For a bit of background, Jana Riess was raised by an atheistic dad, and her mom wasn’t very religious either.  Yet, Jana felt pulled toward religious faith, joining with the Presbyterians before embracing Mormonism.  John questioned why it is hard for atheists to keep their children away from religion.  This corresponds immediately after their conversation that I transcribed previously.

John, “Yeah, right.  Ok in this last part of the segment I am just going to bring it back to your childhood for a second.  So right now, based on our data, you know, people are leaving the church at an exponentially increasing rate. Intellectual issues really are most prominent. There are spiritual reasons people leave, there are cultural or political reasons people leave, but by and large, it’s the types of things we have been talking about today.

I think it’s important to look ahead and see where that takes future generations, because (I’m sorry that this is a bit long of a statement) I say across the table from Sam Harris.  I had lunch with Sam Harris.  I sat across the table with Michael Shermer, I had lunch with Michael Shermer.  These are two of the worlds’ great atheist writers and thinkers.  I asked them point blank.  I said, ‘when my wife gets cancer, when is one of your people going to be showing up at our door, delivering a casserole In Logan?’

What I mean by that is—and I don’t mean it socially—if you believe in evolution at all, and most people who leave the church probably do, you would probably concede that if religion weren’t adaptive to the human species, it would have died out, right?  It would have gone by the wayside, but actually, my understanding over the past century is that mankind’s gotten more religious, not less overall. Even though right now there might be a little waxing and waning going on.  So, I think there’s a lot of people leaving religions, leaving Mormonism, envisioning this sort of post-religion world where religion is dead and as soon as we can shake off the chains of religious oppression, then rainbows will emerge and it will rain gumdrops and butterflies will fly around.”

Jana, “Oh unicorns!  Don’t forget the unicorns.”

John chuckling ,”Unicorns will come out and we’ll all be enlightened, and it’s just fascinating to ask what if Jana Reiss, what if Jana Reiss is one of the outcomes of this mass movement towards secularism.  In other words, what if we just ain’t escaping this religious thing as a species any time soon?  The minute that we think we are, as Greg Prince said, atheists are having a hard time keeping their kids in the fold.

[Jana chuckles, John continues.]  What if we’re going to boomerang whether we –what if society is going to boomerang back to religion whether we want it to or not?  And if it is, why not stay and make it as great of a place to stay if our grandchildren are going to end up back here anyway?  That was not even a question.  I’m embarrassed that I just said all that and didn’t even shape it into a question.  Feel free to comment on it.”

Jana, “You have nothing to be embarrassed about.  This is a conversation, it’s not an interrogation.  You have nothing to be embarrassed about.

Well, the things that occurred to me while you were talking, first of all, I can understand that people within Mormonism will be very concerned about disaffection, disaffiliation, people leaving the church.  It is a concern, and I sure hope that people at the church are taking notes on why this happens and that they are planning to make changes in the way we do things, particularly the way we set up these either/or dichotomies in which people are essentially forced out  if they have questions.  But I would also say, and I think you alluded to this, that this is not just the trend within Mormonism.  The trend towards disaffiliation is happening everywhere, and it’s a really fascinating moment in American culture.

I read a book a few Years ago by Christian Smith called Soul Searching, where he was doing research on teenagers and religions, an then he followed up on those same teenagers some years later when they became adults, so college age and in their early 20’s to find out specifically what happened to those kids, but more generally what happens to this whole generation, and I really recommend reading those books in tandem because it’s quite illuminating of how this is affecting.

In the first book, Mormonism comes of very well actually, because Mormon teens at least know what they’re supposed to believe and they report praying regularly, they report  devotional practices that would demonstrate some kind of personal commitment. But even those things are not really enough to hold people in the fold.  So Mormonism more recently, just last year, Oxford published another book by Kenda Creasy Dean who had been one of the researchers on the youth and religion project that Christian Smith started.  (I hope this isn’t boring people.)

The upshot is that she had a whole chapter on Mormons. Are they the success story in how their kids are learning the faith, being indoctrinated in the faith, and then staying in the faith?  I think the chapter was very good in terms of how it examined Mormon kids and how they are acculturated.  I don’t think it did such a great job in terms of looking at the darker side in the fact that a lot of these people then leave even returned missionaries will come home and sometimes leave for whatever reason.  People you would expect to have the highest levels of commitment to the faith.

But much of that is because we are living in a culture in which now 14% of young adults claim no affiliation, so that is a significant change even from a couple of decades ago when it was more like 6 or 7, so it has doubled, so it’s not just Latter-day Saints.

John, “Yeah, and that’s all true, and in Europe religion’s really struggling, and there’s some predictions that in nine countries across the world religion will become extinct, but that’s kind of what I’m wondering is—I wonder about the human condition there’s just no escaping God and belief overall.  I wonder if we’re destined as a species to boomerang back to faith or if science or social engineering is going to someday lead us to a better place?  Have you thought about that at all?”

Jana, “I have thought about it some, but not enough.  I think those are important questions for the future, but no I don’t have any grand sweeping wisdom to give you.”

John, “But as far as you’re concerned, well, what you represent to me is a testimonial that it’s not as simple as yank your kids out of church, you know, and teach them secular ways, because somehow at least for some that spirit just calls them right back, right?”

Jana, “Sometimes that happens.”

John, “Yeah.  I mean I remember speaking of a faith episode with Krista Tippett where there was a liberal loosey goosey Catholics who raised their kids outside of the faith and low and behold, by the time they were adults they were like fundamentalist Catholics.  Have you seen that dynamic happen in Judaism or other religions? “

Jana, “Yes, there is a whole kind of trend and it is very interesting to observe. I think the book that you are referring to from the Krista Tippets show was called the New Faithful.  Colleen someone, I can’t remember her last name, but she was looking at this phenomenon precisely of people who you would think are going to embrace largely secular values and then take a turn for conservative religions, in that case conservative Catholicism, why?  What is it that they are finding there?  I think that the reductionistic sociological answer is that people want to know what they’re supposed to believe, and never more so than a time of confusion more generally.

I don’t think that kind of explanation gives people very much credit.  It doesn’t hold true with people that I talk to.  They don’t say, ‘I wanted to know the truth so that my life would be simpler.’  Their lives are rarely simpler because of the changes that they’ve made.”

Why do you think atheists and religionists seem to have a hard time keeping their children “in the fold”?

John Dehlin recently interviewed her on Mormon Stories. In part 2, he discusses her book quite a bit, but in part 1, he discusses her background and perspectives on various issues. Jana grew up in an atheist family. As part of her “rebelious” youth, she went to church, eventually settling down with the Presbyterian faith. She felt called to the ministry and attended seminary to become a pastor. During her time in seminary, she converted to Mormonism. She has a Ph.D. in American Religious History from Columbia University.

There are some people who believe that the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham are frauds.  John questioned Jana about this line of reasoning, and I thought Jana gave some interesting insights (1) into the idea of a Mormon Midrash, and (2) truth doesn’t have to be empirical.  I wanted to quote from their interview, starting with about 30 minutes left in part 1.

John Dehlin, “The Book of Abraham and the Book of Mormon were like top 5 issues for people that have caused them to leave, and a lot of us just have the assumption that the only people who haven’t left are those who don’t know about Book of Mormon and DNA and the Book of Abraham, and everybody else has left, you know.  How in the world do you stay knowing about that stuff?”

Jana Riess, “Well, I don’t know that this is going to be a satisfactory answer to be honest with you because one of the things that I have found is that some of the people, most of whom are men, who get very exercised about  being in the know about what really happened with the Book of Abraham, etc. are not persuaded by arguments that rest on spirituality.  They only want arguments that meet them point for point, saying—again this is an either/or proposition as well—the whole way they approach the question.  If the Book of Abraham is not a divine translation of this ancient document, if it is in fact an ordinary funerary document that Joseph Smith completely expanded, embellished, elaborated on or if you are looking at a more cynical view, just simply lied about, then what do we do with the rest of our faith?

Well, let’s step back first of all and think about how important is the Book of Abraham to the Mormon faith in general?  I don’t think it’s terrifically important, but that’s just me.  But we need to have a tradition of midrash.  We need to have a tradition where we can look at a prophet in the way that Jews have looked at prophets of old and say, ‘this is a midrash’ on a revelation, or this is a midrash on an earlier work of scripture.”

John, “What does that word mean?”

Jana, “Midrash, well it’s basically any expanded teaching.  I don’t know what the exact definition would be, but an expanded teaching is something where in midrashim, you are taking a core text and then thinking about it cosmically, you’re thinking about it theologically, and you could look at, for example, the entire Pearl of Great Price as a midrash. You have Moses as a midrash on Genesis, right?  If you think about it in those terms, the literal nature of it is less important than what the book is trying to teach us about who we are as children of God.  I think that is where we need to be looking, and I frankly don’t give a hoot about some of the arguments about historicity, DNA, the more troubling avenues is of course Joseph Smith, the more troubling aspect is not the scripture itself, but what Joseph Smith said about and whether he can then be relied upon as a prophet of God.  Based on my work on the Hebrew Bible, I would say yeah.  Have you looked at those guys lately?

I mean we have this completely ridiculous idea of what a prophet is supposed to be.  No human being can measure up to that and there’s certainly no biblical example that does, and yet we conveniently forget about it. We come up with these stupid Gospel Doctrine lessons that encourage us to look at people in the Old Testament as if they were perfect and they we look at our own leaders to be perfect as well, and when they aren’t, well we leave.

John, “Right.  And then that all is a compelling, you know, a viable intellectual response and I want to dig into that a bit in a second.  But, it sounds like what you were also gonna say is there’s a strong spiritual component to it as well, is that right?”

Jane, “Yes there is, and I worry that we don’t emphasize deep reading of scripture in the way that we ought to.  We talk about reading the scriptures all the time.  Don’t get me wrong, and I think that’s an important devotional practice.  I think our church actually does a fairly good job of encouraging people to dig into the scriptures every day.  But we’re doing it for that informational thing that I was talking about before.  We’re doing it so we can learn the scriptures, we have the same thing when we go to the temple.  The temple is not a worship experience.  The temple is a learning experience, instruction.  That’s not at all the same.

We don’t have any corporate worship in Mormon culture, and that’s a huge problem.  I think if we have more authentic experiences of worshiping in community, of reading the scriptures together in community, not in the Gospel Doctrine sense where we’re there to learn about so and so, but in the sense that we have a small group of people who get together, who read the scriptures, who pray together about the needs in their lives, that is a completely different understanding of the scriptures, and we don’t do that.  I have no idea why we don’t.

John,”Hmmm.  And yet you feel it sounds like your Mormon-ness has been overall spiritual edifying for you and that’s part of what’s kept you around, right?  So have you just had to supplement on your own?”

Jana, “I do a lot of supplementing, yes. [chuckles]  That’s well said.  Yeah I do, I do a lot of supplementing.  I think that’s one of the blessings of having not grown up in this tradition.  I worry about people who basically feel that they have to leave Mormonism because they are convinced that the world out there is so much better, right?  It always is going to look that way.  Sometimes it actually is that way, but they don’t understand that it is possible to learn from other traditions without leaving your own, and instead to bless and enrich your life as a Mormon.  You know I’ve been enriched as a Mormon by studying Buddhist texts from Tibet, and about mortality and Tibetan prayer beads and how they sit and think about death, because the prayer beads are actually made of human bones and skulls, and they sit there and they touch them. They think about ‘yeah, I’m going to die.  How does that change the way I live now?

I want to clarify that I don’t actually have such a rosary, I don’t have anything that’s constructed out of human bones and skulls [John chuckles], but the idea of it, just the idea of it has transformed my spirituality and how I think about prayer and mortality, the fact that this is sooo fleeting.  We are here for such a short time.  We have to think about that every day.”

John, “Hmmm.  I’m going to kind of use this as a way to close this first hour, so don’t think that I’m going to now dig into some big deep exploration of this, but well, I guess I have two questions.  One is, um, I won’t ask them at the same time.  So the first question is what about the person that says to you, No Jana, either the Book of Abraham is what Joseph Smith said it was, or it’s a fraud.  Either the Book of Mormon is what Joseph said it was or it’s a fraud, and truth actually matters, facts matter.  A fair reading of the archaeological, anthropological, genetic, whatever evidence of the Book of Mormon, and a fair reading of the text, the funerary text that Joseph claimed to have translated the Book of Abraham from, you know, points that it was not true.  If it’s not true, I’m outta here because it’s based on fraud and deception and isn’t what it claims to be.”

Jana Riess, “But you are defining truth in this incredibly narrow way when you do that – not you personally, but anyone who does that.  You are defining truth in the way that enlightenment philosophy has taught us to define truth which is that it is factual, that it is historical, that it is epistemologically verifiable, right?  Well truth does not have to be factual, historical, or epistemologically verifiable.  It’s awfully nice when that happens because we can explain it to our friends and not sound like spiritual idiots.  But I’m afraid it doesn’t always work that way.  I think it bothers me—God bless the people at FAIR, I think they do wonderful work and it’s very persuasive for some people, but they’re not asking the bigger question—at least sometimes, about ‘why is this important?’

I once heard a fantastic sermon when I was in seminary.  It was called ‘The Second Question.’  The preacher, this professor had been to a magic show by Penn and Teller, and the guy behind him just basically spoiled the experience for the preacher by saying, ‘Oh, I know how they did that. I know how they did that.’ At one point in the show, either Penn or Teller said, ‘probably there are some people out there who are saying to themselves, ‘I know how they did that, but that’s not the important question.  The important question is ‘why do we do that?’ Why do we do this every day?  The preacher then extrapolated from that this whole sermon called ‘The Second Question.’

If we were to apply that to this situation—for example using Book of Mormon DNA as our test case, right?  The problem with the Book of Mormon DNA is that it demonstrates that you have this understanding of the Book of Mormon that simply cannot be factually true.  They’re right—it cannot be factually true in that sense.  Why does it have to be factually true? This is where I really disagree with Terryl Givens that you had one your show, and I love Terryl, and I think his work has been so important.  I think it’s awesome that he came on your show, but Terryl sets up this situation in [his book] By the Hand of Mormon where he says, “if you don’t believe it happened this way, everything else falls apart.  The rest of it hinges upon the literal nature of this, and I think that when we do that, we are setting everyone up to fall.  Because first of all, it may not be factually verifiable, but why do we care about that?

I think we care about it to a ridiculous degree because we are concerned about how it all sounds to other people. We’re a persecuted religious minority; we’re very sensitive about how our faith plays in Peoria, which by the way, it doesn’t, because I grew up near Peoria, and I can tell you it totally doesn’t.  So the apologetics issues and the questions that are asked, let’s get to the second question, and let’s look at some of these scriptural texts prayerfully, and ask God before we even start reading what do you want to teach me from this?  How does this have bearing on my life?  That’s a very transformative way to approach the scriptures.”

John, “So you’re saying, ‘Forget if Mormonism is factually, historically what it claims to be.  Live it, and if it transforms your life, then you’ve enjoyed a transformed life.  Is that what you’re saying?”

Jana, “I don’t think it’s quite as reductionistic as that.  This is not Pascal’s wager where we are just saying I am going to live as if this were true and see what happens.  Because there is an element beneath this entire experience that is that seed of faith, that yearning, that desire to believe, and that undergirds everything else.  That undergirds every spiritual question.  I think that you’re right that you say, at some point there is this point where it’s a leap of faith, and you do take that faith, leap on faith, as they say for better or for worse.

You have to do it with both eyes open, and this is where I look at some of the people I know in charge, and it all just seems to come so easily to them and of course this is all true, and I was raised on this with mother’s milk and how dare you ever question this.  That is so immature.  That is as immature as it is for someone to say, well this one thing wasn’t factually true so I’m throwing it all out because it’s all lies.  We have to grow up. That’s the whole point of Mormon theology where the burden is upon us with our agency that we need to search for truth.”

John, “Right, so you’re not saying truth doesn’t matter, you’re saying there’s gotta be a core hope or belief that at some level there’s some validity of truth to what’s going on, and then from there the struggle is part of the point.”

Jana, “YES IT IS!!! Well said.  The struggle is part of the point.  I think when Pilate makes this comment that just seems like a throwaway afterthought, ‘ha, what is truth?’ as though that’s this kind of cynical approach, I’d like to give him the benefit of the doubt here. I’d like to think that there’s a part of Pilate that really wants to know, what is truth to you, Jesus?  Because you’re totally blowing my mind.  Why don’t we have that curiosity ourselves?

There’s a Gnosticism to people who say ‘I have discovered the real truth’, whether it’s the conservative Mormons who believe that they have discovered the real truth and everything else is crap outside the church, or it’s disaffected former Latter-day Saints who say I’ve discovered the truth about the Book of Mormon or the Book of Abraham and everything else is crap.  That’s Gnosticism. When we believe that some sort of sacred, secret teaching has awakened us and opened our eyes and that everyone else is in the dark, that is not Christianity.”

John, “And for someone who didn’t believe in Christ, what would you appeal to?  It’s just not what, mature, or broad-thinking, or enlightened?”

Jana, “Mm Hmm.  That’s a good question. Yeah, I think it is not spiritually mature.  If we, as progressive people want to be able to say that we are in fact progressive people, we need to entertain other points of view, and I find that on both of those extremes, there’s often a hardness and a coldness to investigating new truth, and I worry about that.”

John, “Right.  Isn’t that if I’m just going to play pro-LDS for a second, Isn’t that one of the beauties of what Joseph Smith left us, is a legacy of, we will follow the truth and be willing to accept new truth when it comes?”

Jana, “You know, I am so pleased that you brought that up, because unfortunately, we don’t live that way.  It comes in even how people talk to me about my conversion.  I converted in 1993.  That’s the official story, right?  But I am always converting.  I am on a journey of conversion and I’m not the same Christian that I was in 1993 when I became a Latter-day Saint Christian, and I won’t be the same Christian in 18 years from now.  I am always converting, and I hope that I am always going to be open to new truth and wherever God leads me.”

What are your thoughts on a Mormon Midrash, the Book of Mormon, Abraham, and truth doesn’t need to be empirical?

The maps are pretty cool.  What do you think?

Griffiths describes the battle on page 92.  Theological liberals are

called “modernists”, and and their conservative enemies, termed “fundamentalists”….In the battle between the two camps, one that hoisted the banner of science and another that decried the abandonment of traditional biblical views, where would the Latter-day Saints land?

In the late 1800′s and early 1900′s, the LDS church established schools.  These schools were tremendously expensive to run.  The church experimented with high school and college seminaries in Utah and Idaho.  These seminaries were much less costly than church schools.  The economic savings and stock market crash of 1929 persuaded the church to turn over nearly all church schools to the state, and focus on funding seminaries for high school, and Institutes of Religion for college campuses.  But there were some problems.  The Utah State Board of Education recommended (on page 96)

that Church seminaries and public high schools be completely dissaciated, release time eliminated, and credit for biblical studies withdrawn.  A major point of Williamson’s criticism was the teaching of LDS doctrine in biblical classes offered for credit.  Williamson charged that such teachings as “the Garden of Eden was located in Missouri;…Noah’s ark was built and launched in America;…Joseph Smith’s version of the Bible is superior to King James version; and…Enoch’s city, Zion, with all its inhabitants and buildings, was lifted up and translated bodily from the American continent to the realms of the unknown” were being taught in biblical classes for which the state offered credit.²⁴

Joseph Merrill was the church commissioner of Education.  He recommended that BYU become a training school for seminary teachers, and that these teachers not only obtain a teaching certificate, but be trained in theology.  Just prior to the scathing Williamson report, some LDS members had received training in theology on their own.  From page 93,

Sidney B. Sperry, on his own initiative, left in 1925 to attend the Divinity School of Chicago.  He received a Master’s Degree in 1926, specializing in Old Testament studies.¹⁰ At the same time, Heber C. Snell, a teacher at Church-owned Snow College, attended the Pacific School of Religion, majoring in biblical studies.

Impressed with this theological training, Merrill issued a call to Daryl Chase, Russel Swenson, and George Tanner to attend the University of Chicago’s Divinity School.  From page 98,

Why the University of Chicago?  Besides Sperry’s already existing relationship with the school, there were several compelling reasons to send seminary men there–and several reasons for concern.  Chicago was among the most liberal divinity schools in the country.  At the time, the divinity school…emphasized research and academic freedom.  The views of scholars there fell highly on the modernist end of the spectrum, stressing historical methodology and critical linguistic, sociological, and psychological approaches to the scriptures.³¹ Many of the conclusions reached by the Chicago scholars ran contrary to orthodox views of the scriptures among Latter-day Saints.

…

Doubtless there were professors on both sides of the spectrum from Goodspeed, but on the whole the young school prided itself as being a “hotbed” of radical theology.³⁴…the school emphasized non-confrontational approaches toward those who held more conservative views on scripture.  Russel Swenson recalled, “In all the time I was there I never heard one criticism by the professors against the fundamentalist of conservative point of view.”³⁶

Page 99 notes the famous Scopes Monkey trial of 1925.  This trial on evolution seems to be the pinnacle of the arguments between fundamentalists and modernists.  From page 99,

When Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan argued in a Tennessee courtroom over evolution and the inerrancy of the Bible, Darrow, a Chicago attorney, was using ammunition supplied by Chicago scholars.³⁸

So once again, this leaves the question, Why the University of Chicago?

Indeed, one of the ironies of the situation may have been that only a very liberal school would accept Latter-day Saints as students in the religious climate of the time.³⁹

Merrill was interested in improving the scholarship of seminaries.  In showing that Sperry was still a conservative scholar, Merrill noted that (pages 99-100)

“Sperry had been back there and apparently this hadn’t hurt him at all.”  He said Daryl Chase had concluded that “Joseph Merrill had so much faith in the gospel that he thought if we went there we’d be able to find the material so that we could just positively lay out the proof for all of our claims.”  Chase believed that “Joseph F. Merrill was naive enough to believe that that would lead us into proof positive of the various positions we had taken.”42  While the men may have believed that Merrill was being naive, there is ample evidence to believe he also knew the risk he was taking.  Each of the men was informed that if they changed their views, they might not have a position when they returned.⁴³ Overall, Merrill’s attitude indicated a cautious optimism about the venture.

Griffiths notes good and bad experiences for LDS students.  Some embraced the school, while others weren’t impressed. Swenson wrote that “the past year will be a bright year in my life” and “They have no diabolical scheme to undermine the truth, but the reverse, to discover it.”  On the other hand, T. Edgar Lyon wrote the professors were “either infidels or agnostics…I fail to see how a young man can come here to school, then go out after graduation, and still preach what we call Christianity.”

Eleven LDS students obtained advanced degrees from the University of Chicago.  Swenson and Sperry became faculty at BYU, and Merrill (not a graduate) was later called to be an apostle.  Chicago graduate Howard Snell created controversy among Institute teachers when he questioned the historicity of the Book of Jonah, and said that God used evolution to create life.  This provoked a strong reaction from Joseph Fielding Smith who was very antagonistic toward evolution.  On page 107, J Reuben Clark, a member of the First Presidency

warned that if unorthodox teaching continued, “we shall face the abandonment of the seminaries and institutes and the return of Church colleges and academies.”  He added, “we are not now sure, in the light of developments, that these should ever have been given up.”⁸⁸

President Clark’s address provoked strong reactions among educators present.  Sterling McMurrin, a young teacher present, remarked, “We divided ourselves up…into liberal and conservative camps…Clark laid it out very firmly, and there was considerable discussion about it around our campfires.”⁸⁹

…

[page 109] At the end of the 1938-39 school year, when Guy C. Wilson retired as the head of the Religion Department at BYU, J. Wyley Sessions, who did not hold a PhD, was appointed as his replacement, which was perceived as a signal that faithfulness was more important than scholarship in Church education.

President Clark wrote a letter stating (on page 110),

“Teachers will do well to give up indoctrinating themselves in the sectarianism of the modern ‘Divinity School Theology’.  If they do not, they will be no longer useful in our system.”  The letter asked teachers to teach “the gospel and that only, and the Gospel as revealed in these last days.”  They were also warned not to use the term “ideology”, which the First Presidency felt placed “the Gospel in the same category with any and every pagan religion or theology.”  The letter continued, “This concept reduced to its lowest terms, may be expressed as conceiving that religion is man-made, that man makes his God, not God his man–a concept which is coming to be basic to the whole ‘Divinity School Theology,’ but which is contrary to all the teachings of the Church and to God’s revealed word.”¹⁰²

Griffiths notes that the Chicago men varied from quite orthodox (Sperry) to liberal (Snell).  It seems quite clear that the church made a swing toward fundamentalism, and away from modernism.  Even apostle Joseph Merrill seemed concerned with some of the more liberal teachers.  T Edgar Lyon was the last person to attend divinity school for the next 30 years.  Griffiths notes some of the good things that happened with the divinity school experiment.  From page 121,

Nearly all of the Chicago men noted that their time at the divinity school opened ecumenical doors for the Church and helped bring Mormonism further into the mainstream of American religious discourse.  At the same time, the scholarly methods learned in Chicago, applied toward modern scripture, led to huge leaps in the quality of Mormon apologetics.  Sidney Sperry, T. Edgar Lyon, Russel Swenson, and other Chicago scholars wrote the majority of Sunday School and priesthood manuals used in the Church for decades after they returned from Chicago.”

I am saddened that the fundamentalists won, but I am encouraged that it seems the modernists are making some headway in the church.  What do you think of this history?  Are you a fundamentalist, or a modernist?

Yesterday, Paul Reeve, Associate Professor of History from the University of Utah told us that St. George was once more cosmopolitan in the early years.  It had more (raw numbers of) blacks, Chinese, Polynesians and Europeans in the early days of settlement until the past few decades.  It was a really interesting presentation.

I have been very interested to learn about new research websites.  In the afternoon, Rick Turley, Randy Olsen and Jeffrey Walker introduced the brand new Church History Library Beta Website.  Apparently it is brand new this week.  Turley said that they are in the process of digitizing millions of documents and photographs.  Some are already available and they hope that many will be available soon.  They encouraged us to make requests for digitization.  I checked out the website yesterday.  It is a beta website, and did go down for a few minutes yesterday, but I look forward to checking it out some more.  I just realized that all the items I saved on my e-shelf were erased because I did not log in.

They also showed us the Joseph Smith Papers website.  This website contains all the information found in the bound volumes, as well as new information not in the books.  Jeffrey Walker gave an entertaining introduction, and said we should all watch the 2:08 video on the home page since he is prominently featured there.  The room was packed with researchers.

This morning, I attended the inaugural Mormon Women’s History Initiative breakfast.  They have a Facebook page, as well as a website to assist those interested in studying women’s history.  It was here that I was able to talk to Richard Bushman.  When I told him I was a statistician, I was surprised that he started asking me questions!  He asked me if I followed Wordprint studies, and I was pleased to say that I have.  I told him to stop by my blog, so I’ll make it easy to find the items.  Here are a few posts on the topic.

• an in-depth review of Rebuttal to Jockers here on my website
• a shorter version of it at Wheat and Tares
• my first review of Wordprints in general
• I was bummed to see that the comments were removed from Mormon Matters about my review of the Jockers study.
• There were very interesting comments at Mormon Discussions.  Bruce Schaalje of BYU and Matt Criddle of Stanford went the rounds a bit.

Yesterday afternoon I attended a session called “Reading and Writing Southern Utah History.”  Brandon Metcalf of the Church History Department gave a history of the southern Utah historian James Bleak (pronounced Blake).  Curt Bench gave a delightful presentation on Juanita Brooks (he’s a big fan and a bibliophile), and George D Smith gave a history of apostle George A. Smith, for whom St George is named.  George A Smith was a cousin to Joseph Smith, and the grandfather of future prophet George Albert Smith.

This  morning, I was able to attend a great session on the Mountain Meadows Massacre.  Ugo Perego was supposed to give a presentation called “‘Poisoned Springs?’  Scientific Testing of the More Recent Anthrax Theory.”  Perego wasn’t able to give the presentation because he was in Italy accepting an award, so the president of Soreneson Molecular Genealogy, Scott Woodward gave his presentation.  It was awesome.

As you may or may not know, the Fancher party was accused of poisoning a spring and causing cattle to die.  This was supposedly the cause of the Indians getting angry at the Fancher party and seeking their deaths.  However, historians have said they don’t believe there was any poison.  Perego looked at poisons and environmnetal explanations of the poisoned springs theory.  Strychnine and Arsenic were the two most common poisons available in 1857, but he doesn’t think it fits the descriptions.  Anthrax and Brucellosis seem more likely, with anthrax seeming to fit the descriptions best.

A young boy from Fillmore, Utah named Proctor Robison was known to have skinned a cow and died shortly thereafter in a manner similar to the descriptions of the Fancher party “poisonings”.  The Sorenson group asked for permission to exhume the body and see if there was evidence of anthrax in the boy’s death.  While they were able to positively identify the boy using DNA testing, the ground was very moist.  Anthrax has been known to leave dormant spores around for centuries in the right conditions.  If the boy did die of anthrax, the moist ground has erased any evidence of anthrax in his death.  I think it is a really interesting theory, and I was fascinated by the presentation.

Barbara Jones Brown discussed the Marvelous Flood of 1862 which devastated much of the area surrounding Mountain Meadows, and Richard Turley discussed John Wesley Powell’s interactions (for whom Lake Powell is named) in southern Utah.  Powell came in contact with John D Lee and others of MMM infamy.  It was a great session, and a packed house.

I’ll post more tomorrow.  Questions or comments?

The September Six refer to a group of 6 intellectuals that were disciplined by the church in 1993.

1. Lynne Whitesides*
2. Paul Toscano
3. Maxine Hanks
4. Lavina Anderson
5. Michael Quinn
6. Avraham Gileadi**

*Five of the six were excommunicated with Lynne Whitesides being the exception–she was disfellowshipped.

**Of the six disciplined, only Avraham Gileadi was rebaptized. Lindholm notes in the Introduction,

A conservative biblical scholar, Gileadi consistently refused to speak to the press following his excommunication, and he remains the only member of the September Six to be rebaptized and admitted back into the fold.  In keeping with this precedent, Gileadi did not respond to my interview request for this volume.

Lindholm also interviews 3 others who have been disciplined by the church since 1991:

• Margaret Toscano,
• her sister Janice Merrill Allred, and
• Thomas Murphy.

For balance, Lindholm interviews Donald Jessee, former employee of the LDS Church’s Public Affairs Department.

I really liked the book.  My only mild criticism was the fact that it is apparent these interviews occurred several years ago, but the book is just coming out now.  For example, the author asked every guest if they believed Gordon B. Hinckley was a prophet, rather than Thomas S. Monson.  I asked the publisher why some of the material seemed dated, and he said it took quite some time to get permission from all of the people.  The last interview took place in 2004.

The most interesting topic to me (outside of the excommunications themselves) was learning about the Strengthening the Church Committee (SCMC).  I had never heard of it before.  In describing it, Lynne Whitesides said on page 6,

There is a Strengthening Church Members Committee that we didn’t know about at the time, a Gestapo-like group which press-clipped everything anyone said who might be considered an enemy of the Church, meaning one who disagreed with Church policy.

Footnote 4 on page 181 further clarifies this.

According to Apostle Dallin H. Oaks, the Strengthening Church Members Committee is a “clipping service” that “pores over newspapers and other publications and identifies members accused of crimes, preaching false doctrine, criticizing leadership or other problems.  That information is forwarded on to the person’s bishop or stake president, who is charged with helping them overcome problems and stay active in the Church.”  Quoted in “News: Six Intellectuals Disciplined for Apostasy,” Sunstone 92 (November 1993): 69.  The First Presidency further clarified the nature and history of the Strengthening Church Members Committee when it stated, “This committee serves as a resource to priesthood leaders throughout the world who may desire assistance on a wide variety of topics.  It is a General Authority committee, currently comprised of Elder James E. Faust and Elder Russell M. Nelson of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles.  They work through established priesthood channels, and neither impose nor direct Church disciplinary action.”  Quoted in “News: Church Defends Keeping Files on Members,” Sunstone 88 (August 1992): 63.  Many of those called in for investigatory interviews or discipline have claimed that this committee is responsible for compiling incriminating evidence against targeted members.

Here is what Donald Jessee, former employee of LDS Church’s Public Affairs Department said when asked about the committee.  From page 217-220,

Donald:  It ‘s a committee that seeks information that, in time, if the proper action is taken, does just that–it can strengthen Church members through proper discipline.

Philip:  How so?  Many excommunicants have claimed that it collected files on them in preparation for potential disciplinary courts.

Donald:  They do it by caring about members of the Church.  Discipline is designed to help members who have gone astray.  The Church from its beginning has gathered anti-Mormon literature and derogatory or false information about the Church.  If the source of this information comes from Church members of record, then action is taken.  The Church must be aware of its critics and enemies.  Again, Church leaders must keep the Church morally clean and ethically straight.

Philip:  Should academics avoid publishing research if it could be understood as contradicting the Church’s position on a given topic?

Donald:  Members can publish whatever they want.  There’s no censorship.  It depends on the context and the person’s motives in doing what has been done.  If a BYU professor, whose salary is paid with Church funds and who has signed an honor code of conduct to keep university rules, then publicly goes out and violates them, then that person is subject to discipline, but he or she is free to speak about any issue he or she wants to….

Philip:  What about those topics not yet given much attention by Church leaders?  Do members have free reign on those topics?  Thomas Murphy was nearly excommunicated for doing genetic research that the Mormon Church had yet to conduct.  How much freedom is one afforded on such controversial but relatively unaddressed topics?  Mother in Heaven is another example of a controversial topic upon which people have published and been punished for doing so.

Donald:  Well, in the case of Murphy, he says that because of DNA he has proven that the Book of Mormon is not true.  How does he know?  There were other groups of people here in America before Lehi arrived here….How could DNA prove or disprove the truthfulness of a book brought here under the hand of God?…

I do not know anything regarding those who have been disciplined for publishing on the doctrine of a Mother in Heaven.  Chances are they presented their ideas in a way that ran counter to true religion and to the Church and its teachings.  Speculation on such matters can lead members astray and destroy faith in God the Father.  Praying to a Mother in Heaven is not a true doctrine, no matter how it is defined or presented.  It undermines faith in the true process of offering prayers, which is to pray to Heavenly Father in the name of Christ.

Members can believe anything they want.  Church members may believe they have a Mother in Heaven, but to go out teaching that we ought to pray to her, or that we give details about her when both the prophets and the scriptures are silent–this violates the teachings of the Church…

If Church members go to their friends and start talking about practicing plural marriage, they are not in harmony with the Church.  Yes, there are some things where common sense says, “Don’t discuss it in private or in public.”  Otherwise, hey, I’ve got the freedom to think anything I want, but I need to be careful that I’m not trying to represent the Church with my point of view or convince others that a certain doctrine or practice represents true religion or is what the issue or is what the Church teaches.  As an individual, I can speculate all I want on any issue or topic as long as I keep to myself those matters that are not in harmony with truth and the Church and its teachings.

If I am a prominent or well thought of member of the Church, and I present a paper in the name of religious freedom that one might consider worshiping idols, I can expect Church discipline.  That doctrine is contrary to true religion and the teachings of God.  To bring up controversial topics in meetings such as sacrament meeting, Sunday School, priesthood meeting, Relief Society, etc., could raise questions and jeopardize one’s standing in the Church…

Philip:  Yet Janice Allred was excommunicated in 1995 for her insistence on publishing a clearly speculative paper entitled, “Toward a Theology of God the Mother.”⁴ Why was she disciplined for asserting her opinion?

Donald:  I believe I have already established the fact that I can’t comment on Church discipline, as that is confidential and would violate privacy issues.  As a member of the church, I don’t know.  I wasn’t involved there and don’t know the facts.  Such a doctrine has not been revealed through a living prophet, and it is not appropriate to be a member of the Church and teach to others in any setting doctrines or practices that run counter to true religion and the Church and its teachings, such as practicing plural marriage or other theories that are not mainstream teachings of the living prophets.

I really thought Whitesides “Gestapo-like” comment was a wild exaggeration, but after hearing what Jessee had to say, I’m not so sure.  According to Wikipedia,

The committee was formed during the administration of church President Ezra Taft Benson,[1] soon after Benson became president in 1985.[2]

The existence of the committee became known in 1991, when a 1990 church memo from general authority Glenn L. Pace referencing the committee was published by an anti-Mormon ministry.^[3] The committee was one of the subjects discussed in the 1992 Sunstone Symposium in talks by Lavina Fielding Anderson and Eugene England (then a BYU professor) on August 6, 1992. Soon thereafter, the Salt Lake Tribune published news stories on the subject (Tribune, August 8, 1992 and August 15, 1992). England came to regret his impulsive comments and apologized to all parties individually.^[4]

In response to this public discourse, the LDS Church spokesman Don LeFevre acknowledged the existence of the committee.^[5] LeFevre said that the committee “receives complaints from church members about other members who have made statements that ‘conceivably could do harm to the church’”, then the committee will “pass the information along to the person’s ecclesiastical leader.” According to LeFevre, however, “the committee neither makes judgments nor imposes penalties.” Discipline is “entirely up to the discretion of the local leaders.”^[6]

After reading all this, I wonder how much the apostles monitor blogs.  I find it a little ironic that President Benson started it.  He was quite a conspiracy theoriest, as I mentioned in my post about his anti-Communist rhetoric.  I keep hearing in different settings that the church is much more open now, but I’m not so sure.  For example, at a recent conference at BYU, professor Ronald Esplin said this is one of the best environments to study church history since the “Camelot” era of the 1970s.

However, discipline for intellectuals still seems to occur.   The Wikipedia article mentions that in 2004, the committee put together a dossier on Grant Palmer, author of Insider’s View of Mormon Origins.  (Palmer was disfellowshipped.)  In the introduction, Lindholm notes on page xii, that excommunications of academics has continued beyond the notorious 1993 September Six (formatting changed)

• In 1994, Professor David Wright of Brandeis University and editor Brent Metcalf were excommunicated for their scripture studies in New Approaches to the Book of Mormon:  Explorations in Critical Methodology
• In 1995, author Janice Allred was excommunicated for her writings about Mother in Heaven.
• In 2000, Professor Margaret Toscano was excommunicated for her theological reflections, and
• in 2002, Professor Thomas Murphy was nearly excommunicated for his anthropological work on Mormonism.
• In addition, many other unnamed intellectuals were called into disciplinary interviews that did not result in excommunication.

I know Simon Southerton resigned under pressure from the church following his publication of information on DNA and the Book of Mormon.  Last week, I learned that John Dehlin, founder of Mormon Stories, Mormon Matters, and StayLDS was summoned to a meeting with his Stake President.  He said the meeting went well, and solicited comments to his website.  From my point of view, it bears a lot of parallels with Lynne Whitesides experience in 1993.  John has recently been interviewed on ABC and other news organizations.  Lynne was called in to talk to her bishop following an interview with Chris Vanocur on Channel 4, KTVX.  Here’s what Lynne said on page 4,

In May when my bishop called me to come in to talk, I thought, “Wow…this is great.  Maybe the system does work.  maybe this church really is a place where I can get comfortable.”  I was very excited.  I left early from my feminism class up at teh University of Utah to meet with him.  When I walked in, he was with his two counselors, all in suits, and I’m thinking, “Wow, they really want me back at church.  This is great!”  I sat down, and Virgil Merrill, the bishop, said, “Elder Loren C. Dunn has asked us to meet with you to see if we need to take any ecclesiastical action against you.”

I started to laugh and couldn’t stop.  ”Give me a minute,” I said, “I thought you called m in here because you cared about me.  Let me just have a quick moment to adjust.”  Their faces…you could see that what I has said shocked them, but then we had a lovely talk.  It was not confrontational at all; it was amazing.  At the end, Virgil said he was going to tell Dunn that I was fine.  So, when I received the summons letter I was shocked.

Philip:  Your bishop gave you no warning at all that you were going to be tried by a church court?

Lynne:  No, nothing.  When I found out, I called Lavinia [Fielding Anderson] immediately….We also wrote a letter to the bishop saying that if he went through with the church court, then we were going to let the media know.  Virgil wrote back saying that he wanted to hold it.  He didn’t realize what he was getting into.  He didn’t realize how much press coverage it was going to get.  We heard through the grapevine, he was getting pressure from [Boyd K.] Packer² and other leaders to excommunicate me.

Philip:  Can you elaborate on “the grapevine”?

Lynne:  One of the bishopric counselors involved in my court was relate3d toa  reporter I knew.  Both were at a barbecue once, and the counselor told the reporter, not thinking it would ever get back to me, that they were getting pressure from Church leaders to “do something” about Lynne Whitesides.  Well, it did get back to me, and I knew this going into the trial.

Well, I’ve already quoted quite a bit from the book.  Let me end with a quick summary of things the church apparently doesn’t like us discussing:

• Lynne Whitesides was disfellowshipped for “why I thought it was all right to pray to a female diety.”
• Paul Toscano was excommunicated for defending his wife Margaret.  Basically Margaret was the real target.  To save her, Paul blasted church leaders and was excommunicated for insubordination.  (I’ll discuss Margaret in a bit.)
• Maxine Hanks was excommunicated for her book Women and Authority.
• Lavina Fielding Anderson was excommunicated for documenting ecclesiastical abuse in the Church.
• Michael Quinn was excommunicated for writing a chapter in Hanks book, Women and Authority, and for a Sunstone presentation in 1992 called “150 Years of Truth and Consequences in Mormon History.”
• Janice Merrill Allred was excommunicated in 1995 for discussing God the Mother.
• Margaret  Merrill Toscano was excommunicated in 1995 for discussing God the Mother.  (Note Janice and Margaret are sisters.)
• Thomas Murphy was “nearly excommunicated in December 2002, proceedings halted indefinitely on February 23, 2003.”  Murphy wrote about DNA and the Book of Mormon.  Wikipedia says, “on February 23, 2003, Latimer informed Murphy that all disciplinary action was placed on permanent hold.^[3]“

This book is very timely for me.  I have wanted to get more involved in church history.  I also want to maintain good standing int he church.  Lindholm quotes Armaund Mauss in the introduction.  Mauss is a retired Mormon sociologist from Washington State University.  From page xxii

Even the most careful and diplomatic comments will not be much appreciated by many Church leaders, perhaps by most Church leaders, whether general or local.  We have to understand that much going in.  Do not expect to appear on the short list for bishop or Relief Society president if you have been regularly commenting on local or general Church matters.  If prominent Church positions are important to you, keep quiet.  If you’re going to speak up, whether in oral or written media, first cultivate thick skin, then abandon your aspirations for important Church callings; you shouldn’t have them anyway.  Finally, don’t whine when you’re passed over or looked upon with some suspicion.³⁷

Footnote 45 quotes Mauss as saying,

I have come to feel increasingly marginal to the Mormon community during my adult life, at least in a social and intellectual sense, despite my continuing and conscientious participation in church activity (including leadership) and despite my own deep personal faith in the religion itself.

Lindholm goes on to say on page xxiii that

Mormonism is not alone in its desire to censor.  Most Christian traditions–Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant alike–have a long history of disciplining vocal dissent,⁴² which is a practice supported by a rather strong biblical basis.⁴³.  The LDS Church, however, is different in that its leaders actively discipline select members in order to sustain the appearance of doctrinal purity for the sake of the Church’s integrity and public image.⁴⁴

What do you make of this church discipline?  Do you have any advice for me?

Ever since the Book of Mormon was published in 1830, critics have tried to show that it came forth as the result of fraud.  One of the earliest theories was the Spaulding Theory.  As the theory goes, Solomon Spaulding wrote an unpublished novel about a group of Romans from the time of Constantine that were blown off course from Britain to the Americas.  Somehow (never adequately explained) Sidney Rigdon obtained the manuscript, and then transferred it surreptitiously to Joseph Smith who added religious information.  Fawn Brodie put together an appendix in her book No Man Knows My History outlining problems with the theory.  (I wrote about this in a post called Debunking the Spaulding Theory.)  Most people think the theory has been debunked, though the theory still has some adherents, such as Dale Broadhurst who maintains a website in favor of the theory.

Wordprint studies try to determine the true author of text.  The idea of a wordprint is similar to a finger print.  Each person uses a certain set of words such as “a, but, and, the, etc” in a way that is unique.  By collecting information on word usage, a wordprint theoretically can identify an author.

In 2008, Mathew Jockers, Daniela Witten, and Craig Criddle of Stanford University created a stir when they produced a peer-reviewed article in Oxford’s journal titled Literary and Linguistic Computing.  The authors concluded that major portions of the Book of Mormon exhibited Sidney Rigdon and Solomon Spaulding’s writing style, thus creating a resurgence of interest in the Spaulding Theory.  Traditionally, wordprint studies have used a statistical technique known as the Delta Method.  Jockers, et al compared the Delta method to a new technique called Nearest Shrunken Centroid (NSC).  NSC has been used cancer studies, but this was the first time it has been used in wordprint studies.  The Jockers study found the NSC method to be much more reliable than the Delta method.  Many New Order Mormons and anti-Mormons were pleased with the study.  But there were some big questions about the method.

In January 2011 Bruce Schaalje, Paul Fields, and Matthew Roper of BYU, along with Gregory Snow of Intermountain Health Care released a study outlining problems with the Jockers study in the same Oxford journal of Literary and Lingustic Computing.  While acknowledging that NSC is a good method for wordprint studies, they detailed several problems with the Jockers study, noting a “naive application of NSC methodology” led to “misleading results.”  Jockers et al had used a closed set of 7 authors for their study.  Schaalje’s study showed that an open set of candidate authors “produced dramatically different results from a closed-set NSC analysis.”

The beginning of the Schaalje article discusses a bit of mathematical theory (I’ll spare you.)  Schaalje notes that this study has a foundation in theory, rather than emperical evidence like the Jocker study; therefore Schaalje’s study is a bit stronger.  Schaalje was able to reproduce Jocker’s results, and applied the same technique to another document: the Federalist Papers.  To demonstrate a problem with Jocker’s technique, they purposely excluded Alexander Hamilton from the list of candidate authors, and picked other authors to see which author the Jocker’s closed-set method would choose.  The candidate authors were Joseph Smith, early Sidney Rigdon, late Sidney Rigdon, Solomon Spaulding, Oliver Cowdery, and Parley P. Pratt.

Early or late Rigdon was falsely chosen as the author of 28 of the 51 Hamilton texts with inflated posterior probabilities ranging as high as 0.9999 (Fig. 2). Pratt was falsely chosen as the author of 12 of the papers, and Cowdery was falsely chosen as the author of the remaining 11 papers. These results dramatically demonstrate the danger of misapplying closed-set NSC.

Schaalje et al noted that Jocker’s et al should have used a “goodness of fit” test to verify how well their findings matched, and proposed a method to compute the goodness of fit.

An important extension to NSC classification is to allow an open set, i.e. the possibility that the test texts might not be authored by any of the candidate authors. We propose that this can be done by positing an unobserved author for each test text in addition to the observed candidates in the training data.  We propose an unobserved author with a distribution of literary features just barely consistent with the test text. Thus, as a straightforward extension of the NSC classification model, we suggest that posterior probabilities for the candidate authors be calculated as…

(Once again, I’ll spare the mathematical proof.)  They applied this goodness of fit test and said,

Applying this extended model to the Hamilton texts with Smith, early Rigdon, late Rigdon, Spalding, Cowdery, and Pratt as training authors, only 2 of the test texts were assigned to early or late Rigdon, while the remaining 49 were assigned to an unobserved author (obviously Hamilton)  (Fig. 5).

As a further test of the open-set NSC procedure, in addition to Rigdon, etc., we included Hamilton as a training author represented by the first 25 Hamilton papers. We classified the remaining 26 Hamilton papers as test texts. We first used the closed-set model. All 26 Hamilton test texts were correctly assigned to Hamilton; none was assigned to an unobserved author. The goodness-of-fit procedure (Fig. 4, right panel) indicated that the closed-set model was valid.  We then used the open-set model. All 26 Hamilton test texts were still correctly assigned to Hamilton. Hence, when the actual author was included in the training set, the allowance for an unobserved author as in Equation (10) did not appear to compromise the ability of open-set NSC to correctly attribute authorship.  It is important to note that the open-set NSC procedure does not indicate how many unobserved authors there are. All we know is that if an unobserved author is selected for a test text, one unobserved author is most probable as the author of that text. There could be as many unobserved authors as the number of test texts, or as few as one. A clustering procedure would provide some information as to the total number of unobserved authors.

In order for the NSC method to work, writing samples of test authors are needed.  Schaalje et al noted that the Jockers study has sample texts ranging from 114 to 17,979 words, with training texts ranging from 95 to 3752 words.  With such a wide disparity of sample texts, the BYU authors indicated that was another problem.

The measurement of 100 or more word frequencies on texts of less than 100 words is almost sure to produce unreliable measurements (Holmes and Kardos,2003). For the delta procedure, Burrows (2003, p. 21) found that ‘with texts of fewer than two thousand words in length… the test gradually becomes less effective’. Others have worked with texts of 1,000, 5,000, and 10,000 words (Larsen et al.,1980; Hilton, 1990; Holmes, 1992).

To test whether the size of the training text matters, the BYU authors used 8 Rigdon samples ranging in length from 100 to 5,000 words.

we recommend in general that the training data involve only texts of at least 1,000 words because feature-specific variances do not change greatly with text size beyond 1,000. Within limits, the problem of training text size variation can be dealt with simply by compositing shorter texts of known authorship to create training texts of at least 1,000–2,000 words.  Hoover (2004), in fact, found that combining several texts ‘helps to improve accuracy’ of authorship attribution.

After Sidney Rigdon left the church, he started his own church in Pennsylvania.  (I blogged about this group previously here and here.)  As noted in the 2nd link, Sidney Rigdon had many revelations between 1863 and 1873.  Schaalje used these revelations to see if any false positives could be attributed to another author using various size sample texts from Rigdon.

To illustrate the effects of both extensions (Equations 10 and 12) to the NSC method, we applied the closed-set NSC method and the two extensions to 95 ‘revelations’ attributed to Sidney and Phebe Rigdon between 1863 and 1873, decades after Rigdon had left the Mormon movement. The test texts ranged in size from 60 to 4,128 words. We used the Smith, Cowdery, Spalding, Pratt, and early Rigdon texts as the training data, and specified informative priors based on the fact that Smith, Cowdery, Spalding, and Pratt had all died long before 1863. The closed-set NSC model attributed the texts mainly to Rigdon and Smith (Fig. 7), the open-set NSC model attributed most of the texts to latent authors, and the fully expanded NSC model attributed the texts to Rigdon, Smith, and latent authors. The point here is that open-set NSC without adjustments for test texts sizes is inadequate if some of the test texts are very small.

In the Jockers study, they noted some false positives.  For example, Longfellow (one of the 2 control authors) was listed as an author of the Isaiah-Malachi chapters in the Book of Mormon.  Jockers noted the problem, but did not investigate further, feeling confident that Isaiah-Malachi was correct in 20 of 21 chapters.  Schaalje looked further into this “false positive” problem.

A disturbing feature of classification analysis when the set of test texts is large is that test texts on the stylistic fringe of the distribution for the true author can occur by chance, and may therefore ‘stray’ into the distribution of a nearby author.  This explains why 2 of the 51 Hamilton texts were assigned to Rigdon (Fig. 5), and might partially explain why 21 of the 95 late Rigdon texts classified strongly as writings of Smith (Fig. 7) even though Smith had died 20 years earlier. Historians who study this period would be hard-pressed to imagine any way that Rigdon could have retained otherwise unknown Smith texts.

The same problem was observed by Hoover (2004) with regard to the delta method. He noted (Hoover, 2004, p. 460) that for particular sets of authors and texts, ‘false attributions are a serious possibility’. Burrows (2002, p. 281) similarly cautioned that the ‘the system for distinguishing between insiders and outsiders is not foolproof’ because of its dependence on probabilities rather than absolutes.

This problem, which is exacerbated by heterogeneity in text sizes, is an example of the multiplicity or multiple comparisons problem in statistics (Benjamini and Hochberg 1995). One not completely satisfactory solution would be to composite all of the test texts into one or a few large texts, and then classify those texts. We combined the Sidney texts into two large texts, combined the joint Phebe–Sidney texts into one large text, and combined the Phebe texts into one text. Assigning realistic prior probabilities, the first Sidney text was classified to an unobserved author, the second Sidney text was assigned to Cowdery, the joint text was assigned to Cowdery, and the Phebe text was assigned to an unobserved author. These results indicate, at a minimum, that the authorship style of the late Rigdon texts was different from that of Rigdon’s earlier writings. This may be due to genre differences, the passage of time, or the interposition of editors. In any case, the cause of the difference is not germane to this study.

Smout analyzes the arguments between pro and anti-evolution sides.  He noted that with rhetoric, we often create artificial dichotomies.  For example, on page 6 he gives an example from the movie Mary Poppins.  Male is shown in a positive light, and female in a negative light in the movie .  The father wants to have the children break from “sugary female thinking.”

Often we use these dichotomies to prop our position, while showing the opposing side in a negative light.  This is the case with evolution/creation.  He also notes that while 2 sides use the same words, these words have different definitions.  From page 9,

From a rhetorical perspective, a terminology battle can thus be seen, not as a stubborn refusal to accept correct definitions of terms, but as a power struggle between competing communities.  These communities try to convince other communities that their own word meanings make the best sense.  The problem is that in a culture based on Enlightenment conceptions of a universal reasoning faculty in humans, people do not ask, “Best sense according to whom?”  In effect, the terminology battle becomes a battle about worldviews.  Those who win this battle attain the power to define the terms from within their own worldview for the culture as a whole.

His book has just 5 chapters.

1. Introduction
2. Beginnings of the Creation/Evolution Controversy
3. Bryan and the Scopes “Monkey” Trial
4. The Arkansas Creation-Science Trial
5. Conclusion

He goes into great detail into the 2 trials mentioned above, discussing witness testimony and the lawyers involved in the cases.  I was especially interested as he discussed the Biblical inerrancy during the Scopes trial.  I hadn’t realized that the evolution controversy played a significant role in this debate.  From page 62,

This notion of irreconcilable conflict between creation and evolution depends on the concept of biblical inerrancy, which developed late in the nineteenth century in the United States as an important theological position and a historical key to American fundamentalism.²⁹ James Barr defines biblical inerrancy as the belief that the Bible is free of error of any kind.  He writes “The inerrancy of the Bible, the entire Bible including its details, is indeed the constant principle of rationality within fundamentalism.”³⁰ This position on the Bible grounds all fundamentalists arguments; it is the measure–albeit a very narrow one, which is fraught with many disturbing implications for nonfundamentalists–of reasonableness itself.  In evaluating a statement for its truth, fundamentalists compare the statement to the Bible, resolving any conflict between the two by rejecting the statement and keeping the Bible.

It seems to me that fundamentalists have painted themselves into a corner with this notion of biblical inerrancy.  For example, did God really create the earth in 6 24-hour days?  I think most people don’t believe that, but there are some hard core people that apparently do.

While creationists won the battle at the Scopes trial (Scopes was fined $100 for teaching evolution, and many other southern states adopted similar laws as Tennessee to prevent evolution from being taught), it appears that they are losing the war.    We all know that evolution is taught in biology, and few textbooks mention creationism.  I wasn’t aware of the Arkansas battle in 1981; fundamentalists wanted to include creation science in the textbooks as well as evolution but were defeated.

I think it is funny that the two sides have created a dichotomy between evolution and creation.  Why can’t God use evolution?  Smout notes this conundrum as well, and notes that the two sides are continuing to battle as if there is no middle ground.  I liked Kary’s conclusion on page 186-7,

I finally agree more with the evolutionists than the creationists, but I do not want the creationists to give up the fight.  I am increasingly convinced that reason and knowledge are not the only bases on which to found a society, nor even that they are the best.  I am unsure that a strictly rational society it best.  How does one found a society on these values?  I doubt that either the creationists or the evolutionists will ever stop arguing so long as we have no simple way to know the truth beyond our own perceptions.  We in this pluralistic nation have had to continually deal with recurring tensions between professionalism and democracy, between the academy and other cultural institutions, between competing political philosophies, and between other differing persuasions, all arguing for, and from within, their own worldviews.  In this life, we walk by faith.  We must put our faith in those persuasions that seem most worthy of it.

So what do you think?  Must creation and evolution be at odds with each other?

I’ve been listening to a podcast from Yale University discussing the Bible.  There are definite similarities between the Babylonian story of  Gilgamesh and the stories of Adam and Noah.  Some people, such as Bishop Rick, have said

I think it is accurate to state that the flood story in the bible is both myth and a forgery. It is obviously a myth for reasons too numerous to mention here, but it is also copied from other cultures/religions, thus making it a forgery.

It could very well be a myth.  While some scholars believe the story is a myth, National Geographic put together a documentary called “In Search for Noah’s Flood”.  They discuss various flood stories, and make the case that a large, localized flood must have influenced these various cultures to write of this flood.  While there is no proof of a flood, it seems like a plausible explanation.

Recently I discussed a couple of sites in the Dead Sea region that some people believe are the sites of Sodom and Gomorrah.  While some people love to claim the Bible is actually a collection of myths, Dr. Carole Fontaine of the Andover Newton Theological School said, “Archeologists often find themselves hooted and hollered out of town, when they first suggest things like, ‘I’ve found Troy, or look, we’ve found Sodom and Gomorrah.’  But history has shown that in fact, the more you dig, the more you find.  It’s amazing how accurate the Bible sometimes turns out to be.”

Speaking of hooting and hollering, John Hamer recently recorded a famous comment regarding Book of Mormon archaeology.  He said,

The scholarly consensus on the alleged antiquity of the Book of Mormon was expressed way back in 1973 in Dialogue by Michael D. Coe, among the foremost Mayanist scholars, who wrote: “As far as I know there is not one professionally trained archaeologist, who is not a Mormon, who sees any scientific justification for believing the historicity of The Book of Mormon, and I would like to state that there are quite a few Mormon archaeologists who join this group”

The best Book of mormon archaeological site seems to be Nahom.  I’ve previously blogged about Nahom, and Daniel C. Peterson called it a “bulls eye”.  In the video called Journey of Faith (distributed by FAIR), a few BYU scholars state,

Daniel C. Peterson, Professor of Islamic Studies and Arabic, BYU, “The finding of Nahom strikes me as just a tremendously significant discovery.”

Noel B Reynolds, director of FARMS, BYU, “The gazetteers of Joseph Smith’s day listed no such place.”

Peterson, “What it really is, is a kind of prediction by the Book of Mormon, or something that we ought to find.”

William J Hamblin, Professor of Middle Eastern History, BYU, “Now the chances of finding that exact name from the exact time, in that exact place, by random chance, are just astronomical.”

Peterson, “And to find it in the right location, at the right time, is a really striking bulls eye for the book and there are those who say the book has no archeological substantiation. That’s a spectacular substantiation right there, it seems to me.  Something that would have been unexpected. It’s so unlikely that Joseph Smith could have woven into his story on his own.”

Hamblin, “The Book of Mormon has text, has made a complex prediction and modern archeology actually confirms that prediction.”

Peterson, “It’s a direct bulls-eye, as precise as you could wish it to be.”

I don’t think non-Mormon scholars are as impressed with the site as Peterson, but non-Bible believing scholars aren’t impressed with Sodom and Gomorrah either.  So, must we always believe that lack of evidence argues against historicity of the Bible or Book or Mormon, or is there reason to believe that some of these stories that scholars call myths, forgeries, or pious frauds really might have some historical use?  Is it true that “the more you dig, the more you find?”