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

[_MCB]

Glenn,
You have every right to believe what you believe about the Book of Mormon, whether you are right or wrong. It is how you interpret the book and apply its lessons to your life that makes the difference. Perhaps you could start another thread on what it means to you.

[_Dan Vogel]

Marg,

Stick with the issues Dan ..don't simply write ad hominem remarks without warranting your accusations.

Excuse me! I was responding to your ad hominem:

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.

Such statements are ironic since you are the one who obviously doesn’t know how to handle historical sources. I think that will become more apparent as we proceed. Like Roger, you are not analyzing these sources as a historian would; you are trying to use them polemically.

Dan you have not accounted for the discrepancy between Cowdery and Smith's claim of spectacles versus some of the witnesses claim to a seer stone.

Obviously there is a discrepancy..which you have ignored. That discrepancy was not CAUSED by the reporters.

The discrepancy between the spectacles and seer stone, I’ve dealt with after you wrote this. So, we’ll see how you deal with that. Historians deal with discrepancies between witnesses all the time; they try to explain them, if they can. We are dealing with many sources created in different circumstances, which must be taken into account, to reconstruct what probably happened. You can’t say the discrepancy wasn’t caused by the reporter. Whitmer sometimes corrected reporters. When a newspaper article (secondhand) conflicts with a firsthand account by Whitmer, then the firsthand account is preferred. In the case of Cowdery, I’m not sure.

[_Roger]

Glenn:

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.

I don't see how. If Jockers results are reliable when the real author is in the mix, then we are down to the question of whether or not Joseph Smith produced content for the Book of Mormon.

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.

Which, when it comes right down to it, is not as conclusive as you seem to think. The information Bruce posted online in an effort to illustrate the distance between the 19th century candidates (without Joseph Smith, I think) and the Book of Mormon was the PC1 chart. As I pointed out, that separation vanishes in PC2 and PC3. I am just a layman, but I suspect it will eventually be determined that the key difference between PC1 and 2 & 3 is King James English. Eliminate that factor and you have Book of Mormon authors swimming in the same waters as Spalding and the rest.

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.

I think your last sentence is where you start attributing more to Schaalje than it actually gives. Just like it was a stretch to say that Jockers proved a Spalding/Rigdon authorship, I think it is equally a stretch to say that Schaalje rules it out. And again, I think the key is King James English.

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.

I think that is a stretch given the KJE factor. Also, his candidate set did not include Joseph Smith, correct?

[_Roger]

Like Roger, you are not analyzing these sources as a historian would; you are trying to use them polemically.

I don't buy this. I find it nearly impossible to believe that a non-Mormon, never-been-Mormon, have-nothing-for-or-against-Mormonism historian would extend such benefit of doubt to the early Mormon witnesses as you do. You constantly label our approach "polemic" in an effort to make it appear as though we have some axe to grind or something, but neither marg nor myself were ever Mormon and neither one of us dislike Mormons. On the contrary, I am fascinated with Mormon history. I had a blast visiting Nauvoo and Kirtland and would love to go back and spend more time there.

Our approach is simply common-sense. It is simply common sense to realize that devoted followers are not going to be the most reliable source of information. It is simply common sense to understand that we are likely not going to get the full story about Warren Jeffs from his devoted followers and what we will get will be biased in his favor, unless we are talking with a disgruntled former member. There is nothing sinister or "polemical" in that plain-as-day observation.

[_Uncle Dale]

...his candidate set did not include Joseph Smith, correct?

I asked him that question directly -- and he said that, yes, the set
did include Smith's word-print. By his calculations, there is a 100%
surety that Smith wrote the Book of Enos, etc., etc. This is via
"open set" NSC methodology.

But -- what his study did NOT include, was the 1830 Preface. By leaving
that part of the text out of the study, Bruce could claim that in his own
study the set of author-candidates constituted an "open set," rather
than what should have been categorized as a closed set, (if the authors
were already known to have contributed). According to Bruce, application
of NSC methodology only returns valid results, if the author-candidates
truly wrote part of the disputed/unidentified text being examined.

It would not have taken him much extra time to include that Preface,
and thus treat Smith as a valid closed set author-candidate.

Now Glenn alludes to the fact that Bruce is too busy to perform such
textual analysis.

I predict that he will be "too busy" for the rest of his academic life --
as will all the other LDS scholars.

If we truly hope to see the the distribution of Smith's word-print, across
the entire 1830 Book of Mormon -- in a closed set NSC analysis, we
non-Mormons will have to perform that task for Bruce. He will not do it.

UD

[_Roger]

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.

Why can't a whole bunch of tests be done? Once they have the ability to do one test, it's not that difficult to run more, is it?

It would be interesting to see how Nephi, for example, compares to Moroni. It would also be interesting to see how Isaiah compares to, say, Hebrews. It could be interesting to see how Paul's letters compare to each other, like Galatians compared to Corinthians. Would Jocker's method be able to select the author of Corinthians out of a set that also contains say Isaiah, Ezekial and Obadiah? And if so, how would those results compare to Alma and Helaman, Nephi and Ether?

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.
.....

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.

I think that's a great idea. If it ever happens, I doubt it will be Bruce--or a believing Mormon--who does it. The risk is too great.

Did Bruce ever comment any more on your treasure map? What I remember him saying was that big distance is meaningful but little distance is not. Did it ever go beyond that?

[_Roger]

I asked him that question directly -- and he said that, yes, the set
did include Smith's word-print. By his calculations, there is a 100%
surety that Smith wrote the Book of Enos, etc., etc. This is via
"open set" NSC methodology.

Okay that's news to me. I don't think the PC1 chart he posted had Joseph Smith included, did it?

A 100% certainty of Joseph writing Enos? What other books were certain Joseph Smith hits? And that was with Cowdery, Rigdon and the others included?

But -- what his study did NOT include, was the 1830 Preface. By leaving
that part of the text out of the study, Bruce could claim that in his own
study the set of author-candidates constituted an "open set," rather
than what should have been categorized as a closed set, (if the authors
were already known to have contributed). According to Bruce, application
of NSC methodology only returns valid results, if the author-candidates
truly wrote part of the disputed/unidentified text being examined.

It would not have taken him much extra time to include that Preface,
and thus treat Smith as a valid closed set author-candidate.

Wouldn't they just argue that either

A. Joseph Smith must not have written the preface or
B. the preface is too small to get an accurate sample

??

Now Glenn alludes to the fact that Bruce is too busy to perform such
textual analysis.

I predict that he will be "too busy" for the rest of his academic life --
as will all the other LDS scholars.

If we truly hope to see the the distribution of Smith's word-print, across
the entire 1830 Book of Mormon -- in a closed set NSC analysis, we
non-Mormons will have to perform that task for Bruce. He will not do it.

Well that sounds like a good thing to do. But you're right, I highly doubt that any LDS would want to move on from here. Schaalje has cast the proper amount of doubt so no more investigation is necessary.

[_GlennThigpen]

I think that is a stretch given the KJE factor. Also, his candidate set did not include Joseph Smith, correct?

Roger, evidently you have not read Bruce's paper and missed the details that have been discussed in this thread. Joseph Smith was included in his candidate set.

[_GlennThigpen]

...his candidate set did not include Joseph Smith, correct?

I asked him that question directly -- and he said that, yes, the set
did include Smith's word-print. By his calculations, there is a 100%
surety that Smith wrote the Book of Enos, etc., etc. This is via
"open set" NSC methodology.

Dale, I believe that you are misreading the data and the conclusions that Bruce came to. I will quote, in accordance with the fair use doctrine, excerpts from his published paper:

Chapters classified to Rigdon, Smith, or Cowdery appeared to occur essentially at random in the equence of chapters. The texts classified to Rigdon, Smith, or Cowdery were on the fringe of the Book of Mormon cluster, and the classifications were likely due to multiplicity........In future studies with the Book of Mormon, we intend to adjust for the deliberate archaic language used throughout. We also intend to supply measures of uncertainty for the estimated posterior authorship probabilities.

The 100% figure that you are quoting is still relative to the other authors in the candidate set. It is not a 100% certainty.

But -- what his study did NOT include, was the 1830 Preface. By leaving
that part of the text out of the study, Bruce could claim that in his own
study the set of author-candidates constituted an "open set," rather
than what should have been categorized as a closed set, (if the authors
were already known to have contributed). According to Bruce, application
of NSC methodology only returns valid results, if the author-candidates
truly wrote part of the disputed/unidentified text being examined.

It would not have taken him much extra time to include that Preface,
and thus treat Smith as a valid closed set author-candidate.

Now Glenn alludes to the fact that Bruce is too busy to perform such
textual analysis.

I predict that he will be "too busy" for the rest of his academic life --
as will all the other LDS scholars.

That was my own input and not from Bruce. In his paper, he notes that the work is to be ongoing. Why don't you drop him a private email with your suggestions? His email address can be found on the BYU website.

If we truly hope to see the the distribution of Smith's word-print, across
the entire 1830 Book of Mormon -- in a closed set NSC analysis, we
non-Mormons will have to perform that task for Bruce. He will not do it.

UD

As noted, Bruce indicated in his paper that they are going to do some further work. But I am pretty sure that he has his own timetable.

Glenn

[_Uncle Dale]

I asked him that question directly -- and he said that, yes, the set
did include Smith's word-print. By his calculations, there is a 100%
surety that Smith wrote the Book of Enos, etc., etc. This is via
"open set" NSC methodology.

Okay that's news to me. I don't think the PC1 chart he posted had Joseph Smith included, did it?

I have not seen detailed depictions of his published pca chart images,
His pre-publication report did not include Smith in the pca charts. His
published "open set" analysis extension DID include Smith.

A 100% certainty of Joseph writing Enos? What other books were certain Joseph Smith hits? And that was with Cowdery, Rigdon and the others included?

Perhaps I can e-mail you a chart, based upon his report. In the
"open set" analysis, the 19th century author-candidates chart out
as 0% possibility of authorship in practically every Book of Mormon
chapter. In those few cases where they do register as authors,
the probability comes out at 100% -- and these oddities are
discarded as "false positives" falling within the methodology's stated
margin of error.
...

Wouldn't they just argue that either

A. Joseph Smith must not have written the preface or
B. the preface is too small to get an accurate sample

??

The trouble with the second justification, is that the Preface length
is longer than a good many of the modern LDS chapters. It is
probably just barely long enough to provide a valid "hit."

I do not think that most Mormons would hold open the possibility
that Smith did not compose his own Preface. Unless, perhaps the
current "living prophet" said something supportive of that idea.

...

you're right, I highly doubt that any LDS would want to move on from here. Schaalje has cast the proper amount of doubt so no more investigation is necessary.

Yes -- the issue has been solved. According to the average LDS layman's
word-of-mouth knowledge of Bruce's work, it PROVES that neither
Rigdon nor Spalding could have possibly contributed any sections to
the text of the Nephite record.

Case closed.

And the disciples of Fawn Brodie can all say "amen."

UD