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

[_MCB]

He and Witten are fully cognizant of statistics and random error, and the hazards of jumping to conclusions. Craig is just happy that the study supported Broadhurst's results. They may also be concerned about politics, and pressure by Mormons in positions in power.

[_Wisdom Seeker]

By using a traditional stylometric technique, I have surmised that portions of the Book of Mormon have most likely been taken directly from the King James version of the Bible.

[_MCB]

By using a traditional stylometric technique, I have surmised that portions of the Book of Mormon have most likely been taken directly from the King James version of the Bible.

LOL's that traditional technique has many strengths!!!

[_bschaalje]

Bruce's work ignores all of the work previous, which links Rigdon and Spalding to the Book of Mormon. It is a hallmark of Mormon apologist thinking, focusing on the individual leaves of the tree and ignoring the forest, perhaps hoping that others don't know that a forest exists. (Especially the cultural context of the early 19th century, and what was available to the authors.) The only problem I have with the Jockers et al study is Rigdon's word-print, and the effects of KJE. I am working on a solution to that problem.

So Jockers et al. didn’t ignore the forest. We used the same texts as Jockers et al., used the same authors as Jockers et al. with the addition of Joseph Smith, used exactly the same stylistic marker words as Jockers et al., and used the same underlying statistical model as Jockers et al. except that we took text size into account and didn’t force the method to choose one of the authors in the candidate set if the chapter was unreasonably far from the styles of all of the candidate authors. I guess you’re saying that forcing a statistically indefensible choice of author is the high road of not ignoring previous (unpublished?) work.

Interesting reasoning.

He and Witten are fully cognizant of statistics and random error, and the hazards of jumping to conclusions. Craig is just happy that the study supported Broadhurst's results. They may also be concerned about politics, and pressure by Mormons in positions in power.

Right. This all makes good sense.

[_MCB]

The whole reason for the necessity of Jockers et al is the fact that the primary work in question (Spalding's MF) no longer exists (and one statement says that Mormons destroyed it)

Right. This all makes good sense.

Thank you.

Have a good day, and may you find a closer relationship with our Creator.

[_GlennThigpen]

The whole reason for the necessity of Jockers et al is the fact that the primary work in question (Spalding's MF) no longer exists (and one statement says that Mormons destroyed it)

You do realize that the original Jockers study did not show that Spalding or Rigdon had anything to do with the authorship of the Book of Mormon? Matt Jockers said so in his post. He said that the study merely ranked the probability of authorship of the candidate set he was given. It did not provide any absolute probabilities. Only probabilities relative to the other candidates.
Bruce's extensions to the Jockers NSC method added to controls to eliminate the inflation of posterior probabilities when the correct author is not included. When those controls were added, the attributions for Spalding and Rigdon were reduced to random chance. I cannot follow Bruce's math, but I can follow the logic.
Bruce's paper was submitted to the LLC magazine, the same one that published the original Jockers study, after a careful review by statisticians in Provo, and after a lengthy review by statisticians selected by the LLC magazine. He submitted the paper in April of 2009 and it was finally accepted for publication and we now have the advance access article available, and unless someone qualified in statistics can show any fatal flaws, this paper effectively closes the door on the Spalding-Rigdon theory. Bruce's results line up with past word print studies that had ruled out Spalding as an author and at least one that also ruled out Rigdon.

Glenn

[_MCB]

Whatever.

I have a lot more information on the broader picture than you do. Just be patient, OK? I'm not going to make any more releases to the general public from now on, just my review committee.

We know that what Bruce released was a pre-publication. There will be changes. Sometimes a written work seems like it will never be finished.

[_GlennThigpen]

Whatever.

I have a lot more information on the broader picture than you do. Just be patient, OK? I'm not going to make any more releases to the general public from now on, just my review committee.

We know that what Bruce released was a pre-publication. There will be changes. Sometimes a written work seems like it will never be finished.

What is on the LLC Advance Access site is the final, peer reviewed product that will be included in the next issue of the LLC magazine.

I am not sure what broader picture that you are referring to, but Spalding/Rigdon is dead in the water. I am interested in what you may come up with when you decide to release it.

Glenn

[_MCB]

What is on the LLC Advance Access site is the final, peer reviewed product that will be included in the next issue of the LLC magazine.

Thank you for the correction.

[_karl61]

I'm curious - this paper that is coming out. Is there any where in the paper that mentions the new testament or old testament as a source for the Book of Mormon. Are those words (new testament and old testament) in the paper.