Skousen & Carmack Lecture Take Aways

[Physics Guy]

If you consider your findings as pure descriptive linguistics, that doesn't sound as though you consider them to be conclusive evidence against 19th-century authorship. It seems to me that dismissing 19-century authorship would require a lot of evidence about how 19th-century composition could not also be consistent with your data, besides simply describing how the data would be consistent with 16th-century composition. Your own comparison with known pseudo-Biblical works must show how hard this would be, because you only found a few texts with which to compare, and those few works were not really trying to disguise the fact that they were modern compositions, but simply trying to sound amusingly Biblical while otherwise being as saleable as possible to a 19th-century audience. Really ruling out fake archaism would require some psycholinguistic heavy lifting, because there aren't any directly relevant texts with which to compare.

In which case I can see why mainstream publication of your descriptive results might be less straightforward. Simply showing 16th-century patterns in the grammar, while leaving open the possibility that those same patterns could have come from imperfect archaism by a 19th-century rural storyteller as suggested by skeptics all along, would be an interesting academic note to make, but not a sensational find. I don't know what kinds of journals you're considering, but in physics there are journals that have significance criteria as well as validity criteria, and one is often rejected from them with criticisms that say, "This seems correct, but it's not important enough for this journal." In physics there are other journals, still perfectly respectable, that don't really care about contemporary judgements of importance. Their attitude is that you can never tell what details may turn out to be important fifty years from now. On the other hand, physics papers tend to be much shorter than linguistics papers, and most journals have abandoned paper years ago, so journals can afford to publish a lot of papers. Maybe it's tougher to get published at all in your field than in mine.

I can see the potential trouble with referees if you're already in print drawing religious conclusions from your descriptive linguistics. Can't you just take the bull by the horns, though? If you're really not trying to claim a linguistic proof that Joseph Smith couldn't possibly have written the Book, but are just pointing out some interesting patterns in the language that's there, then can't you just say that explicitly in your paper, and disarm this kind of criticism? That would disappoint some Mormon apologists, but it would get the linguistic work out there for colleagues to see.

Edited October 4, 2018 by Physics Guy

[clarkgoble]

11 hours ago, Exiled said:

You obviously aren't mormon or have served a mission where opposition ridicules over the lack of evidence. Seizing on this and raising it to higher levels than warranted is understandable given the frustration some must feel.

I really don't think that's it. I think it's something non-intuitive for which there's a reasonable degree of evidence. I'm not sure these 16th century features really are evidence for the text being true at all. So I'm surprised you'd raise that.

[champatsch]

26 minutes ago, Physics Guy said:

Can't you just take the bull by the horns, though? If you're really not trying to claim a linguistic proof that Joseph Smith couldn't possibly have written the Book, but are just pointing out some interesting patterns in the language that's there, then can't you just say that explicitly in your paper, and disarm this kind of criticism?

That is the approach to take. And there should be things of general interest since I have learned a lot of less-common Early Modern English from studying Book of Mormon syntax.

[Physics Guy]

Perhaps you could also add interest by commenting on the fact that nobody has really noticed all these EModE patterns in the Book of Mormon before. They've basically passed for King James English, whether well-rendered or not, for nearly two hundred years. That's a completely neutral point to make as regards the text's origin (since the apparent EModE patterns are what they are whether they came from fake archaism or not), but maybe it's linguistically interesting, in showing how Early Modern English has lasted, in a certain sense, into this century.

Nobody ever mistook the Book of Mormon's English for contemporary English, but nobody said, "Wow, these grammatical patterns are out of date by four centuries!" That must say something about how hard it can be to notice grammatical change. It might be a workable story line for a paper, anyway.

(Just in case you do end up saying something in that direction, let me say that the idea is an obvious one that has undoubtedly already crossed your own mind. I'm not inventing it, only encouraging it. I certainly shouldn't be cited for it.)

Edited October 4, 2018 by Physics Guy

[Exiled]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I really don't think that's it. I think it's something non-intuitive for which there's a reasonable degree of evidence. I'm not sure these 16th century features really are evidence for the text being true at all. So I'm surprised you'd raise that.

Take a look at what Robert posted when he announced the Skousen/Carmack presentation. http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71035-nature-of-the-original-language-of-the-bk-of-mormon/  He takes EmodE as evidence that God was involved in the book of mormon.  I don't think it does and you don't either.  But some do and I was expressing why I think they do given the dearth of evidence for a historical book of mormon.

 

[clarkgoble]

20 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Take a look at what Robert posted when he announced the Skousen/Carmack presentation. http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71035-nature-of-the-original-language-of-the-bk-of-mormon/  He takes EmodE as evidence that God was involved in the book of mormon.  I don't think it does and you don't either.  But some do and I was expressing why I think they do given the dearth of evidence for a historical book of mormon.

Some may well take that position but the evidence itself really doesn't make a case for that. Those doing the research (Carmack and Skousen) appear much more cautious - at best arguing it is evidence Joseph isn't the author.

I don't see how God using 16th century grammar is evidence for his involvement anymore than using 19th century language. Further I've argued that it seems overwhelming in the evidence that the text is at best a loose translation perhaps due to the ambiguity of the underlying symbols on the plates.

[Ryan Dahle]

17 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Some may well take that position but the evidence itself really doesn't make a case for that. Those doing the research (Carmack and Skousen) appear much more cautious - at best arguing it is evidence Joseph isn't the author.

I don't see how God using 16th century grammar is evidence for his involvement anymore than using 19th century language. Further I've argued that it seems overwhelming in the evidence that the text is at best a loose translation perhaps due to the ambiguity of the underlying symbols on the plates.

I only think it counts as evidence when one holds other key assumptions about the text and its production. For example:

1. Joseph most likely orally produced the text in the space of approximately three months without reference materials, working notes, or or substantive revisions. 

2. Joseph most likely wasn't able to smuggle in portions of a prepared text (whether written by himself or by some other author) for each translation session, and then dictate for hours on end for three months without someone noticing his fraud. 

I could go on, but with those two assumptions alone, we have a text that seems highly unlikely to be a product of Joseph Smith's native linguistic abilities, and yet historical circumstances that very much indicate that he was responsible for it. Some witnesses close to the translation process said Joseph was reading off words as he looked into his translation instruments. If the words seem like they most likely couldn't have come from Joseph, then it is natural to assume that perhaps they came from God, rather than formulate a theory about a 17th century author who prepared but never published the text, and then explain how it somehow came into Joseph's possession and how he either memorized its 500 + pages of contents or smuggled in portions of it day after day. People are always free to come up with alternative scenarios about how and when the text was produced, but they typically have to resort to a series of unlikely assumptions that conflict with the best historical data available.  

As for the nature of the translation, I think we only have good (not "overwhelming") evidence that some of the translation was loose. I'm not sure how this relates to the issue at hand, though. 

[Physics Guy]

44 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

1. Joseph most likely orally produced the text in the space of approximately three months without reference materials, working notes, or or substantive revisions. 

2. Joseph most likely wasn't able to smuggle in portions of a prepared text (whether written by himself or by some other author) for each translation session, and then dictate for hours on end for three months without someone noticing his fraud. 

[W]ith those two assumptions alone, we have a text that seems highly unlikely to be a product of Joseph Smith's native linguistic abilities.

I'm not sure that either of these premises has been established, and even if they were, I don't see that the conclusion follows.

Dr Carmack himself doesn't seem to consider the linguistic case against Smith's authorship conclusive, either, since I've asked him about his position on this twice in this thread, and he hasn't answered. Now, he didn't say he didn't feel his case was conclusive, either; but he did respond by talking (quite reasonably, it seems to me) about prospects for publishing a paper that stuck to descriptive statements and said nothing about authorship. So I don't want to put words in his mouth, but if he were really sure that he had a case against Smith's authorship which should convince non-Mormons, it would have been strange for him respond as he has.

If I'm misinterpreting his silence on the matter, I apologize and ask him again to clarify his position.

Edited October 4, 2018 by Physics Guy

[clarkgoble]

57 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I only think it counts as evidence when one holds other key assumptions about the text and its production. For example:

1. Joseph most likely orally produced the text in the space of approximately three months without reference materials, working notes, or or substantive revisions. 

2. Joseph most likely wasn't able to smuggle in portions of a prepared text (whether written by himself or by some other author) for each translation session, and then dictate for hours on end for three months without someone noticing his fraud. 

Physics Guy made the point I was going to. I'd just note that most critics have typically adopted a fraud case that presumes authorship prior rather than authorship at the time of oral communication. Of course Taves changed that somewhat although there were always those arguing it was more traditional misguided "revelation." However the internal consistency with distances, peoples and so forth always made that a harder sell. Since Taves I've noticed more moving to that position although they've avoided engaging with those structural composition issues. We'll see how long that lasts.

The point being that I'm not sure (2) is obvious.

However if you do take Carmack's thesis as evidence for divine translation that's fine. I'd just say that at best it's a weak evidence. And of course I have lots of problems with Taves on her own terms so I'm much more skeptical that works (just as argument ignoring the fact I'm a believer for the moment).

All that said I do think it'd be interesting to see what elements of the text traditionally claimed by critics as 19th century can be found earlier. I'd have thought the treasure/riches that are slippery but both JarMan and Stanford have raised good reasons to think that's not as clear. The other usual targets are masonry, although you could argue the Rosicrucian conspiracy theories undermine that somewhat. There are of course earlier conspiracies. Indeed the Pazzi conspiracy in Italy in many ways parallels the Book of Mormon far more than any masonic conspiracy. Vogel is the one who's put out the most on 19th century elements particular relative to legends of the mound builders held by early Americans. I'm curious as to how he'd respond to the 17th/16th century claims.

 

Edited October 4, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Ryan Dahle]

2 hours ago, Physics Guy said:

I'm not sure that either of these premises has been established, and even if they were, I don't see that the conclusion follows.

 

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Physics Guy made the point I was going to. I'd just note that most critics have typically adopted a fraud case that presumes authorship prior rather than authorship at the time of oral communication. Of course Taves changed that somewhat although there were always those arguing it was more traditional misguided "revelation." However the internal consistency with distances, peoples and so forth always made that a harder sell. Since Taves I've noticed more moving to that position although they've avoided engaging with those structural composition issues. We'll see how long that lasts.

The point being that I'm not sure (2) is obvious.

I'm not saying that the assumptions I presented about the translation are the only possible assumptions one can hold. I'm just stating that for those who hold those assumptions (and many Latter-day Saint scholars do), it makes sense (at least to some of them) that the EModE features act as evidence that it was divinely revealed to Joseph Smith. 

I personally feel that the text most likely was produced in the manner claimed by the witnesses closest to the translation event. I think it is the most plausible explanation or theory, based on the data. And I don't feel we know enough about God's purposes for the Book of Mormon to reliably say one way or another (at least as an initial hypothesis) how likely it would be for Him to infuse its English translation with pervasive EModE. We don't know who the primary audience is. We don't know whats happening on the other side of the veil and if/how it is being used there. We don't know how the text will be viewed throughout the Millennium. There is a lot we don't know. What we do know is that the witnesses said Joseph read off words he saw in his seer stone. And now we know that the words he dictated to his scribes were probably not his own, based on the linguistic data. 

Edited October 4, 2018 by Ryan Dahle

[Physics Guy]

For most of the production time we have no accounts from uninvolved witnesses, so I don't see how it can be the most plausible explanation to assume that the whole production process was just like the few reported scenes, unless you've decided in advance that Smith wouldn't try to stage anything to conceal his true methods.

The linguistic data do NOT seem to show that the Book of Mormon text cannot have been Smith's own words. Were they even "probably" not his own words? I don't think even this has been clearly shown. Certainly the chance that they were his own is going to seem much higher to any non-Mormon than the chance of his having read them from a stone by the gift of God.

[JarMan]

3 minutes ago, Physics Guy said:

For most of the production time we have no accounts from uninvolved witnesses, so I don't see how it can be the most plausible explanation to assume that the whole production process was just like the few reported scenes, unless you've decided in advance that Smith wouldn't try to stage anything to conceal his true methods.

The linguistic data do NOT seem to show that the Book of Mormon text cannot have been Smith's own words. Were they even "probably" not his own words? I don't think even this has been clearly shown. Certainly the chance that they were his own is going to seem much higher to any non-Mormon than the chance of his having read them from a stone by the gift of God.

Have you gotten around to reading Stan Carmack's papers yet?

[Ryan Dahle]

26 minutes ago, Physics Guy said:

For most of the production time we have no accounts from uninvolved witnesses, so I don't see how it can be the most plausible explanation to assume that the whole production process was just like the few reported scenes, unless you've decided in advance that Smith wouldn't try to stage anything to conceal his true methods.

Are you suggesting it is more likely that the witnesses were complicit in fraud than that they were telling the truth about what they witnessed?

[Physics Guy]

31 minutes ago, JarMan said:

Have you gotten around to reading Stan Carmack's papers yet?

I asked Dr Carmack twice directly whether he felt he had a conclusive case, such as ought to convince a non-Mormon, that Smith could not have composed the Book of Mormon. He gave several other responses without saying Yes to that. So No, reading those papers has not risen higher on my priority list.

Edited October 4, 2018 by Physics Guy

[Physics Guy]

14 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

Are you suggesting it is more likely that the witnesses were complicit in fraud than that they were telling the truth about what they witnessed?

Not for casual witnesses who weren't keeping tabs on Smith the whole time, no. The people who only actually saw him at work once or twice could just have been deceived by a scene staged for their benefit. How much staging would even have been needed? Stuffing the stack of notes into a drawer or under a mattress?

(This is a derail from the original topic of the thread, so maybe we should drop it.)

Edited October 4, 2018 by Physics Guy

[JarMan]

3 hours ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I only think it counts as evidence when one holds other key assumptions about the text and its production. For example:

1. Joseph most likely orally produced the text in the space of approximately three months without reference materials, working notes, or or substantive revisions. 

2. Joseph most likely wasn't able to smuggle in portions of a prepared text (whether written by himself or by some other author) for each translation session, and then dictate for hours on end for three months without someone noticing his fraud. 

I agree that these assumptions are commonly held by those who defend the traditional model of the Book of Mormon. But this says more about what the traditionalist already believes about the Book of Mormon than it does about the soundness of the assumptions. We just don't have enough information to confidently make these assumptions. I think it's a much fairer approach to admit that we don't know. I even think it's healthy to be somewhat skeptical considering that concealment is at the root of a conjurer's illusion. And Joseph certainly employed concealment in the process (he concealed the plates, he used the hat to conceal the seer stone, he sat behind a table which could have concealed things like a manuscript). When we are fooled by an illusionist we don't assume divine powers.

[JarMan]

23 minutes ago, Physics Guy said:

I asked Dr Carmack twice directly whether he felt he had a conclusive case, such as ought to convince a non-Mormon, that Smith could not have composed the Book of Mormon. He gave several other responses without saying Yes to that. So No, reading those papers has not risen higher on my priority list.

I'm reminded of the anecdote that says something about not having had to read the Book of Mormon in order to have an opinion about it. You really ought to read the papers

[Ryan Dahle]

14 minutes ago, Physics Guy said:

Not for casual witnesses who weren't keeping tabs on Smith the whole time, no. The people who only actually saw him at work once or twice could just have been deceived by a scene staged for their benefit. How much staging would even have been needed? Stuffing the stack of notes into a drawer or under a mattress?

(This is a derail from the original topic of the thread, so maybe we should drop it.)

Well, it is obviously relevant in relation to interpreting the significance of the linguistic data, which is what we are talking about. What the data means is dependent upon our assumptions about who produced the text and when. And if that is the case, then our judgement about the witnesses to the translation event is certainly a relevant topic. That being said, I don't really want to hash all of that out.

I just typically find that people have all these alternative theories about how the text was produced, but once you start probing the details of their theories, it usually becomes clear that they are far more convoluted and have far less historical support than the standard narrative believed by mainstream Latter-day Saint scholars. These alternative theories certainly aren't impossible; they are just comparatively weak. The only reason they are resorted to is that they are more palatable than angels and seer stones. 

[strappinglad]

Is it possible that the critics so stoutly refuse to accept the BoM as a divine product, because they want there to be no Second Witness for Christ? They have enough trouble with the Bible's witness and have tried and to some extent succeeded in casting doubt on the Old and New Testament versions and narratives about the Messiah. Should a third source come from one of the " other sheep " civilizations, they will have to scramble to debunk any divine gloss that might be attached to its revealing. Such it has always been, don't like the message? discredit/shoot the messenger.

[Rajah Manchou]

1 hour ago, Ryan Dahle said:

These alternative theories certainly aren't impossible; they are just comparatively weak. The only reason they are resorted to is that they are more palatable than angels and seer stones. 

The reason alternative theories are resorted to is because a theory that relies on angels and seer stones is comparatively weak and is, as far as we know, impossible. 

[Ryan Dahle]

1 hour ago, Rajah Manchou said:

The reason alternative theories are resorted to is because a theory that relies on angels and seer stones is comparatively weak and is, as far as we know, impossible. 

Not "impossible." Just untestable using the scientific method. 

Here is an analogy. I don't have any disposition to believe in aliens. I suppose it is possible that aliens have landed on earth and that humans have interacted with them, but I don't know of any credible evidence to suggest this. And honestly, I haven't looked very hard because it isn't something I'm interested in. 

However, let's say that a group believes that an alien gave their leader (a frontier farmer) an ancient religious text and that he also gave him a special stone to translate it with. And that this farmer translated the text in 1829. And so on and so forth, with everything else matching up except swapping out something I am inclined to believe in with something I am very much not inclined to believe in. With all the same evidences as they stand. 

I don't believe that I, using logic and reasoning alone, would necessarily be persuaded in the story. However, I do think that I could understand why others might choose to believe it. I would even concede that there is a lot of good evidence pointing toward the story being true, and that if aliens weren't involved, the data would possibly be quite compelling. 

Most of the time, multiple eyewitness to an event, such as the one described by the Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon, is quite compelling. If they all say they saw the same thing, if the thing they witness is immediately in their presence, if multiple senses are involved (seeing the angel, seeing the plates, hearing the voice from heaven, hearing the angel speak to them), if their testimonies match, if they have to make sacrifices to maintain their witness, if they continue to affirm their testimonies despite incentives to recant, if they passionately and consistently affirm it throughout their lives, if they pointedly correct others' misrepresentations (such as it just being "second sight"), and if they all essentially reaffirm this testimony on their deathbeds, that is usually pretty compelling eyewitness testimony.

The same goes for about every issue. Under normal circumstances (when angels and seer stones aren't involved) I think most people would agree that the evidence would support the standard Latter-day Saint narrative promoted by scholars familiar with the historical details. I can understand that outsiders are skeptical, just like I am skeptical of ancient aliens, but I think that most often what happens is that outsiders simply don't see how their bias skews their interpretation of evidence. It's not that the evidence is bad or deficient. Under most circumstances the evidence would be great. It just isn't enough to compel outsiders to believe in miracles that conflict with their assumptions. 

Typical standards of evidence simply won't do because this isn't a typical situation. Everything has to be logically compelling. But, of course, Latter-day Saints know that God never meant the evidence to be that compelling. It is great that there is always room to believe in some alternative explanation, even though under normal circumstances that explanation would most often be inferior, all things being equal, and with no burden to prove the miraculous. Everyone is free to believe what they want and no one is compelled either way by reason alone. There is plenty of logical room to humble ourselves enough to try the spiritual experiment that the Book of Mormon prescribes, at least for those who are so inclined. That's all it really boils down to anyway.

[Exiled]

3 hours ago, strappinglad said:

Is it possible that the critics so stoutly refuse to accept the BoM as a divine product, because they want there to be no Second Witness for Christ? They have enough trouble with the Bible's witness and have tried and to some extent succeeded in casting doubt on the Old and New Testament versions and narratives about the Messiah. Should a third source come from one of the " other sheep " civilizations, they will have to scramble to debunk any divine gloss that might be attached to its revealing. Such it has always been, don't like the message? discredit/shoot the messenger.

I don't think that is the thinking. My guess is that if mormons and evangelicals stopped the missionary efforts, we would all move on to something else.

[Physics Guy]

Let me answer the alien scenario with another analogy.

Dozens of eyewitness testimonies would usually suffice to establish that a man was truly attacked by a tiger in a circus act gone wrong, but they would not be enough to establish that the man truly made a tiger disappear on a Las Vegas stage. This is not only because historians have a bias which says that tigers cannot just disappear. It's also because stage magicians have made lots of things seem to disappear, and it has always been illusion.

A skilled illusionist who is there on the scene for the trick can almost always tell how it was done. Even experts may not be able to tell exactly how the trick was really done, however, if they can only go by written accounts from other people. The people who wrote the accounts may have overlooked crucial details, or mistakenly thought they saw things which they actually didn't. Or they may have been confederates of the performer helping to cover his tracks.

Judging only from the witness accounts, there may be many possible ways the illusion could have been done. Some of them may contradict witness accounts: illusions deceive witnesses. Some of the possible mechanisms for the trick may be complicated: illusionists are ingenious and they go to great lengths to achieve their effects. All of the possible mechanisms will involve events that do not normally occur, because illusion relies on the unexpected. Certainly all of the possible mechanisms for the trick will be much more complicated than the simple scenario in which the tiger was truly vanished by magic.

If you applied the ordinary standards of historical evidence to reports of stage magic, you would have to believe in a lot of magic. That would not be reasonable or plausible or unbiased, however. It would just be naive. Clever deception exists. It has occurred much more often than vanishing tigers—or golden plates from an angel.

[JarMan]

31 minutes ago, Physics Guy said:

Let me answer the alien scenario with another analogy.

Dozens of eyewitness testimonies would usually suffice to establish that a man was truly attacked by a tiger in a circus act gone wrong, but they would not be enough to establish that the man truly made a tiger disappear on a Las Vegas stage. This is not only because historians have a bias which says that tigers cannot just disappear. It's also because stage magicians have made lots of things seem to disappear, and it has always been illusion.

A skilled illusionist who is there on the scene for the trick can almost always tell how it was done. Even experts may not be able to tell exactly how the trick was really done, however, if they can only go by written accounts from other people. The people who wrote the accounts may have overlooked crucial details, or mistakenly thought they saw things which they actually didn't. Or they may have been confederates of the performer helping to cover his tracks.

Judging only from the witness accounts, there may be many possible ways the illusion could have been done. Some of them may contradict witness accounts: illusions deceive witnesses. Some of the possible mechanisms for the trick may be complicated: illusionists are ingenious and they go to great lengths to achieve their effects. All of the possible mechanisms will involve events that do not normally occur, because illusion relies on the unexpected. Certainly all of the possible mechanisms for the trick will be much more complicated than the simple scenario in which the tiger was truly vanished by magic.

If you applied the ordinary standards of historical evidence to reports of stage magic, you would have to believe in a lot of magic. That would not be reasonable or plausible or unbiased, however. It would just be naive. Clever deception exists. It has occurred much more often than vanishing tigers—or golden plates from an angel.

I'll suggest a plausible way to perform the illusion. The stone is in the hat, but it's not the stone that you are looking at. You pretend to look into the hat at the stone but leave enough space so that you can look into your lap. Try this with an actual hat. It's very simple to pull off. The manuscript is likely hidden in a drawer that pulls out or is secured to a contraption that folds out or slides out from under the table. Or it is simply held in the lap. Perhaps the manuscript is wound around a pair of spools so that it can be advanced as the dictation is occurring. This would be simple to pull off. The items needed to perform the illusion such as the manuscript and spools could be carried in whatever container was said to contain the plates.

If you're ever trying to figure out how a magician performs an illusion you have to pay attention to what props offer possible concealment. Illusions operate on the principle that things are happening behind what you can see. It can be loose clothing, a curtain, a box or container of some sort, a door, a table, a hat. . . the possibilities are endless. Joseph didn't have a lot of options, but he had some. The stone was placed in the hat to conceal there was no writing on the stone. The table was a natural way to conceal the manuscript. The manuscripts and other tools were held in a container masquerading as the plates. It really could be that simple.

[Physics Guy]

Right. People saw Smith at work, but James Randi wasn't there to recognize everything that a professional conjurer would recognize.

I'm not even convinced that Smith would have needed to dictate from notes, mind you. The Book of Mormon is repetitive enough that fresh information doesn't come very fast even if you read it quickly, and peering at a stone in the dark would be a good excuse for speaking slowly. It seems to me that somebody could just make it up going along. Maybe it would have been enough to just jot a few notes in the evening, and review them in the early morning, to keep things on track. Maybe not even that.

If one does suppose that notes were needed, however, it doesn't seem hard for Smith to have had a way to consult them.