Another Wordprint-type Study

[NorthboundZax]

Simply stated, and if I understand things correctly, the word-print techniques are not designed to determine whether the actual author(s) of the text in question is/are included in the study or not. And, if the actual author(s) of the text happen to be included in the study, then there is a 20% chance of a false positive; whereas if the actual author(s) aren't included in the study, it is expected/understandable that the study will invariably (100%) return a false positive. Therefore, there is between 20% and 100% chance that the results of the study will returned a false positive, and this without the ability to know which percent applies.

Should that instill confidence?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Your supposition is true that if A wrote a book and is not included in the study, whoever is tagged as top author is clearly incorrect. However, that is an immature way of looking at the results in regard to what inverse theory can tell us about complex systems even when useful information is missing. Uncle Dale's response was quite prescient when it comes to interpreting results like these.

In short, while a false positive will of course appear in the absence of the actual author, there is a predictable signal of what that should be (Danna, Uncertain, and myself have all mentioned this within this thread). While the result would register a false positive, that false positive would be extremely weak and statistically attributable to chance. E.g., where Longfellow was tagged, it was always weak. Even if one thought Longfellow wrote those particular chapters, it would be an uphill battle to say so with confidence. It is different altogether when a positive registers strongly like the Rigdon and Spalding signals do (and Cowdery and Pratt to a lesser extent).

The only way to get consistent strong false positives (i.e., significantly statistically more like one incorrect target author than another, is if that particular author has a strikingly similar voice to the correct one. So one would need to suppose that (in a tight translation paradigm) that Nephi, Alma, Mormon, and others all had strikingly similar voices to Rigdon and/or Spalding relative to other subset of 19th century authors. It is a little easier to fathom that in a loose translation, that the Joseph Smith signature would look far more similar to Rigdon-Spalding than the others, but not by lots.

How did you come up with the 20% rate when the Jocker's reply to UD stated 10%, anyway?

[Danna]

For example, let's say we chose three more contemporary writers

whose word-prints could be fairly easily established, and we then

mapped out the word-prints for those three potential contributors

to the text. Say we chose Lucy Smith, W. W. Phelps and Wm. Morgan.

What sort of results might we expect to see in their mapped-out wordprints?

Probabably Lucy Smith would stand out as the most likely author of

certain parts of the BoM, while Phelps and Morgan would show up as

the better candidates for having written other parts of the text.

I think the point that Zax has made is that the results in this case, and as we would expect for any unrelated authors, would be flat across the authors. That is while technically Mother Smith might show up as 'most likely' author, the expected results would be something like 36% for her, 33% for Phelps, and 31% for Captain Morgan.

Whereas, what is seen with the present study is that for very many chapters the 'lead' author has a lead of 50%+. That pattern would just not be expected for unrelated authors.

So while it is easy to say that the results are relative, and any set of authors would give a 'most likely' author, having unrelated authors stand out in the way that Spaulding and Rigdon standout is a significant finding.

[Uncle Dale]

I think the point that Zax has made is that the results in this case, and as we would expect for any unrelated authors, would be flat across the authors. That is while technically Mother Smith might show up as 'most likely' author, the expected results would be something like 36% for her, 33% for Phelps, and 31% for Captain Morgan.

Whereas, what is seen with the present study is that for very many chapters the 'lead' author has a lead of 50%+. That pattern would just not be expected for unrelated authors.

So while it is easy to say that the results are relative, and any set of authors would give a 'most likely' author, having unrelated authors stand out in the way that Spaulding and Rigdon standout is a significant finding.

Yes, this is correct -- but until we have thus examined a wider range of potential

authorship candidates, the current findings remain only likely possibilities, discovered

while examining a small set of possible authors.

What on earth would we make of the results, if a future study indicated that the

"voices" of Solomon Spalding and Ethan Smith plotted out as very nearly the same?

Or, if in taking some of the chapters currently assigned to Rigdon, we mapped that

small sample across the entire Book of Mormon, the the results "wiped out" all of

the supposed Oliver Cowdery chapters?

We have taken but a few steps on a long journey here -- there is still far to go.

UD

[Danna]

What I am asking is, can the computerized author attribution techniques (CAAT) used in the so-called Stanford study produce a false positive--particularly if the actual author is not included in the study?

If so, then what is the probative value in using such techniques in cases where the actual author is unknown and in question?

I mean word-prints studies are not like fingerprinting, where attribution only occurs when there is a perfect match.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yes, as I noted earlier, Zax has pointed out that such results would produce a 'most likely author', but in the case where all authors are not connected to the material, the most likely author will not lead on the others very much. the results would be relatively flat across all authors, although normal fluctuations will put one a few points ahead.

In this study, the lead authors tend to lead by 50%+. That pattern is so remarkable that it requires explanation.

[Gervin]

a couple of questions

1 - How are "other voices" differentiated? It appears that Spalding (others) borrowed from popular writers and writings of the day; Ramsey, Wilson, Edwards, et al. Is there any merit in plugging some of these folks into an analysis to see how much of the BOM may come from their pen?

2 - Extracting the high probabilities associated with Spalding, Rigdon, Cowdery + OT text verbatim, how much of the BOM is "left?" Does the study indicate missing pieces or authors?

thnx

[Uncle Dale]

a couple of questions

1 - How are "other voices" differentiated? It appears that Spalding (others) borrowed from popular writers and writings of the day; Ramsey, Wilson, Edwards, et al. Is there any merit in plugging some of these folks into an analysis to see how much of the BOM may come from their pen?

2 - Extracting the high probabilities associated with Spalding, Rigdon, Cowdery + OT text verbatim, how much of the BOM is "left?" Does the study indicate missing pieces or authors?

thnx

There are at least four methods we might look to for comparing texts:

1. Comparing the frequency of non-contextual words in two texts (and, it, to, but, for, etc.)

2. Comparing the most frequently used words of a known author against another text.

3. Comparing all the known words of an author against all the known words in a text.

4. Comparing "significant" word-strings in two texts ("the quick brown fox jumped..." etc.)

As I understand it, the new word-print study used a variety of method #2.

In my own, far less rigorous studies, I have tried limited application of methods #3 & #4.

Perhaps, eventually, we shall have a body of scholarly literature compiled from sundry

word-printing attempts on the Book of Mormon. If different methods begin to establish some

similar results, in terms of probable authorship, then we can be less skeptical about possible

"borrowing from popular writers," and such.

In my own studies, that particular possibility was always in the back of my mind -- but I

think it is less a distraction when we apply methods 1 and 2 to word-printing.

There are not many "gaps," in the text, once biblical borrowings are added into the mapped

word-prints for Spalding, Rigdon, Cowdery and Pratt.

Nevertheless, I'd like to see if any of those probability gaps might be filled, if we also

added Joseph Smith, Jr., Lucy Smith, Hyrum Smith and W. W. Phelps to the tested authors.

One important point however -- with the addition of each possible author after Spalding/Rigdon,

our believability in a many-person writing "conspiracy" drops exponentially. It goes beyond

normal thinking, that more than 3 or 4 conspirators could have kept such a secret for years,

even if all involved did not know it was a conspiracy of that many people.

UD

.

[why me]

One important point however -- with the addition of each possible author after Spalding/Rigdon,

our believability in a many-person writing "conspiracy" drops exponentially. It goes beyond

normal thinking, that more than 3 or 4 conspirators could have kept such a secret for years,

even if all involved did not know it was a conspiracy of that many people.

UD

.

Not to mention the fact there are also witnesses who saw the plates. The list of conspirators would already be quite long and problematic for secrecy keeping. And then when we had more as possible writers, the list becomes quite long. Critics of the book of mormon often forget the human element and human nature. I don't think that human nature can change. With the list of possible conspirators as long as it is, it is quite impossible that no one gave up the fraud. But I suppose that it could happen with a great deal of luck.

I would think that the conspirators would have known of eachother's existence since they worked within the lds church rather closely for years.

[John Williams]

Not to mention the fact there are also witnesses who saw the plates. The list of conspirators would already be quite long and problematic for secrecy keeping. And then when we had more as possible writers, the list becomes quite long. Critics of the book of mormon often forget the human element and human nature. I don't think that human nature can change. With the list of possible conspirators as long as it is, it is quite impossible that no one gave up the fraud. But I suppose that it could happen with a great deal of luck.

Or it could have been that there was a short list of conspirators (your word). How do you determine whether the witnesses were part of a conspiracy or fooled? Acknowledging the "human element" also means that we must understand that the witnesses may have been fooled by the conspirators. Thus, it would be quite natural for them not to give up the fraud if they didn't realize it was a fraud. No luck needed.

I would think that the conspirators would have known of eachother's existence since they worked within the lds church rather closely for years.

True, but then how do you know who was a "conspirator"? How would those who apparently believed wholeheartedly (Martin Harris, for instance) have known who was a conspirator if they never suspected fraud?

[Gervin]

Not to mention the fact there are also witnesses who saw the plates.

I'd like to abide by Dale's request to keep the thread on topic re the wordprint study, but just a quick response to this sentence, above. There probably were witnesses who saw plates, but do you know with any certainty they saw the plates? If you were one of these witnesses how would you be sure of the date of the plates, the writings on the plates, and the manner of discovery of the plates? My guess is that your confidence would be based on the testimony of someone else; i.e., Jos. Smith, explaining to you what you were seeing. You wouldn't necessarily be engaged in a conspiracy anymore than you would be today by showing the same confidence based on the testimony of J. Smith and the official witnesses.

It seems to me that a wordprint study is useful because it can scientifically test - or at least scientifically examine perspectives - areas highly imbued with testimony. In turn, the study implications or results may influence how one looks at the testimony surrounding [the] plates.

Sightly back on topic, here is some information about Criddle's view of Sidney Rigdon. My apologies if it was posted earlier:

Criddle views on Rigdon

[Uncle Dale]

...

how do you know who was a "conspirator"? How would those who apparently believed wholeheartedly (Martin Harris, for instance) have known who was a conspirator if they never suspected fraud?

I ran into something along these lines when I worked as a structural designer/detailer

in a Dept. of Energy project for nuclear spent fuels disposal. Several of my co-workers

had previously cooperated together on a previous construction project that was in

some way associated with the development and deployment of cruise missiles.

From the small-talk of my co-workers I sometimes gained the impression that they

knew a considerable amount of detail on certain US Government secret projects, but

I never learned any of those details myself. As for my own work at the time, it was

carried out in a secure location and parts of it were only shared with my boss and his

bosses. Each of us working on the project had a special security clearance, and each

of us obtained/shared classified information only on a "need to know" basis.

So --- how does any of that relate to the recent word-printing study conducted at Stanford?

Their conclusion is that several "voices" are present in the BoM text and that it was probably

composed by at least four writers.

But, if those writers cooperated on a "need to know" basis, can we reasonably assume that

each of them were aware of the other's literary input?

Now, add to that, the possibility that the multiple contributors to the text were operating

under the belief that each of them was functioning as a channel for truly divine revelation;

how would such a belief/delusion affect their perception of the writing process and the

involvement of some other person(s) in that process?

To be more specific -- if Parley P. Pratt actually contributed some chapters to the Book of

Mormon, does that necessarily show that he knew that Oliver Cowdery was doing the same?

Or, does it necessarily show that Pratt knew anything (at the time) about Solomon Spalding?

Spalding almost certainly never knew Rigdon, Pratt, or Cowdery. He may have been vaguely

aware of the Smiths at the time he attended Dartmouth (and perhaps lived across the river

from the school, with his uncle, in Sharon, Vetmont). But Spalding, at least, would have

been totally unaware that he was contributing to a writing "conspiracy."

In my secret nuclear facility design work, my boss knew all that I was doing, but I knew

practically nothing of what he was doing, or what my co-workers were doing -- or, even

the identities of all my co-workers.

If we postulate a late 1820s Book of Mormon compilation project, who then was the

organizational equivalent of my boss, in my own work on a secret project?

1. Joseph Smith, Jr.?

2. Sidney Rigdon?

3. somebody else?

UD

.

[Danna]

Now, add to that, the possibility that the multiple contributors to the text were operating

under the belief that each of them was functioning as a channel for truly divine revelation;

how would such a belief/delusion affect their perception of the writing process and the

involvement of some other person(s) in that process?

I have had this thought - pure speculation of course, at least about Oliver Cowdery. His attempts at revelation, his apparent belief in Joseph, his disillusionment when he found out about Fanny all seem a bit naiive. He at least could have been misled into believing that he was working for the lord.

There is the possibility that one or more of the team believed that Spaulding's work represented an actual history, or had been 'sent' as a vehicle for Sidney Rigdon to bring about the restoration. For Rigdon, the motive would have been pious fraud. But we don't know what information he gave the others, as to where the 'history' originated - revealed to Rigdon or otherwise.

As you say Uncle Dale, they may not have all been completely involved in conspiracy, they may have had completely different motives - and different participants may have been given different 'backstories'. Rigdon is my pick for the 'boss' though.

[Uncle Dale]

I have had this thought - pure speculation of course, at least about Oliver Cowdery. His attempts at revelation, his apparent belief in Joseph, his disillusionment when he found out about Fanny all seem a bit naiive. He at least could have been misled into believing that he was working for the lord.

There is the possibility that one or more of the team believed that Spaulding's work represented an actual history, or had been 'sent' as a vehicle for Sidney Rigdon to bring about the restoration. For Rigdon, the motive would have been pious fraud. But we don't know what information he gave the others, as to where the 'history' originated - revealed to Rigdon or otherwise.

As you say Uncle Dale, they may not have all been completely involved in conspiracy, they may have had completely different motives - and different participants may have been given different 'backstories'. Rigdon is my pick for the 'boss' though.

Possibly Oliver truly believed he was receiving divine revelation via his

water-witching rod, and was only hindered by troublesome "stupors of thought."

Possibly Rigdon truly believed in many dispensations of the "ancient gospel,"

with each being essentially so much like another, that he could effectively

recreate the story of the American Nephite dispensation by pure deduction.

In that case, Spalding's pseudo-history would have served merely as a stage

prop, in a marvelous work and a wonder, of restoring Apostolic Christianity,

by consulting what "must have been" the Nephite model.

After all -- these proto-Mormons of the 1820s were pretty much in agreement

with Alexander Campbell, in the deduction that all the current creeds were gross

abominations, and that practically any change in the religious situation would

be for the better ---- even if that change seemed terribly radical and problematic.

Campbell sought to "restore" the ancient church by consulting the Bible -- he even

went to the trouble of putting together a better translation of the New Testament,

so that his followers would have pure scriptures to consult for that restoration.

At some point, Rigdon must have decided that Campbell's restorationist attempts

were ill-guided and failing. He could convert new believers, but they were not

experiencing the "baptism of fire," and did not appear to have apostolic authority.

Perhaps even "more pure" scriptures were needed, to usher in the Millennium.

UD

[why me]

Or it could have been that there was a short list of conspirators (your word). How do you determine whether the witnesses were part of a conspiracy or fooled? Acknowledging the "human element" also means that we must understand that the witnesses may have been fooled by the conspirators. Thus, it would be quite natural for them not to give up the fraud if they didn't realize it was a fraud. No luck needed.True, but then how do you know who was a "conspirator"? How would those who apparently believed wholeheartedly (Martin Harris, for instance) have known who was a conspirator if they never suspected fraud?

I think that one needs to see just how the witnesses received a testimony of the plates. It does not seem to be done with a human element but with a spiritual element. Difficult to fool anyone when the spiritual is involved. If the witnesses were part of the conspiracy, it would be highly improbable that all would have remained silent and not exposed the fraud. And I am sure that if it were a fraud, they would have discovered it sooner than later. For example, eight of the witnesses claimed to handle the plates and look through them. This would mean that young JS would be involved in engraving markings on gold plates. This would be highly unlikely. And just as unlikely to assume that sidney, oliver or anyone else would do such a thing to commit a hoax. I can think of easier way to commit such a hoax without writing a 600 page book and then engraving many pages of gold. I only bring this up because in order to believe that a word study can work, one must also look and see just how the book of mormon came about, and who would have been in on the fraud and just how many people would need to keep their mouths quite.

I have had this thought - pure speculation of course, at least about Oliver Cowdery. His attempts at revelation, his apparent belief in Joseph, his disillusionment when he found out about Fanny all seem a bit naiive. He at least could have been misled into believing that he was working for the lord.

Not if he was one of the authors of the book. After Fanny, he was in a great position to expose his work as a fraud in order to disgrace JS and save the reputation of Fanny.

[why me]

As you say Uncle Dale, they may not have all been completely involved in conspiracy, they may have had completely different motives - and different participants may have been given different 'backstories'. Rigdon is my pick for the 'boss' though.

And Rigdon would have been in a wonderful position to expose the fraud when Nancy was disignated to be a plural wife and when he, Rigdon, was passed over for the leadership position of the lds church. He would have destroyed the all Brigham church by his declaration: I wrote the book of mormon and here is the manuscript with rough drafts.

[Uncle Dale]

And Rigdon would have been in a wonderful position to expose the fraud when Nancy was disignated to be a plural wife and when he, Rigdon, was passed over for the leadership position of the lds church. He would have destroyed the all Brigham church by his declaration: I wrote the book of mormon and here is the manuscript with rough drafts.

Ever read the letters that passed between Orson Hyde and Brigham Young,

just after Rigdon's 1844 excommunication at Nauvoo, when Hyde was

tailing his old mentor on the route back to Pittsburgh?

First of all, Brigham had published in the "Times & Seasons," a warning to

Rigdon -- that if he told The Twelve's secrets, they would tell his.

Also, Hyde reported to Brigham that Rigdon was saying he knew things

about Joseph Smith that could have destroyed (cast down) the church

leader years before.

Then Rigdon reaches St. Louis and says that Hyde was trying to get him killed,

in order to shut him up (my conclusion).

Then Hyde trails Rigdon back as far as Ohio and writes to the NYC "Prophet,"

providing information that Rigdon had renounced/denounced Mormonism in

Missouri. James Jefferies later confirms part of that -- saying Rigdon admitted

to him that the BoM was written by himself and Smith, using a pre-existing MS.

Jefferies was a St. Louis Gentile merchant --- Rigdon traveled from Nauvoo

to St. Louis in company with a Gentile St. Louis merchant (maybe a bodyguard).

In later years Rigdon slowly divulged "secrets" about Joseph Smith, in the

context of articles and information published by his post-Nauvoo followers in

Rigdonite publications. Generally speaking, Rigdon slowly evolved his disclosures,

to the point of essentially calling Smith a fallen prophet.

Yet, in all that "telling of secrets" Rigdon continued to profess that the BoM was

a latter day revelation, and that he himself was the "spokesman" mentioned in

that book, in conjunction with the promised latter-day "choice seer."

Rigdon's efforts to hold together his church finally failed in the late 1840s,

but he kept up his trying to convert followers down into the 1860s and

early 1870s. He still looked to the Book of Mormon as his claim to authority.

If he truly admitted the "secret" to Jefferies in 1844, he obviously soon thought

the better of exposure (made in a fit of rage, or a post-excommunication binge?).

His renunciation of Mormonism did not last even for the few days it took him to

travel from St. Louis back to Pittsburgh.

Why throw away your one claim to fame, authority (and followers' tithing)

just because you are mad at Joseph and Brigham?

UD

.

[why me]

Ever read the letters that passed between Orson Hyde and Brigham Young,

just after Rigdon's 1844 excommunication at Nauvoo, when Hyde was

tailing his old mentor on the route back to Pittsburgh?

First of all, Brigham had published in the "Times & Seasons," a warning to

Rigdon -- that if he told The Twelve's secrets, they would tell his.

UD

And of course, 'Times and Seasons' was a publication that was widely read (at least to my understanding). I would then assume that the secrets had very little to do with the book of mormon authorship but with some other event in Sidney's life. Throughout our lives, we are prone to make embarrassing mistakes that if exposed, may cause just a little harm to our reputation.

[why me]

If he truly admitted the "secret" to Jefferies in 1844, he obviously soon thought

the better of exposure (made in a fit of rage, or a post-excommunication binge?).

His renunciation of Mormonism did not last even for the few days it took him to

travel from St. Louis back to Pittsburgh.

UD

.

And here is the beadbug that causes people to scratch...did Jefferies make it all up? Now better evidence would be Sidney's confession in his own hand that he authored the book of mormon and then provide evidence that he did so. But... that doesn't exist. There are much second hand reports by people with personal agendas when it comes to mormonism and the book of mormon. But first hand accounts always take a better place in the evidence standing.

After getting passed over for leadership, it would be natural to renounce mormonism. Heck, many exers today have done the same thing. But it doesn't prove much. At the end of the day, Sidney watched his decline of influence after being a successful mormon and protestant preacher. He faded away and allowed the Brighamites to gain success from his supposed fraud. Now that would be a hard pill to swallow for any person. Sidney's fame would be assured if he came clean about authorship with needed evidence. He would have been back on the protestant preaching circuit filled with repentance as he exposed the fraud on the preaching circuit. Now that would be a way to go out with glory.

[Uncle Dale]

And here is the beadbug that causes people to scratch...did Jefferies make it all up? Now better evidence would be Sidney's confession in his own hand that he authored the book of mormon and then provide evidence that he did so. But... that doesn't exist. There are much second hand reports by people with personal agendas when it comes to mormonism and the book of mormon. But first hand accounts always take a better place in the evidence standing.

After getting passed over for leadership, it would be natural to renounce mormonism. Heck, many exers today have done the same thing. But it doesn't prove much. At the end of the day, Sidney watched his decline of influence after being a successful mormon and protestant preacher. He faded away and allowed the Brighamites to gain success from his supposed fraud. Now that would be a hard pill to swallow for any person. Sidney's fame would be assured if he came clean about authorship with needed evidence. He would have been back on the protestant preaching circuit filled with repentance as he exposed the fraud on the preaching circuit. Now that would be a way to go out with glory.

My only point was, that Sidney had the opportunity to "tell secrets,"

but obviously was conflicted in deciding to do so.

After all, he had recently professed receiving a revelation, whereby

Joseph Smith still held "the keys," and Rigdon was to be his successor.

It took several years of progressive "exposures" by Rigdon, before

he ever even reached the point of insinuating that Smith was a fallen

prophet. To have openly condemned Smith in 1844 would have undercut

Sidney's own attempts at keeping his few hundred followers together

in a single congregation, paying all their tithing to him.

Had he openly called the BoM a 19th century production, he could have

kissed all of that income and followers' support good-bye.

Maybe he realized that fact while on his way back to Pittsburgh, and

thus decided to be more circumspect in divulging "secrets." For example,

he slowly divulged more and more about clandestine polygamy at

Nauvoo, but did not blame Smith for that in any of his initial disclosures.

You can be sure that later RLDS readers latched on to that fact, to say

even Rigdon did not credit Smith with having taught polygamy.

Rigdon's following disappeared over the course of about 5 years. The

better question for you to ask, is why he did not tell "more secrets" after

the tithing income ceased, and he was left to beg a living from his rich

son-in-law, George Robinson (who quit being Rigdon's follower, c. 1850)???

UD

[Cold Steel]

To have openly condemned Smith in 1844 would have undercut Sidney's own attempts at keeping his few hundred followers together in a single congregation, paying all their tithing to him. Had he openly called the BoM a 19th century production, he could have kissed all of that income and followers' support good-bye.

Yeah, but if he wanted to truly revive Mormonism under his leadership, it would have been a simple matter for him to produce even more of the Book of Mormon. Can you imagine the reaction had he published a nice, juicy book from the "sealed portion"? Had it been fully consistent with the one Joseph Smith produced, he could have simply produced a sequel.

We now have two conflicting "sealed portion" texts today written by two sources outside the LDS community. Both are pathetic, rambling things that betray their origins quickly, yet some weak minded people have embraced them. I think had Rigdon produced his own scripture, come up with his own witnesses (easy to do, right?)â??I think he might have wrested the leadership away from Young. Unfortunately, Rigdon never really produced anything memorable along those lines.

My view is that he couldn't have pulled it off. He didn't the first time and he was incapable of producing anything like it.

I also hold to the notion that had the Book of Mormon been fiction, then everything thereafter coming out of the worlds of archaeology, anthropology, geography and ancient literature would have combined to eventually constrict it and then overwhelm it. But just the opposite is happening. The more that is learned in these areas, the more plausible it all becomes. We look today at Robert Graves' I Claudius and Claudius the God and everything we continue to learn about Roman history shows where errors crept into the work. This is only to be expected since these works are fiction and, of course, the little stories where Graves takes license to fill in his books are pure figments of his imagination. But we're now learning things that Graves didn't know and got wrong, and the more we learn about that time period, the more we'll see that it is indeed fiction. The filler is all wrong. But the Book of Mormon is completely the other way; the more we learn about the geography, the people of the old and new worlds, the literature, history, beliefs, customs, languages, etc., the more it lines up.

Think of how impressive it would be if Graves had filled in his narrative with texts and conversations that weren't known about while he was alive, but were discovered after he was dead! But if Graves spent years and did exhaustive research on something that was so well known about in his day and age and left huge gaps of things that were wrong, think how amazing it would be for Spalding, Rigdon or any other man do it in 1830, when almost nothing was known?

[Uncle Dale]

Yeah, but if he wanted to truly revive Mormonism under his leadership, it would have been a simple matter

for him to produce even more of the Book of Mormon. Can you imagine the reaction had he published a nice,

juicy book from the "sealed portion"?

...

From Van Wagoner's 1996 Sidney Rigdon:

[p.461]

Appendices

1: Sidney Rigdon on the Sealed Portion of the Gold Plates

One of Sidney Rigdon's most interesting explications is on the contents of the sealed portion of the "gold plates"

of the Book of Mormon which Joseph Smith was not allowed to translate. Rigdon included his exegesis in a 1 September

1868 letter "To the First Presidency of Zion" (original in Stephen Post Collection, box i, fd. 16, also sec. 42,

Copying Book A, box 3, fd. 12; archives, Historical Department of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,

Salt Lake City, Utah).

Inasmuch as I the Lord desire to have peace and unity among the children of Zion[,] I will, as far as wisdom in

me requires, give to my people an understanding of the character of the things which are engraven on the sealed

plates.

Let the children of Zion therefore know that the record spoken of differs from the book of Mormon in its being

historical instead of doctrinal[.] The ook of Mormon teaches

[Marcelo]

From Van Wagoner's 1996 Sidney Rigdon:

There may be more on this particular subject -- see his revelations, as preserved

in the Stephen Post Collection in the Lee Library at BYU.

UD

I Thought that the 116 pages was related to the Book of Lehi, not to the Book of Joseph Smith.

Uncle Dale, don't you think that Sidney Rigdon was being ironical when he retroprojects pos factuns after decades to a lost piece of scripture who no one else (besides Martin Harris) would know their content?

[Uncle Dale]

I Thought that the 116 pages was related to the Book of Lehi, not to the Book of Joseph Smith.

Uncle Dale, don't you think that Sidney Rigdon was being ironical when he retroprojects pos factuns after decades

to a lost piece of scripture who no one else (besides Martin Harris) would know their content?

I really do not know. Some of Rigdon's post-Nauvoo writings are correspondence

and other, similar mundane documents. But others purport to be revelations flowing

directly from the lips of God.

Before we say too much, one way or the other, it would be necessary that we

compile Rigdon's later writings, transcribe the contents, and sort them out as to

their nature and purpose.

After we do that, I think we can better tell what was "ironical" and what was not.

Uncle Dale

.

[wenglund]

Allow me to give yet another example, which may be helpful in our discussion here.

Suppose you are a professor in the Art Dept. of a university and you administer an

end-of-the-term "blue book" exam to your students in an art history class. I am one

of your students -- but when you read my submitted "blue book" you suspect cheating.

I am a Freshman in a class of 21 art history students (10 Juniors and 10 Seniors). In

reading my two-part essay in my "blue-book," you suspect that I received help in

writing the second part of the essay. Since all the students submitted their tests

under controlled conditions, confined for an hour's period to a testing room, you are

fairly certain that one of the other students helped me write my essay's part two.

Can word-print testing discern my probable accomplice?

Let's say that the "blue-books" were submitted on controlled, limited-access laptop

computers attached to the desks of the testing room. So, you have before you the

two-part essays of all 21 students. You are thus able to generate word-prints for

all 21 students, for each of their two parts of the "blue-book" essay.

You test the Juniors' and Seniors' two-part essays separately -- and determine that there

is a very high probability that the students thus tested each wrote both parts of their

respective essays. However, when you compare my two-part essay with the word-prints

of the Juniors and of the Seniors, I score a very high probability as author of part one,

but a low probability as author of part two.

The monitor at the time of the hour's period of testing tells you that she thought she saw

another student talking to me briefly during the testing. That student may have secretly

passed me some written notes --- she thinks it was a Junior, but is not certain.

From all of that information before you, neatly available on your computer, can you

use word-printing to "prove" that I was not the writer of the second part of my essay?

Can you determine probabilities, as to whether it was one of the Juniors, or one of

the Seniors, who was my helpful ghost-writer?

Can you rank-order the probable candidates, as to the probability of who was my helper?

My guess is, that with such information before you, through word-printing, you could rule

me out as the author of the essay's part two, based upon two or three statistical criteria.

1. My first part of the essay does not match up well with the second part. The probability

of their having the same author (based upon examining the word-prints of two separate

batches of 10 Seniors and 10 Juniors) places my ranking as part two's possible author at the

bottom of the computerized output list for all possible authorship candidates.

2. However, my first part of the essay does not match up well with the word-prints of any

of the other 20 students. You suppose that it is indeed a product of my writing, and you

can later compare it with other writing samples you obtain from me, to be sure.

3. Having decided that I did not write the second part of my submitted essay, you have

compared it (in two separate instances of computerized testing) with the word-prints of

the Juniors and Seniors. With the Juniors I rank at the bottom, with a 5% chance of

having been the writer. Compared to the Seniors, I rank at the bottom with a 6%

probability of having been the writer. Is that 1% difference relevant/significant?

4. Looking at the two sets of data, you see that among the Seniors, the highest ranking

candidate for author ranks at 15%. Among the Juniors, the highest ranking candidate

for author ranks at 90%, with the next highest writer scoring only 16%.

Have you found my secret accomplice?

Answer: No -- you have only determined a relative probability, based upon examining

21 word-prints. The answer you have thus obtained may be good enough for you to

decide to boot me and the other student out of the class for cheating --- but it is NOT

absolute proof that I cheated.

If there is a "reasonable doubt," in your conclusions, I may be able to take you to

court and get a jury to award me damages for your actions against me.

This has a direct analogy in our Book of Mormon authorship investigations. So long as

the Mormons can cite a "reasonable doubt" in considering word-print findings, they can

state that the supposed 19th authorship has NOT been demonstrated "beyond a doubt."

UD

Unfortunately, as good as this analogy is, it doesn't speak to the issue I have raised regarding the word print study. It mearly repeats it. It assumes that the pool of possible authors consists of the 21 class members, and so the word-print study would only include those 21 class members (where even then there is a 20% chance of a false positive). The study wont tell us that there was a 22nd possible author who had dictated the answers to the test from across campus and into the obscured ear-piece of the student in question. If this 22nd author were not included in the study, then there might be a 100% chance of a false positive, and no way to tell whether this is the case or not. Right?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Uncle Dale]

...

The study wont tell us that there was a 22nd possible author

...

Exactly --

In my example, there was one other person in the testing room: the testing monitor or proctor.

Until that person's testimony, word-print, etc., are examined, the case remains open.

However, the list of people alive on earth in 1830, who might theoretically have contributed to the BoM,

runs into the millions. One known contributor, the Prophet Isaiah, did not even live to see 1830.

Assuming that the Stanford word-print testing methodology is valid (or, that some future improvement

on it will give us accurate data), we are still left with the fact that those researchers tested 7 word-prints

against the Book of Mormon. Seven word-prints out of millions of possibilities.

However, as I have already said here, I suppose that the same basic methodology could be used

to test a greater number of possible writers -- say, 100 in all, with 10% being "controls," or known

non-contributors to the Book of Mormon. THAT SORT OF A STUDY REPORT would convincingly argue

for the possible validity of the Spalding-Rigdon authorship claims; if, out of those 100 persons so

tested, Spalding and Rigdon retained their status as the top-rated authorship contenders.

And, given the importance of the basic question at hand, I suppose that such additional testing

will eventually be carried out, including word-prints for Joseph Smith, "Nephites," etc.

Given the large percentage "gap" between Spalding/Rigdon and the "controls" in the recent study,

I have the strong expectation that those two writers will retain their topmost status. I could be

wrong, however, and time will tell.

Your use of the 20% possibility that all the study results are totally wrong -- is a bad assumption.

What the method does turn out (as explained to me) is that out of any set of percentages for

word-print matching, on any particular BoM chapter, there is a 10% chance that one of the various

author's rating for that chapter is out of place (too high or too low) within that particular sub-set.

There is always the slender possibility of that 10% invalidity reaching across several chapters;

but I feel that is a very small chance -- and that future word-print studies will confirm well over

90% of the Stanford results for the full set of Book of Mormon chapters.

My advice, to faithful Mormons, is to simply ignore the study and its findings.

My advice, to curious non-Mormons, is to question the expertise of past writers, like Brodie,

who have insinuated that the Spalding-Rigdon authorship claims deserve no further attention.

They do deserve further attention -- and I predict they will now receive it, in large measure.

UD

.

[wenglund]

Exactly --

In my example, there was one other person in the testing room: the testing monitor or proctor.

Until that person's testimony, word-print, etc., are examined, the case remains open.

However, the list of people alive on earth in 1830, who might theoretically have contributed to the BoM,

runs into the millions. One known contributor, the Prophet Isaiah, did not even live to see 1830.

Assuming that the Stanford word-print testing methodology is valid (or, that some future improvement

on it will give us accurate data), we are still left with the fact that those researchers tested 7 word-prints

against the Book of Mormon. Seven word-prints out of millions of possibilities.

However, as I have already said here, I suppose that the same basic methodology could be used

to test a greater number of possible writers -- say, 100 in all, with 10% being "controls," or known

non-contributors to the Book of Mormon. THAT SORT OF A STUDY REPORT would convincingly argue

for the possible validity of the Spalding-Rigdon authorship claims; if, out of those 100 persons so

tested, Spalding and Rigdon retained their status as the top-rated authorship contenders.

And, given the importance of the basic question at hand, I suppose that such additional testing

will eventually be carried out, including word-prints for Joseph Smith, "Nephites," etc.

Given the large percentage "gap" between Spalding/Rigdon and the "controls" in the recent study,

I have the strong expectation that those two writers will retain their topmost status. I could be

wrong, however, and time will tell.

Your use of the 20% possibility that all the study results are totally wrong -- is a bad assumption.

What the method does turn out (as explained to me) is that out of any set of percentages for

word-print matching, on any particular BoM chapter, there is a 10% chance that one of the various

author's rating for that chapter is out of place (too high or too low) within that particular sub-set.

There is always the slender possibility of that 10% invalidity reaching across several chapters;

but I feel that is a very small chance -- and that future word-print studies will confirm well over

90% of the Stanford results for the full set of Book of Mormon chapters.

My advice, to faithful Mormons, is to simply ignore the study and its findings.

My advice, to curious non-Mormons, is to question the expertise of past writers, like Brodie,

who have insinuated that the Spalding-Rigdon authorship claims deserve no further attention.

They do deserve further attention -- and I predict they will now receive it, in large measure.

UD

Again, word-print studies are not like fingerprinting and DNA where "closest" isn't good enough. With word-prints, there is a far greater chance of a false positive (100% chance if the actual author is not included in the study), and no way of determining if it is a false positive. So, we aren't talking about a tecnique that can determine authorship to a scientific certainty.

At best, it is an educated guess--which is only as good as the sample and control groups included in the studied (which, in this case, is as yet not impressive). It is a matter of faith rather than fact.

I would have more confidence in the study if the "Nephites" were tested. I would be even more confident were the original text, rather than the translation, to be tested against other writings of the "Nephites" in their own tongue, and were Rigdon's pre-conversion rather than post-conversion writing to be sampled.

Until then, this all makes for amusing intellectualizing, but little more.

It also completely misses the point of the Book of Mormon and the restored gospel of Christ (i.e. bring us to Christ--which, to me, is where my energies should be focused).

But, to each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-