A Secular Theory of Where the BoM Came From

[Ryan Dahle]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

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?

This brings up a good point. I think the first thing that should be noticed is that essentially ALL human explanations are technically incomplete, meaning that we never can fully explain the mechanisms behind observable phenomena. Take, for example, the observation that an apple falls to the ground when you drop it. Even the most scientifically sophisticated theory for that event will, at some point, have to engage in wild speculation. We can explain the properties of gravity and matter, but we have no idea why gravity or electrons or protons exist. We can't explain the array of natural laws that govern the material world. Which means we really don't understand WHY or HOW anything is the way it is. All explanations are thus provisional in some sense. This certainly doesn't mean that all explanations are equal. Some explanations are far more congruent with the already known consistencies in the universe than others. But this underlying limitation should be recognized. No human theory or explanation is ever truly complete. 

But, more to your point, I actually think there is a very significant distinction that may be easy to miss. Any time there are competing theories and one theory can back up one of its extraordinary claims with an extraordinary item of evidence, that automatically creates an asymmetry in that particular sphere of the debate. If I claim I was abducted by aliens, most people will scoff at the idea. But as soon as I pull out the alien-derived shrink gun and shrink a mail box, the laughing all of a sudden stops. I may not be able to explain anything more about the gun or how it was developed or why it was given to me. But none of that really matters much anymore, since the extraordinary outcome has, on its own, substantially backed up the extraordinary claim (as Analytics essentially conceded). Those seeking for a counter explanation for the existence of the shrink ray gun don't have that same advantage. Instead, they would be left to come up with a highly speculative alternative theory without the benefit of having made and then substantially justified the initial extraordinary claim. 

To be clear, the mere existence of the shrink gun wouldn't, on its own, prove the alien theory. There could be another explanation. But whatever counter-explanation might be brought forward would need to be highly persuasive in order to overcome the already inherent disadvantage in the debate. I think the difference would be that the initial claim essentially predicts an outcome or an aspect of reality that seems highly implausible. It is the unexpected prediction or claim that seems so important to us, as well as any associated testimony that is supported by the extraordinary evidence. In my hypothetical scenario, the evidence would be comprised of my personal testimony about my alien abduction + the extraordinary evidence (the functional shrink gun) that substantially backs up my testimony. Competing explanations wouldn't have that same advantage. They would be left to speculate about the the same extraordinary outcome after the fact, without having predicted it in any way and without having made the initial claim themselves. In situations where the outcome truly is extraordinary, that will likely leave alternative explanations without any strong supporting data. Whatever one might come up with will likely just be post-hoc speculation (in contrast to eye-witness testimony + extraordinary corroborating evidence). It is true that neither side would be able to fully explain why or how the shrink ray gun exists, but one explanation would have an obvious and significant advantage over the other. 

Assuming others agree with this rationale, it should have clear implications for the debate over the Book of Mormon. Whenever Joseph Smith's extraordinary claims are supported by extraordinary lines of supporting evidence, it creates an immediate asymmetry in the debate. The other side doesn't have that same advantage. They didn't claim to be visited by an angel in connection to a set of gold plates and then were able find three people who would corroborate that story, much less eight others to verify the existence of the plates. They didn't claim to receive a text by revelation and then were able to produce, in the presence of many witnesses, an extraordinarily long and complex text in essentially a single take--a text which is filled with Semitic features that are consistent with the text's own claimed origins, as well as other features (like EModE) that together point away from Smith's authorship. They didn't claim to receive a revelation about the prophet Enoch, only to have that revelation filled to the brim with parallels to extrabiblical Enochic texts, a number of which weren't available in Smith's day. And so forth. In these (and other) cases, Smith's claims amount to extraordinary predictions that are corroborated by extraordinary lines of evidence. Not only do the counter explanations tend to be highly speculative and insufficient, but they simply don't have that initial advantage. 

Edited March 11 by Ryan Dahle

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said:

This brings up a good point. I think the first thing that should be noticed is that essentially ALL human explanations are technically incomplete, meaning that we never can fully explain the mechanisms behind observable phenomena. Take, for example, the observation that an apple falls to the ground when you drop it. Even the most scientifically sophisticated theory for that event will, at some point, have to engage in wild speculation. We can explain the properties of gravity and matter, but we have no idea why gravity or electrons or protons exist. We can't explain the array of natural laws that govern the material world. Which means we really don't understand WHY or HOW anything is the way it is. All explanations are thus provisional in some sense. This certainly doesn't mean that all explanations are equal. Some explanations are far more congruent with the already known consistencies in the universe than others. But this underlying limitation should be recognized. No human theory or explanation is ever truly complete. 

What are your thoughts about @Analytics' heavy reliance on Sean Carroll's declaration that "The laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely known"?  Do you see any discrepancy between that and "No human theory or explanation is ever truly complete"?

The "granularity" component of this discussion merits some attention.  The Latter-day Saints vary in their capacity here.  For example, the plausibility of the Gold Plates can be scrutinized with more granularity (e.g., tumbaga, physical reproductions, etc.) than, say, the "by the gift and power of God" translation process.  We cannot directly test the reality of the Witnesses' described experiences, but we can evaluate their individual credibility as witnesses overall.  See, e.g., Daniel Peterson's comments here: 

A Note on Evidence (Part One)

Some excerpts:

Quote

My atheist commenter is, of course, taking particular aim at my claim that the testimonies of the Book of Mormon witnesses have strong evidentiary value.  He has never seriously considered them and knows little or nothing about them, but his response, sight essentially unseen, is that their testimonies have no evidentiary value whatever.  They’re just “stories,” he declares, rather oddly adding to that blithe dismissal the claim that they “can’t be examined.”  But,  of course, they can be examined, and they have been examined.

The best starting point for such examination, incidentally, beyond studying the official testimonies of the Three Witnesses and the Eight Witnesses themselves as they’re reproduced in the front matter of the Book of Mormon, is Richard Lloyd Anderson’s Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses, which he supplemented over the next few decades with other vitally important articles.  And many other significant studies can be recommended thereafter.  In fact, we hope that our new Witnesses of the Book of Mormon website will become an indispensable resource for materials from and about not only the Three and the Eight but also the very important informal or unofficial witnesses, as well.

It is stuff like DCP's approach to evidence that compels me to part ways with @Analytics.  I want to examine the evidence in support of the Church's truth claims, and I don't think he does.  I want to examine alternative explanations for The Book of Mormon and evidence therefore, and I don't think he does.  Instead, I think he is using supposed Bayesian reasoning as a shortcut, as a justification to circumvent any need to actually address the evidence in favor of authenticity for The Book of Mormon, or to formulate a counter-explanation and marshal supporting evidence for it.  He just declares, a priori, that Joseph's narrative is "just not possible," and that "any [other] explanation" is "more likely than {The Book of Mormon} being an accurate translation of an actual ancient manuscript" (emphasis added).  Hence the "Space Aliens" and/or "Satan" stuff.

If supposed Bayesian methodological empiricism can accommodate explanations like these but not Joseph's, then I'm not sure how useful it is as a diagnostic tool in this context.

1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said:

But, more to your point, I actually think there is a very significant distinction that may be easy to miss. Any time there are competing theories and one theory can back up one of its extraordinary claims with an extraordinary item of evidence, that automatically creates an asymmetry in that particular sphere of the debate. If I claim I was abducted by aliens, most people will scoff at the idea. But as soon as I pull out the alien-derived shrink gun and shrink a mail box, the laughing all of a sudden stops. I may not be able to explain anything more about the gun or how it was developed or why it was given to me. But none of that really matters much anymore, since the extraordinary outcome has, on its own, substantially backed up the extraordinary claim (as Analytics essentially conceded). Those seeking for a counter explanation for the existence of the shrink ray gun don't have that same advantage. Instead, they would be left to come up with a highly speculative alternative theory without the benefit of having made and then substantially justified the initial extraordinary claim. 

Are you positing that the "shrink ray gun" is, to some extent, analogous to the text of The Book of Mormon?  Or the testimonial evidence of the Witnesses (together with their individualized credibility, subsequent opportunities/incentives to recant, etc.)?  Both?  Neither?

1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said:

To be clear, the mere existence of the shrink gun wouldn't, on its own, prove the alien theory. There could be another explanation. But whatever counter-explanation might be brought forward would need to be highly persuasive in order to overcome the already inherent disadvantage in the debate. I think the difference would be that the initial claim essentially predicts an outcome or an aspect of reality that seems highly implausible. It is the unexpected prediction or claim that seems so important to us, as well as any associated testimony that is supported by the extraordinary evidence. In my hypothetical scenario, the evidence would be comprised of my personal testimony about my alien abduction + the extraordinary evidence (the functional shrink gun) that substantially backs up my testimony. Competing explanations wouldn't have that same advantage. They would be left to speculate about the the same extraordinary outcome after the fact, without having predicted it in any way and without having made the initial claim themselves. In situations where the outcome truly is extraordinary, that will likely leave alternative explanations without any strong supporting data. Whatever one might come up with will likely just be post-hoc speculation (in contrast to eye-witness testimony + extraordinary corroborating evidence). It is true that neither side would be able to fully explain why or how the shrink ray gun exists, but one explanation would have an obvious and significant advantage over the other. 

Assuming others agree with this rationale, it should have clear implications for the debate over the Book of Mormon. Whenever Joseph Smith's extraordinary claims are supported by extraordinary lines of supporting evidence, it creates an immediate asymmetry in the debate. The other side doesn't have that same advantage. They didn't claim to be visited by an angel in connection to a set of gold plates and then were able find three people who would corroborate that story, much less eight others to verify the existence of the plates. They didn't claim to receive a text by revelation and then were able to produce, in the presence of many witnesses, an extraordinarily long and complex text in essentially a single take--a text which is filled with Semitic features that are consistent with the text's own claimed origins, as well as other features (like EModE) that together point away from Smith's authorship. They didn't claim to receive a revelation about the prophet Enoch, only to have that revelation filled to the brim with parallels to extrabiblical Enochic texts, a number of which weren't available in Smith's day. And so forth. In these (and other) cases, Smith's claims amount to extraordinary predictions that are corroborated by extraordinary lines of evidence. Not only do the counter explanations tend to be highly speculative and insufficient, but they simply don't have that initial advantage. 

I think I have previously touched on this, but by a somewhat different approach and description.  I've called it the "Transmission Gap Theory," described here (bold emphases added) :

Quote

Quote

I don't understand the distinction you're drawing between "blind faith" such as one might put in the Bible, which reports miracles but was itself transmitted by natural means, and the different kind of faith that you think the Book of Mormon requires because it came from miraculously conveyed relic plates.

Here are my thoughts:

Because the Bible’s historical transmission can be discerned and explained naturalistically (that is, without any necessary reliance on “divine” intervention in the transmission of the text), the antiquity of the Bible is not probative of its status as scripture (any more than Homer’s Illiad is probative of the Greek Pantheon).  This is why skeptics of the Bible find little or no persuasive value in archaeological artifacts presented as “evidence” for the Bible’s status as scripture and record of miraculous events.  After all, Homer’s Illiad has a historical pedigree tracing back to antiquity, as well as some archaeological verification.  This does not mean, however, that the descriptions of the supernatural in Homer's work are factual.  As one atheist fellow put it: "The only thing all those ancient bible sites prove is {that} the Bible is a really old fraud."
 
In contrast, The Book of Mormon is differently situated from the Bible.  There is a built-in gap in its historical transmission, consisting of some 1,400 years from when Moroni buried the plates to 1823, when the plates were re-discovered by Joseph Smith, Jr.  This “transmission gap” effectively precludes a naturalistic explanation of the text’s antiquity.   Consequently, if we someday discover persuasive archaeological or other evidence for the antiquity of The Book of Mormon, such evidence would have a far more persuasive impact on the veracity of the book's truth claims than would archaeological evidence for the Bible impact that book's truth claims.
 
Put another way, the antiquity and truth claims of The Book of Mormon are intertwined, such that evidence of the former may  simultaneously be evidence of the latter.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 11 by smac97

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

It is stuff like DCP's approach to evidence that compels me to part ways with @Analytics.  I want to examine the evidence in support of the Church's truth claims, and I don't think he does.  I want to examine alternative explanations for The Book of Mormon and evidence therefore, and I don't think he does.  Instead, I think he is using supposed Bayesian reasoning as a shortcut, as a justification to circumvent any need to actually address the evidence in favor of authenticity for The Book of Mormon, or to formulate a counter-explanation and marshal supporting evidence for it...

Sigh.

You fundamentally misunderstand the nuances of Bayesian reasoning and why I keep lecturing about it. Bayesian reasoning actually has two components. First and most importantly, it informs us as to what constitutes evidence and why. As Steven Pinker explains it:

"Bayes' rule or Bayes' theorem is the law of probability governing the strength of evidence--the rule saying how much to revise our probabilities (change our minds) when we learn a new fact or observe new evidence." Pinker, Steven. Rationality: What It Is, Why It Seems Scarce, Why It Matters (p. 149). Kindle Edition.

This is why I've been repeating the steps of Bayesian analysis over and over. You can't correctly interpret "the strength of evidence" without at least implicitly formulating the questions in the correct Bayesian structure. The correct way to understand the strength of evidence--and really what evidence even is -- comes down to two questions, asked either explicitly or implicitly:

• What is the probability of seeing the basket of evidence if the theory is true?
• What is the probability of seeing the basket of evidence if the theory is false?

To correctly interpret the evidence, you need to consider both in relation to each other. If you don't, you can dramatically misrepresent what the evidence implies. Note that so far I have not invoked my prior at all--I've only talked about how to weigh the strength of the evidence. A priori beliefs are a different discussion, and surprisingly it's logically required: you cannot make a decision about the likelihood of something without having an a priori belief about it.

I start with a low prior for the BoM being true based on general scientific literacy, and then lower it significantly based on the evidence of what the text actually contains. @Ryan Dahle's assertions aside, I believe an unbiased evaluation of the evidence clearly indicates it is 19th century biblical fan fiction--not an accurate translation of an authentic ancient manuscript.

Newly considered evidence should generally be expected to further support already well-supported a priori beliefs, and in this case it does.  

As Nate Silver said, "One property of Bayes's theorem, in fact, is that our beliefs should converge toward one another--and toward the truth--as we are presented with more evidence over time." Silver, Nate. The Signal and the Noise: Why So Many Predictions Fail--but Some Don't (p. 259). Kindle Edition.

Edited March 11 by Analytics

[Ryan Dahle]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

What are your thoughts about @Analytics' heavy reliance on Sean Carroll's declaration that "The laws of physics underlying everyday life are completely known"?  Do you see any discrepancy between that and "No human theory or explanation is ever truly complete"?

Yes. I do think there is a significant discrepancy there.

The laws of physics are sufficiently known that we can reliably predict and explain many types of phenomena within the known systems of the universe, at least at the level that we can understand and observe them. However--and this point is crucial--we don't have any good way to reliably predict what may or may not exist outside of our current fields of observation. That is just a fundamental principle of inductive logic. This is what leads to the classic black swan fallacy. By using inductive reasoning, an observer may come to believe that all swans must be white, since that is all the observer has ever experienced. Perhaps the observer has visited the same pond literally thousands of times, and all the swans at that pond are always white. The observer may then use this consistency to conclude that it is highly improbable that there is any other color of swan in the universe except white. The problem, of course, is that the observational field is far too limited to make that type of sweeping inductive generalization. What if there are many more swan-conducive habitats in the world that the observer hasn't visited? And how can the observer reliably predict what may or may not be in those differing environments? And if there are black swans out there somewhere, how could the observer ever predict the probability of one of them one day turning up at his own pond. Without a knowledge of what else may be out in the world and how it could one day interact with his own environment, there is really no way to reliably guess what will happen in the future. Sure, a basic expectation that the swans at that particular pond will likely continue to be all white seems like a good default assumption. But that is about as far as logic can take you without more data. The observer in such a situation simply wouldn't know the actual probability of black swans existing elsewhere in the world or the likelihood of any of them (if they exist) ever migrating to his own observable pond. 

A similar limitation afflicts strictly naturalistic worldviews at a very fundamental level. Naturalism posits that all phenomena can be explained by the natural laws of the universe. However, that is a necessarily limited theory, in the basic sense that natural laws are not self-explanatory. Scientists don't know where these laws came from or why they exist. Naturalism is therefore insufficient to explain the origin of the natural laws that give rise to it. Moreover, scientists are still far from explaining these laws in the deep past (pre-big bang) and at the deepest quantum levels. Scientists also struggle to figure out how the laws that govern quantum physics are consistent with the laws at the macro-level of the universe. There are also the problems of fine-tuning, abiogenesis, the hard problem of consciousness, NDEs and so forth. It is actually rather striking that science doesn't yet have good or complete explanations in several areas that are crucial for many theistic worldviews (origin of the universe, orderliness of the universe, origin of life on earth, human identity, potential for life after death , etc.). Science has not solved really any of the big questions.

It admittedly has solved how many things work within the observable system in which humans find themselves. And that accomplishment should be lauded. But this success can lead to overconfidence and an unfortunate lack of epistemic humility. I actually think a default skepticism of the supernatural is warranted. Extraordinary claims do logically require unusual or extraordinary validation. But those who subscribe to naturalism often rachet up their skepticism to a level that is not logically justifiable. They treat supernatural possibilities as so extraordinarily implausible that they are effectively impossible, much like the observer at the pond incorrectly assumed that black swans must not exist. This is because they fail to acknowledge, at a fundamental level, that humans find themselves in a system that they don't fully understand and can't explain and can't see beyond. Once these facts are acknowledged and the default skepticism is toned down to a more reasonable level, religious worldviews begin to become more of a live option. This would be especially true for any religious claims that have any lines of truly extraordinary supporting evidence. 

Edited March 11 by Ryan Dahle

[Analytics]

5 hours ago, champatsch said:

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....

What is your theory about how the 1837 poem and 1850 novel had access to the exceedingly unlikely phrase "save it were"? Is this proof that the respective authors had read the Book of Mormon and picked it up from there? Or is it evidence that these literary works are actually ancient documents translated with the help of English ghosts?  

Or is it evidence that 19th century New Englanders had access to this phrasing through spoken language, language that wasn't captured in your database, reading older books, or otherwise recreating features of the language that make sense and sound good even though they weren’t frequently used?

I would suggest there is a naturalistic explanation for why the 1837 poem and Nathaniel Hawthorne had access to this phrase, despite the gaps of its appearances in your database. Is it really that crazy to think the author of the Book of Mormon could come up with it in the same way?

This is your area of expertise and not mine, but I would expect the early 18th-century English of New England (expanded to include upstate New York) would be closer to English English than to the English spoken in, say, Georgia. And I'll go out on a limb here. My hypothesis is that one of the reasons "save it were" is *rare* in your database is because this usage was generally limited to New England. If I'm right, then I'd expect the 1837 poem to be from there and not, say, from South Carolina. Am I right? Where was the 1837 poet from?

Could you explain why using "save it were" over 70 times is evidence of ancient American authenticity? If this were in the lexicon of the 19th-century author and it sounded old to his ears, why wouldn't he use it over and over for the same reason he used "and it came to pass" over and over?

[Ryan Dahle]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Are you positing that the "shrink ray gun" is, to some extent, analogous to the text of The Book of Mormon?  Or the testimonial evidence of the Witnesses (together with their individualized credibility, subsequent opportunities/incentives to recant, etc.)?  Both?  Neither?

Yes. I think the eye-witness testimony amounts to very strong supporting evidence. I don't think it is the same as a "shrink ray gun." There are limitations to testimonial evidence. But there is also a cumulative strength to the testimonial evidence of the Restoration, once you account for all of the factors involving the Three Witnesses and Eight Witnesses and informal witnesses. When viewed as a whole, they are very hard to account for using a consistent alternative naturalistic explanation. And, of course, it must be remembered that testimony is still often used as key evidence in most modern legal systems. In most other situations, when three people attest to the same fact--even an unusual fact, such as witnessing a murder--that tends to hold a lot of evidentiary weight. If you had eight more who testified that the murderer indeed possessed the murder weapon, that would substantially increase the case for the prosecution. And so on. 

I think any objective observer would have to acknowledge that Joseph Smith's ability to attain the degree of corroborating eye-witness testimony for several of his core claims is really quite extraordinary. His plan, if he were a deceiver, would have been far more likely to fail than succeed, especially if one concedes that the witnesses were essentially sincere in their beliefs (as many critics now believe). However, with these extraordinary claims being supported by such extraordinary evidence, critics can't just sit back and rely on their a priori skepticism of the supernatural to do all the heavy lifting. It seems they would need an actual counter-theory that could explain this extraordinary array of witnesses. Yet, as you have rightly pointed out, no such theory has been forthcoming.

Notions, like the idea that Smith induced joint hallucinations, are only plausible to those who have already ruled out anything that smacks of supernaturalism. In almost any other circumstance, such an explanation would never fly. Imagine, for instance, if the defense attorney tries to argue in court that the three eye-witnesses to the murder were all just hallucinating, without any evidence for hallucinatory drugs or hypnosis or anything of that nature. No real evidence. Just the fact that people sometimes mistake what is in their mind for objective reality. That type of vague appeal to hallucination would never work in the court of law. It is an extraordinarily weak counter explanation. The only reason critics feel it is valid is that the alternative (an angel and gold plates) is contrary to their extreme default skepticism. And they will almost always pivot back to that point when the positive evidence pushes them up against the wall. 

I would have much more respect if they would just concede that the witnesses provide strong lines of confirming evidence, even if it doesn't quite compel them personally to believe. That is a much more reasonable stance, imo. But they can't have that. The supernatural explanation must be completely vacuous in their worldview. So they stretch way too hard to make truly extraordinary lines of evidence seem essentially worthless and insignificant.

Edited March 11 by Ryan Dahle

[Ryan Dahle]

27 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I would suggest there is a naturalistic explanation for why the 1837 poem and Nathaniel Hawthorne had access to this phrase, despite the gaps of its appearances in your database. Is it really that crazy to think the author of the Book of Mormon could come up with it in the same way?

You are missing the larger point. There is always the possibility that Smith could have stumbled across some item or another of archaism in some old text. But when you look at the data as a whole--(1) the degree that Smith was able to mimic biblical archaism, including many items of rare biblical archaism, (2) his implementation of so many features of extrabiblical archaism that were either very rare or absent in his 19th century-environment, often in a variety of variants, and then (3) the need to recognize how unusual it is for most people to be able to notice the technicalities of archaic syntax and assimilate them into their own working vocabulary--you are left with an extraordinary improbability. Every item in the list that Royal and Stan have accumulated over the years reduces the likelihood that Joseph Smith could have accomplished what you are suggesting he did. That is now a lot of data. 

If this were just one or two archaic turns of phrase, I doubt Stan would be making his argument. Instead, we find systemic, multi-faceted archaism on a whole host of levels. That is something very different. And I'm guessing you will understand why Nathaniel Hawthorne and Joseph Smith should not be treated as equally likely to come across or notice rare archaic forms. 

Edited March 11 by Ryan Dahle

[Analytics]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I want to examine the evidence in support of the Church's truth claims...

Great. Do you want make a serious examination of the evidence? Let’s look at the witness statements, not as an apologist, but as a jurist. 

How would the evidence be evaluated if this were being tried in court? Smac, you're the lawyer here and I'm not, so push back if I get the legal framework wrong. But I think the framework is useful even for a lay audience because the rules of evidence aren't arbitrary technicalities--they evolved over centuries specifically to help us figure out when testimony is trustworthy and when it isn't.

Let's start with the basics. In a legal proceeding, witnesses generally fall into two categories: fact witnesses and expert witnesses. A fact witness testifies about what they personally observed. An expert witness is qualified by training and experience to offer opinions in a specialized domain--metallurgy, ancient languages, archaeology, etc.

So which are the Book of Mormon witnesses? They aren't expert witnesses. None of them had expertise in metallurgy, ancient languages, archaeology, or any other field that would qualify them to authenticate an ancient artifact. They couldn't evaluate whether the plates were gold, tumbaga, or tin. They couldn't read the inscriptions. They couldn't assess whether the artifact was consistent with ancient American metalworking traditions. If a party tried to offer them as expert witnesses in a proceeding, they would be excluded under what are now the Daubert standards--they simply lacked the qualifications to render the opinions being attributed to them.

So they're fact witnesses. Fine. But here is where things get really interesting, because the manner in which this "testimony" was produced violates almost every principle we use to evaluate the reliability of fact testimony.

They were hand-picked. In a legal proceeding, the credibility of testimony is strengthened when witnesses are independent--people who happened to be present and can corroborate what occurred. These witnesses were selected by Joseph Smith himself. They were family members (the Smiths, the Whitmers) and financial stakeholders (Martin Harris, who mortgaged his farm to finance the publication). A judge evaluating this testimony would immediately flag the selection bias. If I'm on trial and I get to choose which 11 people testify on my behalf, and I choose my brothers, my business partners, and my in-laws--how much weight does that testimony carry?

They didn't write their own accounts. The two formal witness statements--the Testimony of the Three Witnesses and the Testimony of the Eight Witnesses--were drafted in consultation with Joseph Smith. The witnesses signed them, but they didn't independently compose them. In legal terms, this is closer to a party drafting testimony for its own witnesses than to independent corroboration. In a deposition, one of the first things opposing counsel establishes is whether the witness wrote their own statement or whether someone else prepared it for them. If someone else prepared it, the testimony is significantly discounted.

There are no contemporaneous independent accounts. We don't have journals, letters, or other contemporaneous documents from the witnesses describing their experiences in their own words at the time they occurred. What we have are the two prepared statements and later recollections, often decades after the fact. Contemporaneous accounts are given far more weight than retroactive ones for good reason--memory is reconstructive, and people unconsciously harmonize their recollections with the narrative they've committed to.

Skeptical witnesses were excluded by design. The entire evidentiary structure was set up so that only believers had access to the evidence. The plates were never subjected to independent examination. No skeptic, no scholar, no expert in any relevant field was permitted to examine them. And then the plates conveniently disappeared. In a courtroom, if one side possessed the single most important piece of physical evidence and refused to let the other side examine it, and then that evidence was destroyed or removed, the judge would issue an adverse inference instruction--telling the jury they may assume the evidence was unfavorable to the party that withheld it. That is how seriously the legal system takes deliberate concealment of evidence.

No cross-examination occurred. This might be the most important point. In our legal system, testimony that hasn't been tested by cross-examination is given very little weight, and for good reason. Cross-examination is how we distinguish between "I saw gold plates with ancient writing" and "I saw an object that Joseph told me was gold plates with ancient writing" and "I saw the plates with my spiritual eyes in a vision" and "I was in a heightened emotional state during a religious ceremony and I experienced something I interpreted as seeing plates." These are very different claims, and a skilled attorney conducting a six-hour deposition of each witness would likely reveal significant variation in what the witnesses actually experienced versus what the prepared statement says they experienced.

We know from later accounts that there was significant variation. Martin Harris reportedly said he saw the plates "with the eye of faith" and "as one sees a city through a mountain." Some of the Eight Witnesses may have handled an object wrapped in cloth without ever seeing the plates directly. A thorough deposition would have explored all of this.

Now, I want to be clear about why I'm raising this. I'm not arguing that the witness testimony should be dismissed on a technicality based on arbitrary rules. The rules of evidence aren't arbitrary--they represent centuries of hard-won wisdom about how testimony becomes unreliable. The point isn't that the testimony violates some procedural checkbox. The point is that the testimony was deliberately structured to be unverifiable. The evidence was managed, the witnesses were selected, the statements were prepared, the physical artifact was withheld from examination, and then it was removed entirely.

This pattern--extraordinary claims supported by carefully managed, unverifiable testimony from hand-picked, financially and emotionally invested witnesses, with the key physical evidence withheld and then destroyed--is not the pattern of authentic historical events. It is the pattern of a magic show. And when I look at the totality of how this evidence was produced, I don't see a reason to give it significant evidentiary weight.

Smac, you have urged me to take the evidence seriously. I am taking it seriously--seriously enough to notice that it was designed from the ground up to resist exactly the kind of scrutiny that would tell us whether it's trustworthy.
 

Edited March 11 by Analytics

[Ryan Dahle]

23 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Great. Do you want make a serious examination of the evidence? Let’s look at the witness statements, not as an apologist, but as a jurist. 

I'm not sure the courtroom should be the only lens through which to look at the data. It seems that history, generally, is probably a more appropriate tool. But I can see an approach where both avenues can be explored. They are related in many ways, but history generally does not have the capacity of the court room to get at certain details. On the other hand, it has certain advantages as well, such as not being nearly limited by time. The accumulation of evidence can grow and grow over decades, and so forth. But the courtroom can give us many helpful and unique lessons and principles for evaluating this type of evidence, as well.  

Edited March 11 by Ryan Dahle

[Analytics]

9 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

You are missing the larger point. There is always the possibility that Smith could have stumbled across some item or another of archaism in some old text. But when you look at the data as a whole--(1) the degree that Smith was able to mimic biblical archaism, including many items of rare biblical archaism, (2) his implementation of so many features that were either very rare or absent in his 19th century-environment, often in a variety of archaic variants, and then (3) the need to recognize how unusual it is for most people to be able to notice the technicalities of archaic syntax and assimilate them into their own working vocabulary--you are left with an extraordinary improbability. Every item in the list that Royal and Stan have accumulated over the years reduces the probability that Joseph Smith could have accomplished what you are suggesting he did. That is now a lot of data. 

If this were just one or two archaic turns of phrase, I doubt Stan wouldn't be making his argument. Instead, we find systemic, multi-faceted archaism on a whole host of levels. That is something different. And I'm guessing you will understand why Nathaniel Hawthorne and Joseph Smith should not be treated as equally likely to come across or notice rare archaic forms. 

I understand this is your point. But you continue to miss mine, so I'll ask the question again: an extraordinary improbability compared to what?
Here is the evidence we are talking about:

The Book of Mormon was written in a blend of English dialects that range from EModE, including both KJV English and non-KJV EModE, and other words, phrases, and structures that entered the language after that period.

That is the evidence. I believe the correct way to evaluate it is by answering two questions in relationship to each other so that a likelihood ratio can be developed:

• What are the chances of seeing this evidence if the Book is authentic?
• What are the chances of seeing this evidence if the Book is not authentic?

You need both. You can't evaluate the strength of evidence with only one of these. This is the key Bayesian insight that I keep coming back to, and it's the point I think you keep missing.

Your argument, as I understand it, is that P(EModE|naturalistic) is very low, and that P(EModE|supernatural) is unknowable because we don't know how God goes about translating ancient texts. You then conclude that EModE is strong evidence of authenticity. But that doesn't follow. If P(EModE|supernatural) is unknowable, then you don't have a likelihood ratio, and without a likelihood ratio you have no basis for claiming this evidence favors authenticity.

You're treating "unknowable" as though it means "favorable," and that is not the same thing.

Furthermore, there was no a priori reason the Book couldn't have been translated into straightforward KJV English--the sacred register of Joseph Smith's time and place. The fact that it wasn't--that instead we get this heterogeneous blend spanning centuries of English--is at least as unexpected under divine translation as it is under naturalistic authorship. A divine translator choosing to produce a linguistic patchwork needs explaining too.

So again, here is my point as straightforward as I can make it: If we can't evaluate the likelihood of seeing the data under the authentic hypothesis, then we can't evaluate the implications this data has on the BoM being authentic.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

The other side doesn't have that same advantage. They didn't claim to be visited by an angel in connection to a set of gold plates and then were able find three people who would corroborate that story, much less eight others to verify the existence of the plates. They didn't claim to receive a text by revelation and then were able to produce, in the presence of many witnesses, an extraordinarily long and complex text in essentially a single take--a text which is filled with Semitic features that are consistent with the text's own claimed origins, as well as other features (like EModE) that together point away from Smith's authorship. They didn't claim to receive a revelation about the prophet Enoch, only to have that revelation filled to the brim with parallels to extrabiblical Enochic texts, a number of which weren't available in Smith's day. And so forth. In these (and other) cases, Smith's claims amount to extraordinary predictions that are corroborated by extraordinary lines of evidence. Not only do the counter explanations tend to be highly speculative and insufficient, but they simply don't have that initial advantage. 

Unfortunately the easiest to understand evidence here, the witnesses, is also the easiest to dismiss, imo (added:  I see Analytics brought up the key issues).  While it seems unlikely for 14 men and more to keep quiet if they were involved in fraud, it is not inconceivable that they cared enough about how their loved ones thought about them that they kept the fraud to themselves even when on their death bed because they knew the anguish and bitterness they would cause since at least some of their families sacrificed tremendously to follow Joseph, join the Church, move with the members, etc.  Not saying it’s likely, but I see it as plausible, especially if the original motivation was hope for a utopian society or something similarly valued.  Avoiding humiliation and disdain, being seen as a person of integrity is highly meaningful to many people.  Sure, they may be applauded and be able to dine out for the rest of their lives on stories that trashed Joseph and Mormons, but how would they be treated in their homes by spouses and children, parents and siblings who believed them?

There is also a possibility all were concerned about retaliations from angry members, either because it was believed they were lying or because they didn’t.  If one had family killed because of commitment to the faith and then later heard someone confess to lying about the plates or angels, it would be very possible imo to want to exact vengeance from those directly responsible for the suffering and deaths of one’s family.

If the level of fraud they were committed to was not full out because they had been duped themselves, but rather they were just helping Joseph a true prophet in their eyes at that time by exaggerating some, it would be even easier most likely not to admit to that exaggeration, imo.

So while I personally believe the witnesses are very important for bringing the sacred into the mundane world, creating the narrative that laid foundation for the faith, I don’t see them as the strongest evidence.

Unknown until after the creation of the scriptures ancient elements in the Enoch or Abraham traditions are stronger potential evidence, imo.  The issue with these are how unique and detailed are the story elements as well as what number of them takes it past plausibility for a coincidence based on Joseph’s creativity and ability to pick up hints (if they exist) to flesh them out.

Otoh, demonstrating the text couldn’t have been produced by Joseph or anyone else in the vicinity or of his or any previous time period because of word usage in the text is evidence that is the most independent of the motivations of those directly involved in the founding of the Church it seems to me.  Personality doesn’t really come into it, though language skills do.

It’s not a slam dunk (in the sense of being able to show one way or the other), of course, as can be seen here because this kind of evidence using statistics and requiring hours, if not days and months to truly familiarize oneself with it isn’t that accessible to most people.  We have to depend on experts to evaluate this type of evidence for us and explain why it matters.  Those who want to discredit it to be taken seriously by believers would need to show they put the same level of effort into the analysis, using the best sources, etc similar to those making the claim their analysis supports Joseph.  

How do you determine the probability that someone is consciously trying to imitate sacred language or create new language that feels sacred?

I don’t think it’s particularly reasonable to expect that of non believers, so it’s likely the evidence will end up satisfying believers while they are able to dismiss critics’ work as not thorough enough at least until there are ways to not only remove bias from AI so one can dump all known texts into their maw so they can complete what would take a lifetime for a human to do, but also have a mistake proof way of calculating probabilities…is that last even possible?  Is there a way to remove subjectivity so that all agree the weight given to the occurrences are reasonable?

Edited March 11 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said:

. And, of course, it must be remembered that testimony is still often used as key evidence in most modern legal systems. In most other situations, when three people attest to the same fact--even an unusual fact, such as witnessing a murder--that tends to hold a lot of evidentiary weight. If you had eight more who testified that the murderer indeed possessed the murder weapon, that would substantially increase the case for the prosecution. And so on.

But this would depend a great deal on whether these witnesses were independent, just bystanders or they had a reason to benefit from the defendant being named as the murderer….say they had as much reason or more to want the victim dead as the defendant (an inheritance was involved, for example).

[Ryan Dahle]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Unfortunately the easiest to understand evidence here, the witnesses, is also the easiest to dismiss, imo

Perhaps. But it depends a lot on how one views the totality of the evidence. You'll notice that critics of the Church generally don't lean towards fraud or conspiracy anymore. They apparently feel compelled by the collective weight of the evidence to view these individuals as being sincere. Not saying fraud has to be completely eliminated as an option, but it makes lots of behavior difficult to explain, even despite the points you raised. Which, I assume, is why that theory isn't generally preferred even by critics. 

[Ryan Dahle]

48 minutes ago, Calm said:

But this would depend a great deal on whether these witnesses were independent, just bystanders or they had a reason to benefit from the defendant being named as the murderer….say they had as much reason or more to want the victim dead as the defendant (an inheritance was involved, for example).

I think when we really get into the lives of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon, however, we see evidence of bias in favor of Smith's claims, but also a pretty significant degree of skepticism, doubt, and willful independence. I think it is hard to just paint them with a single brush. There are lots of factors that make them strong witnesses, but also lots of factors that somewhat reduce their credibility or strength to some degree. Sometimes things cut both ways at once, along different lines. For instance, Smith's family members knew him growing up. That simultaneously makes them more likely to be biased in his favor but also somewhat less likely to be deceived by all of his claims. They saw him over the years in a way that his new associates didn't. Jesus, after all, was rejected by his own closest society. The evidence is a wash, but I think the witnesses come out pretty strong as a set. It definitely moves the needle--at lot-towards increasing the plausibility of Smith's claims. 

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Unknown until after the creation of the scriptures ancient elements in the Enoch or Abraham traditions are stronger potential evidence, imo.  The issue with these are how unique and detailed are the story elements as well as what number of them takes it past plausibility for a coincidence based on Joseph’s creativity and ability to pick up hints (if they exist) to flesh them out.

I also don't think these are the strongest lines of evidence. For me, I think the collective wordplay data is the single strongest line of evidence, especially when I look at how scholars independently prioritize such data in analogous secular contexts. But there is a whole host of research after that. I see the combined witnesses as substantially opening the door to faith. The complexity of the text opens it considerably further. But then the host of ANE linguistic and literature features (especially wordplay) get things across the finish line for me. This is all subordinate to personal spiritual experiences, but at this point I would be pretty much convinced by the secular evidence alone, I think. 

[Ryan Dahle]

Duplicate

Edited March 11 by Ryan Dahle

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

notice that critics of the Church generally don't lean towards fraud or conspiracy anymore.

The ones who put time into it, who are serious and trying to understand, yes.  I still see a lot of dismissive comments of the witnesses all being related, etc online when I venture there….which I admit isn’t as often as I used to.  Have other things to occupy me.

Edited March 12 by Calm

[Ryan Dahle]

19 hours ago, Analytics said:

I believe the correct way to evaluate it is by answering two questions in relationship to each other so that a likelihood ratio can be developed:

• What are the chances of seeing this evidence if the Book is authentic?
• What are the chances of seeing this evidence if the Book is not authentic?

You need both. You can't evaluate the strength of evidence with only one of these. This is the key Bayesian insight that I keep coming back to, and it's the point I think you keep missing.

I think I would frame this particular issue this way: 

• What are the chances of seeing extensive, multifaceted archaism in the Book of Mormon if the wording of the text was revealed to Joseph Smith by revelation?
• What are the chances of seeing extensive, multifaceted archaism in the Book of Mormon if Joseph Smith worded the text himself? 

Under the revealed text theory, the capacity for a divine being to produce this type of feature wouldn't really be questioned. God or angels would presumably be able to produce a translation in any dialect of any language. So the real question is simply motivation and purpose. Unfortunately, we don't know enough about divine realms to be able to establish or rule out most possibilities on this front.  I've thought of several purposes that I think are not implausible. Perhaps this EmodE dialect was used (1) for the BofM to generally align with the vernacular of the KJV, (2) for the BofM to have its own distinct flavor of archaism, symbolically suggesting the text is congruent with the KJV but not just an imitation of it, (3) for the BofM to possess another line of evidence, short of proof, for apologetic purposes, and (4) for the BofM to piggyback (i.e., build upon/adapt) an already existing EModE version of the same text that may already have existed in the Spirit world, thus joining the two texts together in a way. None of these possibilities can be tested and verified, but neither can they be disproven. So, essentially I am left with one or more divine beings who (under this theory) have the capacity to implement this unique textual feature, but whose motivation to do so is essentially unassessable.

This makes it very difficult to provide a precise Bayesian estimate for this data. I certainly don't think the specific suite of archaic features could be specifically predicted. But I would say that, if the words were revealed to him through a divine process, there might be up to a 20% chance of something about the English text not reflecting Smith's own native dialect. In contrast, this type of multifaceted archaism seems highly implausible under a naturalistic theory. Again, I have no idea what the precise chances would be, but I would give Smith far less than 1 in 1000 of being able to produce the combined archaic grammar, lexis, and syntax of the Book of Mormon, in the frequencies and varieties that they show up in. That probability may seem too low, but some of these textual features, on their own, can't be found in Smith's time period, even when searching through corpora with many billions of words. 

A similar type of logic arises in the alien scenario I presented. You seemed to think that "the likelihood ratio would heavily favor the alien-abduction hypothesis" (assuming the shrink gun is real and checks out as legit). You admitted this would be the case, even if I couldn't explain any of the motivations or purpose for the abduction or the gun. In this scenario, it seems the chances that I or someone else in the world could produce a shrink-ray gun would probably be more like 1 in many billion. So I grant that evidence may be far stronger. But it is essentially the same principle. When someone makes an extraordinary supernatural claim and then the evidence is found to back that claim up, the supernatural explanation is substantially improved and the naturalistic theory is weakened. 
 

Edited March 12 by Ryan Dahle

[Ryan Dahle]

19 hours ago, Analytics said:

You're treating "unknowable" as though it means "favorable," and that is not the same thing.

No. I'm just treating it as unknowable.

You have to remember that in the context of these competing theories, there are two primary factors that are being assessed: (1) capacity and (2) motivation.

I assume under the naturalistic theory, motivation doesn't really play into it much. I'm guessing you assume Smith inadvertently used the archaic features. Either that, or he somewhat intentionally did so, presumably to make the text sound more archaic. Either way, his motivation, if he had one, wouldn't actually be reliably known, since he never disclosed it. So the only crucial factor would be capacity. And we have a lot of data and reasons to suspect he couldn't produce the archaism in the text. On the other hand, under the supernatural theory, the motivation also wouldn't be known. Yet under this theory divine beings would definitely have the capacity to produce the features of the text. So it's not just that "unknowable" automatically means "favorable." It is that "unknowable" only applies to the factor of motivation, which to me seems far less significant  than the factor of capacity. 

Here is another somewhat relevant analogy. If I were to walk into the kitchen and see that dinner was unexpectedly made, and if there were only two real options in this context (my 8 year old and my 15 year old) who could have made dinner, I would obviously choose the one who had the greater capacity, especially when I wouldn't be able to determine or guess the exact motivation for either of them to have carried out that action. Strongly disconfirming evidence for one factor (capacity) trumps the unknown variable in another factor (motivation). 

19 hours ago, Analytics said:

Furthermore, there was no a priori reason the Book couldn't have been translated into straightforward KJV English--the sacred register of Joseph Smith's time and place. The fact that it wasn't--that instead we get this heterogeneous blend spanning centuries of English--is at least as unexpected under divine translation as it is under naturalistic authorship. A divine translator choosing to produce a linguistic patchwork needs explaining too.

Fair enough. But that still is only unexpected when it comes to the issue of motivation/purpose (the factor I have already admitted isn't known) in contrast to the more significant and testable issue (capacity). 

19 hours ago, Analytics said:

So again, here is my point as straightforward as I can make it: If we can't evaluate the likelihood of seeing the data under the authentic hypothesis, then we can't evaluate the implications this data has on the BoM being authentic.

Again, you seem to be missing the fact that there are two different variables at play. When you compare the fact that we don't know why a divine translation would have a certain set of features, in contrast to the fact that Joseph Smith almost certainly couldn't produce these features himself, it becomes pretty obvious which explanation has the advantage. Same thing with the alien analogy. The fact that humans almost certainly can't build shrink ray guns with current technology is far more significant than the mere fact that I don't know why the alien's might give me such an item.

Edited March 12 by Ryan Dahle

[Analytics]

3 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I think I would frame this particular issue this way: 

• What are the chances of seeing extensive, multifaceted archaism in the Book of Mormon if the wording of the text was revealed to Joseph Smith by revelation?
• What are the chances of seeing extensive, multifaceted archaism in the Book of Mormon if Joseph Smith worded the text himself? 

That's the problem -- the way you frame it is not valid.

In a general form, it must be of this structure:

• What are the chances of seeing the totality of the evidence under theory A?
• What are the chances of seeing the totality of the evidence under theory B?

For logical induction to be valid, you need to engage with all the evidence -- not just the subset that supports the position you are committed to defending.

One more important note: the competing theories need to be exhaustive and non-overlapping. By limiting the second theory to "if Joseph Smith worded the text himself," you are ignoring the possibility that he had help from others. A better formulation would be "if somebody in the 19th century worded the text without divine help."

So what is "the totality of the evidence" in this case? The totality of the evidence regarding BoM language is that it is a blend of English dialects ranging from EModE--including both KJV English and non-KJV EModE--and other words, phrases, and structures that entered the language after that period.

Furthermore, when evaluating the likelihood of seeing the totality of the evidence, you need to make that estimate before looking at the evidence, not after. Whether a divine being has the capacity to produce a hodgepodge of archaic, pseudo-archaic, and 19th-century language in a single document is irrelevant. What matters is the likelihood that this evidence would emerge under the theory that it is genuine.

So before looking at Carmack’s evidence and looking under the hypothesis that the Church is true, what should we expect the language of the Book of Mormon to look like? Would we expect it to be a hodgepodge of misunderstood and dead archaisms mingled with KJV English and 19th-century American dialect?  Consider:

• For my soul delighteth in plainness; for after this manner doth the Lord God work among the children of men. For the Lord God giveth light unto the understanding; for he speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding. (2 Nephi 31:3)
• Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding. (D&C 1:24)
• For it shall come to pass in that day, that every man shall hear the fulness of the gospel in his own tongue, and in his own language. (D&C 90:11)

Under the hypothesis that the Book of Mormon is true, I would expect its language to be "in the language of Joseph Smith, according to his understanding." The hypothesis that the Book of Mormon was partially and inconsistently given in the language of dead Englishmen is not something I would have predicted. This theory contradicts the very message of the book it is trying to defend.

So to the extent that phrases like "save it were" are genuinely archaic and were not in the register of 19th-century New Englanders, then sure: their appearance is extremely unlikely. But it is unlikely in both the theory that the book is genuine and in the theory that it is not. Having said that, Nathaniel Hawthorne used the phrase in The Scarlet Letter (1850). Jones Very--a poet born in Salem, Massachusetts--used it in his 1837 poem "Beauty." Both were New Englanders, as was Joseph Smith's family before they moved to upstate New York. The phrase was apparently available in the literary and sacred register of 19th-century New England. So while I’ll grant this phrase might be “unlikely”, it certainly wasn’t impossible. Evidence that is equally unlikely under both theories doesn't favor either one.

Edited March 12 by Analytics

[smac97]

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

I want to examine the evidence in support of the Church's truth claims...

Great. Do you want make a serious examination of the evidence?

Yes.

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

Let’s look at the witness statements, not as an apologist, but as a jurist. 

Well, no, I don't think we should do that.  That would be an unreasonable look.  For a few reasons.

First, it will not do for you impliedly characterize yourself as just some impartial, emotionally detached "jurist," an umpire who calls 'em as he sees 'em, whereas I am an "apologist."  I am an advocate for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and you are one of the most anti-Mormon participants on this board.  If we were in a courtroom you would not be sitting on the bench.  You would be sitting at the table where advocates and parties sit, all of whom have skin in the game.  You are nothing close to impartial, so let's not pretend otherwise.

Second, the U.S. legal system, now 200+ years old, is predicated on a well-developed, but still ongoing, system of checks and balances, procedural and evidentiary rules and safeguards, and so on.  Two of the most important safeguards are the U.S. Constitution and extrapolated doctrines which constrain the judiciary - state and federal - from getting involved in resolving disputes outside of their sphere and purview.  Adjudicating The Book of Mormon is way outside of those parameters.  

Third, your proposal comes across as a bit of special pleading.  You have no expectation or requirement of approaching other topics - arising centuries ago - "as a jurist."  Historiography would grind to a halt if modern American rules of procedure and evidence were to be deployed in that context.  Same goes for many other - almost all? - fields of study.  And yet the only one for which "a serious examination of the evidence" requires playing "jurist" is . . . The Book of Mormon witnesses.

Fourth, your proposal does not account for where we are, which is that we are the beneficiaries of lots of very good analysis of the Witnesses.  From the DCP article above:

Quote

The best starting point for such examination, incidentally, beyond studying the official testimonies of the Three Witnesses and the Eight Witnesses themselves as they’re reproduced in the front matter of the Book of Mormon, is Richard Lloyd Anderson’s Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses, which he supplemented over the next few decades with other vitally important articles.  And many other significant studies can be recommended thereafter.  In fact, we hope that our new Witnesses of the Book of Mormon website will become an indispensable resource for materials from and about not only the Three and the Eight but also the very important informal or unofficial witnesses, as well.

Are you willing to address these references?  

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

How would the evidence be evaluated if this were being tried in court? Smac, you're the lawyer here and I'm not, so push back if I get the legal framework wrong.

Consider yourself pushed back.  Your suggestion of litigating the credibility of the Witnesses utilizing the modern U.S. legal framework is altogether impractical and unworkable.

Perhaps, though, there is a way forward.  What say we start with Richard Lloyd Anderson?  

Alternatively, what sort of approach would you take to, say, evidence regarding Troy?  Atlantis?  Buraq?  Olympus?  From Grok:

Quote

The best approach to examining the credibility of the Book of Mormon witnesses (the Three Witnesses: Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, Martin Harris; and the Eight Witnesses: Christian Whitmer, Jacob Whitmer, Peter Whitmer Jr., John Whitmer, Hiram Page, Joseph Smith Sr., Hyrum Smith, Samuel H. Smith) depends on one's goals—whether historical, theological, or skeptical inquiry. I'll address your rejection of the "court-like" method first, then explore your suggestion of analogies to past events with miraculous/religious elements. Finally, I'll propose a balanced, multi-faceted approach drawing from scholarship.

Why a "Court-Like" Approach May Not Be the Best Fit

The critic you mention (likely referring to figures like Grant Palmer or online skeptics who frame the witnesses as "on trial") suggests treating the testimonies as courtroom evidence: applying rules of evidence, cross-examination standards, hearsay exclusions, and burden of proof. This can be a useful thought experiment for highlighting inconsistencies (e.g., some witnesses' later disaffection from the Church or involvement in other religious movements). However, I agree with you that it's not ideal for several reasons:

• Ecclesiastical Abstention: U.S. courts often avoid judging religious claims to respect the First Amendment (e.g., Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696, 1976). Applying strict legal standards to sacred testimonies could infringe on faith-based interpretations.
• Evidentiary Constraints: Ancient or 19th-century witnesses can't be "cross-examined" today. Legal rules exclude much historical evidence (e.g., hearsay from journals or letters), making it an unfair "trial" that ignores context like cultural norms or personal conviction.
• Wrong Framework: Religious testimonies aren't forensic evidence; they're personal spiritual experiences. Analogizing to a court risks reducing faith to empiricism, which isn't the witnesses' intent—they framed their accounts as divine affirmations, not legal affidavits.

Analogizing to Past Events with Miraculous/Religious Elements

Your idea of drawing parallels to historical or legendary events is a solid alternative. It shifts the focus from legal scrutiny to comparative historiography: How do we evaluate claims of extraordinary events with limited eyewitnesses? This method highlights patterns in credibility assessment across cultures and eras, emphasizing context, consistency, and cultural impact over "proof." Here's how your examples fit:

• Troy (Historical with Mythical Elements): Homer's Iliad describes a miraculous war with gods intervening, witnessed by characters like Achilles and Hector. For centuries, it was dismissed as myth until Heinrich Schliemann's 1870s excavations uncovered a real city. Credibility came from cross-verifying literary testimonies with archaeology, artifacts, and Hittite records. Analogy to Book of Mormon witnesses: Like Homer's "witnesses," the Three and Eight provide consistent, signed statements; credibility could be tested via historical consistency (e.g., no mass recantations despite pressure) and archaeological parallels (though BoM evidence is debated). (Excavations at Troy, blending myth and history.)
• Atlantis (Mythical/Legendary): Plato's Timaeus and Critias (c. 360 BC) describe a lost civilization with advanced tech and divine origins, "witnessed" by Solon's Egyptian priests. No physical evidence exists, so credibility relies on literary analysis (e.g., allegory for hubris) and lack of corroborating witnesses. Analogy: Unlike Atlantis's single-source tale, BoM witnesses offer multiple independent testimonies; recantations would undermine it like Plato's critics did for Atlantis.
• Buraq (Islamic Miracle): In Islamic tradition (Hadith and Quran 17:1), Muhammad's night journey on the winged steed Buraq to Jerusalem and heaven was witnessed by angels and prophets, but Muhammad's own testimony is primary. Credibility is assessed through chain of narration (isnad) in Hadith science, emphasizing reliability of transmitters. Analogy: Similar to BoM witnesses' spiritual visions (e.g., the Three saw an angel), evaluation focuses on witnesses' lifelong consistency and character, not empirical proof.
• Olympus (Greek Mythology): Homer and Hesiod describe gods on Mount Olympus with "witnesses" like Odysseus or heroes. No historical claims—pure myth. Credibility isn't evaluated historically but literarily (e.g., cultural influence). Analogy: BoM witnesses differ by claiming literal events with signed affidavits; unlike Olympus myths, they faced real-world persecution without recanting.
• Padre Pio (Modern Catholic Miracle): The 20th-century saint's stigmata, bilocation, and healings had thousands of witnesses (including doctors and popes). Credibility was tested via Vatican investigations, medical exams, and consistent testimonies despite skepticism. Analogy: Like BoM witnesses, Padre Pio's claims involved supernatural elements; evaluation used contemporary affidavits, psychological assessments, and lack of fraud evidence—methods applicable to BoM witnesses' character and consistency. (Padre Pio, a modern figure with documented miraculous claims and witnesses.)

These analogies show that credibility often hinges on: witness consistency over time, cultural/historical context, lack of recantation under pressure, and corroborating (if not empirical) evidence.

Recommended Best Approach: A Multi-Disciplinary Framework

Rather than one method, combine historical, psychological, and contextual analysis for a robust evaluation:

• Historical Criticism: Examine primary sources (witness statements in every BoM edition, journals, letters). Check for consistency (all 11 maintained testimonies despite excommunications for some). Analogize to early Christian apostles' martyrdom without recantation.
• Psychological/Sociological Lens: Assess motives (e.g., no financial gain; many faced poverty/persecution). Use eyewitness reliability research: High-stress events can enhance memory, but group dynamics might suggest bias—though the witnesses' later separations weaken collusion theories.
• Comparative Religious Studies: As you suggested, analogize to other faith claims. For miracles, evaluate "extraordinary evidence" (Carl Sagan's standard) vs. faith's role in acceptance.
• Personal Experimentation: LDS perspective encourages prayerful reading (Moroni 10:4–5) alongside study—testimonies aren't just historical but spiritual.

This holistic method avoids the court model's rigidity while embracing your analogy idea. If you're seeking a faithful LDS view, resources like FAIR or the Interpreter Foundation emphasize witness integrity; critics like MormonThink focus on disaffections.

Thoughts?

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

But I think the framework is useful even for a lay audience because the rules of evidence aren't arbitrary technicalities--they evolved over centuries specifically to help us figure out when testimony is trustworthy and when it isn't.

The rules of evidence have evolved in a legal ecosystem that can't really work here.  See above.  There is some patchwork application (e.g., favoring percipient witnesses over hearsay witnesses), but not enough to make things workable here.

Nevertheless, I'll go along for a bit.

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

Let's start with the basics. In a legal proceeding, witnesses generally fall into two categories: fact witnesses and expert witnesses. A fact witness testifies about what they personally observed. An expert witness is qualified by training and experience to offer opinions in a specialized domain--metallurgy, ancient languages, archaeology, etc.

So which are the Book of Mormon witnesses?

Fact witnesses.  

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

They aren't expert witnesses. None of them had expertise in metallurgy, ancient languages, archaeology, or any other field that would qualify them to authenticate an ancient artifact. They couldn't evaluate whether the plates were gold, tumbaga, or tin. They couldn't read the inscriptions. They couldn't assess whether the artifact was consistent with ancient American metalworking traditions. If a party tried to offer them as expert witnesses in a proceeding, they would be excluded under what are now the Daubert standards--they simply lacked the qualifications to render the opinions being attributed to them.

The witnesses did not present opinions.  They presented their what they experienced.  They were percipient witnesses.

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

So they're fact witnesses. Fine. But here is where things get really interesting, because the manner in which this "testimony" was produced violates almost every principle we use to evaluate the reliability of fact testimony.

Most of those "principle{s}" really have no application in the context of historiography, religious studies, etc.

I previously commented on Caesar's assassination, including how all, or nearly all, "historical" sources for that event were decades or centuries removed from the event, and only one of them was possibly a "percipient" statement.  And yet I really doubt you go around scoffing at people who believe that Caesar was assassinated.  I doubt you go about saying "Hey, we can't rely on Nicolaus or Plutarch or Appian or Cassius Dio or Cicero because their historical statements violate almost every principle we use to evaluate the reliability of fact testimony."

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

They were hand-picked.

They were?  How do you know?  And how do you account for D&C 17:1? 

Quote

Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet to Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris, at Fayette, New York, June 1829, prior to their viewing the engraved plates that contained the Book of Mormon record.
...

1 Behold, I say unto you, that you must rely upon my word, which if you do with full purpose of heart, you shall have a view of the plates, and also of the breastplate, the sword of Laban, the Urim and Thummim, which were given to the brother of Jared upon the mount, when he talked with the Lord face to face, and the miraculous directors which were given to Lehi while in the wilderness, on the borders of the Red Sea.
2 And it is by your faith that you shall obtain a view of them, even by that faith which was had by the prophets of old.
3 And after that you have obtained faith, and have seen them with your eyes, you shall testify of them, by the power of God;
4 And this you shall do that my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., may not be destroyed, that I may bring about my righteous purposes unto the children of men in this work.
5 And ye shall testify that you have seen them, even as my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., has seen them; for it is by my power that he has seen them, and it is because he had faith.

For that matter, how do The Federal Rules of Evidence account for D&C 17:1?  How would "a jurist" weigh this evidence?

Also, the Lord's Twelve Disciples were also "hand-picked."  Do you go around seeking to use the Federal Rules of Evidence to discount them?  They are even more removed from "almost every principle we use to evaluate the reliability of fact testimony."

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

In a legal proceeding, the credibility of testimony is strengthened when witnesses are independent--people who happened to be present and can corroborate what occurred.

Sure.  But credibility can be augmented or weakened in all sorts of ways.

Here, the Rules of Evidence don't have much utility.  Richard Lloyd Anderson's book does, though (as does DCP's website referenced above).  Are you willing to discuss it?

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

These witnesses were selected by Joseph Smith himself.

They were?  How do you know?

Rule 602 objections are based on "lack of foundation."  

Rule 611 objections pertain to statements or questions which "assume facts not in evidence."

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

They were family members (the Smiths, the Whitmers) and financial stakeholders (Martin Harris, who mortgaged his farm to finance the publication).  A judge evaluating this testimony would immediately flag the selection bias.

This would go to weight, not admissibility.  Rules 702 and 401 and 402.

Do you know how many times interested parties, particularly fact witnesses, are called upon to testify in court?  They are the rule, not the exception.  Are you seriously suggesting that familial or other relationships are disqualifiers for fact witnesses?  Where did you get that idea?

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

If I'm on trial and I get to choose which 11 people testify on my behalf, and I choose my brothers, my business partners, and my in-laws--how much weight does that testimony carry?

That would depend entirely on each individual witness.  

As it happens, Richard Lloyd Anderson has done a great job in examining the lives of the Witnesses.  Are you interested in exploring his book?

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

They didn't write their own accounts. The two formal witness statements--the Testimony of the Three Witnesses and the Testimony of the Eight Witnesses--were drafted in consultation with Joseph Smith.  The witnesses signed them, but they didn't independently compose them.

Okay.  So what?  Are you saying that affidavits are only legitimate if they are personally penned by the affiant/declarant?  Where did you get that idea?

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

In legal terms, this is closer to a party drafting testimony for its own witnesses than to independent corroboration.

Well, no.  That is simply not so.  

I have been an attorney for 20+ years.  I have written up hundreds of affidavits / written declarations for clients and witnesses and such.  Every litigator you come across will say they have done the same thing.  How does that eliminate the declarant's credibility as a witness?  This is particularly relevant where, as here, most of the Witnesses thereafter separated themselves from Joseph Smith, and so would have had every incentive to say "Hey, don't rely on the published witness statement bearing my name, as it does not accurately reflect my experience"?  Did any of the Witnesses do anything like that?  If not, why not? 

And if they did not recant, isn't their original and then ongoing attestation - despite likely having all sorts of reasons to recant - relevant to the probative value of their statements?

Also relevant: Their character and reputation and behavior, both before and after their attestations.  Do you think Richard Lloyd Anderson's book provides any helpful information on these matters?  Are you willing to consider that stuff?

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

In a deposition, one of the first things opposing counsel establishes is whether the witness wrote their own statement or whether someone else prepared it for them. If someone else prepared it, the testimony is significantly discounted.

It is?  Are you sure about that?  What rule of evidence is in play here?

A written statement prepared by X for Y may or may not be less credible because X wrote it, but that's far from a presumptive thing.  I've participated in many dozens of depositions, and I don't think I have ever seen such a challenge.  Not to say it can't happen, but I think it's quite rare.  And saying that "testimony is significantly discounted" because of it is a country-mile overstatement.

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

There are no contemporaneous independent accounts.

Again, this goes to weight, not admissibility.

Caesar.  Do you dispute that he was assassinated?  Even though there are (probably) "no {extant} contemporary independent accounts"?

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

We don't have journals, letters, or other contemporaneous documents from the witnesses describing their experiences in their own words at the time they occurred.

"We don't have journals, letters, or other contemporaneous documents from {Nicolaus or Plutarch or Appian or Cassius Dio or Cicero} describing their experiences in their own words at the time they occurred."  

Would you find this persuasive?  And, again, none of them were even present at the event, yet we accept the historicity of Caesar's assassination.  Do you discount these historical sources on the same grounds as your statement above?

What we do have, though, is extensive historical evidence and statements from the Witnesses, the authenticity of which does not really seem to be in dispute.  Are you open to discussing them?

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

What we have are the two prepared statements and later recollections, often decades after the fact.

There is no rule of evidence lessening the probative value of "prepared statements."  If you feel otherwise, feel free to post citations to legal authorities.

As for the "later recollections, often decades after the fact," how is that a point against credibility?  David Whitmer despised Joseph Smith for the remainder of his days, calling him a "fallen prophet," rejecting his later teachings, etc.  His 1887 book, An Address to All Believers in Christ, is a compendium of criticisms of Joseph.  And yet...

Quote

For David Whitmer, this was a defining experience, one that became the core and foundation of all his religious beliefs in the decades that followed.³ Even after 1838, when he came to view Joseph Smith as a fallen prophet and separated himself from the main body of Joseph’s followers, David continued to adhere to his testimony of the angel and the plates.⁴ As the years went on, he progressively lost faith in most of Joseph’s later revelations, but he never abandoned the Book of Mormon.⁵

Later in life, after outliving Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris, David was frequently questioned about his experience both in person and by letter. Thanks to these enquiries, about a dozen letters containing firsthand statements about his experience survive, in addition to over 70 reports from those who interviewed him.⁶ Most of the firsthand statements either express a simple reaffirmation of his testimony as published in the Book of Mormon, or matter-of-factly state that he saw an angel with the plates. Coming from his own pen (or that of his scribes, as he dictated to them), these surviving letters allow David to speak for himself about his experience:

• “My testimony to the world is written concerning the Book of Mormon, and it is the same that I gave at first and it is the same as shall stand to my latest hour in life, linger with me in death and shine as Gospel Truth beyond the limits of life.”⁷
• “As you read my testimony given many years ago, so it stands as my own existence; the same as when I gave it, and so shall stand throughout the cycles of eternity.”⁸
• “As concerning the Book of Mormon and its contents, and my views for which you inquire, I can say the Book and its contents are true. And my testimony in connection with the Book is also true.”⁹
• “My testimony to the Book of Mormon is true and I am admonished neither to add to nor take from my testimony already appended to the Book.”¹⁰
• “Those who know me best, well know that I have adhered to that testimony.—And that no man may be misled or doubt my present views in regard to the same, I do now again affirm the truth of all my statement[s], as then made and published.”¹¹
• “My testimony as published in connection with the Book of Mormon is true—And why Should men ask to know more in regard to all the particulars connected with that all Overshadowing truth—If they will not believe the three and 8 witnesses would they believe though one Should arise from the dead, and testify to its truth again.”¹²
• “I have … emphatically testified as written in the Book of Mormon.”¹³
• “I did see the angel of God, and was commanded to testify of these things, and they are true.”¹⁴
• “You ask me if I saw the Angel when he brought the plates. I saw the Angel when he brought the plates, and the Angel told us that we must bear testimony to the world, as contained in my testimony written in the Book of Mormon. Doubt not—sister—the Book of Mormon is the word of God.”¹⁵
• “I did see the Angel as it is recorded in my testimony in the Book of Mormon. The Book is true.”¹⁶
• “In regards to my testimony to the visitation of the angel, who declared to us three witnesses that the Book of Mormon is true, I have this to say: … A bright light enveloped us where we were, that filled at noon day, and there in a vision or in the spirit, we saw and heard just as it is stated in my testimony in the Book of Mormon.”¹⁷
• “In June, 1829, the Lord called Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, and myself as the three witnesses, to behold the vision of the Angel, as recorded in the fore part of the Book of Mormon, and to bear testimony to the world that the Book of Mormon is true.”¹⁸

Other direct correspondences from David clearly express belief in the Book of Mormon without specifically mentioning his testimony of the angel and the plates. For example, in a letter to Oliver Cowdery in 1847, David speaks of building up the church of Christ anew, “according to the laws contained in the bible [and] book of Mormon.”¹⁹

Why are you not addressing these?

For pete's sake, David Whitmer was so adamant about his testimony that he had a reference to it engraved and memorialized on this tombstone.

What is your assessment of Mr. Whitmer?  What evidence do you have that he was insane?  Deluded or tricked?  What sort of super-magician do you think Joseph Smith was?  He was so good at tricking people that David Whitmer spent decades despising him and maintaining his testimony of the Plates.  Is that your assessment of this witness?  If so, how do you get there?  What evidence do you have which countervails the various statements above?  And what rules of evidence apply to these statements?  How do you propose a "jurist" would handle them?

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

Contemporaneous accounts are given far more weight than retroactive ones for good reason--memory is reconstructive, and people unconsciously harmonize their recollections with the narrative they've committed to.

From Grok:

Quote

Timeline of Statements by the Three Witnesses

The Three Witnesses (Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, Martin Harris) had their vision in late June 1829 near Fayette, New York. Their initial joint testimony was published in the 1830 Book of Mormon. Below is a timeline of their post-1829 individual or joint statements reaffirming the experience.

• Oliver Cowdery:
  • November 29, 1829: In a letter with Martin Harris, he described the angel bringing the plates: "It was a clear, open beautiful day... an angel, arrayed in glorious light, [who] ascend [descended I suppose] out of the midst of heaven."
  • 1830: Reaffirmed in a letter to Cornelius Blatchly, stating the vision occurred on "a clear, open beautiful day."
  • April 12, 1838: In a letter before his excommunication, he reaffirmed: "I beheld with my eyes, and handled with my hands, the gold plates."
  • October 1848: After rejoining the Church, he testified at a conference: "I beheld with my eyes and handled with my hands the gold plates."
  • March 3, 1850: On his deathbed, he testified to his family: "Jacob, I want you to remember what I say to you. The Book of Mormon is true."
• David Whitmer:
  • September 7–8, 1878: In an interview, he said: "It was in June 1829, the very last part of the month... the angel showed them to us."
  • December 22, 1877: In his journal (via Edward Stevenson), he reaffirmed: "I was not under any hallucination... I saw with these eyes and I heard with these ears!"
  • April 1887: In an affidavit, he stated: "In regards to my testimony to the visitation of the angel... we were in the spirit when we had the view... but we were in the body also."
  • June 1, 1881: In a letter, he wrote: "Of course we were in the spirit when we had the view... everything was as natural to us, as it is at any time."
  • January 1888: On his deathbed, he testified to family and friends: "I saw the angel, heard his voice, and the voice of God."
• Martin Harris:
  • November 29, 1829: In a joint letter with Oliver Cowdery, he described the vision as on "a clear, open beautiful day."
  • 1830: In a letter to Cornelius Blatchly, he reaffirmed the plates were shown by an angel.
  • 1870: After rebaptism, he testified at a conference: "I know the Book of Mormon is true."
  • July 1875: On his deathbed, he affirmed to visitors: "Yes, I did see the plates on which the Book of Mormon was written... I did see the angel; I did hear the voice of God; and I do know that Joseph Smith is a Prophet of God."
• Joint Statements by the Three:
  • 1830: They reaffirmed their testimony at a conference in Ohio, as recorded by Luke Johnson: "At this conference the eleven witnesses to the Book of Mormon, with uplifted hands, bore their solemn testimony."

Timeline of Statements by the Eight Witnesses

The Eight Witnesses (Christian Whitmer, Jacob Whitmer, Peter Whitmer Jr., John Whitmer, Hiram Page, Joseph Smith Sr., Hyrum Smith, Samuel H. Smith) had their experience in late June or early July 1829 near Palmyra, New York. Their joint testimony was published in the 1830 Book of Mormon. Individual statements are fewer, as some died early or left fewer records.

• Christian Whitmer: Died January 27, 1835; no known post-1829 individual statements, but signed the joint testimony.
• Jacob Whitmer: Died April 21, 1856; no known individual statements, but signed the joint testimony.
• Peter Whitmer Jr.: Died September 22, 1836; no known individual statements, but signed the joint testimony.
• John Whitmer:
  • 1830: Reaffirmed in a conference, as recorded by Luke Johnson (joint with others).
  • March 1836: In Messenger and Advocate, he wrote: "I now say I handled those plates... they are a work of the Lord."
• Hiram Page:
  • 1830: Reaffirmed in a conference, as recorded by Luke Johnson (joint with others).
  • August 1852: On his deathbed, he affirmed: "As sure as we see the earth, so we saw the plates."
• Joseph Smith Sr.: Died September 14, 1840; no known individual statements, but signed the joint testimony and reaffirmed in 1830 conference.
• Hyrum Smith: Martyred June 27, 1844; no known individual statements beyond the joint testimony, but reaffirmed in 1830 conference.
• Samuel H. Smith: Died July 30, 1844; no known individual statements, but signed the joint testimony and reaffirmed in 1830 conference.
• Joint Statements by the Eight:
  • 1830: Reaffirmed at a conference in Ohio, as recorded by Luke Johnson: "The eight witnesses bore their testimony with boldness."

These timelines are drawn from historical records, journals, letters, and affidavits. Note that the Eight Witnesses' statements are less frequent due to early deaths and fewer public roles. For full texts, see FAIR Latter-day Saints or the Joseph Smith Papers.

Not sure as to accuracy.  Will check later.  But at first glance it looks like all three of the Three Witnesses reaffirmed shortly after their published testimonies, and eight of the Eight Witnesses reaffirmed in 1830, and John Whitmer and Hyrum Page did in other settings.

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

Skeptical witnesses were excluded by design.

They were?  How do you know?

And how would this be handled by a judge?  

And what rules of evidence are implicated here?

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

The entire evidentiary structure was set up so that only believers had access to the evidence.

Okay.  And?  

And how would this be handled by a judge?  

And what rules of evidence are implicated here?

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

The plates were never subjected to independent examination.  No skeptic, no scholar, no expert in any relevant field was permitted to examine them.

What rule of evidence is implicated here?

Is "independent examination" of an item in litigation a requirement for people to testify about it?  Where did you get that idea?

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

And then the plates conveniently disappeared.

Nope.  They were returned to Moroni.

What rule of evidence is implicated here?

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

In a courtroom, if one side possessed the single most important piece of physical evidence and refused to let the other side examine it, and then that evidence was destroyed or removed, the judge would issue an adverse inference instruction--telling the jury they may assume the evidence was unfavorable to the party that withheld it. That is how seriously the legal system takes deliberate concealment of evidence.

Except that nobody claims Joseph "destroyed or removed" the Plates.  He returned them to Moroni. 

You are apparently arguing spoliation, but you have no evidence of it. 

Moreover, "spoliation" is "{t}he intentional destruction or alteration of relevant evidence in existing or pending litigation."  Do you have any evidence that Joseph Smith acted intentionally to destroy or alter the Plates?  That there was "existing or pending litigation" at the time?

Moreover, spoliation is not a rule of evidence, but a rule of procedure (in a federal setting, Rule 37).  Rule 37 imposes sanctions for misconduct pertaining to failure to preserve evidence, but you have no evidence of misconduct by Joseph Smith.  

Are you sure you want to apply the rules of evidence and procedure here?

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

No cross-examination occurred.

An affiant's statement is a written instrument, so it can't be cross-examined.  Affidavits are, nevertheless, used all the time in a legal setting.

What rule of evidence is implicated here?

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

This might be the most important point.

It's really not.  This is a protracted "pounding a square peg into a round hole" exercise.

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

In our legal system, testimony that hasn't been tested by cross-examination is given very little weight, and for good reason.

Really?  Rule of evidence, please.

As it happens, today I spent two hours in a summary judgment hearing which involved a review of the plaintiff's affidavits (two of them).  I had all sorts of objections and grounds to attack these documents, but their not being "tested by cross-examination" was not one of them.  Cross-examination only happens at trial or in depositions, after all.  

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

Cross-examination is how we distinguish between "I saw gold plates with ancient writing" and "I saw an object that Joseph told me was gold plates with ancient writing" and "I saw the plates with my spiritual eyes in a vision" and "I was in a heightened emotional state during a religious ceremony and I experienced something I interpreted as seeing plates."

Really?  How would we do that when the witnesses are long dead?  How would a judge assess the probative weight of their statements?  What rules of evidence are in play?  How do you get around the Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine?  How does the judge have jurisdiction?  What venue?  Is this a federal or state court?  Who is the plaintiff?  Who is the defendant?  What causes of action are in view?  What about the Statute of Limitations?  Laches?  Estoppel?  Are the claims statutory?  Common law?  Tort?  Were these causes of action in existence in 1830s and thereafter?

And these are just the flaws in this approach that I am thinking of off the top of my head.  I think there are likely a lot more.

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

These are very different claims, and a skilled attorney conducting a six-hour deposition of each witness would likely reveal significant variation in what the witnesses actually experienced versus what the prepared statement says they experienced.

This would never see the inside of a courtroom, let alone a law firm's office for a deposition.

Anyhoo, what questions would this "skilled attorney" ask?  Of whom?  The witnesses are all dead.  About what claims?

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

We know from later accounts that there was significant variation. Martin Harris reportedly said he saw the plates "with the eye of faith" and "as one sees a city through a mountain."

All sorts of Latter-day Saint scholarship about this stuff.  Perhaps Richard Lloyd Anderson's book could qualify as a "learned treatise" for your sake.  Are you willing to evaluate these statements in more detail?

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

Some of the Eight Witnesses may have handled an object wrapped in cloth without ever seeing the plates directly.

Sure would like to discuss the evidence directly, rather than just passing references to "may have."

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

A thorough deposition would have explored all of this.

A deposition of dead people?  How would that work?

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

Now, I want to be clear about why I'm raising this.

Because you don't want to have a straightforward discussion about the evidence, and so would rather indulge in thoroughly unrealistic hypotheticals?

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

I'm not arguing that the witness testimony should be dismissed on a technicality based on arbitrary rules.

Much of what you've said above is very technical, and has no business being deployed in this context.

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

The rules of evidence aren't arbitrary--they represent centuries of hard-won wisdom about how testimony becomes unreliable.

Yes.  In court.  With presupposes federal or state court, jurisdiction and venue, statutes of limitations, common law, statutory law, torts, procedural and evidentiary rules, affirmative defenses, cognizable and non-cognizable causes of action, and on and on and on.

The Federal Rules of Evidence can't really be deployed to examine the witness statements of dead people about a religious artifact.  There is no federal question, so it would need to be a state court thing.  Jurisdiction and venue?  Forget about it.  Statute of limitations?  Long gone.  Causes of action?  Who knows, since you're just making this stuff up as you go along.  Laches?  Definitely.  Estoppel?  Maybe.  

And on and on and on.

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

The point isn't that the testimony violates some procedural checkbox.

Roger, you can't invoke a highly set of technical evidentiary rules promulgated for specific purposes in specific situations when neither those purposes nor situations are in play.

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

The point is that the testimony was deliberately structured to be unverifiable.

To the contrary, the testimony was intended to facilitate verification.  See Moroni 10:3-5.

How would a judge evaluate Moroni's Promise?

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

The evidence was managed,

But not in anticipation of any lawsuit or legal scrutiny.  

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

the witnesses were selected,

Witnesses are selected all the time.  Weight, not admissibility.

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

the statements were prepared,

Irrelevant.

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

the physical artifact was withheld from examination,

By a farmer in the 1820s in New York?  It is altogether unreasonable and unserious to frame Joseph Smith's conduct in a 2026 legal setting.

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

and then it was removed entirely.

It was returned to Moroni.  And not for spoliation purposes, since there was no actual or pending litigation at the time.

The knives used to kill Caesar aren't available for forensic examination either.  By your reasoning, we should therefore dispute that he was assassinated.

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

This pattern--extraordinary claims

All religious claims are extraordinary, and adjudication of them is barred by the Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine.  You are not addressing this.

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

supported by carefully managed,

So "carefully managed," in fact, that most of the Witnesses ended up estranged from Joseph Smith.

Personally, I agree with you.  I think God had foreknowledge that many of the Witnesses would dissociate from Joseph.  That dissociation, coupled with their enduring declaration of their respective testimonies, bolsters their credibility.  

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

unverifiable testimony

Again, Moroni 10:3-5.

Again, Ceasar.

This is all a massive waste of time, Roger.

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

from hand-picked,

D&C 17.

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

financially and emotionally invested witnesses,

Most of whom thereafter became estranged from Joseph, and so would have had every incentive to recant.  But they didn't.

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

with the key physical evidence withheld and then destroyed

Not destroyed.  Returned to Moroni.

You can't be so sloppy in your rhetoric in a legal setting.  A mischaracterization that severe could get you chewed out by a judge.

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

--is not the pattern of authentic historical events.

Right.  Feel free to walk us through this "pattern."  Where was it established?  When?  By whom?  For what purpose?

Please be sure to cite rules of evidence and decisional authority to support your position.  We are in court, after all.

How often are "historical events" stage-managed in this way?  Pretty much never.

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

It is the pattern of a magic show.

Oh, that's a really interesting suggestion.  Are you sure you want to go with it?

See, in a magic show, everyone knows it's not real.  It's just for fun.

Martin Harris mortgaged his farm to finance the publication of The Book of Mormon.  How do you account for that if he was a party to "a magic show"?  

David Whitmer spent decades both despising Joseph Smith and declaring his (David's) testimony of the Plates.  How do you square this with his experience being "a magic show"?  Are you saying David Whitmer was duped?  If so, how?  By what means?  And if so, would David Whitmer have been cognizant of that possibility?  And if that possibility was there, wouldn't his antipathy toward Joseph make him more likely to recant or qualify his statement?  Why are you not addressing any of this?

Do you have any evidence that any of the Witnesses thought they were being invited to something akin to "a magic show"?  

So that means you are characterizing the Witnesses as hapless dupes, yes.  But then, how do you square that with Richard Lloyd Anderson's assessment of these men? 

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

And when I look at the totality of how this evidence was produced, I don't see a reason to give it significant evidentiary weight.

I see all sorts of reasons to give the Witness statements "significant evidentiary weight."  

So litigation, for you, amounts to merely trading conclusory assertions?  

You're barely skimming over a few pieces of evidence, and wholesale ignoring vast swathes of it.  

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

Smac, you have urged me to take the evidence seriously.

Yes.  Still hasn't happened.  All sorts of song and dance about Bayesian empiricism, but no substantive discussion of the evidence.

Then you pivot to an absurd and strained "What if we put the Witnesses before an Article III judge in 2026?"-type hypothetical scenario.

Lots of verbiage, none of it substantively examining evidence.

I propose we take a look at Richard Lloyd Anderson's book and DCP's website.  That would let us get pretty granular.  How 'bout it?  We could go chapter by chapter.

8 hours ago, Analytics said:

I am taking it seriously--seriously enough to notice that it was designed from the ground up to resist exactly the kind of scrutiny that would tell us whether it's trustworthy.

That depends, I suppose, on what "kind of scrutiny" is in play.  

You and your presuppositions call for fraud or delusion or both.

I and my presuppositions call for agency and a Plan of Salvation framed by an omniscient and loving and benevolent Heavenly Father who wants us to "walk by faith, not by sight."

I'm not asking you to accept my presuppositions, but you are asking me to accept yours.  It doesn't work.

So how 'bout it?  Richard Lloyd Anderson?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 12 by smac97

[Ryan Dahle]

25 minutes ago, Analytics said:

One more important note: the competing theories need to be exhaustive and non-overlapping. By limiting the second theory to "if Joseph Smith worded the text himself," you are ignoring the possibility that he had help from others. A better formulation would be "if somebody in the 19th century worded the text without divine help."

If you want to posit someone else, it may help to better account for the EModE data, but then you of course lose the battle on historical evidence, since virtually all the data on that front points toward Joseph Smith. So pick your poison.

I assumed Smith was your preferred authorial candidate, based on our previous discussion. 

[Zosimus]

12 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Those seeking for a counter explanation for the existence of the shrink ray gun don't have that same advantage. Instead, they would be left to come up with a highly speculative alternative theory without the benefit of having made and then substantially justified the initial extraordinary claim. 

But a shrink gun can't be reverse-engineered. There's no known physics to explain for it. That's what makes an alien abduction suddenly credible. But the BoM isn't a shrinking raygun. It's a book and humans have produced 130 to 150 million books. The extraordinary thing about the BoM is that it does well synthesizing KJV, EMod english, biblical and apocryphal narratives, and other materials that were floating around 19th-century New England. Sure thats all very impressive but there is a plausible explanation for all that. It's not something that "those seeking a counter explanation" have to resort to wild speculation to account for. The simplest counter explanation is that a deeply faithful, religiously creative mind produced a impressive literary revelation, like hundreds or thousands of deeply faithful minds have done before. I collect apocyphal texts on PDF. I've been at it for almost three years, and I'm nowhere close to completing the collection. otoh, I have never ever seen a raygun that can shrink mailboxes.

Also, its telling that the BoM doesn't predict any syntax. Is there any Present-Day English (PDE) in the Book of Mormon? Anything that wasn't in circulation before 1830? all the multifaceted archaisms you identify are exactly that, archaisms. Everything in the text was in circulation somewhere, in a book or in conversations at the local debate club. We might bicker about whether or not Joseph had access, but we still can't find anything in the book that wasn't already out there. I'd argue that there's nothing in the book that couldn't have been learned from a conversation with a knowledgable Palmyra acquaintance like Luther Bradish.

So here's a somewhat relevant analogy. Could Luther Bradish have written the BoM? Not saying he did, but did he have the experience and knowledge to write it? How about Samuel Mitchill? Gilbert Hunt? Charles Anthon? Nathaniel Hawthorne? Washington Irving? I'd argue there were several humans capable of writing and dictating the Book of Mormon in 1828-1829. The book does a lot of innovative sythesisizing, but its nothing like a raygun

Edited March 12 by Zosimus

[Ryan Dahle]

47 minutes ago, Analytics said:

That's the problem -- the way you frame it is not valid.

In a general form, it must be of this structure:

• What are the chances of seeing the totality of the evidence under theory A?
• What are the chances of seeing the totality of the evidence under theory B?

For logical induction to be valid, you need to engage with all the evidence -- not just the subset that supports the position you are committed to defending. ...

So what is "the totality of the evidence" in this case? The totality of the evidence regarding BoM language is that it is a blend of English dialects ranging from EModE--including both KJV English and non-KJV EModE--and other words, phrases, and structures that entered the language after that period.

This is irrelevant since I was, of course, already including the totality of the linguistic data in my assessment. But I assumed Joseph Smith was the preferred candidate author under your theory. And the only textual data of any significance under that theory is the EModE archaism. If the entirety of the text was representative of Smith's own linguistic environment, we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place, as that data wouldn't be significant as evidence under either competing hypothesis. 

[Ryan Dahle]

12 hours ago, Analytics said:

Furthermore, when evaluating the likelihood of seeing the totality of the evidence, you need to make that estimate before looking at the evidence, not after. Whether a divine being has the capacity to produce a hodgepodge of archaic, pseudo-archaic, and 19th-century language in a single document is irrelevant. What matters is the likelihood that this evidence would emerge under the theory that it is genuine.

That simply just isn't true. The prediction can come either before or after. It just depends on the nature of the phenomenon being assessed and at what level of analysis it is being observed. What matters most is that the theory is based on reliable data and valid interpretations of the data.

Take the alien analogy for example. Before I told you I was abducted by aliens (in my very hypothetical scenario), you would have had no idea what type of evidence might emerge to support my claim. It could be all sorts of things. The Bayesian approach doesn't require one to predict all possible outcomes and then try to guess which of the potential outcomes might be most likely. That is often impossible and is usually a waste of time. Instead, we are most often confronted with data, and then we seek out an explanatory theory that can best account for that data. In the alien analogy, it is only after I show you the shrink gun that you can begin to assess how probable that specific item of evidence might be under the competing theories. And there is just no way that you could specifically know I would be given a shrink gun as evidence. What if the aliens instead gave me a device for teleporting, or a way to read minds, or some other type of tech that is too advanced for humans? What if it wasn't tech at all. What if, instead, they altered my biology and made it so I could now read minds, and then I start telling you everything you are thinking? Point is, there are so many things that could possibly arise from an advanced, currently unknown alien civilization that it is impossible to reliably predict what type of strong corroborating evidence might be available to support my claim. 

The same is true for the EModE data. There is no way to reliably predict what the text might specifically look like under the "revealed text" theory, since it is being produced by an unknown entity. But when the text shows remarkable evidence that it wasn't produced by Smith, and when all of the historical evidence points to Smith as an author, the naturalistic explanation struggles and the supernatural explanation is simultaneously made much more plausible. 

Edited March 12 by Ryan Dahle

[Ryan Dahle]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Consider:

• For my soul delighteth in plainness; for after this manner doth the Lord God work among the children of men. For the Lord God giveth light unto the understanding; for he speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding. (2 Nephi 31:3)
• Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding. (D&C 1:24)
• For it shall come to pass in that day, that every man shall hear the fulness of the gospel in his own tongue, and in his own language. (D&C 90:11)

Under the hypothesis that the Book of Mormon is true, I would expect its language to be "in the language of Joseph Smith, according to his understanding." The hypothesis that the Book of Mormon was partially and inconsistently given in the language of dead Englishmen is not something I would have predicted. This theory contradicts the very message of the book it is trying to defend.

It's funny you bring this up because one of the findings from Skousen and Carmack is that the text seems to have been "filtered" for a modern audience. It is archaic, but it seems to very selectively use archaism that would be understandable in the early 19th century environment. In fact, it seems to do this in a way that the Bible itself actually doesn't. Here is how Skousen states it: "The vocabulary of the text has been filtered so that no truly obsolete words from Early Modern English get through (except in the long quotations from the King James Bible, with its archaic examples like besom, carbuncle, tabret, and crisping pin). Nonetheless, the words that occur in the Book of Mormon proper are recognizable as current words in English, but they often take on archaic meanings that neither Joseph Smith nor his scribes understood. Thus we end up with a very complex and interesting mixture of specific language usage, but definitely not an ignorant mishmash of language imitative of the biblical style." Likewise, the archaic syntax is all understandable. This seems like it allows the text to simultaneously (1) retain an archaic form adjacent to the KJV, (2) not just be a shallow imitation of the KJV, and (3) be generally accessible for Joseph Smith and the initial 19th century audience. 

In any case, the text never specifically stipulates what "after their manner of language" means on a technical level. Does it have to literally be Smith's own native linguistic patterns? Or could it simply be in a language he can understand. I would assume the latter, but it doesn't really matter since either interpretation (and probably others) are reasonably on the table. In short, your claim that "this theory contradicts the very message of the book it is trying to defend" is really just you imposing a narrow interpretation that isn't logically necessary, while probably also just not being aware of the findings from Skousen and Carmack on this front.