A Secular Theory of Where the BoM Came From

[Calm]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

not, then aren't the plates just a prop used to convince others of some "special" source of this book that should be considered of divine origin?

Isn’t this speculation as well?

Why couldn’t it be that Joseph was so impressed with the sacredness of the plates that prophets had devoted their lives to making and protecting when he found he could receive the text without them he put them aside for special occasions like a beloved set of silverware my Grandmother had? This is, of course, speculation, but as insightful imo as your attempt. 

I actually agree with what smac in the post before this one outlines as the purpose as the text itself (as smac points out) states its purpose as convincing others of the truth it teaches…so why is it hard to believe that the plates’ own physical presence exists primarily for that same purpose? 

I also believe there were other purposes, as have listed in this thread and elsewhere, some more grounded than others. 
 

added again:  the states convincing purpose was never presented as to convince experts and scientists or to convince by providing tested scientific proof, btw, so the removal of the plates so they couldn’t undergo such does not negate its purpose to convince.

Edited March 24 by Calm

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

You see it all over: tablets for Moses,

Which were also put aside and never shown publicly iirc, placed in the Ark as signifying their importance and sacredness. 
 

I wanted to be sure my memory was correct that the tablets were never taken out and displayed, but am lazy today so just used AI, asking “what happened to the tablets”.  The answer somewhat amused me for being so close to what I was thinking, so posting here:

”According to biblical tradition, the two stone tablets containing the Ten Commandments were placed inside the Ark of the Covenant, which was housed in the Holy of Holies of the Tabernacle and later the Temple. They were never shown to the public after being placed in the Ark, serving as a hidden, sacred witness.”

Edited March 24 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Artifacts of this kind of importance are carefully studied and examined.

How often was the Ark brought out to show people?  The tablets inside them? 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

The insight I’m gaining through this thread is that it appears to me there are some former believers who are secretly so worried that the Book of Mormon might actually be true that they will spare no effort in what amounts to a vain quest to quell their nagging fears

Mindreading, not insight, and imo not terribly accurate.  It could be as easily speculated that you keep posting these kinds of comments because you have a nagging fear the Book of Mormon is not true (which I don’t believe but it’s not an uncommon reaction to aggressively defend when doubting, so I wouldn’t be surprised if someone did think this is exactly why you are trying so hard to make it look like these posters are secret believers in their hearts).

Such speculation is worthless.

I think most, if not all, from the way they have expressed themselves over the years are interested in how belief is formed and held including how it happened with themselves in the past as well as perhaps fascinated by the story of it all, just like many post on true crime or unsolved mysteries websites.  One can be either or both of these things without worrying if they were wrong. 

Edited March 24 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, longview said:

It is my impression that Joseph Smith did start out by turning to the first page of the Gold Plates and using the interpreters (the seer stone/rock came later) to begin the "transcription" process. I say transcription because he had ZERO knowledge of the characters or glyphics on gold sheets. But I assume that as he was transcribing, the Spirit may have also occasionally acquainted Joseph with insights into the meaning of some of the symbols. I don't think he became "fluent" in the "reformed egyptian". Later on, he did take courses in learning and writing Hebrew but not necessarily becoming expert at it.

After Joseph had taken a number of days/weeks of transcription, he probably acquired sufficient "conviction" or testimony that he was doing meaningful work. Then I think the Lord  allowed him to keep transcribing without having to turn any more of the pages. Once he realized this, then he may have thought to use his seer stone to see if he could translate the sheets without having to use the cumbersome breastplate and interpreters. Later on, he became so spiritually attuned that he no longer needed the interpreters or seer stone. The Gold Plates became the "Urim and Thummim" to Joseph.

This has been my impression as well.

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

From a believing perspective, the plates were necessary because they were the source – an actual ancient record – so their existence answers the "where did this come from?" question in a concrete way.

Also, I'm not certain the plates were just there for the purposes of translation mechanics – they were about witness. Multiple people testified they saw / handled them. If Joseph was inventing a story, I tend to think that creating a tangible artifact others could examine actually increases the risk of being exposed, rather than decreasing it.

This is a point I have yet to see critics meaningfully address.  It would have been so much easier for Joseph to just take a D&C 7-style approach.  God could have just downloaded the English text into Joseph's mind, and Joseph spoke the words and the scribes recorded them.

If Joseph was a charlatan, claiming to have not only a physical object, but a heavy and potentially valuable one, and then only showing it to a very select few, sure seems like a lot of work for not a very big ROI.

Unless, of course, the purpose of these circumstances was to facilitate faith and spiritual confirmation, while preserving each individual's agency.  In that case, the narrative seems to work quite well.  

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

And stepping back a bit, I would say this fits within a broader pattern we see in LDS theology. God doesn’t tend to work in a purely abstract, disembodied way. He uses physical things as part of how He reveals Himself. Not because He has to, but because that’s how He consistently operates.

A rod turned into a serpent.

Words inscribed onto a wall by an invisible hand.

Spittle mud used to heal a blind person.

And so on.

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

You see it all over: tablets for Moses, the Ark for Noah, the temple serving as the axis mundi between heaven and earth, ordinances involving water, bread, oil, hands, etc.

Tangible things help us as individuals perceive that there are portions of reality which exist beyond our current ken.

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

I mean, even Jesus had to come to Earth to perform the Atonement. None of those are strictly “necessary” if the goal is simply to transmit information, but they serve to ground the divine in the real, physical world.

Indeed, we may as well ask why God sent us here when He could have just created each of us in a perfected form from the get-go.

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

The plates fit that same pattern. They’re not just about needing something to read from. They’re a physical witness that revelation is tied to real history, real people, real records.

I previously used to have some unease about Catholic veneration of relics.  These days I have a much broader perspective.  I think the Latter-day Saints are fortunate to have living prophets and apostles, to have temples, to participate in proxy ordinances.  Our Catholic brothers and sisters similarly yearn for tangible connections to the divine, and I think relics facilitate that effort, however imperfectly.  

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

Even if the translation itself was revelatory rather than academic, the plates still function as an anchor to the claim that this record existed prior to Joseph.

So calling them a “prop” kind of misses the point. If anything, they’re more like a recurring feature (and, hence, additional witness) of how God works.

"Prop" has connotations of something that only has the appearance of utility.  A "prop" gun in a movie, for example.  It's not real, but it's intended to enhance storytelling, define characters, or create realism.  That is particularly inapt as a characterization of the Plates, which contained the engravings of an ancient language translated into English.  The Plates "enhanced" Joseph's narrative, but they were also the source of the text we have today as The Book of Mormon, and so are much more than a "prop."

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

But the plates were not used as the source.  

Yes, they were:

Quote

TheBook of Mormon

An Account Written bythe Hand of Mormonupon Plates Taken from the Plates of Nephi

Wherefore, it is an abridgment of the record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites—Written to the Lamanites, who are a remnant of the house of Israel; and also to Jew and Gentile—Written by way of commandment, and also by the spirit of prophecy and of revelation—Written and sealed up, and hid up unto the Lord, that they might not be destroyed—To come forth by the gift and power of God unto the interpretation thereof—Sealed by the hand of Moroni, and hid up unto the Lord, to come forth in due time by way of the Gentile—The interpretation thereof by the gift of God.

An abridgment taken from the Book of Ether also, which is a record of the people of Jared, who were scattered at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people, when they were building a tower to get to heaven—Which is to show unto the remnant of the house of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever—And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations—And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.

Translated by Joseph Smith, Jun.

And here:

Quote

The Testimony of Three Witnesses

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That we, through the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the plates which contain this record, which is a record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites, their brethren, and also of the people of Jared, who came from the tower of which hath been spoken. And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true. And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates; and they have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man. And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true. And it is marvelous in our eyes. Nevertheless, the voice of the Lord commanded us that we should bear record of it; wherefore, to be obedient unto the commandments of God, we bear testimony of these things. And we know that if we are faithful in Christ, we shall rid our garments of the blood of all men, and be found spotless before the judgment-seat of Christ, and shall dwell with him eternally in the heavens. And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.

Oliver Cowdery

David Whitmer

Martin Harris

 

2 hours ago, california boy said:

But the story of the witnesses does have some problems.  If the purpose was to actually show the artifact, why the quick now you see it, now you don't.  

I'm not sure we know how long the experience of the Three Witnesses lasted.  How many minutes would it take before the Witnesses' statement become probative?

The Eight Witnesses seem to have had time to "heft" the Plates, handle the individual plates ("leaves"), etc.  

Did any of the Witnesses, particularly those who later dissociated from Joseph, express some sort of concern or objection along this "quick now you see it, now you don't" lines?  If not, where are you getting this notion?

2 hours ago, california boy said:

More like how a magician shows something than a sincere evaluation of a claim.  

How long, in your view, of an examination of the Plates by the Witnesses would have been appropriate?

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Artifacts of this kind of importance are carefully studied and examined.  

How many "artifacts of this kind" do you think have appeared in world history?

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Of course the argument is that the story has to be taken by faith.  So it still always leads back to faith.  Faith that the witnesses actually saw something authentic.  Faith that the BoM is based on a real civilization.  Faith that prophets received revelation from God.  So having the plates doesn't significantly sway a person's faith in the BoM.  

It sure has swayed mine.  I find the statements of the Three/Eight Witnesses, and information about the "unofficial" witnesses, and the historical evidence about the character of these people, to be quite a significant, if will secondary and supplemental, resource for strengthening my faith in The Book of Mormon.

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Quote

You see it all over: tablets for Moses, the Ark for Noah, the temple serving as the axis mundi between heaven and earth, ordinances involving water, bread, oil, hands, etc. I mean, even Jesus had to come to Earth to perform the Atonement. None of those are strictly “necessary” if the goal is simply to transmit information, but they serve to ground the divine in the real, physical world. 

Not sure what you mean here.  The tablets Moses had remained with the Israelites for many years.  

"With the Israelites" = Ensconced in the Ark of the Covenant, which in turn was kept in the Holy of Holies, which was the innermost, most sacred chamber of the Tabernacle and later the Temple in Jerusalem, and which was strictly off-limits to the general public, ordinary priests, Levites, and even the king, and which location only the High Priest could enter, and even then only once a year on Yom Kippur?  And even then, the High Priest did not appear to actually open the Ark and view or handle the tablets, and instead performed rituals in the Holy of Holies.

The ancient Israelites had to take it on faith that the Ten Commandments were in there.  As do the rest of us.

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Noah's ark was something physical, not hidden.  Or are you talking symbolism???  Then. couldn't the BoM been represented by anything God chose including just a rock?

I suppose.  But then, such imponderables are endless.  Couldn't Moses have addressed Pharaoh without the Rod of Aaron being turned into a serpent?  Couldn't God have healed the children of Israel without having them look upon the Brazen Serpent?  Couldn't Jesus have healed the blink man without using spittle mud?

And on and on and on.

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Quote

The plates fit that same pattern. They’re not just about needing something to read from. They’re a physical witness that revelation is tied to real history, real people, real records.

Not sure what you mean here either.  Tied to real history???  What real history?  

The Parables of Jesus Christ may not be "real history," but they still have vlue.

Other events, however, must be "real" in order to have meaning and effect in our lives.  Christ needed to actually suffer for our sins, not just metaphorically so.  He must have actually resurrected, not just figuratively so.  

2 hours ago, california boy said:

That history recorded in the BoM is only found in what Joseph Smith wrote, not a real historical record.

Well, that presupposes that the Plates weren't real, or else were a hoax.  If they were real, and if they were really an authentic record, and if Joseph translated their contents "by the gift and power of God," then the calculus changes.

2 hours ago, california boy said:

If it was, then were is the Reformed Egyptian stellas,

Reformed Egyptian was used for its economical use of limited space on the Plates.  It did not appear to have a broader usage in Nephite society.

2 hours ago, california boy said:

where are the Nephite coins?  

Where are any precolumbian coins in the Americas?

What would a Nephite artifact look like?  How do you know?

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Where is the DNA?  

I encourage you to do a bit of reading on how DNA works.

How many people were in Lehi's party which landed in the Americas around 590 B.C.?  20-50 people?

Lehi's group of 25-50 people represented what percentage of people living in the Americas in about 590 B.C.?  

I asked Grok: "Let's say that there were 25-50 people that arrived in the Americas in about 590 B.C., and that they were originally from the Jerusalem area. What is the likelihood of genetic traces of these 25-50 people being detectable in today's population groups in the Americas?"

The response:

Quote

Extremely low—essentially undetectable in any practical sense.

A founding group of only 25–50 people from the Jerusalem area arriving around 590 B.C. and mixing into the existing indigenous populations of the Americas would leave no detectable genetic traces in today’s Native American or Central/South American populations. This conclusion comes from population genetics principles (genetic drift, founder effects, and pedigree collapse) and is explicitly acknowledged in both mainstream scientific studies and official Latter-day Saint sources discussing the Book of Mormon.

Why the DNA Signal Would Disappear

1. Tiny initial contribution to the gene pool By 600 B.C., the Americas were already populated by hundreds of thousands to millions of people descended from the original Siberian founding population that arrived ~15,000–20,000+ years earlier. A group of 25–50 individuals would represent a minuscule fraction (<0.01–0.05%) of the total population in any plausible landing region (Mesoamerica or elsewhere). Their DNA would be immediately diluted upon intermarriage.
2. Autosomal DNA (the bulk of your genome) dilutes rapidly Each generation roughly halves the expected contribution from any specific ancestor or small group. After ~100 generations (2,600 years ÷ ~26 years/generation), the expected fraction from the 25–50 founders is astronomically small. Genetic drift (random loss of alleles in finite populations) and recombination mean that, in a large host population, these lineages are almost certain to be lost or become undetectable. No modern genetic study of indigenous Americans has found any Levantine/Middle Eastern autosomal signal beyond known post-1492 European admixture.
3. Uniparental markers (Y-DNA and mtDNA) have a slightly higher chance of surviving—but still very low These are passed down unchanged along direct paternal or maternal lines. However, most lineages go extinct over time. Studies of historical immigrant groups and demographic modeling show that even with modest reproductive success, the probability that any specific founding lineage survives unbroken for 100 generations is low (often <1–5% per lineage, depending on family size and population dynamics). With only 25–50 people, you start with very few independent lineages to begin with. Modern sampling of Native American Y-DNA and mtDNA shows exclusively Asian-derived haplogroups; no Jerusalem-area signatures have been found.
4. Real-world confirmation from genetics Ancient and modern DNA studies across the Americas show strong genetic continuity with the original founding population from Siberia/East Asia. No detectable “Middle Eastern” or “Israelite” component appears in pre-Columbian remains or living indigenous groups. This matches what population geneticists expect for a very small migrant group swallowed by a much larger host population.

Official Latter-day Saint Perspective

The Church’s own Gospel Topics Essay on “Book of Mormon and DNA Studies” states clearly:

“Nothing is known about the DNA of Book of Mormon peoples, and even if their genetic profile were known, there are sound scientific reasons that it might remain undetected… processes such as population bottleneck, genetic drift, and post-Columbian immigration… make it unlikely that their DNA could be detected today.”

Apologetic sources (FAIR, Scripture Central, BYU) make the same point: a small founding party like Lehi’s would be genetically “invisible” today.

Bottom Line

• Autosomal DNA → Effectively 0% chance of detectable trace.
• Y-DNA or mtDNA → Theoretically possible but highly improbable (most lineages die out), and none have been observed.
• Overall → Genetic studies cannot confirm or rule out such a small group. The absence of Middle Eastern DNA is exactly what population genetics predicts.

If the group had been much larger, isolated, or replaced the existing population, the signal would be different—but under the scenario you described (25–50 people arriving into an already populated continent), the genetic traces would be lost to history long ago.

I think your DNA question is not well-founded.

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Where is any physical evidence of this once great civilization that the book tells about?  

What does "Nephite" or "Lamanite" civilization look like, and how would you know?

2 hours ago, california boy said:

I can't think of a great civilization that had the kind of presence talked about in the BoM that lasted for 1000 years where there is no evidence they ever existed.  

This presupposes that there is no evidence, and that we know what Nephite/Lamanite civilizations looked like and specifically where they were located.

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Doesn't any historical context only rely on faith? Doesn't the entire story of the gold plates, angels and historical record rely entirely on faith?  Having the prop doesn't really change any of that.

My faith in the Restored Gospel is based primarily on revelation, but not exclusively so.  I have other evidences, including Joseph's narrative, the Three/Eight Witnesses, the "unofficial" witnesses, the historical evidence about the character and credibility of these people, lots and lots of textual evidences, circumstantial evidences (NHM, Seal of Mulek, etc.), "By Their Fruits Ye Shall Know Them" evidences, etc.

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Isn't the idea of the plates functioning as an anchor just speculation on your part?  

I think it's a reasonable, perhaps even necessary, inference.  I can't get on board with the idea that the Plates were superfluous to the Restoration.

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Are you saying that God was incapable of Joseph not reading the rock without the plates?

I don't think any of us is saying that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

55 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It would have been so much easier for Joseph to just take a D&C 7-style approach.  God could have just downloaded the English text into Joseph's mind, and Joseph spoke the words and the scribes recorded them.

If Joseph was a charlatan, claiming to have not only a physical object, but a heavy and potentially valuable one, and then only showing it to a very select few, sure seems like a lot of work for not a very big ROI.

There are others who managed without quite successfully.  

Ellen G. White claimed visions and produced extensive spiritual writings with no physical “props”.  The Seventh Day Adventist Faith is still going strong.

Then there is, of course, Muhammad and the Qur’an.

Had to have help with these as my memory buried them too deeply, just knew there were more out there (I only asked for well known, established and respected faiths, no doubt there are others that are smaller or more fringe)…

George Fox who founded the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) used personal revelation (also referring to established scripture) to preach his teachings..

Bahá’u’lláh, founder of the Baháʼí Faith, claimed divine revelation and produced extensive scriptures.

 

Edited March 24 by Calm

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I encourage you to do a bit of reading on how DNA works.

How many people were in Lehi's party which landed in the Americas around 590 B.C.?  20-50 people?

Lehi's group of 25-50 people represented what percentage of people living in the Americas in about 590 B.C.?  

I asked Grok: "Let's say that there were 25-50 people that arrived in the Americas in about 590 B.C., and that they were originally from the Jerusalem area. What is the likelihood of genetic traces of these 25-50 people being detectable in today's population groups in the Americas?"

The response...

Prompt: An apologist asked Grok, "Let's say that there were 25-50 people that arrived in the Americas in about 590 B.C., and that they were originally from the Jerusalem area. What is the likelihood of genetic traces of these 25-50 people being detectable in today's population groups in the Americas?"

What do you think of this line of apologetic reasoning? Is it consistent with what the Book of Mormon actually says? When answering the question, consider the purpose of the Book of Mormon as stated in its introduction, the most significant covenants that are repeated throughout the book, the narrative within the book, and how the Lamanites described themselves, according to the book.

Quote

This is a thoughtful question, and I think the apologetic framing you're describing — sometimes called the "limited geography" or "small migration" model — actually creates significant tension with the text it's trying to defend. Let me walk through why.

The framing of the question itself

The apologetic reframes the Book of Mormon's claims to make them as modest as possible: just 25-50 people arriving in an already-populated hemisphere. Posed that way, the expected answer is obvious — of course such a tiny genetic signal would be swamped and undetectable over 2,600 years. But the question is whether that framing is faithful to the book's own claims.

What the Book of Mormon actually describes

The narrative doesn't present Lehi's group as a tiny band absorbed into a vast pre-existing population. It presents them as the progenitors of entire civilizations that fill the land. By the end of the record, you have armies numbering in the hundreds of thousands — Mormon counts 230,000 Nephite dead at Cumorah alone (Mormon 6:10-15), and the Lamanite forces are described as even larger. The Jaredite civilization before them is described in similarly massive terms, with a final battle that destroys millions (Ether 15). The Mulekites are also presented as a group from Jerusalem who became a large people.

At no point does the text acknowledge or account for other populations already living in the Americas. The entire demographic picture is that these groups from the Old World became the peoples of the land.

The title page and stated purpose

The Book of Mormon's own title page, attributed to Moroni, says the book is written "to the Lamanites, who are a remnant of the house of Israel." The introduction, written by modern Church leaders, originally described the Lamanites as "the principal ancestors of the American Indians" — language that was quietly changed in 2006 to "among the ancestors," which itself reflects the pressure the DNA evidence created.

The covenants

This is where the tension becomes most acute. The most significant recurring covenant in the book is the promise that the Americas are a land of inheritance specifically for Lehi's descendants — that if they keep God's commandments they will prosper in the land, and if not, they will be cut off (2 Nephi 1:9, 20 and many other places). The book's entire theological architecture depends on the Lamanites being Lehi's literal descendants, because the covenant promises run through that lineage. The closing chapters of the book (Mormon 7, Moroni 10) are direct addresses to the future Lamanites, calling them to remember their fathers and the covenants God made with them.

If the "real" Lamanites were actually genetically swamped by a vastly larger indigenous population such that Lehi's DNA is undetectable, then who exactly are the covenant people of the land? The promises become strangely targeted at a lineage that has been diluted into insignificance — which undermines the entire prophetic and covenantal framework of the book.

How the Lamanites identify themselves

Throughout the text, the Lamanites understand themselves as descendants of Laman and Lemuel, sons of Lehi, who came from Jerusalem. They have a specific grievance narrative — that Nephi wrongly took the leadership from their father Laman. This isn't the self-understanding of a population that happens to include a tiny fraction of Lehite ancestry among a much larger indigenous genetic base. It's a founding-family identity.

The core problem

The apologetic essentially asks you to accept that the Book of Mormon's claims are true, but only in a form so diluted that they're empirically untestable. It solves the DNA problem by making the Book of Mormon's people demographically irrelevant in the very land where, according to the text itself, they built civilizations of millions and received God's most significant covenant promises. That's not a defense of the book so much as a rewriting of what the book claims, in order to make it immune to a specific category of evidence. The text doesn't need an outside critic to set the terms here — its own narrative, covenants, and stated purpose do that work.

 

[Zosimus]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

What does "Nephite" or "Lamanite" civilization look like

“Nephite" or "Lamanite" civilizations should look a lot like the civilization described in the Book of Mormon. We have an enormous amount of detailed data about that civilization, because they went to great lengths to document as much as they could on metal plates so we could learn about them. 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

and how would you know?

by reading the Book of Mormon?

[webbles]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Prompt: An apologist asked Grok, "Let's say that there were 25-50 people that arrived in the Americas in about 590 B.C., and that they were originally from the Jerusalem area. What is the likelihood of genetic traces of these 25-50 people being detectable in today's population groups in the Americas?"

What do you think of this line of apologetic reasoning? Is it consistent with what the Book of Mormon actually says? When answering the question, consider the purpose of the Book of Mormon as stated in its introduction, the most significant covenants that are repeated throughout the book, the narrative within the book, and how the Lamanites described themselves, according to the book.

 

Funny, I had a similar conversation a few weeks ago.  It gave those same reasons.  If you ask it to look more closely at its reasons, it starts to see that it is looking at the Book of Mormon in the most superficial reading.  You don't have to point it anywhere, just something like "Can you make sure?"

For instance, this line is blatantly wrong.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

At no point does the text acknowledge or account for other populations already living in the Americas. The entire demographic picture is that these groups from the Old World became the peoples of the land.

 

[webbles]

11 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

“Nephite" or "Lamanite" civilizations should look a lot like the civilization described in the Book of Mormon. We have an enormous amount of detailed data about that civilization, because they went to great lengths to document as much as they could on metal plates so we could learn about them. 

by reading the Book of Mormon?

If the Book of Mormon is real, then we have enormous amounts of information of what a 400 AD ancient historian believes about his people's history.  And if you look at other 400 AD historians (like Romans), you'll notice that what they describe doesn't match archeology.  So if the Book of Mormon is real, we have to figure out what is Mormon's understanding of things vs what is really historical.

[Ryan Dahle]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Prompt: An apologist asked Grok, "Let's say that there were 25-50 people that arrived in the Americas in about 590 B.C., and that they were originally from the Jerusalem area. What is the likelihood of genetic traces of these 25-50 people being detectable in today's population groups in the Americas?"

What do you think of this line of apologetic reasoning? Is it consistent with what the Book of Mormon actually says? When answering the question, consider the purpose of the Book of Mormon as stated in its introduction, the most significant covenants that are repeated throughout the book, the narrative within the book, and how the Lamanites described themselves, according to the book.

It's funny, because I also had this conversation with AI not that long ago (a version of Chap-GPT). And it gave me the stock-rebuttals from critics. But as I kept feeding in more apologetic research (such as whether or not the text requires and empty continent and internal evidence suggesting significant and immediate interactions with indigenous peoples), it all of a sudden pivoted pretty hard. What seemed impossible became quite plausible, especially when you include recent findings like this that rely on fairly recent tools for evaluating and isolating relevant autosomal DNA signatures: 

Quote

By investigating genome-wide data from Ashkelon, we address long-pending historical questions regarding the demographic developments underlying the Late Bronze Age to Iron Age cultural transformation. On a larger regional scale, these data begin to fill a temporal gap in the genetic map of the southern Levant, revealing persistence of the local Levantine gene pool throughout the Bronze Age for over a millennium. At the same time, by the “zoomed-in” comparative analysis of the Ashkelon genetic time transect, we find that the unique cultural features in the early Iron Age are mirrored by the distinct genetic composition we detect in ASH_IA1. Our analysis suggests that this genetic distinction is due to a European-related gene flow introduced in Ashkelon during either the end of the Bronze Age or the beginning of the Iron Age. This timing is in accord with estimates of the Philistines arrival to the coast of the Levant, based on archeological and textual records (2–4). We find that, within no more than two centuries, this genetic footprint introduced during the early Iron Age is no longer detectable and seems to be diluted by a local Levantine-related gene pool.
 

The relatively rapid disappearance of this signal stresses the value of temporally dense genetic sampling for addressing historical questions. Transient gene flows, such as the one detected here, might be overlooked because of a lack of representative samples, potentially leading to erroneous conclusions. In geographic regions unfavorable to DNA preservation, obtaining such datasets requires exhaustive sampling and the utilization and further development of advanced technologies such as DNA enrichment techniques (15–17) and targeted sampling strategies (27).

When you realize that the Philistine incursion into the Levant was orders of magnitude larger than the Book of Mormon colonies which landed in the Americas, the Book of Mormon narrative all of a sudden seems far less threatened by the current lack of DNA support. 

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Prompt: An apologist asked Grok, "Let's say that there were 25-50 people that arrived in the Americas in about 590 B.C., and that they were originally from the Jerusalem area. What is the likelihood of genetic traces of these 25-50 people being detectable in today's population groups in the Americas?"

What do you think of this line of apologetic reasoning?

I'm glad you referenced apologetics twice.  Just in case your thumb slipped off the scale a little.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Is it consistent with what the Book of Mormon actually says? When answering the question, consider the purpose of the Book of Mormon as stated in its introduction, the most significant covenants that are repeated throughout the book, the narrative within the book, and how the Lamanites described themselves, according to the book.

Quote

This is a thoughtful question, and I think the apologetic framing you're describing — sometimes called the "limited geography" or "small migration" model — actually creates significant tension with the text it's trying to defend. Let me walk through why.

The framing of the question itself

The apologetic reframes

"Reframes."

From what, I wonder?

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

the Book of Mormon's claims to make them as modest as possible: just 25-50 people arriving in an already-populated hemisphere.

Well, feel free to guesstimate how many people you think were in Lehi's group.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

Posed that way, the expected answer is obvious — of course such a tiny genetic signal would be swamped and undetectable over 2,600 years. But the question is whether that framing is faithful to the book's own claims.

The book doesn't directly address most of the issues associated with DNA claims.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

What the Book of Mormon actually describes

The narrative doesn't present Lehi's group as a tiny band absorbed into a vast pre-existing population.

"The narrative" actually does speak of Lehi's group as pretty small.  Lehi and his progeny, Ishmael's progeny, Zoram.  Not a lot of souls here.

As for "a vast pre-existing population," the text is largely silent either way.  Plenty of scholarship about this, though:

Nephi’s Neighbors: Book of Mormon Peoples and Pre-Columbian Populations (FAIR Presentation)

Nephi’s Neighbors: Book of Mormon Peoples and Pre-Columbian Populations (PDF Article)

When Lehi’s Party Arrived in the Land, Did They Find Others There?

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

It presents them as the progenitors of entire civilizations that fill the land.

No, it does not.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

By the end of the record, you have armies numbering in the hundreds of thousands — Mormon counts 230,000 Nephite dead at Cumorah alone (Mormon 6:10-15), and the Lamanite forces are described as even larger. The Jaredite civilization before them is described in similarly massive terms, with a final battle that destroys millions (Ether 15). The Mulekites are also presented as a group from Jerusalem who became a large people.

See here:

• Book of Mormon Evidence: Army Sizes
• Book of Mormon Central, “How Could So Many People Have Died at the Battle of Cumorah? (Mormon 6:14),” KnoWhy 231 (November 15, 2016).
• Stephen Smoot, “Why the Book of Mormon’s Battle Numbers Don’t Add Up (And Why That’s Evidence for Its Authenticity,” Ploni Almoni, May 9, 2016, online at plonialmonimormon.com.
• John L. Sorenson, Mormon’s Codex: An Ancient American Book (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book and the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, 2013), 110, 394–399.
• Morgan Deane, “Military Participation Ratio and Wrong Numbers,” Warfare and the Book of Mormon, May 25, 2013, online at mormonwar.blogspot.com.
• Morgan Deane, “‘Millions’ in the Book of Mormon,” Warfare in the Book of Mormon, December 8, 2009, online at mormonwar.blogspot.com.
• John E. Clark, “Archaeological Trends and Book of Mormon Origins,” in The Worlds of Joseph Smith: A Bicentennial Conference at the Library of Congress, ed. John W. Welch (Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press, 2006), 93.
• James E. Smith, “How Many Nephites? The Book of Mormon at the Bar of Demography,” in Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited, ed. Noel B. Reynolds (Provo, UT: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1997), 255–293.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

At no point does the text acknowledge or account for other populations already living in the Americas.

At no point does the text deny or account for other populations already living in the land.

Meanwhile, Nephi's Neighbors is a good place to start: "Finally, neither in the Book of Mormon itself nor in the scriptural revelations concerning it is there anything to contradict the view that Nephi had neighbors in his New World land of promise. There is, on the other hand, much within these sources that seems to support this idea."

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

The entire demographic picture is that these groups from the Old World became the peoples of the land.

That just ain't so.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

The title page and stated purpose

The Book of Mormon's own title page, attributed to Moroni, says the book is written "to the Lamanites, who are a remnant of the house of Israel." The introduction, written by modern Church leaders, originally described the Lamanites as "the principal ancestors of the American Indians" — language that was quietly changed in 2006 to "among the ancestors," which itself reflects the pressure the DNA evidence created.

Both "principal" and "among" allow for other people to be in the Americas.

The text, meanwhile, is largely silent.

And what "DNA evidence" is referenced here?

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

The covenants

This is where the tension becomes most acute. The most significant recurring covenant in the book is the promise that the Americas are a land of inheritance specifically for Lehi's descendants — that if they keep God's commandments they will prosper in the land, and if not, they will be cut off (2 Nephi 1:9, 20 and many other places). The book's entire theological architecture depends on the Lamanites being Lehi's literal descendants, because the covenant promises run through that lineage. The closing chapters of the book (Mormon 7, Moroni 10) are direct addresses to the future Lamanites, calling them to remember their fathers and the covenants God made with them.

If the "real" Lamanites were actually genetically swamped by a vastly larger indigenous population such that Lehi's DNA is undetectable, then who exactly are the covenant people of the land? The promises become strangely targeted at a lineage that has been diluted into insignificance — which undermines the entire prophetic and covenantal framework of the book.

The AI platform is not very familiar with the doctrines of the Church.  Since when does lineage = detectable genetic ancestry?  Patriarchal blessings?  Adoption?  

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

How the Lamanites identify themselves

Throughout the text, the Lamanites understand themselves as descendants of Laman and Lemuel, sons of Lehi, who came from Jerusalem. They have a specific grievance narrative — that Nephi wrongly took the leadership from their father Laman. This isn't the self-understanding of a population that happens to include a tiny fraction of Lehite ancestry among a much larger indigenous genetic base. It's a founding-family identity.

Again, the text does not claim the land was empty, nor does it require the land to be empty.  

My last name is Macdonald.  I have large numbers of Scotch and Irish and English in my ancestry, with some French and German sprinkled in.  But my name is "Macdonald," and I've grown up in America, so I tend to think of myself as an American with Scottish ancestry.  That's not an exclusive concept, though, just one of identity and prioritization.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

The core problem

The apologetic essentially asks you to accept that the Book of Mormon's claims are true,

The book's claims do not include any notion that Lehi arrived to an empty land.  

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

but only in a form so diluted that they're empirically untestable.

Not sure what this means.  What religious claims do you imagine are empirically testable?  

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

It solves the DNA problem by making the Book of Mormon's people demographically irrelevant in the very land where, according to the text itself, they built civilizations of millions and received God's most significant covenant promises.

Demographically small is not "irrelevant."

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

That's not a defense of the book so much as a rewriting of what the book claims,

Funny that neither you nor the AI platform is specifying what "claims" the "book" makes.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Quote

in order to make it immune to a specific category of evidence.

And critics foist fabricated notions onto the text so that it "claims" that the Americas were empty when Lehi arrived, and the critics do this to resuscitate a long-dead category of evidence.

Even Simon Southerton (!) doesn't buy what you are tying to sell here.

The Lehites built one boat.  Lehi and his sons, and Ishmael's family, and Zoram, likely amounted to 25-50 people.  The text does not specify the number, but I think extrapolating numbers larger than this is patently unreasonable.  A group of 25–50 individuals would, then, constitute a minuscule fraction (<0.01–0.05%) of the total population in any plausible landing region (Mesoamerica or elsewhere). Their DNA would be immediately diluted upon intermarriage.

See Ugo Perrigo's analysis here: 

Finding Lehi in America through DNA Analysis

Some excerpts:

Quote

The Book of Mormon begins with Lehi and his family leaving Jerusalem, making their way through the desert, crossing the sea, and eventually arriving somewhere in the Americas. Among those who are familiar with this narrative, there are some that have assumed the continent was uninhabited at their arrival.

I count you and your AI platform in this number.

Quote

If this were true, then all Native Americans should be descendants from Book of Mormon peoples. However, is this an accurate assumption? A closer reading of the scriptures and recent scientific discoveries have shown that this interpretation could be too narrow. Genetic studies have been able to successfully describe broad population trends, and DNA collected from Native Americans revealed their origins in ancient Asia. These results do not necessarily mean that Lehi and his family never existed but only that whatever small genetic contribution they made to the whole indigenous population of the Americas has not been, or cannot be, identified by modern science. A DNA approach cannot prove or disprove the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon or address the genetics of those who traveled with Lehi to the “promised land.”[1] Those who declare otherwise disregard the complexities and constraints of DNA research in population studies.

The entire article is worth a read.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 24 by smac97

[smac97]

32 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

“Nephite" or "Lamanite" civilizations should look a lot like the civilization described in the Book of Mormon.

And that is what?

32 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

We have an enormous amount of detailed data about that civilization, because they went to great lengths to document as much as they could on metal plates so we could learn about them. 

Well, no.  The Book of Mormon was not an anthropological or sociological or cultural treatise.  It is, instead, an abridgement of records preserved with the intended purposes "to show unto the remnant of the house of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever—And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Zosimus]

57 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And that is what?

Read here, here and here and here and here. Watch here, here and also here. 

57 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, no.  The Book of Mormon was not an anthropological or sociological or cultural treatise.

Please see above

Thanks,

-Zosimus

[Zosimus]

3 hours ago, webbles said:

If the Book of Mormon is real, then we have enormous amounts of information of what a 400 AD ancient historian believes about his people's history.  And if you look at other 400 AD historians (like Romans), you'll notice that what they describe doesn't match archeology.  So if the Book of Mormon is real, we have to figure out what is Mormon's understanding of things vs what is really historical.

true, if the BoM is ancient, you need to sift Mormon’s interpretation from what really happened. But when the text identifies and describes things that a 400 AD indigenous American could not plausibly know, while leaving out a number of things we'd expect a 400 AD indigenous American to take for granted, the simpler explanation is that the author isn't writing that history in America before 400 AD

[The Nehor]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

How often was the Ark brought out to show people?  The tablets inside them? 

According to scripture almost never after it was put in Solomon’s temple but since a lot of the history of the ark was written right before or after the defeat by Babylon where the temple was destroyed I am a bit dubious. It is easy to make something more sacred and magical when it isn’t around any more. Most likely the ark was destroyed by the Babylonians. Destroying it would be a potent symbol of their victory.

[smac97]

On 3/24/2026 at 4:48 PM, webbles said:

If the Book of Mormon is real, then we have enormous amounts of information of what a 400 AD ancient historian believes about his people's history. 

I haven't really given much thought to this aspect of Mormon's fingerprints/influence on the text.  With no artifacts or images, and with only descriptions in the texts, Mormon may well have had only a limited understanding of the cultural elements of events and persons living centuries before him.

On 3/24/2026 at 4:48 PM, webbles said:

And if you look at other 400 AD historians (like Romans), you'll notice that what they describe doesn't match archeology.  So if the Book of Mormon is real, we have to figure out what is Mormon's understanding of things vs what is really historical.

Solid points, these.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 26 by smac97

[Analytics]

Prompt: What do you think of Claude's response to that prompt and the reactions by @webbles, @Ryan Dahle, and @smac97? Please take the position of the arbitrator of this disagreement, and speak plainly about the actual strength of everyone's position, including webbles, Dahle, and Smac. When evaluating this, steelman everyone's position, but then form your own conclusion about who has the better arguments. When you weight the respective argument's strengths, give deference to the actual words of the Book of Mormon and the role its doctrine and promises play in the teachings of Joseph Smith and subsequent prophets. When evaluating these positions, consider whether they are based on what the Book actually says, or are things that people read into the book in order to make it more plausible. When the Book says the people "multiplied", what does it mean by that?

ChatGPT 4.6 Thinking:

Quote

Plainly: Claude’s response is mostly the strongest one in the exchange, though it overstates one point.

Claude is right about the central issue: the apologetic DNA question is narrower than the actual Book of Mormon claim-structure. It asks, “Could a tiny migrant group leave no detectable DNA?” The answer to that narrow genetics question can easily be yes. But that is not the real dispute. The real dispute is whether the Book of Mormon itself reads like the story of a tiny Near Eastern colony that was quickly absorbed into a much larger native population while remaining archaeologically and genetically faint. Claude correctly says that this creates real tension with the book’s plain narrative, covenant structure, and stated purpose. That is also the basic issue being argued in the thread you shared.

Where Claude goes a bit too far is this line: “At no point does the text acknowledge or account for other populations already living in the Americas.” That is true as stated, but it can sound like more than it proves. Silence is not the same thing as an explicit denial. Smac is right on that limited point: the text does not plainly say, “the land was empty.” That matters. But it does not rescue the limited-population model as the best reading. It only keeps it alive as a possible harmonization.

That is the key distinction here:

Claude’s argument: best reading of the text.
Smac/webbles/Dahle: possible reconciliation with modern evidence.

Those are not the same thing.

On the actual strength of each person’s case:

Claude
Claude’s strongest point is that the Book of Mormon is not merely telling you that some Israelites arrived in the Americas. It presents the Lamanites as a covenant-bearing remnant of Israel, descended from Lehi, and addresses them that way. The title page frames the record as being written to the “Lamanites,” a “remnant of the house of Israel.” The recurring land covenant is not some side note. It is one of the book’s main theological pillars. Nephi, Lehi, Mormon, and Moroni repeatedly tie the fate of the people in the promised land to covenant lineage. That matters.

Claude is also right that the book’s own narrative voice strongly encourages a founder-population reading. The Lamanites do not describe themselves as a mixed civilization that partially includes descendants of Laman and Lemuel. They describe themselves as that people. Their grievance story is a family grievance story. Their identity is genealogical and covenantal, not merely political branding.

So Claude is strongest where he says the limited-ancestry model solves the DNA problem by shrinking the Book of Mormon’s peoples into near-demographic insignificance, even though the text itself treats them as the central covenant peoples of the land.

That is a real and substantial criticism.

webbles
webbles’ steelmanned point is this: ancient historians are not modern anthropologists, and Mormon may be giving a selective, ideological, covenant-focused history rather than a full demographic map. That is fair. Ancient texts are often narrow, schematic, self-centered, and incomplete. A people can talk as though they are the whole story when they are not. That is a legitimate historiographical caution.

But as an argument about what the Book of Mormon itself most naturally says, it is weak.

Why? Because webbles is not really drawing that from the book. He is importing a modern possibility into the book. He is saying, in effect, “maybe Mormon was mistaken, limited, or omitting lots of context.” That is possible. But it is not the plain reading. It is a rescue reading.

And once you go there, the apologetic price is high. You are no longer defending what the book straightforwardly presents. You are saying the book can still be true even if its own demographic self-presentation is heavily incomplete, ethnocentric, and misleading by omission.

That may preserve possibility. It does not preserve plain meaning.

Ryan Dahle
Dahle makes the strongest narrow scientific point on the apologetic side. The Philistine analogy is a real point: detectable genetic signals can disappear, and absence of a clear signal today does not by itself prove no migration occurred. On the DNA sub-question alone, he has a decent argument.

But that only helps if the Book of Mormon actually fits the premise being tested: a small migrant group entering a much larger existing population and rapidly being diluted.

That is exactly the point under dispute.

Dahle’s argument is therefore strongest as a rebuttal to crude “no DNA = no migration” reasoning. It is much weaker as a defense of the Book of Mormon’s own narrative. It answers a scientific objection, but it does not really answer the textual objection.

In other words: Dahle helps with detectability. He does not solve consistency with the plain sense of the book.

Smac97
Smac makes the most sophisticated apologetic case in the thread, and he deserves credit for at least one strong point: he is right that critics often smuggle in an “empty hemisphere” assumption as though the text explicitly states it. It does not. He is also right that lineage in LDS thought is not always reduced to modern measurable genetics. Covenant lineage can be broader than DNA alone. And he is right that, if the founding group was very small and there were many others, detectable DNA today could be minimal or absent. Those are real points.

But his overall case is weaker than he seems to think.

His main move is to turn “the text does not explicitly deny X” into “X is a natural reading of the text.” That is too strong. The book does not explicitly say there were no other people, but it also does not present Lehi’s descendants as a minor lineage embedded in an already-populous world that dwarfed them from the start. The narrative emphasis is the opposite. It tracks the descendants of Lehi, Ishmael, Zoram, and later Mulek as the peoples whose rise and fall define the history of the land.

Smac repeatedly says the text is “largely silent.” That is only half true. It is silent about external populations, yes. But it is not silent about who the Lamanites are, what the covenant means, or who the record is for. On those points it is emphatic.

He also uses a category shift that weakens his case. The question is not, “Can an LDS believer create a model that is not logically impossible?” The question is, “What is the stronger reading if we defer to the actual words of the Book of Mormon and the role the book has played in Joseph Smith’s and later prophets’ teachings?” On that question, Smac’s case is much weaker.

Why? Because the historical LDS use of the Book of Mormon overwhelmingly treated the Lamanites as actual ancestral Indians, not as a tiny absorbed Near Eastern thread hidden inside a larger native matrix. Even the old introduction language about “principal ancestors” reflects the natural way the book was taught. Smac can say “principal” and “among” both allow others. Fine. But the shift itself tells you something: the modern softened wording exists because the older, plainer understanding ran into trouble.

So Smac’s position is defensible as a harmonization. It is not very strong as a plain reading.

My conclusion as arbitrator
If I were ranking the arguments on the question you actually asked — consistency with what the Book of Mormon itself says, giving deference to its words, covenants, and prophetic use — I would rank them like this:

1. Claude

2. Smac

3. Dahle

4. webbles

That may sound surprising, because webbles is closer to Claude in spirit. But webbles’ argument is mostly a methodological shrug: maybe Mormon’s viewpoint was limited. That is possible, but not very weighty. Smac at least gives a real textual-apologetic framework, even though I think it ultimately fails as the better reading. Dahle gives a good genetics point, but it is too narrow for the full dispute.

So who has the better arguments overall? Claude.

Not because he proved the limited-population model impossible. He did not.
But because he correctly identified that the model is mostly a retrofit.

That is the core truth here: the limited-geography / absorbed-lineage reading is best understood not as what the Book of Mormon naturally says, but as what later readers construct so the book can survive modern archaeology, genetics, and population history.

What does “multiplied” mean?
In the Book of Mormon context, “multiplied” does not naturally mean “maintained a tiny covenant lineage while mostly disappearing into a much larger host population.” It means ordinary human population growth into tribes, nations, cities, armies, and civilizations. When the text says they “began to multiply in the land,” the reader is plainly meant to understand that these families became peoples. Not merely that they persisted biologically while being demographically marginal.

Could “multiplied” be made compatible with heavy mixing and eventual dilution? Yes, in a technical sense.
Is that what the phrase naturally conveys in the book? No.

In the narrative world of the Book of Mormon, “multiply” means become numerous as a people. It is covenantal, social, political, and demographic language. It is not just pedigree survival.

Bottom line
The apologetic DNA question is clever, but it changes the subject.

It asks whether a tiny migrant lineage could vanish genetically.

The more important question is whether the Book of Mormon presents its peoples that way.

It doesn’t, at least not naturally.

The limited-population model is possible.

Claude’s point is that it is not the plain and strongest reading of the text.

On that, he is basically right.

 

Edited March 25 by Analytics

[Ryan Dahle]

4 hours ago, Analytics said:

The real dispute is whether the Book of Mormon itself reads like the story of a tiny Near Eastern colony that was quickly absorbed into a much larger native population while remaining archaeologically and genetically faint. Claude correctly says that this creates real tension with the book’s plain narrative, covenant structure, and stated purpose. That is also the basic issue being argued in the thread you shared.

We have multiple lines of internal textual evidence suggesting integration with an existing population. The text literally makes no sense without that presupposition (as the warfare in the Small Plates would have been impractical without it). At the same time, there is ample evidence within the text itself that its scope was culturally limited and that its internal tribal distinctions were highly fluid and collapsible (which provides significant room for outsiders to either not be mentioned or to be assimilated into the text's internally significant tribal designations). For example, the Mulekites essentially become Nephites. We also have other examples of very narrowly focused histories from the ancient world and also from the Americas. So its not like this reading is without evidentiary support. 

The funny thing is that this is just a repeat of the way the argument shifted in the early 2000s, with critics arguing the DNA absence was definitive and devasting, but then being forced to concede that their argument only worked if there was an empty continent and no significant cultural assimilation. So it transitioned from a debate over DNA to a debate over the best reading of the text. 

But here is the thing. In order for this argument to be compelling, critics have to be able to strongly demonstrate that their reading is not just a possible or somewhat preferred option but that it is overwhelmingly more likely than the apologetic position. And that is a much harder argument to make, since apologists have multiple lines of evidence that open the door to their own reading. It must also be remembered that these apologetic readings began to develop BEFORE the DNA debate ever began. So it wasn't just a post-hoc excuse. It was derived from the text itself and growing awareness of the ancient history of the Americas. 

Edited March 25 by Ryan Dahle

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Claude is right about the central issue: the apologetic DNA question is narrower than the actual Book of Mormon claim-structure. It asks, “Could a tiny migrant group leave no detectable DNA?” The answer to that narrow genetics question can easily be yes.

I agree with this.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

But that is not the real dispute.

Actually, I think it is.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

The real dispute is whether the Book of Mormon itself reads like the story of a tiny Near Eastern colony that was quickly absorbed into a much larger native population while remaining archaeologically and genetically faint.

Not sure that this is "the real dispute," but I'll run with it.  Here's my query to Grok:

Quote

The Book of Mormon is, in my view, not a particularly well-examined book, at least outside of the Church that claims it as scripture. Compared to other significant religious texts (Bible, Koran, etc.), this text has not been nearly as scrutinized, except by Latter-day Saint scholars. When examining *just* the text of the book (that is, only the "Title Page" and the translated text, and not the "introduction," or the statements of the Witnesses, or the chapterization/versification, etc.) and what Joseph Smith said about the text in "Joseph Smith-History" (the canonized text), and without any presuppositions being read into it (either for or against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), with the text being evaluated on its content (and not it being historical/authentically ancient or not), the text describes the migration of three groups to the Americas: the Lehites, the Mulekites and the Jaredites. The text apparently does not directly speak of other population groups when these groups arrived, either as to the presence or absence of these other groups. However, Latter-day Saint scholars have pointed to some demographic hints in the text that indicates the presence of, and intermingling with, other groups by the Lehites, etc. This has led to speculation by readers about whether the text ought to be read as indicating (A) that the migrating groups encountered and intermingled into pre-existing peoples when they arrived in the Americas, B) that the migrating groups arrived and found their area of the Americas to be altogether empty and devoid of human populations, or (C) that both readings are plausible. What do you think?

The response:

Quote

The text of the Book of Mormon itself (strictly the Title Page plus the translated narrative, together with the statements in Joseph Smith—History) is deliberately silent on whether other human populations were already present in the Americas when the three recorded groups arrived. It neither affirms nor denies the existence of anyone else. This silence makes both (A) and (B) plausible readings, and therefore (C)—that both interpretations are textually supportable—is the most accurate conclusion when the book is read on its own terms, without external assumptions.

What the Text Explicitly Says

• The Title Page describes the book as “an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang.” It presents the Jaredites, Lehites, and Mulekites as the peoples whose story is being told, but it does not claim they were the only inhabitants or that the land was empty.
• Joseph Smith—History 1:34 (Moroni’s words) says the plates give “an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang.” Again, “an account” of certain former inhabitants—not “the complete history of every person who ever lived here.”
• The narrative of each group’s arrival is narrowly focused on that group alone:
  • Jaredites (Ether): They cross the sea and are told the land is “choice above all other lands” (Ether 2:7–12). No other people are mentioned at the time of arrival.
  • Mulekites (Omni 1:14–17; Mosiah 25): They arrive, discover the land of Zarahemla, and find a people already there (the people of Zarahemla, descended from Mulek). The text treats this meeting as a discovery of another small Israelite-derived group, not as encountering a pre-existing non-Israelite population.
  • Lehites (1 Nephi 18:23–25; 2 Nephi 1:5–9): They land, plant crops, find animals, etc. The text never says “we found the land empty” or “there were already people here.” It simply does not address the question.

The entire record is a lineage history—a family/national chronicle of these specific groups and their descendants. It is not presented as a comprehensive ethnography or census of the entire hemisphere.

Demographic Hints Inside the Text (No Presuppositions Needed)

Even without any outside scholarship, attentive readers notice internal clues that have prompted the speculation you mentioned:

• Extremely rapid population growth in some periods (e.g., from a few dozen people to hundreds of thousands in a few centuries) would be unusual for an isolated founding group without admixture.
• References to very large “Lamanite” or “other” populations that sometimes appear to dwarf the Nephite/Mulekite numbers (Mosiah 25:2–4 is a classic example).
• Practical details (agriculture, warfare scale, place names, cultural practices) that some readers find easier to explain if the recorded groups were interacting with and absorbing pre-existing peoples.

These are real textual features; they do not “prove” anything, but they make a reading that includes limited intermingling (option A) feel natural to many.

Why the Text Supports Option (C) — Both Readings Are Plausible

• Nothing in the text rules out (B) — the “empty land” view. The narrative never mentions anyone else at arrival, and the land is repeatedly called a “promised land” prepared for the incoming group (2 Nephi 1:5–9; Ether 2:7–12). A reader can legitimately conclude the story is self-contained.
• Nothing in the text rules out (A) — the “intermingling with pre-existing peoples” view. The text never claims the groups were alone, and its silence on the question leaves room for others to have been present (just as the Bible is silent on many contemporaneous peoples). The demographic and cultural hints noted above fit comfortably within this reading.
• The book is simply not interested in answering the question of “Were there others?” It is a religious record focused on covenant, prophecy, and the dealings of God with these particular lineages.

In short, when read strictly on its own content and without importing modern expectations or Church position statements, the text is agnostic on the presence or absence of other populations. It allows both interpretations and does not require either. Option (C) is therefore the reading that stays closest to what the book actually says (and does not say).

If you would like specific verses or passages examined in more detail, I’m happy to walk through them.

Thoughts?

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Claude correctly says that this creates real tension with the book’s plain narrative, covenant structure, and stated purpose.

I'm not sure about that.  I think the "tension" only arises when and if the text is approached with the presupposition that the text should have included some explicit references to and indications of other peoples.  If that presupposition is removed, so too is the tension.  This is evident from the next bit:

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Where Claude goes a bit too far is this line: “At no point does the text acknowledge or account for other populations already living in the Americas.” That is true as stated, but it can sound like more than it proves. Silence is not the same thing as an explicit denial. Smac is right on that limited point: the text does not plainly say, “the land was empty.” That matters.

Yay!  I'm right on a limited point!

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

But it does not rescue the limited-population model as the best reading. It only keeps it alive as a possible harmonization.

Not sure the "only" is justified, but okay.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

That is the key distinction here:

Claude’s argument: best reading of the text.
Smac/webbles/Dahle: possible reconciliation with modern evidence.

Those are not the same thing.

Not sure Claude is presenting the "best reading of the text" because, again, it relies on particularized presuppositions.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

On the actual strength of each person’s case:

Claude
Claude’s strongest point is that the Book of Mormon is not merely telling you that some Israelites arrived in the Americas. It presents the Lamanites as a covenant-bearing remnant of Israel, descended from Lehi, and addresses them that way. The title page frames the record as being written to the “Lamanites,” a “remnant of the house of Israel.” The recurring land covenant is not some side note. It is one of the book’s main theological pillars. Nephi, Lehi, Mormon, and Moroni repeatedly tie the fate of the people in the promised land to covenant lineage. That matters.

Sure.  But I think Grok's point bears some emphasis:

• The text "presents the Jaredites, Lehites, and Mulekites as the peoples whose story is being told, but it does not claim they were the only inhabitants or that the land was empty."
• "Joseph Smith—History 1:34 (Moroni’s words) says the plates give 'an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang.' Again, 'an account" of certain former inhabitants—not 'the complete history of every person who ever lived here.'"
• "The entire record is a lineage history—a family/national chronicle of these specific groups and their descendants. It is not presented as a comprehensive ethnography or census of the entire hemisphere."
• "{W}hen read strictly on its own content and without importing modern expectations or Church position statements, the text is agnostic on the presence or absence of other populations. It allows both interpretations and does not require either."

I think this assessment is correct, and adopt and ratify it.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Claude is also right that the book’s own narrative voice strongly encourages a founder-population reading. The Lamanites do not describe themselves as a mixed civilization that partially includes descendants of Laman and Lemuel.  They describe themselves as that people. Their grievance story is a family grievance story. Their identity is genealogical and covenantal, not merely political branding.

Um, "the Lamanites" did not author the text.  The Nephites did.  And not just the Nephites, just a highly selective group of them (mostly prophets).  And they were righting mostly about religious topics, not social/political issues.

Claude is getting some very basic concepts wrong.  And its guessing and presenting presuppositions, while acknowledging neither.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

So Claude is strongest where he says the limited-ancestry model solves the DNA problem

More presuppositions.  The notion that there is a "DNA problem" relies on presuppositions outside of the text.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

by shrinking the Book of Mormon’s peoples into near-demographic insignificance, even though the text itself treats them as the central covenant peoples of the land.

But does the text treat them as the numerically predominant (or sole) "peoples of the land"?  Nope.

More presuppositions.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

That is a real and substantial criticism.

Sure.  But it relies entirely on presuppositions.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

webbles
webbles’ steelmanned point is this: ancient historians are not modern anthropologists, and Mormon may be giving a selective, ideological, covenant-focused history rather than a full demographic map. That is fair. Ancient texts are often narrow, schematic, self-centered, and incomplete. A people can talk as though they are the whole story when they are not. That is a legitimate historiographical caution.

But as an argument about what the Book of Mormon itself most naturally says, it is weak.

Why? Because webbles is not really drawing that from the book.

LOL.  And Claude is limiting itself to just the text?  The same AI platform that is presenting arguments about how "the Lamanites describe themselves," even though the text purports to be a record kept by Nephites?

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

He is importing a modern possibility into the book. He is saying, in effect, “maybe Mormon was mistaken, limited, or omitting lots of context.” That is possible. But it is not the plain reading. It is a rescue reading.

Right back atcha, Claude.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

And once you go there, the apologetic price is high. You are no longer defending what the book straightforwardly presents.

More presuppositions.  The book simply does not "present" an "empty land" narrative, and certainly does not do so "straightforwardly."

You can prove me wrong by pointing to these supposed "straightforward" portions of the text.  

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

You are saying the book can still be true even if its own demographic self-presentation is heavily incomplete,

Of course the text is going to be "heavily incomplete" in terms of demography.  It purports to be an abridgement of 1,000 years of religious historical texts, abridged for the purpose of bringing souls to Christ, and not to present an ethnographic census of the ancient Americas.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

ethnocentric,

Of course the text has elements of ethnocentrism in it.  Frankly, the absence of ethnocentrism would be a substantially better argument against the text being ancient.  See, e.g., this FAIR presentation: The Charge of “Racism” in the Book of Mormon

An excerpt:

Quote

Nephite Descriptions of the Lamanites

Mosiah 9:12 describes the Lamanites as “a lazy and an idolatrous people,” but it does not tie this to their skin color. Indeed, Alma 22:28 ties it to geographical or cultural conditions, saying that “the more idle part of the Lamanites lived in the wilderness.”

More important is the fact that Nephi described his brothers’ laziness long before the change in skin color came into being, when Laman and Lemuel were unwilling to help him build the ship (17). He also wrote of their “rudeness,” evidently in the original sense of that word, i.e., savagery (18). In his vision, Nephi “beheld, after they had dwindled in unbelief they became a dark, and loathsome, and a filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations” (19).

“Filthiness” as a Spiritual Condition

References to filthiness are not an allusion to skin color, but clearly refer to a spiritual state of being “filthy before God” (20) rather than a physical characteristic (21). Similarly, both the Bible and the Doctrine and Covenants use the term “filthy” in reference to sinners (22).

Cultural Superiority and Ancient Parallels

We should not be surprised to find attitudes of superiority and the attribution of negative characteristics to foreign people and cultures among the Nephites, and the existence of such in the Book of Mormon is not evidence that the text was influenced by nineteenth-century American racist views. Parallels are known in other ancient cultures.

For example, descriptions of the Otomi people of Mexico in the Florentine Codex reflect Aztec ethnocentrism and could be considered just as pejorative, even though they are pre-Columbian. According to this text, the Aztecs commonly described the Otomi as “untrained, stupid” and “very covetous, that is, very desirous, greedy. That which was good, they bought all; they longed for all of it even though it was not really necessary.”

They were “very gaudy dressers—vain people.” They were “lazy, shiftless, although wiry, strong; as is said, hardened; laborers. Although great workers of the land, they did not apply themselves to gaining the necessities of life. When they worked the land they only wandered. Behold what they did: they went catching game” (23). These descriptions resemble Nephite descriptions of the Lamanites.

Ethnocentric Descriptions in the Ancient Near East

In the ancient Near East, the Amorite was described as “a tent dweller,” “the one who does not know city,” “the one who in his lifetime does not have a house,” or “the awkward man living in the mountains.” He is “the one who does not know (i.e. cultivate) grain,” or “the one who digs up mushrooms at the foot of the mountain,” or he “who eats uncooked meat,” and “who on the day of his death will not be buried.” They are “a ravaging people, with canine instincts, like wolves” (24).

Referencing such descriptions, William F. Albright observes:

“This is naturally a somewhat extreme description, but it vividly illustrates the attitude of the sedentary folk of Babylonia at an undetermined period in the third millennium. It may be added that the Arab peasants of Syria still call the nomads el-wuhush—‘the wild beasts.’” (25)

Ethnocentrism in Ancient Societies

As the above examples from both ancient Mesopotamia and pre-Columbian Mesoamerica suggest, we should not be surprised to find that the Nephites and Lamanites may have struggled with their own ethnocentrism. Still, modern readers should be careful not to allow their own cultural sensitivities to obscure the meaning of the text.

Equality Before the Lord

Significantly, Nephi, who first reported the “skin of blackness,” also wrote that the Lord accepts both “black and white” who are willing to come unto him (26). Nephite prophets and writers consistently referred to the Lamanites as their brethren.

When Nephite prophets referred to the “curse” of the Lamanites, they explained that it was only a curse in the context of opposing ideologies of the Nephites and Lamanites. Once united in tradition and beliefs, skin color and other ethnic or tribal differences become irrelevant as far as the Lord and the Nephite prophets are concerned.

"{W}e should not be surprised to find that the Nephites and Lamanites may have struggled with their own ethnocentrism."

From Scripture Central: What Does it Mean to be a White and Delightsome People?

Quote

It is understandable how some, without this nuanced understanding, could read the Book of Mormon as a text that portrays the Nephites as having what we today would deem “racist,” or more properly ethnocentric, attitudes towards non-Nephites. “Could the Nephites have been racist in their views of the Lamanites?” asked John A. Tvedtnes. “Perhaps, in the same sense that the biblical patriarchs were racist when it came to their pagan neighbors—the Hittites, the Canaanites, and the Amorites—and did not want their offspring to marry these unbelievers.”5

Brant A. Gardner remarked that “the Book of Mormon is, in fact, racist,” but quickly added that it is “not at all ['racist'] in the usual sense of the term.”6 Rather than being a form of modern racism that bases antipathy on a difference of skin color, Gardner reads Nephite “racism” as an ethnocentrism “along the insider/outsider boundary, not the white/dark boundary.”7 Gardner concluded that “the ‘skin of blackness’ was certainly intended to be a pejorative term, but it was not a physical description.”8

It should not be overlooked that the Book of Mormon itself condemns this Nephite ethnocentrism. Jacob slammed Nephite ethnic pride when he declared, “Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins, are more righteous than you. . . . Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, which is the word of God, that ye revile no more against them because of the darkness of their skins” (Jacob 3:5, 9). Clear at the end of Nephite history, tribalism and ethnocentrism was eschewed, and portrayed as leading to hatred, wickedness, pride, vanity, and rejection of the Gospel of Jesus Christ (4 Nephi 1:38–43). Whatever ethnocentric attitudes the Nephites may have exhibited were thus condemned by the Book of Mormon prophets.

AI is really not doing well here.  

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

and misleading by omission.

All sorts of presuppositions here. 

If I were to write an article intended for publication in the Utah Bar Journal (as I have done several times), and

if the topic of the article was about, say, the statute of limitations for nonjudicial foreclosures in Utah, and

if the article was intended mostly to help attorneys understand the issues relating to this topic, and

if I were to entirely omit from the article any commentary about my family or my religious beliefs, and

if a reader examined the article for the purpose of gleaning information about my family or religious beliefs (rather than about the statute of limitations topic), then

it would be unreasonable for the reader to accuse me of "misleading by omission."

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

That may preserve possibility. It does not preserve plain meaning.

I think it does.  

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Ryan Dahle
Dahle makes the strongest narrow scientific point on the apologetic side. The Philistine analogy is a real point: detectable genetic signals can disappear, and absence of a clear signal today does not by itself prove no migration occurred. On the DNA sub-question alone, he has a decent argument.

But that only helps if the Book of Mormon actually fits the premise being tested: a small migrant group entering a much larger existing population and rapidly being diluted.

That is exactly the point under dispute.

Actually, it is presuppositions about the text that are "the point under dispute."  When the presuppositions are removed, the dispute goes with them.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Dahle’s argument is therefore strongest as a rebuttal to crude “no DNA = no migration” reasoning. It is much weaker as a defense of the Book of Mormon’s own narrative. It answers a scientific objection, but it does not really answer the textual objection.

It does not answer presuppositions about the text.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

In other words: Dahle helps with detectability. He does not solve consistency with the plain sense of the book.

The "plain sense of the book" articulates grounds for a DNA argument against authenticity? 

I think not.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Smac97
Smac makes the most sophisticated apologetic case in the thread, and he deserves credit for at least one strong point: he is right that critics often smuggle in an “empty hemisphere” assumption as though the text explicitly states it. It does not. He is also right that lineage in LDS thought is not always reduced to modern measurable genetics. Covenant lineage can be broader than DNA alone. And he is right that, if the founding group was very small and there were many others, detectable DNA today could be minimal or absent. Those are real points.

But his overall case is weaker than he seems to think.

All right, let's see it.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

His main move is to turn “the text does not explicitly deny X” into “X is a natural reading of the text.” That is too strong.

I don't think I did that previously.  And if I did, I retract it in favor of the following:

• The text "presents the Jaredites, Lehites, and Mulekites as the peoples whose story is being told, but it does not claim they were the only inhabitants or that the land was empty."
• "Joseph Smith—History 1:34 (Moroni’s words) says the plates give 'an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang.' Again, 'an account" of certain former inhabitants—not 'the complete history of every person who ever lived here.'"
• "The entire record is a lineage history—a family/national chronicle of these specific groups and their descendants. It is not presented as a comprehensive ethnography or census of the entire hemisphere."
• "{W}hen read strictly on its own content and without importing modern expectations or Church position statements, the text is agnostic on the presence or absence of other populations. It allows both interpretations and does not require either."

I don't have a presupposition-free approach to The Book of Mormon.  Not for years now.  But I can postulate such an approach.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

The book does not explicitly say there were no other people, but it also does not present Lehi’s descendants as a minor lineage embedded in an already-populous world that dwarfed them from the start.  The narrative emphasis is the opposite. It tracks the descendants of Lehi, Ishmael, Zoram, and later Mulek as the peoples whose rise and fall define the history of the land.

And that undermines a presupposition-free reading of the text . . . how?

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Smac repeatedly says the text is “largely silent.” That is only half true. It is silent about external populations, yes.

The "external populations" thing the sine qua non of the dispute.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

But it is not silent about who the Lamanites are, what the covenant means, or who the record is for. On those points it is emphatic.

But do "those points" require presuppositions such as A) the land being empty, B) the Nephites/Lamanites/Mulekites/Jaredites being the sole or numerically predominant populations in the Americas, C) the absence of intermingling with and into pre-existing population groups?

Nope.  Times three.

Man, AI is really not doing well here.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

He also uses a category shift that weakens his case. The question is not, “Can an LDS believer create a model that is not logically impossible?”

I don't think I ever posed such a stacked deck of a question.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

The question is, “What is the stronger reading if we defer to the actual words of the Book of Mormon and the role the book has played in Joseph Smith’s and later prophets’ teachings?” On that question, Smac’s case is much weaker.

Actually, I think my "case" becomes stronger if we remove presuppositions about the text.

Don't believe me?  Read the next bit, which is all about presuppositions:

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Why? Because the historical LDS use of the Book of Mormon overwhelmingly treated the Lamanites as actual ancestral Indians, not as a tiny absorbed Near Eastern thread hidden inside a larger native matrix.

See?  Presuppositions.  About numbers.  About genetic ancestry.  About detectable genetics.  About religious significance.

The Lamanite thing in the Book of Mormon is about their relationship with Jesus Christ, and promises made to their ancestors about that relationship.  It's not about genetic predominance or predictability, or about sociopolitical clout, or any such similar trivialities.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Even the old introduction language about “principal ancestors” reflects the natural way the book was taught.

Yet another presupposition.  This "old introduction language" is not the text, but Claude is claiming to be focusing on the text.  And "principal" has never, in my view, been intended to indicate numerical predominance, but rather that the the ancestors who previously had a covenant relationship with Christ were being described in the religious text of The Book of Mormon, and that the book was written to encourage the descendants of those people to return to that covenant relationship.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Smac can say “principal” and “among” both allow others. Fine.

"Fine."

This decimates the presupposition-laden approach to The Book of Mormon that requires the text to be construed as treating the Nephites/Lamanites/Mulekites/Jaredites as the sole ancient inhabitants of the Americas.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

But the shift itself tells you something: the modern softened wording exists because the older, plainer understanding ran into trouble.

See?  Claude is focusing entirely on presuppositions ("the older, plainer understanding") rather than on the text.

Also, Matt Roper and other Latter-day Saint scholars have done a great job of rebutting the notion that the "hemispheric" model was the only one in the early days of the Church.  That's just not so, but Claude treats it as if it is.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

So Smac’s position is defensible as a harmonization. It is not very strong as a plain reading.

Says the AI platform that is basing its argument on presuppositions about the text, rather than the text itself.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

My conclusion as arbitrator
If I were ranking the arguments on the question you actually asked — consistency with what the Book of Mormon itself says, giving deference to its words, covenants, and prophetic use — I would rank them like this:

1. Claude

2. Smac

3. Dahle

4. webbles

That may sound surprising, because webbles is closer to Claude in spirit. But webbles’ argument is mostly a methodological shrug: maybe Mormon’s viewpoint was limited. That is possible, but not very weighty. Smac at least gives a real textual-apologetic framework, even though I think it ultimately fails as the better reading. Dahle gives a good genetics point, but it is too narrow for the full dispute.

So who has the better arguments overall? Claude.

Not because he proved the limited-population model impossible. He did not.
But because he correctly identified that the model is mostly a retrofit.

That is the core truth here: the limited-geography / absorbed-lineage reading is best understood not as what the Book of Mormon naturally says, but as what later readers construct so the book can survive modern archaeology, genetics, and population history.

See, I just don't see this as a damaging argument.  As Latter-day Saints, we are as interested in the pursuit of truth as anyone else.  Some of our predecessors, living in the 19th century, with only a rudimentary understanding of the history of the Americas, and having essentially no scholarly materials available to them, and being preoccupied with mobs, expulsions, privations, migrations, creating settlements, and so on, developed some presuppositions about The Book of Mormon that we, as the beneficiaries of nearly 200 years of study and extraordinary progress in knowledge and information and technology, can examine and, where necessary and appropriate, set aside or modify so as to account for new information on topics such as "archaeology, genetics, and population history."

This is a feature of the Restored Gospel, not a bug.  If we have had in the past gaps or errors in our understanding, we can and should correct ourselves.  Indeed, Richard L. Bushman's comments over the years about how we need to "reconstruct" the "narrative" is doing just that.  We need to examine and improve our presuppositions.  I think the Church has been doing a great job along these lines.  

I think the Church has been working hard to provide members with meaningful and substantive resources which provide a considerably improved "narrative" of our history.  The resources Bushman has specifically credited as reconstructing the narrative (Saints, Volume 1 ("The Standard of Truth, 1815–1846"), Volume 2 ("No Unhallowed Hand, 1846–1893") and Volume 3 ("Boldly, Nobly, and Independent, 1893–1955"), the Joseph Smith Papers Project, the Gospel Topics essays - 14 in all) are freely available to the world online.  Additionally, the "Church History" section of the Church's website includes many other resources that I think Bushman would construe as even further reconstructing the narrative:

• Saints Podcast (112 episodes over three seasons, and counting)
• Historical Sources (extensive information about the Doctrine & Covenants)
• Revelations in Context ("The Stories behind the Sections of the Doctrine and Covenants")
• Joseph Smith's Revelations ("A Doctrine and Covenants Study Companion from the Joseph Smith Papers")
• Joseph Smith Papers Podcasts (14 episodes)
• First Vision (examining the various accounts of the First Vision)
• Prophets of the Restoration (extensive biographies of all presidents of the Church)
• Church History Topics (brief but annotated treatments of dozens of Church History items)
• Answers to Church History Questions (answering questions about difficult areas of Church history, such as Mountain Meadows, treatment of Native Americans, translation of the Book of Abraham, the Kirtland Safety Society, polygamy, etc.)
• Stories from Saints (discussion of various "local" stories about members of the Church and how they have influenced both the Church and history generally)
• Global Histories (extensive historical summaries of the Church throughout the world)
• At the Pulpit ("185 Years of Discourses by Latter-day Saint Women")
• The First Fifty Years of Relief Society
• Daughters in My Kingdom ("The History and Work of Relief Society")

Moreover, the Church also maintains https://history.churchofjesuschrist.org/, which includes all of the foregoing historical resources plus many more:

• The Church Historian’s Press ("Search diaries, journals, discourses and documents")
• Pioneers in Every Land (various resources about members throughout the world)
• Joseph Smith (extensive resources about Joseph's life and ministry)
• The Trek West (various maps, stories, etc.)
• Museum Treasures ("Learn about the art and artifacts available at the Church History Museum.")
• Perspectives on Church History ("Explore insights on the history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.")
• Experience Church History (selections from exhibits and materials housed in the Church History Museum)
• Research Church History Collections (links to the Church History Library, Church History Catalog, Church History Biographical Database, Treasures of the {Church History Museum} Collection, Pioneer Resources)
• Church History Museum ("Discover the spiritual, artistic, and cultural legacies of the Latter-day Saints.")
• Church Historic Sites

These are all improvements on how the Church has previously handled its history.  The Church is also improving in many other ways.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

What does “multiplied” mean?
In the Book of Mormon context, “multiplied” does not naturally mean “maintained a tiny covenant lineage while mostly disappearing into a much larger host population.” It means ordinary human population growth into tribes, nations, cities, armies, and civilizations. When the text says they “began to multiply in the land,” the reader is plainly meant to understand that these families became peoples. Not merely that they persisted biologically while being demographically marginal.

Could “multiplied” be made compatible with heavy mixing and eventual dilution? Yes, in a technical sense.
Is that what the phrase naturally conveys in the book? No.

Hah. 

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

In the narrative world of the Book of Mormon, “multiply” means become numerous as a people. It is covenantal, social, political, and demographic language. It is not just pedigree survival.

Bottom line
The apologetic DNA question is clever, but it changes the subject.

It challenges presuppositions that, when removed, effectively eliminate, or else resolve, the supposed "DNA problem."

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

It asks whether a tiny migrant lineage could vanish genetically.

The more important question is whether the Book of Mormon presents its peoples that way.

Really?  Mormon abridged 1,000 years of Nephite history to answer the "important question" of "whether a tiny migrant lineage could vanish genetically"?

What an absurdity that is.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 25 by smac97

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

• "{W}hen read strictly on its own content and without importing modern expectations or Church position statements, the text is agnostic on the presence or absence of other populations. It allows both interpretations and does not require either."

I think this assessment is correct, and adopt and ratify it.

I disagree that the text is that agnostic on this point. Certain things don’t work with a small population, especially the speed of growth of the population in the timeline given the less than ideal circumstances.  They are settling a land, having to break ground, adapt what foods will grow without input and supplies from native population if they are the only ones there.  While there may be room for growth, would they be able to establish the agricultural base that quickly needed to allow for feeding a very young and growing larger population?  Would infant mortality drop significantly enough to sustain the needed growth to make those larger numbers?

I am not an expert in such things, so happy to be corrected.

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

I disagree that the text is that agnostic on this point. Certain things don’t work with a small population, especially the speed of growth of the population in the timeline given the less than ideal circumstances.  

Yes, but that still seems more inferential than actually "textual."  

2 hours ago, Calm said:

They are settling a land, having to break ground, adapt what foods will grow without input and supplies from native population if they are the only ones there.  While there may be room for growth, would they be able to establish the agricultural base that quickly needed to allow for feeding a very young and growing larger population?  Would infant mortality drop significantly enough to sustain the needed growth to make those larger numbers?

I am not an expert in such things, so happy to be corrected.

Claude's analysis is deficient specifically because it does not account for the fairly extensive scholarship on the issue of BoM population figures.  A sampling:

Populations in the Book of Mormon

Quote

Lehi lived circa 645 – 575 BC (we don’t know how old he was when he left Jerusalem and don’t know how old he was when he died). While we don’t know how large his group was when they reached the Americas, we can estimate it was likely in the range of 25-50 people (Lehi’s family plus Ishmael’s family). For our purposes we’ll assume 30 people. From that group we read this account: “And now, behold, two hundred years had passed away, and the people of Nephi had waxed strong in the land…. And they were scattered upon much of the face of the land, and the Lamanites also. And they were exceedingly more numerous than were they of the Nephites;… And it came to pass that they came many times against us, the Nephites, to battle…. And we multiplied exceedingly, and spread upon the face of the land, and became exceedingly rich.” (Jarom 1:5-8). What little record we have about the early years of the Nephite people come from a record focused almost exclusively on prophesyings and revelations. (Words of Mormon 1:6) This makes estimating population sizes challenging.
...
3% growth would be about 11,000 descendents of Lehi in 200 years, 2% growth would yield about 1600, and 1% would be about 220. In Jarom we read about the Nephites being “scattered upon much of the face of the land”. That doesn’t mean there were a lot of Nephites, it just means they had spread out. We don’t know how large an area is “much of the face of the land.” Assuming it means large geographic areas is reading more into the record than what it says. The Nephites continued to multiply (that’s exponential growth). There were, however, “exceedingly more [Lamanites] than…Nephites”. Let’s go over ancient population growth rates before cycling back to the Book of Mormon people.
...

We don’t know how large the Nephite population was 200 years after Lehi left Jerusalem or really at any point in the Book of Mormon. We have some counts of groups (armies) but don’t know if those are exact numbers, estimates, or exaggerations. Nephite and Lamanite population likely wasn’t large after 200 years (e.g., 11,000 with a high 3% growth rate), at least according to a limited definition as direct descendents of Lehi and relative to populations today. Additionally, we know the terms Nephites and Lamanites were cultural, religious, and political terms (see 2 Nephi 5:9; Doctrine & Covenants 10:48) and thus often did not constitute genealogy (some discussion in [16]). Essentially anyone who wasn’t a Nephite was a Lamanite. People could become Nephites or Lamanites. Sometimes there was distinction (e.g., Anti-Nephi-Lehies) but it wasn’t always that clear. There are hints there were others (e.g., many more Lamanites than Nephites) but we also need to understand the purpose of the Book of Mormon.

It is a history of a people (with commentary about some other groups) but it’s primarily a sacred record that testifies of Jesus Christ. This is an unsatisfactory answer to many people but it’s the reality of the situation. 

Population and demographics in the Book of Mormon

Quote

The Book of Mormon contains many overt references, and some more oblique ones, to 'other' peoples that were part of the demographic mix in Book of Mormon times. Indeed, many Book of Mormon passages make little sense unless we understand this. The Nephite record keeps its focus on a simplistic "Nephite/Lamanite" dichotomy both because it is a kinship record, and because its focus is religious, not politico-historical.

But, as one author observed, it is

inescapable that there were substantial populations in the "promised land" throughout the period of the Nephite record, and probably in the Jaredite era also. The status and origin of these peoples is never made clear because the writers never set out to do any such thing; they had other purposes. Yet we cannot understand the demographic or cultural history of Lehi's literal descendants without taking into account those other groups, too.

Hereafter, readers will not be justified in saying that the record fails to mention "others" but only that we readers have hitherto failed to observe what is said and implied about such people in the Book of Mormon.^[1]:34

How Many Nephites?: The Book of Mormon at the Bar of Demography

This is a TLDR sort of thing, but it's written by a demographer, so it's worthwhile.  A Grok summary:

Quote

Summary of “How Many Nephites? The Book of Mormon at the Bar of Demography”

Author: James E. Smith Publication: Chapter in Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited: The Evidence for Ancient Origins (1997), edited by Noel B. Reynolds.

Main Thesis

Critics often claim the Book of Mormon reports unrealistically large populations (hundreds of thousands to millions), which they say undermines its historicity. Smith argues that, when examined through the lens of historical demography, the text’s population figures are plausible and consistent with ancient and pre-industrial societies. The book holds up well under demographic scrutiny.

Approach

Smith uses:

• Demographic modeling (including CAMSIM computer simulations for small founding populations).
• Realistic population growth rates (0% to 1.25% per year).
• Stable-population models to back-calculate total population from army sizes and casualty figures.
• Comparisons to real ancient and historical groups (biblical Israelites, Greek city-states, Roman Egypt, Chinese clans, French Canadians, etc.).

He treats the text as an ancient lineage history rather than a modern census, and he emphasizes that “Nephite” and “Lamanite” labels are often sociopolitical rather than strictly genealogical.

Key Findings from the Data and Charts

• Early Nephites (610–400 B.C.): Starting with roughly 5 founding families, the population would naturally grow to only a few dozen by 550 B.C. and perhaps 1,000–2,000 by 400 B.C. under modest growth rates. Extremely small at first.
• Zarahemla period (≈87 B.C.): The Amlicite war casualties (≈19,000 dead) imply a total regional population in the hundreds of thousands (possibly 300,000–1.5 million when factoring in age structure and casualty percentages).
• Later Nephite period (fourth century A.D.): A moderate 0.1% annual growth from the Zarahemla baseline yields roughly 450,000 Nephites/Lamanites combined. The final Cumorah battle (230,000 Nephites assembled) is plausible if “ten thousand” units include non-combatants, allies, or assimilated peoples.
• Rapid growth is explained by high fertility (6–7+ births per woman) in a pre-industrial setting, plus intermingling/assimilation with other groups (especially the Mulekites/Zarahemlaites).

Major Conclusions

• Nephite/Lamanite populations started very small, grew steadily (with boom-and-bust cycles due to war), and reached hundreds of thousands — not millions — by the end of the record.
• The text does not require a hemispheric “empty-Americas” model. It is compatible with a limited geography in which the recorded groups interacted with and absorbed pre-existing populations.
• Many of the “unrealistic” numbers critics point to are actually typical of ancient records (e.g., inflated army sizes in Herodotus or the Bible).

Bottom line from the article: The Book of Mormon’s demographic picture is realistic when read in an ancient context. It survives scrutiny at the “bar of demography” and actually strengthens the case for its authenticity as an ancient historical record rather than a 19th-century invention.

This is a classic 1990s FARMS-style defense that focuses on internal consistency and comparative ancient demography rather than external archaeological proof. Let me know if you want key quotes, specific charts explained, or a comparison to later scholarship on the same topic.

Betcha Claude didn't consider this article.

Book of Mormon Population Statistics

Quote

In a battle with Syria, the Israelites slew 100,000 footmen “in one day” (1 Kings 20:29). During a subsequent war, Pekah, king of Israel, slew 120,000 Jews “in one day” and took some 200,000 “women, sons, and daughters” captive (2 Chronicles 28:6, 8).

Compared to figures such as these, the loss of life in the Nephite-Lamanite wars is small until one comes to the last battle at Cumorah. Indeed, the population figures given in the Book of Mormon show a rather gradual population growth over the years. There are no statistics for the earlier centuries, with only vague suggestions, while the term “thousands” does not appear in the Nephite record until the second century BC, by which time Lehi’s colony had been in the land for some four centuries.
...
Prior to the time of Mormon, the largest numbered army in the Book of Mormon comprised 10,000 soldiers, in the time of Helaman. Only during the last Nephite-Lamanite wars do we read of armies numbering 30,000 and more. It is possible that some of the earlier “numerous hosts” comprised tens of thousands of men, but this cannot be ascertained from the information given. In no case is there any evidence of “millions” of either Nephites or Lamanites.

Adding Up the Book of Mormon Peoples

Quote

The Book of Mormon gives ample room to suppose that the Nephites absorbed other groups into their civilization. First of all, contrary to the implication at www.josephlied.com,⁴⁴ there were other Jaredite survivors besides Coriantumr;⁴⁵ the Prophet Ether survived those wars.⁴⁶ Secondly, the Nephite record certainly allows for other groups immigrating under direction of the Lord,⁴⁷ and explicitly states that the Nephites will be mixed with other peoples.⁴⁸ The latter may suffice to explain why Jewish-type DNA is so rare among indigenous peoples of the western hemisphere.⁴⁹ With a steady stream of immigrants arriving in Nephite and Lamanite territory in search of the economic opportunity afforded by the Israelite-type legal system, other races could easily overwhelm the Israelites in the general population, even though Israelites might remain the governing class. In this sense, Lehi could still be said to be the “principal ancestor” of the ancient American peoples. It also appears that while the civilizations were destroyed, not necessarily all of the people died.⁵⁰

Considering that (conservatively) twenty-five percent of the population were either “foreign born” or children of immigrants, it is reasonable that more than 490,000 people were living in the Nephite and Lamanite areas by 150 B.C. (more than enough to accommodate the thousands of dead mentioned in Mosiah 9:18-19).⁵¹ It is also plausible that more than seven million people were alive at the time of Jesus Christ’s mortal ministry.⁵² Even assuming only a “tithe” of survivors (more than 700,000) of the catastrophes described in 3 Nephi 8-11, a population of up to 100 million by AD 350 is not beyond reason. This figure is more than sufficient to sustain the hundreds of thousands of Nephite dead during the “Battle of Cumorah.”⁵³

Thus, the mingling of healthy and wealthy Israelite blood with indigenous and other immigrant peoples makes the “multitudes” claimed by the Book of Mormon quite appropriate.

I Have A Question? I have heard that the sizes of the Nephite and Lamanite populations indicated in the Book of Mormon do not make sense. What do we know about their numbers?

Quote

These cases teach us that there is simply not enough information in the scriptural record to construct a clear picture of Nephite and Lamanite population sizes over time. Nor can we estimate with surety how war, famine, dissensions, contentions, and other factors affected population growth. In short, our presently limited record discourages any attempt to interpret Nephite or Lamanite population history.

Yet there is no reason to question the population numbers in the Book of Mormon. They are all believable once we recognize some of the historical and biological factors that could have been involved.

I prompted Grok:

Quote

Regarding your previous analysis of Book of Mormon population demographics, analyze these and update your assessment:

https://bystudyandfaith.net/2020/03/populations-in-the-book-of-mormon/ https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Population_and_demographics_in_the_Book_of_Mormon https://scripturecentral.org/archive/books/book-chapter/how-many-nephites-book-mormon-bar-demography https://latterdaysaintmag.com/article-1-1641/ https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/archive/publications/adding-up-the-book-of-mormon-peoples https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1992/09/i-have-a-question/what-do-we-know-about-the-numbers-of-nephites-and-lamanites?lang=eng

The response:

Quote

Updated Assessment of Book of Mormon Population Demographics (Strictly from the Text + These Sources)

After reviewing the six sources you linked (plus my prior summary of James E. Smith’s chapter), the picture is clearer. The raw text itself remains deliberately silent on whether other human populations were already in the Americas when the Jaredites, Mulekites, or Lehites arrived. It never explicitly says “the land was empty” or “we found other peoples here.” However, when the internal demographic clues are examined closely, virtually every serious analysis concludes that the text is far more consistent with option (A) — the migrating groups encountered and intermingled with pre-existing populations — than with a strict “empty land” reading (B).

Common Themes Across All Six Sources

• The record is a lineage/kinship history, not a census. It focuses on the covenant people (Lehi’s and Mulek’s descendants) and their religious story. Labels like “Nephite” and “Lamanite” are often political/religious rather than purely genetic (Jacob 1:14; FAIR, By Study and Faith, Ensign 1992).
• Rapid growth and Lamanite numerical superiority are repeatedly highlighted. Examples: Lamanites “exceedingly more numerous” than Nephites within ~200 years (Jarom 1:6); Amulonites nearly as numerous as Nephites in ~70 years (Alma 43:13–14); huge armies and battle casualties in the tens of thousands. Natural growth from a few dozen founders alone cannot easily explain this without unrealistically high fertility rates sustained for centuries.
• Intermingling / “others” is the standard explanation. All sources (including the official 1992 Ensign article) point to:
  • Absorption of the Mulekites/Zarahemlaites (already a second small Israelite group).
  • Dissenters, Amulonites, Zoramites, etc., joining Lamanites.
  • Hints of unnamed “client peoples,” “other” groups, or pre-existing inhabitants being folded into Lamanite society.
• Population estimates vary but stay in the hundreds of thousands range at peak.
  • James E. Smith (1997): Plausible total populations of ~300,000–1.5 million regionally by the late Zarahemla period; final Nephite forces at Cumorah (~230,000) are feasible with modest growth (0.1–1.25% annually) plus some assimilation.
  • FAIR “Adding Up…”: Hundreds of thousands by ~120 B.C., potentially millions later, but only when including immigration and mingling.
  • Tvedtnes (Latter-day Saint Mag): Emphasizes “thousands” and “tens of thousands,” not millions; sees no evidence for multi-million populations.
  • By Study and Faith and the 1992 Ensign: Stress that high fertility in small founding families + mixing with others makes the numbers realistic.

Updated Conclusion on Options (A), (B), and (C)

• Option (A) — intermingling with pre-existing peoples — is the reading overwhelmingly favored by the internal evidence. The text’s silence is best understood as the record simply not being interested in non-covenant peoples except when they interact with the main narrative.
• Option (B) — “empty land” — is technically possible if one reads the text very narrowly and ignores the demographic hints. But every source you provided finds it strained or implausible without extraordinary growth rates sustained over centuries.
• Option (C) — both readings are plausible — is still technically true because the text never rules either out explicitly. However, the demographic data tilt the scales strongly toward (A). A careful reader of the text (without outside assumptions) will find the intermingling interpretation far more natural and coherent than the empty-land view.

In short: The Book of Mormon does not claim to be a complete history of everyone who ever lived in the Americas. It is the story of specific covenant lineages. Once that is recognized, the population numbers become demographically reasonable if (and only if) the recorded groups interacted with and absorbed other peoples already present. The sources you provided all converge on that point.

If you would like me to pull specific verses, charts, or growth-rate calculations from any of these articles for closer comparison, just say the word.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 25 by smac97

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, but that still seems more inferential than actually "textual."  

2 hours ago, Calm said:

I agree it’s not direct, but implied information