A Secular Theory of Where the BoM Came From

Ryan Dahle · March 10

19 minutes ago, Analytics said:

How do you account for Isaiah chapters in the Book of Mormon that weren’t written until long after Lehi left Jerusalem?

There will be an Interpreter conference in May. I know several authors are exploring this issue in depth. It will be interesting to see what they have to say.

But, basically, contrary to your AI summary (which tends to overinflate perceptions of consensus), I think that the field itself has fairly weak methodological controls and is actually in a significant state of disarray regarding the precise nature of Isaiah's authorship. Determining disputed authorship thousands of years after the fact is a highly speculative endeavor to begin with, so I just don't think Latter-day Saints have a lot to worry about. I've read lots and lots of scholarly discussions on dating and authorship of a wide variety of ancient texts. Even the best current theories tend to have significant limitations. Perhaps the biggest fundamental challenge is separating original content from redacted content. As soon as you start assuming a text may have undergone multiple layers of redaction and adaption through the centuries, the competing theories become highly complicated and almost impossible to prove. Here is one Latter-day Saint's journey exploring the complexity and limitations of this scholarship:

smac97 · March 10

14 minutes ago, california boy said:

Quote

My thoughts?
My thoughts are that I become increasing skeptical whenever I hear the claim, "the spirit commanded me to [fill in the blank]"

I totally agree.

I provisionally agree. Rote declarations of being commanded by "the Spirit" are not self-authenticating/validating. I think the Latter-day Saints have a particularized advantage in this context. See here:

Quote

Quote

Its the age old question, how do we recognize the spirit? How do we differentiate between my feelings and the spirit?

I think we should have a testimony of the fundamentals, as derived from the Spirit, with the Book of Mormon / Moroni's Promise as the catalyst. Everything else is derivative of, is "downstream" from, those fundamentals.

A few thoughts:

1. Michael Ash's Four-Legged Stool:

I have found this comment from Michael Ash very helpful:

Quote

In a previous installment I explained that Roman Catholics take a three-legged tripod-like approach to determining truth—Scripture, Tradition, and the Pope. I believe that we Latter-day Saints are asked to take a four-legged approach to truth, like the four legs of a stool. These would include: Scripture, Prophets, Personal Revelation, and Reason. By utilizing the methodologies for all four of these tools, we have a better chance of accurately determining what is true.

The other legs of the stool (scripture, prophets and reason) function well in "vetting" personal revelation. Utilizing all four "legs" is, in my view, a far more reliable mechanism for discerning truth than relying on just one of them exclusively.

2. Hafens' Tripartiate Progression (Untested Simplicity --> Complexity --> Tested/Proven Simplicity):

I've posted this a few times now:

Quote

Elder Bruce C. Hafen, an emeritus General Authority Seventy for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and Sister Marie K. Hafen, once a member of the church’s Young Women general board, have just penned a refreshingly frank book— "Faith is Not Blind" (Deseret Book) — providing powerful paradigms for navigating faith in increasingly complex times.

In 2008, Elder Hafen delivered a devotional address at Brigham Young University (where he once served as dean of the law school and later as provost). His remarks centered on the lifelong journey of Christian discipleship.
...
Their new book extends this kind of faith-affirming discussion beyond the halls of BYU (or the ambiance of the local Olive Garden) and into the hearts of discerning Latter-day Saints of all ages.
...
But, with regard to style (the book is a breezy 130 pages) and substance, the Hafens clearly have a specific audience in mind — young adults.
...
The book amounts to one of the more readable, yet authoritative contributions to the expanding genre of literature speaking to the religious concerns of the rising generation.
...
A central cause of faith crisis in any age arises when we apprehend a gap between the real and the ideal. Simply minding this gap without ever bridging it arrests many a faith journey. The Hafens quote American jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes: “I would not give a fig for the simplicity (on) this side of complexity. But I would give my life for the simplicity on the other side of complexity.”

They propose a tripartite model of spiritual progression. It begins with childlike simplicity — “innocent and untested.” Then stage two commences as believers juxtapose the ideal and the real. This is where “we struggle with conflicts and uncertainty.” But those who successfully navigate this stage arrive at, in Holmes’ words, a simplicity that transcends complexity — “a settled and informed perspective that has been tempered and tested by time and experience.”

So we have:

Stage 1 ("Innocent and Untested") --> Stage 2 ("Juxtaposing the Ideal and the Real") --> Stage 3 ("Informed Perspective of Complexity-Transcending Simplicity Tempered by Time and Experience").

This seems about right. Stage 2 is, I think, where a lot of members of the Church are struggling and giving up.

Part of the answer, I think, is to seek simplicity that transcends, that is on the other side of, complexity.

3. My Attempt at a Framework:

Here is a framework I tried to develop a few years ago (responding to a friend's inquiry that was fairly similar to yours) :

Quote

A) Consider the Duration of the Feeling:

I read The Book of Mormon several times prior to this experience. As a teenager, for an extended period I read it every night and prayed about it. Over time I gained a cumulative spiritual confirmation that the book was true, that it is what it claims to be.

After graduating from high school, I served 18 months in the military. During this time I also had several spiritual experiences, mostly centered on The Book of Mormon, on Jesus Christ as savior, and also about Joseph Smith as a genuine prophet.

Then I served a two-year mission and had more experiences, centered on the scriptures, on Jesus Christ, but also on the testimonies of people in Taiwan who joined the Church despite the language barriers, cultural impediments, and significant familial disapproval. Converting from Buddhism / ancestor worship to Christianity was very difficult for many of these people, but they did so largely based on what they felt and determined to be the Spirit.

Then I returned home and shortly thereafter had a very strong spiritual experience that, for me, solidified my previous cumulative experiences into a more cohesive whole, and also helped me differentiate "emotion" (which, as you have described, is "fleeting"), and the Spirit (which is "something more constant and which because a more permanent feeling of peace and comfort and enlightenment, etc.").

B) Consider the Circumstance of the Feeling:

A person may be able to determine whether a particular feeling derives from the Spirit or from mere emotional response to stimuli by looking at the source or circumstance of the feeling. How did the feeling come about? For example, every day there are sports fans all around the world who scream and shout in support of their particular team (we currently have a Brazilian exchange student living with us, and soccer looms very large in his life). Are these people being influenced by “the Spirit?” Generally not. Sporting events are exciting, emotional. My point in saying “consider the source” is to look at it from God’s perspective. Does God communicate important and fundamental truths to His children through the emotional response they experience at a football game? Probably not.

So a person can, to some extent, differentiate “emotion” from “the Spirit” by examining the circumstances in which the experience occurred. This is particularly helpful when you consider the teachings of the LDS Church. For example, D&C 9:8 states: “But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.” Elder Oaks put it this way: “We should recognize that the Lord will speak to us through the Spirit in his own time and in his own way. … We cannot force spiritual things … In most cases, ‘his own way’ is not the thunderous interruption or the blinding light, but what the scriptures call ‘the still small voice’ (1 Kgs. 1 Kings 19:12; 1 Ne. 1 Nephi 17:45; D&C 85:6). … We need to know that the Lord rarely speaks loudly. His messages almost always come in a whisper” (“Teaching and Learning by the Spirit,” Ensign, Mar. 1997, 10–12).

I had a very important spiritual experience just after I returned from my mission. It was “important” not because it was extraordinarily powerful, or overwhelming, or any of the other adjectives that we Latter-day Saints – perhaps on occasion inappropriately – apply to important spiritual experiences. Rather, it was “important” because of its clarity. And its “clarity” arose because it occurred in circumstances in which confusing the Spirit with emotion was pretty much not possible.

C) Consider the Apparent Purpose of the Feeling:

Another way to distinguish “emotion” from “the Spirit” is to again look at the experience from God’s point of view, and this time try to ascertain the *purpose* of the feeling. That is, if God is trying to communicate with you, is He doing so in circumstances which have a discernible purpose? Or is the feeling more properly attributed to a mundane response to emotive stimuli?

Let me give you an example: In high school I was a huge fan of music, mostly classical (Mozart, Beethoven, Dvorak), movie soundtracks (John Williams), and musicals (Andrew Lloyd-Webber, Stephen Sondheim). My high school’s marching band, of which I was a part, once traveled to LA to participate in a competition, and while there we saw Michael Crawford perform “Phantom of the Opera” in the Ahmanson Theatre. I returned to Utah and began listening to the soundtrack on a regular basis. I would retire to a darkened room in our house and listen to most of the tracks on really good headphones, with the volume turned up, and I would re-visit the staged play in my head. By the time I would reach the last track, with the full orchestra at a crescendo, and the Phantom singing “It’s over now … the Music of the Night…”, I felt a tremendous thrill. (Yeah, this is geeky, I know. If you question my masculine bona fides, I refer you to the last play of the 2006 BYU-Utah game, in which Johnny Harline caught the winning pass in the end zone. Here’s a YouTube vid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dflMnmCCZk. I remember being pretty thrilled about that, too.)

So here I am, a guy who felt *something* very strongly when listening to “Phantom of the Opera” in high school and, later, when watching a football game on TV. However, these circumstances were not ones which I would think God would use to convey spiritual promptings. These were instead merely emotive reactions.

D) Consider the Feeling’s Effect on Behavior:

Another factor to consider is to evaluate a feeling’s effect on your behavior and ask whether the behavior prompted by the feeling is conducive to God’s will. If yes, then it could be the Spirit, but if not, then the feeling is likely just an emotive response. I think this principle is described well in Moroni 7:16-17:

Quote

16 For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God.

17 But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil; for after this manner doth the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one; neither do his angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto him.

So there you are. I think a person can differentiate between the Spirit and “mere emotion” by analyzing feelings and considering A) their duration, B) the circumstances in which they occurred, C) their apparent purpose, and D) their effect on behavior.

4. Defining Terms and Parameters:

I think it is helpful for us to occasionally re-examine what it means to have a testimony. Consider the Temple Recommend questions (emphases added) :
...

Note that the first three pertain to having "a testimony," the rest are "do you sustain," "do you strive," "do you obey," etc.

As Joseph Smith put it:

Quote

“The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 121).

And, of course, there is D&C 76:

Quote

22 And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all, which we give of him: That he lives!

23 For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father—

24 That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God.

So should a person have a testimony of, say, the Word of Wisdom? Or is that derivative of having a testimony of the "fundamental principles of our religion?"

5. Additional Resources:

I would point an interested party to the following essays:

The Reasonable Leap into Light: A Barebones Secular Argument for the Gospel (Daniel Peterson)

I Don’t Have a Testimony of the History of the Church (Davis Bitton)

The Logic Tree of Life, or, Why I Can’t Manage to Disbelieve (Daniel Peterson)

Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon (William Hamblin)

Reading these have helped me understand some pitfalls, however well-intentioned, can be dug when we dilute the meaning of "testimony."

The Restored Gospel has never espoused an unthinking, unvetting approach to making decisions. We have ample guidance from both past and present prophets and apostles:

Moroni 7:12–17 (Book of Mormon) “Wherefore, all things which are good cometh of God; and that which is evil cometh of the devil; for the devil is an enemy to God, and fighteth against him continually, and inviteth and enticeth to sin, and to do that which is evil continually. … Wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God. … But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil.”

This is a Classic scriptural test: Does it invite good, build faith in Christ, and lead to righteousness? If yes → from God. We can and should "vet" supposed spiritual promptings in this way.
D&C 50:23–24 “And that which doth not edify is not of God, and is darkness. That which is of God is light; and he that receiveth light, and continueth in God, receiveth more light; and that light groweth brighter and brighter until the perfect day.”

Another vetting angle: Does the influence bring light, edification, and increasing clarity? If it brings confusion or darkness → not of God.
D&C 8:2–3 (to Oliver Cowdery) “Yea, behold, I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost, which shall come upon you and which shall dwell in your heart. Now, behold, this is the spirit of revelation…”

More vetting: Genuine revelation comes as peaceful thoughts in the mind and confirming feelings in the heart (not just one or the other).
D&C 9:8–9 “But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right. But if it be not right you shall have no such feelings, but you shall have a stupor of thought…”

This is the classic “burning in the bosom” vs. “stupor of thought” test.

To sum up, we can vet/validate a spiritual prompting as follows:

Does it lead to good, faith in Christ, and righteousness?
Does it bring peace, light, edification, and clarity?
Does it align with scripture and the teachings of living prophets?
Is it accompanied by burning in the bosom (peace/confirmation) or stupor of thought (confusion)?
Does it come as both mind (thoughts) and heart (feelings)?

14 minutes ago, california boy said:

If you want to do something that God would never agree to, the best way to get others to go along with it is to say "the spirit commanded me to [fill in the blank]". History is full of men using that technique to do all kinds of heinous acts.

Indeed. There are plenty of ways to characterize one's personal preferences as "The Spirit" to justify improper conduct. Hence the value of the foregoing vetting guidelines.

14 minutes ago, california boy said:

And it still goes on today justifying wars, genocide, ethnic cleansing, bombing World Trade Center's, discrimination, and yes, more murders.

And, on a more individualized level, people invoke "The Spirit" to justify disregarding constraints on personal behavior, or shirking affirmative duties and obligations.

There are way too many "If It Feels Good, Do It" and/or "I Feel Really Strongly About This, So I Must Be Right"-style justifications that do not hold up well.

Thanks,

-Smac

smac97 · March 10

1 hour ago, Senator said:

Quote

I am curious as to your perspective on this:

Quote

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)

My thoughts?

Yes, I would like to hear your thoughts on the Welch article.

1 hour ago, Senator said:

My thoughts are that I become increasing skeptical whenever I hear the claim, "the spirit commanded me to [fill in the blank]"

Would still like to hear your thoughts on the Welch article.

When people claim, using various wordings, that God is justifying behavior that is facially problematic, then there is room for reasoned and principled concern/skepticism. Nephi slaying Laban is a good example of that. Welch acknowledges the moral quandary of the scenario.

More mundane and recent examples can arise from the Law of Chastity. People feel justified in committing adultery, fornication, etc. by declaring that God is okay with their behavior. When I hear such things, I become skeptical. The above vetting mechanisms become useful.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 10 by smac97

champatsch · March 10

Various aspects of non-verbal save point away from 19c authorship by Joseph Smith.

American English speakers in the early 1800s preferred except over save; the Book of Mormon is the opposite. We can see the except preference in Lucy Mack Smith's dictated book and to a limited degree in Joseph Smith's early letters (few examples – all except).

American English speakers used except and save as prepositions most of the time (with phrases); the Book of Mormon uses them as conjunctions (with clauses) the vast majority of the time. Lucy and Joseph used them as prepositions almost all the time. Lucy's book is a better resource for this, since it is longer and there are many more examples to consider.

Two broad categories of conjunctions are coordinating and subordinating. Coordinating conjunctions head predicative clauses, often referred to as main clauses. Subordinating conjunctions head subordinate clauses, often in the subjunctive mood.

Save, in the past, when functioning as a conjunction, was mainly used as a CC. It was used as a CS to a more limited degree than except, from what I have been able to determine thus far.

In the Book of Mormon, save functions as a CS most of the time. The Book of Mormon probably has well beyond ten times the amount of save functioning as a CS than any other text. As the main subtype, the text has 130 instances of "save it <be>," the vast majority where save is a CS. So far the most I have verified in another text is five.

In the case of "save it was," save is a CS in the text 3 times, which was rare past usage. In most textual examples of "save it was", save is a CC. So far I have seen "save_CS it was" in the writing of a Scottish minister, James Canaries, dated 1684.

Similarly, "save_CS he|they shall" occurs in the Book of Mormon 7 times. In this case, I have not found an example before the Book of Mormon yet. For some reason, there was hardly any analogizing from except historically. The subjunctive, modal shall marking is archaic, of course. So far I have seen approximately 10 examples of "save_CS what shall . . ." in the 17c.

Quoting, in part, Skousen, The King James Quotations in the Book of Mormon (2019), 225:

"The Anchor Bible Dictionary has First Isaiah (Isaiah 1–39), Second Isaiah (Isaiah 40–55), and Third Isaiah (Isaiah 56–66), as well as separating out an additional post-exilic “Little Apocalypse” from Isaiah 24–27, assigned to yet another author."

Deutero-Isaiah, in part, follows from references to Cyrus in Isaiah 44, 45. Of course academic treatments reject prophecy, so where the Isaiah text has a predicted item, then it must have been authored later.

One bit of hard evidence for unity is the following. "In Isaiah 49:25 the earlier, pre-exilic Qal Passive for the verb לקח ‘to take’ occurs in the Masoretic text (that is, as יקח ) instead of the later, post-exilic Niphal (that is, as ילקח ), which occurs in the Qumran scroll for this passage. Hendel notes that “in late Biblical Hebrew the Qal Passive is extremely rare”, so the Qal Passive verb form in Isaiah 49:25 provides additional evidence that Isaiah II reflects earlier usage. Hendel’s discussion of early versus late Biblical Hebrew is found in the appendix, “Linguistic Notes on the Age of Biblical Literature” (see pages 115–116 and its accompanying notes on pages 158–164), to his book Remembering Abraham (Oxford University Press, 2005)."

Ryan Dahle · March 10

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

It isn’t a matter of hypothetical precedent. It’s about evaluating the claims of the Book of Mormon. We don’t need to speculate about what God would do in this or that hypothetical situation. We can evaluate the Book of Mormon’s own claims. Have you read 1 Nephi 13? The Bible was corrupted by the great and abominable church. That is why we have the Book of Mormon, including the Isaiah chapters. It is also why Joseph Smith saw the need to create a new “translation” of the Bible.

I have read 1 Nephi 13, and it only provides a VERY generalized discussion of how plain and precious things would be removed from the Bible and how the Book of Mormon and other records in the Latter-days would help restore some of the plain and precious things that were lost. It doesn't specifically say how that will be accomplished or what parts of the Book of Mormon are most involved in accomplishing that goal. Nor does it say that is the only goal of the Book of Mormon or that this goal equally applies to each of the text's constituent parts. So there is a layer of interpretation that must be employed, and it seems pretty obvious that you are choosing an interpretation that is not only logically unnecessary but also just doesn't make much sense.

Here is an analogy that may help. Imagine you are restoring an old truck, and you tell your friend that the purpose of your project is to make the truck run again. But in the process, you also change the upholstery and give it a new paint job. But then your friend goes about telling everyone that you are making your truck "run again" by changing its upholstery and giving it a new paint job. That would be an obvious logical fallacy. Your friend took a SINGLE stated purpose of your project and assumed it was the ONLY purpose. The friend then applied that general purpose to a particular part of the project to which it obviously didn't apply.

Likewise, you are taking a single statement about the general purpose of the Book of Mormon and assuming, without justification, that it applies equally to every detail and section of the text. But that simply isn't a logical necessity, and it just doesn't work on many levels. For instance, what about all the details of the Book of Mormon that aren't plain and precious truths. What about stories unique to the Nephite nation, such as battles between the Nephites and Lamanites. Does every aspect of these stories restore plain and precious truths? Or is it more just that the stories contain opportunities for Mormon and other authors to draw out moral conclusions which interact with, restore, and sometimes clarify truths taught in the Bible? The latter interpretation seems obviously preferrable. I'm guessing you now see the problem with your unnecessarily universal interpretation of 1 Nephi 13. It is abundantly obvious that not everything in the Book of Mormon fits that stated goal. That goal only operates on a certain high level in most textual units.

And, if that is true, it then raises the question about the purpose of the Isaiah chapters. It seems pretty clear the from the text that these chapters are not specifically intended to restore plain and precious things. If that were Joseph Smith's primary purpose for these chapters (under a naturalistic theory), one would assume that they would contain many more doctrinally significant changes (more akin to many of the changes in the JST). But they don't. Instead, they only seem to provide a basis upon which Nephite authors developed their own commentary and talking points (which commentary and original content is then where we get the articulations of some plain and precious truths that may have been obscured or lost from biblical texts).

Overall, you have to remember that this is a criticism that YOU are making, trying to say that this textual data counts against the Book of Mormon in your Bayesian analysis. But that only works if your assumptions about the purpose of the Isaiah chapters is correct. Unfortunately for your theory, as the above analysis indicates, that is not a very logically justifiable position. Since you are making the critical claims, you have the initial burden of proof. You can't just say that is what the text necessarily means, and then not be able to back it up. I mean, I guess you technically can say that, but it only reveals a significant flaw in your Bayesian analysis.

Edited March 10 by Ryan Dahle

Analytics · March 10

20 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

In any case, you are missing the point of the EModE data. The problem is that the linguistic environment that you assume Smith was immersed in didn't have the variety of archaic forms found in the BofM.

That is an assumption that in all likelihood isn’t true. To prove that this assumption is true, you’d need to comprehensively provide transcripts of everything that was ever said or read in his environment. We don’t have that.

20 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

So you have to come up with a naturalistic theory that can reasonably account for the depth and breadth of the archaism in the Book of Mormon. No one has done that yet, except to assume without evidence (as you did above) that all of the necessary linguistic forms were somehow just floating in Smith's environment, and that it was pervasive enough to be reasonably detected and assimilated into his working vocabulary, sufficient that he could dictate in that dialect in a fast-paced translation. In other words, you have to assume something that, linguistically speaking, seems highly implausible. Which you would have to admit, in the Bayesian approach, would count pretty strongly against your authorship theory.

You are fundamentally misunderstanding the Bayesian approach. The correct approach is to address the totality of the evidence under two scenarios:

What are the chances this basket of evidence would show up if the Book of Mormon were true?
What are the chances this basket of evidence would show up if the Book of Mormon were false?

EModE linguistic forms are highly unlikely under both scenarios. Because of that, it isn’t strong evidence of authenticity either way. I want to be careful here because while I know a bit about statistics (e.g. I know what the Yates Chi-squared test is), I haven’t read his research--I’ve only read a few things about it.

On the one hand, “save it were” might not have been the most common way to say “unless” in the 1820’s, but everyone knew exactly what it meant, and it’s eminently plausible--even likely--that this phrasing was not completely extinct in Joseph Smith’s universe--that is how they knew what it meant. On the other hand, the BoM contains words that didn’t exist in the EModE period (e.g. “transpire”, “derangement”), and religious debates that hadn’t started yet (e.g. things like infant baptism, trinitarian v. non-trinitarian theology, predestination vs. free will, anti-masonry rhetoric) all fit in Joseph Smith’s time and place and not in the EModE period.

20 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

More importantly, this is just one aspect of the Book of Mormon's "text" that needs to be accounted for. Many more dozens of textual features (categorically speaking) need to be accounted for. Your explanation still has a long way to go before anything is really explained.

What is more likely? Somebody in the 19th century writing a 19th century book in KJV English had mental access to a few remnants of EModE that haven’t shown up in other 19th century documents? Or whatever Carmack’s theory is about a ghost committee that spoke multiple dialects of English depending upon the verse? The way I account for it seems a lot more likely and clean than the way he does.

Ryan Dahle · March 10

1 hour ago, Senator said:

If you say so

Yep. I say so.

Calm · March 10

3 hours ago, Senator said:

The funny thing is, they ended up dwindling and perishing in unbelief anyway. Go figure

After how many years?

Calm · March 10

2 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

you assume Smith was immersed in didn't have the variety of archaic forms found in the BofM.

What environment would have this variety in your analysis?

Ryan Dahle · March 10

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

3 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

In any case, you are missing the point of the EModE data. The problem is that the linguistic environment that you assume Smith was immersed in didn't have the variety of archaic forms found in the BofM.

That is an assumption that in all likelihood isn’t true. To prove that this assumption is true, you’d need to comprehensively provide transcripts of everything that was ever said or read in his environment. We don’t have that.

Notice your shift in logic. You first claim, without support, that my claim "in all likelihood isn't true." But then you shift the burden, arguing that I need to prove that my position is true. The unstated implication is that if I can't prove my position is true, then "in all likelihood" it is false. That is a big logical leap. For example, there are many strong scientific theories that aren't yet categorically "proven." But you can't just leap from "not proven" to "in all likelihood" false.

The problem with your position is that we actually have an enormous amount of textual data to help us determine what English was like at certain times and in certain regions of the world. While this data isn't a catalogue of every word that was ever spoken by all English speakers everywhere, it is still a very large sample of data that reliably represents normative patterns of English communication in a whole host of genres, contexts, and regions. Royal Skousen and Stan have been looking for archaism in Joseph Smith's environment, and haven't found it. And Stan has been especially diligent for many years now combing through the digital databases. The data is overwhelmingly against your position.

So all you really have left is that the data doesn't quite yet "prove" Stan's position is correct. That is true. But the available linguistic data is still overwhelmingly in support Stan's position. The combined lexis, grammar, and syntax are extremely unlikely to have been produced by Joseph Smith. This is based on the available data as well as a standard academic understanding of how human beings assimilate language into their working vocabularies.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

You are fundamentally misunderstanding the Bayesian approach. The correct approach is to address the totality of the evidence under two scenarios:

What are the chances this basket of evidence would show up if the Book of Mormon were true?

What are the chances this basket of evidence would show up if the Book of Mormon were false?

Oh, I understand the approach. This has been my life for the past decade. It just seems that those critical of the church are not actually dealing with a large amount of the data.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

EModE linguistic forms are highly unlikely under both scenarios. Because of that, it isn’t strong evidence of authenticity either way. I want to be careful here because while I know a bit about statistics (e.g. I know what the Yates Chi-squared test is), I haven’t read his research--I’ve only read a few things about it.

And here is where a common misunderstanding arises. The naturalistic theory has very well defined parameters. We know how humans normally assimilate language. We can track how language is used in certain times and regions. And modern databases have given us extraordinarily large sample sizes to work with. This means we have a very good data to make assessments about whether the text of the Book of Mormon plausibly reflects Joseph Smith's own native linguistic abilities. We know where he lived. We have a pretty good grasp of his education and access to books. We know how people were generally speaking in his environment, and so forth. He is a known entity.

In contrast, if we assume that the Book of Mormon was translated by supernatural means, that type of entity is far less known. We don't have any precedents for divine translation. We don't know all of the goals of such a translation. We don't know who was responsible for the translation (whether God, the Holy Ghost, angels, etc.). If it were one or more angels, we don't know what their language abilities are like when they get to the spirit world, or what their target language would be or why. We also don't know what texts are like in that realm. We don't know if a version of the Book of Mormon is being used there, or how it might relate to the version here. And on and on. There are just so many things we don't know. All we can do is speculate.

Nevertheless, these uncertainties create a natural asymmetry in the argument. When you deal with entities that you don't know much about, you have a much harder time proving (or strongly arguing) a negative. This means that while we can be fairly confident that Joseph Smith didn't produce the text of the Book of Mormon, we can't be nearly as confident that one or more divine entities produced the text. So a door is open on that front to a much greater degree than it would be for Joseph Smith. Which means that the supernatural argument has an obvious advantage in this area.

Now, typically, when confronted with this dilemma, those committed to a naturalistic worldview will resort back to a more general argument about how supernatural entities aren't plausible to begin with, and therefore Joseph Smith is the preferrable authorship option. But that is just misdirection since the whole point of the debate is to test whether naturalistic or supernatural assumptions can best explain specific sets of data. When the data doesn't favor your position on a certain line of evidence, you can't just resort back to doubling down on the assumptions guiding your worldview, since that is the whole point of the debate anyways (i.e., testing the assumptions guiding our worldview).

The simple fact is that this data doesn't not work well for a naturalistic theory and can be much better accommodated by a supernatural theory. The data is highly unlikely under the former theory and only somewhat unexpected under the latter theory. It therefore counts in favor of the supernatural explanation. You can't just then use your strong and generalized inclination against the supernatural to erase the fact that your own naturalistic theory is highly implausible on this front. That is cheating under normative Bayesian principles.

Edited March 10 by Ryan Dahle

Ryan Dahle · March 10

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

EModE linguistic forms are highly unlikely under both scenarios. Because of that, it isn’t strong evidence of authenticity either way. I want to be careful here because while I know a bit about statistics (e.g. I know what the Yates Chi-squared test is), I haven’t read his research--I’ve only read a few things about it.

On the one hand, “save it were” might not have been the most common way to say “unless” in the 1820’s, but everyone knew exactly what it meant, and it’s eminently plausible--even likely--that this phrasing was not completely extinct in Joseph Smith’s universe--that is how they knew what it meant. On the other hand, the BoM contains words that didn’t exist in the EModE period (e.g. “transpire”, “derangement”), and religious debates that hadn’t started yet (e.g. things like infant baptism, trinitarian v. non-trinitarian theology, predestination vs. free will, anti-masonry rhetoric) all fit in Joseph Smith’s time and place and not in the EModE period.

They knew that "save" meant "except." But a phrase like "save it were" was very rare. By way of analogy, we know what Yoda means when he says "help you I will." But that doesn't mean that English speakers (at least before Star Wars came out) were likely to use that type of phrasing. There is a big difference between being able to understand the meaning of certain items of archaic syntax and being likely to use a particular form of archaic syntax, especially in the variety of forms and in the rates and quantities we often find in the Book of Mormon.

Also I never stated that my theory necessitates that the entirety of the text is from the EModE period. Stan and Royal have been clear on this point repeatedly. They aren't claiming the entire text comes from that period or is exclusive to that period. I'm not sure why people keep bringing this up, as if it is some groundbreaking point that no one has considered before. It is ultimately irrelevant to my explanation of the text.

Finally, you are oversimplifying when certain issues were introduced to what time period. Infant baptism was an issue in Mesoamerica as well as concern in the Restoration. The nature of God was being debated from early in Christian history and is a question of universal concern. Dan Vogel overplayed the exclusivity of "secret combinations" and its implications, and secret societies can be found in many cultures. Thus the anti-masonry issue is debatable. But these issues are really not quite the same thing as the nature of the text. I can find many textual details that seem to be more exclusively ancient, and that are hard to explain as coming from Joseph Smith, especially in the aggregate. I've already listed some a while back.

Ryan Dahle · March 10

4 hours ago, Calm said:

What environment would have this variety in your analysis?

The text looks like it was created by an author (or authors) that had deep knowledge of EModE archaism but also knowledge of more modern linguistic patterns. If Smith were a linguist or historian that was known to be deeply read in a variety of Early Modern texts, he could much more plausibly have produced the combined archaism in the BofM (in grammar, lexis, and syntax). But it seems highly unlikely, based on his background and the types of texts that he would have been mostly likely to have read in his environment, that he ever obtained such a deep knowledge.

It must also be recognized that while many of us can read and understand older English texts, we tend not to integrate archaic features into our working vocabularies. For instance, I have set up a few dictation experiments where I have tested people's ability to mimic certain types of archaism in the Book of Mormon. Even being highly familiar with the text, the test subjects didn't use certain forms of archaism when the opportunity arose. Instead, they used forms of English syntax and grammar that were most familiar to their working vocabulary. And this was after years of reading the Book of Mormon on a regular basis. This doesn't mean no archaism can be mimicked. "Shall" and "thee" and so forth are often used in LDs prayers. But mimicking such a wide array of archaic features from the Bible, and then also implementing a lot of archaic features (and variants of those features) that weren't in the Bible and that weren't still in regular use in 1829 is another thing entirely.

Edited March 10 by Ryan Dahle

Analytics · March 10

2 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Notice your shift in logic. You first claim, without support, that my claim "in all likelihood isn't true."

In context, I offered two items of support.

As an example, "save it were” is a phrase that, if I understand the argument correctly, Joseph Smith in all likelihood wouldn’t have used because that specific phrase isn’t in the Bible and isn’t in the body of digitized 19th century literature that Carmack searched.

However, there are two reasons to believe that the phrase was in his lexicon. First and most importantly, everybody understood that wording--it was their language. Second, he used it. We already know from other evidence that the BoM is of 19th century origin. The Book of Mormon is part of the ~~enormous~~ limited dataset we have of 19th century usage.

And equally importantly, we have an eminently plausible theory of how “save it were” entered his lexicon. After all, his lexicon is a descendant of EModE. Spoken english is different from written English, and Joseph Smith’s particular dialect of oral sacred English could have retained elements of EModE that weren’t written in the limited datasets that Carmack looked at. And the fact that it is there is strong evidence that this is in fact what happened. I’m not making a far-fetched claim here. I’m following the data.

To be clear, this isn’t evidence in favor of 19th century authorship. Rather, it’s showing how this is not a silver bullet against a naturalistic explanation.

2 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

The problem with your position is that we actually have an enormous amounts of textual data to help us determine what English was like at certain times and in certain regions of the world. While this data isn't a catalogue of every word that was ever spoken by all English speakers everywhere, it is still a very large sample of data that reliably represents normative patterns of English communication in a whole host of genres, contexts, and regions.

"Enormous" is relative. Written corpora don't capture spoken language, and the sacred oral vernacular of Bible-reading frontier communities isn't well-represented in the databases Carmack searched. Absence from the databases Carmack searched doesn’t prove absence from the living religious speech of Joseph Smith's milieu.

2 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

And here is where a common misunderstanding arises. The naturalistic theory has very well defined parameters. We know how humans normally assimilate language. We can track how language is used in certain times and regions. And modern databases have given us extraordinarily large sample sizes to work with. This means we have a very good data to make assessments about whether the text of the Book of Mormon plausibly reflects Joseph Smith's own native linguistic abilities. We know where he lived. We have a pretty good grasp of his education and access to books. We know how people were generally speaking in his environment, and so forth. He is a known entity.

In contrast, if we assume that the Book of Mormon was translated by supernatural means, that type of entity is far less known. We don't have any precedents for divine translation. We don't know all of the goals of such a translation. We don't know who was responsible for the translation (whether God, the Holy Ghost, angels, etc.). If it were one or more angels, we don't know what their language abilities are like when they get to the spirit world, or what their target language would be or why. We also don't know what texts are like in that realm. We don't know if a version of the Book of Mormon is being used there, or how it might relate to the version here. And on and on. There are just so many things we don't know. All we can do is speculate.

We are evaluating the claim “what does the evidence say about the likelihood that the Book of Mormon is true?” The (only) logically coherent way to do this is with Bayesian reasoning. To do this, we need to do the following:

Create at least two broad, non-overlapping, well-defined theories of Book of Mormon origins that we are evaluating.
Select an a priori likelihood of each theory being true
Collect the evidence
Determine the likelihood of seeing the totality of the evidence under each scenario
Do the math

Your argument is basically, “we don’t know anything about the supernatural, so we have no basis for evaluating the likelihood of the evidence under the supernatural hypothesis.” If that is your position, then fine--we don’t have a well-defined theory to evaluate and no analysis should be done or can be done on the “is the Book true” question.

Stated in a non-Bayesian framework, this is functionally the same thing as making an unfalsifiable claim. An unfalsifiable claim really isn’t claiming anything at all.

But if you want to say the data is overwhelming against the theory that the Book of Mormon was written in the 19th century, you must propose an alternative theory that is more consistent with the data than the one you are arguing against.

2 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

The simple fact is that this data doesn't not work well for a naturalistic theory and can be much better accommodated by a supernatural theory. It is highly unlikely under the former only somewhat unexpected under the later.

It depends on which supernatural theory we’re talking about. The supernatural theory you seem to favor has something to do with a ghost committee of individuals with different English dialects spanning from the 1500s to the 1800s, providing some sort of text that is primarily 19th-century Bible fan fiction, but also may or may not have a few elements loosely based on something that happened in Mesoamerica--it’s impossible to know the specifics because we know so little about God and angels. You can make that your theory if you want to, but when you carefully draw your theory around the bullet holes after you shoot the gun, an honest a priori probability gets commensurately smaller.

Edited March 10 by Analytics

Analytics · March 10

1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said:

They knew that "save" meant "except." But a phrase like "save it were" was very rare. By way of analogy, we know what Yoda means when he says "help you I will." But that doesn't mean that English speakers (at least before Star Wars came out) were likely to use that type of phrasing. There is a big difference between being able to understand the meaning of certain items of archaic syntax and being likely to use a particular form of archaic syntax, especially in the variety of forms and in the rates and quantities we often find in the Book of Mormon.

We need to remember that likelihood is a relative term. Say I flipped a coin 100 times and got the following string of values:

T,T,H,T,H,T,T,T,H,T,H,T,H,T,T,H,H,H,H,H,T,T,T,T,H,T,T,H,T,T,T,T,H,T,H,H,H,H,T,H,H,H,H,T,H,H,T,H,T,H,T,T,H,H,H,H,T,H,H,T,T,T,H,T,T,H,T,T,T,T,T,H,T,H,T,T,H,H,T,T,H,T,H,T,H,T,H,T,H,T,H,T,T,H,T,T,T,H,H,T

Under the hypothesis that the probability of getting a heads is exactly 50%, the likelihood of getting that specific set of results with 100 flips is 7.89x10^(-31). In absolute terms, that is extraordinarily unlikely. But it is also extraordinarily unlikely that any other probability of getting a heads would result in that data. If we wanted to evaluate the likelihood that the coin is fair based on the data, we can’t look at the likelihood in absolute terms--we need to evaluate it compared to the likelihood of other hypotheses.

So yea. The probability of “save it were” showing up in a 19th century text that is trying to use the verbal sacred language of the time and place is low in absolute terms. But virtually everything involving stochastic processes is low in absolute terms.To determine what bearing this has on the probability that the Book of Mormon is true, you need to show how and why “save it were” is more likely under the competing hypothesis. You seem to be claiming that using “save it were” is more likely under the “it’s true” hypothesis, but you didn’t determine this until after you saw it there. That is classic Texas sharpshooting.

1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Also I never stated that my theory necessitates that the entirety of the text is from the EModE period. Stan and Royal have been clear on this point repeatedly. They aren't claiming the entire text comes from that period or is exclusive to that period. I'm not sure why people keep bringing this up, as if it is some groundbreaking point that no one has considered before. It is ultimately irrelevant to my explanation of the text.

I tip my hat to Skousen and Carmack for acknowledging this, and I have no problem whatsoever with them describing the language of the Book of Mormon. If they want to assume the BoM has a divine origin, then explaining this data seems to require the “tightly controlled transcription of a loosely translated document created by a committee of angels who had heterogeneous English dialects that spanned over 300 years,” or whatever their specific hypothesis is.

But it is a different question to ask what this implies about the likelihood of the Book of Mormon being authentic. If you define the authentic hypothesis as "whatever divine process produced exactly the text we observe," then you are Texas sharpshooting, not seriously evaluating the likelihood of authenticity. A mixed linguistic profile spanning three centuries of English is precisely what you'd expect from a 19th century author steeped in biblical register and trying to sound biblical. And that’s precisely what demands the most creative explaining under divine translation.

1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Finally, you are oversimplifying when certain issues were introduced to what time period. Infant baptism was an issue in Mesoamerica as well as concern in the Restoration. The nature of God was being debated from early in Christian history and is a question of universal concern. Dan Vogel overplayed the exclusivity of "secret combinations" and its implications, and secret societies can be found in many cultures. Thus the anti-masonry issue is debatable. But these issues are really not quite the same thing as the nature of the text. I can find many textual details that seem to be more exclusively ancient, and that are hard to explain as coming from Joseph Smith, especially in the aggregate. I've already listed some a while back.

I disagree, but we can save this for another day.

Edited March 10 by Analytics

smac97 · March 10

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

Fair enough. I'm generally agnostic about the specific details of the mechanism of production, but since you've asked repeatedly, here are the scenarios I find most plausible, offered as my best current assessment.

On the text: Joseph Smith is the most likely primary author, possibly with help from people in his immediate circle who were deeply steeped in biblical language. I can imagine his mother Lucy and brother Hyrum being involved. They had over five years between the time they said the book was forthcoming until the dictation to scribes began. The "tight translation" elements Carmack identifies are consistent with someone who had deeply internalized archaic KJV language and was reading from a pre-prepared manuscript, first behind the curtain during the 116-page period, then from the hat. The EModE patterns don't require a miracle. They require immersion in sacred language traditions, which Joseph's family had in abundance.

On the plates: some physical object probably existed. It was never subjected to independent examination, was deliberately concealed, and then conveniently removed before anyone outside the inner circle could evaluate it. This would have been constructed during the 5-year period before they were shown to witnesses.

On the witnesses: I think the most plausible explanation combines sincere belief in the project with solemn religious oaths to stand by what they signed. These were not dispassionate observers. They were family members, financial stakeholders, and true believers in a sacred undertaking. Several maintained their testimonies even after leaving the church, which I take as evidence of genuine belief in the original project, not necessarily evidence that the production was exactly what it was claimed to be. People can sincerely believe in something while using guile (e.g. missionaries who are told to find their testimony by telling people they know the Church is true). The witnesses may have believed they were serving God's purposes even while participating in a production that was partly staged. Moroni 7:16 explains their motivation--even if they weren’t being totally transparent and guileless, they were still persuading people to believe in Christ and do good; that is the yardstick for whether they were doing God’s work--not whether they were telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

On Space Aliens and demons: I never sincerely posited these as explanations. My point was logical: if the production was so extraordinary that naturalistic explanations are ruled out entirely, then all supernatural explanations need to be considered. And when choosing among supernatural explanations, it still matters that the text reads like 19th century biblical fan fiction rather than an authentic ancient record. But Space Aliens and demons are extraordinarily unlikely explanations and I never meant to suggest otherwise.

On Penn & Teller: As a more on-point example, between 1964 and 2015, hundreds of people applied to win James Randi’s million-dollar prize for having purported supernatural abilities. All claimed real magic. Some were probably sincere. None could prove they had real powers under controlled conditions. Claiming supernatural powers is irrelevant to the point; I don’t need to know how the trick to know there is one.

Thank you.

A few thoughts:

1. My Request: My core challenge has been for critics such as yourself to provide a positive, coherent alternative that accounts for the key data points (physical plates, witness statements, text origins/translation process) without heavy speculation, while claiming empirical rigor.

2. Your Response: Your response here is partially responsive in that you offer "scenarios I find most plausible." I find this falls short of what I had hoped to see in a few ways:

You remain "generally agnostic about the specific details of the mechanism of production," which preserves flexibility but avoids committing to a single, falsifiable theory (essentially, you're still exhibiting the "anything but that" approach). Of course, you have no obligation to do this, but it sure comes across as wishy-washy from a supposed empiricist who has spent decades examining and criticizing the truth claims of the Church.
Your explanations are vague and broad and hedged ("I can imagine," "most plausible," "I think the most plausible explanation combines...").
You only superficially, if at all, engage primary historical sources (e.g., specific witness accounts over time, dictation details from scribes like Emma Smith or Oliver Cowdery, or manuscript evidence) to show how they fit a plausible alternative model. Essentially, you are not engaging the data and are just jumping to broad conclusions without explaining the reasoning and evidence that got you there.
On the text, you reference Carmack's EModE (Early Modern English), presumably because you and Ryan have been discussing it. However, you dismiss its implications casually ("don't require a miracle... require immersion") without addressing why such patterns appear in ways critics argue Joseph couldn't plausibly replicate (e.g., non-biblical EModE syntax not common in 19th-century imitation or Joseph's known writings).

This doesn't do much as far as presenting a coherent and evidence-based alternative explanation that grapples with the data head-on, as scholars like Dan Vogel (psychological/family dynamics) or Ann Taves (revelatory events via materialization/cognitive processes) attempt in more depth (though, in my view, with little success).

3. Bayesian Stuff: Bayesian reasoning involves updating beliefs (posterior probability) based on evidence via likelihoods, given priors. As I understand it, a true Bayesian empiricist would:

Start with explicit priors (e.g., low prior for supernatural claims due to naturalistic background knowledge).
Assign likelihoods to evidence under competing hypotheses (divine translation vs. naturalistic production).
Update iteratively with new data.
Remain open to evidence shifting probabilities significantly.

You invoke Bayesian-style thinking elsewhere (e.g., in broader debates on extraordinary claims), but here your position is not, I think, rigorously Bayesian:

No explicit priors, likelihood ratios, or updating process are shown.
You appeal to background knowledge (e.g., 19th-century biblical immersion explains EModE; no independent examination of plates fits deception) but do not quantify or compare likelihoods formally.
You dismiss "supernatural" alternatives (space aliens/demons) as "extraordinarily unlikely" without Bayesian math, relying on intuition.
The Penn & Teller analogy is more frequentist/abductive ("I don’t need to know how the trick to know there is one") than Bayesian—it avoids assigning probabilities to mechanisms altogether.

Your comments here come across as informal skepticism (extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; Occam's razor favors naturalism) rather than as strict Bayesian empiricism. Your self-designation, at least as pertaining to the Church's core claims, seems more aspirational than descriptive.

4. Evidence-Based vs. Speculation/Conjecture: Your post leans heavily toward speculation and conjecture, with limited direct engagement with historical evidence.

On the text:

You assert Joseph ais primary author, possibly with Lucy/Hyrum help. No explanation/reasoning/analysis, no supporting evidence, no engaging contravening evidence.
You suggest a "tight translation" via pre-prepared manuscript + immersion in KJV/archaic language. Again, no explanation, no evidence, no engaging with extant evidence.
Your position is based on speculation, not empiricism. There is no direct evidence suggesting a pre-dictation manuscript, and ample contrary evidence (witnesses describe no papers during most dictation). You do not address either category. The 5-year gap is real but doesn't establish preparation. Again, no evidence that composition took place during this period.
You assert that "immersion" suffices to dismiss EModE, but you do not explain why patterns exceed Joseph's milieu (per Carmack/Skousen analyses) or why dictation witnesses reported no manuscripts/books in use for most of the process.

On the plates:

"Some physical object probably existed" but constructed secretly in 5 years, concealed, removed.
This is conjectural: There is no positive evidence for fabrication (materials, craftsmanship, witnesses to construction). It assumes deception to explain lack of independent exam, but doesn't engage counter-evidence (e.g., weight/handling descriptions, consistent accounts).

On the witnesses:

You combines "sincere belief" + "solemn religious oaths" + possible "guile" (staged elements) while serving God's purposes (per Moroni 7).
You acknowledge maintained testimonies after excommunication/dissociation.
This is partly evidence-based (post-church fidelity is documented) but all you have is speculative on motivation/guile, particularly in the face of Richard Lloyd Anderson's work on the Witnesses. You invoke psychological parallels (missionaries "finding testimony") without direct historical parallels for the witnesses' specific experiences (e.g., Three Witnesses' vision, Eight's handling). This is not empiricism. It's just guesswork.

Your model has elements of a plausible naturalistic alternative explanation. However, it relies substantially more on assumptions (preparation time suffices for composition; family could produce EModE; witnesses motivated by group piety/guile) and guesswork than on positive evidence and empirical analysis.

Your post is indeed a step forward. It is your "best current assessment" and avoids unreasoned alternatives which, it turns out, you presented in an unserious way. However, it doesn't fully satisfy my challenge: It's hedged, speculative in key areas, light on historical evidence engagement, and more conclusory than explanatory. It aligns with broad skeptical priors (natural explanations preferred; so no need for mechanism details if broad allusions to "deception" fit) but doesn't demonstrate rigorous Bayesian empiricism. Compared to more fleshed-out naturalistic models (Vogel's family psychodynamics, Taves' cognitive/revelatory materialization), it's relatively shallow and avoids the substantive and evidence-based empiricism I had hoped to see, and which I had thought you were advertising.

This does not disprove your view. Naturalistic origins remain viable. But it's mighty weak tea for people who, like me, have seriously engaged both the substantive evidence and scholarship and arguments both for and against the Church's claims. It highlights why I see you as taking steps to avoid being hoisted by your own petard because, in my view, actually committing to details would expose your position to evidential weaknesses that you do not want to address.

Anyhoo, that's my preliminary assessment. I will give it some further scrutiny, and I do appreciate you posting it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 11 by smac97

Ryan Dahle · March 10

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

"Enormous" is relative. Written corpora don't capture spoken language, and the sacred oral vernacular of Bible-reading frontier communities isn't well-represented in the databases Carmack searched.

Lots of written corpora do capture or approximate spoken language, such as recorded sermons. The problem is you have to really stretch to get the quantity and variety of archaic forms into Smith's environment, sufficiently for him to assimilate that language into his own vocabulary, but also explain why those same features are either rare or non-existent in the corpora from his time and place.

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

Your argument is basically, “we don’t know anything about the supernatural, so we have no basis for evaluating the likelihood of the evidence under the supernatural hypothesis.” If that is your position, then fine--we don’t have a well-defined theory to evaluate and no analysis should be done and can be done on the “is the Book true” question.

Stated in a non-Bayesian framework, this is functionally the same thing as making an unfalsifiable claim. An unfalsifiable claim really isn’t claiming anything at all.

But if you want to say the data is overwhelming against the theory that the Book of Mormon was written in the 19th century, you must propose an alternative theory that is more consistent with the data than the one you are arguing against.

This fundamentally misunderstands the level of detail that must be required by a competing theory. There are many situations in which one theory can be effectively ruled out by the available evidence, even if a competing theory doesn't have a complete or full explanation of the same data. In this case, the naturalistic explanation really struggles. And because it struggles, the supernatural explanation inherently becomes more plausible by default. That's just the way it is. That is the nature of miracles. When those who witnessed Christ heal someone or walk on water, they didn't have full working theories for specifically how he accomplished those feats. All they knew is that such accomplishments were very hard to explain based on normative natural laws, and therefore they bolstered Christ's religious claims (such as the ability to forgive sins).

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

We are evaluating the claim “what does the evidence say about the likelihood that the Book of Mormon is true?” The (only) logically coherent way to do this is with Bayesian reasoning. To do this, we need to do the following:

Create at least two broad, non-overlapping, well-defined theories of Book of Mormon origins that we are evaluating.

Select an a priori likelihood of each theory being true

Collect the evidence

Determine the likelihood of seeing the totality of the evidence under each scenario

Do the math

Your argument is basically, “we don’t know anything about the supernatural, so we have no basis for evaluating the likelihood of the evidence under the supernatural hypothesis.” If that is your position, then fine--we don’t have a well-defined theory to evaluate and no analysis should be done and can be done on the “is the Book true” question.

But that isn't at all how I have approached my end of the theory. In actuality, I have looked at many dozens of lines of competing evidence in a wide variety of domains. This linguistic data is just one of many that point towards Joseph Smith not being able to produce the text of the Book of Mormon. Other lines of evidence, such as the 30+ items I listed previously, suggest ANE origins, which is consistent with the text's claims but very hard to deal with under naturalistic theories. Then there are the witnesses to the plates and the angel. And there is the complexity of the Book of Mormon. And there is the Enoch literature. And so on.

To me, what I see are lots of lines of evidence that converge and reinforce one another in ways that are extraordinarily difficult for naturalistic theories to account for as a whole. And I just tend to find this data more persuasive than many of the objections or contrary evidence (DNA, anachronisms, 19th-century parallels, Isaiah authorship concerns, etc.).

Edited March 10 by Ryan Dahle

Ryan Dahle · March 10

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

So yea. The probability of “save it were” showing up in a 19th century text that is trying to use the verbal sacred language of the time and place is low in absolute terms. But virtually everything involving stochastic processes is low in absolute terms.To determine what bearing this has on the probability that the Book of Mormon is true, you need to show how and why “save it were” is more likely under the competing hypothesis. You seem to be claiming that using “save it were” is more likely under the “it’s true” hypothesis, but you didn’t determine this until after you saw it there. That is classic Texas sharpshooting.

I'm not sure why this evidence is so hard to understand. Joseph Smith claimed to receive the English translation of the BofM through divine revelation. We don't know precisely what type of English translation that might result in (since there is no precedent for that type of phenomenon). But what we do know is what type of language we might expect from Joseph Smith, assuming he were to produce it using naturalistic means.

Then, low and behold, nearly 200 years later, scholars start to discover that the text of the Book of Mormon actually does seem highly implausible as coming from Joseph Smith, based on a whole range of archaic English features (of which "save it were" is just one). The fact that we can't fully explain why those features exist seems almost irrelevant compared to the fact that Smith very likely couldn't have produced them all himself. This is not a Texas sharpshooter fallacy. The prediction is already there from the beginning that the wording of the text might not be his. When that prediction is fulfilled in a very unexpected way, it tends to support Smith's claims of supernatural intervention.

Edited March 10 by Ryan Dahle

Ryan Dahle · March 10

@Analytics Let's just say, very hypothetically, that I were to claim that I was abducted by space aliens. Naturally, you would probably be highly skeptical of that claim (and so would I, if I were you). But then lets say that, in support of my claim, I pull out a shrink ray gun that I claim I got from the aliens. I point it at your mailbox and fire. And then it shrinks down to the size of your palm. But then you ask me why the alien's gave me the gun. I tell you I have no idea. You ask me how they developed it and for what purpose. I tell you I don't know. You ask me why I was abducted. I don't know. Basically I don't have any answers except that they abducted me and then gave me that artifact. I don't have any broader explanatory theory and can only report what I experienced.

Under this scenario, would my possession of the shrink gun lend support for my story or not? Meaning, would you be more inclined to believe me or not, after I produced that evidence?

(To be clear, I'm not directly equating the shrink gun with the Book of Mormon. So there is no need to expound upon the differences. It is the underlying principle I'm trying to get at, in a scenario that is as simple and straightforward as possible. I want to see if you reject the principle of logic itself, or if the real issue is just about the specific nature of the evidence. I think you may be confusing the two, so it will be interesting to see how you respond to the scenario on its own terms, before trying to bring out its relevance to the discussion).

Edited March 10 by Ryan Dahle

Analytics · March 11

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

Anyhoo, that's my preliminary assessment. I will give it some further scrutiny, and I do appreciate you posting it.

Let’s back up and put this into perspective.

My Bayesian reasoning has three stages, and the order matters.

Stage 1 is the prior. The base rate of genuine miracles in all of recorded human history is extraordinarily low. This isn't dogma. It's an empirical observation. As I've repeatedly hammered, multiple lines of science converge on the point that not only is the supernatural not observed, it isn't even possible (and in this context "supernatural" entails "spirit matter" and the alleged higher laws of nature that Mormonism posits). My prior probability for the BoM being authentically what it claims is therefore very low before I examine a single piece of BoM-specific evidence.

Stage 2 is what the Book of Mormon actually is. Before asking who wrote it or how, I look at the text itself. This is the most important question and the one you spend the least time on. The text addresses 19th century theological debates. It contains material from Deutero-Isaiah--chapters written centuries after Lehi would have left Jerusalem. It has no credible archaeological, genetic, or linguistic corroboration as an authentic ancient record. Rather, it is full of anachronisms. The text itself is primary evidence, and it looks like 19th century composition.

Stage 3 is mechanism. Only after establishing what the BoM is do I ask who wrote it and how. On this I am and always have been agnostic, and appropriately so. We don't have enough evidence to reconstruct the precise mechanism. You asked me to speculate and I did. But agnosticism about mechanism is not weakness. It's epistemic honesty. You are conflating two separate questions: whether the BoM is authentic versus how it was produced. I am highly confident on the first and appropriately uncertain on the second. Those are not contradictory positions.

Now on your Bayesian critique: you say I'm not being rigorously Bayesian because I don't show explicit priors and likelihood ratios. But it is okay to be informal and not quantify terms like "unlikely" and "very unlikely." The key Bayesian insight in this context isn't that we need to make up probabilities and do math. The key insight is that we need to ask the right questions:

What is the a priori probability?
What is the probability of seeing the evidence under one theory?
What is the probability of seeing the evidence under the competing theory?

It's fine to discuss these probabilities qualitatively, but it is a logical fallacy to evaluate the probability of the BoM being "true" without addressing all three components.

On the witnesses: they were chosen by Joseph Smith and their testimonies were first drafted by hin and then signed. That is not independent testimony. It's managed testimony. A judge probably wouldn't admit evidence managed this way, and if she did, she wouldn't give it much weight. I don't either, for the same reasons. It isn’t about arbitrary rules of evidence. It’s about the evidence being suspicious because it is managed.

On the plates: performative evidence that was deliberately kept from independent examination and then conveniently removed is the structure of a magic show, not an authentic historical artifact.

This pattern continues for most of the evidence we have about how it was produced. The "evidence" was tightly managed with the objective of proving it is miraculous while going to extraordinary lengths to prevent genuine authentication. When you don't have enough evidence to know exactly how something was done, the honest thing to do is say "I don't know." That’s why I hold the position that I do.

Analytics · March 11

6 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I'm not sure why this evidence is so hard to understand. Joseph Smith claimed to receive the English translation of the BofM through divine revelation. We don't know precisely what type of English translation that might result in (since there is no precedent for that type of phenomenon).

This concept that there are multiple “types” of English translations that would be made by the power of God and that one of them involves a heterogeneous array of speakers with English dialects that span from the 1500s through the 1800s is an example of Texas sharpshooting because this idea didn’t come about until after the evidence came out. Originally, there were only two types of translations: correct translations and incorrect translations.

6 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Then, low and behold, nearly 200 years later, scholars start to discover that the text of the Book of Mormon actually does seem highly implausible as coming from Joseph Smith...

Implausible compared to what?

Analytics · March 11

6 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

@Analytics Let's just say, very hypothetically, that I were to claim that I was abducted by space aliens. Naturally, you would probably be highly skeptical of that claim (and so would I, if I were you). But then lets say that, in support of my claim, I pull out a shrink ray gun that I claim I got from the aliens. I point it at your mailbox and fire. And then it shrinks down to the size of your palm. But then you ask me why the alien's gave me the gun. I tell you I have no idea. You ask me how they developed it and for what purpose. I tell you I don't know. You ask me why I was abducted. I don't know. Basically I don't have any answers except that they abducted me and then gave me that artifact. I don't have any broader explanatory theory and can only report what I experienced.

Under this scenario, would my possession of the shrink gun lend support for my story or not? Meaning, would you be more inclined to believe me or not, after I produced that evidence?

Taking your hypothetical seriously, if you pulled out a shrink-ray gun and demonstrated that it worked on your mailbox, my first thought would be that there was a hidden camera and I was secretly being recorded on The Carbonaro Effect.

If that possibility were ruled out, I wouldn’t start by asking why you were abducted, why you were given the gun, or how the aliens built it. Instead, I would want to examine the evidence. Specifically, I’d want a qualified expert to evaluate the device under controlled conditions.

I’d ask a physicist to determine what the “shrink ray gun” actually does in the real world. Does it compress matter? Alter particle structure? Cause matter to disappear? If so, where does it go?

Once we understood the mechanism, I would ask whether the device appears consistent with known materials and technology available on Earth.

If experts concluded that the device genuinely performs phenomena that cannot plausibly be produced by known terrestrial technology, that would be extremely strong evidence, and I would update my credences accordingly.

But to evaluate the alien-abduction claim coherently, I’d need to consider:

• the prior probability that you were abducted by aliens
• the probability of observing such a device if aliens really had abducted you
• the probability of observing such a device if aliens had not abducted you

If the device strongly disfavors terrestrial explanations, the likelihood ratio would heavily favor the alien-abduction hypothesis.

But if you said something like, "The alien really wanted me to prove to the world that he was real, so he commanded me to show the shrink-ray gun to eleven close friends who then jointly signed a statement saying it was real—and then the alien who wanted to prove his existence took the gun away before any qualified physicist could examine it," I would be far less impressed.

The Nehor · March 11

13 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

There will be an Interpreter conference in May. I know several authors are exploring this issue in depth. It will be interesting to see what they have to say.

But, basically, contrary to your AI summary (which tends to overinflate perceptions of consensus), I think that the field itself has fairly weak methodological controls and is actually in a significant state of disarray regarding the precise nature of Isaiah's authorship. Determining disputed authorship thousands of years after the fact is a highly speculative endeavor to begin with, so I just don't think Latter-day Saints have a lot to worry about. I've read lots and lots of scholarly discussions on dating and authorship of a wide variety of ancient texts. Even the best current theories tend to have significant limitations. Perhaps the biggest fundamental challenge is separating original content from redacted content. As soon as you start assuming a text may have undergone multiple layers of redaction and adaption through the centuries, the competing theories become highly complicated and almost impossible to prove. Here is one Latter-day Saint's journey exploring the complexity and limitations of this scholarship:

No. Just no.

The idea that this is a topic with weak mehodological controls is silly. Biblical scholarship is one of the most contested fields. It is also weird because a large number of the scholars in it are contractually obligated to defend certain views as part of their job. The idea that the critics of traditional readings are just running around blindly hacking things apart borders on conspiracy theorizing.

Ryan Dahle · March 11

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

This concept that there are multiple “types” of English translations that would be made by the power of God and that one of them involves a heterogeneous array of speakers with English dialects that span from the 1500s through the 1800s is an example of Texas sharpshooting because this idea didn’t come about until after the evidence came out.

You are confusing predicted outcomes with predicted mechanisms. The outcome (Smith not being responsible for the wording of the text) was reasonably predicted, but the mechanism was unknown and not reasonably predictable. The thing is, the mechanism doesn't have to be known in order for the prediction of an extraordinary outcome to still be significant in the Bayesian analysis. I think this point is demonstrated clearly in the alien analogy I provided. Which is why I brought it up.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

8 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Then, low and behold, nearly 200 years later, scholars start to discover that the text of the Book of Mormon actually does seem highly implausible as coming from Joseph Smith...

Implausible compared to what?

Like I said before. This is the pattern. When an extraordinary claim (Smith received a text by revelation) is supported by extraordinary line of evidence (the text manifests all sorts of archaic features that, as a set, are exceedingly unlikely as coming from Smith based on large samples of available data), then the skeptic begins to become uncomfortable. So there is usually a pivot back to the skeptical prior to save the day. No matter how extraordinary, unusual, or unexpected the evidence is, the naturalistic explanation will never be as implausible (in the skeptic's mind) as the supernatural one. By making this pivot, the skeptic doesn't have to admit that the evidence actually supports the supernatural to any degree. Instead, the focus is redirected on how it is never quite "extraordinary" enough in comparison. Whenever this line of reasoning is employed, you can bet that the naturalistic explanation has probably lost this round to some degree. If you actually had the data to demonstrate that what Smith did was not really out of the ordinary, I'm guessing you would use it to that effect.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

But to evaluate the alien-abduction claim coherently, I’d need to consider:

• the prior probability that you were abducted by aliens
• the probability of observing such a device if aliens really had abducted you
• the probability of observing such a device if aliens had not abducted you

If the device strongly disfavors terrestrial explanations, the likelihood ratio would heavily favor the alien-abduction hypothesis.

Ah, but now you seem to have a problem, since there is no coherent theory as to how the aliens came to be, why they chose me, why they gave me the gun, how the technology works (let's just assume its functionality is legit and it can't be reverse engineered with current human tech), and so forth. Virtually none of the questions you are likely wanting to know would be answered. There is no actual "theory," per se, as to why all this occurred. There is simply an extraordinary claim supported by an extraordinary event that seems to transcend human capacity. Interestingly, it seems like you are conceding that the extraordinary evidence would still be quite significant in this context, even if you couldn't explain any of the big WHYS or HOWS of it all? I think that is rather telling and relevant, by analogy.

What it tells me is that if you saw the EModE data as strong enough evidence, then it wouldn't really matter what unexpected and ultimately unpredictable set of divine processes may be at play in producing it. The issue isn't really that we need to have a full theory to explain the phenomenon (although that could help somewhat). It is just that you don't think this line of data is as strong as, say, an alien shrink gun working right before your eyes. And fair enough. I don't think it is that strong either.

At the same time, however, I think the data is actually far stronger than you are giving it credit for. Your current theory for how all this EModE archaism came into Smith's working vocabulary rests on a series of assumptions that I find highly implausible. So I will tell you what. If you think this outcome really isn't that unexpected based on naturalistic observations about language usage among societies, how about you try to find an example of a similar degree of archaism (in quantity, quality, and variety) produced by someone in circumstances comparable to Joseph Smith. You seem to have a theory for how that would all come about. Now we just need one or two examples to help establish the validity of your working theory. It would be especially helpful if you could find someone in Smith's environment or region that used similar types of archaism. The naturalistic process, however, has to be uncontestable. You can't find someone who claims to be a spirit medium or anything like that. It also can't be a scholar immersed in archaic texts. Just find someone who produced a similar feat of archaism in reasonably comparable circumstances. Can't be that hard, right? I mean, with all the preachers presumably using that type of sacred language regularly in sermons that Smith was exposed to (which is apparently where he learned it under your theory), such language would almost certainly show up in pretty high quantities in some other religious texts outside of the Book of Mormon. Right?

Edited March 11 by Ryan Dahle

Calm · March 11

54 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

The thing is, the mechanism doesn't have to be known in order for the prediction of an extraordinary outcome to still be significant in the Bayesian analysis.

Isn’t this the same thing Analytics is stating when being pushed for an explanation of how Joseph produced the text, just from the opposite view with a slight variation….the mechanism doesn’t have to be known in order for the prediction of an ordinary (naturalistic) outcome to still be significant?

Just making the observation…not saying it impacts any arguments. I just found it interesting. (This may have been pointed out before, I may have missed a couple of posts with interruptions the past few days).

Edited March 11 by Calm

champatsch · March 11

16 hours ago, Analytics said:

As an example, "save it were” is a phrase that, if I understand the argument correctly, Joseph Smith in all likelihood wouldn’t have used because that specific phrase isn’t in the Bible and isn’t in the body of digitized 19th century literature that Carmack searched.

No, that is not correct. It was unlikely for him to use "save it were" more than 70 times (as a pro-form expression) since it does not occur more than two or three times in other texts, and it rarely occurs before the Book of Mormon and not in American English sources, and it is not an isolated archaism of the language he dictated. There is both specific and general internal textual support for viewing it as an archaism. Indeed, the heavy use of this rare syntax is one of many archaic syntactic outliers in the text.

Of course it is possible that there is an American English example somewhere before the Book of Mormon. They do begin after the Book of Mormon, in an 1837 poem and Hawthorne's Scarlet Letter (1850). But that is not explanatory. In general, Book of Mormon English is more British than American in style. A large amount of the syntactic matching of the text is found much more often in British sources than American sources. "Save it <be>" syntax is one of these that is much more British in style rather than American. It is also rather poetic and literary in style.

"Save it were" is not an isolated archaism of the Book of Mormon. There is even support for it being an archaism from other subordinating conjunction save usage. The save syntax where the subordinate clause is marked as subjunctive by the modal auxiliary shall is archaic usage (18×), and the Book of Mormon has much more of it than any text. This particular shall usage marks it as formal, written language in style. It is not pseudo-archaic usage or biblical usage or modern usage. Here are 7 of the 18, the ones with third person pronouns. This usage is currently not in the largest databases before 1830.

Moroni 7:38    save they shall have faith in his name
Moroni 7:43    save he shall be meek and lowly of heart
1 Nephi 3:7     save he shall prepare a way for them
2 Nephi 5:22   save they shall repent of their iniquities
2 Nephi 9:42   save they shall cast these things away
2 Nephi 30:6   save they shall be a white and a delightsome people
2 Nephi 33:5   save he shall be of the spirit of the devil

If this subjunctive “save he | they shall” syntax had been commonly used before 1830, there would be examples in Google Books, which currently has more than 25 billion words published before 1830, or ECCO (about 9 billion words), or EEBO (about 1.5 billion words). The dataset consists of two potentially frequent three-word phrases. Yes, there are examples with except, but there is no textual evidence of analogizing from except. This illustrates the general point that analogical extension in language is not automatic or predictable. English, historically speaking, compartmentalized some of its except | save usage. The conjunction save usage of the Book of Mormon, which is unique in an overall sense, is a strong point in favor it being viewed as a text not authored by Joseph Smith.

Here are the Book of Mormon's 16 examples of "they which" occurring in object position, immediately following the object trigger. There is no text that has anything like this set, and only one verified example so far, dated 1659. Object they usage was almost always "they that" or "they who". "They which" would have been Joseph Smith's 9th choice of 9 options in this context. Like those around him, he preferred "those who" in this context.

         aa3136        he clapped his hands upon all they which were with him
         hn1312        it is because of they which are righteous that it is saved
         hn1618        unto they which shall be at Jerusalem
         3n1805        unto all they which shall believe
         3n1923        I pray . . for all they which shall believe on their words
         mi0810        unto they which are accountable and capable of committing sin
         1n1913        as for they which are at Jerusalem, . . they shall be scourged
         1n1920        I have workings in the spirit . . for they which are at Jerusalem
         1n2204        from the knowledge of they which are at Jerusalem
         1n2205        concerning all they which shall hereafter be scattered
         1n2211        unto they which are of the house of Israel
         2n1003        among they which are the more wicked part of the world
         2n1021        unto they which are upon the isles of the sea
verb 2n1022        the Lord remembereth all they which have been broken off
         2n2709        the words of they which have slumbered in the dust
verb 2n2907        I remember they which are upon the isles of the sea

This is also evidence that Joseph Smith did not author the bad grammar of the Book of Mormon.

Book of Mormon English is quite amazing, in many respects. Attempts to explain it naturalistically are highly stipulative.

Edited March 11 by champatsch

Sign In

A Secular Theory of Where the BoM Came From

Recommended Posts

Ryan Dahle

smac97

smac97

champatsch

Ryan Dahle

Analytics

Ryan Dahle

Calm

Calm

Ryan Dahle

Ryan Dahle

Ryan Dahle

Analytics

Analytics

smac97

Ryan Dahle

Ryan Dahle

Ryan Dahle

Analytics

Analytics

Analytics

The Nehor

Ryan Dahle

Calm

champatsch

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Recently Browsing 0 members

Activity

Browse