Response To Dr. Michael Coe

[Bill Hamblin]

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.

I merely said it is possible to argue this. Probabilistic analysis in history is, well, a rather problematic method. Which is to say, it is impossible to decide what really happened in the past based on determining what should be probable to have happened.

Edited September 5, 2011 by Bill Hamblin

[Chris Smith]

Probabilistic analysis in history is, well, a rather problematic method.

And yet we historians do it all the time, and on many questions manage to achieve a broad consensus. It may be "problematic" in the sense of posing great difficulty, but that is why we have developed an entire academic discipline with many complex methods of getting past the difficulties.

[Chris Smith]

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.

I disagree. An atheist is simply someone who believes God does not exist. This requires only that the probability be low enough for the atheist to be willing to bet on God's non-existence. Different people will have different probability thresholds before they're willing to take the bet. I don't believe in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics, but I wouldn't put the probability of its being true anywhere near zero. I simply feel there are good enough reasons to warrant betting on another option.

[Bill Hamblin]

And yet we historians do it all the time, and on many questions manage to achieve a broad consensus. It may be "problematic" in the sense of posing great difficulty, but that is why we have developed an entire academic discipline with many complex methods of getting past the difficulties.

Yes, but note how probabilistic assumptions always break down when trying to understand divine intervention in history. It is inevitably more improbable that Christ rose from the dead than that he didn't. But the problem is that Christ's resurrection is a unique event, and hence inherently beyond potential analysis of by means of probability. Divine intervention in history is always improbable by its very nature. It is like saying because it is highly improbable that I will be struck by lightening (I actually have been, by the way), therefore no one ever gets struck by lightening. Improbable things happen in history all the time. Their improbability is not a rational argument against them happening.

Another problem is, of course, that there are no laws of history, again making trying to establish probabilistic models for history very difficult.

[Dan Vogel]

Bill,

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.

An atheist doesn’t necessarily say there is no God, but that the word God has no coherent meaning. I prefer non-theist.

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill,

An atheist doesn’t necessarily say there is no God, but that the word God has no coherent meaning. I prefer non-theist.

Well, I'm talking about ontology, not philology. Of course, technically speaking a-theist means precisely non-theist.

[Chris Smith]

Yes, but note how probabilistic assumptions always break down when trying to understand divine intervention in history.

Probabilistic reasoning doesn't "break down", per se. Different authors simply have different assessments of the prior probability of such events occurring. Furthermore, there are strong emotional and institutional barriers to consensus on this issue. But our failure to achieve a consensus doesn't invalidate the probabilistic approach itself.

[Mortal Man]

I believe the literary anachronisms are more definitive than the historical ones.

I completely agree.

There is no agreement among the critics on even the most basic issues:

Likewise, there is no agreement among apologists on even the most basic issues. For example, nackhadlow and Joseph Antley have both essentially stated that Joseph Smith, not Mormon or Moroni, wrote Mormon 9:22-24. Are you willing to stand in agreement with them?

was the BOM written by JS or something else?

JS

Was JS sincere or a conscious fraud?

Both

Was JS pro-Masonic or anti-Masonic?

First the latter then the former.

Is he a master magician, or a country bumpkin?

mediocre magician

All the the various theories presented by the critics cannot be simultaneously true, since they are contradictory.

Hebraisms arising from tight translation cannot be simultaneously true with anachronisms arising from loose translation, since the two theories are contradictory.

[Dan Vogel]

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.

I think you are oversimplifying the 19th century approach. The Gadianton robbers are not masons. The BOM predicts secret combinations would exist in the latter days and would be attempting to overthrow governments at the time of the book’s appearance. These are the Masons (Jacksonians). The Gadianton robbers are a warning to Jacksonian America of what could happen if they didn’t repent. The main link between the two is the secret signs and secret words for identification purposes and the term “secret combination”. I don’t count this as an anachronism, because its prophecy and secret societies are not unique. But it’s essential to understanding the BOM’s message to its first readers, and it may point to the inspiration behind JS’s creation of the Gadianton robbers. This would be consistent with JS’s authorship, but doesn’t prove it.

[Dan Vogel]

Brant,

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?

You bring up an important point. My biography of JS was an interpretive one, based on the assumption that the BOM is not historical. My purpose was to explain how and why JS wrote the BOM, not to prove that he did. I see you doing the same thing, but in reverse.

[Dan Vogel]

Cdowis,

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.

I don’t think you understood my argument. It was your requirement that only firsthand evidence be submitted. I objected that that was unnecessarily restrictive since we have two fairly reliable thirdhand accounts. You make it sound above as if I’m making things up.

[Bill Hamblin]

Probabilistic reasoning doesn't "break down", per se. Different authors simply have different assessments of the prior probability of such events occurring. Furthermore, there are strong emotional and institutional barriers to consensus on this issue. But our failure to achieve a consensus doesn't invalidate the probabilistic approach itself.

Well, if it breaks down then in the early Mormonism (or early Christian) case, then in these cases it's not very useful. And if we can't agree on the criteria for establishing relative probability, it again is not very useful.

[Chris Smith]

Well, if it breaks down then in the early Mormonism (or early Christian) case, then in these cases it's not very useful. And if we can't agree on the criteria for establishing relative probability, it again is not very useful.

Actually, I said it doesn't break down.

And if the failure of a method to produce consensus means that that method "is not very useful," then how does spiritual experience fare?

[Bill Hamblin]

Actually, I said it doesn't break down.

And if the failure of a method to produce consensus means that that method "is not very useful," then how does spiritual experience fare?

Well, it obviously does break down, since there is no consensus.

Various academic methods for trying to interpret historical documents have little to do with the reality (or lack there of) of spiritual experience. Furthermore, establishing consensus has little to do with the reality of historical or religious claims. There have been many things about which consensus has been established throughout history (e.g. geocentricity). It doesn't make them correct. It's actually an established fallacy to claim consensus establishes truth.

Edited September 5, 2011 by Bill Hamblin

[cdowis]

I don’t think you understood my argument. It was your requirement that only firsthand evidence be submitted. I objected that that was unnecessarily restrictive since we have two fairly reliable thirdhand accounts. You make it sound above as if I’m making things up.

You can run, but you can't hide.

The eight witnesses stated that they viewed the plates with an appearance of gold, helfted them, turned the pages and viewed the writings. You rejected this first hand account on the basis that it was improbable, and created a scenario from your imagination lacking all of these details.

The only basis for your fantasy account was third hand accounts on a minor issue on whether they had viewed the plates collectively or individually, a point not clear in their statement. It does not contradict their statement.

You made the whole thing up from whole cloth, giving the excuse that it was the most likely explanation.

An argument that you now reject.

Edited September 5, 2011 by cdowis

[Bill Hamblin]

You can run, but you can't hide.

Your imaginary scenario stated that each witness viewed the contents of the box individually, and did not actually see, touch and heft the plates. They did not turn and view the writing on the plates.

Your third hand account only supported that they had viewed it separately and not collectively.

Otherwise, you made the whole thing up from whole cloth as the most likely explanation, and rejected the first-hand account that they hefted the plates that had the appearance of gold, rejected the first-hand account that they turned the pages and viewed the writing.

Indeed, the only support for your scenario related to a minor detail, whether they had viewed the plates individually rather than collectively, and the rest was from your imagination.

You gave the excuse that it was the most likely explanation. An excuse that you now reject.

Make up your mind, pleeze.

It is rather revealing that Vogel's theory of the eight witnesses and the golden plates requires the complete rejection of all the eyewitness testimony.

[cdowis]

It is rather revealing that Vogel's theory of the eight witnesses and the golden plates requires the complete rejection of all the eyewitness testimony.

A point that I clarified in my fourth revision of my post. One should wait at least 5 minutes before quoting me :<)

[Chris Smith]

Well, it obviously does break down, since there is no consensus.

Various academic methods for trying to interpret historical documents have little to do with the reality (or lack there of) of spiritual experience. Furthermore, establishing consensus has little to do with the reality of historical or religious claims. There have been many things about which consensus has been established throughout history (e.g. geocentricity). It doesn't make them correct. It's actually an established fallacy to claim consensus establishes truth.

Since I agree fully with your second paragraph, I'm puzzled by your first sentence.

[J Green]

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

Actually, this is incorrect. Brant's source is Royal himself. See Royal Skousen, "Translating the Book of Mormon: Evidence from the Original Manuscript" in Noel B. Reynolds (ed.), Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited: The Evidence for Ancient Origins, at the Maxwell Institute here. Royal very clearly stipulates that the manuscript evidence supports the directed spelling of names but not other words (although Joseph could likely see the spelling of all words in the interpreters).

Cheers

[J Green]

Hebraisms arising from tight translation cannot be simultaneously true with anachronisms arising from loose translation, since the two theories are contradictory.

Andrew,

Based on my own education and professional experience, I have to disagree with this fairly strongly. Almost all translations fluctuate between the two on a continuum, so if this is really a translation we should expect to see both. Do you have any experience with translation or translation theory yourself or are you speaking from assumption?

Regards

[SouthBayMC]

Hebraisms arising from tight translation cannot be simultaneously true with anachronisms arising from loose translation, since the two theories are contradictory.

Hi Mortal Man, can you provide a brief summary of these two theories and where I could find more details (other discussions / offsite articles)?

Edited September 5, 2011 by SouthBayMC

[Bill Hamblin]

Since I agree fully with your second paragraph, I'm puzzled by your first sentence.

Maybe I've misunderstood your argument, but my point is merely that there is no consensus among critics and anti-Mormons about JS, etc. (not to mention between LDS and non-LDS), nor even about the criteria by which we could establish relative probability, etc.

[Dan Vogel]

Cdowis,

You can run, but you can't hide.

The eight witnesses stated that they viewed the plates with an appearance of gold, helfted them, turned the pages and viewed the writings. You rejected this first hand account on the basis that it was improbable, and created a scenario from your imagination lacking all of these details.

The only basis for your fantasy account was third hand accounts on a minor issue on whether they had viewed the plates collectively or individually, a point not clear in their statement. It does not contradict their statement.

You made the whole thing up from whole cloth, giving the excuse that it was the most likely explanation.

An argument that you now reject.

Just as I thought—you don’t understand my argument at all.

My position is that the handling and seeing the plates are separate experiences—that they handled the plates while in a box or covered with a cloth and that they saw them with spiritual eyes. I base this reconstruction on the testimony of Martin Harris as reported in 1838 by Stephen Burnett and John Whitmer, one of the eight witnesses, as reported by Theodore Turley in 1845. This does not contradict the statements of the eight witnesses, which were simple affirmations of the published Testimony. I would also submit that you are reading of the Testimony with naturalistic assumptions that are being aided by the ambiguous wording. For example, the eight witnesses didn’t say they “turned the pages” but that “as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands.” The part about the appearance of gold and seeing the characters doesn’t tell you anything about how the plates were seen. According to Burnett, Harris said the “eight witnesses never saw them [with their natural eyes] & hesitated to sign that instrument for that reason, but were persuaded to do it.” Harris also described how he had seen the plates before his vision: “he had hefted the plates repeatedly in a box with only a tablecloth or handkerchief over them, but he never saw them, only as he saw a city through a mountain.” Harris also told John A. Clark in 1828 that he saw the plates “with the eye of faith … just as distinctly as I see any thing around me,--though at the time they were covered over with a cloth” (Episcopal Recorder, 12 Sept. 1840; EMD 2:270). John Whitmer said the plates were shown to him “by a supernatural power.”

So, you might disagree with my evidence and interpretation, but saying that I “made the whole thing up from whole cloth” is a misrepresentation.

[Chris Smith]

Royal very clearly stipulates that the manuscript evidence supports the directed spelling of names but not other words (although Joseph could likely see the spelling of all words in the interpreters).

Ah, I see what you're saying now. Well, that's interesting, but I don't see how it has any implications for the tight vs. loose translation argument. We wouldn't necessarily expect Joseph to make any bones about the spelling of common words, even under a theory of tight translation. Royal concludes that the manuscript evidence supports a theory of tight translation for the entire text.

[Chris Smith]

Maybe I've misunderstood your argument, but my point is merely that there is no consensus among critics and anti-Mormons about JS, etc. (not to mention between LDS and non-LDS), nor even about the criteria by which we could establish relative probability, etc.

And I agreed with you that the lack of common criteria by which we could establish relative probability is a major reason for the impasse.

By the way, it's not only critics who disagree on basic issues. Believers do, too. (Of course, considering how heterogeneous both these categories actually are, this should come as no surprise.)