Another Wordprint-type Study

[maklelan]

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.

Apparently Witen is a PhD student who mainly deals with biostatistics. My sister is working on a biostatistics PhD right now too, and it looks like they're working on very similar projects. Jockers is the one who deals with literature. His CV is here. His specialty is Irish-American literature, and I see no indication on his CV that he has collided with Mormonism in a professional capacity prior to this study. I could be very wrong, but I see no indication any of them have a stronger connection to Mormonism than whatever exposure they got from this research.

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.

And studying the history of the Church in a manner so as to intellectually justify one's own own exit from the Church and feel vindicated regarding exchanges with one's father-in-law typically has the same effect, albeit a little more nuanced.

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.

He actually explains in his website that he started looking into it after he left the Church as a result of exchanges with his father-in-law in which the in-law resorted to the "how could Joseph Smith possibly have written the Book of Mormon" argument. He came across the Spalding-Rigdon theory on RFM and was later inspired by you and Ted Chandler. After three years he was convinced.

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.

Perhaps. It seems to me the discussion in the paper about the theories of authorship reads like it was thrown together from discussion boards and other websites. Mormonstudies.com, solomonspalding.com (your site), or sidneyrigdon.com (your site) are cited 17 times in that section. lightplanet.org is cited once, as is farms.byu.edu.

[4truth]

maklelan:

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?

1. I did not grow up in the 19th century.

2. Writing was THE form of communication as there were no other distractions

3. Many of these witnesses claimed to hear Spalding read from his MS on regular occasions. It was a nightly ritual in some cases.

4. I can easily remember the names of TV characters I saw as a kid--even ones I only saw on rare occasions... ie. Dobie Gillus... I have no idea how to spell it but I remember the name and I remember that the actor was "Gilligan"

So, yeah, I think it's quite likely they could remember names like Lehi, Maroni, Lamenite, 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.

Can you verify that "none of them were particularly interested in" or did you just throw that in for effect?

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.

Nor can you seem to grasp how much of a stretch that suggestion is. If we were talking about one old, easily manipulated witness, I could see your point. The reality is completely different. You're suggesting Hurlbut was able to get all of these witnesses to "remember" things that they never really heard! And yet you somehow find my alleged inability to grasp the significance of my position remarkable. Ironic.

Funny how he only ever mentions one manuscript.

Funny how you mistate reality.

First, we virtually KNOW that Spalding wrote more than one MS on different topics. The question is, is the extant MS the one that the witnesses, like Lake, heard read to them or not? Lake specifically mentions the name: Manuscript Found. No such name appears on the OM.

Second, Lake says: "I spent many hours in hearing him read said writings, and became well acquainted with its contents."

Far from backing up your case, Lake says "said writings"; not "one manuscript"

Third, did Hurlbut put those words in Lake's mouth? Can you prove he did? If not then what do you think Lake meant when he said "many hours" and "well acquainted"?

Fourth, the extant MS (OM) is incomplete and disjointed. Hardly ready for printing.

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.

Either you're mixing your pronouns or I'm just not following you (which is possible). Lake wasn't trying to get anything published. He said he would help Spalding in that regard, but they failed in business and Spalding moved to Pittsburg.

More importantly, are you actually suggesting that the Oberlin Manuscript was the one Spalding was trying to get published?

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?

There's a big difference between Hurlbut making it all up--which your own previous concession rules out anyway--and Hurlbut's phraseology making it's way into a few similar affidavits. The former doesn't gel with the evidence and the latter is not incriminating.

Her comments when the manuscript was originally sought clearly state that she was unaware of the contents of the manuscript.

How so? Could you please post her comments and then demonstrate how they "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."

Could you please post the Austin and Storrs admission?

That doesn't even begin to make it true.

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

As, of course, do I. I think it's quite obvious you reject the theory while I find it credible. (I haven't totally made up my mind one way or the other, but so far I find evidence that weighs mostly in it's favor. I'm interested in what you actually have to suggest it wrong, though.)

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?

Not unless you also notice how the various versions of the First Vision evolved over time.

The fact is the majority of the quotes come from Smith's own accounts of how he discovered the BOM plates as published in the Times & Seasons. Any "skipping around" is necessitated by incomplete accounts in the LDS versions. That's not the author's fault. He's simply noting the parallels. He notes that:

The Joseph Smith history is taken from his personal accounts as published in various numbers of the Times & Seasons newspaper in 1842. Reference has not been made to any of the extant manuscript source documents for that history, however. The wording found in those manuscripts may occasionally differ slightly from that of the 1842 published text. A few secondary sources have also been quoted where the information they provide appears to be helpful in clarifying details related in or assumed by accounts from the three primary documents already mentioned.

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

Anyway, is this manuscript the source for the Book of Mormon, or are we looking for another?

The parallels between this extant Spalding MS and the Smith story of recovering the plates are--IMO--striking. By taking a position whereby one choses to postulate that the frequent parallels are coincidence, one begs the question: on what grounds? Taken as an isolated case, one might simply be willing to attribute the similarities to a very odd chain of coincidences, but when one considers the implications of the Spalding/Rigdon theory, these parallels become one more piece of supporting evidence which was, unfortunately, glossed over due to a different set of much higher expectations that were forced upon it at its discovery.

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?

Certainly if one can trust witnesses who claim so. In addition, Howe mentions the Fabius story. There was no attempt at a cover-up.

One of the biggest problems you have facing you as you attempt to explain away the Spalding related evidence, is the problem of an incomplete and disjointed manuscript that you want the world to believe was submitted to the Pattersons for publication. Are you really suggesting that the extant Spalding manuscript (OM) was the one that Spalding submitted to Patterson? Why would he submit such a jumble that doesn't even have an ending?

[maklelan]

maklelan:

1. I did not grow up in the 19th century.

How different do you think the human brain was?

2. Writing was THE form of communication as there were no other distractions

What does that have to do with remembering a name being read to you?

3. Many of these witnesses claimed to hear Spalding read from his MS on regular occasions. It was a nightly ritual in some cases.

That's the claim, but again that claim comes to us exclusively through manipulative and biased hands.

4. I can easily remember the names of TV characters I saw as a kid--even ones I only saw on rare occasions... ie. Dobie Gillus... I have no idea how to spell it but I remember the name and I remember that the actor was "Gilligan"

You also saw those shows over very extended periods of time, and those characters were completely consistent. Patty Duke was my favorite.

So, yeah, I think it's quite likely they could remember names like Lehi, Maroni, Lamenite, etc.

It's Moroni and Lamanite. Now add twenty years and try again, only this time get the spelling right.

Can you verify that "none of them were particularly interested in" or did you just throw that in for effect?

It's the conclusion I've reached after reading what they had to say about it. I can't verify it any more than I can verify that they were real human beings.

Nor can you seem to grasp how much of a stretch that suggestion is. If we were talking about one old, easily manipulated witness, I could see your point. The reality is completely different. You're suggesting Hurlbut was able to get all of these witnesses to "remember" things that they never really heard!

That's not at all what I'm suggesting, and I've never made any assertion that at all approaches that degree of asininity. Your inability to grasp the most clear and fundamental points of my argument (and, quite frankly, your attempt to defend "irregardless") has made me entire lose interest in trying to engage in an actual conversation with you. The most logical conclusion is that many (if not all) of these affidavits were actually statements entirely composed by Hurlbut, and entirely untrue. He took them to the people and said, "Sign here and we'll get rid of Joe Smith."

[4truth]

maklelan:

It's Moroni and Lamanite. Now add twenty years and try again, only this time get the spelling right.

Sheesh you really think I don't know how to spell Moroni or Lamanite?! You prove my point! That is how some of the witnesses I am citing spelled the names! Which demonstrates they were remembering what they had heard not what they had read! If Hurlbut were coaxing witnesses, don't you think his spelling would have been consistent? Candy from a baby.

Also, apparently from your last remarks it would seem you failed to see my previous post to you--either that or you're ignoring it.

[Uncle Dale]

...

It seems to me the discussion in the paper about the theories of authorship reads like it was thrown together from

discussion boards and other websites....

A couple of other people I'm in touch with have made similar remarks.

My own contact with Criddle goes back to the period before he had solidified

his views on Mormon origins. I'm not sure exactly when it was that he had

his name removed from the Church membership rolls, however. At the time

I first met him personally, his family was still active LDS, although he had

stopped attending weekly meetings, etc.

All of this puts folks like Ted Chandler, Wayne Cowdrey and myself in an odd

position --- our research and study has been almost entirely "on the ground,"

"in the libraries," and "among the Saints" activity. To now see our respective

reporting reaching others via the internet presents something of a strange

circumstance. "Virtual knowledge" received on-line, seems to me to be only

a starting-point for "real discovery" in the "real world," and not an end in itself.

It makes me a bit nervous to see contemporary investigators of Mormonism rely

so much upon web-based materials, and so little upon actual life experience

among the Latter Day Saints.

Obviously I'm a dinosaur who has lived well past his era --- these "new kids

on the block" will carry on the old work, but without the sort of ongoing contact

I've tried to maintain with LDS and RLDS associates.

I foresee some problems.....

UD

[Uncle Dale]

...

If Hurlbut were coaxing witnesses, don't you think his spelling would have been consistent?

...

Probably D. P. Hurlbut DID coach some of his statement-givers in and around Conneaut.

My best reconstruction of history is that Hurlbut first encountered the Spalding authorship

claims in Erie Co., PA, and subsequently secured witness statements from John & Martha

Spalding, in adjacent Crawford Co.

By the time Hurlbut obtained these first two statements, he was out of the Church --

though he may well have first encountered John Spalding (Solomon's brother) while

serving his Mormon mission in Erie and Crawford counties, at the beginning of 1833.

My best guess is that Hurlbut subsequently obtained his other witness statements

(they can hardly be called affidavits), in an effort to reinforce and confirm the

testimony he first obtained from John and Martha. Probably he displayed their written

statements to folks in and around Conneaut, soliciting more written memories, when

and where the new statement-givers confirmed what John and Martha had said.

Hurlbut had a definite purpose in mind, and that purpose was anti-Smith as well as

anti-Mormon. We can hardly believe that he received unbiased testimony -- or that

he retained unbiased testimony, when it did not suit his purposes.

On the other hand, Hurlbut had a goal -- to locate and read Solomon Spalding's

fictional writings. At the time he took down the Conneaut witness statements in

writing, he had not yet located Spalding's manuscripts. Therefore, I suggest that

he was careful not to coach his witnesses to say anything so untrue that it would

endanger his quest to find, examine and make use of Spalding's manuscripts.

These witnesses lived well beyond the times when the Spalding authorship

controversy was first being discussed in the public press. John appears to have

given a secondary statement some years later. During the intervening years,

Mormons like Orson Hyde had time and opportunity to investigate the witness

claims and expose any glaring untruths. The fact that no such exposure ever

occurred, leads me to think that the various witnesses stood by their statements

over the years. Henry Lake (for one) reportedly actively opposed Mormonism

with his Spalding authorship views.

The witnesses were all real people who bore no bad reputation nor hostile

reports as to their character, reliability, honesty, etc. Given this fact, my guess

is that none of them told blatant lies in their testimony --- but it is reasonable

for us to assume that D. P. Hurlbut "screened" what they had to say, if he was

present when the statements were written down. Also, he and Howe further

"screened" the statements thus obtained. Howe admits that several such

statements (taken from the Erie PA Jackson family, Rudd family, etc.??) were

discarded and never published in his 1834 book.

So -- how reliable are the contents of the witness statements? I'd say that those

taken down after Hurlbut obtained his first testimony, from John and Martha, must

be considered with caution. Cunningham's statement was evidently obtained by

E. D. Howe, and may be in a different category. Abner Jackson's statement came

years later, and is not properly Hurlbut-Howe era testimony.

UD

.

[TAK]

QUOTE(4truth @ Dec 9 2008, 01:07 AM)

maklelan:

1. I did not grow up in the 19th century.

How different do you think the human brain was?

I would imagine the brain today is bombarded with a lot more useless trivial, information today than 150 years ago..

Dale ?

I have found your comments interesting.. Thankyou.

Whatâ??s a good source for Joseph Smith's activities and location from 1826 to 1830?

[Uncle Dale]

,,

Whatâ??s a good source for Joseph Smith's activities and location from 1826 to 1830?

...

Vogel and Bushman's footnotes should provide the best contemporary knowledge.

Beyond that, you might try asking Bro. Taylor in the Lee Library Special Collections

for his advice regarding any recently obtained, non-cited reference sources.

UD

[Uncertain]

Uncertain writes: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.

Hi Ben,

Sounds interesting, I do think care must be taken when doing this type of analysis. For example suppose you test 10,000 potential controls and 9,999 of them show a low level of false positives using the Jockers et al methodology. The fact that one of them out of 10,000 tested showed a high level of false positives is not really all that strong of evidence that the Jockers et al methodology is seriously flawed. Indeed this would be an excellent true negative rate.

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.

Fair enough, I really should read the study before I start pontificating .

All the Best,

Uncertain

[Uncertain]

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.

UD

.

Hi Uncle Dale,

Thanks for the information. I have had universally good experiences contacting authors of papers. Most scientists are pleased that someone is going to use their work.

Uncertain

[Uncle Dale]

Still a gentleman and a scholar, I see.

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

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Thanks, friend,

Which ever part of me is yet a gentleman is perhaps a residue of my

Latter Day Saintism -- a part of me that accepts and testifies to

supernatural things, such as inspired scripture.

But, as you well know, there is also my Dr. Jekyll side -- that part of me

that looks to the scientific method, devoid of supernaturalism, for new

answers to old questions.

The Stanford researchers had every logical right to approach the BoM

text with skepticism, regarding its metaphysics. The scientific method

avoids such input, and looks askance at anything that claims to have a

supernatural basis (such as our BoM).

I cannot fault them for being scientists; nor can I fault them for not

first publishing their Book of Mormon analysis in a FARMS journal.

What I can fault them (and their editors) for, is not adding even more

pages of explanation to their report -- so that folks like you and I do not

have to puzzle over possible prejudices, motivations, etc.

Then again -- what would this MB look like, without our puzzling over such stuff?

UD

.

[Ipso Facto]

mccue:

Eternal truth doesn't change. And by definition, any Mormon beliefs that do change are not part of Eternal Truth. Among the many divine mysteries at Mormonism's core is why God, with the most powerful intellect conceivable, relies so heavily on circular logic.

best,

bob

Irony doesn't come any thicker than this, folks.

Quite interesting to see that our former bishop from the land up north has returned to regale us with his endorsement of this so-called "peer-reviewed study."

I'm actually quite pleased that McCue has attached his endorsement to this doomed dirigible. In so doing, he has both demonstrated how easily he himself is dirigible by anything that reinforces his conclusions on Mormonism, and also hitched his wagon to a pretentious show of "science" that is doomed to a Hindenburg-esque demise similar to that of the once-celebrated Salmander Letter.

This study is fatally flawed.

LDS apologists are presently in a state of shock that Criddle and his friends have offered up such a fat target for them, but that shock will shortly give way to the immense gratification of shooting it down.

But, just like with those people who left the Church on account of the "damning" implications of the Salamander Letter, or Southerton's long-since-discredited DNA arguments, those who use this most recent critical offering as the excuse for leaving will not come back penitent and humble when this latest twist on the Spalding theory is laid to rest with its forbears.

[Uncle Dale]

...

I'm actually quite pleased that McCue has attached his endorsement to this

doomed dirigible.

...

At least we can all breath a sigh of relief, that Sandra Tanner, Ed Decker, and

all the rest of their ilk have not taken flight upon this shiny new airship.

That, in and of itself, helps distinguish the three Stanford researchers from the

Dan Vogel admirers and Fawn Brodieites of this world.

As for me -- count one not so silent stowaway in the steerage compartment.

Uncle "when does this blimp get to Broadhurst...., er, Lakehurst?" Dale

.

[Kevin Christensen]

... 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.

Ben is wonderfully enlightening, as usual. I hope Daniel Peterson takes note, and gets some of this in the Review.

This kind of attempt to burst Mormonism, as if one could do so they way one pops a soap bubble, always brings to mind Jeremiah 20:11 "My persecutors shall stumble, and they shall not prevailL they shall be greatly ashamed; for they shall not prosper: their everlasting confusion shall not be forgotten."

And Isaiah 54:17: No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper: and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment, thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness of of me, said the LORD.

I've seen these particular tests for prophet unfold countless times in relation to Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. It is one of the things that makes LDS scholarship so fascinating.

As an aside on the statistical approach used, it reminds me of the technique used by the Crest toothpaste add during the 60s and 70s. "Our group had (whatever percent) fewer cavities." The trick was, Crest's advertiser tracked a lot of groups, and simply chose to pick their testimonials from the groups that had fewer cavities. They had just enough honesty to not claim that Crest actually, consistently, provided fewer cavities than other products. Where demonstration fails, insinuation carries the argument.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Cold Steel]

Can you give me an example of, say, the best 3 of them?

You're asking for three things that were not known about in 1830?

Well, off the top of my head:

1) Nahom and the eastward trail. Using Nephi's account, one runs right into the NHM community. Some remote scholars in the world may have known about Nahom, but it wasn't until the mid-90s that Nahom was found to be a burial community. Yet this is where Ismael was buried. As an added bonus, the Book of Mormon account is entirely consistent with the Arabian geography. Even the once-criticized "land of Jerusalem" has turned out in the Book of Mormon's favor.

2) Writing on metal plates. At the time the Book of Mormon came forth, there were no gold plates in stone boxes known anywhere. Now we know the ancients did write on gold, copper, silver, etc. The notion of hiding up records to come forth at a later time also was unknown, yet many such writings came to light with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and other libraries.

3) Chiasmus. Old, but true. Complex chiasms are found throughout the Book of Mormon. Simple chiasms were known in 1830, such as "Old King Cole was a merry old soul, and a merry old soul was he." Still, complex chiasms were not generally known in 1830 and certainly never appeared in either Rigdon's, Cowdery's or Smith's writings, not to mention Spalding.

I could also add that Book of Mormon geography is entirely consistent with a Mesoamerican setting, which was not known or realized in 1830. Roads, highways, the extensive use of cement, towers and various cultures one would expect to find inconsistent in a book that was total fiction. Instead, the more we learn, the more it appears that the Book of Mormon is holding its own. If it weren't an actual history, I would greatly suspect the opposite would be true.

[Uncle Dale]

...

I hope Daniel Peterson takes note, and gets some of this in the Review.

...

I caution the Mormon scholars against any sort of off-the-cuff, knee-jerk

reaction to this new paper.

A scathing response in a FARMS journal would probably be exactly the

wrong way to go about addressing the issue. A much better tactic would

be to wait and see if disinterested "Gentile" scholars can refute the

computerized methodology involved.

Also, a sudden, major reaction from LDS scholars would only accentuate

the idea that this new paper's reporting was really something important.

Better to give it a period of "benign neglect," and later address the topic

in the Ensign or some other publication, if hostile anti-Mormons

seize upon the issue to try and impede the missionary effort, etc.

But, then again, nobody ever takes my advice here seriously.

UD

[LifeOnaPlate]

It seems to me the discussion in the paper about the theories of authorship reads like it was thrown together from discussion boards and other websites. Mormonstudies.com, solomonspalding.com (your site), or sidneyrigdon.com (your site) are cited 17 times in that section. lightplanet.org is cited once, as is farms.byu.edu.

Agreed. That aspect of the paper is cobbled from one specific viewpoint only. A large flaw in my view.

I'm actually quite pleased that McCue has attached his endorsement to this doomed dirigible. In so doing, he has both demonstrated how easily he himself is dirigible by anything that reinforces his conclusions on Mormonism, and also hitched his wagon to a pretentious show of "science" that is doomed to a Hindenburg-esque demise similar to that of the once-celebrated Salmander Letter.This study is fatally flawed.LDS apologists are presently in a state of shock that Criddle and his friends have offered up such a fat target for them, but that shock will shortly give way to the immense gratification of shooting it down.But, just like with those people who left the Church on account of the "damning" implications of the Salamander Letter, or Southerton's long-since-discredited DNA arguments, those who use this most recent critical offering as the excuse for leaving will not come back penitent and humble when this latest twist on the Spalding theory is laid to rest with its forbears.

Pretty much. This is looking like one star people should regret hitching a wagon to, if my initial thoughts are born out.

[Glenn101]

I caution the Mormon scholars against any sort of off-the-cuff, knee-jerk

reaction to this new paper.

A scathing response in a FARMS journal would probably be exactly the

wrong way to go about addressing the issue. A much better tactic would

be to wait and see if disinterested "Gentile" scholars can refute the

computerized methodology involved.

Also, a sudden, major reaction from LDS scholars would only accentuate

the idea that this new paper's reporting was really something important.

Better to give it a period of "benign neglect," and later address the topic

in the Ensign or some other publication, if hostile anti-Mormons

seize upon the issue to try and impede the missionary effort, etc.

But, then again, nobody ever takes my advice here seriously.

UD

I don't think that there will be a quick, knee jerk, review by the FARMS ensemble. We'll do the knee jerking here.

But I do expect that there will be a pretty thorough critique of the methodologies used in the process by people who have expertise in the pertinent fields. Until then, I haven't enough information to make any kind of judgement. (I do remain skeptical, however.)

Glenn

[Uncle Dale]

I don't think that there will be a quick, knee jerk, review by the FARMS ensemble.

We'll do the knee jerking here.

Yes, that makes good sense. Now and then we actually make some relevant points

in forums like these -- but our quick reactions are not always well thought out.

Better to do a good job in scholarly reporting, than to just muddy the waters more.

But I do expect that there will be a pretty thorough critique of the methodologies used in the process by people

who have expertise in the pertinent fields.

Logically this should come from the readership of the journal where the paper is

published -- or in similar publications in the literary statistics discipline. Or, at

least the first reactions should come from those sorts of respondents.

Then, when the LDS scholars add their response, they will have some more

data and results to cite, along with their own critique. Of course there are LDS

statisticians and computer analysis people who might add their contributions early on.

Until then, I haven't enough information to make any kind of judgement.

(I do remain skeptical, however.)

Glenn

Here's how I believe it will shake out --

The experts will generally agree with and confirm the two methodologies used

by the Stanford researchers -- and probably some more reporting will follow,

showing how some other 18th and 19th century writings in English match up

with Book of Mormon chapters, etc.

Then, after that much response has entered into the scholarly literature, some

LDS writer like Matt Roper (but, more likely a computer word-print expert) will

compile a critical paper addressing the Stanford team's findings, and explaining

how they make little impact upon Mormon understandings of history and scripture.

In that way, the conclusions of the Stanford researchers will be deemed irrelevant

to modern Mormonism, no matter the contextual significance of their internal data.

None of which will be much digested by partisan advocates on one side or the other.

The partisans will cite the Stanford team or the LDS response, selectively using

isolated "facts" to support one conclusion or another regarding the Book of Mormon.

Finally, at some point, a rabid anti-Mormon will pick up the issue, and selectively

quote from the Stanford scholars (or some related subsequent research findings)

in such a way as to solicit a keen response from the Mormons. When that happens,

this yet unnamed anti-Mormon will bear the brunt of refutations of the Spalding and

Rigdon authorship theories, and the Stanford findings will be temporarily side-tracked.

At least that's the way things have developed in the past.

I may also have a page or two added to my own web-sites on the matter -- but, as

in the past, will there change no minds that do not already desire to be changed.

Life goes on....

Uncle Dale

.

[4truth]

Uncle Dale:

Probably D. P. Hurlbut DID coach some of his statement-givers in and around Conneaut.

I agree he may have "coached" some of them, but I doubt he implanted false memories in their brains. It seems to me the key is whether or not they actually heard the specific names they mentioned. If not, then Hurlbut must have convinced them they did (or they just signed what he had prepared for them to say, but I doubt that). There's a pretty big difference between Nephites and Lamanites and Kentucks and Sciotans.

My best reconstruction of history is that Hurlbut first encountered the Spalding authorship

claims in Erie Co., PA, and subsequently secured witness statements from John & Martha

Spalding, in adjacent Crawford Co.

Assuming that is the case, then I would assume the earlier ones should be the most reliable. John mentions Manuscript Found, Lehi, Nephites, and it came to pass, etc. Martha also mentions Lehi, Nephi and Lamanites & Nephites. Again, it would appear the names are the key to it all.

By the time Hurlbut obtained these first two statements, he was out of the Church --

though he may well have first encountered John Spalding (Solomon's brother) while

serving his Mormon mission in Erie and Crawford counties, at the beginning of 1833.

My best guess is that Hurlbut subsequently obtained his other witness statements

(they can hardly be called affidavits), in an effort to reinforce and confirm the

testimony he first obtained from John and Martha. Probably he displayed their written

statements to folks in and around Conneaut, soliciting more written memories, when

and where the new statement-givers confirmed what John and Martha had said.

Sounds reasonable.

Hurlbut had a definite purpose in mind, and that purpose was anti-Smith as well as

anti-Mormon. We can hardly believe that he received unbiased testimony -- or that

he retained unbiased testimony, when it did not suit his purposes.

Agreed. No doubt Hurlbut wanted the most incriminating evidence he could muster, but I still think he would have realized it would work against him to push for information that his witnesses had never heard. If he showed the later ones examples of previously given statements (which certainly can lead to tainted results) which then caused them to "remember" things forgotten, that's certainly not the most desirable methodology, but on the other hand, who's to say such a method wouldn't legitimately "jog" their memories? The bottom line, though, as far as I know, is at this point we're just speculating. Contrary to what we think Hurlbut likely did, he might have simply asked them for a statement and taken their dictation. If it so happened that he got what he wanted through that method, all the better. In short, faithful LDS want to believe the worst of Hurlbut, and critics like myself want to believe he at least obtained some reliable testimonies.

On the other hand, Hurlbut had a goal -- to locate and read Solomon Spalding's

fictional writings. At the time he took down the Conneaut witness statements in

writing, he had not yet located Spalding's manuscripts. Therefore, I suggest that

he was careful not to coach his witnesses to say anything so untrue that it would

endanger his quest to find, examine and make use of Spalding's manuscripts.

Exactly! And that's where the logic of LDS apologists breaks down. IMO, they overemphasize how much Hurlbut's motives actually affected the testimonies. The only way their logic makes an impact on the debate is for them to claim that Hurlbut so tainted the testimonies that we can't simply trust them at all... otherwise we're left with trying to figure out what portions were coaxed out of them that they never really heard and what is legitimate--pretty much an impossible task. It might make sense that Hurlbut doctored testimonies after discovering the OM doesn't line up with MF, but then one would think that at least some of the witnesses would have spoken up and at least told someone: I never said what Hurlbut said I said.

Instead, we find that further testimony not involving Hurlbut supports the thesis of his affidavits. When one puts Hurlbut's evidence within the context of additonal, later testimony and evidence, then--IMO--the Spalding theory begins to look credible.

These witnesses lived well beyond the times when the Spalding authorship

controversy was first being discussed in the public press. John appears to have

given a secondary statement some years later. During the intervening years,

Mormons like Orson Hyde had time and opportunity to investigate the witness

claims and expose any glaring untruths. The fact that no such exposure ever

occurred, leads me to think that the various witnesses stood by their statements

over the years. Henry Lake (for one) reportedly actively opposed Mormonism

with his Spalding authorship views.

Agreed.

The witnesses were all real people who bore no bad reputation nor hostile

reports as to their character, reliability, honesty, etc. Given this fact, my guess

is that none of them told blatant lies in their testimony --- but it is reasonable

for us to assume that D. P. Hurlbut "screened" what they had to say, if he was

present when the statements were written down. Also, he and Howe further

"screened" the statements thus obtained. Howe admits that several such

statements (taken from the Erie PA Jackson family, Rudd family, etc.??) were

discarded and never published in his 1834 book.

Again, I agree with you. Of course Hurlbut and to a lesser extent, Howe are going to use what they believe is the best evidence and discard the weakest, but, again, if Hurlbut got what he wanted without coaxing it out of his witnesses--which is no less a possibility than that he did--then all the better for him to use genuine statements. The key question is how much did Hurlbut influence those statements, and I suggest it's not very logical to assume he influenced them to the extent that we must simply reject them out of hand. I just don't see a justification for that. And if that's the case, then how do we decide what to accept and what not to? Which is why I brought up the Wright statement since, in it, he's claiming there were actually two MSs and he identifies them. And that harmonizes with his prior published testimony that "Spalding had many other manuscripts which I expect to see when Smith translates his other plate."

So -- how reliable are the contents of the witness statements? I'd say that those

taken down after Hurlbut obtained his first testimony, from John and Martha, must

be considered with caution. Cunningham's statement was evidently obtained by

E. D. Howe, and may be in a different category. Abner Jackson's statement came

years later, and is not properly Hurlbut-Howe era testimony.

UD

I agree. But "caution" does not equate to rejection, and if we're not going to totally ignore them, then we have to figure out which portions deserve more "caution" than others. Since it appears as though names like Nephites and Lamanites were a part of the first statements--which likely seem the most reliable--then we're not justified in in simply arguing that because Hurlbut was a promiscuous ex-mo out to get Smith, we can just ignore the content of the testimonies he retreived.

The minute we allow them.... a framework for a Spalding/Rigdon/BOM connection becomes credible.

[Cold Steel]

It's actually pretty incredible how poor the case is for Spalding, Rigdon, Cowdery or Smith to have produced the Book of Mormon. We may not have the manuscript Spalding is said to have produced, but we do have some of Spalding's other works and they couldn't be more different than anything in the Book of Mormon. Nothing so far would hold up in any court of law. Unless you can find a witness or manuscript predating the Book of Mormon using the names Nephi, Lehi and the rest, there is no case. Parts of the Book of Mormon had been published all over New England and no, I don't trust people's memory from that far back. I can't tell you how many TV shows I've seen as an adult that I remembered totally different than when I was a kid. I've also found and read old books I'd read twenty plus years ago and I've been frustrated by the fact that they don't read the way I remembered them, and I have fairly good retention for what I read.

In the end, you buy into the Spalding stuff because you want to. You don't reject it because you want to; you reject it because there's nothing factual or substantial to base it on.

How anyone can read the III Nephi account of Christ's appearance to the people and not be moved by the description and the spirit of it I'll never know. The account is one of the finest accounts of anything in recorded scripture, anywhere. Christ's subsequent teachings are laid out in a careful, thoughtful and concise manner that is really unparalleled in holy writ. The way Jesus interacted with the people, instructed them, divided them into twelve groups and appointed an apostle/disciple over each of them, taught them to pray, blessed the wine and the bread and so forth is so far beyond what any of these alleged authors of the Book of Mormon ever put on paper. If anyone can show any three sentences by any of these people that even approach the III Nephi content, I'll admit they have a caseâ??but good luck!

There's perhaps more hearsay about the whole Spalding thing than anything else in church history, and it continues to go nowhere, I think, because the evidence is lacking. Produce evidence and then we'll talk. But so far there's no evidence except very dated testimonies.

[Uncle Dale]

...

I agree he may have "coached" some of them, but I doubt he implanted false memories in their brains.

It seems to me the key is whether or not they actually heard the specific names they mentioned.

If not, then Hurlbut must have convinced them they did (or they just signed what he had prepared for

them to say, but I doubt that). There's a pretty big difference between Nephites and Lamanites and

Kentucks and Sciotans.

Of course we will never know for certain. Loyal LDS/RLDS will naturally accept

the possibilities that best match up with their testimonies and what their fellow

Saints believe to be true. Those of us less inclined to such group-think will come

to various differing conclusions.

My own opinion is that Hurlbut used John and Martha's statements as a sort of

template, in his subsequent questioning of other Conneaut witnesses. Thus, if

John and Martha mentioned some particular recollection, and another witness

did not, then Hurlbut may have coaxed that additional information out of

the later witnesses.

By such an interrogation process, the witness statements may have accumulated

a few more references to "Lamanite," etc., than they might have without Hurlbut's

involvement.

But, oddly enough, none of the Conneaut witnesses recalled any names or details

from Spalding's "Roman Story." We know that an early draft of that manuscript

existed before Spalding left Conneaut --- his brother Josiah gave a fair summary

of the contents some years later, recalling an 1812 visit to Solomon at Conneaut.

I would thus expect at least some overlap with the Roman story details in the

witnesses' minds, if all their recollected story names were implanted memories.

I would assume the earlier ones should be the most reliable. John mentions Manuscript Found,

Lehi, Nephites, and it came to pass, etc. Martha also mentions Lehi, Nephi and Lamanites & Nephites.

Again, it would appear the names are the key to it all.

Perhaps so -- but don't expect loyal Mormons to accept your conclusion. Oberlin

President James Fairchild came up with the false memories notion, and it served

the LDS/RLDS purposes so well that later investigators, like Brodie, believed that

notion without question.

No doubt Hurlbut wanted the most incriminating evidence he could muster, but I still think he would have realized

it would work against him to push for information that his witnesses had never heard. If he showed the later ones

examples of previously given statements (which certainly can lead to tainted results) which then caused them

to "remember" things forgotten, that's certainly not the most desirable methodology, but on the other hand, who's

to say such a method wouldn't legitimately "jog" their memories? The bottom line, though, as far as I know, is at

this point we're just speculating.

Educated speculation has its place in historical reconstruction. We must not forget

it is speculation -- but it serves as a possible starting point for useful research.

Contrary to what we think Hurlbut likely did, he might have simply asked them for a statement and taken

their dictation. If it so happened that he got what he wanted through that method, all the better. In short, faithful LDS

want to believe the worst of Hurlbut, and critics like myself want to believe he at least obtained some reliable testimonies.

If all we had were those Hurlbut-Howe statements, they would be problematic.

But we have other sources to supplement them -- such as a report conveyed

from Eratus Rudd (who joined the Mormons), that Spalding wtote a lost tribes

story. By comparing the Howe-published statements with items such as the

Dec. 1833 Aaron Wright draft letter, we can begin to formulate a clearer picture

of what those early witnesses believed and said.

All the secondary reporting I have ever uncovered tends to support the basic

recollections relayed by the Conneaut witnesses. That does not mean that

their statements are reliable in every detail -- but they are a starting point.

And that's where the logic of LDS apologists breaks down. IMO, they overemphasize how much

Hurlbut's motives actually affected the testimonies. The only way their logic makes an impact

on the debate is for them to claim that Hurlbut so tainted the testimonies that we can't simply

trust them at all... otherwise we're left with trying to figure out what portions were coaxed out

of them that they never really heard and what is legitimate--pretty much an impossible task.

It might make sense that Hurlbut doctored testimonies after discovering the OM doesn't line

up with MF, but then one would think that at least some of the witnesses would have spoken up

and at least told someone: I never said what Hurlbut said I said.

If I ever find such evidence, I'll make it known to all -- but I doubt it exists.

The old RLDS justification for Hurlbut's manuscript-seeking activities, was that he

wanted to obtain the Roman story and destroy it -- so that his lies regarding Spalding

would forever go undetected. I see this as a very poor excuse for Hurlbut's known

activities. Also, he never did burn the Roman story, once he got hold of it.

But "caution" does not equate to rejection, and if we're not going to totally ignore them,

then we have to figure out which portions deserve more "caution" than others. Since it appears

as though names like Nephites and Lamanites were a part of the first statements--which likely

seem the most reliable--then we're not justified in in simply arguing that because Hurlbut was a

promiscuous ex-mo out to get Smith, we can just ignore the content of the testimonies he retreived.

The minute we allow them.... a framework for a Spalding/Rigdon/BOM connection becomes credible.

Credible for you and me, perhaps -- but not for my former priesthood superiors

in the Reorganized LDS Church (who would not even take the trouble to hear the

whole report, before they rejected it all, out of hand, as being "apostate trash").

One of the reasons that I'm pleased to see the Stanford researchers' paper published,

is that parts of it confirm what I was trying to convince the RLDS elders of, in 1978-79.

It has taken many years for me to obtain this necessary evidence -- and my old

church superiors are mostly dead by now. But I still feel vindicated to some extent.

Perhaps I should submit my old thesis papers to one of the Oxford journals for

similar publication? Nah -- on second thought, I'd rather just endlessly argue here

with Life-On-A-Plate.

UD

[Uncle Dale]

...

Produce evidence and then we'll talk. But so far there's no evidence except very dated testimonies.

I think that investigators like myself will have a better chance of

talking to the interested non-Mormons, now that the Stanford team's

paper has been published.

We will never convince Sandra Tanner or Dan Vogel of its relevance

in investigating Mormon origins -- but there is a new generation of

non-Mormons (and former Mormons) on the rise, who may be more

susceptible to Spalding-Rigdon authorship explanations.

Trying to convince the LDS and RLDS of such things is a lost cause;

but the younger Gentiles may now take the trouble to listen -- and

to edit future Wikipedia articles.

UD

[Cold Steel]

The problem is, Unk, that language is more than just wordprints. There are many people, even in my family, who believe the Bible Code. I admit there's some intriguing stuff in the documentaries I've seen. Lots of statistical analysts who have been codebreaking for years. They're not stupid, but I've just never been able to buy into the idea that there's just one Torah version, and it's word for word correct (it would have to be to work, right?).

Writings have souls like anything else, and I can't be convinced of statistical analysis when I can't find any corresponding "soul" to indicate that it came from this or that writer.

Spalding's writings that have survived certainly don't show a plethora of "it came to pass" statements as has been claimed. His text matches many of the other writers of the time and is a closer match to Bram Stoker's Dracula than the Book of Mormon. In many respects, one doesn't appreciate the complex nature of the Book of Mormon until one plugs in a computer and begins cross referencing it to itself and to other scriptures. Then, keeping up with some of the chiasmatic structures found in the Book of Mormon's text alone would have been a monumental undertaking, not to mention the prophecies, fulfillments, etc.

This is the soul that is missing from any of these other writers, with the exception, arguably, of Joseph Smith, depending on whether he was writing under inspiration or not. We can't be too much like the communist professor who weighed, then killed a cat to show there was no loss of weight when it's spirit departed. It really proves nothing in the end.

[Uncle Dale]

...

It really proves nothing in the end.

Yes, I understand that.

The question asked me (by priesthood superiors) back in the 1970s, was:

"If Joseph Smith did not translate an authentic Nephite Record, how do

you account for the coming forth of the Book of Mormon?"

That question was a rhetorical one -- but at the time I did not realize it.

What the elders wanted me to answer back was: "There is no answer."

Instead, I delved into the RLDS Church's old "Saints Heralds," and

discovered an almost endless series of articles refuting the Spalding claims.

"That's odd!" I thought -- "If we have truly refuted this explanation, why

has it taken more than one definitive statement from our leaders? Why are

there literally hundreds of published items in our church papers on this?"

Again, the answer the elders wanted from me was: "There is no answer."

Instead, I was asking them why we had published hundreds of responses

to something our leaders called "The Spaulding Lie." ???

No answer was forthcoming -- so I was left to investigate it all on my own.

Oddly enough, it was the LDS (and especially LDS archivist Jim Kimball)

who encouraged me to rummage through their official files, and discover

whatever answer I might find there.

The next time I was in Utah I began the search -- very much discouraged by

the RLDS, but happily given whatever I asked for by the scholarly LDS.

Thus began an adventure. I am happy to have been given the opportunity.

I am happy for the endorsements and recommendations from Utah folks

that landed me a graduate scholarship near Kirtland, where I had continual

access to all the preserved Spalding stuff for two years.

.......

Am I any less impressed, then, when I encounter a loyal Saint's testimony

of the divine origin of the BoM? No -- not really. I accept it as sincere.

And -- I think that there is room in this world for many kinds of religious

people, and for believers (and non-believers) in all sorts of things.

I just consider myself fortunate to have been exposed to numerous

possibilities in life -- and for having the free agency to pursue truth, so

far as I've been able to do, up until now.

UD

.