Probability and NHM

[Dan Vogel]

Ben,

This is why, of course, we can say so clearly that writers like Dan Vogel are polemical. In addressing only what they see coming from LDS believers, and ignoring other critics who are offering competing theories of the origin of the Book of Mormon, we see that his interest is not so much in establishing his view of modern authorship, so much as it is in demonstrating that the believer is incorrect. And despite his claims that he is disinterested in polemic, it seems that this is the only way in which to view his claims.

Give me a break. You can tell

[New Kid OTB]

Dr. Peterson,

When apologists use NHM to support the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, they are making a probabilistic claim. Here's one example of many:

Taken together, the preservation of this rare name -- with all its exact parallels to the Lehite account -- must be considered as striking confirmation of the record in which it appears.

By cherry-picking, I mean that we ask, "What is the probability that this NHM thing is a coincidence?" without asking "How many opportunities for coincidences are afforded by the BOM?" Taking the NHM hits out of their statistical context is a fallacy.

The leap from tribal name to toponym seems like a post facto assumption to me, unless non-LDS also call the place NHM.

Thank you for the Nibley reference. I stand corrected on that.

Lastly, I'll opine again that scholars involved in Mesoamerican studies would be clamoring for the Book of Mormon if they considered it authentic, regardless of its religious implications. That they aren't clamoring should give pause to those of us who speak in positive apologetic terms.

- Edit: misspelled author's name -

[Uncle Dale]

Ben,

This is why, of course, we can say so clearly that writers like Dan Vogel are polemical. In addressing only what they see coming from LDS believers, and ignoring other critics who are offering competing theories of the origin of the Book of Mormon, we see that his interest is not so much in establishing his view of modern authorship, so much as it is in demonstrating that the believer is incorrect. And despite his claims that he is disinterested in polemic, it seems that this is the only way in which to view his claims.

Give me a break. You can tell

[Uncle Dale]

My guess is that FARMS does not maintain a dedicated staff of contributors and that

you accept useful material when and where it becomes available, without demanding

much of a scholarly "paper trail" in the non-sectarian literature.

My guess is that you have never looked at many of the footnotes in FARMS publications, many of which are extensive, mostly to non-LDS sources (it depends on the writer).

But, more to the point, I suppose that you have a specific mission statement and that

you are accountable to financial and publication supporters who expect your writers

to address primarily a faithful LDS audience and with outcomes which generally work

in favor of the advancement of the CofJCofLDS, as much as possible.

Considering that most FARMS publications have the mission statement, you might want to actually read it. It might help you do more than suppose.

This sounds as though you are saying that the FARMS writers have already subjected

their own research and conclusions to non-sectarian, peer review and criticism within

the scholarly literature.

However, what I suppose you are really saying, is that the FARMS writers make use

of non-LDS source material from time to time.

There is a difference.

As for the FARMS mission, I have read various summaries and paraphrases of it,

as occasionally mentioned within the Provo-published materials. However, if you

wish to provide the specific URL, I'll take a look at the actual statement.

Uncle Dale

[Calm]

Is this it?

About FARMS

[Uncle Dale]

Is this it?

About FARMS

This appears to me to be yet another summary, calmoriah.

Although mission statements can be quite short, they are generally accompanied by

some lengthy explanations, lists of goals, methodology, implementation plans, etc.

I would expect that The Brethren on the "BYU Board of Trustees" required some

lengthier documentation of purposes and methods, back in 1997. However, I do

not remember ever seeing such a detailed description in print.

????

Uncle Dale

[Daniel Peterson]

I would expect that The Brethren on the "BYU Board of Trustees" required some lengthier documentation of purposes and methods, back in 1997. However, I do not remember ever seeing such a detailed description in print.

Your assumption is, in fact, wrong. FARMS isn't micromanaged -- nor, for that matter, macromanaged -- from Salt Lake City. Nor even from the Abraham O. Smoot Administration Building in Provo. FARMS sets its own research and publication priorities, makes its own editorial decisions, determines its own focus and methods of outreach.

I say this from a position of some authority (having, for example, attended a meeting just this afternoon, as I do weekly, where matters such as these were discussed and decided).

[Uncle Dale]

I would expect that The Brethren on the "BYU Board of Trustees" required some lengthier documentation of purposes and methods, back in 1997. However, I do not remember ever seeing such a detailed description in print.

Your assumption is, in fact, wrong. FARMS isn't micromanaged -- nor, for that matter, macromanaged -- from Salt Lake City. Nor even from the Abraham O. Smoot Administration Building in Provo. FARMS sets its own research and publication priorities, makes its own editorial decisions, determines its own focus and methods of outreach.

I say this from a position of some authority (having, for example, attended a meeting just this afternoon, as I do weekly, where matters such as these were discussed and decided).

Well then, that clarifies things, doesn't it?

May I assume that the FARMS mission statement referred to by "Bookworm," is the

web posting at the URL located by "calmoriah" then?

If so, then my question appears to have been answered already -- (not that I do not

appreciate your taking time to set matters straight).

Uncle Dale

[Daniel Peterson]

When apologists use NHM to support the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, they are making a probabilistic claim.

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. 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.

By cherry-picking, I mean that we ask, "What is the probability that this NHM thing is a coincidence?" without asking "How many opportunities for coincidences are afforded by the BOM?"  Taking the NHM hits out of their statistical context is a fallacy.

I eagerly await your objective calculation of the statistical probabilities for this case. I personally think -- in view of the principle "Garbage in, garbage out" -- that far too much subjectivity and far too many imponderables enter into historical inferences for quantification to play any meaningful role in the vast majority of such matters. Feel free to prove me wrong in the matter of NHM.

The leap from tribal name to toponym seems like a post facto assumption to me, unless non-LDS also call the place NHM.

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.

Lastly, I'll opine again that scholars involved in Mesoamerican studies would be clamoring for the Book of Mormon if they considered it authentic, regardless of its religious implications.  That they aren't clamoring should give pause to those of us who speak in positive apologetic terms.

That they aren't clamoring says little more than that, for the vast majority of them, the Book of Mormon is not, in William James's terminology, a live option, but a dead one. Which means that, being rational people, they will not devote much of their limited time and energy to thinking about it. But the fact that they think it a dead option and do not devote much of their limited time and energy to it means that they are unlikely to change their view so as to consider it a live option unless something drastic intervenes. Such situations occur over and over again in the history of science and scholarship: Old paradigms, to use Kuhnian language, are often replaced simply because their adherents die off, not because their adherents ever actually accept a new paradigm. And some very useful ideas, even very true ones, triumph only long after they were first promulgated. The lack of interest shown by contemporaries in Ibn Khaldun's sociological insights and Ignaz Semmelweis's discoveries relating to childbed fever and Michael Ventris's decipherment of Minoan Linear B and any number of analogous cases demonstrated not prescient expert judgment but, as we can now see, stupid blindness.

[Beowulf]

Shame!

You have just punctured New Kid's cherished view of academia as omniscient, without biases or even human personalities. Just the search for truth. (With the glaring exception of FARMS, of course. )

Beowulf

[Mighty Curelom]

Virtually any event can be a coincidence. Twins separated at birth meet later in life and discover they've both married a girl named Susan, they both have 3 kids, and their kids names all start with J. A religious book is written in the 18th century happens to use 2 exotic sounding names that also show up as the name of an island and its capital.

What separates a coincidence from a non-coincidence are two things--1, a consistent pattern, and 2- impossibility. It's impossible that twins share some kind of magical, psychic bond by which they communicate with each other subconsciously and which influences their life choices, so if they both marry a Susan and they both give their kids J names, it is a coincidence by virtue of the fact that the alternative is impossible. It's not entirely impossible that Joseph Smith had a map with the names Moroni and Cumorah, but it's improbable enough to be virtually impossible. Plus, there is no consistent pattern there. If there was another island on the same map named Zeezrom, with cities of Amlici, Alma and Nephi, next the sea of Hagoth, well, then we'd have to reassess the probability that JS could have had this particular map.

There is no pattern that NHM fits into which precludes it from being a coincidence. I can already hear the apologists shouting "wrong! What about bountiful! What about X landmark being right where it should be!" and so forth. But none of those things really form a remarkable pattern when you consider that no actual measurements are given; the copse of trees that apologists refer to could have been 100 miles north or 100 miles south, and they'd still say it was "exactly" where it should be. When you don't have any borders, you can cast a pretty big net to find what you're looking for.

But even with all the supposed "hits" around the epicenter of NHM, the way to determine if this isolated "discovery" is a coincidence or not would be to take a step back and look at the broader pattern of Book of Mormon archeology. And the fact is, NHM stands alone as the only noteworthy archeological discovery which could conceivably validate the BoM's historicity. There have been no discoveries in central america, where the majority of BoM events allegedly took place, even though the BoM describes cities of millions of people, with advanced technology including non-parishable metal artifacts. Rather than NHM fitting into a consistent pattern of archeological evidences, it remains the only archeological evidence. It is a coincidence until such a pattern emerges.

But NHM is also a coincidence because the alternative is impossible. The BoM contains so many anachronisms and is so completely wrong in its description of ancient Mesoamerican civiliation that NHM is meaningless. The Salamander letter could be analyzed by 100 handwriting experts, or ancient document experts, and they could tell you that the paper is exactly the right age, or that the handwriting precisely matches the alleged author. But none of that would matter, because the document in question has already been proven fraudulent. The same applies to the BoM. All the name-matching games in the world don't make the BoM anachronisms disappear.

[Benjamin McGuire]

cinepro writes:

You could. But you don't.

But then, I don't involve the angel in my discussions either. I don't use the angel when I talk about the text. The angel plays no role in my discussions of what the text is about. And so on. This is why it can be said that most apologists don't involve the angel. The angel's role in this is simply to deliver the plates to Joseph. But the angel doesn't have anything to do with how we interpret the text afterwards.

Ben

[Log]

MC has already determined, universally, what is impossible and what isn't. I'd sure love to see his evidentiary basis.

[Marcelo]

Marcelo, I don't understand the distinction you're making when you say, "The first ones are pos-factum that could be correlated like the Lincoln/Kennedy pararalelisms.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Dan Vogel writes:

Give me a break. You can tell

[Benjamin McGuire]

Uncle Dale writes:

So far as I can tell, Dan advocates a specific 19th century origins paradeigm and displays a marginal interest in other 19th century explanations -- while I do just the opposite (or just the inverse). Our respective research and reporting thus ends up being more complementary than it does as being mutually exclusive.

This simply isn't the case. The arguments that Joseph Smith was the author of the Book of Mormon and that Rigdon, et al., were the authors are incompatible. String evidence for the one case is strong evidence against the other. Yet, my experience is that there is something of a "professional curtesy" extended between the critics. Dan doesn't try and show how your evidence doesn't disprove his thesis, and you don't try to show how his evidence doesn't disprove yours. There are a great many questions these competing theories create - because they both can't be right.

And since both are sharing a common agenda - the proving that the Book of Mormon is a modern text, it seems then that this is the overarching issue of importance (which is itself a polemical issue when seen in this way), rather than actually trying to resolve all of the possible challenges to your own theories.

Do you agree with Dan that your approach isn't even worthy of response?

In this discussion, where we talk about possbilities and plausibility, for those favoring the naturalistic origins of the Book of Mormon, the believer is a much easier target because the critic merely has to invoke the angel, and their evidentiary bar drops through the floor. But, the moment we begin to compare the arguments of those various theories of naturalistic origins we can start to see their relative strengths and weaknesses and begin to talk about whether or not they are (in and of themselves) good or useful arguments. So I do not share your optimism that fundamentally different conclusions can really be more complimentary than confrontational - unless we accept that the real paradigm is a polemic against the position of the believer.

By the way, just to be clear - the notion that Joseph Smith is dealing with issues he has with his father's dream when he writes the book is completely inconsistent - both in terms of production and in terms of the intentions of the production - with the notion that Joseph was merely a promoter, or that he substantially used other material when he produced the text. It isn't a semantical difference, but one of great consequence.

Ben

[Benjamin McGuire]

Finally, Mighty Curelom writes:

There is no pattern that NHM fits into which precludes it from being a coincidence. I can already hear the apologists shouting "wrong! What about bountiful! What about X landmark being right where it should be!" and so forth. But none of those things really form a remarkable pattern when you consider that no actual measurements are given; the copse of trees that apologists refer to could have been 100 miles north or 100 miles south, and they'd still say it was "exactly" where it should be. When you don't have any borders, you can cast a pretty big net to find what you're looking for.

Actually, what precludes it from being a coincidence is the historicty of the book. If the Book of Mormon has historicity on some level, thant the assumption is that it cannot be a coincidence. Also, if the Book of Mormon is fictional, but its author used the name of a real place as part of the travelogue, then it isn't a coincidence. If the Book of Mormon is fiction, and there is no connection between the name in the Book of Mormon and the site, then it is a coincidence. It really has nothing to do with statistics or analysis. Unfortunately, either proposal which makes it not a coincidence is largely (at this point) undemonstratable (as is the notion that it is purely a coincidence). So, we fall back on the idea of probabilities in terms of assessing the likelihood that it may or may not be coincidental. Unfortunately, determining that it isn't coincidental isn't going to help much in the real question - we also have to determine why it isn't coincidental - is it not coincidental because it describes a real place and that could only have come from an ancient text, or is it not coincidental because it describes a real place that could only have come from a modern source. And of course this is part of the problem.

We can talk about what appears to be a mountain of evidence, but in reality, much of it simply lies in the eye of the beholder. But to suggest that it should be considered coincidental until proven to be non-coincidental is no more reasonable than to say that it should be viewed as coincidental until proven non-coincidental. And if we want to rely on statistics and probabilities to make that determination, we first have to decide where the lines are, and I don't think that this is going to happen any time soon. Obviously (from the discussion here) there is no perceived need on either side to find some common method of determining probabilities.

But, coincidental or not, it is still a "hit".

Ben

[Confidential Informant]

But NHM is also a coincidence because the alternative is impossible. The BoM contains so many anachronisms and is so completely wrong in its description of ancient Mesoamerican civiliation that NHM is meaningless.

I'm curious as to what authority you base this rather bold assertion on? John Clark, one of the most respected archeologist working in Mesoamerica today, whose work is universally cited by fellow scholars, has publicly stated that the B of M's depiction of ancient Mesoamerican civilization is actually quite accurate and getting more accurate all the time. Our own Brant Gardner, who has worked in the actual dirt of Mesoamerica, has published articles in the relevant journals and peer-reviewed publications, has produced several lengthy articles which show that the Book of Mormon's depictions of life in Mesoamerica are very accurate.

Yet here come the Mighty Curelom to tell us, based on his own inherent knowledge and authority, that these two emminently qualified men are....wrong!

You'll excuse me if I don't accept your ill-considered declaration as gospel.

C.I.

P.S. The list of "anacronisms" you refer to is getting smaller all the time. In fact, it's my understanding that you can now scratch horses off that list as their existence in pre-columbian America has been confirmed. Bummer for your side, dude.

ci

[Daniel Peterson]

Among other things, MC's standards would invalidate much of the study of ancient history and archaeology and, if consistently applied, would probably relegate even a substantial portion of modern historical inference to the realm of pure arbitrary coincidence. But I suppose that, if that's what's needed to neutralize a potential piece of evidence for the Book of Mormon, from a certain perspective it's a small price to pay.

All in all, a remarkable performance.

But on to a more amusing subject:

The arguments that Joseph Smith was the author of the Book of Mormon and that Rigdon, et al., were the authors are incompatible. Strong evidence for the one case is strong evidence against the other. Yet, my experience is that there is something of a "professional courtesy" extended between the critics. Dan doesn't try and show how your evidence doesn't disprove his thesis, and you don't try to show how his evidence doesn't disprove yours. There are a great many questions these competing theories create - because they both can't be right.

I had some fun with the wildly conflicting theories that have been advanced to explain the Book of Mormon away in my introduction to FARMS Review 16/2 (2004), entitled "'In the Hope that Something Will Stick': Changing Explanations for the Book of Mormon." It can be accessed, in both HTML and, indirectly, PDF formats, at

http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=544

Mutually contradictory accounts are not mutually reinforcing. Quite the contrary. They weaken each other.

Imagine a murder case in which one witness for the prosecution definitively states that he clearly saw the defendant, Mr. John Jones, who was wearing his characteristic Stetson cowboy hat, empty a six-shooter into the head of the victim, Miss Roberta Smith, at point-blank range, as she stood by the hot dog stand on the beach. A second prosecution witness declares that he saw the defendant, Mrs. Joanna Jones, striding briskly out of the twenty-seventh floor restaurant where the murder took place, with a fashionable black beret on her head. The prosecution's forensic pathologist, meanwhile, announces his expert verdict that, from the marks on Mr. Robert Smith's throat, the victim died of strangulation.

No reasonable person would conclude from such testimony that, with three such witnesses for the state, the guilt of the defendant had been established beyond reasonable doubt. Indeed, equipped only with evidence of that character, the prosecution wouldn't even bother to seek an indictment and could never in its remotest fantasies dream of conviction.

Finally: Confidential Informant, you must simply repeat the mantra to yourself, over and over and over and over and over again, that there is no correspondence whatever between the Book of Mormon and Mesoamerica. And if anybody tells you differently, no matter how impressive his experience and credentials, and regardless of how minimal your own may be, you must discount it. It is imperative that you swat away the gnats of doubt. Fortunately, since Brant Gardner and John Clark are Mormon gnats, you have entirely sufficient grounds for doing so.

[why me]

I think that the whole NHM and the relationship to the bofm is interesting and rather compelling. But for a critic to accept a form of legitamacy with NHM and the Book of Mormon would be difficult. To accept the chance of legitamacy would require a change of perspective which many cannot and will not do.

When one becomes a post or ex mo and is confronted with this relationship between the bofm and what was discovered in arabia, the first reaction would be to try to down play it. And I think that this would be a natural reation. To accept a possibility of legitamacy would perhaps require a re-evaluation of current life choices and directions.

Also, the exmo or postmo belief system would come under threat. And how many exmos or postmos would want that to happen? Not many. And so, the argumentation follows in hope that the critics' current beliefs systems remain intact and under mental guard.

[Uncle Dale]

Uncle Dale writes:

So far as I can tell, Dan advocates a specific 19th century origins paradeigm and displays a marginal interest in other 19th century explanations -- while I do just the opposite (or just the inverse). Our respective research and reporting thus ends up being more complementary than it does as being mutually exclusive.

This simply isn't the case. The arguments that Joseph Smith was the author of the Book of Mormon and that Rigdon, et al., were the authors are incompatible. String evidence for the one case is strong evidence against the other. Yet, my experience is that there is something of a "professional curtesy" extended between the critics. Dan doesn't try and show how your evidence doesn't disprove his thesis, and you don't try to show how his evidence doesn't disprove yours. There are a great many questions these competing theories create - because they both can't be right.

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.

Yes, you are correct in a sense -- in saying that multiple theories concerning LDS

origins cannot all be "right." Most reputable reconstructors of history do not claim

to be "right" in all respects -- each historical researcher and reporter "interprets"

evidence and conclusions to form a transitory historical model (which he or she

knows in advance is subject to modification and radical reinterpretation by others).

Now, were I to come out with a modern advocacy of Turner's old explanation, that

the Book of Mormon was concocted by Oliver Cowdery and Mother Smith -- and

that JS was only chosen to promote the results after the death of Alvin, well, THEN

what you are attempting to conclude in your posting MIGHT have some merit. But

I do not advocate a Cowdery origin, nor a Pratt origin, nor an Ethan Smith origin,

nor a Rigdon alone origin, etc.

And since both are sharing a common agenda - the proving that the Book of Mormon is a modern text, it seems then that this is the overarching issue of importance (which is itself a polemical issue when seen in this way), rather than actually trying to resolve all of the possible challenges to your own theories.

Do you agree with Dan that your approach isn't even worthy of response?

Again, I believe you have misunderstood my "approach." Rather than advocating a

particular 19th century paradeigm, I conduct research, share sources, and allow

others to make use of my findings as they see fit. I have no "overarching" desire to

PROVE the BoM to be a modern text. For many years I prayed, sang and worshipped

side-by-side with fellow Reorganized Latter Day Saints who held varying opinions on

BoM origins. Were you to contact any of those former co-religionists of mine, I'm

quite certain that each and every one of them will testify that I never attempted to

change their minds on matters of historical opinion nor to change their testimonies.

...By the way, just to be clear - the notion that Joseph Smith is dealing with issues he has with his father's dream when he writes the book is completely inconsistent - both in terms of production and in terms of the intentions of the production - with the notion that Joseph was merely a promoter, or that he substantially used other material when he produced the text. It isn't a semantical difference, but one of great consequence.

I suppose, that for Dan, Js's father's dream is a probable source for Lehi's vision;

and for me, Lehi's vision is a probable source for the father's dream.

And for TBMs, the two reported events have no cause and effect connection.

If you wish to fault Dan or myself for our errors, or lack of proper judgment, or

some such thing, I'll be happy to converse with you on those subjects. However,

in the future I ask that you please do not manufacture situations and activities

which simply do not exist.

Dale R. Broadhurst

Hilo, Hawaii

web-host of Uncle Dale's Old Newspaper Articles on the Mormons

[Confidential Informant]

Dale,

Your last two quotes to which you responded above are incorrectly attributed to me.

I think you meant to attribute them to Dan or Ben, but I didn't write either.

C.I.

[Uncle Dale]

Dale,

Your last two quotes to which you responded above are incorrectly attributed to me.

I think you meant to attribute them to Dan or Ben, but I didn't write either.

C.I.

Yes -- you are correct. I hit the wrong keys on my keyboard.

Mistake fixed.

Uncle Dale

[Benjamin McGuire]

You are right Dale. I misunderstood your position.

So, stepping back to my original comments, do you believe that Dan Vogel's arguments about the production of the Book of Mormon are compatible with arguments put forward by those who favor a Spaulding manuscript thesis?

You write:

I suppose, that for Dan, Js's father's dream is a probable source for Lehi's vision;

and for me, Lehi's vision is a probable source for the father's dream.

And for TBMs, the two reported events have no cause and effect connection.

As a TBM, I believe that there is a connection - and that the text of the Book of Mormon influenced the written account of Joseph Smith Sr.'s dream as recorded in Lucy's book.

Ben

[Uncle Dale]

You are right Dale. I misunderstood your position.

So, stepping back to my original comments, do you believe that Dan Vogel's arguments about the production of the Book of Mormon are compatible with arguments put forward by those who favor a Spaulding manuscript thesis?

Ben

I believe there can be some overlap of the theories -- Here's how.

When I. Woodbridge Riley and Fawn Brodie performed their ham-handed "CSI" work

on JS's long deceased brain, they were pleased to include the supposed fact that JS

had relied upon Ethan Smith's notions, as published in his 1823-25 View of the Hebrews.

Thus, from its beginnings, the "Smith alone" thesis has included probable sources from

the writings of other pre-1830 authors/writers.

Where the Spalding-Rigdon theory differs from what Brodie et al. have said, is

that the S-R explanation supposes a substantial, written 19th century "basic source"

for the BoM text, while theoriests like Dan Vogel have concluded that the basis for

the book was Smith's mind.

Thus, there is some overlap in the two theories -- with the S-R explanation of things

allowing for a greater or lesser "final redaction" by JS.

If Dan were to uncover a reliable old eye-witness account of JS bent over a writing

desk, with ink-stained fingers and many a quaint and curious volume of forgotten lore,

then I suppose that the S-R explanations would have to be adjusted just a tad.

Similarly, were S-R advocates able to demonstrate that Sidney Rigdon sat down at

Kingdon, NY with JS, immediately after their Dec. 1830 meeting, and began to copy

into the "Joseph Smith Translation" manuscript, a lengthy text that Rigdon had taken

from his own knapsack -- well, then, I suppose that Dan might have to re-think a

possible secret connection between the two erstwhile top Mormon leaders.

In that sense, the two theories "are compatible with arguments" put forth by either

side, respectively. In other substantial ways, it is arguable that certain CONCLUSIONS

drawn from each of the two origins theories are indeed mutually exclusive.

Uncle Dale