A Secular Theory of Where the BoM Came From

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said:

This is remarkable. Your countertheory is admittedly non-existent. Instead, everything rests on your mere ASSUMPTION that if Smith had definitive proof he would have given it. This, of course, rests on the further assumption that if Smith was telling the truth, God would have wanted/allowed Smith to give us definitive proof. Which rests on the further assumption that if a divine being like God existed, you would have special insight as to what degree of evidence he would prefer to give to human beings about his existence and intervention in the world.

In other words, in your view, essentially all of the evidence pertaining to the witnesses is irrelevant because of your assumptions about divine hiddenness. This is a truly striking admission, since it is hard to imagine what evidence you might provide to support this set of assumptions. Joseph Smith at least has witnesses and a host of other types of evidence to back up his claims about God's nature and intention. What evidence do you have that gives you special insight into how much Evidence God would prefer to give human beings in various contexts?

What an wonderful tribute it is to the Prophet Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon that so many weak theories and convoluted arguments have to be conjured, amassed and compounded in never ending lame attempts to try to explain away how a 23 year old farm boy was able to produce such a profound and inspiring Christological masterpiece, a work that can truly and justly be described as “a marvelous work and wonder!” And why is it that the Book of Mormon’s doubters and naysayers never seem to be able to understand that it’s by divine design that the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon can only be ascertained  by means of personal revelation from God to those who humbly and sincerely inquire of him? Nevertheless, I’m quite certain that in God’s merciful economy our present-day skeptics will eventually arrive at a point of realization when they finally understand that employing so-called scientific methods to determine the Book of Mormon’s divine authenticity amount to nothing more than hamster wheels of frustration that lead to nowhere. The things of God are known by revelation or they are not known at all.

Edited March 13 by teddyaware

[Analytics]

4 hours ago, champatsch said:

Analytics position on Book of Mormon English boils down to calling all of it Joseph Smith's sacred language (even though he does not actually believe it is sacred since he thinks Joseph Smith made it up). For him, it seems to be a rare sister of pseudo-archaic English, which was automatic for Joseph Smith and no one else, and which he can safely mock, in an academic sense, without knowing that much about it, since almost no one does. As mentioned, the position he has adopted is repeatedly stipulative and ad hoc. Somehow he is an expert who has figured it out without comparatively studying a large amount of data.

He also ventures into expatiating on how academics regard the study of the Book of Mormon as pseudo-science. Since he brought it up, we might as well consider how Wright's work on biblical passages might be an example of pseudo-science. Wright did not analyze all of the biblical passages. There are fewer than 17,500 biblical words in the Book of Mormon, and he did not study them all. In academic work, he would have been expected to analyze all of them, at least generally, since the number of words is not very large. Since it is a niche field, and since he reached an academically acceptable conclusion, he could get away with this neglect, and receive praise for his deficient work. He did not compare the passages against what Joseph Smith dictated in 1829, he did not collate them against the 11 King James books they correspond to, he did not arrive at reliable, comprehensive numbers of non-matching readings, he did not mention the advance preparation it would have required, he did not determine that most italicized words remain intact in Book of Mormon readings (focusing on a possibly non-representative subset that gave him a desired conclusion), etc.

In view of the above, this strikes me as a prime example of pseudo-scientific inquiry. And consider Analytics' approach to Book of Mormon English, as well as that of many others. Also pseudo-science: a lack of expertise while drawing conclusions feigning expertise. Where is the academic honesty in that? Well, academic research in many fields, especially in fields amenable to distortion, is not ultimately about truth-seeking. Priorities lie elsewhere. Truth-seeking began to go by the wayside many decades ago. In the case of the Book of Mormon, especially its English usage, rarely was there truth-seeking. Sometimes the neglect was the result of malice, sometimes it was the result of ignorance, etc.

A few points.

By "sacred language," I just mean to descriptively call the language people use when talking about things they consider sacred. Whether I personally believe something really is sacred has no bearing on this usage.

I freely admit that I know nothing at all about linguistics. It would be impossible to exaggerate how little I know. I am fully relying on you to relay what the evidence is.

But what I do know something about is statistical inference. I have advanced training and do this professionally at a high level in a context where my opinion has massive real-world implications and is highly scrutinized by auditors and regulators. My knowledge and sensibilities about statistical inference are what I bring to the table in this conversation. I fully accept everything you say about the underlying facts of language, and I fully acknowledge that, as far as I can tell, your way of looking at this is way more nuanced and interesting than "word print" studies of years past.

Despite my best efforts, I just can't see how the data implies what you think it does about the likelihood of the divine translation theory vs. the hoax theory. For example, while I accept your analysis that according to what has been preserved in the databases you've searched, Joseph Smith was only one of three people in early-mid 19th century New England to write the phrase "save it were". Does that mean it was *unlikely* that Joseph Smith would write "save it were" when he was groping for words in the language style he was writing in? Sure. I accept that this would be unlikely. However, is that evidence of divine help? That is a statistical inference question that I'm qualified to analyze. The truth is that when analyzed in a logical coherent way, the prevalence of "save it were" (and the rest of EModE) is only evidence of authenticity if you can somehow demonstrate that this phrasing is more likely in the "authentic" scenario than in the "fraud" scenario. If you hypothetically showed that this was written from beginning to end in the language of, say, Chaucer, and that it contained some nuanced theological insights that Joseph Smith wouldn't have understood because the phrasing was that archaic, that would be impressive. But rather than that, we have a theory about a hodgepodge of different dialects that transpire over centuries, and contains phrases that Joseph Smith allegedly wouldn't say, but clearly understood. Maybe that is the best explanation of the data under the "it's valid" hypothesis, but this ad hoc rationalization isn't evidence of authenticity.

Regarding David Wright, what is your basis for saying his analysis was so sloppy and superficial it should be dismissed as mere "pseudoscience"? Has he told you he hasn't looked at the things you say he hasn't looked at?

Granted, it would be fascinating if the dictated BoM manuscript actually fixed all of the problems in the KJV translation and that subsequent BoM revisions screwed them back up. I would expect genuine scholarship to address this issue and publish the results, regardless of whether the results are faith-promoting or not. And that type of dedication to analyzing the evidence and articulating what it implies is what really matters.

[Ryan Dahle]

2 minutes ago, Analytics said:

You are cherry-picking what evidence you label as being "unlikely" vs not being unlikely. It is unlikely that a book would begin with the exact phrase, "I Nephi, having been born of goodly parents." We it's vanishingly unlikely that any book will began than way because out of the millions of books that have been written, only about one starts that way.That is the data.

You're right that it isn't evidence of anything, but you are wrong about the nuance as to why. It isn't evidence of anything because from an a priori basis, it is equally as unlikely under the "genuine" theory as it is under the "fake" theory. That equal unlikeliness under both theories is why it isn't evidence for or against being genuine.

And that is a hill I will die on.

Understanding this nuance matters. That's because while I readily grant that the specific language in the Book of Mormon is unlikely under the "fake" theory, I'm claiming it is also unlikely under the "genuine" theory. The hits for EModE are certainly interesting and even unlikely, but on an a priori basis, the "authentic" theory doesn't predict that the language would be in a hodgepodge of EModE mingled with other English dialects that would all be perfectly understandable to Joseph Smith. Claiming that Joseph Smith *understands* this hodgepodge of language from different eras but couldn't articulate it is mere assertion on your part, and just isn't persuasive.

You say your candidate author has the capacity to produce this language. I agree: God can do anything. But capacity isn't prediction. Your theory doesn't predict sporadic EModE mixed with 19th-century English any more than it predicts flawless classical Hebrew or perfect King James English or modern American English. The fact that your theory can accommodate the data after seeing it is not the same as your theory predicting the data before seeing it. That's the distinction I keep making, and it's the distinction that keeps getting collapsed.

First, you probably need to stop using the "fake" and "genuine" dichotomy in this context, as it is too imprecise. The specific issue we are currently debating is about a certain subset of language in the text, and which our respectively preferred candidate authors are more likely to have produced that specific data within our respective theories. 

Second, both theories absolutely depend on their candidate authors to be able to produce the text. It is a first order prediction that must be met. And it counts as a prediction in precisely the way that you have been describing it--as an underlying logical principle that would need to be in place prior to the assessment of the data. It is a logical requirement that obviously precedes speculation about motive. 

So, in this context, we first must ask: 

• Was candidate A likely capable of producing these specific textual features?
• Was candidate B likely capable of producing  these specific textual features?

If both candidates are about equally capable of producing these textual features, then we would move on to ask:

• Would candidate A have been motivated or inclined to produce these specific textual features?
• Would candidate B have been motivated or inclined to produce these specific textual features?

It should be obvious why capacity has to be a first-order assessment. If you don't have the capacity to produce a text, then assessing possible motivations or inclinations for producing it doesn't matter.

For instance, there is no reason to speculate about whether an infant may likely have been motivated to commit a murder. Infants don't have the capacity to commit murder, and that fact alone immediately eliminates them as a suspect in any case. If there were ever a trial, and two individuals were presented as murder suspects, and one of them happened to be an infant and the other happened to be an adult male, it would be obvious who the preferred suspect would be when comparing the two options. You could go on and on about how we don't know precisely WHY the adult male may have committed the murder and how we might not be able to predict, beforehand, the specific manner in which the murder was committed. You could try to invoke the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. And fair enough. Those would be important follow-up questions if both suspects were equally capable of committing the murder, in the first place. But the very fact that the male has the capacity to commit murder and the infant doesn't have that capacity would still render the adult male as the obviously preferred murder suspect in this context, despite any unknowns about his motivation. 

Likewise you can go on and on about my theory's inability to predict why my preferred candidate author (one or more divine beings) would have specifically implemented EModE archaism into the text. That would be a very reasonable line of follow-up questioning if both candidates were equally capable of producing the text to begin with. But if your own candidate author couldn't have produced the text and mine could, then its game over at the outset. My candidate would be preferred by default, since it at least meets the first and most important criterion and yours doesn't.

I just don't think you can get around this logic. Capacity has to be the first order of the underlying predictive logic, if you want to call it that. 

[smac97]

4 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Quote

Notice that the reason I can't answer most of these questions is not because I haven't thought about them. It's because Joseph Smith had in his possession the one piece of evidence that would have answered all of them — and he chose to conceal it from our consideration. Every one of your unanswerable questions is unanswerable by his design.

This is remarkable.

Indeed.  This entire thread is noteworthy.

We are, I think, at or near the apex of what Anti-Mormonism has to offer to the Latter-day Saints as far as, in my words, a "positive, coherent alternative explanation for The Book of Mormon that accounts for the key data points (physical plates, witness statements, text origins/translation process) without heavy speculation, while claiming empirical rigor."

@Analytics being one of the foremost (in terms of both intellect and information) critics of the Church, I would think he would either A) have formulated such an alternative explanation, or else B) ratify and endorse someone else's alternative explanation (Vogel, Taves, etc.).

There will, I think, never be a better opportunity for the Anti-Mormons to make their case.  I am a willing and relatively informed audience.  I want to hear their arguments, their evaluations of the evidence (both for and against their position), and their conclusions.  I want to hear what they have to say. 

And what we are getting is a essentially a redux of what Dale Mortgage said in 1945: "With my point of view on God, I am incapable of accepting the claims of Joseph Smith and the Mormons, be they however so convincing. If God does not exist, how can Joseph Smith’s story have any possible validity? I will look everywhere for explanations except to the ONE explanation that is the position of the church.""

4 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Your countertheory is admittedly non-existent.

Well, his conclusions are here:

Quote

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

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

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

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

But yes, his theory is absent.

4 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Instead, everything rests on your mere ASSUMPTION that if Smith had definitive proof he would have given it. This, of course, rests on the further assumption that if Smith was telling the truth, God would have wanted/allowed Smith to give us definitive proof. Which rests on the further assumption that if a divine being like God existed, you would have special insight as to what degree of evidence he would prefer to give to human beings about his existence and intervention in the world.

Yep.  Unspoken assumptions and presuppositions. 

We're coming up on 200 years of Anti-Mormonism.  The Internet has democratized data about the formative events of the Restoration in amazing ways.  Online resources and discussion platforms can facilitate all sorts of collaboration and evaluation efforts regarding competing theories about The Book of Mormon.  And we have in this board, and on this thread, one of the smartest and most well-informed critics of the Church alive today. 

If there ever were a time where Anti-Mormons were ascendant and capable of formulating a Death-Knell-like alternative explanation as to The Book of Mormon, it would be now.

And what do we get?  Unadorned and unsubstantiated assertions and speculation:

• On Authorship of the Text: "Joseph Smith is the most likely primary author, possibly with help from people in his immediate circle."
• On The Plates: "{S}ome physical object probably existed."
• On The Witnesses: "{S}incere belief in the project with solemn religious oaths to stand by what they signed."
• On the Existence of Available Evidence: "With little evidence the best we can do is speculate or say 'I don't know.'  This is honesty and epistemic humility."

Informed Latter-day Saints are apparently supposed to find this stuff persuasive.  I don't.

4 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

In other words, in your view, essentially all of the evidence pertaining to the witnesses is irrelevant because of your assumptions about divine hiddenness.

And the story about a physician examining Caesar, despite all the shortcomings exhibited (late by 165 years, not percipient, based on unknown and unavailable sources, and comes from a gossipmonger whose character and credibility are either in doubt or impossible to assess), is nevertheless sufficient for us to declare that "We can be confident" that what he said was accurate and dependable.  

Suetonius is reliable.  David Whitmer and the many other witnesses are not.  Because reasons.

4 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

This is a truly striking admission, since it is hard to imagine what evidence you might provide to support this set of assumptions.

This thread has been a protracted effort to extract that evidence.  I'm hoping we can still see something come of it.  I am genuinely curious as to what @Analytics has to say.

4 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Joseph Smith at least has witnesses and a host of other types of evidence to back up his claims about God's nature and intention. What evidence do you have that gives you special insight into how much evidence God would prefer to give human beings in various contexts?

And let's keep in mind that @Analytics is responding to my request for him to "lay out a positive, coherent alternative explanation for the Book of Mormon, centering on evidence about the Plates, the Witnesses and the Text, and which explanation accounts for key data points without heavy speculation, while claiming empirical rigor."  

I really look forward to Analytics explaining how he brings "empirical rigor" to bear when relying on unspoken assumptions about, as you put it, "God's nature and intention."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 13 by smac97

[Analytics]

2 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

This is remarkable. Your countertheory is admittedly non-existent. Instead, everything rests on your mere ASSUMPTION that if Smith had definitive proof he would have given it. This, of course, rests on the further assumption that if Smith was telling the truth, God would have wanted/allowed Smith to give us definitive proof. Which rests on the further assumption that if a divine being like God existed, you would have special insight as to what degree of evidence he would prefer to give to human beings about his existence and intervention in the world.

In other words, in your view, essentially all of the evidence pertaining to the witnesses is irrelevant because of your assumptions about divine hiddenness. This is a truly striking admission, since it is hard to imagine what evidence you might provide to support this set of assumptions. Joseph Smith at least has witnesses and a host of other types of evidence to back up his claims about God's nature and intention. What evidence do you have that gives you special insight into how much evidence God would prefer to give human beings in various contexts?

I'm not making any of those assumptions. I'm simply noting the undisputed fact that that whether authentic or fake, Joseph Smith did have in his possession the artifact that would have definitively answered the question. Under the "it's true" hypothesis, you can come up with any rationalization you want to for why the angel took the physical plates and floated away to another realm with them. That doesn't change the fact that what we are left with is a basket of curated evidence that is designed to prove it true while the definitive evidence was deliberately withheld. 

Here is a true story that may help you understand why I'm a bit skeptical. This is 100% true. Back in the day I attended release-time seminary in Utah. One day, the teacher said he had a special artifact hidden behind his lectern: a set of golden plates. He said it was made of curious workmanship. He said it had the appearance of gold. Some of the plates were "sealed". They had strange writing on them. They were bound together by rings. The class was very intrigued by this.

He then randomly selected 8 students to go up and look at this amazing artifact. By luck of the draw, I was chosen. I went to the front of the class. I touched the plates. I saw the writing. I saw the rings. I flipped a page. I then witnessed all of this to the rest of the class. They all asked us questions about it. We answered them. They really had writing on them. They were really of gold color. They really had rings. There really was a sealed section.

The point of the lesson was made: the students who didn't see the plates were forced to believe they were real. They could imagine a seminary teacher lying, but not 8 fellow students. We must have really seen and touched what we said we did.

And the teacher never showed the artifact to the rest of the class. They had to believe it was real based on what we said.

When the class ended, one girl asked if she could see the plates. The teacher said no. She begged, and the teacher held his ground. She needed to believe the plates under the lectern were real based on our testimony. She was left dying to see this amazing artifact under the lectern that, as far as she knew, was indistinguishable from the authentic plates that the BoM witnesses saw and just maybe somehow were the very same plates the witnesses saw.

But if an attorney skilled in deposition would have been there, he would have quickly figured out that the artifact we saw and handled was made out of balsa plywood painted gold, some common binder rings, and cartoonish writing written with a sharpie. The sealed portion was just a few pieces of wood glued together. It was comically cheap and fake. This never came out because the witnesses just used the language to describe the plates that the teacher and religion lead with, and the high schoolers didn't know how to perform an effective deposition.

Yet I told the truth about what I saw. And the students in the class imagined something totally different. 

 

Edited March 13 by Analytics

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

I'm not making any of those assumptions. I'm simply noting the undisputed fact that that whether authentic or fake, Joseph Smith did have in his possession the artifact that would have definitively answered the question. Under the "it's true" hypothesis, you can come up with any rationalization you want to for why the angel took the physical plates and floated away to another realm with them. That doesn't change the fact that what we are left with is a basket of curated evidence that is designed to prove it true while the definitive evidence was deliberately withheld. 

Yes, but "curated" by whom?  Latter-day Saints presuppose that God structured things this way (see D&C 17:1).  You presuppose something else.  What is the evidentiary basis for that presupposition?

And "designed" by whom?  Again, Latter-day Saints presuppose that God structured things this way (plenty of scriptures touching on the "walk by faith, not by sight" concept).  You presuppose something else.  What is the evidentiary basis for that presupposition?

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Here is a true story that may help you understand why I'm a bit skeptical.

Yet another sidetrack.

I sure would like to discuss "a positive, coherent alternative explanation for The Book of Mormon that accounts for the key data points (physical plates, witness statements, text origins/translation process) without heavy speculation, while claiming empirical rigor."

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

This is 100% true. Back in the day I attended release-time seminary in Utah. One day, the teacher said he had a special artifact hidden behind his lectern. He said it was made of curious workmanship. He said it had the appearance of gold. Some of the plates were "sealed". They were bound together by rings. The class was very intrigued by this.

He then randomly selected 8 students to go up and look at this amazing artifact. By luck of the draw, I was chosen. I went to the front of the class. I touched the plates. I saw the writing. I saw the rings. I flipped a page. I then witnessed all of this to the rest of the class.

Okay.  What did you say?  What was your statement?  Below you describe what you saw as "made out of balsa plywood painted gold, some common binder rings, and cartoonish writing written with a sharpie. The sealed portion was just a few pieces of wood glued together. It was comically cheap and fake."  Is that what you saw?  And is that what you described to the other students?

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

They all asked us questions about it. We answered them. They really had writing on them. They were really of gold color. They really had rings. There really was a sealed section.

Okay.  Was it at this point that you explained that what you had seen was "made out of balsa plywood painted gold, some common binder rings, and cartoonish writing written with a sharpie. The sealed portion was just a few pieces of wood glued together," and that it "was comically cheap and fake"?

Did you tell the truth, or did you mislead?

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

The point of the lesson was made: the students who didn't see the plates were forced to believe they were real.

Nope.  No "force."  They had a choice to believe or not believe based on witness statements.  

Latter-day Saints invite people to accept the witness statements, but also to seek verification from God (see Moroni 10:3-5).

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

They could imagine a seminary teacher lying, but not 8 fellow students. We must have really seen and touched what we said we did.

And the teacher never showed the artifact to the rest of the class. They had to believe it was real based on what we said.

When the class ended, one girl asked if she could see the plates. The teacher said no. She begged, and the teacher held his ground. She needed to believe the plates under the lectern were real based on our testimony. She was left dying to see this amazing artifact under the lectern that, as far as she knew, was indistinguishable from the authentic plates that the BoM witnesses saw and just maybe somehow were the very same plates the witnesses saw.

I do not understand.

The seminary teacher represented the plates as being "indistinguishable from the authentic plates that the BoM witnesses saw and just maybe somehow were the very same plates the witnesses saw"?

And you, as a witness, corroborated the foregoing characterization?  You described the thing you saw as being "indistinguishable from the authentic plates that the BoM witnesses saw and just maybe somehow were the very same plates the witnesses saw"?  

How do you square this with your characterization of the prop as "comically cheap and fake"?

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

But if an attorney skilled in deposition would have been there, he would have quickly figured out that the artifact we saw and handled was made out of balsa plywood painted gold, some common binder rings, and cartoonish writing written with a sharpie.  The sealed portion was just a few pieces of wood glued together. It was comically cheap and fake.

And he would do this . . . how?  By calling you and the other 7 students as witnesses?  And how would you testify?  Would you describe what you saw as a set of plates "indistinguishable from the authentic plates that the BoM witnesses saw and just maybe somehow were the very same plates the witnesses saw," or as a "comically cheap and fake" prop?

How is any of this relevant to the Eight Witnesses?  They are all dead, and so they can't be deposed.  We're left with the historical record.  And the historical record indicates that they say anything but a "comically cheap and fake" prop.  So how is your anecdote helpful?  What does it illuminate?

Did you and the other "witnesses" lie?  Did you accurately describe what you saw?

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

This never came out because the witnesses just used the language to describe the plates that the teacher and religion lead with, and the high schoolers didn't know how to perform an effective deposition.

So . . . the witnesses lied?  Prevaricated?  Spoke with an intent to mislead or mischaracterize or obscure?

Do you have any evidence that the Eight Witnesses did this?  If so, what is that evidence?  Please be specific.

Also, here you are, years later, exposing the whole thing.  How is that relevant to the Eight Witnesses, who did not do that?

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Yet I told the truth about what I saw.

You did?  You told the students that you saw a "comically cheap and fake" prop which was "made out of balsa plywood painted gold, some common binder rings, and cartoonish writing written with a sharpie. The sealed portion was just a few pieces of wood glued together"?  

How, then, did the girl you describe be so enthused at looking at the prop?  How did she

A) hear your accurate statement (balsa plywood painted gold, etc.) and then

B) come away with the impression that left her "dying to see this amazing artifact under the lectern that, as far as she knew, was indistinguishable from the authentic plates that the BoM witnesses saw and just maybe somehow were the very same plates the witnesses saw"?

What on earth are you saying here, Roger?

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

And the students in the class imagined something totally different. 

Why did they imagine "something totally different" from what you described?

What did you describe, Roger?  Please be specific.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 13 by smac97

[Ryan Dahle]

25 minutes ago, Analytics said:

But if an attorney skilled in deposition would have been there, he would have quickly figured out that the artifact we saw and handled was made out of balsa plywood painted gold, some common binder rings, and cartoonish writing written with a sharpie. The sealed portion was just a few pieces of wood glued together. It was comically cheap and fake. This never came out because the witnesses just used the language to describe the plates that the teacher and religion lead with, and the high schoolers didn't know how to perform an effective deposition.

What do you think would have happened if the Seminary teacher showed the same set of "plates" to eight adult men, the type who do a lot of manual labor, some of whom probably have some experience with metal objects and fabrication processes. Do you really think the teacher could trick such men into thinking it was a genuinely ancient artifact?

Also, imagine if your teacher also brought up three additional student witnesses, took them into the next room, and told them that they were going to see an angel who would show them the same set of plates as the 8 other students saw. And that they were to testify, and be absolutely honest, about what they saw? The chances that the little lesson would fail at that point are spectacularly high. 

Edited March 13 by Ryan Dahle

[Analytics]

59 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

First, you probably need to stop using the "fake" and "genuine" dichotomy in this context, as it is too imprecise. The specific issue we are currently debating is about a certain subset of language in the text, and which our respectively preferred candidate authors are more likely to have produced that specific data within our respective theories. 

Second, both theories absolutely depend on their candidate authors to be able to produce the text. It is a first order prediction that must be met. And it counts as a prediction in precisely the way that you have been describing it--as an underlying logical principle that would need to be in place prior to the assessment of the data. It is a logical requirement that obviously precedes speculation about motive. 

So, in this context, we first must ask: 

• Was candidate A likely capable of producing these specific textual features?
• Was candidate B likely capable of producing  these specific textual features?

If both candidates are about equally capable of producing these textual features, then we would move on to ask:

• Would candidate A have been motivated or inclined to produce these specific textual features?
• Would candidate B have been motivated or inclined to produce these specific textual features?

It should be obvious why capacity has to be a first-order assessment. If you don't have the capacity to produce a text, then assessing possible motivations or inclinations for producing it doesn't matter.

For instance, there is no reason to speculate about whether an infant may likely have been motivated to commit a murder. Infants don't have the capacity to commit murder, and that fact alone immediately eliminates them as a suspect in any case. If there were ever a trial, and two individuals were presented as murder suspects, and one of them happened to be an infant and the other happened to be an adult male, it would be obvious who the preferred suspect would be when comparing the two options. You could go on and on about how we don't know precisely WHY the adult male may have committed the murder and how we might not be able to predict, beforehand, the specific manner in which the murder was committed. You could try to invoke the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. And fair enough. Those would be important follow-up questions if both suspects were equally capable of committing the murder, in the first place. But the very fact that the male has the capacity to commit murder and the infant doesn't have that capacity would still render the adult male as the obviously preferred murder suspect in this context, despite any unknowns about his motivation. 

Likewise you can go on and on about my theory's inability to predict why my preferred candidate author (one or more divine beings) would have specifically implemented EModE archaism into the text. That would be a very reasonable line of follow-up questioning if both candidates were equally capable of producing the text to begin with. But if your own candidate author couldn't have produced the text and mine could, then its game over at the outset. My candidate would be preferred by default, since it at least meets the first and most important criterion and yours doesn't.

I just don't think you can get around this logic. Capacity has to be the first order of the underlying predictive logic, if you want to call it that. 

In my model, the space is broken down into two exhaustive, mutually exclusive theories. Either the Book of Mormon is a basically accurate translation of actual ancient plates, or the whole thing is a 19th century hoax. That is what we are comparing.

If we want to talk about what the EModE language says about the likelihood of which theory is true, then we must talk about the likelihood that the evidence would emerge under each hypothesis.

It isn't necessarily unreasonable to break down likelihood into components of "capable" and "motivated," but at the end of the day, it needs to aggregate back up to likelihood in order to form a likelihood ratio and so that we can see which theory the evidence points to.

Your infant analogy doesn't apply here. An infant literally cannot commit murder—the capacity question eliminates the infant before the analysis begins. But Joseph Smith literally could say "save it were." He was a native English speaker who grew up saturated in biblical language that descended directly from EModE. Other people in his time and place said those words. He knew what they meant. The capacity question is settled.

Was Joseph Smith capable of writing words that consisted of an inconsistent blend of his native 19th century dialect mingled with EModE that he was fully capable of understanding? The answer is definitely yes. The claim that he was capable of understanding and dictating EModE phrases but somehow incapable of coing up with this inconsistent hodgepodge on his own is the assertion that needs defending, and I haven't seen it defended, only asserted.

What remains is likelihood. And that's the question you keep redirecting away from. Your theory doesn't predict this specific hodgepodge of dialects any better than mine does. It can accommodate it after the fact (God can do anything), but accommodation isn't prediction. That distinction is the entire point of the analysis.

 

[Calm]

52 minutes ago, Analytics said:

But if an attorney skilled in deposition would have been there, he would have quickly figured out that the artifact we saw and handled was made out of balsa plywood painted gold, some common binder rings, and cartoonish writing written with a sharpie. The sealed portion was just a few pieces of wood glued together. It was comically cheap and fake. This never came out because the witnesses just used the language to describe the plates that the teacher and religion lead with, and the high schoolers didn't know how to perform an effective deposition.

But there were plenty of opportunities for the witnesses to be asked later on by a variety of people.  It wasn’t limited to a one and done.

[Ryan Dahle]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

In my model, the space is broken down into two exhaustive, mutually exclusive theories. Either the Book of Mormon is a basically accurate translation of actual ancient plates, or the whole thing is a 19th century hoax. That is what we are comparing.

That's fine to have a big picture, but it helps in the Bayesian analysis to take each relevant item of data, one at a time, and then be very particular in how we describe the data and each theory's specific explanation of it. At this level of analysis, we aren't talking about a hoax. That is a broader potential implication of this and many items of evidence. Instead we are talking about a specific set of textual features and what explanation better accounts for them. 

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

It isn't necessarily unreasonable to break down likelihood into components of "capable" and "motivated," but at the end of the day, it needs to aggregate back up to likelihood in order to form a likelihood ratio and so that we can see which theory the evidence points to.

That's always true--at the end of the day. But that doesn't excuse one from not carefully and accurately assessing each piece of data on its own terms. You have to assess each likelihood ratio independently. You can't let your underlying assumption or biases about other aspects of the data cloud your judgment. Every theory has strengths and weaknesses. And when pitted against each other, various theories often win some and lose some areas of the debate. When your explanatory hypothesis is comparatively weak in one area, you can't just deflect by arguing that you have a better argument in the aggregate or that we should be looking at the aggregate instead. You have to acknowledge your theory's comparative weaknesses as they come to light. 

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Your infant analogy doesn't apply here. An infant literally cannot commit murder—the capacity question eliminates the infant before the analysis begins.

I intentionally escalated the improbability just to make the point. I'm not saying Smith was categorically incapable of producing the EModE (in the way that an infant is categorically incapable of committing murder). But you seemed not to be understanding the priority of capacity, so I used an analogy that was more extreme so that you would get why it was so important. If you want to further debate the EModE data and its significance, that is fine. But that isn't how the conversation was going. You instead pivoted to try and argue that my underlying rationale was fundamentally flawed and that I was just engaged in the sharpshooting fallacy. So I had to find an analogy to disabuse that line of argument. And it seems to have worked.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

But Joseph Smith literally could say "save it were." He was a native English speaker who grew up saturated in biblical language that descended directly from EModE. Other people in his time and place said those words. He knew what they meant. The capacity question is settled. Was Joseph Smith capable of writing words that consisted of an inconsistent blend of his native 19th century dialect mingled with EModE that he was fully capable of understanding? The answer is definitely yes. The claim that he was capable of understanding and dictating EModE phrases but somehow incapable of coing up with this inconsistent hodgepodge on his own is the assertion that needs defending, and I haven't seen it defended, only asserted.

You just seem not to understand how language assimilation works, and the difference between passive and active vocabulary. I can guarantee you, if you sit down an average member of the Church today--even someone who has read the Book of Mormon dozens of times--and ask them to reproduce its array of archaic features in the text, they would never be able to do it. You could give them a test. Provide a phrase in simpler modern English, and then ask them to write the same phrase using archaic lexis, grammar, and syntax. Give them a chance to express the same phrase in as many ways as they can think of, that might mimic archaism. They might get a few easy things correct ("thee" and "thou" and "shall" and so forth) but they will never be able to produce many of the features (especially in all their variety), even when sitting down and specifically trying to think of them, with all the time they want, and having the specific opportunities for archaism already selected for them. And this is even after having read this text and having focused on it most of their lives. But then, after the test, once you show them the actual archaic variety and phrasing in the text, they will kick themselves for not thinking of those phrases. They would have read them dozens of times. But they just never got assimilated into their active vocabularies. In the test, they literally wouldn't have the capacity to produce most of them. I have already independently carried out some preliminary tests of this nature with test subjects. 

The archaism will become significantly reduced, though, if you don't have a test with all of these already identified areas of EModE laid out for them. Imagine, instead, that the test subject simply has to start dictating a story off the top of their head. It could be anything. Just a simple campfire story would do. But then you instruct them to do so in a way that, to the best of their ability, mimics the archaic dialect of the Book of Mormon. In this context, the already low level of archaism that they might have been able to implement in the test (mentioned above) will likely be much lower. This is because they don't have time to sit there and think about all the ways they might say something in an archaic style. They will be preoccupied by thinking of the ideas that they are trying to express, rather than the mode of expression itself, so they will naturally default much more often to their typical language patterns. Again, remember, this is still after they have read the Book of Mormon regularly throughout their life. All of this archaism is in their religious environment. They just haven't assimilated that archaism into their working vocabulary. And therefore they literally won't have the capacity to implement it, even when they try their very best. Just try it yourself. Start trying to tell a story in an archaic style right now. You will quickly realize that capacity to understand deep, multifaceted archaism and the capacity to produce it in a dictation are two entirely different things. If you think I am wrong and want to prove to me that you are perfectly capable of mimicking archaic speech patterns that you have been exposed to in the BofM and Bible, I would be happy to personally listen to and record your dictation efforts so that we can analyze it together. We can then send your transcript to Stan and see what he thinks. I would let you talk as long as you want, enough to get a very good sample of your own ability to produce archaism, just like Smith did. 

But, even then, that still doesn't account for the challenge Joseph Smith would have faced, since he implemented a lot of archaism that hasn't been attested in his environment. Ultimately, the fact that you think the ability to read and understand a variety of archaic forms automatically translates into a capacity to produce those same archaic forms (especially in a live dictation format) highlights one big reason why we disagree about the significance of the EModE data. 

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

What remains is likelihood. And that's the question you keep redirecting away from. Your theory doesn't predict this specific hodgepodge of dialects any better than mine does. It can accommodate it after the fact (God can do anything), but accommodation isn't prediction. That distinction is the entire point of the analysis.

I'm not redirecting away from likelihood. Here is how I frame the issue: 

• It is highly improbable that authorship candidate A (Joseph Smith) was capable of producing these specific textual features.
• In contrast, authorship candidate B (divine beings) would be capable of producing these specific textual features.

Then we have the next layer of analysis:

• It is unknown why candidate A (Joseph Smith), if he were capable, would have produced these specific textual features, and these specific features were not predicted by your preferred explanatory theory. 
• It is unknown why candidate B (divine beings) would have produced these specific textual features, and these specific features were not predicted by my preferred explanatory theory. 

If my explanatory model is much better at explaining capacity, and if neither of our theories could have predicted these features, then it is obvious which theory has the advantage of being more likely.

Edited March 13 by Ryan Dahle

[Analytics]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

There will, I think, never be a better opportunity for the Anti-Mormons to make their case.  I am a willing and relatively informed audience.  I want to hear their arguments, their evaluations of the evidence (both for and against their position), and their conclusions.  I want to hear what they have to say. 

Quite frankly, I don’t believe you. You don’t care what I have to say. At all. I’ve spent a ridiculous amount of time explaining to you what I believe and why, and you dismiss all of it without comment, insisting that I am “prevaricating.”

If you were the least bit interested in what I have to say, you’d at least try to understand why I think the witness “evidence” is weak. You’d at least try to understand how I’ve come to the conclusions I’ve come to, despite not having a detailed, comprehensive, bullet-proof theory explanation for precisely how the Book of Mormon was written. 

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

And what we are getting is a essentially a redux of what Dale Mortgage said in 1945: "With my point of view on God, I am incapable of accepting the claims of Joseph Smith and the Mormons, be they however so convincing. If God does not exist, how can Joseph Smith’s story have any possible validity? I will look everywhere for explanations except to the ONE explanation that is the position of the church.""

That simply isn’t true. I’ve repeatedly explained that while I did in fact begin with a strong a priori for a naturalistic world view, I then used Bayesian likelihood ratios to see in what direction the needle moved. I clearly articulated why I think looking at the evidence moves the needle even further away from the “it’s genuine” theory.

But you ignore the nuances of my evaluation of the evidence and insist explaining how I view the evidence is prevarication. You do this by ignoring everything I talk about and asking me obscenely long lists of questions that have nothing to do with my position.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

If there ever were a time where Anti-Mormons were ascendant and capable of formulating a Death-Knell-like alternative explanation as to The Book of Mormon, it would be now.

And what do we get?  Unadorned and unsubstantiated assertions and speculation...

The internet has not produced a marketplace where strong evidence flourishes and weak evidence dies. It has produced a carnival where people retreat into echo chambers and gorge themselves on whatever conclusions flatter their biases.

You can believe whatever you want, but don’t mistake your ability to believe something as evidence that what you believe is necessarily true.

[Ryan Dahle]

3 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quite frankly, I don’t believe you. You don’t care what I have to say. At all. I’ve spent a ridiculous amount of time explaining to you what I believe and why, and you dismiss all of it without comment, insisting that I am “prevaricating.”

It actually seems like Smac has responded to virtually everything you have had to say, often with pointed follow-up questions and commentary. I think he genuinely does want to see your counter-theory and explanations. The fact that he pushes back on your claims shouldn't be confused with a lack of "care" about what you have to say. 

[Analytics]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yes, but "curated" by whom?  Latter-day Saints presuppose that God structured things this way (see D&C 17:1).  You presuppose something else.  What is the evidentiary basis for that presupposition?

And "designed" by whom?  Again, Latter-day Saints presuppose that God structured things this way (plenty of scriptures touching on the "walk by faith, not by sight" concept).  You presuppose something else.  What is the evidentiary basis for that presupposition?

Didn't God say, “By my own hand or by the hand of my servants, it is the same?"

The deliberately curated nature of the evidence makes it look deeply suspicious, regardless of who is ultimately responsible.› 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I sure would like to discuss "a positive, coherent alternative explanation for The Book of Mormon that accounts for the key data points (physical plates, witness statements, text origins/translation process) without heavy speculation, while claiming empirical rigor."

Thank you for admitting that you aren’t interested in discussing my views.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Okay.  What did you say?  What was your statement?  Below you describe what you saw as "made out of balsa plywood painted gold, some common binder rings, and cartoonish writing written with a sharpie. The sealed portion was just a few pieces of wood glued together. It was comically cheap and fake."  Is that what you saw?  And is that what you described to the other students?

Okay.  Was it at this point that you explained that what you had seen was "made out of balsa plywood painted gold, some common binder rings, and cartoonish writing written with a sharpie. The sealed portion was just a few pieces of wood glued together," and that it "was comically cheap and fake"?

Did you tell the truth, or did you mislead?

I told the truth and I misled. 

The teacher’s point was to illustrate the strength of witness testimony by making them believe something absolutely fantastic based on the testimony of only eight witnesses. 

What did the teacher say? Only things that were true. He called the painted plywood “plates.” He said they have “the appearance of gold.” He said you could “handle them with hour hands” He said you could “turn the leaves." He said they had symbols on them that “had the appearance of ancient work.”  He said it was made of “curious workmanship”. He said that he literally saw them with his own eyes. He said that he hefted them. He said that despite how extraordinary this sounded, they were right there. Underneath the lectern. Only feet away from us.

Then eight of us got to see this miraculous thing. With our own eyes! We could even touch it! Lift it up! Answer questions about it!

An attorney who was skilled at giving depositions would ask questions that would clarify what, exactly, we were testifying to. The students in the class weren’t attorneys skilled at giving depositions. They asked questions like, “Really! You really saw it! Did you really pick it up? Did you really turn the pages? Did it really have the appearance of gold? No way!” From my perspective, I was just answering the questions they asked and going along with it. I thought it was funny what the non-witnesses were imagining, and I didn’t want to blow the teacher’s lesson by offering the whole truth that the miraculous “plates” he wanted people to believe in based on witness testimony actually looked like a shoddy middle school art project.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Did you and the other "witnesses" lie?  Did you accurately describe what you saw?

So . . . the witnesses lied?  Prevaricated?  Spoke with an intent to mislead or mischaracterize or obscure?

Do you have any evidence that the Eight Witnesses did this?  If so, what is that evidence?  Please be specific.

I have evidence that Joseph Smith led the witness testimony in the same way the teacher led my testimony. The evidence is that they signed a joint statement and didn’t offer detailed, independent, contemporaneous accounts.

Beyond that, I don’t have evidence that the witness lied, prevaricated, spoke with intent to mislead, mischaracterize, or obscure. So what is the point?

The point is that this curated evidence is weak. Independent, contemporaneous accounts would be stronger. Exhaustive depositions by a skilled cross examiner would make it much clearer to exactly what they were claiming. And not making the choice to deliberately take away the extant evidence that would have conclusively settled the issue would have made this all irrelevant. But as it is, we are stuck with weak curated evidence.

As Mark Twain said:

Some people have to have a world of evidence before they can come anywhere in the neighborhood of believing anything; but for me, when a man tells me that he has "seen the engravings which are upon the plates," and not only that, but an angel was there at the time, and saw him see them, and probably took his receipt for it, I am very far on the road to conviction, no matter whether I ever heard of that man before or not, and even if I do not know the name of the angel, or his nationality either.

And when I am far on the road to conviction, and eight men, be they grammatical or otherwise, come forward and tell me that they have seen the plates too; and not only seen those plates but "hefted" them, I am convinced. I could not feel more satisfied and at rest if the entire Whitmer family had testified.

[Ryan Dahle]

 

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

The deliberately curated nature of the evidence makes it look deeply suspicious, regardless of who is ultimately responsible.› 

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

The point is that this curated evidence is weak. Independent, contemporaneous accounts would be stronger. Exhaustive depositions by a skilled cross examiner would make it much clearer to exactly what they were claiming. And not making the choice to deliberately take away the extant evidence that would have conclusively settled the issue would have made this all irrelevant. But as it is, we are stuck with weak curated evidence.

That's interesting. I acknowledge the evidence is curated and intentionally limited in a number of ways. There is no doubt about that. As to how "deeply suspicious" that fact is, well that depends on the variety of possible reasons that a divine being might want to curate evidence. If the point is to give some substantial reason to begin to have faith, without compelling belief, then the curation transforms from deeply suspicious to quite expected. If the curated evidence isn't "deeply suspicious" based on the explanatory framework and assumptions of the opposing theory, then all of a sudden that data point becomes non-evidence. 

Also, the fact that evidence is intentionally limited is not the same as being categorically weak. It just means it isn't as strong as it could be. So it is a relative assessment. As for me, even with the evidence curated and limited as it is, I still find it quite extraordinary. I think that most efforts to procure this type of corroborating eye-witness testimony (Three Witnesses + Eight Witnesses + Informal Witnesses) would very likely fail. The three witnesses would have walked into the woods and nothing would have happened. And then they wouldn't have testified of the angel and plates. And then Smith's prophecy about Three Witnesses in the BofM and D&C would likely have been unfulfilled. And the whole religious movement may have never gotten off the ground. There were plenty of opportunity for problems with the Eight Witnesses as well. And there didn't have to be additional accounts from folks like Mary Whitmer and Josiah Stowell. All in all, I give Joseph Smith a very low probability of success at accomplishing this feat. Which means the evidence is actually still quite strong. It just doesn't equal conclusive proof. 

Edited March 14 by Ryan Dahle

[Analytics]

3 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

That's fine to have a big picture, but it helps in the Bayesian analysis to take each relevant item of data, one at a time, and then be very particular in how we describe the data and each theory's specific explanation of it. At this level of analysis, we aren't talking about a hoax. That is a broader potential implication of this and many items of evidence. Instead we are talking about a specific set of textual features and what explanation better accounts for them. 

The language in the Book of Mormon is an inconsistent blend of multiple EModE dialects mingled with 19th-century English, all perfectly understandable to Joseph Smith, using the KJV as a crutch even where it contained bad translations.

If you’d like to evaluate the question of who is more capable of pulling off such a feat, God or Joseph Smith, knock yourself out. But if you want to use proper Bayesian reasoning to see what this implies about the probability that the BoM is genuine or a hoax, then you have to formulate it properly. I’m not making stuff up here. Wikipedia’s article on Bayesian inference has an entire section called"Inference over exclusive and exhaustive possibilities.” It says:

If evidence is simultaneously used to update belief over a set of exclusive and exhaustive propositions, Bayesian inference may be thought of as acting on this belief distribution as a whole. 

You can do whatever you want in your own analysis, but my approach is to keep this setup logically coherent according to the math.

3 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

You just seem not to understand how language assimilation works, and the difference between passive and active vocabulary. I can guarantee you, if you sit down an average member of the Church today--even someone who has read the Book of Mormon dozens of times--and ask them to reproduce its array of archaic features in the text, they would never be able to do it. You could give them a test. Provide a phrase in simpler modern English, and then ask them to write the same phrase using archaic lexis, grammar, and syntax. Give them a chance to express the same phrase in as many ways as they can think of, that might mimic archaism. They might get a few easy things correct ("thee" and "thou" and "shall" and so forth) but they will never be able to produce many of the features (especially in all their variety), even when sitting down and specifically trying to think of them, with all the time they want, and having the specific opportunities for archaism already selected for them.

I grant the difference between a passive and active vocabulary. Clearly. The problem is in this question: Why is it considered a god-like hit to an inconsistent blend of multiple EModE dialects mingled with 19th-century English, all perfectly understandable to Joseph Smith, using the KJV as a crutch even where it contained bad translations?

If I shoehorn your arguments into a mathematically valid rendition of Bayesian thinking, here is your logic:

If the book is a hoax, then it is extremely unlikely the language would be an inconsistent blend of multiple EModE dialects mingled with 19th-century English, all perfectly understandable to Joseph Smith, using the KJV as a crutch even where it contained bad translations. 

But if the book is a genuine ancient book translated by the gift and power of God, then it is much more likely to be an inconsistent blend of multiple EModE dialects mingled with 19th-century English, all perfectly understandable to Joseph Smith, using the KJV as a crutch even where it contained bad translations.

Since we do actually find an inconsistent blend of multiple EModE dialects mingled with 19th-century English, all perfectly understandable to Joseph Smith, using the KJV as a crutch even where it contained bad translations, this serves as pretty strong evidence that the Book is a genuine ancient book translated by the power of God.

When expressed with the mathematical rigor that sound Bayesian reasoning demands, that is your argument. 

The problem with the argument is that you are assuming, without any evidence whatsoever, that it is relatively very likely for authentic books translated by the gift and power of God to be translated into an inconsistent blend of multiple EModE dialects mingled with 19th-century English, all perfectly understandable to Joseph Smith, using the KJV as a crutch even where it contained bad translations.

And I’m suggesting that the only reason you assume this is relatively likely is because that’s the assumption that leads you to the conclusion you want. 

I realize you don’t frame it that way, but by departing from this framing, you are doing something other than logically correct Bayesian inference. 

I could understand an argument that we’d have powerful evidence of authenticity if it were exclusively in pristine EModE, featuring obscure and correctly-used details of the language that were foreign to Joseph Smith. But why does the muddled, inconsistent mingling point to God? You keep ignoring this element of the data.
 

3 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I'm not redirecting away from likelihood. Here is how I frame the issue: 

• It is highly improbable that authorship candidate A (Joseph Smith) was capable of producing these specific textual features.
• In contrast, authorship candidate B (divine beings) would be capable of producing these specific textual features.

Then we have the next layer of analysis:

• It is unknown why candidate A (Joseph Smith), if he were capable, would have produced these specific textual features, and these specific features were not predicted by your preferred explanatory theory. 
• It is unknown why candidate B (divine beings) would have produced these specific textual features, and these specific features were not predicted by my preferred explanatory theory. 

If my explanatory model is much better at explaining capacity, and if neither of our theories could have predicted these features, then it is obvious which theory has the advantage of being more likely.

I know this is how you frame the issue. It is flawed thinking.

Here's the problem: your candidate (divine beings) has infinite capacity. God could have produced the Book of Mormon in flawless classical Hebrew. Or in perfect Elizabethan English. Or in pristine EModE from a single consistent dialect. Or in a language no human has ever spoken. When your candidate can do literally anything, the prediction isn't "this specific outcome,”  it's "any outcome is possible." And a prediction of "anything is possible" spreads its probability across every conceivable outcome. That means the probability assigned to any specific outcome--including this particular inconsistent hodgepodge--is actually very low. You don't get a high likelihood just because your candidate could have produced the data. You need to show your candidate would have produced the data, and you've admitted you can't.

Meanwhile, my candidate has limited capacity. But that isn’t a weakness. Limiting capacity actually concentrates the probability distribution. If Joseph Smith could only produce language within a certain range, and the Book of Mormon falls within that range, then the probability of this specific outcome under my theory may actually be higher than under yours, precisely because my candidate had fewer options.

The way to salvage this is to articulate specifically why God would strongly prefer books with a blend of multiple EModE dialects mingled with 19th-century English, all perfectly understandable to Joseph Smith, using the KJV as a crutch even where it contained bad translations over anything else. But you already conceded that we have no idea why God would prefer this over anything else He could do.

Edited March 14 by Analytics

[Analytics]

35 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

 

That's interesting. I acknowledge the evidence is curated and intentionally limited in a number of ways. There is no doubt about that. As to how "deeply suspicious" that fact is, well that depends on the variety of possible reasons that a divine being might want to curate evidence. If the point is to give some substantial reason to begin to have faith, without compelling belief, then the curation transforms from deeply suspicious to quite expected. If the curated evidence isn't "deeply suspicious" based on the explanatory framework and assumptions of the opposing theory, then all of a sudden that data point becomes non-evidence. 

Also, the fact that evidence is intentionally limited is not the same as being categorically weak. It just means it isn't as strong as it could be. So it is a relative assessment. As for me, even with the evidence curated and limited as it is, I still find it quite extraordinary. I think that most efforts to procure this type of corroborating eye-witness testimony (Three Witnesses + Eight Witnesses + Informal Witnesses) would very likely fail. The three witnesses would have walked into the woods and nothing would have happened. And then they wouldn't have testified of the angel and plates. And then Smith's prophecy about Three Witnesses in the BofM and D&C would likely have been unfulfilled. And the whole religious movement may have never gotten off the ground. There were plenty of opportunity for problems with the Eight Witnesses as well. And there didn't have to be additional accounts from folks like Mary Whitmer and Josiah Stowell. All in all, I give Joseph Smith a very low probability of success at accomplishing this feat. Which means the evidence is actually still quite strong. It just doesn't equal conclusive proof. 

If God removed the conclusive evidence and left us with weak curated evidence because he didn't want the evidence to be compelling, then he succeeded. The evidence isn't compelling. So why are you arguing with me about how compelling it is?

[Ryan Dahle]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

If you’d like to evaluate the question of who is more capable of pulling off such a feat, God or Joseph Smith, knock yourself out. But if you want to use proper Bayesian reasoning to see what this implies about the probability that the BoM is genuine or a hoax, then you have to formulate it properly.

I assume proper Bayesian reasoning aligns with standard principles of abductive logic. In this context, capacity is obviously the most crucial factor. If there is ever a major disparity in the capacity of two candidates authors to produce a text, then uncertainty about motives and inclinations becomes irrelevant. I could point to countless examples in which humans would abductively prioritize the evidence in this manner, in a variety of analogous circumstances. This is the proper Bayesian method. You would assign the Bayes factor accordingly, based on those crucial details. What you definitely wouldn't do is pretend that capacity is essentially irrelevant and then focus instead on a detail that neither theory would have predicted in the first place. 

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

If I shoehorn your arguments into a mathematically valid rendition of Bayesian thinking, here is your logic:

If the book is a hoax, then it is extremely unlikely the language would be an inconsistent blend of multiple EModE dialects mingled with 19th-century English, all perfectly understandable to Joseph Smith, using the KJV as a crutch even where it contained bad translations. 

But if the book is a genuine ancient book translated by the gift and power of God, then it is much more likely to be an inconsistent blend of multiple EModE dialects mingled with 19th-century English, all perfectly understandable to Joseph Smith, using the KJV as a crutch even where it contained bad translations.

 But I actually don't agree with those statements at all. You are blatantly attributing claims to me that I have not made and that don't logically follow from my own explanations. Why not just deal with my own arguments, instead of reformulating them into these logically incoherent claims and logic structures. 

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Since we do actually find an inconsistent blend of multiple EModE dialects mingled with 19th-century English, all perfectly understandable to Joseph Smith, using the KJV as a crutch even where it contained bad translations, this serves as pretty strong evidence that the Book is a genuine ancient book translated by the power of God.

When expressed with the mathematical rigor that sound Bayesian reasoning demands, that is your argument. 
 

I don't agree with this either. The EModE data says nothing about the book's antiquity. Nor does it verify any of the text's historical claims or anything like that. Why do you keep changing my argument and then telling me things like "that is your argument." 

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

I could understand an argument that we’d have powerful evidence of authenticity if it were exclusively in pristine EModE, featuring obscure and correctly-used details of the language that were foreign to Joseph Smith. But why does the muddled, inconsistent mingling point to God? You keep ignoring this element of the data.

This is actually admitting that my logic is sound. You just disagree with the strength of the EModE data. Which is fine. But you keep switching back and forth. Are you now admitting that your assessment of the Sharpshooter fallacy was wrong? Because if the text was in prstine EMoE that would definitely still fall under your previous Sharpshooter assessment. But now you are saying EModE would be powerful evidence of authenticity, even though nothing about my theory predicted pristine EModE. You can't have it both ways. Either the logic is sound and its success only depends on the strength of the EModE data to confidently rule out Smith's authorship, or the logic is flawed.

Your arguments are too inconsistent and you hardly ever admit when you are wrong, so I just can't follow your logic anymore, especially when you constantly reframe and restate my own explanations in ways I never would. 

Edited March 14 by Ryan Dahle

[Calm]

49 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Your arguments are too inconsistent and you hardly ever admit when you are wrong, so I just can't follow your logic anymore, especially when you then reframe my own explanations in ways I never would. 

It’s possible neither of you are following the other’s logic correctly because of incorrect initial assumptions being used (perhaps having to do with why certain choices are made?).  I see this happening a lot in communication, especially on this board where I have the chance to try and trace reasoning back.  I am not following the arguments here well enough over the days’ (are we up to weeks yet?) worth of discussions because of interruptions in my attention and it’s too overwhelming to try and reread everything….so I am just throwing this out as a possibility because it certainly seems to me both of you are discussing in good faith, trying to present your own materials clearly and putting sincere effort into trying to understand the other.  But if you start off looking at something with a faulty assumption, it is very easy to misinterpret and to continue even when corrected multiple times (this has happened to me way too many times and I assume I have done it to others quite a bit).

Unfortunately I am not sure how to solve the problem.  I think listing out each other’s assumptions to begin with might help, but it’s hard to identify all the assumptions one has that can affect a conversation.

[Ryan Dahle]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

The evidence isn't compelling. So why are you arguing with me about how compelling it is?

Because there is a huge spectrum between non-evidence and compelling evidence. In fact, that is one of the primary benefits of Bayesian analysis, is it not? It allows us to more precisely weigh different types of data, in relation to how well certain theories can explain that data (often according to intuitive probability estimates). When you are dealing with opposing theories that involve many lines of competing evidence, it is helpful to know the degree of evidentiary significance that they hold (both internally, within one's own theory, and also as assessed in contrast to the value that others assign that evidence in competing theories). As someone who describes his own theory as fundamentally Bayesian in nature, I'm honestly quite surprised you asked that question. 

[Ryan Dahle]

6 hours ago, Analytics said:

Here's the problem: your candidate (divine beings) has infinite capacity. God could have produced the Book of Mormon in flawless classical Hebrew. Or in perfect Elizabethan English. Or in pristine EModE from a single consistent dialect. Or in a language no human has ever spoken. When your candidate can do literally anything, the prediction isn't "this specific outcome,”  it's "any outcome is possible." And a prediction of "anything is possible" spreads its probability across every conceivable outcome. That means the probability assigned to any specific outcome--including this particular inconsistent hodgepodge--is actually very low. You don't get a high likelihood just because your candidate could have produced the data. You need to show your candidate would have produced the data, and you've admitted you can't.

Let me try one more analogy to help you understand. 

Imagine that you are a parent with two young adult sons. One of them is an accomplished pianist. The other has had a few piano lessons but never showed much interest in pursuing music. Let's say you expect both of your sons to be home for the weekend after their first month in college. You come home and hear someone in the home playing a very difficult piano piece. You abductively conclude that the pianist is almost certainly your son who plays the piano. But here is the thing, you would not be able to predict what song your son would choose to play. He knows hundreds of songs and is interested in all sorts of music and is learning new music all the time. Basically "any outcome is possible" as you put it. Now let's plug in your reasoning with a bolded modification on my part: 

Quote

And a prediction of "anything is possible" spreads its probability across every conceivable outcome. That means the probability assigned to any specific outcome--including this particular song--is actually very low. You don't get a high likelihood just because your candidate could have produced the data. You need to show your candidate would have produced the data, and you've admitted you can't.

You see why this line of reasoning is ultimately irrelevant? It really doesn't matter whether the parent could predict the particular song that would be played, or the particular style, or genre, or whatever. All that matters is that the parent knows that a very difficult song would reasonably rule out the son who had less piano training. It is the same logic with EModE. My theory doesn't have to be able to predict precisely what type of language might be used by my preferred candidate author, just like the parent doesn't have to predict which song or type of song would be played. The only crucial factor is capacity. If the parent has reason to believe one son has the capacity to play that song and the other doesn't (and if it seems very unlikely that any other person would enter into the home and play the piano) then it is obvious which son is mostly likely to be responsible for the music. This is standard abductive reasoning, and it is exactly the same logic I'm using for EModE.

Edited March 14 by Ryan Dahle

[Ryan Dahle]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Meanwhile, my candidate has limited capacity. But that isn’t a weakness. Limiting capacity actually concentrates the probability distribution. If Joseph Smith could only produce language within a certain range, and the Book of Mormon falls within that range, then the probability of this specific outcome under my theory may actually be higher than under yours, precisely because my candidate had fewer options.

Actually, in my theory, there would be a limited capacity as well. Joseph Smith couldn't read the words of the text to his scribes if those words were in another language. So there are really only a few plausible options one might expect. It doesn't matter anyways, though, since neither theory could predict the precise style of the text. The only thing that would really count as evidence is if the text exhibited some form of English that Smith could not likely produce himself, even if he could read and understand the words. 

[Ryan Dahle]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

The way to salvage this is to articulate specifically why God would strongly prefer books with a blend of multiple EModE dialects mingled with 19th-century English, all perfectly understandable to Joseph Smith, using the KJV as a crutch even where it contained bad translations over anything else. But you already conceded that we have no idea why God would prefer this over anything else He could do.

As pointed out before. This is just irrelevant. You keep doubling down without addressing my reasons for prioritizing capacity. 

[smac97]

6 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quite frankly, I don’t believe you. You don’t care what I have to say. At all. I’ve spent a ridiculous amount of time explaining to you what I believe and why, and you dismiss all of it without comment, insisting that I am “prevaricating.”

I don't care what you have to say about Ryan Gosling's acting skills, or whether black licorice tastes good, or whether Michael Jordan is the GOAT.  I do care what you have to say about "a positive, coherent alternative explanation for The Book of Mormon that accounts for the key data points (physical plates, witness statements, text origins/translation process) without heavy speculation, while claiming empirical rigor."

I really really want to hear what you have to say about this.  Why else would I keep asking you questions, and then asking questions about your answers?

6 hours ago, Analytics said:

If you were the least bit interested in what I have to say, you’d at least try to understand why I think the witness “evidence” is weak.

I am trying to understand that.  You previously said: "If you give me a list of questions, I'll answer them honestly and directly, just like I did in my prior post."

I responded:

Quote

Consolidated List of Questions

1. Nature and Fabrication of the Plates

• Who manufactured the alleged sham plates? Where? When? By what means? Using what materials? How many people were involved? What evidence exists for any of this?
• Was Joseph Smith involved in making or procuring the plates? If not, how did the fabricators connect with him, and how was he persuaded to promote a fabricated story even when his life was at stake?
• If Joseph was involved, was he a dupe or a deliberate conniver?
  • If a dupe, who else was involved, and why did none of them ever come forward (as occurred with the Kinderhook Plates hoax)?
  • If a conniver, did he act alone? If so, where was his smithy? How did he acquire metallurgical skills? How did he afford materials given his poverty? Where did he get the raw materials?
  • If acting with others, who were they? Why did none of them recant or expose the scheme? To what purpose did the hoax serve? Who ultimately benefited? Where did these others operate? Which of them made the plates? Using what tools and materials?
• How did Joseph make the plates appear to be gold (e.g., Vogel's theory is tin painted yellow)?
• What engravings were applied, and by what means?
• How was the prop sophisticated enough to fool the Eight Witnesses—who handled, hefted, and examined them in mundane circumstances—into describing them as having "the appearance of gold," "engravings," and "the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship"? Were none of them familiar with common tin (which several witnesses compared the thickness to)? How were they deceived if tin was widely available and recognizable?
• Was the prop a sloppy, cobbled-together joke? If so, how do skeptics deal with the Eight Witnesses? Were all eight just really dumb? None of them thought or said—either during or after the event—"Hey, this thing just looks like common tin painted yellow"?
• Alternatively, the prop was apparently sophisticated and well-made. If so, how did Joseph make it? Or did someone else more skilled make it? If so, whom, under what conditions, for what purpose? And why was the sham never discovered? Who stood to gain by taking the secrets of such a fantastic hoax to the grave?

2. Credibility of the Witnesses

• What is your assessment of David Whitmer? What evidence do you have that he was insane, deluded, or tricked? What sort of super-magician do you think Joseph Smith was to maintain Whitmer's testimony for decades while Whitmer despised him and left the Church? Is that your assessment of this witness? If so, how do you get there?
• David Whitmer spent decades despising Joseph Smith and declaring his 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? Wouldn't his antipathy toward Joseph make him more likely to recant or qualify his statement? Why are you not addressing any of this?
• How do you account for Martin Harris? He returned from Charles Anthon so impressed that he mortgaged his farm to finance publication, had a falling out with Joseph, but never recanted. How do skeptics explain this?
• If the witnesses were duped by a "magic show" or prop, why did none of them recant—even those who fell out with Joseph and had strong motive to discredit him?
• Do you have any evidence that any witness thought they were being invited to or participating in something akin to "a magic show"?
• Richard Lloyd Anderson has examined the witnesses' lives in detail (e.g., in Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses). Are you familiar with his work? Are you interested in exploring his book? How do you reconcile your view with his assessment of their character and credibility?
• Are you characterizing the Witnesses as hapless dupes?  If so, how do you square that with Richard Lloyd Anderson's assessment of these men?  And with David Whitmer's voluminous statements over decades?

3. Broader Evidentiary and Logical Issues

• "Spoliation" is the intentional destruction or alteration of relevant evidence in existing or pending litigation. Do you have any evidence that Joseph Smith intentionally destroyed or altered the plates? That there was "existing or pending litigation" at the time?
• How did Joseph "curate the evidence" relative to the Eight Witnesses? Please be specific.
• How did Joseph "curate the evidence" relative to Emma Hale Smith? Please be specific.
• How did Joseph "curate the evidence" about the "incidental" witnesses (Mary Musselman Whitmer, Katharine Smith Salisbury, Lucy Mack Smith, Sally Parker, William B. Smith, and John C. Whitmer)? Please be specific (e.g., Mary Musselman Whitmer's experience).
• We have tons of information about the Witnesses, including their official statements and subsequent statements (even after all three were estranged from Joseph), and yet you claim there is a "dearth of evidence." If Joseph "curated it that way," then how do you account for their failure/refusal to recant? Please give extra time and attention to your explanation for David Whitmer. And please marshal evidence for your explanation.
• What is your alternative explanation for the Plates/Witnesses/Texts? How do you address the evidence that contravenes your position?
• How do you differentiate between statements from David Whitmer you do accept and find credible, and statements you do not accept or find credible?  
• What actual evidence do you have to support your alternative explanation for the Plates/Witnesses/Texts?
• What rules of evidence do you apply to the witnesses' statements?  Are these rules different from those you apply to Suetonius?  If so, why?

I think these are reasonable questions.  You asked for them, and I have provided them.

6 hours ago, Analytics said:

You’d at least try to understand how I’ve come to the conclusions I’ve come to, despite not having a detailed, comprehensive, bullet-proof theory explanation for precisely how the Book of Mormon was written. 

I am trying.  The above questions have been responsive to your various statements in this thread.

6 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

And what we are getting is a essentially a redux of what Dale Mortgage said in 1945: "With my point of view on God, I am incapable of accepting the claims of Joseph Smith and the Mormons, be they however so convincing. If God does not exist, how can Joseph Smith’s story have any possible validity? I will look everywhere for explanations except to the ONE explanation that is the position of the church.""

That simply isn’t true.

It is manifestly true.

Dale Morgan: "If God does not exist, how can Joseph Smith’s story have any possible validity? I will look everywhere for explanations except to the ONE explanation that is the position of the church."

Analytics: "Sidney Rigdon made the plates out of tin," and/or that "the angel was really an alien doing an anthropology experiment on Joseph Smith," and/or that "the devil conjured up the plates" as all being "more likely" than the explanation given by Joseph Smith, which you said is "just not possible."  "{A}ny explanation," you said, "is more likely than {The Book of Mormon} being an accurate translation of an actual ancient manuscript."

These sure look like kissin' cousins.

6 hours ago, Analytics said:

I’ve repeatedly explained that while I did in fact begin with a strong a priori for a naturalistic world view, I then used Bayesian likelihood ratios to see in what direction the needle moved. I clearly articulated why I think looking at the evidence moves the needle even further away from the “it’s genuine” theory.

Sure would like to discuss the evidence.  The above bulleted list would be a good place to start.

6 hours ago, Analytics said:

But you ignore the nuances of my evaluation of the evidence and insist explaining how I view the evidence is prevarication.

I already know what your conclusions are.  I would like you to explain analysis of the evidence that got you there.

I am giving you every opportunity to lay out a positive, coherent alternative explanation for the Book of Mormon, centering on evidence about the Plates, the Witnesses and the Text, and which explanation accounts for key data points without heavy speculation, while claiming empirical rigor.

And you are not doing it.

6 hours ago, Analytics said:

You do this by ignoring everything I talk about and asking me obscenely long lists of questions that have nothing to do with my position.

You a few hours ago: "If you give me a list of questions, I'll answer them honestly and directly, just like I did in my prior post."

You after I provided you a list of questions: "You do this by ignoring everything I talk about and asking me obscenely long lists of questions that have nothing to do with my position."

And again, virtually all of those questions are responsive to what you have said. 

You said that you think there were physical, but sham, plates.  Do I have that right?  I am asking you questions about that.  This is your theory, and I am asking you to explain it and marshal evidence to support it.

You said that the witnesses were deluded or confused by religious fanaticism ("I think the most plausible explanation combines sincere belief in the project with solemn religious oaths to stand by what they signed...").  Is that more or less correct?  I am asking you questions about that.

6 hours ago, Analytics said:

The internet has not produced a marketplace where strong evidence flourishes and weak evidence dies. It has produced a carnival where people retreat into echo chambers and gorge themselves on whatever conclusions flatter their biases.

And yet here I am, a Latter-day Saint making all sorts of effort to induce a very smart and well-informed critic of my faith to lay out his reasoning and evidence.  I am not asking you to give me "conclusions" that "flatter" my "biases."  

You and I are both here, speaking freely.  So I don't think this forum is an "echo chamber."  I have previously expressed my respect about you being willing to go outside of the Anti-Mormon echo chambers and speak to and with Latter-day Saints.

So let's keep talking.  You asked for questions, and I have provided them.  If you like, we can just take one category at a time.

6 hours ago, Analytics said:

You can believe whatever you want, but don’t mistake your ability to believe something as evidence that what you believe is necessarily true.

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 14 by smac97

[champatsch]

It has recently been proposed that Joseph Smith was influenced by some of John Bunyan's writings (1628–1688) in formulating Book of Mormon English. In his Dialogue article, Davis also suggests these authors as possible influences:  William Shakespeare (1564–1616), John Milton (1608–1674), Richard Baxter (1615–1691), John Flavel (ca. 1627–1691), Isaac Watts (1674–1748), Philip Doddridge (1702–1751), John Wesley (1703–1791), Samuel Johnson (1709–1784), and James Hervey (1714–1758), since their works were in accessible libraries. In short, we now have it proposed that Joseph Smith was a highly literate author of some sort. We are led to ask: Was he highly literate or not? Was he a pseudo-archaic author, or just dictating his own unique form of sacred | spiritual language that is not pseudo-archaic, even though he was not fluent in Early Modern English? These things might strike some as possibly incoherent.

Davis considered very little counterevidence to his theory of Bunyanesque influence on Book of Mormon English. Today I will show you some counterevidence related to rhetorical if. Oxford English Dictionary, “'if so be' in if (conj. & n.), sense P.2,” December 2025, https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/7755464232. In the days to come, I might be able to mention other things. (For the next 10 days I only have limited time to write anything here, since my partner, who usually takes care of dozens of animals, large and small, is away. But I might be able to offer one substantive item a day.)

We are supposed to believe that Joseph Smith authored the Book of Mormon based on his great familiarity with the King James Bible and his familiarity with writings such as Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress (1678) and Holy War (1682). As mentioned, I put together a corpus of 25 pseudo-archaic writings with help from E. Shalev and D. Johnson. I also put together a corpus of 39 writings by Bunyan, including the above two, mainly from EEBO texts.

This is what we see in terms of rhetorical if in the comparison texts:

Texts | Corpora                                                  if so be                    if it so be

1611 King James Bible                                               13                              0
Pseudo-archaic corpus (25 texts, 1740–1888)         5                              0
John Bunyan corpus (39 texts, 1656–1688)             9                               0
1829 Book of Mormon                                                0                            42
John Lydgate’s Troy Book (1412–1420)                    13                            21

The last entry shows us that both rhetorical if variants were Late Middle English phrases. Though not in Lydgate's Troy Book, "if it so be" was the minority form. Both show limited persistence into Late Modern English. Lydgate's 21 instances of "if it so be" is the most I've counted in a text besides the Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith dictated 39 of these from 3 Nephi 16 on; before that only three. Four of Bunyan’s nine examples are quotes or paraphrases of biblical language. The King James Bible also has five in the Apocrypha. Matthew 18:13 has a well-known example: “if so be that he find it.” Four pseudo-archaic authors in the corpus produced the five examples of "if so be".

The Book of Mormon’s “if it so be” usage is arguably archaic in nature because of six instances of subjunctive, modal shall governed by the phrase (e.g. “if it so be that these last grafts shall grow” Jacob 5:64) [plus 1 Nephi 17:13, 1 Nephi 19:19, 2 Nephi 1:7, 2 Nephi 1:9, 2 Nephi 3:2, 2 Nephi 6:12].

We are supposed to believe that the above was rather automatic for Joseph Smith — something he could have readily done. Just another aspect of his sacred | spiritual language. The Google Books database has over 20 billion words in it between 1801 and 1829, because of ever increasing publishing rates. I don't think it's too much to ask for someone to find six examples of "if it so be that . . shall <infinitive>" published in that time span. After all, Joseph Smith produced six in just 252,350 nonbiblical words in 1829 (0.0013% of the words).

Edited March 14 by champatsch

[california boy]

On 3/13/2026 at 8:43 AM, Pyreaux said:

I've been ignoring this thread, as I have nothing particular against naturalistic theories, but it's where all the activity is now. But what you shared looks like a composite naturalistic theory, it tries to be every naturalistic theory at once, so the plates are somehow a pious fraud, visionary trance, and physical prop at the same time. 

Was Smith a smithy? The naturalistic explanation usually posits a "prop" made of tin or lead. But in 1820s tin-smithing wasn't a kitchen table hobby. It requires a forge, shears, and specific hammers. If Joseph or any co-conspirator made them, where is the physical evidence, claim or theory of the workshop? The Eight Witnesses claimed to see "curious workmanship" and "engravings." If it was just scratched-up tin, why did eight men, several of whom were craftsmen and farmers familiar with metal, not recognize the metal wasn't gold or notice inferior workmanship as over hours of hefting and turning the plates? If it was a high-quality forgery with actual faux-Egyptian characters etched into metal, who had the skills? If it was a co-conspirator like Oliver Cowdery or your local blacksmith, why did the secret never leak, even during the bitterest periods of Oliver's apostasy?

The other blur is with both Three and Eight Witnesses together was a "visionary" event. The Three Witnesses claimed to see an Angel and hear a Voice. Naturalisticly called a "collective hallucination." The Eight Witnesses testimony is strictly sensory. There was no angel, no voice, and no "spiritual eyes." They handled the leaves in broad daylight. If John Whitmer or Hiram Page who later became extremely hostile to Joseph Smith never blow the whistle and say they had been tricked by a cheap prop, their anger at Joseph would have given them every motive to expose the trickery. They didn't. They died asserting the reality of the plates.

Brandon Sanderson uses a computer, an editor, a back-story wiki, and years of planning. Joseph dictated the Book of Mormon in roughly 60–90 days with no substantive internal contradictions, no rewrites, and no looking back at previous pages.

You have suggested a 'physical prop' existed. If that prop was 'painted tin' (Vogel's theory), please explain how eight grown men handled a tin prop for an afternoon without doubt? If they were co-conspirators, why make a prop, and how did they spend 50 years lying about it for a man they eventually came to despise? What was their motive for maintaining a lie that brought them poverty and persecution long after they had broken with the 'liar' who started it?

But didn't someone else do the exact same thing you are dismissing as a possibility by creating the Kinderhook plates?  Why couldn't Joseph Smith create a similar hoax?  And didn't Joseph Smith's secretary record that Smith said the plates contained the history a a man defended from Ham?  So it was a good enough hoax to fool Joseph Smith.  

In terms of testing the plates for authenticity, one of the original Kinderhook plates survived and was tested in 1980. Scientific analysis showed the engravings were made using 19th century acid etchings, not ancient techniques.  This clearly shows the importance of physically testing something that claims to be of historical importance if the counterfeit plates to determine authenticity.  If authenticity is not important, then yeah, showing them to a group of likely supporters then taking them away is perfectly understandable.  It just requires faith to believe.