Spalding: The Dead Horse that Won't Die

[Glenn101]

As i mentioned, there is a new Jockers paper upcoming in LLC,

in which he DOES include Joseph Smith's word-print. He also has

expanded the original study to include many more texts.

Did he make any changes such as a goodness-of-fit test, or anything else to ascertain that the candidate set contains the actual author? If not, that paper will suffer from the same flaws that the original did.

Check back in ten years and the evidence for that paradigm

will have expanded many times over. Once scientists hit upon

basic truths, it is not all that difficult to fill in the blanks.

Uncle Dale

I don't think we will have to wait ten years.

Glenn

[Gervin]

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/heb/11/1#1, et al

I couldn't find the word "feel" or "feeling" in any of the cited Bible verses. Maybe "feel" isn't your word choice after all.

[TAO]

I couldn't find the word "feel" or "feeling" in any of the cited Bible verses. Maybe "feel" isn't your word choice after all.

Should have been more articulate... feeling the spirit lol XD. I thought you were having problems with that, not with the word itself.

[Uncle Dale]

...

If not, that paper will suffer from the same flaws that the original did.

...

Their argument remains the same, if I understand correctly.

Even if an author-candidate is not a known writer

of one or more texts in a compilation of texts, that

candidate can still be tested by NSC classification.

If the probability gap between the first attributed

author-candidate is low, then the LDS critics may

have a valid point to communicate. A 24% authorship

result for Pratt and a 26% authorship result for

Cowdery would not be as significant as a 2% authorship

attribution for Pratt and a 99% authorship attribution

for Cowdery.

So, it is only the high percentages, which leave a

significant gap down to the next authorship attribution

that are truly noteworthy --- about 3/4 of Jockers' results.

Among THAT sub-set, Jockers argues that the statistics

themselves make the findings significant.

Whether that is credible or not is a matter for professional

statisticians to argue over.

The Jockers figures cannot be used as PROOF of any 19th century

authorship -- but they can be used as evidence supporting the

old claims that Rigdon and Spalding contributed to the book.

All the Mormons would have to do, in order to show Jockers

is mistaken, is to add in another few dozen author-candidates,

a few at a time, to show that OTHER 19th century writers

score consistently higher percentages than do Spalding and

Rigdon -- and that the gaps between those OTHER writers'

BoM chapter attributions and the secondary author are greater

than are those in the case of Rigdon and Spalding.

If the LDS apologists could have discovered such findings,

we can bet that they would have shouted the results from

the roof-tops.

As things stand today, Spalding and Rigdon retain their

"wins," for scoring the highest percentages in the BoM.

UD

[TAO]

If the probability gap between the first attributed

author-candidate is low, then the LDS critics may

have a valid point to communicate. A 24% authorship

result for Pratt and a 26% authorship result for

Cowdery would not be as significant as a 2% authorship

attribution for Pratt and a 99% authorship attribution

for Cowdery.

Is there an app somewhere where I can test it?

I did read that Jockers also misidentified who wrote Revelations as Rigdon by a good amount... doesn't look to be too accurate...

[Kevin Christensen]

The only one of the three BoM origins explanations which gathers

new evidence each year is the S-R authorship explanation.

The "Nephites-wrote-it" theory hasn't had an interesting new

addition since chiasmas and NHM.

Uncle Dale

I disagree, being very interested in Welch's The Legal Cases of the Book of Mormon, my own work with Barker's First Temple Theology, Alan Goff's brilliant work on allusion and type scenes in the Book of Mormon, following Robert Alter's approach, Ben McGuire's essay on the implications of allusions in the Nephi/Laban story to an earlier version of the David/Goliath story, Brant Gardner's work on "looking for Mesoamerican in the Book of Mormon", Gordon Thomasson and Lisa Bolin Hawkins on "Survivor Witnesses in the Book of Mormon", the explorations of Lehi's Journey in Arabia, the possible occurance of Mulek in the Hebrew Bible, John Welch on the Sermon at the Temple and the Sermon on the Mount, Alma as NDE experiencer, the complex and ongoing work on Hebrew Festivals in the Book of Mormon, the discovery of the San Bartelo Murals and comparing them with the contemporary account of Benjamin's coronation Book of Mormon (on this forum, courtesty of Mark Wright aka Hashbaz), Daniel Peterson's essays on the Gaddiantons, along with Brant's essay on a plausible identification of the Gaddiantons, Larry Poulson's approach to the Sidon, ice core evidence for the Volcanism in 3 Nephi, Grant Hardy's Understanding the Book of Mormon, ... and more. This is what comes to mind without opening any books.

Lots of cool things happening. They don't prove the Book of Mormon, but they do help further define the problem that it represents. Personally, unless an alternate theory of the Book of Mormon confronts and accounts for this growing body of material, I don't expect to be able to take it seriously. To seem a better explanation, a rival theory has to actually define and confront what needs to be explained. At least to me.

I mean, have you tried reading Margaret Barker's "Text and Context" on the transmission of Hebrew scriptures, and then reading 1 Nephi 13?

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Glenn101]

Their argument remains the same, if I understand correctly.

Even if an author-candidate is not a known writer

of one or more texts in a compilation of texts, that

candidate can still be tested by NSC classification.

To quote Bruce:"Jockers et al. (2008) assumed

[Uncle Dale]

I disagree...

have you tried reading Margaret Barker's "Text and Context"...

Let me know when she professes Nephites to have been real.

I do not know of a single non-LDS, non-RLDS, non-FLDS

who assert Nephites, Lamanites, Mulekites, Jaredites,

Lehites, etc. etc. to have been real people who lived

real lives and left real records.

On the other hand, we could probably locate many dozens

of scholars, academics, experts, scientists, etc. whose

working assumption is that Nephites, etc. are fictional.

The Maxwell Institute can publish 10, 100, or 1000

BoM-supporting articles every year forever, with no

effect upon the "real world." Just like Scientologists

can publish articles proving their assertions, or the

North Koreans can publish vast quantities of media

showing how their system, practices and ideology are

the best thing in the world.

Nobody outside of those closed groups takes their

assertions seriously.

Bruce's new paper, if truly published by LLC,

will be something done outside of the LDS cloister --

so we can all watch to see what the "real world" reaction

is. I think he will "win" on a few technicalities, claiming

a tactical victory or two --- while others (non-LDS defenders)

will claim the eventual strategic victories.

Watch and see.

UD

[Kevin Christensen]

Let me know when she professes Nephites to have been real.

UD

Let me know when you read "Text and Context" and compare it with 1 Nephi 13.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[TAO]

Let me know when she professes Nephites to have been real.

I do not know of a single non-LDS, non-RLDS, non-FLDS

who assert Nephites, Lamanites, Mulekites, Jaredites,

Lehites, etc. etc. to have been real people who lived

real lives and left real records.

On the other hand, we could probably locate many dozens

of scholars, academics, experts, scientists, etc. whose

working assumption is that Nephites, etc. are fictional.

The Maxwell Institute can publish 10, 100, or 1000

BoM-supporting articles every year forever, with no

effect upon the "real world." Just like Scientologists

can publish articles proving their assertions, or the

North Koreans can publish vast quantities of media

showing how their system, practices and ideology are

the best thing in the world.

Nobody outside of those closed groups takes their

assertions seriously.

Bruce's new paper, if truly published by LLC,

will be something done outside of the LDS cloister --

so we can all watch to see what the "real world" reaction

is. I think he will "win" on a few technicalities, claiming

a tactical victory or two --- while others (non-LDS defenders)

will claim the eventual strategic victories.

Watch and see.

UD

There was a link to a Baptist guy in a thread a while back who did... he was Baptist, and yet he believed the Book of Mormon was true.

[Glenn101]

Let me know when she professes Nephites to have been real.

I do not know of a single non-LDS, non-RLDS, non-FLDS

who assert Nephites, Lamanites, Mulekites, Jaredites,

Lehites, etc. etc. to have been real people who lived

real lives and left real records.

Not surprising. I don't know of any either. It would be surprising if we could find them. When they do begin to believe such, they become LDS.

On the other hand, we could probably locate many dozens

of scholars, academics, experts, scientists, etc. whose

working assumption is that Nephites, etc. are fictional.

I doubt that many of them have a working assumption either way.

The Maxwell Institute can publish 10, 100, or 1000

BoM-supporting articles every year forever, with no

effect upon the "real world." Just like Scientologists

can publish articles proving their assertions, or the

North Koreans can publish vast quantities of media

showing how their system, practices and ideology are

the best thing in the world.

Nobody outside of those closed groups takes their

assertions seriously.

There are a lot of people who take the North Koreans seriously. And it doesn't matter what the "real world" thinks.Truth stands or falls on its own merits. There are many associates of the Maxwell Institute who have papers published in peer reviewed journals.

Bruce's new paper, if truly published by LLC,

will be something done outside of the LDS cloister --

so we can all watch to see what the "real world" reaction

is. I think he will "win" on a few technicalities, claiming

a tactical victory or two --- while others (non-LDS defenders)

will claim the eventual strategic victories.

Watch and see.

UD

Let's wait and see. Maybe you'll make prophet and seer yet.

Glenn

[Uncle Dale]

...

When they do begin to believe such, they become LDS.

....

That is rather like saying when scientists believe Jericho

was a real place or Solomon a real king, that they become Jews.

It doesn't work that way, actually.

Mostly the people who convert to Mormonism are not the

experts in Israelite history and archaeology. They are more

likely to be shoe salesmen, accounts, engineers, and farmers.

A scientist can come to believe in a great deal of the

geography/history of, say the Talmud or the Book of Jubilees,

or the Pentateuch, without converting to Judaism.

Without that conversion, they still take some parts of Israelite

history seriously, and dismiss other aspects as mythology.

That isn't the case with Mormonism. Even if a Barker finds some

Jewish lore in the Book of Mormon, she does not assume that

Nephites put it there, via inscriptions on golden plates, taken

off for safe keeping by angels.

Some day -- in the future -- Mormons will have gained the same

status as Jewish scholars in Biblical history, texts, etc. The

process is already underway. When it is completed, the scholarly

professional world STILL will not accept Nephites as fact.

Just like parts of the Hebrew Bible are taken as mythology, without

the expulsion of Jewish scholars from the professional realms, so

will Mormon scholars be accepted, and their Nephites taken as a

mythology peculiar to Mormonism.

None of that helps the LDS cause of convincing the world that

Nephites wrote the book.

The real argument is over whether Smith did the job all by himself;

or incorporated some pre-existing literary material, along with

his own literary creations.

Nothing coming out from the Maxwell Institute will change that scenario,

EXCEPT among the Mormons themselves.

The North Koreans preach "Juche" and the wisdom of Kim Il Sung --

and all but a few offbeat Burmese ignore them. The Mormons preach

Nephites and the theology of Brigham Young and are likewise ignored...

unless Beck and Hatch continue alluding to the White Horse Prophecy

on the airwaves...

UD

.