Solomon Spalding (for the millionth time)

[why me]

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.

On the face of it you could have a point. Until of course, one looks at all the details of the story behind the book of mormon. First you have emma either being duped or a comwoman. Which is it? Then, of course, you have the 11 witnesses. Either they were royally duped or they were comen too. Which is it? Then of course, you have sidney who it is claimed by you to have written the book and yet, had no problem with Brigham taking all the glory or with JS asking his daughter to be sealed to him. And denying that he wrote the book on his deathbed. And then we have Joseph and his brother hyrum dying for the fraud that Joseph did not basically start since it wss sidney who wrote the book.

When one looks at the early beginnings of mormonism, the idea that sidney wrote the book and had Joseph recruit 11 other fraudsters plus his wife, just doesn't add up to scrutiny. And this is what makes it so difficult for dan peterson and others to believe the study. Now if it is true that sidney wrote this book and all the others were in on it...well this has got to be the best fraud ever designed and implemented.

Academics have a very difficult time with human angles and emotional angles that make for a very human story. And the book of mormon prcess is a very human story that involves many people in the process. And the story that these people have told to verify their testimonies over and over again, even as they faced their maker. No study can account for it.

[Gervin]

On the face of it you could have a point. Until of course, one looks at all the details of the story behind the book of mormon.

This seems to be where you always diverge from the discussion; you're focus is the story behind the Book of Mormon while Dale, et al, are focused on the Book of Mormon. This focus has consistently deepened so looking "on the face of it" (superficially) realy won't get you any further in your thinking, imho. The case for collusion, duping, collaboration isn't so farfetched when one considers the players, their relative proximity to one another, the theological tenor and writings of the day, and the apparent (obvious) borrowings from the KJV Bible.

And the story that these people have told to verify their testimonies over and over again, even as they faced their maker. No study can account for it.

What % of death row inmates would you guess confess to their crimes before meeting their maker? My guess would be "pretty low."

[maupayman]

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

When I read the paper, this point was clear to me. The results assumed the inclusion of at least one of the authors. Assuming natural explanations, this seems like a reasonable position to take and the only one that we could test in any way. Though this does limit the effect of the findings, what I found interesting was that Spaulding and Rigdon's word print were dominant in the places we would expect them, for example Spaulding was dominant in the Alma war stories etc. This finding was what made the paper interesting, imo. Thanks Craig for your work on this matter, it should be interesting to see further work done on this subject.

[maupayman]

This seems to be where you always diverge from the discussion; you're focus is the story behind the Book of Mormon while Dale, et al, are focused on the Book of Mormon. This focus has consistently deepened so looking "on the face of it" (superficially) realy won't get you any further in your thinking, imho. The case for collusion, duping, collaboration isn't so farfetched when one considers the players, their relative proximity to one another, the theological tenor and writings of the day, and the apparent (obvious) borrowings from the KJV Bible.

What % of death row inmates would you guess confess to their crimes before meeting their maker? My guess would be "pretty low."

Don't waste you time Gervin, whyme's posts are purely rhetorical and he already "knows" the answer to his own questions. His superficial, mormon approved, story line is overwhelmingly convincing... to himself. He cannot even imagine any other possible explanation.

[Uncle Dale]

Don't waste you time Gervin, whyme's posts are purely rhetorical...

I keep hoping that he will contribute at least one small

piece of new information regarding the book, or regarding

those people we know had some association with it.

For example -- perhaps a personal letter from Joseph's

sister, Katherine, admitting that her brother often

spent nights at a writing stand, and had ink-stained fingers.

Or a journal entry from one of Oliver Cowdery's neighbors.

telling how he was using a divining rod to discern the

reliable and unreliable passages of the Bible.

Anything -- just a single scrap of new information.

But he refuses to conduct any new research, because of

his testimony (that the book could not have been written

by any 19th century authors).

He may feel that is the proper, scientific approach --

but it tells me nothing more than what I was told in 1976.

UD

.

[Glenn101]

When I read the paper, this point was clear to me. The results assumed the inclusion of at least one of the authors. Assuming natural explanations, this seems like a reasonable position to take and the only one that we could test in any way. Though this does limit the effect of the findings, what I found interesting was that Spaulding and Rigdon's word print were dominant in the places we would expect them, for example Spaulding was dominant in the Alma war stories etc. This finding was what made the paper interesting, imo. Thanks Craig for your work on this matter, it should be interesting to see further work done on this subject.

However, if none of the included candidates are the actual authors the results are meaningless. The Jockers study did not include any type of controls to correct for the absence of the actual author.

I don't know if you have been following the threads closely or not, but Bruce Schaalje applied the Jockers NSC methods to the 51 Federalist papers known to be authored by Hamilton using several candidates, including Rigdon, but excluding Hamilton. The results were similar to the Jockers Book of Mormon results, with Rigdon being the predominant "winner" with some very high posterior probabilities.

However, when Hamilton was added to the mix, he was selected every time.

Also, the statement that Spalding and Rigdon's results were right where we would expect them to be needs to be rethought. As you are aware, Spalding died in 1816. The manuscript that was found which world plus dog hoped would play the requiem for the Book of Mormon was nowhere remotely like the the Book of Mormon, the tenuous theory rests upon the existence of another manuscript. Who knows how that manuscript would have read, allowing for the remote possibility that it ever existed. It was supposed to have been a complete rewrite using the old biblical style and be a history of some Jews who came over, etc.

It is extremely difficult to understand how Sidney Rigdon could have taken the manuscript, the one from the printer's office, the one that was returned by someone from that office, and received any type of inspiration for the Book of Mormon. Why a man with Rigdon's flair for words would have even given that manuscript a second glance is something beyond comprehension.

Glenn

[why me]

This seems to be where you always diverge from the discussion; you're focus is the story behind the Book of Mormon while Dale, et al, are focused on the Book of Mormon. This focus has consistently deepened so looking "on the face of it" (superficially) realy won't get you any further in your thinking, imho. The case for collusion, duping, collaboration isn't so farfetched when one considers the players, their relative proximity to one another, the theological tenor and writings of the day, and the apparent (obvious) borrowings from the KJV Bible.

What % of death row inmates would you guess confess to their crimes before meeting their maker? My guess would be "pretty low."

I suppose that one can look at it both ways. I tend to look at the human story of the individuals behind the story. I see many people involved and if we extend it to Parly Pratt and his companion as they searched out Rigdon, we are dealing with a large group of people sidney would allow into the fraud. Someone with any common sense would have known that the more people involved, the bigger the chance at failure.

And why would such an elaborate story need to be invented? I haven't heard of a motive for such an elaborate story. Why would sidney need Joseph? Why would he need 11 witnesses? I know that for myself if I wrote the book of mormon to defraud people, I would not want so many people involved. I am not even sure that I would want a money digger.

Lets say that I am sidney and I am already a successful preacher. Well, I would just form my own church and take my flock with me. I would not need a book of mormon and take a back seat and end up a broken man when good ol' Brigham was reaping my glory. And yet, still be silent. The human angle just doesn't make sense to me if it were all a fraud.

[why me]

I keep hoping that he will contribute at least one small

piece of new information regarding the book, or regarding

those people we know had some association with it.

For example -- perhaps a personal letter from Joseph's

sister, Katherine, admitting that her brother often

spent nights at a writing stand, and had ink-stained fingers.

Or a journal entry from one of Oliver Cowdery's neighbors.

telling how he was using a divining rod to discern the

reliable and unreliable passages of the Bible.

Anything -- just a single scrap of new information.

But he refuses to conduct any new research, because of

his testimony (that the book could not have been written

by any 19th century authors).

UD

Yes, it would be wonderful to discover a letter from Oliver confessing that it was all a fraud. If such a letter were discovered we all could find something more meaningful to do with our lives. But no such letter exists. The same is true for the witnesses. Nothing exists from a first hand source that would lead to a fraud. Now dale, in a fraud of such immense magnitude, something would have surfaced. Even Magdoff got eventually caught. But so far, nothing has surfaced that would lead to a fraud by the people who would have been involved. Even David Whitmer had his testimony put on his tombstone.

And it is not just a question of 19th century authors. We still have the witnesses to deal with. Without these witnesses the book of mormon story of how it came to be would be more or less meaningless.

Yes, something from the parties involved would be nice. But nothing has been fouond.

[why me]

It is extremely difficult to understand how Sidney Rigdon could have taken the manuscript, the one from the printer's office, the one that was returned by someone from that office, and received any type of inspiration for the Book of Mormon. Why a man with Rigdon's flair for words would have even given that manuscript a second glance is something beyond comprehension.

Glenn

There you go looking at the human angle something which the daleites cannot do. Why would Rigdon need spauldings work? Why risk a plagarist charge? Why bother? And I do believe that spaulding never quite made it as a writer. He certainly was no jane austen or Nathaniel Hawthorn.

[Glenn101]

There you go looking at the human angle something which the daleites cannot do. Why would Rigdon need spauldings work? Why risk a plagarist charge? Why bother? And I do believe that spaulding never quite made it as a writer. He certainly was no jane austen or Nathaniel Hawthorn.

The human angle is the only one we have. And the superhuman angle. But that angle is categorically dismissed by the critics, and they thus are left to try to find one that fits well enough for others to bite into. Thus far the Spalding/Rigdon theory has gained little traction among most critics, but it has found a few rather zealous advocates. It's rather odd that they can see the weaknesses in the competing theories, but just don't understand why all of the other critics are not following their lead.

All of the evidence depends entirely on the human angle. The human memory. A few jogged memories and so many conflicting reports from those memories.

The Spalding enthusiasts had some hope breathed into them by the Jockers study and are clinging to it as the defining shift in their fortunes. It has undergone some scrutiny via the peer review process, but that process is ongoing. We are now waiting for the publication of Bruce Schaalje's own review which seems now to be back on track.

The delay was due to a reviewer and some changes that he/she suggested. According to Bruce, he has heard from the reviewer and has made the suggested changes. So the publication could be fairly soon. Those are my thoughts only. I have no inside information. We are just going to have to wait for that event and whatever it brings.

In the meantime, I mapped the results from the Jockers study against the actual chapters in the Book of Mormon. The Jockers graphs were broken down by Book of Mormon chapter, from one to two-hundred thirty-nine, but were not broken down by individual Book of Mormon author. At least I could not find that break down. I only mapped Rigdon. Spalding, Cowdery, and Pratt. From that mapping, I just cannot see any logic or cohesion in the groupings. There would be a few Rigdon chapters, mostly non-contiguous, interspaced with maybe a Spalding chapter, and a Cowdery chapter, then maybe a Pratt thrown into the mix here and there. It boggles the mind how this could be a product of a collaborative effort.

Glenn

[Bruce Schaalje]

Dear Craig,

I have no doubt that if you continue to repeat this argument, you will eventually convince yourself that what you are saying is true.

I was convinced of the problems in your analysis in Dec. 2008 when I created the principal components plot for your data.

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.

I have not misrepresented your analysis. In exactly what way have I done so? Also, please show me a paper in the authorship literature that uses a completely closed set analysis. Here

[Uncle Dale]

Yes, it would be wonderful to discover a letter from

Oliver confessing that it was all a fraud.

...

You're changing the subject.

My point was, that if you'd spend a few hours doing some

research of your own, you'd develop a different perspective.

I advised you to do this months ago -- and you were not

interested. The subject matter seems to interest you greatly;

but you back away from the actual discovery process.

For example, since last I advised you to engage in some

on-the-ground discovery, the following article came to light:

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/NE/miscMe01.htm#111632

Since it was found by reading through old newspaper microfilms,

you could have made the discovery just as easily as any of

the rest of us.

The article is not an admission of guilt by Oliver Cowdery --

but it is primary historical documentation of testimony from

1832 -- something that Cowdery once referred to elsewhere.

As I've said, over and over again, such study will not change

a Mormon into an atheist or an apostate -- but it will help

open his mind to new possibilities.

Nobody leaves the Church over the Spalding-Rigdon theory. And

I only know two or three people who have left over the theory

that Joseph Smith wrote the book. So these are not great dangers

to anybody's testimony.

Slow, patient, methodical study of Mormon history IS a great

danger, however.

It was through that process that I came to know that Smith was

NOT a monogamist, and that the RLDS Church was NOT founded upon

the principle of restoring Smith's monogamous teachings.

It is THAT sort of realization that breaks testimonies. Once

in place, it only took me a matter of months to conclude that

the RLDS Church had been telling me lies. Coming to a similar

conclusion regarding 19th century authorship of the BoM came

only AFTER 25 YEARS of study -- and only AFTER my realizing the

the problem with Smith's purported monogamy.

And so I recommend first-hand, primary document discovery as your

best path out of Mormonism. Not your reading about somebody else's

discoveries -- but your own finding out of problems and possible

solutions.

Only AFTER that your engaging in that process, will a clandestine

relationship between Rigdon and Smith, in Bainbridge and Auburn

in the summer of 1826 start to sound even slightly possible.

Look into it yourself....

Or, don't -- if such possibilities frighten you.

UD

.

[Uncle Dale]

...in Dec. 2008 when I created the principal components plot for your data.

...

When you publish your pca charts, will you then also supply the

tabular data for their texts' plotting coordinates?

UD

[Glenn101]

You're changing the subject.

My point was, that if you'd spend a few hours doing some

research of your own, you'd develop a different perspective.

I advised you to do this months ago -- and you were not

interested. The subject matter seems to interest you greatly;

but you back away from the actual discovery process.

For example, since last I advised you to engage in some

on-the-ground discovery, the following article came to light:

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/NE/miscMe01.htm#111632

Since it was found by reading through old newspaper microfilms,

you could have made the discovery just as easily as any of

the rest of us.

The article is not an admission of guilt by Oliver Cowdery --

but it is primary historical documentation of testimony from

1832 -- something that Cowdery once referred to elsewhere.

As I've said, over and over again, such study will not change

a Mormon into an atheist or an apostate -- but it will help

open his mind to new possibilities.

Nobody leaves the Church over the Spalding-Rigdon theory. And

I only know two or three people who have left over the theory

that Joseph Smith wrote the book. So these are not great dangers

to anybody's testimony.

Slow, patient, methodical study of Mormon history IS a great

danger, however.

It was through that process that I came to know that Smith was

NOT a monogamist, and that the RLDS Church was NOT founded upon

the principle of restoring Smith's monogamous teachings.

It is THAT sort of realization that breaks testimonies. Once

in place, it only took me a matter of months to conclude that

the RLDS Church had been telling me lies. Coming to a similar

conclusion regarding 19th century authorship of the BoM came

only AFTER 25 YEARS of study -- and only AFTER my realizing the

the problem with Smith's purported monogamy.

And so I recommend first-hand, primary document discovery as your

best path out of Mormonism. Not your reading about somebody else's

discoveries -- but your own finding out of problems and possible

solutions.

Only AFTER that your engaging in that process, will a clandestine

relationship between Rigdon and Smith, in Bainbridge and Auburn

in the summer of 1826 start to sound even slightly possible.

Look into it yourself....

Or, don't -- if such possibilities frighten you.

UD

.

Dale, not to be disrespectful at all, but your research is great news to most believing LDS apologists. I am still amazed at all of the documents that you have managed to bring together which have some bearing on the early church. A lot of those efforts have been in an attempt to find that "smoking gun" that would blow all of the objections to the Spalding/Rigdon theory away, or at least put them into serious doubt.

And you are not the only one who has had such a thought and have tried strenuously to undermine that foundation. Many of them have been pretty unscrupulous in their methods. But whatever the methods, and after one hundred eighty years or so, the sum total of the evidence is something that still might only make a prior to 1830 meeting of Joseph and Sydney "start to sound even slightly possible".

And that mostly on hearsay.

However, even assuming that there was a meeting between Joseph and Sydney prior to 1830, that still would not come close to even hinting that Sydney was the author of the Book of Mormon. The growing body of LDS scholarship on the Book of Mormon poses challenges for anyone positing any mortal person in Joseph's day as the author of the Book of Mormon. That is something that critics continually fail to engage, i.e. that body of scholarship.

Most critics focus on one thing or the other in their criticism and utterly fail to deal with all of the rest. I can understand their problem because there is a lot to deal with.

Glenn

[Uncle Dale]

...

that still would not come close to even hinting that Sydney was the author of the

Book of Mormon.

...

Of course the Spalding-Rigdon authorship explanation does not credit Rigdon

with having written the entire Nephite narrative -- nor even the major part

of that text. So there is no reason to try and identify Rigdon as the major

author, nor even as the originator of the concept of preColumbian Christian

Nephites, Mulekites, etc.

Perhaps it would be best, then, for us all to agree upon the basic texts that

Rigdon did obviously write. That would be a start, in determining what he was

interested in, and what constituted his language when he wrote for various

purposes.

I think we can all generally agree upon the published texts that I forwarded

to Ben, for his (now delayed) mapping of Rigdon's language in the Book of Mormon.

But, perhaps we can extend that body of agreed-upon texts to include the 1835

"Lectures on Faith;" as well as the 1824 "Third Epistle of Peter;" and perhaps

a few unsigned letters in Alexander Campbell's publications, etc.

That would be a useful beginning -- to have the Mormons and non-Mormons agree

to a substantial corpus of texts that are solidly attributable to Mr. Rigdon.

Once that much was accomplished, we could look for identifying "markers" in

Rigdon's grammar, spelling and phraseology, which help us discern which things

he logically might have written, and which things are unlikely to be his work.

For example, Rigdon grew up among Scots, Scotch-Irish, and English backwoodsmen

on the outskirts of Pittsburgh at the turn of the 19th century -- where a certain

old-fashioned dialect of English was spoken. That archaic vernacular is typified

by vocabulary, meanings, idioms, and strange subject/verb combinations which today

strike us as imperfect and colloquial. We ought to look for those oddities in

Rigdon's agreed-upon writings and document which are predominantly unique to him.

Only then, with such supplementary information in hand, should we apply Rigdon's

"word-print" in testing writings not definitely identified as his work.

This is a slower, more cautious program than what Jockers has tried to accomplish.

In the program I am suggesting, the NSC classification use that Bruce so objects

to, would only be applied as the final step -- and only as a confirmation of our

already having identified BoM chapters matching Rigdon's known use of language.

In the sort of computerized testing I am advocating, we would include the 1830

BoM "Preface" and Joseph Smith's word-print, in order to have one known writer in

the mix of author-candidates. We would also generate "word-prints" for Nephi, Ether,

Moroni, and perhaps for Helaman, Zeniff and Mormon, in order to include more

known writer word-prints.

By going forward with such a step-by-step, agreed-upon program, we can begin to

eliminate some of the objections raised against the 2008 Jockers paper.

I have already decided to do my part, by generating a color-coded rendition of

the entire 1830 BoM text, with each page's Rigdon vocabulary marked in blue. When

that task is completed, we will be able to state, in quantified terms, the percentage

of Rigdon vocabulary on each Book of Mormon page. We will also be able to chart out

those percentages, in order to look for unusual distribution patterns of Rigdon's

language in all the BoM chapters. Looking at such patterns may tell us something.

Let others haggle over whether what Jockers has produced is of any practical use --

I'm all for our going forward and searching out other textual information.

Anybody have any objections?

UD

[Glenn101]

Of course the Spalding-Rigdon authorship explanation does not credit Rigdon

with having written the entire Nephite narrative -- nor even the major part

of that text. So there is no reason to try and identify Rigdon as the major

author, nor even as the originator of the concept of preColumbian Christian

Nephites, Mulekites, etc.

Somehow I missed that. That has been my understanding of the theory from the beginning, i.e. that Rigdon purloined a document from a printer's office in Pittsburgh and used it as the basis for the Book of Mormon. Then somehow he met Joseph Smith and for some unknown reason chose Joseph to be the torch bearer for the Book of Mormon and a new religion.

The Jockers study actually threw a new curve into the mix because it introduced Oliver Cowdery and Parley P. Pratt into the mix also, thus widening the conspiracy and upping the ante on the evidence necessary to at least make the conspiracy seem plausible.

Perhaps it would be best, then, for us all to agree upon the basic texts that

Rigdon did obviously write. That would be a start, in determining what he was

interested in, and what constituted his language when he wrote for various

purposes.

I think we can all generally agree upon the published texts that I forwarded

to Ben, for his (now delayed) mapping of Rigdon's language in the Book of Mormon.

But, perhaps we can extend that body of agreed-upon texts to include the 1835

"Lectures on Faith;" as well as the 1824 "Third Epistle of Peter;" and perhaps

a few unsigned letters in Alexander Campbell's publications, etc.

That would be a useful beginning -- to have the Mormons and non-Mormons agree

to a substantial corpus of texts that are solidly attributable to Mr. Rigdon.

------------------

UD

I thought that there was already a large corpus of texts attributable to Sidney Rigdon. I do not know how much more we would need. The work Bruce has done on enhancements to the Jockers NSC classification methods should solve most if not all objections to the methods. From what I understood from Bruce's preprint draft. he feels that the NSC methods should be able to work very well in stylometry. One of the advantages that it seems to have is that it can work with smaller chunks of text than some of the previous studies such as the one by John Hilton et al. However Bruce's research noted that there was a lower limit of chunk size after which the results became less accurate. I do not remember off hand what that size was, not having the paper in front of me at the moment and being too lazy to take the wraps off my main computer (it is in a hot garage for the time being), but I think it was either one thousand or two thousand words as being the lower limit. That should lend itself very well to checking the Book of Mormon across chapters and authors for uniformity.

In any event, I am just waiting for the next round of peer reviews before taking off on any other tangents.

However, I am not worried about what the results will be.

Glenn

[Uncle Dale]

Somehow I missed that. That has been my understanding of the theory from the

beginning, i.e. that Rigdon purloined a document from a printer's office in

Pittsburgh and used it as the basis for the Book of Mormon....

Possibly he did -- that was an early accusation from two of Spalding's

acquaintances, from the time he lived in Pennsylvania. But unverified

testimony is just that -- unverified.

A generalized statement of the S-R theory would be that Sidney Rigdon

edited a Spalding manuscript, as the beginning of the production of

the Book of Mormon -- but that the extent of that editing is unstated.

Looking at my own conclusions, from years ago, less than half of the

book would be attributable to Rigdon, on the basis of phraseology.

According to Jockers' results, the figure might be 40% or less.

Nobody has ever come out with a definitive calculation, based upon

all the information now available. I would not say that Jockers'

conclusions are definitive -- not even his updated results, in which

he left out Isaiah/Malachi as possible 19th century contributors,

and added in Joseph Smith. Jockers' results are interesting, but

without substantial confirmation, from multiple scholars, they remain

merely his opinions.

I thought that there was already a large corpus of texts attributable to

Sidney Rigdon. I do not know how much more we would need.

You misunderstood me. I'm advocating using that material to form a

word-print with which to test the "Lectures on Faith," the "Third

Epistle of Peter;" unsigned letters in Alexander Campbell's publications,

etc. In other words -- let's put Rigdon to the test under less controversial

circumstances, to see if we can agree upon ways to discern his writing.

The work Bruce has done on enhancements to the Jockers NSC classification methods

should solve most if not all objections to the methods.

According to his pca charts, Rigdon, Spalding, Cowdery and Pratt are

impossibilities when it comes to selecting author-candidates for

computerized testing. But, so long as Bruce refuses to release the

numerical data represented in his charts, there is no way to verify

his allegations.

One day another statistician will duplicate Bruce's pca charts and

the data behind them. Only then can we begin to discuss that reporting.

From what I understood from Bruce's preprint draft. he feels that the NSC methods

should be able to work very well in stylometry.

...

Then let's develop word-prints for Nephi, Ether, Moroni, etc., and use

such computerized methods to map out the entire Book of Mormon, including

the 1830 Joseph Smith "Preface." Theoretically, Smith would register in

the 90-100% range for that "Preface," and in the 0-10% range for all the

remainder of the Book of Mormon.

So -- let's run the tests.

UD

[Glenn101]

--------------------

You misunderstood me. I'm advocating using that material to form a

word-print with which to test the "Lectures on Faith," the "Third

Epistle of Peter;" unsigned letters in Alexander Campbell's publications,

etc. In other words -- let's put Rigdon to the test under less controversial

circumstances, to see if we can agree upon ways to discern his writing.

Now I understand a little better. That would be interesting.

According to his pca charts, Rigdon, Spalding, Cowdery and Pratt are

impossibilities when it comes to selecting author-candidates for

computerized testing. But, so long as Bruce refuses to release the

numerical data represented in his charts, there is no way to verify

his allegations.

One day another statistician will duplicate Bruce's pca charts and

the data behind them. Only then can we begin to discuss that reporting.

What was the data that Bruce did give you?

Then let's develop word-prints for Nephi, Ether, Moroni, etc., and use

such computerized methods to map out the entire Book of Mormon, including

the 1830 Joseph Smith "Preface." Theoretically, Smith would register in

the 90-100% range for that "Preface," and in the 0-10% range for all the

remainder of the Book of Mormon.

So -- let's run the tests.

UD

Someone who understands the numbers, the software (and has the software) will have to do that. But I am hoping that it will be done.

Glenn

[Uncle Dale]

...

What was the data that Bruce did give you?

...

He gave me that plot data for about six Book of Mormon chapters

on the original pc1/pc2 chart -- (the one in which Isaiah

and Malachi have dots over among the 19th century authors).

Identification of 6 out of 239 BoM chapters just isn't enough.

If we're going to publish BoM/19th cent. author pca charts of great

importance, then let's also publish the data that they represent.

A no-brainer, in my opinion.

UD

[why me]

You're changing the subject.

Look into it yourself....

Or, don't -- if such possibilities frighten you.

UD

.

I am not frightened at all of the possibilities. I am just waiting for the rebuttal and then we will see what happens. What I am saying is that there are so many people involved in the early process that a fraud seems unlikely. However, if someday, the research claims conclusively that a fraud existed and the lds church disappears from the scene, well, it will be sad because many people will get hurt. And it will take at least two generations of former lds to recover from the shock. And so, I don't wish success to your endeavor at all.

But as I said a fews years ago to you if it is a fraud, it should not be allowed to continue. But it will be sad nonetheless. When I look into all the people involved, 11 witnesses, JS, Sidney, and Emma, plus the wives of the witnesses, I find it incrediably unbelievable that a fraud existed and succeeded with so many people involved. And that two men would give their lives for a fraud that they did not found since it would have been sidney writing the book of mormon. And for what purpose? When JS died the lds church was small and meaningless on the US stage. It was not something a fraudster would die for and suffer for that is for sure.

[Uncle Dale]

...

if it is a fraud, it should not be allowed to continue.

...

What if Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are a fraud?

What if they do not tell the full, unembellished

story of Jesus' ministry and Gospel?

What if Paul's vision on the road to Damascus

was a delusion -- or, worse yet, a fraud?

What if there was no universal flood, and Jonah

never got swallowed by a big fish, and the story

of Adam and Eve never happened?

Can we still maintain our religion -- still go to

church on Sunday -- still pay our tithing -- if

major sections of the biblical story are wrong?

As Latter Day Saints, perhaps so -- because we've

been taught from childhood that the Great and

Abominable Church has tampered with the Bible,

making it unreliable.

As Latter Day Saints, can we continue without the

Book of Mormon? Perhaps not; it is pristine, reliable.

Check back with Community of Christ, in another

decade or two -- and see how well they do with

their ongoing program of diminishing and discarding

the restoration scriptures.

UD

[why me]

What if Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are a fraud?

What if they do not tell the full, unembellished

story of Jesus' ministry and Gospel?

What if Paul's vision on the road to Damascus

was a delusion -- or, worse yet, a fraud?

What if there was no universal flood, and Jonah

never got swallowed by a big fish, and the story

of Adam and Eve never happened?

Can we still maintain our religion -- still go to

church on Sunday -- still pay our tithing -- if

major sections of the biblical story are wrong?

As Latter Day Saints, perhaps so -- because we've

been taught from childhood that the Great and

Abominable Church has tampered with the Bible,

making it unreliable.

As Latter Day Saints, can we continue without the

Book of Mormon? Perhaps not; it is pristine, reliable.

Check back with Community of Christ, in another

decade or two -- and see how well they do with

their ongoing program of diminishing and discarding

the restoration scriptures.

UD

The CoC is in decline and matters very litte on the church landscape. It is a very small faith with perhaps 200,00 members. Not much.

Yes, maybe the lds church will continue as millions depart leaving perhaps a core 200,000 to attend. But it will insignificant. No, the church will fall like a house of cards. And if the bible stories were proven to be a fraud, likewise for christianity.

Without the book of mormon and the truthfulness of the first vision, the lds church will depart from the scene fast and many people will experience a crisis of immense proportion. At times, I just think that it is best to let well enough alone.

Will the world be a better place without the mormon church? Maybe not. Will the world be a better place without religion? Maybe not. Of course, if we humans can undestand the idea of humanism and concentrate on bring out the best in our human nature and not the worst, maybe we would have hope even without religion. But...even humanism is on the back burner these days.

[Uncle Dale]

...

Will the world be a better place without religion? Maybe not.

...

The answer to that question probably depends upon the religion

spoken of. Are we better off without Carthaginian Moloch worship?

Without Aztec human sacrifice religion? Without Jim Jones?

Religion is a human social construct. Remove all the religions

from the earth and human beings will re-invent them all over again.

The more important question is -- can we connect with God through religion?

Sometimes I'm prone to think that we only make that connection IN SPITE OF

religion. But, generally speaking, I still advocate for religion. The one

that fascinates me the most is the one Jesus himself practiced 2000 years ago.

I do not expect the restoration of that particular type of religion to

be easy, quick or popular; but, of all the attempts I've so far encountered,

the efforts of the Latter Day Saints impress me as being the most promising.

I'd even go so far as to say that God is helping them along.

And that will continue with or without the "restoration scriptures."

UD

.

[Gervin]

When one looks at the early beginnings of mormonism ...

Has anyone ever tried to put together a comprehensive timeline showing the locations/movements of early key figures to prove there was no physical opportunity for these people to even cross paths?

[Uncle Dale]

Has anyone ever tried to put together a comprehensive timeline showing the locations/movements of early key figures to prove there was no physical opportunity for these people to even cross paths?

Craig Criddle has been working on that project for a couple of

years now. Although he cannot set a firm date for the probable

first meeting between Smith and Rigdon, he concludes that they

must have been working together by early 1826.

There are a few sentences in the 2008 Jockers BoM study to

that effect. The general idea being that, after his escape

(or release) from the March, 1826 hearing, Smith traveled

westward and spent some time in Auburn township, Geauga Co.,

Ohio (within walking distance of Rigdon's home).

Moving the secret cooperation forward on the timeline, to

1827 or 1828, does not appear to allow sufficient time for

the preparation of a complex text. Besides which, after

the fall of 1826, the activities of both Rigdon and Smith

are fairly well accounted for, with few periods in which

they could have met and spent much time together.

A fellow whose ancestors lived in Auburn at about that

same time, also concluded that Smith must have met with

Rigdon in 1826. This was Carl M. Brewster, who conducted

extensive research in southern Ohio in the 1930s and 1940s.

He reportedly compiled some obscure local sources which

place Smith with Rigdon at that time.

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/books/Brew1945.htm

http://sidneyrigdon.com/books/Hnry1942.htm#comments

Probably the most productive period that could be researched

in this regard, would be Dec. 1825-March 1827 for Rigdon

and March 1826-Sept. 1826 for Smith.

UD