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

[_MCB]

Especially that part about eternal marriages and families. What part of the nineteenth century did that come from?

Glenn

Swedenborg taught eternal marriage, including heavenly couples having spirit-babies. Any questions? Of course, that was eighteenth century, but close enough.

[_Uncle Dale]

...I suppose that is a possibility. At least it makes more sense to say that,
than to say that all these people were injected with false memories
by D.P. Hurlbut.
...

A few of the people whose true memories must have been replaced
with false memories ---

I well remember that he wrote in the old style, and commenced about
every sentence with "and it came to pass," or "now it came to pass,"
http://www.solomonspalding.com/docs/1834howf.htm#pg280

The old, obsolete style, and the phrases of "and it came to pass," &c.
are the same.
http://www.solomonspalding.com/docs/1834howf.htm#pg281

I well recollect telling Mr. Spalding, that the so frequent use of the
words "And it came to pass," "Now it came to pass," rendered it ridiculous.
http://www.solomonspalding.com/docs/1834howf.htm#pg282

as the Old Testament is the most ancient book in the world, he imitated
its style as nearly as possible.
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/NE ... htm#041939

a manuscript of a singular work, chiefly in the style of our English translation
of the Bible,
http://www.solomonspalding.com/docs/1842Wilm.htm#pg16b

For his own amusement, and the exercise of his mind and inagination, he
commenced writing, in the solemn style
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/NY ... htm#082454

His style was flowing and grammatical, though gaunt and abrupt -- very
like the stories of the "Maccabees" and other apocryphal books, in the
old bibles.
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/PA ... htm#042169

the quaint style and peculiar language that had made such a deep impression
on my mind when hearing the manuscript read by Mr. S. For instance, the very
frequent repetition of the phrase, "and it came to pass."
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/PA ... htm#020679

It was full of Bible expressions...
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/MO ... htm#052985

The work was very odd. The words 'Moreover,' 'And it came to pass,' occurred
so often that the boys about the village called him 'Old Came to Pass.'
http://www.solomonspalding.com/docs1/1890GrgD.htm#pg441

Mr. Patterson told Mr. Spaulding that he had read several chapters of the
'Manuscript' and was struck favorably with its curious descriptions and its
likeness to the ancient style of the Old Testament Scriptures.
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/PA ... htm#111582

He wrote it in Bible style, "And it came to pass" occurred so often that
some called him "old come to pass."
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/PA ... htm#010781

How many MORE such statements would the Mormons have to verify as
having actually come from old witnesses, before they would concede
that perhaps Spalding had written some sort of story in the old
fashioned style, which phrases like "came to pass" were a part of?

10?
100?
1000?

The possible explanations for the numerous witness statement on this
"biblical style" text are -- truth, lies, false memories, hallucinations --

UD

[_GlennThigpen]

...He wrote to Patterson asking him about the manuscript.
That was in Patterson's reply.

So you have evidence that E.D. Howe wrote a letter to Robert Patterson
and that Patterson replied, in a letter written to Howe?

Would you be so kind as to show us those letters...

...or:

Here, then, our enquiries after facts partially cease, on this subject. We have fully shown that the Book of Mormon is the joint production of Solomon Spalding and some other designing knave, or if it is what it purports to be, the Lord God has graciously condescended, in revealing to Smith his will, through spectacles, to place before him and appropriate to his own use, the writings and names of men which had been invented by a person long before in the grave. Having established the fact, therefore, that most of the names and leading incidents contained in the Mormon Bible, originated with Solomon Spalding, it is not very material, as we conceive, to show the way and manner by which they fell into the hands of the Smith family. To do this, however, we have made some enquiries.

I took out the unrelated quote and added the above from "Mormonism Unvailed" page 288 and 289.

It was inferred at once that some light might be shed upon this
subject, and the mystery revealed, by applying to Patterson &
Lambdin, in Pittsburgh. But here again death had interposed a
barrier. That establishment was dissolved and broken up many
years since, and Lambdin died about eight years ago.
Mr. Patterson says...
http://www.solomonspalding.com/docs/1834howf.htm#pg289

UD

You already had the evidence and already knew of the contradiction.

Glenn

[_GlennThigpen]

The possible explanations for the numerous witness statement on this
"biblical style" text are -- truth, lies, false memories, hallucinations --

UD

I would except hallucinations from the list. The truth of the matter is that false memories are still the best option, unless you would rather they be labeled as liars. All of those "memories" can be explained easily, and have been, by the fact that they were responding to having read the Book of Mormon so much more recently than having heard Solomon read from his romance. This, coupled with a desire to help stomp out the upstart Mormonism.

Dale, you have been able to dig up not one document written before the Hurlbut fiasco that even supports the allegation made by the supposed Aron Wright draft letter that Nehemiah King or any other denizen of the Conneaut area actually made any such statement when the missionaries first were in the area preaching the Book of Mormon. All of the statements and newspaper accounts are well after the fact. There was no recorded stir at the time although the papers were not lax to print the allegations when they got them, such as the Hudson Telegraph in June 0f 1834.
The Hudson Telegraph already had published some articles, maybe as early as 1831, alleging that Rigdon was the mastermind behind the Book of Mormon because everyone knew that an ignorant farm boy could not produce such a book.
All of your witnesses suffer the same credibility problem as that of Benjamin Winchester. They all offer "facts" after the fact.

Glenn

[_Uncle Dale]

...we have made some enquiries.

Who is "we?"

If Mormonism Unvailed was compiled by Esak and Storm Rosa of
Painesville -- mainly from articles already previously published -- is
the "we" here mentioned meant to be those two editors? Or is it meant
to be Howe and the Rosa brothers? Or is it the Rosa brothers and Mr.
D. P. Hurlbut?

Newspapermen like Howe frequently used the "royal we" to represent
the editorial staff of the paper -- even if it had a single editor. But
Mormonism Unvailed was not serialized in Howe's newspaper,
nor much promoted there. We get no indications from his contemporary
newspaper articles that Howe constituted the entire "we" of his hazy
statement.

But suppose for a moment that Howe alone was this unidentified "we" --
to whom did he make "enquiries," and by what means? Did he ask
questions of D.P. Hurlbut? Did Hurlbut relay to Howe what he claimed
were answers from others?

Contrast these assertions:

Hurlbutt... went to Pittsburg with the avowed intention of obtaining the romance to publish in Howe's (Hurlbutt's) book. He returned and the book was published minus the romance. The statement was that the novel could not be found.
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/LD ... htm#011678


no sooner had Mr. H. returned to New Salem, than it was thought best that he should immediately repair to Pittsburgh, and see if Mr. S.'s manuscript had ever been left there. Now the whole aim and object of this project, was to make the public believe that Sidney Rigdon was the real author of the Book of Mormon. It is a fact easily apprehended, that if a man or set of men, undertake to palm an abominable lie upon the public, they will endeavor to make it as plausible as possible. Therefore, knowing that S. Rigdon had resided in Pittsburgh for a certain length of time, he endeavoured to make the finding of the manuscript take place at Pittsburgh, and then infer, that S. R. had copied it there.

After Mr. H. returned from Pittsburgh, he went to Kirtland...
http://www.solomonspalding.com/docs/1840WinA.htm#pg11a

They employed a man by the name of Hurlbut, who was once a Mormon, to help in the investigation. He went to Pittsburgh and found a printer there for the manuscript of the book written by the Rev. Solomon Spalding
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/OH ... htm#010084

No mention of Howe going to Pittsburgh. No mention of Howe writing a
letter to Pittsburgh. No mention of Rev. Patterson writing to Howe. No
quotation from any letter of any sort, about events in Pittsburgh.

This is obviously what happened:

1. Hurlbut went to Pittsburgh
2. Hurlbut did not publicly divulge all that he did in Pittsburgh
3. He may have "found a printer there" -- perhaps Lambdin's old partner
4. He returned to Ohio
5. He passed on information to Howe -- Howe later said it was unreliable
6. Howe's 1834 book said enquires had been made
7. Howe's 1834 book gave a vague, undocumented report about Patterson

None of this amounts to credible evidence that Patterson was properly
questioned in 1833-34. There is no evidence that he wrote any letter.
There is not even any evidence presented to the effect that Hurlbut
spoke directly to Rev. Patterson.

The vague report attributed to Patterson in Howe's 1834 book is therefore
unfounded, undocumented and -- as Howe said of Hurlbut -- unreliable.

A few years later Rev. Samuel Williams had the opportunity to interview
Patterson directly and to obtain his statement. Finally there was
something published regarding Patterson which he himself certified.

But let's give the Mormon critics every possible latitude here. Let's guess
that Hurlbut really did locate Rev. Robert Patterson and actually did
interview the man. What a wealth of information could have then been
obtained about Pittsburgh in 1812-16 -- about publishers and printers
and would-be authors -- about Silas Engles and J.H. Lambdin -- perhaps
even details about Solomon Spalding and his widow. But none of this sort
of detail appears in Howe's book. Contrast that situation with the instance
in which Howe actually did write to Isaac Hale, and obtained historical
information -- detailed information.

If Mormons wish to trust D.P. Hurlbut, in order to prove that Patterson was
a liar in 1834 -- or in 1842 -- let them do so. Unless they can come up with
some evidence that Howe was in direct contact with Patterson, they are
stuck with D.P. Hurlbut's 1833 travels to Pittsburgh for their source material.

UD

[_Uncle Dale]

...All of your witnesses
...

Not my witnesses. They were all dead, long before I was born.

For years I was an obedient, observant Latter Day Saint, just
yourself -- dismissing both the witness material and the textual
material. None of that (nor even all of it added together) made
much of an impression on me.

If we could go back to about 1976, we could probably find instances
of my arguments against 19th century origin for the book that look
and sound very much like what you say nowadays.

It was not the witness testimony, nor the textual resemblances that
took me past the point where you now stand --- rather, it was my
own compilation and review of the old chronology, coupled with
Craig Criddle's recent writings, which finally moved me off the fence.

At some point I finally said to myself: "It is indeed possible that Mr.
Spalding wrote more than one story and it is indeed possible that he
wrote something in the biblical style -- and it is indeed possible that
Criddle's comprehensive explanation of events is largely true."

If you ever find yourself admitting that such things are even remotely
possible -- even once chance out of a million -- then you may well see
your LDS testimony crumble away.

In my case, I belong to a religious tradition which does not demand that
the book be an authentic ancient document. I can remain what I am
without having to voice that specific testimony -- even if every other
person in the chapel believes it to be true.

Perhaps it is in your best self interest to never concede even the slightest
possibility that a biblical-sounding novel was written and submitted for
publication.

If you ever open up the door of your consideration to even that slight
crack..... you may end up where I am now.

UD

[_GlennThigpen]

None of this amounts to credible evidence that Patterson was properly
questioned in 1833-34. There is no evidence that he wrote any letter.
There is not even any evidence presented to the effect that Hurlbut
spoke directly to Rev. Patterson.

UD

None of which belies the fact that Howe published it in his book and made no reservations as o its accuracy. I agree that there is not enough evidence there to indicate that Howe himself wrote a letter.

I am not saying that Patterson is lying in either case. I was noting that there are contradicting stories about Patterson's statements. The one published by Williams suffers a credibility problem. He says that it is a signed statement by Patterson, but, as I noted in another post, it is written in the third person and does not seem to be a communication from Patterson himself.

Glenn

[Guest]

Glenn wrote:

Dale, you have been able to dig up not one document written before the Hurlbut fiasco...

There was no need to make any comments about Spalding's work before the Book of Mormon was published. Spalding was "very easily amused." And so were they at the time. It was not a quality work, although it was mildly amusing, It was only later that they had any reason to comment on that series of events.

For either of you:
So LDS explain the Swedenborgian parallels with Mormonism by saying that Swedenborg was also a prophet? That Swedenborg was Joseph Smith's John the Baptist? It is surprising that if this is so, they don't mention him.

[_GlennThigpen]

It was not the witness testimony, nor the textual resemblances that
took me past the point where you now stand --- rather, it was my
own compilation and review of the old chronology, coupled with
Craig Criddle's recent writings, which finally moved me off the fence.

At some point I finally said to myself: "It is indeed possible that Mr.
Spalding wrote more than one story and it is indeed possible that he
wrote something in the biblical style -- and it is indeed possible that
Criddle's comprehensive explanation of events is largely true."

UD

Dale, I've not the slightest doubt that the Book of Mormon is as it advertises itself. The chances are less than a million to one that any nineteenth century writer authored that book.
There is a plethora of evidence that you seem to completely ignore with your assertions. I called the witnesses "your witnesses" because you seemed to have swallowed their evidence lock, stock, and barrel, despite the evidence that has been produced for witness tampering a la Hurlbut, contradictions in testimony, textual evidence in the Book of Mormon itself, scholarship by individuals qualified in several different fields related to Book of Mormon studies, witnesses who have not been impeached as to the origins of the Book of Mormon, etc. You have produced no scientific basis for your own research, but disdain anything produced by the Maxwell Institute, nee F.A.R.M.S. as somehow being tainted because it is produced by T.B.M's while ignoring the converse as it applies to you and the critics now and from the very beginning.

The Jockers study was the first attempt that I can recall in years by critics to bring science to bear on the authorship question. Once it was published, you and other S/R proponents seemed to latch onto it without question, and according to Matt Jockers himself, have used it in ways that are not consistent with the actual data produced. That is, the data was used by Craig Criddle and others as absolutes, rather than the relative probabilities that it actually produced.
When Bruce's paper first came to light, the mantra was "peer review, peer review by someone not in Provo." Well that peer review happened. The paper has been peer reviewed. We got to see an advance access copy of that paper as it will appear in the next issue of the Literary and Linguistic Computing Magazine. The results you seem to brush away and still act as if the the random hits for Smith, Rigdon, etc. actually mean something, even after Bruce has explained pretty clearly that they are meaningless.

There may be problems with Bruce's paper. But the problems would be endemic to the NSC method itself. Chris Smith has opined that the NSC method may be skewed by gnere. He has done some work with the Urantia papers, but he used the delta method developed by Burrows and not the NSC. I would like to see him do the same work using the NSC method with Bruce's extensions. The more a method is tested and the more genres in which it is tested, the more confidence we can feel in the results if they are consistent, or less confident, if they are not consistent.

I would maybe take your work seriously if you could define the rational, i.e. scientific basis that you are employing. That is the substance of Ben McGuire's criticisms. Your baseline has to have some grounding in established literary theory that you can articulate.

Glenn

[_GlennThigpen]

Glenn wrote:

Dale, you have been able to dig up not one document written before the Hurlbut fiasco...

There was no need to make any comments about Spalding's work before the Book of Mormon was published. Spalding was "very easily amused." And so were they at the time. It was not a quality work, although it was mildly amusing, It was only later that they had any reason to comment on that series of events.

You have missed the point entirely. There were reports ex post facto that at least one citizen, Nehemiah King, had been at a LDS missionary session in Conneaut where the Book of Mormon was discussed. He reportedly had left the meeting afterward and said that the Mormons were preaching from Solomon Spalding's romance. But there are no accounts of any uproar at that time. There was no controversy recorded at that time.

When Hurlbut came through later with his allegations, there was a controversy. There were reports in the papers. But all were after the fact. You can find several statements that there was suspicion when the residents who knew Spalding first heard the Book of Mormon, but none of those reports were written at the time the missionaries first came through.

Glenn