BYU Computer Study
by Jerald and Sandra Tanner
(This article originally appeared in The Salt Lake City Messenger, Issue No. 41, December 1979)
During the last two or three years the newspapers have carried some sensational
stories concerning the Book of Mormon. On June 25,1977 the Los
Angeles Times reported that three handwriting experts
had declared that portions of the Book of Mormon were written by Solomon Spalding.
Now that the controversy over this issue has somewhat subsided, the Mormon Church
has countered with the startling claim that a computer study has yielded evidence
favorable to the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. The Provo
Herald for Oct. 7, 1979 contained this information:
"Statisticians, using modern computer techniques to digest
and analyze the Book of Mormon word by word, are debunking the 150-year-old
claims that the book is the work of just one man.
"Utilizing a computer to identify 'wordprints' or word use
patterns that scientifically differentiate between individual writing styles,
researchers have uncovered what they claim is conclusive evidence that the Book
of Mormon is the work of many authors.
"This is in direct contradiction to critics who claim the book
is a fictional work written in the 1820s by Joseph Smith, the prophet-founder
of the LDS Church, or by Solomon Spalding,...
"The research was done by Dr. Alvin C. Rencher, a professor
of statistics at Brigham Young University, and Dr. Wayne A. Larsen, a statistician
for the Eyring Research Center, both located in Provo.
"'The overwhelming evidence given here should permanently lay
to rest the alternative theories that Joseph Smith or Solomon Spalding wrote
the Book of Mormon,' a report on the study says....
"Wordprint comparisons between the Book of Mormon and the known
19th century writings of Joseph Smith and Mr. Spalding show conclusively that
neither of these persons, authored the book, the scientists say.
"In fact, their research indicates that the book was authored
by at least 24 different writers, and possibly more, whose styles bear no resemblance
to that of Joseph Smith, Mr. Spalding or other 19th century writers whom they
examined...
"One of the tests went so far as to indicate that 'odds against
a single author exceeded 100 billion to one,' the statisticians noted in the
report.
"Are the conclusions of the study final? 'I don't think the
last word is in yet,' Dr. Rencher says. But he also says he is confident the
research is valid and the statistical methods used in the study are sound....
"Wordprints are developed by feeding passages of 1,000 word
minimum for each author into a computer and analyzing the frequency of what
Dr. Rencher calls 'non-contextual words' such as and, for, it, as, be and which.
"Different authors develop different patterns in the frequency
of use of such words--patterns not related to the context of the material but
constant throughout the individual's writing.
"That makes the wordprint a useful tool for identification
of authorship, much like a fingerprint or voiceprint can be used to identify
an individual, Dr. Bencher said."
While
we certainly do not profess to be computer experts, we can make a few preliminary
comments about the study and wait for a response by non-Mormon authorities in
the field.
To begin with,
the list of "24 Major Book of Mormon Authors Used in the Study," seems
to be somewhat padded (see The New Era, Nov. 1979, p. 11). For instance, we find Isaiah listed as one of
the authors. Since Isaiah is a book in the Bible and since the Book of Mormon
itself acknowledges that it is quoting from Isaiah, we do not feel that it should
be included in this study. If we are going to include Bible authors as part
of the list of "Book of Mormon Authors," we might as well add Moses,
Matthew and Malachi (see Book of Mormon, pp. 161, 423-429, 446-448).
The BYU researchers
stretch the matter even further by including the "Lord" as "quoted
by Isaiah" as part of the "24 Major Book of Mormon Authors."
Also included in this list are the "Lord," "Jesus" and the
"Father." It would appear, then, that the BYU researchers have created
four "Book of Mormon Authors" out of the Father and the Son! On page
11 of their study in The New Era, the researchers admit: "Since the term Lord can refer either
to the Father or the Son, we separated the words attributed to the Lord from
those attributed to the Father or to Christ." From this it would appear
that the list of "24 Major Book of Mormon Authors," is a preconceived
listing of authors rather than the results actually obtained from a computer.
Actually, we
are very much in favor of computer studies with regard to the Book of Mormon.
We would especially like to see a study showing the parallels between the King
James Version and the Book of Mormon. We feel that such a study could provide
some very important evidence regarding the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.
As to the use of a computer in the analysis of different styles we are not certain
that the results would be as conclusive. We feel that there are many factors
that could affect such a study. Just as in the analysis of handwriting, we are
concerned that the interpretation of the data can be affected by the person
who studies it. We remember that many years ago a computer expert declared that
all of the letters of Paul in the Bible were forgeries except for the book of
Romans! Of course we were not willing to accept such a startling claim just
on the basis of a computer study, and we doubt that a Mormon would receive it
without additional evidence.
In 1972 Herbert
Guerry began a computer study on the Book of Mormon to determine authorship.
When information about the study was published in a tract by an individual belonging
to the Reorganized Church, Dr. Guerry felt he had been "grossly" misrepresented.
The tract had stated that "Authentic authorship
of books and papers can apparently be established by computer comparisons of
grammar and language usage peculiar to each individual."
Dr. Guerry's reply to this statement was as follows: "False.
Or, rather, we simply do not know enough yet to be able to make such claims.
Moreover, it just might turn out that writers' styles are not sufficiently unique
to allow us to make positive identifications."
(Saints Herald, August
1975, page 16)
The tract said
that "Apparently one's language is unique
much like one's fingerprints." Dr. Guerry
replied that "This is a paraphrase of a speculation
I made often at Idaho State University: what I usually said was that I wanted
to find out whether or not one's prose style was as unique as one's fingerprints."
The tract alleged
that "The government believes in the method
and recently granted $200,000 for a computer analysis of the Federalist Papers
to determine authorship." Dr. Guerry protested:
"False again...or at best misleading. The
federal government funds much research, but to do so does not mean that the
government 'believes in' a particular method. When the government funds a research
project of this type it, in effect, is only saying that the project has sufficient
merit to deserve support....Many people have done authorship determination studies,
and they use many different methods. My methods differ from those of the two
recent studies of the Federalist Papers [these latter two studies, incidentally,
reached differing conclusions]."
The tract stated
that "There was no match between the Book
of Mormon and any contemporary author of that period."
The reply to this was as follows: "False,
since no clear results about the authorship of the Book of Mormon have yet emerged
from the study except perhaps, that it was not written by Solomon Spaulding
or Sidney Rigdon, but this is hardly an amazing result." Dr. Guerry went on to state that "The
study has shown nothing yet about Smith's relationship to the Book of Mormon,..."
The Mormon
scholar Elinore H. Partridge made these observations on the analysis of a person's
style of writing:
"A stylistic analysis, even an objective, statistical analysis,
is not as certain a means of establishing authorship as handwriting....
"Some of the linguists who have done stylistic studies have
suggested that the style of a person is as unique as his fingerprints. If one
could adequately describe a person's style, he would then have a stylistic 'register'
unique to that person. Unfortunately, things are not quite that simple. A person's
fingerprints do not change, but his style often does. Furthermore, everyone
adjusts his style to suit various occasions. The language we use in speaking
to a colleague or a friend differs from the language we use in a formal speech
or paper. However, a careful analysis of someone's style can usually identify
certain features which that person uses on a variety of occasions. Even when
a person's style changes, as it often does, during his lifetime, a trained observer
can usually trace the changes and identify continuing characteristics." ("Characteristics of Joseph Smith's Style and Notes on
the Authorship of the Lectures on Faith," Task Papers in LDS History, No.
14, December 1976, pages 1-2)
On
page 23 of the same study we find the following:
"Joseph Smith's writing is characteristically marked by series
of related ideas joined by simple conjunctions: and, but, for. In his handwritten
manuscripts, he used neither punctuation nor capitalization as sentence markers.
When his writing has been edited, or when someone else wrote words which he
dictated, the result is an unusually large number of sentences beginning with
for, and, or but [almost three out of five sentences]."
After
reading these statements by Elinore H. Partridge, we decided to see how Joseph
Smith's style with regard to these words compared to the Book of Mormon. We
picked at random Alma, Chapter 2, and found that about 62 percent of the sentences
begin with and, for or
but. This compared well
with the statement that "almost three out
of five sentences" (about 60 percent) of
Smith's sentences begin with these three words. We applied the same test to
Joseph Smith's "strange" account of the First Vision, which we have
photographically reproduced in the book Joseph Smith's
1832-34 Diary. We found that 61 percent of the sentences
tested began with these words. We also made a study of a portion of Solomon
Spalding's printed manuscript, but found that he only used these three words
about 10 percent of the time. Elinore H. Partridge claims that Rigdon only used
these words about 5 percent of the time in the material she studied.
In any case,
we feel that there are some very serious problems with regard to the text of
the Book of Mormon which will make it very difficult to examine with a computer.
One thing that presents a real challenge is that the Book of Mormon is filled
with material which has been plagiarized from the Bible and other sources. For
instance, it is very obvious that 1 Nephi, Chapter 18, borrows from Mark, Chapter
4. The reader will notice the identical material in the two extracts which follows:
"...there arose a great storm...the wind ceased, and there
was a great calm." (Mark 4:37, 39)
"...there arose a great storm...the winds did cease,...and
there was a great calm." (1 Nephi 18:13,
21)
The
storm in the book of Nephi was supposed to have occurred about 600 years before
the one recorded in Mark. The only logical conclusion for this similarity is
that the author of the Book of Mormon lived in the l9th century and borrowed
from the King James Version of the Bible. In Mormonism-Shadow
or Reality? and The Changing
World of Mormonism, we show a large number of passages
that have been lifted from the King James Version without any indication. In
another study which we made (The Case Against Mormonism,
Vol. 2), we listed 400 parallels between the New
Testament and the Book of Mormon. H. Michael Marquardt has also made a good
summary of the issue in his pamphlet The Use of the
Bible In the Book of Mormon and Early Nineteenth Century Events Reflected in
the Book of Mormon.
It seems that
almost every time we carefully examine a portion of the Book of Mormon we find
more parallels. We feel, however, that a computer would reveal many more. This
would be in addition to the large amount of material which is acknowledged to
have been included from the Old Testament. We feel, therefore, that if a computer
could actually be programmed to sort out writing styles, it would, no doubt,
show more than 24 different
authors. We would probably find Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Job, David, Solomon,
Ezekiel, Daniel, Jonah, Micah, Malachi, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James,
Peter, Jude, etc. The Book of Mormon also seems to have parallels to the Apocrypha,
the Westminster Confession, and other publications (see Mormonism-Shadow
or Reality?). We feel that it will be very difficult
to make an accurate stylistic analysis of a book which plagiarizes from so many
different sources.
Even if a researcher
were able to struggle through this pitfall, there is another problem when it
comes to comparing Joseph Smith's style to that found in the Book of Mormon.
This is that Joseph Smith (or his scribes) continued to borrow from other authors
in his later writings. For instance, we find this statement attributed to Joseph
Smith in his History of the Church 2:349-50:
"I was then unknown to Mr. Chandler, neither did he know that
such a book or work as the record of the Nephites, had been brought before the
public. From New York, he took his collection on to Philadelphia,..."
Research
has revealed that these are really the words of Oliver Cowdery and are taken
from a letter which was published in the Messenger
and Advocate, Dec. 1835, v.2, p. 235:
"Bro. Smith was then unknown to Mr. Chandler, neither did he
know that such a book or work as the record of the Nephites had been brought
before the public. From New York he took his collection to Philadelphia,..."
This
is just a brief example. Actually, hundreds of words have been taken from this
letter by Cowdery and inserted into the History of
the Church as if Joseph Smith was the author. We
could cite many other examples of this process. What started out as harmless
plagiarism turned into out-and-out falsification after Joseph Smith's death.
He had completed less than 40 percent of the History
of the Church before passing away, but the Mormon
leaders tried to make it appear that he had written all six volumes. They did
use some original documents which Smith was responsible for, but they altered
the words to suit their purposes. In many places they had nothing to follow
and had to falsify material from sources such as other people's diaries and
newspapers to fill in the void. For example, on August 13, 1842, the local newspaper,
The Wasp, reported:
"...Joseph Smith was arrested upon a requisition of Gov. Carlin,...Mr.
Rockwell was arrested at the same time as principal....they left them in care
of the Marshal, without the original writ by which they were arrested, and by
which only they could be retained, and returned back to Gov. Carlin for further
instruction,--and Messrs. Smith and Rockwell went about their business....
"As to Mr. Smith, we have yet to learn by what rule of right
he was arrested to be transported to Missouri for a trial of the kind stated."
When
this was republished in the History of the Church
it was changed to the first person to make it appear
that Joseph Smith had written it:
"...I was arrested...on a warrant issued by Governor Carlin,...Brother
Rockwell was arrested at the same time as principal....they left us in the care
of the marshal, without the original writ by which we were arrested, and by
which only we could be retained, and returned to Governor Carlin for further
instructions, and myself and Rockwell went about our business.
"I have yet to learn by what rule of right I was arrested to
be transported to Missouri for a trial of the kind stated." (History of the Church, Vol. 5, pages 86-87)
Even
Joseph Smith's famous Rocky Mountain Prophecy was interpolated into the History of the Church as if he had
written it(see Mormonism-Shadow or Reality? pages 133-34).
In 1965 we
published a book entitled, Changes in Joseph Smith's
History, in which we charged that most of Joseph
Smith's History was not written until after his death. For some time the Mormon
historians kept silent about this serious charge, but finally they had to admit
that the History of the Church had
been falsified. Dean C. Jessee, of the Church Historical Department, conceded
that "At the time of Joseph Smith's death,
the narrative was written to August 5, 1838."(Brigham Young University Studies, Summer
1971, page 466) On page 472 of the same article, Dean Jessee admitted that "The Joseph Smith History was finished in August 1856, seventeen
years after it was begun." Since Joseph
Smith died in 1844, this would mean that the History
was not finished until 12 years after his death.
The Church's 1978 printing of the History of the Church
still claims on the title page of each volume that
it is the "History of Joseph Smith, the Prophet,
BY HIMSELF."
The Mormon
scholar Hugh Nibley says that "A forgery
is defined by specialists in ancient documents as 'any document which was not
produced in the time, place, and manner claimed by it or its publishers.'" (Since Cumorah, page 160) Under this definition the History
of the Church must be classed as a forgery. While
it does contain some very important information about Joseph Smith, most of
it "was not produced in the time, place,
and manner claimed by it or its publishers."
Although the
History of the Church contains
hundreds of pages of material attributed to Joseph Smith, it is of little value
to those who seek to find his style of writing. Even one of the Assistant Church
Historians, Davis Bitton, has had to admit that "for
researchers in early Mormon history Rule Number One is 'Do not rely on the DHC;
never use a quotation from it without comparing the earlier versions.'" (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought,
Winter 1968, page 32)
Mormon scholar
Marvin S. Hill made this observation about the History
of the Church:
"One reason that Brodie concluded that Joseph had veiled his
personality behind a 'perpetual flow of words' in his history may be that she
assumed he had dictated most of it. We now know that large portions of that
history were not dictated but were written by scribes and later transferred
into the first person to read as though the words were Joseph's. That fact makes
what few things Joseph Smith wrote himself of great significance." (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought,
Winter 1972, page 76)
We
would challenge the BYU researchers to make a computer study of Joseph Smith's
History of the Church. We
feel that they would find far more than 24 authors involved in the production
of that work.
We assume that
the BYU computer experts used authentic specimens from Joseph Smith's writings
to compare with the Book of Mormon. We asked Dr. Alvin C. Rencer about this
matter on the phone. He replied that he could not specifically remember just
what sources they had used for Joseph Smith, but he claimed that they had been
verified as authentic by historians in the Church. In any case, anyone who attempts
this type of research in the future should be aware of the fact that Joseph
Smith's History of the Church is
not a dependable source for the study of his style of writing. Elinore H. Partridge
felt that the Church's published sources were not reliable for stylistic analysis.
For this reason she used some of Joseph Smith's own letters and early diaries
for her study. She says that the manuscripts she "found
most useful included ten letters and parts of a letterbook, and small sections
of two diaries....I studied the parts of the Letterbook, dated 1832-33, the
1832-34 Diary, and the 1835-36 Diary which were in Joseph Smith's handwriting." ("Characteristics of Joseph Smith's Style...", page
4)
The Mormon
leaders suppressed Joseph Smith's diaries for many years, but recently we obtained
copies of and printed both the 1832-34 and the 1835-36 diaries. We feel that
they are very valuable in showing that Joseph Smith had the ability to write
the Book of Mormon and that they are very important when it comes to stylistic
analysis. As we indicated before, we have also included a photographic copy
of Joseph Smith's 1832 account of the First Vision in the publication Joseph Smith's 1832-34 Diary. We feel
that the style of this writing agrees very well with that found in the Book
of Mormon. For instance, the account begins, "I
was born...of goodly parents..." This reminds
us of 1 Nephi 1:1: "I Nephi, having been
born of goodly parents,..." Joseph Smith's
"strange" account of the First Vision sounds very much like the conversion
of Enos in the forest. In the "strange" account we read: "...I cried unto the Lord...and he spake unto me saying Joseph
my Son thy Sins are forgiven thee." The
Book of Mormon account says: "...I cried
unto him...And there came a voice unto me, saying: Enos, thy sins are forgiven
thee,..." (Enos, verses 4-5)
When the Book
of Mormon was first published, some people ridiculed it because it was filled
with the expression, "And it came to pass." Joseph Smith was bothered
by this criticism and in later years tried to not use this expression. If we
examine the 1832 account, however, we find that it was really a part of his
early style. For instance, at one place in the manuscript he stated: "...and it came to pass when I was seventeen years of Age..."
If we had the
time and space, we could cite a number of other things that tend to make us
believe that the two works came from the same pen.
In trying to
determine the value of the BYU computer study we have been hindered because
of the unavailability of material. Alvin Rencher told us that a larger study
would appear in a forthcoming book, but he said he had been "asked not
to release copies until the editorial process is complete." (Letter dated
Nov. 14, 1979) In the same letter he said that "The New
Era article is the only thing available so far."
He did enclose a copy of a letter written on November 6, 1979, and while it
does not add much to our knowledge of the study, it does show that the first
edition of the Book of Mormon was not used: "We are, of course, aware that
there have been many changes since the first edition, (mostly minor). Someday
we may repeat the study using the 1830 edition. Our experience with this present
study would indicate that no new conclusions would be reached. Two different
linguists have told us that the many minor changes from the 1830 edition really
attest to the fact that the translation is from a Hebrew-like language. That
is, the present edition is much better English. The 1830 edition is better Hebrew."
While we do
not really know how much difference it would make, we do feel that the use of
a later edition would have a definite affect on stylistic analysis (see our
study 3,913 Changes in the Book of Mormon). We would be especially interested in seeing a study comparing the
"strange" account of the First Vision with the unchanged text of the
1830 Book of Mormon.
As to the claim
that the grammatical errors in the Book of Mormon tend to prove it was translated
from "a Hebrew-like language," we feel that this is only wishful thinking.
Joseph Smith's other documents and letters have the same type of grammatical
errors in them. We do not feel that anyone would argue that a letter to his
wife Emma came from a Hebrew-like language just because it contains grammatical
errors. We tend to agree with the Mormon historian B. H. Roberts when he wrote:
"...such errors in grammar and diction as occur in the translation are
just such errors as might reasonably be looked for in the work of one unlearned
in the English language....it cannot be claimed that the Nephite original is
responsible for verbal inaccuracies and grammatical errors....Are these flagrant
errors in grammar chargeable to the Lord? To say so is to invite ridicule. The
thoughts, the doctrines, are well enough; but the awkward, ungrammatical expression
of the thoughts is, doubtless, the result of the translator's imperfect knowledge
of the English language,..." (Defense of the
Faith, pages 278-308)
Other Links From This Issue:
Other Links Related To This Topic:
, April 1993: Mormon General Authority B. H. Roberts was "one of the greatest scholars the church has ever known." Toward the end of his life, after objectively studying all information available to him in regards to the Book of Mormon's origins, he came to many uncomfortable conclusions. For instance, when writing about wars and conflicts that occurred in the book, Roberts suggests: "There were other Anit-Christs among the Nephites, but they were more military leaders than religious innovators... they are all of one breed and brand; so nearly alike that one mind is the author of them, and that a young and undeveloped, but piously inclined mind. The evidence I sorrowfully submit, points to Joseph Smith as their creator. It is difficult to believe that they are the product of history, that they come upon the scene separated by long periods of time, and among a race which was the ancestral race of the red man of America." (Studies of the Book of Mormon, page 271) This issue documents the striking parallels between the Book of Mormon and James Adair's, A History of the American Indians. It also responds to LDS claims that a 1979 computer study proved that Joseph Smith could not have written the Book of Mormon by comparing it to the results of another computer study published by Oxford University Press.Joseph Smith's Use of The Apocrypha--Salt Lake City Messenger, December 1995: Did Joseph Smith use the Apocrypha in writing portions of the Book of Mormon? An interesting comparison, including over thirty similarities between stories and wording found in both the Apocrypha and Book of Mormon. Also, the possible origin of the name Nephi--the "brass plates of Laban"--Mark Hofmann's "Salamander letter"--B. H. Robert's revealing comments--"the brother of Jared"--and the "Tree of Life.".
ulm@utah-inter.net:
Do you have comments or input regarding this or other publications from
Jerald and Sandra Tanner. Drop them a line. Also, if you have additional information
on this and other LDS related topics they would like to hear from you. (No mindless,
blind-faith, dogmatic diatribes please!--However, sincere differences of opinion
and insight are always appreciated).