Roman Story & Book of Mormon Similarities

[_Morrissey]

The problem though, is how do you account for all the other stuff in the Book of Mormon which one could argue points towards ancient origins rather than modern? Simply saying that Joseph Smith and Co. had access to all of the resources that could have been used to manufacture the ancient stuff (Hebraisms, Nahom, Bountiful, etc.) in the Book of Mormon doesn't do it for me. Soooo...since there is a bunch of stuff in the Book of Mormon that would point towards ancient origins I default to Brodie's conclusions as far as the Spalding theory goes.

There is no need to account for 'evidences' pointing to an ancient origin. The magical/supernatural 'origins' of the Book of Mormon are sufficient to dismiss the book itself and, therefore, any evidence of an ancient origin.

All else equal, which explanation is the more reasonable and requires less evidence to support:

1. Joseph Smith borrowed from his social and cultural milieu to produce the Book of Mormon.
2. Angels, ancient (but lost civilizations of Hebrews in the Americas), gold plates, etc. etc.

[_Roger]

Morrissey:

All else equal, which explanation is the more reasonable and requires less evidence to support:

I am (obviously) equally skeptical toward the Book of Mormon as you seem to be, but I don't see it in terms of which explanation "requires less evidence to support." Rather I view it in terms of: "Which explanation is the best fit when considering all the available data"? In my view S/R wins.

[_DonBradley]

And if it comes out as I'd wager, then the question would be "Why would Spalding and Rigdon restrict their vocabulary in writing the Book of Mormon?"

They were trying to duplicate the Biblical style and feel. So they by necessity (in order to avoid modern idoms, etc.) used far less words than their normal English would've otherwise allowed.

What's up, Doc?

The limitation you describe would have been entirely needless, and even counterproductive. The King James Bible has a much wider vocabulary than the Book of Mormon. Artificially restricting the range of words used to the vocabulary of a less educated person would have made this vocabulary less similar to the familiar biblical text.

In any case, the proposed explanation is ad hoc.

The probability that a little educated author or translator would use a restricted vocabulary is 100%--a restricted vocabulary range is part of what it means to be little educated. The probability that highly educated authors would similarly restrict their lexical range because they're trying to imitate another work that does not have such a small range would be significantly lower. So, using Bayesian reasoning, the limited vocabulary of the Book of Mormon would tend to confirm the former authorship and disconfirm the latter.

by the way, another type of study that should be done is to compare Joseph Smith's known lexicon, from his holographs and the like, with that of the Book of Mormon, and to do the same for Rigdon. If the Book of Mormon's "vocabulary print" (let's call it) largely matches Smith's but poorly matches Rigdon's, this would evidence that it is in Smith's words, not Rigdon's.

Of course, my proposed studies may not come out the way I'm suggesting at all, in which case the implications would be entirely different. The studies should be done!

Don

[_Roger]

Don:

The probability that highly educated authors would similarly restrict their lexical range because they're trying to imitate another work that does not have such a small range would be significantly lower. So, using Bayesian reasoning, the limited vocabulary of the Book of Mormon would tend to confirm the former authorship and disconfirm the latter.

by the way, another type of study that should be done is to compare Joseph Smith's known lexicon, from his holographs and the like, with that of the Book of Mormon, and to do the same for Rigdon. If the Book of Mormon's "vocabulary print" (let's call it) largely matches Smith's but poorly matches Rigdon's, this would evidence that it is in Smith's words, not Rigdon's.

Of course, my proposed studies may not come out the way I'm suggesting at all, in which case the implications would be entirely different. The studies should be done!

Don

I agree with you, the studies should be done, and we should also be willing to compare results to Spalding.

The problem with most critical thinking when it comes to this is that, for whatever reason, most S/R critics--whether they be LDS or not--tend to unjustifiably simplify the picture and then want simplified results. If S/R is valid, there is more than Rigdon to consider, there is more than Spalding to consider and more than Smith to consider. Like Dale says--assuming I can correctly convey his points--we should probably expect "clustering" --segments of text that resemble one author's wp over another, but even that is not 100% reliable because the later contributors all had the potential to change whatever they wanted of their predecessors. That's where it gets complex. In fact, I would logically expect to see evidence of Spalding in say the revolutionary war paralleling sections--where a higher register would likely be employed--but I would also expect to see evidence of tampering and maybe even embellishing by Smith where--you correctly assert--the register is theoretically lower EXCEPT that he's tampering with (dumbing down) a text that already contains a higher register to start out with. That's the problem. If S/R has any truth to it, then the Book of Mormon text has been highly tampered with since Spalding.

LDS use this problem to assert that Joseph could not possibly have done this himself.... ie. "Emma, was Jerusalem a walled city? Well I'll be!" Now consider what Smith might have done if he had determined that Jerusalem was not a walled city......?

[_DonBradley]

Interesting thoughts, Roger.

It's certainly possible for many persons to have been involved in the composition of the Book of Mormon. But it would be more parsimonious to posit fewer authors than more authors. Indeed, given that the usual number of authors to a book of the day was one, and given that a single-author explanation is simpler than the alteratives, parsimony would tend to weigh on the side of single-authorship.

The text can certainly be broken into units and each of these tested against various possible authors. But how do we know where to break it into units? And as we multiply the number of texts (text segments) to test, aren't we bound to get some test results better matching this author or that author? Criddle and Jockers, for instance, found some portions of the Book of Mormon to best match their control authors--the ones who could not plausibly have written them!

Dividing the text in an ad hoc way for analysis will not produce systematic results.

We need a carefully refined methodology to do meaningful tests.

I don't think you disagree with this. I'm just pointing out how precise I think we need to be.

Don

[_Brackite]

Brackite,

Very cool on the Spalding vocabulary analysis.

I'd love to see a full comparison of the 'Roman story' lexicon with that of the Book of Mormon. Based on my reading of each text, I believe the author of the 'Roman story' evinces a much, much wider vocabulary than does the author of the Book of Mormon. This would be easiest to compare if the texts were of comparable length, but I would wager that any portion of the Book of Mormon text of comparable length to that manuscript would display a significantly small vocabulary. And I'd wager the same regarding Sidney Rigdon's writings.

It's a test worth doing. And if it comes out as I'd wager, then the question would be "Why would Spalding and Rigdon restrict their vocabulary in writing the Book of Mormon?"

Of course, we'd need to do the test before such a question would become relevant.

Don

Thanks, Don!

I have found about 100 words that are Mentioned in the First Chapter of the Manuscript (Roman) story, which are Not Mentioned within the text of the Book of Mormon. I will continue to not believe in the Spaulding/Rigdon Theory for the Book of Mormon. There have been two main Problems for me in believing in the Spaulding/Rigdon Theory for the Book of Mormon. The first main Problem for me in believing in the Spaulding/Rigdon Theory for the Book of Mormon is that I don't that much like the demonization of Sidney Rigdon. My friend Ray A stated in the other Solomon Spaulding/Rigdon Thread:

Why does one have to first demonise the character of Rigdon, on the one hand, as a mighty liar and fraudster, then on the very next accredit him with authorship of the Book of Mormon? Why does one have to ignore every public denial by Rigdon as to his involvement in the creation of the Book of Mormon, and focus on secondary sources? Somehow, second, third and fourth hand witnesses become much more important in the Spalding theory than those who were actually there, firsthand witnesses. We must assume their innate corruption and desire to deceive, yet accept third-hand witnesses as credible.

This whole theory is topsy-turvy. Possibly the worst case of inverted reasoning I've come across since Thiering. It's like going into a courtroom and ignoring the evidence of firsthand witnesses, while giving full credibility to second, third, and fourth-hand witnesses, and assuming that primary witnesses were all corrupt, to a man.

And how would you disprove Rigdon's deathbed witness? Even if he was a liar, it's quite possible he told the truth on his deathbed. Yet, this isn't all we have, but a lifetime of Rigdon denials that he was ever involved in the creation of the Book of Mormon. Yet all of this is ignored, and none of the purported Rigdon/Smith connections have ever been established.

The second is that it requires me to believe in a lost Manuscript written by Solomon Spaulding that is similar to the Book of Mormon, Termed 'Manuscript Found' by the Spaulding Theorists. I do Not believe that Joseph Smith actually had Gold Plates with reformed Egyptian writing on them, which are now no longer available and are now lost to the known world. And, I Certainly Do NOT believe in the Missing Papyrus Theory for the Book of Abraham, where the LDS Apologists for the Book of Abraham ridiculously argue that Joseph Smith Smith had an Papyrus of the text for the Book of Abraham written in Egyptian, but now that Papyrus is missing and gone. If I don't believe in Gold Plates that had reformed Egyptian writing on them which are now lost to the known world, and I certainly do Not believe in the Missing Papyrus theory for the Book of Abraham, than why should I believe in a lost Solomon Spaulding Manuscript similar to the Book of Mormon that was written by him??? And to any of the LDS Apologists of the Book of Abraham that out there around here, who argue for the Missing Papyrus theory for the Book of Abraham. If I don't believe in a lost Manuscript that was written by Solomon Spaulding, than why in the world should I believe in a Missing Papyrus for the Book of Abraham??? Anyway, Anyone who wants more of the words that are Mentioned in the Manuscript (Roman) Story, which are not found within the text of the Book of Mormon, can PM me, and I will share give out these words to him or her through PM.

Clarification: I do Not believing that Proclaiming a Manuscript that was written by Solomon Spaulding, but now is lost that really existed is as ridiculous as Joseph Smith once having a Papyrus, with a Egyptian Book of Abraham text written on it, however, it is now Missing. I can't think of that much of anything that is ridiculous as the Missing Papyrus theory for the Book of Abraham.

[_Jersey Girl]

The first main Problem for me in believing in the Spaulding/Rigdon Theory for the Book of Mormon is that I don't that much like the demonization of Sydney Rigdon.

Bracki,

In what ways do you think Rigdon is demonized by the S/R theory?

[_Brackite]

S/R also better handles chiasmus since it is possible that either Spalding or Rigdon knew something about them. It seems much less likely that the uneducated Smith would have. I believe that S/R also better explains the chiasmus we find in the D & C, since if I recall correctly Rigdon is alleged to have contributed to the revelations in the D & C.

Hi Roger,

Ben and I have already Mentioned and discussed about Chiasmus on Page #12 of this Discussion Thread. I asked Ben a Question about a certain Passage in the Manuscript (Roman) Story, about whether or not he believes that this Passage Contained an actual Chiasmus or not. He answered me by stating that he believes that this Passage in the Manuscript (Roman) Story, did Not Contain a real (actual) Chiasmus in it, and he gave me his reason why he did Not believe that.

So Far, There has Not been anybody who has responded to Ben's Post to me, about his belief and his reason why he does Not believe that this certain Passage in the Manuscript (Roman) Story, does Not Contain a real (actual) Chiasmus in it.

Bracki,

In what ways do you think Rigdon is demonized by the S/R theory?

Hi Jersey Girl,

I still haven't been able to read the whole Jockers’ Article and Study yet. If I do get a chance to read the whole article and study, and if the study is confirmed by third-party researchers, I could end up possibly changing my mind about the Solomon Spaulding/Rigdon Theory. However, For now, I can't believe in it.

Anyway, about specifically Sydney Rigdon. Syndney Rigdon denied many times throughout his lifetime that he had Nothing whatsoever to do with the writing of the Book of Mormon. The Following is from the Book, Sidney Rigdon: A Portrait of Religious Excess: Authored By Richard S. Van Wagoner:

During the spring of 1833 or 1834, while visiting the home of Samuel Baker near Portage, Ohio, Rigdon stated in the presence of a large gathering that he was aware some in the neighborhood had accused him of being the instigator of the Book of Mormon and said:


I testify in the presence of this congregation, and before God and all the Holy Angels up yonder, (pointing towards heaven), before whom I expect to give account at the judgment day, that I never saw a sentence of the Book of Mormon, I never penned a sentence of the Book of Mormon, I never knew that there was such a book in existence as the Book of Mormon, until it was presented to me by Parley P. Pratt, in the form that it now is.


Such was Rigdon's stance even on his deathbed. He confirmed that position repeatedly, as did his wife and at least three of his children, two of whom were non-believers in Mormonism. His oldest child, Athalia R. Robinson, in a notarized statement of 10 October 1900, said that the missionaries presented the book to her father in the presence of My mother and myself This was the first time father ever saw the Book of Mormon. His son Wickliffe added in a 1905 interview that during a visit with his father,


Then in his last years I found him as firm as ever in declaring that he himself had nothing whatever to do in writing the book, and that Joseph Smith received it from an angel. On his dying bed he made the same declaration to a Methodist minister.


My mother has also told me that Father had nothing whatever to do with the writing of the book, and that she positively knew that he had never seen it until Parley P. Pratt came to our home with it.


Nancy R. Ellis, Rigdons most anti-Mormon offspring, recalled in an 1884 interview the arrival of the missionaries in her Mentor, Ohio, home when she was eight years old: I saw them hand him the book, and I am as positive as can be that he never saw it before. She further stated that her father in the last years of his life called his family together and told them, as sure as there was a God in heaven, he never had anything to do in getting up the Book of Mormon, and never saw any such thing as a manuscript, written by Solomon Spaulding.

(Van Wagoner, Richard S.: Sidney Rigdon: A Portrait of Religious Excess: 1994: Pages 133-134.)




If I am to believe in the Solomon Spaulding/Sidney Rigdo theory for the Book of Mormon, than not only do I have to believe Sidney Rigdon lied most of his lifetime about the Book of Mormon and was very deceitful, but I also have to believe that Sidney Ridgon lied on his deathbed and/or at least a few of his family members also lied. That is demonizing Sidney Rigdom. I can't believe that Sidney Rigdon would lie on his death-bed, and I definitely can Not believe that a few of his Family Members lied about it. And, I have Great Respect and Admiration for Rigdon's daughter Nancy Rigdon. Nancy Rigdon Denied Joseph Smith's evil Proposal to marry him, and become another one of his Polygamous wives. I believe that Nancy Rigdon was an honest and very moral Lady. Sorry, but I can Not believe in the Spaulding/Rigdon Theory for the Book of Mormon.
My best guest on how the Book of Mormon came about is that Joseph Smith Probably borrowed a few ideas from Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews, and he borrowed quite a bit from the King James Version of the Bible. And I am also a opened to the possibility of the Automatic writing theory and/or inspired a bit.

[_Roger]

Don:

Interesting thoughts, Roger.

It's certainly possible for many persons to have been involved in the composition of the Book of Mormon. But it would be more parsimonious to posit fewer authors than more authors. Indeed, given that the usual number of authors to a book of the day was one, and given that a single-author explanation is simpler than the alteratives, parsimony would tend to weigh on the side of single-authorship.

Less is not always better. In the case of the Book of Mormon I think it's naïve. Certainly you are correct that a generic one-author concept is easier to defend than conspiracy, but that one author can only be Joseph Smith and I find it more reasonable to associate the complexity of the Book of Mormon to more than one person rather than one uneducated author. If there were no supporting testimony or evidence then, of course, why even go there, but when you start looking into historical testimony and facts, there is a lot of support. If S/R better explains the Book of Mormon, why reject it? Because the Mormons claim you can't trust the witnesses? That logic just doesn't hold water when looking at what actually happened.

The text can certainly be broken into units and each of these tested against various possible authors. But how do we know where to break it into units? And as we multiply the number of texts (text segments) to test, aren't we bound to get some test results better matching this author or that author? Criddle and Jockers, for instance, found some portions of the Book of Mormon to best match their control authors--the ones who could not plausibly have written them!

Well I don't know enough about that study to comment on it very well. In the first place I don't think it can say one way or the other... apparently all it can do is say out of this group of potential authors this one got a higher score than the rest. Apparently that can be used to help identify possible sections with possible authors.

All that is well and good and I say let the people who do this stuff do their stuff, but I am more interested in finding evidence that puts Smith and Rigdon together before Nov. 1830. The 1816 letter-waiting notice was a major boost to the S/R theory--showing that Rigdon's word is not trustworthy andf that he was indeed in Pittsburgh during the time he specifically denied it. Hopefully more evidence like that will be forthcoming.

Dividing the text in an ad hoc way for analysis will not produce systematic results.

We need a carefully refined methodology to do meaningful tests.

I don't think you disagree with this. I'm just pointing out how precise I think we need to be.

Don

You're right... I don't disagree.

All the best,

Roger

[_Benjamin McGuire]

By the waym Roger, I am working on a methodology for you - and when I get it ready, will post it in a new thread. Gonna be a couple more days, I think - summer is a busy time.