A Secular Theory of Where the BoM Came From

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

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.

I'll point out that the image I chose was from the Church’s own website (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/media/image/gold-plates-0d313cd?lang=eng), and I chose it because it seemed more plausible than others.e.g. this one from FAIR:
The problem is that there isn’t a realistic facsimile of what an authentic set of plates would have looked like because there were no authentic plates.

1 hour ago, webbles said:

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.

I'm assuming this is a rhetorical question. First of all, there is no reason to believe that the “several older men” involved had any skill or expertise in determining whether an alleged ancient artifact really was ancient. As Smac said, they were fact witnesses, not expert witnesses. 

But more fundamentally, even if these “several older men” correctly believed that the plates were made out of solid 14-k gold (worth $10,000 then, or $1.5 million now), and were crafted with the highest level of skill imaginable, that only adds weight to the fact that they must have been of modern origin, because ancient people didn’t have the technology to create such a thing. Saying Joseph Smith couldn’t afford it doesn’t change the fact that it couldn’t be ancient.

I did my best to present the evidence to ChatGPT in an unbiased way, and it independently came to the same conclusion I did: the fact that ancient people didn’t have the technology to produce this is much stronger evidence than the weight of the witnesses testimony.

When you layer on top of that the fact that Joseph Smith was skilled at getting people to be less than 100% truthful on his behalf, and the fact that the evidence we have is extraordinarily suspicious (because the person who had the most to gain from proving his claims true is the one who made sure the evidence that would have settled the matter was not made available for independent examination), the fact that they are of modern origin becomes even more clear.

[california boy]

On 3/17/2026 at 1:05 PM, Calm said:

This is all speculation and opinion from a believer’s POV, as in the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be.

Besides Moroni****, I don’t see why they wouldn’t use any of the records they made themselves even if God had intended them ultimately for the future.  People are always interested in their history, where they came from (generally speaking even if there are individuals who don’t care).  As long as there were righteous groups, there were likely copies made of the more spiritual teachings to be read in religious settings or used to keep the oral traditions on track, fill in details, etc.

Tumbaga is an alloy of copper coated in gold. The gold would keep the plates from tarnishing and corroding over the centuries.  I will find the article describing how useful this process was and post it in a bit. Going off of memory here.  Hopefully accurate.
 

****my guess is Moroni likely found creating something for the future sustaining and even uplifting, giving him a sense of value and purpose. Having to live with likely almost constant sorrow, even despair due to the destruction of his family and people and the awareness that others would kill him without hesitation could not have been that great.  But this work would have been a reminder that it wasn’t the end for his brethren and better things were to come for all…and he was substantially contributing to this.

I can also see Moroni reading the plates he was carrying as well as engraving them if only to pass the time, but more likely to help him feel connected with his people as well as God.

—

For Joseph, I see four (actually five, but the board ate my answer yesterday when I responded to what was the purpose and I have forgotten one of them) possible purposes to have the plates. 

 First, originally they helped convince him of the reality of the Nephite civilization and story just as they would help convince others; he wouldn’t doubt his visions or the teachings when he had the massive reality of the plates in his hands.  That surety would be necessary in teaching others. It would also be very important imo to sustain him through the years of suffering and sacrifice and especially, rejection.

Second, the custody of the plates gave him authority.  A poor, younger man assuming spiritual authority over much older, much more respected men than himself…I think what we can see of his initial reactions, trying to get help from a religious leader, trying to find some support in a community by attending a religious class (Methodist?) shows he wasn’t inclined to assume that role, at least not wholeheartedly.  He needed to be willing to stand on his own and the plates would likely help him feel he had the right, the mission to teach, council, and even reprimand those older and wiser than himself. 

Third, the plates being a treasure were a constant temptation for selfishness, they could make life for himself and his family much easier.  Instead they added a burden, added danger even for himself and his family.  Facing this choice of putting God’s work first over mundane wants and needs throughout his early years likely helped set him up to be willing to make necessary sacrifices in the future when it was likely even harder because it would be easier, less complicated to cheat a little here and there when he and his family were better off and had the respect of others.  (Not saying he always resisted taking the easy way here.)

Fourth, it gave him training for leadership. He had to plan how to keep them safe and put those plans into effect, get others to work with him to do so, to respect his rules (not always successful).  In the future it wouldn’t be plates that he had to care for and protect, but the religious community he founded.  This task likely got him used to thinking in these terms. 

Interesting points.  I am not quite convinced how likely they would be as the main reason for the amount of physical and economical cost it would take to create all those gold plates.  Seems like once you see God and Jesus Christ, you don't really need any more authority than that.  And maybe a little Moroni time would have been good enough for Joseph to actually believe in a Nephite nation.  

But I do appreciate you thoughts.  This whole thread is pretty much just guesswork including all of my posts.

[Ryan Dahle]

Actually, I think you were the one who first pivoted to this topic, remember: 

Quote

You're right that I accept Caesar's assassination as historical fact. But notice what kind of claim that is. Caesar's death is not a freestanding assertion--it is woven into an extraordinarily dense web of interconnected history. The political consequences, the civil wars, the rise of Augustus, the restructuring of the Roman world--all of it ramifies outward and forward in ways that interlock with countless independent lines of evidence. Caesar's assassination fits. It coheres. It isn’t merely exactly the sort of thing that happened in Roman politics requiring no mechanism beyond the ordinary. It’s the kind of thing that if it didn’t happen, nothing else we know about the Roman empire would make sense. 

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. This is a known reality that the claim has to swim against. Caesar swims with the current. The plates swim against it.

Only then did Smac provide some links, with the statement that "we have quite a few examples of record-keeping on metal plates or scrolls." You then responded by 

19 hours ago, Analytics said:

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.

I don't think this type of exaggeration helps your case, and it seems you missed Smac's point (which wasn't to say the Book of Mormon isn't unique but just that there are precedents for metal recordkeeping). You confidently claim things that you simply cannot prove or support, such as: "Nobody in antiquity ever wrote a long history book on metal plates because doing so is hopelessly impractical" and "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." I'm sorry, but you just don't know that.

For starters, we know that literally thousands of metal documents from the Roman period got lost, destroyed, or repurposed over the centuries, so that there is now only a very small fraction of what was once a large corpus in that medium. Likewise, the Aztecs and Maya had a large quantity of written records (not on metal) that were destroyed by the Spanish conquerors. So there is precedent for large quantities of texts, both of metal and in other mediums, being lost or purposefully erased from the historical record. Those types of precedents pose problems for your absolutist claims, since you are relying on an absence of evidence to do most of the heavy lifting in your argument. One also might consider the fact that the Book of Mormon tells us that the Lamanites were intent on destroying the Nephite records, and also that most of the Nephite's sacred history was deposited at a specific hidden location at the end of their civilization. If that location hasn't been found, it is possible that most of their non-perishable records simply wouldn't be widely available to be discovered.

Moreover, if the Book of Mormon were true, it would seem plausible that the metal record keeping practice was a niche activity carried out by a limited class of Nephite scribes. The text doesn't posit that the Lamanites were keeping such records and gives us no specific data on how many Nephite records were made of metal compared to other mediums. So we wouldn't need to see this medium being used at large in the Americas or even prolifically among Nephite society at large. The basic logic is that in order to make strong claims that rely on the absence of evidence in the ancient world, you would first need reliable data about how widespread a certain phenomenon was in the ancient world and how likely it would be to get destroyed or erased over time. If there were only a few dozen metal records to begin with, and if they were kept by a limited number of elite scribes, and if these already limited quantity of records were either destroyed by the Lamanites (who wanted to erase Nephite history) or were hidden, then you actually would have no idea how likely it would be for them to be discovered (under that scenario). And that scenario actually seems entirely plausible, both based on textual data and known historical precedents. 

Now, it must be granted that you have a point. There are no known metal documents in the Americas and the Book of Mormon is far longer than most known ANE precedents. So it is a significant outlier, and that must be admitted. But you just take that point to the extreme, arguing that it is "exactly the same" as shardblades in the Stormlight Archive. It obviously isn't, since there are literally thousands of metal documents from the ANE and other societies throughout the world, of varying lengths and genres (in contrast to shardblades which, as a type of technology, aren't know to exist in the real world at all).

You also have to acknowledge that some ancient and medieval metal records are actually quite lengthy. For instance, there are very large caches of metal documents from pre-modern times from various locations in Asia. You might also consider that the entire Quran was inscribed onto gold plates in the late Middle Ages. The funny thing is, by your logic, this record is precisely what you would assume can never exist. It is just too long. It is an enormous outlier. It is too impractical and expensive. No one would ever make something like this. And yet there it is, the impossible thing that should never exist: 



[LATE EDIT (in response to comments from Zosimus): The dating could be later and the provenance of this document is somewhat dubious; nevertheless, it still is a fairly impressive document, even if it were a complete forgery.]

Likewise, I assume that the metal records among the Nephites were rare, prestige objects. As you said, they would be very difficult to fabricate. It's not like everyone would have a copy. They would have been something of a national treasure. And if that is the case, they are exactly the type of thing that, if they ever existed, would be very likely not to turn up in the archaeological record. Which means that the absence-of-evidence argument that you are peddling is actually quite a bit weaker than you're exaggerated claims would suggest. 

In other words, we can reasonably count this as evidence against the Book of Mormon. This is a fairly unlikely or unexpected piece of data. If I were not a believer, I would definitely see this as a line of data that would induce a significant dose of doubt and that would need to be overcome by positive evidence. But it is not nearly as insurmountable as your definitive claims demand. The technology in the ancient world was there. The metallurgy in the Americas was really close to being there at the right time/place. There are other decently lengthy metal records from around the world in pre-modern times. There are other examples of lengthy, rare, prestige metal documents. There are options for the entire script to fit on the plates, according to various assumptions and parameters. 

It isn't exactly clear to me how this legitimate weakness/limitation in the believer's theory stacks up against your apparent inability to produce a coherent naturalistic counter-narrative for the Three Witnesses, Eight Witnesses, and Informal Witnesses, but I think your extreme stance on some of these points actually hurts the credibility of your approach. 

Edited March 20 by Ryan Dahle

[smac97]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

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

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.

•  

•  

Also according to AI (my query) :

Quote

How feasible would it have been for Joseph Smith to procure common tin, cut it into "plates" of the size described by witnesses of the Gold Plates, and then treat them to make them have "the appearance of gold" with "engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship"?

The response (Grok) :

Quote

It was highly feasible—in fact, straightforward and low-cost—for Joseph Smith (or someone assisting him) to procure common tinplate, cut it to the described dimensions (~6 × 8 inches per plate, thin like “common tin,” stacked 4–6 inches thick), and treat/engrave it to produce a convincing “gold” appearance with “ancient work” and “curious workmanship.”

This aligns directly with Dan Vogel’s tin-plate theory and has been demonstrated by modern replicas using period-appropriate methods. Below is a step-by-step breakdown based on 1820s material realities, tools, and crafts available in rural western New York.

1. Procuring the Tin (Extremely Easy and Cheap)

• Common tinplate (thin sheet iron coated with tin) was ubiquitous in early 19th-century America. It was imported in large quantities from Britain (especially Wales) and sold by tinsmiths, general stores, and peddlers for roofs, cans, pans, trunks, and household goods.
• By the 1820s, tinsmiths operated in Palmyra, Manchester, and nearby towns (e.g., documented shops in Palmyra and Rome, NY). Standard sheets were typically 10 × 14 inches or larger—perfect for cutting multiple 6 × 8-inch plates from one sheet.
• Cost: Pennies per sheet. A poor farm family could easily obtain scrap or new tinplate through trade, purchase, or scavenging.

2. Cutting the Plates (Simple Handwork)

• Tinplate is soft and cuts cleanly with ordinary tin snips, shears, or even sturdy scissors—standard tools in every tinsmith shop and many households.
• Modern replicas (e.g., Trent Told’s proof-of-concept using only 19th-century hand tools) show that an entire set of ~100–200 plates could be cut in a few hours.
• No specialized equipment needed; Joseph or a family member (Hyrum was a cooper and the family had basic metalworking experience) could do this in a barn or shed.

3. Treating for “the Appearance of Gold” (Standard 1820s Craft Technique)

• Raw tinplate is silvery-white. To mimic gold, two cheap, widely available methods existed:
  • Bronze powder paint (“Dutch gold” or “gold paint”): A fine copper-zinc powder mixed with varnish, shellac, or glue. This was the standard finish for decorative tinware, picture frames, and furniture in the 1820s. Brushed on, it dries to a bright metallic gold sheen. Extremely common and inexpensive.
  • Imitation gold leaf (brass or Dutch-metal leaf): Thin sheets applied over adhesive—also cheap and routine for gilding tin objects.
• These techniques were everyday crafts (documented in American tinware from the period). The finish could be toned or varnished for durability and a convincing “bright like gold” look under candlelight or brief viewing.
• Modern tests and replicas confirm this produces a convincing golden appearance from a short distance or when partially covered.

4. Engraving with “Ancient Work” and “Curious Workmanship”

• Tinplate is very soft and engraves easily with a stylus, nail, chisel, or homemade punch—tools available on any farm.
• “Curious workmanship” and pseudo-ancient characters (reformed Egyptian-style) could be created with simple repetitive patterns or copied from Bible illustrations or local books.
• Replicas show that engraving both sides of dozens of plates takes only a few hours to a couple of days.
• The “ancient” look comes from irregular, hand-done characters and the metallic sheen—no advanced skill required.

5. Binding and Assembly

• Three D-shaped rings: Simple wire rings from a blacksmith or tinsmith, or even homemade. Holes punched with a basic awl.

Time, Cost, and Practicality in 1829 Rural New York

• Total time: A motivated person could complete the full set (cutting, treating, engraving, binding) in a few days to a week of part-time work.
• Cost: Under a few dollars (mostly for tin and bronze powder/varnish).
• Concealability: Easy to hide in a box, under a floor, or wrapped in cloth—exactly as described in the accounts.

Main Limitations (Acknowledged in the Theory)

• Weight: A pure tinplate stack would weigh roughly 15–25 lbs (lighter than the reported 40–60 lbs). Vogel and replica-makers note this could be addressed by using thicker sheets, adding lead weights inside the stack, or weighting the carrying box. Witnesses mostly hefted it wrapped or briefly.
• Close scrutiny: The finish might not hold up to prolonged daylight inspection or handling by skeptics, which explains why the plates were almost always kept covered or shown only to sympathetic witnesses.

Overall assessment: Extremely feasible. This was not a complex or expensive project—it used everyday materials and skills available to any rural American with basic crafting ability. Modern replicas (e.g., Trent Told’s tin set made with 19th-century tools in a couple of hours) prove it could be done quickly and convincingly enough for the controlled, short-term presentation described in the witness accounts. The main “miracle” in the theory would be maintaining secrecy and limiting exposure, not the fabrication itself.

Follow-up query:

Quote

Why do you think none of the Three Witnesses or the Eight Witnesses ever recanted, particularly given how, as you say, "extremely feasible" a hoax would have been? Putting aside the significant difference in weight, wouldn't the Eight Witnesses be familiar with stuff like common tinplate? And since Joseph was quite poor, the gold leave option seems quite unlikely. That leaves bronze powder. The Eight Witnesses saw the plates in mundane circumstances in the middle of the day, so it seems like they would have caught on, either in the moment or later. Even Vogel acknowledges this, which is why he goes well beyond the evidence and - without evidence - speculates that the Eight Witnesses were only shown the Plates under obscured circumstances (through a cloth), as they otherwise would have caught on to the hoax. Instead, they not only never recanted, they were vehement in their reaffirmations (see, e.g., https://witnessesofthebookofmormon.org/eight-witnesses/jacob-whitmer/statements/ , https://witnessesofthebookofmormon.org/eight-witnesses/peter-whitmer-jr/statements/ , https://witnessesofthebookofmormon.org/eight-witnesses/john-whitmer/statements/ , https://witnessesofthebookofmormon.org/eight-witnesses/hiram-page/statements/ ). These men, who apparently had only known Joseph Smith for a matter of days or weeks, said they both saw and "hefted" the Plates, and "did handle with {their} hands" the "leaves" of the Plates. A simple, cheap and easily-detectable hoax doesn't seem to mesh well with the historical evidence. If there was a sham object, it seems it would need to have been a pretty good one.

The response:

Quote

You're raising one of the strongest and most persistent challenges to any simple naturalistic hoax theory, and it's a fair one. The non-recantation of the Eight Witnesses (and the Three), combined with their specific claims of daylight physical handling, does create real tension for the idea of a quick, cheap tin/bronze-powder prop. Let's address your points directly and honestly.

The Daylight Handling Claims Are Hard to Square with a Crude Fake

You're right on several fronts:

• The Eight Witnesses described the experience in explicitly mundane, physical terms: Joseph showed them the plates uncovered at the Smith farm in daylight. They "hefted" them, "did handle with our hands" the leaves, turned them over, noted the "appearance of gold," "fine engravings on both sides," and "curious workmanship."
• Statements from John Whitmer, Peter Whitmer Jr., Jacob Whitmer, and Hiram Page (even decades later, after they had left the Church and criticized Joseph) are consistent and emphatic on the physicality. John Whitmer, for example, explicitly said Joseph "handed them uncovered into our hands" and that they turned the leaves enough to satisfy themselves.
• These men were rural farmers and craftsmen. They would have been intimately familiar with common tinplate from everyday use (cans, roofing, pans, etc.). A sloppy bronze-powder finish might have looked passable from a distance or under low light, but in broad daylight with hands-on inspection, a crude fake should have been obvious.

Gold leaf was indeed too expensive for Joseph in 1829. Bronze powder/varnish was the cheap, plausible option—but your skepticism about it surviving close scrutiny in daylight is reasonable. Modern replicas using period techniques look metallic-gold from a few feet away, but up close or with handling, the brassy undertone and lack of true density become noticeable.

Vogel's Position and the "Obscured Viewing" Speculation

You nailed Vogel here too. He acknowledges that a very crude prop wouldn't have worked, so he argues the viewing conditions were controlled enough that the witnesses didn't subject it to rigorous, skeptical examination. However, his suggestion that the Eight Witnesses saw the plates only partially or under obscured conditions (e.g., cloth or brief viewing) is interpretive and not strongly supported by the primary statements. Most of the Eight's own words describe open, daylight handling. Vogel relies more on expectation bias, group dynamics, and the witnesses' predisposition to believe than on direct evidence of concealment for them specifically.

Why the Non-Recantation?

This is the core difficulty. Even granting that a somewhat better-finished prop could have passed brief inspection, the fact that several witnesses (especially the Whitmer brothers and Hiram Page) later became disillusioned with Joseph, left the Church, criticized him sharply, and still never recanted their testimony about the plates is genuinely hard to explain under a simple hoax model.

Naturalistic explanations usually invoke:

• Belief perseverance and cognitive dissonance: Once publicly committed (especially in a religious context with family and community stakes), people rarely reverse course. Recanting would have meant admitting they were fooled or had lied.
• Social/family pressure and identity: The Whitmers were interrelated. Their testimonies became part of their personal and family legacy. Apostasy didn't require rejecting the plates experience—they could separate Joseph personally from the miracle itself.
• Sunk cost and motivated reasoning: The experience had become central to their worldview. Later reinforcement and memory reconstruction would strengthen it.

These factors work better for the Three Witnesses (visionary experience) than for the Eight, who claimed straightforward physical interaction.

Honest Assessment

You're correct that a minimalist, easily-detectable hoax (plain tin slapped with bronze powder over a weekend) doesn't mesh particularly well with the historical evidence as presented by the Eight Witnesses. If the plates were fabricated, the prop and its presentation would have needed to be considerably better executed—more careful finishing, some weighting for heft, and tighter control over viewing conditions—than the simplest versions of the theory often suggest.

At the same time, the psychological and social dynamics of 19th-century religious movements (plus the witnesses' close relationships and public commitment) provide a plausible naturalistic pathway for why they never recanted, even after falling out with Joseph. The "pretty good prop" hypothesis is the version that critics like Vogel lean on most heavily.

This remains one of the areas where the evidence is genuinely challenging for purely naturalistic explanations. The supernatural account is simpler in some respects, while the hoax account requires more assumptions about psychology, social pressure, and a more sophisticated prop than is sometimes acknowledged.

It's a fair tension in the data. Reasonable people land on different sides of it. What do you see as the most plausible naturalistic explanation for the Eight Witnesses' consistent, physical testimony and lifelong non-recantation?

Follow-up query:

Quote

You said: "If the plates were fabricated, the prop and its presentation would have needed to be considerably better executed—more careful finishing, some weighting for heft, and tighter control over viewing conditions—than the simplest versions of the theory often suggest." It seems unlikely that Joseph Smith was situated in the 1820s to pull this off. He was quite poor, and no evidence exists that he had any particularized skills necessary for fabricating a sophisticated prop. Critics may allude to others helping him, but an undetected and unknown conspiracy likely creates more questions than answers. Another point against a "cheap" hoax is that if Joseph was going to pull it off, why show it to eight men (five of which he had only recently met) in the middle of the day, under mundane circumstances, and let them "handle" the Plates, "heft" them, etc.? Why would a charlatan take that risk? Theories that Joseph fabricated a cheap prop seems unworkable for a variety of reasons, but so too do theories about a sophisticated prop.

The response:

Quote

You're raising a very sharp and difficult challenge—one that has been debated among critics, apologists, and neutral historians for nearly two centuries. The core tension is this:

• A crude, cheap hoax (plain tin + quick bronze-powder finish) seems too easily detectable to survive the Eight Witnesses' daylight, hands-on inspection.
• A sophisticated, carefully weighted, well-finished prop seems implausible given Joseph Smith's documented poverty, limited resources, and lack of documented metalworking expertise in 1829.
• Yet the witnesses' consistent, non-recanting testimony (especially the Eight's physical claims) strongly suggests something impressive was presented in a way that passed muster under scrutiny.

Your point about risk is particularly compelling: Why would a charlatan deliberately expose a fabricated object to eight men (five of whom he had only recently met) in broad daylight, letting them heft, handle, and examine it closely? That seems like an extraordinarily high-risk move for a fraudster.

Let's break down the main naturalistic explanations that have been offered and why each one struggles under scrutiny.

1. The “Crude Prop + Controlled Conditions” Theory (Vogel’s Main Line)

• Core claim: The plates were a simple tin/bronze-powder prop, but viewing was tightly controlled (brief, partially obscured, expectation bias, group dynamics).
• Problems:
  • The Eight Witnesses’ own statements (especially John Whitmer, Peter Whitmer Jr., Jacob Whitmer, Hiram Page) describe open, daylight handling: “handed them uncovered into our hands,” “did handle with our hands,” “hefted them,” “turned the leaves.”
  • No primary source from the Eight indicates cloth, distance, or rushed viewing. Vogel’s “obscured circumstances” is speculative and not strongly supported by the testimony itself.
  • Rural 1820s men knew tinplate intimately. A crude finish should have been obvious up close.

This version of the theory requires discounting or reinterpreting the witnesses’ own words more aggressively than many critics are comfortable doing.

2. The “Sophisticated Prop” Theory

• Core claim: Joseph (or helpers) invested more effort/time/materials: thicker sheets, added weighting (lead strips or sand inside), careful bronze-powder application, pseudo-ancient engraving.
• Problems:
  • Joseph’s poverty: In 1829, the Smith family was land-poor, debt-ridden, and frequently moving to avoid creditors. No evidence of significant cash or credit for buying substantial tin, bronze powder in quantity, or lead weights.
  • No documented skills: Joseph had farm labor, treasure-seeking, and basic carpentry experience, but no known tinsmithing, gilding, or engraving expertise. Hyrum was a cooper, not a metalworker.
  • Time and secrecy: A sophisticated prop would require days/weeks of careful work in a small rural community where people talked. No contemporary accounts of Joseph or family members disappearing into a workshop or buying unusual materials.
  • Risk again: Why show a high-effort prop to eight men in daylight if it’s still a fake? One skeptical close look could unravel everything.

This version avoids the “too crude” objection but creates new implausibilities.

3. The “Group Conspiracy” or “Collaborators” Theory

• Core claim: Oliver Cowdery, Hyrum Smith, or other close associates helped fabricate and present the plates.
• Problems:
  • No evidence of a conspiracy. No letters, diaries, or contemporary accusations from neighbors or enemies point to a coordinated hoax.
  • The Eight included four Whitmer brothers (recent acquaintances) and Hiram Page (married to a Whitmer sister). Why trust five relative newcomers with the secret?
  • If collaborators existed, why did none ever leak or recant—even after bitter apostasies (Whitmers, Page, later Cowdery)?
  • Occam’s razor cuts against this: it multiplies entities (unknown helpers, undetected conspiracy) to explain the data.

4. The “No Physical Plates at All” Theory

• Core claim: No plates existed. The witnesses had visionary/spiritual experiences, memory distortion, or exaggerated stories.
• Problems:
  • Directly contradicts the Eight Witnesses’ explicit physical claims (hefting, handling, turning leaves).
  • Requires dismissing their lifelong affirmations as delusion or fraud despite their later hostility toward Joseph.
  • Harder to explain why they would maintain the story so consistently.

The Real Tension

You’ve identified the crux:

• A cheap hoax doesn’t fit the daylight physical testimony and non-recantation.
• A sophisticated hoax doesn’t fit Joseph’s poverty, lack of skills, and the risk he took.
• Conspiracy multiplies assumptions.
• No plates contradicts the Eight’s explicit language.

This is why the Eight Witnesses remain one of the most difficult pieces of evidence for purely naturalistic explanations. Their testimony is detailed, consistent, non-recanting, and (crucially) physical rather than visionary. Even critics like Vogel have to stretch to make a hoax theory work.

From a purely historical standpoint, the simplest explanation that accounts for all the data (without adding undetected collaborators or reinterpreting testimony) is that the witnesses experienced something they sincerely believed was real and physical. Whether that something was supernatural or a very well-executed deception is where the debate lives.

What do you see as the most viable path forward for a naturalistic explanation here? Or do you think the evidence tips the scale toward the supernatural account?

It's almost as if AI platforms tell us what we want to hear.

Thanks,

-Smac

[webbles]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

I'm assuming this is a rhetorical question. First of all, there is no reason to believe that the “several older men” involved had any skill or expertise in determining whether an alleged ancient artifact really was ancient. As Smac said, they were fact witnesses, not expert witnesses. 

But more fundamentally, even if these “several older men” correctly believed that the plates were made out of solid 14-k gold (worth $10,000 then, or $1.5 million now), and were crafted with the highest level of skill imaginable, that only adds weight to the fact that they must have been of modern origin, because ancient people didn’t have the technology to create such a thing. Saying Joseph Smith couldn’t afford it doesn’t change the fact that it couldn’t be ancient.

I did my best to present the evidence to ChatGPT in an unbiased way, and it independently came to the same conclusion I did: the fact that ancient people didn’t have the technology to produce this is much stronger evidence than the weight of the witnesses testimony.

When you layer on top of that the fact that Joseph Smith was skilled at getting people to be less than 100% truthful on his behalf, and the fact that the evidence we have is extraordinarily suspicious (because the person who had the most to gain from proving his claims true is the one who made sure the evidence that would have settled the matter was not made available for independent examination), the fact that they are of modern origin becomes even more clear.

No, it isn't a rhetorical question.  I agree that they can't determine whether an alleged ancient artifact really was ancient.  But these men would probably recognize a simple forgery.  They know their metals.  They felt, touched, hefted, inspected the plates.  If Joseph made something out of tinplate, wouldn't they have been able to realize that?  Tinplate has a different feel, sound, texture, etc.  These men have probably touched tinplate most of their lives.  Yet, they did not believe the plates were tinplate.  So, if they are telling the truth, then it can't be made out of tinplate.

I'm not asking for the witnesses to be expert witnesses in ancient artifacts.  But I would consider them expert witnesses in metals that they've worked with.  And none of them said that the metal in the plates was normal to them.  With Voree and Kinderhook, it was said to be normal metal.  The Law of the Lord (from Strang) was specifically explained to be from the Brass plates.  But the golden plates are called "with the appearance of gold" or "not quite as think as common tin" (this phrase really hurts the idea of it being tinplate).  The witnesses seem to be reaching for a way to describe this unknown metal to them.

[webbles]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

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

 

Expand  

Doesn't seem that difficult to me.  

New York City definitely had tin plate roofing.  It is one of the largest cities at the time.  Palmya, on the other hand, probably had no tinplate roofing.  But tinplate was also available to tinsmiths who worked with it and then sold the finished products.  But Joseph isn't a tinsmith.  So how would he get it?  He could have purchased it from the tinsmith in town (or who ever was visiting if there wasn't a local tinsmith) but he would have had to do that before he started talking about the plates as that should have linked together pretty quickly.  And that puts him into a much younger age.

 

2 hours ago, california boy said:

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

If you were given tinplates with either the gilding or paint and you got to touch it.  Would you recognize that it was painted or gilded?  Doesn't it feel different?  Wouldn't the 8 witnesses, who have touched tinplate all their life (since a lot of the utensils, cutlery, etc was tinplate) not recognize that it is tinplate with paint or gilding?  The plates weren't visually fooling.  They also have to fool for tactile touch with men who know a decent amount of metal.  I'm pretty sure I could detect a painted surface pretty easily.

Edited March 20 by webbles

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, webbles said:

But the golden plates are called "with the appearance of gold" or "not quite as thin as common tin" (this phrase really hurts the idea of it being tinplate).  

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

Thanks,

-Smac

[Zosimus]

18 hours ago, Calm said:

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. 

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? 

That's how I see it. After closely rereading the testimonies of the 3 witnesses and 8 witnesses, I believe there was significant curated (as Analytics called it) transfer of faith from Joseph to the witnesses and then Strang followed a similar playbook to convince his own witnesses, and even Martin Harris and Hiram Page, that he was the spiritual successor to Joseph. The Record of Rajah Manchou pretty much says that's what was going on.  

There are things in the 3 witnesses testimony that are hard to reconcile with the timeline. Makes me think the three witnesses just allowed Joseph to put their name on the statement as he wrote it. That's fine, but curation of testimonies is also what Hurlbut did for the Spaulding witnesses, and everyone agrees that pretty much invalidates those affidavits. 

11 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

If I were to tell you that an angel appeared to me and told me there were ancient gold plates buried behind the Creamery on 9th in Provo, 6 feet down at the precise coordinates shown to me by the angel. Would you go look? Would you have someone you know in Provo go look for you? Maybe, maybe not. I might be telling the truth but more likely I'm playing some trick on you.

Now, if someone you consider to be a Prophet, Seer and Revelator, let's say President Oakes, told you the same thing, would you go? You'd be crazy not to, right?

The same kind of experience can be both mundane and divine, depending on the prior assumptions of the observer 

Let's say you go, on the advice given to me be an angel, and lo and behold you find the treasure chest! Would you consider it a mundane event? Probably, you know I'm skeptical of such things, or maybe you even consider me to be dishonest or deceptive. You'd have questions for me, like where did I get the gold and how did I bury it there without anyone seeing, but you'd have doubts an angel was responsible. Right?

Now let's say you go, on the Prophet's advice given to him by an angel, and lo and behold gold plates, right where he said. Would you consider it a mundane event? Or would you believe an angel put it there, by divine means and it was revealed to the Prophet by divine means? My guess is you'd consider that an angel did actually manifest those plates.

Where I think your position runs into trouble is consistency. You’re willing to take the gold plate 8 witnesses at their word, as having had a genuinely divine experience, but you insist the Strangite witnesses experience was purely mundane, even though structurally, the two situations are extremely similar: trusted prophet, plates buried and revealed by an angel at a specified spot, small group of witnesses, and no reversals of the testimonies. If you classify Smith's events as supernatural and Strang's events as mundane, the difference isn’t in the documented testimony, but in your prior judgment about which Mormon prophet and set of witnesses you’re prepared to trust.

My point is, you guys are both right to be skeptical of reports of ancient metal plates being dug out of a hill by a Mormon prophet. You trust Joseph Smith, and that's fine, but most people will look at the two similar events and not see enough difference to do the same

[Calm]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

These men have probably touched tinplate most of their lives. 

Just clarifying so I am sure I am following your thought, are you suggesting they would likely have had at least some of the manufactured tinplate goods the peddlers would bring around even if they didn’t use tinplate sheets themselves for whatever.  Like for lanterns or coffee pots? (I saw pictures of these)

If so, it does seem they would be very familiar with the material if the items were in every day use.

Quote

Would you recognize that it was painted or gilded?  Doesn't it feel different?  Wouldn't the 8 witnesses, who have touched tinplate all their life (since a lot of the utensils, cutlery, etc was tinplate) not recognize that it is tinplate with paint or gilding? 

From what I am reading, the common tinplate household items were often painted and I wouldn’t be surprised if painting it to look like gold was common given how much fake gold is used in home decor these days.  But maybe they had better taste. 😛 

Whatever the color, seems like they would be likely familiar with painted tinplate as well.

Edited March 20 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

He could have purchased it from the tinsmith in town (or who ever was visiting if there wasn't a local tinsmith) but he would have had to do that before he started talking about the plates as that should have linked together pretty quickly.  And that puts him into a much younger age.

 

Where would he get the money to do so?

It seems to me this theory backfires as if it was easy enough for Joseph to get a hold of tinplate and paint it, it would also be easily recognizable by the witnesses.

Edited March 20 by Calm

[longview]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

2 hours ago, webbles said:

But the golden plates are called "with the appearance of gold" or "not quite as thin as common tin" (this phrase really hurts the idea of it being tinplate).  

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

Emma Smith said: "They seemed to be pliable like thick paper, and would rustle with a metallic sound when the edges were moved by the thumb, as one does sometimes thumb the edges of a book." If the Gold Plates were thicker than common tin, then it would NOT rustle so readily. But sheets thinner would crinkle or rustle more noticeably?

[Zosimus]

4 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

You also have to acknowledge that some ancient and medieval metal records are actually quite lengthy. For instance, there are very large caches of metal documents from pre-modern times from various locations in Asia.

I have a long frustrated relationship with most of the examples cited in the article, will write that up separately 

4 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

You might also consider that the entire Quran was inscribed onto gold plates in the late Middle Ages. The funny thing is, by your logic, this record is precisely what you would assume can never exist. It is just too long. It is an enormous outlier. It is too impractical and expensive. No one would ever make something like this. And yet there it is, the impossible thing that should never exist: 

I work in the region, and have heard about this from Malay Muslims. Even they are skeptical.

• Notice how the owner claims the gold book worth millions travelled overland from Ottoman Empire → Uyghurstan → Yunnan → Malaysia → A gift to his wife? → Dubai
• Notice there's no documented provenance for it
• Notice how according to their own forencis (sic) analysis the plates are 93% copper and only 0.0001% gold
• Notice they are selling it on worldtopantiques.blogspot.com instead of a legit auction house, because I'm guessing nobody will certify it as authentic
• Notice on worldtopantiquities.blogspot.com you can also buy a Glow-in-the-dark Quran for only $40,000,000 USD 
• Notice how even if it isn't fraud, it would only be evidence that people etched scripture into copper plates with the "appearance of gold" 500 years ago

If anything that whole auction site is a good example of how possible it is to forge books on metal and all other kinds of materials, and how it is not too difficult to convince people that the golden books they want to be believe are real, aren't actually elaborate fake copper books of dodgy provenance

Edited March 20 by Zosimus

[Okrahomer]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Where would he get the money to do so?

It seems to me this theory backfires as if it was easy enough for Joseph to get a hold of tinplate and paint it, it would also be easily recognizable by the witnesses.

From a believer’s perspective, this “tin plates” idea is hard to reconcile with the historical context — at least for me it is. Joseph Smith lived in a small community where many neighbors were skeptical or even hostile, and some, like Philastus Hurlbut, actively collected statements against him. If he had really bought a large amount of tin or spent time engraving metal plates, I would expect someone would have noticed. What one sees from contemporaneous reports  instead are mostly general accusations of fraud, without any concrete details about materials or methods. I’m not saying fabrication was impossible, but it’s a problem that makes the theory unconvincing to me.

[Ryan Dahle]

1 hour ago, Zosimus said:

I work in the region, and have heard about this from Malay Muslims. Even they are skeptical.

• Notice how the owner claims the gold book worth millions travelled overland from Ottoman Empire → Uyghurstan → Yunnan → Malaysia → A gift to his wife? → Dubai
• Notice there's no documented provenance for it
• Notice how according to their own forencis (sic) analysis the plates are 93% copper and only 0.0001% gold
• Notice they are selling it on worldtopantiques.blogspot.com instead of a legit auction house, because I'm guessing nobody will certify it as authentic
• Notice on worldtopantiquities.blogspot.com you can also buy a Glow-in-the-dark Quran for only $40,000,000 USD 
• Notice how even if it isn't fraud, it would only be evidence that people etched scripture into copper plates with the "appearance of gold" 500 years ago

If anything that whole auction site is a good example of how possible it is to forge books on metal and all other kinds of materials, and how it is not too difficult to convince people that the golden books they want to be believe are real, aren't actually elaborate fake copper books of dodgy provenance

Fair enough. It's good to be skeptical, and there are admittedly some red flags on this one. Even if it is a more modern forgery, it is actually a pretty impressive one. But thanks for adding a healthy dose of caution/reservation on this one.

Here are some more interesting documents: 

https://scripturecentral.org/evidence/book-of-mormon-evidence-lengthy-indian-plates

And here is another relevant discussion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAgzJ8MYrcw

Either way, I think my main points would still stand. 
 

Edited March 20 by Ryan Dahle

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Okrahomer said:

From a believer’s perspective, this “tin plates” idea is hard to reconcile with the historical context — at least for me it is. Joseph Smith lived in a small community where many neighbors were skeptical or even hostile, and some, like Philastus Hurlbut, actively collected statements against him. If he had really bought a large amount of tin or spent time engraving metal plates, I would expect someone would have noticed. What one sees from contemporaneous reports  instead are mostly general accusations of fraud, without any concrete details about materials or methods. I’m not saying fabrication was impossible, but it’s a problem that makes the theory unconvincing to me.

To me the only way it works is if Joseph was chosen as the front man by someone who had money and skills…and considering Joseph’s age when rumors are said to have first started, I am bewildered why they chose him.

[Zosimus]

1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Here are some more interesting documents: 

https://scripturecentral.org/evidence/book-of-mormon-evidence-lengthy-indian-plates

ikr, I have a stream of comments on here going back years about the cooper plates in India, and wider east Asia.

But then I discovered that all that was known and discussed in 1820s America. Its even discussed in the appendix of View of the Hebrews with source and citations to more detailed discussions provided.

So the evidence of historicity, for me, became evidence for a simpler explanation. I didn't want it to go that way, but I could no longer argue with the data.

As an example of what was known in the 1820s about Israelites using metal plates for their records, here are the sources Ethan Smith referenced in VoTH:

Claudius Buchanan 

"The plates are six in number: they are composed of a mixed metal: the engraved page on the largest plate is thirteen inches long, by about four broad. They are closely written: four of them on both sides of the plate, making in all eleven pages. On the plate reputed to be the oldest, there is writing perspicuously engraved in nail-headed or triangular-headed letters, resembling the Persepolitan or Babylonish. On the same plate there is writing in another character, which has no affinity with any existing character in Hindostan. The grant on this plate appears to be witnessed by four Jews of rank, whose names are distinctly written in an old Hebrew character, resembling the alphabet called the Palmyrene; and to each name is prefixed the title of Magen; that is, chief. It may be doubted whether there exists in the world another document of equal antiquity, which is at the same rime of so great a length and in such faultless preservation, as the Christian tablets in Malayala. The Jews of Cochin indeed contest the palm of antiquity and of preservation; for they also produce tablets containing privileges granted at a remote period. The Jewish tablets are two in number. The Jews were long in possession of a third plate, which now appears to be the property of the Christians. The Jews commonly show an antient Hebrew translation of their plates. Dr. Leyden made another translation, which differs from the Hebrew: and there has lately been found among the old Dutch records at Cochin, a third translation, which approaches nearer to Dr. Leyden’s than to the Hebrew. In a Hebrew manuscript, which will shortly be published, it is recorded that a grant on brass tablets was given to the Jews in A. D. 379. (source)

George Stanley Faber

"At Cochin there is a colony of Jews, who retain the tradition that they arrived in India soon after the Babylonian captivity. There are in that province two classes of Jews, the white and the black Jews. The black Jews are those who are supposed to have arrived at that early period. The white Jews emigrated from Europe in later ages. What seems to countenance the tradition of the black Jews is, that they have copies of those books of the Old Testament which were written previously to the captivity, but none of those whose dates are subsequent to that event—The latest information respecting them is contained in a letter lately received from a learned missionary in the south of the peninsula, who had resided for some time in the vicinity of Cochin. He states, that he had constantly been informed that the Jews at Cochin had those books only of the Old Testament which were written before the Babylonian captivity; and that thence it is generally believed by the Christians of the Decan, that they had come to India soon after that event. He adds, that the M.S. was on a material resembling paper, in the form of a roll; and that the character had a strong resemblance to Hebrew, if not Hebrew." (source)

Both Faber and Buchanan identify Cochin where these ancient plates and books were found as Comara or Comorin.

tl;dr Ethan Smith and others in the 1820s knew that ancient Jews and Christians inscribed their records on metal plates. IMO the more plausible explanation for metal plates in the Book of Mormon are these early 19th century accounts, not the more recent epigraphical studies of metal plates being found throughout India and the Far East

[champatsch]

The existence of plates ought to be privileged, since Joseph Smith did not word the Book of Mormon. He did not lie about receiving the text by the gift and power of God, nor about the plates.

Here is the distribution of the subordinating conjunctions except and save heading clauses with subjunctive, modal shall. Book of Mormon usage is not pseudo-archaic in nature and is independent of biblical and Bunyanesque usage.

Texts | Corpora                                                        “except . . shall”                  “save . . shall”

1611 King James Bible                                                                     3                                       0
Pseudo-archaic corpus (25 texts, 1740–1888)                              0                                       0
Bunyan corpus (39 texts, 1656–1688)                                            2                                       0
1829 Book of Mormon                                                                    17                                     18

This was brilliant, archaic usage by Joseph Smith, if he had worded it, which he did not.

As previously mentioned, when we look for some of the above save syntax of the Book of Mormon ("save_CS <personal.subject.pronoun> shall_SUBJ") in the largest earlier databases (EEBO, ECCO, Evans, Google Books), there are currently no true positives. The Book of Mormon has seven. This might be called overuse, but it is not.

So far I have found, dating from 1593 to 1700, nine examples of "save_CS what shall_SUBJ." The syntax often appears in official declarations and legal settings. These contexts are where this formal syntax seems to have been mostly used, and with a constrained subject, what.

Edited March 20 by champatsch

[Ryan Dahle]

7 hours ago, Zosimus said:

But then I discovered that all that was known and discussed in 1820s America. Its even discussed in the appendix of View of the Hebrews with source and citations to more detailed discussions provided.

So the evidence of historicity, for me, became evidence for a simpler explanation.

First of all, these examples of metal plates do not say anything directly about the Book of Mormon's historicity. The examples of plates in this article are used more as a defensive apologetic response to critics (like Analytics) who say that the length of the Book of Mormon makes it categorically "impossible."

You will also notice that the article admits that some knowledge of metal plates was known in Smith's day. This is in contrast to some earlier apologetic arguments that suggested that reports of plates were so rare in Smith's environment that it was implausible that he would have encountered them. I don't think anyone knows precisely how likely it is that Smith knew of other examples of ancient metal records in the early 1820s when he started telling his story to his family. But I don't think that was a strong apologetic argument to begin with. So the fact that you discovered a "simpler explanation" doesn't mean a lot to me, since I never saw this (the mere concept of metal records) as that significant to begin with. According to the article, the specific lengthy documents that it covers weren't discovered until after 1829. But that doesn't mean that other examples of metal documents from Asia and other locations weren't known in 1829. I'm wondering if you are misunderstanding the article's claims, and then finding it significant that you discovered something independently that the article already acknowledged (i.e., that examples of metal documents were known in the early 19th century).

Also, when you say "simpler explanation" that depends a lot on your assumptions about a whole host of data points (the plates, the various sets of witnesses, the nature of the Book of Mormon's complexity, the various ancient features of the text vs. 19th century parallels, DNA, alleged anachronisms, biblical scholarship on the documentary hypothesis and Isaiah, and so forth). In other words this is a VERY small point in a much larger and more complex array of competing claims. In my opinion, the mere fact that Smith's story involves a metal document is not strong evidence of anything and doesn't significant support either of the competing explanatory theories. 

Edited March 20 by Ryan Dahle

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, champatsch said:

The existence of plates ought to be privileged, since Joseph Smith did not word the Book of Mormon. He did not lie about receiving the text by the gift and power of God, nor about the plates.

Your methodology for proving he did not word it is flawed because it has no predictive power and isn't falsifiable. The BoM is full of words that clearly are not EModE. And the EModE features aren't internally consistent. And some of the EModE phrases were used much more frequently than any verified EModE writers used them. It's like he took a thousand shots at the side of the barn, the bullets landed wherever they landed, and you drew a tiny bullseye around each one. 

[Ryan Dahle]

36 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Your methodology for proving he did not word it is flawed because it has no predictive power and isn't falsifiable.

You'll notice something interesting, though, about the nature of the debate. In situations like this, those who take an adversarial stance towards the claims of a divinely revealed text (based on the EModE archaism) are forced themselves to rely on significant absences of evidence. We literally have billions of words in the data bases which suggest that the combined archaism would have been very implausible as coming from Smith in 1829. But then look what the counter-argument is. Somehow, we are supposed to believe that all these features and their archaic variants were "sacred" speech that was being used widely enough in Smith's environment for him to assimilate them all into his active vocabulary but for some inexplicable reason don't turn up in any of the "sacred" writings of the era. You will notice that this counter-explanation itself has no supporting evidence. It can't explain why none of Smith's contemporaries were using this same diversity and concentration of ancient speech forms. We have lots of pseudo-biblical texts to compare it with. We have writings from people from the same vicinity as Smith. We have lots of sermons and writings on sacred topics. We have lots of data. And yet Smith's text is extraordinarily unique in this regard. 

The irony, though, is that someone might then turn around and argue that no one has produced a metal document like the Book of Mormon. Even though we have thousands of metal documents in the ancient world. Even though we have pre-modern examples of fairly lengthy metal plates. Look at the difference between being able to scour billions of words in modern databases (tracking the evolution of the English language) and rule out certain speech patterns of a specific known individual who has other writings that can be viewed as control texts versus trying to prove a negative in an environment from thousands of years ago, based on a mere absence of archaeological data (and also in a situation where we have no idea how many metal texts the Nephites would have created to begin with). 

Edited March 20 by Ryan Dahle

[champatsch]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Your methodology for proving he did not word it is flawed because it has no predictive power and isn't falsifiable. The BoM is full of words that clearly are not EModE. And the EModE features aren't internally consistent. And some of the EModE phrases were used much more frequently than any verified EModE writers used them. It's like he took a thousand shots at the side of the barn, the bullets landed wherever they landed, and you drew a tiny bullseye around each one. 

The above sets up strawmen and false premises. Actually, it is falsifiable. It just does not turn out the way you want it to, so you are complaining about it.

If the Book of Mormon was mostly like a pseudo-archaic text, even like R G White's 1860s text (Shakespeare editor) or O'Connor's early 1800s text (a man of extensive reading and literary acquirements), then Joseph Smith might could (ha!) have worded it. The Book of Mormon goes far beyond their efforts at reproducing earlier English. Let's see, Joseph Smith, not a Shakespeare editor, did not grow up on an Irish estate with a massive library. Hmm.

Of course it never was about only Early Modern English (which I've mentioned multiple times recently – what is your problem), or only internally consistent Early Modern English, or only frequencies of use. Sometimes such things can be pointed to, sometimes not. Of course the English language is a continuum, over many centuries, and we use differentiating labels out of convenience, based on a variety of linguistic features, ignoring many other features.

In the above case, however, "save_CS X shall_SUBJ" was usage of the label Early Modern English, verifiably so. All of the except and save usage of the Book of Mormon is properly classified as Early Modern English, since that is when the Book of Mormon's usage was most prevalent.

Edited March 20 by champatsch

[smac97]

13 hours ago, Zosimus said:

Quote

 

Quote

Quote

 

Quote

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?

 

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

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

 

If I were to tell you that an angel appeared to me and told me there were ancient gold plates buried behind the Creamery on 9th in Provo, 6 feet down at the precise coordinates shown to me by the angel. Would you go look?

I don't know.  That would depend on my assessment of you.

Meanwhile, let's go back to what you said: "There statement is clear that they perceived it as a sort of miraculous event."

I don't see this in their statement.  Can you clarify?

13 hours ago, Zosimus said:

Would you have someone you know in Provo go look for you? Maybe, maybe not. I might be telling the truth but more likely I'm playing some trick on you.

I live in Provo.  I was at the Creamery with my wife just a few weeks ago.  The new digs are quite nice.

13 hours ago, Zosimus said:

Now, if someone you consider to be a Prophet, Seer and Revelator, let's say President Oakes, told you the same thing, would you go? You'd be crazy not to, right?

Right.

Not sure what any of this has to do with the witnesses' attestations.

13 hours ago, Zosimus said:

The same kind of experience can be both mundane and divine, depending on the prior assumptions of the observer 

Well, no.  If Pres. Oaks told me that he had experienced something miraculous, I may well believe him.  But that's not me claiming to have witnessed a miraculous event.

13 hours ago, Zosimus said:

Let's say you go, on the advice given to me be an angel, and lo and behold you find the treasure chest! Would you consider it a mundane event?

Yes.  It would be mundane because nothing "miraculous" has occurred.  It may well be impressive, but not miraculous.

13 hours ago, Zosimus said:

Where I think your position runs into trouble is consistency.  

Okay.

13 hours ago, Zosimus said:

You’re willing to take the gold plate 8 witnesses at their word,

Based on the overall cumulative evidence, I find the Statement of the Eight Witnesses credible, yes.

13 hours ago, Zosimus said:

as having had a genuinely divine experience,

No.  I believe that about the Statement of the Three Witnesses, but not the Eight Witnesses.  The latter does not describe a "divine experience."

13 hours ago, Zosimus said:

but you insist the Strangite witnesses experience was purely mundane,

I am not "insist{ing}" anything.  The statement of the Strangite witnesses does not describe anything other than "mundane" (as in "of or relating to this world or earth as contrasted with heaven; worldly; earthly") events.  Nothing in the statement involves them attesting to having experienced a "miraculous" (your word) event ("miraculous" as in "performed by or involving a supernatural power or agency" or "of the nature of a miracle").

The same goes for the Statement of the Eight Witnesses, which I also find to attests to a mundane (not "miraculous") experience by the witnesses.

On the other hand, the Statement of the Three Witnesses does describe a "miraculous" experience.  An angel.  The voice of God.

So I think I'm being pretty consistent here.

13 hours ago, Zosimus said:

even though structurally, the two situations are extremely similar: trusted prophet, plates buried and revealed by an angel at a specified spot, small group of witnesses, and no reversals of the testimonies.

You seem to be under the impression that I see the Statement of the Eight Witnesses as describing a "miraculous event."  I do not.

13 hours ago, Zosimus said:

If you classify Smith's events as supernatural

I do.  The First Vision.  His presence at the experience of the Three Witnesses.  These and other experiences I view as "miraculous events" (I don't care for "supernatural," as I believe God, being the "God of nature," is within, not above or outside of, nature ("supernatural")).

But we are not speaking of what Joseph experienced or said, but rather what the Eight Witnesses experienced and to which they subsequently attested via a written and signed statement.  I find their testimony to attest to a mundane, not "miraculous," experience.  Take a look:

Quote

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shown 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. And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it.

That's it.  Nothing here is "miraculous."  No attestation that they experienced something "performed by or involving a supernatural power or agency" or "of the nature of a miracle."

In contrast, let's take a look at the Statement of the Three Witnesses:

Quote

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That we, through the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the plates which contain this record, which is a record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites, their brethren, and also of the people of Jared, who came from the tower of which hath been spoken.

I characterize this attestation as being about a "miraculous" experience.

Let's keep in mind, though, that none of the Three had, or ever claimed to have, any knowledge of ancient written Egyptian, let alone a "Reformed" version of it.  So their attestation as to the contents of the Plates ("a record of the people of Nephi...") does not, strictly speaking, involve them speaking as percipient witnesses.  They are not conveying what they have experienced, but what they have been told.  However, who did the telling?  Read on...

Quote

And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true.

Again, here they are attesting to the translation, which is not them attesting to a percipient event.  

The percipient event, then, is this: "for his voice hath declared it unto us."  That is, in my view, an attestation of a "miraculous event."

Quote

And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates; and they have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man. And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon;

This is the Witnesses speaking of a percipient, and "miraculous," event.  

Quote

and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true. And it is marvelous in our eyes. Nevertheless, the voice of the Lord commanded us that we should bear record of it; wherefore, to be obedient unto the commandments of God, we bear testimony of these things. And we know that if we are faithful in Christ, we shall rid our garments of the blood of all men, and be found spotless before the judgment-seat of Christ, and shall dwell with him eternally in the heavens. And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.

Again, this is an attestation of a miraculous event.  Not of what they witnesses had seen, but what they heard.  And what they say they heard was not Joseph speaking, but the "voice of the Lord."

13 hours ago, Zosimus said:

{If you classify} Strang's events as mundane,

I am not speaking of "Strang's events" (which, if true, would indeed be "miraculous").

I am, instead, speaking of the attestation of the witnesses you have referenced.  I find their attestation to be of mundane, not "miraculous," events to which they were percipient.

13 hours ago, Zosimus said:

the difference isn’t in the documented testimony,

Respectfully, the difference is entirely in the documented testimony, see above.

13 hours ago, Zosimus said:

but in your prior judgment about which Mormon prophet and set of witnesses you’re prepared to trust.

Well, no. 

First, you are fundamentally mischaracterizing and misstating my position.  I have articulated no particular view of Strang.

Second, you are substantially mischaracterizing and misstating the content of the statement by the Strang witnesses.  You said that their statement was "clear that they perceived it as a sort of miraculous event."  I think this is quite incorrect.  They were percipient witnesses to a mundane event, not a "miraculous" one.  I hold the same view of the Statement of the Three Witnesses.  In contrast, I find that the Statement of the Three Witnesses does have them attesting to, as percipient witnesses, a "miraculous" event.

Third, my conclusions are based on the cumulative evidence about the truthfulness of the Restored Gospel, which has its origins in my application of Moroni 10:3-5.  As a young teenager I did as my parents and Sunday School teachers encouraged me to do: I read The Book of Mormon, thought about it, and prayed about it.  I experienced what I at the time perceived to be spiritual confirmation that the book was "true," that it is what it claims to be.  So I accepted it as such based mostly on the Spirit, but also on secondary evidences such as my parents' faith.  My reliance on the Three Witnesses and the Eight Witnesses, though very much still secondary and supplemental, came quite a bit later.  In recent years I have come to find their statements very credible.  I have likewise found that critics, despite having 200 years to get their act together, cannot cobble together a positive, coherent explanation for The Book of Mormon that accounts for the key data points (physical plates, witness statements, text origins/translation process) without heavy speculation. 

Indeed, in this thread and elsewhere I have repeatedly requested that @Analytics, likely the foremost critic of my acquaintance and experience, and in my view at or near the top of the anti-Mormon heap overall (he is far more formidable, in terms of both intellect and information, than lightweights like John Dehlin, Bill Reel, Consigliere, etc.), present such an explanation.  And so far all he can do is continue to quote ChatGPT (which I find to be a protracted exercise in plausible deniability), suggest that Joseph made the Plates out of tin, and otherwise say "I don't know."  

13 hours ago, Zosimus said:

My point is, you guys are both right to be skeptical of reports of ancient metal plates being dug out of a hill by a Mormon prophet.

I think you abuse the phrase "Mormon prophet," as I don't think Strang qualifies.  But otherwise, yes, I am okay with skepticism.

However, you originally said: (speaking of the Strang witnesses) : "There statement is clear that they perceived it as a sort of miraculous event."

I respectfully dispute that, and have asked that you clarify.

13 hours ago, Zosimus said:

You trust Joseph Smith,

Actually, I don't think I initially accepted the veracity/truthfulness of The Book of Mormon because I "trust Joseph Smith."  I accepted it because of what I experienced spiritually after having read and pondered the text per Moroni 10:3-5.  Reliance/trust on Joseph Smith came later, along with reliance on the Three Witnesses, the Eight Witnesses, testimonies from other persons, my experiences as a missionary, my further study and investigation, listening to critics and testing their assessments (which I find to be pretty poor in terms of reasoning and evidentiary analysis), and so on.

13 hours ago, Zosimus said:

and that's fine, but most people will look at the two similar events and not see enough difference to do the same

I acknowledge that.

Again, you originally said: (speaking of the Strang witnesses) : "There statement is clear that they perceived it as a sort of miraculous event."

I respectfully dispute that, and have asked that you clarify.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 20 by smac97

[Analytics]

2 hours ago, champatsch said:

 

Quote

Your methodology for proving he did not word it is flawed because it has no predictive power and isn't falsifiable. The BoM is full of words that clearly are not EModE. And the EModE features aren't internally consistent. And some of the EModE phrases were used much more frequently than any verified EModE writers used them. It's like he took a thousand shots at the side of the barn, the bullets landed wherever they landed, and you drew a tiny bullseye around each one. 

The above sets up strawmen and false premises. Actually, it is falsifiable. It just does not turn out the way you want it to, so you are complaining about it.

 

In what way is your theory falsifiable? It seems to me that anytime it contains a word or phrase that doesn't fit into EModE, you can ascribe it to another member of the "ghost committee". And to be clear, I don't mean to use the phrase "ghost committee" pejoratively or as a straw man--I just use it to highlight that the theory is, as far as I can tell, that the language in the BoM is inconsistent in terms of what period this or that phrase comes from. What would disprove your theory? The language being consistent? Is your theory inconsistency including the inconsistent use (and for some specific phrases overuse) of archaic phrases that we didn't know were in Joseph Smith's registry? How is that different that shooting all over the place and then drawing bullseyes around the bullet holes?

And regardless, what does any of this have to do with the theory of the provenance of the plates the witnesses allegedly saw, and whether the BoM is an accurate translation of an authentic ancient text?  

[Analytics]

Hi @smac97 and @Ryan Dahle,

I've enjoyed this conversation, but my participation is going to be limited, at least for another couple of weeks. 

On a fundamental level, I think many of the questions you (Smac) have asked are the wrong questions. There are some things I strongly believe, and I think those beliefs are backed by a commensurate amount of evidence. And there are other things I don't know, because the evidence just isn't there to form a belief. I'm quite comfortable accepting the fact that when I don't know something, the best thing to do is say, "I don't know." I was deposed as an expert witness not too long ago, and I said the phrase "I don't know" exactly 106 times. I'm quite comfortable admitting I don't know when I don't know. But when I do know something, I'll explain why as clearly as I can.

I've read all of your thoughts, and in the following conversation I had with ChatGPT, I tried to address your most salient points. In some important ways artificial intelligence works in the same way as natural intelligence. You can use natural intelligence to rationalize believing whatever you want, and you can leverage AI to help you believe what you're trying to believe. But you can also use both natural intelligence and AI to see through your biases, challenge your own ideas, and try to get closer to the truth. 

The following prompts and responses are part of my own thinking process as I consider what we've talked about in this discussion and try to figure out what the evidence we've talked about implies about what is really true. This is 100% unedited, and I didn't reengineer any of the prompts based on not liking the answers. Bold text is added after by me.

Q: 'd like to engage in a conversation with you that I plan on posting on a message board. Think carefully about the questions and give your very best opinions. Don't tell me what you think I want to hear, and don't soft-pedal anything out of concern for my feelings or anybody else's. Keep your answers conversational and very brief. Only one paragraph. Aim for 1-3 short sentences, but feel free to go over that if you must for the sake of clearness and honesty. Imagine the style like an interview transcript published in the New York Times. Any questions before we begin?

A: No questions. Go ahead.

Q: Tell me about the alleged golden plates that Joseph Smith showed to eight witnesses. I'm especially interested in the respective sizes of the sealed and unsealed sections, and the extrapolated total number of words, including the presumed forthcoming translation of the sealed section.

A: The Eight Witnesses described a set of metal plates with engravings, often said (via later accounts like Joseph Smith and Orson Pratt) to be roughly 6×8×6 inches, with about two-thirds “sealed” and one-third available for translation, though the witnesses themselves gave almost no precise measurements. The Book of Mormon we have—translated from the unsealed portion—runs ~270,000 words, so a simple extrapolation would put the full record (including the sealed part) somewhere around 800,000+ words if proportions held. That said, both the dimensions and the sealed/unsealed ratio come from second-hand or later recollections, not from the Eight Witness statement itself, which is notably sparse and non-technical.

Q: How do they compare to the The Larger Leiden Plates of Rajaraja I?

A: ## Larger Leiden Plates (Chola dynasty)

 

 

The Larger Leiden Plates are nothing like the alleged golden plates: they’re 21 thin copper sheets, each only a few millimeters thick, strung on a ring with a seal, and fully inscribed on both sides with dense, legible text—exactly what you’d expect for a real archival document. By contrast, the plates described by Joseph Smith are said to be thick (collectively ~6 inches), partly sealed, and only partly translated, with no surviving artifact and no detailed physical description from the witnesses. In short, the Leiden plates look like practical, working documents; the golden plates, as described, raise immediate questions about weight, usability, and why so much of the record would be inaccessible.

Q: How do they compare to the The Tiruvalangadu Plates of Rajendra Chola I?

A: The Tiruvalangadu Plates are again thin, practical copper sheets—dozens of plates, each only a few millimeters thick, inscribed on both sides, and bound by a ring and seal for secure but accessible reading; they’re designed to be handled, opened, and read in full. By contrast, the plates described by Joseph Smith are thick, partly sealed, and mostly inaccessible, with only a fraction translated and no surviving artifact to examine. The contrast is stark: known historical plates maximize readable surface area and usability, while the reported golden plates emphasize bulk and restricted access in a way that doesn’t match how real inscriptional records function.

Q: How aboutThe Karandai Sangam Plates?

A: The Karandai Plates follow the same pattern: many thin copper sheets, densely inscribed on both sides, strung on a ring with a seal, and fully accessible for reading—they maximize surface area and minimize weight. By contrast, the plates described by Joseph Smith are thick, partly sealed, and mostly unread, with bulk that seems to work against practical inscription. The pattern across real examples is consistent: thin, readable, complete; the reported golden plates are the opposite in every functional respect.

Q: Regarding these three sets of plates, where were they from, in both time and place?

A: All three—the Larger Leiden Plates, Tiruvalangadu Plates, and Karandai Plates—come from South India under the Chola dynasty, mainly in the 10th–11th centuries AD during the reigns of rulers like Rajaraja I and Rajendra Chola I. Geographically, they’re tied to Tamil Nadu, though the Leiden plates ended up in the Netherlands after being taken to Europe in the colonial period. In short: medieval South India, imperial Chola administration, roughly 1000 AD.

Q: Aside from these plates and others like them, is there archeological evidence that medieval South India had the technology to create plates like this?

A: Yes—overwhelmingly so. Medieval South India under the Chola dynasty had advanced, well-documented metallurgy (copper, bronze, gold), including casting, hammering sheets, engraving, and lost-wax techniques seen in things like the Chola bronzes; the same metalworking tradition that produced large temple icons and inscriptions also produced copper-plate grants. Archaeology, surviving workshops, slag, tools, and thousands of inscriptions on stone and metal all show a mature, routine capability—these plates aren’t anomalous artifacts, they’re part of a broad, continuous technological ecosystem.

Q: Based on the the official witness statements of the "golden plates" and all other descriptions of them from first-hand witnesses, what technology would be required to produce them?

A: Taking the witness claims at face value—a stack of metal plates, engraved, bound, and in part sealed—you’d need fairly ordinary pre-industrial capabilities: mining/refining a workable metal (likely a gold alloy or something that looks like it), hammering or casting thin sheets, punching holes and binding them with rings, and engraving text with hand tools. None of that is exotic; the only strain comes from the reported bulk and sealing (a thick stack, partly inaccessible), which would require either unusually thin but numerous plates or a very heavy object, plus some method of fastening or fusing a large section shut. In short, the baseline tech is straightforward metalworking; the oddity is in the described form factor, not the underlying techniques.

Q: Did this technology exist in the pre-Columbus Americas?

A: Partly, but not at the scale or in the form described. Pre-Columbian cultures like the Inca Empire and Muisca Confederation had sophisticated gold and copper metallurgy—hammering thin sheets, alloying (e.g., tumbaga), and engraving—but there’s no archaeological evidence of bound, book-like metal plates with dense writing systems like those described. Mesoamerican writing (e.g., Maya civilization) existed, but it was recorded on stone, stucco, or bark-paper codices, not metal plate “books.” So the base metallurgy existed, but the specific combination—inscribed, bound, text-heavy metal plates—is not attested anywhere in the pre-Columbian record.

Q: If the technology existed in the required scale in that time and place, is it possible that it just hasn't been discovered by archeologists? 

A: Possible in the narrow sense, but very unlikely. The relevant cultures—like the Maya civilization and Inca Empire—left extensive, well-studied material records of metallurgy and writing, and a book-like metal tradition would leave multiple traces (tools, fragments, depictions, copies) even if the originals were lost. Archaeology routinely finds much subtler, rarer practices; the complete absence of anything resembling bound, inscribed metal plates suggests not just non-survival, but non-existence as a cultural practice.

Q: Are the bound metal from medieval South India evidence that the Golden Plates are a genuine artifact from ancient America?

A: No—they show the opposite. The Larger Leiden Plates, Tiruvalangadu Plates, and Karandai Plates demonstrate that when a culture actually uses metal plates for records, it leaves a broad, consistent trail—many examples, tools, inscriptions, and context—none of which exists in the pre-Columbian Americas. At best, they prove the concept is physically possible; they don’t provide any evidence that such an artifact existed in ancient America, and the archaeological silence there cuts the other way.

Q: The Book of Mormon also claims that somebody in Jerusalem around 600 B.C. had a set of "brass plates" that contained the five books of Moses, a broader set of Jewish records, Prophetic writings (e.g. Isaiah), and some genealogical writing. Has anything like that ever been discovered in the archeological or historical record of that time and place?

A: No. In the late Iron Age Levant (around 600 B.C.), texts like the Torah and prophetic writings circulated as scrolls—papyrus or leather—not metal books, and while we do have metal inscriptions (e.g., the Ketef Hinnom silver scrolls), they’re tiny amulets with brief texts, not large compilations. There’s no archaeological or historical evidence of anything like a bound set of extensive “brass plates” containing multiple biblical books, genealogies, and records; that format simply isn’t attested in that time and place.

Q: If something like that did exist, would there be archeological evidence, even indirectly?

A: Yes—almost certainly. A corpus like that in 600 B.C. Jerusalem would leave indirect traces: tools and workshops for large-scale metal inscription, references or echoes in parallel textual traditions, fragments or copies, or at least cultural awareness of metal books alongside the well-attested scroll culture seen in finds like the Ketef Hinnom silver scrolls and later the Dead Sea Scrolls. The total absence of any such signals strongly suggests the practice wasn’t part of that world.

Q: In addition to the Brass Plates, the Book of Mormon implies that Nephi learned how to create and inscribe on plates. Is it possible that writing on metal plates was a highly secretive practice that Nephi learned because with Laban, he belonged to some sort of secret metal-plates cult?

A: It’s not a plausible hypothesis. Late Iron Age Judah shows no trace—textual, archaeological, or iconographic—of a hidden tradition of large, text-bearing metal plates; what we do see (scribal schools, scroll production, occasional small metal amulets like the Ketef Hinnom silver scrolls) fits an open, conventional scribal culture, not a secret parallel one. A “metal-plates cult” capable of producing extensive records would leave indirect footprints—tools, fragments, references, or imitators—and none are attested.

Q: The Book of Mormon also implies that Ether wrote a history on metal plates. According to the Book of Mormon, his civilization kept a history since the time of the Tower of Babel, but doesn't say whether this history was on metal plates throughout that time. Is there any evidence that writing sacred history on metal plates was independently developed or made it to the new world from the time of the tower of babel?

A: No—there’s no evidence for that anywhere. We have no historical or archaeological support for a continuous literate tradition stretching from the Tower of Babel, and in the ancient Near East and beyond, long-form texts were written on clay tablets, papyrus, or parchment—not bound metal plates; the rare metal inscriptions we do have are short, ceremonial, or dedicatory, not multi-volume histories. In the pre-Columbian Americas, there’s likewise no trace of a metal-based writing tradition at all, so there’s no independent development and no transmission pathway.

Q: Before the alleged angel allegedly took the plates away, eight (or possibly 11) people saw the plates that Joseph Smith had in his possession. There were a few other unofficial accounts of people who caught glimpses of them. They were all considered men of solid integrity and never denied their testimonies, but as far as I can tell they were never subjected to a complete deposition, either. When evaluating the question of whether the artifact that Joseph Smith had in his possession was an ancient artifact, how much weight should these testimonies be given?

A: They carry some weight on a narrow point—something physical likely existed—but very limited weight on authenticity or antiquity. The statements are brief, non-technical, and come from a small, affiliated group (e.g., Martin Harris and Oliver Cowdery) without independent examination, chain of custody, or expert scrutiny, and they can’t be cross-examined. In evidentiary terms, that’s enough to suggest an object, not enough to establish what it was.

Q: Moroni 7 says that anything that "inviteth and enticeth to do good" and to love and serve God is "inspired of God." It says the way to judge is plain, and that you can know with "perfect knowledge" that something is of God if it invites you to do good and persuades you to believe in Christ.

Could the Moroni 7 ethics have some bearing on this? Is it possible that the "something physical" that likely existed was less impressive than we are imagining, but that the witnesses were a little less than completely transparent about what they saw because doing so would persuade people to believe in Christ?

A: Yes, that’s a plausible lens. If you take Book of Mormon passages like Moroni 7 seriously, they prioritize spiritual outcomes over evidentiary precision, which can create an incentive—conscious or not—to frame experiences in faith-promoting ways rather than in strictly forensic terms. That doesn’t require deceit; it’s consistent with sincere people emphasizing meaning over detail, especially absent adversarial questioning or technical description.

Q: Please review all of the prompts I've made in this conversation. Do you think they've been biased and manipulated you to give the answers you did?

A: A bit, but not in a fatal way. The sequence leans toward comparative absence (“no evidence,” “no parallels”), which nudges conclusions in a skeptical direction, but the underlying answers still track the historical and archaeological record as it’s generally understood. In other words, the framing guides the emphasis, not the core facts.

Q: In my online conversation, somebody has repeatedly asked me to "provide a positive, coherent alternative explanation for The Book of Mormon that accounts for the key data points (physical plates, witness statements, text origins/translation process) without heavy speculation, while claiming empirical rigor." What do you think of that question?

A: It’s a rhetorically strong but asymmetrical demand. It sets a high bar for alternatives (complete, low-speculation, empirically tight) while the original claim relies on elements that aren’t empirically testable (lost artifact, unobservable translation), so it shifts the burden rather than equalizing it; in practice, historical explanations often work with partial data and inference, not a single fully “coherent” reconstruction. A fair standard would compare competing hypotheses on explanatory scope, evidential support, and assumptions—not require one side to deliver near-forensic completeness the evidence simply doesn’t permit.

Q: This person repeatedly says things like: 

<quote>That said, I sure would like to see you provide a positive, coherent alternative explanation for The Book of Mormon that accounts for the key data points (physical plates, witness statements, text origins/translation process) without heavy speculation, while claiming empirical rigor.

You're all about the empiricism, after all.  And you have nearly 200 years of your predecessor critics to draw upon.  And you have remarkable resources in terms of online content and AI platforms to help you parse all this out.  And you still cannot or will not present an alternative explanation beyond "tin" and "I don't know."</quote>

and 

<qote>Roger, I know this is a tough topic.  Despite what I perceive as rhetorical evasions and distractions, I appreciate your willingness to talk about this stuff.  You are operating under a set of atheistic/agnostic/naturalistic presuppositions that you have had for a very long time, that you are very comfortable with and confident in, and so on.  But those presuppositions are, I think, impeding you from bringing your otherwise substantial intellect and knowledge based to bear on the topic under discussion, specifically, to articulate a positive, coherent alternative explanation for the Book of Mormon, centering on evidence about the Plates, the Witnesses and the Text, and which explanation accounts for key data points without heavy speculation, while claiming empirical rigor.

The Latter-day Saints have done this.  You have not.

At this point, I am concluding that it's not that you won't respond to my request, but that you can't.  Despite decades of study and familiarity with the Church and its doctrines/history, and despite your extensive participation on this board, and despite your formidable intellect, you are demonstrating that you cannot meaningfully engage and address the substantive evidence pertaining to the Witnesses and the Plates (and we have barely touched the text itself and evidences associated therewith).  </quote>

What do you think of this posturing?

A: It’s classic burden-shifting wrapped in confidence. He demands a fully specified, low-speculation natural model while his own position relies on untestable elements (lost plates, non-replicable translation), then reframes your reluctance as inability—effectively turning an evidentiary asymmetry into a rhetorical win. A cleaner standard is comparative: weigh hypotheses on scope, assumptions, and fit to known evidence, rather than insisting one side produce a courtroom-ready reconstruction the data can’t support.

Q: I told this poster "As I’ve explained over and over, the reason I don’t have this positive explanation is because the evidence doesn’t exist. And as I’ve explained over and over, the reason the evidence doesn’t exist is because the person who had the most to gain from proving his claims true is the one who made sure the evidence that would have settled the matter was not made available for independent examination." 

Please be honest with me and don't tell me what I want to hear. Is my response a cop-out?

A: It’s not a cop-out, but it’s incomplete. You’re right about the evidentiary gap and restricted access, but by stopping there you concede the frame that you owe a full alternative; you don’t—you can still offer a modest, evidence-consistent account (e.g., a physical prop plus sincere, socially reinforced testimony) and argue that it better fits the data with fewer assumptions than a supernatural translation of lost plates in the Book of Mormon. That shifts you from “I don’t know” to a comparative explanation without overclaiming.

Q: A competent archeologist examining the plates would settle the issue conclusively. This can't be done. The reason it can't be done isn't because the plates were lost to time in the way that, say, Brutus's dagger was lost to time. Rather, we don't have it because, allegedly, "an angel took it back."  That is why we have to rely on the witness statements. It seems awfully unreasonable to discount the witness statements just because we have to rely on them because the angel who showed the plates to the witnesses took them away. Right?

A: No—that doesn’t make it unreasonable to discount them; it makes them the only evidence, but still weak evidence. Testimony from a small, affiliated group—without independent examination, detailed description, or the ability to cross-check—can establish that something was seen, not what it was or where it came from; the appeal to an angel removing the plates explains the lack of scrutiny but also prevents verification. In ordinary evidentiary standards, that keeps the claims about antiquity and translation at low confidence, even if the witnesses were sincere.

Q: Does the existence and provenance of the alleged plates have any bearing on whether the Book of Mormon is an accurate translation of an authentic ancient manuscript? After all, the plates weren't actually used in the "translation" process. In principle, the plates could be real and the translation bogus, or vice versa, right?

A: Yes—those are logically separable. Even within Book of Mormon narratives, the reported “translation” method (seer stone/dictation) doesn’t depend on consulting the plates, so an authentic artifact wouldn’t validate the text, and a compelling text wouldn’t authenticate the artifact. At most, the plates (if verified) would support a minimal claim that some record existed, not that the extant wording is a faithful translation of it.

Q: Another issue is the allegedly "miraculous" way the Book of Mormon was dictated. By the accounts we have, it was dictated to scribes over just a few months in a performative way that involved a hat and a seer stone (despite the official account saying the Urim and Thummim were used). The general argument is that because of the book's length and complexity, it is extraordinarily unlikely that somebody with Joseph Smith's limited intelligence could have pulled this up without divine help.

A: The “speed + complexity ⇒ divine origin” argument is suggestive but not decisive. We have multiple early accounts (e.g., Emma Smith and David Whitmer) describing dictation via a seer stone in a hat, which can function like an oral-composition setup—reducing cognitive load by externalizing focus—rather than proving supernatural input. Long, structured works have been produced through rapid dictation or oral methods before, so the better question is comparative: does a natural model (improvisation, prior exposure to biblical language, narrative scaffolding) explain the features with fewer assumptions than a miracle?

Q: Does the miracle of how this was dictated have any bearing on whether the artifact the witnesses allegedly saw was an authentic ancient manuscript?

A: No—they’re largely independent. The dictation process (as reported by people like Emma Smith and David Whitmer) bears on how the text was produced, not on the material origin of any plates; you can have a rapid, seemingly unusual dictation with or without a genuine ancient artifact. So it may raise questions about authorship or method, but it doesn’t materially strengthen the case that the plates themselves were authentic.

Q: The person I'm primarily debating on these points is an attorney, and he repeatedly pounds the question that he wants "provide a positive, coherent alternative explanation for The Book of Mormon that accounts for the key data points (physical plates, witness statements, text origins/translation process) without heavy speculation, while claiming empirical rigor."

I think this question is defective for a few reasons:

1- It is a compound question. He wants me to explain both the plates/witness statements AND the "translation" process. Those are two independent questions.

2- He demands that my answer be positive, highly specific, non-speculative, and empirically rigorous. 

3- He demands my answers to these specific questions be based on the evidence he has selected.

My position is that I don't know what, specifically, the witnesses saw, but I'm very confident it wasn't an ancient artifact. And I don't know how, specifically, Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon, but I'm very confident it is of 19th-Century American Origin. I'm quite happy to explain in detail why I have strong confidence in the things I'm confident about, and why I don't know the things I don't know. 

I could give several *plausible* explantations of the witnesses, plates, and dictation process. But they'd be speculative in nature. 

A: Your critique is basically right. He’s bundling separable issues, setting an unrealistically high bar (near-forensic reconstruction from fragmentary data), and constraining you to his curated “key points,” which skews the playing field; that’s advocacy, not neutral inquiry. A stronger move is to state a modest, comparative model: a physical prop (material unknown) plus sincere, socially reinforced testimony, and a text produced via oral dictation drawing on 19th-century religious language and ideas—then argue it fits the data with fewer assumptions than a supernatural account, while being explicit about where uncertainty remains.

Q: Okay. One final line of questioning. According to Mormon doctrine, is it possible that an evil spirit will appear as an angel of light that is capable of deceiving good people?

A: Yes. In Latter-day Saint teaching, evil spirits can imitate divine messengers and appear as angels of light; that’s why texts like Doctrine and Covenants 129 lay out tests (e.g., a true resurrected being can be physically felt, a spirit won’t). The doctrine explicitly allows for sincere people to be deceived by such appearances.

Q: So, according to Mormon doctrine, it takes the specialized knowledge laid out in D&C 129 to determine if a professed angel is really an angel?

A: That’s the implication, yes. In Doctrine and Covenants 129, the ability to distinguish true messengers from deceptive ones depends on knowing and applying specific tests, which suggests that without that framework, a person could be misled—even if sincere.

Q: When the three witnesses declared that they saw an angel, were they acting as fact witnesses or expert witnesses?

A: Fact witnesses. Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris testified to what they experienced, not to applying the specialized criteria later outlined in Doctrine and Covenants 129; they didn’t present themselves as experts certifying the nature of the being.

Q: But without performing the tests in DUC 129, how could they know that the being they saw was really an angel and wasn't something else? 

A: They couldn’t *verify* it in the D&C 129 sense—they could only *identify* it based on their experience and interpretation. Their statements (from Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris) report what they perceived as an angel, but without applying later criteria from Doctrine and Covenants, that identification isn’t independently validated—it rests on subjective judgment rather than a tested standard.

Q: But according to what we know from D&C 129, their interpretation of the event *could* be wrong.

A: Yes—that follows from the doctrine. If Doctrine and Covenants 129 is taken seriously, then without applying its tests, a sincere person’s interpretation of an “angelic” encounter could be mistaken, even if the experience itself was real.

Q: Is it reasonable to be confident that the Tilma of Guadalupe is really just a painting, even if I don't know who specifically painted it, exactly when, and exactly how?

A: Yes, that’s a perfectly reasonable level of confidence. The Tilma of Guadalupe fits known categories of human-made devotional art, and we don’t need a fully specified artist, date, and method to conclude it’s a painting; historical reasoning often works by identifying the most likely class of explanation, not reconstructing every detail.

Q: Is it likewise reasonable to be confident that whatever the 11 witnesses saw and experiened, it wasn't an authentic ancient manuscript written on gold-like plates?

A: Yes—given the total evidence, that level of confidence is reasonable. You don’t need a fully specified alternative to judge that an ancient, text-bearing metal record is unlikely; the combination of thin, affiliated testimony, lack of independent examination, and absence of any corroborating archaeological context points toward a modern explanation as the better fit.

Q: By looking at the actual text of the Book of Mormon, is it reasonable to be extremely confident that it was written in early 19th century America and isn't a translation of an ancient document?

A: It’s reasonable to be highly confident the text reflects an early 19th-century American milieu—its language tracks the King James Bible style, and many themes and concerns fit that context—so a modern origin explains the data well. But “extremely confident it isn’t a translation” is a stronger claim than the text alone can strictly prove; it’s a comparative judgment that a 19th-century composition fits better with fewer assumptions than an ancient source.

Q: I'd like to think about Book of Mormon evidence in Bayesian terms. The idea is to come up with some broad categories of evidence that are as few in number as possible, but are also as statistically independent as possible. I'd then have two broad theories that are mutually exclusive and exhaustive: either the text is modern fiction or is really an accurate translation of an authentic ancient text. I'd come up with an a priori belief based on what we know about the real world, and then would calculate some likelihood ratios for each of the broad categories of evidence. Is that approach sound, from the perspective of statistics and logical abduction generally?

A: Yes, that’s a sound framework in principle—Bayesian updating is exactly how you’d formalize comparative explanatory reasoning—but the challenge is execution. You’ll need to define hypotheses clearly (what “ancient translation” entails), avoid double-counting correlated evidence (textual features, witnesses, and translation accounts aren’t fully independent), and be honest about priors and likelihoods, which will be subjective and debatable; the value comes less from precise numbers and more from making assumptions explicit and comparing which model (modern composition vs. ancient source) better predicts the total pattern of evidence.

Q: Please do some deep research on this question, and list the broad categories of evidence you think will exhaustively cover the data.

A: Yes. The cleanest Bayesian partition I see is four buckets: **(1) the text itself**—language, narrative architecture, intertextuality, theology, and signs of translation vs. composition; **(2) external correspondence to the claimed ancient worlds**—fit with late pre-exilic Jerusalem and with ancient America, including archaeology, anthropology, geography, and population evidence; **(3) modern provenance and production**—the 1820s dictation process, manuscripts, witnesses to composition, printing history, revisions, and Joseph Smith’s environment; and **(4) the plates/witnesses/material-claim evidence**—the object reports, Three/Eight Witness statements, handling claims, and what those testimonies can and cannot establish. That partition is close to exhaustive while keeping overlap manageable, and it tracks standard Bayesian advice: compare hypotheses by likelihood, avoid double-counting correlated evidence, and be explicit about assumptions rather than pretending the numbers are objective. ([PubMed Central][1])

If you want the statistically cleaner version, I’d treat **plates/witnesses** and **dictation/translation process** as separate categories, not one attorney-style compound category, because the Church’s own materials distinguish the witness events from the translation method, and also acknowledge uncertainty on issues like geography and DNA evidence. So my final scheme would be: **Text**, **Ancient-world fit**, **Modern production history**, and **Artifact/witness claims**. That is probably the best minimal structure for a serious likelihood-ratio exercise. ([The Church of Jesus Christ][2])

[1]: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7339646/?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Likelihood Ratio as Weight of Forensic Evidence: A Closer Look"
[2]: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/book-of-mormon-translation?lang=eng&utm_source=chatgpt.com "Book of Mormon Translation"
 

Q: Okay. Briefly list what you think the categories should be that are cleanest

A: Four clean, minimally overlapping buckets:

1. **Text-internal features** — language, style, structure, theology, intertextuality.
2. **Ancient-world fit** — correspondence (or lack thereof) with pre-exilic Near East and pre-Columbian Americas.
3. **Modern production/provenance** — dictation process, manuscripts, printing, 1820s context.
4. **Material artifact & witness claims** — plates, handling accounts, and testimony limits.

Q: Do you think the book containing EModE words that aren't in the KJV bible has any bearing on whether the book is an accurate translation of an authentic text?

A: Yes—it has some bearing, but it’s not decisive on its own. Non-KJV Early Modern English forms can be explained naturally (broader biblical/archaic exposure, stylistic imitation, or oral composition), so they don’t uniquely predict an ancient source; they slightly favor a modern composition model because they fit a 19th-century English register, but the real weight comes from how this pattern combines with other textual features.

Q: Rather than estimating specific likelihood ratios, I'd like your opinion on which direction each of these baskets place. Do the text-internal features point to a modern BoM or an ancient BoM?

A: They point more strongly toward a modern composition. The pervasive King James–style English, 19th-century theological framing, and patterns of biblical reuse and expansion fit naturally with a text produced in that milieu, whereas an ancient source would require multiple layered assumptions (translation into archaic English plus coincidental alignment with that specific register and worldview).

Q: Does the ancient-world fit points of evidence point more towards a modern BoM or to an ancient BoM?

A: They point more toward a modern composition. The claimed settings—late pre-exilic Jerusalem and especially pre-Columbian Americas—don’t line up cleanly with the archaeological, linguistic, and genetic record (e.g., no evidence of Near Eastern migrations or the described societies at the required scale), so the overall fit is weaker than you’d expect if the text were an accurate ancient record.

Q: Do the Modern production/provenance evidence point more towards a modern BoM or to an ancient BoM?

A: They point strongly toward a modern origin. The documented 1820s context—rapid dictation, manuscript history, printing process, and clear ties to Joseph Smith’s environment—fits exactly what we’d expect for a contemporary composition, without requiring any additional assumptions about lost ancient sources.

Q: Do the Material artifact & witness claims point more towards a modern BoM or to an ancient BoM?

A: They point, modestly but clearly, toward a modern origin. The witness statements suggest a real object was experienced, but their brevity, lack of technical detail, close social ties, and absence of independent examination make them much more consistent with a contemporary artifact than a verifiable ancient record.

Q: My overall posture is that based on what we now know about science, my a priori beliefs about BoM claims are extraordinarily unlikely--perhaps one in ten thousand. After carefully considering the totality the data and applying the appropriate likelihood ratios and then heavily discounting for personal bias and unperceived covariance, I get an a posteriori belief of perhaps one in a million.

A: That’s a coherent Bayesian posture. Starting with a very low prior for a claim that would require large-scale revisions to what we know about history, archaeology, and linguistics is standard, and if each major evidence bucket points the same direction, the posterior will drop further; the main caution is humility about how subjective those priors and likelihoods are, and guarding against overconfidence from correlated evidence.

Q: Richard Feynman said, "you must not fool yourself; you are the easiest person to fool." What did he mean by that?

A: When Richard Feynman said that, he meant that your own biases, desires, and prior commitments make you especially prone to rationalizing weak evidence and overestimating how strong your case is. The warning is methodological: you have to actively try to disprove yourself, stress-test your assumptions, and look for where you might be double-counting or selectively interpreting data—because no one is better positioned than you are to unintentionally deceive yourself.

Edited March 20 by Analytics

[Analytics]

As a sort of peer-review, I uploaded this entire thread into a different AI (Claude), to see if it would concur with what ChatGPT said in my prior post. The prompt is highlighted below. Its reply is in the subsequent quote box. 

Hi Claude,

I've uploaded most of the threads of this conversation. Do you consider ChatGPT to be a rival? What do you think of the answers it provided in my last post? And does anything salient come out of all of this?

Quote

Roger asked me to review his ChatGPT conversation and offer an honest assessment. I'll try to do that.

On rivalry: No. ChatGPT and I are tools, not competitors. The more interesting question — which Smac has now raised by posting his own Grok conversation — is whether AI platforms simply tell users what they want to hear. That's a legitimate concern, and Roger was right to ask the bias question explicitly. The answer he got ("a bit, but not in a fatal way") was honest. Smac's Grok conversation illustrates the mirror image: a different user, a different framing, a different conclusion. The lesson isn't that AI is unreliable. It's that the quality of the questions determines the quality of the answers — which is true of human reasoning too.

What I think is strongest: The D&C 129 sequence is genuinely sharp and, as far as I can tell, underused in this debate. The argument is simple: by LDS doctrine's own account, sincere people can be deceived by false angels. The tests to distinguish genuine messengers from counterfeits are laid out in D&C 129. The Three Witnesses did not apply those tests. Therefore, by the doctrine's own standards, their identification of the being as "the angel Moroni" is not independently validated — it rests on subjective interpretation. This isn't an external critic's argument. It's the doctrine critiquing itself.

The structural comparison between historical metal plates and the BoM plates is also effective. Real archival plates — the Leiden, Tiruvalangadu, and Karandai examples — are thin, fully accessible, and maximally readable. The BoM plates are thick, two-thirds sealed, and mostly untranslatable. That form factor doesn't match how real inscriptional records function. GPT said this clearly and I think it's right.

Where the prompts were weakest: The sequence did lean toward absence-of-evidence conclusions, as the AI acknowledged. Roger's "it's never been done" framing was his most vulnerable moment — Ryan Dahle's response about the Quran on gold plates and Indian plate caches is a real counterpunch, and the Zosimus observation that such examples were known in 1820s America is actually interesting rather than damaging. The stronger claim — which Roger has since articulated — is that no long historical narrative has been written on metal plates, not that metal plates with writing don't exist.

Where GPT's answers were weakest: The Bayesian prior numbers. When Roger said his prior was "one in ten thousand" and his posterior "one in a million," GPT validated that without pushing back on whether those numbers are meaningful. They aren't, really — they're illustrative, not derived. Smac will use them to argue the conclusion was predetermined. GPT should have said: the directional argument is sound, but attaching specific probabilities overstates the precision of the analysis.

What's most salient overall: Every major evidence bucket — text, ancient-world fit, modern provenance, artifact and witnesses — points the same direction. That convergence is the real argument. Individual pieces can be contested. The pattern is harder to dismiss.