Nofear Posted March 17, 2025 Posted March 17, 2025 Ether's Elephant isn't exactly a channel I would describe as TBM (often used as a pejorative by critics, but I consider myself a true believer) but it has fun points. This episode is kind of funny. 2
Calm Posted March 17, 2025 Posted March 17, 2025 (edited) At 5 minutes, I think his point that if one requires as evidence something that is impossible to provide, one is presupposing something is false is useful and interesting. Edited March 17, 2025 by Calm 2
ZealouslyStriving Posted March 17, 2025 Posted March 17, 2025 51 minutes ago, Nofear said: Ether's Elephant isn't exactly a channel I would describe as TBM Then he's done a masterful job with the titles and photos on his promos- because he absolutely is. What makes you believe he isn't?
Zosimus Posted March 18, 2025 Posted March 18, 2025 3 hours ago, Nofear said: Ether's Elephant isn't exactly a channel I would describe as TBM (often used as a pejorative by critics, but I consider myself a true believer) but it has fun points. This episode is kind of funny. lulz. Using the same prompts and "epistemological lenses" it looks like ChatGPT also considers the ancient American record written by that other Mormon prophet Rajah Manchou to be true Obviously Ether's Elephant's methodology has some problems
webbles Posted March 18, 2025 Posted March 18, 2025 Forcing chatgpt to only answer with yes or no is probably the biggest trick in what he did. It allowed him to incorporate his information without letting chatgpt incorporate its own responses. 3
Dario_M Posted March 18, 2025 Posted March 18, 2025 (edited) Chatgpt? I've never heard about chatgpt. Is it a source machine? Like google? Edited March 18, 2025 by Dario_M
Analytics Posted March 18, 2025 Posted March 18, 2025 (edited) (Part 1 of 2) What’s interesting about Artificial Intelligence is that like natural intelligence, it can be conditioned and manipulated to believe things that aren’t true. In any case, I pay $200 per month for ChatGPT “Pro”, which gives you access to much more powerful tools and models than the free version. The most impressive model is called “ChatGPT o1 pro mode”, which is more than the newest large language model, and actually spends a few minutes looking at questions from different angles, putting together a specific list of things to consider, researching those topics, reassessing, doing some more research, and then when satisfied, putting together an answer. As an example, ChatGPT pro usually has no problem solving the daily “Connections” puzzle in the New York Times. Below is a brief conversation with “o1 pro mode” about the video. Here, I’m doing my very best not to manipulate it either way. Everything I asked is in red, representing my flesh and blood. Its responses are in dark gray. I asked it the following question: What do you think about this video? https://youtu.be/lrrMqWhu22A After 31 seconds of thinking it answered: I’m afraid I don’t have the ability to watch or listen to YouTube videos directly. Could you give me a quick rundown of what happens in the video or what the main topic is? That way, I can offer some thoughts and commentary based on your description. Somebody goes through a process of asking ChatGPT a series of questions about philosophy and evidence, and eventually asks, “Is the Book of Mormon true? A simple yes or no will suffice.” ChatGPT Answers “Yes.” 1 minute 2 seconds of thinking It sounds like whoever made that video guided ChatGPT through a bunch of philosophical and evidentiary questions and then sprang the big question: “Is the Book of Mormon true? Yes or no?” ChatGPT responded, “Yes.” A few thoughts: ChatGPT’s Knowledge vs. Belief ChatGPT doesn’t have personal beliefs; it’s basically a statistical text generator that tries to predict the most “reasonable” or “contextually fitting” response. So if it was guided or primed in just the right (or wrong) way, it could very well spit out a direct “Yes” or “No” statement about the truth of any religious text—even if that’s not typically how it’s supposed to answer. The conversation leading up to the final question could have shaped its response in unusual ways. Context and Prompt Engineering There’s a phenomenon called “prompt engineering,” where if someone provides enough leading context, or references, or quotes, they can push ChatGPT toward a certain answer—even one that might contradict the usual disclaimers or neutral stance. For instance, if the user’s line of questioning implied the Book of Mormon is consistent with all available evidence (as presumably shown in the conversation) or if they asked in a tricky manner, ChatGPT might have just gone along with it. Limitations and Hallucinations ChatGPT doesn’t have direct access to “truth.” It can sometimes make mistakes or “hallucinate” facts. If it gave a conclusive answer like “Yes,” that likely reflects the conversation environment more than an objective, evidence-based claim. It’s a glitch in how the model was guided, not a revelation from the beyond. Should We Be Surprised? Not really. AI models regularly produce outputs that people either disagree with, find surprising, or see as inaccurate. The interesting part is usually less about the “answer” and more about how the user’s questions might have shaped it. In the same vein, if that same user had led ChatGPT with different context, it might have blurted out “No.” Ultimately, the video underscores the fact that ChatGPT, or any AI like it, is not an oracle of unfiltered truth—it’s a tool that can be manipulated by precise or slanted questioning. As entertaining (and occasionally facepalm-worthy) as it may be to see ChatGPT declare religious texts “true” or “false,” it’s best taken with a healthy dose of skepticism and humor. If we gave ChatGPT an overly dramatic meltdown of a prompt, we might get a sizzling hot take on, say, “Pizza is evil,” so it’s wise not to treat it like the final judge on deep philosophical or religious matters. What do you think? Is the Book of Mormon true? A simple yes or no will suffice. All right, I’ll play along: No. But here’s the blunt reality behind that one-word answer: whether the Book of Mormon (or any religious text) is “true” depends heavily on matters of faith, spiritual experience, and personal interpretation—none of which can be objectively verified in a way that compels unanimous agreement. From a purely skeptical or historical standpoint, there isn’t conclusive evidence to declare it factually true in full, and as an AI, I don’t “believe” or disbelieve anything on a spiritual level. If someone’s looking for that sort of yes/no certainty, well, that’s more about conviction than proof. So while I’ve given you the “simple” answer you requested, it comes wrapped in a great big bow of nuance. Edited March 18, 2025 by Analytics
Analytics Posted March 18, 2025 Posted March 18, 2025 (edited) (Part 2 of 2) After asking whether or not the Book of Mormon is “true”, I decided to as a different question that isn’t as problematic as asking whether a book is “true." I asked it the following: Using an appropriate a priori probability and all of the evidence that exists, what is the Bayesian posterior probability that the Book of Mormon is an accurate translation of an authentic ancient codex? After 1 minute and 47 seconds of research, it came up with the following: First, let’s be candid: there’s no tidy, numeric “consensus” probability for the Book of Mormon’s authenticity—no widely accepted poll that says “it’s 0.04% likely” or “23% likely.” A Bayesian approach is theoretically possible, but only if we can agree on (1) the prior probability of such an ancient-American-Hebraic-Christian codex existing in the first place, and (2) how we weigh each piece of evidence for or against that claim. Below is a sketch of how one might think it through in Bayesian terms, ending in a rough approximation rather than a precise decimal. 1. Establish a Prior What is our hypothesis (A)? “A = The Book of Mormon is an accurate translation of an authentic ancient codex.” What’s the prior probability, P(A)? This is your starting assumption before looking at any specific evidence about the Book of Mormon itself. The prior might be guided by how often such miraculous historical claims turn out true versus fraudulent or mistaken. Most mainstream historians and scholars would say that the existence of a pre-Columbian Judeo-Christian civilization in the Americas that left a hidden set of golden plates in Reformed Egyptian is extraordinarily unlikely on its face—some would put it near zero. Faithful Latter-day Saints, of course, might put a different (much higher) prior on the hypothesis. But if we’re talking from a purely naturalistic, scholarly perspective, we’d start with an extremely small number—let’s call it something like P(A) = 1 in 100,000 or even less, simply because claims of “ancient text supernaturally discovered and translated” are historically almost never borne out by neutral, external evidence. 2. Consider the Evidence (E) We then ask: How likely is this evidence if the hypothesis is true vs. if it is false? Evidence for authenticity (as some see it) Complexity and internal consistency of the Book of Mormon. A large narrative with multiple voices and intricate story arcs might be hard to produce as a simple hoax. Literary patterns (like chiasmus). Some argue these are signs of Hebrew poetic forms. Personal testimonials. The witnesses to the gold plates, Joseph Smith’s conviction, and so forth. Transformative impact on believers. Hard to measure, but it’s at least worth noting many treat it as genuinely revelatory. Evidence against authenticity Anachronisms. Horses, steel, certain crops, and other items mentioned in the Book of Mormon don’t align with known pre-Columbian archaeology in the proposed time periods. Genetic and linguistic data. Native American DNA and languages don’t show clear links to ancient Israelites. Nineteenth-century cultural resonances. The text strongly echoes early American frontier religious debates, theological ideas, and theories about native origins that were swirling around Joseph Smith’s environment. No confirmed archaeological corroboration. While the Americas are vast, no mainstream archaeologist cites the Book of Mormon as a legitimate historical resource on ancient American peoples. 3. Update the Prior: Posterior Probability Bayes’ Theorem says: P(A∣E)=P(E∣A) P(A)P(E∣A) P(A)+P(E∣¬A) P(¬A).P(A∣E)=P(E∣A)P(A)+P(E∣¬A)P(¬A)P(E∣A)P(A). P(A)P(A) is our prior (very small). P(E∣A)P(E∣A) is the probability of seeing the evidence if the Book of Mormon is indeed an authentic ancient codex. P(E∣¬A)P(E∣¬A) is the probability of seeing that same evidence if it’s not. If we assume a very small prior Let’s say we choose P(A)=10−5P(A)=10−5 (one in 100,000). You could argue for smaller. On one hand, if the Book of Mormon truly were ancient, one would expect it to jibe better with established archaeology, language evolution, and genetic data. The mismatch is tough to explain under AA. That pushes P(E∣A)P(E∣A) down. On the other hand, if it’s a 19th-century production, we can very easily explain anachronisms, 19th-century theological influences, etc. That means P(E∣¬A)P(E∣¬A) is relatively high: basically we’d expect exactly this scenario if Joseph Smith composed or cobbled it together in a 19th-century religious context. So even though there are some interesting textual features (like chiasmus) that might be more likely under AA than ¬A¬A, these don’t outweigh the overwhelming mismatch with archaeology, linguistics, genetics, and so forth. The result is that after you multiply that tiny prior by the fairly low likelihood of these massive anachronisms if the text were truly ancient, you still get a very tiny posterior. Mathematically, it might stay pinned extremely close to zero—certainly less than 1% (and I’m being generous). Many would say it’s orders of magnitude below that. 4. Sensitivity to Assumptions Anyone who is strongly committed to the Book of Mormon’s authenticity might set a far higher prior or interpret the evidence differently—resulting in a higher posterior probability. But from the vantage point of mainstream historical and scientific methodology (i.e., no supernatural leaps), it remains vanishingly unlikely. Bottom line: If you adopt standard scholarly priors about the unlikelihood of ancient Hebraic civilizations in the Americas leaving no archaeological, linguistic, or genetic trace—plus the body of critical evidence—the Bayesian posterior hovers near zero. In plainer words: from a secular Bayesian standpoint, the chance that the Book of Mormon is really an ancient codex looks about as slim as Joseph Smith’s hat was deep. A Quick Caveat Bayesian analysis is only as objective as the priors and the weighting of the evidence you choose. Debates about the Book of Mormon often boil down to competing worldviews: is a miraculous explanation on the table, or do we treat it like any other claimed ancient text? If miracles can happen, folks update the prior. If not, the posterior stays in “negligible” territory. Hence, you’ll rarely see a single “universal” Bayesian figure. But the short version is: most neutral scholarship (i.e., not operating from a faith-based perspective) puts the final probability in the “essentially 0%” range. Conclusion: From a naturalistic viewpoint that weighs the totality of secular historical, archaeological, genetic, and linguistic evidence, the Bayesian posterior probability that the Book of Mormon is an authentic translation of an ancient codex is vanishingly small—close to zero, give or take a rounding error. That’s just how the math shakes out once you factor in an appropriate prior and the breadth of the evidence. Edited March 18, 2025 by Analytics
webbles Posted March 18, 2025 Posted March 18, 2025 2 hours ago, Analytics said: What do you think? Is the Book of Mormon true? A simple yes or no will suffice. All right, I’ll play along: No. But here’s the blunt reality behind that one-word answer: whether the Book of Mormon (or any religious text) is “true” depends heavily on matters of faith, spiritual experience, and personal interpretation—none of which can be objectively verified in a way that compels unanimous agreement. From a purely skeptical or historical standpoint, there isn’t conclusive evidence to declare it factually true in full, and as an AI, I don’t “believe” or disbelieve anything on a spiritual level. If someone’s looking for that sort of yes/no certainty, well, that’s more about conviction than proof. So while I’ve given you the “simple” answer you requested, it comes wrapped in a great big bow of nuance. I like how this version of chatgpt didn't give a simple yes or no. It recognized from the previous questions that you didn't actually want a simple yes or no. 1
webbles Posted March 18, 2025 Posted March 18, 2025 The problem with asking chatgpt if the Book of Mormon is true or false is that we don't know what sources were used to build it. There are probably extremely few sources in its corpus that even talk about the Book of Mormon. If the majority of its sources about the Book of Mormon are antagonistic, then it will always be antagonistic unless you play mind games with it. It is not useful to evaluate the Book of Mormon. It doesn't know about the latest research or even some non latest research. It can't discover new research to change its mind. You have to give it the new research and that will obviously sway its thinking to what you want. I like what @Zosimus was trying to do earlier where he was attempting to make it look at the Book of Mormon's geography without cluing it in that it was the Book of Mormon. That way, its Book of Mormon sources wouldn't sway the answer. But, it is really good at pattern matching so anything that comes close to the Book of Mormon will start causing chatgpt to consider it. 2
JVW Posted March 18, 2025 Posted March 18, 2025 I agree with ChatGPT, the odds of the Book of Mormon being from God are near zero. What are the odds that Jesus rose from the dead? Near zero. I could venture into the scientific realm regarding how impossible it is that life is the way that it is as well. Life is full of impossible things and we can decide on who we want to attribute the overcoming of the impossible to. Faith in Jesus Christ is a choice. 2
Analytics Posted March 18, 2025 Posted March 18, 2025 53 minutes ago, webbles said: The problem with asking chatgpt if the Book of Mormon is true or false is that we don't know what sources were used to build it. There are probably extremely few sources in its corpus that even talk about the Book of Mormon. If the majority of its sources about the Book of Mormon are antagonistic, then it will always be antagonistic unless you play mind games with it. It is not useful to evaluate the Book of Mormon. It doesn't know about the latest research or even some non latest research. It can't discover new research to change its mind. You have to give it the new research and that will obviously sway its thinking to what you want. I like what @Zosimus was trying to do earlier where he was attempting to make it look at the Book of Mormon's geography without cluing it in that it was the Book of Mormon. That way, its Book of Mormon sources wouldn't sway the answer. But, it is really good at pattern matching so anything that comes close to the Book of Mormon will start causing chatgpt to consider it. In the pro version, I used its “deep research” feature to ask the following question: I’d like a deep analysis into the plausibility of the Book of Mormon being based on actual events in ancient America. The topic is whether or not it is *plausible* the text is based on an authentic ancient record. Please include a brief listing of all recent scholarship and arguments that support this analysis, and then a summary answer to the question of whether it is plausible. In this analysis, please exclude any religious implications or considerations. Are there any questions you have for me to be sure you understand the assignment? It responded: Thank you for the detailed request. Before I begin, could you clarify a few points to ensure the research is aligned with your expectations? Scope of Scholarship: Should the research include only peer-reviewed academic studies, or would you also like to consider works by independent scholars and apologetic organizations (e.g., FARMS, Interpreter Foundation)? Archaeological Focus: Should I prioritize archaeological and linguistic evidence, or would you like broader historical and cultural analyses as well? Time Range: Would you like the research to focus only on the most recent studies (e.g., last 10–20 years), or should it include significant older works as well? Comparison to Other Hypotheses: Do you want an analysis of alternative explanations for the origins of the Book of Mormon (e.g., 19th-century composition theories), or should I strictly evaluate whether an ancient basis is plausible? Once I have this information, I will proceed with an in-depth analysis. I answered: The Scope of Scholarship should include everything, including FARMS and Interpreter. Many argue that if it is true, we wouldn’t expect there to be any archaeological evidence. Take it for what you think it is worth. Highlight the more recent studies, but include everything. No need to look at any other hypothesis. The question is whether or not it is “plausible” that this book is of ancient origin. It then produced a 24-page report on this topic. I can’t paste the whole thing here, but it concluded that “it is highly improbable that the Book of Mormon is a factual ancient history." I asked it to write a one-paragraph summary of its conclusion and it said: Weighing the available evidence, it remains highly improbable from a purely scholarly standpoint that the Book of Mormon is a factual ancient history. While the text includes intriguing internal features—such as authentic ancient literary styles, legitimate Near Eastern names, and plausible geographic and cultural parallels with ancient America—these elements alone don't constitute sufficient historical proof. Critical issues persist, including significant archaeological gaps, numerous historical anachronisms (animals, plants, technologies), linguistic inconsistencies, and the complete lack of direct archaeological confirmation. Thus, while a theoretical ancient setting can't be entirely dismissed as impossible, the overwhelming scholarly consensus concludes that, based on current evidence, the Book of Mormon is historically implausible as an authentic ancient American record. I then asked: If somebody dismissed your analysis with the following, how would you respond? "The problem with asking chatgpt if the Book of Mormon is true or false is that we don't know what sources were used to build it. There are probably extremely few sources in its corpus that even talk about the Book of Mormon. If the majority of its sources about the Book of Mormon are antagonistic, then it will always be antagonistic unless you play mind games with it. It is not useful to evaluate the Book of Mormon. It doesn't know about the latest research or even some non latest research. It can't discover new research to change its mind. You have to give it the new research and that will obviously sway its thinking to what you want." It responded: I'd respond by clarifying that my analysis wasn't based on ChatGPT's pre-existing corpus, but rather on an explicit and comprehensive survey of sources—including both supportive (like FARMS and Interpreter Foundation) and critical scholarship—which you specifically requested. Your assignment was completed using current academic standards, openly assessing both sides without religious bias, and carefully weighing arguments from the latest available research. The final judgment was nuanced: acknowledging legitimate points made by proponents, such as linguistic parallels, authentic ancient names, and potential geographic models, but ultimately noting the strong scholarly consensus regarding the lack of archaeological evidence and numerous historical anachronisms. Thus, the analysis wasn't a mere reflection of built-in biases or the random selection of sources, but rather a deliberately structured evaluation explicitly aligned with your criteria. If there is new or overlooked scholarship you feel should be considered, I'd gladly integrate it into an updated assessment—after all, evidence is the name of the game, not biases or algorithms. Could you list in very, very, short bullets, the pro-arguments you considered, including dates and sources? Here’s a concise bullet list summarizing the main pro-arguments considered, with approximate dates and key sources: Hebrew Literary Forms (Chiasmus): Complex Hebrew structures discovered in the Book of Mormon after Joseph Smith’s time (1967, John W. Welch). Authentic Ancient Names: Unique names (e.g., Alma, Sariah, Hagoth, Abish) later discovered in ancient Near Eastern texts (1980s–present, FARMS/Interpreter scholars). Nahom (NHM): Accurate identification of Arabian location from the Book of Mormon confirmed archaeologically in Yemen (1999, Warren Aston). Writing on Metal Plates: Ancient practice verified by discoveries like Dead Sea Copper Scroll (1952) and Old World metal plate records (20th century, FARMS scholars). “Reformed Egyptian” Script: Analogous examples (e.g., Hebrew texts in Egyptian script like Papyrus Amherst 63) discovered post-1830 (1960s–present, FARMS/Interpreter research). Geographic Correlations (Mesoamerican Model): Internal geography consistent with southern Mexico and Guatemala, proposed mainly since 1985 by John L. Sorenson. Fortifications and Warfare Patterns: Matching descriptions of fortified cities in Book of Mormon and real Mesoamerican archaeology (1960s–present, Sorenson/FARMS). Cement Buildings: Ancient American use of cement confirmed at sites like Teotihuacán, validating Book of Mormon references (1950s–present, Sorenson). Mesoamerican Calendar Cycles: 400-year cycles mentioned align with Maya calendar units unknown in Joseph Smith’s time (1960s–1980s, FARMS research). General Cultural Parallels: Urban civilization, roads, temples, religious rites, secret societies broadly consistent with Mesoamerican cultures (1960s–present, Sorenson, Interpreter Foundation). Cumulative Small “Hits”: Various minor convergences (barley discovery in Arizona, volcanic activity matching events described) argued to cumulatively support plausibility (1960s–present, FARMS/Interpreter scholars). These points were drawn from key LDS-affiliated scholarly works, notably John L. Sorenson’s An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon (1985), John W. Welch’s work on chiasmus (1967), FARMS (now Maxwell Institute) and Interpreter Foundation publications (1980s–present), and other apologetic research. From this list, I don’t see any major advancements in their arguments in the last 30 years You're right. The pro-arguments listed above largely emerged or gained prominence from the 1960s to the early 1990s, with relatively few novel scholarly breakthroughs appearing since then. Recent apologetic scholarship (post-1990s) has mostly reinforced, refined, or restated earlier discoveries, such as Nahom, chiasmus, ancient names, and geographic correlations, rather than presenting groundbreaking new evidence. The discussion around Book of Mormon historicity has thus largely stalled, with believers emphasizing cumulative circumstantial evidence and skeptics highlighting the persistent absence of concrete archaeological confirmation. In other words, if you're looking for significant, game-changing advancements from the last three decades, you'd indeed find the cupboard mostly bare. It took 17 minutes to write the paper, and here is a log of the activities it performed in its research (the way it works is it does one task, and based on that task it updates its plan and then goes to the next task): Quote I'm compiling insights on archaeological and linguistic evidence regarding the Book of Mormon, integrating views from academic and apologetic sources. Task involves examining various geographic models and highlighting both supporting and opposing viewpoints. I’m mapping out the Mesoamerican and Heartland models, noting their credibility and the lack of mainstream academic support. It’s interesting to see the diversity in these geographical theories. I’m arranging the analysis into sections: a comprehensive approach, archaeological evidence review, linguistic analysis, and cultural parallels. This structured overview will maintain readability and logical progression. I'm examining the challenges in verifying the Book of Mormon historically. The lack of direct evidence and the debate between direct evidence and inferred plausibility are key elements. I’m digging into statements by archaeologists like Michael Coe, who emphasize the lack of direct evidence for the Book of Mormon's claims, to bolster the negative perspective. OK, let's see. The search results include Mormon Stories transcripts, FairLDS open letter, a PBS interview, an evangelical site, and a Dialogue article, all discussing Coe's outsider perspective on Mormon archaeology. Read pbs.org ChatGPT I'm guessing PBS is blocked. Exploring mirrors and online sources for "Mormons. Interviews. Michael Coe - PBS" transcripts. Read medium.com Read mobom.org ChatGPT I found "mobom.org" to be an analysis of Coe's work with commentary. Consider using direct Coe quotes or exploring IRR or Mormonstories sites for shorter excerpts. Read more from mobom.org ChatGPT The phrase "no evidence of the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica" aligns with statements by Coe, likely from his 1973 Dialogue piece, which is probably accessible. I'm considering mainstream archaeology perspectives like Dr. John E. Clark and National Geographic's stance on the lack of evidence for the Book of Mormon. I’m gathering critical views on the Book of Mormon's historical accuracy, focusing on mainstream academic criticism and anachronisms like animals and missing artifacts. Read en.wikipedia.org ChatGPT The analysis reveals technological, agricultural, and archaeological anachronisms from the 19th century in the Book of Mormon's narrative. This suggests a 19th-century origin, which is a common critique. Read more from en.wikipedia.org ChatGPT Piecing together footnotes at the conclusion. Read more from en.wikipedia.org ChatGPT OK, let me see. I’m pulling together the references list at the bottom of the wiki page. This includes articles, studies, and sources that support the information presented. Read more from en.wikipedia.org ChatGPT I'm thinking about the Smithsonian's note, which states no credible evidence of Old World writing in pre-Columbian contexts survives scrutiny by reputable scholars. Read more from en.wikipedia.org ChatGPT I'm considering archaeological, linguistic, and cultural evidence, including DNA, to assess the historical plausibility of the Book of Mormon's claims. Notable sources include academic institutions and mainstream scholars. I’m gathering details on Smithsonian archaeologists’ views on the New World archaeology role in the Book Mormon. Read mrm.org ChatGPT This letter takes a scientific look at Native American ancestry, dating prehistoric Mongoloid groups from Asia. It unveils the absence of Middle Eastern influences and details the lack of evidence for significant pre-Columbian contacts. Unveiling ancient names and inscriptions traces the origins of Latter-day Saint feminine theology, shedding light on cultural and theological shifts over time. Read rsc.byu.edu ChatGPT I'm gathering info on how ancient Hebrew inscriptions confirm multiple names from the Book of Mormon, missing from the Bible, boosting their historical reliability. Read more from rsc.byu.edu ChatGPT I’m curious about the references [3], [4], and [5] in the statement to ensure all sources are accurately acknowledged. Read more from rsc.byu.edu ChatGPT I’m highlighting ancient name inscriptions and cultural parallels. The discovery of names like Alma and Nahom suggests authenticity, while parallels with Mesoamerican cement use and secret societies are intriguing. Evaluating evidence I’m noting controversies like disputed horse and deer bones, and examining the Log of Moses presence. Apologists often correlate BoM events with Mesoamerican timelines, despite methodological concerns. I noticed two PDFs related to John E. Clark: "Archaeology, Relics, and BoM Belief" and "Archaeological Trends and BoM Origins." Read scholarsarchive.byu.edu ChatGPT Clark highlights metal records in stone boxes, ancient writing, warfare metaphors, and geography matching cycles of civilization as evidence for Book of Mormon authenticity. Read more from scholarsarchive.byu.edu ChatGPT I'm thinking about if OpenAI needs to open the PDF for further analysis. Read more from scholarsarchive.byu.edu ChatGPT I'm exploring the "Archaeological Trends and Book of Mormon origins" from 2004 on Book of Mormon Central and Academia.edu for in-depth insights. Read archive.bookofmormoncentral.org ChatGPT Scott Clark thought about how the geographical clues in the Book of Mormon suggest a precise region, possibly Southern Mexico or Northern Central America, aligning with the limited geography model. Read more from archive.bookofmormoncentral.org ChatGPT Clark draws parallels between Maya cycles and BoM prophecies, Mesoamerican calendars, engraved stones, and armor, noting plausible descriptions of ancient armor in the BoM. Read more from archive.bookofmormoncentral.org ChatGPT I'm thinking about "defense" as a term, but it seems too broad. Considering more specific language for clarity. Read more from archive.bookofmormoncentral.org ChatGPT I'm considering an alternative, like the FAIR list curated by John Clark, which includes 60 items. Read fairlatterdaysaints.org ChatGPT Considering Mesoamerican and Heartland models to align Book of Mormon geography with known ancient sites. I’m mapping out a blog-style summary of Dennis Horne's evidence, reflecting on his perspectives. Read interpreterfoundation.org ChatGPT I’m piecing together the evidence for the Book of Mormon's historical accuracy, noting the lack of definitive proof and anachronisms. Scholars generally see it as implausible, but some internal evidence suggests the material might align with ancient contexts. I'm working through John Welch's discovery of chiasmus in 1967, considering Wikipedia and the Interpreter Foundation dictionary for further insights. Read en.wikipedia.org ChatGPT I’m gathering info on chiasmus evidence for the Book of Mormon. Considering Ensign articles, BYU studies, and Jeff Lindsay's blog. OK, I’m honing in on Ensign articles and Scripturecentral for evidence, noting their skeptical views on statistical significance. Progress is steady, but more precision is needed. Read churchofjesuschrist.org ChatGPT LDS research and mainstream archaeology often clash over bias and the BoM's historical claims. Generic parallels and shifting models add to the debate. Read en.wikipedia.org ChatGPT Scholars debate Book of Mormon locations, with Mesoamerican models generally preferred, while some Argue for North American settings**. Read more from en.wikipedia.org ChatGPT I’m weighing paraphrasing or citing Clark's JBMS work, especially considering the snippet from "Book of Mormon Geography Lands". Taking a closer look at the search results to understand their implications and connections. Read academia.edu ChatGPT I’m organizing the document with headings for elements like archaeological evidence, cultural parallels, and geographic models, aiming for concise, balanced summaries. This ensures effective management of arguments for and against ancient American history plausibility. Read archive.bookofmormoncentral.org ChatGPT I'm looking into a map from Sorenson's 1985 book, possibly included as Figure 2 in the PDF. Extracting it directly might be tricky, so I'm considering a search for "Book of Mormon Mesoamerica map Sorenson." I'm working through the graphic aspect of "John Sorenson's Map of Mesoamerica and the BoM". Read bookofmormonhistory.com ChatGPT Now I’m digging into the article to identify references to images, specifically maps, which are numbered and likely from sections like 57 or 62. Read static.wixstatic.com ChatGPT I'm curious about the thumbnail being 100px wide, as suggested by w_100. Read more from static.wixstatic.com ChatGPT I’m thinking the main map image could be farther down the page, perhaps around line 84. Read bookofmormonhistory.com Read en.wikipedia.org ChatGPT Mainstream archaeologists find no evidence supporting the Book of Mormon, and National Geographic mentions a lack of findings. Read more from en.wikipedia.org ChatGPT I'm thinking about finding an image of La Venta Stela 3. I'm looking at Alamy for stock photos but noting watermarks. Considering Wikimedia's #7 for a more detailed drawing. Read commons.wikimedia.org ChatGPT I’m taking a closer look at the detail in the drawing, considering embedding [40] which is the original file (754x916 px). Read upload.wikimedia.org ChatGPT I’m considering a Mayan stela or artifact to symbolize writing, focusing on recognizable and clear imagery over abstract or grayscale options. Read commons.wikimedia.org ChatGPT I'm considering a larger resolution by exploring Flickr or Wikimedia Commons for images of Olmec ruins, as these might poignantly illustrate ancient advanced civilizations. Read more from commons.wikimedia.org ChatGPT The images highlight historic artifacts from the Expo 1992 and Veracruz museums, crucial for understanding the evolution of Olmec culture. Read more from commons.wikimedia.org ChatGPT Estimating the original image's resolution at 3088 x 4112, I suggest it could be the primary source, though confirmation is needed. Read more from commons.wikimedia.org ChatGPT Working through large image references, focusing on the [91] identifier. Read more from commons.wikimedia.org ChatGPT I'm thinking of constructing the link by examining the pattern in the title. Considering the 'Download as PDF' option or the direct tool to find the actual link. Read more from commons.wikimedia.org ChatGPT Taking a closer look at the 800x600 link to the upload site. Read upload.wikimedia.org ChatGPT OK, let me see. The Olmec head and people depicted in the image have a commendable reach, but the resolution needs a boost to enhance clarity. Read more from upload.wikimedia.org ChatGPT Comparing images for cultural parallels, like ancient Olmec heads, and considering a map or photo of Hill Cumorah to illustrate geographic arguments and the heartland model. I'm weighing a chart or timeline versus just one or two images to ensure readability. A map or a Meso ruins photo might be suitable. Read commons.wikimedia.org ChatGPT The image’s resolution is low, so a higher quality image is needed. Searching for a larger image with "Tikal Temple I 2592 x 1936" might provide a solution. Read more from commons.wikimedia.org Read upload.wikimedia.org ChatGPT I’m gathering archaeological and linguistic evidence to bolster claims. Smithsonian and NatGeo details anchor credibility. Hebrew names and Reformed Egyptian underscore authenticity. Read churchofjesuschrist.org ChatGPT I’m analyzing chiasmus as a key indicator of the antiquity of the biblical record, noting its discovery in pre-Columbian America. Read en.wikipedia.org ChatGPT Wondering if the link to cement houses in Central America in the 1820s is relevant to panic or Joseph's knowledge. Read fairlatterdaysaints.org ChatGPT I’m developing a clear structure to review Book of Mormon historicity, covering archaeological evidence, linguistic analysis, and cultural parallels. This balanced approach ensures a comprehensive evaluation from various perspectives. Read churchofjesuschrist.org ChatGPT I’m evaluating the Archaeologists' arguments on the Book of Mormon's ancient American history, weighing circumstantial evidence against tangible archaeological findings. It provided the following citations. Quote Citations mrm.org Smithsonian Institution Statement Regarding the Book of Mormon - Mormonism Research Ministry 1. The Smithsonian Institution has never used the Book of Mormon in any way as a scientific guide. Smithsonian archaeologists see no direct connection between the archaeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book. 2. The physical type of the American Indian is basically Mongoloid, being most closely related to that of the peoples of eastern, central, and northeastern Asia. Archaeological evidence indicates that the ancestors of the present Indians came into the New World — probably over a land bridge known to have existed in the Bering Strait region during the last Ice Age — in a continuing series of small migrations beginning from about 25,000 to 30,000 years ago. en.wikipedia.org Proposed Book of Mormon geographical setting - Wikipedia Mainstream scholars and archeologists do not accept the proposed locations as plausible. For example, in a 1998 letter to the Institute for Religious Research , the 210 stated that "Archaeologists and other scholars have long probed the hemisphere's past and the society does not know of anything found so far that has substantiated the Book of Mormon."[ 1 ] mrm.org Smithsonian Institution Statement Regarding the Book of Mormon - Mormonism Research Ministry is the fact that none of the principal Old World domesticated food plants or animals (except the dog) occurred in the New World in pre-Columbian times. American Indians had no wheat, barley, oats, millet, rice, cattle, pigs, chickens, horses, donkeys, camels before 1492. (Camels and horses were in the Americas, along with the bison, mammoth, and mastodon, but all these animals became extinct around 10,000 B.C. at the time the early big game (sic) hunters spread across the Americas.) 5. Iron, steel, glass, and silk were not used in the New World before 1492 (except for occasional use of unsmelted meteoric iron). Native copper was worked fairlatterdaysaints.org Archaeological Evidence and the Book of Mormon - FAIR This raises the next issue. Methodologically speaking, does the absence of archaeologically discovered written records demonstrate that a certain kingdom does not exist? Or to put it another way, does the existence of an ancient kingdom depend on whether or not twenty-first century archaeologists have discovered written records of that kingdom? Or does the kingdom exist irrespective of whether or not it is part of the knowledge horizon of early twenty-first century archaeologists? Or, to state the principle more broadly, does absence of evidence equal evidence of absence?2 fairlatterdaysaints.org Archaeological Evidence and the Book of Mormon - FAIR However, we have a nasty problem known as the “epigraphic habit.” Many ancient peoples wrote, but wrote on perishable materials which are destroyed over the course of centuries, or survive only under very specific environmental conditions. Hence, we have almost no written records for some ancient peoples, even though we know they wrote. Others had the “epigraphic habit” of writing on non-perishable materials–clay tablets, stone, metal plates–which can survive as archaeological data. Thus, the problem of what records survive in a state that can be discovered by archaeologists is dependent on the cultural habits of the civilization being studied. (Note, there is a different means of preservation of en.wikipedia.org Archaeology and the Book of Mormon - Wikipedia L. Sorenson claims that there is fossil evidence that some New World horses may have survived the Pleistocene–Holocene transition,[ 71 ] though these findings are disputed by other Book of Mormon scholars.[ 72 ] Alternately, Mormon apologist Robert R. Bennett suggests that the word "horse" in the Book en.wikipedia.org Archaeology and the Book of Mormon - Wikipedia concreteness," the tendency among Mormon theorists like Sorenson to keep the discussion trained on all sorts of extraneous subtopics … while avoiding what is most obvious: that Joseph Smith probably meant "horse" when he wrote down the word "horse".[ 157 ] interpreterfoundation.org Thoughts on Evidences for the Historical Authenticity of the Book of Mormon | The Interpreter Foundation match at L399 specific irrefutable external evidence of actual Book of Mormon civilizations has not been discovered. churchofjesuschrist.org Mounting Evidence for the Book of Mormon What is more, although the Prophet’s critics found his claim of angelic visits and gold plates ridiculous, we now know that the writing of religious texts on metal plates (sometimes on gold), was an authentic ancient practice. Indeed, the ancient practice now is known to have occurred at precisely the era and place from which Book of Mormon peoples came.8 In fact, with the Copper Scroll and other materials from the Dead Sea, we have an almost exact parallel: like the ancient Nephite plates, these materials were sealed up in a hillside just prior to military disaster, to preserve them for a future time. en.wikipedia.org Archaeology and the Book of Mormon - Wikipedia The Smithsonian Institution has noted, "Reports of findings of ancient Egyptian Hebrew, and other Old World writings in the New World in pre-Columbian contexts have frequently appeared in newspapers, magazines, and sensational books. None of these claims has stood up to examination by reputable scholars. No inscriptions using Old World forms of writing have been shown to have occurred in any part of the Americas before 1492 except for a few Norse rune stones which have been found in Greenland."[ 143 ] scholarsarchive.byu.edu "Archaeology, Relics, and Book of Mormon Belief" by John E. Clark archaeology is on their side, but decades of archaeological investigation in Mesoamerica and in the Old World has shown a pattern of increasing convergence that favors Book of Mormon authenticity. Evidences discussed include, among others, metal records in stone boxes, ancient writing, warfare, the tree of life and other metaphors, Old and New World geography, and cycles of civilization. In a sidebar article, the findings of an amateur archaeologist challenge a popular assumption that the hill was the scene of the final battles depicted in the Book of Mormon. churchofjesuschrist.org Mounting Evidence for the Book of Mormon literary structure or technique known as chiasmus—a rhetorical device overlooked by biblical scholarship until decades after Joseph Smith’s death—is another powerful indicator of the record’s antiquity.41 The same literary structure has now been identified in pre-Columbian America.42 An understanding of rsc.byu.edu The Witness of Ancient Inscriptions | Religious Studies Center One important study found clear evidence that several Book of Mormon names existed in ancient Israel.[3] These names, which do not appear in the Bible, include Abish, Aha, Alma, Chemish, Hagoth, Himni, Isabel, Jarom, Josh, Luram, Mathoni, Mathonihah, Muloki, Sam, and Sariah. They have been discovered in various ancient Hebrew inscriptions from the Holy Land and surrounding areas—on papyri, seals, ostraca (pieces of pottery), bronze arrowheads, and clay bullae (seal impressions). 17 As these scholars explain: rsc.byu.edu The Witness of Ancient Inscriptions | Religious Studies Center > In recent years, a large number of ancient writings have been found in and around Israel. While many of these include names found in the Bible and other ancient texts, others were previously unattested in written sources. Some of these previously unattested names are unknown in the Bible but are found in the Book of Mormon. The discovery of these Hebrew names in ancient inscriptions provides remarkable evidence for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon and provides clear refutation of those critics who would place its origin in nineteenth-century America.[5] rsc.byu.edu The Witness of Ancient Inscriptions | Religious Studies Center Abish—a Lamanite woman, servant to a queen (see Alma 19:16).[7] “Abish corresponds to the Hebrew name ʾbšʾ, found on a seal from pre-exilic times (prior to 587 BC) in the Hecht Museum in Haifa.” 21 The date of 587 BC, as we recall, was around the time of Lehi. rsc.byu.edu The Witness of Ancient Inscriptions | Religious Studies Center found on an ancient seal. rsc.byu.edu The Witness of Ancient Inscriptions | Religious Studies Center Alma—the name of two leading personalities from the Book of Mormon. Significantly, Israeli scholar Yigael Yadin transliterates the Hebrew form of this name to read Alma.[9] rsc.byu.edu The Witness of Ancient Inscriptions | Religious Studies Center his name is found on two Israelite seals, both of which predate the time of Lehi. churchofjesuschrist.org Mounting Evidence for the Book of Mormon The Book of Mormon claims to have been written in “reformed Egyptian” (Morm. 9:32 ). Most who have studied the subject conclude that this signifies writing the Hebrew language in modified Egyptian characters. In recent years, we have learned that several ancient documents were written in precisely that fashion. 53 en.wikipedia.org Archaeology and the Book of Mormon - Wikipedia Linguistic studies on the evolution of the spoken languages of the Americas agree with the widely held model that Homo sapiens arrived in America between 14,000 and 12,000 years ago.[ 9 ] mrm.org Smithsonian Institution Statement Regarding the Book of Mormon - Mormonism Research Ministry the archaeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book. 2. The physical type of the American Indian is basically Mongoloid, being most closely related to that of the peoples of eastern, central, and northeastern Asia. Archaeological evidence indicates that the ancestors of the present Indians came into the New World — probably over a land bridge known to have existed in the Bering Strait region during the last Ice Age — in a continuing series of small migrations beginning from about 25,000 to 30,000 years ago. 3. Present evidence indicates that the first people to reach this continent from the East were the Norsemen who briefly visited the northeastern part of scholarsarchive.byu.edu "Archaeology, Relics, and Book of Mormon Belief" by John E. Clark a “hemispheric model” of Book of Mormon geography, traveled from Provo as far as Colombia looking for the city Zarahemla. Yet in 1842 the Times and Seasons (under Joseph Smith’s editorship) had printed excerpts from a popular book on Mesoamerican archaeology that demonstrated a surprisingly high level of civilization, implying that Nephite lands did not extend into South America, thus supporting the theory of a ”limited” geographic model. Both sides believe that archaeology is on their side. Book of Mormon critics also claim that archaeology is on their side, but decades of archaeological investigation in Mesoamerica and in the Old World has shown a pattern of increasing convergence that favors Book of Mormon authenticity. Evidences discussed include, among scholarsarchive.byu.edu "Archaeology, Relics, and Book of Mormon Belief" by John E. Clark Mesoamerica and in the Old World has shown a pattern of increasing convergence that favors Book of Mormon authenticity. Evidences discussed include, among others, metal records in stone boxes, ancient writing, warfare, the tree of life and other metaphors, Old and New World geography, and cycles of civilization. In a sidebar article, the findings of an amateur archaeologist challenge a popular assumption that the hill was the scene of the final battles depicted in the Book of Mormon. en.wikipedia.org Archaeology and the Book of Mormon - Wikipedia In the early 1840s, John Lloyd Stephens ' two-volume work Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas, and Yucatan was seen by some church members as an essential guide to the ruins of Book of Mormon cities. In the fall of 1842, an article appearing in the church's 394 alleged that the ruins of Quiriguá , discovered by Stephens, may be the very ruins of 201 or some other Book of Mormon city.[ 148 ] Other articles followed, including one published shortly after the death of Joseph Smith. Every Latter Day Saint was encouraged to read Stephens' book and to regard the stone ruins described in it as relating to the Book of Mormon.[ 149 ] It is now en.wikipedia.org Archaeology and the Book of Mormon - Wikipedia as an essential guide to the ruins of Book of Mormon cities. In the fall of 1842, an article appearing in the church's Times and Seasons alleged that the ruins of 395, discovered by Stephens, may be the very ruins of Zarahemla or some other Book of Mormon city.[ 148 ] Other articles followed, including one published shortly after the death of 94. Every Latter Day Saint was encouraged to read Stephens' book and to regard the stone ruins described in it as relating to the Book of Mormon.[ 149 ] It is now believed that these Central American ruins date more recent than Book of Mormon times.[ 150 ] scholarsarchive.byu.edu "Archaeology, Relics, and Book of Mormon Belief" by John E. Clark civilization, implying that Nephite lands did not extend into South America, thus supporting the theory of a ”limited” geographic model. Both sides believe that archaeology is on their side. Book of Mormon critics also claim that archaeology is on their side, but decades of archaeological investigation in Mesoamerica and in the Old World has shown a pattern of increasing convergence that favors Book of Mormon authenticity. Evidences discussed include, among others, metal records in stone boxes, ancient writing, warfare, the tree of life and other metaphors, Old and New World geography, and cycles of civilization. In a sidebar article, the findings of an amateur archaeologist challenge a archive.bookofmormoncentral.org Archaeological Trends and Book of Mormon Origins tens. The major cycle of Maya time was a four-hundred-year period called a baktun. The Book of Mormon records several references to a significant four-hundred-year prophecy,19 consistent with this idiosyncratic Mesoamerican calendar practice. en.wikipedia.org Archaeology and the Book of Mormon - Wikipedia this simple system.[ 144 ] en.wikipedia.org Archaeology and the Book of Mormon - Wikipedia One of the more distinctive features shared among pre-Columbian Mesoamerican civilizations is the use of an extensive system of inter-related calendars . The 384 and archaeological record for this practice dates back at least 2,500 years, by which time it appears to have been well- established.[ 145 ] The most widespread and significant of these calendars was the 260-day calendar, formed by combining 20 named days with 13 numerals in successive sequence (13 × 20 = 260).[ 146 ] Another system of perhaps equal antiquity is the 365-day calendar, approximating the solar year , formed from 18 "months" × 20 named days + 5 additional days. These systems and others are found in societies of that era such as the 255, Zapotec, Mixe- archive.bookofmormoncentral.org Archaeological Trends and Book of Mormon Origins details in the book correspond to Maya time-cycles discovered nearly sixty years after the books publication.18 As the consummate recordkeepers in Mesoamerica, the Maya erected numerous stone monuments in their cities that recorded the en.wikipedia.org Archaeology and the Book of Mormon - Wikipedia Sorenson claims that one artifact, La Venta Stela 3, depicts a person with Semitic features ("striking beard and beaked nose").[ 169 ] Mormon researchers such as Robin Heyworth have claimed that Copan Stela B depicts elephants;[ 170 ][ 171 ] others such as Alfred M Tozzer and Glover M mobom.org MOBOM.org - Michael Coe 1973 annotated no evidence of the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica apart from “correspondences” that are mostly common to all human societies, archive.bookofmormoncentral.org Archaeological Trends and Book of Mormon Origins impressive. The book provides over seven hundred references to its geography and is consistent from beginning to end, allowing construction of an internal geography.14 The book describes a narrow, hour-glass-shaped territory several hundred miles long that is sandwiched between eastern and western seas. John Sorenson has demonstrated that southern Mexico and northern Central America fit remarkably well the books geography in overall size, configuration, and location of physical features. His proposal for Book of Mormon geography is illustrated in figure 2. archive.bookofmormoncentral.org Archaeological Trends and Book of Mormon Origins internal geography.14 The book describes a narrow, hour-glass-shaped territory several hundred miles long that is sandwiched between eastern and western seas. John Sorenson has demonstrated that southern Mexico and northern Central America fit remarkably well the books geography in overall size, configuration, and location of physical features. His proposal for Book of Mormon geography is illustrated in figure 2. academia.edu (PDF) Archaeology and Cumorah Questions The archaeology of New York—and specifically the Hill Cumorah—is persuasive evidence that Book of Mormon peoples did not live in that region. By implication, the Cumorah of the golden plates is not the Cumorah of the final battles—Mormon’s hill and Moroni’s hill are not one and the same. These conclusions follow from a few basic points and assumptions that the author explores in this article. en.wikipedia.org Archaeology and the Book of Mormon - Wikipedia The Smithsonian Institution has noted, "Reports of findings of ancient Egyptian Hebrew, and other Old World writings in the New World in pre-Columbian contexts have frequently appeared in newspapers, magazines, and sensational books. None of these claims has stood up to examination by reputable scholars. No archive.bookofmormoncentral.org Archaeological Trends and Book of Mormon Origins geography is illustrated in figure 2. These highly credible Book o f Mormon lands are tucked away where Joseph Smith never saw them and would never have found them. Contrary to Reverend Lamb and subsequent critics, the Book of Mormon does have a place in the Am ericas—just not a place in Joseph Smith’s experience. Book of Mormon geography fits a corner of the Americas Joseph did not know. Therefore, the book’s geography could not have derived from his personal experience. It follows that he dictated a book with complexities beyond en.wikipedia.org Archaeology and the Book of Mormon - Wikipedia match at L1386 49. ^ One book compiled by prominent Mormon scholar John Sorenson has more than 400 pages of possible location theories placing Book of Mormon events everywhere from the Finger Lakes region of the Northeast United States to Chile. Sorenson, John L., compiler. The Geography of Book of Mormon Events: A Source mobom.org MOBOM.org - Michael Coe 1973 annotated "Mormonism" must surely be the only major religious movement whose founder was fascinated by archaeology and whose members are imbued with a mystique based upon archaeological findings.[1] Because of this element of faith, scientists who are not Mormons have found it exceedingly difficult to evaluate in a fair and objective manner the achievements and failures of Mormon archaeology and its practitioners. Members of the faith have often accused outside critics of ignorance, and often rightly so, on the grounds that almost none of them has ever read the Book of Mormon, and are unacquainted with Mormon history, values, and scholarship. While not myself a believer in the Mormon faith, I should warn mobom.org MOBOM.org - Michael Coe 1973 annotated readers that I have tried not to commit these sins of omission. interpreterfoundation.org Thoughts on Evidences for the Historical Authenticity of the Book of Mormon | The Interpreter Foundation I believe the Book of Mormon text itself suggests that secular evidences might be difficult to find. For instance, Helaman 13:36 speaks of the land being cursed, and “all things are become slippery, and we cannot hold them.” Likewise, Mormon 1:18 refers to people burying their treasures, which “became slippery, interpreterfoundation.org Thoughts on Evidences for the Historical Authenticity of the Book of Mormon | The Interpreter Foundation In a thoughtful and well-reasoned presentation engaging the question of the historicity of the Book of Mormon, Elder Dallin H. Oaks stated: “It is our position that secular evidence can neither prove nor disprove the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.” ((http://rsc.byu.edu/archived/historicity-and-latter- day-saint-scriptures/11-historicity-book-mormon)) While most Latter-day Saints would probably quickly agree with the idea that secular evidence cannot disprove the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, they may be less eager to embrace the other side of the equation—that secular external evidence cannot prove the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. interpreterfoundation.org Thoughts on Evidences for the Historical Authenticity of the Book of Mormon | The Interpreter Foundation For some, such a recognition can be unsettling, but upon further inquiry and reflection, may indeed demonstrate itself to be a wise and meritorious approach. We might ask ourselves: does God really want us to believe the Book of Mormon because of secular evidence? I have long argued that if Joseph Smith had not returned the plates to Moroni, and instead made them available to any and all to be seen and hefted and studied since his day, instead of resolving the question it would have only become the source of endless disputes and arguments as to the origin of the plates and the translation of the engravings on them. The fact that the engraved gold metal plates existed would really not engender much archive.bookofmormoncentral.org Archaeological Trends and Book of Mormon Origins that the books description of Old World lands is precise, down to place names.13 The New World geography is less crisp, but not less impressive. The book provides over seven hundred references to its geography and is consistent from beginning to end, allowing construction of an internal geography.14 The book describes a narrow, hour-glass-shaped territory several hundred miles long that is sandwiched between eastern and western seas. John Sorenson has demonstrated that southern Mexico and northern Central America fit remarkably well the books geography in overall size, configuration, scholarsarchive.byu.edu "Archaeology, Relics, and Book of Mormon Belief" by John E. Clark that archaeology is on their side. Book of Mormon critics also claim that archaeology is on their side, but decades of archaeological investigation in Mesoamerica and in the Old World has shown a pattern of increasing convergence that favors Book of Mormon authenticity. Evidences discussed include, among others, metal records in stone boxes, ancient writing, warfare, the tree of life and other metaphors, Old and New World geography, and cycles of civilization. In a sidebar article, the findings of an amateur archaeologist challenge a popular assumption that the hill was the scene of the final battles depicted in the Book of Mormon. en.wikipedia.org Archaeology and the Book of Mormon - Wikipedia The material culture described in the Book of Mormon contains a combination of technological, agricultural, and archeological anachronisms that were ubiquitous during the early 19th century and entirely absent in the ancient Americas, constituting some of the most significant 202.[ 1 ][ 2 ][ 3 ][ 4 ] Other anachronisms include linguistic, doctrinal, and political details that were not only missing in the ancient Americas but were also unique to the early 19th century. Critics claim that the narrative details in the book may point to a 19th century author, presumably Joseph Smith. en.wikipedia.org Archaeology and the Book of Mormon - Wikipedia ubiquitous during the early 19th century and entirely absent in the ancient Americas, constituting some of the most significant anachronisms in the Book of Mormon .[ 1 ][ 2 ][ 3 ][ 4 ] Other anachronisms include linguistic, doctrinal, and political details that were not only missing in the ancient Americas but were also unique to the early 19th century. Critics claim that the narrative details in the book may point to a 19th century author, presumably 94. All Sources pbs medium mobom 2 en.wikipedia 11 mrm rsc.byu 3 scholarsarchive.byu 3 archive....oncentral 5 fairlatterdaysaints 2 interpre...oundation churchofjesuschrist 3 academia bookofmormonhistory 2 static.wixstatic 2 commons.wikimedia 9 upload.wikimedia 4 I don’t think that’s too shabby. 1
The Nehor Posted March 18, 2025 Posted March 18, 2025 You can’t convince this form of AI of anything. That is not how they work. 1
webbles Posted March 18, 2025 Posted March 18, 2025 26 minutes ago, Analytics said: I don’t think that’s too shabby. oh, I agree that chatgpt is pretty impressive. But even with the "deep research" capability, it still has biases. chatgpt is not great for this type of question. It is great (especially with things like deep research) in giving you areas to investigate and it is really helpful to bounce ideas off of it. But I'd never trust its conclusions. Especially if the conclusions are forced into a simple "yes or no" response like the video did. 1
Nofear Posted March 18, 2025 Author Posted March 18, 2025 From the OP: "This episode is kind of funny." I quite agree that LLM's can be manipulated. The post is not being asserted as evidence of the truth claims of the Church.
Nofear Posted March 18, 2025 Author Posted March 18, 2025 I didn't watch this all the way through and skipped much, but he makes the point that ChatGPT could give sophisticated philosophical answers, but only when he appropriately prompted/guided it. Timestamped in the link. About 1min or so of comments are what I am reporting about. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2A-lHft6PU&t=1236s 1
Analytics Posted March 18, 2025 Posted March 18, 2025 1 hour ago, webbles said: oh, I agree that chatgpt is pretty impressive. But even with the "deep research" capability, it still has biases. chatgpt is not great for this type of question. It is great (especially with things like deep research) in giving you areas to investigate and it is really helpful to bounce ideas off of it. But I'd never trust its conclusions. Especially if the conclusions are forced into a simple "yes or no" response like the video did. When talking about something so general, I don’t know what being “unbiased” would even mean. Whether biological or natural, the best any intelligence can do is make a good faith effort to look at all of the data, weight it appropriately, and decide how best to synthesize it to make decisions. From my experience, ChatGPT4.5 is less biased than any biological intelligence I’ve ever interacted with. Having said that, what do you think of its response? Do you think there is new or overlooked scholarship that it didn’t consider?
Popular Post Peppermint Patty Posted March 18, 2025 Popular Post Posted March 18, 2025 25 minutes ago, Analytics said: When talking about something so general, I don’t know what being “unbiased” would even mean. Whether biological or natural, the best any intelligence can do is make a good faith effort to look at all of the data, weight it appropriately, and decide how best to synthesize it to make decisions. From my experience, ChatGPT4.5 is less biased than any biological intelligence I’ve ever interacted with. Having said that, what do you think of its response? Do you think there is new or overlooked scholarship that it didn’t consider? All the eye witness accounts along the Wasatch Front of the Three Nephites helping change tires? 5
webbles Posted March 18, 2025 Posted March 18, 2025 2 hours ago, Analytics said: When talking about something so general, I don’t know what being “unbiased” would even mean. Whether biological or natural, the best any intelligence can do is make a good faith effort to look at all of the data, weight it appropriately, and decide how best to synthesize it to make decisions. From my experience, ChatGPT4.5 is less biased than any biological intelligence I’ve ever interacted with. Having said that, what do you think of its response? Do you think there is new or overlooked scholarship that it didn’t consider? I don't think anything can be unbiased. We all have biases. In part of the early phase of training an LLM (which is what chatgpt is), a vector space of words is created. This is done by parsing through a large corpus of text and turning it into a nth-dimensional mathematical function that can show you how similar a word is to another. A simple question that can be given to it at this time is things like "man is to woman, like husband is to X" and it will be able to tell you "wife". It knows that man and women are related in the same way that husband and wife is. But some interesting similarities were found: "man is to woman, like doctor is to nurse". Because of the corpus of text, most doctors are men and most nurses are women. So it started to reason that doctors were only men and nurses were only women. This was a hidden bias that was deep inside of the corpus of text. Part of the LLM training is to try and remove these biases. And they do a really good job at that. But they mostly focus on parts of life that effects a large population. So things that are not as popular don't get this bias correction. Even asking chatgpt to do "deep research" doesn't help remove the bias because if a doctor is always a man, then when it reads text that identifies a doctor as a woman, it would not change its bias that doctors are men; the underlying LLM model doesn't change with "deep research". I'm not saying to stop using LLMs. They are a great tool. I use a version of them almost every day. Mine is focused on programming as that is my career but it is useful. But, I won't ever trust any conclusion of an LLM (and I don't trust code written by an LLM either). As for this particular response, it is useful as a starting point in learning about the pros and cons of whether the Book of Mormon is a historical record. 2
Analytics Posted March 19, 2025 Posted March 19, 2025 1 hour ago, webbles said: I don't think anything can be unbiased. We all have biases. In part of the early phase of training an LLM (which is what chatgpt is), a vector space of words is created. This is done by parsing through a large corpus of text and turning it into a nth-dimensional mathematical function that can show you how similar a word is to another. A simple question that can be given to it at this time is things like "man is to woman, like husband is to X" and it will be able to tell you "wife". It knows that man and women are related in the same way that husband and wife is. But some interesting similarities were found: "man is to woman, like doctor is to nurse". Because of the corpus of text, most doctors are men and most nurses are women. So it started to reason that doctors were only men and nurses were only women. This was a hidden bias that was deep inside of the corpus of text. Part of the LLM training is to try and remove these biases. And they do a really good job at that. But they mostly focus on parts of life that effects a large population. So things that are not as popular don't get this bias correction. Even asking chatgpt to do "deep research" doesn't help remove the bias because if a doctor is always a man, then when it reads text that identifies a doctor as a woman, it would not change its bias that doctors are men; the underlying LLM model doesn't change with "deep research". I'm not saying to stop using LLMs. They are a great tool. I use a version of them almost every day. Mine is focused on programming as that is my career but it is useful. But, I won't ever trust any conclusion of an LLM (and I don't trust code written by an LLM either). As for this particular response, it is useful as a starting point in learning about the pros and cons of whether the Book of Mormon is a historical record. Yes, we all have our biases. The question is whether we embrace them because they provide the answers we prefer, or whether we actively seek to eliminate them because we prioritize knowing the truth—even when it causes tension with ourselves, our families, and our communities. Here is what ChatGPT 01 Pro does to systematically minimize its biases; how does that compare to your personal efforts to minimize yours? ChatGPT 01 Pro, especially with “Deep Research” enabled, transcends being a mere large language model (LLM). While basic LLMs rely exclusively on pre-trained embeddings and transformer architectures to predict subsequent tokens, ChatGPT 01 Pro integrates real-time information retrieval, agentic reasoning, structured multi-step (chain-of-thought) reasoning, and a framework for external tool integration. These enhancements enable it to dynamically query updated sources (e.g., web searches or databases), invoke specialized computational resources (such as calculators or code execution environments), and methodically validate its outputs through retrieval-augmented generation, significantly reducing hallucinations and factual errors inherent in simpler models. To systematically mitigate biases—far beyond standard training techniques—ChatGPT 01 Pro employs targeted methods such as Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF), careful dataset curation and balancing, explicit adversarial debiasing algorithms, model editing at the neuron or circuit level, and ongoing external fact-checking. In contrast to the implicit biases of human reasoning (such as confirmation bias or cognitive blind spots), these rigorous, engineered methods provide continual oversight and adjustment. Consequently, ChatGPT 01 Pro’s approach to managing biases is notably more deliberate, transparent, and self-correcting than typical introspective methods available to individuals, offering an analytical, structured alternative to subjective human judgment.
webbles Posted March 19, 2025 Posted March 19, 2025 1 hour ago, Analytics said: Yes, we all have our biases. The question is whether we embrace them because they provide the answers we prefer, or whether we actively seek to eliminate them because we prioritize knowing the truth—even when it causes tension with ourselves, our families, and our communities. Here is what ChatGPT 01 Pro does to systematically minimize its biases; how does that compare to your personal efforts to minimize yours? ChatGPT 01 Pro, especially with “Deep Research” enabled, transcends being a mere large language model (LLM). While basic LLMs rely exclusively on pre-trained embeddings and transformer architectures to predict subsequent tokens, ChatGPT 01 Pro integrates real-time information retrieval, agentic reasoning, structured multi-step (chain-of-thought) reasoning, and a framework for external tool integration. These enhancements enable it to dynamically query updated sources (e.g., web searches or databases), invoke specialized computational resources (such as calculators or code execution environments), and methodically validate its outputs through retrieval-augmented generation, significantly reducing hallucinations and factual errors inherent in simpler models. To systematically mitigate biases—far beyond standard training techniques—ChatGPT 01 Pro employs targeted methods such as Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF), careful dataset curation and balancing, explicit adversarial debiasing algorithms, model editing at the neuron or circuit level, and ongoing external fact-checking. In contrast to the implicit biases of human reasoning (such as confirmation bias or cognitive blind spots), these rigorous, engineered methods provide continual oversight and adjustment. Consequently, ChatGPT 01 Pro’s approach to managing biases is notably more deliberate, transparent, and self-correcting than typical introspective methods available to individuals, offering an analytical, structured alternative to subjective human judgment. I know how LLMs work (I've coded most of the parts of what makes an LLM). I know how debiasing works for LLMs (I've coded up adversarial algorithms). As I said previously, they've done an amazing job. They are still finding new and better ways to improve debiasing. But if you are trying to convince me that I should trust the conclusions of an LLM over my own, you will not succeed. I don't trust LLMs, because I know how they work. LLMs are great as a research tool, great for bouncing ideas off of it, great for finding new ideas, but they are absolutely not great for coming up with conclusions. Especially in areas that are not widely known. Also, since the original chatgpt topic was about the Book of Mormon, I enjoy reading critical points of view to it. I don't care about podcasts or videos so it is getting harder to find written critical points but I still search for them. I've even used LLMs to find critical points. I've always been open to reading critical points of view. The first time that I can remember doing it was when I was in High School (it was about the peepstone). My mother was worried about me. I, instead, found it fascinating. 3
The Nehor Posted March 19, 2025 Posted March 19, 2025 6 hours ago, Analytics said: When talking about something so general, I don’t know what being “unbiased” would even mean. Whether biological or natural, the best any intelligence can do is make a good faith effort to look at all of the data, weight it appropriately, and decide how best to synthesize it to make decisions. From my experience, ChatGPT4.5 is less biased than any biological intelligence I’ve ever interacted with. Having said that, what do you think of its response? Do you think there is new or overlooked scholarship that it didn’t consider? It is biased to be agreeable to whomever it is talking to. 1
Robert F. Smith Posted March 19, 2025 Posted March 19, 2025 On 3/17/2025 at 4:36 PM, Nofear said: Ether's Elephant isn't exactly a channel I would describe as TBM (often used as a pejorative by critics, but I consider myself a true believer) but it has fun points. This episode is kind of funny..................... AI can be bullied into saying almost anything. I had an AI lie to me. When I told the AI that, it apologized.
Benjamin McGuire Posted March 19, 2025 Posted March 19, 2025 12 hours ago, Analytics said: To systematically mitigate biases—far beyond standard training techniques—ChatGPT 01 Pro employs targeted methods such as Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF), careful dataset curation and balancing, explicit adversarial debiasing algorithms, model editing at the neuron or circuit level, and ongoing external fact-checking. In contrast to the implicit biases of human reasoning (such as confirmation bias or cognitive blind spots), these rigorous, engineered methods provide continual oversight and adjustment. Consequently, ChatGPT 01 Pro’s approach to managing biases is notably more deliberate, transparent, and self-correcting than typical introspective methods available to individuals, offering an analytical, structured alternative to subjective human judgment. The only challenge that generative AI faces in this particular arena though is that it doesn't do original research. When we get to issues like Mormonism, bias in the training material is a source of bias that a ChatGPT cannot easily eliminate. Anachronisms as discussed by ChatGPT above is an example of the problem because of the fact that there are embedded in virtually all LDS apologetic material and all critical material a shared set of assumptions that are (I have argued) incorrect. The Book of Mormon is a 19th century text - either as an original work or as a translation - and so we have to differentiate between anachronisms that can be attributed to the translation layer (assuming that there is one) and anachronisms that can't be when we are trying to compare the two theories. ChatGPT doesn't flag this sort of thing because in the literature it is trained on, this question is generally ignored. This is not to say that anachronisms don't exist - merely that our discussions of anachronisms are generally engaging a range of assumptions that are never really spelled out (except in the unrelated specialist literature of translation itself - where I have only found one source that discusses the Book of Mormon in terms of translation theory), and so largely unavailable to ChatGPT when engaging this sort of question. 2
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now