Jockers et al

[maklelan]

In response to canterdogs who wrote:

...Maklelan wrote :

First, the relationship of the witnesses to Joseph does in fact throw serious doubt on their credibility.

canterdogs was unable to explain how his assertion holds diachronically. He tried to throw me off the trail by arguing that a couple of them would have had no reason to ever reject the Book of Mormon, but when asked about the witnesses who did have every reason to recant, he silently ignored me. Can you respond where he can't and explain one by one why each witness would not have been expected to recant?

canterdogs is quite correct to point this out. Only a pro-Joseph bias would deny that.

Second there were plenty of potentially objective witnesses. In fact a whole world of them, but especially there was Dr. Charles Anthon who Martin went to see before the BOM was published in 1828. Dr. Anthon himself specfically requested Harris to open the trunk and examine the plates himself:

Anthon declares in this letter that Harris had been cheated, and in another letter he changes portions of his story. How is that objective?

If the plates were ever real and could have been taken to Prof. Anthon, he would have had to have eaten his words.

Would he? He couldn't read what was on them. What makes you think he would have eaten his words rather than just declare them an elaborate hoax?

As it is, Joseph scribbled some characters he had likely seen on the Detroit Manuscript in a failed effort to fool the learned.

So here's a question for those who accept the orthodox version of how the BOM came to be....

Was the 1828 Harris-Anthon visit the fulfillment of Isaiah 29:11?

No.

[canterdogs]

you really think that after preserving an ancient text for many centuries, sealed to come forward at a certain time, that the Lord could be thwarted by a suspicious housewife or an angry academic?

[maklelan]

Vance:

Huh? You're saying after actually seeing the plates people would still deny their existence?

I have no doubt many would deny their provenance, especially academics.

[TAO]

you really think that after preserving an ancient text for many centuries, sealed to come forward at a certain time, that the Lord could be thwarted by a suspicious housewife or an angry academic?

No actually, not thwarted... but the Lord expects us to take them on faith and not visual proof. He simply made it so that we could not visually 'prove' it.

[maklelan]

He wasn't permitted to? lol and i refer you to south park, that is all.

Are you joking?

What does it matter that there were no disinterest parties?

Are you joking? It matters because it undermines your assertion that Joseph crippled the value of the witnesses by failing to take them to objective authorities.

If the plates themselves could have been witnessed by others and taken to an appropriate university for examination and perhaps to be deciphered, if not then at a later date when knowledge of Egyptian was obtained.

Which is exactly the opposite of the course the plates were intended to take.

You are an academic, surely you have faith in the academic process produce unbiased scholarship, especially from an ancient text that could be dated and translated to English.

What can you tell me about deciphering Linear A?

Surely scholars would have been eager to examine such a record and this could, at very least, place the BoM in antiquity - like we can do with the Bible and other ancient texts.

We can do that because we can translate them. The technology to confirm the antiquity of gold plates would not exist for a century.

In any case, you think that only having witnesses from one side of the "disinterested parties" is really convincing?

No. I think having a testimony from God is convincing. I think that having witnesses from one side of the disinterested parties is what Joseph was told to do.

The 11 were close friends and family. Joseph's relatives remained in the Utah church and would not have any incentive to recant. Whitmer had every reason not to recant... Cowdery left and joined the methodists but later wanted to rejoin the latter day saints. The fact that he didn't retract his testimony still doesn't change the fact that he was intimately involved in its production and that he stood to ridicule if he did retract his testimony.

Are you joking? He was entirely separated from the church for years and was begged on numerous occasions to recant. As I pointed out, he lost multiple elections to government positions because he refused to recant. You're just guessing now.

But putting his name to that statement, there was no turning back for him. Harris went off with Strang, an alternate Mormon prophet... No incentive to recant there. He was later rebaptized.... The other Whitmers joined the BoM believing Church of Christ (Whitmerite). I mean c'mon must I continue?

Yes. Account objectively for all eleven. You've missed with Cowdery, and until you can account for all of them your argument has a critical flaw.

These testimonies are not credible.

I disagree, and I'm still waiting for you to respond to my reasons for disagreeing.

i don't really have time to investigate everything about the witnesses..

Then don't make absolutely statements about them.

all I can say is that when one realizes that they are close family and associates they are basically worthless

Until one actually investigates and finds out that their testimonies are actually quite incredible. You evidently don't have time to do that. As with the translation question, you don't have the expertise, but your under-informed opinion is good enough for you. How Modernist.

[canterdogs]

I did account Cowdery, read again. No i'm not joking about south park. they get it essentially right. Quite convenient, don't you think, that Joe was "instructed" not to show anyone the plates. Quite predictable too. Linear A? i have never pretended to be a scholar.

How modernist? Not everyone can be a Biblical scholar. We've got to make judgements about many different things that we don't have expertise in. And, quite frankly, a book that purports to be about Israelites fleeing to the Americas is, to my mind, not plausible at all. This is highlighted by the fact that mainstream scholarship does not take this narrative seriously. I believe that to be an accurate statement. And if I'm wrong, I'd like you to show me some non-LDS experts who place Semetic people in America. Show me the peer-reviewed articles that can attest to this.

[4truth]

Maklelan wrote:

Until one actually investigates and finds out that their testimonies are actually quite incredible.

Oddly enough, I agree. They are incredible because they are not credible.

Let's just cut to the chase... did Martin Harris ever actually see the plates with his natural eyes like I can see the keyboard I'm typing on?

canterdogs was unable to explain how his assertion holds diachronically. He tried to throw me off the trail by arguing that a couple of them would have had no reason to ever reject the Book of Mormon, but when asked about the witnesses who did have every reason to recant, he silently ignored me. Can you respond where he can't and explain one by one why each witness would not have been expected to recant?

Of all the witnesses, which do you think was most likely to have "recanted" and why?

Anthon declares in this letter that Harris had been cheated, and in another letter he changes portions of his story. How is that objective?

Anthon is consistent about Harris being cheated. He is caught off guard at first thinking this was some kind of trick designed to fool the learned. As he learns more he changes his opinion and realizes it is a scheme to trick Harris out of his money. When Harris returns, Anthon realizes his prediction was correct.

If the plates were ever real and could have been taken to Prof. Anthon, he would have had to have eaten his words.

Would he?

Yes.

He couldn't read what was on them.

Because either:

A. they did not exist

B. no one could read reformed Egyptian

So?

What makes you think he would have eaten his words rather than just declare them an elaborate hoax?

Because Anthon was not stupid.

If the plates were real, he would have seen that they were

A. really gold, that they were

B. really inscribed with writing

and being a language expert, he would have wanted time to analyze them before declaring them a hoax. As it turned out, Anthon wisely surmised that the whole thing was a hoax just by looking at Harris' characters. The notion that God would punish anyone who looked at the plates merely confirmed that suspicion.

Was the 1828 Harris-Anthon visit the fulfillment of Isaiah 29:11?

No.

A wise response. So why did Harris think it was?

All the best.

[maklelan]

I did account Cowdery, read again.

You read again. I explained exactly why Cowdery was not accounted for.

No i'm not joking about south park. they get it essentially right.

You're still joking. A cartoon does not constitute evidence. It's making an accusation, not an argument.

Quite convenient, don't you think, that Joe was "instructed" not to show anyone the plates. Quite predictable too.

No, not convenient, just untrue. He was instructed to show the plates to 11 people, and no one else.

Linear A? i have never pretended to be a scholar.

And yet you presume to talk down to scholars about methodology.

How modernist?

The notion that your individual interpretation is just as valid, despite not having the skills and resources or much exposure to the evidence.

Not everyone can be a Biblical scholar. We've got to make judgements about many different things that we don't have expertise in.

And when your judgments are shown to be fallacious and uninformed, you're supposed to just assert that you're right anyway because it's so obvious?

And, quite frankly, a book that purports to be about Israelites fleeing to the Americas is, to my mind, not plausible at all.

Based on your lack of expertise.

This is highlighted by the fact that mainstream scholarship does not take this narrative seriously.

And you think mainstream scholarship takes talking donkeys, Adam and Eve, and rising from the dead seriously? Scholars stay away from the Book of Mormon, for the most part, but just as many scholars who do approach it objectively come away recognizing there's something there we can't explain as come away ridiculing it.

I believe that to be an accurate statement.

So belief is more important than empiricism for you, but for us belief takes a back seat to what we can support empirically? You're not an expert, so you don't have to provide evidence?

And if I'm wrong, I'd like you to show me some non-LDS experts who place Semetic people in America. Show me the peer-reviewed articles that can attest to this.

The last gasp of the debater who can no longer sustain his own assertions. I'd prefer you respond to the numerous scholars to whom you've already been directed and respond to that information.

[LifeOnaPlate]

i have never pretended to be a scholar.

And if you did, we wouldn't be fooled anyway. The Criddle paper, again, will soon be put to rest.

[Vance]

Vance:

Huh? You're saying after actually seeing the plates people would still deny their existence?

Still?

IF they denied their existence in the first place then they weren't objective, were they?

What I am saying is even if they were objective to start with, they would lose objectivity after handling the plates or seeing the angel. Are you saying that they could have those experiences and "still" remain "objective"?

[Benjamin McGuire]

44FoxTrot writes:

Explanatory power with available data on the specific subject: As you would have seen in the video, the model accounts for the known facts regarding the BoM. They were able to put together author attribution that matched very well with the known chronology and personalities involved in production of the book. They were able to show that, indeed, Sidney Rigdon and Solomon Spaulding did cross paths before the BoM was written, and that Rigdon would have had access to the Spaulding work Manuscript Found.

No, actually, they didn't show this. In fact, Solomon Spalding died in 1816. Sidney Rigdon didn't leave home until 1818. It is quite unlikely that they actually ever met. The theory isn't that they met, but that Rigdon stole a copy of Spalding manuscript from a printer who had a copy. Of course, anyone would have had the same kind of access to Spalding's manuscript. The basis that he could have taken it is more or less based on pure speculation. And it is fun speculation - but - I wouldn't say that the chronology that they construct is anything more than speculative on the issue of the manuscript.

The real problem is that the introductory material is necessary to begin to justify including Spalding in the authorship pool. The results of the process are completely wrong. NSC classification as used by Jockers et al., assumes a closed set - that is, in this particular application in questions of stylometry, there is the assumption that the real author is among the set of tested authors. If the real author is not there, then the NSC method as used by Jockers cannot produce useful information. I am aware of two studies (one published, the other soon to be published) that discuss related issues. One deals with the implications of the size of the proposed author pool, and the other deals with ways to determine in NSC studies whether or not the real author is even in the pool of potential authors. My understanding, from a third article that I have that is being published in the not too distant future is that Spalding as an author fails the test in this second paper - that is, Spalding does not meet the requirements for being a real author. The implication for the Jockers study quite simply is that none of the test authors actually qualify as the real author of the Book of Mormon under the NSC model.

Now, when the NSC model is used and the real author is among the potential authors (when it is an actual closed set instead of an open set), then it is quite reliable. And the second paper I mention above supports this notion in test cases quite well (that is, it doesn't seem to throw out real authors when they are included in the potential author list).

Occam's razor or parsimony: With this simple model, all of the requirements for magic, suppositions and rationalizations of apologists, and seemingly inexplicable behaviors of Joseph Smith and his associates becomes suddenly and simply clear. That is, the model that Criddle presented in terms of authorship attribution is not only simple, it explains with one logical assumption, what is unexplainable by apologists.

This is an abuse of Occam's razor. And Criddle's assumptions are not provable. I am quite confident that if you want to present Criddle's chronology, I can demonstrate this quite easily.

Predictive power: Once the Criddle Group understood what was going on, they were able to use their model to successfully predict the outcome of other statistical analyses of their data set.

Obviously, the Criddle data, and the Jockers study have only convinced Spalding theorists. I know of no proponents of other theories of modern authorship (Vogel, Metcalfe, Smith - to name a few who occasionally post here) who have been convinced by it in the slightest. This is not a Mormon Apologist versus Criddle issue. Since most proponents of modern authorship find the Criddle study fatally flawed as well. That is, apart from the relatively tiny group of Spalding theorists, no one actually believes the model and data that Criddle puts forward.

Ben M.

[maklelan]

Maklelan wrote:

Oddly enough, I agree. They are incredible because they are not credible.

Of course not. They conflict with your presuppositions. Believers aren't the only ones with biases, you know.

Let's just cut to the chase... did Martin Harris ever actually see the plates with his natural eyes like I can see the keyboard I'm typing on?

According to an 1870 interview with Robert Barter he held up his hand and said, "Do you see that hand? Are you sure you see it? Or are your eyes playing you a trick or something? No. Well, as sure as you see my hand so sure did I see the Angel and the plates."

Of all the witnesses, which do you think was most likely to have "recanted" and why?

Cowdery's professional life was most impeded by that testimony, and he had expressed his guilt and shame regarding his association with the church several times. I see no reason to insist he wouldn't have recanted. Jacob Whitmer was driven from his home by Mormons and never joined, as far as I'm aware, any other Book of Mormon-oriented church.

Anthon is consistent about Harris being cheated.

That doesn't at all mean his two contradictory accounts aren't problematic.

He is caught off guard at first thinking this was some kind of trick designed to fool the learned. As he learns more he changes his opinion and realizes it is a scheme to trick Harris out of his money. When Harris returns, Anthon realizes his prediction was correct.

But in Anthon's 1834 account he asserts he did not give Harris any written statement, and that Harris just left. In his 1841 account he says he did give him a written statement, and that Harris swore he wouldn't be taken in by this hoax by mortgaging his farm.

Yes.

Because either:

A. they did not exist

B. no one could read reformed Egyptian

How does this explain that he would have had to have eaten his words?

Because Anthon was not stupid.

If the plates were real, he would have seen that they were

A. really gold, that they were

B. really inscribed with writing

And this would have convinced him that his dogmas were all wrong and that these plates were actually divinely inspired scripture from a group of Hebrews who migrated to the Americas? You and I both know that gold plates with writing scratched into them aren't going to convince a skeptical academic of all that.

and being a language expert, he would have wanted time to analyze them before declaring them a hoax.

But he would have known with just one glance that he couldn't possibly translate them.

As it turned out, Anthon wisely surmised that the whole thing was a hoax just by looking at Harris' characters. The notion that God would punish anyone who looked at the plates merely confirmed that suspicion.

And yet the two accounts of how this happened conflict in rather serious details, and Harris came back using the term "shorthand Egyptian," a term for Hieratic first used only a year or so before in a review (that Anthon owned) of a Champollion book.

A wise response. So why did Harris think it was?

Because that's how ancient scriptures have meaning for faith communities. Social memory is much more enduring and powerful if the community can use that memory to explain the present and integrate the community to some degree into the sacred narrative.

[4truth]

Ben wrote (with emphasis by me):

The real problem is that the introductory material is necessary to begin to justify including Spalding in the authorship pool. The results of the process are completely wrong. NSC classification as used by Jockers et al., assumes a closed set - that is, in this particular application in questions of stylometry, there is the assumption that the real author is among the set of tested authors. If the real author is not there, then the NSC method as used by Jockers cannot produce useful information. I am aware of two studies (one published, the other soon to be published) that discuss related issues. One deals with the implications of the size of the proposed author pool, and the other deals with ways to determine in NSC studies whether or not the real author is even in the pool of potential authors. My understanding, from a third article that I have that is being published in the not too distant future is that Spalding as an author fails the test in this second paper - that is, Spalding does not meet the requirements for being a real author. The implication for the Jockers study quite simply is that none of the test authors actually qualify as the real author of the Book of Mormon under the NSC model.

Now, when the NSC model is used and the real author is among the potential authors (when it is an actual closed set instead of an open set), then it is quite reliable. And the second paper I mention above supports this notion in test cases quite well (that is, it doesn't seem to throw out real authors when they are included in the potential author list).

You recently conceded the following on the Dead Horse thread:

I will (as I have said before) simply concede the point that the Book of Mormon is of modern authorship for the purpose of this discussion.

Unless we've all been sold a bill of goods then, the actual 19th century author(s) must be among the candidates tested by Jockers. Who else would you propose to have been a more likely 19th century author?

All the best.

[4truth]

Mak:

Of course not. They conflict with your presuppositions. Believers aren't the only ones with biases, you know.

All of my presuppositions are open to change. And as long as you recognize we all have biases, I'm fine with that.

According to an 1870 interview with Robert Barter he held up his hand and said, "Do you see that hand? Are you sure you see it? Or are your eyes playing you a trick or something? No. Well, as sure as you see my hand so sure did I see the Angel and the plates."

I note that is a second hand account. Do you place equal value on the other second hand account that has Martin claiming he only saw the plates with his spiritual eyes?

Cowdery's professional life was most impeded by that testimony, and he had expressed his guilt and shame regarding his association with the church several times. I see no reason to insist he wouldn't have recanted. Jacob Whitmer was driven from his home by Mormons and never joined, as far as I'm aware, any other Book of Mormon-oriented church.

So Lang can't be trusted?

That doesn't at all mean his two contradictory accounts aren't problematic.

Nor does it mean there aren't rational answers to the problems.

But in Anthon's 1834 account he asserts he did not give Harris any written statement, and that Harris just left. In his 1841 account he says he did give him a written statement, and that Harris swore he wouldn't be taken in by this hoax by mortgaging his farm.

Yes, that is the main argument against Anthon. I believe he is referring to two different things that happened at different times during the same conversation.

First statement:

As a last precautionary step, however, he had resolved to come to New York, and obtain the opinion of the learned about the meaning of the paper which he brought with him, and which had been given him as a part of the contents of the book, although no translation had been furnished at the time by the young man with the spectacles.

On hearing this odd story, I changed my opinion about the paper, and, instead of viewing it any longer as a hoax upon the learned, I began to regard it as part of a scheme to cheat the farmer of his money, and I communicated my suspicions to him, warning him to beware of rogues. He requested an opinion from me in writing, which of course I declined giving,

http://thedigitalvoice.com/enigma/essays/AAffair1.htm

In addition to deciphering the characters, Harris wanted a professional endorsement from Anthon, which, of course, he declined, since he viewed the whole thing as a hoax.

Many years ago, the precise date I do not now recollect, a plain looking countryman called upon me with a letter from Dr. Samuel L. Mitchell requesting me to examine, and give my opinion upon, a certain paper, marked with various characters, which the Doctor confessed he could not decypher, and which the bearer of the note was very anxious to have explained.

Note that Harris wanted the paper deciphered and he also wanted a professional endorsement from Dr. Anthon stating that the characters were authentic. Anthon refused both requests.

In the second statement, Anthon is responding to the recent rumors that Anthon had indeed endorsed Smith's translation and pronounced the characters valid. And where did that idea originate? From the pen of Joseph Smith, himself putting words in Harris' mouth in 1838 after Harris had already been excommunicated!

I went to the city of New York, and presented the characters which had been translated, with the translation thereof, to Professor Charles Anthon, a gentleman celebrated for his literary attainments. Professor Anthon stated that the translation was correct, more so than any he had before seen translated from the Egyptian.

--Joseph Smith 1838 history, allegedly quoting Martin Harris

http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Translation/Anthon_transcript

So in Anthon's second statement he is responding to the rumors that he somehow endorsed the characters and that the "translation was correct, more so than any he had before seen translated from the Egyptian."

Did you really endorse those characters and translation, Prof. Anthon? If not, how did such a rumor get started?

Anthon's response:

On my telling the bearer of the paper that an attempt had been made to impose on him and defraud him of his property, he requested me to give him my opinion in writing about the paper which he had shown to me. I did so without hesitation, partly for the man's sake, and partly to let the individual "behind the curtain" see that his trick was discovered. The import of what I wrote was, as far as I can now recollect, simply this, that the marks in the paper appeared to be merely an imitation of various alphabetical characters, and had, in my opinion, no meaning at all connected with them.

So Anthon does not give a formal endorsement which is what Harris wanted and he refuses to translate them, rather, he simply writes that: "the marks in the paper appeared to be merely an imitation of various alphabetical characters, and had, in my opinion, no meaning at all connected with them."

In the first statement he has no need to explain that, in the second he does.

But Anthon wrote a third letter that was discovered in 2005 and sheds some additional light on the matter:

Rev. and Deor [sic] Sir,

[Glenn101]

Unless we've all been sold a bill of goods then, the actual 19th century author(s) must be among the candidates tested by Jockers. Who else would you propose to have been a more likely 19th century author?

All the best.

Ben was conceding that point for the purposes of discussion only as related to the Spalding Dead Horse Theory. And as has been noted before, the Jockers study did not provide any mechanism determine if the winning author was actually the real author. The Jockers study will produce a winner even if the author is not one of the candidates. Bruce Schaalje has proven that, although you seem to reject his results as "spurious". However, the reviewers of his paper did not reject his work as spurious. I am curious as to your reaction when the actual publications hits the cyberstands.

Glenn

[4truth]

Glenn:

Ben was conceding that point for the purposes of discussion only as related to the Spalding Dead Horse Theory.

Oh... so he's retracting his concession and will now stand and defend a BOM production theory?

And as has been noted before, the Jockers study did not provide any mechanism determine if the winning author was actually the real author.

Well as I pointed out to Ben (assuming he's still conceding to 19th century authorship of the BOM) the real author(s) must surely be among the group Jockers tested. Who else would you include? Ethan Smith? Hyrum Smith? Lucy Smith?

The Jockers study will produce a winner even if the author is not one of the candidates.

But if the BOM is a 19th century production, then it's extremely likely the real author is one of the candidates and in that case Ben acknowledges that:

when the NSC model is used and the real author is among the potential authors (when it is an actual closed set instead of an open set), then it is quite reliable.

So there you go. That's pretty much a slam dunk for S/R right there, from the most unlikely supporter I could have imagined! Wonders never cease.

Bruce Schaalje has proven that, although you seem to reject his results as "spurious". However, the reviewers of his paper did not reject his work as spurious. I am curious as to your reaction when the actual publications hits the cyberstands.

When did I ever say Bruce's results are "spurious"? I don't even think Uncle Dale ever said that. I think Uncle Dale is merely pointing out that to suggest that the data from one PCA chart produces a definitive conclusion is, well... spurious. But even Uncle Dale accepts the data on Bruce's chart. He simply used it to show something inconsistent with Bruce's (premature?) conclusion and pointed out that that one PCA chart does not tell the whole story... but still includes some valid information. Least that's what it looks like to this layman.

All the best.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Roger writes:

Well as I pointed out to Ben (assuming he's still conceding to 19th century authorship of the BOM) the real author(s) must surely be among the group Jockers tested. Who else would you include? Ethan Smith? Hyrum Smith? Lucy Smith?

Spalding is not a possibility under NSC classification when modified to include the option that the test group is open ended (i.e. that the real author is not in the mix). I know of two papers soon to be published that deal with this issue. Both of them in peer reviewed journals. The problem, once more, Roger, is that you put the argument as some kind of competition. That is either Spalding was a contributing author, or he wasn't. It doesn't matter if we actually know who wrote it if we can show quite conclusively that Spalding himself was simply not involved. There is this great big gaping hole in your logical process that suggests that in order for someone to shoot down your argument, they must have something that (in your opinion) better fits the scenario that you have fabricated (well not you personally, I haven't seen any original material to Roger here) out of conjecture and "circumstantial evidence". But this isn't the case. Having a perfect argument would shoot down the Spalding theory. Having a less than perfect one doesn't somehow enhance the Spalding theory. For you, its all about eliminating the competition so you can declare victory in absentia - but you neglect to realize that the Spalding theory itself is so improbable that fiction, coming right from the mind of Joseph Smith is much, much more likely.

Ben M.

[Glenn101]

Oh... so he's retracting his concession and will now stand and defend a BOM production theory?

Read what I said. For the purposes of the Spalding dead horse thread only.

Well as I pointed out to Ben (assuming he's still conceding to 19th century authorship of the BOM) the real author(s) must surely be among the group Jockers tested. Who else would you include? Ethan Smith? Hyrum Smith? Lucy Smith?

But if the BOM is a 19th century production, then it's extremely likely the real author is one of the candidates and in that case Ben acknowledges that:

So there you go. That's pretty much a slam dunk for S/R right there, from the most unlikely supporter I could have imagined! Wonders never cease.

You cannot assume that the author is in that set. FOr this thread, the Book of Mormon is an ancient document translated in the ninteenth century.

When did I ever say Bruce's results are "spurious"? I don't even think Uncle Dale ever said that. I think Uncle Dale is merely pointing out that to suggest that the data from one PCA chart produces a definitive conclusion is, well... spurious. But even Uncle Dale accepts the data on Bruce's chart. He simply used it to show something inconsistent with Bruce's (premature?) conclusion and pointed out that that one PCA chart does not tell the whole story... but still includes some valid information. Least that's what it looks like to this layman.

All the best.

I was not talking about pca charts. I was talking about the Federalist papers. When Bruce ran a test on the Federalist Papers using the Jockers NSC algorithms, but excluding the author, ut including Rigdon, Cowdery, Pratt, and Joseph Smith, Rigdon came out the winner of 28 of the 51 texts, with Cowdery and Pratt winning the rest, 12, and 11. But Bruce pointed out that those results were obviously invalid. Even though Rigdon was the winner more than 50 percent of the time, statistically he was so far from the actual text that the results were pretty much meaningless. However, if the real author of those texts had not been known, with your reasoning, Rigdon would have been the author.

The NSC studies on the Book of Mormon suffer from the same problems. All of the authors were so far statistically from the book of Mormon texts that no valid conclusions as to authorship can be drawn from them.

Glenn

[Vance]

You recently conceded the following on the Dead Horse thread:

I will (as I have said before) simply concede the point that the Book of Mormon is of modern authorship for the purpose of this discussion.

WOW!!!

Talk about missing the important part.

[Calm]

Nobody wants to admit that they have lied or been duped, especially when they believe that it is still possible to maintain what is left of their reputation or make a buck by sticking with the original story.

I find this comment rather naive considering the number of people who have left the church and not only sought attention by proclaiming they had been duped, but now saw the light, but also made careers out of being an 'ex-mormon'.

Hurlburt wasn't even the first one to do so, IIRC. And he certainly wasn't the last...the same thing is going on in the here and now.

[4truth]

Hi Ben:

The problem, once more, Roger, is that you put the argument as some kind of competition.

No, Ben, the problem is that you fail to understand that it is a competition, because the BOM exists and apparently did not pop out of thin air.

You stated the following:

I will (as I have said before) simply concede the point that the Book of Mormon is of modern authorship for the purpose of this discussion.

...and...

Now, when the NSC model is used and the real author is among the potential authors (when it is an actual closed set instead of an open set), then it is quite reliable. And the second paper I mention above supports this notion in test cases quite well (that is, it doesn't seem to throw out real authors when they are included in the potential author list).

If the "Book of Mormon is of modern authorship" then what other authors should be included in Jocker's tests as being more likely candidates than the ones already there?

The fact is by your own logic, resting on your own previous concession about 19th century authorship, for the purpose of this discussion, we can reliably conclude that the BOM was primarily authored by Spalding and Rigdon with possibly a little help from Cowdery, Smith & Pratt.

Like I said... wonders never cease.

All the best.

[4truth]

Glenn:

You cannot assume that the author is in that set. FOr this thread, the Book of Mormon is an ancient document translated in the ninteenth century.

You're serious about this? I've got to hand it to you.. you guys have taken "having your cake and eating it too" to a whole new level. Did you learn this little trick from the multi-verse guys? In this universe the BOM is ancient but on a parallel thread it's not! Convenient.

All the best.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Roger writes:

No, Ben, the problem is that you fail to understand that it is a competition, because the BOM exists and apparently did not pop out of thin air.

It's not a competition Roger because one theories failures do not make another theory more likely. You cannot keep propping up issues that I have addressed in detail by simply saying that you haven't seen anything more likely.

Let me ask you a question though - since you seem to be hell-bent on maintaining this facade. In one of the 1833 accounts, we read about the tragic story of Laban. I have written extensively about the tragic story of Laban. You can find my article here:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=18&num=1&id=475

Now tell me, what part of that story was written by Solomon Spalding (and so recorded by your 1833 witness) and which part was written by the more recent author collective - and, who was responsible for the literary allusion - was it Spalding, or was it the more recent authors? I would like your opinion on that.

If the "Book of Mormon is of modern authorship" then what other authors should be included in Jocker's tests as being more likely candidates than the ones already there?

How many people were living in New York in 1830?

It is a legitimate question. You can't, after all, give us any kind of real proof that Rigdon stole Spalding's manuscript. He could have stolen any number of other manuscripts that were there (like Spalding's) at the printers ... you have bought so heavily into the Spalding Theory and its speculative narrative that you simply don't see any other options, do you.

The fact is by your own logic, resting on your own previous concession about 19th century authorship, for the purpose of this discussion, we can reliably conclude that the BOM was primarily authored by Spalding and Rigdon with possibly a little help from Cowdery, Smith & Pratt.

Nope. This only makes sense if I buy into your assumptions that you simply cannot justify.

But, I do wish that you would get off this point and get back to addressing the primary question - which is the issue over the non-existent texts that you claim was the source of the Book of Mormon. I want to know more about it. You said a while back that you were going to offer some thoughts on the unique features of the 1833 witnesses but I haven't seen that. Realizing that this particular aspect of the discussion is going to be a dead end, shall we return to your offered 'evidence'?

Ben M.

[Glenn101]

Glenn:

You're serious about this? I've got to hand it to you.. you guys have taken "having your cake and eating it too" to a whole new level. Did you learn this little trick from the multi-verse guys? In this universe the BOM is ancient but on a parallel thread it's not! Convenient.

All the best.

Roger, you are using only the first part of Ben's statement and ignoring the part where he says "for the purposes of this discussion". I don't know if that is intentional or if you just stopped reading when got what you think you wanted.

But that doesn't matter. You do not need any witnesses. All you need is for the Jockers study to be validated. If it is, game over. but if the jockers study is found to be flawed, then you are back at square one and hope that serious scholars will endorse ancedotal information as evidence.

Glenn

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Glenn:

You're serious about this? I've got to hand it to you.. you guys have taken "having your cake and eating it too" to a whole new level. Did you learn this little trick from the multi-verse guys? In this universe the BOM is ancient but on a parallel thread it's not! Convenient.

All the best.

One thing seems to be clear, some one is not reading others posts and if they are reading them they are not comprehending what is being talked about. No one is wanting their cake and to eat it too.