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

[_MCB]

Dale said:
Sandra Tanner, for example, suggests that Joseph Smith likely copied elements from the "Westminster Confession of Faith" and the KJVB Preface into the Book of Mormon. Is that possibility worthy of additional research?

I responded:
I just downloaded them, and will be ordering her book, unless someone else can get it to me quicker.http://www.utlm.org/booklist/titles/jos ... _ub007.htm

I ordered it on Monday, and it came today. LOL. Amazing!!

[_Uncle Dale]

Dale said:
Sandra Tanner, for example, suggests that Joseph Smith likely copied elements from the "Westminster Confession of Faith" and the KJVB Preface into the Book of Mormon. Is that possibility worthy of additional research?

I responded:
I just downloaded them, and will be ordering her book, unless someone else can get it to me quicker.http://www.utlm.org/booklist/titles/jos ... _ub007.htm

I ordered it on Monday, and it came today. LOL. Amazing!!

If you now have the Tanners' Joseph Smith's Plagiarism in your hands, turn to
the section where the Book of Mormon's borrowings from the KJV are listed, by
chapter, taking up many pages of the book. Look at the last part of Alma chapters,
where we find so many of our linguistic and thematic parallels with Spalding --
and notice how scant the KJV borrowings there become -- and how trivial most
of the instances of that borrowing become. And -- they missed the "to go no more out"
Alma 34 parallel with Revelation -- perhaps because it is not an exact duplication.

UD

[_MCB]

Will check that out. A lot to read, here, and Swedenborg beckons, a major job in itself. I'd much prefer reading the Tanners than Swedenborg's blatant schizophrenia.

[_Roger]

Dan:

Okay, this is a good exercise for me.

Bottom line is that you have no way of rejecting Whitmer’s testimony besides speculation that depends on assuming what you are trying to prove—in other words, begging the question.

Well this works both ways, doesn't it? Don't you have to accept that a Bible was not used, because "you have no way of rejecting [Knight]’s testimony besides speculation that depends on assuming what you are trying to prove"?

In any event, the bottom line is really as simple as: I do not believe David Whitmer. Either he was lying about a Spalding ms or he was not privy to that information. I am willing to give him the benefit that he was not privy to that information.

You can’t use something Knight said against all witnesses. You are not reading these sources historically, but polemically.

Why not? Knight was a witness. He speaks authoritatively and his statement does not contradict the statements of other witnesses. In fact, I would argue that it fits nicely with the strong implication of the other statements.

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.

Now you’re getting silly. No one has to accept Whitmer’s conclusions about Joseph Smith to accept his observations. Observation of events is not the same as an interpretation of them. None of this proves Whitmer was lying about the translation. You have no evidence for your second assertion, which can only be proposed by believing the first. I hope you realize you haven’t overturned the multiple witnesses on this matter.

Okay I see your point that "Observation of events is not the same as an interpretation of them" but Whitmer's conclusions are tied to his alleged observations. He is not merely an impartial, unbiased observer.

And I don't see it as my job to overturn the multiple witnesses. As I mentioned, even hostile witnesses said Smith put his head in his hat and dictated. My only point is that not all of the Book of Mormon had to have been produced in that manner, which, oddly enough, you seem to agree with, at least when it comes to borrowing from a Bible.

I don’t mean that anything actually appeared in the stone. It was just a prop. What I’m saying is that the variant readings were undoubtedly said to have come from the stone.

Okay, we agree then. But didn't you speculate earlier that Cowdery may have copied from the KJVB when Smith was gone to Palmyra?

Rigdon was not responsible for those variant readings because he wasn’t there in Fayette at the time.

Well that's... how did you put it? "speculation that depends on assuming what you are trying to prove." Whether Rigdon was in Fayette at the time is irrelevant. Production came to a grinding halt after the loss of the 116 pages. There was ample time to get word to Rigdon in Ohio and for him to have produced a portion of the filler material.

The revelations Joseph Smith dictated through the same stone, as well as his letters at the time, show that he was steeped in KJV language. To characterize Joseph Smith as a mere magician is an indication that you don’t know much about him. My biography of him discussed at length why religion was important to him.

I am not saying that religion was not important to him... and especially not in later years. I am saying, as I stated, that the nuanced theological implications that arise from the subtle changes to KJVB italics--that David Wright points out in his essay--seem to fit Rigdon's concerns in 1829 more so than Smith's. Do you disagree? If so on what basis?

The point, any way, is that your assumption that use of the Bible means the stone was not used is probably not correct. The Isaiah chapters could also be said to have been translated by the power of God.

Okay, this is where you lose me. When you say "the stone was not used is probably not correct" --it sounds as though you are saying that even for the Isaiah quotations, Joseph stuck his head in his hat and rattled off Isaiah chapters, apparently making subtle, italics-based changes on the fly. If not that, then how do you conceive of reliance on a Bible and "use of the stone" as coinciding?

To argue that the differences between the Conneaut witnesses’ memories and the extant Spalding MS proves there was another MS closer the Book of Mormon is to beg the question. A second MS isn’t the only conclusion to the disparity between the MS and testimony.

Of course not, but it is a viable conclusion and at least one witness explicitly tells us exactly that! Why am I not allowed to overrule Whitmer, yet you are allowed to overrule Aron Wright?

I don’t believe you sufficiently understand how false memory works.

This is going to be losing battle for you because I have my own personal experience to draw from. I'm afraid all the textbooks in the world can't overrule that for me. In the case that someone actually was exposed to something 20 years in the past, I know what to look for and that's what I see from the Conneaut witnesses. I will grant that they could be lying, but not that they were mistaken but sincerely thought they were telling the truth.

Implanting names is easy. It starts with this book sounds vaguely familiar. After discussion with other witnesses, this gets reinforced. By the time Hurlbut shows up it has become a strong memory. Now, I’m not using false memory theory to prove this is what happened; I’m using it to show that we are not stuck with the Spalding witnesses’ memories. Moreover, it explains the disparity between their memories and the extant Spalding MS.

But that's exactly what I do not think it does! You state that:

Implanting names is easy. It starts with this book sounds vaguely familiar.

The problem is, we have both documents. We have the Book of Mormon and we have the ms that HAD TO HAVE BEEN the one they were exposed to if your false memory theory is going to work. They are hardly even remotely similar unless you really take the time to look for parallels (which is why the RLDS church printed it claiming S/R was dead). So right from the start, this book does not sound vaguely similar. Ironically, there are some parallels if you know where to look, but none of those actual parallels were mentioned by the Conneaut witnesses. Instead we hear about stuff we can find in the Book of Mormon.

Brodie states it like this:

Before examining their evidence, it should be noted that if, as seems most likely, there was only one Spaulding manuscript, there were certain similarities between it and the Book of Mormon which, though not sufficient to justify the thesis of common authorship, might have given rise to the conviction of Spaulding's neighbors that one was a plagiarism of the other.

So here we see a balancing act of some sorts. On the one hand, Brodie wants us to believe that MSCC is just similar enough to the Book of Mormon to "have given rise to the conviction of Spaulding's neighbors that one was a plagiarism of the other" but not similar enough "to justify the thesis of common authorship."

This is a tenuous at best case to be making.

I could make the exact opposite case that upon close examination MSCC is just similar enough "to justify the thesis of common authorship" but not so obviously similar on the surface to "have given rise to the conviction of Spaulding's neighbors that one was a plagiarism of the other." And I think a careful reading of Spalding's manuscript would back up my conclusion over Brodie's.

But again, memory substitution simply does not account for the specific claims about "and it came to pass" and nicknaming the fellow "old came to pass" as a result. This sort of claim goes beyond honestly thinking you're telling the truth. This goes beyond the mind playing tricks on you about what you did or did not hear read to you from a book. Either they called Spalding "old came to pass" or they did not, and if the only ms on the topic he ever wrote was MSCC then there is no reason for them to be calling him "old came to pass."

But as you probably know, the case for two manuscripts doesn't end there. There are additional reasons to conclude there were at least two manuscripts. MF was alleged to have been written on Foolscap paper. MSCC is not. MF was sent to Patterson for consideration for publication. MSCC is by no means ready for publication. It is a jumbled mess that switches names has no ending and even has a page missing from the middle. Beyond that, witnesses in 1833 claimed to have seen and examined MF including Judge Dowen as well as James Briggs. When you add that to Aron Wright's specific denial of MSCC, that's a lot of testimony and evidence you have to overrule in order to make your memory substitution theory work.

And the fact is, a lot is hanging on the memory substitution thing. If you were to give in on that, then you'd have to take the claims of the S/R witnesses at least as seriously as you do the Book of Mormon witnesses. Think of the implications of that!

All the best.

[_Uncle Dale]

...a lot is hanging on the memory substitution thing.
...

More like mass hallucination, than "memory substitution." Recall that the
Hudson Observer reported on the Conneaut area folks' assertions
well before Howe's book was published.

Remember also that the Mormons had many years in which to refute
the Conneaut memories -- but never did. Think of it, Roger -- all the
LDS needed to do was to locate ONE person who would affirm that his
neighbors were not giving true accounts of Spalding's literary creations.

And, if the Mormons were not interested in killing the story, there were
numerous opportunities for any area resident to bring forth the "truth." In
1839 the entire affair again made the front page of the Conneaut newspaper.
It was frequently referred to in the nearby Ashtabula papers, all the
way into the 1870s. Every time a newspaper ran a hostile article on the
Mormons, some Conneaut area resident again had the opportunity to
step forward and set the record straight -- if would have made for lively
newspaper copy. But, so far as my investigations can tell, it never came.

Again, in 1884 both Campbellites and Reorganized Mormons were searching
the region for new testimony on the old assertions. Clark Braden rounded
up another dozen confirming reports, thanks to his assistant Deming --
but the best the RLDS advocate could come up with were tepid statements
which in no way blunted the old Conneaut testimony.

Year after year after year went by -- the original witnesses passed away
and their children were growing old, and still the Mormons made no effort
to solicit and bring forth local memories favorable to their anti-Spalding cause.
Failed... because there was no such refuting testimony to be had.

The best the Mormons ever came up with was a report that what Spalding
had really written was a novel about the Lost Tribes of Israel, crossing over
the Behring Straits, to become the ancestors of the Indians. That report
was not particularly useful to the LDS polemicists, because several other
early witnesses made similar allegations -- but still professed that Spalding
had written part of the Book of Mormon. That, and Orson Hyde's unpublished
1835 Conneaut interviews, and Winchester's very, very suspect c. 1839
account from an unidentified source, who said nothing new at all.

There is no story of the Ten Tribes of Israel crossing over the Behring Straits
to become the ancestors of the American Indians, in the "Nephite record,"
-------> unless such a story was told in the lost pages of the Book of Lehi.

Is that why the Mormon leaders (like Orson Hyde and later Joseph F. Smith)
never followed up on the "ten tribes" assertions? -- because the lost 116 pages
might some day be rediscovered, containing some account of the lost tribes?

Except for a forgotten article in the Liverpool Mormon magazine, the lost tribes
aspect of Conneaut testimony was avoided by Mormon apologists. And, to
this very day, I have never heard of an LDS researcher going to Conneaut to
try and dig up relevant facts.

Yes, Roger, it must have been mass hallucination -- so strong that Mr. Leffingwell
reported he had actually corrected Spalding's biblical-sounding story at Conneaut.
An hallucination so strong, that Mr. Miller's daughter heard her father describing
Spalding's story and surprising D.P. Hurlbut with the details, before Hurlbut could
relate what was printed in the Mormon book -- An hallucination so strong that
Aron Wright and other Conneaut residents actually took the trouble to refute
the claim it was only the Roman story they had seen -- before Howe's book was
ever published.

But the Mormons need not give up hope. Perhaps one day a Conneaut attic will
yield up an old journal, in which the writer complains that all of his neighbors were
mis-remembering a story (actually about the Romans) being a story about the Lehites.

I'm sure that such a discovery would make the front cover of the Ensign.

UD

[_why me]

No--- the jury is still out. Based on the data that your team analyzed, the initial Jockers et al study is not conclusive.

The Criddle study made much hay on the catholic taliban board as you know. Will you now put the link to a new thread so the catholic taliban can read it and stop basing their arguments on the Criddle, Jockers study? I hope so.

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Dan Vogel writes:

To argue that the differences between the Conneaut witnesses’ memories and the extant Spalding MS proves there was another MS closer the Book of Mormon is to beg the question. A second MS isn’t the only conclusion to the disparity between the MS and testimony.

Also the fact that there are absolutely no details from the Conneaut witnesses' accounts which cannot also be found in earlier published information on the Book of Mormon, further reduces the usefulness of the Conneaut witnesses for establishing a second manuscript.

Ben McGuire

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Part 1

Dale writes:

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).

Let me illustrate a problem with this (at least as you and Vernal Holley have engaged in it).

In Grunder's mammoth work, he found a parallel between these two narratives. The first is from the Juvenile Instructor (27:15 - August 1, 1892) which presents itself as the recollections of William Moore. Here is the citation:

... I have played ball with him [Joseph Smith] many times in Nauvoo. He was preaching once, and he said it tried some of the pious folks to seem him play ball with the boys. He then related a story of a certain prophet who was sitting under the shade of a tree amusing himself in some way, when a hunter came along with his bow and arrow, and reproved him. The prophet asked him if he kept his bow strung up all the time. The hunter answered that he did not. The prophet asked why, and he said it would lose its elasticity if he did. The prophet said it was just so with his mind, he did not want it strung up all the time ...

Amongst the many books that Grunder collected, he provided this parallel from a text by William Alcott:

Some of our students in commons and elsewhere, suppose themselves highly meritorious because they have adopted the plan of appointing one of their number to read to the company, while the rest are eating. But they are sadly mistaken. Nothing is gained by the practice. On the contrary, much is lost by it. The bow cannot always remain bent, without injury. Neither can the mind always be kept 'toned' to a high pitch. Mind and body must and will have their relaxations.

Grunder's focus was on this shared notion - "Rest Needed from Mental Exercise; the Mind like a Tightly-Strung Bow"

Now, the similarities might seem to be interesting, but we run into a problem. The earliest version of the narrative found in the Juvenile Instructor that I was able to track down was written by John Cassian (360-435 A.D.). It is possible that Cassian was the originator of this account - but I personally think that it is highly unlikely. R. Alan Culpepper provides a description of Cassian's account in his recent book John, the son of Zebedee: the life of a legend published in 2000. He writes:

John was stroking a partridge when a hunter appeared and expressed surprise that the great apostle was amusing himself in this way. John asked the hunter why he did not keep his bow strung all the time, and the hunter answered that if he did so, it would soon be weakened from the constant strain. John replied that just in the same way, the mind needs to relax from time to time.

Cassian's text was actually quite popular - it was translated quickly from Latin into Greek, and widely distributed. This particular narrative was adapted from Cassian's account, and found its way into works like The Acts of John (an apocryphal text of the early church). But, what really brought this story into the public awareness at a time when it would matter to this particular discussion occurred when the narrative was used by Francis De Sales, who published it in his Introduction to the Dwevout Life in French in 1609. Within a few years, that text had been translated into many languages including English. And the comparison between the mind and the bow became quite popular as a result.

Now what do I learn from this? Clearly, there is a connection of sorts between the Alcott text and the Juvenile Instructor. That connection isn't genetic. Both of them draw on a common literary tradition - and in fact, the JI narrative is much closer to what we might call the original story than is the Alcott text. Had Grunder done even a google search on the notion, he would have come across hundreds of such stories. And the only thing we see is that both of these accounts (and the many that go with them) merely make this theme common enough in the environment that it becomes useless for authorship attribution.

Which brings us back to your comments. In your discussion that you linked of Alama 32-34, you highlighted a number of phrases that you believed were significant. One of those that jumps out a bit (because of its length and nature) is this one - "every man according to his work". However, if we look this up, we find this phrase everywhere. Why? It is a citation of Psalm 62:12 -

"Also unto thee, O Lord, belongeth mercy: for thou renderest to every man according to his work."

While it is interesting that both texts use this phrase, it actually isn't useful as evidence that the texts are related. So while you identify shared phrasing, what I don't see you doing is re-evaluating those phrases after you "track down the context and origin of that phraseology" - because ultimately, none of these texts that you refer to (Book of Mormon, Cowdery, Spalding, Rigdon) are the original texts for these phrases. "Word of God", "son of God", even "to go no more out" (coming as it does out of Revelation) - these are not really significant phrases in comparison. And once you find a phrase that is common to many texts, its use in trying to compare a specific author to the Book of Mormon is completely negated.

Ben McGuire

[_MCB]

Look at the last part of Alma chapters, where we find so many of our linguistic and thematic parallels with Spalding --and notice how scant the KJV borrowings there become -- and how trivial most
of the instances of that borrowing become.

Statistically, that could be checked out. HOWEVER, the results would be based on the presumption that the ratio of borrowed to original material remains the same throughout the book. I don't see how we could make such an assumption.

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Part 2:

Dale writes:

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.

I don't think it needs to be exhaustive. It probably doesn't even need to be entirely quantitative. What I mean by that is that there is always going to be some subjectivity in many instances. Some instances of course, there isn't any. We don't have to argue about the Isaiah passages. There is obvious reliance there. The only discussion we have there comes a bit later - is it quotation, is it reinscription - the issue with italicized words comes into play there. You get the idea I am sure. In other instances we might want to decide whether there is quotation or allusion. These are the easily identifiable borrowings. Much of what you want to discuss though is not so clear, and I understand many of the issues. I have spent the last few months as time permits working on my comprehensive review of Grunder's self published books. And as part of that I have been developing a grading system for parallels. The interest isn't merely about plagiarism/non-plagiarism (as you might imagine) because we are also interested in environmental influence on a larger scale (where proof of plagiarism simply doesn't exist, but where language clearly comes from the environment - and of course, the results of that are open to interpretation). What comes out of that is the language that can be easily explained, and then the far more interesting material that may not be easily explained (although for Grunder, he comes right out and suggests that he expects everything has a source - and he may be right - there is nothing new under the sun right?) But questions of originality and plagiarism can be dealt with in this way. I grade parallels into 5 distinct categories or grades:

A - proposed parallels that indicate textual reliance
B - proposed parallels that seem significant and for which we can determine with some degree of certainty that a genetic connection is likely (by genetic connection, I mean that we can suggest that text A came from text B - directly, even if through one or more intermediaries)
C - proposed parallels which seem significant by for which there can be no determination of a genetic connection.
D - proposed parallels which seem to be parallels but which do not seem to be significant or for which a genetic connection seems highly unlikely.
E - proposed parallels which do not seem to be real parallels.

Now how we determine that something is significant or not will be an interesting question, and so on. But, these general categories I think are sufficient enough. Certain issues can be applied. We know, for example, that the KJV of the Bible is used extensively in the Book of Mormon (this is without worrying about the mechanism of its actual incorporation - we don't need to know that to understand that this relationship exists). Language in the Book of Mormon which can be found in multiple sources including the KJV should lean preferentially to the KJV as its source unless there is some otherwise overwhelming reason to lean to a different source.

If we choose to bring this to the level of phrasing that you list as significant, "every man according to his work" would likely be graded a B when comparing the Book of Mormon to the KJV, and a C when comparing it to other authors using that phrase.

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?

As I keep pointing out Dale, there is a range of discussion and models for authorship attribution that already exist. Your method doesn't resemble anything that is widely used or accepted. I think in this regard, you will take my comments however you want to, but, in the end, unless you take the time to look at what there is from experts and professionals, you won't have anything but your own opinions.

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

Yep, that's a good one - and here, of course, we run into the problem. If I can show (using your process) that between two texts the same kind of relationships exist as you propose, and yet we can eliminate the relationship on a chronological basis, wouldn't that suggest that your process is flawed?

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

This is, in my experience, much more difficult. After all, Grant Palmer spent a great deal of effort trying to find a way to connect Joseph to The Golden Pot. Look at the effort that has been generated in these forums to create a connection between Joseph and a non-existent (hypothetical) manuscript? After all, Joseph went east to recuperate from a serious illness. That must have been where he heard the Captain Kidd stories, and saw maps of the Comoros islands, right? It is a trickier problem than you might think. And as a case in point, when did Joseph Smith first meet Rigdon? (I don't really want the an answer to this question - I just want to point out how the discussion works).

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

I am not sure that this is relevant actually. But it certainly isn't an issue here.

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.

And here is the first of your real problems. Legal requirements do not generally involve the kinds of parallels you produce. Parallels are considered in this way a very weak form of evidence. The courts have a history of frowning on the two column analysis of the kind you use. This is detailed fairly well in Alexander Lindey's highly influential book Plagiarism and Originality (Lindey is an attorney, and the book is well worth reading). I think that this is one area that will be quite surprising to you.

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

I don't know if such a standard exists. Although, Bruce's recent paper has this in mind. I think though, that I have something else in mind when I read this. I would actually prefer some baseline for texts that we know relied on other texts. Or for documents authored by the same individual. How close is the proposed connect to a situation where we know that there is a relationship?

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.

I disagree with this point. I think that if some other author-candidate's use of language is as good a fit, it calls into question the initial author-candidate. If multiple author-candidate's use of language is as equivalent or better, it would tend to disqualify the original author-candidate. (Being a better fit isn't the issue, if multiple people fit just as well then we can assume that they are all wrong together - or that the modeling is incapable of giving us an answer).

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

I think I need more explanation on this. I think this is a problematic argument, and might be better if you reworked it.

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.

What do you mean by "textual correspondence clustering"?

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).

I think this is irrelevant (unless you can explain a rationale here). Rigdon scored higher only because the real author wasn't in the mix. With the real author in the mix, Rigdon did not score at all. What I think this shows is that Bruce's model allows for error on the conservative side. He didn't put his limits impossibly far out.

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.

This can be done. So, let's start here. Perhaps you could outline what models you want to see applied here. And I will produce such an author. I might even produce a post-1830 writer. Since we no there can be no connection there. The point being if a chronologically excluded author matches up better than Cowdery or Rigdon, then clearly that would exclude Cowdery or Rigdon, is that right?

Ben McGuire