Statement from Craig Criddle regarding the Spalding-Rigdon analisis (pt. 2)

  • Thread starter Thread starter BartBurk
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BartBurk

Guest
Matt and Daniela then did the analysis, applying both Delta and NSC. I was not involved in that part of the work. We all recognized that I had a bias issue, and we agreed that we would let the chips fall as they would: if the results came back negative for Spalding-Rigdon theory then that’s what we would report. But the results came back supportive of the Spalding-Rigdon Theory.
Click to expand...
Matt then wrote the first draft of our manuscript and sent it to me and to Daniela for our additions. I added my expertise in Mormonism and the historical context. Daniela wrote the sections on statistics and NSC. The manuscript went through more than 20 revisions thereafter. We also solicited help from a small group of informal reviewers and incorporated their suggestions.
Click to expand...
On April 5, 2008, Matt submitted the manuscript to the Journal of Literary and Linguistic Computing. The anonymous peer review process took six months. On October 7, 2008, we finally received notification that the paper was accepted pending an adequate response to the reviewer comments. We completed our response to the reviewer comments and submitted the corrected manuscript on November 6. On November 24, we received word that the manuscript was accepted. At the same time we received page proofs. We corrected them and returned the article on November 27. It was published electronically on December 6.
Click to expand...
I would like to make a couple of points.
Click to expand...
First, this manuscript should be referred to as the “Jockers et al. (2008) study” or as the “Stanford authorship study,” not as the “Criddle wordprint study”. Yes, I did contribute significantly, but Matt led and coordinated the team, and he is the corresponding author. That is as it should be. Without him, nothing would have resulted. Daniela’s expertise as a statistician and skills as a writer were critical to the paper, so her contribution should not be discounted either. This is important for all to understand.
Click to expand...
One reason I am making these points is because, as many apologists have already (correctly) pointed out, I am the team member with bias. Matt and Daniela were unbiased, and had very little knowledge of Mormonism before they became involved with this project.
Click to expand...
While I contributed expertise as a former Mormon, Matt and Daniela carried out the data analysis and the results are what they are, independent of my participation in the research.
Click to expand...
I am hoping that by providing this background, it will become clear to all that this work should not be referred to as "the Criddle word print study”: it was a team effort led by Matthew Jockers. I was a member of that team, and, while my expertise was important, I did not carry out the analysis itself.
Click to expand...
Craig Criddle
Click to expand...
Craig asked that this statement be distributed where the issue is being discussed. The original statement can be found at the Recovery for Morminism board.
 
The conclusions are not surprising. There are many reasons to conclude that the Book of Mormon was not an ancient work, and that the entire Book of Mormon story was a fabrication. Now there’s a study to support that conclusion based on analysis of the text itself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top