265 replies to this topic

[Hyrum Page]

No comments based on actual reading of the piece yet.

[maklelan]

Chris Smith, on Dec 7 2008, 01:31 AM, said:

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]

4truth, on Dec 7 2008, 02:02 AM, said:

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.

4truth, on Dec 7 2008, 02:02 AM, said:

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.

4truth, on Dec 7 2008, 02:02 AM, said:

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.  

4truth, on Dec 7 2008, 02:02 AM, said:

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.

Hyrum Page, on Dec 7 2008, 08:38 AM, said:

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.oxfordjou...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.u...ia/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/...getic mind.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

Edited by bob mccue, 08 December 2008 - 09:29 AM.

[Chris Smith]

maklelan, on Dec 7 2008, 12:02 PM, said:

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

He wouldn't be the first.

[Chris Smith]

maklelan, on Dec 7 2008, 12:09 PM, said:

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.

Did you mean to say you haven't done forgeries?

[maklelan]

Chris Smith, on Dec 7 2008, 01:30 PM, said:

Did you mean to say you haven't done forgeries?

No.

[maklelan]

I was sitting in church today wondering if I had my sacrament passing route correct or not and the article in question was dropped in my lap. I've read it over once and have some initial impressions to put down before I go in for a more thorough perusal. The first thing I noticed was that the last author listed, Craig Criddle, works for the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Stanford. I was wondering how he got involved with a word-print study like this, so I looked him up. He maintains his own website here, and a short bio of his is available here.

As I read the background I got the impression I was reading a MormonDiscussions post. The Spalding theory is presented as the most pristine and valuable, and those who reject it are presented as ignorantly fawning after a weak Brodie argument. Even Bushman is cited in a way that makes him look like a Brodie-ite with no cognizance of his own. The evidence against the Spalding theory is never actually engaged. These scientists are clearly not historians:

Quote

Despite having no evidence that the Honolulu manuscript was the same text that the Conneaut witnesses heard Spalding read to them (and subsequently recognized as a source text for the Book of Mormon), Brodie nonetheless concluded that Spalding could not have been an author of the Book of Mormon.

For starters, those accounts conflict with each other and only come to us third hand through Hurlbut, a rather seedy and manipulative ex-Mormon. The theory sprouted when Mormon missionaries read excerpts from the Book of Mormon in Conneaut, Ohio. One man who was present claimed they were preaching from "the writings of Solomon Spalding." Hurlbut was sent to interview Spalding's family and neighbors, using his first given name, Doctor, to lend an air of legitimacy to his endeavor. Spalding's readings of his manuscript occurred over twenty years prior to those from the Book of Mormon. All the witnesses claimed they either read or had read to them sections of the manuscript. None claimed to have read the whole thing, and only six of them claimed to have even seen the Book of Mormon. Again, none claimed to have read the whole thing, or even most of it. Several of them claimed Lamanite, Nephite (they are the Sciotons and the Kentucks in the extant manuscript), Moroni, Laban, Zarahemla, and other proper names were taken directly from Spalding's text. Oddly enough, Spalding's widow didn't corroborate any of this. She said she didn't know what Spalding's story was about. The manuscript she produced upon request was a similar, but unfinished, story about Romans (not Jews) who came to the Americas. Advocates of the Spalding theory claim that was an original draft of the finished manuscript from which the Book of Mormon was taken. The evidence that supports a second manuscript is entirely subsequent to the discovery of the first, as far as I can tell. The witnesses memories got better as time went on, and their stories began to fill in in later years. One unsigned affidavit to the fact that two manuscripts were written was shown later to have been written by Hurlbut himself. Also, witnesses seem to think Spalding's manuscript remained unfinished at the time of his death. Spalding's family mentions that the manuscript submitted for publication was returned with a request for a conclusion. The only evidence that at all validates a theory of another manuscript comes exclusively from Hurlbut's affidavits, which are highly suspect. All other evidence leads to the conclusion that Spalding's unfinished story about Romans coming to the Americas was the only such manuscript ever produced. For further research see, Roper's review, Lindsay's article, Englund's article, and Norwood's article.

The authors of this article are also using the published 1830 version of the Book of Mormon as the base text, even though they recognize it was edited by a number of different people. They even attribute some areas of apparent Cowdery influence to his role as editor. I'm curious how this study would have looked using Skousen's text.

I don't have time to go into too many details, but I find it telling that the structure they consider to be more accurate (NSC) almost doubled the number of Isaiah/Malachi-influenced chapters in the Book of Mormon (the less reliable delta triples them). They attribute this to attempts on the part of the authors to sound archaic with their English. Doesn't this call into question the reliability of this system if merely couching a narrative in archaic-sounding nomenclature can produce these false positives? What does this mean regarding the possible authors (like Joseph Smith) they omitted entirely from the study? How many chapters attributed to Rigdon were actually penned by Smith? What about the fact that the only Rigdon text they used was written over 30 years after the publication of the Book of Mormon? Are individual's writing styles that diachronically consistent that they can be isolated in texts produced 34 years apart from each other, even after being passed through a number of redactors? What does this mean in light of the fact that the only Spalding base text they had available was the manuscript about Romans finding their way to the Americas and splitting into two competing factions? Doesn't the similarity in plotlines lend itself to similar vernacular and usage? NSC gave 2 Nephi 22 a 99.9% probability of coming from Isaiah/Malachi. The authors try to make that sound significant, but they don't mention that the text is 6 verses (135 words) long and only differs from the KJV Isaiah 12 in one word ("is become" instead of "has become"). It also missed one Isaiah chapter, attributing Mosiah 14 (Isaiah 53!) to Henry Wadsworth Longfellow. I'll grant that these statistical data can be very accurate, but they can also be horribly inaccurate. If anything this study leaves more questions than answers. The authors say they want to see what happens when they plug in the Joseph Smith Papers. I'm also interested to see how that will change this data.

Edited by maklelan, 07 December 2008 - 05:51 PM.

[LifeOnaPlate]

bob mccue, on Dec 7 2008, 01:13 PM, said:

Here is a link to the paper.  

http://llc.oxfordjou...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.

And what of the last several wordprint studies? Seems we are getting some conflicting results here. You may argue that wordprint studies that favor multiple authorship (and specifically not that of Smith, Rigdon, Spaulding, or Cowdery) were done by believing Mormons, thus contaminating the results. Criddle is a critic of Mormonism and likewise has an ideology that must be considered if you wish to be consistent. You herald this study. What of the others? (there are others.)
  

Quote

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.

As noted, the paper is 28 bucks. Frankly, there is no way I would pay that much for a "wordprint analysis." Perhaps for a phrenological examination, but not for a wordprint analysis. (Let's test the KJV and see who really wrote it, by the way, for any Bible readers. Or perhaps we can discover who really wrote Crime and Punishment by sending the Penguin classics translation through the machine!) So I note that I haven't read the study. I have read other wordprint studies (supposedly supportive of JS's claims) but remain largely skeptical of them as well. One study by the so-called Berkeley group declared "a roughly 1 in 15 trillion chance of Nephi and Alma having the same author." On a scale of 1-6, 6 being least likely to have authored, Spaulding and Rigdon were listed as a 6.

More here: http://maxwellinstit...o...&chapid=189

Why should I accept Criddle's findings over Hilton's?

Quote

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.

I agree it will have an impact on those ready to accept quick answers to preconceptions. Those who won't really take much time to dig a little deeper, as the DNA "problem" so effectively demonstrates. Pop-answers for pop culture.

Quote

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.

Doubtful. How many Mormons know of the Hilton study?

Quote

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 “impossible”.  Why bother to attempt to understand this painstaking work?  We already “know” with certainty.  

The key concept to remember is probably.  We are dealing here with science.

  

Science, like the scriptures, is not, contrary to your current worldview, infallible.

Quote

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.u...ia/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.

Who?

Quote

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.

Ad Hilton to the et. al. The problem is they reached opposite conclusions.

Quote

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?

See Hilton study. See the nature of "translation."

Quote

Having understood all that, if you don’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 likewise look forward to responses. And to a cheaper version of the study.

Quote

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.

Please see Editor's Introduction: Of "Galileo Events," Hype, and Suppression: Or, Abusing Science and its History, by Dan Peterson.

Quote

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.

The recent DNA book put forth by FARMS demonstrates why your fundamentalist assumptions are not correct.

Quote

Think Galileo.

Brush up on your history.

Edited by LifeOnaPlate, 07 December 2008 - 05:13 PM.

[John D the First]

maklelan, on Dec 7 2008, 04:52 PM, said:

What about the fact that the only Rigdon text they used was written over 30 years after the publication of the Book of Mormon? Are writing styles that consistent that they can be recognized 34 years later, even after being passed through a number of redactors?

I found the following about the Delta method used by the authors:

Quote

Not unexpectedly, it [Delta] works least well with texts of a genre uncharacteristic of their author and, in one case, with texts far separated in time across a long literary career.

http://llc.oxfordjou...stract/17/3/267

I think the Mormon members of the "Berkely group" and the ex-Mo members of the "Stanford group" should get together and try to duplicate this. I found the Berkely group credible because it had both Mormon and non Mormons involved. It's an ideologically charged issue that makes these kinds of results on either side suspect. I don't really know enough about the stats to make an assesment.

What I am really wondering is how Joseph Smith could have had the gall to propose to the daughter of his co-conspirator under the guise of divine command!

[4truth]

maklelan:

Quote

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.

I wasn't expecting that. Guess that gives you more authority to speak on the subjest than I thought. Nevertheless, unless all forgers think like you do, then I think my argument still stands.  

Quote

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

Probably not in full. Perhaps you could post them for me.

Quote

1 - "Irregardless" isn't a word.

I beg to differ. Again, it would appear you do not speak for everyone:

Quote

usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that â??there is no such word.â? There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.
http://www.merriam-w...ry/irregardless

So, it would appear that your statement would have been more accurately rendered: ""Irregardless" isn't a word that I like people to use.

Quote

2 - The Spaling theory fails on its own entirely independent terms.

First- It's "Spalding theory" (sorry, I couldn't resist a little juvenility--or is that not a word either)

Quote

When I can read the article I will respond to their specific points.

Fair enough.

Quote

3 - It doesn't matter how I would have behaved, but it's not a logical reaction.

Again you still seem to miss the point. You are superimposing your logic onto how you would expect another forger a century and a half ago to behave. I gave perfectly logical reasons why either Cowdery or Rigdon could have done what you think was "illogical" for them to do. I can't prove they did (nor can you prove they didn't) but the parallels between Joseph's alleged discovery of the BOM and Spalding's discovery of Manuscript Story are striking. How do you explain them? Coincidence?

Quote

Quote

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.

If proponents of the Spalding theory maintain that only Rigdon and Cowdery were in on the fraud with Smith, then the actions of the "larger group" are irrelevant except in the sense that they help to camouflage the real conspirators.

[Daniel Peterson]

For a perspective on some of the various mutually incompatible attempts to explain the Book of Mormon away over the years, including the Spalding theory, I offer my Editor's Introduction to FARMS Review 16/2 (2004), entitled "'In the Hope That Something Will Stick': Changing Explanations for the Book of Mormon":

http://farms.byu.edu...?...um=2&id=544

For the most recent serious Latter-day Saint examination of the Spalding theory, see Matthew Roper, "The Mythical 'Manuscript Found,'" in FARMS Review 17/2 (2005):

http://farms.byu.edu...?...um=2&id=584

[maklelan]

4truth, on Dec 7 2008, 06:45 PM, said:

maklelan:
I wasn't expecting that. Guess that gives you more authority to speak on the subjest than I thought. Nevertheless, unless all forgers think like you do, then I think my argument still stands.

You didn't have an argument. You simply doubted I understood the mind of a forger.

4truth, on Dec 7 2008, 06:45 PM, said:

Probably not in full. Perhaps you could post them for me.

This is one of the better articles.

4truth, on Dec 7 2008, 06:45 PM, said:

I beg to differ. Again, it would appear you do not speak for everyone:
So, it would appear that your statement would have been more accurately rendered: ""Irregardless" isn't a word that I like people to use.

No, it's not a word. I'm getting sick and tired of cavalier internet "dictionaries" trying to invalidate the English language. "Irregardless" is an incorrect and utterly meaningless conflation of "irrespective" and "regardless." It means the exact opposite of what it is used to mean, and people don't use it because they've looked into the history of the word, they use it because they heard it once and don't know any better. It's like trying to insist "nuculer" is a word because so many people use it. Use a real dictionary.

4truth, on Dec 7 2008, 06:45 PM, said:

This[/url]First- It's "Spalding theory" (sorry, I couldn't resist a little juvenility--or is that not a word either)

Obviously that was just a missed key stroke.

4truth, on Dec 7 2008, 06:45 PM, said:

This[/url]Fair enough.

I've responded to some of it. I'll save a more comprehensive response until I've had a chance to thoroughly read through it.

4truth, on Dec 7 2008, 06:45 PM, said:

This[/url]Again you still seem to miss the point. You are superimposing your logic onto how you would expect another forger a century and a half ago to behave. I gave perfectly logical reasons why either Cowdery or Rigdon could have done what you think was "illogical" for them to do. I can't prove they did (nor can you prove they didn't) but the parallels between Joseph's alleged discovery of the BOM and Spalding's discovery of Manuscript Story are striking. How do you explain them? Coincidence?

I'm at a loss here. The history of the composition of Manuscript Lost has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the history of the composition of the Book of Mormon.

4truth, on Dec 7 2008, 06:45 PM, said:

This[/url]If proponents of the Spalding theory maintain that only Rigdon and Cowdery were in on the fraud with Smith, then the actions of the "larger group" are irrelevant except in the sense that they help to camouflage the real conspirators.

But to insist that that's the case you have to aver that nine other men were also being completely and totally dishonest throughout their entire lives and in emphatic deathbed statements. Can you support that assertion, or does your a priori rejection of all things supernatural overrule the standard methodologies of historical inquiry?

[Bill Hamblin]

Two areas of agreement seem to be emerging from word-print studies:

1- Different word print studies tend to indicate multiple authorship of the BOM.  

2- There seems to be agreement is that Joseph Smith did not write the BOM--or at least it does not match his normal writing and speaking patterns.

PS The historical problems with a Spaulding-Rigdon-Cowdery theory are significant, and cannot be ignored; see the articles Dan posted.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Presumably all historical data can be tossed aside if this wordprint study says so.

[4truth]

maklelan:

[quote]For starters, those accounts conflict with each other and only come to us third hand through Hurlbut, a rather seedy and manipulative ex-Mormon.[/quote]

Not correct. First, it was Rigdon's quick conversion and rise to 2nd in command that first suggested a Rigdon/BOM connection:
[quote]According to Parley P. Pratt, Rigdon's journey to New York generated the first rumors that Rigdon "was the author of the Book of Mormon;" see Pratt's pamphlet, Mormonism Unveiled... (NYC: 1838), p. 42.
[url="http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/SRPpap11.htm"]http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/SRPpap11.htm[/url][/quote]

In that publication, Pratt had stated:
[quote]Early in 1831, Mr. Rigdon having been ordained, under our hands, visited elder J. Smith, Jr., in the state of New-York, for the first time; and from that time forth, rumor began to circulate, that he (Rigdon) was the author of the Book of Mormon. The Spaulding story never was dreamed of until several years afterwards, when it appeared in Mormonism Unveiled -- a base forgery, by D. P. Hulburt, and others of similar character, who had long strove to account for the Book of Mormon, in some other way beside the truth. - Parley P. Pratt, "Mormonism Unveiled..."
(Second edition: NYC, 1838) (emphasis in original)
[url="http://www.solomonspalding.com/docs/prt1838b.htm#pg42a"]http://www.solomonspalding.com/docs/prt1838b.htm#pg42a[/url][/quote]

So as soon as Rigdon joined the Saints rumors that he was somehow connected to the BOM began to emerge.

With regard to your second assertion:

[quote]only come to us third hand through Hurlbut[/quote]

...is also not accurate. First there is evidence outside of the Hurlbut affidavits that corroborates their story. For example, here is a portion of a statement by Joseph Miller, who was a neighbor and friend of Solomon Spalding in Amity, PA. Miller spent many evenings in Spalding's home listening to Spalding read from Manuscript Found:

[quote]My recollection is that Mr. S. had left a transcript of the manuscript with Mr. Patterson, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for publication, that its publication was delayed until Mr. S. would write a preface, and in the meantime the transcript was spirited away and could not be found. Mr. S. told me that Sidney Rigdon had taken it, or that he was suspicioned for it. Recollect distinctly that Rigdonâ??s name was used in that connection.

â??The longer I live the more firmly I am convinced that Spauldingâ??s MS was appropriated and largely used in getting up the Book of Mormon. I believe, that leaving out of the book the portion that may be easily recognized as the work of Joe Smith and his accomplices that Solomon Spaulding may be truly said to be its author. I have not a doubt of it.
Joseph Miller - Pittsburg Telegraph, February 6, 1879[/quote]

Here's another statement from another friend of Spalding named Re**** (amazing that the censorship software censor's personal names!) McKee. McKee knew Spalding well and boarded at Spalding's Temperence (non-alchoholic) tavern. McKee had seen Miller's statement in the paper and offered his own unsolicited support for Miller's testimony:

[quote]â??...after being at Amity some time he went back to Pittsburg, took his title page he called it the Lost Manuscript Found ...when he went to Pittsburgh the manuscript could not be found, he said there was or had been a man by the name of Sidney Rigdon who had stole it.â?
Re**** McKee - Washington Reporter, April 14, 1869�[/quote]

Mckee made additional statements including this one:

[quote]...Mr. Spaulding told me that while at Pittsburg he frequently met a young man named Sidney Rigdon at Mr. Pattersonâ??s bookstore and printing office, and concluded that he was at least an occasional employee. He was said to be a good English and Latin scholar and was studying Hebrew and Greek with a view to a professorship in some college. He had read parts of the manuscript and expressed the opinion that it would sell readily. While the
question of printing was in abeyance Mr. S. wrote to Mr. P. that if the document was not already in the hands of the printer he wished it be sent out to him in order that he might amend it by the addition of a chapter on the discovery of valuable relics in a mound recently opened near Conneaut.

In reply, Mr. P. wrote him that the manuscript could not then be found, but that further search would be made for it. This excited Mr. Spauldingâ??s suspicions that Rigdon had taken it home...

Re**** McKee - 25 January 1886.[/quote]

This is just a portion of Mckee's detailed testimony. He made several statements over decades and never changed his tune. No doubt you will object to the late date of this testimony, but again, rumors of Rigdon's connection to the BOM go back to very beginning of Mormonism.

In addition to this "outside of Hurlbut" testimony, we have the remarkable preservation of a rough-draft copy of a letter that was dictated by the Hon. Judge Aaron Wright to Hurlbut on Dec. 31, 1833, which corroborted Hurlbut and demonstrates that he was not leading witnesses. Though this draft copy is unsigned by Wright, it has been shown to be an authentic document, written in Hurlbutt's handwriting but left with Wright that evening and later used by Wright as scrap paper, as the reverse side contains Wright's handwriting.

Dale Braodhurst has this to say about it:
[quote]The 1833 document is not a pre-1914 forgery nor a hoax concocted by D. P. Hurlbut and never shown to Aaron Wright. It is an authentic relic of the times and may be relied upon as presenting a message Mr. Wright intended to convey to an associate of D. P. Hurlbut just before Hurlbut was arrested and tried in a Painesville justice court at the beginning of 1834.  
[url="http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/saga2/Ashtab3.htm#1833ltr"]http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/saga2/Ashtab3.htm#1833ltr[/url][/quote]

Here is the text of the letter:

[quote]Aron Wright, December 31, 1833: â??Hurlbut is now at my store. I have examined the writings which he has obtained from [said] Spaldingâ??s widowe[.] I recognize them to be the writings [note: "writings" was struck through in favor of the following word "handriting", but I do not know how to do a strike-through in this format] handwriting of [said] Spalding but not the Manuscript I had reference to in my statement before alluded to as he informed me he wrote in the first place he wrote for his own amusement and then altered his plan and commenced writing a history of the first Settlement of America the particulars you will find in my
testimony dated Sept 18 [Note: Sept 18 was struck through in favor of the following date "August 1833", but I do not know how to do a strike-through in this format] August 1833 . . . â? (Aaron Wrightâ??s unsigned letter of December 31, 1833)[/quote]

Again, this shows that your idea that the "seedy and manipulative ex-Mormon" Hurlbut is the root of the Spalding theory or manipulated the testimony of witnesses in his attempts to "get" Joseph Smith is unwarranted.

[quote]The theory sprouted when Mormon missionaries read excerpts from the Book of Mormon in Conneaut, Ohio. One man who was present claimed they were preaching from "the writings of Solomon Spalding." Hurlbut was sent to interview Spalding's family and neighbors, using his first given name, Doctor, to lend an air of legitimacy to his endeavor.[/quote]

But this, in your own words ("when Mormon missionaries read excerpts from the Book of Mormon in Conneaut, Ohio"), demonstrates that it was the similarity of BOM content to that of the memories of Spalding's writings in the minds of those who had heard him read it to them, that was the catalyst for the investigation by Hurlbut and not the other way around. The character and motives of Hurlbut is hardly relevant to the testified parallels unless you can demonstrate that Hurlbut made up or greatly embellished his facts. Can you? Since you choose to merely cast doubt on Hurlbut's character, it would appear that you can't.  

[quote]Spalding's readings of his manuscript occurred over twenty years prior to those from the Book of Mormon.[/quote]

Yes, of course they did, since Spalding died in 1816, all of the readings woud have had to have taken place prior to 1816.  

[quote]All the witnesses claimed they either read or had read to them sections of the manuscript. None claimed to have read the whole thing,[/quote]

Irrelevant since several of them claimed to have heard it read to them on many occasions and nearly all of them mentioned names like "Nephi, Lamanites, Maroni" etc.  

[quote]and only six of them claimed to have even seen the Book of Mormon. Again, none claimed to have read the whole thing, or even most of it.[/quote]

Still irrelevant since the parallels they do site are striking. The previously mentioned Miller even claims to have given further detail on an impressionable parallel between Spalding's manuscript & the BOM about a red paint used in battle:
[quote]Joseph Miller, of Amity, under date of February 6, 1879, as reported in the Pittsburg Telegraph, says: "On
hearing read the account from the book [of Mormon] of the battle between the Amlicites and the Nephites,
in which the soldiers of one army had placed a red mark on their foreheads to distinguish them from their
enemies, it seems to reproduce in my mind, not only the narration, but the very words as they had been impressed
upon my mind by the reading of Spaulding's manuscript." - Cumorah Revisited, Charles Augustus Shook, 1910, p45.[/quote]

Henry Lake, another witness, who, being a business partner with Spalding, was well acquanted with Spalding's manuscript, commented on what he believed was an inconsistency in the BOM that he had heard many years before read to him bySpalding, in which he suggested that Spalding should change the error, but to his surprise, he still notes in the BOM:
[quote]One time, when he was reading to me the tragic account of Laban, I pointed out to him what I considered an inconsistency, which he promised to correct ; but by referring to the Book of Mormon, I find to my surprise that it stands there just as he read it to me then. Some months ago I borrowed the Golden Bible, put it into my pocket, carried it home, and thought no more of it. About a week after, my wife found the book in my coat pocket, as it hung up, and commenced reading it aloud as I lay upon the bed. She had not read twenty minutes till I was astonished to find the same passages in it that Spalding had read to me more* than twenty years before, from his " Manuscript
Found." Since that, I have more fully examined the said Golden Bible, and have no hesitation in saying that the historical part of it is principally, if not wholly taken from the " Manuscript Found." - Henry Lake as cited in, Historical Collections of Ohio, Henry Howe, 1851, p286[/quote]

Lake was refering to this from 1 Nephi 3:
[quote]28 ...Wherefore Laman and Lemuel did speak many hard words unto us, their younger brothers, and they did smite us even with a rod.
  29 And it came to pass as they smote us with a rod, behold, an angel of the Lord came and stood before them, and he spake unto them, saying: Why do ye smite your younger brother with a rod? Know ye not that the Lord hath chosen him to be a ruler over you, and this because of your iniquities? Behold ye shall go up to Jerusalem again, and the Lord will deliver Laban into your hands.[/quote]

vs's 28 & 29 have a reference to the plural "brothers" while vs29 refers to the singular "brother." This is the inconsistency Henry Lake claims to have noticed when Spalding read his manuscript to him "more than twenty years earlier."
  
[quote]Several of them claimed Lamanite, Nephite (they are the Sciotons and the Kentucks in the extant manuscript), Moroni, Laban, Zarahemla, and other proper names were taken directly from Spalding's text. Oddly enough, Spalding's widow didn't corroborate any of this. She said she didn't know what Spalding's story was about.[/quote]

Again, not correct:

[quote]Mr. Spaulding being an educated man and passionately fond of history, took a lively interest in these developments of antiquity; and in order to beguile the hours of retirement and furnish employment for his lively imagination, he conceived the idea of giving an historical sketch of this long lost race. Their extreme antiquity of course would lead him to write in the most ancient style, and as the Old Testament is the most ancient book in the world, he imitated its style as nearly as possible. His sole object in writing this historical romance was to amuse himself and his neighbors. This was about the year 1812. Hull's surrender at Detroit, occurred near the same time, and I recollect the date well from that circumstance. As he progressed in his narrative, the neighbors would come in from time to time to hear portions read, and a great interest in the work was excited among them. It claimed to have been written by one of the lost nation and to have been recovered from the earth, and, assumed the title of "Manuscript Found." The neighbors would often inquire how Mr. S. progressed in decyphering "the manuscript," and when he had sufficient portion prepared he would inform them, and they would assemble to hear it read. He was enabled from his acquaintance with the classics and ancient history, to introduce many singular names, which were particularly noticed by the people and could be easily recognized by them. - Matilda (Spalding) Davison Boston Recorder, 1839
[url="http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/NE/miscne01.htm#041939"]http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/NE/miscne01.htm#041939[/url][/quote]

This 1839 published statement of Mr. Spalding's widow was what, in fact, caused Sidney Rigdon to issue a public denial of his connection to Spalding.

[quote]The manuscript she produced upon request was a similar, but unfinished, story about Romans (not Jews) who came to the Americas. Advocates of the Spalding theory claim that was an original draft of the finished manuscript from which the Book of Mormon was taken. The evidence that supports a second manuscript is entirely subsequent to the discovery of the first, as far as I can tell.[/quote]

Again, not correct, but I am running out of time and will have to continue with corrections some other time. You show an informed understanding of the Spalding theory, but one that is certainly prejudiced against it and appears flawed for that reason.

While previewng the above, I noticed that you had responded to my earlier post... in that response you write:
[quote]I'm at a loss here. The history of the composition of Manuscript Lost has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the history of the composition of the Book of Mormon.[/quote]

Apparently you are unfamiliar with Spalding's extant manuscript (the Oberlin manuscript).

[url="http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/SRPpap04.htm"]http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/SRPpap04.htm[/url]

[Nevo]

I was surprised to see that Parley P. Pratt turns out to be "the most likely author for nine chapters with five occurring in First Nephi, one in Mosiah, and two small chapters appearing, back-to-back, in Moroni" (p. 15).

I wonder if it is significant that all of the writing samples from Rigdon, Cowdery, and Pratt postdate the publication of the Book of Mormon. Isn't it possible that the Book of Mormon influenced their writing styles rather than vice versa? I know my brother-in-law uses peculiar Book of Mormon constructions in his speech all the time--especially when giving priesthood blessings.

[Uncle Dale]

Nevo, on Dec 8 2008, 12:50 AM, said:

I was surprised to see that Parley P. Pratt turns out to be "the most likely author for nine chapters with five occurring in First Nephi, one in Mosiah, and two small chapters appearing, back-to-back, in Moroni" (p. 15).

I wonder if it is significant that all of the writing samples from Rigdon, Cowdery, and Pratt postdate the publication of the Book of Mormon. Isn't it possible that the Book of Mormon influenced their writing styles rather than vice versa? I know my brother-in-law uses peculiar Book of Mormon constructions in his speech all the time--especially when giving priesthood blessings.

Yes, it is significant that the Cowdery and Rigdon authorship samples
are post-publication of the BoM.

A future, similar computerized study of the text should use pre-1829
writing samples. (Such samples may be difficult to obtain, however.)

UD

[Danna]

maklelan, on Dec 7 2008, 11:02 AM, said:

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

Pious fraud is not uncommon.

Also, it is quite possible that he thought he (and his assistants) were producing a genuine history by revelation, or making use of fable to restore 'correct' theology - and making use of pious fraud to lend credibility to the discovery.

Not every falsehood is the product of nefarious intentions.

[Danna]

maklelan, on Dec 7 2008, 03:52 PM, said:

I don't have time to go into too many details, but I find it telling that the structure they consider to be more accurate (NSC) almost doubled the number of Isaiah/Malachi-influenced chapters in the Book of Mormon (the less reliable delta triples them). They attribute this to attempts on the part of the authors to sound archaic with their English. Doesn't this call into question the reliability of this system if merely couching a narrative in archaic-sounding nomenclature can produce these false positives?

As I read the study, attempts to sound archaic were not a main factor (what were you reading?), rather the possibility of one or more additional sources was raised (i.e. Ethan Smith). From my point of view, the wording of the Isaiah/Malachi portions of the KJV are a group adjusted effort by the team of translators who produced the KJV. This would make the I/M 'style' more generic or average, less 'personalised' than the style of one individual. So of the seven 'styles' which were used for comparison, an unknown author would rate a higher probabilty of assignment to Isaiah/Malachi. The authors discussed future work on View of the Hebrews, and Joseph Smith as an author, once they sourced confirmed JS material for comparison.

Quote

What does this mean regarding the possible authors (like Joseph Smith) they omitted entirely from the study? How many chapters attributed to Rigdon were actually penned by Smith?

See my comment above. Scientific conservatism underlies the decision to delay analysis ofJoseph Smith's input.

Quote

What about the fact that the only Rigdon text they used was written over 30 years after the publication of the Book of Mormon? Are individual's writing styles that diachronically consistent that they can be isolated in texts produced 34 years apart from each other, even after being passed through a number of redactors?

The authors addressed this - Rigdon was highly selective about which portions of the BoM he allowed to influence his subsequent 'style', if this was the case - The non-random influence itself would require explanation. Spaulding certainly was not influenced by the BoM, so altering probabilities for Rigdon's involvement does not impact on conclusions concerning Spaulding.

Quote

What does this mean in light of the fact that the only Spalding base text they had available was the manuscript about Romans finding their way to the Americas and splitting into two competing factions?

They selected for context-free parameters.

Quote

Doesn't the similarity in plotlines lend itself to similar vernacular and usage?

Re-read the justification for selection of the two control authors. Take a second think about that similarity in plotlines.

Quote

NSC gave 2 Nephi 22 a 99.9% probability of coming from Isaiah/Malachi. The authors try to make that sound significant, but they don't mention that the text is 6 verses (135 words) long and only differs from the KJV Isaiah 12 in one word ("is become" instead of "has become").

Well, it is significant. And a reasonable reader would think that a passage that is 99.9% similar to another is not going to vary by more than a word or two. How many differences per 100 words would you expect at 99.9% similarity.

Quote

It also missed one Isaiah chapter, attributing Mosiah 14 (Isaiah 53!) to Henry Wadsworth Longfellow. I'll grant that these statistical data can be very accurate, but they can also be horribly inaccurate. If anything this study leaves more questions than answers.

With over two hundred comparisons, one would be suspicious if there were not a couple of misattributions due to normal fluctuation pushing the style of a chapter within the parameters of another author. That is hardly 'horribly inaccurate'. It is actually very robust.

Quote

The authors say they want to see what happens when they plug in the Joseph Smith Papers. I'm also interested to see how that will change this data.

Adding Joseph Smith and Ethan Smith would be cool - It may tidy up some of the Isaiah/Malachi over-attribution. I doubt that either JS or ES would have a writing style more typical of Rigdon or Spaulding than Rigdon and Spaulding themselves. But yes, hopefully additional analysis is not too far away.