Two voices in the Book of Mormon

[Uncle Dale]

...

Yet you claim in the case of the Book of Mormon that he received the bulk of the text (at least)

from others as part of a conspiracy of pious fraud. All I'm asking for, and all I've asked for

from you throughout this thread, is evidence of parallel conspiratorial deceptions by

Smith in promoting religious claims, i.e., revelatory claims.

So, please, the question's been asked enough times, get work thinking of another way to dodge it.

...

I'm not "dodging" anything.

Where did I ever "claim" that Smith was involved in "a conspiracy of pious fraud?"

You are asking me to provide some new piece(s) of "evidence" not already available

to you in a ten-second Google web-search, (for "claims" that I've never made), right?

I'm not dodging your questions, because you have yet to tell me what

it is that I'm required to document?

I already replied to selek, that working hypotheses of investigators

require no evidentiary explanations/documentation. Research theories

are meant as guidelines, to be re-evaluated periodically as the

investigation evolves. I'm sure you know that already.

Cite my "claims" and I'll provide my reasons for those claims.

Otherwise, compile and tabulate the alleged "evidence" for

Smith's dishonesty from what is easily available to you --

going back to 1830-1832, and transcribed on the web.

You are asking for something that does not exist.

UD

.

[rockslider]

OK?

In my book, UD, you are more than OK!

[Chris Smith]

Very interesting, Bruce. But I can't access your link, which appears to require some kind of stats.byu login. Can you perhaps take a screenshot or attach your file to a post?

[Bruce Schaalje]

Very interesting, Bruce. But I can't access your link, which appears to require some kind of stats.byu login. Can you perhaps take a screenshot or attach your file to a post?

I attached the file below and also to my comment above.

[Uncle Dale]

In my book, UD, you are more than OK!

Thank you -- I'll try to live up to your perceptions here.

Since some folks seem to have developed the impression that I've

been voicing some outlandish claims, unsupported by any known

evidence, perhaps it would be useful for me to refresh everybody's

memories, as to how I got into this field of study in the first place.

In 1978-79 I was approached by a member of the LDS Church in

Ogden, Utah, to make application to the LDS CEP for a research

grant, along the lines of F. Mark McKiernan's recent cooperation

with the LDS Library/Archives. The late Dr. McKiernan was my

fellow RLDS historical researcher and (at that time) a resident

of my native state of Idaho. Like myself, he had been making

periodic trips to Salt Lake City to conduct historical research.

Since McKiernan did not apply for the available grant money, I

suppose I was next in somebody's list. At any rate, I filled out

the application and presented my ideas.

Here is what I wrote to Dr. Jeffery Holland, in 1979:

A Description of the Proposed Research

Abstract of the Proposal

The "Spaulding Issue" has been with the Restoration Movement since the Kirtland days of 1833 and has been the source or the primary support of countless efforts directed against the restoration. The publication of the long lost Spaulding Manuscript in 1885 brought a temporary lull to these efforts, as it had become obvious to all that the Book of Mormon was not a copy of that romance on the former inhabitants of America.

However, before long a number of investigators began to report what they felt were unusual parallels between the published manuscript and the Book of Mormon. Such reports added fuel to a new wave of efforts to connect the Nephite record with the writings of Solomon Spaulding. The most recent of these attempts was the subject of nation-wide news coverage in 1977.

It is proposed that a careful and comprehensive study of the two texts now be carried out so that once and for all a definitive statement can be made in regard to the nature, scope and magnitude of all textual parallels and affinities which occur in the two works. Initial efforts in this direction were recently completed in a model study of a portion of the Spaulding text. The unexpected findings resulting from that study clearly indicate that further inquiry into the matter now needs to be carried out by a responsible researcher.

This writer will be engaged in graduate studies in the immediate vicinity of the repository of the Spaulding Manuscript for a period of two academic years beginning in October of this year. As I will be studying the pioneer history of the Kirtland area and also the scientific analysis and criticism of scriptural texts, I propose that I be supported by the Church in my continued research beyond the model study already completed.

Until a comprehensive study of the two texts is completed and its results compiled, the Church will not have a definitive basis from which to draw detailed information for confirmation or refutation of the claims of those who seek to make the text of the Book of Mormon dependent upon the pre-existing Spaulding romance. Such a study is now easily possible and should be given immediate and full support by the Church.

Dale R. Broadhurst

August 13, 1979

http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/SRPpap01.htm

Just after making that application, I discovered that the proper spelling

of the name was "Spalding." So, I guess I still had a lot to learn back then.

Now it's 2010, and my original suggestion has been more or less acted upon

my Jockers and associates. Perhaps that development marks some progress.

Uncle Dale

[Bruce Schaalje]

Now it's 2010, and my original suggestion has been more or less acted upon

my Jockers and associates. Perhaps that development marks some progress.

Dale,

It was also acted upon by Larsen and Rencher in 1980. They showed 30 years ago that Rigdon's and Spalding's styles were significantly different from Book of Mormon writings.

Do you have any response to my comments above regarding the Jockers et al. data?

Bruce

[Uncle Dale]

Dale,

It was also acted upon by Larsen and Rencher in 1980. They showed 30 years ago that Rigdon's and Spalding's styles were significantly different from Book of Mormon writings.

Do you have any response to my comments above regarding the Jockers et al. data?

Bruce

Welcome to the discussion, Bruce. You come highly recommended, so far as

your professional credentials are concerned -- so I'm interested to hear

what your own studies (as well as the studies of BYU grad students under

your instruction) may eventually tell us.

Yes, I'm familiar with the Larsen & Rencher study and the other contributions

of researchers along these same lines. Perhaps one day the sum total of all

these investigations will merit a review volume, and your own work will find

a place there.

In the meanwhile, I'm not much interested in comparing Solomon Spalding's

use of language to the Book of Mormon as a whole. Any conclusions drawn

from such full-text investigations are only useful to me as a starting

point for more detailed examinations.

I began this inquiry a few decades back, by asking the question: "Which

parts of the Book of Mormon text most resemble the known writings of

Mr. Spalding?" Over the years some answers have trickled in -- but not

anything so substantial as to provide a reason as to why some of Mr.

Spalding's old associates asserted that the book resembled one of his

fictional stories.

If anything, those parts of the Book of Mormon where the vocabulary

overlap with Spalding's language is highest (parts of Alma, etc.)

are those sections of the Nephite Record NOT mentioned by Spalding's

old neighbors. And those parts of the Book of Mormon showing high

overlap with Spalding's known phraseology use are also sections NOT

pointed out by the original "Conneaut witnesses."

All of this is very strange indeed. Jockers and associates are now

publishing reports on frequently used non-contextual word distributions,

to try and demonstrate which parts of the Book of Mormon most conform to

Spalding's word use, based upon their methods and measurements.

From all of this, the best I can discern, is that there is no consensus

as to which parts of the Book of Mormon most resemble Spalding's writings;

but that preliminary reporting appears to show that the sections most

likely to serve as candidates for that distinction are NOT the sections

pointed out by the earliest advocates of the Spalding authorship

explanation, as being the parts of the narrative attributable to

Mr. Spalding's pen.

Curiouser and curiouser...

Uncle Dale

.

[selek]

My "claims" are that I suspect Smith was capable of

working secretly with Sidney Rigdon to produce part

of the text of the Book of Mormon, c. 1826-27.

Thus, I suspect that he is indeed a candidate for

investigation for having done such a thing.

I do not understand what evidence I must produce,

in order to hold open a suspicion. ??? I suspect that

my wife will give me a surprise birthday party

this year -- but I have no evidence to back up that

suspicion. Why should I have to produce it?

Why should my own, private theories require my presenting

any evidence to the world?

There are hundreds of pieces of alleged "evidence" that

have been presented against Smith over the decades --

none of that came from me. I was not the originator.

The day that I say: "Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon

wrote the Book of Mormon," is the day that folks can

start demanding new evidence from me -- previously

undisclosed or unavailable sources that we have not

already looked at dozens of times.

I'll let you know if I ever reach that point in my

investigations -- until then, I'll make use of whatever

working hypotheses enable me to carry on my research.

OK?

UD

Hold on, Unk- I want to make sure I understand your position.

The following behaviors:

- speculating without evidence

- publicly, needlessly (and baselessly) maligning the memories of good men beloved of millions,

- failing to name or cite sources, and

- ignoring contrary evidence

are all acceptable standards of scholarly behavior, so long as one is just "theorizing"?

It's an interesting standard of evidence- but I don't think it'd stand up in court.

I guess all that criticism of FARMS lack of scholarly integrity was just hot air, huh?

[Uncle Dale]

Hold on, Unk- I want to make sure I understand your position.

The following behaviors:

- speculating without evidence

As I've said, I did not invent these assertions. As Parley P. Pratt

once wrote, claims for a Rigdon BoM authorship arose almost immediately

after his 1830 baptism as a Mormon. Inspection of newspaper reports

from that era confirms Pratt's reporting. My "speculating" is based

upon a great deal of post-1830 testimony. I can speculate that it is

largely true or I can speculate that it is largely false. Care to join me?

- publicly, needlessly (and baselessly) maligning the memories of good men beloved of millions,

Spare me the pathos, please. Scientologists will say the same thing about

investigators of their founder and origins. As will the North Korean

Workers' Party, Seventh Day Adventists, or Muslims. A non-supportive

investigation of any such social movement will "malign" somebody, in

some follower's opinion. No avoiding that.

- failing to name or cite sources, and

- ignoring contrary evidence

Ever make a list of the "contrary evidence" web-published at my sites?

You'll find dozens of pro-LDS and pro-RLDS sources there. If I took the

trouble to type them up for web-transcription, why do you suppose that

I've ignored their contents?

are all acceptable standards of scholarly behavior, so long as one is just "theorizing"?

It's an interesting standard of evidence- but I don't think it'd stand up in court.

I guess all that criticism of FARMS lack of scholarly integrity was just hot air, huh?

What do you suggest should be my working hypothesis for further research on

this subject? Would you be any less critical if I changed my working "suspicion"

to ----> "Joseph Smith III was a true prophet and his father was a monogamist?"

I spent a couple of decades exploring that thesis. I don't hear you criticizing

my investigations and conclusions in that field of inquiry.

UD

.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

This has been on heck of a thread. I am totally digg'n it.

[noel00]

Craig,

Spalding's 178-word sentence is hilarious and I will concede absolutely that Rigdon's style is like that of the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith's revelations in its tendency to connect ideas in long chains.

I don't think, though, that this bespeaks a lack of education. Although lengthy, Rigdon's sentences are fairly coherent and grammatical, which is more than can be said for much of the Book of Mormon text, page after page.

When it comes to this element of Sidny Rigdon's style you demonstrate here (which I believe is substantially the same one I recently posted about on MDB, from that BYU M.A. thesis that looked at sentence-length), I think it would be believable that someone like Rigdon could have written the Book of Mormon and early revelations. What I don't see in Rigdon's writings, or Spalding's, or Cowdery's are the signs of lower-class/poor education that can be found on page after page of the Book of Mormon. And this, I think, is an enormous challenge for, or strike against, Spalding-Rigdon theory as an explanation for the Book of Mormon text. Smith as author or translator might, just by chance, share a similar style of idea-chaining and sentence length with Rigdon, but why on earth would Rigdon share Smith's lower-class uneducated grammar, syntax, and vocabulary--and only during the writing of the Book of Mormon?!

I think, as asserted and argued above, that only an ad hoc expansion on S-R theory can account for this, and even then probably not very plausibly or well.

Cheers,

Don

Then let's try an experiment upon the word.

Pick a page from the 1830 Book of Mormon (or, better, original or printer's manuscript) that you believe lacks these signs of poor education. If the text, posted here, demonstrates a different and significantly better grammar and syntax than the rest of the book (e.g., straightforward sentences, educated grammar) and a wider vocabulary, I'll concede that these elements are not so pervasive as I thought. Oh--and no fair using the biblical quotations! =)

I've done that with the preface to the Book of Mormon. Let's start right there.

But suppose, completely contrary to fact, that I did attempt a bait and switch, would this obviate the argument that I'm making that if Joseph Smith's behavior in his biggest and foundational revelation was conspiratorial, we ought to be able to document other conspiratorial behavior to promote alleged revelations? No. That argument stands, or falls, on its own. So, with me conceding that Joseph Smith was involved in secretive group behavior, "conspiracy," regarding having lots of wives, the Danites, the Kirtland Bank debacle, and probably more, let's please discuss the argument I am making.

No, I do not understand the argument you are making.

Smith collaborated with others, including Rigdon, Cowdery, and Pratt to create, revise, and promote many revelations, including accounts of the first vision, Moroni/Nephi visits, the 2nd edition of the Book of Mormon, etc. This is conspiratorial behavior directly linked to foundational revelation.

Consider also Rigdon's 1844 conference address, in which he referred to the foundational meetings for the Church: "The time has now come to tell you why we had secret meetings. We were maturing plans fourteen years ago which we can now tell; were we maturing plans to corrupt the world, to destroy the peace of society? Let fourteen years experience of the church tell the story. The church never would have been here, if we had not done as we did in secret."

[Bruce Schaalje]

Jockers and associates are now

publishing reports on frequently used non-contextual word distributions,

to try and demonstrate which parts of the Book of Mormon most conform to

Spalding's word use, based upon their methods and measurements.

.

Thanks for your welcome Dale.

All but 15 of the 110 words used by Jockers et al. were non-contextual. I redid the principal components plot of Jockers

[Uncle Dale]

...In short, I haven

[DonBradley]

We don't have the golden plates to verify JS's claim to have translated them, but he in his capacity as a seer also translated the Book of Abraham and the original source papyri were discovered in 1966 and examined by Egyptologists. In the time between when he translated them and today (1858 to be exact), people who are not seers learned to translate Egyptian hieroglyphics, and they do not agree with JS's translation. So it is reasonable to question the accuracy of JS's translation of the plates, if he used the same method.

Hey LG,

Thanks for the friend add.

Arguments for questioning the accuracy of Joseph Smith's translation are distinct from arguments or evidence for his engagement in a conspiracy.

Cheers,

Don

[DonBradley]

Then let's try an experiment upon the word.

Pick a page from the 1830 Book of Mormon (or, better, original or printer's manuscript) that you believe lacks these signs of poor education. If the text, posted here, demonstrates a different and significantly better grammar and syntax than the rest of the book (e.g., straightforward sentences, educated grammar) and a wider vocabulary, I'll concede that these elements are not so pervasive as I thought. Oh--and no fair using the biblical quotations! =)

I've done that with the preface to the Book of Mormon. Let's start right there.

???

The text under discussion all along has been the dictated text of the Book of Mormon proper. The provenance of the Book of Mormon text is attested--it was dictated by Smith and recorded by a scribe (generally Cowdery). The preface is not part of the book proper, is not claimed to have been translated, has not historically been attributed to Rigdon or (heaven knows) Spalding, could have been jointly authored, and was likely revised and refined prior to publication. To introduce it as the object for comparison when it has not been and is not the subject of discussion and argument would seem to me wrong-headed and would not address what I'm talking about.

If you want to address the topic and arguments above, please adduce a portion of the Book of Mormon proper, the dictated text under discussion, that you believe meets the specifications above--if you think there is one.

No, I do not understand the argument you are making.

Well, it will remain on the board for rereading, careful study, and wordprint analysis.

Smith collaborated with others, including Rigdon, Cowdery, and Pratt to create, revise, and promote many revelations, including accounts of the first vision, Moroni/Nephi visits, the 2nd edition of the Book of Mormon, etc. This is conspiratorial behavior directly linked to foundational revelation.

Ah, okay, you do seem to have understood my argument, because now you're getting to his revelatory claims and at least making assertions of conspiratorial behavior in creating and promoting these. Now, specifically, what is the (preferrably good) evidence that Joseph Smith employed Rigdon, Cowdery, Pratt, or others to collusively create his revelations or deceptively convince others of them--i.e., behavior parallel to that posited in S-R theory?

Consider also Rigdon's 1844 conference address, in which he referred to the foundational meetings for the Church: "The time has now come to tell you why we had secret meetings. We were maturing plans fourteen years ago which we can now tell; were we maturing plans to corrupt the world, to destroy the peace of society? Let fourteen years experience of the church tell the story. The church never would have been here, if we had not done as we did in secret."

Incredibly intriguing. I would love to know what he means and why he's saying this, and what the context is. But what's supposed to be the give-away that the referenced secrecy means that Rigdon willfully colluded in creating Smith's revelations or using trickery to get others to believe them?

Don

[DonBradley]

Uncle Dale,

I'm not "dodging" anything.

Where did I ever "claim" that Smith was involved in "a conspiracy of pious fraud?"

Well, we could maybe start with your last thirty years of private writings and later public posts advocating Spalding-Rigdon theory.

You claim that Smith's central revelation was neither a revelation nor authored exclusively by him--that it was the joint product of knowing conspirators, including Smith. So when I ask for evidence of parallel behavior on Smith's part in other cases, to support the plausibility of your S-R theory claims, and then you're suddenly baffled that anyone would think you've claimed such things or should expect you to evidence them, I'm baffled.

I'm not dodging your questions, because you have yet to tell me what

it is that I'm required to document?

We're on a merry-go-round, Dale. Each time you've said this I've responded by both reiterating and clarifying precisely that, which leads to another denial that I've told you.... <sigh>

You are asking for something that does not exist.

I strongly suspect you're right, though not for the reasons you seem to suggest.

If you want to put in last words on our exchange on this thread, please do. These are mine.

Cheers,

Don

[noel00]

Now things are getting snarky -I am out of here

[All-Seeing Eye]

To those who subscribe to the Smith-as-sole-author theory, I'd like to know what your thoughts are regarding the alleged timeframe in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Do you believe that the work was secretly in progress by Smith for much longer than is acknowledged by the Church? Do you believe that Smith was working from an outline, or just coming up with the material as he went along?

[DonBradley]

In my book, UD, you are more than OK!

For whatever it may be worth, and present frustrating discussion aside, I agree completely. Dale has made an enormous amount of material available to all of us, material I use practically every day. The world of Mormon scholarship owes him applause and a great debt.

I know my tone can leave something to be desired, for which I apologize. But, though I may bury it under my arguments, I appreciate Dale's further development of Spalding-Rigdon theory and other new ideas he has proposed. Although I don't agree with S-R theory--at all--I think that the discussion will ultimately prove beneficial and may highlight aspects of the Book of Mormon text that might otherwise be neglected. And if, as I firmly believe, S-R theory is wrong, then giving it its best possible exposition--as Dale and Craig are both doing--might allow for it to be proved insufficient even at its best, and therefore to at last be buried. Dale has also proposed ideas that, whatever their accuracy may prove, are simply fascinating, like his redaction-critical theory that what became the Book of Mormon began as a "patriarchal narrative" and evolved from there.

Cheers to Dale, a worthy opponent, benefactor to Mormon history, and a most avuncular poster. =)

Don

[Uncle Dale]

Uncle Dale,

Well, we could maybe start with your last thirty years of private writings and later

public posts advocating Spalding-Rigdon theory.

...

I have long advocated study of the Spalding-Rigdon authorship explanation. For

several decades I've argued that it is a topic meriting close investigation

and discussion. For the most part, my views have been met with utter disdain

from my RLDS/CoC superiors and fellow scholars.

Even in that portion of my work where I have merely compiled documentation for

what has been previously stated/written/published concerning the S-R theory,

I've encountered nothing but priesthood discouragement.

A few years ago I formally left Community of Christ and at about the same time

announced my own acceptance of the basic premise of the S-R theory. I greatly

doubt that in any of my pre-2005 communications you'll find anything like an

advocacy for the S-R authorship theory as being my personal choice for

explaining the origins of the Book of Mormon text.

There is a difference between a person saying that a certain set of assertions

constitutes a viable theory, meriting investigation, and a person saying that

some (or all) of those assertions are true.

There is also a difference between a person coming to the conclusion that some

assertions are true, and that same person publishing them to the world as truth.

I do not make the claim to others that all (or even most) of the assertions

comprising the S-R theory must be accepted as "true" in the same way that

2+2=4 is a valid statement, which any rational person must accept.

Rather (and please read carefully here) ---> My assertion is that the SR-theory

deserves continued exploration and study, as well as continued discussion by

informed students of Mormon history. My personal belief is that parts of that

theory are indeed "true."

If I were to compile a list of 1000 items comprising the theory, one of those

items would be the likelihood that Joseph Smith incorporated pre-existing

literary material into his dictation of the final draft of the BoM text.

What his state of mind was when he thus finalized the text, I cannot say.

Should I ever reach the point, in my personal studies, where I feel comfortable

in announcing to the world, "Sidney Rigdon and Joseph Smith compiled the

Book of Mormon," then I really must be prepared to simultaneously offer evidence

for such a bold public announcement. I have not yet reached that point.

The closest I've come to any such communication has been in echoing the

conclusion of the late Vernal Holley -- that certain portions of the text

constitute "The Book of Solomon." That was Vern's studied opinion and I

agree with his train of thought in that regard. The assertion is one that

is evidence-based. In fact, what little reporting I've so far communicated

is little more than the raw data of textual comparison. So the conclusion

of the text being "The Book of Solomon" is one reflective of resemblance

in language, and not one based upon solid proof of external historical

reconstructions.

Perhaps the textual studies and reporting of scientists like Dr. Schaalje

will eventually prove Vern and myself wrong on "The Book of Solomon." If

so, then that will be one more step taken toward the truth.

I'm looking for the truth in history -- not trying to pass off a false

history as being true. (There has been enough of that already)

UD

[Calm]

Now things are getting snarky -I am out of here

While you certainly have the right to come and go as you please, I would appreciate being pointed out the snarkiness because I missed this and I think those who are participating in the discussion are enjoying it enough (and many of those of us who are merely reading along even more so) that perhaps they would like to go back and edit the perceived tone out of their remarks or some similar solution so that the discussion can continue.

If not, then I appreciate your efforts (and Craig Criddle's) in helping this discussion along as far as it got. It is always a wonderful event when we get to observe or interact with those who are usually only the object of a discussion and not a participant.

[mfbukowski]

To those who subscribe to the Smith-as-sole-author theory, I'd like to know what your thoughts are regarding the alleged timeframe in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Do you believe that the work was secretly in progress by Smith for much longer than is acknowledged by the Church? Do you believe that Smith was working from an outline, or just coming up with the material as he went along?

Since this is nowhere close to my area of specialization, all I can say is that one does not dictate or speak such convoluted sentences "as you go along". In my opinion, there has to be some "basis", written somewhere, for such a stream of ideas. Call it an outline if you like, or call it what Joseph said it was- a "translation" from the plates.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Bruce, welcome to the discussion. It's nice to have you here.

Dale writes:

Perhaps you have run into Ben McGuire (I hope so). He is looking into word-string overlap distribution patterns using a more automated and exhaustive tabulation method than I was able to produce, given my layman's knowledge and lack of fully automated quantitative methods. Hopefully he will one day produce the definitive answers to my questions.

Dale, I don't think Bruce and I have met (or chatted) at this point. I am reasonably well acquainted with Bruce's work on this particular issue though.

Ben McGuire

[Uncle Dale]

...

Dale, I don't think Bruce and I have met (or chatted) at this point. I am reasonably well acquainted

with Bruce's work on this particular issue though.

...

Perhaps you'll have a chance to chat here.

Are you familiar enough with the representation of data in

principal component analysis charts, to explain to us in

layman's language exactly what we are seeing, when the

majority of BoM chapter plots cluster in the x-positive

and y-positive quad of deviations from the mean?

---

Here's the type of graph I CAN begin to understand --

the categorization of State voter characteristics in

terms of different combinations of political views:

But Bruce's depiction doesn't quite register on my brain.

It's all a bit beyond my interests/experience.

UD

.

[mfbukowski]

But Bruce's depiction doesn't quite register on my brain.

It's all a bit beyond my interests/experience.

Yep

As a layman on this subject, I confess I stared at that thing for about 10 minutes trying to figure it out before I gave up.