Response to Jockers, Criddle, et al., Now Available

[_Uncle Dale]

I have only the information that is in the article. You might be able to get it from Bruce. You can find his email address on the BYU web site.

Glenn

I really think that would the wrong way to go about having
Bruce share his raw data. That disclosure should not come as
a personal favor to me -- in a private communication, which
may have to be kept private -- but in the same way that
Matt Jockers posted a great deal of his raw data on the web.

Bruce has been able to review and reconstruct some of
Jockers' methods/findings BECAUSE that original raw data
was thus shared. It was not divulged in a private e-mail
to Dale Broadhurst, but was posted for all to consult, as
a supplement to the original 2008 Jockers paper.

I think Bruce should follow suit and of the same.

Can anybody relay that message to him?

Dale

[_mentalgymnast]

Harmony writes:

The point, dear Glenn, is that if God didn't write the Book of Mormon, a man did. And if a man wrote it, it doesn't really matter who that was.

So what else that God supposedly wrote does Bruce compare the Book of Mormon with?

I think this is a rather facile, and not very useful point. Speech act theory (which includes written works) can divide the act of production of a speech act into several parts. Goffman, in his book Forms of Talk broke it into three useful roles - 1) the animator - the person who is actually speaking, or writing, 2) the author - the person who is composing what is said or written, and 3) the principal - the person whose ideas and beliefs are being expressed and who is ostensibly the authority behind the text.

Usually, all of these roles are played by the same person. But this isn't always the case. A classic example of this might occur if the President of the U.S. had to deliver a speech. The President is the principal, while his speechwriter is the author, and supposing he had a scheduling conflict and arranged for the Vice President to deliver it on his behalf, the Vice President would then become the animator. Three separate roles played by three individuals. I suspect that were we to start considering the many different (and probably obscure) circumstances in which speech acts are made, we could further expand these three roles into as many as we want to create. And if we look at the Book of Mormon - depending on your view (as a believer of course) - we could be quite narrow and specific as to the role that God filled in the creation of the text of the English Book of Mormon. It doesn't hurt for us to be specific here.

You suggest that God "wrote" the Book of Mormon - but clearly, God didn't "write it". We might say that Joseph's scribes did all the writing (and be accurate in saying that). We might say that Nephi, Jacob, et al., "wrote" the Book of Mormon (and we might be reflecting a believer's point of view quite accurately in saying that - without also contradicting the fact that Joseph's scribes also wrote it). At most, the only role God plays in the process is in the so-called translation. Believers see God interacting only in a very limited way in the production of the Book of Mormon (and of course, for those that have even considered it, there is this difference between those who favor a loose translation and those who favor a tight translation). So even in this limited role, God's impact falls into a spectrum of opinions.

So, even if we decide that a man wrote the Book of Mormon in some sense (or even in multiple senses), I think it doesn't change the discussion much at all from the perspective of a believer - partly because we believe from the outset that men are largely responsible for the book, for the original gold plates, for nearly ever part of the process (historical and modern) which was required to provide us with this book.

On the other hand, the question is a much larger issue for the book's critics in many ways. They already know God wasn't involved at all. But, until recently really, they refused to interact with each other. In many ways, they took a position much like yours. The question of how the Book of Mormon was produced wasn't really an issue, it was always about challenging the faith. But the various critical camps cannot all be right. And most of the holders of these views - when it comes right down to it - were more interested in dealing only with the believers as opposed to critics with exclusive points of view. In other words, it didn't really matter as long it was agreed that a man (and not God) wrote the book. And often this set such a low evidentiary bar that bad arguments had become quite commonplace. That is, if all you have to do is to compete with the angel, than almost anything you provide will be better than that. But, as I noted, this has changed quite a bit in the last couple of years.

Whether we go with MCB and figure that we merely need to finesse the data and manipulate it until we get the 'right' result, or we side with the other group in the notion that clearly these stylometric approaches fail because of the nature of the text for one or more reasons, I think we will continue to see discussion on this topic for quite some time. I think that there has always been some hope by many believers that it would reveal something interesting that could be used as some kind of proof, but I am fairly confident that stylometric analysis will not provide us with something of that nature.

Ben McGuire

Wow. Thanks for this. Definitely some food for thought.

Over the years as I've investigated and prowled around the precincts of New Mormon History and Science-Religion issues I have some to the realization that all is not as it seems to be when one relies on binary/simplistic ways of approaching hard issues and/or conundrums. Just as there is much complexity underneath what appears to be the simple world of nature, there is much complexity as one investigates the history of the LDS church. Yet, when all is said and done, the gospel as taught by the church today is rather simple and beautiful. A pearl is not created in a vacuum. It's created within a messy, muddy and not so pretty mass inside a non-descript container. I've come to believe that the church could not have become what it is without what has come before...in all its complexity and yes, what appears to be some messiness and muddiness.

Humanity.

The fun part is trying to pry apart and understand the complexity which resulted in a church which which many consider to be a pearl of great price. The doctrines and teachings of the church really are quite remarkable. The fruit is good.

This has been an interesting thread.

Regards,
MG

[_Jersey Girl]

bschaalje

Our use of the term “naïve” was not intended to question the Stanford team’s integrity. We have always believed that they were sincere, even if the 3rd author, Craig Criddle, openly admitted to having an agenda.

What has Craig Criddle openly admitting that he had an agenda got to do with the results of the word/text analysis?

We also know, from actually doing it, that one will get the same results as Matt and Craig if they follow the recipe given in their paper

Who conducted the word/text analysis?

[_Benjamin McGuire]

MC writes:

The massive number of parallels in the Book of Mormon with literature available in the 1815-1829 time period reveals the cultural context of the book. It is clearly nineteenth century literature.

No one disputes this MCB. Clearly the Book of Mormon - the English text of the Book of Mormon - was produced from start to finish in the early 19th century. It's language is grounded in the era of its production. It was first read by individuals in the early 19th century - it is a 19th century literary work. As such, the fact that we find similarities between it and other literature produced in the early 19th century also intended to be read by an early 19th century audience is not only not particularly noteworthy, it is completely expected. So, saying that the Book of Mormon shares some features with the larger body of early 19th century literature shouldn't come as a surprise. The issue has never been whether or not the English Book of Mormon was produced in the early 19th century. It is whether or not it is an independent creative work, whether or not it relied on contemporary literature in a genetic fashion, or whether or not it relies on some previously unknown ancient text.

Ben McGuire

[_Buffalo]

MC writes:

The massive number of parallels in the Book of Mormon with literature available in the 1815-1829 time period reveals the cultural context of the book. It is clearly nineteenth century literature.

No one disputes this MCB. Clearly the Book of Mormon - the English text of the Book of Mormon - was produced from start to finish in the early 19th century. It's language is grounded in the era of its production. It was first read by individuals in the early 19th century - it is a 19th century literary work. As such, the fact that we find similarities between it and other literature produced in the early 19th century also intended to be read by an early 19th century audience is not only not particularly noteworthy, it is completely expected. So, saying that the Book of Mormon shares some features with the larger body of early 19th century literature shouldn't come as a surprise. The issue has never been whether or not the English Book of Mormon was produced in the early 19th century. It is whether or not it is an independent creative work, whether or not it relied on contemporary literature in a genetic fashion, or whether or not it relies on some previously unknown ancient text.

Ben McGuire

Why should an ancient book that was translated, not written, in the 19th century share features with the other 19th century works?

[_MCB]

You are making progress, Ben, making progress. Communication with you is encouraging, and not a lost cause, unlike some of the others on this board.

Prayers.

[_GlennThigpen]

Why should an ancient book that was translated, not written, in the 19th century share features with the other 19th century works?

This is an area that different people keep presenting contradictory ideas. I am not sure I understand or agree with the logic. According to Royal Skousen, the Book of Mormon was written in fifteenth (not seventeenth) century English. The claim is that it was translated by the power of God, not by any man's skill as a translator.

A translated text should reflect the environment from which it originated. Depending upon genre, focus, purpose, a translated text may find many parallels with the time period in which it is translated.

The Book of Mormon has many parallels with the Bible. It also has parallels with nineteenth century America. It also has many parallels with ancient Mesoamerican cultures. The problem is deciding which parallels are significant and which are merely coincidence, as Ben pointed out. And there are generally accepted standards and methods for that.

Glenn

[_Buffalo]

Why should an ancient book that was translated, not written, in the 19th century share features with the other 19th century works?

This is an area that different people keep presenting contradictory ideas. I am not sure I understand or agree with the logic. According to Royal Skousen, the Book of Mormon was written in fifteenth (not seventeenth) century English. The claim is that it was translated by the power of God, not by any man's skill as a translator.

A translated text should reflect the environment from which it originated. Depending upon genre, focus, purpose, a translated text may find many parallels with the time period in which it is translated.

The Book of Mormon has many parallels with the Bible. It also has parallels with nineteenth century America. It also has many parallels with ancient Mesoamerican cultures. The problem is deciding which parallels are significant and which are merely coincidence, as Ben pointed out. And there are generally accepted standards and methods for that.

Glenn

To reflect 19th century (or 15th century) language use is one thing, to reflect 19th century ideas is quite another.

[_GlennThigpen]

To reflect 19th century (or 15th century) language use is one thing, to reflect 19th century ideas is quite another.

Only if those ideas are unique to the nineteenth century.

Glenn

[_MCB]

Only if those ideas are unique to the nineteenth century.

LOL I will hold you to that.