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

[_Uncle Dale]

... pirated copies online...

The Stanford study paper pdf posted at "Mormon Main Street" has been removed.

The other pirated copy I noticed is still on-line. I'll not give the link, however.

Uncle Dale

[_Uncle Dale]

... I don't think that Rigdon was too worried about using the Book of Mormon as scripture -
to him its value was in confirmation of his theological ideas.
...

This bring up a number of possible extensions of speculation about Rigdon.

1. Perhaps his friend, Mr. Lambdin of Pittsburgh, asked Rigdon to proofread and
edit the late Spalding's writings, for possible publication, c. 1824-25. However,
Lambdin died shortly thereafter, so we probably cannot research this possibility.

2. Perhaps Rigdon was prone to hand-copying interesting texts/books/articles he
came across in the Pittsburgh area. As a penniless young fellow he probably could
not afford to buy books of his own. If so, then Rigdon might have copied some
of Spalding's writings for totally innocent purposes, c. 1814-1823.

3. If Rigdon had copies of some Spalding writings (whether or not he was contracted
by Lambdin to edit them) -- he might well have entered marginal notes, or habitually
penned in corrections of Spalding's spelling, grammar, etc.

4. In 1824 Rigdon was involved in the publication of the "3rd Epistle of Peter." If he
was its author, that sort of pseudo-scriptural writing style may have stayed with
him -- he may have retained it, while continuing to make marginal notes and additions
to some Spalding writings in his possession:


http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/1824Scot.htm#page36a

5. As Rigdon's religious/theological views began to diverge from those of the Campbells,
Walter Scott, and his other Reformed Baptist associates, Sidney Rigdon may well have
begun to write down his beliefs/feelings/hopes/expectations/arguments, etc., in a
series of journal entries, letters, sermons, etc., kept alongside Spalding's writings.

By some combination of the above possibilities (added to Rigdon's visionary experiences
and increasingly radical, restorationist religious views), these writings in his possession,
c. 1824-27, may have begun to take the shape of what we now read in the Book of
Mormon. So far, though, there is no reason to suspect a "conspiracy" or a "hoax."

The "3rd Epistle of Peter" was not a product of a "conspiracy" or a "hoax" -- Rigdon
may have written similar pseudo-scriptural texts without initially being a fraud.

Food for thought.

Uncle Dale

[_TAK]

Hi Dale,
I am wondering if there are unique Campbellite teachings that have been identifed in the Book of Mormon ?

[_Uncle Dale]

TAK wrote:

Hi Dale,
I am wondering if there are unique Campbellite teachings that have been identifed in the Book of Mormon?

First of all, you may wish to do a little background study, by word-searching
the following web-page for "Campbell" --
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/OH/miscohio.htm

When you get down to Thursday, Nov. 18, 1830, stop and read more slowly.

From there, you might want to look at the writers linked here:

Excursus: The Campbellite Connection
http://solomonspalding.com/Lib/givn2002.htm#comments09

There is some occasional mention of the subject here:
http://sidneyrigdon.com/books/2001Read.htm

However -- now that we have the new Stanford word-study report in front
of us, we might want to go back through all those writers I've cited above,
to see whether their observations of "Cambellism" in early Mormonism and
in the Book of Mormon, are found in the Book of Mormon text identified with Rigdon as the
author, or the text identified in the Book of Mormon identified with Spalding.

Your guess, as to where the best "matches" are to be found?

Uncle Dale

[_TAK]

Thanks !

[_Danna]

4. In 1824 Rigdon was involved in the publication of the "3rd Epistle of Peter." If he
was its author, that sort of pseudo-scriptural writing style may have stayed with
him -- he may have retained it, while continuing to make marginal notes and additions
to some Spalding writings in his possession:


http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/1824Scot.htm#page36a

...
The "3rd Epistle of Peter" was not a product of a "conspiracy" or a "hoax" -- Rigdon
may have written similar pseudo-scriptural texts without initially being a fraud.
...

Wow, it isn't too hard to recognise rage against Nehor and 'priestcrafts'.



Aargh, I caught the ad.

[_Uncle Dale]

...Wow, it isn't too hard to recognise rage against Nehor and 'priestcrafts'.

Yes, there are similarities with the Book of Mormon rhetoric -- the churches
and churchmen denounced in Rigdon's "3rd Epistle of Peter" are something
like the Book of Mormon's Zoramites.

This was the standard "Campbellite" anti-clerical rhetoric of the 1820s. In fact
Campbell reprinted the Peter epistle in his own monthly newspaper, with no
substantial changes.

But the anti-clerical rhetoric was not exclusive to the Campbellites. You can
find it where anti-mission Baptists rant against the mission Baptists; where the
Baptists rant against the Presbyterians; where the Barton Stone and Elias Smith
"new lights" rant against the established churches; and where the Quakers rant
against the more traditional churches --- in fact, there was a later edition of
the Peter epistle reprinted in Philadelphia -- presumably by Quakers. Elias Smith
reprinted it as well.

So, we cannot move from the text of this 1824 pamphlet, directly into the Book of Mormon,
saying that the Book of Mormon is an evolution of the pseudo-Peter text. The religious
situation of the times allows for more possibilities than that.

On the other hand, I have the strong suspicion that the pseudo-Peter text
might have easily been pawned off as the real McCoy, among some of the
backwoodsmen Baptists Sidney Rigdon was ministering to in 1826.

I wish the Stanford researchers (or somebody) would run word-print tests on
the 1824 Pittsburgh Church of Christ pamphlet, to determine whether it was
written entirely by Elder Walter Scott -- or if parts of it came from Rigdon.

Dale

[_Jersey Girl]

Danna,

Based on what you've stated regarding the reading assignment and in light of the recent study that you seem to have read and the method used that you are able to articulate for us (NSC)...

what possible difference does it make if Manuscript Found was lost?

NONE!
none none none

Thank you, Danna. I wanted to see someone other than myself acknowledge that. The apologetic defense regarding Manuscript Found vs Manuscript Story (The Oberlin MS/Roman Story) is a moot point in light of this study. The researchers, infact, used Manuscript Story as the text sample for Spalding in this study.

That is to say, the Stanford team used the very manuscript (The Oberlin MS/Manuscript Story/The Roman Story--all one and the same) that apologists have used for years to DENY Spalding authorship....to PROVE IT.

As a novice to the S/R theory and certainly a complete amateur in understanding much less articulating delta and Nearest Shrunken Centroid methods, as well as a long time investigator of Mormonism and often a supporter of LDS people, I find that exciting and sad all at the same time. I can see by your "bold red", that you find it exciting as well.

That's it, what I was saying.
It doesn't matter if Manuscript Found is lost, or never existed and was Manuscript Story all along.
And it doesn't even matter if all the Conneaut witnesses had their memories implanted by aliens.
It doesn't matter whether Fawn Brodie's eye-o-meter was not functioning properly that day and couldn't detect any 'similarities'.
It wouldn't even matter if any of Vogel's non-involved witnesses, did see the translation of Mosiah to Moroni.

You're correct. None of the above matter.

Something Spaulding wrote was similar enough to raise suspicions of plagiarism in the Book of Mormon, before Hurlburt got involved. This provides a testable hypothesis.

Jocker's et al. tested that hypothesis and have shown clear and significant similarities between portions of the Book of Mormon and Solomon Spaulding's Manuscript Story.

Exactly, Danna. If ever there were a "smoking gun" in the theory, it is The Oberlin MS/Manuscript Story/The Roman Story, for it provided the signal for Spalding in this study.

Zax has demonstrated why the similarities are significant in spite of the relative judgement process.

I'll have to go through the posts and read Zax's comments. I don't think I've read then as I've only been loosely following these threads.

At this point a reasonable person would conclude that portions of the Book of Mormon have probably been written by the same person who wrote Manuscript Story.

Yes.

All that is required now is a peer-reviewed replication study by another group, and Spaulding's authorship of portions of the Book of Mormon would have to be accepted by any sane person.

I suspect that will happen in good time, Danna.

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.

[_Jersey Girl]

...Wow, it isn't too hard to recognise rage against Nehor and 'priestcrafts'.

Yes, there are similarities with the Book of Mormon rhetoric -- the churches
and churchmen denounced in Rigdon's "3rd Epistle of Peter" are something
like the Book of Mormon's Zoramites.

This was the standard "Campbellite" anti-clerical rhetoric of the 1820s. In fact
Campbell reprinted the Peter epistle in his own monthly newspaper, with no
substantial changes.

But the anti-clerical rhetoric was not exclusive to the Campbellites. You can
find it where anti-mission Baptists rant against the mission Baptists; where the
Baptists rant against the Presbyterians; where the Barton Stone and Elias Smith
"new lights" rant against the established churches; and where the Quakers rant
against the more traditional churches --- in fact, there was a later edition of
the Peter epistle reprinted in Philadelphia -- presumably by Quakers. Elias Smith
reprinted it as well.

So, we cannot move from the text of this 1824 pamphlet, directly into the Book of Mormon,
saying that the Book of Mormon is an evolution of the pseudo-Peter text. The religious
situation of the times allows for more possibilities than that.

On the other hand, I have the strong suspicion that the pseudo-Peter text
might have easily been pawned off as the real McCoy, among some of the
backwoodsmen Baptists Sidney Rigdon was ministering to in 1826.

I wish the Stanford researchers (or somebody) would run word-print tests on
the 1824 Pittsburgh Church of Christ pamphlet, to determine whether it was
written entirely by Elder Walter Scott -- or if parts of it came from Rigdon.

Dale

Dale,

What is your personal strongest theory/evidence for a connection between Smith and Rigdon prior to Rigdon's conversion?

[_Daniel Peterson]

That is to say, the Stanford team used the very manuscript (The Oberlin MS/Manuscript Story/The Roman Story--all one and the same) that apologists have used for years to DENY Spalding authorship....to PROVE IT.

So you believe that the Spalding theory has now been proven?