More stylometry - D&C 132

Corresponding to the Come Follow Me curriculum for 2025, the Interpreter published a paper titled "Historical and Stylometric Evidence for the Authorship of Doctrine and Covenants 132."

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/historical-and-stylometric-evidence-for-the-authorship-of-doctrine-and-covenants-132/#footnote162anc

This is a good title in the sense that it does provide "evidence" to support the claim that Joseph Smith was the author of (actually, that he dictated) what is now D&C 132. The article is obvious bias confirmation, which is fine, so long as readers understand that. It is not balanced in any sense, so it is probably unpersuasive to those who do not already agree with the premise.

In my view, there is good textual evidence that Joseph produced D&C 132, beyond or in addition to what is set out in the Interpreter, which I've explained here:

https://www.ldshistoricalnarratives.com/2025/11/corroborating-josephs-production-of-d.html

Consequently, I do not object to or disagree with the conclusions of the article. 

But the Interpreter article could have been improved if it did not commit the common logical fallacies that seem endemic in the Interpreter, due to its editorial stance. (I've offered many times to help peer review their work, but they do not want my advice. Which is fine. But that's one reason why they keep making the same errors and why so few people consider the Interpreter a legitimate academic journal.)

The article features two elements common to the editorial positions of the Interpreter:

(1) It avoids quoting Joseph Smith.

(2) It applies outcome-driven analysis (bias confirmation) selectively.

We'll discuss those points below.

My main interest is the purported stylometry analysis. The article presents the same type of "black box" stylometry we've seen before. The results look great but they are not replicable because the article does not give us the function word list, text files, or code (software) used. Nor does it give us a reference to where we can find that information.

In the pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding, and in a time when transparency is expected, readers deserve this information. There is really no point (other than bias confirmation) in publishing the results of "stylometry" if no one can replicate the work because "stylometry" is so easily manipulated.

For example, the limited number of sections they tested made me curious whether the authors included all of the sections in the Doctrine and Covenants and then selected the particular sections they discussed in the article because they produced the results they wanted.

I'm curious about the impact of testing

_____

Now, let's discuss the the endemic problem characteristic of Interpreter publications on certain topics, starting with the basic thrust of the article which sets up a false dilemma fallacy.

Central to that counter-narrative is the text of section 132.40 From the earliest days of the efforts to deny that Joseph engaged in polygamy, the position of the deniers has been that section 132 “is a complete fabrication.”41 But if Joseph Smith is indeed the author of section 132, all of the efforts to prove that Joseph Smith never engaged in polygamy are fatally undermined.42

This dichotomy ignores a third possibility; i.e., Joseph could have produced some of what is now D&C 132, with others adding/editing it to what it is today. That would explain both the purported "stylometry" results and the "chunks" of language circulating in Nauvoo (as shown in the tables), and would be consistent with recollections (decades later) that the existing copy is correct. 

The changes to the revelations between the Book of Commandments and the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants are one precedent for such additions and editing. I'm not saying this is the case, but it is a possibility that should not be ignored.

At any rate, had I done a peer review I would have suggested they avoid the irrational dichotomy in the quote above.

Second, the article relies on an argument that the editors of the Interpreter adamantly reject regarding the origin and setting of the Book of Mormon.

Furthermore, this section is not written in Joseph Smith’s handwriting, thus calling into question, in the minds of revisionists, whether it comes from Joseph Smith. While it is true that we do not have any evidence endorsing polygamy that was written by Joseph’s hand, it is also true that we actually do not have much that was written by the hand of Joseph about anything. Joseph Smith’s publications come to us mostly through scribes....

We should, therefore, not be surprised when Joseph Smith’s support for polygamy is found in the mouths or hands of others.  

This line of argument is the inverse of what has become a perennial excuse by the Interpreters to reject what Joseph did actually say/write about the origin and setting of the Book of Mormon. 

When the Interpreters promote the Mormonism Unvailed version of the translation (the stone-in-the-hat or SITH), they insist that Joseph did not say much about the translation except that it was by the "gift and power of God." Of course, we can all see that is false. No matter how many times the Interpreters repeat that argument, we can all read what Joseph wrote in the Wentworth letter, the Elders' Journal, etc. 

SITH is not a case of not having "much that was written by Joseph" but of rejecting what Joseph wrote.

Rather than engaging with (let alone accepting) what Joseph (and Oliver) wrote, the Interpreters say the matter is closed because of the Gospel Topics Essay, which also does not quote or even cite what Joseph and Oliver said about the translation. They use the same circular reasoning in this article, citing the Gospel Topics Essay on polygamy as authority.

The Interpreters use the same type of arguments to promote M2C (the Mesoamerican/two-Cumorahs theory), claiming that because "we do not have much that was written by the hand of Joseph about" Cumorah, he must not have taught that Cumorah was in New York. But when we do have something Joseph wrote (D&C 128:20), which corroborates the statements of others that Moroni identified the hill Cumorah before Joseph even got the plates, the Interpreters nevertheless reject what Joseph wrote. They do so by claiming that Joseph "adopted" a false tradition about the New York Cumorah. And then they cite the Gospel Topics Essay on Geography which doesn't even mention Cumorah.

They compound that approach by rejecting what "is found in the mouths or hands of others" regarding the New York Cumorah, including Oliver Cowdery, Lucy Mack Smith, David Whitmer, Brigham Young, etc.

Yet here, to support Joseph's authorship of D&C 132, they apply the opposite standard because they have to rely on what "is found in the mouths or hands of others" to support their narrative.

Narrative	Joseph said nothing	Joseph said something	Others said something
Polygamy	Infer he did tell people close to him about D&C 132	Reject what he did say because he was protecting the Church from Illinois law	Reject or accept based on whether the others agreed that Joseph produced D&C 132
SITH	Infer he did not tell people close to him about using the Urim and Thummim and the plates	Reject what he wrote about translating with the Urim and Thummim that came with the plates	Reject or accept based on whether the others agreed with the SITH narrative. This means rejecting Oliver Cowdery and John Whitmer, while accepting Mormonism Unvailed
M2C	Infer he did not tell people close to him about Cumorah	Reject what he wrote in D&C 128:20	Reject what those close to Joseph and his successors said about Cumorah

To be clear, I'm fine with people applying such inconsistent standards. In the pursuit of clarity, charity and understanding, I encourage everyone involved with these issues to apply the FAITH model, which means starting with Facts, and then articulating Assumptions, Inferences and Theories that support the various Hypotheses (multiple working hypotheses).

But the Interpreters, like the Gospel Topics Essays, consistently avoid starting with the facts of what Joseph Smith (and Oliver Cowdery) actually wrote. It is the opposite of clarity and transparency.

It is fine with me that they disagree with Joseph and Oliver, but it is not fine that they are not clear and transparent about that disagreement.

And it is amazing that this type of analysis persists in a purportedly academic journal.

_____

The tables in Appendix B are mildly interesting but could also cut both ways. First, the linguistic connections are vague and involve other well-known scriptural terminology. Second, the presence of this language could support any of the three working hypotheses: Joseph dictated D&C 132 as it stands, he dictated something that was later edited, or he didn't dictate it at all. The tables seem only useful as weak confirmation bias.

For example, Table 4 compares D&C 132 to William Clayton's journal. Clayton recorded Joseph's dictation and read it back to him for accuracy. Yet in his journal, he used terminology not found in D&C 132, mostly drawn from biblical passages, and did not use key terminology that is found in D&C 132. Examples include "everlasting covenant," a biblical term, instead of "new and everlasting covenant," "authority of the priesthood" instead of "keys of the priesthood," "cease to increase" instead of "cannot be enlarged," "unpardonable sin" (a nonbiblical Book of Mormon/Edwards term) instead of "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost" (a biblical term in D&C 132), etc.

One that interested me is "buffetings of Satan," a nonbiblical phrase used by both Clayton and D&C 132. It likely developed from 2 Corinthians 12:7. "And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure." 

But the phrase also appears in Sections 78 (March 1, 1832), 82 (April 26, 1832), and 104 (April 23, 1834) (as well as in Jonathan Edwards). All of these sections are outside the range of sections considered for "stylometry" in this paper. 

While Clayton's use of the phrase in 1843 might have been the result of his scribing D&C 132, he could also have learned the term from the earlier sections of the D&C or from other sources (such as Jonathan Edwards). 

This is just a sample of the type of peer review that we all wish the Interpreter would solicit to improve the quality of its publications.