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

[_GlennThigpen]

None so deaf as those who hear, yet refuse to understand.

First of all, you have to know who is refusing to understand. However, if that is pointed at me, I do not take offense. However it is not a response to my points.

Glenn

[_Uncle Dale]

...
My suggestion (which has been made repeatedly in this forum - and at least once in this thread)
is really quite simple. All we have to do is ignore the claims of Joseph Smith.

Since Smith said in 1831 that it was not expedient for him to reveal
the details by which the text came forth, such a step would be in
keeping with his expressed wishes -- at least as of 1831.

However, it is impossible to ignore him altogether, for he is featured
on the book's title page and evidently supplied the text for the book's
preface. Thus, he (and the preface) should logically be included in
any study of the book's authorship/origins. One possibility is that
none of the sub-divisions/chapters of the book resemble the preface
to a significant degree, and thus Smith can be scientifically eliminated
from the authorship investigation (of all, save that preface).

But even that step is fraught with problems. Without comparing the
preface with Smith's known writings and utterances, it cannot be
definitively attributed to his authorship (despite its claiming such).
Secondly, both Jockers and Schaalje have included Smith in their
recent NSC authorship attributions -- so that much, at least, still
serves to involve Smith in authorship discussions.

Schaalje grants Smith 8 chapters at the ridiculous percentage of 100,
and 3 of those 8 are known reproductions of biblical writings. These
facts alone would naturally make us suspect that Schaalje's Smith
attributions were only oddball fluctuations within the margin of error.
We can also turn to Schaalje's original pc1 chart, which relied upon
Jockers' first study data, and thus did not include Smith. But the pc1
chart is still of interest because it shows a "Book of Mormon cloud"
over to one side, and that mega cluster's contents include all 8 of
the chapters Schaalje later attributed to Smith. As it turns out those
8 chapters do not cluster together within the "cloud," and thus
probably share little that is significant in the way of vocabulary and
phraseology. The only two chapters attributed to Smith which plot
even marginally "close" to one another are Alma 29 and Alma 54.

Also, within that same Book of Mormon "cloud" on his pc1 chart, we
see Enos falling very close to Jarom -- the two chapters evidently
share some language characteristics -- but Schaalje assigns Enos
a 100% probability for Smith, and Jarom a 0% Smith probability.

So -- despite his word-print being in the mix, Smith does not show
up with any discernible pattern in Schaalje's report. That is to say,
his assigned chapters do not cluster nor show shared features to
the extent that the Isaiah chapters do in Schaalje's charts.

We can take them completely off the table.

Unfortunately that still leaves the book itself, not to mention overlapping
historical factors in the Book of Commandments, early Mormon preaching,
etc. Merely ignoring Smith does not make Nephites and Lamanites disappear
in a puff of smoke. They are embedded in the text, the history surrounding
its coming forth, and the reasons that we still refer to it today.

It would be about as easy a task to remove Jesus from consideration of
the book's origins, and ignore the great Christophanies of Ether and 3 Nephi.

But, I suppose we can go so far as to ignore Smith family descriptions of
Divine encounters, digging up Zelph, wearing the wonderful breastplate, etc.

The question of whether the Spalding theory is a good or bad theory can be answered
without having to deal with Joseph Smith's version at all.

That may be true, if we throw out those portions of the "theory" which claim
that Smith worked for Mr. Sabin in Onondaga and obtained manuscript materials
from his residence there -- or that Smith interacted with Dr. Spalding of the
Batavia area, who is also supposed to have possession of Solomon's writings.

However, I do not think we can logically leap over to the 1833 Spalding claims
without first of all at least acknowledging the prior claims for a Rigdonite
authorship. As Parley P. Pratt reported (and Ohio newspapers confirm) Rigdon
was made a primary authorship suspect almost immediately after his 1830 baptism.

As far as I can tell, it is the comparison that you and Dale want because for a certain audience, anything juxtaposed with the angel can seem reasonable (even if it really isn't).

To begin with, it would be for the audience of the uninformed -- the Gentiles, the
ex-Mormons who do not affirm the book's pretensions, the RLDS and CoC members
who never accepted it in the first place, and LDS like B.H. Roberts during his later
life, when he no longer had a testimony of the book.

Those sorts of people would be my logical audience -- whether they profess "angels"
or not. An audience of those who do not voice an LDS testimony of its origins and
purpose, such as we generally encounter in Mormon fast and testimony meetings,
wherein members profess a God-given knowledge (often "beyond a shadow of a doubt)
that the book is what it says it is.

I have discovered that it is impossible to hold a lrngthy, rational discussion with such
people -- because they view their testimony of the book as integral to their membership.
To voice anything less than a knowledge of its truth is to slide into apostasy.

So, my suggestion is that we evaluate the claims of parallels and literary borrowing while working
from the assumption that the Book of Mormon is entirely a modern production.

Unfortunately that premise is also problematic, in that the volume is a library of multiple
sub-texts, including reproductions of Isaiah, Malachi, Matthew, and smaller fragments of
John, Revelation, etc. That library includes acknowledged authentic ancient documents;
and so it cannot be termed "entirely a modern production."

Beyond that obvious fact, practically the entire book is flooded with archaic English, some
of which was not generally spoken in the vernacular after the days of Oliver Cromwell.
Depending upon the date we might agree marks the onset of modernity, I suppose it can
be claimed (as Skousen does) that some portions of the text pre-date Early Modern English.

Suppose for a moment that we select the era of Shakespeare as out cut-off date for "modern;"
the moment somebody begins to credit Shakespeare for unknowingly contributing a clause
about an "undiscovered country," one of our participants is sure to cite the Book of Job, and
fling the discussion back into antiquity.

I think that we must hold open at least the premise that it is possible to communicate an
authentic ancient message via an "entirely a modern production," in terms of its compilation.
My own view is that the ancient message would frequently be dealt irreparable damage, if
conveyed in contemporary rap lyrics, or even in 1827 upstate New York idiom. That is to
say, there are obviously some portions of ancient communication which can nowadays only
be authoritatively conveyed through a careful, often literal, selection of terms, including
transliteration for certain archaic cultural words and phrases unintelligible in our English.

I suspect that the crux of intelligent argument will be precisely at that intersection of a
need to convey purported ancient messaging, within the confines of a largely alien idiom.

UD

[_Uncle Dale]

...
Also, within that same Book of Mormon "cloud" on his pc1 chart, we
see Enos falling very close to Jarom -- the two chapters evidently
share some language characteristics -- but Schaalje assigns Enos
a 100% probability for Smith, and Jarom a 0% Smith probability.
...

I think I understand the reason behind all of this, without even being a
statistician -- I compare the effect to the results we obtain when opening
a camera lens too wide, and admitting too much light into the camera. In
that case the contrast in the picture becomes so stark, and so washed
out, that only a few scattered dark objects remain to be seen, amidst a
sea of white light.

From my perspective, all the "latent" assignments in Bruce's recent report
are much like that white light flooding into the camera, and burning out
all of the subtle gray tones.

What do we see when looking at a blow-up chart rendered from the base
data that went into Bruce's "Fig. 11?" -- We see column after column of
100% attributions to "other" or "latent." This overexposure tells us practically
nothing about how one Book of Mormon chapter resembles another. What
we see instead is that Enos is as different from Jarom as mathematics can
possibly communicate. Surely this is a ridiculous oversimplification.

On the other hand, I fear that Matt Jockers' data depiction suffers from the
exact opposite effect -- that is, an under-exposure of the big picture, such
that every shade of gray and every color, hue and tone of the rainbow are
brought together in a possibly muddy landscape. I especially distrust those
chapters attributed to the pen of Parley P. Pratt, and strongly suspect that
his authorship attribution is the result of editing and multiple voices being
brought together within the artificial limits of a single 1879 chapter.

These NSC study reports are iceberg tips, poking out of a foggy sea which
remain largely unexplored.

When a proper, detailed and exhaustive language map of the book is finally
produced for study, we will be better prepared to decide whether those
iceberg tips of computerized studies represent great masses of relevant
information, or nothing other than floating hunks of pack ice masquerading
as icy mountains.

I'm still interested. One day that language map will be published. I wonder
if it will be within my lifetime?

UD

[_Roger]

Dan:

I wish I had time to respond point-by-point, but I don’t.

No problem. I realize my last post was ridiculously long.

Basically, you keep repeating the same logical fallacies, with some new ones. Your arguments don’t have any force with me because I recognize them fallacies. I can’t keep trying to simplify them, because you take my simplifications as overstatements.

That's fine if you want to see it that way. My version is that when you simplify it, your own fallacy--or perhaps it would be more accurately stated, your incorrect assumption (about my argument)--is revealed. We may just have to agree to disagree on that.

Here’s the newest restatement of your position:

No. You are jumping the gun. I am saying since we agree that a Bible was used BUT WAS NEVER MENTIONED what reason is there to suspect that nothing else besides the Bible was used? …

I am saying we agree that:

A. A Bible was used but no witness ever mentioned it

therefore we should also agree that:

B. there is no good reason to conclude that nothing else could have been used….

Now you are trying to get me to prove a negative. It’s not up to me to prove something wasn’t there; the burden is yours to demonstrate something else was there. You can’t do that.

No. I am not trying to get you to prove anything, Dan. I stated it about as plainly as I know how.

If you are going to accept that X was used but no one ever admits to using X, what reason is there to conclude that Y could not also have been used but no one ever admitted using Y?

I'm not asking you to prove a negative. I'm not asking you to prove anything. I am asking on what basis do you rule out a positive?

Apparently recognizing that that is what I am asking you answer by stating:

The reason I suspect that nothing else besides the Bible was used is that that would have raised suspicions and would have defeated any use of the stone and hat. Use of the Bible didn’t raise the same suspicion that a MS would have. Everyone knew the Bible was quoted in the Book of Mormon.

Okay, that's a reasonable response. And it attempts to answer what I see as being a valid question. I agree that when we look at it from the viewpoint that all of the witnesses truly believed every aspect of this as presented in their testimonies, then using something other than a Bible would have raised suspicions.

Now... tell me why this scenario is also not a valid possible answer...

Using a Spalding manuscript would also not have raised suspicions because that manuscript was believed to have been a bona-fide translation of the ancient inhabitants of this continent, preserved by God and providentially placed into Rigon's hands so that he could add additional revelation to it and then finally handed over to Smith so that he too could add additional revelation.

If that was the frame of mind of those who were intimately involved, then using a Spalding manuscript that contained a true account plus modern revelation from a bona-fide seer would also not have raised suspicions. It would simply have been viewed as God working in mysterious ways to bring forth truth in the Latter-days.

I regard the Mormon testimony as historically superior and more reliable than the Spalding testimony. You have tried various ways to escape the clear implications of the Mormon testimony, but in my view not successfully.

Well then, we disagree.

The Spalding theory thrived largely because Joseph Smith’s method of translation was not widely known. When the theory came to their attention, witnesses dismissed it based on what they observed. Descriptions of Joseph Smith’s method were given by many witnesses, both in Harmony and Fayette, over many years. They weren’t special witness, but either casual observers or scribes. This type of evidence historians regard as primary source material. The Spalding witnesses are subject to a great deal of skepticism, largely due to the nature of their memories and because their statements were not supported by the MS when found.

I can live with that. If there ever was a second manuscript, how would you have expected things to work out any differently than they actually did?

You claimed Whitmer claimed that every word came through the stone, which proved he was intentionally withholding information about use of the Bible. But you seem to back out of that claim, giving the excuse that he wasn’t a coconspirator and didn’t have all the information.

I think I indeed thought Whitmer said "every word" but I think I must have been confusing that quote with another, probably the Joseph F. Smith quote you mention. Regardless, Knight says "the whole" whether he was in a position to know that or not. He is a witness and he is claiming "the whole." And I think the same thing is implied in Whitmer's statements. I'm trying to remember the phrase you used... Oh yeah: "which is exactly what he says without being specific." (I like that!)

In its place you give me a rather historically weak statement from Knight. Joseph F. Smith makes a similar statement, but it is rather useless historically. Knight was probably making a statement he thought was accurate, and generally it is. At some point you are going to have to deal with Whitmer’s statement that there were no Manuscripts in the room.

Okay one of at least two ways:

1. Whitmer's word is not reliable and he will claim anything (like if you believe my Book of Mormon testimony then you also need to believe Joseph is a fallen prophet)

or

2. Whitmer was a dupe and saw what they wanted him to see. Smith could either have memorized text or used a hidden manuscript or the bulk of the real work was done off site.

Some of your arguments rest on the assumption that the stone was not used when the Book of Mormon quotes Isaiah. I think this is wrong. You mentioned that you read Wright’s essay on Isaiah in Book of Mormon, and so I assumed you understand that the Book of Mormon contains variant readings from the KJV.

Yes I did, and yes I do. I was asking you to please explain what you mean because the way you are stating it makes it sound as though you believe words actually appeared in the stone--but I was under the impression you don't believe that. If you don't believe that, then I don't know how to make sense out of your use of the phrase "by the stone." I really think I need you to clarify that.

Where did these variant readings come from if not from the stone? That would mean that in some way the Isaiah text in the Book of Mormon was also translated by the Urim and Thummim. Note that when Joseph Smith later worked on his Inspired Version of the Bible (1830-33), it was called a “translation”. So it’s possible that Joseph Smith either had Cowdery copy from Isaiah and then added the variant readings above the line, or he added the variant readings to a Bible, which Cowdery then copied. In any case, the variant readings in the Book of Mormon doubtless carried the same claims to inspiration as the rest of the text. So I think you are making assumptions of contradiction when Joseph Smith and others claim the Book of Mormon was translated through the stone and didn’t qualify it by mentioning the Bible.

I've reread this several times in an attempt to make heads or tails out of it. Again, clarification of what exactly you mean when you say "if not from the stone" would be helpful. I do not believe words appeared in the stone. I think the stone was a prop similar to a crystal ball. If Joseph was seeing anything in his hat, it was either in his mind or coming from the opague light filtering through the white hat. So I think if he used a stone, he used it as a prop to pull off a trick that was designed to fool people. If everyone in the room knew what was going on there would have been no need to use the prop. If not, then sure, he "used the stone" but the variants did not come from it; rather they came from his mind--either after he had memorized or was blatantly looking at a Bible.

But that is NOT what I think happened.

What I think happened is that the variants came from Sidney Rigdon working to replace those sections from Ohio. I think whoever made those changes was under the impression that the King James italics represent a corruption of the underlying truth and that God was now directing the modern day seer on how to correct those errors. The most likely candidate for this is Rigdon, not Smith, in my opinion.

What evidence is there (other than the Book of Mormon) that Smith cared deeply about the theological implications of the King James italic "errors" in 1829? I see Rigdon as a better candidate. Rigdon would have cared about the theological nuances that would result by the subtle changes to KJVB italics. Smith, on the other hand, seemed to be more interested in wonder tales, buried treasure, dreams, Spanish ghosts, seer stones and writing himself into prophecy at that point.

Your personal memory test hardly duplicates what the Conneaut witnesses were asked to do. First, you chose the book. What if you chose one for which your memory was dimmer?

I did not choose the book at the time thinking I was going to test my memory on it 25 years down the road. I think it is very comparable. Sure, I was interested in the topic, but by all accounts so were the Conneaut witnesses! In fact they likely would have been more interested and less distracted. The novel was explaining a great mystery surrounding them! A topic of popular interest and conversation. Several of the accounts mention humor, indicating that they were being entertained in a day before television and movies. I think the scenarios are quite comparable.

What do you think would happen if someone read passages to you from a book they said was the book you had read fifteen years earlier but in reality was a different book with similar plot? Would your mind play tricks on you?

Perhaps on general or trivial things, but overall no and especially not on the names of the lead characters. There is simply no way someone could have convinced me I was actually exposed to Nephi (or anyone else) when I was really repeatedly exposed to "Pug" as the hero. That is simply not plausible, Dan.

But another problem for your (memory substitution) theory is that we actually have both the Spalding manuscript that had to have been what they were actually exposed to and we have the Book of Mormon, which in most cases is much closer to their actual testimonies. The mind can play tricks, but in order for those tricks to be legitimate, there has to be some basis for a connection. What could possibly have made them think they had repeatedly been exposed to the phrase "And it came to pass" when that phenomenon does not occur in Spalding's manuscript? What could induce them to remember teasing old Mr. Spalding by calling him "Old came to pass?" This sort of claim goes above and beyond legitimate memory substitution. Where did it come from? Hurlbut?

You ask a "what if" question under the assumption that there was only one manuscript, but by the same token you have to ask yourself, what would we expect to see IF there actually was another manuscript? The fact is I was exposed to Winds of War and when I cracked it open again legitimate memory jogging occurred. You can't argue that because my memory was jogged I never read the novel. And if 8 of my buddies had read the same novel and someone collects my memories and then asks my friends if they remember those things too and they say "yes" that doesn't mean we are having false memories because our statements agree too much! It simply means there might have been a better way to gather the information.

In short, the kind of thing we see in the Conneaut testimonies is exactly what I would expect if they were either telling the truth or lying, but not what I would expect to see if what they had really been exposed to was the extant Spalding manuscript.

All the best.

[_Roger]

Radically simplified readers' choice:

1. The book is the translation of an ancient American text that it purports to be.

2. It is not.

Even more radically simple:

1. The book is true.

2. See above.

[_Roger]

Dale wrote:

One of the reasons I chose Alma 34 for closer inspection, is that it is one of the few Book of Mormon chapters Bruce Schaalje's classification method assigned to a 19th century author.

The same 19th century author is assigned (by Schaalje and Jockers, oddly enough) to Alma 7. So perhaps there is some special relationship connecting the contents of Alma 34 and Alma 7.

And, the same 19th century author is assigned (by both scholars) to Alma 5. So, I began to think Alma 5, 7, and 34 may share authorship.

If Bruce or Dr. Peterson were here, how would they explain that?

Glenn, how do you explain that?

Dan?

Ben?

[_Uncle Dale]

Dale wrote:

One of the reasons I chose Alma 34 for closer inspection, is that it is one of the few Book of Mormon chapters Bruce Schaalje's classification method assigned to a 19th century author.

The same 19th century author is assigned (by Schaalje and Jockers, oddly enough) to Alma 7. So perhaps there is some special relationship connecting the contents of Alma 34 and Alma 7.

And, the same 19th century author is assigned (by both scholars) to Alma 5. So, I began to think Alma 5, 7, and 34 may share authorship.

If Bruce or Dr. Peterson were here, how would they explain that?
...

Probably their first inclination would be to credit that phenomenon to
a fluke of the computerized methodology, which is expected to return
a few errors now and then.

However, as I tried to explain, the same three chapters plot out near
each other on Bruce's pc1 chart, on his textual similarities tree, and
on other graphic classification systems. They obviously share something
in the way of similar frequently used non-contextual words patterns --
but probably also their more general vocabulary and phraseology.

Alma 5 and Alma 7 are essentially two parts of an Alma sermon, so
it is not so surprising that they end up next to each other in various
scatter diagrams, etc. That is to say, if the same author composed
both sermon texts, at about the same time, for the same purpose,
and without much editorial redaction, we might logically expect them
to end up almost joined together in our various classifications.

Alma 34 is more problematic. It is supposed to be from Amulek,
and not the words of Alma. Unless a "ghost writer" was composing
both Alma prose and Amulek prose.

Bruce assigns the three chapters to Rigdon at 100% probability.
Matt is more conservative, but still assigns them with high degrees
of probability to Cowdery (and not to Rigdon).

Although it will take me some time to demonstrate my case, I believe
that all five chapters are related in time, space, purpose and origin
to Book of Commandments chapters 7 and 8, as well as the 1829
Cowdery revelation on the "Articles of the Church." I believe that all
eight texts date to late May, 1829, just before the switch-over from
using "therefore" to using "wherefore" occurred.

In other words, I theorize that Oliver Cowdery had been composing
some insertions into the beginning and middle of a pre-existing
Alma text, and paralleling that activity with the writing of three
related "revelations." Oddly enough (if my theory is correct) Oliver
worked himself out of a job and was assigned the unhappy duty of
putting words into God's mouth, relieving himself of his temporary
role as a revelator.

The next major Book of Commandments "revelation" is chapter 15;
with which I theorize Sidney Rigdon re-asserted control of the
"Gold Bible Company," and began to use "wherefore" in speaking
in place of the Deity.

So far, no place for Spalding, except as bookends for Alma 32-33-34,
and as a warm-up for Alma 5-6-7.

But, promotion of the Spalding authorship explanation may (oddly enough)
depend upon first of all filling in some of the blanks in the non-Spalding
narrative --- if you catch my drift.

UD

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Dale writes:

Radically simplified readers' choice:

1. The book is the translation of an ancient American text that it purports to be.

2. It is not.

Sure. Of course, this has absolutely nothing to do with your thesis Dale. Your thesis isn't made correct by people choosing option 2. So, if this is all the question you ask really means, lets move it out of the way, since it is simply obscuring the issue of whether or not the Spalding theory has any merit.

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Roger writes:

No it isn't. That you want it to be irrelevant is obviously true, but it is integral to the question of where the Book of Mormon actually came from. It is an integral part of the Official Version answering that question. If Nephi (and the others) never existed then the theory you hold as explaining why there is such a thing as the Book of Mormon has to be rejected, leaving us, best as I can tell, with only two other options. It is quite relevant, Glenn.

And see Glenn, this is where Roger's approach completely falls down. For him, at this point, he doesn't need to argue whether or not his theory is any good - he simply has to argue that the other theory is bad, and he wins by default. Of course, it really doesn't work this way, and there are many possible situations, not just two. But, by generalizing, reducing, trivializing, and so on, he believes he can win an argument with a position that isn't really tenable. We have had this discussion before, he and I. He does not believe that the Spalding theory ever has to stand on its own two feet.

Ben McGuire

[_Benjamin McGuire]

MCB writes:

None so deaf as those who hear, yet refuse to understand.

I think this mantra goes both ways MCB. One thing, I think is that you should incorporate some kind of discussion on method when you finally get around to publishing your conclusions. I am in the process of writing a comprehensive response to the Grunder collection, and I get the impression from your comments here that you are simply doing what he did (albeit with a different set of sources), and your collection will suffer the same core problems as his did.

Ben McGuire