DAN VOGEL DISCUSSES THE SPALDING/RIGDON THEORY

[_Uncle Dale]

It is fallacious to argue that if Joseph Smith could introduce the Bible into his book, he could have also introduced
a Spalding-Rigdon MS.

So you say, Dan --- but let us back up one step from that assertion and look at what I said -- which is, that
the more any of us are inclined to view the Book of Mormon as a composite text, the more open we naturally will become,
to admitting the possibility that a composite text is just that -- a composite of various sources.

Neither you nor Metcalfe seem much inclined to go down that path -- correct?

Once you admit the incorporation of biblical material, the two of you seem to immediately shut the door upon
the possibility of other pre-existing matter having been added in the same way.

Why is that so?

I assume that both of you are educated in the scientific method, and are skilled at inductive reasoning as well
as deductive logic. Any proper scientist building a hypothesis leaves open some room for his/her possible errors
of observation, errors of compilation, and even errors of analysis. And, unless he/she has demonstrated the
conclusive evidence of the resultant theory's proof, any proper scientist also leaves open some room for eventual
corrections and reformulations (following peer review, duplication of results, and general acceptance).

But neither you nor Brent seem to want to abide by that world-wide accepted standard. Why is that so?
Why do both of you hang onto your conclusions as though they were immutable laws of physics, or something?

No one denies the Book of Mormon doesn't liberally borrow from the KJV.

I can't parse you there, Dan -- It sounds like something Elder Tvedtnes might say, so as to perserve his views,
without admitting to any common consensus opinion among his critics.

A written manuscript or a published volume is an inert object, which does nothing more than take up space. It
is the subject of no transitive verb, beyond the realm of "occupy." Any borrowings from the KJV were placed into
the Book of Mormon narrative by a human writer, and the longer and more precise those replications are, the more any of
us will not "deny" that they were knowingly placed there for an intended purpose.

So, if you take a moment to re-think your sentence, perhaps what you really mean to say is:
"Few perceptive readers deny that the author/compiler of the Book of Mormon has liberally borrowed from the KJV. "

At any rate, I render you a certain amount of respect for your keeping Smith's name out of the picture at
this point.

However, the Book of Mormon will not become a Spalding-Rigdon-Smith composite text until you demonstrate that it is,
and that you haven't done yet.

True -- totally and clearly true. And even if I were to provide compelling arguments for that scenerio, my saying
it were so would not create a truth out of thin air. The truth of the matter would have to pre-date anything I say
or do, and it would have to be independently verifiable by others, no matter my arguments, compelling or not.

That is why I am rather guarded when I do make statements in that direction. I am here only going so far as to
say that irrefutable proof of somebody's copying of biblical matter into the Book of Mormon proves it to be a composite
text -- and if one such source has been thus incorported into the narrative, it stands to reason that OTHER
pre-existing source material may have also been copied over into the "Nephite Record."

There is a vast gap between my saying "it is possible" and my saying "I believe it is so;" just as there is a vast
gap between my saying "I believe it is so" and my saying "you must accept that it is so."

Allow me to make yet another "fancy graph."

[no extra-biblical stuff]__Dan & Brent ___________________Dale_____________Whitsitt [much extra-biblical stuff]

I did not place the two of you exactly at the left-hand end of the line, because I suppose both of you admit that
Smith might have transferred in an odd line or two from Shakespeare, or the Westminster Confession, or some
other pre-1830 book, parental dreams, etc. On the other hand, I place Whitsitt at exactly the far right-hand end
of the spectrum, since he makes his assertions and provides his scant evidences with the voice of assumed
authority.

I am in the center, Dan. Until the day comes when I publish my conclusions, and state them as facts, supported
by compelling/conclusive evidence, and available for rigorous peer review/critique, don't accuse me of being
Dr. Whitsitt.

OK?

My position is that there is sufficient evidence available for some thoughtful observers to rightfully hold
open the POSSIBILITY of a "Spalding-Rigdon-Smith composite text" (with Joseph Smith as final redactor/proprietor). In
taking this position, I encourage others to conduct their own investigations and come to their own conclusions.
By original profession, I am a trained cartographer -- I make maps. In making maps, I am limited by the
obvious generalizations and occasional lack of data that are naturally part and parcel of the map-making process.

Follow my maps, if you will. Or ignore them if you will. ----- Or, even point out obvious and probable defects if
you will. But do not accuse me of saying I have conclusive proof for a "Spalding-Rigdon-Smith composite text;"
nor that I am anywhere near being able to say such things.

OK?

My on-line presentations have not much advanced (in purpose, at least) from the mid-1970s, when Brother Grant
was the archivist in the old Emma H. Smith Library in the Auditorium. I would go up to his desk and ask him to
haul out Dr. Foster's correspondece with JSIII, where JSJr. was quoted as having refuted the Spalding claims --
and Grant would give me a condescending look, and tell me he was much too busy for such useless activities.
I'd wait till he went to lunch, and then ask librarian Madaline Brunson to dig the stuff out for me.

You see, Dan -- I am still hung up at stage one of any useful scholarly inquiry, and my fancy charts are meant
to tell the Grant McMurrays of the world that I am serious about what I am doing, have discovered at least some
sort of evidence, and am requesting their non-interference, if not their grudging cooperation. That's a LONG, LONG
way from my saying the Spalding claims have the same sort of factual basis as "2+2=4."

Get it now, Dan?

All you have done is graph and chart your assertions and conclusions, but you need to convince us that
your methodology is sound.

You have a digital 1830 Book of Mormon text -- and you have instant access to an on-line digital Spalding MS text. Choose
a page at randon, between Alma XX and Helaman I in that Book of Mormon text, and compare the total identical words
it has in common with Spalding's words. Tell me what percentage you arrive at, for the overlap.

That should take you about one hour -- and if your results are significantly different from what I say they will
be, then you will have hard facts to show me wrong.

Do you have such an hour to spare, in order to shore up your own position on this matter?

Frankly, what I have seen is leaves me scratching my head in disbelief that you actually believe you are
saying something significant. Tell me why I should be impressed with your evidence?

I have heard high level LDS and RLDS officials say that they were impressed with your EMD set, and so they
have given your Joseph Smith scholarship the benefit of the doubt on some arguable points -- even if they disagree with
the sum total of your conclusions. In other words, your good scholarship in one field of early Mormon history
has provided you with a generally good reputation that helps your credibility in a more contended field. If you
cannot say the same about me, then I obviously still have a ways to go with my on-line presentations,

But why do you not come right out and say what it is that bothers you about my presentation of this material?
All your talk about the signifigance of "more part" has nothing to do with this Spalding stuff...

Greater things than my amateurish drawings are in the wind, Brent. Take care that you do not commit your
scholarly reputation so strongly to a "Smith-alone" position that you will not be able to bend in that coming wind.

Instead of accusing Brent of some underhanded thing or threatening him, why don't you tell us why your
method of counting words and breaking up phrases into smaller parts to get what you want is supposed to be compelling evidence. I don't get it!

Instead of your accusing me of having accused somebody else, why do you not take a moment to consider the
possibility that I mean to render Brent a favor?

If even your worst enemy were to say to you, "Dan, look behind you, a thief is entering your house!" would you
not take a moment to look and see? Or would you say -- "How dare you threaten me with theft!!"

All I am saying to Brent, is that if he is prepared to bend a little, he will not be harmed by forthcoming news on
the very topic we are here discussing. There is no reason for you to accuse me of something sinister, when all
I am doing is offering a possibly useful observation. Do the good flee, when no one pursues?

Instead of given CK links and sending him off to make sense of your data, I would like to see you give us a step-by-step account of how you arrived at the conclusions depicted on your charts. Is that too much to ask?

Not at all, Dan. Ask away -- but do so in small chunks, so that I can provide short answers that need not take up
everybody's precious time.

If Spalding's vocabulary and language shows up as you claim, then why not actual plagiarism? Even if one
assumes Spalding rewrote or "reworked" his Roman Manuscript Story into a Hebrew Manuscript Found
(which I don't), I would expect much of the same sentences and paragraphs would be carried over into the
Book of Mormon, which would make your very strained and diffused search for similar language unnecessary.

A good question -- I'll devote a message in reply -- but right now we have company in the house and I must
put in my expected appearance.

Till later, then ---

Dale

[_Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Dale,

My apologies for the delayed response—for whatever reason, I’ve been unable to access the good Dr.’s forum since yesterday.

Yes, I followed your explanations of your colored graphs and diagrams with considerable clarity. So much so that you’ve persuaded me that in all of your overwrought graphical musings, you have no testable methodology. Indeed, much of what you argue is based on misunderstandings of controversial methods used by a few BoMor apologists.

You find significance in the fact that both Spalding and the BoMor author used the words “more” and “part,” but you evidently could not care less whether the two words combined (“more part”) formed an idiomatic, semantic unit in early-19thC parlance. What is the basis of your analyses, Dale? Where can I find the data that demonstrates the viability of your “vocabulary” breakdown (or whatever it is) among disparate authors?

By contrast, in my consideration of the “therefore” > “wherefore” lexical shift I assayed multiple tests, including 1) mapping the lexical shift in terms of various proposed dictation sequences, 2) reverting to the earliest manuscript tradition, 3) identifying literary dependency on the KJV Bible, and 4) documenting the same “therefore” > “wherefore” lexical shift in Joseph Smith’s revelations that were dictated during the time period of the BoMor dictation.

My relevant conclusion for Spalding/Rigdon theorists is put his way:

Smith’s gradual transition from “therefore” to “wherefore” suggests an additional insight into the dictation process. This evidence leaves no doubt that Smith assimilated portions of the KJV into the Book of Mormon … Weighing the Book of Mormon’s indebtedness to the KJV indicates that Smith probably did not substantially depend on other nineteenth-century literary sources. If Smith copied from other literature[,] one might anticipate detectable interruptions in the “therefore”/”wherefore” pattern, similar to those caused by the KJV. But this does not occur. Aside from selections borrowed from the KJV the development is relatively consistent throughout the Book of Mormon.

[B. Metcalfe, “The Priority of Mosiah: A Prelude to Book of Mormon Exegesis,” New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology, B. Metcalfe, ed. (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1993), 412–13, emphasis added.]

I’m bewildered by how in your self-claimed several readings of my essay this fundamental implication of my analysis has utterly eluded you.

My best,

Brent

[Bedlamite]

Hi Dale,

My apologies for the delayed response—for whatever reason, I’ve been unable to access the good Dr.’s forum
since yesterday.

You might want to check your computer connection. All works fine, here in the remote wilds of the far Pacific.

Yes, I followed your explanations of your colored graphs and diagrams with considerable clarity. So much so
that you’ve persuaded me that in all of your overwrought graphical musings, you have no testable
methodology. Indeed, much of what you argue is based on misunderstandings of controversial methods used
by a few BoMor apologists.

Well, then -- I'll take that as an advancement in this discussion. I'm a student of Zeno's sorites, as a method
of carrying on arguments. And although I do not work in the direction of establishing a paradox, I am happy
for even the smallest patch of rhetorical common ground we might establish between us. Then we can make
the predicate of our last agreement the subject of our next point of contention.

You say that my inclusion of the Old Testament/New Testament data in making those two charts relies upon "no testable methodology."
Perhaps that is the case -- though the writer(s) of the Book of Mormon text say that Isaiah, etc., has been copied. We need
not accept that admission at face value -- we can also make comparisons. And, if I recall correctly, one such
comparison came pretty close to identifying the exact edition of the KJV so used, down to the "surety" provided
by the copyist's acceptance of a couple of printing and/or translation errors.

But my Old Testament/New Testament charts do not stop with that sort of "un-testable methodology." I take the process one step beyond
simple observation of identities, and attempt to extrapolate paraphrased dependence upon the KJV. This is very
shakey ground indeed -- and would not be proper for any published, peer-reviewed paper. It was barely
acceptable in my oral presentations, and only there because of Dr. Bush and Wayne Ham realizing that my
purpose was to call for further investigation ---- and not to establish a rock solid claim of dependence.

You find significance in the fact that both Spalding and the BoMor author used the words “more” and “part,” but you evidently could not care less
whether the two words combined (“more part”) formed an idiomatic, semantic
unit in early-19thC parlance.

No -- you misunderstand me. I have recently been going through Rigdon's post-1844 revelations, looking for
just such bits of "parlance." I'm very keen to take note of such things, when I have a reason to.

But, as I said, the web-page you quoted from was constructed to measure vocabularly overlap. The word-strings
indicated there are for the convenience of readers who wish to go beyond simple vocabulary overlap in their
investigations of the respective texts. The indicated word-string supplement was never intended to be an
exhaustive display of phraseology overlap between the two texts.

What is the basis of your analyses, Dale? Where can I find the data that demonstrates the viability of your “vocabulary” breakdown (or whatever it is) among disparate authors?

The basis for the vocabulary count is simply that -- comparing and counting words. It is my assumption that
pages in the 1830 Book of Mormon having a vocabulary overlap with Spalding exceeding 50% are more likely to have
something in common with his language and ideas than pages showing a lower percentage ---- and, that when
we find runs of pages exceeding 95% overlap, we might better spend our time looking there for possible
"evidence" than in the discrete or cumulative pages having a very small overlap in vocabulary.

"More" and "part" do not only occur in the word-string you pointed out. They are the linguistic building blocks
of many other English word-strings, phrases, clauses and sentences. If I am counting shared vocabulary in
two different texts, mainly for the purpose of convincing a few other investigators to follow up on my
rough mapping, I do not care much about non-parallels. I do not care (in that narrow application) that the
words "king" and "men" occur as a hyphenated unit in the Book of Mormon but not in Spalding. For the narrowest application
of my charting (the simple line-graph in the 3-part chart I posted here earlier), what I care about is the fact
that both texts make use of "king" and "men."

From that base-level study we can next move up one level on the language construction ladder, to word-strings.
NOW -- at that higher level of observation and analysis -- your remarks about "more part" begin to take upon
themselves more importance. Of course the question must be asked -- "If paragraphs judged to be from Mr.
Spalding contain 'more part,' why then do his extant writings not contain that particular word-string?"

But for my purposes, even that question need not be answered just yet. I am moving along one step at a time,
first of all attempting to identify those sections of the Book of Mormon text which appear to be most like Spalding's known
use of English. Your questions must be met at a later stage of the process, after my initial task of provisional
differentiation is brought nearer completion.

By contrast, in my consideration of the “therefore” > “wherefore” lexical shift I assayed multiple tests, including 1) mapping the lexical shift in terms of various proposed dictation sequences, 2) reverting to the earliest manuscript tradition, 3) identifying literary dependency on the KJV Bible, and 4) documenting the same “therefore” > “wherefore” lexical shift in Joseph Smith’s revelations that were dictated during the time period of the BoMor dictation.

The "lexical shift" in the revelations texts is something that interests me. Why do you attribute it to Smith?
I see that as being part of what one researcher (D. I. Holmes, in "A Stylometric Analysis of Mormon Scripture
and Related Texts") referred to as the "prophetic voice." Holmes assumes that the "prophetic voice" in the
Book of Mormon is a Joseph Smith affectation --- certainly it became such after the early 1830s. But why attribute the innovation to
Smith alone? When you have time, take a look at the original BoC or EMS version of the first revelation
directed to Sidney Rigdon, upon his arrival at Kingdon, in Dec. 1830 -- and ask yourself who wrote the text,
and for what purpose? And why does it threaten Joseph Smith with removal from his prophetic office? And why does it
give Rigdon power over Smith, to "watch over" the ostensible head of the church? With whom did the so-called
"prophetic voice" originate?

My relevant conclusion for Spalding/Rigdon theorists is put his way:

Smith’s gradual transition from “therefore” to “wherefore” suggests an additional insight into the dictation process. This evidence leaves no doubt that Smith assimilated portions of the KJV into the Book of Mormon … Weighing the Book of Mormon’s indebtedness to the KJV indicates that Smith probably did not substantially depend on other nineteenth-century literary sources. If Smith copied from other literature[,] one might anticipate detectable interruptions in the “therefore”/”wherefore” pattern, similar to those caused by the KJV. But this does not occur. Aside from selections borrowed from the KJV the development is relatively consistent throughout the Book of Mormon.

[B. Metcalfe, “The Priority of Mosiah: A Prelude to Book of Mormon Exegesis,” New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology, B. Metcalfe, ed. (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1993), 412–13, emphasis added.]

Yes, I read that --- Why do you begin by saying "Smith’s gradual transition?" Is it because there is a common
consensus opinion now in circulation that he dicated most (if not all) of the O-MS? Or is it because you assume
he was the book's author?

When you say that "Smith assimilated" something or another, I do not know if you are speaking of him as the
one who finalized the text, or as the one who compiled the test in the first place. By all that you are now saying,
it seems that you intend the latter ---- and that is not an assumption I am prepared to accept at this point.

You say: "If Smith copied from other literature, one might anticipate detectable interruptions in the 'therefore'/'wherefore' pattern." But I think that would only be so, were the two words fully interchangeable,
and if they occurred at about the same rate in the literate American English of Smith's day. If they were so
well interchangeable, I wonder why "wherefore" seems to occur primarily in legal documents, sermons, and
other "conservative" and "official" language, and "therefore" was the more natural choice between the pair in
everyday conversation and popular literature? Do a word search of the early LDS periodicals, and you will find
only W. W. Phelps favoring "wherefore," with a rare use by Cowdery and one or two other early Mormons.
Do a words search of Rigdon's post-1844 revelations, and you will find it one time --- something that you might
make use of for your own arguments, by the bye. Search Spalding, and you will only find it in his legal papers.

My thesis is, that the "prophetic voice" was affected by the Book of Mormon author(s) beginning in 3rd Nephi, but was a bit
interrupted by the largely pre-written text of Ether. It then picks up currency through Moroni and the rest of
the book, but is also interrupted a bit in pre-written parts of 1st Nephi.

Since the major section that I attribute to Spalding's pen occurs before the "prophetic voice" became the
language of choice, we do not see such stuff in Alma and the first part of Helaman. Besides which, as I said,
Spalding did not generally use "wherefore" in his fiction, so far as I can tell from what little is today extant.

I’m bewildered by how in your self-claimed several readings of my essay this fundamental implication of
my analysis has utterly eluded you.

My best,

Brent

It did not elude me at all -- In fact I have a penciled-in astrisk beside it from my 1994-95 reading. It merely
strikes me as an inappropriate set of assumptions, having little or nothing to do with the topic at hand.

You began our discussion by pointing to your article/chapter, as though it contained some solid proof or
compelling evidence. I still see nothing there worth our discussing, in the context of whether or not the author(s)
of the Book of Mormon could have made use of pre-existing source material.

You yourself say that "Smith probably did not substantially depend on other nineteenth-century literary sources."
When I read you saying that, in the first place, I assumed you meant "probably" to mean just that -- and were
not attempting to make it a fact supported by proof.

If you now wish to strengthen your "probably" to some stronger word, then I suppose we can discuss the matter
further. But, at the same time, recall that my own evidence for Spalding in the Book of Mormon is not even offered at the
"probably" level ---- my evidence barely meets the "possibly" standard. Though I think you will not even grant
it that low status.

It might be worthwhile to explore what other word-shifts indicate the affectation of the "prophetic voice" --- or,
we can even debate whether or not Holmes is correct in postulating such a thing. But I see little here to work
with on the wherefore/therefore matter, beyond your earlier "probably," with which I have never had any
particular quibbles, (beyond my incidental pencil marks from several years back).

On the other hand, if CK or some other poster here makes the remarkable discovery, that Ethan Smith, or
some other old-time worthy, made extensive use of "wherefore," the issue might be worth re-visiting.

With that behind us, I am still interested in exploring whatever common ground we share on this topic. Can you
put the need for compelling, methodologically-sound evidence aside long enough to ponder at least the likelihood
that the Spalding witnesses found the latter portion of Alma and the general preColumbian colonization of the
Americas theme "familiar-sounding stuff," no matter who wrote it?

If you can agree with me that far, I will not trouble you with more quibbles over your own scholarship.

UD

[_Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Dale,

I’m not really sure what to make of your response. You state repeatedly what you believe your evidence indicates, but you’ve not provided a single testable method for assessing whether any of your unrelenting opining has even the slightest merit.

Further, citing Holmes only demonstrates that you fail to grasp the significance of my analysis. Holmes’ prophetic voice has absolutely nothing to do with the BoMor author’s “therefore” > “wherefore” lexical shift and the fact that the same lexical shift occurs in Smith’s 1829 revelations.

As difficult as it may be, Dale, I encourage you to recognize that your Spalding/Rigdon ideological emperor has no clothes.

Best wishes,

Brent

[_Uncle Dale]

As difficult as it may be, Dale, I encourage you to recognize that your Spalding/Rigdon ideological emperor
has no clothes.

In other words, as Dr. Lester E. Bush, Jr. stated, it did not rise to his standard of meriting further investigation.
You might be happy to hear, then, that my planned Rigdon book only mentions this stuff in the footnotes.

If Holmes' ideas have nothing in common with yours, you might at least answer my small question, as to
whether or not other words are either shifted in the choice between pairs, or otherwise change in frequency,
alongside the progression of the wherefore/therefore example?

Beyond that, it appears that we are finished. I will continue to advise people to investigate the conspiracy theory
of Mormon origins, and, if you are so inclined, you can cite our conversations here as a reason why they should
save themselves the trouble.

Do you want an advance copy of the upcoming publication on this topic I spoke of earlier?

UD

[_CaliforniaKid]

If Smith copied from other literature[,] one might anticipate detectable interruptions in the “therefore”/”wherefore” pattern, similar to those caused by the KJV. But this does not occur.

Brent,

I'm honestly not sure your observed lexical shift has any bearing on Uncle Dale's hypothesis. Solomon Spalding's manuscript Story never uses the word "wherefore," but uses "therefore" very often. Since Alma falls in the middle of the "therefore" portion of the Book of Mormon, I'm not sure that a Solomon Spalding borrowing in the book of Alma would be distinguishable on the basis of your wherefore-therefore shift. Do you believe it would be? If not, then on what basis do you suggest that "the Spalding/Rigdon ideological emperor has no clothes?"

-CK

[_Dan Vogel]

Dale,

So you say, Dan --- but let us back up one step from that assertion and look at what I said -- which is, that
the more any of us are inclined to view the Book of Mormon as a composite text, the more open we naturally will become,
to admitting the possibility that a composite text is just that -- a composite of various sources.

Wrong, Dale. There is no connection between Joseph Smith's using the Bible, which is undoubted by all, and the possibility that he used a Spalding-Rigdon MS, which has yet to be demonstrated. If you could demonstrate it, you would not need to make such a flimsy argument that he could. This is known as the fallacy of possible proof. There mere possibility of something is not proof of anything.

Neither you nor Metcalfe seem much inclined to go down that path -- correct?

This is an ad hominem. Doesn't it occur to you that we might have legitimate reasons for holding our position?

Once you admit the incorporation of biblical material, the two of you seem to immediately shut the door upon
the possibility of other pre-existing matter having been added in the same way.

Why is that so?

Because we have yet to see any reason to include other documents besides the Bible. So, show us the money. Take the spotlight off of us and put it back on a consideration of your evidence. This is not a contest about who is the most open-minded. Rather, it's a time for evaluating your evidence for your "fancy charts".

I assume that both of you are educated in the scientific method, and are skilled at inductive reasoning as well
as deductive logic. Any proper scientist building a hypothesis leaves open some room for his/her possible errors
of observation, errors of compilation, and even errors of analysis. And, unless he/she has demonstrated the
conclusive evidence of the resultant theory's proof, any proper scientist also leaves open some room for eventual
corrections and reformulations (following peer review, duplication of results, and general acceptance).

But neither you nor Brent seem to want to abide by that world-wide accepted standard. Why is that so?
Why do both of you hang onto your conclusions as though they were immutable laws of physics, or something?

Right now we are testing your theory. This is not about me and Brent, but about you being open to criticism of your methodology, which seems vulnerable to falsification. It's not very scientific to obstruct and attack those who are attempting to evaluate your methods.

I can't parse you there, Dan -- It sounds like something Elder Tvedtnes might say, so as to perserve his views,
without admitting to any common consensus opinion among his critics.

A written manuscript or a published volume is an inert object, which does nothing more than take up space. It
is the subject of no transitive verb, beyond the realm of "occupy." Any borrowings from the KJV were placed into
the Book of Mormon narrative by a human writer, and the longer and more precise those replications are, the more any of
us will not "deny" that they were knowingly placed there for an intended purpose.

So, if you take a moment to re-think your sentence, perhaps what you really mean to say is:
"Few perceptive readers deny that the author/compiler of the Book of Mormon has liberally borrowed from the KJV. "

At any rate, I render you a certain amount of respect for your keeping Smith's name out of the picture at
this point.

Can we move from the fallacy of quibbling to a substantial presentation of your method for evaluation by your peers?

However, the Book of Mormon will not become a Spalding-Rigdon-Smith composite text until you demonstrate that it is,
and that you haven't done yet.

True -- totally and clearly true. And even if I were to provide compelling arguments for that scenerio, my saying
it were so would not create a truth out of thin air. The truth of the matter would have to pre-date anything I say
or do, and it would have to be independently verifiable by others, no matter my arguments, compelling or not.

Facts are just out there to be discovered. We make them, and then we judge the evidence and arguments to be either strong or weak, persuasive or not.

That is why I am rather guarded when I do make statements in that direction. I am here only going so far as to
say that irrefutable proof of somebody's copying of biblical matter into the Book of Mormon proves it to be a composite
text -- and if one such source has been thus incorported into the narrative, it stands to reason that OTHER
pre-existing source material may have also been copied over into the "Nephite Record."

No. Not at all. All text to a degree are composites of the author's cultural environment. But when you assert an author has used other literary texts, we want to see you demonstrate that assertion in a compelling way. Evidence for the KJV in the Book of Mormon is beyond dispute, true, but that doesn't open the door for you to commit the fallacy of possible proof.

There is a vast gap between my saying "it is possible" and my saying "I believe it is so;" just as there is a vast
gap between my saying "I believe it is so" and my saying "you must accept that it is so."

You can believe what you will, but you can't assert something is true because it is possible .

Allow me to make yet another "fancy graph."

[no extra-biblical stuff]__Dan & Brent ___________________Dale_____________Whitsitt [much extra-biblical stuff]

I did not place the two of you exactly at the left-hand end of the line, because I suppose both of you admit that
Smith might have transferred in an odd line or two from Shakespeare, or the Westminster Confession, or some
other pre-1830 book, parental dreams, etc. On the other hand, I place Whitsitt at exactly the far right-hand end
of the spectrum, since he makes his assertions and provides his scant evidences with the voice of assumed
authority.

I am in the center, Dan. Until the day comes when I publish my conclusions, and state them as facts, supported
by compelling/conclusive evidence, and available for rigorous peer review/critique, don't accuse me of being
Dr. Whitsitt.

OK?

Of course, such politicizing of scholarly issues is entirely subjective on your part. Most people see themselves are moderate, although others might see you in a different place on the spectrum depending where they are at. Let's not commit the fallacy of the mean, or believe that the truth is always in the middle.

My position is that there is sufficient evidence available for some thoughtful observers to rightfully hold
open the POSSIBILITY of a "Spalding-Rigdon-Smith composite text" (with Joseph Smith as final redactor/proprietor). In
taking this position, I encourage others to conduct their own investigations and come to their own conclusions.
By original profession, I am a trained cartographer -- I make maps. In making maps, I am limited by the
obvious generalizations and occasional lack of data that are naturally part and parcel of the map-making process.

Follow my maps, if you will. Or ignore them if you will. ----- Or, even point out obvious and probable defects if
you will. But do not accuse me of saying I have conclusive proof for a "Spalding-Rigdon-Smith composite text;"
nor that I am anywhere near being able to say such things.

OK?

We are not accessing you. We are trying to access your arguments and evidence.

My on-line presentations have not much advanced (in purpose, at least) from the mid-1970s, when Brother Grant
was the archivist in the old Emma H. Smith Library in the Auditorium. I would go up to his desk and ask him to
haul out Dr. Foster's correspondece with JSIII, where JSJr. was quoted as having refuted the Spalding claims --
and Grant would give me a condescending look, and tell me he was much too busy for such useless activities.
I'd wait till he went to lunch, and then ask librarian Madaline Brunson to dig the stuff out for me.

You see, Dan -- I am still hung up at stage one of any useful scholarly inquiry, and my fancy charts are meant
to tell the Grant McMurrays of the world that I am serious about what I am doing, have discovered at least some
sort of evidence, and am requesting their non-interference, if not their grudging cooperation. That's a LONG, LONG
way from my saying the Spalding claims have the same sort of factual basis as "2+2=4."

Get it now, Dan?

Then why present your charts as evidence for Spalding? Why are those charts the first thing you drag out in opposition to the assertion that Joseph Smith was sole author of the Book of Mormon? Are you withdrawing them now?

You have a digital 1830 Book of Mormon text -- and you have instant access to an on-line digital Spalding MS text. Choose
a page at randon, between Alma XX and Helaman I in that Book of Mormon text, and compare the total identical words
it has in common with Spalding's words. Tell me what percentage you arrive at, for the overlap.

That should take you about one hour -- and if your results are significantly different from what I say they will
be, then you will have hard facts to show me wrong.

Do you have such an hour to spare, in order to shore up your own position on this matter?

No. I want you to tell me why such an excise would produce meaningful data and how that data can be used to determine what you claim it does. Convince me that I won't be wasting my time trying to duplicate your results. Others can duplicate your findings by following the same method, but if the method is flawed the result will be meaningless.

I have heard high level LDS and RLDS officials say that they were impressed with your EMD set, and so they
have given your Joseph Smith scholarship the benefit of the doubt on some arguable points -- even if they disagree with
the sum total of your conclusions. In other words, your good scholarship in one field of early Mormon history
has provided you with a generally good reputation that helps your credibility in a more contended field. If you
cannot say the same about me, then I obviously still have a ways to go with my on-line presentations, ...

There are no free rides in scholarship. I might have a degree of credibility, but that doesn't mean I get a free pass. I still have to defend my reasoning and conclusions in the more controversial points.

Instead of your accusing me of having accused somebody else, why do you not take a moment to consider the
possibility that I mean to render Brent a favor?

If even your worst enemy were to say to you, "Dan, look behind you, a thief is entering your house!" would you
not take a moment to look and see? Or would you say -- "How dare you threaten me with theft!!"

All I am saying to Brent, is that if he is prepared to bend a little, he will not be harmed by forthcoming news on
the very topic we are here discussing. There is no reason for you to accuse me of something sinister, when all
I am doing is offering a possibly useful observation. Do the good flee, when no one pursues?

The part you left out of your quote is the part that troubled me, to wit:--

In 1956 my grandmother slipped and fell upon a department store in Idaho, was badly injured, and brought a
suit in court against the store. The store chain lawyers offered her several thousand dollars to drop the suit, and gave her papers to sign to that effect. When she tried to collect the money promised her, those same lawyers
pointed out that she had dated her signature "1958" instead of "1956," which made the agreement null and void.
She threatened to go back into court, and they handed her some purchase vouchers to shut her up. She shut up.

This sounds to me like you are using this analogy to accuse Brent of something sinister and underhanded. You seem to be long on stories and short on evidence. It's all ad hominal and a waste of time. Instead of spending my time critiquing your evidence, here I am trying to get you to do what you should have done many posts ago.

Not at all, Dan. Ask away -- but do so in small chunks, so that I can provide short answers that need not take up
everybody's precious time.

I have already asked, but you skipped the part of my post that asked for a step-by-step account of your methodology.

A good question -- I'll devote a message in reply -- but right now we have company in the house and I must
put in my expected appearance.

Till later, then ---

I'll be waiting for that answer as well as for a defense of your charts.

[_Uncle Dale]

So you say, Dan --- but let us back up one step from that assertion and look at what I said -- which is, that
the more any of us are inclined to view the Book of Mormon as a composite text, the more open we naturally will become,
to admitting the possibility that a composite text is just that -- a composite of various sources.

Wrong, Dale. There is no connection between Joseph Smith's using the Bible, which is undoubted by all, and the possibility
that he used a Spalding-Rigdon MS, which has yet to be demonstrated. If you could demonstrate it, you would
not need to make such a flimsy argument that he could. This is known as the fallacy of possible proof. There
mere possibility of something is not proof of anything.

Once again, Dan, you are asking for proof too early in the process. My observations and
evidences need not rise to the level of firm proof, in order for a few other researchers to heed my call for
further investigation. Were this level of proof required to precede the follow-up inquiry for all claims
of discovery, no such claims would ever be investigated and subsequently confirmed or refuted. Every time
I talk with you about this subject, you demand to see its final proof -- we are not at the end of that process,
Dan; we are at its beginning. I specifically told you not to attempt to do this to me and whatever you may
think of me and my work, I expect you to be gentleman enough to take notice of what I say in this regard.

Neither you nor Metcalfe seem much inclined to go down that path -- correct?

This is an ad hominem. Doesn't it occur to you that we might have legitimate reasons for holding
our position?

Yes, that has occurred to me -- and I have pondered those possible reasons and come up with a mental list
of what some of them might be. But holding your position need not be an act that discourages others from
looking into alternative answers to the question. In fact, I think that a good scientist will encourage others to
test his/her hypotheses and theories, all along the way, whether by positive means (duplicating their
results) or by negative means (refuting or surpassing their results). Neither you nor Brent seem inclined to
encourage others to come up with alternative paradigms for Book of Mormon authorship and Mormon origins. If it is an
ad hominem attack on my part, to single the two of you out for holding these reservations, I can expand the
field of my remarks to include most observant Latter Day Saints, whom I have found equally unwilling to
encourage others to postulate, explore and articulate alternative paradigms.

Once you admit the incorporation of biblical material, the two of you seem to immediately shut the door upon
the possibility of other pre-existing matter having been added in the same way.

Why is that so?

Because we have yet to see any reason to include other documents besides the Bible. So, show us the money.
Take the spotlight off of us and put it back on a consideration of your evidence. This is not a contest about who
is the most open-minded. Rather, it's a time for evaluating your evidence for your "fancy charts".

OK, I agree that the time has arrived that somebody ought to begin to examine that evidence. However, Brent
has just advised that I abandon all my claims of this sort, before such an examination can even begin. ???

I assume that both of you are educated in the scientific method, and are skilled at inductive reasoning as well
as deductive logic. Any proper scientist building a hypothesis leaves open some room for his/her possible errors
of observation, errors of compilation, and even errors of analysis. And, unless he/she has demonstrated the
conclusive evidence of the resultant theory's proof, any proper scientist also leaves open some room for eventual
corrections and reformulations (following peer review, duplication of results, and general acceptance).

But neither you nor Brent seem to want to abide by that world-wide accepted standard. Why is that so?
Why do both of you hang onto your conclusions as though they were immutable laws of physics, or something?

Right now we are testing your theory. This is not about me and Brent, but about you being open to criticism
of your methodology, which seems vulnerable to falsification. It's not very scientific to obstruct and attack
those who are attempting to evaluate your methods.

But, just for the record, Brent has communicated that the evaluation has ended. You, on the other hand, seem
willing to at least begin such an examination --- so perhaps you are correct, and I was wrong to lump the two
of you together in terms of your response. If you are still "attempting to evaluate" then perhaps I can help
you along the way. Here is what I suggest, in summary form:

1. Old witnesses said that parts of the Book of Mormon very much reminded them of Spalding's fiction.

2. Many people say that Spalding's known fictional writings are so different from the Book of Mormon as to amount to
proof that he could not have written any part of the book; therefore the testimony can be safely disregarded.

3. Dale R. Broadhurst has pointed out sections of the 1830 Book of Mormon which he believes Spalding could have written,
and one section in particular (Alma XX to Helaman I) about 90% of which he now credits to Spalding.

4. Evaluation of Broadhurst's thesis can be carried out on two levels -- a. attempt to duplicate his findings, or
b. demonstrate other evidence which make his findings moot.

So far as I can tell, you and Brent only went so far as item 4-b, on my list, and have no interest in item 4-a.

I can't parse you there, Dan -- It sounds like something Elder Tvedtnes might say, so as to perserve his views,
without admitting to any common consensus opinion among his critics.

A written manuscript or a published volume is an inert object, which does nothing more than take up space. It
is the subject of no transitive verb, beyond the realm of "occupy." Any borrowings from the KJV were placed into
the Book of Mormon narrative by a human writer, and the longer and more precise those replications are, the more any of
us will not "deny" that they were knowingly placed there for an intended purpose.

So, if you take a moment to re-think your sentence, perhaps what you really mean to say is:
"Few perceptive readers deny that the author/compiler of the Book of Mormon has liberally borrowed from the KJV. "

At any rate, I render you a certain amount of respect for your keeping Smith's name out of the picture at
this point.

Can we move from the fallacy of quibbling to a substantial presentation of your method for evaluation by your peers?

Certainly -- see item 4-a.

However, the Book of Mormon will not become a Spalding-Rigdon-Smith composite text until you demonstrate that it is,
and that you haven't done yet.

True -- totally and clearly true. And even if I were to provide compelling arguments for that scenerio, my saying
it were so would not create a truth out of thin air. The truth of the matter would have to pre-date anything I say
or do, and it would have to be independently verifiable by others, no matter my arguments, compelling or not.

Facts are just out there to be discovered. We make them, and then we judge the evidence and arguments to be either strong or weak, persuasive or not.

That is why I am rather guarded when I do make statements in that direction. I am here only going so far as to
say that irrefutable proof of somebody's copying of biblical matter into the Book of Mormon proves it to be a composite
text -- and if one such source has been thus incorported into the narrative, it stands to reason that OTHER
pre-existing source material may have also been copied over into the "Nephite Record."

No. Not at all. All text to a degree are composites of the author's cultural environment. But when you assert
an author has used other literary texts, we want to see you demonstrate that assertion in a compelling way. Evidence for the KJV in the Book of Mormon is beyond dispute, true, but that doesn't open the door for you to commit
the fallacy of possible proof.

Again you misread me -- I said "pre-existing source material MAY have also been copied" and you
immediately close off that "may" with a demand for "compelling" evidence. I am still at the "MAY" stage and
you seem to be demanding that I move very quickly from there to the "IS TRULY SO" stage of my argument.
Again, for the hundredth time, I have only gone so far as to have effectively bypassed the LDS/RLDS claim
that no further investigation is necessary, because Spalding could have written no part of a book that in no
way resembles his known fictional writings. NOW, having moved past step #1, I am at step #2, and am saying
"here are the parts of the Book of Mormon I believe most resemble Spalding's ideas and language."

There is a vast gap between my saying "it is possible" and my saying "I believe it is so;" just as there is a
vast gap between my saying "I believe it is so" and my saying "you must accept that it is so."

You can believe what you will, but you can't assert something is true because it is possible .

Agreed -- but to paraphrase your friend Brent, until I can prove it true, I have no business even claiming it
to be possible -- and the "wherefore/therefore" evidence shows it to be so unlikely as to merit no further
consideration. Tell me exactly what it is that I am asserting to be true, and I will go back over my on-line
presentations and change whatever words you suggest be changed.

Allow me to make yet another "fancy graph."

[no extra-biblical stuff]__Dan & Brent ____________Dale__________Whitsitt [much extra-biblical stuff]

I did not place the two of you exactly at the left-hand end of the line, because I suppose both of you admit that
Smith might have transferred in an odd line or two from Shakespeare, or the Westminster Confession, or some
other pre-1830 book, parental dreams, etc. On the other hand, I place Whitsitt at exactly the far right-hand end
of the spectrum, since he makes his assertions and provides his scant evidences with the voice of assumed
authority.

I am in the center, Dan. Until the day comes when I publish my conclusions, and state them as facts, supported
by compelling/conclusive evidence, and available for rigorous peer review/critique, don't accuse me of being
Dr. Whitsitt.

OK?

Of course, such politicizing of scholarly issues is entirely subjective on your part. Most people see themselves
are moderate, although others might see you in a different place on the spectrum depending where they are
at. Let's not commit the fallacy of the mean, or believe that the truth is always in the middle.

My position is that there is sufficient evidence available for some thoughtful observers to rightfully hold
open the POSSIBILITY of a "Spalding-Rigdon-Smith composite text" (with Joseph Smith as final redactor/proprietor). In
taking this position, I encourage others to conduct their own investigations and come to their own conclusions.
By original profession, I am a trained cartographer -- I make maps. In making maps, I am limited by the
obvious generalizations and occasional lack of data that are naturally part and parcel of the map-making process.

Follow my maps, if you will. Or ignore them if you will. ----- Or, even point out obvious and probable defects if
you will. But do not accuse me of saying I have conclusive proof for a "Spalding-Rigdon-Smith composite text;"
nor that I am anywhere near being able to say such things.

OK?

We are not accessing you. We are trying to access your arguments and evidence.

Thank you for that small concession. Again, my "arguments and evidence" go only so far as to assert that
the LDS/RLDS claims of no possibility for Spalding authorship need not halt further investigation -- and that
my own investigation has pointed out the parts of the Book of Mormon where all might look in order to conduct their own
studies of the problem. Now, if you are ready to meet me at THAT point, Dan, we can productively continue
this duscussion ---- for your meeting me at THAT point would temporarily suspend judgment that you and
Brent have shown me to be wrong in my conclusions, before an examination can even begin. And your meeting
me at THAT point would only examine my claims that the LDS/RLDS argument is a phoney one, and that the
spots I have pointed to in the Book of Mormon form a pattern of occurrence sufficiently discrete and separate from the
biblical borrowings, so as to merit a second look (based upon the oddity of that pattern, if for no other reason).

My on-line presentations have not much advanced (in purpose, at least) from the mid-1970s, when Brother Grant
was the archivist in the old Emma H. Smith Library in the Auditorium. I would go up to his desk and ask him to
haul out Dr. Foster's correspondece with JSIII, where JSJr. was quoted as having refuted the Spalding claims --
and Grant would give me a condescending look, and tell me he was much too busy for such useless activities.
I'd wait till he went to lunch, and then ask librarian Madaline Brunson to dig the stuff out for me.

You see, Dan -- I am still hung up at stage one of any useful scholarly inquiry, and my fancy charts are meant
to tell the Grant McMurrays of the world that I am serious about what I am doing, have discovered at least some
sort of evidence, and am requesting their non-interference, if not their grudging cooperation. That's a LONG, LONG
way from my saying the Spalding claims have the same sort of factual basis as "2+2=4."

Get it now, Dan?

Then why present your charts as evidence for Spalding? Why are those charts the first thing you drag out in opposition to the assertion that Joseph Smith was sole author of the Book of Mormon? Are you withdrawing them now?

Again you are misreading me -- go back and look again at my on-line 1980 paper, in which I say that the
evidence summarized in the charts provides a basis for the Spalding authorship THEORY. A theory is not a
mathematical certainty. Theories are presented in order to communicate a provisional paradigm which others
can review, refute in part or in whole, replace with a new theory, or re-state the previous paradigm. The
charts are my "map" of the Book of Mormon, telling people where they might productively spend their time searching
for further evidence -- evidence supporting the original witnesses' claims, that at least part of the Book of Mormon so
resembled Spalding's fiction, so as to get the original Spalding authorship claims started in the first place.

Once those "Spaldingish" sections are located and agreed upon (by some standard or another), only then can
we effectively match the thematic elements of the narrative to Spalding's story themes. Only then can we go
through sections of the respective texts and compare them, side-by-side, to see if the same author could
have written both stories. And only when that has been done, can we move on to extrapolating from those
identified "Spaldingish" sections, the other parts of the Book of Mormon not resembling the Oberlin MS language so closely,
but which do share numerous characteristics with the indentified "Spaldingish" sections. And only when that is
done, can we begin to sort out the pieces embedded within those larger sections, which may be redactions
from the hand of Rigdon, Cowdery or Smith. Completion of one step in the process allows for a beginning to
be made for the next step in that same process. I am still at step #2.

You have a digital 1830 Book of Mormon text -- and you have instant access to an on-line digital Spalding MS text. Choose
a page at randon, between Alma XX and Helaman I in that Book of Mormon text, and compare the total identical words
it has in common with Spalding's words. Tell me what percentage you arrive at, for the overlap.

That should take you about one hour -- and if your results are significantly different from what I say they will
be, then you will have hard facts to show me wrong.

Do you have such an hour to spare, in order to shore up your own position on this matter?

No. I want you to tell me why such an excise would produce meaningful data and how that data can be used to determine what you claim it does. Convince me that I won't be wasting my time trying to duplicate your results. Others can duplicate your findings by following the same method, but if the method is flawed the result will be meaningless.

I am sorry that you do not have the hour to spare -- but since you will not go so far as to thus challenge a
single 1830 Book of Mormon page for which I have given a vocabulary overlap percentage with Spalding, I will take your
refusal to make your own examination as a tacit admission that my data in this case may be correct.

Here is why the vocabulary examination would "produce meaningful data" ---- because the patterns of strong
vocabulary overlap with Spalding (say above 90%, or even a higher figure), will, when charted out, match
closely the patterns of strong overlap for shared word-string distribution, and for Spalding word-print frequency
in the Book of Mormon text. Furthermore, I predict that when the same set of tests are conducted for Sidney Rigdon, that
the three data sets will also correlate, producing a distinct distribution pattern exclusive of the Spalding results.
In other words, where these three tests are run upon the Book of Mormon text, for each suspected author, the three tests
will strongly correlate for the respective authors, and will also form exclusive patterns of distribution, wherein
the two "voices" only mix, mingle and overlap in small and separated segments of the text.

That is what I predict. But I am a long ways away from being able to hand to you on a silver plate those
compiled and documented evidences. When we reach THAT stage, I will let you know.

I have heard high level LDS and RLDS officials say that they were impressed with your EMD set, and so they
have given your Joseph Smith scholarship the benefit of the doubt on some arguable points -- even if they disagree with
the sum total of your conclusions. In other words, your good scholarship in one field of early Mormon history
has provided you with a generally good reputation that helps your credibility in a more contended field. If you
cannot say the same about me, then I obviously still have a ways to go with my on-line presentations, ...

There are no free rides in scholarship. I might have a degree of credibility, but that doesn't mean I get a free
pass. I still have to defend my reasoning and conclusions in the more controversial points.

Good for you, Dan -- no matter what you may think of me and my work, I am your constant well-wisher and
have no bones to pick with you. I may question you on small matters of detail (a date, a name, etc.) here and
there but I have no reason nor desire to attack and refute your work.

Instead of your accusing me of having accused somebody else, why do you not take a moment to consider the
possibility that I mean to render Brent a favor?

If even your worst enemy were to say to you, "Dan, look behind you, a thief is entering your house!" would you
not take a moment to look and see? Or would you say -- "How dare you threaten me with theft!!"

All I am saying to Brent, is that if he is prepared to bend a little, he will not be harmed by forthcoming news on
the very topic we are here discussing. There is no reason for you to accuse me of something sinister, when all
I am doing is offering a possibly useful observation. Do the good flee, when no one pursues?

The part you left out of your quote is the part that troubled me... This sounds to me like you are using this
analogy to accuse Brent of something sinister and underhanded. You seem to be long on stories and short
on evidence. It's all ad hominal and a waste of time. Instead of spending my time critiquing your evidence,
here I am trying to get you to do what you should have done many posts ago.

Not at all, Dan. Ask away -- but do so in small chunks, so that I can provide short answers that need not take
up everybody's precious time.

I have already asked, but you skipped the part of my post that asked for a step-by-step account of your methodology.

A good question -- I'll devote a message in reply -- but right now we have company in the house and I must
put in my expected appearance.

Till later, then ---

I'll be waiting for that answer as well as for a defense of your charts.

Which charts are those, Dan? If you wish to see some supporting material for my construction of the Book of Mormon's
use of biblical language, I have color-coded each page of a modern LDS Book of Mormon, in order to show in detail what
the two biblical charts show in general. As I previously said to Brent, there are several points in my coloring
and deconstructing of the Book of Mormon text, where anybody can rightfully criticize me for missing examples of borrowing
or for being overzealous in marking short passages as biblical language, when they may actually be only
examples of archaic English, etc.:
http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/MEDIA/SRPpap16.htm

If anybody has constructed better, more detailed Book of Mormon charts in recent years, I will be most happy to consign
mine to the dustbin of history and to henceforth make use of that other person's more reliable charting. Can
you recommend replacements?

But I think you are referring to my red-colored "Spaldingish" chart, where I show the sections of the Book of Mormon most
resembling Spalding's narrative fiction language.

While I prepare a "defense" of my saying that the red sections of that chart are the places to look for possible
Spalding contributions to the Book of Mormon, you can run some tests of your own.

1. pick out 500 word-strings shared by the two texts and chart out their patterns of occurrence in the Book of Mormon

2. pick out another 500 different shared word-strings, and repeat the test

3. Notice how closely the patterns of occurrence provided by your charting of the two separate tests agree

4. Compare your results with my charting of the 515 shared word-strings I selected

5. Tell me how closely your derived patterns of distribution agree with my 3-part chart, presented here earlier

Now, if you wish, I can extend my 3-part chart to comprise the entire 1830 Book of Mormon text and show the over-all
pattern of distribution. We can then overlay your results atop that same 580 page monster and see in detail
what I previously only showed generally.

That is what I mean by referring you to "part 4-a".

As for "a step-by-step account of... methodology," please remember that we are here speaking of the method
by which a discovery is communicated and not the method by which that discovery is demonstrated as being an
irrefutable fact. If you stumble upon a few pottery shards and other seemingly old artifacts in the American
southwest, you might announce those findings as being indicative of there being an Anasazi occupation site at
that location, awaiting excavation and explication. Your evidence for a discovery need not meet the same level
of proof that will be demanded of the excavator who eventually looks at your map of artifacts distribution and
decides to excavate and document the entire site in a controlled dig. Please keep that fact in mind, Dan.

More to come -- I have a hospitalization coming up and will have to work around such problems in my schedule
in coming days.

Dale

[_Uncle Dale]

I'll be waiting for that answer...

Here is an explanation of how I derived the data for for the two "biblical language" charts in my 1980 paper:

1. I located some published and unpublished reports on the use of the Bible in the Book of Mormon while I was in Missouri,
and from those sources underlined the reported occurrences of biblical passages and biblical fragments in my
RLDS Book of Mormon. I cannot here list all of my sources, but can say that they were all on the open shelves of the RLDS
Library in Independence.

2. In marking up my RLDS Book of Mormon, I underlined the passages said to correspond with the KJV Bible's Old Testament in brown;
the passages said to correspond with the KJV New Testament in blue; and passages common to both sources and/or the
KJV Apocrypha in black ink.

3. While in graduate school in Ohio in 1979-81, I transferred these color-coded, underlinings to an LDS Book of Mormon,
looking up each segment of text in both a KJV concordance and Reynolds' Book of Mormon concordance -- both of which
were in the library at the Methodist Theological School in Ohio.

4. In the process of making this transfer of data, I also began to highlight in green ink snippets of biblical
phraseology, such as "For behold," "And then it came to pass," "yea, even," etc. I also highlighted in blue
ink all occurrences I could think of, where exclusively New Testament terminology occurred, such as "Jesus," "baptize,"
"Son of God," etc.

5. Finally, I went though my marked-up LDS edition and underlined in brown or blue, many of those snippets
just mentioned, plus hundreds more, derived from my examinations of the two concordances.

6. I next obtained a long roll of butcher paper, which I divided into sections with black marker, indicating each
page in the LDS Book of Mormon, each LDS/1830 chapter break, each internal record break, and each break between
the Book of Mormon's books. Within each page-section I'd marked on the long roll of paper, I wrote down numerical
values for the number of underlined words in blue, brown, and black, as well as the number of words highlighted
in lighter shades of green, blue and brown. Each of these tabulated quantities I divided by the total number of
words on the page, and based upon the relative percentages of those quotients, assigned each Book of Mormon page a
numerical value in terms of its Old Testament/New Testament/neutral "strength."

7. I next overlaid a second sheet of the same paper, divided up in the same manner, and colored in the page
sections: blue, brown, green or no color. Blue for a marked predominance of New Testament phraseology; Brown for Old Testament;
Green for mixed/undifferentiated biblical; and no color where the relative values were very low or zero.

8. The long roll of colored sections, I generalized into a shorter, miniaturized chart of about six feet in length.
And finally, this intermediate chart, I generalized upon a sheet which was about 3 feet in length. That three
foot sheet became the basis for my two small charts, which were first photographically reduced and then I
recopied the photos onto 11 1/2 x 8 pages, for my paper.

9. At each stage along the way I consulted with my thesis committee for advice -- and one or more of my profs.
helped me in making determinations on cut-off values, generalization techniques, etc. A draft version of my
1980 JWHA paper was part of the set of "thesis papers" I submitted in fulfillment of some of the requirements
for my MA degree. When I defended my thesis papers I had to recite my methodologies for numerous research
actions, decisions and conclusions I'd made. In some cases the thesis committee members were critical of how
I had conducted my research and reporting --- but, considering the fact that in most cases thus criticized, I had
not used my findings to articulate firm conclusions, I was "let by" with a 4.0 out of a possible 4.0 on that aspect
of my graduate studies (3.9 overall grade for two years' work there).

Now I fully admit that my production of those two biblical charts was a subjective process. I did not then have
access to a computer and the appropriate software needed to automatically generate exhaustive lists of KJV
word-strings present in the Book of Mormon. Had I then (or even now) access to such computer programs, I might have
been able to have decided better which green sections to add to the blue, brown or uncolored tabulations, and
my final results may have been much more useful.

But that is how I created the two biblical charts --- for better or for worse.

Dale

[_Uncle Dale]

I'll be waiting for that answer as well as for a defense of your charts.

I have previously explained in this thread how I inherited an extensive listing of Spalding/Book of Mormon phraseology
parallels from Vernal Holley, and how parts of his list made their way into my LDS CES grant proposal, into
Vern's own subsequent publication of his booklet, and onto Ted Chandler's web-pages.

But there is more to the story than that, Dan --- and I'll try to fill in a few more blanks in the story now.

Upon my arrival at grad school in 1979 I had to lay out my research and reporting schedule in some detail
before my thesis committee. One member (I think an associate member) of the profs overseeing my research
was rather skeptical of my intentions and projected findings and he monitored my creation of my "biblical language
in the Book of Mormon" study with some special interest. He was particularly troubled over the fact that I was using a modern
LDS Book of Mormon text, and not the Printer's MS text from the RLDS Archives. He demanded that I obtain and use that text,
and that I discard all of my ongoing chart-making until the Printer's MS text arrived in my hands in Ohio.

While waiting for my request to be granted, that particular professor also demanded that I discard the LDS and
RLDS editions of Spalding I had been consulting, and that I make a fresh, line-for-line transcript of the Spalding
MS at nearby Oberlin College. This I did, over a period of a dozen or more visits to Oberlin. I already had a
draft version of the Oberlin MS, taken from photographs, but I was advised to carefully compare and correct that
document with the original Spalding holograph.

That I did. And at about that same time the professor died. And, in short order, Bro. McMurray denied me access
to the Printer's MS (or at least denied me the favor of borrowing its microfilm for use in Ohio).

With my mentor deceased and no access to the Printer's MS, I consulted again with one or two other members
of my thesis committee and obtained advice to stick with the LDS Book of Mormon, because it corresponded to Reynolds'
concordance and there was no similar, lengthy concordance for the 1830 edition, nor for the RLDS volume.

Everybody associated with my research knew at that point the problems associated with my using the LDS edition,
due to its lack of many "And then it came to pass" clauses, as well as other variations from earlier editions. But
the availability of the Reynolds concordance became the deciding factor -- so I stuck with the LDS Book of Mormon.

Having completed my transcript of the Oberlin MS, I was ready to consult it as furnishing hundreds of phraseology
parallels with the Book of Mormon. I recall telling one of my profs that I was "pretty sure" that the overwhelming number of
such parallels I was already aware of, could be charted as falling outside of the "biblical" text in the Book of Mormon.

But my advisor counseled that I should first prepare a color-coded copy of my new Oberlin MS transcript, by
comparing it word-for-word with Reynolds' concordance. This I did in a few weeks, and the result was a colored
copy of Spalding's text, with red underlines for all words shared with the Book of Mormon, green underlines for all words not
shared with the Book of Mormon, and some other color (orange, I think) for homonyms, secondary meanings, different
verb conjugations, etc., wherein the two texts shared a root word but not the exact same derivation from the root.

All the shared vocabulary was thus underlined in light colored pencil --- at the same time, I used darker ink of
the same colors to underline word-strings which I found both in Reynolds and in my transcript, as well as several
additional shared word-strings that I found on my own (or from Vernal Holley and Bill Williams), which were
not recorded by Reynolds. This information I sorted, quatified, tabulated, and generalized in this chart:



My notebook containing the calculations and my marked-up transcript were turned into the grad school as part
of my thesis papers submisison. I assume they are still in file in Delaware, Ohio. If you are ever up that way,
Dan, you might check and let me know.

I made a less exhaustive copy of the colored transcript, which I discarded about half-way through the process.
I think it is on file with my papers at the Marriott Library. I also have an even less exhaustive copy which I tried
to re-create from my marked-up published texts in recent years.

At any rate, that was how the chart pictured above was created. The results are subjective -- even though I was
careful to copy all of Reynolds' significant word-strings over into my transcript color-coding. "Subjective," because
I did not mark each and every "it is" and "and he" that I found in Reynolds (or on my own) -- and "subjective"
because my selection of additional underlined and counted word-strings (not in Reynolds) was based upon my
Vernal Holley list, my own inspection, and only occasional input from a helpful fellow seminarian or prof ----
but also flawed, because I did not consult the Printer's MS for that analytical work, I suppose.

So -- that is the story behind yet another of the "fancy charts." I'll look to see if I have a larger copy with better
details, somewhere in my files.

Dale