Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 1989–2011 Volume 23 Number 1 Article 8 2011 Examining a Misapplication of Nearest Shrucnken Centroid Classification ot Investigate Book of Mormon Authorship Paul J. Fields G. Bruce Schaalje Matthew Roper Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/msr BYU ScholarsArchive Citation Fields, Paul J.; Schaalje, G. Bruce; and Roper, Matthew (2011) "Examining a Misapplication of Nearest Shrucnken Centroid Classification ot Investigate Book of Mormon Authorship," Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 1989–2011: Vol. 23 : No. 1 , Article 8. Available at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/msr/vol23/iss1/8 This Response to Criticisms is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at BYU ScholarsArchive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 1989–2011 by an authorized editor of BYU ScholarsArchive. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Title Examining a Misapplication of Nearest Shrunken Centroid Classification to Investigate Book of Mormon Authorship Author(s) Paul J. Fields, G. Bruce Schaalje, and Matthew Roper Reference Mormon Studies Review 23/1 (2011): 87–111. ISSN 2156-8022 (print), 2156-8030 (online) Abstract Review of “Reassessing Authorship of the Book of Mormon Using Delta and Nearest Shrunken Centroid Classification” (2008), by Matthew L. Jockers, Daniela M. Witten, and Craig S. Criddle. Examining a Misapplication of Nearest Shrunken Centroid Classification to Investigate Book of Mormon Authorship Review of Matthew L. Jockers, Daniela M. Witten, and Craig S. Criddle. “Reassessing authorship of the Book of Mormon using delta and nearest shrunken centroid classification.”Literary and Linguistic Computing 23/4 (2008): 465–91. Paul J. FieldS, G. BruCe SChaalJe, and Matthew roPer Editor’s note: The above-referenced essay by Jockers, D. P. Hurlbut, a disgruntled former member of Witten, and Criddle (hereafter Criddle and associates) the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was answered by G. Bruce Schaalje, Paul J. Fields, and sworn enemy to Joseph Smith, Howe argued Matthew Roper, and Gregory L. Snow in a technical that the Book of Mormon was based on an unpub- paper entitled “Extended nearest shrunken centroid lished fictional tale by an unsuccessful amateur classification: A new method for open-set authorship novelist, Solomon Spalding. Spalding lived in attribution of texts of varying sizes,” Literary and Conneaut, Ohio, between 1809 and 1812. Howe Linguistic Computing 26/1 (2011): 71–88. We have claimed that Sidney Rigdon somehow acquired invited Fields, Schaalje, and Roper to provide both a Spalding’s unpublished manuscript and added popularization of this important essay and a brief his- religious material, thereby concocting the Book 1 tory of efforts to use what is called stylometry to iden- of Mormon. tify the authors of disputed texts. In addition, because The 1884 recovery of an original Spalding man- Professor Criddle has been involved in efforts to resus- uscript bearing little resemblance to the Book of Mormon led most critics to abandon the Spalding- citate the Spalding-Rigdon theory of Book of Mormon Rigdon conspiracy theory.2 This manuscript is authorship, Roper and Fields were also invited to com- ment on that rather moribund explanation in a sepa- 1. E. D. Howe, Mormonism Unvailed . (Painesville, OH, 1834). For an rate essay that immediately follows this one. overview of the Spalding theory, see Matthew Roper, “The Mythical ‘Manuscript Found,’” FARMS Review 17/2 (2005): 7–140; and Roper, n 1834 the first anti-Mormon book was pub- “Myth, Memory, and ‘Manuscript Found,’” FARMS Review 21/2 (2009): 179–223. lished in Ohio by E. D. Howe. Relying on I 2. Most Latter-day Saint and non–Latter-day Saint students of the testimony claimed to have been gathered by issue have concluded that even if “Manuscript Story” was not the Mormon Studies Review 23.1 | 87 88 | Fields, Schaalje, and Roper—Misapplication of Nearest Shrunken Centroid Classification known today variously as “Manuscript Story” or Spalding or Sidney Rigdon: “The NSC results the “Oberlin manuscript.” Today, among those are consistent with the Spalding-Rigdon theory who reject Joseph Smith’s explanation of the of authorship,” and “our findings are consistent Book of Mormon, a majority see Joseph Smith with historical scholarship indicating a central alone as responsible for the text and believe role for Rigdon in securing and modifying a now- that the Spalding theory sheds no light on Book missing Spalding manuscript” (p. 482). Although of Mormon origins. A minority of these critics they claim to have discovered evidence for continue to argue that the Book of Mormon was smaller contributions from Parley P. Pratt and based on a hypothesized second or third, now-lost Oliver Cowdery, the authors “find strong support Spalding manuscript, though even the existence of for the Spalding-Rigdon theory of authorship. In such a manuscript has never been proved.3 all the data, we find Rigdon as a unifying force. A recent article by three Stanford research- His signal dominates the book, and where other candidates are more probable, Rigdon is hiding in ers—Matthew Jockers, Daniela Witten, and Craig the shadows” (p. 483). Criddle—is the latest in a series of stylometric We here examine the stylometric analysis pre- investigations of Book of Mormon authorship.4 sented by Criddle and associates. We first review The Criddle and associates study applies a sta- past attempts—stylometric and otherwise—to tistical methodology developed for genomics analyze Joseph’s writing style. We review the research,5 known as Nearest Shrunken Centroid strengths and weaknesses of those attempts and (NSC) classification, to the question of Book of assess past authors’ success in meeting objec- Mormon authorship. In contrast to previous tions to their findings. We then address the valid- wordprint studies, Criddle’s team concluded ity of Criddle and associates’ methodology, its that the majority of the chapters in the Book utility in dealing with questions of authorship of Mormon were written by either Solomon in general, and its application to authorship of only version of Spalding’s tale, the story would not have differed the Book of Mormon in particular. Lastly, we substantially in content and style from the Oberlin document. Roper present the findings of our study extending the argues that “Manuscript Story” can be seen as fictional apologetic for the theory that the Indians were the lost ten tribes. See Roper, NSC methodology, which shows the naïveté and “Myth, Memory, and ‘Manuscript Found,’” 193–200. invalidity of Criddle and associates’ efforts to add 3. Roper argues that elements in the 1833 testimony collected by a mathematical patina to an untenable historical Hurlbut and later testimony from other Conneaut associates of Spalding, which some Spalding theorists take as evidence for hypothesis that has been long abandoned by vir- additional manuscript sources for the Book of Mormon, are more tually all serious scholars, whether believers or plausibly accounted for as describing elements of the Oberlin story. skeptics. See Roper, “Myth, Memory, and ‘Manuscript Found,’” 179–223. Roper and Fields examine the misuse of historical evidence by Criddle and associates in the essay that immediately follows this one. Prelude to Stylometry: Joseph Smith’s 4. Matthew L. Jockers, Daniela M. Witten, and Craig S. Criddle, Writing Style “Reassessing authorship of the Book of Mormon using delta and nearest shrunken centroid classification,” Literary and Linguistic Computing In 1976 Elinore Partridge performed a study of 23/4 (2008): 465–91. the characteristics of Joseph Smith’s writing style. 5. Genomics is a branch of molecular biology concerned with researching the structure, function, evolution, and mapping She also studied the writings of several of his closest of the entire DNA sequences of organisms. associates—Sidney Rigdon, Frederick G. Williams, Mormon Studies Review 23.1 | 89 Parley P. Pratt, Oliver Cowdery, and Willard ther punctuation nor capitalization as sen- Richards. Partridge detected a characteristic tone tence markers. When his writing has been in the Prophet’s writings. edited, or when someone else wrote words In contrast to the dark visions of Calvin- which he dictated, the result is an unusu- ism and the dry, rational theology of Uni- ally large number of sentences beginning tarianism, Joseph Smith’s pronouncements with for, and, or but (almost three out of emphasize the wonder of existence and the five sentences). On the other hand, Sid- love of humanity. Likewise, in contrast to ney Rigdon seldom used these conjunc- the threats of wrath, judgment, and dam- tions, and almost never used them at the nation, which one can find in the state- beginning of sentences; on the average, ments of some of the early church leaders, only about one in twenty sentences begins there is an undercurrent of understanding with and, for, but. Rigdon’s sentences fre- and compassion in those of Joseph Smith. quently begin with participial or prepo- Moments of discouragement and anger do sitional phrases; for example, ‘Having occur; however, even at times when he shown . .’ ‘From the foregoing we learn laments the state of mankind, he tempers . .’ which is a structure Joseph Smith sel- the observations with trust in God, love for his family, and hope for the future. The dom used. Sidney Rigdon regularly used love of others, the pleasure in variety, and phrases such as ‘in order that,’ ‘so that,’ or the joy in living which is apparent in the ‘the fact that,’ to introduce and link ideas. language of Joseph Smith give us some real Joseph Smith almost invariably uses ‘that’ sense, I believe, of what he must have been or ‘this’ instead. Joseph Smith’s images and like as a leader and a friend.6 examples are concrete, specific, and well- Partridge also found significant “markers” of detailed, while Sidney Rigdon’s tend to be 8 Joseph Smith’s style that distinguish his writing abstract and generalized.