Guest post by Stephen Smoot
Did Joseph Smith actually possess gold plates? This question has intrigued historians, skeptics, and believers ever since Joseph first described the origins of the Book of Mormon. Richard L. Bushman’s recent book, a “cultural history” of the plates, traces how they have functioned as both historical artifact and sacred symbol in Latter-day Saint religious imagination. As Bushman shows, the plates continue to captivate and perplex.
In recent years, skeptics have offered various theories to account for the plates’ presence in the historical record. Dan Vogel, for instance, has long suggested Joseph fabricated tin plates, while Sonia Hazard has proposed he may have possessed printing plates. But the most common theory by far is that Joseph never had any plates at all. I refer to this view as Plate Mythicism—the idea that the gold plates existed only in Joseph Smith’s mind. Like Jesus Mythicism, which denies the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth, Plate Mythicism dismisses the historical reality of the plates as a tangible object in history.
As with Jesus Mythicism, however, the problem with Plate Mythicism is that it is not substantiated by the historical record. Numerous firsthand witnesses recalled seeing, handling, or hefting the plates, and there is no credible evidence that any of these individuals ever recanted their statements, even when under duress, excommunicated, or alienated from Joseph Smith. Some scholars attempt to explain this away with psychological or visionary models, positing mass suggestion or group delusion. But such explanations struggle to account for the consistency, diversity, and longevity of the witness statements. In short, the claim that the plates never existed runs counter to the robust and well-documented historical evidence from those who interacted with Joseph during the translation period.
The most recent advocate of Plate Mythicism is historian John Turner in his new biography of Joseph Smith. Though not a Latter-day Saint, Turner is a sympathetic and respectful scholar, known for serious, good-faith work, including earlier books on Brigham Young and Latter-day Saint Christology. Those who know Turner know him as a thoughtful Christian, a good scholar, and a consummate gentleman.
Turner’s new biography of Joseph Smith has many strengths. His prose is sharp and engaging, and he draws on the latest research from the Joseph Smith Papers Project. But one of the book’s most notable weaknesses, in my view, is its treatment of the gold plates—specifically, Turner’s embrace of a plate-mythicist framework that diverges sharply from the historical testimonies.
Turner is explicit in his belief that the gold plates did not exist outside the shared imagination of Joseph Smith and his friends and family. “Because he did not show his family and friends the plates,” Turner argues, “there aren’t witnesses [to the plates] in the ordinary sense of the term.” His “best sense of what transpired,” he writes, is that “Joseph did not have golden plates.” Turner reasons that “when someone refuses to show a hidden, valuable object to others, the simplest explanation is that he does not possess it.” He even suggests that Joseph may have engaged “in a bit of subterfuge” (a polite way of saying Joseph was lying), possibly “jesting” with family and friends about the plates, perhaps driven by disappointment in treasure-digging and the family’s economic hardship.
In short, Turner is a plate mythicist. But how, then, does he explain the many testimonies of people who reported tangible interactions with the plates? Here, Turner appears uncertain. He mentions alternative theories (tin plates, printing plates, or even a box filled with rocks or bricks) but concedes, “There isn’t sufficient evidence to support any of these speculations.” Still, he maintains that “the absence of such evidence does not buttress Joseph’s own assertions.” Whatever was in the box, Turner writes, “whether Joseph fashioned plates or put some other object in the box, the act is more audacious than mendacious. . . . Joseph staked his reputation on a physical object. . . . It was a remarkably bold gambit.”
In a recent Faith Matters podcast, Turner has reaffirmed his plate-mythicist stance: “I conclude that Joseph didn’t possess golden plates.” Fair enough. But what, for example, of the Eight Witnesses, whose testimony explicitly affirms handling physical metal plates? He quotes their testimony in his biography, and in a Reddit AMA he admitted he cannot fully account for it. “Despite the physicality of the description in the statement of the Eight, there is something extraordinary about their experience,” he said, while acknowledging, “I probably should have addressed this more fully in the book.” In the book, he offers this similar explanation: “The experiences of the witnesses point to the power of Joseph’s spiritual leadership. Many Americans claimed to have visions. Joseph Smith had the much rarer ability of enabling others to share those visions. In this case, moreover, he made a mysterious hidden object present for other people. The immaterial became real.” On the Faith Matters podcast, Turner similarly stated: “At the end of the day, I simply read that statement—despite its physicality—I read it as ultimately visionary.”
This raises an interesting question. Suppose the plates were real, physical, ancient, and authentic, and the Eight Witnesses truly saw and handled them as they claimed. If that’s the case, what exact words or phrases should they have used to make that clear that are different from what they already said in their printed statement? What more should have been said beyond “we did handle with our hands … as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated,” or “we saw the engravings thereon . . . which has the appearance of ancient work”? If their existing testimony doesn’t suffice for Turner, what would? If one cannot articulate what wording would adequately convey a literal experience, then one is not engaging with the historical record on its own terms. One is simply imposing a conclusion onto the evidence regardless of what that evidence actually says.
This, unfortunately, appears to be what Turner is doing in his new biography. As a plate mythicist, he is committed to the belief that the gold plates never existed. But this requires him to reinterpret the testimonies of those who said they saw and handled them, especially the Eight Witnesses, in ways that contradict the plain meaning of their words. In order to uphold his conclusion, he must redefine their experience as visionary, even though they emphasized a physical interaction with a material object. This is a textbook case of forcing the data to fit a predetermined conclusion.
To be clear: the witnesses’ statements do not, by themselves, prove that the plates were ancient records written by Nephites and delivered by an angel. But what they do strongly indicate is that Joseph Smith had a physical object (something metallic and engraved) that he showed to others, who then attested to their experience. That much is difficult to credibly deny. Individuals, including skeptical historians like Turner, are free to interpret that fact however they wish, but to claim there is no indicating that the plates ever existed at all “in the ordinary sense” requires ignoring or distorting a substantial body of primary source material. Plate Mythicism, in short, is not a serious explanation of the historical record.
In fact, I would go so far as to say that the historical case for the existence of the gold plates is stronger than the historical case for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. That’s not because the latter lacks support, but because the gold plates are supported by multiple firsthand and contemporaneous statements from a range of individuals, many of whom maintained their testimony in the face of hostility or disaffection. The evidence is simply too substantial to dismiss out of hand.
I sincerely welcome John Turner’s thoughtful engagement with Joseph Smith and Latter-day Saint history. His work reflects genuine curiosity and a willingness to take the subject seriously, something too often lacking in outsider treatments of the Church. I’m also encouraged to see more non-Latter-day Saint scholars entering the conversation with seriousness and goodwill. But with that engagement comes a responsibility: to deal honestly and robustly with the historical sources, even when they complicate one’s preferred narrative. Interpretive frameworks are necessary, but they must not override clear and consistent documentary evidence. If the conversation is to move forward meaningfully, it must be grounded not just in sympathy or interest, but in fidelity to what the historical record actually says.
Stephen O. Smoot is a doctoral candidate in Semitic and Egyptian Languages and Literature at the Catholic University of America. He previously earned a Master’s degree in Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations from the University of Toronto and Bachelor’s degrees in Ancient Near Eastern Studies and German Studies from Brigham Young University.
Comments
19 responses to “John Turner, Joseph Smith, and Plate Mythicism”
Yes, exactly. I understand if people don’t accept that the plates were ancient or divine, but the plates’ physical existence is impossible to dismiss. Of course even their physical existence also isn’t easy to explain, but if you treat them as imaginary, you’re not even trying.
The issue for a historian (as opposed to a believer/skeptic) isn’t whether Joseph did or didn’t have gold plates with writings from an ancient American civilization. It’s whether or not he had some tangible object that he claimed were plates. The historical record is quite clear that, at least in some periods, Smith had *something* that he claimed to be plates and that others accepted as material. I don’t think it’s worth getting wrapped around the axle in considering Turner’s book. But his glossing over the strong evidence of Smith having had something (rather than nothing) is a weakness. (That said, glossing over it does allow him to sidestep believer/skeptic discussions and plausible-but-entirely-speculative hypotheses about tin plates, printing plates, bricks, bags of sand, etc. A reasonable choice for an author in his position, however disappointing it may be for some believers.)
Anything that doesn’t fit my paradigm is “visionary” or “metaphorical.” My paradigm is super comforting in times of psychic distress.
I also find it interesting that when Joseph Smith was in possession of the golden plates that there are accounts of people trying to take them from him. Then when he no longer had them, those stopped. It really does suggest to me that Satan knew about the plates and had Joseph’s contemporaries try to stop him.
I have thought about why showing the plates was limited to a select few. If Joseph Smith had taken them to a Harvard professor and the professor incorrectly proclaimed them as false, that would have been a major setback in peoples willingness to take the Book of Mormon seriously. If I were alive back then, I know I would take the word of a high ranking professional over the word of a potential charlatan. I imagine many at the time would have been the same.
MoPo, the odd thing is that Turner doesn’t sidestep the believer/skeptic discussion elsewhere – he seems to be quite forthright in his skepticism.
The plates are indeed a conundrum. The witness statements are hard to simply toss aside. But Royal Skousen’s work on the text of the BoM has revealed some perplexing questions. Simply put, there are things in the translation that never could have been on the plates. Royal suggests a “creative and cultural” translation, but why would God permit that, given all the trouble of having record keepers engrave on the plates and then preserving the plates for centuries. And Joseph hardly looked at them. So did he even need them at all? Lots of questions that don’t have satisfactory answers–on both sides.
The testimonies of both the Three and Eight Witnesses are not without weakness. Neither attests to the date, time, or place of authorship or of execution. And neither states who wrote each of them. Without these affirmations they’re no good in court, for example.
It seems like the real issue of the gold plates, as stated by Tom, is whether Joseph needed them at all. If he didn’t need them, is the existence of the metal plates even an important issue?
If a magician performs an illusion, and you can’t figure out how he did it, does that mean it’s not a trick but reality? In the case of Joseph, there is enough in his personal history to indicate that he wasn’t above performing an illusion. We just don’t know, for sure, how he did it.
The fact that we no longer have the plates is also problematic.
thechair, you’re right about the published statements of the Three and the Eight not passing the Federal Rules of Evidence, but the statements of their signors regarding the event would and do form a consistent pattern. In any case, the standards of historical evidence are necessarily different from the Federal Rules of Evidence.
Regarding the purpose of the plates, an abridgement or “creative and cultural translation” still requires a base text to start from. Considering the significance of the Witnesses in Latter-day Saint apologetic dialogue one could argue that the plates were necessary for that alone, independent of anything else Joseph got from studying them (or Mormon/Moroni for making them, for that matter.)
Or….after all this time (really, without any tangible evidence – and no, “the witnessess” don’t represent evidence of any kind; with the exception of evidence of a notable period of religious fever/fervor) one can simply come to the conclusion that the whole story is nonsense and was a remarkable/admirable fabrication of a (yes a somewhat unique) human being.
It’s quite a thing to be living in 2025 – and to still believe in “magic” and “disappearing plates”. We have been – and probably ever shall be a remarkably gullible species.
That’s just cynical ignorance masquerading as sophistication to avoid doing the reading, LHL. Saying that eyewitness statements don’t constitute evidence is dumb. And the statements by the official witnesses are by no means the only evidence – there were multiple unofficial witnesses of the plates’ physical existence. Numerous people saw the Nephite interpreters as well. Honest skeptics propose theories for the plates’ origin because the evidence of their physical existence can’t be simply wished away.
Jonathan: I believe I’ll respond by quoting from Dan’s comment above:
“Anything that doesn’t fit my paradigm is “visionary” or “metaphorical.” My paradigm is super comforting in times of psychic distress”.
My comment has clearly caused you distress – and therefor you leap to the “magical”. There is no evidence for their physical existence; you may wish it so – but it does not exist. What does exist (however) are stories, mythology, allegory and Tall Tales. You may choose to believe in them and continue to embrace them and that’s your affair.
To describe this phenomena….perhaps I’ll use the word you flung in my direction. To continue to believe in this physical reality of this nonsense….”is just dumb”.
If we take the historical record at its word–that Joseph smith had the plates–then we’re left with a most intriguing question: what was the purpose of the plates if Joseph hardly referred to them during the translation process?
In answering that question I think the first thing we need to remember is that Joseph had the plates in his possession for about a year and a half before he began the swift translation process with Oliver Cowdery as his scribe.
The next thing to keep in mind is that Joseph–with the help of Martin Harris–sought advice and confirmation from several notable scholars on characters that he had copied from the plates. It has also been suggested by some latter-day saint scholars that Joseph was actually looking for someone who could do the translation–as if it hadn’t occurred to him that he would ultimately be the person of choice for the task. So it’s all about finding a way to get a translation of the plates. I can’t imagine that they would have exerted themselves in that way if there hadn’t been a real set of plates with writing on them.
And so after exhausting his resources in his efforts to find someone “qualified” to do the translation he finally begins the process himself–utilizing the instruments that came with the plates to interpret the record–once again exerting himself to get a translation. And after a bumpy start–with several scribes helping him according to their availability–he’s able to get a good chunk of the beginning done.
And then what follows is the loss of the 116 pages. Joseph is stripped of the plates and his gifts and believes that he has lost favor with God permanently. It is an agonizing couple of weeks or so–but then, as we know, the Lord forgives him and returns the plates to his possession.
And this is where I fictionalize a bit: I’m of the opinion that it might’ve been at this point in the process where Joseph used his own seer stone for the most part–if not entirely. And perhaps part of the reason for that shift might be because Moroni only returned the plates to him–retaining the interpreters and other items. I think it’s possible that everything he experienced before Oliver Cowdery’s arrival was preparatory in nature. Even Joseph’s usage of the urim and thummim early on might’ve been for the purpose of training him to use such instruments properly–for the Lord’s purposes.
And so what we have is Joseph getting and securing a mundane, palpable record made of ore that serves to rivet the reality of its writers to his soul. That’s what we begin with–and then we have Joseph trying to find a way to get the translation–which would be a rather odd venture if there were no plates–first through learned means and finally though miraculous means–which would take a period of training before he was able to do it properly.
And then after losing the 116 pages–the plates are taken away from him. Now why would the plates need to be removed if he had already lost his inspiration? You see, there’s something about the “hardcopy” that grounds Joseph and his scribe(s) to the purpose of the translation. As it says in 2 Nephi 27:
6 And it shall come to pass that the Lord God shall bring forth unto you the words of a book, and they shall be the words of them which have slumbered.
In other words they were to bring forth the words of real people who had live in the past–and the plates served as a sign of that reality. This was not a product Joseph’s imagination. And so, even though he may not have referred to the plates during the “swift translation” their presence in the world kept both him and Oliver focused on the true purpose of their work. And it keeps the saints who would follow from slipping into a spiritualized version of the Book of Mormon’s provenance.
So Jack….It really was “magic” then?
It was revelation. And we don’t always get revelation simply for the asking. Most of the time we’ve gotta put some effort into preparing ourselves to receive it–and having the plates and the other objects helped to prepare Joseph in the ways that were needful for him to do that particular work.
LHL, you really have no idea what you’re talking about. The primary evidence for the plates’ existence aren’t the various reports of supernatural events concerning them, but the multiple accounts of people going about their daily mundane business when they saw, felt, heard, or lifted the plates. You can only call it mythology or tall tales if no have no familiarity with the evidence. You really think Dan Vogel accepts the physical reality of the plates because he needs it to fit a paradigm?
This is something I changed my mind about around 10 years ago. I used to assume that the plates were something like the Angel Moroni, where we depend on the report of Joseph Smith and have to take it on faith. But that’s not the case with the plates. When I actually looked into the contemporary accounts, it was surprising how physically real the plates are in them. Opinions about what they contain differ, of course, but their physical existence is well attested.
If you’re going to go on an Internet “truth-telling crusade” or whatever you flatter yourself to be doing, LHL, you could at least bring some material that hasn’t been retread by a thousand fedora-tipping 13-year olds before you.
It would seem to me that, amidst all our intellectual honest inquiries and associated gymnastics, we shouldn’t denigrate or disparage each other’s views on this —- since we run the risk of disparaging people’s sincere faith. Like our faith in Christ – at some point we are faced with deciding whether or not to walk across a bridge from depending solely upon intellectual or physical “certainty” and crossing over to the certainty of faith and belief buttressed by personal experience. Unlike the world of intellectual inquiry and gymnastics- I think the world of sincere faith in sacred territory we should step though with respect.
Jack, I appreciate your perspective.