I would also add regarding the example of the sun dancing in 1917, while a very valid example of not taking every witness testimony for granted, i think it is an invalid comparison. The plates witnesses are not one singular collective event but several events- some at random and some not- that all bolster the positive case whereas no witness testimony contradicts it. Regarding the 1917 case, only those at the singular collective event recorded that and no one else did, in fact I'm sure if you dug hard enough you'd be able to find contradictory statements. A more valid comparison would be if people in two different unconnected locations saw the sun dancing and a few other randos made statements either experiencing it or or reaffirming it
I agree with you that it isn't a one to one comparison. It's honestly more preamble to the Three and the Eight, but I used the analogy only to help raise the point that witnesses are unreliable. The better analogy would probably be something like UFO sightings and the "little gray men" phenomenon that was all the rage in the mid-20th century. Pretty consistent, seemingly independent accounts across both time and space over a period of years.
Thank you for including visuals, that helped to follow along. Definitely had an easier time following along on this one. I will say, i still personally am more inclined to lean to the faithful side. I absolutely agree that witnesses shouldn't be the end all be all, and i understand your breakdown of the argument mcdonald makes and how that doesn't exactly vibe 100%, but i personally don't think the witnesses ought to be entirely disregarded, though i understand why one might feel that way, and i think the 1917 example is a good point to bring up. At the end of the day i personally consider the witnesses powerful circumstancial evidence but nothing to base a testimony solely on and if the witnesses were the only evidence apologists put forth idk if I'd be a member, and if they all remained faithful i Definitely don't think i would be lol
I'm glad the visual helped. I plan on continuing to work on that as the series moves forward, and the way Brett builds off of these arguments is actually really cool. So, I figure it's better to show the progress. If you were convinced away after just a couple of videos, or even at the end of this series, I'd be concerned haha. My goal with this series isn't to convince anyone to disbelieve in the Restoration. I'm only interested in tackling the positive case that Mcdonald puts forward in the series. Like you said, if witnesses were the only evidence, it would be a poor case. We're very early in this series, and Brett brings a lot more to the table. At this point, I don't think he's earned the conclusions of his arguments. I wish he had taken a more humble approach to what his evidence establishes with some end state of all the evidence together making the truth claims more probable than not.
Regarding your last few remarks i agree. I think there was a strategy to it but i certainly agree a different approach could have worked out and arguably had a greater payoff. I plan on being here all the way through though regarding your responses lol
Speaking of distractions, Perry spends his time arguing the semantics of Brett’s arguments, instead of dealing with the actual case at hand. And when he does attempt to provide an alternative explanation, he ventures into the realm of “possibility”, after arguing that Brett’s epistemology of reasonability/probability is too low for him. Speaking of red herrings, isn’t it a red herring to say that one’s claim of owning a red Ferrari becomes more solidified if they know the specific color-name of Ferrari red (Rosso Corsa)? Perry is distracting from the main claim of whether the Ferrari is actually in their possession or not. Knowing the specific color-name of Ferrari red does not determine if they own the car. (But it indirectly helps, right? 😉) One of the most important foundations of our judicial system is the ability to call upon witnesses. Witnesses are heavily relied on when determining the outcome of a case. As unreliable as they sometimes are, we put a lot of weight in them. If they are as unnecessary as Perry makes them out to be, perhaps we need to rethink our approach to the judicial system. Perry seems to forget that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. His conclusion about ancient, new-world plates relies on unearthing all of Central and North America (and perhaps a Time Machine, knowing that metals can be reused, and they corrode in certain climates). How does Perry respond to an event that relies completely on witnesses, lacks physical evidence, and yet is accepted by historians? The Battle of Muye in 1046 BC was a large Chinese battle, but there is no archaeological evidence of it. My point is, there are real events that take place despite a lack of physical evidence. Again, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and witnesses hold weight. This next point may not hold as much water to some, but many of Perry’s conclusions are filtered through a modernistic, Western worldview, where the Scientific Method is the only approach to knowledge. Although it is a great approach to the observable world, it is not without its limits. Much of human history would argue that there are other ways to obtain knowledge - ways that involve the supernatural (or things beyond our observance). I personally find it ignorant to believe that we - our modernistic, scientific, Western society - possess the correct approach, and every approach that came before us is wrong. I’m not calling Perry ignorant, I’m simply pointing out that he relies on a naturalistic worldview, where the supernatural simply does not exist. And don’t worry, Brett will rule out conspiracy in future presentations.
I am inclined to agree with your first few remarks. When addressing the actual arguments I didn't feel there was much of a concrete response other than doubting witnesses in general. He played with a few possibilities but even affirmed he doesn't necessarily agree with those possibilities and I think it's what gets to the heart of part of why I'm still in the Church. I have yet to see a unified plausible and satisfactory critic naturalistic explanation. I've seen individual answers to smaller pieces that look damning by themselves but never anything that explains an overwhelming majority of it
I appreciate the response! In this series, I'm responding to the positive case for LDS truth claims that Brett offers. While I do have my own ideas of a naturalistic origin of the BoM, it would be outside the scope of this series for me to get into it. The point about Ferrari red was based on a bit of a stereotype of the sort of people who purchase Ferraris. They just seem like to me to be the sort of people who would know the special name for the red and insist on its use. Makes me an unlikely candidate haha. While I am yet to accept as true any supernatural claims, I don't out and out reject the supernatural. However, naturalistic explanations are, pretty much by nature, more likely than supernatural ones. As such, a higher standard of evidence would be needed to establish the truth of a supernatural claim. With respect to the plates, it isn't just that there is an absence of evidence, it's that there is no provenance for anything like golden plates. The witness testimonies do not overcome the burden of such an extraordinary claim. If Brett does rule out conspiracy later, cool. He hasn't earned that claim at this point in the series, though. Using it here is premature. But we will see how he does at ruling out conspiracy when we get there! And just a side note, the reliance on witness testimony in the judicial system is a major problem, actually. The Innocence Project exists, in part, because of our social reliance on faulty witnesses. You won't hear me disagreeing with the idea that we should overall our justice system.
@tybaltmarr2158 I appreciate the comment, and I will also have to disagree with you. Evidence does have quality. Evidence can be weak, it can be strong, it can be compelling. The phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" points to a burden of proof for extraordinary claims that indicates that they will need evidence that meets the level of the claim. The way that we determine "what is and what isn't" is by the evidence, and an extraordinary "is" needs a lot of strong, compelling evidence, far more than would be expected for a mundane "is".
@perryekimae that's all very subjective. You're essentially raising the burden of proof while dismissing evidence you would otherwise consider, based on what you consider to be extraordinary. Someone who has seen angels, had visions, heard the voice of God etc. would consider those same claims to be mundane. Again, you are the one deciding if evidence is strong or weak, the evidence is either there or it isn't. Witness testinony is evidence. Whether you think it's strong or weak is subjective, the statements exist independent of you viewing them. I think the formal witnesses' statements are very strong evidence, I'm looking forward to you covering those in future videos. I agree the informal witnesses are not convincing.
@tybaltmarr2158 That's why I'm glad McDonald began his series talking about epistemology. That discussion can start a conversation about how we know what we know and whether our standards for "knowing" are adequate. At the end of the first episode, I argued for a standard of "the claim comports with reality as adjudicated by predictive power", which is a standard I've borrowed from others. If a claim does not comport with what we know about reality, that would make the claim extraordinary, and a higher standard of evidence would be demanded. This is also why I spent time talking about the Miracle of the Sun. I expect most of the audience to this series would not accept the claims made by witnesses there. They would want a higher standard of evidence because of how extraordinary the claim is. But you are hitting on an important issue about knowledge. There is quite a bit of subjectivity. The best we can do, in my estimation, is be humble in our epistemology and always willing to challenge previously held assumptions and beliefs. Looks like I responded to the unedited version of this comment. Just a quick update, the next few episodes go over the three and the eight witnesses. What I'm looking for in this section covering the witnesses is a reason to accept their claims that could be applied to other miracle or supernatural claims while also ruling out the "false claims" without engaging in fallacious reasoning. Basically, what reason do I have to accept Martin Harris' witness, but not the witnesses of those who saw the sun dance, or who claimed alien abduction or UFO sightings, or that an Arabian prophet split the moon. If you believe that I've rejected evidence here that I would accept in those other cases, I'm more than open to the criticism and would be happy to adjust. That I believe I'm being largely consistent is a fair enough indication that I need to check myself for flawed thinking, complacency, or unassessed bias.
Your information is at least 30 years out of date. Metal plates with writing on them, even gold, have been found all over the world, except Australia. But definitely in the Middle East and Central and South America. Starting your video with such bad research or an out right lie doesn't help your claim.
I actually didn't say that writing on metal plates doesn't exist. My statement was that there is no evidence for codices made of golden plates in the pre-Columbian New World. The first example of New World codices that I can find are the Aztec Codices which date to 16th and 17th centuries. Even those are very different sorts of artifacts than what the golden plates are supposed to be.
@perryekimae Really? You couldn't find out about the Codice Maya De Mexico that dates to 1257 A.D.? But codices only prove the text of The Book Of Mormon is authentic, with the phrase "unfolded the scriptures unto him", no codices were known at the time The Book Of Mormon was published, and weren't rediscovered until much later. Nobody ever described the Golden Plates as being a codice, so your statement is irrelevant. But you have to get around how the description of the plates by the witnesses perfectly describes what a book of those dimensions would weigh when made of Tumbaga, the ancient American gold compound used exclusively for sacred objects. Though it is said that the Spanish Conquistadors used Tumbaga to describe the Gold and Silver or Gold and Copper alloys they got in Mesoamerica, but the earliest use of the noun Tumbaga was in the 1860s. I cannot find any sources of Spanish Conquistadors using the word Tumbaga, let alone giving a description of it, but Joseph Smith Jr. didn't have access to Spanish records, and couldn't have read them if he did. The word Tumbaga comes from Tagalog, who got it from the Malay word Tembaga which means Copper or Brass, the main ingredient of Tumbaga, despite its golden appearance. Of course the codices would be far more common, being much cheaper and easier to make, yet they don't last as long, especially in a hot humid environment. But we would have had a lot more of them if an overzealous Catholic Priest hadn't decided they were heresies and burned every one he could get his hands on. At first Diego De Landa Calderón was impressed with how Jewish and Christian the Mesoamerican religion was, though later Diego De Landa Calderón saw it as a threat to Catholicism and burned the codices. It is a miracle that the four we still have exist, especially those written before Columbus. Did you cover any of that in your video? I don't think so. Though relevant, that would probably be a second video. Good luck explaining how the witnesses could perfectly describe the properties of an alloy only used in the Americas, especially finding sources where they could credibly get that knowledge. And how Joseph Smith Jr. made a fake set of plates out of Tumbaga, for he clearly had physical plates.
@@perryekimae Gold codices are irrelevant, since it's Golden Plates, but the Codice Maya De Mexico dates to 1021 A.D. to 1154 A.D. We would have more if the Catholic Priest Diego De Landa Calderón hadn't collected and destroyed them for being too Christian. Only four are still known to exist, at least one made written after the Spanish. Though the codices don't directly connect to the Golden Plates, they do bring clarity to a line in The Book Of Mormon, "unfolding the scriptures." Codices would be great for mobile use, but decay too easily in hot humid environments. The Gold and Copper or Gold and Silver Mayan alloys called Tumbaga, which are reserved for sacred objects, would be a better choice to make a lasting record. And the properties of Tumbaga match the witness's descriptions perfectly. Now you just have to provide a credible way they could have learned about Tumbaga and made a fake set of plates out of it. Good luck.
@bartonbagnes4605 A codex made of golden plates is exactly the matter asserted, so it is extremely relevant whether there is provenance for such an artificact. The evidence that any pre-Columbian civilization used tumbaga to produce a codex of metal plates is absent. We could add narrative writing, first- and third-person histories, and Hebrew and Egyptian languages, which are all material to establishing a provenance for the golden plates. There is no reason why a naturalistic model would need to account for tumbaga. You accused me of bad research or outright lies. I hope, at least, that my responses have been enough to demonstrate that these accusations were hasty. I am aware of writing on metal, but I am also aware that no writing on metal that has been discovered aligns with the type of writing that the Book of Mormon is. Furthermore, I am aware that codices in the New World existed, but they were not composed of metal plates, nor do they resemble the sort of codex that the Book of Mormon is. Finally, even if I thought the tumbaga argument had merit, McDonald does not bring it up in his presentation. My response is to the case made by McDonald. While I do try to present the strongest form of his arguments, the apologetic case being made is still his. If he brings up tumbaga later on in the series, I will address it then. Until then, his arguments based on the informal witnesses is hindered by an absence of provenance for the artifacts claimed.
@@perryekimaeIf you're not going to do any actual research, why are you even attempting a debunking video? It was described from the beginning as being a book bound by three rings shaped like Ds. It is described as being Golden in color, corroding to black in the carved characters on the plates, but also corroding green on the edges. The plates felt under the cloth were described as having thin pages that rustled like metal when moved. And as stated they weighed an estimated 40-60 Lbs. Exactly like the properties of the Tumbaga replica made by Brad Witbek, at great expense and a foreknowledge of Mayan Tumbaga. Neither of which Joseph Smith Jr. had, the money to afford to make a fake and any knowledge about ancient Mayan Tumbaga to replicate it or even its properties. Well you would have to produce credible evidence that Joseph Smith Jr. could have known about Tumbaga and its properties to fake it physically or verbally. Well the Mayan language does belong to the Uto-Aztecan group, that is spoken from Mesoamerica up into the Western United States of America. This Uto-Aztecan language has been shown to be about 20% Hebrew and Egyptian based. And then there's the Carater's Document that can be traced reliably back to 1835, though when the Hieratic and Demotic Egyptian characters and the Yukatecan Mayan characters on it were translated using an ancient Hebrew grammar, it wasn't the text from The Book Of Mormon, it just talked about the people and events in The Book Of Mormon, so it had to come from the Lost Pages. And just like The Book Of Mormon says, whether Hieratic or Demotic Egyptian was used depended on which took up less space. Of course a document that has Hieratic and Demotic Egyptian with Yukatecan Mayan, shouldn't be possible in 1835 or before, especially using ancient Hebrew grammar and describing people and events from The Book Of Mormon. But it does. And if you're planning on trying to debunk that, you better do more than the old claim that they're just deformed letters and numbers, for the characters were all found in dictionaries of ancient Semitic languages, with sources listed for each character.
I would also personally love to watch a conversation between you and mcdonald once you're done, maybe facilitated by the murph as a moderator.
I would love that too! It would be a lot of fun!
I would also add regarding the example of the sun dancing in 1917, while a very valid example of not taking every witness testimony for granted, i think it is an invalid comparison. The plates witnesses are not one singular collective event but several events- some at random and some not- that all bolster the positive case whereas no witness testimony contradicts it. Regarding the 1917 case, only those at the singular collective event recorded that and no one else did, in fact I'm sure if you dug hard enough you'd be able to find contradictory statements. A more valid comparison would be if people in two different unconnected locations saw the sun dancing and a few other randos made statements either experiencing it or or reaffirming it
I agree with you that it isn't a one to one comparison. It's honestly more preamble to the Three and the Eight, but I used the analogy only to help raise the point that witnesses are unreliable. The better analogy would probably be something like UFO sightings and the "little gray men" phenomenon that was all the rage in the mid-20th century. Pretty consistent, seemingly independent accounts across both time and space over a period of years.
@@perryekimae on that one with ufos, fair enough lol
Thank you for including visuals, that helped to follow along. Definitely had an easier time following along on this one.
I will say, i still personally am more inclined to lean to the faithful side. I absolutely agree that witnesses shouldn't be the end all be all, and i understand your breakdown of the argument mcdonald makes and how that doesn't exactly vibe 100%, but i personally don't think the witnesses ought to be entirely disregarded, though i understand why one might feel that way, and i think the 1917 example is a good point to bring up. At the end of the day i personally consider the witnesses powerful circumstancial evidence but nothing to base a testimony solely on and if the witnesses were the only evidence apologists put forth idk if I'd be a member, and if they all remained faithful i Definitely don't think i would be lol
I'm glad the visual helped. I plan on continuing to work on that as the series moves forward, and the way Brett builds off of these arguments is actually really cool. So, I figure it's better to show the progress.
If you were convinced away after just a couple of videos, or even at the end of this series, I'd be concerned haha. My goal with this series isn't to convince anyone to disbelieve in the Restoration. I'm only interested in tackling the positive case that Mcdonald puts forward in the series.
Like you said, if witnesses were the only evidence, it would be a poor case. We're very early in this series, and Brett brings a lot more to the table. At this point, I don't think he's earned the conclusions of his arguments. I wish he had taken a more humble approach to what his evidence establishes with some end state of all the evidence together making the truth claims more probable than not.
Regarding your last few remarks i agree. I think there was a strategy to it but i certainly agree a different approach could have worked out and arguably had a greater payoff. I plan on being here all the way through though regarding your responses lol
@@DarthMomo Glad to have you along for the journey!
Speaking of distractions, Perry spends his time arguing the semantics of Brett’s arguments, instead of dealing with the actual case at hand. And when he does attempt to provide an alternative explanation, he ventures into the realm of “possibility”, after arguing that Brett’s epistemology of reasonability/probability is too low for him.
Speaking of red herrings, isn’t it a red herring to say that one’s claim of owning a red Ferrari becomes more solidified if they know the specific color-name of Ferrari red (Rosso Corsa)? Perry is distracting from the main claim of whether the Ferrari is actually in their possession or not. Knowing the specific color-name of Ferrari red does not determine if they own the car. (But it indirectly helps, right? 😉)
One of the most important foundations of our judicial system is the ability to call upon witnesses. Witnesses are heavily relied on when determining the outcome of a case. As unreliable as they sometimes are, we put a lot of weight in them. If they are as unnecessary as Perry makes them out to be, perhaps we need to rethink our approach to the judicial system.
Perry seems to forget that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. His conclusion about ancient, new-world plates relies on unearthing all of Central and North America (and perhaps a Time Machine, knowing that metals can be reused, and they corrode in certain climates).
How does Perry respond to an event that relies completely on witnesses, lacks physical evidence, and yet is accepted by historians? The Battle of Muye in 1046 BC was a large Chinese battle, but there is no archaeological evidence of it. My point is, there are real events that take place despite a lack of physical evidence. Again, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and witnesses hold weight.
This next point may not hold as much water to some, but many of Perry’s conclusions are filtered through a modernistic, Western worldview, where the Scientific Method is the only approach to knowledge. Although it is a great approach to the observable world, it is not without its limits. Much of human history would argue that there are other ways to obtain knowledge - ways that involve the supernatural (or things beyond our observance). I personally find it ignorant to believe that we - our modernistic, scientific, Western society - possess the correct approach, and every approach that came before us is wrong. I’m not calling Perry ignorant, I’m simply pointing out that he relies on a naturalistic worldview, where the supernatural simply does not exist.
And don’t worry, Brett will rule out conspiracy in future presentations.
I am inclined to agree with your first few remarks. When addressing the actual arguments I didn't feel there was much of a concrete response other than doubting witnesses in general. He played with a few possibilities but even affirmed he doesn't necessarily agree with those possibilities and I think it's what gets to the heart of part of why I'm still in the Church. I have yet to see a unified plausible and satisfactory critic naturalistic explanation. I've seen individual answers to smaller pieces that look damning by themselves but never anything that explains an overwhelming majority of it
I appreciate the response!
In this series, I'm responding to the positive case for LDS truth claims that Brett offers. While I do have my own ideas of a naturalistic origin of the BoM, it would be outside the scope of this series for me to get into it.
The point about Ferrari red was based on a bit of a stereotype of the sort of people who purchase Ferraris. They just seem like to me to be the sort of people who would know the special name for the red and insist on its use. Makes me an unlikely candidate haha.
While I am yet to accept as true any supernatural claims, I don't out and out reject the supernatural. However, naturalistic explanations are, pretty much by nature, more likely than supernatural ones. As such, a higher standard of evidence would be needed to establish the truth of a supernatural claim.
With respect to the plates, it isn't just that there is an absence of evidence, it's that there is no provenance for anything like golden plates. The witness testimonies do not overcome the burden of such an extraordinary claim.
If Brett does rule out conspiracy later, cool. He hasn't earned that claim at this point in the series, though. Using it here is premature. But we will see how he does at ruling out conspiracy when we get there!
And just a side note, the reliance on witness testimony in the judicial system is a major problem, actually. The Innocence Project exists, in part, because of our social reliance on faulty witnesses. You won't hear me disagreeing with the idea that we should overall our justice system.
Evidence is just evidence. There's no "extraordinary" evidence, there's just what is, and what isn't.
@tybaltmarr2158 I appreciate the comment, and I will also have to disagree with you. Evidence does have quality. Evidence can be weak, it can be strong, it can be compelling. The phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" points to a burden of proof for extraordinary claims that indicates that they will need evidence that meets the level of the claim. The way that we determine "what is and what isn't" is by the evidence, and an extraordinary "is" needs a lot of strong, compelling evidence, far more than would be expected for a mundane "is".
@perryekimae that's all very subjective. You're essentially raising the burden of proof while dismissing evidence you would otherwise consider, based on what you consider to be extraordinary. Someone who has seen angels, had visions, heard the voice of God etc. would consider those same claims to be mundane. Again, you are the one deciding if evidence is strong or weak, the evidence is either there or it isn't. Witness testinony is evidence. Whether you think it's strong or weak is subjective, the statements exist independent of you viewing them. I think the formal witnesses' statements are very strong evidence, I'm looking forward to you covering those in future videos. I agree the informal witnesses are not convincing.
@tybaltmarr2158 That's why I'm glad McDonald began his series talking about epistemology. That discussion can start a conversation about how we know what we know and whether our standards for "knowing" are adequate. At the end of the first episode, I argued for a standard of "the claim comports with reality as adjudicated by predictive power", which is a standard I've borrowed from others. If a claim does not comport with what we know about reality, that would make the claim extraordinary, and a higher standard of evidence would be demanded.
This is also why I spent time talking about the Miracle of the Sun. I expect most of the audience to this series would not accept the claims made by witnesses there. They would want a higher standard of evidence because of how extraordinary the claim is.
But you are hitting on an important issue about knowledge. There is quite a bit of subjectivity. The best we can do, in my estimation, is be humble in our epistemology and always willing to challenge previously held assumptions and beliefs.
Looks like I responded to the unedited version of this comment. Just a quick update, the next few episodes go over the three and the eight witnesses. What I'm looking for in this section covering the witnesses is a reason to accept their claims that could be applied to other miracle or supernatural claims while also ruling out the "false claims" without engaging in fallacious reasoning. Basically, what reason do I have to accept Martin Harris' witness, but not the witnesses of those who saw the sun dance, or who claimed alien abduction or UFO sightings, or that an Arabian prophet split the moon. If you believe that I've rejected evidence here that I would accept in those other cases, I'm more than open to the criticism and would be happy to adjust. That I believe I'm being largely consistent is a fair enough indication that I need to check myself for flawed thinking, complacency, or unassessed bias.
Your information is at least 30 years out of date. Metal plates with writing on them, even gold, have been found all over the world, except Australia. But definitely in the Middle East and Central and South America. Starting your video with such bad research or an out right lie doesn't help your claim.
I actually didn't say that writing on metal plates doesn't exist. My statement was that there is no evidence for codices made of golden plates in the pre-Columbian New World. The first example of New World codices that I can find are the Aztec Codices which date to 16th and 17th centuries. Even those are very different sorts of artifacts than what the golden plates are supposed to be.
@perryekimae Really? You couldn't find out about the Codice Maya De Mexico that dates to 1257 A.D.? But codices only prove the text of The Book Of Mormon is authentic, with the phrase "unfolded the scriptures unto him", no codices were known at the time The Book Of Mormon was published, and weren't rediscovered until much later. Nobody ever described the Golden Plates as being a codice, so your statement is irrelevant. But you have to get around how the description of the plates by the witnesses perfectly describes what a book of those dimensions would weigh when made of Tumbaga, the ancient American gold compound used exclusively for sacred objects. Though it is said that the Spanish Conquistadors used Tumbaga to describe the Gold and Silver or Gold and Copper alloys they got in Mesoamerica, but the earliest use of the noun Tumbaga was in the 1860s. I cannot find any sources of Spanish Conquistadors using the word Tumbaga, let alone giving a description of it, but Joseph Smith Jr. didn't have access to Spanish records, and couldn't have read them if he did. The word Tumbaga comes from Tagalog, who got it from the Malay word Tembaga which means Copper or Brass, the main ingredient of Tumbaga, despite its golden appearance. Of course the codices would be far more common, being much cheaper and easier to make, yet they don't last as long, especially in a hot humid environment. But we would have had a lot more of them if an overzealous Catholic Priest hadn't decided they were heresies and burned every one he could get his hands on. At first Diego De Landa Calderón was impressed with how Jewish and Christian the Mesoamerican religion was, though later Diego De Landa Calderón saw it as a threat to Catholicism and burned the codices. It is a miracle that the four we still have exist, especially those written before Columbus. Did you cover any of that in your video? I don't think so. Though relevant, that would probably be a second video. Good luck explaining how the witnesses could perfectly describe the properties of an alloy only used in the Americas, especially finding sources where they could credibly get that knowledge. And how Joseph Smith Jr. made a fake set of plates out of Tumbaga, for he clearly had physical plates.
@@perryekimae Gold codices are irrelevant, since it's Golden Plates, but the Codice Maya De Mexico dates to 1021 A.D. to 1154 A.D. We would have more if the Catholic Priest Diego De Landa Calderón hadn't collected and destroyed them for being too Christian. Only four are still known to exist, at least one made written after the Spanish. Though the codices don't directly connect to the Golden Plates, they do bring clarity to a line in The Book Of Mormon, "unfolding the scriptures." Codices would be great for mobile use, but decay too easily in hot humid environments. The Gold and Copper or Gold and Silver Mayan alloys called Tumbaga, which are reserved for sacred objects, would be a better choice to make a lasting record. And the properties of Tumbaga match the witness's descriptions perfectly. Now you just have to provide a credible way they could have learned about Tumbaga and made a fake set of plates out of it. Good luck.
@bartonbagnes4605 A codex made of golden plates is exactly the matter asserted, so it is extremely relevant whether there is provenance for such an artificact. The evidence that any pre-Columbian civilization used tumbaga to produce a codex of metal plates is absent. We could add narrative writing, first- and third-person histories, and Hebrew and Egyptian languages, which are all material to establishing a provenance for the golden plates. There is no reason why a naturalistic model would need to account for tumbaga.
You accused me of bad research or outright lies. I hope, at least, that my responses have been enough to demonstrate that these accusations were hasty. I am aware of writing on metal, but I am also aware that no writing on metal that has been discovered aligns with the type of writing that the Book of Mormon is. Furthermore, I am aware that codices in the New World existed, but they were not composed of metal plates, nor do they resemble the sort of codex that the Book of Mormon is. Finally, even if I thought the tumbaga argument had merit, McDonald does not bring it up in his presentation. My response is to the case made by McDonald. While I do try to present the strongest form of his arguments, the apologetic case being made is still his. If he brings up tumbaga later on in the series, I will address it then. Until then, his arguments based on the informal witnesses is hindered by an absence of provenance for the artifacts claimed.
@@perryekimaeIf you're not going to do any actual research, why are you even attempting a debunking video? It was described from the beginning as being a book bound by three rings shaped like Ds. It is described as being Golden in color, corroding to black in the carved characters on the plates, but also corroding green on the edges. The plates felt under the cloth were described as having thin pages that rustled like metal when moved. And as stated they weighed an estimated 40-60 Lbs. Exactly like the properties of the Tumbaga replica made by Brad Witbek, at great expense and a foreknowledge of Mayan Tumbaga. Neither of which Joseph Smith Jr. had, the money to afford to make a fake and any knowledge about ancient Mayan Tumbaga to replicate it or even its properties. Well you would have to produce credible evidence that Joseph Smith Jr. could have known about Tumbaga and its properties to fake it physically or verbally. Well the Mayan language does belong to the Uto-Aztecan group, that is spoken from Mesoamerica up into the Western United States of America. This Uto-Aztecan language has been shown to be about 20% Hebrew and Egyptian based. And then there's the Carater's Document that can be traced reliably back to 1835, though when the Hieratic and Demotic Egyptian characters and the Yukatecan Mayan characters on it were translated using an ancient Hebrew grammar, it wasn't the text from The Book Of Mormon, it just talked about the people and events in The Book Of Mormon, so it had to come from the Lost Pages. And just like The Book Of Mormon says, whether Hieratic or Demotic Egyptian was used depended on which took up less space. Of course a document that has Hieratic and Demotic Egyptian with Yukatecan Mayan, shouldn't be possible in 1835 or before, especially using ancient Hebrew grammar and describing people and events from The Book Of Mormon. But it does. And if you're planning on trying to debunk that, you better do more than the old claim that they're just deformed letters and numbers, for the characters were all found in dictionaries of ancient Semitic languages, with sources listed for each character.