TBM's: Killer blow to the Book of Mormon?

[_Jersey Girl]

Bolding my comments...I don't know a better way to make this an easy read...

Rigdon and Smith did now know about or of each other till after the Book of Mormon was published.

How do you know that?

How do you know he did? This is the critical missing evidence that the people who think Rigdon was the originator of the Book of Mormon fail to produce. THere is just no link or evidence. You make the accusation. You must prove it.

I don't know that he did, Jason. I have made no "accusation" here. I simply asked how you know they didn't know about each other prior. I do think there are alternative explanations.

If Rigdon was the author this seems to pose a problem.

I don't see how it would matter.

It matters because Rigdon would have had to have been working with Smith somehow before 1830. He was not. No connection, they did not know each other, no letters, no meetings, and so on. None at all. The 3 and 8 witnesses did not know Rigdon, nobody involved with the Book of Mormon knew or had connections with himm prior to 1830.

You are right. To date there are no provable connections prior to 1830.

I call it your pet theory because it is one you bring up often.

Yes I do. As I stated a while back on this board, I would like to see this topic remain in the minds of people.

Thus it is your pet theory.

Is LDS my pet religion? ;-)

And when I responded to your OP here you said that I needed to brace myself....yet I see nothing new, no connections between Smith and Rigdon before 1830.

You see nothing new in this thread. There is more coming on this topic, Jason.

[/quote]

Really

Where is it? Do you have a new find? New information? The thread on this in the Celestial Forum has not had a post since 10/15. Where is the MORE? Do you have a provable link between Smith and Rigdon before 1830?

It's coming, Jason. It's not coming from me. Why on earth would it come from me?


When you have it I will be happy to examine it. by the way, the foremost author on Rigdon, Van Wagner, basically dismisses Rigdon as the author of the Book of Mormon. If you are interested in Rigdon you should get the book and finds not connection between them prior to 1830. Also, I do not dispute that Rigdon influenced Smith substantially after they met. The law of consecration that you mentioned is a prime example. There are others as well. But I just see no Book of Mormon connection[/quote]

It's not mine to give, Jason. You will have full access to it. On what basis does Van Wagner dismiss Rigdon as the author of the Book of Mormon?

[Tator]

Van Wagoner had a blind spot on this issue, if you ask me. He mentioned that Rigdon later lied about when he first heard of the Book of Mormon, but didn't seem that curious as to why.

[_Jersey Girl]

Van Wagoner had a blind spot on this issue, if you ask me. He mentioned that Rigdon later lied about when he first heard of the Book of Mormon, but didn't seem that curious as to why[/b].

You know, I think people just do have blind spots, beastie. For example, when I read [i]Rough Stone Rolling by Bushman, whether it was intended or not, he takes you right to the crux of a conflict but never connects the dots. I'm very interested in hearing more about what Van Wagoner has to say. If anyone wishes to post some of his ideas, I will definitely read them.

[_charity]

Any of the "other authors than Nephi, Mormon, Moroni, et al" has to account for the production of the Book of Mormon. For at least most of it, Joseph had his head in a hat, NOT reading off anything, as attested to by many, many people. If he was not reading off manuscript pages he must have memorized this "book" which was written by Rigdon, or whoever. The feat of memorizing at least 8 pages of manuscript every night for 60 days, and then repeating them from memory in the manner described by Emma, is an impossible one.

Before anyone goes off on any "but Rigdon wrote it" flight of fancy, they have to account for the production. I haven't heard one single person even attempt to do that.

[_beastie]

Any of the "other authors than Nephi, Mormon, Moroni, et al" has to account for the production of the Book of Mormon. For at least most of it, Joseph had his head in a hat, NOT reading off anything, as attested to by many, many people. If he was not reading off manuscript pages he must have memorized this "book" which was written by Rigdon, or whoever. The feat of memorizing at least 8 pages of manuscript every night for 60 days, and then repeating them from memory in the manner described by Emma, is an impossible one.

Before anyone goes off on any "but Rigdon wrote it" flight of fancy, they have to account for the production. I haven't heard one single person even attempt to do that.

Human beings have a wide range of native ability in regards to the ability to memorize. In our current culture, we view such feats of memorization as astonishing, but in older cultures it wasn't unusual at all. There are some cultures in which their entire history is maintained by the process of memorization.

In addition, one must factor what percentage of time had Joseph behind a blanket or some divider.

And lastly, it is fallacious to insist on the time limit you have. Joseph Smith obviously began planning the production of the Book of Mormon four years before he began dictating. Who knows what sort of preparations he undertook during that time period.

[_Abinadi's Fire]

In addition, one must factor what percentage of time had Joseph behind a blanket or some divider.

My view is that when Joseph was "talking out of his hat," he was reciting events that occurred in his own life, embellished and projected to an ancient time and when he was behind the curtain, he was reading from letters sent by Rigdon or others(Helaman or Ammoron's epistles, for example), or from the KJV.

The best example of Joseph projecting himself in the book is in Mormon chapter 1, and I think a good example of Oliver Cowdery within the book can be found in Alma's baptism story in Mosiah chapter 18 when compared with Oliver's account of he and Joseph's baptism on the banks of the Susquehanna.

[_truth dancer]

If I recall correctly, some apologists believe that Joseph Smith flat out copied parts of the Bible. If I recall correctly, the argument was that rather than go through the actual reading with his face in the hat process, Joseph Smith found it easier to just copy certain parts.

So, did anyone actually see him do this? If he could copy the Bible without anyone documenting it is it not completely possible that he copied other documents?

Why the curtain? Because God said so? Did Joseph Smith ask God if he must put up a curtain? ;-)

~dancer~

[_Sethbag]

Rigdon's relationship with the Campbellites in August 1830. Sidney converts in December and in February, voila! The Law of Consecration is received through revelation.

Have you noticed the pattern of the revelations in the restoration? Joseph asks a question. He gets an answer. Thjis does not surprise anyone. Sidney asks Joseph about "all things in common." Joseph takes it to the Lord and gets an answer.

We have had discussions before about how revelation is not just sent down to hit the prophet in the head. The prophet has to initiated the conversation.

What this looks more to me like is that Joseph is making it up as he goes along. That's the "Joseph asks a question of the Lord" part that you'd mention. He doesn't so much ask the question of the Lord as recognize something he'd like to "reveal" in the name of the Lord, and then do so.

[_Coggins7]

Hypothesis after hypothesis, speculation after speculation, flight of fancy after flight of fancy, and not a particle of historical documentation or evidence to support a smidgen of it. I find it of perennial interest how the same people who demand sources and documentation for psychological theories and philosophical analysis of historical and sociological phenomena demand no such thing of themselves in the matter of reconstructing history.

And in all of this, as with the Book of Abraham, we ignore what the text actually says and concentrate all of our energy on theoretical models based in a naturalistic world view of the book's production.

When one immerses oneself in these texts, and then sees the astounding parallels between what these texts say and what many other ancient texts, texts that were not known or available in Joseph's day, say about the same subjects, patterns and analogies begin to coalesce that cannot be dismissed by even the most sophisticated attempts to explain Joseph away that can be concocted by minds dedicated to this task.

The battle has yet to be joined. Archeology is still an infant discipline, and as more ancient texts speak to us from the dust, as they surely will, they will just as surely be as good to Joseph as have been the Scrolls, the Pseudipigrapha, the Nag Hammiadi, library, and numerous portions of the corpus of early Christian documents we have at present.

And the forces of darkness; those who are threatened by the truth and who fear what the light reveals, will continue to yap and nip at the Book of Mormon in their collars while others seek wisdom and salvation within its pages.

[_cksalmon]

Any of the "other authors than Nephi, Mormon, Moroni, et al" has to account for the production of the Book of Mormon. For at least most of it, Joseph had his head in a hat, NOT reading off anything, as attested to by many, many people. If he was not reading off manuscript pages he must have memorized this "book" which was written by Rigdon, or whoever. The feat of memorizing at least 8 pages of manuscript every night for 60 days, and then repeating them from memory in the manner described by Emma, is an impossible one.

Before anyone goes off on any "but Rigdon wrote it" flight of fancy, they have to account for the production. I haven't heard one single person even attempt to do that.

Joseph's brother, William, committed restorationist and ardent defender of Book of Mormon, wrote that Joseph Smith worked on the translation for 2.5 years (487 days)--not 60 days. William was defending Book of Mormon with that statement, not criticizing it.

See here: http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... 1208337522.

CKS