Response To Dr. Michael Coe

[LeSellers]

I see. So Martin Harris, David Whitmer, and Joseph Knight were never present during the translation? And in your opinion, they just made this stuff up just for kicks?

Well, Martin Harris was there, he was scribe for a while.

The others were not there. They would have repeated accounts they heard from otehrs. They probably garbled them slightly, as we all do in recounting things we've heard but not experienced personally.

The thing about hear-say witnesses (J. Knight and David Whitmer) is that we don't know how they got their beliefs on the matter.

We obviously do not have Martin's first-hand account, but what is probably an edited version. It's written by the editor, not Harris himself, which we can deduce from the wording. What Martin actually said may be somewhat different, and I believe it was, from what we read in the Stevenson version.

Emma tells us thart what Joseph saw were proper names and "long words" I have no specific candiates for the latter, but there are a myriad of possibilities for the former.

Lehi

Edited September 1, 2011 by LeSellers

[Chris Smith]

For the record, I think it's sheer folly to challenge the historical evidence for a visual mode of translation. However, this doesn't necessarily entail tight translation, which is why I said "there is plenty of room for intelligent people to disagree." It is fully possible to have a vision or visual hallucination that originates in the mind of the viewer rather than in a physical, observable reality external to oneself. In other words, the "visions" Joseph saw in the stone could be subjective visual projections of his consciousness rather than objective video projections emanating from the stone itself. If so, then the visions Joseph saw in the stone could still be limited or mediated by his worldview. In support of this perspective, one might cite Scott Dunn's work on automatic writing. In automatic writing, a crystal or flame often serves as a focal point that induces an altered state of consciousness that makes it possible for people to visually "see" a supernatural text.

I once had an experience along these lines. I "read" from a parchment that I "saw" in a lucid dream in the wee hours of the morning. (Lucid dreaming is when you're half awake, and you're consciously aware that the dream isn't real.)

[Chris Smith]

Well, Martin Harris was there, he was scribe for a while.

Indeed he was.

The others were not there.

David Whitmer:

"I, as well as all of my father's family, Smith's wife, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris, were present during the translation. The translation was by Smith, and the manner as follows: He had two small stones of a chocolate color, nearly egg shape, and perfectly smooth, but not transparent, called interpreters, which were given him with the plates. He did not use the plates in the translation, but would hold the interpreters to his eyes and cover his face with a hat, excluding all light, and before his eyes would appear what seemed to be parchment, on which would appear the characters of the plates in a line at the top, and immediately below would appear the translation, in English, which Smith would read to his scribe, who wrote it down exactly as it fell from his lips. The scribe would then read the sentence written, and if any mistake had been made, the characters would remain visible to Smith until corrected, when they faded from sight to be replaced by another line. The translation at my father's occupied about one month, that is from June 1 to July 1, 1829."

Joseph Knight never says he was actually present for any of the translation, but he and Joseph Smith both say that he visited at various times during the translation process to bring money and supplies, so it's certainly possible that he witnessed some of the work himself. In any event, he definitely records that "Joseph talked with us about his translating" in 1829, so presumably he had firsthand knowledge of what Joseph was claiming.

Peace,

-Chris

Edited September 1, 2011 by Chris Smith

[cinepro]

It was not, as I said, the entire transciption of the Book of Mormon that appeared in the Seer Stone, but those portions that needed to be rendered correctly.

Lehi

That theory is great, except it seems to be used most by people when they don't want a part to have been rendered correctly.

But the rest is reliable.

[Dan Vogel]

Cdowis,

You have made a major concession here. An assumption not based on evidence and research is irrevelant.

Don’t twist my words. I said your syphilis analogy was not based on research or evidence and therefore was irrelevant to Coe’s argument, which was based on evidence of absence. Do you agree? If not, then your statement above is most disingenuous.

Coe's conclusion is not based on research and facts. It is not based on a knowledge of the BOM itself.

At least, not the way the apologists read it.

1. Regarding flora and fauna in the BOM, give us some dates. For example, when were horses last mentioned? Wheat.... barley.

The BOM makes no claims on the existence of horses after around 100AD, for example.

So, of those "100 Mayan sites", how many of them have been excavated prior to 100 AD? Barley and wheat are even further back, by several centuries. So give us your vidence and research. give us facts, rather than assumptions.

First, I reject your minimalist interpretation of the text. Your suggestion that the horse suddenly disappeared at 100 A.D. and therefore digs in later Mayan sites are irrelevant is desperate. You heard Coe date the disappearance of the horse to the Pleistocene era, which is the standard interpretation of the evidence. This doesn’t just hold in Mesoamerica, but all the Americas. You seem to want to throw out this understanding because the BOM says different. Sort of reminds me of what Creationists want to do with evolution because of another myth.

Is Coe's conclusion on the BOM based on assumption or on solid research and facts.

Of course, your use of “solid” is a question-begging definition that can prevent you from being wrong as long as you control that definition. So let’s not go there.

2. You mention Mayan cities. Does the BOM say that the Nephites were Mayan? How about the other hundreds of other sites which are not Mayan. We have already discussed enclaves of various other groups in mesoamerica. Perhaps Coe has not only missed the dates, but also looked in the wrong places.

The more important question is: do the Mayans mention the Nephites? It seems neither knew of the existence of the other. Coe is an expert in the Maya, but there are none for the Nephites. Sounds like a problem you need to solve, not Coe. Considering the Nephites spread from the east sea to the west sea, and from the south sea to the north sea, it shouldn’t be too hard (Hel. 3:.

3. And we all agree that Coe is an expert on mesoamerica, but what does he know about the BOM. Is he familiar with the text, with the specific details, is he familiar with recent research in the area.

Probably not enough to avoid the apologetic mires.

For example, why does he completely ignore the evidence that supports the BOM. Is he ignorant of the research and facts? does he not know that the mayan have a sophisticated calendar, written codices, towers used for religious worship, etc? As an expert, I assume that he does, but why not mention that and many other features found in the BOM?

You just implied the Nephites aren’t Mayan. How does any of this relate to the BOM, when he discussed the difference between the Mayan calendar and the one in the BOM, how the codices are not in Hebrew or Egyptian and don’t mention the Nephites, and the monuments in Central America were well known to JS’s contemporaries. What you have in the BOM is an Old Testament or Mid-Eastern culture in ancient America, which is completely foreign to Coe’s experience.

Please explain why Coe is so one-sided in his conclusion, ignoring any evidence favorable to the BOM. Is this according to your standard of research and facts?

Help us out here, Dan.

By your own standard, Coe's statement is irrevelant, an assumption which is not based on research or a knowledge of the BOM text.

Coe doesn’t need to learn all the specialized interpretations the apologists have devised over the years to insulate themselves from criticism. He can explain why the BOM doesn’t fit Mesoamerica without answering the apologists’ ad hoc theories. Mormon apologists have moved from finding evidence of Lehi’s tree of life dream, baptismal fonts, and crosses to constructing convoluted interpretations of the BOM’s text. It’s less risky to bend the BOM to fit archaeological data. The limited geography theory is a major example of this. And what can’t be nuanced is explained away by translation. That’s why your apologetic buddies use translation to escape the horse problem. This is all to immunize the BOM against adverse evidence.

[Calm]

Please explain why Coe is so one-sided in his conclusion, ignoring any evidence favorable to the BOM.

My opinion is that it had a great deal to do with the leading questions and commentary from his host.

[cdowis]

You heard Coe date the disappearance of the horse to the Pleistocene era, which is the standard interpretation of the evidence. This doesn’t just hold in Mesoamerica, but all the Americas. You seem to want to throw out this understanding because the BOM says different. Sort of reminds me of what Creationists want to do with evolution because of another myth.

I can see there is no point in continuing this conversation.

I am certainly not a creationist, never have been. Failing in logic, you resort to making wild and unfounded comparisons and accusations. I suppose you will next begin to compare apologists to the Tea Party.

I'm not going to waste my time on responding to such silly arguments.

[Dan Vogel]

Cdowis,

I can see there is no point in continuing this conversation.

You never had a point.

I am certainly not a creationist, never have been.

I didn’t say you were a creationist; I said you argued like one. That is, thinking that the BOM can overturn what scientists understand about the extinction of the horse in the Americas.

Failing in logic, you resort to making wild and unfounded comparisons and accusations. I suppose you will next begin to compare apologists to the Tea Party.

I think the comparison to any pseudo-science that attacks the establishment is appropriate, but you lost me on the Tea Party. Do you know something you’re not telling us?

I'm not going to waste my time on responding to such silly arguments.

Next time don’t waste our time telling us the horse really existed in Mesoamerica up to at least 100 A.D. Instead, learn from your fellow apologists that the safer route is to blame it on the translation.

[Dan Vogel]

Bill,

They are a way to date literature and detect forgeries. There are many others, each with their own strengths and limitations.

Sure, but when anachronisms occur one does sit up and pay attention.

On the other hand, it is very difficult to use those techniques on texts that have been edited (perhaps multiple times), and translated, especially when the translation occurs centuries later and in a completely different culture and language group.

That is if they are really translations, which isn’t an established fact with the BOM. In fact, that is what we are trying to establish.

I know of no scholar, anywhere, who would propose to date the New Testament to the early seventeenth century because it mentions pennies and candles, which did not exist in the first century. They would, however, accept this as evidence that the translation was made in the seventeenth century.

They might if the only copy dated to 1611 and there were no provenance, no direct evidence supporting its historical claims, and the manner in which it came to light was suspicious. In such case, skepticism would be justified and the anachronisms would stand as a caution against assuming historicity until something significant happened. No scholar would dare use it to overturn established beliefs. To assume historicity based on cherry picking correlations in such a situation would be unwise.

Finally, it should be noted that anachronisms work both ways. If a text like the BOM mentions ancient ideas, terms, practices, beliefs, etc. that fit better in the ancient world than in the early nineteenth century, that, too is an anachronism

So a historical novel is an anachronism? I thought that was pretty much the point of forgery.

(e.g. the Book of Abraham describes geocentric (ancient) cosmology instead of heliocentric (19 century) cosmology.

The OT is geocentric. So.

I'm not interesting in re-arguing these points for the dozenth time. I have explained these things many times before.

Me neither!

[Brant Gardner]

Sure, but when anachronisms occur one does sit up and pay attention.

That is if they are really translations, which isn’t an established fact with the BOM. In fact, that is what we are trying to establish.

The important point is that while we are in the process of determining if the text is really a translation, we cannot use anything that might be an artifact of translation to declare that it isn't. For example, anachronisms are absolutely determinitive when they occur in a text claimed to be an original (including the original language). However, because certain types of anachronisms are known to exist in translations where they did not exist in the original, their presence in the translation does not mean that the original was not authentic.

It is a question of using techniques appropriately. Labeling anachronisms in the Book of Mormon are definitive only if the original text is in English. While those who do not see it as authentic posit the English as the original, as you point out, that is the question. Therefore, that type of anachronism is inappropriate to the discussion of historicity.

[J Green]

But if we were to presuppose for a moment that Joseph was actually the prophet he claimed to be, I think quotes such as the following would have to qualify as "credible evidence".

Chris,

In his new book on the translation process, Brant discusses these quotes in the context of Royal's work on the extant original manuscripts. Apparently, the textual scribal evidence supports the contention about name spelling but not other types of dictation. He then discusses why the witnesses may be wrong together on this point.

Cheers.

[Dan Vogel]

Brant,

The important point is that while we are in the process of determining if the text is really a translation, we cannot use anything that might be an artifact of translation to declare that it isn't. For example, anachronisms are absolutely determinitive when they occur in a text claimed to be an original (including the original language). However, because certain types of anachronisms are known to exist in translations where they did not exist in the original, their presence in the translation does not mean that the original was not authentic.

It is a question of using techniques appropriately. Labeling anachronisms in the Book of Mormon are definitive only if the original text is in English. While those who do not see it as authentic posit the English as the original, as you point out, that is the question. Therefore, that type of anachronism is inappropriate to the discussion of historicity.

This is well said, but still problematic in my view. I believe the literary anachronisms are more definitive than the historical ones. It requires a very special definition of translation, and I get the impression your new book deals with this. I will have to read it, along with your other volumes. Preliminarily, however, I suspect that the definition of translation is so broad and loose that it isn’t like anything experienced before, and therefore ad hoc. Kevin Christensen has argued that no one know what an inspired translation is, and therefore he feels justified in ignoring very difficult anachronisms from the KJV of the Bible.

I understand that historical anachronisms can be tricky, especially combined with translation and wishful thinking. I’m arguing that more weight should be given them since the BOM’s origin is suspicious, it has not made a direct connection to ancient America, and it increasingly needs ad hoc theories to save it. Anachronisms are consistent with a nineteenth-century origin for the BOM.

You can’t claim the BOM correlates to Mesoamerica, and then explain away the things that don’t correlate. Such things make the correlations less impressive. Correlations and anachronisms, as well as translation theories and limited geography, come from question-begging interpretations. Indeed, the correlations are not of sufficient strength to make historicity probable, and therefore can’t overturn the anachronisms. Hence, the weak appeal to plausible, which can only persuade someone already inclined to believe. But if you are skeptical, and justly so, then anachronisms are consistent with JS’s authorship and the translation explanations appear to be ad hoc escapes and wishful thinking.

[Storm Rider]

Brant,

This is well said, but still problematic in my view. I believe the literary anachronisms are more definitive than the historical ones. It requires a very special definition of translation, and I get the impression your new book deals with this. I will have to read it, along with your other volumes. Preliminarily, however, I suspect that the definition of translation is so broad and loose that it isn’t like anything experienced before, and therefore ad hoc. Kevin Christensen has argued that no one know what an inspired translation is, and therefore he feels justified in ignoring very difficult anachronisms from the KJV of the Bible.

I understand that historical anachronisms can be tricky, especially combined with translation and wishful thinking. I’m arguing that more weight should be given them since the BOM’s origin is suspicious, it has not made a direct connection to ancient America, and it increasingly needs ad hoc theories to save it. Anachronisms are consistent with a nineteenth-century origin for the BOM.

You can’t claim the BOM correlates to Mesoamerica, and then explain away the things that don’t correlate. Such things make the correlations less impressive. Correlations and anachronisms, as well as translation theories and limited geography, come from question-begging interpretations. Indeed, the correlations are not of sufficient strength to make historicity probable, and therefore can’t overturn the anachronisms. Hence, the weak appeal to plausible, which can only persuade someone already inclined to believe. But if you are skeptical, and justly so, then anachronisms are consistent with JS’s authorship and the translation explanations appear to be ad hoc escapes and wishful thinking.

It is obvious that you folks are far more intelligent than Iam, but with what is left of my feeble mind I am puzzled. The two propositions given here is thateither Smith created the story known as the Book of Mormon or that he createdit by divine intervention.

People will choose what they may, but if I choose to believeit is the creation of Joseph Smith I must also accept the following:

· Smith dictated the Book of Mormon while holdingtwo stones over his eyes while sticking his face in an old hat to block out thelight. I ask any of you to attempt to dothe likewise and then repeat any rather lengthy poem learned in childhood. How many hands are required to hold thestones over your eyes? How capable areyou of holding the hat over your face? For how long is it possible?

· In a fairly short period, create the story inyour mind and dictate it without the need of being corrected by everyone elsethat is standing around or sitting watching you.

· Correct the scribe’s misspelling of words thatwere supposedly written in a foreign language.

· If Smith did not create the story on his own,then he had to be able to convince his associates never to reveal the fraudeven when their relationship became frayed and damaged.

These are some of the thoughts that come immediately tomind. To me, these are even moresignificant than trying to understand the literary and historical anachronisms of the text. In fact, it becomes farcical to evencontemplate.

The entire textof the Book of Mormon has one objective; to testify of Jesus Christ. It does that pretty well. In fact, I have never heard a single criticattempt to deny that simple objective. Dan, I must apologize, but for me your position is devitalized by what alsois required if I must accept by assuming you are correct. I just cannot stretchthat far.

[Brant Gardner]

Preliminarily, however, I suspect that the definition of translation is so broad and loose that it isn’t like anything experienced before, and therefore ad hoc.

Always good to have an opinion prior to evidence. At least I don't think that I fall into that category.

Anachronisms are consistent with a nineteenth-century origin for the BOM.

Except those that are only consistent with a time-appropriate Mesoamerican setting. The difference is that most of the ones that are consistent with the nineteenth century origin depend upon vocabulary - not meaning, not structure, but vocabulary. That is precisely where we have translation anachronisms.

On the other hand, there are features of the text, assumptions it makes, descriptions it gives, that not only fit the Mesoamerican context, they contradict the nineteenth century expectations. The discussion of politics is the most obvious (I'm sure you have read Bushman on his discovery that he couldn't find the republican government that he originally thought he would find). At times, the vocabulary masks the actual foreignness of the actions/explanations.

You can’t claim the BOM correlates to Mesoamerica, and then explain away the things that don’t correlate.

It is therefore more appropriate to claim correlations to the nineteenth century and explain away things that don't correlate?

Unfortunately, virtually all historical endeavors encounter difficult information and part of the process is to find a way to explain all of them--and not dismiss any simply because they don't fit into a particular espoused worldview. The hard sciences have the same problem as well. Good theories account for all evidence, including apparent exceptions. Accounting for them and providing a place for them in the theory is not the same as dismissing them.

Correlations and anachronisms, as well as translation theories and limited geography, come from question-begging interpretations.

I have known some that have. I know of quite a few that don't. I know of several who are working on such things and have talked with them about their approaches and methodologies, and they don't fit your description. I'm surprised that you are willing to make such a blanket statement inclusive of everything you have (and haven't) read.

Indeed, the correlations are not of sufficient strength to make historicity probable, and therefore can’t overturn the anachronisms.

According to what historical theory? On what basis do you claim that correlations are not of sufficient strength to make historicity probable, given that virtually all iconography, archaeology, and ethnohistory rely upon that method, and history makes use of it from time to time? Or are you saying that the correlations you see to the nineteenth century cannot be valid, or that they are only weak evidence?

Hence, the weak appeal to plausible, which can only persuade someone already inclined to believe.

Are you willing to disclaim every appeal to plausible you made in your biography of Joseph Smith? Are you suggesting that a methodology that you have employed is not a valid one?

[Bill Hamblin]

The standards of evaluating evidence must be applied both to the 19C and the ancient models. Neither should be given priority. We need to compare and contrast the relative explanatory power of the entire models, and not just isolated elements. And we cannot discount the ancient model because it is based on theistic presuppositions. (Generally speaking, secular critics reject the BOM a priori because it requires theistic intervention.

Researchers should be just as skeptical of the 19C model as the 19C model are skeptical of the ancient model. The evaluation must include all types of evidence and methods--anthropological, historical, linguistic, geographical, religious, etc. etc.

We need to evaluate the evidence holistically. That is, all the evidence and interpretations must fit into a coherent whole. From my perspective, their is no coherence in the 19C model. There is no agreement among the critics on even the most basic issues: was the BOM written by JS or something else? Was JS sincere or a conscious fraud? etc. etc. Was JS pro-Masonic or anti-Masonic? Is he a master magician, or a country bumpkin? etc. All the the various theories presented by the critics cannot be simultaneously true, since they are contradictory. And if the critics can't agree among themselves, how convincing can the 19C model be?

If we cannot agree about the assumptions, methods and criteria of evaluation of the text, we obviously are going to be unable to communicate. We will constantly be talking past each other. I think this is the situation we are currently in. It's a giant cosmic merry-go-round, where the same issues are repeated over and over, without ever coming to a resolution.

[cdowis]

Are you willing to disclaim every appeal to plausible you made in your biography of Joseph Smith? Are you suggesting that a methodology that you have employed is not a valid one?

Hmmmm..... eminds me of our discussion on the eyewitness testimony for the BOM plates, he basically used that argument to create his scenario on what the eight witnesses experienced. His explanation was the most plausible, even if there were no direct historical evidence to support it.

Let's see if he is willing to retract that argument and come up with some other ad hoc explanation.

Edited September 4, 2011 by cdowis

[cdowis]

The 19c model has several fatal flaws. For example, we can see that there are robbers who have a standing army, hiding in caves after taking over the government, this clearly points us to the 21C Taliban, straight from modern headlines. We now have proof that the BOM is a 21C production, using that argument.

That so=called 19th century anachronism argument collapses under its own weight.

[Chris Smith]

Apparently, the textual scribal evidence supports the contention about name spelling but not other types of dictation.

That's interesting, because Skousen draws exactly the opposite conclusion from the same manuscript evidence.

Personally, of course, I don't think Joseph Smith really did read the text from his stone. I think he either composed it or remembered it as he went along. But the quotes I posted reveal only what Joseph was claiming about the translation process. The manuscript evidence, by contrast, reflects the actual process. IMO, we shouldn't necessarily assume that the two will be consistent. Joseph may have either misunderstood or misrepresented the nature of the process.

[Bill Hamblin]

That's interesting, because Skousen draws exactly the opposite conclusion from the same manuscript evidence.

Personally, of course, I don't think Joseph Smith really did read the text from his stone. I think he either composed it or remembered it as he went along. But the quotes I posted reveal only what Joseph was claiming about the translation process. The manuscript evidence, by contrast, reflects the actual process. IMO, we shouldn't necessarily assume that the two will be consistent. Joseph may have either misunderstood or misrepresented the nature of the process.

Or we might be retrojecting all sorts of ideas and assumptions about the nature of the translation process. Joseph said he translated by the "gift and power of God." Unless anyone here has done the same, it is quite likely that there was something going on which transcends our understanding and assumptions.

I might also suggest that monolingual people who have never tried to translate from a language in a different language group and script, and from a culture thousands of miles and years removed from the translator are probably not in a position to provide any insights on the matter.

[Chris Smith]

The standards of evaluating evidence must be applied both to the 19C and the ancient models. Neither should be given priority. We need to compare and contrast the relative explanatory power of the entire models, and not just isolated elements. And we cannot discount the ancient model because it is based on theistic presuppositions.

...

If we cannot agree about the assumptions, methods and criteria of evaluation of the text, we obviously are going to be unable to communicate. We will constantly be talking past each other. I think this is the situation we are currently in. It's a giant cosmic merry-go-round, where the same issues are repeated over and over, without ever coming to a resolution.

Well said. Personally, I have reached very different conclusions than you about the relative viability of these two models. To me, the ancient model seems extraordinarily weak, and the 19th century model extraordinarily strong. But I fully agree with what you've said about method, here. It may be possible to account for anachronisms by appealing to arcane theories of translation, and it may be possible to account for Nahom by appealing to coincidence, but it seems to me that both of these are ad hoc moves that reduce the respective probabilities of each model being true. In other words, neither anachronisms nor Nahom actually prove anything, but one cannot simply dismiss them out of hand as evidence. When deciding between the two models, these things have to be weighed in the balance of probability. What are the odds that Nahom is just a coincidence? What are the odds that the anachronisms are just translation artifacts? Which of these ad hoc explanations most strains credulity? That's the kind of comparison that's required here. Whichever model requires the lowest-probability cop-outs is the lowest-probability model.

Peace,

-Chris

[volgadon]

"You look terrific!" is not a translation of "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day? /Thou art more lovely and more temperate."

-Judah Goldin.

[Bill Hamblin]

Well said. Personally, I have reached very different conclusions than you about the relative viability of these two models. To me, the ancient model seems extraordinarily weak, and the 19th century model extraordinarily strong. But I fully agree with what you've said about method, here. It may be possible to account for anachronisms by appealing to arcane theories of translation, and it may be possible to account for Nahom by appealing to coincidence, but it seems to me that both of these are ad hoc moves that reduce the respective probabilities of each model being true. In other words, neither anachronisms nor Nahom actually prove anything, but one cannot simply dismiss them out of hand as evidence. When deciding between the two models, these things have to be weighed in the balance of probability. What are the odds that Nahom is just a coincidence? What are the odds that the anachronisms are just translation artifacts? Which of these ad hoc explanations most strains credulity? That's the kind of comparison that's required here. Whichever model requires the lowest-probability cop-outs is the lowest-probability model.

Peace,

-Chris

Maybe. But note that most anti-Mormons are constantly proclaiming that there is no evidence for the antiquity of the BOM. That is, of course, preposterous nonsense. While there may be no proof for the antiquity of the BOM, there is lots of evidence. I am astonished at how many critics don't understand the difference between the two.

The real problem here is that "probability" assessments cannot be made without first establishing the relative parameters of what is and is not probable. (For an atheist, since the probability of God is 0, then any other explanation is more probable than divine intervention. On the other hand a theist could argue that mere existence of the universe without a cause is likewise absolutely improbable, while an atheist finds it more probable than the idea that God created the universe.) Establishing relative probability requires assumptions about the nature of all sorts of things, both physical and metaphysical. Furthermore, when we look at history, all sorts of improbable things happen all the time (e.g. a small exotic Jewish sect which believed that their executed rabbi was a resurrected God becomes the largest religion in world history.) In fact, one could argue that history is the story of a sequence of uniquely improbable things that have in fact happen, despite their relative probability. (One could, in fact argue that each distinct historical event is absolutely unique, and that humans indulge in pattern-making trying to make sense of those events, and that all their patterns of supposed historical probability are ultimately reductionists social constructs.)

At any rate, any unique event (like the translation of the BOM by divine intervention) must necessarily be highly improbable, and hence evaluation of relative relative probability is an elusive if not useless criteria.

[cdowis]

What are the odds that Nahom is just a coincidence?

It sounds like you're expressing skepticism about the usefulness of probabilistic reasoning. I don't believe you really mean this. All events may be in some sense improbable, but for practical, predictive purposes, the constraints of a system make some outcomes more likely than others.

It is not just a singularity, my friend. It is sheum, Paanchi, Pahoran, Nhm, the valley of Lemuel, Bountiful to name a few. It is the totality of the evidence, a tapestry combining many threads.

Now, you can choose to see each thread as a coincidence, or view the tapestry in its totality.

Now, what about that 19c model? I note that you did not respond to my example of where the BOM is definitely NOT describing something in that century, but the Taliban of the 21st century. Again, you can pretend that the combinations are simply Masons, but it does not fit at all, now does it-- the standing army, hiding in caves, taking over the government through assasination.

I guess it is what you choose to see, and what you choose to turn a blind eye.

Edited September 4, 2011 by cdowis

[Chris Smith]

Hi Bill,

I agree with much of what you say. I agree that there is evidence for the Book of Mormon, and that anyone who thinks otherwise is simply wrong. I also agree that the probability of God's existence is not zero (though I disagree with your implication that all atheists would assess it as such).

And I really agree with your statement that "The real problem here is that 'probability' assessments cannot be made without first establishing the relative parameters of what is and is not probable. ... Establishing relative probability requires assumptions about the nature of all sorts of things." This is indeed a major reason for the impasse between critics and believers. Assumptions, of course, are not necessarily a priori or uninformed. Personally, I have a number of logical and historical reasons for rating the probability of Christ being the messiah very low. This conclusion about Jesus acts as a background assumption in my assessment of the probability of the truth of the Book of Mormon. When I discuss the Book of Mormon with believers, I obviously cannot make explicit all the reasons for all of my background assumptions; to do so would require hundreds of pages. As a result, my assumptions end up looking a priori to my conversation partners, and we end up largely talking past each other because our assumptions lead us to assess the probabilities differently. Our worldviews aren't mutually unintelligible, exactly, but it would almost be too much work to bridge the gap.

I have to disagree with your suggestion that "history is the story of a sequence of uniquely improbable things that have in fact happened, despite their relative probability." It sounds like you're expressing skepticism about the usefulness of probabilistic reasoning. I don't believe you really mean this. All events may be in some sense improbable, but for practical, predictive purposes, the constraints of a system make some outcomes more likely than others.

Peace,

-Chris

[Bill Hamblin]

Hi Bill,

I agree with much of what you say. I agree that there is evidence for the Book of Mormon, and that anyone who thinks otherwise is simply wrong. I also agree that the probability of God's existence is not zero (though I disagree with your implication that all atheists would assess it as such).

An atheist would say probability of God is 0 (or very close to 0). If it is more than that I would say it makes you an agnostic.