smac97

Funny how that works. I look at Alma 11 and see only a description of weights and measures. How else to account for the inclusion of barley/grain? Yes, we can all do that. Except that we have articulated both our conclusions and the evidence and reasoning (and references) we used to reach those conclusions. You seem to be treating your conclusions as self-evidently correct. Right. And no need to explain or defend your "reading." It just is. I think John Sorensen's explanation is superior to yours, and to Roger's AI-rooted alternative. Well, no. We are all making choices here. You as much as we. By choice, yes. Because I believe the Church is what it claims to be. I think you come here to argue against the Church because you previously believed as we do, then you went out from us, because you are angry at the institutional Church and its teachings about same-sex behavior and marriage, and instead of "investing" time and money and effort in building up the Church, you "invest" in justifications and rationalizations for your departure. You don't want the Church to be what it claims to be. You are invested in and committed to that narrative. I think the pursuit of truth matters the most. If the Church were not what it claims to be, I would want to know that. But that is not what has happened. If the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be, and if Joseph's narrative about his theophanies is true, then I'm all in. Although I was born and raised in the Church, my testimony is mostly traceable to reading The Book of Mormon, pondering it, and praying about it. I received a spiritual confirmation that it is. At the time I knew nothing of apologetics, of critiques of the Church's doctrine and history. I was just a kid. Then I went into the Army, and boy, was that a wake-up call. The choice between being a Latter-day Saint, or not, was really stark. I could attend Church on my own, or not. I could drink and smoke, or not. I could pay tithing, or not. I could fool around with girls, or not. I could cuss up a storm and crack vulgar jokes to fit in with my peers, or not. I chose to continue the course I had started on earlier. In a sense, I was in a "I need my faith to be justified" stage here. Then I went on a mission to Taiwan. Hard work. Lots of it. I preached the Gospel and served the people of that island and followed the behavioral rules. I studied a lot. I continued to observe both the practical and spiritual benefits of living the Gospel. And more to the point, I became more convinced and persuaded about the Church's truth claims. I was transitioning to a "I like that my faith is justified" stage. Then I went home. Worked. Went to school. Met a girl. Married. Became a father. Started to work. Another child. Went back to school for a law degree. Another child. Then I started to practice law. Three more kids. On the Church front, I served as Gospel Doctrine Teacher, then on the Stake High Counsel, then a bishopric counselor, then as bishop, then as primary teacher, then as finance clerk, then as Sunday School teacher. During most of this I was on ZLMB, and then on this board. 19,000+ posts and 22 years. I have talked to countless fellow Latter-day Saints (in various places in their respective faith journeys), former Latter-day Saints, curious lookyloos, and so on. The more I studied, and listened to voices across the spectrum, and discussed and debated, the more persuaded I have become that the Church is what it claims to be. Not because, as you insinuate, I am desperate or have succumbed to "sunk cost" thinking, but more because my intellectual basis for being a Latter-day Saint has caught up with my spiritual and emotional bases for being a Latter-day Saint. I am currently in a "I am grateful that my faith is justified" stage. Funny how folks can look at the same thing and come away with such drastically divergent perspectives and conclusions about it. Thanks, -Smac

Your questions sure seemed to indicate the contrary. But as you like. You seem to be equating "monetary system" with "coinage." I invite you to reconsider that. Thanks, -Smac

I think you are a little out of date here. A "monetary system" does not necessarily refer to coins. And in any event, the summary is not part of the text, and was added later. The previous chapter heading to Alma 11 referred to "Nephite coinage." This was changed in 2013. I am not. This has been a very widely-discussed topic for many years now. I didn't originate it or make it up. Why You Should Care About the Nephite Weights and Measures System Weighing and Measuring in the Worlds of the Book of Mormon Wages and Measures in the Book of Mormon Weights and Measures in the Book of Mormon Senums, Senines and … Barley? Why Alma 11? Table Showing Nephite Weights and Measures from Alma 11 Money and the Book of Mormon Book of Mormon Evidence: Pre-Columbian Measures John L. Sorenson discusses measurements in pre-classical Mesoamerica; argues that Alma 11 is not speaking of coins or weights, but instead a system of measurements in which volume was counted. One of the above articles (the second one) was published, I think, in 1999. From that article (keep in mind that the reference to "coinage" in the chapter heading was still in place at the time) : Again, I did not make any of this up. See the above articles. I'm okay with that. I continue to give the Church and study of its doctrine and history a lot of time and effort. I don't think you do. I don't think you are very familiar with the subject matter. If you were, you would not have made such an obvious error. It seems like you left the Church quite a while ago, so it's understandable that you are not familiar with its particulars any more. Not sure what you are referencing here. Well, good luck maintaining a negative (to say nothing of demonstrating it). I fund that to be pretty unserious. The Latter-day Saints are aiming for, and hitting, "plausibility." And even then, we only do so as a secondary consideration. The first is to read the text, ponder its meaning, and pray to God and ask if it is what it claims to be, if it is "true." Sounds like you are insisting on a Smoking Gun, and anything else is categorically not "evidence." I respectfully disagree with that assessment. Thanks, -Smac

This passage and its implications "And its implications." IOW, assumptions and presuppositions you have about the passage. "The most natural reading" = "Analytics' presupposition-laden interpretation of the text." "Meaningfully" is an interesting word. I just checked on FamilySearch and see that my "Macdonald" family name can be traced back 23 generations (the 24th generation had a different surname). 23 generations back → 2²³ = 8,388,608 ancestral "slots." All sorts of names in these branches of my family tree, but only one of them is "meaningfully" preserved today, namely, my last name of "Macdonald." The Taylors and Butlers and and Richardsons and Van Cotts and Richardsons and Adams and McCraes and Sacketts and so on, are all present, but "Macdonald" ends up, by tradition and happenstance, as being particularly "meaningful" in that I carry it. However, numerically, the original "Macdonald" is only one among many many ancestors. Most Latter-day Saints receive a Patriarchal Blessing, in which the individual's "lineage" relative to the Twelve Tribes is declared. "Lineage may be through any of the tribes of Israel, such as Ephraim, Manasseh, or Judah. Though we may not all be literal descendants of Jacob, those who accept the gospel of Jesus Christ are adopted into the house of Israel. Because each of us descends through more than one family line, two members of the same family may have their declared lineage through different tribes of Israel." Whether by literal or adopted descendance, we are each told of a lineage that is "meaningful" relative to the Restored Gospel. For many (most?) of us, this lineage is not, and need not be, numerically predominant in our genetic ancestry. You seem to be using "meaningfully" in a sense of "modern Lamanites" (your phrase) having substantial or predominant genetic descendance from Lehi's family. I think that is inaccurate. This is derived from your presuppositions, not the text (nor, for that matter, from the Church's broader teachings). You seem to be reposing much importance on genetic predominance, or enough numerical significance in a person's family tree, to create detectibility of the genetics of Lehi, who was an older man in 1 Nephi, around 600 B.C. (or, more broadly, anyone from Lehi's group). That is a significant presupposition about the text, which I think you are using to lay claim to what you call "the most natural reading" of the text, and also to critique alternative "readings" as "textually strained and not straightforward." I question that presupposition and the inferences you are drawing from it. And yet you persist in "smuggling" detectable genetic ancestry, and presuppositions about it, into this discussion, and characterizing your inferences drawn therefrom as "the most natural reading" of the text. I question that. See? You are presenting your presupposition-laden inferential reading of the text as "the most natural reading" of the text, and now as "the fact" (!) that "remains." "If" is doing a lot of work. Mormon did not spend untold time and effort abridging the records of the Nephites to create a narrative about land ownership. To be sure, land ownership is a part of the narrative, and even an important part, but the text is not "about" that. The Civil War is an important part of Little Women, but the text is not about the Civil War. The Regency Period of England is an important part of Pride and Prejudice, but the text is about particularized people living within that period, not "about" the period itself. The Roman conquest and governance of Judea is an important part of the context of the New Testament, but the text is not about the Roman conquest/governance. The lineage of the Lamanites and the Nephites is an important part of the context (and text) of The Book of Mormon, but the text is not about that. The "land" and covenants relating thereto are an important part of the narrative of The Book of Mormon, but the text is not about that. Instead, the text is most aptly summarized as being presented And this still seems to have little bearing on the supposed "DNA problem." Well, that seems to be substantively true. There is a reason why the history of peoples and civilizations in the Americas are broadly referenced relative to Christopher Columbus ("Pre-Columbian") and his 1492 travels on the ocean blue. You can, I suppose, interpret "knowledge of other nations" along the lines of "The 'most natural reading' of 2 Nephi 1:8 is that nobody had discovered the Americas until the Lehites (and, I suppose, the Jaredites) arrived there." I wouldn't, though. Lehi, speaking around 590 B.C., was speaking prospectively about the preservation of the land so as to avoid it being "overrun" and depriving him and his descendants of their "inheritance" of it. That "inheritance," though, was conditional (covenants typically are). See the next verses: We could say that the land ultimately was "overrun," but by then the Nephites had come and gone. The "covenants" in The Book of Mormon center on Jesus Christ, not on land ownership. The text says that? Nope. The text requires that interpretation? Nope. Your hostile presuppositions are understandable, given how you feel about the Church. But I don't think they are working here, and they really don't work when you try to smuggle them in under the guise of "the most natural reading" of the text. Right. "Kept from their knowledge" = "Nobody on the planet except the Jaredites and Nephites new about the Americas, so both continents were devoid of humans when they arrived." I get that this, or something like it, is your presupposition-laden interpretation of the text, but I don't think it is anything close to "the most natural reading" of the text. Do I think Lehi was referring to DNA? No. Do I think Lehi was referring to his biological descendants? Yes. Do I think Lehi was referring only to his biological descendants? No. Not by a long shot. Zoram was not genetically related to Lehi, but I suspect Lehi included his (Zoram's) descendants because he was part of the group. Same goes for any children of Ishmael who did not intermarry into Lehi's family and had children. By the time Lehi spoke as recorded in 2 Nephi 1, Jacob and Joseph, Lehi's "two sons {born} in the wilderness," were still quite young. Did Lehi expect them to grow up and eventually marry and have children? The text doesn't say, but probably. Were there any available daughters (or granddaughters) of Ishmael for them to marry? The text doesn't say. Is it possible that the Lehites had, by 2 Nephi 1, encountered other groups in the area? Yes, but the text doesn't say whether or not that happened. Is it possible that Lehi figured that his descendants would intermarry with other groups outside the 25-50 people that had arrived on the boat? Yes, but the text doesn't say whether or not that happened. Is it possible that Lehi's reference to his "seed" included people not biologically related to him, but also included people who married into his family, who came to worship his God and share in religious covenants and identity? Yes, but the text doesn't say whether or not that happened. Are we justified in construing "a land for the inheritance of my seed" as a declaration that the Americas were wholly devoid of people (apart, perhaps, from the Jaredites) prior to Lehi's arrival? No, I don't think that is a reasonable reading/interpretation of the text, let alone "the most natural reading" of it. The Book of Mormon says "all things" without qualification. 2 Nephi 2:22. This is scripture mastery stuff. The New Testament says that "there went out a decree from Cæsar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed." Luke 2:1. "All the world" is, according to you reasoning, "without qualification." By your reasoning, then, Cæsar intended to tax the inhabitants of what we now call the Japanese archipelago, the aborigines in Australia, the inhabitants of the Americas, and so on. This exegesis of the text is, in your view, appropriate and necessary and obvious. "Scripture mastery stuff." Are you sure about that? 2 Nephi 2:22 states: "And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end." Just as Luke 2:1's reference to "all the world" must be read in a reasoned and contextualized way (to the best of our ability, anyway), I think the same must be said for 2 Nephi 2:22's reference to "all things." You presupposition is that "all things," being presented in the text "without qualification," but therefore be taken absolutely literally, and encompassing every living organism that was on the planet at the time of the Fall. But then, why stop with just this planet? "All things" lacking qualification, shouldn't we read it as declaring there was no death anywhere in the entire universe prior to the Fall? Is that, in your view, "the most natural reading" of the text? Here's my take: The phrase “all things” is limited by context, just as “all the world” in Luke 2:1 doesn’t literally mean Caesar taxed the Aboriginal peoples of Australia or the inhabitants of the Japanese archipelago. It refers to the known/pertinent world of the narrative. Here, I think “all things” describes the paradisiacal order inside the Garden, not a scientific claim that no death of any kind had ever occurred anywhere on earth (or the entire universe) before the Fall. This contextual reading allows the verse to stand as written while remaining compatible with the scientific record of plant and animal life (and death) stretching back hundreds of millions of years outside the Garden. I think your more absolute interpretation imports a modern literalism that the text itself doesn’t require. Elder Widtsoe in 1943 (from The Encyclopedia of Mormonism) : See also here: The concept of a spherical earth "did not appear in Jewish thought until the fourteenth or fifteenth century." [3] The word "earth," as used in the Bible, simply refers to solid ground or land, as opposed to water (see Genesis 1:10 — "God called the dry land Earth; and...the waters called he Seas...."). It is, of course, possible that earlier prophets had a more advanced view of the nature of the earth—this perspective could, however, have been lost to later centuries and scribes. The belief that the flood was either global or local does not constitute a critical part of Latter-day Saint theology. Ideas of a global flood may have resulted from a widespread local problem. A current hypothesis that has been gaining ground since 1998 is that a significant flooding event occurred in the area now occupied by the Black Sea. Evidence has been discovered which has led a number of researchers to believe that the Black Sea area was once occupied by a completely isolated freshwater lake at a much lower level than the ocean. The theory is that the sea level rose and eventually broke through the Bosporus shelf, resulting in a rapid flooding event which would have wiped out all life living along the shores of the lake. Whether this is the source for the Genesis flood remains conjecture. "The belief that the flood was either global or local does not constitute a critical part of Latter-day Saint theology." I think that is correct. I admire Bro. Parry a lot, but I do not agree with him on his declaration of what Latter-day Saints believe on this point. Nor is Bro. Parry's article decisive. See, e.g., Elder Andersen's trenchant (and, in my view, nearly axiomatic) point here: Your presupposition-laden interpretation of the text is not, in my view, "the most natural reading" of it. To the contrary, I find it decontextualized, strained, and even fundamentally unserious. "Everything the Book of Mormon {as filtered and interpreted through the skeptical and hostile lens of the personal opinion of Analytics} says about Noah..." There. Fixed it for you. "Entirely consistent," Roger says. Without qualification. Remember that. Including Elder Widtsoe? Looks like "without qualification" is another petard with which you've hoisted yourself. I believe that we need to be reasoned and serious when evaluating important topics, rather than pedantic and sly. The Title Page to The Book of Mormon states that the text, written by inspired prophets, might nevertheless have some errors ("And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men."). In Mormon 9:30, Moroni exhorts us: "Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been." Elder Widtsoe stated: "The fact remains that the exact nature of the flood is not known. We set up assumptions, based upon our best knowledge, but can go no further. ... In fact, the details of the flood are not known to us." As a Latter-day Saint, I sustain the Brethren in all material respects. I do not think this includes, or needs to include, the particulars about the Flood. Dr. Duane E. Jeffery, though not speaking in any authoritative capacity, is substantively correct when he states: "The belief that the flood was either global or local does not constitute a critical part of Latter-day Saint theology." "I have no idea what you believe," he said. Without qualification. To a Latter-day Saint with whom he has had extensive written communications for many years. I think you know quite a bit more than just those two. But those two are the main points, so I'm actually appreciative of this. Actually, I do. There are some few things with which I struggle and/or do not fully understand, but those exceptions to not swallow the rule. You keep conflating the text with presuppositions and eisegetical interpretations of the text. There is nothing in the text that requires me to believe that the flood was global. Including Elder Widtsoe? Apart from the scope of the flood (which, in my view, is an unsettled sort of thing), can you identify any other topics about which I have diverged from the collective teachings of the Church? I do not know what you are referencing here. It is not a correct statement of what I believe. "Or something." You keep conflating the text with presuppositions and eisegetical interpretations of the text. There is nothing in the text that requires me to believe that the flood was global. It does not. Again, from Elder Widtsoe: I can look to him and other Latter-day Saint leaders and thinkers for guidance about the text, or I can look to vividly anti-Mormon critics and their hostile and presupposition-laden interpretations of the text. I choose the former. Collectively, they have been far more correct than the Anti-Mormon crowd. I can also look to my own reasoning. "All of that," he said. "Without qualification." Here is my position: I'm not sure what you mean by "degree." "Substantial, but not unfettered" would be my response. I addressed this issue previously here (regarding general authorities): And these by then-Elder Harold B. Lee of the Twelve: And these remarks by President Lee: So my rule of thumb is to give a presumption of good faith to the Brethren. To give them the benefit of the doubt. To assume that what they are saying is in accordance with the Standard Works, and with the Spirit. Again, I think such a presumption would be subsequently vindicated almost all of the time. However, although I give the Brethren the benefit of the doubt, this is - in legal vernacular - a rebuttable presumption. That is, I leave open the possibility that a leader in the Church may, in the words of President Smith above, issue remarks which "do not square with the revelations." That he may say "something that goes beyond anything that you can find in the standard church works." That he may say "something that contradicts what is found in the standard works." We must leave that possibility open, because our leaders have told us that it is a possibility. So if a leader in the Church says something that I feel may be problematic, I feel obligated to test it. To think about it. To study it. To discuss it with those whom I find trustworthy. To weight it against the Standard Works. And most of all, to pray about it. So if I find the statement to be "beyond" what it is the Standard Works, then I generally either reject it or label it in my mind as a personal opinion of the speaker (and hence I am not bound by it). If I find the statement to contradict the Standard Works, then I reject it altogether. Consider, by way of example, Amasa Lyman, who while serving as an apostle and as a member of the presidency of the Church's European Mission, "preached a sermon in Dundee, Scotland, which all but denied the reality of and the necessity for the atonement of Jesus Christ," a concept he continued to preach years later even after being corrected and after he apologized for it. He was subsequently released as an apostle, and within a few years was affiliating with an apostate sect, and was then excommunicated (his membership and status as an apostle were posthumously reinstated). Imagine the confusion, and perhaps even apostasy, that would be caused if members of the Church today uncritically accepted remarks similar to what Elder Lyman taught. And then consider the wisdom of the counsel we have received about reliance on "the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man's doctrine." So the counsel we have given on this point is, I think, sound and reasonable. I note, however, that it is susceptible to abuse by dissidents and critics, who may seize upon remarks such as those I have quoted above and use them as some sort of carte blanche to publicly disagree with and defy the Brethren on any issue they (the critics/dissidents) deem significant, and also to work to persuade members of the Church to listen to them rather than the Brethren. Hence we end up with substantial disagreements over socially popular themes like same-sex marriage, female ordination, and so on. And with the advent of the Internet, critics and dissidents have markedly increased opportunities to persuade members of the Church to accept their point of view on such issues, and to ignore or disregard the counsel given to us by the Brethren, and to instead adopt the preferences of the self-selected few who have set themselves up as alternative voices of authority. I don't think this is what the Lord has in mind for His people. I don't think the wise words given above were intended to give critics and dissidents leave to speak evil of the Lord's anointed, to set themselves up as voices of authority alternative and superior to the Brethren, or to foment discord and disunity in the Church. Hope this helps. I am quite comfortable with my perspective on the Brethren. They are overwhelmingly good and decent men, but they are not perfect. They are overwhelmingly correct in their pronouncements about the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, but there may be some few errors here and there. They are not perfect, but I don't expect or need them to be. I am exceedingly confident that if I were to encounter Pres. Oaks and ask him if I as a faithful Latter-day Saint believe that the Flood was more likely a local (rather than "global") event, he would say yes. And I think he would be right about that. There are a lot of data as to why I think it more likely that Lehi did not arrive in the Americas and find the entirety of the continents devoid of any human presence. I think most Latter-day Saints who have given this question any particular thought and study would agree with me. And if we're wrong, I'm okay with that. I do. I also believe that racialism is morally wrong, even though some past Latter-day Saint leaders and members were influenced by it. I just can't take you seriously when you say stuff like this. I think Elder McConkie was right about this: You can, as some critics do, take a "Well, if the leaders of the Church were wrong about X, then they could be wrong about Y and Z, and maybe even everything" tack. Latter-day Saints, however, should take the "Don't condemn prophets for their errors, but learn from their errors and give thanks to God" tack encouraged in Mormon 9:30. This is not a correct statement of what I believe. Thanks, -Smac

We are? I think this is the first time anyone has referenced this passage. "[O}ther more important things" = Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the World? Also, I don't think "incidental" is apt here. I don't recall using that word to describe "the land" and covenants relating thereto. Yes, the land was (and is) important, but it's still very much a secondary element of the narrative, which instead centers on Jesus Christ. Yes, we can do that. Context would seem to be an important part of that evaluation. For example, the Title Page emphasizes Jesus Christ as the central message of the text, ipso facto all other matters are secondary (again, not sure about "incidental" (as in "accompanying but not a major part of something")). “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 121). There are, then, many things which are very important in the Latter-day Saint doctrinal constellation, but they are all "only appendages" to the central message of the Restored Gospel, which that Jesus Christ "died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven." I submit that Jesus Christ is more central to the text of The Book of Mormon than the land covenants referenced in the text. Thanks, -Smac

"Reinterpreting" gives away your game, I think. In your view, a past "interpretation" of the text that contravenes what we now know about the Americas is, somehow, authoritative and binding on all Latter-day Saints. That just ain't so. Why in the world would you think that is my view? Well, I'm open to correction. You are suggesting the Latter-day Saint participants in this thread are "reinterpreting" the text of The Book of Mormon in relation to population figures and the supposed "DNA problem." However, none of us have indicated to you that we are "reinterpreting" our own views, so I inferred you were juxtaposing our understanding (or "interpretation") of the text with someone else's, such that ours amounts to a "reintrepretation." I further inferred that the other "interpretation" in the juxtaposition would be somehow authoritative or binding on the participants of this thread, hence my remark above. I am open to correction. If we are "reinterpreting" the text, whose "interpretation" in the first instance did you have in mind? Yes. Not much to do with Nephite demography or DNA, neither of which is in the text's narrative. Yes. Not sure that "death" was a reference to all things everywhere, or just Adam and Eve and their descendants, but okay. "Global." "{D}estroyed everyone not preserved on the ark." Boy, the impulse for you to smuggle stuff into the text must be really strong. Please to quote, chapter and verse, the text of The Book of Mormon making these claims. All of humanity? Yes. Yes. Yes. Funny how you never get around to actually citing or quoting these supposedly "explicitly" taught things. Some I acknowledge as explicit, but some I do not. I'll go along with that. What? This is you telling us what the text of The Book of Mormon "explicitly teaches" that the Fall of Man is "{not} a real event with real consequences in the world"? "If" sure is doing a lot of work here. Wait, are we talking about the text of The Book of Mormon? Or about presuppositions associated with and read into the text? I have no idea what you are referencing here. Who is "treating the Creation and the Fall as metaphorical, symbolic, or otherwise nonliteral"? I am saying the text of The Book of Mormon does not preclude that. Again, don't know what you are referencing here. Who is reclassifying "so much" of the text as "symbolic, partial, or negotiable"? Thanks, -Smac

Not only that, he proceeds to speak as if his approach to the text is free of presuppositions, while ours is laden with them. This is most obvious in Roger's various prompts to his AI platform, and even that calls out the error: The smuggling continues apace. Once the smuggling is set aside, the issue becomes moot and the debate dies, so Analytics has to pivot. Analytics on Tuesday: There is a "DNA problem" in The Book of Mormon. Analytics on Wednesday: "Claude is strongest where he says the limited-ancestry model solves the DNA problem by shrinking the Book of Mormon’s peoples into near-demographic insignificance, even though the text itself treats them as the central covenant peoples of the land. ... The apologetic DNA question is clever, but it changes the subject." Analytics on Thursday: Actually, the "DNA problem" is not the "real issue." Which comes down to differences in presuppositions and interpretation of the text, not the text itself. If Analytics has dropped his smuggling operation (that his, quietly inserting and relying on his presuppositions about the text and then styling his reading as "the most natural reading of the Book of Mormon’s own narrative world"), then we will have made some progress. Thanks, -Smac

"Reinterpreting" gives away your game, I think. In your view, a past "interpretation" of the text that contravenes what we now know about the Americas is, somehow, authoritative and binding on all Latter-day Saints. That just ain't so. Your posts, particularly your prompts/nudges to your AI platform, lean way too much on particularized, but unspoken, presuppositions about the text fare more than, in your words, "{d}ealing with that the text actually says." What does "after the fact" mean here? Aren't all models of how The Book of Mormon subsequent to 400 A.D. or so "after the fact"? Given your presuppositions about the text, and how much weight you are giving to those presuppositions, I understand your position. But I don't think it is a very good one. I do not know what this means. Yes. Well, no. It starts with the text, and setting aside unwarranted presuppositions about the text. I don't think you are doing this. I think the tail is wagging the dog. You presuppositions dictate how you approach The Book of Mormon. I don't think this is apt at all. Anthropology is very negotiable. It would be hubris to claim that anthropology is anything of a subjective and conditional exercise, particularly in relation to the Pre-Columbian Americas. In your view, the "plain narrative" in the text is that the Americas were empty before the Jaredites/Lehites/Mulekites arrived. Except that is not in the text. It's your presupposition about the text. Thanks, -Smac

I don't think it does. Rather, I think Alma 11 outlines a system of weights and measures. https://archive.bookofmormoncentral.org/sites/default/files/archive-files/pdf/smith/2023-04-12/ie_57.05_richard_pearson_smith_the_nephite_monetary_system_may_1954_316-17.pdf https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2008/01/17/nephite-money-and-coinage https://scripturecentral.org/blog/the-nephite-system-of-currency-in-alma-11-and-connections-to-ancient-america Unless "what the BoM claims" does not include coins in the Pre-Columbian Americas. Well, no. There are no coins mentioned or referenced in The Book of Mormon. Perhaps, perhaps not. Most writings in antiquity do not survive through the ages. Respectfully, I reject the premise. I think evidence does exist. See here: Plausibility is what the Latter-day Saints are seeking, not the proverbial "Smoking Gun." Our critics seem to be expecting, even demanding, the Smoking Gun. Jeremy Runnells is doing the same thing as the atheist who frequently tries to debate Peterson on his blog: conflating evidence with proof. They’re not the same thing. No one can prove that the Book of Mormon is true. Only the Spirit can teach you that. But, as I said previously, there is quite a lot of evidence mounting, and it’s only getting stronger with time. I agree with this. I think the evidence in favor of The Book of Mormon is getting stronger. Meanwhile, our critics are stagnating in absolutist thinking that just does not hold up well. I concur. Neal's writing is quite good. The NHM altars are not per se evidence of New World Nephite civilizations, but I think it's pretty good, albeit circumstantial and inferential, evidence of Lehi and his group. Huh. Hadn't heard about this one. Sorenson's work is worth a read. It is increasingly difficult to chalk these up as "lucky guesses" by Joseph. I wonder what the status of this is. The rest of the article is worth a read. There is evidence in favor of the plausibility of The Book of Mormon. Thanks, -Smac

For me, I think the most memorable moment of the era you describe was Simon Southerton acknowledging the facial deficiency of the DNA argument, only to present an argument of, essentially, "Hey, we should disregard what the text actually says and instead interpret it through the lens of some 19th-century Latter-day Saints who were conjecturing about the text." See here: This is a technical way of explaining a relatively simple fact: if a small group is placed in contact with a larger group and allowed to intermarry, it becomes harder to detect the small group’s “genetic signature.” It is as if one placed a teaspoon of red dye in an Olympic swimming pool, mixed well, and then withdrew a sample. Critics are in the position of someone who complains loudly because the sampled water does not seem to be “red.” The same critic of the Church then goes on to say: This is really quite astonishing. The critic has conceded a key assumption. He admits here that there are many genetic objections to his attack, unless we accept that the American Indians are only descendants of Lehi and Mulek. Contrary to the critic's assertion, the short answer is that he is ignorant of the facts. For those who are interested, we turn to the long answer. Remember, the critic claims that we must accept his version, because The Book of Mormon “plainly” teaches it; and “The prophets” have taught this doctrine (and no other, we must presume) for 175 years. Yet, the same critic goes on to state in July 2008: See also this 2003 article by Matthew Roper: It's a good article, as it traces "{t} idea of other pre-Columbian migrations" back to the earliest days of the Church. Roper published this article twenty three years ago. And our critics are still not dealing with it. Thanks, -Smac

I'm not sure about this. The "covenants" in The Book of Mormon center on covenants about and with Jesus Christ. Ownership or possession of land is an important, but still subsidiary, element of the text. Note that the Title Page says nothing about "land covenants." Respectfully, I disagree with this assessment. The passages you listed are real and important, but they don’t make a “land covenant” the core idea of the Book of Mormon. They describe a conditional blessing tied to obedience, not the central covenant itself. Notice the consistent pattern in every one of your examples: “If ye keep the commandments… ye shall prosper in the land” (1 Ne 2:20; 2 Ne 1:9, 20; Jarom 1:9; Omni 1:6; Alma 36:30; Hel 12:1–2, etc.). “If ye do not keep the commandments… ye shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord” and eventually swept off the land. This is classic Deuteronomic covenant language: the land is a conditional inheritance, not an unconditional title deed. The actual covenant is the same one made with Abraham and fulfilled in Christ — the covenant of salvation through faith, repentance, and obedience to the gospel. The land blessing is simply one of the temporal consequences of keeping (or breaking) that covenant. Look at how the Book of Mormon itself frames its purpose on the Title Page and in 2 Nephi 25:26, 33:10–11, Mormon 7:1–10, and especially 3 Nephi 11–28 (the Savior’s ministry). The overwhelming emphasis is Jesus Christ — His atonement, His gospel, and the covenant of salvation offered to all people. The land is the stage, not the story. Even in Ether 2:7–12 (the passage you started with), the Lord’s warning is not primarily about real estate. It is a warning about pride, idolatry, and forgetting the God who brought them there. The land is “choice above all other lands” only so long as the people serve the God of the land. So yes — there is a recurring “land promise” motif. But calling it the “core idea” of the book is like saying the core idea of the Bible is the promise of Canaan to the Israelites. The actual core of both books is the covenant relationship with Jesus Christ. The land is a blessing that flows from that relationship, not the relationship itself. Would you agree that the Book of Mormon’s central message is Christ and the covenant of salvation, with the land promise being secondary and conditional? I think I do. Again: The Book of Mormon is not about land ownership. The core of it is the covenant relationship with Jesus Christ. The land is a blessing that flows from that relationship, not the relationship itself. "{A} covenant narrative" about Jesus Christ, not real estate. Do I really have to point this out? Huh? A "theological-historical account of a covenant people in a covenant land" only succeeds if it includes lots of details about demography? Oh, brother. Feel free to guess how many souls were in Lehi's party. And good luck with moving well outside of 25-50 people. The text indicates more than 25-50 people? Less? Which one? I have no idea what this means. I have thousands of ancestors, but only one line of "Macdonalds." "Macdonald" as a surname is therefore a small, and yet still quite significant, portion of my ancestry. Yes, when I talk about Topic A, I raise points pertinent to Topic A. And when I talk about Topic B, I raise points pertinent to Topic B. Topic A may well involve a different set of points and a different "framework" than Topic B. And in other news, circles are round and water is wet. AI bots spouting truisms is boring. I'll that about Mormon all the time, not just when there is "tension." That said, I don't foreclose the possibility that God revealed things to Mormon about his people, including his ancestors, that would likely have otherwise been unknown to him. A few examples: 1. Mormon 7:1–10 (Mormon’s final message to the latter-day remnant) Mormon addresses the future descendants of Lehi (the “remnant of the house of Jacob”) who would live in the latter days — people who had not yet been born and whose existence and circumstances he could not have known from the historical plates: Mormon is speaking prophetically to a people centuries in the future. He tells them they are descendants of Lehi, that they must repent and come to Christ, and that they are part of the covenant. This is not information he could have obtained from the plates of Nephi or Ether; it is knowledge given to him by revelation. 2. Mormon 5:9–14 Mormon speaks of the future Lamanites (again, a future remnant) and states that God has shown him their latter-day condition and destiny: Again, he uses the phrase “I know” in a prophetic sense — knowledge that goes beyond what the historical record could have told him. 3. Words of Mormon 1:3–7 Mormon explains why he inserted the small plates of Nephi into his abridgment: Mormon openly states that the Spirit of the Lord (revelation) directed him to include certain records for a future purpose he did not fully understand at the time. This is a clear admission that God was revealing things to him about the future usefulness of the record to his people. 4. Mormon 3:16–22 and Mormon 8:1–13 (Moroni’s continuation) Mormon and Moroni both indicate that they were shown the latter-day audience of the record and given instructions about how and why it would come forth. Moroni explicitly says his father Mormon was shown future events concerning the record’s reception among the Gentiles and the remnant. But this is all important stuff. I don't know that the Lord bothered to give Mormon lessons on Mesoamerican demographic trends over the centuries. That's sort of a weird expectation, TBH. Yes. Lots of stuff about Jesus Christ. References to land ownership are decidedly secondary and circumstantial. Well, I'm glad we can agree on that. I'm pretty comfortable with declaring that the book's "center of gravity" is Jesus Christ, not land acquisition and ownership in ancient times. Again, look at the Title Page. Thanks, -Smac

Actually, we also have the Mulekites and the Jaredites. So that would be three small groups. Are you suggesting that there is any reading of the text for some contrary proposition? Also, expecting the Title Page of The Book of Mormon to emphasize the small number of Nephites is sort of like expecting the New Testament to emphasize and characterize Jerusalem as a city in a relatively insignificant backwater Roman province. It is unserious to frame these narratives in this way. Well, yes. A small group migrating together in one or a few boats would very likely not land in vastly disparate locations in the Americas, but rather in a "limited part" of it. Although factually reflective, I don't think this would be an appropriate part of the Title Page. It speaks to some presuppositions about the text, rather than to the intended point and purpose of the text as set forth in the Title Page, in Mormon's interpolated remarks, Nephi's remarks, and so on. If I were to write an article intended for publication in the Utah Bar Journal (as I have done several times), and if the topic of the article was about, say, the statute of limitations for nonjudicial foreclosures in Utah, and if the article was intended mostly to help attorneys understand the issues relating to this topic, and if I were to entirely omit from the article any commentary about my family or my religious beliefs, and if the editors of the Journal asked me to write a brief abstract of the content and purpose of the article, and if I then wrote the abstract and included in it extraneous comments about my family and my religious beliefs, then wouldn't that be kinda weird? Again: The text "presents the Jaredites, Lehites, and Mulekites as the peoples whose story is being told, but it does not claim they were the only inhabitants or that the land was empty." "Joseph Smith—History 1:34 (Moroni’s words) says the plates give 'an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang.' Again, 'an account" of certain former inhabitants—not 'the complete history of every person who ever lived here.'" "The entire record is a lineage history—a family/national chronicle of these specific groups and their descendants. It is not presented as a comprehensive ethnography or census of the entire hemisphere." "{W}hen read strictly on its own content and without importing modern expectations or Church position statements, the text is agnostic on the presence or absence of other populations. It allows both interpretations and does not require either." Why would the Title Page include references to topics not addressed in the text? Again, this is weird. Why would the Title Page of a record engraved on metal plates, in a process specifically characterized and difficult and time-consuming and written so as to economize on space, then waste portions of that space to explain things the text is not about? The "not in any principal or clearly identifiable sense" is quite inaccurate. The text is not about genetic ancestry. Moreover, this vastly diminishes the grandeur and significance of this portion of the Title Page: What your AI bot is writing is not remotely comparable to this, nor to my assessment. Yes, I like this. This is just a tortured re-wording. If you were going for mockery, it didn't really land. If you were going for reasoned discourse, that didn't land either. What you have presented here is just a polemical caricature. The AI-reworded Title Page takes the limited-geography + extensive intermingling view (which I think is plausible, but far from the point and purpose of The Book of Mormon) and deliberately pushes it to its most minimalist, tentative, and faith-diluting extreme. It is not a neutral or accurate summary of what most Latter-day Saints who accept this model actually believe — it is a rhetorical device designed to make the position sound weak, marginal, and almost apologetic. Phrases like "thin cultural and genealogical layer", "some unknown fraction of their ancestry", "not in any principal or clearly identifiable sense", and "mistakes of men working with limited knowledge of the peoples around them" are loaded and minimizing. They portray the Lehites as basically insignificant and the record as tentative or unreliable. Most people who accept intermingling still view the Nephite/Lamanite story as a genuinely important branch of Israelite history and covenant people in the Americas — not something incidental or barely detectable. That's your assessment, not ours. The original Title Page is bold, declarative, and confident ("to show unto the remnant of the house of Israel what great things the Lord hath done"). This re-wording turns it into something hesitant and hedged. It adds skepticism ("if there are faults they are the mistakes of men…") in a sense not reflected in the actual Title Page. The real Title Page acknowledges possible faults but does so in a much more straightforward, humble way without implying the writers were operating with severely limited knowledge of the broader world. Thanks, -Smac

So "that quarter" of "the wilderness" = all land everywhere in the Americas? And isn't "the wilderness" typically not populated (traversed through, perhaps, but not settled or lived in)? Or does the reference to a portion ("that quarter") of "the wilderness" "where there never had man been" possibly indicate that people had been in other "quarters" of "the wilderness"? And Ether 2:5 is likely dated to, what, about 2,200 B.C.? Perhaps population locations were different then as compared to when Lehi's group arrived? The Jaredites and Nephites apparently occupied overlapping but largely distinct regions separated by the "narrow neck of land," with one key point of geographic convergence, namely the Hill Cumorah. We "know this"? Are you sure? We "know" this also? Are you sure? I asked Grok: "Trace the population of the Jaredites per the text of the Book of Ether." The response: This is the single most explicit population-related number in the entire book. It refers to cumulative casualties on Coriantumr’s side alone before the final battle at Cumorah. Ether 15:8, 15 – Both Coriantumr and Shiz gather “all the people upon the face of the land” for the final battle at the hill Cumorah. The text presents this as essentially the entire remaining Jaredite population. The final battles result in the near-total annihilation of the Jaredite nation. Only Coriantumr and the prophet Ether survive (Ether 15:33–34). Summary Timeline (Text Only) Period Approximate Scale (per text) Key Verses Arrival Small founding colony (dozens of adults + families) Ether 1:34; 6:16–18 Early generations Rapid multiplication; becomes “numerous” Ether 6:18; 9:15–16 Middle kingdoms Large enough for cities and major armies Ether 10–13 Final wars (Coriantumr/Shiz) Millions involved; ~2 million slain on one side Ether 15:2 End of nation Total destruction except 2 survivors Ether 15:33–34 Bottom line from the text alone: The Jaredites began as a very small group and grew into a large civilization capable of fielding armies in the millions by the final generation. The only explicit large number given is the “two millions” slain before the final battle at Cumorah (Ether 15:2). The text never gives a precise total population figure, but it clearly portrays a numerous people whose numbers ultimately led to their complete destruction in civil war. I followed up: "Is this population growth feasible if the only people in the 'land northward' were the Jaredites? Or is it more likely that the "millions" eventually occurred through mingling with other peoples in the area?" The response: FWIW. Likely for the same reasons we don't find "Nephite" DNA. Also, what would "Jaredite DNA" look like, and how do we know that? Only if "that quarter" of "the wilderness" = the entirety of "the land northward." That's a pretty giant leap in logic and reasoning. And it's not in the text. What is the non-apologetic assessment of the text? Well, no. Again, see Ugo Perrigo's analysis here: Finding Lehi in America through DNA Analysis The abstract (emphasis added) : Do you dispute this? If so, could you lay out your reasoning? I'd like to hear what you have to say. Thanks, -Smac

Yes, but that still seems more inferential than actually "textual." Claude's analysis is deficient specifically because it does not account for the fairly extensive scholarship on the issue of BoM population figures. A sampling: Populations in the Book of Mormon Population and demographics in the Book of Mormon How Many Nephites?: The Book of Mormon at the Bar of Demography This is a TLDR sort of thing, but it's written by a demographer, so it's worthwhile. A Grok summary: Betcha Claude didn't consider this article. Book of Mormon Population Statistics Adding Up the Book of Mormon Peoples I Have A Question? I have heard that the sizes of the Nephite and Lamanite populations indicated in the Book of Mormon do not make sense. What do we know about their numbers? I prompted Grok: The response: Thanks, -Smac

I agree with this. Actually, I think it is. Not sure that this is "the real dispute," but I'll run with it. Here's my query to Grok: The response: Thoughts? I'm not sure about that. I think the "tension" only arises when and if the text is approached with the presupposition that the text should have included some explicit references to and indications of other peoples. If that presupposition is removed, so too is the tension. This is evident from the next bit: Yay! I'm right on a limited point! Not sure the "only" is justified, but okay. Not sure Claude is presenting the "best reading of the text" because, again, it relies on particularized presuppositions. Sure. But I think Grok's point bears some emphasis: The text "presents the Jaredites, Lehites, and Mulekites as the peoples whose story is being told, but it does not claim they were the only inhabitants or that the land was empty." "Joseph Smith—History 1:34 (Moroni’s words) says the plates give 'an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang.' Again, 'an account" of certain former inhabitants—not 'the complete history of every person who ever lived here.'" "The entire record is a lineage history—a family/national chronicle of these specific groups and their descendants. It is not presented as a comprehensive ethnography or census of the entire hemisphere." "{W}hen read strictly on its own content and without importing modern expectations or Church position statements, the text is agnostic on the presence or absence of other populations. It allows both interpretations and does not require either." I think this assessment is correct, and adopt and ratify it. Um, "the Lamanites" did not author the text. The Nephites did. And not just the Nephites, just a highly selective group of them (mostly prophets). And they were righting mostly about religious topics, not social/political issues. Claude is getting some very basic concepts wrong. And its guessing and presenting presuppositions, while acknowledging neither. More presuppositions. The notion that there is a "DNA problem" relies on presuppositions outside of the text. But does the text treat them as the numerically predominant (or sole) "peoples of the land"? Nope. More presuppositions. Sure. But it relies entirely on presuppositions. LOL. And Claude is limiting itself to just the text? The same AI platform that is presenting arguments about how "the Lamanites describe themselves," even though the text purports to be a record kept by Nephites? Right back atcha, Claude. More presuppositions. The book simply does not "present" an "empty land" narrative, and certainly does not do so "straightforwardly." You can prove me wrong by pointing to these supposed "straightforward" portions of the text. Of course the text is going to be "heavily incomplete" in terms of demography. It purports to be an abridgement of 1,000 years of religious historical texts, abridged for the purpose of bringing souls to Christ, and not to present an ethnographic census of the ancient Americas. Of course the text has elements of ethnocentrism in it. Frankly, the absence of ethnocentrism would be a substantially better argument against the text being ancient. See, e.g., this FAIR presentation: The Charge of “Racism” in the Book of Mormon An excerpt: Ethnocentrism in Ancient Societies As the above examples from both ancient Mesopotamia and pre-Columbian Mesoamerica suggest, we should not be surprised to find that the Nephites and Lamanites may have struggled with their own ethnocentrism. Still, modern readers should be careful not to allow their own cultural sensitivities to obscure the meaning of the text. Equality Before the Lord Significantly, Nephi, who first reported the “skin of blackness,” also wrote that the Lord accepts both “black and white” who are willing to come unto him (26). Nephite prophets and writers consistently referred to the Lamanites as their brethren. When Nephite prophets referred to the “curse” of the Lamanites, they explained that it was only a curse in the context of opposing ideologies of the Nephites and Lamanites. Once united in tradition and beliefs, skin color and other ethnic or tribal differences become irrelevant as far as the Lord and the Nephite prophets are concerned. "{W}e should not be surprised to find that the Nephites and Lamanites may have struggled with their own ethnocentrism." From Scripture Central: What Does it Mean to be a White and Delightsome People? AI is really not doing well here. All sorts of presuppositions here. If I were to write an article intended for publication in the Utah Bar Journal (as I have done several times), and if the topic of the article was about, say, the statute of limitations for nonjudicial foreclosures in Utah, and if the article was intended mostly to help attorneys understand the issues relating to this topic, and if I were to entirely omit from the article any commentary about my family or my religious beliefs, and if a reader examined the article for the purpose of gleaning information about my family or religious beliefs (rather than about the statute of limitations topic), then it would be unreasonable for the reader to accuse me of "misleading by omission." I think it does. Actually, it is presuppositions about the text that are "the point under dispute." When the presuppositions are removed, the dispute goes with them. It does not answer presuppositions about the text. The "plain sense of the book" articulates grounds for a DNA argument against authenticity? I think not. All right, let's see it. I don't think I did that previously. And if I did, I retract it in favor of the following: The text "presents the Jaredites, Lehites, and Mulekites as the peoples whose story is being told, but it does not claim they were the only inhabitants or that the land was empty." "Joseph Smith—History 1:34 (Moroni’s words) says the plates give 'an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang.' Again, 'an account" of certain former inhabitants—not 'the complete history of every person who ever lived here.'" "The entire record is a lineage history—a family/national chronicle of these specific groups and their descendants. It is not presented as a comprehensive ethnography or census of the entire hemisphere." "{W}hen read strictly on its own content and without importing modern expectations or Church position statements, the text is agnostic on the presence or absence of other populations. It allows both interpretations and does not require either." I don't have a presupposition-free approach to The Book of Mormon. Not for years now. But I can postulate such an approach. And that undermines a presupposition-free reading of the text . . . how? The "external populations" thing the sine qua non of the dispute. But do "those points" require presuppositions such as A) the land being empty, B) the Nephites/Lamanites/Mulekites/Jaredites being the sole or numerically predominant populations in the Americas, C) the absence of intermingling with and into pre-existing population groups? Nope. Times three. Man, AI is really not doing well here. I don't think I ever posed such a stacked deck of a question. Actually, I think my "case" becomes stronger if we remove presuppositions about the text. Don't believe me? Read the next bit, which is all about presuppositions: See? Presuppositions. About numbers. About genetic ancestry. About detectable genetics. About religious significance. The Lamanite thing in the Book of Mormon is about their relationship with Jesus Christ, and promises made to their ancestors about that relationship. It's not about genetic predominance or predictability, or about sociopolitical clout, or any such similar trivialities. Yet another presupposition. This "old introduction language" is not the text, but Claude is claiming to be focusing on the text. And "principal" has never, in my view, been intended to indicate numerical predominance, but rather that the the ancestors who previously had a covenant relationship with Christ were being described in the religious text of The Book of Mormon, and that the book was written to encourage the descendants of those people to return to that covenant relationship. "Fine." This decimates the presupposition-laden approach to The Book of Mormon that requires the text to be construed as treating the Nephites/Lamanites/Mulekites/Jaredites as the sole ancient inhabitants of the Americas. See? Claude is focusing entirely on presuppositions ("the older, plainer understanding") rather than on the text. Also, Matt Roper and other Latter-day Saint scholars have done a great job of rebutting the notion that the "hemispheric" model was the only one in the early days of the Church. That's just not so, but Claude treats it as if it is. Says the AI platform that is basing its argument on presuppositions about the text, rather than the text itself. See, I just don't see this as a damaging argument. As Latter-day Saints, we are as interested in the pursuit of truth as anyone else. Some of our predecessors, living in the 19th century, with only a rudimentary understanding of the history of the Americas, and having essentially no scholarly materials available to them, and being preoccupied with mobs, expulsions, privations, migrations, creating settlements, and so on, developed some presuppositions about The Book of Mormon that we, as the beneficiaries of nearly 200 years of study and extraordinary progress in knowledge and information and technology, can examine and, where necessary and appropriate, set aside or modify so as to account for new information on topics such as "archaeology, genetics, and population history." This is a feature of the Restored Gospel, not a bug. If we have had in the past gaps or errors in our understanding, we can and should correct ourselves. Indeed, Richard L. Bushman's comments over the years about how we need to "reconstruct" the "narrative" is doing just that. We need to examine and improve our presuppositions. I think the Church has been doing a great job along these lines. I think the Church has been working hard to provide members with meaningful and substantive resources which provide a considerably improved "narrative" of our history. The resources Bushman has specifically credited as reconstructing the narrative (Saints, Volume 1 ("The Standard of Truth, 1815–1846"), Volume 2 ("No Unhallowed Hand, 1846–1893") and Volume 3 ("Boldly, Nobly, and Independent, 1893–1955"), the Joseph Smith Papers Project, the Gospel Topics essays - 14 in all) are freely available to the world online. Additionally, the "Church History" section of the Church's website includes many other resources that I think Bushman would construe as even further reconstructing the narrative: Saints Podcast (112 episodes over three seasons, and counting) Historical Sources (extensive information about the Doctrine & Covenants) Revelations in Context ("The Stories behind the Sections of the Doctrine and Covenants") Joseph Smith's Revelations ("A Doctrine and Covenants Study Companion from the Joseph Smith Papers") Joseph Smith Papers Podcasts (14 episodes) First Vision (examining the various accounts of the First Vision) Prophets of the Restoration (extensive biographies of all presidents of the Church) Church History Topics (brief but annotated treatments of dozens of Church History items) Answers to Church History Questions (answering questions about difficult areas of Church history, such as Mountain Meadows, treatment of Native Americans, translation of the Book of Abraham, the Kirtland Safety Society, polygamy, etc.) Stories from Saints (discussion of various "local" stories about members of the Church and how they have influenced both the Church and history generally) Global Histories (extensive historical summaries of the Church throughout the world) At the Pulpit ("185 Years of Discourses by Latter-day Saint Women") The First Fifty Years of Relief Society Daughters in My Kingdom ("The History and Work of Relief Society") Moreover, the Church also maintains https://history.churchofjesuschrist.org/, which includes all of the foregoing historical resources plus many more: The Church Historian’s Press ("Search diaries, journals, discourses and documents") Pioneers in Every Land (various resources about members throughout the world) Joseph Smith (extensive resources about Joseph's life and ministry) The Trek West (various maps, stories, etc.) Museum Treasures ("Learn about the art and artifacts available at the Church History Museum.") Perspectives on Church History ("Explore insights on the history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.") Experience Church History (selections from exhibits and materials housed in the Church History Museum) Research Church History Collections (links to the Church History Library, Church History Catalog, Church History Biographical Database, Treasures of the {Church History Museum} Collection, Pioneer Resources) Church History Museum ("Discover the spiritual, artistic, and cultural legacies of the Latter-day Saints.") Church Historic Sites These are all improvements on how the Church has previously handled its history. The Church is also improving in many other ways. Hah. It challenges presuppositions that, when removed, effectively eliminate, or else resolve, the supposed "DNA problem." Really? Mormon abridged 1,000 years of Nephite history to answer the "important question" of "whether a tiny migrant lineage could vanish genetically"? What an absurdity that is. Thanks, -Smac

I haven't really given much thought to this aspect of Mormon's fingerprints/influence on the text. With no artifacts or images, and with only descriptions in the texts, Mormon may well have had only a limited understanding of the cultural elements of events and persons living centuries before him. Solid points, these. Thanks, -Smac

And that is what? Well, no. The Book of Mormon was not an anthropological or sociological or cultural treatise. It is, instead, an abridgement of records preserved with the intended purposes "to show unto the remnant of the house of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever—And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations." Thanks, -Smac

I'm glad you referenced apologetics twice. Just in case your thumb slipped off the scale a little. "Reframes." From what, I wonder? Well, feel free to guesstimate how many people you think were in Lehi's group. The book doesn't directly address most of the issues associated with DNA claims. "The narrative" actually does speak of Lehi's group as pretty small. Lehi and his progeny, Ishmael's progeny, Zoram. Not a lot of souls here. As for "a vast pre-existing population," the text is largely silent either way. Plenty of scholarship about this, though: Nephi’s Neighbors: Book of Mormon Peoples and Pre-Columbian Populations (FAIR Presentation) Nephi’s Neighbors: Book of Mormon Peoples and Pre-Columbian Populations (PDF Article) When Lehi’s Party Arrived in the Land, Did They Find Others There? No, it does not. See here: Book of Mormon Evidence: Army Sizes Book of Mormon Central, “How Could So Many People Have Died at the Battle of Cumorah? (Mormon 6:14),” KnoWhy 231 (November 15, 2016). Stephen Smoot, “Why the Book of Mormon’s Battle Numbers Don’t Add Up (And Why That’s Evidence for Its Authenticity,” Ploni Almoni, May 9, 2016, online at plonialmonimormon.com. John L. Sorenson, Mormon’s Codex: An Ancient American Book (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book and the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, 2013), 110, 394–399. Morgan Deane, “Military Participation Ratio and Wrong Numbers,” Warfare and the Book of Mormon, May 25, 2013, online at mormonwar.blogspot.com. Morgan Deane, “‘Millions’ in the Book of Mormon,” Warfare in the Book of Mormon, December 8, 2009, online at mormonwar.blogspot.com. John E. Clark, “Archaeological Trends and Book of Mormon Origins,” in The Worlds of Joseph Smith: A Bicentennial Conference at the Library of Congress, ed. John W. Welch (Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press, 2006), 93. James E. Smith, “How Many Nephites? The Book of Mormon at the Bar of Demography,” in Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited, ed. Noel B. Reynolds (Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1997), 255–293. At no point does the text deny or account for other populations already living in the land. Meanwhile, Nephi's Neighbors is a good place to start: "Finally, neither in the Book of Mormon itself nor in the scriptural revelations concerning it is there anything to contradict the view that Nephi had neighbors in his New World land of promise. There is, on the other hand, much within these sources that seems to support this idea." That just ain't so. Both "principal" and "among" allow for other people to be in the Americas. The text, meanwhile, is largely silent. And what "DNA evidence" is referenced here? The AI platform is not very familiar with the doctrines of the Church. Since when does lineage = detectable genetic ancestry? Patriarchal blessings? Adoption? Again, the text does not claim the land was empty, nor does it require the land to be empty. My last name is Macdonald. I have large numbers of Scotch and Irish and English in my ancestry, with some French and German sprinkled in. But my name is "Macdonald," and I've grown up in America, so I tend to think of myself as an American with Scottish ancestry. That's not an exclusive concept, though, just one of identity and prioritization. The book's claims do not include any notion that Lehi arrived to an empty land. Not sure what this means. What religious claims do you imagine are empirically testable? Demographically small is not "irrelevant." Funny that neither you nor the AI platform is specifying what "claims" the "book" makes. And critics foist fabricated notions onto the text so that it "claims" that the Americas were empty when Lehi arrived, and the critics do this to resuscitate a long-dead category of evidence. Even Simon Southerton (!) doesn't buy what you are tying to sell here. The Lehites built one boat. Lehi and his sons, and Ishmael's family, and Zoram, likely amounted to 25-50 people. The text does not specify the number, but I think extrapolating numbers larger than this is patently unreasonable. A group of 25–50 individuals would, then, constitute a minuscule fraction (<0.01–0.05%) of the total population in any plausible landing region (Mesoamerica or elsewhere). Their DNA would be immediately diluted upon intermarriage. See Ugo Perrigo's analysis here: Finding Lehi in America through DNA Analysis Some excerpts: I count you and your AI platform in this number. The entire article is worth a read. Thanks, -Smac

Yes, they were: And here: I'm not sure we know how long the experience of the Three Witnesses lasted. How many minutes would it take before the Witnesses' statement become probative? The Eight Witnesses seem to have had time to "heft" the Plates, handle the individual plates ("leaves"), etc. Did any of the Witnesses, particularly those who later dissociated from Joseph, express some sort of concern or objection along this "quick now you see it, now you don't" lines? If not, where are you getting this notion? How long, in your view, of an examination of the Plates by the Witnesses would have been appropriate? How many "artifacts of this kind" do you think have appeared in world history? It sure has swayed mine. I find the statements of the Three/Eight Witnesses, and information about the "unofficial" witnesses, and the historical evidence about the character of these people, to be quite a significant, if will secondary and supplemental, resource for strengthening my faith in The Book of Mormon. Not sure what you mean here. The tablets Moses had remained with the Israelites for many years. "With the Israelites" = Ensconced in the Ark of the Covenant, which in turn was kept in the Holy of Holies, which was the innermost, most sacred chamber of the Tabernacle and later the Temple in Jerusalem, and which was strictly off-limits to the general public, ordinary priests, Levites, and even the king, and which location only the High Priest could enter, and even then only once a year on Yom Kippur? And even then, the High Priest did not appear to actually open the Ark and view or handle the tablets, and instead performed rituals in the Holy of Holies. The ancient Israelites had to take it on faith that the Ten Commandments were in there. As do the rest of us. I suppose. But then, such imponderables are endless. Couldn't Moses have addressed Pharaoh without the Rod of Aaron being turned into a serpent? Couldn't God have healed the children of Israel without having them look upon the Brazen Serpent? Couldn't Jesus have healed the blink man without using spittle mud? And on and on and on. Not sure what you mean here either. Tied to real history??? What real history? The Parables of Jesus Christ may not be "real history," but they still have vlue. Other events, however, must be "real" in order to have meaning and effect in our lives. Christ needed to actually suffer for our sins, not just metaphorically so. He must have actually resurrected, not just figuratively so. Well, that presupposes that the Plates weren't real, or else were a hoax. If they were real, and if they were really an authentic record, and if Joseph translated their contents "by the gift and power of God," then the calculus changes. Reformed Egyptian was used for its economical use of limited space on the Plates. It did not appear to have a broader usage in Nephite society. Where are any precolumbian coins in the Americas? What would a Nephite artifact look like? How do you know? I encourage you to do a bit of reading on how DNA works. How many people were in Lehi's party which landed in the Americas around 590 B.C.? 20-50 people? Lehi's group of 25-50 people represented what percentage of people living in the Americas in about 590 B.C.? I asked Grok: "Let's say that there were 25-50 people that arrived in the Americas in about 590 B.C., and that they were originally from the Jerusalem area. What is the likelihood of genetic traces of these 25-50 people being detectable in today's population groups in the Americas?" The response: Apologetic sources (FAIR, Scripture Central, BYU) make the same point: a small founding party like Lehi’s would be genetically “invisible” today. Bottom Line Autosomal DNA → Effectively 0% chance of detectable trace. Y-DNA or mtDNA → Theoretically possible but highly improbable (most lineages die out), and none have been observed. Overall → Genetic studies cannot confirm or rule out such a small group. The absence of Middle Eastern DNA is exactly what population genetics predicts. If the group had been much larger, isolated, or replaced the existing population, the signal would be different—but under the scenario you described (25–50 people arriving into an already populated continent), the genetic traces would be lost to history long ago. I think your DNA question is not well-founded. What does "Nephite" or "Lamanite" civilization look like, and how would you know? This presupposes that there is no evidence, and that we know what Nephite/Lamanite civilizations looked like and specifically where they were located. My faith in the Restored Gospel is based primarily on revelation, but not exclusively so. I have other evidences, including Joseph's narrative, the Three/Eight Witnesses, the "unofficial" witnesses, the historical evidence about the character and credibility of these people, lots and lots of textual evidences, circumstantial evidences (NHM, Seal of Mulek, etc.), "By Their Fruits Ye Shall Know Them" evidences, etc. I think it's a reasonable, perhaps even necessary, inference. I can't get on board with the idea that the Plates were superfluous to the Restoration. I don't think any of us is saying that. Thanks, -Smac

This is a point I have yet to see critics meaningfully address. It would have been so much easier for Joseph to just take a D&C 7-style approach. God could have just downloaded the English text into Joseph's mind, and Joseph spoke the words and the scribes recorded them. If Joseph was a charlatan, claiming to have not only a physical object, but a heavy and potentially valuable one, and then only showing it to a very select few, sure seems like a lot of work for not a very big ROI. Unless, of course, the purpose of these circumstances was to facilitate faith and spiritual confirmation, while preserving each individual's agency. In that case, the narrative seems to work quite well. A rod turned into a serpent. Words inscribed onto a wall by an invisible hand. Spittle mud used to heal a blind person. And so on. Tangible things help us as individuals perceive that there are portions of reality which exist beyond our current ken. Indeed, we may as well ask why God sent us here when He could have just created each of us in a perfected form from the get-go. I previously used to have some unease about Catholic veneration of relics. These days I have a much broader perspective. I think the Latter-day Saints are fortunate to have living prophets and apostles, to have temples, to participate in proxy ordinances. Our Catholic brothers and sisters similarly yearn for tangible connections to the divine, and I think relics facilitate that effort, however imperfectly. "Prop" has connotations of something that only has the appearance of utility. A "prop" gun in a movie, for example. It's not real, but it's intended to enhance storytelling, define characters, or create realism. That is particularly inapt as a characterization of the Plates, which contained the engravings of an ancient language translated into English. The Plates "enhanced" Joseph's narrative, but they were also the source of the text we have today as The Book of Mormon, and so are much more than a "prop." Thanks, -Smac

Speculation is always easy. What is more difficult is examining the extant evidence and its ramifications on our presuppositions. I don't think that is a fair characterization. Was there ever a point at which Moroni, or God Himself, hinted that Joseph would be imbued, Neo-in-The-Matrix style, with a top-notch downloaded command of the written Nephite language used in The Book of Mormon? After the translation was complete, did Joseph claim to have a command of Reformed Egyptian? Nope. Or was the plan to facilitate the translation by having Joseph receive a portion of "the gift and power of God," such that he was able to articulate an English translation of the text, and the meaning of the text as engraved on the Plates? Consider these comments from Daniel C. Peterson: Perhaps Joseph having physical possession of the Gold Plates was necessary, not because they would be directly used (e.g., Joseph reading the "Reformed Egyptian" directly off the Plates and formulating an English translation thereof), but rather because that possession - confirmed by witnesses - was an attestation of the reality of the Nephite record and, therefore, of the Nephites themselves. Not sure "pure gold" is part of the narrative. But "angels"? Yep, we believe that. The Reformed Egyptian appears to be been quite a rare form of record-keeping. It was expensive and difficult and time-consuming. DNA can't really be used to substantiate or debunk The Book of Mormon. This chestnut really needs to be thrown away. I think it makes sense, see above. Yes. See above. I think DCP's point is a reasonable inference based on extant historical evidence. Further, the Plates were "needed," if for no other reason than to show them to the Three/Eight Witnesses. This created a basis for onlookers to consider The Book of Mormon on more than Joseph's "Just Take My Word For It" basis (though, in the end, Moroni 10:3-5 is the main mechanism for validating the narrative). Not sure what the "just" is doing in there. The entire point and purpose of The Book of Mormon for "the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations." If so, then how do you account for the Witnesses? Did they testify about the Plates, or about "a common rock in a hat"? All miraculous events can be difficult to believe. An angel appeared to shepherds in the fields outside of Bethlehem. We don't know the particulars of where that angel resided, or the nature of the "matter" comprising his spirit body, precisely where he came from, etc. Nevertheless, the shepherds followed the instructions of the angel, and thereafter "they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child" (Luke 2:17). In the intervening 2,000 or so years, many billions of Christians throughout the world have listened to, and accepted as true, this "saying which was told" to the shepherds. Some find this story difficult to believe, others accept it on faith. I think it had much value. There are some (many, even) revelations which came to us through the mind and words of Joseph Smith. The Doctrine and Covenants are chockablock full of 'em. Of particular note, D&C 7 purports to be "a translated version of the record made on parchment by John and hidden up by himself." Joseph did not have this parchment, and so must have only seen it in a vision. We, as Latter-day Saints, are called upon to take Joseph's word for it. Same goes for the rest of the Doctrine & Covenants. The Book of Mormon, however, is a bit different. Possession of the Plates, and the showing of the Plates to witnesses, took things outside of the "Take Joseph's word for it" realm. I think there was, and is, great value in this. Thanks, -Smac

"Mormon" is, in my view, a reference to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. "Prophet" in this context, is a reference to the Presiding High Priest. Mr. Strang was never the "Mormon Prophet" or a "Mormon Prophet." Except that I think that "Mormon prophet" is rather easily defined. I'm okay with not agreeing. Indeed. I think it is substantially misleading to call him that. But I'm okay with a "agree to disagree" resolution. Not only did I say that I gave evidence, I did give that evidence. I think that goes to the probative weight of the evidence not whether it qualifies as evidence. Particularly in a historiographic sense. Again, there is historical evidence that Strang fabricated his plates (see, e.g., here and here). There is not, to my knowledge, any historical evidence that Smith fabricated the Gold Plates. Speculation and conjecture, sure, but no evidence. I think I'll give you this one. You are correct. The Hurlbut affidavits are low quality evidence, but they are there. Again, see the ten distinctions I noted above (subject to my later acknowledgments). I can't resist. I have already answered this question in substantial detail. Thanks, -Smac

I don't think I advanced this argument. I did advance this argument, and you did not substantively respond to it. Not sure I presented this argument. My interaction with you started with you comment here: I thought this was a substantial overstatement of the similarities between the Three/Eight Witnesses and the Strang witnesses. So I responded: You then reiterated your statement: I thought this was an even bigger overstatement. I responded: Not sure about that. See here: ... What is "miraculous" here? Right. But what "miraculous event" did the witnesses claim to have experienced? You responded, but in what I felt was a pretty oblique and nonresponsive way: If I were to tell you that an angel appeared to me and told me there were ancient gold plates buried behind the Creamery on 9th in Provo, 6 feet down at the precise coordinates shown to me by the angel. Would you go look? Nevertheless, I responded: I don't know. That would depend on my assessment of you. Meanwhile, let's go back to what you said: "There statement is clear that they perceived it as a sort of miraculous event." I don't see this in their statement. Can you clarify? ... I think you abuse the phrase "Mormon prophet," as I don't think Strang qualifies. But otherwise, yes, I am okay with skepticism. However, you originally said: (speaking of the Strang witnesses) : "There statement is clear that they perceived it as a sort of miraculous event." I respectfully dispute that, and have asked that you clarify. ... Again, you originally said: (speaking of the Strang witnesses) : "There statement is clear that they perceived it as a sort of miraculous event." I respectfully dispute that, and have asked that you clarify. You responded, this time referencing the "playbook" analogy: So there was some substance here (which I appreciated), but I disagreed with its fundamental premise: "Strang runs the same Smith playbook, with two different sets of metal plates, and he succeeds both times." I then laid out what I saw as ten substantive points which differentiate the Strang witnesses from the Three/Eight Witnesses: I also followed up by repeating my initial query: You responded to my Tent Points, a bit: See, I did not find any of these responses substantive. Again, "You aren't really addressing the substance of Distinction #3. There is no corollary evidence in the historical record of the Strang witnesses subsequently reaffirming their statements. I don't see what's 'tricky' about this." Again, not really a substantive response. I give you credit for this one. Not really responsive. Not really responsive. I was not really impressed with the "evidence" you alleged here. Quite an overstatement, this. Not really responsive, this. I responded in some detail here. It was at this point that you started to withdraw from the discussion with what I saw as a non sequitur: See, nobody has asked you that. What I did ask you, repeatedly, was to substantiate this statement (about the Strang witnesses) : "There statement is clear that they perceived it as a sort of miraculous event." Still haven't seen that. I responded: I am not asking you to do that, nor have I thought you were doing that previously. Instead, you seemed to be critiquing Joseph by mitigating/disparaging his "playbook" (your term) along "Yeah, well, James Strang did the same thing, so the probative weight of the Three/Eight Witnesses doesn't amount to much" lines. ... Having previously advanced arguments against the probative value of the Three/Eight Witnesses by comparing them to the Strang witnesses, you now seem to be retreating from those arguments via a non sequitur: "I'm not at all interested in defending the actions of James Strang or Joseph Smith." At this point, the discussion appears to be over. I'm okay with that. Thanks, -Smac

See the distinctions I noted above. Okay. Thanks, -Smac

I concur. But @Analytics can't really lay claim to be operating "from a naturalistic context." He has declares that A) he is a "Bayesian methodological empiricist," B) that Joseph's narrative is "just not possible," C) that "space aliens" are a "more likely" explanation for The Book of Mormon, D) that Satan/Demons are a "more likely" explanation for The Book of Mormon, and E) that Joseph made the Plates out of Tin (but also that he does not "have an opinion" about Vogel's "Joseph made the Plates and did so alone" theory) (but also that "Sidney Rigdon made the plates out of tin"), and F) that Joseph "led a conspiracy" in which he "was able to manipulate others to support him in this dishonesty"; and G) that Joseph may have fabricated two sets of Plates (one for the Three Witnesses, one for the Eight Witnesses) (I am less sure on this, as Analytics has been pretty coy about it); and H) that "any explanation" (emphasis added) "is more likely than {The Book of Mormon} being an accurate translation of an actual ancient manuscript." Analytics set aside the limitations of empiricism and naturalism behind a long time ago. I grant that those seeking to formulate a naturalistic explanation for The Book of Mormon have a tough row to hoe. Frankly, I find it fascinating that we are coming up on 200 years of Anti-Mormonism and our critics still cannot formulate a coherent alternative explanation for The Book of Mormon. Efforts so far sure seem to veer heavily into speculation that is not only evidence-free, but also contravenes extant evidence. I grant that those seeking to formulate a naturalistic explanation for The Book of Mormon have a tough row to hoe. Yes. "If." Boy, talk about putting the cart before the horse. I get that this naturalistic presupposition governs Analytics, but I don't think it necessarily overrides the data. If Joseph was misrepresenting actual events, then how do we account for the Three/Eight Witnesses, particularly those whom he barely new (Whitmer brothers + Hiram Page) and those who dissociated from him? How does we account for David Whitmer? How do we account for the Plates? Were they a cheap and obvious prop that could not withstand any scrutiny (Vogel's theory, which in turn requires him to fabricate evidence, e.g., that the Eight Witnesses only saw the Plates through a cloth)? If so, why did none of the Witnesses recant or express some reticence about the possibility of having been duped by an obviously phony object? Or were the Plates an impressive and sophisticated (but still inauthentic) prop? If so, did Joseph make them, or were others involved? If Joseph made them, where did he get the skills and money and materials? If others were involved, who were they, what did they have to gain by conspiring/colluding with Joseph, and why was this conspiracy never detected nor even hinted at? I acknowledge that Analytics has complained about evidence we don't have, but he's not accounting for the evidence we do have, at least he's not doing so in any sort of empirical, evidence-based way. Nor is he obligated to. My response is "Well, maybe. That's speculative and devoid of supporting evidence. But even if it's so, so what? We're still left with needing to account for the extant evidence. If Joseph was keen on hiding/destroying evidence, why did he go out of his way re: the Three/Eight Witnesses, particularly those whom he barely knew (such that Joseph-the-Con-Artist would have little reason to A) let them in on the con, or B) think he could get away with them keeping to their attestations for the rest of their lives)? Daniel Peterson has made what I think is a pretty good point, namely, that he have voluminous amounts of Joseph Smith's writings subsequent to the translation and publication of The Book of Mormon, including extensive private correspondence, journals, etc. Per DCP, who has reviewed a lot of these materials, there is no indication in these writings of fraudulent intent or mental impairment. Rather, the best evidence indicates that Joseph was entirely sincere in his declarations and explanations regarding The Book of Mormon. I think this creates a bit of a problem for skeptics. What substantive evidence is there that Joseph was A) insincere/cynical/conniving and/or B) mentally unsound? And in the absence of such substantive evidence (we do, after all, have quite a bit of documentary and testamentary evidence both from and about Joseph Smith), what explanation works better than "He was sincere in what he believed and declared"? Whom are you quoting here? Who is positing "obvious facts"? I'm not looking for something exhaustive or fully-developed. I recognize there are gaps in what we know (we Latter-day Saints are in that boat as well, since "the Gift and Power of God" doesn't really lend itself to analysis). I have, instead, asked for a positive, coherent (ETA: and not necessarily and "exhaustive" or "comprehensive") explanation for The Book of Mormon that accounts (ETA, again, not necessarily an "exhaustive" or "comprehensive" accounting) for the key data points (physical plates, witness statements, text origins/translation process) without heavy speculation (ETA: though an allowance for some speculation must be made), while claiming empirical rigor. Well, I think it is the absence of facts, of evidence-based reasoning and analysis, that allows a counter-theory to be dismissed as "not founded on facts." A critic can do what the rest of us do: Analyze extant evidence and draw reasonable inferences therefrom. Had Analytics, the self-proclaimed "Bayesian methodological empiricist," abstained from wild-eyed and unserious claims ("Space Aliens" and/or "Satan" and/or "Demons" are "more likely" explanations), I would be fine with his belated "I don't know" schtick. As it is, though, Analytics hauled his "I'm all about empiricism, baby!" petard into a discussion centering on extant evidence about the Gold Plates and the Witnesses, and he is now being hoisted with it. No. Principles associated with empiricism and evidentiary analysis do that. Note that even Analytics' "Joseph destroyed the evidence!" argument is itself devoid of evidence. Not on all of them, sure. But I think some critics invite that expectation, such that it becomes unreasonable for them to disregard it. As Dr. Peterson noted here: See also these comments from DCP: Now, a matter being "intellectually incumbent" on someone doesn't amount to much in the real world. But it sure tempers the persuasive capacity of our critics when all they really have is "not that." Yep. Thanks, -Smac