What They Talk About: Historical Skepticism of Mormonism

[Pyreaux]

Many threads on r/exmormon focus on Historical Skepticism. Usually, the atheists usually focus on the Book of Abraham as a core turning point. Key arguments include: Egyptian papyri clearly do not match Joseph Smith’s claims. They are standard funerary texts, none written by Abraham or from his time. LDS explanations (e.g. "missing papyri" or "catalyst theory") are often rejected as weak, contradictory, or ad hoc. 

Evangelical Christian Historical Skepticism of Mormonism

Many of the sharpest historical critiques by Christian skeptics of Mormonism hinge on standards they seldom apply to Christianity itself. Whether it's textual transmission, prophetic integrity, or archaeological backup, the same challenges exist but are often dismissed or reframed when Christianity is concerned. But the Ex‑Mormon atheists (and agnostics) explicitly take the same historical, textual, and doctrinal criticisms they used to deconstruct Mormonism and direct them at Christianity as well. Here’s how that plays out across Reddit and related discussions:

Here are five top Christian historical skepticism themes directed at Mormonism - all drawn from recent Reddit discussions on r/exmormon - with quotes from actual posts. Each theme reflects core criticism often made by Christian skeptics of Mormonism, yet many of these themes ironically apply to Christianity itself.

1. The Book of Abraham's Transmission Problems

“Joseph Smith said [papyri] were writings of Abraham... Critics... point to this as evidence that Joseph was a fraud and the Book of Abraham was a fake.” 

Why it’s ironic:

Christianity also has books and texts whose authenticity and transmission have been questioned (e.g. early manuscripts, Dead Sea Scrolls). Yet most Christian critics do not apply the same standard to their own scriptures.

2. Joseph Smith obtained a Conviction

“For me, learning Joseph Smith was a convicted conman broke any illusion I had about the church.” 

Why it’s ironic:

Christian tradition venerates many flawed figures - like Moses or Paul - who did questionable or violent acts, yet critics rarely question their divine calling in the same way. Jesus and his followers were also convicted, accused of assorted things as being drunk or winebibbers.

3. Book of Mormon Anachronisms & Archaeology Gap

Frequent atheist/Christian-aligned critique: “There is zero archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon.” 

Why it matters:

Christian critics demand a high level of external validation for Mormon origin stories, yet similar archaeological or fossil evidence remains elusive for biblical events like the Exodus, the Flood or Eden.

4. Inconsistent First Vision Accounts

Though primarily raised by atheist critics, Christian skeptics also reference contradictions:

“Different Accounts Do Not Tell a Consistent Story…” regarding Joseph’s First Vision. 

Similar irony:

Christianity relies on multiple Gospel accounts, each with similar variations to the same event. Yet critics of Mormonism rarely acknowledge similar discrepancies in the four Gospels themselves.

5. Changing Doctrines or Practices

Changes such as polygamy, priesthood restrictions, or evolving doctrine are used to discredit LDS leadership.

Ironic Parallel:

Christianity has undergone centuries of doctrinal changes - from the Trinity to justification to papal infallibility, the Reformation, and hundreds of conflicting denominations, and somehow the Church was never in apostasy.

The Tools That Broke Mormonism Broke Christianity Too

A common refrain on r/exmormon is that if you apply critical thinking to Mormonism, you soon realize the same issues exist in Christianity.

Real quotes:

“For some reason the same critical thinking skills that deconstruct Mormonism also deconstruct Christianity.”

“After deconstructing Mormonism I remained Christian … then I deconstructed the Bible … and soon lost belief in Christianity as well.” 

“There’s less evidence for Jesus than Joseph Smith … once you realize that faith is not a valid reason to believe in one, it’s not valid for the other either.” 

“Firstly, there are no first-, second-, or third-hand accounts of anything Jesus said or did. The Gospels weren’t written by eyewitnesses…” 

Comparative Deconstruction: Atheism as an Endpoint

Within broader circles, ex-Mos often say Biblical criticism is what then finishes the job:

“Once you deconstruct a religion enough to leave it … the tools … work quite well on mainstream Christian sects as well.” 

Some go further (channeling a little Hugh Grant in Heretic it seems):

“Religion is a construct … used to control the population … If a being is powerful enough to create the universe then they do not need rituals or worship. They definitely don’t need 10% of my income.” 

Why It Matters

The reason a Christian Anti-Mormon framing a topic around skepticism of historical claims, relying on historical or archaeological evidence to validate or invalidate faith, is a misplaced foundation:

We are never told our Faith was meant to be built on bones and bricks

Jesus said, “Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.” (John 20:29)

“Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” (Hebrews 11:1)

Faith is not baseless. But it also isn't always based on what is seen. Some truths are locked until the Spirit opens them. Many biblical events lack external validation. Someone leaves Mormonism because of Nephite horses, yet do they still believe in the elusive Moabite talking donkeys?

Has anyone you know ever said they were baptized because chariot wheels were found in the Red Sea?

They join after they feel something unmistakable - a divine witness. The Spirit confirms truths that no human person can give you, and no human can take it away. "...for they are spiritually discerned.” (1 Corinthians 2:14), Paul taught that “the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him.”

“Yea, behold, I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost…” - D&C 8:2 

Worldly Evidence Shifts Like Sand

Archaeological theories change every decade. What was “debunked” yesterday may be “confirmed” tomorrow. Today’s discovered tar pit someone calls “Sodom” proves nothing spiritual. Tomorrow, it may be reclassified. God doesn’t play hide-and-seek with our salvation inside dusty ruins. He sends His Spirit directly.

This Rabbit Hole Is All Consuming

Skepticism is not evil - but when it becomes the only lens through which all truth is filtered, it devours everything. Skepticism often begins as curiosity but ends in cynicism. People don’t stop at Joseph Smith - they keep going until Jesus, and even God are gone.

Discussion Questions:

Why do they expect Mormonism to be provable by secular tools when Christianity itself isn't?

If God wanted us to believe because of proof, wouldn’t He have left a very different set of scriptures?

How do you respond when someone says they no longer believe because of historical problems?

Have you ever felt the Spirit confirm something that your mind didn’t fully understand?

Why do you think God designed faith to require the Spirit instead of allowing clear, universal proof?

Edited July 31, 2025 by Pyreaux

[MrShorty]

I'm reminded of a video where Bart Ehrmann (former conservative Evangelical turned atheist/agnostic, though still prominent in the world of Biblical studies) was talking with someone (a Christian apologist of some sort or another) about evidences for the Resurrection. The apologist naturally brought up the claim that there are several different "witnesses" of the resurrection mentioned in the Bible and maybe a few extra-Biblical sources. Ehrmann pointed out that there are at least as many witnesses of a similar type for Joseph Smith's gold plates and the angel Moroni (which he amusingly pronounced Mo-ro-nee) and such. However, as Ehrmann correctly pointed out, the Christian apologists don't want to give the Book of Mormon any kind of credibility, so it seemed a bit hypocritical to accept the usual witnesses for the Resurrection while rejecting the witnesses for the Book of Mormon.

As I pointed out in the "poaching" thread, I don't have a problem with people coming to different conclusions about what is and is not scripture and the exact nature of scripture. But I usually want to discuss the issues with someone who is also willing to explore the same weaknesses in the Bible. While we are talking about the dearth of archeological evidence for the Book of Mormon, can we also talk about the absence of evidence for an exodus from Egypt, for any of the Biblical people prior to about King David? Can we have the conversation respectfully?

[Pyreaux]

4 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I'm reminded of a video where Bart Ehrmann (former conservative Evangelical turned atheist/agnostic, though still prominent in the world of Biblical studies) was talking with someone (a Christian apologist of some sort or another) about evidences for the Resurrection. The apologist naturally brought up the claim that there are several different "witnesses" of the resurrection mentioned in the Bible and maybe a few extra-Biblical sources. Ehrmann pointed out that there are at least as many witnesses of a similar type for Joseph Smith's gold plates and the angel Moroni (which he amusingly pronounced Mo-ro-nee) and such. However, as Ehrmann correctly pointed out, the Christian apologists don't want to give the Book of Mormon any kind of credibility, so it seemed a bit hypocritical to accept the usual witnesses for the Resurrection while rejecting the witnesses for the Book of Mormon.

As I pointed out in the "poaching" thread, I don't have a problem with people coming to different conclusions about what is and is not scripture and the exact nature of scripture. But I usually want to discuss the issues with someone who is also willing to explore the same weaknesses in the Bible. While we are talking about the dearth of archeological evidence for the Book of Mormon, can we also talk about the absence of evidence for an exodus from Egypt, for any of the Biblical people prior to about King David? Can we have the conversation respectfully?

I indeed had that exact video on my mind also, I had even thought to find it to link it. I think he even explains how much better evidence the evidence for Mormonism is compared to the Resurrection. There are more witnesses to the events, and they are more contemporary, more documentation. Comparatively on those issues, anything said, outside of your own subjective / spiritual experience as the reason you prefer your alternative faith, is all Special Pleading.

Bart Ehrman’s point still slaps hard, not because it discredits the resurrection or Christianity, but because it exposes how hard historic evidence alone can’t be the foundation of faith, and how inconsistent standards are a trap for any believer.

Ehrman notes:

“If you're going to believe in the resurrection because of the number of witnesses, then you should be more impressed with Joseph Smith's claims - because there are more witnesses, their names are known, and we have their actual testimonies.”

For those who don't know, Bart is an agnostic and is not endorsing Mormonism - he’s showing how Christians selectively uses evidence when it suits their theology. That’s what makes it special pleading. If we use purely historical or evidentiary methods, the Restoration arguably stands up better on certain counts. But that’s not the point - Ehrman exposes the hypocrisy - on that he’s absolutely right. Our faiths can’t rest on things like a few historical documents alone, or else we’d then have to accept any religion for which there are better historical documents.

Edited August 1, 2025 by Pyreaux

[The Nehor]

The Bible has the advantage of being from an archaeologically examined and proven millieu. They have the disadvantage that their stories from about the 6th or 7th century going backwards doesn’t have a lot of support for their story. It is hard to escape the conclusion that Yahweh was originally a storm deity of a local pantheon whose supporters vied with another storm deity (Baal) and Yahweh’s followers won. Then a hard turn to henotheism with a deity that basically had an intricate vassal contract with his people. Then dealing with the confusion of what a vassal contract means when the promised granted lands aren’t there anymore.

It is really hard to credit the idea that something like henotheism or monotheism existed and then became polytheistic before going back which is what the stories of Moses and the patriarchs would require. Or, as a history professor in college told me, any culture claiming its traditions have continued unchanged for centuries or millennia should be doubted. It rarely works that way.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

On 7/31/2025 at 1:33 PM, Pyreaux said:

If God wanted us to believe because of proof, wouldn’t He have left a very different set of scriptures?

 

I’d say that this idea is relatively new. We have contemporaneous first hand accounts of Joseph showing off Abraham’s hand writing on the papyrus. Physical proof of the divine. We have them finding the bones of Zelph the white Lamanite. Physical proof of Book of Mormon peoples. We have the prophet Spencer Kimball declaring that the indigenous people that convert to the gospel were shedding their dark skin. Physical proof of the Book of Mormon. All through history until the modern era God was willing to show physical proof. It’s only with with modern skeptical scientific lens when almost all these claims fall apart that the faithful have retreated to claims like the above. 

[Notatbm]

41 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

We have the prophet Spencer Kimball declaring that the indigenous people that convert to the gospel were shedding their dark skin. 

Makes me wonder why exactly he called George p Lee to be a seventy?? Lee wasn’t white so how could he possibly be righteous? I mean kimball believed that he even said it in conference in 1960 ish. Navajo Indians’ skin turns white as they become more righteous or something to that effect. 
 

turns out kimball’ s racist belief would have proved him right if he had just stuck with his real beliefs . They had to excommunicate Lee later on. 

[Pyreaux]

On 8/4/2025 at 11:41 AM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I’d say that this idea is relatively new. We have contemporaneous first hand accounts of Joseph showing off Abraham’s hand writing on the papyrus. Physical proof of the divine. We have them finding the bones of Zelph the white Lamanite. Physical proof of Book of Mormon peoples. We have the prophet Spencer Kimball declaring that the indigenous people that convert to the gospel were shedding their dark skin. Physical proof of the Book of Mormon. All through history until the modern era God was willing to show physical proof. It’s only with with modern skeptical scientific lens when almost all these claims fall apart that the faithful have retreated to claims like the above. 

Not quite right.

There are second-hand accounts from Joseph’s era where observers report Joseph or others saying the papyri contained the writings of Abraham "by his own hand upon papyrus." But whether Joseph Smith personally claimed to have Abraham’s actual handwriting in front of him is much less clear.

The Kirtland Egyptian Papers include headers like “The Book of Abraham, written by his own hand upon papyrus.” Phelps, Cowdery, or others may have assumed they had Abraham’s handwriting. But there is no firsthand written statement from Joseph himself says “this is Abraham’s actual handwriting.”

Papyrus doesn't last forever. In antiquity, it was common for scribes to copy older texts and retain the original author’s attribution as part of the document's tradition. For example, even if Joseph found in his time a scroll that said “The Gospel according to Matthew,” with education, and knowledge we wouldn’t expect it to be written in Matthew’s handwriting. But that doesn't mean the unsophisticated frontiersmen would know that.

But to your overall observation

The pattern is not that God gave clear, undeniable proof, but people interpreted something as peripheral evidence. The golden plates were not kept as public evidence but returned, despite being “physical proof", but being certain they were real, but not understand their meaning, we just assume every American artifact is a Nephite artifact, because we neither understood what God said, nor what future science would say.

Also, despite Anti-Mormon claims that neither Joseph nor early Saints thought the Americas had other non-Book of Mormon people in it (I think mainly claim that because they still don't know the difference between "principle" and "principal"). Their beloved Kinderhook Plates they made is historical evidence early Saints did easily believe there were others. Joseph had been shown them very briefly and made a short comment about what one symbol might mean, allegedly saying it was about a descendant of Ham through Pharaoh. The Kinderhook Plates were a 19th-century hoax, made to trap Joseph. But they were carried off to a museum and he never translated them, no account of any inspiration involved.

The Bible and Book of Mormon has a resurrected Christ appearing all over the world, but this living proof goes away, but now we excitedly think every Christ-like figure anywhere is proof Christ was there. That's not God doing that. Rather I think God inspired science to disprove what he didn't say. And refine what we do know today about what was actually said.

The fact that even inspired leaders were sometimes overly impressed by faith-promoting archaeology or ideas that later proved mistaken is not evidence against their inspiration or against God. It only appeared foolish in hindsight.

Prophets are still human who look around and see the earth is flat, and are subject to the excitement, assumptions, and limited knowledge of their time - just like you, me and anyone else. That doesn't mean their spiritual calling was invalid or that God failed. It simply means revelation is not omniscience in every field of study, all the time.

If we demand that every opinion a prophet holds be infallible, especially in matters of archaeology or science, especially when we all know they are not archeologists or scientists, then we’re expecting something God never promised us.

Science didn’t “disprove God”

It just helped clear the fog of bad ideas people tied to Him. If fact, I think God inspired the science to disprove what He didn't say. Science, then, doesn’t destroy revelation. It often sifts away false assumptions that humans attached to it.

[The Nehor]

On 8/4/2025 at 11:41 AM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I’d say that this idea is relatively new. We have contemporaneous first hand accounts of Joseph showing off Abraham’s hand writing on the papyrus. Physical proof of the divine. We have them finding the bones of Zelph the white Lamanite. Physical proof of Book of Mormon peoples. We have the prophet Spencer Kimball declaring that the indigenous people that convert to the gospel were shedding their dark skin. Physical proof of the Book of Mormon. All through history until the modern era God was willing to show physical proof. It’s only with with modern skeptical scientific lens when almost all these claims fall apart that the faithful have retreated to claims like the above. 

This.

[The Nehor]

On 8/4/2025 at 12:29 PM, Notatbm said:

Makes me wonder why exactly he called George p Lee to be a seventy?? Lee wasn’t white so how could he possibly be righteous? I mean kimball believed that he even said it in conference in 1960 ish. Navajo Indians’ skin turns white as they become more righteous or something to that effect. 
 

turns out kimball’ s racist belief would have proved him right if he had just stuck with his real beliefs . They had to excommunicate Lee later on. 

That wouldn’t have proved him right.

[OGHoosier]

On 8/4/2025 at 12:41 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I’d say that this idea is relatively new.

I disagree that the idea is new. In the New Testament you've got the Doubting Thomas pericope where Jesus praises belief without proof. See also Hebrews 11, the "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" sermon. Closer to home you've got Alma 32:16-21. The idea that uncompelled belief is privileged over compelled belief definitely pre-exists the examples you cite. The essential logic of the argument has been around for a very long time.

Edited August 6, 2025 by OGHoosier

[Notatbm]

17 hours ago, The Nehor said:

That wouldn’t have proved him right.

It had to cross his mind though like damn I knew it… ha

Any knucklehead who would say some nonsense like that in conference has got to believe it. 
 

 

[Tacenda]

This is out of the blue, but recently saw something mentioning that President McKay said he thought Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon. But maybe the person mentioning it didn't give context to this information. Now I need to double check where I saw this.

Edited August 8, 2025 by Tacenda

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

This is out of the blue, but recently saw something mentioning that President McKay said he thought Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon. But maybe the person mentioning it didn't give context to this information. Now I need to double check where I saw this.

It’s a Gregory Prince recording of a Nibley interview on an interaction he had with McKay. For another take you can see this post here from one of Nibley’s sons I believe. 

 

[CV75]

Why do they expect Mormonism to be provable by secular tools when Christianity itself isn't? Bias.

If God wanted us to believe because of proof, wouldn’t He have left a very different set of scriptures? No; He wouldn't have left scriptures.

How do you respond when someone says they no longer believe because of historical problems? I attempt a root cause analysis to arrive at the the number one reason.

Have you ever felt the Spirit confirm something that your mind didn’t fully understand? Yes; that is a testimony, and we grow into it until we comprehend even God.

Why do you think God designed faith to require the Spirit instead of allowing clear, universal proof? A minor point, but faith does not require the Spirit. It requires the light of Christ which eventually leads to pondering and praying and then a confirmation by the Spirit, which is clear, universal proof to the one receiving it. But unless this spiritual knowledge grows, it will at some point lack clarity, universality and other attributes of good proof (e.g., relevance, sufficiency, applicability upon scrutiny).

I think the reason it works this way is that the jump from what can be done with the light of Christ to what can be done with a covenant relationship with Him requires His holy priesthood and grace, which are things we cannot properly, rightly or effectively use on our own (we would screw it up, just like we do secularly and "sectarianly" with the light of Christ!). We use the light light of Christ all the time for all kinds of discovery and improved knowledge, but we cannot use the priesthood (make and keep the covenants) or assume we can access His grace for perfection and sanctification (Moroni 10:32-33) on our own.

32 Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God [priesthood, sanctification by the Holy Spirit of promise].

33 And again, if ye by the grace of God are perfect in Christ, and deny not his power, then are ye sanctified in Christ by the grace of God, through the shedding of the blood of Christ, which is in the covenant of the Father unto the remission of your sins [perfection], that ye become holy, without spot [sanctification].

Edited August 11, 2025 by CV75

[Malc]

On 7/31/2025 at 9:35 PM, MrShorty said:

I'm reminded of a video where Bart Ehrmann (former conservative Evangelical turned atheist/agnostic, though still prominent in the world of Biblical studies) was talking with someone (a Christian apologist of some sort or another) about evidences for the Resurrection. The apologist naturally brought up the claim that there are several different "witnesses" of the resurrection mentioned in the Bible and maybe a few extra-Biblical sources. Ehrmann pointed out that there are at least as many witnesses of a similar type for Joseph Smith's gold plates and the angel Moroni (which he amusingly pronounced Mo-ro-nee) and such. However, as Ehrmann correctly pointed out, the Christian apologists don't want to give the Book of Mormon any kind of credibility, so it seemed a bit hypocritical to accept the usual witnesses for the Resurrection while rejecting the witnesses for the Book of Mormon.

As I pointed out in the "poaching" thread, I don't have a problem with people coming to different conclusions about what is and is not scripture and the exact nature of scripture. But I usually want to discuss the issues with someone who is also willing to explore the same weaknesses in the Bible. While we are talking about the dearth of archeological evidence for the Book of Mormon, can we also talk about the absence of evidence for an exodus from Egypt, for any of the Biblical people prior to about King David? Can we have the conversation respectfully?

Not to be argumentative, but do we have any particular reason to believe that the usual English pronunciation of "Moroni" is any more valid that, say, the Spanish pronunciation, or Ehrmann's choice.

When I was a branch president in Scotland, my first counselor called Nephi "Nefee".

[bluebell]

9 hours ago, Malc said:

Not to be argumentative, but do we have any particular reason to believe that the usual English pronunciation of "Moroni" is any more valid that, say, the Spanish pronunciation, or Ehrmann's choice.

When I was a branch president in Scotland, my first counselor called Nephi "Nefee".

There is a pronunciation guide in the back of the Book of Mormon, but I have no idea where it came from.  

I'm assuming with the name Moroni that JS passed on the correct way to say it, since the belief is that Moroni actually introduced himself to Joseph Smith in person.

[Teancum]

On 7/31/2025 at 9:35 PM, MrShorty said:

I'm reminded of a video where Bart Ehrmann (former conservative Evangelical turned atheist/agnostic, though still prominent in the world of Biblical studies) was talking with someone (a Christian apologist of some sort or another) about evidences for the Resurrection. The apologist naturally brought up the claim that there are several different "witnesses" of the resurrection mentioned in the Bible and maybe a few extra-Biblical sources. Ehrmann pointed out that there are at least as many witnesses of a similar type for Joseph Smith's gold plates and the angel Moroni (which he amusingly pronounced Mo-ro-nee) and such. However, as Ehrmann correctly pointed out, the Christian apologists don't want to give the Book of Mormon any kind of credibility, so it seemed a bit hypocritical to accept the usual witnesses for the Resurrection while rejecting the witnesses for the Book of Mormon.

As I pointed out in the "poaching" thread, I don't have a problem with people coming to different conclusions about what is and is not scripture and the exact nature of scripture. But I usually want to discuss the issues with someone who is also willing to explore the same weaknesses in the Bible. While we are talking about the dearth of archeological evidence for the Book of Mormon, can we also talk about the absence of evidence for an exodus from Egypt, for any of the Biblical people prior to about King David? Can we have the conversation respectfully?

I saw that Ehrmann video. It was quite amusing.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

There is a pronunciation guide in the back of the Book of Mormon, but I have no idea where it came from.  

I'm assuming with the name Moroni that JS passed on the correct way to say it, since the belief is that Moroni actually introduced himself to Joseph Smith in person.

The current pronunciation guide came in 1981. It wasn’t a rigorous study of Hebrew or Egyptian or anything like that. It was mostly done to create a measure of uniformity. There was an older pronunciation guide in the early 20th century as well. Some things changed. The primary reason for it in both cases was that there were regional ‘fads’ of pronunciation that weren’t matching.

Moroni presumably would have passed on his name in an anglicized form when giving it. In the same way I doubt Jesus gave his name in Aramaic (Yehohash maybe?). In any case we don’t have any knowledge of how Joseph pronounced any of the names and he reportedly spelled out proper names in English when translating.

[bluebell]

21 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

In any case we don’t have any knowledge of how Joseph pronounced any of the names and he reportedly spelled out proper names in English when translating.

Agreed. I just assume that people contemporary to him heard him repeat the name, and then repeated it the same way when they said it.  And then so on and so on, creating an oral tradition based on JS's original pronunciation.  

[Calm]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Agreed. I just assume that people contemporary to him heard him repeat the name, and then repeated it the same way when they said it.  And then so on and so on, creating an oral tradition based on JS's original pronunciation.  

Would be interesting to listen to the earliest recordings and see what, if any, pronunciations have changed.

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

Agreed. I just assume that people contemporary to him heard him repeat the name, and then repeated it the same way when they said it.  And then so on and so on, creating an oral tradition based on JS's original pronunciation.  

I doubt it. Joseph Smith didn’t spend a lot of time teaching or preaching out of the Book of Mormon directly even if he did know correct pronunciations. Also he spelled them out during the translation suggesting he didn’t really know either. I suspect early pronunciations were mostly just people sounding it out.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Also he spelled them out during the translation suggesting he didn’t really know either.

I spell out my email address every time and I am very familiar with the sound that I intend for it to have.  Knowing someone else is likely to have a problem with a novel word is different than not knowing how to pronounce that word.

I would not be surprised in the least if Joseph was unsure of how to pronounce names.  Just saying assuming that seems too much of a stretch to me based solely on spelling the names.  Now if you are also assuming he was unfamiliar with the text…

Edited August 12, 2025 by Calm

[webbles]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I doubt it. Joseph Smith didn’t spend a lot of time teaching or preaching out of the Book of Mormon directly even if he did know correct pronunciations. Also he spelled them out during the translation suggesting he didn’t really know either. I suspect early pronunciations were mostly just people sounding it out.

It is more likely that Joseph sounded the names out first and then corrected the spelling.  One of the best evidence of that is Coriantumr.  You can see the original manuscript when that name is first seen (Helaman 1:15) - https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/original-manuscript-of-the-book-of-mormon-circa-12-april-1828-circa-1-july-1829/194  Oliver first writes "Coriantummer" which is a good estimate of how to spell it based on phonetics.  And then he crosses it out and writes "Coriantumr".  So Oliver first heard the name, and then was told its correct spelling.

Another example is Amlicites from Alma 2-3.  We don't have the Original Manscript, but in the Printer Manuscript, the first few instances are spelled "Amlicites", then it changes to "Amlikites", and then it changes back to "Amlicites".  That suggests that Joseph pronounced it as "Amlikites" (with the hard 'k') but had Oliver spell it with a 'c'.  The first time, Oliver was given the correct spelling and then a few lines later, forgot and used the more normal spelling, and then re-remembered and finished with the correct spelling.  This is also an argument that the later Amalekites (Alma 21-27) is just a misspelling of "Amlicites" which would mean that the pronunciation of "Amlicites" is much more different than what the pronunciation guide has.

[Analytics]

On 7/31/2025 at 2:33 PM, Pyreaux said:

Worldly Evidence Shifts Like Sand

Archaeological theories change every decade. What was “debunked” yesterday may be “confirmed” tomorrow. Today’s discovered tar pit someone calls “Sodom” proves nothing spiritual. Tomorrow, it may be reclassified. 

You have it backwards. When we use the tools of rationality, the truth gets sharper. For example, in the 19th century physicists thought the world was a couple million years old, because according the laws of physics as then understood, the sun couldn't have more potential energy than that. Then Darwin came around and said no, the sun must be billions of years old because we can tell from the fossil record that life on earth is billions of years old. Then came our understanding of nuclear physics, and we now know Darwin was right, the sun is billions of years old, which is consistent with the fossil record.

There are dozens of good examples of this trajectory.

On 7/31/2025 at 2:33 PM, Pyreaux said:

This Rabbit Hole Is All Consuming

Skepticism is not evil - but when it becomes the only lens through which all truth is filtered, it devours everything. Skepticism often begins as curiosity but ends in cynicism. People don’t stop at Joseph Smith - they keep going until Jesus, and even God are gone.

I don’t think "skepticism" is the right frame here. The real fork in the road is this: do you want your beliefs to match reality, or to match your community?

If you care most about truth, the next question is what tools you trust to find it. Do you use the ones with the best track record for correcting bias and predicting reality, or the ones that are basically engineered to reinforce whatever you already believe?

When people lean on the former, i.e. the tools of methodological empiricism, tested against our known cognitive blind spots, the trajectory is remarkably consistent. Whether they began as evangelical, Jewish, Mormon, Catholic, Muslim, or Southern Baptist, they converge on a naturalistic view of the world: no credible evidence for the supernatural, no surviving "god hypothesis." Call their belief systems atheism, agnosticism, humanism, naturalism, or "none," they are all in the same neighborhood. Think of Steven Pinker, Bertrand Russell, Carl Sagan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Steven Weinberg,Sean Carroll, Bart Ehrman, David Bokovoy.... While there is diversity is in the starting points, following real-world evidence in a way that overcomes cognitive biases leads to the same place.

If, instead, you want a "truth" that sidesteps these proven tools, you have the full buffet of human tradition. You can believe what you're taught in seminary. Or the Sunday school of your choice. Or the synagogue. Or the mosque. Or the psychic. Or the Wiccan. Drink the sacrament wine. Or smoke some peyote. Or climb a mountain and meditate with a Buddhist in Tibet if that is your thing. Do whatever you want and you'll get an answer, and the odds are good you'll choose the same one you set out trying to believe in the first place. Is that how God works? Or how our brains work?

Edited August 12, 2025 by Analytics

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, Analytics said:

You have it backwards. When we use the tools of rationality, the truth gets sharper. For example, in the 19th century physicists thought the world was a couple million years old, because according the laws of physics as then understood, the sun couldn't have more potential energy than that. Then Darwin came around and said no, the sun must be billions of years old because we can tell from the fossil record that life on earth is billions of years old. Then came our understanding of nuclear physics, and we now know Darwin was right, the sun is billions of years old, which is consistent with the fossil record.

Isaac Asimov wrote an essay called “The Relativity of Wrong” to deal with this common criticism:

https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~dbalmer/eportfolio/Nature of Science_Asimov.pdf

Some excerpts:

Quote

My answer to him was, "John, when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."

The basic trouble, you see, is that people think that "right" and "wrong" are absolute; that everything that isn't perfectly and completely right is totally and equally wrong.

Quote

 

In short, my English Lit friend, living in a mental world of absolute rights and wrongs, may be imagining that because all theories are wrong, the Earth may be thought spherical now, but cubical next century, and a hollow icosahedron the next, and a doughnut shape the one after.

What actually happens is that once scientists get hold of a good concept they gradually refine and extend if with a greater and greater subtlety as their instruments of measurement improve. Theories are not so much wrong as incomplete.

 

There is a kind of special pleading that hinges on everything being disprovable and therefore my theory of history that continues to look increasingly less likely the more evidence we uncover might suddenly be discovered to be absolutely true.

It is a kind of special pleading. Especially since if their skepticism is valid and good as they seem to imagine it then even if the revolution of knowledge the person wants occurs anyone would be perfectly justified in stating that this is also completely tentative and could be washed away. They want archaeology (or any other field) to be a valid field of study but only if it tells them what they want to hear.