Book of Mormon authorship project is online

[_Jersey Girl]

I don't want to pony up the $28 to read this thing, but I am curious as to what it has to say about the Hilton/Berkley wordprint study. Any of you good fellows mind doing some copying and pasting or passing on a brief summary? Thanks kindly.



(And if this has already been addressed somewhere in these past thirty-something pages, just let me know, and I'll go digging. Thanks!)

Is this a John L. Hilton wordprint study 1988?

[_Uncle Dale]

...the Hilton/Berkley wordprint study
...

Reassessing authorship of the Book of Mormon

...In a paper from around 1988,14 Mormon investigator John L. Hilton claimed that his group had significantly improved Larsen’s techniques and that their results reconfirmed his conclusion that the Book of Mormon is a work of multiple, though ancient, authors. For his analysis of the Book of Mormon, however, Hilton chose to analyze subjectively grouped and edited selections from the Book of Mormon put together in the form of 5,000 word blocks of text. Like Larsen, Hilton assumed that characters such as Nephi and Alma can be viewed as candidate authors, and he selected blocks of text from what he referred to as ‘didactic’ sections for the characters ‘Nephi’ and ‘Alma’. He then followed Larsen in assuming that each selection could only be the work of a single nineteenth century author, not the work of multiple nineteenth century authors. At best, one might hope to conclude from such an analysis that the chosen selections are not by the same author, but the methodology used does not exclude the possibility of multiple nineteenth century authors. Hilton’s methodology thus did not address a key aspect of the Book of Mormon authorship question.

In Appendix 3 of his essay, Hilton identifies the sources for his compilation: not a single manuscript, or the published 1830 version of the Book of Mormon, but instead, a composite compilation of selections from four sources based upon what he and his team judged to be the oldest. The provenance of this material is questionable. Also problematic is that Hilton’s compilation of old Mormon manuscripts did not include significant sections and direct quotations from the King James Bible—sections and quotations that are an acknowledged part of the 1830 Book of Mormon.15 Most importantly, Hilton’s analysis neglected to include a comparison with the work of Rigdon. This omission is difficult to understand given the other potential authors whose work Hilton analyzed. In our work, we include a large amount of newly available Rigdon text of certain provenance, adding to the limited amount available at the time of Larsen’s study.

More compelling than the work of Hilton and Larsen is the work of statistician David Holmes (1985, 1991a,b, 1992). In separate papers from 1991 and 1992, Holmes investigated Book of Mormon authorship using a multivariate measurement of vocabulary richness. Holmes compared the Book of Mormon to thirteen writing samples from Joseph Smith, Joanna Southcott, and the King James Bible.16 He measured the richness of noun usage in the various works: a technique that Holmes claims enables him to discriminate between the ‘personal’ and the ‘prophetic’ writings of Joseph Smith as well as between the personal writings of Smith and those of Joanna Southcott. Using this technique, Holmes further discriminates between the prophetic voice of Smith and that of Southcott. Holmes’s derives the ‘signal’ for Smith’s prophetic voice from Smith’s revelations as they are recorded in Doctrine and Covenants; the personal voice he derives from the letters and diary entries collected in Dean Jessee’s The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith.

Detecting differences between Smith’s prophetic and personal voice was a key discovery for Holmes. His technique appeared to prove effective in discriminating between authors and between authorial voices in different contexts. From this, Holmes argued that his multivariate measurements of vocabulary richness offered no evidence to support the argument that the Book of Mormon is a work of multiple authors. This conclusion stood in direct contradiction to the previous analyses by Larsen and Hilton. However, two problems are apparent in Holmes’s work: first, his reliance upon the letters and diary entries collected by Dean C. Jessee in Personal Writings of Joseph Smith (Smith and Jessee, 2002) as a reliable source for Smith’s personal voice and second, his reliance upon the Doctrine and Covenants as a reliable source for Smith’s prophetic voice.

Though Holmes was careful to select ‘only those letters written by Smith himself [in Smith’s hand], or preserved in the handwriting of clerks who state specifically that Smith is dictating’ (Holmes, 1991b), even this subset of Dean Jessee’s collection is problematic. In the opening sentence of his introduction to Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, Jessee declares: ‘it matters very little whether or not a person writes his own journals, letters, and speeches or delegates others to write for him’ (Jessee, 2002). His point here is that even if written by others, the material reflects the mind of the Smith if not the actual words as written. For authorship attribution analysis, however, we are less concerned with whether a document captures the ‘spirit’ of an attributed author and more specifically interested in whether the document is written by and in the natural style of the attributed author. With Smith, however, we cannot reasonably conclude this point, that the documents attributed to him are indeed reflections of his individual literary style. On the contrary, in studying Smith and reading Jessee’s collection of documents, one becomes immediately and acutely aware of how little we can, even blithely, attribute to Smith and Smith alone. Jessee notes the problems associated with claiming that Smith was the author of the words attributed to him: ‘His philosophy’ writes Jessee, ‘was that ‘‘a prophet cannot be his own scribe’’ ’.17 Indeed, even Jessee avoids use of the word ‘author’ preferring instead ‘writings attributed to him [Smith]’. Jessee points out that while Smith ‘produced a sizable collection of papers, the question remains as to how clearly they reflect his own thoughts and personality [because] we inherit the limitations that produced them ... the wide use of clerks taking dictation or even being assigned to write for him, and the editorial reworking of reports of what he did and said’ (Smith and Jessee, 2002). Jessee notes further that the ‘practice ...of inserting eyewitness writings that have been changed from indirect to direct discourse ... gives the impression that Joseph wrote them’, when in fact he did not. Referring to one particular case, Jessee writes that the ‘impressions of Joseph Smith given ... probably reflect the personality of the editor more than they do Joseph’s’. Even for the twenty-three letters in Smith’s hand, which Jessee republishes in facsimile form, we cannot easily assume that Smith is the sole author. Many of the letters in Jessee’s collection show the handwriting of Smith along side and intermingled with the handwriting of other authors, including Rigdon and Cowdery. Even when writing something as personal as a journal entry or letter, we see consistent evidence of collaboration and co-authorship. Unfortunately, such writing cannot be used as a reliable sample of known authorship.18

Second, and equally problematic, is Holmes’s use of the Doctrine and Covenants as a reliable example of Smith’s prophetic voice. This text of revelations is ascribed to Smith, but as is the case with many of his letters and diary entries, he did not write it unaided. Rather, he is reported to have dictated the revelations to one of his scribes. From 1829 to 1838, two of Smith’s main scribes were none other than Sidney Rigdon and Oliver Cowdery, who according to the Spalding-Rigdon theory, participated in writing the Book of Mormon. In fact, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (the Mormon Church) acknowledges that many sections of the Doctrine and Covenants were revealed jointly to Smith and Rigdon or to Smith and Cowdery.19 The voice signals of one of these men or a mix of their signals could be the ‘prophetic voice’ Holmes ascribes to Smith. That Holmes would find similarities between the ‘prophetic’ voice of the Doctrine and Covenants and the Book of Mormon, therefore, is at best evidence of common authorship for the two texts but in no way demonstrates that Smith’s ‘voice’ (divinely inspired or otherwise) is anywhere to be found.20

[_Dwight Frye]

Thanks, Dale! You're a gentleman and a scholar!

[_ByronMarchant]

Not knowing if I will be able to follow this thread as closely as I have since it began, I wanted to say a few things about this thread and pose a question to Danna, Alma, Byron and Dale.

For me, this discussion has been the most productive and informative thread that I've seen or experienced on this board. I live for threads like this because I learn from them, gain insight and they are few and far between on message boards. I've followed the S/R theory for just about three years and this thread has brought me to a greater understanding of just how and why this could have happened.

Danna's ease in articulating the methods used and outcomes of Jockers et al (2008) were invaluable to me. He made it more understandable and confirmed some of what I had concluded. For example, the fact that the absence of Manuscript Found no longer matters. The Oberlin Manuscript that was used for the Spalding text sample, did all the work that was needed.

Alma's take on the literature itself, was so compelling that for the first time ever, I became truly interested in wanting to read the Book of Mormon and not just excerpts as I have done in the past. I'm a "never" so that speaks well for Alma's ability to light a spark.

I still have no real sense of who Byron Marchant is. I do know that he has a grasp of the historical matter and can easily interact with Dale in that regard to engage the historical material. I've watched the two of you think things through in front of me. I wonder about you, Byron, and who you are in the context of all of this.

This thread would have amounted to nearly nothing at all without Dale. I believe that the S/R theory itself would have amounted to nearly nothing without Dale's research. Every time a question was posed, Dale gave us more than we asked for. More to compare, consider and reflect on. On more than one occasion, I felt guilty because Dale was doing most of the work, but he seems to revel in it. I have seen Dale in action in other discussions and witnessed first hand the lack of response to the historical material. You can see it on this very thread. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm just jazzed about the thread and a chance to have a "sit down" with Dale Broadhurst.

Here comes my question.

I know something about what drove Prof. Criddle throughout the research process he engaged in to contribute to the study. What we see in the study are the results of painstaking effort on his part and later, on the part of his colleagues who ran the stats. There is no doubt in my mind but that what drives him is truth. Truth for himself and his tribe. I know this about him without question.

My question to Danna, Alma, Byron and Dale is:

What drives you?

Jersey Girl

Jersey Girl,

You ask what drives me (Byron).

I was born into the Mormon church. As a child I was born and grew up living about two miles SSE of Temple Square (SLC) and therefore was living in a very interesting situation. This was a neighborhood where a large number of Utah blacks were also residing. Utah had and still has about a 1% African-American population; and I would say that close to half, maybe more, of Utah's black population at that time lived within a five mile radius of me.

By the time I was in Jr. High and High School (1954-1960), I was acquainted with, and friendly toward, some non-Mormon blacks with whom I associated in classes, including The A Capella Choir (during our senior year this High School choir, for example, would visit churches of all kinds in the area on Sundays and present most of the entire meeting; at the Mormon churches this took the place of the regular Sacrament Meeting, except they would sometimes have a short discourse or two and, of course, always do the sacrament thing; when the sacrament was passed around, everyone would then be able to see who were the Mormons and who were not; the non-Mormons, of course, always included any blacks in the choir), during the lunch period and at sporting events. None of these blacks that I knew were Mormons (although there were a few black Mormons around at the time).

But I was also an active and devoted Mormon. I went on a Mormon mission to France and Switzerland in the early 1960s and while there, in Lyon, baptized a family of two parents and five children (two of the five were too young for baptism), the oldest child was a 13-year-old girl, who was also mulatto (her father was African and had abandoned the mother and their daughter when he returned to Africa); the other four were the children of these baptized parents.

Upon returning, and being married in The Salt Lake Temple (to a wife who had also been a Mormon missionary in the same French East Mission after I had returned and had gone to the same Salt Lake City high school I had attended but after I had graduated), we had a daughter and purchased a home in the ward where I had attended throughout my earlier life.

To make a long story short, while living in this home I became the ward Scoutmaster and within a short time two twelve year old black boys joined this Mormon Scout troop. It was not long after this that the Mormon Church decided to insist that the boy leader of all its Scout troops should be the boy who was selected by the bishop and his counselors to be the president of the deacons (this they called correlation).

After several years of "discussions" with Mormon priesthood leaders, with things like lawsuits filed, lies by church leaders about the so-called black priesthood doctrine, including one lie by the current President Thomas S. Monson, and the loss of my job as a ward custodian in the ward where we lived, I decided to go public with our (my wife was just as opposed as me to the racist practice of priesthood denial) opposition (to the denial of the position of Senior Patrol Leader to any black, non deacon, Scout in any Mormon sponsored troop) and I was summarily excommunicated. This was in October 1977 (eight months before the alleged "revelation" on June 9, 1978, wherein worthy black Mormon men were invited to be ordained to The Mormon church's priesthood).

There is a saying you have probably heard: "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me!"

After the excommunication (which was a "star chamber" or a "kangaroo court"), I insisted that the decision to excommunicate me by church leaders either be rescinded (they had justified the position of my wife and I by ordaining blacks) or confirmed by The Mormon Church First Presidency. They denied my appeal in, as I recall, 1987 and by then I had met Vern Holley and begun my research on Spalding/Rigdon. Today I am an atheist, having familiarized myself with Holbach and Cascioli. The motivation ("what drives me")? "...fool me twice, shame on me!"

Byron

[_Uncle Dale]

...
your theory
...

Earlier in this thread, I expressed my opinion that Solomon Spalding added new material
to his "Lost Ten Tribes" story, which had been seen in its preliminary draft form by his
old neighbors and associates in Ohio. If my theory is true, then Solomon Spalding, in the
period between his removal to Pennsylvania and his death (1812-1816) was the originator
of the Christian Nephites.

What impact does this possibility have on our reading of the Book of Mormon, and our
attempts to reconstruct the history of the earliest Mormons? Well, for one thing, my theory
could explain why Sidney Rigdon might have been very interested in the fictional American
pre-history that Spalding reportedly wrote -- concerning the story of ancient Israelite
tribes coming to the Americas and their descendants becoming some (or all) of the Indians.

If this was truly Spalding's subject matter in the purported "Manuscript Found," and if
Spalding extended the "lost tribes in America" story, to include their eventual conversion
to preColumbian Christianity -- then we have before us a resonable motive for Sidney Rigdon
to have become interested in Spalding's writings, and perhaps even so infatuated with their
content, that he made copies of some of Spalding's manuscript pages at an early date and/or
obtained their contents by some other means before 1824.

First -- We need to speculate a little upon the probable nature of a Solomon Spalding
story about Israelite tribes coming to the Americas: (1) They may have made their journey
without any mention of Divine promptings, or particular adherance to the biblical religion;
(2) The colonists may have separated into two factions, one civilized and the other savage;
(3) The civilized faction may have included a remnant who preserved and practiced the
Israelite religion, complete with scriptures and prophets; (4) Their prophets may have told
of the eventual coming of the Jewish Messiah; (5) They may have experienced the strange
manifestations associated with Jesus' crucifixion (darkness, earthquakes, etc.) even as far
away as in the Americas; (6) They might subsequently have been visited by a great religious
teacher, having white skin, a beard, etc., who taught them Christianity (as partly related
in Clavigero's "History of Mexico," where he is identified as St. Thomas); (7) The peoples
of the Americas may have experienced a long, golden age of peace and prosperity, followed
by wars and the destruction of the civilized faction; (8) The last of the prophets might
have prophesied that their records would be hidden away until Gentiles arrived in America,
re-establishing Christianity; (10) The prophets may have predicted that their preserved
records would one day serve to purify American religion and restore Apostoluc Christianity.

Second -- We need to determine which of these story elements would have been so appealing
to a young Sidney Rigdon, that he became obsessed with them and perhaps even imagined that
they were partly true.

Third -- We need to determine which story elements (or their theological development)
would have corresponded well with Sidney Rigdon's growing disaffection with the Campbellites
on these religious points: (1) The importance of a literal fulfilment of Old Testament
promises and prophecies to the House of Israel; (2) The history and fate of the "lost tribes"
of Israel; (3) The origin of the American Indians; (4) Old reports of preColumbian peoples
having practiced Christianity; (4) The role of the Holy Spirit in conversion, regeneration
and bestowal of latter day spiritual gifts; (5) Necessary preparations and events prior to
the dawning of the Christian Millennium; (6) The question of whether or not the canon of
scripture is still open; (7) The question of who has Divine authority to minister the gospel.

I have provided a few excerpts from on-line sources, which may help us begin to explore
the possibility that Sidney Rigdon was greatly attracted to the content of Spalding's
writings -- but I need more references to his religious views (particularly so BEFORE he
began to write theological articles for the Mormon publications).

"Sidney Rigdon"

Sidney Rigdon... His instability I was induced to ascribe to a peculiar mental and corporeal
malady, to which he has been subject for some years. Fits of melancholy succeeded by fits of
enthusiasm accompanied by some kind of nervous spasms and swoonings which he has, since his
defection [to Mormonism in 1830], interpreted into the agency of the Holy Spirit, or the
recovery of spiritual gifts, produced a versatility in his genius and deportment which has
been increasing for some time. I was willing to have ascribed his apostacy to this cause, and
to a conceit which he cherished that within a few years, by some marvelous interposition,
the long lost tribes of Israel were to be collected, had he not declared that he was hypocritical
in his profession of the faith which he has for some time proclaimed....

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/VA ... 020731-100

============================

Editorial

We have indeed met with some two or three infallible, or rather indomitable spirits, who,
while they admitted the propriety of this course in reference to others, would not be governed
by it themselves. Of this class was Sidney Rigdon, of Mormon memory. Exceedingly fond of new
ideas, and always boasting of originality, he sought distinction by his lucubrations on the
Prophecies. He became a flaming literalist of the school of Elias (Smith,) a Millennarian of
the first water; and becoming more and more restive and ambitious, he dealt out his new and
untaught discoveries with an enthusiasm worthy of a better cause. Finally, having discovered
the Golden Bible, he and Joseph Smith covenanted for a new religion, and delivered us from a
great calamity....

http://sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/VA/harb1834.htm#100037

============================

"Mormonism Unveiled"

About A. D. 1827, Messrs. A. Campbell, W. Scott, and S. Rigdon, with some others residing in
Virginia, Ohio, &c., came off from the Baptists, and established a new Order, under the name
of Reformed Baptists, or Disciples; and they were termed by their enemies, Campbellites,
Ridgonites, &c. This reformation, as to its Doctrine consisted principally, of the Baptism
of Repentance, for Remission of Sins, &c. And Mr. Rigdon, in particular, held to a literal
fulfilment and application of the written word; and by this means he was an instrument to
turn many from the false notions of Sectarian Traditions, to an understanding of the Prophecies,
touching the great restoration of Israel, and the mighty revolutions of the last days....

http://www.solomonspalding.com/docs/prt1838b.htm#pg40c

=============================

"History of Joseph Smith"

Not only did the writings of the New Testament occupy his attention, but occasionally those of
the ancient prophets, particularly those prophesies which had reference to the present and to
the future, were brought up to review and treated in a manner entirely new, and deeply interesting.
No longer did he follow the old beaten track, which had been travelled for ages by the religious
world but he dared to enter upon new grounds; called in question the opinions of uninspired men;
shewed the foolish ideas of many commentators on the sacred scriptures -- exposed their ignorance
and contradictions -- threw new light on the sacred volume, particularly those prophecies which
so deeply interest this generation and which had been entirely overlooked, or mystified by the
religious world -- cleared up scriptures which had heretofore appeared inexplicable, and delighted
his astonished audience with things "new and old" -- proved to a demonstration the literal
fulfilment of prophesy, the gathering of Israel in the last days, to their ancient inheritances,
with their ultimate splendor and glory; the situation of the world at the coming of the Son of
Man -- the judgments which Almighty God would pour out upon the ungodly, prior to that event,
and the reign of Christ with his saints on the earth, in the millenium.

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/Rigd1843.htm#p210

=============================

"Mistakes Touching the Book of Mormon"

The conversation [with Sidney Rigdon] alluded to in Brother Bentley's letter of 1841 was in my
presence as well as his, and my recollection of it led me, some two or three years ago, to
interrogate Brother Bentley touching his recollections of it, which accorded with mine in every
particular, except the year in which it occurred, he placing it in the summer of the year 1827,
and I in the summer of 1826 [sic - probably 1828]; Rigdon at the same time observing that in the
plates dug up in New York there was an account not only of the aborigines of this country, but
also stated that the Christian religion had been preached in this country during the first country,
just as we were preaching it on the Western Reserve.

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/VA ... htm#010044

=============================

Interview with Austin Cowles
"The Mormons"

Sidney B. Rigdon was the master intellect of the whole movement prior to the settlement
of the "Saints" at Nauvoo. A few weeks ago the writer visited this original apostle,
the first preacher, the ablest lecturer of all the early days of Mormonism, and the
principal materials for this sketch were communicated from his own lips.... yet in the
short interview above mentioned he carefully avoided minute particulars of his Mormon
associations and history.... Rigdon professes to believe that as Paul, by the abundant
revelation vouchsafed to him, was tempted by the devil to vanity and self-confidence,
as he himself declares, so Smith was exalted above measure until he fell into the condemnation
of the devil, and became corrupt in morals and an apostate from the truth which had been
revealed to him. Rigdon claims that he saw the secret tendencies which afterward developed
into the system of "sealing spiritual wives"...

He found in himself an insatiable thirst for reading. He read history, divinity, and general
literature, without much method or aim, except to gratify his intense love of reading. He
gave great attention to the Bible, and made himself very familiar with all parts of it. He
readily committed to memory and thus stored up large portions of the most attractive portions
of the Bible....

He claims that he thoroughly reviewed the Scriptures, and reached down to their profoundest
depths. Dissatisfied with all ordinary interpretations, he began a series of new and original
explanations of doctrine, of history and of prophecy....

He, however removed to Ohio as an Independent Baptist, preaching what he pleased and
contradicting whomsoever he pleased. He himself stated that not unfrequently he would attend
a service and take his seat among the congregation, and after the sermon arise and ask the
liberty of adding a few remarks, and then quote passages of Scripture to show the erronous
doctrines which the preacher had just uttered, and close by inviting the congregation to
come and hear him at his next appointment. This kept the community in a ferment and secured
for him crowded houses. He seemed just on the point of forming a new sect which should
overthrow by learning, logic and eloquence all the creeds and religious systems of the world...

http://sidneyrigdon.com/1869Moor.htm#Moore2

============================

Letter to A, S, Hayden

Sidney Rigdon preached for us, and notwithstanding his extravagantly wild freaks, he was
held in high repute by many. For a few months before his professed conversion to Mormonism,
it was noticed that his wild, extravagant propensities had been more marked. That he knew
before of the coming of the Book of Mormon is to me certain, from what he said the first
of his visits at my father's, some years before. He gave a wonderful description of the mounds
and other antiquities found in some parts of America, and said that they must have been made
by the Aborigines. He said there was a book to be published containing an account of those
things. He spoke of these in his eloquent, enthusiastic style, as being a thing most
extraordinary. Though a youth then, I took him to task for expending so much enthusiasm on
such a subject, instead of things of the gospel. In all my intercourse with him afterward
he never spoke of antiquities, or of the wonderful book that should give account of them,
till the Book of Mormon really was published.

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/features/Ri ... tm#Atwater

from the same web-page:

"Alexander Campbell advocated: The New Testament scriptures, not the ancient law of Moses,
as a guide; Christ, the Son of God (not a creed), the Confession of Faith; immediate obedience
to His commands, not a waiting by the penitent one for miraculous proof of pardon; "Repent
and be baptized for the remission of sins," as the true exhortation to the sinner."

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/features/Ri ... Atwater301

============================

Interview with J. H. Beadle
"The Golden Bible"

"Grandfather was a religious crank," says Mr. [Walter S.] Rigdon, "...He started in
as a Baptist preacher, and had a very fine congregation for those days, in Pittsburg.
There was no reason at all for his leaving, except that he got 'cracked.' ...he tried
to understand the prophecies, and the man who does that is sure to go crazy. He studied
the prophets and baptism, and of course he got 'rattled.' Daniel and Ezekiel and
Revelations will 'rattle' any man who gives his whole mind to 'em -- at any rate they
did him, and he joined Alexander Campbell.

Campbell then believed that the end of the world was nigh -- his Millennial Harginger
shows that they 'rattled' all who listened to them in Ohio and other places; then
grandfather got disgusted and decided on a new deal. He found Joe Smith and they had a
great many talks together before they brought out the plates.

None of us ever doubted that they got the whole thing up; but father always maintained
that grandfather helped get up the original Spaulding book. At any rate he got a copy
very early and schemed on some way to make it useful..."

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/UT ... htm#041588

UD

[_Uncle Dale]

...
They might subsequently have been visited by a great religious teacher, having white
skin, a beard, etc., who taught them Christianity (as partly related in Clavigero's "History
of Mexico," where he is identified as St. Thomas)...

I have placed part of the 1806 USA English translation edition of Clavigero's
History of Mexico on the web, and the main reference to St. Thomas is:

Quetzalcoatl. (Feathered serpent.) This was among the Mexicans, and all the
other nations of Anahuac, the god of the air. He was said to have once been
high-priest of Tula. They figured him tall, big, and of a fair complexion, with an
open forehead, large eyes, long black hair, and a thick beard...

Dr. Siguenza imagined that the Quetzalcoatl, deified by those people, was no other
than the apostle St. Thomas, who announced to them the Gospel....

http://olivercowdery.com/texts/1806Clv2.htm#pg011a

When Cortez landed in Mexico, the Aztec leaders and priests at first imagined him
to be Quetzalcoatl returned from a long absence, ready to regain his preeminent
position in Mexican society. This was a prominent part of the telling of the Spanish
Conquest in all American histories, and would not have been overlooked by even
the most casual reader. Solomon Spalding obviously read Clavigero and copied from
that historian a number of story features that crop up throughout his Roman story.

The identification of Cortez with Quetzalcoatl was more or less automatic. The
further identification of St. Thomas with Quetzalcoatl was a more tortured piece
of mental gymnastics -- but some early Spanish writers were convinced of the
notion that St. Thomas (like Cortez) was fair-skinned and bearded, plus the godly
features and teachings associated with Quetzalcoatl seemed to overlap somewhat
with the features that might be expected in a traveling Christian Apostle like Thomas.

Ergo: Solomon Spalding knew the St. Thomas theory, along with the notion that
Christianity had been practiced by the preColumbian inhabitants of the Americas.
All of this lore would have fit well into Spalding's story of Israelites coming to the
Americas and founding the ancient American Indian civilizations/cultures. It is
likely that Spalding copied the St. Thomas legend into his "Manuscript Found," and
that he expanded upon the story, so as to make Thomas the founder of Apostolic
Christianity in ancient America.

But -- I hear some critics exclaim -- there is no mention of St. Thomas in the Book of
Mormon: the god-like religious reformer from Palestine in that story is Jesus himself.

So, if Spalding indeed wrote the precursor text to the Book of Mormon, how did his
St. Thomas get to be the resurrected Jesus Christ of 3rd Nephi?

To pursue that speculation, we might first of all ask ourselves if anybody else was
saying, in those pre-1830 days, that it was Jesus (rather than Thomas) who
brought Apostolic Christianity to the Americas? The answer is: yes.

However that writer/editor (Edward King) did not publish his findings until after the
appearance of the Book of Mormon. The Kingsborough "Antiquities of Mexico" was,
however, many years in the making, and the reference texts used to deduce Jesus
in ancient America were not limited to King's knowledge/inspection.
http://olivercowdery.com/texts/1831King.htm
http://www.olivercowdery.com/smithhome/ ... -90_AL.htm
http://www.olivercowdery.com/smithhome/ ... m#1890-345

So, was there another, similar-thinking person in the USA during that early period
who would have had an interest in Quetzalcoatl and the St. Thomas story -- who
might have paralleled Mr. King, in his identification of Quetzalcoatl with Jesus?

Possibly so, in the person of Constantine Rafinesque -- who wrote about Quetzalcoatl
before 1830, and who wrote about Ethan Smith and the Book of Mormon thereafter.
Rafinesque was at Transylvania University, in Kentucky, between the years 1819-26.
He was then an instructor who wrote extensively regarding American antiquities and
the origin of the Indians. If anybody in America would have known Edward King's
sources, for deducing Jesus Christ in preColumbian America, it was Dr. Rafinesque.

A published source mentioning Sidney Rigdon's brother, Loammi, says that Loammi
graduated from the medical school at Transylvania University in 1823. The date may
be a little too late ------- but, supposing that Loammi Rigdon had Rafinesque for a
teacher, Loammi would have thus had access to the foremost scholar in the USA,
when it came to American antiquities, Mayan hieroglyphics, Quetzalcoatl, and the
sources in the Kingsborough "Antiquities of Mexico" that helped Edward King decide
that Jesus himself was Quetzalcoatl (and thus may have visited the Americas, or at
least transferred Apostolic Christianity to preColumbian America).

Is THAT how Jesus Christ ended up in 3rd Nephi?


http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/OH ... htm#022124
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/PA ... htm#011327
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/PA ... htm#060728
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/PA ... htm#062828
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/PA ... htm#071928
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/PA ... htm#090628
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/PA ... htm#091229
http://sidneyrigdon.com/Rafn1833.htm#pg037a
http://sidneyrigdon.com/Rafn1833.htm#pg091a

and, oh yes, this thread is also of interest:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8349

UD

[_mikwut]

Jersey,

In response to me stating that the historical record tells us what was in the trunk and there wasn't another manuscript you stated,

What do the witnesses say were submitted to the print shop for publishing and does that match what was in the trunk?

Spalding's widow (Davison) and daughter (McKinstry) are the most important, it is clear from their testimony that what was submitted to the print shop matches the Manuscript Story and it is the same as "Manuscript Found" - McKinstry states, "She said that my father loaned this "Manuscript Found" to Mr. Patterson, of Pittsburg, and that when he returned it to my father, he said: "Polish it up, finish it, and you will make money out of it." Also, "He suggested, however, that Mr. Spaulding should write a brief preface, and perhaps a chapter or two in concluding the romance," Exactly what the Manuscript in the trunk was. Following through with all the testimony another manuscript was never even contemplated by Hurlbut - and no suggestion was given to him that there was another manuscript by Spalding's widow.

I said:

It is to laugh that Parley Pratt would be involved in such a thing. We have independent witnesses that were speaking of the Rigdon theory when they disputed its validity because of eyewitness testimony of the production of the Book of Mormon.

and you responded,

You are forgetting the testimony of the Conneaut witnesses (and others) who also testify to the production of the Book of Mormon.

I don't know what your talking about, I am speaking of the dictation, no Conneaut witnesses testified regarding that.

I then stated,

Every new quote that I check is built into very fabric of the ever evolving theory which abounded and from whence it sprang - just like those things do.

and you responded,

[/quote]Perhaps the quotes seem "built in" to the fabric of the theory because they FIT.[/quote]

Your missing the point, they don't fit. My opinion is shared by professional historians. They fit as later conflations but not with other traditional historical understanding that can't just be waved away.

What historical evidence proves this "conspiracy theory" untrue?

This is too numerous to state in one post and I think you know that. But the manuscript itself, there wasn't two and it is plain silly to post hoc speculate that there was and pretend that that is done under the banner of historical truth.

Let's imagine for a moment, that Dale Broadhurst is attorney for the prosecution in the case against Ridgon, Cowdery, Pratt and Smith who are accused of authoring the Book of Mormon via human means.

He would have an ethical duty to drop the case because he could not meet the burden under the oath he took as a prosecutor.

How do attorneys build a case for the prosecution? Do they ignore new discoveries or do they compare them to existing evidences to fit them into their case in order to establish method/motive/opportunity build a case against the accused?

This is backwards, I'm not even sure how to answer without you offering specific examples of what your analogizing to. Why don't you prove to me the S/R theory has historical evidence that should be considered by professional historians and interested thoughtful parties? Please start with a non-speculative piece of evidence.

my regards, mikwut

[_Brent Metcalfe]

Hi folks,

If anyone has an electronic copy of the Jockers et al. article that they are willing to share (for research only, not resale), please forward it to me via PM.

Kind regards,

</brent>

[_Ray A]

Hi folks,

If anyone has an electronic copy of the Jockers et al. article that they are willing to share (for research only, not resale), please forward it to me via PM.

Kind regards,

</brent>

I'm not sure if attachments can be sent by PM, but check your Hotmail (if you still have the same address).

[_Uncle Dale]

...

Spalding's widow (Davison) and daughter (McKinstry) are the most important, it is clear from their testimony
...

By what standard do you judge the accuracy and veracity of statements
made by (or attributed to) these two women?

Together their assertions comprise a substantial body of evidence; but
until we can jusge which portions of their evidence is reliable, I do not
understand how you can selectively quote them, only for the purpose
of backing up what you already believe to be accurate history.

???

UD