darth_ender said:
We have plenty of reasons to justify why we believe the plates were actual, real objects. Joseph Smith had 11 official witnesses of the plates, not one of whom ever denied having seen the plates in spite of the fact that many became estranged from Smith and the church. Most of those stayed within the movement, often joining some schismatic group, and two returned to the main branch. This singular fact is strong evidence of its authenticity, as those opposed to the church or its leadership had a wonderful opportunity to discredit a key element of the Church's doctrine. Even those who never came back to Mormonism in any form still maintained their original testimony.
Wow, so eleven men who lived over a hundred and fifty years ago may or may not have claimed they saw these plates, but they certainly didn't deny it, and are never recorded to have done so even after they had falling outs with Joseph Smith. This counts as strong evidence?
Other plausible reasons for the 11 never to deny the existence of the plates even if they never really did actually see them: Admitting they are fake would be admitting their own dishonesty in the matter and devaluing the credit of their word in all matters, followed by a potential backlash from those followers they led astray. They may also have feared violent action taken the others who were still members of the movement. These are just a couple of plausible explanations, there could be any number of others.
Surely if you are going to believe something so unlikely, something that contains in its text a history of America that is so abundantly at odds with what the objective world knows of America's history, you are basing it on stronger evidence than 11 men who are said to have seen the original plates and never denied it. Right?