Solomon Spalding (for the millionth time)

[why me]

Is the rebuttal the one that Bruce Schaalje presented for publication. The one that the Literary and Linguistic Computing periodical has been dragging its feet on? Or is there another in addition?

Thanks,

Glenn

I would assume there is another but it is only me assuming.

[Benjamin McGuire]

The challenge with this particular topic is that while I do know what is going on, I don't feel that I am in a position to disclose everything I know.

It wouldn't matter if the response was absolutely devastating, and came out two weeks after the original publication - the damage would have been done. Critics in general (and this is not meant to point to those who deal responsibly with current publications) don't actually bother to try and refute later research when they put their notes up. If the response had been published months ago, it wouldn't stop these other sites from grabbing it. And, certainly, arguments about Spalding and Rigdon being the authors behind the Book of Mormon have been being made for a century and a half now. Publishing this response will not simply make this argument go away. Most of those using the article wouldn't otherwise recognize that journal as much of an authority - most of them do not have the background to even understand the Jockers argument. They are simply repeating ad nauseum what they believe the article represents - and they will continue to do so - even after a response has been made.

What would be significant would be to see a rebuttal to the original article in the same journal that Jockers, et al. originally published in - that went through the same peer review process, and so on.

Sometimes, things take a while to get published (I speak, of course, from personal experience). Sometimes they can go faster - sometimes it can take quite a while. I think that perceptions here (within this kind of internet community) are warped by the seemingly instantly available knowledge. But, in the long run, as I said, this will be a flash in the pan. It is far better (as others have noted) to get the response done professionally, in a way that will be recognized as much for the process as for the content.

Ben M.

[Uncle Dale]

...

Sometimes, things take a while

...

Speaking of such delays, have you yet determined the distribution

of Sidney Rigdon's vocabulary and phraseology throughout the BoM?

If not, I can begin to compile the lists -- by sheer manpower, not

even using a computer, except to type up the final results.

At the rate I work, it will probably take me five years to

color-code all the words/phrases in a brand-new 1830 BoM replica;

but I'm a patient guy and probably can find the free time.

Your suggestions?

Uncle Dale

[Uncle Dale]

So...back to square one for modern authorship proponents.

...

Which should mean "business as usual" for the LDS missionary effort.

1. Number of members leaving the Church over Jockers' paper = zero.

2. Number of excommunications of members accepting the paper = zero.

3. Number of baptismal challenges refused due to Jocker's paper = zero.

4. Number of missionaries turned away at the doorstep = (maybe two or three)

Mormons win.

Critics lose.

Church continues to grow.

UD

[Bruce Schaalje]

The real problem is that Jockers and Criddle completely misundertstood the meaning of the phrase

[Uncle Dale]

...

One other thing. I didn

[Bruce Schaalje]

Dale,

I guess I was just wondering if you would incude some of my last post on your website? You can change my uppercase yelling to lowercase polite speech.

Bruce

[Uncle Dale]

Dale,

I guess I was just wondering if you would incude some of my last post on your website? You can change my uppercase yelling to lowercase polite speech.

Bruce

Yes -- I'll do that on Monday.

You can then take a look and make any suggestions

for changes.

Other duties call right now.....

Dale

[Uncle Dale]

Yes -- I'll do that on Monday.

You can then take a look and make any suggestions

for changes.

Other duties call right now.....

Dale

I made the addition here:

http://solomonspalding.com/Lib/Jock2008.htm#comments6

Let me know it it needs any adjustments.

Dale

[Uncle Dale]

...

Let me know it it needs any adjustments.

..

I made a few corrections -- just noticed some spelling errors,

which I'll fix later on.

UD

[why me]

I made a few corrections -- just noticed some spelling errors,

which I'll fix later on.

UD

And I would hope that if the rebuttal is a good rebuttal you would put it before the Jocker's study on your site. It would be only fair. Most people will read the study and look at the charts and fade away before getting to the rebuttal if the rebuttal is at the end.

[noel00]

Hi Noel, In the paper, we discuss the limitations of closed class probabilities. So when Bruce attacks our paper with this argument, he is trying to make it appear as though we made an argument that we never made. He is making a a straw man argument. Craig

[Benjamin McGuire]

Hi Noel, In the paper, we discuss the limitations of closed class probabilities. So when Bruce attacks our paper with this argument, he is trying to make it appear as though we made an argument that we never made. He is making a a straw man argument. Craig

Ah, Noel00 - the messenger ...

Craig doesn't address the problem though - he just dismisses it. It isn't whether or not he acknowledges the problem in his paper that matters - its how he talks about it in the rest of the paper. You can assert all you want that you aren't doing X, but, if the rest of the paper shows you doing X, your assertion doesn't mean much. I don't see this as a straw man argument since, after all, he seems to be guilty of doing what Bruce suggests that he is doing.

To answer Dale's question to me, I am up to my eyeballs in another project at the moment (which is at best loosely related to your Spalding/Rigdon issues). I have decided to wait on getting back into this issue until Bruce's material is published, and my other project is finished.

Ben M.

[Uncle Dale]

...I am up to my eyeballs in another project at the moment (which is at best loosely related to your Spalding/Rigdon issues). I have decided to wait on getting back into this issue until Bruce's material is published, and my other project is finished.

...

OK --

Then I'll begin the work by hand -- the old fashioned way.

I'll be using a very slightly different body of Rigdon writings

than the compilation I sent to you (a new one with some spelling

error corrections and a few more long biblical quotes eliminated).

By the time you have your results in, I'll probably be half-way

through 1st Nephi and you can use my findings as a minor

cross-check on your own results.

For example, I noticed that your method retains word-strings

across full-stops, resulting in such oddities as:

"and he marched. To..." My list will break strings at periods.

Cheers,

Dale

.

[Bruce Schaalje]

Hi Noel, In the paper, we discuss the limitations of closed class probabilities. So when Bruce attacks our paper with this argument, he is trying to make it appear as though we made an argument that we never made. He is making a a straw man argument. Craig

Craig/Noel

Where exactly did you discuss the limitations of closed set classification? You mentioned that you used closed set classification in the paper, but I could not find a discussion of the limitations of such an approach. If it

[noel00]

"Our paper made it quite clear that we were dealing with a closed sets of candidate authors. We also made it clear which authors were included and why. The decision to leave Joseph Smith out of the closed sets was a major decision, one we discuss at length.

In the conclusion of the paper, we say: "Of course, we have not considered every possible candidate-author who may have influenced the composition of the Book of Mormon. We have, however selected from among the most likely candidates, excepting perhaps Joseph Smith." That statement is true if you accept naturalistic theories as being more probable than supernaturalistic theories --as science always does.

By relative probability, we meant probabilities relative to the set of authors under consideration. "

[LifeOnaPlate]

"Of course, we have not considered every possible candidate-author who may have influenced the composition of the Book of Mormon. We have, however selected from among the most likely candidates, excepting perhaps Joseph Smith."

haha!

[Glenn101]

"Our paper made it quite clear that we were dealing with a closed sets of candidate authors. We also made it clear which authors were included and why. The decision to leave Joseph Smith out of the closed sets was a major decision, one we discuss at length.

In the conclusion of the paper, we say: "Of course, we have not considered every possible candidate-author who may have influenced the composition of the Book of Mormon. We have, however selected from among the most likely candidates, excepting perhaps Joseph Smith." That statement is true if you accept naturalistic theories as being more probable than supernaturalistic theories --as science always does.

By relative probability, we meant probabilities relative to the set of authors under consideration. "

However, there was no control method for the possibility that none of the chosen candidates is the actual author.

Glenn

[Bruce Schaalje]

"Our paper made it quite clear that we were dealing with a closed sets of candidate authors. We also made it clear which authors were included and why. The decision to leave Joseph Smith out of the closed sets was a major decision, one we discuss at length.

In the conclusion of the paper, we say: "Of course, we have not considered every possible candidate-author who may have influenced the composition of the Book of Mormon. We have, however selected from among the most likely candidates, excepting perhaps Joseph Smith." That statement is true if you accept naturalistic theories as being more probable than supernaturalistic theories --as science always does.

By relative probability, we meant probabilities relative to the set of authors under consideration. "

I agree that you were very clear about the point that you used a closed set of authors, a set that did not include Joseph Smith. But you did not discuss the limitations of this approach. Nor do I think you understand the limitations.

Thanks for clarifying what you meant by relative probability, but I also don

[Uncle Dale]

...

A better way to say it would be

[noel00]

Dear Bruce,

I have no doubt that if you continue to repeat this argument, you will eventually convince yourself that what you are saying is true. But what you are saying is a misrepresentation of our analysis. As the title of our paper signals at the very beginning, our objective is to "reassess" and test existing theories of authorship. To do this, we tested the likelihood of one candidate vs. another (within the realm of stylistic similarity and in the context of historical facts). If you read the authorship literature, you'll see that our approach is neither novel nor unprecedented. It is clear to any reasonable person what the probabilities discussed in the paper mean.

Consider the following scenario. Imagine that you are walking down a dark city street after midnight. The street is poorly lit. As you pass a misty alleyway, an armed assailant emerges from the shadows and demands your money. You do as he says, and he lets you live. The next week the police use your description to round up suspects who generally match your description. To test your reliability as a witness, the police also include a few "controls" in the line-up -- people who they know were not involved in the crime but who seem to fit your general description. When all these men are lined up, you are asked to rank them. Many have similar features, so you are not totally sure which one attacked you --you are not even sure the real culprit is in the lineup-- but you make your best guess and rank the suspects from most likely to least likely. Let's say you rank the "controls" as least likely. This gives the police more confidence in your abilities. But does your ranking have "meaning beyond the stringent conditions imposed"? Maybe, but it is not a certainty. In the absence of definitive proof, you make a reasonable decision based on the evidence at hand. That is the way science, reason, and the legal system proceed.

Now let's add to the above scenario. Suppose that before you see the line-up, you have an amazing vision. In it, you see the assailant and recognize him. It is your evil stepfather who has returned from the dead. You accept this vision as definitive proof. You now know --"beyond a shadow of a doubt"-- that your resurrected stepfather has assailed you. So the police line-up is superfluous. The mortal suspects can all go home. You know the answer, so no other possibility is worth considering. That is the position you are in. You **know** the real authors of the Book of Mormon are ancient Nephite prophets. You **know** Smith told the truth about angels, plates of gold, engraved Reformed Egyptian hieroglyphics, and magical seer stones. So for you, there is no point to a line-up of 19th century suspects.

You may not like the results of our analysis, but there is nothing in it that is deceitful or mean-spirited. It is what it is, and it says what it says. This is my final word to you on this matter. If you disagree with the results or the method you are welcome to challenge them as you wish, but I have no desire to continue this correspondence further.

Respectfully,

Craig

[Uncle Dale]

Dear Bruce...

And Dear Noel, also.

I have so far collected $650 in donations, to be paid to any

statistician who can produce a set of pca charts from Jockers'

on-line data, used in the study documented in his 2008 paper.

So far, that amount has not been sufficient, to engage any

professional statistical analysis service in the task of

re-creating Bruce's pca charts.

I will continue to solicit donations -- and, sooner or later,

I'll re-crate Bruce's coordinate tabulations. This will tell

us which Book of Mormon chapters cluster close together on

various pca charts, and should thus produce a probable indication

of where in the Book of Mormon we can look for common authorship

across multiple chapters.

I suspect that we can isolate some chapters for Nephi, Moroni

and Ether. Mormon will be less well defined, but perhaps we

can at least find a few chapters solidly attributable to him.

Unless Bruce publishes the tabulations for his pca charts, this

is the only means I know, by which we can check his data and

verify the results -- and, more importantly, use it for some

greater purpose.

I'm a patient guy. I've been at this for 30 years. We will

eventually collect enough money to re-create Bruce's charts

and the textual plot coordinate data that should accompany them.

Cheers,

Uncle Dale

[noel00]

Dale, you have been at this as you say for 30 years dealing with the historical data, statistics and more recently the Jocker's study. In your heart of hearts are you still convinced that the BOM contains the work of Spalding and Rigdon? Mormons probably think you may have wasted your time. DCP argues that no reputable scholar accepts this theory however does not seem to enter the discussion. I wonder how he can say this about Jockers. He is a Prof at Standard and his CV shows some interesting scholarship. Unless you want to accept the silly stone in the hat version, you are only left with two explanations; the Spalding Theory or the Dan Vogel version. I already believe the church is not true so these historical details are just an interesting pastime.

[Uncle Dale]

Dale, you have been at this as you say for 30 years dealing with the historical data, statistics and more recently the Jocker's study. In your heart of hearts are you still convinced that the BOM contains the work of Spalding and Rigdon?

...

As you probably know, I began in the 1970s as an observant

Latter Day Saint, merely wishing to research the subject.

After a couple of years in grad school and a great deal of

time studying Spalding's preserved writings in Ohio, I offered

up the possibility that the 19th century authorship controversy

might be solved by studying Spalding's texts.

This evolution in my thinking was roundly rejected by Lester Bush

in 1982 -- who suggested that I either turn my attention to a purely

historical documentation of 19th century authorship claims, or else

abandon the study altogether, and "do something more useful."

At that point (1982-83) I was uncertain just what to think -- but

I more or less followed Bush's advice and abandoned the study by

going overseas and devoting my time to what can broadly be called

a foreign mission. I donated all my research materials to a library

and gave up all Book of Mormon studies, except for one effort --

I continued to color-code phrases in the Book of Mormon which matched

up with Spalding and Rigdon's known use of language.

For years I ignored the topic -- keeping in touch only with Vernal Holley,

who (as late as 2000) was still trying to convince me of the validity of

the Spalding-Rigdon authorship claims.

I guess he succeeded in his tireless effort -- because it was about

ten years ago that I "graduated" from investigator to proponent. The

material presented to me by Criddle and Jockers (via Criddle) cemented

my conclusions. The web-publication of Criddle's "Creating the Book

of Mormon" in 2005 marked the turning point in my public stance -- since

then I have been an open advocate of the Spalding-Rigdon authorship claims.

Not quite coincidentally, that was about the same period in which I

had my name removed from the membership roles of Community of Christ.

What more can I say?

It was a long and slow evolution for me. Others might come to the

same conclusion in a matter of months or weeks -- but it took years

for me to put together enough of the pieces, to conclude that Rigdon

and Smith were evidently secretly cooperating as early as the summer

of 1826, in or near Bainbridge, Geauga County, Ohio.

If others disagree, that's OK.

Lester Bush's stated reason, for suggesting that I abandon these

studies, was that he "knew the book to be true." Can't argue with that.

UD

[Uncle Dale]

...

Lester Bush's stated reason, for suggesting that I abandon these

studies, was that he "knew the book to be true." Can't argue with that.

...

I think I should say a bit more about this aspect of my experience.

As far back as 1976-77, RLDS leaders were telling me that there was

no reason to "waste my time" researching various claims about the BoM.

The reason they gave me, was that they "knew beyond a shadow of a

doubt, that the book is true."

These testimonies had great influence over me, for many years, I

encountered them again and again, as the ostensible reason why

no additional Book of Mormon historical research need be done.

But there was one great problem in all this saintly testimony:

The same people who were telling me that they KNEW that the BoM

was an authentic ancient text, were also telling me that they

KNEW that Joseph Smith had been a monogamist.

"How do you know that?" I would ask them?

"By the Spirit," they would answer.

I first of all came to the conclusion that Joseph Smith had

been a polygamist, and that the Reorganized Church was founded

upon a mistaken notion, that Brigham Young invented polygamy,

and the the RLDS were "retoring" Smith original teachings.

But ---- if Joseph Smith was a polygamist, then were all the

RLDS testimonies I had been hearing true? Could God's Spirit

really be telling all those members that Smith was a monogamist,

and that the Reorganized Church was the "one true church?"

I think THAT was when my inner assurance began to crumble --

way back in the early 1980s. If God's Spirit was NOT telling

those members that Smith had been a monogamist, then HOW

could I trust that God's Spirit was telling them that the

BoM was authentically ancient?

Maybe that is the real reason that I abandoned my research

(both into Spalding and into polygamy) and moved to the other

side of the world, away from any Latter Day Saints -- in order

to remove myself from the problem of conflicting evidence

regarding Joseph Smith's polygamy and the purported proof of

the Reorganized LDS Church being a restoration of Smith's monogamy.

I couldn't avoid the issue forever -- but I made a strong

attempt. Abandoning Book of Mormon studies was merely a side

issue. The Big Problem for me was Smith's polygamy,

and finally convincing myself that it was historical truth,

no matter what the RLDS leaders had been telling me.

That was when the bitter tears fell (and not over Spalding, etc.)

UD