Roman Story & Book of Mormon Similarities

[_marg]

It's certainly possible for many persons to have been involved in the composition of the Book of Mormon. But it would be more parsimonious to posit fewer authors than more authors. Indeed, given that the usual number of authors to a book of the day was one, and given that a single-author explanation is simpler than the alteratives, parsimony would tend to weigh on the side of single-authorship.

What kind of a ridiculous argument is that Don?

What one is interested in is the truth of what happened not what explanation is simpliest. Now if you are thinking of parsimony as in Occam's Razor..that applies when all the data input is considered and the resultant theories one comes up with to explain the data all give an equally legitimate useable explanation that explain all the data. In that case the simpliest is the one to employ, because why add extra unnecessary assumptions if they don't help to add anything of value to the explanation.

But in this case Don, if we look at all the data/input..the Smith alone and the S/R theory are not 2 theories which explain equally all the data. They are competing theories and to accept one versus the other means dismissing evidence and/or favoring evidence in one and not the other.

The goal here is truth, not what makes for the easiest explanation.

[Guest]

Don wrote:
It's certainly possible for many persons to have been involved in the composition of the Book of Mormon. But it would be more parsimonious to posit fewer authors than more authors. Indeed, given that the usual number of authors to a book of the day was one, and given that a single-author explanation is simpler than the alteratives, parsimony would tend to weigh on the side of single-authorship.


What kind of a ridiculous argument is that Don?

No kind at all, Marg. Far from being absurd, what I said approaches axiomatic.

Simplicity of explanation is a virtue and is one of the criteria by which we judge competing hypotheses. To the extent that one explanation is simpler than another the criterion of parsimony tends to favor that explanation. Stating that a given criterion "tends to favor" a given hypothesis is a pretty moderate assessment, and is all I said above.

I didn't begin to claim that parsimony was the only criterion. I'm merely pointing out that parsimony is rightly one of the criteria and will tend to favor a single-author hypothesis. Of course, in order for that hypothesis to stand, it has to be consistent with the other evidence and actually account for the text in question--which is why I proposed specific tests to help us move toward confirming or disconfirming the competing hypotheses.

I'd love to have your input on this issue--what you think would be meaningful tests for Spalding/Rigdon authorship or Joseph Smith authorship.

Don

[_DonBradley]

Don:

Interesting thoughts, Roger.

It's certainly possible for many persons to have been involved in the composition of the Book of Mormon. But it would be more parsimonious to posit fewer authors than more authors. Indeed, given that the usual number of authors to a book of the day was one, and given that a single-author explanation is simpler than the alteratives, parsimony would tend to weigh on the side of single-authorship.

Less is not always better. In the case of the Book of Mormon I think it's naïve.

Hi Roger,

It doesn't seem to me my point here has been understood. Where did I say a simpler hypothesis is always better? What I said is, essentially, that the criterion of simplicity will tend to favor a simpler hypothesis. This strikes me as about as uncontroversial and mild an attribution of evidentiary force as one could give.

Certainly you are correct that a generic one-author concept is easier to defend than conspiracy, but that one author can only be Joseph Smith and I find it more reasonable to associate the complexity of the Book of Mormon to more than one person rather than one uneducated author.

Well...the issue is only whether it's "easier to defend" if we're on the debate team rather than actually inquiring into the reality of the situation. But I get your point. Parsimony can help us choose between competing adequate explanations, but it cannot make an inadequate explanation adequate. I would not disagree.

I was merely pointing out that parsimony has to be one of the criteria we use in judging hypotheses, and that we need to be systematic in our analysis. My statement about the relative parsimony of single-authorship was merely an aside to point out what parsimony alone would favor, in isolation from other factors. When we develop complex and particularly conspiratorial explanations, it's helpful to keep in mind that there may be much simpler explanations, if only to keep us from getting unnecessarily complex in our theorizing.

If S/R better explains the Book of Mormon, why reject it?

If the two hypotheses explained the text equally well, we should take the simpler of the two--here parsimony would be the deciding factor. But if the more complex theory has greater explanatory power, then we would need to balance these factors against one another--which could get tricky. If the one theory were much more complex but only slightly better as an explanation, then we should probably still accept the simpler theory. But if the more complex theory offers a much better explanation, we would want to accept the more complex theory.

Because the Mormons claim you can't trust the witnesses? That logic just doesn't hold water when looking at what actually happened.

I wouldn't attempt to decide the issue based on either what the "pro" witnesses say or what the "con" witnesses say. The best evidence for the origin of the Book of Mormon isn't what anyone say about it: it's the text itself--hence the value of comparative studies like the potential analyses we're discussing.

Don:
Dividing the text in an ad hoc way for analysis will not produce systematic results.

We need a carefully refined methodology to do meaningful tests.

I don't think you disagree with this. I'm just pointing out how precise I think we need to be.

You're right... I don't disagree.
[/quote]

Thank goodness! My peepstone is still leading me aright!

;-)

Cheers,

Don

[_Roger]

Don:

Hi Roger,

It doesn't seem to me my point here has been understood. Where did I say a simpler hypothesis is always better? What I said is, essentially, that the criterion of simplicity will tend to favor a simpler hypothesis. This strikes me as about as uncontroversial and mild an attribution of evidentiary force as one could give.

Probably such a "given" that I did not get your point. My fault, not yours.

Well...the issue is only whether it's "easier to defend" if we're on the debate team rather than actually inquiring into the reality of the situation.

I tend to prefer wasting my time on reality over debate... although I have to confess, I do both.

But I get your point. Parsimony can help us choose between competing adequate explanations, but it cannot make an inadequate explanation adequate. I would not disagree.

I was merely pointing out that parsimony has to be one of the criteria we use in judging hypotheses, and that we need to be systematic in our analysis.

When the analysis reaches a certain level, it tends to go over my head. I tend to rely on simple common sense. Luckily, since we are discussing Book of Mormon origins and not rocket science I can generally fake my way through it.

As you say, however, I get your point. I agree, all things being equal go with simplicity. I just don't think things are equal in this case.

My statement about the relative parsimony of single-authorship was merely an aside to point out what parsimony alone would favor, in isolation from other factors. When we develop complex and particularly conspiratorial explanations, it's helpful to keep in mind that there may be much simpler explanations, if only to keep us from getting unnecessarily complex in our theorizing.

Yes, I agree.

If the two hypotheses explained the text equally well, we should take the simpler of the two--here parsimony would be the deciding factor.

Yes, and it would probably be the right answer... but there's still a chance the complex answer might be right after all.

But if the more complex theory has greater explanatory power, then we would need to balance these factors against one another--which could get tricky.

And that, I believe, is exactly where we find ourselves when it comes to S/R vs Smith-alone.

If the one theory were much more complex but only slightly better as an explanation, then we should probably still accept the simpler theory. But if the more complex theory offers a much better explanation, we would want to accept the more complex theory.

Which is a subjective call, but, again, in this case, I think S/R offers a much better explanation.

I wouldn't attempt to decide the issue based on either what the "pro" witnesses say or what the "con" witnesses say. The best evidence for the origin of the Book of Mormon isn't what anyone say about it: it's the text itself--hence the value of comparative studies like the potential analyses we're discussing.

I try to factor in all considerations... text, witnesses, dates, evidence, lack of evidence.

In terms of the text, the complexity of the narrative leads me to prefer S/R over Smith alone. The signs of plagiarism in the text tends to work in favor of S/R vs Smith alone. The claim of multiple abridgments fits better within an S/R framework than Smith alone. The Spalding parallels work in favor of S/R. The Book of Mormon place names fit nicely with S/R. And it would seem that the Jockers study supports S/R at some level.

In terms of testimony, that Lucy Mack mentions her son reciting tales in the evenings, prior to retrieving the plates, of Nephites with such detail as though he had lived his life among them, is, to me, an indication that Smith is getting his information from a written source document. Additional testimony--that one might not expect--makes better sense when interpreted within an S/R framework than Smith alone... for example, the testimony of Emma who states that Joseph was surprised to learn about Jerusalem being a walled city.

If we are ruling out the official version then what are we left with? How are we to interpret Emma's testimony? Was she lying? Or was Joseph pulling an elaborate stunt to fool his wife into thinking he was actually as surprised as anyone by what was coming off the plates?

Under a (skeptical) Smith alone framework, the ony answer I can see is that Joseph must have been pulling an elaborate hoax on Emma. Possible, I suppose, but then the more reasonable answer--in my opinion--is given when looking at the same episode from an S/R perspective.... Joseph actually has a manuscript from which he is getting information and he is indeed surprised to learn that Jerusalem has walls. He wants Emma to verify it, because as he puts it "I thought I was deceived" and he didn't want something going into the final version that critics would recognize as incorrect. (Nevermind that Jesus was born at Bethlehem and Nephites did not speak French).

Thank goodness! My peepstone is still leading me aright!

I think I need a refund. Mine has never worked.

What is your overall assessment of the Jocker's study?

All the best,

R

[_marg]

No kind at all, Marg. Far from being absurd, what I said approaches axiomatic.

What are you doing? Making stuff up? Look a one person theory would be the usual assumption. Most authors want to claim a work is theirs, so why would they lie and add others. But in this case, Smith isn't claiming he's the author, in addition there's all sorts of strange stuff happening which is not typically of the scenarios by most authors. Most authors don't claims a god involve, most don't have scribes who claim various methodology not consistent with one another, most are much more open about how they wrote their book. So you can not compare this situation to most other authors of novels. This is a unique situation and it has the markings of a concerted conspiracy by more than one person involved.

So please don't suggest for a moment that parsimony..of one author applies in this case.

Simplicity of explanation is a virtue and is one of the criteria by which we judge competing hypotheses. To the extent that one explanation is simpler than another the criterion of parsimony tends to favor that explanation.

No Don, only under the circumstances I pointed out to you in my previous post is parsimony of any value. It is absolutely ridiculous to assume for instance that if a bank robbery was commited by a small group that because identifying one man is simpler that's the best fit theory. Give me a break. The best fit theory must incorporate all the data, only when all the data is incorporated and the theories all equally explain that data, only then is the simplist one the better one to use. That is not the case in this situation, and I explained that to you in my previous post.

Stating that a given criterion "tends to favor" a given hypothesis is a pretty moderate assessment, and is all I said above.

What is important here, correct reasoning to determine best fit theory or whatever is easiest.? And by what criteria have you determined that your assessment of parsimony is moderate in this case? what exactly does moderate have to do with best fit theory?

I didn't begin to claim that parsimony was the only criterion.

It's not even relevant in this case, never mind "only criterion".

I'm merely pointing out that parsimony is rightly one of the criteria and will tend to favor a single-author hypothesis.

No Don, parsimony is not relevant in this situation. You do not have equal explanation for all the data. The only criteria that is right is the best fit theory for all the data.

Of course, in order for that hypothesis to stand, it has to be consistent with the other evidence and actually account for the text in question--which is why I proposed specific tests to help us move toward confirming or disconfirming the competing hypotheses.

I'd love to have your input on this issue--what you think would be meaningful tests for Spalding/Rigdon authorship or Joseph Smith authorship.

Don

It's a matter of looking at the data. If there are parallels how significant do they appear, what conclusion do they lead to, if word print studies are done, what conclusion do they lead to, how reliable are the various witnesses, how reliable are the claimants, J. Smith. What sort of claims are being made, does the evidence commensurate with the claimant's claim? And it continues...there is a host of questions along with evidence to consider.

But please don't ever suggest parsimony a.k.a. Occam's Razor is relevant in this case, it is most definitely not.

[_Brackite]

All that is well and good and I say let the people who do this stuff do their stuff, but I am more interested in finding evidence that puts Smith and Rigdon together before Nov. 1830. The 1816 letter-waiting notice was a major boost to the S/R theory--showing that Rigdon's word is not trustworthy andf that he was indeed in Pittsburgh during the time he specifically denied it. Hopefully more evidence like that will be forthcoming.

How come you are hoping that more evidence will be forthcoming?

I am now open to the possibility that Solomon Spaulding wrote more than one manuscript, However, I am Not really that open to the possibility that Sidney Rigdon had anything to do with writing the Book of Mormon. Sidney Rigdon denied it on his deathbed. Anyway, I think that I am about done with this Thread. I am a lot more interested now in Near-Death Experiences, than I am in Solomon Spaulding and in his one or more manuscripts. Bye!

[_Roger]

Brackite:

I meant to answer one of your previous posts, but did not have the time. I wil try to when I get back from vacation.

How come you are hoping that more evidence will be forthcoming?

Only because I have come to believe that the S/R theory is true and like the TBM who wishes an ancient New World inscription with King Benjamin's name on it would come to light, I hope solid evidence that puts Smith and Rigdon together before Dec. 1830 will be forthcoming. Of course if S/R is not true then there will never be any such evidence.

I am now open to the possibility that Solomon Spaulding wrote more than one manuscript, However, I am Not really that open to the possibility that Sidney Rigdon had anything to do with writing the Book of Mormon. Sidney Rigdon denied it on his deathbed.

Sure, but there are plenty of reasons not to believe Rigdon. You are aware that one of his family members said that he did have something to do with the Book of Mormon? I'm sure you are aware that he continued to give revelations long after Joseph's death... due to their content I'm guessing you probably don't accept them as coming from God? If he's lying about that, then why would you believe him when he denies having anything to do with the Book of Mormon?

Rigdon denied being in Pittsburgh until 1822. The recently discovered 1816 mail-waiting notice proves him a liar. He had his wife burn all his papers after he died. Why should I believe his denials?

Anyway, I think that I am about done with this Thread. I am a lot more interested now in Near-Death Experiences, than I am in Solomon Spaulding and in his one or more manuscripts. Bye!

I can understand that. You might regain interest if solid evidence putting Smith and Rigdon together prior to Dec. 1830 were to come to light. That's another reason I hope for it!

All the best,

r

[_gramps]

Brackite wrote:

Sidney Rigdon denied it on his deathbed.

Read Emma's last testimony (Not on her bed, though.) Full of lies.

I'm willing to bet people lie all the time on their deathbeds.

[_marg]

Don,

I think rather than "parsimony" a.k.a. Occam's Razor what you might argue is that the presumption is that most books are written by the author who claims to have written them. And I think that's what you were trying to get at...that the burden of proof is on those who argue against any author's claim, because presumption rests with the "sole author" as claimed by an author.

The counter to that in this case though is to point out how this is not a similar situation comparable to how most books are written. i.e. multple people are involved as scribes, claims are extraordinary, Smith not known as interested in writing previously, Smith not observed to be the writer and doesn't even claim to be, information of how he wrote comes from a biased and limited source..the limited # of witnesses he chose etc.

So the presumption assumed of one author as is typical in most cases, would no longer be applicable in this situation. And while most authors have little reason to lie about being an author, Smith and Co certainly did.

So when one considers the evidence, the presumption of how the Book of Mormon was written actually shifts to being multiple authors, because it is agreed that Smith was not noted for being alone and working on any novel on his own, in fact Smith & Co themselves acknowledge others involved during the process of the books construction.

Given all the facts, it does appear, that it is highly unlikely given his background that he did write it on his own, even the church acknowledges this and use that as reason for why a divine must have been involved.

So I would argued that in this particular case, ...the presumption is that Smith did not write it on his own and the burden to prove that he did ...rests with those arguuing for the Smith alone theory.

[Guest]

Hi Marg,

I don't think I was entirely successful in my attempt to clarify my earlier post.

My assessment of that parsimony would favor the simpler hypothesis was a moderate one because "parsimony" just means economy or simplicity of explanation.

A statement like this follows from the very meaning of the term:
"To the extent that one explanation is simpler than another the criterion of parsimony tends to favor that explanation."

I don't know if you're very familiar with Bayesian reasoning, but the idea of a given piece of evidence "tending" to favor a hypothesis is fundamental in that sort of reasoning, and it is in the Bayesian sense that I'm use the idea.

I differ with you on another point as well: Parsimony is not a criterion of good explanation only in some cases. Parsimony is always a criterion of good explanation: an explanation may need to be complex to account for the data, but it should not be more complex than that. And if we had to choose between two explanations that account for the data equally well, we would wisely choose the more parsimonious of the two.

However, parsimony isn't always a deciding factor, or even one of the more important ones--as it may not be in this case.

I appreciate that you thought about my parsimony argument and tried to re-understand it in terms the common presumption of single authorship. This was, in fact, part of what I was getting at.

(As an aside, you framed the issue in terms of "burden of proof," which I have to say I'm not a big fan of. One hears the term frequently from debaters and attorneys, but rarely in scientific discourse and similar modes of inquiry. The term's implicit analogy to the courtroom is misleading, rather than helpful if we are trying to find truth, rather than defend a previously staked out position. If we do use such language, I think it would be better to describe the "burden of proof" being placed on competing ideas, rather than persons, so it's clear that we're inquiring into truth rather than staging a debate.)

I'll take it that you meant the burden of proof rests on the idea of single authorship, rather than merely on its proponents and read your argument in that light.

Your argument for shifting the presumption of authorship from single to multiple is interesting. I don't think Smith's use of scribes would do much to shift that presumption--the scribal role is quite distinct from that of author. But the argument that he had not previously shown himself a writer is better.

Vitiating the force of this argument, however, we have Smith producing later texts, such as the D&C revelations even after Rigdon's influence wanes, and we have the Book of Mormon being a very homely, oral-style, ungrammatical work--just the sort that would reflect the writing style of someone without much experience writing (or much education, for that matter). If the book were produced by multiple authors, we'd probably expect them all to be of limited education like Smith, not trained at Dartmouth and the like.

...

In any case, the more significant question is probably not that of which hypothesis is simplest or most typical but of which is most adequate--which best accounts for the text as we have it.

To determine that, we need to examine the nitty gritty of the text. What would you propose as specific tests of the Smith-alone and Spalding-Rigdon hypotheses?

If my points about the value and nature of parsimony are not agreed with, that's fine. So far as I can see they follow from the very definition and concept of parsimony. But I don't want to continue to butt heads over this. However, I would like to hear what specific tests you would propose for assessing these alternative hypotheses.

Don