Book of Mormon authorship project is online

[_Uncle Dale]

...

What would stop Joseph Smith using the same automatic writing method, minus Rigdon? In other words, Joseph could have used this method to "gather" writings already in existence, including Rigdon's, even without ever having met Rigdon. That would eliminate the tedious search for physical connections.

So what's the difference? If Sidney can do it, why can't Joseph? You know as well as I do, Dale, that the Book of Mormon is a mishmash of sources, and there's no One Theory that explains it all. But the automatic writing theory can explain that, were it not such a taboo to modern science.

One thing you and I are totally agreed upon is that the Book of Mormon is not ancient, and it's clearly a 19th century production. The historicity argument is dead in the water, as far as I'm concerned.

So far as I know, we only have two recorded examples of how Sidney Rigdon and Joseph Smith
shared a "prophetic" task/calling -- and they are (1) the joint-vision of the "three degrees of glory;"
and (2) the two Mormon leaders' joint-writing of the "New Translation" of the KJV Bible. The LDS
argue that Rigdon's role in the second example was merely that of non-participant scribe -- but I
say that the older, better educated, theologically trained, visionary Rigdon contributed more than
just the penmanship of a scribe.

Since Rigdon and Smith cooperated on joint-ventures of a visionary nature (seers' work) AFTER
the Book of Mormon had been published, why should we automatically exclude the possibility that
they cooperated in similar visionary efforts BEFORE the book was published?

Here are some arguments in favor of Rigdon's participation:

1. Modern word-print analysis of the Book of Mormon indicates his "voice" present in the key theologiocal sections.

2. Past investigators have claimed the presence of "Campbellite" (or Rigdonite) tenets in the Book of Mormon

3. Many pieces of evidence/testimony say Rigdon wrote such stuff -- none say that Smith did

4. Rigdon was better educated, more literate, and initially more articulate than Smith

5. It was Rigdon who wrote theological articles for the early Mormon periodicals -- not Smith

6. It was Rigdon who published the pseudo-scriptural "3rd Epistle of Peter" -- not Smith

7. It was Rigdon whose family/grandson accused him of having written the Book of Mormon -- not Smith

8. Joseph Smith seems to have rarely made use of the Book of Mormon -- may not have understood parts of it;
but Rigdon made extensive use of the book -- especially in his post-Nauvoo writings/publications,
where he claimed to know such details as the contents of the "sealed part" of the golden plates

9. It was Rigdon who suffered the heady injury (injuries?) which can lead to temporal lobe epilepsy,
accompanied by hypographia, heavenly visions. etc. Despite what I. Woodbridge Riley conjectured
in his 1901 book, it was not Smith whom history reports as having been an epileptic; it was Rigdon.


However, you bring up a good point --- Rigdon himself was so impressed with Smith's seer's
abilities, that Rigdon was convinced that he should take the secondary position of authority in
the new church, and confine his role to primarily acting as a "spokesman" for the "choice seer."

If Rigdon himself was so impressed with Smith, then is it possible that both men were subject to
"automatic writing," and THAT was part of the attraction that first brought the two visionary
restorationists together, and strengthened the bonds between them?

If so, then we might consider a scenario in which Smith learns much of "Campbellism" from Rigdon,
along with Rigdon's own religious innovations --- and then overawes Rigdon with his ability to
repeat back to Rigdon, all that Rigdon believed so intensely, in the form of Smith's own version
of "automatic writing." With one difference -- Rigdon's output was hypographia (page after page
of "spirit-writing"), while Smith's output was oral, like the utterances of Edgar Cayce.

The main problems I see with THAT explanation, is that it calls for too many enabling coincidences;
and that it probably will not well account for Rigdon's "word-print" throughout the Book of Mormon.

added: I believe that future "word-print" analysis will also show Rigdon's voice in the "Lectures on
Faith" and in the latter day scriptural books of Moses, Enoch and Abraham.

UD

[_Roger Morrison]

Dale, thanks for your response, from which I paste:

Solomon Spalding justified the promulgation of false religion as a means of keeping
people moral and patriotic -- at least his fictional writings and fragments of
personal correspondence seem to indicate that he held such a viewpoint.

I have heard high level Reorganized LDS officials admit that parts of the Latter
Day Saint religion are myths, fables, or downright deceptions -- but that it is best
not to try and inform the rank and file membership of those problems; because,
over all, the Latter Day Saint religion still provides "the closest thing to truth."

I believe any thinking person of today wouldn't have to give a second thought to agree with Spalding and the RLDS viewpoint. The benefits of church attendance are independent of the "Inspired word of God" that religion has traditionally been based upon.

Some Sects accept this with little, or no question. Wise in doing so. However, Mormons, and some others, have painted themselves into the proverbial Corner. from which they cannot escape without confession & repentance--to use the terminology of the genre...

I wonder if the appoint made by Benson and his wife to meet with Oakes and Maxwell in 1993 would be as easy to get today with GAs or similar types? Behind today's baracade between LDS Salt Lake Leaders and members, it is next thing to imposible to even send a personal letter. At least that is my current experience. Different than in past decades when I corresponded with Hanks, Monson and others with ease and respect...

While this is distasteful, I think it is leading to a climax between the The Young and the Restless and The Old and Staid that will eventually save LDSism from its elitist arrogant self, to emerge with more honesty and integrity to better serve humanity... IF it will revamped itself into a new social paradigm...

If and when, it will be to the credit of you--UD--and others like you. Thanks...

Roger
*
*

[_Uncle Dale]

...
benefits of church attendance are independent of the "Inspired word of God" that religion has traditionally been based upon.
...

I have little personal interest in "church attendance," in the sense that I see it practiced
in modern society. I am far more interested in the precept of a "covenant people" who
cooperate as a viable, enabling community, and who share a common moral view and
a common spirutual cause.

The main problem being, that such groups (the Jews, the Amish, the Shakers, the LDS)
tend to be exceptionally exclusive. The possibilities for an inclusive covenant community
appear to be limited by nearly all aspects of human diversity.

With that ideal (and that limitation) in mind, I am yet hopeful that the Latter Day Saints
will one day face up to the problems of their collective past -- deal with those same
problems -- and become a better people for having done so.

That may take a while.

Such discoveries as the Spalding-Rigdon authorship of the Book of Mormon, have no
transformational power, in and of themselves. It is only when a suitable religious
politician (a Luther or a Calvin) takes up such issues, as being helpful tools in his
own cause, that actual transforming change can occur on a large scale.

Mormonism still has not produced its Wesley -- its Darwin -- its Gandhi -- its own
Samuel the Lamanite.

One day, it will...

UD

[_harmony]

added: I believe that future "word-print" analysis will also show Rigdon's voice in the "Lectures on
Faith" and in the latter day scriptural books of Moses, Enoch and Abraham.

UD

what do you think will be the world's reaction if they find Rigdon's "voice" in the Book of Abraham or the Book of Moses? And what do you suppose the LDS apologists will say?

[_harmony]

I assume that if FARMS is really going to prepare a decent response to the Stanford researchers,
that Daniel Peterson is even now having Joseph's word-print mapped across the Book of Mormon -- and that
the reported results will come back, showing that he only wrote the 1830 "Preface."

Then you think they're going to allow the Rigdon/Spaulding word print to stand? Or do you think they're going to claim that Nephi and company wrote everything except the preface?

So they're in a damned if they do, and damned if they don't situation? Once they identify the preface as written by Joseph, they can't control what the Stanford group does with it.

Once THAT Joseph Smith word-print is made available to all interested researchers, more such
studies can be performed. If the Mormons refuse to make such a word-print available, I'm told
that the Community of Christ scholars will provide suitable samples from their own archives.

So the church really has lost control of the Book of Mormon.

Why would the Stanford group wait on the church, if the COC is willing to ante up now? So that the church can't complain about the results, claiming only they have permission to say what Joseph wrote and what he didn't?

So -- before long, Joseph can be included in the follow-up word-print testing.

UD

Any idea of a timeline, Unc?

[_Uncle Dale]

I assume that if FARMS is really going to prepare a decent response to the Stanford researchers,
that Daniel Peterson is even now having Joseph's word-print mapped across the Book of Mormon -- and that
the reported results will come back, showing that he only wrote the 1830 "Preface."

Then you think they're going to allow the Rigdon/Spaulding word print to stand? Or do you think they're going to claim that Nephi and company wrote everything except the preface?

Here's what I think the ultimate LDS "fall-back" position might be:

"We admit that some versions of "word-printing" appear to indicate
a high level of "signal strength" for the word-prints of Solomon Spalding
and Sidney Rigdon in our volume of sacred scriptures, The Book of Mormon.
Given the highly complex nature of that text, which emulates King James
era English, and which is filled with highly repetitious phrases, it is our
considered opinion that word-printing of the text is impractical, and that
any apparent 19th century "voices" discovered in the text are due entirely
to coincidence and to shared 19th century language, or religious interests."

So they're in a damned if they do, and damned if they don't situation? Once they identify the preface as written by Joseph, they can't control what the Stanford group does with it.

More than just that ---- they cannot control future word-printing of other texts,
including the Doctrine and Covenants. I'd guess that they do NOT want to see
study results reporting that Rigdon wrote the early sections and Smith wrote others.

Once THAT Joseph Smith word-print is made available to all interested researchers, more such
studies can be performed. If the Mormons refuse to make such a word-print available, I'm told
that the Community of Christ scholars will provide suitable samples from their own archives.

So the church really has lost control of the Book of Mormon.

Why would the Stanford group wait on the church, if the COC is willing to ante up now? So that the church can't complain about the results, claiming only they have permission to say what Joseph wrote and what he didn't?

It is not so much a matter of having to "ante up." The texts attributed to Smith are
already known and available, in one format or another. It is a matter of rendering
an OFFICIAL FINDING, that certain old texts contain a reliable Smith word-print.

So -- before long, Joseph can be included in the follow-up word-print testing.

UD

Any idea of a timeline, Unc?

My guess? 2009 will produce something from FARMS and 2010 will produce some
more contributions to the non-LDS scholarly literature ----- at which point FARMS
will be compelled to respond a second time; perhaps in 2011.

I'd give the whole process 5 years, before Dan Vogel inserts a brief footnote in a
future reprinting of his Joseph Smith biography, mentioning the word-printing controversy.

Uncle Dale

[_Chap]

Preface to the Book of Mormon 1830 Ed.



PREFACE.

TO THE READER—

As many false reports have been circulated respecting the following work, and also many unlawful measures taken by the evil designing persons to destroy me, and also the work, I would inform you that I translated, by the gift and power of God, and caused to be written, one hundred and sixteen pages, the which I took from the Book of Lehi, which was an account abridged from the plates of Lehi, by the hand of Mormon; which said account, some person or persons have stolen and kept from me, notwithstanding my utmost exertions to recover it again—and being commanded of the Lord that I should not translate the same over again, for Satan had put it into their hearts to tempt the Lord their God, by altering the words, that they did read contrary from that which I translated and caused to be written; and if I should bring forth the same words again, or, in other words, if I should translate the same over again, they would publish that which they had stolen, and Satan would stir up the hearts of this generation, that they might not receive this work: but behold, the Lord said unto me, I will not suffer that Satan shall accomplish his evil design in this thing: therefore thou shalt translate from the plates of Nephi, until ye come to that which ye have translated, which ye have retained; and behold ye shall publish it as the record of Nephi; and thus I will confound those who have altered my words. I will not suffer that they shall destroy my work; yea, I will shew unto them that my wisdom is greater than the cunning of the Devil. Wherefore, to be obedient unto the commandments of God, I have, through his grace and mercy, accomplished that which he hath commanded me respecting this thing. I would also inform you that the plates of which hath been spoken, were found in the township of Manchester, Ontario county, New-York.

THE AUTHOR.

See http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/Book of Mormon ... reface.htm

Even if we are sure this is by Joseph Smith, is the text long enough to be useful for word-printing purposes?

Mark you: if this is genuine Smith stuff, and the text in bold really is a record of the words addressed to him by a deity, then that deity was just not very good at producing consistently grammatical 17th century English utterance (which for some unfathomable reason he was apparently trying to do in this supposed address to a 19th century American).

Instead of :

thou shalt translate from the plates of Nephi, until ye come to that which ye have translated, which ye have retained; and behold ye shall publish it as the record of Nephi;

Shouldn't we have (since Smith is clearly the person addressed throughout):

thou shalt translate from the plates of Nephi, until thou comest to that which thou hast translated, which thou hast retained; and behold thou shalt publish it as the record of Nephi;

I suppose that the speaker can be forgiven his mistakes, since he was probably only speaking as a deity, and he probably never had any formal education.

[_Nevo]

I have noticed that in the last two or three years, since the 1916 Pittsburgh newspaper disclosure that lists mail waiting at the Pittsburgh Post Office for both Spalding and Rigdon, that support has fallen. The next time you discuss Mormon history with one of The New Mormon History people (either those who support Mormonism or the opponents of Mormonism but supporters of Brodie), ask them about Brodie's claim in that appendix. If you don't find them acting like they want to crawl into a hole, let me know.

There isn't a single Mormon historian who takes the Spalding-Rigdon theory seriously. Sorry. And your fantasy that opponents of Spalding-Rigdon will shortly be marginalized "from the scholarly dialogue of Mormon History and discussions on the subject of Mormon origins" is preposterous. Despite its disclosure that Spalding and Rigdon picked up (or didn't pick up) their mail at the same Pittsburgh post office in 1816 (gasp!), Cowdrey, Davis, and Vanick's book remains widely ignored. And I don't expect that to change--especially after the authors' embarrassing performance on Van Hale's radio show a year or two back.

[_Chap]

There isn't a single Mormon historian who takes the Spalding-Rigdon theory seriously.

If they did take it seriously, in the sense of believing that the Book of Mormon is not simply the result of the translation by Joseph Smith of ancient gold plates 'by the gift and power of God', would they not have to stop being Mormon historians in the sense of the word accepted by most members of the CoJCoLDS, including, I would guess, the First Presidency?

And of course, if they had a job a BYU and announced their adherence to the Spalding-Rigdon theory (thereby presumably ceasing to be members of the CoJCoLDS in good standing), would they be able to continue in the employment of that university?

I don't say this to argue for the Spalding-Rigdon theory. However the absence of 'Mormon historians' who proclaim belief in it does not in itself seem to count as very strong evidence against it.

[_Nevo]

However the absence of 'Mormon historians' who proclaim belief in it does not in itself seem to count as very strong evidence against it.

Let me rephrase: There isn't a single reputable historian of Mormonism who takes the Spalding-Rigdon theory seriously.