Roman Story & Book of Mormon Similarities

[_DonBradley]

Hey Roger,

I'm not sure where to point you for that seerstone refund, but you may want to try writing to 50 E North Temple, Salt Lake City.

You place a great deal of emphasis on Emma's testimony that Joseph expressed incredulity that Jerusalem had walls. It seems unlikely to you that he would put on a show like this. Why? The man is supposed to have led treasure digs for years--which most skeptics think was conscious deception on his part. And skeptics generally also think he "sold" polygamy to Emma using deception.

If one takes the view that Joseph's whole project was a deception--passing off a modern work as an ancient one, then why would it be so unbelievable for him to deceive his wife as well as the rest of the world? A display of supposed personal ignorance would only impress her more with his ability to dictate the book, overcoming her skepticism by demonstrating that he was too uneducated to produce the book on his own.

So, the incident might at least equally well evidence Smith authorship as Spalding-Rigdon authorship.

But, really, it would be a mistake to stake much on this incident at all.

The Book of Mormon provides us with over 500 pages of evidence for its origin--which ought to carry far more weight than anything Emma or anyone else says about the book.

Every literary work carries within it the traces of its own composition. We just have to learn to read them well enough.

Best,

Don

[_Roger]

Don:

I like your logic because it makes my grey matter more active than it would have been otherwise.... (not that it's terribly active either way, but...)

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.

Even though I agree with the logic in principle and even though I concede that it is typically "wise" to choose the simple explanation when both competing explanations explain the data equally well (and who, by the way, is ever going to agree on that in the first place?) there is still the possibility--even after all that--that the complex explanation is the right one.

To illustrate, consider a comedy video I recently saw my son watching on the Comedy channel. It started with someone chewing gum and then ran the tape backwards to see how the gum got into the person's mouth. A little ditty was playing in the background actually pondering where the gum came from and proposing that one might expect that the person unwrapped the gum and stuck it in her mouth (the simplest explanation), but that is not what running the tape backwards revealed. In fact she received the gum from her boyfriend during a french kiss, who had previously received it in a similar manner from his gay lover, who had picked it up from the trash can where a drunk had spit it out, etc. etc. Of course the comedy lies in the unexpected, but seeing it play out on video, no one could argue that the simple explanation was the correct explanation in this case, even though parsimony would have suggested it was.

We are interested in getting to the truth of the matter, regardless of which explanation is easier--or for that matter wiser--to defend.

I follow the argument but don't think it works. It isn't Joseph Smith's claim that determines what is usual or simplest. Single authorship would still be a simpler hypothesis, and one more representative of authorship in general, than would conspiratorial authorship. I fail to see how Smith's claim could affect the simplicity or complexity of these ideas or the fact that authors of the day tended to write monographs rather than group works.

The work itself claims not to be a monograph. LDS apologists use evidence within the text itself to argue that it is not a monograph. Therefore the "simplicity" of accepting the work as a monograph finds resistance not only from the text itself but also from the two opposing explanations (official version & S/R). In that case, it would seem the "burden of proof" does indeed lie with the idea that the work is a monograph when it claims not to be and when the opposing skeptical production theory concurs.

You place a great deal of emphasis on Emma's testimony that Joseph expressed incredulity that Jerusalem had walls. It seems unlikely to you that he would put on a show like this. Why? The man is supposed to have led treasure digs for years--which most skeptics think was conscious deception on his part. And skeptics generally also think he "sold" polygamy to Emma using deception.

I conceded that Joseph might have been putting on a show for Emma's sake. Indeed, given a Smith only point of view, I see no other explanation. If he was, it obviously worked. However, I simply think it is more reasonable that he expressed legitimate "surprise" at the concept of Jerusalem being a walled city and that his wife picked up on his genuine surprise, rather than being conned. It is Joseph's phraseology that tips the balance for me "Oh, I thought I was deceived." This fits very nicely with the idea of genuinely questioning... is this Spalding ms correct? Did Jerusalem really have walls? I sure don't want that going in my book if it's not correct. Let's check on it.

If one takes the view that Joseph's whole project was a deception--passing off a modern work as an ancient one, then why would it be so unbelievable for him to deceive his wife as well as the rest of the world? A display of supposed personal ignorance would only impress her more with his ability to dictate the book, overcoming her skepticism by demonstrating that he was too uneducated to produce the book on his own.

Yes, again, aside from ancient writing actually coming off of real plates, this is the only explanation I can see that works. But I don't think it works as well as the alternative. Deceiving his wife--one would think, would have probably been a difficult task. You bring up polygamy, but the truth is, she never really bought it. Wives tend to know their husbands pretty well. Why would Emma relate this story unless she were legitimately convinced that Joseph had no clue about the walls of Jerusalem? The only reason could be that she was in on the fraud. Parsimony would prefer that we not go there.

Is it possible? Sure. But, in my opinion, so much more reasonable to conclude that a Spalding ms actually mentioned Jerusalem's walls and Joseph not being sure if Spalding actually knew what he was talking about.

But, really, it would be a mistake to stake much on this incident at all.

Well I don't solely rely on it. There are a ton of other factors to consider. All I am saying is that an official story, accepted as support for the official explanation--ie. the idea that Joseph Smith was as surprised as everyone else at what was coming off the plates--actually and inadvertently harmonizes with the S/R framework.

The Book of Mormon provides us with over 500 pages of evidence for its origin--which ought to carry far more weight than anything Emma or anyone else says about the book.

I agree, but textual analysis is ultimately about as subjective as other analysis, in my opinion, precisely because the text itself gives indications of not being a monograph which harmonizes with it's claims about itself.

Every literary work carries within it the traces of its own composition. We just have to learn to read them well enough.

I suppose that's true. What's your overall opinion of the Jocker's study?

I'm not sure where to point you for that seerstone refund, but you may want to try writing to 50 E North Temple, Salt Lake City.

I did. They claim it was never intended to work when in the hands of the faithless.


All the best,

r

[_marg]

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.

Give me a break Don. So you are so intent on suggesting parsimony is relevant logically in this scenario I want you to cite a source. Cite a source that suggest Bayesian reasoning is tied to parsimony, cite a source which explain parsimony is logically relevant to this situation.

You are misunderstanding parsimony/ Occam's Razor as it applies to reasoning.

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.

You know what Dan cite a source and copy their explanation of what parsimony entails when it comes to reasoning with regards to theories.

Parsimony/occam's razor has value only when all the data has been considered and given all the data..2 or more competing theories explain equally well that data. That is NOT the situation in this case.

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.

Correct but first you have to have a situation in which all the data is being accounted for. The Smith only absent the divine, the Smith only with the Divine and the S/R theory, do not incorporate equally all the data. They are competing theories which do not explain equally well all the data. In the Smith only theory one has to dismiss Spalding witnesses, one has to dismisses even Book of Mormon witnesses. In the S/R theory one has to accept Spalding witnesses, one has to reject Book of Mormon witnesses and Smith claims to divine assistance..so these are not theories which are equally comparable and equally account for all the data.

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

Parsimony is not even relevant in this case. Rarely by the way is parsimony a good tool to use in evaluating theories. It generally is employed as reasoning when the supernatural is used in a theory, because it is preferable logically to go with a simpler less extraordinary explanation which involves only naturalistic means. So in argumention individuals may argue and suggest Occam's Razor is useful in that it logically does away with employing the supernatural.

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.

Yes, in argumentation and debate often times one side starts off by what is termed "enjoying the presumption and the other side has the burden to over that presumption. It's not always obvious which side should have presumption.

(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.

Logically Don, in many situations one side is presumed to be the obvious case, and if that is so, it then generally is not a big deal for the other side to counter that the case is not so obvious. So in this example in which I suggest that you might have meant to argue that presumption is that most authors are single author of books and there is little reason to assume otherwise, it is not difficult for me to counter that this situation regarding the Book of Mormon is not applicable to most other situations.

It's only a starting point, and the sole author is the starting point you apparently wished to argue from, but I've countered that I disagree that is the starting point given this particular situation. I'm not accepting that you enjoy presumption. I've argued that the facts in this case are not typical of most other books and their claims to authorship. This is a unique situation is which the presumption is not a sole author. The church doesn't present the Book of Mormon as sole author, Smith doesn't even present himself as being the author, and evidence indicates Smith did not write solely on his own. Only the Smith alone theorists believe Smith wrote entirely from his own fabrication, and there is no legitimate reason they should enjoy presumption of that.

I only suggested that was likely more what you were thinking because to argue parsimony as legitimate reasoning in this case is just wrong.

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 only suggested that presumptionmight be what you were thinking. The notion of presumption is a concept employed in argumention. It appears to be what you were arguing, that we should presume a one author for the Book of Mormon unless it can be shown otherwise. Since no one has claimed one author, not even Smith..then why that presumption? Most other books have authors who claim they were the sole author so sure, in those cases it is presumed they are.

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.

I was talking about concepts employed typically in argumentation. Generally, not always, it is obvious who enjoys presumption, if it's not obvious then it can be agreed upon. And generally there is a greater burden on the side arguing against presumption. They have to overturn what is presumed to be the case.

Under that argument, given that Joseph Smith never claimed to be the author by himself this is not the default hypothesis and the "burden of proof" lies on the idea that he was the sole author.

The only people claiming Smith is the sole author are the sole author theorists and by what reason should their position be assumed to be the case, when not even Smith claims to be the sole author. You suggest 'well most novels have a sole author" well so what. Most novel don't make any of the claims that Smith and co do, and most claim to be the author as you point out Smith doesn't even claim that.

I can present an argument/reasoning that presumption should rest with a group writing the Book of Mormon since that is what Smith and his group have presented as well and it appears morely likely to be the case that Smith didn't write on his own given his background...at the time.

I follow the argument but don't think it works.

Staring out and determining how has presumption is not making an argument, it's only a starting point. I do think many people erroneously assume that if the S/R theory is not conclusively proven then the Smith only theory wins out because that is the presumption unless proven otherwise. And quite simply that is erroneous thinking...there is no legitimate reason to assume Smith only enjoys presumption until and unless other theories overturn it. Smith only theory has not been established...and should not be presumed to be the case automatically based upon how other novels are written.

It isn't Joseph Smith's claim that determines what is usual or simplest. Single authorship would still be a simpler hypothesis, and one more representative of authorship in general, than would conspiratorial authorship.

There you go again. Parsimony is not relevant in this situation. You really do not understand Occam Razor and when it legimately is a useful logical tool to employ.

I fail to see how Smith's claim could affect the simplicity or complexity of these ideas or the fact that authors of the day tended to write monographs rather than group works.

In so many respects how the Book of Mormon is claimed to have been written is different than most novels, that to compare how they are written is irrelevant.

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

Parsimony is not relevant in logically determining likely writer/writers of Book of Mormon. What is relevant is a hypothesis which best accounts for all the data, not just what acconts for the text within the Book of Mormon if that is what you are suggesting.

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?

I see, so that is what you are suggesting.. a focus on the texts. Yes texts is part of the evidence. But in this particular situation we have evidence of accusation of plagiarism before any access to Spalding's work was even available for examination. The actual manuscript alleged to have been plagiarized from has never surfaced, only another one which is of a similar theme but taken back in time. Finding strong evidence of paralles which support a theory that Spalding plagiarized froma common text in which the Book of Mormon appears to have plagiarized from further supports and adds credibility to the early Spalding witnesses who intitially claimed plagiarism when no such text was available for evaluation.

As far as word print studies, that's over my head for example with regards to Jockers paper. I think it's possible that likely authors can be determined, I'm uncertain how borrowing from common texts are factored into the conclusion.

If my points about the value and nature of parsimony are not understood or agreed with, that's fine. I don't want to continue to butt heads over it. But I would like to hear what specific tests you would propose for assessing these alternative hypotheses.

[/quote]

I'm very impressed with what Tom Donofrio's article and the evidence he provides which can be objectively evaluated. I'm less familiar with Dale's work. Much of my readings have been from years ago, so I'm sticking with Tom's as I think his does a thorough job and is sufficent to show without a doubt that Spalding and the Book of Mormon writer borrowed from same authors. When you add that to the context that well before this evidence was even available that Spalding witnesses accused Smith and Co of plagiarizing..it adds credibility to their statements. And in my opinion there is without question evidence that the Book of Mormon was plagiarized from Spalding who himself plagiarized from other works.

[_moksha]

Has anyone mentioned the Roman-like apparel in the Church Visitor's Center murals?

[Guest]

[Heavily edited so I can be clear and stop blaming Marg for my not wishing to continue our discussion:]

Marg,

If you were to reread my earlier posts carefully you would find that I've already acknowledged the conditions under which parsimony would not be a decisive or even significant factor, and I've suggested that those are likely the conditions that obtain with respect to Book of Mormon authorship.

From my understanding of the points I've attempted to make--and I ought to understand them--most of your arguments address something else entirely.

One area of genuine and continuing disagreement is whether over parsimony "applies" to the Book of Mormon authorship issue. Parsimony always "applies."

To say that parsimony does not apply as a criterion for a good explanation would mean we could multiply explanatory entities needlessly---e.g., that a theory with as much explanatory power as Spalding-Rigdon but much more complex--even infinitely more complex--would be no less preferrable.

However, as I've acknowledged all along, parsimony is not necessarily an important factor in deciding this particular issue, even though it (necessarily) applies here, as it does with every attempt to explain phenomenon.

You've insisted that it doesn't apply at all, but this assumes 1) that it makes sense to say that parsimony does not apply--which is simply wrong, as explained above and 2) that the explanatory power of the Spalding-Rigdon hypothesis is so much greater than that of the Smith-alone hypothesis that parsimony would not be a significant factor in weighing the alternatives. Yet your insistence on this is merely that. This hasn't been shown to my satisfaction and isn't my perception. So it would be pointless to insist that I should share your view that parsimony is an insignificant factor. Logically, I shouldn't share this view because I don't share the premises by which you reach this conclusion.

As mentioned in the earlier draft of this post, I plan to skip your further posts. Perhaps if I get to a place where I feel I can read them and only engage them constructively or not at all, then I'll begin reading them again.

In either case, please accept my sincere apology and well wishes.

Don

[_DonBradley]

Hey Roger,

I'm not ignoring your post and will get to it as I'm able.

Cheers,

Don

[_marg]

Marg,

To say that parsimony does not apply as a criterion for a good explanation would mean we could multiply explanatory entities needlessly---e.g., that a theory with as much explanatory power as Spalding-Rigdon but much more complex--even infinitely more complex--would be no less preferrable.

Don obviously still don't get it. If we look at the S/R theory alone and we assess all the data that goes into it, and they all lead to one conclusion that Rigdon & Smith were involved..then it is not necessasrily necessary to include all the data for that one theory/conclusion. One might argue that we can eliminate some of the data, that let's say data A & B & C pretty much leads to Smith & Rigdon conclusion and we don't need to use data D to Z. This situation is particularly useful in theories for observed phenomenon in science. No need to add superfluous data when a more limited amount of data does the job of leading to the same conclusion.

The situation with the competing theories in "Who wrote the Book of Mormon"..is that they do not assess the data equally. The data leads to entirely different conclusions.

Look at it this way...if one wants to get to point B from point A and that's our only goal..there are a number of routes one could take. So why take the longer routes which are numerous when the shortest direct route gets us there.

I have to go out..so I'll leave it at this for now.

[_DonBradley]

I reread Marg's earlier post and don't think her tone is so bad. I saw my actual points not engaged and had trouble believing that someone as intelligent as Marg could not have understood without too much effort. But my frustration with her posts really has much more to do with me than with her--and I apologize for suggesting otherwise.

I do stand by my decision to not read her further posts (and have not read her latest), but with no animus or suggestion that this is her fault. It's just that based on experience, and not just of today, I don't see our exchanges being productive. Yet I know if I read her posts I often won't be able to resist responding. So, as I said, the issue is very much mine, and not hers.

My apologies again, Marg, and best wishes in your further discussion. Take it easy on the apologists.

Don

[_marg]

Marg,

If you were going to keep responding to what I was saying, you could have had the courtesy to try to understand it.

Actually Don it's vice versa you are ignoring my explanations.

That you haven't done so is clear enough to me that I would have neither the obligation to respond to your careless misunderstandings nor the desire to.

Right Don, have you considered that maybe you don't understand the concept of Occam's Razor and that you really simply keep ignoring my explanation?

To say that parsimony does not apply as a criterion for a good explanation would mean we could multiply explanatory entities needlessly---e.g., that a theory with as much explanatory power as Spalding-Rigdon but much more complex--even infinitely more complex--would be no less preferrable.

I explained the circumstance when parsimony may be a useful reasoning tool. I'll tell you quite simply what you are doing wrong. Let's say we have 500 bits of data to consider which is relevant to a question...you are assuming that the answer to choose from among 2 or more potential answers is the one which uses the fewist bits of relevant data. And that's not how it works. What should happen if Occam's Razor should be useful is that the 500 data pieces all point to one answer,one theory, one conclusion. In that case we could shave off superfluous data ane it still have the same explanatory power. Why make the explanation to reach the conclusion more cumbersome than it needs to be?

So if the question is "Who wrote the Book of Mormon" and we have 500 pieces of data which all point to "J. Smith alone"..then we could shave off some of that data which isn't necessary to reach that conclusion.

But we don't have that situation here Don..we have 500 pieces but they don't all point to "Smith alone" as the end point/conclusion/destination. Instead we have 2 main naturalistic theories.."Smith alone" and "Smith & Rigdon (with possibly others)". It would be illogical to assume as a criteria in determining who wrote the Book of Mormon that the fewest pieces of data will lead to the most reliable conclusion.

So the situation in Occam's Razor is that we have one conclusion, one phenomenon, one end point, one goal, one theory..not two or more. We don't know the end point for Who wrote the Book of Mormon or it doesn't have consensus agreement, we only know all the bits of data. We are trying to figure out the end point. We are trying to figure out using all the data what is the best answer which the data warrants. Once we have determined the best answer given the data, or once we have an accepted conclusion/answer then we can shave off unneccessary data that makes the explanation more complicated than it needs to be.

The problem is that Smith alone and S/R theory are competing theories. They do not account for the data equally. One can not shave at whim some of the data simply because they prefer one theory over another.

Up to now, I've been more than charitable in tone and content in my posting to you, and would have hoped for reciprocity. That I haven't received it, or any genuine attempt to understand what you're supposedly refuting, rather than just a hair trigger response from you, tells me you're someone whose posts I would rather not read or otherwise engage.

Don I've been disappointed in your responses. You have ignored my explanations, not considered them or addressed. It's no skin off my nose what you do. However I will not allow you to use Occam Razor as reasoning one can use to support the Smith only theory as opposed to the S/R theory. Occams' Razor/parsimony is simply irrelevant in this case. And it's also irrelvant when it comes to the one author idea of yours because this situation with how the Book of Mormon was written is not typical/nor comparable to books generally written by one author in which there is no suspicion otherwise.

So, I'm exercising my privilege to filter out your posts. I won't see your response or other future posts. And I will not count that a loss.

Don

Well you can rest assured if I ever see you promoting Occam's Razor on this board to be used in the Smith alone theory, I'll have something to say about it. Do what you want.

[_DonBradley]

Please note that I have edited my earlier, unnecessarily snarky post above and will now be ending meta-discussion on this issue.

Don