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

[_MCB]

The D & C has multiple authors. I'm not really interested in PoGP, so I can't tell you that.

[_Fifth Columnist]

The D & C has multiple authors. I'm not really interested in PoGP, so I can't tell you that.

I should clarify that I am referring to only those sections of the D&C that were received by Joseph Smith (most of them).

The point of what I am suggesting is that these texts (the Book of Mormon, the Book of Moses, the Book of Abraham, and the sections in the D&C received by Joseph Smith) were all brought about through Joseph Smith, but authorship was ascribed to someone else (e.g., Mormon, Nephi, Moses, Abraham, God (D&C sections), etc.). However, if the analysis shows a high probability that they were produced by the same author, then Joseph Smith is that guy. If the analysis shows, however, that the word print of the different texts are in fact different (each portion of text alleged to be authored by the likes of Moses, Abraham, Nephi, etc. are all different), then FARMS will be writing an article touting the results. If the analysis shows that the Book of Mormon had a different author, but the rest had the same author, then it may bolster the Spaulding thesis.

[_MCB]

I should clarify that I am referring to only those sections of the D&C that were received by Joseph Smith (most of them).

Many of those claimed to be received by Joseph Smith were actually written by others. Joseph Smith frequently used scribes, who edited, because Joseph Smith was minimally literate. The most convincing evidence of this for me is oral tradition among non-Mormons in the Nauvoo area. It is supported by other evidence, including Mother Smith, herself.

To my knowledge, Spalding was not (erroneously) assigned authorship to any of the D&C or PoGP.

If the analysis shows, however, that the word print of the different texts are in fact different (each portion of text alleged to be authored by the likes of Moses, Abraham, Nephi, etc. are all different), then FARMS will be writing an article touting the results.

The text does not line up according to the authors it claims.

The Book of Mormon did not have one author. For example, up to WoM, Jockers et al found almost no Spalding-like chapters. This is perfectly in line with the lost 116 pages, and that they wrote a new beginning to take their place.

Spalding did not write the Book of Mormon. He wrote "Manuscript Found," which was used as part of the compilation of the Book of Mormon. There are only maybe 20 chapters which are "classic Spalding," possibly lifted in their entirety.

[_bschaalje]

I appreciate Matt’s gracious response. I too was under the impression that Mr. Hausler had obtained his permission to publish the email. I believe that Matt is sincere in saying that “our results showed simply that one candidate in the set was more likely than another (for any given chapter)” and that “we must always worry about the possibility that the real author is not in the closed set” and that their paper was “designed to answer the question of who among the suspect candidates was the most likely.“ I’m very glad to hear it.

I also believe that Matt is sincere in complimenting our research on open-set attribution as innovative. Thank you.

Our use of the term “naïve” was not intended to question the Stanford team’s integrity. We have always believed that they were sincere, even if the 3rd author, Craig Criddle, openly admitted to having an agenda. We also know, from actually doing it, that one will get the same results as Matt and Craig if they follow the recipe given in their paper. The term “naïve” related to our belief that Matt and his team did not fully understand the implications of using closed set classification. However, I now accept that Matt did understand the limited nature of the conclusions of the study.

My discussions with Craig Criddle, however, indicate that he did not. When I asked him on the other board why he had not responded to arguments that the closed set method ‘forced’ the classification of the chapters to one of the candidates even if none of the candidates was especially close to the chapters, he said he not responded because he felt the argument ‘had no merit.’ He also said that all attributions were ‘closed set attributions,’ (not true incidentally) so no apologies were necessary for the use of this method. His talk (posted on Youtube) at the ex-mormon conference also indicated that he did not understand the limitations of closed-set attributions.

Also, to be frank, the paper gave the impression that the authors believed the results to be unconditional probabilities and unconditional authorship attributions. The authors used the term ‘relative probability’ once, but in all other cases gave no indication that they viewed the probabilities as relative or conditional on the assumption that the candidate set actually included the true author. For example, in the abstract the authors state that “we used both methods to determine, on a chapter-by-chapter basis, the probability that each of seven potential authors wrote or contributed to the Book of Mormon.” The abstract ended with the statement that “our findings support the hypothesis that Rigdon was the main architect of the Book of Mormon.” The captions for figures 5-11 say “chapter-by-chapter probability of ________ as author.” In the conclusion they state: “it seems likely that the 1830 version of the Book of Mormon was the creation of Sidney Rigdon.” The authors did state that “of course, we have not considered every possible candidate-author who may have influenced the composition of the Book of Mormon,” but then added, “we have, however, selected from among the most likely of candidates, excepting perhaps Joseph Smith.” The authors end the paper with the seemingly unconditional conclusion “we find strong support for the Spalding-Rigdon theory of authorship.” Statements and conclusion like these do not convey the impression that, as Matt said, that the paper was “not about proving who wrote the Book of Mormon.”

[_MCB]

Bruce, can you accept the possibility that Nephi, Moroni, Mormon, Zeniff, etc did not write the Book of Mormon? Can you accept the possibility that Joseph Smith was not the principal author? I accept those statements to a 95% level. Your level of acceptance may vary.

[_Fifth Columnist]

Many of those claimed to be received by Joseph Smith were actually written by others. Joseph Smith frequently used scribes, who edited, because Joseph Smith was minimally literate. The most convincing evidence of this for me is oral tradition among non-Mormons in the Nauvoo area. It is supported by other evidence, including Mother Smith, herself.

That is no problem. The original text of the revelations can be found at josephsmithpapers.org. I assumed the analysis would use the originals and not the current revised versions.

To my knowledge, Spalding was not (erroneously) assigned authorship to any of the D&C or PoGP.

Great. If the tests I suggested show that the D&C and PoGP were authored by someone different than the Book of Mormon (or just a portion of it like Mosiah onward), then it supports the Spalding theory. If not, then it doesn't.

The text does not line up according to the authors it claims.

The Book of Mormon did not have one author. For example, up to WoM, Jockers et al found almost no Spalding-like chapters. This is perfectly in line with the lost 116 pages, and that they wrote a new beginning to take their place.

So where is the harm in running the tests I have suggested? If you are right, then they will show the same thing.

Spalding did not write the Book of Mormon. He wrote "Manuscript Found," which was used as part of the compilation of the Book of Mormon. There are only maybe 20 chapters which are "classic Spalding," possibly lifted in their entirety.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but for the word print analysis to work, Joseph Smith must have lifted the text word for word or close to word for word. If he just relied on ideas he gleaned from Spalding, Ethan Smith, freemasonry, etc., etc., but put them into his own words, then it should show Joseph Smith as the author.

I still don't see what difference this makes to the tests I have proposed.

[_GlennThigpen]

Bruce, can you accept the possibility that Nephi, Moroni, Mormon, Zeniff, etc did not write the Book of Mormon? Can you accept the possibility that Joseph Smith was not the principal author? I accept those statements to a 95% level. Your level of acceptance may vary.

MCB, do you understand the significance of Bruce's extensions to the Jockers original study? Those enhancement, for all practical purposes, eliminate Rigdon and Spalding as authors of any parts of the Book of Mormon.

Glenn

[_MCB]

Spalding gleaned ideas, and re-wrote. Joseph Smith & Co outright plagiarized a lot, but Rigdon was adept at writing in KJE.

I agree, those tests would be worthwhile to resolve many other questions. However, I don't have access to such methodology, only what knowledge of statistics is necessary to be a school psychologist.

I assumed the analysis would use the originals and not the current revised versions.

I am reasonably sure they would not have made such a mistake.

Great. If the tests I suggested show that the D&C and PoGP were authored by someone different than the Book of Mormon (or just a portion of it like Mosiah onward), then it supports the Spalding theory. If not, then it doesn't.

We know that Spalding did not write ALL of Mosiah onward. There is a lot of Smith, Rigdon, etc. in the BoGP, Book of Mormon, and D&C. For example, Spalding's theology was markedly different from that expressed in Mosiah and onward of the Book of Mormon. The theological riffs primarily came from Cowdery and Rigdon. You can see a statement of Spalding's theology in "Manuscript Story"

The ascriptions by Jockers et al, to answer your primary questions, are very different within Zeniff, Ether, Mormon, Nephi, and Moroni's "works."

[_MCB]

MCB, do you understand the significance of Bruce's extensions to the Jockers original study? Those enhancement, for all practical purposes, eliminate Rigdon and Spalding as authors of any parts of the Book of Mormon.

Glenn

I really hesitate to respond to your post, since it is obvious that you posted without reading mine.

Bruce's work ignores all of the work previous, which links Rigdon and Spalding to the Book of Mormon. It is a hallmark of Mormon apologist thinking, focusing on the individual leaves of the tree and ignoring the forest, perhaps hoping that others don't know that a forest exists. (Especially the cultural context of the early 19th century, and what was available to the authors.) The only problem I have with the Jockers et al study is Rigdon's word-print, and the effects of KJE. I am working on a solution to that problem.

[_wenglund]

Sounds like Criddle may not be entirely on the same page as the et. al.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-