Pearl Curran exchanges with Ray (automatic writing)

[_Ray A]

Ray,

Indulge me if you will. Can you explain in a few sentences what the outcomes of the Jockers study indicate?

I'll do even better and show you what they wrote:

Of course, we have not considered every possible

candidate-author who may have influenced the

composition of the Book of Mormon. We have,

however, selected from among the most likely

candidates, excepting perhaps Joseph Smith. In the

case of Joseph Smith, we had no reliable samples

of prose to test. When reliably identified materials

become available, their addition to this analysis

would be worth considering. An effort to compile

such writings is currently underway.50

Knowledge of who likely constructed the Book of

Mormon has significant implications for scholarship

in Mormon history and for religious and cultural

studies generally, as it addresses the foundation of

an emerging world religion now estimated at thirteen

million members. Our analysis supports the

theory that the Book of Mormon was written by multiple,

nineteenth-century authors, and more specifically,

we find strong support for the Spalding-

Rigdon theory of authorship. In all the data, we

find Rigdon as a unifying force. His signal dominates

the book, and where other candidates are more

probable, Rigdon is often hiding in the shadows.51

Does that sound like absolute validation which is conclusive and final?

[_Jersey Girl]

Ray,

I don't want to know what they wrote. I want you to tell me how YOU understand it.

[_Ray A]

I have a question for you Ray, which witnesses' description of the dictation are consistent with one another? And what are the parts which are consistent?

This is a summary from lds-mormon.com (not an apologetic site).
>
>
>

[_Ray A]

Ray,

I don't want to know what they wrote. I want you to tell me how YOU understand it.

I understand that it has a large Rigdon signal (and also a large Isaiah/Malachi signal which is sometimes higher than the Rigdon signal), that it's still a theory, that more work needs to be done and is underway, and that not every angle has been covered.

Did I pass? Or would you like me to say, "Bingo! that proves it!"

[_Jersey Girl]

Ray,

I don't want to know what they wrote. I want you to tell me how YOU understand it.

I understand that it has a large Rigdon signal (and also a large Isaiah/Malachi signal which is sometimes higher than the Rigdon signal), that it's still a theory, that more work needs to be done and is underway, and that not every angle has been covered.

Did I pass? Or would you like me to say, "Bingo! that proves it!"

No, you didn't pass.

The signals for Spalding and Rigdon show up in predictable places in the Book of Mormon, that correspond to the Spalding/Rigdon theory.

That's why the outcomes tend to validate the theory.

Nowhere on this thread or any thread on this board have I stated that it "proves it".

(Leaving the computer now, back later to see if you have more for me to reply to.)

[_marg]

Wow he said a lot! Wasn't he a scribe for at least 90% of the Book of Mormon. Did he mention a "head in the hat"? Or how about seer stone in which the words could be read off it while Joseph kept his head in the hat? Or how about a sheet separating him? What was his experience, since he spent so much time working as a scribe? What details did he supply. This must have been quite an experience for him, one would think he'd write lots about it. He was an editor wasn't he, used to writing. So what's his vivid description of his experiences. Why didn't he see words appearing on a small seer stone?

Maybe you should read those accounts, marg. I'm not in the mood for a Mormon history 101 lesson on a Sunday morning when I have to work soon.

As I said my memory is that he said very little about the process. And you've said nothing to discount that.

Right you are going on the witness accounts, a limited number of people, under 10, who have very inconsistent stories on how they observed Smith dictate. They all knew each other, yet they can't seem to get their stories straight amongst themselves.

But it matters not if the Spalding witness are inconsistent. I've got that packed down.

In critically evaluating Smith's account of writing the Book of Mormon, the Book of Mormon witnesses' dictation account..it matters not one iota what the Spalding witnesses said about anything relating to the Spalding theory. You simply are going off an a tangent.

Here's your view in a nutshell, marg, the Book of Mormon witnesses are all unreliable liars and frauds, but the Spalding witnesses are all pure in motivation and honest in deed. They can do no wrong. Oh, they would never have an ulterior motive for anything. They did this out of the goodness of their hearts. Many years after the events they all remember every detail with perfect consistency and there are no variations in their stories, which all match perfectly.

Again Ray you are going off on a tangent. The issue in this thread is critically evaluating how Smith wrote the Book of Mormon , whether he used "automatic writing" and related to the issue of automatic writing is what witnesses stated. The Spalding/Rigdon theory is completely irrelevant to these issues. It matters not one wit what Spalding witnesses said. And once again you are misrepresenting what I've said. I've never said Spalding witnesses have perfect memory, nor that they are consistent in their accounts.

Gosh you are too much. When did I EVER say Dan Vogel doesn't know history. Not once Ray. It would help if you actually knew what the heck you were talking about.

You said that Vogel is a poor thinker, not a very logical thinker, so even if he knows his history, he obviously can't connect with what you see as "obvious".

Well Ray it's nice to see you admitting now that I did not say Vogel does not know history. Thanks, because it isn't very nice to misrepresent what I said about Vogel's position. What I've said is that he discounts the Spalding witnesses yet pretty much accepts the Book of Mormon witnesses. I don't find that very logical. And here's why. The Book of Mormon witnesses were friends and family, for the most part had a vested interest motivated by potential benefit of power and or financial gain. Their stories aren't consistent and they are to put in plainly absolutely ridiculous..defy natural physical laws. The Spalding witnesses who had no vested interest, would receive no benefits, no financial gain or power, didn't seek out attention for this but were sought out, these were friends, family, neighbours, business acquaintances.. some how or another according to Vogel none of them can correctly remember what Spalding wrote. So yes, I don't think Vogel is very logical on this particular issue. And I even suspect he's more motivated to support the Smith only theory because that theory the Church/apologists can accept and work with. Anyone who writes about the Spalding theory not only will get no support from the church, few people would be interested in reading about it, because people outside the church don't care but the church will actually do what it can to sabotage anyone, respected for their work, promoting the Spalding theory. So they will sabotage writers and others when possible who support the Spalding theory. If I were a writer of history, knowing my main audience will be Mormon I wouldn't want to sabotage my work and have a huge multi-billion dollar corporation work against me. That's my opinion.

[_Ray A]

No, you didn't pass.

The signals for Spalding and Rigdon show up in predictable places in the Book of Mormon, that correspond to the Spalding/Rigdon theory.

That's why the outcomes tend to validate the theory.

I am aware of that. Now how about going through the paper again and looking at all the other variables?

And I repeat:

Of course, we have not considered every possible
candidate-author who may have influenced the
composition of the Book of Mormon. We have,
however, selected from among the most likely
candidates, excepting perhaps Joseph Smith. In the
case of Joseph Smith, we had no reliable samples
of prose to test. When reliably identified materials
become available, their addition to this analysis would be worth considering. An effort to compile
such writings is currently underway.50

[_marg]

I have a question for you Ray, which witnesses' description of the dictation are consistent with one another? And what are the parts which are consistent?

This is a summary from lds-mormon.com (not an apologetic site).
>
>
>

I don't think they are consistent if you do tell me which ones are, and which parts are consistent. It's very simple Ray, and no need to rush when you finish work and have time.

[_Ray A]

I don't think they are consistent if you do tell me which ones are, and which parts are consistent. It's very simple Ray, and no need to rush when you finish work and have time.

There 8 points of general consistency listed in the link. Now if you expect witnesses to give 100% matching accounts, you don't live in the real world.

[_AlmaBound]

The Spalding witnesses who had no vested interest, would receive no benefits, no financial gain or power, didn't seek out attention for this but were sought out,

It is possible that they did have a vested interest - they could have been paid to say what they said.