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

[_Uncle Dale]

...

Strange link coming from a person who is is ignoring the same type of information that kills the S/R theory.
So, where does Sydney Rigdon leave off in Isaiah and Solomon Spalding begin, or is it the other way around?

Glenn

I recall attending a class at Graceland University, in which we were taught that
there was only a single author for the scroll of Isaiah -- and the primary reason
for that conclusion was that the book had to have been completed before Lehi
departed Jerusalem.

Now perhaps Mormons are more intelligent than the backward RLDS scholars,
and perhaps they will concede that there are two (or even three) individual
"voices" present in the Hebrew text of the Isaiah scroll.

I'll leave that discussion for the LDS ancient texts experts --- but whatever
decision they (not to mention The Brethren) reach in such matters, I'm
positive that they will also conclude that it was impossible for either Sidney
Rigdon or Solomon Spalding to have contributed even so much as a single
sentence to the Book of Mormon.

All I'm asking from them, is their findings regarding those parts of the book
which most RESEMBLE the writings of Rigdon and/or Spalding. I do not think
that is too much to ask. Do you?

UD

[_GlennThigpen]

All I'm asking from them, is their findings regarding those parts of the book
which most RESEMBLE the writings of Rigdon and/or Spalding. I do not think
that is too much to ask. Do you?

UD

Isn't that what the original Jockers study did? At least among the authors tested?

Glenn

[_MCB]

And isn't it peculiar, Dale, that those parts that most resembled the writings of Solomon Spalding and Sidney Rigdon were generally the parts that you predicted would most resemble them. And isn't it peculiar that the parts that are the richest in allusions to other literature available in 1810 to 1830 are also the parts that both Jockers and you say resemble the writings of Solomon Spalding?

Sort of like the study on the Old Testament. The scholars say the two parts of Isaiah are different. And word-print analysis confirms it.

[_MCB]

There is no reason to believe the 116 pages were any different than the extant MS we now have, which has alterations and corrections

But, Dan, the replacement section is MUCH different than most of the rest of the book. Have you read Sandra Tanner's "Black Hole"?

[_GlennThigpen]

And isn't it peculiar, Dale, that those parts that most resembled the writings of Solomon Spalding and Sidney Rigdon were generally the parts that you predicted would most resemble them. And isn't it peculiar that the parts that are the richest in allusions to other literature available in 1810 to 1830 are also the parts that both Jockers and you say resemble the writings of Solomon Spalding?

Sort of like the study on the Old Testament. The scholars say the two parts of Isaiah are different. And word-print analysis confirms it.

The point I was making is that there are those who do not seem to accept what the NSC wordprint analysis, as extended By Bruce Schaalje et al, conclude about the S/R theory, but are willing to accept the worprint analysis of the Book of Isaiah.

Glenn

[_MCB]

I think the alogrithm in

Bruce Schaalje et al,

which was supposed to correct for KJE made the results more static than truth.

[_GlennThigpen]

I think the alogrithm in

Bruce Schaalje et al,

which was supposed to correct for KJE made the results more static than truth.

It is my understanding that he and his colleagues were planning to work on that aspect of the algorithm in order to smooth out any wrinkles. I do not know just how much progress that they are making. I have not communicated with him for some time. (I'm not in his normal communications circle.)

The NSC method of authorship attribution is really in its infancy. There is a lot more work that needs to be done, I am sure, do you have some scientific basis for this belief, or is it just something that you "feel"?


Glenn

[_Uncle Dale]

...
Isn't that what the original Jockers study did? At least among the authors tested?
...

I suppose it might be said that is what they attempted to produce. Just
how successful their results are, may be subject to controversy.

If the LDS word-print experts wish to concede the point, then I suppose that
by two metrics (Delta and NSC) we have our answer -- so far as analysis of
frequently repeated non-contextual words is concerned.

It might be interesting, to see the results of this new Israeli textual analysis
method -- as well as various other means of ascertaining how much (or how
little) various sections of the Book of Mormon resemble the language used by
Rigdon, Spalding, Smith, Cowdery, etc.

Perhaps I simply need to exercise some patience, and wait for such studies
to be conducted and the results published.

I suppose I may possibly get the answers I've been seeking, within my lifetime.

UD

[_GlennThigpen]

There is no reason to believe the 116 pages were any different than the extant MS we now have, which has alterations and corrections

But, Dan, the replacement section is MUCH different than most of the rest of the book. Have you read Sandra Tanner's "Black Hole"?

I agree that the portions of the Book of Mormon up to the Words of Mormon are very different from the rest of the Book of Mormon. That is a problem for the S/R theory, although Roger though my point was so weak that he decided not to comment on it.

In essence, 1 Nephi up to the words of Mormon are written in the first person. Mosiah through Ether, excepting the Book of Mormon, the prophet, are an abridgement of the records of the Large plates of Nephi, upon which Nephi had included the writings of his father. The Book of Lehi would also have been in the third person.

If you have read the Black Hole by the Tanners, you might also want to read a critique at
http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publications/review/?vol=3&num=1&id=69 to offer a bit of balance.

Glenn

[_GlennThigpen]

...
Isn't that what the original Jockers study did? At least among the authors tested?
...

I suppose it might be said that is what they attempted to produce. Just
how successful their results are, may be subject to controversy.

If the LDS word-print experts wish to concede the point, then I suppose that
by two metrics (Delta and NSC) we have our answer -- so far as analysis of
frequently repeated non-contextual words is concerned.

I don't think Bruce is ready to concede that point. He spent a bit of time and effort not conceding that point.

But I am curious as to the methods that the Israeli team used. And what texts they used for their analysis.

Glenn