A Secular Theory of Where the BoM Came From

[Ryan Dahle]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

o 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.

First you want to take in the totality of the evidence, but now you mostly want to focus on a particular phrase. Why not try to deal with the totality of the archaic features?

In any case, this seems to just be ignoring the fact that there is a major CAPACITY difference in the two theories. Divine beings have capacity that Smith wouldn't. That inherently creates an imbalance in each theory's explanatory power. Divine beings could produce the text's depth and breadth of archaism, if they so desired. Smith very likely couldn't, since he wouldn't even know what the features were and wouldn't likely be able to mimic so many of them in his oral dictation. So, no, it doesn't seem like the evidence is "equally unlikely" under both theories. 

And Joseph Smith in 1829 was no Nathaniel Hawthorne or Jones Very. It's apples to oranges. But I think we at least agree it was "unlikely" and not "impossible" that Smith encountered this phrase in his environment. Assuming he encountered all the rest and assimilated them into his vocabulary is much more "unlikely" and much closer to "impossible." 

Edited March 12 by Ryan Dahle

[smac97]

20 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Yes. I think the eye-witness testimony amounts to very strong supporting evidence.

So do I, particularly when contrasted against each other. 

The Statement of the Three Witnesses attests to divine intervention in relation to the Plates, but it is also susceptible to "Hey, they must've been tricked or drugged"-style skepticisms because of miraculous nature of the event.  As you noted previously, presumptive skepticism about miraculous claims is not unreasonable.

But then comes the Statement of the Eight Witnesses, which is an inversion of the above, and which - in my view - mitigates the grounds for skepticism and creates something of an evidentiary quandary for critics like @Analytics.  It attests more to the physical reality of the Plates and their actual substantive appearance (the event was in mundane circumstances, no Angel or voice from Heaven, but the object was clearly both there and impressive), but it is also susceptible to "Hey, they must've been tricked by a prop of tin painted yellow"-style skepticisms because of the non-miraculous nature of the event.

The two statements, taken together, effectively establish - beyond genuine dispute - the physicality of the Plates.  The best evidence for this is, well, the critics.  Even the most ardent and highly-motivated skeptics (Vogel, Taves, Analytics) effectively acknowledge that there really was something shown to the Witnesses.  That's a pretty big evidentiary deal.

So we then pivot to an authentically ancient v. sham discussion.  Critics must then accept the latter.  But that leads to some further questions that are difficult to address, hence the substantive circumlocutory rhetoric of folks like Analytics and Vogel, who prevaricate and dance around the evidence and seek to replace discussion of it it with speculation and innuendo.  That speculation, though, creates some real issues...

Who manufactured the sham plates?  Where?  When?  By what means?  How many people were involved?  What were the Plates made of?  What evidence is there of any of this?

Was Joseph involved?  If not, then who was involved, and how did they get to Joseph Smith?  And how was he persuaded to spin a fantastic yarn as to the Plates origins, and then keep to that yard even when his life was at stake?

If he was involved, was he a dupe or a conniver? 

If a dupe, who else was involved?  And why did these others never come forward (as happened with the Kinderhook Plates)?

If a conniver, did he act alone?  If so, where was his smithy?  Where did he manufacture them?  When?  By what means?  Using what materials?  How did he afford these materials, given his poverty?  Where did he get the raw materials?  Where did he get metallurgical skills?

If a conniver and acting in concert with others, who were these others?  And why did these others never come forward (as happened with the Kinderhook Plates)?  And to what purpose?  Who benefitted by this grand scheme?  And where did these others operate?  Which of them made the plates?  Where?  Using what tools and materials and metallurgical skills?

How was Martin Harris duped?  He took engravings to Anthon and the other guy, and came back so impressed by what they had told him that he mortgaged his farm to pay for the publication of The Book of Mormon.  And he then had a falling out with Joseph, but never recanted.  How do skeptics account for this?

Was the prop a sloppy, cobbled-together joke?  If so, how do skeptics deal with the Eight Witnesses?  Were all eight just really dumb?  They all them handled the Plates (literally with their "hands"), hefted them, saw them as having "the appearance of gold," and "saw the engravings" on the Plates, and viewed them as having "the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship," and none of them thought or said - either during or after the event - "Hey, this think just looks like common tin painted yellow" (Vogel's theory, see below)?  Did these men not know what tin looked like?

Alternatively, the prop was apparently sufficient to have eight men state that the Plates had "the appearance of gold" and "the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship" with "engravings" of them.  So that speaks to a fairly sophisticated and well-made prop.  If so, how did Joseph make it?  Or did someone else more skilled make it?  If so, whom, under what conditions, for what purpose, etc.?  And why was the sham never discovered?  Who stood to gain by taking the secrets of such a fantastic hoax to the grave?

Also, the Plates were described by Emma as "pliable like thick paper, and would rustle with a metalic sound when the edges were moved by the thumb, as one does sometimes thumb the edges of a book."  And "[s]everal witnesses compared the thickness of the individual plates to 'common tin' of their day."  So the Eight Witnesses were familiar with common tin, but they did not recognize the prop - as Vogel would have us believe - as being made of tin?  And they spent the rest of their lives - including those who fell out with Joseph - attesting to what they had seen, with nary a one of them saying "Hey, in hindsight I think the Plates were just made of tin and painted yellow"?

And on and on and one.  

It's no wonder Analytics doesn't want to touch any of these things with a ten-foot pole.  I think he sees these questions coming.  So he retreats into cerebral references to Bayesian empiricism (though not really deploying it), and then quotes ChatGPT (thus allowing him space to disclaim it if the assessment falls apart under scrutiny), and has now formulated a tortured "Hey, what if we filed a lawsuit in federal court in 2026 and used the rules of evidence to depose dead witnesses" hypothetical.  Lots of ducking and weaving, but virtually no examination of the substantive evidence, no addressing hard questions like those above.

Yes, you are right, Ryan.  "Very strong supporting evidence" is a contextual statement, but even so, I am increasingly impressed by just how well The Book of Mormon stands up to scrutiny.  The best and brightest - Vogel, Taves, Analytics - can't really formulate a naturalistic theory that withstands scrutiny.  Hugh Nibley nailed it:

Quote

“The Book of Mormon is tough; it thrives on investigation; you may kick it around like a football, as many have done, and I promise you it will wear you out long before you ever make a dent in it.”

— Hugh Nibley, 1952 (CWHN Vol. 5, p. 153)

I think we are seeing this play out in this thread.  And while Analytics will scoff at such a suggestion, I don't think he will meaningfully engage the evidence either.

20 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

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.

Yes.  Each category of evidence (testimonial, documentary, forensic, expert) has its strengths and shortcomings.  But we work with what we've got.

20 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

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 they might have been duped.  Or in on the con.

So posits Analytics.  And that's fine.  But that is all he'll do and say.  He won't substantiate it.  He won't marshal evidence.  He won't address the logical predicates and inferences and extrapolations.  He'll just make broad references and conclude with vague stuff like "it was more like a magic act."

I'm totally okay if that satisfies his intellectual curiosity.  For me, though, I would really like to see him or some other anti-Mormon really dig in and address the evidence, and ask - and answer - hard questions.  I just don't see it happening, though, since Analytics presupposition - that Joseph's narrative is "just not possible" is both the beginning and end and middle of his inquiry.

20 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

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).

Yes, it looks like our critics have more or less been forced to concede both that A) there really was a physical artifact present at the events described by the witnesses, and B) the witnesses were sincere in their beliefs.

These concessions, for me, introduce all sorts of follow-up questions, with substantially unsatisfying answers from those doing the conceding.

Dan Vogel has, to an extent, articulated a counter-theory for the origins of The Book of Mormon.  See, e.g., this three-part interview on MormonStories.  A Grok summary:

Quote

This transcript is from Part 3 of a Mormon Stories podcast interview with historian Dan Vogel, author of Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet. The host recaps prior parts and dives into Joseph's transition from treasure digging to creating the Book of Mormon. Vogel presents a naturalistic theory of Joseph's motives, methods, and the book's non-historical nature. Key chapters and themes:

Chapter 1: Intro

The host welcomes back Vogel, summarizes the interview series (Joseph's upbringing, treasure digging career ending in 1826 conviction, marriage to Emma), and sets the stage for 1827–1830, focusing on the gold plates' revival and Book of Mormon's origins.

Chapter 2: Summary of Joseph Smith’s Early Life

• Recap: By 1826, Joseph is "washed up" as a treasure digger. He elopes with Emma Hale against her father's wishes, returns home, then fetches her belongings from Isaac Hale.
• 1827 confrontation with Isaac: Joseph promises to quit treasure digging for honest work; Hale offers help if he does.
• Goal: Reunite family amid religious disputes (Lucy's Presbyterianism vs. Joseph's Sr. Universalism, Alvin's death condemned as hell-bound).

Chapter 3: There Were No Visits to the Hill (1824–1827)

• Vogel argues Joseph's later claim of annual hill visits (Moroni instructing him) is a retcon to spiritualize the treasure-digging story. No one expected the 1827 "retrieval."
• Joseph revives the plates narrative suddenly: Claims chastisement by an angel for neglecting duty. Goes to the hill with Emma at night, "hides" plates in a log (Vogel's theory: fabricating tin plates).
• No real plates; Joseph creates a prop from sheet tin (common material) to fulfill promises.

Chapter 4: Joseph Tried to Solve His Family’s Religious Disputes

• Motives for the book: Resolve family splits (e.g., Universalism's "no hell" vs. Presbyterian damnation of Alvin). Joseph had a 1820 "born-again" experience (clues in 1832 First Vision account).
• Book as anti-Universalist: Saves innocents (infants, those without law) but warns of punishment to motivate repentance.
• Joseph as "pious fraud": Believes he's inspired (like patriarchs giving blessings), but uses tricks (fake plates) to build faith for greater good.

Chapter 5: The Earliest Part of the Book of Mormon Saved Alvin

• Early manuscript (lost 116 pages) was less religious, historical abridgment.
• King Benjamin's speech (retained in Mosiah) addresses family issues: Saves those who die without law (Alvin), critiques Universalism's lack of incentive for righteousness.
• Joseph's theology evolves: Starts with Universalism but adds punishment to encourage morality.

Chapter 6: Dan Believes Joseph Had a Born-Again Experience in 1820

• 1820 "First Vision" was originally a personal conversion, later retconned into a prophetic call.
• Joseph as true believer: Charisma from conviction in his mission (save family, convert, prepare for end times).

Chapter 7: The Book of Mormon Is Anti-Masonic

• 1828 election context: Anti-Masonic fervor (William Morgan murder) influences secret combinations narrative.
• Book warns of conspiracies overthrowing governments (parallels Masons, Jackson's election).
• Joseph as narcissist: Seeks power through book, envisioning theocracy with Indians as allies against "secret combinations" (e.g., Masons).
• Ultimate goal: Build New Jerusalem, convert Indians before Christ's return.

Chapter 8: What Is His Theory for Joseph Smith Writing a Book?

• Motives: Solve family disputes, career after treasure digging, narcissism/power (create theocracy).
• Mechanics: Impromptu dictation (90 days total, but thought out in mind like revelations). No pre-written manuscript; Joseph fluent in Bible language.
• Plates as prop: Tin sheets bent into book shape, covered to hide material. Witnesses saw spiritually or through cloth (group hallucination/suggestion).

Chapter 9: Joseph Smith Is Pretty Definitely a Narcissist

• Narcissism drives ambition: From treasure digging failure to religious leader.
• Book as "miracle" for charisma: Converts without Joseph present.

Chapter 10: Dan’s Theory That Joseph Smith Created a Set of Plates

• Joseph fabricates tin plates (common material, no metallurgy needed) to fulfill promises.
• "Dislocated thumb" story: Cover for injury from bending rings.
• Plates hidden/covered to avoid inspection; weight (40–60 lbs) matches tin.

Chapter 11: When Joseph Smith Gets the Plates

• 1827 retrieval: Faked with Emma; "hid in log" to buy time for fabrication.
• Money diggers believe and search; Joseph uses seer stone to "confirm" safety.

Chapter 12: Joseph Smith Dislocated His Thumb

• Injury from plate fabrication, not ruffians (Vogel's speculation).

Chapter 13: Dan Vogel’s Theory of Joseph Smith Created the Plates from Tin

• Tin sheets (iron-coated) easy to obtain, shape into "book" with rings.
• Covered to pass as gold; witnesses "handled" through cloth, saw "spiritually."

Chapter 14: When Does Joseph Smith Finish Making the Plates?

• Finished during 1827 "errand" or well-digging; used to convince family/friends.

Chapter 15: Did Joseph Smith Write the Book in a Short Period of Time?

• Dictated in ~90 days (April–July 1829 with Oliver), but conceptualized over years (stories to family since 1823).
• Impromptu style: Oral, Bible-inspired, with "hearing mistakes" (no pre-written text).

Chapter 16: The Book Is Amazing

• Not as sophisticated as claimed: Laborious, repetitive, anachronistic (New Testament allusions in Old Testament-era).
• Joseph "fluent in Bible"; sermons from revivals, mound builder myths, family disputes.

Chapter 17: Justice Smith

• Joseph as charismatic, folksy speaker; Book of Mormon mirrors his style.

Chapter 18: Automatic Writing

• Vogel publishes Scott Dunn on "automatic writing" as parallel: Inspired dictation without pre-text.

Chapter 19: Language

• King James English: Imitated for "scriptural" feel; no ancient rationale.

Chapter 20: Lehighs Dream

• Lehi's dream: Based on Joseph Sr.'s Universalist dreams, but altered to critique Universalism (hell real, not all saved).

Chapter 21: Racism

• Book's light/dark skin curse: Racist mound builder myth (white builders destroyed by dark "savages").

Chapter 22: The Ten Tribes

• Rejects 10 Tribes theory for Indians; uses Esdras/Apocrypha for migrations.

Chapter 23: The Sermons

• Sermons from Methodism/revivals; Joseph as exhorter/debater.

Chapter 24: The Sources

• Sources: Bible, family disputes, mound myths, anti-Masonry, View of the Hebrews (influence, not plagiarism).

Chapter 25: Is the Book of Mormon Amazing

• Not great literature (Mark Twain's "chloroform in print"); Joseph smarter than credited, book less impressive.

Vogel concludes the Book of Mormon is non-historical: Anachronisms, 19th-century content, mound myths, no Jewish DNA in Indians. Interview ends with plans for more sessions.

The key parts of Vogel's interview:

• Part 1: 00:31:46 Dan’s theory that Joseph Smith created a set of plates
• Part 1: 00:44:05 Dan Vogel’s theory of Joseph Smith created the plates from tin
• Part 1: 00:48:07 When does Joseph Smith finish making the plates?
• Part 3: 00:25:24 The Eight Witnesses

As with most MS interviews, Vogel is pushing against an open door.  He and John chuckle together, and Vogel clearly has a good command of the primary sources.  But he's quite selective with them.  

Vogel suggests they were made of tin.  And no conspiracy, so it was just Joseph.  And that "there's no reason," apart from deceit, for Joseph to not display the plates (he kept them hidden because they could not pass visible inspection").  And the "Eight Witnesses" saw the plates with "spiritual sight" rather than in mundane circumstances, and/or that they "saw the Plates through {a} cloth."  This is speculative (and, as to the Eight Witnesses, at odds with their Statement), but it's at least plausible and addresses a number of issues.  

Tin does a lot of heavy lifting for Vogel.  Tin was widely available, so no metallurgy needed.  And widely available means not particularly expensive, so Joseph's poverty is not really an issue.  And no conspiracy, so no need to account for others' involvement.  And "the Witnesses only saw the Plates with 'spiritual' eyes and/or through a cloth" kinda sorta mitigates the Statement of the Eight Witnesses.

But once we get past the speculative superficialities of Vogel's theory, it starts to create more questions than answers:

• How did Joseph make them have the "appearance of gold"? This is, in my view, a major weakness in Vogel's theory. Tinplate is silvery-gray, not golden. Vogel suggests Joseph kept them covered (in cloth or a box) during "showings," so witnesses "hefted" or "handled" them without seeing the surface.  For glimpses, he might have polished them to a shine or used a golden tint (e.g., brass polish or yellow dye), but there's no evidence. Critics like Vogel point to witness accounts describing "ancient appearance" or "gold-like," but believers counter that the plates were never fully uncovered for skeptics to inspect.  If uncovered (as some accounts imply), tin wouldn't fool anyone—it's too dull.  And the Plates were, according to the Eight Witnesses, pretty out-in-the-open:

Quote

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shown unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken. And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it.

Vogel's theory does not really account for these things.

• What engravings did he use? Vogel speculates Joseph scratched simple lines or symbols to mimic "reformed Egyptian" (per the "Anthon transcript"). No need for expertise—just random marks on tin sheets, visible enough through cloth edges or brief peeks to seem "engraved." However, the Eight Witnesses described "engravings" as "of curious workmanship." Tin is soft and easy to engrave, but creating convincing "ancient" script without artistic skill is dubious. Vogel say the plates were kept hidden, so engravings were never closely examined.  But then there's the "as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands" and "we also saw the engravings thereon" and "the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship" stuff.  Again, Vogel's theory does not really account for these things, and even rests on rank speculation which contradicts the extant evidence. 
   
• Martin Harris and the Anthon Visit / Farm Mortgage: Skeptics like Vogel account for Harris's enthusiasm as a mix of gullibility, religious fervor, and self-interest. Harris was, per the skeptics, a superstitious treasure seeker who believed Joseph's stone had power (even before plates). The Anthon visit (1828) was spun as fulfillment of Isaiah 29 (sealed book to the learned).  Anthon called the characters "shorthand Egyptian," which Harris took as validation, ignoring Anthon's later denial.  Gullibility does not account for what Harris did next, which was to mortgage his farm ($3,000). 
   
• The Eight Witnesses' Mundane Experience: The Eight (Smith and Whitmer family members) "saw / handled / hefted" the plates in "mundane circumstances" (June 1829, woods near Fayette). Skeptics argue:
  • Familiarity with tin: They were rural farmers—tin was everyday (buckets, roofs)—but Vogel suggests the plates were covered in cloth during handling, so they "hefted" weight and "turned leaves" without seeing the surface (how would they turn metal leaves covered in a cloth? - Vogel doesn't say).  The "appearance of gold" could be Joseph's description, not theirs (again, just speculation and no evidence). 
  • How they were taken in: Close family ties and belief in Joseph's charisma. The prop was "good enough" for a quick, controlled showing—tin's weight (40–60 lbs, per Vogel) matches gold estimates; rings allowed "leaf-turning" sound/feel through cloth. No close inspection; group pressure reinforced the experience.  And yet this does not jibe with either the Statement or their subsequent dissociations from Joseph.  Why did none of them mention a cloth?  Why did none of them recant?
  • No recantations: Loyalty to family/faith, even after schisms (4 Whitmers left the Church). They stood by the testimony as "spiritual truth" or avoided disavowing to maintain reputation. Hyrum and Samuel died loyal; others (like Hiram Page) reaffirmed on deathbeds. Skeptics see this as social/psychological commitment, not proof of authenticity.  Kind of hard to square this with Richard Lloyd Anderson's work.  These guys were sincere, not opportunistic or craven.
     
• How Joseph Crafted a "Really Good" Sham Artifact: Vogel's theory assumes a simple prop: 6x8 inch tin sheets (~23 stacked for thickness), holes punched for 3 rings (bent wire), perhaps hammered for "engraved" texture. "Really good" is relative—witnesses were believers in Joseph's visions; the prop didn't need perfection because it was rarely shown uncovered. Joseph controlled access (e.g., "curse if you peek"), using superstition/fear. Okay.  But this is all speculation.  And if "hefted" uncovered (as some accounts suggest), tin's dullness wouldn't mimic gold—perhaps polished or gilded with cheap brass/yellow paint, but this just compounds the speculation. As for the engravings, they were random scratches mimicking "reformed Egyptian" from Joseph's "Anthon transcript" sketches. Again, this does not account for Martin's enthusiasm and willingness to mortgage his farm.  As for Joseph's poverty, tin was cheap (~$1–$2 for sheets); he could have scavenged or bought with family help. Overall, the "trick" relied more on psychology (expectation, group dynamics) than craftsmanship.  But this conflicts with the statements of the Witnesses.  "{T}he appearance of gold ... as many of the leaves {} we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship."  Hard to reconcile this with a "Joseph just made a cheap prop out of tin painted yellow" theory.

Vogel's theory is coherent for skeptics, but it relies on assumptions about witness gullibility, and it contradicts the Witness statements, and it does not account for the Witnesses not recanting, and it does not fully account for the human factor (would Martin, who had substantial bouts of doubt and a hugely grouchy wife, really be inclined to mortgage his farm after visiting Anthon if the narrative was inaccurate?).

Don't really have time for and extended look at Taves, but see here.

20 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

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.

I returned from my mission in early 1995.  Online anti-Mormonism was in its infancy, but there was enough to discombobulate me a bit.  Nevertheless, I dug in and started to both listen and talk.  The Book of Mormon has been central to my thoughts, including listing to alternative theories.  Fast forward to 2026, and as you say "no such theory has been forthcoming."

20 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Notions, like the idea that Smith induced joint hallucinations, are only plausible to those who have already ruled out anything that smacks of supernaturalism.

And hardly even then, as hallucinations would not account for the failure of any of the witnesses to recant, or for Martin's mortgaging of his farm, etc.

20 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

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.

I agree.  It's a wonder it's still bandied about.

20 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

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.

And meanwhile, those Latter-day Saints who are willing to let them have the floor and have their say continue to be disappointed that they won't take us up on the offer.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 12 by smac97

[Zosimus]

2 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

And Joseph Smith in 1829 was no Nathaniel Hawthorne or Jones Very. It's apples to oranges.

Why apples to oranges?

Very also claimed he received his words from some supernatural power or Holy Ghost:

"What he did and what he said, he felt that he was directed to do and to say by the Infinite Power. In fact, he claimed that he acted not of his own will, but always as he was directed. This theory he accepted with the utmost literalness, so that he said to Dr. Channing that even the putting his hand upon a mantel in the room where they were was not of his own free-will He wrote his poems and his prose essays as they were given to him. and he regarded himself as only the messenger or spokesman of the Spirit. His sonnets on religious themes. especially, he regarded as containing a message that was “given him” by the Spirit. He had an absolute confidence in the word that was thus spoken through him, and he gave it to others as something that had authority behind it, not as his own. He wrote to Emerson: “I am glad at last to be able to transmit what had been told me of Shakespeare. You hear not mine own words. but the teachings of the Holy Ghost.” (source)

Do you believe his claim, or do you believe there is a naturalistic explanation for his use of an archaism that we also find in the Book of Mormon?

[Calm]

7 hours ago, Analytics said:

you need to make that estimate before looking at the evidence, not after.

Which is pretty subjective, is it not since we lack similar examples?  Even if we assume purely naturalistic, what books would be a good fit to create probabilities with?  Would need to be similar genre and purpose at least.  What else?

[Calm]

10 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

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.

Do we have authors from that time period intentionally trying to alter their writing so as to imitate someone/thing else to see how different the mimicked or altered texts are to their usual styles in word choice and syntax?

Though with the Book of Mormon, isn’t there the problem we lack much of his writing prior to that experience and his vocabulary and style might have been influenced and moved closer to the text’s style where you wouldn’t see it in stuff he wrote previously to that experience.

[Tony uk]

Firstly, I admit, this is a subject matter I am not qualified to add to. I just wanted to add my thoughts.

Languages around the world, have progressed, and developed over time. For example, Latin over time forming into what is now referred to as Italian. Other languages especially English being influenced by other languages. Grammar developing and adjusting with time. Also regional dialects of a particular language. I presume Joseph Smith and many others at this time spoke English, with what may constitute a form of dialect(s) of his surroundings, and with the grammar of the time. 

One as only to look at the works of people like Shakespeare. To see how the English language has evolved over the last few centuries.

[champatsch]

Much earlier I mentioned causative constructions in the Book of Mormon, mostly with cause (235) but also with make (10). Here I will just focus on the former, since there are more than 200 and so we see a statistically clear pattern. A causative has a dependent verb that the verb cause governs. A simple example is "they caused that he should be bound" (Alma 30:29). This is an example of a finite causative. An infinitive causative would be "they caused him to be bound." Here are a few things we know.

The Book of Mormon is almost 60% finite, even though English causatives were historically among the least finite of verbs of influence.

In general, finite complementation was characteristic of formal, written registers. Thus the Book of Mormon's high levels of finite complementation, in many contexts, but especially after verbs of influence, marks this aspect of the text as written, despite Joseph Smith dictating it. This is one more reason of many that calls into question his wording the Book of Mormon.

In the 1820s, English speakers spoke with infinitive causatives because these began in the 1300s as more than 90% infinitival (Cuyckens, Lowrey, in Explorations in English Historical Syntax, 2018) and the infinitive use generally increased over time, approaching 100%.

Therefore it is inaccurate/wrong to say that this reflects an archaic dialect that Joseph Smith spoke; this has been one incorrect fallback position to explain Book of Mormon English.

The Book of Mormon's frequent use of finite causatives (136) is not a pseudo-archaic artifact of Joseph Smith's dictation because pseudo-archaic authors used infinitive causatives: in 25 pseudo-archaic texts (1740–1888), a corpus of almost 600,000 words that I put together after consulting Eran Shalev and Duane Johnson, there are more than 100 causatives and no finite causatives.

My reasonable conclusion is that finite causatives were revealed to Joseph Smith word for word.

 

When I mentioned to McGuire that I could not find a text with 36 finite causatives, let alone 136, he pointed me to a 2017 translation of a 17c Yiddish text by Faierstein that had 66 finite causatives. McGuire did not give me additional details about this translation's causatives.

Though irrelevant to Book of Mormon authorship, Faierstein's written translation turns out to be quite different from Joseph Smith's oral "translation" of causatives (in quotes because it is not the default meaning). First, the 2017 translation is only about 24% finite, even though Faierstein knew multiple languages (which Joseph Smith did not in 1829), probably four or more, but at least three. The Book of Mormon is about 58% finite. Second, the translation is close to twice as long as the Book of Mormon, and more than twice as long if we exclude biblical quotations. The 66 finite causatives normalize to 31, relative to the Book of Mormon's 136. Third, the embedded modal use is odd in its frequent use of will and non-use of shall, while the Book of Mormon's modal use is not odd, historically speaking. It is what we expect that early modern translators might have used. Faierstein's modal usage is what we might expect of a pseudo-archaic, literal translator. Fourth, the 2017 translation does not have any ditransitive causatives and the Book of Mormon has 12 (ditransitive causatives were obsolete by about 1725 – Lowrey 2018 views them as obsolete by about 1700). The Book of Mormon's 12 ditransitive causatives are well above any other text and are characterized by frequent "did cause" usage, which peaked in English around 1590. The Book of Mormon has a large amount of syntax that fits usage of the second half of the 1500s.

Translated early modern texts that have between 10 and 20 finite causatives suggest that the Book of Mormon's 136 finite causatives could have been the result of the Lord having the Book of Mormon translated (before delivery to Joseph Smith) from a language or languages that employed many finite causatives. This is speculation, of course, which I am just mentioning here as one of many possibilities.

[Ryan Dahle]

8 hours ago, Zosimus said:

Why apples to oranges?

Very different degrees of literary experience and scholarly study, when they each respectively used their archaism, based on the available historical evidence. 

8 hours ago, Zosimus said:

Very also claimed he received his words from some supernatural power or Holy Ghost:

"What he did and what he said, he felt that he was directed to do and to say by the Infinite Power. In fact, he claimed that he acted not of his own will, but always as he was directed. This theory he accepted with the utmost literalness, so that he said to Dr. Channing that even the putting his hand upon a mantel in the room where they were was not of his own free-will He wrote his poems and his prose essays as they were given to him. and he regarded himself as only the messenger or spokesman of the Spirit. His sonnets on religious themes. especially, he regarded as containing a message that was “given him” by the Spirit. He had an absolute confidence in the word that was thus spoken through him, and he gave it to others as something that had authority behind it, not as his own. He wrote to Emerson: “I am glad at last to be able to transmit what had been told me of Shakespeare. You hear not mine own words. but the teachings of the Holy Ghost.” (source)

Do you believe his claim, or do you believe there is a naturalistic explanation for his use of an archaism that we also find in the Book of Mormon?

I haven't looked at his writings and life close enough to say. Lot's of creative people feel inspired to some degree. Hard to say what he means specifically by that, based on his statements. But it doesn't really matter to me, in the context of this discussion. LDS theology can accommodate other people having spiritual gifts and interreacting with spiritual entities, whether divine or demonic. Inasmuch as people claim to have received a text by revelation, it can't be used as evidence of what others can do naturally, until that claim is either verified or disputed. You have to look for examples of texts which are undisputedly naturalistic in origin as a control for what other individuals could do naturalistically. 

Yet even if Very did implement this feature via naturalistic means, as Hawthorne did, it wouldn't all of a sudden make it likely that Smith implemented this archaic feature and all of the others. All it does is make the naturalistic theory slightly more plausible. What you would really need to do, in order to turn the tide, is demonstrate that most all of the archaism was present in fairly appreciable degrees in texts close to 1829. Stan has already been accounting for rare instances of preservation across the board for many examples. So this is nothing new. 

Edited March 12 by Ryan Dahle

[Ryan Dahle]

11 hours ago, Zosimus said:

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.

I'm not saying the text is a ray gun. It wasn't an analogy meant to illustrate certain principles of evidence, not an example of evidence equivalent to the BofM. They have very different types of evidentiary strengths. 

11 hours ago, Zosimus said:

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.

I'm guessing you haven't been paying attention to lots of the evidence accumulated about the text. But the bigger problem is that as soon as your theory relies on the possibility of Smith learning everything from his environment, the theory becomes inconsistent with the historical evidence pertaining to Smith's education and poverty, as well as the nature of the translation. You can't reasonably have Smith widely reading and accessing all sorts of arcane information from rare or expensive books and then remembering those details well enough to synthesize them in a complex text like the Book of Mormon. Not only can this not explain all of the data (because lots of features, contrary to your claim, weren't known in 1829), but it just is not plausible based on the historical data about Smith's life and circumstances. There would also be another problem. If Smith was widely having conversations with people and reading from esoteric books and thinking about such things, his family and acquaintances would likely have noticed.

11 hours ago, Zosimus said:

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

I don't think anyone in 1829 could likely have written the text. But I think it would help naturalistic theories considerably if the text was written by a scholar or someone with a lot of literary experience and success. It would also help considerably if they weren't required to dictate the text in a fast-paced translation without revisions. Even if you strip away all those hurdles, I still think there are some archaic features of the text that very likely couldn't have been imitated. But, again, the historical evidence would strongly militate against another author. 

[Ryan Dahle]

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

Vogel's theory is coherent for skeptics, but it relies on assumptions about witness gullibility, and it contradicts the Witness statements, and it does not account for the Witnesses not recanting, and it does not fully account for the human factor (would Martin, who had substantial bouts of doubt and a hugely grouchy wife, really be inclined to mortgage his farm after visiting Anthon if the narrative was inaccurate?).

Yes. Vogel's theory accounts for a very small portion of the data, and doesn't deal with most potential counter-arguments. It is also mainly a historical explanation and doesn't really deal with most lines of positive evidence in the text, pointing away from Smith's authorship. 

[Ryan Dahle]

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

20 hours ago, Analytics said:

They were hand-picked.

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

It is also interesting that Oliver Cowdery essentially showed up at Smith's door because of independent personal revelation and interest. Smith barely knew him for a few months when Oliver witnessed the plates and the angel. The same is true for David Whitmer, and all of the Whitmers who testified of seeing the plates. Only Martin Harris knew Smith for longer. But he also was quite skeptical in many ways, and struggled to believe.

Essentially, it was a HUGE risk for Smith to produce the Book of Mormon and then predict that others would have a very specific divine revelation about the plates and other artifacts, before that revelation occurred. He still barely knew most of these people. And everything could have fallen apart if the initial witnesses didn't have the precise type of "hallucination" (or whatever someone wants to call it) to convince them of Smith's claims. Critics aren't dealing with this fact. Imagine if you are Oliver, David, and Martin. You are sincere. You really think Smith is a prophet, based on some of his previous claims and his dictation of the Book of Mormon. You walk into the woods. And then nothing happens. No promised revelation. You try to get yourself to have the vision. You open yourself up to that idea. But there is no angel clothed in glory. No plates. No other artifacts. It seems to me that if Smith was lying or deluded to begin with, that is BY FAR the most likely outcome. He would have never found witnesses to corroborate such audacious claims.

I personally can't think of anyone I know that I could trick into believing they saw an angel and plates in the woods, when indeed they saw nothing. Not a single person, much less three. It would be an extraordinarily unlikely result.

Edited March 12 by Ryan Dahle

[Calm]

1 hour ago, champatsch said:

from a language or languages that employed many finite causatives

What languages fall in this category?

[Senator]

34 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Yes. Vogel's theory accounts for a very small portion of the data, and doesn't deal with most potential counter-arguments. It is also mainly a historical explanation and doesn't really deal with most lines of positive evidence in the text, pointing away from Smith's authorship. 

Just a curiosity question, as I am ignorant and have not follow this line of research, but has all of this data evidence been peer reviewed outside of the LDS scholarly domain?

[Ryan Dahle]

Deleted 

Edited March 12 by Ryan Dahle

[Senator]

6 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Don't be coy, Lloyd. 

??

[smac97]

27 minutes ago, Senator said:

Just a curiosity question, as I am ignorant and have not follow this line of research, but has all of this data evidence been peer reviewed outside of the LDS scholarly domain?

"{A}ll of this data" have been publicly available for quite a while, some for many decades.  Anyone "outside of the LDS scholarly domain" has had ample opportunity to do "peer review."  This has happened a bit, but not much.  I think this is mostly attributable to indifference and/or studied avoidance. 

I'm not particularly inclined to judge an idea based primarily on it having been peer reviewed or not.  Here are a few reasons why:

1. Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals
2. Let's stop pretending peer review works
3. When reviewing goes wrong: the ugly side of peer review (Illustrating some of the most common ways that things can go wrong during peer review – and what to do if this happens)
4. Peer Review is Not Scientific (How a process designed to ensure scientific rigor is tainted by randomness, bias, and arbitrary delays.)
5. Is Peer Review A Big Bad Joke? (You, too, could have a paper in a science journal! An investigation reveals that dozens of sketchy titles were happy to publish a study so egregiously flawed it almost had to be fake.)
6. Science Is Suffering Because of Peer Review’s Big Problems (How to reform the journal publication process.)
7. Phony peer review: The more we look, the more we find
8. This Study Just Revealed Why The Peer-Review Process Is in So Much Trouble (In recent years, scientists have been warning us about a reproducibility crisis in science, which has seen many seminal papers - particularly in psychology - failing to hold up when an independent team tries to reproduce the results.)

There are significant problems with bias, politics, funding concerns, etc. being implicated in scholarly research and publications.  When it comes to scholarly assessment of miraculous claims of a religion as controversial as the Church, I think this problems are augmented significantly.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Senator]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"{A}ll of this data" have been publicly available for quite a while, some for many decades.  Anyone "outside of the LDS scholarly domain" has had ample opportunity to do "peer review."  This has happened a bit, but not much.  I think this is mostly attributable to indifference and/or studied avoidance. 

I'm not particularly inclined to judge an idea based primarily on it having been peer reviewed or not.  Here are a few reasons why:

1. Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals
2. Let's stop pretending peer review works
3. When reviewing goes wrong: the ugly side of peer review (Illustrating some of the most common ways that things can go wrong during peer review – and what to do if this happens)
4. Peer Review is Not Scientific (How a process designed to ensure scientific rigor is tainted by randomness, bias, and arbitrary delays.)
5. Is Peer Review A Big Bad Joke? (You, too, could have a paper in a science journal! An investigation reveals that dozens of sketchy titles were happy to publish a study so egregiously flawed it almost had to be fake.)
6. Science Is Suffering Because of Peer Review’s Big Problems (How to reform the journal publication process.)
7. Phony peer review: The more we look, the more we find
8. This Study Just Revealed Why The Peer-Review Process Is in So Much Trouble (In recent years, scientists have been warning us about a reproducibility crisis in science, which has seen many seminal papers - particularly in psychology - failing to hold up when an independent team tries to reproduce the results.)

There are significant problems with bias, politics, funding concerns, etc. being implicated in scholarly research and publications.  When it comes to scholarly assessment of miraculous claims of a religion as controversial as the Church, I think this problems are augmented significantly.

Thanks,

-Smac

So we are to just give a thumbs up to scholarly assessments of miraculous claims, but give a thumbs down to scholarly assessments of those scholarly assessments?

[Ryan Dahle]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

There are significant problems with bias, politics, funding concerns, etc. being implicated in scholarly research and publications.  When it comes to scholarly assessment of miraculous claims of a religion as controversial as the Church, I think this problems are augmented significantly.

At the same time, many Latter-day Saint scholars have published regularly in secular peer-reviewed venues, and many of them have degrees in higher education from secular universities. It's actually sort of funny. When I look at those who are actually engaged in many of the apologetic debates, those with the most secular knowledge plus awareness of LDS claims and theology tend to be Latter-day Saints. 

Whenever you see outside academics trying to engage with LDS scholars, you will often find that their expertise in their secular field often doesn't prepare them well to engage with LDS truth claims. Just watch the interview with Robert Ritner on Mormon Stories. He had no idea what most of the apologetic claims and arguments were. He constantly needed RFM to help explain things to him, even really basic stuff. Which means that he was essentially not dealing with LDS scholarly claims directly. For the most part, he was getting a filtered, reductive, anti-Mormon caricature of the claims and then responding to those. A very similar thing happened with Michael Coe. Their non-interview materials were more responsible, but they still never really fully engaged with apologetic arguments. Very rarely will you find an outside scholar who is both an expert in their field and also able to successfully interact with and critique LDS scholarly material in a way that responsibly deals with apologetic claims and evidence. 

What this tells me is that there is no objective arbitrators in this arena. The nature of the religious claims means virtually anyone and everyone has some skin in the game. It is enough for me that many LDS believers also happen to be legitimate scholars, and that much support for LDS truth claims is built on top of responsible scholarship in a variety of fields. 

 

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Senator said:

So we are to just give a thumbs up to scholarly assessments of miraculous claims,

No.  We are to evaluate them on their substantive merits.

5 minutes ago, Senator said:

but give a thumbs down to scholarly assessments of those scholarly assessments?

I would be happy to see more scholarly assessments of the items under discussion in this thread, whether or original or responsive to Latter-day Saint scholarship.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

At the same time, many Latter-day Saint scholars have published regularly in secular peer-reviewed venues, and many of them have degrees in higher education from secular universities.

There seems to be a fair amount of indifference to Latter-day Saint scholarship about the foundational components 

3 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

It's actually sort of funny. When I look at those who are actually engaged in many of the apologetic debates, those with the most secular knowledge plus awareness of LDS claims and theology tend to be Latter-day Saints. 

Robert K. Ritner was willing to address The Book of Abraham.  I found his commentary to be so-so, and also fairly flawed insofar as he often departed from scholarly norms.  His unseemly treatment of John Gee was unfortunate.

3 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Whenever you see outside academics trying to engage with LDS scholars, you will often find that their expertise in their secular field often doesn't prepare them well to engage with LDS truth claims.

IIRC, Michael Coe rather embarrassed himself by exposing his ignorance of Latter-day Saint scholarship.

3 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Just watch the interview with Robert Ritner on Mormon Stories. He had no idea what most of the apologetic claims and arguments were. He constantly needed RFM to help explain things to him, even really basic stuff. Which means that he was essentially not dealing with LDS scholarly claims directly. For the most part, he was getting a filtered, reductive, anti-Mormon caricature of the claims and then responding to those. A very similar thing happened with Michael Coe. Their non-interview materials were more responsible, but they still never really fully engaged with apologetic arguments.

Heh.  Ritner and Coe were the same examples that came to mind for me.  The field of non-LDS scholars who have seriously engaged Latter-day Saint scholarship about these matters is pretty barren.

3 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Very rarely will you find an outside scholar who is both an expert in their field and also able to successfully interact with and critique LDS scholarly material in a way that responsibly deals with apologetic claims and evidence. 

Yep.  And I can't help but wonder if that rarity is attributable to deliberate and studied avoidance/indifference.  

An exception: Margaret Barker.  Interestingly, I think she is perhaps the most well-versed in Latter-day Saint doctrines.

3 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

What this tells me is that there is no objective arbitrators in this arena. The nature of the religious claims means virtually anyone and everyone has some skin in the game. It is enough for me that many LDS believers also happen to be legitimate scholars, and that much support for LDS truth claims is built on top of responsible scholarship in a variety of fields. 

The Church also has oodles of scientists, doctors, lawyers, businessmen, etc. whose livelihoods depend on their intellect, and who readily absorb data in their professional capacities and openly profess belief in the miraculous foundational events of the Restoration.

I for one have no problem being both an attorney, whose day-to-day work is steeped in skepticism and evidentiary scrutiny, an a Latter-day Saint.  Indeed, my experiences in the former field have had quite a supplementary and confirmatory effect on my experiences in the latter.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Ryan Dahle]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

2 hours ago, Senator said:

Just a curiosity question, as I am ignorant and have not follow this line of research, but has all of this data evidence been peer reviewed outside of the LDS scholarly domain?

"{A}ll of this data" have been publicly available for quite a while, some for many decades.  Anyone "outside of the LDS scholarly domain" has had ample opportunity to do "peer review."  This has happened a bit, but not much.  I think this is mostly attributable to indifference and/or studied avoidance. 

It must also be recognized that there is very little secular peer-reviewed material that is overtly critical of LDS truth claims. So, to be fair, critics of the church are essentially in the same boat that apologists are in. They try to leverage secular scholarship to their advantage, just as believers do. But the secular scholars themselves are generally not interested in the debate, and they do not frame their research specifically as a critique of LDS claims. It is one thing to say, for example, that much of the data of the Book of Mormon is not directly corroborated by secular research in Mesoamerican studies. That is absolutely true and fair. But it is quite another thing altogether to say that secular Mesoamerican scholarship itself argues that the Book of Mormon is highly implausible, or to imply that there is a secular scholarly consensus about this point. That just isn't so. Most secular scholars have never mentioned the BofM in their research, and are likely not familiar enough with it or its claims to provide an informed critique. They have certainly never conducted the type of macro-Bayesian analysis that Analytics is so fond of (and which I also think has utility when carried out responsibly) in connection to all relevant claims and data. They rarely engage in hypotheticals relevant to BofM claims, such as assessing the possibility of small incursions of ANE colonies into the Americas and so forth. They often admit there is still so much we don't know, and leave the door open to new discoveries. 

Thus, for critics to claim that there is some kind of scholarly consensus against the Book of Mormon would be sort of like LDS apologists claiming there is a scholarly consensus in favor of the BofM's ANE literature features. It just isn't so. Most scholars involved in ANE studies don't have any idea that their research is relevant to LDS truth claims. Instead, we are the ones leveraging their material and making the connections. It is the same with critics. They are, by and large, the ones interpreting secular scholarship in connection to LDS truth claims (rather than the secular scholars themselves).

So I just think the issue of peer review is ultimately irrelevant in these contexts, except in the narrow sense that LDS scholars do have systems of peer-review in some of their publishing outlets, in which legitimate scholars with both secular training and familiarity with LDS research are called upon to review each other's works. It has limitations, I know. But it is better than nothing. And I think we have actually done much better in this regard than the critics. They have mostly turned to social media platforms and rarely have other critics with relevant scholarly training who help critique and review their critical material of the Church. Thus, ironically, I think the believers actually have somewhat of an advantage in this area, as we are by and large more "scholarly" in our approach to many faith-relevant topics than the critics are.

And, to be quite honest, we generally just have more qualified scholars (often with more relevant secular training) in our camp than they do on most topics. That isn't true for every topic or subtopic, but I can almost guarantee that we would win the day in the macro-analysis. This is especially so if you look at individuals who have both secular scholarly training and are also deeply familiar with LDS research topics. We unquestionably have an advantage on that front. 

Edited March 12 by Ryan Dahle

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

It must also be recognized that there is very little secular peer-reviewed material that is overtly critical of LDS truth claims. So, to be fair, critics of the church are essentially in the same boat that apologists are in. They try to leverage secular scholarship to their advantage, just as believers do. But the secular scholars themselves are generally not interested in the debate, and they do not frame their research specifically as a critique of LDS claims.

Yes.  Ritner and Coe appear to be exceptions.

17 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

It is one thing to say, for example, that much of the data of the Book of Mormon is not directly corroborated by secular research in Mesoamerican studies. That is absolutely true and fair. But it is quite another thing altogether to say that secular Mesoamerican scholarship itself argues that the Book of Mormon is highly implausible, or to imply that there is a secular scholarly consensus about this point. That just isn't so. Most secular scholars have never mentioned the BofM in their research, and are likely not familiar enough with it or its claims to provide an informed critique. They have certainly never conducted the type of macro-Bayesian analysis that Analytics is so fond of (and which I also think has utility when carried out responsibly) in connection to all relevant claims and data. They rarely engage in hypotheticals relevant to BofM claims, such as assessing the possibility of small incursions of ANE colonies into the Americas and so forth. They often admit there is still so much we don't know, and leave the door open to new discoveries.  Thus, for critics to claim that there is some kind of scholarly consensus against the Book of Mormon would be sort of like LDS apologists claiming there is a scholarly consensus in favor of the BofM's ANE literature features. It just isn't so. Most scholars involved in ANE studies don't have any idea that their research is relevant to LDS truth claims. Instead, we are the ones leveraging their material and making the connections. It is the same with critics. They are, by and large, the ones interpreting secular scholarship in connection to LDS truth claims (rather than the secular scholars themselves).

It's probably not reasonable for us to expect secular scholars to directly address matters regarding the Church's foundational claims. 

17 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

So I just think the issue of peer review is ultimately irrelevant in these contexts, except in the narrow sense that LDS scholars do have systems of peer-review in some of their publishing outlets, in which legitimate scholars with both secular training and familiarity with LDS research are called upon to review each other's works. It has limitations, I know. But it is better than nothing. And I think we have actually done much better in this regard than the critics. They have mostly turned to social media platforms and rarely have other critics with relevant scholarly training who help critique and review their critical material of the Church. Thus, ironically, I think the believers actually have somewhat of an advantage in this area, as we are by and large more "scholarly" in our approach to many faith-relevant topics than the critics are.

Yes, interesting.

17 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

And, to be quite honest, we generally just have more qualified scholars (often with more relevant secular training) in our camp than they do on most topics.

And non-Latter-day Saint scholars who do have relevant training are generally avoiding apologetic debates.

17 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

That isn't true for every topic or subtopic, but I can almost guarantee that we would win the day in the macro-analysis. This is especially so if you look at individuals who have both secular scholarly training and are also deeply familiar with LDS research topics. We unquestionably have an advantage on that front. 

@Analytics, do you concur with Ryan's assessment here?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Ryan Dahle]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And non-Latter-day Saint scholars who do have relevant training are generally avoiding apologetic debates.

36 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Well, yes and no. They certainly don't bring up these issues when they publish in secular venues. And some of these scholars are gun-shy about being apologetic in any of their publications. But there are also quite a few who have published very prolifically in apologetic contexts. I'm not sure what the ratio is, but there are definitely examples that fit your description of avoiding the debate. 

[Ryan Dahle]

4 hours ago, Senator said:

??

Woops. Haha. I thought you were another board member who goes by a similar sounding alias (someone who definitely would have known a lot about this topic). My bad, and my apologies. 

Edited March 12 by Ryan Dahle

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

When I look at those who are actually engaged in many of the apologetic debates, those with the most secular knowledge plus awareness of LDS claims and theology tend to be Latter-day Saints. 

Of course as they have the most reason to invest the effort to learn. Why would nonbelievers want to devote that much effort and time needed to disproving someone else’s faith at an academic level when they could be out having fun, visiting friends, devoting time to a career they enjoy, etc?

Sure, as a hobby, but true scholarship will require at least some training in the area in order to save time (self taught is possible, but much longer imo to up your game to expert level).

 

Edited March 12 by Calm