A Secular Theory of Where the BoM Came From

[champatsch]

6 hours ago, Analytics said:

I'm trying to follow the logic here and I'm genuinely confused about what you're arguing.

Your table shows the Book of Mormon has 16 instances of "did have" while all of Early English Books Online together have 12. If I'm reading this correctly, a single 19th-century dictated text uses this supposedly rare Early Modern English construction 33% more than the entire surviving corpus of actual Early Modern English writing. Doesn't that make the Book of Mormon an outlier on the high end and that Joseph used this feature more than genuine EModE authors did? How does that authenticate anything? If anything, it looks like overcorrection.

Second, the 12 instances in EEBO represents written Early Modern English. But language doesn't spread through writing, it spreads through speech. If "did have" appeared in the spoken English of that era with any regularity, it would have descended to later speakers through oral transmission, not through the 12 people who happened to write it down. The paucity of written examples doesn't tell us how frequently it appeared in speech. So when you say Joseph Smith used a "rare" construction, you're really saying it rarely appeared in books, which is a much weaker claim than saying it was rare in the language itself.

I'm genuinely asking: are you arguing the Book of Mormon uses these features at the right frequency, or just that it uses them at all? Because your own table suggests it uses them more than the period it's supposedly reflecting.

None of this occurs in isolation. It is just one of 100+ interesting aspects of Book of Mormon English that are not pseudo-archaic in character.

The general argument has never been that the Book of Mormon is an early modern text, in a strict sense. Obviously not, since I noted late modern aspects in a 2014 paper. It is, however, mostly early modern in character, if we judge things by the verb phrase, which is the proper way to do it, as opposed to judging things by non-verb phrases. Because there are late middle aspects as well, it could be thought of as a philological text in its English usage.

Overuse of "did have" (overuse from an early modern perspective) does not indicate authorship by Joseph Smith, since there was no pseudo-archaic production of "did have." The reason it was so little used in the past, and not in pseudo-archaic texts, was that periphrastic did was never used with auxiliary verbs or with the verb be, and have often functioned as an auxiliary verb, and so the language resisted the use with main verb possessive have in the 1500s, with restricted use in the 1600s, before its demise. Non-emphatic "did have" could not have persisted into the 1700s, since the usage died out generally. It is not how Joseph Smith spoke, nor how he would have dictated from a presumed pseudo-archaic impulse.

The Book of Mormon overuses many different aspects of earlier English. I really don't see the point in going over this, however, since it is obvious from various things I have mentioned: monotransitive causatives, ditransitive causatives, monotransitive permissives, ditransitive permissives, (same thing for other verbs, like command), if it so be, save it were, save it be, except it were, except it be, save . . shall, save . . should, spake as a past participle, of which hath been spoken, plural mights, object they, more part phraseology, etc. All of these, and dozens more, are "overused". Because there are dozens of linguistic features from Late Middle English and Early Modern English that are overused and not in pseudo-archaic texts (or rare in those texts), involving thousands of instances, obviously Joseph Smith did not word them.

Since you ought to get this point, but do not get it, I won't be spending any more time clarifying things for you.

The Book of Mormon reads like a written text in various ways, including verbal complementation, archaic subjunctive marking, repetition of prepositions and possessives, etc. It is more written than oral in style, and because it was dictated, it is another point in favor of Joseph Smith not wording it.

[smac97]

10 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

Contemporary critics who knew Joseph personally (and who desperately wanted to expose a fraud) never produced a plausible “how he did it” explanation that fits the witnesses’ consistent, detailed accounts. The sophistication of the object the witnesses described actually militates against the idea of a simple homemade tin prop by an uneducated farm boy. Whatever the ultimate source of the plates, the external evidence points to something far more impressive than a rustic hoax.

This isn't obvious to me.

Okay.

10 hours ago, Analytics said:

The plates the three witnesses saw in a vision may have been spectacular, but that doesn't mean the ones Joseph kept hidden were impressive.

This presupposes that the Three Witnesses' experience was a "vision" and not a "in the body" event.  David Whitmer:

Quote

• "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."
• “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!'"

• "{W}e were in the body also."
• "{E}verything was as natural to us, as it is at any time."
• "I saw the angel as plainly as I see you."
• "'I saw them {the Plates} just as plain as I see this bed (striking his hand upon the bed beside him), and I heard the voice of the Lord as distinctly as I ever heard anything in my life...'"
• "No sir! I was not under any hallucination, nor was I deceived! I saw with these eyes, and I heard with these ears! I know whereof I speak!"

I think you need to account for these.

Also, are you claiming that Joseph had two sets of Plates?  One for the Three Witnesses and one for the Eight Witnesses?  If so, please be specific, and please lay out your reasoning and evidence?

10 hours ago, Analytics said:

My own experience in seminary proves that you can honestly describe something in a way that will make people think it is more impressive than it really is.

Except it seems you weren't honest in what you described.  

What you saw was, in your words, an obvious and cheap and comical prop.  What you described was, well, we don't know since you have been quite coy about what you actually said (in stark contrast to, say, David Whitmer, who was very clear about what he saw and experienced) :

Quote

Here is a true story that may help you understand why I'm a bit skeptical. This is 100% true. Back in the day I attended release-time seminary in Utah. One day, the teacher said he had a special artifact hidden behind his lectern: a set of golden plates. He said it was made of curious workmanship. He said it had the appearance of gold. Some of the plates were "sealed". They had strange writing on them. They were bound together by rings. The class was very intrigued by this.

He then randomly selected 8 students to go up and look at this amazing artifact. By luck of the draw, I was chosen. I went to the front of the class. I touched the plates. I saw the writing. I saw the rings. I flipped a page. I then witnessed all of this to the rest of the class. They all asked us questions about it. We answered them. They really had writing on them. They were really of gold color. They really had rings. There really was a sealed section.

The point of the lesson was made: the students who didn't see the plates were forced to believe they were real. They could imagine a seminary teacher lying, but not 8 fellow students. We must have really seen and touched what we said we did.

And the teacher never showed the artifact to the rest of the class. They had to believe it was real based on what we said.

When the class ended, one girl asked if she could see the plates. The teacher said no. She begged, and the teacher held his ground. She needed to believe the plates under the lectern were real based on our testimony. She was left dying to see this amazing artifact under the lectern that, as far as she knew, was indistinguishable from the authentic plates that the BoM witnesses saw and just maybe somehow were the very same plates the witnesses saw.

But if an attorney skilled in deposition would have been there, he would have quickly figured out that the artifact we saw and handled was made out of balsa plywood painted gold, some common binder rings, and cartoonish writing written with a sharpie. The sealed portion was just a few pieces of wood glued together. It was comically cheap and fake. This never came out because the witnesses just used the language to describe the plates that the teacher and religion lead with, and the high schoolers didn't know how to perform an effective deposition.

Yet I told the truth about what I saw. And the students in the class imagined something totally different. 

You are markedly vague about what you actually said ("They really had writing on them. They were really of gold color. They really had rings. There really was a sealed section.").

But you then describe what you actually saw ("the artifact we saw and handled was made out of balsa plywood painted gold, some common binder rings, and cartoonish writing written with a sharpie. The sealed portion was just a few pieces of wood glued together. It was comically cheap and fake").

You then go on to describe the effect of what you had said ("When the class ended, one girl asked if she could see the plates. The teacher said no. She begged, and the teacher held his ground. She needed to believe the plates under the lectern were real based on our testimony. She was left dying to see this amazing artifact under the lectern that, as far as she knew, was indistinguishable from the authentic plates that the BoM witnesses saw and just maybe somehow were the very same plates the witnesses saw.").

See, I put these things together and surmise that you deliberately spoke to mislead, and that you did, in fact, mislead the class, as evidenced by the girl's reaction.  What you said made her think that "this amazing artifact under the lectern {}, as far as she knew, was indistinguishable from the authentic plates that the BoM witnesses saw and just maybe somehow were the very same plates the witnesses saw").

You could clear this up by explaining what you said.  Was it something along the lines of this:

• "What I saw was made out of balsa plywood painted gold, some common binder rings, and cartoonish writing written with a sharpie. The sealed portion was just a few pieces of wood glued together. It was comically cheap and fake."

Of this:

• "The 'plates' I saw had writing on them, were of gold color, had rings, and had a sealed section.  It was, in form and appearance, indistinguishable from the authentic plates that the BoM witnesses saw, and which the Eight Witnesses described as 'hav{ing} the appearance of gold,' with 'leaves' which they 'did handle with {their} hands,' and with 'engravings thereon,' and 'all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship,' and they both saw and 'hefted' them.  In fact, the plates I saw was so amazing that maybe somehow were the very same plates the witnesses saw."

Well, Roger?  Which one hews closer to what you said?  Did you describe something "comically cheap and fake" made of "balsa plywood painted gold" bound by "common binder rings" and with "cartoonish writing written with a sharpie," or did you describe something that made the girl have the reaction you describe?

I suspect you fudged then, and you are being deliberately vague now.  I suspect you spoke with the intention to mislead.  You did not tell the students what you told us (balsa wood, common binder rings, cartoonish writing, comically cheap and fake), as otherwise the girl's reaction would be nonsensical.  

10 hours ago, Analytics said:

My implication is that Joseph Smith led a conspiracy

Okay. Conspiracy time.  My ears are wide open.

Who else was involved with this conspiracy?  Names, please.  Also, what was the point and purpose of the conspiracy?  And when did it start and stop?  Who did what things on behalf of the conspiracy?  And given that its existence was never disclosed (since you have no evidence for it), how do you account for the conspirators remaining mum for the rest of their lives?  

Vogel thinks that Joseph fabricated the Plates on his own, so I'll be interested to see how you address the points Vogel raises.  For example, he proposes, without evidence, that the Eight Witnesses only saw the Plates as they were obscured with a cloth, as otherwise they would have figured out that the object was a sham made out of common tin and painted yellow.  

You seem to be going for a "the sham prop was really sophisticated and impressive" approach, as otherwise a conspiracy would not be necessary.  

10 hours ago, Analytics said:

where he was less than 100% forthright about these details,

I don't know what you mean here.  What "details" are you referencing?

10 hours ago, Analytics said:

and was able to manipulate others to support him in this dishonesty.

Pump the brakes.  You previously agreed that both David Whitmer and Martin Harris were not "duped," but now you are saying Joseph "manipulate{d} them?  Can you clarify how Joseph "manipulated" them but did not "dupe" them?

And also, what sort of techniques do you imagine Joseph had, such that he could "manipulate" David Whitmer - whom you agree was sane, sincere, and not "duped" - into not only attesting to a miraculous experience involving the Plates, but also maintain that attestation for decades afterward, long after he had fallen out with Joseph and considered him a fallen prophet?

10 hours ago, Analytics said:

This is a bold claim

And also a wildly speculative and evidence-free one.  But I guess you're doing the best you can.

10 hours ago, Analytics said:

and it raises a serious question. Did Joseph Smith have flexible ethics so that he would be willing to deceive others if it were for a good cause? And did he have the ability to get others to go along with his conspiracy?

Good questions.  I look forward to your answers, particularly as to David Whitmer.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 19 by smac97

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Quote

Joseph Smith’s critics have come up with many explanations for the origins Book of Mormon, but they are convoluted.

Peterson said, “My argument would be that all of the counter-explanations of the Book of Mormon that I’ve looked at – and I think I’ve looked at all of them – run into walls. You eventually run into something where, it simply can’t get you there. It can’t explain everything that needs to be explained.

I agree with DCP.  I think the Plates, both their physical reality and their claimed origins, are extremely important.  The truth claims of the Church essentially stand or fall on The Book of Mormon, which claims to be a translation of an ancient record contained in the Plates.

Quote

“If you think Joseph Smith wrote it, how did he do it? If you think there were no plates, what’s going on? You need to come up with another explanation.”

Peterson said, “I see problems with all the alternative explanations, and to me they’re lethal.”

I agree with DCP here as well.  Our critics have had nearly 200 years to formulate a plausible counter-explanation, but have failed to do so.  I found it particularly intriguing when you, a self-described "Bayesian methodological empiricist," offered to answer questions from me about these matters.

Quote

Petersen says, “To me, the explanation of Joseph Smith is simple and elegant, and the alternative explanations just don’t work, and they get more and more complex and it’s just too much for me. I’ve said sometimes that I simply don’t have the faith to disbelieve Joseph Smith’s story. I just can’t get there. I can’t do it.”

“These are the logical options as I see them: That Joseph either had plates or he didn’t have plates. And then there are subdivisions that you can follow through to see possible ways in which each of these might be the case.

I have been trying to explore similar issues with you.

I have no time to debate anything on this topic, but appreciate those here actually putting in time. I just want to make sure I understand your position. These statements really make it sound like your opinion is thus:

An honest complete and thorough analysis of the extant evidence (not talking spiritual witness at all) for the production of the book of Mormon weighs so heavily in favor of authenticity, that a man-made book is a non starter. Every other alternative has "lethal" flaws. Does that represent your view of it?

[smac97]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I have no time to debate anything on this topic, but appreciate those here actually putting in time.

Same here.

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I just want to make sure I understand your position. These statements really make it sound like your opinion is thus:

An honest complete and thorough analysis of the extant evidence (not talking spiritual witness at all) for the production of the book of Mormon weighs so heavily in favor of authenticity, that a man-made book is a non starter. Every other alternative has "lethal" flaws. Does that represent your view of it?

No.

I am open to alternative - that is, naturalistic - counter-theories for The Book of Mormon.  The Church and its advocates have provided a positive, coherent explanation for The Book of Mormon that accounts for the key data points (physical plates, witness statements, text origins/translation process) without heavy speculation.

Note that I am leaving out the "while claiming empirical rigor" part.  "Empirical rigor" would, in my view, involve the strict, systematic adherence to scientific methods in data collection, analysis, and interpretation to ensure research findings are reliable, valid, and trustworthy. It involves meticulous documentation, minimizing bias, and using verifiable evidence, rather than mere speculation, to support conclusions.

The Latter-day Saints have put out a lot of both devotional and academic/scholarly stuff about the above-referenced data points, but they do this to bolster and supplement faith, and not so much as steering people toward applying strict scientific empiricism as to matters that, ultimately and primarily, are about faith.  Empiricism is what Analytics claims guides his reasoning, so that's for his assessment (and for other critics who make similar claims).  If they want to be hoisted by their own petard, so be it.

See also this (from Grok) :

Quote

Scholars in history, biblical studies, and religious studies approach miraculous truth claims (e.g., angelic visitations, golden plates, resurrections, or divine revelations) with a clear recognition that traditional historiography—which relies on empirical evidence, multiple independent sources, the principle of analogy (events must resemble known natural patterns), and cause-effect correlation—cannot directly verify or falsify supernatural events. Miracles are, by definition, exceptions to natural laws, so standard historical tools hit a built-in limit.

I think this works most of the time.  I think assessing the Plates and the Witnesses is something of a sticky wicket.

Quote

Here are the main guidelines and frameworks scholars actually use instead (or alongside) traditional methods. These are widely accepted in secular academia and even among many believing scholars.

1. Methodological Naturalism (the Default Academic Rule)

This is the single most common guideline. Historians and scholars limit themselves to natural explanations only:

• They examine what people claimed, when and why they claimed it, how the story spread, and what social/cultural effects it had.
• They do not ask “Did the miracle actually happen?” because that would require assuming the supernatural is possible and testable—something history as a discipline does not do.
• Classic formulation comes from Ernst Troeltsch (early 20th century) and is echoed by modern historians like Bart Ehrman: historians can say “Early Christians believed Jesus rose” or “Joseph Smith’s followers reported seeing plates,” but they cannot declare the resurrection or the angelic delivery as historical fact.

This is why most academic treatments of the golden plates focus on the credibility and consistency of the witnesses, the social context of 1829 New York, and the rapid spread of the movement—not on whether an angel really appeared.

I would like to see "academic treatments of the golden plates focus on the credibility and consistency of the witnesses" as pertaining to the Plates.  So far, all @Analytics has come up with "tin" and "I don't know."

Quote

2. Phenomenological / Descriptive Approach (Religious Studies Standard)

Used heavily in departments of religion:

• Scholars bracket (set aside) the truth question entirely.

I think this is largely correct.  But here, we aren't scholars, and this is not a scholarly venue, and @Analytics has done anything but "bracket" issues pertaining to Joseph's narrative.  He has, instead, declared that Joseph's narrative is "just not possible," and that "space aliens" and/or "Satan/demons" are "more likely" explanations for the text of The Book of Mormon.

Empiricism, thy name is Roger.

Quote

• They describe the lived experience of believers: “This is what the witnesses reported, how it shaped their lives, and how the community interpreted it.”
• Goal: Understand the meaning and function of the claim for the people involved, without judging its objective reality.
• Example: Mircea Eliade-style phenomenology or the work of many scholars studying Mormon origins today.

Historiography has its limits.

Quote

3. Social-Scientific and Cognitive Approaches

These treat miracle claims as human phenomena that can be studied like any other belief:

• Psychology of religious experience, cognitive science of religion, group dynamics, memory studies.
• Explanations include visionary experiences, social reinforcement, expectation bias, or cultural scripting.
• Useful for analyzing why multiple witnesses (like the Three or Eight Witnesses) could sincerely report the same extraordinary event without assuming fraud or actual supernatural intervention.

This one is less useful, IMO.  It presupposes too much, while pretending not to,.

Quote

4. Comparative Religion / History-of-Religions Approach

Scholars place the claim alongside similar stories in other traditions (e.g., angelic deliveries in Islam, visionary experiences in other restoration movements, ancient metal-plate records).

• This reveals patterns (how new religions authenticate themselves) without pronouncing on truth.

I'm totally fine with that.  I am quite open to miraculous things happening to people in other faith traditions.

Quote

5. Confessional or Critical-Realist Approaches (Minority but Respectable)

Some believing scholars (e.g., N.T. Wright on the resurrection, or some LDS historians) argue that in rare cases, when all natural explanations are exhausted and the evidence is exceptionally strong, a supernatural explanation can be the best historical hypothesis. This is more common in theological or faith-friendly settings than in strictly secular departments.

I'm not looking for this from Analytics.

Quote

Practical Takeaway for Claims Like the Golden Plates

When scholars evaluate the plates/witnesses story, they typically:

• Apply source criticism to the testimonies.
• Assess the witnesses’ character, consistency over decades, and motives.
• Examine the cultural and religious context of 1829.
• Compare the claim to other ancient/modern metal-plate or visionary accounts.
• Conclude something like: “The witnesses appear sincere and their story was foundational to the movement,” while remaining agnostic on the miraculous element itself.

Alas, Analytics can't claim to be "agnostic on the miraculous element itself," as he has declared Joseph's narrative to be "just not possible."

He and his supposed empiricism have chosen a side.  And this thread sure seems to indicate that his petard is warming up its hoisting routine.

Quote

In short, the academic consensus is: Historians study the human side of miracle claims with rigor, but the miraculous part is left to theology, philosophy, or personal faith. This is why you see such a sharp divide between what secular historians say about the Book of Mormon witnesses and what faithful Latter-day Saint historians conclude.

Sure.  I wouldn't expect anything else from secular historians acting in that capacity, just as I would not expect secular judges to adjudicate the truth claims of the Church.

On the other hand, a person who is a secular historian and acting in his or her own capacity just might examine the Witness statements and evaluate them with some elements of their training as part of the process.  I'd be fine with that.  

We're 200 years in and the critics really haven't moved their own needle much.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 19 by smac97

[Ryan Dahle]

14 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

An honest complete and thorough analysis of the extant evidence (not talking spiritual witness at all) for the production of the book of Mormon weighs so heavily in favor of authenticity, that a man-made book is a non starter. Every other alternative has "lethal" flaws. Does that represent your view of it?

I can't speak for Smac, but that is actually pretty far from my own position. I think the Three Witnesses + Eight Witnesses + Informal Witnesses provide a decently strong case that should open the door to further investigation. While it is always possible that people may lie, or that they are delusional, or that there is a conspiracy, it also must be admitted that this would be a very difficult thing for Smith to pull off, no matter what combination of explanations might be used. They all run into difficult lines of actual positive evidence. For instance, if you choose the lying option when it comes to the Three Witnesses, you face all the evidence that they were sincere. If you go the delusional route, you have to confront the fact that it would typically be difficult to get people to have very specific visions that they would adamantly affirm and reaffirm until their deaths. Not saying it couldn't happen. But it just seems quite unlikely. And it was a huge risk for Smith to promise that kind of revelation to people like Cowdery and Whitmer, that he just barely met a few months before, and also to Harris, who had struggled with doubt on multiple occasions. You also have to factor in the statements of the Eight Witnesses, and determine if Smith fabricated an object and if he would likely have been able to pull that off. 

In other words, even when you recognize that there are limitations to these lines of evidence (as Analytics keeps emphasizing), that doesn't mean that they are trivial or easy to explain from a naturalistic perspective. In my view, the collective data from the witnesses significantly opens the door to faith. Perhaps it isn't enough, especially for those who are highly skeptical of the supernatural or of Smith's religious movement. And that is fine. I don't think the data was ever meant to be compelling. But it also isn't worthless either. As unlikely as it may be that the witnesses were lying or delusion or mistaken or some combination of these outcomes, most skeptics will simply argue that Smith's miraculous claims are significantly MORE unlikely. Which, again, is fine. But it should be admitted that naturalistic explanations actually do struggle to make sense of this data. There are legitimate reasons to believe, and these types of evidence reasonably open up the door to that possibility depending on one's prior assumptions and dispositions.  

[smac97]

18 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I can't speak for Smac, but that is actually pretty far from my own position. I think the Three Witnesses + Eight Witnesses + Informal Witnesses provide a decently strong case that should open the door to further investigation.

Yes, that's where I'm at, except I would say Three Witnesses + Eight Witnesses + Informal Witnesses + historical evidence of the character of the Witnesses + textual evidences (plus Moroni 10:3-5).

18 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

While it is always possible that people may lie, or that they are delusional, or that there is a conspiracy, it also must be admitted that this would be a very difficult thing for Smith to pull off, no matter what combination of explanations might be used.

I agree.  I was quite surprised to realize that the five non-Smiths in the Eight Witnesses (the four Whitmer brothers and their BIL, Hiram Page) had only met Joseph days or a few weeks prior to him showing them the Plates.  He really did not know them that well, nor they him.  You gotta wonder, then, what incentive these men would have had to stick their necks out for Joseph by backing his play on a hoax about the Plates (about which there was already a lot of controversy).  Seems like they had little or nothing to gain, and a lot to lose (reputation damage, etc.) by joining in a falsehood. 

18 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

They all run into difficult lines of actual positive evidence.

@Analytics is trying to style this circumstance as some sort the 3D chess move by Joseph Smith.  As if the farmboy with three years of schooling had a grand scheme mapped out in his brain, spent years fabricating the Plates (and also hiding the fabrication process from everyone), "manipulating" (Analytics' words) the Witnesses to agree to say that saw something they did not (or grossly exaggerate/mischaracterize what they did see), all with an assumption that these folks would all keep to their attestations forever after.  That sure seems like a lot of ducks to put in a row and keep in a row.  Ozymandias in The Watchmen could pull that off, but Joseph Smith in the 1820s?  Nah.  The volume of guesses, leaps of logic, disregarding of extant evidence, maintaining a conspiracy, etc., is, for me, too much.  I think this is more plausible (from Daniel Peterson) :

Quote

Petersen says, “To me, the explanation of Joseph Smith is simple and elegant, and the alternative explanations just don’t work, and they get more and more complex and it’s just too much for me. I’ve said sometimes that I simply don’t have the faith to disbelieve Joseph Smith’s story. I just can’t get there. I can’t do it.”

“These are the logical options as I see them: That Joseph either had plates or he didn’t have plates. And then there are subdivisions that you can follow through to see possible ways in which each of these might be the case.

The subdivisions involved increasingly complex questions like "sloppy hoax v. sophisticated hoax," "the witnesses were all gullible dupes v. the witnesses were all malevolent co-conspirators,"  "Joseph acted alone in fabricating the plates v. Joseph was part of a never-detected conspiracy in fabricating the plates," and so on.  The "simple and elegant" narrative is, I think, the more reasonable one.

DCP's framing ("I simply don’t have the faith to disbelieve Joseph Smith’s story") becomes particularly apt relative to @Analytics, who believes that space aliens and/or Satan are "more likely" explanations for The Book of Mormon than Joseph's narrative.  I think that position requires more faith than ours does.

18 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

For instance, if you choose the lying option when it comes to the Three Witnesses, you face all the evidence that they were sincere.

And that doesn't work for Analytics, since he has conceded they were sincere.

18 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

If you go the delusional route, you have to confront the fact that it would typically be difficult to get people to have very specific visions that they would adamantly affirm and reaffirm until their deaths.  Not saying it couldn't happen. But it just seems quite unlikely.

Same here.  Analytics has conceded they were not insane or duped.

18 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

And it was a huge risk for Smith to promise that kind of revelation to people like Cowdery and Whitmer, that he just barely met a few months before, and also to Harris, who had struggled with doubt on multiple occasions. You also have to factor in the statements of the Eight Witnesses, and determine if Smith fabricated an object and if he would likely have been able to pull that off. 

And then we have Emma's and Mary's experiences with the Plates, which were incidental and not - as Analytics keeps saying - "curated."

18 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

In other words, even when you recognize that there are limitations to these lines of evidence (as Analytics keeps emphasizing), that doesn't mean that they are trivial or easy to explain from a naturalistic perspective. In my view, the collective data from the witnesses significantly opens the door to faith.

I agree. Analytics has veered toward talking about the evidence being "conclusive" ("As I've said over and over, we don't have the evidence that would conclusively answer these questions because Joseph Smith chose to withhold it...").  That is not my position.  I am much more amenable to something like "The Church's explanation of the origins of The Book of Mormon opens the door to faith.  It is plausible, and can be accepted and acted upon by people of good will and intelligence."

That 200 years of anti-Mormonism has utterly failed to produce a positive, coherent explanation for The Book of Mormon that accounts for the key data points (physical plates, witness statements, text origins/translation process) without heavy speculation is a pretty good supplement.  

18 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Perhaps it isn't enough, especially for those who are highly skeptical of the supernatural or of Smith's religious movement. And that is fine.

Indeed.  What amounts to "sufficient" evidence in this context is a very personal and private and eye-of-the-beholder thing.  Ultimately, we must each do what we think is right.

18 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I don't think the data was ever meant to be compelling. But it also isn't worthless either.

Austin Farrer: "Though argument does not create conviction, the lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced: but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish."

I find it quite interesting that the Latter-day Saints can marshal evidence and reasoning sufficient (subjectively) to present a "rational argument" for The Book of Mormon, but the critics cannot.  Indeed, the resident critic here - @Analytics - isn't even really trying.

18 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

As unlikely as it may be that the witnesses were lying or delusion or mistaken or some combination of these outcomes, most skeptics will simply argue that Smith's miraculous claims are significantly MORE unlikely.

Even to the point of finding space aliens and/or Satan/demons a "more likely" explanation.  Frankly, I find that to require far more "faith" to accept than what I need to accept Joseph's narrative.

18 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Which, again, is fine. But it should be admitted that naturalistic explanations actually do struggle to make sense of this data.  There are legitimate reasons to believe, and these types of evidence reasonably open up the door to that possibility depending on one's prior assumptions and dispositions.  

That being the case, the disposition of the evidence seems to turn more on the individual and his presuppositions than on the evidence itself.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 19 by smac97

[Zosimus]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think you need to account for these.

Strang’s “brass plates of Laban” are a useful comparison because they also involve an angel, they are also Nephite artifacts, and seven witnesses who saw and hefted them.

Yet almost no one outside Strangite circles feels obligated to explain “how it happened”.

Strang was a Mormon prophet, yet we probably all agree here that from a non-Strangite viewpoint, the best explanation for his brass plates is the simplest most ordinary one: Strang fabricated a set of brass plates and a set of witnesses either conspired with him, or were otherwise duped. We do not have to account for the exact method or provide evidence for a conspiracy to justify the easiest explanation.

The same applies in principle to Joseph Smith’s gold plates, including the overlap in some witnesses (Martin Harris and Hiram Page) who later accepted Strang, and claimed that other gold plate witnesses (David Whitmer, John Whitmer Jacob Whitmer) also accepted Strang. We can confidently say of those gold plate witnesses:

• People sometimes exaggerate ambiguous experiences.
• Groups can define and reinforce collective memories and interpretations over time.
• Multiple sincere witnesses are compatible with natural explanations.

It is possible that the gold plate witnesses and the brass plates witnesses really handled ancient Nephite records brought from Jerusalem to America, but that explanation is less plausible than fraud. Most everyone can see this easily in Strang's case. 

If Strangites believe the brass plates were authentic and translated by Urim and Thummim, the burden of providing evidence falls on those that believe that extraordinary claim. Those who have no interest in the claim can be comfortable saying that “something happened here" and the most likely explanation is naturalistic. The precise details of how Strang did it, or where he got the brass, or how did he engrave oriental characters in the plates without anyone seeing him or why didn't anyone ever rat on him?! are underdetermined and aren't needed to justify skepticism

[Calm]

45 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

Strang’s “brass plates of Laban” are a useful comparison because they also involve an angel, they are also Nephite artifacts, and seven witnesses who saw and hefted them.

 

But he lacks a crucial element, all the shared experiences with others were reported as mundane, not involving the divine, were they not?  Nothing comparable to the 3 witnesses or Mary Whitmer?

added: a good summary of differences imo from Peterson’s comments at the Lehi’s library link below:

Quote

Strang’s plates were much less numerous than those associated with Joseph Smith, his witnesses saw nothing supernatural, his translation required the better part of a decade rather than a little more than two months, and, unlike the Witnesses to the Book of Mormon, Strang’s witnesses did not remain faithful to their testimonies. 

 

Edited March 19 by Calm

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Zosimus said:

Quote

I think you need to account for these.

Strang’s “brass plates of Laban” are a useful comparison because they also involve an angel,

"Involve an angel" means what in this context?

The Three Witnesses attested to an angel.  Did Strang's witnesses do something similar?

1 hour ago, Zosimus said:

they are also Nephite artifacts, and seven witnesses who saw and hefted them.

I'm open to that.  I found this interesting:

And here:

https://lehislibrary.wordpress.com/2009/07/17/the-james-strang-plates-notes-from-dr-peterson/

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2022/02/24/the-ces-letter-rebuttal-part-49

1 hour ago, Zosimus said:

Yet almost no one outside Strangite circles feels obligated to explain “how it happened”.

Quite so.  I am ambivalent and/or indifferent about them.  

In contrast, our @Analytics is anything but ambivalent about The Book of Mormon.  He has spent years on this board arguing against the claimed origins.  More recently he has declared that Joseph's narrative is "just not possible," and that "space aliens" and/or "Satan" or "demons" are "more likely" explanations.  Having staked out an affirmative denial of Joseph's narrative, and having presented some alternatives, I think it becomes an intellectual "obligation" (not an actual or enforceable one) to actually present a counter-theory that addresses the same evidence.

1 hour ago, Zosimus said:

Strang was a Mormon prophet, yet we probably all agree here that from a non-Strangite viewpoint, the best explanation for his brass plates is the simplest most ordinary one: Strang fabricated a set of brass plates and a set of witnesses either conspired with him, or were otherwise duped. We do not have to account for the exact method or provide evidence for a conspiracy to justify the easiest explanation.

I have only a de minimis interest in the Strangite movement.  

1 hour ago, Zosimus said:

The same applies in principle to Joseph Smith’s gold plates, including the overlap in some witnesses (Martin Harris and Hiram Page) who later accepted Strang, and claimed that other gold plate witnesses (David Whitmer, John Whitmer Jacob Whitmer) also accepted Strang. We can confidently say of those gold plate witnesses:

• People sometimes exaggerate ambiguous experiences.
• Groups can define and reinforce collective memories and interpretations over time.
• Multiple sincere witnesses are compatible with natural explanations.

It is possible that the gold plate witnesses and the brass plates witnesses really handled ancient Nephite records brought from Jerusalem to America, but that explanation is less plausible than fraud. Most everyone can see this easily in Strang's case. 

If Strangites believe the brass plates were authentic and translated by Urim and Thummim, the burden of providing evidence falls on those that believe that extraordinary claim. Those who have no interest in the claim can be comfortable saying that “something happened here" and the most likely explanation is naturalistic. The precise details of how Strang did it, or where he got the brass, or how did he engrave oriental characters in the plates without anyone seeing him or why didn't anyone ever rat on him?! are underdetermined and aren't needed to justify skepticism

Sure.  There is no obligation here.  My request has been just that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 19 by smac97

[The Nehor]

Viable secular explanation for witnesses seeing the plates:

Hallucinogenics. Maybe the same stuff some critics suggest Joseph Smith put in the wine for the Kirtland meeting.

[Zosimus]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

But he lacks a crucial element, all the shared experiences with others were reported as mundane, not involving the divine, were they not?  Nothing comparable to the 3 witnesses or Mary Whitmer?

This apologetic (I see it all over the place in videos and articles about the gold plate witnesses all the sudden) confuses me. Strang's witnesses are not reporting a mundane event. There statement is clear that they perceived it as a sort of miraculous event. Strang, an approved "Prophet and Seer of God" had it "revealed to him in a vision that an account of an ancient people was buried in a hill" The angel had told Strang where to dig the witnesses confirm that the "sole inducement to our digging was our faith in his statement as a Prophet of the Lord that a record would thus and there be found". They went to the spot revealed through a vision, and behold, a box with plates!

What is mundane about any of this? By comparison, the 8 witnesses account is far more mundane:

"And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shewn unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken"

The three witness account is certainly not mundane, but I tend to agree with Vogel, there are some critical problems 

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Viable secular explanation for witnesses seeing the plates:

Hallucinogenics. Maybe the same stuff some critics suggest Joseph Smith put in the wine for the Kirtland meeting.

I never studied hallucinogenics. Is there a way to ensure those participating experience much the same thing. 

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

here statement is clear that they perceived it as a sort of miraculous event. Strang, an approved "Prophet and Seer of God" had it "revealed to him in a vision that an account of an ancient people was buried in a hill" The angel had told Strang where to dig the witnesses confirm that the "sole inducement to our digging was our faith in his statement as a Prophet of the Lord that a record would thus and there be found". They went to the spot revealed through a vision, and behold, a box with plates!

But they are reporting Strang’s spiritual experience are they not, not their own besides perhaps what they believed was a spiritual confirmation of Strang’s testimony?

Their faith in Strang may have been actual feelings they interpreted as a spiritual witness, a trust based on reasons we are not aware of, a transfer of faith of Joseph Smith to Strang because they believed the letter, or something else. 

The miracle for them is the fulfillment of Strang’s vision in their eyes, not a personal vision. But to us, their personal experience doesn’t involve anything supernatural.  Now if we were talking about Strang…yes, the supernatural is directly involved in his story.  His story is parallel imo to Joseph’s.

Not dismissing their testimony as nothing like occurred with Joseph, just seems more comparable to the 8 witnesses even if they didn’t see Joseph dig up the plates, but just heard his story and not that comparable to the 3 and Mary Whitmer, all who stated they saw an angel themselves, correct?  Now if they had a vision themselves of the angel telling Strang where to dig, that would indeed be very comparable in my view. 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I never studied hallucinogenics. Is there a way to ensure those participating experience much the same thing. 

Ensure it? No. You can often guide hallucinations down a desired track if you communicate things to the person.

I am not suggesting this is the most likely explanation for the witnesses. I was mostly joking. Mostly.

[webbles]

6 hours ago, Zosimus said:

This apologetic (I see it all over the place in videos and articles about the gold plate witnesses all the sudden) confuses me. Strang's witnesses are not reporting a mundane event. There statement is clear that they perceived it as a sort of miraculous event. Strang, an approved "Prophet and Seer of God" had it "revealed to him in a vision that an account of an ancient people was buried in a hill" The angel had told Strang where to dig the witnesses confirm that the "sole inducement to our digging was our faith in his statement as a Prophet of the Lord that a record would thus and there be found". They went to the spot revealed through a vision, and behold, a box with plates!

What is mundane about any of this? By comparison, the 8 witnesses account is far more mundane:

"And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shewn unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken"

The three witness account is certainly not mundane, but I tend to agree with Vogel, there are some critical problems 

I believe you are quoting the testimony from the Voree plates, not the Book of the Law.  The testimony from the Book of the Law is:

Quote

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues and people, to whom this Book of the Law of the Lord
shall come, that James J. Strang has the plates of the ancient Book of the Law of the Lord given to Moses,
from which he translated this law, and has shown them to us. We examined them with our eyes, and
handled them with our hands. The engravings are beautiful antique workmanship, bearing a striking
resemblance to the ancient oriental languages; and those from which the laws in this book were
translated are eighteen in number, about seven inches and three-eights wide, by nine inches long,
occasionally embellished with beautiful pictures.
And we testify unto you all that the everlasting kingdom of God is established, in which this law shall be
kept, till it brings in rest and everlasting righteousness to all the faithful.

No angels involved.

[smac97]

On 3/19/2026 at 12:36 AM, Zosimus said:

Quote

But he lacks a crucial element, all the shared experiences with others were reported as mundane, not involving the divine, were they not?  Nothing comparable to the 3 witnesses or Mary Whitmer?

This apologetic (I see it all over the place in videos and articles about the gold plate witnesses all the sudden) confuses me. Strang's witnesses are not reporting a mundane event.

It seems that they are.

On 3/19/2026 at 12:36 AM, Zosimus said:

There statement is clear that they perceived it as a sort of miraculous event.

Not sure about that.  See here:

Quote

TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES TO THE VOREE PLATES

On the thirteenth day of September, 1845, we, Aaron Smith, Jirah B. Wheelan, James M. Van Nostrand, and Edward Whitcomb, assembled at the call of James J. Strang, who is by us and many others approved as a Prophet and Seer of God. He proceeded to inform us that it had been revealed to him in a vision that an account of an ancient people was buried in a hill south of White River bridge, near the east line of Walworth County; and leading us to an oak tree about one foot in diameter, told us that we would find it enclosed in a case of rude earthen ware under that tree at the depth of about three feet; requested us to dig it up, and charged us to so examine the ground that we should know we were not imposed upon, and that it had not been buried there since the tree grew. The tree was surrounded by a sward of deeply rooted grass, such as is usually found in the openings, and upon the most critical examination we could not discover any indication that it had ever been cut through or disturbed.

We then dug up the tree, and continued to dig to the depth of about three feet, where we found a case of slightly baked clay containing three plates of brass. On one side of one is a landscape view of the south end of Gardner’s prairie and the range of hills where they were dug. On another is a man with a crown on his head and a scepter in his hand, above is an eye before an upright line, below the sun and moon surrounded with twelve stars, at the bottom are twelve large stars from three of which pillars arise, and closely interspersed with them are seventy very small stars. The other four sides are very closely covered with what appear to be alphabetic characters, but in a language of which we have no knowledge.

The case was found imbedded in indurated clay so closely fitting it that it broke in taking out, and the earth below the soil was so hard as to be dug with difficulty even with a pickax. Over the case was found a flat stone about one foot wide each way and three inches thick, which appeared to have undergone the action of fire, and fell in pieces after a few minutes exposure to the air. The digging extended in the clay about eighteen inches, there being two kinds of earth of different color and appearance above it.

We examined as we dug all the way with the utmost care, and we say, with utmost confidence, that no part of the earth through which we dug exhibited any sign or indication that it had been moved or disturbed at any time previous. The roots of the tree stuck down on every side very closely, extending below the case, and closely interwoven with roots from other trees. None of them had been broken or cut away. No clay is found in the country like that of which the case is made.

In fine, we found an alphabetic and pictorial record, carefully cased up, buried deep in the earth, covered with a flat stone, with an oak tree one foot in diameter growing over it, with every evidence that the sense can give that it has lain there as long as that tree has been growing. Strang took no part in the digging, but kept entirely away from before the first blow was struck till after the plates were taken out of the case; and the sole inducement to our digging was our faith in his statement as a Prophet of the Lord that a record would thus and there be found.

AARON SMITH,
JIRAH B. WHEELAN,
J. M. VAN NOSTRAND,
EDWARD WHITCOMB

What is "miraculous" here?

On 3/19/2026 at 12:36 AM, Zosimus said:

Strang, an approved "Prophet and Seer of God" had it "revealed to him in a vision that an account of an ancient people was buried in a hill" The angel had told Strang where to dig the witnesses confirm that the "sole inducement to our digging was our faith in his statement as a Prophet of the Lord that a record would thus and there be found". They went to the spot revealed through a vision, and behold, a box with plates!

Right.  But what "miraculous event" did the witnesses claim to have experienced?

On 3/19/2026 at 12:36 AM, Zosimus said:

What is mundane about any of this? By comparison, the 8 witnesses account is far more mundane:

Yes.  Calm was referencing the experience of the Three Witnesses, and the separate experience of Mary Whitmer.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 24 by smac97

[champatsch]

Spake as a past participle: another case of independent early modern usage.

King James Bible: 0; 25 pseudo-archaic texts: 0; 39 Bunyan texts: 0; Book of Mormon: 14.

The Book of Mormon has the second most of any text. One 1646 text by John Bastwick has just over 30. Usage was at its highest in the middle of the 1600s, but uncommon compared to spoken and spoke. Shakespeare and Donne have one example each. Unlike "did have," which only occurs about a dozen times in EEBO, past-participial spake occurs about 200 times. It continued into the 1700s, the usage rate dropping off over time to become rare by the early 1800s. ECCO's true positives are mixed in with many false positives and a lot of reprinted earlier examples.

The Book of Mormon has one example of "had been spake," which was very uncommon early modern usage. As a passive, the syntactic context resists the tendency to use a past-tense verb form for a past participle. In searching for "been spake," I noted four or five original examples, from the late 1500s to the late 1600s.

Alexander Campbell in his 1831 Delusions pamphlet pointed it out for ridicule. Like most, he did not know early modern usage very well. He also mocked the referential phraseology "of which hath been spoken," which was almost exclusively early modern usage and also "overused" in the Book of Mormon. More on that later.

Edited March 19 by champatsch

[Ryan Dahle]

47 minutes ago, champatsch said:

Alexander Campbell in his 1831 Delusions pamphlet pointed it out for ridicule. Like most, he did not know early modern usage very well. He also mocked the referential phraseology "of which hath been spoken," which was almost exclusively early modern usage and also "overused" in the Book of Mormon.

To me, this is a sign that these types of archaism weren't prevalent in the spoken environment as part of a "sacred" form of speech (as Analytics could only assume). Analytics never provided a theory or explanation for why such "sacred" language could be spoken but not written. And notice that Campbell wasn't critiquing Smith for writing down sacred speech that should have never graced pen and paper. Instead, he just wholesale rejected these linguistic forms as ungrammatical and categorically in error. If this type of language was in Joseph Smith's environment sufficient for him to assimilate it into his active vocabulary, and if it represented "sacred" speech, why did Campbell so categorically reject it as non-standard? 

Edited March 19 by Ryan Dahle

[Analytics]

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

Huh.

Hi Smac,

This post throws a lot of stuff at me. It contains about 7,000 words, perhaps a couple dozen links to other websites, and giant laundry lists of Mormon apologetics. Rather than reply to all of this, I’m going to take a deep dive into one of the most fundamental and important issues. Hopefully this will help you see why I find your point of view so unconvincing.

I had said:

The plates are a categorically different kind of claim, and the difference matters. Authentic ancient plates don't merely lack corroboration. They contradict what we know. The archaeological and genetic record of pre-Columbian America does not contain a thread that could be pulled to produce a thick book of golden plates containing a detailed history. Nobody in antiquity ever wrote a long history book on metal plates because doing so is hopelessly impractical. Anyone who has seen or heard of paper disintegrating over time knows that is a weakness, but metal plates isn’t the answer because making a record on that medium is too expensive and impractical to be done in the real world. It’s never been done. It couldn’t be done. 

You responded:

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

And yet we have quite a few examples of record-keeping on metal plates or scrolls.  

• Examples of Ancient Gold or Metal Plates
• Book of Mormon Evidence: Egyptian Metal Plates
• Sacred Writing on Metal Plates in the Ancient Mediterranean
• Metal Plates Discovered – Evidences

It has been done.

If there was any evidence that anybody in antiquity ever wrote a long history book, you would have provided an example. You didn’t. You said, "we claim that a bunch of authors kept records of wildly differing lengths (Chemish wrote one verse, Alma wrote enough to cover 36 chapters), and that Mormon compiled and abridged these various documents into one consolidated record: The Gold Plates.” I know that is your claim. It’s an extraordinary claim, because something like that happening just isn’t feasible. The Book of Mormon is full of people writing histories on metal plates in exactly the same way that Brandon Sanderson’s The Stormlight Archive is full of people swinging 6-foot long shardblades that cause your eyeballs to burn out if you get cut with one. It’s intrinsic to the plot, but it is totally make believe.

In upstate New York in the 1820’s, people were obsessed with the Bible and using it as a definitive source for proving what God really wants. As they debated this, they discussed that we don’t have an original autograph of any of it. We didn’t have a copy of Genesis written by Moses by his own hand. We didn’t even have an autograph of Revelations written by John’s own hand. All we had were copies of copies of copies of copies of copies.... This process caused their to be ambiguities and discrepancies in the translations we have. Not only is there uncertainty that the translation was done correctly--there was uncertainty whether the manuscript that was being translated was a faithful copy of the original autograph.

This was a huge religious concern in Joseph Smith’s time and place, and keeping records on metal plates is a plot device to solve it. But in the real world, there weren’t “a bunch” of authors keeping records on metal plates that were then so numerous that somebody else needed to “compile and abridge” them onto yet more metal plates. This didn’t happen, and the claim is implausible.

Of course if there was evidence that such things did happen I’d adjust my views accordingly. But the evidence is that this never happened and that it couldn't happen.

I’m going to call your bluff and look at the “evidence” of "long history book written on metal plates" that you provided. These are from this video that you provided:

https://latterdaysaintsqa.com/metal-plates-discovered-evidences/

Example 1
Apologetic Description: So if you look at this first one here, this was the plates. King Darius of Persia, dated to 515 B.C. These were found in 1933 by a German archaeologist in a sealed stone box, if that sounds familiar to you there.

Scientific Description: Gold and silver foundation tablets of Darius I from Persepolis, dated to ~515 B.C. and excavated in 1933: two thin plates (one gold, one silver), each about ~5.5 inches square and under ~0.04 inches thick, with a short trilingual royal inscription totaling roughly ~100–150 words. The text is a formal foundation inscription—a declaration of Darius’s rule and the extent of his empire, placed ceremonially in the building’s foundation. The plates were hammered and engraved, generally flat but not perfectly planar, with straight, carefully cut but not perfectly uniform edges. Material: gold and silver. Provenance: deposited in a sealed stone foundation box at Persepolis, discovered during excavations in 1933.

Example 2
Apologetic Description: This is ancient golden plates found in modern-day Bulgaria, in the 1950s. These were dated at 600 B.C. I really liked these because they showed an example of a bound by metal plates with the metal rings, which again sounds familiar.

Scientific Description: Gold plates from Panagyurishte gold plates (often called the “Thracian gold book”), reportedly found in the 1950s in Bulgaria and commonly dated (with some dispute) to ~600 B.C.: a set of six small gold sheets, each about ~2–2.5 inches tall and ~1.5–2 inches wide, containing very short engraved text and figures totaling roughly ~100–200 words (or word-equivalents). The content appears to be ritual/religious in nature, combining symbolic imagery with brief inscriptions. The plates are thin, hammered gold, generally flat with slight waviness, and have rounded, somewhat irregular edges rather than perfectly uniform cuts; they are bound together by small metal rings through punched holes. Material: gold. Provenance: said to have been found in southern Bulgaria and later donated to the National History Museum in Sofia; exact find circumstances are not well documented.

Example 3 
Apologetic Description: gold plates of Pyrgi, modern-day Italy, town of Santa Severa, found in 1964, and these were dated to 500 B.C.

Scientific Description: Gold tablets of Pyrgi Tablets from Pyrgi (near Santa Severa), discovered in 1964 and dated to ~500 B.C.: three thin gold sheets, each about ~7.5–8 inches tall and ~3–4 inches wide, with short inscriptions totaling roughly ~200–300 words. The content is dedicatory in nature, combining Etruscan and Phoenician text celebrating a temple dedication and offerings. The plates are hammered gold, generally flat but slightly irregular, with straight edges that are not perfectly uniform, and punched holes along one side for mounting rather than binding. Material: gold. Provenance: excavated from a sanctuary context at Pyrgi in 1964.

Example 4
Apologetic Description: If you look at here, this was actually a find in the Dead Sea Scrolls. A copper scroll found in Qumran by an archaeologist in 1952. It’s a Hebrew text been inscribed on two rolls of copper and dates to between 50 and 100 A.D.

Scientific Description: Copper Scroll from Qumran, discovered in 1952 and dated to ~50–100 A.D.: originally one thin copper sheet (~8 feet long × ~12 inches wide, ~0.04 inches thick), later cut into two rolls, containing a text of roughly ~3,000–4,000 words (64 entries). The content is essentially a list of hidden treasures, with locations and quantities described in a code-like format, rather than narrative or poetic text. The sheet was hammered copper and then inscribed, not perfectly flat due to rolling and corrosion, with irregular edges where it was cut open. Material: copper with a small amount of tin. Provenance: found in Cave 3 at Qumran in the Judean Desert.

Example 5
Apologetic Description: The most compelling consists of actual specimens found when an early date is positively indicated. Over a dozen of these significantly precede 900 A.D. The earliest piece so far notably dates back to around the first century B.C. It’s a bit of copper sheeting found on top of an altar in the valley of Mexico

Scientific Description: Copper sheet from Valley of Mexico, dated to ~1st century B.C.: a thin sheet of hammered copper, roughly ~10–12 inches long × ~6–8 inches wide and under ~0.05 inches thick, bearing short inscriptions totaling perhaps ~50–100 words. The content is ritual or dedicatory in nature, likely recording offerings or ceremonial instructions. The sheet is not perfectly flat, showing slight waviness from hammering, with edges roughly cut and somewhat irregular, typical of early metalworking. Material: copper. Provenance: found atop an altar in the Valley of Mexico; excavation details indicate a pre-Columbian ceremonial context.

Video’s Conclusion
After showing these five examples, the author quotes Hugh Nibley as saying, "It will not be long before men forget that in Joseph’s day, the prophet was mocked and derided for his description of the plates more than anything else.” (1952)

My Analysis
It’s now been 75 years, and Nibley is still wrong. As we learn more and more about the ancient world, the more confident we get that the Book of Mormon just isn’t plausible.

The Golden Plates are said to be a set of plates 6-8 inches wide by 8-10 inches tall, and were stacked about 6 inches thick. The plates were allegedly uniform in size, and had no obvious gaps when stacked. Of this 6-inch stack of plates, 4 inches were “sealed”, and 2 inches could be flipped through. When translated into English, the unsealed section is about 268,000 words. Assuming the sealed portion is written with the same efficiency as the unsealed portion, the Book of Mormon plus the forthcoming Volume 2: The Sealed Portion, is a total of about 780,000 words.

When trying to prove the plausibility of a 60-pound bound history book written on metal plates that is 780,000 words long, the very best evidence the apologists can come up with include 6 tiny sheets, about 2 inches by 2 inches, that contains about 150 words. So remember. In the Book of Mormon’s fictional universe, everybody wrote on metal plates. These writings were so extensive they needed to be abridged down to a mere 780,000 words! The fact that these examples are the best you can come up with proves my point: making such objects is extraordinarily difficult and impractical. 

Consider how much work it actually took to create this: 

That illustrates how impractical and implausible it would be for somebody with pre-industrial technology to create this:

To say nothing about the massive amount of work creating even more plates, of which this is a mere abridgment(!).

I uploaded this image to ChatGPT and had this conversation.

Q: Good morning. I'd like to ask you a series of questions. Be very openminded about this, but keep your answers grounded in reality. Be willing to think outside the box, but be frank about what we know. Sound good?

A: Sounds good. Go ahead.

Q: What do you see in this image?

A: A stack of thin, rectangular metal plates, uniform in size and thickness, bound together by three large rings. It’s styled to look like a compact metal “book,” with smooth, flat surfaces and clean edges, resting outdoors among leaves.

Q: Is it plausible that this is a real-world artifact that was created anywhere in the Americas, any time before Columbus?

A: Highly unlikely. Pre-Columbian American metallurgy didn’t produce large numbers of thin, uniform, flat sheets with that kind of precision or binding system. The object shown looks much more like something made with later metalworking techniques.

Q: But we know the Mayans, for example, had words for metal and did metal working. Is it possible that at some point an ancient advanced civilization had the technology needed to make this?

A: They did work metals—gold, copper, some alloys—but mostly by hammering and casting small objects, not producing stacks of thin, uniform sheets. There’s no archaeological evidence anywhere in the pre-Columbian Americas of sheet-metal fabrication at that scale or precision. An unknown advanced civilization is always logically possible, but in practice it would leave a broad footprint—tools, workshops, waste, related artifacts—and we don’t see that.

Q: Why would such a civilization be expected to leave such a footprint?

A: Because technologies don’t exist in isolation—they require infrastructure. You’d expect mines, smelting sites, tools, failed pieces, and a progression of simpler artifacts leading up to something like this. Those traces tend to survive even when finished objects don’t, and across the Americas we see consistent patterns of metallurgy that don’t include this level of sheet production.

Q: Is it possible that a very small civilization existed among the Olmec's or Mayans that had this technology and used it to create books like this over a thousand years, but since it was so small relative to the other people, they didn't leave an archeological trace of these artifacts of rhe infrastructure that would be needed to create it?

A: Possible in a bare logical sense, but extremely implausible. Even a small group sustaining that technology for centuries would leave consistent traces—tools, debris, intermediate forms—and we don’t see any hint of that. Archaeology routinely picks up much subtler, smaller-scale activities than this, and the metallurgical record in the Americas is pretty well mapped in that regard.

Q: If. somebody had an artifact like this in upstate New York in the 1820's, where did it most likely come from?

A: Most likely from contemporary 18th–19th century metalworking—either locally made or using imported rolled sheet metal (tinplate, copper, or brass) from Europe or early American mills. By the 1820s, uniform sheet metal and ring-binding were well within ordinary technology, especially for things like bookbinding hardware, containers, or decorative objects.

Q: You would need roller sheet metal to create this? What's that?

A:  Rolled sheet metal is made by passing heated metal between heavy rollers to flatten it into thin, uniform sheets. It produces consistent thickness and smooth surfaces—exactly the kind of material this object appears to use. That process (rolling mills) became widespread in Europe in the 1700s and in the U.S. by the early 1800s.

Q: Were sheets made from rolled metal avaiable for purchase in upstate New York in the 1820's? If so, what kinds of metal were available?

A: Yes—by the 1820s, rolled sheet metal was available in upstate New York, mostly via import and some early domestic production. Common types were tinplate (iron sheets coated in tin), sheet iron, copper sheets, and brass; tinplate was especially widespread because it was used for everyday goods like containers, lanterns, and roofing.

Q: What were the size of tinplate sheets that were available to purchase then?

A: They were fairly standardized. The most common was the “box tin” plate, roughly 14 × 20 inches per sheet (sometimes a bit larger, like ~20 × 28 inches for double sizes). Thickness was thin but uniform, and sheets were sold in boxes containing many plates, ready for tinsmiths to cut and shape.

Q: So, if you took a standard sheet of roller tin and cut it into four equally-sized rectangles, how big would each rectangle be, in inches?

A: If you start with a standard 14 × 20 inch tinplate sheet and divide it into four equal rectangles, each piece would be about 7 × 10 inches.

Q: Would somebody living in upstate New York be able to cut tinplate in this way?

A: Yes. A tinsmith—or even a reasonably skilled tradesman—could cut tinplate cleanly using hand shears, which were standard tools at the time. Cutting a 14×20 sheet into four uniform 7×10 pieces would be straightforward, especially with basic measuring and marking tools.

Q: How many standard sheets would be needed to create a stack 7x10 plates 6 inches tall?

A:  Using the common 14 × 20 inch sheet size, cutting each sheet into four 7 × 10 inch plates means you get 4 plates per sheet. Historical references describe a standard “base box” as 112 sheets of 14 × 20, and one common rule of thumb was about 112 lb per box, which works out to roughly 1 lb per sheet. ([GovInfo][1]) If a 14 × 20 tinplate sheet weighs about 1 lb, its thickness comes out to about 0.012–0.013 inch for iron/steel with tin coating. A stack 6 inches tall would therefore need about 6 / 0.0126 ≈ 475 plates. Since each original sheet yields 4 plates, that is about 119 standard sheets. This is an estimate, but the right order of magnitude is roughly 120 sheets. [1]: "Letter Circular 24: standard thickness of sheet metal"

Q: How much would 120 sheets weigh?

A:  About 120 pounds. A standard sheet was roughly 1 pound, so 120 sheets → ~120 pounds total.

Q: So a stack of 7x10 tin sheets 6 inches tall would be 120 pounds? That sounds heavy.

A:  Yes—roughly that order of magnitude, and it is heavy. A 6-inch stack of thin iron-based sheets adds up quickly; even if you tweak assumptions, you’re still likely in the 80–120 pound range, not something light or easy to handle.

Q: What if the artifact only weighed 60 pounds?

A:  Then the plates would have to be thinner, fewer in number, or made from a less dense metal. A 60-pound stack that size is still plausible with tinplate, but you’d be looking at something like half as many plates or noticeably thinner sheets compared to the earlier estimate.

Q: Using 1820's technology that was avaiable in upstate New York in the 1820's, was there a way to color timplate so that it had the appearance of gold?

A:  Yes. Tinsmiths in that period commonly used brass (which is naturally gold-colored) or applied gold-colored varnishes/lacquers over tinplate to give it a golden appearance. There were also techniques like gilding (thin gold leaf or wash), though that was more expensive.

Q: How much would 60 pounds worth of tinplate cost in that time and place?

A:  A reasonable ballpark is about $7. One period source quoted tin at $13 per box in December 1822, and a standard box of tinplate was about 100–112 pounds, so 60 pounds would come out to roughly $7–$8, before freight or local markup. ([HSEAD][1]) So yes: not cheap, but also not some impossibly expensive material in upstate New York in the 1820s. ([HSEAD][1])[1]: "American Painted Tinware"

Q: How long would a day laborer need to work to save up $8?

A:  Roughly 1–2 weeks of wages. A day laborer in the 1820s might earn about $0.75 to $1.00 per day, so saving $8—assuming little to no expenses—would take around 8–12 working days.

Q: How hard would it be to put engravings on plates such as these?

A:  Not especially hard for a trained hand. Tinplate is thin and relatively soft, so a tinsmith or engraver could incise lines using burins, punches, or even simple chisels; the real challenge is time and consistency, not technical feasibility.

Q: Imagine somebody in the 1820's that didn't have any education, experience, or specialized knowledge of archeology. Imagine this non-expert saw this artifact and said that the artifact "had the appearance of gold", and that it had engravings that "had the appearance of ancient work." Would this be considered strong evidence that the artifact really was of ancient origins?

A:  No—that would be very weak evidence. Those are subjective impressions from a non-expert, and both “gold-like” appearance and “ancient-looking” engravings can be easily produced with contemporary materials and techniques.

Q: Now imagine somebody who could potentially gain fame and fortune by convincing others that this artifact was a genuine, but for whatever reason, only allowed eight close friends and family members to view it. So now, there are a total of eight non-experts attesting that this artifact "has the apperance of gold" and "has the apperance of ancient work." Would eight non-experts attesting to this increase the likelihood that it is of ancient origins?

A:  It increases confidence that something physical existed, but not that it was ancient. If all eight are non-experts, using subjective language, and are socially connected to the promoter, their agreement is not independent or technically probative—so it adds little to the claim of ancient origin.

Q: Is that true even if they are all really honest and upstanding men?

A:  Yes. Honesty matters for whether they’re reporting sincerely, but it doesn’t improve their ability to correctly identify materials, age, or manufacturing methods—so the evidentiary value on “ancient origin” remains weak.

Q: Let's assume that we can take the joint statement of these eight people at face value. There really is an artifact. It is a set of metal plates. It has the appearance of gold. 33% of the plates aren't sealed, and have engravings on them. We don't know if the other 67% have engravings or not because they are sealed. It has, according to the non-experts, "the appearance of ancient workmanship." What is the most likely explanation for this? Is it that somebody in the 19th century somehow made it? Or is it more likley that somebody in ancient times made it? How confident can we be about that?

A:  The most likely explanation is that it was made in the 19th century. Everything described—thin plates, ring binding, gold-like appearance, engraved surfaces—fits comfortably within known 18th–19th century materials and techniques, and does not match what we see in the archaeological record of the ancient Americas. Confidence is high on that comparison: not absolute, but strongly weighted toward a modern (for that time) origin rather than an ancient one.

Q: Let's talk about the psychology of this. Is it possible that this joint statement is somehow misleading in some respects, and that the artifact isn't really as impressive as one might assume?

A:  Yes—that’s very plausible. Group testimony can unintentionally amplify impressions, smooth over uncertainty, and use vague language that sounds stronger than it is, especially when observers share expectations or trust the same source. So the artifact could be real but less remarkable, less uniform, or less “ancient-looking” than the statement suggests.

Q: Given the totality of the evidence, what's the most likely explanation of the nature and provenance of what the eight witnesses saw?

A:  Most likely, they saw a real, physical set of plates made with 19th-century materials—something like cut tinplate or similar metal, possibly treated to look more valuable. Their testimony is best read as sincere but non-technical: it supports the existence of an object, not its antiquity. Given what we know about metallurgy, manufacturing, and the social context, confidence is high that the provenance was contemporary rather than ancient.

Q: Can you really have a high level of confidence that this alleged artifact's provenance is modern without being able to prove with exacting specificity who created it, when, and how?

A:  Yes. In many cases, confidence comes from fit with known patterns, not from identifying the exact maker—everything described aligns with 19th-century capabilities and conflicts with what we see from ancient American metallurgy. You don’t need to name the craftsman to judge which scenario better matches the evidence; the asymmetry in fit is enough to drive high confidence.

Edited March 19 by Analytics

[cujo22]

19 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I have no time to debate anything on this topic, but appreciate those here actually putting in time. I just want to make sure I understand your position. These statements really make it sound like your opinion is thus:

An honest complete and thorough analysis of the extant evidence (not talking spiritual witness at all) for the production of the book of Mormon weighs so heavily in favor of authenticity, that a man-made book is a non starter. Every other alternative has "lethal" flaws. Does that represent your view of it?

I'm not one of the debaters, but the point from my perspective is that a reasonable person could take in all the evidence and reasonably decide to accept the story of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon as Joseph told it.

Likewise, a reasonable person could take in all the evidence and reasonably decide to reject/revise the story of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon as Joseph told it.

 

[Ryan Dahle]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

This post throws a lot of stuff at me. It contains about 7,000 words, perhaps a couple dozen links to other websites, and giant laundry lists of Mormon apologetics. Rather than reply to all of this, I’m going to take a deep dive into one of the most fundamental and important issues. Hopefully this will help you see why I find your point of view so unconvincing.

i.e., you are going to redirect the discussion so that you can play "offense" rather than "defense." 

No need for a detailed plausible counter-explanation when you are certain the plates aren't authentic in the first place, based on what is no doubt an extensive knowledge on your part of what is possible in regard to ancient metal epigraphy. 

Edited March 19 by Ryan Dahle

[webbles]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

When trying to prove the plausibility of a 60-pound bound history book written on metal plates that is 780,000 words long, the very best evidence the apologists can come up with include 6 tiny sheets, about 2 inches by 2 inches, that contains about 150 words. So remember. In the Book of Mormon’s fictional universe, everybody wrote on metal plates. These writings were so extensive they needed to be abridged down to a mere 780,000 words! The fact that these examples are the best you can come up with proves my point: making such objects is extraordinarily difficult and impractical. 

In the fictional universe, there is a total of 6 sets of plates.  The Brass Plates, Neph's large plates, Nephi's small plates, Zeniff's plates, Ether's gold plates, and Mormon's/Moroni's Golden Plates.  I would not say "everybody wrote on metal plates" when the vast majority of those in the Book of Mormon never appear to have written on metal plates.  The small plates does record several people writing on plates, though most are pretty limited in what they write, but pretty much everything from Mosiah until Mormon, there is no mention of writing or even creating metal plates.  Mormon does mention pulling things of the large plates from time to time so there is some writing, but he also references other records so how much the final Book of Mormon is abridged from writings on metal plates is unknown.

[webbles]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

I uploaded this image to ChatGPT and had this conversation.

I would expect ChatGPT to consider that image to be modern.  Because it is modern.  Even if you made it with tinplate in the 1820s, you couldn't get it that uniform.  So the image was pulling the AI in a specific direction.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Q: How many standard sheets would be needed to create a stack 7x10 plates 6 inches tall?

A:  Using the common 14 × 20 inch sheet size, cutting each sheet into four 7 × 10 inch plates means you get 4 plates per sheet. Historical references describe a standard “base box” as 112 sheets of 14 × 20, and one common rule of thumb was about 112 lb per box, which works out to roughly 1 lb per sheet. ([GovInfo][1]) If a 14 × 20 tinplate sheet weighs about 1 lb, its thickness comes out to about 0.012–0.013 inch for iron/steel with tin coating. A stack 6 inches tall would therefore need about 6 / 0.0126 ≈ 475 plates. Since each original sheet yields 4 plates, that is about 119 standard sheets. This is an estimate, but the right order of magnitude is roughly 120 sheets. [1]: "Letter Circular 24: standard thickness of sheet metal"

This is a really bad answer.  Dan Vogel even points out the issue with this.  There is going to be voids between the plates.  You can't lay them down with no gaps, especially if you are doing 1820s cutting.  So there wouldn't be 475 plates and it wouldn't be near as heavy.  In fact, Dan's test with tinplates and 6 inch tall stack ended up being under 40 lbs, which was lighter than what the witnesses said.  He overcomes that difficulty by saying it is hard to estimate weight and so they were just over estimating.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Q: Using 1820's technology that was avaiable in upstate New York in the 1820's, was there a way to color timplate so that it had the appearance of gold?

A:  Yes. Tinsmiths in that period commonly used brass (which is naturally gold-colored) or applied gold-colored varnishes/lacquers over tinplate to give it a golden appearance. There were also techniques like gilding (thin gold leaf or wash), though that was more expensive.

And would any of the witnesses recognize this?  The other 2 known plate discoveries (Voree and Kinderhook) were recognized as a specific material.  Why didn't the 8 ever say, "yeah, they were made out of brass" or "it was tinplate with a gold varnish"?  Almost all of the 8 witnesses were older than Joseph with a lot more experience with metals.  Why not ask ChatGPT what it thinks about a 21 year old making plates out of common material that could fool several older men (including ones he only met 3 weeks before) that it ancient, had a golden appearance, and was not a common metal.

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said:

i.e., you are going to redirect the discussion so that you can play "offense" rather than "defense." 

No need for a detailed plausible counter-explanation when you are certain the plates aren't authentic in the first place, based on what is no doubt an extensive knowledge on your part of what is possible in regard to ancient metal epigraphy. 

 

What are you talking about?

Smac claimed the Book of Mormon's metal plates are plausible because writing long histories on ancient metal plates "has been done.” He tried to “prove” this by throwing a whole bunch of links at me. I looked up every example he cited. His best evidence is a 2"x2" plate with 150 words on it. I showed that a 780,000-word history book on metal plates is categorically different and totally unseen in the ancient world. Nothing comes close, and Smac's own references illustrates this.

That isn't redirecting the conversation. That's reading his sources more carefully than he did.

As for my supposed lack of "extensive knowledge of ancient metal epigraphy," guilty as charged. I don't have any. I didn't need it. Smac provided the links. I followed them. Determining that a 2"x2" plate containing 100 words is not evidence of a long history book written on metal plates requires nothing more than basic reading comprehension. If that's the bar for "playing offense," it's a pretty low one.

When your side produces evidence, I'm going to examine it. When that examination shows the evidence doesn’t imply what you claim, I’ll point it out. Apparently you'd prefer I didn't. But examining the plausibility of the core claim isn't a redirect.

It's the whole game.

[california boy]

On 3/17/2026 at 11:39 AM, smac97 said:

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

Thanks,

-Smac

Maybe not as easy as Amazon, but tin roofing plates were readily available in New York in 1830.  According to AI:

 

Quote

 

Yes—tin roofing plates were definitely available in New York by 1830, and more so than in many other places.

Why New York had access

By that time, New York City was:

• A major port and trade hub

• Closely connected to British imports, especially tinplate from Wales

• Developing its own early metalworking and roofing trades

Tinplate sheets were imported in large quantities and sold through:

• Hardware merchants

• Roofing and sheet-metal craftsmen

• Building supply dealers

 

Doesn't seem that difficult to me.  

Did he change the plates to look more like gold?  I certainly would have.  Looks like bronze powers could pass probably as close of inspection Joseph Smith gave anyone.  But gold leafing would definitely fool a lot of untrained people even today.  It is a pretty easy process.  As I mentioned earlier, I have done it a couple of times.

 

Yes—gold-colored paint was definitely available in 1830, though, as with “tin roofing,” the details matter.

 

Quote

 

Two main ways people got a “gold” look

1. Real gold (gilding)

• The most authentic method was gold leaf—extremely thin sheets of real gold.

• Applied with adhesive and burnished to a shine.

• Common on:

  • Signs

  • Picture frames

  • Architectural details

• This was expensive but widely practiced, including in places like New York City.

2. “Gold paint” (imitation finishes)

True metallic gold paint (like modern versions) didn’t exist in quite the same form, but people used substitutes:

• Bronze powders (finely ground copper-zinc alloys)

  • Mixed with varnish or oil to create a metallic-looking paint

  • This is the closest thing to what we’d call “gold paint”

• Sometimes called bronzing rather than painting

How convincing was it?

• Freshly applied, bronze-based paint could look surprisingly gold-like

• Over time, it tended to:

  • Tarnish

  • Turn darker or greenish if not protected

Availability in 1830

• Bronze powders and gilding materials were:

  • Commercially available

  • Sold through paint suppliers, decorators, and artisans

• In a major city like New York, you could readily obtain them

Bottom line

In 1830, someone could absolutely achieve a gold-colored finish:

• High-end: real gold leaf (true gold)

• More affordable: bronze-based “gold paint” mixtures

 

•  

•