Is the Book of Mormon Divinely Inspired?

[MG 2.0]

IHQ, what is your response to the Book of Mormon stylometry studies?

Links on the page just before this one. You don’t have to do a lot of searching.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

IHQ, what is your response to the Book of Mormon stylometry studies?

Links on the page just before this one. You don’t have to do a lot of searching.

Regards,
MG

Stylometry, the analysis of writing style to attribute authorship, faces several challenges that can undermine its reliability. These challenges include:

1. **Variability in Writing Style**: An individual's writing style can vary significantly depending on context, audience, purpose, or time. For example, a person might write differently in formal academic papers than in casual emails or in personal diaries. Stylometry typically relies on consistent patterns in word choice, sentence structure, and other linguistic features, but these patterns can shift based on circumstances, making accurate authorship attribution difficult.

2. **Small Sample Size**: Stylometric studies often work with limited samples of text, especially when analyzing historical works where not much writing from a specific author survives. A small sample size may not accurately represent an author’s full range of style, leading to erroneous conclusions.

3. **Overfitting and Bias**: Machine learning algorithms used in stylometry can sometimes overfit the data to match patterns that aren't meaningful, producing false positives. The selection of features (e.g., sentence length, punctuation patterns) can also introduce bias based on what the researcher considers important, potentially skewing results.

4. **Authorial Influence and Collaboration**: Many historical works were produced with input from collaborators, editors, or even ghostwriters, which can make it harder to attribute a work to a single author. In these cases, the stylistic features used in the text may not be consistent with the supposed author’s known style, leading to inaccurate conclusions.

5. **Language Evolution**: Language changes over time, and an author’s style may evolve too. Stylometry based on modern linguistic patterns might not account for historical shifts in grammar, vocabulary, or spelling, which can distort the analysis when applied to older texts.

6. **Text Manipulation or Forgery**: In some cases, texts might be deliberately altered to imitate another author’s style. This can be done in a way that confounds stylometric analysis, making it difficult to distinguish between genuine authorship and a deliberate forgery.

7. **Limited Features and Lack of Context**: Stylometry typically analyzes surface-level features like word frequencies or syntactic patterns. However, it often ignores deeper elements of authorship, such as thematic concerns, cultural context, or personal voice, which can provide important clues to authorship. Without considering these factors, stylometry might fail to capture the true complexity of an author’s style.

Chat Gpt

I don’t trust stylometry studies for those reasons.

[MG 2.0]

I don’t trust stylometry studies for those reasons.

And we have this:

Stylometry studies can be useful in discerning the authorship of a text like the Book of Mormon by analyzing the unique writing style of individual authors. These studies have been conducted on the Book of Mormon and have found distinct "wordprints" or writing patterns for the major contributors like Nephi, Mormon, Moroni, and Alma, which differ from Joseph Smith's own writing style.

This evidence suggests that the Book of Mormon was written by multiple authors, rather than just Joseph Smith on his own. Stylometry studies provide scientific data that can help to support the Book of Mormon's internal claims about its authorship and provide insight into the process by which it was created.
Pi A.I.

We can go back and forth with A.I. on this.

To lurkers whose minds are not ‘set in stone’, take the time to read these studies on your own and then ask yourself whether a semi literate farmboy wrote the Book of Mormon.

And remember, his head was in a hat during the translation process. A little(or big) twist to the process as you think about it.

IHQ is a confirmed nonbeliever. It is incumbent on each individual to do their OWN research and investigation. Do not rely on the words of an apostate.

Even if he comes across as a nice guy. (he may well be…but we don’t know that either, do we?)

The nature of online communication. We don’t know ‘the other’. What I do know is that IHQ is an apostate for whatever that might be worth in the equation of things.

Full disclosure…I’m a believer.

Three links have recently been posted where you can get a pretty good idea of the research that has been done by experts.

I think that might be about all I have to say.

I’m going to step away for now. I’ve spent a lot of time yesterday and today sitting here on my iPad. I need to get off my butt and move onto something else.

I am happy to let others have the last word on this topic. I may check back later for comment. I may not.

It’s been fun. Thanks IHQ for bouncing things around so that lurkers can make their OWN determinations as to what and who they decide to listen to and read/research. We’ve given some food for thought.

Good day!

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

Stylometry, the analysis of writing style to attribute authorship, faces several challenges that can undermine its reliability. These challenges include:

1. **Variability in Writing Style**: An individual's writing style can vary significantly depending on context, audience, purpose, or time. For example, a person might write differently in formal academic papers than in casual emails or in personal diaries. Stylometry typically relies on consistent patterns in word choice, sentence structure, and other linguistic features, but these patterns can shift based on circumstances, making accurate authorship attribution difficult.

2. **Small Sample Size**: Stylometric studies often work with limited samples of text, especially when analyzing historical works where not much writing from a specific author survives. A small sample size may not accurately represent an author’s full range of style, leading to erroneous conclusions.

3. **Overfitting and Bias**: Machine learning algorithms used in stylometry can sometimes overfit the data to match patterns that aren't meaningful, producing false positives. The selection of features (e.g., sentence length, punctuation patterns) can also introduce bias based on what the researcher considers important, potentially skewing results.

4. **Authorial Influence and Collaboration**: Many historical works were produced with input from collaborators, editors, or even ghostwriters, which can make it harder to attribute a work to a single author. In these cases, the stylistic features used in the text may not be consistent with the supposed author’s known style, leading to inaccurate conclusions.

5. **Language Evolution**: Language changes over time, and an author’s style may evolve too. Stylometry based on modern linguistic patterns might not account for historical shifts in grammar, vocabulary, or spelling, which can distort the analysis when applied to older texts.

6. **Text Manipulation or Forgery**: In some cases, texts might be deliberately altered to imitate another author’s style. This can be done in a way that confounds stylometric analysis, making it difficult to distinguish between genuine authorship and a deliberate forgery.

7. **Limited Features and Lack of Context**: Stylometry typically analyzes surface-level features like word frequencies or syntactic patterns. However, it often ignores deeper elements of authorship, such as thematic concerns, cultural context, or personal voice, which can provide important clues to authorship. Without considering these factors, stylometry might fail to capture the true complexity of an author’s style.

Chat Gpt

I don’t trust stylometry studies for those reasons.

Add in, specific to this thread, that there may have been collaboration, the 'authors' cannot be verified as existing in the time and place of the book setting, and that writers of fiction can and do develop different voices in their storytelling, and the theory collapses entirely.

[I Have Questions]

To lurkers whose minds are not ‘set in stone’, take the time to read these studies on your own and then ask yourself whether a semi literate farmboy wrote the Book of Mormon.

He was a gifted story teller who had been developing a fictional narrative about where the native Americans came for a lot of his life. He don’t need to be a good writer because he employed scribes to write down his oration.

And remember, his head was in a hat during the translation process. A little(or big) twist to the process as you think about it.

A magicians prop.

IHQ is a confirmed nonbeliever.

What’s that got to do with anything?

It is incumbent on each individual to do their OWN research and investigation.

Says the bloke who uses A.I. frequently and who posts links to stuff he hasn’t read.

Do not rely on the words of an apostate.

Absolutely, check what I say, check my facts, check my links, check the things I post against corroborations.

The Church and Smith claim Book of Mormon was 100% written by ancient Prophets up to the end of the 1st Century - check that fact against what the Church claims either in the Book of Mormon itself, or use the Church’s website.

The Book of Mormon contains KJV Bible content within it - content that was put together in the 17th Century. Check those facts out for yourselves. When putting the KJV Bible in the 17th Century they made some mistakes and inserted incorrect words into it. Those mistakes and incorrect words are found, verbatim in The Book of Mormon. Check those facts out. Then consider what plagiarised 17th Century mistakes do to the claim that The Book of Mormon was 100% written by ancient Prophets prior to the 1st Century.

1. The Book of Mormon was 100% written by ancient Prophets prior to the end of the 1st Century.
2. The Book of Mormon contains KJV Bible errors that were made during its production in the 17th Century.

Those two statements cannot both be true. Check the facts out and then, using those facts determine which statement is not true. For the record MG 2.0 has declined to pick a statement.

[I Have Questions]

Chat Gpt

I don’t trust stylometry studies for those reasons.

Add in, specific to this thread, that there may have been collaboration, the 'authors' cannot be verified as existing in the time and place of the book setting, and that writers of fiction can and do develop different voices in their storytelling, and the theory collapses entirely.

Absolutely.

“In some cases, texts might be deliberately altered to imitate another author’s style. This can be done in a way that confounds stylometric analysis, making it difficult to distinguish between genuine authorship and a deliberate forgery.”

During our evening conversations, Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined. He would describe the ancient inhabitants of [the American] continent, their dress, mode of traveling, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life among them.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... y?lang=eng
(An official Church source)

Joseph absolutely could have done it, in conjunction with someone who could write legibly - Oliver.

[Morley]

IHQ is a confirmed nonbeliever. It is incumbent on each individual to do their OWN research and investigation. Do not rely on the words of an apostate.

Even if he comes across as a nice guy. (he may well be…but we don’t know that either, do we?)

The nature of online communication. We don’t know ‘the other’. What I do know is that IHQ is an apostate for whatever that might be worth in the equation of things.

This is classic MG 2.0.

You can't help it, can you? And that you won't be able to see anything wrong with this just makes it worse.

[drumdude]

Credulity is not a virtue.

When MG calls us “unbelievers” or “apostates” or “atheists” it is not derogatory to me. Those positions are the default to any outrageous claim. Anyone who believes without good evidence is credulous. And I think Mormons are as credulous as Scientologists.

There is as much evidence for Nephi’s existence as there is for the space alien emperor Xenu. Zero!

[Morley]

Credulity is not a virtue.

When MG calls us “unbelievers” or “apostates” or “atheists” it is not derogatory to me. Those positions are the default to any outrageous claim. Anyone who believes without good evidence is credulous. And I think Mormons are as credulous as Scientologists.

There is as much evidence for Nephi’s existence as there is for the space alien emperor Xenu. Zero!

My problem is with MG's passive-aggressive: "Even if he comes across as a nice guy. (he may well be…but we don’t know that either, do we?)." He doubles down by implying that not being a nice guy could be linked to what he calls IHQ's apostasy.

In MG's mind, the insertion of a smiley face gives him deniability. I'm sure my comment will also bring charges that I'm canceling him. But I'm not. I don't really care what insults he suggests. I doubt if IHQ does, either. That said, I do find it interesting when the mask slips.

Must be great times at Thanksgiving Dinner. "Dear, aren't you dressing a little slutty? LOL. You know I'm just kidding. Who even knows what slutty looks like with your generation."

[malkie]

Credulity is not a virtue.

When MG calls us “unbelievers” or “apostates” or “atheists” it is not derogatory to me. Those positions are the default to any outrageous claim. Anyone who believes without good evidence is credulous. And I think Mormons are as credulous as Scientologists.

There is as much evidence for Nephi’s existence as there is for the space alien emperor Xenu. Zero!

My problem is with MG's passive-aggressive: "Even if he comes across as a nice guy. (he may well be…but we don’t know that either, do we?)." He doubles down by implying that not being a nice guy could be linked to what he calls IHQ's apostasy.

In MG's mind, the insertion of a smiley face gives him deniability. I'm sure my comment will also bring charges that I'm canceling him. But I'm not. I don't really care what insults he suggests. I doubt if IHQ does, either. That said, I do find it interesting when the mask slips.

I noticed that he took a little swipe at me too, upthread.

MG and I met in real life about 10 years ago, and I was left with an very positive impression of him at the time.

It seem that we are both rather disappointed in each other now. Such is life.