Hello Larry, thanks for taking the time to respond.

You said:

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

The problem with this statement is the word "extraordinary" -- which is entirely subjective.

"Extraordinary claims" -- according to who? Who gets to define this threshold?

"Extraordinary evidence" -- according to whom? Who gets to say whether the evidence is sufficiently extraordinary?

Because of its subjective nature, people tend to use this phrase to mean "I don't want to believe this, so I won't," and use the phrase as an excuse to reject any evidence people supply by saying that it doesn't cross their subjective threshold.

You said:

"The claim is that Jesus died, then rose from the dead, and ascended bodily to heaven. This isn't something that happens in normal experience. So despite the claims from people who saw this, or were recorded second hand, in the absence of more solid evidence, we should remain skeptical."

That's just it, my friend: the evidence is so solid that even if you take only the facts that non-believers agree are factual, you can build a remarkably tight case for the Resurrection. I do so here: https://medium.com/hope-youre-curious/the-credible-resurrection-the-immense-evidence-to-believe-that-jesus-died-and-rose-again-a1b112e22ac3

You said:

"There's far better evidence that Joseph Smith copied the Book of Mormon from the Golden Plates, which were seen and handled by people whose existence is unassailable - people who appear in the census record, and whose descendants are alive today."

Correction: "which were claimed to have been seen and handled by people whose existence is unassailable."

The plates aren't in evidence.

These other people who claim they saw and handled them ended up with powerful positions. Their claims propped themselves up.

In other words: they had heavy incentive to lie.

Contrast this with Jesus' disciples, who were martyered for their claims.

They didn't receive positions of power for claiming that Jesus was alive. They got arrested, beaten, jailed, mocked, and executed.

And still, not a single one ever recanted.

Which do you find more credible?

You said:

"If you're going to dismiss that as nothing more than a fabricated story to win converts, you shouldn't be surprised if I have the same attitude toward the accounts of Jesus' resurrection."

The two cases are apples and oranges, my friend.

Who would you trust more:

Someone who said they saw the golden plates and lived a comfortable life as a result?

Or someone like Jesus' half-brother James, who was taken to the roof of the Temple and told to recant of claiming that Jesus was alive. James refused to recant, and instead began preaching the Gospel that Jesus is God. They threw him off the Temple, which broke both of his legs. He continued to proclaim Jesus while in agonizing pain, until they took a rod and killed him.

Generally speaking, someone who is willing to die for their claims is more credible than someone who profits off of their claims.