Probability and NHM

[Benjamin McGuire]

Dale -

Just because there is some overlap does not make the theories compatible.

Either Joseph Smith produced the vision of Nephi and Lehi as a way of correcting a view which his father had based on a dream which his father had received, or Joseph Smith didn't write it, which indicates that much of what Dan Vogel brings up to justify this reading is simply misplaced. These are not compatible viewpoints. They may share some arguments - but this is generally meaningless observation. In moving to an entirely different debate (that of the nature of early Christian belief), Larry Hurtado noted this:

Wishing to preserve the religious and theological validity of traditional Christological claims, the anticritical view attempted to deny or minimize as far as possible the historically conditioned nature of early Christ-devotion. On the other hand, the history-of-religions scholars were convinced that their demonstration of the historically conditioned nature of early Christ-devotion proved that it was no longer to be treated as theologically valid or binding for modern Christians. In both views the assumption is the same: if something can be shown to have arisen through a historical process, then it cannot be divine "revelation" or have continuing theological validity.

The same assumptions, and the same arguments can be invoked by different sides of an argument. But the fact that there is an overlap between the two sides in terms of method or even of evidence and conclusions from that evidence, this does not cause to consider that the arguments are compatible or that they do not essentially contradict each other in their own outcomes.

Even believing Mormons assert that Joseph Smith had a source when he produced the Book of Mormon in 1829 and 1830.

Ben

[Uncle Dale]

Dale -

Just because there is some overlap does not make the theories compatible.

Either Joseph Smith produced the vision of Nephi and Lehi as a way of correcting a view which his father had based on a dream which his father had received, or Joseph Smith didn't write it, which indicates that much of what Dan Vogel brings up to justify this reading is simply misplaced. These are not compatible viewpoints. They may share some arguments - but this is generally meaningless observation....

I believe I understand your point -- and it is probably an important one.

Allow me to tabulate the primary possibilities, as I see them

(1) Lehi's vision came from an authentic Nephite Record, and the preserved account

of JS Sr.'s dream was "colored" by the BoM language.

(2) JS created Lehi's vision, and his father's dream may have been JS's primary source.

(3) JS created Lehi's vison, and his father's dream was concocted from the text.

(4) JS copied Lehi's vision from a pre-existing text, possibly embellishing it a little.

(5) JS cooperated with some other, secret contributor(s) to create Lehi's vision and

that set of secretive writers may have made some use of a pre-existing text.

Now, where does this leave Spalding-Rigdon theory advocates? They will no doubt

dismiss item #1 out of hand. They will be suspicious of items #2 &3 but might admit

to them if convincing "evidence" were put forth. As for items #4 &5, they fit generally

into the S-R paradeigm, (in which JS was the admitted "final editor" of the text).

There is one fly in the ointment -- if you were around in 1977-78, you'll recall that

certain S-R advocates were promoting the odd notion that the "Tree of Life" text in

1st Nephi was actually extant in Solomon Spalding's own handwriting. Thus it may

be that some S-R advocates would even have problems with item #5.

Is "much of what Dan Vogel brings up to justify this reading is simply misplaced?"

I do not have the answer to that one. Your explanation of things might be more

insightful than my own.

I am primarily interested in old historical source material, however. Quite often, when

I post on MBs like this one, I receive e-mails directing me to some old newspaper

article or transcribed diary entry, or some such thing that really catches my ever

searching attention. That's what "makes my day;" not trying to convince faithful LDS

to leave the Church.

Uncle Dale

[New Kid OTB]

You originally spoke of "probabilistic conclusions" drawn from "statistical analysis."  But such conclusions drawn from such analysis do not exist in the LDS-oriented writings on NHM, for the simple reason that such "statistical analysis" is wholly absent.

Which is exactly what I said.

Now, however, you shift your ground and speak of "probabilistic conclusions" in the very much attenuated and rather trivial sense that pertains to all inferential or inductive reasoning.

No, my position hasn't shifted. I'm not looking for numbers here since, as you mention, garbage in leads to garbage out. I'm looking for some acknowledgement that, given all that Joseph Smith produced, some apparent coincidences are likely, and that our after-the-fact view of the hits is likely to skew our interpretation of them. I see no evidence that apologists have taken these facts into account when they offer up NHM as evidence of the Book of Mormon. Nor do they credit the apparent misses with the same evidentiary value as the apparent hits.

In the altar inscription that reads Bi'athar, son of Sawad, son of Naw'an, the Nihmite, has consecrated to [the god] Almaqah [the person of] Fari'at, the word Nihmite is clearly a nisba denominal adjective from the root NHM, which occurs in the area as a tribal designation and on maps (even those supplied here by Dale Broadhurst) as a toponym.  I don't see the difficulty.

Thank you for clarifying that. My criticism was based on statements like the following, from Kent Brown: "Naturally, a person reasonably assumes that, if the majority of the NHM tribe dwelt in a certain area, they would have had a

[Log]

Why aren't misses given equivalent weight with hits? Because misses match no specification and hence have no weight yet. Hits match specifications and carry weight inversely proportional to the probability of hitting the target. So, the criticism is misconceived.

[charity]

Uncle Dale, you wrote: "If you were around in 1977-78, you'll recall that certain S-R advocates were promoting the odd notion that the "Tree of Life" text in 1st Nephi was actually extant in Solomon Spalding's own handwriting."

Is there a link to the original source on this? Where can we see the "Tree of Life" text in Solomon Spalding's own handwriting?

[Uncle Dale]

Uncle Dale, you wrote: "If you were around in 1977-78, you'll recall that certain S-R advocates were promoting the odd notion that the "Tree of Life" text in 1st Nephi was actually extant in Solomon Spalding's own handwriting."

Is there a link to the original source on this? Where can we see the "Tree of Life" text in Solomon Spalding's own handwriting?

Yes, indeed!

Our friends from 1977 reproduced just such a handwriting sample on page 169 of

their book Who Really Wrote... And it's right here! --->

Oops! the page seems to be missing!

Could it be that the redoubtable "three researchers" (who own the copyright to the

1977 book) have yet to secure permission from the "three researchers" who host the

above mentioned web-site?

Uncle "'Curiouser and curiouser!' Cried Alice" Dale

ps -- see also this URL:

http://solomonspalding.com/tanrpg/1977Tanr.htm#pg18a

[New Kid OTB]

Lognormal, by apparent misses, I mean apparent anachronisms, non-Mesoamerican flora and fauna, Greek names, KJV quotes, etc., all of which are most certainly specified.

[charity]

So, Uncle Dale, there is no verifiable source? Copyright law, etc. I see. Too bad.

[Uncle Dale]

Lognormal, by apparent misses, I mean apparent anachronisms, non-Mesoamerican flora and fauna, Greek names...

I'm shocked, shocked to find that name-lifting is going on in here!

Marcellus in the meanwhile proceeded with about one-third of his army to recover

the cities which in the general disturbance had seceded to the Carthaginans.

Helorum and Herbesus at once made their submission, Megara was taken by

assault and sacked and then completely destroyed in order to strike terror into the

rest, especially Syracuse. Himilco, who had been for a considerable time cruising with

his fleet off the promontory of Pachynus, returned to Carthage as soon as he

heard that Syracuse had been seized by Hippocrates...

Livy's History of Rome: Book 24

Uncle "Himilco, eh? -- no doubt a brother to Spalding's Labanco and Hamko" Dale

[Uncle Dale]

So, Uncle Dale, there is no verifiable source? Copyright law, etc. I see. Too bad.

Yeah too bad -- It seems there's no need to recall all the missionaries after all.

Uncle "1977 was obviously a 'year of ill repute' for the S-R theory" Dale

[Dan Vogel]

Ben (Part 1),

I noticed Dale responded to you about your attempt to divide 19th century theorists. I haven

[Dan Vogel]

Ben (Part 2),

On coincidence and improbability

Some coincidences are statistically improbable. For example, after watching the mentalist Kreskin on TV, I spread a deck of cards out on the floor and said to my high school friend,

[Dan Vogel]

Dale,

Possibly you have misunderstood the occasional cooperation between Dan and

myself, going back to the early 1980s. We share a common interest in nineteenth

century origins theories and in uncovering and making available to interested

readers the source documents which assist people in coming to their own opinions

regarding Mormon origins.

I am not an advocate of any particular 19th century origins theory -- I hold open the

possibilities for several different possible scenerios, each involving a somewhat

different list of "participants." Thus, I do not have a particular "thesis" for Dan to

try and "destroy" and I benefit from his research findings -- and especially from his

uncovering of obscure historical source material. Now and then I've been able to

bring to his attention sources which actually bolster Dan's "Smith alone" thesis. We

share information, not just as a matter of courtesy, but due to a deep common

interest in the subject matter.

Thanks for help over the years. You are a tireless researcher and your web site is amazing. Keep up the great work.

[Uncle Dale]

Dale,

Possibly you have misunderstood the occasional cooperation between Dan and

myself, going back to the early 1980s. We share a common interest in nineteenth

century origins theories and in uncovering and making available to interested

readers the source documents which assist people in coming to their own opinions

regarding Mormon origins.

I am not an advocate of any particular 19th century origins theory -- I hold open the

possibilities for several different possible scenerios, each involving a somewhat

different list of "participants." Thus, I do not have a particular "thesis" for Dan to

try and "destroy" and I benefit from his research findings -- and especially from his

uncovering of obscure historical source material. Now and then I've been able to

bring to his attention sources which actually bolster Dan's "Smith alone" thesis. We

share information, not just as a matter of courtesy, but due to a deep common

interest in the subject matter.

Thanks for help over the years. You are a tireless researcher and your web site is amazing. Keep up the great work.

I think, Dan, that long after you and I are dead and gone, what will continue to affect

the interpretation Mormon history (and to some extent Mormonism itself) will be the

basic source material that people like us have compiled and made available to a

general readership. Our names, theories, etc. may be soon forgotten, but authentic

information has a power all of its own.

The day will come when TBMs routinely make use of historical source material which

their grandparents would have refused to even look at -- and they will make use of

those sources in an evolved sort of faith-promotion which will not recall nor comprehend

the often ill-informed pro & con rhetoric of the early 2000s.

If I am at all correct in this prediction, THAT is what I call "winning."

Uncle Dale

[Confidential Informant]

Are you two done patting each other on the back now?

C.I. (Who doesn't think your contributions will be remembered much beyond the end of this decade as more and more evidence is found).

[Beowulf]

I fully acknowledge Dan's contributions to the literature, while not always agreeing with his conclusions.

But I don't believe as Dale does that this flood of material represents a paradigm change from the bad old days when believing Mormons would not look at sources because they might be "tainted".

I don't see that there ever WAS such an era.

Beowulf

[Uncle Dale]

I fully acknowledge Dan's contributions to the literature, while not always agreeing with his conclusions.

But I don't believe as Dale does that this flood of material represents a paradigm change from the bad old days when believing Mormons would not look at sources because they might be "tainted".

I don't see that there ever WAS such an era.

Beowulf

I picture in my mind your final line being used in the opening scene of a 30 second

media ad for Signature Books, complete with a montage of faded photographs from

the Deseret of yesteryear, blending and bluring one into another, with melodious hymn

music soflty rising in volume in the background, until the final ad scene -- in which they

offer at a 20% discount, their newly released, copyright-secured "historical reprint"

of Elder McConkie's famous "first edition," (complete "with recently discovered critical

comments by the late Thomas O'Day," etc., etc.).

Then again, I suppose that KSL would refuse to run such a blatant commercialization

of the "treasured past."

Uncle "check back again in about twenty years for further developments" Dale

[Bill Hamblin]

New Kid

it's cheating to focus on a hit without considering it in the context of all possible hits

[Bill Hamblin]

Since a number of people have been making all sorts of claims about what I do and do not believe on the probability issue, I think I should clarify a few things. (I know I

[Beowulf]

Or, as archaeologists put it:

[demmick]

Just thought I would add my two cents...

Here are two articles from FARMS on Nahom and the altars found from there:

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=jbms&id=255

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=jbms&id=255

Could Joseph Smith have randomnly come up with the names of people and places mentioned in the Book of Mormon? My opinion is no, but it is not based on any mathematical probability or scientific discovery. It is rooted in my spiritual testimony of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

I know that sounds so cliche, but the reason I bring that up is we have to be careful when talking about probability and evidence. As discoveries of the ancient Americas with new DNA technology have shown, it isn't wise to set ourselves up for failure. Thomas W. Murphy was so sure he was going to prove the Book of Mormon true through this, and when his bubble was popped, it got UGLY.

Also, I wish the discovery of Nahom and it's altars would get as much attention as a tree that apparently had the image of the Virgin Mary got in my hometown! People were lined up for miles to get a glimpse of this "miracle"! Why aren't discoveries made that support the authenticity of the Book of Mormon published more? These discoveries aren't even widely announced to the church membership. I wonder if it's because the church doesn't want its membership to get involved in tangible evidence before they have gained a spiritual testimony.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Dan Vogel writes:

It all hinges on what I

[Benjamin McGuire]

Dan writes:

Until I got tired.

Ok, so let me get this straight. You tried an experiment that has an identifiable probability of outcome. Earlier you wrote:

Some coincidences are statistically improbable. For example, after watching the mentalist Kreskin on TV, I spread a deck of cards out on the floor and said to my high school friend,

[Avatar4321]

I don't think this probability test is being extended as far as it needs to go.

First, I think the fact that we can point to a likely path following the directions in 1 Nephi which leads to NHM and then turn nearly directly east and find a place that has all the prerequisites for Bountiful simply amazing.

Add the number of Semetic names found in the Book of Mormon that were unknown at the time it was revealed.

Add the fact that Joseph seem to nail down early Christian doctrine while eliminating the later creations.

Add a number of prophecies he just happened to guess correctly.

Add to the fact that despite needing to have been smart enough to gather all these facts about geography, early christian theology, and the future, that ne doesn't point out any of these facts as evidence that he was a prophet or the restoration was true, but instead invites people to ask God, the one person who could simply shoot down any fraud He was asked about. And have God testify to individuals who ask Him that all of it is true.

Add to that that the critics can find absolutely no rational explanation for all these coincidences.

The way I see it, Joseph is either the best darn guesser in human history, or He really was a Prophet and the Lord really did Restore His Church.

I am willing to bet we will see alot more evidence supporting Joseph's claim before the Second coming.

[Tribunal]

At the Joseph Conference in Washington DC a speaker presented a list of archeological items discovered in Meso-America that many of the theologians claimed didn't exist therefore disproving the BoM. Is there a publication of this list?