Wordprint Studies On The Book Of Mormon

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

My point in citing the Holmes study was to point out that authors using sophisticated statistical methodologies can arrive at dramatically different conclusions. I would be interested in any citations you can provide where non-LDS authors validated Hilton's methodology. Not that I doubt you; this is just a topic of some interest to me and I'd like to be as well-informed as possible.

CK, If "anyone" could prove beyond any doubt that the BOM had many different authors...would you then accept it? Be brutally honest!

Pa Pa

[Luigi]

Who was in this "Berkeley Group" besides John Hilton?

[Chris Smith]

CK, If "anyone" could prove beyond any doubt that the BOM had many different authors...would you then accept it? Be brutally honest!

Pa Pa

That's an interesting question, Pa Pa. I can certainly envision some possible scenarios in which the BoM could have multiple authors without being an ancient or inspired work. After all, one of the oldest explanations for its origin is that JS plargiarized the work of Solomon Spalding, and Uncle Dale's magnum opus is exploring a multiple-authorship theory. But if it could be definitely proved that the boundaries of the various authors' work follows the pattern that the BoM claims they should-- that is, if 1 and 2 Nephi were in one group, Jacob in another, and so on-- then that would weight heavily in favor of the work's authenticity IMO.

I don't know if this would convince me to accept the BoM or not. If so, then I would probably accept it the sense David Whitmer did: minus the baggage of Joseph's later revelations. After all, JS was commanded in the Book of Commandments to translate the BoM and "pretend to no other gift," and certainly in the case of polygamy and the BoA it seems clear that he was doing precisely that (i.e. pretending). But as I delve into 19th c. history, it seems increasingly clear to me that the BoM is a product of the 19th c. American worldview. It fits extremely well into the post-Revolutionary climate of religious fervor explored, for example, by Nathan O. Hatch in The Democratization of American Christianity (which I highly recommend to all interested parties). Given the close parallel between the BoM and 19th c. political and religious controversies, the likelihood of its having been composed in an ancient setting seems vanishingly small.

Then again, I do find the testimonies of the witnesses personally compelling, and I do want the BoM to be true, so on those grounds I guess I wouldn't absolutely rule it out.

Hope that answers your inquiry satisfactorily. Best,

-Chris

[cdowis]

Charles,

I apologize for the condescending tone of my post. Now that I look back at it, I realize that I was to a certain extant trying to "get you back" for past posts in which I felt you were patronizing me.

It is a rare talent to be insulting without being offensive. I have a terrible singing voice, so this will have to do.

Getting even, of course, is not in the spirit of Christian charity, and I was out of line. Again, I am sorry.

Perhaps all of my posts should end with an apology.

Make it part of my signature, "I'm sorry"

I already have the Holmes Book of Mormon article in digital format, and offered earlier in this discussion to email it to you. That offer still stands.

Look forward to getting it. Sent pm. Let's see how my memory holds up.

As for the more recent article, I'll try to find it down at the library when I get a chance.

-Chris

[cdowis]

Thanks. Basically his paper should be titled:

"Ten Reasons why I reject Joseph Smith as a prophet". Just another antimormon tract with fancy statistics added.

Do I really need to quote specific sections from the article?

[Chris Smith]

The flow of his argument, as I see it, is this:

1) Stylometry demonstrates that these texts are by a single author, but don't match JS's personal writings,

2) That leaves us two options: either the revelatory style is God's or the revelatory style is Joseph's "prophetic voice",

3) There are several non-statistical reasons to reject JS as a prophet, including the BoA,

4) So we should conclude that it's JS's prophetic voice.

Seems like a rational argument to me. Unprofessional? I don't think so at all.

In fact, I think the only reason you're reading it that way is that you're fixating on the third step and missing the broader flow of the argument.

Best,

-Chris

[cdowis]

The flow of his argument, as I see it, is this:

1) Stylometry demonstrates that these texts are by a single author, but don't match JS's personal writings,

2) That leaves us two options: either the revelatory style is God's or the revelatory style is Joseph's "prophetic voice",

3) There are several non-statistical reasons to reject JS as a prophet, including the BoA,

4) So we should conclude that it's JS's prophetic voice.

Seems like a rational argument to me. Unprofessional? I don't think so at all.

Yesssssss..... but the non-statistical reasons consist of the standard list of antimormon arguments which had no direct bearing with his specific research.

It was unprofessional for him to create an antimormon tract, giving "nonstatistical reasons" in a statistical research paper.

This is an antimormon tract published in a professional journal. And, later, he admitted that his scientific findings were dubious, so that leaves us with the antimormon garbage.

Is it your intention to defend this paper?

[cdowis]

Rather than relegating these "non-statistical" reasons to a footnote, they become an integral part of his paper. He makes his bias very clear, and that is what makes it "unprofessional".

I am absolutely dumbfounded that the editors allowed this article to be published, except that he was given a free pass because, perhaps, of his reputation.

[Chris Smith]

Whatever you say, my friend...

[cdowis]

Interesting.

That is exactly what my daughter says when I try to reason with her, when she runs out of arguments -- "Whatever".

[Chris Smith]

Interesting.

That is exactly what my daughter says when I try to reason with her, when she runs out of arguments -- "Whatever".

Maybe you are misinterpreting her motive. Maybe she's just tired of arguing with her stubborn father. ;-)

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

After all, one of the oldest explanations for its origin is that JS plargiarized the work of Solomon Spalding,

But you know that to be false...how would this explain the "cisims" (Hope I spell this right) that only appear in acient Hebrew text.

I don't know if this would convince me to accept the BoM or not.

Why not? EV's make the same claims about the Bible and quote scientific and literary studies to support those claims as well

After all, JS was commanded in the Book of Commandments to translate the BoM and "pretend to no other gift,"

Until that work was complete

and certainly in the case of polygamy

Then how can Abraham be the father of all the faithful?

the BoM is a product of the 19th c. American worldview

Do you ever read any of the FAIR papers? This has been done to death.

Then again, I do find the testimonies of the witnesses personally compelling,

Your right...can't explain that away.

Thanks for responding...Hey go see my new blog and give me some pointers...I need editors!

Pa pa

[Chris Smith]

But you know that to be false...how would this explain the "cisims" (Hope I spell this right) that only appear in acient Hebrew text.

Chiasms appear elsewhere, and could as easily have been created by JS (or Solomon Spalding or Sidney Rigdon) as by a Hebrew author if he had noticed the pattern in his KJV Bible. I do not know the Spalding theory to be false. I merely strongly suspect it.

Why not? EV's make the same claims about the Bible and quote scientific and literary studies to support those claims as well

EVs also appeal to all kinds of shoddy pseudoscience. One has to be tremendously careful in assessing apologetic claims from EV authors. Explicitly apologetic treatments, after all, make no secret of their bias.

Until that work was complete

No such disclaimer is included.

Then how can Abraham be the father of all the faithful?

That has no bearing on whether JS was sincere in giving his polygamy "revelations". Abraham did not publish a revelation threatening his wife with destruction. He also did not keep his polygamy secret from his wife and from the public. He didn't lie about it. He didn't promise potential wives that they and the families' salvation would be made sure. And he never claimed that an angel with a flaming sword made him do it.

Do you ever read any of the FAIR papers? This has been done to death.

I have read several FAIR papers, but I have never seen a compelling answer to the claim that the BoM arises from a 19th c. context. I have seen people fight about some of the less obvious connections, like anti-Masonry. I have seen people make reasonably good cases against some of the "plagiarism" proposals. But when it comes right down to it, it is blatantly, glaringly obvious that the BoM is a pastiche of KJV and 19th c. themes. There's no making that go away.

Your right...can't explain that away.

No, but the fact that other religions have equally compelling eyewitness testimony certainly doesn't make it any easier to determine the significance of such an event.

-Chris

[cdowis]

And he never claimed that an angel with a flaming sword made him do it.

I have read several FAIR papers, but I have never seen a compelling answer to the claim that the BoM arises from a 19th c. context. I have seen people fight about some of the less obvious connections, like anti-Masonry. I have seen people make reasonably good cases against some of the "plagiarism" proposals. But when it comes right down to it, it is blatantly, glaringly obvious that the BoM is a pastiche of KJV and 19th c. themes. There's no making that go away.

Please demonstrate the relationship between the Masons (antimasonic movement) and the BOM accounts of the secret combinations.

Perhaps you can start with the standing armies, conducting warfare in the mountains, threatening to destroy cities, taking over the government by killing its leaders.

Give us specific correlations, since "it won't go away." It will go away unless you can prove your point.

The description in the BOM has absolutely nothing to do with any organization in the 19th century, but it does accurately describe the 21st century, the afghan war, the mafia, al quaida. The Nephite and Lamanite, two nations poised for self destruction, is an obvious reference to the cold war.

And THAT will not go away.

[Chris Smith]

Please demonstrate the relationship between the Masons (antimasonic movement) and the BOM accounts of the secret combinations.

Perhaps you can start with the standing armies, conducting warfare in the mountains, threatening to destroy cities, taking over the government by killing its leaders.

Give us specific correlations, since "it won't go away." It will go away unless you can prove your point.

The description in the BOM has absolutely nothing to do with any organization in the 19th century, but it does accurately describe the 21st century, the afghan war, the mafia, al quaida. The Nephite and Lamanite, two nations poised for self destruction, is an obvious reference to the cold war.

And THAT will not go away.

Hey Charles,

I said the antimasonic connection was one of the "less obvious" ones. I'm really not interested in repeating that old argument. Actually, I'm not extraordinarily interested in launching any kind of discussion along these lines at present. Ever since I started graduate school I haven't had a lot of time to kill except in drive-by posts not requiring careful composition. However, here are a few of the obvious touch points I see:

anticlericalism

anti-lawyerism

anti-elitism

republican rhetoric

similarity of Lamanite curse to curse of Ham

anti-infant baptism

anti-universalism

frontier camp-meetings

conversion narratives

manifest destiny

anti-Catholicism

opposition to all established churches

epistemology of private spiritual experience

dreams of Joseph Smith, Sr.

treasure-digging lore

extensive and anachronistic use of KJV

Indians as Hebrews

For a taste of the overlap between the 19th c. and the BoM, I recommend checking out Nathan O. Hatch's The Democratization of American Christianity.

Best,

-Chris

[Chris Smith]

I couldn't find the other Holmes article you cited. I did, however, find this:

A WIDOW AND HER SOLDIER: A STYLOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF 'PICKETT LETTERS'

Author: Holmes, David I.; Gordon, Lesley J.; Wilson, Christine

Journal: History & Computing

Pub.: 1999

Volume: 11

Issue: 3

Pages: 159(21)

In it Holmes says that recent work has established that non-contextual words are the most useful for attributing authorship, and that stylometry should be combined with statistical analysis and historical evidence. In other words, he applies the same sort of mixed methodology in his approach to the Pickett letters that he did to the BoM. In any case, I do wish that he would revisit the BoM text with his current, more refined understanding of stylometry.

Best,

-Chris

[Kevin Christensen]

Regarding the list of the obvious from Chris, it strikes me as a vivid demonstration of just why the Renaissance Scholars found that the only way to separate the spurious from the authentic is to assume the document is authentic, and test it against the ancient context. As Nibley said way back in 1953 (http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/display.php?table=transcripts&id=11)

The critics who think they have at last found a plausible explanation for the book have simply fallen into the oldest booby trap of all, the one which the critic, according to Blass, must avoid before all others as the easiest but silliest solution of the problem.

For instance, the list leads off with:

anticlericalism

anti-lawyerism

anti-elitism

And these themes are so uniquely distinctive to Palmyra, NY in the 1820s as to be a dead give away? As if, in all other times and places, one can only find unreserved praise of clergy, lawyers, and elites?

similarity of Lamanite curse to curse of Ham

I wonder how I missed this.

The curse of Ham appears in Genesis 9:

And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.

And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

anti-universalism

frontier camp-meetings

conversion narratives

I've explored the supposed anti-Universalism and written on it in RBBM 7:2 in Paradigms Crossed.

With regard to frontier camp-meetings, I've got the huge FARMS volume on Benjamin's discourse, and I've yet to see critics do more than tip-toe around it, hoping that no one will bring it up.

As far as conversion narratives go, I've read and written on this as well. In JBMS 2/1 on NDE Research and the Book of Mormon. Welch and Ostler have done interesting things with the prophetic call forms.

And so it goes. It's the stuff that shows up in comparison to the ancient contexts that doesn't ever enter into the 19th Century comparisons that are the most interesting. Without considering the ancient context, it is impossible to even define the problem that an authentic Book would present.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Fly Fisherman]

With regard to frontier camp-meetings, I've got the huge FARMS volume on Benjamin's discourse, and I've yet to see critics do more than tip-toe around it, hoping that no one will bring it up.

I've got the FARMS volume on Benjamin's discourse also. Absolutely fascinating. Everybody (Latter-Day Saints and critics alike) should study this. Any doubt about Joseph Smith being a prophet was thoroughly thrown out the window when I studied it.

Would somebody please start a thread on it one of these days? I am not smart enough.

[Chris Smith]

Kevin,

I had responded, but I've decided to delete my comments in the interests of avoiding being drawn into a protracted discussion. I simply don't have time at present. Perhaps in due time I will thoroughly revisit these questions.

-Chris

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

CK wrote...

That has no bearing on whether JS was sincere in giving his polygamy "revelations". Abraham did not publish a revelation threatening his wife with destruction. He also did not keep his polygamy secret from his wife and from the public. He didn't lie about it. He didn't promise potential wives that they and the families' salvation would be made sure. And he never claimed that an angel with a flaming sword made him do it.

Well JS never got his "slave" pregnant and then turn his son (and before mentioned slave) out to die in the desert. Now because God still identifys himself with Abraham...there must be more to the story. We may think we have the entire "Picture" with JS, but something tells me we don't.

Pa pa

[Chris Smith]

Well JS never got his "slave" pregnant and then turn his son (and before mentioned slave) out to die in the desert.

Abraham didn't claim that God told him to do so.

Now because God still identifys himself with Abraham...there must be more to the story.

The rest of the story is that there probably never was any such person as Abraham, and in any case this is a text that hails from a less enlightened age.

We may think we have the entire "Picture" with JS, but something tells me we don't.

You may be right; one member of this forum is currently writing a book that, if I understand correctly, will argue that it's worse than any of us realize.

-Chris

[LifeOnaPlate]

Hey Charles,

I said the antimasonic connection was one of the "less obvious" ones. I'm really not interested in repeating that old argument. Actually, I'm not extraordinarily interested in launching any kind of discussion along these lines at present. Ever since I started graduate school I haven't had a lot of time to kill except in drive-by posts not requiring careful composition. However, here are a few of the obvious touch points I see:

anticlericalism

anti-lawyerism

anti-elitism

republican rhetoric

similarity of Lamanite curse to curse of Ham

anti-infant baptism

anti-universalism

frontier camp-meetings

conversion narratives

manifest destiny

anti-Catholicism

opposition to all established churches

epistemology of private spiritual experience

dreams of Joseph Smith, Sr.

treasure-digging lore

extensive and anachronistic use of KJV

Indians as Hebrews

For a taste of the overlap between the 19th c. and the BoM, I recommend checking out Nathan O. Hatch's The Democratization of American Christianity.

Best,

-Chris

Anything about Jesus in there?

By the way, as for Republicanism in the BoM, have you read Bushman's comments on that?

[Chris Smith]

Anything about Jesus in there?

By the way, as for Republicanism in the BoM, have you read Bushman's comments on that?

I have, and in my opinion he's dead wrong-- even ignoring or distorting evidence to make his case. But as I said above, I don't want to get drawn into a lengthy discussion at present. I have a textbook to read and two papers due at the end of the month, one of them a lengthy research paper.

[Jan]

I've got the FARMS volume on Benjamin's discourse also. Absolutely fascinating. Everybody (Latter-Day Saints and critics alike) should study this. Any doubt about Joseph Smith being a prophet was thoroughly thrown out the window when I studied it.

Would somebody please start a thread on it one of these days? I am not smart enough.

Can you cite the full title and maybe give a link?

Go ahead and start a thread --- you never know who will pop in to discuss it. You can invite people in saying you want to learn more from them.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I have, and in my opinion he's dead wrong-- even ignoring or distorting evidence to make his case. But as I said above, I don't want to get drawn into a lengthy discussion at present. I have a textbook to read and two papers due at the end of the month, one of them a lengthy research paper.

You're dead wrong in my opinion.