NHM and the trail

[Daniel Peterson]

Well I would have to disagree. I do regard the witness testimony as good evidence of the supernatural. But with regards to the unique truth claims of Mormonism they are weak.

I regard them as extraordinarily strong.

And the more I study them, the stronger they look to me.

The problem is these kinds of witness events are by no means unique. For example Catholicism has a rich tradition of similar events. Why should an objective observer believe the eight and three witnesses at the expense of the BOM witness like events of other faiths? And before you ask yes in many cases the witness events of other faiths do explicitly contradict LDS doctrine so they both can't be true.

I can't answer this question in the abstract. I would have to be given a specific case.

My focus in such things is rigorously historical, much more than epistemological/theoretical. I want to know details, not to speculate about Religious Experiences in general.

Fair enough, what reliable and rigorous methodology have you employed to estimated what degree of correspondence would be expected between a fraud and the ANE? In other words on what basis are you making this judgment?

I don't believe that a "reliable and rigorous methodology" can be sketched out on such things if, by that, you mean some sort of unitary or quantifiable method. One simply examines things on a case by case basis, and makes inferences to the best explanation.

And should your assessment be preferred over say someone like David Wright who is certainly qualified to judge how significant NMH etc. is and yet arrives at a very different conclusion then your own.

David is a very bright fellow, and, when he was at BYU, was a very good friend. I have enormous respect for his abilities.

No, I'm not claiming that my assessment should be preferred, simply because it's mine, over his. I've never said anything to that effect. But I do believe that the typical critic -- without any exception on the internet that I can recall -- fails really to engage the matter of NHM.

Look I am not saying you are wrong. What I am saying is it seems everyone is basing this on personal probabilistic intuition and frankly probabilistic intuition is demonstratively highly inaccurate. I mean lacking some rigorous methodology to estimate what would be expected by chance. Your argument essentially boils down to you know significant events when you see them. Which frankly is not on the whole a reliable way to do science.

Who in the world is doing "science" here?

This isn't chemistry, or astrophysics. Rigorous, quantifiable, probabilistic techniques have an important role to play in quantum physics, but it's hard to see how they would have much to say of any value with regard to, say, the history of Mesopotamia, or a study of the rise of the Roman Republic, or textual analysis of the Bhagavad Gita. I'm always baffled when critics fault me for doing "science" poorly.

[ttribe]

Your argument essentially boils down to you know significant events (in the statistically significant sense) when you see them. Which frankly is not on the whole a reliable way to do science.

I believe Dr. Peterson has some background which allows him to comment as he has - Link.

Accusations concerning a lack of rigor with respect to his conclusions are largely uninformed, in my opinion. I have no problem with you disagreeing with his conclusions...but going straight to the methodological? Bad idea based on what I have seen of his studies thus far.

[Jaybear]

Yes, if the dream specified the winning number. But if he has two dreams, and he buys the tickets as defined by the dreams and they both win, the odds are now 1:10,000,000,000,000,000. A third dream, also a winner, increases the odds, this time to 1:1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

For my example, I gave what I consider to be extremely low odds on Joseph's getting any of the four places right, yet the chances of his being right by accident on all four counts, even with those low odds, were vanishingly small.

Lehi

Great. So how do you factor in those days when he didn't win the lottery. Or what about the other people who dream about the lottery and don't win. Wouldn't those facts support the conclusion that their is no relationship between dreams and winning lottery tickets.

[Uncertain]

I regard them as extraordinarily strong.

And the more I study them, the stronger they look to me.

I can't answer this question in the abstract. I would have to be given a specific case.

My focus in such things is rigorously historical, much more than epistemological/theoretical. I want to know details, not to speculate about Religious Experiences in general.

Hi Daniel,

This is a reasonable request. If I have the time I will start a new thread on this very topic. The example that immediately springs to mind is the "Miracle of the Sun". If I start a post I will be more specific in what exactly was taught to the fatima children by the Mary visitation that explicitly contradicts LDS doctrine.

I don't believe that a "reliable and rigorous methodology" can be sketched out on such things if, by that, you mean some sort of unitary or quantifiable method. One simply examines things on a case by case basis, and makes inferences to the best explanation.

David is a very bright fellow, and, when he was at BYU, was a very good friend. I have enormous respect for his abilities.

No, I'm not claiming that my assessment should be preferred, simply because it's mine, over his. I've never said anything to that effect. But I do believe that the typical critic -- without any exception on the internet that I can recall -- fails really to engage the matter of NHM.

Well I certainly think a more rigorous methodology can be employed then "I know it when I see it". For example I see no reason why suitable control texts could not be examined to see how many words match ancient Hebrew, Arabic etc. and then compare how many matches you get with how many matches you get between the BOM and the same set of languages. Or for that matter simply invent a set of biblical sounding words and see what fraction of them can be connected with the ANE. So no I don't expect the same rigor I would get in a paper written for the hard sciences. This however does not mean it is unreasonable to expect more rigor than has hitherto been shown.

Here's the problem you are very familiar with the data you also have some knowledge of the relevant techniques needed to make sense of the data and arrive at a reasonable conclusion. And in your considered opinion "coincidence" is a desperate last resort. David Wright also is very familiar with the data and is also familiar with the relevant techniques needed to make sense of the data. Frankly in that regard he might be more qualified than you are. This is not an insult I am certain in your field you are far more familiar with the commonly used tools and procedures that David would be. In any case David apparently would not agree with your assessment that "coincidence" is a desperate last resort. In other words I was wondering if your assessment of "desperate last resort" was based on anything other than the assessment of a expert in the field based on personal probabilistic intuition. Because it appears to me that is what Davids assessment is based on. I am well aware that personal probabilistic intuition is unreliable even for experts. Hence if that is what your assessment is based on it is not a very good argument. Especially when other experts in the field familiar with the very same data disagree with you.

This is why more rigor is needed and simply saying the hard sciences are less subjective than the messy kind of data we deal with in the BOM does not solve the problem. Claiming more rigor is not possible is not a solution just a restatement of the problem.

Who in the world is doing "science" here?

Well I guess it depends on how you define science. I was under the impression the scholarly study of purported ancient texts would certainly fall under the rubric of science.

This isn't chemistry, or astrophysics. Rigorous, quantifiable, probabilistic techniques have an important role to play in quantum physics, but it's hard to see how they would have much to say of any value with regard to, say, the history of Mesopotamia, or a study of the rise of the Roman Republic, or textual analysis of the Bhagavad Gita. I'm always baffled when critics fault me for doing "science" poorly.

Frankly this as a straw man. No I don't think neither have I argued that the various probabilities can be nailed down to the same extent you might see in a physical chemistry paper. This is not a good excuse for lack of rigor I see no reason why suitable control texts could not be compared with the ancient near east to get at least some idea what degree of similarities would be expected by random chance. Doing so would certainly be more rigorous than "I know a significant parallel when I see one" even if I would not submit such a study to Physical Chemistry A.

All the Best,

Uncertain

[Uncertain]

I believe Dr. Peterson has some background which allows him to comment as he has - Link.

Accusations concerning a lack of rigor with respect to his conclusions are largely uninformed, in my opinion. I have no problem with you disagreeing with his conclusions...but going straight to the methodological? Bad idea based on what I have seen of his studies thus far.

Hi ttribe,

See my response to Dr. Peterson. I would not presume to argue with him based on whether or not for example Nahom is a good match for NHM. But I do think it reasonable to question some of the fundamental assumptions of how exactly he has arrived at the conclusion "coincidence" is a desperate last resort. Especially when others just as qualified if not more so apparently disagree with his assessment.

All the Best,

Uncertain

[Jaybear]

Who in the world is doing "science" here?

This isn't chemistry, or astrophysics. Rigorous, quantifiable, probabilistic techniques have an important role to play in quantum physics, but it's hard to see how they would have much to say of any value with regard to, say, the history of Mesopotamia, or a study of the rise of the Roman Republic, or textual analysis of the Bhagavad Gita. I'm always baffled when critics fault me for doing "science" poorly.

But you said earlier:

Coincidence is always a possible explanation, even when, as in many cases, the probability of coincidence is vanishingly small.

...

In fact, it seems highly improbable.

...

As I say, we weigh the overall evidence, and thus the prior probabilities, very differently.

Probability is a mathematical term. Are you now saying your conclusory statements regarding the very slim probability of nhm being coincidental are merely your subjective opinions, and there is no actual math behind them?

What a shame.

[Daniel Peterson]

That's right. No math.

Non-statisticians very often talk about things being "likely" or "unlikely" without precise quantification. Do you not?

This is a reasonable request. If I have the time I will start a new thread on this very topic. The example that immediately springs to mind is the "Miracle of the Sun". If I start a post I will be more specific in what exactly was taught to the fatima children by the Mary visitation that explicitly contradicts LDS doctrine.

That's fine. I have to say, though, in advance, that I'm going to be traveling more than I'm home over the next two weeks, and that I probably won't be spending much time on message boards during that interval.

Well I certainly think a more rigorous methodology can be employed then "I know it when I see it".

That's scarcely my "methodology." Along with others, I've published many pages of academic argument on this sort of thing.

For example I see no reason why suitable control texts could not be examined to see how many words match ancient Hebrew, Arabic etc. and then compare how many matches you get with how many matches you get between the BOM and the same set of languages. Or for that matter simply invent a set of biblical sounding words and see what fraction of them can be connected with the ANE. So no I don't expect the same rigor I would get in a paper written for the hard sciences. This however does not mean it is unreasonable to expect more rigor than has hitherto been shown.

You're entirely welcome to devise such rigorous techniques. Nobody stands in your way, nor in anybody else's way. And, in fact, some such tests have already been deployed, and they haven't always worked to the advantage of certain critics.

This is why more rigor is needed and simply saying the hard sciences are less subjective than the messy kind of data we deal with in the BOM does not solve the problem. Claiming more rigor is not possible is not a solution just a restatement of the problem.

As I say, you're entirely welcome, as is anybody else, to develop the kind of rigorous methodology that, so far as I can tell, doesn't yet exist in the relevant fields (even when Mormonism isn't involved).

Well I guess it depends on how you define science. I was under the impression the scholarly study of purported ancient texts would certainly fall under the rubric of science.

Unless I'm speaking German and talking about Wissenschaft, I would never describe such things as "science." Such things very often fall under "Arts and Letters," but never merely under "science." Not in the English-speaking world.

Frankly this as a straw man.

It's only a straw man if, as I think you did, you miss my point to some degree or other.

This is not a good excuse for lack of rigor

Nobody here -- certainly not me -- advocates a "lack of rigor."

[Olavarria]

I think the main issue here is one of evidence vs proof.

Is the whole Jerusalem/NHM/Dhofar complex evidence for BoM historicity?

YES

Is the whole Jerusalem/NHM/Dhofar complex proof for BoM historicity?

NO

The whole situation reminds me a little of Helaman 16:13-25

[Olavarria]

A Korean farmer in 1910 claims to have been given by an angel ancient records, which he proceeded to translate by the power of God.

In this record, the 3rd c. AD protagonists, somewhere in the Levant travel past a mountain shaped like a bowl and continue south-westwards along a valley, and after a day's travel, turn north and bury one of their number in a cave at the place called Bisharei.

Seven years prior, members of the Deutsche Orient Gesellschaft discover several late Roman era tombs in the northern end of the Jezreel Valley, but their find goes unnoticed.

Eighteen years after the Korean's book is published, Alexander Zaid is herding sheep in the same spot the Germans visited, and discovers a burial cave. Upon further investigation, an inscription is uncovered, identifying the spot as Beith-Shearim, the prime necropolis in the region during the 3rd century. The Talmuds have an alternate name for it- Beith-Sharei- which in the Galilaean dialect was pronounced almost like Bisharei.

How strong is that evidence for the truth of the Korean's claim?

I think it would be evidence that the Korean's book has a historical core to it. Is it proof that it does? No. Is it proof of his angel? No. Then again, I don't have problems with angels giving people books. Its happened before.

Too bad your hypothetical Choson Smith doesn't exist.

[Olavarria]

Hi ttribe,

See my response to Dr. Peterson. I would not presume to argue with him based on whether or not for example Nahom is a good match for NHM. But I do think it reasonable to question some of the fundamental assumptions of how exactly he has arrived at the conclusion "coincidence" is a desperate last resort. Especially when others just as qualified if not more so apparently disagree with his assessment.

All the Best,

Uncertain

Im no liguist, but I see NHM as a match for Nahom for the same reasons that:

Musa=Moshe

Yusuf=Yosef

Isa=Yeshua

Nuh=Noach

Ibrahim=Abraham

[Olavarria]

Lets not forget, Troy is a real archeological site!!

http://www.uni-tuebingen.de/troia/eng/index.html

Now, I can accept that truth and still reject the notion that Achilles, if he even existed, was the invulnerable son of a goddess and that he died when Legolas shot him in the heel.

Similiarly, critics and non-believers can accept that the south of Jerusalem, along the borders of the Red Sea lays a place called NHM and that the people the place is named after have been around that same locale since at least 600BC. They can also accept the fact that if you travel in a "nearly eastwardly" direction,as the spice trail naturally did when you hit Marib(a stones throw from NHM), you will reach Dhofar, with its lush vegetation, iron and ancient ship building tradition.

Or can they?

Is Nephi the Mormon Achilles?

Can you accept the historicity of the stage without accepting the historicity of the actors?

[mfbukowski]

deleted

[Uncertain]

That's fine. I have to say, though, in advance, that I'm going to be traveling more than I'm home over the next two weeks, and that I probably won't be spending much time on message boards during that interval.

Hi Daniel,

No worries, I do not expect you to be constantly at my beck and call. Three days out of seven to cater to my needs is sufficient . I have been for a while thinking about starting a thread on why the Witness testimony is not strong evidence for the unique truth claims of the LDS church. I have been reluctant because starting a thread and taking on all comers can be time consuming. And I really shouldn't be spending all my time fighting on the internet.

That's scarcely my "methodology." Along with others, I've published many pages of academic argument on this sort of thing.

Sweet, then it shouldn't be difficult for you to direct me to the methodology you employed to estimate what degree of correspondence would be expected between a fraud and the ANE. At least what I have read and watched concerning NMH the argument essentially boils down to "look at how complex all these parallels are in my expert opinion it is unlikely they could occur by random chance". Which is in fact an argument based on personal probabilistic intuition. I was wondering if your statement concerning coincidence was based on something more solid or if it was more of the same. If I have missed the part where they rule out coincidence on something better than personal intuition based on perceived complexity of parallels I welcome correction.

You're entirely welcome to devise such rigorous techniques. Nobody stands in your way, nor in anybody else's way.

Hold on a second it is not my job to put your house in order that is your job. The burden of proof is on the person claiming observations X, Y and Z are significant (i.e. rise above the level expected by random chance and the influence of confounding variables).

And, in fact, some such tests have already been deployed, and they haven't always worked to the advantage of certain critics.

This is fine, the goal is not to be proven right. The goal is to arrive at those conclusions that best approximate how the universe really is. Look I am not arguing that NMH necessarily is coincidence I have no idea one way or another. What I am arguing is a cursory dismissal on the basis of nothing more than probabilistic intuition while pointing to perceived complexity is not a solid methodology. If you are not doing this then demonstrate what you are doing instead. By pointing me to a reference or describing the methodology you employ to estimate the degree of random correspondence you would expect for nineteenth century pseudo-scriptural texts known not to be ancient.

As I say, you're entirely welcome, as is anybody else, to develop the kind of rigorous methodology that, so far as I can tell, doesn't yet exist in the relevant fields (even when Mormonism isn't involved).

Are you sure? Off the top of my head I can think of at least four examples two of which are pro LDS. For example there is the Edward's study published in BYU studies in which an appropriate and rigorous methodology is employed to demonstrate Chiasmus does not occur by random chance in the BOM. There there was Ben McGuires excellent rebuttal to Tom Donofrio's list of parallels between the BOM and various nineteenth century works. The last example is particularly apt Ben used appropriate control texts to demonstrate Tom's list of parallels is not in fact significant. Apparently it is fine to use such approaches when it comes to critics use of nineteenth century parallels. Why can't similar approaches be applied to evaluating BOM parallels with antiquity? Do you want me to list more examples?

Frankly I am somewhat surprised you are even arguing this point. There are some very strong reasons why the appropriate use of controls to place observations in the correct context is fundamental to the pursuit of knowledge. If you wish to argue that appropriate controls for some reason are not needed when studying the BOM I am willing to listen. But it had better be good .

Unless I'm speaking German and talking about Wissenschaft, I would never describe such things as "science." Such things very often fall under "Arts and Letters," but never merely under "science." Not in the English-speaking world.

Well I stand corrected I will forthwith cease referring to the study of ancient manuscripts as a science. And to show a contrite spirit I will even rewrite my sentence from this: "Which frankly is not on the whole a reliable way to do science." to this: "Which frankly is not on the whole a reliable methodology" happy ?

It's only a straw man if, as I think you did, you miss my point to some degree or other.

Well I am open to correction what point did I miss?

All the Best,

Uncertain

[Uncertain]

Im no liguist, but I see NHM as a match for Nahom for the same reasons that:

Musa=Moshe

Yusuf=Yosef

Isa=Yeshua

Nuh=Noach

Ibrahim=Abraham

Hi Her Amun,

I am not disputing the fact that NHM is a potential match for Nahom. Frankly I do not have the necessary background to argue one way or the other. I accept Dr. Petersons take on the matter. I am disputing exactly what conclusions can reasonable be drawn by observing NHM matches Nahom.

All the Best,

Uncertain

[sethpayne]

Im no liguist, but I see NHM as a match for Nahom for the same reasons that:

Musa=Moshe

Yusuf=Yosef

Isa=Yeshua

Nuh=Noach

Ibrahim=Abraham

All of your examples have vowels. Makes a big difference, doesn't it?

Sincere question.

[Analytics]

From my perspective, a clue that suggests modern authorship by somebody looking at a map is Nephi's description that they traveled in a â??nearly a south-southeast direction.â? The Bible has hundreds of references to north, east, south, and west, but zero references to more refined directions such as north-west, (much less north-northwest). Isnâ??t the directional precision of â??south-southeastâ? a pretty significant anarchism? Humans just donâ??t detect such subtle differences of direction when they are traveling through wildernesses.

Appologists go to some lengths to explain why, when the Book of Mormon says â??Northâ? what it really means in modern English is â??Westâ?. This is necessary to make the Book of Mormon geography fit Sorensonâ??s model. As William Hamblin said, â??cardinal directions were not expressed by ancient civilizations in the same way they are by modern civilizations.â? http://mi.byu.edu/publications/books/?book...&chapid=818

That is undoubtedly true, which is why it is ironic that apologists abandon that precept and impose an anarchisticly precise modern conception of directions on alleged ancient peoples when it is convenient to do so.

Regarding NHM, I think that is a bona fide hit. Not nearly enough to compel belief, but it is a hit. Touch

[ttribe]

Regarding NHM, I think that is a bona fide hit. Not nearly enough to compel belief, but it is a hit. Touch

[thesometimesaint]

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...p;showentry=262

[Olavarria]

From my perspective, a clue that suggests modern authorship by somebody looking at a map is Nephi's description that they traveled in a â??nearly a south-southeast direction.â? The Bible has hundreds of references to north, east, south, and west, but zero references to more refined directions such as north-west, (much less north-northwest). Isnâ??t the directional precision of â??south-southeastâ? a pretty significant anarchism? Humans just donâ??t detect such subtle differences of direction when they are traveling through wildernesses.

Appologists go to some lengths to explain why, when the Book of Mormon says â??Northâ? what it really means in modern English is â??Westâ?. This is necessary to make the Book of Mormon geography fit Sorensonâ??s model. As William Hamblin said, â??cardinal directions were not expressed by ancient civilizations in the same way they are by modern civilizations.â? http://mi.byu.edu/publications/books/?book...&chapid=818

That is undoubtedly true, which is why it is ironic that apologists abandon that precept and impose an anarchisticly precise modern conception of directions on alleged ancient peoples when it is convenient to do so.

Regarding NHM, I think that is a bona fide hit. Not nearly enough to compel belief, but it is a hit. Touch

[krose]

Thank you! Now, to the rest of you critics who want to crap all over the idea that the NHM might have some validity - was that really so hard?

Let me join in, then. The NHM find might have some validity.

I am curious about the reactions of non-LDS Middle-East scholars. Do they find it equally impressive (as evidence for the Book of Mormon) as apologists do? I haven't read anything about that.

[Analytics]

Let me join in, then. The NHM find might have some validity.

I am curious about the reactions of non-LDS Middle-East scholars. Do they find it equally impressive (as evidence for the Book of Mormon) as apologists do? I haven't read anything about that.

A few years ago I met up with David P. Wright (Wright is a preeminent scholar of the Hebrew Bible and was excommunicated for publishing his research on the Book of Mormon). I forgot his exact words, but he said something to the effect that NHM is impressiveâ??much more so than other alleged evidences (e.g. Hebraisms, chiasmus).

[Olavarria]

Let me join in, then. The NHM find might have some validity.

I am curious about the reactions of non-LDS Middle-East scholars. Do they find it equally impressive (as evidence for the Book of Mormon) as apologists do? I haven't read anything about that.

If you look at the OP, Raphael Patai allowed a Mormon to write about it in the appendix of his book.

As for others, I dont know any who say "yea" or "nay". I did find the following though.

KHARFOT SEARCHING FOR MORMONS

an article featured in Oman Today

http://www.apexstuff.com/ot/200711/exploration.asp

[mfbukowski]

KHARFOT SEARCHING FOR MORMONS

an article featured in Oman Today

http://www.apexstuff.com/ot/200711/exploration.asp

Great article- it really puts this into perspective from the other side of the world:

The legend of the Mormons

History and intrigue, for starters. While few Omanis apart from those in Dalkut are aware of its existence, a little-known group called the Mormons now based chiefly in the Americas has been eyeing Kharfot very closely. The term Mormon isn

[John Larsen]

Thank you! Now, to the rest of you critics who want to crap all over the idea that the NHM might have some validity - was that really so hard?

Not any harder than for apologists to acknowledge that chariots are a bona fide miss. Wacka Wacka.

Seriously, this is what NHM is:

Sure it is evidence, but in line with everything else, it is not enough of evidence to really convince the unconverted.

[mfbukowski]

Sure it is evidence, but in line with everything else, it is not enough of evidence to really convince the unconverted.

Nothing could be. There are always alternative explanations.