Jockers et al. (2008) study. What more is needed? (S/R)

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Uncle Dale
_Emeritus
Posts: 3685
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 7:02 am

Re: Jockers et al. (2008) study. What more is needed? (S/R)

Post by _Uncle Dale »

Jersey Girl wrote:
Shades wrote:According to Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon? The Spalding Enigma by Cowdrey, Davis, and Vanick, that third party was most definitely Oliver Cowdery, who was Smith's second cousin and who was employed for a time by Sidney Rigdon before the Book of Mormon came to be.


Thanks. I actually know the answers to most of the questions I've posed. I pose them based on previous discussions here where objections to the S/R theory were to a lack of connection between Rigdon and Smith. Typically, the demand is for evidence of a meeting between Rigdon and Smith prior to Rigdon's conversion. While a meeting may have taken place, the theory doesn't require a face-to-face meeting.

Wasn't Pratt a disciple of Rigdon?


My guess is that Pratt was Rigdon's foremost disciple -- one who believed Rigdon to
be a new Elijah, sent to prepare the way for the coming prophet of the last dispensation.
In other words, I suppose Pratt fully endorsed the D&C section that identifies Rigdon
as preparing the way for Joseph Smith.

Orson Hyde was another such Rigdonite -- but it is Pratt whose "word-print" the Stanford
researchers believe they have found in the Book of Mormon (along with that of Cowdery).
So, if we are looking for clandestine middle-men, Pratt and Cowdery are possibilities.

However, I speculate that Rigdon might have encountered Joseph Smith, Jr., more or less
accidentally, on one of Rigdon's various excursions across the country, visiting Baptist
congregations. While a member of the Redstone, Grand River and Mahoning associations,
each of those groups sponsored Rigdon's trips to represent them in visits to Baptist
congregations/associations at a distance.

In 1824 Alexander Campbell published an account of visionary manifestations reportedly
accompanying a notable religious revival in upstate New York. From other sources, I think
we can establish that Campbell was speaking of a revival centered in Palmyra, NY -- He said:

I read, some time since, of a revival in the State of New-York in which the Spirit of God was
represented as being abundantly poured out, on Presbyterians, Methodists, and Baptists. I
think the converts in the order of the names were about three hundred Presbyterians, three
hundred Methodists, and two hundred and eighty Baptists. On the principles of Bellamy, Hopkins,
and Fuller, these being all regenerated without any knowledge of the Gospel, there is no difficulty
in accounting for their joining different sects. The spirit did not teach the Presbyterians to believe
that "God had foreordained whatsoever comes to pass;" nor the Methodists to deny it. He did not
teach the Presbyterians and the Methodists, that infants were members of the Church and to be
baptized, nor the Baptists to deny it. But on the hypothesis of the Apostle James, viz. "Of his own
will begat he us by the word of truth." I think it would be difficult to prove that the spirit of God had
any thing to do with the aforesaid revival.

Enthusiasm flourishes, blooms under the popular systems. This man was regenerated when asleep,
by a vision of the night. That man heard a voice in the woods, saying, "thy sins be forgiven thee."
A third saw his Saviour descending to the tops of the trees, at noon day."
...
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/VA ... htm#030124



Of course the rationalist Campbell dismissed such stories of men in the woods, hearing divine
assurance that their sins were forgiven -- of divine personages descending earthward to visit
New Yorkers, etc. But Sidney Rigdon (who most certainly read Campbell's report) was a visionary
fellow who was himself subject to such ecstatic epiphanies --- I assume he would have been
very much interested in such reports -- perhaps interested enough to finagle one of his periodic
trips to visit far-off Baptist congregations.

There was a Baptist church in Manchester, NY, with a chapel located a little south of the
Smith residence there -- ministered to by Elder Shay. Here's an interesting note on that:

In his Jan. 1948 article, "The Baptist Church at Manchester" (The Chronicle X:1, pp. 17-30),
Mitchell Bronk quotes from the journal of early member Daniel Arnold and other sources, and
reports: "the Smith family lived in our town... Joe occasionally attended the stone church;
especially the revivals, sitting with the crows -- the 'sinners' -- up in the gallery. Not a little
of Mormon theology accords with the preaching of Elder Shay. It is significant that immersion
became the form of baptism practiced by the Saints..."

http://sidneyrigdon.com/books/2006Smth.htm#errata


My speculation is that Sidney Rigdon could have traveled to Manchester in 1824 to
investigate the strange stories of "men in the woods, hearing divine assurance that their
sins were forgiven -- of divine personages descending earthward to visit New Yorkers.
"

While in that region of the country, the natural place for him to stop and visit with
fellow Baptists, would have been Elder Shay's congregation, which Smith attended. Thus
Rigdon might have formed a passing acquaintance with the Smith family, almost by
accident, in 1824. At least he might have written a letter from Pittsburgh to Shay in
Manchester, requesting more details regarding local claims to divine manifestations.

At that time, the chief Campbellite doctrine was uniting all of the various churches ---
that tenet would gradually slip out of sight, when their effort to "restore the ancient gospel"
became a more important concern. But in 1824 you might have best distinguished a
Campbellite by his message calling for Christian unity.

One last relevant point:

What did Lucy Mack Smith have to say, in her son's biography, of a preacher coming into
the Palmyra area at that time? -- a man who was trying to unite the Christian churches?
Why did she not supply the name of that traveling preacher who so caught her attention?

Dale


.
-- the discovery never seems to stop --
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Re: Jockers et al. (2008) study. What more is needed? (S/R)

Post by _harmony »

Wasn't Lucy the one who claimed to have moved the gold plates in order to dust under them?

What did she say about the preacher?
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
_LifeOnaPlate
_Emeritus
Posts: 2799
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 4:50 pm

Re: Jockers et al. (2008) study. What more is needed? (S/R)

Post by _LifeOnaPlate »

harmony wrote:Wasn't Lucy the one who claimed to have moved the gold plates in order to dust under them?


That was Emma.
One moment in annihilation's waste,
one moment, of the well of life to taste-
The stars are setting and the caravan
starts for the dawn of nothing; Oh, make haste!

-Omar Khayaam

*Be on the lookout for the forthcoming album from Jiminy Finn and the Moneydiggers.*
_Danna

Re: Jockers et al. (2008) study. What more is needed? (S/R)

Post by _Danna »

Jersey Girl wrote:Danna, I don't know how to post them, but if you can....could you post the pie charts from the paper? They are the pie charts that compare the results of delta vs NSC methods. I'd so appreciate it if you could do that.


No problem - here are Figures 1 and 3 - the NSC data which was the more accurate of the two methods.

Image
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Re: Jockers et al. (2008) study. What more is needed? (S/R)

Post by _Jersey Girl »

Thank you so much, Danna. I don't know how to do that kind of magic!
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
_mentalgymnast

Re: Jockers et al. (2008) study. What more is needed? (S/R)

Post by _mentalgymnast »

Jeff Lindsay's take on the study. Two installments posted thusfar:

http://mormanity.blogspot.com/2008/12/s ... l#comments

http://mormanity.blogspot.com/2008/12/t ... l#comments

Regards,
MG
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Re: Jockers et al. (2008) study. What more is needed? (S/R)

Post by _Jersey Girl »

Here are two recent posts reposted from RFM that may fit well with this thread. They are each from Prof. Criddle and are also posted on this thread: http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8100&start=0


Subject: apologist criticism ignores the predictive power of the Spalding/Rigdon Theory
Date: Dec 29 15:53
Author: CraigC
Mail Address: bomauthorship@mac.com
The primary apologetic criticism is that the methodology "forces" a "winner" from each of the 7 authors tested (Rigdon, Spalding, Pratt, Cowdery, Longfellow, Isaiah, Barlow). That is true because this particular study was limited to those 7 candidate authors (Longfellow and Barlow were added as controls). The word usage pattern of each chapter of the Book of Mormon is compared to the known word usage pattern of each of the candidate authors and probabilities are assigned on that basis.

What the apologists ignore is the pattern of the data.

In science, predictive power is considered strong evidence for a theory. By predictive power, I mean the ability to confirm predictions that are based on the theory.

If the Spalding-Rigdon Theory is correct, we can predict (before doing any test) that there will be:

1. Many more chapters attributed to Rigdon and to Spalding than to other authors.

2. Many chapters in which Rigdon is first choice and Spalding is second choice and vice versa.

3. Many fewer chapters assigned to Pratt and Cowdery, if they appear at all. Very few chapters assigned to Barlow and Longfellow (ideally this number should be zero, if the chapter classification method has no error... but we can expect any method to have some error).

4. Prevalence of Rigdon matches in chapters that have high religious content and prevalence of Spalding matches in more narrative chapters, especially those chapters dealing with war.

When we (Jockers et al., 2008) did the experiment, that's what we found: authorship patterns that are consistent with the above predictions based on the Spalding-Rigdon Theory.

It's like a paleontologist who has formulated a hypothesis about ancient life and predicts that fossils of a certain type will be dominant in sediment of a specific type and age.

When the sediment is examined and fossils of the expected type are indeed dominant, as predicted, then the paleontologist is justified in claiming to have found evidence supportive of the theory.



Subject: rigging
Date: Dec 29 22:11
Author: CraigC
Mail Address: bomauthorship@mac.com
"Just wondering 1" cited this apologist blog:
> That New Book of Mormon Wordprint Study: The Criddle Riddle - or Rigged for Rigdon?- http://mormanity.blogspot.com/


Contrary to the impression given by the clever title of the above article in the apologist's blog, the Stanford Book of Mormon authorship study was not "rigged for Rigdon".

Any one of the 7 candidate authors could have turned out to be a dominant author or there could have been no dominant author.

But when the analysis was performed, Rigdon emerged as dominant author with Spalding second.

Of course, the study was limited to the authors examined. As noted in the paper, the ideal study would have included Joseph Smith, but, unfortunately, there was not enough text available of known Smith authorship.





x
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
_antishock8
_Emeritus
Posts: 2425
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 2:02 am

Re: Jockers et al. (2008) study. What more is needed? (S/R)

Post by _antishock8 »

Why aren't there "known" authorships by Joseph Smith Jr.? Did he have so many proxy authors that it's impossible to identify his writing?

by the way, thank you for this thread everyone. This has been one of the best Mormonism threads I've ever read. It's very informative.
You can’t trust adults to tell you the truth.

Scream the lie, whisper the retraction.- The Left
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Re: Jockers et al. (2008) study. What more is needed? (S/R)

Post by _Jersey Girl »

antishock8 wrote:Why aren't there "known" authorships by Joseph Smith Jr.? Did he have so many proxy authors that it's impossible to identify his writing?

by the way, thank you for this thread everyone. This has been one of the best Mormonism threads I've ever read. It's very informative.


I'll post a statement from the study however, the Reader's Digest version is that the writings attributed to Joseph Smith often have evidence that clerks were used to produce the material.

This is perhaps the ONLY Mormon related topic left of interest to me. Check out the pinned thread in this forum for more information.

Here: http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8100&start=0
Last edited by Google Feedfetcher on Wed Dec 31, 2008 11:03 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Re: Jockers et al. (2008) study. What more is needed? (S/R)

Post by _Jersey Girl »

The study contains a lengthy explanation however, here is an excerpt from page 5 of the study.

“Even for the twenty-three letters in Smith’s hand, which Jessee republishes in facsimile form, we cannot easily assume that Smith is the sole author. Many of the letters in Jessee’s collection show the handwriting of Smith along side and intermingled with the hand writing of other authors, including Rigdon and Cowdery. Even when writing something as personal as a journal entry or letter, we see consistent evidence of collaboration and co-authorship. Unfortunately, such writing cannot be used as a reliable sample of known authorship.” Jockers, et al (2008).
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
Post Reply