jonw@azure.UUCP (Jonathan White) (01/10/84)
About two months ago, Russ (dadla-a!russ) submitted another item in his continuing series of articles that are supposed to show that the Book of Mormon is an authentic ancient document. This latest article presented research done by two Mormons, Larsen and Rencher, who claim to have proven that the Book of Mormon was authored by at least 24 different writers (and was not written by either Joseph Smith and Solomon Spalding). The Mormon researchers used several different types of computer analysis techniques to analyze and compare the "wordprints" of various writers in order to determine authorship. However, according to at least two Mormon experts, the study that Russ cited is severely flawed for several reasons. Due to problems with data, experiment design, and the questionable validity of wordprints, the fantastic claims of the researchers cannot be supported. Dr. D. James Croft, Professor of Management Science, Graduate School of Business, University of Utah, has written a critique of the Larsen and Rencher study. Here are some of his comments: "Unfortunately, close scrutiny of the study indicates that the encouraging conclusions of its authors may be premature and that several areas of the study seem vulnerable to criticism...some authorities in the field of statistical stylistics have serious reservations about these notions concerning the stability, or even the existence, of measurable style. ... "The fact that Larsen and his associates used edited manuscripts as raw data makes their study vulnerable to still another kind of damaging criticism. ... "The data used to establish the word patterns of nineteenth-century authors had similar difficulties. Some of the passages of these authors were taken from...edited sources. ... "The problems of comparing one set of edited words (from the Book of Mormon) to another set of largely edited words (from dissimilar works of the nineteenth-century authors) with the expectation that statistically subtle (AND ARGUABLY NONEXISTENT) wordprints remain intact are substantial, at best. Larsen and his colleagues need to do significant work in addressing these issues.... ... "...given the tentative nature of `Wordprints' and given the data and experimental design problems inherent in the Larsen study, it would be best to reserve judgment concerning whether or not it is possible to prove the existence of multiple authors of the Book of Mormon." (Sunstone, March-April 1981, pp. 16-18, 20-21) The researchers, Larsen and Rencher, responded to this criticism in the same issue: "We do not believe our work, or any work in this area, will be unassailable. This is to ask more than this science can give. Perhaps editorial pressures and our own enthusiasm caused us to make a few statements that upon closer examination may need some revision." (Ibid, page 26) Additional Mormon criticism was leveled at the researchers by Edward H. Ashmont, of the Translation Department of the Mormon Church: "The word-print analysis of the text of the Book of Mormon no more solves the problem of authorship than an earlier study in which Rencher was involved solves the authorship of the Isaiah text....However exciting it may be, at best this study must be regarded as preliminary... (Sunstone, November-December 1980, p. 6) There is another problem with the study that is not likely to be mentioned by Mormon scholars. As Jerald and Sandra Tanner have pointed out, it would be very difficult to make a valid stylistic analysis of a book that plagiarizes from so many different sources. Jon White [decvax|ucbvax]!tektronix!tekmdp!azure!jonw
russ@dadla-a.UUCP (01/11/84)
Jon White is right in his quotes that the wordprints are not a proof of multiple authorship of the Book of Mormon. But it is another of the several supports that I have been presenting for the Book of Mormon. Each one of them by themselves are not conclusive, but taken as a whole they start to make a significant case. Also most of the criticisms in the Sunstone articles which Jon quoted from were also discussed in that same issue. Many of the problems were dealt with but had not been mentioned in the original publication of the results. I tried to use a later publication were the informaton was more complete, but I still only included a small portion of the information. Even if I had included more, it still is just one aspect of the Book of Mormon. >There is another problem with the study that is not likely to be mentioned by >Mormon scholars. As Jerald and Sandra Tanner have pointed out, it would be >very difficult to make a valid stylistic analysis of a book that plagiarizes >from so many different sources. This might be claimed by the Tanner's and they do see support for their theory, but one of the things that was interesting about the Wordprint study is that the Book of Mormon authors not only groups separate from Joseph Smith and his contemporaries, but each author also grouped by himself. Each author had a style that was somewhat unique from the other authors and was clustered in one area of the statistical result. Russell Anderson tektronix!tekmdp!dadla!dadla-a!russ
crane@fortune.UUCP (John Crane) (01/12/84)
Isn't your last paragraph begging the question?