smac97

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

Not sure what value this has. You tell ChatGPT it is "a polymath with deep knowledge in ancient writings" of these various disciplines, therefore ChatGPT is actually such a polymath? Is that what you are proposing? You tell ChatGPT that it is an "expert at Bayesian reasoning and evaluating evidence without bias," therefore it actually is such an expert? What is the value of this assumption? How is ChatGPT situated to address these questions. This is a glorified google search. Also, why did you limit the inquiry to the text of the Book of Mormon? What about the witness statements? The Plates? ChatGPT, and apparently you, posit the Book of Mormon as having been translated via normative, secular means, and not by miraculous "gift and power of God" means. That would seem to make a pretty big difference, since neither Joseph nor any other Latter-day Saint has claimed the text to be a normative translation of "an authentic ancient codex on metal plates." Yes, I would expect that as well, for a normative translation. But that's not is in play here. Nice passive voice going on there. "Is written" by whom? Where? When? What evidence is there of this person? Was it Joseph Smith or someone else? If Joseph, how do you or ChatGPT propose he had the time and resources and knowledge and skillsets necessary to "write" it? And how do you account for the various historical accounts of the translation process? No re-writes, no revisions, etc.? If someone other than Joseph, who was it? "Can be made to sound." "It is composed." Passive voice again. GIGO comes to mind here. Huh. And yet the the Church's narrative is that the Plates are a heavily-shortened deliberate abridgement, per commandments from God. See, e.g., here: Mormon and the other custodians of the plates (Nephi) abridged the record specifically to exclude all but the "plain and precious parts" and "more sacred things" of the history, which would understandably result in the omission (mostly) of things like "small logistical constraints, boring administrative texture, local material culture presented without rhetorical purpose, etc." You are faulting the text for not containing things the text itself said it was omitting. This is not a whoopsy-daisy, but is a massive flaw in your reasoning. A Grok summary (the prompt was "Provide a summary of excerpts from The Book of Mormon which speak to the text being an abridgment, and the purposes for that abridgment.") : Practical/space constraints. Divine direction. Primarily religious/devotional (rather than merely "historical") and centered on Jesus Christ. Intended for a particular audience. Long-term fulfillment. ChatGPT does not account for the stated purposes here. Huh. I actually agree with some of this. The text does read "like theological history," a story "primarily serving prophecy, exhortation, doctrine, and sermon." Also this part: "But it’s the wrong vibe for “reliably historical for 1,000 years” unless we already assume special preservation/accuracy." That is precisely the assumption that should be in play, and yet ChatGPT omits it and instead assesses the text as intended to be "a record whose main goal is 'here's what happened.'" Dandy. Which members of that "English-speaking, Bible-saturated Protestant culture" wrote it? Okay. So who was this "modern author," and what evidence do you or ChatGPT have that he/she/they did the authoring? If the "modern author" is Joseph Smith, what evidence do we have that he had the ability to create the text under his circumstances (limited education, limited writing ability, abbreviated dictation period, helpers not seeing any notes or materials, no revisions or re-writes, etc.)? Latter-day Saints accept, on faith, M. You, also on faith (since M is effectively not empirically testable), reject M. And M "absolutely crushes purely natural explanations." Sort of makes the whole exercise rather futile, does it not? We're back to where we started. Sure would like to see this "controlled investigation." Yep. What would ChatGPT propose that a "translation" arising not from Joseph Smith knowing two languages and translating into English the older one, but rather a "translation" method based entirely on "the gift and power of God"? ChatGPT's "T" is not really accurate, is it? I think "given M + T" doesn't work, since "T" is patently flawed. So are you on board with these? What does it say about Vogel's "Pious Fraud" theory, or Taves' "Automatic Writing" theory? Huh. Are you on board with this? A 30% chance that the Book of Mormon is the result of a "Cosmic trickster" (whatever that means)? So now you are advancing a "Space Aliens" or "Satan" or "Cosmic Trickster" explanation. Truly? Okay, I'll bite. Who is this "Cosmic Trickster"? What evidence do you have for his/her/its existence? What's the point of the trick? And how is your advocacy for a "Cosmic Trickster" in accord with your empirical proclivities? Huh. This is about the closest we get to the Church's narrative, and it's the one that ChatGPT finds the most plausible. In some ways, the Plates were more "a sign," since Joseph translated their contents via miraculous means (and not because he knew Reformed Egyptian). 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). "{T}he English text is best explained as modern-style revelatory composition {} rather than a clean translation of an A.D. 400 American codex.” Kind of. It can be both a "modern-style revelatory composition" and a translation from an ancient American record. I'm open to you elaborating on the "or deception" theory. Ah, so we're back to Rigdon (and not only that, a conspiracy). Zero evidence for this stuff, and a good amount against it: The Book of Mormon was fully translated by June 1829 (witnessed by multiple people in New York, including scribes Oliver Cowdery, John Whitmer, and Emma Smith) and published in March 1830. Rigdon first encountered the book on or about October 29–November 1, 1830, when former parishioner Parley P. Pratt and Oliver Cowdery (a Book of Mormon scribe) visited him in Mentor, Ohio, and physically handed him a copy. Rigdon was baptized November 8 or 14, 1830, after two weeks of intensive reading. He met Joseph Smith in person for the first time only in December 1830 (in New York), months after publication. "Apart from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?" Sure would like to see evidence of this "Rigdon conspiracy" thing. Not even the most ardent critics (Vogel, Van Wagoner) appear to be on board with it. Thanks, -Smac

The Book of Mormon exists. The text exists and must be accounted for. The statements of the witnesses must be accounted for. The Plates must be accounted for. In your empiricist-centric worldview, space aliens and Satan are "more likely" explanations for these things than the narrative presented by Joseph Smith. You're willing to go that far as opposed to accepting Joseph's narrative. You are only proving DCP's point. You have no alternative explanation for things that really do need to be explained. Your supposed rationalist position doesn't do that. And to the extent it does, you posit that space aliens and Satan are "more likely" explanations for the Book of Mormon than Joseph's narrative and the statements of the witnesses. Sidney Rigdon, Space Aliens or Satan as the source of The Book of Mormon: "More likely" and "{do} not require rewriting the rest of our understanding of reality." Joseph Smith's narrative re: the source of The Book of Mormon: "Just not possible." It is precisely "anything but that." I can't think of a more "anything but that" alternative explanation for the Book of Mormon than your "Space Aliens and Satan" stuff. I see. You have "evidence" that space aliens and/or Satan are the "more likely" source of the Book of Mormon? I'm all ears. Please lay out this evidence. That's an intriguing analogy. Here, we are not claiming that the Book of Mormon exists. It indisputably does exist. Same goes for the statements of the witnesses. The existence of these things needs to be accounted for. Your go-to "more likely" explanation is space aliens and/or Satan. Not looking for a "fully worked counter-theory," at least not yet. A plausibly coherent and evidence-based one will do. Then we can dig down and see whether it accounts for the data, is evidence-based, and so on. Consider these remarks by Daniel Peterson: Roger, you are perhaps the best Anti-Mormon I have ever seen. Others are more well-known, but I've spent many years listening to you and am convinced you are at or near the top of the heap in terms of critics who are genuinely well-read and well-informed about the Church and its history and doctrine. And you have the formidable intellectual chops to lay out reasoning and evidence to the best of your ability. And perhaps most important of all, you have the willingness to do these things in an adversarial construct, and a track record of actually speaking and arguing/debating with Latter-day Saints about these things. I cannot think of another critic or dissident who matches you as to these matters. The exmormon.org folks stay in their enclave and actively squelch Latter-day Saint voices. John Dehlin and Bill Reel and RFM likewise stay in their carefully-controlled and curated venues. Shallow provocateurs are legion. Flash-in-the-pan types like Ryan McKnight and Kate Kelly barely even try any of this. Vogel, Metcalfe, Bagley, etc. have all engaged in substantive argument as to Latter-day Saint topics that are more, well, arguable (Joseph Smith's polygamy, for example), but they seldom - if ever - do so in an adversarial construct. Vogel's "pious fraud" theory is perhaps the best on offer, but to my recollection he has never really responded to critiques of his theory, such as: No, Dan, That’s Still Not History Truth and Method: Reflections on Dan Vogel’s Approach to the Book of Mormon Vogel and Christensen have had back-and-forth published arguments, but this was quite a while ago. More recently, Dan and Brian Hales have sort of had a back-and-forth, with Hales writing a brief critique of Dan's "Charisma Under Pressure" and posting it on Amazon as a reader review. Interestingly, though, Hales' comment, though preserved in a few other places (here and here), has been removed from the reader reviews on Amazon (these reviews even include two rebuttals to Hales'). Seer or Pious Fraud? I say all this to express my genuine appreciation for your efforts over the years to advance the most robust Anti-Mormon arguments available, and your willingness to do so in an adversarial construct. Whatever our disagreements have been over the years, I admire both your intellect, your putting your thoughts out there for critique, and your willingness to engage in substantive discussion and debate about your thoughts. When all is said and done, though, you fail, and fail significantly, when you refuse to meaningfully engage the points Daniel Peterson and others have been raising for years about the Book of Mormon, particularly A) the physical reality of the Plates, B) the statements from the Three and Eight Witnesses, and C) the source/authorship of the text. You state above that you are "rationally justified in rejecting that explanation without being obligated to provide" a plausible, coherent, evidence-based alternative explanation for these things. 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. Daniel Peterson's 2016 FAIR talk remains, for me, a compelling challenge to critics of the Church as pertaining to the Book of Mormon: The Logic Tree of Life, or, Why I Can’t Manage to Disbelieve Some excerpts: I cannot claim to match the scope and breadth of DCP's reading and knowledge, but I have read quite a lot, and I have listened quite a lot. I have spent many years trying to give critics of the Church a fair hearing. And in all those years and despite all that effort, I have been unable to find a critic who, as DCP put it, can "construct a case or construct an explanation of the Book of Mormon other than Joseph Smith’s that really accounts for all the data." Your "Space Aliens or Satan" thing is just the most recent iteration of the inability of critics to do this. You have previously asserted (as opposed to "shown" or "demonstrated") that "the evidence against the Book of Mormon" is "quite literally overwhelming." So overwhelming, then, that you needn't even bother marshalling it when discussing the topic with someone who has, for some years now, demonstrated a fairly broad and substantial familiarity with the subject matter, and who has also spent many years listening to what critics like you have to offer by way of reasoning and evidence. During this time I have also given the Church and its advocates a fair hearing. Broadly speaking, what they have offered has been far more substantive and evidence-based than what you and yours have done. Regarding alternative explanations for the Book of Mormon (which, again, you posit as having "quite literally overwhelming" evidence as to naturalistic origins), I think DCP is quite correct when he characterizes your offerings as "a Rube Goldberg sort of contraption where there’s just so much that’s been built into this to make the device work that it gets to be ridiculous." The Latter-day Saints have brought the receipts. You have brought "Space Aliens and Satan." Sadly, despite your formidable intellect, you have placed yourself alongside John Weldon, an evangelical apologist who critiqued the Mosser/Owen article "Mormon Scholarship, Apologetics, and Evangelical Neglect: Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?" Owen then responded with some trenchant remarks to Mr. Welddon, an excerpt of which I find quoteworthy: This is how I take your current posture. You likewise "refuse to engage" Latter-day Saints "on an intellectual level" as to A) the physical reality of the Plates, B) the statements from the Three and Eight Witnesses, and C) the source/authorship of the text. Instead, you declare that "the evidence against the Book of Mormon" is "quite literally overwhelming." Whelp. Okey doke. Dan Peterson. Bill Hamblin. John Tvedtnes. Don Bradley. Stephen Smoot. John Gee. Kerry Muhlestein. Brian and Laura Hales. Matt Roper. The list of Latter-day Saint scholars who have made meaningful contributions to substantiating the claimed origins of the Book of Mormon is quite long, and I find those cumulative efforts to be quite good. Evidence-based. Reasoned. Persuasive. In contrast, if undemonstrated assertions and "Space Aliens and Satan are 'More Likely'"-style are the best you can do, I'll leave you to it. Meanwhile, what Owen said back in 1999 is orders of magnitude more correct than it was then: "{Latter-day Saints} are defending their truth claims on historical grounds," whereas their critics - including you - "would have us refuse to engage them on an intellectual level." You have stated: "I am rationally justified in rejecting that explanation without being obligated to provide a fully worked counter-theory of how every detail unfolded." What Owen said of Weldon I find similarly applicable to you and your failure/refusal to address the foregoing issues: Speaking as a "Mormon," I can answer the bolded question above: "No, I would not find that to be a convincing argument." More from DCP: Yep. That is what I think as well. In 2026, the best alternative explanation the best and brightest of our critics have been able to formulate as to the Book of Mormon is A) that Space Aliens and Satan are a "more likely" explanation, and B) that they are not "obligated" to present any further argument or evidence or reasoning. "'Look, I don’t owe you an explanation for the Book of Mormon. All I have to say is I don’t believe it.'" Not materially distinguishable from your comments above. I think this is correct. You have no actual obligation to do this, other than an intellectual one. So "ridiculous," in fact, that I think this is why folks like you refuse to even try. 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." The bolded part of the last paragraph. That. Again, plaudits to Dan Vogel. 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. Again, I think you will refuse to even explore this outline, let alone commit to any one strand of it. Evidence and reasoning will not sustain such an effort. "To which this critic responded: 'I don’t have to lower myself to your simplistic little dichotomies.'" This anecdote was shared in 2016. Not sure how long before that the critic actually said it. Put another way in 1945: "I am incapable of accepting the claims of Joseph Smith and the Mormons, be they however so convincing. If God does not exist, how can Joseph Smith’s story have any possible validity? I will look everywhere for explanations except to the ONE explanation that is the position of the church." Put another way in 2026: "I am rationally justified in rejecting that explanation without being obligated to provide a fully worked counter-theory of how every detail unfolded." The decades have not been kind to our critics. They are not advancing in their reasoning very well. All salient observations, these. I concur. A fair question, this. Yep. You can't go with the "hallucinatory" theory because of evidence over here, but neither can you go with the "conscious fraud" theory because of evidence over there. Pious fraud doesn't seem to work, either. Again, a very fair question, and one I think you will never address. More salient questions our critics never really address. "The evidence that he made them is nil." Yep. No evidence for this one, either. That last paragraph really resonates with me. We as Latter-day Saints don't have all the answers, and there are some legitimate gaps and flaws in our position. However, the Church's explanation is, in my view, more evidence-based and plausible than any of the alternative explanations proffered in the last <200 years (including Space Aliens and Satan). The positive evidences are pretty good, though still not sufficient. I think we'll always be situated to accept or reject these things principally on faith. Yep. I think what we need to do is what the Church has always done and encourage us to do: Approach the Book of Mormon with a seed of faith and hope, and see what happens. Supplementary and secondary evidences are there, but they are not intended to replace confirmation of the Spirit via personal revelation. I think skepticism about an empty tomb 2,000 years ago is more understandable. Plenty of room for evidence to have gone missing over the centuries. The Plates, on the other hand, have lots of fairly recent and probative evidence. They need to be accounted for. Well said. Per you: Space aliens and/or Satan are the "more likely" explanation. Yep. Good stuff, this. Agreed. My point is that you cannot affirm a "specific alternative" without being hoisted by your own supposedly "empiricism" petard. The closest you have come is Space Aliens and Satan. Understood. Space Aliens and Satan are the most plausible alternative explanation you can muster. And Latter-day Saints are supposed to find this a compelling basis for setting aside Joseph's narrative? Thanks, -Smac

I agree. The text of The Book of Mormon needs to be accounted for. The statements of the Witnesses needs to be accounted for. The secular disdain baked into it also does not help. Indeed. And yet despite the probative value of that evidence, we're still left with accepting, or not accepting, these things on faith. This includes, I think, our @Analytics. In this 2021 discussion he 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." Roger, the same person now espousing strict science-based empiricism when examining religious truth claims, was (is?) more willing to believe in space aliens or Satan being the source of The Book of Mormon than to attribute its origins to the explanation claimed by the Church. I have sometimes ruminated on this mindset, where a skeptic is willing to go with "any explanation" for The Book of Mormon except the one presented by Joseph Smith. I responded to Roger this way: That would have been a neat trick, since Sidney Rigdon did not encounter missionaries or the Book of Mormon from the Church until October 1830, six months after the Book of Mormon was published. How do you account for that in your "more likely" scenario? And what evidence do you have to support it? Meanwhile, we can look at what Signey Rigdon told his son: Not a whole lot of empiricism going on with the "Sidney Rigdon made the plates out of tin" explanation. Really? How do you figure "an alien" being a "more likely" explanation than an angel? This is you explaining how we should approach evidence regarding the Book of Mormon? ... 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." I continue to feel that DCP made a solid point. It is "intellectually incumbent" upon people like Analytics to, in affirmatively denying the claimed origins of The Book of Mormon, present a plausible alternative explanation. I see very little daylight between what what Dale Morgan wrote 81 years ago and what Analytics is writing today. Our critics are not really making much headway, it seems. More from DCP: 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. I think this is a pretty solid line of reasoning. And yet as years and decades go by, all we get from critics in the end is appeals to ridicule and "anything but that"-style counter-explanations, even to the point of a man as intelligent as Roger giving notions of space aliens and/or Satan more credence as the source of The Book of Mormon. More from my 2021 comments: And in response to the foregoing, Analytics said this: I responded: It is quite literally nothing of the sort. See? I can make bald conclusory assertions too. They aren't worth much. ... Aliens or Satan are are more reasoned and "likely" explanation for the Book of Mormon than Joseph Smith's explanation? This is you demonstrating the Scientific American sit-down-before-a-table-of-facts, weigh-them-pro-and-con, and-choose-the-most-logical-and-rational-explanation" thing? At this point I think the Dale Morgan "anything but that" style of argument, even to the point of finding space aliens and Satan as "more likely" explanations for The Book of Mormon, requires its advocates to exercise more faith than what we as Latter-day Saints are asked to do. Thanks, -Smac

The argument doesn't depend on a specific definition of "spirit matter". Yes, that is sort of the problem. The argument purports to disprove the existence of something it cannot even define. I do not think we can answer whether spirit matter has those properties (or evaluate Carroll's argument against it) without first defining what "spirit matter" actually is and providing a coherent model of how it works. Your proposed framing ("Does spirit matter interact in a way that affects the physical brain, or doesn’t it?") presupposes that any such interaction would be empirically observable in a way that physics could test — but that is exactly the kind of assumption we cannot make until the entity is defined. Without that, we're just talking in vague terms that cannot be assessed scientifically one way or the other. To answer your direct question: No, we do not know whether or not "spirit matter" has those two properties — because without a specific definition or model, there's nothing scientific to know. The Latter-day Saint description (D&C 131:7–8) gestures at property #1 ("more fine or pure" matter), but property #2 has never been given a mechanism that fits known physics. I am not trying to have it both ways. I think I have been consistent from the start: Without a clear definition of what “spirit matter” is and a coherent model of how it’s supposed to function, we can’t meaningfully evaluate whether it has causal influence (your property #2) or whether any argument against it holds up. The binary you’re presenting (“either it can subtly influence… or it can’t”) only makes sense after we have that definition and mechanism on the table. The spoon-bending comparison is especially problematic for exactly that reason. We know far more about spoon “matter” than we do about “spirit matter.” A metal spoon is ordinary physical stuff: we have an essentially complete, predictive model of its atomic structure, electromagnetic interactions, thermal properties, etc. We know precisely what kinds of forces or energies would be required to bend it at a distance, and we know those forces would produce massive, easily detectable side-effects in the surrounding fields and particles. These effects have been, as Carroll notes, extensively tested, with no evidence allowing for spoon-bending. This is why spoon-bending (or any similar psychokinetic claim) conflicts with known physics. “Spirit matter,” by contrast, has no such model (nor, for that matter, does "Priesthood power"). Neither you, nor Sean Carroll, nor anyone else has defined spirit matter's (or "priesthood power's") composition, its particles/fields, or the mechanism by which this “more fine or pure” substance (D&C 131:7–8) is supposed to couple to ordinary electrons, protons, and neutrons strongly enough to affect thoughts or feelings — yet weakly enough to have evaded every experiment. Without that, you can’t claim it “has the same basic conflicts” as spoon-bending. It’s not that we have looked for the interaction and ruled it out; it’s that we don’t even know what variables to look for. So to answer the binary directly: we cannot say whether it “can” or “cannot” influence the physical brain, because the entity itself remains undefined. That’s why it still feels unreasonable to treat Carroll’s argument as having settled the question of spirits when the thing being argued against hasn’t been specified in a way physics can actually test. This seems like a mighty fine hair to split. A compilation of your prior declarations: The existence of God is necessarily an element of The Book of Mormon. The pre-incarnate Christ was a "spirit." And there is no qualifier ("some miracles") here. The Latter-day Saints believe that God has a physical body, and you are here declaring we have "positive evidence" that "supernatural" (or "miraculous") "forms of matter and energy do not exist." The "miracles in and around the Book of Mormon" include the First Vision, the pre-incarnate (and hence seemingly comprised of "spirit matter" Jesus Christ appearing to the Brother of Jared, angelic ministrants (e.g., appearing to Laman and Lemue), etc. The "basic truth claims of Mormonism" include the existence of God, which you declare here to be "flatly disproven." "Revelation" being communications from God. Science has empirically disproven the existence of something that hasn't even been defined? Well, no. First, I am not not obligated to take an all-or-nothing approach to "supernatural" / "miraculous" claims. Some can be spurious, and some can be legitimate. To clarify what I actually conceded: yes, the Core Theory rules out—with very high confidence—claims of someone (today or long ago) bending a physical metal spoon with their mind through some unknown force or particle interaction on ordinary matter. We have an extremely complete, predictive model of what a spoon is made of (atomic lattice, electron clouds, electromagnetic and thermal properties, etc.). Any causal influence strong enough to bend it would leave massive, easily detectable fingerprints in the fields and particles we’ve already tested to absurd precision. Same logic applies to naturalistic versions of walking on water, levitation, etc. But that is not the same situation as “spirit matter.” We know far more about spoon “matter” than we do about “spirit matter.” A spoon is ordinary physical stuff whose interactions with the world are fully mapped. “Spirit matter,” by contrast, has never been defined with any composition, particles, fields, or interaction rules. Neither you, nor Carroll, nor anyone else has specified how this “more fine or pure” substance is supposed to couple to electrons, protons, and neutrons strongly enough to affect thoughts/feelings (or enable miracles) yet weakly enough to have evaded every experiment. Without that model, you simply cannot claim it “has the same basic conflicts” as spoon-bending. There’s nothing concrete for the Core Theory to rule out. Also, we have focused on "spirit matter," but not really about "priesthood" power. Or the power of "faith." The Book of Mormon seems to speak of these things as having non-figurative "power." See, e.g., Ether 12:30 ("For the brother of Jared said unto the mountain Zerin, Remove —and it was removed. And if he had not had faith it would not have moved; wherefore thou workest after men have faith."). I think this actually makes my original challenge stronger. Moving an entire mountain is an enormous macroscopic physical event — far more dramatic than subtle influence on thoughts or even spoon-bending. It would require massive, obvious transfers of energy and momentum that the Core Theory (and basic conservation laws) describe with extreme precision. Yet we still have no definition or model for what “priesthood power” or “faith power” actually is as a causal agent, what particles/fields it involves, or how it couples to ordinary matter strongly enough to move mountains (or part seas, etc.) while leaving no detectable trace in all the experiments we’ve done. If these powers operate through some extension of “spirit matter,” then they run into exactly the same Core Theory conflicts you described. If instead they mean “God supernaturally/miraculously intervenes when faith is present,” then that’s a direct claim of divine action outside of - or a higher manifestation of - the natural laws Carroll is describing — not something his physics argument is equipped to rule out one way or the other. Either way, we’re right back where I started: without a specific, coherent model of how these powers actually work in the physical world, Carroll’s argument cannot be applied. Faith is one thing. Claiming science has disproved it is another. Hypothetically, one would exist and one would not. Carl Sagan’s dragon analogy a clever warning against claims that are deliberately unfalsifiable and produce zero observable effects. If nothing could ever count against it, then saying “it exists” is indistinguishable from saying it doesn’t. But that dragon is nothing like Latter-day Saint beliefs. Doctrine and Covenants 131:7–8 teaches that “all spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure.” This spirit interacts with the physical world through faith and priesthood authority. Ether 12:30 describes the brother of Jared commanding a mountain to move by faith — a real, macroscopic effect on ordinary matter, not heatless fire. Faith is explicitly testable: Alma 32 invites an explicit experiment: plant the “seed” of the word, nourish it, and observe whether it grows into knowledge through real spiritual and practical fruits. Moroni 10:4–5 promises that sincere prayer about the Book of Mormon will bring a personal confirmation by the power of the Holy Ghost — something millions of Latter-day Saints have experienced as unmistakable (a “burning in the bosom,” peace, or clear guidance that leads to verifiable life changes). Faith is presented as testable, but not in the empirical, laboratory sense Sagan and Carroll require. Alma 32 invites a personal experiment: plant the “seed” of the word, nourish it, and observe whether it grows into knowledge through real spiritual and practical fruits in your own heart and life. Dark matter illustrates the point beautifully. It existed for billions of years before scientists inferred its presence from gravitational effects (Zwicky 1933, Rubin 1970s). Its existence was never contingent on our observation; we simply reached the point where knowledge and technology allowed us to detect its clear, testable physical traces. Similarly, God may exist — and exercise power — beyond our current ability to empirically confirm. Priesthood could be an extension of (or even the source of) natural law itself, since God is, after all, the “God of Nature,” 1 Nephi 19:12). If so, He could do so in ways we do not yet comprehend or have tools to measure. Science has epistemic limits: it is powerful for the measurable, repeatable, natural world but cannot, by design, investigate or disprove realities known through spiritual discernment (“purer eyes”) or divine action that respects agency. The dragon analogy is powerful against claims that dodge all evidence — but not against a faith that invites honest personal testing within its proper domain. Thanks, -Smac

Not really "same as," as the child of a same-sex couple will, by design, be deprived of either a mother or a father. Thanks, -Smac

As soon as you or Carroll can quantify and define "spirit matter" and how it works, I'll give this further consideration. And yet you cannot define or quantify the attributes of "particle X." "Unlikely or implausible" sure seem like non-objective, value-laden, non-scientific presuppositions. I agree that if a purported supernatural/miraculous influence were to produce measurable, repeatable physical effects (e.g., spoon-bending, neuron-firing without biochemical cause, macroscopic violations of conservation laws), then quantum field theory + the Core Theory would indeed rule it out to extremely high precision. Carroll’s argument is strong on that narrow ground: any force strong enough to noticeably alter everyday physics should have left detectable traces in controlled experiments, and it hasn’t. The sticking point is the jump from that to “therefore spirits/God/miracles cannot exist or did not happen.” That only follows if one assumes every possible divine or spiritual interaction must be strong, direct, and detectable in the way spoon-bending would be. Many religious claims—including core Latter-day Saint ones—don’t require that kind of fingerprint: Subtle influence on thoughts, feelings, or agency (e.g., revelation, the “still small voice,” moral promptings) could be indistinguishable from natural brain processes. Historical miracles (resurrection, Road to Emmaus, First Vision) are one-time events, not ongoing physical violations. Science can’t rerun history in a lab; it can only say “we have no empirical record of such an event leaving traces we can now detect,” which is true but not the same as disproof. And yet you have used Carroll and "science" to declare that such things have been "flatly disproven" and such. If God/spirits operate through, rather than against, natural laws (e.g., guiding probabilities, inspiring people, working within emergent complexity), then by definition there would be no anomalous fingerprints to find. Indeed, this is why I have repeatedly qualified or re-worded references to "supernatural" with "miraculous." I reject the former, as I believe God, being the "God of nature" (1 Nephi 19:12) works within natural law, not in violation of it. Carroll’s framework is devastating against crude, physics-violating supernaturalism (ghosts moving furniture, telekinesis, etc.). But it is silent on the subtler, non-violating forms of theism that most serious religious thinkers (including Latter-day Saints) actually hold. Saying “no detectable fingerprints” therefore equals “impossible” requires an additional philosophical premise—that all causal influence must be detectable in the Core Theory’s equations. That premise is not itself a scientific result; it’s a metaphysical commitment (physicalism or causal closure). It's both a logical and rhetorical jump that I think you are making without realizing it. So while I fully grant that EQFT/Core Theory has closed off certain crude versions of "supernatural" intervention, I do not see it as having disproven the existence of God, spirits, or the specific miraculous claims of the Restoration. The absence of evidence for one kind of interaction is not evidence of absence for every conceivable kind. That is a statement of belief, not scientifically and empirically demonstrated fact. I give Carroll credit for the careful wording. When he says the laws underlying everyday life are “completely known,” he is anchoring that claim in the empirical success and predictive power of quantum field theory (plus general relativity) at the scales relevant to chemistry, biology, and such. He is not waving a philosophical flag, he is pointing to the extraordinary tightness of the equations which have been tested in labs. I concede, without fully understanding the concepts, that the Core Theory + QFT rules out—with very high confidence—any new particle or field that would produce detectable, systematic deviations from those equations in everyday matter (e.g., spoon-bending, macroscopic telekinesis, consciousness as an independent force that measurably pushes electrons around without an energy source we can account for). That part is not intuitive, and I don’t dispute the physics behind it. Where we still diverge is the scope of what that rules out (with some help from Grok) : Subtle, non-violating interaction If a spiritual influence operates within the statistical wiggle-room of "quantum indeterminacy" or through emergent complexity, then it would leave no anomalous fingerprint in the equations. The Core Theory would be silent on that, not because it disproves it, but because it was never designed to detect or rule out influences that are causally invisible at the level of particle physics. Historical one-offs Even granting that EQFT makes certain kinds of miracles implausible in principle today, it still can’t do what you avhe repeatedly tried to do, which is to reach back and falsify (or confirm) a singular event 2,000 years ago that left no surviving physical trace we can now measure. Saying “it’s implausible given modern physics” is fine in a Bayesian sense, but saying, as you have over and over, “therefore we know it didn’t happen” is a much stronger claim that requires bridging from present physics to past history in a way that science itself doesn’t provide tools for. The leap to “spirits don’t exist” The tight constraints on everyday physics rule out crude supernaturalism. They don’t rule out every conceivable form of theism or spirit that religious people actually believe in. To go from “no detectable violations” to “no spirits/God/revelation at all” still requires an extra premise (e.g., “any real causal influence must be detectable in the Core Theory”). That premise is philosophical, not a direct result of QM. I’m not trying to rescue spoon-bending or macro-violations, or even all religious truth claims (I am sure a number of them did not happen, including some claimed in the Church). Rather, I am saying the Latter-day Saint view of God, spirits, and revelation doesn’t need those things to be true. If the influence is subtle enough to be compatible with known physics, then the absence of fingerprints is exactly what we’d expect—not evidence against it. I've addressed most of these above. Not really feeling like you have. I've quoted a number of "sweeping pronouncements" which you seem to want to hang on to, but which I think are not justified or grounded in what "science" can prove or disprove. Thanks, -Smac

Nobody has suggested that having children is a prerequisite to entering the temple. The strawman here is getting pretty tattered. Thanks, -Smac

I don't think so. You have, for many years now, drawn a one-to-one correlation between the Church's priesthood ban and, well, pretty much anything you don't like. For you, it is the smoking gun that the Brethren just make stuff up willy nilly. For me, however, it's the exception that proves the rule. And the OD-2 is the rule nullifying the exception. You have long relied on an anything-I-don't-like-in-the-teachings-of-the-Church-I-summarily-declare-to-be-manmade line of reasoning, helped along with a few healthy doses of the No True Scotsman fallacy. Positivism. Fundamentalism. Hyper-literalism. Proof-texting. Legalism. These are your go-to resources whenever same-sex marriage and/or homosexual behavior comes up on this board. But they just don't work. Your insistent "Show me chapter and verse where God descended from heaven and prohibited homosexual behavior" (or, here, "Show me a 'direct commandment from the Lord'") legalisms just don't work, any more than, say, someone trying to argue that injecting heroin is okay since it's not itemized in the Doctrine & Covenants, or that pornography is acceptable because it is not specifically prohibited in the scriptures, and on and on and on. I do not think so. I find the definition of marriage and the Law of Chastity to be firmly rooted in scripture and inspired prophetic guidance. There is ample foundation to not re-define marriage, and to maintain the Lord's standards pertaining to the Law of Chastity. And only for men and women. Same-sex marriage is not part of the Latter-day Saint paradigm. Radically re-defining marriage to include same-sex relationships would constitute a seismic shift away from scriptural and prophetic guidance through the years. It would also be incongruent with the Plan of Salvation and the doctrines pertaining to marriage and sexuality. Sex is intended to be limited to husband-wife behaviors, for the purposes of procreation and strengthening the relationship between them. No other forms of sexual expression are allowed. No fornication. No adultery. No same-sex behavior. Given your presuppositions, I can see how you would reach this conclusion. Respectfully, I do not share either your conclusion or its attendant presuppositions. That's okay. Reasonable minds can disagree about such things. I am a Latter-day Saint, and you are not. I believe things you do not, and vice versa. Religious pluralism is a good thing to have. Thanks, -Smac

Again, I find it exceedingly strange that the postulation "The principal purpose and use of the reproductive system of human beings is reproduction." And to pair-bond, sure, but that's still catering the the overarching biological and family-centered concept. I have repeatedly said that sex has two purposes: procreation and the strengthening of the union between husband and wife. After we had six children, yes. Meanwhile, same-sex couples have zero capacity to procreate. I never suggested otherwise. I never suggested otherwise. Sure. But the principal reason, in the Latter-day Saint paradigm, is to obey God. And God has told us to enter into male-female marriages, to procreate within that union, and to be absolutely faithful within it: Doctrine and Covenants 42:22: Thou shalt love thy wife with all thy heart, and shalt cleave unto her and none else. Matthew 19:5: And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Moses 3:24: Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh. Abraham 5:18: Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh. Genesis 2:24: Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. Mark 10:7: For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it" (Genesis 1:28, Moses 2:28). The sacred powers of procreation are to be used only between a man and woman who are married (Genesis 39:9, Exodus 20:14). Procreation allows mortals to act as partners with God in creating physical bodies for His spirit children, a necessary step for their progression (Moses 6:59). Intimacy within marriage is ordained to bring children into the world and to express love, rather than just for self-gratification (Genesis 2:24, 1 Corinthians 7:3). The Family Proclamation states that "the first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife" and that "God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife" The Family Proclamation. Exodus 20:14: "Thou shalt not commit adultery." Doctrine & Covenants 59:6: Reiterates the commandment to avoid adultery and anything "like unto it." Doctrine & Covenants 42:22-23: Commands love for one's spouse and warns that looking with lust results in losing the Spirit and denying the faith. All of this is predicated on the centrality of the family. Husband and wife. Parents and children. Same-sex relationships are not a part of the Plan of Salvation. While I maintain, for the purposes of AoF 1:9, a de minimis reservation that there may be a future revelation departing from this principle, I don't anticipate it happening. These "other ways" all being derived from heterosexual couplings. Adoption is great. I have three adopted siblings, and I have never viewed them in any way distinguishable from my biological siblings. All of them, though, were born because a man and a woman had sex. This never happens with same-sex behavior. It cannot happen. I respect this position. It is not, however, congruent with the doctrines of the Church. Marriage is defined in a way that precludes it. The purposes of marriage (procreation and strengthening the husband-wife relationship) preclude it. Me: "Based on your comments over the years, I know these parameters are not fully congruent with the beliefs of the Latter-day Saints, but they sure seem to have a lot of overlap. You love your children. I respect that. You love your partner. I respect that." Also me: "I respect same-sex marriage as the law of the land. I respect those who feel differently than I do about it." I don't know what you mean by "disqualify." And I while I have disagreed with the concept of same-sex marriage, I have not "demeaned" it. If I say that a couple who marries in their 60s will never, for biological reasons, have children, that does not "demean" their relationship. It instead merely recognizes biological reality. Same goes for same-sex relationships, which are likewise 100% incapable of procreation. I don't think I have said this, or anything like it. In your view, marriage and sexuality have "most important reasons" for happening, and those reasons do not include procreation? Thanks, -Smac

I will take this as an acknowledgement that you agree the FP in 1947 did not acknowledge the ban was of unknown provenance. I acknowledge that the FP characterized the ban as being a "direct commandment from the Lord." I also acknowledge that the FP acknowledged they did not know the "why" ("Why the Negro was denied the Priesthood from the days of Adam to our day is not known."). I also acknowledge that the FP letter statement ("they are not entitled to the Priesthood at the present time") is inaccurate or incomplete in that it does not address Elijah Abel/Able/Ables, Moroni Abel/Able/Ables, Elijah R. Ables, James Brown, Jr., Henry G. Church, Robert R. Church, William F. Church, and Q. Walker Lewis, all of whom were "black" and who received the priesthood. I also think that the "direct commandment from the Lord" part can be viewed in the light of these events pertaining to Pres. McKay: Here is my working theory: 1) The priesthood ban was wholly without revelatory provenance. It was, instead, the terrible product of 19th racialist sentiments, including antebellum chattel slavery of black people, which were deeply entrenched in society at that time. And even then, we had indicia that racism was a bad idea. The Book of Mormon speaks against it. Joseph Smith's views on black people were, as this Wikipedia puts it, "multi-faceted." He and other early church leaders gave decidedly mixed messages, acknowledging the humanity and worth of our black brothers and sisters in some ways, and allowing/facilitating/perpetuating their mistreatment in others. Alternatively and additionally, the ban arose from a flawed conceptual framework formulated by Brigham Young. From Edward Kimball: I think much of this thinking about "a man's ancestry" was still largely derivative of racialism, as the "Curse of Cain" concept was, at the time, a well-established apologetic for slavery: 2) The absence of a revelatory provenance is not only evident from the context in which it arose, but also from the absence of any revelation in the records of the Church. We are a record-keeping people. On April 6, 1830, the day the Church was organized, the Lord commanded the Prophet Joseph Smith, “Behold, there shall be a record kept among you” (D&C 21:1). We have no record of a revelation instituting the ban. I find this particularly noteworthy since the ban was formally instituted in 1852, after a number of black Latter-day Saint men had received the priesthood. 3) The ban arose not only arose in the antebellum American West (when slavery and its attendant racialist justifications and sentiments were still strongly in place in many parts of the U.S.), it arose during a time in which the Church was in tremendous turmoil and under much hardship over the space of many years (persecutions in Nauvoo, the initial trek west, the ongoing flow of immigrants in the ensuing years, the settlement of the west, the creation of towns, the feeding and provisioning of thousands of newly-minted and -arrived church members, international missionary work, the Civil War, building the Salt Lake Temple, Johnston's Army, Mountain Meadows, polygamy troubles, financial setbacks, and on and on and on). Brigham Young and the leaders of the Church had a lot on their plates. And there was, at the time, not very many black Latter-day Saints, so the issue apparently received little attention for a long period of time. 4) The ban did not receive much attention or particularized consideration for a very long time. The Church was mostly cloistered in the American West for quite a while, during which time there was the Civil War (which eliminated, as a de jure matter, chattel slavery), Reconstruction (which saw the civil rights of black folks violently challenged by groups like the Ku Klux Klan, the rise of "Black Codes" and "Jim Crow" laws), the Industrial Revolution, the settlement of the American West, and so on. Then came the 20th Century, with WWI, the Great Depression, WWII, the dawn of the Atomic Age and the restructuring of international powers, and so on. 5) It was not until the post-WWII era, and the growth of missionary work in places like Brazil (with lots of people having black African ancestry) that the bad started to get some real attention. I have previously addressed this here: Prince also provides this fascinating account (p. 104): ... This uncharacteristic outburst in the presence of an astonished church architect highlights the contrast between two strands in McKay's thought that are, by today's standard, inseparably joined: civil rights for blacks and priesthood ordination for black men. The blurring, combined with McKay's own reticence, means that this difference has not been understood until now. By Prince's accounting, Pres. McKay wanted to rescind the ban, but was told by the Lord to "not bring the subject up with the Lord again; that the time will come, but it will not be my time, and to leave the subject alone." You seem to be suggesting that the Civil Rights Movement was a major precipitating cause of the 1978 revelation, and you cite Prince as your source. But Prince's citations about McKay's efforts to rescind the ban have it starting around 1954 (if not earlier), when the Civil Rights Movement was in its infancy. Meanwhile, the revelation came in 1978, fourteen years after the Civil Rights Movement was at its apex (1964). And more to the point, Prince characterizes Pres. McKay as having "built the foundation upon which the revelation to Spencer W. Kimball rests," and this foundation was built by repeatedly seeking revelatory guidance. Prince seems to have very little to say about Pres. McKay (the president of the Church during the entirety of the Civil Rights Era) being influenced by the "pretty big spectacle" of "activism for blacks receiving the priesthood." Furthermore, Edward Kimball traces efforts to address the ban back to 1948 (pp. 18-19). 6) It was during this period (post-WWII, but pre-Civil Rights Era) that the 1949 letter went out from the First Presidency, characterizing the Church's position as As I have noted here, there are a few challenges here. There is a reference a "direct commandment from the Lord," but nothing in the records of the Church. The ban is characterized as having originated "from the days of {the Church's} organization," which is difficult-to-impossible to reconcile with Joseph Smith's statements, and with the ordinations of several black men to the priesthood. From Edward Kimball (regarding the 1949 FP statement) : I think this is a correct assessment. 7) Then along came Pres. McKay. Again from Kimball: As noted above, Brigham Young apparently initiated the priesthood ban on an "ancestry" (rather than "skin color") basis, but the subsequent de facto application of the ban appears to have devolved to a "race" or "skin color"-based concept. This was then corrected, sort of, in the 1950s as noted above. More from Kimball: "They concluded that the priesthood ban had no clear basis in scripture." Huh. "Church members were not prepared for change." 8 ) So the context is this: Several black men were ordained to the priesthood prior to 1852. Brigham Young instituted the ban in 1852 during a legislative session at which the Utah Territorial Legislature in which making Utah a slave territory was being debated (Brigham Young argued for African slavery upon the idea that black Africans are the descendants of Cain and therefore are barred from the priesthood). There is no known revelatory provenance for the ban in the records of the Church. The ban received very little attention from the leaders of the Church for nearly a century, at which point the problematic 1949 FP statement was published claiming "beyond the evidence" (Kimball's characterization) that the ban was a “direct commandment” from the Lord and that it originated in "the days of [the Church’s] organization.” Pres. McKay's tenure in the early 1950s involved the beginning of serious scrutiny of the ban, particularly his appointment of high-level committee (in the Q12) to study the issue, and which committee "concluded that the priesthood ban had no clear basis." Further changes happened as well. Then comes the anecdote about Pres. McKay's "distressed" "outburst" to Richard Jackson in 1970: Then came the 1978 OD-2, after much effort by Pres. Kimball and his predecessors. The revelation was canonized in scripture. The Church now expressly and unequivocally and publicly disavows past racist theories as non-doctrinal folklore and celebrates the 1978 revelation as divine correction, extending all blessings to all worthy members regardless of race. 9) Is it possible, then, that the 1949 FP had either not sought divine guidance about the ban, or else they did seek guidance and were told something similar to what is noted here? Is it possible that the FP then erred in going "beyond the evidence" in the 1949 letter by stating that the ban was a “direct commandment” from the Lord and that it originated in "the days of [the Church’s] organization"? Is it possible that the ban was not instituted by God, but that its ending was (via OD-2), as was the seeming delay in its ending ("the time will come, but it will not be my time, and to leave the subject alone")? I think Dan has, for quite a while now, been "over his skis" insofar as his personal and political ideologies predominate his published-to-the-world interpretation of Latter-day Saint doctrine. He is an unserious and untrustworthy guide. That said, there may be some utility in examining how to reconcile our understanding of the character of God with the seeming uneven guidance we receive from him. Abortion, illicit drugs, same-sex behavior and same-sex marriage are all big social issues, and yet there is little express scriptural guidance on them (plenty from modern prophets and apostles, though). Meanwhile, God gave exacting instructions on the dimensions and construction of Noah's Ark and the Tabernacle and the Temple, and on dietary restrictions. Why did He provide particularized scriptural guidance on the latter topics and relatively little scriptural guidance as to the former? God chose Israel as his covenant people, and then let them languish in servitude in Egypt for centuries. The Book of Mormon explicitly forbids slavery among God's people (Alma 27:8–9; Mosiah 2:13), and Doctrine and Covenants declares that "it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another" (D&C 101:79), and God is "no respecter of persons" (Acts 10:34 and D&C 1:35). But then His prophet, Brigham Young, instituted the priesthood ban while in the very act of publicly endorsing slavery. And then He let the priesthood ban stand for 126 years. Ancient biblical slavery often differed significantly from the brutal, race-based chattel slavery of later eras (like the transatlantic slave trade). In the ancient Near East, servitude commonly arose from war, debt, or poverty, and was often not inherently lifelong or hereditary. Biblical laws provided protections absent in surrounding cultures, such as Sabbath rest for servants (Exodus 20:10), refuge for escaped slaves (Deuteronomy 23:15–16), penalties for abuse (Exodus 21:20–21, 26–27), and periodic release (Exodus 21:2; Deuteronomy 15:12–15; Leviticus 25:10 in the Jubilee year). God respects human agency (D&C 58:26–28; Moses 4:3), allowing societies to grapple with their flaws even when they contradict His ultimate will. Just as He permitted polygamy or other practices in biblical times for specific purposes before later clarifying (e.g., Jacob 2:27–30 in the Book of Mormon). Latter-day Saint also doctrine emphasizes that revelation comes "line upon line, precept upon precept" (Isaiah 28:10; 2 Nephi 28:30; Doctrine and Covenants 98:12), which necessarily involves accommodating human readiness. The Bible is viewed as true "as far as it is translated correctly" (Article of Faith 8), but it represents God's dealings with ancient peoples at their level of understanding—often through imperfect prophets and cultural lenses (and the record of these dealings may likewise be deficient, incomplete, inaccurate, etc.). Slavery's regulation in the Old Testament may be seen a step toward greater justice, while the New Testament advances this by treating slaves as equals in Christ (Galatians 3:28; Colossians 4:1) and condemning slave trading (1 Timothy 1:10). Slavery's tolerance in scripture is not approval but a temporary accommodation to prevent greater evils or to foster spiritual growth. This mirrors how Jesus focused on heart transformation over immediate social revolution (Luke 4:18–19, proclaiming liberty to captives spiritually and literally through Jubilee themes). Biblical regulations regulations may be seen as humanitarian improvements, not divine endorsements. That is, God did not command the institution of slavery but worked within flawed human societies to mitigate its harms, similar to how Jesus addressed divorce as a concession to "hardness of heart" (Matthew 19:8) rather than ideal law. This reflects God's long-suffering patience, elevating people gradually without forcing immediate societal upheaval that could lead to chaos or rejection of His message. Many modern issues like abortion, illicit drugs, same-sex behavior, and same-sex marriage receive less explicit ancient scriptural detail because scripture is predicated not only on core principles (from which guidance can be extrapolated), but also on continuing guidance from living prophets and apostles. Thanks, -Smac

Do you believe God’s eternal increase is only limited to children No. Yes. "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." D&C 50:24 See also here: I have a dear friend who died a few years ago from cancer. I have a brother who died as a baby due to doctor error. My dad died last year. My mom's mental faculties have substantially diminished in the last few years, to the point that she is mostly gone from us. My wife was gone most of yesterday. She returned in the evening and we had a wonderful conversation for a bit over an hour before bed. I would be very sad to think that I will never see these people after I die. I am very happy to think I can continue to associate with them in the eternities. Thanks, -Smac

Well, yes, it was. That it is not explicitly and extensively taught in The Bible is not, or should not be, a problem for Latter-day Saints, who believe in continuing revelation. And it's not like The Bible is a compendium of everything that was taught and "addressed by ancient prophets." We do have some indicators in The Bible, though. Matthew 16:19: "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." 1 Corinthians 11:11: "Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord." Ecclesiastes 3:14: "I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him." Moses 5:58-59: D&C 128 has some interesting things to say about how "the powers of the Holy Priesthood" (including, as I think we must suppose, the sealing power, mentioned a few verses later) is "the great and grand secret of the whole matter, and the summum bonum of the whole subject that is lying before us." This, and its antecedent passage in Malachi, is noted in the Church's "Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith": If the sealing power was restored by Elijah, it stands to reason it was revealed at some point in the past, only to have been lost, both as to authority (entirely) and knowledge of it (mostly). We find some references to it, but mostly the doctrine was revealed/restored in the Doctrine & Covenants. Again, Elijah restored some things, including the sealing power. This is directly addressed and explained and contextualized in D&C 132: Matthew 22:30 ("For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven"), is further explained here: Ah, well. We are not constrained to just what "a 1st CE Jewish listener" might have understood. Angelic ministrants referenced in the scriptures appear to be exclusively male. Same goes for those for whom we have accounts as appearing to Joseph Smith (see here and here). Perhaps angelic appearances to people on the earth is a priesthood function. Or perhaps we have an incomplete record. In any event, women are amply attested to as being as capable of salvation as men (indeed, exaltation of a man requires a woman, and vice versa). Elijah is said to have restored the sealing power. Not really, no. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Marriage is about the union between a man and a woman, and their having children, and their familial relationship (ideally) being preserved in the eternities, and all of this has been extensively addressed by both ancient and modern prophets as being ordained of God. And none of this has any application to same-sex relationships. If a revelation in the future changes this understanding or circumstance, I will embrace it. I don't see that happening, though. If the principal purpose of sex was physical pleasure, this might have more relevance. But I don't think that is the case. Our reproductive systems are principally about reproduction. This purpose of sexual behavior is both biological (procreation) and spiritual/social (procreation and strengthening of the husband-wife relationship). Agreed. But the principal purpose of our reproductive systems is reproduction. Even the Church's teaching that sex has a second fundamental purpose (strengthening the husband-wife relationship) shows that it's all about the family. Husband and wife. Parents and children. Thanks, -Smac

Yes. And here: You seem surprised. I am surprised that you are surprised. The sexual act is not, or is not supposed to be, an end unto itself. It is, instead, intended to facilitate procreation and the strengthening of the marital union of a husband and wife. I have repeatedly acknowledged that sex is also intended to strengthen of the marital union of a husband and wife. Again, I am surprised that you are surprised. Why do you think the "reproductive system" is called that? Why do you think we have male and female body parts that are designed to introduce Mr. Sperm to Mrs. Egg? If the principal purpose of sex is not reproduction, then what do you propose is the principal purpose? Human beings procreate by by joining together of a sperm and an egg, one gamete from each of the two sexes who come into proximity to each other via heterosexual sex. A same-sex sexual act is wholly inconducive to the intended purpose and use of our reproductive parts. Is it problematic of me to note this? No. Again, Elder Renlund explained things rather well: I've quoted this a few times now. It's up to them. It is an unfortunately common tactic these days to feign ignorance as a deliberate tactic of avoiding or pretending not to understand inconvenient facts, particularly regarding ideological, economic, or historical issues. Here's we're discussing marriage and heterosexual sex, and the interplay between them, and the centrality of the procreation of the species resulting from that interplay, all of which has, for thousands of years, been the bedrock of society. And here you are, saying it "makes no sense." Well, I'm willing to listen to what you have to say. If the use of our reproductive systems to have sex is not principally about reproduction, then what, in your view, is the principal purpose of such use? Ah, so you the reproductive act is principally about strengthening the relationship between the participants, and not about reproduction? My worldview, as I have noted repeatedly, contemplates both. But even then, wouldn't the "strengthening the relationship" part facilitate the procreatin' and rearin' part of the process? And vice versa? I've heard it said that raising children can injure a marital relationship. I acknowledge that. Broadly, though, these are mutually complementary. We have sex to have and raise kids, and we have sex to strengthen our relationship, which in turn strengthens our ability to have and raise kids. I can understand why you would prefer to focus on just the one, since the other one is, by design, wholly absent from same-sex couplings. But we each have what we call a "Reproductive System." I've never heard anyone calling it the "Strengthening the Relationship System." Consider, for example, the concept of "Pair Bonding," described here: And here. Humans also generally exhibit "parental/maternal/paternal bonding" (parent and child). There is apparently neurobiological component to these things: I think most of us like to think there is more to sex and interpersonal relationships than neurochemical processes. Some of us believe that that this "more" includes guidance from the Spirit of God. In any event, I think the principal purpose of us using our reproductive system is to facilitate reproduction. This should not be a controversial thing. If that is the plan, just what percentage of people in the world are married for time and eternity? Very few. But then, Brigham Young indicated this will be a big part of the work during the Millennium: "{A}nd we will enter into the temples of God and officiate for them." Yep. No. If I had someone in my sphere of influence and stewardship who did not want to have children, and if they sought out or were otherwise receptive to my input, I would try to persuade them to, if possible, get married and have children. There are all sorts of ways marriage is being undermined these days. I think that diluting the meaning and purpose of marriage by severing it from its procreative aspect, whether by advocating for same-sex couplings (which are biologically incapable of having children), or by subscribing to DINK ("Dual Income, No Kids") and other anti-natalist philosophies (where a couple consciously choose to not have children), or by the large scale elective abortion of babies, or by viewing having kids as an incidental and secondary, rather than intended and primary, purpose of the procreative act, and so on, we have materially weakened the institution of marriage. Again, from the Proclamation: Fertility is collapsing around the world. Anti-natalism, in all its repellant forms, is gaining momentum. See, e.g., here: France’s Plan To Lure Women Into Freezing Their Eggs Won’t Fix Its Flailing Fertility Rate Yeah, good luck with that, Mr. Macron. Such are the noxious fruits of the amoral and self-centered philosophies of the day. Children have been devalued in modern culture. This is a terrible thing. I cannot conceive of a purpose more worthwhile than in being a husband and father. In Matthew 24:12, we were told that in the last days "iniquity shall abound," and therefore that "the love of many shall wax cold." The anti-natalism and anti-marriage sentiments arising from secularism, self-centeredness, abortion rhetoric and other mechanisms are, in my view, a fulfillment of this prediction. Moreover, I think it's a permanent thing. There's no getting out of it. The foregoing influences are only going to get stronger and stronger. I will probably not live to see the peak of human population growth, but I think my children will. And I also think they will thereafter see a drastic and rapid drop in world population, with all sorts of attendant problems and calamities. There will be some silver linings to this, but also a lot of bad stuff. Matthew 24:12 was a warning against difficult times. Some women have no choice but to go through IVF. I have a dear friend who went through this, and she now has a beautiful little girl. Tragically, there are large numbers of women who are choosing, whether through specific intent or inattention, to set aside marriage and family, or to subordinate such things, or to delay such things until procreation becomes more difficult and risky. The notion of sex as a "transactional" thing, or as something wholly severed from procreation and children, has done great damage to our society. This is, in my view, entirely correct. Children were previously valued either as "an heritage of the Lord" (Psalm 127:3) (or something similar in outside of the Judeo-Christian tradition), and as assets (such as in an agrarian society, where children could contribute labor toward the benefit of the family). These days, children are devalued. They are aborted for any reason, or no reason at all. Or they are never conceived in the first place. And if they are conceived and born, it happens, in ever-increasing numbers, outside of the marital covenant. The act by which they are conceived has been severed from both their creation and the family in which they ought to be reared. There are all sorts of influences which are deterring people from "settling down and raising a family." It's a sad thing. I feel grateful that I listened to prophets and apostles more than to worldly philosophies, as did my wife. Together we had six children, which was difficult but utterly worthwhile. See here: Birth Control You do realize that a gay couple can adopt children right? I do. I did not say otherwise. But a gay couple cannot procreate, nor can they "be a father and a mother to children," nor can they be sealed for eternity, nor can they be sealed to their children, nor can their sexual behavior strengthen the marital relationship between husband and wife. No. I am saying that gay couples are biologically incapable of procreation. Again: I readily acknowledge that a same-sex couple can approximate some of the things a heterosexual couple can do. They can acquire a child (though only by adopting or otherwise acquiring one from a heterosexual coupling). They can raise the child with love (though in a home which by design omits either a father or a mother). You have chosen to put those boundaries there. Nope. I believe that the Lord "put those boundaries there," and have elected to accept that. Worldviews and presuppositions come into play here. I don't know what you are referencing here. Has there been a time when two men have been able to "biologically have children" together? I think not. And I have said far more than just that. I have presented an affirmative case for what marriage is, or should be, about. A "requirement"? No, I don't think I have said that. But that is neither here nor there. Same-sex couples categorically have a 0% fertility rate. Heterosexual couples have a higher, though presently quite low, fertility rate. I've said nothing about "just to reproduce." I was speaking of sex having the dual purposes of A) procreation and B) strengthening the union between husband and wife. Marriage is intended to provide the best possible environment in which the procreative act can take place. Sure. Such are the vicissitudes of living in a fallen and telestial world. The Plan of Salvation, however, posits that sex should be limited to husband and wife for the purposes of A) procreation and B) strengthening the union between husband and wife. Thanks, -Smac

"Why the Negro was denied the Priesthood from the days of Adam to our day is not known." More recently, the Church has provided a markedly more clear - and accurate - assessment: Race and the Priesthood Huh. Hadn't really noticed that bit before. A great error, in my view. Lovely stuff. I heartily endorse and ratify this. In contrast, I do not feel the same way at all about same-sex marriage. I respect same-sex marriage as the law of the land. I respect those who feel differently than I do about it. I have same-sex couples in my family and sphere of friends and acquaintances. They have not solicited, and I have not volunteered, my perspective on this matter. Nor, for that matter, have I offered unsolicited input to people I know and value who have violated the Law of Chastity in other ways. Same-sex behavior is, in my view, fundamentally incompatible with the Plan of Salvation (rather like the race-based restriction on the priesthood, which was likewise fundamentally incompatible). Again: Marriage between a husband and wife is central to the Restored Gospel and its conceptualization of Eternal Progression. Such an institution is intended to, and generally does, involve procreative efforts. Most of the time, those procreative efforts pay off, after which the Lord would have children being raised by a father and a mother in love and righteousness. A same-sex marriage accomplishes none of these purposes. I readily acknowledge that a same-sex couple can approximate the foregoing in some respects. They can acquire a child (though only by borrowing from a heterosexual coupling). They can raise the child with love (though in a home which by design omits either a father or a mother). Oh, I don't know about that. I think it's pretty hard to avoid attributing some / most / all of it to racialist sentiments which were prevalent in the 19th century (and perhaps some catalytic events which precipitated the 1852 pronouncements). Disorders of Sex Development (DSDs) are primarily caused by genetic, chromosomal, or hormonal variations that disrupt typical fetal sex development. Same-sex attraction is likely derived from an interplay of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences. I think we can not only go along with this fundamentally unprovable premise (it's a matter of faith, after all), we can also use our reasoning and personal revelation to evaluate whether or not a purported revelation is from God, or whether the cumulative scriptural/prophetic guidance on a particular issue is congruent with the Lord's will. Thanks, -Smac

Just why do you always add "their having children." I think for the same reason you apparently dislike this acknowledgment: Procreation is the exclusive province of heterosexual sex. Marriage as an institution has always centered on the creating and rearing of children, so the heterosexual act is a means to that end. Same-sex behavior can never be the means to that end, and so is fundamentally distinguishable. Sex, that is, heterosexual sex, is principally about "having children." Biologically, same-sex behavior does not make sense, as it does nothing to propagate the species, nor does it involve the biologically "intended" purposes of the participants' respective reproductive systems. This is so in both the macro and micro sense. I do not deny that there can be strong emotions involved in a same-sex relationship. Latter-day Saints propose that sexual behavior has an added fundamental dimension and purpose, namely, the strengthening of the union between husband and wife. In other words, it's all about, or should be all about, eternal families. The Lord has instituted marriage for purposes which a same-sex pairing can never achieve or fulfill. A man and a woman can marry and have children together. A same-sex couple cannot. A man and a woman can marry and be a father and a mother to children. A same-sex couple cannot. A man and a woman can be sealed for eternity, and they can also be sealed to their children. A same-sex couple cannot. A man and a women can marry and, through sexual behavior, strengthen the marital relationship between husband and wife. A same-sex couple cannot. An unmarried heterosexual couple can approximate some of these things. They can propagate the species. They can live together and raise children together (as can a same-sex couple). But even so, sexual behavior in this context is still immoral in the Latter-day Saint paradigm. In the end, I can't help but thing that there is really not a huge difference between you and me. You regard sexual behavior as extremely important, and so do I. You recognize its potency in affecting our individual lives, and so do I. You believe sexual expression ought to, even must, have a moral/ethical framework that creates boundaries between appropriate and inappropriate, moral and immoral, and so do I. We differ in that you place same-sex behavior within the ambit of "appropriate" and "moral," and I do not. For me, the parameters of appropriate sexual behavior are A) between husband and wife for the purpose of B) procreation and/or C) strengthening the relationship between husband and wife. Again, Elder Renlund explained things rather well: I cannot speak to the particulars of whatever boundaries you choose to impose on sexual expression. I would not presume to speak for you. Based on your comments over the years, I know these parameters are not fully congruent with the beliefs of the Latter-day Saints, but they sure seem to have a lot of overlap. You love your children. I respect that. You love your partner. I respect that. It is, I think, the central and intended purpose of every marriage, yes. Not every heterosexual marriage works out that way, of course. Some choose to not have kids (or abort or abandon the ones they do have), some are incapable of doing so (due to disorder or age or whatever). But despite the exceptions in the "micro" sense, most marriages throughout history - the macro sense of things - have involved procreation. In contrast, same-sex relationships have a 0% chance of procreating. If a child is in the picture, it is only because the child came by way of a heterosexual pairing. I don't know. I do know, however, that "multiply and replenish" has always been a biggie, after complying with Matthew 19: I appreciate that The Bible can, if the individual really wants to, be construed to accommodate same-sex behavior. I can't do it, but clearly there are people who can. As I see it, though, marriage is between a man and a woman, and sex is limited to the purposes explained above by Elder Renlund. I don't understand what you are saying here. My explanation for God not ordaining or recognizing same-sex marriage is not contingent on this or that person not having children. Thanks, -Smac

Roger, I have appreciated the back-and-forth discussion we've had on this topic over the past while. Given that we have circled around Sean Carroll's ideas in The Big Picture and their supposed application to disproving Latter-day Saint truth claims, I thought it might be helpful to step back and summarize where we stand. I am aiming for clarity and fairness, focusing on the core issues without rehashing every detail. If I have mischaracterized your position, feel free to correct me. (Grok provided some input as to tone, as I am trying to do better in that regard.) 1. Your Core Argument: Science Disproves LDS "Supernatural" ("Miraculous") Claims You have argued that Carroll's framework—rooted in Effective Quantum Field Theory (EQFT) and what he calls the "Core Theory" of physics—provides "positive evidence" that certain forms of matter, energy, or forces (like non-physical spirits or divine interventions) "do not exist." You apply this specifically to Latter-day Saint claims, such as: The existence of spirits that interact with physical bodies (e.g., via a "causal interface" with the brain). Miracles in LDS scripture (e.g., Book of Mormon events) that would require violations of known physics. Revelation or spiritual experiences that imply influences on or interactions with the physical world. You emphasize "interactions with observable reality" as the key criterion. In your view, if something "supernatural" (or "miraculous") purportedly affects the physical world (e.g., spirits influencing thoughts/decisions), then that something is within science's purview, and is therefore falsifiable. Drawing on Carroll's book, you argue that modern physics describes brain/body processes so comprehensively that there's "no wiggle room" for undetected non-material interventions (which, if I am accurately describing things, is incongruent with Latter-day Saint thought, which postulates that spirit is not immaterial/non-material). Thus, claims implying such interventions (like mind-body dualism) are "impossible" and "did not happen," based on the absence of experimental evidence for them. You have clarified that this is not about proving a negative in absolute terms, but rather about colloquial "proof"—high-confidence conclusions from overwhelming evidence, akin to knowing a one-in-a-million chance won't pan out. You distinguish Latter-day Saint claims as "narrow and specific" (e.g., requiring spirit-brain interfaces) from more abstract religious ideas that don't demand physical interactions. 2. My Counterarguments: Science's Limits and Epistemic Boundaries I have pushed back by arguing that science, by design, operates under methodological naturalism—it excels at empirical, repeatable, falsifiable phenomena but cannot address non-empirical or historical one-off events outside its wheelhouse. A few key points: Non-Falsifiability of Many Religious Claims: Claims like God's existence, spirits, or revelation do not, in my view, necessarily produce "repeatable, detectable violations of physics." If a spirit interacts subtly (e.g., influencing thoughts without measurable energy transfers), such an event would not be testable via EQFT or experiments. Carroll himself acknowledges this in places, noting science deals with "how the world works" but not ultimate "why" questions or unfalsifiable metaphysics. Historical Events Are Untestable: I have repeatedly asked how science could empirically disprove specific miracles which occurred in the past and outside of any sort of scientific/empirical observation, such as Christ's resurrection (a belief shared by billions of people, not just Latter-day Saints) or the Road to Emmaus (Luke 24—physical interactions like walking, talking, vanishing). These "interact with observable reality" but occurred millennia ago. No lab can recreate or falsify them; history relies on testimony, not replicable experiments. You have not yet provided a scientific methodology for testing or disproving such historical events, which highlights the practical epistemic limits of applying EQFT/Core Theory to particularized miraculous claims about events not empirically/scientifically observed or tested. Inconsistencies in Application: If Carroll's ideas disprove miraculous events accepted as such by Latter-day Saints, they should equally debunk biblical ones accepted broadly in Christianity (e.g., resurrection, walking on water). But you have generally focused on LDS-specific claims while not addressing the application of Carroll's framework to these comparable biblical events. This feels selective—either "science" disproves all supernatural/miraculous interactions, or its "purview" is narrower than you claim. Philosophy vs. Science: Carroll's book blends physics with philosophy (e.g., poetic naturalism). His "disproof" of souls relies on assumptions like physicalism, not pure empirical data. Science shows consistency with known laws but doesn't "prove" non-existence of undetected forces (e.g., dark matter was once "undiscovered"). Claims of "impossibility" overreach into metaphysics, where science defers to philosophy/theology. 3. Where We Agree (or Mostly Agree) Science is powerful for observable, interactive phenomena. If a claim predicts measurable effects, it can be tested and potentially debunked—as you've noted. Language matters: "Proof" is contextual. Philosophically, nothing is absolute. Colloquially, high-confidence conclusions are fine. (As an attorney, presenting claims of "proof" or "proving/disproving" is a potent thing, as I deal with evidentiary quanta—preponderance, clear and convincing, beyond reasonable doubt—and probabilities—more likely, less likely, etc. Claims of scientific "proof," in contrast, would seem more akin to mathematics—that is, reasonable minds cannot disagree about the outcome.) Interactions are key: Purely non-interactive entities (e.g., Sagan's garage dragon) are unfalsifiable and thus outside science. 4. Unresolved Questions and My Bottom Line Despite our exchanges, key challenges remain unanswered: How would EQFT/Core Theory empirically falsify historical, non-repeatable events like the resurrection (or the Road to Emmaus, or the First Vision, etc.)? If Carroll's framework applies to Latter-day Saint claims, why not equally to other miraculous claims? Does this mean science "disproves" them too? If spirits/God operate without violating detectable physics (e.g., subtle influences indistinguishable from natural processes), aren't they outside science's epistemic reach? How can Carroll or you make sweeping pronouncements about the existence or non-existence of "God" and "spirits" when you have not even defined these terms? In the end, I see your position as conflating science's strengths with overreach. Science excels at the "how" of the natural world but can't adjudicate the "why" or supernatural/miraculous claims that do not necessarily leave empirical and detectable fingerprints. In my view, Latter-day Saint truth claims (and indeed, pretty much all historical truth claims of espoused by the religions of the world) as to miraculous beings/events (God, spirits, revelation) are faith-based, tested through personal experience, and are not empirically testable or falsifiable via scientific inquiry/testing. Carroll's work is fascinating physics, but applying it to "disprove" religion ventures into philosophy—where it is one voice among many. Thanks, -Smac

This is just a laughable falsehood. I think it is demonstrably correct. Interesting that you left off this part of that letter, found in the very next paragraph: Here the First Presidency acknowledged the lack of revelatory provenance, while earlier speaking of "{t}he attitude of the Church with reference to the Negroes" as being "not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the Priesthood at the present time." This statement ("they are not entitled to the Priesthood at the present time"), as we now know, does not address Elijah Abel/Able/Ables, Moroni Abel/Able/Ables, Elijah R. Ables, James Brown, Jr., Henry G. Church, Robert R. Church, William F. Church, and Q. Walker Lewis. President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: “The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have.” This sentiment was, I believe, repeated a number of times, including in the very 1949 statement you are citing here. In contrast, there has never been, to my knowledge, any such sentiment expressed regarding the Church ratifying same-sex marriages. And there have been ample statements which fairly firmly show that the Brethren do not expect any such development. As for the the 1949 article, I found these comments (from a FAIR article) worthwhile: That seems about right. Good stuff, this. I can't help but think that some of us construe racialist sentiments as an unpardonable sin, just as some others may see same-sex behavior as an unpardonable sin. Both sentiments are incorrect. Thanks, -Smac

I have previously said this: Marriage is about the union between a man and a woman, and their having children, and their familial relationship (ideally) being preserved in the eternities, and all of this has been extensively addressed by both ancient and modern prophets as being ordained of God. These are the fundamental attributes and purposes of marriage, and they are wholly absent from same-sex marriage. See my above "de minimis" comments. Thanks, -Smac