Probability and NHM

[The Dude]

This debate is surreal.

Critics who say Joseph et al. took names off maps, directly or slightly modified, are expected to PROVE that the maps were in the hands of the conspirators, identify the conspirators by name, give detailed motives, explain how the conspiracy was kept a secret, etc. etc. Meanwhile the critics are mocked for suggesting illuminati-like conspiracies or implying that poor uneducated Joe Smith could have written it himself.

Proponents say that NHM is compelling evidence that Joseph Smith was inspired by God. Here on FMB, what might be called "home turf," they are comfortable offering vague supernatural mechanisms involving an illuminati of angels that wiped away all other hard evidence so that man would have to learn by faith. Moroni took the plates back to heaven, but I guess he forgot to grind away the NHM inscription? Very exciting stuff when you place it next to the critics' boring EARTH-bound conspiracy theory.

There can't be a rigorous debate on such unmached terms, where one side must show proof and be bound by rules of evidence while the other side gets to invoke miracles at will.

Fnord

[cinepro]

Perhaps this question can be answered with some degree of certainty:

Using the "rules" of Hebrew naming, now many possible words can be legitimately constructed from "NHM"?

[Confidential Informant]

Dude said:

There can't be a rigorous debate on such unmached terms, where one side must show proof and be bound by rules of evidence while the other side gets to invoke miracles at will.

Which "rules" of evidence are you referrring to? I ask because it was my observation that your observation was accurrate, only in reverse. I point again to the existence of the maps in question and the point that Jaybear made a few pages back. There mere fact that the maps existed is sufficient for him. He doesn't have to show they existed in the U.S. He doesn't have to show that it existed in New York State. He doesn't have to show that it was in Palmyra/Manchester. And he certainly doesn't have to show that it was in Smith's possession.

Now which "rule of evidence" is he following? I already noted that I wish I could make use of it because my job would be so much easier to simply prove that guns exist than it is to place an actual gun in the hand of a suspect.

Finally, why is no one addressing the fact that NHM wasn't found in a vacuum? You have the discovery of a steep valley complete with a continually running spring found exactly where it should be.

It's not just one coincidental hit, hit's several. And I'd like to see an existing map that shows the valley w/ the running stream in it.

C.I.

[Danite3459]

Gentlefolks,

Perhaps I have missed something, but I have not seen anything on this thread as yet, which shows that any of the sources which mention NHM could be found in places where the Smith family lived prior 1830. Perhaps this can be demonstrated. If so, so be it, but thus far all I have seen is assertion.

Were copies of d'Anville's map referencing "Nehem" really that common? I would like to see evidence for this rather than assertion. There were two English translations of d'Anville's work before 1830, but Brown shows, neither of these were had at Dartmouth at the time the Smith family lived in the area. Based upon the informstion Dale has provided and I have been able to gather, Pinkerton's map is based upon the information from d'Anville. This is one reason why I was curious about when Dartmouth actually acquired the Pinkerton source with its map.

Even if we assume that there were some rare sources in northwestern North America which mentioned NHM, how realistic is it to assume that Joseph Smith or other members of his family had access to them? The early history of the Smith family, particularly in New York, is rather labor intensive. Were such books really a part of Joseph Smith's information environment? Then, there is the question of why he would select "Nehem" among so many other names on these maps.

As far as I can tell there is no indication in these sources as to the antiquity of the name, but lucky Joe somehow manages work it into his story in a way which is consistent with late twentieth century archaelogical discoveries which show the name to be attested by 600 B.C.

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

There are also burials in the region which date to Lehi's day and before.

Our clever boy fortuitously makes Lehi's family travel nearly eastward from Nahom to a region that is described as "Bountiful," (1 Nephi 17:1), on the coast of the sea (17:5-6), has much fruit and wild honey (17:5-6; 18:6), land fertile enough to grow crops, timber sufficient to build a ship, coast appropriate to launch a ship, a mountain nearby, cliffs from which Laman and Lemuel might cast their brother into the depths of the sea, material from which to make cords to use on the ship and to bind Nephi, and sufficient ore which is easily accessible and from which Nephi can make tools to build his ship.

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=jbms&id=225

There is apparently only one region, just a few miles along the coast of southern Oman, which matches all of these criteria and it is nearly eastward of the NHM region. So you have a complex of data including elements of chronology and geology, botany in addition to geography which all fit rather nicely against the background set out in Nephi's story. Only some of these elements could be found in the early nineteenth century sources we have been discussing. The NHM altars dating to Lehi's day were not discovered until recently. The ore near Wadi Sayq in southern Oman was also only discovered by geologists in the past decade.

[The Dude]

I already noted that I wish I could make use of it because my job would be so much easier to simply prove that guns exist than it is to place an actual gun in the hand of a suspect.

But don't you see? It would be even easier to lay the blame on a conspiracy of angels (which somehow you don't have to prove existed?) and say they took away the gun so the jury would have to decide the case based on faith.

Or is that just too laughable to contemplate...in a court of law...in scholarly endeavors...in scientific persuits...?

But not in apologetics. It's so much fun when there are no rules for the defenders, but only for the critics.

Finally, why is no one addressing the fact that NHM wasn't found in a vacuum?  You have the discovery of a steep valley complete with a continually running spring found exactly where it should be. 

It's been addressed. The Book of Mormon doesn't give an exact description, only approximate. If it were the exact location I guess we would find some burials. Have I missed that? I wonder if NHM could actually represent something unrelated to Lehi's great adventure? Is that possible to you?

[Uncle Dale]

The Book of Mormon doesn't give an exact description, only approximate.  If it were the exact location I guess we would find some burials.  Have I missed that?  I wonder if NHM could actually represent something unrelated to Lehi's great adventure?  Is that possible to you?

Yeah -- that's why I put in my modification of the line from Casablanca, with a

mention of Ishmael's death --

Do a Google search (on images), with "Nahom" and "Meridian Magazine" as keywords

to find the Lehite (?) skeletons of old Yemen.

d'Unk

[Confidential Informant]

But don't you see?  It would be even easier to lay the blame on a conspiracy of angels (which somehow you don't have to prove existed?) and say they took away the gun so the jury would have to decide the case based on faith.

Or is that just too laughable to contemplate...in a court of law...in scholarly endeavors...in scientific persuits...?

But not in apologetics.  It's so much fun when there are no rules for the defenders, but only for the critics.

But in this case...we may not have gun but we certainly have the bullet. ie the book itself. You may not have plates but you have the Book of Mormon which is, purportedly, the translation of the content of the plates.

And you know what? In all my time on this board I've never seen a serious apologist cry "angel" as an excuse.

Interestingly, I have, however, seen the critics do so. I point once more to the work that our own Brant Gardner has done w/ the Book of Mormon finding legitimate and profound connections between the book and Mesoamerica. Brant has approached the book as he would any other disputed test (Historique du Mexico for example) and has shown that it acts and behaves exactly as any other translated text should.

So what response to do we get? The critics crying "ANGEL" because Brant's methodology doesn't account for the supernatural transmission of the text.

Angels indeed.

C.I.

[cinepro]

It should also be noted that idea that there are "precise" descriptions of Lehi's journey in the Book of Mormon is a myth. The description of Lehi's journey, which apparently takes years, is vaguely worded, with little to denote direction or distance traveled.

And as some apologists have shown, even seemingly precise wording such as cardinal compass points can be redefined if needed. So I find the implications that the journey description in the Book of Mormon is a "small target" for the evidence to hit a bit disingenuous. It is a very, very wide target, with only a little general language and redefinable words used, and there is plenty of leeway to shoehorn all sorts of stuff on the ground into being classified as "evidence".

It's fantastic that researchers have been able to find a valley, and a river, and an inscription that says "NHM", but comments that include wording such as "exact place" don't usually help the cause once it is compared to what the Book of Mormon actually says.

[USU78]

Perhaps this question can be answered with some degree of certainty:

Using the "rules" of Hebrew naming, now many possible words can be legitimately constructed from "NHM"?

NaHaM

NaHeM

NaHiM

NaHoM

NaHuM

NeHaM

NeHeM

NeHiM

NeHoM

NeHuM

NiHaM

NiHeM

NiHiM

NiHoM

NiHuM

NoHaM

NoHeM

NoHiM

NoHoM

NoHuM

NuHaM

NuHeM

NuHiM

NuHoM

NuHuM

That's 25 so far, and we haven't even gotten to the semivocal schwa, as well as

[cinepro]

And you know what? In all my time on this board I've never seen a serious apologist cry "angel" as an excuse.

Really? It's not too hard. Try this:

(approaches nearest apologist)

"Excuse me. I'm learning about the Book of Mormon, and I think it would be helpful to see some of the physical artifacts Joseph Smith had. Where can I see the Gold Plates, the Sword of Laban, the Liahona, the breastplate, and the Urim and Thummim?

I would also be interested in seeing the seerstone, as well as some of the papyrus from which the Book of Abraham was translated."

Compare the first answer with the second.

[The Dude]

But in this case...we may not have gun but we certainly have the bullet. ie the book itself.  You may not have plates but you have the Book of Mormon which is, purportedly, the translation of the content of the plates.

"Purportedly" is the question. Without the gun, there is no way to match the bullet to the weapon. Was it even fired from a gun or was it thrown at high velocity by the gift and power of God? Well, it's got the marks of a bullet that was fired from a known type of weapon, but those marks are explained away as "coincidence." In the end we are left in doubt because of a conspiracy of angels.

And you know what?  In all my time on this board I've never seen a serious apologist cry "angel" as an excuse.

Angels and miracles are implied by the position they defend. I don't doubt the serious apologists are a little embarassed to put it as bluntly as I did when they are trying to sound like scholars.

Interestingly, I have, however, seen the critics do so.  I point once more to the work that our own Brant Gardner has done w/ the Book of Mormon finding legitimate and profound connections between the book and Mesoamerica.  Brant has approached the book as he would any other disputed test (Historique du Mexico for example) and has shown that it acts and behaves exactly as any other translated text should.

So what response to do we get?  The critics crying "ANGEL" because Brant's methodology doesn't account for the supernatural transmission of the text.

Angels indeed.

C.I.

Don't sound so self-satisfied, CI. I'm not those critics. The apologist's methodology doesn't have to account for angels--that's my point!--but you demand that the critics' version account for every detail of an earthly conspiracy.

[Pahoran]

The significance of the Cumora/Moroni island thing is not that JS could have found some old map of the Caribbean (or where ever it is) and picked a couple names that he thought sounded exotic.  What's significant is that he didn't do that; that it is purely coincidental that there is an island called Cumorah with a capital of Moroni.  The chances that there would be an island that combines the proper names of Cumorah and Moroni are pretty scarce, but then, that's what a coincidence is.

Hubcap,

two things here:

First point: "Comoros" or "Camora" does not equal "Cumorah." The h is important, as you no doubt realise, which is why you keep quite counterfactually tacking it onto the name of the island. Actually I think that Cumorah is probably closer to Qumran than it is to "Camora."

Second point: you don't even know where the Comoros Islands are. They are on the other side of the world from the Caribbean, in the Indian Ocean, close to Africa. Please don't feel bad; in being completely ignorant of non-US geography you are simply being rather typically American. Well, Joseph was American too, and you've had at least forty times as much formal education than he had received by 1829.

The same goes for NHM.  In fact, NHM is  less noteworthy as a coincidence because  the match isn't Nahom with Nahom.  It's Nahom with Nihm.

Or Nehem. Thank you for demonstrating the validity of the old proverb: "It is better to keep silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

Semitic writing, such as Hebrew, has no vowels. Modern Hebrew and Arabic use systems of "points" or dots placed around the letters to denote vowels, but anciently it was not so. A real old semitic manuscript has no points; it doesn't even have gaps between the words. It is simply a solid string of letters, and all the letters are consonants.

How was Nahom spelled in Lehi's day? Simply as NHM.

Anyone putting vowels into such a name when transliterating is simply guessing what those vowels may be.

The fact that it is now "Nehem" simply reflects modern Arabic pronunciation. It's still the same word. Next time you feel the urge to blurt out something as hilarious as "it's not Nahom it's Nihm," I will have a nice hat just for you: tall and pointed, with a big "D" on it.

Also, since JS was intentionally trying to make up names that sounded semitic, it's even less coincidental, still.

This is called "circular argument." Because you project your own level of integrity onto Joseph, you naturally assume that he was making everything up, and then you argue from that assumption as though it were primary evidence, when in fact it is the conclusion you are trying to reach.

AND add to that the fact that Hebrew, with its lack of written vowels, leaves the door wide open for all sorts of name-game shenanigans that apologists can take advantage of,

That assertion, coming as it does from an exponent of the "Moses Middlebury" school, is funny!

It's also grist for another "hypocrisy" thread.

AND the  fortunate situation that apologists can look for names and locations in Hebrew, Egptian, Assyrian, and Greek--all of which allegedly used by BoM peoples-- and in the end it would be more coincidental if there weren't some name or location in the entire world in any of half a dozen languages that didn't match.

Except it's not the case that Nahom was found somwhere "in the entire world," it was found exactly where The Book of Mormon placed it.

Not only was he heavily involved in research through serious book learning but now he was also heavily involved in searching through maps after tilling and planting the crops.

It doesn't take a genius to turn Lake Erie into Irreantum,

See now, you can't put that down to your geographically-challenged American-ness. Book of Mormon Irreantum is rather unco-operatively in the Old World. As you'd know if you bothered to read it before forming an opinion on it.

But you're right: it doesn't take a genius to turn Lake Erie into Irreantum, and no genius ever did.

or Ripple Creek into Ripleancum.

Or "Moses" into "Middlebury."

No fancy book learnin' necessary.

Lucky for you!

Just the names of a few local landmarks and a little imagination.  Are you going to protest that JS had neither?

Here's the problem, though. Nobody thought of morphing "Ripple Creek" into "Ripliancum" (note the correct spelling) until after they had both names in front of them.

Are you going to argue that Joseph had both?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Calm]

but you demand that the critics' version account for every detail of an earthly conspiracy.

Well, if they make a claim for an earthly conspiracy, shouldn't they be required to support it?

It is an apple and oranges thing. Now if someone made a claim that the Book of Mormon plates were brought taken away by a demon...that would be a comparable claim and we should require the same evidence that we require for the angel's actions.

[toon]

The significance of the Cumora/Moroni island thing is not that JS could have found some old map of the Caribbean (or where ever it is) and picked a couple names that he thought sounded exotic.

[Uncle Dale]

Why so condescending? I recognize the temptation, and I sometimes fall for it. But it seems like every post of yours oozes with it.

Ah, it's just his "literary style;" my bet is that he's a cuddly old softie, once you

get to know the guy personally.

I'm just a little surprised that he did not mention Apostle Parley P. Pratt's spelling

of the famous hill's name -- a spelling that also crops up in some c. 1836 newspaper

accounts of Mormon preaching, if I recall correctly:

http://www.solomonspalding.com/docs/prt1837b.htm#pg129a

Uncle Dale

[asbestosman]

I was wondering about the Captain Kidd theory that Uncle Dale mentioned. If JS was intending to spread the Book of Mormon far and wide, then wouldn't he be afraid of using something suspicious like Comora and Moroni? Maybe I just don't understand the criminal mind well enough yet.

I will have a nice hat just for you: tall and pointed, with a big "D" on it.

Dumbledore's wizard hat? I hope it's not Dunamis's wizard hat. The thought of Mighty Curelom weilding that much power is just too scary.

[Pahoran]

Why so condescending?  I recognize the temptation, and I sometimes fall for it.  But it seems like every post of yours oozes with it.

Ah, it's just his "literary style;" my bet is that he's a cuddly old softie, once you

get to know the guy personally.

I'm just a little surprised that he did not mention Apostle Parley P. Pratt's spelling

of the famous hill's name -- a spelling that also crops up in some c. 1836 newspaper

accounts of Mormon preaching, if I recall correctly:

http://www.solomonspalding.com/docs/prt1837b.htm#pg129a

Uncle Dale

Unk,

standardised spelling was the exception rather than the rule among 19th Century Saints. If "Cumorah" was the only one getting mangled, that might be significant, but Book of Mormon names generally got a pounding. Two well-known examples:

1) One of the alleged "natural" name sources for Joseph, along with Moraviantown and Ripple Creek, was the "Lemhi" Indian tribe of Southern Idaho. This tribe, it was suggested, by none other than the Great Minds Duh-wayne Anderson and Clovis Lark, provided the name for the Book of Mormon Limhi. Actually it's quite the other way around; that particular group of Shoshoni never called themselves that, but took a nickname from the Mormon-built "Fort Lemhi," near which they lived, and which was of course named after the Book of Mormon Limhi.

2) In A Study In Scarlet, no less a literary figure than Arthur Conan Doyle, writing near the end of the century, spelled Moroni as "Merona."

This despite the fact that in The Book of Mormon, it was always "Cumorah," "Limhi" and "Moroni."

Regards,

Pahoran

[Uncle Dale]

I was wondering about the Captain Kidd theory that Uncle Dale mentioned. If JS was intending to spread the Book of Mormon far and wide, then wouldn't he be afraid of using something suspicious like Comora and Moroni? Maybe I just don't understand the criminal mind well enough yet.

There is one unverified mention of JS reading Captain Kidd adventures -- but, as

you say, it's unlikely that he would have interjected such stuff inbto the BoM, regardless

of the true source of the "Nephite Record."

However, we we to look to folks like Ethan Smith and/or Solomon Spalding for the

Captain Kidd treasure-burying details, perhaps such writers of things Nephite would

have not been so constrained by "using something suspicious" in their purported work.

My guess is that the same mind that would have taken "Helorum" from an account of

the Greek war against Syracuse, "Gadianton" from the sefarers of ancient Gades,

"Kishkumen" from a Pennsylvanian Indian village, "Angola" from Africa, and the "narrow

neck of land" dividing two seas from accounts of the Greek Wars, would not have

balked at adding Moroni and Comora to the list of historical/geographical borrowings.

Then again, who can PROVE such things?

Uncle "what did Nibley say about apologetics being just a fascinating game?" Dale

[Scottie]

Why so condescending? I recognize the temptation, and I sometimes fall for it. But it seems like every post of yours oozes with it.

By their fruits shall ye know them...

[Uncle Dale]

Why so condescending?  I recognize the temptation, and I sometimes fall for it.  But it seems like every post of yours oozes with it.

Ah, it's just his "literary style;" my bet is that he's a cuddly old softie, once you

get to know the guy personally.

I'm just a little surprised that he did not mention Apostle Parley P. Pratt's spelling

of the famous hill's name -- a spelling that also crops up in some c. 1836 newspaper

accounts of Mormon preaching, if I recall correctly:

http://www.solomonspalding.com/docs/prt1837b.htm#pg129a

Uncle Dale

Unk,

standardised spelling was the exception rather than the rule among 19th Century Saints. If "Cumorah" was the only one getting mangled, that might be significant, but Book of Mormon names generally got a pounding. Two well-known examples:

1) One of the alleged "natural" name sources for Joseph, along with Moraviantown and Ripple Creek, was the "Lemhi" Indian tribe of Southern Idaho. This tribe, it was suggested, by none other than the Great Minds Duh-wayne Anderson and Clovis Lark, provided the name for the Book of Mormon Limhi. Actually it's quite the other way around; that particular group of Shoshoni never called themselves that, but took a nickname from the Mormon-built "Fort Lemhi," near which they lived, and which was of course named after the Book of Mormon Limhi.

2) In A Study In Scarlet, no less a literary figure than Arthur Conan Doyle, writing near the end of the century, spelled Moroni as "Merona."

This despite the fact that in The Book of Mormon, it was always "Cumorah," "Limhi" and "Moroni."

Regards,

Pahoran

Gee -- and here I thought I'd opened a path for the "two hills explanation" --

the one in NY was Cumora

the one in Tabasco or Yucatan, or wherever, was Cumorah

But, as has all too often been the case, your explanation of things sounds better than mine.

Uncle "he who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day" Dale

[cinepro]

It should be noted that people aren't required to explain the origin of the Book of Mormon.

There is no law saying that you will be put to death if you don't subscribe to a theory of how the Book of Mormon was written.

The universe will not end if you can't prove how Joseph did it.

Some may feel that eternal salvation rests on your approach to the subject, and therefore you must chose a "side", but they are mistaken. That belief is only held because they feel like they can be the beneficiaries of a black or white thought process on the subject. But that doesn't truly make it a black or white process, not matter how hard they insist. It only means you don't know something, and ignorance is the start of the process of gaining knowledge, not the end. The fact that I don't know how David Copperfield made the Statue of Liberty disappear doesn't mean that I must adopt someone's supernatural explanation. Or another magician's explanation. It only means I don't know how he did it.

The fact that someone doesn't know how Joseph Smith produced the Book of Mormon doesn't mean they must accept the supernatural explanation, or Vogel's naturalistic one, or the Spaulding theory, or come up with their own. It only means they (I) don't know. It isn't a forced mulitiple choice test.

As in billions of other situations we encounter in this life, "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer. There are countless situations in life where we don't have enough data to support any theory regarding something. This does not mean that we are compelled chose between the poor theories. The obvious point of course is to withhold judgement until further data presents itself.

If you do venture into allegiance with poor theory that stretches beyond the data, you will probably find yourself defending your theory in the best way you know how: by pointing out the holes in the other peoples' theories, and insisting that since someone must chose, they should ignore the holes in your theory, and choose it anyway. If they do so, they can then join you in backslapping support for your mutual wisdom in choosing the right theory (after all, look at all the holes in the other theories!).

But to someone who sees the holes in all the theories for what they are, are has decided to withhold judgement, the backslapping and hole-pointing on both sides looks silly and unconvincing (well, it's convincing to the point of not pledging allegiance to either theory, but not in support of the other).

So please stop insisting that someone has to come up with a better theory than yours if they choose not to accept yours. It is quite possible that there will never be an acceptable theory for some people, because the data in support of any theory might be insufficient. And, absent the invention of a time machine or the otherwise discovery of new data, that may be the case for quite some time.

[USU78]

Why so condescending?  I recognize the temptation, and I sometimes fall for it.  But it seems like every post of yours oozes with it.

Ah, it's just his "literary style;" my bet is that he's a cuddly old softie, once you

get to know the guy personally.

I'm just a little surprised that he did not mention Apostle Parley P. Pratt's spelling

of the famous hill's name -- a spelling that also crops up in some c. 1836 newspaper

accounts of Mormon preaching, if I recall correctly:

http://www.solomonspalding.com/docs/prt1837b.htm#pg129a

Uncle Dale

I ardly tink it's a uge problem for Cumora to lack te final . Indeed, it can easily be ascribed to printer's error as Parley's. We know tat neiter Josep nor the printer left it off in te first printing.

USU "__ I N G O" 78

[asbestosman]

I also wonder whether an atheist is more likely than others to think something is coincidence rather than conspiracy. After all, if the universe has no inherent purpose or meaning, then isn't more or less everything a coincidence?

Why so condescending?  I recognize the temptation, and I sometimes fall for it.  But it seems like every post of yours oozes with it.

By their fruits shall ye know them...

What if they're tomatos?

What if they're peppers?

[Uncle Dale]

Why so condescending?  I recognize the temptation, and I sometimes fall for it.  But it seems like every post of yours oozes with it.

Ah, it's just his "literary style;" my bet is that he's a cuddly old softie, once you

get to know the guy personally.

I'm just a little surprised that he did not mention Apostle Parley P. Pratt's spelling

of the famous hill's name -- a spelling that also crops up in some c. 1836 newspaper

accounts of Mormon preaching, if I recall correctly:

http://www.solomonspalding.com/docs/prt1837b.htm#pg129a

Uncle Dale

I ardly tink it's a uge problem for Cumora to lack te final . Indeed, it can easily be ascribed to printer's error as Parley's. We know tat neiter Josep nor the printer left it off in te first printing.

USU "__ I N G O" 78

Actually, I didn't have any hounds in this particular hunt --

I was just shamelessly linking & promoting my 1837 Voice of Warning reproduction:

Uncle "but don't tell Pahoran that -- he thinks he's won a round or two on me" Dale

[New Kid OTB]

I've been lurking for awhile, but I can't let this discussion go without adding some comments.

I'm not sure what exactly is being claimed by the apologists on this subject. Dr. Hamblin started out claiming "high levels of improbability" for the NHM hit, but later seems to soften his stance:

I'm not arguing for any specific numbers; there are too many variables. I'm simply arguing, as a general principle, that there is a certain improbability that JS would, by coincidence, invent a name later found in inscriptions from the place and time he predicted. I also argue that the more such "hits" the greater the improbability--whatever the specific number--that it is done by coincidence. Is there something wrong with these two arguments?

It's obvious that there is a certain improbability -- or probability, however you want to say it -- that JS would come up with NHM by coincidence. It's also obvious that more "hits" = greater improbability. So Dr. Hamblin's reasoning is correct, but it avoids the important question, which is whether these hits add up to something that's statistically significant.

To come up with a credible answer to this question, we need to determine what constitutes a hit. If we discover some Olmec named his cat Curie Lom, have we found a hit? Or if Mayan kids played a spin-the-bottle game called Lee Ho Na? Do hits deal only with proper names? If we protest, "Hey, we're dealing with this NHM issue only," then we're guilty of cherry-picking our statistical data.

The problem is that we're defining our test parameters after the data is in, so it's easy to define them in ways that support our desired conclusions. This problem is inevitable in some fields, so how do we keep ourselves honest? The answer is that we submit our conclusions to other professionals for review.

Which brings us to the problem of apologetics. Apologies are usually written, reviewed, published, and read by believers. Nonbelievers don't, and shouldn't, give them the time of day unless they're published in the right journals. So why don't apologists submit their articles?

Juliann argues that secular scholars are generally uninterested in religious texts, but there's certainly a lot of interest in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Book of the Dead, and the Popol Vuh. Let's be honest. The Book of Mormon as an ancient religious text (liberally sprinkled with historical context) would be of great interest to anthropologists and archaeologists if they considered it authentic, which they don't.

Why don't they? What about the positive apologetics for the BOM's authenticity? Answer: The academic world doesn't take them seriously because the apologists themselves don't take them seriously enough to publish them where they'll be read by non-LDS scholars.

Dr. Hamblin asks us what's wrong with his arguments. Maybe he should tell us.