DAN VOGEL DISCUSSES THE SPALDING/RIGDON THEORY

[_Uncle Dale]

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

I have given an initial report on how I constructed the biblical language in the Book of Mormon charts and the chart for
Book of Mormon phraseology parallels in Spalding's Oberlin MS, both of which were in my 1980 JWHA paper.

Hopefully that is a useful beginning, Dan --- and once you have given your responses to my two current postings,
I will add an edited section to this third reply, giving as many details as I can recall, concerning the creation of
my 1980 "Spaldingish language in the Book of Mormon" chart, as well as my more recent 3-part chart, which provides details
for the Alma XX-Helaman I section of the 1980 Spalding chart.

No -- let me correct that statement. I'll relate all I can regarding the 1980 chart's creation, and after I read your
replies, I will decide whether or not it is worth anybody's time for me to describe my creation of the 3-part chart.
That latter graphic relies in one place upon word-print data I've been provided with by a third party, and I must
first check and see how much I am permitted to divulge from an ongoing study project, the results of which will
not even be submitted for journal publication until later this year.

[[space reserved for edited addition to follow]]

UD

[_avanick]

Dan,
Once again, you'll see my replies between yours, and I'll put them in bold so you won't be confused.

Art,

Pardon me if I'm laboring under a false impression, but it seem to me that you accept almost without question, anything published by the church or by LDS apologists or authorities without question, no matter how littel it may or may not be based on "facts" as defined by yourself,

Of course, what you say here is not true since I'm arguing the Joseph Smith is the sole author of the Book of Mormon.

Please, you're splitting hairs here, and you know exactly what I mean, and you know that I'm right.

However, I do not automatically reject everything Mormon apologists say either. I try to assess the merits of the research and arguments made on either side of any issue, which is what I hope readers of this post will do.

This is not true. While you might try to assess the merits of the various LDS arguments, you cannot possibly make the same claim legitimately about the Spalding claims.

Apologists are not always wrong, and critics are not always right. It appears to me that you and Dale question everything that comes from Mormons, even if you don't have sufficient grounds for doing so.

Once again, Dan, if you were to examine what we say in our book, you would find that we give LDS sources more than ample rope by which to hang themselves by what THEY say, not us. Then again, sinc eit is your opinion that our book is not as worthy of your attention as perhaps, reading your morning paper, but you seem to have plenty of time to read the many LDS sources who have published material contrary to the Spalding claims. Based on this, I find it extremely difficult to believe your claims of objectivity.

If you expect me to assess your evidence and arguments fairly, then you should not be surprised when I extend the same courtesy to Mormon apologists. If you recall, I quoted Roper's review of your book and invited you to respond, which I don't think you did to my satisfaction.

Frankly, I would be surprised if you were to ever assess our evidence and arguments fairly, especially given your lack of available time to do so in light of seemingly more "worthy" information.

I haven't responded to "everything" said in defense of the Spalding theory. I haven't refused to read what you have to say; I just haven't been motivated to read it because it doesn't fit with what I DO know about early Mormon history and the contents of the Book of Mormon.

I see. In other words, you don't/won't look at anything that either doesn't fall in line with your ideas about a subject. Does that sound like objectivity to anyone at this forum? So don't look at anything that contradicts what you might like to believe to be true, and only look at information that you think reinforces what you believe to be true. Very interesting.

So, far you and Dale haven't done much to change that opinion. I only have so much time to investigate Mormon origins, so I can't go off on a wild goose chase.

Once again you are making an assumption. This is not good research by any means.

I must make decisions of where best to spend my time.

As must I, and the only reason I'm bothering to take the time to respond to your incredible statements is because I was asked by others to do so. I find many of your comments to be lacking much solid information to back them up, not to mention that you won't even look at our research yet you condemn us for what you believe us to say.

However, I think I know enough to have an informed opinion and determine that it doesn't figure in my interpretation of Mormon origins. But it's not me that you necessarily need to convince, but readers of this thread.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything other than the fact that you're not as informed about the origin of the Book of Mormon as you think, in part because you refuse to read a rather large body of evidence that flies in the face of what you seem to believe.

I'm not one to tell internet readers they need to buy my books, because I take the time to explain my views to them here.

I'm trying not to laugh too hard here as I'm replying to your statement, because of what Dale and I have already said to others regarding them wanting to be spoon-fed research that has taken us and others many years to compile. The least that you or anyone else who is critical of what we say can do is to read what we've written, and since I've told you about libraries having copies of my book, as well as Dale saying that he might send you a copy, you statement is as ludicrous as the statement that my co-authors are getting rich at the expense of the Mormons - and as misinformed.


Here is your chance to make some points for your views. The ground here is level as I have the same restructions as you do. There is nothing intellectually dishonest in my critique for the Spalding theory.

Okay, maybe not dishonest, but certainly inaccurate and undoubtedly uninformed.

I stated up front that I did not consider myself an expert on Spalding, but I do know early Mormon history and the Book of Mormon well.

And I maintain that because you hae not read what we have said in our book that you may not know everything you think you know about early Mormon history/the early history of Joseph Smith. All the more reason to read our book.

I could say you weren't intellectually honest for not reading my books and trying better to accommodate your theory with a more accurate understanding of my theories and interpretations as well as Mormon apologetics.

Yes, you could say that, and you could say many other things as well. But then, you don't know what I have read, do you? I have rather correctly stated that you cannot possibly fully know the subject which you are addressing without reading our book, and with each new comment you make, you continue to prove me right.

Now, while you flounder around with ad hominal insinuations, I will continue presenting facts and evidence Spalding advocates need to respond to and critiquing the Spalding theory as I find presented here and elsewhere on the net.

Read our book. This ad hominem bit of yours has been used ad nauseum.

Art

[_Dan Vogel]

Art,

Read our book. This ad hominem bit of yours has been used ad nauseum.

Where have I used ad hominem in my responses to either you or Dale? Rather, it is you who keeps injecting ad hominem. You can come here and defend your Spalding theory, or not.

Pardon me if I'm laboring under a false impression, but it seem to me that you accept almost without question, anything published by the church or by LDS apologists or authorities without question, no matter how littel it may or may not be based on "facts" as defined by yourself,

Of course, what you say here is not true since I'm arguing the Joseph Smith is the sole author of the Book of Mormon.

Please, you're splitting hairs here, and you know exactly what I mean, and you know that I'm right.

Ad hominem. Are you accusing me of being dishonest? I quoted Roper to give you a chance to respond, and you didn't. Instead, you responded with the above ad hominem about me accepting LDS arguments.

However, I do not automatically reject everything Mormon apologists say either. I try to assess the merits of the research and arguments made on either side of any issue, which is what I hope readers of this post will do.

This is not true. While you might try to assess the merits of the various LDS arguments, you cannot possibly make the same claim legitimately about the Spalding claims.

While I don't claim to be an expert with the Spalding theory, I can access the validity of an argument. I gave you an opportunity to set me straight, but you didn't respond to the points raised by Roper.

Apologists are not always wrong, and critics are not always right. It appears to me that you and Dale question everything that comes from Mormons, even if you don't have sufficient grounds for doing so.

Once again, Dan, if you were to examine what we say in our book, you would find that we give LDS sources more than ample rope by which to hang themselves by what THEY say, not us. Then again, since it is your opinion that our book is not as worthy of your attention as perhaps, reading your morning paper, but you seem to have plenty of time to read the many LDS sources who have published material contrary to the Spalding claims. Based on this, I find it extremely difficult to believe your claims of objectivity.

Again, why the ad hominem? Who said I wouldn't read your book. I might someday. This thread isn't just about your book. It's about the Spalding theory generally. I'm sure Dale has many things to say about Spalding that aren't in your book. You can come here and defend to Spalding theory, or not. But you can't forestall this discussion by asserting that it can't proceed until all the participants read your book. If you want to promote your book, you can tell us what's in it that is pertinent to the discussion at hand.

I don't claim to be objective, but I think I can assess the validity of various viewpoints fairly. You talk about LDS sources as if they all have equal merit. It also troubles me that your main goal seems to be countering what LDS say, rather than on the Spalding theory itself.

If you expect me to assess your evidence and arguments fairly, then you should not be surprised when I extend the same courtesy to Mormon apologists. If you recall, I quoted Roper's review of your book and invited you to respond, which I don't think you did to my satisfaction.

Frankly, I would be surprised if you were to ever assess our evidence and arguments fairly, especially given your lack of available time to do so in light of seemingly more "worthy" information.

More ad hominem and still no answer to Roper.

I haven't responded to "everything" said in defense of the Spalding theory. I haven't refused to read what you have to say; I just haven't been motivated to read it because it doesn't fit with what I DO know about early Mormon history and the contents of the Book of Mormon.

I see. In other words, you don't/won't look at anything that either doesn't fall in line with your ideas about a subject. Does that sound like objectivity to anyone at this forum? So don't look at anything that contradicts what you might like to believe to be true, and only look at information that you think reinforces what you believe to be true. Very interesting.

The Spalding theory doesn't fit with eyewitnesses testimony about how the Book of Mormon was dictated, which is supported by the original MS. Rigdon's conversion occurred by happenstance, etc. There is serious doubt that a second Spalding MS ever existed. Here is your chance to change my mind. Now. Not in the future after I read your book, but now.

So, far you and Dale haven't done much to change that opinion. I only have so much time to investigate Mormon origins, so I can't go off on a wild goose chase.

Once again you are making an assumption. This is not good research by any means.

It's not an assumption that you and Dale are responsible here for representing the Spalding theory. If I wanted to write on the Spalding theory, I would make sure to read your book. But since we are just talking casually on a message board, it is up to you to defend the theory, not tell us we are not as informed as you are.

I must make decisions of where best to spend my time.

As must I, and the only reason I'm bothering to take the time to respond to your incredible statements is because I was asked by others to do so. I find many of your comments to be lacking much solid information to back them up, not to mention that you won't even look at our research yet you condemn us for what you believe us to say.

Here is your chance to straighten me out. Instead of complaining, why don't you jump in and participate in the discussion?

However, I think I know enough to have an informed opinion and determine that it doesn't figure in my interpretation of Mormon origins. But it's not me that you necessarily need to convince, but readers of this thread.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything other than the fact that you're not as informed about the origin of the Book of Mormon as you think, in part because you refuse to read a rather large body of evidence that flies in the face of what you seem to believe.

More ad hominem. You either have evidence and arguments to bring against what I have said, but you don't attack me. That's ad hominem. Art, I suggest you get on-line and look up ad hominem.

If I'm as uninformed as you think, it should be a breeze countering my arguments and producing evidence to support your theory. So, get on with it.

I'm not one to tell internet readers they need to buy my books, because I take the time to explain my views to them here.

I'm trying not to laugh too hard here as I'm replying to your statement, because of what Dale and I have already said to others regarding them wanting to be spoon-fed research that has taken us and others many years to compile. The least that you or anyone else who is critical of what we say can do is to read what we've written, and since I've told you about libraries having copies of my book, as well as Dale saying that he might send you a copy, you statement is as ludicrous as the statement that my co-authors are getting rich at the expense of the Mormons - and as misinformed.

For the record, I didn't say that you were "getting rich at the expense of the Mormons", which is nothing like what I DID say. I'm not asking to be "spoon-fed research", but for you to come here and tell us why the Spalding theory has anything to do with Mormon origins--which might overlap with your book, but not necessarily. I have spent as much time as you, if not more, researching Mormon origins, but I'm not stingy with information as you seem to be. You can choose to participate--or not--but don't come here to insult me. If what I have said here is wrong according to your way of thinking, then by all means demonstrate it--otherwise, keep the ad hominem to yourself.

We are trying to have a discussion about the subject now. If the topic of this thread was "Dan Vogel Discusses Vanick's Book", then you would have a point.

Here is your chance to make some points for your views. The ground here is level as I have the same restructions as you do. There is nothing intellectually dishonest in my critique for the Spalding theory.

Okay, maybe not dishonest, but certainly inaccurate and undoubtedly uninformed.

Instead of ad hominem, I suggest you go back through the thread, find things I have said, then demonstrate where I have been inaccurate and uninformed.

I stated up front that I did not consider myself an expert on Spalding, but I do know early Mormon history and the Book of Mormon well.

And I maintain that because you hae not read what we have said in our book that you may not know everything you think you know about early Mormon history/the early history of Joseph Smith. All the more reason to read our book.

I don't claim to know everything. No one will ever know everything. There is always going to be things I don't know. But I know enough to justify having an opinion. Now, you can either show that I have said something wrong here--or not--but pointing out that I'm uninformed is more believable when you actually demonstrate it. Otherwise, it's just abusive ad hominem. If you haven't noticed, this is a discussion board. So, what are you doing here if you don't want to discuss Spalding?

I could say you weren't intellectually honest for not reading my books and trying better to accommodate your theory with a more accurate understanding of my theories and interpretations as well as Mormon apologetics.

Yes, you could say that, and you could say many other things as well. But then, you don't know what I have read, do you? I have rather correctly stated that you cannot possibly fully know the subject which you are addressing without reading our book, and with each new comment you make, you continue to prove me right.

Does one fully know any subject? I have criticized the Spalding theory from what I do know, and have asserted the following, so far:--

1. Eyewitness testimony is uniform in excluding the possibility of a Spalding-Rigdon MS being used in the Book of Mormon's dictation.

2. The original Book of Mormon MS is consistent with eyewitness testimony.

3. Sidney Rigdon's conversion was the result of several fortuitous circumstances.

4. The contents of the Book of Mormon is best understood in the context of Joseph Smith's autobiography.

5. Joseph Smith was quite capable of producing the Book of Mormon without Rigdon's help.

If you can challenge these points, please do so. On the Spalding theory, I have made the following arguments here and elsewhere:--

1. Evidence for a second Spalding MS is wanting.

2. Hurlbut's witnesses are not convincing and were probably victims of false memory.

3. There is no credible evidence for a pre-1830 Rigdon-Smith acquaintance.

If you want to disagree with me, do so with arguments and evidence. If you don't want to "spoon-feed" us with your research, then bow out of the discussion. You don't have to participate.

Now, while you flounder around with ad hominal insinuations, I will continue presenting facts and evidence Spalding advocates need to respond to and critiquing the Spalding theory as I find presented here and elsewhere on the net.

Read our book. This ad hominem bit of yours has been used ad nauseum.

Art, you are the one indulging in ad hominem, not me. I have been asking for evidence and sound arguments. For whatever reason, you don't want to do that.

[_avanick]

Dan,
I think you're genuinely afraid to read our book. You can accuse me of ad hominem attacks until you're blue in the face, but the simple truth is that you refuse to view our arguments as stated in our book. As for Roper, he has picked and chosen little pieces here and there to try to make some big points, which the various supporters of different variations of the "Smith wrote it" club gleefully accept without putting any of his claims to any sort of test. Can you honestly tell me that you have examined ANY of Roper's claims in detail. I seriously doubt it. Yet you say that it is somehow up to me to prove our claims? This goes back to the entire issue of Mormonism, which, living in its dream world, tells Christianity that it must somehow "prove itself", while the Johnny-come-lately Mormonism need not offer any proof of its legitimacy.

All of your posturing tells me something very significant. I see you bringing up Roper all the time, as if he were some knight errant who is going forth to slay the mighty Spalding dragon, yet I don't see much mention of Brodie. Has she somehow been diminished due to our book? Of course, there are those who still stubbornly cling to Brodie, like Sandra Tanner, but I think that even she will eventually change her mind.

Getting back to you wondering why I don't just do all of your work for you and print up answers to Roper's claims for you, mainly, I have neither the time nor the inclination at this point to print out page after page of refutation when you and I both know, based on what you have already said, that I probably couldn't offer enough of what you consider "evidence" to convince you of anything.

As I said before, we are working on a public reply to Roper, and when it is finished, we will release it publicly for all to see. In the meantime, read our book. Even the CD-version which Dale gave to you will go a long way toward showing you our evidence, and since it is in a PDF document, you can rapidly go to any portion of the text and look at whatever you wish.

You want answers, then fire up your computer, put in the disc, and do some reading. In the meantime, please, no more smokescreens about what Dale and I will or won't do for you. Frankly, I find it a waste of the forum's bandwidth.

Art

[_CaliforniaKid]

I would like to try to refocus and to inject a little sanity into this discussion. Uncle Dale has described his methodology, which basically was to make word lists for the Spalding story and for each page of the 1830 Book of Mormon and to determine what the % vocabulary overlap is. If I understand him correctly, anywhere there was an overlap of more than 95 %, he colored it red.

Now, let me digress on the subject of Metcalfe's lexical shift for a moment. There is a point, so bear with me. Why did Metcalfe choose to study the occurrence of the words "therefore" and "wherefore"? The choice is apparently arbitrary. He could have waxed eloquent about any one of hundreds of other words in the Book of Mormon. Why this one? The simple answer is that it worked. I studied something like 15 different words in the Book of Mormon, and only in a few cases did a clear pattern emerge. Posting oscillating graphs measuring the occurrences of a word like "unto" wouldn't be very meaningful. It wouldn't really tell us anything. It's only because a pattern emerges that Metcalfe's data are meaningful.

Now, Uncle Dale's choice of 95% as a cutoff point is fairly arbitrary. At this point, it isn't meaningful that some pages have a 95% vocabulary overlap. What is meaningful, in my mind, is that it works. The pages with 95+% overlap cluster in the book of Alma, and especially in the second half of the book of Alma. A pattern emerges. Why?

The "why" is the important part. Uncle Dale's black-and-white chart mapping out "spikes" in vocabulary overlap coinciding wih Book of Mormon battles and religious material offers one possible explanation for the "why." Do these pages deal with some subject matter that frequently occurs in the Spalding manuscript? Does a coincidence of topic cause a superficial coincidence in vocabulary that clusters in these pages? Or does the coincidence in vocabulary mean something else, namely that these pages were authored by the same person who authored the Spalding manuscript? Uncle Dale can strengthen the case for the latter by pursuing the following steps:

1) Choose several other, similar but independent 19th-century texts to serve as controls. Perhaps Dan can help you select them. The texts you choose should probably be written in mock-archaic or biblical prose, maybe along the lines of the Third Epistle of Peter, since the Book of Mormon is written in said prose.
2) Apply the same method to these texts that you applied to the Book of Mormon: a page-by-page comparison of vocabulary overlap.
3) If a cluster of 95+% vocab overlap occurs in any of your control books, then your 3-part chart probably tells us more about a coincidence of subject matter than about authorship. If no such overlap clusters appear, then your chart may in fact have implications for authorship attribution.

If we can get Dan to agree that this is an acceptable "way forward," I think I can write a fairly simple Visual Basic program to computerize and facilitate the vocab comparison process, so long as we have accurate typescripts of each work we are comparing. Or perhaps, since Brent is a software engineer and has shown an interest in laying the Spalding theory to rest, he would be interested in writing such a program.

-CK

[_Uncle Dale]

I would like to try to refocus and to inject a little sanity into this discussion. Uncle Dale has described his methodology, which basically was to make word lists for the Spalding story and for each page of the 1830 Book of Mormon and to determine what the % vocabulary overlap is. If I understand him correctly, anywhere there was an overlap of more than 95 %, he colored it red.

You've got part of that observation right, CK -- but not all of it.

The red-colored sections on the charts were determined by a rough quantification of word-strings, not by
an undifferentiated shared vocabulary count. That is why I posted the 3-part chart (Alma XX-Helaman I)
earlier in this thread. I'll repost it now, in order to clarify things.


This chart of the "Book of Solomon" has been reduced in size to fit easily into this web-page,
but the full-sized original is also available for viewing here:
http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/MEDIA/phrchrt2.gif

The vocabulary count you are speaking of, CK, is indicated by the upper graph line, which roughly varies
from a low of about 90% (on p. 395) to a high of about 98.2% (374, 385) in the pages of this section of the
1830 Book of Mormon. In other sections of the book, that upper graph line dips down to as low as 80-85% if I recall correctly.
I do not have all the data available to me right now, as another person is working with this stuff, helping me
with analysis, etc.

The red columns are what you are talking about, and on the above chart they depict the level of fine detail
missing from my highly generalized 1980 JWHA paper chart, (where red colored sections represent my
conclusions regarding "Spaldingish" Book of Mormon text).

The red column data, as I said, were determined by a rough quantification of word-string count per 1830 Book of Mormon
page. I charted out the occurrence of 515 shared word-strings, and wherever I found 16 or more on a Book of Mormon page,
I colored the column for that page red on the chart. Pages containing 11 to 15 such shared strings I colored
orange, representing "undecided" for my evaluation purposes. Pages containing 0-10 such strings are green,
representing pages which I have subjectively determined to be "un-Spaldingish."

Thus, if a page like #340 (the first page on the 3-part chart) has in its first half, no shared word-strings, and in
its second half 10 shared word-strings, that section of the text is marked green ("un-Spaldingish") even though
a portion of its contents overlaps greatly with the language of the Oberlin manuscript. So, just because a column
has a certain color on the graph, that does not mean the text on the page thus represented is homogeneous. This
factor must be kept in mind when we observe the juxtapositioning of the upper line graph over the data shown
in the bottom column graph. The data thus depicted in those two parts do not align in perfect sync -- partly
because certain pages are not homogeneous in their "voices."

At any rate, I think that the upper line graph and the bottom column graph correlate fairly well. We are are
observing only a small section of the overall Book of Mormon text -- but the two graphic indicators I've been talking about
here are at their "mountain peaks" level in this section of the 1830 book. In most other, very lengthy sections
of the Book of Mormon text, the bottom column chart count is in the "green range" and the upper line graph is fairly flat,
at the bottom of its range.

In between the two graphic indicators we have just been looking at, is a third indicator -- the heavy blue line.
This represents the Solomon Spalding non-contextual word-markers count (or word-print) for ranges of text
segments in the Book of Mormon (generally more than a single page, because word-printing requires larger text segments).
The ups and downs of this blue line have been purposely flattened in my chart (at the request of the person
who gave me that data) so as not to divulge pre-published information scheduled for an upcoming professional
paper. However, I will say here and now that the Spalding word-print, as charted throughout the Book of Mormon by an
independent researcher, also has a "close fit" with the patterns you see in my own two graphic indicators.

That is why I added the blue word-print line graph to my own depictions, CK. The length you can see on my
3-part chart represents the Himalayas of that graph line, when extended across the entire Book of Mormon text.

Now, let me digress on the subject of Metcalfe's lexical shift for a moment... It's only because a pattern
emerges that Metcalfe's data are meaningful.

Now, Uncle Dale's choice of 95% as a cutoff point is fairly arbitrary. At this point, it isn't meaningful that some pages have a 95% vocabulary overlap. What is meaningful, in my mind, is that it works. The pages with 95+% overlap cluster in the book of Alma, and especially in the second half of the book of Alma. A pattern emerges. Why?

Since you have made an incorrect assumption about the chart data, CK, I will correct you here and say that
the 16+ word-string count is the "cutoff point" you really mean to be speaking of here. I arbitrarily selected
515 shared Spalding/Book of Mormon word-strings, which I felt might be "significant" in terms of the number of words thus
connected in each string, and in terms of their thematic content. I challenged Dan Vogel to select his own two
sets of roughly 500 shared word-strings, and to chart out his data in a similar manner. My prediction is that any
two charts he might produce by this method will roughly duplicate the patterns I have shown in my chart.

The "why" is the important part. Uncle Dale's black-and-white chart mapping out "spikes" in vocabulary overlap coinciding wih Book of Mormon battles and religious material offers one possible explanation for the "why." Do these pages deal with some subject matter that frequently occurs in the Spalding manuscript? Does a coincidence of topic cause a superficial coincidence in vocabulary that clusters in these pages? Or does the coincidence in vocabulary mean something else, namely that these pages were authored by the same person who authored the Spalding manuscript?

Again I must correct you, CK --- since we are talking about the arbitrarily selected 515 word-strings in the
red bar graph (and about 1500 other arbitrarily selected word-strings in b&w Oberlin MS graph), the "spikes"
which thus show up are a direct outcome of that arbitrary selection process.

Please read carefully here -----> This is why the line graphs (which are not based upon arbitrarily selected data)
serve as important controls on the bottom column chart. The column chart is subjective stuff, the line graphs are
objective stuff.

Uncle Dale can strengthen the case for the latter by pursuing the following steps:

1) Choose several other, similar but independent 19th-century texts to serve as controls. Perhaps Dan can help you select them. The texts you choose should probably be written in mock-archaic or biblical prose, maybe along the lines of the Third Epistle of Peter, since the Book of Mormon is written in said prose.
2) Apply the same method to these texts that you applied to the Book of Mormon: a page-by-page comparison of vocabulary overlap.
3) If a cluster of 95+% vocab overlap occurs in any of your control books, then your 3-part chart probably tells us more about a coincidence of subject matter than about authorship. If no such overlap clusters appear, then your chart may in fact have implications for authorship attribution.

If we can get Dan to agree that this is an acceptable "way forward," I think I can write a fairly simple Visual Basic program to computerize and facilitate the vocab comparison process, so long as we have accurate typescripts of each work we are comparing. Or perhaps, since Brent is a software engineer and has shown an interest in laying the Spalding theory to rest, he would be interested in writing such a program.

-CK

I think Brent's only interest is in telling folks not to waste 10 seconds on Spalding/Rigdon theories. I predict he
would not touch such material with a ten-foot pole, and would only browse through the results, looking at the
"more part" of the findings, in order to locate some small gnat of a perceived problem, which he might blow out
of all reasonable proportion -- so as to obscure the general message of those particular findings.

Now Dan may, in this case, again say I am attacking the messenger, and not listening to his message. But I
will be very, very surprised if Brent will agree to spend any time at all upon such a project.

As for texts to examine, as controls, look here for some possible selections:
http://olivercowdery.com/texts/bookindx.htm

Cheers,
UD

[_CaliforniaKid]

Thanks for the clarification, Dale. I kind of glazed over the last few pages because of all the ad hominem. I think your most recent post lays out your case very compellingly. As I said before, this reminds me of a scene in Al Gore's new global warming documentary where he shows the charts of CO2 levels and temperature (which coincide very nicely) and says, "did these ever fit together?" You'd have to watch the documentary to understand why this was a memorable moment, but anyway. I am interested in seeing Dan or Brent respond to your methodology here without engaging in summary dismissals.

-CK

[_Mary]

Dale, forgive me if I have missed it.
Could you just explain what you mean by 'word-string'
If you have already done so, just refer me back to the page on this thread.

I don't want to waste your time....

Thanks
Mary

[_Dan Vogel]

DID OLIVER COWDERY BRING A NEW MS TO JOSEPH SMITH?

This seems to be what Dr. Shades implied at the beginning of this thread.

Speed of translation of Book of Mormon vs. Book of Abraham. It's hardly arguable that Smith produced the text of the Book of Abraham essentially by himself, much like the "Smith-as-sole-author" adherents believe he did with the Book of Mormon. Yet Smith had the Book of Abraham manuscripts in his possession since Kirtland, but never finished the translation (and didn't even start on the Book of Joseph). So Smith is a painstakingly slow translator. Yet years earlier, when Cowdery shows up on Smith's doorstep, voila! Smith finishes the bulk of the Book of Mormon in c. 60 days. Why so quickly in this case, if he didn't have a manuscript off which to read?

Creg Criddle apparently has the same view.

http://mormonstudies.com/criddle/rigdon.htm#7

This suggestion strikes me as extremely doubtful for several reasons.

If Cowdery is Rigdon's accomplice, why does he stop with the Smith's for the winter to teach school? Like Parley P. Pratt's story, it was rather fortuitous that Cowdery's brother Lyman suggested to Hyrum Smith that his brother teach in the Manchester school. It was also fortuitous for the Smiths to offer Cowdery room and board--by which means he was able to learn about the plates and get an introduction to Joseph Jr.

If Cowdery brought a revised MS with him containing a rewrite of the lost 116 pages (which according to Criddle included Rigdon's new Walter Scott-inspired theology), why did Cowdery want to try his hand at translation only to fail?

When Smith and Cowdery sit down to translate, why does the text seem to reflect issues emanating from their new relationship--rather than from Rigdon's world?

This last point needs some background. In my analysis of the Book of Mormon, there seems to be an interweaving of the Book of Mormon's text with Joseph Smith's ongoing experiences in Harmony.

After the loss of the 116 pages about June 1828, Joseph Smith continued to dictate in the early parts of Mosiah before Cowdery came in April 1829. How much was dictated before Cowdery came is uncertain because Mosiah is missing in O-MS. According to Lucy Smith, when she and Joseph Sr. visited Harmony about September 1828, the angel had returned the plates to Joseph and Emma had acted as his scribe. There is also evidence that Samuel may have acted as scribe during a visit with his father in February 1829. For reasons I will get to shortly, I have argued that this pre-Cowdery dictation was probably limited to King Benjamin's three-part speech. The following is a probable reconstruction (I drawing from and piecing together from my biography)--

Part 1 -- Mosiah 2:9-3:27. Themes: service (Mos. 2:17; cf. D&C 4); eternal hell and deliverance through Jesus Christ (2:31-3:27); anti-Universalism (2:27, 33, 38-39; 3:24-25); anti-Unitarian modalistic concept of Godhead--Jesus as Father (15:1-8); salvation of those--like Alvin Smith--“who have died not knowing the will of God concerning them, or who have ignorantly sinned” (3:11); that “the infant perisheth not that dieth in his infancy” (3:18). These are themes that the Universalist Joseph Sr. would have no doubt read with interest. Having just lost he first child at birth, Emma would have also welcomed Benjamin's words about the salvation of infants.

D&C 4 (Feb. 1829) -- Paralleling Benjamin’s need to discharge his duty in order to be “found blameless ... when I shall stand to be judged of God” (Mos. 2:27), the revelation enjoins Joseph Sr. to work with total devotion so as to “stand blameless before God at the last day” (D&C 4:2).

D&C 5 (March 1829) -- Following a court hearing in Lyons, NY, initiated by his wife to prevent his support of Joseph Smith, Martin Harris visited Harmony to ask to see the plates. He left unsatisfied, but Joseph Smith dictated a revelation to Harris that among other things instructed Joseph Smith

“when thou has translated a few more pages, thou shalt stop for a season, even until I command thee again” (BofC 4:10; cf. D&C 5:30).

It is possible that Harris was the scribe for Parts 2 and 3 of king Benjamin’s address (Mos. 4:4-5:15), the content of which are particularly suited to Harris’s situation.

Part 1 of the speech--Mosiah 2-3, which corresponds to Chapter I in the first edition--ends with--"Thus hath the Lord commanded me. Amen." A revivalistic conversion scene ensues, then--"And king Benjamin again opened his mouth ..." (Mos. 4:4; Chap. II).

Part II (Mosiah 4:4-30) -- Themes pertinent to Harris: humility (Mos. 4:5, 11); the obligation of those in better circumstances to lend relief to the poor--i.e., Joseph Smith (Mos. 4:14-26); returning borrowed items (4:19, 20); the importance of keeping one's covenants with God (5:5).

humble yourselves before God; and ask in sincerity of heart that he would forgive you (Mosiah 4:10; emphasis added).

he ... doth not humble himself sufficiently before me, but if he will go out and bow down before me, and humble himself in mighty prayer and faith, in the sincerity of his heart, then will I grant unto him a view of the things which he desireth to know (Book of Commandments 4:8; emphasis added).

Appealing to a sense of guilt for inadequacy, which was both universally applicable and particularly relevant to Harris’s loss of the manuscript, Benjamin declares: “For behold, are we not all beggars? ... And behold, even at this time, ye have been calling on his name, and begging for a remission of your sins” (Mos. 4:19, 20). The speech becomes even more specific: “And I would that ye should remember, that whosoever among you should return the thing that he borroweth, according as he doth agree, or else thou shalt commit sin; and perhaps thou shalt cause thy neighbor to commit sin also” (v. 28). In most cases, it is the borrower who bears the guilt, but in this case the lender is provoked to sin as well (D&C 3:9).

April 1829 -- Oliver Cowdery and Samuel Smith arrive at Harmony (PA) on Sunday, near sunset. On 7 April 1829, Joseph Smith commences translation with Oliver Cowdery as scribe. It wasn't long before Cowdery wanted to try his hand at translating (D&C 6, 8, 9), but failed. Joseph Smith dictates the story of King Mosiah and Ammon, which seems pertinent to the situation Smith and Cowdery were experiencing.

Ammon travels from Zarahemla in search of those who had returned to the Nephite homeland in the city of Nephi. When he captured and taken before King Limhi, Ammon is asked if he can “interpret languages” (8:6). Ammon replies that he cannot. Disappointed, Limhi reveals that he possesses another record which he cannot read, explaining that it was found by his people in a far away “land among many waters” (v. 8). Ammon excitedly tells the king: “I can assuredly tell thee, O king, of a man that can translate the records; for he has wherewith that he can look, and translate all records that are of ancient date; and it is a gift from God. And the things are called interpreters, and no man can look in them except he be commanded, lest he should look for that he ought not and he should perish. And whosoever is commanded to look in them, the same is called seer” (8:13). Who is this man? Limhi asks. Ammon informs him that King Mosiah “is the man that is commanded to do these things, and who has this high gift from God” (v. 14).

Mosiah’s “interpreters” are later described as being “two stones which were fastened into the two rims of a bow” (Mos. 28:13), which is how the “magic spectacles” Smith found with the plates were described. How Mosiah came into possession of this instrument is not stated, although it is claimed that they “were preserved from the beginning, and were handed down from generation to generation, for the purpose of interpreting languages” (Mos. 28:14).

Contrasting his understanding of a prophet’s mantle with Ammon’s description of seership, Limhi declares that “a seer is greater than a prophet” (8:15), to which Ammon responds: “A seer is a revelator and a prophet also; and a gift which is greater can no man have, except he should possess the power of God, which no man can; yet a man may have great power given him from God. But a seer can know of things which are past, and also of things which are to come, and by them shall all things be revealed, or, rather, shall secret things be made manifest, and hidden things shall come to light, and things which are not known shall be made known by them, and also things shall be made known by them which otherwise could not be known. Thus God has provided a means that man, through faith, might work mighty miracles; therefore he becometh a great benefit to his fellow beings” (vv. 16-18).

Besides virtually paralleling Joseph’s own story of translating the gold plates and their history of a lost race, Ammon’s words to Limhi include subtle responses to Joseph’s immediate environment. Ammon’s words also helped to define the relationship between Smith and Cowdery. Shortly after the new scribe’s arrival, it became apparent to Smith that Cowdery had come with his own competent gifts, one of which was working with a divining rod. Perhaps through Ammon’s exchange with Limhi, Joseph was asserting the superiority of his gift over that of Cowdery’s, as if to say that “a seer is greater than a rodworker.”

The revelation closes by exhorting Cowdery to “stand fast in the work wherein I have called you, and a hair of your head shall not be lost, and you shall be lifted up at the last day” (D&C 9:5). In other words, Cowdery should be content with his calling as scribe, for which he will be rewarded and for which he will be protected from harm.

It is in the context of these revelations which deal with Cowdery’s attempt to translate that Ammon’s words to Limhi seem applicable. Indeed, following his failure, Cowdery would now be able to declare with Ammon: I cannot translate, but I know of “a man that can translate ... for he has wherewith that he can look, and translate all records that are of ancient date; and it is a gift from God” (Mos. 8:13). With envy, Cowdery might well have echoed Ammon’s appraisal that “a gift which is greater can no man have” (v. 16). Cowdery, like Ammon, had learned his proper place.

D&C 6 (April 1829) -- This revelation attempts to impress Cowdery by reading his private thoughts. Why would Joseph Smith be trying to do this if Cowdery were an accomplice?

D&C 7 (April 1829) -- This revelation came to resolve a dispute between Cowdery and Smith about the existence of translated beings, which was probably triggered by Alma’s disappearance in the Book of Mormon text. Purportedly a translation of a record written on parchment and hidden anciently in a cave by John, Smith’s revelation claimed that Jesus granted his disciple’s wish to have “power over death, that I may live and bring souls unto thee. ... And for this cause the Lord said unto Peter: ‘If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee’” (vv. 2, 4). That John’s fate was on Smith’s mind as he dictated the account of Alma’s disappearance is indicated by the parallel between Mormon’s statement that “the saying went abroad in the church that [Alma] was taken up by the Spirit” (Al. 45:19) and John 21:23--“Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die.” Thus, Smith chose the most improbable interpretation of John 21:23, one that was inconsistent with Jesus’ prediction of martyrdom for John and his brother James (Mk. 10:35-41). Later, this revelation becomes the basis for 3 Nephi 28. This is another indication that Joseph Smith is getting his material right on the spot and dictating it in an impromptu fashion.

[_Uncle Dale]

Dale, forgive me if I have missed it.
Could you just explain what you mean by 'word-string'
If you have already done so, just refer me back to the page on this thread.

I don't want to waste your time....

Thanks
Mary

A "word-string" is simply that -- a string of words in sequence, which generally is shorter than a full sentence.
Clauses and phrases are word-strings; but even simple two-word sequences are strings of a sort.

For example, here is a rather long word-string:

I, Nephi, having been born of goodly parents, therefore I was taught somewhat in all the learning of my father

If you or I were looking through the pages of some very obscure pre-1830 book in English, and we ran
across such a lengthy set of identical words, all in the same order, we might say it is "significant" because
most people would agree with us, that is signifies that the Book of Mormon plagiarized that obscure volume;
or else both books plagiarized some third, earlier and unknown source.


But what if all we found in that old book was "I Nephi...." or "was taught somewhat in all the learning of my father"
what then? Could we say that such word strings were significant?

Perhaps, if they both occurred on the same page of that obscure book -- then it would be a significant find.

Or, if on that same page, we found all of these word-strings:

I, Nephi,
having been born
of goodly parents,
therefore I was taught
somewhat in all the learning
of my father

However, in this last example, no two of the word strings occur in the same sentence in that obscure book.

Would they still be "significant?"

That is the sort of thing that myself, Dan and Brent have been discussing.

UD