Spot-checking Book of Mormon Word-prints

[Uncle Dale]

Dale, what are the implications for the multiple Isaiah theory for the BOM?

If "second Isaiah" was composed and "published" to readers outside of the

original Isaiah's prophetic circle, AFTER the Mormons say that the Lehites

left Arabia, then there are obvious problems in BoM chronology. Others have

discussed this controversy at length, so I can add nothing to it, really.

Most Introductions for the Old Testament accept the multiple authorship even

those written by Evangelicals. I understand Spalding's and Rigdon's wordprint

does not appear in this section. Is that correct?

Given the way that Jockers and his associates structured their word-print

distributions in the Book of Mormon text, even 2nd Nephi's reproductions

of Isaiah register some slight possibility for a Spalding or Rigdon authorship.

As I recall, somewhere in the 1%-2% range of relative probability. But we

know that neither of those two men wrote Isaiah.

More interesting, is Jockers' report of some Book of Mormon chapters, which

we know did not originate with Isaiah, registering a significant relative

value for an Isaiah-Malachi "voice." In other words, some of the non-Isaiah

chapters in the Book of Mormon appear to mimic Isaiah and Malachi to the

point of even using a great deal of their "non-contextual words." I don't

have the data in front of me, but I think that some of those chapters rated

as high as 10-15% for an Isaiah-Malachi authorship.

I have yet to tabulate the shared vocabulary and shared phraseology for

Rigdon in books like 2nd Nephi and Moroni. When I have that data ready,

I will share it here.

However, I find it interesting that the 1830 Book of Mormon's language

in and around Mosiah chapters VII-VII (13-16 in LDS ed.), rates comparatively

low for Spalding's "word-print," shared vocabulary, and shared phraseology --

while that same section (with much biblical quoting) rates high for Smith

and Rigdon in Jockers' new, and still unpublished findings:

http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/MEDIA/phrchrtM2.gif

UD

.

[jmordecai]

In reading through this thread, its interesting to watch LDS in general put up resistance to a study which carves up the BoM and attempts to assigned authorship to it. I don't blame the protectionism. Yet replace the BoM with Deuteronomy and you'll find the mood changes.

On a side note, the post about the Anthon affair occurring in Feb 1828 and 2 Nephi written in 1829 is fascinating (and convenient). Before I get too excited, how do we know 2 Nephi was written in 1829?

[J Green]

A researcher's methodology?

Only the eclectic tendency to group discoveries by chronology

and content. That "methodology" is only slightly helpful in

predicting where and how to make new investigative discoveries.

Although I occasionally try to gather my thoughts in an unpublished

essay or preliminary web-report, I leave it to the trained historians,

biographers and theologians to decide which investigative discoveries

warrant citations in their own publications.

If somebody can show me something more connecting Rigdon and theories

of Isaiah authorship, I'll be happy to take a look, to see if I can

fit those speculations/conclusions into my own future searches --

but these days I seldom leave my house and have given up any plans

for on-the-ground researching.

UD

Well, at least I'll give you high marks for consistency, as this has been your standard answer to Ben McGuire and others on this board for years. And although it's probably pointless, I'll simply state once again that research does rely on methodology. In any case, I have a hard time distinguishing between UD the simple "researcher" who lets others draw conclusions and UD who uses this OP to compare and contrast his own conclusions with the Jockers study that--by the way--relies fairly heavily (if we believe the footnotes) on his own material. It's all very metaphysically confusing in a way that would make Borges proud.

[lostindc]

In reading through this thread, its interesting to watch LDS in general put up resistance to a study which carves up the BoM and attempts to assigned authorship to it. I don't blame the protectionism. Yet replace the BoM with Deuteronomy and you'll find the mood changes.

On a side note, the post about the Anthon affair occurring in Feb 1828 and 2 Nephi written in 1829 is fascinating (and convenient). Before I get too excited, how do we know 2 Nephi was written in 1829?

And...your optimism is incorrect. If you were around a little longer you may (doubtful judging by your terribly lacking analysis in this thread) have noticed that this particular subject has been hashed out over many threads and therefore not worth too much discussion.

In addition, why would a person be receptive to a study that "carves" up their belief system. If anything defense should and will be the first reaction.

If you want a decent treatment, in a forum setting, try utilizing the search function and going to one of the many threads that discuss the weak and obscure word print study out of Stanford.

[lostindc]

Well, at least I'll give you high marks for consistency, as this has been your standard answer to Ben McGuire and others on this board for years. And although it's probably pointless, I'll simply state once again that research does rely on methodology. In any case, I have a hard time distinguishing between UD the simple "researcher" who lets others draw conclusions and UD who uses this OP to compare and contrast his own conclusions with the Jockers study that--by the way--relies fairly heavily (if we believe the footnotes) on his own material. It's all very metaphysically confusing in a way that would make Borges proud.

Well done

UD, I do give you credit with consistency and it does appear that you have set out on your own Indiana Jones quest (minus actual physical adventure) in attempting to lift the veil of conspiracy that cloaks the authorship of the BOM.

[noel00]

Dan, Dan Vogel and others argue that Smith wrote the BOM with help from various sources. So they mine the time and area for possible information that Smith could have had access to that was included in the BOM (e.g. Views of the Hebrews). If one were to accept the allocation of chapters to Spalding and others to Rigdon could one find in the localities these two individuals lived and worked information about plagarism of sources available to them in local libraries, newspapers etc? Could they have been aware that the word "mormon" was used in books on the Puffin birds that flew on the Atlantic seaboard? Were they aware of the existance of "Moroni" and "comoros" islands off the African coast?

[Uncle Dale]

...

It's all very metaphysically confusing

...

Perhaps so -- for some people.

The day that I stopped believing there actually must have been Nephites

(in some lost and obscure corner of Central America), was the day that the

"metaphysical confusion" began to clear away from my own vista.

But there will always be folks who see both the present and the past through

the rose-colored lenses of a "metaphysical" Nephite reality. Their methods

are bound to be different from mine.

Such people begin by professing: "I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that

the Book of Mormon is true, and that Joseph Smith was a true prophet..."

That is the point from which they start to implement their methodology

for new discovery. I begin by saying, "Show me some facts I haven't seen..."

Perhaps my opponents will answer by informing me of a Joseph Smith document

I was previously unaware of -- or perhaps by pointing out "NHM" in Yemen.

No matter how they might answer, I do not let my current views so prejudice

my response, that I refuse to view and consider their new "evidence."

Were I to adopt a "I know beyond a shadow of a doubt..." attitude,

I would not even take ten seconds to study and assess pro-LDS evidence.

UD

[Uncle Dale]

...Dan Vogel and others argue that Smith wrote the BOM with help from various sources.

I think it is very important to clarify here, that Dan Vogel does not

allow for any living, human "source" to have provided "help" to Smith,

other than the "help" of mere scribal assistance.

When Dan speaks of "sources" (other than the Bible), he is imagining

that Smith read some book or article and mentally excerpted those

items which might later be useful in dictating a fictional story to

his scribe(s).

That is not the only type of "various sources," I'm open to including in an

investigation of Mormon origins. I'm entirely open to the possibility

(nay, probability) that Lucy Mack Smith, or Hyrum Smith, or Oliver Cowdery

may have contributed actual textual segments that ended up in the BoM.

This is the Smith+others authorship theory, which Vogel rejects as

inelegant or needlessly complicated.

...If one were to accept the allocation of chapters to Spalding and others to Rigdon

could one find in the localities these two individuals lived and worked information

about plagarism of sources available to them in local libraries, newspapers etc?

To a limited extent, yes -- and that is why I started "Oliver's Bookshelf," to

provide a place on the web where we could consult and study such sources:

http://olivercowdery.com/texts/bookindx.htm

But the "sources" transcribed there are mostly books. Tracking down every

newspaper article, or ephemeral communication, that might have influenced

the interest and thinking of a Spalding or a Rigdon is an endless task.

Could they have been aware that the word "mormon" was used in books on the Puffin birds

that flew on the Atlantic seaboard? Were they aware of the existance of "Moroni" and

"comoros" islands off the African coast?

Possibly. Spalding received a much more comprehensive education than did Rigdon.

So Spalding had the benefit of resources such as the Dartmouth College Library

and contact with fellow Dartmouth graduates. I do not imagine that Sidney Rigdon

had so many useful resources open to him for study. Possibly he visited

Transylvania University in Kentucky (where his brother attended medical school)

once or twice. Possibly he was befriended by some scholar (such as his Divinity

teacher) whose private library included useful sources, interesting to Rigdon.

But -- how do we go about demonstrating that some possibility was a reality?

I do not know.

UD

.

[jmordecai]

And...your optimism is incorrect. If you were around a little longer you may (doubtful judging by your terribly lacking analysis in this thread) have noticed that this particular subject has been hashed out over many threads and therefore not worth too much discussion.

What 'optimism'?

What's 'terribly lacking' I think is your 'analysis' of what I wrote.

In addition, why would a person be receptive to a study that "carves" up their belief system. If anything defense should and will be the first reaction.

That's odd, as I thought I made the same point when I said "I don't blame the protectionism".

If you want a decent treatment, in a forum setting, try utilizing the search function and going to one of the many threads that discuss the weak and obscure word print study out of Stanford.

I don't think you understood the point I was making at all. I'll try again: in contrast to threads in this forum that dissect Deuteronomy (or any other biblical text) the temperament of LDS participants is much more accommodating than one that dissects the BoM. That's all, nothing big, just an observation.

[Uncle Dale]

...

If you want a decent treatment, in a forum setting, try utilizing the search function and going to one of the many threads that discuss the weak and obscure word print study out of Stanford.

I don't think you understood the point I was making at all. I'll try again: in contrast to threads in this forum that dissect Deuteronomy (or any other biblical text) the temperament of LDS participants is much more accommodating than one that dissects the BoM. That's all, nothing big, just an observation.

Actually, I've heard at least one Latter Day Saint criticize the Deuteronomic reform as an apostasy

against the "true religion" of the plurality of the gods. So Deuteronomy is the one OT book that

Mormons might be interested in attributing to a source other than Moses.

However, modern LDS would be on shaky ground, if they dismissed the contemporary scholarly consensus

on Mosaic authorship (or the lack thereof) as something "weak and obscure." There is simply too much

scholarship on the subject, for them to blindly ignore.

The recent Stanford University report is something different -- there is no contemporary scholarly

consensus on Book of Mormon authorship; much less a consensus on word-printing methodologies.

What will the Mormons do, when a body of that sort of scholarly literature begins to build up?

Even if some elements of the 2008 Stanford study are criticized by scriptural literary experts,

computer software designers, or statisticians, the basic concept of examining the LDS scriptures

by computerized analysis will remain ---- and grow.

My little project was merely meant to "spot check" Jockers and his associates, in some of the

spots in the Book of Mormon where they say that the discerned "voice" for Solomon Spalding is

relatively high. I've charted out the spots in three BoM books, where the shared language and

shared phraseology with Solomon Spalding can be calculated as being the "highest."

Does the fact that my findings largely coincide with Jockers' findings, make his 2008 report

any less "weak" or any less "obscure?"

The fact that we are continuing to discuss the matter, leads me to believe that the Mormons

have not yet published their final and ultimate refutation in this word-print controversy.

And I do not consider "the many threads that discuss the subject" to be the definitive LDS

response to a peer-reviewed paper published in a respected professional journal.

UD