smac97

I totally agree. I provisionally agree. Rote declarations of being commanded by "the Spirit" are not self-authenticating/validating. I think the Latter-day Saints have a particularized advantage in this context. See here: I think we should have a testimony of the fundamentals, as derived from the Spirit, with the Book of Mormon / Moroni's Promise as the catalyst. Everything else is derivative of, is "downstream" from, those fundamentals. A few thoughts: 1. Michael Ash's Four-Legged Stool: I have found this comment from Michael Ash very helpful: The other legs of the stool (scripture, prophets and reason) function well in "vetting" personal revelation. Utilizing all four "legs" is, in my view, a far more reliable mechanism for discerning truth than relying on just one of them exclusively. 2. Hafens' Tripartiate Progression (Untested Simplicity --> Complexity --> Tested/Proven Simplicity): I've posted this a few times now: So we have: Stage 1 ("Innocent and Untested") --> Stage 2 ("Juxtaposing the Ideal and the Real") --> Stage 3 ("Informed Perspective of Complexity-Transcending Simplicity Tempered by Time and Experience"). This seems about right. Stage 2 is, I think, where a lot of members of the Church are struggling and giving up. Part of the answer, I think, is to seek simplicity that transcends, that is on the other side of, complexity. 3. My Attempt at a Framework: Here is a framework I tried to develop a few years ago (responding to a friend's inquiry that was fairly similar to yours) : So there you are. I think a person can differentiate between the Spirit and “mere emotion” by analyzing feelings and considering A) their duration, B) the circumstances in which they occurred, C) their apparent purpose, and D) their effect on behavior. 4. Defining Terms and Parameters: I think it is helpful for us to occasionally re-examine what it means to have a testimony. Consider the Temple Recommend questions (emphases added) : ... Note that the first three pertain to having "a testimony," the rest are "do you sustain," "do you strive," "do you obey," etc. As Joseph Smith put it: And, of course, there is D&C 76: So should a person have a testimony of, say, the Word of Wisdom? Or is that derivative of having a testimony of the "fundamental principles of our religion?" 5. Additional Resources: I would point an interested party to the following essays: The Reasonable Leap into Light: A Barebones Secular Argument for the Gospel (Daniel Peterson) I Don’t Have a Testimony of the History of the Church (Davis Bitton) The Logic Tree of Life, or, Why I Can’t Manage to Disbelieve (Daniel Peterson) Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon (William Hamblin) Reading these have helped me understand some pitfalls, however well-intentioned, can be dug when we dilute the meaning of "testimony." The Restored Gospel has never espoused an unthinking, unvetting approach to making decisions. We have ample guidance from both past and present prophets and apostles: Moroni 7:12–17 (Book of Mormon) “Wherefore, all things which are good cometh of God; and that which is evil cometh of the devil; for the devil is an enemy to God, and fighteth against him continually, and inviteth and enticeth to sin, and to do that which is evil continually. … Wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God. … But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil.” This is a Classic scriptural test: Does it invite good, build faith in Christ, and lead to righteousness? If yes → from God. We can and should "vet" supposed spiritual promptings in this way. D&C 50:23–24 “And that which doth not edify is not of God, and is darkness. That which is of God is light; and he that receiveth light, and continueth in God, receiveth more light; and that light groweth brighter and brighter until the perfect day.” Another vetting angle: Does the influence bring light, edification, and increasing clarity? If it brings confusion or darkness → not of God. D&C 8:2–3 (to Oliver Cowdery) “Yea, behold, I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost, which shall come upon you and which shall dwell in your heart. Now, behold, this is the spirit of revelation…” More vetting: Genuine revelation comes as peaceful thoughts in the mind and confirming feelings in the heart (not just one or the other). D&C 9:8–9 “But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right. But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought…” This is the classic “burning in the bosom” vs. “stupor of thought” test. To sum up, we can vet/validate a spiritual prompting as follows: Does it lead to good, faith in Christ, and righteousness? Does it bring peace, light, edification, and clarity? Does it align with scripture and the teachings of living prophets? Is it accompanied by burning in the bosom (peace/confirmation) or stupor of thought (confusion)? Does it come as both mind (thoughts) and heart (feelings)? Indeed. There are plenty of ways to characterize one's personal preferences as "The Spirit" to justify improper conduct. Hence the value of the foregoing vetting guidelines. And, on a more individualized level, people invoke "The Spirit" to justify disregarding constraints on personal behavior, or shirking affirmative duties and obligations. There are way too many "If It Feels Good, Do It" and/or "I Feel Really Strongly About This, So I Must Be Right"-style justifications that do not hold up well. Thanks, -Smac

The funny thing is, they ended up dwindling and perishing in unbelief anyway. Go figure Not sure about that. How many thousands (millions?) of Nephites and Lamanites had access to, and accepted, the Gospel of Jesus Christ during the roughly 1,000 years of the Nephite record? And 1,400 years later, the record was restored and has facilitating the preaching of the Restored Gospel to many millions of the descendants of Lehi. The Plan of Salvation centers on the Atonement of Jesus Christ, and on God's gift of agency to us, which allows us to choose or not choose to apply the Atonement in our lives. Because of this latter component, the Plan of Salvation has never been about the Lord batting 100.00. Indeed, the Cycle of Apostasy - which includes both "dwindling and perishing in unbelief" and then recovering from that - has long been addressed. Thanks, -Smac

Sounds good. This is incorrect in a variety of ways. First, I have repeatedly said that you have no actual obligation here, just an intellectual one. I think a serious person claiming to be a "a Bayesian methodological empiricist," and who has spent years and years saying "not that" as to the origins of The Book of Mormon, has a logical and intellectual obligation to present a viable alternative explanation. And I have asked, not demanded. Second, I have not asked for a "complete" theory, but rather this: "{A} plausible alternative (and presumably, but not necessarily, naturalistic) explanation" ≠ "a complete theory of the crime." I acknowledge that I have asked for an explanation that accounts for "all the data," and maybe that was an overreach, at least at the preliminary stages of things. I'm looking for a broad framework, something more serious and less flippant that Space Aliens or Satan (unless, of course, you were serious when you posited these as "more likely" explanations than Joseph's narrative). Once you present the framework of an alternative postulated "theory of the case," we could then start to examine it in its particulars. Third, my request presupposes that you have already concluded that "that a crime occurred." I presuppose this because of this: You are on record that "a crime occurred." That is, that Joseph's narrative about the plates and the text is "just not possible," that "the evidence against the Book of Mormon" is "quite literally overwhelming." Got it. Understood. Message received. What I do not understand, and what you have not articulated, is your alternate theory of the crime. If Joseph didn't "do it," then who did? What is your alternative - and presumably (though not necessarily) naturalistic - explanation for A) the physical reality of the Plates, B) the statements from the Three and Eight Witnesses, and C) the source/authorship of the text. I appreciate you analogizing this issue to "a crime," as I think that is a decent analogy. In a crime scenario, something has happened. For example, police discovery a body tied to a chair, with signs of torture and blood loss. That the death was intentional and done by someone else (not suicide) is beyond reasonable dispute. Somebody did it. Somewhat similarly, as regarding The Book of Mormon, something has happened. Someone wrote the text. Witnesses testified as to the translation process and the physical reality of the Plates. Substantial historical evidence exists as to how the text came to be, pertaining to both the method/behavior of Joseph Smith in the "translation" process, and to the physical reality of the Plates. You have presented yourself as "a Bayesian methodological empiricist" and, in that capacity, have declared that Space Aliens or Satan / a demon is a "more likely" explanation for The Book of Mormon as compared to the Joseph's narrative, which, per you, is "just not possible." Well, okay. I am asking - not demanding - that you bring your Bayesian methodological empiricism to bear and present your "alternate theory of the case." Again: That you are unwilling or unable to respond to such a straightforward request is, to me, significant. Okay. Let's see what you've got. I'm listening. Right. "Probability" = "very low." You've gone over this a lot. You've reached a Bayesian-methodology-induced conclusion, which is that Joseph's narrative "just isn't possible." And you have reached this conclusion because, per your claim, "the evidence against the Book of Mormon" is "quite literally overwhelming." So we're well into the "Bayesian analysis" thing. You have examined the evidence for Joseph's narrative, and also countervailing evidence, and found the latter "quite literally overwhelming." Got it. So what is your alternative theory of the case? You've already pointed to Space Aliens or Satan as "more likely." Are you sticking with these? Or do you have something else/more? Not sure you want to go with this. The text includes this: According to the text, it was written by ancient prophets. If the text "accounts for itself," then your position is refuted. If your position is valid, then the text does not account for itself. Meanwhile, you have said nothing about who wrote the text. You already know what I belief, but I do not know what you and your supposed empiricism believe accounts for the authorship. You've previously posited Space Aliens or Satan. Are you sticking with those as being "more likely" than Joseph's explanation? If not, who wrote the text? When? Where? What evidence do you have of this? I have already accounted for them. I am asking how you account for them. That you are unwilling or unable to even try to bring your supposed empiricism to bear and formulate a coherent alternative explanation is, to me, very interesting. So . . . delusion? All the witnesses were all deluded? Was trickery/deceit involved? What evidence do you have to support this alternative theory? I am not asking you to articulate your thoughts on "the evidence against authenticity." That's just more of your "not that" stuff. We already know what you think did not happen. I am asking what you think did happen. I am asking that you present your alternative explanation for the text, the Witnesses, and the physical reality of the Plates. As to miraculous events, they are always based on faith. Christ did not resurrect and then appear before Pontius Pilate, or the Sanhedrin. He appeared to His followers. If the Restored Gospel is what it claims to be, God wants us to accept The Book of Mormon on faith, based on personal revelation. That is the "evidentiary standpoint" before us. And again, you are reverting to your "not that" stuff. So if not that, then what explanation do you favor? How does your supposed empiricism work here? "{F}rom an evidentiary standpoint, the Plates are unavailable for examination by experts. The same could be said about the knives used to assassinate Julius Caesar. Because they are not available, do you deny that the assassination took place? See this conversation from 2022: The same could be said about the knives used to assassinate Julius Caesar. Because they are not available, do you deny that the assassination took place? This reasoning isn't is landing with me. I believe there is an unbroken historical record that A. Julius Caesar existed and B. that he died a tragic death (presumably assassinated). There is also "an unbroken historical record" that A. Joseph Smith and the Witnesses existed and B. that they testified as to the physical reality of the Plates (the Three Witnesses testified of considerably more than that). And yet nobody is saying that this "unbroken historical record" establishes the reality of the Plates, right? So "an unbroken historical record" doesn't seem to get us very far. Moreover, if we look that this historical record, is it based on first-hand, percipient witness testimony of the assassination (in 44 BC)? Well, not so much. See, e.g., here: ... Suetonius was born 114 years or so after the assassination. He was not a percipient witness to the assassination. Nicolaus of Damascus (c. 64 BC - after 4 AD) : ... Very loosey-goosey, this. He was not a percipient witness to the assassination. He was born 20 years after it. Plutarch (c. AD 46 – after AD 119) : ... Not a percipient witness. Born 90 or so years after the assassination. Appian (c. 95 – c. AD 165) : ... Not a percipient witness. Born 130 or so years after the assassination. And yet we rely on him for "detail about the stabbing and the immediate aftermath," such as that "{the} conspirators were covered in blood and left the scene of the assassination still carrying the bloody knifes," that "the conspirators had even stabbed each other in their haste to kill Caesar," and he even attributes specific words to Brutus. Cassius Dio (c. 164-235 A.D.) ... Not a percipient witness. Born about 200 years after the assassination. AFAIK, the only "eyewitness" we may have is Cicero (106 BC – 43 BC), and yet even that is a bit iffy. ... "The sources seem to all agree that Cicero was {present}..." And here: ... None of the foregoing goes much into provenance / chain-of-custody issues. We nevertheless rely on these various (non-percipient-witness) sources . From an evidentiary perspective, we have more competent evidence of the physical reality of the Plates (multiple first-had and relative recent and indisputably authentic first-hand accounts) than we do for the assassination of Julius Caesar. And yet I doubt you dispute that Caesar was, in fact, assassinated. I would take an entirely different tack if that were the case. Legal technicalities have some utility when examining, say, the Witness statements (such as weighing the credibility of witnesses), but not in a legal setting. Secular courts are not situated to adjudicate whether or not miraculous events occurred hundreds or thousands of years ago. Yes: And here: Joseph, acting on instructions from returned the Plates to Moroni some time after June 1829 and before May 1838 (likely much closer to the former date than the latter). But you already know what Latter-day Saints believe about the origins of The Book of Mormon. I am asking you to explain your theory about those origins. Who wrote it? When? Where? What evidence do you have? How do you account for the Witnesses' statements? Do you think there was an actual physical object (the Plates) or not? What evidence do you have for these things? First, I am approaching The Book of Mormon principally as a matter of faith, whereas you are approaching it principally in your supposed capacity as "a Bayesian methodological empiricist." You have invoked empiricism. I have not. Second, I do have an evidentiary basis for the text, the Plates, the Witnesses, etc. I have Joseph's published statements and, by extrapolation, confirmation from the Spirit. I have the Witnesses' statements and ample information about their lives, both prior to and after their statements. I have information about Joseph Smith, his education, his writing ability, etc. I have the text and the indicia of complexity, cohesion, etc. I have access to substantial testimonial evidence regarding the translation process. I have access to portions of the OM and to the PM. And so on. What I do not have, though, is any articulation from you of a coherent, plausible, evidence-based alternative explanation for the text, the Plates, the Witnesses, etc. Third, I have staked out a position as to the text, the Witnesses and the Plates. My position is subject to scrutiny, empirical, logical or otherwise. You have not done this. Instead, you start a thread with a title of "a secular theory of where the bom came from," but you have yet to produce any articulable theory except to quote ChatGPT. I think you are doing this because you are unwilling/unable to articulate an explanation for The Book of Mormon that could be scrutinized using evidence, reasoning, etc. As I said in the other thread: As I said previously, you have no actual obligation to respond to legitimate queries from reasonably intelligent and well-informed Latter-day Saints who, like you, have examined the evidence, who have reached conclusions which depart from yours, and who are nevertheless willing to examine alternative theories about The Book of Mormon. I've listened to Vogel and Taves, and have repeatedly asked you to weigh in. I think you have an intellectual obligation to provide an alternative explanation, but that's about it. You are unwilling or unable to articulate one, and I think that is because you know that in doing so you would be hoisted by your own petard. Your theory would be laden with speculation and guesswork, would not account for the historical evidence/data, would reach a priori conclusions devoid of competent evidentiary support or reasoning, would expose your lack of empiricism despite declaring yourself to be a "Bayesian methodological empiricist," and so on. I would actually like to be proven wrong about this. As a Latter-day Saint, I am throwing open to the doors to my worldview and inviting you to walk in and lay out an alternative explanation for The Book of Mormon. I am willing to listen to what you have to say. You've spent years and thousands of posts railing against the Church and its doctrines, and yet when I ask you to present a viable alternative, you've got nothing. "I'm largely agnostic." You've spent decades on this board, and written thousands of posts under the name "Analytics," all the while speaking against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. But when the chips are down and you are asked to lay out your own reasoning and explanation to counter the Church's narrative, you've gone nothing. "I'm largely agnostic." It seems that the best you can come up with is Space Aliens and/or Satan. Or even worse, you are not even willing to try. You have strengthened my testimony, both today and in years past. I give plaudits to Dan Vogel and Ann Taves, even though I find their alternative explanations to be underwhelming and insufficient to address, as DCP put it, "all the data." In contrast, you, standing at the top of the anti-Mormon heap, have nothing substantive or coherent to say about the sine qua non of the Restored Gospel, apart from "not that." I think you refuse to commit to any alternative explanation because you do not want to end up having to defend it, likely because you anticipate your alternative explanation will fail, that you will be hoisted by your own "I'm all about the empiricism" petard. Penn & Teller aren't claiming "real magic." It's naturalism all the way down. You are presumably indifferent to the particulars of Penn & Teller sleight of hand methods (as am I), whereas you have spent decades and thousands of posts criticizing the Church and its truth claims. So you don't seem indifferent. What you do seem to be, though, is worried about being hoisted by your own petard, and so you refuse to lay out your supposed "analytics" despite various and repeated invitations to lay out a plausible alternative explanation for The Book of Mormon. Thanks, -Smac

I am hoping @Analytics will return to this thread (he started it, after all) and take up the above challenge. Thanks, -Smac Still hoping @Analytics will return to this thread and take up the above challenge. This will be the fourth post inviting/asking @Analytics to return to this thread and follow up on what he said in the OP: Again, I never asked Roger to "pose the question to ChatGPT 5.2 Pro." Any of us can do that. I am, instead, asking Roger to post his alternative explanation for the origins of The Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon exists. The text exists and should be accounted for. The statements of the witnesses should be accounted for. The Plates should be accounted for. Thanks, -Smac

Well, the narrative indicates that Plates were in the custody of Laban's steward/servant, Zoram. Yes. It's effectively impossible for us, living 2,600 years after the events described, to meaningfully speculate about alternative ways for Nephi to obtain the Brass Plates. We can either except Nephi's narrative as accurate, or not. Can't the same be said for virtually everything God asks or commands us to do? Why have us come to earth and be tested? God has no other options? He can create worlds without number, but not come up with an alternate plan that involves His children exercising faith, confronting sin and temptation and moral quandaries, etc.? Why not just create us with built-in perfection as part of us? Seems like God's ways are not our ways, nor His thoughts our thoughts. Thanks, -Smac

You are saying Nephi fabricated the narrative? Which parts? Also, you seem to be advancing a position based on presentism. Am I wrong in surmising that? Also, does the context matter? Also, what are your thoughts about Welch's article? Thank, -Smac

I am curious as to your perspective on this: If you are in a TLDR mood, here's a Grok-generated summary: Thoughts? Thanks, -Smac

I am hoping @Analytics will return to this thread (he started it, after all) and take up the above challenge. Thanks, -Smac Still hoping @Analytics will return to this thread and take up the above challenge.

I'd like to understand this better. Plenty of iniquitous stuff going on now, but I don't think any of us would therefore be okay with a Neph-and-Laban-style event today. While I believe the narrative about Nephi is accurate, I can also understand how it is troubling to people who are spiritually mature and thoughtful. That's a question of faith, I suppose. "Clutching pearls" (or pearl-clutching) "refers to an exaggerated, often performative display of shock, horror, or moral outrage in response to something considered scandalous or improper. It portrays someone acting overly sensitive or prudish, frequently used to mock or criticize those who react strongly to minor offenses." I think the case can be made for Nephi to be justified, both religiously/morally/spiritually and under the laws in place at the time. See here: Legal Perspectives on the Slaying of Laban (John W. Welch) An excerpt: It's a very good article and merits some real attention by those who feel that the Nephi-and-Laban narrative is significant. In the end, though, I can't really agree that is a "perfectly obvious case of right vs wrong." Again, from Welch: "{W}hen analyzed in terms of ancient biblical law, the case is framed within the appropriate set of legal terms and issues. This is not to say that the slaying of Laban presents us as modern readers with an easy case: neither was it an easy case for Nephi." Thanks, -Smac

I also don’t get how killing Laban would prevent pursuit. Laban sent men to kill the brothers. Then Laban is dead so no pursuit? Not sure that this is what Ryan was saying. The stated basis in The Book of Mormon for Nephi to slay Laban is a direct command from the Spirit of the Lord, with context and explicit justifications provided in the text of 1 Nephi 3 and 4 (particularly verses 5–18). Initially, Nephi's return followed both Laban's attempt to murder him to get gain (ch. 3:35), and also the visitation of an angel (ch. 3:29-31). He then states that he "crept into the city and went forth towards the house of Laban," and that he "was led by the Spirit, not knowing beforehand the things which {he} should do" (1 Nephi 4:5-6). The "crept" bit appears to be attributable to Laban having previously tried to murder him him (see 1 Nephi 3). The "not knowing beforehand" also has quite a bit of relevance as to Nephi's state of mind. Nephi then encounters Laban drunk and unconscious in the streets of Jerusalem. He then states that he was "constrained by the Spirit that I should kill Laban" (1 Nephi 4:10), but he hesitates, reflecting his aversion to bloodshed: "Never at any time have I shed the blood of man. And I shrunk and would that I might not slay him" (1 Nephi 4:10). Again, this speaks to his state of mind. The Spirit then provides the following reasons to overcome his reluctance: Divine deliverance — "Behold the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands" (1 Nephi 4:11) and "Slay him, for the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands" (1 Nephi 4:12). This phrasing echoes Old Testament legal principles (e.g., Exodus 21:13), where a killing is excusable if God delivers the person into another's hand without premeditation or ambush. The Lord's purpose in slaying the wicked — "The Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes" (1 Nephi 4:13). Necessity for the preservation of a nation — "It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief" (1 Nephi 4:13). This refers to the importance of obtaining the brass plates (containing the scriptures, genealogy, and law), without which Lehi's descendants would lose spiritual knowledge and "dwindle in unbelief" after leaving Jerusalem. After these promptings, Nephi concludes that the command aligns with the Lord's will and obeys: "Therefore I did obey the voice of the Spirit, and took Laban by the hair of the head, and I smote off his head with his own sword" (1 Nephi 4:18). In summary, the text presents the slaying not as personal vengeance, self-defense, or punishment for Laban's prior crimes (though, again, Laban had attempted to kill Nephi and his brothers earlier), but primarily as a divinely commanded act necessary to fulfill God's righteous purposes—preserving scriptural records essential for the spiritual survival of Nephi's future nation. Nephi emphasizes his initial reluctance and frames the act as obedience to the Spirit rather than his own initiative. Still a very troubling narrative. Thanks, -Smac

I am hoping @Analytics will return to this thread (he started it, after all) and take up the above challenge. Thanks, -Smac

Anthon was afaict, the most knowledgeable about Egypt. For example, read his massive entry on Egyptus and Meroe in his Classical Dictionary. Also check the massive bibliography, the books on his shelf are a good indication of his interests. The only other person that would have been more knowlegable about Egypt was Luther Bradish, who had traveled deep into Egypt, all the way to Sudan, and then to Jerusalem (past the Red Sea) on camel back. Bradish was a friend of Harris, and his family lived in Palmyra. Imagine that, a local Palmyra boy riding on camel back on the trail of the Lehites. See also here: Thanks, -Smac

It’s not morality, but the fruit of genocide that leads me to believe it’s not of God. Yes, that's part of both the first and second points above. I'm open to what you say here. Thank you, -Smac

This sentence struck me as odd. The source: The key bits: "I {Joseph} commenced copying the characters off the plates. I copied a considerable number of them, and by means of the Urim and Thummim I translated some of them." "I {Martin} went to the city of New York, and presented the characters which had been translated, with the translation thereof, to Professor Charles Anthon, a gentleman celebrated for his literary attainments. Professor Anthon stated that the translation was correct, more so than any he had before seen translated from the Egyptian. I then showed him those which were not yet translated, and he said that they were Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic." "I {Martin} left him and went to Dr. Mitchell, who sanctioned what Professor Anthon had said respecting both the characters and the translation." I'm not sure we know that Martin presented the characters as having come from a "Mesoamerican writing." At the time, I'm not sure Joseph had a specific understanding of the precise location of the text's events. And JS-H is pretty clear: "Professor Anthon stated that the translation was correct, more so than any he had before seen translated from the Egyptian. I then showed him those which were not yet translated, and he said that they were Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic; and he said they were true characters." "I left him and went to Dr. Mitchell, who sanctioned what Professor Anthon had said respecting both the characters and the translation.” Not sure about that. "Reformed Egyptian" is a phrase from Mormon 9:32: See also 1 Nephi 1:2 and Mosiah 1:2-4. All of these characterize the Nephite writing system has A) unique to them ("altered by us...") and B) intended to account for space limitations ("{a}nd if our plates had been sufficiently large..."). Ancient Egyptian had various forms: Is it possible, in your view, for Heiratic and Demotic to be characterized as "reformed" types of Hieroglyphic Egyptian? If not, why not? If yes, then would that not rebut your statement that "nothing has ever been found that is written in 'reformed egyptian'"? We have all sorts of scholarly treatment of "Reformed Egyption" in the context of the Plates: FAIR: Is there a language called "Reformed Egyptian"? FAIR: Reformed Egyptian and the Book of Mormon FAIR: Question: What is "reformed Egyptian"? FAIR: “Reformed Egyptian” an evidence for Book of Mormon FAIR: “Reformed Egyptian” FAIR: The use of Egyptian on the plates of the Book of Mormon FAIR: Question: Would Egyptian be too lengthy and bulky on the plates to account for the Book of Mormon? FAIR: Question: How could the plate text actually fit on the plates of the Book of Mormon? Scripture Central: The Who, What, and Why of “Reformed Egyptian” in the Book of Mormon Scripture Central: Why Did Mormon and Moroni Write in Reformed Egyptian? Scripture Central / FARMS: Reformed Egyptian (Hamblin) Scripture Central: Reformed Egyptian (Tvedtnes) Scripture Central: Reformed Egyptian and Book of Mormon Language (Ash) (also here) Scripture Central / JBMS: Notes and Communications: Two Notes on Egyptian Script (Gee) Scripture Central: Book of Mormon Evidence: Compact Egyptian Script I find it noteworthy that Latter-day Saint scholars are treating the concept of "Reformed Egyptian" as evidence in favor of the claimed origins of The Book of Mormon, whereas you seem to be treating it as evidence against. I would be curious to see your assessment of the foregoing resources. What "it" are you referencing here? The characters? The translation? Both? Wikipedia about Anthon: And here: It does seem that in 1828, no scholar (including Anthon or Mitchill) could reliably translate or authenticate "reformed Egyptian" or read Egyptian scripts fluently enough to verify a translation, as decipherment was nascent and incomplete. That said, it sure seems odd that Harris returned to Joseph with a strengthened view that the Plates were authentically agent. Indeed, if Anthon's account of the meeting (February 1828, IIRC) is correct (that he told Harris that the characters were "a scheme to cheat the farmer [Martin Harris] of his money..."), how was it that Harris would have utterly disregarded that guidance from a noted scholar, return to Joseph and, in the summer of 1829, mortgage his farm to raise $3,000.00 to publish The Book of Mormon? Martin's wife Lucy was famously and vociferously opposed to Joseph's work. If Anthon's characterization of the meeting is accurate, why did Martin return and resume a posture that his wife so adamantly disliked? Martin dissociated from Joseph and the Church in, I think, 1844, and was re-baptized in 1870. If Anthon's characterization of the meeting is accurate, why did Martin spent 26 years out of the Church and yet never varied from his testimony of the Plates? Thanks, -Smac

That’s understandable to me, with much of it being used as food, etc, not going to waste. From Grok: Utilitarian killing of animals makes sense. I struggle, but still ultimately accept, the killing of animals as symbolism in a religious observance. Ironically, this is less of an issue for me. For a few reasons. First, I think the OT requires all sorts of allowances and accommodations for issues pertaining to context (both what is present and what is missing in our familiarity with events described), translation, familiarity with ancient cultures/histories, and so on. Second, I am not willing to deem my personal moral barometer to be perfectly calibrated. My blinkered and finite and far-from-complete perception of God, The Universe & Everything requires me to modulate my reliance on my moral barometer with a substantial measures of patience, humility and proportion. Third, assessing OT narratives requires some presuppositions about God. His nature and character and attributes, His authority, His role as divine sovereign and judge, etc. These presuppositions necessary come before drawing conclusions about the OT narrative, not after. Thanks, -Smac

And ironically, both positions are predicated a faith, just in different directions. Analytics and I have both evaluated primary and secondary sources regarding Joseph's narrative, and also other evidences. From that, I infer that Joseph was telling the truth, and Analytics infers that he was not. Both positions are predicated, to some extent, on faith. I find the "Why I Left" exit narratives interesting, as those who do characterize themselves has exhibiting "courage or conviction" in abandoning their faith (because of prior long-term adherence, damage to familial relationships, etc.). Latter-day Saints, meanwhile, may characterize maintaining their faith as requiring "courage or conviction," particularly in the face of people publicly expressing scorn and ridicule at that faith (the vanguard of which efforts is, these days, heavily manned with former Latter-day Saints). Both are, or can be, correct in this assessment. And there is no value in comparing relative costs and privations. For myself, I wish those who leave a happy journey in life, and hope that they eventually look beyond obstacles to faith and reconsider the message of Jesus Christ as presented by His prophets (including, of course, Joseph Smith). An important part of that is to read The Book of Mormon, plant a seed of faith, and pray with real intent. Thanks, -Smac

Yes. Unearned certitude is an unhealthy thing. What can seem in the moment to be rock-hard devotion can end up being pretty brittle and crack-prone. See, e.g., this 2024 statement from Richard Dutcher: I have been a Latter-day Saint all my life. I have had plenty of questions and concerns, but I have also seen the Church both in what it is and is doing, and for what it aspires to be and do. Regardless of the mistakes and flaws of its members and laity, and despite having some cultural shortcomings, it and its members are overwhelmingly good and decent. And more than that, it really does seem to be what it claims to be: a restoration of the Lord's church, imbued with power and authority and led by prophets and apostles. Its doctrines make lots of sense, far more so than the handful of flaws and mistakes and gaps and misapplications by the Saints. Decades and decades of day-in-day-out experience as a Latter-day Saint cannot, for me, be upended in 30 seconds, however "self-reflective" they may be. The Church and its members have just piled up way too many good things on the one side of the scales for me to throw away in favor of doubt and fear. I hope he eventually has a change of heart. I do wonder about what sort of incentive/motive the really vocal and persistent-over-the-years critics have to actively speak and/or work against the Church. Thanks, -Smac

Same here. My testimony is principally a matter of faith, but I find quite a bit of evidence which renders belief in the Restored Gospel to be quite reasonable, and its foundational events plausible. That critics cannot, despite the passage of <200 years, formulate a coherent alternative explanation that is more plausible and evidence-based than the one espoused by the Church. Roger's inability/unwillingness to do so in this thread, and to instead defer to ChatGPT, indicates to me that our critics, as you say, "actually just don't have good answers for many of these lines of evidence." I've had some struggles with a few particularized narratives in the Gospel. Polygamy is a toughie. So is Abraham's test. And animal sacrifice. But these are very much an exception to my overall conclusion that the Restored Gospel is reasoned and reasonable and plausible and inherently good and accurate and true. Well put. So laughable, in fact, that folks like Analytics needn't even be bothered with marshaling evidence and argument and reasoning. Instead, all he needs to do is say: "I'm not going to try to even summarize the evidence against the Book of Mormon. It is quite literally overwhelming." Having spent many years listening to advocates both for and against the Church and its doctrines, I find these sorts of unadorned, conclusory declarations from our critics to be pretty underwhelming. As I noted in the other thread: "The Latter-day Saints have brought the receipts. You have brought 'Space Aliens and Satan.'" This is why our critics are so adamant that there is no evidence for The Book of Mormon. At all. It's not a very reasonable position to stake out, but a concession about this seems, for them, to be - as you put it - "a very threatening proposition." And that's a real bummer, as I think the Church could really benefit from the talents and intellects of folks like Roger, and he could really benefit from the Restored Gospel and the Church that houses it. Quite an asymmetry there, I think. My worldview is not really threatened by the possibility of the Gospel not being what it claims to be. A person operating from a position of faith can accommodate areas of uncertainty and doubt because faith anticipates that the individual will not have all the answers, will have concerns, etc. It's odd, really, to see such fragility in the skeptical worldview. It's interesting to see how cloistered and echo-chambery RFM and other online anti-mormon venues are. Thanks, -Smac

This thread started with this: This is interesting. I do indeed feel no such obligation generally. However, if I were to publicly declare that Keats was not the author of the poetry attributable to him, then I think it would be more or less intellectually incumbent on me to explain my position, the evidence and analysis therefore, and my alternative explanation as to who did write the poems. They came from somewhere, after all. My "interest in seeing such an explanation" arose in this thread, which was only tangentially related to the topic of competing theories for the origins of The Book of Mormon. And my inquiry was not about getting a competing theory from ChatGPT - which any of us can do - but to request that @Analytics lay out his reasoning. It is his perspective I am interested in exploring, not a series of queries submitted to an LLM. In the other thread, I had noted that Analytics had, in this 2021 discussion, posited, without evidence, that "Sidney Rigdon made the plates out of tin," and/or that "the angel was really an alien doing an anthropology experiment on Joseph Smith," and/or that "the devil conjured up the plates" as all being "more likely" than the explanation given by Joseph Smith, which he (Roger) said is "just not possible." "{A}ny explanation," Roger said, "is more likely than {The Book of Mormon} being an accurate translation of an actual ancient manuscript." This "anything but that" approach has been utilized by critics of The Book of Mormon since at least 1945 (though honestly, its origins go back to Joseph's day). See, e.g., here (from Daniel Peterson) : ... A similar situation obtains, in my judgment, with regard to the Book of Mormon and certain other elements of the Restoration. While, for instance, this or that aspect of the Book of Mormon can, hypothetically, be accounted for by means of something within Joseph Smith’s early nineteenth-century information environment, a fully comprehensive counterexplanation for Joseph’s claims remains promised but manifestly unprovided. Critics have disagreed over the nearly two centuries since the First Vision about whether Joseph was brilliant or stupid, whether he was sincerely hallucinating or cunningly conscious of his fraud, whether he concocted the Book of Mormon alone or with co-conspirators (their own identity either hotly debated or completely unknown), whether he was a cynical atheist or a pious fraud defending Christianity, and so forth. This was the basis for my challenge/invitation/request to Analytics. I am fine with critics providing alternative theories for the origins of The Book of Mormon, but I think it is, as DCP put it, "intellectually incumbent" upon them to present something more than - as Analytics has - an "anything but that" theory, which is how we end up with a person of Analytics' formidable intellect being reduced to groundless speculation about space aliens and/or Satan. I will here acknowledge that my challenge/invitation/request to Analytics was a bit direct: Analytics declares himself to be "a Bayesian methodological empiricist." Also Analytics: Space Aliens and/or Satan are "more likely" explanations for The Book of Mormon than Joseph's narrative. Analytics ostensibly started this thread in response to my inquiry about his preferred explanation for the origins of The Book of Mormon, preferably one that is based on as much evidence / data / empiricism as he can muster. So far, though, all he has presented in a protracted introduction to the musings of ChatGPT, and not his own views. Again, I suspect that Analytics refuses to commit to any alternative explanation because he does not want to end up having to defend it, likely because he anticipates that his alternative explanation will falter under the sort of "empirical" scrutiny to which he claims to be devoted, that he will be hoisted by his own "I'm all about the empiricism" petard. In my view, the various explanations for A) the physical reality of the Plates, B) the statements from the Three and Eight Witnesses, and C) the source/authorship of the text can be reduced to three categories, sort of akin to C.S. Lewis's well-known "trilemma," explained here: It seems this trilemma can be adapted to apply ... {to} The Book of Mormon {as being} either A) the work product of an insane/deluded person ("Lunatic"), B) the work product of a duplicitous, dishonest person ("Liar"), or C) what it claims to be: an ancient prophetic record preserved and translated "by the gift and power of God" ("Lord"). Analytics appears to have a somewhat similar, but still divergent, perspective on these options. From this post of his in 2022: This last statement ("I think category 3 {'Some other natural explanation involving some combination of lies, manipulation, half-truths, good intentions, gullibility, etc.'} is the least unlikely," coupled with "one of {the three categories} must be true") is about as close as I recall seeing Analytics staking out a position. However, "some other natural explanation" is conveniently devoid of evidence, analysis, and so on. Not much "Bayesian methodological empiricis{m}" on display. And this thread is not much of an improvement. Just generic churned-out-from-an-AI-platform stuff that Analytics can conveniently distance himself from if it turns out to be susceptible to the very "empiricism"-based scrutiny to which he declares himself devoted. So I'm hoping we can set aside discussion about what ChatGPT "thinks," both because Ryan and Amulek have raised some very good critiques of that, and also because that is not what my inquiry was about. I am, instead, interested in hearing what Analytics thinks as far as a plausible alternative (and presumably, but not necessarily, naturalistic) explanation for A) the physical reality of the Plates, B) the statements from the Three and Eight Witnesses, and C) the source/authorship of the text. And while he's at it, I also hope that Analytics explain how he reconciles his claim to being a "a Bayesian methodological empiricist" with his acknowledgment of possibility of "a supernatural explanation, e.g. an angel (or demon or alien) gave Joseph Smith the plates and then took them away." More recently, he has said that the "demon or alien" explanation (or, as he put it in 2021, "the angel was really an alien doing an anthropology experiment on Joseph Smith," and/or that "the devil conjured up the plates") is "more likely" than Joseph's narrative (which, per Analytics, is "just not possible"). I am really curious as to the reasoning, "empirical" or otherwise, for this claim. Space Aliens or Satan are possible, but Joseph's narrative is "just not possible" at all? At all? I hope he lays out his reasoning, his evidence/data, his "a Bayesian methodological empiricis{m}," the whole Kit 'n Kaboodle. If he does, I will be deeply impressed and appreciative. If he does not, well, he'll join the ranks of pretty much every other Anti-Mormon who, when the chips are down, simply have nothing substantive to offer. This is in stark contrast to the last many decades of Latter-day Saint scholarship and apologetics, which offer a lot. As I noted back in 2022 (and 2020) : That you disagree with this conclusion is fine. That you are incapable and/or unwilling to demonstrate a superior alternative explanation, though, and that you must in the end resort to ridicule rather than substantive reasoning and evidence, is interesting to me. We've been going the rounds about this stuff for many years now, so it's not like Analytics hasn't had plenty of time to formulate a superior alternative explanation for The Book of Mormon. That he has not, or will not, do so, despite his formidable intellect and knowledge of Latter-day Saint doctrine and history, is interesting to me. Thanks, -Smac

Interesting stuff, but I am more interested in your perspective, Roger. You have staked out a "not that" position on The Book of Mormon. So if "not that," then what? What is your preferred explanation for the Plates, the text, the translation process, the Witnesses? Thanks, -Smac

Okay. Emphasis on the "straightforward." I do believe it is "an accurate translation." What I do not believe is that the translation was by "normative, secular means" (my phrase) or "a straightforward 'translation from ancient American language'" (ChatGPT's phrase). Instead, the translation was "by the gift and power of God." I already said this: Again, you stacked the deck by prompting ChatGPT to treat the text as a "straightforward 'translation from ancient American language.'" The "translation" was not "straightforward," and was instead by "the gift and power of God." Joseph Smith had a very limited education. And the translation was from Reformed Egyptian, and arguably not an "ancient American language" ("Reformed Egyptian" was arguably used only in a very limited context by a very limited number of people, and it originated in the Near East, not the Americas). In my view, the translation was both "by the gift and power of God" and "accurate." You seem to be suggesting that I must choose between the two, or that I have previously done so. That's not correct. I am saying that the translation was "by the gift and power of God" and that it was "accurate." You seem to be saying that if I find the translation "accurate" it could not have also been by miraculous means ("by the gift and power of God"), or that "accurate" is synonymous with "straightforward" in the sense used by ChatGPT. That makes no sense to me. I'm confident in the other direction. Again: When ChatGPT speaks of "a straightforward 'translation from ancient American language,'" I think that indicates an assumption of, well, a "straightforward" method of translation. But Joseph never never claimed to know Reformed Egyptian, and he used a stone in a hat, and said the translation occurred by "the gift and power of God." This means of translation is not reasonably characterized, by ChatGPT or you or anyone else, as "straightforward." I guess you are construing "straightforward" in another sense. No. See above. Thanks, -Smac

Newly-minted kooky stuff comes from somewhere. I'm not asking where fairies came from. I'm addressing real-world ideologies and sentiments. The widespread "Minors with Gender Dysphoria need to have powerful hormones injected into their bodies and/or healthy parts surgically removed from their bodies because otherwise they'll kill themselves" thing came from somewhere. I think these things have their origins in radical activism, both in academia, NGOs, political groups, and so on. From the "March of Dimes Syndrome" article: Thanks, -Smac

Seems like perhaps a sampling error, perhaps. I think it's hard to dispute that modern American academia is heavily ideologically skewed. See, e.g., here: Thanks, -Smac

Huh. Not sure how ChatGPT pronouncements requiring "polymath"-style knowledge is helpful where ChatGPT is not actually a polymath. What actual "evidence" did ChatGPT look at, I wonder. I suspect not much, or heavily curated/slanted, and lots of omitted stuff. Including the Statements of the Witnesses? A "by the gift and power of God" translation? I think it is. 11 minutes. Think about what? Analyze what? Double-check what? I like AI platforms in their sphere, but what data did it review in that 11 minutes? We don't know. Using what data? We're trying to do this systematically. Those pieces of evidence will be layered in later after we determine what the Book of Mormon most likely is. To see what it is, we need to look at the words. Okay. No, that is not something we are positing. I think we positing exactly that. It's evident in your prompt ("Based only upon the English text, what is the likelihood that this is a translation of an authentic ancient codex..."). Surely you are not suggesting that ChatGPT was construing "translation" in a "by the gift and power of God" kind of way? It's even more evident in ChatGPT's response, which speaks of "'translationese,' odd but stable syntax, culturally grounded idioms," and so on. Later, ChatGPT also states that "T still pushes against a straightforward 'translation from ancient American language' unless you add extra assumptions like 'God chose to render it in heavy KJV idiom...'" No Latter-day Saint has posited that the Book of Mormon is "a straightforward 'translation from ancient American language.'" For 11 minutes. So for ChatGPT, "plausibly" includes a potential "by the gift and power of God"-style translation method? I really doubt that. If you are conceding that the Book of Mormon isn't an actual translation of what was written on the alleged golden plates, then I'm glad we agree. No, that is not a concession at all—there's an important distinction being missed here. Me: "{N}either Joseph nor any other Latter-day Saint has claimed the text to be a normative translation of 'an authentic ancient codex on metal plates.'" You: "If you are conceding that the Book of Mormon isn't an actual translation of what was written on the alleged golden plates..." I believe the Book of Mormon is an actual, faithful translation of the ancient record engraved on the golden plates. Joseph Smith and the eyewitnesses (including his scribes) consistently described it that way: he translated the plates' content "by the gift and power of God," using divine instruments prepared for that purpose. When I said it is not a "normative" translation, I simply meant it wasn't done in the ordinary human way—through linguistic scholarship or expertise—which would have been impossible for an unlearned farm boy facing an unknown ancient language ("Reformed Egyptian"). The process was miraculous and revelatory, as the Church's own accounts affirm: the text came by divine revelation from the authentic ancient source, not from Joseph's own knowledge or imagination. At this point we're just looking at the text itself. We're looking at explanations for the text's origins. I admit I am partial to one such explanation. Your position is an "anything but that" demurral that proffers no alternative explanation. Oh my, yes. There are all sorts of indicia of antiquity about the text. Hebraisms. Chiasmus. Ancient Jews writing in Egyptian. The NHM altar and its geospatial relationship with Khor Kharfot. Cement. The "seal of Mulek." Barley. Consistent internal chronology and geography. Alma as a male given name. The Allegory of the Olive Tree. Lots of stuff. What does "plausible" mean to ChatGPT? Well, it's a strongly associated issue. The Latter-day Saints have an answer and explanation. You don't. And you won't proffer one, I think, because it will be hugely speculative and devoid of competent and substantive evidence, and you don't want to be hoisted by your own "I'm all about the empiricism" petard. "Plausibility." "Translation." What presuppositions does ChatGPT have about these things? Texas Sharpshooter fallacy here. Joseph Smith and his contemporaries went about spouting "And it came to pass"? Hebraisms? Chiastic poetry? Detailed descriptions of ancient near east olive cultivation techniques? Accurately describing geospatial relationships of places in the Arabian peninsula? I think your reliance on ChatGPT is misplaced. Sure would like to see a reasoned and evidence-based explanation for what, in your view, an "ancient or authentic" text translated "by the gift and power of God" should look like. "{D}oesn't look ancient." What would "look ancient" when we are speaking of a translation of an ancient text, written in Reformed Egyptian, buried, and then re-discovered and translated in the early 19th century by a farmboy "by the gift and power of God"? What other data points exist in history for us to point to and say "Here's what a by-the-gift-and-power-of-God translation of an ancient text actually looks like"? All sorts of things are "non-falsifiable." No real problem there. We walk by faith, not by sight as to all sorts of things. Ryan and I have both previously addressed your "invisible dragons" thing. Again, we have the text of the Book of Mormon. We have the witness statements, the plates. These things are not "invisible," and they need to be accounted for. I disagree. The text itself screams modern origin. Funny, then, that you cited ChatGPT's language above. I have no idea what you think such a text would/should "look" like. All you offer, regarding the Book of Mormon, is "not that." Well, have at it. You can proceed with your "Space Aliens" and "Satan" are "more likely" sources reasoning, as far as that goes. Full stop. M is your theory! More or less: "M = the production cannot be natural; golden plates were genuinely involved; miracles occurred." Yes, I can go along with that. No. I think people should read the Book of Mormon with an open heart and mind, with a seed of faith, and see what happens. Here we are discussing competing explanations for the origins of the text. My explanation is clear and has been published to the world for nearly 200 years. You, in 2026, are saying that a "more likely" explanation for the text is Space Aliens and Satan. I would, of course, like to see a non-frivolous explanation proffered, hence my prior acknowledgment and respect paid to Vogel and Taves. I admire that they had the intellectual candor and integrity and stamina and willingness to formulate a theory congruent with their worldview. Despite various opportunities, you have failed/refused to do so. That is certainly your prerogative, but that whole "petard" thing just keeps coming back to me as to why are you failing/refusing to do so. I guess we need clarification here. "M = the production cannot be natural; golden plates were genuinely involved; miracles occurred." I think M is true. The production of the English text was not by "natural" means, and instead came about "by the gift and power of God." I think M is true. There were actual and authentic "golden plates" which Joseph discovered and had in his custody and showed to the Witnesses. The plates were "genuinely involved." I think M is true. "Miracles occurred." The First Vision. Moroni's visits. Joseph being shown the location of the plates. His digging them up. His translating them "by the gift and power of God." His showing them to others. His returning them to Moroni. If you want to understand my point, you need to engage with the hypothetical as written. I did. Per ChatGPT, "M" (the presupposition that "the production {of the text} cannot be natural; golden plates were genuinely involved; miracles occurred") "absolutely crushes purely natural explanations" such as those offered by Vogel or Taves. I can't say M crushes your "natural explanation" because, well, you have never provided one that you are willing to articulate and defend (except for the "Space Aliens" and "Satan" stuff, about which I concur with ChatGPT re: being "crushed" by M). The point is that the options aren't either "Joseph Smith knowing two languages" or "the gift and power of God." Rather, the choices are "Joseph Smith knowing two languages" (or other mundane explanations) or something miraculous (including "the gift and power of God", aliens, evil spirits, etc.). Right. And since we know that Joseph Smith did not know Reformed Egyptian, that leaves the "something miraculous" choice? Sure. Space Aliens. Satan. The alternative explanations are endless. Any of them based on evidence and sound reasoning? Nope. We "know" this, do we? I didn't intentionally stack the deck this way. Nevertheless, you stacked the deck. "Plausible" means what to ChatGPT? How does ChatGPT go about empirically evaluating the "plausibility" of God and angels, Plates and seerstones, etc.? You have previously tried to pound one round peg (Carroll() into a square hole (theological arguments about the existence of God), and now trying to do the same by bolstering your opinion with deck-stacking prompts given to an AI platform. That's what the evidence indicates, sure. Okay. So what contrary evidence exists to rebut the above? Where is it, where did it come from, how do we know ChatGPT relied on it, etc.? It does? How do we know? Ryan and me and anyone else who has worked with AI/LLMs know just how wishy-washy they can be in their algorithmic pronouncements. What makes an assumption "absurd"? Got it. Sure would like to see evidence and reasoning for this “Smith + small circle, no Rigdon” thing. And yet you are presenting it here as an alternative explanation for the text of the Book of Mormon, presumably along side Space Aliens, Satan, or, as Dale Morgan put it 80+ years ago, "{all} explanations except to the ONE explanation that is the position of the church." See my above comments re: similarities between you and John Weldon. Sidney Rigdon, Space Aliens or Satan as the source of The Book of Mormon: "More likely." Joseph Smith's narrative re: the source of The Book of Mormon: "Just not possible" and "nuts." This is, for you, empirical reasoning? Thanks, -Smac

Having gone way off topic for a while with Analytics, I return to the topic of this thread. Just saw this: I have been wondering about this for some years now. A number of today's Golly-This-Is-The-Most-Important-Issue-In-History type things seem to be of awfully recent vintage, and of clouded origins. So far, this sound about right. My regard for those portions of Academia heavily infected with sociopolitical activism is, these days, quite low. Yes, the "Minors with Gender Dysphoria need to have powerful hormones injected into their bodies and/or healthy parts surgically removed from their bodies because otherwise they'll kill themselves" line of reasoning is, in my view, a mostly post-Obergefell phenomenon. See here: The March of Dimes Syndrome An excerpt: I think recent trends in applying trans ideology to children is part and parcel of the March of Dimes Syndrome. The activists infest not only NGOs, but much of Academia. Back to the first article: Hoo, boy. This sure sounds familiar. Activists in both academia and in NGOs are working together, I think. The "social contagion" aspect of this issue has become rather hard to ignore/dispute. Ah, preferred pronouns. The whole article is worth a read. Thanks, -Smac