Another Wordprint-type Study

[LifeOnaPlate]

Looks like we have more wordprint-like proof of the book of mormon! Only this time it "proves" that Spaulding, Rigdon, and Cowdery wrote it.

http://llc.oxfordjournals.org/papbyrecent.dtl

Abstract:

Reassessing authorship of the Book of Mormon using delta and nearest shrunken centroid classification

Matthew L. Jockers

Department of English, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA

Daniela M. Witten

Department of Statistics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA

Craig S. Criddle

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA

Correspondence: Matthew L. Jockers, Department of English, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA E-mail: mjockers@stanford.edu

Abstract

Mormon prophet Joseph Smith (1805–44) claimed that more than two-dozen

ancient individuals (Nephi, Mormon, Alma, etc.) living from around 2200 BC

to 421 AD authored the Book of Mormon (1830), and that he translated their

inscriptions into English. Later researchers who analyzed selections from the Book

of Mormon concluded that differences between selections supported Smith’s

claim of multiple authorship and ancient origins.

We offer a new approach that employs two classification techniques: ‘delta’ commonly

used to determine probable authorship and ‘nearest shrunken centroid’ (NSC), a more

generally applicable classifier. We use both methods to determine, on a chapter-by-chapter

basis, the probability that each of seven potential authors wrote or contributed to

the Book of Mormon. Five of the seven have known or alleged connections to the

Book of Mormon, two do not, and were added as controls based on their thematic,

linguistic, and historical similarity to the Book of Mormon.

Our results indicate that likely nineteenth century contributors were Solomon Spalding,

a writer of historical fantasies; Sidney Rigdon, an eloquent but perhaps unstable preacher;

and Oliver Cowdery, a schoolteacher with editing experience. Our findings support

the hypothesis that Rigdon was the main architect of the Book of Mormon

and are consistent with historical evidence suggesting that he fabricated the book

by adding theology to the unpublished writings of Spalding (then deceased).

Correspondence:

Matthew L. Jockers,

Department of English,

Stanford University,

Stanford, CA 94305, USA

E-mail:

mjockers@stanford.edu

http://llc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/fqn040v1

The paper costs 28 dollars.

[maklelan]

Attempting to account for evidence of multiple authorship? Bravo.

They don't have that issue online yet (they only have up to September), so I can't read it, but I'm curious how they square their data with the historical evidence that shows that Rigdon and Cowdery were the biggest bumbling idiots that ever walked the earth if they were the actual authors of the Book of Mormon. Despite becoming antagonistic toward the church at points they never bothered to destroy Smith's credibility entirely by announcing that they were the real authors? Even in deathbed confessions they proclaimed that the Book of Mormon was everything it purported to be? That doesn't make sense at all if they were the authors. Do the authors of this study address that question, or do they rather just let their little atomistic study convince those who don't know any better?

[Chris Smith]

Even in deathbed confessions they proclaimed that the Book of Mormon was everything it purported to be? That doesn't make sense at all if they were the authors.

Why not? Why would you ruin your own credibility and the credibility of the Book of Mormon as scripture by outing yourself as its forger? It seems to me that if Rigdon and Spalding believed strongly enough in the message of the Book of Mormon to go to such trouble to bring it into the world, they wouldn't be particularly inclined to expose it regardless of its partial co-option by Joseph.

[The_Monk]

I didn't buy wordprints when they supported the BoM. I'm not going to now either. Wordprint studies inevitably reflect the biases of the researchers, and this holds for Biblical research as well.

See Statistical Research on the Bible in the ABD.

[Chris Smith]

I didn't buy wordprints when they supported the BoM. I'm not going to now either. Wordprint studies inevitably reflect the biases of the researchers, and this holds for Biblical research as well.

I actually share your skepticism.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I didn't buy wordprints when they supported the BoM. I'm not going to now either. Wordprint studies inevitably reflect the biases of the researchers, and this holds for Biblical research as well.

See Statistical Research on the Bible in the ABD.

Exactly.

[maklelan]

Why not? Why would you ruin your own credibility and the credibility of the Book of Mormon as scripture by outing yourself as its forger? It seems to me that if Rigdon and Spalding believed strongly enough in the message of the Book of Mormon to go to such trouble to bring it into the world, they wouldn't be particularly inclined to expose it regardless of its partial co-option by Joseph.

What good would it do them after their death?

[Cold Steel]

Well, there are too many things no one could have known about in 1830 for anyone to convince me that anyone living then could have written it. Cowdery, old and sick, made the trek out to Utah after leaving the saints and made his peace in Salt Lake City. And David Whitmer reported: "Oliver died the happiest man I ever saw. After shaking hands with his family and kissing his wife and daughter, he said: 'Now I lay me down for the last time...." And he died with a smile on his face."

Oliver had the richest blessings of almost anyone in the church, yet when he returned he cared nothing for rank or prestige. He only wanted to be numbered with the saints.

[Hyrum Page]

And how many of you have read the article? Skepticism abounds, and no one even knows the methodology. Interesting. Reminds me of criticism of the much-maligned Shady Acres. I only hope that substance appears quickly so you don't compete with their astonishing record on the MMM book. So much comment, such little knowledge.

[Chris Smith]

What good would it do them after their death?

What good would it do them for it to be exposed after their death? Would you want to be remembered as a forger who spent his entire life promoting a lie?

And in any case, why should we assume that this was about what was good for them personally? Why can't their intentions have had a wider scope?

[Jersey Girl]

What good would it do them after their death?

It wouldn't have done them any good at all. It might have spared their families from being persecuted or ostracized.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Well, there are too many things no one could have known about in 1830 for anyone to convince me that anyone living then could have written it. Cowdery, old and sick, made the trek out to Utah after leaving the saints and made his peace in Salt Lake City. And David Whitmer reported: "Oliver died the happiest man I ever saw. After shaking hands with his family and kissing his wife and daughter, he said: 'Now I lay me down for the last time...." And he died with a smile on his face." Oliver had the richest blessings of almost anyone in the church, yet when he returned he cared nothing for rank or prestige. He only wanted to be numbered with the saints.

He never made it west. He met with the saints at council bluffs then died later at the Whitmer's. He wanted to go west.

It wouldn't have done them any good at all. It might have spared their families from being persecuted or ostracized.

Yes, because claiming to have seen an angel didn't do enough of that already...

[maklelan]

What good would it do them for it to be exposed after their death? Would you want to be remembered as a forger who spent his entire life promoting a lie?

So they testified that Joseph Smith was a prophet of god even when they were antagonistic toward the Church because they preferred that to being considered a forger? Doesn't make sense to me. Why not expose Smith's fraud and take down the enemy? All these men would rather testify forcefully on their deathbeds of a lie than come clean? That simply doesn't make sense.

And in any case, why should we assume that this was about what was good for them personally? Why can't their intentions have had a wider scope?

Such as?

[Daniel Peterson]

I haven't yet seen the article, and will reserve comment on it until I have. And perhaps even for a while after that.

In the meantime, there are solid reasons why Fawn Brodie and Dan Vogel have been just about as unconvinced by the Spalding theory as believing Latter-day Saints have been, and we'll have to see whether this new study can overcome those objections.

Finally, as to the Witnesses: I've spent a fair amount of time reading about them, and I've never seen anything that would suggest to me that they, or any subset of them, were part of a conspiracy to commit fraud. Quite the opposite.

[Chris Smith]

Such as?

The theological reform and unification of American religion, perhaps. Such certainly seems to be the intent of the Book of Mormon, which never held much promise as a get-rich-quick scheme. Rigdon was, after all, an ardent religious reformer.

[4truth]

maklelan wrote:

So they testified that Joseph Smith was a prophet of god even when they were antagonistic toward the Church because they preferred that to being considered a forger? Doesn't make sense to me.

Why does it have to make sense to you? Do you think like a forger would think?

Why not expose Smith's fraud and take down the enemy?

Perhaps because they were well aware of the consequences of taking such drastic actions. Perhaps they were concerned for their families. Perhaps they had self-deluded to the point of irrationality. While still not on their deathbeds, perhaps they felt they had too many ties to the church and felt they still might hold positions in it someday. Oliver was Joseph's cousin, perhaps he didn't want to tarnish the family. Rigdon had his own splinter group that still accepted the BOM, so why ruin what he had spent a lifetime building? While on their deathbeds, perhaps they didn't think they were really dying. It would seem there could have been any number of valid reasons, whether or not they make sense to you.

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying the Spalding theory can't be true, despite whatever testimony there is in favor of it and despite whatever evidence there might be to back up the testimony (and irregardless of word-print studies), because their lack of a deathbed confession isn't how you would have behaved if you were a forger?

All these men would rather testify forcefully on their deathbeds of a lie than come clean? That simply doesn't make sense.

All these men? I thought we were talking about two men... Rigdon and Cowdery.

[4truth]

Cold Steel wrote:

Well, there are too many things no one could have known about in 1830 for anyone to convince me that anyone living then could have written it.

Can you give me an example of, say, the best 3 of them?

Cowdery, old and sick, made the trek out to Utah after leaving the saints and made his peace in Salt Lake City. And David Whitmer reported: "Oliver died the happiest man I ever saw. After shaking hands with his family and kissing his wife and daughter, he said: 'Now I lay me down for the last time...." And he died with a smile on his face."

Oliver had the richest blessings of almost anyone in the church, yet when he returned he cared nothing for rank or prestige. He only wanted to be numbered with the saints.

Your last sentence is yet another reason he might have prefered to continue with the fraud rather than confess.

[4truth]

Daniel Peterson wrote:

In the meantime, there are solid reasons why Fawn Brodie and Dan Vogel have been just about as unconvinced by the Spalding theory as believing Latter-day Saints have been, and we'll have to see whether this new study can overcome those objections.

From what I can tell (although I'm still researching) all of their reasons for rejecting Spalding have since been answered. Can you list a few of what you consider to be the best reasons to reject a Spalding connection to the BOM?

Finally, as to the Witnesses: I've spent a fair amount of time reading about them, and I've never seen anything that would suggest to me that they, or any subset of them, were part of a conspiracy to commit fraud. Quite the opposite.

Couldn't that merely be proof of adept conspirators?

[Joseph Antley]

The guy who faked that bigfoot video swore on his deathbed that it was real, too. That's not evidence for me.

I would like to read this study.

[cdowis]

The critical issue here is validation. They are using another methodology from previous studies, so..............did they validate their methodology with actual texts, or is this just another "theoretical" thing. Do they have something substantive, or just stirring the pot.

The guy who faked that bigfoot video swore on his deathbed that it was real, too.

Can I assume you can give us a link or reference for that.

[Hyrum Page]

No comments based on actual reading of the piece yet.

[maklelan]

The theological reform and unification of American religion, perhaps. Such certainly seems to be the intent of the Book of Mormon, which never held much promise as a get-rich-quick scheme. Rigdon was, after all, an ardent religious reformer.

And he wanted this reform and religious unification to be catalyzed by a lie?

[maklelan]

maklelan wrote:Why does it have to make sense to you? Do you think like a forger would think?

I was a criminal for quite some time before I joined the church. I have done forgeries, but in the end, forgers are still humans, and I am a student of human behavior.

Perhaps because they were well aware of the consequences of taking such drastic actions. Perhaps they were concerned for their families. Perhaps they had self-deluded to the point of irrationality. While still not on their deathbeds, perhaps they felt they had too many ties to the church and felt they still might hold positions in it someday. Oliver was Joseph's cousin, perhaps he didn't want to tarnish the family. Rigdon had his own splinter group that still accepted the BOM, so why ruin what he had spent a lifetime building? While on their deathbeds, perhaps they didn't think they were really dying. It would seem there could have been any number of valid reasons, whether or not they make sense to you.

It seems to me you haven't read their deathbed confessions.

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying the Spalding theory can't be true, despite whatever testimony there is in favor of it and despite whatever evidence there might be to back up the testimony (and irregardless of word-print studies), because their lack of a deathbed confession isn't how you would have behaved if you were a forger?

1 - "Irregardless" isn't a word. 2 - The Spaling theory fails on its own entirely independent terms. When I can read the article I will respond to their specific points. 3 - It doesn't matter how I would have behaved, but it's not a logical reaction.

All these men? I thought we were talking about two men... Rigdon and Cowdery.

They are part of a larger group of men that maintained the exact same testimony all the way to their graves.

No comments based on actual reading of the piece yet.

It doesn't appear to have been published yet. When it's published I will make more specific arguments. Right now all I've said is that I'm curious how they are going to respond to what I believe to be critical considerations.

[bob mccue]

Here is a link to the paper.

http://llc.oxfordjournals.org/papbyrecent.dtl

As present, it is subscription access only. I have read it carefully, and while not a scientist, know enough about statistical and scientific methodology to feel that Criddle et al have significantly advanced the state of our understanding of what the BofM probably is. More will no doubt be learned as a result of the response this work will generate.

This paper deserves, and I am sure will receive, serious consideration from both Mormon and non-Mormon academics. The knee-jerk, dogmatic responses that have so far characterized this thread remind me of what can still be found where young earth creationists confront geological science regarding the age of the Earth.

I haven't bothered to participate much in Mormon apologetic (or other) discussions for some time, but this issue has my attention because similar to the DNA research, this has the potential for an immediate, significant impact on how Mormonism is viewed by well informed non-Mormons, and eventually Mormons. Over time, this is the kind of research that has caused a large part of Christianity to read the Bible metaphorically instead of literally. I have long predicted that within a generation or two that is how the BofM will probably be read by the majority of well informed Mormons. I predict that at minimum, history will probably judge Criddle et al. to have taken an important step in that direction.

Many of the responses above on this thread are predictable, and pathetic. Trot out the good old historical homilies and conclude, before reading a piece of excellent scientific research, that the conclusion it suggests on the basis of something like 95% probability (Rigdon/Spaulding BofM authorship) is â??impossibleâ?. Why bother to attempt to understand this painstaking work? We already â??knowâ? with certainty.

The key concept to remember is probably. We are dealing here with science. Imagine that the question instead is the authorship of Koran, or whether Lord Rama caused a bunch of monkeys to construct a land bridge off the coast of India (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6994415.stm) In those cases, Mormon scholars as well as most reasonably well educated Mormons would resort to various scientific and historical disciplines to collect data and develop and test various hypotheses regarding what actually happened, and would instintively use probabilities in assessing these.

Science will not purport to tell us with 100% certainty that the Earth is more or less round (and not flat), let alone how a particular book was written or who was (or was not) responsible for the construction of the Indian land bridge. All it will do is help us to justify (or not) probability statements regarding phenomena of this sort. That is what Criddle et al have done re. the authorship of the BofM. Most literalist Mormons will not be swayed by this. The scientists might be wrong. The scientists themselves say that there is a 5% (or something like that) chance that Rigdon did not write the parts of the BofM they attribute to him. And even if the accepted probability within the scientific community was 99.99% that Rigdon was responsible for most of the BofM, God works in mysterious ways. Right?

Having understood all that, if you donâ??t want to come off sounding like the Hindus who deny (violently in some cases) any and all evidence that Lord Rama did not build the land bridge, I suggest that you meet Criddle and his colleagues on their ground, and analyze the legitimacy of the probability statements they make about the BofM authorship. This requires an evaluation of the reliability of the methods they have chosen to use (and these have been used in many other contexts), how their samples of BofM text were constructed (lots of interesting comparisons can be made there to prior word print studies), and finally the way in which they generated their probability statements based on those samples. This is detailed scientific work, and can only be legitimately addressed in a similar fashion. I am not qualified myself to make this assessment, but tried as hard as I could based on my limited understanding of the issues in question to find holes, and came up dry. I await with interest the responses and counter responses that are no doubt forthcoming (recall again how the DNA saga played out), and look forward to learning as this process unfolds.

I note that it was particularly interesting for me to learn a bit about how this came about. Apparently, the pattern finding technology at the root of this project has its origins (or perhaps has just been used a lot) in the biological sphere to identify subtle differences in cancer cells. This is a classic case of advancing techology making things visible that used to be invisible. Kind of like telescopes, or DNA research. Mormons had best get used to Galileo-like events that get lots of press at least outside of Mormonism, and will be available at a few mouse-clicks after those nice missionaries have told their simple, incredible story about the BofM.

A few analogies may help to bring what awaits us into focus. Again, the best recent analogy in the Mormon Studies area is the relatively recent DNA work re. the Book of Mormon, the outcome of which so far (after a lot of dust was kicked up by the Mormon apologetic community) was probability statements from most Mormon DNA experts that more or less support the non-Mormon conclusion. That is, is that based on the current theory and evidence, it is extremely unlikely that an Israelite population of material size ever existed in the Americas. This has changed, and will probably continue to change, the way the BofM is perceived.

Perhaps a better analogy for Mormons to consider is how DNA research has changed our understanding of human migrations patterns. This contradicts the Mormon belief that the Garden is Eden was in Missouri, but that is not as important a Mormon belief as the literal historicity of the BofM. Alternative theories of human migration were for generations debated in the scientific community on various mostly historical, linguistic and archaeological grounds. Conflicting opinions were strongly held by respect scientists. This is analogous to the current historical debate (alluded to in various ways in the thread above) re. the roles Rigdon, Cowdery and others played in Mormon history. Then, the DNA evidence started to come in, and this data eventually crushed all of the other theories. There is now as close to scientists come to a consensus regarding the broad strokes of human migration. And it all started in Africa.

I could trot out other examples, but that will do and I have already spent more time than I had planned on this. In any event, these are exciting times for Mormon Studies. As our ability to see current and prior events using new tools continues to expand, our perspective and beliefs should be expected to change. Think Galileo.

I predict that, as usual (see http://www.mccue.cc/bob/documents/rs.apologetic%20mind.pdf) the Mormon apologetic response to Criddle et al's work will at least initially be to maximize the uncertainty and technical difficulty related to understanding the relevant issues. A few "experts" will pronounce the research to be unreliable on technical grounds even if the non-Mormon academic community is onside. And, the more on point and reliable the research is shown to be, the less it will be talked about in Mormon circles. Then a generation or so from now, it will be accepted on an "of course" basis. Like, what do you mean polygamy is required for entrance into the Celestial Kingdom? Or, nobody takes the Book of Abraham seriously. Or, "man can become like God"? - we don't really teach that. Or, blood atonement!?! - I've never heard of that! Or, the Book of Mormon was probably played out in a tiny area somewhere in Central America, and all of the prophets (including Joseph Smith) who though otherwise were simply mistaken. And, don't even talk about the "Lamanite Placement Program" (in which my family participated, btw.)

Eternal truth doesn't change. And by definition, any Mormon beliefs that do change are not part of Eternal Truth. Among the many divine mysteries at Mormonism's core is why God, with the most powerful intellect conceivable, relies so heavily on circular logic.

best,

bob

[Chris Smith]

And he wanted this reform and religious unification to be catalyzed by a lie?

He wouldn't be the first.