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

[_MCB]

There is a trend with redundant "for"

"... the Lamanites did gather themselves together for to sing ..." (page 196) [Mosiah 20:1] weak Rigdon
"... they did prepare for to meet them ..." (page 225) [Alma 2:12] Spalding
"... the Son of God, which should come for to redeem his people ..." (page 239) [Alma 6:8]Spalding
"Now it was for the sole purpose for to get gain ..." (page 252) [Alma 11:20] Rigdon
"... preparing the hearts of the children of men for to receive his word ..." (page 261) [Alma 13:24]weak Spalding
"... did pour out his spirit on all the face of the land, for to prepare ..." (page 268) [Alma 16:16]weak Spalding
"... after their many struggles for to destroy them ..." (page 299) [Alma 27:1] weak Spalding
"... free intercourse one with another, for to buy and to sell ..." (page 422) [Helaman 6:8]Spalding
"... we depend upon them for to teach us the word ..." (page 451) [Helaman 16:21] Rigdon/Spalding
"... they did cast up mighty heaps of earth for to get ore ... " (page 560) [Ether 10:23]weak Spalding

Obvious failures to emulate true "biblical" English might be
a better sort of error set to seek out. In some places the
Book of Mormon text is quite precise in mimicking biblical grammar
and orthography. In other instances, we see "thee" and "thou"
mismatched with the attached verbs, tenses, etc. Perhaps
those patterns should be mapped out.

Hint: You'll find proper Elizabethan English in the Isaiah
chapters, copied directly from the biblical text.

OK. I will start looking for that. I know vous & tu from French, but could never get a good map in my mind of the English equivalent.

[_Dan Vogel]

Hi Dan:

I’m not convinced on the reliability of word counts and statistics in these matters.

What if error patterns were discovered that were not evenly distributed throughout the 1830 text?

All the best.

Roger,
I’ll leave it to the experts to hash out specifics. It’s not for me to give meaning to the data this methodology gathers. It is for them to prove the meaning they assign to the data is reliable and correctly interpreted. In other words, an argument must be forth (e.g., this is observed, therefore this is the case). I was glad to see this new study testing the methodology on writings of known authors. I think more testing of this type needs to be done, preferably double blind tests, before we set aside other kinds of evidence.

[_Dan Vogel]

MCB:

I have a tendency to produce very long, complex sentences. I monitor this consciously. When I produce one that is overly long, I go back, and simplify. That is the most easily manipulated stylistic characteristic.

Joseph Smith didn't have the luxury of rewriting when dictating either the Book of Mormon or his revelations.

That is a rather fragmented approach. What about those who advocate the use of all methods available? What if the results of all these methodologies support each other?

I'm not advocating a ban on computer studies, but it seems to me some want to overturn other kinds of evidence because of the illusion that computers are objective.

What if those present during Joseph Smith's effort were lying because they wanted to profit from it? And the few who weren't lying were dupes.

Analysis of the eye witness testimony and historical record does not support the Spalding theory. Rigdon and Pratt didn't know Joseph Smith before or during the dictation. Only by convoluted and circular reasoning can it be made so. The eye witnesses to the actual dictation were dupes, but what Kind? If dupes and not liars, what would make them imagine they saw Joseph Smith dictating with face in hat? What did Whitmer have gain after being outside the church for decades? There are too many witnesses, both friendly and unfriendly to Joseph Smith, who testified to the same thing.

[_Fence Sitter]

What if those present during Joseph Smith's effort were lying because they wanted to profit from it? And the few who weren't lying were dupes.

Analysis of the eye witness testimony and historical record does not support the Spalding theory. Rigdon and Pratt didn't know Joseph Smith before or during the dictation. Only by convoluted and circular reasoning can it be made so. The eye witnesses to the actual dictation were dupes, but what Kind? If dupes and not liars, what would make them imagine they saw Joseph Smith dictating with face in hat? What did Whitmer have gain after being outside the church for decades? There are too many witnesses, both friendly and unfriendly to Joseph Smith, who testified to the same thing.

Dan,

First let me say thanks for your biography of Joseph Smith.

Didn't Whitmer base the church he founded after Joseph Smith's death on the Book of Mormon? If so he would have everything to gain by maintaining his testimony regardless of it's truth. His motives would have been the same for anyone who stayed in the church.

[_MCB]

Joseph Smith didn't have the luxury of rewriting when dictating either the Book of Mormon or his revelations

Which is the reason why we can map out his oral language use.

I'm not advocating a ban on computer studies, but it seems to me some want to overturn other kinds of evidence because of the illusion that computers are objective.

As I note in the quote (that I wrote elsewhere) at the end of this post, it is essential, because we could lose information in the process. Everything should support everything else, and evidence to the contrary should be explainable.

The different participants had different motivations. And this shows in the multiple differing theologies and ethical teachings within the book. That is the reason why the participants split off in different directions.

Time will tell.

The most effective way of removing some of the effects of King James English is to develop an algorithm which will correct for the influence of linguistic differences between King James English and modern English. Essentially, it would be a word-print for the King James Bible as a whole. We can then test it to see if this will help us identify the known authors of passages in Book of Mormon English. Josh Anderson's "The Book of Zelph," Christopher Nemelka's "Sealed Portion," James Strang's "Book of the Law of the Lord," Brian David Mitchell's prophetic writings, and the prophetic writings of an online friend could be used to determine how effective this is in removing the obscuring influences of such language. Other writers who have been deeply involved in reading the Book of Mormon from childhood can also submit samples of their writings in Book of Mormon English for such a comparison. If such a filter, correcting for the skew of KJE, can be developed, we will have better reliability on future Book of Mormon authorship studies. We will then be able to discriminate between authors as similar as Parley Pratt and Oliver Cowdery, or perhaps even Solomon Spalding and W. W. Phelps. Such a study can be counterbalanced with an analysis of usage errors in the Book of Mormon.

[_Uncle Dale]

Have you collated every instance of the a- prefix in the Book of Mormon? (I assume the list above, almost exclusively from Alma, is not exhaustive?)

I've tried to compile the data below -- that went into this chart:



"A"-Prefixed Present Participles -- Occurrences in 1830 Book of Mormon Text:


01 "As I was a journeying to see a very near kindred..." (1830 page 249) [Alma 10:7] Pratt/Cowdery

02 "And as I was a going thither..." (1830 page 249) [Alma 10:8] Pratt/Cowdery

03 "... the foundation of the destruction of this people is a beginning to be laid..." (1830 page 251) [Alma 10:27] Pratt/Cowdery
-----
3 per 1453 words = 2.06 per thousand



04 "... he met with the sons of Mosiah, a journeying towards the land..." (1830 page 269) [Alma 17:1] Pratt/Spalding

05 "... with the Lamanitish servants, a going forth with their flocks" (1830 page 271) [Alma 17:26] Pratt/Spalding
-----
2 per 1910 words = 1.05 per thousand



06 "... as Ammon and Lamoni was a journeying thither..." (1830 page 280) [Alma 20:8] Smith/Cowdery
----
1 per 1292 words = .77 per thousand



07 "... there he found Muloki a preaching the word..." (1830 page 284) [Alma 21:11] Spalding
----
1 per 975 words = 1.02 per thousand



08 "... went about from house to house, a begging for his food." (1830 page 309) [Alma 30:56] Rigdon/Cowdery

09 "And Korihor did go about from house to house, a begging food..." (1830 page 309) [Alma 30:58] Rigdon/Cowdery
----
2 per 2674 words = .75 per thousand



10 "... every whit a pointing to that great and last sacrifice..." (1830 page 319) [Alma 34:14] Cowdery
----
1 per 1574 words = .64 per thousand



11 "... Moroni, on the other hand, had been a preparing the minds..." (1830 page 358) [Alma 48:7] Spalding
----
1 per 1073 words = .93 per thousand



12 "... the armies of the Lamanites are a marching towards the city..." (1830 page 389) [Alma 57:31] Pratt/Spalding
----
1 per 1520 words = .66 per thousand



13 "... the Lamanites saw that Moroni was a coming against them..." (1830 page 403) [Alma 62:31] Spalding
----
1 per 2220 words = .45 per thousand



14 "... the Lamanites a marching towards them..." (1830 page 529) [Mormon 6:7] Spalding/Pratt
----
1 per 918 words = 1.09 per thousand



15 "... all the people upon all the face of the land were a shedding blood ..." (1830 page 568) [Ether 13:31] Rigdon
----
1 per 1230 words = .81 per thousand


Dale

[_Dan Vogel]

Dan,

First let me say thanks for your biography of Joseph Smith.

Didn't Whitmer base the church he founded after Joseph Smith's death on the Book of Mormon? If so he would have everything to gain by maintaining his testimony regardless of it's truth. His motives would have been the same for anyone who stayed in the church.

David Whitmer refused the prophetic mantle, but helped organize a church of Book of Mormon believers in the 1870s. I think you would be hard pressed to argue this was profitable in such a way as to influence him to lie about something others could easily refute. Most of Whitmer’s interviews occurred in late 1880s, when his ambition as a church leader was a fading memory. The manner of Joseph Smith’s translating with stone in hat was also described by Whitmer’s sister Elizabeth Ann, Oliver Cowdery’s widow, in 1870.

[_MCB]

In mapping out bad KJE,
I am using http://alt-usage-english.org/pronoun_paradigms.html for pronoun usage, and the search function here http://www.biblicalscholarship.net/AV.htm for strange verbs. I am up to I Nephi 19, and have found 19. :) Not evenly distributed.

[_Fence Sitter]

Dan,

David Whitmer refused the prophetic mantle, but helped organize a church of Book of Mormon believers in the 1870s. I think you would be hard pressed to argue this was profitable in such a way as to influence him to lie about something others could easily refute. Most of Whitmer’s interviews occurred in late 1880s, when his ambition as a church leader was a fading memory. The manner of Joseph Smith’s translating with stone in hat was also described by Whitmer’s sister Elizabeth Ann, Oliver Cowdery’s widow, in 1870.

Thanks Dan.

I do not think Whitmer was in it for "profitable gain', but I do think he knew his testimony of the Book of Mormon was critical to what ever role he was playing in the church he organized later on in life, or even the one he tried to organize right after Joseph Smith was murdered. His interest in not denying his testimony was simply the association it maintained for him with the Book of Mormon.

[_Uncle Dale]

...
I do not think Whitmer was in it for "profitable gain', but I do think he knew his testimony of the Book of Mormon was critical to what ever role he was playing in the church he organized later on in life, or even the one he tried to organize right after Joseph Smith was murdered. His interest in not denying his testimony was simply the association it maintained for him with the Book of Mormon.

Whitmer was thinking about himself as a successor to Joseph Smith
long before the Whitmerites were organized. Some of the correspondence
that passed between him and Oliver Cowdery, prior to Cowdery's removal
to Missouri and death there, shows that the two men were relying upon
Whitmer's old ordination as Smith's successor, to form the basis of a new
manifestation of Mormonism at the end of the 1840s. Nothing came of
that desire -- but it would be wrong to say that Whitmer never thought
of himself as a probable successor to the prophetic office.

No matter all of that -- there is enough of Whitmer's testimony on record
to indicate that he was sincere. He probably believed that he had actually
seen the liahona, the sword of Laban, etc. etc.

I see no reason to speculate that Whitmer was a knowing conspirator in
earliest Mormonism. He may have been the sort who would have kept
Mormon secrets (like polygamy), if required to do so -- but he does not
not strike me as having been a purposefully fraudulent or deceptive man.

Those who choose to believe his testimony can find a great deal of it
available on the web -- some of which is either contradictory, or at
least inconsistent with a claim for actual, physical contact with Nephite
artifacts and indisputably Divine manifestations.

I do not think that Whitmer's accounts supply the key to determining
whether or not Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery held back some secrets on
how the Book of Mormon text was established and finalized.

UD