Ryan Dahle

It will need to be proprietary for now. But we do plan to publish then in the next few years.

The point of this portion of the discussion was whether or not Joseph Smith "hardly knew" the Whitmers, after living in their home for 3-4 weeks while translating the gold plates. My opinion is by the time they witness the plates, they knew enough about the importance and significance of Smith's translation project to endorse it and support it and to commit to their testimonies all their lives. Yes, it is whether Smith 'hardly knew" the Whitmers--BUT in the context of him presumably orchestrating an elaborate fraud. If he had a shoddy artifact and expected the Whitmers to go along with his claims even if they didn't believe the artifact was authentic, that would have been a huge risk. He "hardly knew" these people well enough to assume they would all just overlook a dubious artifact. Likewise, if he expected Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer to just imagine an angel and a whole set of ancient artifacts or to blatantly lie about their experience, that would also have been a huge risk. Again, Smith barely knew these people in that context, and they barely knew him. If Smith's claims were fraudulent, it would have been a huge risk to trust these people that he had just met a few weeks before. This is why I think it is inappropriate to blanketly discount the testimonies of the Whitmer clan (which is the whole point of this portion of the conversation). It is true that they weren't disinterested parties. But Smith also didn't have a lot of time to coopt them into an elaborate fraud or to trust that they would lie or embellish details to support his claims. On the other hand, if Smith knew the artifact was genuine and if he knew he really had seen an angel and that the Lord was promising a similar vision to chosen witnesses, then the short amount of time that he had known these individuals would be rather irrelevant. So, yes, I guess we agree they "they knew enough about the importance and significance of Smith's translation project to endorse it and support it and to commit to their testimonies all their lives." I assume this is because they witnessed a genuinely convincing artifact and also that Oliver and David experienced a genuinely convincing vision of the plates and the angel. You seem to think they were either deluded or pious frauds. I'll let you have the last word on this topic. We seem to be having miscommunication. I'm not sure if, as in the other discussion of the lengthy plates, you are just not following the flow of the thread or what. The reason I keep bringing this up is because the whole discussion surrounds the credibility of the witnesses, and their moral character is obviously integral to their credibility. Are they the type of people who are going to lie, embellish, and engage in elaborate fraud in this context, or not. There are only so many logical options here. They were either (1) lying, (2) delusional, or (3) telling the truth. You persist in bringing up talking points that hint that they are lying and engaged in a fraud, but then you keep backing away from that position, as if it is unsavory to talk about. For instance, you wrote: I find this type of constant innuendo, followed by an unwillingness to talk about the moral character of the witnesses, as utterly incoherent (and slightly annoying). If you don't want to talk about the moral character of the witnesses, then stop bringing up talking points that implicitly impugn their characters. Again, I'll let you have the last word, since this conversation is clearly going nowhere.

I think it is fair enough, as far as it goes. There are obviously going to be areas of potential pushback (eastward turn sequence, questions of statistical significance as a biblical-sounding name and as a Arabian place name, the question of whether it was written as nhm or nḥm in Nephi's text, and so forth). But I'm confident that most of these types of concerns have actually been sufficiently dealt with in the literature, or that they will be soon enough. Several months ago Kolby Reddish went on Mormon Stories to try to debunk the Nahom evidence with John Dehlin, and it was clear to me that neither of them had been keeping up on the scholarship or had actually carefully read Neal's more recent papers. So, at this point, I'm pretty confident that the evidence is what apologists claim it to be. And, to be clear, I think the AI's reserved talking points are warranted. Nahom is not proof, especially not when viewed in isolation. But it is pretty remarkable evidence and shouldn't be dismissed.

Another reason is simply time. If Joseph Smith was supposed to be studying things out in his mind and then asking if they are right, that would have naturally resulted in a a much slower translation. And we also would very likely have reports from the witnesses commenting on his deliberation process. Instead, he just reads steadily from the translation devices, day after day, without any mention of him wanting to revise, adjust, or otherwise refine the text. If it he were the one clothing raw ideas in his own language, I think there would be evidence of him struggling to find the right words, both in the extant original manuscript and in the reports from the witnesses. And if he spent much time deliberating over the text, that would very likely have slowed down the translation considerably, such that it might not have been possible to dictate in the timeframe that it was produced. On another front, it is technically possible that distinct words could be revealed to Smith's mind, rather than being visually represented in the translation device, but to me that would essentially still be a revelation of words (rather than ideas). And the problems with the hybrid approach you mentioned before would still be at play (with a constant and confusing vacillation of revealed words + revealed ideas). Another problem, under Gardner's mentalese model, is simply the redundancy of having Smith mentally formulate words to express the raw ideas of the text, and then having those mentally formulated words show up on his translation device for him to then read, as if he couldn't have simply spoken them when they came to his mind. Then there is the issue of human fallibility. What would happen if he were to hesitate or deliberate in his mind about how to say the text. Would he have to just keep thinking and iterating until an "acceptable" option showed up on the translation device? Or would the text on the device shift in real time as he waffled back and forth about how to best express an idea? Depending on what solution one might assume, I think this again would result in a host of errors in the text or else much longer periods of deliberation, in which nothing would show up in the device until he mentally found a sufficient mode of expression. Yet another problem is that the text has truly remarkable intertextual control, both externally with biblical texts and internally. If Smith were responsible for the wording of the text, I think we would see far less specific and impressive intertextuality on various fronts. The list goes on, but there are a number of reasons that believers in the Book of Mormon should abandon the "revealed ideas" model of the text. The robust and multifaceted archaism is one major line of evidence pointing towards that conclusion, but there are other reasons as well.

I have a fairly lengthy article detailing this this topic that is co-authored by Neal Rappleye. We will be presenting it, in summarized form, at the Interpreter's Small Plates conference in May. Suffice it to say, I think the wordplay/literary aspect of this name is quite a bit stronger than it is sometimes given credit for. I won't spoil the article, but anyone who is interested can look forward to it in the next few months.

It might help if you specifically fed the AI some of the best and most recent research on certain topics, rather than assuming it will find them and prioritize them in the macro analysis. Here are some publications that you might give it specifically, ask it to analyze them, and then give it a chance to update or refine any of its previous arguments: Neal Rappleye, “The Nahom Convergence Reexamined: The Eastward Trail, Burial of the Dead, and the Ancient Borders of Nihm,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-Day Saint Faith and Scholarship 60 (2024): 1–86; Neal Rappleye, “The Place—or the Tribe—Called Nahom? NHM as Both a Tribal and Geographic Name in Modern and Ancient Yemen,” BYU Studies Quarterly 62, no. 2 (2023): 49–72; Neal Rappleye, “An Ishmael Buried Near Nahom,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 48 (2021): 33–48; S. Kent Brown, “Nice Try, But No Cigar: A Response to Three Patheos Posts on Nahom (1 Nephi 16:34),” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 19 (2016): 149–152; Neal Rappleye and Stephen O. Smoot, “Book of Mormon Minimalists and the NHM Inscriptions: A Response to Dan Vogel,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 8 (2014): 157–185; Warren P. Aston, “A History of NaHoM,” BYU Studies Quarterly 51, no. 2 (2012): 78–98; Stephen D. Ricks, “On Lehi’s Trail: Nahom, Ishmael’s Burial Place,” Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scripture 20, no. 1 (2011): 66–68; James Gee, “The Nahom Maps,” Journal of the Book of Mormon and Restoration Scripture 17, no. 1–2 (2008): 40–57; S. Kent Brown, “New Light: Nahom and the ‘Eastward’ Turn,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 12, no. 1 (2003): 111–112, 120;

Here is a treatment of a line of evidence (involving tombs) that gets a little bit watered down in the summary: To be clear, I'm not saying this is a home-run piece of data. But some critics have gone so far as to say there is no real relationship between this region and meaningful burial sites. To the contrary, I think it fits that context quite well.

That's not even what we are talking about. The point of this portion of the discussion was whether the Whitmers should be viewed as unreliable witnesses, by default, because of their close association with Smith (despite the fact that he had only known most of them for a few weeks). As for other precedents for false witnesses, each instance would need to be thoroughly compared to the Witnesses of the Book of Mormon. Otherwise, just as in the example of the Strangite witnesses that you tried to employ earlier, similarities can easily be inflated while important differences may be ignored. It seems like that was the point of Smac's line of questioning earlier. And when he demonstrated you were misrepresenting the parallels, you all of a sudden wanted to stop talking about the witnesses and their motivations (ostensibly because of a strange aversion on your part to discuss the quality of their characters, as if that wasn't obviously relevant and ultimately unavoidable in this type of discussion). Now you seem interested, once again, in discussing their motivations for fraud. I think if you would have continued the conversation with Smac at the point where you chose to disengage, it would have been quite illuminating.

Just perusing these scorecards, I see lots of problems, both in methodology for interpreting the text and in how items are scored, and sometimes just blatant errors of fact or notable omissions. In any case, I actually don't think this is the type of data that is most significant anyways. These aren't the types of things that apologists typically use as strong lines of evidence of authenticity. I think the best way to view the archaeological/cultural data is as a decently viable defense against alleged anachronisms, not as a robust arena of positive evidence. Part of the reason for this is that a lot of these types of things would be "guessable" by someone who was inventing an ancient society. Other challenges involve uncertainties about the prevalence of items within a society, potential disparities in archaeological detection, and questions about translation flexibility. In many cases, assumptions about the text and the data could drastically alter the final scoring of items. And often those assumptions can't be proven one way or another. This leads to systemic uncertainty. That isn't to say that these scorecards are worthless. I think they are helpful in several ways. But I don't think they should be viewed as reliable final assessments of the collective data.

That's fine to question the assumptions upon which the data are built. That is always necessary and important. But that wasn't the only issues in our past conversations. You seemed to not understand the nature of much of the data and how it relates to the databases. And your theories for why the data would be missing from the databases (such as appealing to a sacred language) seem to be mostly unfounded. But, like you said, we don't need to rehash all that here. The point is simply that if you really want to steel man the arguments, you are going to have to sufficiently understand their nuances. Probably one of the best ways to test this is to find an AI platform that doesn't know anything about you and doesn't have any history of past conversations with you. Then it will be easier to control for bias, especially if one doesn't lead it in any direction. The problem is that the better versions cost money, and I'm not sure if you can just have a blank-slate discussion if you already have a profile and a history of conversations with a particular AI model. It will also help to compartmentalize the issues. You need to take them on their own terms one at a time without ever asking AI to contextualize them in the larger controversy. You also can't ever let it know which way you lean, even by implication. Only once you have addressed all of the issues in isolation, and with a strong emphasis on avoiding bias and on conforming to typical standards and principles of evidence in that domain, should these issues be used in the broader conversation of BofM authenticity (in a more Bayesian style analysis). This type of compartmentalization can help distinguish what the evidence might mean on its own terms versus what it means when filtered through a strong skeptical or apologetic lens, based on extraneous data. Another helpful tip would be to ensure you are transparent about the full conversations you are having with the AI, so that others can assess any conversation elements that might be leading to bias. You also might want to sometimes collaborate with other about prompts before sending the AI on a task to evaluate something. Those are just some general thoughts/tips, which may or may not be helpful to you.

Well, yes, if Joseph Smith actually had a very convincing artifact in his possession, such as the plates described by the witnesses, then that time would be sufficient, since he wouldn't have to worry about them expressing doubt or skepticism about its authenticity. But it is not a lot of time if he had a fairly dubious artifact that he was hoping they would affirm and corroborate, despite any suspicious features. Imagine, for instance, if the artifact only had like 5-10 plates with fairly large writing and that was made from painted modern tin. Smith might very well have been uncertain if his bogus plates would convince these folks, and he would be right to question their loyalty and trust. He wouldn't be able to assume they would just overlook suspicious activity. I think the limited time would be especially problematic for the Three Witnesses (particularly Whitmer and Cowdery). It is hard to come up with a plausible theory for how he convinced them that they saw an angel and the other artifacts or, alternatively, trusted them so quickly to be a part of his fraudulent scheme, and that they would affirm their witnesses so adamantly even after falling out with him. Typically, when people express concern about the close relationships among the witnesses, it is because people assume close relationships may result in a greater likelihood of bias that would lead to lying and other forms of deception. But, as far as I can tell, it would have been very risky for Smith to trust that the Whitmers would be positively biased towards him in that way, as if they would just go along with his deceptions. They really had just barely met him, and a few weeks isn't a long time for him to test all of their character qualities and personalities, especially if most of his time was spent translating and other necessary activities rather than socializing.

I admire your effort. But I think there are going to be some hurdles with this approach. And the main problem is just time. You see, I have been systematically building a case for the Book of Mormon (and other Restoration texts) for over ten years now--identifying, categorizing, systematizing, and evaluating various types of evidence supporting the text's authenticity. I already have a very elaborate list of major categories and sub-categories that I have identified, along with supporting publications (the document is over 100 pages in length, with just sources listed and no annotations or commentary). Some major categories have literally hundreds of underlying publications (books, articles, and other media), often which fit into various subcategories. So it would take a lot of time to work through what all is there, and to understand the nuances well enough to "steel man" the apologetic argument. Just take our recent conversations about EModE, for example. Over and over again, you admitted that you aren't an expert in this area. And, not to be rude, but it is clear you don't really understand much of the data or the claims being made about it. Which means that you don't seem to be in a particularly good position to "steel man" that particular type of argument. It is fairly technical and nuanced, and in order to responsibly engage with that line of data, you would need to actually read much of the research. You would also have to understand the underlying assumptions that are often guiding that research. I assume that a similar limitation is going to be present in lots of other categories. Which I think will have a significant impact in the aggregate on your final conclusions. That isn't to say that I myself have a perfect understanding of all these topics either. I certainly don't. But I think I have unique insight into the depth and breadth of the data that would need to be sifted through, as well as some of the technical hurdles to understanding it. And my general feeling over the years is that critics of the Church tend to not approach the positive data very systematically or comprehensively before reaching very confident conclusions about its evidentiary value. It's not something that you can just formulate a quick list about and then start whack-a-moling all the evidence. That being said, I applaud you for your efforts on this front and I don't think the discussion will be fruitless. This is just more of a cautionary warning about the challenge of attempting to address such a large topic in a fair and comprehensive way, even with the aid of AI (which tends to cater to our biases and will generally rely on consensus positions as a starting point).

You seem to be missing the point, though. The reason for emphasizing the familiar relationship between Smith and the witnesses would be to suggest some type of joint deception of collusion (under the assumption that people who are intimately familiar with one another are more likely to trust each other in the case of fraud). Your more "nuanced" view doesn't really make a difference at the end of the day. Smith only knew most of these people for a few weeks before they were invited to be witnesses.

First of all, I thought you weren't interested in discussing the veracity of the statements of the witnesses. Have you changed your mind? Second of all, if you imagine that Joseph Smith was orchestrating a con job in which these individuals were colluding with him, then yes, he hardly knew most of them (when assessing the relationship in that type of context). Oliver Cowdery showed up at the door and almost immediately began translating. It's not like Smith knew these people for years and had time to vet them and anticipate how they would respond to different circumstances. Imagine trying to orchestrate a fraud and get so many people who you effectively just barely met to go along with a bogus translation of a bogus artifact. They hadn't established deep connections with Smith. They weren't his childhood buddies. They weren't his family. Their interest seems to have been entirely centered on their very newly developed and raw belief in his revelatory claims. He would have no way to be confident that the Three Witnesses (two of whom he just recently met) would affirm his story about the angel and other artifacts, especially if he were just relying on the power of suggestion or emotion elevation or whatever to induce their visionary experience. Likewise, if the plates weren't very impressive to look at, he couldn't have known how the Eight Witnesses (at least those from the Whitmer clan) would have responded. And he almost certainly wouldn't have known how their testimonies would fare throughout their lives. So, yes, when assessing Smith's associates on the basis of potential fraud or collusion, he really did barely know these people. His assumed con job was an extraordinary risk that seems very unlikely to have succeeded.

I think the issue is that when you have multiple witnesses come forward and testify of a significant fact, that automatically meets a certain threshold of evidence, which then will usually shift the burden on the other party or theory to impeach the witnesses or disprove their claims. Smith claimed he got gold plates from an angel. That is a truly remarkable claim. But then witnesses came forward and corroborated his claims, about both the angel and the plates. If this were a court case or a historical issue that had nothing to do with religion, the claims from the witnesses would likely have a fairly high evidentiary value, as their experience was immediate and sustained. It wasn't a passing glance at Loch Ness or Big Foot from a hundred meters away. The angel was right there flipping over the plates one by one. Likewise, for the eight witnesses, the plates were literally in their hands so they could feel, heft, and examine them. No analogy will be perfect here, but you can imagine a murder trial in which three people were directly present when a murder took place and saw the whole thing with no real possibility for visual error. If they consistently and uniformly testified of the crucial details of the event, that would be enormously significant evidence at the trial. Likewise, if you had multiple people that could identify the murder weapon and tie it to the alleged murderer, that would also be significant. As soon as such testimonial evidence is established in a case, it seems that there would then be a burden on the other party to explain that same data. If the witnesses were lying, there would need to be good reason to doubt their testimonies. If they were merely mistaken, there would need to be some explanation for why they could have reasonably been mistaken, and so on. If there was collusion and fraud, it would need to be demonstrated, not simply assumed. The same is true of history in general. Immediate sources are privileged over secondary or tertiary sources. Sources closer to the event a privileged over later ones. And so on. In the story of the Restoration, we have an assembly of privileged sources that generally would outrank competing sources, at least when you look at standard historiographical criteria for evaluating sources. In other words, if this were a non-religious context that didn't involve miraculous claims, I think believers would generally have a decently sized evidentiary advantage. The defense attorney in a court setting can't simply say things like "people sometimes hallucinate" or "this was emotion elevation" or "some people take drugs" when dealing with the witnesses to a murder. You would have to provide a much stronger, more precise line of evidence showing that the witnesses were indeed mentally compromised at the time of the observed event. And so forth. Moreover, you can't just sit back on your laurels and argue that there simply isn't enough data or evidence available to support a counter theory. That would never work when confronting such strong testimonial data. So, what I think is really happening here is that the normal burden to establish a compelling counter-explanation is simply viewed as unnecessary by those who have a very high a priori skepticism of Joseph Smith's religious claims. They admittedly don't have a good or detailed counter-explanation. But to them, that is okay. They don't feel they need one. Because they already have a very high confidence that farmers don't get plates from angels. So they will take any moderately limiting factors (such as the fact that the witnesses were related and all had a vested interest in Smith's claims, or that the evidence was "curated" to some extent) and use that to outright dismiss the whole thing. Maneuvers like that typically wouldn't work in secular contexts. You would have to have a much stronger, more detailed and thorough explanation for why the witnesses were lying or colluding in fraud or mistaken. But if you already have a very strong a priori skepticism, it will do the trick just fine. Even the slightest reason to doubt the testimonies of the witnesses will be viewed as sufficient to reject them. And I suppose that makes sense to me, on a certain level. We all have to prioritize what lines of evidence are most appealing to us. But I think it needs to be admitted that this is what is happening. Believers actually have the upper hand when you view this evidence on its own terms, without the a priori skepticism and other lines of evidence tipping the scales. We have remarkable supporting testimonial data. We have the better and more immediate sources. And we have the most parsimonious explanation. It's just that this line of evidence, as significant as it may be, isn't enough to overcome the other reasons that people have to reject Smith's claims. As for the comparison with finding parallels in ancient texts and cultures and so forth, I actually think the better analog is finding parallels with modern 19th century sources. It seems to me that there isn't a lot of symmetry with that type of evidence (ancient vs modern textual features) and the testimonial data from the witnesses of the Book of Mormon.