Spot-checking Book of Mormon Word-prints

[Mortal Man]

According to B.H. Roberts, "When Joseph Smith saw that the Nephite record was quoting the prophecies of Isaiah, of Malachi, or the words of the Savior, he too[k the] English Bible and compared those passages as far as they paralleled each other, and finding that in substance, in thought, they were alike, he adopted our English translation." -- Improvement Era 7 (January, 1904) 178-192.

It seems to me that David Wright's Isaiah essay presents some very strong, albeit indirect, evidence against the Spaulding-Ridgon theory. The Isaiah variants in the BoM are concentrated in the italicized portions of the KJV Bible; i.e., Joseph revised italicized words at a rate ten-times greater than nonitalicized words. There are distinctive patterns in these variants; e.g., he frequently substitutes "yea" for KJV italicized "even".

Joseph may have gained his mistrust of italics from the George D'Oyly and Richard Mant Bible (published in New York in 1818), which states: "The unlearned reader may find it useful to be informed, that, wherever words occur in the text of the English Bible, printed in Italic character, he is to understand that these words have none corresponding to them in the original Hebrew or Greek text, but that the sense is implied; and that the words are added in the English to complete or make clearer the sense."

Joseph's preoccupation with italicized words continued on in his translation of the Bible; which began right after he finished the BoM. Since 2^nd Nephi, which contains the bulk of the Isaiah quotations, was written after Mosiah-Moroni, it's easy to see the BoM work as a training exercise for his Bible translation.

[Uncle Dale]

Wordprint analysis has always fascinated me, but in this case, who can speak intelligently on it?

I believe in fingerprints. If a jury convicts a charged defendant,

based primarily upon his fingerprint evidence, I'll accept that easily.

I believe in DNA "signatures". If a jury convicts a charged defendant,

based primarily upon his DNA evidence, I'll accept that easily.

I'm a bit less certain about "word-prints." Let's say a jury convicts

me of having murdered my neighbor, based upon a threatening note found

in his pocket, the contents of which match my "word-print." That sounds

problematic to me. I'm not sure any jury would so convict me.

On the other hand, I'm told that each of us who speaks or writes at any

length, with even a grade-school command of our mother tongue, has a

unique "word-print," in our repeated use of certain "non-contextual words."

Is that true? Perhaps so. But I am uncertain of how reliable that is.

So far, I've seen the abstract, which notes: "Our results indicate that likely nineteenth century

contributors were Solomon Spalding, a writer of historical fantasies; Sidney Rigdon, an eloquent

but perhaps unstable preacher; and Oliver Cowdery, a schoolteacher with editing experience. Our

findings support the hypothesis that Rigdon was the main architect of the Book of Mormon and are

consistent with historical evidence suggesting that he fabricated the book by adding theology to

the unpublished writings of Spalding (then deceased)."

Fine, but what about their methodology?

Good point.

Even if "word-printing" is a reliable means of discerning authorship, how can we be

certain it is applied correctly? The jury is ready to convict me of murdering my

neighbor, based upon word-print evidence. But, at the last minute, results come in,

showing that some other guy's "word-print" is even a better match for the threatening

note than is mine -- and I'm acquitted.

I've read extended examples of Solomon Spalding's fictions and I suppose it's not enough to

say that there's no outward similarities in style. Before accepting any conclusions for the

Book of Mormon, I'd want to see the methodology applied to submitted and blind examples of

writings where authors were 1) requested to submit text samples where they were asked to

deliberately disguise their writings; and 2) requested to submit text samples where no such

attempt had been made.

I'm sure that all of that will be forthcoming -- if not from the Stanford University

team of researchers, then from their learned critics. Probably we will need to see over

a hundred "likely suspects" tested, for possible BoM authorship, before we will be ready

to admit that certain parts of the BoM text more resemble the "word-prints" of Spalding

and Rigdon, than anybody else.

We are YEARS away from that sort of in-depth checking and re-checking.

All my language-use "spot checking" accomplished is: just that, a few "spots" were "checked."

Initial wordprint studies used the Federalist Papers, which seems to be an excellent control

when applying authorship studies. Although statisticians might understand something like "delta

and nearest shrunken centroid classification," to me it would seem best remedied by Preparation H.

As it is, the methodology isn't to be proven with Mormon texts, but with other, preferably blind,

texts. Once it's validity is established, then apply it to the Book of Mormon authors

(making sure to delete all "Isaiah" passages beforehand). I don't know, perhaps this has been

done already, but if so I cannot find any references. Jeff Lindsey briefly described how it works:

"These methods look at the frequency of simple non-contextual words (words like 'of', 'the', and

'and' whose usage typically doesn't vary strongly as a function of the topic or context of writing)

and compare stats from chapters in the Book of Mormon to characteristics obtained for text from

each of the candidate authors."

Again, we are YEARS away from that sort of validation ----- or, refutation.

We have some initial results published, and made available for our pondering, but they

are only that -- initial results, unconfirmed by other computer analysts.

Has this actually been shown to work in text that's been deliberately disguised in an attempt

to deceive? Or can it reliably pick up on mixed text, a combination of two or more writers or

editors? I'm also bothered by Craig Criddle's involvement in the study. Shouldn't those carrying

out the study have even a degree of objectivity?

Craig addresses that problem in his various communications on the subject. I trust that he

did not intentionally "rig" the computerized methodology "for Rigdon," and that he would

have been just as satisfied if some other results had been obtained. I've met with him on

numerous occasions and spoken with him for hours on end, and am fully satisfied that he is

more interested in discerning facts, than he is in fabricating false blame on the Mormons.

But --- could Craig's disbelief in Nephites have been UNCONSCIOUSLY transferred to Jockers,

and could have Jockers and Witten UNCONSCIOUSLY "rigged" the study "for Rigdon?" I don't know.

Charging almost thirty dollars just to take a look at their methodology is shabby. It's one

thing to establish it for authorship of documents and quite another for judging individual

sentences and paragraphs. In short, it's like buying one of those "how to get rid of kidney

stones/gall stones" cures that you have to buy before evaluating. Only with those, you at

least get your money back if they don't work!

Last I looked the entire journal paper was available on-line in pdf form for free. If not,

then DCP can run you off a set of xeroxes from the Lee Library's copy for two bucks plus

postage for mailing (or have somebody scan it for you and e-mail you the pages).

It is not what you or I have to say about such things however --

In time, the Maxwell Institute people will run their own computerized study. And

perhaps their results will say that no BoM chapter rates above a 10% chance for

having been written by Spalding or Rigdon -- and that the BoM chapters most like

those two guys' "word-prints" are distributed in the text entirely differently

from what Criddle, Jockers and Witten reported.

I'll be the first one to shell out almost thirty dollars to see the LDS results,

believe you me.

Your Uncle Dale

[Mortal Man]

(making sure to delete all "Isaiah" passages beforehand).

No, those are the passages with the fingerprints on them; i.e., the variants are the smoking gun.

For example, consider Isaiah 29:

11 And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a ^abook that is ^bsealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed:

12 And the book is delivered to ^ahim that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned.

and it's major variant in 2 Nephi 27:

6 And it shall come to pass that the Lord God shall bring forth unto ^ayou the words of a ^bbook, and they shall be the words of them which have slumbered.

7 And behold the book shall be ^asealed; and in the book shall be a ^b from God, from the beginning of the world to the ^c thereof.

8 Wherefore, because of the things which are ^asealed up, the things which are sealed shall not be delivered in the day of the wickedness and abominations of the people. Wherefore the book shall be kept from them.

9 But the book shall be delivered unto a man, and he shall deliver the words of the book, which are the words of those who have slumbered in the dust, and he shall deliver these words unto ^aanother;

10 But the words which are ^asealed he shall not deliver, neither shall he deliver the book. For the book shall be sealed by the power of God, and the revelation which was sealed shall be kept in the book until the own due time of the Lord, that they may come forth; for behold, they ^b all things from the foundation of the world unto the end thereof.

11 And the day cometh that the words of the book which were sealed shall be read upon the house tops; and they shall be read by the power of Christ; and all things shall be ^arevealed unto the children of men which ever have been among the children of men, and which ever will be even unto the end of the earth.

12 Wherefore, at that day when the book shall be delivered unto the man of whom I have spoken, the book shall be hid from the eyes of the world, that the eyes of none shall behold it save it be that ^athree ^b shall behold it, by the power of God, besides him to whom the book shall be delivered; and they shall testify to the truth of the book and the things therein.

13 And there is ^anone other which shall view it, save it be a few according to the will of God, to bear testimony of his word unto the children of men; for the Lord God hath said that the words of the faithful should speak as if it were ^b the dead.

14 Wherefore, the Lord God will proceed to bring forth the words of the book; and in the mouth of as many witnesses as seemeth him good will he establish his word; and wo be unto him that ^arejecteth the word of God!

15 But behold, it shall come to pass that the Lord God shall say unto him to whom he shall deliver the book: Take these words which are not sealed and deliver them to another, that he may show them unto the learned, saying: ^aRead this, I pray thee. And the learned shall say: Bring hither the book, and I will read them.

16 And now, because of the glory of the world and to get ^again will they say this, and not for the glory of God.

17 And the man shall say: I cannot bring the book, for it is sealed.

18 Then shall the learned say: I cannot read it.

19 Wherefore it shall come to pass, that the Lord God will ^adeliver again the book and the words thereof to him that is not learned; and the man that is not learned shall say: I am not learned.

20 Then shall the Lord God say unto him: The learned shall not read them, for they have rejected them, and I am ^aable to do mine own work; wherefore thou shalt read the words which I shall give unto thee.

21 ^aTouch not the things which are sealed, for I will bring them forth in mine own due time; for I will show unto the children of men that I am able to do mine own work.

22 Wherefore, when thou hast read the words which I have commanded thee, and obtained the ^awitnesses which I have promised unto thee, then shalt thou seal up the book again, and hide it up unto me, that I may preserve the words which thou hast not read, until I shall see fit in mine own ^b to ^c all things unto the children of men.

23 For behold, I am God; and I am a God of ^a<A title="TG Marvelous; TG Miracle." href="http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_ne/27/23a">miracles; and I will show unto the ^bworld that I am the same yesterday, today, and forever; and I ^cwork not among the children of men save it be ^daccording to their faith.

24 And again it shall come to pass that the Lord shall say unto him that shall read the words that shall be delivered him:

The Anthon affair occured in February 1828. Second Nephi was written in June 1829.

[LifeOnaPlate]

A couple of them might have heard something about a "plates" blog though.

UD

I sincerely doubt it.

[Uncle Dale]

...

For example, consider Isaiah....

There is some Isaiah reproduced in Mosiah, as you no doubt already know.

In comparing Solomon Spalding's vocabulary and phraseology against Mosiah-Alma,

I see that the Isaiah block rates as the lowest ranking correspondence.

A spot-check of the Isaiah material preserved in 2nd Nephi shows an even

lower correspondence with Spalding's language use.

And -- as an independent perspective -- we see that Criddle, Jockers and Widden

ranked the Isaiah chapters at the low end of Spalding's "voice distribution" in

the Book of Mormon, and also relatively low for Rigdon's "voice." Rigdon is a bit

more like Isaiah than is Spalding -- but not much.

Ergo: Neither Sidney Rigdon nor Solomon Spalding wrote the Bible's Isaiah texts.

Nice to have a conclusion before us that we all can agree upon, eh?

UD

[Uncle Dale]

I sincerely doubt it.

You need to start talking more about the GA's great-grandkids.

(Either that, or how your ward has reached 99.625% in members'

full tithing participation during the last fiscal year....)

UD

[Mortal Man]

Neither Sidney Rigdon nor Solomon Spalding wrote the Bible's Isaiah texts.

But who wrote the variants from the KJV text? Isaiah, Nephi, Sidney, Mormon or Joseph?

Has the Stanford group compared the BoM variants (especially from KJV italics) with the JST Bible variants?

Joseph has a propensity to swap "and"s for "that"s, "yea"s for "even"s etc., plus he threw in a lot of "wherefore"s.

The BoM patterns are repeated in his Bible translation.

[Uncle Dale]

But who wrote the variants from the KJV text? Isaiah, Nephi, Sidney, Mormon or Joseph?...

In his debates with Origen Bacheler, P. P. Pratt knowledgeably defended the

BoM's divergence from the KJV Isaiah. He even got the 2 Nephi 19:3 variation

nailed down correctly. KJV was wrong -- BoM is right.

Odd that Elder Pratt knew so much about such things -- when a person like myself,

who has studied the BoM for more then four decades, would not know the answer to

each and every textual oddity of that sort.

But then again, The late Rev. Wesley Walters covered all of this in his

1981 Master's thesis, devoted to the subject.

Did Spalding look at the italicized words in Isaiah, and decide that some

of them (about half, actually) needed changing? I kinda doubt it.

My bet is on Pratt -- too bad that such tiny changes to the text

do not leave "word-prints" behind, eh?

Put ten thousand monkeys at ten thousand typewriters for ten thousand years,

and at least one of them will type out a line that agrees with both the

Dead Sea Scrolls Isaiah and 2nd Nephi. Clever creatures, them minkeeys...

UD

.

[Joseph Antley]

Let me make sure I'm up to date on the current theory--

Solomon Spalding wrote a manuscript, similar but not identical to the Manuscript Found, which somehow fell into the hands of Sidney Rigdon, who somehow came into contact with the Smiths and convinced young Joseph to aid him into transforming the manuscript into a religious record, which they then pawned off as an inspired translation of an ancient religious record?

-Was the Moroni story Joseph Smith's idea, or Rigdon's? If the latter, why would he choose a treasure-seeker to aid in it and have the coming forth of the record so similar to a treasure-seeking experience? Rigdon doesn't exactly seem like the treasure-seeking type.

-Was Oliver Cowdery aware of the conspiracy, and did he aid in it?

-Was Emma lying when she described the translation process?

-Did Joseph actually dictate the manuscript to a scribe? If so, did he memorize a text that he and Rigdon agreed upon beforehand? Did he just read from the text? If so, were any of the scribes aware of it?

-Was Parley P. Pratt in on the conspiracy, or did he actually think that he brought Rigdon into the Church?

No matter what a word-print study shows, it seems that this theory would be hard-felt to make any ground until someone proposes a theory that fills in these holes (and many, many more).

[J Green]

According to B.H. Roberts, "When Joseph Smith saw that the Nephite record was quoting the prophecies of Isaiah, of Malachi, or the words of the Savior, he too[k the] English Bible and compared those passages as far as they paralleled each other, and finding that in substance, in thought, they were alike, he adopted our English translation." -- Improvement Era 7 (January, 1904) 178-192.

I think the context is important for this quote, including the first part of the sentence:

With this remembered, I think we find a solution of the difficulty you present in the following way:

When Joseph Smith saw that the Nephite record was quoting the prophecies of Isaiah, of Malachi, or the words of the Savior, he too[k the] English Bible and compared those passages as far as they paralleled each other, and finding that in substance, in thought, they were alike, he adopted our English translation.

And of course his very next thought:

Of course, I recognize the fact that this is but a conjecture; but I believe it to be a reasonable one;

So it's conjecture, not something based on what the scribes or other witnesses told him, as he mentions elsewhere. Omitting this context is somewhat disingenuous, especially when key witnesses (Emma, David, etc.) denied that JS consulted any reference material.

[Uncle Dale]

Let me make sure I'm up to date on the current theory--

Solomon Spalding wrote a manuscript, ....

Actually, several different reports from different people

who knew him well, say that he wrote a number of "manuscripts,"

including sermons, children's stories, etc. -- only one of

which survives, in Ohio, at Oberlin College. It is generally

referred to as the "Oberlin MS" or the "Roman Story." It was

re-discovered in 1884, in a wrapper upon which was scribbled

"Manuscript Story -- Conneaut Creek," so some people have

called it "Manuscript Story."

That is NOT the pseudo-history of the ancient Americans which

Spalding's early associates recalled being something similar to

parts of the Book of Mormon. However, the document at Oberlin

is the only lengthy specimen of Spalding's narrative writings

known to exist, so it is used to determine his "word-print,"

as well as his "vocabulary" and his "phraseology."

similar but not identical to the Manuscript Found,

No person in modern history has ever seen any document from

Spalding's pen bearing this title -- so we cannot be certain

what such a fictional story would have contained. It is the

title reported as having been one of his stories -- and we

have on record the recollections of several persons, as to

what its contents were.

So, yes, relying ONLY upon the reporting of those early

associates of Solomon Spalding, the "Modern Spalding-Rigdon

Theory" advances the conclusion that Spalding wrote a tale

"similar but not identical to the Manuscript Found," which

was recalled and described by people around Conneaut, Ohio.

This "similar but not identical" story is postulated as being

generally a continuation or expansion of "Manuscript Found;"

an expansion which included preColumbian American Christians.

which somehow fell into the hands of Sidney Rigdon, who somehow

came into contact with the Smiths and convinced young Joseph

to aid him into transforming the manuscript into a religious record,

Nobody is offering an exact time and place in which Rigdon first

crossed paths with anybody in the Joseph Smith, Sr. family -- but,

for the "Theory" to stay on track with known chronologies, the

first meeting between Rigdon and at least one member of the Smith

family, must have been in the mid-1820s, perhaps before Rigdon

moved from Pittsburgh to Bainbridge, Ohio, at the end of 1825.

The "Modern Spalding-Rigdon Theory" concludes that the Spalding

document then in Rigdon's possession, was already a "religious record;"

or that it at least contained some references to preColumbian Christians.

So, today's advocates of the S/R theory do not propose that Rigdon

convinced young Smith to "transform" any text into a new sort of text.

What is postulated is that together, Rigdon and Smith added to what

was already an extensive and detailed "Nephite Record."

which they then pawned off as an inspired translation of an ancient

religious record?

Again, in the modern articulation of the S-R theory, Rigdon and Smith

are not considered to have "pawned off" anything upon others, which

they did not sincerely believe in themselves. Their postulated

expansion of the "Nephite Record" would have been a Divine revelation

in their minds. They would have been sharing "the fulness of the gospel"

with others, and not "pawning off" something they thought was false.

-Was the Moroni story Joseph Smith's idea, or Rigdon's?

The General Moroni of the Book of Alma is thought to be a creation

of Solomon Spalding. Moroni the son of Mormon is thought to be a

creation of Sidney Rigdon (perhaps in cooperation with P.P. Pratt)

The Book of Moroni, in the Book of Mormon, is thus attributed to

Sidney Rigdon -- based upon his "word-print" and his use of

vocabulary and phraseology.

The "angel Moroni" is postulated to have been "a messenger;" that

is, a human being who transmitted Divine revelation(s) to Smith

during the mid to late 1820s.

If the latter, why would he choose a treasure-seeker to aid in it

and have the coming forth of the record so similar to a

treasure-seeking experience? Rigdon doesn't exactly seem like the

treasure-seeking type.

In a letter written to Lyman Wight, after his 1844 excommunication,

Rigdon expressed an interest in looking for buried gold in Texas.

Rigdon accompanied Smith to Salem, Mass., in 1836, to locate and

bring back to Kirtland a buried treasure. A 1831 newspaper report

credits Rigdon with the power to locate buried riches. There are

other reports linking Rigdon to an interest in things buried in

the ground, such as treasure and ancient records.

Joseph Smith may have been the only "seer" that Rigdon ever met

in his life. The fact that Smith was a "treasure seer" may not have

made a negative impression upon Rigdon's mind, in the way that it

so bothers anti-Mormons in 2009. Several different Rigdon writings

indicate that he saw himself as a Divinely-chosen "spokesman" for

a "choice seer" of the latter days -- an Aaron, to a Moses. Perhaps

Joseph Smith was the closest thing to a "Moses" that Rigdon ever met.

-Was Oliver Cowdery aware of the conspiracy, and did he aid in it?

Word-print analysis appears to discover his "voice" in small,

scattered sections of the Book of Mormon. He is known to have

attempted "translating" the "Nephite Record" at one point in

1829. He may not have viewed the bringing forth of the BoM as a

"conspiracy," but it is postulated that he contributed to the text.

-Was Emma lying when she described the translation process?

She was lying when she said her husband was never a polygamist,

a lie she effectively carried on with her promoting of her son

as the head of the "Reorganization," as a necessary monogamist

restoration of the church of 1830. Brigham Young knew her to be

the worst liar he had ever met, and so announced his Prophet's

judgment of her at General Conference, from the podium.

-Did Joseph actually dictate the manuscript to a scribe?

Yes -- at least portions of it were dictated. We do not have

the entire original manuscript for modern study; but, based

upon those fragments available for inspection, there was dictation.

If so, did he memorize a text that he and Rigdon agreed upon

beforehand? Did he just read from the text? If so, were any

of the scribes aware of it?

Martin Harris, Emma Hale, one of Emma's brothers, and one of

the Whitmer brothers all evidently functioned as scribes at

one time or another. Not all of what they wrote down evidently

made it into the 1830 published book. It is not supposed that

any of that group were unbelievers in Nephites, etc.

Joseph Smith's memorization skills are documented -- but it is

not supposed that he could retain in his memory numerous BoM

chapters at a time. David Whitmer spoke of some breaks Smith

would take, while dictating to Oliver Cowdery at Fayette in 1829.

It is supposed that Smith had the ability to memorize at least

a chapter at a time, and to dictate such memorized chapters

between those documented breaks.

-Was Parley P. Pratt in on the conspiracy, or did he actually think

that he brought Rigdon into the Church?

It is proposed that Pratt and Rigdon met in Geauga Co., Ohio in

1826 and that they worked together on the "Nephite Record"

after that time. However, the major "word-print" evidence for

Pratt in the BoM appears in the replacement text for the lost

"Book of Lehi," which the theory says was written in 1828, a

couple of years after Pratt's initial association with Rigdon.

No matter what a word-print study shows, it seems that this theory

would be hard-felt to make any ground until someone proposes a

theory that fills in these holes (and many, many more).

I don't expect that it ever will "make any ground" with Mormons.

They believe they have a God-given testimony of the BoM being

an ancient document, with no 19th century additions.

But perhaps people like Sandra Tanner and Dan Vogel can eventually

be brought around to examining new evidence on Spalding and Rigdon.

Perhaps the encyclopedias of the future will give more credit

to this theory than did those of the late 20th century.

We shall see...

UD

[William Schryver]

UD:

Perhaps the encyclopedias of the future will give more credit to this theory than did those of the late 20th century.

I wouldn't hold my breath, if I were you. It takes a very special credulity to buy into this elaborate, Agatha Christie-esque manuscript mystery. It takes someone who has never even seen let alone wielded Occam's famous razor.

I'm curious, you don't also adhere to the 9/11 conspiracy theories, too, do you?

We shall see...

No. We won't.

You see, Dale, all you've really done with this life-long quest of yours is make yourself into a poor man's version of Steven Jones--a good-hearted crank who just couldn't let go of a silly idea.

[Gervin]

UD:

I wouldn't hold my breath, if I were you. It takes a very special credulity to buy into this elaborate, Agatha Christie-esque manuscript mystery. It takes someone who has never even seen let alone wielded Occam's famous razor.

I'm curious, you don't also adhere to the 9/11 conspiracy theories, too, do you?

No. We won't.

You see, Dale, all you've really done with this life-long quest of yours is make yourself into a poor man's version of Steven Jones--a good-hearted crank who just couldn't let go of a silly idea.

Your best post to this thread was this:

"In any case, I've said my piece [sic] on this topic. You folks can continue to talk it over, but you'll have to do so without any further contributions from me. As I said, I have more important things to do at present, dealing with those things that are "just around the corner."

Promises, promises.

I see more credibility from just one of Dale's threads than from anything I've ever seen (or ever seen promised) from you. Resorting to petty name-calling helps show how little you have to contribute.

[Uncle Dale]

UD:

I wouldn't hold my breath

...

Well there are three possibilities --

1. The Smith-alone authorship explanation will continue to rank first in the encyclopedias

2, The Smith+others authorship explanation will begin to gain validity in reference books

3. More people (than just Mormons) will soon come to believe in Nephite-authored writings

Which of the above three possibilities SHOULD I hold my breath on?

I suppose that you'd rather have us non-LDS believe #1, than #2, correct?

UD

[William Schryver]

Your best post to this thread was this:

"In any case, I've said my piece [sic] on this topic. You folks can continue to talk it over, but you'll have to do so without any further contributions from me. As I said, I have more important things to do at present, dealing with those things that are "just around the corner."

Promises, promises.

I see more credibility from just one of Dale's threads than from anything I've ever seen (or ever seen promised) from you. Resorting to petty name-calling helps show how little you have to contribute.

Well, Mr. Gervin, we've also seen your contributions on this board for many years, and I believe most of us have been able to form a good judgment on the relative value of your assessments, therefore I take your opinions for what they are worth.

And, for what it's worth, I have employed the phrase "I said my piece ..." correctly. That you apparently believe it to be "I said my peace ..." is indicative of your grasp of the English language.

Peace.

[William Schryver]

Well there are three possibilities --

1. The Smith-alone authorship explanation will continue to rank first in the encyclopedias

2, The Smith+others authorship explanation will begin to gain validity in reference books

3. More people (than just Mormons) will soon come to believe in Nephite-authored writings

Which of the above three possibilities SHOULD I hold my breath on?

I suppose that you'd rather have us non-LDS believe #1, than #2, correct?

UD

I envision a fourth, and much more certain, possibility: you will depart this vale of sorrow and have an opportunity to speak with Solomon Spaulding yourself, where I'm sure he will be quite amused to hear that he has long been believed, by a select few, to have been the author of the Book of Mormon.

[Gervin]

Well, Mr. Gervin, we've also seen your contributions on this board for many years, and I believe most of us have been able to form a good judgment on the relative value of your assessments, therefore I take your opinions for what they are worth.

That you engaged in petty name-calling is not an opinion - it is a fact.

And, for what it's worth, I have employed the phrase "I said my piece ..." correctly. That you apparently believe it to be "I said my peace ..." is indicative of your grasp of the English language.

It's not worth much because I invoked the sic to highlight your unusual phrase; you hadn't said anything at all (piece or peace) but were simply blathering.

[William Schryver]

That you engaged in petty name-calling is not an opinion - it is a fact.

It's not worth much because I invoked the sic to highlight your unusual phrase; you hadn't said anything at all (piece or peace) but were simply blathering.

No, you employed the "sic" because you thought I had used the wrong word. I hadn't.

As for "petty name calling," my posts never sink to such levels. My name calling is much more sophisticated than that.

[Black Moclips]

I wouldn't hold my breath, if I were you. It takes a very special credulity to buy into this elaborate, Agatha Christie-esque manuscript mystery. It takes someone who has never even seen let alone wielded Occam's famous razor.

I'm curious, you don't also adhere to the 9/11 conspiracy theories, too, do you?

LOL. Because the "real" story doesn't require any special imagination or "credulity" to believe in? Again, LOL.

[William Schryver]

LOL. Because the "real" story doesn't require any special imagination or "credulity" to believe in? Again, LOL.

In my judgment, the "real" story requires much less faith and credulity than does the Spaulding theory espoused by the dear Uncle.

[Uncle Dale]

In my judgment, the "real" story requires much less faith and credulity

than does the Spaulding theory espoused by the dear Uncle.

And the Smith-alone explanation requires no faith and just a little

credulity (that of believing Smith to have been a great writer, etc.)

So, Mormons will perhaps get their wish, and the Smith+others explanation

will fail to gain much traction with scholars and historians in the future.

The only problem with that cozy prediction, is that both the LDS and non-LDS

word-print studies keep reporting that the book was not written by one man.

At least the Mormons were right in that assertion.

UD

[LifeOnaPlate]

So, Mormons will perhaps get their wish, and the Smith+others explanation

will fail to gain much traction with scholars and historians in the future.

The only problem with that cozy prediction, is that both the LDS and non-LDS

word-print studies keep reporting that the book was not written by one man.

At least the Mormons were right in that assertion.

I know of many great Mormon scholars who hold to a Smith+others explanation. Such is the very nature of a translation. The fact that the BoM employs portions of Isaiah virtually ensures any wordprint study would detect multiple authors. So?

[Uncle Dale]

I know of many great Mormon scholars who hold to a Smith+others explanation.

...

Let's see if we can take that one step farther -- In a Blake Ostler sort of way.

Joseph writes the story, but Oliver asks a bunch of questions and together

the two young men add a few more paragraphs, here and there. Then Hyrum asks

a couple of questions, and answers to Hyrum's questions get put into the

text. Finally, it is ready for printing, but at the last minute Joseph Sr.

says something that requires the elimination of a few paragraphs.

That would be one version of a Smith+others theory -- and I agree with you,

that there are Mormon scholars (and just plain members) who suspect that the

text was compiled along those lines.

But Dan Vogel says no --- aside from biblical borrowings, Joseph wrote

every word himself. Not only that, but he wrote it "on the fly"as he was

dictating -- keeping the complex geography and chronological inter-relationships

in his head, as he went along.

Sorry, Life -- but Dan won't let those "many great Mormon scholars" have a

Smith+others theory.

Blake Ostler might, however. Let's run it by him.....

UD

[LifeOnaPlate]

Let's see if we can take that one step farther -- In a Blake Ostler sort of way.

Joseph writes the story, but Oliver asks a bunch of questions and together

the two young men add a few more paragraphs, here and there. Then Hyrum asks

a couple of questions, and answers to Hyrum's questions get put into the

text. Finally, it is ready for printing, but at the last minute Joseph Sr.

says something that requires the elimination of a few paragraphs.

That would be one version of a Smith+others theory -- and I agree with you,

that there are Mormon scholars (and just plain members) who suspect that the

text was compiled along those lines.

But Dan Vogel says no --- aside from biblical borrowings, Joseph wrote

every word himself. Not only that, but he wrote it "on the fly"as he was

dictating -- keeping the complex geography and chronological inter-relationships

in his head, as he went along.

Sorry, Life -- but Dan won't let those "many great Mormon scholars" have a

Smith+others theory.

Blake Ostler might, however. Let's run it by him.....

UD

Dale, for a guy who holds to the Spalding authorship theory (or some variation thereof) you are showing a remarkable lack of imagination in regards to other "Joseph Smith+ others" scenarios.

Here's one:

The Book of Mormon was written by ancient prophets. Several. Folks like Nephi and Mormon and Moroni. Some of it is redaction taken from even other records. It was translated into English by Joseph Smith.

Hence, we have Joseph Smith+others.

[Uncle Dale]

...

The Book of Mormon was written by ancient prophets. Several. Folks like Nephi and Mormon and Moroni.

...

Perhaps one fantasy is as good as another. But, when you're fantasizing

prophets who never existed, you're setting yourself up for an eventual fall.

They did not exist in the past and they will never exist. Not one

shred of valid evidence will ever be uncovered for them, nor for

their people, nor for their fictional message.

Better stick with Jeremiah, Malachi, and others that history recognizes

as real people. Walk into a library in India, or Nigeria, or Siberia,

or Greenland, and you'll find those folks accepted across the board,

by people of many faiths and by people who profess no particular religion.

Ask for "Lehi" and "Nephi" in those same world-wide libraries, and see

what reference books their librarians hand you...

There will be no Nephi and Lehi there to meet you, behind the veil,

when that time comes.

Sorry about that, Life...

UD