Another Book Of Mormon Bull's-eye

[Fly Fisherman]

Keep in mind that King Benjamin says in Mosiah 3: 2 "And the things which I shall tell you are made known unto me by an angel from God."

[Doctor Steuss]

[...]

(Hey! How come my little winkie-guy isn't winking anymore?)

[...]

Didn't your mother warn you that your face would stick that way if you kept making faces??

They replaced "little winkie-guy" with "sty eye guy." It is meant to be used when you find a particular statement infectious.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Also, can someone point me to some ancient kingly farewell speeches that don't have these characteristics? You know, as kind of a "control group" so I can get an idea of how unique these characteristics are?

I can't help but believe at this point you are merely being an .

[John Larsen]

I can't help but believe at this point you are merely being an .

That is never a good reason to stop posting.

[LifeOnaPlate]

That is never a good reason to stop posting.

You're preaching to the choir. (on purpose? either way.)

[Kevin Christensen]

Hi Kevin,

I think this is a reasonable response. Essentially you appear to be arguing the same thing as Sagon (correct me if I am wrong). That King Benjamin was embedded to some extent in a semitic culture. And he did not learn the given pattern by examination of the scriptures only but by a "passing down" of knowledge from previous generations. I am concerned with the probablility of passing down such an obscure and seemingly unimportant bit of knowledge given the parameters of the LGT (see my response to Sargon).

When you couple the seeming improbability of preserving for hundreds of years the given pattern. With no attempt to estimate significance using appropriate controls. I am unsure how much evidentiary value to give the purported parallel. To be honest in my field if no attempt to estimate significance was provided for a given observation. It is unlikely such a study would be accepted for publication.

Uncertain

"Passing down" is how culture works when it works. Think of the Hopi, for example. When Nibley went to go see them for the first time after WWII, he said he was overwhelmed by how this little set of communities were the only people in the world who kept the complete cycle of the ancient year rites. He talks about showing the children in that community a picture of the regalia of an Egyptian High Priest. And the Hopi kids not only knew what every item the priest wore was, but what it was for, and how when, where, and why, such items should be collected. That kind of cultural transmission can break down. The Hopi have been stressed since Nibley's first visits. But under the right circumstances, it conserves very well for long periods of time. There are oral aspects, written aspects (for example, the Hopi Stone), public ritual aspects.

The Mesoamerican side of the equation offers interesting resonances as well. King Benjamin operates in a blended culture. Material culture is part of the mix, but so are the Nephite records. Sorenson, Gardner, and Wirth account for Mesoamerican influences in the Book of Mormon account. I mentioned Hasbaz's discussion of the temple murals from Benjamin's time that have many correspondences with what we see in Mosiah 2-5. Also Diane Wirth's comparison of the simularities between the Feast of the Tabernacles (which Tvedtnes finds in Benjamin's discourse) and a specific Mesoamerican ritual. The Book of Mormon can explain how such a thing can be. Otherwise, it seems difficult to explain why two very different cultures would end up with the same ritual. Raglan's The Origins of Religion is very good at pointing out that if it were natural for humans to do such things, everyone would not only have done them, but we would still be doing them. But that is not the case, so the rituals must have come from somwere, transmitted by someone.

Rituals repeat and thereby intensify a teaching. Because some aspects of the ritual are symbolic, they encourage serious inquiry. So Benjamin encourages his sons to become men of wisdom and learning. Passing down, and active study combine in many persons. As a political leader and as a religious leader, and as a member of an ancient culture (see Eliade), Benjamin woud be closely attuned to repeating patterns.

So the presence of the same ritual pattern in both the Ancient Near East (Feast of the Tabernacles) and in Mesoamerica (see Wirth) provides a check on significance of the appearance in the Book of Mormon. And accounts of revivals in New York provides a check on what might be available to Joseph Smith. Which resource best explains the text as we have it? And does the text we have explain the presence of the same ritual pattern in two very different cultures?

I don't the the Farewell address form as the most important aspect of the discourse. I think the Day of Atonement and Coronation aspects are central. The farewell address form is interesting, but I don't think it's is the most urgent to consider by itself. It brings added complexity to an already complex issue. But the best explanation for Mosiah 2-5 ought to recognize and explain more than rival accountings.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Uncertain]

"Passing down" is how culture works when it works. Think of the Hopi, for example. When Nibley went to go see them for the first time after WWII, he said he was overwhelmed by how this little set of communities were the only people in the world who kept the complete cycle of the ancient year rites. He talks about showing the children in that community a picture of the regalia of an Egyptian High Priest. And the Hopi kids not only knew what every item the priest wore was, but what it was for, and how when, where, and why, such items should be collected. That kind of cultural transmission can break down. The Hopi have been stressed since Nibley's first visits. But under the right circumstances, it conserves very well for long periods of time. There are oral aspects, written aspects (for example, the Hopi Stone), public ritual aspects.

I have no problem with the idea of culture transmission. It is just the specific case in mind I find troublesome.

Here is what I wrote to Sargon:

Start Quote:

Myself I am curious if there are any examples of a couple dozen Hebrew immigrants completely cutoff from their mother culture. Who adopt whole sale the existing material culture and religious iconography of the surrounding natives and extensively intermarry. To the point that they are from a archaeological standpoint completely invisible (i.e. indistinguishable from the surrounding native culture). Keeping alive for hundreds of years distinctive semitic writing styles and modes of address. To me such a thing appears unlikely but I will freely admit I do not have the necessary training in the relevant fields to have an informed opinion on this matter. I would love to hear from someone who does.

End Quote:

But as I freely admit I am no expert and I am open to correction on this matter. If appropriate examples can be found. For that matter even if the scenario I outlined above is unlikely it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

So the presence of the same ritual pattern in both the Ancient Near East (Feast of the Tabernacles) and in Mesoamerica (see Wirth) provides a check on significance of the appearance in the Book of Mormon. And accounts of revivals in New York provides a check on what might be available to Joseph Smith. Which resource best explains the text as we have it? And does the text we have explain the presence of the same ritual pattern in two very different cultures?

I disagree with this statement. The similarities between the Ancient Near East and Mesoamerica are observations not a check of significance. A check of significance would be something like what I already outlined in which examples of texts written by individuals attempting to copy "scriptural" language are examined for parallels with the ancient near east. Or Mesoamerican rituals are compared with rituals from cultures known not to be related such as perhaps Roman. And the number and degree of similarities are found and compared to the number and degree of similarities between the Mesoamerican rituals and Ancient Near East rituals.

My fundamental concern is that one would expect to see similarities between any two cultures either by random chance or by a common sharing of human nature. The question then isn't do parallels exist because clearly parallels would exist regardless of if two cultures are related. The question is does the level of parallels rise to more than would be expected assuming an appropriate null hypothesis (i.e. similarities are due to chance and human nature plus imitating authentic ancient documents). Simply pointing out similarities does not make those similarities significant/meaningful. Indeed I think the only way to do so in this case is through appropriate controls.

The current methodology seems to be an "every man for himself" approach. In which significance essentially boils down to the personal opinion of the person involved. Some will see the parallels as incredible and well nigh impossible for Joseph Smith to duplicate. While others will dismiss them as not significant whatsoever. So who's opinion should I listen to? David Wright a respected academic who publishes in a relevant field and finds the parallels unconvincing. Or you who also is clearly informed and finds the parallels convincing. This every man for himself estimate probabilities on blunt intuition to be frank is a terrible methodology.

Furthermore stating that a given paradigm "better explains" a given observation before the significance of that observation has been determined. Is putting the cart before the horse. For example suppose a faithful and dedicated LDS assumes that the moroni/comoros pairing is significant. And thereby constructs a theory in which the Lehites actually settled the Grande Comore island. Depending on which observations are thought to be significant and which aren't many different hypotheses could be constructed and claims made that a given paradigm "better explains" the given set of observations/data. A more correct methodology would be to first determine which observations are significant using appropriate controls or statistical methods. And then see which hypothesis best explains the set of significant observations.

(Edited for Clarity)

All the Best,

Uncertain

[Kevin Christensen]

I know a lot about how paradigm choice is made, and I understand how much is at stake in making the decision. Paradigms define the problem field to examine, the methods used, and the standards of solution. A person can be relatively objective within a paradigm, but then, that tends to conceal the reasons for choosing that paradigm in the first place. I have have a 72 page study on this topic in the FARMS Review 7:2, "Paradigms Crossed."

The way to have an informed opinion on the relevant matter would be to read Sorenson, Clark, Christenson, Brant Gardner's Second Witness volumes. These are people who have formal training in Mesoamerican studies, as well as in-depth knowledge of the Book of Mormon. Michael Coe does have in-depth knowledge of Mesoamerica, but none of his occasional comments on the Book of Mormon demonstrate in-depth knowedge. If you want to read criticisms of Sorenson by Wunderli, or the one in New Approaches, by all means do so. But remember that those criticisms themselves are not the last word. Responses have been provided. Being informed is an ongoing process.

My fundamental concern is that one would expect to see similarities between any two cultures either by random chance or by a common sharing of human nature.

This is why I cited Diane Wirth's recent comparison of the Feast of the Tabernacles, Mosiah 2-5, and the Mayan Cha-Cha'ac ceremony. It's why I gave specific references to skeptical attempts to explain Mosiah 2-5 as simply reflecting Burnt Over District Revivalism. And it is why I cited Lord Raglan's The Origins of Religion for it's discussion of just what can and cannot be reckoned as due to human nature. It's why lifeonaplate cited a passage from Paradigms Crossed, comparing Brent Metcalfe's argument that Burnt Over District Revival's tried to imitate the Feast of the Tabernacles with a more formal definition of the ancient rite, as compared to what shows up in the revivals and Benjamin's discourse comparatively.

Do people randomly, or due to common human nature, do the following (From Wirth, Decoding Ancient America, page 32:

Ceremonially build a structure with four sides with a roof made of young branches and leaves, leaving the roof open to represent the heavens or cosmos?

Building the structure represent the moment of creation.

The Priest represents God.

Sacrifices were made as a thanksgiving offering and as a prayer for rain.

Men march around the altar with burning torches, and lights are placed all around.

Water is poured on the altar as a symbol of rain.

Men shake leafy branches to symbolize thunder and rain.

Bread is made to represent a "ladder to heaven" (Hebrew) or layers of heaven (Maya)

Feasting on the food prepared.

Now, some of these elements might be common to a revival available to Joseph Smith, but not all. And it is interesting that these points of comparison between the Feast of the Tabernacles and Cha Cha'ac are not as exhaustive as Tvedtnes's comparisons between King Benjamin's discourse and Tabernacles. That is, Benjamin's discourse is a better match. Nor does this little comparison include the other kinds of studies, such as the Day of Atonement patterns, the Instructional Wisdom, the seven part chiastic structure, and others. Testing on this one point does not permit generalizing away the existence of the other patterns. Acknowledging the patterns is a necessary step in honestly defining the problem.

The question then isn't do parallels exist because clearly parallels would exist regardless of if two cultures are related. The question is does the level of parallels rise to more than would be expected assuming an appropriate null hypothesis (i.e. similarities are due to chance and human nature plus imitating authentic ancient documents). Simply pointing out similarities does not make those similarities significant/meaningful. Indeed I think the only way to do so in this case is through appropriate controls.

My point is that I have suggested appropriate controls. Invoking parallelomania, or insinuating is a way to beg off considering the controls we have already provided.

David Wright is a very bright scholar. He does spell out which problems he sees as more significant to have solved.

In his Sunstone essay, he said that the objections that took away his faith involved these questions:

The Gospel through the Ages

Prophesy

Apparent Anachronism in the Book of Mormon

Homogeneity in the Book of Mormon Text

The Ambiguity of Spiritual Experience

I responded to all of these in The Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 3/1. I found that in each case, most of the problem derived from his very narrow and brittle background expectations. And I've also learned a great many things that I would not have learned had he convinced me at the time. I'll repeat a teeny bit here, that I find interesting for this discussion.

Here, let me call attention to footnote 2 of his article "In Plain Terms That We May Understand," wherein Wright refers to "some striking coincidences between the Book of Mormon and the ancient world and some notable matters of Book of Mormon style" (Wright, in New Approaches, 165). Professor Wright at some point decided which problems are more significant to have solved. He is free to chose like everyone else. But by withholding identification of what even he admits is striking in the Book of Mormon, he presents only a part of his own balance scale.

I've seen the defenders of the Book of Mormon honestly acknowledge and deal with questions. It's rare for the critics of the Book of Mormon to specifically acknowledge the strengths.

My own methodology for controls is based on Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

Furthermore stating that a given paradigm "better explains" a given observation before the significance of that observation has been determined. Is putting the cart before the horse.

You should consider what I have done in arranging the cart and the horse. How do I decide which is better? Deciding between paradigms is value-based, rather than rule based. That is, there is always an element of subjectivity. Wright often lapses into passive voice when he wants to conceal the subjectivity in his own choices. (I cite several examples in my JBMS and FARMS responses to him.)

Kuhn says that the important things are:

accuracy of key predictions (and he discusses some of the ways we decide on what is key--a part of which is which door we intend to open),

comprehensiveness and coherence. This is a control. It's why I emphasize that the best account of Benjamin's discourse must acknowledge all the observations, from Brodie and Thomas, Metcalfe and Palmer through Nibley, Ostler, Tvedtnes, Wirth, Ricks, Welch, Welch and Szinc, Hasbaz, and Von Feldt. Taking a teeny bit, say Metcalfe's "falling down exercise" and ignoring the Day of Atonement and pronouncing the Divine Name 10 times, is manipulating the outcome. Not letting the evidence speak.

Fruitfulness. Try it on for size, Kuhn says. Act as though it is real, and see what happens. That's how quantum physics became persuasive. No matter how counter-intuitive it seemed, in practice, it worked.

Simplicity and Aesthetics.

Future Promise.

These are the relevant controls in paradigm choice.

For example suppose a faithful and dedicated LDS assumes that the moroni/comoros pairing is significant. And thereby constructs a theory in which the Lehites actually settled the Grande Comore island. Depending on which observations are thought to be significant and which aren't many different hypotheses could be constructed and claims made that a given paradigm "better explains" the given set of observations/data.

Sure. I quote Ian Barbour as noting that paradigm choice influences what we notice, and what we value. Hence, comparison brings those choices out in the open, and therefore opens the question of how and why those choices get made. That's why Sorenson builds his geographical corrolation from exhaustive analysis citing over 700 passages with geographic information, and why he provides multiple layers of comparison (historical and cultural coming after geographic), and why considers cultural factors in actually reading the texts. Not a few hot buttons, and shallow enthno-centric proof-texting. That's why Mark Thomas, for example, in blowing off Sorenson in the Journal of Higher Criticism, dismissed Sorensen, misreporting Sorenson's complex argument about "horses", and why he generalized from that single, misreported example without so much as citing a single page number. Thomas selects one point, misreports it, fails to properly document it, and then generalizes about the whole from it, all without blushing. It was not, I think, a high water mark in LDS scholarship, despite the high sounding journal.

A more correct methodology would be to first determine which observations are significant using appropriate controls or statistical methods. And then see which hypothesis best explains the set of significant observations.

Fine. Start with the observations I have cited relative to Benjamin's discourse. Is Palmer's explanation more comprehensive and coherent that Nibley's? How much of the observed Coronation and Day of Atonement pattern does Palmer explain? How carefully does Palmer define the problem relative to material cited in one of his own sources (Blake Ostler)? How fair is he in setting up the comparison when Palmer says his approach is better? Is chiasmus in the discourse accidental? Do you know about the statistical tests for intentionality? Or Welch's proposed standards?

The best LDS scholars are not only using appropriate controls, but they are not overstating their case. We speak of consistency, plausibility. We say, there is something here worth exploring. We don't say, "Check and mate, game over."

Statistically speaking, is a proposed Book of Mormon geography that accounts for 700+ passages, fitting together like a jigsaw puzzle to be given preference of one that is based on a couple of anachronistic names, and willful dismissal of most of the requirements of the text? Sorenson's approach is many-layered and honestly attempts to be comprehensive, accepting and responding to ongoing criticism, and refinement.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Nevo]

I would like to thank all those who have posted so far on this interesting subject.

I am starting to get the feeling that one must be pretty determined to remain unimpressed by this.

I am impressed, as ever, with John Welch's ingenuity in adducing parallels (see, e.g., this article where he finds that the Hebrew meanings of the names of the Watchers in 1 Enoch parallel elements in 1 Nephi 19).

It should be noted that William Kurz's list of twenty elements of farewell speeches are somewhat arbitrary. For example, can we really say that elements #3 ("innocence/did job") and #18 ("consolation to inner circle") are characteristic of ancient farewell speeches when they can only be found in three of the twenty "selected examples" (excluding Luke 22:14-38 and Acts 20:17-38)? Also, we need to keep in mind that Kurz only includes Greco-Roman texts in the comparison because he is trying to show that Luke 22:14-38 has "common farewell elements with the frequently imitated final dialogue of Socrates in Plato's Phaedo, as well as with biblical farewell addresses" (William Kurz, "Luke 22:14-38 and Greco-Roman and Biblical Farewell Addresses," Journal of Biblical Literature 104/2 (1985): 267). And this brings up a final point. Although Kurz lists some twenty examples of ancient farewell speeches (outside of the NT), most of them consciously imitate either Moses' farewell in Deuteronomy 31-34 or Socrates' farewell in Phaedo. These two discourses are the models for later biblical/intertestamental and Greco-Roman farewell speeches (see Kurz, 254).

So I think it goes beyond the evidence to say, as Welch and Hague do, that "Benjamin's speech is the most complete example of a typical Israelite farewell speech known today." Was there such a thing as a "typical Israelite farewell speech"? Most of the examples Kurz cites (i.e., 1 Kgs 2:1-10; Josh 23-24; 1 Sam 12:1-25; 1 Chr 28-29; 1 Macc 2:49-70; Tob 14:3-11; Philo Vita Mosis 2.288-92; Josephus Ant. 4.8.45-49

[Uncertain]

Hi Kevin,

Thank you for your response. I appreciate the opportunity to hash out some of the issues that trouble me.

(I warn you this is going to be long )

You should consider what I have done in arranging the cart and the horse. How do I decide which is better? Deciding between paradigms is value-based, rather than rule based. That is, there is always an element of subjectivity. Wright often lapses into passive voice when he wants to conceal the subjectivity in his own choices. (I cite several examples in my JBMS and FARMS responses to him.)

Kuhn says that the important things are:

accuracy of key predictions (and he discusses some of the ways we decide on what is key--a part of which is which door we intend to open),

comprehensiveness and coherence. This is a control. It's why I emphasize that the best account of Benjamin's discourse must acknowledge all the observations, from Brodie and Thomas, Metcalfe and Palmer through Nibley, Ostler, Tvedtnes, Wirth, Ricks, Welch, Welch and Szinc, Hasbaz, and Von Feldt. Taking a teeny bit, say Metcalfe's "falling down exercise" and ignoring the Day of Atonement and pronouncing the Divine Name 10 times, is manipulating the outcome. Not letting the evidence speak.

Fruitfulness. Try it on for size, Kuhn says. Act as though it is real, and see what happens. That's how quantum physics became persuasive. No matter how counter-intuitive it seemed, in practice, it worked.

Simplicity and Aesthetics.

Future Promise.

These are the relevant controls in paradigm choice.

I have absolutely no issues with the above criteria. I just have a problem with how they are applied. Perhaps an example may prove helpful in illustrating where I think the problem lies.

Suppose a rain forest shaman claims that through an invocation to the forest spirits and a sacrificed chicken various illnesses can be cured such as malaria and cholera. But he adds a caveat only the true believers in his method are likely to be cured because otherwise the forest spirits are less likely to grant his request. The shaman also predicts that not all will be cured for reasons known only to the forest spirits. In order to prove his method my shaman performs his ceremony on a large group of sick individuals some believers and some unbelievers. Indeed some of the sick do get better but some do not. When the cured group is broken down it is observed that the true believers outnumber unbelievers. The shaman is challenged on the validity of his method to support his approach he uses some of the above criteria.

1. accuracy of key predictions:

The shaman points out that his method successfully predicted that the true believers would be cured at a higher rate than unbelievers. In addition as predicted some of the sick were cured after undergoing the ceremony. When challenged on those who were not cured the shaman states his method also predicates that some would not be cured and this is what was observed. Given that many of his predictions were indeed accurate my shaman states that his hypothesis (i.e. the ceremony can cure the sick) is the strongest.

2. comprehensiveness and coherence:

The shaman also claims that his hypothesis is the most comprehensive. It not only explains the â??hitsâ? i.e. those who were cured it also explains the â??missesâ? those who were not cured. He challenges his critics on how they would explain the â??hitsâ?.

3. Fruitfulness:

The shaman argues that since those who believe are cured with a higher frequency then the unbelievers clearly his hypothesis is the most fruitful. Since the ones who â??Try it on for sizeâ? clearly benefit by doing so.

4. Simplicity and Aesthetics:

Since his hypothesis simple and easily explains all observations my shaman makes the argument it is the simplest and the most aesthetically pleasing.

Given the above argument would you be convinced of the shamanâ??s claims if not why not? After all clearly the shamanâ??s hypothesis does make accurate predictions and it is comprehensive explaining all observations.

Suppose however that a control group was tested in which a â??falseâ? shaman was used to perform the ceremony. And the rate of cured people in the control group was compared to the treatment group (i.e. those who were treated by the â??trueâ? shaman). And there was no statistically significant difference between the two. Also observed in the control group is the fact that the â??trueâ? believers were cured at a higher rate than the unbelievers. Therefore this particular pattern can safely be assigned to the placebo effect.

It is not the criteria used by the shaman that is the problem. It is using observations/data that were not shown to be significant through the appropriate use of controls. Before we can argue over which paradigm is the most comprehensive etc. It is first necessary to determine which of the observations are significant. Otherwise we are just like my hypothetical shaman.

I think the confusion may arise over my definition of what a control is. A control as I am using the term is a means to estimate what an experimenter would â??expectâ? to see if a given hypothesis was not true. For example one would expect to see parallels between Mesoamerica and the Ancient Near East even if the BOM was not historical. Using a control in this case is a means to estimate what the levels of parallel would be between two known to be unrelated cultures like for example Roman culture and Mesoamerican culture. I am using the term control in the sense defined in the following links:

http://www.skepdic.com/control.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_control

comprehensiveness and coherence. This is a control.

Therefore under the definition I am operating under â??comprehensiveness and coherenceâ? would not be a control. Again I would absolutely agree that comprehensiveness and coherence are important. I am just doubtful that applying such criteria to a set of observations that may or may not be significant will produce meaningful results. What if the set of observations are all due to random chance? Saying a given hypothesis is more comprehensive with regards to such a dataset is meaningless.

By the way I apply the same criteria to critics as well as apologists if a critic produces a set of parallels with the 19th century but does not estimate the significance of those parallels I am just as skeptical.

Do people randomly, or due to common human nature, do the following (From Wirth, Decoding Ancient America, page 32:

Ceremonially build a structure with four sides with a roof made of young branches and leaves, leaving the roof open to represent the heavens or cosmos?

Building the structure represent the moment of creation.

The Priest represents God.

Sacrifices were made as a thanksgiving offering and as a prayer for rain.

Men march around the altar with burning torches, and lights are placed all around.

Water is poured on the altar as a symbol of rain.

Men shake leafy branches to symbolize thunder and rain.

Bread is made to represent a "ladder to heaven" (Hebrew) or layers of heaven (Maya)

Feasting on the food prepared.

The problem I have is your argument seems to be an argument of incredibility based on your personal intuition of the relevant probabilities. And to be frank such a methodology is unconvincing. Would you be convinced if my hypothetical shaman claims there is â??no wayâ? (based on his probabilistic intuition) that the number of cured people could be due to random chance? In addition estimating probabilities based on our intuition is demonstrably error prone.

See:

http://www.dcs.qmul.ac.uk/~norman/BBNs/Bia...his_section.htm

This is one of the many good reasons why controls are used. I know of no journal in my field that would accept a manuscript in which the primary observations significance was based solely on intuition even expert intuition. Would you recommend the FDA stop requiring controlled studies if the authors claim that their intuition is sufficient? My example of David Wright was not because I agree with him. It was an example of an expert whose intuition of the relevant probabilities differed from yours.

In addition the above reference study by Wirth appears to suffer from multiple testing issues.

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_comparisons

The BOM does not â??predictâ? that the Cha-Cha'ac ceremony should resemble the Feast of the Tabernacles. The BOM predicts that aspects of Mesoamerica culture should resemble the Ancient Near East. Consider the Wirth study given the general BOM prediction any Mesoamerican ceremony can be compared with any Ancient Near East ceremony. This means multiple comparisons are being made. Take the set of all possible Mesoamerican ceremonies and the set of all possible Ancient Near East ceremonies. Now compare the two for any similarities given the size of the two sets dozens if not hundreds of comparisons can be made. So even if the given set of parallels outlined in the Wirth article is unlikely given the hundreds of possible comparisons it may not be all that unlikely for one of those comparisons by random chance to have the degree of similarity outlined in the study. This is another good reason to estimate significance using the appropriate methodology which will control for such confounding variables.

(Edited to Add)

I am familiar with the chiasmus study this is exactly the type of study I would advocate. In which appropriate statistical methods were used to estimate the significance of a given observation. I would add the various word print studies to that list also.

All the Best,

Uncertain

[Kevin Christensen]

Hi Kevin,

Thank you for your response. I appreciate the opportunity to hash out some of the issues that trouble me.

(I warn you this is going to be long )

I have absolutely no issues with the above criteria. I just have a problem with how they are applied. Perhaps an example may prove helpful in illustrating where I think the problem lies.

Length is fine.

"Suppose a rain forest shaman claims that through an invocation to the forest spirits and a sacrificed chicken various illnesses can be cured such as malaria and cholera."

Already, I have a problem. Why this metaphor? How do we get from looking at heavily documented, widely studied ritual complexes to forest spirits and sacrificed chickens? Rhetorically speaking, this stacks the deck. It sets a skeptical tone. Indeed, even a mocking one. Indeed, it determines the outcome. Read Ian Barbour's Myths, Models, and Paradigms: A Comparative Study of Science and Religion, and read his sections on how metaphors can control things.

The Book of Mormon makes all sorts of testable claims about all sorts of things. If I want to compare the Book of Mormon with the behavior of a shaman, in fairness, I would do so on points in which they can be directly compared. I have have even done so, comparing and contrasting Black Elk Speaks to passages in 1 Nephi.

Have you read the FARMS volume, King Benjamin's Speech: That Ye May Learn Wisdom (Provo: FARMS, 1998). At least that book. That is the best single source on the topic. No one interested in the topic can safely ignore it. Start there.

<SNIP>

1. accuracy of key predictions:

The shaman points out that his method successfully predicted that the true believers would be cured at a higher rate than unbelievers. In addition as predicted some of the sick were cured after undergoing the ceremony. When challenged on those who were not cured the shaman states his method also predicates that some would not be cured and this is what was observed. Given that many of his predictions were indeed accurate my shaman states that his hypothesis (i.e. the ceremony can cure the sick) is the strongest.

I entered this discussion by referring to complex studies above and beyond the "Farewell address form." We aren't testing the results of a ceremony, but the details of the ceremony. Your metaphor misdirects attention from the things that can be answered with the greatest certainty, towards those for which you can insert the most ambiguity.

Not incidentally, the name you choose for yourself, Uncertain, is itself a clue that the most important problem to solve for your own paradigm is certainty itself. Do you want a faith that will be approved by skeptics? I see an inherent conflict in the approach. You want the fruit of the tree of life to be endorsed by those pointing from the great and spacious building. Alma 32 has an interesting mention of those who seek "cause to believe" (that is, grounds for faith short of coercive, final, prood) versus those who want to simply and finally "know" (via something coercive, rather than inviting).

2. comprehensiveness and coherence:

The shaman also claims that his hypothesis is the most comprehensive. It not only explains the â??hitsâ? i.e. those who were cured it also explains the â??missesâ? those who were not cured. He challenges his critics on how they would explain the â??hitsâ?.

See how redirecting the question away from the complex details away from the ceremony, towards an ambiguous result, also re-defines the question of comprehensiveness and coherence? You get to talk about ambigious results, rather than face up to the complex details of the ceremony, which offer much better controls. Before the Exile, "according to many scholars, the various components of the autumn festival were celebrated as a single season of celebration." (Welch and Szinc, 159). With the Book of Mormon being rooted in Pre-exilic Judaism, Rosh ha-Shanah (New Year), Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement), and Sukkot (Festival of the Tabernacles) should be combined in a single ritual. And that is just part of the "comprehensiveness" criteria of control. It has to make sense in terms of Israelite history, of which little was known until after the Book of Mormon translation. It has to have a reasonable setting. Lehi's journey across the Arabian desert, and then the Ocean, must be plausible. (It is.) The description of the New World cultural and physical setting must make sense. (It does. See Sorenson, and Gardner and Sorenson.) It has to make sense in terms of Early LDS history. (See Bushman and Anderson, for example.) The different aspects of Mosiah narrative, and of Joseph Smith's story, and Ancient Near Eastern and New World settings and times lines, must all fit together coherently.

3. Fruitfulness:

The shaman argues that since those who believe are cured with a higher frequency then the unbelievers clearly his hypothesis is the most fruitful. Since the ones who â??Try it on for sizeâ? clearly benefit by doing so.

Again, see how your metaphor shifts the discussion away from actually considering the evidence I have mentioned? Nibley observed in 1953 that the best way to test a historical document is to place in the setting that it claims for itself. Renaiissance scholars found that that was the best control. Nibley started testing the discourse in 1957. The 1998 FARMS Volume expanded on that one chapter, producing a 600 page volume. And subsequent studies have added to that. Wirth's chapter is merely a branch on a tree.

4. Simplicity and Aesthetics:

Since his hypothesis simple and easily explains all observations my shaman makes the argument it is the simplest and the most aesthetically pleasing.

Your chicken sacrifice metaphor provided a simple way to dissmiss the bulk of the evidence. Personally, I don't find that aesthetically pleasing. It cheats.

Given the above argument would you be convinced of the shamanâ??s claims if not why not? After all clearly the shamanâ??s hypothesis does make accurate predictions and it is comprehensive explaining all observations.

As I have observed, the high level questions in paradigm debate are "which problems are more significant to have solved?" and "which paradigm should guide future research?" Your sacrifice chicken metaphor dodges the most significant problems, and turns out to be a completely inappropriate guide to the important questions.

To be continued...

Kevin C.

[Kevin Christensen]

Suppose however that a control group was tested in which a â??falseâ? shaman was used to perform the ceremony. And the rate of cured people in the control group was compared to the treatment group (i.e. those who were treated by the â??trueâ? shaman). And there was no statistically significant difference between the two. Also observed in the control group is the fact that the â??trueâ? believers were cured at a higher rate than the unbelievers. Therefore this particular pattern can safely be assigned to the placebo effect.

I happen to believe that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon just as he said he did, and that that circumstance best explains the complexity and beauty of Mosiah 2-5. For control groups, I have considered alternate explanations offered by Metcalfe, Palmer, and Wright, and I find that their explanations leave far too much not only unexplained, but not even honestly recognized and discussed.

It is not the criteria used by the shaman that is the problem. It is using observations/data that were not shown to be significant through the appropriate use of controls. Before we can argue over which paradigm is the most comprehensive etc. It is first necessary to determine which of the observations are significant. Otherwise we are just like my hypothetical shaman.

I don't think you fully appreciate Kuhn's criteria. You adopted a metaphor that shifted the grounds of discussion from a substantial body of research to a hypothetical shaman, one who sacrifices chickens, rather than actually behaves like a real shaman.

I think the confusion may arise over my definition of what a control is. A control as I am using the term is a means to estimate what an experimenter would â??expectâ? to see if a given hypothesis was not true. For example one would expect to see parallels between Mesoamerica and the Ancient Near East even if the BOM was not historical. Using a control in this case is a means to estimate what the levels of parallel would be between two known to be unrelated cultures like for example Roman culture and Mesoamerican culture. I am using the term control in the sense defined in the following links:

We actually do have some very good controls on the Book of Mormon. We have Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews, Spaulding's tale of shipwrecked Romans, and the Dogberry Parody. They tell us what to expect from Joseph's immediate environment. See if you can find anything comparable to the Year Rite in them. We have the contents of the Manchester public library. We have Palmer's claims about a specific revival discourse. We have witnesses, pro and con. We have other Modern Gospels, such as the Urantia Book, and Osaphe, and others. Plus, we have a prediction in 1 Nephi 13:39-41 that other texts will be found subsequent to the Book of Mormon that will permit us to test the historicity of various specific claims. Which best explains the text in detail?

Skepticism itself is a powerful control. It can decide what Kuhn calls "the method, the problem field, and the standards of solution." Notice that your shaman metaphor decided all of those things at once in the assumptions implicit in the way you use it to frame the questions. An ideology works best when it is invisible, when you don't know you have it. The shaman metaphor had you, but it does not have me.

<SNIP>

By the way I apply the same criteria to critics as well as apologists if a critic produces a set of parallels with the 19th century but does not estimate the significance of those parallels I am just as skeptical.

So let's see some comparisons. Real ones. Not side tracking.

The problem I have is your argument seems to be an argument of incredibility based on your personal intuition of the relevant probabilities.

This statement does not acknowledge the actual comparisons I have made, not just of "relevant probabilities," and personal intuition, but by reading widely, pro and con, over 34 years since I first read Nibley's chapter in An Approach to the Book of Mormon. I've referred to a great deal of evidence here. Evidence that to date, no critic has dealt with head on.

And to be frank such a methodology is unconvincing.

Notice the passive voice. A personal judgment, to which you are certainly entitled, masking as an objective one.

Would you be convinced if my hypothetical shaman claims there is â??no wayâ? (based on his probabilistic intuition) that the number of cured people could be due to random chance? In addition estimating probabilities based on our intuition is demonstrably error prone.

Frankly, I wouldn't care. The problem simply does not interest me in the same way that Mosiah 2-5 does.

This is one of the many good reasons why controls are used. I know of no journal in my field that would accept a manuscript in which the primary observations significance was based solely on intuition even expert intuition.

Nor would Einstein have gotten very far had he stopped where he started, with a dream of riding on a beam of light. But he didn't stop there, did he?

Would you recommend the FDA stop requiring controlled studies if the authors claim that their intuition is sufficient?

Strawman.

My example of David Wright was not because I agree with him. It was an example of an expert whose intuition of the relevant probabilities differed from yours.

My disagreements with Professor Wright involve specific evidences. Not just unspecified intuitutions and high level generalities. For example, in FR 16:2 I observed the following:

David Wright argues that the Melchizedek material in Alma 13 is anachronistically derived from Hebrews:

Scholarship recognizes that Hebrews does not create all of its argument by itself but relies on tradition and perhaps even on some unknown written sources (in addition to the Bible) in some of the places where we have seen the epistle parallel elements in Alma 12â??13. But these traditions and sources are in general relatively recent developments for the author of Hebrews, not traditions going back 700 years. Moreover, the traditions and sources found or supposed by scholars for the passages in Hebrews relevant to Alma 12â??13 are diverse; . . . They are not likely to be found in one traditional source.56

Note the term "likely".

Here is an actual test of that likelyhood, also from my FR 16:2 essay:

Barker explores the figure of Melchizedek:

Melchizedek was central to the old royal cult. We do not know what the name means, but it is quite clear that this priesthood operated within the mythology of the sons of Elyon, and the triumph of the royal son of God in Jerusalem. We should expect later references to Melchizedek to retain some memory of the cult of Elyon. . . . The role of the ancient kings was that of the Melchizedek figure in 11QMelch. This accounts for the Melchizedek material in Hebrews, and the early Church's association of Melchizedek and the Messiah. The arguments of Hebrews presuppose a knowledge of the angel mythology which we no longer have.55 ...

In contrast to Wright's conclusion, Barker's work connects the Melchizedek traditions to the First Temple, which not only moves them back seven hundred years earlier than Hebrews but also argues for the source of unity in those traditions behind Hebrews as being those of the temple.57

With respect to the Melchizedek passages in the Book of Mormon,58 we should note that the Alma 13 discussion is crowded with themes that recur in Barker's books as signs of the preexilic traditionâ??the Father God (Alma 13:9),59 his Begotten Son as the atoning one (Alma 13:5),60 the council in heaven at the foundation of the world (Alma 13:3),61 the Day of Atonement imagery of garments being "washed white through the blood of the Lamb" (Alma 13:11),62 angels being sent to "all nations" (Alma 13:22),63 judgment (Alma 13:29â??30),64 hell, and the second death (Alma 13:29â??30).65 This puts the Melchizedek passage in the Book of Mormon in tune with the angel mythology presupposed by Hebrews. None of these themes elicited any notice in Wright's article

Our disagreements don't need to remain at the level of different views of likelyhood, but can refer to specific evidences.

In addition the above reference study by Wirth appears to suffer from multiple testing issues.

How much of her work have you read, by the way? I also have two others of her books. She's very good, expecially her Parallel book. Not alone in this business, but worth reading. The King Benjamin's speech volume is at the center of things here. She has some interesting work, but my arguments neither begin nor end with her work.

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_comparisons

The BOM does not â??predictâ? that the Cha-Cha'ac ceremony should resemble the Feast of the Tabernacles. The BOM predicts that aspects of Mesoamerica culture should resemble the Ancient Near East.

True. It also predicts that aspects of Mesoamerican culture should not resemble the Ancient Near East. We have room for both similarities and contrasts.

Consider the Wirth study given the general BOM prediction any Mesoamerican ceremony can be compared with any Ancient Near East ceremony.

Why? What general BOM prediction are you talking about? This strikes me as way too random and general.

This means multiple comparisons are being made. Take the set of all possible Mesoamerican ceremonies and the set of all possible Ancient Near East ceremonies.

Again, why? Why be general when being specific is much more meaningful?

Now compare the two for any similarities given the size of the two sets dozens if not hundreds of comparisons can be made. So even if the given set of parallels outlined in the Wirth article is unlikely given the hundreds of possible comparisons it may not be all that unlikely for one of those comparisons by random chance to have the degree of similarity outlined in the study. This is another good reason to estimate significance using the appropriate methodology which will control for such confounding variables.

(Edited to Add)

What makes a coronation ceremony a coronation ceremony is that it is not a random selection of arbitrary ritual actions.

Brant Gardner, for one, has talked about the importance of not making random "shopping list" comparisons (a la Thomas Ferguson), but to do integrated comparisons. To compare features that belong together in the appropriate time and place.

I am familiar with the chiasmus study this is exactly the type of study I would advocate. In which appropriate statistical methods were used to estimate the significance of a given observation. I would add the various word print studies to that list also.

All the Best,

Uncertain

Numbers are useful, but they are not the only control available. They can be misused, as well as used properly and do have their limits. I'm an English major, so I pay attention to words and contexts.

Best to you,

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Hammer]

Great topic Consig.

Options:

A) Hyrum secretly studied ancient farewell addresses in college long before Kurz, but never told anyone about them. Then, he passed all this knowledge on to Joseph who flawlessy executed it with no books or manuals in front of him.

B ) Kurz secretly is a Mormon, sort of like how Rigdon secretly met Joseph before the BoM was written.

C) The Palmyra Library had a time portal in the backroom.

D) Joseph has the Devil's luck.

E) Joseph was a Prophet of God.

Take your pick!

[Uncertain]

Hi Kevin,

Sorry for the delay in response I have been checking in on the board sporadically this week due to other commitments. And I did not have the time to respond until recently.

Already, I have a problem. Why this metaphor? How do we get from looking at heavily documented, widely studied ritual complexes to forest spirits and sacrificed chickens? Rhetorically speaking, this stacks the deck. It sets a skeptical tone. Indeed, even a mocking one. Indeed, it determines the outcome. Read Ian Barbour's Myths, Models, and Paradigms: A Comparative Study of Science and Religion, and read his sections on how metaphors can control things.

I had no intention of being mocking or offensive in any way. I apologize if you were offended. The metaphor was designed to be â??over the topâ? on purpose. In order to illustrate the possible dangers of using observations/data to construct or support a hypothesis. When the set of observations/data have not been determined to be significant using appropriate methodology.

Not incidentally, the name you choose for yourself, Uncertain, is itself a clue that the most important problem to solve for your own paradigm is certainty itself. Do you want a faith that will be approved by skeptics? I see an inherent conflict in the approach. You want the fruit of the tree of life to be endorsed by those pointing from the great and spacious building. Alma 32 has an interesting mention of those who seek "cause to believe" (that is, grounds for faith short of coercive, final, prood) versus those who want to simply and finally "know" (via something coercive, rather than inviting).

LDS apologetics use the tools of scholarship to make its case. Hence it is perfectly acceptable to use those same tools to critique apologetic arguments. With regards to having faith which belief system should I have faith in? Perhaps Catholicism or one of the many flavors of Protestantism maybe I should look beyond Christianity and embrace one of the eastern traditions. Examining the various arguments for and against a particular religious tradition is helpful to ensure faith is not blind. In addition I donâ??t see why coercive evidence is necessarily a bad thing. The evidence the sun will rise tomorrow can safely be described as coercive and yet I can see no negative consequences of this state of affairs. Indeed if you find coercive evidence unsavory I wonder how you can stand to leave your house in the morning

See how redirecting the question away from the complex details away from the ceremony, towards an ambiguous result, also re-defines the question of comprehensiveness and coherence? You get to talk about ambigious results, rather than face up to the complex details of the ceremony, which offer much better controls. Before the Exile, "according to many scholars, the various components of the autumn festival were celebrated as a single season of celebration." (Welch and Szinc, 159). With the Book of Mormon being rooted in Pre-exilic Judaism, Rosh ha-Shanah (New Year), Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement), and Sukkot (Festival of the Tabernacles) should be combined in a single ritual. And that is just part of the "comprehensiveness" criteria of control. It has to make sense in terms of Israelite history, of which little was known until after the Book of Mormon translation. It has to have a reasonable setting. Lehi's journey across the Arabian desert, and then the Ocean, must be plausible. (It is.) The description of the New World cultural and physical setting must make sense. (It does. See Sorenson, and Gardner and Sorenson.) It has to make sense in terms of Early LDS history. (See Bushman and Anderson, for example.) The different aspects of Mosiah narrative, and of Joseph Smith's story, and Ancient Near Eastern and New World settings and times lines, must all fit together coherently.

I am starting to think we are talking past each other. Again I have absolutely no problem using coherence and comprehensiveness etc as a means to decide between different paradigms. My one and only issue is how you and others are deciding which observations need to be explained by a given paradigm. For example apparently you would argue that the parallels between the Cha-Cha'ac ceremony and the Feast of the Tabernacles is an observation that should be explained by the â??bestâ? paradigm. On what basis do you make this determination? Suppose proper controls were used and the degree of parallels between the Cha-Cha'ac ceremony and the Feast of the Tabernacles were no more than what would be expected by random chance. Arguing that a historical BOM better â??explainsâ? this observation would be nonsensical. Perhaps an extreme example will help clear up where the problem lies. Assume one day I randomly generate a sequence of words. A thousand years in the future an archeologist uncovers my random sequence and publishes it initiating a fierce debate about the meaning of my random sequence. Arguing that a given hypothesis is more comprehensive etc is nonsensical in this case. Because the observations (my sequence) upon which the arguments of comprehensiveness etc. are based donâ??t mean anything they are entirely random.

I think we both agree that which observations are determined to be important will influence which paradigm is determined to be the most comprehensive etc. What I am arguing is the set of observations that should be used to determine which paradigm is the most comprehensive etc are the set of observations that have been determined to be statistically significant using appropriate controls and/or statistical methodology. Otherwise we are in the same boat as my shaman basing an argument on a set of observations that may or may not be significant. In which the set of observations deemed to be â??most importantâ? are based primarily on brute assertion coupled with probabilistic intuition.

So let's see some comparisons. Real ones. Not side tracking.

I am not sure what you mean by this statement. There are plenty of examples of critics attempting to use modern parallels to disprove the BOM. But if you want a specific example how about Vernal Holleys work.

http://solomonspalding.com/docs2/2001vern.htm

I am just as skeptical about the critics amassing a set of parallels and using them as strong evidence without attempting to estimate significance using appropriate methodology.

We actually do have some very good controls on the Book of Mormon. We have Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews, Spaulding's tale of shipwrecked Romans, and the Dogberry Parody. They tell us what to expect from Joseph's immediate environment. See if you can find anything comparable to the Year Rite in them. We have the contents of the Manchester public library. We have Palmer's claims about a specific revival discourse. We have witnesses, pro and con. We have other Modern Gospels, such as the Urantia Book, and Osaphe, and others. Plus, we have a prediction in 1 Nephi 13:39-41 that other texts will be found subsequent to the Book of Mormon that will permit us to test the historicity of various specific claims. Which best explains the text in detail?

Perfect, you have identified some potential controls above. Now are there are any studies examining these or similar works for parallels with the Ancient Near East? Such that we have a â??baselineâ? we can compare with purported BOM parallels in order to estimate significance. It is not the job of the critic to estimate significance using appropriate controls it is the job of the scholar who is asserting a set of observations are significant.

This statement does not acknowledge the actual comparisons I have made, not just of "relevant probabilities," and personal intuition, but by reading widely, pro and con, over 34 years since I first read Nibley's chapter in An Approach to the Book of Mormon. I've referred to a great deal of evidence here. Evidence that to date, no critic has dealt with head on.

I am not arguing that the set of parallels between the Cha-Cha'ac ceremony and the Feast of the Tabernacles donâ??t exist. To be frank I am a graduate student in the sciences I do not possess the necessary training to critique in a responsible fashion the existence of the parallels. I am assuming for the purposes of this discussion that the parallels exist. My problem is how the significance of the parallels is determined.

Notice the passive voice. A personal judgment, to which you are certainly entitled, masking as an objective one.

I supported the referenced statement with appropriate references and logical argument. Do you have a reasonable argument why probabilistic intuition is an appropriate method to estimate significance?

Strawman

I do not see how this is a strawman. You are asserting a set of parallels is significant (i.e. rises above the level of random chance or common human nature). Without demonstrating this assertion using appropriate controls. Such a methodology would not be appropriate for a FDA study.

How much of her work have you read, by the way? I also have two others of her books. She's very good, expecially her Parallel book. Not alone in this business, but worth reading. The King Benjamin's speech volume is at the center of things here. She has some interesting work, but my arguments neither begin nor end with her work.

Not much, I am not sure how that fact is relevant however. As previously stated I am perfectly fine assuming sight unseen that whatever parallels she is presenting exist. I understand I am vulnerable to an accusation of critiquing without reading. If Wirth in her books estimates significance of her observations using appropriate methodology she would not be subject to my criticism. The apologetic studies I am familiar with that estimate significance are the ones I already brought up. If you know of any others I would appreciate you bringing them to my attention.

Why? What general BOM prediction are you talking about? This strikes me as way too random and general.

I read over the paragraph about multiple testing in my post. And I realize I was not clear. So let me try again. Assume I have one hundred marbles 99 white and one black. The probability of randomly reaching into my bag of marbles and pulling out the black one is 1/100 or .01. Now assume that I randomly reach in pull out a marble then put it back 100 times. The probability that I will observe the black marble at least once in my sequence of 100 trials is 1-(1-.01)^100=.6339 way to high to be considered significant. The probability of drawing a black marble in each individual trial is low. When many trials are done the probability of observing the black marble at some point in the sequence is high.

Consider the parallels between the Cha-Cha'ac ceremony and the Feast of the Tabernacles. The BOM does not â??predictâ? that the Cha-Cha'ac ceremony and Feast of the Tabernacles should be related. Therefore it is incorrect to ask â??how likelyâ? the set of parallels between the two are. The correct question is given the entire set of comparisons between Mesoamerican ceremonies and ANE ceremonies how likely is it to find a comparison with the given "quality" (i.e. a comparable set of parallels). Each comparison between a given Mesoamerican ceremony and an ANE ceremony is like reaching into my bag of marbles and pulling out a marble. It may be very unlikely that the set of parallels would occur by random chance but given enough comparisons even very unlikely events can be observed.

All the Best,

Uncertain,

[Brant Gardner]

I am not arguing that the set of parallels between the Cha-Cha'ac ceremony and the Feast of the Tabernacles donâ??t exist. To be frank I am a graduate student in the sciences I do not possess the necessary training to critique in a responsible fashion the existence of the parallels. I am assuming for the purposes of this discussion that the parallels exist. My problem is how the significance of the parallels is determined.

For the record, I agree with Uncertain here. There are parallels, and the two are even more parallel if couched in langauge that emphasizes the parallels rather than the differences. Still, the problem is whether or not the parallels require an explanation that links the two or whether there is another mechanism that explains the parallels.

I find it easier to see a completely independent mechanism that explains the parallels than I do to find the way that there could even be a connection between the two.

[LifeOnaPlate]

We also don't need to equate connection and plausibility, however.

[Kevin Christensen]

Uncertain writes:

I had no intention of being mocking or offensive in any way. I apologize if you were offended. The metaphor was designed to be â??over the topâ? on purpose. In order to illustrate the possible dangers of using observations/data to construct or support a hypothesis. When the set of observations/data have not been determined to be significant using appropriate methodology.

I'm not offended. My reponse was to highlight the dangers of using inappropriate metaphors to control your observations and the standards of significance. I've said, repeatedly that I think the most significant observations to date on King Benjmain's discourse, are not Wirth's comparisons but these:

http://www.farms.byu.edu/publications/book...&chapid=119

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publicatio...&chapid=124

Regarding "appropriate methodology," way back in 1953, Hugh Nibley cited Fredrich Blass (the authority on testing historical documents) on the most appropriate methodology for testing historical documents.

If we must assume something about the authenticity of the Book of Mormon at the outset, why not assume that it is false, as its critics regularly do? Because, says Friedrich Blass, once you assume that a document is a fake, no arguments and no evidence to the end of time can ever vindicate it, even if it is absolutely genuine. Why is that? Because "there can be no such thing as an absolutely positive proof."6 The only possible certainty lies in the negative; for example, if we know for sure that a crime has been committed by a woman, the negative fact that a suspect is not a woman completely exonerates him; but on the other hand the fact that one is a woman proves neither guilt nor innocence. Thus, while we can never prove absolutely that the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be, we are justified at the outset in assuming that it is what it claims to be. If one assumes that it is true, its features at least become testable.

This method, based on the long experience of Renaissance scholars in distinguishing authentic from spurious documents says you need to assume that the document is authentic, and read it in that context. The typical non-LDS approach to the Book of Mormon is to assume that it is not authentic, and if any reading is done at all, and to look for 19th century parallels, or more often, simply cast aspersions on Joseph Smith's character.

Two different paradigms, background assumptions, different methods, problem fields, different standards of solution. In comparing paradigms, Kuhn says the key questions are "Which problems are more significant to have solved?" and "which paradigm is better?" in terms of the criteria I mentioned.

I'm aware of a few studies were statistical analysis has been appropriate. For instance, on whether the common Isaiah quotations in Ethan Smith and the Book of Mormon are meaningful. (In that case, statistically speaking, no.) Is chiasmus intentional in the Book of Mormon, or does it occur by chance? In that case, statistically speaking intentionality is very high, and markedly better than 19th century and modern control texts. (See the BYU Studies essay, and download the program.) And there are the various word printing studies, and various approaches to population growth. (New Approaches versus Review of Books on the Book of Mormon v6 n1) Ben McGuire has an important study looking at the chances of common 3 or 4 word phrases appearing in the Book of Mormon and other contemporary, and later, control works. Parallelomania. A google seach will turn it up on Uncle Dale's site. That is useful. Even essential reading, I think.

In the case of Mosiah 2-5, a string of critics have claimed that Benjamin's speech draws on Joseph's experience at Burnt Over District revivals. Fine. Which paradigm is better? If you want to construct an appropriate statistical test, I'd be interested in seeing it. But I doubt such a test could be constructed without considering at least the Welch and Szinc essay.

The last time a critic so much as referred to the Welch/Szinc essay was in 1993. Most ignore it. It's easier to dismiss the Book of Mormon by doing so.

Consider Nibley again on testing the Book of Mormon:

But how can we be certain about anything in criticizing the Book of Mormon? To this Blass gives us the answer: the nearest we can get to certainty, he says, is when we have before us a long, historical document, for it is "improbable in the highest degree, and therefore to be regarded at all times as inadmissible that any forger coming later [than the pretended date of authorship] can have the knowledge and diligence necessary to present any quantity of historical data without running into contradictions." In this, the one sure way of detecting a falsifier, according to our guide, is by those things which he cannot well have succeeded in imitating because they were too trifling, too inconspicuous, and too troublesome to reproduce.9

In Lehi in the Desert we said: The test of an historical document lies, as we have so often insisted, not in the story it tells, but in the casual details that only an eye-witness can have seen.10 It is in such incidental and inconspicuous details that the Book of Mormon shines. Blass, then, notes that when these details occur in considerable numbers (as they certainly do in the Book of Mormon), we can confidently assume a genuine text; and, above all, when the large numbers of details fit together and prove each other, we have the strongest proof of all, for difficulties increase not mathematically with the length of a document, but geometrically.

Both quotes from Nibley, here:

http://www.farms.byu.edu/display.php?table...ripts&id=11

So we have a long historical document that makes specific claims about Jerusalem circa 600 BCE, about conditions and culture in the Arabian desert, and a set of narratives about a New World location, with a wide range of detail to test.

Uncertain says:

Examining the various arguments for and against a particular religious tradition is helpful to ensure faith is not blind.

I agree. I've done a lot of it myself over the past 35 years. I've learned a lot from critics of Mormonism, and from adherents of different systems of belief. And I've come to see lots of amazing things.

In addition I donâ??t see why coercive evidence is necessarily a bad thing. The evidence the sun will rise tomorrow can safely be described as coercive and yet I can see no negative consequences of this state of affairs. Indeed if you find coercive evidence unsavory I wonder how you can stand to leave your house in the morning

Not unsavory. I find the demand for coercive evidence in matters of faith unrealistic. Like someone saying, "I'll give up my doubts when God pries them from my cold dead hands." The pose affects what one notices, what one values. What counts for or against faith.

Fontunately for me, I am quite certain that leaving the house each morning leads to a regular paycheck, whether the sun is up or not, cloudy or not.

You mentioned Vernal Holley. Skepticism in that case is healthy. I am familiar with his claims, as well as responses to them, as well as alternatives to them.

In approaching the Book of Mormon, does Vernal Holley use the method of the renaissance scholars? That is, does he assume, for the purposes of testing, that the Book of Mormon is authentic? Does he read 1 Nephi in light of what is known about Jerusalem, 600 BCE and what is now known about the Arabian desert? In establishing a geography for the New World narrative, does he comprehensively find and use all 700 plus passages that contain geographic information? Does he, for example, as Larry Poulson did, find the 20 passages that describe the hydrology of the Sidon, and then using that description, use a computerized 3D map of the entire Western Hemisphere to search for and find the one river that matches the textual description of the Sidon in establishing his geography? Does he consider the description of the geological catastrophe described in 3 Nephi (which matches in detail, only a major volcanic erruption) to constrain his geography? Where are the candidate volcanic erruptions in Holley? (Sorenson has them.) Does he compare his propsed geography against others, using Sorenson's Sourcebook, for example, to show how and why his is better in accounting for key features, as then continue to the fine details? Does he even bother to confirm whether the town names that he uses were in place before the Book of Mormon was published? Where is his statistical analysis of the probability of two Bible oriented cultures using the names from the most important document in their culture. Does he consider translation factors? Does his map account for the all of details in Sorenson's purely internal approach with Mormon's Map?

My one and only issue is how you and others are deciding which observations need to be explained by a given paradigm.

I've been impressed by Nibley's approach. Assume the text is authentic. Read the text. Read the purported context. See how well it fits. Or read the puported context, and go back to the text. See what I notice that I didn't even know how to see before. And then compare that solution with the various 19th century theories, as well as with Blake Ostler's Expansion theory, and see which best accounts for the text.

Perhaps an extreme example will help clear up where the problem lies. Assume one day I randomly generate a sequence of words.

The extreme example does demonstrate the problem. Benjamin's discourse is not a randomly generated text. It is carefully constructed. It does not contain random phrases like "The policeman's beard is half constructed" (which sentence is, in fact, randomly constructed by a computer program.) Nor is it randomly structured, nor placed in a random setting. If you want to look at arguments by Metcalfe on a four step revival pattern, and a claim that the Burnt Over District revivals deliberately imitated the Feast of the Tabernacles, and Mark Thomas on bits of Revival language, and Grant Palmer on a specific discourse, fine. You don't have to start from scratch. Build on what has been done. Come up with some kind of statistical analysis about which features of a pre-exilic festival complex appears by chance, or even by purposeful study. All power to you. Go ahead. In the meantime, I think it's rather obvious that Nibley's 36 step coronation pattern alone is more complex, and a better, more comprehensive explanation. The 1998 volume shows how fruitful that continuing that approach has been. Palmer's refusal to so much as footnote a single essay from that large volume shows how difficult it is for critics to honestly account for the results. Easier to ignore it. or to fixate on a peripheral study, such as Wirth's.

Perfect, you have identified some potential controls above. Now are there are any studies examining these or similar works for parallels with the Ancient Near East? Such that we have a â??baselineâ? we can compare with purported BOM parallels in order to estimate significance.

I've read and compared them myself. 36 steps are more complex than 4. I don't even need to dig out my statistics books to calculate that. That is my estimate. And Metcalfe's four steps, I find, aren't all that distinctive, in terms of human experience, compared to other approaches that look outside the 19th century. And there is Blake Ostler's 1987 paper.

Best,

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Uncertain]

Hi Kevin,

As always a great response.

This method, based on the long experience of Renaissance scholars in distinguishing authentic from spurious documents says you need to assume that the document is authentic, and read it in that context. The typical non-LDS approach to the Book of Mormon is to assume that it is not authentic, and if any reading is done at all, and to look for 19th century parallels, or more often, simply cast aspersions on Joseph Smith's character.

Hmm, as I am sure you are aware any paradigm can be rendered unfalsifiable by adjusting peripheral claims. So I am not sure assuming it is true is the correct approach. How does a scholar ensure that they are not just engaging in paradigm maintenance? What is wrong with trying your best to be objective (I know perfect objectivity is impossible) assume it is neither true nor false and come to a conclusion based on the data.

I am willing for the purpose of this discussion to assume Nibley's approach is correct. But I do not see how this solves the problem. Take your quote from Kuhn â??In comparing paradigms, Kuhn says the key questions are Which problems are more significant to have solved?â?. (To be honest I was looking for this quote and couldnâ??t find it what can I say great minds think alike ). It is not the downstream analysis I have a problem with (i.e. assume the BOM is true etc.). It is the data the downstream analysis operates on I have a problem with. We have a large collection of observations relative to the BOM on the critical side we have things like a focus on modifying italicized words for KJV quoted material or New Testament passages quoted in the BOM. On the believers side we have things like chiasms or the various parallels outlined by Sorenson and Gardner etc. Depending on which observations are viewed as the most â??significant problemâ? using the same downstream methodology very different solutions can be arrived at (as the Kuhn quote implies). For example suppose a person dismisses all the BOM evidences as mere coincidence or borrowing from the Bible but views critical observations as significance and in need of a solution. It is likely they will come to the conclusion that the BOM is a modern production even if they use Nibleyâ??s methodology of assume it is true until proven otherwise. In other words it is the garbage in garbage out problem. The downstream analysis may be as pure as driven snow but if the data the downstream analysis is operating on is flawed the conclusions reached may be flawed. Before we start asking which paradigm better explains a set of observations we need to determine which set of observations require an explanation and which are due to random chance or some other factor. Or we are susceptible to the garbage in garbage out problem. This has been the point I have been attempting to get across with all of my metaphors and examples.

Ben McGuire has an important study looking at the chances of common 3 or 4 word phrases appearing in the Book of Mormon and other contemporary, and later, control works. Parallelomania. A google seach will turn it up on Uncle Dale's site. That is useful. Even essential reading, I think.

Here you mention Ben McGuires paper in which he responds to Thomas Donofrio. I appreciate the reference and have read this paper I think it is excellent. Consider this passage from the article:

In his on-line article, Book of Mormon Tories, near the end of a large list of parallels, Donofrio makes the following comment: â??Suffice it to say, the tally of similarities begin to defy random chance.â? Without anything to compare it to, this would certainly seem to be the case.

http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/parallels.htm

Tom makes the claim that the set of parallels he has amassed â??defy random chanceâ?. It seems he is making this claim primarily on the basis of his probabilistic intuition. Ben to refute Tomâ??s claims uses an appropriate statistical methodology to make meaningful comparisons demonstrating the collection of parallels amassed by Tom are probably not significant. This is exactly the type of study I would advocate. Any scholar whether critic or believer who is asserting a set of parallels are significant should demonstrate significance using appropriate methodology. Why should we have to depend on our probabilistic intuition to evaluate the significance of a set of parallels? Such an approach whether used by critics or believers would seem to be vulnerable to confirmation bias.

I found it interesting that Tom was so certain his parallels were meaningful based primarily it seems on his intuition. It reminds me of critics and believers who dogmatically assert a particular set of parallels are meaningful. Our probabilistic intuition is just not that reliable.

I've read and compared them myself. 36 steps are more complex than 4. I don't even need to dig out my statistics books to calculate that. That is my estimate. And Metcalfe's four steps, I find, aren't all that distinctive, in terms of human experience, compared to other approaches that look outside the 19th century. And there is Blake Ostler's 1987 paper.

I agree 36 steps are more unlikely than 4 it still doesnâ??t mean either set of parallels are meaningful and require explanation. Significance must not be simply asserted based on complexity it must be demonstrated with solid methodology like the Ben McGuire paper like the chiasm study etc.

I am starting to wonder if our disagreement is a function of our different perspectives. As a scientist in training it has been repeatedly pounded into my thick skull. That observationâ??s without meaningful comparisons are meaningless and requires no explanation until they have been demonstrated to be significant. It may be in higher criticism and related fields such an idea is not nearly as emphasized (perhaps for a good reason I am not aware of).

In any case I think we have about run this topic dry I believe I know where you are coming from and hopefully you understand my position. It may be we will just have to agree to disagree. There is no law I am aware or that every person must arrive at the same conclusion. I would be interested in reading your reply to my above post but I am unsure I will respond.

All the Best,

Uncertain

[Kevin Christensen]

Hmm, as I am sure you are aware any paradigm can be rendered unfalsifiable by adjusting peripheral claims.

yes, I have written at length on this topic. FARMS Review 7:2 and 16:1, for example. But unfalsifiable does not mean untestable. Barbour explains that in practice, paradigms are neither verified, nor falsified, but are assessed against a range of criteria. If someone wants to reject the Book of Mormon based on issues with King James italics. Fine for them. But I am permitted to ask just how much of the Book of Mormon gets explained that way.

So I am not sure assuming it is true is the correct approach.

As Nibley says, that way, its features at least become testable.

For example suppose a person dismisses all the BOM evidences as mere coincidence or borrowing from the Bible but views critical observations as significance and in need of a solution.

We can be specific. Compare if you will Robert M. Price's essay in American Apocrypha. He begins by discussing Josiah's reform, and the emergence of Deuteronomy as a pious forgery. He then explores the Book of Mormon as just one more pious forgery. Eventually, 18 pages in, he begins to look at the text and describes how Joseph Smith combined themes of priesthood and transfiguration from Mark 9 and John 21 to come up with the synthesis in 3 Nephi 19 and 28. What I find interesting in comparison is that it never occurs to Price in all of this learned explanation to even consider that the plot of the Book of Mormon makes Lehi a contemporary of Josiah's reform. Price has even favorably reviewed Margaret Barker's The Great Angel, recognizing the paradigm shift her approach requires in looking at Josiah's reform. And one of the things that inevitably comes from Barker's approach is the recognition that the themes of priesthood and transfiguration that Price sees as separate in the NT texts belong together in Barker's First Temple approach. Consequentally, in this light, they also belong together in Both the New Testament and the Book of Mormon. I put this together in Paradigms Regained. When Barker herself looked at the Book of Mormon against the 600 BCE context, she publically declared the fit to be a good one. She didn't come out and say that the Book of Mormon is therefore true. She just said that it fits the period.

As I've mentioned, David Wright did at one point vaguely acknowledge the ancient parallels. Price, though he has the intellectual resources to make a test for fitting an ancient setting, doesn't even bother. He tests only to fit this theory of pious fraud. As convinced as he is, my perspective is, different. Justifiably so, I think.

I found it interesting that Tom was so certain his parallels were meaningful based primarily it seems on his intuition.

Yep. However...

Reminder that paradigms are defined by standard examples. That is, we take a sample, Donofrio, and from that sample we generalize about the territory. Here comes the generalization:

It reminds me of critics and believers who dogmatically assert a particular set of parallels are meaningful. Our probabilistic intuition is just not that reliable.

So testing is important. Vogel's Indian Origins and the Book of Mormon cites descriptions of palisaded earthwork fortifications that could have inspired the Book of Mormon descriptions. On the other hand, Sorenson finds the same kinds of palisaded, earthwork fortifications in Mesoamerica, dating to Book of Mormon time frames and locations. The existing parallels are consistent with conflicting theories of composition.

Still, I question whether the generalization from this comparison from Donofrio's method for generating parallels, which looked for word groups in a few 19th century texts, ending in essentially in a comparison of vocabulary. It seems to me that the kinds of things that Nibley and Welch and Ricks do in their comparisons come via something far more specific, more demanding, and far less random. And we can actually test their findings against the 19th century setting, looking at revivals in general, and specifically, as Palmer does. Just because Palmer ignores a range of ancient studies, I don't have to ignore them.

The same thing occurs in comparing the sites in the Dofar region Oman with the Book of Mormon text. A few general parallels aren't enough. It's why Gardner and Sorenson come down so hard on "shopping list" parallels for the New World setting, rather than integrated complexes that actually belong together. For example, Nibley's quasida is not just the occurance of the form, but occuring in the correct cultural situation, in plausible physical setting.

There is a real danger in substituting a generalization about the necessity for testing for actual meaningful testing.

And of course, there is the problem of what happens if your only tool is statistical analysis, in treating the world like a punched card. Statistically speaking, how beautiful is Benjamin's imagery? But that would be another thread altogether.

Best,

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Uncertain]

Hi Kevin,

I appreciate the discussion. I think we have just about run this topic dry. You have certainly given me food for thought and I wish you a great week.

All the Best,

Uncertain