Calm Posted March 14 Posted March 14 11 minutes ago, california boy said: So it was a good enough hoax to fool Joseph Smith. If Joseph thought they were genuine (I am not sure we can say one way or the other as he quickly lost interest in them), that is evidence imo that his own experience was not a hoax as he would be more inclined to accept them imo if his own experience supported the existence of authentic plates. This has the info you mentioned as well as other content. https://mormonr.org/qnas/a9l1T/the_kinderhook_plates 3
The Nehor Posted March 14 Posted March 14 On 3/13/2026 at 2:50 PM, Calm said: But there were plenty of opportunities for the witnesses to be asked later on by a variety of people. It wasn’t limited to a one and done. But were they asked about it? As far as I know we don’t have independent accounts of the witnesses describing the experience beyond affirming that what they said was true. I used to find the fact that some of the 8 witnesses left the Church but stood by their testimony to be evidence that it had to be real as they at that point would have no reason to continue to affirm their statement. Then I learned that they belonged to other “Mormon” churches that didn’t go to Utah and it makes a lot more sense. I don’t entirely trust the Stephen Burnett letter but it casts some shade on the 8 witnesses if it is an accurate account of what Martin Harris said and Martin was telling the truth. Dubious chain of evidence but it is not out of the realm of possibility. 2
Pyreaux Posted March 14 Posted March 14 (edited) 4 hours ago, california boy said: But didn't someone else do the exact same thing you are dismissing as a possibility by creating the Kinderhook plates? Why couldn't Joseph Smith create a similar hoax? And didn't Joseph Smith's secretary record that Smith said the plates contained the history a a man defended from Ham? So it was a good enough hoax to fool Joseph Smith. In terms of testing the plates for authenticity, one of the original Kinderhook plates survived and was tested in 1980. Scientific analysis showed the engravings were made using 19th century acid etchings, not ancient techniques. This clearly shows the importance of physically testing something that claims to be of historical importance if the counterfeit plates to determine authenticity. If authenticity is not important, then yeah, showing them to a group of likely supporters then taking them away is perfectly understandable. It just requires faith to believe. Except the Kinderhook Plates were six tiny, bell-shaped scraps of brass. The Book of Mormon plates were described as a substantial volume approximately 40–60 lbs. And we know exactly who made the Kinderhook plates, Wilbur Fugate and others. For the Gold Plates, we have no theory of a "Fugate." Did Joseph make them, how and where? If Joseph didn't make them, who did? If a local blacksmith made a 50-pound "golden" prop using copper or a high-zinc brass were industrial commodities. You couldn't just buy "sheets" at a local hardware store and make it at home. It'd cost nearly a month’s wages for common laborers like the Smiths, who were famously struggling with debt and losing their farm, spending a month’s income on a "prop" without anyone noticing the expenditure is a significant evidentiary hole. Tin-ware is cheaper but too light and silver-colored. To make it look like gold, it requires a gold lacquer. If the Eight Witnesses both "hefted" the plates and "turned" the leaves, they know it's too light to be gold, they would be seeing the wear and tear of the coating. Hand-engraving a single page of "Reformed Egyptian" characters into metal takes hours of meticulous work, even if you exclude the "sealed portion", it could take months of full-time labor. You cannot secretly hammer and engrave 50 pounds of metal in a small home shared with a dozen people without someone hearing or seeing. In a third-hand account in a private journal, Joseph apparently looked at the Kinderhook Plates, made a preliminary comment based on his existing worldview, and then... nothing. What he may have done was compare the Kinderhook characters to his "Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language" trying to be an amateur linguist in that instance. But for the hoaxers to trick Joseph tells us he must have believed that other metal plates existed. If Joseph was a conniving fraud, he would know ancient plates don't exist because he made his own, so he wouldn't be "tricked" by a hoax, he would recognize a fellow traveler. If Joseph was sincerely deluded, he might be tricked, but that doesn't explain how he produced a 500-page coherent text if that is the claim. The fact that the Kinderhook plates were fake does not suggest the Goldes Plates are faked, at least not easily. A skeptic would consider them being taken away convenient, but a jurist must evaluate the secondary evidence, like the Witnesses. The Kinderhook hoaxers admit to the fraud, while the Eight Witnesses never admitted to being part of a hoax. The Kinderhook analogy is a bit clunky. Note: I do encourage the thought experiment that if for argument's sake there is no God, there must be one natural explanation, even if it is just as unbelievable as saying God did it. Edited March 15 by Pyreaux 2
Zosimus Posted March 15 Posted March 15 Having some ancestors with ties to the Strangites, the Book of the Law of the Lord and the Record of Rajah Manchou have long fascinated me. Quote TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES TO THE BOOK OF THE LAW OF THE LORD 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. SAMUEL GRAHAM SAMUEL P. BACON WARREN POST PHINEAS WRIGHT ALBERT N. HOSMER EBENEZER PAGE JEHIEL SAVAGE James Strang also claimed that an angel informed him of the location of the plates containing the Record of Rajah Manchou buried in a hill. Strang took four witnesses to dig up the plates for him. They all testified: 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 Finding witnesses willing to sign their names to a pre-written statement describing their experiences handling ancient metal plates and scripture is clearly not as difficult in the early 1800s as it might seem to us today. 2
webbles Posted March 15 Posted March 15 2 hours ago, Zosimus said: Having some ancestors with ties to the Strangites, the Book of the Law of the Lord and the Record of Rajah Manchou have long fascinated me. James Strang also claimed that an angel informed him of the location of the plates containing the Record of Rajah Manchou buried in a hill. Strang took four witnesses to dig up the plates for him. They all testified: Finding witnesses willing to sign their names to a pre-written statement describing their experiences handling ancient metal plates and scripture is clearly not as difficult in the early 1800s as it might seem to us today. The 8 witnesses of the Book of Mormon and the 4 witnesses of the Voree Plates are really similar (the 3 witnesses of the Book of Mormon are in a completely different category). The two groups just testify that they physically interacted with "ancient" artifacts. I don't think anyone doubts that the Voree plates exists (whether or not they are ancient is another matter). So if we compare the two, that should mean we shouldn't doubt that the 8 witnesses saw something that they physically handled. And this something was well built enough to convince them, just like the Voree plates were able to convince the 4 witnesses (and others that looked at it later). It wasn't just a thinly painted set of tin plates. Or it wasn't something with a sheet covering it that Joseph then convinced the 8 men to "spiritually" see them. It was something they actually handled and was convincing enough to make them believe it was made out of golden materials. So, if we compare the two artifacts and assume both are fabricated, I think it makes it less plausible for Joseph to have fabricated it. The Voree plates are only 3 plates with engravings on both sides. Supposedly the unsealed portion of the Golden Plates were quit a bit more (I've seen estimates from 12 plates to 300 plates). The Voree plates are much, much smaller than the Golden Plates, so a single Golden Plate by itself contains almost all 6 of the Voree Plates. And Strang would be in his 30s when he fabricated them while Joseph would be in his teens when he fabricated them. To fabricate several dozen plates, with writings on all of them, in a manner that men of that time would believe, that feels like a stretch for Joseph to have done. Since Strang only did 3 very small plates, it could be a point showing how hard it is to fabricate lots of plates even with more resources. The Kinderhook plates is another good example of the difficulty in fabricating lots of plates. The Kinderhook plates only had 6 plates (double the Voree plates) and about twice as big as the Voree plates. But still almost half the size of the Golden Plates. And this is someone who is purposely fabricating the plates. I think this shows how hard it is to actually fabricate decent plates that people of the time would believe. Which makes it harder to accept that Joseph fabricated 12+ plates with the intention to only show to a very few set of people. That's a lot of effort that all other known fabricators didn't attempt to do. 3
Zosimus Posted March 15 Posted March 15 32 minutes ago, webbles said: The 8 witnesses of the Book of Mormon and the 4 witnesses of the Voree Plates are really similar (the 3 witnesses of the Book of Mormon are in a completely different category). The two groups just testify that they physically interacted with "ancient" artifacts. I don't think anyone doubts that the Voree plates exists (whether or not they are ancient is another matter). So if we compare the two, that should mean we shouldn't doubt that the 8 witnesses saw something that they physically handled. And this something was well built enough to convince them, just like the Voree plates were able to convince the 4 witnesses (and others that looked at it later). It wasn't just a thinly painted set of tin plates. Or it wasn't something with a sheet covering it that Joseph then convinced the 8 men to "spiritually" see them. It was something they actually handled and was convincing enough to make them believe it was made out of golden materials. So, if we compare the two artifacts and assume both are fabricated, I think it makes it less plausible for Joseph to have fabricated it. The Voree plates are only 3 plates with engravings on both sides. Supposedly the unsealed portion of the Golden Plates were quit a bit more (I've seen estimates from 12 plates to 300 plates). The Voree plates are much, much smaller than the Golden Plates, so a single Golden Plate by itself contains almost all 6 of the Voree Plates. And Strang would be in his 30s when he fabricated them while Joseph would be in his teens when he fabricated them. To fabricate several dozen plates, with writings on all of them, in a manner that men of that time would believe, that feels like a stretch for Joseph to have done. Since Strang only did 3 very small plates, it could be a point showing how hard it is to fabricate lots of plates even with more resources. The Kinderhook plates is another good example of the difficulty in fabricating lots of plates. The Kinderhook plates only had 6 plates (double the Voree plates) and about twice as big as the Voree plates. But still almost half the size of the Golden Plates. And this is someone who is purposely fabricating the plates. I think this shows how hard it is to actually fabricate decent plates that people of the time would believe. Which makes it harder to accept that Joseph fabricated 12+ plates with the intention to only show to a very few set of people. That's a lot of effort that all other known fabricators didn't attempt to do. All valid points, but I find his translation of Laban's brass plates called the Book of the Law of the Lord most relevant to this discussion: Strang’s witnesses described eighteen brass plates, each roughly 7–7.5 by 9 inches, engraved with characters and “beautiful pictures.” They emphasized physicality: substantial size, brass material, “beautiful antique workmanship,” and resemblance to “ancient oriental languages.” These plates were said to contain the lost Mosaic law (the “Book of the Law”) as preserved on the plates of Laban. Strang claimed to translate them by Urim and Thummim. No direct physical examinations by modern scholars are known. After Strang’s death, the large plates disappear from the historical record. 1
champatsch Posted March 15 Posted March 15 (edited) Here is a distributional difference between “sore afraid” and “exceeding fraid,” both archaic phrases. The latter has so far been verified in three seventeenth-century writings, dated 1642, 1648, 1676.[1] The word morphology is archaic: no {-ly} on the adverb and an aphetic participial form, originally derived from the verb affray, used since the 1300s. Two of these were authored by women, shown below. The original Book of Mormon text is independently archaic in this regard, but we have been told repeatedly that Joseph Smith was just imitating the Bible or John Bunyan or any number of authors who commentators can present as plausible sources. Texts | Corpora “sore afraid” “exceeding fraid” 1611 King James Bible 23 0 Pseudo-archaic corpus (25 texts) 5 0 Bunyan corpus (39 texts) 2 0 1829 Book of Mormon 0 4 [1] Brilliana Harlay, 1642, https://books.google.com/books?id=w8c_AAAAcAAJ (1854); Anne Yemans, 1648, https://name.umdl.umich.edu/A67808; Benjamin Keach (1640-1704), 1676, https://books.google.com/books?id=3RxkAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA204. Edited March 15 by champatsch 1
california boy Posted March 15 Posted March 15 (edited) 15 hours ago, Pyreaux said: Except the Kinderhook Plates were six tiny, bell-shaped scraps of brass. The Book of Mormon plates were described as a substantial volume approximately 40–60 lbs. And we know exactly who made the Kinderhook plates, Wilbur Fugate and others. For the Gold Plates, we have no theory of a "Fugate." Did Joseph make them, how and where? If Joseph didn't make them, who did? If a local blacksmith made a 50-pound "golden" prop using copper or a high-zinc brass were industrial commodities. You couldn't just buy "sheets" at a local hardware store and make it at home. It'd cost nearly a month’s wages for common laborers like the Smiths, who were famously struggling with debt and losing their farm, spending a month’s income on a "prop" without anyone noticing the expenditure is a significant evidentiary hole. Tin-ware is cheaper but too light and silver-colored. To make it look like gold, it requires a gold lacquer. If the Eight Witnesses both "hefted" the plates and "turned" the leaves, they know it's too light to be gold, they would be seeing the wear and tear of the coating. Hand-engraving a single page of "Reformed Egyptian" characters into metal takes hours of meticulous work, even if you exclude the "sealed portion", it could take months of full-time labor. You cannot secretly hammer and engrave 50 pounds of metal in a small home shared with a dozen people without someone hearing or seeing. In a third-hand account in a private journal, Joseph apparently looked at the Kinderhook Plates, made a preliminary comment based on his existing worldview, and then... nothing. What he may have done was compare the Kinderhook characters to his "Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language" trying to be an amateur linguist in that instance. But for the hoaxers to trick Joseph tells us he must have believed that other metal plates existed. If Joseph was a conniving fraud, he would know ancient plates don't exist because he made his own, so he wouldn't be "tricked" by a hoax, he would recognize a fellow traveler. If Joseph was sincerely deluded, he might be tricked, but that doesn't explain how he produced a 500-page coherent text if that is the claim. The fact that the Kinderhook plates were fake does not suggest the Goldes Plates are faked, at least not easily. A skeptic would consider them being taken away convenient, but a jurist must evaluate the secondary evidence, like the Witnesses. The Kinderhook hoaxers admit to the fraud, while the Eight Witnesses never admitted to being part of a hoax. The Kinderhook analogy is a bit clunky. Note: I do encourage the thought experiment that if for argument's sake there is no God, there must be one natural explanation, even if it is just as unbelievable as saying God did it. I am not arguing whether Joseph Smith thought the Kinderhook plates were authentic. There is some proof for both sides of that argument. And I certainly am not an authority on the subject. What I am pushing back on is your claim that it would be impossible for Joseph Smith to come up with a prop that was made out of metal that could pass as gold plates. I am pointing out that someone else managed to produce hoax metal plates during that exact time period and were good enough for many including possibly Joseph Smith according to some, to believe they were ancient plates as well. What is required to make metal plates look like gold depends on just how close of an examination of the plates is allowed. It is not like the gold plates were ever given to anyone who knew what to look for to test for their authenticity. And who said these plates would have had to be made by Joseph Smith in secret himself? The Kinderhook plates were more than just a single page and since no one had ever seen "Reformed Egyptian", then faking some kind of writing to look like it has Egyptain influenced would also not be difficult to do. We also don't know how many pages the witnesses were allowed to look at. We do know that most of the book was sealed so they definitely could not look at 3/4 of the prop. We also know that the Kinderhook plates were "good enough" that Joseph kept them with claims that he could translate them. He didn't just look at them for a few minutes and then have them taken away like those witnesses of the plates he showed them. And we don't know who made them as well. The fake Kinderhook plates does prove that it is entirely possible during that time period to produce a fake artifact that on the surface would be taken seriously. Is that what Joseph Smith did? You can't just dismiss that posZosibility because you think it would be too difficult to pull off. Facts do show it is possible to fabricate and pass off a similar hoax. My intent is not to disprove or prove the gold plates were authentic. But I do push back when people state something is impossible to create, so the whole story must be true. Especially when there is a very similar example that we do know is a hoax and created during that exact same time period that did fool many people who could examine them as long as they wanted to and not just a brief fleeting viewing. Zosimus brings up an even harder argument with the and the 4 witnesses of the Voree Plates to just dismiss the possibility that the plates couldn't possibly be a hoax even if witnesses are allowed to examine them. Only difference is the Strangites movement did not take off like the Mormon movement did. I think there is pretty strong evidence that creating a prop that would fool a small group of unprofessional men who want to believe what they are told and who only get a brief look is not out of the realm of possibilities. Edited March 15 by california boy
california boy Posted March 15 Posted March 15 19 hours ago, Calm said: If Joseph thought they were genuine (I am not sure we can say one way or the other as he quickly lost interest in them), that is evidence imo that his own experience was not a hoax as he would be more inclined to accept them imo if his own experience supported the existence of authentic plates. This has the info you mentioned as well as other content. https://mormonr.org/qnas/a9l1T/the_kinderhook_plates Like I said to Pyreaux above, my intent is not to disprove or prove the gold plates were authentic. But I do push back when people state something is impossible to create, so the whole story must be true. Especially when there is a very similar example that we do know is a hoax and created during that exact same time period that did fool many people who could examine them as long as they wanted to and not just a brief fleeting viewing. I don't believe we really know whether Joseph thought they were genuine or not. What I do know is that he didn't immediately dismiss the Kinderhook plates as fake. The fact that he kept them also tells me he had the chance for a much more complete and careful examination of what was given him to authenticate. And to my knowledge, he never came right out and dismissed them as fake.
california boy Posted March 15 Posted March 15 (edited) 11 hours ago, webbles said: The 8 witnesses of the Book of Mormon and the 4 witnesses of the Voree Plates are really similar (the 3 witnesses of the Book of Mormon are in a completely different category). The two groups just testify that they physically interacted with "ancient" artifacts. I don't think anyone doubts that the Voree plates exists (whether or not they are ancient is another matter). So if we compare the two, that should mean we shouldn't doubt that the 8 witnesses saw something that they physically handled. And this something was well built enough to convince them, just like the Voree plates were able to convince the 4 witnesses (and others that looked at it later). It wasn't just a thinly painted set of tin plates. Or it wasn't something with a sheet covering it that Joseph then convinced the 8 men to "spiritually" see them. It was something they actually handled and was convincing enough to make them believe it was made out of golden materials. So, if we compare the two artifacts and assume both are fabricated, I think it makes it less plausible for Joseph to have fabricated it. The Voree plates are only 3 plates with engravings on both sides. Supposedly the unsealed portion of the Golden Plates were quit a bit more (I've seen estimates from 12 plates to 300 plates). The Voree plates are much, much smaller than the Golden Plates, so a single Golden Plate by itself contains almost all 6 of the Voree Plates. And Strang would be in his 30s when he fabricated them while Joseph would be in his teens when he fabricated them. To fabricate several dozen plates, with writings on all of them, in a manner that men of that time would believe, that feels like a stretch for Joseph to have done. Since Strang only did 3 very small plates, it could be a point showing how hard it is to fabricate lots of plates even with more resources. The Kinderhook plates is another good example of the difficulty in fabricating lots of plates. The Kinderhook plates only had 6 plates (double the Voree plates) and about twice as big as the Voree plates. But still almost half the size of the Golden Plates. And this is someone who is purposely fabricating the plates. I think this shows how hard it is to actually fabricate decent plates that people of the time would believe. Which makes it harder to accept that Joseph fabricated 12+ plates with the intention to only show to a very few set of people. That's a lot of effort that all other known fabricators didn't attempt to do. So basically you are saying that the plates Joseph Smith may have made were much better quality than the Voree Plates, so those must be a hoax and Joseph's plates must be real? And the only way Joseph's plates could have been made is if Joseph made them himself. You guys have a pretty low bar needed to convince you something must be true. Here are a few red flags for me. Don't show the gold plates to someone who is qualified to know something about metals. Only show them to close friends and relatives that want to believe your story Control the environment that you show them at Have a limited one time opportunity to make your evaluation. Then have them disappear forever. And finally, the gold plates end up being just a prop after all, since you do all your "translating" by looking at a rock in a hat. Anything suspicious about any of that?? Edited March 15 by california boy
Analytics Posted March 15 Author Posted March 15 On 3/13/2026 at 10:26 PM, Ryan Dahle said: Let me try one more analogy to help you understand. Imagine that you are a parent with two young adult sons. One of them is an accomplished pianist. The other has had a few piano lessons but never showed much interest in pursuing music. Let's say you expect both of your sons to be home for the weekend after their first month in college. You come home and hear someone in the home playing a very difficult piano piece. You abductively conclude that the pianist is almost certainly your son who plays the piano. But here is the thing, you would not be able to predict what song your son would choose to play. He knows hundreds of songs and is interested in all sorts of music and is learning new music all the time. Basically "any outcome is possible" as you put it. Now let's plug in your reasoning with a bolded modification on my part: You see why this line of reasoning is ultimately irrelevant? It really doesn't matter whether the parent could predict the particular song that would be played, or the particular style, or genre, or whatever. All that matters is that the parent knows that a very difficult song would reasonably rule out the son who had less piano training. It is the same logic with EModE. My theory doesn't have to be able to predict precisely what type of language might be used by my preferred candidate author, just like the parent doesn't have to predict which song or type of song would be played. The only crucial factor is capacity. If the parent has reason to believe one son has the capacity to play that song and the other doesn't (and if it seems very unlikely that any other person would enter into the home and play the piano) then it is obvious which son is mostly likely to be responsible for the music. This is standard abductive reasoning, and it is exactly the same logic I'm using for EModE. Hi Ryan, Your piano analogy actually illustrates my point better than yours. If Joseph Smith literally did not have the capacity to say things like "save it were," then sure: that would preclude him from being the author. But if he had the capacity to say those words, then we need to look at the likelihood he said them and compare that to the likelihood that somebody else would have said them. Saying God had “more capacity” to say them doesn’t mean that it’s more likely that God did. To see this, allow me to adjust your analogy. The first son might know a few dozen songs and could play the piece we're hearing, even if it is a stretch. The second son could easily play this song too, but could also play millions of other songs, all with the touch of a master. If he had that range of things he could play, what are the chances the one song he'd choose on this occasion is this particular uneven, inconsistent piece and not one of the other millions of songs he could play?
webbles Posted March 15 Posted March 15 10 hours ago, Zosimus said: All valid points, but I find his translation of Laban's brass plates called the Book of the Law of the Lord most relevant to this discussion: Strang’s witnesses described eighteen brass plates, each roughly 7–7.5 by 9 inches, engraved with characters and “beautiful pictures.” They emphasized physicality: substantial size, brass material, “beautiful antique workmanship,” and resemblance to “ancient oriental languages.” These plates were said to contain the lost Mosaic law (the “Book of the Law”) as preserved on the plates of Laban. Strang claimed to translate them by Urim and Thummim. No direct physical examinations by modern scholars are known. After Strang’s death, the large plates disappear from the historical record. Thanks for pointing that out. I keep forgetting he had two sets of plates. I think it still shows that Joseph had something that could convince the 8 that it was real and ancient. It wasn't painted wood or thinly painted tin. It was something that the witnesses could see was gold-like and ancient. 1
webbles Posted March 15 Posted March 15 32 minutes ago, california boy said: So basically you are saying that the plates Joseph Smith may have made were much better quality than the Voree Plates, so those must be a hoax and Joseph's plates must be real? And the only way Joseph's plates could have been made is if Joseph made them himself. You guys have a pretty low bar needed to convince you something must be true. Here are a few red flags for me. Don't show the gold plates to someone who is qualified to know something about metals. Only show them to close friends and relatives that want to believe your story Control the environment that you show them at Have a limited one time opportunity to make your evaluation. Then have them disappear forever. And finally, the gold plates end up being just a prop after all, since you do all your "translating" by looking at a rock in a hat. Anything suspicious about any of that?? 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. 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. 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. 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. 2
Tacenda Posted March 15 Posted March 15 A thought that came when first in my crisis of faith after finding things in church history I hadn't known was the ability of those people in Joseph Smith's day were amazing. They didn't have the technology to distract them. They were amazing poets, and writers. That's one way Joseph and whomever, helped write the BoM. People in this day and age, worked in the fields etc. of course, and other jobs, but with no TV etc. I think one could do amazing things with their minds. So that's the one aspect I had of how Joseph was able to put together the BoM. But I'm open to having it be from revelation from God too. 1
Calm Posted March 15 Posted March 15 1 hour ago, webbles said: I'd love for it to be naturalistic. Meaning what?
Calm Posted March 15 Posted March 15 56 minutes ago, Tacenda said: I think one could do amazing things with their minds. One may be capable of building a wonderful house, but without decent materials and tools to work with would they be able to produce it? Just saying you can’t address the creation of the BoM and other modern scripture that Joseph produced without addressing the content, imo (which is what this thread is about imo, the debate on if Joseph truly had the tools and would use them in this way to produce this text). 3
webbles Posted March 15 Posted March 15 3 hours ago, Calm said: Meaning what? That the Book of Mormon isn't an ancient historical record. As for why I'd love that, it is complicated and doesn't really have anything to do with the church or even Joseph Smith. 1
Calm Posted March 15 Posted March 15 (edited) 1 hour ago, webbles said: That the Book of Mormon isn't an ancient historical record. As for why I'd love that, it is complicated and doesn't really have anything to do with the church or even Joseph Smith. No problem. I don’t have the traditional view of the purpose of scripture…or maybe it’s more how scripture is intended to fulfill that purpose, which is to bring us to God, so I am fine with just that tidbit. Edited March 15 by Calm
Ryan Dahle Posted March 16 Posted March 16 (edited) 11 hours ago, Analytics said: Your piano analogy actually illustrates my point better than yours. If Joseph Smith literally did not have the capacity to say things like "save it were," then sure: that would preclude him from being the author. But if he had the capacity to say those words, then we need to look at the likelihood he said them and compare that to the likelihood that somebody else would have said them. Saying God had “more capacity” to say them doesn’t mean that it’s more likely that God did. To see this, allow me to adjust your analogy. The first son might know a few dozen songs and could play the piece we're hearing, even if it is a stretch. The second son could easily play this song too, but could also play millions of other songs, all with the touch of a master. If he had that range of things he could play, what are the chances the one song he'd choose on this occasion is this particular uneven, inconsistent piece and not one of the other millions of songs he could play? I think that you keep switching back and forth between two lines of "attack" against my explanatory theory in light of EModE data. As I see it, there are basically two options: 1. My theory is flawed because the EModE data doesn't actually make it very unlikely that Joseph Smith was the author. 2. My theory is flawed because it wouldn't have predicted the specific range of EModE features beforehand. As I see it, your first line of argumentation is completely appropriate. That is the reasonable way to push back against my theory in this context. And if you are correct, then my explanation wouldn't have any significant advantage in this area. In contrast, your second line of attack seems to be fundamentally flawed. If the EModE data makes it very unlikely that Smith didn't naturalistically author the text, then my preferred authorial explanation (the text was divinely prepared and revealed to Smith) has an obvious advantage over Smith as the author. The data would logically work in my favor (when you look at each theory's ability to explain it). Moreover, this wouldn't be an example of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy, as you previously kept alleging. And that is the whole point of me bringing up all of these analogies. They demonstrate that if candidate A very likely couldn't produce effect X while candidate B could have produced effect X, then candidate B would be the preferred option if X is observed in the data. This would be true even if one couldn't have specifically guessed that X would occur beforehand. The alien gun would thus function as valid evidence, even if that specific item of technology could have never been guessed beforehand as something alien's would give a human. Likewise, the status of one suspect as an adult male in the murder analogy (in contrast to the infant), automatically implicates him as the murderer, even if the precise mode and method of the murder could never have been reasonably guessed beforehand. And the ability of the one son to perform a highly complex piano arrangement automatically points towards him being the one playing the piano, despite the inability of the parent to specifically guess beforehand what song he would play. So, yes, if the EModE data is NOT strong evidence that Smith could not have produced the Book of Mormon, then I totally agree with you that my theory would lack any real explanatory advantage when it comes to this set of data. In contrast, if the EModE IS strong evidence that Smith could not have produced the Book of Mormon, then my explanatory theory would have an obvious advantage, even if the specific EModE data could not have been predicted beforehand. And to be crystal clear, my theory does not posit that it would have been "impossible" for Smith to produce that language. It just argues that it seems highly implausible that he would be able to do so. And that high degree of implausibility would naturally favor a divinely revealed text, when our explanatory theories are contrasted with one another. Edited March 16 by Ryan Dahle 1
champatsch Posted March 16 Posted March 16 (edited) Here is some Late Middle English in the Book of Mormon. There is no textual support for Joseph Smith formulating this syntax. As noted below, this is impersonal, simple dative syntax; me is not accusative. There is no evidence of later analogical formation in English. It is not a mistake of the dictation: dictated on three different days, in two different locations, weeks apart, makes sense contextually. And so on. Naturalistic explanations are stipulative. Alma 54:11 But behold, it supposeth me that I talk to you concerning these things in vain, or it supposeth me that thou art a child of hell. Jacob 2:8 And it supposeth me that they have come up hither to hear the pleasing word of God, The Words of Mormon 1:2 And it supposeth me that he will witness the entire destruction of my people. Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. suppose, verb, definition I.i.4: “† intransitive. impersonal with complement and indirect object. him supposeth: it seems to him. Obsolete. rare.” a1393. www.oed.com/dictionary/suppose_v?tab=meaning_and_use#19727882. Edited March 16 by champatsch 2
Zosimus Posted March 16 Posted March 16 (edited) 14 hours ago, california boy said: I think there is pretty strong evidence that creating a prop that would fool a small group of unprofessional men who want to believe what they are told and who only get a brief look is not out of the realm of possibilities. 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 Edited March 16 by Zosimus 1
Analytics Posted March 16 Author Posted March 16 On 3/13/2026 at 11:55 PM, smac97 said: And again, virtually all of those questions are responsive to what you have said. No, they're not. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Q: If a dupe, who else was involved, and why did none of them ever come forward? A: I don't know. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. I don't believe that a vision or spiritual experience constitutes empirical evidence of a physical artifact's ancient provenance. 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. 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. Q: How do you account for Martin Harris? A: Same answer. Sincere believer, powerful religious experience, curated conditions. Harris also described seeing the plates "with the eye of faith," which he later clarified and reframed over the years. His sincerity isn't in question. The evidentiary value of his testimony is. Q: If the witnesses were duped, why did none of them recant? A: I don't think "duped" is the right word. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. In general, these are second- and third-hand accounts, reported years after the fact, through the lens of a believing community. They are interesting but do not constitute independent empirical verification. Q: What is your alternative explanation for the Plates/Witnesses/Text? A: Some physical object existed. The witnesses had genuine experiences under curated conditions. The text was authored in the 19th century, most likely by Joseph Smith, possibly with input from his immediate circle. 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. 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. 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 with conflicting loyalties, no shared motive, falsifiability, and physical evidence that was available for examination. The plates evidence has none of these structural features. It's not a double standard — it's the difference between independent and curated evidence. Closing Smac, I've answered every question on your list. You'll notice a pattern: the answer to most of them is "I don't know," 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're a litigator. You know what happens in your courtroom when one party deliberately conceals the evidence that would have resolved the dispute. The adverse inference goes against the party who concealed it, not against the party who can't reconstruct what was hidden. Every unanswerable question on your list is unanswerable by Joseph Smith's design. That isn't my problem. It's his. 2
Ryan Dahle Posted March 16 Posted March 16 13 minutes ago, Analytics said: Smac, I presume you don't believe this is a genuine miracle. 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 3
Analytics Posted March 16 Author Posted March 16 12 minutes 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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? 2
champatsch Posted March 16 Posted March 16 One has to be quite credulous to think that Joseph Smith composed the conjunction save usage of the Book of Mormon, as well as many other things, some of which I've recently mentioned. "Save it were" does not occur in a vacuum of no other conjunction save usage. It is discussed as if it occurred in a vacuum, however, in order to make it seem more plausible that Joseph Smith automatically used it more than 70 times. We are apparently expected to believe that dozens of pro-form instances of "save it were" were worded by Joseph Smith, even though it isn't found elsewhere before the Book of Mormon more than once, and in few texts, of British origin. The three earliest sources are Scottish English: 1646, 1684, 1749 (Scottish folk song, reprinted). There are also three examples of pro-form "save it was" in the Book of Mormon. This usage was rarer historically than "save it were." The reason it was rarer is because the subordinate clause was normally overtly marked as subjunctive by the use of singular were. Pro-form "except it <be>," according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is where the phrase was used instead of repeating the principal verb, similar to how a pronoun is used instead of repeating a preceding noun. As I see it, the "it <be>" was used (after the subordinating conjunctions except or save) instead of repeating a preceding subject and verb. "Except it be|were" primarily occurred in the early modern period, when "except it be|were" occurred at its highest rate and most frequently in texts, in absolute terms. Before the Book of Mormon, pro-form "save it was" occurs in 1684: "I carefully declin’d the looking but never so overly into any Book of this nature; save it was that sacred one, wherein our Religion is most divinely established" (EEBO B18463, [14]). The way I read it, what James Canaries meant in context by "save it was that sacred one" was something like "except that I did carefully examine that sacred book." Other examples of "save it was" that I have seen are not pro-form, even the other one in Canaries' book, which is followed by a that-clause. Tyndale has one where save is a coordinating conjunction, "save it was flat." These can be discerned because the it is literal, not an expletive. In other cases, "save it was" is part of an impersonal expression, which although the it is an expletive, the phrase is not a pro-form use. (So, to avoid running into interpretive errors, some syntactic awareness is needed.) Pro-form "save it was," then, is one reason why I view the conjunction save usage of the Book of Mormon as early modern. Another reason is the text's brilliant "save <subject> shall <infinitive>" usage, where shall is a subjunctive marker. For those who might not know, subjunctive, modal shall is used in many contexts in the Book of Mormon where it is not even used in the King James Bible. For instance, in subordinate clauses headed by archaic "inasmuch as." This early modern usage is not in pseudo-archaic texts or John Bunyan's writings, either. Also, subjunctive, modal shall occurred at its highest rate in the 16c. After the 1500s, it declined in use over the centuries. It is also characteristic of a formal, written style. The heavy subjunctive, modal shall use is another reason, along with its heavy finite verbal complementation, that the Book of Mormon reads like a written text, despite being dictated. So, because the Book of Mormon has "save <subject> shall <infinitive>" usage far beyond any known text, and it is quintessential early modern usage, and because pro-form "save it was" was rare early modern usage, it is quite reasonable to view the conjunction save usage of the Book of Mormon as early modern, which of course Joseph Smith did not author. 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