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

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Dale writes:

It would be very helpful if you would follow through on this exercise, and color-code the entire text for those three chapters, underlining the shared vocabulary (as you have done) and bolding, or otherwise marking examples of three or more contiguous shared words -- if not interrupted by punctuation in either of the texts.

Ok Dale, let's make a deal. earlier you made this comment:

I am perfectly willing to remove Rigdon and Spalding from the "helpers" list, if you can show me that the pattern of their shared language in the Book of Mormon is not reasonable grounds for further investigation.

Now, what I want from you is an explanation of this - what in your opinion would constitute reasonable grounds to remove Rigdon and Spalding from the "helpers" list. If you can provide me with a description of that, I will continue on this other work.

Ben McGuire

[_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.

Excellent point. I review others who have suggested parallels, and then read the material that they suggest. If I don't see parallels, then I discard it. I think there is only one pair of items that no-one else has suggested, and the parallels are particularly strong in that set of works by one author.

I am now reading Emanuel Swedenborg, and have found rich parallels in some of his works, and nothing in others. I then ask why?

I read the "Golden Pot," for example, and discarded it. I have read John Wesley, found many parallels, but also recognize that he was, generally speaking, mainstream. I have read Alexander Campbell, and found many parallels. Dale has guided me to the Westminster Confession, and I found many there. Those are just a few.

And, as the list of parallels piles up, the parallels with Spalding's known work seem more and more reasonable. The whole of the S/R theory therefore becomes more and more reasonable.

[_Uncle Dale]

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.

We "move it out of the way," by establishing which path is the viable one
for the non-Mormon reader.

When we first encounter the book, we are standing at a literary-historical
fork in the road. Either the book is what it says it is, or its is not.

Standing at that point, we comprehend that the two paths -- the two
possibilities -- will diverge. We can only try and keep one foot in each
of the two paths for a short while.

My thoughts are that many readers will give up the mental challenge at
that point, and rely upon others (more experienced, more expert, etc.)
to tell them which path is the viable, real roadway -- and which one
eventually peters out into the undergrowth of irrelevance.

So, we do not simply ignore the path we choose not to follow. At first,
while taking our initial steps, we keep both paths in view. As they
diverge, we continue to keep both in mind.

You suggest that we take the second path -- but almost immediately,
we notice that it too, has forks. It too presents us with choices.

The first choice we face, right at the title page and preface of the book,
is that it is credited to a certain "author." And, as we contemplate that
possibility, we also see we have again come to a splitting of the ways.
Even if we have chosen the correct path -- and the book is not what
it claims to be -- we are still faced with this choice. Is the text the
product of a single mind and a single pen?

Looking down the two choices of this second divergence, we see a
recognizable structure alongside one of the two new trails and it is
called "Isaiah." That is our first discovery, to provide us with a hint
that perhaps we have chosen the correct forks in the road twice in
a row.

So, our progress thus far has been -- 1. The book is something other
than it claims to be, and 2. It is not the product of a single writer.

That is, such will be our progress if we have truly chosen the correct
path. The more of these travellers' choices we make, the less we
will know about where the other paths lead.

Unfortunately there is no high mountain we can climb, in order to
gain a vantage point whereby we can see where the diverging paths
all lead.

Or is there?

UD

[_Uncle Dale]

Dale writes:

It would be very helpful if you would follow through on this exercise, and color-code the entire text for those three chapters, underlining the shared vocabulary (as you have done) and bolding, or otherwise marking examples of three or more contiguous shared words -- if not interrupted by punctuation in either of the texts.

Ok Dale, let's make a deal. earlier you made this comment:

I am perfectly willing to remove Rigdon and Spalding from the "helpers" list, if you can show me that the pattern of their shared language in the Book of Mormon is not reasonable grounds for further investigation.

Now, what I want from you is an explanation of this - what in your opinion would constitute reasonable grounds to remove Rigdon and Spalding from the "helpers" list. If you can provide me with a description of that, I will continue on this other work.

Ben McGuire

What I am proposing will be a lengthy and time-consuming process, but perhaps
somebody will discover and apply some automated method that will shorten and
simplify the task.

Years ago I was employed as the supervising cartographer for the Atlas of Utah.
Our team's task was to communicate the state's being, nature, properties, attributes,
products, habitation, etc. in such a way as to portray the state accurately and
intelligibly -- in other words, to map out its features, turning quantified data into
meaningful and useful graphics -- to construct a graphic reference book.

I propose doing somewhat the same thing, now, in communicating our discoveries
regarding the structure of the Book of Mormon. Such a project goes beyond Welch's
old volume filled with literary and chronological charts -- but in addressing the
reader/viewer we are faced with the same challenge of communicating data.

A part of this mapping project would involve our comparing the language of the
various sub-divisions of the text (say, the 1879 chapters, or the 1830 pages)
to other data sources. For example, we could chart out the texts sub-divisions
in reference to their similarity to the King James Version of the Bible. And, I think
we already know in advance, that in terms of vocabulary and phraseology, certain
parts of the Book of Mormon will resemble certain parts of the Bible to the point
of nearly 100% identity.

Another part of our mapping project would involve comparing the language of the
textual sub-divisions with the preserved language of those persons known to
have been involved in the selection/editing/creation of latter day scripture, of
which the Book of Mormon is one volume in a set. The editorial committee for
the compilation of the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants would provide us with a
short list of those early Mormons.

If we can compile such a series of textual maps as I propose, those data depictions
should be very helpful in our determining if any of those early Mormons had a
discernible impact upon the language of the Book of Mormon.

At the point in this exercise, where we can rule out the possible contribution
of Sidney Rigdon and Oliver Cowdery to the contents and wording of the book,
I will be ready to concede that they did not make the theorized contributions.

I do not know exactly where that point of determination lies in upcoming days
and months. But I do know that the "Atlas of the Book of Mormon" does not yet
contain sufficient information for me to make that determination for myself. I
see Welch's old charts, and the charts so far derived from the recent NSC
studies -- and all together they still do not provide me with enough information
to determine whether Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon. etc.
contributed to the text or not.

One of the first "maps" I'd like to see is a comparison of the 1830 "Preface" to
the remainder of the Book of Mormon -- and of verified Joseph Smith writings
to the text as a whole.

That portion of the mapping project might tell us something important. If Smith's
own vocabulary so greatly influenced the "translation" as to render "deer" as
"horses," then perhaps we can discover just how much his own use of language
overlays the wording of the "Nephite record" -- and how deep that 1820s NY
vernacular penetrates into the structure and message of the book's contents.

UD

[_Uncle Dale]

...
One of the first "maps" I'd like to see
...

I might add that this mapping of the Book of Mormon is already an
ongoing process and it will not suddenly come to a halt just because
Mormons happen to reject or downplay its usefulness to scholars.

We have recently seen the "come to pass" oddities mapped out
across the entire text -- providing useful information for any scholar
who wishes to remark upon that textual phenomenon.

Likewise, Craig Criddle continues to discover additional word usage
distributions in the Book of Mormon text which closely correspond
to the long recognized "therefore/wherefore" dichotomy. Eventually
the evidence for this constellation of vocabulary changes in the
text will be closely matched to the chronology of its dictation and
recognition of the phenomenon will generate scholarly response.

Another interesting area of study can be initiated by simply placing
a chart of the 1833 Book of Commandments chapters on the same
page as a chart of the 1830 Book of Mormon. From the two parts of
this simple depiction, lines of textual correspondence can be drawn
from one "revelation" text over to the adjacent Book of Mormon chapters.
When the process has been carried out, to the point of connecting up
all of the lengthy instances of shared phraseology, a pattern emerges ---

That pattern of shared phraseology in the two texts turns out to have
a chronological basis. That is to say, the pattern of unique and semi-unique
phraseology overlap between the two texts appears to tie the writing of
the "revelations" to the language then being expressed/encountered in
the contemporary dictation of the Book of Mormon text.

The timeline is not perfectly established, and the overlap of unusual
phraseology in the two texts does not correspond exactly to the timeline
in all instances -- but the relationship is strong enough to merit further
study by Book of Mormon students and students of early Mormon history.

The chronological ties I'm here speaking of should not come as too much
of a surprise to those who have studied the old history. For example, there
is a known tie between the subject of baptism progressively outlined in
the text and the decision of Smith and Cowdery to undergo a specific
form of adult-believer immersion.

At any rate, there are those of us who will continue mapping various aspects
of the Book of Mormon text, no matter whether or not the Mormons join us
in this computerized exploration.

UD

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Dale writes:

When we first encounter the book, we are standing at a literary-historical fork in the road. Either the book is what it says it is, or its is not.

This isn't a proverbial fork in the road Dale. I think that given your own approaches and baggage, you seem to see this as an issue, but in general, it has more to do with the circumstances surrounding this book in particular and not books in general. We don't even have to make a decision about this to be able to examine the book as a work of literature. And, certainly, such a decision is completely unimportant when performing stylometric analysis (ala Jockers) on the text - after all, such analysis merely looks at words and word frequencies. So if we are looking at the text and comparing it to other texts, where does this fork in the road occur?

Unfortunately there is no high mountain we can climb, in order to gain a vantage point whereby we can see where the diverging paths
all lead.

The question though is really unrelated to all of this, Dale. This is the circus sideshow. The question is, can a comparison of texts tell us anything about authorship - that is, can we use comparisons to develop authorship attribution. If we can, then all of these things you raise are largely beside the point. If we can't, then all of your comparisons don't mean anything at all. So I am left in this position - you believe that your comparisons can tell you something about authorship attribution. But, when I take your methods of comparison, I find that they don't tell me anything valuable at all. If your methods only work in the very narrow circumstances of your argument, then I can only assume that you have created an argument to further your thesis - and that the process itself is unreliable and of no use - and so your thesis is not supported by your comparison.

We can talk about this issue - this specific issue - without having to take any forks in the road at all - because those forks are completely irrelevant to this question.

When I asked you about what sort of evidence would be reasonable to exclude someone, I didn't get any kind of real answer. You said in part -

Years ago I was employed as the supervising cartographer for the Atlas of Utah. Our team's task was to communicate the state's being, nature, properties, attributes, products, habitation, etc. in such a way as to portray the state accurately and intelligibly -- in other words, to map out its features, turning quantified data into meaningful and useful graphics -- to construct a graphic reference book.

Later you noted this:

If we can compile such a series of textual maps as I propose, those data depictions should be very helpful in our determining if any of those early Mormons had a discernible impact upon the language of the Book of Mormon.

And here is where I start to have some serious concerns - because, so far, the kinds of mapping that I have seen you produce simply don't do this. The model falls apart when we start to apply this to other texts. This was why I asked for an explanation of what might exclude someone. And it seems to me that you don't actually have an answer. So, where does that leave us? I don't think that this proposal of yours can actually do what you think it can. I think it will go absolutely nowhere. I believe that the kind of modeling you are talking about is completely incapable of providing the kinds of results you want to get.

But lets go back to the question - what kind of results would exclude someone as a potential author? This is a significant question.

Ben McGuire

[_GlennThigpen]

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?

If you read Bruce's paper you would already know the answer. False positives. When Bruce applied his extended NSC methods to the Federalist papers using an unobserved author, Rigdon still was "chosen" as the more likely author among the candidate set which did not include Hamilton. In other words, a false positive. When Hamilton was included in the candidate set, there were no false positives. He was correctly identified as the author of all of the texts.

Glenn

[Bedlamite]

...
so far, the kinds of mapping that I have seen you produce simply don't do this.

That may be so. I am not a language expert. I have no professional
education or training in literary criticism. My graduate studies in
text-critical analysis consisted only of survey and intro courses.
I do not possess the software tools that might allow me to conduct
the expert computer analysis we have recently seen reported upon.

So, consider me a question-asker rather than a hypothesis-prover.
I do what I can, given my limited abilities and circumstances.

My approach (largely inherited from Vernal Holley) has been this --
Should I happen upon a pre-1830 text which included the phrase
"I, Nephi, having been born of goodly parents...", I would want to
track down the context and origin of that phraseology and make
further comparisons of the respective texts (that is, of the new
discovery and the Book of Mormon).

Vern once posed this exact same scenario to one of his co-religionists
(I think, to a fellow stake seventy) and was answered with the quip
that there could be many possible reasons for even so exact a specimen
of textual resemblance, and that the "comparative method" had its
drawbacks, and shouldn't be used as a challenge to faith, etc. etc.

Some of the very issues you are prone to raise were the basis of long
discussions between Vern and myself -- he taking the position that
a few, relatively lengthy examples of shared phraseology were enough
to establish probable authorship -- and I taking the position that we
needed to place any such discoveries in context, to see if the over-all
distribution patterns of textual correspondence appeared to be best
explained by concerted textual borrowing.

The model falls apart when we start to apply this to other texts. This was why I asked for an explanation of what might exclude someone. And it seems to me that you don't actually have an answer.

The best I can offer, "off the cuff," is that some standard needs to be set,
whereby we can quantitatively and exhaustively compare the degree
of language correspondence to an agreed-upon classification of probable
non-borrowing/non-plagiarism.

So, where does that leave us? I don't think that this proposal of yours can actually do what you think it can. I think it will go absolutely nowhere. I believe that the kind of modeling you are talking about is completely incapable of providing the kinds of results you want to get.

If that is your conclusion, should I view it as only one man's
opinion, or as a conclusion that generally represents what
the non-sectarian professional consensus would be, should
other experts examine the situation and render judgment?

But lets go back to the question - what kind of results would exclude someone as a
potential author? This is a significant question.
...

1. Chronological -- proof that the author-candidate could not have
written a precursor text, due to not yet having been born, etc.

2. Spatial -- proof that the author-candidate spent his life in the
wilds of the Amazon jungle, too far removed to have contributed

3. Linguistic -- proof that the author-candidate did not know English

4. Comparison to an accepted standard for plagiarism -- evidence
showing that the author-candidate's use of language did not meet
the established legal requirements for a positive judgment.

5. Comparison to an accepted standard for randomness/coincidence,
such that the author-candidate was excluded beyond a reasonable doubt.

6. A demonstration that some other author-candidate's use of language
better fit the text in question -- to such an extent as to reasonably
exclude the initial author-candidate.

7. A demonstration of textual uniformity which would exclude the suspect
author-candidate on the basis of his/her language resemblance being
generally consistent throughout a body of texts known to have different origins

8. A demonstration of textual correspondence clustering, such that the
limits of "significant" overlap were confined to a very small section of
a much larger text --- the "one-in-a-million" coincidence.

9. A demonstration of the suspect author-candidate scoring the same (or higher)
degree of language overlap with a text he/she is known not to have possibly
composed (Bruce's Rigdon-wrote-the Federalist-Papers argument).

But a very good beginning could be made, simply by showing that a lengthy
section of text attributed to Oliver Cowdery, or Sidney Rigdon, etc. could
be equally (or better) attributable to other pre-1830 writers who by circumstance
or coincidence happened to match up well with that same text in terms of
their word-print, vocabulary, general phraseology, and message-specific language.

That was my basis for suggesting creating a standard for non-author textual
correspondence, based upon the generalization of 100 relevant writers whom
we agree did not write the Book of Mormon.

UD

[Guest]

Ben wrote:

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.

And of course Ben is well aware--or at least he should be--that in making this accusation he is being disingenuous. The case for S/R has been, is, and continues to be made by more minds than merely Roger's, although I have also contributed a few observations from the layman's vantage point here and there as well.

The problem, as Ben well knows, or at least I should say as has been pointed out to him, is that EACH of the main Book of Mormon production theories has their own unique weaknesses but Ben has a fascination with zeroing in on what he perceives to be the weaknesses of S/R (as defined by Ben) to the exclusion of the others. In fact he refuses to defend what I thought was his own Book of Mormon theory (presumably on the grounds that it won't pass his own scrutiny) but instead seems to prefer Dan Vogel's point of view.

Well it's fine if Ben want's to convert to Dan Vogel's point of view, but then the discussion changes, because Dan's Book of Mormon production theory suffers from different weaknesses than the one (I thought) Ben maintains.

I have been having an ongoing discussion with Dan on this very thread. I used to hold Dan's point of view, but came to the conclusion it does not explain the data as well as S/R. But to "argue whether or not" my theory (as if it were uniquely mine!) "is any good" requires comparison with the viable alternatives because, one way or another, the Book of Mormon came into existence and that existence has to have a coherent, rational explanation. That's why I welcome conversations with proponents of competing theories. But those conversations have to be genuine. I don't have much patience in conversing with someone who's sole intent it seems to be to point to what he perceives to be weaknesses in my own position when he can offer no valid alternative to it that he truly believes explains the Book of Mormon. Especially when he attempts to impose ground rules on what can or cannot be accepted as evidence on competing theories that his own theory does not have to abide by.

So if Ben wishes to join team Vogel and continue the discussion from that point of view, fine. He will then need to address the types of questions Dan and I have been discussing. Or if Ben thinks there is some other theory that has not been mentioned that explains the data better than either the Official Version, Smith-alone or S/R, have at it. But if all he wishes to do is throw rocks at S/R while hiding behind a tree, I'm not interested in merely taking hits.

[_Roger]

Glenn wrote:

If you read Bruce's paper you would already know the answer. False positives.

What is the basis for making this determination? Because the result was different than expected? An anomaly? Because it doesn't fit with the thesis?