Cumorah

[LongJourney]

Those who believe the Spalding theories can easily be figured out as having been victimized. If any of those same people seriously reads the Book of Mormon with a sense of honesty in their heart of hearts and any knowledge at all about the complexity of creating literary tone, voices, flash-backs, and authenticity…

We can agree that the complexity of the BoM can be explained by multiple authorship. What we disagree about is when it was written. I would suggest that you try this simple statistical exercise. It does take some tedious work, but it will answer that question.

I was taught that when research takes a radical new direction, the original study must be replicated. And a different methodology, If it comes up with similar results, it will add more credibility to the original study. A meta-analysis to see if Jockers came up with results similar to Broadhurst in identification of probable Spalding sections is thus necessary. There is a problem with Jockers using chapters, and Broadhurst using pages, but this can be resolved using word-count. Chi square is warranted, and the cells are Spalding according to both, not Spalding according to either, Spalding according to Jockers only, and Spalding according to Broadhurst only.

You will have to do some googling to find the raw data, but you can find it.

I have done it, and found that the Broadhurst and the Jockers findings on Spalding authorship lined up reasonably well, especially with later Alma, and could NOT have been due to chance. Jockers is the more liberal study in the indication of Spalding material, which is a function of some of the limitations of the study in that not all word-prints of possible authors were used.

Have fun, and I will post my results later. I did it several times, and got inconsistent results, which is reasonable, given the huge numbers involved. They were all in the same ball-park, however.

All the best.

 

[ParkerD]

We can agree that the complexity of the BoM can be explained by multiple authorship. What we disagree about is when it was written. I would suggest that you try this simple statistical exercise. It does take some tedious work, but it will answer that question.

I was taught that when research takes a radical new direction, the original study must be replicated. And a different methodology, If it comes up with similar results, it will add more credibility to the original study. A meta-analysis to see if Jockers came up with results similar to Broadhurst in identification of probable Spalding sections is thus necessary. There is a problem with Jockers using chapters, and Broadhurst using pages, but this can be resolved using word-count. Chi square is warranted, and the cells are Spalding according to both, not Spalding according to either, Spalding according to Jockers only, and Spalding according to Broadhurst only.

You will have to do some googling to find the raw data, but you can find it.

I have done it, and found that the Broadhurst and the Jockers findings on Spalding authorship lined up reasonably well, especially with later Alma, and could NOT have been due to chance. Jockers is the more liberal study in the indication of Spalding material, which is a function of some of the limitations of the study in that not all word-prints of possible authors were used.

Have fun, and I will post my results later. I did it several times, and got inconsistent results, which is reasonable, given the huge numbers involved. They were all in the same ball-park, however.

All the best.

Thanks for wishing “all the best.” I would love for you to take the same statistical approach you seem to be using with the words of “Shakespeare”–including his plays, his sonnets, and any other writings, and compare them with five contemporaries such as Ben Johnson, de Vere, Marlowe, and two others of your choosing. Then post those results also, to show the kind of “credibility” you are talking about.

It would be well to add to the credibility by doing the same thing with all the writings of Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain). He had a great ability to create different “personas” (literary voices with authenticity) in his fiction and his jokes. Maybe you could compare his words with Shakespeare and see if that would be construed as the “same author” or as “multiple authorship”. Maybe you will find they are “in the same ball-park.” Good luck.

 

[LongJourney]

Interesting how you side-step the issue, and the invitation.

 

[ParkerD]

Interesting how you side-step the issue, and the invitation.

I have no idea what you are talking about with “side-step the issue” or with “the invitation.” If you think I am interested in doing a statistical analysis, I’m not. I have not the slightest curiosity about that kind of method for evaluating literary works or the Book of Mormon.

I was dealing directly with “the issue” you raised, by asking you (since you evidently have an interest in the methodology, which I think is a completely erroneous methodology as I have stated) to use that same methodology to figure out a real case that is discussed by real scholars some of whom have written their belief that Marlowe or Johnson or de Vere was the “real Shakespeare”.

 

[LongJourney]

TWO different studies, one by Dale Broadhurst, completed in 1981, the other, by the Jockers team at Stanford U, published in 2008, found Spalding-like sections of the BoM. The Broadhurst study used commonly-used phrases in Spalding’s “Manuscript Story” and compared them to the BoM text. There were many places in the BoM where the density of Spalding-like phrases was very high, particularly in later chapters of Alma. The Jockers study used Delat and Nearest Shrunken Centroids, both computerized statistical methods using frequency count of commonly-used words.

Now, if such differing methods of word-print analysis result in similar results, we can say that Spalding material was probably integrated into the BoM. A statistical analysis of both studies say that this is EXTREMELY likely to be true.

Others say that people can intentionally write in such a way that authorship attribution studies will be inconclusive. Indeed, this is true, in the case of Sidney Rigdon’s writings. Much of his writing was what I call scripture salad. That is, he used scriptures out of context and recombined to express his beliefs. Little of his writing was a creative self-expression, and what was, was still written in pseudo-King James English.

Therefore, we cannot make the same statements about Rigdon’s contributions to the BoM as we can make about Spalding’s.

Your question about Shakespeare is irrelevant to this methodology.

 

[SirThomasMore]

twopekinguys;6852439:

SirThomasMore;6852434:

---

Are you calling me a liar?

Nope. You are the only one who calls people that around here. Though I DO find it odd that you continually tell everyone that you have me on ignore than continually respond to me…

I do not believe that he was ORDERED not read things that did not promote faith, and I do not believe that he was excommunicated AFTER he requested for ‘speaking out against the church in his own home after asking to have his name removed.’

Well, first, what a shame that you would cast doubt and then offer no proof to support your doubt. That is a typical LDS way to discuss something. Second, I could care less what you beleive…you have already shown a penchant for ignoring truth

I can believe that he was excommunicated for 'speaking out against the church in his own home," because the place one expresses heresy doesn’t change the heresy. The fact that he spoke against the church in front of witnesses is sufficient.

Yes, the LDS Church is like the Nazis they supported in WWII. Not even in my home could I say what I wanted…

…as, by the way, is it sufficient for Catholics and everybody else. No belief system is required to allow members to remain members when they publically disagree with doctrine…and ‘publically’ means 'in front of others, ’ not 'anyplace but my house."

What I do in my house is NO ONE’S business

 

[SirThomasMore]

This is one of the funniest conversations I’ve seen on this forum. “Shocking”? No–par for the course for people with the tiniest bit of knowledge about their subject and yet able to be believed by people with even less knowledge about the subject. Such is life.

wow…that sounds like LDS folks…they believe anything

 

[lax16]

Hi, Lax16,
My thoughts have run as follows about the hill called in the Book of Mormon “Cumorah”:

As a child and young adult, I thought it was the hill in upstate New York that the LDS are familiar with as being the “Hill Cumorah”.

During college and beyond, I was comfortable with the possibility that there might be a “Cumorah” in Mexico or Central America that was the place where Moroni originally hid the records and the Liahona, and that he carried the plates while he was still alive and wandering while staying in hiding, to the location where Joseph Smith was shown they were buried. If during those years, I read someone’s writing who said they believed there was definitely only one “Cumorah”, then I was comfortable that this was a viable opinion but need not be the one way to view the situation.

Lately, I tend to lean to the “one Cumorah” position, but am not passionate about that one way or the other. I think either position is plausible, and I haven’t seen a reason to have to think either one can’t be acceptable.

As to why there is “no excavation” at or around the Hill Cumorah, the battles that took place were in the vicinity but that doesn’t mean they were on the Hill Cumorah, besides which the Lamanite and Nephite armies were described as being plunderers continuously, and there was a situation described that people would “sleep with their weapon in their hand” because if they placed it on the ground, in the morning it would be gone–evidently having been stolen immediately. So the winning side would not leave any weapons laying around, at all–not one piece of evidence would show there had been a battle. Any weapons left laying around would have been taken as soon as it was seen by someone.

The description also depicts the “Lamanite” group as wanting to destroy all religious symbols of the people they warred against, and any of their writings–so any such archeological evidences would have been carried off or burned and destroyed, thus leaving no trace of having existed, and those “Lamanite” groups were described as being passionate about doing that, so it was not a happenstance thing–it was a deliberate action that continued for years and evidently for centuries of time. This was their way of life. It was what they taught their children to do.

As to languages, there are hundreds and even thousands of languages among the native American tribes, and the Book of Mormon describes a group of people (the Mulekites) who came to the New World about the same time as the Nephite group, but whose language became so changed during 500 years time that the two groups didn’t understand each other when they encountered each other after 500 years of not knowing the other group was on the continent with them. So to have an expectation that language similarity should be a clue to their origins, would neither be borne out by the Book of Mormon nor is it borne out by a study of, say, the evolution of the English language from AD 1 to 2000 AD.

Hi Parker - Yes, I understand the Mormon defense as to why there is no evidence of the battles at the Hill Cumorah. But, to make this claim, the church would have to excavate first.
To not excavate, but to have answers to naysayers at the ready, makes no sense.

So, the original question still remains - why not excavate the site? If nothing is found, then form your defense. But to do it the other way around is illogical.

as a side note - I just finished reading a book about the life of Sacajawea. The researcher/author was trying to determine if she was the Indian woman who accompanied Lewis and Clark on their famous expedition. The author used the testimony of several people from different Indian tribles and they also cross-referenced her involvement with the expedition from other sources (baptismal/death certificates, her sons involvement with Brigham Young, etc).
It was very interesting to read how consistent the Indian testimony was over several generations and how important it is/was to the Native Americans. Also, because Sacajawea moved around a great deal, there was testimony from several tribes and it was all consistent.
To insist that the BoM peoples vanished without a trace is unprecedented. There are just too many people involved.

One last question - Where are the weapons? You say that plunderers would take the weapons from the dead. Eventually, the plunderers died and would have left their weapon and those they stole. You say the winning side eventually had all the weapons and you say they died off. There would still be weapons.

 

[SirThomasMore]

Hi, Lax16,

My thoughts have run as follows about the hill called in the Book of Mormon “Cumorah”:

 

[SirThomasMore]

Campeador,
Thanks for the link. Fun information–I enjoyed reading it. Several good points were made in such a short article, such as this one:

“According to David W. Maurer, writing in ‘The Big Con’ (1940), there was a similar saying amongst con men: “There’s a mark born every minute, and one to trim 'em and one to knock 'em”. Here ‘trim’ means to rip off, and ‘knock’ means to persuade away from a scam. The meaning is that there is no shortage of new victims, nor of con men, nor of honest men.”

That last sentence is certainly true, and thus the question becomes “who is being victimized by whom?” or “who is being honest?”–and those who believe the Spaulding theories can easily be figured out as having been victimized if any of those same people seriously reads the Book of Mormon with a sense of honesty in their heart of hearts and any knowledge at all about the complexity of creating literary tone, voices, flash-backs, and authenticity…

Parker, you ALWAYS dodge this question…we have AFFIDAVITS (or testimonies, if you will) from Spaulding family and friends who have SWORN that the Book of Mormon is almost exactly like the Spaulding Book that was missing. Why should we just discount their sworn testimonies? What proof do you have against them or their character that would make their sworn testimonies invalid?

 

[lax16]

Parker - Thanks for posting the battle from the BoM. I keep a Book of Mormon right next to my computer. I have not read the BoM in its entiretly, but I have read about the battles at the Hill Cumorah and many other things.

I also have read that some Mormons today claim to not know where it is and yet have read at least two documents from the LDS church claiming it is in New York. The church really can’t back down on this one IMHO.

 

[Javl]

They supposedly did because the Nephites were Jewish but for some reason, they put their holiest of books into the language of their captors, the Egyptians, which, when ‘translated’ by Joseph Smith, shows that they actually spoke in Elizabethan English.

Does that make sense to you? Yeah, me neither.

Actually they had to learn “Reformed Egyptian” ( ??? ).

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[LongJourney]

Parker, the two sections of the BoM that you quoted on posts 78 and 79 were, according to both studies, apparently written by Solomon Spalding. The best parts of the BoM, primarily the narrative, and especially the war chronicles, are apparently by Spalding. Most of the rest appears to be Rigdon’s scripture salad.

 

[TikiTokiguy]

Some LDS have explained to me that if they found real evidence, it would spoil everything, because then they would not be able to live by faith. That’s why they don’t excavate the Hill Cumorah.

I’ve heard that many times in the LDS church. Actually heard it so many times I believe it some times.

 

[TikiTokiguy]

Whether you agree with this response or not, please stop assuming that this hasn’t been addressed and that “True Believing Mormons” cannot, and will not, deal with it.

I know mormons deal with it. Sure they have dealt with it. But not always honestly. I think deep down LDS members know the church is built around a common man, not a prophet. Yes a profit, no a prophet. The evidence against this church is really high and not only that, all the evidence is plain and clear and really shows the LDS leaders as sort of pathetic.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker, the two sections of the BoM that you quoted on posts 78 and 79 were, according to both studies, apparently written by Solomon Spalding. The best parts of the BoM, primarily the narrative, and especially the war chronicles, are apparently by Spalding. Most of the rest appears to be Rigdon’s scripture salad.

So then here is what a scholarly person does when encountering this type of “study”: they look at the original material, do some deep thinking and comparing, and draw their own conclusion. They don’t take someone’s “study” at face value, and repeat the “study” as being conclusive evidence of anything other than one person’s opinion.

I’ve read the supposed “narrative” from Spaulding that they think is evidence of their conclusion. Just because there was a battle, and a conquering group and a defeated group, how hard was that to come up with in a fictional piece of work such as Spaulding wrote? To say that anyone who writes anything thereafter that includes a battle and a conquering group was plagiarizing the idea from Spaulding, would have to say that the idea was originally plagiarized by Spaulding from, say, Homer’s Iliad.

How hard is it to find that there are “epic battles” within literature throughout the world?

What a real scholar will deal with is the authenticity conveyed in the piece of literature, and its internal consistency and conveying the emotions of the writers (even if fictional). Spualding’s words have no “authenticity”. They are more like James F. Cooper–grandiose but with not a smidgen of authenticity.

 

[LongJourney]

I shut down my computer and walked away in disgust when I saw your post. Then changed my mind-- on that alone.

They are more like James F. Cooper–grandiose but with not a smidgen of authenticity.

Thus says someone who believes that the BoM is sacred scripture. Discussion done. Go ahead and believe as you do. Just do not impose it on me, or others who do not, cannot, and never will believe that the BoM is sacred.

 

[ParkerD]

I shut down my computer and walked away in disgust when I saw your post. Then changed my mind-- on that alone.

Thus says someone who believes that the BoM is sacred scripture. Discussion done. Go ahead and believe as you do. Just do not impose it on me, or others who do not, cannot, and never will believe that the BoM is sacred.

I don’t suppose you have read many of my posts in the past. Just because a work of scripture has relevance to me and those I help teach or nurture, such as my children who enjoy reading it often, does not mean I think it should have even the slightest relevance to you or anyone outside of the LDS church, unless they happen to think God could have had other prophets on the earth in other places than the ones selected for inclusion in the Bible (in which case the Book of Mormon might have relevance to such a person).

But in no way would I expect or want that anyone would think I wanted it to have relevance for them, unless they happened to come across a teaching they liked or a passage that helped them, in which case fine, take it with them and let that one teaching or passage be a help to them in their life.

 

[LongJourney]

unless they happened to come across a teaching they liked or a passage that helped them, in which case fine, take it with them and let that one teaching or passage be a help to them in their life.

There are a few passages that feed me. And I do remember them from time to time. The BoM ranges between stars and mud.

I can read I and II Maccabees, especially the story of Razis, and be fed more. And the story of Razis makes a lot more sense than Shiz.

 

[lax16]

I don’t suppose you have read many of my posts in the past. Just because a work of scripture has relevance to me and those I help teach or nurture, such as my children who enjoy reading it often, does not mean I think it should have even the slightest relevance to you or anyone outside of the LDS church, unless they happen to think God could have had other prophets on the earth in other places than the ones selected for inclusion in the Bible (in which case the Book of Mormon might have relevance to such a person).

But in no way would I expect or want that anyone would think I wanted it to have relevance for them, unless they happened to come across a teaching they liked or a passage that helped them, in which case fine, take it with them and let that one teaching or passage be a help to them in their life.

But Parker - doesn’t God want everyone to be saved?

Why would he have us depend on “scripture” that can’t even be proven? There is David’s Temple, ancient churches and civilizations, etc that help back up the Bible. We know much of these people and places existed and more are being discovered all the time. This is critical because God wants to help people come to the faith.

I want you and everyone to feel that God’s Word is relevant for them! Any road blocks or questions should be brought forward and aired out - not dismissed!