Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

[_robuchan]

That Bayes article is horse crap. He's pulling random probabilities out of his ass. It's no different than saying I think there's a 60% chance Book of Mormon depends on LW...just because.

[_Spanner]

Daniel Peterson has responded to Kish's post here in the comments under the article to point out that what the analysis shows is that even if one generously granted a 50% probability of LW influence, the evidence provided by the Johnsons would only increase the probability to 60%. Just for fun, I ran it with a "TBM" prior probability of 1% (even that would be generous, given that the prior probability will have been assigned by the holy ghost) and I ended up with 1.6%.

The problem I have with the analysis is that the possibility of a false positive has been set at 50%, and I don't think the reasons for setting it that high are sound - they have all been addressed by the Johnsons as well during their repeated testing, removing KJV phrases and so on. Certainly if the work does get published, peer reviewers would not accept a false positive rate of more than 5%.

[Guest]

The other problem I have with the analysis is that while it is OK to make assumptions about prior probabilities, the outcome/evidence probabilities should be established by testing - they should be known quantities or the analysis is smoke and mirrors. The Johnsons will do this if they want to get published.

In spite of attempting to pull the wool here, I think MI have made a strategic error with this article. Most readers will probably make the assumption that MI think there is a 60% chance of direct influence. They should have shown two scenarios to highlight the impact of prior assumptions, put more stress on their apparent concession of 50/50 prior probability for demonstration purposes, and then shown the analysis using a "realistic" (to a TBM) probability. With their dodgy outcome probabilities, they could show that TBMs have nothing to worry about.

ETA: you can have fun playing around with different prior probabilities and outcomes here.

[Guest]

Thanks. I am busy mapping phrases from the "possible" sources, a better occupation for me, because we do have our own resident statistician.

So basically, Bruce plugged in his own assumptions, and got numbers out of it. When, in order to pass peer review, the Johnson Bros. need to perform more experiments in order to get some baseline figures to begin with?

Please don't tempt me into going off-track from a very boring activity.

[_Darth J]

Daniel Peterson has responded to Kish's post here in the comments under the article to point out that what the analysis shows is that even if one generously granted a 50% probability of LW influence, the evidence provided by the Johnsons would only increase the probability to 60%.

Curious, because he has repeatedly claimed that the evidence is essentially 50-50 for and against LDS truth claims, so faith is the Trump card that makes belief win (I am paraphrasing the second part). If he concedes that the evidence of a secular influence being adopted by Joseph Smith to invent his narrative is above 50%, that means that by the terms of Peterson's own argument, belief in the Book of Mormon is no longer justified. In other words, he doesn't really believe his own assertion. Or "disingenuous," for short.

[_Blixa]

Check out Joseph Jackson's Narrative of his adventures among the Mormons.

Great link! Thanks!

YES!!! Seconded!!

[_Always Changing]

Please don't tempt me with that Joseph Jackson stuff. After all, my favorite firebrand newspaper editor or his sometimes assistant had his hand in it.

If one were to plug in all the influences-- again, the mopologist strategy: look at this little bit, look at that little bit, but NEVER put them all together.

And Peterson totally ignoring the 1822 KORAN's influence?

[_CaliforniaKid]

Great link! Thanks!

YES!!! Seconded!!

I'm convinced it's one of the great under-utilized primary sources on Mormon history.

[_Chap]

Hey, Chap. If scriptural status is granted by a community, then it is the job of the community to justify such status to its own satisfaction. I doubt we disagree on this.

Oh, I do agree. That's why I think it is both pointless and misleading to say things like

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.

Because nothing in any 'findings' could ever render any text, including 'The Cat in the Hat' "unworthy of scriptural status, or incapable of being viewed as divinely inspired".

Yes, I get the fact that you humbly disdain people's scriptures. Far be it from you to look down on anyone else. You are so egalitarian in your views that you just settle for calling them bull s*** or comparing them to children's fiction.

We get that.

Hmm, I see that the Reverend is going into 'disagree with me persistently and I shall go into meltdown and start swearing' mode.

My point is simply and solely this. We are agreed (aren't we?) that scriptural status is conferred on a text simply by the fact that a given community regards it as having that status. The status describes a relationship between a text and a community, not a property inherent in the text. For members of the community who have been fully socialized into it (usually as children), the text becomes a vehicle for all the most important non-rational elements of their lives. For non-members the text may well seem (at best) mildly ridiculous.

The Reverend was evidently socialized into Mormon society through upbringing. Even though he does not (I suspect) believe the Book of Mormon to describe actual events in the lives of real people who existed on the American continent, it still has powerful and positive associations for him. I was socialized into a version of mainstream Christianity in which the King James translation of the Bible was central to belief and practice. I now disbelieve in that religion, and when I look at its scriptures I find large parts to be pernicious and morally repellent. Yet, in spite of myself the old associations of uncritical reverence can still kick in unexpectedly. I was not, however, socialized to regard the Book of Mormon with reverence, and when I read it, it strikes me as a clear pastiche of the KJV with defective grammar and all kinds of 19th century religious, philosophical and political ideas stuck all over it in a fashion that I find quite irritating. But however obvious a fraud it seems to me, I accept that its relation to the Mormon community is that of a scriptural text.

As for my 'Cat in the Hat' example: it was meant as a challenge. The Reverend and myself are agreed that scriptural status is conferred in the context of the relation of a text to a community. Neither of us can apparently think of any objective quality that has to be possessed by the text in itself in order to make such a relation possible. If the Reverend can think of one, he could use it to show why no community could ever regard 'The Cat in the Hat' as scripture.

That is the reason I wrote the last quarter of my post. Sure, if you cultivate a naïve understanding in people, then it is no wonder that they will fly apart when that simplistic view is challenged.

I think the difference between the two of us is that you and I place a much different value on the more nuanced or mature view of religion.

"Nuanced or mature": what's not to like? I mean, how can one ever imagine anyone not thinking that their own point of view on a religious matter was not "nuanced and mature"? Those adjectives tell us nothing except that the person who uses them is describing their own religious beliefs.

People who actually believe in the doctrines currently taught to converts by the CoJCoLDS are, it seems "naïve" and "simplistic". I find that attitude deeply patronizing and superior, and would prefer to confer on them the dignity of just being plain wrong.

Because, as we can plainly see from your sterling example, calling them false and stupid is, to the contrary, very respectful and egalitarian.

Yeah, so sue me, Chap. I actually do believe that people can have varying degrees of sophistication in their understanding of a topic. I look to education as a means of raising people's level of sophistication in their understanding, and I am crazy enough to believe that if they apply themselves to their education, they can succeed in seeing things in a more interesting and rewarding way.

You would think I were a college professor with talk like that.

But maybe you are right. Maybe I am naïve and simplistic for thinking such things. Instead I should rely upon the tyro philosophizing and moralizing of people like you who just find the whole damned thing stupid and destructive, no matter how many people feel differently about it, or regardless of your inability to prove your case.

Now we are getting the "How dare you disagree with me. I am a COLLEGE PROFESSOR, and you are not" mode, plus the attribution of attitudes and expressions to me that are not mine. In the first place, I don't do in real life, so the Reverend has no way of knowing whether I am a destitute crack whore typing on a computer in a public library with the help of a literate client whom I reward later with extra free tricks, or even (O summit of power, prestige and felicity!) a college professor.

In the second place, I said that the beliefs of TBMs were false. I did not call them stupid. Some TBMs seem to be quite highly educated and intelligent people (even college professors), as are, for instance, some Catholics or Muslims who believe whole-heartedly in a fully dogmatic form of their religion. I just think they are wrong.

I also do not see any obvious reason why the Reverend's system of belief, whatever it may be, has to be regarded as in some way superior to theirs or more interesting. That seems to annoy the Reverend a lot. But I can live with that.

[_DrW]

The Kirtland Bank was an epic scam, and Joseph's handprints are all over it. .........

Chris,

Thank you for taking the time to write and post this. It is great to have the details laid out as you have done here.