All Activity

Yes, as pointed out in the article, you have the people of Ammonihah burning records of the righteous, which is way after the days of Enos. And then we have Lamanites hunting down Nephites after the final battle, unless they renounced their religion. So you get this strong sense of intentional religious suppression and erasure. It wasn't just control the Lamanites wanted. It was total annihilation of the Nephite religious worldview and traditional beliefs. Which seems to be partly why Mormon was hiding the records at the very end.

Thanks for reminding me. I checked out the obvious chapters by memory. Should have searched. Though that was from an earlier time period,, seems unlikely that kind of attitude would change, especially since it’s consistent with other cultures reacting to former rulers, those they viewed as outsiders, etc https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-019-0671-x? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23076995/ https://lugares.inah.gob.mx/en/node/5511?

It's not pure speculation. The text explicitly says the Lamanites wanted to destroy Nephite records: "And they swore in their wrath that, if it were possible, they would destroy our records and us, and also all the traditions of our fathers" (Enos 1:14). Here is an article on the plausibility of records being lost through intentional destruction: https://scripturecentral.org/evidence/book-of-mormon-evidence-destruction-of-records

I actually think that can be quite so easily separated. It would be unexpected for anyone in 1829 to have implemented the Egyptian wordplays, since it was still in the beginning process of being recovered. And Smith very likely didn't not have adept Hebrew linguistic knowledge in 1829. Perhaps someone else could have implemented the Hebrew wordplays from his time period, but then you would need to look for a plausible historical candidate. In context, I think it is evidence that Smith didn't write the text and also comports very well with its claimed ancient Hebrew/Egyptian literary origins. But your point is noted. Sophisticated knowledge of Hebrew-style paronomasia alone does not necessitate antiquity. It just strongly invites that interpretation, once the contextual historical data is accounted for.

Pure speculation, but given the history between the Lamanites and Nephites, where the Nephites made a big deal at times as how they were the chosen ones, the establishment and the Lamanites were the rebels, the barbarians, it would make sense to me that the Lamanites would want to remove any suggestions they were not the superior people, that they did not have the divine right to rule, were usurpers, etc. Possibly even more so since they were a minority within a larger culture and we know how well that can go for a minority. Not surprising if they chose to erase their “Lamanite” identity out of existence, which probably wasn’t too hard to do if there was intermarriage from the beginning as is suggested by the accelerated growth. added: the text itself says they were seeking out any remnants of Nephites and destroying them. It makes sense to me that any family that had traces of a Nephite connection, even just suggestions of the shared Lehite culture between the Nephite and Lamanite groups from having been once a single family identity such as family names and heirlooms, would change them to unrecognizable as Lehite if possible and destroy them otherwise. Even in the religious identity of Nephites according to the BoM, there is no expectation of the Nephites coming back, so why maintain that identity given how dangerous it was? Any Old World names could easily be altered. I suppose one might claim a treasure as a souvenir picked up in the war and brought home, but if paranoia and hate was strong enough, would the risk be worth the lives of the entire family? After the genocide of the Nephites, the area became a nonstop battleground among the winners. (Mormon 8 )Sounds like a very good idea to keep one’s head down removing any sign of ‘difference’, any excuse to slaughter.

I think we might expect both because there would be both the religious tradition that was preserved likely among the priestly/ruling families, those with the responsibility of caring for and recording on the plates and the surrounding culture, much like how Israel kept its traditions, but also picked up on surrounding culture. Has anyone fluent in Zoquean names and wordplay studied the Book of Mormon seriously looking for such?

Thanks for the info. Like you, I find it interesting (though not enough to dig into myself at this point ), but nothing hinges on it. I just like learning about the process and purpose of this.

Actually, I specifically asked him whether his missionary efforts "were framed to {him} as encouraging newly-baptized members to subvert their parents' efforts to raise their minor children relative to religious instruction," and he said "YES." If all he is saying is that Latter-day Saint missionaries sometimes give lessons to minors without first obtaining express consent from their parents, I will acknowledge that openly. It's the subversion stuff that I found problematic. I'll take what you have said here into consideration. Thanks, -Smac

No clue, tbh. I think it's interesting and probably relevant to Joseph's ever-growing doctrine on Priesthood that, in Joseph's revelations, Enoch and his father Jared were the first to be blessed by Adam, and that Enoch's blessing coincides both with the establishment of Zion and his walking with God. Also that almost everyone else (save Mahalaleel) has to wait until the gathering at Adam-ondi-Ahman. We also don't really know much about the nature of the blessing. Was it a Patriarchal Blessing? Something pertaining to priesthood office? No clue! Seems important, though!

But your line of reasoning could apply just as easily (and just as fallaciously) to any other modern translation of a genuinely ancient text. You couldn't reasonably say, for example, that we know the KJV version of Genesis is "a post-New Testament text because time is, in fact, linear." That obviously doesn't work, because even though time is indeed linear the KJV version of Genesis derives from a genuinely ancient Hebrew text. In other words, simply asserting that the BofM isn't a layered text is pointless in this discussion, because that is the very thing that is being debated (i.e., whether it has a genuinely ancient origin or whether it is strictly a modern hoax). You don't win debates or persuade others by just assuming your favored conclusion and then just doubling down on that conclusion. Instead, you do what @Analytics is trying to do. You discuss actual evidence, whether pro or con.

Do you mean changed the ages of the Patriarchs (I'm using that term loosely here to refer to the father-son outlined from Adam to Jacob (Israel), rather than just Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) or why they changed OT1 versus OT2? I feel pretty confident about the answer to the second. Put briefly, Joseph Smith began his work of translating the Old Testament in June 1830 (side note: I'm always struck by just how *early* the Book of Moses emerged in the early Restored Church, given how dense it is theologically), with Oliver Cowdery as a scribe. Cowdery leaves for his mission in October 1830, and Joseph cycles through John Whitmer, Emma Smith, John Whitmer again, and then Sidney Rigdon. In March 1831, Joseph switches over to translating the New Testament and John Whitmer makes a copy (OT2) of the original translation efforts (OT1). When Cowdery gets back from his mission, he and Joseph go back revise the ages of the some of the Patriarchs (shown in the graph above), but do so in OT2. When Joseph finishes his work on the New Testament in July 1832, he goes back to the Old Testament, and picks up with Whitmer as his scribe, who uses the OT2 (without the revised ages) instead of the OT1. Exceedingly long story short, because of manuscripts and excerpts being all over the place between the Church and the Community of Christ, and lack of a good understanding (at the time) of the Bible translation process from an administrative point of view, the Church ended up relying on OT2 for our current version of the Pear of Great Price. That isn't a slight on anyone, historical contingencies, and my impression is that the Church and the Community of Christ have been very earnest to work with each other on matters of historical records and archiving as it pertains to overlapping histories. As to first question: why did they change the ages of the Patriarchs, they did not add an explanation as far as I'm aware (I might be wrong on that, obviously). Symbolic, in my opinion. The ages diverge from those in Genesis, and I can't identify any particular event with which they were trying to tie the ages of the Patriarchs. Note that I don't think symbolic has to imply that they didn't think the stated ages they were writting in where fake in some ways. God represents things symbolically with real, material things all the time (e.g., the water of baptism representing cleansing; baptism itself representing death, burial, and resurrection). So Adam being 1,000 years old can, at least to Joseph (as Brigham asserts), simultaneoulsy be real, and symbolic of a mortal 'day' of life. This is just a hunch, but Zion persisting 365 years has a 'year of years' feel to it. My guess is that it was revelation, which doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't also symbolic. The only reason I say revelation is that the timeline for the age changes lines up with the rest of the translation work Joseph was doing, which he did consider revelatory. Likewise, Joseph always seemed comfortable with the idea that previously published work was open to further revelatory editing, even the Book of Mormon. Ultimatley, I might be wrong about the above, and I'm not too emotionally attached to it if I'm wrong. Most of this stuff just has me like 🤷‍♂️ .

No, there are good scholars who are theologically biased. They remain good scholars because they don't let their bias influence their scholarship. Scholarship that is theologically biased is bad scholarship (within the discipline of history) by definition. Great Where's the the non-English source text? It doesn't exist. The text has all the hallmarks of a native English speaker, and is literarily dependent upon other English language works, not to mention post enlightenment ideas. Given that time is linear, that means it was composed in English. There simply is no case to be made otherwise. There are no hallmarks that this is a real ancient text - if there were it would be taken seriously by secular scholarship as a potential ancient work. Instead it's treated as 19th century American literature by secular scholarship.

That is one possible interpretation. But one could just as easily turn to scriptural analogs to explain these same details. You might want to check out Don Bradley's analysis of symbolism of the cache of artifacts, the hill from which they were dug, the timing of their retrieval, and the mode of translation. One could find the set of objects and circumstances as being suspiciously beyond what Smith himself likely would have contrived, and also remarkably in line with ancient patterns and symbolism. More importantly, though, is that even if one were to view this scenario as suspicious in the opposite direction (the one that you gravitated towards), that wouldn't itself take away from the speed of the translation or the complexity of the text. It just introduces another tangentially-related topic that would need to be fully debated on its own terms before assigning it a probability value.

Your argument is invalid because the Book of Mormon is not a layered text - but instead an American text composed within a short time period, in English. We know it's a post-New Testament text because time is, in fact, linear.

But this is merely an assumption. What I was trying to get at is that you haven't yet established that your assumption ("we’d expect Zoquean linguistic evidence") has a significant probability advantage over competing assumptions that could explain the same data. It just doesn't seem very hard to explain to me. For instance, based on a limited sampling of patterns of prayer in contemporary American Christian society, one might expect Latter-day Saints to use modern speech patterns. Instead, our religion has preserved certain archaic speech forms (pronouns, verbs, etc.). Are Later-day Saints a minority in this regard? Yes. But it is hardly an unattested phenomenon, historically speaking. In other words, it may be somewhat surprising but is not exactly hard to believe. Likewise, one might be surprised at how Jewish people throughout history have retained their Hebrew language and culture. Here is an AI response when I asked it about this phenomenon: So, how do you go about determining how improbable it would be for a group of dislocated Israelites to perpetuate the languages and literary conventions of their Hebrew ancestors, especially if they were highly religiously motivated to do so, and especially when we only have evidence that this applies to their religious scribal cultural and not necessarily their everyday speech or literary patterns? You also have to acknowledge that the text explicitly recognizes diachronic shift (Mormon 9:32-34) and that we are only getting it in an English translation. There are also a number of names that still are unaccounted for, as far as their etymology and origin. And, finally, some scholars have proposed linguistic correspondences with indigenous cultures. Here is one example of this much more limited line of evidence: https://scripturecentral.org/evidence/korihor-and-dumb-puns

I dunno... put yourself in the robots' shoes. It's got to be stressful for them too.

The same reason that Christians in general think ‘good’ people go to hell. They were wrong. Also add in not having performed certain ordinances or sacraments or whatever depending on the branch of Christianity in general. A better question is why does God have a hell at all?

I think you're dancing around your church doctrine because it's never easy to say Christians are going to hell but I'll grant your entire argument for the sake of argument. Let's say there are good people in Spirit Paradise and let's say, according to you, there are good people in prison who aren't being punished for their sins, they're just there to learn. That makes my question more obvious not less! Why did God put those good people in Hell not Paradise? According to Mormon doctrine God had both destinations available. And according to Mormon doctrine people in Spirit Paradise and Prison continue learning. So why did God separate some good people from other good people? That's your view, correct? And here's the part you continually seem to want to talk around, the official church definition of Spirit Prison is that it is Hell. Just type Hell LDS into Google and the definition explains that Spirit Prison is Hell, not a subsection. Or, type Spirit Prison LDS into Google and the link will redirect with a link to Hell! So why did God send good people to Hell? Why aren't they in Paradise with all the other good people? Whether some people suffer more than others in Prison/Hell is a completely separate issue. You still have to explain why God chose to send them to Hell over Paradise, there's learning in both.

Part of the issue here is that Joseph Smith didn’t merely dictate the Book of Mormon in a fast-pasted way. He made a show out of it with props like what you’d see in a magic show including a magic rock, a magician hat, and a curtain. The fact that he was trying to prove the Book of Mormon was divine by showing how fast and magically he could produce it makes it look more suspicious than miraculous. Radio Free Mormon did an episode about this where he deconstructed the translation process from the perspective of a magician. It is conceivable that Joseph Smith wasn’t reciting things from memory or making it up on the fly. It’s conceivable he was reading pages he’d secretly put in the bottom of the hat. If that’s the case, then it isn’t a matter of choosing whether the book is exactly what it claims to be or whether Joseph Smith was a genius who just dictated all of this from the content of his own mind. There is a third possibility--Joseph Smith, possibly with the help of some co-conspirators--wrote the Book of Mormon over the course of years before hand, and then just dictated it in a performative show in order to make it appear to be divine.

I don’t believe rape culture where men excuse each other of rape and present it as tacitly acceptable by defending rapist is a thing. *Proceeds to defend rapists and insists that anything that indicates a rape occurred should be read with nuance and anything that is even vaguely exculpatory must be treated as completely factual* The rape culture is coming from INSIDE THE HOUSE!!!!!!

For me, the Hebrew and Egyptian wordplays are strong evidence against Joseph Smith being the author but not strong evidence that it is an ancient text.

I don’t think it’s a matter of absence of evidence. I think it’s a matter of the pro “evidence” being internally inconsistent. If these events took place where and when Sorenson said, then we’d expect Zoquean linguistic evidence, literary forms, names, and grammatical features, not Hebrew ones. I acknowledge that the text says they preserved the languages of their forefathers, but that contradicts the archeological evidence, too. We could posit that there were a group of protestant Christians who spoke Hebrew and lived under the shadow of the Olmecs, Mayan etc. from 600 B.C. to 400 AD and never influenced or were influenced by the broader culture and then disappeared without a trace, but that contradicts the explicit message of the text, to say nothing about how culture actually happens. That’s my view, anyway. The purpose of this exercise isn’t about weighing evidence against the Book of Mormon. It’s to systematically look at the allegedly "impressive array of reasons to accept the Book of Mormon for what it claims to be” and see what it really implies. As best we can, we are ignoring the evidence against authenticity.

Hi @smac97. I don't have a lot of time for this, so let me just sum up one last time. This woman's friend enticed her to come over to a frat party, gave her ketamine for the first time, then invited her to have sex. He then publicly blasted over 50 of his closest friends that she was sexually available for them upstairs. Is this a rape case that is winnable in court? I doubt it. Due to rape culture, even the "perfect" victim's rape case is a tough sell in court. Am I comfortable saying that those men participated in rape or at the very least rape adjacent behavior. Absolutely. Am I fine with them having public consequences for their actions here? Absolutely. I think these types of public shaming is one of the only potential ways to drive changes in bad behavior of this kind. Men should be terrified about having any type of non-consensual sex. It seems that you disagree. Here is you over and over: You are working really, really hard here to make sure everyone knows that if you twist sideways and squint, offering a drugged up woman to 50 of your friends could possibly be just fine. "Must" these messages be read that way? No. But that's the plain english most likely thing that they mean. What's further disgusting to me is what you do next though. You work really hard to ask must we read the texts as rape, trying to give every benefit of the doubt. In the next breath, you aren't asking any more. You are telling us what we have to do. We must: So the "friend" does damage control right after. Supposedly you know all about rape cases having done work as a lawyer and a bishop. And yet you know nothing about how common this is. An abuser doing damage control right after. And a woman downplaying the abuse right after. https://cptsdfoundation.org/2025/06/05/fawn-response-the-trauma-survival-pattern-thats-mistaken-for-kindness/ So we must take those texts at face value. And then you ask must we really read the frat texts as advertising rape? I can't read this as anything but "defending the rapists" and "defending... rape culture". Will the Cornell kids get charged and convicted of rape? Almost certainly not. Do they deserve the public shame that comes with having their names associated with this forever? Absolutely. A last note pointing to your equivalence here. On the one hand, we have a drunk young woman invited to a frat house by a friend. The friend gives her mind altering drugs that remove any ability for her to consent to anything. The "friend" then texts his 50 closest friends that she is sexually available for all of them. This situation is simply "allegation alone" to you. Really?

Come on Smac. You know absolutely what @california boyis getting at. He isn't saying that missionaries are told to actively subvert parents authority. I know it has been a heck of a long time, but we always asked new members to refer and make introductions to friends and families and we did not filter based on age. We had opportunities to teach teen age investigators without parental approval/ More often that not it was a boyfriend of some young woman in the ward or branch. Of course parental permission for baptism was required even in 1979. The entire point @california boyis making is Latter-day Saints are quite fine in encouraging people to leave their church to join ours, but we bristle when others attempt to persuade members to leave the church. But I think you knew this really and just want to put on your attorney hat and split hairs. Ands it a double standard for sure,.

For me, the issue is all about estimating the probability that Joseph Smith would (1) be able to discern a diverse set of genuine poetic features from the Bible (or some other 19th century source) and then (2) implement them in a fast-paced translation setting while also juggling lots of other complex data. There is no way to accurately estimate these probabilities. But I know from my own experience that most English-speaking individuals in modern Western cultures today do not independently and consciously notice biblical parallelisms, especially complex multi-layered chiasms. So I would rate this as a fairly low likelihood, generally speaking, especially when it comes to a diversity of parallel structures. But then the ability to dictate these types of parallelisms in a fast-paced translation amplifies that improbability considerably. One type of counter-evidence people often turn to (in an effort to establish Smith's general literary competence) is his non-canonized ecclesiastical letters (which are fairly impressive in their intertextuality and not bad grammatically and by other aesthetic measures). But these can't justifiably be used as evidence either way because believers could very reasonably assume that these religiously-charged letters reflect Smith's prophetic gift to some significant degree. So it becomes very difficult to find a sample of non-religious texts that can be used a reliable control group to establish Smith's baseline literary capacity independent of his alleged spiritual gifts. So we are left mostly with historical evidence. I think Brian Hales' has done a lot of helpful work in this regard: Brian C. Hales, “Joseph Smith’s Education and Intellect as Described in Documentary Sources,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 59 (2023): 1–32. Brian C. Hales, “Theories and Assumptions: A Review of William L. Davis’s Visions in a Seer Stone,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 39 (2020): 151–190. Brian C. Hales, “Naturalistic Explanations of the Origin of the Book of Mormon: A Longitudinal Study,” BYU Studies Quarterly 58, no. 3 (2019): 105–148. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/interpreter/vol46/iss1/16/ It will be interesting to see how the AI handles this issue.