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

[_GlennThigpen]

...shared phraseology between different scriptures and
even different prophets includes all possibilities.
...

You still are not understanding the point I wish to make.

Attempts to compare relatively long Book of Mormon
word-strings shared with 19th writers have been dismissed,
out of hand, by Mormon apologists, as signifying nothing --
even when the respective texts also share a high similarity
of frequently used non-contextual words.

So -- setting aside that sort of comparison for the time being,
we can compare the Book of Mormon texts against themselves.
That is, we can compare one section of the text against another
section of the text -- in order to establish comparative methods
which the LDS will accept as significant.

For example, in both the sections of Alma that I have been
comparing throughout this current thread, we can discover
the same language being used -- to an extent greater than
is evident in other sections of the book. Take this phrase:
"garments... made white, through the blood of Christ" -- it
occurs in both sections I've been exploring; and immediately
before another lengthy string I have previously pointed out:
"will come to redeem his people."
Two other shared phrases: "for the Lord God hath spoken it" and
"of the fruit of the tree of life" -- Sheer coincidence?

While the reason for this striking language overlap may indeed
"include all possibilities," it is not so much the reason I am
here pointing out, as the method of comparison.

Is it possible to develop some method[s] of textual comparison
which can quantitatively describe the degree of similarity of
language in two or more separated Book of Mormon sections?

If Mormons will ever agree that it is possible to thus compare
(and mathematically rate) such texts, then perhaps they can
also be convinced that the same methods can be used to
compare portions of the Book of Mormon to EXTERIOR TEXTS,
such as the Book of Commandments, Cowdery's "revelation," etc.

UD

You have set yourself a formidable task, Dale. I am not an expert in the literary arts field, so I am speaking just from what I think is reasonable perspective. But are going to have to show that shared phraseology from the same author from one part of his writings to another has any significance. Even from one person to another as in the case of Alma and Amulek because you would need to show that the shared phraseology is not from shared experiences and conversations.
Then you are going to have to show that such shared phraseology can only come from an external source. The problem that you are going to find many such phrases in the Book of Mormon that will have echos in other literature from many different eras. The more phrases that you find that also appear in other and varied sources, the less likely that all those phrases actually came from the other sources and not the Book of Mormon author themselves.

For example ,suppose you were to spend some time checking for Book of Mormon phrases in other literature and came up with three or four hundred, all from different sources. Would it seem logical to infer that the Book of Mormon author(s) had access and were able to integrate all of those phrases from all of those sources?

I guess I really do not see your point or logic.

Glenn

[_Uncle Dale]

I will let Dale address that.

My best guess is that John and Martha Spalding sent their
statements to Hurlbut by mail c. July-August of 1833,
but did not date them.

I think that Hurlbut presented those two letter-statements
to members of the anti-Mormon committee in the Kirtland
area, and convinced those people to finance his investigative
trip to the east (OH/PA border, Pittsburgh, Palmyra, etc.).

Once Hurlbut reached the Conneaut area, I believe that he
solicited old residents who were able to confirm the John
and Martha testimony. I suppose that he actively avoided
taking any statements which did not suit his purposes.

So -- did Hurlbut then act as a scribe, as he listened to the
statements of those Conneaut deponents? I cannot be sure
of the process -- but we know that he later compiled two
mass-statements for residents in Palmyra and Manchester
to sign. We also know that he acted as a scribe for Aron
Wright's draft letter of Dec. 31, 1833 -- and that he acted
as a scribe for the very short certificate entered on the last
page of the Oberlin manuscript, conveying the testimony of
four Conneaut residents.

Given these facts, I think that it is reasonable to assume
that Hurlbut acted as the scribe for the next five statements.
I think Cunningham's statement was solicited by E.D. Howe
months later.

If Hurlbut did indeed act as scribe for at least five of the
Conneaut statements, then we should assume that he also
acted as an editor, passing over testimony he did not feel
was useful to his cause, and perhaps emphasizing testimony
which he felt was useful.

It would be helpful to locate and inspect the affidavits of the
Conneaut witnesses (if that was indeed what they were).

UD

[_MCB]

Glenn, a search of parallels in other literature is my primary methodology, not Dale's. He is just giving me some pointers. He has been at this for a lot longer than I have. And there are not that many other possible sources. I guarantee it. It is just a matter of surveying those that have been previously mentioned in the literature, and a few others.

Thanks, Dale, for confirming my thoughts on any editing by Hurlbut.

[_Uncle Dale]

...
I guess I really do not see your point or logic.
...

In order to determine whether the authorship attributions
given by Bruce and Matt (for Alma 3,5,34) were mere flukes
of statistical "margin of error;" or if those three chapters
really do share so much common language as to convince
the careful investigator of their shared origin.

If even one LDS scholar will eventually agree that Bruce's
authorship attribution for Alma 3,5,34 was NOT a fluke,
then that body of text can be compared to Alma 4,6,32,33
as well as Book of Commandments 7&8 and the 1829 Cowdery
"revelation" which formed the basis for the Articles of the Church.

My theory is that most (or all) of those texts had the same
original writer.

UD

[_GlennThigpen]

I will let Dale address that.

My best guess is that John and Martha Spalding sent their
statements to Hurlbut by mail c. July-August of 1833,
but did not date them.

I think that Hurlbut presented those two letter-statements
to members of the anti-Mormon committee in the Kirtland
area, and convinced those people to finance his investigative
trip to the east (OH/PA border, Pittsburgh, Palmyra, etc.).

Once Hurlbut reached the Conneaut area, I believe that he
solicited old residents who were able to confirm the John
and Martha testimony. I suppose that he actively avoided
taking any statements which did not suit his purposes.

So -- did Hurlbut then act as a scribe, as he listened to the
statements of those Conneaut deponents? I cannot be sure
of the process -- but we know that he later compiled two
mass-statements for residents in Palmyra and Manchester
to sign. We also know that he acted as a scribe for Aron
Wright's draft letter of Dec. 31, 1833 -- and that he acted
as a scribe for the very short certificate entered on the last
page of the Oberlin manuscript, conveying the testimony of
four Conneaut residents.

Given these facts, I think that it is reasonable to assume
that Hurlbut acted as the scribe for the next five statements.
I think Cunningham's statement was solicited by E.D. Howe
months later.

If Hurlbut did indeed act as scribe for at least five of the
Conneaut statements, then we should assume that he also
acted as an editor, passing over testimony he did not feel
was useful to his cause, and perhaps emphasizing testimony
which he felt was useful.

It would be helpful to locate and inspect the affidavits of the
Conneaut witnesses (if that was indeed what they were).

UD

Dale, what you are saying is something that has been pointed out in one way or another by many S/R critics over a period of years. The circumstances leave much room for doubt as to the credibility of those witnesses.

Unless marge or Roger have any further input or challenge any of the points I made in previous posts, I am going to leave it at that. I have no illusions that I will change any of their minds from anything I have said, but it has been fun interacting with all of you.

Glenn

[Guest]

much room for doubt as to the credibility of those witnesses.

There is a difference between less than 100% credible, and totally discountable. This is one problem with TBM-ish thinking.

[_GlennThigpen]

...
I guess I really do not see your point or logic.
...

In order to determine whether the authorship attributions
given by Bruce and Matt (for Alma 3,5,34) were mere flukes
of statistical "margin of error;" or if those three chapters
really do share so much common language as to convince
the careful investigator of their shared origin.

If even one LDS scholar will eventually agree that Bruce's
authorship attribution for Alma 3,5,34 was NOT a fluke,
then that body of text can be compared to Alma 4,6,32,33
as well as Book of Commandments 7&8 and the 1829 Cowdery
"revelation" which formed the basis for the Articles of the Church.

My theory is that most (or all) of those texts had the same
original writer.

UD

One way that such could be done is to take enough of Alma's chapters attributed to the unobserved author and use them as a training text, call him Alma, then include Alma as an author candidate in the mix and just check chapters 3,5, and 34.

Glenn

[_GlennThigpen]

much room for doubt as to the credibility of those witnesses.

There is a difference between less than 100% credible, and totally discountable. This is one problem with Mormonish thinking.

At what point would you say that something is so discredited as to become discountable? I have provided some concrete examples of why at least four of the eight witnesses (if not all) suffer major credibility problems. Would you care to show me where my logic is flawed?

Glenn

[_Uncle Dale]

...
One way that such could be done is to take enough of Alma's chapters attributed to the unobserved author and use them as a training text, call him Alma, then include Alma as an author candidate in the mix and just check chapters 3,5, and 34.
...

Perhaps somebody should ask Bruce, first of all, which chapters
are uniformly (and reliably) attributable to Alma the younger.

Once that base text has been agreed upon, and a word-print
derived from it, then Alma 3,5 and 34 can be compared to it.
In order to keep things separate, however, Alma 3,5 and 34
should not be used to develop that Alma the Younger base text.

I suppose that Dr. Schaalje has already completed studies
of this sort -- at least, it would not surprise me.

UD

[_MCB]

Again: you see in black and white. I see also in shades of grey, and colors.

I don't see Spalding as being in any way, shape, or form Calvinistic. I'm going to do a word-study on the word "wicked," which seems to have been a favorite of Calvin. There may be more.

It would not surprise me, either. Bruce probably chose to not publish such a study.