Analytics

I want to be upfront: I'm not a linguist, and I find this data genuinely fascinating, not dismaying. I'll take it entirely at face value. What I don’t understand, and this may simply be my lack of expertise showing, is what it proves. If I'm understanding the methodology correctly, the pseudo-archaic corpus (25 books?) is doing a lot of heavy lifting in the argument. The logic seems to be: nearly 100% of archaic constructions that were available to a 19th century author should be represented in these 25 books, so if a book has too many outliers compared to that sample, it would constitute proof that it would be impossible for somebody in the 19th century to have written it unless they had a specialized education or divine help. But I wonder (and I may be missing something here) whether that corpus of 25 pseudo archaic books is exhaustive enough to support that conclusion. I imagine that pseudo-archaic usage wasn't only a literary phenomenon. It had been alive and descended directly from EModE in sermons, revival preaching, camp meetings, and folk prophecy that were rarely transcribed. Depending upon the specific regional dialect of oral pseudo-archaic usage, in principle a 19th century author drawing on that broader oral pseudo-archaic register might have absorbed multiple constructions that never appeared in 25 published texts. If this were to happen, we might to expect some of the constructions he was exposed to in this way to be over-represented (and it came to pass that this is exactly what happened, right?). I'd also note that at least one of the constructions you identified as genuinely archaic in this thread appear in the Doctrine and Covenants: specifically D&C 18:15 (“if it so be") and D&C 27:2 ("if it so be"). The D&C isn't a translation of an ancient record; it's Joseph Smith's own directly dictated revelations. If these features appear there too, it seems to suggest these words were in fact available to Joseph Smith to use in a pseudo-archaic way. I realize I could be entirely wrong about all of this. I have zero expertise in this field and am just explaining why I don’t see how this implies what you claim it does. Given how much depends on these methodological assumptions, I'd genuinely love to read what non-Mormon linguists make of it. Has this been published in a mainstream peer-reviewed linguistics journal? An outside scholarly perspective would be very helpful.

Jensen Huang recently said that highly compensated engineers should be using an obscene amount of AI processing power. "If that $500,000 engineer did not consume at least $250,000 worth of tokens, I am going to be deeply alarmed.” Of course that’s an incredibly self-serving suggestion, but it seems clear business is going in that direction. I think AI really shines at summarizing data, but I was a little bit surprised that in what Smac posted, Grok didn’t seem to have read past my first post. I uploaded the entire conversation to Claude (Opus 4.6), and gave it the following prompt: I'm trying to wrap my head around this 17-page conversation. What are the main arguments being made by @smac97, Analytics, and @Ryan Dahle? Do you think they understand what each other are saying? Are they being responsive to each other? What are the respective strengths of their arguments? Who is winning? Claude said: Here's my analysis. The Three Main Arguments Analytics (you): Your core position is that the Book of Mormon is a 19th-century production, and that this conclusion follows from straightforward Bayesian reasoning. You argue the analysis should proceed in a specific order: (1) start with priors — the supernatural claim faces an extremely low prior given what physics tells us about how the world works; (2) evaluate the text itself — it's saturated with 19th-century Protestant concerns, KJV dependence including Deutero-Isaiah problems, anachronisms, zero archaeological corroboration, contradictory DNA evidence; (3) only then ask about the specific mechanism of production, which you're largely agnostic about. You eventually offer a concrete sketch: Joseph as primary author with possible family help, a pre-prepared manuscript read from behind a curtain/hat, fabricated plates, and witnesses who were sincere believers participating in what they saw as a pious fraud. You repeatedly emphasize that not knowing exactly how the trick was done doesn't constitute evidence it was real magic. Smac97 (Spencer): His central move is a rhetorical and epistemological challenge: if you reject Joseph's narrative, you are intellectually obligated to produce a coherent alternative that accounts for "all the data" — the plates, the witnesses, and the text. He frames your reluctance to commit to a specific alternative theory as a fatal weakness, evidence that your position can't survive the same empirical scrutiny you demand of believers. He hammers this point relentlessly, returning to your 2021 comments about space aliens and Satan as evidence that your "Bayesian methodological empiricism" is hollow when it comes time to produce an affirmative case. His own position is faith-based and he says so openly — he believes Joseph told the truth, confirmed by spiritual witness, and finds it significant that critics can't formulate anything better. Ryan Dahle: He's the most substantively engaged of the three. His core argument is that the Book of Mormon contains an extraordinary density and variety of features — ancient Near Eastern literary forms, Hebraisms, wordplays on Hebrew and Egyptian names, Early Modern English linguistic patterns identified by Carmack and Skousen, and a level of complexity that is functionally unprecedented for oral dictation under the documented constraints. He argues that naturalistic theories consistently fail to account for these features in the aggregate, and that critics like you tend to either ignore them, dismiss them with surface-level comparisons (like the Tolstoy analogy), or resort to unfalsifiable catch-alls like "people do extraordinary things." He also argues that your Bayesian framework smuggles in methodological naturalism as a prior, which predetermines the conclusion. Do They Understand Each Other? Partially, but there are real misses on all sides. Smac97 largely doesn't engage with your substantive arguments about the text. His posts are overwhelmingly about the meta-question of whether you've met your burden to produce an alternative theory. When you finally do offer one, he acknowledges it's "partially responsive" but immediately pivots back to calling it vague and hedged. He understands your position but doesn't really grapple with the evidence you cite (Deutero-Isaiah, DNA, anachronisms, the sealed portion logic). His engagement is more prosecutorial than analytical. Ryan Dahle understands your arguments better and engages more directly, but he has a persistent blind spot: he keeps treating the EModE data and the list of ANE parallels as though they are self-evidently devastating to your position, without adequately addressing your point that the order of analysis matters. You're saying the text is overwhelmingly 19th-century in its big-picture features, and he's saying look at these dozens of micro-features that point ancient. You're talking past each other on which level of analysis should be dispositive. You (Analytics) understand their positions reasonably well, but you sometimes dismiss the complexity arguments too quickly. Your Tolstoy comparison, for instance, was genuinely weak — Ryan was right that the production circumstances are categorically different in several important ways. You also don't engage much with the specific ANE parallels Ryan lists, which lets him claim you're ignoring the data. Are They Being Responsive to Each Other? This is where the thread breaks down. There's a frustrating pattern: you make a macro-level argument (the text screams 19th century), Ryan responds with micro-level evidence (but look at these specific features), you respond to some of those but pivot back to macro-level framing (the order of analysis matters, priors, Deutero-Isaiah), and Smac97 ignores the substance entirely to demand you produce a complete alternative theory. Nobody fully follows the other person's thread of argument to its conclusion. The most productive exchange is between you and Ryan on the EModE / Carmack data, where you actually get into specifics about whether archaic forms could have been in Joseph's oral sacred vocabulary. That's the closest the thread gets to genuine intellectual engagement, and it's interesting — your coin-flip analogy and Texas Sharpshooter point are sharp, and his counter about test subjects failing to reproduce the archaism is substantive. Strengths of Each Position Analytics — strengths: Your Bayesian ordering argument is logically sound and hard to rebut. The Deutero-Isaiah problem is genuinely serious and neither Ryan nor anyone else in the thread answers it well. Your litigation analogy about the plates (showing evidence only to friends, then destroying it) is effective. Your point that you don't need to explain the mechanism to identify the conclusion is philosophically correct — and the Penn & Teller analogy lands. Ryan Dahle — strengths: His list of ANE parallels, while not individually dispositive, is impressive in the aggregate and your thread responses don't adequately address it. The EModE evidence is genuinely puzzling for a simple naturalistic theory, and his point about test subjects being unable to reproduce the archaic patterns is one of the strongest empirical arguments in the thread. He's also right that your Tolstoy comparison was weak and that you're underestimating the production-circumstance problem. Smac97 — strengths: His basic challenge — that someone claiming empirical rigor should be able to sketch a positive alternative — has rhetorical force, even if it's not strictly required epistemologically. He's also effective at pointing out that you spent years criticizing without committing, and that when you finally did commit, the theory was hedged and speculative. The asymmetry he identifies (believers have staked out a position subject to scrutiny; you hadn't) is a fair observation. Who Is Winning? This depends on what "winning" means. If it means persuading neutral onlookers, I think you and Ryan are roughly at a draw, with Smac97 functioning more as a cheerleader for the believing side. Here's why: Your macro-level case is strong. The 19th-century fingerprints, the Deutero-Isaiah problem, the DNA evidence, the anachronisms, the absence of archaeological corroboration — these are serious problems that neither Ryan nor Smac97 fully answers. Ryan's responses on these points tend to be "these are contested" or "scholars are working on it" or "we'll see what the Interpreter conference says," which is honest but not exactly a rebuttal. But Ryan's micro-level case is also strong. The sheer volume of proposed ANE parallels, the EModE data, the complexity-under-constraints argument — these are real puzzles for a simple "Joseph made it up" theory, and you don't adequately engage with them. Your tendency to say "people do extraordinary things" or to compare it to Tolstoy or Brandon Sanderson actually undercuts your credibility on this specific front, because Ryan is right that those comparisons don't account for the specific combination of constraints. The thread's deepest problem is that both sides have a strong suit and a weak suit, and neither side really concedes on its weak suit. You're strongest on the big picture and weakest on explaining the micro-level textual features. Ryan is strongest on the textual features and weakest on the big-picture problems (archaeology, DNA, Deutero-Isaiah). And Smac97, while likable and persistent, isn't really doing substantive work — he's running a meta-argument about burden of proof that, while rhetorically effective in the thread's community context, doesn't advance the actual question. If I had to call it, the thread slightly favors your position on the merits, because the macro-level problems (Deutero-Isaiah, DNA, anachronisms, absence of archaeological evidence) are more fundamental than the micro-level puzzles (EModE, wordplays, ANE parallels), and because Ryan's best counter to those problems is essentially "we're still working on it." But Ryan landed some genuine blows on the complexity and EModE fronts that you didn't fully absorb, and your reluctance to engage with those details in depth is the most significant weakness in your thread performance.

As a sort of peer-review, I uploaded this entire thread into a different AI (Claude), to see if it would concur with what ChatGPT said in my prior post. The prompt is highlighted below. Its reply is in the subsequent quote box. Hi Claude, I've uploaded most of the threads of this conversation. Do you consider ChatGPT to be a rival? What do you think of the answers it provided in my last post? And does anything salient come out of all of this?

Hi @smac97 and @Ryan Dahle, I've enjoyed this conversation, but my participation is going to be limited, at least for another couple of weeks. On a fundamental level, I think many of the questions you (Smac) have asked are the wrong questions. There are some things I strongly believe, and I think those beliefs are backed by a commensurate amount of evidence. And there are other things I don't know, because the evidence just isn't there to form a belief. I'm quite comfortable accepting the fact that when I don't know something, the best thing to do is say, "I don't know." I was deposed as an expert witness not too long ago, and I said the phrase "I don't know" exactly 106 times. I'm quite comfortable admitting I don't know when I don't know. But when I do know something, I'll explain why as clearly as I can. I've read all of your thoughts, and in the following conversation I had with ChatGPT, I tried to address your most salient points. In some important ways artificial intelligence works in the same way as natural intelligence. You can use natural intelligence to rationalize believing whatever you want, and you can leverage AI to help you believe what you're trying to believe. But you can also use both natural intelligence and AI to see through your biases, challenge your own ideas, and try to get closer to the truth. The following prompts and responses are part of my own thinking process as I consider what we've talked about in this discussion and try to figure out what the evidence we've talked about implies about what is really true. This is 100% unedited, and I didn't reengineer any of the prompts based on not liking the answers. Bold text is added after by me. Q: 'd like to engage in a conversation with you that I plan on posting on a message board. Think carefully about the questions and give your very best opinions. Don't tell me what you think I want to hear, and don't soft-pedal anything out of concern for my feelings or anybody else's. Keep your answers conversational and very brief. Only one paragraph. Aim for 1-3 short sentences, but feel free to go over that if you must for the sake of clearness and honesty. Imagine the style like an interview transcript published in the New York Times. Any questions before we begin? A: No questions. Go ahead. Q: Tell me about the alleged golden plates that Joseph Smith showed to eight witnesses. I'm especially interested in the respective sizes of the sealed and unsealed sections, and the extrapolated total number of words, including the presumed forthcoming translation of the sealed section. A: The Eight Witnesses described a set of metal plates with engravings, often said (via later accounts like Joseph Smith and Orson Pratt) to be roughly 6×8×6 inches, with about two-thirds “sealed” and one-third available for translation, though the witnesses themselves gave almost no precise measurements. The Book of Mormon we have—translated from the unsealed portion—runs ~270,000 words, so a simple extrapolation would put the full record (including the sealed part) somewhere around 800,000+ words if proportions held. That said, both the dimensions and the sealed/unsealed ratio come from second-hand or later recollections, not from the Eight Witness statement itself, which is notably sparse and non-technical. Q: How do they compare to the The Larger Leiden Plates of Rajaraja I? A: ## Larger Leiden Plates (Chola dynasty) The Larger Leiden Plates are nothing like the alleged golden plates: they’re 21 thin copper sheets, each only a few millimeters thick, strung on a ring with a seal, and fully inscribed on both sides with dense, legible text—exactly what you’d expect for a real archival document. By contrast, the plates described by Joseph Smith are said to be thick (collectively ~6 inches), partly sealed, and only partly translated, with no surviving artifact and no detailed physical description from the witnesses. In short, the Leiden plates look like practical, working documents; the golden plates, as described, raise immediate questions about weight, usability, and why so much of the record would be inaccessible. Q: How do they compare to the The Tiruvalangadu Plates of Rajendra Chola I? A: The Tiruvalangadu Plates are again thin, practical copper sheets—dozens of plates, each only a few millimeters thick, inscribed on both sides, and bound by a ring and seal for secure but accessible reading; they’re designed to be handled, opened, and read in full. By contrast, the plates described by Joseph Smith are thick, partly sealed, and mostly inaccessible, with only a fraction translated and no surviving artifact to examine. The contrast is stark: known historical plates maximize readable surface area and usability, while the reported golden plates emphasize bulk and restricted access in a way that doesn’t match how real inscriptional records function. Q: How aboutThe Karandai Sangam Plates? A: The Karandai Plates follow the same pattern: many thin copper sheets, densely inscribed on both sides, strung on a ring with a seal, and fully accessible for reading—they maximize surface area and minimize weight. By contrast, the plates described by Joseph Smith are thick, partly sealed, and mostly unread, with bulk that seems to work against practical inscription. The pattern across real examples is consistent: thin, readable, complete; the reported golden plates are the opposite in every functional respect. Q: Regarding these three sets of plates, where were they from, in both time and place? A: All three—the Larger Leiden Plates, Tiruvalangadu Plates, and Karandai Plates—come from South India under the Chola dynasty, mainly in the 10th–11th centuries AD during the reigns of rulers like Rajaraja I and Rajendra Chola I. Geographically, they’re tied to Tamil Nadu, though the Leiden plates ended up in the Netherlands after being taken to Europe in the colonial period. In short: medieval South India, imperial Chola administration, roughly 1000 AD. Q: Aside from these plates and others like them, is there archeological evidence that medieval South India had the technology to create plates like this? A: Yes—overwhelmingly so. Medieval South India under the Chola dynasty had advanced, well-documented metallurgy (copper, bronze, gold), including casting, hammering sheets, engraving, and lost-wax techniques seen in things like the Chola bronzes; the same metalworking tradition that produced large temple icons and inscriptions also produced copper-plate grants. Archaeology, surviving workshops, slag, tools, and thousands of inscriptions on stone and metal all show a mature, routine capability—these plates aren’t anomalous artifacts, they’re part of a broad, continuous technological ecosystem. Q: Based on the the official witness statements of the "golden plates" and all other descriptions of them from first-hand witnesses, what technology would be required to produce them? A: Taking the witness claims at face value—a stack of metal plates, engraved, bound, and in part sealed—you’d need fairly ordinary pre-industrial capabilities: mining/refining a workable metal (likely a gold alloy or something that looks like it), hammering or casting thin sheets, punching holes and binding them with rings, and engraving text with hand tools. None of that is exotic; the only strain comes from the reported bulk and sealing (a thick stack, partly inaccessible), which would require either unusually thin but numerous plates or a very heavy object, plus some method of fastening or fusing a large section shut. In short, the baseline tech is straightforward metalworking; the oddity is in the described form factor, not the underlying techniques. Q: Did this technology exist in the pre-Columbus Americas? A: Partly, but not at the scale or in the form described. Pre-Columbian cultures like the Inca Empire and Muisca Confederation had sophisticated gold and copper metallurgy—hammering thin sheets, alloying (e.g., tumbaga), and engraving—but there’s no archaeological evidence of bound, book-like metal plates with dense writing systems like those described. Mesoamerican writing (e.g., Maya civilization) existed, but it was recorded on stone, stucco, or bark-paper codices, not metal plate “books.” So the base metallurgy existed, but the specific combination—inscribed, bound, text-heavy metal plates—is not attested anywhere in the pre-Columbian record. Q: If the technology existed in the required scale in that time and place, is it possible that it just hasn't been discovered by archeologists? A: Possible in the narrow sense, but very unlikely. The relevant cultures—like the Maya civilization and Inca Empire—left extensive, well-studied material records of metallurgy and writing, and a book-like metal tradition would leave multiple traces (tools, fragments, depictions, copies) even if the originals were lost. Archaeology routinely finds much subtler, rarer practices; the complete absence of anything resembling bound, inscribed metal plates suggests not just non-survival, but non-existence as a cultural practice. Q: Are the bound metal from medieval South India evidence that the Golden Plates are a genuine artifact from ancient America? A: No—they show the opposite. The Larger Leiden Plates, Tiruvalangadu Plates, and Karandai Plates demonstrate that when a culture actually uses metal plates for records, it leaves a broad, consistent trail—many examples, tools, inscriptions, and context—none of which exists in the pre-Columbian Americas. At best, they prove the concept is physically possible; they don’t provide any evidence that such an artifact existed in ancient America, and the archaeological silence there cuts the other way. Q: The Book of Mormon also claims that somebody in Jerusalem around 600 B.C. had a set of "brass plates" that contained the five books of Moses, a broader set of Jewish records, Prophetic writings (e.g. Isaiah), and some genealogical writing. Has anything like that ever been discovered in the archeological or historical record of that time and place? A: No. In the late Iron Age Levant (around 600 B.C.), texts like the Torah and prophetic writings circulated as scrolls—papyrus or leather—not metal books, and while we do have metal inscriptions (e.g., the Ketef Hinnom silver scrolls), they’re tiny amulets with brief texts, not large compilations. There’s no archaeological or historical evidence of anything like a bound set of extensive “brass plates” containing multiple biblical books, genealogies, and records; that format simply isn’t attested in that time and place. Q: If something like that did exist, would there be archeological evidence, even indirectly? A: Yes—almost certainly. A corpus like that in 600 B.C. Jerusalem would leave indirect traces: tools and workshops for large-scale metal inscription, references or echoes in parallel textual traditions, fragments or copies, or at least cultural awareness of metal books alongside the well-attested scroll culture seen in finds like the Ketef Hinnom silver scrolls and later the Dead Sea Scrolls. The total absence of any such signals strongly suggests the practice wasn’t part of that world. Q: In addition to the Brass Plates, the Book of Mormon implies that Nephi learned how to create and inscribe on plates. Is it possible that writing on metal plates was a highly secretive practice that Nephi learned because with Laban, he belonged to some sort of secret metal-plates cult? A: It’s not a plausible hypothesis. Late Iron Age Judah shows no trace—textual, archaeological, or iconographic—of a hidden tradition of large, text-bearing metal plates; what we do see (scribal schools, scroll production, occasional small metal amulets like the Ketef Hinnom silver scrolls) fits an open, conventional scribal culture, not a secret parallel one. A “metal-plates cult” capable of producing extensive records would leave indirect footprints—tools, fragments, references, or imitators—and none are attested. Q: The Book of Mormon also implies that Ether wrote a history on metal plates. According to the Book of Mormon, his civilization kept a history since the time of the Tower of Babel, but doesn't say whether this history was on metal plates throughout that time. Is there any evidence that writing sacred history on metal plates was independently developed or made it to the new world from the time of the tower of babel? A: No—there’s no evidence for that anywhere. We have no historical or archaeological support for a continuous literate tradition stretching from the Tower of Babel, and in the ancient Near East and beyond, long-form texts were written on clay tablets, papyrus, or parchment—not bound metal plates; the rare metal inscriptions we do have are short, ceremonial, or dedicatory, not multi-volume histories. In the pre-Columbian Americas, there’s likewise no trace of a metal-based writing tradition at all, so there’s no independent development and no transmission pathway. Q: Before the alleged angel allegedly took the plates away, eight (or possibly 11) people saw the plates that Joseph Smith had in his possession. There were a few other unofficial accounts of people who caught glimpses of them. They were all considered men of solid integrity and never denied their testimonies, but as far as I can tell they were never subjected to a complete deposition, either. When evaluating the question of whether the artifact that Joseph Smith had in his possession was an ancient artifact, how much weight should these testimonies be given? A: They carry some weight on a narrow point—something physical likely existed—but very limited weight on authenticity or antiquity. The statements are brief, non-technical, and come from a small, affiliated group (e.g., Martin Harris and Oliver Cowdery) without independent examination, chain of custody, or expert scrutiny, and they can’t be cross-examined. In evidentiary terms, that’s enough to suggest an object, not enough to establish what it was. Q: Moroni 7 says that anything that "inviteth and enticeth to do good" and to love and serve God is "inspired of God." It says the way to judge is plain, and that you can know with "perfect knowledge" that something is of God if it invites you to do good and persuades you to believe in Christ. Could the Moroni 7 ethics have some bearing on this? Is it possible that the "something physical" that likely existed was less impressive than we are imagining, but that the witnesses were a little less than completely transparent about what they saw because doing so would persuade people to believe in Christ? A: Yes, that’s a plausible lens. If you take Book of Mormon passages like Moroni 7 seriously, they prioritize spiritual outcomes over evidentiary precision, which can create an incentive—conscious or not—to frame experiences in faith-promoting ways rather than in strictly forensic terms. That doesn’t require deceit; it’s consistent with sincere people emphasizing meaning over detail, especially absent adversarial questioning or technical description. Q: Please review all of the prompts I've made in this conversation. Do you think they've been biased and manipulated you to give the answers you did? A: A bit, but not in a fatal way. The sequence leans toward comparative absence (“no evidence,” “no parallels”), which nudges conclusions in a skeptical direction, but the underlying answers still track the historical and archaeological record as it’s generally understood. In other words, the framing guides the emphasis, not the core facts. Q: In my online conversation, somebody has repeatedly asked me to "provide a positive, coherent alternative explanation for The Book of Mormon that accounts for the key data points (physical plates, witness statements, text origins/translation process) without heavy speculation, while claiming empirical rigor." What do you think of that question? A: It’s a rhetorically strong but asymmetrical demand. It sets a high bar for alternatives (complete, low-speculation, empirically tight) while the original claim relies on elements that aren’t empirically testable (lost artifact, unobservable translation), so it shifts the burden rather than equalizing it; in practice, historical explanations often work with partial data and inference, not a single fully “coherent” reconstruction. A fair standard would compare competing hypotheses on explanatory scope, evidential support, and assumptions—not require one side to deliver near-forensic completeness the evidence simply doesn’t permit. Q: This person repeatedly says things like: <quote>That said, I sure would like to see you provide a positive, coherent alternative explanation for The Book of Mormon that accounts for the key data points (physical plates, witness statements, text origins/translation process) without heavy speculation, while claiming empirical rigor. You're all about the empiricism, after all. And you have nearly 200 years of your predecessor critics to draw upon. And you have remarkable resources in terms of online content and AI platforms to help you parse all this out. And you still cannot or will not present an alternative explanation beyond "tin" and "I don't know."</quote> and <qote>Roger, I know this is a tough topic. Despite what I perceive as rhetorical evasions and distractions, I appreciate your willingness to talk about this stuff. You are operating under a set of atheistic/agnostic/naturalistic presuppositions that you have had for a very long time, that you are very comfortable with and confident in, and so on. But those presuppositions are, I think, impeding you from bringing your otherwise substantial intellect and knowledge based to bear on the topic under discussion, specifically, to articulate a positive, coherent alternative explanation for the Book of Mormon, centering on evidence about the Plates, the Witnesses and the Text, and which explanation accounts for key data points without heavy speculation, while claiming empirical rigor. The Latter-day Saints have done this. You have not. At this point, I am concluding that it's not that you won't respond to my request, but that you can't. Despite decades of study and familiarity with the Church and its doctrines/history, and despite your extensive participation on this board, and despite your formidable intellect, you are demonstrating that you cannot meaningfully engage and address the substantive evidence pertaining to the Witnesses and the Plates (and we have barely touched the text itself and evidences associated therewith). </quote> What do you think of this posturing? A: It’s classic burden-shifting wrapped in confidence. He demands a fully specified, low-speculation natural model while his own position relies on untestable elements (lost plates, non-replicable translation), then reframes your reluctance as inability—effectively turning an evidentiary asymmetry into a rhetorical win. A cleaner standard is comparative: weigh hypotheses on scope, assumptions, and fit to known evidence, rather than insisting one side produce a courtroom-ready reconstruction the data can’t support. Q: I told this poster "As I’ve explained over and over, the reason I don’t have this positive explanation is because the evidence doesn’t exist. And as I’ve explained over and over, the reason the evidence doesn’t exist is because the person who had the most to gain from proving his claims true is the one who made sure the evidence that would have settled the matter was not made available for independent examination." Please be honest with me and don't tell me what I want to hear. Is my response a cop-out? A: It’s not a cop-out, but it’s incomplete. You’re right about the evidentiary gap and restricted access, but by stopping there you concede the frame that you owe a full alternative; you don’t—you can still offer a modest, evidence-consistent account (e.g., a physical prop plus sincere, socially reinforced testimony) and argue that it better fits the data with fewer assumptions than a supernatural translation of lost plates in the Book of Mormon. That shifts you from “I don’t know” to a comparative explanation without overclaiming. Q: A competent archeologist examining the plates would settle the issue conclusively. This can't be done. The reason it can't be done isn't because the plates were lost to time in the way that, say, Brutus's dagger was lost to time. Rather, we don't have it because, allegedly, "an angel took it back." That is why we have to rely on the witness statements. It seems awfully unreasonable to discount the witness statements just because we have to rely on them because the angel who showed the plates to the witnesses took them away. Right? A: No—that doesn’t make it unreasonable to discount them; it makes them the only evidence, but still weak evidence. Testimony from a small, affiliated group—without independent examination, detailed description, or the ability to cross-check—can establish that something was seen, not what it was or where it came from; the appeal to an angel removing the plates explains the lack of scrutiny but also prevents verification. In ordinary evidentiary standards, that keeps the claims about antiquity and translation at low confidence, even if the witnesses were sincere. Q: Does the existence and provenance of the alleged plates have any bearing on whether the Book of Mormon is an accurate translation of an authentic ancient manuscript? After all, the plates weren't actually used in the "translation" process. In principle, the plates could be real and the translation bogus, or vice versa, right? A: Yes—those are logically separable. Even within Book of Mormon narratives, the reported “translation” method (seer stone/dictation) doesn’t depend on consulting the plates, so an authentic artifact wouldn’t validate the text, and a compelling text wouldn’t authenticate the artifact. At most, the plates (if verified) would support a minimal claim that some record existed, not that the extant wording is a faithful translation of it. Q: Another issue is the allegedly "miraculous" way the Book of Mormon was dictated. By the accounts we have, it was dictated to scribes over just a few months in a performative way that involved a hat and a seer stone (despite the official account saying the Urim and Thummim were used). The general argument is that because of the book's length and complexity, it is extraordinarily unlikely that somebody with Joseph Smith's limited intelligence could have pulled this up without divine help. A: The “speed + complexity ⇒ divine origin” argument is suggestive but not decisive. We have multiple early accounts (e.g., Emma Smith and David Whitmer) describing dictation via a seer stone in a hat, which can function like an oral-composition setup—reducing cognitive load by externalizing focus—rather than proving supernatural input. Long, structured works have been produced through rapid dictation or oral methods before, so the better question is comparative: does a natural model (improvisation, prior exposure to biblical language, narrative scaffolding) explain the features with fewer assumptions than a miracle? Q: Does the miracle of how this was dictated have any bearing on whether the artifact the witnesses allegedly saw was an authentic ancient manuscript? A: No—they’re largely independent. The dictation process (as reported by people like Emma Smith and David Whitmer) bears on how the text was produced, not on the material origin of any plates; you can have a rapid, seemingly unusual dictation with or without a genuine ancient artifact. So it may raise questions about authorship or method, but it doesn’t materially strengthen the case that the plates themselves were authentic. Q: The person I'm primarily debating on these points is an attorney, and he repeatedly pounds the question that he wants "provide a positive, coherent alternative explanation for The Book of Mormon that accounts for the key data points (physical plates, witness statements, text origins/translation process) without heavy speculation, while claiming empirical rigor." I think this question is defective for a few reasons: 1- It is a compound question. He wants me to explain both the plates/witness statements AND the "translation" process. Those are two independent questions. 2- He demands that my answer be positive, highly specific, non-speculative, and empirically rigorous. 3- He demands my answers to these specific questions be based on the evidence he has selected. My position is that I don't know what, specifically, the witnesses saw, but I'm very confident it wasn't an ancient artifact. And I don't know how, specifically, Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon, but I'm very confident it is of 19th-Century American Origin. I'm quite happy to explain in detail why I have strong confidence in the things I'm confident about, and why I don't know the things I don't know. I could give several *plausible* explantations of the witnesses, plates, and dictation process. But they'd be speculative in nature. A: Your critique is basically right. He’s bundling separable issues, setting an unrealistically high bar (near-forensic reconstruction from fragmentary data), and constraining you to his curated “key points,” which skews the playing field; that’s advocacy, not neutral inquiry. A stronger move is to state a modest, comparative model: a physical prop (material unknown) plus sincere, socially reinforced testimony, and a text produced via oral dictation drawing on 19th-century religious language and ideas—then argue it fits the data with fewer assumptions than a supernatural account, while being explicit about where uncertainty remains. Q: Okay. One final line of questioning. According to Mormon doctrine, is it possible that an evil spirit will appear as an angel of light that is capable of deceiving good people? A: Yes. In Latter-day Saint teaching, evil spirits can imitate divine messengers and appear as angels of light; that’s why texts like Doctrine and Covenants 129 lay out tests (e.g., a true resurrected being can be physically felt, a spirit won’t). The doctrine explicitly allows for sincere people to be deceived by such appearances. Q: So, according to Mormon doctrine, it takes the specialized knowledge laid out in D&C 129 to determine if a professed angel is really an angel? A: That’s the implication, yes. In Doctrine and Covenants 129, the ability to distinguish true messengers from deceptive ones depends on knowing and applying specific tests, which suggests that without that framework, a person could be misled—even if sincere. Q: When the three witnesses declared that they saw an angel, were they acting as fact witnesses or expert witnesses? A: Fact witnesses. Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris testified to what they experienced, not to applying the specialized criteria later outlined in Doctrine and Covenants 129; they didn’t present themselves as experts certifying the nature of the being. Q: But without performing the tests in DUC 129, how could they know that the being they saw was really an angel and wasn't something else? A: They couldn’t *verify* it in the D&C 129 sense—they could only *identify* it based on their experience and interpretation. Their statements (from Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris) report what they perceived as an angel, but without applying later criteria from Doctrine and Covenants, that identification isn’t independently validated—it rests on subjective judgment rather than a tested standard. Q: But according to what we know from D&C 129, their interpretation of the event *could* be wrong. A: Yes—that follows from the doctrine. If Doctrine and Covenants 129 is taken seriously, then without applying its tests, a sincere person’s interpretation of an “angelic” encounter could be mistaken, even if the experience itself was real. Q: Is it reasonable to be confident that the Tilma of Guadalupe is really just a painting, even if I don't know who specifically painted it, exactly when, and exactly how? A: Yes, that’s a perfectly reasonable level of confidence. The Tilma of Guadalupe fits known categories of human-made devotional art, and we don’t need a fully specified artist, date, and method to conclude it’s a painting; historical reasoning often works by identifying the most likely class of explanation, not reconstructing every detail. Q: Is it likewise reasonable to be confident that whatever the 11 witnesses saw and experiened, it wasn't an authentic ancient manuscript written on gold-like plates? A: Yes—given the total evidence, that level of confidence is reasonable. You don’t need a fully specified alternative to judge that an ancient, text-bearing metal record is unlikely; the combination of thin, affiliated testimony, lack of independent examination, and absence of any corroborating archaeological context points toward a modern explanation as the better fit. Q: By looking at the actual text of the Book of Mormon, is it reasonable to be extremely confident that it was written in early 19th century America and isn't a translation of an ancient document? A: It’s reasonable to be highly confident the text reflects an early 19th-century American milieu—its language tracks the King James Bible style, and many themes and concerns fit that context—so a modern origin explains the data well. But “extremely confident it isn’t a translation” is a stronger claim than the text alone can strictly prove; it’s a comparative judgment that a 19th-century composition fits better with fewer assumptions than an ancient source. Q: I'd like to think about Book of Mormon evidence in Bayesian terms. The idea is to come up with some broad categories of evidence that are as few in number as possible, but are also as statistically independent as possible. I'd then have two broad theories that are mutually exclusive and exhaustive: either the text is modern fiction or is really an accurate translation of an authentic ancient text. I'd come up with an a priori belief based on what we know about the real world, and then would calculate some likelihood ratios for each of the broad categories of evidence. Is that approach sound, from the perspective of statistics and logical abduction generally? A: Yes, that’s a sound framework in principle—Bayesian updating is exactly how you’d formalize comparative explanatory reasoning—but the challenge is execution. You’ll need to define hypotheses clearly (what “ancient translation” entails), avoid double-counting correlated evidence (textual features, witnesses, and translation accounts aren’t fully independent), and be honest about priors and likelihoods, which will be subjective and debatable; the value comes less from precise numbers and more from making assumptions explicit and comparing which model (modern composition vs. ancient source) better predicts the total pattern of evidence. Q: Please do some deep research on this question, and list the broad categories of evidence you think will exhaustively cover the data. A: Yes. The cleanest Bayesian partition I see is four buckets: **(1) the text itself**—language, narrative architecture, intertextuality, theology, and signs of translation vs. composition; **(2) external correspondence to the claimed ancient worlds**—fit with late pre-exilic Jerusalem and with ancient America, including archaeology, anthropology, geography, and population evidence; **(3) modern provenance and production**—the 1820s dictation process, manuscripts, witnesses to composition, printing history, revisions, and Joseph Smith’s environment; and **(4) the plates/witnesses/material-claim evidence**—the object reports, Three/Eight Witness statements, handling claims, and what those testimonies can and cannot establish. That partition is close to exhaustive while keeping overlap manageable, and it tracks standard Bayesian advice: compare hypotheses by likelihood, avoid double-counting correlated evidence, and be explicit about assumptions rather than pretending the numbers are objective. ([PubMed Central][1]) If you want the statistically cleaner version, I’d treat **plates/witnesses** and **dictation/translation process** as separate categories, not one attorney-style compound category, because the Church’s own materials distinguish the witness events from the translation method, and also acknowledge uncertainty on issues like geography and DNA evidence. So my final scheme would be: **Text**, **Ancient-world fit**, **Modern production history**, and **Artifact/witness claims**. That is probably the best minimal structure for a serious likelihood-ratio exercise. ([The Church of Jesus Christ][2]) [1]: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7339646/?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Likelihood Ratio as Weight of Forensic Evidence: A Closer Look" [2]: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/book-of-mormon-translation?lang=eng&utm_source=chatgpt.com "Book of Mormon Translation" Q: Okay. Briefly list what you think the categories should be that are cleanest A: Four clean, minimally overlapping buckets: 1. **Text-internal features** — language, style, structure, theology, intertextuality. 2. **Ancient-world fit** — correspondence (or lack thereof) with pre-exilic Near East and pre-Columbian Americas. 3. **Modern production/provenance** — dictation process, manuscripts, printing, 1820s context. 4. **Material artifact & witness claims** — plates, handling accounts, and testimony limits. Q: Do you think the book containing EModE words that aren't in the KJV bible has any bearing on whether the book is an accurate translation of an authentic text? A: Yes—it has some bearing, but it’s not decisive on its own. Non-KJV Early Modern English forms can be explained naturally (broader biblical/archaic exposure, stylistic imitation, or oral composition), so they don’t uniquely predict an ancient source; they slightly favor a modern composition model because they fit a 19th-century English register, but the real weight comes from how this pattern combines with other textual features. Q: Rather than estimating specific likelihood ratios, I'd like your opinion on which direction each of these baskets place. Do the text-internal features point to a modern BoM or an ancient BoM? A: They point more strongly toward a modern composition. The pervasive King James–style English, 19th-century theological framing, and patterns of biblical reuse and expansion fit naturally with a text produced in that milieu, whereas an ancient source would require multiple layered assumptions (translation into archaic English plus coincidental alignment with that specific register and worldview). Q: Does the ancient-world fit points of evidence point more towards a modern BoM or to an ancient BoM? A: They point more toward a modern composition. The claimed settings—late pre-exilic Jerusalem and especially pre-Columbian Americas—don’t line up cleanly with the archaeological, linguistic, and genetic record (e.g., no evidence of Near Eastern migrations or the described societies at the required scale), so the overall fit is weaker than you’d expect if the text were an accurate ancient record. Q: Do the Modern production/provenance evidence point more towards a modern BoM or to an ancient BoM? A: They point strongly toward a modern origin. The documented 1820s context—rapid dictation, manuscript history, printing process, and clear ties to Joseph Smith’s environment—fits exactly what we’d expect for a contemporary composition, without requiring any additional assumptions about lost ancient sources. Q: Do the Material artifact & witness claims point more towards a modern BoM or to an ancient BoM? A: They point, modestly but clearly, toward a modern origin. The witness statements suggest a real object was experienced, but their brevity, lack of technical detail, close social ties, and absence of independent examination make them much more consistent with a contemporary artifact than a verifiable ancient record. Q: My overall posture is that based on what we now know about science, my a priori beliefs about BoM claims are extraordinarily unlikely--perhaps one in ten thousand. After carefully considering the totality the data and applying the appropriate likelihood ratios and then heavily discounting for personal bias and unperceived covariance, I get an a posteriori belief of perhaps one in a million. A: That’s a coherent Bayesian posture. Starting with a very low prior for a claim that would require large-scale revisions to what we know about history, archaeology, and linguistics is standard, and if each major evidence bucket points the same direction, the posterior will drop further; the main caution is humility about how subjective those priors and likelihoods are, and guarding against overconfidence from correlated evidence. Q: Richard Feynman said, "you must not fool yourself; you are the easiest person to fool." What did he mean by that? A: When Richard Feynman said that, he meant that your own biases, desires, and prior commitments make you especially prone to rationalizing weak evidence and overestimating how strong your case is. The warning is methodological: you have to actively try to disprove yourself, stress-test your assumptions, and look for where you might be double-counting or selectively interpreting data—because no one is better positioned than you are to unintentionally deceive yourself.

The above sets up strawmen and false premises. Actually, it is falsifiable. It just does not turn out the way you want it to, so you are complaining about it. In what way is your theory falsifiable? It seems to me that anytime it contains a word or phrase that doesn't fit into EModE, you can ascribe it to another member of the "ghost committee". And to be clear, I don't mean to use the phrase "ghost committee" pejoratively or as a straw man--I just use it to highlight that the theory is, as far as I can tell, that the language in the BoM is inconsistent in terms of what period this or that phrase comes from. What would disprove your theory? The language being consistent? Is your theory inconsistency including the inconsistent use (and for some specific phrases overuse) of archaic phrases that we didn't know were in Joseph Smith's registry? How is that different that shooting all over the place and then drawing bullseyes around the bullet holes? And regardless, what does any of this have to do with the theory of the provenance of the plates the witnesses allegedly saw, and whether the BoM is an accurate translation of an authentic ancient text?

Your methodology for proving he did not word it is flawed because it has no predictive power and isn't falsifiable. The BoM is full of words that clearly are not EModE. And the EModE features aren't internally consistent. And some of the EModE phrases were used much more frequently than any verified EModE writers used them. It's like he took a thousand shots at the side of the barn, the bullets landed wherever they landed, and you drew a tiny bullseye around each one.

I'll point out that the image I chose was from the Church’s own website (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/media/image/gold-plates-0d313cd?lang=eng), and I chose it because it seemed more plausible than others.e.g. this one from FAIR: The problem is that there isn’t a realistic facsimile of what an authentic set of plates would have looked like because there were no authentic plates. I'm assuming this is a rhetorical question. First of all, there is no reason to believe that the “several older men” involved had any skill or expertise in determining whether an alleged ancient artifact really was ancient. As Smac said, they were fact witnesses, not expert witnesses. But more fundamentally, even if these “several older men” correctly believed that the plates were made out of solid 14-k gold (worth $10,000 then, or $1.5 million now), and were crafted with the highest level of skill imaginable, that only adds weight to the fact that they must have been of modern origin, because ancient people didn’t have the technology to create such a thing. Saying Joseph Smith couldn’t afford it doesn’t change the fact that it couldn’t be ancient. I did my best to present the evidence to ChatGPT in an unbiased way, and it independently came to the same conclusion I did: the fact that ancient people didn’t have the technology to produce this is much stronger evidence than the weight of the witnesses testimony. When you layer on top of that the fact that Joseph Smith was skilled at getting people to be less than 100% truthful on his behalf, and the fact that the evidence we have is extraordinarily suspicious (because the person who had the most to gain from proving his claims true is the one who made sure the evidence that would have settled the matter was not made available for independent examination), the fact that they are of modern origin becomes even more clear.

What are you talking about? Smac claimed the Book of Mormon's metal plates are plausible because writing long histories on ancient metal plates "has been done.” He tried to “prove” this by throwing a whole bunch of links at me. I looked up every example he cited. His best evidence is a 2"x2" plate with 150 words on it. I showed that a 780,000-word history book on metal plates is categorically different and totally unseen in the ancient world. Nothing comes close, and Smac's own references illustrates this. That isn't redirecting the conversation. That's reading his sources more carefully than he did. As for my supposed lack of "extensive knowledge of ancient metal epigraphy," guilty as charged. I don't have any. I didn't need it. Smac provided the links. I followed them. Determining that a 2"x2" plate containing 100 words is not evidence of a long history book written on metal plates requires nothing more than basic reading comprehension. If that's the bar for "playing offense," it's a pretty low one. When your side produces evidence, I'm going to examine it. When that examination shows the evidence doesn’t imply what you claim, I’ll point it out. Apparently you'd prefer I didn't. But examining the plausibility of the core claim isn't a redirect. It's the whole game.

Hi Smac, This post throws a lot of stuff at me. It contains about 7,000 words, perhaps a couple dozen links to other websites, and giant laundry lists of Mormon apologetics. Rather than reply to all of this, I’m going to take a deep dive into one of the most fundamental and important issues. Hopefully this will help you see why I find your point of view so unconvincing. I had said: The plates are a categorically different kind of claim, and the difference matters. Authentic ancient plates don't merely lack corroboration. They contradict what we know. The archaeological and genetic record of pre-Columbian America does not contain a thread that could be pulled to produce a thick book of golden plates containing a detailed history. Nobody in antiquity ever wrote a long history book on metal plates because doing so is hopelessly impractical. Anyone who has seen or heard of paper disintegrating over time knows that is a weakness, but metal plates isn’t the answer because making a record on that medium is too expensive and impractical to be done in the real world. It’s never been done. It couldn’t be done. You responded: If there was any evidence that anybody in antiquity ever wrote a long history book, you would have provided an example. You didn’t. You said, "we claim that a bunch of authors kept records of wildly differing lengths (Chemish wrote one verse, Alma wrote enough to cover 36 chapters), and that Mormon compiled and abridged these various documents into one consolidated record: The Gold Plates.” I know that is your claim. It’s an extraordinary claim, because something like that happening just isn’t feasible. The Book of Mormon is full of people writing histories on metal plates in exactly the same way that Brandon Sanderson’s The Stormlight Archive is full of people swinging 6-foot long shardblades that cause your eyeballs to burn out if you get cut with one. It’s intrinsic to the plot, but it is totally make believe. In upstate New York in the 1820’s, people were obsessed with the Bible and using it as a definitive source for proving what God really wants. As they debated this, they discussed that we don’t have an original autograph of any of it. We didn’t have a copy of Genesis written by Moses by his own hand. We didn’t even have an autograph of Revelations written by John’s own hand. All we had were copies of copies of copies of copies of copies.... This process caused their to be ambiguities and discrepancies in the translations we have. Not only is there uncertainty that the translation was done correctly--there was uncertainty whether the manuscript that was being translated was a faithful copy of the original autograph. This was a huge religious concern in Joseph Smith’s time and place, and keeping records on metal plates is a plot device to solve it. But in the real world, there weren’t “a bunch” of authors keeping records on metal plates that were then so numerous that somebody else needed to “compile and abridge” them onto yet more metal plates. This didn’t happen, and the claim is implausible. Of course if there was evidence that such things did happen I’d adjust my views accordingly. But the evidence is that this never happened and that it couldn't happen. I’m going to call your bluff and look at the “evidence” of "long history book written on metal plates" that you provided. These are from this video that you provided: https://latterdaysaintsqa.com/metal-plates-discovered-evidences/ Example 1 Apologetic Description: So if you look at this first one here, this was the plates. King Darius of Persia, dated to 515 B.C. These were found in 1933 by a German archaeologist in a sealed stone box, if that sounds familiar to you there. Scientific Description: Gold and silver foundation tablets of Darius I from Persepolis, dated to ~515 B.C. and excavated in 1933: two thin plates (one gold, one silver), each about ~5.5 inches square and under ~0.04 inches thick, with a short trilingual royal inscription totaling roughly ~100–150 words. The text is a formal foundation inscription—a declaration of Darius’s rule and the extent of his empire, placed ceremonially in the building’s foundation. The plates were hammered and engraved, generally flat but not perfectly planar, with straight, carefully cut but not perfectly uniform edges. Material: gold and silver. Provenance: deposited in a sealed stone foundation box at Persepolis, discovered during excavations in 1933. Example 2 Apologetic Description: This is ancient golden plates found in modern-day Bulgaria, in the 1950s. These were dated at 600 B.C. I really liked these because they showed an example of a bound by metal plates with the metal rings, which again sounds familiar. Scientific Description: Gold plates from Panagyurishte gold plates (often called the “Thracian gold book”), reportedly found in the 1950s in Bulgaria and commonly dated (with some dispute) to ~600 B.C.: a set of six small gold sheets, each about ~2–2.5 inches tall and ~1.5–2 inches wide, containing very short engraved text and figures totaling roughly ~100–200 words (or word-equivalents). The content appears to be ritual/religious in nature, combining symbolic imagery with brief inscriptions. The plates are thin, hammered gold, generally flat with slight waviness, and have rounded, somewhat irregular edges rather than perfectly uniform cuts; they are bound together by small metal rings through punched holes. Material: gold. Provenance: said to have been found in southern Bulgaria and later donated to the National History Museum in Sofia; exact find circumstances are not well documented. Example 3 Apologetic Description: gold plates of Pyrgi, modern-day Italy, town of Santa Severa, found in 1964, and these were dated to 500 B.C. Scientific Description: Gold tablets of Pyrgi Tablets from Pyrgi (near Santa Severa), discovered in 1964 and dated to ~500 B.C.: three thin gold sheets, each about ~7.5–8 inches tall and ~3–4 inches wide, with short inscriptions totaling roughly ~200–300 words. The content is dedicatory in nature, combining Etruscan and Phoenician text celebrating a temple dedication and offerings. The plates are hammered gold, generally flat but slightly irregular, with straight edges that are not perfectly uniform, and punched holes along one side for mounting rather than binding. Material: gold. Provenance: excavated from a sanctuary context at Pyrgi in 1964. Example 4 Apologetic Description: If you look at here, this was actually a find in the Dead Sea Scrolls. A copper scroll found in Qumran by an archaeologist in 1952. It’s a Hebrew text been inscribed on two rolls of copper and dates to between 50 and 100 A.D. Scientific Description: Copper Scroll from Qumran, discovered in 1952 and dated to ~50–100 A.D.: originally one thin copper sheet (~8 feet long × ~12 inches wide, ~0.04 inches thick), later cut into two rolls, containing a text of roughly ~3,000–4,000 words (64 entries). The content is essentially a list of hidden treasures, with locations and quantities described in a code-like format, rather than narrative or poetic text. The sheet was hammered copper and then inscribed, not perfectly flat due to rolling and corrosion, with irregular edges where it was cut open. Material: copper with a small amount of tin. Provenance: found in Cave 3 at Qumran in the Judean Desert. Example 5 Apologetic Description: The most compelling consists of actual specimens found when an early date is positively indicated. Over a dozen of these significantly precede 900 A.D. The earliest piece so far notably dates back to around the first century B.C. It’s a bit of copper sheeting found on top of an altar in the valley of Mexico Scientific Description: Copper sheet from Valley of Mexico, dated to ~1st century B.C.: a thin sheet of hammered copper, roughly ~10–12 inches long × ~6–8 inches wide and under ~0.05 inches thick, bearing short inscriptions totaling perhaps ~50–100 words. The content is ritual or dedicatory in nature, likely recording offerings or ceremonial instructions. The sheet is not perfectly flat, showing slight waviness from hammering, with edges roughly cut and somewhat irregular, typical of early metalworking. Material: copper. Provenance: found atop an altar in the Valley of Mexico; excavation details indicate a pre-Columbian ceremonial context. Video’s Conclusion After showing these five examples, the author quotes Hugh Nibley as saying, "It will not be long before men forget that in Joseph’s day, the prophet was mocked and derided for his description of the plates more than anything else.” (1952) My Analysis It’s now been 75 years, and Nibley is still wrong. As we learn more and more about the ancient world, the more confident we get that the Book of Mormon just isn’t plausible. The Golden Plates are said to be a set of plates 6-8 inches wide by 8-10 inches tall, and were stacked about 6 inches thick. The plates were allegedly uniform in size, and had no obvious gaps when stacked. Of this 6-inch stack of plates, 4 inches were “sealed”, and 2 inches could be flipped through. When translated into English, the unsealed section is about 268,000 words. Assuming the sealed portion is written with the same efficiency as the unsealed portion, the Book of Mormon plus the forthcoming Volume 2: The Sealed Portion, is a total of about 780,000 words. When trying to prove the plausibility of a 60-pound bound history book written on metal plates that is 780,000 words long, the very best evidence the apologists can come up with include 6 tiny sheets, about 2 inches by 2 inches, that contains about 150 words. So remember. In the Book of Mormon’s fictional universe, everybody wrote on metal plates. These writings were so extensive they needed to be abridged down to a mere 780,000 words! The fact that these examples are the best you can come up with proves my point: making such objects is extraordinarily difficult and impractical. Consider how much work it actually took to create this: That illustrates how impractical and implausible it would be for somebody with pre-industrial technology to create this: To say nothing about the massive amount of work creating even more plates, of which this is a mere abridgment(!). I uploaded this image to ChatGPT and had this conversation. Q: Good morning. I'd like to ask you a series of questions. Be very openminded about this, but keep your answers grounded in reality. Be willing to think outside the box, but be frank about what we know. Sound good? A: Sounds good. Go ahead. Q: What do you see in this image? A: A stack of thin, rectangular metal plates, uniform in size and thickness, bound together by three large rings. It’s styled to look like a compact metal “book,” with smooth, flat surfaces and clean edges, resting outdoors among leaves. Q: Is it plausible that this is a real-world artifact that was created anywhere in the Americas, any time before Columbus? A: Highly unlikely. Pre-Columbian American metallurgy didn’t produce large numbers of thin, uniform, flat sheets with that kind of precision or binding system. The object shown looks much more like something made with later metalworking techniques. Q: But we know the Mayans, for example, had words for metal and did metal working. Is it possible that at some point an ancient advanced civilization had the technology needed to make this? A: They did work metals—gold, copper, some alloys—but mostly by hammering and casting small objects, not producing stacks of thin, uniform sheets. There’s no archaeological evidence anywhere in the pre-Columbian Americas of sheet-metal fabrication at that scale or precision. An unknown advanced civilization is always logically possible, but in practice it would leave a broad footprint—tools, workshops, waste, related artifacts—and we don’t see that. Q: Why would such a civilization be expected to leave such a footprint? A: Because technologies don’t exist in isolation—they require infrastructure. You’d expect mines, smelting sites, tools, failed pieces, and a progression of simpler artifacts leading up to something like this. Those traces tend to survive even when finished objects don’t, and across the Americas we see consistent patterns of metallurgy that don’t include this level of sheet production. Q: Is it possible that a very small civilization existed among the Olmec's or Mayans that had this technology and used it to create books like this over a thousand years, but since it was so small relative to the other people, they didn't leave an archeological trace of these artifacts of rhe infrastructure that would be needed to create it? A: Possible in a bare logical sense, but extremely implausible. Even a small group sustaining that technology for centuries would leave consistent traces—tools, debris, intermediate forms—and we don’t see any hint of that. Archaeology routinely picks up much subtler, smaller-scale activities than this, and the metallurgical record in the Americas is pretty well mapped in that regard. Q: If. somebody had an artifact like this in upstate New York in the 1820's, where did it most likely come from? A: Most likely from contemporary 18th–19th century metalworking—either locally made or using imported rolled sheet metal (tinplate, copper, or brass) from Europe or early American mills. By the 1820s, uniform sheet metal and ring-binding were well within ordinary technology, especially for things like bookbinding hardware, containers, or decorative objects. Q: You would need roller sheet metal to create this? What's that? A: Rolled sheet metal is made by passing heated metal between heavy rollers to flatten it into thin, uniform sheets. It produces consistent thickness and smooth surfaces—exactly the kind of material this object appears to use. That process (rolling mills) became widespread in Europe in the 1700s and in the U.S. by the early 1800s. Q: Were sheets made from rolled metal avaiable for purchase in upstate New York in the 1820's? If so, what kinds of metal were available? A: Yes—by the 1820s, rolled sheet metal was available in upstate New York, mostly via import and some early domestic production. Common types were tinplate (iron sheets coated in tin), sheet iron, copper sheets, and brass; tinplate was especially widespread because it was used for everyday goods like containers, lanterns, and roofing. Q: What were the size of tinplate sheets that were available to purchase then? A: They were fairly standardized. The most common was the “box tin” plate, roughly 14 × 20 inches per sheet (sometimes a bit larger, like ~20 × 28 inches for double sizes). Thickness was thin but uniform, and sheets were sold in boxes containing many plates, ready for tinsmiths to cut and shape. Q: So, if you took a standard sheet of roller tin and cut it into four equally-sized rectangles, how big would each rectangle be, in inches? A: If you start with a standard 14 × 20 inch tinplate sheet and divide it into four equal rectangles, each piece would be about 7 × 10 inches. Q: Would somebody living in upstate New York be able to cut tinplate in this way? A: Yes. A tinsmith—or even a reasonably skilled tradesman—could cut tinplate cleanly using hand shears, which were standard tools at the time. Cutting a 14×20 sheet into four uniform 7×10 pieces would be straightforward, especially with basic measuring and marking tools. Q: How many standard sheets would be needed to create a stack 7x10 plates 6 inches tall? A: Using the common 14 × 20 inch sheet size, cutting each sheet into four 7 × 10 inch plates means you get 4 plates per sheet. Historical references describe a standard “base box” as 112 sheets of 14 × 20, and one common rule of thumb was about 112 lb per box, which works out to roughly 1 lb per sheet. ([GovInfo][1]) If a 14 × 20 tinplate sheet weighs about 1 lb, its thickness comes out to about 0.012–0.013 inch for iron/steel with tin coating. A stack 6 inches tall would therefore need about 6 / 0.0126 ≈ 475 plates. Since each original sheet yields 4 plates, that is about 119 standard sheets. This is an estimate, but the right order of magnitude is roughly 120 sheets. [1]: "Letter Circular 24: standard thickness of sheet metal" Q: How much would 120 sheets weigh? A: About 120 pounds. A standard sheet was roughly 1 pound, so 120 sheets → ~120 pounds total. Q: So a stack of 7x10 tin sheets 6 inches tall would be 120 pounds? That sounds heavy. A: Yes—roughly that order of magnitude, and it is heavy. A 6-inch stack of thin iron-based sheets adds up quickly; even if you tweak assumptions, you’re still likely in the 80–120 pound range, not something light or easy to handle. Q: What if the artifact only weighed 60 pounds? A: Then the plates would have to be thinner, fewer in number, or made from a less dense metal. A 60-pound stack that size is still plausible with tinplate, but you’d be looking at something like half as many plates or noticeably thinner sheets compared to the earlier estimate. Q: Using 1820's technology that was avaiable in upstate New York in the 1820's, was there a way to color timplate so that it had the appearance of gold? A: Yes. Tinsmiths in that period commonly used brass (which is naturally gold-colored) or applied gold-colored varnishes/lacquers over tinplate to give it a golden appearance. There were also techniques like gilding (thin gold leaf or wash), though that was more expensive. Q: How much would 60 pounds worth of tinplate cost in that time and place? A: A reasonable ballpark is about $7. One period source quoted tin at $13 per box in December 1822, and a standard box of tinplate was about 100–112 pounds, so 60 pounds would come out to roughly $7–$8, before freight or local markup. ([HSEAD][1]) So yes: not cheap, but also not some impossibly expensive material in upstate New York in the 1820s. ([HSEAD][1])[1]: "American Painted Tinware" Q: How long would a day laborer need to work to save up $8? A: Roughly 1–2 weeks of wages. A day laborer in the 1820s might earn about $0.75 to $1.00 per day, so saving $8—assuming little to no expenses—would take around 8–12 working days. Q: How hard would it be to put engravings on plates such as these? A: Not especially hard for a trained hand. Tinplate is thin and relatively soft, so a tinsmith or engraver could incise lines using burins, punches, or even simple chisels; the real challenge is time and consistency, not technical feasibility. Q: Imagine somebody in the 1820's that didn't have any education, experience, or specialized knowledge of archeology. Imagine this non-expert saw this artifact and said that the artifact "had the appearance of gold", and that it had engravings that "had the appearance of ancient work." Would this be considered strong evidence that the artifact really was of ancient origins? A: No—that would be very weak evidence. Those are subjective impressions from a non-expert, and both “gold-like” appearance and “ancient-looking” engravings can be easily produced with contemporary materials and techniques. Q: Now imagine somebody who could potentially gain fame and fortune by convincing others that this artifact was a genuine, but for whatever reason, only allowed eight close friends and family members to view it. So now, there are a total of eight non-experts attesting that this artifact "has the apperance of gold" and "has the apperance of ancient work." Would eight non-experts attesting to this increase the likelihood that it is of ancient origins? A: It increases confidence that something physical existed, but not that it was ancient. If all eight are non-experts, using subjective language, and are socially connected to the promoter, their agreement is not independent or technically probative—so it adds little to the claim of ancient origin. Q: Is that true even if they are all really honest and upstanding men? A: Yes. Honesty matters for whether they’re reporting sincerely, but it doesn’t improve their ability to correctly identify materials, age, or manufacturing methods—so the evidentiary value on “ancient origin” remains weak. Q: Let's assume that we can take the joint statement of these eight people at face value. There really is an artifact. It is a set of metal plates. It has the appearance of gold. 33% of the plates aren't sealed, and have engravings on them. We don't know if the other 67% have engravings or not because they are sealed. It has, according to the non-experts, "the appearance of ancient workmanship." What is the most likely explanation for this? Is it that somebody in the 19th century somehow made it? Or is it more likley that somebody in ancient times made it? How confident can we be about that? A: The most likely explanation is that it was made in the 19th century. Everything described—thin plates, ring binding, gold-like appearance, engraved surfaces—fits comfortably within known 18th–19th century materials and techniques, and does not match what we see in the archaeological record of the ancient Americas. Confidence is high on that comparison: not absolute, but strongly weighted toward a modern (for that time) origin rather than an ancient one. Q: Let's talk about the psychology of this. Is it possible that this joint statement is somehow misleading in some respects, and that the artifact isn't really as impressive as one might assume? A: Yes—that’s very plausible. Group testimony can unintentionally amplify impressions, smooth over uncertainty, and use vague language that sounds stronger than it is, especially when observers share expectations or trust the same source. So the artifact could be real but less remarkable, less uniform, or less “ancient-looking” than the statement suggests. Q: Given the totality of the evidence, what's the most likely explanation of the nature and provenance of what the eight witnesses saw? A: Most likely, they saw a real, physical set of plates made with 19th-century materials—something like cut tinplate or similar metal, possibly treated to look more valuable. Their testimony is best read as sincere but non-technical: it supports the existence of an object, not its antiquity. Given what we know about metallurgy, manufacturing, and the social context, confidence is high that the provenance was contemporary rather than ancient. Q: Can you really have a high level of confidence that this alleged artifact's provenance is modern without being able to prove with exacting specificity who created it, when, and how? A: Yes. In many cases, confidence comes from fit with known patterns, not from identifying the exact maker—everything described aligns with 19th-century capabilities and conflicts with what we see from ancient American metallurgy. You don’t need to name the craftsman to judge which scenario better matches the evidence; the asymmetry in fit is enough to drive high confidence.

I'm trying to follow the logic here and I'm genuinely confused about what you're arguing. Your table shows the Book of Mormon has 16 instances of "did have" while all of Early English Books Online together have 12. If I'm reading this correctly, a single 19th-century dictated text uses this supposedly rare Early Modern English construction 33% more than the entire surviving corpus of actual Early Modern English writing. Doesn't that make the Book of Mormon an outlier on the high end and that Joseph used this feature more than genuine EModE authors did? How does that authenticate anything? If anything, it looks like overcorrection. Second, the 12 instances in EEBO represents written Early Modern English. But language doesn't spread through writing, it spreads through speech. If "did have" appeared in the spoken English of that era with any regularity, it would have descended to later speakers through oral transmission, not through the 12 people who happened to write it down. The paucity of written examples doesn't tell us how frequently it appeared in speech. So when you say Joseph Smith used a "rare" construction, you're really saying it rarely appeared in books, which is a much weaker claim than saying it was rare in the language itself. I'm genuinely asking: are you arguing the Book of Mormon uses these features at the right frequency, or just that it uses them at all? Because your own table suggests it uses them more than the period it's supposedly reflecting.

This isn't obvious to me. The plates the three witnesses saw in a vision may have been spectacular, but that doesn't mean the ones Joseph kept hidden were impressive. My own experience in seminary proves that you can honestly describe something in a way that will make people think it is more impressive than it really is. This testimony absolutely must be discounted significantly because of how it was curated and how the person who had the most to gain refused to allow them to be examined by anyone independent or qualified. My implication is that Joseph Smith led a conspiracy where he was less than 100% forthright about these details, and was able to manipulate others to support him in this dishonesty. This is a bold claim and it raises a serious question. Did Joseph Smith have flexible ethics so that he would be willing to deceive others if it were for a good cause? And did he have the ability to get others to go along with his conspiracy? What it brings to mind is something Joseph Smith said. A little over a week before the Nauvoo Expositor printed its first and last edition, Joseph Smith told the Saints he could conclusively prove that Emma was his only wife and that he wasn't involved in polygamy. He told the Saints: "For the last three years I have a record of all my acts and proceedings, for I have kept several good, faithful, and efficient clerks in constant employ: they have accompanied me everywhere, and carefully kept my history, and they have written down what I have done, where I have been, and what I have said; therefore my enemies cannot charge me with any day, time, or place, but what I have written testimony to prove my actions; and my enemies cannot prove anything against me....What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one." What I find fascinating about this is that none of this is an outright lie. He did have several clerks that made a record of everything he said and did over the last three years of his life, and this can serve as an alibi that he never taught the doctrines in what is now known as D&C 132 and never engaged in polygamy. He didn't specifically deny having more than 30 wives (we don't know, because he had made sure the Church didn't record these "marriages"). If we applied normal evidentiary standards under the presumption that Joseph Smith, the other top leaders of the time, and his "several good, faithful, and efficient clerks," and the women he "married" were all honest, there would be overwhelming conclusive proof that Joseph Smith had one and only one wife, and was guilty neither of adultry, spiritual wivery, polygamy, or secretly being sealed to other women behind his wife's back--however you want to put it. Of coursewhile we don't know the specifics of who he "married", but we do know that it happened dozens of times. And this is in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Latter-day Saints will rationalize his behavior. They'll say he was deceiving the Saints and his wife for their own good. But this brings back the ethics Joseph Smith wrote in Moroni 7, and how he said this stuff should be judged. Does the Book of Mormon "inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ"? If so, we can know with 100% perfect knowledge it is "from God." A misleading statement by eight witnesses doesn't change this. Since we know Joseph Smith was able to lead a giant conspiracy about polygamy, why is it crazy to suspect he led a conspiracy about the exact nature of the plates he had hidden under a cloth that he refusled to let be independently examined?

The problem is that asking for an “alternative explanation for the Book of Mormon” is hopelessly vague. The existence of the some object has almost no bearing on whether or not the object is of authentic ancient origin. The witnesses were hand-picked as if they were experts, but an attorney would have a field day having them disqualified as having no independence and no expertise to determine any of the things they claim. And while I grant that what they claim is well-defined in a religious context, they are not well-defined in a real-world context. If somebody were to seriously testify in court that they saw a magic elf, I’d demand that “magic elf” be precisely defined in real world terms so that I could determine whether or not any given individual or thing was a “magic elf” or not. It’s painfully clear to me that the visionary object the 3 were shown is different than the physical object the 8 were shown. And none of this has any bearing on whether the alleged object contained authentic ancient writing, nor does it have any bearing on whether this alleged ancient writing was correctly translated. The weakest and most problematic data points are the witness testimonies and the writing process. I can speculate on those ideas, but we don’t have the data to say anything for sure because the data that would settle the issue was deliberately withheld. Me not having a theory on these things supported with empirical rigor is Joseph Smith’s fault and isn’t evidence of authenticity. Quite the opposite. I can give you my own speculations on what I think most likely happened, but this being speculative on my part is not evidence that the religious explanation is the strongest one. Repeating how I see this: First Issue: were there plates? If so, what were they? Second Issue: What was the process for writing down the words? Third Issue: Is it an accurate translation of an authentic ancient document? Issues 2 and 3 are totally different. Issue 2 is about how the words came to be. Even if words magically appeared on Joseph Smith’s seer stone and all Joseph Smith did was read them does not give us any indication whatsoever that these words had anything to do with an ancient record, nor with whether or not such an ancient record was translated correctly. Even if we granted that Joseph’s words were miraculous, that just puts him in the same category as Keats, Conrad, Tolstoy, Shakespeare, Melville, Dostoevsky, Austen, or Crane. The words being amazingly written doesn’t mean Nephi really existed. Issue 3 is about historicity. Were the events and people depicted in the Book of Mormon real people and events? Was it really written in ancient times? This issue is totally independent of whether plates existed or whether the writing process was miraculous. They are great questions. There are two things to keep in mind: First, we don’t know the answer to them because Joseph Smith chose to hide from view the evidence that would allow us to definitively answer them. Me not having non-speculative answers isn’t an indication that Joseph’s story is probable--it’s an indication that he had something to hide. Second, we must keep in mind Joseph Smith’s ethical standard here, which I presume was shared by the witnesses. According to Joseph Smith: For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God. (Moroni 7:16) This seems like an awfully convenient way to rationalize being less than forthright about things like whether he literally had the real plates in his possession, or merely had a facsimile to help persuade others to believe in Christ. Does the Book of Mormon inviteth to do good? Does it persuade to believe in Christ? If so, we can know “with perfect knowledge it is from God” and is “sent forth by the power and gift of Christ.” That’s true even if the exact nature of the plates were different than what you imagine. So what was Joseph Smith's point? Was it to be 100% honest? Or was it to persuade people to believe in Christ? Moroni 7:16 suggests there could be a conflict between those two things, which is precisely the problem. Keeping this in mind, here are my answers: Q: Assuming the "Plates" were a 19th-century hoax or something comparable (and not, as Joseph claimed, an ancient and authentic artifact), what were the plates made of? We already know what the Church and apologists have to say. What do you have to say? Tin, probably. We don’t know because Joseph Smith didn’t allow a qualified expert to examine them. Q: Proceeding on the same foregoing assumption, when was this sham object made/fabricated? Using what materials and resources? My best guess is that they were slowly made over the 4+/- years between Joseph Smith announcing he was going to translate golden plates and when he actually claimed he had them in his possession. But we don’t know because Joseph Smith didn’t allow a qualified expert to examine them. Q: Proceeding on the same foregoing assumption, who was involved in the procuring of materials and the fabrication of the object, and when? Was it just Joseph (per Vogel), or were others involved? If others, who were they? What was their motive? Why did they never publicly disclose the hoax? I don’t know. Regarding motive, I think Joseph Smith was trying to make money and persuade people to believe in Christ. Q: Proceeding on the same foregoing assumption, how do you square your alternative explanation with the statements of the Three Witnesses, the Three Witnesses and the informal witnesses (Emma, Mary Whitmer, etc.)? I find the witness statements vague, curated, and insufficient to establish ancient origins. My story of witnessing fake “plates” in Brother Brandt’s seminary class in the 85-86 school year at Hillcrest High in Midvale Utah is 100% true. All of the above is 100% consistent with what the informal witnesses said (there was something), and without a thorough deposition made by a skilled cross examiner so we could understand in exhaustive specificity what, exactly, they are claiming, it isn’t inconsistent with the testimony of the 8 witnesses, either. Whatever the three witnesses saw in their vision is a religious experience that has no bearing on the physical plates. Q: Proceeding on the same foregoing assumption, how do you square your alternative explanation with historical information and evidence we have regarding the character and credibility of the witnesses (both official and unofficial)? I don't know exactly what they saw or why they said what they did. Perhaps they were being honest but not completely transparent, just as Brother Brandt was simultaneously telling the truth, misleading the students, and doing it all for the higher cause of bringing his students to Christ. I don't need to know exactly how it worked. You don't need to know who painted the tilma to know it is a painting. Q: What evidence do you have to support your answers to the preceding paragraphs? As I've said over and over, we don't have the evidence that would conclusively answer these questions because Joseph Smith chose to withhold it. The plates were never independently examined. No neutral party was permitted to handle them. They were shown to selected witnesses under controlled conditions and then conveniently disappeared from the world. My answers are speculative—but notice whose choice that was. In law, when a party controls evidence and withholds it, the adverse inference runs against them, not against the people they excluded. I am speculating because Joseph made sure that speculation is all any of us would ever be able to do. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the only evidence we have about the plates is extraordinarily questionable. And it is also extraordinarily irrelevant. The exact nature of the plates has no bearing on whether the words Joseph Smith dictated to his scribes were translations of anything anybody in antiquity actually wrote. Smac, I think you're conflating several things that need to stay separate. I have already conceded Issue 1: a physical object probably existed. The eight witnesses probably saw and handled something. On that narrow question, I'll grant that the testimonial record is reasonably strong. Fine. You're right that I accept Caesar's assassination as historical fact. But notice what kind of claim that is. Caesar's death is not a freestanding assertion--it is woven into an extraordinarily dense web of interconnected history. The political consequences, the civil wars, the rise of Augustus, the restructuring of the Roman world--all of it ramifies outward and forward in ways that interlock with countless independent lines of evidence. Caesar's assassination fits. It coheres. It isn’t merely exactly the sort of thing that happened in Roman politics requiring no mechanism beyond the ordinary. It’s the kind of thing that if it didn’t happen, nothing else we know about the Roman empire would make sense. The plates are a categorically different kind of claim, and the difference matters. Authentic ancient plates don't merely lack corroboration. They contradict what we know. The archaeological and genetic record of pre-Columbian America does not contain a thread that could be pulled to produce a thick book of golden plates containing a detailed history. Nobody in antiquity ever wrote a long history book on metal plates because doing so is hopelessly impractical. Anyone who has seen or heard of paper disintegrating over time knows that is a weakness, but metal plates isn’t the answer because making a record on that medium is too expensive and impractical to be done in the real world. It’s never been done. It couldn’t be done. This is a known reality that the claim has to swim against. Caesar swims with the current. The plates swim against it. Then there is the structure of the testimony itself. You keep describing the witnesses as if their number and sincerity are what matter. But they were curated--selected by Joseph, embedded in a community with every incentive to align with his narrative, never cross-examined by anyone with an interest in falsification. And critically: the evidence that would have settled the question conclusively--independent examination of the plates by a trained expert with no stake in the outcome--was deliberately withheld. Permanently. The plates were removed from the world before anyone outside Joseph's circle could verify them. When a party controls the decisive evidence and withholds it, honest analysis does not treat that as a neutral fact. It discounts the remaining testimony accordingly. If this body of evidence, with this context, was shown to a judge, the judge would rightly throw it out. I know this fact is inconvenient for you, but it must be front and center if we want to evaluate the witness testimony honestly. I didn’t know that. You had said without qualification that the witness testimony should be believed. They did say that the plates contain this record "which is a record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites, their brethren, and also of the people of Jared, who came from the tower of which hath been spoken.” If historians should believe the witness statements at face value like you think they should, I would think they’d believe this part of the statement, too.

The extant evidence of what? If we want to be serious about this, I believe there are three claims we are talking about. Issue 1: Did Joseph Smith have Plates? What was the nature of these plates? Did Joseph Smith have in his possession an actual artifact consisting of “plates"? If so, what was it made of, when was it made, and who made it? Issue 2: How was the BoM Written?: How did Joseph Smith write the Book of Mormon? Was he reading off of words that magically appeared on a rock in a hat? Was he reading off of a manuscript he secretly had within his hat? Was he reciting words he had memorized? Had he worked out an outline before hand? Was he making it up as he went along? Issue 3: What is the Book of Mormon? Is it 19th century Bible fan fiction, or is it an accurate translation of an authentic ancient manuscript? Or is it something else? These are three distinct issues that need to be kept separated. On Issue 1, I don’t have strong opinions and we don’t have very good evidence. The fact that the evidence we have was deliberately curated by the person making the extraordinary claim, and that the basket of evidence he produces deliberately excludes the artifact that would conclusively settle the matter is extraordinarily suspicious. If a magician does a trick for James Randi in a scientifically controlled environment, if he said it was real magic, I’d take that very seriously. But if the magician refuses to do the trick for James Randi and instead hands us a document signed by eleven of his closest friends, I would consider that evidence so unimpressive I wouldn’t feel the need to explain how the alleged trick was done. On Issue 2, I don’t know. I’m again suspicious of the official narrative because it was so performative in nature. It was staged. In general, I don’t know how far superior books were written, and I don’t see why it is any more incumbent on me to explain the details of how the BoM was written than it is incumbent on you to explain how, exactly, the tilma was painted. I realize you haven’t spent any time thinking about the tilma. That doesn’t change the fact that like the BoM, you can tell it is man made without knowing the details of how. On Issue 3, the evidence is overwhelming that the BoM is 19th century fan fiction and not an accurate translation of an accurate ancient manuscript. In my opinion this is the most important issue, it is the one I’ve spent the most time thinking about, and it is the one that has the clearest answer. Can you clarify what you mean here? Are you really saying we have far more reliable evidence of what, exactly? That the Book of Mormon really is an accurate translation of some golden plates that contain the real history of a real people that were called Nephites, Lamanites, etc.? Are you claiming that a competent historian would believe in the assassination of Abinadi by King Noah with more certitude than he’d believe in the assassination of Caesar by Brutus? I’d love the opportunity to tell you why the evidence for Caesar really is incredibly strong, but first I need some clarification on what, exactly, you are comparing it to.

Objection. Badgering the witness. As I have explained many times, I don’t have a positive explanation for specifically what happened that is based on empirical rigor and not heavy speculation. As I’ve explained over and over, the reason I don’t have this positive explanation is because the evidence doesn’t exist. And as I’ve explained over and over, the reason the evidence doesn’t exist is because the person who had the most to gain from proving his claims true is the one who made sure the evidence that would have settled the matter was not made available for independent examination. I don’t know what that means. What are “the plates” he’s talking about? The concept is ill-defined. For example, is he talking about the same plates the 8 witnesses saw? Explain to me what you are claiming here. Are you saying that Moroni gave some plates to Joseph, Joseph had them hidden in a box or something for several years while translating, and then Moroni went, retrieved the plates from the box, showed them to the 3 witnesses, and then put them back in the box? Then Joseph showed them to the eight, then Moroni came and retrieved them? If I were allowed to speculate I’d speculate that the magical “plates" that Moroni showed are not the same “plates” that Joseph showed. He is talking about a ton of ill-defined, fantastical things. I can’t form an opinion on these claims until I know what in the heck he is talking about. If you claimed Brutus stabbed Caesar on March 15, 44 B.C. with a dagger on the senate floor in Rome, I know exactly what you’re talking about. Brutus, Caesar, daggers, the Senate floor, March 15, 44 B.C., etc. are all well-defined things. In contrast, angels, plates, God, the power of God, etc., are not well-defined things. Do you really need me to explain why historians believe Caesar was assassinated on the Senate floor in 44 B.C. but don't believe that Moroni, an ancient Central American, buried a golden book in upstate New York for Joseph Smith to find?

In this thread's OP, I leveraged AI to create "a plausible counter-explanation that fairly considers all of the data." Smac wasn't impressed with mere speculation and wants a "positive, coherent alternative explanation for The Book of Mormon that accounts for the key data points (physical plates, witness statements, text origins/translation process) without heavy speculation, while claiming empirical rigor." Is his request reasonable? Because if you want to be intellectually honest, the fact that I've told you about the Tilma forces you to make a decision. You can either take the faithful story at face value, or presume that it is fake. Despite knowing very little about the tilma, I'm presuming you think it is a fake. In order to refrain from believing in the tilma with intellectual honesty, do you need to have a robust, evidence-supported explanation of who painted it, when, where, and why? Or can you just look at the claim, recognize the pattern, and draw a reasonable conclusion?

No, they're not. If you were responding to what I said, you'd ask about my a priori beliefs first, then how I concluded from the text itself that the BoM is 19th century fiction, and then about how I don't know the specifics of the witness statements because the evidence was curated. In December 1531, an Aztec peasant named Juan Diego was walking to Mass near Tepeyac Hill in what is now Mexico City when the Virgin Mary appeared to him. She told him to ask Bishop Juan de Zumárraga to build a church in her honor. The bishop didn't believe Juan Diego really saw the Virgin. Juan Diego returned to the hill, and the Virgin told him to gather roses, roses that had no business blooming in December, and carry them in his tilma (a tilma is a rectangular apron cloth he had, made of cactus fiber). He brought them to the bishop, opened the cloak, and the roses fell to the floor. Imprinted on the rough cactus-fiber cloth was a full-color image of the Virgin Mary. That tilma hangs today in the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe. Ten million people visit it every year. The image has survived nearly 500 years on fabric that should have disintegrated within decades. Believers point to studies claiming no brushstrokes are detectable. Here is a photograph of the tilma. Smac, I presume you don't believe this is a genuine miracle. And I presume you reached that conclusion without first constructing a positive, coherent alternative explanation that accounts for the key data points (the tilma's survival, the witness statements, the image's origin), without heavy speculation, while claiming empirical rigor. You don't know who painted it, when, where, with what materials, or why Juan Diego and the bishop said what they said. You just look at the totality of the evidence and draw a reasonable conclusion. That said, you asked me questions, and I told you I'd answer them. So here goes. 1. Nature and Fabrication of the Plates Q: Who manufactured the alleged sham plates? Where? When? By what means? Using what materials? How many people were involved? What evidence exists for any of this? A: I don't know. The one artifact that would have answered all of these questions was deliberately removed from examination. Q: Was Joseph Smith involved in making or procuring the plates? If not, how did the fabricators connect with him? A: Almost certainly yes. Beyond that, I don't know the specifics. The artifact that would have told us was removed. Q: If Joseph was involved, was he a dupe or a deliberate conniver? A: I don't know. I suspect some combination of sincere belief and deliberate showmanship, but I'd be speculating, and you've told me you don't want speculation. Q: If a dupe, who else was involved, and why did none of them ever come forward? A: I don't know. Q: If a conniver, did he act alone? Where was his smithy? How did he acquire metallurgical skills? How did he afford materials? A: I don't know. The artifact that would have answered this was removed. Q: How did Joseph make the plates appear to be gold? What engravings were applied, and by what means? A: I don't know. If the plates were available for examination, we'd know. Q: How was the prop sophisticated enough to fool the Eight Witnesses into describing them as having "the appearance of gold," "engravings," and "the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship"? A: The Eight Witnesses signed a joint statement prepared by Joseph Smith using the language Joseph Smith led with. As I described with my seminary story, curated witnesses using curated language can create impressions far beyond what the underlying evidence supports. I handled a comically cheap prop and truthfully testified that it had the appearance of gold, had engravings, and could be hefted and handled. The class imagined something miraculous. A skilled deposition would have revealed the truth; the joint statement format precluded that. Q: Was the prop sloppy or sophisticated? A: I don't know. Either is possible. If sloppy, the joint statement format and the language Joseph led with would have been sufficient to obscure that. If sophisticated, someone with skills was involved. Either way, the artifact that would have settled this was removed. 2. Credibility of the Witnesses Q: What is your assessment of David Whitmer? What evidence do you have that he was insane, deluded, or tricked? A: I have no evidence he was insane. I take him at his word that he had a powerful religious experience. He said he saw the plates "in a vision or in the spirit." I believe him. I don't believe that a vision or spiritual experience constitutes empirical evidence of a physical artifact's ancient provenance. Q: David Whitmer spent decades despising Joseph Smith and declaring his testimony. How do you square this? A: I don't doubt Whitmer's sincerity. Sincerity is not the issue. The issue is that sincere belief in a curated religious experience is not the same as independent empirical verification. Whitmer never had the opportunity to examine the plates under conditions that would satisfy basic evidentiary standards — and that was by Joseph's design, not Whitmer's. Q: How do you account for Martin Harris? A: Same answer. Sincere believer, powerful religious experience, curated conditions. Harris also described seeing the plates "with the eye of faith," which he later clarified and reframed over the years. His sincerity isn't in question. The evidentiary value of his testimony is. Q: If the witnesses were duped, why did none of them recant? A: I don't think "duped" is the right word. I think they had genuine religious experiences under curated conditions and described those experiences using language Joseph led with. People don't recant sincere religious experiences. The seminary students in my story wouldn't recant either — they told the truth about what they saw. The problem isn't that the witnesses lied. The problem is that curated testimony under controlled conditions doesn't tell us what we need to know. Q: Are you familiar with Richard Lloyd Anderson's work? A: I'm broadly familiar with it. Anderson demonstrates that the witnesses were sincere, consistent, and of generally good character. I don't dispute any of that. Sincerity and good character don't resolve the structural problems with curated evidence. 3. Broader Evidentiary and Logical Issues Q: Do you have any evidence that Joseph Smith intentionally destroyed or altered the plates? A: Joseph's own narrative says the plates were returned to an angel and permanently removed from the possibility of examination. Whether you attribute this to Joseph or to God, the result is the same: the single artifact that would have conclusively settled every question on your list is not available. That matters. Q: How did Joseph "curate the evidence" relative to the Eight Witnesses? A: He selected who would see the plates, when they would see them, under what conditions, and then prepared the joint statement they signed. That is the definition of curation. Q: How did Joseph "curate the evidence" relative to Emma? A: Emma handled a heavy object wrapped in cloth. She never saw the plates uncovered. She described the experience in terms consistent with what Joseph allowed her to experience. Q: How did Joseph "curate the evidence" relative to Mary Whitmer and the other informal witnesses? A: I don't have detailed knowledge of each informal witness's experience. In general, these are second- and third-hand accounts, reported years after the fact, through the lens of a believing community. They are interesting but do not constitute independent empirical verification. Q: What is your alternative explanation for the Plates/Witnesses/Text? A: Some physical object existed. The witnesses had genuine experiences under curated conditions. The text was authored in the 19th century, most likely by Joseph Smith, possibly with input from his immediate circle. I don't need to know the precise mechanics of production to reach this conclusion, any more than you need to know who painted the Guadalupe tilma to conclude it isn't a miracle. Q: What actual evidence do you have to support your alternative explanation? A: The Book of Mormon reads as a product of 19th-century American theology, drawing on contemporaneous religious concerns (anti-universalism, infant baptism, the mound-builder myth, Protestant revivalism). The language is an inconsistent blend of EModE and 19th-century English, all perfectly understandable to Joseph Smith. The physical evidence was curated and then permanently removed. The witness testimony was curated rather than independent. The institutional incentives for producing and promoting the book were enormous. Taken together, this points overwhelmingly to 19th-century human origin. Q: What rules of evidence do you apply to the witnesses' statements? Are these rules different from those you apply to Suetonius? A: We accept Caesar's assassination because of multiple independent sources with conflicting loyalties, no shared motive, falsifiability, and physical evidence that was available for examination. The plates evidence has none of these structural features. It's not a double standard — it's the difference between independent and curated evidence. Closing Smac, I've answered every question on your list. You'll notice a pattern: the answer to most of them is "I don't know," and the reason I don't know is the same every time. The one artifact that would have answered all of these questions was permanently removed from examination, by the very person who had the most to gain from us believing his story. You're a litigator. You know what happens in your courtroom when one party deliberately conceals the evidence that would have resolved the dispute. The adverse inference goes against the party who concealed it, not against the party who can't reconstruct what was hidden. Every unanswerable question on your list is unanswerable by Joseph Smith's design. That isn't my problem. It's his.

Hi Ryan, Your piano analogy actually illustrates my point better than yours. If Joseph Smith literally did not have the capacity to say things like "save it were," then sure: that would preclude him from being the author. But if he had the capacity to say those words, then we need to look at the likelihood he said them and compare that to the likelihood that somebody else would have said them. Saying God had “more capacity” to say them doesn’t mean that it’s more likely that God did. To see this, allow me to adjust your analogy. The first son might know a few dozen songs and could play the piece we're hearing, even if it is a stretch. The second son could easily play this song too, but could also play millions of other songs, all with the touch of a master. If he had that range of things he could play, what are the chances the one song he'd choose on this occasion is this particular uneven, inconsistent piece and not one of the other millions of songs he could play?

If God removed the conclusive evidence and left us with weak curated evidence because he didn't want the evidence to be compelling, then he succeeded. The evidence isn't compelling. So why are you arguing with me about how compelling it is?

The language in the Book of Mormon is an inconsistent blend of multiple EModE dialects mingled with 19th-century English, all perfectly understandable to Joseph Smith, using the KJV as a crutch even where it contained bad translations. If you’d like to evaluate the question of who is more capable of pulling off such a feat, God or Joseph Smith, knock yourself out. But if you want to use proper Bayesian reasoning to see what this implies about the probability that the BoM is genuine or a hoax, then you have to formulate it properly. I’m not making stuff up here. Wikipedia’s article on Bayesian inference has an entire section called"Inference over exclusive and exhaustive possibilities.” It says: If evidence is simultaneously used to update belief over a set of exclusive and exhaustive propositions, Bayesian inference may be thought of as acting on this belief distribution as a whole. You can do whatever you want in your own analysis, but my approach is to keep this setup logically coherent according to the math. I grant the difference between a passive and active vocabulary. Clearly. The problem is in this question: Why is it considered a god-like hit to an inconsistent blend of multiple EModE dialects mingled with 19th-century English, all perfectly understandable to Joseph Smith, using the KJV as a crutch even where it contained bad translations? If I shoehorn your arguments into a mathematically valid rendition of Bayesian thinking, here is your logic: If the book is a hoax, then it is extremely unlikely the language would be an inconsistent blend of multiple EModE dialects mingled with 19th-century English, all perfectly understandable to Joseph Smith, using the KJV as a crutch even where it contained bad translations. But if the book is a genuine ancient book translated by the gift and power of God, then it is much more likely to be an inconsistent blend of multiple EModE dialects mingled with 19th-century English, all perfectly understandable to Joseph Smith, using the KJV as a crutch even where it contained bad translations. Since we do actually find an inconsistent blend of multiple EModE dialects mingled with 19th-century English, all perfectly understandable to Joseph Smith, using the KJV as a crutch even where it contained bad translations, this serves as pretty strong evidence that the Book is a genuine ancient book translated by the power of God. When expressed with the mathematical rigor that sound Bayesian reasoning demands, that is your argument. The problem with the argument is that you are assuming, without any evidence whatsoever, that it is relatively very likely for authentic books translated by the gift and power of God to be translated into an inconsistent blend of multiple EModE dialects mingled with 19th-century English, all perfectly understandable to Joseph Smith, using the KJV as a crutch even where it contained bad translations. And I’m suggesting that the only reason you assume this is relatively likely is because that’s the assumption that leads you to the conclusion you want. I realize you don’t frame it that way, but by departing from this framing, you are doing something other than logically correct Bayesian inference. I could understand an argument that we’d have powerful evidence of authenticity if it were exclusively in pristine EModE, featuring obscure and correctly-used details of the language that were foreign to Joseph Smith. But why does the muddled, inconsistent mingling point to God? You keep ignoring this element of the data. I know this is how you frame the issue. It is flawed thinking. Here's the problem: your candidate (divine beings) has infinite capacity. God could have produced the Book of Mormon in flawless classical Hebrew. Or in perfect Elizabethan English. Or in pristine EModE from a single consistent dialect. Or in a language no human has ever spoken. When your candidate can do literally anything, the prediction isn't "this specific outcome,” it's "any outcome is possible." And a prediction of "anything is possible" spreads its probability across every conceivable outcome. That means the probability assigned to any specific outcome--including this particular inconsistent hodgepodge--is actually very low. You don't get a high likelihood just because your candidate could have produced the data. You need to show your candidate would have produced the data, and you've admitted you can't. Meanwhile, my candidate has limited capacity. But that isn’t a weakness. Limiting capacity actually concentrates the probability distribution. If Joseph Smith could only produce language within a certain range, and the Book of Mormon falls within that range, then the probability of this specific outcome under my theory may actually be higher than under yours, precisely because my candidate had fewer options. The way to salvage this is to articulate specifically why God would strongly prefer books with a blend of multiple EModE dialects mingled with 19th-century English, all perfectly understandable to Joseph Smith, using the KJV as a crutch even where it contained bad translations over anything else. But you already conceded that we have no idea why God would prefer this over anything else He could do.

Didn't God say, “By my own hand or by the hand of my servants, it is the same?" The deliberately curated nature of the evidence makes it look deeply suspicious, regardless of who is ultimately responsible.› Thank you for admitting that you aren’t interested in discussing my views. I told the truth and I misled. The teacher’s point was to illustrate the strength of witness testimony by making them believe something absolutely fantastic based on the testimony of only eight witnesses. What did the teacher say? Only things that were true. He called the painted plywood “plates.” He said they have “the appearance of gold.” He said you could “handle them with hour hands” He said you could “turn the leaves." He said they had symbols on them that “had the appearance of ancient work.” He said it was made of “curious workmanship”. He said that he literally saw them with his own eyes. He said that he hefted them. He said that despite how extraordinary this sounded, they were right there. Underneath the lectern. Only feet away from us. Then eight of us got to see this miraculous thing. With our own eyes! We could even touch it! Lift it up! Answer questions about it! An attorney who was skilled at giving depositions would ask questions that would clarify what, exactly, we were testifying to. The students in the class weren’t attorneys skilled at giving depositions. They asked questions like, “Really! You really saw it! Did you really pick it up? Did you really turn the pages? Did it really have the appearance of gold? No way!” From my perspective, I was just answering the questions they asked and going along with it. I thought it was funny what the non-witnesses were imagining, and I didn’t want to blow the teacher’s lesson by offering the whole truth that the miraculous “plates” he wanted people to believe in based on witness testimony actually looked like a shoddy middle school art project. I have evidence that Joseph Smith led the witness testimony in the same way the teacher led my testimony. The evidence is that they signed a joint statement and didn’t offer detailed, independent, contemporaneous accounts. Beyond that, I don’t have evidence that the witness lied, prevaricated, spoke with intent to mislead, mischaracterize, or obscure. So what is the point? The point is that this curated evidence is weak. Independent, contemporaneous accounts would be stronger. Exhaustive depositions by a skilled cross examiner would make it much clearer to exactly what they were claiming. And not making the choice to deliberately take away the extant evidence that would have conclusively settled the issue would have made this all irrelevant. But as it is, we are stuck with weak curated evidence. As Mark Twain said: Some people have to have a world of evidence before they can come anywhere in the neighborhood of believing anything; but for me, when a man tells me that he has "seen the engravings which are upon the plates," and not only that, but an angel was there at the time, and saw him see them, and probably took his receipt for it, I am very far on the road to conviction, no matter whether I ever heard of that man before or not, and even if I do not know the name of the angel, or his nationality either. And when I am far on the road to conviction, and eight men, be they grammatical or otherwise, come forward and tell me that they have seen the plates too; and not only seen those plates but "hefted" them, I am convinced. I could not feel more satisfied and at rest if the entire Whitmer family had testified.

Quite frankly, I don’t believe you. You don’t care what I have to say. At all. I’ve spent a ridiculous amount of time explaining to you what I believe and why, and you dismiss all of it without comment, insisting that I am “prevaricating.” If you were the least bit interested in what I have to say, you’d at least try to understand why I think the witness “evidence” is weak. You’d at least try to understand how I’ve come to the conclusions I’ve come to, despite not having a detailed, comprehensive, bullet-proof theory explanation for precisely how the Book of Mormon was written. That simply isn’t true. I’ve repeatedly explained that while I did in fact begin with a strong a priori for a naturalistic world view, I then used Bayesian likelihood ratios to see in what direction the needle moved. I clearly articulated why I think looking at the evidence moves the needle even further away from the “it’s genuine” theory. But you ignore the nuances of my evaluation of the evidence and insist explaining how I view the evidence is prevarication. You do this by ignoring everything I talk about and asking me obscenely long lists of questions that have nothing to do with my position. The internet has not produced a marketplace where strong evidence flourishes and weak evidence dies. It has produced a carnival where people retreat into echo chambers and gorge themselves on whatever conclusions flatter their biases. You can believe whatever you want, but don’t mistake your ability to believe something as evidence that what you believe is necessarily true.

In my model, the space is broken down into two exhaustive, mutually exclusive theories. Either the Book of Mormon is a basically accurate translation of actual ancient plates, or the whole thing is a 19th century hoax. That is what we are comparing. If we want to talk about what the EModE language says about the likelihood of which theory is true, then we must talk about the likelihood that the evidence would emerge under each hypothesis. It isn't necessarily unreasonable to break down likelihood into components of "capable" and "motivated," but at the end of the day, it needs to aggregate back up to likelihood in order to form a likelihood ratio and so that we can see which theory the evidence points to. Your infant analogy doesn't apply here. An infant literally cannot commit murder—the capacity question eliminates the infant before the analysis begins. But Joseph Smith literally could say "save it were." He was a native English speaker who grew up saturated in biblical language that descended directly from EModE. Other people in his time and place said those words. He knew what they meant. The capacity question is settled. Was Joseph Smith capable of writing words that consisted of an inconsistent blend of his native 19th century dialect mingled with EModE that he was fully capable of understanding? The answer is definitely yes. The claim that he was capable of understanding and dictating EModE phrases but somehow incapable of coing up with this inconsistent hodgepodge on his own is the assertion that needs defending, and I haven't seen it defended, only asserted. What remains is likelihood. And that's the question you keep redirecting away from. Your theory doesn't predict this specific hodgepodge of dialects any better than mine does. It can accommodate it after the fact (God can do anything), but accommodation isn't prediction. That distinction is the entire point of the analysis.

I'm not making any of those assumptions. I'm simply noting the undisputed fact that that whether authentic or fake, Joseph Smith did have in his possession the artifact that would have definitively answered the question. Under the "it's true" hypothesis, you can come up with any rationalization you want to for why the angel took the physical plates and floated away to another realm with them. That doesn't change the fact that what we are left with is a basket of curated evidence that is designed to prove it true while the definitive evidence was deliberately withheld. Here is a true story that may help you understand why I'm a bit skeptical. This is 100% true. Back in the day I attended release-time seminary in Utah. One day, the teacher said he had a special artifact hidden behind his lectern: a set of golden plates. He said it was made of curious workmanship. He said it had the appearance of gold. Some of the plates were "sealed". They had strange writing on them. They were bound together by rings. The class was very intrigued by this. He then randomly selected 8 students to go up and look at this amazing artifact. By luck of the draw, I was chosen. I went to the front of the class. I touched the plates. I saw the writing. I saw the rings. I flipped a page. I then witnessed all of this to the rest of the class. They all asked us questions about it. We answered them. They really had writing on them. They were really of gold color. They really had rings. There really was a sealed section. The point of the lesson was made: the students who didn't see the plates were forced to believe they were real. They could imagine a seminary teacher lying, but not 8 fellow students. We must have really seen and touched what we said we did. And the teacher never showed the artifact to the rest of the class. They had to believe it was real based on what we said. When the class ended, one girl asked if she could see the plates. The teacher said no. She begged, and the teacher held his ground. She needed to believe the plates under the lectern were real based on our testimony. She was left dying to see this amazing artifact under the lectern that, as far as she knew, was indistinguishable from the authentic plates that the BoM witnesses saw and just maybe somehow were the very same plates the witnesses saw. But if an attorney skilled in deposition would have been there, he would have quickly figured out that the artifact we saw and handled was made out of balsa plywood painted gold, some common binder rings, and cartoonish writing written with a sharpie. The sealed portion was just a few pieces of wood glued together. It was comically cheap and fake. This never came out because the witnesses just used the language to describe the plates that the teacher and religion lead with, and the high schoolers didn't know how to perform an effective deposition. Yet I told the truth about what I saw. And the students in the class imagined something totally different.

A few points. By "sacred language," I just mean to descriptively call the language people use when talking about things they consider sacred. Whether I personally believe something really is sacred has no bearing on this usage. I freely admit that I know nothing at all about linguistics. It would be impossible to exaggerate how little I know. I am fully relying on you to relay what the evidence is. But what I do know something about is statistical inference. I have advanced training and do this professionally at a high level in a context where my opinion has massive real-world implications and is highly scrutinized by auditors and regulators. My knowledge and sensibilities about statistical inference are what I bring to the table in this conversation. I fully accept everything you say about the underlying facts of language, and I fully acknowledge that, as far as I can tell, your way of looking at this is way more nuanced and interesting than "word print" studies of years past. Despite my best efforts, I just can't see how the data implies what you think it does about the likelihood of the divine translation theory vs. the hoax theory. For example, while I accept your analysis that according to what has been preserved in the databases you've searched, Joseph Smith was only one of three people in early-mid 19th century New England to write the phrase "save it were". Does that mean it was *unlikely* that Joseph Smith would write "save it were" when he was groping for words in the language style he was writing in? Sure. I accept that this would be unlikely. However, is that evidence of divine help? That is a statistical inference question that I'm qualified to analyze. The truth is that when analyzed in a logical coherent way, the prevalence of "save it were" (and the rest of EModE) is only evidence of authenticity if you can somehow demonstrate that this phrasing is more likely in the "authentic" scenario than in the "fraud" scenario. If you hypothetically showed that this was written from beginning to end in the language of, say, Chaucer, and that it contained some nuanced theological insights that Joseph Smith wouldn't have understood because the phrasing was that archaic, that would be impressive. But rather than that, we have a theory about a hodgepodge of different dialects that transpire over centuries, and contains phrases that Joseph Smith allegedly wouldn't say, but clearly understood. Maybe that is the best explanation of the data under the "it's valid" hypothesis, but this ad hoc rationalization isn't evidence of authenticity. Regarding David Wright, what is your basis for saying his analysis was so sloppy and superficial it should be dismissed as mere "pseudoscience"? Has he told you he hasn't looked at the things you say he hasn't looked at? Granted, it would be fascinating if the dictated BoM manuscript actually fixed all of the problems in the KJV translation and that subsequent BoM revisions screwed them back up. I would expect genuine scholarship to address this issue and publish the results, regardless of whether the results are faith-promoting or not. And that type of dedication to analyzing the evidence and articulating what it implies is what really matters.

You are cherry-picking what evidence you label as being "unlikely" vs not being unlikely. It is unlikely that a book would begin with the exact phrase, "I Nephi, having been born of goodly parents." We it's vanishingly unlikely that any book will began than way because out of the millions of books that have been written, only about one starts that way.That is the data. You're right that it isn't evidence of anything, but you are wrong about the nuance as to why. It isn't evidence of anything because from an a priori basis, it is equally as unlikely under the "genuine" theory as it is under the "fake" theory. That equal unlikeliness under both theories is why it isn't evidence for or against being genuine. And that is a hill I will die on. Understanding this nuance matters. That's because while I readily grant that the specific language in the Book of Mormon is unlikely under the "fake" theory, I'm claiming it is also unlikely under the "genuine" theory. The hits for EModE are certainly interesting and even unlikely, but on an a priori basis, the "authentic" theory doesn't predict that the language would be in a hodgepodge of EModE mingled with other English dialects that would all be perfectly understandable to Joseph Smith. Claiming that Joseph Smith *understands* this hodgepodge of language from different eras but couldn't articulate it is mere assertion on your part, and just isn't persuasive. You say your candidate author has the capacity to produce this language. I agree: God can do anything. But capacity isn't prediction. Your theory doesn't predict sporadic EModE mixed with 19th-century English any more than it predicts flawless classical Hebrew or perfect King James English or modern American English. The fact that your theory can accommodate the data after seeing it is not the same as your theory predicting the data before seeing it. That's the distinction I keep making, and it's the distinction that keeps getting collapsed.