A Secular Theory of Where the BoM Came From

[Calm]

Discussions on the brass plates:

https://interpreterfoundation.org/journal/a-backstory-for-the-brass-plates

Quote

This paper brings contemporary Ancient Near East (ANE) scholarship in several fields together with the ancient scriptures restored through Joseph Smith to construct a new starting point for interpretation of the teachings of the Book of Mormon. It assembles findings from studies of ancient scribal culture, historical linguistics and epigraphy, and the history and archaeology of Mesopotamia, Egypt, and the Levant, together with the traditions of ancient Israel and the ancient scriptures restored to Joseph Smith, to construct a contextualized perspective for understanding Lehi, Nephi, and the Brass Plates as they would have been understood by their contemporaries — as prominent bearers of the Josephite textual tradition. This essay offers a hypothetical, but comprehensive backstory for the Brass Plates. Because of its hypothetical character, it cannot be claimed that it is the true account. Rather it is an attempt to build a plausible backstory given the current state of knowledge in the relevant fields of academic research and the facts provided in the ancient scriptures restored through Joseph Smith.

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/interpreter/vol34/iss1/8/

Quote

 

Abstract: The Book of Mormon peoples repeatedly indicated that they

were descendants of Joseph, the son of Jacob who was sold into Egypt by

his brothers. The plates of brass that they took with them from Jerusalem

c. 600 bce provided them with a version of many Old Testament books

and others not included in our Hebrew Bible. Sometime after publishing

his translation of the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith undertook an inspired

revision of the Bible. The opening chapters of his version of Genesis contain a

lot of material not included in the Hebrew Bible. But intriguingly, distinctive

phraseology in those chapters, as now published in Joseph Smith’s Book of

Moses, also show up in the Book of Mormon text. This paper presents a

systematic examination of those repeated phrases and finds strong evidence

for the conclusion that the version of Genesis used by the Nephite prophets

must have been closely similar to Joseph Smith’s Book of Moses.

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/interpreter/vol45/iss1/8/ 

Quote

The Book of Mormon contains little information about what

the Brass Plates contain. Nephi said it was a larger record than the

Hebrew Bible brought to America by the Gentiles. But it could not have

contained the records of Old Testament prophets who wrote after Lehi’s

party left Jerusalem or the New Testament. We know it contained some

writings from Zenos, Zenock, Neum, and Ezias, but what else could it have

contained? Though the proposal from modern biblical source criticism that

the Christian Bible is the product of redactors sometimes working with

multiple sources is distasteful to many Christians, this article suggests this

scholarship should not trouble Latter-day Saints, who celebrate Mormon’s

scriptural abridgement of ancient American scripture. This article also

revisits the insights of some Latter-day Saint scholars who have suggested

the Brass Plates are a record of the tribe of Joseph, and this may explain its

scriptural content. The eight verses from Micah 5, which Christ quoted three

times during His visit to the Nephites and which did not previously appear

in Mormon’s abridgment, receive close analysis.

Dropping this here to look at later.

Edited March 9 by Calm

[webbles]

18 hours ago, longview said:

NOT a new thing. I have read in BYU scholarly pieces that the records represent/contained in the Brass Plates originated in the northern kingdom of Israel. That record may have started with Joseph of Egypt and passed down thru the generations. The Brass Plates had rings that allowed for continual additions for history and for the genealogies. It even had the teachings and warnings of Jeremiah added, a contemporary of Lehi.

Where does it say the Brass Plates had rings in it?  I don't recall any description in the Book of Mormon about what they look like.

[champatsch]

20 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

What do think the significance may be for these types of shifts? 

Joseph Smith was the only one who dictated the text. If he worded the text, then he had to shift the English usage in about 30 ways. After dictating Mosiah, Alma, and Helaman, he had dictated 54% of the nonbiblical words (about 136,700), establishing various discernible usage patterns with large numbers of examples. One such pattern consists of the subordinating conjunctions after, before, because, for, and since. For more than half the nonbiblical part of the dictation, Joseph Smith dictated archaic subordinate that at only a 2% rate, and then for the remaining portion of the dictation he dictated archaic subordinate that at a 54% rate. That means that while he was in Pennsylvania, he consciously decided to dictate more archaically, in at least 25 ways, although there are a few exceptions where he dictated less archaically and where he dictated rare archaism. Two of the less archaic exceptions are that he dictated half the previous per-word rate of yea after 3 Nephi 7, and one-fifth the rate of present-tense periphrastic do (e.g. "do stumble"), going from 10% periphrastic do to only 2%, approximately.

One change to rare archaism was in the mixture of usage of the conjunctions except and save. It is just under two-thirds except before 3 Nephi, and it shifts to about five-sixths save. In the large subset of "except|save it be|were" usage (n=149), the shift was from 62% save to 100% save. (In Early Modern English, "except it be|were" was used at its highest rate, and at 1,000 times the rate of "save it be|were"; the low rate of "save it be|were" (nine or ten instances) is why I call the latter rare archaism.) Up to Helaman 10, which is about half the dictation (nonbiblical), the usage split was 5/8 "save it be|were" and 3/8 "except it be|were" (n=63). After that, it was 100% "save it be|were". This also suggests conscious control.

So, Joseph Smith must have consciously decided to begin to use "after that S", starting at 3 Nephi 12 (only one of 25 pseudo-archaic authors checked used any "after that S" at all — one item of evidence, supported by others, that not all obvious biblical archaisms were automatically imitated by pseudo-archaic authors). He consciously decided to use whoso almost all the time instead of whosoever almost all the time, starting in 3 Nephi 9; to use wherefore instead of therefore the vast majority of the time, starting in Ether; to use "before that S" some of the time, starting at 3 Nephi 28; to use mine and thine at a higher rate before words beginning in vowels; to use much more "they|them which" instead of "those which" in referring to persons; and so forth.

It seems reasonable to me to reject that he was able to control 30+ linguistic features in this way. So it seems reasonable to me that they were part of an English-language translation that was delivered to him (2n2724).

Edited March 9 by champatsch

[Ryan Dahle]

1 hour ago, champatsch said:

It seems reasonable to me to reject that he was able to control 30+ linguistic features in this way. So it seems reasonable to me that they were part of an English-language translation that was delivered to him (2n2724).

Fascinating. Thanks for the further explanation. Can't wait to see all of this published at some point. 

[smac97]

On 3/7/2026 at 12:15 PM, smac97 said:

Quote

Quote

 

So I'm hoping we can set aside discussion about what ChatGPT "thinks," both because Ryan and Amulek have raised some very good critiques of that, and also because that is not what my inquiry was about.  I am, instead, interested in hearing what Analytics thinks as far as a plausible alternative (and presumably, but not necessarily, naturalistic) explanation for 

A) the physical reality of the Plates,

B) the statements from the Three and Eight Witnesses, and

C) the source/authorship of the text.

And while he's at it, I also hope that Analytics explain how he reconciles his claim to being a "a Bayesian methodological empiricist" with his acknowledgment of possibility of "a supernatural explanation, e.g. an angel (or demon or alien) gave Joseph Smith the plates and then took them away."  More recently, he has said that the "demon or alien" explanation (or, as he put it in 2021, "the angel was really an alien doing an anthropology experiment on Joseph Smith," and/or that "the devil conjured up the plates") is "more likely" than Joseph's narrative (which, per Analytics, is "just not possible").  I am really curious as to the reasoning, "empirical" or otherwise, for this claim.  Space Aliens or Satan are possible, but Joseph's narrative is "just not possible" at all?  At all?

I hope he lays out his reasoning, his evidence/data, his "a Bayesian methodological empiricis{m}," the whole Kit 'n Kaboodle.  If he does, I will be deeply impressed and appreciative.  If he does not, well, he'll join the ranks of pretty much every other Anti-Mormon who, when the chips are down, simply have nothing substantive to offer.  This is in stark contrast to the last many decades of Latter-day Saint scholarship and apologetics, which offer a lot. 

 

I am hoping @Analytics will return to this thread (he started it, after all) and take up the above challenge.

Thanks,

-Smac

Still hoping @Analytics will return to this thread and take up the above challenge.

This will be the fourth post inviting/asking @Analytics to return to this thread and follow up on what he said in the OP:

Quote

I generally don't feel the need to explain the "miracle" of how the Book of Mormon was produced anymore than @smac97 feels the need to explain the miracle of how John Keats wrote his poetry. But he expressed interest in seeing such an explanation, so I decided to pose the question to ChatGPT 5.2 Pro. Below is the specific prompt I gave it, followed by its response.

Again, I never asked Roger to "pose the question to ChatGPT 5.2 Pro."  Any of us can do that.

I am, instead, asking Roger to post his alternative explanation for the origins of The Book of Mormon.  

The Book of Mormon exists.  The text exists and should be accounted for.

The statements of the witnesses should be accounted for.

The Plates should be accounted for.

Thanks,

-Smac

[webbles]

2 hours ago, champatsch said:

Joseph Smith was the only one who dictated the text. If he worded the text, then he had to shift the English usage in about 30 ways. After dictating Mosiah, Alma, and Helaman, he had dictated 54% of the nonbiblical words (about 136,700), establishing various discernible usage patterns with large numbers of examples. One such pattern consists of the subordinating conjunctions after, before, because, for, and since. For more than half the nonbiblical part of the dictation, Joseph Smith dictated archaic subordinate that at only a 2% rate, and then for the remaining portion of the dictation he dictated archaic subordinate that at a 54% rate. That means that while he was in Pennsylvania, he consciously decided to dictate more archaically, in at least 25 ways, although there are a few exceptions where he dictated less archaically and where he dictated rare archaism. Two of the less archaic exceptions are that he dictated half the previous per-word rate of yea after 3 Nephi 7, and one-fifth the rate of present-tense periphrastic do (e.g. "do stumble"), going from 10% periphrastic do to only 2%, approximately.

One change to rare archaism was in the mixture of usage of the conjunctions except and save. It is just under two-thirds except before 3 Nephi, and it shifts to about five-sixths save. In the large subset of "except|save it be|were" usage (n=149), the shift was from 62% save to 100% save. (In Early Modern English, "except it be|were" was used at its highest rate, and at 1,000 times the rate of "save it be|were"; the low rate of "save it be|were" (nine or ten instances) is why I call the latter rare archaism.) Up to Helaman 10, which is about half the dictation (nonbiblical), the usage split was 5/8 "save it be|were" and 3/8 "except it be|were" (n=63). After that, it was 100% "save it be|were". This also suggests conscious control.

So, Joseph Smith must have consciously decided to begin to use "after that S", starting at 3 Nephi 12 (only one of 25 pseudo-archaic authors checked used any "after that S" at all — one item of evidence, supported by others, that not all obvious biblical archaisms were automatically imitated by pseudo-archaic authors). He consciously decided to use whoso almost all the time instead of whosoever almost all the time, starting in 3 Nephi 9; to use wherefore instead of therefore the vast majority of the time, starting in Ether; to use "before that S" some of the time, starting at 3 Nephi 28; to use mine and thine at a higher rate before words beginning in vowels; to use much more "they|them which" instead of "those which" in referring to persons; and so forth.

It seems reasonable to me to reject that he was able to control 30+ linguistic features in this way. So it seems reasonable to me that they were part of an English-language translation that was delivered to him (2n2724).

Is 3 Nephi the main place this shift occurs?  Or are the other shifts that happen in earlier/later books?  And does he shift only one way (non-archaic -> archaic) or does he shift both directions?

[Analytics]

Hi @smac97,

I appreciate your patience in my response. I’ve had a crazy couple of weeks IRL.

Trying to respond to your main points as I understand them, you frame this as though I owe you a complete theory of the crime before I'm permitted to conclude that a crime occurred. That's not how epistemology works, and it's not how Bayesian reasoning works.

The correct order of questions matters enormously, and you have it exactly backwards.

First: What is the prior?
The BoM being a genuine ancient record translated by divine power is an extraordinary claim--extraordinary precisely because it requires the causal mechanisms that Effective Quantum Field Theory rules out. Revelation. Spirits communicating information to a physical brain. Angelic delivery of gold plates. The prior probability of this hypothesis is therefore very low. Not zero, but very low. This is my point with the implications of physics that Carroll has articulated, and the exact same conclusion is robustly reached from multiple lines of science using completely independent methodologies. This is where any honest Bayesian analysis begins, before examining a single piece of evidence.

Second: What IS the Book of Mormon?
When you read it, this question answers itself. It is saturated with 19th century American theological concerns--evangelical Protestant disputes, anti-Masonry, the question of Native American origins. It reads like King James English filtered through frontier American religious sensibility, not like an authentic ancient document. It contains systematic anachronisms for which there is zero archaeological corroboration. David P. Wright’s analysis of the Isaiah chapters (Dr. Wright is a full professor at Brandeis--arguably America’s most prestigious Jewish university--where he specializes in teaching the Hebrew Old Testament  at the graduate level. His exhaustive analysis of the Isaiah chapters has not been refuted--they were based on copying and reworking the KJV English translation--not a fresh translation of an authentic ancient manuscript). The DNA evidence provides completely independent confirmation that the population history the text describes didn't happen.

The text accounts for itself.

On the witnesses and plates:
You want these "accounted for." The correct Bayesian question is: how likely is this evidence under each hypothesis?

Under the authentic hypothesis, you'd expect witnesses. Under the "19th century American religious movement with a charismatic founder" hypothesis, you'd also expect witnesses--fervent, socially embedded, financially and spiritually invested witnesses whose accounts evolved over time and explicitly included "spiritual" rather than physical sight in several cases.

Which is exactly what we have.

Perhaps you’d expect witnesses more under the authentic hypothesis, but not necessarily, and certainly not enough to put a dent in the evidence against authenticity.

The evidence of the plates is thin and entirely testimonial--and not innocently so. The alleged plates weren't lost in a fire or destroyed by accident. They were deliberately hidden from mainstream view and then vanished in a deliberate and miraculous way. Consider what that looks like from an evidentiary standpoint. Imagine you were involved in complex litigation with extraordinarily important physical evidence. You show that evidence exclusively to eleven of your client's closest friends and family members, obtain brief signed statements from them, and then deliberately destroy the evidence before the other side can examine it. No judge would treat that witness testimony as strong corroboration. Every judge would treat the deliberate destruction of the underlying evidence as deeply suspicious--suspicious enough to substantially discount the testimony built around it. You don't need a theory of why the witnesses signed the statements they did to draw that inference. The destruction itself does the work.

One question for you: do you have a detailed, evidence-supported hypothesis for how God and/or Moroni made the plates disappear? If you don't need that hypothesis to believe the plates are a real ancient artifact, why do I need a detailed hypothesis for how they were created to believe they are of 19th century origin?

Third: How was it produced?
This is the question you insist I answer first. It is actually the last question, and I'm largely agnostic about the specific mechanism. I don't know, and I don't need to know. My inability to name the specific mechanism doesn't make accurate-translation-of-ancient-plates the more probable hypothesis. If Penn & Teller's audiences can't explain how the trick works, that isn’t evidence that it was done with real magic.

Edited March 9 by Analytics

[champatsch]

50 minutes ago, Analytics said:

David P. Wright’s analysis of the Isaiah chapters (Dr. Wright is a full professor at Brandeis--arguably America’s most prestigious Jewish university--where he specializes in teaching the Hebrew Old Testament  at the graduate level. His exhaustive analysis of the Isaiah chapters has not been refuted--they were based on copying and reworking the KJV English translation--not a fresh translation of an authentic ancient manuscript).

All of the biblical material needs to be analyzed, which one can find in a 2019 critical text book. It has a collation of all 36 biblical quotations sections, with more than 700 differences marked. Eleven biblical books are quoted in the Book of Mormon, and with so many differences, many/most of the changes would have had to be marked up in a King James Bible. The preparation would have taken a considerable amount of time. There is no eyewitness of the dictation who said he used a Bible, not even Michael Morse. Plus, there isn't clear evidence in the MSS of where biblical quotations begin and end. Anyone can check transitions and see some that are unmarked, unpunctuated, just like everything else.

Edited March 9 by champatsch

[Analytics]

44 minutes ago, champatsch said:

All of the biblical material needs to be analyzed, which one can find in a 2019 critical text book. It has a collation of all 36 biblical quotations sections, with more than 700 differences marked. Eleven biblical books are quoted in the Book of Mormon, and with so many differences, many/most of the changes would have had to be marked up in a King James Bible. The preparation would have taken a considerable amount of time. There is no eyewitness of the dictation who said he used a Bible, not even Michael Morse. Plus, there isn't clear evidence in the MSS of where biblical quotations begin and end. Anyone can check transitions and see some that are unmarked, unpunctuated, just like everything else.

My understanding is that your theory is that the translation process was very tight, to the extent where if the underlying reformed Egyptian had different frequencies of subordinating conjunctions after certain words, those patterns would be manifest in the translated text. Is that basically right?

Could we use the Isaiah chapters to test this theory? If the Isaiah chapters were really a tight translation of a pristine Isaiah manuscript that was written on metal plates before 600 B.C., what would we expect to see? Do we see that?

Here you don’t seem to be arguing that the Isaiah chapters are a better translation of Isaiah's actual words. Rather, you seem to be arguing that even though it is clearly derived from the KJV, it was done so in a miraculous way. This gets back to my point about the logical order of the analysis, and to the need to be clear about what the competing theories are. Is the theory that the Book of Mormon was produced in a miraculous way? Or is the theory that it is an accurate translation of an authentic ancient manuscript? Evidence of the first thing isn’t necessarily evidence of the second.

Edited March 9 by Analytics

[smac97]

21 hours ago, Analytics said:

Hi @smac97,

I appreciate your patience in my response. I’ve had a crazy couple of weeks IRL.

Sounds good.

21 hours ago, Analytics said:

Trying to respond to your main points as I understand them, you frame this as though I owe you a complete theory of the crime before I'm permitted to conclude that a crime occurred.

This is incorrect in a variety of ways.

First, I have repeatedly said that you have no actual obligation here, just an intellectual one.  I think a serious person claiming to be a "a Bayesian methodological empiricist," and who has spent years and years saying "not that" as to the origins of The Book of Mormon, has a logical and intellectual obligation to present a viable alternative explanation.  

And I have asked, not demanded.

Second, I have not asked for a "complete" theory, but rather this:

Quote

So I'm hoping we can set aside discussion about what ChatGPT "thinks," both because Ryan and Amulek have raised some very good critiques of that, and also because that is not what my inquiry was about.  I am, instead, interested in hearing what Analytics thinks as far as a plausible alternative (and presumably, but not necessarily, naturalistic) explanation for 

A) the physical reality of the Plates,

B) the statements from the Three and Eight Witnesses, and

C) the source/authorship of the text.

And while he's at it, I also hope that Analytics explain how he reconciles his claim to being "a Bayesian methodological empiricist" with his acknowledgment of possibility of "a supernatural explanation, e.g. an angel (or demon or alien) gave Joseph Smith the plates and then took them away."

"{A} plausible alternative (and presumably, but not necessarily, naturalistic) explanation" ≠ "a complete theory of the crime."

I acknowledge that I have asked for an explanation that accounts for "all the data," and maybe that was an overreach, at least at the preliminary stages of things.  I'm looking for a broad framework, something more serious and less flippant that Space Aliens or Satan (unless, of course, you were serious when you posited these as "more likely" explanations than Joseph's narrative).  Once you present the framework of an alternative postulated "theory of the case," we could then start to examine it in its particulars.  

Third, my request presupposes that you have already concluded that "that a crime occurred."  I presuppose this because of this:

Quote

In this 2021 discussion {Analytics} posited, without evidence, that "Sidney Rigdon made the plates out of tin," and/or that "the angel was really an alien doing an anthropology experiment on Joseph Smith," and/or that "the devil conjured up the plates" as all being "more likely" than the explanation given by Joseph Smith, which he (Roger) said is "just not possible."  "{A}ny explanation," Roger said, "is more likely than {The Book of Mormon} being an accurate translation of an actual ancient manuscript."

You are on record that "a crime occurred."  That is, that Joseph's narrative about the plates and the text is "just not possible," that "the evidence against the Book of Mormon" is "quite literally overwhelming."

Got it.  Understood.  Message received.

What I do not understand, and what you have not articulated, is your alternate theory of the crime.  If Joseph didn't "do it," then who did?  What is your alternative - and presumably (though not necessarily) naturalistic - explanation for

A) the physical reality of the Plates,

B) the statements from the Three and Eight Witnesses, and

C) the source/authorship of the text.

I appreciate you analogizing this issue to "a crime," as I think that is a decent analogy.  In a crime scenario, something has happened.  For example, police discovery a body tied to a chair, with signs of torture and blood loss.  That the death was intentional and done by someone else (not suicide) is beyond reasonable dispute.  Somebody did it.  

Somewhat similarly, as regarding The Book of Mormon, something has happened.  Someone wrote the text.  Witnesses testified as to the translation process and the physical reality of the Plates.  Substantial historical evidence exists as to how the text came to be, pertaining to both the method/behavior of Joseph Smith in the "translation" process, and to the physical reality of the Plates.

You have presented yourself as "a Bayesian methodological empiricist" and, in that capacity, have declared that Space Aliens or Satan / a demon is a "more likely" explanation for The Book of Mormon as compared to the Joseph's narrative, which, per you, is "just not possible."

Well, okay.  I am asking - not demanding - that you bring your Bayesian methodological empiricism to bear and present your "alternate theory of the case." Again:

Quote

I am, instead, interested in hearing what Analytics thinks as far as a plausible alternative (and presumably, but not necessarily, naturalistic) explanation for 

A) the physical reality of the Plates,

B) the statements from the Three and Eight Witnesses, and

C) the source/authorship of the text.

And while he's at it, I also hope that Analytics explain how he reconciles his claim to being a "a Bayesian methodological empiricist" with his acknowledgment of possibility of "a supernatural explanation, e.g. an angel (or demon or alien) gave Joseph Smith the plates and then took them away."

That you are unwilling or unable to respond to such a straightforward request is, to me, significant.

21 hours ago, Analytics said:

That's not how epistemology works, and it's not how Bayesian reasoning works.

Okay.  Let's see what you've got.

21 hours ago, Analytics said:

The correct order of questions matters enormously, and you have it exactly backwards.

I'm listening.

21 hours ago, Analytics said:

First: What is the prior?
The BoM being a genuine ancient record translated by divine power is an extraordinary claim--extraordinary precisely because it requires the causal mechanisms that Effective Quantum Field Theory rules out. Revelation. Spirits communicating information to a physical brain. Angelic delivery of gold plates. The prior probability of this hypothesis is therefore very low. Not zero, but very low. This is my point with the implications of physics that Carroll has articulated, and the exact same conclusion is robustly reached from multiple lines of science using completely independent methodologies. This is where any honest Bayesian analysis begins, before examining a single piece of evidence.

Right.  "Probability" = "very low."  You've gone over this a lot.  You've reached a Bayesian-methodology-induced conclusion, which is that Joseph's narrative "just isn't possible."  And you have reached this conclusion because, per your claim, "the evidence against the Book of Mormon" is "quite literally overwhelming."

So we're well into the "Bayesian analysis" thing.  You have examined the evidence for Joseph's narrative, and also countervailing evidence, and found the latter "quite literally overwhelming."

Got it.  So what is your alternative theory of the case?  You've already pointed to Space Aliens or Satan as "more likely."  Are you sticking with these?  Or do you have something else/more?

21 hours ago, Analytics said:

Second: What IS the Book of Mormon?
When you read it, this question answers itself. It is saturated with 19th century American theological concerns--evangelical Protestant disputes, anti-Masonry, the question of Native American origins. It reads like King James English filtered through frontier American religious sensibility, not like an authentic ancient document. It contains systematic anachronisms for which there is zero archaeological corroboration. David P. Wright’s analysis of the Isaiah chapters (Dr. Wright is a full professor at Brandeis--arguably America’s most prestigious Jewish university--where he specializes in teaching the Hebrew Old Testament  at the graduate level. His exhaustive analysis of the Isaiah chapters has not been refuted--they were based on copying and reworking the KJV English translation--not a fresh translation of an authentic ancient manuscript). The DNA evidence provides completely independent confirmation that the population history the text describes didn't happen.

The text accounts for itself.

Not sure you want to go with this.  The text includes this:

Quote

The Book of Mormon

An Account Written by the 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.

According to the text, it was written by ancient prophets.  If the text "accounts for itself," then your position is refuted.  If your position is valid, then the text does not account for itself.

Meanwhile, you have said nothing about who wrote the text.  You already know what I belief, but I do not know what you and your supposed empiricism believe accounts for the authorship.  You've previously posited Space Aliens or Satan.  Are you sticking with those as being "more likely" than Joseph's explanation?  If not, who wrote the text?  When?  Where?  What evidence do you have of this?

21 hours ago, Analytics said:

On the witnesses and plates:
You want these "accounted for."

I have already accounted for them.  I am asking how you account for them.  That you are unwilling or unable to even try to bring your supposed empiricism to bear and formulate a coherent alternative explanation is, to me, very interesting.

21 hours ago, Analytics said:

The correct Bayesian question is: how likely is this evidence under each hypothesis?
Under the authentic hypothesis, you'd expect witnesses. Under the "19th century American religious movement with a charismatic founder" hypothesis, you'd also expect witnesses--fervent, socially embedded, financially and spiritually invested witnesses whose accounts evolved over time and explicitly included "spiritual" rather than physical sight in several cases.

Which is exactly what we have.

So . . . delusion?  All the witnesses were all deluded?  Was trickery/deceit involved?  

What evidence do you have to support this alternative theory?

21 hours ago, Analytics said:

Perhaps you’d expect witnesses more under the authentic hypothesis, but not necessarily, and certainly not enough to put a dent in the evidence against authenticity.

I am not asking you to articulate your thoughts on "the evidence against authenticity."  That's just more of your "not that" stuff.  We already know what you think did not happen.  I am asking what you think did happen.  I am asking that you present your alternative explanation for the text, the Witnesses, and the physical reality of the Plates.

21 hours ago, Analytics said:

The evidence of the plates is thin and entirely testimonial--and not innocently so. The alleged plates weren't lost in a fire or destroyed by accident. They were deliberately hidden from mainstream view and then vanished in a deliberate and miraculous way. Consider what that looks like from an evidentiary standpoint.

As to miraculous events, they are always based on faith.  Christ did not resurrect and then appear before Pontius Pilate, or the Sanhedrin.  He appeared to His followers.

If the Restored Gospel is what it claims to be, God wants us to accept The Book of Mormon on faith, based on personal revelation.  That is the "evidentiary standpoint" before us.

And again, you are reverting to your "not that" stuff.  So if not that, then what explanation do you favor?  How does your supposed empiricism work here?  "{F}rom an evidentiary standpoint, the Plates are unavailable for examination by experts.  The same could be said about the knives used to assassinate Julius Caesar.  Because they are not available, do you deny that the assassination took place?  See this conversation from 2022:

Quote

Quote

Quote

 

Quote

If the plates were available they could be examined and shown to be authentic, or not, by experts. 

The same could be said about the knives used to assassinate Julius Caesar.  Because they are not available, do you deny that the assassination took place?

 

This reasoning isn't is landing with me. I believe there is an unbroken historical record that A. Julius Caesar existed and B. that he died a tragic death (presumably assassinated).

 

There is also "an unbroken historical record" that A. Joseph Smith and the Witnesses existed and B. that they testified as to the physical reality of the Plates (the Three Witnesses testified of considerably more than that).

And yet nobody is saying that this "unbroken historical record" establishes the reality of the Plates, right?  So "an unbroken historical record" doesn't seem to get us very far.

Moreover, if we look that this historical record, is it based on first-hand, percipient witness testimony of the assassination (in 44 BC)?  Well, not so much.  See, e.g., here:
...

Suetonius was born 114 years or so after the assassination.  He was not a percipient witness to the assassination.  

Nicolaus of Damascus (c. 64 BC - after 4 AD) :
...
Very loosey-goosey, this.  He was not a percipient witness to the assassination.  He was born 20 years after it.

Plutarch (c. AD 46 – after AD 119) :
...
Not a percipient witness.  Born 90 or so years after the assassination.

Appian (c. 95 – c. AD 165) :
...
Not a percipient witness.  Born 130 or so years after the assassination.  And yet we rely on him for "detail about the stabbing and the immediate aftermath," such as that "{the} conspirators were covered in blood and left the scene of the assassination still carrying the bloody knifes," that "the conspirators had even stabbed each other in their haste to kill Caesar," and he even attributes specific words to Brutus.

Cassius Dio (c. 164-235 A.D.)
...
Not a percipient witness.  Born about 200 years after the assassination.

AFAIK, the only "eyewitness" we may have is Cicero (106 BC – 43 BC), and yet even that is a bit iffy.
...
"The sources seem to all agree that Cicero was {present}..."

And here:
...
None of the foregoing goes much into provenance / chain-of-custody issues.  We nevertheless rely on these various (non-percipient-witness) sources .

From an evidentiary perspective, we have more competent evidence of the physical reality of the Plates (multiple first-had and relative recent and indisputably authentic first-hand accounts) than we do for the assassination of Julius Caesar.  And yet I doubt you dispute that Caesar was, in fact, assassinated.

21 hours ago, Analytics said:

Imagine you were involved in complex litigation with extraordinarily important physical evidence.

I would take an entirely different tack if that were the case.  Legal technicalities have some utility when examining, say, the Witness statements (such as weighing the credibility of witnesses), but not in a legal setting.  Secular courts are not situated to adjudicate whether or not miraculous events occurred hundreds or thousands of years ago.

21 hours ago, Analytics said:

One question for you: do you have a detailed, evidence-supported hypothesis for how God and/or Moroni made the plates disappear?

Yes:

Quote

60 I soon found out the reason why I had received such strict charges to keep them safe, and why it was that the messenger had said that when I had done what was required at my hand, he would call for them. For no sooner was it known that I had them, than the most strenuous exertions were used to get them from me. Every stratagem that could be invented was resorted to for that purpose. The persecution became more bitter and severe than before, and multitudes were on the alert continually to get them from me if possible. But by the wisdom of God, they remained safe in my hands, until I had accomplished by them what was required at my hand. When, according to arrangements, the messenger called for them, I delivered them up to him; and he has them in his charge until this day, being the second day of May, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-eight.

And here:

Quote

He worked on the translation between early 1828 and June 1829 after which he returned the plates to the angel.⁷

 

Joseph Smith, “History, 1838–1856, volume A-1 [23 December 1805–30 August 1834],” 8, josephsmithpapers.org.

“History, 1838–1856, volume A-1 [23 December 1805–30 August 1834],”

 

Joseph, acting on instructions from  returned the Plates to Moroni some time after June 1829 and before May 1838 (likely much closer to the former date than the latter).

But you already know what Latter-day Saints believe about the origins of The Book of Mormon.  I am asking you to explain your theory about those origins.  Who wrote it?  When?  Where?  What evidence do you have?  How do you account for the Witnesses' statements?  Do you think there was an actual physical object (the Plates) or not?  What evidence do you have for these things?

21 hours ago, Analytics said:

If you don't need that hypothesis to believe the plates are a real ancient artifact, why do I need a detailed hypothesis for how they were created to believe they are of 19th century origin?

First, I am approaching The Book of Mormon principally as a matter of faith, whereas you are approaching it principally in your supposed capacity as "a Bayesian methodological empiricist."  You have invoked empiricism.  I have not.

Second, I do have an evidentiary basis for the text, the Plates, the Witnesses, etc.  I have Joseph's published statements and, by extrapolation, confirmation from the Spirit.  I have the Witnesses' statements and ample information about their lives, both prior to and after their statements.  I have information about Joseph Smith, his education, his writing ability, etc.  I have the text and the indicia of complexity, cohesion, etc.  I have access to substantial testimonial evidence regarding the translation process.  I have access to portions of the OM and to the PM.  And so on.  What I do not have, though, is any articulation from you of a coherent, plausible, evidence-based alternative explanation for the text, the Plates, the Witnesses, etc.

Third, I have staked out a position as to the text, the Witnesses and the Plates.  My position is subject to scrutiny, empirical, logical or otherwise.  You have not done this.  Instead, you start a thread with a title of "a secular theory of where the bom came from," but you have yet to produce any articulable theory except to quote ChatGPT.  I think you are doing this because you are unwilling/unable to articulate an explanation for The Book of Mormon that could be scrutinized using evidence, reasoning, etc.  As I said in the other thread:

Quote

The Book of Mormon exists.  The text exists and must be accounted for.  The statements of the witnesses must be accounted for.  The Plates must be accounted for.

In your empiricist-centric worldview, space aliens and Satan are "more likely" explanations for these things than the narrative presented by Joseph Smith.  You're willing to go that far as opposed to accepting Joseph's narrative.
...
You have no alternative explanation for things that really do need to be explained.  Your supposed rationalist position doesn't do that.  And to the extent it does, you posit that space aliens and Satan are "more likely" explanations for the Book of Mormon than Joseph's narrative and the statements of the witnesses.
...
Here, we are not claiming that the Book of Mormon exists.  It indisputably does exist.  Same goes for the statements of the witnesses.  The existence of these things needs to be accounted for.
...
Not looking for a "fully worked counter-theory," at least not yet.  A plausibly coherent and evidence-based one will do.  Then we can dig down and see whether it accounts for the data, is evidence-based, and so on.
...
When all is said and done, though, you fail, and fail significantly, when you refuse to meaningfully engage the points Daniel Peterson and others have been raising for years about the Book of Mormon, particularly A) the physical reality of the Plates, B) the statements from the Three and Eight Witnesses, and C) the source/authorship of the text. 

You state above that you are "rationally justified in rejecting that explanation without being obligated to provide" a plausible, coherent, evidence-based alternative explanation for these things.  It seems that the best you can come up with is Space Aliens and/or Satan.  Or even worse, you are not even willing to try. 
...
I have read quite a lot, and I have listened quite a lot.  I have spent many years trying to give critics of the Church a fair hearing.  And in all those years and despite all that effort, I have been unable to find a critic who, as DCP put it, can "construct a case or construct an explanation of the Book of Mormon other than Joseph Smith’s that really accounts for all the data."  Your "Space Aliens or Satan" thing is just the most recent iteration of the inability of critics to do this.
...
You have previously asserted (as opposed to "shown" or "demonstrated") that "the evidence against the Book of Mormon" is "quite literally overwhelming."  So overwhelming, then, that you needn't even bother marshalling it when discussing the topic with someone who has, for some years now, demonstrated a fairly broad and substantial familiarity with the subject matter, and who has also spent many years listening to what critics like you have to offer by way of reasoning and evidence.

During this time I have also given the Church and its advocates a fair hearing.  Broadly speaking, what they have offered has been far more substantive and evidence-based than what you and yours have done.  Regarding alternative explanations for the Book of Mormon (which, again, you posit as having "quite literally overwhelming" evidence as to naturalistic origins), I think DCP is quite correct when he characterizes your offerings as "a Rube Goldberg sort of contraption where there’s just so much that’s been built into this to make the device work that it gets to be ridiculous."

The Latter-day Saints have brought the receipts.  You have brought "Space Aliens and Satan." 
...
You likewise "refuse to engage" Latter-day Saints "on an intellectual level" as to A) the physical reality of the Plates, B) the statements from the Three and Eight Witnesses, and C) the source/authorship of the text.  Instead, you declare that "the evidence against the Book of Mormon" is "quite literally overwhelming."

Whelp.  Okey doke.  Dan Peterson.  Bill Hamblin.  John Tvedtnes.  Don Bradley.  Stephen Smoot.  John Gee.  Kerry Muhlestein.  Brian and Laura Hales.  Matt Roper.  The list of Latter-day Saint scholars who have made meaningful contributions to substantiating the claimed origins of the Book of Mormon is quite long, and I find those cumulative efforts to be quite good.  Evidence-based.  Reasoned.  Persuasive.

In contrast, if undemonstrated assertions and "Space Aliens and Satan are 'More Likely'"-style are the best you can do, I'll leave you to it.  Meanwhile, what Owen said back in 1999 is orders of magnitude more correct than it was then: "{Latter-day Saints} are defending their truth claims on historical grounds," whereas their critics - including you - "would have us refuse to engage them on an intellectual level."
...
In 2026, the best alternative explanation the best and brightest of our critics have been able to formulate as to the Book of Mormon is A) that Space Aliens and Satan are a "more likely" explanation, and B) that they are not "obligated" to present any further argument or evidence or reasoning.
...
Again, plaudits to Dan Vogel.  I think you refuse to commit to any alternative explanation because you do not want to end up having to defend it, likely because you anticipate your alternative explanation will fail, that you will be hoisted by your own "I'm all about the empiricism" petard.
...
We as Latter-day Saints don't have all the answers, and there are some legitimate gaps and flaws in our position.  However, the Church's explanation is, in my view, more evidence-based and plausible than any of the alternative explanations proffered in the last <200 years (including Space Aliens and Satan).
...
My point is that you cannot affirm a "specific alternative" without being hoisted by your own supposedly "empiricism" petard.  The closest you have come is Space Aliens and Satan.
...
Space Aliens and Satan are the most plausible alternative explanation you can muster.

And Latter-day Saints are supposed to find this a compelling basis for setting aside Joseph's narrative?

As I said previously, you have no actual obligation to respond to legitimate queries from reasonably intelligent and well-informed Latter-day Saints who, like you, have examined the evidence, who have reached conclusions which depart from yours, and who are nevertheless willing to examine alternative theories about The Book of Mormon.  I've listened to Vogel and Taves, and have repeatedly asked you to weigh in.

I think you have an intellectual obligation to provide an alternative explanation, but that's about it.  You are unwilling or unable to articulate one, and I think that is because you know that in doing so you would be hoisted by your own petard.  Your theory would be laden with speculation and guesswork, would not account for the historical evidence/data, would reach a priori conclusions devoid of competent evidentiary support or reasoning, would expose your lack of empiricism despite declaring yourself to be a "Bayesian methodological empiricist," and so on.

I would actually like to be proven wrong about this.  As a Latter-day Saint, I am throwing open to the doors to my worldview and inviting you to walk in and lay out an alternative explanation for The Book of Mormon.  I am willing to listen to what you have to say.  You've spent years and thousands of posts railing against the Church and its doctrines, and yet when I ask you to present a viable alternative, you've got nothing.  

21 hours ago, Analytics said:

Third: How was it produced?
This is the question you insist I answer first. It is actually the last question, and I'm largely agnostic about the specific mechanism.

"I'm largely agnostic."

You've spent decades on this board, and written thousands of posts under the name "Analytics," all the while speaking against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  But when the chips are down and you are asked to lay out your own reasoning and explanation to counter the Church's narrative, you've gone nothing.  "I'm largely agnostic."

It seems that the best you can come up with is Space Aliens and/or Satan.  Or even worse, you are not even willing to try. 

You have strengthened my testimony, both today and in years past.  I give plaudits to Dan Vogel and Ann Taves, even though I find their alternative explanations to be underwhelming and insufficient to address, as DCP put it, "all the data."  In contrast, you, standing at the top of the anti-Mormon heap, have nothing substantive or coherent to say about the sine qua non of the Restored Gospel, apart from "not that."  I think you refuse to commit to any alternative explanation because you do not want to end up having to defend it, likely because you anticipate your alternative explanation will fail, that you will be hoisted by your own "I'm all about the empiricism" petard.

Quote

If Penn & Teller's audiences can't explain how the trick works, that isn’t evidence that it was done with real magic.

Penn & Teller aren't claiming "real magic."  It's naturalism all the way down.

You are presumably indifferent to the particulars of Penn & Teller sleight of hand methods (as am I), whereas you have spent decades and thousands of posts criticizing the Church and its truth claims.  So you don't seem indifferent.  What you do seem to be, though, is worried about being hoisted by your own petard, and so you refuse to lay out your supposed "analytics" despite various and repeated invitations to lay out a plausible alternative explanation for The Book of Mormon.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 10 by smac97

[champatsch]

59 minutes ago, Analytics said:

My understanding is that your theory is that the translation process was very tight, to the extent where if the underlying reformed Egyptian had different frequencies of subordinating conjunctions after certain words, those patterns would be manifest in the translated text. Is that basically right?

No, that is not right. That is one problem with the terms tight and loose. The original terms are tight control and loose control, and then they are misused or misconstrued to mean tight translation and loose translation, which is what you apparently did at some point, so it created a straw man in your mind.

We ought to clarify for everyone that Wright only did a partial analysis of the biblical material in the Book of Mormon, and he probably did not use a comparison text that was very close to what Joseph Smith dictated. He needs to redo his analysis for the sake of rigor and veracity.

It might be helpful to specify a few things about what the open-Bible theory actually believes. First, at Mosiah 12:21, Joseph Smith opened a King James Bible to Isaiah 52:7 and began to read that off to Oliver Cowdery. He read four verses word for word. Then 10 verses later, he went to Exodus 20 and began to read from verse 2. He inexplicably did not change italicized "any thing" in v.4 (the theory has Joseph Smith being heavily influenced by italicized words – here he ignored the first two he came across [there's one in v.2, am ]). But he unnecessarily changed "that is in heaven" to "in the heaven", and he changed "or that is" to "or things which is", not changing the italicized "is" and unnecessarily changing "that" to "things which". And so forth.

In fact, there are many changes that were unnecessary and that went against Joseph Smith's personal preferences and that have to be stipulated. For instance, in one place the King James text reads "will", which Joseph Smith preferred over "shall", like others of his time, yet he unnecessarily changed the biblical "will" to "shall". There are other times the King James text reads "that", which Joseph Smith preferred over "which" to refer to persons, like others of his time, yet he unnecessarily changed the biblical "that" to "which". There are also quite a few complex changes that would have taken advance preparation.

And many know about the the Coverdale|Septuagint reading at 2n1216 that has to be stipulated.

[champatsch]

4 hours ago, webbles said:

Is 3 Nephi the main place this shift occurs?  Or are the other shifts that happen in earlier/later books?  And does he shift only one way (non-archaic -> archaic) or does he shift both directions?

Every shift could be individually optimized to yield a highest Yates chi-square value. For my study, I have constrained shift points to coincide with books or original chapter breaks. I have calculated most shifts at 3 Nephi 7|8 (III | IV). The shift to conjunction save optimizes toward the end of Helaman or at the end of Helaman. The most well-known shift is therefore to wherefore, which optimizes to Ether 4 | 5 (4.4% wherefore » 90.3% wherefore). It does not matter in terms of statistical significance, but I have counted one dozen or so "and (now) therefore" as wherefore since that is one definition of the word and there are no "and|now wherefore" strings in the Book of Mormon. The transition from there to where occurs between er0210 and er0907 (n=43).

The Ngram Viewer in Joseph Smith's time shows wherefore at less than 3% vs. therefore. That is also seen in his early letters and in his mother's book. The wherefore usage shift in the Book of Mormon reflects English usage of the second half of the 16c (1550–1600).

The shift is in both directions, but the vast majority of the time to greater archaism. I mentioned two to less archaism, and another one is wroth|angry. Surprisingly, there is more wroth in the first part of the dictation. It is a statistically significant shift using 3 Nephi 5|6 as a shift point, not 3 Nephi 7|8. That is because angry predominates in both sections, going from two-thirds in the first part, to more than 90% in the second part of the dictation. So it is a minor shift to less archaism.

Edited March 9 by champatsch

[Ryan Dahle]

3 hours ago, Analytics said:

David P. Wright’s analysis of the Isaiah chapters (Dr. Wright is a full professor at Brandeis--arguably America’s most prestigious Jewish university--where he specializes in teaching the Hebrew Old Testament  at the graduate level. His exhaustive analysis of the Isaiah chapters has not been refuted--they were based on copying and reworking the KJV English translation--not a fresh translation of an authentic ancient manuscript).

Not only is this theory significantly complicated by the more recent findings of how the KJV is implemented in the Book of Mormon (see comments and research by champatsch etc.), but it wouldn't really amount to strong evidence of anything, even if your assertion were true. Before one starts trying to wield this data to support a particular conclusion, one first has to ask: How would a divine being like God facilitate the translation of portions of an ancient text that are already substantively available in the target language in an authoritative scriptural text? Would the divinely facilitated translation prioritize accurately preserving all variants and discrepancies between the two works (assuming such variants exist)? Or would the divine translation prioritize a basic consistency with the available English translation that already exists (which, in this case, aligns with the text's own stated interest in seeing the Bible and BofM merge together in a significant way)?

Since there is no precedent for how God would specifically go about such a translation, and since humans aren't in a great circumstance to engage in mind-reading a divine being for this type of topic, it seems the type of data needed for a reliable Bayesian estimate is simply not available in this case. In other words, you can pretty much throw this line of evidence out of the analysis, since your conclusion necessarily rests on your subjective and unsupportable assumptions about how God might direct the translation of such a text. 

This is really the problem with most lines of negative evidence that those critical of the Restoration tend to rely on and often think are so compelling. If you probe just a little deeper, you realize they depend on crucial assumptions that are highly questionable, doubtful, or, in some cases, flat out wrong. And as soon as you expose light on these weak assumptions, the structural integrity of the entire line of evidence collapses like a house of cards. 

Edited March 9 by Ryan Dahle

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, champatsch said:

very shift could be individually optimized to yield a highest Yates chi-square value

Meaning?

[longview]

7 hours ago, webbles said:

Where does it say the Brass Plates had rings in it?  I don't recall any description in the Book of Mormon about what they look like.

It would have been natural for the Nephites to build their histories and insert metallic plates into the proper volumes. It needed to be metallic so they could survive the ensuing centuries and countless handling. If they put rings on their plates then they probably copied the features from the Brass Plates.

On the other hand, those plates could have been stashed in a box where they could easily flip over to the side the pages without a need for ring holes. Did they number the pages so as to not get confused?

[champatsch]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

4 hours ago, champatsch said:

Every shift could be individually optimized to yield a highest Yates chi-square value

Meaning?

As an example, whoso(ever). The first whoso occurs at Helaman 13:18. I did not check to see which original chapter break yields the greatest rate difference, but it could be 3 Nephi 7 | 8. In any event, the shift is clear at that point, and it was the one I generally used because it was a good fit with various usage shifts.

                                                                     whoso      whosoever        % whoso
Mosiah 1 to 3 Nephi 7                                  1                   66                     1.5
3 Nephi 8 to Words of Mormon                 40                   6                     87.0

[Senator]

On 3/7/2026 at 2:53 PM, longview said:

 

1 Ne 4:13 Behold the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes. It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief.

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

[Analytics]

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

I am asking that you present your alternative explanation for the text, the Witnesses, and the physical reality of the Plates.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edited March 10 by Analytics

[Senator]

On 3/7/2026 at 12:49 PM, smac97 said:

I am curious as to your perspective on this:

If you are in a TLDR mood, here's a Grok-generated summary:

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

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

[Analytics]

19 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Not only is this theory significantly complicated by the more recent findings of how the KJV is implemented in the Book of Mormon (see comments and research by champatsch etc.), but it wouldn't really amount to strong evidence of anything, even if your assertion were true.

The “more recent findings” don’t alter the validity of Wright’s analysis. 

Does champatsch have a theory on why Deutero-Isaiah is in the BoM? As background: 

Quote

What is Deutero-Isaiah?

The Book of Isaiah in the Bible is 66 chapters long. For roughly the last 300 years, biblical scholars have noticed that the book appears to fall into two distinct sections with very different characteristics:

Chapters 1-39 describe events happening in real time in 8th century BCE Jerusalem. The author is clearly writing about contemporary events--the Assyrian threat, specific kings, specific crises. The tone is "this is happening now and here is God's warning."

Chapters 40-66 are completely different in tone, vocabulary, and historical setting. Suddenly Babylon is the threat, not Assyria. A Persian king named Cyrus is mentioned by name and described as God's instrument of deliverance--and Cyrus didn't come to power until roughly 550 BCE, about 150 years after Isaiah ben Amoz lived. The tone shifts to consolation and hope rather than warning. The phrase "comfort ye my people" opens chapter 40 and sets the entire emotional register.

The scholarly consensus:

The dominant scholarly view -- held across Jewish, Protestant, Catholic, and secular academic institutions--is that chapters 40-55 were written by an anonymous author (hence "Deutero" meaning "second") during the Babylonian exile, roughly 550-540 BCE. Some scholars add a "Trito-Isaiah" (Third Isaiah) for chapters 56-66. The evidence for this includes vocabulary differences, theological development, historical references, and literary style that are detectable even in translation and overwhelmingly clear in the original Hebrew.

This isn't a fringe theory or a recent revisionist claim. It's been the mainstream scholarly position since the late 18th century and is accepted at virtually every major research university and seminary that approaches the text critically--including Jewish institutions like Brandeis, which is precisely why Wright's appointment there is relevant.

How strong is this?

Very strong. The Cyrus reference alone is striking--he's named specifically as God's "anointed" and "shepherd" who will authorize the rebuilding of Jerusalem. There are three ways to interpret this:

One: Isaiah ben Amoz in 700 BCE genuinely predicted by divine revelation the name of a specific Persian king 150 years in the future. This is the traditional conservative religious position.

Two: The chapters were written during or after Cyrus's reign, which is when they would have been directly relevant to an exiled audience. This is the scholarly consensus.

Three: It's coincidence. Nobody takes this seriously.

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

 

19 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

How would a divine being like God facilitate the translation of portions of an ancient text that are already substantively available in the target language in an authoritative scriptural text? Would the divinely facilitated translation prioritize accurately preserving all variants and discrepancies between the two works (assuming such variants exist)? Or would the divine translation prioritize a basic consistency with the available English translation that already exists (which, in this case, aligns with the text's own stated interest in seeing the Bible and BofM merge together in a significant way)?

Since there is no precedent for how God would specifically go about such a translation, and since humans aren't in a great circumstance to engage in mind-reading a divine being for this type of topic, it seems the type of data needed for a reliable Bayesian estimate is simply not available in this case. In other words, you can pretty much throw this line of evidence out of the analysis, since your conclusion necessarily rests on your subjective and unsupportable assumptions about how God might direct the translation of such a text. 

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

I’m not evaluating the hypothesis that God would do whatever random thing in whatever random way. I’m evaluating the Book of Mormon on its own terms. 

Edited March 10 by Analytics

[california boy]

3 minutes ago, Senator said:

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

I totally agree. If you want to do something that God would never agree to, the best way to get others to go along with it is to say "the spirit commanded me to [fill in the blank]". History is full of men using that technique to do all kinds of heinous acts.  And it still goes on today justifying wars, genocide, ethnic cleansing, bombing World Trade Center's, discrimination, and yes, more murders.

[Ryan Dahle]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

The "tight translation" elements Carmack identifies are consistent with someone who had deeply internalized archaic KJV language and was reading from a pre-prepared manuscript, first behind the curtain during the 116-page period, then from the hat. The EModE patterns don't require a miracle. They require immersion in sacred language traditions, which Joseph's family had in abundance. 

I'm sorry, but your explanation of the implications of the "tight translation" (in connection to elements identified by Carmack) makes no sense. As far as I understand it, Stan believes in a tightly controlled translation, meaning that it was essentially revealed word-for-word to Joseph Smith. But the translation itself appears to by dynamic, ranging on a spectrum of literalness depending on the context. It seems pretty clear to me that you still just don't understand this topic well enough to deal with it in your Bayesian analysis.

In any case, you are missing the point of the EModE data. The problem is that the linguistic environment that you assume Smith was immersed in didn't have the variety of archaic forms found in the BofM. So you have to come up with a naturalistic theory that can reasonably account for the depth and breadth of the archaism in the Book of Mormon. No one has done that yet, except to assume without evidence (as you did above) that all of the necessary linguistic forms were somehow just floating in Smith's environment, and that it was pervasive enough to be reasonably detected and assimilated into his working vocabulary, sufficient that he could dictate in that dialect in a fast-paced translation. In other words, you have to assume something that, linguistically speaking, seems highly implausible. Which you would have to admit, in the Bayesian approach, would count pretty strongly against your authorship theory. 

If you don't think it is highly implausible and that Stan is wrong, it might help to point to other examples where individuals who aren't well read are suddenly able to mimic, through their own intellectual capacity, numerous aspects of archaic dialects that aren't aren't reasonably present in their immediate environment. This line of evidence pushes pretty strongly against Smith's authorship, and so far it is essentially just being ignored. 

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

Edited March 10 by Ryan Dahle

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Senator said:

Quote

1 Ne 4:13 Behold the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes. It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief.

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

Not sure about that.  How many thousands (millions?) of Nephites and Lamanites had access to, and accepted, the Gospel of Jesus Christ during the roughly 1,000 years of the Nephite record?  And 1,400 years later, the record was restored and has facilitating the preaching of the Restored Gospel to many millions of the descendants of Lehi.

The Plan of Salvation centers on the Atonement of Jesus Christ, and on God's gift of agency to us, which allows us to choose or not choose to apply the Atonement in our lives.  Because of this latter component, the Plan of Salvation has never been about the Lord batting 100.00.  Indeed, the Cycle of Apostasy - which includes both "dwindling and perishing in unbelief" and then recovering from that - has long been addressed.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Ryan Dahle]

19 minutes ago, Senator said:

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

It's a good thing, then, that the Book of Mormon has so many lines of extraordinary evidence to back up its extraordinary spiritual claims. 

[Senator]

5 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

It's a good thing, then, that the Book of Mormon has so many lines of extraordinary evidence to back up its extraordinary spiritual claims. 

If you say so