Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Two voices in the Book of Mormon


robuchan

Recommended Posts

I love this quote from Jim Huston:

"You can present "official" meeting information, you can present testimony that Joseph Smith was seen with Oliver Cowdrey during the translation process (my favorites are the ones that say they had books spread on the table between them.) You can present whatever you like, but it is evidence of your point of view, it is not proof of the action. You present your "proof" then I come back showing that a man was brought in from Ohio on a treasure hunting expedition with a name very similar to Rigdon. I will show the evidence that the Cowdreys were members of Ethan Smith's congregation and that BH Roberts was struck by the similarities between View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon. There is also Oliver Cowdrey's tenure as a teacher prior to the "official" meeting when Hyrum Smith was on the school board that hired him and Lucy Mack Smith's relation by marriage to the Cowdrey family. I could even get into the evidence for Solomon Spauding - he wrote exclusively in Chismus, he was in the Dartmouth school of divinity at the same time as Ethan Smith, while Ethan Smith was developing his ideas on the View of the Hebrews. There is also the evidence that Sydney Rigdon and Solomon Spaulding shared the same printer and post office."

Link to comment

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

Jim Huston stated that their first encounter, at least eluded, could have been during a treasure hunting expedition. I would love to see the source of that..do you have any information UD?

Link to comment

I love this quote from Jim Huston:

"You can present "official" meeting information, you can present testimony that Joseph Smith was seen with Oliver Cowdrey during the translation process (my favorites are the ones that say they had books spread on the table between them.) You can present whatever you like, but it is evidence of your point of view, it is not proof of the action. You present your "proof" then I come back showing that a man was brought in from Ohio on a treasure hunting expedition with a name very similar to Rigdon. I will show the evidence that the Cowdreys were members of Ethan Smith's congregation and that BH Roberts was struck by the similarities between View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon. There is also Oliver Cowdrey's tenure as a teacher prior to the "official" meeting when Hyrum Smith was on the school board that hired him and Lucy Mack Smith's relation by marriage to the Cowdrey family. I could even get into the evidence for Solomon Spauding - he wrote exclusively in Chismus, he was in the Dartmouth school of divinity at the same time as Ethan Smith, while Ethan Smith was developing his ideas on the View of the Hebrews. There is also the evidence that Sydney Rigdon and Solomon Spaulding shared the same printer and post office."

As intimated earlier, conspiracy theorists seem to have a bottomless well of strained coincidences from which to draw upon. A case of theories selectively in search of circumstantial evidence?

I once shared the same post office as Bill Gates, so guess who really invented Dos and Windows? :P

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment

Jim Huston stated that their first encounter, at least eluded,

could have been during a treasure hunting expedition.

I would love to see the source of that..do you have any information UD?

I do not know that Rigdon was a money-digger or a treasure-seer. It is

possible that he had some tangential association with such people in

SW Geauga Co., Ohio, c. 1826-27 --- but I doubt that he was much involved.

Rigdon was associated with the 1836 treasure-seeking expedition to

Salem, Massachusetts. In his post-Nauvoo years he expressed some interest

in hunting for gold with estranged Apostle Lyman Wight in Texas. But, again,

I do not think that money-digging was Rigdon's prime interest.

Were I to open up a research project into this matter, I would first of

all tabulate and chart out all of Joseph Smith, Jr.'s travels in the 1820s

and 1830s. Where did he go? For how long? For what reasons? With what company?

Then I'd do the same for Rigdon. Like Smith, he was a frequent traveler, and

it should be possible to reconstruct a number of his journeys. One possible

trip would have been as a Baptist representative to some Baptist gathering

in the Manchester area of Ontario Co., N.Y., c. 1823-24. Joseph Smith, Jr.

was known to have attended the Manchester Baptist congregation at about that

time -- and a meeting with the traveling Baptist preacher, Sidney Rigdon,

would have been a totally unremarkable event.

I would also take a careful look at Bainbridge and Auburn townships, in

SW Geauga Co., Ohio in 1825-29, to determine which Manchester/Palmyra migrants

in that area were well known to Rigdon when he was a Baptist preacher there.

Isaac Butts claimd to have known both Rigdon and Smith before 1830 -- and

Butts lived among the Manchester/Palmyra pioneers who relocated to Rigdon's

neighborhood in Geauga Co. Another perosn during that same later 1820s time

period who would have known both Smith and Rigdon was Gadius Stafford, who

participated in money-digging activities in New York and probably in Ohio.

Lawrence Greatrake, Rigdon's replacement as the Baptist pastor in Pittsburgh,

followed Rigdon to Ohio in 1826 and there published an exposure of the

Campbellites (practically in Rigdon's back yard). Greatrake reportedly tied

Rigdon to a glass-looker during that period. Possibly the glass-looker was

only Gadius Stafford --- but I'd want to double check, to see if Joseph Smith

might have traveled to Auburn twp., in Geauga Co., in about April of 1826.

Unfortunately I'm no longer able to conduct intensive research activities --

so I'll have to leave such investigations to other students of history.

Hopefully somebody will one day take up that effort.

Uncle Dale

Link to comment

Criddle's comments on Chris' argument

"I'm looking forward to the peer-reviewed publication that Chris will produce after the end of his restful summer. It will be easier to respond to that than a class project that in Chris' mind trumps a study that has passed peer review from experts in the field.

Matt and I are comfortable with our results, and expect them to hold up over the long term. We've done additional testing, including addition of Smith as a candidate author, and have yet to turn up evidence that genre effects controlled the attributions.

To reiterate regarding the methodology and its soundness:

(1) We used an arbitrary selection criterium for word selection:

"We selected words that occurred at least once in samples from each author and also at least once in the Book of Mormon. This resulted in a set of 521 words. We selected the subset of these 521 words that had a mean relative frequency, across the 456 samples, of at least 0.1%. This resulted in a set of 114 words. We then removed the words

Link to comment

Here's a prediction: no evidence from text analysis will ever be persuasive to Chris. "

I actually agree with Chris on this.

IMO I don't think it is possible without tainting the control without an agenda IOW almost impossible to be objective with the choice of words one picks. If we used the same type of selective choice words one can also find matches for Mother Goose can be the same author of War and Peace.

Link to comment

So Craig feels that because Jockers' results are published in a peer-reviewed journal, they are immune to criticism. And he feels that unilaterally and baselessly declaring that no evidence will ever be persuasive to me is sufficient to do away with my arguments. Color me unimpressed.

Link to comment

Perhaps he could explain why Chris has this alleged bias in his view?

Due to faith in an alternative explanation, perhaps?

I haven't been paying much attention lately, but I really do not recall

hearing any convincing arguments telling us that the Jockers team was

correct in its initial authorship hypothesis, but wrong in its textual

examination methodology and reporting.

An investigator who is already convinced that Fawn Brodie and Dan Vogel

have effectively explained the "true" single-author origins of the BoM, is probably

an investigator who pre-determined Jockers and associates to be "wrong," before

they ever booted up their computers for any automated textual analysis.

My assertion is that the Book of Mormon shows evidence of multiple authorship.

That is my prejudice, and I admit it openly. But I still make myself available

to carefully examine the anti-Mormons' claims for a unitary text written by Smith.

I wonder if Chris can say the same thing, in terms of a multi-author origin?

UD

Link to comment
(1) We used an arbitrary selection criterium for word selection:

"We selected words that occurred at least once in samples from each author and also at least once in the Book of Mormon. This resulted in a set of 521 words. We selected the subset of these 521 words that had a mean relative frequency, across the 456 samples, of at least 0.1%. This resulted in a set of 114 words. We then removed the words

Link to comment

I spent weeks writing a computer program to reproduce the Jockers study. I'd say that qualifies as careful examination, wouldn't you?

No -- not at all.

A truly objective investigator would begin by allowing

for the possibility that the book's authorship is what

it purports to be -- multiple input from various Jaredites

and Nephites.

If what the book says about itself is wrong, then the presumptive

choice between single authorship and multiple authorship moves

to a different stage of investigative assumptions -- but the

possibility of multiple "voices" is not negated by what you

disagree with (or agree with) in Jockers' reporting.

Of course nobody expects you to be THAT objective. I already

confessed my own working bias -- and asked if you were ready

to do the same. ???

My guess -- your apparent bias stems from your prior faith in

the Brodie-Vogel explanation, and from a lack of faith in other

authorship possibilities.

UD

Link to comment

No -- not at all.

A truly objective investigator would begin by allowing

for the possibility that the book's authorship is what

it purports to be -- multiple input from various Jaredites

and Nephites.

If what the book says about itself is wrong, then the presumptive

choice between single authorship and multiple authorship moves

to a different stage of investigative assumptions -- but the

possibility of multiple "voices" is not negated by what you

disagree with (or agree with) in Jockers' reporting.

Of course nobody expects you to be THAT objective. I already

confessed my own working bias -- and asked if you were ready

to do the same. ???

My guess -- your apparent bias stems from your prior faith in

the Brodie-Vogel explanation, and from a lack of faith in other

authorship possibilities.

UD

Dale, I don't think that any of us would (or could truthfully) claim to be unbiased. Of course I only agree with Chris when his observations coincide with my own beliefs, unless he can provide clear, cogent, and convincing evidence that he is correct.

The main thing here is to examine the product and test it for accuracy, flaws in methodology, etc. Let's see if what Chris produces is influenced by any perceived bias. There are plenty of people here on this forum that have the qualification and will give his work a rather thorough scrutiny.

Glenn

Link to comment
I was born and raised with the official story. I agree that you will be hard-pressed to find official sources for the "magic stone in a hat" story (which is why I pointed out that most LDS are still unaware of it) but they are there, like Elder Nelson's 1993 General Conference talk. Are you denying that this is how the BoM was translated?

Nice try, Aria. Google "fallacy of the false dilemma" if you want to know why I didn't fall for it.

BTW, you put "magic stone in a hat" in quotation marks. What LDS source are you thus quoting?

Why, none, of course. Indeed, you appear to be quoting only yourself.

Applying the label "derisive" to the term "magic" is entirely your own interpretation,

Actually that's false. Which is, of course, why you said it.

You introduced the word "magic," rather mindlessly following your anti-Mormon predecessors, in order to ridicule.

And for no other purpose.

as is your definition of "good faith" and your attributing ulterior motives to people using the term.

As you know, you used the word "magic" in order to ridicule. As you may not be aware -- but only because you've never actually thought about it -- when people are discussing the beliefs of others in good faith, they don't start off by ridiculing them.

Ever.

Oh, and please don't fall back on the standard anti-Mormon canard that having once been a member somehow gives you a pass; it doesn't.

Most people who are less defensive than you would readily apply the term "magic" to a stone which lights up in the dark, shows characters of an unknown language on a parchment (although the actual characters are engraved on gold plates) with English subtitles. If you don't believe me, go out on the streets and ask: what would you call a stone that has the following qualities...?

Ah, the fallacy of argumentum ad populum as well.

As you know -- but prefer to ignore -- we are not talking about the properties of the stone. We are talking about its behaviour in a very specific and limited context.

No power resided in the stone; Joseph used it as an aid in the translation of the Book of Mormon. To answer your earlier question, the Book of Mormon was translated by the Gift and Power of God; and regardless of what aids Joseph used, that is the only basis upon which the work could have been done.

Regards,

Pahoran

Link to comment

No -- not at all.

A truly objective investigator would begin by allowing

for the possibility that the book's authorship is what

it purports to be -- multiple input from various Jaredites

and Nephites.

If what the book says about itself is wrong, then the presumptive

choice between single authorship and multiple authorship moves

to a different stage of investigative assumptions -- but the

possibility of multiple "voices" is not negated by what you

disagree with (or agree with) in Jockers' reporting.

I'm not sure what you're criticizing me for. It's not like my critique of Jockers is the only work I've ever done on the various possible authorship scenarios. I have carefully investigated all three possibilities, and with an open mind. I am simply persuaded by the Smith-scenario, and not by the others. Is that a crime?

I already confessed my own working bias -- and asked if you were ready to do the same. ???

My guess -- your apparent bias stems from your prior faith in the Brodie-Vogel explanation, and from a lack of faith in other authorship possibilities.

Ok, sure. I have a "working bias": a paradigm that is currently more persuasive to me than the others. So do we all.

Link to comment

Nobody cares?

*cough*

The Bible is taken as scripture without regard to who the "authors" were. Do you like that phrasing better?

Link to comment

...

The main thing here is to examine the product and test it for accuracy,

flaws in methodology, etc. Let's see if what Chris produces is influenced

by any perceived bias....

Sounds OK to me -- although there are predictable results.

Such results are not 100% "set in stone," I suppose -- but

I predict that most advocates of the "Smith alone" authorship

hypothesis will adhere to that explanation of things, both

before and after examining Jockers sort of analysis/reporting.

In fact, I believe that such investigators will almost always

reject computerized textual analysis which offers up a conclusion

of multiple authorship -- (be the authors Nephites or Yankees).

I admit the influence of a Latter Day Saint testimony upon my

own "testing for accuracy, flaws in methodology, etc." It is not a

bias that demands historical Nephites, but it is nevertheless a

real bias. I try to set it to one side at times -- in order to

examine the evidence with some attempt at objectivity. But

the testimony does not go away. It is merely unspoken for a time.

We all do the best we can, given such constraints -- I suppose.

Uncle Dale

Link to comment

If the study is reliable, and can be replicated, it doesn't matter who conducts it or whether they're biased or not.

I'd like to see the evidence that the methodology works in blind tests. In other words, if the method can be converted to a template and applied to random samples where the authors are unknown to the investigators, and if the investigators can apply their methods in cross-evaluating various texts by the unknown authors, I'd like to see margin of error, if any. People can offer conjectures about methodology, but if it can be applied to blind, unrelated, texts with high rates of certainty, then LDS apologists will have a problem.

Some of the early wordprint methodologies are, I understand, subjected to blind authorship studies, though reviewers dubbed them flawed. The question is, has the delta and nearest shrunken centroid classification methodologies been so tested? Since it's mathematical in nature, then I assume almost anyone with an adequate knowledge of it can test and retest its margins of error. Such blind submissions would have to include undisguised writing samples from a number of people, and then disguised writing samples. If the method can be reduced to a template and if it accurately detect authorship, then it doesn't matter what anyone says in the end, does it?

John Hilton's group at Berkley used blind texts and was peer reviewed. I also believe they were looking for single writers. But in the Jockers study, the methodologies attempted to pick up "signals" for as many as two to three authors. I haven't read the study, nor do I know anything about statistical probabilities, but I do think it should be demonstrable in identifying and analyzing blind texts. I personally find it difficult to believe that anyone could find signals of Rigdon, Spalding and Cowdery in the same text, and if true, it certainly would make the conspiracy a far more fascinating prospect. For myself, I've seen the samples of Spalding's writings, and it bears not the slightest hint of familiarity with any of the Book of Mormon verses. For example: "On the sixth day after, the storm wholly subsided, the sun rose clear and the heavens once more appeared to smile -- Inexpressible was the consternation of the crew. They found themselves in the midst of a vast Ocean. No prospect of returning -- all was lost -- The wind blowing westwardly and the presumption was that it had been blowing in that direction during the whole of the storm." Without any regard for "voice," the Jockers study concludes: "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)."

Rigdon, an associate of Alexander Campbell, met Parley P. Pratt, who embraced the theology of both Campbell and Rigdon, but acknowledged that the only remaining hole in that theology was a lack of authority. Later, Rigdon associated himself with Smith, but was it because he (Rigdon) could provide Smith with everything that was lacking from Campbellism? Indeed, why would he choose Smith to proffer this new religion and book if he could have done it himself? It just doesn't make sense. Even so, all this matters not if the Jockers, Witten, Criddle template works on blind studies.

.

Link to comment

...

all this matters not if the Jockers, Witten, Criddle template works on blind studies.

...

I doubt that there are very many people possessed of both the ability

and the incentive to conduct such studies. Hopefully, in time, a few

interested scholars and scientists will come forth to conduct the

necessary computerized investigations.

My thoughts on this subject are that the Book of Mormon should first

of all be examined, to determine whether its text is the product of

a single writer, or the product of several writers.

I'd like to see some independent studies conducted, all of which

reported to us the literary structure of the text -- demonstrating

patterns of probable authorship, regardless of who those authors were.

If we could first of all reach some agreement on that basic literary

structure, perhaps we would then have some common ground on which to

conduct discussions about how much Sidney's Rigdon's language use

resembled that of "Nephi" or of "Jacob" or of "Moroni." And perhaps

we could discuss how much Solomon Spalding's language resembled the

language in the writings of Alma or of Helaman.

However, from a scientific standpoint, the basic nature of the text

remains undetermined. Chris concludes that it is the product of one

author, who incorporated a few fragments of KJV biblical text here

and there. I say that is a simplistic view of the book and that the

future consensus opinion will be that the book had several authors.

UD

Link to comment

As you know -- but prefer to ignore -- we are not talking about the properties of the stone. We are talking about its behaviour in a very specific and limited context. No power resided in the stone; Joseph used it as an aid in the translation of the Book of Mormon.

When you say that there was nothing special about the stone itself, I think you are representing your personal 20/21st century convictions, not Joseph Smith's 19th century beliefs. There is nothing wrong with calling a magic stone a magic stone. Too bad if that offends your sensibilities.

Link to comment
When you say that there was nothing special about the stone itself, I think you are representing your personal 20/21st century convictions, not Joseph Smith's 19th century beliefs. There is nothing wrong with calling a magic stone a magic stone. Too bad if that offends your sensibilities.

Agreed. Joseph Smith and his neighbors seem to have considered the stones quite special indeed. They were magical "keys" that enabled their bearers to see the past, present, and future.

Link to comment
When you say that there was nothing special about the stone itself, I think you are representing your personal 20/21st century convictions, not Joseph Smith's 19th century beliefs. There is nothing wrong with calling a magic stone a magic stone. Too bad if that offends your sensibilities.

Was "magic stone" Joseph Smith's 19th century terminology and belief, or your 21st century terminology and belief?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Was "magic stone" Joseph Smith's 19th century terminology and belief, or your 21st century terminology and belief?

Yes indeedy. Is the reason for employment of the term "magic stone" derision, denigration, or is it employed with a certain respect for the sensibilities of the believers in the message delivered by JSJr, whether or not the employer himself is a believer?

USU "Still unsure about Ariaretes" 78

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...