DiscussMormonism.com

Uncle Dale,

I saw Dr. Criddle's presentation online regarding the computer wordprint studies and found it very compelling. I had also previously read his peer reviewed article, but it was nice to have the research placed in a historical context.

I thought it was interesting that Spalding's signature did not substantially hit in the 116 pages, presumably because after those pages were destroyed, the Spalding material was no longer available and had to be recreated. The wordprint analysis seems to indicate this replacement material was prepared by Rigdon and Cowdery.

Now my question. I have seen some critical materials that say Joseph S. Jr. may have inserted the tree of life vision based upon a dream his father had. How would this reconcile with the theory that Rigdon and Cowdery came up with the 116 replacement?

Thanks for your research. I am finding answers to many of my long-held questions, such as, "What the hell is all this infant baptism oddness doing in the Book of Mormon." Was a burning question in Mesoamerica, I guess.

If I may butt in....

Jockers et al. didn't have sufficient material attributed to JSjr to be able to run him as a comparison author. Most of the writings attributed to him were dictated or written by secretaries such as Willard Richards.

They did find that some of the material they looked at was not overwhelmingly attributable to any of their comparison authors which indicates an as yet unidentified author was involved (looking at the % liklihood of authorship, rather than the closest comparison). JSjr is a logical potential author. I understand, that they will re-run the analysis once they have sufficient verified JSjr material to use as a valid comparison. Uncle Dale should have more details on this.

The Spaulding hypothesis was originally that Spaulding's text was expanded by Rigdon. Since Jockers et al. it looks like others involved also had a go at 'channeling' Moroni. (the hypothesis is neutral as to their intentions - they may have actually believed they were channelling a genuine prophetic record) This is not inconsistent with the D&C account of Oliver's attempt at receiving revelation.

So, theories of Joseph's words and ideas appearing in the text are not ruled out at all. This includes much of the analysis that Metcalfe and Vogel have done from the point of view of Joseph as sole author - particularly if Joseph was the main 'mouthpiece' for the group. I don't think Metcalfe and Vogel would agree with this at all, but I do not see the two hypotheses as incompatible - especially given the recent Jockers et al. results.

It will take another run against verified JSjr material to confirm the extent of JSjr's involvement.

Elias wrote:Uncle Dale,

I saw Dr. Criddle's presentation online regarding the computer wordprint studies and found it very compelling. I had also previously read his peer reviewed article, but it was nice to have the research placed in a historical context.

I thought it was interesting that Spalding's signature did not substantially hit in the 116 pages, presumably because after those pages were destroyed, the Spalding material was no longer available and had to be recreated. The wordprint analysis seems to indicate this replacement material was prepared by Rigdon and Cowdery.

Well, I think we need to be careful in how we phrase this aspect of things. We do
not have the "Book of Lehi," so we cannot test it for word-prints. For those of
us who do not credit Joseph's Smith's words as being perfectly reliable, the story
of the loss of the first 116 pages (if that is the correct number) may be less than
fully accurate, as well.

What we do know, is that by the methods the Stanford team used in analyzing
"word-prints" in the Book of Mormon, the replacement text for the lost Book of
Lehi, is not a strong example of Spalding's voice. In that replacement text, his
supposed word-print only shows up sporadically and weakly.

If the lost "Book of Lehi" was a Rigdon creation, based upon an earlier Spalding
narrative, then it is possible that the pages Smith says he lost, were unique,
and no earlier copy of their contents was retained.

In that case, somebody (perhaps Rigdon, with helpers) had to re-create a story
that read at least something like the lost Book of Lehi. Assuming Rigdon had
kept fragments of Spalding's original writings, perhaps there was enough such
stuff to re-create a basic narrative, somewhat similar to that told in the lost pages.
Such an explanation might account for the weak Spalding "voice" in 1st Nephi,
as well as its virtual disappearance from 2nd Nephi and Jacob.

Now my question. I have seen some critical materials that say Joseph S. Jr.
may have inserted the tree of life vision based upon a dream his father had.
How would this reconcile with the theory that Rigdon and Cowdery came up
with the 116 replacement?

Two possibilities -- 1. Mother Lucy copied that "dream" from the Book of Mormon.
2. The story in the Book of Mormon was taken from a dream related by Joseph Sr.,
and communicated to the writers of that part of the replacement text for the lost
Book of Lehi.

If we guess the second explanation is the most probable one -- and that Rigdon
was overseeing the replacement of the lost Book of Lehi, then Rigdon either added
the dream sequence himself, or supervised somebody else who added it. I can
only guess; but the second explanation seems a little more plausible to me.

I don't have the Stanford team's chart for 1st Nephi handy -- so forget who they
attribute the authorship of that chapter to..

Thanks for your research. I am finding answers to many of my long-held questions,
such as, "What the hell is all this infant baptism oddness doing in the Book of Mormon." Was
a burning question in Mesoamerica, I guess.

Cheers,
UD

The quickest way to answer that question is I Nephi: Rigdon, 36% first place attributions, Isaiah 31% . 2 Nephi: Isaiah, 82% (!), Rigdon 18%. Jacob: Rigdon 50%, Isaiah, 33%.

Thanks for the clarification. I see. The analysis doesn't necessarily exclude Joseph's contribution (either by passing the story along or inserting it himself).

I do think it will be interesting when the follow-up work includes samples of Joseph.

Because it has been so difficult for Jockers et al to confirm writings of Joseph, what does this say about Larry H. Miller's Joseph Smith Papers Collection and the authentication process? It is all very interesting.

Thanks for the clarification. I see. The analysis doesn't necessarily exclude Joseph's contribution (either by passing the story along or inserting it himself).

I do think it will be interesting when the follow-up work includes samples of Joseph.

Because it has been so difficult for Jockers et al to confirm writings of Joseph, what does this say about Larry H. Miller's Joseph Smith Papers Collection and the authentication process? It is all very interesting.

Elias wrote:Thanks for the clarification. I see. The analysis doesn't necessarily exclude Joseph's contribution (either by passing the story along or inserting it himself).

I do think it will be interesting when the follow-up work includes samples of Joseph.

Because it has been so difficult for Jockers et al to confirm writings of Joseph, what does this say about Larry H. Miller's Joseph Smith Papers Collection and the authentication process? It is all very interesting.

I think it is easier to say that a certain document came from Smith's
possessions, and passed through his hands, than it is to say for
certain that the words were originally his.

Even a personal letter, signed with his signature, might have
been partly composed by Hyrum Smith or some other close
associate. At any rate, merely attributing a set of documents
to Joseph's ownership or origination, is not the same thing as
verifying his "word-print" in those documents.

It will be interesting to watch and see if the LDS scholars end
up identifying substantial blocks of Joseph Smith text, which
they are certain can be relied upon as sources for determining
his "word-print" in the first place. I'm not sure they ever will.

UD

I think Joseph Smith was an exceptional learner. I have seen a few writings, mainly, I think, letters to Emma, that had to have been composed with great effort. I just don't think he could write, although he could have been able to read with little comprehension, but impressive memorization skills. That could explain a lot.

My own impression is that he was a figurehead for both Young and Rigdon.

MCB wrote:I think Joseph Smith was an exceptional learner.

Yes -- probably so. And yet his personality and character were formed during the
time he was an uneducated, illiterate bumpkin. His native intelligence eventually
came to the forefront, but it did so in such a sequence that he missed out on
the usual progression a person goes through in becoming educated. His inability
(or reluctance) to engage in handwriting may have been partly a result of this.

He may have also suffered from some brain impediment which made handwriting
difficult -- much as dyslexia makes reading difficult. But Smith was evidently a good
reader. I think that his father taught him how to read and memorize lengthy texts;
though for what purpose, I can't quite figure out -- certainly not in order to make
him a better plowboy.

I have seen a few writings, mainly, I think, letters to Emma, that had to have been
composed with great effort. I just don't think he could write, although he could have
been able to read with little comprehension, but impressive memorization skills.
That could explain a lot.

Yes -- it would. I have heard him called a poor speaker. But his effect, in giving a
talk to an audience who believed in his supernatural powers, was still spell-binding.
He was known to mix vulgarities and mean spirited remarks into his talks, and yet
his followers (even the better educated ones) felt they were on the edge of heaven,
just to have the privilege of listening to his ill-conceived, rambling talks.

Does this in any way fit in with his writing difficulties? I do not see any overt connection,
but there may be one there. His use of scribes certainly served to enhance his high
status. Kings and emperors do not write things by hand -- it is beneath their dignity.

My own impression is that he was a figurehead for both Young and Rigdon.

Smith may have served as a "figurehead" in some situations, early on -- but I do
not think he did so in the Nauvoo period (a short 5 years). By then he had become
a tyrannical hierophant -- a dictator not easily manipulated by Brigham & company.

UD

He may have also suffered from some brain impediment which made handwriting
difficult -- much as dyslexia makes reading difficult.....He was known to mix vulgarities and mean spirited remarks into his talks, and yet his followers (even the better educated ones) felt they were on the edge of heaven, just to have the privilege of listening to his ill-conceived, rambling talks. Does this in any way fit in with his writing difficulties? ......Smith may have served as a "figurehead" in some situations, early on -- but I do not think he did so in the Nauvoo period (a short 5 years). By then he had become a tyrannical hierophant -- a dictator not easily manipulated by Brigham & company.

Actually, there are many different kinds of learning disabilities. Learning disabilities in written language are more common than dyslexia. Writing includes the simultaneous integration of many different processes, and therefore a lot of brain organization. And ill-conceived, rambling talks are also evidence of a lack of cerebral organization. Last night I was thinking of a stroke when he had that surgery on his leg but that is way out speculative.

Hey, your wife can tell you all that. LOL.

Joseph Sr. may have encouraged him to develop his strength in memorization skills, but only as evidence that he was not a moron. <giggle>

Since some TBM's consider me personally responsible for the death of Joseph Smith, I tend to lean way backwards to present him in the most charitable light, even during the Nauvoo period. Contrary to their beliefs, I cannot hate him, I only consider him to have been a rather pathetic figure.