The Interpreter; Bayes Theorem; Nephites and Mayans

[_honorentheos]

The above plus the brief exchange between Billy and Brant over calendars make it all the more clear the major proponents for the paper simply do not comprehend the arguments being raised let alone why they matter.

[_Mormonicious]

Maybe I don't know a lot about your big city ways of apologetic'en, but isn't the first task, to establish that Mesoamerica is where the Book of Moronics actually took place?

Cuz like, IF Rusty the Tin Man Nelson doesn't agree, isn't this whole topic moot.

No Mayans in Upper State New York that I am aware of, so like the math becomes real easy, 0 + 0 x 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 still equals 0. Which is about as much "scientific" proof there is that the Book of Moronics is true.

[_toon]

Has anyone seen this http://www.ldsphilosopher.com/a-respons ... 7G5aj2lyp4

That's a brutal and compelling critique. Even more interesting considering that it comes from someone who also believe the Book of Mormon to be true.

Some interesting quotes:

But it turns out that doesn’t matter which of the three probability estimates they assigned this (or any) of their evidences. The authors themselves admit that even if they gave every piece of evidence the weakest likelihood ratio (and every piece of evidence against the text at the highest likelihood ratio), the conclusions would have come out in their favor (by trillions). So all this hand wringing about ensuring that some evidences are weighted more strongly than others based on their relative evidentiary value is pointless; they could all be weighted the same, and their conclusions would be the same. The conclusions in this analysis turn far more on the difference in the number of evidences for and against, than the relative strengths of those evidences. And there were simply more correspondences than contradictions included in the analysis.

Why? The authors explain that in order for something to be counted as evidence against the Book of Mormon, it has to be mentioned in both texts. So if, for example, Coe’s text discusses elements of religious practice that bears no resemblance to what we see in the Book of Mormon, the analysis is silent — because we cannot say that these elements didn’t exist in the Book of Mormon. Only direct, explicit contradictions are counted as evidence against. And my intuitions tell me that this is automatically going to stack the “in favor” pile higher than the “against” pile, especially if one text gets into far more detail about political, cultural, and social practices than the other.

. . .

In this way, we can start to see how a correspondence is easier to find than a contradiction. Contradictions between two stories are most likely to arise when one person knows the contents of the other story. Most storytellers naturally assert things that were the case, not things that were not. We would not expect Mormon or Moroni to explicitly contradict most elements of Coe’s analysis, even if it turns out that the Book of Mormon is true and Coe is a fraud. (I don’t think he is, just making a point.)

In short, all this Bayesian analysis measures is the relative likelihood of finding correspondences in two stories versus finding explicit contradictions. And it turns out to be far more likely to find correspondences than contradictions. My considered opinion is that this is about the only thing the study actually measured (successfully). And this is especially true as, on top of this, there was an additional double standard: contradictions had to be explicit in the text, but correspondences did not. They could take only “veiled” correspondences and include them in the analysis (consider the homosexuality example). So in addition to the natural propensity for correspondences between two texts to be easier to identify than direct contradictions, the authors artificially tilt the ratio even more.

. . .

But my point is that what we are actually measuring is how much easier it is to find correspondences between two descriptions / stories than it is to find explicit contradictions — not whether or not Joseph Smith was guessing.

. . .

Furthermore, this analysis doesn’t compare the Book of Mormon against Mesoamerica. It compares the Book of Mormon against what Coe believes about Mesoamerica. That’s a cool “gotcha” against Coe perhaps, but as a numerical analysis, it doesn’t reveal anything at all about Book of Mormon historicity per se. More to the point, it doesn’t even compare the Book of Mormon against what Coe believes about Mesoamerica; it compares only against what Coe decided to include in this book. After all, by the researchers’ own admission, Coe believes in more facts about Mesoamerica that contradict the Book of Mormon than he included in the text. Which just shows that “contradicting the Book of Mormon” wasn’t the purpose of his text. So we wouldn’t expect the text to be full of contradictions. And that is exactly what we measured

[_malkie]

As a 100% ignoramus in a discussion like this, I could not help but be unimpressed by the latest piece of evidence suggested as “a very strong fit” - time stamped June 5, 2019 at 5:52 pm. Bruce Dale's own explanation shows, to my understanding, a fairly weak fit, and an almost comical condition - so comical that I'm not sure if it is serious or a slip:

I know of no possible model or contemporary practice in Joseph Smith’s day that he could have reasonably drawn upon to describe King Benjamin’s gathering of his people.

Surely he doesn't mean to restrict JSJr's source material to contemporary practice?

Anyway, with almost no effort I found 4 clear mismatches between what Bruce quotes as "Coe’s standard", and what he quotes as "Book of Mormon standard".

If I'm totally out to lunch here, someone please tell me, and I'll refrain from embarrassing myself further.

My reply is awaiting moderation.

“I know of no possible model or contemporary practice in Joseph Smith’s day that he could have reasonably drawn upon to describe King Benjamin’s gathering of his people.”

For this item, are you considering only “contemporary practice[s] in Joseph Smith’s day” as possible sources for him to draw upon?

Be that as it may, I see a few points in the Coe/Book of Mormon comparison that some may consider to lead to less than “a very strong fit”.

For example – using only your post as a source of comparison (I don’t have Coe’s book):

1. Book of Mormon, but not Coe, refers to “speaking (chanting) in unison”
2. Coe, but not the Book of Mormon, refers to “renewal of the universe …”
3. Book of Mormon, but not Coe, refers to “receiv[ing] a new name as part of the renewal”
4. Book of Mormon, but not Coe, refers to “community-wide, covenant-making with God”

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

Malkie,

Camp meeting revivals were so common in New York and the surrounding areas the leading revivalist and theologian Charles Finney coined the term “burned over district” because no one was left to convert. It wasn’t uncommon to see several hundred people in attendance at a revival and every single person making a confession of Christ.

Typically, the gatherings consisted of itinerant, multi-denominational preachers who took turns preaching almost non-stop for the duration of the meeting which sometimes lasted up to a month or longer. Carving out a living on the frontier wasn’t an easy life and full time preachers employed by a single church were hard to come by. It was at these revivals pastors from various denominations would gather to call sinners to repentance. The meetings also gave farmers the opportunity to take a break for a bit of time while meeting with friends or family to hear the word of the Lord.

Large wooden platforms were built on over-sized tall poles so speakers could be seen and heard in the large crowds. Keep this visual in mind as we look at a passage in the Book of Mormon. According to retired LDS Professor Grant Palmer1, the Methodists who prepared a meeting near Palmyra in 1826, considered the rented grounds to be holy as they prayed for those who traveled from over 100 miles away to hear the preachers.

https://lifeafter.org/early-american-re ... of-mormon/

[_malkie]

Malkie,

Camp meeting revivals ...

https://lifeafter.org/early-american-re ... of-mormon/

Presumably unknown to the Dales, OR

not enough specific and unique matching points of comparison.

I was going to say "you choose", but the fact is that, in this paper, the Dales choose, so there!!

[Guest]

A response on SeN:

aussieguy55 > Zzyzx Zybisco • 2 days ago

I think the folks who came from the "trailer park" to engage the Dales on their own turf did a good job dealing with the stats and archaeology of the "engineering" experts. I showed Phil Jenkins some of the material and even a Baye[s] expert at Baylor thought it was silly.

I can only imagine Jenkins' response. Mopologists give Mormon academics a bad name.

[_kairos]

Bruce can’t help but do the very thing that Bayesian analysis is supposed to help him avoid: interpreting the evidence to make it fit the hypothesis he wants to be true...

I was reading over something about one of the correspondences when I was reminded (again!) of the truly inconsistent and biased argumentation he uses to make his hypothesis fit.

To explain why things Dr. Coe mentioned that are not in the Book of Mormon are NOT counted as "misses," the Dales argue this at the end of appendix B, in a section titled

A few ridiculous objections to the Book of Mormon and a rejoinder to Dr. Coe:

As for chocolate, turkeys, and jaguars, the Book of Mormon does not claim to be a text on elite foods, poultry, or exotic wild animals. The Book of Mormon, from beginning to end, is meant to testify of Christ and bring all humankind to him....

Knowledge of turkeys, jaguars, and consumption of chocolate among the ancient Mesoamericans is of no real worth.

Knowing about Jesus Christ, about eternal life, about the resurrection, and the mercy that has been made available to us through Christ are topics of supernal worth.

Okay, but why then count that type of knowledge as correspondences when it favors the Dale's hypothesis that the Book of Mormon is non-fictional?

As an example, the following items that are arguably NOT topics of supernal worth are all considered independent, and get the best likelihood ratio (0.02) in support of the Dales' hypothesis:

1. Drought,
2. snakes,
3. easy to get lost in thick wilderness,
4. forest regrowth,
5. volcano,
6. earthquakes,
7. powerful city,
8. many cities,
9. stones used to fight,
10. "darts" used to fight,
11. thick cloth armor,
12. wars destroy,
13. exchange of ideas and things (yes, THINGS),
14. Cultures decline,
15. extravagant architecture,
16. poetic parallelisms and repetition (yes, a 0.02 for coincidences found after the fact),
17. cement,
18. SKILL in cement,
19. worksmanship,
20. workmanship in carving
21. books, and
22. books stored
23. ornamental copper
24. fabrics
25. many people
26. calendars kept
27. multiple calendars kept
28. genealogy traced, AND
29. genealogy important, AND
30. genealogy recorded!!!

I stopped after going through about half the positive correspondences, it was just too obvious that the Dales argument about non-supernal topics is biased. I'd like to see the Dales argue in the comments that "exchanging things," "getting lost," and "coincidences" are supernal topics of eternal worth, otherwise they are using a ridiculous double standard here, and compounding it with an independence argument.

That's just 30 items from a partial run through, all with ratios of 0.02 or 1/50; that covers about 80 billion's worth of the odds the Dales are counting in favor of a historical Book of Mormon.

I cannot see how the Dales think an argument like this is legitimate analysis, nor can I see how peer review would have allowed it to stand without requiring further comment.

how many Christian related items eg crosses, inscriptions, pictures, have been found amongst the maya- do the dale's cite any christian influencing items or activities? not one is my guess.

than for your diligence on this topic!
k

[_Analytics]

How many Christian related items eg crosses, inscriptions, pictures, have been found amongst the maya- do the dale's cite any christian influencing items or activities? not one is my guess.

than for your diligence on this topic!
k

Guess again. According to their analysis, Mayan culture is just dripping with Christianity. They say the odds are 50:1 against Joseph Smith successfully guessing that they were Christians. In Dales' words:

3.2 Strong Christian elements in Maya religion
Coe’s standard: “Many Colonial-period Maya identified the risen Christ with the Maize God” (p. 71). “The raised wooden standard shall come! … Our lord comes, Itza! Our elder brother comes. … Receive your guests, the bearded men, the men of the east, the bearers of the sign of God, lord!” (p. 227). “There was … a great deal of … blending between Spanish and Maya religious institutions and beliefs, since in many respects they were so similar” (p. 289).

Book of Mormon correspondence: From the title page to the last chapter, the Book of Mormon is, as it claims to be, another witness that Jesus is the Christ.

Analysis of correspondence: In both books, the correspondence is specific, detailed and very unusual. Why would Joseph Smith have “guessed” that the ancient Mesoamericans had strong elements of Christianity in their religious practices? View of the Hebrews claims to find ancient Hebrew elements among American Indian tribes, but not Christian elements. So this is specific, detailed and unusual.
Likelihood = 0.02

[_Lemmie]

thanks for your diligence on this topic!
k

You're welcome, K!

Dale on the correspondence, 3.15, which kairos referred to above. This one is weighted at 0.02:

Bruce E. Dale on June 5, 2019 at 5:52 pm said:

My thanks to all those who are weighing in on the article. Here is another correspondence between Coe’s book and the Book of Mormon that I would like to offer for your consideration. Evaluating this one requires spending some time with Mosiah Chapters 1-6 in the Book of Mormon.

Ritual for the renewal of the community, including transfer of sacred objects.

Coe’s standard: “The entire religious drama is directed toward renewal of the universe and of the community, and ends with the transfer of the sacred objects of office to a new set of cargo-holders” (p. 295).

Book of Mormon standard: See Mosiah Chapters 1‒6.

Analysis of the correspondence: By reading these six chapters carefully we observe:
• King Benjamin’s gathering of his community to the temple for a “religious drama” including speaking (chanting) in unison,
• complete with community-wide, covenant-making with God,
• by which the community was renewed (and received a new name as part of the renewal)
• at the same time King Benjamin transferred his kingly office to his son Mosiah, the new cargo holder,
• along with multiple sacred objects.

Taken together, the ritual that unfolds in Mosiah chapters 1-6 is a very strong fit with Coe’s standard for a ritual renewing of the community. I know of no possible model or contemporary practice in Joseph Smith’s day that he could have reasonably drawn upon to describe King Benjamin’s gathering of his people.

Bruce

And Billy Shears' quite devastating reply, which starts by noting that the quote Bruce Dale uses to equate ancient Mesoamerican culture with Book of Mormon stories dated only up to 400 AD, is a description of religious traditions of a contemporary group:

Billy Shears
on June 6, 2019 at 9:44 am said:

A few thoughts on this:

The Maya

The quote from The Maya is from Chapter 10, “The Enduring Maya.” This chapter describes what the Maya is like today, nearly 500 years after the initial conquest began. It says, “the various Maya groups have clearly assimilated and altered many disparate foreign, and even threatening, elements to fit their own cultural patterns inherited from the pre-Conquest era.”

The specific quote is talking about the contemporary religious traditions of the Tsotsil Maya of Zinacantan. They associate the sun with “Our Holy Father” and with Jesus, and the moon with the Virgin Mary. They also worship their ancestors, the earth itself, and the Catholic saints. They have a complicated religious hierarchy consisting of 61 distinct positions on four levels occupied by about 250 “cargo holders.” Each position has a sacred religious object which is kept by the person holding the office during the one-year term that he holds it. They have an abiding concern with rank, and each office has a financial burden you have to pay while holding the office—as you rise in the hierarchy your burden increases, so that if you make it to the top you “can expect to retire a poor but highly honored individual.”

Every January they have large celebrations in honor of (the Catholic Saint) St. Sebastian, where they have dramatized ceremonies where they impersonate monkeys, jaguars, “blackmen”, and Spaniards. The rituals are directed towards renewal of the universe and the community, and end with the transfer of the sacred objects of office to the new office holders.

King Benjamin
King Benjamin was a king, and when he got old he had a singular tent revival with his people to announce that he was passing his throne to his son Mosiah, and gave him the plates of brass, plates of Nephi, sword of Laban, and Liahona. When the people gathered they brought the firstlings of their flocks to perform sacrifices according to the law of Moses. The people brought their tents, and King Benjamin erected a tower to speak from. A theme of the speech was that King Benjamin didn’t tax the people, but rather served them. The people entered into a covenant to obey God.

Analysis
The Tsotsil Maya of Zincantan have large annual religious gatherings. King Benjamin had a singular gathering. The Tsotsil’s ritual is about the renewal of the universe and the community. King Benjamin’s singular ritual was entering into a covenant to obey God. The Tsotsil’s ritual includes passing on sacred objects associated with each of the 250 positions in the 4 levels of the hierarchy of religious of shamans to the new holder of the objects for the next one-year term. Before the big formal meeting began, Benjamin passed on some sacred objects to his son, who was going to be king for life.


In short, there are religious gatherings and ceremonies in both the Book of Mormon and in contemporary Mayan life. In that sense, this does count as a something that the Mayans and the Book of Mormon have in common. However, the vast majority of the details between the two ceremonies are different, and there isn’t anything that the Mayas do that can best be explained as being somehow connected to the Book of Mormon. Likewise, none of the details of King Benjamin’s tent revival are uniquely Mayan.

The few points of similarity are general and superficial, and this doesn’t count as evidence in favor (or against) the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

Likelihood Ratio: 1.00.

Dale's advice to carefully read Mosiah needs to include a reminder to himself to carefully read Coe.