Converts to Limnor's Book of Mormon Origins?

[MG 2.0]

Together, they suggest a holistic learning experience, one that engages body, mind, and heart. I would expect that God, being the master teacher, would confirm/teach His word using multiple modalities rather than just one. Would you agree?

Again, that concept isn’t unique to the Book of Mormon. Similar approaches to discerning truth were common in early American revivalism:

Source: According to Jonathan Edwards in A Treatise Concerning Religious Affections, “gracious affections do arise from the mind’s being enlightened, richly and spiritually to understand or apprehend divine things.” (Edwards, 1746)

https://www.ccel.org/ccel/edwards/affections.html

The method itself doesn’t resolve the underlying epistemological problem.

Again, I think that Alma is taking this idea/concept of faith an expanding on it to a much greater extent than the preachers of his day. The question could be asked, how did he, Joseph Smith, 'have it all together' at such a young age to supersede/expand what was already around him in his environment/milieu.

I think you are forgetting, or misunderstanding, my thesis that Joseph did not act alone.

Yeah, I understand that's what you're preaching, in a sense. I just don't buy it. Years ago, in the nineties and early 2000's I went down the rabbit hole(s) on Spaulding/Rigdon, etc. Honestly, for a while I thought that there might be a 'smoking gun' with Rigdon at the print shop near a shared post office having access to Solomon Spaulding’s manuscript and all that. Howe, of course, is the anti-Mormon that promoted that story. There have been others that have tried to put Joseph in places and at times that would 'prove' he didn't act on his own.

There is nothing there.

As a result, I just don't see what you're doing as anything other than an exercise in futility, even if fun. One thing I would guess we both agree on, and that is Joseph Smith could not have produced the Book of Mormon on his own. there isn't any evidence he was working in collaboration with anyone else.

Years ago, Uncle Dale Broadhurst tried to make the connections, but I wasn't persuaded over the long haul, except to say again, at the time it was barn buster stuff. I did envy the fact that he lived in Hawaii.

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

Again, that concept isn’t unique to the Book of Mormon. Similar approaches to discerning truth were common in early American revivalism:

Source: According to Jonathan Edwards in A Treatise Concerning Religious Affections, “gracious affections do arise from the mind’s being enlightened, richly and spiritually to understand or apprehend divine things.” (Edwards, 1746)

https://www.ccel.org/ccel/edwards/affections.html

The method itself doesn’t resolve the underlying epistemological problem.

I think you are forgetting, or misunderstanding, my thesis that Joseph did not act alone.

Yeah, I understand that's what you're preaching, in a sense. I just don't buy it. Years ago, in the nineties and early 2000's I went down the rabbit hole(s) on Spaulding/Rigdon, etc. Honestly, for a while I thought that there might be a 'smoking gun' with Rigdon at the print shop near a shared post office having access to Solomon Spaulding’s manuscript and all that. Howe, of course, is the anti-Mormon that promoted that story. There have been others that have tried to put Joseph in places and at times that would 'prove' he didn't act on his own.

There is nothing there.

As a result, I just don't see what you're doing as anything other than an exercise in futility, even if fun. One thing I would guess we both agree on, and that is Joseph Smith could not have produced the Book of Mormon on his own. there isn't any evidence he was working in collaboration with anyone else.

Years ago, Uncle Dale Broadhurst tried to make the connections, but I wasn't persuaded over the long haul, except to say again, at the time it was barn buster stuff. I did envy the fact that he lived in Hawaii.

Regards,
MG

You really haven’t been reading what I’ve been saying, or I haven’t explained it clearly.

My view is Rigdon had an original version that Joseph usurped through redaction, inserting himself into the book without Rigdon’s knowledge, but retaining some of the theological Rigdonite views, supplemented by Cowdery, Pratt, and others’ contributions.

The evidence is inferential within the book itself.

It’s more complicated than a simple plagiarism.

[MG 2.0]

Yeah, I understand that's what you're preaching, in a sense. I just don't buy it. Years ago, in the nineties and early 2000's I went down the rabbit hole(s) on Spaulding/Rigdon, etc. Honestly, for a while I thought that there might be a 'smoking gun' with Rigdon at the print shop near a shared post office having access to Solomon Spaulding’s manuscript and all that. Howe, of course, is the anti-Mormon that promoted that story. There have been others that have tried to put Joseph in places and at times that would 'prove' he didn't act on his own.

There is nothing there.

As a result, I just don't see what you're doing as anything other than an exercise in futility, even if fun. One thing I would guess we both agree on, and that is Joseph Smith could not have produced the Book of Mormon on his own. there isn't any evidence he was working in collaboration with anyone else.

Years ago, Uncle Dale Broadhurst tried to make the connections, but I wasn't persuaded over the long haul, except to say again, at the time it was barn buster stuff. I did envy the fact that he lived in Hawaii.

Regards,
MG

You really haven’t been reading what I’ve been saying, or I haven’t explained it clearly.

My view is Rigdon had an original version that Joseph usurped through redaction, inserting himself into the book without Rigdon’s knowledge, but retaining some of the theological Rigdonite views, supplemented by Cowdery, Pratt, and others’ contributions.

The evidence is inferential within the book itself.

It’s more complicated than a simple plagiarism.

Maybe you could review the following:

If Joseph redacted Rigdon's work without Rigdon's knowledge, how did he manage to retain Rigdon's theological views so faithfully?

Would it be fair/honest to say that Joseph inserted himself into Rigdon’s work without Rigdon knowing, while also incorporating contributions from Cowdery, Pratt, and others, suggesting a collaborative process? Collaboration seems to contradict the notion of covert usurpation. If others were involved, why exclude Rigdon from awareness?

Also, your statement seems to imply that Joseph actually had the agency/time/ability to hijack Rigdon’s work and reshape it, while still preserving its theological DNA and integrating the ideas of others. Wow! What a guy! This seems implausible without prior collaboration or theological training, neither of which Joseph is historically credited with at that stage.

Might you not be trying to thread too many needles? The model you’re proposing seems to require Joseph to be both a theological mimic and a literary tactician, all while orchestrating a multi-author redaction without tipping off the original author.

Gee, I wonder if it might not be unreasonable to accept Joseph at his word. He was an unschooled farm boy eeking out a living and seeking for forgiveness of his sins and greater light and knowledge. He reads James 1:5, goes to the woods to pray and God and Jesus appear to him and let him know that there is an important work for him to do. One of those works being the bringing forth the Second Witness of Christ in these the latter days, the Book of Mormon.

A stretch, right?

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

Would it be fair/honest to say that Joseph inserted himself into Rigdon’s work without Rigdon knowing, while also incorporating contributions from Cowdery, Pratt, and others, suggesting a collaborative process? Collaboration seems to contradict the notion of covert usurpation. If others were involved, why exclude Rigdon from awareness?

I’m saying all of that is explained in the book, you just have to look at it from its timeline.

Rigdon’s response when he read it was to withdraw to himself for about two weeks to read the book privately before responding.

I think he was surprised by what he found - it was not what he expected.

He also said “I never knew that there was such a book in existence as the Book of Mormon, until it was presented to me by [Parley P.] Pratt, in the form that it now is.

It is very difficult to describe what happened, and I know it will not be well-received, by the faithful or critics, but this view is so fascinating to me that I can’t seem to stop.

Alternatively, the story of its ancientness has no evidence.

It’s much easier to point out the anachronisms, the lack of DNA evidence, and other things commonly offered up as “gotchas.”

I mean, those are enough, but I think there is room for exploration of redaction criticism—a key method within textual-historical criticism—similar to that applied to the Bible in the Documentary Hypothesis.

My argument is inferential, based on pattern recognition, intertextual analysis, and historical context, similar to source-critical work in biblical studies.

I’ve just not seen it applied to the Book of Mormon.

[MG 2.0]

Rigdon’s response when he read it was to withdraw to himself for about two weeks to read the book privately before responding.

I think he was surprised by what he found - it was not what he expected.

So, it took two weeks to figure that out? In your mind do you see this as evidence that he lacked familiarity with the final product? If Joseph hadn't had contact with Rigdon until after the Book of Mormon was published then you are saying that without Ridgdon present that Joseph had extensive exposure to Rigdon's sermons and writings while also being able to mimic Rigdon's voice and priorities and then have the editorial discipline to preserve the theological coherence while inserting his own narrative and prophetic persona?

That’s not just redaction on Joseph's part, it’s theological ventriloquism. And it’s hard to square with the historical Joseph, a young, unschooled farm boy with limited access to Rigdon’s teachings prior to 1830. There is no direct evidence that supports a pre-1830 connection between Rigdon and Smith.

As I said in one of my first posts sent your way I think you are giving Joseph WAY too much credit in regard to the input required to develop the narrative of this book. And all this while looking in a hat without notes...well, you know what the witnesses had to say about that.

Regads,
MG

[Doctor Steuss]

I went through the list. How many of these sacred texts as a matter of fact declare/purport to be a second witness of Christ in addition to the Bible? Is that or is that not a matter of consequence?

Granted, lots of bubbles in the list.

Regards,
MG

I think this, in a roundabout way, helps further illustrate my previous post.

There are a lot of assumptions, and things one has to accept in order to just get to believing Christ was divine in any way. Before you can even get there, you have to accept all of the assumptions, and things required for Abrahamic faith traditions. Before even reaching there, one has to accept the assumptions surrounding theistic belief. Before even getting to theism... etc., etc., etc. As you get further and further down to the foundational assumptions, you are at a point with even more diverting branches in the tree of possible religious belief systems. Just standing on the foundation of theism, there are thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of possible religious ideologies that have existed -- and there are still levels beneath it.

I think you (and people in general) take for granted just how many things you accept without investigation or thought because of your cultural and social upbringing. Imagine living in a society that believes in various types of pantheistic deism, and has never had exposure to any theistic system. Now try to convince them that the correct tradition requires ritualistically symbolically cannibalizing your deity's son (who is also worshiped), who was once a human and died. The ritualistic cannibalism of your deity's son is mandated by the self-same deity. There's no amount of "here's how you pray to my deity to find out the truth" that's going to even lay out some steppingstones to begin the journey.

Find someone who has served a mission in a place like Japan, and they'll be able to help describe what it's like trying to get someone to jump from worldviews like Shinto and Buddhism to an Abrahamic tradition (let alone the whopper of Mormonism).

If you had been born at a different time and place, even believing there was a "first witness to Christ" would be an impossible belief hurdle, no matter how much "faith" one could muster.

[Limnor]

Rigdon’s response when he read it was to withdraw to himself for about two weeks to read the book privately before responding.

I think he was surprised by what he found - it was not what he expected.

So, it took two weeks to figure that out? In your mind do you see this as evidence that he lacked familiarity with the final product? If Joseph hadn't had contact with Rigdon until after the Book of Mormon was published then you are saying that without Ridgdon present that Joseph had extensive exposure to Rigdon's sermons and writings while also being able to mimic Rigdon's voice and priorities and then have the editorial discipline to preserve the theological coherence while inserting his own narrative and prophetic persona?

That’s not just redaction on Joseph's part, it’s theological ventriloquism. And it’s hard to square with the historical Joseph, a young, unschooled farm boy with limited access to Rigdon’s teachings prior to 1830. There is no direct evidence that supports a pre-1830 connection between Rigdon and Smith.

As I said in one of my first posts sent your way I think you are giving Joseph WAY too much credit in regard to the input required to develop the narrative of this book. And all this while looking in a hat without notes...well, you know what the witnesses had to say about that.

Regads,
MG

I’m saying it took Rigdon two weeks to decide if he would accept what Joseph had done, effectively usurping him.

His choice:

1) do I expose as a fraud the book that I have been saying has been coming?

2) do I accept a secondary role?

3) if I reject it, I lose everything that I have been building.

Again, you haven’t been listening to my explanation if you think I believe Joseph was the sole contributor. The evidence is in the book.

[MG 2.0]

I went through the list. How many of these sacred texts as a matter of fact declare/purport to be a second witness of Christ in addition to the Bible? Is that or is that not a matter of consequence?

Granted, lots of bubbles in the list.

Regards,
MG

I think this, in a roundabout way, helps further illustrate my previous post.

There are a lot of assumptions, and things one has to accept in order to just get to believing Christ was divine in any way. Before you can even get there, you have to accept all of the assumptions, and things required for Abrahamic faith traditions. Before even reaching there, one has to accept the assumptions surrounding theistic belief. Before even getting to theism... etc., etc., etc. As you get further and further down to the foundational assumptions, you are at a point with even more diverting branches in the tree of possible religious belief systems. Just standing on the foundation of theism, there are thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of possible religious ideologies that have existed -- and there are still levels beneath it.

I think you (and people in general) take for granted just how many things you accept without investigation or thought because of your cultural and social upbringing. Imagine living in a society that believes in various types of pantheistic deism, and has never had exposure to any theistic system. Now try to convince them that the correct tradition requires ritualistically symbolically cannibalizing your deity's son (who is also worshiped), who was once a human and died. The ritualistic cannibalism of your deity's son is mandated by the self-same deity. There's no amount of "here's how you pray to my deity to find out the truth" that's going to even lay out some steppingstones to begin the journey.

Find someone who has served a mission in a place like Japan, and they'll be able to help describe what it's like trying to get someone to jump from worldviews like Shinto and Buddhism to an Abrahamic tradition (let alone the whopper of Mormonism).

If you had been born at a different time and place, even believing there was a "first witness to Christ" would be an impossible belief hurdle, no matter how much "faith" one could muster.

Where have your assumptions led you in regard to religious and/or metaphysical belief? I think I hear you saying that it's a 'lost cause' to try and make the/any attempt?

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

So, it took two weeks to figure that out? In your mind do you see this as evidence that he lacked familiarity with the final product? If Joseph hadn't had contact with Rigdon until after the Book of Mormon was published then you are saying that without Ridgdon present that Joseph had extensive exposure to Rigdon's sermons and writings while also being able to mimic Rigdon's voice and priorities and then have the editorial discipline to preserve the theological coherence while inserting his own narrative and prophetic persona?

That’s not just redaction on Joseph's part, it’s theological ventriloquism. And it’s hard to square with the historical Joseph, a young, unschooled farm boy with limited access to Rigdon’s teachings prior to 1830. There is no direct evidence that supports a pre-1830 connection between Rigdon and Smith.

As I said in one of my first posts sent your way I think you are giving Joseph WAY too much credit in regard to the input required to develop the narrative of this book. And all this while looking in a hat without notes...well, you know what the witnesses had to say about that.

Regads,
MG

I’m saying it took Rigdon two weeks to decide if he would accept what Joseph had done, effectively usurping him.

His choice:

1) do I expose as a fraud the book that I have been saying has been coming?

2) do I accept a secondary role?

3) if I reject it, I lose everything that I have been building.

Again, you haven’t been listening to my explanation if you think I believe Joseph was the sole contributor. The evidence is in the book.

If you would, please explain and or comment on the part of my previous post that I have underlined for you to look at again.

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

If you would, please explain and or comment on the part of my previous post that I have underlined for you to look at again.

I agree that the theological fingerprints, especially the anti-infant-baptism arguments, the focus on primitive Christianity, and the restoration of spiritual gifts, are unmistakably Rigdonian. Adamson Bentley explained Rigdon predicted a book would come forth to prove his assertions.

But it doesn’t have to be ventriloquism. The text itself explains that bridge.

Again, there is compelling internal evidence of Rigdon’s theological concepts within the book, though I agree there is no contemporaneous historical evidence that places Rigdon near the smiths prior to 1830. All we have are late accounts, and those are questionable.

But that gap doesn’t erase the similarity.

What it does is force us to ask how Rigdon’s theology showed up in the book.

Within the text itself, the figure of Ammon is that connection, linking Rigdon as king Mosiah in Zarahemla/Western Reserve with Limhi/Martin Harris near Palmyra, where they discussed the plates. See Mosiah 7-8. Ammon had been sent to check on the status, after having been “wearied by teasings”

Parley P. Pratt actually moved between Rigdon’s circle in Ohio and the Smiths’ world in New York.

Pratt’s own Autobiography records that in the late 1820s he worked and preached along the Erie Canal corridor, traversing western and central New York—including Rochester, Canandaigua, and Palmyra—before his conversion (Pratt, Autobiography, 1874, pp. 9–18).

Family connections also linked him to the area: the Pratt family lived in nearby Wayne and Erie Counties, and his brother Orson was residing in New York prior to their shared conversion.

These overlapping geographies place Parley P Pratt within the same regional and theological stream as both Rigdon’s Reformed Baptist ministry in northern Ohio and the Smiths’ locale.

Pratt actually physically moved between Rigdon’s and Smith’s locales, and, as Ammon, brought “news” from Rigdon/Mosiah to Limhi/Martin Harris.

This connection is how the Book of Mormon reflects Rigdon’s theology. Not through direct collaboration, but through Parley P Pratt, as Ammon.

I’ve said before the evidence is inferential—from the text—but when you overlay the historical data, the whole picture emerges.

While we don’t see contemporary accounts of Pratt having met the Smiths prior 1828, the book itself shows you that evidence.