Another Wordprint-type Study

[Chris Smith]

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]

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:

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.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Here is a link to the paper.

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

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

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.)

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://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publicatio...&chapid=189

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

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.

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?

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.

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

Who?

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

Think Galileo.

Brush up on your history.

[John D the First]

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:

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.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/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:

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.

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

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

1 - "Irregardless" isn't a word.

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

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-webster.com/dictionary/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.

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)

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

Fair enough.

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?

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/publications/review/?...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/publications/review/?...um=2&id=584

[maklelan]

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.

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

This is one of the better articles.

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.

ThisFirst- 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.

ThisFair 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.

ThisAgain 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.

ThisIf 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:

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

Not correct. First, it was Rigdon's quick conversion and rise to 2nd in command that first suggested a Rigdon/BOM connection:

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.

http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/SRPpap11.htm

In that publication, Pratt had stated:

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)

http://www.solomonspalding.com/docs/prt1838b.htm#pg42a

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:

only come to us third hand through Hurlbut

...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:

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

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:

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, 1869â?

Mckee made additional statements including this one:

...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.

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:

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.

http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/saga2/Ashtab3.htm#1833ltr

Here is the text of the letter:

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)

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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:

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.

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:

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

Lake was refering to this from 1 Nephi 3:

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.

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."

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.

Again, not correct:

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

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/NE/miscne01.htm#041939

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.

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.

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:

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.

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

http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/SRPpap04.htm

[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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[consiglieri]

First, it was Rigdon's quick conversion and rise to 2nd in command that first suggested a Rigdon/BOM connection:

Actually, I think it was the dawning realization that Joseph Smith could not possibly have authored the Book of Mormon that "first suggested a Rigdon/BOM connection."

Let's see, Joseph Smith was in New York; Sidney Rigdon was in Ohio. They first met in 1831, the year after the Book of Mormon was published. It all makes sense to me.

Now making the authorship of the Book of Mormon crystal clear is that 9 of the chapters were authored by Parley P. Pratt.

While we can demonstrate that Parley P. Pratt knew Sidney Rigdon in Ohio prior to the Book of Mormon's publication, it is more difficult to demonstrate that he ever even met Joseph Smith until after he read the Book of Mormon for the first time. Chronologically speaking, this is problematic.

It also appears Parley P. Pratt was baptized into the Church on or around 1 September 1830, and did not actually meet Joseph Smith until about a month afterward.

My question would be how these gentlemen who had not even met Joseph Smith prior to the publication of the Book of Mormon were so helpful in its authorship.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[maklelan]

maklelan:

Not correct. First, it was Rigdon's quick conversion and rise to 2nd in command that first suggested a Rigdon/BOM connection:

Since no one else had converted quickly and been immediately given a leadership position? Irrespective, I'm not addressing that, I'm addressing the Spalding aspect.

With regard to your second assertion:

...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:

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:

Mckee made additional statements including this one:

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.

The 1870's and 1880's are hardly the very beginning of Mormonism, but again, I am addressing the Spalding aspect.

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.

Yes, I already referenced that scrap. Tell me, what evidence do you have that it was dictated rather than entirely composed by Hurlbut? It matches Hurlbut's MO that it was something he composed on his own and brought around to people to say, "Here, just sign this." The fact that Hurlbut would seek verification that the handwriting was indeed Spalding's is also odd, since he got the manuscript directly from Spalding's widow. Was this just an excuse to get another affidavit that rejected the new manuscript?

Here is the text of the letter:

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.

I don't see how this evidence at all supports that conclusion. Hurlbut writes someone else's affidavit for him that's never signed and I'm suddenly supposed to be convinced that he was an upstanding gentleman? The text doesn't read like a dictated letter.

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.

That's because the stories are vaguely similar in plotline. I don't doubt that King was thinking, "Hey, this sounds familiar," but the dozen or so witnesses who suddenly remembered verbatim large chunks of texts, including the exact spelling of proper names, despite never having read the whole thing or the Book of Mormon, over 20 years after the fact, and with increasingly comprehensive detail casts doubt on the project. The most logical conclusion is that Hurlbut coached his witnesses on exactly what to say. His own composition of one of the affidavits makes that even more likely.

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.

All we can say for sure of Hurlbut is that he was an angry and unprincipled ex-Mormon who we know for a fact penned at least one of the affidavits he claimed came from the witnesses. Many of the affidavits from different people contain reoccurring phrases and vernacular that is strikingly similar to Hurlbut's own. Their structure is also the same from affidavit to affidavit. They contain in the same order and style, knowledge of the Smiths, their poor reputation in the community, money digging, being "addicted" to evil practices, closing with estimation of religious claims and the assertion that no one in town takes them seriously. That's plenty of reason to doubt the accuracy of the statements that came through him.

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

Can you remember six proper names (and their spelling), as well as specific plot points from a book you heard bits and pieces of with detached interest over 20 years ago?

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.

Yes, odd that so many recall have such clear and remarkable memories of a book none of them were particularly interested in. It's quite relevant.

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:

It is striking. It's almost as if someone is telling them exactly what to say. You can't seem to grasp the significance of that.

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:

Funny how he only ever mentions one manuscript. He was so intimately familiar with it that he knew where the manuscript needed to be revised, but he's ignorant of the fact that the only manuscript ever known by anyone not directly influenced by Hurlbut has nothing to do with those affidavits, and that's the manuscript he was trying to get published.

Lake was refering to this from 1 Nephi 3:

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."

Or it's just Hurlbut making stuff up. Since the vast preponderance of evidence supports the manuscript we have as the only such manuscript, I'm inclined to conclude Hurlbut was just sprinkling his own anti-Mormon flavor all over the affidavits he was writing for other people. Isn't it just so convenient not only to undermine Joseph Smith, but to ridicule his inconsistency at the same time?

Again, not correct:

Her comments when the manuscript was originally sought clearly state that she was unaware of the contents of the manuscript. Years later a comment attributed to her suddenly knows the contents with the exact same clarity as the other witnesses. Howe himself, in Mormonism Unvailed, reported that the widow had no distinct knowledge of the contents of the manuscript. The article you cite was actually not written by Spalding's widow, and its author (Austin) and publisher (Storrs) both admitted as much. When asked if the article contained the truth, Spalding's widow replied "In the main."

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.

That doesn't even begin to make it true.

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.

The same could easily be said of your obvious preconceived infatuation with it. I have more information that is also more reliable, though.

While previewng the above, I noticed that you had responded to my earlier post... in that response you write:

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

http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/SRPpap04.htm

Notice how the author is splicing together Book of Mormon related texts separated by many years into a flowing narrative to make it sound the same? Anyway, is this manuscript the source for the Book of Mormon, or are we looking for another? Since this one has so little to do with the other, according to those lucid witnesses of so long ago, can the real source be so laboriously equated with the Book of Mormon history?

[Uncle Dale]

Actually, I think it was the dawning realization that Joseph Smith could not possibly have authored the Book of Mormon

that "first suggested a Rigdon/BOM connection."

Correct -- Parley P. Pratt provided some vague details on how the claims for a

Rigdon authorship first arose and spread abroad. Although he does not specifically

say that these claims pre-dated those for a Smith authorship (as advocated by

the Campbellites), I think it is reasonable for us to say that Rigdon was the first

Mormon convert identified among the non-believing public as the book's author.

Let's see, Joseph Smith was in New York; Sidney Rigdon was in Ohio. They first met in 1831, the year after

the Book of Mormon was published. It all makes sense to me.

Modern Mormons may be hardpressed to prove that old historical assumption. My guess

is that additional evidence will eventually be brought to light, demonstrating how Smith

and Rigdon could have met and cooperated before December, 1830 -- when Rigdon's

presence in the Manchester and Waterloo areas of New York was first reported in

the local newspapers.

Now making the authorship of the Book of Mormon crystal clear is that 9 of the chapters were authored by Parley P. Pratt.

I doubt that even the three Stanford researchers can go so far out on a limb,

as to make it "crystal clear" that any such chapters were written by Pratt. The

most they can convincingly argue, is that (based upon their methods/analysis)

that Pratt's known writings more resemble those particular chapters, than do

the known writings of some of his LDS contemporaries.

There is a wide logical gap, from our saying that certain parts of the BoM more

resemble the known writings of one author over another --- between that simple

statement, and any PROOF that such a statement is "crystal clear" in solvimg the

apparent mystery (to Gentiles at least) of BoM origins.

While we can demonstrate that Parley P. Pratt knew Sidney Rigdon in Ohio prior to the Book of Mormon's publication, it is more difficult to demonstrate that he ever even met Joseph Smith until after he read the Book of Mormon for the first time. Chronologically speaking, this is problematic.

It also appears Parley P. Pratt was baptized into the Church on or around 1 September 1830, and did not actually meet Joseph Smith until about a month afterward.

My question would be how these gentlemen who had not even met Joseph Smith prior to the publication of the Book of Mormon were so helpful in its authorship.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Yours is one line of valid reasoning, when considering historical possibilities.

It will probably be the most common LDS response.

But there are other ways of looking at the past, which allow for a possible

meeting of Pratt/Rigdon/Smith/Cowdery prior to late 1830. I'm sure that you

will allow us apostates and non-Mormons our alternate speculations here.

My question is, however, can our "alternative speculations" result in any actual

change in non-LDS readers' perceptions of the probable past --- and thus serve

as a spur for additional historical research into the whereabouts and the activities

of these four men, during the 1825-1829 period?

Probably Fawn Brodie has forever blunted that scholarly "spur."

We shall see.

UD

[bob mccue]

The Criddle et al study was done so as to satisfy the requirements of peer review, and hence covers enough material that it is easy to loose sight of the crucial issues for those of us interested in the impact this study may have on Mormon belief, and eventually culture (shift from literalist to metaphoric view of scripture; reduced authoritarian influence; more pluralistic; etc.). Here are a couple of the points that stood out to me in that regard.

Reliable Evidence of Any Rigdon Input into the Book of Mormon Will Re-Write an Important Aspect of the Commonly Accepted Version of Mormon History

The generally accepted historical account of how the BofM came to be has Sidney Rigdon showing up after the book was written. How do we explain the fact that 14 (by my count) BofM chapters are attributed to Rigdon authorship with over 90% probability, and two chapters with approximately 99% probability? See page 16. If Rigdon had any input into the BofMâ??s production, most Mormon historians misunderstand Mormon history. There is nothing unusual in this kind of error. How many of us, for example, are familiar with criminal law cases in which a conviction has been overturned years after the fact on the basis of DNA evidence? Remember that in these cases, a relatively recent event was carefully analyzed after in most cases the dedication of massive governmental resources to all kinds of historical and forensic investigation, and either a judge or jury convicted because they believed â??beyond a reasonable doubtâ? that a crime had been committed. The available evidence in cases like this is usually far more reliable than anything with which Mormon historians have to work when it comes to BofM authorship. DNA evidence is simply far more reliable than historical and many other kinds of analysis. This is also why geneticists re-wrote the history books related to human migration patterns, overturning accepted wisdom from various other scientific disciplines. And, having established innocence on the basis of DNA evidence, it is extremely unlikely that further investigation of any kind will produce a conflicting view. That is, this is not an area of science that can be expected to evolve so as to change conclusions of this type, unlike other areas of science where it is expected that continuing developments will change our perspective in some ways.

So, if the process, sampling techniques, etc. Criddle et al use to produce the probabilities noted above are solid, this has obvious implications for our understanding of Mormon history, what the BofM is, and what J. Smith was. This is why I am much more interested in what statisticians, linguists, etc. have to say about this study than I am in what historians think about it. I do not, by the way, have a view at this point as to how reliable this form of wordprint is. We need to hear from the experts in that field on this point. It may that this technology is still so nascent that it should not be taken seriously. Or, it may be that there are other ways of sampling or applying the technology to wordprint analysis that would produce more reliable results. I await further developments in this regard with interest.

The Book of Mormon Does Not Evidence Linguistic Evolution Consistent With its Alleged Historical Span

I have for some time followed Steve Farmerâ??s work with regard to cultural evolution, and in particular, how linguistic evolution mirrors that to an extent. See http://www.safarmer.com/. After citing Farmer (see page 17), Criddle et al note his findings that given the dynamics of cultural and linguistic evolution, we should expect that texts produced by the same culture 1,000 years apart would show dramatically different linguistic patterns, . Farmerâ??s work is of course much more nuanced than this. He notes that both conceptual and linguistic patterns in primitive cultures tend to change over time as a result of a variety of factors, including the way in which a given culture interfaces with, and to an extent synthesizes, other cultural influences as time passes and social groups collide and evolve. Even in more mature societies 1,000 years should be expected to produce huge linquistic changes. Try reading anything written in English from circa 1,000 CE, for example.

In any event, the current hypothesis of the BofM cultures embedded in a larger ancient American social construct makes Farmerâ??s work directly applicable to the BofM. In fact, he has studied the evolution of Mayan language and culture, among other ancient social and linguistic processes. So, as Criddle et al point out, how do we account for the fact that some of Mormonâ??s writing and some of Nephiâ??s writing, 1,000 years apart, are both assigned to Rigdon with 93% probability? The crucial fact here is not that Rigdon probably wrote them, but rather that they are so similar in any way. This, according to Farmer and others in his camp, says that they have an extremely low probability of being written 1,000 years apart. And as an aside, why is part of what Mormon allegedly wrote so similar to Rigdonâ??s writings (Mormon 5 and 7 are assigned to Rigdon with 89 and 92% probability) while Mormon 6 has a 72% probability of being written by Spaulding? And remember that Criddle et al accepted the chapter breaks used by the LDS Church to define text samples. If we used a justifiable method of looking for Spaulding-like text, it is likely that very high Spaulding signals could be detected within Mormon 6.

I also note that I have personal correspondence with Steve Farmer in which he indicated, after spent many hours looking at the Book of Mormon as a potential academic project for him and his colleagues, that the result of their analysis was so obvious to him that they could not justify the time it would take the perform the formal analysis. That is, a reading of the texts in the BofM alleged to by produced by different authors in the same culture 1,000 years apart made it obvious to him this was not real historical material. As he put it to me, why would a geologist take the time to prove yet again that the Earth is far more than 6,000 years old? That fact is already well established for those who have taken more than a cursory look at the data and are not encumbered by social constructs that make it hard to see what they are looking at. And more research done in that field will not likely have any effect on those who have not been swayed by what it already available on that point. And more importantly from his perspective, there are other far more important questions on which he and his group are spending their time.

As an aside, I also note that scientists and other academics have great reason to be interested in various BofM hypotheses (human migration patterns; early American metallurgy; early American fauna; early American linguistics; etc.), and if there was any chance of them being accurate, to pursue that with gusto. A bright young scientist who was able to show that Israelites immigrated to the Americas, or that any of many other physical and cultural hypotheses embedded in the BofM are accurate, would achieve a possible career making success. Atttempting to do this has been an unsuccessful pet project at BYU and elsewhere in the Mormon academic community for many decades, without success. Non-Mormon scientists, like Farmer, have occasionally sampled the data and declined to pursue it seriously on the basis of their view of the probability that anything useful would come of their efforts.

The scientific community's collective judgement that the BofM is not worthy of serious scientific or other academic consideration speaks volumes about its probable historicity. Farmerâ??s approach is typical, as Hugh Nibley lamented. He tried for decades to get his academic peers to take the BofM seriously. I am glad that Criddle et al have done so. But for Criddleâ??s connection to Mormonism, I doubt this would have happened.

best,

bob

[Uncle Dale]

... How do we explain the fact that 14 (by my count) BofM chapters are attributed to Rigdon authorship with over 90% probability,

and two chapters with approximately 99% probability? See page 16. If Rigdon had any input into the BofMâ??s production, most

Mormon historians misunderstand Mormon history....

bob

There will no doubt be seemingly reasonable explanations, forthcoming from the LDS scholars.

That is to be expected -- The three Stanford researchers' findings regarding 90% and 99%

probabilities for Rigdon input, are so far only meaningful/valid within the context of their own study.

Their findings will only become significant in the eyes of others, when additional evidence is

brought to light, showing how Rigdon could have met and cooperated with Smith, before late

1830. Lacking such evidence (and a consensus as to its importance), these new wordprint

findings will remain a small tempest in a small teacup.

A change in some folks' perceptions, no doubt --- but how much impact that change may have

in the future remains to be seen.

Dale R. Broadhurst

web host

SolomonSpalding.com

SidneyRigdon.com

OliverCowdery.com

[juliann]

What other texts were used as a control to enable them to reach this conclusion?

[Bill Hamblin]

I think it is reasonable for us to say that Rigdon was the first

Mormon convert identified among the non-believing public as the book's author.

Modern Mormons may be hardpressed to prove that old historical assumption. My guess

is that additional evidence will eventually be brought to light, demonstrating how Smith

and Rigdon could have met and cooperated before December, 1830 -- when Rigdon's

presence in the Manchester and Waterloo areas of New York was first reported in

the local newspapers.

Of course they could have met. This type of claim is a classic example of the fallacy of the possible proof. Evidence that they did meet is what is required for the theory to have any traction.

[Uncle Dale]

Of course they could have met. This type of claim is a classic example of the fallacy

of the possible proof. Evidence that they did meet is what is required for the theory

to have any traction.

I understand your response -- and it is entirely reasonable, if we were all now

attempting to jump to conclusions leading to BoM authorship proofs.

But, obviously, we are still far away from being able to draw such conclusions.

Returning to a lower level of expectation/hyperbole -- I merely point out here,

that we now have an interesting field for future research. Before any of us

move from "could have" to "did meet," we can search for some of that required

evidence (or, at least those of us so inclined can do some searching).

The three Stanford researchers point to Bainbridge township, Geauga Co., Ohio,

as the probable location for any supposed Rigdon input into the BoM text.

I suggest that we expand that geographical field to include adjacent Auburn

township -- and that we limit the time frame here to the years 1825-1828.

By 1828 the bulk of the BoM text must have already been compiled into a

single written source. Before the end of 1825 Rigdon was a tanner and

occasional restorationist preacher in Pittsburgh.

Unless we go so far as to believe Thurlow Weed (who says Joseph Smith went

to Pittsburgh in the mid-1820s), I think that southwestern Geauga Co., during

the 1825-28 period is the place to begin our research, for the evidence you

ask us to uncover.

Probably the first source we should consult, is this one:

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/1826Grtk.htm#1826RBap

If you can locate the copy that Carl M. Brewster had in 1945 (either from

the Hiram College library or the Bethany College library).

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/books/Brew1945.htm

Uncle Dale

[Uncle Dale]

What other texts were used as a control to enable them to reach this conclusion?

an excerpt from their paper...

...

A New Approach

For many, the question of who wrote the Book of Mormon remains unresolved. Historical and stylometric research has so far not

given us a reliable answer. We offer here a new approach that differs from past work both in source selection and methodology.

We examine the entire 1830 Book of Mormon without any a priori assumptions, modifications or pre-selection, and compare it to

new, candidate-author samples. Our methodology does not isolate word categories (i.e. contextual or non-contextual nouns), but

instead uses the entire corpus as a starting point and a mathematically based selection process to define the features of the author

samples and the Book of Mormon that we will compare.

Our work employs two techniques to determine the probability that each chapter of the Book of Mormon was authored by each of

seven authors: Oliver Cowdery, Parley Pratt, Sidney Rigdon, Solomon Spalding, Isaiah-Malachi (from the Bible),

Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, and Joel Barlow. The first five have known or alleged connections to the Book of Mormon. The

last two are prominent, period-authors who were added as controls. (21)

UD

[Joseph Antley]

Wouldn't it have made more sense to use another text that none of the men had any connection to as a control?