Commentary on the Spalding/Rigdon thread

[_Fortigurn]

Wow, Fort! Your name wouldn't happen to be John Brooke? :-P

Not that I know of, no. I assume you're referring to this John Brooke. I'm nowhere near his league. I'm simply a hobbyist.

[_CaliforniaKid]

That's the one.

[_Mary]

Fortigurn, thanks.

Marg, thanks for dealing with my points, and outlining the various camps. At the moment I'd go more with the D'unk. I'm not so sure how 'uneducated' Joseph was though Marg. Palmer gave some differing insights into his education levels in Insider's view.

On the John Dee thing, I actually tried to trace back who had influenced him, and the possible trail was quite interesting, from the Familists, family of love, (not as bad as it sounds), Henry Nicholas, the Swiss Brethren, Barnaud, Nicholas Melchior, Johannes Trithemius, other Anabaptist groups, on through to the Bogomils, and Cathars, Cabalists, templars, Mani, and Manichaeans, and of course the gnostics.

I don't know of anything (the more I look into other orthodox and unorthodox systems) in the theology of the LDS church that is truly original?

[_Dan Vogel]

Marg,

So I agree with the Church that Smith didn’t indicate he had what it would take to write such a complicated storyline all by himself. I just don’t agree with their conclusion ..that this is good reasoning for divine intervention. Dale doesn’t rule out other possibilities of co-conspirator writers besides Spalding's manuscript and Rigdon ..such as perhaps Cowdery helping out with the contents. But the most implausible theory of all given all the evidence is Dan’s. Dan's theory not only ignores the evidence which exists for the Rigdon/Spalding but as well his theory is extremely weak. It isn't likely given what was known of Smith at the time that he would have written the Book of Mormon.

I don't see how you are in a position to make this kind of assessment with such authority. You don't know what Joseph Smith was capable of doing. He seems perfectly capable right after the Book of Mormon was dictated by continuing his production without skipping a beat.

I don't ignore the Spalding theory, I just don't think the witnesses are credible. And yes, I do know enough to make that assessment. I don't think Spalding advocates are critical enough of their own witnesses.

The reason you seem to think the single author theory is weak is because it would have been easier to produce the Book of Mormon with multiple authors and you have bought into the false notion that Joseph Smith was an uneducated and ignorant farm boy and the Book of Mormon could not have been written by such a person. The problem is that there is no credible evidence for the Spalding theory, as I'm in the process of demonstrating.

[_marg]

Previously I wrote: So I agree with the Church that Smith didn’t indicate he had what it would take to write such a complicated storyline all by himself. I just don’t agree with their conclusion ..that this is good reasoning for divine intervention. Dale doesn’t rule out other possibilities of co-conspirator writers besides Spalding's manuscript and Rigdon ..such as perhaps Cowdery helping out with the contents. But the most implausible theory of all given all the evidence is Dan’s. Dan's theory not only ignores the evidence which exists for the Rigdon/Spalding but as well his theory is extremely weak. It isn't likely given what was known of Smith at the time that he would have written the Book of Mormon.

I don't see how you are in a position to make this kind of assessment with such authority. You don't know what Joseph Smith was capable of doing. He seems perfectly capable right after the Book of Mormon was dictated by continuing his production without skipping a beat.

Well it's from various bits and pieces of information which I've read here and there over the last 6 years, all of which I can’t remember but I’ll give you some examples.

There is Hugh Nibley’s challenge to the students in which he describes the complex plot in the Book of Mormon and I find what Nibley says compelling. @ http://www.josephsmith.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Since Joseph Smith was younger than most of you and not nearly so experienced or well-educated as any of you at the time he copyrighted the Book of Mormon, it should not be too much to ask you to hand in by the end of the semester (which will give you more time than he had) a paper of, say, five to six hundred pages in length. Call it a sacred book if you will, and give it the form of a history. Tell of a community of wandering Jews in ancient times; have all sorts of characters in your story, and involve them in all sorts of public and private vicissitudes; give them names--hundreds of them--pretending that they are real Hebrew and Egyptian names of circa 600 b.c.; be lavish with cultural and technical details--manners and customs, arts and industries, political and religious institutions, rites, and traditions, include long and complicated military and economic histories; have your narrative cover a thousand years without any large gaps; keep a number of interrelated local histories going at once; feel free to introduce religious controversy and philosophical discussion, but always in a plausible setting; observe the appropriate literary conventions and explain the derivation and transmission of your varied historical materials.

Above all, do not ever contradict yourself! For now we come to the really hard part of this little assignment. You and I know that you are making this all up--we have our little joke--but just the same you are going to be required to have your paper published when you finish it, not as fiction or romance, but as a true history! After you have handed it in you may make no changes in it (in this class we always use the first edition of the Book of Mormon); what is more, you are to invite any and all scholars to read and criticize your work freely, explaining to them that it is a sacred book on a par with the Bible. If they seem over-skeptical, you might tell them that you translated the book from original records by the aid of the Urim and Thummim--they will love that! Further to allay their misgivings, you might tell them that the original manuscript was on golden plates, and that you got the plates from an angel. Now go to work and good luck!

To date no student has carried out this assignment, which, of course, was not meant seriously. But why not? If anybody could write the Book of Mormon, as we have been so often assured, it is high time that somebody, some devoted and learned minister of the gospel, let us say, performed the invaluable public service of showing the world that it can be done." - Hugh Nibley

---------------------------------------------------------------


H. Nibley also describes the complexity of the Book of Mormon

"Structure and Complexity of the Book of Mormon


First Nephi gives us first a clear and vivid look at the world of Lehi, a citizen of Jerusalem but much at home in the general world of the New East of 600 B.C. Then it takes us to the desert, where Lehi and his family wander for eight years, doing all the things that wandering families in the desert should do. The manner of their crossing the ocean is described, as is the first settlement and hard pioneer life in the New World dealt with.... The book of Mosiah describes a coronation rite in all its details and presents extensive religious and political histories mixed in with a complicated background of exploration and colonization. The book of Alma is marked by long eschatological discourses and a remarkably full and circumstantial military history. The main theme of the book of Helaman is the undermining of society by moral decay and criminal conspiracy; the powerful essay on crime is carried into the next book, where the ultimate dissolution of the Nephite government is described.

Then comes the account of the great storm and earthquakes, in which the writer, ignoring a splendid opportunity for exaggeration, has as accurately depicted the typical behavior of the elements on such occasions as if he were copying out of a modern textbook on seismology.... [Soon] after the catastrophe, Jesus Christ appeared to the most pious sectaries who had gathered at the temple.

...Can anyone now imagine the terrifying prospect of confronting the Christian world of 1830 with the very words of Christ? ...

But the boldness of the thing is matched by the directness and nobility with which the preaching of the Savior and the organization of the church are described. After this comes a happy history and then the usual signs of decline and demoralization. The death-struggle of the Nephite civilization is described with due attention to all the complex factors that make up an exceedingly complicated but perfectly consistent picture of decline and fall. Only one who attempts to make a full outline of Book of Mormon history can begin to appreciate its immense complexity; and never once does the author get lost (as the student repeatedly does, picking his way out of one maze after another only with the greatest effort), and never once does he contradict himself. We should be glad to learn of any other like performance in the history of literature." - Hugh Nibley, Collected Works Vol. 8

-------------------------------------------------------------
Then there are witnesses who you have suggested to me are credible Emma S. and David Whitmer who described Smith asking a question whether Jerusalem had walls surrounding it. Then there’s Emma’s claim in response to her son’s question of “Could not father have dictated the Book of Mormon to you, O. Cowdery and the others who wrote for him, after having first written it, or having read it out of some book? And her response was “Joseph Smith could neither write nor dictate a coherent and well worded letter, let alone dictating a book like the Book of Mormon”. Am I supposed to assume she lied to this question but is honest in whether or not Smith used a manuscript? Smith may have been a quick study, may have developed writing skills, but it’s not something he was noted for at the time the Book of Mormon was being written. He was only 25 years, I don’t think he had much schooling, wasn’t noted for reading or writing. Whereas, both Spalding and Ridgon were educated to be ministers. They were older and others observed them to be well educated.
---------------------------------------------------------------
As you appreciate I pick up information from message boards and just recently a post dealt with this very topic on mormondiscussions.. @ http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... php?t=1242 well actually the original came from MAD.

Beastie writes: “ The thread (from MAD) is called "Joseph as Apologist" by Her Amun, whose basic point was that Joseph Smith was an ignorant fool who could never have possessed all the advanced knowledge within the Book of Mormon. He stated, in regards to Joseph Smith (in response to silly things like "Mormon" meaning "more good"):

Im not sure he was joking, though it might be possible.

I think he is being serious, and showing what an ignoramous he was. Hardly the kind of man that could have known Enochic traditions, egyptian names, pre-islamic arabian geography, 1st temple goddess theology,olive cultivation,ancient priesthood initiation rights,non-biblical Abraham traditions,ancient jewish coronation rights,ancient jewish poetic forms, the mesoamerican pattern of using invervals of 400 for cyclical calendar prophecy, ancient egyptian associations of Abraham and the lion couch, ancient hebrew adaption/redaction of egyptian funerary motifs or mesoamerican warefare.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I remember reading Charlotte Haven’s assessment of Rigdon and Smith in her letters, and she struck me as being extremely intelligent, perceptive, credible and objective.



http://olivercowdery.com/smithhome/1880 ... vn1890.htm

Charlotte Haven (1843 part 1)


Mrs. R. when I go for the mail always invites me to stop and rest, which after a cold, long walk I am glad to do, thus opening an acquaintance with Elder Sidney Rigdon, the most learned man among the Latter Day Saints. He is past fifty and is somewhat bald and his dark hair slightly gray. He has an intelligent countenance, a courteous manner, and speaks grammatically. He talks very pleasantly about his travels in this country and Europe, but is very reticent about his religion. I have heard it stated that he was Smith's chief aid in getting up the Book of Mormon and creed. He is so far above Smith in intellect; education, and secretiveness, that there is scarcely a doubt that he is at the head in compiling it. I looked over his library -- on some bookshelves in the kitchen. It was a very good student's collection, -- Hebrew, Greek, and Latin lexicons and readers, stray volumes of Shakespeare, Scott, Irving's works, and a number of other valuable books. He studied for the ministry in his youth, then was employed in a newspaper office.

So the above is some of the information I've used in reaching a conclusion that Smith with high probability did not write the Book of Mormon himself. I’ll continue with my response later and address the rest of your post.

[_marg]

Continuation of response...

by the way I see in your book "Joseph Smith the Making of a Prophet "on page 119 you write: Emma overstated the case for Joseph’s illiteracy, claiming that he “could neither write nor dictate a coherent and well worded letter, let alone dictating a book like the Book of Mormon. Certainly, Smith had less schooling than his wife, but he managed to write reasonably well. After examining several letters from the early period of Smith’s life (1831-1832) historian Dale Morgan concluded that they exhibit “a flair for words, a measure of eloquence and a sufficient degree of schooling. In the notes you point out” For letters in Joseph Smith’s own hand which seem inconsistent with Emma Smith’s statement, see Joseph Smith to Hyrum Smith 3 Mar 1831, Joseph Smith to Emma Smith 6 June 1832”

So I found these letters on the Net:

http://deseretbook.com/personalwritings/11 to Hyrum 1831 MARCH 3, 4

http://deseretbook.com/personalwritings/12 To Emma Smith 1832 JUNE 6

And I’m going to include this one which you didn’t point out in your chapter 8 notes,

http://deseretbook.com/personalwritings/9 to Oliver Cowdery 1829 OCTOBER 22.

I find this letter particularly valuable and telling of Smith’s acknowledgement that their Gold Bible business was a crime. “the people are all friendly to <us> except a few who are in opposition to evry thing unless it is some thing that is exactly like themselves and two of our most formadable persacutors are now under censure and are cited to a tryal in the church for crimes which if true are worse than all the Gold Book business.”


A couple of comments. At the time the Book of Mormon book was being written Joseph Smith was likely learning and improving upon his reading and writing skills. Let’s appreciate he spent a great deal of time with Cowdery, many hours daily, reading and dictating. That experience would be comparable to the intense missionary educational program of learning a foreign language in about 2 months time.

Emma, at the time the Book of Mormon was being written was probably acutely aware she had never seen him write or dictate a letter. The fact that he could write a letter to Cowdery in 1829 (after finishing the dictation/writing of the Book of Mormon) in which he simply talked about his personal experiences is not surprising and doesn’t negate Emma’s observations. I’m certainly not of the opinion J.Smith was stupid, in fact quite the opposite. But there is a difference between education and intelligence. One can be quite intelligent but lack knowledge/education and as well life experiences such as practice in writing. It is quite a stretch to compare those early letters of Smith's written after the Book of Mormon manuscript was finished as being illustrative of a flair for writing similar to contents in the Book of Mormon.

Dale Morgan was quite vague with his assessment. He concluded you point out in your book that the early letters exhibited “a flair for words, a measure of eloquence and a sufficient degree of schooling.”

What those letters from Smith exhibited is not much more that a capability of writing about one’s daily event with some personal religious beliefs mentioned but certainly no flair or eloguence is established from those letters similar to the complexity and storyline of the Book of Mormon. And he says "sufficient degree of schooling" but I ask for what? ..to write a basic letter? Sure Smith by the time he had finished the Book of Mormon could write some simple letters to friends and family but those letters don’t indicate much if any schooling, nor knowledge of the sort which people well familiar with the Book of Mormon have described would have been necessary to write it.


I still have more to address in your post Dan, and will continue...

[_marg]

I don't ignore the Spalding theory, I just don't think the witnesses are credible. And yes, I do know enough to make that assessment. I don't think Spalding advocates are critical enough of their own witnesses.

Dan, your accepted theory of Smith being the sole author of the Book of Mormon…ignores the evidence for the spalding/rigdon theory. I believe you have previously said that the Spalding-Rigdon theory is not necessary. In your opinion, J.Smith had the capability of writing the Book of Mormon himself. Necessity is irrelevant. What is relevant to who wrote the Book of Mormon is an evaluation of all the evidence with a probability determination of who was or were the most likely candidates. The sole author theory is weak though. It is highly unlikely that Smith dictated such a complex story, one which spanned many centuries, with many characters and various plots without the use of any source material to reference and dictate from. So even if for argument’s sake we assume Smith was the writer, it still is unlikely he wouldn’t have prepared in advance a script from which to dictate from. If the sole author theory was very strong and the Rigdon Spalding theory very weak, I could sympathize with ignoring evidence supportive of the Spalding/Rigdon theory. But the J. Smith sole author theory is not strong.

Before one criticizes the Spalding witnesses for not being credible..an evaluation of the Book of Mormon witnesses is a priority to evaluate Smith as sole author theory. There is so much data involved, my major restriction is limited knowledge of data. All investigators are restricted by missing, hidden, or destroyed data..as well. I’ll attempt to give my evaluation of the Book of Mormon witnesses, with my limited restriction of data in mind, starting with the main 3…Martin Harris, David Whitmer and O. Cowdery.

Their testimony in the Book of Mormon has major weaknesses. It was prepared in advance for them. For such an extraordinary event, it lacks detail and description in their own words. Looking at their claims in that testimony and appreciating they’ve met no burden of proof ever to establish a God spoke to them, an angel, a heaven from which this angel came and that these claims are supernatural…a realistic evaluation suggests some other explanation than these description being true and actually happening. Whatever explanation one can come up with, perhaps they were hallucinating, perhaps hypnotized, perhaps drugged, perhaps a trick was played on them, perhaps flat out lying…none of the possible explanations paint the witnesses as being reliable. They either lacked the intelligence and/or perceptive ability to discern the realities of the event they testified to or they were lying or deceptively lying. By deceptively lying I mean they conveyed an impression with words which was a deliberate distortion of the reality of their experience.

I’ll continue later….

[_marg]

Dan,
I’ve been doing some reading, it's horribly time consuming and have hit a snag tonight.

This is the end part of Isaac Hale’s affidavit, which you are probably quite aware of from E.D. Howe’s book so I'll downsize it.

About this time, Martin Harris made his appearance upon the stage; and Smith began to interpret the characters or hieroglyphics which he said were engraven upon the plates, while Harris wrote down the interpretation. It was said, that Harris wrote down one hundred and sixteen pages, and lost them. Soon after this happened, Martin Harris informed me that he must have a greater witness, and said that he had talked with Joseph about it -- Joseph informed him that he could not, or durst not show him the plates, but that he (Joseph) would go into the woods where the Book of Plates was, and that after he came back, Harris should follow his track in the snow, and find the Book, and examine it for himself. Harris informed me afterwards, that he followed Smith's directions, and could not find the Plates, and was still dissatisfied.

The next day after this happened, I went to the house where Joseph Smith Jr., lived, and where he and Harris were engaged in their translation of the Book. Each of them had a written piece of paper which they were comparing, and some of the words were "my servant seeketh a greater witness, but no greater witness can be given him." There was also something said about "three that were to see the thing" -- meaning I supposed, the Book of Plates, and that "if the three did not go exactly according to the orders, the thing would be taken from them." I enquired whose words they were, and was informed by Joseph or Emma, (I rather think it was the former) that they were the words of Jesus Christ. I told them, that I considered the whole of it a delusion, and advised them to abandon it. The manner in which he pretended to read and interpret, was the same as when he looked for the money-diggers, with the stone in his hat, and his hat over his face, while the Book of Plates were at the same time hid in the woods!

After this, Martin Harris went away, and Oliver Cowdery came and wrote for Smith, while he interpreted as above described. This is the same Oliver Cowdery, whose name may be found in the Book of Mormon. Cowdery continued a scribe for Smith until the Book of Mormon was completed as I supposed and understood.

Joseph Smith Jr. resided near me for some time after this, and I had a good opportunity of becoming acquainted with him, and somewhat acquainted with his associates, and I conscientiously believe from the facts I have detailed, and from many other circumstances, which I do not deem it necessary to relate, that the whole "Book of Mormon" (so called) is a silly fabrication of falsehood and wickedness, got up for speculation, and with a design to dupe the credulous and unwary -- and in order that its fabricators may live upon the spoils of those who swallow the deception.
ISAAC HALE.
Affirmed to and subscribed before me, March 20th, 1834. CHARLES DIMON


Mr Hale's statement portion above is not very specific and detailed except in one part. As an example he doesn't mention that Smith and Cowdery left the home on his property to continue work on the Book of Mormon at the Whitmer’s. What bothers me with the above is he specifically mentions he personally observed both Harris and Smith comparing papers and he mentions the words that he read. When he mentions the "head in the hat" method, he doesn't say he observed this and in fact he adds that that method was used while the plates were in the woods which he couldn't have observed but only was told about. So the head in the hat as well might have been what he was told. He doesn't provide any detail, such as how long he might have observed Smith dictating to Harris with his head in the hat or any other pertinent information to the process which would indicate it was something he actually saw. He doesn't seem impressed by it all. If he had observed Smith dictating with his head in the hat and later saw the Book of Mormon published at the very least it would have impressed him that Smith wrote the Book of Mormon even though it was a hoax, but instead he refers to it in 1834 as a "silly fabrication".

He doesn’t appear all that interested in the scheme or interested in exposing the fraud. He seems to take it as a given that it is a fraud and quite silly and not worth anyone’s time for consideration.

So Dan, what do you have to say about Mr Hale's claim of observation of Smith and Harris comparing papers when he arrives at the house? It sounds like both papers had the same words otherwise why compare? He doesn't make it out as if it's important what they were doing, he doesn't seem keen on exposing how the fraud was being done. And he mentions the "head in the hat" but I think his reasoning was to reveal what Smith's & Harris claims were and how ridiculous it was, when they also claimed the plates were in the woods.

[_Uncle Dale]

... what do you have to say about Mr Hale's claim of observation of Smith and Harris...

Susan Easton Black wrote a very hostile reprise of Father Hale's treatment of Joseph Smith in a chapter of
Regional Studies in Latter-day Saint Church History: New York, entitled: "Isaac Hale: Antagonist of Joseph Smith."

According to Ms Black, Father Hale was about as bad a persecutor of the latter day work as Ed Decker & Co.

Then again, I recall an RLDS sermon, preached by an Apostle in the Stone Church in the "Center Stake of Zion,"
where the life of Joseph Smith, Jr. was held up as the model for a dutiful son and son-on-law. I think it was Elder
Lloyd Hurshman who preached on the wonderful Joseph Smith that Sunday. In the coffee hour following the services,
I asked which of Smith's many parents-in-law had reported him as being such a good son-in-law.

My serious question was totally ignored -- as though I were not even present in the room.

Father Hale made some good points in his signed and recorded statement. It was not written for Howe's book, nor for
any anti-Mormon publication; but was a contribution to his local newspaper, providing an eye-witness account of Smith's
disreputable character. Then again, I suppose that Ms Black and Apostle Hurshman would disagree with me.

UD

[_marg]

Father Hale made some good points in his signed and recorded statement. It was not written for Howe's book, nor for
any anti-Mormon publication; but was a contribution to his local newspaper, providing an eye-witness account of Smith's
disreputable character.

It's late and I'm too tired to comment on the rest of your note. In Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon p 73 is a letter written from E.D. Howe to Isaac Hale asking him to draw up a narrative of events concerning his knowledge regarding Smith and Mormonism and have it witnessed by a magistrate. The letter is dated Feb 4 1834. The reason Howe gives is that Hales' previous letter supposedly was being claimed a forgery by Mormons.

In E.D. Howe's book Mormonism Unvailed, the witnessed by a magistrate statement from Isaac Hale is dated Mar 20 1834. And the statement does not appear to be the sort of thing for a newspaper. Are you sure that this statement was submitted to a newspaper and not sent to Howe?