I appreciate this effort. It was not exactly what I was envisioning, but I very much appreciate the effort.
I say this because:
One critic said that he could plainly see the influence of LW on the Book of Mormon upon a close reading of the texts; he wished he had the skill to devise an appropriate statistical formula to calculate a probability that would express what he thought he saw. This short paper attempts to give this critic as well as believers a formula to do the job.
So, according to his analysis, which has as one of its foundational premises or conditions the assumption that the Late War "was deliberately and physically used by Joseph Smith in his composition of the Book of Mormon," the end result is that there was a 60% chance of that being the case.
Fair enough. I was leaning in the direction of conscious borrowing, and 60% would justify at least leaning in that direction.
The problem with this piece, however, is its framing.
Granted, it is impossible to address every reader in a single article. Naturally, some smudging will occur in the attempt to hit all the right notes in a relatively succinct piece.
That said, I object to the clumsy representation of the position of those who think that there is a high probability that the
Late War influenced the composition of the Book of Mormon. As I read this thread, I see a variety of approaches. You have some people who are critics of Mormonism and who think this influence was probably not conscious at all! So, does it help to open the article with this paragraph?
The recent claim of influence of LW on the Book of Mormon, however, was deliberately intended to be troubling to believers because the paper presenting the claim was provocatively entitled ‘How the Book of Mormon Destroyed Mormonism.’ Almost immediately after presentation of the paper, posters on several comment boards joined in, describing the claim as the ‘Smoking Gun’ or the ‘Silver Bullet’ that would bring down Mormonism.
This is, in my view, quite a misrepresentation by overgeneralization. Yes, it is true that Chris Johnson enthusiastically believes that his discoveries regarding the Book of Mormon will destroy people's assumptions about Mormon claims, and that he has rather clumsily expressed this as "destroying Mormonism." Smart guy, but more than a little naïvely optimistic regarding the power of his findings.
I used the phrase "smoking gun," and very quickly in the thread I qualified what I meant. What does smoking gun mean? It means you see very clear evidence for something, so clear that the likelihood of the opposite being the case is meager. And in this case I stand by that. The
Late War was an influence on the Book of Mormon. I don't see that the likelihood of such influence decreasing in my mind as a result of this Bayesian analysis.
I and others on this thread have allowed for a number of different options in characterizing this influence. Schaalje has calculated the posterior possibility of a "deliberate and physical" use of the Late War. With that very specific condition, he reaches odds that are better than half. What then are the odds that Joseph Smith was influenced by the LW in other ways in the translation process? What if it was an influence, but it was not physically used in the process? What if that influence came from prior familiarity with a text that was no longer at hand? What if, as we have allowed in other scenarios, he was less consciously aware of the influence as he translated?
What are the combined odds of these different options? Frankly, 60% posterior probability (this including the Johnson study) is, in my view, pretty darn good given the narrow nature of the conditions of the prior probability.
That said, I really want to thank Schaalje for doing this. I am not a mathematician. I have not even taken a basic course in statistics. I am a professor in the Humanities. I am a student of literature. When I read the
Late War, I see a degree of influence that I and many of my colleagues in the discipline would find worthy of scholarly discussion.
I think this is part of the misunderstanding here. Ex-Mormons greet these findings as confirming that the Book of Mormon is not what they thought it was. And, I think there is something to that perspective. On the other hand, I have not seen anything in these findings that would render the Book of Mormon a text unworthy of scriptural status, or incapable of being viewed as divinely inspired. So, I have never seen this in terms of a "silver bullet" to kill Mormonism (and, Mr. Schaalje, smoking gun and silver bullet are not identical metaphors). What I have seen is pretty compelling evidence that Joseph Smith was influenced by a particular contemporary text.
I hope those reading my post understand the difference.
As a side note, I would observe that Richard Carrier has used Bayesian analysis to argue that Jesus did not exist. So, I remain a little skeptical regarding Bayesian analysis, since, as a historian, I think the evidence leans in favor of Jesus' existence. What should I believe? Well, it depends on how the problem is framed. Thus far, I am not impressed with how Carrier is using his primary evidence, and this impacts his results. Similarly, Schaalje has framed the issue narrowly, and still he comes up with better than even odds that Joseph Smith literally had Hunt's
Late War in hand when he wrote the Book of Mormon.
Really?
How, then, do the historical testimonies of the witnesses to the translation process impact this analysis? Have they even been taken into account? I would think that the fact that we have a handful of witnesses to the translation process, and that none of them ever mentions the presence of, or Joseph Smith's use of, another book would weigh against the statistical possibility that this happened.
Others will have to excuse my naïveté and lack of mathematical knowledge and ability, but I am not satisfied with the results of these Bayesian analyses. I was not impressed with Carrier's and I see real limitations in Schaalje's.
The bigger issue here, in my view, is this mode of apologetics as catastrophe management. Some guy comes up with some argument that X (insert unflattering hypothesis regarding Mormonism) is the case, and then there is a flurry of apologetic activity that proves very clearly that there are people at work to address the problem. What really gets me, though, is the fact that there is a problem in the first place. The LDS community's immaturity in theological sophistication causes all kinds of mayhem. The fact that lots of bright people can have a meltdown because some guy compared the language of the Book of Mormon (a 19th century translation) with other 19th and 18th century works, and managed to find similarities (Oh my!) does not speak well of the community's collective IQ.
Mind you, I am not speaking of individual IQ, or average IQ, but the intelligence of a discursive community in dealing with serious questions and problems.
Look at Chris Johnson's rather narrow and naïve viewpoint (which must be credited, in part, to his upbringing):
I believe truth is important, and, um, it's changed my life. Truth is marching forward because of technology. We have the internet. We have computers. We have tools. I am not worried about the next generation. When I was a Mormon I was worried that it was the end of the world. But I think the next generation are going to have tools that are even better than what I used to create this and what my brother used to help me. Their computers will be faster. Their algorithms will be more powerful and easier to use. You will probably be able to use Siri or Google to do the same thing we just did. We are entering an age when you can't lie to people like Joseph Smith lied to people.
OK. My apologies to Chris. He is a decent person and in doing this work he has achieved something worthwhile. No doubt he is very gifted, and I can see that this discovery means a lot to him. It means a lot to many people.
That said, the statement above is a utopian theological statement. It assumes a definition of truth that is, I suppose, self evident to Chris and those who agree with him. But I have no idea what his definition is. It also places technology in this salvific role. Wow! Look at what we can do with computers. We can solve all of these intensely powerful math problems and do incredible things.
Yes. We can.
And evidently we are now (or will son be) in an age when people can't lie to people like Joseph Smith lied to people.
Um, no, we are not (nor will we soon be).
Here is the problem. First of all, he has reached the conclusion that Joseph Smith was simply lying. How he reached it, I don't know. He has certainly not proved it. His mathematical analysis shows nothing of the kind. But, let's grant his assumption that Joseph Smith lied. Technology did not liberate and save the people in this instance. We know that people will continue to lie. Bernie Madoff is a monster of the computer age. Was Bayesian analysis there to save the day? No. People will continue to believe what they want to believe. Technology is not a silver bullet against humanity.
Nor would I want it to be. I love technology and tools, but I am no transhumanist. Nor do I want to be one. Technology is not a sufficient answer for humanity's ills. The dewy-eyed testimonies of ex-Mormons who believe in the power of technology will not convince me otherwise. I respect what Chris Johnson has achieved. I do not think its significance is quite what he believes it to be, and he should realize that in his fervent testimony regarding the power of computers to save humanity, he has demonstrated his conversion to a new religion.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist