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

[_Uncle Dale]

...Dale, I believe that you are misreading the data and the conclusions that Bruce came to.
...

Perhaps so.

But look at the problem from this point of view:

I pick up a small object -- say, a hunk of driftwood. And I then examine
a room full of 239 other small objects.

Some of the items in that room will look, feel, and weigh approximately
like the object in my hand. I could rank that degree of resemblance,
perhaps, on a scale of 1% to 99%. Only an invisible object would rate
0% similarity -- and only an exact duplicate would rate 100% identity.

Bruce has purposely set up his reporting in such a way that these
sorts of comparisons are hardly possible at all. We see a few instances
in the 2nd Nephi Isaiah chapters where the degree of resemblance is
a bit less than 100% ---------> but, for the most part, the values
for comparison with author-candidates all come out as 0% or 100%.

This sort of reporting is useless for my interests and intentions. I want
to know which portions of that set of 239 chapters most resemble
the writings of Cowdery, Smith, etc. -- and which parts least resemble
any particular 19th century author.

Comparison data expressed as either 0% or 100% is meaningless, to me.

UD

[_Roger]

Glenn:

Roger, evidently you have not read Bruce's paper and missed the details that have been discussed in this thread. Joseph Smith was included in his candidate set.

Have you seen a PC1, 2 or 3 chart that includes Joseph Smith?

[_Roger]

UD:

In those few cases where they do register as authors,
the probability comes out at 100% -- and these oddities are
discarded as "false positives" falling within the methodology's stated
margin of error.

So the 100's don't mean anything to you? It seems like a 100 should indicate something.... but I suppose that's just due to my limited understanding.

The trouble with the second justification, is that the Preface length
is longer than a good many of the modern LDS chapters. It is
probably just barely long enough to provide a valid "hit."

I do not think that most Mormons would hold open the possibility
that Smith did not compose his own Preface. Unless, perhaps the
current "living prophet" said something supportive of that idea.

Well... let's ask our resident Mormon... Glenn, any objections to the notion that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon preface?

I say let those with the power to run such tests run them. (As if my decree means anything).

[_Uncle Dale]

...
So the 100's don't mean anything to you? It seems like a 100 should indicate something.... but I suppose that's just due to my limited understanding.
...

It seems that Bruce has set up his data derivations to read "yes"
or "no," in the case of authorship questions.

It's not quite that simple, but that's the easiest way for me to summarize
what the results come out like.

In a computer graphics program I can change the color mode on a
picture from "256 shades of gray" over to "black and white." When
I do that, all of the picture detail is lost -- like setting a camera on
very high contrast, and snapping a black and white photo.

The results do not tell you anything about "black," in the photo,
other than if part of that photo is 100% black or 0% black.

As I said -- such textual comparison results are of no use to me.

UD

[_Uncle Dale]

Glenn:

Roger, evidently you have not read Bruce's paper and missed the details that have been discussed in this thread. Joseph Smith was included in his candidate set.

Have you seen a PC1, 2 or 3 chart that includes Joseph Smith?

Perhaps he has -- if so, I'd like to see it as well.

UD

[_Roger]

Two concurrent occurrences might induce the non-Mormon
onlooker to conclude that Rigdon was cooperating (and even
"directing") that December 1830 episode:

1. God instructs Rigdon to watch over Smith -- to essentially act
as Smith's religious monitor, ready to relieve him of his role in the
prophet business, if Smith slipped into transgression.

2. God allows Rigdon to immediately enter into the scripture
producing process at the Joseph Smith, Sr. "Kingdom," residence,
just outside of Seneca Falls.

If Smith was fully in control of the hoax, why did he allow Rigdon
that degree of prominence and control, as early as Dec. 1830?

That is an excellent question. Later on, we see Rigdon apparently attempting to assert control over Smith in his declaration that the keys of the kingdom had been taken from the church until such time as a house should be built for Rigdon. Smith quickly overrode Rigdon. It is doubtful that Smith would have allowed Rigdon the authority to relieve him if Smith had felt completely in control in 1830.

Here is one way that the Brodieites might attempt to explain
Rigdon's startlingly sudden rise to prominence in Joe Smith's con:

1. Smith felt that he needed the legitimacy of recognition from a
noted religious reformer, and was overjoyed to hear of Rigdon's
conversion, baptism and ordination as a Mormon. After briefly
meeting with Rigdon at Kingdom, Smith realized that Rigdon would
make a very good scriptural scribe -- and so Smith invited Rigdon
to assume that role in the production of the JST.

2. Rigdon seemed somewhat reluctant to accept Smith's offer,
so Smith manufactured a "revelation," telling Rigdon that he (Rigdon)
had prepared the way for Mormonism, and that he (Rigdon) would
have control over Smith, (and could dismiss him from the prophetic
office, if he saw Smith transgressing). This acknowledgment and
delegation of authority from God convinced Rigdon that Smith's
"spiritual" pretensions were true and Divine. He became a scribe.

3. But by early 1832 Rigdon had become so corrupted by Smith, that
he agreed to take part in the "3 degrees of glory" con job. This
corrupt Rigdon even testified of meeting Jesus face-to-face in
that lying scheme. Together with Smith he produced a "revelation."

Although you've done an admirable job attempting to make the best out of the Smith-alone perspective on this, I still think it's a bit weak. Smith could easily allow Rigdon to become his scribe without giving Rigdon the authority to oversee and potentially overrule him. To my knowledge he never gave that kind of specific authority to Cowdery or anyone else.

Trouble is, I can't think of any better way to explain the data--other than Rigdon must have had a part in producing the original revelation, at which point Smith did not yet feel he was in a secure enough position to nix Rigdon's authority as spelled out in revelation.

[_MCB]

So, Dale, what does Bruce's study say about the authorship of those chapters that Dan V targeted as having obvious Joseph Smith autobiographical content?

[_Uncle Dale]

So, Dale, what does Bruce's study say about the authorship of those chapters that Dan V targeted as having obvious Joseph Smith autobiographical content?

Here is an adaptation of Bruce's charted data, which I derived
from the old MAD site, before they purged their online archives:

http://sidneyrigdon.com/criddle/BS/2012Bruce1.gif

As you can see -- other than the known biblical chapters in the
Book of Mormon, practically all the rest of the chapters are attributed
to "Other" (at 100% reliability) in Bruce's tabulation.

You see dozens upon dozens of pink, 100% scale bars, -- each of
which indicates that Bruce claims that the chapter was written by
"Other." That is -- not by Smith, Cowdery, Pratt, Rigdon, Spalding,
or any biblical writer (but rather, by "others" -- by Nephites).

Dan Vogel can dispute these findings with Bruce Schaalje, if he cares
to. Or perhaps he and Glenn can have a friendly chat on the subject.

According to Bruce, the only Book of Mormon chapters attributable to
Smith, occur in his data tabulation due to "false positives" that we
must expect to see, now and then, due to the "margin of error."

Go figure...

UD

[_Uncle Dale]

...Smith could easily allow Rigdon to become his scribe without giving Rigdon the authority to oversee and potentially overrule him. To my knowledge he never gave that kind of specific authority to Cowdery or anyone else.
...

The closest approximation would have been the case of Gov. Ford,
in Illinois, when Smith bowed to Ford's authority a couple of times.

For a few weeks Smith was nominally under the authority of the Grand
Master of the Illinois Grand Lodge (at Quincy), but Smith quickly broke
with the Grand Lodge and his rebellious Nauvoo Lodge lost its charter
and became a rogue institution, outside of the control of Freemasonry.

We might expect that Smith was under the control of the U.S. Army,
when he founded his infamous "Nauvoo Legion." But Smith made himself
a Lieutenant General -- and would have outranked even Gen. W. Scott,
Commander of the regular army, were the Legion called into active duty.

Joe Smith's entire career can be viewed as an illegitimate usurpation of
of authority. After his 1826 hearing in South Bainbridge, NY and his
subsequent flight away from Isaac Hale's tenuous control, I picture
Smith as being engaged in 17-year struggle for supremacy, which
only ended on the bloody ground of Carthage Jail.

Mormons will immediately object, and profess that Smith subjected
himself to Eloheim and Jehovah -- that his entire adult life was spent
as an obedient servant of Jesus Christ, for whom Smith died a martyr.

I don't buy it. Had he lived a few years longer, he would have
declared himself the Supreme Deity of the Universe, with Eloheim
and Jehovah acting as his underling divine servants.

And we are supposed to believe the Brodieites when they tell us that
in December of 1830, Smith issued a revelation subjugating himself to
the oversight of a stranger named Sidney Rigdon???

UD

[_marg]

And we are supposed to believe the Brodieites when they tell us that
in December of 1830, Smith issued a revelation subjugating himself to
the oversight of a stranger named Sidney Rigdon???

If one wants to find out why people do things, look for what their rewards are. I don't see any reward for Smith to voluntarily give over any authority he doesn't have to. And especially in the early stages of the church's establishment why would he. A more likely explanation is he is under pressure to give up authority, because there is no reward or apparent benefit to himself not even the church to hand over any authority to a newcomer.