Was Joseph Smith a Literary Genius? // Stylometry in The Book of Mormon

[@wendyfoster5579]

We can expect more scholarship on the Book of Mormon, as wickedness increases in the world we will receive more light and knowledge.

[@Bookofmormoncentralofficial]

Thanks for the shout out Parker! We will be releasing an extended cut of this interview soon. It is fascinating stuff.

[@mopaditi1737]

Great information. Faith affirming. The Book of Mormon is holy scripture.

[@1900intz]

You still need to read the book to know of its truth. Interesting presentation though.

[@ostinigisa472]

Wow. God lives and is wonderful

[@VincentNoot]

Nice image. I believe it but I’d also love to see more concrete examples. Like… can we get a 2 hour video picking apart the most significant style differences?

[@tomabros9008]

They did a fair lds presentation on this that’s over a hour long you can go watch

[@TheYgds]

Unfortunately, I think this project has either been largely abandoned or is on a back burner. There are more controls that need to be done (for example, comparing the "Book or Mormon" to the D&C, to distinguish Joseph's own revelatory style from "Book of Mormon" authors). Authorship drift is also a concern. These studies only give you good information if the controls are robust. I don't think 19th Century fiction is a satisfactory control, though it is a necessary control. They were supposed to release an online app years ago that would let you navigate the principle component space yourself as a study tool. They only released a map for "The Great War" iirc. You have to scan a QR code from that talk in order to access it. This was years ago though.

[@rconger24]

Have you investigated Chiasmus?

[@BenMyers72]

@@rconger24chiasmus is not proof of the book, lol.

[@wagnerthesilva]

If it’s true to accept “scientific” points in favor of the Book of Mormon it should also be true to listen and accept the points against it. I see people get mad when things are against the book and quickly come up saying that should use faith. If that’s true, then we should also disconsider anything in favor of it and abide by faith only, and choosing what is conveniently in your favor.

[@SCPN333]

I look for both sides. Just finding a good source against it has been hard because most people against it never read it or just have hate. If you have any recommendations

[@bernardmailu5185]

"..this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and..." D&C 1:30.Revelation given by Jesus christ to joseph smith the prophet in ohio on 1st September 1831.

[@af31ns]

Chilling evidence!

[@RUTired]

Time vindicates the prophets. Thanks for sharing Parker.

[@schizosaint777]

He was a great guesser!

[@naoden]

Can we get what all the axis are?

[@bartonbagnes4605]

I imagine there's also significance with The Book Of Mormon being on a different level vertically as well? They didn't specify. Otherwise they would each have their own levels, right?

[@TrueMillennial]

Ya they didn’t explain that very well, I believe it represents the difference in language used compared to writers in that era.

[@bartonbagnes4605]

@@TrueMillennial That was my best guess also. They must have compared the common phrasing of the 19th century and those found in The Book Of Mormon. It would be interesting if they had compared the Epistles of Paul, the Pentatuech , the Psalms and the Prophets of the Old Testament, like Isaiah, Jeremiah, Jonah and/or Zephaniah. That would give time period and cultural comparisons of the Bible with The Book Of Mormon.

[@robertgray323]

Yes

[@rconger24]

Another howler falls!

[@tylerhall95]

Live by scientific proof, die by it. It's pretty well as limited and biased as your intuition for matters as faith. Read Dickens, Shakespeare, even the Bible. Read Nietzsche, read NT Wright, read the Quran. Now read the Book of Mormon. If you can't judge the merit of it by contrast - it's really just not for you. Whether that's tragic or not - time will tell.

[@rconger24]

Dickens was one of the authors compared as indicated by the yellow spheres. You should see the expanded version.

[@davidfrey5654]

What you say is true. But scientific proofs only adds to a person's testimony.

[@tylerhall95]

@@davidfrey5654 I'm saying what is scientific proofs? These are evidence - not proof. The evidence is not conclusive. It is also constructed to aim at a conclusion with some bias. You need more raw faith to move forward with this evidence before you than you do the evidence of having read the book and being convicted of its teachings and quality. This is much less concrete than that.

[@bobdorr9181]

Doesn't really prove much. It would be more interesting to compare it to the books that JS possibly plagiarized, and an examination of anachronistic words.

[@JD-pr1et]

I believe there was a stylometry study back in the 80's and 90's that did that Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and Sidney Rigdon were definitely precluded as authors. I know the study was open ended which allows the separation of author's selected plus unknown authors. The antichrists did a couple of close ended samples which got them the results they wanted, but precluded ancient authors.

[@shootergavin3541]

Not really sure what you mean by anachronistic words especially in regards to translations.

[@JD-pr1et]

@@shootergavin3541 He's talking about the antichrist preoccupation with words like adieu in the English translation instead of using good bye, even though the untranslated Hebrew/Egyptian word would have been good bye or it's equivalent. Adieu was common in Joseph Smith's day instead of good bye, so he used that in translating. Nothing anachronistic about it, since the translation word is not in the original language, but as usual, the antichrists try to dupe people by making much ado about nothing.

[@chrisblanc663]

@@JD-pr1etyeah. Never understood the point of that argument. JS was translating into English, and ado was a common English phrase at the time, much like fiancé is a commonly used word in English even though it’s French. The other argument, that it’s still very early in the lifecycle of this theory is even more baffling, because of course it is, but that isn’t even an argument against this theory. I hope they keep going down this particular rabbit hole because so far it’s proving to have rabbits in it to get.

[@BenMyers72]

@@JD-pr1etsuch a stretch, as usual. The book is full of 19th century references. Even Richard Bushman now describes the book as “good” rather than true.