The comparative method as such is neither good nor bad. It can be abused (as what tool can not?), but to condemn it outright because of its imperfections would put an end to all scholarship. The fundamental rule of the comparative method is, that if things resemble each other there must be some connection between them, and the closer the resemblance the closer the connection. For example, if anyone were to argue that the Book of Mormon was obviously stolen from Solomon Spaulding’s Manuscript Story (the document now at Oberlin College) because the word “and” is found to occur frequently in both texts, we would simply laugh at him. If he brought forth as evidence the fact that kings are mentioned in both books, he might not appear quite so ridiculous. But if the Manuscript Story actually referred by name to “cureloms and cumoms” we would be quite sure of a possible borrowing (though even then we would not have proven a direct borrowing). This hypothetical case illustrates the fact that there are degrees of significance in parallels. Recently a Protestant minister pointed to seventy-five resemblances between the Book of Mormon and the Manuscript Story: None of them alone is worth anything, but his position is that there are so many that taken altogether they must be significant. The trouble is that it would be very easy to find seventy-five equally good parallels between the Book of Mormon and any other book you can name. As an actual example, to prove that the Book of Mormon and the Manuscript Story are related, this investigator shrewdly notes that in both books “men arise and make addresses” “both [books] pronounce woe unto the wicked mortals,” “both mention milk,” in both “adultery was a crime,” “both had counsellors,” etc. What kind of “parallels” are these? Seventy-five or seven hundred fifty, it is all the same-such stuff adds up to nothing.