Origins of the Book of Mormon

[_jhammel]

I currently place a pretty high probability that Spalding and Rigdon both made significant contributions to the Book of Mormon.

There is one particular argument that I think serves as a justification to take this seriously:

1) In Ohio, Rigdon was believed to be the author very shortly after his apparent conversion to Mormonism. I can't speak with certainty how many of Rigdon's acquaintances believed this, but it was reported in newspapers at least as early as the beginning part of 1831 that Rigdon was believed to be the author. The belief was based on the religious content of the book, which was recognized as a form of Cambellism. Rigdon was also reported to be the book's author in a report by NYC reporter James G. Bennett based on information he obtained in the summer of 1831 in the areas around Palmyra, but this was an obscure report not duplicated in Palmyra-area papers and which painted Rigdon as author based on an early association with Smith and some of his money-digging companions.

2) Beginning in early 1832, residents of Conneaut recognized (or believed they recognized) Spalding's writings in the Book of Mormon. Conneaut was well to the northeast of the areas where Rigdon had preached, and none of the Conneaut reports mentioned Rigdon at all. They were simply reports about the perceived similarities between Spalding's writing, particularly one story which Spalding had told his neighbors and associates that he was going to have printed after he moved to Pittsburgh.

I think either of the above points is enough to at least consider Rigdon and Spalding each a suspect for Book of Mormon authorship, even if unlikely ones. And by all appearances to me, these suspicions arose completely independently of another. In other words, those suspecting Rigdon knew and said nothing of Spalding, and those suspecting Spalding knew and said nothing of Rigdon. If they did know of the other, then they were extremely clever to give the appearance of independence.

3) As best I can tell, it was AFTER the birth and reporting of the above suspicions that it was learned of the common acquaintances of Rigdon and Spalding in Pittsburgh PA that had existed years earlier at the time when Spalding was delivering a manuscript to the printing office of Silas Engles. Rigdon's association with Engles is not as firmly proven, and I guess one will choose to believe whether reports of Rigdon's associations with the same printing office is contrived or not. If one accepts them as true, then it connects Rigdon and Spalding at a very opportune time for Rigdon to become aware of and obtain a Spalding manuscript, and the closeness of the connection (that wasn't discovered until at least late 1833) is quite a coincidence in my opinion given the suspicions that had already arisen independently concerning Rigdon and Spalding. This discovered connection can only increase any measure of suspicion on these men that had already existed.

I think there are many other supporting evidences for Spalding/Rigdon authorship of the Book of Mormon, but I wanted to make the above argument only as a somewhat compelling argument (be your own judge) to at least look into this further.

Jeff

[_charity]

Charity, I can't really understand how you arrive at the conclusion that Spalding theorists simply concocted a missing Spalding manuscript when you haven't taken the time to read the Cowdery/Davis/Vanick book all the way through. Whether they are correct about it or not, to characterize it as an ad hoc concoction is really a gross misrepresentation of the facts, at least as it stands now. There are a number of evidences that at least suggest the existence of a second manuscript. I recommend that before you continue to spout distortions you read the actual book from cover to cover instead of relying on a single review and your skimming.

Secondly, I would hardly lump all Spalding theorists into the category of "antis." Uncle Dale is one of the most dedicated and careful of the Spalding theorists. After interacting with him and reading his posts for so long at FAIR and eslewhere, I think it is rather sloppy of you to throw him into the anti-Mormon category. I think the same could be said of others who argue for the Spalding theory.

It is regretable that you take it upon yourself to represent the LDS position on the Spalding theory when you are so poorly informed about the issue. Since you are poorly informed, you should perhaps not be so cavalier and dismissive. It does you no credit.

I have said here or on another thread, I do not claim to represent the Church, BYU, FAIR, or anyone else but myself. I can read and evaluate information.

What I read of the Cowdry/Davis/Vannick book, they are sloppy researchers and under the best of interpretations, gullible historians. They don't look at inconsistencies, and they don't even try to reconsile conflicting accounts. Some of the conflicting accounts aren't mentioned. Which doesn't say much for their research. From what I have read of their work, it looks as though they are as rabid as Hurlburt. He wanted so badly to discredit the Book of Mormon he was driven even to fabricating evidence. I don't say that they fabricate anything. But it looks like they parked their discriminating abilities in the garage when they went to work.

Uncle Dale has reasons behind his position. He has word print studies, which I think are overdrawn, but they are real. And he isn't just trying to grasp at straws to bolster his position. I respect Uncle Dale.

I think many of us LDS apologists draw a line between "critics" and "anti-Mormons." A person can question doctrine, history, people, and not be trying to tear them down and destroy them. That is the difference. There can be dialogue between people on different sides of an issue. There really can't be dialogue between yourself and someone trying to kill you, literally or figuratively.

[_karl61]

remember charity that the Book of Mormon calls all the other churchs a whore.

Quite rightly there are passages which indicate that there is one Church of God and another of Satan. That is also Biblical. Then, of course, Jesus said that all the CREEDS were an abomination. He didn't say churches. CREEDS.

The Book of Mormon calls the other churchs a whore. Now Bruce R. said it was the catholic church but I don't know why he picked on them because the protestants from day one were the "ante". They wrote the laws promoting monogamy; forbidding polgamy, fought against slavery, provided all types of good charity to the people of the land, loved Jesus with all their heart and even sacrificed to build that little white church so they could sing praise to their God, but no! - those ministers are corrupt and that church is a whore. (I am going to keep bringing this up until they (the fifteen) change it to something that isn't' so offensive or hurtful)

[_charity]

With the Book of Abraham, there are accounts of the descriptions of the papyrus. Those descriptions were recorded at the time or within days, not years, of exposure to the papyrus. Are there missing papyri, not recovered and given to the Church? It appears so.

The descriptions include several talking about the length of the papyrus that was on the table, went to the floor, across the room and into another. There was no such long piece recovered. Another description talks about a beautifully done papyrus with black and red "painting" on it. Nothing like that was among the recovered pieces.

Other than Nibley's report of the secondhand, distant recollection of Joseph F. Smith, what evidence do you have that there was a real long papyrus that is now missing? I seem to recall someone mentioning another evidence, but I cannot recall it now.

There is a letter written by Oliver Cowdery which described the text as containing the red and black markings. The red ones are called rubrics.

Then, on a more scientific note, just recently John Gee presented a calculation of the total amount of papyri there would be given the recovered pieces. It is a calculation used by Egyptologists, not LDS, that measures the curvature of a papyri fragement and then yields a good estimation of the entire size of the scroll it would have been on. Using the fragments, this calcuation indicates that a majority of the papyrus was not recovered.

From what I understand, this calculation places the text in a tiny minority of similar collections, if not by itself. Is this not true?

I don't know. I am much more of a visual learner than an auditory one. I am anxsiouly awaiting the publication of Gee's report at the conference, so I can read it.

I think that puts this missing papyri claim on a higher plane than the missing Spaulding claim. You can look at the facts yourself and decide.

Once again, since you don't seem to know that much about the Spalding theory, I don't know how you can make such a declaration.

You don't know what I know about the Spaulding theory, so you can't really afford to be that condescending..

[_mentalgymnast]

I've seen these conversations on Book of Mormon authorship ad nauseum for years. There has been no definitive verdict one way or the other. There are some interesting things to look at on both sides of the fence. I think we would all agree on that. Whatever its history, it's here.

So I ask myself the question, "Why a Book of Mormon?" What possible reason would a God have in "setting things up" so that this book would be here? With all the controversy surrounding the book, wouldn't it be smarter on God's part to dispense with the Book of Mormon? With its anachronisms and apparent 19th century influences it seems as though the book presents more problems and challenges than any good that comes out of it.

Or does it?

The Book of Mormon stands as a witness of a person who lived in history, but is considered by many to be something less than what he purportedly claimed himself to be. Many members of the church today act as witnesses of this person because of a spiritual witness/impressions received while reading this book. I see this as a powerful witness to the validity of the Book of Mormon. That a God would allow a fraud of this proportion to thrive or even exist IN THE NAME OF HIS SON AND AS A WITNESS OF HIS SON is preposterous. Yes, I'm having to allow that there is a loving God who's intent is not to dupe mankind, in order to make this statement. Yes, there are other religious systems that claim truth. There are even some that claim scriptural support and/or unique scripture/writings to validate their cause. As far as I know, however, the Book of Mormon is unique in the powerful witness contained therin that Jesus is Lord...the Christ...the Son of God. Christ is prevalent/pervasive throughout the book. His atonement is explained in much greater detail than in the Bible. Yes, it is possible that Joseph Smith could have concocted a fraud upon mankind that had the ultimate effect of bringing souls to Christ...but I just don't buy it. I can't conceive of a God that would let that happen SO THAT SO MANY PEOPLE WOULD BE DECEIVED INTO BELIEVING IN Christ under false pretenses.

President Hinckley has admitted to the fact that the LDS church doesn't worship the same Christ as creedal Christianity does. Why? Because of the fruits of the Book of Mormon. The fact is, the church exists and teaches what it does today concerning Christ as a result of the Book of Mormon and subsequent purported revelations. We are separate in many respects from the rest of Christianity. The Book of Mormon was/is a catalyst towards this reality/situation. The question that I think is incumbent on us to ask, at least if we're open enough to ask it, is..."If Jesus is the Christ, is he the Jesus of creedal Christianity and some of the restoration spinoffs, or is he the Jesus that is witnessed of in the LDS church?" Someone is right, or someone is wrong. Or...everybody is wrong. The Book of Mormon is the artifact speaking from the dust that gives rise to the possibility that the LDS church is right as it teaches concepts relating to God and man, albeit that to some extent this knowledge has come line upon line and precept upon precept.

I see the Book of Mormon as being just as I mentioned, an artifact from an ancient people/civilization whispering from the dust and witnessing of Jesus' mission and atonement for mankind. Acceptance of the Book of Mormon is acceptance of Christ and his teachings.

Rejection of the Book of Mormon Mormon results in people such as Keene subscribing to mind altering substances and non-belief in God as being "the way". Rejection results in loss of faith in the truth claims of the LDS church. Rejection often results in atheistic/agnostic tendencies. Rejection may result in a greater tendency towards alternate lifestyles, including hedonistic/immoral behaviors.

As I try to take a global/wider look at things, and again under the assumption that there is a God, I have a difficult time conceptualizing of a God that would let something OF THIS MAGNITUDE exist/proliferate in the name of his son. Of course, the underlying assumption being made here is that Jesus was who he said he was. And in my mind, at this point in my life, I cannot see the long range hope for humanity as being anything more/less than hopeless, in an eternal sense, if a loving God didn't foreordain someway for fallen man to be redeemed from what appears to be a tremendous fall from grace.

The Book of Mormon can be looked at as being a necessary component and tangible witness in an ongoing desire that God has to have his children believe in him and partake of all that he has to offer them not only now but throughout eternity. Of course if we choose to believe in a God that would choose to annihilate his creations/spirit children or simply create a cosmic borg community made up of what were once individual entities, then the Book of Mormon kind of messes things up. Or if we choose to disbelieve in God altogether, the Book of Mormon kind of messes things up. If we choose a worldly lifestyle, the Book of Mormon kind of messes things up too. It CLAIMS TO BE FROM GOD.

Take it as you may. Spaulding theories, View of the Hebrews, Automatic Writing, and everything else to the contrary. I've seen it all. You can beat on this till the cows come home and FARMS and Mormon Discussions become a lost item in an old obituary page. In my view there are other avenues of approach as we look validity/truthfulness...or not... of the Book of Mormon.

Too many, too easily have for one reason or another given up on the Book of Mormon. I think that's kind of sad.

Regards,
MG

[_karl61]

I think that when you bring in evolution and the age the earth and see that myths have moved nations not moutains, that all the myths of others are wrong. My defining moment is when I started to research and look at apes and how we are so a like and once you see that we are a great ape, a twig, of a branch that has gone on for millions of years, then you stand back and see the real truth.

[_Dr. Shades]

Sorry Shades, no one ever talked about a second manuscript until the first one was found and was such a laughable thing it could not possibly have been it. So then, the story of a second manuscript was made up.

Actually, the very same book that first talked about the Spalding/Rigdon theory mentioned the first manuscript, the one you read, and explicitly stated that it wasn't the one from which the Book of Mormon was plagiarized.

Again, the very same book talked about a second manuscript. So it was talked about since 1835.

[_DonBradley]

Got to go with Trevor on this one. I mean these are Grand Fundamental Principles. And I for one am embarking on a serious study of them!

And that is a fine testimony from the Church of Cheese and Rice and T M I.

Finally, a church for people like me!!

But I vote we trade in the cheese and rice for pomegranates and wine. All in favor say "eye"!

Don

[_moksha]

"His brother, Hyrum, said to me, "Now, Brother Benjamin, you know that Brother Joseph would not sanction this if it was not from the Lord. The Lord revealed this to Brother Joseph long ago, and he put it off until the Angel of the Lord came to him with a drawn sword and told him that he would be slain if he did not go forth and fulfill the law." He told my sister to have no fears, and he there and then sealed my sister, Almira, to the Prophet."

"Soon after this he was at my house again, where he occupied my Sister Almira's room and bed, and also asked me for my youngest sister, Esther M. I told him she was promised in marriage to my wife's brother. He said, "Well, let them marry, for it will all come right.""
- Elder Benjamin F. Johnson, My Life's Review See: http://mormonlore.freeservers.com/johnson1.htm

"He there and then explained to me the doctrine of plurality of wives; he said that the Lord had revealed it unto him, and commanded him to have women sealed to him as wives; that he foresaw the trouble that would follow, and sought to turn away from the commandment; that an angel from heaven then appeared before him with a drawn sword, threatening him with destruction unless he went forward and obey the commandment."

"He further said that my sister, Eliza R. Snow, had been sealed to him as his wife for time and eternity. He told me that the Lord would open the way, and I should have women sealed to me as wives. This conversation was prolonged, I think, one hour or more, in which he told me many important things."

"I solemnly declare before God and holy angels, and as I hope to come forth in the morning of the resurrection, that the above statement is true."
- Prophet Lorenzo R. Snow, sworn affidavit. See: http://www.Mormons.org.uk/celest.htm

"19 year-old Zina remained conflicted until a day in October, apparently, when Joseph sent [her older brother] Dimick to her with a message: an angel with a drawn sword had stood over Smith and told him that if he did not establish polygamy, he would lose "his position and his life." Zina, faced with the responsibility for his position as prophet, and even perhaps his life, finally acquiesced." (In Sacred Loneliness, page 80-81)

"An Angel of God Stood by him (Joseph Smith) with a drawn Sword and told him he should be slain & Cut off from the Earth and the kingdom of God if he did not obey that Law (of polygamy). George Q Cannon was of the same opinion, that a man must have more then one wife at a time in order to obey that Law."
- Prophet Wilford Woodruff, Wilford Woordruff's Journal, Vol. 8, p.235

Are all Angels this demanding?

I suppose if we look at this through the lens of Presentism it seems like this Angel business was just an excuse for some hanky-panky. But in the past, it must have seemed very real to people like young Zina who did not want to be responsible for the Prophets demise at the hands of this potentially homicidal Angel "and finally acquiesced".

I am curious what Charity thinks of these quotes.

[_beastie]

beastie wrote:

I cannot comment on the Hebraic side of the equation, because it doesn’t interest me enough to study.


Why is that? I've seen you mention this a few times now.

Regards,
MG

A couple of reasons.

1. Ancient Israel does not interest me as much as ancient Mesoamerica. I’m not being dismissive of ancient Israel’s ability to intrigue, just stating that it doesn’t intrigue me. I believe it is important to possess a certain amount of background knowledge, oneself, in order to evaluate certain claims in a meaningful manner. I have to have more than an interest in the Mormon connection to invest that sort of time in the issue. I have read books about ancient Israel, just not enough to feel able to participate other than in a cursory fashion in those discussions.
2. Hebraic connections are mundane for two reasons-
A. Joseph Smith, like most other literate people of his culture, grew up immersed in the Bible in a way modern Americans don’t grasp. The Bible was their primary form of literature and hence, entertainment. Children were often taught to read by memorizing sections of the Bible. Families read portions of the Bible to each other in the evening. Anyone so immersed in the Bible, when writing a text he means to sound scriptural, is going to naturally mimic the Biblical language and it won’t be difficult for him to do. in my opinion, this is a completely adequate explanation for something like chiasmus – even if no one had ever pointed out this Biblical style, it would be natural for someone immerse in the Bible to mimic it.
B. Joseph Smith, by his own admission, was in a religiously obsessed family who also participated in discussions and sermons about the Bible. Ancient Israel had been studied for hundreds of years by this point, and there were many educated traveling preachers who could have included elements in their preaching, which Joseph Smith could have been exposed to as well.

And, of course, there is no way to know for certain if Joseph Smith were the sole author of the Book of Mormon, anyway.

Add to this the LDS tendency to exaggerate the strength of any connection they deem in favor of the Book of Mormon, and you have a situation that doesn’t interest me currently. Maybe one day if I get more into comparative religion, it will.