BoM forensic linguistics

[Palerider]

Wondering if any of you computer gurus have heard of a forensic language program developed and used in police work in the early 2000's?

It was called: ALIAS
Automated linguistic identification of authorship system.

Apparently it can compare syntax between different writings and look for patterns that indicate whether two or more writings were written by the same author. I know some word studies have already been done on the BofM but thought they were of a different nature than this approach.

Joseph left plenty of personal writings that could be compared with BofM passages.

Sidney Rigdon left fewer because he had all of his papers burned as a part of his will after death but some still remain. That in and of itself has always seemed suspicious to me.

Would love to see something like this done.

[Just This Guy]

It sounds similar to a technique called word print analysis. I recall that someone did run the BOM and a bunch of JSj's works through and what I recall was the result was inconclusive. Parts were from JSj, but other areas were not.

I think IoT did an episode on this.

One thing that is interesting is that the legal standing of this type of analysis is still up in air. So far is isn't accepted as sufficient evidence in court.

[Arcturus]

Here's an academic study by some Stanford professors published in 2008. Looks like they use some fancy textual analysis methods. Their inferences are interesting:

We offer a new approach that employs two classification techniques: ‘delta’ commonly used to determine probable authorship and ‘nearest shrunken centroid’ (NSC), a more generally applicable classifier. We use both methods to determine, on a chapter-by-chapter basis, the probability that each of seven potential authors wrote or contributed to the Book of Mormon. Five of the seven have known or alleged connections to the Book of Mormon, two do not, and were added as controls based on their thematic, linguistic, and historical similarity to the Book of Mormon. Our results indicate that likely nineteenth century contributors were Solomon Spalding, a writer of historical fantasies; Sidney Rigdon, an eloquent but perhaps unstable preacher; and Oliver Cowdery, a schoolteacher with editing experience. Our findings support the hypothesis that Rigdon was the main architect of the Book of Mormon and are consistent with historical evidence suggesting that he fabricated the book by adding theology to the unpublished writings of Spalding (then deceased).

https://academic.oup.com/dsh/article-ab ... m=fulltext

Free pdf available here:
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... sification

[moksha]

This Stanford University research article from Uncle Dale Broadhurst's website might be a bit of what you are looking for http://solomonspalding.com/Lib/Jock2008.htm.

[Arcturus]

Sorry for the double post but their conclusion is fascinating. I'll share pieces here:

NSC has proved highly useful for authorship classification. It has a lower cross validation error rate than delta, a lower rate of false positive assignments, and a probability-based output that enabled in-depth interpretation of the results, including speculation regarding possible connections between candidate authors. The NSC results are consistent with the Spalding-Rigdon theory of authorship. Evidence supporting this conclusion includes the prominence of signals for Spalding and Rigdon; the presence of strong Spalding signals in sections of the Book of Mormon previously linked to Spalding; the presence of a dominant Rigdon signal in most theological sections, and a strong Spalding signal in the more secular, narrative sections. Our findings are consistent with historical scholarship indicating a central role for Rigdon in securing and modifying a now missing Spalding manuscript. The high number of Spalding-Rigdon pairings in first and second place strongly suggests that Spalding and Rigdon were responsible for a large part of the text. Pearson's chi-square test of independence was performed and indicates that the distribution of first-place assignments is significantly different from uniform. Similarly, the distribution of second-place assignments differs significantly from uniform. Clearly far more chapters are attributed to Rigdon, Spalding and Isaiah-Malachi than might be expected due to mere chance. Other connections detected through this work are also consistent with the historical record, including the likelihood of a lesser, largely editorial role for Cowdery and a possibly minor, if unexpected, role for Pratt.

Prior exposure to the Book of Mormon most certainly did not influence Solomon Spalding who died fourteen years before it was published. Yet our data strongly support the historical claim that a lost Spalding manuscript served as a source text for the backbone narrative of the Book of Mormon. The document that we used for samples of Spalding’s writing ("Manuscript Story" also known as "The Oberlin Manuscript") does not match the eyewitness descriptions of "Manuscript Found," the draft novel that Spalding read to friends and family in Conneaut, nor does it match the Book of Mormon.50 The Spalding-Rigdon theory rests heavily on the assumption that additional Spalding manuscripts once existed, and that material from one of these manuscripts provided the narrative framework for the Book of Mormon. This additional manuscript would be the one that the Conneaut witnesses and others identified as being the “source” of the Book of Mormon. While not that manuscript, the Oberlin Manuscript nevertheless provides us with a reliable sample of Spalding's prose and the linguistic signal detected in it appears with significant regularity throughout the Book of Mormon.

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.

[Arcturus]

Sidney Rigdon left fewer because he had all of his papers burned as a part of his will after death but some still remain. That in and of itself has always seemed suspicious to me.

I never had heard this before Palerider. In connection with the main findings by the Jockers, Witten, and Criddle study (Rigdon may have been the primary contributor to the BofM), it is interesting indeed that Rigdon wanted his work burned.

[Palerider]

Sidney Rigdon left fewer because he had all of his papers burned as a part of his will after death but some still remain. That in and of itself has always seemed suspicious to me.

I never had heard this before Palerider. In connection with the main findings by the Jockers, Witten, and Criddle study (Rigdon may have been the primary contributor to the BofM), it is interesting indeed that Rigdon wanted his work burned.

Yep, I've gone against the grain for quite awhile thinking that there was a Smith-Rigdon connection long before they "met" in Kirtland.

There were witnesses (which apologists seek to discredit) who maintain that a mysterious man used to come and visit Joseph from time to time from out of town. Some maintained it was Rigdon.

That would also explain more easily why the BoM was so typically Protestant and Trinitarian in it's doctrine as well.

I think after his association with Alexander Campbell, Sydney truly wanted to create a church based on the original Biblical church. But after Joseph won the power struggle and by his megalomania, turned it into a sham with polygamy, Sydney wanted nothing to do with it in the end and was ashamed he had ever been associated with it. Thus the burning of his records and writings.

In his mind the church had become a disgrace (which it was). After Joseph’s death I think he made one last attempt to salvage something of it but of course it failed.

[Kalikala]

Fascinating. I spent the whole day reading (no really, ask IT_Vet) and learning new things. I was mostly rehashing sources I’d already read for a compilation, but I kept getting distracted by new things. It’s crazy how much I never knew! And I was BIC!

[jfro18]

The Infants on Thrones podcast that covers Spaulding along with word print stuff is here: http://infantsonthrones.com/froback-fri ... of-mormon/

It's like 5 1/2 hours (3 parts kind of mashed together), but it's interesting. I am not sure how much I buy into the Spaulding theory, but when you listen to them discuss the wordprint stuff... it's intriguing.

If anyone else listens to it, please post what you think after hearing it -- their final part got pretty heated at a few spots because of the implications, so curious what you all think as well!

[FiveFingerMnemonic]

John Hamer dismisses the Spaulding/Rigdon theory. I remember asking him about it on a Q&A thread on NOM 1.0. But he is a fallible human historian just like all of them. The basis for dismissal is the shaky evidence of collaboration based on geographical distance, lack of non-circumstantial evidence etc.

[asa]

guys unless you believe in time travel or remote viewing this theory has certain insurmountable problems .Sidney and Joseph first meet in Dec 1830 months AFTER the B of M was published . Sidney lived in Pittsburgh PA for the bulk of his early life moving to Ohio in 1819 where he remained until 1822. He then returned to Pittsburgh and stayed there until 1826 when he moved back to Ohio. You can engaged in any wild speculation you wish but tying Joseph and Sidney together before the B of M was published is a speculation too far. This sort of thing is actually very interesting to me because it is based on an unarticulated premise which is the B of M is too complex to have been produced by Joseph in 90 days so there MUST be some other explanation. After almost 200 years we are still waiting for a reasonable rational explanation .

[jfro18]

guys unless you believe in time travel or remote viewing this theory has certain insurmountable problems .Sidney and Joseph first meet in Dec 1830 months AFTER the B of M was published . Sidney lived in Pittsburgh PA for the bulk of his early life moving to Ohio in 1819 where he remained until 1822. He then returned to Pittsburgh and stayed there until 1826 when he moved back to Ohio. You can engaged in any wild speculation you wish but tying Joseph and Sidney together before the B of M was published is a speculation too far. This sort of thing is actually very interesting to me because it is based on an unarticulated premise which is the B of M is too complex to have been produced by Joseph in 90 days so there MUST be some other explanation. After almost 200 years we are still waiting for a reasonable rational explanation .

If you listen to the podcast above they talk about the timing - it's very speculative but effectively there are big gaps in Rigdon's schedule that could have been a time he met Oliver/JS.

I don't personally believe in the Spalding theory, but if you are willing to speculate a bit you can make it work. Of course that's why I don't buy into it - it feels like a conspiracy theory where you have to fill in the gaps (like JS and the Egyptian papyri)

As for how he produced the book... I think he had years to prepare the story, and then from there he was able to use a lot of the Bible and other sources that made it easier to roll through. While many say the BoM stands to this day as a book that can't be disproven, I'd say the Deutero-Isaiah alone would prove that wrong. Add to that the issues with the "116 pages" that were redone, anachronisms, etc show that even if it reads in the King James Bible style... it definitely is not the work of God.

[Arcturus]

I took a deeper look at the Jockers et al. paper and I've gotta say they used some fairly sophisticated methodology to consider potential authorship. Personally, I have an introductory familiarity with what textual analysis can do and I would place more weight on the evidence provided in the Jockers et al. study than what historians have surmised at this point in time in striking down the Spalding theory. Look at how much history has come out in the short space of 10 years... Who's to say that Rigdon was not the creator of the BofM to begin with and started the project years ahead of Joseph's involvement on the timeline? There's so much that we don't know. But the inferences from the Jockers paper is fascinating and hard to discount from an empirical perspective.

[deacon blues]

I can only add a personal view. IMO, Joseph Smith had a brilliant mind, genius seems an applicable word. Sidney Rigdon was not all that bright, and seems to be mentally unstable in his later years. Of course it could be argued that Joseph was mentally unstable in his later years. Fascinating ideas though. Pale Rider comes through again.

[jfro18]

From the podcast and reading some of the presentations at mormonleaks.com (not to be confused with the mormon leaks we all know now), they make a lot of very compelling arguments especially in terms of the areas where Spalding's wordprint matches and where it doesn't.

It also makes sense if you buy into the idea that the gaps of Sigdon's calendar could've been used to meet up with JS/Oliver to setup the process... it also makes sense when you consider how JS ripped through the pages when Oliver was a scribe compared to how slowly he worked with others.

But where I just have a hard time with it comes down to a few things:

1. Why would Rigdon let JS be the frontman to the whole thing if he effectively provided the book?
2. How do we not have more evidence of Rigdon meeting JS earlier than we already know?
3. I believe Rigdon brought over some key ideas that JS adopted as doctrine (the priesthood levels along with not doing infant baptism). Both were big Campbelite ideas... and those both magically show up shortly after Rigdon joins. It is hard to believe they would've had to wait so long if Rigdon was involved from the get go.

It's interesting- I sure wish we had more information.

[Arcturus]

1. Why would Rigdon let JS be the frontman to the whole thing if he effectively provided the book?

A question I have is why wasn't there a huge emphasis on the BofM in the early church? In all of Joseph's teachings, he appears to rarely ever bring up the BofM or teach from the passages in it. I could be wrong though. It's always been interesting to me that Joseph really doesn't seem to care all that much about the BofM after its publication. Anyone fill me in if I have the wrong impression.

[Arcturus]

Another big question here... if Rigdon was actually in on the BofM’s creation then is there any reason to believe the historical reporting of the geographic space between him and JS pre-BofM? I mean seriously, if the BofM was a team effort then what can we really believe given the effort that was put forth to keep the collusion a secret?

Sorry if that’s viewed as a dumb conspiracy theory type question. But where does Occam’s razor take you with the question as to where the BofM came from??

[Archimedes]

Along the same lines, I have always wondered who penned the changes in the JS Translation of the Bible? Somehow it has always felt to me like Old Joe's own handiwork, but have no forensic linguistics evidence to back that up...

[alas]

This is interesting. I would tend to say to take the science seriously.

So, having always been a "Spalding theory doubter" I may have to rethink the loopholes that are in that theory.

Loop hole #1 no evidence that Rigdon met JS soon enough. Well, he didn't meet Spalding either. All we need is some way that JS could have gotten hold of some of SR's writing. Or, since the stuff about not baptizing infants show up in the BoM, what is our magic date when SR did show up? Perhaps the slow going 119 pages that didn't contain much religious stuff were written without SR's help, and we know he wrote the replacement later.

I don't have a good time line to look at for when events happened, but it would be interesting to compare details for who introduced JS & SR, and could he have delivered some of Rigdon's writings? Could there be some other explanation?

Loop hole #2 why would SR cooperate with JS taking credit and leading this new religion? Why not? Perhaps they had an agreement that SR would provide the religious sermons, while JS gave them "historical" cover as scripture.

Loophole #3 we don't need to explain how the book came about because JS was really smart even if he was self taught and he could have written it. I have always held to the "Joseph could have written it himself" theory, BUT if we get word print and other evidence of this kind that says he didn't write it by himself, then we go with the most evidence. "JS wrote it" has Occam's razor in its favor, all else being equal. But if it no longer fits all the evidence, then we have to find a different theory.

So, what was Joseph good at? Pulling ideas from everywhere he could find them and kind of synthesizing things into a semi cohesive whole. He was good at telling stories off the cuff. So, we expand what he was geniouses at with our new theory that JS took some writings he got from SR, and some he got from the Spalding manuscript, and ideas he pulled from other sources, and he synthesized them into the BoM.



Anyway, just playing with ideas here. I am not a great historian at all, just throwing out ideas for you smart people to disprove.

[Arcturus]

So, what was Joseph good at? Pulling ideas from everywhere he could find them and kind of synthesizing things into a semi cohesive whole.

I think the evidence is converging towards the notion that JS was a master synthesizer. Good point Alas.