![\"I](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/186\/2023\/12\/Ausgang_Aareschlucht-scaled.jpg\")
<\/a>Two new articles went up today (Friday) on the website of the Interpreter Foundation. \u00a0The first of them represents the 646th consecutive Friday on which a new article has appeared in Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship<\/em>:<\/p>\n \u201cWhat Can Artificial Intelligence Tell Us About the Literary Skills Needed to Dictate a Text Like the Book of Mormon?\u201d<\/a> written by Brian C. Hales<\/a><\/p>\n Abstract:<\/strong> The first oral draft of the Book of Mormon dictated by Joseph Smith reflected remarkable literary refinement and complexity. Such observations demonstrate that he exhibited highly developed composition and oratory skills. To date, no scholar has attempted to describe the specific skills Joseph manifested while dictating. This essay addresses whether Artificial Intelligence (AI) could generate an accurate list of the skills necessary. It begins by identifying and informally testing eleven chatbots to see if they can accurately predict the skills needed to perform a task. Seeing success, they are next asked a long question about the skills needed to dictate a book like the Book of Mormon. Fifteen skills are common in the responses from the eleven chatbots, which are compiled into a list. The list is then validated by appealing to experts in the field of literary composition. Next, his documentable 1829 skills are cross-referenced to the list. The historical reality is that none of Joseph\u2019s personal acquaintances describe him as accomplished with the skills that AI calculated would be needed. This AI \u201cfail\u201d deserves additional investigation. If eyewitnesses accurately reported he lacked the predicted skills, what skills did AI miss and what skills enabled him to dictate the Book of Mormon?<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n \u201cInterpreting Interpreter: AI Skill Detection,\u201d<\/a>\u00a0written by Kyler Rasmussen<\/a><\/p>\n This post is a summary of the article \u201cWhat Can Artificial Intelligence Tell Us About the Literary Skills Needed to Dictate a Text Like the Book of Mormon?<\/a>\u201d by Brian C. Hales in Volume 63 of Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship<\/em>. All of the Interpreting Interpreter<\/em> articles may be seen at https:\/\/interpreterfoundation.org\/category\/summaries\/<\/a>. An introduction to the Interpreting Interpreter<\/em> series is available at https:\/\/interpreterfoundation.org\/interpreting-interpreter-on-abstracting-thought\/<\/a>.<\/p>\n A video introduction to this Interpreter article is now available on all of our social media channels, including on YouTube at https:\/\/youtube.com\/shorts\/SULd7DFT5gs<\/a>.<\/p>\n The Takeaway:<\/strong> Hales consults AI to build a list of skills that would be required to write a book like the Book of Mormon, concluding that there is very little historical evidence that Joseph Smith had any such skills.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n On Thursday \u2014 which alert members of the public will recognize as a wholly different day than Friday \u2014 an article that had previously appeared in print form was published on the website of the Interpreter Foundation website. \u00a0Discerning readers will quickly discover that it is completely distinct from the articles by Brian C. Hales and Kyler Rasmussen that are mentioned above. \u00a0It even has a different author<\/em>:<\/p>\n<\/div>\n The Temple: Past, Present and Future<\/em>: \u201c\u201cThat They May Be Purified in Me\u201d: Ritual Purification in 3 Nephi 19 and the Implications of Holiness as \u201cPurity,\u201d\u201d<\/a> written by Matthew L. Bowen<\/a><\/p>\n Part of our book chapter reprint series, this article originally appeared in The Temple: Past, Present and Future<\/em>, edited by Stephen D. Ricks and Jeffrey M. Bradshaw. For more information, go to https:\/\/interpreterfoundation.org\/books\/the-temple-past-present-and-future\/<\/a>. For video and audio recording of this conference talk, go to https:\/\/interpreterfoundation.org\/conferences\/2020-temple-on-mount-zion-conference\/videos\/bowen\/<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u201cUsing a close reading of 3 Nephi 19, I will examine the interrelated and additive nature of each of the rituals in their temple context as described in 3 Nephi 19, culminating in Jesus\u2019s high priestly intercessory prayer and discuss Mormon\u2019s possible authorial intent in his presentation of these rituals. I will further explore the relationship of ritual purification and sanctification in the Hebrew Bible (and elsewhere in scripture) and the previous lexicography of q-d-\u0161. I will compare the high priestly prayers of Jesus in John 17 and 3 Nephi 19, and analyze the results of Jesus\u2019s prayer in 3 Nephi 19 on the worshipers at the temple in Bountiful. Lastly, I will explain the aforementioned implications q-d-\u0161\u2014sanctification and holiness\u2014as a state of divine belonging (cf. qd\u0161 lyhwh = \u2018a state of divine belonging to the Lord\u2019) for ordinances and temple worship and our identity as \u2018Latter-day Saints.\u2019\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n Well, the initial claim (in this most recent cycle on the Peterson Obsession Board) was that I\u2019m a liar. \u00a0And what is the proof that I\u2019m a liar? \u00a0It is that Interpreter\u2019s long and unbroken record of publishing at least one article in our journal every single Friday since early August 2012 has only been achieved by (on Thursdays) stealthily substituting book-chapter reprints for genuine articles (which always appear on Fridays). \u00a0But that claim was quickly and easily shown to be false<\/a>. \u00a0So, without missing a beat, a new allegation was instantly devised to replace it. \u00a0Now, it seems, I\u2019m a liar. \u00a0And what is the proof that I\u2019m a liar? \u00a0It is that what we\u2019ve published every Friday has sometimes included book reviews and personal essays, which, they say, don\u2019t really count as articles. \u00a0The important thing, obviously \u2014 the Prime Directive of the Obsession Board, as it were \u2014 is that I be exposed as a liar. \u00a0Merry Christmas!<\/p>\n Here is a related email exchange (from Wednesday and Thursday) between two of those who are responsible for the production and regular appearance of the Journal<\/em>. \u00a0It was copied to me, and I reproduce it here with their permission. \u00a0My point is to share the attitude felt by those who actually know what\u2019s going on at Interpreter:<\/p>\n The idiots (or, if you prefer, \u201cobliviots\u201d) over at the GSTP [the \u201cGreat and Spacious Trailer Park\u201d -dcp] are still ranting and raving that Dan is being dishonest in his claims of unbroken Friday publishing. They are basing it on this:<\/p>\n https:\/\/journal.interpreterfoundation.org\/category\/article\/?journal<\/a><\/p>\n This URL, they are claiming, because of the title \u201cJournal Articles,\u201d lists everything considered a Journal article. And, there are gaps in the listing.<\/p>\n The discrepancy is that we, in-house, consider book reviews to be Journal articles, as well. But they don\u2019t show up in the list at the above URL because they aren\u2019t categorized as \u201cJournal articles.\u201d<\/p>\n In their puckered, clenched, and condensed world, a book review doesn\u2019t count as a \u201cJournal article,\u201d and therefore we don\u2019t publish a \u201cJournal article\u201d every Friday, as Dan claims. The category list on our website proves it. It is a smoking gun, to their way of thinking, that proves Dan is a liar. Period. End of story.<\/p>\n Who would have thought that such great minds could parse categories so carefully and brilliantly?<\/p>\n Idiots.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n To which a colleague responded:<\/p>\n So, none of Dan\u2019s essays are articles, either.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n And here is a reply from the first writer, which I\u2019ve redacted slightly (and as indicated):<\/p>\n [The pseudonymous Obsession Board cast member whose moniker approximates \u201cDumb Dud\u201d] is, I think, cognitively challenged. Yesterday he\/she rightly said that we \u201ccategorize postings into 3 groups: articles, essays, and reviews.\u201d He\/she then counts up what appears in each category and concludes \u201cInterpreter can easily be seen as a \u2018junk journal\u2019 in almost half of the \u2018articles\u2019 aren\u2019t even original research . . . I think they would struggle to proffer a single example of one of Interpreter\u2019s articles being cited in another journal.\u201d<\/p>\n Obviously, [\u201cDumb Dud\u201d] (and the other denizens of the GSTP\/POB) haven\u2019t read Newell Wright\u2019s article back in 2023<\/a>. It is technically a book review (gasp!), but it also includes original research. (Two things! In one article! Perish the thought!) To quote Wright:<\/p>\n \u201cArticles in Interpreter<\/i> are likely to be cited twice as often as articles appearing in the [Maxwell Institute\u2019s former] Journal of Book of Mormon Studies<\/i>. Using Harzing\u2019s Publish or Perish software, I pulled all articles that have citation data from Google Scholar from 2012 to 2018 from the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies<\/i> and compared them with articles about the Book of Mormon published in the Interpreter<\/i> during the same period. Newer articles are cited less frequently than older articles, so I did not include anything newer than 2018. Also, older articles are cited more frequently, as they have been around longer, so I did not look at articles published before 2012.<\/p>\n \u201cThe Journal of Book of Mormon Studies<\/i> published 35 articles of all types that were cited at least once during that time period, for a total of 91 citations, or 2.68 citations per article. Interpreter <\/i>published 69 articles focusing on the Book of Mormon that were cited at least once during that time period, for a total of 391 citations, or an average of 5.75 citations per article \u2014 more than double the citation rate of the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies<\/i>.\u201d<\/p>\n In the course of comparing citations to articles in two LDS-oriented academic journals, Wright easily disproves [\u201cDumb Dud\u2019s\u201d] gleefully hyperbolic conclusion that Interpreter<\/i> would \u201cstruggle to proffer a single example\u201d of citations to our articles.<\/p>\n The inability of people at the GSTP\/POB to grasp anything outside of their myopic worldview is breathtaking.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/a>
(Wikimedia Commons public domain image)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/a>