A Secular Theory of Where the BoM Came From

[Analytics]

6 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Objectively speaking, I don't think there is anything in Smith's background that "screams" that he would be able to produce such a text.

My specific claim wasn’t that there was anything in JS’s specific background that screams he was capable of writing this. My claim is that if you look at the book, you can tell that it was written by an 18^th or 19^th Century English-speaking American protestant. 

6 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

There are many features that suggest the text has ancient Near Eastern origins.

Hold on. I thought the hypothesis was that it was written by a Mesoamerican. Now you are claiming it was written by somebody from the ancient Near East? Sure, Mormon was allegedly a descendent of people from the ancient Near East. But that was a thousand years earlier. If you trace my ancestry back a thousand years, you’d see I’m a descendent of Celts, Anglos, Saxons, Germans, and Scandinavian Vikings. But like Mormon, those are people from different cultures, from a thousand years earlier, on the opposite side of the world. If you were trying to figure out if I’m an authentic 21st century American, why would you look for clues of me being an 11th century Britain?

6 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Here is a somewhat representative sampling: (1) an entire suite of poetic parallelisms and their remarkable quantity and complexity, (2) the prophetic call formula...

Let’s get real here. Joseph Smith claimed that the Bible should only be believed to the extent it was translated correctly, but that the Book of Mormon can be believed without that qualification. Wasn’t the point of the Isaiah chapters being included to show how they were translated better than the KJV? Joseph Smith was right that there were translation (which in this context includes errors introduced by copying old manuscripts). But isn’t the issue now settled that whoever wrote the BoM not only failed to fix the errors that were in the KJV, but he also broke things that were translated just fine? And isn’t it clear that whoever wrote it was relying on the KJV with particular distrust of the italicized words.

Doesn’t that scream something to you about when it was written? 

Here’s an obvious example. After the Roman Empire fell, a monk by the name of  Dionysius Exiguus lived in the city of Rome. Dionysius was trying to calculate when Easter was when he had a radical idea. Wouldn’t it be helpful if a calendar was created that started with the first year as the year Jesus was born? He did the calculations, and decided to name that year Anno Domini 525. Over the next 500 years, this way of numbering solar years gradually spread throughout the Latin Church, and over the next 500 years after that, the idea spread to the Eastern church as well. That is how such ideas spread in the real world.

Meanwhile, in Mesoamerica they had a calendar based on cycles with 260 days, 20 days, and such. This Mayan calendar spread across the region, was widely adopted, and was used for 2000 years.

You see where I’m going with this. The Nephites not only used the old-world 7-day week, lunar month, and solar year without influencing or being influenced by the local calendars, they also adopted the Anno Domini calendar literally on the day Jesus was born, a full 525 years before Dionysius invented it, and a full thousand years before it was widely adapted in the old world. Doesn’t that scream something to you?

More fundamentally, real religions evolve over time. We could talk about how Judaism evolved or Christianity evolved as examples. But a clear one is how Mormonism has evolved over just 200 years. It started out as something very similar to Protestant Christianity, then had Kirtland-style temple worship, Nauvoo-style temple worship, Brigham Young-style temple worship, and all of the variations in temple covenants and styles since then. The second anointing and calling and election made sure were added. Polygamy was added and then removed. Blacks not being eligible for the priesthood was added and removed. The need of gathering the Saints was important and then not. Other than several spinoff groups, nobody thinks about returning to suburban Kansas City to fulfill the prophesy that the Church’s HQ is supposed to be there. The word of wisdom was revealed not as commandment and then became a commandment. Lorenzo Snow popularized his couplet, and then the Church decided is was just a couplet and abandoned the first half of it as something we don’t know much about.

My point of all that is that real religion evolves. But in the Book of Mormon, the religion doesn’t evolve. Not only is the religion static for 1,000 years, the static religion is 19^th-century American Christianity. Doesn’t that scream something to you?

Would you like to talk about the Book of Ether?

Joseph Smith (or whoever wrote it in the 19^th century) was steeped in Bible culture, and when he wrote a book that deliberately tried to sound like the Bible, to some extent he succeeded and included things like “poetic parallelism” and “the prophetic call formula.” That’s all great. But it isn’t evidence that the Book of Mormon was written in the 5^th century in America, and it whatever it’s evidence for, it’s evidentiary force is orders of magnitude less powerful than what I described above. 

6 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

But it is just very hard for me to look at the totality of the data and say that the text "screams that it was written in the 19th century America."

The Book of Mormon is full of specific prophesies about Columbus, the American Revolution, and a choice seer named Joseph, son of Joseph. But after that, the prophesy becomes vague and disappears--it doesn’t prophesy that a prophet named Spencer would extend the blessings of the priesthood and temple to everybody, regardless of race.

Doesn’t that scream something to you?

6 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

At the very least, the idea that the text "screams" 19th century authorship is obvious hyperbole.

I disagree.

Edited February 28 by Analytics

[webbles]

52 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Let’s get real here. Joseph Smith claimed that the Bible should only be believed to the extent it was translated correctly, but that the Book of Mormon can be believed without that qualification. Wasn’t the point of the Isaiah chapters being included to show how they were translated better than the KJV? Joseph Smith was right that there were translation (which in this context includes errors introduced by copying old manuscripts). But isn’t the issue now settled that whoever wrote the BoM not only failed to fix the errors that were in the KJV, but he also broke things that were translated just fine? And isn’t it clear that whoever wrote it was relying on the KJV with particular distrust of the italicized words.

The Articles of Faith were written in 1842.  That is long after Joseph Smith completed his revision of Isaiah.  And you probably have noticed that he didn't use the Book of Mormon to do that.  So, no, the Isaiah chapters in the Book of Mormon weren't intended to show that they were translated better than the KJV.  Joseph never indicated that.  And he apparently didn't even think they were the best translation since he later revised the KJV differently.

 

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

You see where I’m going with this. The Nephites not only used the old-world 7-day week, lunar month, and solar year without influencing or being influenced by the local calendars, they also adopted the Anno Domini calendar literally on the day Jesus was born, a full 525 years before Dionysius invented it, and a full thousand years before it was widely adapted in the old world. Doesn’t that scream something to you?

I don't believe there is anything in the Book of Mormon that says it uses 7 day weeks, lunar months, or solar years.  There is mention of Sabbath and end of year, but I don't recall anything that says how many days are in the week, how many days are in a month, or how many days/months are in a year.  Can chatgpt find any indication of what calendaring system is mentioned in the Book of Mormon?

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

My point of all that is that real religion evolves. But in the Book of Mormon, the religion doesn’t evolve. Not only is the religion static for 1,000 years, the static religion is 19^th-century American Christianity. Doesn’t that scream something to you?

That would be an interesting question for chatgpt.  Does it see any evolution?  How does that compare to other ancient religions?  How much would the effect be on this idea when we take into account a single abridger who maybe forcing his beliefs onto the account (similar to how much of the 5 books of Moses are modified to fit the ideas of later compilers)?  After reading histories that have been compiled by early modern Europeans, I've started to wonder how much of what is in the Book of Mormon is what actually happened vs what Mormon read into the history.  If he really existed, how many texts would he really have and how faithful would he actually follow it.  Ancient historians (even barely pre-modern historians) were very comfortable with rewriting history to fit what they want.

[Zosimus]

4 hours ago, Analytics said:

My point of all that is that real religion evolves. But in the Book of Mormon, the religion doesn’t evolve. Not only is the religion static for 1,000 years, the static religion is 19^th-century American Christianity. Doesn’t that scream something to you?

My take is that the Book of Mormon was the attempt to evolve religion to keep up with the times. It was designed to align Biblical history with the science of it's day. I have dozens of examples, but here's one that is related to your comments on the Mesoamerican calendar:

In the 1820s, the scientific consensus promoted by authorities like Humboldt, Carl Ritter and (surprisingly) Charles Anthon was that the Mesoamerican calendar was not native to the Americas. It was technology that was carried to the Americas by Indo-European migrants. In his Classical Dictionary, Anthon follows Humboldt in tracing the path of the Indo-Europeans from the IE heartland somewhere in northern India (Hindu Kush) over the Caspian Sea and the Black Sea and into Europe via the Danube, and ultimately into Mexico.

Humboldt provided a striking bit of evidence for this migration, the days of the week in the Roman, Germanic, Indian and Mexican calendars.

• Roman = 4th day of the week is associated with Mercury: mercredi in French, miercoles in Spanish etc.
• Germanic = 4th day of the week is associated with Mercury and Woden: Wōdnesdæg
• Indian = 4th day of the week is associated with Mercury and Budha: Budhavara
• Mexican = A unit of time in the Mexican calendar associated with Votan: Just read this

In 1828, the leading scholars in Europe (mostly Germany) believed that the Americas were peopled by an ancient priestly class of Samanians (Shemite Buddhists) from Egypt. Martin Harris visited the two leading advocates of this theory in America and showed them the gold plate characters. Anthon would later note that the transcript included a depicition of Humboldt's Mexican calendar.

According to Harris, both Mitchill and Anthon confirmed the characters were authentic, and the rest is history.

Quote

Would you like to talk about the Book of Ether?

Book of Ether is an even better example of alignment with the apologetic efforts of scholars like Jacob Bryant, William Jones, and GS Faber to respond to critics like Voltaire, Paine and Volney

Edited February 28 by Zosimus

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, webbles said:

That would be an interesting question for chatgpt.

I was hoping AI would do menial jobs for me so I didn’t have to clean, cook, and run errands and would have more time to study and learn and talk to interesting people. Instead everyone wants to talk to AI and I still have to clean and cook for myself.

[Calm]

6 hours ago, webbles said:

don't believe there is anything in the Book of Mormon that says it uses 7 day weeks, lunar months, or solar years. 

This article suggests they did not use solar years:

https://scripturecentral.org/archive/periodicals/journal-article/jewishnephite-lunar-calendar

[InCognitus]

15 hours ago, Analytics said:

Let’s get real here. Joseph Smith claimed that the Bible should only be believed to the extent it was translated correctly, but that the Book of Mormon can be believed without that qualification. Wasn’t the point of the Isaiah chapters being included to show how they were translated better than the KJV? Joseph Smith was right that there were translation (which in this context includes errors introduced by copying old manuscripts).

I think this is a misunderstanding of Joseph Smith's use of "translated correctly" in the 8th Article of Faith.  In Joseph Smith's day, the word "translate" or "translated" had the primary meaning of being conveyed from one place to another (as seen for TRANSLA'TE and TRANSLA'TED in the 1828 Websters Dictionary).  The correct way to say it today (in my view) is "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is [transmitted] correctly" (and apparently I'm not the only one who sees it that way).  So I don't think the exact translation (as we understand the word today) of the Bible is what is questioned as much as the completeness and accuracy of the texts that we have today.

15 hours ago, Analytics said:

But isn’t the issue now settled that whoever wrote the BoM not only failed to fix the errors that were in the KJV, but he also broke things that were translated just fine? And isn’t it clear that whoever wrote it was relying on the KJV with particular distrust of the italicized words.

How exactly is this "settled"?  A lot has been written on the Isaiah variants in the Book of Mormon (such as this one by John A. Tvedtnes), and some of the variants match with other manuscripts of Isaiah.

[InCognitus]

On 2/26/2026 at 12:42 PM, Analytics said:

Also: the best historical evidence suggests he had been practicing the underlying skill (spinning sacred-sounding narrative about ancient peoples + religious interpretation) for years before 1829. Lucy Mack Smith describes him, well before publication, giving the family extended “recitals” about ancient inhabitants—their travel, cities, warfare, and worship—i.e., exactly the kind of material that later shows up as Book of Mormon “worldbuilding.” (Joseph Smith Papers)

If someone is going to use "the best historical evidence" to explain the Book of Mormon, they really should use that historical evidence in the context it was given.

The link you provided is to page 86 of Lucy Mack Smith's 1845 History, but going back to page 79 Lucy recounts the history of Joseph Smith's first visit from the angel Moroni on the 21st of September 1823, which led to his first visit to the hill where the plates were buried (on page 84), then on page 85 Lucy describes some of the things that the angel taught Joseph during that visit, and then explained, "The following evening when the family were all together, he made known to them all which he had communicated to his father in the field, as also his finding the record, and what passed between him and the angel, while he was at the place where the plates were deposited".  She also commented that they sat up late that evening to converse upon those things together, and that they planned to hear more of what Joseph was told the evening after.  Then on page 86 (the link you provided), Lucy writes concerning what transpired the next evening, "Accordingly, by sunset we were all seated, and Joseph commenced telling us the great and glorious things which God had manifested to him".

Now we get to the part just prior to where ChatGPT repeats the common claim that Joseph Smith was a practiced story teller.  In the last paragraph of page 86, Lucy begins:

"From this time forth [from the time Joseph had his visit from Moroni, etc.], Joseph continued to receive instructions from the Lord; and we, to get the children together every evening for the purpose of listening while he imparted the same to the family." (Lucy Mack Smith, History, 1845, p.86)

Then on page 87, she describes some of the things that Joseph taught them about the instructions he had received from the Lord:  "During our evening conversations, Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined: he would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent; their dress, mode of travelling, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, and their buildings, with every particular; he would describe their <mode of> warfare, as also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life with them."

This context is essential because it coincides exactly with what Joseph Smith wrote in the Wentworth Letter about what transpired during his first visitation from Moroni on September 21, 1823.  In that letter he described being given a detailed description of the ancient inhabitants of this continent during Moroni's visit:

"I was also informed concerning the aboriginal inhabitants of this country and shown who they were, and from whence they came; a brief sketch of their origin, progress, civilization, laws, governments, of their righteousness and iniquity, and the blessings of God being finally withdrawn from them as a people, was made known unto me; I was also told where were deposited some plates on which were engraven an abridgment of the records of the ancient Prophets that had existed on this continent."  (Wentworth Letter, “Church History,” 1 March 1842, p 707)

So, people pick and choose what they want from "the best historical evidence". 

We could ignore all the context and skip the fact that Lucy Mack Smith explained that in their evening conversations Joseph was just recounting the instructions and things that the angel and the Lord had shown to him, and we could just assume (as ChatGPT absorbed from the internet) that Joseph was practicing a skill of "spinning sacred-sounding narrative[s]", or we could take the "best historical evidence" as a whole and understand that Joseph was simply recounting to his family the things he was shown by the Lord.

It doesn't take any great story telling skills to recount the things that others have shown you.

Edited February 28 by InCognitus

[Zosimus]

3 hours ago, InCognitus said:

It doesn't take any great story telling skills to recount the things that others have shown you.

Recounting things doesn’t require any story telling skills at all. Pulling off “the most amusing recitals that could be imagined” does.

[InCognitus]

31 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

Recounting things doesn’t require any story telling skills at all. Pulling off “the most amusing recitals that could be imagined” does.

This is another presumption taken out of context.  The "amusement" of those recitals had to do with the content of what was being related (Joseph recounting what he had been shown and told), not the performance of the "story teller".

i.e. "Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined: he would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent; their dress, mode of travelling, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, and their buildings, with every particular; he would describe their <mode of> warfare, as also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life with them."

He had been shown them in vision.  It would be like describing a movie that you had seen to someone else.  Simple.

[Zosimus]

57 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

This is another presumption taken out of context. 

The context literally is "Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined"

I suppose you could see it that the recitals were amusing because the material was exciting, but to me it doesn't feel like that's what she's saying

Edited March 1 by Zosimus

[InCognitus]

11 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

The context literally is "Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined"

No, the context also includes the rest of the sentence that you chopped off (which is that Lucy was talking about what Joseph was describing of what he had seen in vision) as well as the complete context of her account.

In the prior paragraph she says:

"We were now confirmed in the opinion, that God was about to bring to light something upon which we could stay our minds; or, that would give us a more perfect knowledge of the plan of salvation. and redemption of the This caused us greatly to rejoice, the sweetest union and happiness pervaded our family, and peace and tranquility reigned in our midst."

Their joy and excitement and "amusement" had to do with their anticipation of what they were receiving from God, not Joseph's assumed story telling ability.

[Zosimus]

7 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

Their joy and excitement and "amusement" had to do with their anticipation of what they were receiving from God, not Joseph's assumed story telling ability.

Like I said, I can understand your reading and I can mostly accept it. But I struggle because:

"the animals upon which they rode"

Try as I might, I can't imagine indigenous Americans riding animals. I don't buy the argument that there were domesticated horses, or that anyone was riding any animal in the Americas, at any point before Columbus. 

So I don't know how this comment could be describing a divine vision of historical events. For me, it feels like storytelling

[Calm]

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

Their joy and excitement and "amusement" had to do with their anticipation of what they were receiving from God, not Joseph's assumed story telling ability

I would not be surprised if Joseph has a gift for speaking and description when young as he seems to have had one when older, after all many saw him as an excellent preacher.  Plus he was charismatic.  That he saw the material in vision as well as provided with at least some background context (laws, etc) would give him a lot to work with to make that time come alive for the family.

I do believe the material gave him a head start, the foundation.  Being a good speaker does not mean you are creative in coming up with story lines or dialogue.

I highly doubt my family would sit around and listen to me recite stories from movies I had watched and they hadn’t no matter how interesting those movies were given I don’t tell stories or jokes at all well (get lost in the details and side tracks) even when it’s all written out for me. I can give a talk and well apparently if I am to believe people’s comments because of practice and my parents coaching me, but they never did that for narrative styles and I didn’t like performing much.

Now my husband probably could keep the family enthralled for a time…except perhaps for me because I need to know where a story is heading and while I don’t mind written humor, for some reason speaking jokes or amusing stories makes me feel very awkward (another reason I am a bad narrative speaker).

Someone can be a great storyteller, but not a good story creator. 
 

There is solid evidence imo where the material came from based on Lucy’s account.  I think the gifts of speaking Joseph likely had is a very different issue and they shouldn’t be confused. 

Edited March 1 by Calm

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

There is solid evidence imo where the material came from based on Lucy’s account.  I think the gifts of speaking Joseph likely had is a very different issue and they shouldn’t be confused. 

Very good point, and I agree.

[InCognitus]

2 hours ago, Zosimus said:

Like I said, I can understand your reading and I can mostly accept it. But I struggle because:

"the animals upon which they rode"

Try as I might, I can't imagine indigenous Americans riding animals. I don't buy the argument that there were domesticated horses, or that anyone was riding any animal in the Americas, at any point before Columbus. 

So I don't know how this comment could be describing a divine vision of historical events. For me, it feels like storytelling

Perhaps, but it could also be what Joseph Smith saw and recounted.  If only we had the details of what he said it would help.

[Ryan Dahle]

On 2/27/2026 at 6:12 PM, Analytics said:

My specific claim wasn’t that there was anything in JS’s specific background that screams he was capable of writing this. My claim is that if you look at the book, you can tell that it was written by an 18^th or 19^th Century English-speaking American protestant.

You'll notice that I address your more specific claim as well, but whether or not Joseph Smith (the presumed 19th century author) was plausibly capable of authoring the text seems obviously relevant. 

On 2/27/2026 at 6:12 PM, Analytics said:

Hold on. I thought the hypothesis was that it was written by a Mesoamerican. Now you are claiming it was written by somebody from the ancient Near East? Sure, Mormon was allegedly a descendent of people from the ancient Near East. But that was a thousand years earlier.

I'm guessing you are aware of the text's own claims about the significance of the brass plates and the perpetuation of Hebrew and Egyptian in their scribal tradition. The issue isn't about simply being a descendent of such a culture. It is about cultural factors that are intended to inculcate and preserve a certain literary/religious tradition. The text claims the Nephite religious tradition was maintained, and we certainly see instances of strong cultural/religious/literary continuity in many societies throughout the world. Assumptions, in the abstract, about how plausible this particular degree of continuity might be seem less valuable than the strong evidence of ANE literary influence in the text itself. I also think there are a number of textual details that suggest the Book of Mormon authors were being influenced by contemporaneous Mesoamerican societies. We also see realistic evolution of doctrinal concerns and articulations of such doctrine as the text develops, often in contexts where outside pressures can be discerned by the attentive reader. 
 

On 2/27/2026 at 6:12 PM, Analytics said:

Let’s get real here. Joseph Smith claimed that the Bible should only be believed to the extent it was translated correctly, but that the Book of Mormon can be believed without that qualification. Wasn’t the point of the Isaiah chapters being included to show how they were translated better than the KJV?

That seems to be a very reductive (and probably not accurate) view of how the Isaiah chapters are developed in the Book of Mormon and interpreted by the text's internally designated authors and also by Joseph Smith. The substantive changes from the KJV are actually very few. It seems rather that Nephite prophets believed that Isaiah's writings held special significance for their people and the destiny of the house of Israel (in which their own people and record would play a significant role). In addition to the lengthy quotations, Nephite prophets oftentimes interacted with Isaiah's writings in remarkably sophisticated and complex ways. Here is just one example from an article I published last year: Jacob's Use of Isaiah in 2 Nephi 6-10. 
 

On 2/27/2026 at 6:12 PM, Analytics said:

My point of all that is that real religion evolves. But in the Book of Mormon, the religion doesn’t evolve. Not only is the religion static for 1,000 years, the static religion is 19^th-century American Christianity. Doesn’t that scream something to you?

I already addressed this issue to some extent. There is evidence of cultural/religious evolution and change in the Book of Mormon. But there is also evidence that its prophets very intentionally preserved and perpetuated their people's core doctrines and faith traditions. Since we are only getting a brief glimpse of their 1000-year history, primarily redacted by a single editor, it makes sense to me that distinctions over time would be minimized while certain core items of doctrinal continuity would be maintained. We even see this in modern times as the Church has presented its own history. If you read, for example, something like the Teachings of the Presidents of the Church, you find a remarkable degree of continuity over a nearly 200 year history of the Church. It doesn't dwell on more ancillary disagreements such as the Adam-God theory. In other words, the types of changes and rates of change in societies differ based on a variety of factors. When there are strong internal forces to counteract natural pressures to evolve, and when a text is primarily compiled by just a few authors/editors who believed themselves to be part of the same core religious faith and tradition, it is not hard to imagine that something like the Book of Mormon might result. 

 

On 2/27/2026 at 6:12 PM, Analytics said:

The Book of Mormon is full of specific prophesies about Columbus, the American Revolution, and a choice seer named Joseph, son of Joseph. But after that, the prophesy becomes vague and disappears--it doesn’t prophesy that a prophet named Spencer would extend the blessings of the priesthood and temple to everybody, regardless of race.

Doesn’t that scream something to you?

It seems like you are insinuating that the Book of Mormon is essentially playing it safe--only prophesying of past events that are certainly known, but then suddenly cutting off on more dangerous prophesies of future topics. Obviously, prophecy gets into pretty ambiguous territory, since the interpretation of prophecy is often hotly contested. But one might consider that even the prophecies about Joseph Smith weren't exactly playing it safe. The text was produced before Smith had gathered a large religious following. Thus the prediction about the size and scope of the latter-day movement (i.e., it being "upon all the face of the earth") was pretty grandiose for the time. Likewise, it seems doubtful that Smith could have been certain that the witnesses of the Book of Mormon would corroborate his miraculous claims, and state that they themselves had seen the plates (plus the angel and the other Nephite artifacts in joint visionary encounters). There are also other prophecies, such as the role of the Book of Mormon in the gathering of Israel, the prophecy that the Brass Plates will go to all the world, the prophecy of the New Jerusalem, and the prophecy about Christ's Second Coming and its attending calamities. In total, there are actually relatively few specific prophecies that the Book of Mormon makes about the Latter-days. Some of them deal with content before Joseph Smith's time. Others make fairly bold (and seemingly improbable) predictions about events of the Restoration which remarkably came to pass. Others deal with events that are still yet to come. So, no, this data doesn't "scream" anything to me. I find it on the whole to be either neutral or, in some cases, moderately strong evidence in supportive of Smith's prophetic calling. 

In summary, the types of concerns you are raising do little to rebut my main points, especially when it comes to the stronger lines of evidence I mentioned (such as collective wordplay data). The Book of Mormon has many 19th-century words and phrases. And it does seem intended to focus or address many religious concerns from the Renaissance onward. But I think that can be accounted for by the nature of a divinely prepared text that was preserved and intended for our day. On the other hand, there is an enormous amount of data that just doesn't fit well in a 19th century context, especially not as coming from a 19th-century author like Joseph Smith. The fact that this data is not being responsibly and fairly dealt with is telling, imo. 

Edited March 2 by Ryan Dahle

[The Nehor]

ChatGPT told me the Book of Mormon was originally written in Reformed English by Simon Spaulding (Solomon’s cousin) and then Sidney Rigdon found the manuscript, cleaned up the text, and buried it. Later Joseph Smith found it on a treasure hunting expedition.

 

Edited March 2 by The Nehor

[Ryan Dahle]

On 2/28/2026 at 7:42 PM, Calm said:

Someone can be a great storyteller, but not a good story creator. 
 

There is solid evidence imo where the material came from based on Lucy’s account.  I think the gifts of speaking Joseph likely had is a very different issue and they shouldn’t be confused.

Yep. Virtually everyone is a storyteller on some level or another. Even if someone isn't a great storyteller, they may be able to entertain a group if the story is interesting or important enough to the audience--which seems to be Lucy's point. Her report isn't about Joseph's unique or extraordinary gift as an orator, but was simply that he was telling them such marvelous and interesting things that he learned from the angel. But even if Lucy had gone on and on about Joseph's oration skills in particular, that still wouldn't provide strong evidence that he would be able to produce the Book of Mormon. No good storyteller I have ever known would be able to produce a long, complex text like the Book of Mormon through oral dictation. It is just not the same skill. And that is the major problem with the naturalistic explanation on this front. None of the historical evidence--even details which suggest Smith may have been a decent speaker or that he may have had a good memory or that he was at least passingly familiar with the Bible--provide evidence that he was capable of producing the manifold complexity of the Book of Mormon. Few people could ever craft such a text, and within that limited group far fewer still, if any, could do so in what was essentially a single draft without substantive revisions. Nothing in the historical record suggests Smith had the specific skills necessary to accomplish this truly extraordinary feat. Extrapolating that he could, based on the available data, is just such an enormous and premature assumption.

It's somewhat like suggesting that because someone once attended a bike rodeo as a child and often rode their bike to school as a teen, they would suddenly be able to perform extreme BMX tricks at the highest level of competition as a young adult, but with the additional challenge of juggling flaming batons at the same time. Perhaps such a feat is not technically impossible. As Analytics keeps saying, people are capable of extraordinary things. But the evidence just isn't there to support the accomplishment, especially when we consider all the contrary evidence about Joseph's limitations. 

Edited March 2 by Ryan Dahle

[Kevin Christensen]

On the Lucy Mack Smith passage about Joseph being a story teller sufficient to the task of explaining the production of the Book of Mormon, there are some crucial issues to address before anyone can responsibly claim that she provides evidence that Joseph could just imagine the Book of Mormon, based on story telling talent, rather than translating an actual record.

First, remember this when considering whether the Book of Mormon screams a 19th century origin. 

Quote

“consciously or not, the decision to employ a particular piece of apparatus and to use it in a particular way carries an assumption that only certain sorts of circumstances will arise.” Kuhn, Scientific Revolutions, 59.

Consider Bacon, the Father of the Scientific Method, and what strikes him as blindingly and unquestionably obvious:

Quote

Bacon, the philosopher of science, was, quite consistently, an enemy of the Copernican hypothesis. Don’t theorize, he said, but open your eyes and observe without prejudice, and you cannot doubt that the Sun moves and that the earth is at rest.

"Don't theorize" he says, and by so doing he unconsciously explains exactly where and why he goes wrong.   "All data is theory-laden."  Hence Jesus says, judgement, criticism, discernment begins by being self-aware, examining one's own eye for beams first.  "Then shall ye see clearly."  Galileo, unlike Bacon, makes the effort to imagine what the heavens would look like to an observer on a rotating, tilted earth, that obits a sun.  And that in turn, provides a better explanation of planetary motion that did Ptolemaic astronomy.

And now, issues with the source of the famous Lucy Mack Smith quote:

Quote

Lucy Mack Smith’s A History of Joseph Smith by His Mother was dictated to a Nauvoo school teacher, Martha Jane Coray in 1845. Coray and her husband compiled the notes and other sources into a manuscript that was later published in 1853. Sharalynn D. Howcroft (an editor of Oxford University Press’ forthcoming Foundational Texts of Mormonism) stated “For example, Lucy Mack Smith reportedly dictated her history to Martha Jane Coray; however, the extant manuscript doesn’t show evidence of dictation and there are other clues in the manuscript that suggest what we have is a few generations removed from a dictated text. Additionally, scholars have presumed the fair copy was a contiguous history, but physical clues indicate it was two separate copies of the history that were combined. This kind of analysis and discovery extends our understanding beyond what the content of a historical source divulges.” See https://bycommonconsent.com/2018/01/10/qa-with-foundational-texts-of-mormonism-editors/.

So this is not a contemporary diary, a direct window into the past, but a later reminiscence that has been worked on by editors.   Here is how Ann Taves uses it:

Quote

Lucy Smith similarly attests to the vividness of Joseph’s “recitals” in which he described the “ancient inhabitants of this continent” to his family after his initial discovery of the plates in 1823. According to Lucy (EMD 1: 295– 96), he described “their dress[,] their maner [sic] of traveling[,] the animals which they rode[,] The cities that were built by them[,] the structure of their later buildings[,] with every particular of their mode of warfare[,] their religious worship — as particularly as though he had spent his life with them[.]” 

She does not address the issue of the Book of Mormon and the reports of Joseph Smith's recorded discourses failing to back up the insinuations she makes.

Quote

First of all, the Book of Mormon we have has no descriptions of people riding animals in over 500 pages that include several major migrations and 100 distinct wars. It provides no notably detailed descriptions of clothing (other than armor) and no detailed descriptions of the structure of later buildings. The most detail we get involves descriptions of fortifications with palisaded walls and ditches.

Then there is the unasked question as to why — if Joseph Smith as a youth was capable of this kind of detailed, immersive, evening-filling recital on the everyday particulars of Book of Mormon peoples and culture — do we have no further record anywhere of his performing the same service as an adult? Perhaps the closest circumstance on this topic involves the Zelph story on Zion’s Camp, but in that case the notable differences in the details recorded by the different people who reported it, even those writing close to the event, should give pause to a person trying to build an interpretive foundation on an isolated, late, anomalous account related to far longer and complex narrative than the Zelph gossip. It bears mentioning that if Joseph Smith had been telling stories about the Book of Mormon peoples, animals, clothing, and culture, such stories should have had an obvious influence on Abner Cole’s 1830 parody version, the Book of Pukei, which “tells in mocking fashion about the sorts of things that Joseph’s neighbors expected to find in the Book of Mormon.” Yet the most notable thing about the Book of Pukei is how utterly different it is from the actual Book of Mormon. The book Joseph Smith produced was emphatically not what his neighbors expected.

It is true the Book of Mormon does contain abundant details about “their religious worship” and their “modes of warfare,” but we have no other accounts of Joseph Smith’s filling anyone’s evening or afternoon with amusing or serious recitals on those topics either. Again, why not? This is not a frivolous question but one addressed to a foundation stone upon which Taves chooses to build.

https://interpreterfoundation.org/journal/playing-to-an-audience-a-review-of-revelatory-events

And there is also the related issue of the original draft of the Wentworth letter being an adaptation by Joseph Smith of an 1840 pamphlet by Orson Pratt.  See 

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/msr/vol15/iss2/8/, page 98.

Calm has mentioned Spackman's important essay on the Nephite Jewish Lunar Calendar.  There is also Jerry Grover's recent approach.

https://scripturecentral.org/archive/books/book/calendars-and-chronology-book-mormon

Regarding the claim that the Book of Mormon prophesy after 1830 becomes much less detailed, I am presenting on the topic of the restoration of plain and precious things at the Interpreter Small Plates conference at the end of May.  The paper came about when it occurred to me to collect all of the passages that describe particular teachings and ideas as "plain and/or precious" and not just stopping at the obvious passage in 1 Nephi 13:40:

Quote

So collectively, for notions designated as plain and precious in the Book of Mormon, we have a Jerusalem 600 BCE setting for Lehi and Jacob for blindness in the Jerusalem of that time as a consequence of the loss of plain and precious things and important covenants of the Lord.  Blindness is also closely associated with rejecting the mark associated with the anointing of the First Temple high priests, which anointing was to both open the eyes and made each of those Melchizedek priests “a Messiah” associated with the “redemption of the world,” that is with the Day of Atonement.  Along with blindness comes “stumbling,” (1 Nephi 13:34) “pervert[ing] the right ways of the Lord” and “hardening the hearts of the children of men” (1 Nephi 13:27).  Via Nephi’s vision, we also have a post-Christian setting for the loss of some of the plain and precious things, and covenants at the hands of the Great and Abominable church. We have pointers to the Messiah and Lamb of God and the Holy One of Israel as important titles, the theological point that “the Lamb of God is the Savior of the world,” Christ as the son of the Eternal Father, or as the Eternal Father. We have the temple as a setting for the risen Jesus teaching plainly the doctrine of Christ, of faith, repentance, the covenant of baptism, reception of the Holy Ghost, enduring to the end, and the temple mysteries. We are told plainness includes speaking out against sin. We are told of the importance both for understanding of Jewish culture, and for modern revelation, for seeing especially theophany and council visions as a contrast to blindness. We have the key symbols of the tree of life and fountain of living waters and wisdom. We are directed towards Isaiah and the Book of Revelation, both priestly temple texts, and the importance of cultural context, and the learning of the Jews and manner of prophesying, as well as ongoing revelation, to make them both plain and precious.   

The good news in Nephi’s prophesy is that after the Bible comes “forth from the Gentiles unto the remnant of the seed of my brethren” that “other books” are going to come that will convince many diverse people that “the records of the twelve apostles of the Lamb are true” (1 Nephi 13:39).

And the angel spake unto me, saying: These last records, which thou hast seen among the Gentiles, shall establish the truth of the first, which are of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, and shall make known the plain and precious things which have been taken away from them; and shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father, and the Savior of the world; and that all men must come unto him, or they cannot be saved. (1 Nephi 13:40)

The small plates offer very specific details and key words that make a distinct constellation of associated themes, symbols, concepts, consequences, divine titles, times and places that can help us identify which plain and precious things were lost and restored, and whether notable covenants have been lost and restored.  One of the last records will be the Book of Mormon, but unspecified “other books” are included which collectively come from the Gentiles to the seed of Nephi’s brethren, and also to the Jews, and will establish that “the records of the twelve apostles of the Lamb are true” (1 Nephi 13:39-41). 

This is a complex set of ideas that somehow should be related.  And the surprising thing is that they can all be related through the First Temple and the conflicts in Jerusalem 600 BCE.  And we have a witness who set about reconstructing the First Temple by drawing upon other books that have been recovered, mostly after the publication of the Book of Mormon, to explore and restore exactly these lost plain and precious things.

A key passage describing the restoration of the specific plain and precious things appears in the introduction to Margaret Barker's first book, The Older Testament:

Quote

The life and work of Jesus were, and should be, interpreted in the light of something other than Jerusalem Judaism. This other had its roots in the conflicts of the sixth century bc when the traditions of the monarchy were divided as an inheritance amongst several heirs. It would have been lost but for the accidents of archaeological discovery and the evidence of pre-Christian texts preserved and transmitted only by Christian hands.

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Tooele, UT

Edited March 5 by Kevin Christensen
grammar, correction on Galileo line

[Amulek]

On 2/26/2026 at 1:42 PM, Analytics said:

ChatGPT 5.2 Pro
Thought for 21m 14s >

I asked the same model to evaluate the OP. Here's its response:

The problem with this “ChatGPT hypothesis” isn’t that it’s secular. It’s that it’s a confidence-toned narrative that mostly says “here’s something that could have happened,” and then silently upgrades “could” to “most likely” without doing real comparison.

A few specific issues:

1. It bakes in metaphysical naturalism.
   The prompt explicitly asked for “most likely non-miraculous,” and the model obliges. That’s not “following the evidence”; it’s choosing the conclusion space up front. A method that excludes miracles by definition can never seriously evaluate a miracle claim—only redescribe it in secular terms.

2. It uses unfalsifiable psychology as a universal solvent.
   Whenever witness data is inconvenient, it invokes “group expectation,” “social pressure,” “vision language,” etc. Those may be possible, but they’re so flexible they can “explain” almost any religious testimony. An explanation that fits everything fits nothing.

3. It confuses ‘a mechanism’ with ‘the best mechanism.’
   Yes, dictation is fast. Yes, stagecraft is possible. Yes, a prop is possible. But none of that establishes probability, especially when the hypothesis must also explain why multiple insiders maintained their claims across time, conflict, and schism.

4. It ‘citation launders’ speculation.
   Notice the move: it cites reputable sources for neutral points (timeline; “seer stone in a hat”), then slides from those citations into high-speculation claims (“prop plates,” “sealed portion hides blanks,” “controlled tactile encounter,” “performative show”) that the citations do not actually establish.

5. It ignores the strongest counter-question:
   If Joseph could author it by improvisational dictation while also running a long con with props and witness management, why doesn’t the historical record show clearer seams of planning, drafts, leaks, or co-conspirator collapse proportional to the scale of the alleged fraud?

Bottom line: the AI answer is a coherent story, not a demonstrated conclusion. If you start by ruling out divine action, you’ll always end with a purely human mechanism—because that’s the only category you allowed.

---

Shortcomings of using “ChatGPT” as an authority in this debate

These are the vulnerabilities you can point out without getting bogged down in minutiae:

1) “Deep research” ≠ “truth machine.”
OpenAI explicitly warns that ChatGPT can produce incorrect or misleading outputs and should be checked rather than treated as authoritative.

2) It’s extremely sensitive to the prompt’s framing and hidden instructions.
If you ask for “most likely non-miraculous,” you don’t get a neutral evaluation—you get a best-sounding naturalistic synthesis. And if the user has custom instructions set (or a long chat history steering tone), outputs can drift further.

3) It often outputs “narrative probability,” not measured probability.
Language models are optimized to produce coherent, persuasive explanations. That can feel like “validation,” but it’s not the same thing as weighing primary sources, resolving contradictions, and quantifying uncertainty.

4) It can “source-name drop.”
Models commonly cite real institutions while making nearby leaps those sources don’t support. Readers then unconsciously transfer credibility from the citation to the speculation.

5) It will default to methodological naturalism unless asked not to.
Not because “atheism is true,” but because most modern historiography and most of its training data treat miracles as not directly testable. So it tends to translate miracle-claims into psychological, sociological, or literary mechanisms.

 

[Zosimus]

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

asked the same model to evaluate the OP.

What was the prompt you used?

[Amulek]

13 hours ago, Zosimus said:

What was the prompt you used?

Lost to my many deleted throw-away chats already. 

The main point I was trying to make is that AI is inherently limited when it comes to these sorts of questions. 

AI can't actually weigh sources with a transparent methodology; it doesn't model different frameworks in a defensible way; and it certainly doesn't resolve conflicting data the way a historian would (e.g., this account is late, this one is hostile, etc.). 

Instead, it tends to default to what its training data makes most available and narratively compressible - which, spoiler alert, is often going to correlate to what is popular online, not what is best-supported. 

As others have pointed out, it's also very vulnerable to prompt framing. So, even if your prompts says, "don't assume all these points are true," the mere presence of those points steers the answer that direction. 

While I believe AI may be the most transformative technology that comes along during my lifetime, certain questions are going to require us to find the answers on our own. 

 

[Tony uk]

My own understanding of AI, which I admit is limited. It can only operate within the realms of how it has been programmed. Where as a human can operate on existing knowledge, as well as search for further knowledge and understanding.

[smac97]

On 3/3/2026 at 8:32 AM, Amulek said:

Lost to my many deleted throw-away chats already. 

The main point I was trying to make is that AI is inherently limited when it comes to these sorts of questions. 

AI can't actually weigh sources with a transparent methodology; it doesn't model different frameworks in a defensible way; and it certainly doesn't resolve conflicting data the way a historian would (e.g., this account is late, this one is hostile, etc.). 

Instead, it tends to default to what its training data makes most available and narratively compressible - which, spoiler alert, is often going to correlate to what is popular online, not what is best-supported. 

As others have pointed out, it's also very vulnerable to prompt framing. So, even if your prompts says, "don't assume all these points are true," the mere presence of those points steers the answer that direction. 

While I believe AI may be the most transformative technology that comes along during my lifetime, certain questions are going to require us to find the answers on our own. 

This thread started with this: 

Quote

I generally don't feel the need to explain the "miracle" of how the Book of Mormon was produced anymore than @smac97 feels the need to explain the miracle of how John Keats wrote his poetry.

This is interesting.  I do indeed feel no such obligation generally.  However, if I were to publicly declare that Keats was not the author of the poetry attributable to him, then I think it would be more or less intellectually incumbent on me to explain my position, the evidence and analysis therefore, and my alternative explanation as to who did write the poems.  They came from somewhere, after all.

Quote

But he expressed interest in seeing such an explanation, so I decided to pose the question to ChatGPT 5.2 Pro.

My "interest in seeing such an explanation" arose in this thread, which was only tangentially related to the topic of competing theories for the origins of The Book of Mormon.

And my inquiry was not about getting a competing theory from ChatGPT - which any of us can do - but to request that @Analytics lay out his reasoning.  It is his perspective I am interested in exploring, not a series of queries submitted to an LLM.

In the other thread, I had noted that Analytics had, in this 2021 discussion, posited, without evidence, that "Sidney Rigdon made the plates out of tin," and/or that "the angel was really an alien doing an anthropology experiment on Joseph Smith," and/or that "the devil conjured up the plates" as all being "more likely" than the explanation given by Joseph Smith, which he (Roger) said is "just not possible."  "{A}ny explanation," Roger said, "is more likely than {The Book of Mormon} being an accurate translation of an actual ancient manuscript."

This "anything but that" approach has been utilized by critics of The Book of Mormon since at least 1945 (though honestly, its origins go back to Joseph's day).  See, e.g.,  here (from Daniel Peterson) :

Quote

The most serious contemporary criticisms of the Book of Mormon and of Mormonism more broadly tend to come not from self-proclaimed orthodox (i.e., usually Evangelical) Christians, but from self-identified atheistic materialists or naturalists. The Utah-based historian Dale Morgan, largely forgotten today but still much admired in certain small contemporary circles, wrote a 1945 letter to the believing Latter-day Saint historian Juanita Brooks. In it, he identifies the fundamental issue with unusual candor:

Quote

With my point of view on God, I am incapable of accepting the claims of Joseph Smith and the Mormons, be they however so convincing. If God does not exist, how can Joseph Smith’s story have any possible validity? I will look everywhere for explanations except to the ONE explanation that is the position of the church.

...

A similar situation obtains, in my judgment, with regard to the Book of Mormon and certain other elements of the Restoration. While, for instance, this or that aspect of the Book of Mormon can, hypothetically, be accounted for by means of something within Joseph Smith’s early nineteenth-century information environment, a fully comprehensive counterexplanation for Joseph’s claims remains promised but manifestly unprovided. Critics have disagreed over the nearly two centuries since the First Vision about whether Joseph was brilliant or stupid, whether he was sincerely hallucinating or cunningly conscious of his fraud, whether he concocted the Book of Mormon alone or with co-conspirators (their own identity either hotly debated or completely unknown), whether he was a cynical atheist or a pious fraud defending Christianity, and so forth.

This was the basis for my challenge/invitation/request to Analytics.  I am fine with critics providing alternative theories for the origins of The Book of Mormon, but I think it is, as DCP put it, "intellectually incumbent" upon them to present something more than - as Analytics has - an "anything but that" theory, which is how we end up with a person of Analytics' formidable intellect being reduced to groundless speculation about space aliens and/or Satan.

I will here acknowledge that my challenge/invitation/request to Analytics was a bit direct:

Quote

The Book of Mormon exists.  The text exists and must be accounted for.

The statements of the witnesses must be accounted for.

The Plates must be accounted for.
...
You have no alternative explanation for things that really do need to be explained.  Your supposed rationalist position doesn't do that.  And to the extent it does, you posit that space aliens and Satan are "more likely" explanations for the Book of Mormon than Joseph's narrative and the statements of the witnesses.
...
When all is said and done, though, you fail, and fail significantly, when you refuse to meaningfully engage the points Daniel Peterson and others have been raising for years about the Book of Mormon, particularly A) the physical reality of the Plates, B) the statements from the Three and Eight Witnesses, and C) the source/authorship of the text. 

You state above that you are "rationally justified in rejecting that explanation without being obligated to provide" a plausible, coherent, evidence-based alternative explanation for these things.  It seems that the best you can come up with is Space Aliens and/or Satan.  Or even worse, you are not even willing to try. 
...
I cannot claim to match the scope and breadth of DCP's reading and knowledge, but I have read quite a lot, and I have listened quite a lot.  I have spent many years trying to give critics of the Church a fair hearing.  And in all those years and despite all that effort, I have been unable to find a critic who, as DCP put it, can "construct a case or construct an explanation of the Book of Mormon other than Joseph Smith’s that really accounts for all the data."  Your "Space Aliens or Satan" thing is just the most recent iteration of the inability of critics to do this.
...

You have previously asserted (as opposed to "shown" or "demonstrated") that "the evidence against the Book of Mormon" is "quite literally overwhelming."  So overwhelming, then, that you needn't even bother marshalling it when discussing the topic with someone who has, for some years now, demonstrated a fairly broad and substantial familiarity with the subject matter, and who has also spent many years listening to what critics like you have to offer by way of reasoning and evidence.

During this time I have also given the Church and its advocates a fair hearing.  Broadly speaking, what they have offered has been far more substantive and evidence-based than what you and yours have done.  Regarding alternative explanations for the Book of Mormon (which, again, you posit as having "quite literally overwhelming" evidence as to naturalistic origins), I think DCP is quite correct when he characterizes your offerings as "a Rube Goldberg sort of contraption where there’s just so much that’s been built into this to make the device work that it gets to be ridiculous."
...
You likewise "refuse to engage" Latter-day Saints "on an intellectual level" as to A) the physical reality of the Plates, B) the statements from the Three and Eight Witnesses, and C) the source/authorship of the text.  Instead, you declare that "the evidence against the Book of Mormon" is "quite literally overwhelming."

Whelp.  Okey doke.  Dan Peterson.  Bill Hamblin.  John Tvedtnes.  Don Bradley.  Stephen Smoot.  John Gee.  Kerry Muhlestein.  Brian and Laura Hales.  Matt Roper.  The list of Latter-day Saint scholars who have made meaningful contributions to substantiating the claimed origins of the Book of Mormon is quite long, and I find those cumulative efforts to be quite good.  Evidence-based.  Reasoned.  Persuasive.

In contrast, if undemonstrated assertions and "Space Aliens and Satan are 'More Likely'"-style are the best you can do, I'll leave you to it.  Meanwhile, what Owen said back in 1999 is orders of magnitude more correct than it was then: "{Latter-day Saints} are defending their truth claims on historical grounds," whereas their critics - including you - "would have us refuse to engage them on an intellectual level."
...
I give plaudits to Dan Vogel and Ann Taves, even though I find their alternative explanations to be underwhelming and insufficient to address, as DCP put it, "all the data."
...
I think you refuse to commit to any alternative explanation because you do not want to end up having to defend it, likely because you anticipate your alternative explanation will fail, that you will be hoisted by your own "I'm all about the empiricism" petard.

Analytics declares himself to be "a Bayesian methodological empiricist."

Also Analytics: Space Aliens and/or Satan are "more likely" explanations for The Book of Mormon than Joseph's narrative.

Analytics ostensibly started this thread in response to my inquiry about his preferred explanation for the origins of The Book of Mormon, preferably one that is based on as much evidence / data / empiricism as he can muster.  So far, though, all he has presented in a protracted introduction to the musings of ChatGPT, and not his own views.

Again, I suspect that Analytics refuses to commit to any alternative explanation because he does not want to end up having to defend it, likely because he anticipates that his alternative explanation will falter under the sort of "empirical" scrutiny to which he claims to be devoted, that he will be hoisted by his own "I'm all about the empiricism" petard.

In my view, the various explanations for A) the physical reality of the Plates, B) the statements from the Three and Eight Witnesses, and C) the source/authorship of the text can be reduced to three categories, sort of akin to C.S. Lewis's well-known "trilemma," explained here:

Quote

I'm surprised I've never really thought about this before.  First, let's review what the trilemma is:

Quote

Lewis's trilemma is an apologetic argument traditionally used to argue for the divinity of Jesus by arguing that the only alternatives were that he was evil or deluded. (Strictly speaking, Lewis is not trying to prove the divinity of Christ but is merely arguing that one cannot simultaneously affirm that Jesus was a great moral teacher and not divine.) One version was popularised by University of Oxford literary scholar and writer C. S. Lewis in a BBC radio talk and in his writings. It is sometimes described as the "Lunatic, Liar, or Lord", or "Mad, Bad, or God" argument. It takes the form of a trilemma — a choice among three options, each of which is in some way difficult to accept.

It seems this trilemma can be adapted to apply ... {to} The Book of Mormon {as being} either A) the work product of an insane/deluded person ("Lunatic"), B) the work product of a duplicitous, dishonest person ("Liar"), or C) what it claims to be: an ancient prophetic record preserved and translated "by the gift and power of God" ("Lord").

Analytics appears to have a somewhat similar, but still divergent, perspective on these options.  From this post of his in 2022:

Quote

I'm suggesting that the explanation of this falls into one of three broad categories:

1- There is a supernatural explanation, e.g. an angel (or demon or alien) gave Joseph Smith the plates and then took them away.

2- It was an elaborate, expensive, and skillful hoax, and Charles Anthon himself would have thought the plates were authentic had he been given the chance to examine them.

3- Some other natural explanation involving some combination of lies, manipulation, half-truths, good intentions, gullibility, etc.

When looking at each category one by one, all three are unlikely. However, one of them must be true. I think category 3 is the least unlikely.

This last statement ("I think category 3 {'Some other natural explanation involving some combination of lies, manipulation, half-truths, good intentions, gullibility, etc.'} is the least unlikely," coupled with "one of {the three categories} must be true") is about as close as I recall seeing Analytics staking out a position.  However, "some other natural explanation" is conveniently devoid of evidence, analysis, and so on.  Not much "Bayesian methodological empiricis{m}" on display.  And this thread is not much of an improvement.  Just generic churned-out-from-an-AI-platform stuff that Analytics can conveniently distance himself from if it turns out to be susceptible to the very "empiricism"-based scrutiny to which he declares himself devoted.

So I'm hoping we can set aside discussion about what ChatGPT "thinks," both because Ryan and Amulek have raised some very good critiques of that, and also because that is not what my inquiry was about.  I am, instead, interested in hearing what Analytics thinks as far as a plausible alternative (and presumably, but not necessarily, naturalistic) explanation for 

A) the physical reality of the Plates,

B) the statements from the Three and Eight Witnesses, and

C) the source/authorship of the text.

And while he's at it, I also hope that Analytics explain how he reconciles his claim to being a "a Bayesian methodological empiricist" with his acknowledgment of possibility of "a supernatural explanation, e.g. an angel (or demon or alien) gave Joseph Smith the plates and then took them away."  More recently, he has said that the "demon or alien" explanation (or, as he put it in 2021, "the angel was really an alien doing an anthropology experiment on Joseph Smith," and/or that "the devil conjured up the plates") is "more likely" than Joseph's narrative (which, per Analytics, is "just not possible").  I am really curious as to the reasoning, "empirical" or otherwise, for this claim.  Space Aliens or Satan are possible, but Joseph's narrative is "just not possible" at all?  At all?

I hope he lays out his reasoning, his evidence/data, his "a Bayesian methodological empiricis{m}," the whole Kit 'n Kaboodle.  If he does, I will be deeply impressed and appreciative.  If he does not, well, he'll join the ranks of pretty much every other Anti-Mormon who, when the chips are down, simply have nothing substantive to offer.  This is in stark contrast to the last many decades of Latter-day Saint scholarship and apologetics, which offer a lot.  As I noted back in 2022 (and 2020) :

Quote

Quote

Daniel Peterson and Bill Hamblin are addressing the evidence.  They are addressing the ramifications of divergent opinions about the origins of The Book of Mormon.  The LDS Church{'s position} is that Joseph Smith was telling the truth.  That explanation, while audacious, is nevertheless "simple and elegant."  In contrast, alternative naturalistic explanations "just don't work and they get more and more complex," to the point of implausibility (and operating well beyond any notions of supporting evidence).  Dr. Peterson, noting this implausibility to a critic, got a response of "I don’t have to lower myself to your simplistic little dichotomies.”

Here we're getting a response ("I'm not sure we're even speaking the same language") that is saying pretty much the same thing.  It's a refusal to address the evidence.  A refusal to explore and acknowledge the ramifications (and, frankly, the flaws) in the alternative naturalistic explanations for The Book of Mormon.  

Of course, the critics/opponents of the Church are not obligated to provide a coherent counter-explanation for The Book of Mormon.  But the point is, they have not been able to.  We're coming up on nearly 200 years since the original publication of the text, and yet when the chips are down, and when a well-informed person like Daniel Peterson (or Ryan Dahle) argues for the plausibility of the LDS position, we don't get reasoned responses and rebuttals.  We get glib sarcasm.  We get curt dismissals.  We get anything but an engagement of the evidence.

This is part of why Daniel Peterson "can't manage to disbelieve," and why he suggests to critics (correctly, in my view) that "it’s intellectually incumbent upon people like that to, come on, give us an answer to this. Otherwise it’s like guerrilla warfare. You attack and attack and attack, you always withdraw, you never defend territory. You never have to stake out your own explanation, which then will be subject to criticism and attack."

This is likely why Ryan Dahle seems to be suggesting, in the absence of a coherent counter-explanation re: historicity, "the evidences in favor of faith are collectively better than the current competing arguments."

That you disagree with this conclusion is fine.  That you are incapable and/or unwilling to demonstrate a superior alternative explanation, though, and that you must in the end resort to ridicule rather than substantive reasoning and evidence, is interesting to me.

We've been going the rounds about this stuff for many years now, so it's not like Analytics hasn't had plenty of time to formulate a superior alternative explanation for The Book of Mormon.  That he has not, or will not, do so, despite his formidable intellect and knowledge of Latter-day Saint doctrine and history, is interesting to me.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited March 9 by smac97

[Ryan Dahle]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

We've been going the rounds about this stuff for many years now, so it's not like Analytics hasn't had plenty of time to formulate a superior alternative explanation for The Book of Mormon.  That he has not, or will not, do so, despite his formidable intellect and knowledge of Latter-day Saint doctrine and history, is interesting to me.

It's sort of funny. Over the years, as I have observed critics of the Church try to grapple with this data, it has actually strengthened my testimony to some degree. Every time they deflect (try to avoid the positive evidence simply by highlighting more negative evidence) or resort to generalized explanations that rely on "coincidence" or on the claim that humans are capable of "extraordinary" things, I become increasingly convinced that they actually just don't have good answers for many of these lines of evidence.

To me, the fact that they can't admit that is somewhat telling. Sometimes you just have to acknowledge that your worldview can't currently accommodate certain types of data very well, and that opposing arguments are not only understandable but may be superior on those grounds. There are all sorts of things that LDS believers can't fully explain, and which at least on the surface appear to be contradictory or problematic for our worldview. So we try to grapple with those problems, pry into the underlying assumptions or traditional approaches that have been used to frame them, and explore various possible solutions. Yet, even then, we sometimes have to just admit that we don't yet have a good answer or explanation for something. But for us, that is okay. We don't have to win every battle. We don't have to have overwhelming proof, or be able to demonstrate that opposing viewpoints are obviously and categorically wrong in virtually ever way. We just need reasonable space to believe, which simultaneously allows room for faith (which I see as trusting in the spiritual evidence we have been given and continuing to seek it). It is a much more modest intellectual position. 

In contrast, it seems many critics of the Church are hypersensitive on this front. It isn't enough for the Church to be plausibly wrong. It has to be dead wrong--in a way that is so obvious that it is almost laughable. Belief can't be seen as a live option on the table that reasonable and competent people can take. It has to be a very firmly closed door. I think this is partly because anything less would very personally open them up to accepting that the Church could plausibly be true, depending on which arguments and supporting data and assumptions turn out to be correct. And I think that is just a very threatening proposition for a lot of reasons, probably many of them unique or personal to the individual. So what we see is that even in areas where the Church's truth claims have an obvious advantage (like the Three and Eight Witnesses or the complexity of the Book of Mormon), that advantage can never be admitted. Critics can't just say, "Oh, wow, that is pretty good evidence. While it isn't quite enough for me, I can see why reasonable people would find it fairly compelling, especially if they are having regular 'spiritual' experiences that they feel bring them peace, joy, and goodness in their lives." That just isn't a space that many critics can intellectually be in. It is too threatening to their worldview. 

To be clear, I'm not saying everyone who rejects the Church's truth claims feels this way. But it is a very pervasive attitude and paradigm adopted by (usually) the most vocal critics of the Church who engage on online platforms. 

Edited March 3 by Ryan Dahle