Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 (Tek) 9/26/83; site azure.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!microsoft!uw-beaver!tektronix!azure!jonw
From: jonw@azure.UUCP (Jonathan White)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Statistical Authorship Analysis of the Book of Mormon
Message-ID: <2485@azure.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 10-Jan-84 11:58:51 EST
Article-I.D.: azure.2485
Posted: Tue Jan 10 11:58:51 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 12-Jan-84 00:40:04 EST
Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR
Lines: 70

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