Response To Dr. Michael Coe

[cdowis]

Labeling Coe’s argument as an opinion because it’s not 100% certain is a misuse of the English language. Meanwhile, you can hang on to the 1% possibility with all the faith you can muster.

Please share with us your calculations for the one percent number. I am familiar with Bayesian inference, so let's see your assumptions and calculations.

Keep in mind that you hold my specific factual example in contempt, and I note that you did not mention Coe's book. I think you are full of baloney, but perhaps the you will surprise us.

[cdowis]

Labeling Coe’s argument as an opinion because it’s not 100% certain is a misuse of the English language. Meanwhile, you can hang on to the 1% possibility with all the faith you can muster.

Let's see if I understand. The whole basis of your argument is that it is unreasonable, only one percent, and II desperately hang on to that one percent, while you bask in the light of 99% certainty.

Is that your argument?

Well, please share with us your calculations. Let's dig into those numbers. I am somewhat familiar with Bayesian inference, so show us your assumptions and calculations.

I think you are full of baloney, but perhaps this time you will surprise us.

A few observations, on the one side we have about 8000 years between the last horse fossils, and the BOM time period. In geological time, that does not see very long, but that's just me. And the BOM makes no claims that horses existed beyond about 110 AD.

We need to see the probability of horse fossils. Is fossilization something that happens frequently.... Perhaps we can look at bison and their fosselized remains. Since we know that there were millions of them, and they did not go extinct, we should find thousands of their fossils from all time periods. Is this actually the case?

We have not even dated all of the known horse fossils. Archeologists found horse fossil teeth, as I understand, within the context of the mayan.

All of these things should be in your calculations. Let's see your one percent.

Edited August 30, 2011 by cdowis

[Maidservant]

Mormonism is a religion. It makes claims regarding its reality. Those claims are either true or false.

I don't agree that these are the only two options, at least in terms of an individual human trying to make sense of the world. As just one attempt to challenge the set up of the question (I could make others): I experience myself less as a member of the Church and more as a daughter of God. But the only place I have ever been told I was a daughter of God is in the Mormon Church. If I go (almost) anywhere else, I will have to lay this down, something which I'm not willing to do.

Is it true that I am a daughter of God? Is it actual that I am a daughter of God? (two different questions) Can it be proven?

Or . . . rather . . . does this belief, of itself as a belief with creative power, transform me and my life?

My way of looking at the questions and answers of life is not superior or inferior to yours. We have both chosen a way. But one of my points would be . . . paradigm, paradigm, paradigm. The way we each set up the question is personal to ourselves, even arbitrary (despite cultural weight being attached to your way), but there is nothing instrinsic to why to set up the question "true=false" or "functional/experiential" like I prefer.

Nuanced or literal?

Nuanced all the way, baby . . . because human life is nuanced.

The Book of Mormon is either an authentic translation of an ancient record, or 19th century work of fiction.

Those are not the only two choices for everyone.

Terry Pratchett, which will be a relief.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Woot! Terry Pratchett is pretty much my 6th standard work, following after Bill Murray's Groundhog Day and Douglas Adam's Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy series.

I also wanted to reply to Ariartes and his wife's question, but I didn't get the quote in here. Courage . . . yes . You know, I am at a completely different place I was when I was 20 years old . . . that's the way it's supposed to be. My "gospel" has been stretched beyond the recognition of that little girl. And I wouldn't have it any other way. I have always experienced this in terms of my walk with God and within (not without) my covenants (i.e. the Church). I have come to a spot that not everyone would agree with, but I am able to accept the Church, Mormonism, the gospel, any religious idea, etc . . . on almost any level. The Book of Mormon fiction or ahistorical? Ok, so, no one is going to part me from my beloved verses regarding Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith wasn't a prophet? Ok, so, he was a social and religious genius then and on that basis may be worth following. God doesn't exist? Ok, so, I exist, and am then responsible for what I believe and if I believe in God and that brings me good, then I'm fine. The Church isn't true? Ok, so, what is? Have I seen anything better?

Anyway . . . in terms of thinking, I probably would have left the Church a long time ago . . . although not on the basis of things like polyandry (one of those things I found expansive rather than shattering a la Kevin Christenson) . . . but more in terms of the fact that human experience is so myriad and the real truth so large that even a Church as awesome as this could not contain it (except of course, that it does!). But when I start to think like that, here is what I remind myself . . .

am I too proud to do my visiting teaching? am I going to leave that? . . . No

am I too proud to fill a calling in cub scouting? am I going to leave that? . . . No

am I too proud to believe in redemption for all mankind? am I going to leave that? . . . No

am I too proud to gather my children and have a priesthood holder give them their blessings before a year of school? am I going to leave that? . . . No

am I too proud to humble myself to moral cleanliness? am I going to leave so I can have some freedom there? . . . No

am I too proud to make a salad for a Relief Society dinner, or cheesy potatos for a funeral? am I going to leave that (and also hopefully never lose spoons to the church kitchen drawer)? . . . No

and so forth.

I love being human, I love being a daughter of God, I love what my journey within my covenants are. I watch other people who have found the "truth" about Mormonism (that is isn't) . . . and I simply cannot see myself being them . . . I do not want to think, speak, feel, or believe like them, in a condition of loss and mocking (as I perceive them).

So . . . my paradigm is highly malleable . . . but, on the other hand . . . I'm not going anywhere either . . . I really like Heavenly Father, and he really likes me, and he put me "here", and that's fine with me.

[Maidservant]

double post

Edited August 30, 2011 by Maidservant

[Dan Vogel]

Please share with us your calculations for the one percent number. I am familiar with Bayesian inference, so let's see your assumptions and calculations.

Keep in mind that you hold my specific factual example in contempt, and I note that you did not mention Coe's book. I think you are full of baloney, but perhaps the you will surprise us.

The 1% I got from Coe. I think his calculation was less than 1%. But if you think you can get better odds with Bayesian inference ... go for it!

Edited August 31, 2011 by Dan Vogel

[cdowis]

The 1% I got from Coe. I think his calculation was less than 1%.

Fair enough. It is interesting that you cite it as if it were fact. You are having some difficulty in admitting it.

I do understand the difference between fact and opinion. I gave a specific example where the common consensus for decades was shown to be ..... wrong, by a single discovery. Now, please explain to us why they should this be immune from that possibility. Give us specific FACTS which precludes the possibility of BOM horses, again taking into account that it makes no mention of horses after 100AD.

Edited August 31, 2011 by cdowis

[cdowis]

dup

Edited August 31, 2011 by cdowis

[Jaybear]

Fair enough. It is interesting that you cite it as if it were fact. You are having some difficulty in admitting it.

I do understand the difference between fact and opinion. I gave a specific example where the common consensus for decades was shown to be ..... wrong, by a single discovery. Now, please explain to us why they should this be immune from that possibility. Give us specific FACTS which precludes the possibility of BOM horses, again taking into account that it makes no mention of horses after 100AD.

Coe did not and could not rule out the possibility that in future, some new discovery will cause experts to revisit the now well accepted understanding that horses were not present at the time and place suggested by the BOM.

Coe's 1% figure was, obviously, not the result of mathematical computation, but rather an attempt to quantify for us layman just how confident he was in his expert conclusion that there were no horses at the time and place suggested in the BOM.

So, if the issues is whether its theoretically possible that horses existed, you win the debate.

However, if the issue is whether its reasonable to conclude that the presence of horses in the BOM is an anachronism, you lose.

[cdowis]

Coe did not and could not rule out the possibility that in future, some new discovery will cause experts to revisit the now well accepted understanding that horses were not present at the time and place suggested by the BOM.

Coe's 1% figure was, obviously, not the result of mathematical computation, but rather an attempt to quantify for us layman just how confident he was in his expert conclusion that there were no horses at the time and place suggested in the BOM.

Please note that one percent is from Dan Vogel. Coe merely stated that he was confident in his conclusion, and may even agree that a much higher percent is possible. Dan makes things up to bolster his position and dismisses counter point as unworthy of his attention. That one percent thing is Dan at his most arrogant and boastful self.

Indeed, I agree with you somewhat, but it was also reasonable to conclude the syphilis came from America to Europe. As I said, I am addressing Dan's argument, not Coe. He is basking in the light of his self-proclaimed 99% probability. He dismissed my example with an arrogant wave of the hand, and indicated that I am following blind faith in the so-called one percent.

This is about Vogel, not Coe.

One personal note. I am indeed not Dan Peterson. I have never quoted him, and even challenged some of his conclusions. If someone challenges me, I speak for myself. I am my own man, and don't need to hide behind the coat tails of Peterson or Coe.

My post was to give our award winning historian an opportunity to stand up and defend himself, rather than hiding behind the skirts of Coe.

Edited August 31, 2011 by cdowis

[Dan Vogel]

Cdowis,

Please note that one percent is from Dan Vogel. Coe merely stated that he was confident in his conclusion, and may even agree that a much higher percent is possible. Dan makes things up to bolster his position and dismisses counter point as unworthy of his attention. That one percent thing is Dan at his most arrogant and boastful self.

Boastful?

One personal note. I am indeed not Dan Peterson. I have never quoted him, and even challenged some of his conclusions. If someone challenges me, I speak for myself. I am my own man, and don't need to hide behind the coat tails of Peterson or Coe.

That sounds boastful to me!

I listened to Coe again and he doesn’t make the percent estimate directly in connection to the horse, but rather he says 99% of what’s in the BOM is falsifiable and that there was 0% chance that the BOM is real history.

And why cdowis this he has to be so melodramatic here is a bit of a puzzle, but I must say that he’s no Perry Mason either.

Indeed, I agree with you somewhat, but it was also reasonable to conclude the syphilis came from America to Europe.

Apples to oranges.

As I said, I am addressing Dan's argument, not Coe. He is basking in the light of his self-proclaimed 99% probability. He dismissed my example with an arrogant wave of the hand, and indicated that I am following blind faith in the so-called one percent.

You agreed that I haven’t misrepresented Coe’s position, especially when you consider what he said about the flora and fauna of the BOM as a whole. You are just quibbling.

This is about Vogel, not Coe.

My post was to give our award winning historian an opportunity to stand up and defend himself, rather than hiding behind the skirts of Coe.

You’re so kind … even if a bit overly dramatic.

Edited September 1, 2011 by Dan Vogel

[Dan Vogel]

cdowis,

Fair enough. It is interesting that you cite it as if it were fact. You are having some difficulty in admitting it.

It happens to be the scholarly consensus based on an interpretation of the available facts.

I do understand the difference between fact and opinion.

So far, you skipped the chance to show us your skill at Bayesian inference; perhaps you could entertain us with your definition of “fact”. Then tell us the difference between “opinion” and “argument”.

I gave a specific example where the common consensus for decades was shown to be ..... wrong, by a single discovery. Now, please explain to us why they should this be immune from that possibility. Give us specific FACTS which precludes the possibility of BOM horses, again taking into account that it makes no mention of horses after 100AD.

Unless you are a positivist of some sort, you have to allow for inductive reasoning and probabilistic arguments. If a doctor tells a patient that they have a one in four chance of beating a disease, the patient is likely to hang onto that slim “possibility”—more sober people will start make funeral arrangements. Meanwhile, the patient might be encouraged by stories about patients who recovered with even less chances.

Your analogy about syphilis isn’t relevant. It was an assumption that had no evidence or research behind it. It was an opinion or assumption in the true sense, which isn’t the same as what Coe was stating.

Coe gave his reason. It was that the horse and other flora and fauna had not been discovered after nearly a hundred Mayan cites had been excavated, although native examples were readily discovered. That is evidence of absence—not just opinion. While not 100% certain—it is certainly more reasonable to accept the scholarly consensus than to reject it.

Now, back to the main topic. Historical anachronisms, such as Coe mentioned, as well as literary anachronisms, such as the BOM’s use of the KJV of the Bible, are the way scholars date literature and detect forgeries.

[cdowis]

Your analogy about syphilis isn’t relevant. It was an assumption that had no evidence or research behind it. It was an opinion or assumption in the true sense, which isn’t the same as what Coe was stating.

Dan,

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

Coe gave his reason. It was that the horse and other flora and fauna had not been discovered after nearly a hundred Mayan cites had been excavated, although native examples were readily discovered.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

Edited September 1, 2011 by cdowis

[cdowis]

Dan,

Before you start defending Coe, please read the statements in this thread first. Dó go back to those posts and respond to them. You continue to ignore the issues regarding Coe's bona fides regarding the BOM.

Coe has some serious issues when it comes to the BOM, and he needs your help.

Edited September 1, 2011 by cdowis

[Bill Hamblin]

Now, back to the main topic. Historical anachronisms, such as Coe mentioned, as well as literary anachronisms, such as the BOM’s use of the KJV of the Bible, are the way scholars date literature and detect forgeries.

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

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.

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.

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

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

[Bill Hamblin]

Now, back to the main topic. Historical anachronisms, such as Coe mentioned, as well as literary anachronisms, such as the BOM’s use of the KJV of the Bible, are the way scholars date literature and detect forgeries.

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

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.

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.

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

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

[Chris Smith]

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.

Fortunately, we have a guarantee that the BoM is the "most correct book of any on earth". This should alleviate the difficulty.

[LeSellers]

Fortunately, we have a guarantee that the BoM is the "most correct book of any on earth". This should alleviate the difficulty.

Yet another out-of-context misapplication of Joseph's statement.

Lehi

[Chris Smith]

Yet another out-of-context misapplication of Joseph's statement.

I should have put a winking smiley. I'm only half serious. I personally do think that if an inspired translator reads "horse" off his seerstone we should assume he means what he says, but there is plenty of room for intelligent people to disagree. (Besides, if you want to call a horse a tapir, it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.)

[LeSellers]

I personally do think that if an inspired translator reads "horse" off his seerstone we should assume he means what he says, but there is plenty of room for intelligent people to disagree.

There is no credible evidence that Joseph saw the word "horse" in his seer stone.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

.

Edited September 1, 2011 by LeSellers

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

(Besides, if you want to call a horse a tapir, it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.)

I love this, as you know this is not what any one is saying. No one any were has said tapir = horse.

But you know this already. You should have put another wink in your post.

[Chris Smith]

But you know this already. You should have put another wink in your post.

I thought it would be obvious that that was meant half-seriously, as well. But yes, I suppose I should have. One can never be too careful.

[Chris Smith]

There is no credible evidence that Joseph saw the word "horse" in his seer stone.

Well, I'm inclined to agree with you, there.

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".

Joseph Knight (autograph [between 1833 and 1847]):

But if it was not Spelt rite it would not go away till it was rite, so we see it was marvelous.

Emma Smith (Edmund Briggs interview, 1856):

When my husband was translating the Book of Mormon, I wrote a part of it, as he dictated each sentence, word for word, and when he came to proper names he could not pronounce, or long words, he spelled them out, and while I was writing them, if I made a mistake in spelling, he would stop me and correct my spelling, although it was impossible for him to see how I was writing them down at the time.

Martin Harris (Edward Stevenson's 1881 account):

By aid of the seer stone, sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin, and when finished he would say, "Written," and if correctly written, that sentence would disappear and another appear in its place, but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used.

David Whitmer (Eri Mullin interview, 1874):

. . . the words would appear, and if he failed to spell the word right, it would stay till it was spelled right, then pass away; another come, and so on.

Edited September 1, 2011 by Chris Smith

[LeSellers]

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".

...

Emma Smith (Edmund Briggs interview, 1856):

When my husband was translating the Book of Mormon, I wrote a part of it, as he dictated each sentence, word for word, and when he came to proper names he could not pronounce, or long words, he spelled them out, and while I was writing them, if I made a mistake in spelling, he would stop me and correct my spelling, although it was impossible for him to see how I was writing them down at the time....

Emmas' is the most useful, she was actually there. And what did she say?

Well, the answer is the critical piece, and it does not support your contention.

when he came to proper names he could not pronounce, or long words, he spelled them out, and while I was writing them, if I made a mistake in spelling, he would stop me and correct my spelling

"he would stop me and correct my spelling" even though he could not see what she was writing.

Further, it was not every word, but only long words (of which there are few in the Book of Mormon) and proper names. It was more an issue of tranliterating proper names not of writing "horses" which she could spell, having been a public school teacher (as opposed to a gctf-welfare school teacher).

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

Edited September 1, 2011 by LeSellers

[Chris Smith]

Emmas' is the most useful, she was actually there.

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?