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.