Book of Mormon Authorship, assessing the Jockers,Witten and Criddle research

[why me]

Over on the other board, Uncle Dale is spouting the Spaulding/Rigdon theory and using the following research to add support his claims that Rigdon authored the book. I am sure that this research (Jockers, Witten and Criddle) has been discussed before on this board, but I am curious just where some here stand on the issue. Any comments in favor or opposed to the research method used by the researchers? And what will the LDS reponse be to the research.

http://llc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/fqn040v1

You will need to begin manual download to read or print the research article. It is 27 pages long.

[lostindc]

Word print studies are silly. I dont support those in either way that it points. There has been discussion on this, see link:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...&hl=jockers

I like Professor Hamblin's line of reasoning found in the linked thread (besides the numerous articles and word print studies that state otherwise than the study recently done):

Another rather odd thing about these claims is that JS is obviously the dynamic religious genius when compared to the other candidates such as Spaulding, Cowdery and Rigdon. However one interprets JS and the BOM, he was the one who consistently came up with scripture such as the PGP, DC, and other restored scripture and teachings. Compare that with the known writings of Spaulding, Cowdery and Rigdon, we can see the difference between a religious genius/prophet and ordinary religious preachers and writers.

So, we are supposed to believe that Spaulding-Cowdery-Rigdon came up with the BOM. Then by some peculiar stroke of luck found an obscure Farm-boy to be their front-man. (Why they would need a front-man is unclear, since they could have made the same claims as JS did. Why didn't Rigdon or Cowdery just claim the angel came to them?) Then, as it turns out, the obscure farm-boy they selected just happens to turn out to be a religious genius of the first magnitude--something that comes along quite rarely--who goes on to produce reams of scripture. Meanwhile, the true authors of the BOM continue on through their lives never again producing anything like the BOM.

The other question, of course, is why Cowdery-Rigdon would produce a manuscript with numerous strange grammatical features, when they were obviously capable of writing standard English.

Does any of this make any sense?

[lostindc]

BTW, Criddle one of the researchers had his name removed from the roles of the Church and to me and many others it appears this study was thrown together from ideas from message boards. Criddle is very hostile to Mormonism. Look it up.

[JLFuller]

Over on the other board, Uncle Dale is spouting the Spaulding/Rigdon theory and using the following research to add support his claims that Rigdon authored the book. I am sure that this research (Jockers, Witten and Criddle) has been discussed before on this board, but I am curious just where some here stand on the issue. Any comments in favor or opposed to the research method used by the researchers? And what will the LDS reponse be to the research.

http://llc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/fqn040v1

You will need to begin manual download to read or print the research article. It is 27 pages long.

With all due respect, how many of these miscreants' meanderings are enough? Do we have to answer every yahoo who claims another tantalizing and tenacious tale tuned to titillate and tempt the true truth trekker?

[lostindc]

With all due respect, how many of these miscreants' meanderings are enough? Do we have to answer every yahoo who claims another tantalizing and tenacious tale tuned to titillate and tempt the true truth trekker?

Its like when my kids ask me why do you like to sleep in, or why do you enjoy gossip television? These are silly questions and I choose not to answer them.

I agree, it gets old answering every single critic, but it sure does make the workday go by faster.

[why me]

With all due respect, how many of these miscreants' meanderings are enough? Do we have to answer every yahoo who claims another tantalizing and tenacious tale tuned to titillate and tempt the true truth trekker?

Here is the problem as I see it: People read the research and become convinced that the book of mormon was written by Rigdon. Now if apologists can not come up with a good rebuttal, many investigators decide that the book is false or members begin to have doubts about the LDS church.

Now I am no fan of word studies myself, still, they do have an impact on lds thinking. As Uncle Dale attempts to do on the other board, something that was tried on this board also, is to draw from circumstancial evidence to put a connection between Rigdon and the book of mormon. Such word studies can only bolster his claim about who is the author of the book of mormon.

[Buckeye]

You also have to realize that the fundamental presumption of the analysis is that the BOM is not what it claims to be. The researches begin with the position that there was never a Nephi, Mormon, or Moroni. They limit the possible authors to 4 (amazingly excluding even Joseph), and then ask, "assuming the author(s) are one of the four - or some combination of them - who most likely wrote the BOM." Under this scenario, it is not surprising they the answer is "a combination of all four." This answer is meaningless because it is required by the presumption.

For comparisson, lets say I want to know who wrote the New Testament. I know Matthew, Mark, etc. never really lived so I'm going to compare the text to the writings of Charles Darwin, George Bush, Ernest Hemmingway, and Bozo the Clown. After a rigorous authorship analysis, I determine:

1) There is a 98% probability that Matthew was written by Darwin, with the exception of chapters 7 and the first have of chapter 12, which were most likely written by Bozo the Clown.

2) There is an 89% probability that George Bush wrote Mark, Luke, and John.

3) The rest of the text was most likely written by Hemmingway, with the exception of Acts chapters 6-9 (Darwin), Peter's second epistle (Bozo), and Revelations (Bush).

What does this show? Absolutely nothing. Except to bolster the old addage: "Garbage in, garbage out."

[John_Oaks]

Buckeye, you just made my day

[hagoth7]

You also have to realize that the fundamental presumption of the analysis is that the BOM is not what it claims to be. The researches begin with the position that there was never a Nephi, Mormon, or Moroni. They limit the possible authors to 4 (amazingly excluding even Joseph), and then ask, "assuming the author(s) are one of the four - or some combination of them - who most likely wrote the BOM." Under this scenario, it is not surprising they the answer is "a combination of all four." This answer is meaningless because it is required by the presumption.

For comparison, lets say I want to know who wrote the New Testament. I know Matthew, Mark, etc. never really lived so I'm going to compare the text to the writings of Charles Darwin, George Bush, Ernest Hemmingway, and Bozo the Clown. After a rigorous authorship analysis, I determine:

1) There is a 98% probability that Matthew was written by Darwin, with the exception of chapters 7 and the first have of chapter 12, which were most likely written by Bozo the Clown.

2) There is an 89% probability that George Bush wrote Mark, Luke, and John.

3) The rest of the text was most likely written by Hemmingway, with the exception of Acts chapters 6-9 (Darwin), Peter's second epistle (Bozo), and Revelations (Bush).

What does this show? Absolutely nothing. Except to bolster the old addage: "Garbage in, garbage out."

Excellent writeup! Seriously.

However, give me some time to man up and digest it properly.

Still coming to terms with having may faith shaken in both religion and politics - the bombshell that Bush wrote Revelations.

[Buckeye]

Excellent writeup! Seriously.

However, give me some time to man up and digest it properly.

Still coming to terms with having may faith shaken in both religion and politics - the bombshell that Bush wrote Revelations.

Of course Bush wrote Revalations. Thats why no one can understand it.

[robuchan]

This is a fascinating topic for me.

The research is somewhat compelling. On the flip side, the conspiracy it would require to implement is difficult to explain.

This kind of study seems to be labor unintensive and easy to replicate with variations to methodology. As the technology improves and this kind of study is repeated over and over again, with various improvements, like including more test authors and including Joseph Smith's writings or by clumping chapters together or taking chapters apart for samples, I expect this to shed light on BOM origins as much as anything done previously.

[Buckeye]

This is a fascinating topic for me.

The research is somewhat compelling. On the flip side, the conspiracy it would require to implement is difficult to explain.

This kind of study seems to be labor unintensive and easy to replicate with variations to methodology. As the technology improves and this kind of study is repeated over and over again, with various improvements, like including more test authors and including Joseph Smith's writings or by clumping chapters together or taking chapters apart for samples, I expect this to shed light on BOM origins as much as anything done previously.

I'll hold my breath until we find sufficient writing specimens from Nephi, et al to include in the analysis.

[ERayR]

I did my own word print study and find that it was written by Confusious with the introduction comming from Oog the caveman.

[Calm]

The research is somewhat compelling.

How so?

[LeSellers]

How so?

It agrees with his preconceptions, doncha know.

Lehi

[robuchan]

How so?

This thread had good points on both sides:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...=39911&st=0

see this post of mine to summarize why I think the study is not easily dismissable:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php...entry1208561857

[Calm]

In the other thread: "4. If the combination of authors and areas of clustering reinforced an existing theory on The Hobbit, then you'd have a little more."

I really don't see how you can even come to this conclusion without first testing it against the commonly claimed author, Tolkien. That should be a baseline standard of comparison.

[robuchan]

In the other thread: "4. If the combination of authors and areas of clustering reinforced an existing theory on The Hobbit, then you'd have a little more."

I really don't see how you can even come to this conclusion without first testing it against the commonly claimed author, Tolkien. That should be a baseline standard of comparison.

It's a probability thing. Each step in my procession makes the case stronger and stronger. It's not air tight. But it's compelling. It's compelling enough that researchers from Stanford published it. I think the future of word print analysis will be very interesting.

[Calm]

It's a probability thing. Each step in my procession makes the case stronger and stronger. It's not air tight. But it's compelling. It's compelling enough that researchers from Stanford published it. I think the future of word print analysis will be very interesting.

I guess I have a different idea about what is "compelling" about a study that doesn't even use the most common premise of authorship as a comparison before wandering off into other options.

[robuchan]

I guess I have a different idea about what is "compelling" about a study that doesn't even use the most common premise of authorship as a comparison before wandering off into other options.

You mean Joseph Smith? I agree that's a weakness in the study. That's why I look forward to more studies and don't put too much stock in this one.

[Calm]

don't put too much stock in this one.

You are confusing me with your use of "compelling" and this comment.

[robuchan]

You are confusing me with your use of "compelling" and this comment.

OK, let me try to explain what I mean.

Before I read the Jockers study, I had read the Craig Criddle Solomon Spaulding theory.

http://www.mormonstudies.com/criddle/rigdon.htm

I found the theory plausible but not really noteworthy. In probability terms, I put it < 5%.

After reading the Jockers study and reading the opinions on it on this site, I now move the Spaulding theory up to the 30% range.

I believe further wordprint studies have a very strong possibility to move this to the 90% range or back down to <5% range (for me).