Book of Mormon authorship project is online

[_Ray A]

If apologists could logically refute they would be here doing it instead of coming for an occasional visit and then going away. If critics who are supporters of Fawn M. Brodie (like Sandra Tanner) could refute they, too, would be here doing it. We are now in a post New Mormon History period (the fifty-sixty or so years following the publication of No Man Knows My History). It is apparent that the old arguments (by Spalding/Rigdon opponents) no longer apply; Vogle, Metcalf, Peterson, Tanner, The Mormon Brethren (and others with similar mind sets) must now re-frame or restate their position(s) in order to adjust to this newest and latest development (as expressed in this thread) or become more and more excluded from the scholarly dialogue of Mormon History and discussions on the subject of Mormon origins. I don't believe they are ignoring the present situation, they are only trying to figure out how to adapt (a sort of evolution, slow or rapid, in their thinking) to the current reality.

Byron,

I understand what you're saying, but non-engagement at this particular point doesn't indicate much. I think both Brent, Dale and Dan have previously come to stalemates (on this board), and Brent earlier indicated in this thread that he sees "numerous problems" with the new study, but his reason/s for non-engagement, from what he stated, is less due to him not having a considered reply, and more due to the fact that previous debates with Dale have proved fruitless. I think the feeling is mutual.

Incidentally, I've been venturing around the Net looking for replies to the Stanford study and only found a few, so I think it's still early days.

[_Uncle Dale]

...
Brent earlier indicated in this thread that he sees "numerous problems" with the new study
...

And (trying not to be overly cynical here) I predict that he will see "numerous problems" with any
word-print results which do not show that Joseph Smith's "word-print" is uniformly "strong"
throughout the Book of Mormon, (except where that book overtly borrows from the KJV Bible).

The problem is, that there are several "authorship voices" scattered throughout the book -- at least
three distinct, measurable "word-prints," and perhaps four of them.

Future investigations will report the same conclusions (with various small differences). And, in each
case where Solomon Spalding's "word-print" is mapped through the Book of Mormon, it will come out strong in
the latter part of Alma.

Why?

Most likely, because that section of the book was written by that author.

UD

[_Ray A]

And (trying not to be overly cynical here) I predict that he will see "numerous problems" with any
word-print results which do not show that Joseph Smith's "word-print" is uniformly "strong"
throughout the Book of Mormon, (except where that book overtly borrows from the KJV Bible).

I get your point loud and clear, Dale, though I do have a minor quibble, which is that Joseph Smith hasn't been factored in to the study. The general assumption is that he couldn't have written it, and the S/R Theory rests upon that belief. His general ignorance of what he was "translating" is also factored in ("does Jerusalem have walls?" Duh). So he was eliminated from the study because of, basically, his lack of education, and therefore a "naturalistic" account can't consider him a viable candidate.

So in other words the authors of the study left Joseph out because, from the start, they didn't see him as a realistic (i.e, educated enough) author. Why else would they leave him out, unless they believed that there is no way he could have created this from his education-level?

But how do you discount the witness reports, other than to think that they were all lying, and "in" on the fraud from the beginning? Did Joseph memorise large portions of a hypothetical MS just to impress on-lookers? While at the same time re-writing it all behind the scenes? I trust you agree that he couldn't read a MS while looking into a hat? Did he fool Oliver Cowdery too? Or must we assume that Cowdery was just as huge a liar and a fraud and only gave his statements to impress a gullible public?
>
>
>

[_ByronMarchant]

If apologists could logically refute they would be here doing it instead of coming for an occasional visit and then going away. If critics who are supporters of Fawn M. Brodie (like Sandra Tanner) could refute they, too, would be here doing it. We are now in a post New Mormon History period (the fifty-sixty or so years following the publication of No Man Knows My History). It is apparent that the old arguments (by Spalding/Rigdon opponents) no longer apply; Vogle, Metcalf, Peterson, Tanner, The Mormon Brethren (and others with similar mind sets) must now re-frame or restate their position(s) in order to adjust to this newest and latest development (as expressed in this thread) or become more and more excluded from the scholarly dialogue of Mormon History and discussions on the subject of Mormon origins. I don't believe they are ignoring the present situation, they are only trying to figure out how to adapt (a sort of evolution, slow or rapid, in their thinking) to the current reality.

Byron,

I understand what you're saying, but non-engagement at this particular point doesn't indicate much. I think both Brent, Dale and Dan have previously come to stalemates (on this board), and Brent earlier indicated in this thread that he sees "numerous problems" with the new study, but his reason/s for non-engagement, from what he stated, is less due to him not having a considered reply, and more due to the fact that previous debates with Dale have proved fruitless. I think the feeling is mutual.

Incidentally, I've been venturing around the Net looking for replies to the Stanford study and only found a few, so I think it's still early days.

Ray A,

You may not have seen a change but consider this: Until recently (since the Vanick, et al, book was published) there was strong support from Mormons and Brodie supporters for Brodie's views on Rigdon/Spalding (her appendix). I have noticed that in the last two or three years, since the 1916 Pittsburgh newspaper disclosure that lists mail waiting at the Pittsburgh Post Office for both Spalding and Rigdon, that support has fallen. The next time you discuss Mormon history with one of The New Mormon History people (either those who support Mormonism or the opponents of Mormonism but supporters of Brodie), ask them about Brodie's claim in that appendix. If you don't find them acting like they want to crawl into a hole, let me know. I will love to engage them in that conversation. I find them much less sure of themselves regarding the so-called Spalding/Rigdon "theory."

Byron

[Bedlamite]

And (trying not to be overly cynical here) I predict that he will see "numerous problems" with any
word-print results which do not show that Joseph Smith's "word-print" is uniformly "strong"
throughout the Book of Mormon, (except where that book overtly borrows from the KJV Bible).

I get your point loud and clear, Dale, though I do have a minor quibble, which is that Joseph Smith hasn't been factored in to the study. The general assumption is that he couldn't have written it, and the S/R Theory rests upon that belief. His general ignorance of what he was "translating" is also factored in ("does Jerusalem have walls?" Duh). So he was eliminated from the study because of, basically, his lack of education, and therefore a "naturalistic" account can't consider him a viable candidate.

So in other words the authors of the study left Joseph out because, from the start, they didn't see him as a realistic (i.e, educated enough) author. Why else would they leave him out, unless they believed that there is no way he could have created this from his education-level?

But how do you discount the witness reports, other than to think that they were all lying, and "in" on the fraud from the beginning? Did Joseph memorise large portions of a hypothetical MS just to impress on-lookers? While at the same time re-writing it all behind the scenes? I trust you agree that he couldn't read a MS while looking into a hat? Did he fool Oliver Cowdery too? Or must we assume that Cowdery was just as huge a liar and a fraud and only gave his statements to impress a gullible public?
>
>
>

From what I can gather, the Stanford researchers are ready, willing and able to map Joseph's
word-print across the entire Book of Mormon --- just as soon as the LDS "experts" isolate and
share an "official Joseph Smith word-print."

A great deal of the writing attributed to Joseph was actually written by other people. Take his
1844 book, published as exhibiting his views as a presidential candidate, for example. Ghost
writers like G. J. Adams wrote practically the entire text. Same goes for the Times & Seasons
"History of Joseph Smith,"and many other lengthy documents.

There is probably enough verifiable Joseph-only writing samples, that a word-print can be
constructed --- but, unless the LDS "experts" perform that task, the results would forever be
bogged down in controversy.

I assume that if FARMS is really going to prepare a decent response to the Stanford researchers,
that Daniel Peterson is even now having Joseph's word-print mapped across the Book of Mormon -- and that
the reported results will come back, showing that he only wrote the 1830 "Preface."

Once THAT Joseph Smith word-print is made available to all interested researchers, more such
studies can be performed. If the Mormons refuse to make such a word-print available, I'm told
that the Community of Christ scholars will provide suitable samples from their own archives.

So -- before long, Joseph can be included in the follow-up word-print testing.

UD

[_AlmaBound]

I get your point loud and clear, Dale, though I do have a minor quibble, which is that Joseph Smith hasn't been factored in to the study.

I'd like to see a broadened scope with regard to a word-print study myself, Ray. The unification of the two theories, read from within the book itself, is particularly interesting to me, because from that view, the book tells its own story of how it came about, with allowances for a source document seen in the "abridgement" passed from Moroni to the brother of Jared.

[_Ray A]

the book tells its own story of how it came about, with allowances for a source document seen in the "abridgement" passed from Moroni to the brother of Jared.

Which verses do you have in mind? I'm a little confused here, AB, what did Moroni pass to the Brother of Jared?

[_Ray A]

From what I can gather, the Stanford researchers are ready, willing and able to map Jose[h's
word-print across the entire Book of Mormon --- just as soon as the LDS "experts" isolate and
share an "official Joseph Smith word-print."

A totally hypothetical point here, Dale. I know, but I don't know to what extent, you've flirted with the idea of "automatic writing". I've seen you speculate about this on FAIR.

Would a wordprint analysis satisfiably predict authorship, in this case? Could "Rigdon authorship" be accounted for by this method? How many sources do we have for the Book of Mormon, yet even the S/R Theory only accounts for portions.

Or do you wish to totally renounce any automatic writing theories?

I'll accept your clarification on this.

[_Uncle Dale]

From what I can gather, the Stanford researchers are ready, willing and able to map Jose[h's
word-print across the entire Book of Mormon --- just as soon as the LDS "experts" isolate and
share an "official Joseph Smith word-print."

A totally hypothetical point here, Dale. I know, but I don't know to what extent, you've flirted with the idea of "automatic writing". I've seen you speculate about this on FAIR.

Would a wordprint analysis satisfiably predict authorship, in this case? Could "Rigdon authorship" be accounted for by this method? How many sources do we have for the Book of Mormon, yet even the S/R Theory only accounts for portions.

Or do you wish to totally renounce any automatic writing theories?

I'll accept your clarification on this.

As I understand it. there are different sorts of "automatic writing."I suppose anything of that sort
which came out of the mouth of Joseph Smith, was rather like Edgar Cayce's prophetic utterances.

Rigdon, on the other hand, believed that dead prophets were speaking through him. We can see
examples of that sort of thing in his preserved post-Nauvoo "revelations."

So, I hold open the possibility that Rigdon occasionally engaged in spontaneous hypographia, in
which he thought his writings were coming from beyond the grave, or as a familiar spirit, speaking
as from the dust. How such recorded "voices" would "word-print," I have no idea.

But, other than merely allowing his pen to be moved by unseen "spirits," I believe that Rigdon also
consciously edited and re-wrote his "inspired writings." I believe that such editing would come out
as his own "word-print" in any computerized testing.

UD

[_Ray A]

As I understand it. there are different sorts of "automatic writing."I suppose anything of that sort
which came out of the mouth of Joseph Smith, was rather like Edgar Cayce's prophetic utterances.

Rigdon, on the other hand, believed that dead prophets were speaking through him. We can see
examples of that sort of thing in his preserved post-Nauvoo "revelations."

So, I hold open the possibility that Rigdon occasionally engaged in spontaneous hypographia, in
which he thought his writings were coming from beyond the grave, or as a familiar spirit, speaking
as from the dust. How such recorded "voices" would "word-print," I have no idea.

But, other than merely allowing his pen to be moved by unseen "spirits," I believe that Rigdon also
consciously edited and re-wrote his "inspired writings." I believe that such editing would come out
as his own "word-print" in any computerized testing.

UD

What would stop Joseph Smith using the same automatic writing method, minus Rigdon? In other words, Joseph could have used this method to "gather" writings already in existence, including Rigdon's, even without ever having met Rigdon. That would eliminate the tedious search for physical connections.

So what's the difference? If Sidney can do it, why can't Joseph? You know as well as I do, Dale, that the Book of Mormon is a mishmash of sources, and there's no One Theory that explains it all. But the automatic writing theory can explain that, were it not such a taboo to modern science.

One thing you and I are totally agreed upon is that the Book of Mormon is not ancient, and it's clearly a 19th century production. The historicity argument is dead in the water, as far as I'm concerned.