Witnesses to the Non-Plates Artifacts (Sword of Laban, Breastplate / U&T / Liahona)

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I don't think "all this" is intended for "an unbiased adjudicator."  It is intended for those who "desire to believe" (Alma 32:27).

Yes, he would.  He would also need to examine presuppositions that might taint the notion of being "unbiased."  

See?  Presuppositions from the start.

Your theory is that the witnesses colluded with Joseph?  That they lied?  I'm not sure what you are saying here.

Did you mean to say "likeliness" here?  I'm not sure I follow your reasoning.

I'm suggesting that the explanation of this falls into one of three broad categories:

1- There is a supernatural explanation, e.g. an angel (or demon or alien) gave Joseph Smith the plates and then took them away.

2- It was an elaborate, expensive, and skillful hoax, and Charles Anthon himself would have thought the plates were authentic had he been given the chance to examine them.

3- Some other natural explanation involving some combination of lies, manipulation, half-truths, good intentions, gullibility, etc.

When looking at each category one by one, all three are unlikely. However, one of them must be true. I think category 3 is the least unlikely. The morality of the Book of Mormon itself teaches that the morality of something should be determined based on whether it invites to do good and persuades to believe in Christ (see Moroni 7:16). That is quite different than the morality of being completely honest in all situations. It's clear to me that the author of that verse is trying to rationalize some questionable behavior on the basis that it persuades others to believe in Christ.

Did you read my story above about the gold plates I saw in seminary? I told the truth, but the students who heard what I said but didn't see the plates were imagining something very different than the truth. That illustrates why, when a witness testifies of something that is inherently dubious in nature, it is necessary to conduct a skillful cross examination before drawing any conclusions.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

So your supposition ("As far as everything else? Nah--that was all imagined or made up") would, in that context, make sense.  But that creates a different set of added complexities for your position.  You are positing that David Whitmer was not "imagining or making up" things when he attested to seeing the Plates, but he was "imagining or making up" things as to witnessing everything else (the angel, the voice of God, the other artifacts)?  How do you get there?  

David Whitmer never saw the physical plates. He went into the woods with Joseph, Oliver, and Martin. Joseph didn't take the plates with them. They kneeled and prayed and prayed and prayed. Nothing happened. Martin thought it was his fault and left. Eventually, Joseph, Oliver, and David agreed that they had the vision they were supposed to. Then Joseph tracked down Martin. The two of them prayed and prayed and prayed. They stopped when Martin told Joseph "'Tis enough; 'tis enough; mine eyes have beheld; mine eyes have beheld."

If an actual angel of literal flesh and bones had gathered a tangible sword from a cave in the hill and gathered the actual gold plates from where Joseph had them hidden and then moved through space and time to where they were praying and then showed them to Martin, Martin wouldn't have needed to announce to Joseph that he saw them. Joseph would have known because he was there. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

We have David Whitmer's statement about seeing these other artifacts:

We also have Lucy Mack Smith's detailed description of the breastplate:

Martin Harris described the "interpreters"...

As did John Whitmer:

As did Lucy Mack Smith:

As did David Whitmer:

As did William Smith (along with the breastplate) :

Your theoretical "unbiased adjudicator" would look at these statements and do . . . what?

He would notice that these folks love to tell stories about implausible artifacts that only they can see and that the longer time goes by, the more elaborate the stories get. That's a huge red flag.

I totally agree that it is beyond impossible that Joseph Smith created well-crafted plates made of actual gold that would fool an expert. I also agree that it is even less likely that he created the other things his witnesses claim they saw including a breast plate, interpreters, a sword, a Liahona, a vessel in which the gold would have been melted, a rolling machine for gold plates, three balls of gold as large as a fist, and giant caverns full of "more plates than probably many wagon loads; they were piled up in the corners and along the walls." He didn't create all of that as part of an elaborate hoax. Point conceded.

My point is that the implausibility of all of this strengthens my position--these guys were storytellers who made stories. And maybe they really believed they were true because of revelation and how inspiring it was. They wouldn't be the last Mormon leaders to preach faith-promoting stories that were exaggerated, misleading, or even made up.

 

Edited October 4, 2022 by Analytics

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

What's wrong with keeping an open mind about it?

I'm all for an open mind.  But an open mind would engage the evidence, not ignore it while professing to be "open."

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

David Whitmer himself said "If you believe my testimony to the Book of Mormon; if you believe that God spake to us three witnesses by his own voice, then I tell you that in June, 1838, God spake to me again by his own voice from the heavens, and told me to "separate myself from among the Latter Day Saints, for as they sought to do unto me, should it be done unto them."

Two points. First, it's interesting how you pick and choose when you believe David Whitmer and when you don't.

First, I don't think I have ever articulated when I believe David Whitmer and when I don't.

Second, I differentiate between David Whitmer as a percipient witness whose statement is corroborated by three others versus his statements about other matters.

Third, I have no particular beef with Whitmer's statement.  in the end, we must each of us do what we feel is right.  

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Second, even though they left the main body of the Church doesn't mean they lost their religious faith.

David Whitmer's statement is that of a percipient witness, though.  Not a profession/declaration of inner-held "religious faith."

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

And even if they were lying or had a view that was more nuanced than what you imagine, what benefit is there to make a big announcement that when you solemnly swore something to the world, it was really a big lie? Who announces to the world their lack of integrity like that?

So they lied in the first instance, and then lied in the second as well (in refusing to recant their previous false statement).

Heads you win, tails they lose.  

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Quote

Moreover, the statement, all 148 words of it, is a model of simplicity, and contravenes your suggestion that God could/should have gone with "something more simple":

It's simple in a way that haphazardly combines the way we use evidence to evaluate things that are governed by natural law and a belief in magic that supersedes natural law.

It does nothing of the sort.  That is, on your part, eisegesis of the first order.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

I'm trying to imagine a criminal case where the totality of the evidence of a murder were three people who saw an angel and a 148-word statement that was written by the D.A. and signed by eight "witnesses."

I'm not.  Secular courts are not situated to adjudicate claims of religious believe or miracles.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

When the defense attorney asks for the murder weapon, the crime scene, the body, and evidence that the alleged victim ever existed, we're told that the angel cleaned up the crime scene and removed the body. If I were on a jury, I wouldn't convict somebody with this kind of evidence. Would you?

No.  But then, I wouldn't use a broom to clean out a swimming pool, either.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Angels and plates that magically appear and disappear are not simple.

So angels and plates are . . . complex?  What are you saying here?

The Church's narrative is far more "simple" than the convoluted and speculative alternative narratives espoused by critics.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Quote

Analytics also asserts that their statement "shouldn't be taken at face value."  Heavy-laden with presuppositions and value judgments is this is, it's utility is not immediately apparent.

What would be simple is for Joseph Smith to quietly go to New York or Boston or Hanover and donate the plates to a university once he no longer needed them. 

It would also be "simple" for Jesus Christ to descend from heaven on live TV and in front of millions of people.  And yet since He has not done this, by your reckoning that is evidence against His divinity?

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

I'm not making any presuppositions or value judgements.

Yes, you are.  You are presupposing what "simple" evidence means, and how having it would be better than the status quo.

In context, this makes no sense.  The Restored Gospel is, in the end, overwhelmingly about faith.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

I'm merely explaining why the two statements are inherently unconvincing to almost everybody who isn't already socialized to believe in the religion.

I don't think ascribing belief to mere "socialization" works.  I have many family members, friends, acquaintances, etc. who were previously "socialized" in the Church, then left, and plenty who were not "socialized" who have joined.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JustAnAustralian]

5 hours ago, Analytics said:

But carrying that much for over 4,000 miles? It's conceivable I guess, but what's the point? 

First 3000 now 4000? 
 

Either way it doesn't matter. 4000miles over a period of a year is 11miles a day. Over 5 years would be 2miles a day. Over 10 years would be a mile a day.

It's not like he was rushing to get to that specific spot.

5 hours ago, Analytics said:

Would he also have had to carry water, food, and other supplies?

Presumably he could hunt for food, so I'd guess his food and water haulage would be quite low.

 

5 hours ago, Analytics said:

possession. If you are going to believe Martin Harris when he said he saw the plates, why not believe him when he said he also saw the vessel in which the gold was melted, a rolling machine for gold plates, and three balls of gold as large as a fist?

They weren't buried in the stone box though.

Anything in the cave, or provided separately, needs to be treated separately to the contents of the stone box.

[smac97]

52 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I'm suggesting that the explanation of this falls into one of three broad categories:

1- There is a supernatural explanation, e.g. an angel (or demon or alien) gave Joseph Smith the plates and then took them away.

2- It was an elaborate, expensive, and skillful hoax, and Charles Anthon himself would have thought the plates were authentic had he been given the chance to examine them.

3- Some other natural explanation involving some combination of lies, manipulation, half-truths, good intentions, gullibility, etc.

I've said something similar:

• CS Lewis's Trilemma - Applied to Joseph Smith / The Book of Mormon / "Inspired Fiction"
• Saints Unscripted - The Witnesses and "Trilemma" Analysis

From the second one:

Quote

The vid sums up 6 theories to explain the Witnesses:

• 1. They conspired with Co-Conspirators
• 2. Duped by Joseph ("Victims" "duped by Joseph's hypnotic powers")
• 3. Religious fanaticism (by the witnesses)
• 4. Duped by Joseph (forged plates)
• 5. Combination (of 1-4).
• 6. Telling the truth.

They walk through each of these.

These seem to track, more or less, with what you are saying.

52 minutes ago, Analytics said:

When looking at each category one by one, all three are unlikely.

Okay.  But I don't think they are equally so.  

52 minutes ago, Analytics said:

However, one of them must be true. I think category 3 is the least unlikely.

Agreed.

52 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Did you read my story above about the gold plates I saw in seminary?

Yes.

52 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I told the truth, but the students who heard what I said but didn't see the plates were imagining something very different than the truth. That illustrates why, when a witness testifies of something that is inherently dubious in nature, it is necessary to conduct a skillful cross examination before drawing any conclusions.

I still don't understand your point.  How do you "cross-examine" witnesses who are dead?  Who are unavailable to testify?

Are you suggesting that the individual, being bereft of the opportunity to cross-examine, ought not draw any conclusion at all?  Or that he is obligated to disbelieve the witnesses?

Also, do you apply this reasoning to other long-past historical events and long-dead individuals?  Do you formulate hypothetical cross-examination questions for people who witnessed the fall of the Roman Empire?  The Trojan War?  The construction of Macchu Picchu?  

52 minutes ago, Analytics said:

David Whitmer never saw the physical plates.

He says he did.

And here:

Quote

• “My testimony to the world is written concerning the Book of Mormon, and it is the same that I gave at first and it is the same as shall stand to my latest hour in life, linger with me in death and shine as Gospel Truth beyond the limits of life.”^[7]
• “As you read my testimony given many years ago, so it stands as my own existence; the same as when I gave it, and so shall stand throughout the cycles of eternity.”^[8]
• “As concerning the Book of Mormon and its contents, and my views for which you inquire, I can say the Book and its contents are true. And my testimony in connection with the Book is also true.”^[9]
• “My testimony to the Book of Mormon is true and I am admonished neither to add to nor take from my testimony already appended to the Book.”^[10]
• “Those who know me best, well know that I have adhered to that testimony.—And that no man may be misled or doubt my present views in regard to the same, I do now again affirm the truth of all my statement[s], as then made and published.”^[11]
• “My testimony as published in connection with the Book of Mormon is true—And why Should men ask to know more in regard to all the particulars connected with that all Overshadowing truth—If they will not believe the three and 8 witnesses would they believe though one Should arise from the dead, and testify to its truth again.”^[12]
• “I have … emphatically testified as written in the Book of Mormon.”^[13]
• “I did see the angel of God, and was commanded to testify of these things, and they are true.”^[14]
• “You ask me if I saw the Angel when he brought the plates. I saw the Angel when he brought the plates, and the Angel told us that we must bear testimony to the world, as contained in my testimony written in the Book of Mormon. Doubt not—sister—the Book of Mormon is the word of God.”^[15]
• “I did see the Angel as it is recorded in my testimony in the Book of Mormon. The Book is true.”^[16]
• “In regards to my testimony to the visitation of the angel, who declared to us three witnesses that the Book of Mormon is true, I have this to say: … A bright light enveloped us where we were, that filled at noon day, and there in a vision or in the spirit, we saw and heard just as it is stated in my testimony in the Book of Mormon.”^[17]
• “In June, 1829, the Lord called Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, and myself as the three witnesses, to behold the vision of the Angel, as recorded in the fore part of the Book of Mormon, and to bear testimony to the world that the Book of Mormon is true.”^[18]

...

One thing that is clear throughout all of these accounts is that David was emphatic that what he saw was real. On one occasion, he struck the side of a bed to emphasize that he saw the angel and the plates as clearly and surely as his interviewers could see the bed he was sitting on while speaking with them.^[24] On other occasions, people questioned whether his experience was possibly a hallucination, or some kind of delusion, to which he would emphatically reply it was no delusion.^[25]

When one person claimed that David had admitted that he saw and heard “nothing,” but merely felt “impressions” of an angel’s presence and heavenly voice,^[26] David personally wrote to correct the record.^[27] He candidly acknowledged that there were spiritual elements to the experience, but also insisted that he really did see an angel with his “natural eyes.”^[28] For instance, in reply to one skeptic, he wrote:

Quote

In regards to my testimony to the visitation of the angel, who declared to us three witnesses that the Book of Mormon is true, I have this to say: Of course we were in the spirit when we had the view, for no man can behold the face of an angel, except in a spiritual view, but we were in the body also, and everything was as natural to us, as it is at any time.^[29]

Despite having so frequently been questioned about his testimony, sometimes by hostile and skeptical enquirers, toward the end of his life—“standing as it were, in the very sunset of life”—David could honestly proclaim: “That I have never at any time, denied that testimony or any part thereof, which has so long since been published with that book as one of the three witnesses.”^[30] Frustrated by the many rumors and misrepresentations circulated about his testimony, in the final years of his life he determined to speak for himself once and for all. “I will say once more to all mankind, that I have never at any time denied that testimony or any part thereof.”^[31] According to several witnesses, he again bore one last testimony of the Book of Mormon just before dying less than a year later.^[32]

And here:

Quote

David Whitmer helps clear up the "spiritual" vs. "natural" viewing of the plates. Responding to the questions of Anthony Metcalf (the same Metcalf who interviewed Harris) Whitmer wrote:

In regards to my testimony to the visitation of the angel, who declared to us three witnesses that the Book of Mormon is true, I have this to say: Of course we were in the spirit when we had the view, for no man can behold the face of an angel, except in a spiritual view, but we were in the body also, and everything was as natural to us, as it is at any time. Martin Harris, you say, called it 'being in vision.' We read in the Scriptures, Cornelius saw, in a vision, an angel of God. Daniel saw an angel in a vision; also in other places it states they saw an angel in the spirit. A bright light enveloped us where we were, that filled at noon day, and there in a vision, or in the spirit, we saw and heard just as it is stated in my testimony in the Book of Mormon. I am now passed eighty-two years old, and I have a brother, J. J. Snyder, to do my writing for me, at my dictation. [Signed] David Whitmer. ^[14]

And to leave absolutely no doubt about the nature of the manifestation Whitmer explained, "I was not under any hallucination . . . . I saw with these eyes." ^[15]

You can, of course, disregard his statements and conclude, on alternative (but unstated) evidentiary grounds, that he "never saw the physical plates," but that creates a number of problems.  First, it sets you up as an alternative declarant of what happened, and since you weren't there...

Second, it disregards the various emphatic statements of David Whitmer, who was there.

Third, it seems to contravene your thesis.  Joseph Smith fabricated plates, but never bothered to show them to David Whitmer?  And David Whitmer, who according to you never saw the plates, spent the rest of his life emphatically declaring that he did?

52 minutes ago, Analytics said:

If an actual angel of literal flesh and bones had gathered a tangible sword from a cave in the hill and gathered the actual gold plates from where Joseph had them hidden and then moved through space and time to where they were praying and then showed them to Martin, Martin wouldn't have needed to announce to Joseph that he saw them. Joseph would have known because he was there. 

"If" and "wouldn't" being the operative words here.

You are projecting your expectations and suppositions onto what you think should have happened, as opposed to assessing what the percipient witnesses state happened.

52 minutes ago, Analytics said:

He would notice that these folks love to tell stories about implausible artifacts that only they can see and that the longer time goes by, the more elaborate the stories get. That's a huge red flag.

And even further imposition of expectations and suppositions.

52 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I totally agree that it is beyond impossible that Joseph Smith created well-crafted plates made of actual gold that would fool an expert.

Okay.

52 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I also agree that it is even less likely that he created the other things his witnesses claim they saw including a breast plate, interpreters, a sword, a Liahona, a vessel in which the gold would have been melted, a rolling machine for gold plates, three balls of gold as large as a fist, and giant caverns full of "more plates than probably many wagon loads; they were piled up in the corners and along the walls."  He didn't create all of that as part of an elaborate hoax. Point conceded.

Sigh.  It sure would be nice to have a straightforward discussion about such things.

Statements about the known artifacts can be attributed to Joseph Smith and the witnesses. 

I have said nothing about "Cumorah's Cave" with which you could "agree" or disagree.

The reference to "a vessel in which the gold would have been melted, a rolling machine for gold plates, three balls of gold as large as a fist" is attributed to Abigail Harris, who does not claim to be a percipient witness.

52 minutes ago, Analytics said:

My point is that the implausibility of all of this strengthens my position

As you like.  You are not addressing the evidence, though.  You are circumventing it and instead presenting an a priori and evidence-free guess.

52 minutes ago, Analytics said:

--these guys were storytellers who made stories.

The evidence does not bear that out.  It is a conclusion without much in the way of evidentiary foundation.  Richard L. Anderson's Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses needs to be addressed, I think.  You dismissing them as presumptive liars is to ad hoc and conclusory for me.

52 minutes ago, Analytics said:

And maybe they really believed they were true because of revelation and how inspiring it was.

I am reminded of this article by Daniel C. Peterson: 

Quote

Book of Mormon witness testimonies

Reality: Brushing aside accounts of these men is not so simple

By Deseret News

 Mar 25, 2010, 12:00am MDT

Daniel Peterson, For the Deseret News

Serious critics of the Book of Mormon must neutralize the testimonies of the witnesses to the Golden Plates.

Yep.  This is why we see critics going to such great lengths to try this, even if it means resorting to sheer guesswork and evidence-free speculation and innuendo.

Quote

This, however, is not easy. (It may be impossible.) Largely thanks to the meticulous research of professor Richard Lloyd Anderson, we know a great deal about them and about the six decades, both when they were dedicated followers of Joseph Smith and after they had been alienated from him and his church for many years, during which they testified to the Book of Mormon. For a very long time, those seeking to discredit their testimony accused them of insanity, or of having conspired to commit fraud. In the light of Anderson's work, however, neither accusation can be sustained. They were plainly sane, honest, reputable men.

Unless, of course, we take your ad hoc and conclusory say-so over the scholarship of Richard L. Anderson.  He can back up his assessment of the witnesses with competent evidence as to their character and credibility.  You, on the other hand, must resort to presentism on a grand scale, broad stereotypes, imputed motives and mindreading, anything other than the historical record.

Quote

Recently, the preferred method of disposing of the witnesses has been to suggest — quite falsely — that they never claimed to have literally seen or touched anything at all, or to insinuate that they were primitive and superstitious fanatics who, unlike us sophisticated moderns, could scarcely distinguish reality from fantasy. Honest, but misguided.

It seems implausible, though, to assume that the witnesses, early 19th-century farmers who spent their lives rising at sunrise, pulling up stumps, clearing rocks, plowing fields, sowing seeds, carefully nurturing crops, herding livestock, milking cows, digging wells, building cabins, raising barns, harvesting food, bartering (in an often cashless economy) for what they could not produce themselves, wearing clothes made from plant fibers and skins, anxiously watching the seasons, and walking or riding animals out under the weather until they retired to their beds shortly after sunset in "a world lit only by fire," were estranged from everyday reality.

"Implausible" is used by both you and DCP.  I find his more accurate, though, as your characterization of the witnesses is ad hoc and speculative, whereas DCP is pointing to Anderson's scholarship that reviews the historical record.

Quote

It's especially unbelievable when the claim is made by people whose lives, like mine, consist to a large extent of staring at digital screens in artificially air-conditioned and artificially lit homes and offices, clothed in synthetic fibers, commuting between the two in enclosed and air-conditioned mechanical vehicles while they listen to the radio, chat on their cell phones, and fiddle with their iPods (whose inner workings are largely mysterious to them), who buy their prepackaged food (with little or no regard for the time or the season) by means of plastic cards and electronic financial transfers from artificially illuminated and air-conditioned supermarkets enmeshed in international distribution networks of which they know virtually nothing, the rhythms of whose daily lives are largely unaffected by the rising and setting of the sun. Somehow, the current generation seems ill-positioned to accuse the witnesses' generation of being out of touch with reality.

Yep.  And yet here you are, doing precisely that.

Quote

I suppose that "hallucination" might strike a skeptic as an attractive way to defang the testimony of the Three Witnesses, with its divine voice and its angelophany and its clearly visionary flavor. But the experience of the Eight Witnesses is very different, and entirely matter-of-fact. Hallucination doesn't seem to account for it well at all.

The counter-balance struck in the juxtaposition of the statement of the Three Witnesses compared to the statement of the Eight Witnesses is not accounted for in your theory.  You characterize the supposed fabricated plates as "a {not} particularly good or convincing artifact," but that seems to contravene the statement of the Eight Witnesses:

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.

So the fabricated plates were not "particularly good or convincing," yet they were sufficient to convince the Eight Witnesses.  Five of these were later estranged from Joseph Smith and the Church, and so would likely have had strong incentives to recant, to claim to having been duped by "a {not} particularly good or convincing artifact."  And yet none of them did.

Quote

On the other hand, if it weren't for the spectacularly supernatural character of the experience of the Three Witnesses, a desperate skeptic might be able to dismiss the whole thing as the product, merely, of crude deception.

"Crude deception" = "a {not} particularly good or convincing artifact." 

Quote

Perhaps Joseph Smith or some other brawny frontier blacksmith (Oliver Cowdery, perhaps?) forged golden stage props with which to fool the yokels. After all, the two tiny sets of inscribed metal plates that James Jesse Strang, would-be successor to Joseph Smith, "found" in Wisconsin and Michigan between 1845 and 1849 and subsequently "translated" certainly existed, and were almost certainly frauds. (One of Strang's witnesses later testified to having helped manufacture them.) But Strang summoned no angels for public viewing, and no voice of God endorsed his "Book of the Law of the Lord."

There's that counter-balance again.

Quote

Even Latter-day Saints may not appreciate the strength of the witness testimonies. Fortunately, though, Anderson, trained in both legal reasoning at Harvard Law School and historical method through a doctorate at Berkeley, has devoted a lifetime to demonstrating the solidity of the evidence they provide. In his classic volume "Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses" — described by one of my BYU colleagues, not unreasonably, as "next to the scriptures themselves, the most faith-promoting book (he had) ever read"— and in later studies (two of which are available on the Web site of Brigham Young University's Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship), he has set out a deeply impressive case. I earnestly commend his work to those unfamiliar with it.

I have likewise recommended this book.  Many times over.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm all for an open mind.  But an open mind would engage the evidence, not ignore it while professing to be "open."

Engaging all of the evidence includes engaging the overwhelming evidence within the text itself that the Book of Mormon is 19th-Century American fiction. It includes acknowledging the fact the stories of the Book of Mormon aren't plausible. It includes the evidence that ancient Mesoamericans couldn't have, wouldn't have, and didn't write records on metal plates bound with rings. And it includes the fact that modern physics has definitively proven that the supernatural elements of all of this are impossible.

This idea of "engaging the evidence," reminds me of what Steven pinker wrote in his book Rationality: What It Is, Why It Seems Scarce, Why It Matters. When discussing the replicability crisis of science, Piker said: 

Quote

The issue hit the fan in 2011 when the eminent social psychologist Daryl Bem published the results of nine experiments in the prestigious Journal of Personality and Social Psychology which claimed to show that participants successfully predicted (at a rate above chance) random events before they took place, such as which of two curtains on a computer screen hid an erotic image before the computer had selected where to place it. Not surprisingly, the effects failed to replicate, but that was a foregone conclusion given the infinitesimal prior probability that a social psychologist had disproven the laws of physics by showing some undergraduates some porn. When I raised this point to a social psychologist colleague, he shot back, “Maybe Pinker doesn’t understand the laws of physics!” But actual physicists, like Sean Carroll in his book The Big Picture, have explained why the laws of physics really do rule out precognition and other forms of ESP.

Pinker, Steven. Rationality (pp. 159-160). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition. 

Anyway, I don't have the time to rehash all of this with you. I will simply say that I suspect we are talking about different things. It appears you are talking about having a desire to believe and to justify having faith in something that is religious. In contrast, I'm trying to exercise the normative tools of rationality (as described in Pinker's book by that name), so that my beliefs are aligned with the evidence. Different goals. Different rules of evidence. Different methods for arriving at beliefs.

If you really want to understand my point of view about any of this let me know. Otherwise, I'll presume you can happily live without hearing answers to the questions you've asked.