The Spaulding Theory........what most Mormons don't know

[_Uncle Dale]

...
How can I best respond to these difficulties?
...

If the Book of Mormon writer(s) had been following Campbell's precepts, then adult immersion
for the remission of sins would only have been introduced to the Nephites, when Christ
appeared among them (as reported in 3rd Nephi).

Referring to Campbell's 1823 debate with M'Calla, we see that Campbell did not credit
the baptism of John as being the same thing as the baptism of Peter in Acts, ch. 2.
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/1824Cam1.htm

For Campbell, the pre-Pentecostal baptism was still an adult immersion -- but it was
a baptism of repentance. In articulating this notion, Campbell was attempting to account
for the origin of the practice, in contradistinction to Rev. M'Calla's assertion, that baptism
was merely a "sign" and "seal" of membership in the church, and had existed in the
form of circumcision in the pre-Christian era. Campbell was trying to get away from that
Presbyterian idea --- and, at the same time, he was trying to get away from the Calvinist
idea that baptism came only after a life-changing Christian conversion experience.

Clearly the Jews baptized by John were not entering as new members into the Covenant;
clearly they were not professing Jesus Christ, after being "born again;" therefore,
Campbell differentiated THAT baptism as one of repentance -- a pre-Christian activity.

Had the Book of Mormon writer(s) been copying Campbell closely, the pattern of
innovation in baptism in that book should have been, first of all a baptism for repentance;
followed by an "upgrading" of that practice into the ordinance whereby sins were remitted
and Jesus Christ was professed as savior.

But, in the first part of the Book of Mormon, adult immersion for the remission of sins was
already being stated as a religious ordinance by the Lehites. And, when Christ comes in
3rd Nephi, he does not institute a different, "apostolic" form of baptism.

And -- if Dan Vogel is correct, the pattern of baptism in the Book of Mormon is consistent --
and there are no innovations (other than Moroni providing an example of how it is to
be administered in the True Church, etc.).

Therefore -- can we say that the Book of Mormon does NOT imitate Alexander Campbell's
teachings on the nature and evolution of Christian baptism? And, if so, would that
admission, in and of itself, disqualify Sidney Rigdon's textual input --- (since Rigdon was
a tremendous advocate of adult immersion for the remission of sins)???

UD

[_Uncle Dale]

...Your work
...

It all began with library research into my family history -- finding out that a
member of my ancestral family was the first Mormon to leave the Church
over the Spalding authorship claims, etc. It has been an interesting hobby.

As a change of pace, let's go back to the year 1830 and follow the investigations
of John Jones, a fellow who thinks he might want to join a church.

John talks to a Quaker, who tells him all he needs to do is to attend Quaker
meetings -- that baptism is a thing of the past.

John talks to a Presbyterian, who tells him that the sprinkling he received
from a Congregationalist minister as an infant was just fine -- that if John
is truly one of the elect, he will be saved, no matter what.

John talks to a Baptist, who tells him he must have a "change of heart" in
which the Holy Ghost falls upon him with converting power -- then he can be
immersed and apply for membership. The fact that John has such a conversion
experience will be a fairly certain sign that he is already among the elect.

John talks to a Methodist, who also tells him he must have a conversion
experience -- but that it may come in many forms -- perhaps while John
is studying in a Methodist class. He can be baptized at some future date.

John talks to a Campbellite, who tells him that all he must do is to admit
"Jesus is the Christ," and that the Campbellite elder will immerse him and
get his sins remitted immediately. He can then join any Campbellite congregation.

John talks to a Latter Day Saint, who tells him to read the Book of Mormon,
"pray about it," and then confess that it is true. If he will do that, the Mormon
elder will immerse John for the remission of sins -- having exclusive authority
granted by Jesus Christ, to administer the ordinance. And, as a bonus, if
John will act quickly (and promise to consecrate all his property) the elder
will also bestow upon him the Holy Ghost, by the laying on of hands.

What is poor, confused John to do?

The book says the Mormon elder has the authority he claims,
and the same elder says the book is conveying the truth.
THAT certainly can be no accident.

UD

[_Roger]

Chris:

Thanks for the responses. I will respond more fully when time permits, but for now:

Roger,

I wasn't kidding about the parallels between Uto-Aztecan and Hebrew or the Anthon Transcript and Demotic. They're quite impressive. Non-LDS Egyptologist Richard Parker agreed with Crowley that the transcript's character's are Egyptian, though he felt they were closer to Meroitic than Demotic. He told Richard Bushman that he thinks Joseph Smith must have copied them out of some book. I'm very much inclined to think that there is enough flexibility in Demotic to accommodate most of the random scribblings along these lines that you could come up with, but I can see why someone who hasn't done a lot of comparative study would think there's something here that demands explanation.

I don't know anything about parallels between Uto-Aztecan and Hebrew--and how it applies here unless you're suggesting that it might somehow support the concept of reformed Egyptian by coincidence-- but I am well aware of the similarity that exists between the AT and Demotic. In fact I think the similarity is too coincidental to be coincidence. But like anything else, the whole Anthon episode of Mormonism requires a detailed examination and a long explanation, and time is against me at the moment.

To sum up, I think some of the characters are variations of demotic while others come from other sources. If you are interested see this for starters:

http://olivercowdery.com/smithhome/2000s/2001RBSt.htm

Of course the bottom line on the AT is that we can't be sure if Anthon ever saw it or if he was actually presented something else.

Perhaps instead of the Spalding manuscript we should be looking for a book that contains these particular characters...

I think we should be looking for both. On the other hand, I do not think Joseph was so dumb as to directly copy stuff unless he thought the source would never be revealed. Instead I am more inclined to agree with Anthon who states that:

It consisted of all kinds of crooked characters disposed in columns, and had evidently been prepared by some person who had before him at the time a book containing various alphabets. Greek and Hebrew letters, crosses and flourishes, Roman letters inverted or placed sideways, were arranged in perpendicular columns, and the whole ended in a rude delineation of a circle divided into various compartments, decked with various strange marks, and evidently copied after the Mexican Calender given by Humboldt, but copied in such a way as not to betray the source whence it was derived.

That Joseph Smith attempted to fool Mitchill and Anthon I have no doubt. That he did this without Rigdon's input is also quite possible and says nothing about whether or not there was a Spalding ms involved.

One more quick question for you... the recent discovery of an 1816 mail-waiting notice demonstrates that Rigdon was lying--or at best glossing the truth--about ever being in or living in Pittsburgh prior to 1822. Off the top of my head I think he may have merely denied ever living in Pittsburgh prior to 1822 which, of course, is a diversion since it's irrelevant whether or not he actually lived there, the important matter is whether he visited there or not, and, of course, the mail-waiting notice demonstrates that he did so frequently enough to be collecting mail there.

Rigdon is obviously hiding this truth. If we were to take Rigdon's word on it, it wouldn't have even been possible for him to have purloined a Spalding ms from a Pittsburgh print shop/bookstore prior to 1822. As it turns out, it most certainly would have been possible. Another coincidence?

[_Daheshist]

John talks to a Daheshist, who tells him that organized religion is not necessary to be "saved", and that Jesus came to do away with the Curse of the Law and has replaced it with the Golden Rule, which is the only Law to live by, and that all men and women are "judged" solely on their WORKS/DEEDS, not their beliefs or belief system, and that the Atheist who does more good works than a Christian, or Baptist, or Quacker, or Muslim, or Buddhist, or Mormon, will receive a greater reward than they in the next World.

[quote.

It all began with library research into my family history -- finding out that a
member of my ancestral family was the first Mormon to leave the Church
over the Spalding authorship claims, etc. It has been an interesting hobby.

As a change of pace, let's go back to the year 1830 and follow the investigations
of John Jones, a fellow who thinks he might want to join a church.

John talks to a Quaker, who tells him all he needs to do is to attend Quaker
meetings -- that baptism is a thing of the past.

John talks to a Presbyterian, who tells him that the sprinkling he received
from a Congregationalist minister as an infant was just fine -- that if John
is truly one of the elect, he will be saved, no matter what.

John talks to a Baptist, who tells him he must have a "change of heart" in
which the Holy Ghost falls upon him with converting power -- then he can be
immersed and apply for membership. The fact that John has such a conversion
experience will be a fairly certain sign that he is already among the elect.

John talks to a Methodist, who also tells him he must have a conversion
experience -- but that it may come in many forms -- perhaps while John
is studying in a Methodist class. He can be baptized at some future date.

John talks to a Campbellite, who tells him that all he must do is to admit
"Jesus is the Christ," and that the Campbellite elder will immerse him and
get his sins remitted immediately. He can then join any Campbellite congregation.

John talks to a Latter Day Saint, who tells him to read the Book of Mormon,
"pray about it," and then confess that it is true. If he will do that, the Mormon
elder will immerse John for the remission of sins -- having exclusive authority
granted by Jesus Christ, to administer the ordinance. And, as a bonus, if
John will act quickly (and promise to consecrate all his property) the elder
will also bestow upon him the Holy Ghost, by the laying on of hands.

What is poor, confused John to do?

The book says the Mormon elder has the authority he claims,
and the same elder says the book is conveying the truth.
THAT certainly can be no accident.

UD[/quote]

[_Uncle Dale]

...
Quacker, or Muslim
...

Yeah -- I guess so --



UD

[_CaliforniaKid]

That article looks interesting, Roger. I'll definitely have to give it a read-through when I have more time.

[_aussieguy55]

Chris

I just got Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon in the mail. Have you read it and do u have an opinion of it?

I notice Mormons are critical of the time lapse between the time the people gave their version of events regarding Spalding and the actual event. I see that they do not do so with Joseph Smith vision. He remembers more details in later accounts.

[_Uncle Dale]

...
The book says the Mormon elder has the authority he claims,
and the same elder says the book is conveying the truth.
THAT certainly can be no accident.

And this, I firmly believe, was the purpose of the Book of Mormon. Not just to provide an
example of pre-crucifixion Christianity, long forgotten in the Americas. Not simply to stand
as "a second witness for Jesus Christ." Not merely to present a blueprint for the One True Church.
But to establish scriptural authority for a replacement ministerial establishment, which would
overcome and rid the world of "hireling priests" and apostate "priestcraft."

The end purpose of the book is to firmly implement this replacement for 19th century Christian
clerics, with a new order of God-ordained gospel preachers and ordinance administrators.

The new "priesthood" was to be promulgated as nothing other than a restoration of the
apostolic priesthood, which had long since either passed into oblivion or total extinction.

The book itself does not automatically set apart and ordain these new gospel workers --
but it provides the necessary ground-work for their claims to "authority" among a small
(but viable) group of dedicated believers -- believers who were ready, willing and able
to surrender their lives to that particular manifestation of authority.

Was THAT what Martin Harris was writing down, as Joseph Smith dictated to him the passages
of the lost "Book of Lehi?"

In a word, "no."

So -- how did we get from the 1828 "Book of Lehi" to the desire and need to publish the
1829 "Book of Mormon?"

That is the question we should be examining -- whether we think Smith acted on his own;
or whether we believe that he had helpers in the writing of his book.

Uncle Dale

[_Roger]

Chris:

I think that Joseph sitting there with a Spalding manuscript dictating word-for-word what's written on the manuscript is rather different than him periodically whipping out a Bible to consult it for lengthy quotations. The former would have raised more red flags in the minds of his scribes and observers than the latter, which could be justified by saying that he was just using it for convenience.

Of course there are some disadvantages, but one of the nice things about S/R vs Smith alone is that one doesn't have to figure out how Joseph duped all these people who were close enough to observe him every day.

If S/R is true (and I think it is) then Cowdery was very likely in on the fraud. (Whether he believed it to be a fraud is another question entirely). Personally I don't think Harris was, and Whitmer is a question mark. If the scribes were in on it, or even just Cowdery, then it is quite likely that chunks were produced out of view and direct plagiarism was likely employed in those sections.

Also I don't think Smith merely dictated or a scribe copied word for word from a Spalding ms. He may have done so some of the time but certainly not all of it.

Moreover, I still do think that Smith dictated every word. Given the subtle changes to italicized portions of Isaiah and other KJV passages, I think Smith would have to have been dictating or directing precisely what was being written here, even if he is doing so with reference to a printed Bible. (I don't rule out the possibility of memorization, either, though it strikes me as unlikely.)

Please cite a couple examples and explain why you think Smith had to be the one doing this.

However, my point is not that Joseph can't have done the same thing with some other work. My point is that there is little or no good reason to hypothesize that he did.

Well then... you seem to be open to the possibility yet you claim to see little or no good reason to hypothesize that he did.... and yet plenty of other people disagree with that. The interesting thing to me is that most of the critics who lived back when this was all front page news felt that there was reason to hypothesize it. You yourself acknowledge that Smith drew from his own experience and still managed to incorporate that into a pretended account of Nephites, etc. Why is it such a stretch to then conclude he likely made use of other contemporary sources... subtly changing them to suit his needs? And of course if S/R is right it was not simply Joseph who was doing this but Rigdon and Spalding as well. The result would be a pretty complex mixture of plagiarism mixed with personal experience.... and that is exactly what we see in the Book of Mormon. Even the book itself admits that it is a compilation of "abridgments."

I agree, which may be why this didn't raise red flags for the scribes.

Again, there is no potential for red flags at all if Cowdery and possibly a couple others are in on it. Even if they are only "in on it" to a certain level.

However, there are a lot of shorter Bible passages that show up in the Book of Mormon that aren't explicitly represented as quotes, as well. These may have been memorized, either consciously or unconsciously.

I think all of these men were pretty familiar with the Bible.

Yes, the Tanners may be on to something there... although I have to point out that lengthy Bible passages are reproduced in other parts of the Book of Mormon, as well... most notably the Sermon on the Mount.

Not a problem at all for S/R.

I've not seen convincing evidence of that. However, if they were somehow acquainted, then yes, I would consider it coincidental. It was a smaller world back then.

One begins to wonder how many coincidences you are willing to put up with. : )

I dare suggest that Luther's literary exposures would be easier to establish than those of an 1828-29 Joseph Smith!

The plausibility of the exposure has not even been established to my satisfaction, let alone the likelihood of it.

What I am saying is Luther no doubt had access to books and his reliance on various sources would likely be easier to demonstrate than Smith's reliance on various sources. One of the obstacles we encounter with TBMs (and apparently you) when showing evidence of parallels is that we are then challenged to show how Smith had access to the source in question. I mentioned Swedenborg because he himself admitted that he was familiar with Swedenborg, so there is at least one source we know Smith was familiar with. But people like Ben want to challenge every parallel no matter how obvious it may appear and the easiest way to do that is to say: how did Smith have access to this? If you can't show me solid proof that the uneducated Smith checked this source out of his local library then I won't accept the parallel.

But S/R provides a more plausible scenario to explain the parallels we do see in that not all the parallels lead back to Smith--in fact most of them probably don't. Many of them, instead, go back to Spalding, but others were likely introduced by Rigdon.

Also, have you taken a look at Donofrio's work in relation to Spalding's dependance on sources like Mercy Otis Warren? Do you see warrant to Donofrio's conclusions when it comes to Spalding borrowing from other sources?

I recall thinking that his connections between Spalding and Warren were stronger than between the Book of Mormon and Warren,

Which is exactly what we would expect since Spalding would have been plagiarizing directly whereas Smith's version would have gone through himself, possibly Cowdery and for sure Rigdon before winding up in the Book of Mormon.

The idea that Hurlbut got a bunch of people--and not just any people but people who legitimately knew Spalding--to remember false names of people they claim were the lead characters in a story they read or heard read many times is simply ludicrous

.

It isn't ludicrous.

With all due respect, Chris, yes it is.

You gave the example of books that you had read carefully and enjoyed.

Spalding's ms's were read for evening enjoyment in a day when there were no outside interruptions from telehones, TV's, radios, movies, etc. Spalding was almost nightly entertainment for some of these people.

They impacted you, and you remembered the names well.

Not to a huge extent. They were fiction novels about a topic I enjoyed, WWII, but they did not impact me on any level above ordinary. Spalding's novel was certainly of equal and very likely much greater "impact" since he was giving an explanation for the mysterious Indian mounds right there in Conneaut in a day when Indians were still very much a part of life. He was giving a fictional history of the very region they were living in! And unravelling a series of mysteries in the process! That is much more relevant to his audience than my WWII novels were to me.

Hurlbut's witnesses do not seem to have read Spalding's manuscript carefully-- or at all, in some cases.

You're buying Mormon rhetoric. This is simply not the case. Prove your case by citing a couple of what you think are the best examples.

And even if they had read it, it's not exactly compelling fiction.

We're talking about Conneaut, OH and Amity, PA circa 1814, Chris. It was certainly compelling and relevant fiction. Not only that, but they were likely thinking old Spalding may be famous someday and I was a part of it!

I remember the names of the characters in my favorite book. But mediocre books that I read 3 or 4 years ago are another matter. There are many books and movies that I remember virtually nothing about, though if you suggested a name or two you could probably convince me that yes, I remember now, I do believe that's right, his name was Nephi...

Forgive me Chris, but you are buying into nonsense. Spalding's novel was likely the only or at least one of only a small number of forms of entertainment in 1812 Conneaut, OH. You know as well as I do that there were no movies to compete for memory space... no internet, no cell phones, etc. How many other aspiring novelists entertained the neighborhood nightly in Conneaut circa 1811?

I will say that you have a remarkable memory if you remember fictional names from twenty-five years ago.

No I don't. That's the point. Ask my wife. My memory is mediocre at best. That's why my little experiment shatters the LDS apologist notion that common people can't remember names from a book from 20+ years back. They may wish to say I'm lying, but I know what I know. I speak from experience. I certainly did forget some of the secondary names in the novels, but, come on, how can you forget a name like "Pug" Henry? He was the lead character. His son's name was Byron. As I was trying to remember this the first thing that popped into my mind was "Brian" but then I thought that's not quite right and, sure enough, I thought about it a little more and remembered it was Byron. Remembering that sparked another memory---Byron's love interest... she was a Jew named Natilee, and more memories came back from there. That is the way memory works, Chris. It is not generally so unreliable as LDS apologists want people to think it is. Once I had those memories in my mind NO ONE could have convinced me... gee, maybe it was really George instead of "Pug" or maybe it was Ralph instead of Byron. There is just no way that is going to happen.

Now if we were only talking about one weirdo or something, then, okay, maybe Hurlbut manipulated the poor fellow, but all 8 of them? No way. And especially no way when other people continued to bring forth unsolicited testimony in support of the orginal 8.

I remember the names of exactly 2 of my elementary school teachers, and exactly one of my junior high teachers. And I'm only twenty-four years old, so it's not like this was that long ago for me. I suspect that most people do not have your memory for details.

That's the thing, Chris, my memory really isn't all that great. I forget stuff all the time. Just ask my wife. She is consantly having to remind of stuff. But I could tell you each one of my elementary teacher's names! Rhonda Dostel - K, (don't ask me how I know her first name!?) Mrs Worthington - 1, Miss Geissler - 2 (Karen I think), ----shoot I'm forgetting 3rd grade... I can see her face though! -- I can remember this cute girl named Rosemary Gofigan though! does that count?--Mrs Haar - 4, Mr. Massengale - 5 ----ugh I can't believe I'm forgetting 6th grade.... she was one of my favorite teachers... blond hair, blue eyes.... can't remember her name... sheesh it's on the tip of my tongue! Oh man, now I remember another 6th grade teacher, Mrs Fritz we used to trade teachers for reading, but I can't remember mine! Oh well, I doubt you could convince me it was something totally off from what it actually was! LOL.

AH-HA! Hultgren!!! It was Mrs. Hultgren! Now I can sleep tonight!

And, badda-boom, badda-bing... Athey! Mrs. Athey was the other 6th grade teacher. Still can't remember third grade... oh well, 5 outa 6 ain't bad.

Well maybe so, but parallels, for pete's sake, are either parallels or not. Question them all you want. Apply whatever historian's caution you want. Parallels are parallels.

...You yourself admit to "parallels" ...well, parallels are parallels regardless of how "striking" they appear.

Don't be silly. The issue is not whether there are parallels. The issue is what the parallels mean. Do they indicate plagiarism? Coincidence? Common sources? Sorry to break it to you, but in these kinds of judgments, how "striking" they are is exactly what makes or breaks your case.

I beg to differ. There are plenty of works that do not contain parallels. Sure there are some works that do have parallels that were not connected in the sense that someone sat down and plagiarized, but parallels still can have signficance in contrast to two works that do not contain parallels. Furthermore, aside from the subjective nature of how "striking" something is, the volume, frequency, sequence and chronological order of parallels are also important factors. One would think you would readily acknowledge that given your line of work.

Of course not, so why would there be ANY parallels at all?

I could find parallels between Marilyn Monroe and Mother Theresa if I wanted to.

Actually that might not be a bad idea. Why don't you see if you can find some parallels between something written by Marilyn Monroe and something written by Mother Teresa and then we'll see how "striking" they are?

And any parallels I found would prove exactly nothing.

Or your lack of finding a striking set of parallels might have significance.

All the best!

R

[_CaliforniaKid]

Roger,

I don't think it will be particularly productive to continue this conversation, so I'm going to bow out.

Best wishes,

-Chris