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

[_Uncle Dale]

...Word and phrase mapping is tedious
...

Probably there are automated ways to perform the task -- but I find
myself going back to simple word-searches in web-browsers and
word-processor programs.

Let's review what I've said in this thread:

1. That Jockers points out Alma 32-33-34 as having relatively
high overlap with Oliver Cowdery's word-print -- the "strongest"
span of his "signal" in the Book of Mormon.

2. I put those three chapters into an html editor and color in
all of the text shared with Oliver Cowdery -- in the 95% range.
Were I to eliminate the archaic English, the overlap would be
more like 98%-99%.

3. I then underline all the word-strings in Alma 32-33-34 that
are shared by Oliver Cowdery's language -- and the results
again are very high -- much higher than the average.

4. Finally I color in (with yellow) all of the underlined word-strings
of three words, four words, or more in a row. The results are a
massive, easily perceived overlap between Oliver's phraseology
and that of Alma 32-33-34.

We can sort through the various shared phrases and find examples
such as this one:

"the Lord hath said... that the righteous should sit down in his kingdom,
to go no more out..." (Amulek -- Oliver Cowdery? -- Alma 34)

----

"my great desire is that we may be faithful and obedient and
humble children of Christ here that we may meet together
in his kingdom of Eternal glory to go no more out...
Oliver Cowdery
Manchester
November 6, 1829

----

"O how do I delight... to think of rest in God in his kingdom --
of being in a holy heaven, where pain and sin never shall enter --
to go no more out..."

"Memoirs of the Rev. Timothy Pitkin"
Connecticut Evangelical Magazine
Volume 5 (1812) p. 342

----

How did in his kingdom... to go no more out
end up being published in the 1830 Book of Mormon?

Why does Oliver Cowdery use this phraseology in his writings, but not
Sidney Rigdon, Joseph Smith, Parley P. Pratt and Solomon Spalding?

Why does Alma 32-33-34 overflow with many, many examples of this
sort of Cowdery phraseology? Why do other parts of the book show
lower Cowdery vocabulary overlap? -- and fewer Cowdery word-strings?
-- and less Cowdery phraseology? -- and lower Cowdery NSC counts?

How many such examples need I reproduce here, before even one Mormon
displays the intelligence (and courage) to agree that there is some
peculiar linkage between Alma 32-33-34 and Oliver Cowdery's language?

Need I prove that BoC 7 and BoC 8 (on Cowdery's divining rod and attempt
at translation) coincide timewise with Alma 34 -- and that in Alma 35 the Cowdery
language suddenly falls to far below its average in the Book of Mormon?

Mormons admit that Cowdery attempted to "translate" in about April, 1829,
when the dictation had reached mid-Alma, 1st & 2nd Nephi, etc.

But they will not admit that even a single sentence of his attempted
contribution made it into the "Nephite" text in mid-Alma.

Now Glenn asks that I demonstrate that Cowdery ever used the phraseology
above documented. It's in the Joseph Smith Papers project -- on-line at
the Church's own web-site, but I still get these mindless CFRs.

Unbelievable...

UD

[Guest]

Not sure whether I've read that specific article, but I read a very thorough essay by David Wright in American Apocrypha on that specific subject, which is why I brought up the topic on this thread, knowing that Dan Vogel was also a contributor to that book.

I fully agree with David Wright's conclusions in that article--except that he too easily attributes the variants to Joseph Smith. I think Sidney Rigdon was more suited to that task.

But I was asking your opinion. What is your conclusion? Dr. Peterson thinks a Bible was likely not used in Book of Mormon production, although he leaves himself an escape hatch. Do you agree?

I think that you need to read the article by John Tvedtnes. There also is an answer by him to Wright's critique of his work. The number of variants and the support some of them receive from the Greek Septuagint and Dead Seas Scrolls Isaiah seem too specific to be coincidence. Check out his qualifications. Neither Sidney Rigdon or Joseph Smith were suited to that task.

I am inclined to believe that there was no Bible used during the translation process. Emma Smith stated that he had no other materials except the plates and the interpreters. The descriptions by the other scribes note only the hat and the stone in it. Maybe he had a Bible in the hat?

Glenn

[_Uncle Dale]

...Any evidence that Joseph Smith had a keen interest in reading
Theological Journals of the year 1812?

Glenn

Suggested new scene to be added to the Broadway "Book of Mormon" musical...

Scene: Hanover, NH, fall of 1812, Joseph Smith, Sr. cabin
Enter Hyrum Smith, stage right --

"Hi, Ma! Any of that lamb stew left over from last night?"
"Oh, Hy, yer home early from school!"

"Yeah -- the Dean had us clean up the storage room. Done early..."
"What's that stack of paper under yer arm, Hy?"

"Oh just some New England theological magazines from the trash."
"Well, you can put 'em in the outhouse -- it's out of paper."

"This one has 'to: Rev. Timothy Pitkin, Dartmouth College' on it..."
"Weren't he one o' them founders of yer academy, Hy?"

"Dunno, Ma -- Maybe he was at the college -- not at the academy."
"Well bring them magazines to the outhouse. Lil' Joseph needs paper."

Scene breaks into musical number of Joseph in the outhouse, reading
Timothy Pitkin, while dancers dressed as squirrels and opossums skip
about singing, "Sit down on the throne, Li'l Joe -- Sit down!"

Fade to black...

UD

[_GlennThigpen]

Glenn:

Not anyone but, it none of the above including retired preacher, Solomon Spalding.

Of course you must have missed the part where Solomon's manuscript was sent packing again back to the widow this time. And in the same interview, Sidney Rigdon had been nor was nowhere about.

Rigdon had more than one opportunity to purloin and copy a manuscript, Glenn. There was a lot of time between 1816 and 1823. Cowdery and Smith produced 6-8 pages per day, so it wouldn't have taken Rigdon an inordinate amount of time to copy Spalding's manuscript which was described as about 1/3 the size of the Book of Mormon. Rigdon's itinerary is not fully accounted for during those years, but the fact is he was in the vicinity of Pittsburgh much of the time.

There may have been plenty of time, but you have not even come close to any evidence that suggests that Rigdon stole the document. That is your burden of proof. At this point all you have is conjecture which does not square with what is actually known. As far as Rigdon's itinerary not being know for some of those periods of time, what is that evidence of. There were a lot of robberies during that period of time also. So, by your logic, he could have been going around robbing people. There is just as much evidence to suggest that Rigdon was executing highway robberies during those periods of time when his whereabouts cannot be determined historically as there is that he stole a manuscript and turned it into the Book of Mormon. Also there are a lot of other people during that period of time whose whereabouts cannot be accounted for all of the time. Perhaps they were helping Rigdon commit those robberies.

The last report is that the document was returned to the widow of Solomon Spalding sometime probably in 1817. In the interview with Robert Patterson Sr. in 1842, he denied that Rigdon was involved with the print shop in any way up to that point in time. He stated that any Rigdon involvement was several years later which would seem to be compatible with the time frame that Rigdon is known to have resided in Pittsburg.

Glenn

[_MCB]

Here is a quick map related to "expedient":


“must needs be”


I Nephi
3:18 10:3 15:33 (2x) 15:34 17:25 19:21 22:18

II Nephi
1:27 2:11 (3x) 2:15 9:6 9:7 9:48 10:3 10:21 25:16 26:12 28:19

Jarom
1:2

Alma
32:28 40:6

III Nephi
5:1 5:2 23:2 28:37

Moroni
10:22

[_Uncle Dale]

...Joseph in the outhouse, reading Timothy Pitkin
...

Of course Joseph was a bit young to be reading that sort
of heavy theology back in 1812. At age 7 I was stumbling
through Boy's Life articles, barely able to comprehend
the meaning. A religious magazine would have been too hard.

A more likely scenario would be that the theological verbiage
in the Book of Mormon came through the Rev. Sidney Rigdon
or Oliver Cowdery, whose great uncle was a famous New England
theologian -- Nathaniel Emmons -- an associate of Timothy Pitkin.

If the Pitkin quote appeared in a section of the Book of Mormon
that Jockers attributed to Rigdon authorship, I suppose I could
be convinced that Rigdon put it into the Nephite record. But, so
far at least, the sections of the Book of Mormon where Rigdon's
type of language use is the strongest, have a different type
of phraseology.

I suppose that I will have to produce a language map of the entire
Book of Mormon, before LDS scholars will concede that I have
indeed identified those sections of the text with language most
like that of Cowdery, of Smith, of Rigdon, of Spalding, and Pratt.

My own method is tedious and time-consuming --- counting up all
the words on a Book of Mormon page shared by each of the 19th
century authors, and calculating percentages. But at least the
results cannot be argued with. They are what they are, and they
more or less correspond to the latest Jockers authorship attributions
(the 2010 tabulations that included Joseph Smith's word-print).

I think that the next step would be to chart out the language
correspondence between the Book of Commandments chapters
and the Book of Mormon chapters. Jockers has furnished his
tabulation of Book of Commandments authorship attributions --
which show high percentages for Rigdon and Cowdery -- some
passages for Smith -- and nothing for Pratt and Spalding.

We have a fair idea of when each of the Book of Commandments
sections was finalized -- and their contents can be compared
with the chapters of the Book of Mormon calculated as being
completed at nearly the same time.

And --- wouldn't you guess it! --- lengthy phrases in the BoC
sections match up with the same wording in the Nephite record
being dictated at about the same time.

The language overlap is not just slight and occasional -- it is
heavy and significant. Book of Commandments chapters in
which the phraseology matches up with Book of Mormon chapters
generally have the same Jockers authorship attributions.

Which parts of the Book of Commandments do you suppose most
resemble Alma 32-33-34 in their overlap of Cowdery's phraseology?
Any of our LDS scholars care to investigate that little matter?

Uncle Dale

[_GlennThigpen]

The language overlap is not just slight and occasional -- it is
heavy and significant. Book of Commandments chapters in
which the phraseology matches up with Book of Mormon chapters
generally have the same Jockers authorship attributions.

Uncle Dale

Let me know when you have applied Bruce's corrections. The Jockers attributions are meaningless statistically otherwise.

It does not matter if author X is shown to be 99 percent more likely to have authored a text than author Y if the absolute probability is .1 percent.

Glenn

[_Uncle Dale]

...Let me know when you have applied Bruce's corrections.
...

OK, OK -- I'll compile a second web-page that just makes use of my
own Book of Mormon language overlap calculations and Bruce's authorship
attributions for the Book of Commandments chapters.

Fair enough?

UD

[_Roger]

Glenn:

There may have been plenty of time, but you have not even come close to any evidence that suggests that Rigdon stole the document. That is your burden of proof.

Proof for who? For you? I doubt if anything short of a notarized, signed confession from Rigdon would satisfy you. Come to think of it, that's probably underestimating your talent to find a way to disavow Rigdon of his own confession.

Proof for me? I'm already fairly convinced.

Proof for the average Joe? Most couldn't care less.

Proof for the average Latter-day Saint? Most would refuse to even look at it.

I think I will simply continue to look into the question with the goal of maybe someday publishing my conclusions for whoever cares--which may amount to me, Uncle Dale and MCB.

At this point all you have is conjecture which does not square with what is actually known.

?? Of course it squares with what is actually known. What it doesn't "square" with is Rigdon's irate denials--but that is pretty much what I would expect.

And what have you got? Plates? Reformed Egyptian? Nephite cities? Chariots? Cureloms? A reliable transcription of the characters?

And what does Dan Vogel have? Confidence in the word of the earliest followers of Joseph Smith despite having to write a clarifying essay on how the ambiguity of their written testimonies can lead to "different readings" by "outsiders"?!

I'd say we're all pretty much on a level playing field, with the majority of the evidence being better explained by S/R.

As far as Rigdon's itinerary not being know for some of those periods of time, what is that evidence of.

Opportunity. If it wasn't there S/R couldn't even get off the ground.

There were a lot of robberies during that period of time also. So, by your logic, he could have been going around robbing people.

Not really. My logic is specific to time, interest, location, opportunity and accusation.

There is just as much evidence to suggest that Rigdon was executing highway robberies during those periods of time when his whereabouts cannot be determined historically as there is that he stole a manuscript and turned it into the Book of Mormon.

Not correct. There is no testimony (that I am aware of) from people who lived at that time, many of whom knew Rigdon or at least were acquaintances indicating that Rigdon was executing highway robberies during those periods of time.

Also there are a lot of other people during that period of time whose whereabouts cannot be accounted for all of the time. Perhaps they were helping Rigdon commit those robberies.

But you know, of course, that we are not accusing "a lot of other people during that period of time" of helping Rigdon. And those we are accusing have been named.

The last report is that the document was returned to the widow of Solomon Spalding sometime probably in 1817. In the interview with Robert Patterson Sr. in 1842, he denied that Rigdon was involved with the print shop in any way up to that point in time. He stated that any Rigdon involvement was several years later which would seem to be compatible with the time frame that Rigdon is known to have resided in Pittsburg.

The recurring problem here is that people die. Spalding, Lambdin, and Joseph Patterson. Dead people don't usually say much--unless you're Sidney Rigdon and then all bets are off.

Keep on keepin' on!

All the best.

[_MCB]

OK. I mapped "expedient" It appears that Rigdon favored that word. The first attribution is the initial Jockers results. Expectation is 37% Actuality is 61% By eyeball, this is significant. The second in parentheses is when they added Smith to the mix.


I Nephi 7:33, Rigdon (Smith)
10:23,Rigdon
17:30, Rigdon (Smith)

II Nephi 2:27,Rigdon
3:19, initial results: almost nothing (Smith)
9:5, 9:47, 9:48, Rigdon
10:3,Rigdon
25:16, 25:30, Rigdon

Jarom 1:3 Spalding (Rigdon)

Mosiah 1:9,Rigdon
4:27, Rigdon
5:3,Rigdon
6:1, Rigdon
13:27 2x, 13:29, Rigdon (Smith)
23:7 2x Spalding
, 26:6, Rigdon
28:19 Rigdon (Spalding)
, 29:13, 29:16, 29:24, Rigdon (Spalding)

Alma 3:18, Spalding
12:28, Rigdon (Cowdery)
20:18 Rigdon (Smith)
25:15 Spalding (Spalding)
31:4 Spalding
34:9 2x, 34:10, 34:13 2x, Rigdon (Cowdery)
42:8, 42:9,Rigdon (Cowdery)
45:21, Rigdon
46:30, 46:31Spalding
, 52:5, Spalding/Rigdon (Spalding)
55:23, 55:32 Spalding
, 57:11, 57:15,Rigdon muddy (Spalding)
58:3 2x, Spalding
60:24, Cowdery
62:10, 62:44,Spalding
63:11, Rigdon (Pratt)

Helaman 11:28, Spalding
14:15, Rigdon

III Nephi 1:24, Rigdon
2:11, Spalding
4:5,Spalding
5:2, 5:14, Rigdon
18:35, Cowdery
26:9, Rigdon

Dale, how often did Rigdon use that word in his other writings?

New question:

Would you say that Smith & Helpers is a new theory, blending Smith only with S/R, or is it a subset of S/R?

Dale, your reputation for tunnel vision on S/R makes you the best to answer this one.