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

[_Uncle Dale]

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

OK, then -- I'm thus taken back to my original request -- that the LDS experts
tell us which Book of Mormon chapters most resemble the language used
by Rigdon, Spalding, Cowdery, Smith, etc.

I'm simply not convinced that dozens upon dozens of those chapters resemble
the writings of those 19th century men at the 0.000% level -- (with a handful
of 100% instances of literary resemblance thrown in here and there).

Common sense tells me that there must be levels of textual similarity that
fall somewhere between 0% and 100% for the majority of chapters, when
comparing the Nephite record with the writings of those 19th century gentlemen.

I'll just keep waiting, then.

UD

[_MCB]

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

Agreed. A lot more work needs to be done.

I think that is the weakest aspect of the study, and the place where criticicism should be placed. As for scientific, no. Just a question for those more qualified than myself.

[_GlennThigpen]

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

OK, then -- I'm thus taken back to my original request -- that the LDS experts
tell us which Book of Mormon chapters most resemble the language used
by Rigdon, Spalding, Cowdery, Smith, etc.

I'm simply not convinced that dozens upon dozens of those chapters resemble
the writings of those 19th century men at the 0.000% level -- (with a handful
of 100% instances of literary resemblance thrown in here and there).

Common sense tells me that there must be levels of textual similarity that
fall somewhere between 0% and 100% for the majority of chapters, when
comparing the Nephite record with the writings of those 19th century gentlemen.

I'll just keep waiting, then.

UD

Often our "common sense" fails us. just like the "common sense" laws passed requiring people riding bicycles to wear helmets. Common sense told all of those lawmakers that it would reduce injuries. But read this article:
http://www.cracked.com/article_18775_5-popular-safety-measures-that-dont-make-you-any-safer.html

The problem with "common sense" is that one persons common sense is another nonsense while both people are claiming it for their own.

Just wanted to add that I am not saying that you are spouting nonsense. I was just making a generic observation.

Glenn

[_Uncle Dale]

...
The problem with "common sense" is that one persons common sense is another nonsense while both people are claiming it for their own.
...

Hopefully the scientific method of inquiry, observation and fact-finding will
help us somewhat. If we discover that Oliver Cowdery consistently used the
word "truth" at a 1:4 ratio with his use of the word "lies," then that measurement
provides us with a means to examine the Book of Mormon, in order to discover
those sections that best match with Cowdery's language, in that particular
instance. If we only come up with ten chapters out of 239, which match
Cowdery at the 100% level, then at least we have that data down pat, and
need not argue any more over that single fact.

If ten more Book of Mormon chapters match Cowdery at the 75% level, then
we have that much more information to add to our "facts" listing.

There are probably dozens of ways in which to compare one 19th century
writer's use of English with the various chapters of the book. Eventually, it
will be possible to construct a compilation of these sorts of "resemblance"
statistics for the entire book.

Then -- at that point -- we will not have to rely upon any one investigator's
"common sense," to help us understand distributions and degrees of textual
resemblance -- because we will have compiled indisputable quantified data,
that everybody can agree is factual.

At that point, I strongly predict that the Book of Mormon will not divide
up into many dozens of chapters that match Cowdery's use of language at
the 0% level (supplemented by a few more that reach the 100% level).

But, if I'm wrong about that deduction, the Mormon textual experts can no
doubt point out the errors in my reasoning fairly easily.

I'll just keep on waiting.

UD

[_aussieguy55]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/2 ... 86996.html

Interesting article in the Huff Post on computer studies of Biblical text

"Similarly, the book of Isaiah is largely thought to have been written by two distinct authors, with the second author taking over after Chapter 39. The software's results agreed that the book might have two authors, but suggested the second author's section actually began six chapters earlier, in Chapter 33.

also http://u.cs.biu.ac.il/~koppel/papers/au ... -final.pdf

[_MCB]

At that point, I strongly predict that the Book of Mormon will not divide
up into many dozens of chapters that match Cowdery's use of language at
the 0% level (supplemented by a few more that reach the 100% level).

Yes, the Schaalje study dichotomizes the authorship data, constructing a straw man. It assumes that the Spalding theory says that subsequent authors imported the Spalding text intact. In fact, S/R says that the subsequent authors re-worked the text to conform to thier own beliefs.

[_GlennThigpen]

...
The problem with "common sense" is that one persons common sense is another nonsense while both people are claiming it for their own.
...

Hopefully the scientific method of inquiry, observation and fact-finding will
help us somewhat. If we discover that Oliver Cowdery consistently used the
word "truth" at a 1:4 ratio with his use of the word "lies," then that measurement
provides us with a means to examine the Book of Mormon, in order to discover
those sections that best match with Cowdery's language, in that particular
instance. If we only come up with ten chapters out of 239, which match
Cowdery at the 100% level, then at least we have that data down pat, and
need not argue any more over that single fact.

If ten more Book of Mormon chapters match Cowdery at the 75% level, then
we have that much more information to add to our "facts" listing.

There are probably dozens of ways in which to compare one 19th century
writer's use of English with the various chapters of the book. Eventually, it
will be possible to construct a compilation of these sorts of "resemblance"
statistics for the entire book.

Then -- at that point -- we will not have to rely upon any one investigator's
"common sense," to help us understand distributions and degrees of textual
resemblance -- because we will have compiled indisputable quantified data,
that everybody can agree is factual.

At that point, I strongly predict that the Book of Mormon will not divide
up into many dozens of chapters that match Cowdery's use of language at
the 0% level (supplemented by a few more that reach the 100% level).

But, if I'm wrong about that deduction, the Mormon textual experts can no
doubt point out the errors in my reasoning fairly easily.

I'll just keep on waiting.

UD

I think that most textual experts, Mormon or not, would tell you that you would first have to show that such a pattern was used by Cowdery across the spectrum of his writings, and it was unique to Cowdery.

The idea of word print studies is to provide characteristics of a person's writing that will provide a unique writing profile. that can be detected using lexical tools. I don't think there will be any textual experts that would bet the farm on only one such identifier.

Glenn

[_GlennThigpen]

At that point, I strongly predict that the Book of Mormon will not divide
up into many dozens of chapters that match Cowdery's use of language at
the 0% level (supplemented by a few more that reach the 100% level).

Yes, the Schaalje study dichotomizes the authorship data, constructing a straw man. It assumes that the Spalding theory says that subsequent authors imported the Spalding text intact. In fact, S/R says that the subsequent authors re-worked the text to conform to thier own beliefs.

I am not quite sure what you mean by "dichotomizes'. The Schaalje study merely followed the original Jockers blueprint, but added an extension to correct for a skew introduced if the actual author was not included in a particular candidate set.

The S/R theory has provided no coherent method, or even attempted to identify how the supposed reworking was accomplished.

Glenn

[_Roger]

Glenn:

(On vacation but couldn't resist this one...)

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.

Your point was and remains weak. : )

How is it a problem for the S/R theory that one portion of the Book of Mormon is not very similar to another? In fact, that would be more of a problem for Smith-alone than for S/R.

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.

How do you know that? In fact you don't know that, you are inferring it. And your inferance could be quite wrong. That in itself makes your argument weak, but beyond even that, I don't see why you seem to think that is a problem for S/R? It isn't. Both Rigdon and Smith/Cowdery would have had ample opportunity to adapt the text in any way they saw fit. It is a strawman to argue that the text would have had to remain in the same form Spalding had left it. You are basing that on a rigid (and faulty) interpretation of the "verbatim" elements in the witness testimony, but "verbatim" does not--indeed cannot-mean every word verbatim, but likely only means certain phrases were "verbatim" or nearly so within certain key books. That, in fact, is what Dale and Vernal Holley have discovered, with Jockers apparently agreeing. There are some areas in the Book of Mormon, particularly in the book of Alma where some phrases appear to be very similar to Spalding's extant writings. We can extrapolate from that that the witnesses recognized some other areas where even more similarity exists between the Book of Mormon and the Spalding ms they had been exposed to (but we have not.)

So your third person conjecture may be wrong in the first place, and in the second place, even if it isn't it's still not a problem for S/R because both Rigdon and Smith/Cowcery had opportunity to change the text, and finally, we know for a fact that the portion of the text you are referring to was indeed reworked.

[_GlennThigpen]

Glenn:

(On vacation but couldn't resist this one...)

Resistance is futile.

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.

Your point was and remains weak. : )

How is it a problem for the S/R theory that one portion of the Book of Mormon is not very similar to another? In fact, that would be more of a problem for Smith-alone than for S/R.

It is not a problem for the Smith Alone, naturalistic theory. Joseph couldn't remember what he had written the first time and made everything up out of whole cloth. (Nor for the Smith with divine inspiration. We already know that story.)

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.

How do you know that? In fact you don't know that, you are inferring it. And your inferance could be quite wrong. That in itself makes your argument weak, but beyond even that, I don't see why you seem to think that is a problem for S/R? It isn't. Both Rigdon and Smith/Cowdery would have had ample opportunity to adapt the text in any way they saw fit. It is a strawman to argue that the text would have had to remain in the same form Spalding had left it. You are basing that on a rigid (and faulty) interpretation of the "verbatim" elements in the witness testimony, but "verbatim" does not--indeed cannot-mean every word verbatim, but likely only means certain phrases were "verbatim" or nearly so within certain key books. That, in fact, is what Dale and Vernal Holley have discovered, with Jockers apparently agreeing. There are some areas in the Book of Mormon, particularly in the book of Alma where some phrases appear to be very similar to Spalding's extant writings. We can extrapolate from that that the witnesses recognized some other areas where even more similarity exists between the Book of Mormon and the Spalding ms they had been exposed to (but we have not.)

You are testifying for your witnesses and trying to tell us what they must have meant, rather than what they actually said. The Book of Mormon was supposed to have been so like the mythical second manuscript that it stood out from beginning to end.
When you read statements such as "I have no manner of doubt that the historical part of it, is the same that I read and heard read, more than 20 years ago", and "I have recently examined the Book of Mormon, and find in it the writings of Solomon Spalding, from beginning to end", and "I will observe, that the names of, and most of the historical part of the Book of Mormon, were as familiar to me before I read it", and "I saw the Book of Mormon where I find much of the history and the names verbatim", and "This was the last I heard of Spalding or his book, until the Book of Mormon came into the neighborhood. When I heard the historical part of it related, I at once said it was the writings of old Solomon Spalding", the normal expectations would be a very close resemblance, not just a few phrases and names. Four of your Conneaut witnesses have already fallen on the lost tribes sword.
Now, if you read the Book of Mormon carefully, you will see that most of it is an abridgement by Mormon of the records on the large plates of Nephi. The first 116 pages that were lost were the beginning of that abridgement. There is no logical reason to infer that he wrote the first 116 pages in the first person and every reason to believe that he wrote the Book of Lehi the same way he wrote Mosiah et al, in the third person. To insist that Mormon wrote the first 116 pages in the first person, then suddenly switched to the third person when he hit Mosiah is completely ad hoc. There is no evidence to support such a contention.

None of the Conneaut witnesses would have been exposed to the first part of the Book of Mormon as a first person narrative in Solomon's mythical manuscript. That makes the statement of Artemas Cunningham problematic because he would not have seen the phrase "I Nephi" .

Now, if you can show some evidence that the first 116 pages were actually written in the first person.......

So your third person conjecture may be wrong in the first place, and in the second place, even if it isn't it's still not a problem for S/R because both Rigdon and Smith/Cowcery had opportunity to change the text, and finally, we know for a fact that the portion of the text you are referring to was indeed reworked.

Now, if you can show some evidence that Rigdon and Smith/Cowdery actually got together and rewrote that manuscript. An assertion of ample time is not evidence. An assertion of opportunity is not evidence. Eyewitnesses that put Rigdon and Smith together during the period of time between the time that the loss of the 116 pages was discovered and the completion of the translation process would be helpful. It would be something as contrasted to the nothing that currently exists.

Glenn