Other Religious Forgeries

[Morley]

Greetings Stak!

Funny you should mention such a thought. Scientist in 2015 actually recorded the pulsar star Geminga doing that very thing. Here is the message it produced.

01000100 01101111 01101110 00100111 01110100 00100000 01110110 01101111 01110100 01100101 00100000 01100110 01101111 01110010 00100000 01010100 01110010 01110101 01101101 01110000 00101110

If only we had listened.

Okay, that was funny.
.

[Philo Sofee]

MG
I don’t see a better way of transmitting information down through the ages than on something very durable. Plates fit the bill.

Smith didn't need the actual or original manuscript of John to receive a revelation of its contents. There is no need for the entire shenanigans of the plates, since via revelation God can certainly get his point across whether anything exists in writing or not, yes? So you can too see a better way. Plates were not used anyway. What was the point of them? You just don't want to admit the plates story is quite worthless for God being able to get his information to mankind. That's easy for Him whether anything even physically exists or not.

[Fence Sitter]

Smith didn't need the actual or original manuscript of John to receive a revelation of its contents. There is no need for the entire shenanigans of the plates, since via revelation God can certainly get his point across whether anything exists in writing or not, yes? So you can too see a better way. Plates were not used anyway. What was the point of them? You just don't want to admit the plates story is quite worthless for God being able to get his information to mankind. That's easy for Him whether anything even physically exists or not.

I remember reading somewhere that Joseph Smith claimed over 70 heavenly visits during his lifetime. If God could send an angel to deliver and retrieve the gold plates, why not just send a perfect English translation manuscript? The stupidity of the backstory beggars belief. Every time I hear the excuse that this was the only way the Mormon God could accomplish this event it reminds me of the famous words spoken by the Hulk after beating up the God Loki in the Avengers... "Puny God".

[Res Ipsa]

....Yes, and I think that is why Jenkins's exchange with Hamblin was so devastating: just give us one corroborating piece of material evidence and we can go from there. But they've got nothing beyond their flimsy contraption of anachronistic and contradictory parallels that are held together by their very questionable presuppositions—and even that glue lacks sufficient consistency to keep it together.

Reading the NYT article (purely as an amateur!), I thought the comments regarding epigraphy were quite interesting, and showed another aspect of your point about problems with presuppositions:

Then, in June 2019, came a trial by fire, when nearly a dozen leading scholars from around the world were invited to Harvard Law School to hear him present his research at a confidential seminar organized by Feldman.

It was more collegial than Clermont-Ganneau’s ambush at the British Museum. But it was still a tough crowd. “There was a lot of pushback, rejection, counterarguments and even mockery,” Pat-El, the University of Texas linguist, said.

Dershowitz recalled being barraged by critique after critique. But by the end of the day, a divide had opened.

“Among Bible scholars, who study the evolution of the text, the emergent position was, ‘These can’t be forgeries,’” he said. “But the epigraphers all said, ‘This can’t be real.’”

Epigraphers are experts in inscriptions, with a focus on letter forms and other material aspects of an artifact. They are usually the ones called in to authenticate — or more often, debunk — artifacts, usually with the help of carbon-dating and infrared imaging.

But then I read Dershowitz' response.

In his paper, published in the journal Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft (The Journal for Old Testament Research), Dershowitz responds to some of the epigraphers’ objections. He offers microscopic analysis of various letter forms: Are they leaning left? Or right? But he also asks another question: Why do we assume that the 19th-century drawings — which, as he notes, sometimes contradict each other — are reliable visual representations of the letter forms to begin with?

That's disappointing. The only epigraphical information available points to a forgery, and the response is: what if the information is wrong because sometimes the drawings were inaccurate? And apparently, inaccurate in exactly the way necessary to cause an evaluator to incorrectly interpret the specific error as a forgery instead of as the real thing?

Adding that layer and moving the analysis one step further from the original seems a little convenient, notwithstanding the very nebulous comment about drawings contradicting each other (which drawings? Where? What differences?) Maybe he spells it out better in his article, but simply stating that this new hypothesis (errors in copying) favors the conclusion being searched for makes it even more suspect as a legitimate argument. One could just as easily argue that copiers of the stroke marks were extremely careful to reproduce the best copy possible. Speaking only as a nonprofessional in the industry, in my opinion it feels as though someone who says the people who do this for a living actually created changed copies, copies that ever so conveniently show the source is a forgery when its not, sounds a little too much like a lazy conspiracy theory.

Again, this is not my area, so I would welcome any correction from the experts.

Just bumping this past the derail in the hopes that one of the experts here can address Lem’s observation. It looks like a valid observation to me, but I’m way out of my depth here.

[Symmachus]

Agreed!!!!! And your avatars of my great-aunts are always appreciated.

Vivant Parowanianae.

In his paper, published in the journal Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft (The Journal for Old Testament Research), Dershowitz responds to some of the epigraphers’ objections. He offers microscopic analysis of various letter forms: Are they leaning left? Or right? But he also asks another question: Why do we assume that the 19th-century drawings — which, as he notes, sometimes contradict each other — are reliable visual representations of the letter forms to begin with?

That's disappointing. The only epigraphical information available points to a forgery, and the response is: what if the information is wrong because sometimes the drawings were inaccurate? And apparently, inaccurate in exactly the way necessary to cause an evaluator to incorrectly interpret the specific error as a forgery instead of as the real thing?

Adding that layer and moving the analysis one step further from the original seems a little convenient, notwithstanding the very nebulous comment about drawings contradicting each other (which drawings? Where? What differences?) Maybe he spells it out better in his article, but simply stating that this new hypothesis (errors in copying) favors the conclusion being searched for makes it even more suspect as a legitimate argument. One could just as easily argue that copiers of the stroke marks were extremely careful to reproduce the best copy possible. Speaking only as a nonprofessional in the industry, in my opinion it feels as though someone who says the people who do this for a living actually created changed copies, copies that ever so conveniently show the source is a forgery when its not, sounds a little too much like a lazy conspiracy theory.

Again, this is not my area, so I would welcome any correction from the experts.

I have not read the article from the New York Times, but I just read Dershowitz's article in question, and I think he has some valid points that Rollston's blogpost does not address.

I think you anticipate some of the problems his article raises, but I would say first that the "cui bono" argument you imply here—he is picking the read of the evidence that best fits his theory—cuts both ways in this case, because there are two insoluble problems, which means one will have to make a choice, and the there is no direct evidence to provide the way.

Shapira did not destroy the animal skin fragments or conveniently lose them; they were destroyed years after his suicide in a fire. He apparently worked on them himself but appears not to have fully understood the text. What does survive are transcriptions, so that is our first problem.

But the transcriptions by Christian Ginsburg themselves are not consistent, and I think Dershowitz shows that rather convincingly. One could object that the inconsistencies were original to the text, but Dershowitz has something like a control: using Ginsburg's transcriptions of a text that do have (the stele of the Moabite King Mesha), Dershowitz finds evidence from Ginsburg's transcriptions in that case that GInsburg was simply not very accurate in his transcriptional habits (although Dershowitz only discusses a few examples from a text that is more than thirty lines long: in how many letters does this carelessness show up?). The transcriptions may not be reliable then, but there is no way to be sure. That is our second problem.

Rollston's blogpost seems to ignore these significant issues and come out with gun's blazing, but the ammunition is all blanks. That doesn't mean he's wrong, just that he doesn't state his case very well. He gives you a nice discussion about forgeries, but doesn't deal there with the problems raised by Dershowitz. But in my view, those two key problems really aren't open to solution by appeal to evidence, so naturally, each side will pick the interpretation that best suits their theory.

For me the analysis of the language would be key. The real meat of Dershowitz's work is not this article but rather an edition and commentary of the Shapira Strips, and there is supposed to be a chapter on language co-written (or authored by) Na'ama Pat-el where they supposedly show the language to be consistent with pre-exilic Hebrew. That's not going to settle it absolutely but it's better than arguing over whether or not the transcriptions are accurate, which is impossible to know. But Ron Hendel's comment over there, which does address the language, leaves me quite skeptical of Dershowitz's claim:

Like Mesha and Siloam, they have very few internal matres (with some surprising exceptions, like hwʾ and ʾyš, both written fully, unlike Mesha and Siloam). As for final matres, the Strips always have the 3ms pronominal suffix on singular nouns written with a waw (for -ō), never with he, although the latter is consistently used in pre-exilic orthography. I wondered why a forger would make the mistake of using post-exilic orthography in this position. Then I noted that Siloam has the odd form r’w, “his companion” (three times), perhaps indicating an unusual contraction. The forger may have thought this was the normal pre-exilic form in Hebrew. This misapprehension would explain this consistent error, which a recent forger wouldn’t make

The underlined part is particularly significant to me, because there is a linguistic reality behind that orthography that we can reconstruct through comparative evidence. The "he" is a letter that represents a sound analogous to English "h," and in earlier stages of Hebrew, which the Shapira text is supposed to represent, that "he" was still pronounced for that grammatical form, the 3rd person masculine singular pronominal suffix (as it still is in formal Arabic). That is why spelling is consistent in the pre-exilic orthography. When that letter was no longer sounded for that form, it was written with a different letter (called "waw") better to reflect the pronunciation. Forms with the waw are later. One could argue the Siloam evidence, which has this later form—but only for this word. Shapira apparently knew the Siloam inscription well but, if it is forged, missed that in another word with this grammatical form, the expected "he" appears to be there in the Siloam inscription. So there is an inconsistency in a pre-exilic inscription, perhaps suggesting the linguistic shift in this morpheme was in process, but the Shapira strips (apparently) are consistent in using the later form, suggesting that it was complete. That makes me skeptical, and once the only real data we have open the way for skepticism, then I turn to all of the circumstantial material that Rollston focuses on first. We will how the chapter on language addresses this problem (if it does).

[Gadianton]

OK, let’s take the plates out of the picture. If you, DrStakhanovite, were to take a purported scriptural record appearing in our day seriously, what would be the acceptable means by which that record would appear? And just for kicks, let’s say that the record is also from God.

Suppose while walking the streets of New York City, you are approached by a young man assuring you that it's your lucky day, because by a twist of fate for himself, he's going to have to let a 20,000$ Rolex go to you for 20$. If you laugh and say that's obviously fraud, okay, let's take that particular Rolex and that young man out of the picture. If you, MG, were to take a purported Rolex appearing to you on the streets of New York City seriously, what would be the acceptable means by which that watch would appear? And just for kicks, let's say there really is a Rolex out there for you on the streets of New York for 20$.

[Kishkumen]

I am gratified that the noble Reverend has taken the time to respond in kind to my rather off-topic impressions of the Rollston blogpost. In general, I am in agreement, but I'm approaching it as someone who is interested in these kinds of topics but who is not familiar with this particular issue. I thought Rollston was going to explain why Dershowitz is wrong, but he doesn't even tell us what Dershowitz's claim is. He catalogues the circumstantial evidence that the Shapira Straps (which I assume are small bits of text, not a long narrative) is a forgery, but all of that is immaterial from the standpoint of philology and epigraphy. The categorical denial of antiquity on the grounds the originals are gone was particularly jarring, and all that means is that you can't approach the question by empirical means, let alone settle it. The "dramatic claims require dramatic evidence" cliché is just not satisfying as a response to me. Let's just remove the "dramatic" import of the claims and focus on the evidence we do have, letting the implications unfold as they will. And while I understand Rollston only has so much time and that he must have good reasons for his view, the fact remains not only that a peer-reviewed article by a competent scholar was a published but that he chose to write this non-response. As I say, I am now curious about this and will try to read the Dershowitz article and Rollston's when it comes out. This should hinge on the philology. On the surface, this reminds me somewhat of the controversy around the Praeneste Fibula, where similar kinds of circumstantial facts about shady dealings on the antiquities market were the main evidence against its antiquity, which is absurd (who didn't have to deal with shady grave-robbers at that time?!). Of course in that case we have the object and the matter is settled as far as I know: it is ancient.

Why thank you, dearest consul, your mere manifestation in this forum is an honor that indebts us all and inspires us to redouble our efforts in thought and expression. Yes, it would have been nice if Rollston had explained why Dershowitz is wrong. I suggested that he would have done so if Dershowitz's arguments made a dent in the already existing argument for forgery. In that case, perhaps he should have told us why they do not.

I am somewhat puzzled about the part in your post where you seem to take it for granted that the materials on which something is inscribed or written are not "material" (hehe) to establishing its antiquity. Conceivably if someone were really damn good at mimicking the writing style and language of a particular ancient writer or style of ancient writing, they could create something that would fool the experts. We have been treated to an interesting miniseries about the Mormon forger, Mark Hofmann, who did a decent enough job at that to fool plenty of experts until the cracks in the ink on his manuscripts revealed his fraud. Imagine if these had been declared authentic and then lost! One can imagine that from now until the end of time many people would assume that they were real. Mostly it was the fact that Hoffman was revealed as a forger that threw his whole collection into question.

So, philology alone is what we have to rely on? It is in no way important to have the thing itself to examine?

One thing we definitely agree on is that the cliché about dramatic claims and dramatic evidence needs to be laid to rest. It is stupid. Evidence is evidence. If dramatic claims have a preponderance regular evidence, that should be good enough. Drama does not raise or lower the bar. Usually drama lowers the bar for people, since it pushes them to want so badly something to be the case. In such a circumstance, demands for regular old evidence usually go unheeded, so I would be happy if we could just get that.

EDIT: my original suspicion is wrong. I'm not sure exactly who or what Rollston is referring to, but I don't think that the Shapira Strips could lead to a fundamentalist reading.

Yeah, I was thinking you might be reacting partly from that place. I agree. It would be nice to know exactly what he thinks marks the beginning of the slippery slope here.

[Gadianton]

So, philology alone is what we have to rely on? It is in no way important to have the thing itself to examine?

The point could be either (the only options for the point that I can think of at least):

a) philology fills some gaps in the absence of the thing. It's not all we have to rely on, but it could be sufficient to answer the question.
b) philology could supersede the thing, if the thing preserves a philological anachronism; that could be equivalent to the crackling ink in the Hoffman manuscripts.
c) We don't know where the fault will be in advance. If the fault is in physical production, then philological evidence won't help us, but if the fault is in writing style, then physical evidence won't help.

suppose that Joseph Smith did produce the gold plates? Suppose all attempts to date the gold plates fail to uncover it as a modern production. Suppose the writing appears to be legit Egyptian. Suppose that a couple centuries later it's translated and you get the Book of Mormon. Is it ancient?

Because you still have a text that is obviously a 19th century in ideas, and there's still plenty of connection to the KJV even if Egyptian as a middle layer doesn't make it 1-to-1.

[Kishkumen]

The point could be either (the only options for the point that I can think of at least):

a) philology fills some gaps in the absence of the thing. It's not all we have to rely on, but it could be sufficient to answer the question.
b) philology could supersede the thing, if the thing preserves a philological anachronism; that could be equivalent to the crackling ink in the Hoffman manuscripts.
c) We don't know where the fault will be in advance. If the fault is in physical production, then philological evidence won't help us, but if the fault is in writing style, then physical evidence won't help.

suppose that Joseph Smith did produce the gold plates? Suppose all attempts to date the gold plates fail to uncover it as a modern production. Suppose the writing appears to be legit Egyptian. Suppose that a couple centuries later it's translated and you get the Book of Mormon. Is it ancient?

Because you still have a text that is obviously a 19th century in ideas, and there's still plenty of connection to the KJV even if Egyptian as a middle layer doesn't make it 1-to-1.

Well, but the apologists already have their modern expansion of an ancient text theory, right? One of their many ways of turning the obvious howlers into negligible problems, at least, for their fellow believers. My guess is that the gold plates would have been proven a fraud based mostly on the evidence of their method of fabrication. See the Kinderhook Plates.

In 1980, Professor D. Lynn Johnson of the Department of Materials Science and Engineering at Northwestern University examined the remaining plate. He used microscopy and various scanning devices and determined that the tolerances and composition of its metal proved entirely consistent with the facilities available in a 19th-century blacksmith shop and, more importantly, found traces of nitrogen in what were clearly nitric acid-etched grooves.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinderhook_plates

You can have something like the Phaistos Disc, which to this day has not seen a consensus on the translation of its characters. The "Caractors" document provides a similarly baffling group of signs in such a small number as to be practically useless for attempting a translation. The plates may have had an abundance of characters, and that would have given Smith much more opportunity to hoist himself on his own petard.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phaistos_Disc

[mentalgymnast]

MG
I don’t see a better way of transmitting information down through the ages than on something very durable. Plates fit the bill.

Smith didn't need the actual or original manuscript of John to receive a revelation of its contents. There is no need for the entire shenanigans of the plates, since via revelation God can certainly get his point across whether anything exists in writing or not, yes? So you can too see a better way. Plates were not used anyway. What was the point of them? You just don't want to admit the plates story is quite worthless for God being able to get his information to mankind. That's easy for Him whether anything even physically exists or not.

OK. So there are some of you that think God could have found a better way to communicate His word rather than plates of gold. The thing is, the word itself is attached to a purported historical record of an ancient people. So let’s take this one step farther. Let’s say there were prophets in the Western Hemisphere. Christ had dealings with them via revelation and a personal visit. A record was kept.

Question: what would be the most expeditious way/means to deliver that record to folks in the future?

Now yes, I realize that I’m starting from a place that most of you see as the beginning of a fairy tale of sorts: Nephites/Lamanites/Jaradites.

The thing is, the Book of Mormon doesn’t claim to be JUST God’s word, but also a result of translation from plates that actual people kept a record on. So some of the ‘options’ for God showing up in a stadium, going on TV, and the like, end up silencing the voices of prophets/people that Jesus Christ, purportedly, had a long and involved relationship with. The lessons/trials of a people that we can ‘liken to ourselves’ would never have come to light and been of any consequence. I could go on about how the Book of Mormon and the provenance of its origins and teachings plays a much larger potential ‘benefit’ to net FAITH than does God simply showing up in our day and spilling the beans, so to speak.

The plates ARE a big deal, whether or not they were sitting o the table the whole time during the translation process. As far as the plates being real? Here is a clip from the old board where I went out and retrieved a bunch of witness statements.

I have already listed narrative evidence that Joseph and Co. seemingly went to a lot of effort to protect something. You say they were protecting a fraudulent scheme based on fraudulent plates. As I've said, others would beg to differ. You don't have any evidence that Joseph didn't retrieve and translate the plates. As a result, and it's not like this is anything new, there has been and will continue to be a divide between those that believe there were actual ancient plates which Joseph had in his possession and those that believe it was an elaborate prop/plot.

Be that as it may, here are a few direct statements in which folks testified of the plates (all quotes are linked to this source: https://rsc.BYU.edu/archived/evaluating ... -witnesses
Beside Joseph’s history and the statements of the Three and Eight Witnesses in the Book of Mormon, there are a few direct statements by witnesses themselves in which they affirmed their June 1829 experience seeing the plates. For example, Martin Harris wrote to Hannah Emerson in 1870: “Concerning the plates, I do say that the angel did show to me the plates containing the Book of Mormon. Further, the translation that I carried to Prof. Anthon was copied from these same plates; also, that the Professor did testify to it being a correct translation. I do firmly believe and do know that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, for without I know he could not [have] had that gift, neither could he have translated the same. I can give if you require it one hundred witnesses to the proof of the Book of Mormon.”
David Whitmer wrote An Address to All Believers in Christ in 1881 in response to what he felt was a misrepresentation of his testimony by John Murphy. Echoing the statement of the Three Witnesses in the Book of Mormon, David wrote:
A PROCLAMATION. Unto all Nations, Kindred Tongues and People, unto whom these presents shall come:
It having been represented by one John Murphy, of Polo, Caldwell County, Mo., that I, in a conversation with him last summer, denied my testimony as one of the three witnesses to the ‘Book of Mormon.’
To the end, therefore, that he may understand me now, if he did not then; and that the world may know the truth, I wish now, standing as it were, in the very sunset of life, and in the fear of God, once for all to make this public statement:
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. Those who know me best, well know that I have always adhered to that testimony. And that no man may be misled or doubt my present views in regard to the same, I do again affirm the truth of all of my statements, as then made and published.
“He that hath an ear to hear, let him hear, it was no delusion! What is written is written, and he that readeth let him understand.”
As the last surviving of the Three Witnesses, David Whitmer spoke for all of them in 1887: “I will say once more to all mankind, that I have never at any time denied that testimony or any part thereof. I also testify to the world, that neither Oliver Cowdery or Martin Harris ever at any time denied their testimony. They both died reaffirming the truth of the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon. I was present at the deathbed of Oliver Cowdery, and his last words were, ‘Brother David, be true to your testimony of the Book of Mormon.’
One might ask in regards to the quotes above, what did David Whitmer have to gain by bearing his testimony of the plates at this time in his life? He had been out of the church for a number of years.
After escaping from jail in Liberty, Missouri, Hyrum Smith wrote in 1839, “Having given my testimony to the world of the truth of the Book of Mormon, the renewal of the everlasting covenant, and the establishment of the Kingdom of heaven, in these last days; and having been brought into great afflictions and distresses for the same, I thought that it might be strengthening to my beloved brethren, to give them a short account of my sufferings, for the truth’s sake.” As part of the subsequent narrative, Hyrum summed up what he had suffered and why. “I thank God that I felt a determination to die, rather than deny the things which my eyes had seen, which my hands had handled, and which I had borne testimony to, wherever my lot had been cast; and I can assure my beloved brethren that I was enabled to bear as strong a testimony, when nothing but death presented itself, as ever I did in my life.”
Hiram Page, another of the Eight Witnesses, was whipped in Jackson County, Missouri, in 1833 for his profession of Mormonism. He left activity in the Church in 1838 and in 1847 wrote to William McLellin. “As to the Book of Mormon,” he affirmed:
it would be doing injustice to myself and to the work of God of the last days, to say that I could know a thing to be true in 1830, and know the same thing to be false in 1847. To say my mind was so treacherous that I had forgotten what I saw. To say that a man of Joseph’s ability, who at that time did not know how to pronounce the word Nephi, could write a book of six hundred pages, as correct as the Book of Mormon, without supernatural power. And to say that those holy angels who came and showed themselves to me as I was walking through the field, to confirm me in the work of the Lord of the last days—three of whom came to me afterwards and sang an hymn in their own pure language. Yea, it would be treating the God of heaven with contempt to deny these testimonies, with too many others to mention here.
Writing subsequently as the Church’s historian, John wrote in third person that his brother “David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, and Martin Harris, were the Three Witnesses, whose names are attached to the Book of Mormon according to the prediction of the Book, who knew and saw, for a surety, into whose presence the angel of God came and showed them the plates, the ball, the directors, etc. And also other witnesses even eight viz: Christian Whitmer, Jacob Whitmer, John Whitmer, and Peter Whitmer Jr., Hiram Page, Joseph Smith, Hyrum Smith, and Samuel H. Smith, are the men to whom Joseph Smith, Jr., showed the plates, these witnesses names go forth also of the truth of this work in the last days. To the convincing or condemning of this generation in the last days.”[14] In 1836 John wrote further: “To say that the Book of Mormon is a revelation from God, I have no hesitancy, but with all confidence have signed my name to it as such.” This was John’s last editorial in his role as editor of the Church’s newspaper, and he asked his readers’ indulgence in speaking freely on the subject. “I desire to testify,” he wrote, “to all that will come to the knowledge of this address; that I have most assuredly seen the plates from whence the Book of Mormon is translated, and that I have handled these plates, and know of a surety that Joseph Smith, jr. has translated the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God.”[15] Three decades later, John and his brother David were the only two surviving Book of Mormon witnesses. At that point, just two years before his own death, John responded to an inquirer about the witnesses. John replied, “I have never heard that any one of the three or eight witnesses ever denied the testimony that they have borne to the Book as published in the first edition of the Book of Mormon.
These first-person statements by Book of Mormon witnesses are far outnumbered by hearsay statements of persons reporting what they heard about the testimonies. Hearsay is problematic evidence. It is, by nature, unverifiable. Furthermore, the hearsay accounts are inconsistent. What witnesses reportedly said in one account differs from the next. Historians value hearsay for what it reveals about how people and events were interpreted by others, but it is not reliable evidence for interpreting people and events in the first place. People trying to reconstruct from hearsay what the witnesses saw will end up frustrated. Though much of the hearsay evidence unequivocally declares that the witnesses saw and hefted the plates, some of it obfuscates that point. It is not reliable for reconstructing their experiences. The hearsay accounts show that one’s faith in the Book of Mormon witnesses or lack thereof is based not simply on hearing the witnesses’ testimonies but on how one chooses to receive and understand their testimonies.
Book of Mormon witnesses responded to these hearings [hearsays] with corrections. When he learned how Burnett and Parrish were interpreting his statements, Martin Harris “arose & said he was sorry for any man who rejected the Book of Mormon for he knew it was true.”[25] He maintained his faith and understood what he had said differently than Stephen Burnett and Warren Parrish did, as Burnett acknowledged. “No man ever heard me in any way deny . . . the administration of the angel that showed me the plates,” Harris wrote later.[26] David Whitmer wrote and published a pamphlet in response to Murphy in 1881, in which he affirmed how literally he believed his testimony as stated in the Book of Mormon. That same year Whitmer wrote “A Few Corrections” to the editor of the Kansas City Journal, which had misrepresented him.
No one is better positioned to verify whether or not the Book of Mormon witnesses were being truthful than William McLellin. Here's what he had to say:
When it comes to the Book of Mormon witnesses, the question is, which historical documents is one willing to trust? Those whose faith has been deeply shaken sometimes find it easier to trust lesser evidence rather than the best sources or the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence. But that choice is not a foregone conclusion. It is neither inevitable nor irreversible. William McLellin believed the witnesses. He met three of them—David Whitmer, Martin Harris, and Hyram Smith—when they passed his home in Illinois in August 1831. He walked several miles with them and “talked much” with them and other Saints for several days that summer. Of August 19, William wrote, “I took Hiram the brother of Joseph and we went into the woods and set down and talked together about 4 hours. I inquired into the particulars of the coming forth of the record, of the rise of the church and of its progress and upon the testimonies given to him.” Of the next morning, McLellin wrote, “I rose early and betook myself to earnest prayr to God to direct me into truth; and from all the light that I could gain by examinations, searches and researches I was bound as an honest man to acknowledge the truth and Validity of the Book of Mormon.” He asked Hyrum Smith to baptize him. McLellin served several missions, some as an Apostle, before becoming deeply disaffected later in the 1830s. He spent half a century frustrated by what he simultaneously loved and hated about Mormonism before receiving a letter from a Salt Lake City anti-Mormon named James Cobb, who wrote assuming he would find an ally. McLellin wrote back: “When I thoroughly examine a subject and settle my mind, then higher evidence must be introduced before I change. I have set to my seal that the Book of Mormon is a true, divine record and it will require more evidence than I have ever seen to ever shake me relative to its purity I have read many ‘Exposes.’ I have seen all their arguments. But my evidences are above them all!” He explained further, “When a man goes at the Book of M. he touches the apple of my eye. He fights against truth—against purity—against light—against the purist, or one of the truest, purist books on earth. I have more confidence in the Book of Mormon than any book of this wide earth!” McLellin described his own repeated readings of the Book of Mormon before noting his personal experiences with some of the witnesses. “When I first joined the church in 1831,” he wrote, “soon I became acquainted with all the Smith family and the Whitmer family, and I heard all their testimonies, which agreed in the main points; and I believed them then and I believe them yet. But I don’t believe the many stories (contradictory) got up since, for I individually know many of them are false.”

If the plates were real, and there are plenty of witness statements to verify that they were, then I don’t know that it is unreasonable to consider the fact that THIS WAS the best means for God to accomplish His purposes for increasing faith upon the earth. A faith that we develop through our own study, prayer, and works.

Some of the ideas that have been presented here for alternative ways for God to ‘get the word out’ are extremely silver plattery. I’m of the opinion that this isn’t and hasn’t been the way God works in the world.

One thing I think we can agree on, it is absolutely critical that the critics do whatever they can to discredit the plates.

Regards,
MG