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

[_Dan Vogel]

Marg,

Oi Vey....this is a different explanation than head in hat and reading words off a word glowing stone. Besides the extraordinary claim being made which itself is unbelievable ...D. Whitmer is not even consistent in the process. Now he's talking about spectacle ..instead of a word glowing rock.

Dan as I said before your use of these statements as being good evidence that Smith used a head in the hat and dictated the entire Book of Mormon that way...says more about your poor critical thinking skills than anything else.

Historians aren’t in control of what kinds of documents exist to answer our current questions. You are stuck with the same documents. Both sides of the issue have to deal with all the documents. Right now we are trying to reconstruct Joseph Smith’s method of translation using imperfect sources. Historians deal with this situation all the time. So far, you haven’t shown any sophistication or technique for handling these documents other than accusing them of lying because they describe things that are not possible.

Did you miss my introduction?

Even some members were confused about the spectacles and the stone in hat. This was largely due to the fact that Joseph Smith’s history mentioned only the spectacles and referred to them as “Urim and Thummim”, and some witnesses (and reporters) called the seer stone by the same term. Whitmer frequently corrected reporters.

In this instance the source is a reporter who interviewed Whitmer then filled out the details later. So we are dealing with a secondhand source. Concerning newspapers, Gottschalk says:

Newspaper reports and dispatches, intended by the reporter for the world at large, are probably the most reliable of the three because of the time-lapse between event and recording is usually short. The very fact, however, which makes for that virtue—namely the obligation on newspaper reporters to write frequent, even daily, accounts—may also make for haste (and consequently carelessness of verification) or even invention. –Understanding History, p. 96-97).

Yet the account in the Chicago Times is fairly accurate:

... During all these months David had free access to their room, and was

AN EYE-WITNESS TO THE METHOD OF PROCEDURE.

The plates were not before Joseph while he translated, but seem to have been removed by the custodian angel. The method pursued was commonplace but nevertheless effective. Having placed the Urim and Thummim in his hat, Joseph placed the hat over his face, and with prophetic eyes read the invisible symbols syllable by syllable and word by word, while Cowdery or Harris acted as recorders. “So illiterate was Joseph at that time,” said Mr. Whitmer, “that he didn’t even know that Jerusalem was a walled city, and he was utterly unable to pronounce many of the names which the magic power of the Urim and Thummim revealed, and therefore spelled them out in syllables, and the more erudite scribe put them together. ...”

--“The Golden Tablets on Which Were Inscribed the Records of the Tribe of Nephi. Written in ‘Improved Egyptian’ and Translated by Joseph Smith. How He Came to Find Them and the Mighty Goggles by Which They Were Translated. And How He Was Pitched Down Hill for Daring to Think He had Struck a Bonanza. An Interview with David Whitmer, Who Helped to Make the Translation. And Who Now Holds the Original Manuscripts of the Book of Mormon. ...,” Chicago Times, 7 August 1875, 1. (EMD 5:21)

Here “Urim and Thummim” is not clearly referring to the spectacles. The part you should note is David Whitmer’s claim that he “had free access to their room, and was AN EYE-WITNESS TO THE METHOD OF PROCEDURE.”

Conspiracy theory tabulation—so far, we have as coconspirators with Joseph Smith: Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, Emma Smith, Elizabeth Whitmer Cowdery, David Whitmer.

[_GlennThigpen]

Conspiracy theory tabulation—so far, we have as coconspirators with Joseph Smith: Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, Emma Smith, Elizabeth Whitmer Cowdery, David Whitmer.

You left off the shadowy mastermind, Sidney Rigdon, who directed the whole process from the shadows, somewhat supernaturally.

Glenn

[_Uncle Dale]

Conspiracy theory tabulation—so far, we have as coconspirators with Joseph Smith: Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, Emma Smith, Elizabeth Whitmer Cowdery, David Whitmer.

You left off the shadowy mastermind, Sidney Rigdon, who directed the whole process from the shadows, somewhat supernaturally.

Glenn

Another possibility is that Rigdon and Smith believed in each other's
"supernatural" manifestations and experiences -- a collaboration
which becomes visible for us onlookers in the famous vision of the
three degrees of glory at Hiram, Ohio in 1832.

At the very least, the curious non-Mormon should ask himself
how far back in history did that sort of "supernatural" collaboration
go? Back to December of 1831? Back to July of 1831? Back to
December of 1830?

In December of 1830 God reportedly spoke to Sidney Rigdon,
telling him that he had prepared the way for Mormonism, but
that he "knew it not."

What is the non-Mormon investigator to make of THAT event?
Was it "supernatural?" Did it originate solely with Joe Smith, as
a con upon the gullible Rigdon? Or -- was it Rigdon who directed
that 1830 revelation from the shadows, somewhat supernaturally?

Two concurrent occurrences might induce the non-Mormon
onlooker to conclude that Rigdon was cooperating (and even
"directing") that December 1830 episode:

1. God instructs Rigdon to watch over Smith -- to essentially act
as Smith's religious monitor, ready to relieve him of his role in the
prophet business, if Smith slipped into transgression.

2. God allows Rigdon to immediately enter into the scripture
producing process at the Joseph Smith, Sr. "Kingdom," residence,
just outside of Seneca Falls.

If Smith was fully in control of the hoax, why did he allow Rigdon
that degree of prominence and control, as early as Dec. 1830?

Rigdon and Smith jointly produced scripture (for the D&C) at Hiram
in February of 1832 -- and it can be compellingly argued that they
were also jointly producing scripture at Kingdom in December of
1830. The only question (for non-Mormons to ask themselves) is:
"WHO WAS DIRECTING THE CON?"

Our Brodieite friends (?) of course, will say that Joe Smith was
in total control of the fraud, and that Rigdon was a simple dupe.

UD

[_Uncle Dale]

...
Our Brodieite friends (?) of course, will say that Joe Smith was
in total control of the fraud, and that Rigdon was a simple dupe.

Here is one way that the Brodieites might attempt to explain
Rigdon's startlingly sudden rise to prominence in Joe Smith's con:

1. Smith felt that he needed the legitimacy of recognition from a
noted religious reformer, and was overjoyed to hear of Rigdon's
conversion, baptism and ordination as a Mormon. After briefly
meeting with Rigdon at Kingdom, Smith realized that Rigdon would
make a very good scriptural scribe -- and so Smith invited Rigdon
to assume that role in the production of the JST.

2. Rigdon seemed somewhat reluctant to accept Smith's offer,
so Smith manufactured a "revelation," telling Rigdon that he (Rigdon)
had prepared the way for Mormonism, and that he (Rigdon) would
have control over Smith, (and could dismiss him from the prophetic
office, if he saw Smith transgressing). This acknowledgment and
delegation of authority from God convinced Rigdon that Smith's
"spiritual" pretensions were true and Divine. He became a scribe.

3. But by early 1832 Rigdon had become so corrupted by Smith, that
he agreed to take part in the "3 degrees of glory" con job. This
corrupt Rigdon even testified of meeting Jesus face-to-face in
that lying scheme. Together with Smith he produced a "revelation."

So -- Rigdon started out a pure, innocent, faithful Christian, who
had no input into Smith's lies. He acted only as a scribe, and did
not contribute anything to latter day scripture, until 1832. -- By
1832 he was as contemptibly corrupt as his liar boss, Joe Smith.

I think Fawn Brodie (and even Sandra Tanner) would accept that.

UD

[_Uncle Dale]

...
I think Fawn Brodie (and even Sandra Tanner) would accept that.
...

Of course Sidney Rigdon was not one of the original eleven published
witnesses to the divinity of the Book of Mormon -- nor did he offer any
testimony regarding the first establishment of Mormonism, as did other
witnesses depended upon by the Brodieites.

Thus, we cannot argue over whether or not Rigdon's testimony regarding
the coming forth of the marvelous book is reliable or not. What little we
possess in that type of evidence is mostly second-hand hearsay anyway.

However, even though we cannot subject Rigdon to the same sort of
skeptical scrutiny reserved for the "three witnesses" and the "eight
witnesses;" we can reasonably inquire as to his "cut off date."

If Oliver Cowdery's early reliability had a post-1830 (but pre-1836)
cut-off date; then by what standard do we compare him to Rigdon?

Perhaps the disinterested outside observer would agree that when
both men reached the point in their LDS careers that they were
professing face-to-face meetings with Jesus Christ, they could no
longer be relied upon as honest, reliable witnesses.

For Cowdery, then, that cut-off date would have been 1836. But
for Rigdon the date would have been 1832.

Part of the reason for establishing a "school of the prophets" in the
upper story of the Kirtland Temple, was to prepare Mormon high
priests to encounter Christ, face-to-face.

What do our Brodieite friends (?) have to say about that episode in
early Mormon history? How do they compare it with the alleged
Christophanies professed by Rigdon and Cowdery?


"Trustworthy witnesses?" -- If so, then I think we must re-define "trust."

UD

[_Roger]

Dan:

Regarding Emma....

EMMA SMITH (acted as scribe for Joseph Smith in Harmony, ca. late Dec. 1827-12 April 1828, for lost “Book of Lehi”)

Emma Smith acted as scribe mostly before Martin Harris came in April 1828. After Joseph Smith’s death, she was accepted into RLDS Church without rebaptism in 1860. The earliest statement she gave regarding the translation is from 1856 interview with Edmund C. Briggs:

... When my husband was translating the Book of Mormon, I wrote a part of it, as he dictated each sentence, word for word, and when he came to proper names he could not pronounce, or long words, he spelled them out, and while I was writing them, if I made any mistake in spelling, he would stop me and correct my spelling, although it was impossible for him to see how I was writing them down at the time. Even the word Sarah he could not pronounce at first, but had to spell it, and I would pronounce it for him.

When he stopped for any purpose at any time he would, when he commenced again, begin where he left off without any hesitation, and one time while he was translating he stopped suddenly, pale as a sheet, and said, “Emma, did Jerusalem have walls around it?” When I answered, “Yes,” he replied “Oh! I was afraid I had been deceived.” He had such a limited knowledge of history at that time that he did not even know that Jerusalem was surrounded by walls. ...

--Edmund C. Briggs, “A Visit to Nauvoo in 1856,” Journal of History 9 (January 1916): 454.

And here's your back and forth with marg:

Dan it is impossible that Smith would know when Emma was misspelling if he was not looking at what she was writing. So what are the options?

The only thing I can think of is she's lying. She's attempting to make it appear that the stone actually was divinely controlled, that Smith read off of it words but not only that despite Smith not being able to spell himself, he knew without even looking at what she was writing when she was misspelling. And so what in the intended inference one is supposed to draw from her statements....that God was guiding Smith. But what she is claiming is impossible. That is it is impossible for Smith to know when she's is misspelling without looking at what she is writing, but that is her claim.

She's a liar Dan.

That’s the only option?

Remember, you are reading statements given by those whom Joseph Smith had convinced he had supernatural powers to see whatever he wanted in his stone. When I did magic, the one thing I noticed was when one of my friends was telling another friend the trick I had shown them, it was told in such a way as to make it more miraculous than it was. In fact, they way it was described would have been impossible to do. Also, Emma is drawing on memories that are twenty-eight-years-old, and they are being reported by Briggs sixty years after that. Nevertheless, David Whitmer made a similar statement to Eri B. Mullin and James H. Hart. It was Joseph Smith’s job to convince people he was translating by a gift from God—it worked! Most likely the claim is based on a few instances of Joseph Smith’s having the scribe read back and spelling a new name, changing the spelling, and explaining that that was why the sentence didn’t disappear from the stone.

Dan you have no idea that Smith was able to convince Emma of supernatural powers. You should not be making those sorts of assumptions especially being as you are supposed to be an objective historian.

As far as your anecdote it doesn't match the circumstances that occurred with Emma. She was relating her personal experience, not giving second hand information.

Let look at what she said:

if I made any mistake in spelling, he would stop me and correct my spelling, although it was impossible for him to see how I was writing them down at the time.

Why are you arguing with her claim?

But then you write "Nevertheless, David Whitmer made a similar statement to Eri B. Mullin and James H. Hart."

So I guess then she wasn't mistaken huh?

Then you write: " It was Joseph Smith’s job to convince people he was translating by a gift from God—it worked!"

Dan you are side-stepping what the description of her experience suggests. If Smith as she said was not looking at what she was writing, if he had his head in the hat as she claimed was the case...he could not have done what she claimed..unless he was able to defy physical laws and what we know about how the world operates.

Your ad hoc explanation that she believed he had supernatural abilities or she'd forgotten and was claiming things which didn't happened is an example of ad hoc fallacy.

There was no way he was able to do what she claimed irrespective of her belief in God or whether or not smith had supernatural abilities...hence I can think of no other explanation than she simply...was lying. I know that's hard for you to accept Dan. Book of Mormon witnesses just don't lie..huh?

Then there was this series:

Dan she's actually a very good witness for the S/R position. She establishes herself as a liar by claiming something which could not have happened, and then goes on to describe a process that is not Smith simply dictating but rather reading off of material. When she says he would spell out what he couldn't pronounce does that sound like a person simply dictating without reading off of something? Does anything she describes sound like a person simply dictating as opposed to reading off of prewritten material? No Dan, it does not. But she states this, because it supports what Smith and Co want which is propaganda that not only was he not capable of writing but that he was being guided by a God.

Strange logic! Joseph Smith is pretending to read the translation, so to interpret that pretence as evidence that he was reading something is nutty. She lied about Joseph Smith correcting her spelling, but told the truth about Joseph Smith spelling words out. So, it sounds like you think Emma was a dupe, and that her description of Joseph Smith reading with head in hat is true.

No Dan it's not strange logic. And I don't think Emma was a dupe, anyone who believes Emma is telling the truth is the naïve one. She is trying to present Smith in a particular way. Trying to present him as incapable of spelling, of even reading difficult words, but he's able to spell the words he can't pronounce, he's able to talk about things he knows nothing about ie. Jerusalem having walls so the implication is he's getting some sort of out of body help...but the clincher and her slip up which reveals what's going on is that she claims Smith was able to correct her spelling while looking into the hat and not able to see what she was writing. That Dan is impossible to do. So what is the most likely explanation Dan for all that she claims? What does occam's razor suggest? Yes occam's razor applies in this situation Dan...the simplest explanation to explain all the facts for the phenomenon she describes is that she's lying. She's trying to present a scenario of 2 things..#1...that Smith wasn't capable of writing the Book of Mormon himself, didn't have the knowledge couldn't even pronounce names and words he spelled out..so the ideas and words were coming from someone/something other than Smith's conscious mind, # 2...that Smith has such amazing supernatural like abilities..he could know without looking what she was writing, when she was misspelling and she's have to correct before they could continue on. She wants the listener to assume with that little tid bit of information...that a God MUST have been involved.

She's a liar Dan there is NO better explanation that I can see, and your counter doesn't overturn that reasonable explanation.

The relevant responses to this that I found include:

Of course he couldn’t, so that’s not what happened—only what he made it appear happened. He deceived her into believing he had that ability. That’s the name of the game. Calling Emma a liar because she describes what happened from the point of view of the deceived is ridiculous. You’re missing the whole point of the situation. If you interviewed a member of Kreskin’s audience, what would you expect to get? Would you get a true description of what happened? No. You would get their interpretation. “Kreskin read my mind.” Of course he didn’t do that. When Josiah Stowell testified in 1826 that a feather was found five feet below ground, do you accuse Stowell of lying because that’s impossible? Or do you postulate the feather was planted by Joseph Smith? So, if Joseph Smith said something is wrong; read back that last sentence. I see (rather hear), you spelt Maroni, it’s really Moroni. Then you have scribes thinking he can correct their spelling. And this gets exaggerated in the telling, both by Emma and Blair.

...and...

No. I can show that my explanation of human behavior works in many situations. It is a principle quite well known to magicians, if not those who study memory generally. Plus, I am not making things up to ward off adverse evidence; I’m defending what should be normal procedure with any testimony. I’m considering time lapse, the manner of reporting, and comparing with other witnesses. Your attempt to read Blair’s reporting literally is amateurish, and labeling standard historical technique ad hoc shows you still don’t know what one is. To say Emma believed Joseph Smith had supernatural power to translate is not ad hoc; it’s what she said about herself in so many words. We both agree that Joseph Smith couldn’t really correct a scribes spelling, but lying isn’t the only explanation. I quoted Blair’s account to show that Emma was making claims about the translation as early as 1856, not because I believed Blair’s sixty-year-old memory is highly accurate. You can’t take this kind of situation and make such bold declarations that Emma was a liar. Sources have to be judiciously handled to get at what probably happened.

...and...

No. You were trying to have it both ways, Marg. You said she was a liar, but provided evidence that Joseph Smith was really reading off a prepared MS. Now she just a liar, I guess. Again, you are talking way too boldly making sweeping judgments about a secondhand statement made sixty-years later. That’s foolish.
....
This is the way Joseph Smith presented himself to the world. It has nothing to do with Emma. Joseph Smith’s neighbors called him ignorant; it’s partly what fueled the Spalding theory. You are transferring blame and responsibility to Emma that rightly belongs with Joseph Smith. He’s the one who was pretending not to know Jerusalem had walls.
....
All we know it that’s impossible as it is written by Blair sixty-years later. However, it’s not impossible for Joseph Smith to make Emma think he had that ability.
....
That’s what Joseph Smith wanted Emma and everyone else to believe. Where is Joseph Smith in your explanation?
....
That’s assuming Emma was accurately quoted by Blair after sixty-years. When you make such an unreasonable demand on a historical source, your conclusion can’t be the most “reasonable”.

So just with one witness, Emma Smith, we have some really interesting stuff to ponder.

What I notice, in general, Dan, is your tendency to think the best about the witnesses you cite in support of a broader Smith-alone thesis. You give each one of them--with the possible exception of Joseph Smith himself (although that remains to be seen)--the benefit of the doubt and you even seem somewhat put out when a skeptic dares to think of them as less than honest individuals. I'm not sure why that is, but that seems to be what is occurring.

An admirable characteristic, I suppose, were it not for a couple mitigating factors; namely that

A. Dan's approach does not extend the same benefit of the doubt to competing witnesses and
B. Dan's approach seems oblivious to the series potential problem of obviously biased witnesses

The problem with A. is that it will lead to skewed results. A critical approach to the S/R witnesses is fine, but not if that same approach gives out unwarranted benefits of doubt to competing witnesses. The results will be skewed.

The problem with B. is that it mistakenly presupposes we are dealing with everyday, rational, run-of-the-mill witnesses and draws conclusions based on that assumption. But that assumption is really quite flawed. The Book of Mormon witnesses must be viewed in terms of devoted followers of a charismatic cult leader--because that's exactly what they are. To expect accurate reports from such interested parties is simply naïve.

The inescapable conclusion is that your version of S/A rests almost entirely on an unwarranted trust in what the Book of Mormon witnesses tell us, but with the odd caveat that we can't trust the supernatural elements of their claims. We must therefore weed through their statements, choosing to retain only the apparently mundane elements (as if they themselves would be okay with that) and assuming such a separation is even possible.

The result is the rather unusual (but enlightening) dialog we have been seeing here where Dan eventually acknowledges that Smith did not receive actual revelations and that nothing actually appeared in a stone, and yet somehow (which apparently can't be explained) was able to make everyone around him legitimately think that's what was happening. So we must forge through their testimonies assuming its all accurate, giving them every possible benefit of doubt, except for whatever Dan thinks can't be true. All this is apparently necessary because..... because.........

...that's where I draw a blank. Why Dan is so devoted to the integrity of his early Mormon witnesses is a mystery to me. Does Dan really think these people were incapable of lying? Does Dan really think they would never lie or omit key information to protect the cause? I don't understand the need to think the best of people we already know were not only capable of lying but actually did and Emma is, of course, the classic example.

There's so much to be noted here I don't think I can get through it all... here's a start:

Of course he couldn’t, so that’s not what happened—only what he made it appear happened. He deceived her into believing he had that ability. That’s the name of the game. Calling Emma a liar because she describes what happened from the point of view of the deceived is ridiculous. You’re missing the whole point of the situation. If you interviewed a member of Kreskin’s audience, what would you expect to get? Would you get a true description of what happened? No. You would get their interpretation. “Kreskin read my mind.” Of course he didn’t do that. When Josiah Stowell testified in 1826 that a feather was found five feet below ground, do you accuse Stowell of lying because that’s impossible? Or do you postulate the feather was planted by Joseph Smith? So, if Joseph Smith said something is wrong; read back that last sentence. I see (rather hear), you spelt Maroni, it’s really Moroni. Then you have scribes thinking he can correct their spelling. And this gets exaggerated in the telling, both by Emma and Blair.

So here, Dan almost crosses over into our territory! In fact it almost seems like he's putting his foot across the line, testing the grass on the other side (which is greener, by the way). What is the difference between Emma lying and an anecdote getting "exaggerated in the telling... by Emma"?

Why not just come on over to the dark side, Dan? It's your destiny.

In several areas this conversation is boiling down to hair-splitting differences ending in a theorized state of mind of the witness in question. Why hold out hope that Emma wasn't lying--she was just exaggerating(!)--when we know she lied to her own son about polygamy in a similar effort to protect the reputation of her husband? What purpose is served by giving Emma unmerited benefits of doubt?

marg's observation on this:

When my husband was translating the Book of Mormon, I wrote a part of it, as he dictated each sentence, word for word, and when he came to proper names he could not pronounce, or long words, he spelled them out, and while I was writing them, if I made any mistake in spelling, he would stop me and correct my spelling, although it was impossible for him to see how I was writing them down at the time. Even the word Sarah he could not pronounce at first, but had to spell it, and I would pronounce it for him.

...is spot on. It is truly an odd claim that it was somehow impossible for Joseph to see how Emma was writing the names and yet he supposedly did. Apparently even Dan realizes how far-fetched the claim is if taken at face value. But this raises the question of methodology... under Dan's logic that simply assumes the best of these witnesses, what basis is there to reject that particular element in her testimony? How do we know her claim is supernatural? Sure, the implication seems to be that God allowed Joseph to see what Emma was writing, but she never explicitly says so. How do we know whether this was an accurate representation of what actually occurred? Hence, when confronted with this, Dan is apparently willing to allow Emma to do some exaggerating after 18 years.

But marg is correct to point out that Emma was doing much more than simply exaggerating. On the contrary, she was actively promoting the memory of her husband, who had, by then, become something of a celebrity. She was behaving exactly like we would expect a devoted follower to act, not only attributing miraculous events to his Book of Mormon "translation" but also downplaying his alleged lack of skill in order to make the miracle even more miraculous. Emma is engaging in PR and she knows it. And this is true regardless of whether Joseph Smith had her duped or not. Either way, she's exaggerating and downplaying in an effort to put Mormonism--or at least the memory of her husband--in the best possible light.

When he stopped for any purpose at any time he would, when he commenced again, begin where he left off without any hesitation, and one time while he was translating he stopped suddenly, pale as a sheet, and said, “Emma, did Jerusalem have walls around it?” When I answered, “Yes,” he replied “Oh! I was afraid I had been deceived.” He had such a limited knowledge of history at that time that he did not even know that Jerusalem was surrounded by walls.

Either Emma is surprisingly gullible or she's, again, exaggerating.

So in the case of Emma Smith we are left with a problem.... either we think the best of Emma and conclude that she was incredibly gullible but still willing to exaggerate to help the cause, or we simply realize that, given her propensity to exaggerate to help the cause, there is no good reason to think she would not simply lie to help the cause, especially when we know she lied for the same reason to her own son.

Dan responds with:

We both agree that Joseph Smith couldn’t really correct a scribes spelling, but lying isn’t the only explanation. I quoted Blair’s account to show that Emma was making claims about the translation as early as 1856, not because I believed Blair’s sixty-year-old memory is highly accurate. You can’t take this kind of situation and make such bold declarations that Emma was a liar. Sources have to be judiciously handled to get at what probably happened.

It may not be the only explanation, but in this case it is certainly the best one and what baffles me is why you are so willing to assume the best? What reason has Emma given us to believe her? We know that Joseph couldn't do what she's claiming he did. We know she lied in another incident for exactly the same reason. The burden is on you to show the factors that overcome that and why we should believe her.

And again, you state that other witnesses corroborate her testimony. No they don't. All that is corroborated is the head in hat show that no one disputes anyway. And as marg correctly points out, having one biased witness corroborate another is hardly compelling.

I'm curious whether you think Joseph simply came up with everything (except for the Bible plagiarism) off the top of his head, or was he at least studying material during his down-time? Do you think he used memorization at all?

[_Roger]

Glenn:

Which seems to boil down to.... Ben's assertion is correct: If the real author is among the candidate set, then Jocker's method is very reliable.

That is not in dispute. Jockers et al, tested the method against the Federalist papers and it worked very well and produced results that are in accordance with other wordprint algorithms.

Glad we agree. In that case, Dan's Smith-alone thesis is in trouble.

So I ask again, what 19th century person is any more likely to have produced content for the Book of Mormon than Joseph Smith? Even Dan has to agree, I would think, that Joseph Smith should be the most likely candidate! Of course you don't agree because you think ancient Nephites produced the content in the Book of Mormon, which also explains why you want to latch on to Schaalje's results. But until you can identify some real Nephite ruins, show us the Nephite alphabet, produce some ancient Nephite chariots, etc. there is simply no good reason to think Nephites ever existed and every reason to think the text of the Book of Mormon did not exist until the 19th century.

So I ask again, what 19th century person is a more likely producer of content for the Book of Mormon than Joseph Smith?

Jockers latest results include Joseph Smith. If Nephites never existed, according to Ben, those results should be pretty accurate.

Roger, Bruce's method is religion free. It does not believe in Nephite, Lamanites, etc. It merely corrects for a skew which is introduced in the results if the correct author is not in the mix for any text that is being tested. If Nephites never existed, there is still the uncertainty that the real author(s) is/are not in the mix. Have you actually read the paper? Bruce's method eliminates the "if", the uncertainty, that is introduced when the real author is not known.

It's not up to me to determine whether Bruce's methodology can accurately determine whether or not the true author is among the candidate set. Needless to say, if it can, then I would think such a breakthrough would be a remarkable achievement with applications well beyond the trivial question of who wrote the Book of Mormon. Until that determination is established by experts (that Bruce's method can accurately determine whether the real author is among a candidate set) I'm going to assume that the question is still open. It seems to me that at least one glaring flaw is that the Book of Mormon writer attempted to emulate KJV English whereas the candidate sets did not.

That being said, I am not arguing against religion, Glenn, so your answer that "Bruce's method is religion free" is totally irrelevant. I asked the question: what 19th century person is any more likely to have produced content for the Book of Mormon than Joseph Smith? ...and the obvious answer is no one. Now is it possible that someone like Lucy Mack Smith produced all the content? I suppose. But the chances of NONE of the content coming from Joseph Smith are, I would think, very slim to none. In that case, where Joseph Smith--the most likely candidate author--is included in the mix, as he is in Jocker's latest study--even according to critics--the results should be reliable assuming Joseph produced at least some of the Book of Mormon content.

You can take Schaalje's results as support for Nephites, Glenn. That's fair, I suppose. But Dan's theory has a big problem if Jocker's method is reliable when the real author is in the mix.

[_Uncle Dale]

...
You can take Schaalje's results as support for Nephites, Glenn.
...

That is exactly what the topic of this thread is all about.

Let Bruce compile a "closed set" of author-candidate word-prints,
including those for Isaiah, Malachi, Matthew, Joe Smith, Nephi,
Mormon, Zeniff, Helaman, and Moroni.

Then run those word-prints against the Book of Mormon text and
publish the occurrence distributions for each author-candidate.

If the LDS authorship theory is correct, then Joe Smith's
wordprint will reach above 10% in only one place -- the Preface.

Isaiah's wordprint will reach above a 10% match only in certain
places that we already know to be copied from the Bible. Same for
Matthew and Malachi.

The high-level instances of word-print matches for the "Nephite"
author-candidates ought to match (at least generally) those parts
of the book already attributed to them.

Why does Bruce not publish such a definitive professional paper?
I think -- because he knows in advance that the results would not
support the belief that Smith wrote only the Preface.

I think -- because he knows in advance that the results would not
support the belief that certain "Nephites" wrote the parts that the
book itself attributes to them.

Besides which -- the Brodieites and practically every single Gentile
scholar could not care less, and would never read that paper anyway.

UD

[_GlennThigpen]

It's not up to me to determine whether Bruce's methodology can accurately determine whether or not the true author is among the candidate set. Needless to say, if it can, then I would think such a breakthrough would be a remarkable achievement with applications well beyond the trivial question of who wrote the Book of Mormon. Until that determination is established by experts (that Bruce's method can accurately determine whether the real author is among a candidate set) I'm going to assume that the question is still open. It seems to me that at least one glaring flaw is that the Book of Mormon writer attempted to emulate KJV English whereas the candidate sets did not.

Roger, Bruce's paper went through a vigorous peer review process before being published. Here is an explanation of the peer review process on the University of Texas library website:

Peer Review is a process that journals use to ensure the articles they publish represent the best scholarship currently available. When an article is submitted to a peer reviewed journal, the editors send it out to other scholars in the same field (the author's peers) to get their opinion on the quality of the scholarship, its relevance to the field, its appropriateness for the journal, etc.

It took two years from the time Bruce first presented his paper to the Literary and Linguistic Computing Magazine before the review process was completed and accepted for publication. I think that Bruce's paper was reviewed by three different people
That does not mean that it is error free, but it does mean that scholars in the field of statistics have done a thorough job of checking his math, his methods, and his conclusions. Bruce's paper was published in the same peer reviewed magazine that published the original Jockers study. As Bruce Schaalje and Matt Jockers both note, the study does not refute the Jockers study, but it does enhance it, and it does refute the conclusions about authorship of Sidney Rigdon and Solomon Spalding that the author of the paper presenting the original Jockers results presented. Bruce did attempt to correct for the archaic language of the Book of Mormon in his study, but notes that more work in the are would be a good idea. But to date, the LLC says that Bruce's work represents the latest and best scholarship in the area of NSC authorship attribution.
We do not have to be able to follow Bruce's math. We only need to be able to follow his logic.

That being said, I am not arguing against religion, Glenn, so your answer that "Bruce's method is religion free" is totally irrelevant. I asked the question: what 19th century person is any more likely to have produced content for the Book of Mormon than Joseph Smith? ...and the obvious answer is no one. Now is it possible that someone like Lucy Mack Smith produced all the content? I suppose. But the chances of NONE of the content coming from Joseph Smith are, I would think, very slim to none. In that case, where Joseph Smith--the most likely candidate author--is included in the mix, as he is in Jocker's latest study--even according to critics--the results should be reliable assuming Joseph produced at least some of the Book of Mormon content.

My comment about religion was only to highlight the fact that Bruce's work is scientific in nature. It has no bias toward or against religion and religion has no influence for or against the results. It is possible that religious bias, or a preconceived bias towards a particular theory could influence some of the criteria that were used to design the method, but that is one thing the peer review process is designed to overcome. The results of Jockers' latest study is accurate only if Joseph Smith was an author of any of the Book of Mormon. You cannot make such an assumption. Well, you can, but that is the thing that Bruce's extensions to the Jockers methodology eliminates, i.e. those assumptions.

You can take Schaalje's results as support for Nephites, Glenn. That's fair, I suppose. But Dan's theory has a big problem if Jocker's method is reliable when the real author is in the mix.

I cannot and do not take Bruce's results as support for Nephites. I can only use Bruce's work to support the contention that none of the nineteenth century candidates included in his candidate set are authors of the Book of Mormon in whole or in part.

Glenn

[_GlennThigpen]

...
You can take Schaalje's results as support for Nephites, Glenn.
...

That is exactly what the topic of this thread is all about.

Let Bruce compile a "closed set" of author-candidate word-prints,
including those for Isaiah, Malachi, Matthew, Joe Smith, Nephi,
Mormon, Zeniff, Helaman, and Moroni.

Then run those word-prints against the Book of Mormon text and
publish the occurrence distributions for each author-candidate.

If the LDS authorship theory is correct, then Joe Smith's
wordprint will reach above 10% in only one place -- the Preface.

Isaiah's wordprint will reach above a 10% match only in certain
places that we already know to be copied from the Bible. Same for
Matthew and Malachi.

The high-level instances of word-print matches for the "Nephite"
author-candidates ought to match (at least generally) those parts
of the book already attributed to them.

Why does Bruce not publish such a definitive professional paper?
I think -- because he knows in advance that the results would not
support the belief that Smith wrote only the Preface.

I think -- because he knows in advance that the results would not
support the belief that certain "Nephites" wrote the parts that the
book itself attributes to them.

Besides which -- the Brodieites and practically every single Gentile
scholar could not care less, and would never read that paper anyway.

UD

Dale, we do not know what Bruce is currently working on. If I recall, he actually teaches classes on statistics at BYU and I expect that he may actually have to put some time in teaching and preparing lesson plans, etc. I do not think that Bruce is afraid of any information that further study will reveal. Especially in light of the fact that previous word print studies have already been done internally on the Book of Mormon which showed a differentiation between authors in the Book of Mormon but that each author was consistent within their own words.

To do something like that would require a very careful reading of the text to note when an author is speaking their own words, or when they were quoting from another person. That is pretty easy to do with the Isaiah passages, but there are many other instances where it would be much more difficult.

Glenn