Book of Mormon (er, -- of Solomon)

[_Uncle Dale]

I know, Dale, the brainwashing and deculturation is pernicious. ...

I do not accuse the U. S. Government teachers in Brigham City of brainwashing
their students, with some sort of evil intent -- but there was a continual
pattern of those teachers trying to separate the students from their heritage;
to acculturate them to "the modern world" -- as though it were impossible
to be both a modern person and a traditional native American.

I am sometimes asked why I can "leave CoC" but not "leave CoC alone."
In truth, I remain an observant Reorganized LDS -- but I cannot "leave alone"
a system that inflicts what I see as a false history and heritage upon people.
I witnessed that system at work, here in Hawaii, with CoC elders trying to
convince the "locals" that they are Israelites. I saw that as a blatant
attempt to rob Hawaiians (and other Polynesians) or their true ancestry
and their real story. As you say, "deculturation is pernicious."

Barnes and Noble has a free download available, but you need a credit card to access it. I got an adobe reader pdf file a few weeks ago, which contains the entire work, but it is no longer available. It is riddled with the antique f for s and cl often times comes through as d, so it needs some fixing up. I could e-mail you that file. Along with what I have already written if you are interested, unless my committee has already passed it on to you.

Exactly which text are we talking about here? I have many dozens of files
of similar texts, and would want to get the correct one to you.

So what about Clavigero and Book of Mormon phraseology? It is reasonable that
Rigdon had access to it, since it was a popular book.

We know that the Nauvoo "Times & Seasons" mentioned Ethan Smith
and that Parley P. Pratt had read Ethan Smith's "View of the Hebrews."
Since VoH is full of Clavigero quotations, I suppose that some early
Mormons were aware of that preColumbian history. If Rigdon had come
across it, I'm sure it would have interested him.

And yet, I know of no instance where Rigdon cited Calvigero -- in fact,
Mormons as a general rule do not quote from Clavigero nor Acosta.

So -- who knows?

UD

[_MCB]

it is a 55 mb file so too large to send as attachment in email.


http://books.google.com/books?id=XDcTAA ... q=&f=false

This looks like the same thing.

It has to be the translation by Charles cullen

I was always interested in the sex-life of the honeybee, since my father was a beekeeper, but that was different. grin!! Thanks Ben

[_Uncle Dale]

...
It has to be the translation by Charles cullen
...

OK -- that is the 1817 printing. Since Spalding was dead by then, I went
back to an 1806 edition of the same three-volume set and transcribed it:

http://olivercowdery.com/texts/1806Clv1.htm
http://olivercowdery.com/texts/1806Clv2.htm
http://olivercowdery.com/texts/1806Clv3.htm

I think that my transcription will pretty much follow the 1817 text, but
the page numbering may be different.

I was always interested in the sex-life of the honeybee, since my father was a beekeeper, but that was different. grin!!

There was a discussion among early American scholars, as to how honeybees
came to the Americas. The variety needed to pollinate some European food
plants were brought over by the early colonists ---

But it seems that Indians in Central America had semi-domesticated a
honeybee native to the New World, before the Europeans had arrived.

Mormons tell us that this was deseret, but I'm not convinced that
early 19th century North American writers were aware of the southern
bees, when they were arguing over the source of the bee in America.

At any rate, the writer(s) of the Book of Mormon cleared up that argument, as
plainly as they did the 19th century argument over infant baptism.

UD

[_Roger]

Ben:

Thanks for your reply.

Take for example the earlier stuff you wrote about using a stratagem. It's very nice, and all that, but using a "stratagem" to win a battle is discussed in more than 20,000 different 19th century texts found in the University of Michigan's digital archive. This has to be taken into account when talking about it is potential evidence. I am not saying that there aren't perhaps good and legitimate parallels that can be examined - what I am saying is that without doing some examinations of texts outside of the ones in question, this kind of "evidence" will always be suspect.

I'm sure that's true. I don't base my conclusion that there's a connection between Spalding and the Book of Mormon solely on the parallels. I know your argument is that the parallels are meaningless since they are not unique and, of course, we've been down this road before. I simply suggest that you probably are not going to find examples of parallels of the nature we see between the RS & Book of Mormon who's writers also have additional (alleged) connections outside the parallels, that, in reality, were not actually connected. I don't know if that makes sense... in other words--for example--way back when I challenged you to find a set of comparable parallels who's authors were alleged to have a connection by a fairly large and seemingly credible group of people several years before the second set of parallels was even written (referring to Smith's discovery narrative), you, in effect, laughed at the ridiculous nature of the request. I sympathize, but I wasn't creating the conditions out of thin air; that's the actual set of circumstances that accompany the writers of these particular parallels. So when you argue that they simply aren't very unique, I simply disagree. Perhaps you can find a host of similar parallels that, when only looking at them from a textual standpoint, make these seem mundane, but I consider the entire picture, not simply the two texts.

Also, with regard to the stratagem parallels that you suggest can be found by the thousands, I don't doubt you, but can they be found to contain a series of similar concepts as well? Here is what Holley states, and I am going to take the liberty of editing his comments to list the parallels:

In both stories,

1. the losing army is more than double the number of the winning army, but
2. the warriors are so struck with "terror" by the ambush that they "throw down" their arms and surrender. Then, in both stories,
3. the losing commander has a personal conversation with the opposing commander,
4. asking him to "spare their lives,"
5. after which a treaty of peace is made
6. and the losing warriors return to their own country (Manuscript Story pp. 38-39; cf. Alma 43:51, 44:15, 19).
7. Warriors [among] the opposing nations in both stories were related
8. -- being offspring of the same family --
9. and called each other "brother."

So here in just this one example we find that Holley is listing 9 parallels contained in one story. Of the thousands of available parallels from the same time period, how many can you find that have all of those same 9 elements?

The problem (and I have said this before) is that the Jocker's study was based on faulty methodology. I know that it was not accurate. I do not feel at liberty to discuss responses to it at this time.

Well that's something you'll have to hash out with them. In any event if peer review means anything, one would think their methodology could not have been that faulty. But I, admittedly, am no expert in this area.

But as you might recognize, the opposite has to be taken into consideration also. At some point, evidence for dependence kind of goes away - and it creates an argument that is hard to justify. They changed it so much that it doesn't really resemble the original anymore ... its a problematic argument at best. And of course, lets face it - the Spalding theory isn't about the Spalding manuscript at all - but the unknown hypothetical manuscript. What Dale wants to do is to talk about Spaldingish language as a way of circumventing that issue. But if the markers of this Spaldingish language are not that strong, the argument doesn't help that much either.

With regard to your last sentence, I agree with you in principle, but I am not sure you have made your case that "the markers of this Spaldingish language are not that strong." We all know that Dale is the consummate statesman and bends over backwards to accommodate his critics. If he is willing to say that you have convinced him that the title of this thread was premature, then maybe you have made more ground than I am giving you credit for at this point.

With regard to this:

They changed it so much that it doesn't really resemble the original anymore ... its a problematic argument at best.

Who is the "they" and how has the argument changed?

Right - but, you still have the problem of circular argumentation. In other words, if we speculate that there are parts that are based on a Spalding original, and we then identify those parts based on this inference and comparisons of this sort, we can't then turn around and use the fact that some parts are more like Spalding than others as evidence that we were right about some parts being based on Spalding.

But that's not what is going on here. Going way back, people like Holley and Dale noticed general parallels in both themes as well as phrases. Based on that observation, Criddle & Jockers ran word print tests. (You say they are flawed, but not being an expert myself, I am left with your expertise vs theirs and, quite understandably I should think, I find myself sympathetic to their's since I agree with their conclusions and observations--again, based on the broader context.) Now Dale uses a totally different method than that employed by Jockers, and, in general, comes to similar results. This is not circular reasoning but simply testing the same question using the same material with differing methodologies.

Naturally, when comparing any two texts, some parts of one will be more like the other. So, when doing this kind of analysis, its not enough to say that some parts of the Book of Mormon are more like Spalding than other parts. We naturally expect this to be the case. The argument has to go beyond this.

Yes, of course. I agree. However, again, that is not what is occurring here. If I understand the basic premise of Jockers, it is that certain sections of the text register a high resemblance to Spalding and not everyone else. It is the negative coupled with the positive that lends significance to the results. Dale's results then, merely appear to support on a conscious level what the Jockers word print has already asserted on a subconscious level--at least if I am understanding this at all.

The Criddle study was an attempt I think to do this. And I think it failed - but it did provide a useful starting place for certain kinds of analysis. But in the long run, we have to find something more than merely what we expect to find before we can start drawing some solid conclusions.

Which begs the question: what sort of "unexpected" results would cause you to take notice? Have you drawn any solid conclusions?

All the best.

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Roger writes:

Who is the "they" and how has the argument changed?

They refers to whoever (allegedly) used the Spalding manuscript. The problem is this - in a nutshell - If all the similarities point to where Spalding is used, and all the difference point to where Spalding was not used, As nice as it sounds, it is an argument that merely feeds itself. It can be made about any text (and I mean any text) when compared to Spalding. Where it resembles Spalding, its authors must have used Spalding. Where it doesn't, then they must not have used Spalding. Do you see the problem with this? It is a notion which has been discussed from time to time in the relevant literature on literary criticism.

Word prints studies tend (so far as the methodology is widely accepted) to avoid this problem - since they aren't appealing entirely to this circular kind of process.

But that's not what is going on here. Going way back, people like Holley and Dale noticed general parallels in both themes as well as phrases. Based on that observation, Criddle & Jockers ran word print tests. (You say they are flawed, but not being an expert myself, I am left with your expertise vs theirs and, quite understandably I should think, I find myself sympathetic to their's since I agree with their conclusions and observations--again, based on the broader context.) Now Dale uses a totally different method than that employed by Jockers, and, in general, comes to similar results. This is not circular reasoning but simply testing the same question using the same material with differing methodologies.

The challenge that I have, Roger, and it has changed, is that Holley and Dale and others are looking for parallels. And they look without trying to determine what is significant and what is not. This is (regardless of how justified you think the search for parallels is) what is called parallelomania. It is not all that surprising that Dale comes to similar results that Jockers et al. did. The methodology is not that dissimilar. And what Dale did that was unique (the tabulated word strings) did not add terribly significantly to the major piece of data, which was the vocabulary overlap.

The vocabulary overlap of most books is naturally very, very high (as I pointed out). This isn't because there aren't a lot of words that are used uniquely, but because the word unique to one text or another tend to not be used very often. When the 20 most frequently used English words constitute more than half of the words in most texts, this tends to dwarf the couple of percent that gets added in Dale's figures based on his tabulated word strings. And this is borne out when we look at just about any two texts by comparison. It is particularly an issue with the Book of Mormon and its very small vocabulary. Just about any book you compare to the Book of Mormon will have very, very high verbal overlap because of this vocabulary issue.

The Jockers study only looked at these most common words because their frequency in theory creates a foot print for an author - when you compare these most frequently used words. It doesn't work for the less common words in Dale's tabulated word strings because they don't occur frequently enough to give us a good statistical model to work with.

Dale's highest 25 pages doesn't mean a whole lot (as I point out). We know that they are the highest pages - not because of significant numbers of these tabulated word strings - but because of the high vocabulary overlap. And this overlap is predominantly (just as everywhere else) these most common words.

So, in these cases, there isn't a lot of surprise at the overlap - however, the biggest problem with the Jocker's study is a lack of adequate controls. Their study conceals some of the problems using the artificial Isaiah author (not intentionally, I don't think). But in any case, all it can tell us is which of the proposed authors is closest to the text in question - not how close they are. Spalding could be quite distant in terms of their vectors from the text, and still be chosen. And this means that we can add authors to the list and get very different results. But I will wait on this issue for the time being.

But that's not what is going on here. Going way back, people like Holley and Dale noticed general parallels in both themes as well as phrases. Based on that observation, Criddle & Jockers ran word print tests. (You say they are flawed, but not being an expert myself, I am left with your expertise vs theirs and, quite understandably I should think, I find myself sympathetic to their's since I agree with their conclusions and observations--again, based on the broader context.) Now Dale uses a totally different method than that employed by Jockers, and, in general, comes to similar results. This is not circular reasoning but simply testing the same question using the same material with differing methodologies.

But Dale's process is somewhat circular. And this is simply repeating what you have said before - and to be honest, I don't think any thing I say will be convincing to you, so we can probably just leave this part of the discussion the way it is.

What I have done is to start (and I don't have unlimited time and resources to throw at this) to show that the Spalding-Book of Mormon connection is not all that significant using Dale's figures. This doesn't mean that a connection doesn't exist, but my intention was to show that once you move outside of these two texts, you run into lots of the same kinds of numbers. And I am happy leaving it there. Dale's results simply say that there is a connection which can be described in a certain way, and my point is that the same kinds of connections, described in the same way, can be found between any texts. And so we would expect this kind of connection. So as with the parallels, I am challenging the significance of the finding. I am quite happy with the Jockers study suggesting that these chapters are more like Spalding than the other authors that they provide. However, I don't agree that this actually suggests Spalding as a source, since the same details they used in their study can be shown to suggest that there is a significant enough gap between Spalding and these chapters to suggest that Spalding wasn't the source (despite his texts being the most like these Book of Mormon chapters of those authors considered).

Which begs the question: what sort of "unexpected" results would cause you to take notice? Have you drawn any solid conclusions?

Well, yes. I actually think that the 80% vocabulary overlap leading to a 97% verbiage overlap is pretty significant. I think that 10% of all 3 unique 3 word locutions is pretty significant. I think though that in these kind of situations this encourages us to take a closer look at what is being shared. If it is predominantly narrative text, then that would indicate strongly some kind of borrowing or dependence - either directly or through some other source or intermediary.

And finally, to be frank, all of my discussions with you have had your point of view tinged with ideology. Which is to say, I show a connection between Spalding and Warren, and your immediate conclusion is that Spalding and Warren have some kind of textual history. This is why I asked for you to provide me with some texts that I can use to create some kind of base line data. Because until I can do that, I don't think you are interested in accepting my point that these numbers Dale provides are not noteworthy.

Ben M.

[_Uncle Dale]

...
So here in just this one example we find that Holley is listing 9 parallels contained in one story. Of the thousands of available parallels from the same time period, how many can you find that have all of those same 9 elements?
...

Since Ben skipped over this question, I'll try to answer it for him:

How many pre-1830 English narrative texts can we find that
contain at least 9 of the "same elements" with Book of Mormon battles?

I think Ben would argue, that until we have looked at a great
number of those texts, we cannot say whether "9 elements"
occurring in a Book of Mormon story, shared by some other story, are
significant enough to merit notice, or not.

So -- welcome to the Thematic Textual Parallels Merry-go-round.
This is exactly where I got on -- in 1976, when Vernal Holley
challenged me to show him some text other than Spalding's,
that so well matched the thematic elements of Book of Mormon battle
stories. This was BEFORE our looking at shared phraseology;
BEFORE our looking at shared vocabulary, and BEFORE anybody
was attempting to map out "word-prints" in the Book of Mormon.

I took up Vern's challenge, and shared with him examples in
Josephus, in James MacPherson, in Virgil, in Southey, etc. And
in each instance he pointed out to me "9 elements" (or more)
that did not occur in these other texts, but which were easily
discernible in the Book of Mormon (mostly in Alma) and in Spalding.

Starting from that point, of our agreeing on some shared
thematic elements (9 in some cases, more in other cases),
Vern and I progressed into locating and charting instances
of shared phraseology in the two texts. In about 1977-78
Vern finally convinced me (then a faithful RLDS), that the
matter should be studied more closely, using a computer,
if possible. I repeated that idea to RLDS officials, with no
encouragement -- and then to Jeffery Holland, who accepted
my 1978 LDS CEP grant proposal for consideration. That
proposal was turned down by the CEP, so I submitted it
to the United Methodist Church, and it was accepted as the
basis for a two-year Master's study grant in Ohio, in 1979.

Out of that two years' study (with no computer use) came
my first two papers, on just such thematic parallels as you
have pointed out to our friend Ben:
http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/SRPpap10.htm
http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/SRPpap11.htm

My responders (Wayne Ham in 1980 and Lester Bush in 1982)
both chided me for associating lists of shared word-strings in
the two texts, with examples of thematic parallels. Both of
these "experts" said that I had failed to make the case, that
any correspondence between Spalding's language and the
Book of Mormon battle stories (and other stories) was statistically
"significant." -- That my conclusions were totally subjective.

Both Latter Day Saint responders called upon me to provide
quantified data that could be statistically examined, or else
to give up on my project of comparing Spalding and the Book of Mormon.

A few years before Vern's death we finally set up an early
personal computer at his home in Roy, Utah, and began to
compile the called-for, quantifiable language use data. Vern
passed away before the computerized investigation reached
the stage of being reported as the "Book of Solomon: --->
http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/MEDIA/BookSol1.htm

If you go to the bottom of that page, you'll see a section
there, entitled "Strange Stories":
http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/MEDIA/Bo ... tm#story01



This is my proposed section of the web-page, wherein the
reporting of quantified computer-generated data can at last
be presented in support of comparisons of thematic parallels.

I say "proposed," because I'll need to eliminate those sections
of the Book of Mormon best attributable to Rigdon's pen ---
once we get the Book of Mormon text narrowed down to what numerically
amounts to the "most Spaldingish" sections, then my work on
this "proposed" section can begin.

If you've already browsed the thematic parallels referenced in
my two above-mentioned papers, then perhaps you'll want to
take a look at a very, very rough draft for "Strange Stories":
http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/MEDIA/BookSol4b.htm

I think you'll easily find Vern's "9 elements" among the examples
presented there.

But, we need to first of all establish a context for all of this
examination and discussion --- something better conceived and
better articulated than "Parallelomania."

Ben -- I really could make good use of those 2000+ 3-word
strings you found shared in the Book of Mormon and Spalding. If you'd
like to share them with me, please mail the tabulation to:

dbroadhu@hawaiiantel.net

Thanks (in advance)
Dale

[_Benjamin McGuire]

I haven't ignored it Dale, I just need more time than I had at the time to discuss that particular parallel. I think that it presents an interesting issue. For example, here are the two texts in question with the highlights from Holley bolded:

From Holler first - the original context of the claim:

Battle at Hill Riplah

The description of the battle at the hill Riplah between the Nephites and the Lamanites in the Book of Mormon is very similar to that of a battle between the Sciotans and the Kentucks in Manuscript Story.

"By using a little stratagem," Spaulding's Sciotans "marched down the river to a certain place where the army of the enemy must pass . . . At this place, the hill . . . came within less than a mile of the river." The Sciotans divided their forces and ambushed the enemy as they crossed the canal. Having compassion for the trapped enemy, Lobaska "conjured the Sciotans not to shed one drop of blood" (Manuscript Story pp. 37-39).

The Book of Mormon's Moroni [made the same defense] "by stratagem." After discovering which course the enemy would take, he divided his army, concealed them by a hill, then ambushed the Lamanites as they were crossing the river. After subduing the Lamanites, Moroni said: "We do not desire to be men of blood . . . we do not desire to slay you" (Alma 43:30-36; 44:1).

In both stories, the losing army is more than double the number of the winning army, but the warriors are so struck with "terror" by the ambush that they "throw down" their arms and surrender. Then, in both stories, the losing commander has a personal conversation with the opposing commander, asking him to "spare their lives," after which a treaty of peace is made and the losing warriors return to their own country (Manuscript Story pp. 38-39; cf. Alma 43:51, 44:15, 19). Warriors [among] the opposing nations in both stories were related -- being offspring of the same family -- and called each other "brother."

Now, here is the context from the Spalding manuscript (using Dale's text and page numbers over Holley's):

An answer so shrewd and insulting, it was expected, would soon be followed by an invasion. Measures must immediately be taken for the defence of the kingdom. Lobaska was invited to sit in council. All were unanimously of (( the )) opinion that to comply with the haughty demand of Bombal, by tearing the blue feathers from their caps, would be degrading the honor of the nation and a relinquishment of their natural right. They were likewise sensible that the most vigorous exertions were necessary to save the country from ruin. The opinion and advice of Lobaska was requested. "It is my opinion," says he, "that by using a little stratagem this war might be brought to a conclusion
[074]
which will be honorable to this kingdom." "We will pursue," says the king, "your advice and directions." "I shall be happy," says Lobaska, "to assist you with my best advice. Call immediately into the field an army of three thousand men. Provide two thousand shovels, five hundred mattocks, one thousand wheelbarrows, and one hundred axes. I will give directions how to make them."

Not a moment was lost; the army was assembled and implements (( were )) provided with the utmost expedition. And they marched down the river to a certain place where the army of the enemy must pass in order to arrive at the city of Tolanga. At this place the hill or mountain came within less than a mile of the river and flat or level land intervened. Here Lobaska directed that a canal should be dug from the river to the hill. That it should be eight feet wide and eight deep and that the dirt which they dug should be thrown into the river, except what should be wanting to lay over thin pieces of split timber, which should be extended across the canal, and so weak and slender that the weight of a man would break them down. This novel invention was soon carried into effect and the work completely finished. Every precaution
[075]
was used to prevent any intelligence of these transactions from getting to the enemy. In the meantime Hadokam brought into the field seven thousand more of his warriors, men of brave hearts and valiant for the battle. The indignant King of the Kentucks by this time, had assembled an army of thirty thousand men who were ready, at the risk of their lives, to vindicate the preeminence of their nation and the transcendent dignity of their King and his chiefs. At the head of this army, Bombal began his march to execute his threatened vengeance on the Sciotans. As he entered their country he found the villages deserted and all the movable property conveyed away. Not a man to be seen until he came in view of the army of Hadokam, who was encamped within a small distance of the canal. Bombal halted and formed his men in two ranks extending from the river to the hill. He had a reserved corps, who were placed in the rear of the main body. Having thus arranged them for battle, he went from one wing to the other proclaiming aloud, "We have been insulted, brave soldiers, by these cowardly Sciotans. They
[076]
have assumed the blue feather, the badge of our preeminence and exalted dignity. Behold it flying in their caps. Will your high-born souls submit to behold such dastards place themselves on equal ground with you? No, my valiant warriors, let us revenge the insult by the destruction of their puny army and the conflagration of their city. Make a furious charge upon them and the victory is ours. Let your motto be 'The Blue Feather' and you will fight like wolves robbed of their puppies."

Hadokam had by this time, formed his army in order of battle close to the edge of the canal and extended them only in one rank from the river to the hill. As the Kentucks approached within a small distance, the Sciotans gave back and began a retreat with apparent confusion, notwithstanding the pretended exertions of the King and his officers to prevent their retreating. Bombal, observing this, commanded (( his men)) to rush forward on the full run, but to keep their ranks in order. This they instantly obeyed as one man; and as soon
[077]
as their feet stept on the slender covering of the canal, it gave way and they fell to the bottom, some in one position and some in another. A disaster so novel and unexpected must have appalled the stoutest heart and filled their minds with amazement and terror. Nor did this complete the misfortune of the army of Bombal. An ambush of the Sciotans, who lay on the side of the hill opposite to the reserved corps of the Kentucks, rushed down upon them in an instant. Surprise and terror prevented resistance; they threw down their arms and surrendered. The retreating army of Hadokam immediately returned with shouting to the edge of the canal. Their enemies, who but a moment before thought themselves invincible and certain of victory, were now defenseless and wholly in their power. Lobaska was present and saw the success of his stratagem. His great soul disdained revenge on an
[078]
helpless and prostrate enemy. He conjured the Sciotans not to shed one drop of blood, but to be generous and merciful.

This, he compares to the following:

And he also knowing that it was the only desire of the Nephites to preserve their lands, and their liberty, and their
church, therefore he thought it no sin that he should defend them by stratagem; therefore, he found by his spies which course the Lamanites were to take.
Therefore, he divided his army and brought a part over into the valley, and concealed them on the east, and on the south of the hill Riplah;
And the remainder he concealed in the west valley, on the west of the river Sidon, and so down into the borders of the land Manti.
And thus having placed his army according to his desire, he was prepared to meet them.
And it came to pass that the Lamanites came up on the north of the hill, where a part of the army of Moroni was concealed.
And as the Lamanites had passed the hill Riplah, and came into the valley, and began to cross the river Sidon, the army which was concealed on the south of the hill, which was led by a man whose name was Lehi, and he led his army forth and encircled the Lamanites about on the east in their rear.
And it came to pass that the Lamanites, when they saw the Nephites coming upon them in their rear, turned them about and began to contend with the army of Lehi.
And the work of death commenced on both sides, but it was more dreadful on the part of the Lamanites, for their nakedness was exposed to the heavy blows of the Nephites with their swords and their cimeters, which brought death almost at every stroke.
While on the other hand, there was now and then a man fell among the Nephites, by their swords and the loss of blood, they being shielded from the more vital parts of the body, or the more vital parts of the body being shielded from the strokes of the Lamanites, by their breastplates, and their arm-shields, and their head-plates; and thus the Nephites did carry on the work of death among the Lamanites.
And it came to pass that the Lamanites became frightened, because of the great destruction among them, even until they began to flee towards the river Sidon.
And they were pursued by Lehi and his men; and they were driven by Lehi into the waters of Sidon, and they crossed the waters of Sidon. And Lehi retained his armies upon the bank of the river Sidon that they should not cross.
And it came to pass that Moroni and his army met the Lamanites in the valley, on the other side of the river Sidon, and began to fall upon them and to slay them.
And the Lamanites did flee again before them, towards the land of Manti; and they were met again by the armies of Moroni.
Now in this case the Lamanites did fight exceedingly; yea, never had the Lamanites been known to fight with such exceedingly great strength and courage, no, not even from the beginning.
And they were inspired by the Zoramites and the Amalekites, who were their chief captains and leaders, and by Zerahemnah, who was their chief captain, or their chief leader and commander; yea, they did fight like dragons, and many of the Nephites were slain by their hands, yea, for they did smite in two many of their head-plates, and they did pierce many of their breastplates, and they did smite off many of their arms; and thus the Lamanites did smite in their fierce anger.
Nevertheless, the Nephites were inspired by a better cause, for they were not fighting for monarchy nor power but they were fighting for their homes and their liberties, their wives and their children, and their all, yea, for their rites of worship and their church.
And they were doing that which they felt was the duty which they owed to their God; for the Lord had said unto them, and also unto their fathers, that: Inasmuch as ye are not guilty of the first offense, neither the second, ye shall not suffer yourselves to be slain by the hands of your enemies.
And again, the Lord has said that: Ye shall defend your families even unto bloodshed. Therefore for this cause were the Nephites contending with the Lamanites, to defend themselves, and their families, and their lands, their country, and their rights, and their religion.
And it came to pass that when the men of Moroni saw the fierceness and the anger of the Lamanites, they were about to shrink and flee from them. And Moroni, perceiving their intent, sent forth and inspired their hearts with these thoughts--yea, the thoughts of their lands, their liberty, yea, their freedom from bondage.
And it came to pass that they turned upon the Lamanites, and they cried with one voice unto the Lord their God, for their liberty and their freedom from bondage.
And they began to stand against the Lamanites with power; and in that selfsame hour that they cried unto the Lord for their freedom, the Lamanites began to flee before them; and they fled even to the waters of Sidon.
Now, the Lamanites were more numerous, yea, by more than double the number of the Nephites; nevertheless, they were driven insomuch that they were gathered together in one body in the valley, upon the bank by the river Sidon.
Therefore the armies of Moroni encircled them about, yea, even on both sides of the river, for behold, on the east were the men of Lehi.
Therefore when Zerahemnah saw the men of Lehi on the east of the river Sidon, and the armies of Moroni on the west of the River Sidon, that they were encircled about by the Nephites, they were struck with terror.
Now Moroni, when he saw their terror, commanded his men that they should stop shedding their blood.
And it came to pass that they did stop and withdrew a pace from them. And Moroni said unto Zerahemnah: Behold, Zerahemnah, that we do not desire to be men of blood. Ye know that ye are in our hands, yet we do not desire to slay you.

Now, looking at this context, the parallels listed are about the only similarities. Actually, let's continue the story a little bit .... in Spalding's text, after the two commanders speak, this is the result:

These terms were accepted and the Kentucks returned in peace to their own country, not to describe exploits and bloody victories but the curious stratagem of Lobaska.

In the Book of Mormon?

And now when Moroni had said these words, Zerahemnah retained his sword, and he was angry with Moroni, and he rushed forward that he might slay Moroni; but as he raised his sword, behold, one of Moroni’s soldiers smote it even to the earth, and it broke by the hilt; and he also smote Zerahemnah that he took off his scalp and it fell to the earth. And Zerahemnah withdrew from before them into the midst of his soldiers.

There are several challenges to this notion here. Among them is the fact that these stories are quite different. How many of the Kentucks were killed in the battle? How many of the Lamanites and their allies? Holley goes out of his way to point out the inclusion in both stories of the river - but the river functions in completely different ways in both texts.

Holley want's to argue that this:

Now, the Lamanites were more numerous, yea, by more than double the number of the Nephites

is functionally equivalent to this:

In the meantime Hadokam brought into the field seven thousand more of his warriors, men of brave hearts and valiant for the battle. The indignant King of the Kentucks by this time, had assembled an army of thirty thousand men who were ready

And certainly not all of the Lamanites and their allies throw down their weapons and surrender (at least not at first). The Book of Mormon text tells us:

And now Moroni was angry, because of the stubbornness of the Lamanites; therefore he commanded his people that they should fall upon them and slay them. And it came to pass that they began to slay them; yea, and the Lamanites did contend with their swords and their might. But behold, their naked skins and their bare heads were exposed to the sharp swords of the Nephites; yea, behold they were pierced and smitten, yea, and did fall exceedingly fast before the swords of the Nephites; and they began to be swept down, even as the soldier of Moroni had prophesied. Now Zerahemnah, when he saw that they were all about to be destroyed, cried mightily unto Moroni, promising that he would covenant and also his people with them, if they would spare the remainder of their lives, that they anever would come to war again against them. And it came to pass that Moroni caused that the work of death should cease again among the people. And he took the weapons of war from the Lamanites; and after they had entered into a covenant with him of peace they were suffered to depart into the wilderness. Now the number of their dead was not numbered because of the greatness of the number; yea, the number of their dead was exceedingly great, both on the Nephites and on the Lamanites. And it came to pass that they did cast their dead into the waters of Sidon, and they have gone forth and are buried in the depths of the sea.

No, I think that these are very different stories. The parallels seem rather forced. It's easy to make the case when you are allowed to condense several thousand words into a few key phrases. But really, Holley is ignoring the context. This brings up for me two related questions:

1) How does a parallel like this mean anything when it isn't really proposed that the Book of Mormon is borrowing from the Oberlin manuscript, but from some other manuscript which may or may not resemble the Oberlin manuscript on this point?

2) Why would the authors of the Book of Mormon take this narrative by Spalding, and only borrow these few rather unrelated features from this story to use, when the vast majority of the narrative is very, very different.

[_Benjamin McGuire]

And I sent you the list, Dale.

[_Uncle Dale]

And I sent you the list, Dale.

Thank you, ever so much.

Looking up each one of these, in the respective texts, will be much
like opening up over 2000 individual presents.

I think I'll begin the inspection on Dec 25th....

Dale

[_Roger]

Ben:

They refers to whoever (allegedly) used the Spalding manuscript.

Okay, now I understand your point.

The problem is this - in a nutshell - If all the similarities point to where Spalding is used, and all the difference point to where Spalding was not used, As nice as it sounds, it is an argument that merely feeds itself. It can be made about any text (and I mean any text) when compared to Spalding. Where it resembles Spalding, its authors must have used Spalding. Where it doesn't, then they must not have used Spalding. Do you see the problem with this? It is a notion which has been discussed from time to time in the relevant literature on literary criticism.

Word prints studies tend (so far as the methodology is widely accepted) to avoid this problem - since they aren't appealing entirely to this circular kind of process.

If I understand word prints at all, they are subconscious. In all candor, as a non-expert I tend be skeptical of the entire concept from the get-go. The notion that I use a certain percentage of non-contextual words such as "and," "the," "but," etc. in such a way as to make it possible to distinguish my writing from the next guy's sounds far-fetched to me. But enough smart people seem to agree that it is so that I have to think maybe there is something to it. I don't see you disputing the basic concept of word-printing; rather you seem to take issue with the specifics of the Jocker's study. Obviously this is beyond my pay grade. I will simply have to say, assuming word-printing is valid, then apparently there is a bona-fide high level of correlation between Spalding's word-print and whoever wrote certain sections of the Book of Mormon. What I seem to be hearing you say is that you would (apparently) expect to see the same results for other potential authors. Unfortunately we don't have any extra-BOM samples of Mormon's or Moroni's writings to run word-prints on. Jocker's uses the most likely 19th century candidates and comes up with sections that correspond favorably to Spalding and other sections that do not correspond favorably with Spalding but do correspond to other potential 19th century Book of Mormon contributors--exactly what S/R postulates.

At the very least, even if your skepticism is justified, can you agree that the results point to multiple authors? At the very least, can't we agree that the Jocker's results throw significant doubt on the Smith-alone notion?

The challenge that I have, Roger, and it has changed, is that Holley and Dale and others are looking for parallels. And they look without trying to determine what is significant and what is not. This is (regardless of how justified you think the search for parallels is) what is called parallelomania.

Ben, I understand that you have a vested interest in the position you take, but honestly, can't you see how demeaning that is to Dale? I know he will take it graciously--he always does--but for you to flatly state that "they look without trying to determine what is significant and what is not" is just simply not accurate at all. Considering the level of detail and effort Dale has put into his research--and his openness about it and willingness to share it with the world, I honestly don't know how you can make such a statement. I would state exactly the opposite--they make every effort to separate the significant from the mundane. The way I see it you simply disagree about what exactly is significant.

It is not all that surprising that Dale comes to similar results that Jockers et al. did. The methodology is not that dissimilar. And what Dale did that was unique (the tabulated word strings) did not add terribly significantly to the major piece of data, which was the vocabulary overlap.

Okay.

The vocabulary overlap of most books is naturally very, very high (as I pointed out). This isn't because there aren't a lot of words that are used uniquely, but because the word unique to one text or another tend to not be used very often. When the 20 most frequently used English words constitute more than half of the words in most texts, this tends to dwarf the couple of percent that gets added in Dale's figures based on his tabulated word strings. And this is borne out when we look at just about any two texts by comparison. It is particularly an issue with the Book of Mormon and its very small vocabulary. Just about any book you compare to the Book of Mormon will have very, very high verbal overlap because of this vocabulary issue.

Okay... I am guessing you didn't mean that as literally as you stated it. --or did you? For example, you think if we compared one of my wife's favorite romance novels with the Book of Mormon we will see the same level of vocabulary overlap that we do with Spalding? I am assuming you meant that if we were to compare any book written in the early 19th century New England that we'd find a similar vocabulary overlap.

The Jockers study only looked at these most common words because their frequency in theory creates a foot print for an author - when you compare these most frequently used words. It doesn't work for the less common words in Dale's tabulated word strings because they don't occur frequently enough to give us a good statistical model to work with.

Well at least you seem to be acknowledging that the methodologies are different... and yet you seem to think both are flawed.

Dale's highest 25 pages doesn't mean a whole lot (as I point out). We know that they are the highest pages - not because of significant numbers of these tabulated word strings - but because of the high vocabulary overlap. And this overlap is predominantly (just as everywhere else) these most common words.

All right for the sake of discussion let's say you're right about that... first... are you saying it would have been impossible for Dale (or Jockers for that matter) to come to different results? Are you saying that the results they got are merely because that is the result they wanted to get? Or would it have been possible for Jocker's to return low numbers on Spalding throughout the Book of Mormon? or for Dale to find a disappointing level of overlap such that even he would have hesitated to proclaim a "Book of Solomon"?

Second... this is why one also must consider the bigger picture--in my opinion. The word print data is valuable, but not conclusive. The vocabulary overlap is valuable but not conclusive. The thematic parallels are valuable but not conclusive. The testimony is valuable but not conclusive. The documentary evidence is valuable but not conclusive. The gaps in Rigdon and Smith's pre-1830 itinerary are valuable but not conclusive. But when you combine all of that into a larger case, the accumulation of evidence becomes compelling. And it won't work to refer to the evidence as "bad" and therefore a lot "bad" evidence doesn't amount to a good case. The fact is, if S/R was not valid, then at any point along the way the evidence could have come in as negative. The witnesses could have been discovered as liars. The parallels that you think are insignificant didn't have to exist at all--Spalding could have written only poetry for his daughter. Sidney Rigdon's name did not have to appear on an 1816 mail-waiting notice. Smith's 1826 whereabouts could have been accounted for. Etc. Etc.

So, in these cases, there isn't a lot of surprise at the overlap - however, the biggest problem with the Jocker's study is a lack of adequate controls. Their study conceals some of the problems using the artificial Isaiah author (not intentionally, I don't think). But in any case, all it can tell us is which of the proposed authors is closest to the text in question - not how close they are. Spalding could be quite distant in terms of their vectors from the text, and still be chosen. And this means that we can add authors to the list and get very different results. But I will wait on this issue for the time being.

Well again... let's just say you're right about this.... let's say you run a similar test and you find that Mark Twain is closer to Alma than Spalding is... are you going to conclude that Twain had something to do with the Book of Mormon or are you going to argue that word-printing is flawed? It seems to me that since we have no non-BOM samples of Mormon's (etc.) writing, you can always claim that his (their) word-print would be more impressive than anyone else's... but we can't test for that.

Dale... didn't Jockers use a control of some sort?

But Dale's process is somewhat circular. And this is simply repeating what you have said before - and to be honest, I don't think any thing I say will be convincing to you, so we can probably just leave this part of the discussion the way it is.

I am certainly open to what you are saying. It's not that whatever you say I am tuning out--on the contrary, I am very attentive to what you are saying. At this point I simply do not find it compelling.

What I have done is to start (and I don't have unlimited time and resources to throw at this) to show that the Spalding-Book of Mormon connection is not all that significant using Dale's figures. This doesn't mean that a connection doesn't exist, but my intention was to show that once you move outside of these two texts, you run into lots of the same kinds of numbers. And I am happy leaving it there. Dale's results simply say that there is a connection which can be described in a certain way, and my point is that the same kinds of connections, described in the same way, can be found between any texts. And so we would expect this kind of connection.

Okay, again, assuming you are correct... what you seem to be saying is that this sort of overlap is so common it is meaningless. So again... is there no possible way the tests could have produced different results? Are you saying any 19th century book is going to produce the same results?

So as with the parallels, I am challenging the significance of the finding. I am quite happy with the Jockers study suggesting that these chapters are more like Spalding than the other authors that they provide. However, I don't agree that this actually suggests Spalding as a source, since the same details they used in their study can be shown to suggest that there is a significant enough gap between Spalding and these chapters to suggest that Spalding wasn't the source (despite his texts being the most like these Book of Mormon chapters of those authors considered).

Then here's another question... using Jocker's methodology, can you find a 19th century author who's word print more closely matches the sections Jocker's identified with Spalding?

All the best.