Ryan Dahle

First you want to take in the totality of the evidence, but now you mostly want to focus on a particular phrase. Why not try to deal with the totality of the archaic features? In any case, this seems to just be ignoring the fact that there is a major CAPACITY difference in the two theories. Divine beings have capacity that Smith wouldn't. That inherently creates an imbalance in each theory's explanatory power. Divine beings could produce the text's depth and breadth of archaism, if they so desired. Smith very likely couldn't, since he wouldn't even know what the features were and wouldn't likely be able to mimic so many of them in his oral dictation. So, no, it doesn't seem like the evidence is "equally unlikely" under both theories. And Joseph Smith in 1829 was no Nathaniel Hawthorne or Jones Very. It's apples to oranges. But I think we at least agree it was "unlikely" and not "impossible" that Smith encountered this phrase in his environment. Assuming he encountered all the rest and assimilated them into his vocabulary is much more "unlikely" and much closer to "impossible."

It's funny you bring this up because one of the findings from Skousen and Carmack is that the text seems to have been "filtered" for a modern audience. It is archaic, but it seems to very selectively use archaism that would be understandable in the early 19th century environment. In fact, it seems to do this in a way that the Bible itself actually doesn't. Here is how Skousen states it: "The vocabulary of the text has been filtered so that no truly obsolete words from Early Modern English get through (except in the long quotations from the King James Bible, with its archaic examples like besom, carbuncle, tabret, and crisping pin). Nonetheless, the words that occur in the Book of Mormon proper are recognizable as current words in English, but they often take on archaic meanings that neither Joseph Smith nor his scribes understood. Thus we end up with a very complex and interesting mixture of specific language usage, but definitely not an ignorant mishmash of language imitative of the biblical style." Likewise, the archaic syntax is all understandable. This seems like it allows the text to simultaneously (1) retain an archaic form adjacent to the KJV, (2) not just be a shallow imitation of the KJV, and (3) be generally accessible for Joseph Smith and the initial 19th century audience. In any case, the text never specifically stipulates what "after their manner of language" means on a technical level. Does it have to literally be Smith's own native linguistic patterns? Or could it simply be in a language he can understand. I would assume the latter, but it doesn't really matter since either interpretation (and probably others) are reasonably on the table. In short, your claim that "this theory contradicts the very message of the book it is trying to defend" is really just you imposing a narrow interpretation that isn't logically necessary, while probably also just not being aware of the findings from Skousen and Carmack on this front.

That simply just isn't true. The prediction can come either before or after. It just depends on the nature of the phenomenon being assessed and at what level of analysis it is being observed. What matters most is that the theory is based on reliable data and valid interpretations of the data. Take the alien analogy for example. Before I told you I was abducted by aliens (in my very hypothetical scenario), you would have had no idea what type of evidence might emerge to support my claim. It could be all sorts of things. The Bayesian approach doesn't require one to predict all possible outcomes and then try to guess which of the potential outcomes might be most likely. That is often impossible and is usually a waste of time. Instead, we are most often confronted with data, and then we seek out an explanatory theory that can best account for that data. In the alien analogy, it is only after I show you the shrink gun that you can begin to assess how probable that specific item of evidence might be under the competing theories. And there is just no way that you could specifically know I would be given a shrink gun as evidence. What if the aliens instead gave me a device for teleporting, or a way to read minds, or some other type of tech that is too advanced for humans? What if it wasn't tech at all. What if, instead, they altered my biology and made it so I could now read minds, and then I start telling you everything you are thinking? Point is, there are so many things that could possibly arise from an advanced, currently unknown alien civilization that it is impossible to reliably predict what type of strong corroborating evidence might be available to support my claim. The same is true for the EModE data. There is no way to reliably predict what the text might specifically look like under the "revealed text" theory, since it is being produced by an unknown entity. But when the text shows remarkable evidence that it wasn't produced by Smith, and when all of the historical evidence points to Smith as an author, the naturalistic explanation struggles and the supernatural explanation is simultaneously made much more plausible.

This is irrelevant since I was, of course, already including the totality of the linguistic data in my assessment. But I assumed Joseph Smith was the preferred candidate author under your theory. And the only textual data of any significance under that theory is the EModE archaism. If the entirety of the text was representative of Smith's own linguistic environment, we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place, as that data wouldn't be significant as evidence under either competing hypothesis.

If you want to posit someone else, it may help to better account for the EModE data, but then you of course lose the battle on historical evidence, since virtually all the data on that front points toward Joseph Smith. So pick your poison. I assumed Smith was your preferred authorial candidate, based on our previous discussion.

No. I'm just treating it as unknowable. You have to remember that in the context of these competing theories, there are two primary factors that are being assessed: (1) capacity and (2) motivation. I assume under the naturalistic theory, motivation doesn't really play into it much. I'm guessing you assume Smith inadvertently used the archaic features. Either that, or he somewhat intentionally did so, presumably to make the text sound more archaic. Either way, his motivation, if he had one, wouldn't actually be reliably known, since he never disclosed it. So the only crucial factor would be capacity. And we have a lot of data and reasons to suspect he couldn't produce the archaism in the text. On the other hand, under the supernatural theory, the motivation also wouldn't be known. Yet under this theory divine beings would definitely have the capacity to produce the features of the text. So it's not just that "unknowable" automatically means "favorable." It is that "unknowable" only applies to the factor of motivation, which to me seems far less significant than the factor of capacity. Here is another somewhat relevant analogy. If I were to walk into the kitchen and see that dinner was unexpectedly made, and if there were only two real options in this context (my 8 year old and my 15 year old) who could have made dinner, I would obviously choose the one who had the greater capacity, especially when I wouldn't be able to determine or guess the exact motivation for either of them to have carried out that action. Strongly disconfirming evidence for one factor (capacity) trumps the unknown variable in another factor (motivation). Fair enough. But that still is only unexpected when it comes to the issue of motivation/purpose (the factor I have already admitted isn't known) in contrast to the more significant and testable issue (capacity). Again, you seem to be missing the fact that there are two different variables at play. When you compare the fact that we don't know why a divine translation would have a certain set of features, in contrast to the fact that Joseph Smith almost certainly couldn't produce these features himself, it becomes pretty obvious which explanation has the advantage. Same thing with the alien analogy. The fact that humans almost certainly can't build shrink ray guns with current technology is far more significant than the mere fact that I don't know why the alien's might give me such an item.

I think I would frame this particular issue this way: What are the chances of seeing extensive, multifaceted archaism in the Book of Mormon if the wording of the text was revealed to Joseph Smith by revelation? What are the chances of seeing extensive, multifaceted archaism in the Book of Mormon if Joseph Smith worded the text himself? Under the revealed text theory, the capacity for a divine being to produce this type of feature wouldn't really be questioned. God or angels would presumably be able to produce a translation in any dialect of any language. So the real question is simply motivation and purpose. Unfortunately, we don't know enough about divine realms to be able to establish or rule out most possibilities on this front. I've thought of several purposes that I think are not implausible. Perhaps this EmodE dialect was used (1) for the BofM to generally align with the vernacular of the KJV, (2) for the BofM to have its own distinct flavor of archaism, symbolically suggesting the text is congruent with the KJV but not just an imitation of it, (3) for the BofM to possess another line of evidence, short of proof, for apologetic purposes, and (4) for the BofM to piggyback (i.e., build upon/adapt) an already existing EModE version of the same text that may already have existed in the Spirit world, thus joining the two texts together in a way. None of these possibilities can be tested and verified, but neither can they be disproven. So, essentially I am left with one or more divine beings who (under this theory) have the capacity to implement this unique textual feature, but whose motivation to do so is essentially unassessable. This makes it very difficult to provide a precise Bayesian estimate for this data. I certainly don't think the specific suite of archaic features could be specifically predicted. But I would say that, if the words were revealed to him through a divine process, there might be up to a 20% chance of something about the English text not reflecting Smith's own native dialect. In contrast, this type of multifaceted archaism seems highly implausible under a naturalistic theory. Again, I have no idea what the precise chances would be, but I would give Smith far less than 1 in 1000 of being able to produce the combined archaic grammar, lexis, and syntax of the Book of Mormon, in the frequencies and varieties that they show up in. That probability may seem too low, but some of these textual features, on their own, can't be found in Smith's time period, even when searching through corpora with many billions of words. A similar type of logic arises in the alien scenario I presented. You seemed to think that "the likelihood ratio would heavily favor the alien-abduction hypothesis" (assuming the shrink gun is real and checks out as legit). You admitted this would be the case, even if I couldn't explain any of the motivations or purpose for the abduction or the gun. In this scenario, it seems the chances that I or someone else in the world could produce a shrink-ray gun would probably be more like 1 in many billion. So I grant that evidence may be far stronger. But it is essentially the same principle. When someone makes an extraordinary supernatural claim and then the evidence is found to back that claim up, the supernatural explanation is substantially improved and the naturalistic theory is weakened.

Duplicate

I think when we really get into the lives of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon, however, we see evidence of bias in favor of Smith's claims, but also a pretty significant degree of skepticism, doubt, and willful independence. I think it is hard to just paint them with a single brush. There are lots of factors that make them strong witnesses, but also lots of factors that somewhat reduce their credibility or strength to some degree. Sometimes things cut both ways at once, along different lines. For instance, Smith's family members knew him growing up. That simultaneously makes them more likely to be biased in his favor but also somewhat less likely to be deceived by all of his claims. They saw him over the years in a way that his new associates didn't. Jesus, after all, was rejected by his own closest society. The evidence is a wash, but I think the witnesses come out pretty strong as a set. It definitely moves the needle--at lot-towards increasing the plausibility of Smith's claims. I also don't think these are the strongest lines of evidence. For me, I think the collective wordplay data is the single strongest line of evidence, especially when I look at how scholars independently prioritize such data in analogous secular contexts. But there is a whole host of research after that. I see the combined witnesses as substantially opening the door to faith. The complexity of the text opens it considerably further. But then the host of ANE linguistic and literature features (especially wordplay) get things across the finish line for me. This is all subordinate to personal spiritual experiences, but at this point I would be pretty much convinced by the secular evidence alone, I think.

Perhaps. But it depends a lot on how one views the totality of the evidence. You'll notice that critics of the Church generally don't lean towards fraud or conspiracy anymore. They apparently feel compelled by the collective weight of the evidence to view these individuals as being sincere. Not saying fraud has to be completely eliminated as an option, but it makes lots of behavior difficult to explain, even despite the points you raised. Which, I assume, is why that theory isn't generally preferred even by critics.

I'm not sure the courtroom should be the only lens through which to look at the data. It seems that history, generally, is probably a more appropriate tool. But I can see an approach where both avenues can be explored. They are related in many ways, but history generally does not have the capacity of the court room to get at certain details. On the other hand, it has certain advantages as well, such as not being nearly limited by time. The accumulation of evidence can grow and grow over decades, and so forth. But the courtroom can give us many helpful and unique lessons and principles for evaluating this type of evidence, as well.

You are missing the larger point. There is always the possibility that Smith could have stumbled across some item or another of archaism in some old text. But when you look at the data as a whole--(1) the degree that Smith was able to mimic biblical archaism, including many items of rare biblical archaism, (2) his implementation of so many features of extrabiblical archaism that were either very rare or absent in his 19th century-environment, often in a variety of variants, and then (3) the need to recognize how unusual it is for most people to be able to notice the technicalities of archaic syntax and assimilate them into their own working vocabulary--you are left with an extraordinary improbability. Every item in the list that Royal and Stan have accumulated over the years reduces the likelihood that Joseph Smith could have accomplished what you are suggesting he did. That is now a lot of data. If this were just one or two archaic turns of phrase, I doubt Stan would be making his argument. Instead, we find systemic, multi-faceted archaism on a whole host of levels. That is something very different. And I'm guessing you will understand why Nathaniel Hawthorne and Joseph Smith should not be treated as equally likely to come across or notice rare archaic forms.

Yes. I think the eye-witness testimony amounts to very strong supporting evidence. I don't think it is the same as a "shrink ray gun." There are limitations to testimonial evidence. But there is also a cumulative strength to the testimonial evidence of the Restoration, once you account for all of the factors involving the Three Witnesses and Eight Witnesses and informal witnesses. When viewed as a whole, they are very hard to account for using a consistent alternative naturalistic explanation. And, of course, it must be remembered that testimony is still often used as key evidence in most modern legal systems. In most other situations, when three people attest to the same fact--even an unusual fact, such as witnessing a murder--that tends to hold a lot of evidentiary weight. If you had eight more who testified that the murderer indeed possessed the murder weapon, that would substantially increase the case for the prosecution. And so on. I think any objective observer would have to acknowledge that Joseph Smith's ability to attain the degree of corroborating eye-witness testimony for several of his core claims is really quite extraordinary. His plan, if he were a deceiver, would have been far more likely to fail than succeed, especially if one concedes that the witnesses were essentially sincere in their beliefs (as many critics now believe). However, with these extraordinary claims being supported by such extraordinary evidence, critics can't just sit back and rely on their a priori skepticism of the supernatural to do all the heavy lifting. It seems they would need an actual counter-theory that could explain this extraordinary array of witnesses. Yet, as you have rightly pointed out, no such theory has been forthcoming. Notions, like the idea that Smith induced joint hallucinations, are only plausible to those who have already ruled out anything that smacks of supernaturalism. In almost any other circumstance, such an explanation would never fly. Imagine, for instance, if the defense attorney tries to argue in court that the three eye-witnesses to the murder were all just hallucinating, without any evidence for hallucinatory drugs or hypnosis or anything of that nature. No real evidence. Just the fact that people sometimes mistake what is in their mind for objective reality. That type of vague appeal to hallucination would never work in the court of law. It is an extraordinarily weak counter explanation. The only reason critics feel it is valid is that the alternative (an angel and gold plates) is contrary to their extreme default skepticism. And they will almost always pivot back to that point when the positive evidence pushes them up against the wall. I would have much more respect if they would just concede that the witnesses provide strong lines of confirming evidence, even if it doesn't quite compel them personally to believe. That is a much more reasonable stance, imo. But they can't have that. The supernatural explanation must be completely vacuous in their worldview. So they stretch way too hard to make truly extraordinary lines of evidence seem essentially worthless and insignificant.

Yes. I do think there is a significant discrepancy there. The laws of physics are sufficiently known that we can reliably predict and explain many types of phenomena within the known systems of the universe, at least at the level that we can understand and observe them. However--and this point is crucial--we don't have any good way to reliably predict what may or may not exist outside of our current fields of observation. That is just a fundamental principle of inductive logic. This is what leads to the classic black swan fallacy. By using inductive reasoning, an observer may come to believe that all swans must be white, since that is all the observer has ever experienced. Perhaps the observer has visited the same pond literally thousands of times, and all the swans at that pond are always white. The observer may then use this consistency to conclude that it is highly improbable that there is any other color of swan in the universe except white. The problem, of course, is that the observational field is far too limited to make that type of sweeping inductive generalization. What if there are many more swan-conducive habitats in the world that the observer hasn't visited? And how can the observer reliably predict what may or may not be in those differing environments? And if there are black swans out there somewhere, how could the observer ever predict the probability of one of them one day turning up at his own pond. Without a knowledge of what else may be out in the world and how it could one day interact with his own environment, there is really no way to reliably guess what will happen in the future. Sure, a basic expectation that the swans at that particular pond will likely continue to be all white seems like a good default assumption. But that is about as far as logic can take you without more data. The observer in such a situation simply wouldn't know the actual probability of black swans existing elsewhere in the world or the likelihood of any of them (if they exist) ever migrating to his own observable pond. A similar limitation afflicts strictly naturalistic worldviews at a very fundamental level. Naturalism posits that all phenomena can be explained by the natural laws of the universe. However, that is a necessarily limited theory, in the basic sense that natural laws are not self-explanatory. Scientists don't know where these laws came from or why they exist. Naturalism is therefore insufficient to explain the origin of the natural laws that give rise to it. Moreover, scientists are still far from explaining these laws in the deep past (pre-big bang) and at the deepest quantum levels. Scientists also struggle to figure out how the laws that govern quantum physics are consistent with the laws at the macro-level of the universe. There are also the problems of fine-tuning, abiogenesis, the hard problem of consciousness, NDEs and so forth. It is actually rather striking that science doesn't yet have good or complete explanations in several areas that are crucial for many theistic worldviews (origin of the universe, orderliness of the universe, origin of life on earth, human identity, potential for life after death , etc.). Science has not solved really any of the big questions. It admittedly has solved how many things work within the observable system in which humans find themselves. And that accomplishment should be lauded. But this success can lead to overconfidence and an unfortunate lack of epistemic humility. I actually think a default skepticism of the supernatural is warranted. Extraordinary claims do logically require unusual or extraordinary validation. But those who subscribe to naturalism often rachet up their skepticism to a level that is not logically justifiable. They treat supernatural possibilities as so extraordinarily implausible that they are effectively impossible, much like the observer at the pond incorrectly assumed that black swans must not exist. This is because they fail to acknowledge, at a fundamental level, that humans find themselves in a system that they don't fully understand and can't explain and can't see beyond. Once these facts are acknowledged and the default skepticism is toned down to a more reasonable level, religious worldviews begin to become more of a live option. This would be especially true for any religious claims that have any lines of truly extraordinary supporting evidence.

This brings up a good point. I think the first thing that should be noticed is that essentially ALL human explanations are technically incomplete, meaning that we never can fully explain the mechanisms behind observable phenomena. Take, for example, the observation that an apple falls to the ground when you drop it. Even the most scientifically sophisticated theory for that event will, at some point, have to engage in wild speculation. We can explain the properties of gravity and matter, but we have no idea why gravity or electrons or protons exist. We can't explain the array of natural laws that govern the material world. Which means we really don't understand WHY or HOW anything is the way it is. All explanations are thus provisional in some sense. This certainly doesn't mean that all explanations are equal. Some explanations are far more congruent with the already known consistencies in the universe than others. But this underlying limitation should be recognized. No human theory or explanation is ever truly complete. But, more to your point, I actually think there is a very significant distinction that may be easy to miss. Any time there are competing theories and one theory can back up one of its extraordinary claims with an extraordinary item of evidence, that automatically creates an asymmetry in that particular sphere of the debate. If I claim I was abducted by aliens, most people will scoff at the idea. But as soon as I pull out the alien-derived shrink gun and shrink a mail box, the laughing all of a sudden stops. I may not be able to explain anything more about the gun or how it was developed or why it was given to me. But none of that really matters much anymore, since the extraordinary outcome has, on its own, substantially backed up the extraordinary claim (as Analytics essentially conceded). Those seeking for a counter explanation for the existence of the shrink ray gun don't have that same advantage. Instead, they would be left to come up with a highly speculative alternative theory without the benefit of having made and then substantially justified the initial extraordinary claim. To be clear, the mere existence of the shrink gun wouldn't, on its own, prove the alien theory. There could be another explanation. But whatever counter-explanation might be brought forward would need to be highly persuasive in order to overcome the already inherent disadvantage in the debate. I think the difference would be that the initial claim essentially predicts an outcome or an aspect of reality that seems highly implausible. It is the unexpected prediction or claim that seems so important to us, as well as any associated testimony that is supported by the extraordinary evidence. In my hypothetical scenario, the evidence would be comprised of my personal testimony about my alien abduction + the extraordinary evidence (the functional shrink gun) that substantially backs up my testimony. Competing explanations wouldn't have that same advantage. They would be left to speculate about the the same extraordinary outcome after the fact, without having predicted it in any way and without having made the initial claim themselves. In situations where the outcome truly is extraordinary, that will likely leave alternative explanations without any strong supporting data. Whatever one might come up with will likely just be post-hoc speculation (in contrast to eye-witness testimony + extraordinary corroborating evidence). It is true that neither side would be able to fully explain why or how the shrink ray gun exists, but one explanation would have an obvious and significant advantage over the other. Assuming others agree with this rationale, it should have clear implications for the debate over the Book of Mormon. Whenever Joseph Smith's extraordinary claims are supported by extraordinary lines of supporting evidence, it creates an immediate asymmetry in the debate. The other side doesn't have that same advantage. They didn't claim to be visited by an angel in connection to a set of gold plates and then were able find three people who would corroborate that story, much less eight others to verify the existence of the plates. They didn't claim to receive a text by revelation and then were able to produce, in the presence of many witnesses, an extraordinarily long and complex text in essentially a single take--a text which is filled with Semitic features that are consistent with the text's own claimed origins, as well as other features (like EModE) that together point away from Smith's authorship. They didn't claim to receive a revelation about the prophet Enoch, only to have that revelation filled to the brim with parallels to extrabiblical Enochic texts, a number of which weren't available in Smith's day. And so forth. In these (and other) cases, Smith's claims amount to extraordinary predictions that are corroborated by extraordinary lines of evidence. Not only do the counter explanations tend to be highly speculative and insufficient, but they simply don't have that initial advantage.

You are confusing predicted outcomes with predicted mechanisms. The outcome (Smith not being responsible for the wording of the text) was reasonably predicted, but the mechanism was unknown and not reasonably predictable. The thing is, the mechanism doesn't have to be known in order for the prediction of an extraordinary outcome to still be significant in the Bayesian analysis. I think this point is demonstrated clearly in the alien analogy I provided. Which is why I brought it up. Implausible compared to what? Like I said before. This is the pattern. When an extraordinary claim (Smith received a text by revelation) is supported by extraordinary line of evidence (the text manifests all sorts of archaic features that, as a set, are exceedingly unlikely as coming from Smith based on large samples of available data), then the skeptic begins to become uncomfortable. So there is usually a pivot back to the skeptical prior to save the day. No matter how extraordinary, unusual, or unexpected the evidence is, the naturalistic explanation will never be as implausible (in the skeptic's mind) as the supernatural one. By making this pivot, the skeptic doesn't have to admit that the evidence actually supports the supernatural to any degree. Instead, the focus is redirected on how it is never quite "extraordinary" enough in comparison. Whenever this line of reasoning is employed, you can bet that the naturalistic explanation has probably lost this round to some degree. If you actually had the data to demonstrate that what Smith did was not really out of the ordinary, I'm guessing you would use it to that effect. Ah, but now you seem to have a problem, since there is no coherent theory as to how the aliens came to be, why they chose me, why they gave me the gun, how the technology works (let's just assume its functionality is legit and it can't be reverse engineered with current human tech), and so forth. Virtually none of the questions you are likely wanting to know would be answered. There is no actual "theory," per se, as to why all this occurred. There is simply an extraordinary claim supported by an extraordinary event that seems to transcend human capacity. Interestingly, it seems like you are conceding that the extraordinary evidence would still be quite significant in this context, even if you couldn't explain any of the big WHYS or HOWS of it all? I think that is rather telling and relevant, by analogy. What it tells me is that if you saw the EModE data as strong enough evidence, then it wouldn't really matter what unexpected and ultimately unpredictable set of divine processes may be at play in producing it. The issue isn't really that we need to have a full theory to explain the phenomenon (although that could help somewhat). It is just that you don't think this line of data is as strong as, say, an alien shrink gun working right before your eyes. And fair enough. I don't think it is that strong either. At the same time, however, I think the data is actually far stronger than you are giving it credit for. Your current theory for how all this EModE archaism came into Smith's working vocabulary rests on a series of assumptions that I find highly implausible. So I will tell you what. If you think this outcome really isn't that unexpected based on naturalistic observations about language usage among societies, how about you try to find an example of a similar degree of archaism (in quantity, quality, and variety) produced by someone in circumstances comparable to Joseph Smith. You seem to have a theory for how that would all come about. Now we just need one or two examples to help establish the validity of your working theory. It would be especially helpful if you could find someone in Smith's environment or region that used similar types of archaism. The naturalistic process, however, has to be uncontestable. You can't find someone who claims to be a spirit medium or anything like that. It also can't be a scholar immersed in archaic texts. Just find someone who produced a similar feat of archaism in reasonably comparable circumstances. Can't be that hard, right? I mean, with all the preachers presumably using that type of sacred language regularly in sermons that Smith was exposed to (which is apparently where he learned it under your theory), such language would almost certainly show up in pretty high quantities in some other religious texts outside of the Book of Mormon. Right?

@Analytics Let's just say, very hypothetically, that I were to claim that I was abducted by space aliens. Naturally, you would probably be highly skeptical of that claim (and so would I, if I were you). But then lets say that, in support of my claim, I pull out a shrink ray gun that I claim I got from the aliens. I point it at your mailbox and fire. And then it shrinks down to the size of your palm. But then you ask me why the alien's gave me the gun. I tell you I have no idea. You ask me how they developed it and for what purpose. I tell you I don't know. You ask me why I was abducted. I don't know. Basically I don't have any answers except that they abducted me and then gave me that artifact. I don't have any broader explanatory theory and can only report what I experienced. Under this scenario, would my possession of the shrink gun lend support for my story or not? Meaning, would you be more inclined to believe me or not, after I produced that evidence? (To be clear, I'm not directly equating the shrink gun with the Book of Mormon. So there is no need to expound upon the differences. It is the underlying principle I'm trying to get at, in a scenario that is as simple and straightforward as possible. I want to see if you reject the principle of logic itself, or if the real issue is just about the specific nature of the evidence. I think you may be confusing the two, so it will be interesting to see how you respond to the scenario on its own terms, before trying to bring out its relevance to the discussion).

I'm not sure why this evidence is so hard to understand. Joseph Smith claimed to receive the English translation of the BofM through divine revelation. We don't know precisely what type of English translation that might result in (since there is no precedent for that type of phenomenon). But what we do know is what type of language we might expect from Joseph Smith, assuming he were to produce it using naturalistic means. Then, low and behold, nearly 200 years later, scholars start to discover that the text of the Book of Mormon actually does seem highly implausible as coming from Joseph Smith, based on a whole range of archaic English features (of which "save it were" is just one). The fact that we can't fully explain why those features exist seems almost irrelevant compared to the fact that Smith very likely couldn't have produced them all himself. This is not a Texas sharpshooter fallacy. The prediction is already there from the beginning that the wording of the text might not be his. When that prediction is fulfilled in a very unexpected way, it tends to support Smith's claims of supernatural intervention.

Lots of written corpora do capture or approximate spoken language, such as recorded sermons. The problem is you have to really stretch to get the quantity and variety of archaic forms into Smith's environment, sufficiently for him to assimilate that language into his own vocabulary, but also explain why those same features are either rare or non-existent in the corpora from his time and place. This fundamentally misunderstands the level of detail that must be required by a competing theory. There are many situations in which one theory can be effectively ruled out by the available evidence, even if a competing theory doesn't have a complete or full explanation of the same data. In this case, the naturalistic explanation really struggles. And because it struggles, the supernatural explanation inherently becomes more plausible by default. That's just the way it is. That is the nature of miracles. When those who witnessed Christ heal someone or walk on water, they didn't have full working theories for specifically how he accomplished those feats. All they knew is that such accomplishments were very hard to explain based on normative natural laws, and therefore they bolstered Christ's religious claims (such as the ability to forgive sins). But that isn't at all how I have approached my end of the theory. In actuality, I have looked at many dozens of lines of competing evidence in a wide variety of domains. This linguistic data is just one of many that point towards Joseph Smith not being able to produce the text of the Book of Mormon. Other lines of evidence, such as the 30+ items I listed previously, suggest ANE origins, which is consistent with the text's claims but very hard to deal with under naturalistic theories. Then there are the witnesses to the plates and the angel. And there is the complexity of the Book of Mormon. And there is the Enoch literature. And so on. To me, what I see are lots of lines of evidence that converge and reinforce one another in ways that are extraordinarily difficult for naturalistic theories to account for as a whole. And I just tend to find this data more persuasive than many of the objections or contrary evidence (DNA, anachronisms, 19th-century parallels, Isaiah authorship concerns, etc.).

The text looks like it was created by an author (or authors) that had deep knowledge of EModE archaism but also knowledge of more modern linguistic patterns. If Smith were a linguist or historian that was known to be deeply read in a variety of Early Modern texts, he could much more plausibly have produced the combined archaism in the BofM (in grammar, lexis, and syntax). But it seems highly unlikely, based on his background and the types of texts that he would have been mostly likely to have read in his environment, that he ever obtained such a deep knowledge. It must also be recognized that while many of us can read and understand older English texts, we tend not to integrate archaic features into our working vocabularies. For instance, I have set up a few dictation experiments where I have tested people's ability to mimic certain types of archaism in the Book of Mormon. Even being highly familiar with the text, the test subjects didn't use certain forms of archaism when the opportunity arose. Instead, they used forms of English syntax and grammar that were most familiar to their working vocabulary. And this was after years of reading the Book of Mormon on a regular basis. This doesn't mean no archaism can be mimicked. "Shall" and "thee" and so forth are often used in LDs prayers. But mimicking such a wide array of archaic features from the Bible, and then also implementing a lot of archaic features (and variants of those features) that weren't in the Bible and that weren't still in regular use in 1829 is another thing entirely.

They knew that "save" meant "except." But a phrase like "save it were" was very rare. By way of analogy, we know what Yoda means when he says "help you I will." But that doesn't mean that English speakers (at least before Star Wars came out) were likely to use that type of phrasing. There is a big difference between being able to understand the meaning of certain items of archaic syntax and being likely to use a particular form of archaic syntax, especially in the variety of forms and in the rates and quantities we often find in the Book of Mormon. Also I never stated that my theory necessitates that the entirety of the text is from the EModE period. Stan and Royal have been clear on this point repeatedly. They aren't claiming the entire text comes from that period or is exclusive to that period. I'm not sure why people keep bringing this up, as if it is some groundbreaking point that no one has considered before. It is ultimately irrelevant to my explanation of the text. Finally, you are oversimplifying when certain issues were introduced to what time period. Infant baptism was an issue in Mesoamerica as well as concern in the Restoration. The nature of God was being debated from early in Christian history and is a question of universal concern. Dan Vogel overplayed the exclusivity of "secret combinations" and its implications, and secret societies can be found in many cultures. Thus the anti-masonry issue is debatable. But these issues are really not quite the same thing as the nature of the text. I can find many textual details that seem to be more exclusively ancient, and that are hard to explain as coming from Joseph Smith, especially in the aggregate. I've already listed some a while back.

That is an assumption that in all likelihood isn’t true. To prove that this assumption is true, you’d need to comprehensively provide transcripts of everything that was ever said or read in his environment. We don’t have that. Notice your shift in logic. You first claim, without support, that my claim "in all likelihood isn't true." But then you shift the burden, arguing that I need to prove that my position is true. The unstated implication is that if I can't prove my position is true, then "in all likelihood" it is false. That is a big logical leap. For example, there are many strong scientific theories that aren't yet categorically "proven." But you can't just leap from "not proven" to "in all likelihood" false. The problem with your position is that we actually have an enormous amount of textual data to help us determine what English was like at certain times and in certain regions of the world. While this data isn't a catalogue of every word that was ever spoken by all English speakers everywhere, it is still a very large sample of data that reliably represents normative patterns of English communication in a whole host of genres, contexts, and regions. Royal Skousen and Stan have been looking for archaism in Joseph Smith's environment, and haven't found it. And Stan has been especially diligent for many years now combing through the digital databases. The data is overwhelmingly against your position. So all you really have left is that the data doesn't quite yet "prove" Stan's position is correct. That is true. But the available linguistic data is still overwhelmingly in support Stan's position. The combined lexis, grammar, and syntax are extremely unlikely to have been produced by Joseph Smith. This is based on the available data as well as a standard academic understanding of how human beings assimilate language into their working vocabularies. Oh, I understand the approach. This has been my life for the past decade. It just seems that those critical of the church are not actually dealing with a large amount of the data. And here is where a common misunderstanding arises. The naturalistic theory has very well defined parameters. We know how humans normally assimilate language. We can track how language is used in certain times and regions. And modern databases have given us extraordinarily large sample sizes to work with. This means we have a very good data to make assessments about whether the text of the Book of Mormon plausibly reflects Joseph Smith's own native linguistic abilities. We know where he lived. We have a pretty good grasp of his education and access to books. We know how people were generally speaking in his environment, and so forth. He is a known entity. In contrast, if we assume that the Book of Mormon was translated by supernatural means, that type of entity is far less known. We don't have any precedents for divine translation. We don't know all of the goals of such a translation. We don't know who was responsible for the translation (whether God, the Holy Ghost, angels, etc.). If it were one or more angels, we don't know what their language abilities are like when they get to the spirit world, or what their target language would be or why. We also don't know what texts are like in that realm. We don't know if a version of the Book of Mormon is being used there, or how it might relate to the version here. And on and on. There are just so many things we don't know. All we can do is speculate. Nevertheless, these uncertainties create a natural asymmetry in the argument. When you deal with entities that you don't know much about, you have a much harder time proving (or strongly arguing) a negative. This means that while we can be fairly confident that Joseph Smith didn't produce the text of the Book of Mormon, we can't be nearly as confident that one or more divine entities produced the text. So a door is open on that front to a much greater degree than it would be for Joseph Smith. Which means that the supernatural argument has an obvious advantage in this area. Now, typically, when confronted with this dilemma, those committed to a naturalistic worldview will resort back to a more general argument about how supernatural entities aren't plausible to begin with, and therefore Joseph Smith is the preferrable authorship option. But that is just misdirection since the whole point of the debate is to test whether naturalistic or supernatural assumptions can best explain specific sets of data. When the data doesn't favor your position on a certain line of evidence, you can't just resort back to doubling down on the assumptions guiding your worldview, since that is the whole point of the debate anyways (i.e., testing the assumptions guiding our worldview). The simple fact is that this data doesn't not work well for a naturalistic theory and can be much better accommodated by a supernatural theory. The data is highly unlikely under the former theory and only somewhat unexpected under the latter theory. It therefore counts in favor of the supernatural explanation. You can't just then use your strong and generalized inclination against the supernatural to erase the fact that your own naturalistic theory is highly implausible on this front. That is cheating under normative Bayesian principles.

Yep. I say so.

I have read 1 Nephi 13, and it only provides a VERY generalized discussion of how plain and precious things would be removed from the Bible and how the Book of Mormon and other records in the Latter-days would help restore some of the plain and precious things that were lost. It doesn't specifically say how that will be accomplished or what parts of the Book of Mormon are most involved in accomplishing that goal. Nor does it say that is the only goal of the Book of Mormon or that this goal equally applies to each of the text's constituent parts. So there is a layer of interpretation that must be employed, and it seems pretty obvious that you are choosing an interpretation that is not only logically unnecessary but also just doesn't make much sense. Here is an analogy that may help. Imagine you are restoring an old truck, and you tell your friend that the purpose of your project is to make the truck run again. But in the process, you also change the upholstery and give it a new paint job. But then your friend goes about telling everyone that you are making your truck "run again" by changing its upholstery and giving it a new paint job. That would be an obvious logical fallacy. Your friend took a SINGLE stated purpose of your project and assumed it was the ONLY purpose. The friend then applied that general purpose to a particular part of the project to which it obviously didn't apply. Likewise, you are taking a single statement about the general purpose of the Book of Mormon and assuming, without justification, that it applies equally to every detail and section of the text. But that simply isn't a logical necessity, and it just doesn't work on many levels. For instance, what about all the details of the Book of Mormon that aren't plain and precious truths. What about stories unique to the Nephite nation, such as battles between the Nephites and Lamanites. Does every aspect of these stories restore plain and precious truths? Or is it more just that the stories contain opportunities for Mormon and other authors to draw out moral conclusions which interact with, restore, and sometimes clarify truths taught in the Bible? The latter interpretation seems obviously preferrable. I'm guessing you now see the problem with your unnecessarily universal interpretation of 1 Nephi 13. It is abundantly obvious that not everything in the Book of Mormon fits that stated goal. That goal only operates on a certain high level in most textual units. And, if that is true, it then raises the question about the purpose of the Isaiah chapters. It seems pretty clear the from the text that these chapters are not specifically intended to restore plain and precious things. If that were Joseph Smith's primary purpose for these chapters (under a naturalistic theory), one would assume that they would contain many more doctrinally significant changes (more akin to many of the changes in the JST). But they don't. Instead, they only seem to provide a basis upon which Nephite authors developed their own commentary and talking points (which commentary and original content is then where we get the articulations of some plain and precious truths that may have been obscured or lost from biblical texts). Overall, you have to remember that this is a criticism that YOU are making, trying to say that this textual data counts against the Book of Mormon in your Bayesian analysis. But that only works if your assumptions about the purpose of the Isaiah chapters is correct. Unfortunately for your theory, as the above analysis indicates, that is not a very logically justifiable position. Since you are making the critical claims, you have the initial burden of proof. You can't just say that is what the text necessarily means, and then not be able to back it up. I mean, I guess you technically can say that, but it only reveals a significant flaw in your Bayesian analysis.

There will be an Interpreter conference in May. I know several authors are exploring this issue in depth. It will be interesting to see what they have to say. But, basically, contrary to your AI summary (which tends to overinflate perceptions of consensus), I think that the field itself has fairly weak methodological controls and is actually in a significant state of disarray regarding the precise nature of Isaiah's authorship. Determining disputed authorship thousands of years after the fact is a highly speculative endeavor to begin with, so I just don't think Latter-day Saints have a lot to worry about. I've read lots and lots of scholarly discussions on dating and authorship of a wide variety of ancient texts. Even the best current theories tend to have significant limitations. Perhaps the biggest fundamental challenge is separating original content from redacted content. As soon as you start assuming a text may have undergone multiple layers of redaction and adaption through the centuries, the competing theories become highly complicated and almost impossible to prove. Here is one Latter-day Saint's journey exploring the complexity and limitations of this scholarship: