A Secular Theory of Where the BoM Came From

[Ryan Dahle]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

My problem with genocide as opposed to cancer is what killing does to the person doing the killing.  With cancer, other humans may ignore it in others and if evil, may even encourage behaviour they know raises the risk of cancer (‘cough’ smoking ‘cough’) for personal and corporate gain, but typically there is compassion for those who suffer from such and even charitable attempts to help.

The act of genocide, mass killing of a certain group of people, would have so few ways to look at it as a compassionate act, especially if one is up close and personal at the time of dying and after death.  The psychological effect of genocide on the individual killers (even if following orders) and on any survivors….I don’t see that as any way being uniquely helpful to someone’s salvation.

I can come up with rationales of why a loving, all powerful God would set up the world such that disease and natural disasters are rampant and to allow men to have the choice of slaughtering their fellow humans or not, but taking it further and actually God encouraging them to slaughter an entire people seems quite unlikely.  If it’s about removing influence that will corrupt their souls and cause more harm than death, then why hasn’t this been applied more consistently by God?  Plus in the Bible, I don’t believe there are any actual situations where one can point to and say that sin no longer occurred among the Chosen people because they had wiped out their neighbors leading them astray.  It seems low effectiveness for increasing righteousness.  Very high cost with low benefits…God seems too wise to me to use this method to bring his children back to his side.

Oh, I agree, in principle. And I'm not sure what the best solution to the scriptural accounts is. I can see how there may be wild inaccuracies in the Canaanite conquest story. And if there are, I don't think that poses a significant threat to our theology. Nothing of doctrinal or historical significance rests on the perfect accuracy of those accounts. On the other hand, there are a number of things that God is doing in the OT that seem difficult to fully explain. The flood. The destruction of Sodom. The story of Achan. There is just a lot of killing of the wicked in various contexts. Plus the allowance for slavery/servitude. And then there is polygamy, with concubines. And so on. It is hard to know what to do with it all. A lot of it can be historically inaccurate. I think that really is a live option for some of these OT stories. But then we have things like 3 Nephi that sort of confirm that God himself seems to take an active role (i.e., directing nature) in destroying the wicked. There are also the prophecies of eschatological destruction in the Latter days that seem to fit the same pattern. Which brings up some uncomfortable questions. If wholesale destruction of the "wicked" is justified in certain circumstances, can we really be sure God would NEVER command something like the Israelite conquest. In other words, can we be confident God wouldn't ever ask his followers to do something that he himself seems willing to do under some circumstances. 

I think your response and revulsion is wise. It does seem high cost with low benefits. It doesn't seem like a wise choice to have humans carrying out that degree of divine justice, ESPECIALLY if it involves the killing of innocent children. It isn't just the psychological and social trauma. It would also be the feeling of guilt--of being told to do something that, to one's own intuition, seems so utterly and totally and obviously wrong. There is also the huge potential for misunderstanding, where people assume that because God commanded it in a limited circumstance, then that means it is a good thing in principle, or that one should take joy in it, or that similar actions can be carried out indiscriminately, and so on. 

And, yet, on a different (usually lesser level), I think very similar objections can be made about other directives that I think God almost certainly did give. Take plural marriage for example. Look at the personal cost. Look at the heartache. Look how it turned so many people against Joseph Smith and against the Church. Look how it is still affecting people today, how it becomes a significant stumbling block to faith. Look at how many people got the wrong idea, thinking they could just implement the practice as they see fit (not directed by presiding keys). Look how hard it was when the practice was discontinued. From many perspectives today, so many things would have been so much better and simpler if God simply would have never instituted the practice. In other words, one can easily conclude that God is too wise to use such a poor method to bring his children back to his side. There are too many negative effects and they outweigh any of the positives. Likewise, did Nephi REALLY need to kill Laban. Think of the harm that likely caused him. The guilt. The trauma. The knowledge that he literally decapitated a defenseless man. God could have struck Laban dead, just like he killed the Lamanite who was about to slay Ammon. Yet he didn't. God made Nephi do his "dirty work" so to speak. It must have been a horrifying and revolting experience, one that from the available data may not seem good or necessary.  

To be clear, I don't personally hold that view. I absolutely believe the command to practice plural marriage was from God and that Nephi was commanded to kill Laban. But I can sympathize with those who struggle to make sense of these and other commands. My point is just that on some level or another, this is always the fundamental problem. It always seems, to our mortal perspective, like a different approach could have been more ideal. I'm not saying you are wrong about the genocide issue.  But it just seems helpful to recognize that it is ultimately the same underlying type of problem across the board. Some topics just hit us harder than others. At least, that is how it seems to me. 

 

[Ryan Dahle]

5 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

An eternal perspective can make a huge difference.  I recall a NDE account of a woman who had an experience on an operating table while she was pregnant.  During her experience, she was told by a Godlike, loving being, that he would be coming to get her baby in a few days.  In that situation, her joyous response was, "You mean, I GET to let my baby go with you!"  And of course, LDS teaching is that she will also be able to raise the child after the resurrection.   I can also recall listening to another NDE account by a Russian scientist, who finding himself on the other side, and meeting his parents, and hearing from them that they had not abandoned him as a child, but had been assassinated by the KGB.  In that setting, he felt joy and relief in that new understanding.  Since he was talking to them, they clearly were not permanently gone, but present and eager to show their love.  Nibley's paper on The Book of Enoch as a Theodicy explores that kind of thing.  Our whole story is not told in this life.  And that makes a difference.  Consider people slaughtered by Genghis Chan or Hitler, or the 1918 pandemic, or small pox, or the plague.  Where are they now?  Are they stuck eternally in the worst moment, defined by pointless pain, endlessly defining an accusation against God, or, have they moved on?

And on what life would be like if an omnipresent and all powerful being was bent on making sure no harm came to any human, try Jack Williamson's Humanoid stories, starting with the SF Hall of Fame novelette, "With Folded Hands", and then the novel, "The Humanoids" followed by "The Humanoid Touch."  The I Robot movie with Will Smith adopted the Humanoid's logic, rather than Asimov's three laws, but doesn't go deep enough into what life would be like if you were prevented from doing anything at all that might lead to any risk or possible emotional distress.  I emerged from those stories with a deep sense of revulsion, and have been haunted by a nightmare sense of the horror of it.  The stories were rooted in Williamson's childhood in Arizona, when his mother was so fearful that snakes or scorpions or coyotes might get him, he was for a very long time, kept in a baby pen, where there was literally nothing to do but sit with folded hands.  

Oh I completely agree. I think, at the deepest level, the issue is really most about probing the limits of human knowledge. How ignorant are we, really? What might we not know that could change the eternal calculus on the morality of any given action? How willing are we to explore and entertain the depth and breadth of those possibilities, not necessarily to find the answer but to open ourselves up to all possible answers. 

To me, the underlying problem is best and most effectively resolved on that deepest epistemological level. 

Edited March 5 by Ryan Dahle

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

In other words, can we be confident God wouldn't ever ask his followers to do something that he himself seems willing to do under some circumstances

Would the cost of psychologically twisting and traumatizing his followers be worth it when there were plenty of other ways to destroy people for God if we assume your premise he punishes the wicked himself at times, such as the plagues of Egypt (which I am okay with assuming)?  Why would genocide be the best option in this case?  More likely to create more evil than remove it, it seems to me, even just from reading scriptures.  Add to what we see in history, when was there ever good fruit from such tactics…a more righteous, compassionate, faithful people remaining?

How much easier will it become for his people to treat outsiders not with the love and compassion that Christ taught, but with disdain, seeing the stranger’s life as worthless, the cultures who worshipped other gods as apostate and therefore worthy of death or slavery, how much easier would it become for them to view disagreement as a sign of evil when genocide because a godly response in a culture?

Edited March 5 by Calm

[Ryan Dahle]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

Would the cost of psychologically twisting and traumatizing his followers be worth it when there were plenty of other ways to destroy people for God if we assume your premise he punishes the wicked himself at times, such as the plagues of Egypt (which I am okay with assuming)?  Why would genocide be the best option in this case?  More likely to create more evil than remove it, it seems to me, even just from reading scriptures.  Add to what we see in history, when was there ever good fruit from such tactics…a more righteous, compassionate, faithful people remaining?

How much easier will it become for his people to treat outsiders not with the love and compassion that Christ taught, but with disdain, seeing the stranger’s life as worthless, the cultures who worshipped other gods as apostate and therefore worthy of death or slavery, how much easier would it become for them to view disagreement as a sign of evil when genocide because a godly response in a culture?

I agree with all of this. My point was just that similar lines of reasoning and objections can be used for other actions that we probably both believe God commanded to be carried out. So the question is whether the same essential strategies that we use in those circumstances couldn't also be used for this one. If we take Nephi, for example. Why did God instruct him to kill a helpless drunk? Look at the precedent the story provides at the opening of our most foundational scriptural text. Look at the trauma it probably caused for Nephi. God surely could have carried out the deed himself. Or, using his omnipotent wisdom and inexhaustible creativity, he could have found a more ideal solution (from our perspective). 

Edited March 5 by Ryan Dahle

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

we take Nephi, for example. Why did God instruct him to kill a helpless drunk? Look at the precedent the story provides at the opening of our most foundational scriptural text. Look at the trauma it probably caused for Nephi. God surely could have carried out the deed himself.

Yes, but I see it differently with individuals where God can control severity of reaction with choosing who he requires and why and how it was done.  If Nephi is accurate in his description, Nephi was reluctant, not made bloodthirsty, mindless or otherwise high on adrenaline by the rage of war.  He had time to process what he was doing and why it was needed before engaging in the act.  The Spirit was with him quite strong at the time and it likely had a protective effect. 

Plus he had the very, very significant experience of Laban trying to have him and his brothers killed earlier.  This was a man with known murder in his heart, not a woman who never even thought of harming him or a child.  Much easier to frame it in his head as a just execution rather than a killing on command.  The outcome is unlikely to be a greater bigotry against others even if it became easier for Nephi to justify extreme actions (I can’t think of any that he recorded from later in his life, he had many opportunities to kill Laban and Lemuel and never personally harmed them, he had his people flee rather than engage in war with their brethren).

Laban being so drunk as to be unconscious and therefore unlikely to suffer at all during the process is a plus, not a minus in my view. The killing is not sadistic as would be in genocide where people suffer terror while knowing the end is coming even if they luck out to be killed cleanly and quickly.  Good men having to kill people screaming, running, fighting back in helpless ways, begging to live, including those who never harmed them, children even, is on a very different level of stress.

And now Laman and Lemuel knew there was no return as as Nephi’s family would likely be held accountable by Laban’s clan or allies or others desiring the brass plates.

There is reasonable justification for the killing of Laban, both practically speaking and according to biblical law if the argument I have read holds (not longer have the book and can’t remember the author).  Laban was accountable for theft and attempted murder.

Genocide where those involve will include those who will unfortunately get off on killing, likely rape while they are doing it, etc., where those they kill are innocent of major crimes against…creates a very different environment than the legal (in Nephi’s own mind at least) execution of a thief and attempted murderer.  The wholesale deaths of harmless and innocent makes genocide exponentially different imo than the death of Laban, in a completely different category even.

And if one looks at the behavior of Nephi afterwards, one can at least choose to assume the fruit of the act was good as he remained faithful and righteous, did not harden where killing became easy, etc.  May have had PSTD and neglected to mention it, of course.

Edited March 5 by Calm

[Senator]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

  The Spirit was with him quite strong at the time and it likely had a protective effect. 

The way you phrased this brought a thought to mind. 
Could we add this to the list of "Gifts of the Spirit"?

The spiritual gift of shedding blood. 

 

No, this is never going to sit right with me, no matter how many "reasonings" are given.

Edited March 5 by Senator

[Ryan Dahle]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Genocide where those involve will include those who will unfortunately get off on killing, likely rape while they are doing it, etc., where those they kill are innocent of major crimes against…creates a very different environment than the legal (in Nephi’s own mind at least) execution of a thief and attempted murderer.  The wholesale deaths of harmless and innocent makes genocide exponentially different imo than the death of Laban, in a completely different category even.

I agree. There are substantial differences in the moral calculous. I'm not trying to equate the severity of the circumstances or suggest there aren't any mitigating factors in Nephi's context. At the same time, though, there is still a gap between what reportedly happened and what our natural intuitions suggest would have been morally preferred or ideal. Although the circumstances and severity of the problem changes from issue to issue, I think the fact that we have to fill that type of gap is consistent, and the ways we attempt to fill the gap are actually very similar across the board. 

Edited March 5 by Ryan Dahle

[Calm]

27 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I agree. There are substantial differences in the moral calculous. I'm not trying to equate the severity of the circumstances or suggest there aren't any mitigating factors in Nephi's context. At the same time, though, there is still a gap between what reportedly happened and what our natural intuitions suggest would have been morally preferred or ideal. Although the circumstances and severity of the problem changes from issue to issue, I think the fact that we have to fill that type of gap is consistent, and the ways we attempt to fill the gap are actually very similar across the board. 

That I very much agree with.

I have enjoyed the discussion even if the topic of genocide is not particularly palatable.  This requires me tease out the details of my thinking and it’s always interesting to hear others’ detailed thoughts (well, for sure on subjects I am interested in at least, lol; can’t guarantee it’s the same if the topic doesn’t grab me 😛 ).

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Senator said:

The way you phrased this brought a thought to mind. 
Could we add this to the list of "Gifts of the Spirit"?

The spiritual gift of shedding blood. 

 

No, this is never going to sit right with me, no matter how many "reasonings" are given.

No, would not see it like that, but I would hope those truly defending their own lives and the lives of others who did not initiate killing would have some sort of loving emotional protection from God shielding them from the worst mental and emotional damage (in this case I see it as pure self defense as even if Nephi let Laban go, I believe Laban would have most likely have continued to send men after them to cover his crime of stealing their inheritance if he found out where they were).  However, I suspect it is often the most conscientious soldiers that get hit the hardest emotionally, so I think that may be wishful thinking…at least as far as emotional states in mortality (I think the veil protects our eternal selves that I assume we are still connected to in some fashion from the harms of mortality as well as allowing us mortals to act in more independent ways from what is likely the overwhelming presence of the Father and other exalted beings in our lives).

Edited March 5 by Calm

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, Senator said:

The way you phrased this brought a thought to mind. 
Could we add this to the list of "Gifts of the Spirit"?

The spiritual gift of shedding blood. 

 

No, this is never going to sit right with me, no matter how many "reasonings" are given.

Laban was an organized crime boss who undoubtedly sent out his henchmen to murder other souls before he dispatched them to execute Nephi and his brothers. There’s not even the slightest doubt in my mind that justice required Laban’s blood. But even if he had succeeded in his murderous designs and was caught in the very act, by that time Jerusalem had so ripened in iniquity that he would have been let off the hook by his corrupt fellow criminals in the government. The day will come when those who sympathize with Laban will wonder how in the world they could have been so foolish as to jeopardize their salvation to plead the case for cold blooded thief and serial killer. 

[Zosimus]

3 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

The day will come when those who sympathize with Laban

you're not using the word sympathize correctly 

[The Nehor]

12 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Laban was an organized crime boss who undoubtedly sent out his henchmen to murder other souls before he dispatched them to execute Nephi and his brothers. There’s not even the slightest doubt in my mind that justice required Laban’s blood. But even if he had succeeded in his murderous designs and was caught in the very act, by that time Jerusalem had so ripened in iniquity that he would have been let off the hook by his corrupt fellow criminals in the government. The day will come when those who sympathize with Laban will wonder how in the world they could have been so foolish as to jeopardize their salvation to plead the case for cold blooded thief and serial killer. 

This is a nice fantasy story that you just made up.

[The Nehor]

On 3/4/2026 at 11:47 PM, Ryan Dahle said:

Oh, I agree, in principle. And I'm not sure what the best solution to the scriptural accounts is. I can see how there may be wild inaccuracies in the Canaanite conquest story. And if there are, I don't think that poses a significant threat to our theology. Nothing of doctrinal or historical significance rests on the perfect accuracy of those accounts. On the other hand, there are a number of things that God is doing in the OT that seem difficult to fully explain. The flood. The destruction of Sodom. The story of Achan. There is just a lot of killing of the wicked in various contexts. Plus the allowance for slavery/servitude. And then there is polygamy, with concubines. And so on. It is hard to know what to do with it all. A lot of it can be historically inaccurate. I think that really is a live option for some of these OT stories. But then we have things like 3 Nephi that sort of confirm that God himself seems to take an active role (i.e., directing nature) in destroying the wicked. There are also the prophecies of eschatological destruction in the Latter days that seem to fit the same pattern. Which brings up some uncomfortable questions. If wholesale destruction of the "wicked" is justified in certain circumstances, can we really be sure God would NEVER command something like the Israelite conquest. In other words, can we be confident God wouldn't ever ask his followers to do something that he himself seems willing to do under some circumstances. 

The hard part in a lot of these stories is that we can’t fall back on the defense of ‘we don’t know why’ God commanded these things. The text is almost embarrassingly liberal in giving reasons. Vengeance for ancestral sins. Polemics about how evil they are and how they REALLY deserve it. Warnings that if you don’t kill them they will destroy you.

On 3/4/2026 at 11:47 PM, Ryan Dahle said:

I think your response and revulsion is wise. It does seem high cost with low benefits. It doesn't seem like a wise choice to have humans carrying out that degree of divine justice, ESPECIALLY if it involves the killing of innocent children. It isn't just the psychological and social trauma. It would also be the feeling of guilt--of being told to do something that, to one's own intuition, seems so utterly and totally and obviously wrong. There is also the huge potential for misunderstanding, where people assume that because God commanded it in a limited circumstance, then that means it is a good thing in principle, or that one should take joy in it, or that similar actions can be carried out indiscriminately, and so on. 

This is also a bit of presentism. The xenophobic paranoia of the time made killing the ‘other’ a little easier. When your national war/storm deity was backing up those calls for eliminating the enemy it is a lot easier.

On 3/4/2026 at 11:47 PM, Ryan Dahle said:

And, yet, on a different (usually lesser level), I think very similar objections can be made about other directives that I think God almost certainly did give. Take plural marriage for example. Look at the personal cost. Look at the heartache. Look how it turned so many people against Joseph Smith and against the Church. Look how it is still affecting people today, how it becomes a significant stumbling block to faith. Look at how many people got the wrong idea, thinking they could just implement the practice as they see fit (not directed by presiding keys). Look how hard it was when the practice was discontinued. From many perspectives today, so many things would have been so much better and simpler if God simply would have never instituted the practice. In other words, one can easily conclude that God is too wise to use such a poor method to bring his children back to his side. There are too many negative effects and they outweigh any of the positives. Likewise, did Nephi REALLY need to kill Laban. Think of the harm that likely caused him. The guilt. The trauma. The knowledge that he literally decapitated a defenseless man. God could have struck Laban dead, just like he killed the Lamanite who was about to slay Ammon. Yet he didn't. God made Nephi do his "dirty work" so to speak. It must have been a horrifying and revolting experience, one that from the available data may not seem good or necessary.  

I also don’t get how killing Laban would prevent pursuit. Laban sent men to kill the brothers. Then Laban is dead so no pursuit? Yeah…..not sure that is how it would work.

On 3/4/2026 at 11:47 PM, Ryan Dahle said:

To be clear, I don't personally hold that view. I absolutely believe the command to practice plural marriage was from God and that Nephi was commanded to kill Laban. But I can sympathize with those who struggle to make sense of these and other commands. My point is just that on some level or another, this is always the fundamental problem. It always seems, to our mortal perspective, like a different approach could have been more ideal. I'm not saying you are wrong about the genocide issue.  But it just seems helpful to recognize that it is ultimately the same underlying type of problem across the board. Some topics just hit us harder than others. At least, that is how it seems to me. 
 

I think it is more that everything could have been more ideal.

[Senator]

16 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Laban was an organized crime boss who undoubtedly sent out his henchmen to murder other souls before he dispatched them to execute Nephi and his brothers. There’s not even the slightest doubt in my mind that justice required Laban’s blood. But even if he had succeeded in his murderous designs and was caught in the very act, by that time Jerusalem had so ripened in iniquity that he would have been let off the hook by his corrupt fellow criminals in the government. The day will come when those who sympathize with Laban will wonder how in the world they could have been so foolish as to jeopardize their salvation to plead the case for cold blooded thief and serial killer. 

Note to self:
Add to list of justifications for Nephi's killing of Laban>
Laban was crime boss and serial killler who had it coming....

 

Got it.

[Ryan Dahle]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The hard part in a lot of these stories is that we can’t fall back on the defense of ‘we don’t know why’ God commanded these things. The text is almost embarrassingly liberal in giving reasons. Vengeance for ancestral sins. Polemics about how evil they are and how they REALLY deserve it. Warnings that if you don’t kill them they will destroy you.

I think that is a bit of an overstatement. Some challenging stories, such as the slaying of Laban or the command to practice plural marriage, have multiple attending reasons that God provides. Other accounts, such as Abraham's command to offer Isaac or Adam and Eve's command to offer sacrifices, have no explanation upfront and limited explanation in the aftermath. But even in circumstances where multiple explanations may be give, they are often brief and still leave many difficult questions unanswered. The feeling I get is that God is almost always limiting the full spectrum of reasons and explanations that he could give.

For instance, we have a whole theology of sin, sinners, and hell that is developed throughout the OT, NT, and Book of Mormon. But then we get to the D&C and that theology is expanded and refined considerably. But then we get this comment in D&C 29:29-30: "And now, behold, I say unto you, never at any time have I declared from mine own mouth that they should return, for where I am they cannot come, for they have no power. But remember that all my judgments are not given unto men." And then we get this from D&C 76:45-46: "And the end thereof, neither the place thereof, nor their torment, no man knows; Neither was it revealed, neither is, neither will be revealed unto man, except to them who are made partakers thereof." In other words, we still don't really fully understand hell. God has given us some information, but not the whole picture. And we need to be careful not to assume that what is given is the full explanation. I think that principle is pretty much ever-present in the line-upon-line understanding of revelation. See Alma 12:9-11: 

Quote

9 And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.

10 And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full.

11 And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries; and then they are taken captive by the devil, and led by his will down to destruction. Now this is what is meant by the chains of hell.

Those who want to present the LDS Church and its theology in a negative light will naturally tend to minimize this principle. Every divine explanation will be considered complete and final, since that will minimize any room for other possible explanatory factors that could further justify a position. In other words, they will take what is given, conclude it is obviously false or highly implausible, and then close themselves off to further revelation. Those who value preserving faith and trying to find a way to rationally justify their beliefs will tend to leave the door open to a whole host of explanations that may be true but aren't yet divinely disclosed. 
 

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I also don’t get how killing Laban would prevent pursuit. Laban sent men to kill the brothers. Then Laban is dead so no pursuit? Yeah…..not sure that is how it would work.

I actually think another distinguishing factor is the ability to think creatively--not in the sense of manufacturing irrational explanations through "mental gymnastics," but in the sense of considering and exploring solutions to problems that haven't yet been considered. As a rule of thumb, we tend not to think creatively when it comes to considering solutions to problems we are currently biased against or positions that we intuitively don't want to justify. In a political debate, for instance, interlocutors will tend to be VERY creative in trying to solve challenges or critiques of their own ideological worldview. However, when it comes to attacking an opponent's viewpoint, all of a sudden the creative juices stop flowing. In that case, they will be as reductive as possible. The goal is to paint a very narrow interpretation of the opponent's view, and then box them into it as a trap that they can never get out of. 

In this case, it isn't hard for me to imagine circumstances in which killing the leader of an organization could drastically alter the direction or activities of that organization. There are all sorts of social arrangements, and different leaders have widely varying degrees of influence over different organizations. In some cases, you can remove a leader and everything pretty much continues on as before. In other cases, you can remove a leader and everything changes almost overnight. It may fee like a completely different organization. You seem to be assuming that all of Laban's underlings shared his attitude towards Nephi and his brothers, and that they would have been equally motivated and interested in pursuing that issue, especially in the immediate aftermath of Laban being slain (to them by an unknown hand). Perhaps you just aren't considering the nearly endless possible reasons for why that might not be the case. 

[Calm]

9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Then Laban is dead so no pursuit?

Why would his servants care, it was Laban who wanted them dead, not the servants?  Unlikely Laban is trumpeting his pursuit of the brothers to others because if others catch the brothers before Laban, how can he hide his theft of their treasure?  Also if Zoram was the only one who knew about the plates being appropriated by Nephi, would the other servants immediately connect the death of Laban with the brothers?  Why not just assume theft and murder by the usual suspects since as far as the servants knew the brothers had fled the city.
 

Speculation alert:

 Laban was likely not a generous and kind master.  If we assume they knew about the plates…..the brass plates would not be theirs and drawing attention to their loss could get the servants in big trouble if the plates weren’t recovered.  Zoram also missing on top of finding Laban dead might suggest the brothers were more formidable than expected if they made a connection, the servants likely had no way of knowing Laban was dead drunk at the time.  Why risk being forced to go on an uncomfortable and potentially dangerous hunt outside of Jerusalem?  Servants could have even decided if they hid the presence of the brothers getting the plates, they could hide Laban’s theft as well and take the stolen treasures for themselves and instead blame Zoram for killing Laban.  If he was an abusive master (someone so quick to kill seems likely to be to me), they could claim Zoram just had enough and took advantage of Laban’s drunkenness to be free.  Once the loss of the plates was discovered, they blame that on Zoram as well.  It would just complicate their lives to bring up Nephi and company when there was no obvious evidence apparently that Nephi was the killer.

[Senator]

32 minutes ago, Calm said:

Why would his servants care, it was Laban who wanted them dead, not the servants?  Unlikely Laban is trumpeting his pursuit of the brothers to others because if others catch the brothers before Laban, how can he hide his theft of their treasure?  Also if Zoram was the only one who knew about the plates being appropriated by Nephi, would the other servants immediately connect the death of Laban with the brothers?  Why not just assume theft and murder by the usual suspects since as far as the servants knew the brothers had fled the city.
 

Speculation alert:

 Laban was likely not a generous and kind master.  If we assume they knew about the plates…..the brass plates would not be theirs and drawing attention to their loss could get the servants in big trouble if the plates weren’t recovered.  Zoram also missing on top of finding Laban dead might suggest the brothers were more formidable than expected if they made a connection, the servants likely had no way of knowing Laban was dead drunk at the time.  Why risk being forced to go on an uncomfortable and potentially dangerous hunt outside of Jerusalem?  Servants could have even decided if they hid the presence of the brothers getting the plates, they could hide Laban’s theft as well and take the stolen treasures for themselves and instead blame Zoram for killing Laban.  If he was an abusive master (someone so quick to kill seems likely to be to me), they could claim Zoram just had enough and took advantage of Laban’s drunkenness to be free.  Once the loss of the plates was discovered, they blame that on Zoram as well.  It would just complicate their lives to bring up Nephi and company when there was no obvious evidence apparently that Nephi was the killer.

Calm's side hustle :

                     Need to plan a hit? Call:

                                "CALM"

                 Clean Alibi Less Mess

 

[smac97]

10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

Likewise, did Nephi REALLY need to kill Laban. Think of the harm that likely caused him. The guilt. The trauma. The knowledge that he literally decapitated a defenseless man. God could have struck Laban dead, just like he killed the Lamanite who was about to slay Ammon. Yet he didn't. God made Nephi do his "dirty work" so to speak. It must have been a horrifying and revolting experience, one that from the available data may not seem good or necessary.  

I also don’t get how killing Laban would prevent pursuit. Laban sent men to kill the brothers. Then Laban is dead so no pursuit?

Not sure that this is what Ryan was saying.

10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Yeah…..not sure that is how it would work.

The stated basis in The Book of Mormon for Nephi to slay Laban is a direct command from the Spirit of the Lord, with context and explicit justifications provided in the text of 1 Nephi 3 and 4 (particularly verses 5–18).

Initially, Nephi's return followed both Laban's attempt to murder him to get gain (ch. 3:35), and also the visitation of an angel (ch. 3:29-31).

He then states that he "crept into the city and went forth towards the house of Laban," and that he "was led by the Spirit, not knowing beforehand the things which {he} should do" (1 Nephi 4:5-6).  The "crept" bit appears to be attributable to Laban having previously tried to murder him him (see 1 Nephi 3).  The "not knowing beforehand" also has quite a bit of relevance as to Nephi's state of mind.  

Nephi then encounters Laban drunk and unconscious in the streets of Jerusalem. He then states that he was "constrained by the Spirit that I should kill Laban" (1 Nephi 4:10), but he hesitates, reflecting his aversion to bloodshed: "Never at any time have I shed the blood of man. And I shrunk and would that I might not slay him" (1 Nephi 4:10).  Again, this speaks to his state of mind.

The Spirit then provides the following reasons to overcome his reluctance:

• Divine deliverance — "Behold the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands" (1 Nephi 4:11) and "Slay him, for the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands" (1 Nephi 4:12). This phrasing echoes Old Testament legal principles (e.g., Exodus 21:13), where a killing is excusable if God delivers the person into another's hand without premeditation or ambush.
• The Lord's purpose in slaying the wicked — "The Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes" (1 Nephi 4:13).
• Necessity for the preservation of a nation — "It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief" (1 Nephi 4:13). This refers to the importance of obtaining the brass plates (containing the scriptures, genealogy, and law), without which Lehi's descendants would lose spiritual knowledge and "dwindle in unbelief" after leaving Jerusalem.

After these promptings, Nephi concludes that the command aligns with the Lord's will and obeys: "Therefore I did obey the voice of the Spirit, and took Laban by the hair of the head, and I smote off his head with his own sword" (1 Nephi 4:18).

In summary, the text presents the slaying not as personal vengeance, self-defense, or punishment for Laban's prior crimes (though, again, Laban had attempted to kill Nephi and his brothers earlier), but primarily as a divinely commanded act necessary to fulfill God's righteous purposes—preserving scriptural records essential for the spiritual survival of Nephi's future nation. Nephi emphasizes his initial reluctance and frames the act as obedience to the Spirit rather than his own initiative.

Still a very troubling narrative.

Thanks,

-Smac

[teddyaware]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not sure that this is what Ryan was saying.

The stated basis in The Book of Mormon for Nephi to slay Laban is a direct command from the Spirit of the Lord, with context and explicit justifications provided in the text of 1 Nephi 3 and 4 (particularly verses 5–18).

Initially, Nephi's return followed both Laban's attempt to murder him to get gain (ch. 3:35), and also the visitation of an angel (ch. 3:29-31).

He then states that he "crept into the city and went forth towards the house of Laban," and that he "was led by the Spirit, not knowing beforehand the things which {he} should do" (1 Nephi 4:5-6).  The "crept" bit appears to be attributable to Laban having previously tried to murder him him (see 1 Nephi 3).  The "not knowing beforehand" also has quite a bit of relevance as to Nephi's state of mind.  

Nephi then encounters Laban drunk and unconscious in the streets of Jerusalem. He then states that he was "constrained by the Spirit that I should kill Laban" (1 Nephi 4:10), but he hesitates, reflecting his aversion to bloodshed: "Never at any time have I shed the blood of man. And I shrunk and would that I might not slay him" (1 Nephi 4:10).  Again, this speaks to his state of mind.

The Spirit then provides the following reasons to overcome his reluctance:

• Divine deliverance — "Behold the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands" (1 Nephi 4:11) and "Slay him, for the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands" (1 Nephi 4:12). This phrasing echoes Old Testament legal principles (e.g., Exodus 21:13), where a killing is excusable if God delivers the person into another's hand without premeditation or ambush.
• The Lord's purpose in slaying the wicked — "The Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes" (1 Nephi 4:13).
• Necessity for the preservation of a nation — "It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief" (1 Nephi 4:13). This refers to the importance of obtaining the brass plates (containing the scriptures, genealogy, and law), without which Lehi's descendants would lose spiritual knowledge and "dwindle in unbelief" after leaving Jerusalem.

After these promptings, Nephi concludes that the command aligns with the Lord's will and obeys: "Therefore I did obey the voice of the Spirit, and took Laban by the hair of the head, and I smote off his head with his own sword" (1 Nephi 4:18).

In summary, the text presents the slaying not as personal vengeance, self-defense, or punishment for Laban's prior crimes (though, again, Laban had attempted to kill Nephi and his brothers earlier), but primarily as a divinely commanded act necessary to fulfill God's righteous purposes—preserving scriptural records essential for the spiritual survival of Nephi's future nation. Nephi emphasizes his initial reluctance and frames the act as obedience to the Spirit rather than his own initiative.

Still a very troubling narrative.

Thanks,

-Smac

At the point in time that Nephi crept into the city, the majority of the inhabitants of Jerusalem were already thoroughly ripened in iniquity, and all that remained were the death throes a people laboring under the horrors of a total breakdown of law and order. One of the prime hallmarks of a society that has ripened in iniquity is when the criminals who run the corrupted ‘government’ allow their ‘guilty as sin’ friends and coconspirators to escape justice after they’ve committed the most heinous of crimes. Meanwhile the few remaining  decent people who in the city were extorted, blackmailed, framed and punished for crimes they didn’t commit.

There was no justice to be had in Jerusalem at the time Nephi found the murderous organized crime boss named Laban sprawled like out like a drunken fool on the ground before him. So the Lord did what he had to do. As righteous judge over his creation the Lord — not Nephi — took this matter of sorely needed justice into his own hand. There are times when the Lord employs human agents to execute his righteous judgments upon the wicked, but it’s still the Lord who’s the one to be blamed if that’s what some spiritually immature and blind individuals want to do.

Not long after Nephi escaped Jerusalem with the brass plates and the sword of Laban, the Lord used the battle hardened warriors of king Nebuchadnezzar to slay and enslave the remaining inhabitants of Jerusalem after the Lehites managed to escape the sociopathic throng with their lives. Is it Nebuchadnezzar and his warriors who are to be blamed for the utter destruction of Jerusalem, the utter destruction of its temple, and the massive wave of death and enslavement that swept over the city? Or was it the Lord who employed the king of Babylon and his hosts to execute his righteous judgements upon a people that had allowed the devil to take over their lives?

Why there are so many pearl clutchers who seem to be so confused and conflicted over this perfectly obvious case of right vs wrong is beyond me?

 

 

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

At the point in time that Nephi crept into the city, the majority of the inhabitants of Jerusalem were already thoroughly ripened in iniquity, and all that remained were the death throes a people laboring under the horrors of a total breakdown of law and order.

I'd like to understand this better.  Plenty of iniquitous stuff going on now, but I don't think any of us would therefore be okay with a Neph-and-Laban-style event today.

18 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

There was no justice to be had in Jerusalem at the time Nephi found the murderous organized crime boss named Laban sprawled like out like a drunken fool on the ground before him. So the Lord did what he had to do. As righteous judge over his creation the Lord — not Nephi — took this matter of sorely needed justice into his own hand. There are times when the Lord employs human agents to execute his righteous judgments upon the wicked, but it’s still the Lord who’s the one to be blamed if that’s what some spiritually immature and blind individuals want to do.

While I believe the narrative about Nephi is accurate, I can also understand how it is troubling to people who are spiritually mature and thoughtful.

18 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

Not long after Nephi escaped Jerusalem with the brass plates and the sword of Laban, the Lord used the battle hardened warriors of king Nebuchadnezzar to slay and enslave the remaining inhabitants of Jerusalem after the Lehites managed to escape the sociopathic throng with their lives. Is it Nebuchadnezzar and his warriors who are to be blamed for the utter destruction of Jerusalem, the utter destruction of its temple, and the massive wave of death and enslavement that swept over the city? Or was it the Lord who employed the king of Babylon and his hosts to execute his righteous judgements upon a people that had allowed the devil to take over their lives?

That's a question of faith, I suppose.

18 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

Why there are so many pearl clutchers who seem to be so confused and conflicted over this perfectly obvious case of right vs wrong is beyond me?

"Clutching pearls" (or pearl-clutching) "refers to an exaggerated, often performative display of shock, horror, or moral outrage in response to something considered scandalous or improper. It portrays someone acting overly sensitive or prudish, frequently used to mock or criticize those who react strongly to minor offenses."

I think the case can be made for Nephi to be justified, both religiously/morally/spiritually and under the laws in place at the time.  See here:

Legal Perspectives on the Slaying of Laban (John W. Welch)

An excerpt:

Quote

Abstract: This article marshals ancient legal evidence to show that Nephi’s slaying of Laban should be understood as a protected manslaughter rather than a criminal homicide. The biblical law of murder demanded a higher level of premeditation and hostility than Nephi exhibited or modern law requires. It is argued that Exodus 21:13 protected more than accidental slayings or unconscious acts, particularly where God was seen as having delivered the victim into the slayer’s hand. Various rationales for Nephi’s killing of Laban are explored, including ancient views on surrendering one person for the benefit of a whole community. Other factors within the Book of Mormon as well as in Moses’ killing of the Egyptian in Exodus 2 corroborate the conclusion that Nephi did not commit the equivalent of a first-degree murder under the laws of his day.
...

Concluding observations. Over the years Hugh Nibley has enjoyed telling a story about his Arab students in the early 1950s who were required to take the basic Book of Mormon class at Brigham Young University. Knowing that the Laban episode had been troublesome to the moral sensitivities of many twentieth-century readers, Nibley was puzzled when these students found the story somewhat implausible but precisely for the opposite reason he had expected. Instead of being troubled that Nephi had killed the unconscious Laban, the students found it odd that he had hesitated so long.⁴⁸While the reaction of these Arab students cannot be taken as evidence of the attitudes of the inhabitants of the city of Jerusalem around 600 B.C., it does reinforce the point that different cultures have unique values and idiosyncratic legal expectations. Accordingly, modern readers should be willing to consider not only the implications and moral bearings of ancient scriptural events upon contemporary society, but also to approach these developments in terms of the ancient dispositions and legal norms that would have operated as guiding principles in the lives of people years ago.

While nineteenth-century vocabulary and concepts are in some ways useful in Book of Mormon exegesis, the Laban episode is a case where the nineteenth-century environment offers little help.⁴⁹Joseph Smith’s nineteenth-century audience was just as scandalized by Nephi’s killing of Laban as is a modern audience. Early Book of Mormon critics readily viewed this episode as a clear indication that the Book of Mormon was not inspired by God, a divine being who would never have commanded a true prophet to kill, having already commanded, “Thou shalt not murder.” That view, however, assumes only a nineteenth-century viewpoint.

But when analyzed in terms of ancient biblical law, the case is framed within the appropriate set of legal terms and issues. This is not to say that the slaying of Laban presents us as modern readers with an easy case: neither was it an easy case for Nephi. In its ancient legal context, however, the slaying of Laban makes sense, both legally and religiously, as an unpremeditated, undesired, divinely excusable, and justifiable killing—something very different from what people today normally think of as criminal homicide.

It's a very good article and merits some real attention by those who feel that the Nephi-and-Laban narrative is significant.

In the end, though, I can't really agree that is a "perfectly obvious case of right vs wrong."  Again, from Welch: "{W}hen analyzed in terms of ancient biblical law, the case is framed within the appropriate set of legal terms and issues. This is not to say that the slaying of Laban presents us as modern readers with an easy case: neither was it an easy case for Nephi."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 6 by smac97

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Not sure that this is what Ryan was saying.

The stated basis in The Book of Mormon for Nephi to slay Laban is a direct command from the Spirit of the Lord, with context and explicit justifications provided in the text of 1 Nephi 3 and 4 (particularly verses 5–18).

Initially, Nephi's return followed both Laban's attempt to murder him to get gain (ch. 3:35), and also the visitation of an angel (ch. 3:29-31).

He then states that he "crept into the city and went forth towards the house of Laban," and that he "was led by the Spirit, not knowing beforehand the things which {he} should do" (1 Nephi 4:5-6).  The "crept" bit appears to be attributable to Laban having previously tried to murder him him (see 1 Nephi 3).  The "not knowing beforehand" also has quite a bit of relevance as to Nephi's state of mind.  

Nephi then encounters Laban drunk and unconscious in the streets of Jerusalem. He then states that he was "constrained by the Spirit that I should kill Laban" (1 Nephi 4:10), but he hesitates, reflecting his aversion to bloodshed: "Never at any time have I shed the blood of man. And I shrunk and would that I might not slay him" (1 Nephi 4:10).  Again, this speaks to his state of mind.

The Spirit then provides the following reasons to overcome his reluctance:

• Divine deliverance — "Behold the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands" (1 Nephi 4:11) and "Slay him, for the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands" (1 Nephi 4:12). This phrasing echoes Old Testament legal principles (e.g., Exodus 21:13), where a killing is excusable if God delivers the person into another's hand without premeditation or ambush.
• The Lord's purpose in slaying the wicked — "The Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes" (1 Nephi 4:13).
• Necessity for the preservation of a nation — "It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief" (1 Nephi 4:13). This refers to the importance of obtaining the brass plates (containing the scriptures, genealogy, and law), without which Lehi's descendants would lose spiritual knowledge and "dwindle in unbelief" after leaving Jerusalem.

After these promptings, Nephi concludes that the command aligns with the Lord's will and obeys: "Therefore I did obey the voice of the Spirit, and took Laban by the hair of the head, and I smote off his head with his own sword" (1 Nephi 4:18).

In summary, the text presents the slaying not as personal vengeance, self-defense, or punishment for Laban's prior crimes (though, again, Laban had attempted to kill Nephi and his brothers earlier), but primarily as a divinely commanded act necessary to fulfill God's righteous purposes—preserving scriptural records essential for the spiritual survival of Nephi's future nation. Nephi emphasizes his initial reluctance and frames the act as obedience to the Spirit rather than his own initiative.

Still a very troubling narrative.

Thanks,

-Smac

How was killing Laban necessary for obtaining the plates? Also God suggests that Laban’s death is the only thing that will allow the plates to be taken. God seriously has no other options? God who can turn the oceans to sand can’t come up with an alternate plan? Really? God could have just pinched off his throat or a vital artery after Laban fell down drunk in the street. Same impact. No moral dilemma for Nephi.

[Zosimus]

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

One of the prime hallmarks of a society that has ripened in iniquity is when the criminals who run the corrupted ‘government’ allow their ‘guilty as sin’ friends and coconspirators to escape justice after they’ve committed the most heinous of crimes.

Another prime hallmark that a society that has ripened in iniquity is when people are beheaded in the street because someone decides it is their job to clean up the streets

its possible to object to both

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

At the point in time that Nephi crept into the city, the majority of the inhabitants of Jerusalem were already thoroughly ripened in iniquity, and all that remained were the death throes a people laboring under the horrors of a total breakdown of law and order. One of the prime hallmarks of a society that has ripened in iniquity is when the criminals who run the corrupted ‘government’ allow their ‘guilty as sin’ friends and coconspirators to escape justice after they’ve committed the most heinous of crimes. Meanwhile the few remaining  decent people who in the city were extorted, blackmailed, framed and punished for crimes they didn’t commit.

That is not in the text.

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

There was no justice to be had in Jerusalem at the time Nephi found the murderous organized crime boss named Laban sprawled like out like a drunken fool on the ground before him. So the Lord did what he had to do. As righteous judge over his creation the Lord — not Nephi — took this matter of sorely needed justice into his own hand. There are times when the Lord employs human agents to execute his righteous judgments upon the wicked, but it’s still the Lord who’s the one to be blamed if that’s what some spiritually immature and blind individuals want to do.

God could have just had Laban break his neck in the fall.

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Not long after Nephi escaped Jerusalem with the brass plates and the sword of Laban, the Lord used the battle hardened warriors of king Nebuchadnezzar to slay and enslave the remaining inhabitants of Jerusalem after the Lehites managed to escape the sociopathic throng with their lives. Is it Nebuchadnezzar and his warriors who are to be blamed for the utter destruction of Jerusalem, the utter destruction of its temple, and the massive wave of death and enslavement that swept over the city? Or was it the Lord who employed the king of Babylon and his hosts to execute his righteous judgements upon a people that had allowed the devil to take over their lives?

Yeah, that is not what happened. The Jews weren’t mass enslaved. To end their perpetual revolts Babylon deported a large portion of the population to Babylon itself including most of the elites. They weren’t enslaved. They owned land. They prospered. They had their own leadership. Babylon remained the major center of Jewish life for about a thousand years. While some longed for a return to their homeland many did not. It is easy to see why. Jerusalem was a hick town compared to Babylon. Only a minority of the people went home when they were allowed to.

Yet somehow these people were all the devil’s servants who deserved mass genocide and mass enslavement for some reason which they didn’t actually get. They needed to suffer even though historically they just didn’t suffer that much.

The Bible (and lots of other ancient records) love to play up how cities and populations were “utterly destroyed” when they just weren’t. It was propaganda.

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Why there are so many pearl clutchers who seem to be so confused and conflicted over this perfectly obvious case of right vs wrong is beyond me?

Your ideas of wrong are mostly made up delusions and fantasizing about how evil some people are and I am not convinced you know much about virtue either.

[Zosimus]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Babylon remained the major center of Jewish life for about a thousand years. While some longed for a return to their homeland many did not. It is easy to see why. Jerusalem was a hick town compared to Babylon. Only a minority of the people went home when they were allowed to.

IMO this is the true intellectual backdrop behind the Book of Mormon. The book extends conversations taking place in the 1820s about Josiah’s reforms, the Babylonian captivity, and the location and identity of the Israelite diaspora.

In the appendix of his 1825 View of the Hebrews, Ethan Smith mentions a group of Israelite exiles sailing to India shortly after the Babylonian captivity. He identifies them as "black jews" and mentions they had Biblical records or manuscripts that predate the Babylonian captivity. VOTH appendix also mentions another Israelite group that settled to the north of the black Jews that he identifies as "muloc, or kings". Mulek was spelled Mulok in the 1830 Book of Mormon

We also know Asael Smith was a read of Paine's Age of Reason, and he encouraged Smith Sr. to read it until he believed it. Which meant there was a copy of the book flying around the homestead as Smith Jr. grew up. Paine wrote a lot in Age of Reason about the fall of Jerusalem and the Babylonian captivity, and some have made a strong case that the Book of Mormon is a response to the secular criticism of Paine's Deism and Smith Sr's universalism.

But, Paine also wrote a more controversial pamphlet about the Babylonian captivity, or rather the fallout of Josiah's reforms, called "On the Origin of Freemasonry", which was published after his death. In there, he argues that Josiah had put to death a number of temple priests who were too devout in their devotion to the sun, moon, stars and planets and the astronomical symbols that were found throughout the temple. These priests went underground, and embedded the earlier purer temple rituals and symbols in what we know today as freemasonry. 

If we're looking for a secular theory of where the Book of Mormon came from. Thomas Paine and Ethan Smith are a good start

[smac97]

On 3/4/2026 at 10:10 PM, smac97 said:

Quote

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 can.

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. 

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

Thanks,

-Smac

Still hoping @Analytics will return to this thread and take up the above challenge.

Edited March 8 by smac97