Two voices in the Book of Mormon

[Ariarates]

That there is no evidence of the two meeting before his conversion outweighs heavily the speculation that they met.

You spoke of "compelling evidence that they never met before his conversion". It now appears that you have no such compelling evidence at all but merely find the absence of evidence that they did meet compelling. While this may be true for you personally, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, or so the saying goes.

[Ariarates]

Ariarates, perhaps it wasn't Sidney Rigdon but Nathaniel Hawthorne that wrote the BoM. After all, he and Joseph probably hatched the scheme when recuperating as children from serious illnesses in the same town. I don't know of any compelling evidence that they did not hatch the scheme together then.

Well, there you go. Since Jockers et al. published exactly how they went about testing their theory, you might want to try and replicate their method with your own hypothesis. Let me know the results!

[Anijen]

You spoke of "compelling evidence that they never met before his conversion". It now appears that you have no such compelling evidence at all but merely find the absence of evidence that they did meet compelling. While this may be true for you personally, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, or so the saying goes.

The compelling evidence are the journals of Rigdons son and others. The documented fact that Sidney Rigdon was baptized a member after the Church was restored and after the publication of the Book of Mormon. That is the compelling evidence that they never met before. Sidney Rigdon still insists to his own son that he had nothing to do with the Book of Mormon, and had never seen it until Pratt showed it to him.from Kevin Christensens' post.

Sidney had a large ego and would have claimed the authorship BofM had he really written it.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Robuchan - quick question. You wrote:

Thanks. I wouldn't call the study dead if you could find an author that more closely resembled BOM than Spaulding, Rigdon, or Smith. I think the whole field of word print study, textual analysis and comparison and all that is a huge area that is only now beginning to be tapped, and believe in the end it will be the key to unravel the mystery of where the BOM came from.

What would be an outcome in your estimation, that would invalidate the Criddle study?

I ask this, because it seems to me that you have put a fair amount of weight in it. How would someone go about disproving it in your estimation?

Ben M.

[Benjamin McGuire]

By the way, Ariarates, its quite easy, using Jockers method, to demonstrate anyone you want to pick to be the author of the Book of Mormon. Its just a matter of manipulating the pool of possible authors. As I said to Robuchan, what sort of test using Jocker's methodology would use accept as conclusive proof that the method is faulty an incapable of providing the kind of information they are trying to get from it?

Ben M.

[Ariarates]

You've got to love the conspirators. After Joseph Smith's 1826 trial for "glass looking," they pool their massive intellects (implied by all research they had to have done on the sly), and shrewd knowledge of human behavior, and say, "This could still work." Seriously, don't you think they might have come up with a less scandalous front man?

And after Joseph proposes to Nancy Ridgon, and later when Sidney is out of the Church, and after Joseph's martyrdom, after failing in his bid to return, and later on his death bed, Sidney Rigdon still insists to his own son that he had nothing to do with the Book of Mormon, and had never seen it until Pratt showed it to him. What possible motivation could he have at that point?

Whatever else you can say of them, the "conspirators" have a remarkable plasticity, stretching every which way to fill the demands of the conspiracy theory. Of course, conspiracy theories thrive best in the absence of evidence, running on the "insinuate and run" method of persuasion. And of course, uncritically dismissing all actual comparisons with antiquity (such as the Arabian Journey, or the Sidon/Grijalva correlation, or First Temple theology, etc.)

Criddle's tests aren't capable of objective identification of authorship "signals" but only of relative probabilities of their carefully selected candidates. If they had put in Harpo Marx, John Lennon, Thomas Jefferson, and Charles ****ens, their approach would still sort these figures as more and less likely Book of Mormon authors relative to that pool of candidates. Attempting to build credibility by calling it "peer reviewed" only devalues the peer review process. It's still lame.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Kevin,

The 1826 trial is a very interesting thing to bring up in this connection because LDS authors have maintained for a long time that, since there was no evidence that this trial ever took place, it was probably made up by anti-Mormons to discredit the prophet. However, evidence did turn up at some point. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism now (reluctantly) admits: "There is some evidence that his father was involved in treasure hunting, a common activity among poor New England farmers who hoped through the use of magic to discover buried money, and it was necessary for Joseph to extricate himself from the mistaken notions of that superstition".

Maybe some day evidence that JS and SR did have a connection prior to SR's conversion will turn up and validate the Spalding-Rigdon theory. For now, the absence of such evidence is as damning to the Spalding-Rigdon theory as the absence of evidence for the 1826 trial was to the notion that Joseph Smith hunted for hidden treasures.

[Benjamin McGuire]

No, what's damning for the Spaulding/Rigdon theory is that the Book of Mormon looks nothing at all like anything Spaulding wrote ... and the Spaulding/Rigdon theorists admit to this. After all, the current version of the story is that Spaulding had another manuscript, for which we have no significant evidence, and that manuscript was the one that was used to write the Book of Mormon. And making a non-extant manuscript the source for plagiarism is quite the problem. Allowing Rigdon to have met with people he claimed not to have met with doesn't even begin to establish some kind of evidence - it merely begins to establish some kind of plausibility. But that plausibility will not help unless some how this non-existent manuscript actually turns up. Because without the manuscript, there is no evidence of borrowing.

Ben M.

[Ariarates]

The compelling evidence are the journals of Rigdons son and others.

Thanks for the reference (Kevin), didn't know about these. I'll see if i can locate some of this material.

The documented fact that Sidney Rigdon was baptized a member after the Church was restored and after the publication of the Book of Mormon. That is the compelling evidence that they never met before.

No, that's not evidence at all. Why would it be impossible for SR to have been baptized while having had a connection with JS before his baptism?

Sidney had a large ego and would have claimed the authorship BofM had he really written it.

That is speculation, not evidence.

[Uncle Dale]

The Stanford study has absolutely no value for me. I understand it. The method is fatally flawed.

I have responded to Donofrio's theory. He has no method. When he summarized his arguments against my position, all he said was, and I quote: "I know it when I see it". That is hardly the kind of process I would put my faith behind.

The word print studies generally look at the text divided up into chapters (modern chapter divisions). This seems to be a narrow enough slice to answer your suggestion I would think, don't you?

Any progress on your own comparison of Sidney Rigdon's use of language

against the various textual sections in the BoM?

UD

[Ariarates]

No, what's damning for the Spaulding/Rigdon theory is that the Book of Mormon looks nothing at all like anything Spaulding wrote ... and the Spaulding/Rigdon theorists admit to this. After all, the current version of the story is that Spaulding had another manuscript, for which we have no significant evidence, and that manuscript was the one that was used to write the Book of Mormon. And making a non-extant manuscript the source for plagiarism is quite the problem. Allowing Rigdon to have met with people he claimed not to have met with doesn't even begin to establish some kind of evidence - it merely begins to establish some kind of plausibility. But that plausibility will not help unless some how this non-existent manuscript actually turns up. Because without the manuscript, there is no evidence of borrowing.

Ben M.

I agree with your assessment of the Spalding-connection. It's the Rigdon-connection that I find interesting, so I guess I am more of a Rigdon theorist than a Spalding-Rigdon fan. I think the role of Sidney Rigdon in early church history is much larger than is generally acknowledged nowadays.

[Anijen]

Well, there you go. Since Jockers et al. published exactly how they went about testing their theory, you might want to try and replicate their method with your own hypothesis. Let me know the results!

And because they did so we know the control, the bias and their agenda the results become predictable to the what they wanted to see.

While I found some intriguing patterns, I did not have the expertise to carry out a more detailed text analysis. In particular, I was not knowledgeable in computerized text analysis. I was actually manually calculating word frequencies, using the word count feature of Microsoft Word, combined with Excel tables.

Frustrated by that process, I typed the key words

[Benjamin McGuire]

Any progress on your own comparison of Sidney Rigdon's use of language against the various textual sections in the BoM?

Yes, but you will have to have some patience. That discussion is waiting on some future developments. It shouldn't be too much longer.

Ben M.

[Ariarates]

And because they did so we know the control, the bias and their agenda the results become predictable to the what they wanted to see.

From here we can see from the get go there agenda was to find Sidney Rigdon the author.

Yup when one wants results to come up the way they want then it isn't too hard to manipulate it that way.

For an excellent summary see here

First, attacking the messengers is not really an argument, it's a fallacy. Second, if their methods are so flawed, why do the critics of this method only publish their rebuttal in their own journal instead of slamming Jockers et al. on their own turf? Or are they only bluffing while preaching to the choir?

[volgadon]

Any progress on your own comparison of Sidney Rigdon's use of language

against the various textual sections in the BoM?

UD

Out of curiosity, how do you figure Joseph and Sidney were connected before Parley's visit?

[Uncle Dale]

...why do the critics of this method only publish their rebuttal

in their own journal instead of slamming Jockers et al. on their own turf?

...

My guess is that they are awaiting the publication of Jockers' two subsequent

textual comparison papers -- and are hopeful that some "Gentile" scientist will

offer up the first peer-reviewed criticism in the professional literature.

If that happens, then later LDS responses would not look so much like a

prejudiced attack/defense as they would look like a normal contribution

to an ongoing professional controversy.

Stuff published in Provo stays in Provo (in my estimation).

UD

[Anijen]

First, attacking the messengers is not really an argument, it's a fallacy. Second, if their methods are so flawed, why do the critics of this method only publish their rebuttal in their own journal instead of slamming Jockers et al. on their own turf? Or are they only bluffing while preaching to the choir?

I wasn't attacking the messenger. Craig Criddel is the one who started the ball rolling he is the one who contacted Jokers, they later combined to write a paper on it. Nope no messenger attack I attacked the very culprit who started the whole thing. Yup mean and nasty of me, that's just how I roll....

[Kevin Christensen]

Kevin,

The 1826 trial is a very interesting thing to bring up in this connection because LDS authors have maintained for a long time that, since there was no evidence that this trial ever took place, it was probably made up by anti-Mormons to discredit the prophet. However, evidence did turn up at some point. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism now (reluctantly) admits: "There is some evidence that his father was involved in treasure hunting, a common activity among poor New England farmers who hoped through the use of magic to discover buried money, and it was necessary for Joseph to extricate himself from the mistaken notions of that superstition".

Maybe some day evidence that JS and SR did have a connection prior to SR's conversion will turn up and validate the Spalding-Rigdon theory. For now, the absence of such evidence is as damning to the Spalding-Rigdon theory as the absence of evidence for the 1826 trial was to the notion that Joseph Smith hunted for hidden treasures.

On the 1826 trial, here is a fair summary of the history. It seems to me that LDS scholars have been comfortable with is since at least 1972, particularly since Gordon Madsen's BYU Studies article on the Legal Background. Thirty-eight years is a long time. But Oliver Cowdery had discussed it in in the Messenger and Advocate in 1835.

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2002_1826_Trial_of_Joseph_Smith.html

And for the record, there was always was clear evidence that Joseph Smith hunted for hidden treasures. In the 1838 history for example, where Joseph talks about his employment, or his Times and Seasons answers to questions where Joseph said he got $14 a month for it. Plus quite a lot more, such as the Knight family accounts, and other things. In my mind, there is nothing damning about it. Just interesting background. Neeley's bill wasn't damning evidence. (See Madsen's legal analysis, or the FAIR essay above). It was another piece to fit together with other material.

Something that validated the Spalding-Rigdon theory would involve information that would have to fit together with a lot of other material, and account for a lot more. Personally, I'm not worried about the prospect. Even wings on a pig would not necessarily mean that the pig could fly. Putting Joseph and Rigdon together before 1831 is not the same thing as explaining the Book of Mormon as it stands. To really account for the Book of Mormon (including the actual, testable content, as well as the eye witness accounts of it's coming forth), would require a great deal of explaining. Claiming that someone else did it falls far short of an explanation.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[robuchan]

By the way, Ariarates, its quite easy, using Jockers method, to demonstrate anyone you want to pick to be the author of the Book of Mormon. Its just a matter of manipulating the pool of possible authors. As I said to Robuchan, what sort of test using Jocker's methodology would use accept as conclusive proof that the method is faulty an incapable of providing the kind of information they are trying to get from it?

Ben M.

Nah, I don't put too much weight in it at all. If I had to put money on it, I would say Joseph wrote it alone, based on the psychology of a conspiracy theory. But I'm intrigued by the Spalding-Rigdon theory. I posted quite a lot on the Jockers study when it came out and we discussed it here. Honestly I barely remember the pro's and con's of it, but as I recall I think the pro's behind it was that it found the Rigdon voice in areas you would expect to find it and Spalding voice in areas you expect to find it. Also, that the two test voices failed to show up. The con's were many, including the failure to include Joseph Smith and more test voices.

I think the field is probably too immature right now to conclusively prove anything for or against Jocker's study. But I think it's an exciting area to watch for future findings.

[Vance]

If I had to put money on it, I would say Joseph wrote it alone, based on the psychology of a conspiracy theory.

So, you are going with the "Joseph Smith was an extremely intelligent fraudster", hypothesis?

[Uncle Dale]

Out of curiosity, how do you figure Joseph and Sidney were connected before Parley's visit?

My best guess is that their relationship developed gradually --

and at first, at least, innocently -- c. 1823-1827.

I cannot envision any scenario in which Rigdon approached Smith,

(or Smith approached Rigdon), with a proposition of creating

fraudulent scriptures. That seems very unlikely to me.

Whatever the process of their getting to know one another was,

it more or less culminated in March of 1832, in the Johnson house

at Hiram, Ohio. We can gain some fragments of knowledge of how

the two men were working together at that point, (to communicate

theophany and lesser sorts of revelation).

I suppose that how each one of us projects that 1832 joint-experience

backwards in time, depends upon whether we are Mormons or non-Mormons.

UD

[robuchan]

So, you are going with the "Joseph Smith was an extremely intelligent fraudster", hypothesis?

Give me a break. I'm not personally responsible for all the theories. None of them make a lot of sense. The thing I'm most sure about it is that it's not a historical document. Other than that, all bets are on. I'm really fascinated by it and by Joseph Smith in general. I dedicated a large portion of my life to following his religion and still am an active LDS with wife and children that are believers. I'm not a hater, but it's important for me to know.

[Vance]

Give me a break.

This sounds like a denial and yet you say,

The thing I'm most sure about it is that it's not a historical document.

So, then you are back to "Joseph Smith was an extremely intelligent fraudster", hypothesis.

I'm not personally responsible for all the theories.

Does stating the obvious make you feel better?

None of them make a lot of sense.

For some reason this passage comes to mind.

1 Cor 2:10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man

[robuchan]

This sounds like a denial and yet you say,

So, then you are back to "Joseph Smith was an extremely intelligent fraudster", hypothesis.

Does stating the obvious make you feel better?

For some reason this passage comes to mind.

1 Cor 2:10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man

[Chris Smith]

I wrote up a paper that analyzed the Urantia Book using basically the Jockers method, and showed that the results were nonsensical. I'd need to go back and redo the study with texts of known authorship to really drive the point home, though. It shouldn't be too hard to do, now that I have most or all of the necessary programming done. Just a matter of finding and formatting some texts. But it's summer, and I'm lazy.

So for now, I'll just quote Shlomo Argamon's paper "Interpreting Burrows

[Mortal Man]

I wrote up a paper that analyzed the Urantia Book using basically the Jockers method, and showed that the results were nonsensical.

Chris' paper does an excellent job of pointing out some of the pitfalls of the Jockers et al. method.

What's missing here is a validated ergodic theorem of word prints, which would provide a framework for comparing different texts and authors. Until such a theory is established, these studies are mere alchemy; i.e., attempts at chemistry with no periodic table.

Criddle's tests aren't capable of objective identification of authorship "signals" but only of relative probabilities of their carefully selected candidates. If they had put in Harpo Marx, John Lennon, Thomas Jefferson, and Charles ****ens, their approach would still sort these figures as more and less likely Book of Mormon authors relative to that pool of candidates.

This nails it.