wordprint studies

Post by **_Scottie** » Thu Oct 11, 2007 6:37 pm

The only thing single authorship hurts is the tight translation theory. The loose translation guys will just say, "Well, of course it was one guy!! God put concepts into Joseph Smith mind and he wrote down the concept in his words!!"

And then there are those that will say, "Well, God wanted SOME of it translated loosely and some of it tightly, so a word print analysis really doesn't mean much. We don't know all the ways Joseph Smith translated.

Post by **_Zoidberg** » Thu Oct 11, 2007 8:09 pm

A-man, David I. Holmes analyzed not only the Book of Mormon, but also D&C and the Book of Abraham. He found no evidence of multiple authorship in any of those (other than the Book of Isaiah, which is heavily quoted in the Book of Mormon).

I'm not sure what editions he used, probably the current one, since it was done in 1991.

Here's the citation: D.I. Holmes, "A Multivariate Technique for Authorship Attribution and its Application to the Analysis of Mormon Scripture and Related Texts," History and Computing, Vol. 3, No. 1, 1991, Pages 14, 20-21.

It's summarized here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/ldsbom1.htm

I imagine everything he analyzed was current. However, I don't know if any changes have been made to the actual text of D&C (as opposed to removing certain sections) and the Book of Abraham. The implications would be important to the study you're proposing, I imagine.

Post by **_asbestosman** » Thu Oct 11, 2007 8:35 pm

Zoidberg wrote:I imagine everything he analyzed was current. However, I don't know if any changes have been made to the actual text of D&C (as opposed to removing certain sections) and the Book of Abraham. The implications would be important to the study you're proposing, I imagine.

I remember a few actual changes to the text. I believe one talked about Oliver Cowdery having the rod of Aaron as opposed to the gift of Aaron. Another as I recall changed the wording regarding Joseph Smith being called only for translating, but "no other gift". As I recall, the change was small but disputably (in)significant. I don't think the changes would generally change the D&C's wordprint though.

Post by **_Zoidberg** » Thu Oct 11, 2007 11:20 pm

asbestosman wrote:
Zoidberg wrote:I imagine everything he analyzed was current. However, I don't know if any changes have been made to the actual text of D&C (as opposed to removing certain sections) and the Book of Abraham. The implications would be important to the study you're proposing, I imagine.

I remember a few actual changes to the text. I believe one talked about Oliver Cowdery having the rod of Aaron as opposed to the gift of Aaron. Another as I recall changed the wording regarding Joseph Smith being called only for translating, but "no other gift". As I recall, the change was small but disputably (in)significant. I don't think the changes would generally change the D&C's wordprint though.

Interesting. In this case, one could argue that the changes made to the Book of Mormon text are not significant, either; or else they are so significant that they made the text basically indistinguishable from D&C and the Book of Abraham.

Post by **_Jersey Girl** » Fri Oct 12, 2007 12:38 am

asbestosman wrote:
Jersey Girl wrote:ab man,

Don't bother. I know for a fact that something is coming out very soon. Please stay tuned.

Yeah, I caught on to that from Uncle Dale as well. Apparently someone will publish something in the next year and according to their studies it points to single authorship for the Book of Mormon.

No, you are mistaken.

Post by **_Phaedrus Ut** » Fri Oct 12, 2007 9:24 pm

Jersey Girl,

I'm curious as to what you mentioned regarding something coming out soon. Is it apologetic or academic in nature?

Thanks

Phaedrus

Post by **_Jersey Girl** » Fri Oct 12, 2007 11:45 pm

Phaedrus Ut wrote:Jersey Girl,

I'm curious as to what you mentioned regarding something coming out soon. Is it apologetic or academic in nature?

Thanks

Phaedrus

One of those. I'm sorry, I can't say more. I would like to see interest generated in this topic however it's not my story to tell.

Post by **_Jersey Girl** » Fri Oct 12, 2007 11:47 pm

asbestosman wrote:Again, I don't think wordprints have any direct bearing on the antiquity or authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Rather I think it has implications for the translation process which may then have implications as to how we should understand difficulties in the Book of Mormon (wheat, barley, horses, etc).

I think you will come to see things differently.

(I'm starting to sound like the Magic 8 Ball I mentioned in another post!)

Post by **_truth dancer** » Sat Oct 13, 2007 12:09 am

I think if a word print study shows Joseph Smith as the author of the Book of Mormon, it will not be a big deal as the apologetic response will consist of a "duh"... Joseph Smith wrote it as it came to him.

However, if the WPS shows that some other friend of Joseph Smith matched the Book of Mormon, well then THAT would be interesting! :-)

Not that it would make a shred of difference to true believers but still, it would be interesting!

Any idea when we can hear of the results?

:-)

I'm hoping we do not have to wait as long as we are waiting for Brent's Book of Abraham book! LOL!

~dancer~

_mentalgymnast · Post by **_mentalgymnast** » Sat Oct 13, 2007 1:10 am

truth dancer wrote:I think if a word print study shows Joseph Smith as the author of the Book of Mormon, it will not be a big deal as the apologetic response will consist of a "duh"... Joseph Smith wrote it as it came to him.

However, if the WPS shows that some other friend of Joseph Smith matched the Book of Mormon, well then THAT would be interesting! :-)

Not that it would make a shred of difference to true believers but still, it would be interesting!

~dancer~

Yes, that would be interesting, to say the least. It would make a shred of difference. Let's be patient and see what comes, huh?

For now we have to go with what we have.

http://www.lds-mormon.com/wordprin.shtml

and

http://en.fairmormon.org/index.php/Book ... nt_studies

are two good places to start to get both sides of the story for those that aren't into it yet.

Regards,
MG