Could Joseph Smith Make the Plates?

[Limnor]

Outstanding.

Awesome.

...Therefore, or maybe wherefore...

Has someone been reading Carmack?????

It’s more simple than that—I was channeling Brent Metcalfe’s theories.

[dan vogel]

I need to expand on what may be a shortsighted viewpoint and clarify why I visualize something more intense than what is expressed in Vogel's presentation.

The greenish corner of the plates comes from Josiah Stowell who accidentally saw the corner of the plates sticking out of the cloth covering them. Of course, not just the corner was green.

<snip>

Since we are taking Stowell's description seriously, we would expect tumbaga plates to have been significantly corroded, not just a tiny corner or along the edges.

<snip>

I think the oxidation and corrosion would be more extensive than Smoot's edge of the plates. Stowell's description implies he saw more than the edge of the plates, but rather a corner of the top or bottom plate.

<snip>

Stowell's description that these plates resembled a greenish stone implies a larger surface area and that the green was solid, not patchy.

Josiah Stowell described a really strange account in some ways, but he described having the plates handed to him while covered and a corner of the covering slipping off. And so he just saw a corner. He didn't see a whole like the whole plates, but he said he saw a corner and he described them as having a greenish cast or looking like a stone of greenish cast. And what's compelling to me is if you were making up seeing gold plates, that's probably not how you would describe seeing them, right? And so he's probably authentically describing something he actually saw.

<snip>

But if the copper got exposed on a corner for instance or along an edge, it could have oxidized and it would have had this greenish almost stony looking color.

The point I wish to make is that a CORNER is more significant than what people may think. First of all, this corner was not seen from just a limited two-dimensional view but from a three-dimensional view as the plates were in motion while being transported through the window into Josiah Stowell's personal clutch! That enlarges the area of view quite significantly.

So what is this three-dimensional "corner" and just how large is it? The plates have four (4) corners (A,B,C,D). Josiah Stowell saw one of them and to see one of them is somewhat like seeing all FOUR (4) because each corner represents a portion of the whole. How so? Well, each corner (fourth) is a view of the entire product:



So, in a sense, Josiah Stowell saw the plates and they were GREEN!

PS. I take my hat off to Vogel. He nailed it.

Thanks. I like that analysis.

[MG 2.0]

Join me in viewing my new video—" Could Joseph Smith Have Made the Plates? A Response to the Mormon Apologists”—which premieres Monday, March 16, 2026, at 5:00 pm Mountain Time.

https://youtu.be/qEwzcMEzOaU

From the video presentation:

2:36
“Personally, I don't believe Joseph Smith made a set of gold plates that would pass visual inspection.”

2:43
“If he had indeed created such an object, I assure you more than eight people would have seen it.”

That is a fairly bold assertion. How can you be sure that Joseph would have shown the plates to more people?

Biblical patterns seem to demonstrate that few witnesses are the norm.

1. Christ's resurrection appearances (road to Emmaus and Ascension).
2. Visions to prophets. Moses, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Paul, John (Patmos), Jesus on Mt. of Transfiguration.
3. Ark of the Covenant.
4. Cornelius and Peter.
5. Stephen's vision.
6. Early Apostles went out in pairs. (two witnesses)

In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established. (2 Corinthians 13:1)

Granted, there are examples of the Judeo-Christian God/Jesus revealing Himself to more than just a few such as on the Day of Pentecost.

I realize that from a critic's perspective Joseph would want to show the 'plates' to as few people as possible...especially if they were fake. The fact is, however, that Joseph's limited showing/sharing of the plates is not without precedent.

I realize that you are an expert in your field of study but I do find it interesting that you would be sure enough of yourself and/or ALL of the evidence to make such a blanket assurance. There are reasons to think otherwise when one steps back and looks at the Restoration Narrative as a larger whole.

From a believer's perspective anyway. I'll leave it at that.

Regards,
MG

[Shulem]

The formal declaration that Smith's gold plates "have the appearance of gold" is not a valid excuse for deceptive apologists to claim they were made of tumbaga. Vogel's video recalls how the gold plates had a predecessor: Jaredite twenty-four plates made of "pure gold". Also, recall the hilt of the sword of Laban was said to be made of "pure gold" as well as king Noah's priestly seats were ornamented with "pure gold". Each of these items in questions could be said to have the appearance of gold. Right?

But let's take it a step further: John described the appearance of New Jerusalem coming down out of heaven and the "street of the city was pure gold, as it were transparent glass." (Rev. 21:21) Joseph Smith continued the revelation with "I saw the beautiful streets of that kingdom, which had the appearance of being paved with gold." (D&C 137:4) He also described the Lord as, "We saw the Lord standing upon the breastwork of the pulpit, before us; and under his feet was a paved work of pure gold, in color like amber." (D&C 110:2)

When Howard Carter peered into a hole to view Tutankhamen's tomb he described it as "Everywhere the glint of gold."

I think we get the picture.

[Marcus]

...I realize that from a critic's perspective Joseph would want to show the 'plates' to as few people as possible...especially if they were fake. The fact is, however, that Joseph's limited showing/sharing of the plates is not without precedent.

I realize that you are an expert in your field of study but I do find it interesting that you would be sure enough of yourself and/or ALL of the evidence to make such a blanket assurance. There are reasons to think otherwise when one steps back and looks at the Restoration Narrative as a larger whole.

From a believer's perspective anyway. I'll leave it at that..

Mentalgymnast cannot resist attacking people's character, for no other reason than that he thinks they believe differently than he does. I thought he was trying to get away from attacking people and wanted to talk about issues. If so, it didn't last long.

[Shulem]

Biblical patterns seem to demonstrate that few witnesses are the norm.

The Bible is guilty of many a con and false statements and stories are found therein. The iconic descriptions of Moses and the Exodus never happened in Egypt. It was a lie.

In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established. (2 Corinthians 13:1)

Christianity was a successful religion and claimed to have many, many witnesses: "After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep." (1 Cor 15:6)

I realize that from a critic's perspective Joseph would want to show the 'plates' to as few people as possible...

So tell me, MG, when the resurrected Jesus appeared to the Nephites, how many people were on the scene? Just a few so every word could be established?

YOU are so stupid! Go to bed!

[Limnor]

It’s pretty convenient that the expectations seem to change depending on whether the plates are evidence vs revelation.

[MG 2.0]

My concern here is that Vogel would be so self assured in making the statement that he did. Especially when the scriptural record seems to point to fewer witnesses most of the time. Yes, there were/are exceptions. But few seems to be the rule.

Of course if you don't believe any of the people/references I listed have any merit, that's another thing I guess.

I suppose that I'm suggesting a little humility in recognizing there is not just one way of looking at this. It's not always about wealth/money/fame. And no, I'm not being mean or disrespectful. Sheesh.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Would I be safe/correct in saying that there is a renewed interest in the plates as a result of the recent publication (2025) of Bushman’s “What Are We to Make of the Gold Plates?”

It's pretty much accepted fact that there were 'plates' at this point. The critics, of course, are going to go all out in trying to destroy the veracity of the plates as having come from an angel (because they're fake, course!).

It's a big deal. Bushman knows it. The critics know it.

https://byustudies.BYU.edu/article/what ... old-plates

From the essay:

We all know the gold plates are among the most exotic of our beliefs: There is nothing quite like them in religious history, and they were a bizarre item to appear in nineteenth-century rural culture. Do we even know for sure they ever existed? Joseph Smith’s refusal to show them to anyone other than specially selected witnesses arouses suspicion, and it does not help that they were taken away by the angel after translation and now are no longer accessible. I was interested in how the prevailing skepticism had affected Latter-day Saint scholars. Was belief fading?

He's an up front guy.

Regards,
MG

[Shulem]

...the scriptural record seems to point to fewer witnesses most of the time. Yes, there were/are exceptions. But few seems to be the rule.

You should know that there are more than a few people in an Egyptian king's court:

And Moses and Aaron went in unto Pharaoh, and they did so as the Lord had commanded: and Aaron cast down his rod before Pharaoh, and before his servants, and it became a serpent.

Wow! You see!

So, show us the gold Bible, Joe! Then we can believe you really have gold plates rather than green roofing tin you snipped to pieces in the back of the barn.