you attribute this to Joseph or to God, the result is the same: the single artifact that would have conclusively settled every question on your list is not available. That matters. Actually, the result is quite different based on how the evidence came to be absent. If evidence is intentionally altered or destroyed, then your comments about spoliation and "adverse inferences" may come into play. On the other hand, if evidence is missing due to reasons outside of these parameters, then spoliation and adverse inferences do not come into play. The result is not the same. 34 minutes ago, Analytics said: Q: How did Joseph "curate the evidence" relative to the Eight Witnesses? A: He selected who would see the plates, when they would see them, under what conditions, and then prepared the joint statement they signed. That is the definition of curation. I'll continue to quibble about Joseph selecting the witnesses (see, e.g., D&C 17). Also, I'd like to better understand your argument here. IIRC, Joseph had known David Whitmer (and indirectly the family through him) for roughly 5–6 months (from December 1828) before personally meeting the family and moving in with them in early June 1829. However, his firsthand, in-person acquaintance with the broader Whitmer family (including the four brothers and their brother-in-law, Hiram Page) was very brief—only a matter of days to a few weeks—before some of them (starting with David and Mary) were shown the plates in June 1829. I understand and appreciate your skepticism regarding Joseph "curating" family members, as their partiality would be more readily apparent. But that accounts for only three of the Eight. But how did Joseph "curate" the other five, given that he had only known them a few days/weeks prior to showing them the Plates? 34 minutes ago, Analytics said: Q: How did Joseph "curate the evidence" relative to Emma? A: Emma handled a heavy object wrapped in cloth. She never saw the plates uncovered. She described the experience in terms consistent with what Joseph allowed her to experience. Again, how did Joseph "curate the evidence" ("curate" meaning "to pull together, sift through, and select for presentation") relative to Emma? What evidence do you have for this? 34 minutes ago, Analytics said: Q: How did Joseph "curate the evidence" relative to Mary Whitmer and the other informal witnesses? A: I don't have detailed knowledge of each informal witness's experience. The information is readily available. Mary Whitmer Statements as a Witness A Multiplicity of Witnesses: Women and the Translation Process Another Account of Mary Whitmer’s Viewing of the Golden Plates Mary Whitmer, 12th witness to the Book of Mormon How did Joseph "curate the evidence" relative to Mary Whitmer and the other informal witnesses? 34 minutes ago, Analytics said: In general, these are second- and third-hand accounts, reported years after the fact, through the lens of a believing community. Yes. Historical records are often less-than-idea. And yet you accept Suetonius, whose statements are considerably weaker in terms of provenance. Why is that? 34 minutes ago, Analytics said: They are interesting but do not constitute independent empirical verification. I have not asked you to provide "independent empirical verification." Suetonius also lacks "independent empirical verification," yet you accept his statement about Caesar's assassination. Why? 34 minutes ago, Analytics said: Q: What is your alternative explanation for the Plates/Witnesses/Text? A: Some physical object existed. Right. How did the object come to exist and be in the possession of Joseph Smith? Who made it? With what materials? When? Where? How? Was the object a sloppy/cheap thing, or sophisticated and detailed and impressive one? 34 minutes ago, Analytics said: The witnesses had genuine experiences under curated conditions. This is interesting. So far you have acknowledged that the Witnesses 1. not "insane," and 2. were "sincere," and 3. were not "duped," and now that they 4. "had genuine experiences under curated conditions" ("genuine" meaning "possessing the claimed or attributed character, quality, or origin; not counterfeit; authentic; real"). And yet, notwithstanding the foregoing, you dispute that the Plates were what Joseph claimed about them, and you also deny the miraculous elements of the statement of the Three Witnesses. I appreciate and recognize that. What I do not have, though, is a positive, coherent alternative explanation that accounts for the key data points (physical plates, witness statements, text origins/translation process) without heavy speculation, while also adhering to empirical, evidence-based rigor. I see your conclusions, and you are dropping some tidbits of information about how you are assessing evidence. So we are making progress. While I hope we can keep going, I do acknowledge your efforts. 34 minutes ago, Analytics said: The text was authored in the 19th century, most likely by Joseph Smith, possibly with input from his immediate circle. Okay, that's the conclusion. How do you account for Joseph's limited education? Emma's assessment of him? The statements of the witnesses who participated in the "translation" process (who said Joseph had no notes or other writings anywhere near him as he dictated the text)? Who else was involved? Authorship of the text is a pretty complex topic, so perhaps we could - for the time being, anyway - keep the focus on the Plates and the Witnesses. 34 minutes ago, Analytics said: I don't need to know the precise mechanics of production to reach this conclusion, any more than you need to know who painted the Guadalupe tilma to conclude it isn't a miracle. Is the painting considered miraculous? What if the person who is said to have painted it lacked any artistic skill beyond stick figures? Or what if he/she was in a coma during the time the painting was created, or in prison, or five years old? 34 minutes ago, Analytics said: Q: What actual evidence do you have to support your alternative explanation? A: The Book of Mormon reads as a product of 19th-century American theology, drawing on contemporaneous religious concerns (anti-universalism, infant baptism, the mound-builder myth, Protestant revivalism). The language is an inconsistent blend of EModE and 19th-century English, all perfectly understandable to Joseph Smith. The physical evidence was curated and then permanently removed. The witness testimony was curated rather than independent. The institutional incentives for producing and promoting the book were enormous. Taken together, this points overwhelmingly to 19th-century human origin. I asked for an alternative theory, which would include both conclusions and evidence-based analysis and explanation and reasoning that gets you to those conclusions. But you've otherwise given me some stuff to work with, so I'm glad of that. 34 minutes ago, Analytics said: Q: What rules of evidence do you apply to the witnesses' statements? Are these rules different from those you apply to Suetonius? A: We accept Caesar's assassination because of multiple independent sources All very late (many, many decades after). None of them is a "source" in that none was a percipient witness. Most or all of them rely on additional unknown and unvetted sources which are not extant. In contrast, we have "multiple independent sources" for The Book of Mormon. Not just statements from Joseph Smith, but also from David Whitmer, Martin Harris, Oliver Cowdery, Christian Whitmer, Jacob Whitmer, Peter Whitmer, Jr., John Whitmer, Hiram Page, Joseph Smith, Sen., Hyrum Smith, Samuel H. Smith, Emma Hale Smith, Mary Musselman Whitmer, Katharine Smith Salisbury, Lucy Mack Smith, Sally Parker, William B. Smith, John C. Whitmer and Josiah Stowell. Some of these are "interested parties" (their partiality is suspect), but the same can be said for the sources about Caesar's assassination. These are are mostly first-hand, percipient witnesses (some are second-hand or third-hand), and contemporary. In addition, we have extensive biographical information about these witnesses which allows us to gauge their character and credibility (see, e.g., Richard Lloyd Anderson’s Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses, https://witnessesofthebookofmormon.org/). You can't say the same about the sources for Caesar's assassination. Also, there are apparently some contradictions as to Caesar. From Grok: Quote Yes, the ancient historical sources on the assassination of Julius Caesar (March 15, 44 BC, the Ides of March) do contain several notable contradictions and variations. These arise because the accounts were written decades to centuries after the event, often drawing from secondhand reports, political biases, or dramatic traditions. No true eyewitness narrative survives intact, and the main surviving sources include: Nicolaus of Damascus (early 1st century AD, in his Life of Augustus, potentially biased toward Augustus/Octavian). Plutarch (early 2nd century AD, in his Lives of Caesar and Brutus). Suetonius (early 2nd century AD, in The Twelve Caesars). Appian (2nd century AD, in his Civil Wars). Cassius Dio (early 3rd century AD). While the core facts align (Caesar was stabbed multiple times in the Senate at the Theatre of Pompey by a group of senators led by Brutus, Cassius, and others; he died from blood loss; the conspirators fled), discrepancies appear in details of the sequence, participants' actions, Caesar's behavior, and dramatic elements. Key Areas of Contradiction or Variation Caesar's Last Words This is one of the most famous points of divergence: Suetonius reports that Caesar said nothing after the first stab (just a groan), though some sources claim he said in Greek to Brutus: "Καὶ σύ, τέκνον;" ("Kai su, teknon?" meaning "And you, child?" or "You too, my child?"). Plutarch (in Life of Caesar) has Caesar exclaiming to Casca (one of the first attackers): "Casca, you villain, what are you doing?" (in Greek or Latin variants). In his Life of Brutus, he notes some traditions of the Greek phrase to Brutus. Other accounts (including some in Suetonius) suggest he said no words at all, or veiled his face in silence. Shakespeare's famous "Et tu, Brute?" ("And you, Brutus?") is a later dramatic invention with no direct ancient attestation—it's an elaboration of the Greek phrase from Suetonius/Plutarch. Historians view the "kai su, teknon" as possibly legendary or symbolic rather than verbatim. Number and Nature of the Stab Wounds Most sources agree on 23 stab wounds (a number popularized by Suetonius and echoed in others), with only one (or sometimes the second, to the chest/ribs) being fatal according to the physician Antistius's autopsy (the earliest known post-mortem report). However: Some imply fewer effective wounds due to panic and poor aim in the crowded attack. Variations exist in which wounds were described as hitting vital areas (e.g., face by Cassius, thigh by Decimus Brutus, back/head by others). The total of 23 is consistent across major accounts, but minor details on location/severity differ slightly, reflecting oral transmission or emphasis. Caesar's Reaction and Final Moments Some portray him as resisting actively (grabbing Casca's arm, trying to stand or flee). Others show him passive or resigned after the initial attack, pulling his toga over his head to die with dignity. Plutarch and Suetonius describe him falling at the base of Pompey's statue (symbolic irony, as Pompey was his rival), but details on how he got there vary (dragged, stumbled, or deliberately moved). Omens, Warnings, and Motivations Accounts differ on how seriously Caesar took warnings (e.g., Calpurnia's dreams, the soothsayer Spurinna's "Beware the Ides of March"). Some say he dismissed them confidently; others suggest hesitation but ultimate attendance due to persuasion (e.g., by Decimus Brutus). Motivations of conspirators (tyrannicide vs. personal envy/power) are framed differently—pro-Caesar sources downplay republican ideals, while others emphasize them. These variations stem from: Bias and agenda: Nicolaus wrote for Augustus (Caesar's heir), so he may soften or dramatize elements. Plutarch pairs biographies for moral lessons, Suetonius focuses on character anecdotes. Time gap: Earliest full accounts are 50–150+ years later. Literary embellishment: Ancient historians often prioritized narrative impact over strict accuracy. Modern historians (e.g., in works like Barry Strauss's The Death of Caesar) reconcile these by treating the event's broad outline as reliable while viewing colorful details (like exact words) as uncertain or legendary. The contradictions don't undermine the historicity of the assassination itself but highlight how ancient reporting worked—more interpretive than forensic. 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. 34 minutes ago, Analytics said: with conflicting loyalties, IOW, "independent" of each other. Some remained loyal to Joseph, some did not. They all substantively agreed, however, about the Plates. The historicity of the Plates (that is, their existence while in the possession of Joseph Smith in the 1820s) appears to be beyond reasonable dispute. Do you concur? If so, the next area of inquiry as to your alternative explanation would seem to involve A) participants in the fabrication of the hoax, B) their motives for participating and for remaining silent, C) the materials used, D) the skills needed, E) the overall quality of the object (obviously fake v. sophisticated and detailed), F) plausibility of "painted tin" tricking the Eight Witnesses, and so on. 34 minutes ago, Analytics said: no shared motive, This too makes their attestations stronger. Some were loyal, some were not. Some later had strong incentives to recant, but they did not. 34 minutes ago, Analytics said: falsifiability, The statements of the historical sources for the death of Caesar are also not falsifiable. It seems like this is an unreasonable and arbitrary point of criticism. 34 minutes ago, Analytics said: and physical evidence that was available for examination. Same here. The knives used to kill Caesar are not here. Nor is the physician's autopsy report (if one was even done). Nor are any of the sources upon which all of the later sources relied (except, perhaps for Cicero, who might have been a percipient witness, but provenance issues arise there as well). 34 minutes ago, Analytics said: The plates evidence has none of these structural features. The plates have most of these features. From an evidentiary perspective, we have substantially more, and better quality, evidence for the Plates than we do for the physician's examination of Caesar's body, or even the ***assination itself. 34 minutes ago, Analytics said: It's not a double standard — it's the difference between independent and curated evidence. Yes, it is a double standard. You rely on Suetonius, though evidentiary problems with his account abound. Same goes for all the other sources re: Caesar. You hold these mediocre sources to a separate, markedly lower/easier standard than you do for the much higher-quality evidence pertaining to the Plates. 34 minutes ago, Analytics said: Closing Smac, I've answered every question on your list. You said "I don't know" seven times. Your answers skew quite heavily into "conclusory" territory. And they are heavily speculative and mostly bereft of evidentiary analysis and explanation. I already know what your conclusions are. What I am interested in is a positive, coherent alternative explanation for The Book of Mormon that accounts for the key data points (physical plates, witness statements, text origins/translation process) without heavy speculation, while claiming empirical rigor. 34 minutes ago, Analytics said: You'll notice a pattern: the answer to most of them is "I don't know," Yes, I did notice that. 34 minutes ago, Analytics said: and the reason I don't know is the same every time. The one artifact that would have answered all of these questions was permanently removed from examination, by the very person who had the most to gain from us believing his story. You are saying none of these questions can be address at all unless the artifact is available? Could you elaborate? We don't have the blades that killed Caesar, nor do we have the physician's autopsy report. And yet you have pronounced an opinion based on what evidence we do have about that event. Why can't you do the same with the extant evidence we have about the Plates? By way of example, you believe that Joseph had an actual physical object in his possession that answered generally to the "Plates" artifact under discussion. Is that correct? You have reached this conclusion even though we do not have the object, correct? So do you have a theory as to the origins of that object? If not, why not? How is it that you are capable of postulating that the object existed, but you are not capable of postulating where it came from, who made it, how, etc.? You have previously said: Quote I'm generally agnostic about the specific details of the mechanism of production, but since you've asked repeatedly, here are the scenarios I find most plausible, offered as my best current assessment. On the text: Joseph Smith is the most likely primary author, possibly with help from people in his immediate circle who were deeply steeped in biblical language. I can imagine his mother Lucy and brother Hyrum being involved. They had over five years between the time they said the book was forthcoming until the dictation to scribes began. The "tight translation" elements Carmack identifies are consistent with someone who had deeply internalized archaic KJV language and was reading from a pre-prepared manuscript, first behind the curtain during the 116-page period, then from the hat. The EModE patterns don't require a miracle. They require immersion in sacred language traditions, which Joseph's family had in abundance. On the plates: some physical object probably existed. It was never subjected to independent examination, was deliberately concealed, and then conveniently removed before anyone outside the inner circle could evaluate it. This would have been constructed during the 5-year period before they were shown to witnesses. 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. These were not dispassionate observers. They were family members, financial stakeholders, and true believers in a sacred undertaking. Several maintained their testimonies even after leaving the church, which I take as evidence of genuine belief in the original project, not necessarily evidence that the production was exactly what it was claimed to be. People can sincerely believe in something while using guile (e.g. missionaries who are told to find their testimony by telling people they know the Church is true). The witnesses may have believed they were serving God's purposes even while participating in a production that was partly staged. Moroni 7:16 explains their motivation--even if they weren’t being totally transparent and guileless, they were still persuading people to believe in Christ and do good; that is the yardstick for whether they were doing God’s work--not whether they were telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I appreciate these, but they are almost entirely conclusory. The above statement does not illuminate the evidence and reasoning you have used to reach your conclusions. My surmise is that your refusal to engage these basic questions about your proposed alternative theory is, to me, an indicator that you are unable/unwilling to articulate such an alternative theory. You do not want it examined because you have no evidence for it, because you are just making stuff up as you go along, because an alternative theory can be picked apart just as readily as the Church's narrative, and because you do not want that to happen. I am happy to be proven wrong. My questions are not out of the blue. They are, instead, inherently related and relevant to your conclusions. For example: Quote On the plates: some physical object probably existed. I appreciate that this is your conclusion. How did you reach it? 34 minutes ago, Analytics said: You're a litigator. Yes. And I am bringing some litigation skills to bear. 34 minutes ago, Analytics said: You know what happens in your courtroom when one party deliberately conceals the evidence that would have resolved the dispute. I also knows what happens when a witness is evasive, when he either outright refuses to answer questions, or provides answers which are not responsive to the questions posed, or else responds with broad conclusory statements rather than specific factual ones. Most of what you have said - I'd say >80% - falls into these latter categories. I say that because, well, I still don't have much from you. And again, there is no evidence that Joseph deliberately concealed the Plates. He said he returned them to Moroni. They are lost to us because of that. The knives purportedly used to kill Caesar, and the Physician's report, and pretty much all first-hand percipient witness statements and evidence, are lost to us. In neither instance is there evidence of someone "deliberately concealing the evidence." The very fact that we have so-called "curated" witness statements belies your argument here. If Joseph was really intending to conceal the evidence, why invite 11 other people, several of whom he hardly knew, to act as witnesses? 34 minutes ago, Analytics said: The adverse inference goes against the party who concealed it, not against the party who can't reconstruct what was hidden. See my comments above about spoliation. Doesn't work here. 34 minutes ago, Analytics said: Every unanswerable question on your list is unanswerable by Joseph Smith's design. That isn't my problem. It's his. I think "Joseph Smith's design" was not his, but the Lord's. And I think that design was to create evidence while still allowing room for doubt and the exercise of free will and agency. But the point of this thread is not to talk about Joseph's narrative, but yours. And yours is pretty darn threadbare. I have asked for a positive, coherent alternative explanation for The Book of Mormon that accounts for the key data points (physical plates, witness statements, text origins/translation process) without heavy speculation, while claiming empirical rigor. You haven't provided a "positive, coherent alternative explanation." Even now you lean way into the "not that"-style conclusory declarations. You haven't accounted for the key data points very well. Hardly at all, really. You returned to the "I don't know" well so many times it ran dry. The level of your usage of the "Special Pleading" fallacy as re: the Witnesses is off the charts. Your reasoning is mostly conclusory, arbitrary, opaque, or some combination of these. You also lean heavy into "heavy speculation." It's all vague guesswork and "I don't know." As for "claiming empirical rigor," just take a look at your lenient accommodations for historical witnesses re: Caesar's death, which you arbitrarily withdraw or revise when it comes to the Witnesses under discussion here. Nevertheless, you have given me some stuff to work with. And I appreciate that. I'm still left with my prior conclusion intact: The critics have nothing substantive to say. Not only is their critique of the Church's Text-and-Witnesses narrative strained and ad hoc and a priori and conclusory, they still cannot, even after the passage of <200 years, formulate a better one. And then the Church invites confirmation not through primarily through empirical analysis, but from the Spirit. I continue to be open to listening to what our critics have to offer. It ain't much, though. Thanks, -Smac
Calm Posted March 16 Posted March 16 (edited) 2 hours ago, california boy said: It is not a difficult process. Cost would be a factor though. Quote Making real solid gold plates in 600bc in the Americas wouldn't have been all that easy either. Tumbaga, gold would be too soft Edited March 16 by Calm 1
smac97 Posted March 16 Posted March 16 4 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said: I can't speak for Smac, but there seems to be an obvious disparity when you use this type of comparison. You see, I assume Smac hasn't spent a great deal of time on the internet studying this particular topic and then debating those who believe in it about its merits. I have not. No time at all, in fact. @Analytics, in contrast, has spent thousands of posts and who knows how much time and effort in examining the claims of the Church. 4 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said: Nor do I assume that he grew up believing in this story. At least that is the case for me. It sits very much at the periphery of my knowledge. I don't know enough about this specific topic to have an informed opinion of it, much less the ability to construct a plausible counter-explanation that fairly considers all (or at least much) of the data. And there are thousands of other claims out there in the world that I am similarly unprepared to comment on. We have nearly 200 years of criticism of The Book of Mormon. Yet no plausible counter-explanation for it. I find that to be pretty interesting. 4 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said: In contrast, you seem to be deeply invested in Restoration topics. Over the years, it appears you have commented regularly online on these types of subjects and have engaged in debates with believers over a wide range of topics pertaining to LDS theology and beliefs, including the Book of Mormon. It therefore would seem that, by now (considering your apparently deep level of interest and engagement), you would have developed some sort of coherent counter theory. Or, alternatively, I would have thought he would have reviewed what other critics have postulated as counter theories and ratified/endorsed the better of these as more likely. 4 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said: Likewise, if Smac were regularly engaging online in making arguments against this particular purported miracle involving the Virgin Mary, then I actually would expect him to have developed, at some point, a coherent and detailed counter-explanation. Or, at least when there are areas where he doesn't have a plausible counter-explanation, I would expect him to admit that and acknowledge the evidence is sufficient for reasonable people to accept it, even if he hasn't yet been convinced himself. I wouldn't take a global position on such matters. I am open to some being hoaxes or hallucinatory or some such, and I am also open to some of them being truly miraculous, or grounded in the miraculous. The Lord doesn't work just with the Latter-day Saints. Thanks, -Smac 2
smac97 Posted March 16 Posted March 16 3 hours ago, Analytics said: In this thread's OP, I leveraged AI to create "a plausible counter-explanation that fairly considers all of the data." Smac wasn't impressed with mere speculation and wants a "positive, coherent alternative explanation for The Book of Mormon that accounts for the key data points (physical plates, witness statements, text origins/translation process) without heavy speculation, while claiming empirical rigor." Is his request reasonable? Because if you want to be intellectually honest, the fact that I've told you about the Tilma forces you to make a decision. You can either take the faithful story at face value, or presume that it is fake. Or I can remain ambivalent, since I have not given the matter any real thought or investigation. Thanks, -Smac 1
webbles Posted March 16 Posted March 16 3 hours ago, california boy said: But with effort we have two contemporary examples of people creating props out of metal to deceive others into believing they were of religious importance. 3 hours ago, california boy said: I think most believe the plates were metal. There is no analysis of what the "gold-like" plates were actually made of. Like the witnesses, you are just guessing what metal they might be. One thing to keep in mind is that gold leafing had been practiced for centuries. It is not a difficult process. I actually recently did some gold leafing on our Victorian house in San Francisco. It is common throughout the city. Never took any classes in how to do it. And it was only the second time I ever tried doing it. My point is, there are many ways to make something appear to be "gold -like". Joseph Smith had 4 years to figure it out. Possibly the more troubling questioning to consider is that Joseph Smith treats the plates like a prop. He doesn't actually use it to translate the BoM. He uses a rock in a hat for that. So as the story goes, just why did all those Nephite prophets go to all that effort for something that would never actually be used for anything other than a prop? Making real solid gold plates in 600bc in the Americas wouldn't have been all that easy either. And why gold when the plates they stole were made of brass, a much more common material in 600bc. Yeah there are some problems with the whole story. I am not saying that it is impossible, or that a person like yourself could not believe in such a tale. But what I am saying is using the gold plates story to confirm your beliefs isn't rock solid physical proof of anything. It actually sounds like we are mostly in agreement. You agree that Joseph had some metal plates. That's what I'm arguing for. I'm saying that the reaction to the Voree and Kinderhook plates show, to me, that Joseph had metal plates. They were real enough to convince the witnesses. The 8 witnesses weren't hoodwinked or made to "spiritually" view the plates. They actually got to touch them and found them to be real metal plates. That's all I'm arguing about. I have a hard time believing that Joseph could have made them, but I definitely believe people at the time could definitely make them. See the Kinderhook and Voree plates for an example. It would be a lot more effort, but is definitely possible. But that starts to go into the realm of a conspiracy of people making the Book of Mormon and every avenue I've tried with those theories end up with lots of issues. 3 hours ago, california boy said: So none of those people were actively involved or connected with Joseph Smith and participating in the coming forth of the church??? Some of the 8 witnesses were definitely involved earlier (Hyrum, Joseph Sr, Samuel) but most of them would have been completely new to Joseph and the Book of Mormon. The only knowledge they would have had before June 1829 is from letters from Oliver Cowdery. It would appear that all of them were interested but they weren't friends or intimate acquaintances of Joseph. They participated in the coming forth but I think you have the order backwards. They were nobodies to Joseph before he selected them to be the witnesses. He didn't do a deep evaluation of who should see it. It almost feels like he just picked the people available. If he and Oliver hadn't moved in with them, it would probably have been a different set of people. 2
webbles Posted March 16 Posted March 16 7 hours ago, Analytics said: A: The Eight Witnesses signed a joint statement prepared by Joseph Smith using the language Joseph Smith led with. As I described with my seminary story, curated witnesses using curated language can create impressions far beyond what the underlying evidence supports. I handled a comically cheap prop and truthfully testified that it had the appearance of gold, had engravings, and could be hefted and handled. The class imagined something miraculous. A skilled deposition would have revealed the truth; the joint statement format precluded that. After you saw these plates, did any friends or acquaintances come up to you and ask you what you saw? Did you tell them that it was comically cheap prop? Or did you not realize it then? Because the 11 witnesses were asked about their experience multiple times by friends and critics. And yet, they kept insisting it was a real thing. In some cases, they went out of their way to correct a misunderstanding. 1
Zosimus Posted March 16 Posted March 16 On 3/14/2026 at 11:55 AM, smac97 said: 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? Dan Vogel is discussing this in a livestream right now: Could Joseph Smith Have Made the Plates? 1
smac97 Posted March 16 Posted March 16 3 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said: Again, it is not your mere disbelief in the Book of Mormon that seems to interest Smac. It is that you seem rather strident in your disbelief, that you seem to have spent a lot of time engaging with research in this area, and that you continue to take adversarial positions against the Church online. Pretty much. I find it interesting that critics, in the end, appear to relegate themselves to a variation on what Dale Mortgage said in 1945: "With my point of view on God, I am incapable of accepting the claims of Joseph Smith and the Mormons, be they however so convincing. If God does not exist, how can Joseph Smith’s story have any possible validity? I will look everywhere for explanations except to the ONE explanation that is the position of the church."" They are free to do that, but I find it intellectually vacuous, which is really interesting to me given that this topic is, in some ways, the sine qua non, the Ground Zero, of the claims of the Church. Pres. Benson really nailed it in 1986: Quote Finally, the Book of Mormon is the keystone of testimony. Just as the arch crumbles if the keystone is removed, so does all the Church stand or fall with the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. The enemies of the Church understand this clearly. This is why they go to such great lengths to try to disprove the Book of Mormon, for if it can be discredited, the Prophet Joseph Smith goes with it. So does our claim to priesthood keys, and revelation, and the restored Church. But in like manner, if the Book of Mormon be true—and millions have now testified that they have the witness of the Spirit that it is indeed true—then one must accept the claims of the Restoration and all that accompanies it. The Latter-day Saints have spent the last 200 years incrementally building a plausible explanatory and evidentiary supplement to the voice of The Spirit. The former must never overshadow or take priority over the latter, but... Quote Austin Farrer observed in writing praise about the late C. S. Lewis, “Though argument does not create conviction, the lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced: but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish.” I really want to "steelman" the critics' alternative theories about The Book of Mormon. We don't do ourselves any favors by only listening to voices who affirm what we already believe. Engaging our critics at their best can help us in our search for truth, including refining our grasp of things we already hold to be true. It's been some years since I read Taves' stuff. I spent a bit of time listening to Vogel's pretty-darn-so-so explanations in his Dehlin interview, but Dehlin is just a cheerleader, not an interlocutor, so perhaps Vogel was not at his best. I need to go back and read his substantive stuff. I'll keep going in this thread, and I hope we can glean some valuable stuff from it. Thanks, -Smac
Analytics Posted March 16 Author Posted March 16 2 hours ago, smac97 said: What does this have to do about you laying out a positive, coherent alternative explanation for the Book of Mormon, centering on evidence about the Plates, the Witnesses and the Text, and which explanation accounts for key data points without heavy speculation, while claiming empirical rigor? Objection. Badgering the witness. As I have explained many times, I don’t have a positive explanation for specifically what happened that is based on empirical rigor and not heavy speculation. As I’ve explained over and over, the reason I don’t have this positive explanation is because the evidence doesn’t exist. And as I’ve explained over and over, the reason the evidence doesn’t exist is because the person who had the most to gain from proving his claims true is the one who made sure the evidence that would have settled the matter was not made available for independent examination. 2 hours ago, smac97 said: Do you also "believe him" when he said these things? "{W}e, through the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the plates which contain this record... And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true. And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates; and they have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man. And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true. And it is marvelous in our eyes. Nevertheless, the voice of the Lord commanded us that we should bear record of it; wherefore, to be obedient unto the commandments of God, we bear testimony of these things." “My testimony to the world is written concerning the Book of Mormon, and it is the same that I gave at first and it is the same as shall stand to my latest hour in life, linger with me in death and shine as Gospel Truth beyond the limits of life.” “My testimony to the Book of Mormon is true and I am admonished neither to add to nor take from my testimony already appended to the Book.” “Those who know me best, well know that I have adhered to that testimony.—And that no man may be misled or doubt my present views in regard to the same, I do now again affirm the truth of all my statement[s], as then made and published.” “I did see the angel of God, and was commanded to testify of these things, and they are true.” “You ask me if I saw the Angel when he brought the plates. I saw the Angel when he brought the plates, and the Angel told us that we must bear testimony to the world, as contained in my testimony written in the Book of Mormon. Doubt not—sister—the Book of Mormon is the word of God.” "I saw the angel as plainly as I see you; he was surrounded by the glory of God, which overshadowed us, and we heard his voice, and we saw the records of the Book of Mormon...My testimony is the same as at the beginning, as is true." "I saw them just as plain as I see this bed (striking his hand upon the bed beside him), and I heard the voice of the Lord as distinctly as I ever heard anything in my life declaring that they (the plates) were translated by the gift and power of God." "How well and distinctly I remember the manner in which Elder Whitmer arose and drew himself up to his full height--a little over six feet--and said, in solemn and impressive tones: 'No sir! I was not under any hallucination, nor was I deceived! I saw with these eyes, and I heard with these ears! I know whereof I speak!'" I don’t know what that means. What are “the plates” he’s talking about? The concept is ill-defined. For example, is he talking about the same plates the 8 witnesses saw? Explain to me what you are claiming here. Are you saying that Moroni gave some plates to Joseph, Joseph had them hidden in a box or something for several years while translating, and then Moroni went, retrieved the plates from the box, showed them to the 3 witnesses, and then put them back in the box? Then Joseph showed them to the eight, then Moroni came and retrieved them? If I were allowed to speculate I’d speculate that the magical “plates" that Moroni showed are not the same “plates” that Joseph showed. He is talking about a ton of ill-defined, fantastical things. I can’t form an opinion on these claims until I know what in the heck he is talking about. If you claimed Brutus stabbed Caesar on March 15, 44 B.C. with a dagger on the senate floor in Rome, I know exactly what you’re talking about. Brutus, Caesar, daggers, the Senate floor, March 15, 44 B.C., etc. are all well-defined things. In contrast, angels, plates, God, the power of God, etc., are not well-defined things. 2 hours ago, smac97 said: We do not have an "independent empirical verification, just as we do not have "independent empirical verification" of the physician autopsy reported by Suetonius. And yet you accept that report as historically accurate, even though it is only referenced in a separate document written many decades after the fact, by a gossipmonger, about the circumstances of the death of a hugely controversial politician, and based on who-knows-what documents that no longer exist for corroboration purposes. Why is that? Why do you accept Suetonius has a reliable historical reference? Do you really need me to explain why historians believe Caesar was assassinated on the Senate floor in 44 B.C. but don't believe that Moroni, an ancient Central American, buried a golden book in upstate New York for Joseph Smith to find? 1
The Nehor Posted March 17 Posted March 17 The Book of Mormon is fake. So is the Bible. God created the world on April 19th, 1867. Everything before that was implanted memories created with the humans that were created on that date and God created a world whose history validated a lot of the history. Prove me wrong! 1
Calm Posted March 17 Posted March 17 7 hours ago, california boy said: So as the story goes, just why did all those Nephite prophets go to all that effort for something that would never actually be used for anything other than a prop? What makes you think they weren’t using them at the time just as they apparently used the brass plates and the Jews used the Torah, etc anciently once it got written down? 1
Calm Posted March 17 Posted March 17 7 hours ago, cujo22 said: My memory might be off, but I think he did spend time with plates early in the process in early translation attempts or early in the process. They were used for the Anthon characters. Not sure how much of the 116 pages, but I believe some…I need to review the Bradley book. One quote has him using the interpreters with the plates between December and February. Doesn’t say how much time it took iirc. https://mormonr.org/qnas/o4ML4/book_of_mormon_translation_methods/research#re-0iSghu-OvOW1b
Zosimus Posted March 17 Posted March 17 2 hours ago, smac97 said: I really want to "steelman" the critics' alternative theories about The Book of Mormon. We don't do ourselves any favors by only listening to voices who affirm what we already believe. Engaging our critics at their best can help us in our search for truth, including refining our grasp of things we already hold to be true. That's fair of you. Your thoughts on Vogel's presentation today? Could Joseph Smith Have Made the Plates? His idea is that Joseph could have used tin roof shingles that were commonly used in America in the early 19th century. It wouldn't require much smithing or effort to put some rings on a stack of tin roof shingles. Its even something that could be done without anyone noticing
Calm Posted March 17 Posted March 17 33 minutes ago, Zosimus said: That's fair of you. Your thoughts on Vogel's presentation today? Could Joseph Smith Have Made the Plates? His idea is that Joseph could have used tin roof shingles that were commonly used in America in the early 19th century. It wouldn't require much smithing or effort to put some rings on a stack of tin roof shingles. Its even something that could be done without anyone noticing But wouldn’t they be able to recognize tin? Since commonly used?
Ryan Dahle Posted March 17 Posted March 17 (edited) 53 minutes ago, Zosimus said: That's fair of you. Your thoughts on Vogel's presentation today? Could Joseph Smith Have Made the Plates? His idea is that Joseph could have used tin roof shingles that were commonly used in America in the early 19th century. It wouldn't require much smithing or effort to put some rings on a stack of tin roof shingles. Its even something that could be done without anyone noticing I only saw just a moment of it. I happened to hop on when Vogel was talking about Stephen Burnett, but then I had to hop off before I really saw his argument. Did it seem like he responded to the recent critique of his handling of that issue, as seen in these types of sources: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/re/vol25/iss2/5/ https://www.academia.edu/146009997/Material_Plates_Spiritual_Vision_Martin_Harris_Divine_Materiality_and_Seeing_with_Spiritual_Eyes_ Seems like it matters if the witnesses clearly saw the plates and were able to heft and handle them. If they did, then I think Vogel's theory of tin plates will likely struggle. But I didn't see his video, so I don't know what he specifically claimed. Edited March 17 by Ryan Dahle 1
webbles Posted March 17 Posted March 17 56 minutes ago, Zosimus said: That's fair of you. Your thoughts on Vogel's presentation today? Could Joseph Smith Have Made the Plates? His idea is that Joseph could have used tin roof shingles that were commonly used in America in the early 19th century. It wouldn't require much smithing or effort to put some rings on a stack of tin roof shingles. Its even something that could be done without anyone noticing I don't believe tinplate shingles were common. The book that he references can be read at https://inspectapedia.com/exterior/Metals-in-Historic-Buildings-NPS.pdf. It says that it was used mostly in cities and public buildings. Tin was an imported product and so would be more expensive. The US didn't start producing its own tin till the late 1800s. It is probably that no house in Palmyra would have tin roofing, as the town is too rural. Or if it did, there wouldn't be stacks of tin lying about. It would be a custom order as it would be shipped from overseas. Makes it a bit unlikely for Joseph to have them. 1
webbles Posted March 17 Posted March 17 34 minutes ago, Calm said: But wouldn’t they be able to recognize tin? Since commonly used? He says the 8 witnesses didn't actually see the plates. They saw it with "spiritual eyes" through a sheet. He quotes the Stephen Burnett letter and a statement from John Whitmer for his reasoning. 1
Zosimus Posted March 17 Posted March 17 1 hour ago, webbles said: I don't believe tinplate shingles were common. The book that he references can be read at https://inspectapedia.com/exterior/Metals-in-Historic-Buildings-NPS.pdf. It says that it was used mostly in cities and public buildings. Tin was an imported product and so would be more expensive. The US didn't start producing its own tin till the late 1800s. It is probably that no house in Palmyra would have tin roofing, as the town is too rural. Or if it did, there wouldn't be stacks of tin lying about. It would be a custom order as it would be shipped from overseas. Makes it a bit unlikely for Joseph to have them. Looking closer, it wasn't ubiquitous, as in it wasn't lying around in piles in places like Palmyra. But also, if someone in Palmyra needed some tinplate, they wouldn't need to custom order it from abroad. It was produced in America from the early 1700s, with production increasing after the War of 1812. Tinplate was available for tinsmiths and tinplate goods were distributed by village-to-village peddlers: https://hylandhouse.org/early-guilford-days/virtual-early-guilford-days-2020/tinsmithing "A Short History of Tinsmithing: The tinsmith has been plying his trade in America since 1720. Colonial tin products were made of imported tinplate. England banned the production of tinplate in the colonies, thus restricting the amount of goods the colonists could produce. Tinplate is thin steel that has been dipped several times into molten tin. If there is rust on a piece of tinware, it is because the tinplate has worn away or a cut in the metal has exposed the steel which has rusted. Colonial tinsmiths used tinplate, wire, sodder, and a few simple tools to produce their wares. When tinplate was finally produced in America in the early 1800’s the products of the tinsmith became more widely available. They in turn saw an increase in demand and a need to speed up production. This brought about the development of many ingenious hand powered machines which sped up production and helped the tinsmith meet the demands for his products. The goods were “brought to market” by peddlers traveling from village to village." 2
The Nehor Posted March 17 Posted March 17 1 hour ago, webbles said: I don't believe tinplate shingles were common. The book that he references can be read at https://inspectapedia.com/exterior/Metals-in-Historic-Buildings-NPS.pdf. It says that it was used mostly in cities and public buildings. Tin was an imported product and so would be more expensive. The US didn't start producing its own tin till the late 1800s. It is probably that no house in Palmyra would have tin roofing, as the town is too rural. Or if it did, there wouldn't be stacks of tin lying about. It would be a custom order as it would be shipped from overseas. Makes it a bit unlikely for Joseph to have them. Tinplate is mostly iron with a thin coating of tin over it to prevent rust. It wouldn’t be particularly expensive as metals go. Tin was pretty cheap in the 19th century. I have no idea how common tinplate roofing in particular was in that area in that time period. Not having domestic tin mining was the norm in the world at that time. Tin deposits are relatively rare. In the Bronze Age it was a highly sought after commodity and was one of the reasons long distance trading took place since it made copper much more durable (bronze is mostly copper with some tin alloyed in). 1
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now