BoM forensic linguistics

[Hagoth]

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...

Are you asking who conceived it or who actually put pen to paper? Because it's pretty obvious now that Adam Clarke was the primary source for the "inspired" version.

[jfro18]

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.

The most impressive part of the Spalding theory is the wordprint analysis. If you have time to listen to the podcast it's better, but essentially the wordprints match exactly where you would expect them to under the theory, and then don't match where you wouldn't expect it.

It also shows that it matches in the Book of Mormon where you'd expect, but doesn't match in writings like the Doctrine and Covenants, where of course you know Spalding didn't write.

Here are some slides that cover the wordprint aspect:











Anyway - the whole presentation can be found at https://mormonleaks.com/library/episode-02/

It makes such a compelling argument, but man I have a hard time getting behind the theory in general...

[Thoughtful]

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...

The JST source material was Adam Clarkes bible commentary. BYU published about this a year or two back.

[Just This Guy]

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!

My thoughts on this.

As presented, the Spaulding theory, has more logical leaps with the facts and relies on more circumstantial evidence. However, it does do a better job of creating an explanation for all the ins and outs of the BOM. Things like the meandering narrative, sudden jumps in style, lost 116 pages, etc. All are accounted for. It does a much better job at compiling a complete story, the support for it is can be thin at times.

For the Sole Authorship Theory, it is much simpler and has more proof. However, I do not think is does as good of a job of explaining the way the BOM is structured and the sources that were used in it's creation.


* I don't think you can invoke it here because they are not equal setups with regard the evidence available for each.

[moksha]

A fallback position for FAIRMormon could be that Solomon Spalding was also inspired.

[jfro18]

A fallback position for FAIRMormon could be that Solomon Spalding was also inspired.

That's becoming the legit apologist position on joseph Smith stealing the JST from Clarke... which begs the question why we need a prophet if he was just stealing ideas from everyone else.

I'm replacing catalyst theory with mixtape theory. The church can pay me for that phrase.

[Archimedes]

Thanks for that info, I was not aware of the Adam Clarke material.

[Palerider]

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...

The JST source material was Adam Clarkes bible commentary. BYU published about this a year or two back.

Since we know Joseph and Sydney worked on the re-translation of the Bible together, it makes me wonder who introduced who to the Adam Clarke commentary??

And would a person of integrity, as Rigdon claimed to be, allow Joseph to plagiarize the commentary and then claim it as Joseph's own revelation? If Sydney knowingly contributed/colluded in this manner, it throws doubt on his honesty in my opinion.

[Palerider]

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?

The story goes that Parley P. Pratt introduced Sydney to the BofM and the tale of Joseph Smith. He had been a member of Sydney's congregation in Ohio before traveling to New York where he (Parley) supposedly first read the BofM, met Joseph and was baptized by Oliver Cowdery. Rigdon traveled to New York in Dec. 1830 where he supposedly met Joseph for the first time.

I seem to recall Sydney preaching to his congregation that he had received revelation that a new book of scripture was soon to come forth that would correct many doctrines that had been twisted by men. This was before hearing of the BofM or Joseph. Use Occam's Razor here.

It was almost as if he was prepping his congregation for a conversion to some new future religion, which many of them did.

This is purely speculation on my part but since Parley had previous family connections in New York before he moved to Ohio, I kind of wonder what his schedule looked like during those years.

As I understand it some word studies have also linked Parley as a possible BofM contributor.

[Palerider]

There is also solid evidence now that while living in Pittsburgh, Sydney was a frequent visitor to the print shop that held the Spalding manuscript.

Juuuust sayin'

[EternityIsNow]

I agree with seeking the simplest explanation that has potential validity. In this case I believe the most valid argument is to follow the science as Alas noted. In other words, Occums Razor tells me following the scientific evidence is the best explanation.

There are almost always gaps in the early days of scientific theories. And eventually the gaps get filled. So consider the gaps as a challenge but not an obstacle.

The gap of Joseph meeting Rigdon can be solved with a third party or even two third parties. We may never know who they were. But that does not mean they did not exist. The simplest explanation is they existed.

I like the multiple author theory because it can address how more stories and ideas got into the book than young Joseph would likely have been exposed to. For example, experiences from US revolutionary war appear in the book. Ideas Joseph probably did not have access to. Battle concepts used in the Nephite Lamanite wars for example are similar to strategies used in the Revolution. Solomon Spalding fought in the Revolutionary war.

Someone spent many years crafting the story line. That person had to be familiar with Middle Eastern maps and somewhat rare accounts. Such as middle eastern travel accounts from the Middle Ages. Or accounts of the Spanish conquest of Aztecs and Incas. Or the journeys of Marco Polo. Many ideas from those accounts are nested in Book of Mormon stories. Starting with Lehi in the wilderness which closely follows the beginning of Marco polo's journey with his brothers.

I would love to see more work here on forensic methods that focused on the content, and likely vectors. How these ideas got to into the book. You can only get so much data from authorship studies focused on writing patterns. Perhaps looking at the evolution of content could also help identify authorship. Including multiple authors over time. I wonder if there are computational tools that could assist with this type of analysis?

Also, consider possible involvement of Joseph Smith Senior and Hyrum Smith. That would expand the network of possibile third parties considerably.

[alas]

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?

The story goes that Parley P. Pratt introduced Sydney to the BofM and the tale of Joseph Smith. He had been a member of Sydney's congregation in Ohio before traveling to New York where he (Parley) supposedly first read the BofM, met Joseph and was baptized by Oliver Cowdery. Rigdon traveled to New York in Dec. 1830 where he supposedly met Joseph for the first time.

I seem to recall Sydney preaching to his congregation that he had received revelation that a new book of scripture was soon to come forth that would correct many doctrines that had been twisted by men. This was before hearing of the BofM or Joseph. Use Occam's Razor here.

It was almost as if he was prepping his congregation for a conversion to some new future religion, which many of them did.

This is purely speculation on my part but since Parley had previous family connections in New York before he moved to Ohio, I kind of wonder what his schedule looked like during those years.

As I understand it some word studies have also linked Parley as a possible BofM contributor.

So, we have:

1. Rigdon's writing in BoM
2. A way Rigdon could have stolen the Spalding manuscript
3. Spalding's writing in BoM
4. Rigdon preparing his congregation for an eminent restoration/new book of Scripture

Hmmmm. So, If an associate of Rigdon knew Joseph, he could have said, "Hey, Sid, I know this guy who is writing this book all about the people on this continate and if he had some good religious content. If you provide the religious content, then you could convert your whole following and become a powerful religious leader." So, then this person who knows both of them takes the written sermons of Rigdon and Spaldings manuscript to Joseph.

Joseph "loans" out the first 119 pages to Martin to show Mrs Haris, knowing that is she gets her hands on them they are toast ( literally) and then uses his new sources to rewrite the beginning of his story, plus shame Martin into his debt.

So, Sid is in on the plot from almost the beginning and thinks that his loyal followers will stay more loyal to him than the uneducated yokel. By the time his followers all join the new church along with him, and he discovers that his loyal followers have fallen for the charming con man, it is too late and he will lose what credibility he has if he exposes the plot.

So, I think we can sew together some of the holes in this plot, maybe not all of them, but some.

[Palerider]

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?

The story goes that Parley P. Pratt introduced Sydney to the BofM and the tale of Joseph Smith. He had been a member of Sydney's congregation in Ohio before traveling to New York where he (Parley) supposedly first read the BofM, met Joseph and was baptized by Oliver Cowdery. Rigdon traveled to New York in Dec. 1830 where he supposedly met Joseph for the first time.

I seem to recall Sydney preaching to his congregation that he had received revelation that a new book of scripture was soon to come forth that would correct many doctrines that had been twisted by men. This was before hearing of the BofM or Joseph. Use Occam's Razor here.

It was almost as if he was prepping his congregation for a conversion to some new future religion, which many of them did.

This is purely speculation on my part but since Parley had previous family connections in New York before he moved to Ohio, I kind of wonder what his schedule looked like during those years.

As I understand it some word studies have also linked Parley as a possible BofM contributor.

So, we have:

1. Rigdon's writing in BoM
2. A way Rigdon could have stolen the Spalding manuscript
3. Spalding's writing in BoM
4. Rigdon preparing his congregation for an eminent restoration/new book of Scripture

Hmmmm. So, If an associate of Rigdon knew Joseph, he could have said, "Hey, Sid, I know this guy who is writing this book all about the people on this continate and if he had some good religious content. If you provide the religious content, then you could convert your whole following and become a powerful religious leader." So, then this person who knows both of them takes the written sermons of Rigdon and Spaldings manuscript to Joseph.

Joseph "loans" out the first 119 pages to Martin to show Mrs Haris, knowing that is she gets her hands on them they are toast ( literally) and then uses his new sources to rewrite the beginning of his story, plus shame Martin into his debt.

So, Sid is in on the plot from almost the beginning and thinks that his loyal followers will stay more loyal to him than the uneducated yokel. By the time his followers all join the new church along with him, and he discovers that his loyal followers have fallen for the charming con man, it is too late and he will lose what credibility he has if he exposes the plot.

So, I think we can sew together some of the holes in this plot, maybe not all of them, but some.

I'm not nailed down to the Sydney-Joseph connection. It's possible that Joseph single-handedly wrote the whole thing and Sydney had nothing to do with it. Joseph was much more intelligent than the church gives him credit for.

But looking at the evidence, I can't confidently rule it out either. It is plausible even if complete confirmation still eludes us.

[jfro18]

Joseph "loans" out the first 119 pages to Martin to show Mrs Haris, knowing that is she gets her hands on them they are toast ( literally) and then uses his new sources to rewrite the beginning of his story, plus shame Martin into his debt.

This part I definitely disagree with. I think JS let Harris take the pages because he needed the $$ to publish the book, and this became an ultimatum for it to happen.

And in a lot of ways this gives even more cover to the Spalding theory... JS had to carefully recreate the 116 pages, so when doing so it took him a lot of time and the details were intentionally vague so they could not be contradicted *if* the 116 pages were being kept to try and prove JS a fraud.

Once JS got past that though, the details start flying and the "translation" picked up speed immediately. You can read that two ways: Once he got past that point, he could freely write the BoM without worry of contradicting it *or* once he got past that point, he just went to the Spalding manuscript which was already ready for him to dictate.

Either way, I don't think the 116 pages getting lost was part of the plan, which also brings up another issue with the Spalding theory: If JS had the book ahead of time, why did it take so long to start the book back up again after the 116 pages were lost? If he was using the Spalding manuscript from the beginning, why not just recreate it in days?

But if he wasn't using the Spalding manuscript from the start, how do you explain the initial names that are reportedly linked to Spalding?

Sadly, we'll probably never know. If JS had the manuscript to use, it is almost certainly long burned, and if you believe the story on the podcast... the only other copy was supposedly given from his widow and *possibly* sold to the church after he tried to expose the con. Those are the things that make me very cautious on the Spalding theory.

[Arcturus]

I'm on board with EternityIsNow and Alas - I trust the linguistic analysis above what can be gathered from primary source documents purporting the connection between JS and possible coauthors.

[Palerider]

And in a lot of ways this gives even more cover to the Spalding theory... JS had to carefully recreate the 116 pages, so when doing so it took him a lot of time...

Once JS got past that though, the details start flying and the "translation" picked up speed immediately. You can read that two ways: Once he got past that point, he could freely write the BoM without worry of contradicting it *or* once he got past that point, he just went to the Spalding manuscript which was already ready for him to dictate.

I don't think the loss of the 116 pages was intentional either. That may not be exactly what Alas is implying but regardless, Joseph had a problem to solve and here's a possibility of why.

If he was "translating" from a small, already written text, and knew that his scribe was creating a nice larger copy, it would make the original redundant. So I wonder if Joseph was destroying the original as it was being copied? We know he stopped translating for a time while he struggled with the dilemma. He couldn’t go back and recreate the 116 pages exactly without the original, so he finally decided to buy time by continuing to translate the rest of the book with the addition of Oliver as his scribe. This continued translation went rapidly and then as the book concluded, Joseph with a solution in hand, finally went back and re-translated the first or lost part under the guise of it being the small plates of Nephi.

A convenient excuse for not re-creating a perfect new translation. He could remember the basic story line without being as specific as before. The small plates of Nephi were nothing but a ruse.

As far as the original manuscript was concerned, Joseph wouldn't have wanted any evidence hanging around so getting rid of it was critical. Remember when he wrote the letter to Helen Mar Kimball about becoming a plural wife, he told her to "burn the letter immediately" after reading it. It was incriminating evidence. The passing on of the information was what was of utmost importance to him. So too if he had used a "cheat sheet" for the BofM translation.

Speculation? Yeah.....but maybe....

[alas]

Joseph "loans" out the first 119 pages to Martin to show Mrs Haris, knowing that is she gets her hands on them they are toast ( literally) and then uses his new sources to rewrite the beginning of his story, plus shame Martin into his debt.

This part I definitely disagree with. I think JS let Harris take the pages because he needed the $$ to publish the book, and this became an ultimatum for it to happen.

And in a lot of ways this gives even more cover to the Spalding theory... JS had to carefully recreate the 116 pages, so when doing so it took him a lot of time and the details were intentionally vague so they could not be contradicted *if* the 116 pages were being kept to try and prove JS a fraud.

Once JS got past that though, the details start flying and the "translation" picked up speed immediately. You can read that two ways: Once he got past that point, he could freely write the BoM without worry of contradicting it *or* once he got past that point, he just went to the Spalding manuscript which was already ready for him to dictate.

Either way, I don't think the 116 pages getting lost was part of the plan, which also brings up another issue with the Spalding theory: If JS had the book ahead of time, why did it take so long to start the book back up again after the 116 pages were lost? If he was using the Spalding manuscript from the beginning, why not just recreate it in days?

But if he wasn't using the Spalding manuscript from the start, how do you explain the initial names that are reportedly linked to Spalding?

Sadly, we'll probably never know. If JS had the manuscript to use, it is almost certainly long burned, and if you believe the story on the podcast... the only other copy was supposedly given from his widow and *possibly* sold to the church after he tried to expose the con. Those are the things that make me very cautious on the Spalding theory.

Yes, this would all depend on the timing. At first Joseph was obviously reluctant to give Martin the pages. So, it is all just speculation at this point until there is evidence that Joseph actually received the Spalding manuscript and when, or when he received some of Rigdon's sermons.

Personally, I have always followed the "Joseph wrote the whole thing" theory. I am just playing devil's advocate with the different theories. Tossing ideas out for people to argue with.

The Spalding manuscript had to have come from Rigdon, because we can connect him to where the manuscript was. So, there was no way he started with the same names for Nephi, Lehi, Labon, and so on without the manuscript. That means a connection between the two before the writing of BoM started. But then, why would Joseph have the manuscript without knowing of Rigdon's sermons? So, why the purely "history" start from the "big plates"? If he was in cooperation with Rigdon from the start, he would have known Rigdon wanted the book to be scripture, not just history.

See, just the fact that both Joseph and Spalding copied Bible sounding language could that throw off the computer analysis? Because Joseph's other writings did not copy Biblical sounding language, while Spalding other manuscript writing DID.

[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.

Palerider - do you have a cite for the claim of SR having much of his work destroyed? I'm really interested into looking into this...

[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.

Palerider - do you have a cite for the claim of SR having much of his work destroyed? I'm really interested into looking into this...

You might try Uncle Dale's website but here's one as well.

http://sidneyrigdon.com/criddle/rigdon1.htm#34

ETA: Wait...this IS Uncle Dale's website. Really one of the best for history on early Mormon characters.