Two voices in the Book of Mormon

[Cold Steel]

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.

And that's the strength of the Jockers-Witten-Criddle study. If no one is likely to apply their methodologies to other texts, the Book of Mormon study remains as a question mark while the methodologies continue to give the study an air of cold clinical evaluation, when in reality it could be just another politically driven endeavor.

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.

Yes, but until the Oxford group's methodologies are actually tested, we can't be sure that this can be done. Years ago, gun writers measured the velocities of handgun ammo from the same caliber guns, but with different barrel lengths to see the effect of varying barrel lengths on velocity. Naturally, although the same ammo brand was used, the conclusions were somewhat queered by the fact that the guns were of different manufacturers, that they had different barrel/cylinder gaps and other variables like chamber variances and manufacturing lot numbers. So they decided to use Dan Wessons, which had adjustable gaps. Unfortunately, while barrels could be interchanged on the Dan Wessons, the barrels themselves had small variations which also threw off the results. And though the chambers were numbered, and measured, the only real recourse was to use the same gun, with the same barrel with the same brand of ammo secured with the same lot numbers. Using only one chamber, a hacksaw was finally employed to remove one inch at a time. Only then did the results really mean anything, and despite all the opinions before it was conducted, the real demonstrable results showed that many of those opinions were simply incorrect.

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.

As someone who has done his share of writing and editing, I'm troubled that subjective components are ignored. Despite mathematical equations, people still have a "voice" that can be changed or disguised. I'd have to be mighty sure that a computer program could set that all aside and spit out consistent results showing that it could indeed weed out deception. The studies would need to be completely blind to satisfy me. What little I know of the Oxford group's methodologies, I remain unconvinced that mathematical probabilities can do this with any degree of consistency. Say what you want about the other wordprint studies, many of them did incorporate blind comparisons (like Hilton's study). If an advanced senior literature course tasked its students to mimic a given writer and, not only that, but add text to existing works, I think that would be an excellent blind test. If the Oxford methodologies could reliably spot the real authors and their additions, then I'd be more willing to take the results seriously.

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.

I agree. I don't suppose you'll ever buy into the idea that it's an actual historical text, will you?

Based on what I've read from Solomon Spalding, I see no resemblance at all. He's said to have worked on his own novel during all his waking hours. I see the asterisks where he apparently intended to come back and fill in some details later, and he made no effort to stifle the language in any way or to develop profound thoughts. Whoever wrote the Book of Mormon, in my opinion, gave the theology a great deal of thought. How one or two people could have cross referenced so many ideas and alluded to them makes me think it was written over a long period of time, with the later writers being intimately familiar with what came before. That I wouldn't expect in the detail it is put forth in the book. Once one begins pulling out the markers and doing the cross referencing, it becomes very impressive. If Rigdon was able to do that, it was an astounding feat.

.

[Ariarates]

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

Speaking for myself, using the term "magic" definitely reflects my 20th/21st century perspective, taken from the distinction between religion and magic as employed in sociology and anthropology nowadays. I believe the terms "seer stone" and "peep stone" were more common in Joseph Smith's time.

[Glenn101]

Here, I posted my paper on the Urantia Book on Scribd:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/32233534/The-Urantia-Book-as-a-Test-Case-for-Statistical-Authorship-Attribution-in-Genre-Distinctive-Texts

Chris, I noted that you found genre to be a factor in your work on the Urantia papers. I have wondered from the first I heard of the Jockers study if the religious/preacher backgrounds of both Sidney Rigdon and Solomon Spaulding could have been a factor that showed up in the Jockers study. Or am I misunderstanding what you are saying completely?

Glenn

[Chris Smith]

Chris, I noted that you found genre to be a factor in your work on the Urantia papers. I have wondered from the first I heard of the Jockers study if the religious/preacher backgrounds of both Sidney Rigdon and Solomon Spaulding could have been a factor that showed up in the Jockers study. Or am I misunderstanding what you are saying completely?

No, you're understanding me well enough. In my opinion the genre differences between the samples for the various authors had a very major effect on their study. They caused an artificially high accuracy rate in the control tests, while also resulting in very inaccurate attribution of Book of Mormon chapters. Genre isn't the only complicating factor, either. Other factors that need to be controlled for are subject matter, dictation-sequence, narrator, and biblical plagiarism (which is more extensive in the BoM than Jockers' approach implies). Furthermore, we need to determine whether the method is even useful for attributing texts with an imitative or obfuscated style.

[Vance]

I guess it will need to come down to you feeling like you're more spiritually discerning than me. I'm fine with that.

I neither expressed nor implied any such thing.

2 Cor. 10:12 For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise.

[Uncle Dale]

...

I agree. I don't suppose you'll ever buy into the idea that it's an actual historical text, will you?

I'm perfectly willing to objectively examine any Jaredite/Nephite historical

artifacts that might be discovered in the future -- including discoveries of

Nephite texts, examples of Hebrew or "Reformed Eqyptian" writing, etc. I think

it would be unreasonable for me to reject, out of hand, that such discoveries

are possible.

I've even talked to people who have asked me whether or not Solomon Spalding

might have experienced prophetic dreams about the ancient Nephite civilization.

There is a story of an investigator who once joined the RLDS Church after having

such dreams, and then reading the Book of Mormon for the first time. If RLDS

converts can experience such "revelation" (even to the point of encountering

the Three Nephites), then I suppose Solomon Spalding might also have been

"blessed" with supernatural knowledge.

None of which would help the case for "an actual historical text" -- but it

might confirm that the civilization chronicled in the text was "actual."

Based on what I've read from Solomon Spalding, I see no resemblance at all. He's said to have worked on his own novel during all his waking hours. I see the asterisks where he apparently intended to come back and fill in some details later, and he made no effort to stifle the language in any way or to develop profound thoughts. Whoever wrote the Book of Mormon, in my opinion, gave the theology a great deal of thought. How one or two people could have cross referenced so many ideas and alluded to them makes me think it was written over a long period of time, with the later writers being intimately familiar with what came before. That I wouldn't expect in the detail it is put forth in the book. Once one begins pulling out the markers and doing the cross referencing, it becomes very impressive. If Rigdon was able to do that, it was an astounding feat.

Which brings up the unsettling question of whether or not the BoM could

be a Divine revelation, even if some aspect of its true origin was never

disclosed by Smith and his earliest associates? Smith lied about polygamy,

but it was later accepted as Divine. If Smith lied about some aspect of

BoM origins, would that automatically disqualify the book as revelation?

I used to stay awake nights worrying about such stuff -- years ago.

UD

[Pahoran]

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.

1) As you already admitted, Joseph did not call it a "magic stone." To the extent that there is any meaningful distinction between "magic" and "religion", with or without big fancy words like anthropology an' sichlike, the distinction is nothing more than this: Religion is what we do, and "magic" is what they do. "They" usually equating to "those ignorant primitives."

2) The fact is that if "magic" was devoid of derisive force, you would have used another term. As I already pointed out: everyone, without exception, who starts sneering about "magic rocks" in connection with the founding events of the Restoration is not even pretending to try to take those events seriously, and is thus not discussing these matters in anything approaching good faith.

Regards,

Pahoran

[DonBradley]

S-R-ites,

The best evidence for the origin of the Book of Mormon text is the Book of Mormon text. If it were written by well-educated clergy, we would expect it to show signs of such composition, beginning with its wording.

Do its vocabulary and syntax, particularly in the earliest text, bespeak Dartmouth education to you? Does it use the sort of vocabulary that Spalding and Rigdon do in their known writings? Is it as syntactically correct? If not, why did these men dumb down their masterwork?

Nothing could be more obvious from the wording of the earliest Book of Mormon text than that it was generated (whether by composition or translation) by someone uneducated. Any theory that fails to account for this fails to account for the Book of Mormon. And the Spalding-Rigdon theory does not account for it.

Indeed, the only way S-R theory can even be made consistent with it is to introduce a completely ad hoc corollary on top of the theory, leaving the whole, already-too-complicated theory ripe for a pruning with Occam's Razor.

Don

[Uncle Dale]

S-R-ites,

The best evidence for the origin of the Book of Mormon text is the Book of Mormon text. If it were written by well-educated clergy, we would expect it to show signs of such composition, beginning with its wording.

Do its vocabulary and syntax, particularly in the earliest text, bespeak Dartmouth education to you?

My thoughts are, that before we can begin to address such questions, we must

first of all decide whether it is a simple, unitary text, or a complex text

created from various sources with numerous redactions.

If the entire text were something like the Book of Moroni, perhaps we could

begin to answer such questions -- but the text as a whole does not resemble

Moroni, nor any other of its uniform sections (such as the Malachi excerpt

or the Isaiah excerpts).

Let's say that I wrote a novel about King Arthur's court -- one not so

polished as the story Mark Twain wrote, but something similar. Then, let's

say that 1/4 of my novel was plagiarized and incorporated into a bogus

history of Britain -- a pseudo-epic constructed by some fanatic who wished

to prove British racial superiority, or some such thing.

But then, before the plagiarist was finished with his British epic, he

switched gears and "upgraded" the entire project to become pseudo-scripture,

promoting the idea that Joseph of Arimathea carried the Holy Grail to

Britain under Divine guidance. At that point the plagiarist engages the

willing and deluded assistance of two or three "helpers" -- all of whom

work together to produce and publish the final text.

Even if the basic plot and characters of my original novel were preserved

in all of the re-writing and editing, it would be foolish to question whether

a person such as myself could have (would have) written the final text.

So, I say, let's begin by isolating those parts of the Book of Mormon where

the language of the text best matches the known language use of Spalding,

or Rigdon, or Malachi, or Isaiah, or folks like Cowdery, Pratt & Smith.

Then, in those particular instances, the original question begins to make

some sense.

Would have Isaiah written such a volume as the Book of Mormon? Answer: no.

But Isaiah might be (and was) the author of those portions resembling his writings.

Does it use the sort of vocabulary that Spalding and Rigdon do in their known

writings? Is it as syntactically correct?

If the book is a simple, unified composition, then we might ask such questions.

I would begin by asking whether or not there is consistent subject/verb

agreement and proper verb tense use throughout those parts of the text mimicking

"King James" style English? In other words, where the writer(s) of the book

attempted to compose narrative in archaic English, were the results consistent,

or are there indications of improper archaic English interspersed among textual

sections of proper English?

In other words, does the text appear to be simple or complex? The product of a

single writer, or a composite of the writings of two or more authors?

If not, why did these men dumb down their masterwork?

Why did Sidney Rigdon dumb down his 1824 "Third Epistle of Peter?" Why did Solomon

Spalding dumb down his Roman story? Perhaps we should consider the prospective

audience for an 1820s production never intended to appeal to scholars and the

intellectuals -- (much less to the Presbyterian divines and Episcopal bishops).

How would a person living in the 1810s or 1820s have constructed an American epic

intended for the masses? Are the "Uncle Remus" stories dumbed down? Are the tales

of Paul Bunyan and Johnny Appleseed dumbed down?

What sort of book would have appealed to the American Indians of 1830, residing on

the west bank of the Missouri, and hoping to one day cross back over into their

original homelands, in order to exterminate the White emigrants? Or -- better yet --

if a writer in 1829 was hoping to convert those same Indians to a new religion,

designed to "restore Israel," how might such a writer frame and communicate his

basic manifesto for that new Indian movement?

Nothing could be more obvious from the wording of the earliest Book of Mormon text

than that it was generated (whether by composition or translation) by someone uneducated.

So then, let's chart out the various section of the 1830 Book of Mormon, and

"rate" each page, as to whether an "educated" or an "uneducated" person might

have composed the base narrative -- and whether an "educated" or "uneducated"

editor might have finalized the language for that page's narrative. Would such

a chart show us uniform results? Or would some parts of the book be more

attributable to an "uneducated" person, than to an "educated" person?

A brief reading of Solomon Spalding's Roman Story might convince me that it

was composed by a high-schooler who had only read comic books. At least I

suppose that many half-educated teenagers might have done a better job of it.

Any theory that fails to account for this fails to account for the Book of Mormon.

And the Spalding-Rigdon theory does not account for it.

Whose version of that "theory" should we consult? Does Craig Criddle's

articulation of the "theory" take into consideration the probable results

of multiple authorship, passing through the editorial hands of a cunning

ignoramus like Joseph Smith? If not, then Criddle has more work to do.

Indeed, the only way S-R theory can even be made consistent with it is to introduce a completely ad hoc corollary on top of the theory, leaving the whole, already-too-complicated theory ripe for a pruning with Occam's Razor.

Don

Then let's begin by charting out the text of the Book of Mormon, to demonstrate

visually, which parts are the product of a single, uneducated writer -- and

which parts could have been derived from pre-existing sources.

Until that much is accomplished, there is not much here to discuss.

UD

[Ariarates]

1) As you already admitted, Joseph did not call it a "magic stone." To the extent that there is any meaningful distinction between "magic" and "religion", with or without big fancy words like anthropology an' sichlike, the distinction is nothing more than this: Religion is what we do, and "magic" is what they do. "They" usually equating to "those ignorant primitives."

2) The fact is that if "magic" was devoid of derisive force, you would have used another term. As I already pointed out: everyone, without exception, who starts sneering about "magic rocks" in connection with the founding events of the Restoration is not even pretending to try to take those events seriously, and is thus not discussing these matters in anything approaching good faith.

I suggest you get over your sesquipedalophobia and actually look into the difference between religion and magic in the sociological and anthropological literature before jumping to conclusions. The distinction between magic and religion in these fields is not even remotely close to what you think it is.

[DonBradley]

Then let's begin by charting out the text of the Book of Mormon, to demonstrate

visually, which parts are the product of a single, uneducated writer -- and

which parts could have been derived from pre-existing sources.

Until that much is accomplished, there is not much here to discuss.

UD

Hi Dale,

OK, let's start: which sections use a large vocabulary and a polished grammar and syntax?

One will have, randomly, sections that will use more words than others, but do some sections evince a much more educated vocabulary and style than others, such that one would say, "The person who wrote X could not have written Y?," as if the words of a Dartmouth-schooled preacher and an uneducated farmboy had been set side by side? Let's set these text samples side by side and see.

Second, what if the entire work shows a limited total vocabulary? Then would we conclude that it was principally authored by two or more well-educated men with another layer added by someone uneducated? Or would that challenge the whole premise of the approach--that of searching for the 'pre-existing' text by the educated?

Don

[Chris Smith]

Second, what if the entire work shows a limited total vocabulary?

That's what David Holmes concluded, if I'm not mistaken.

[Uncle Dale]

Hi Dale,

OK, let's start: which sections use a large vocabulary and a polished grammar and syntax?

One will have, randomly, sections that will use more words than others, but do some sections evince a much more educated vocabulary and style than others, such that one would say, "The person who wrote X could not have written Y?," as if the words of a Dartmouth-schooled preacher and an uneducated farmboy had been set side by side? Let's set these text samples side by side and see.

It would be worthwhile, I think, to make an attempt of charting out

such measurements across the entire Book of Mormon text.

I'll make a value judgment and call the copied Isaiah chapters a

viable yardstick for measuring "educatedness." King James' scholars

at least knew how to construct proper sentences. And, we can get

some idea of an editor's degree of education by closely inspecting

how the Isaiah texts were changed in their BoM versions. Mostly it

was the italicized words which were changed --- do those changes

show a recognizable theological agenda, indicative of an "educated"

editor? Or do they indicate an unconscious "dumbing-down" process,

forced upon the text by a cunning ignoramus?

That would be a starting point, I suppose.

Second, what if the entire work shows a limited total vocabulary?

The late Bill Williams investigated this question, by comparing the total

vocabulary to that used in the works of Ethan Smith, Josephus, etc. As I

recall, his conclusion was that the absurd degree of receptiveness in the

text served to render it "less rich" in vocabulary than other writings of

a similar length. Which is not to say that the BoM is lacking in many

interesting examples of vocabulary. It has been asserted that it contains

a substrata of pre-KJV English, common to the 14th and 15th centuries,

for example.

I am less interested in the "entire work," at this point, than I am in the

relative literary structure and linguistic texture of its sub-sections. So,

my question would be -- do those sub-sections vary in vocabulary, grammar,

faux archaic English use, etc. ???

Then would we conclude that it was principally authored by two or more well-educated men with another layer added by someone uneducated? Or would that challenge the whole premise of the approach--that of searching for the 'pre-existing' text by the educated?

Unless somebody can offer contradictory evidence, I suppose that it

must be conceded that the final draft of the text passed through the

editorial influence/constraints of a cunning ignoramus (Smith). That

is not to say that he was ignorant of a certain, limited set of

literature, available in Palmyra or at his brother Hyrum's academy

library in Hanover. What I mean, is that Smith was relatively uninformed

(the 19th century term was "illiterate") in comparison with an Ethan

Smith or an Orson Pratt.

Unless somebody can offer contradictory evidence, I'll say that his was

the final hand in preparation of the text. What sources he made use of

in arriving at that final editorial work remain largely undetermined.

If I read Fawn Brodie correctly, those "sources" were limited to the

Bible, Smith family lore and Joseph's own ignorant imagination.

UD

[noel00]

Some comments on Don's arguments from Craig Criddle

There are several problems with Don's arguments:

1. No one is claiming that Spalding wrote the Book of Mormon. To make that claim is a red herring. What is alleged is that Spalding provided useful background narrative, and that large portions of the book were revised, rewritten, and added by others. The evidence suggests that the lost pages episode resulted in a whole-sale rewrite of the first part of the book to include more theology. The last part of the book also had to be rewritten. The storyline was also evidently changed from a story about the Ten Tribes leaving Jerusalem around 700 BC and traveling through Asia and across the Bering Straights into America into the story that we have today. The most recent attribution evidence indicates that Rigdon added the Isaiah passages and their interpretation, and likely also the visit of Christ to America.

2. Don is incorrect to call the Rigdon additions and additions by others "ad hoc". Rigdon was named as a suspect in Feb 1831, 3 years before he was ever linked to Spalding. And he was formally named as a co-author in 1834. Recent historical evidence if activities in and around Brainbridge in 1826 are consistent with those allegations. Our recent attributions to Smith authorship for 2 Nephi 3 and otherSmith-like scriptures were not forced or ad hoc. They were what we found.

3. Don should read Rigdon's known revelations. Yes, some parts of the Book of Mormon are entirely consistent with Rigdon's writing style.

4. Don vastly overestimates what a Dartmouth education meant at that time period. He should read Manuscript Story, especially the last part. It is filed with terrible grammar, and has war scenes quite reminiscent of the end of Alma.

Craig

[Pahoran]

I suggest you get over your sesquipedalophobia

And I suggest you give up cyber-psychoanalysis. It doesn't work.

Anyone who thinks I, of all people, would be intimidated by big words would be just about terminally clueless. I am, however, rather alert to the difference between learned discourse and mere pretentious puffery.

and actually look into the difference between religion and magic in the sociological and anthropological literature before jumping to conclusions. The distinction between magic and religion in these fields is not even remotely close to what you think it is.

And I suppose you expect us to believe that legitimate sociologists and anthropologists sit around chortling about "Ol' Joe and his magic rock."

The thing is, Aria, that the kind of lame word-game you're using fails as soon as it is seen through. You cannot rescue it any more. Sorry.

I suggest you give it up, with whatever dignity you can muster.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Ariarates]

And I suppose you expect us to believe that legitimate sociologists and anthropologists sit around chortling about "Ol' Joe and his magic rock."

You suppose wrong, I never said nor implied anything of the sort. I merely pointed out that how sociologists and anthropologists view the difference between magic and religion has nothing to do with how you think they see it.

Maybe you could CFR your assertion that 'To the extent that there is any meaningful distinction between "magic" and "religion" (...), the distinction is nothing more than this: Religion is what we do, and "magic" is what they do. "They" usually equating to "those ignorant primitives."

The thing is, Aria, that the kind of lame word-game you're using fails as soon as it is seen through. You cannot rescue it any more. Sorry. I suggest you give it up, with whatever dignity you can muster.

I'm not playing a word game. I used a word, you then accused me of all kinds of devious motives using the word, and I explained why I used it. Whatever problem you perceive is entirely of your own making.

[noel00]

From Craig C

I want to make one more comment on Don's comments:

> leaving the whole, already-too-complicated theory ripe for a pruning

> with Occam's Razor.

Large efforts that involve fraud are inherently complex; otherwise they would not succeed. I suspect Don and I would agree that there is solid evidence that Smith made a living as a con man through his gold digging activities. Consider now modern con man Bernie Madoff. What type of government official was most likely to get to the truth about Madoff?

(a) the person who, when confronted with allegations of a Ponzi scheme, summarily dismissed them: "Nah, that just can't be; it's way too complicated, look at all the people that would have had to have been involved. Occam's Razor says no way. Anyone who believes that this is a Ponzi scheme is just another conspiracy nutcase".

or

(b) the person who upon hearing the allegations, carefully examined the evidence in its entirety, looked for additional evidence (say, for example, historical records and unexpected financial patterns), then attempted to construct and test a theory consistent with the evidence (not caring whether the theory was too complicated)? How about someone like Harry Markpolos, author of "No One Would Listen"? http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/35606057

Madoff insisted he acted alone, but it increasingly appears that he had help:

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/feds-suspect-wide-circle-co-conspirat

http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/business/2009/aug/Madoffs-CFO-Could-Lead-Investigators-to-Co-Conspirators.html

http://www.propublica.org/feature/the-madoff-circle-who-knew-what

Good science should satisfy certain criteria: (1) explanatory power - the ability of a theory to unify data, especially from disparate fields of science; (2) predictive power - the ability of a theory to enable predictions, which when tested, turn out be correct; and (3) parsimony - the theory is no more complex than needed to explain the data. Parsimony is what Occam's Razor refers to, not the idea that a theory should be simple just for simplicities sake. It should be as simple as possible consonant with the evidence. The theory that Joseph Smith had help (in the persons of Rigdon, Cowdery and Pratt) satisfies the criteria for good science. It was not one guy. It was the Gold Bible Company.

[DonBradley]

Hi Craig,

Some comments on Don's arguments from Craig Criddle

There are several problems with Don's arguments:

1. No one is claiming that Spalding wrote the Book of Mormon. To make that claim is a red herring. What is alleged is that Spalding provided useful background narrative, and that large portions of the book were revised, rewritten, and added by others.

OK, I understand that.

However...the Spalding-Rigdon theory, as it has been formulated in the versions I've seen, posits that the bulk of the Book of Mormon text (at the very least) was created by several persons with much better education than Joseph Smith, levels of education that should have produced a higher vocabulary than can be observed in the actual text.

I would suggest that anyone here read known writings of Spalding, Rigdon, or Cowdery and see how well the vocabulary--both in its specific words and general breadth--matches that of the Book of Mormon. And I'd love to see any future studies on the comparative vocabularies of these various writings.

2. Don is incorrect to call the Rigdon additions and additions by others "ad hoc". Rigdon was named as a suspect in Feb 1831, 3 years before he was ever linked to Spalding. And he was formally named as a co-author in 1834. Recent historical evidence if activities in and around Brainbridge in 1826 are consistent with those allegations. Our recent attributions to Smith authorship for 2 Nephi 3 and otherSmith-like scriptures were not forced or ad hoc. They were what we found.

I wasn't saying that claims of Rigdon additions were ad hoc and don't think they are. What I was saying is that the book's limited vocabulary would require an ad hoc explanation based on Spalding-Rigdon theory as it exists. If you can present evidence of Smith authorship of certain parts, great. I look forward to seeing it in published form. But I don't see how that does--or could--explain the limited vocabulary of the work as a whole.

3. Don should read Rigdon's known revelations. Yes, some parts of the Book of Mormon are entirely consistent with Rigdon's writing style.

K, done! I've read these. If they were written with Book of Mormon-level errors of grammar and syntax and a similarly circumscribed vocabulary, I entirely failed to see it. But I'm open to comparative studies of vocabulary or even to specific Rigdon texts that would demonstrate that such a vocabulary and such errors do occur in (and even pervade) Rigdon's writings.

4. Don vastly overestimates what a Dartmouth education meant at that time period. He should read Manuscript Story, especially the last part. It is filed with terrible grammar, and has war scenes quite reminiscent of the end of Alma.

Fortunately, I have read all the things you suggest. You're certainly right that Manuscript Story has grammatical problems. In places it's incoherent. I would attribute this to its being a sloppy and uncorrected first draft. What I don't see, for all of Spalding's sloppiness, are patterns of error that marked an individual as one of the rural uneducated, such as "they was," "had smote," and "in them days"--a type of error that occurs throughout the Book of Mormon.

If there is a non-ad hoc Spalding-Rigdon explanation for this type of grammatical error so common to the Book of Mormon, and for the book's limited total vocabulary, I have yet to see it.

Don

[noel00]

More Craig comments

When we published in LLC, we did not intend to make the definitive statement on authorship. We knew we were leaving out Joseph smith, and we knew that was a weakness of the study. As you know, we've now corrected that error. We've also done as Ben suggested and omitted the Biblical chapters from analysis.

Several of Ben's suggestions are in line with our own self criticism, and we are have a strategy (that Ben has not considered) to deal with the possibility that the actual authors may not be among those we considered. Having said that said, we have now tested the most likely candidate authors assuming that a naturalistic (i.e. non-supernatural) explanation for the Book of Mormon exists. Below I've summarized chronologically the allegations of authorship, as best I can document them. To me, it's actually astonishing how quickly people began to put the puzzle pieces together when you consider that the Book of Mormon was published in March of 1830.

Authorship allegations:

1.Joseph Smith, Jr.

[DonBradley]

Hi Again Craig,

When you start talking about parsimony and explanatory power, my ears perk up. There we're certainly speaking the same language.

But we are applying parsimony in different ways, or perhaps to different things.

I get how you're making a Madoff parallel, but what I know of Joseph Smith's life doesn't suggest to me that he was part of any conspiracy. Also, I don't see the Spalding-Rigdon theory having the power to explain the uniformly poor grammar and syntax and overall limited vocabulary of the Book of Mormon text. I think one can only well-explain that by positing that Joseph Smith (or someone of similar education) was the author or translator--i.e., that the words are his.

Don

[Pahoran]

You suppose wrong, I never said nor implied anything of the sort. I merely pointed out that how sociologists and anthropologists view the difference between magic and religion has nothing to do with how you think they see it.

And it may have even less to do with your hand-waving and fallacious appeal to authority.

Maybe you could CFR your assertion that 'To the extent that there is any meaningful distinction between "magic" and "religion" (...), the distinction is nothing more than this: Religion is what we do, and "magic" is what they do. "They" usually equating to "those ignorant primitives."

Certainly. Please see here.

And now it is your turn. CFR, please, for the consensus usage of the term "magic" by bona fide anthropologists and sociologists, with special attention to its applicability to the use of an artifact in connection with an unquestionably religious activity, i.e. the production of revealed Scripture.

I'm not playing a word game. I used a word, you then accused me of all kinds of devious motives using the word, and I explained why I used it. Whatever problem you perceive is entirely of your own making.

So, out of all the people who use "magic" as a term of derision WRT LDS history, you alone are using it as a rigorously scholarly term.

Riiiiiight.

Regards,

Pahoran

[noel00]

Don, what revelations have you read of Rigdon's?

[Pahoran]

Some comments on Don's arguments from Craig Criddle

There are several problems with Don's arguments:

1. No one is claiming that Spalding wrote the Book of Mormon. To make that claim is a red herring.

So Craig is denying, is he, that there is no book with a title similar to (just for example) Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon? and offering poor Solly Spaulding as the scapegoat?

Regards,

Pahoran

[DonBradley]

Don, what revelations have you read of Rigdon's?

I've read those in the Van Wagoner bio, some from his Messenger and Advocate, which I have on CD (courtesy of our own Uncle Dale), and I believe others when I studied the succession issue several years ago.

Which have you read?

Don

[Uncle Dale]

I've read those in the Van Wagoner bio

...

Here's a list:

http://sidneyrigdon.com/Postidx1.htm

Images of the revelations are available for consultation

at the LDS Library/Archives, the UofU Marriott Library,

the BYU Lee Library, and the Library of Congress.

The texts remain the intellectual property of the LDS Church,

and despite asking in person at the Historian's Office (actually

the Archivist's sub-office), I've never been given permission

to quote so much as a single sentence.

I have extensive notes -- but cannot share them -- sorry.

UD