Ryan Dahle

Yep. Virtually everyone is a storyteller on some level or another. Even if someone isn't a great storyteller, they may be able to entertain a group if the story is interesting or important enough to the audience--which seems to be Lucy's point. Her report isn't about Joseph's unique or extraordinary gift as an orator, but was simply that he was telling them such marvelous and interesting things that he learned from the angel. But even if Lucy had gone on and on about Joseph's oration skills in particular, that still wouldn't provide strong evidence that he would be able to produce the Book of Mormon. No good storyteller I have ever known would be able to produce a long, complex text like the Book of Mormon through oral dictation. It is just not the same skill. And that is the major problem with the naturalistic explanation on this front. None of the historical evidence--even details which suggest Smith may have been a decent speaker or that he may have had a good memory or that he was at least passingly familiar with the Bible--provide evidence that he was capable of producing the manifold complexity of the Book of Mormon. Few people could ever craft such a text, and within that limited group far fewer still, if any, could do so in what was essentially a single draft without substantive revisions. Nothing in the historical record suggests Smith had the specific skills necessary to accomplish this truly extraordinary feat. Extrapolating that he could, based on the available data, is just such an enormous and premature assumption. It's somewhat like suggesting that because someone once attended a bike rodeo as a child and often rode their bike to school as a teen, they would suddenly be able to perform extreme BMX tricks at the highest level of competition as a young adult, but with the additional challenge of juggling flaming batons at the same time. Perhaps such a feat is not technically impossible. As Analytics keeps saying, people are capable of extraordinary things. But the evidence just isn't there to support the accomplishment, especially when we consider all the contrary evidence about Joseph's limitations.

You'll notice that I address your more specific claim as well, but whether or not Joseph Smith (the presumed 19th century author) was plausibly capable of authoring the text seems obviously relevant. I'm guessing you are aware of the text's own claims about the significance of the brass plates and the perpetuation of Hebrew and Egyptian in their scribal tradition. The issue isn't about simply being a descendent of such a culture. It is about cultural factors that are intended to inculcate and preserve a certain literary/religious tradition. The text claims the Nephite religious tradition was maintained, and we certainly see instances of strong cultural/religious/literary continuity in many societies throughout the world. Assumptions, in the abstract, about how plausible this particular degree of continuity might be seem less valuable than the strong evidence of ANE literary influence in the text itself. I also think there are a number of textual details that suggest the Book of Mormon authors were being influenced by contemporaneous Mesoamerican societies. We also see realistic evolution of doctrinal concerns and articulations of such doctrine as the text develops, often in contexts where outside pressures can be discerned by the attentive reader. That seems to be a very reductive (and probably not accurate) view of how the Isaiah chapters are developed in the Book of Mormon and interpreted by the text's internally designated authors and also by Joseph Smith. The substantive changes from the KJV are actually very few. It seems rather that Nephite prophets believed that Isaiah's writings held special significance for their people and the destiny of the house of Israel (in which their own people and record would play a significant role). In addition to the lengthy quotations, Nephite prophets oftentimes interacted with Isaiah's writings in remarkably sophisticated and complex ways. Here is just one example from an article I published last year: Jacob's Use of Isaiah in 2 Nephi 6-10. I already addressed this issue to some extent. There is evidence of cultural/religious evolution and change in the Book of Mormon. But there is also evidence that its prophets very intentionally preserved and perpetuated their people's core doctrines and faith traditions. Since we are only getting a brief glimpse of their 1000-year history, primarily redacted by a single editor, it makes sense to me that distinctions over time would be minimized while certain core items of doctrinal continuity would be maintained. We even see this in modern times as the Church has presented its own history. If you read, for example, something like the Teachings of the Presidents of the Church, you find a remarkable degree of continuity over a nearly 200 year history of the Church. It doesn't dwell on more ancillary disagreements such as the Adam-God theory. In other words, the types of changes and rates of change in societies differ based on a variety of factors. When there are strong internal forces to counteract natural pressures to evolve, and when a text is primarily compiled by just a few authors/editors who believed themselves to be part of the same core religious faith and tradition, it is not hard to imagine that something like the Book of Mormon might result. It seems like you are insinuating that the Book of Mormon is essentially playing it safe--only prophesying of past events that are certainly known, but then suddenly cutting off on more dangerous prophesies of future topics. Obviously, prophecy gets into pretty ambiguous territory, since the interpretation of prophecy is often hotly contested. But one might consider that even the prophecies about Joseph Smith weren't exactly playing it safe. The text was produced before Smith had gathered a large religious following. Thus the prediction about the size and scope of the latter-day movement (i.e., it being "upon all the face of the earth") was pretty grandiose for the time. Likewise, it seems doubtful that Smith could have been certain that the witnesses of the Book of Mormon would corroborate his miraculous claims, and state that they themselves had seen the plates (plus the angel and the other Nephite artifacts in joint visionary encounters). There are also other prophecies, such as the role of the Book of Mormon in the gathering of Israel, the prophecy that the Brass Plates will go to all the world, the prophecy of the New Jerusalem, and the prophecy about Christ's Second Coming and its attending calamities. In total, there are actually relatively few specific prophecies that the Book of Mormon makes about the Latter-days. Some of them deal with content before Joseph Smith's time. Others make fairly bold (and seemingly improbable) predictions about events of the Restoration which remarkably came to pass. Others deal with events that are still yet to come. So, no, this data doesn't "scream" anything to me. I find it on the whole to be either neutral or, in some cases, moderately strong evidence in supportive of Smith's prophetic calling. In summary, the types of concerns you are raising do little to rebut my main points, especially when it comes to the stronger lines of evidence I mentioned (such as collective wordplay data). The Book of Mormon has many 19th-century words and phrases. And it does seem intended to focus or address many religious concerns from the Renaissance onward. But I think that can be accounted for by the nature of a divinely prepared text that was preserved and intended for our day. On the other hand, there is an enormous amount of data that just doesn't fit well in a 19th century context, especially not as coming from a 19th-century author like Joseph Smith. The fact that this data is not being responsibly and fairly dealt with is telling, imo.

That is easy to say in the abstract. But there are many lines of evidence that converge against that claim, especially once we take into consideration the known attributes of the 19th-century American author (Joseph Smith) that you believe is responsible to have produced the text in that time period. Objectively speaking, I don't think there is anything in Smith's background that "screams" that he would be able to produce such a text. In fact, just the opposite seems to be the case. History suggests that few if any people have (or by inductive logic, reasonably could) produce such a remarkably complex text under such exceedingly difficult circumstances. Yet the available data pertaining to Joseph Smith's education, intellect, and literary background render him as a poor candidate on that front. The complexity alone is a major setback for your preferred naturalistic explanation. But that is just the beginning of the problems with your claim. There are many features that suggest the text has ancient Near Eastern origins. Here is a somewhat representative sampling: (1) an entire suite of poetic parallelisms and their remarkable quantity and complexity, (2) the prophetic call formula, (3) testamentary and farewell texts, (4) apocalyptic literature, (5) Nephi's impressive psalm, (6) a lengthy and complex allegory in Jacob 5 similar to other ANE examples, (7) woe oracles, (8) simile curses, (9) the recommission formula, (10) lots of inverted quotations consistent with Seidel's law, (11) ANE epistolary formula, (12) numerous congruities with ancient legal cases, (13) pervasive Exodus motifs, (14) consistencies with ancient transliteration practices, (15) evidence of underlying scribal errors and activities, (16) a prophetic disguise narrative, (17) ANE kingly introduction pattern, (18) a dancing maiden type scene, (19) epic literature, (20) a remarkably consistent retrograde king's list, (21) examples of symbolic use of sacred numbers, including the use of all all-inclusive statements at the conclusion of lists of ten items, (22) divine council imagery, (23) a prophetic lawsuit, (24) consistent ANE covenant/treaty language, (25) quotations of large blocks of biblical texts, (26) pervasive biblical allusions and quotations, (27) evidence of Passover traditions, (28) evidence of speeches held in conjunction with major Israelite festivals, (29) a whole suite of Hebraisms, including idioms and grammatical features, (30) Egyptianisms, (31) many dozens of proposed instances of Hebrew and Egyptian wordplay, as well as instances in which the text seems to be aware of the meaning of Hebrew terms and concepts in the underlying languages. I could keep going. But that should suffice for the moment. Some of these items are much more significant than others. It was intended to be a somewhat sporadic and eclectic list. But it is just very hard for me to look at the totality of the data and say that the text "screams that it was written in the 19th century America." To be sure, some of these items could be reasonably imitated from the Bible by a skilled forger. But even if we grant that possibility, look at the additional burden this places on Joseph Smith. It requires that he was unusually perceptive of many ancient literary forms and tendencies (some of which weren't discovered or well understood until the 20th century), while also being able to integrate them into a text that is ridiculously complex and consistent on so many other levels simultaneously. Especially problematic, in my mind, are the many dozens of wordplay proposals. There are too many strong candidates to reasonably suppose they arise by chance. And there just isn't any way that Smith could have guessed or intuited them all. In a few instances he could have, or he may have accessed texts like Josephus or biblical commentaries that display awareness of the meanings of certain biblical names. But that doesn't work in the aggregate. And it also places a burden of scholarship on him that seems historically unlikely, especially as the number of texts he must have accessed grows. From my perspective, the 19th-century authorship theory only works on a highly reductive and superficial level, where many lines of relevant textual data--both in regard to their antiquity and complexity--are unjustifiably downplayed or ignored. As Spencer keeps saying, those critical of the Book of Mormon generally aren't taking it seriously enough. They aren't accounting for most of the available data. They don't actually have a theory to explain it. At the very least, the idea that the text "screams" 19th century authorship is obvious hyperbole. On so many levels, the text doesn't look anything like what Joseph Smith (or really any author in the 19th century) could plausibly concoct, especially not under the unusually constraining circumstances of the translation. The fallback argument that many people accomplish "extraordinary" things is just not sufficient, as, without qualification, it could be used to explain just about any accomplishment, no matter how implausible, unexpected, or, dare I say, miraculous.

Honestly, I think your response illustrates my previous point perfectly. Here is what I said: I asked Gemini to compare the two works. Here is what it gave me: Factor The Book of Mormon (1829) War and Peace (1863–1869) Timeframe ~60–90 days of actual dictation (April–June 1829). 6–7 years of focused writing and research. Primary Method Oral Dictation: Joseph Smith dictated the text to scribes (primarily Oliver Cowdery). Manual Writing: Tolstoy wrote by hand, often in solitude, followed by heavy editing. Research/Tools None visible: Eyewitnesses (Emma Smith, David Whitmer) stated he had no books, notes, or manuscripts. Extensive: Tolstoy used a massive library, historical archives, and visited battlefields (Borodino). Drafting Process Single Draft: Eyewitnesses claimed Smith never asked to have the previous day’s portion read back and made almost no immediate revisions. Extreme Revision: Tolstoy rewrote the book multiple times. His wife, Sophia, famously copied the entire manuscript by hand at least seven times. Education Level Limited: Joseph Smith had approximately three years of formal frontier schooling. Elite: Tolstoy was a highly educated nobleman, fluent in multiple languages and deeply read in world literature. Length/Complexity ~270,000 words. Includes distinct internal cultures, complex lineages, and intricate chronologies. ~580,000 words. Features over 500 characters and blends fictional narrative with historical philosophy. In several obviously crucial areas, these texts are different. What you are proposing is almost like saying that since lots of short players make it into the NBA, it isn't implausible that someone who is 4 feet tall and only has one arm could be the number one draft pick next year. Yeah. It's possible. There have indeed been some unusually short players before. But there has never been another player quite like that, with that combination of limiting factors. It obviously isn't enough to point to Muggsy Bogues or Earl Boykins to support such a claim. That is true. But there are also degrees of "extraordinary." And the production of the Book of Mormon is sitting very close to the tippy top of the pile in its category (once all relevant factors are considered). It is often said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I find it interesting, though, that when multiple lines of truly extraordinary evidence are produced in support of an extraordinary claim, such evidence all of a sudden doesn't seem to matter anymore (simply because other people have done less extraordinary things in non-comparable circumstances). Take home message is that what Joseph Smith accomplished will never be extraordinary enough to count under some worldviews.

I'm genuinely not sure if this is you responding to my question or not. I'm not saying the text would have to be confirmed in a remarkable way in the areas I listed (DNA, congruity with ancient American history, etc.). I'm just wondering, if all of those issues went away, would you be much more inclined to believe?

"Hard to do" is an enormous understatement. This is an area where I think naturalistic theories really struggle. They tend to oversell the plausibility of Smith accomplishing the task based on limited comparisons with non-analogous texts and production processes, while ignoring (or just being innocently ignorant) of lots of other relevant complexity data. I love the Stormlight Archive and the Wheel of Time. In some ways, they are way more complex than the Book of Mormon. But in other ways the Book of Mormon has categories of complexity (and remarkable densities of complexity) that are way more impressive than these series. And there are just enormous differences in production processes, authorial profiles, and so forth. I have literally spent years now analyzing Book of Mormon complexity on a whole host of levels. Do I think this single line of evidence should force belief? No. Is it technically impossible for Smith to have pulled it off? That seems too strong. But so far I've just been unimpressed with the efforts I've seen to responsibly attempt to account for this feature, (from the likes of William Davis and others). To be fair, apologists can go way overboard in the other direction, taking single items or aspects of complexity that really aren't that dispositive on their own and then claim Smith could have "never" accomplished it. I've tried to tone down my own rhetoric over the years on that front. But, when I view this evidence category in the aggregate, I think it is actually a much bigger problem for critics than they know.

Default skepticism of the supernatural plays a very large part. There is no question about that. But you are correct to point out that there are other areas where the text of the Book of Mormon is not consistent with standard historical models of the Americas, or in which it might contain other perceived anachronisms. So we can add DNA and Anachronisms and parallels with 19th century texts and so forth as non-supernatural reasons to doubt or reject the text's claims. Seems pretty reasonable to me that these categories work together in conjunction with the skepticism of the supernatural. Even if all of that went away, I think most skeptics would still reject the text's claims (due to their supernatural nature), but these items add much fuel to fire, so to speak. Imagine, just for a moment, if all of these secondary issues (DNA, anachronisms, 19th-century parallels) went away and there was really no reason to doubt the text's claims on these fronts. Would you be significantly more willing to believe in it? You don't have to answer that, if you would rather not. But it is an interesting idea.

Most apologists don't think the evidence "forces a supernatural translation" either. As for the evidence fitting "better" under the naturalistic framework, I actually think that is just not true in many respects. Some lines of evidence definitely favor an apologetic perspective. What I mean by this is that if we were to view the competing explanations in isolation, without a strong bias against the supernatural, the evidence in favor of the authenticity of the text would be very strong in some areas. What is really happening is that these strengths get diminished or really just outright discarded by the strong default skepticism of the supernatural. For instance, it is exceedingly unlikely that Joseph Smith was able to produce the Book of Mormon in the manner described by the witnesses, but that will always be more likely (for those strongly committed to a naturalistic framework) than an angel delivering him gold plates. And so on.

Agreed. I think the most useful part of the Bayesian approach is that it helps more clearly establish and compare subjective probability estimates within complex sets of data. In other words, it helps those with differing final conclusions better see where and why they disagree on the particulars. But the actually final statistical outcomes are essentially unreliable.

This is rather interesting. I wonder what would happen if I started feeding you a lot more data to input into the assessment. For instance, many Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon show up in the Bible as well, and therefore don't count as strongly. That is a valid critique. But that isn't the case for ALL Hebraisms. And there are many other features of ancient Near Eastern texts to consider. I had a similar discussion with an LLM a while back. I marshalled all of the evidence of this nature that I knew of (which is a ton), including all the wordplay data I'm familiar with. Once it had more data in hand, and once I addressed some of the holes it its logic, it conceded that the Book of Mormon looked very much like its author had a deep background in Hebrew and Egyptian languages. And it, of course, conceded that Joseph Smith wasn't a viable candidate on that front in 1829, based on his known history.

If one is open to the possibility that spirits are interfacing with the brain on an emergent level, it does no good to look at absences of evidence (i.e., missing spirit matter or spiritual forces) in underlying processes. The spirit could easily be interfacing or utilizing or relying on those very same biological processes. I actually find it interesting that this is what consciousness itself often feels like. It is like we are in the drivers seat of a very complex machine. We don't control everything that is brought to our attention. We don't control all of the underlying processes. Our awareness rests at an emergent level on top of it all, only directing some general activities and final decision-making processes. If we actually don't know specifically how most decisions are made on that emergent level--especially complex or morally complicated decisions--then it seems obviously premature to rule out something like spirits interfacing with our bodies. To be clear, I'm not saying there is scientific reason to believe in spirits. Nor do I think there is, or really needs to be, a scientific theory to specifically explain how they interface with biological systems. The evidence supporting most religious systems lies elsewhere. All the religious adherent needs in this sphere is a lack of strong evidence disproving their religious assumptions. And that actually seems to be the case. Consciousness is still a poorly understood phenomenon. It seems like all neuro scientists and philosophers essentially agree on that fact. So there just really isn't much of a disconfirming case here. If something like the Libet experiments and the later iterations of them actually demonstrated that all human decisions are made unconsciously, that would seem to be a much bigger threat to religious belief. But, as far as I can tell, that body of research has proven inconclusive, and the popular narratives around it have been premature and ultimately misleading.

I don't think this is a very helpful prompt for an LLM to say anything meaningful about the text. You are leading it too much to certain assumptions you want it to work within. My experience is that LLMs typically give "consensus" viewpoints at a general level but will then change their minds as soon as they are confronted with data that pushes against the consensus (especially because they are always semi-sycophantic). I once had a conversation with Chat-GPT in which it started off by saying the Book of Mormon was nearly impossible due to DNA concerns. But then I went through the DNA issues one by one, explained the apologetic rationale and so forth. It ended up finally giving me approximately a 15% chance that the Book of Mormon narrative could be true, in light of the limitations of DNA current evidence. I'm not saying the 15% figure is valid. I'm just saying that I could probably interact with the same LLM you used, frame the questions differently, and get a very different response. My biggest concern is that within your framing, too many significant lines of evidence are missing (both pro and con), and the LLM hasn't considered the back and forth debates within each of those lines of evidence.

I don't think this is accurately describing what LDS truth claims are asserting. Latter-day Saints don't believe that miracles summarily "overturn" existing natural laws (physics, biology, neuroscience, etc.). Rather, it is widely assumed that such laws are temporarily suspended or altered by a higher power. The distinction is crucial because science itself frequently encounters circumstances or realms where its own previously understood laws suddenly don't apply. Quantum mechanics operate differently than Newtonian physics. Time near a black hole operates differently than on earth. And so forth. We now have adopted these surprising and non-intuitive discoveries into our scientific theories, but 200 hundred years ago they would have seemed ludicrous. If we think, just for a moment, about the number of times that standard "scientific" models or theories have been significantly modified--or "overturned" in your words--by new discoveries, the proposition of divine intervention seems far less egregious. This is especially so when one considers that current science is essentially operating within a complex system of natural laws that it doesn't fully understand at their core. It doesn't understand where these laws originated or how they came to be. All we know is that they exist and that many of them seem finely tuned in a manner to permit complex life forms (or really anything interesting or complex in the universe). While I don't think the fine-tuning argument proves that God exists, it certainly opens the door to that belief. And if there were an intelligent being that was responsible for the fine-tuning of the universe, then it actually isn't that hard to imagine that such a being could conceivably intervene in human affairs for his own reasons, while also being able to mask or limit his intervention to whatever degree he prefers. Once these foundational arguments are in place, those who are wedded to naturalism actually don't have the inductive basis to reliably predict how likely or unlikely divine intervention might be. Induction works well when our probability estimates are confined to repeated phenomena and circumstances we can directly observe or encounter. Inductive reasoning largely breaks down when we consider the plausibility of unknown entities outside of our current observational field. For instance, if you asked scientists 200 hundred years ago how likely it is that there is a quantum realm with bizarre rules underlying the realm of Newtonian physics, how would they even begin to provide a probability estimate for that hypothesis? All they could really say is that they haven't yet encountered evidence of such a realm and therefore don't believe in it. Which is a reasonable position. Skepticism of unproven facts is fairly healthy. It is what keeps us from being deceived on all sorts of levels. But we need to be careful that we don't rachet our default skepticism too high. The remaining unknowns about the universe are too fundamental and too pervasive to become overly dogmatic. The truth is that secular atheists/agnostics actually have no idea how likely or unlikely a being like God is. All they know is that they haven't yet found evidence to personally convince them of such a being. It could very well be that God exists, just like the quantum realm exists, and they just don't yet have the type of evidence to convince them of that reality. Which is fine. I'm pretty sympathetic to that type of agnosticism, especially when one's default skepticism is accompanied by a healthy degree of epistemic humility. As for me, I think I've discovered a strong enough combination of subjective evidence (through my experiencing consistent "spiritual" phenomena predicted by the gospel) and secular evidence (through my weighing the positive evidence in favor of the Restoration with the evidence against it) to warrant belief. I think a major part of the difference in approach is just how strongly different people ratchet up their default skepticism towards the supernatural. In many cases, I think the default skepticism is actually doing most of the heavy lifting for those critical of the Church. Any time the evidence, such as the combined strength of the three and eight witnesses becomes rather impressive, the rebuttal is always that such evidence doesn't really matter in the end--since the possibility that they were all either lying or delusional (even when that hypothesis is rather unlikely on its face) will ALWAYS be more convincing than the proposition that an angel revealed a lost record to a farm boy. One by one, all of the impressive lines of positive evidence can be summarily dismissed in the same way. Outside of absolute definitive proof, they will never be enough to convince someone who has ratcheted their default skepticism of the supernatural so exceedingly high. Which is fine. But I think it helps to notice how strongly that default skepticism is influencing the evaluation of the available evidence.

The dragon analogy is especially inappropriate when applied to a set of religious claims that have a very unusual degree of supporting secular evidence (which seems useful as a supplement to prioritized spiritual experiences). In my experience, core LDS religious claims have a unique (and I believe unprecedented) degree of supporting secular evidence.

I might just add a few points to the discussion. In the realm of Latter-day Saint theology, it seems like the best explanation for our mortal identity is that our spirits are interfacing with our bodies on an emergent level. Those who subscribe to strictly naturalistic frameworks struggle to counteract this hypothesis because science actually doesn't understand consciousness. It can certainly demonstrate that our perceptions of consciousness are connected to brain activity. And it can demonstrate that normative perceptions of conscious awareness and control (i.e. agency) can be significantly modified, hindered, or entirely compromised by various medical conditions or anomalies that affect brain activity and functioning. But the Plan of Salvation doesn't seem to assume, in the first place, that all mortal beings have the same degree of free will, mental capacity, or accountability. In other words, the LDS theological framework can accommodate all sorts of aberrations in this area, including circumstances where free will is entirely compromised. As far as I can tell, then, the real problem is simply that there is no objective scientific evidence that any sort of spiritual matter or entity is interfacing with the human brain in the realm of conscious decision-making. If science actually knew what caused perceptions of consciousness, in the first place, it would be better positioned to rely on this type of absence-of-evidence argument. It would also help if it could do more than generalize about how certain biological or environmental factors may be affecting conscious decision-making processes. But the simple fact is that in most deliberative decision-making processes, science actually can't specifically determine why an individual makes one decision over another. Why buy this home over that one. Why choose this spouse over that one. Why give up faith or maintain it in any given religious claims. And so forth. Science can appeal to combinations of genetics and environmental factors to propose possible explanations. But for most complex decisions, it can never be certain of the ratios involved, much less all the possible contributing factors. It can never say that Johnny bought home X over home Y for precisely a certain combination of reasons (these particular genes + these particular environmental factors). Nor can science reliably predict what any given human will do in most circumstances, especially not based on the science alone (outside of sociologically monitoring human patterns of behavior). Even with social data, you never know when a given human being is going to act outside of the "norm" in any given context. I've always found it rather fascinating that the level at which spirits are believed to interact with the human body is also an area where science has admitted to being largely ignorant. It is making progress in mapping out what portions of the brain are connected to what types of perceptions. But the actual causal processes involved--from the base atomic and subatomic levels all the way up to the macro decision and conscious awareness of the decision--are still a mystery. It doesn't work very well to claim that spirits aren't interfacing with this remarkable biological machine (the human brain) when you actually don't know how the machine works most of the time with any degree of specificity. As I see it, the door should be reasonably open for belief, assuming some other line of evidence can help corroborate the spiritual-interfacing hypothesis.

I haven't commented on this board for some time, but this conversation has intersected with some of my own ponderings lately. I actually think there is a significant distinction between making a scientifically unfalsifiable positive claim and making a negative claim. Just because something can't be objectively tested does not equate to it being untrue or non-existent. For instance, imagine that someone claims, through firsthand experience, to have been abducted by aliens at a certain time and place. And let's just say, for the sake of argument in this hypothetical, that the event actually happened but there is no way the individual can prove, much less even moderately support his claims, with any sort of objective evidence (outside of his own testimony). At least for the individual who hypothetically experienced such an event, the mere fact that there is no possible way to test or affirm his claims does not equate to their falsity. In essence, there may sometimes be a significant difference between the following types of phenomena: 1. Things that are true and have supporting objective evidence. 2. Things that are true and don't have supporting objective evidence. 3. Things that are false. It is fallacious to concede that category 2 is effectively category 3, since there are many propositions in the universe which may be true but which may also be unfalsifiable based on currently available evidence. There is also always the possibility, in many circumstances, that what is currently unfalsifiable today may not be unfalsifiable in the future. I think most of your later talking points essentially concur or align with this view, but I thought I would just make the distinction anyway.

I also disagree with the position of teddyaware, for several of the same reasons you expressed. But this is entirely inappropriate. I suspect he was inviting people to disagree, even vehemently, with his stated position or claim, not attack his personal discipleship. Also, I think that there is enough inherent moral tension and paradoxical ethical dilemmas in the scriptures that we can have grace for those who take a different stance on these types of issues. The idea that men should preside in the home has been taught be numerous prophets and apostles, many of whom undoubtedly had assumptions or views about this matter that you would disagree with. They probably held these views for some of the same reasons that teddyaware holds them (scriptural interpretations that you see as fundamentally flawed). If so, would that also make them poor examples of followers of Jesus Christ? You also might consider that, at least in ecclesiastical matters, the Church still has a system of governing keys held exclusively by male priesthood holders. Precisely why this ancient pattern has been maintained in modern revelations has never been fully explained. My point isn't to validate teddyaware's specific view on men presiding in the family, but simply to point out that modern Church leaders who continue to uphold this system, which can seem very patriarchal and oppressive to women by many observers today, does not make those Church leaders poor examples of followers of Christ. I assume the current leadership of the Church feels bound to follow that pattern because God has never revealed or directed any prophet to do otherwise. The simple fact is that God does not always behave in ways that align with our moral intuitions. Sometimes our understanding of the scriptures are wrong. In other circumstances, we may not fully understand God's plan. And in those circumstances, it is our limited perspective and uninformed moral intuitions that may need to change. I think we need to have more grace for one another as we try to navigate these types of complex moral quandaries.

See my comment above on the Title Page, as it gives a pretty good summary of the text's own claims. Another important thing to consider is that the Book of Mormon prophesies of its own significance in the Restoration and gathering of Israel. It predicts Joseph Smith's translation. It predicts the three witnesses (and other witnesses). And so forth. So its claims transcend its own history. In turn, the unique nature of the Book of Mormon's discovery and translation make it testable in many areas (history, literary studies, linguistics, geography, science, etc.) that aren't available for the Bible or other religious texts. This is something of a double-edged sword, as it opens up the possibility for varying degrees of confirmation or disconfirmation of its claims in a multitude of areas. In any case, I believe that the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints offers, by far, the most objectively "testable" set of religious claims of any religion in the world. That doesn't mean that it is primarily intended to be tested in that manner or that the Church itself places a lot of emphasis on such secular evidence, either for or against the Church's claims. But there IS an enormous body of evidence supporting its claims from a wide variety of fields. That is objectively demonstrable.

The title page is definitely part of the original text, most likely written by Moroni but drawing upon editorial claims made by Mormon and also Nephi. It is definitely underappreciated. See the following link: https://scripturecentral.org/evidence/title-page-intertextuality