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

[_MCB]

Well, we must remember that he has a reputation for getting as close as he can to liberal Mormonism, without being one of them. That is not an insult, Dan. I really like Ben McGuire and Consiglieri.

by the way, Dan, I remember a letter in your multi-volume research set. One of the LDS, shortly before Joseph Smith's death, wrote that the Indians in the area had danced a war-dance. Could you tell me specifically where that letter is in your book, and maybe provide me with some more background on it?

[_Uncle Dale]

...
Was he one of the Conneaut area people Orson Hyde interviewed
...

As it happened, Lyman Jackson was not exactly a "Conneaut area"
fellow. He homesteaded a farm at a spot southeast of Conneaut Creek,
near the residence of Stephen Winchester (father of Benjamin). This
was the nucleus of the "Elk Creek Branch" of the Mormon Church --
the same branch that Jedediah M. Grant belonged to -- and the same
branch that my Mormon ancestors belonged to.

Lyman Jackson had a daughter who married into the Rudd family, living
a little northwest of Jackson and Winchester. The Rudd farm was the
nucleus of the "Springfield Branch" of the Mormon Church.

Lyman Jackson also had a son, Abner, who did not become a Mormon.

Both the Jacksons and the Rudds were Solomon Spalding's neighbors
before he moved from New York to Ohio. Both families obtained their
farms from Spalding. He lived near the Ohio/Pennsylvania border, on
the Ohio side; while thy lived across the line in Pennsylvania.

Orson Hyde almost certainly interviewed Lyman Jackson's daughter,
in regard to Spalding's writings -- but Hyde did not publish any of
his interviews with the Springfield and Elk Creek Mormons who were
familiar with Spalding's fictional writings. Hyde's personal communications
from this period (1834-35) are in the LDS Archives. The last time I made
a request to examine those documents, I was informed that they are
closed to all applicants, other than approved LDS researchers and the
descendants of Apostle Orson Hyde.

UD

[_Roger]

UD:

The last time I made a request to examine those documents, I was informed that they are closed to all applicants, other than approved LDS researchers and the descendants of Apostle Orson Hyde.

No doubt they don't think you will handle with as much care as would an approved LDS researcher or a descendant of Apostle Orson Hyde.

[_Uncle Dale]

UD:

The last time I made a request to examine those documents, I was informed that they are closed to all applicants, other than approved LDS researchers and the descendants of Apostle Orson Hyde.

No doubt they don't think you will handle with as much care as would an approved LDS researcher or a descendant of Apostle Orson Hyde.

The same goes for Apostle John E. Page's preserved papers.
Recall that he interviewed Robert Patterson, Sr., in Pittsburgh
in 1842, regarding the Spalding authorship claims. At the time
Page was in charge of LDS activities in Pennsylvania, and made
periodic reports to Joseph and the Twelve back in Nauvoo. The
local press was just then popularizing the Spalding claims and
Page was practically compelled to investigate them further.

I assume that the originator of this MB thread could saunter
into the LDS Church Archives and gain almost immediate
access to the papers of these two early LDS apostles. Or,
if that would require too much of an effort on his part, then
microfilms of those preserved papers could be loaned to the
Lee Library at BYU.

I also assume that Dan Vogel could gain access to the old
apostles' papers rather easily -- either directly, in person,
or via an intermediary in Salt Lake City.

Or -- should we assume that these two Spalding-refuting
General Authorities recorded nothing in private that they
did not also put in print for the public?

UD

[_Roger]

Can you think of any other reasonable response, Roger?

Yeah. No one had the foresight to ask them about it at the time which renders further research pointless. Ergo: We should stop fretting about lack of access to the vaults in SLC and start taking in the sunsets on Hilo beach. Or something like that.

[Bedlamite]

...Or something like that.

I mentioned earlier that Alma 32-33-34 marks the high point of
Book of Mormon authorship attributed to Cowdery by Jockers.
I also provided some examples of phraseology found in that
span of text (on LDS Book of Mormon pages 282-283) to back me up.

There is another interesting term to be found on page 283
which I find interesting:

"immediately shall the great plan of redemption be brought
about unto you." (Alma 34:31)

The term is not a biblical one -- and so far, at least, I cannot
find it used by Spalding, Rigdon, Smith or Pratt. It does, however,
occur in the preserved writings of Oliver Cowdery:

>The great plan of redemption being prepared before the fall
>of man, and the salvation of the human family being as
>precious in the sight of the Lord at one time as at another,
>before the Messiah came in the flesh and was crucified, as
>after the gospel was preached... ("Messenger & Advocate")

Of course Oliver may have simply lifted this terminology out
of the published Book of Mormon. It cannot be offered up as
proof that he composed Alma 34.

"The great plan of redemption" (sans its Mormon dispensationalism)
can be found in the pre-1830 writings of Oliver's great uncle, the
famous Nathaniel Emmons.

But it can equally be found in the pre-1830 writings of the Rev. Dr.
Andrew Fuller (a great influence upon Campbell and Sidney Rigdon).
The only other exact "Nephite" occurrence of "the great plan of redemption"
is found in Jacob 6:08 -- which Jockers attributes to Rigdon.

Echoes of the term can be discerned throughout Alma 42 -- a
chapter that Jockers attributes to BOTH Rigdon and Cowdery.

The terminology is not in the Book of Commandments, but does
make a brief, abbreviated appearance in the second "Lecture on
Faith" in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants (a lecture that some
scholars attribute to Rigdon).

Uncle Dale

----
p.s.
See also:
Bruce L. Brown's 1998
"The Great Plan of Redemption"
http://speeches.BYU.edu/reader/reader.php?id=3136

[_mormonheretic]

Dale, thanks for the link to my blog! And Roger, thanks for the link to the discussion. I've tried to catch up on all the posts, but only read the first 8 pages and the last 2. Hopefully I'm up to speed.

So far, I've only heard Mormons voicing such doubts --

I think it's still quite early for the non-Mormons to jump on board--is the ink even dry on the Schaalje study yet? I will say that I think that Schaalje did a bang-up job on this study.

While I am a believing Mormon, perhaps my graduation from the "school up north" will give me enough "street cred" to be considered an honorary gentile. (Go Utes! I'll be at the game this afternoon, but don't hold out much hope for an upset.)

I did get an email from Criddle questioning "posterior probabilities ... adjusted in some way to account for historical data". Here's the full quote.

Schalje relies on a statistical tool to assign posterior probabilities for his Bayesian probabilities, then discounts to zero all of the historical evidence That’s how he comes up with Rigdon as the author of the Federalist paper — by ignoring historical data that implicates Hamilton, and creating a ridiculous closed set of authors that makes no historical sense. His identification of Rigdon simply means that Rigdon’s style is closer to the Federalist papers than that of the other authors in his closed set of authors with no historical connection to the Federalist papers. If posterior probabilities are not adjusted in some way to account for historical data, the results will be flawed, and this is especially the case for a book like the Book of Mormon, a book written in a style that differed from that used by 19th century authors in their known work (i.e., Early Modern English of the King James Bible and Shakespeare).

What is this "statistical tool to assign posterior probabilities for his Bayesian probabilities"?

[_Uncle Dale]

...thanks for the link to my blog
...

Welcome -- you'll find the elements of our discussion
here very familiar, Heretic.

If I were preparing a court case, to prove that you plagiarized my
fictional writings, I'd insist that "closed set" NSC computerized
methodology be applied to ONLY our two word-prints.

If -- on the other hand -- you were taking me to court, in order
to charge me with plagiarizing your writings, I'd insist upon the
NSC authorship attribution being carried out using an "open set"
of many, many author-candidates.

I guess that about sums it all up.

UD

[_GlennThigpen]

...Indeed, Mr. Jackson...

Are you referring to Lyman Jackson, the father of Abner Jackson?

When did he provide his testimony? When did he die?

Was he one of the Conneaut area people Orson Hyde interviewed
in regard to the Spalding claims after Howe's 1834 book came out?
Is a transcript of his testimony preserved in the LDS Archives?
Also, do you happen to know whether or not "Mr. Jackson's"
deposition is a signed, sworn, and/or notarized document?

What additional information does his testimony supply regarding
Spalding's writings, (over and above what Howe published in 1834)?

UD

Winchester did not elaborate as to which Jackson he was referring to. Normally this lack of specificity is grounds for dismissal as a credible source of information. However, the nuggets that I mentioned, a Roman story, the Latin parchment and the fact that the manuscript was a small work are noteworthy because they are details that are mostly accurate, indicating that either Winchester or the "Jackson" had actually seen the manuscript.

Glenn

[_harmony]

Wow. Bigger and bigger guns!

We may have to frame this thread.

Welcome, heretic!