Another Wordprint-type Study

[selek]

Hi Ben,

I have not read the paper so take my comments with the required set of qualifiers. But I find it hard to believe they simply swapped out different texts to use as controls until they found a set of texts that produced the desired results. This would be an outrageous methodology flaw to the point that it would damage the reputation of anyone engaging in such shenanigans and would probably lead to the journal withdrawing the article if it could be proven. Now I suppose it's remotely possible Craig is so blinded by his biases he would undertake such tomfoolery but I really doubt his co-authors would take such a risk. Especially for a manuscript that is sure to come under scrutiny and attack. I mean it does not help ones academic career when a paper is withdrawn due to gross methodology flaws. Now as mentioned I have not read the manuscript and it could be the authors offer some justification for such an approach (although I can't imagine what it could be). Do they offer any defense of the above methodology? Or maybe I am just misunderstanding your above point.

All the Best,

Uncertain

I wonder when this study was begun, how long it took, and find it's release now (in the midst of the Prop 8 backlash against Mormons) to be something more than coincedental.....

[Uncle Dale]

...I find it hard to believe they simply swapped out different texts to use as controls

until they found a set of texts that produced the desired results. This would be an

outrageous methodology flaw to the point that it would damage the reputation of

anyone engaging in such shenanigans...

Another excerpt from the new article:

...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)

The first technique, ‘delta’ (Burrows, 2002, 2003; Hoover, 2004a, B ) is well-documented in the literature of computational linguistics,

so we omit a detailed description here. The second is ‘nearest shrunken centroids’ (NSC). NSC is a statistical technique for classification in

high-dimensional settings. The problem of authorship attribution is a classification problem because we seek to classify a text sample of

unknown authorship into one of a fixed number of known author categories—in this case a closed set of candidate authors: Rigdon, Spalding,

Cowdery, Longfellow, etc.

The problem is high-dimensional because we seek to perform classification on the basis of a very large number of words. The method is

as follows. First, we compute average word frequency vectors, or centroids, for each known author, on the basis of the text samples of

known authorship. Next, we shrink these centroids towards the overall average word frequency vector across all of the authors, in order to

make our method more robust to small changes in word frequencies. Finally, we classify a text of unknown authorship by computing its

word frequency vector and determining to which of the shrunken centroids it is most similar. NSC was initially intended for a completely

different purpose: it was developed to assist cancer diagnosis by classifying patient tumor samples into cancer subtypes based on gene

expression measurements. However, from a machine learning perspective, the problem of authorship attribution is surprisingly similar to

that of cancer diagnosis: rather than classifying tumors by cancer subtype, we classify texts by author, and instead of using gene expression

measurements to perform the classification, we use word frequencies. (22) This creates the seven author categories described above.

The same kind of analysis is then done on a Book of Mormon chapter, and the resulting pattern is compared to the pattern of each of the

seven potential author categories (Rigdon—90%; Longfellow—1%; etc.) On this basis, NSC assigns a probability that each potential author

wrote each Book of Mormon chapter; just as it would assign a probability that a tissue sample manifests a particular cancer sub-type. More

details regarding NSC can be found in Tibshirani (2002, 2003). (23)

3 Source Selection

Because several theories for the origin of the Book of Mormon propose multiple authorship, we cannot investigate it as if it were a

single unified text written by a single author, but must instead break it into meaningful samples. Smith reportedly dictated the original

document in a series of sessions with scribes. (24) These scribes allegedly wrote down everything he said, without punctuation or attention

to grammatical form. A key scribe, Oliver Cowdery, is alleged to have provided the initial editing before publication. Subsequent editors

altered punctuation, improved grammar, eliminated redundant phrases, and, in some cases, made changes in the text’s content. Our

investigation thus begins by excluding any analysis of punctuation (e.g. comma frequency) or of form (verse length, sentence length, etc.),

and is limited to words alone. Since it was the published 1830 version of the text that was authorized by the Mormon Church, we examine

the entire text, excluding only the chapter summaries that appear before First Nephi, Second Nephi, Jacob, Alma, Helaman, Third Nephi,

Forth Nephi, and Ether.

We opted to use the chapter structure currently recognized by modern Mormon Church editors to create our text samples. This results in

a total of 239 text segments for testing. This approach yields texts that are generally of adequate size (verses are too small and books too

large), recognizes natural breaks in the narrative, facilitates cross-referencing to online resources, (25) and avoids the chance that we have

imposed our own bias. We consider it important that this method tests the entire corpus approved by Smith in 1830. Book of Mormon

samples averaged 1,117 words and ranged in size from 95 to 3,752 words. Our candidate-author samples were equally varied and ranged

from a small sample of 114 words to a large sample of 17,797 words with an average sample size of 2,172 words. (26)

For comparative purposes, we acquired digital versions of the Books of Isaiah and Malachi from the King James Bible as well as samples of

known writings of Solomon Spalding, Sidney Rigdon, Parley Pratt, and Oliver Cowdery (Appendix A provides a detailed list of source materials).

For control purposes, we selected two texts: Henry Wadsworth Longfellow’s (1855) Song of Hiawatha and Joel Barlow’s Columbiad (1825).

Barlow and Longfellow were initially selected as control authors because both are roughly contemporary to the Book of Mormon, both deal

to an extent with concepts found in the Book of Mormon, and both employ formulaic patterns consistent with patterns of verse seen in the

Book of Mormon. (27)

UD

[Scott Lloyd]

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

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

In the first instance, I think you meant to say that Martin Harris "made the trek out to Utah." Oliver Cowdery died in Richmond, Mo., after reuniting with the saints at Winter Quarters, Neb. He had intended to go to Utah but never got the chance. While visiting his in-laws, the Whitmers, in Richmond, he became ill and died. The David Whitmer quote you report about Oliver's dying words is accurate, to my knowledge.

[Benjamin McGuire]

As UD provides:

For control purposes, we selected two texts: Henry Wadsworth Longfellowâ??s (1855) Song of Hiawatha and Joel Barlowâ??s Columbiad (1825).

Barlow and Longfellow were initially selected as control authors because both are roughly contemporary to the Book of Mormon, both deal to an extent with concepts found in the Book of Mormon, and both employ formulaic patterns consistent with patterns of verse seen in the Book of Mormon. (27)

Footnote 27 reads:

For example, the Longfellow and Barlow texts frequently open verses with the word â??andâ?? as well as frequently stringing together multiple short phrases. Also evident in the three texts is the use of epic or â??biblicalâ?? language with a propensity for repetition.

Of course, earlier they note this:

Our methodology does not isolate word categories (i.e. contextual or noncontextual 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.

If the process is purely about vocabulary, then what makes the features of the Longfellow and Barlow texts particularly noteworthy for this study? Furthermore, the selection of these texts isn't random, and it seems to me to be quite easy to manipulate the data - as they do by removing from consideration the four words that they chose to remove from the study (God, Ye, Thy, and Behold).

But this is all secondary. We could, for example, using the same method and selection criteria show who is the most likely author of the manuscript allegedly written by Spalding - by comparing the following sources as possible authors: Rigdon, Isaiah/Malachi, Cowdry, and Ethan Smith - we could even throw in a couple of control authors - Barlow and Longfellow, just to see what they turn up. And of course none of them are really likely to be the author, but this study would certainly tell us which one was most likely (and by how much relative to the others) to be the author of that text. We can easily manipulate the outcome and the conclusions by manipulating the sources. Only in the assumption that these men were actually involved in the authorship of the Book of Mormon does its findings have any meaning. But without that assumption, it tells us nothing of the authorship of the Book of Mormon other than Rigdon was far more likely to be its author than Longfellow was ...

Ben M.

[Uncle Dale]

... We could, for example, using the same method and selection criteria show who is the most

likely author of the manuscript allegedly written by Spalding

...

Yes, such a study could be conducted -- but I doubt that anybody will ever think it

worthwhile enough to waste any time on the effort.

Also, attempting to determine the over-all author of a lengthy text is something

that is at cross-purposes for this sort of computerized methodology. As best I

understand it, the purpose is to confirm that a suspected composite text was

indeed written by more than one author.

If these three Stanford researchers' work has any merit, I would expect that both

LDS and non-LDS scholars will attempt to duplicate their efforts; and to go beyond what

has so far been reported, by making comparisons of the BoM with many known 18th

and 19th century English language authors.

Somebody like yourself might even go to the trouble of setting up a web-site, where

we neophytes could submit sundry excerpts from old texts, for an automatic

comparison with the 1830 BoM.

In all such future reporting, I expect that it will indeed be confirmed that the BoM

is a composite text, written by three or more authors, and edited (redacted) by at

least one or two writers.

I also expect that the patterns of distribution of attributed authors' input will inevitably

turn out to be more complex than what a simple acceptance of the BoM's own attributions

would tend to have us think. That is to say, a chapter in 1st Nephi may well have a very

high authorship correspondence to a chapter in Helaman; or a chapter in Mosiah may

correspond highly with a chapter in Ether, etc., etc.

I look forward to reading the published response from LDS researchers -- and hopefully

such responsive reporting will be offered in a journal other than one published in Provo.

UD

.

[consiglieri]

The journal's editors should have demanded more exact reporting in this section.

Now we are left to debate the writers' exact and full opinion/meaning.

UD

.

Still a gentleman and a scholar, I see.

It's nice to know some things don't change.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Uncertain]

Another excerpt from the new article:

UD

Hi Uncle Dale,

Thanks for the excerpt. So based on my vague recollection of the shrunken centroid method and the given excerpts. My understanding is vectors of frequencies were constructed for each writing sample. So a given sample would first be broken up into the words used in that sample i.e. (sword, grain, God, Nephi etc. ) and the corresponding relative frequency vector would be constructed i.e. (.1, .05, .001, .03 etc. ). In which the first element of the frequency vector would be the total number of times sword appears in the block of text divided by the total number of words in the given block of text. Each element of the frequency vector would be constructed similarly. Hence the second element of the vector is the total number of times grain is used in the passage divided by the total number of words and so on and so forth. Presumably frequency vectors are constructed from examples in which the author is known. So for example 10 passages known to be written by Solomon Spaulding would be used to construct 10 frequency vectors these vectors would in turn be used to construct a single frequency vector that is most representative of the 10 initial vectors i.e (this would be the centroid). A passage of unknown authorship could then be turned into a frequency vector and compared to each of the centroids the centroid that the passage is most similar to would be the author the passage is assigned to. So if an unknown passage was closest to say the Solomon Spaulding centroid Solomon Spaulding would be assigned as the author of that passage. Now this description is extrapolation based on the given excerpts and my knowledge of the shrunken centroid algorithm so I could be way wrong.

I am curious how significance was estimated frankly calculating which authors work most resembles an unknown passage is not all that interesting. I mean given a passage and five authors that are known to not have written the passage the passage will naturally be closer to one author over another. This does not mean the author out of the five that most resembles the given passage really is the author of that passage. From the excerpts I have read the studies authors go much further than that. They calculate a probability of an author being the writer of a passage which is very different than figuring out which author most resembles a given passage. Clearly I need to read the nearest shrunken centroid paper.

All the Best,

Uncertain

[Pahoran]

So poor Solly Spaulding still isn't allowed to rest in peace.

While in other news, there is to be yet another remake of "Night of the Living Dead."

McCue thinks these are "exciting times" for anti-Mormons. Not nearly as "exciting" as the Hofmann era, I'll wager. Perhaps the "Salamander Letter" is one of the items he has in mind that Latter-day Saints simply ignore.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Uncertain]

As UD provides:Footnote 27 reads:

Of course, earlier they note this:

If the process is purely about vocabulary, then what makes the features of the Longfellow and Barlow texts particularly noteworthy for this study? Furthermore, the selection of these texts isn't random, and it seems to me to be quite easy to manipulate the data - as they do by removing from consideration the four words that they chose to remove from the study (God, Ye, Thy, and Behold).

Hi Ben,

I imagine Longfellow and Barlow are there as negative controls. That is Longfellow and Barlow are known not to be authors of the BOM. Therefore if a large number of passages are attributed to Longfellow and Barlow this is very strong evidence the methodology is flawed. Conversely if the method rules out Longfellow and Barlow as authors this is evidence it is working correctly. Now how strongly ruling out Longfellow and Barlow supports the method is a subject of debate.

But this is all secondary. We could, for example, using the same method and selection criteria show who is the most likely author of the manuscript allegedly written by Spalding - by comparing the following sources as possible authors: Rigdon, Isaiah/Malachi, Cowdry, and Ethan Smith - we could even throw in a couple of control authors - Barlow and Longfellow, just to see what they turn up. And of course none of them are really likely to be the author, but this study would certainly tell us which one was most likely (and by how much relative to the others) to be the author of that text. We can easily manipulate the outcome and the conclusions by manipulating the sources. Only in the assumption that these men were actually involved in the authorship of the Book of Mormon does its findings have any meaning. But without that assumption, it tells us nothing of the authorship of the Book of Mormon other than Rigdon was far more likely to be its author than Longfellow was ...

Ben M.

I agree with you if all this study shows is which parts of the BOM most closely resemble a given author out of a set of possibilities then this is not at all interesting. Now it is my understanding the study's authors claim to be able to assign a probability to each putative author. That is they can say something like there is a 95 percent probability Solomon Spaulding was the author of this passage. This is very different than saying Solomon Spaulding is the author who most closely resembles the given passage. Now as mentioned I have not read it so I could be wrong.

All the Best,

Uncertain

[Uncle Dale]

...

Clearly I need to read the nearest shrunken centroid paper.

...

Matt Jockers is listed at the beginning of the paper as the team's contact person:

mjockers@stanford.edu

Probably he can supply you with a pdf version of the paper, as well as answer

some of your questions.

Using their two different computerized methodologies, the researchers came up

with frequency tables, showing percentages attributed to each possible author for

each of the many BoM chapters. For each chapter, a list was compiled to show

(out of the samples examined) which possible author was first choice, second

choice, etc., for authorship -- based upon their quantification/ranking.

So, this second level of examination (who was not first choice) has provided

some additional information regarding the distribution patterns of the various

author's probable "voices" throughout the BoM text.

These patterns of distribution/clustering, indicate that where one "voice" or

"signal" is rated as being very strong, certain others are rated as being very

weak. This provides an interesting pattern of negative correspondence.

We all ask ourselves how the Spalding witnesses were able to come to the

conclusion that his "voice" was strong in certain parts of the BoM -- and why

they thought that his over-all historical novel plot so resembled what they

saw in the 1830 BoM. Saints and non-Saints come to differing conclusions in

this regard --- but, consulting the charts supplied by Jockers and associates,

we can at least see WHICH PARTS of the BoM these early witnesses might

logically have consulted, coming away with the notion they were by Spalding.

That does not mean that those first witnesses were necessarily correct in

their authorship allegations --- but, at least we know now that the Spaldingish

sections of the BoM are not present at some continuous, low-level of textual

resemblance ---- rather, they occur in distinct constellations of chapters,

primarily concentrated in the last third of Alma.

UD

.

[Rommelator]

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.

Are you kidding me? Since when has argumentum ad populum ever been a valid argument?

The "scientific community's collective judgement" has on many occasions been shown to be either incomplete, skewed or downright false (think Ptolemy vs. Copernicus or Georges Lema

[gtaggart]

I realize that a spiritual witness doesn't count for much on this or any other board. "Evidence! Evidence! My soul for more evidence!" seems to be the order of the day. But if you'll indulge me: There is no way this book is anything other than what it claims to be. The Book of Mormon is true. The Spirit has borne witness of that to me time and time again.

There, I feel better. Hope you do too.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Uncertain writes:

I imagine Longfellow and Barlow are there as negative controls. That is Longfellow and Barlow are known not to be authors of the BOM. Therefore if a large number of passages are attributed to Longfellow and Barlow this is very strong evidence the methodology is flawed. Conversely if the method rules out Longfellow and Barlow as authors this is evidence it is working correctly. Now how strongly ruling out Longfellow and Barlow supports the method is a subject of debate.

Of course this is how it is supposed to work - but, given that there is virtually no effort required to swap out any particular text for any other, and given that these were chosen on the basis of a criteria which seems - at least on the surface - unrelated to the purposes of the study (regardless of what the study claims), it seems to me quite likely that these passages were introduced specifically because they created a low number of "false positives" for their own preferred model and a higher number of "false positives" for the model they are attempting to pre-empt. I believe that I can pick a number of early 19th century texts (and am creating a suitable test environment to demonstrate this) where we can provide a so-called control author that actually has a significant number of "false positives". In other words, I suspect that the choice of authors was not some kind of random selection, but was based on the generated outcomes. I could be wrong, but the fact remains that if I can find such control texts that badly change the outcome of the experiment, then there are problems with the methodology.

I agree with you if all this study shows is which parts of the BOM most closely resemble a given author out of a set of possibilities then this is not at all interesting. Now it is my understanding the study's authors claim to be able to assign a probability to each putative author. That is they can say something like there is a 95 percent probability Solomon Spaulding was the author of this passage. This is very different than saying Solomon Spaulding is the author who most closely resembles the given passage. Now as mentioned I have not read it so I could be wrong.

You are wrong, and you need to read the article. They do not claim to be able to assign a probability to each putative author. They claim to be able to assign a relative probability to each putative author - that is, Solomon Spalding was 95% more likely to be the author of passage X than was Sidney Rigdon, and 99% more likely than Longfellow.

Ben M.

[Uncle Dale]

I realize that a spiritual witness doesn't count for much on this or any other board. "Evidence! Evidence! My soul for more evidence!" seems to be the order of the day. But if you'll indulge me: There is no way this book is anything other than what it claims to be. The Book of Mormon is true. The Spirit has borne witness of that to me time and time again.

There, I feel better. Hope you do too.

Thank you --

A spiritual witness is indeed of primary importance. For me, based partly upon that

kind of witness, the Gospels according to Mark and Thomas have great scriptural

authority; while the Book of Revelation and some of Paul's epistles have far less

authority in my experience of faith.

Separating "authority" from "authenticity" is a more difficult proposition. I do not

know for certain that every page of the Coptic Gospel of Thomas is an authentic

quotation from Jesus; while, I am convinced that most of what is attributed to Paul,

is indeed authentic Paul (but still bears less scriptural authority in my life).

For most Saints, the Book of Mormon will continue to be authoritative revelation;

no matter what others may say or think about its authenticity.

Even we Reorganized LDS recognize that particular truth.

Uncle Dale

[Danna]

That would be true if they were involved in some destructive lifestyle but I don't see Mormonism as destructive to emotional well being, quite the opposite. I have Non-Mormon relatives and religion hardly evers come up.

How would you feel if all your children were apostate, and 1 or 2 were gay, and you suspected your spouse was faking it to keep you happy. Would you feel pain, regret, guilt over the possibility that your parenting was inadequate to raise TBM kids. Would you 'cut off' you kids to cut our the pain? Now think how the kids feel - knowing that living true to themselves causes unplacatable anguish in one parent, and hurting for the parent living a lie.

[Danna]

From the article:

I note that Bob said above that he is "not a scientist" and the article was "peer reviewed".

He appears in the acknowledgements as having reviewed a draft, he was not one of the 'peer reviewers'. Usually the peer reviewers remain anonymous and are selected by the journal editor for their appropriate specialist qualifications, in line with acceptance for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

[Danna]

I have to say that I am a bit disappointed in the article. It starts off nice, but then really boggs down and becomes meaningless once we dig into the methodology. It's results don't mean a whole lot. I spent a couple of minutes and using their method put together a vocabulary list from a number of different authors:

Warren, Ramsey, Hoffman (in translation of course), Ethan Smith, Verne, and of course Spalding. And when I got done, I had virtually the same vocabulary list. In fact, the more authors you include, the closer the vocabulary list comes to looking like the most frequently used 100 words in 19th century English. So we simply sample a set of authors, get a list of vocabulary, and then we run it throught the statistical mill, and we can then rank those authors (and it really doesn't matter which ones we chose) as to their relative likelihood - that is which of the (in this case seven) authors is most likely relative to the other six to be the author of the chapter in question. And it doesn't really matter which seven authors we use. The vocabulary list will be very nearly the same. And one of them will be more likely to be the author of any particular chapter than any of the other six ... so unless we start with the assumption that Rigdon and Spalding and so on are the authors, we have no reason to suspect them - and of course, the evidence simply feeds back to us what we put into it. In this case its a win-win for the critic. After all, using the "control" texts wasn't going to get anywhere (and since its entirely driven by computer code, it doesn't take long to throw texts in until you get the results you want - shoot, I ran a few million words through my impromptu test this morning in about 10 minutes). I would have been more interested in seeing a different set of control texts than ones that seem to me obviously chosen for other reasons, since the reasons they give seem to have no real meaning when we are looking purely at vocabularly and not form or structure, and so on.

Ben McGuire

The methods they used were based on word frequency, not style. So yes, the more texts you add, the more it looks like the most frequently used words in 19th century English. Each author tends to have a different profile or set of relative word frequencies The NSC method starts with the same relative frequencies as delta but applies an algorithm that, basically, changes the frequency into a score relative to the average overall use of the word by all authors. The profile of each test sample is compared with the author average profiles as for the delta method.

It is elegant and much less subjective than a stylistic analysis.

[juliann]

He appears in the acknowledgements as having reviewed a draft, he was not one of the 'peer reviewers'. Usually the peer reviewers remain anonymous and are selected by the journal editor for their appropriate specialist qualifications, in line with acceptance for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

I still don't think I said that but let me be more clear one more time. The very quote (see below) I posted made it clear that McCue gave a "thoughtful review of the manuscript" not a peer review. If McCue isn't a scientist (and we all know he is not) my question remains as to who the peers were when an openly hostile anti-Mormon was used for a thoughtful review. Were there any peers who were knowlegable in Mormon Studies? Were their any peers that did not come in with the obivous bias of this group? These are just questions I have that do not address the content.

The authors thank David L. Marshall for a transcript of the Rigdon revelations in the Post Collection and for a careful review of a draft of this manuscript;

Robert McCue and Denise Gigante for their thoughtful reviews of the manuscript, and Amy Kapp for her early contributions to our thinking about this project.

[Uncle Dale]

...

Were there any peers who were knowlegable in Mormon Studies?

...

This is just a shot in the dark; but you might check with Paul J. Fields,

to see if he was one of the reviewers (or knows any of them).

As I recall, the Oxford University journals' article reviewers are free

to identify themselves, when such divulgence is not specifically prohibited.

UD

[Danna]

We could, for example, using the same method and selection criteria show who is the most likely author of the manuscript allegedly written by Spalding - by comparing the following sources as possible authors: Rigdon, Isaiah/Malachi, Cowdry, and Ethan Smith - we could even throw in a couple of control authors - Barlow and Longfellow, just to see what they turn up.

Since this is exactly what they did do, I not sure what your point is. Spaulding's manuscript was about 90% likely to be written by Solomon Spaulding.

[Duncan]

How would you feel if all your children were apostate, and 1 or 2 were gay, and you suspected your spouse was faking it to keep you happy. Would you feel pain, regret, guilt over the possibility that your parenting was inadequate to raise TBM kids. Would you 'cut off' you kids to cut our the pain? Now think how the kids feel - knowing that living true to themselves causes unplacatable anguish in one parent, and hurting for the parent living a lie.

In similar situations I have been there done that bought the t-shirt. I would never cut off a child regardless of their status in life. I feel inadequate as a parent and my kid is generally okay! In saying that I am not under general emotional distress. I can't control how others see me or love me all I can do is how I see them and feel love for them.

[maklelan]

I still don't think I said that but let me be more clear one more time. The very quote (see below) I posted made it clear that McCue gave a "thoughtful review of the manuscript" not a peer review. If McCue isn't a scientist (and we all know he is not) my question remains as to who the peers were when an openly hostile anti-Mormon was used for a thoughtful review. Were there any peers who were knowlegable in Mormon Studies? Were their any peers that did not come in with the obivous bias of this group? These are just questions I have that do not address the content.

It seems to me Criddle was the only one with any real connection to Mormonism. I get the impression from reading his website and the paper that he probably took the idea to the statisticians and most likely wrote the entirety of the historiographical portions of the paper. The reviewers were most likely experts in word-print studies, and not historians. If they were historians then they probably knew very little about Mormonism in general and definitely very little about the Spalding manuscript.

[Uncle Dale]

It seems to me Criddle was the only one with any real connection to Mormonism. I get the impression from reading his website and the paper that he probably took the idea to the statisticians and most likely wrote the entirety of the historiographical portions of the paper. The reviewers were most likely experts in word-print studies, and not historians. If they were historians then they probably knew very little about Mormonism in general and definitely very little about the Spalding manuscript.

From my understanding of things, all three researchers know more than

"very little" about Mormonism -- but that Criddle is the only one who has

substantially studied early LDS history, etc.

Unfortunately, just our having Mormon friends and associates (or even

family members) in this 21st century, typically sheds little light upon the

1820s and 1830s religious controversies surrounding the origins of

Latter Day Saintism.

I suppose that Criddle has had about the same historical exposure to

these controversies as I myself picked up in LDS seminary and institute

classes over the years -- a sort of faith-promoting overview of religious

history/theology that barely acknowledges the old controversies.

Whether or not his two associates had any of that sort of life experience,

I cannot say. Probably they had little more exposure to the historical

stuff, than just a quick reading of Fawn Brodie and similar writers.

UD

[Notquitewetyet]

How would you feel if all your children were apostate, and 1 or 2 were gay, and you suspected your spouse was faking it to keep you happy. Would you feel pain, regret, guilt over the possibility that your parenting was inadequate to raise TBM kids. Would you 'cut off' you kids to cut our the pain? Now think how the kids feel - knowing that living true to themselves causes unplacatable anguish in one parent, and hurting for the parent living a lie.

I don't want to derail, but many of us who have a testimony of the Restored Gospel are converts and have families which hate our choice of religion and try to break us down using any emotional manipulation they've got. Not all Latter Day Saints are Molly Mormons and Peter Priesthoods from Utah Co.

[4truth]

maklelan:

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.

Rigdon didn't just rapidly ascend to a "leadership position." He almost immediately began helping Joseph Smith write revelations and rework scripture. Rigdon's rapid rise to prominence within Mormonism was the forerunner to the Spalding theory. People saw the potential for a connection in 1830. It just took a few years of detective work to put the remaining pieces together. You may be addressing "the Spalding aspect" only, but I see the evidence as intertwined.

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

Which I suggest begins with Rigdon.

Yes, I already referenced that scrap. Tell me, what evidence do you have that it was dictated rather than entirely composed by Hurlbut?

When we actually have a lot of affidavits that are actually published and then we find an authentic corroborating statement from the right time and place, why would any additional burden of proof rest with me? Can you cite any of the original witnesses who later protested that Hurlbut had put words in their mouths?

The existance of the Wright statement is apparently not good enough for you. The fact that it is authentic from the time period is not good enough for you. The fact that it comes from Wright's office with Wright's handwriting is not good enough for you. The message that it communicates is not good enough for you. The fact that a signed version appears in Howe's book is not good enough for you. Now you apparently want a video tape of the proceeding. I suppose that if Aaron Wright were able to post on this board and tell you he wasn't manipulated by Hurlbut you would still suggest he's still being manipulated by Hurlbut.

If the testimony of Aaron Wright were all there was to it, you might have more of a reason to reject the whole thing. As it is, and as far as I can tell at this point, the weight of the evidence supports the Spalding theory, which then places the burden of explaining the evidence with it's critics. You say that you "already referenced that scrap." So? "Referencing" something does not constitute disproving it's significance. So did Hurlbut manipulate Judge Aaron Wright? Do you have any evidence to support that, or am I forced to simply take your opinion on it?

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."

Even if that were provable (and it isn't) nothing forced them to sign. The fact that Hurlbut was commissioned to do this in the first place--which you freely acknowledge--speaks against a heavy manipulation by Hurlbut. But even more problematic is that you seem to be suggesting he pressured all 8 witnesses into signing false statements. Remarkable how so many of Spalding's friends and family were so easily manipulated and how fortunate that so much additional testimony would come to light supporting their false memories!

But, for the sake of discussion, assuming you are correct in that unlikely scenario, are you suggesting that Hurlbut knew all along there was no "original" manuscript that closely paralleled the BOM called Manuscript Found? Or do you think that Hurlbut thought the people who had commissioned him were telling the truth?

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?

A valid qestion given your desire to find fault with Hurlbut. On the other hand, why would it be odd if he didn't find what he was looking for? It seems to me that the key question is how many ms's did Spalding pull out of the case? If he just pulled one ms then I would think he didn't find what he was looking for--instead he found something close, but not what he wanted. In that case he would have wanted to know if this was the ms that everyone had told him the BOM came from--which makes further testimony logical, not "odd". In fact, it's only odd if we are to believe your scenario that he knew he was forcing false statements into the mouths of easily manipulated sheep. Yeah, then, it's "odd" since his discovery of the OM would have only validated what he knew or suspected was the case from the beginning. In that case, why risk negative exposure by going back to witnesses like Wright who might then confirm that, sure enough, the OM is the manuscript we were talking about!

On the other hand, I just read a few statements last night that indicate that Hurlbut may have sold a second manuscript. (I'm still learning about this). Seems like a stretch, but at this point I'm not ruling anything out.

It's much more likely that Hurlbut believed what the witnesses were telling him and he therefore wasn't helping them remember much. When he then recovers the OM he was understandibly disappointed that it didn't measure up to what he had been hearing from the witnesses.

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?

Of course not. Why would you think that? The only thing at issue here is whether Hurlbut intentionally put words in people's mouths, not whether Hurlbut was boy scout. I think the evidence is against you in trying to prove that Hurlbut "Doctored" (lousy pun intended) the witnesses.

The text doesn't read like a dictated letter.

Says who? Even if it wasn't the cross-outs suggest revision under Wright's supervision.

That's because the stories are vaguely similar in plotline. I don't doubt that King was thinking, "Hey, this sounds familiar,"

Well then that concession really makes the rest of your case pretty weak. You want to make Hurlbut out to be the seedy bad-guy, but you're flat out admittting he was not the instigator! Coupled with that, so far, you can't present any testimony from any of the witnesses even hinting that Hurlbut put words in their mouths. So I'm supposed to just take your word that he did?

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.

So what? I don't think you're right, but even if you are, so what? I would suppose a little memory jogging is reasonable under such circumstances. What you're suggesting, however, is something quite different... you're suggesting that Hurlbut put false memories in the minds of all these people. And then he somehow got them all to agree to it! And based on what? Only on his knowledge of the BOM and what he'd heard some other witnesses state? You not only have to believe that Hurlbut was out to get Smith at any cost, but that he also apparently knew there was nothing to his version of events that he was pushing on people and yet he then goes out in search of a manuscript he knows is not going to back up all the false statements he's been forcing on them? So what... you want me to believe Hurlbut is both evil and stupid?

We have an extant Spalding manuscript (OM) so if what you're saying is true, then the witnesses must have really heard about the exploits of Fabius, Kentucks and Sciotans read from that MS while Hurlbut somehow got them to "remember" Nephites, Maroni, Lamenites, red face painting, plural inconsistencies, etc. that were never really there. That's pretty remarkable--especially in light of the the fact that some of these witnesses do state there were two manuscripts and provide details of both.

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.

I don't see why you think that's a big deal? Hurlbut probably wrote some of the affidavits as they were dictated to him. So what? Can you present a statement from any of them that claimed they were manipulated by Hurlbut?

Many of the affidavits from different people contain reoccurring phrases and vernacular that is strikingly similar to Hurlbut's own.

That would be something you could actually demonstrate. Care to show some of the "striking" similarities? Not only that, but for each "striking" similarity you present, will you then concede that the "striking dissimilarities lend support in the opposite direction, thereby cancelling your argument? Or must we only consider your similarities and ignore everything else?

But again, even if we were to grant you this phenomenon of "striking" similarities, so what? If Hurlbut is a part of the process and is in fact taking dictation, I would expect some of his phraseology to work it's way into the process. They still signed. No one forced them to sign anything.

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.

Of course it's plenty of reason for a devoted Smith-follower to doubt. I'm trying to ascertain what really happened. Can you or can you not provide a statement where one of the witnesses claimed Hurlbut manipulated them?