References On The Latest Recrudescence Of The Spalding Theory

[Daniel Peterson]

I just saw yet another confident on-line declaration from a critic that the Book of Mormon has been definitively proven false by the Jockers/Witten/Criddle paper that was published a few years ago, which argues (yet again) that the Book of Mormon was plagiarized from an unpublished novel written by Solomon Spalding. Plainly, the person making the declaration is utterly oblivious to the two devastating take-downs of that paper published in the most recent issue of the Mormon Studies Review (formerly the FARMS Review). Moreover, I was interviewed late last week by BBC Television for an hour-long documentary on Mormonism that will evidently be finished sometime in March -- the BBC crew had previously been in New York, Iowa, and New Hampshire, so you get a sense of what's moving this new-found interest -- and the Spalding theory was a major focus of some of the questions.

With that sort of thing in mind, I think it worthwhile to mention the two Mormon Studies Review articles again:

http://maxwellinstit...23&num=1&id=821

http://maxwellinstit...23&num=1&id=822

These articles contain extensive bibliography for further study of the matter, including reference to a more technical academic/statistical version of the argument responding to Jockers/Witten/Criddle that appeared in the same Oxford-based journal (Literary and Linguistic Computing) where the Jockers/Witten/Criddle paper was published.

I should also mention, for the truly strong of heart and statistically-savvy, that a technical theoretical paper backing up the critique of Jockers/Witten/Criddle has now been published: G. Bruce Schaalje and Paul J. Fields, "Open-Set Nearest Shrunken Centroid Classification," Communications in Statistics -- Theory and Methods 441 (2012) 638-652. Whether it's available on line or not, I have no idea.

Edited to correct article title for Communications in Statistics. Don't know how I flubbed that.

.

Edited January 19, 2012 by Daniel Peterson

[Pahoran]

I just saw yet another confident on-line declaration from a critic that the Book of Mormon has been definitively proven false by the Jockers/Witten/Criddle paper that was published a few years ago, which argues (yet again) that the Book of Mormon was plagiarized from an unpublished novel written by Solomon Spalding. Plainly, the person making the declaration is utterly oblivious to the two devastating take-downs of that paper published in the most recent issue of the Mormon Studies Review (formerly the FARMS Review). Moreover, I was interviewed late last week by BBC Television for an hour-long documentary on Mormonism that will evidently be finished sometime in March -- the BBC crew had previously been in New York, Iowa, and New Hampshire, so you get a sense of what's moving this new-found interest -- and the Spalding theory was a major focus of some of the questions.

With that sort of thing in mind, I think it worthwhile to mention the two Mormon Studies Review articles again:

http://maxwellinstit...23&num=1&id=821

http://maxwellinstit...23&num=1&id=822

These articles contain extensive bibliography for further study of the matter, including reference to a more technical academic/statistical version of the argument responding to Jockers/Witten/Criddle that appeared in the same Oxford-based journal (Literary and Linguistic Computing) where the Jockers/Witten/Criddle paper was published.

I should also mention, for the truly strong of heart and statistically-savvy, that a technical theoretical paper backing up the critique of Jockers/Witten/Criddle has now been published: G. Bruce Schaalje and Paul J. Fields, "Open-Set Shrunken Centroid Classification," Communications in Statistics -- Theory and Methods 441 (2012) 638-652. Whether it's available on line or not, I have no idea.

The repeated recycling of the Spalding theory shows just how desperate the anti's are for a good explanation for the Book of Mormon. And it also reminds me of the old B horror flicks, and their interminable sequels. No matter how often you kill the zombie, it won't stay dead!

But even those who purportedly wouldn't touch the Spalding theory with a forty-foot pole are prepared to rely upon certain features thereof to advance their arguments. For example, Dale Broadhurst relies upon the assumption that John Taylor lied about polygamy in order to argue that he must also have lied about something Mrs Spalding said. In like manner, Kevin Graham, citing Broadhurst, relies upon the assumption that John Taylor lied about Mrs Spalding in order to support his accusation that Taylor lied about polygamy. Each assumption depends upon the other, and this is Graham's idea of a well-supported argument. Of course, for Graham, all Mormon "apologists" are liars, except for those he finds to be useful idiots; so the accusation that any given Mormon lied is one he finds to be well-supported just because!

Regards,

Pahoran

[Matthew J. Tandy]

Once upon a time, we had a regular psoter, whose name I now forget. He was formerly RLDS, and had a large (and disorganized) website of all of his colelcted data trying to show the spalding theory was valid. His website actually also ahd quite a few very useful recources not available elsewhere on the internet (he travelled extensively across the nation and made copies of everything he could find about early church history, including some hard to access diaries). I no longer remember his name. I know he was older, in poor health, and lived in Hawaii.

Anyone remember him? He was actually quite a nice gentlman.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

Never mind, I jsut found him.

Dale Broadhurst. Website is http://solomonspalding.com/. Easy enough.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The repeated recycling of the Spalding theory shows just how desperate the anti's are for a good explanation for the Book of Mormon. And it also reminds me of the old B horror flicks, and their interminable sequels. No matter how often you kill the zombie, it won't stay dead!

Regards,

Pahoran

I confess that I am quite fascinated by this theory. Not because it is good, but because it is so week and yet some people cannot let it go. I think it is boarder line to tin foil hats and all that, esp the part about the missing manuscript. Anyway carry on.

Thanks Dan for the info.

[mfbukowski]

"Recrudescence" ?

[Glenn101]

Recrudescence is a good dictionary word. I had to look it up, although I pretty much knew what it meant by context. However, I would wager, if I were a gambling man, that Doctor Dan did not need a dictionary.

Do not make the mistake of trying to carry on a debate with a Spalding enthusiast. They are resilient and resourceful in finding new definitions and explanations for things such as the Lost Tribes. You will never be able to pin them down because they will just redefine the ground out from under you.

When Bruce Schaalje et al came out with the denouement of the original Jockers study some time back, none of the Spalding theorists were fazed not one bit. Most of them acted as if it had never existed, or to argue that it was not really relevant because the archaic language in the Book of Mormon distorted the findings.

Glenn

[Calm]

Dan, I think the actual title is "Open-Set Nearest Shrunken Centroid Classification":

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03610926.2010.529529

[Storm Rider]

I just saw yet another confident on-line declaration from a critic that the Book of Mormon has been definitively proven false by the Jockers/Witten/Criddle paper that was published a few years ago, which argues (yet again) that the Book of Mormon was plagiarized from an unpublished novel written by Solomon Spalding. Plainly, the person making the declaration is utterly oblivious to the two devastating take-downs of that paper published in the most recent issue of the Mormon Studies Review (formerly the FARMS Review). Moreover, I was interviewed late last week by BBC Television for an hour-long documentary on Mormonism that will evidently be finished sometime in March -- the BBC crew had previously been in New York, Iowa, and New Hampshire, so you get a sense of what's moving this new-found interest -- and the Spalding theory was a major focus of some of the questions.

With that sort of thing in mind, I think it worthwhile to mention the two Mormon Studies Review articles again:

http://maxwellinstit...23&num=1&id=821

http://maxwellinstit...23&num=1&id=822

These articles contain extensive bibliography for further study of the matter, including reference to a more technical academic/statistical version of the argument responding to Jockers/Witten/Criddle that appeared in the same Oxford-based journal (Literary and Linguistic Computing) where the Jockers/Witten/Criddle paper was published.

I should also mention, for the truly strong of heart and statistically-savvy, that a technical theoretical paper backing up the critique of Jockers/Witten/Criddle has now been published: G. Bruce Schaalje and Paul J. Fields, "Open-Set Shrunken Centroid Classification," Communications in Statistics -- Theory and Methods 441 (2012) 638-652. Whether it's available on line or not, I have no idea.

Dan, please stop muddying the waters with facts. It ruins the effects of a good yarn.

[wenglund]

Plainly, the person making the declaration is utterly oblivious to the two devastating take-downs of that paper published in the most recent issue of the Mormon Studies Review (formerly the FARMS Review)....

http://maxwellinstit...23&num=1&id=821

http://maxwellinstit...23&num=1&id=822 ...

I just finished reading both articles and I applaud the authors for stating their pursuasive and scholarly arguments in a way understandable to this average, statistically-unsavvy guy. [thumbs up]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited January 19, 2012 by wenglund

[BCSpace]

"Recrudescence" ?

It's a perfectly cromulent word. I have embiggened my vocabulary today.

[Daniel Peterson]

Dan, I think the actual title is "Open-Set Nearest Shrunken Centroid Classification":

http://www.tandfonli...926.2010.529529

Yes it is. Oooops.

[Daniel Peterson]

In that BBC interview last week -- which was pretty intense and rapid-fire for an hour -- I was astonished to hear the word recrudescence come out of my mouth. It's not a word that I typically use in a typical decade. But there it was. So it was on my mind, I guess, and now, in this thread, here it is again.

Good word, no?

[LeSellers]

recrudescence ...

Good word, no?

I love it.

But I recall the adage: We need big words to think with, but small words to communicate with.

Lehi

[KevinG]

I thought recrudescence was the substance that keeps building up on the shower head no matter how many times I clean it.

[wenglund]

But I recall the adage: We need big words to think with, but small words to communicate with.

Lehi

I have often benefitted from, and greatly value the elevating impact of people (like Talmage and ****ens and Jane Austen) who violate the latter part of that adage. Without them I would have been hard pressed to think in big words.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[KevinG]

It seems the board does not like 19th century English Authors.

[Daniel Peterson]

I love it.

But I recall the adage: We need big words to think with, but small words to communicate with.

Ah, but some words are just . . . well, delicious.

I think recrudescence is a lovely word. And it seems somehow perfectly appropriate for reiterations of the zombie-like Spalding theory.

[LeSellers]

I think recrudescence is a lovely word. And it seems somehow perfectly appropriate for reiterations of the zombie-like Spalding theory.

I agree on both points. Especially considering DaddyG's observation about the shower head.

Lehi

Edited January 19, 2012 by LeSellers