The Gold Plates

[Teancum]

10 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

You asked for evidence that the gold plates were authentic.

And you did not provide any.  A book and a church?  So my example was a fair.

10 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

 

Not a discussion of other religions. I believe the Quran is true and divine for whom it was intended.

What  does that mean?  Islam thinks it was intended for the entire world. For you. For me.  For everyone. Mormonism believe the same for their books and claims to be the only religion that has God's valid authority.  The two are mutually exclusive.  Islam and Mormonism cannot both be true even "for whom is was intended."  And they have the same "evidence" that you used.

[Benjamin McGuire]

5 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

You keep saying that many people on both sides of the debate start off with very strong assumptions about the truthfulness or falsity of the Book of Mormon's divine origins. You further seem to be arguing that those strong assumptions render any type of evidence on the other side of the debate as being basically meaningless, since it is assumed at the outset that the opposing view of the Book of Mormon is essentially impossible. Thus, the most an opposing evidence can do (unless it is exceedingly strong, like the Mesoamerican example that I proposed and that you finally admitted as being valid evidence) is shift one's view of the opposing claims from being impossible to possible. (As a side note, I think that is ultimately an unhelpful description of the evidence, since something that is "possible" can be either highly likely or highly unlikely or anywhere in between, but whatever.)

No. I am not saying this at all. I have never really stated this. What I have said is that people on both sides of the debate make an argument for plausibility by comparing the claims that they believe support their position with a position that they believe is patently impossible. Anything with even a remotely small chance is more likely than something that is impossible. One of these arguments (on the believers side) has been illustrated here. If the Book of Mormon contains forms that Joseph Smith couldn't have known were appropriate in an ancient Jewish text, then they must be there because the text is an authentic translation of an ancient work. This is the comparison with the impossible that makes something else preferable to that impossible issue. On the side of those who favor modern authorship, the fact that we can find these kinds of forms in contemporary literature could help explain why this argument isn't an argument for the Book of Mormon as an authentic translation of an ancient text. In neither case does any of this debate have any direct bearing on whether or not the Book of Mormon is in fact an authentic translation of an ancient text.

Way back on September 19, you made this argument quite explicitly:

Quote

If a strong case can be made that there is a substantial amount of language in the BofM that Joseph Smith should have never been able to produce (considering what we know of his time period, personal linguistic habits, regional dialects and patterns, pseudo-archaic patterns from contemporary authors, and large-scale patterns in the English language), then it doesn't matter how much of the rest of the text could have plausibly been produced by him. It would sort of be like failing to see why Joseph Smith couldn't have written a text which has a substantial amount of hieratic in it. Simply pointing to the English words and phrases that he plausibly could have produced doesn't explain how the Egyptian script got in there. 

This is an argument that starts from a position of impossibility ("should never have been able to produce"). This is what seems to be driving all of the rest of your arguments. You want to see the structural forms in the Book of Mormon as evidence of authenticity because of the belief that you have that Joseph Smith should never have been able to produce them. And when I keep pointing out that this argument only makes sense if we accept the incorrect view that these kinds of parallelisms didn't exist in contemporary literature, you keep keep deflecting from that point. I am going to repeat a quote I made earlier about the mid-19th century Samuel Butler:

Quote

It is difficult to find any author, from any period or country, who is so extraordinarily obsessed with chiasmus as Butler. He uses chiasmus constantly. His texts abound in chiastic sentences. His thought is dominated by chiastic structuring. He fits whatever he can into the chiastic pattern and usually denies the existence of other patterns. The leading ideas of practically all his books have their origin in the chiastic formula. All his scientific doctrines derive from his obsession with chiasmus. It is hardly an exaggeration to say that everything he observed went through a chiastic filter, so that he took in only what chiasmus let through. (https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-1-349-18067-7)

The challenge that this illustrates is that chiasmus isn't a rhetorical form unique to the ANE. To assert that Joseph Smith couldn't have included this kind of parallelism because he could not have been familiar with the ANE context for it is only a valid argument if (and only if) this form was unique to the ANE. The fact that it isn't undermines the entire argument. When I note that this kind of apologetic can be harmful it is because of the claim that this is evidence for the Book of Mormon. That claim can only be understood in the context of this concept of impossibility. For the longest time the battle of words was over how early chiasmus was recognized formally in terms of a rhetorical structure. Those who started with the premise that the Book of Mormon was not an authentic ancient history believed that they could counter this argument by showing that Joseph could have known all about these poetic forms by finding references to it that pre-date Joseph Smith. Once this happened, the discussion morphs into a debate over the likelihood or unlikelihood that Joseph was exposed to those sources. It is a game of whack-a-mole. What I knew from my readings in literary theory and linguistics was that whether or not we could find references to chiasmus in rhetorical manuals, there were examples of this figure all over the place in literature contemporary with Joseph Smith. The one argument eclipses the other. Joseph Smith doesn't have to be aware of chiasmus any more than Samule Butler does to actually use it in his writings - because chiasmus is clearly not a unique phenomenon from the ANE. And in the long run, this means that the existence of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon does not rise to the level of evidence of the authenticity of the text. In the same way, the existence of contemporary occurrences of chiasmus in other literature does not rise to the level of evidence against the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. And because this plays on both sides of the discussion over the accuracy of the claim that the Book of Mormon is an authentic translation of an ancient text, it means that neither of these discussions offers anything even remotely resembling plausibility.

This isn't to say that chiasmus (and other parallelisms) isn't important. Finding the chiasmus (assuming that it is intentional) and reading it in that way helps us form an understanding of the rhetoric of the text and can lead us to understanding the intentions of an author. This has immense value when reading the text.

Now, I have one more comment. You argue that you think that when I use the term "possible" I am doing a disservice to your evidence. You suggest that things can be highly likely or less than highly likely (but still likely) - and that there is this range of possibility. I agree that when we deal with probabilities we have a range between 1 (completely certain) and 0 (impossible). The challenge is that you speak of highly likely but in fact you have no idea where your propositions fall on this scale between 0 and 1. You cannot define that probability. This is why comparisons are so often (and erroneously) used in these circumstances. You want to use "more likely" and then pretend that this means "highly likely". And this is done by comparing something with something else that we know is less likely - and the only things that we can make this comparison with in this way or propositions that are close enough to impossible so as to sit all the way on one side of that scale. The likelihood, for example, that a monkey could produce the complete works of Shakespeare while sitting at a typewriter randomly pressing keys exists - but we all know it won't happen. So you compare the likelihood of your proposition with something that you believe is so unlikely as to be effectively impossible. You did this when you noted "Joseph Smith should never have been able to produce" or "Joseph Smith couldn't have written". Even if we accept this as true (and in the case of chiasmus and other parallel forms, I am arguing that this is simply wrong), it still doesn't provide us with more information. Being a little more likely or even a lot more likely than something that is impossible does not translate into something being highly likely or plausible. It is a logical sleight of hand.

6 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

What I was saying is that the assumptions themselves that lead to these extreme biases don't seem to be valid, especially by your strict standards of probability. In other words, the evidence supporting those assumptions isn't strong enough to render the opposing viewpoint as being impossible to begin with. And it sort of destroys your whole definitional framework when that is admitted. 

Yep. Exactly, right? Except I am not dealing with the assumptions about the text. I am dealing with the way that the arguments are constructed. The easiest way to see how this plays out is in the constant shift in the debate. If the discussion starts with the limitation on what Joseph Smith could have known - and shifts, because what Joseph Smith could have known changes - then we know we are looking at this problem in the argument. In this particular set of discussions (over Hebraisms and chiasmus in the Book of Mormon) the most novel recent argument is the Edwards and Edwards paper I referenced earlier. The shift there was to argue about the likelihood of parallelisms occurring by chance as opposed to being intentional. I think this is an excellent step forward (but it does have its own set of challenges - especially when we re-examine some of the assumptions in light of the issues of vocabulary richness in translations). But, in terms of its application to the notion of the uniqueness of the Book of Mormon, it is still completely reliant on the question of what Joseph Smith could or could not have known. And this means, of course, that this argument cannot really tell us very much about the uniqueness of the Book of Mormon independently of all of the assumptions involved in the various propositions about what Joseph Smith could or could not have known.

One of the points that I made several years ago is that there is a meta-argument involved here. That argument was that part of the driving force behind these approaches was an attempt to use biblical criticism as a way of investigating the Book of Mormon. But this has proven to be a source of errors as much as it is helpful. The Book of Mormon isn't an ancient text, it is a thoroughly modern text (even if it is a translation of an ancient text). So to understand the text we also have to engage it as the product of its environment. This always brings to my mind a comment made by Larry Hurtado (a New Testament scholar who has written a great deal about the development of the early Christian Church). He describes the problem like this (and I agree with him):

Quote

Before we proceed further towards analyzing Christ-devotion as a historical phenomenon, however, it may be helpful to note a relevant (and in my view misguided) assumption shared by both the pre/anticritical and the history-of-religion approaches. It is worth identifying because it continues to be influential in both popular and scholarly circles. This is the notion that the validity of a religious belief or practice is called into question if it can be shown to be a truly historical phenomenon, and the product of historical factors and forces that we can attempt to identify and analyze. … Wishing to preserve the religious and theological validity of traditional christological claims, the anticritical view attempted to deny or minimize as far as possible the historically conditioned nature of early Christ-devotion. On the other hand, the history-of-religion scholars were convinced that their demonstration of the historically conditioned nature of early Christ-devotion proved that it was no longer to be treated as theologically valid or binding for modern Christians. In both views the assumption is the same: if something can be shown to have arisen through a historical process, then it cannot be divine "revelation" or have continuing theological validity. Hurtado, Larry W., Lord Jesus Christ Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity, (Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, 2003)

We have this tendency in Mormonism. We want to deny, as much as possible, the environmental influences that impacted the translation of the Book of Mormon. And those critical of the claims of the Book of Mormon as an authentic translation of an ancient text want to emphasize these environmental similarities as much as possible. This is a misguided effort based on an assumption that doesn't seem to me to be particularly valid. And much of my published material on the Book of Mormon has been aimed at this issue - that we need to understand the Book of Mormon as a modern production (even if it is a translation of an ancient text) to understand its importance and role within Mormonism and Mormon theology. And this is why I am so critical of various attempts to prop up the text with these kinds of claims (chiasmus, EModE, etc.).

[teddyaware]

38 minutes ago, Teancum said:

And you did not provide any.  A book and a church?  So my example was a fair.

What  does that mean?  Islam thinks it was intended for the entire world. For you. For me.  For everyone. Mormonism believe the same for their books and claims to be the only religion that has God's valid authority.  The two are mutually exclusive.  Islam and Mormonism cannot both be true even "for whom is was intended."  And they have the same "evidence" that you used.

Why would you reasonably expect anyone to provide you with empirical evidence that the Book of Mormon is true when the Book of Mormon writers themselves make it perfectly cleat that, except for a few chosen witnesses, the only evidence  God will provide is a revelatory witness from the Holy Ghost that the Book of Mormon is indeed real and true. This means that if the Book of Mormon truly is the word of God, there is no way anyone will ever be able to provide you with the verifiable scientific or or historical evidence you require, which means you are demanding the impossible. Why would you expect God to violate his own most solemn divine edict just to satisfy your faithless, sign seeking curiosity?

12 Wherefore, at that day when the book shall be delivered unto the man of whom I have spoken, the book shall be HID from the eyes of the world, that the eyes of none shall behold it save it be that three witnesses shall behold it, by the power of God, besides him to whom the book shall be delivered; and they shall testify to the truth of the book and the things therein.

13 And there is NONE OTHER which shall view it, save it be a few (I.e. the eight other witnesses) according to the will of God, to bear testimony of his word unto the children of men; for the Lord God hath said that the words of the faithful should speak as if it were from the dead. (2 Nephi 27)

Edited October 13, 2022 by teddyaware

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

Why would you reasonably expect anyone to provide you with empirical evidence that the Book of Mormon is true

Why wouldn't you? Anyone with reasonable critical thinking skills would not find this an exceptional expectation.

 

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

 

when the Book of Mormon writers themselves make it perfectly cleat that, except for a few chosen witnesses, the only evidence  God will provide is a revelatory witness from the Holy Ghost that the Book of Mormon is indeed real and true.

That's pretty convenient.  But while I know what you refer to I am not sure I agree that it is perfectly clear that his is the ONLY evidence that would or should be provided.  Apologists sure spend a lot of time trying to find other evidence.

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

 

This means that if the Book of Mormon truly is the word of God, there is no way anyone will ever be able to provide you with the verifiable scientific or or historical evidence you require, which means you are demanding the impossible. Why would you expect God to violate his own most solemn divine edict just to satisfy your faithless, sign seeking curiosity?

No I am not "demanding" the impossible at all.  You just think you have a get of of jail free card here.  I am under no requirement to accept what you claim is the only method for ascertaining the truth of the book.

[Ryan Dahle]

40 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

7 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

You keep saying that many people on both sides of the debate start off with very strong assumptions about the truthfulness or falsity of the Book of Mormon's divine origins. You further seem to be arguing that those strong assumptions render any type of evidence on the other side of the debate as being basically meaningless, since it is assumed at the outset that the opposing view of the Book of Mormon is essentially impossible. Thus, the most an opposing evidence can do (unless it is exceedingly strong, like the Mesoamerican example that I proposed and that you finally admitted as being valid evidence) is shift one's view of the opposing claims from being impossible to possible. (As a side note, I think that is ultimately an unhelpful description of the evidence, since something that is "possible" can be either highly likely or highly unlikely or anywhere in between, but whatever.)

No. I am not saying this at all. I have never really stated this. What I have said is that people on both sides of the debate make an argument for plausibility by comparing the claims that they believe support their position with a position that they believe is patently impossible.

Except you essentially have been saying this, repeatedly. For instance, look at these statements from your original posts outlining your position:

Quote

These explanations are very poor at determining possibility or plausibility because they are already burdened by assumptions, and are often placed in comparison with the impossible.

By interpreting the Book of Mormon and finding a possible route through the desert leading away from Jerusalem, we haven’t made the text plausible, we have simply found a way to keep it from being impossible. 

Without such evidences (of possibility) we could assume that the origin narratives were impossible.

And there you go. Your statement's repeatedly privilege the assumption that the Book of Mormon's origin story and internal narratives (e.g., Nephi's journey through Arabia) begin as an impossibility. And that sets a pretty high bar for any positive evidence to overcome. In contrast, if one begins with the assumption that the Book of Mormon's authenticity is possible or plausible or likely, then your framework falls apart. 

59 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

What I have said is that people on both sides of the debate make an argument for plausibility by comparing the claims that they believe support their position with a position that they believe is patently impossible. Anything with even a remotely small chance is more likely than something that is impossible.

Yes, you have been saying this in addition to your other statements that I referenced above.

But the problem is that, for the most part, you are providing an extreme caricature of the actual positions held on either side of the debate (as I have said before). There is potentially a very big difference between something being seen as "patently impossible" and merely "unlikely." I think Joseph Smith is unlikely to have produced the EModE in the text. And I think it is unlikely that he produced its chiasms and other parallel structures. And I think it is unlikely that the many proposed Hebrew and Egyptian wordplays in the text are unintentional. And I think it is unlikely that Joseph Smith could have created a text as complex and sophisticated as the Book of Mormon. And I think it is unlikely that the witnesses to the Book of Mormon were lying or delusional. And I think it is unlikely that Joseph would have been able to fabricate a believable set of plates and other artifacts. And so on and so forth. 

I don't know precisely how unlikely I think any of these things are, but I definitely wouldn't characterize any of them as being "patently impossible." You seem to be charging at windmills, for very few positions on either side of the debate are as extreme as you aver. Mine certainly isn't what you are claiming it to be. You have to alter my actual language and intent in order for it to fit your claim. 

Furthermore, I already outlined my position that it is better to look at evidence on two levels, first in isolation and then in the broader context of the competing sets of data. I also argued at length that, when viewed in the broader landscape of competing evidences, an argument can indirectly strengthen the case for plausibility, even if all it does is nullify a major competing claim. To my knowledge, you never really addressed these issues. 

[Ryan Dahle]

2 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Now, I have one more comment. You argue that you think that when I use the term "possible" I am doing a disservice to your evidence. You suggest that things can be highly likely or less than highly likely (but still likely) - and that there is this range of possibility. I agree that when we deal with probabilities we have a range between 1 (completely certain) and 0 (impossible). The challenge is that you speak of highly likely but in fact you have no idea where your propositions fall on this scale between 0 and 1. You cannot define that probability. This is why comparisons are so often (and erroneously) used in these circumstances. You want to use "more likely" and then pretend that this means "highly likely". And this is done by comparing something with something else that we know is less likely - and the only things that we can make this comparison with in this way or propositions that are close enough to impossible so as to sit all the way on one side of that scale. The likelihood, for example, that a monkey could produce the complete works of Shakespeare while sitting at a typewriter randomly pressing keys exists - but we all know it won't happen. So you compare the likelihood of your proposition with something that you believe is so unlikely as to be effectively impossible. You did this when you noted "Joseph Smith should never have been able to produce" or "Joseph Smith couldn't have written". Even if we accept this as true (and in the case of chiasmus and other parallel forms, I am arguing that this is simply wrong), it still doesn't provide us with more information. Being a little more likely or even a lot more likely than something that is impossible does not translate into something being highly likely or plausible. It is a logical sleight of hand.

Again, that isn't what I am doing. Let me provide an example that doesn't have to do with the Book of Mormon and see what you think. 

I have a teaching degree and for one year I taught English to middle schoolers. One day while grading papers, I noticed that one of the students used a combination of diction and syntax that seemed far above her ability. Now, if you would have asked me then how likely it was that she had committed plagiarism, I couldn't have given you a definitive answer. If pressed, I might have said that there was less than a 1% chance of it being her original work, but beyond that I really wouldn't have been able to say. I definitely wouldn't have said it was patently impossible for her to have written it. Nor would I have compared its likelihood to monkeys producing the complete volume of Shakespeare or anything extreme like that. All I knew is that it seemed highly implausible that she wrote it. My judgment was based on my past experience with what middle school aged children are generally capable of producing, with my rather vague memory of her past written works, and with my knowledge that she generally wasn't a high-achieving student. 

Now, based on the limited information in this example, and assuming I was a fairly competent English teacher, would you say that the linguistic features in her paper constituted legitimate evidence of plagiarism? I'm not saying you would have to precisely agree with my assessment of likelihood. You can't do that anyway without looking at the paper. What I am asking is if it was reasonable for me to have seen that type of linguistic data as valid evidence of plagiarism, even though I couldn't be precisely sure of how unlikely it was that she wrote the paper using her own abilities? 

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Why would you reasonably expect anyone to provide you with empirical evidence that the Book of Mormon is true when the Book of Mormon writers themselves make it perfectly cleat that, except for a few chosen witnesses, the only evidence  God will provide is a revelatory witness from the Holy Ghost that the Book of Mormon is indeed real and true. This means that if the Book of Mormon truly is the word of God, there is no way anyone will ever be able to provide you with the verifiable scientific or or historical evidence you require, which means you are demanding the impossible. Why would you expect God to violate his own most solemn divine edict just to satisfy your faithless, sign seeking curiosity?

I have been trying for years and I can't figure out how he thinks either.

Good summary, good argument 

[Benjamin McGuire]

2 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Except you essentially have been saying this, repeatedly. For instance, look at these statements from your original posts outlining your position:

I fail to see how this illustrates your point. I am not saying anything about how the starting point affects the arguments. In many ways, its irrelevant. It's how the argument is moved forward that matters. I haven't, for the most part, commented on the issue of using God as the basis of arguments on either side.

2 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

And there you go. Your statement's repeatedly privilege the assumption that the Book of Mormon's origin story and internal narratives (e.g., Nephi's journey through Arabia) begin as an impossibility. And that sets a pretty high bar for any positive evidence to overcome. In contrast, if one begins with the assumption that the Book of Mormon's authenticity is possible or plausible or likely, then your framework falls apart. 

Ummmmmm. No. What I was pointing out in that particular section was the simple fact that finding a route through the desert that can align with an interpretation of the text is not the same thing as finding THE route through the desert that Lehi and his family took. This is a really important distinction. Because I can believe in a real Lehi, who takes a real family through the desert and eventually boards a boat headed for the New World without having to accept all of the arguments about a specific path taken involving other specific locations. And this is the reason why claims about Nahom and the Wadi Sayq aren't actually evidence for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. This is a very different thing from what you seem to be suggesting here. I am not a critic of the Book of Mormon or the LDS Church. I am often critical of arguments raised by both those who believe that the Book of Mormon is an authentic translation of an ancient history and those who don't believe that it is.

3 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

But the problem is that, for the most part, you are providing an extreme caricature of the actual positions held on either side of the debate (as I have said before). There is potentially a very big difference between something being seen as "patently impossible" and merely "unlikely." I think Joseph Smith is unlikely to have produced the EModE in the text. And I think it is unlikely that he produced its chiasms and other parallel structures. And I think it is unlikely that the many proposed Hebrew and Egyptian wordplays in the text are unintentional. And I think it is unlikely that Joseph Smith could have created a text as complex and sophisticated as the Book of Mormon. And I think it is unlikely that the witnesses to the Book of Mormon were lying or delusional. And I think it is unlikely that Joseph would have been able to fabricate a believable set of plates and other artifacts. And so on and so forth. 

*shrug* Whatever. It's clear to me that you don't really understand what it is that you are saying here. But, I'll give you a chance. How unlikely is it that "Joseph Smith could have created a text as complex and sophisticated as the Book of Mormon". What percentage would you assign to that unlikelihood? 1 in a 1,000? 1 in 10,000? What exactly do you mean by this statement? I am curious, because I think it is a real problem for you to say that it is both "unlikely" and that you have no idea how precisely unlikely it is. I don't need precision. Give me an estimate. On the other hand, if it is just your intuition, then it is completely meaningless. People are really bad at estimating likelihoods. At some point, that chance of possibility becomes really a way of trying to have your cake and eat it to in this debate over syntax.

2 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Now, based on the limited information in this example, and assuming I was a fairly competent English teacher, would you say that the linguistic features in her paper constituted legitimate evidence of plagiarism? I'm not saying you would have to precisely agree with my assessment of likelihood. You can't do that anyway without looking at the paper. What I am asking is if it was reasonable for me to have seen that type of linguistic data as valid evidence of plagiarism, even though I couldn't be precisely sure of how unlikely it was that she wrote the paper using her own abilities? 

 No, I wouldn't. This of course might be because I have a fairly nuanced understanding of the term plagiarism. I think it would be safe to say that the student may have had help writing the paper, but this isn't plagiarism (I help all of my kids with their writing when they ask - it isn't plagiarism). To illustrate the nuance and why it is important, the definition of plagiarism used by most institutions right now is being made obsolete by technology. BYU, for example, uses this statement in their honor code: "Intentional Plagiarism—Intentional plagiarism is the deliberate act of representing the words, ideas, or data of another as one’s own without providing proper attribution to the author through quotation, reference, or footnote." So, if your student plugs a few prompts into GPT-3, and then edits the output into a paper, is it plagiarism? After all, while it may not be their own work, and it certainly would be deliberate, there is no 'other' that needs attribution. There is no author. This isn't merely a trivial observation since a majority of news articles now published on the internet are written by algorithms like GPT-3. So, like I said, I have a nuanced view, and I would separate the two issues - on the one hand, the idea that the paper could not be written entirely using their own abilities, and on the other hand, the question of plagiarism.

When you say things like the above - that "I think Joseph Smith is unlikely to have produced the EModE in the text. And I think it is unlikely that he produced its chiasms and other parallel structures. And I think it is unlikely that the many proposed Hebrew and Egyptian wordplays in the text are unintentional. And I think it is unlikely that Joseph Smith could have created a text as complex and sophisticated as the Book of Mormon. And I think it is unlikely that the witnesses to the Book of Mormon were lying or delusional. And I think it is unlikely that Joseph would have been able to fabricate a believable set of plates and other artifacts. And so on and so forth." This is a really fun statement to break down. In mathematics (and it might have helped if you were a math teacher), the word "and" means to multiply. So let's simply state that each of your unlikelihoods represents a 10% chance. So we have (A) EModE  X (B) Chiasms and other parallel structures X (C) Proposed Hebrew and Egytpian word play X (D) Complex text X (E) Witnesses told the truth X (F) Fabrication of the plates X (well the is the so on and so forth). Just those first 5 puts it at 1 in 100,000 (.001%). So yes, as you say, maybe not the same odds as a monkey and Shakespeare, but then, I am not sure that you would even give these things a ten percent chance. But in the end it doesn't matter - because the point is the same. You believe that when you multiply all of this together, that it effectively creates a situation in which it would have been impossible for Joseph Smith to have produced the text of the Book of Mormon using his own abilities. And this just isn't evidence that the Book of Mormon is an authentic translation of an ancient text. It will never be evidence. And yes, you can keep adding as many conditions as you want to this sequence of likelihoods (to keep making it more and more impossible for Joseph Smith to have produced it).

I think my characterization is spot on.

[smac97]

23 hours ago, Snodgrassian said:

Quote

Quote

If the plates were available they could be examined and shown to be authentic, or not, by experts. 

The same could be said about the knives used to assassinate Julius Caesar.  Because they are not available, do you deny that the assassination took place?

This reasoning isn't is landing with me. I believe there is an unbroken historical record that A. Julius Caesar existed and B. that he died a tragic death (presumably assassinated).

There is also "an unbroken historical record" that A. Joseph Smith and the Witnesses existed and B. that they testified as to the physical reality of the Plates (the Three Witnesses testified of considerably more than that).

And yet nobody is saying that this "unbroken historical record" establishes the reality of the Plates, right?  So "an unbroken historical record" doesn't seem to get us very far.

Moreover, if we look that this historical record, is it based on first-hand, percipient witness testimony of the assassination (in 44 BC)?  Well, not so much.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

On 15 March 44 BCE, the Roman dictator Julius Caesar was murdered. There are several accounts of this incident, but the most famous and probably most accurate is the one written by Caesar's biographer Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus (c.70-c.135), who seems to have had access to imperial archives and may have consulted eyewitness accounts.

The following fragment from his Lives of the Twelve Caesars ("Caesar" 80-82) was translated by Joseph Gavorse...

Suetonius was born 114 years or so after the assassination.  He was not a percipient witness to the assassination.  

Nicolaus of Damascus (c. 64 BC - after 4 AD) :

Quote

Nicolaus of Damascus wrote his account of the murder of Caesar a few years after the event. He was not actually present when the assassination occurred but had the opportunity to speak with those who were. He was a friend of Herod the Great and gathered his information during a visit to Rome. His account is thought to be reliable.

Very loosey-goosey, this.  He was not a percipient witness to the assassination.  He was born 20 years after it.

Plutarch (c. AD 46 – after AD 119) :

Quote

Plutarch, c. 46-120 AD, a Greek biographer and author. In addition to his parallel lives he wrote 2 rhetorical compositions on kings which are included in a collection of his literary works entitled Moralia. He became a Roman senator under the empire. A philosophical writer – wrote a series of “Parallel Lives” of famous Greek and Roman figures as examples of moral lifestyles. 40 of these have survived. He had access to the imperial library in Rome. Possibly the most well-read man of Roman antiquity – refers to scores of ancient sources that are now lost. As a biographical writer he was willing to include anecdotal materials that portrayed his subjects in the worst possible light. Some of this material is polemical, that is, it possibly arises from scurrilous tracts written by political adversaries of his subjects. He also relied extensively on the personal memoirs of people such as Sulla, Lucullus, and Caesar, equally though oppositely biased in content. Leaning toward the sensational, Plutarch nevertheless relied on available sources for every thing he wrote. He made nothing up himself and can be considered as reliable as his source material.

Not a percipient witness.  Born 90 or so years after the assassination.

Appian (c. 95 – c. AD 165) :

Quote

Another important post-Republic historian is Appian (C. 95-165 A.D.). Like Dio, Appian was a Greek. Although he wrote the traditional complete history of Rome beginning with the founding of the city, his five books covering the period of the Civil War and the fall of the Republic are considered the most valuable. Appian is important because he is one of the first historians and biographers who detailed the actual assassination. Appian goes into detail about the stabbing and the immediate aftermath. He writes that conspirators were covered in blood and left the scene of the assassination still carrying the bloody knifes. He writes that the conspirators had even stabbed each other in their haste to kill Caesar.  According to Appian, the reason for the conspiracy and Caesar’s death was that he aspired to and had the trappings of kingship. Appian writes how there was much talk about Caesar and kingship at the time of the assassination. He gives account of a supposed conversation between Cassius and Brutus in which Brutus replies that he would “defend his country to the death” when questioned by Cassius about what he would do if Caesar purposed a bill that would make him king.

Not a percipient witness.  Born 130 or so years after the assassination.  And yet we rely on him for "detail about the stabbing and the immediate aftermath," such as that "{the} conspirators were covered in blood and left the scene of the assassination still carrying the bloody knifes," that "the conspirators had even stabbed each other in their haste to kill Caesar," and he even attributes specific words to Brutus.

Cassius Dio (c. 164-235 A.D.)

Quote

The other sources for accounts and opinions of Caesar’s assassination come from post-assassination sources. Most of these sources are historians living just after the assassination in the time of the Roman Empire. One of these sources is the Greek historian Dio Cassius (C. 164235 A.D.). Dio was a Greek who served in the Senate under Emperor Commodus. He wrote an extensive history of Rome beginning with the arrival of Aeneas through 229 A.D. In his history, he does cover Caesar’s assassination and the events leading up to it. Dio outlined how during the Civil War and after, Caesar consolidated power as well as had voted to himself different honors.19 Dio also gives a detailed account of the assassination itself.20 According to Dio, the reason for Caesar’s assassination was that the conspirators were trying to liberate the city from someone whose actions were those of someone who wanted to be king, and that personal history and tradition particularly that of Brutus, led to the formation of the conspiracy in the first place. According to Dio, regardless of what the truth was, the Roman populous believed there to be a correlation between the Brutus’ family history and Brutus. They thought it was up to Brutus to assassinate Caesar. There were shouts of ‘we need a Brutus,” and they went as far as to write on the statue of the early Brutus and upon the statue of the later Brutus remarks such as: “would that thou wert living!” and “Brutus thou sleepest.” According to Dio, this pressure from the populace, along with the taunts that he was not living up to his family name, was a significant reason for Brutus’ decision to assassinate Caesar. 

Not a percipient witness.  Born about 200 years after the assassination.

AFAIK, the only "eyewitness" we may have is Cicero (106 BC – 43 BC), and yet even that is a bit iffy.

Quote

The sources seem to all agree that Cicero was at the Senate meeting during which Caesar was assassinated. So, he was an eyewitness, when the gang of twenty or so Senators crowded around Caesar, on the pretext of presenting a petition, and assassinated him.   He saw the clumsy first attempts to stab Caesar, some of which missed entirely. Some of the Senators stabbed other Senators by mistake. Caesar, because he evaded being wounded at the beginning, began to strike back at his assailants with a pen. Some sources say that Brutus cried out Cicero’s name as Brutus stabbed Caesar.

What Cicero did during this melee is unrecorded. Did he participate? Did he stand in awe of what was happening? Did he flee the scene as some of the Senators did in order the save themselves? We simply do not know.

"The sources seem to all agree that Cicero was {present}..."

And here:

Quote

There are several different historical sources, which historians examine when looking at Caesar’s assassination. Most important among these sources is that of Cicero. Cicero was a prominent Senator at the time of Caesar’s assassination. Although he was an admirer and proponent of the assassination, even referring to it as the “glorious deed,” he was not directly involved. Cicero is an important source due to the number of speeches and letters historians have from him during this time period. 

None of the foregoing goes much into provenance / chain-of-custody issues.  We nevertheless rely on these various (non-percipient-witness) sources 

23 hours ago, Snodgrassian said:

Could parts of his death be untrue, sure. But the story of his death has been recorded since it occurred (as far as I know).

We still rely mostly on decades/centuries-after-the-fact historical sources.

The experiences of the Three Witnesses and the Eight Witnesses have also "been recorded since {they} occurred."

23 hours ago, Snodgrassian said:

This just is not the case for the Nephites.

But it is the case for the statements of the Three Witnesses and the Eight Witnesses.

23 hours ago, Snodgrassian said:

There is no record of them ever existing prior to the Book of Mormon.

I think there is.  See, e.g., this observation by John Clark:

Quote

Book of Mormon cities have been found, they are well known, and their artifacts grace the finest museums. They are merely masked by archaeological labels such as "Maya," "Olmec," and so on. The problem, then, is not that Book of Mormon artifacts have not been found, only that they have not been recognized for what they are. Again, if we stumbled onto Zarahemla, how would we know? The difficulty is not with evidence but with epistemology.

I think that's a pretty solid point.

23 hours ago, Snodgrassian said:

The Gold plates are that historic record, but only 12 people have witnessed the plates. 

"Only 12?"  How many percipient witnesses does it take, in your view, to make out a prima facie case for the physical existence of the Plates?

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

There is also "an unbroken historical record" that A. Joseph Smith and the Witnesses existed and B. that they testified as to the physical reality of the Plates (the Three Witnesses testified of considerably more than that).

And yet nobody is saying that this "unbroken historical record" establishes the reality of the Plates, right?  So "an unbroken historical record" doesn't seem to get us very far.

Moreover, if we look that this historical record, is it based on first-hand, percipient witness testimony of the assassination (in 44 BC)?  Well, not so much.  See, e.g., here:

Suetonius was born 114 years or so after the assassination.  He was not a percipient witness to the assassination.  

Nicolaus of Damascus (c. 64 BC - after 4 AD) :

Very loosey-goosey, this.  He was not a percipient witness to the assassination.  He was born 20 years after it.

Plutarch (c. AD 46 – after AD 119) :

Not a percipient witness.  Born 90 or so years after the assassination.

Appian (c. 95 – c. AD 165) :

Not a percipient witness.  Born 130 or so years after the assassination.  And yet we rely on him for "detail about the stabbing and the immediate aftermath," such as that "{the} conspirators were covered in blood and left the scene of the assassination still carrying the bloody knifes," that "the conspirators had even stabbed each other in their haste to kill Caesar," and he even attributes specific words to Brutus.

Cassius Dio (c. 164-235 A.D.)

Not a percipient witness.  Born about 200 years after the assassination.

AFAIK, the only "eyewitness" we may have is Cicero (106 BC – 43 BC), and yet even that is a bit iffy.

"The sources seem to all agree that Cicero was {present}..."

And here:

None of the foregoing goes much into provenance / chain-of-custody issues.  We nevertheless rely on these various (non-percipient-witness) sources 

We still rely mostly on decades/centuries-after-the-fact historical sources.

The experiences of the Three Witnesses and the Eight Witnesses have also "been recorded since {they} occurred."

But it is the case for the statements of the Three Witnesses and the Eight Witnesses.

I think there is.  See, e.g., this observation by John Clark:

I think that's a pretty solid point.

"Only 12?"  How many percipient witnesses does it take, in your view, to make out a prima facie case for the physical existence of the Plates?

Thanks,

-Smac

Speaking for myself, I don't consider the testimony of 11 witnesses, written by the same, not-disinterested person, without cross-examination, to be particularly "formidable," as you put it. As an attorney, I doubt you would rely on such testimony. I don't know if there were plates or not. Again, the witness testimony is of very little probative value. You have 3 possibilities: 1) they really did see an angel, 2) they were lying, 3) they were tricked by an experienced con man. The assertion that the evidence points to the first possibility is not warranted, IMO. 

[smac97]

On 10/12/2022 at 11:47 AM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

coherent counter-explanation

There’s that word again. It’s doing a lot of work for you.

I'm not intending it to.  Conclusory, evidence-free conjecture like "Joseph made it up" just doesn't do much for me.  

On 10/12/2022 at 11:47 AM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

As I mentioned before It seems to function exactly like “true” in, well “no true Scotsman …”

Well, no.  See here:

Quote

No true Scotsman, or appeal to purity, is an informal fallacy in which one attempts to protect their universal generalization from a falsifying counterexample by excluding the counterexample improperly.^[1][2][3] Rather than abandoning the falsified universal generalization or providing evidence that would disqualify the falsifying counterexample, a slightly modified generalization is constructed ad-hoc to definitionally exclude the undesirable specific case and counterexamples like it by appeal to rhetoric.^[4] This rhetoric takes the form of emotionally charged but nonsubstantive purity platitudes such as "true", "pure", "genuine", "authentic", "real", etc.^[2][5]

I don't think it is fallacious to request a something-more-than-wholly-speculative-and-conclusory-and-evidence-free counter-explanation for the origins of the Book of Mormon.

YMMV.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ksfisher]

38 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Speaking for myself, I don't consider the testimony of 11 witnesses, written by the same, not-disinterested person, without cross-examination, to be particularly "formidable," as you put it. As an attorney, I doubt you would rely on such testimony. I don't know if there were plates or not. Again, the witness testimony is of very little probative value. You have 3 possibilities: 1) they really did see an angel, 2) they were lying, 3) they were tricked by an experienced con man. The assertion that the evidence points to the first possibility is not warranted, IMO. 

What weight should be placed on the fact that none of the 11 ever recanted their testimony?  If they were lying it would seem probable that at least one, especially one of the ones who became disaffected with Joseph Smith and left the church, would admit that it was a lie.

The same with being conned.  Wouldn't you expect someone to eventually come out and say that Joseph Smith had tricked them?

 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, ksfisher said:

What weight should be placed on the fact that none of the 11 ever recanted their testimony?  If they were lying it would seem probable that at least one, especially one of the ones who became disaffected with Joseph Smith and left the church, would admit that it was a lie.

The same with being conned.  Wouldn't you expect someone to eventually come out and say that Joseph Smith had tricked them?

 

Not if they were still convinced they hadn’t been conned. 

[OGHoosier]

1 hour ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

 

When you say things like the above - that "I think Joseph Smith is unlikely to have produced the EModE in the text. And I think it is unlikely that he produced its chiasms and other parallel structures. And I think it is unlikely that the many proposed Hebrew and Egyptian wordplays in the text are unintentional. And I think it is unlikely that Joseph Smith could have created a text as complex and sophisticated as the Book of Mormon. And I think it is unlikely that the witnesses to the Book of Mormon were lying or delusional. And I think it is unlikely that Joseph would have been able to fabricate a believable set of plates and other artifacts. And so on and so forth." This is a really fun statement to break down. In mathematics (and it might have helped if you were a math teacher), the word "and" means to multiply. So let's simply state that each of your unlikelihoods represents a 10% chance. So we have (A) EModE  X (B) Chiasms and other parallel structures X (C) Proposed Hebrew and Egytpian word play X (D) Complex text X (E) Witnesses told the truth X (F) Fabrication of the plates X (well the is the so on and so forth). Just those first 5 puts it at 1 in 100,000 (.001%). So yes, as you say, maybe not the same odds as a monkey and Shakespeare, but then, I am not sure that you would even give these things a ten percent chance. But in the end it doesn't matter - because the point is the same. You believe that when you multiply all of this together, that it effectively creates a situation in which it would have been impossible for Joseph Smith to have produced the text of the Book of Mormon using his own abilities. And this just isn't evidence that the Book of Mormon is an authentic translation of an ancient text. It will never be evidence. And yes, you can keep adding as many conditions as you want to this sequence of likelihoods (to keep making it more and more impossible for Joseph Smith to have produced it).

Respectfully, Ryan's application of the term "unlikely" does not need to be changed even with the climbing number of conditions. It appears to be you who introduces the shift from Ryan's framing of "unlikely" to "impossible," and I don't believe we are obligated to accept that shift. 

For my part, my major holdup is that the concept of likelihood and its evaluation is an inescapable part of human cognitive function and I do not see a suitable replacement for it. 

[Ryan Dahle]

3 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

7 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Except you essentially have been saying this, repeatedly. For instance, look at these statements from your original posts outlining your position:

I fail to see how this illustrates your point. I am not saying anything about how the starting point affects the arguments. In many ways, its irrelevant. It's how the argument is moved forward that matters. I haven't, for the most part, commented on the issue of using God as the basis of arguments on either side.

I fail to see how you can't see the relevance. Saying that a certain piece of evidence, such as Nahom, can only initiate a shift from impossible to possible betrays your starting assumption (i.e., you are clearly starting with the premise that it is impossible for the narrative in 1 Nephi to be true). And that obviously is going to affect how one interprets the ultimate value of the evidence. In other words, where we are moving forward from matters to your definitional framework. For instance, if you were to start with the premise that the Book of Mormon claims are quite possible (instead of impossible) that would ruin your framework because, as you explained at length to @smac97 , an argument can't make something more possible. Thus, in effect, you would be compelled to admit that to some extent these evidences are actually increasing the plausibility of the Book of Mormon's claims. And that is the very position that you have been stridently arguing against.

3 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

6 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Now, based on the limited information in this example, and assuming I was a fairly competent English teacher, would you say that the linguistic features in her paper constituted legitimate evidence of plagiarism? I'm not saying you would have to precisely agree with my assessment of likelihood. You can't do that anyway without looking at the paper. What I am asking is if it was reasonable for me to have seen that type of linguistic data as valid evidence of plagiarism, even though I couldn't be precisely sure of how unlikely it was that she wrote the paper using her own abilities? 

 No, I wouldn't. This of course might be because I have a fairly nuanced understanding of the term plagiarism. I think it would be safe to say that the student may have had help writing the paper, but this isn't plagiarism (I help all of my kids with their writing when they ask - it isn't plagiarism).

You're missing my point. It isn't about the strict definition of plagiarism. It is about whether it is likely that she wrote the paper using her own abilities, and whether or not the textual data provides evidence against that claim. Let's say I asked her how she wrote the paper, and she claimed that she did it all on her own, without any help from parents, mentors, the internet or any other source. And let's say I also ask her parents and they deny giving her any help whatsoever. With those additional details in place, would you see the textual data (unusually advanced syntax and diction) as evidence that she didn't create the text using her own abilities.

I'm not asking if it would constitute proof that she didn't write it. Nor am I asking for you to evaluate the precise value of such evidence. I'm just asking, categorically speaking, if you think it would constitute legitimate evidence (i.e., would it provide a valid reason for a teacher like me to believe that she most likely didn't write those words herself)? And, yes, I think your response will be quite relevant to the discussion. 

Edited October 13, 2022 by Ryan Dahle

[ksfisher]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Not if they were still convinced they hadn’t been conned. 

Joseph Smith must have been a prince among con men then to keep all 11 of them bamboozled for the rest of their lives.  Especially those who broke with Joseph over other issues.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, ksfisher said:

Joseph Smith must have been a prince among con men then to keep all 11 of them bamboozled for the rest of their lives.  Especially those who broke with Joseph over other issues.

Never underestimate the human capacity to be bamboozled. 

[teddyaware]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Never underestimate the human capacity to be bamboozled. 

What will you say when God ultimately proves that you were the one who was bamboozled, and that you failed to discern eternal truth when it was staring you in the face?

[jkwilliams]

Just now, teddyaware said:

What will you say when God ultimately proves that you were the one who was bamboozled, and that you failed to discern eternal truth when it was staring you in the face?

If that happens, I will just ask God why He made "eternal truth" look like a 19th-century hoax. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not intending it to.  Conclusory, evidence-free conjecture like "Joseph made it up" just doesn't do much for me.  

Well, no.  See here:

I don't think it is fallacious to request a something-more-than-wholly-speculative-and-conclusory-and-evidence-free counter-explanation for the origins of the Book of Mormon.

YMMV.

Thanks,

-Smac

Did you read Nevo’s posts? Jarman’s? Have you read Dan Vogel’s book https://www.amazon.com/Indian-Origins-Book-Mormon-Religious/dp/0941214427

Or listened to his Mormon stories? https://Mormon*******.***/podcast/book-of-mormon-dan-vogel/
 

Now comes the part where you say these things aren’t “coherent”. Just like counter examples in the no true Scotsman fallacy weren’t “true” Scotsmen. 

[ksfisher]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

Never underestimate the human capacity to be bamboozled. 

Don't you think it more likely that, rather than all 11 staying loyal to Joseph Smith, even those that broke with him over other issues, that all 11 really did see what they claimed to have seen?

How many of the 11 left the church?  (I don't have that at my fingertips at the moment).

Wouldn't you expect 1 of those, if nothing more than out of spite, to say that Joseph Smith was a bunco artist?  Never underestimate the human capacity to speak maliciously about those who they are angry with.

 

 

 

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Did you read Nevo’s posts? Jarman’s? Have you read Dan Vogel’s book https://www.amazon.com/Indian-Origins-Book-Mormon-Religious/dp/0941214427

Or listened to his Mormon stories? https://Mormon*******.***/podcast/book-of-mormon-dan-vogel/
 

Now comes the part where you say these things aren’t “coherent”. Just like counter examples in the no true Scotsman fallacy weren’t “true” Scotsmen. 

You're quite correct that there are a number of coherent, consistent theories that explain the origins of the Book of Mormon. It seems to be an article of faith (pardon the pun) that no one has offered an alternative that is a more compelling explanation than "an angel did it." Either way, the text itself offers ample evidence of its being a 19th-century American Protestant/Restorationist production. You really have to strain hard to make it otherwise. I'm reminded of something Eddie Argos said: "Every girl that I've seen since looks just like you when I squint." Apologists have to get you to do a lot squinting. 

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, ksfisher said:

Don't you think it more likely that, rather than all 11 staying loyal to Joseph Smith, even those that broke with him over other issues, that all 11 really did see what they claimed to have seen?

How many of the 11 left the church?  (I don't have that at my fingertips at the moment).

Wouldn't you expect 1 of those, if nothing more than out of spite, to say that Joseph Smith was a bunco artist?  Never underestimate the human capacity to speak maliciously about those who they are angry with.

Again, my view of the witnesses is pure speculation. It's what makes the most sense to me. Obviously, you disagree. But as I have said repeatedly, the witness testimony, even if true, is of very little probative value. The text of the Book of Mormon tells me everything I need to know about what it is and where it comes from. 

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Never underestimate the human capacity to be bamboozled. 

Right up there with the human capacity of enjoying being a victim (as in being able to blame someone else for their own mistakes, not being a victim of abuse, etc).

[jkwilliams]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Right up there with the human capacity of enjoying being a victim (as in being able to blame someone else for their own mistakes, not being a victim of abuse, etc).

Stop picking on me.