Book of Mormon authorship project is online

[_AlmaBound]

So, I'm guessing that at the time Joseph Smith moved to Ohio he had a
total of, say, 200 adult followers, plus their younger, unbaptized childrem.

I'd say somewhere around 200 also. About 204, perhaps.

Mosiah 18:15 And again, Alma took another, and went forth a second time into the water, and baptized him according to the first, only he did not bury himself again in the water.

16 And after this manner he did baptize every one that went forth to the place of Mormon; and they were in number about two hundred and four souls; yea, and they were baptized in the waters of Mormon, and were filled with the grace of God.

17 And they were called the church of God, or the church of Christ, from that time forward.

[_Roger Morrison]

42 pages, 871 posts indicates more interest in this topic than I can recall there being in any other. That in itself is fascinating to me, and prompts, "why?" Be that as it may, I do respect the work of Uncle Dale--incredible! Thanks!

Byron said:

...This thread, Book of Mormon authorship project is online, is, for me, just a continuation of what I have been about since I discovered during the 1970s that Mormonism (regarding the so-called Black Priesthood Doctrine) is a myth.... (UL added by RM)
Byron

This I can relate to, and ask: How much more information is needed after a person concludes, through their own thinking and studying processes, that Mormonism is not what it claims to be? Interesting as it is, will this study change minds of TBMs? How will it effect those remaining as renegade Mormons? Might it help them cross the bridge?
Roger
*
*

[_Uncle Dale]

...
How much more information is needed after a person concludes, through their own thinking and studying processes, that Mormonism is not what it claims to be? ...

Solomon Spalding justified the promulgation of false religion as a means of keeping
people moral and patriotic -- at least his fictional writings and fragments of
personal correspondence seem to indicate that he held such a viewpoint.

I have heard high level Reorganized LDS officials admit that parts of the Latter
Day Saint religion are myths, fables, or downright deceptions -- but that it is best
not to try and inform the rank and file membership of those problems; because,
over all, the Latter Day Saint religion still provides "the closest thing to truth."

Notice that same idea, expressed in the quotation I'll paste in below:

Clear Evidence That Joseph Smith Plagiarized The Writings Of Solomon Spaulding In The Creation Of The Book of Mormon

Monday, Jan 23, 2006, at 07:43 AM
By Steve Benson

Executive Summary
Clear evidence that Joseph Smith plagiarized the writings of Solomon Spaulding in the creation of the Book of Mormon got Dallin Oaks to privately admit that portions of the Book of Mormon may have been ripped off from other sources--but that even if they were, it was no big deal.

Vernal Holley's important work, "Book of Mormon Authorship: A Closer Look," served as a major reference point for my wife Mary Ann and me when we took our concerns about the Book of Mormon and other LDS matters to Dallin Oaks and Neal Maxwell in September of 1993. We met with them to ask questions and obtain answers to our questions in Maxwell's downtown Salt Lake City office, located at that time in the Church Administration Building.

We, in fact, spent a great deal of time on the subject of Book of Mormon plagiarisms and the "Spaulding Manuscript," much of it precipitated by Holley's research.


Vernal Holley

Holley's work on parellelisms between the Book of Mormon and the "Spaulding Manuscript" (in terms of both word choice and story narrative) were stunning.

Perhaps even more impressive was a map of the Great Lakes region which Holley had superimposed over a proposed map of Book of Mormon geography. The similarities--not only topographically but also in terms of place names, based on Native American-languaged locations--were undeniable.

It was during our discussion with Oaks and Maxwell about these matters that Oaks ultimately acknowledged that parts of the Book of Mormon might be plagiarzed but compared belief in it to an imperfect marriage: You don't abandon the marriage, he said, just because it's not altogether right.

My wife Mary Ann began our discussion with Oaks and Maxwell on the Book of Mormon by explaining to them that she was sincerely trying to do what the Church had admonished its members to do: namely, study the scriptures.

She informed them that the more she examined Mormonism's scriptural texts, the more she found contradictions between the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants. Mary Ann informed the two apostles that she was having a difficult time reconciling those contradictions. Therefore, she said, she decided to undertake her own personal study of the Book of Mormon--but from another point of view.

She took out a well-used, paperback copy of the Book of Mormon and showed Oaks and Maxwell what she had done with it. Opening the book and thumbing through its pages, she demonstrated to them how she, in seminary scripture study cross-referencing style, had color-coded the text for the "Spalding Manuscript," B.H. Roberts' study of parallels between Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon, the King James text of the Book of Isaiah and the King James text of the New Testament--with particular emphasis on the Book of Mormon timeline from 600 BC to 1 BC, when the words of the New Testament had not yet been written.

She then pointed out to Oaks and Maxwell 17 parallels she had discovered between the lives of the Book of Mormon prophet Alma and the New Testament apostle Paul.

She also directed their attention to wording in Alma's letters that was found in exactly the same language as that in Paul's. Mary Ann asked Oaks and Maxwell to explain to her how these things could find their way into the Book of Mormon.

Mary Ann said she noticed how Oaks jumped more eagerly at her question than did Maxwell and how he became quite animated during this portion of the discussion. She also later noted to me that Oaks was, in some ways, "a little condescending" to her.

Oaks told Mary Ann, "Well, you know, as you've thumbed through your book, it only appears to me that 5% of your book has been marked, so I would say don't throw out the 95% because of the 5%. Don't take the 5% that you have serious questions about and cast out the 95% that is unexplained or, as Steve said, divinely inspired."

He continued, "It's like being married to our wives. I'm sure there's more than 5% of me that my wife finds disagreement with, but she puts up with it anyway. It's kind of like being married to the Book of Mormon. Don't let your doubts keep you out of the mainstream."

Oaks and Maxwell challenged Mary Ann to read them something from the "Spalding Manuscript" that she felt found parallel in the Book of Mormon.

Mary Ann initially chose an example in which Spalding described fortresses and earthen banks defended by spikes placed at intervals apart from one another, in order to prevent arrows from coming through. (She later said to me she wished she had offered a better example. Nonetheless, she felt--and I agreed--that it was a comparison of substance).

Mary Ann showed Oaks Holley's "Book of Mormon Authorship: A Closer Look," pamphlet, which laid out, among other things, strikingly parallel word combinations between the "Spalding Manuscript" and The Book of Mormon.

Oaks' response was that many of the comparisons were "insignificant" and "almost superficial." He dismissed them as being unimportant, arguing that they reflected general concepts which were typical of the day in which Joseph Smith lived. I replied that I thought the precise ordering of the words in both texts seemed "more than coincidental." Oaks rejected that position. He insisted that the phrases in question represented "common ideas" one could share "across culture and time."

Further, he noted, there was no doctrinal content in the parallels. He asked, "Where's the doctrine? You've only shown me these technical points."

I therefore mentioned that the doctrine of polygamy--which was expressly forbidden in the Book of Mormon unless specifically authorized by God--was also the same doctrine found in the "Spalding Manuscript"--namely, that the practice was forbidden unless divine permission was granted.

I also pointed out to Oaks the shared centrality between the Book of Mormon and the "Spalding Manuscript" in stories featuring a divine figure (Christ, in the Book of Mormon and Labanska, a great teacher in the "Spalding Manuscript"). I encouraged Oaks to read the "Spalding Manuscript" for himself. Oaks, however, was dismissive of Spalding's work and refused to take the offer seriously.

Instead, Oaks offered me some counsel of his own. "You ought to go through the Book of Mormon," he said, "and color in all the differences and emphasize the unique and special teachings of the Book of Mormon that don't have any similarities to other sources." (However, Mary Ann's point for being at the meeting in the first place, as she herself said, was not to talk about or debate differences between the Book of Mormon and Spalding texts; rather, she wanted to get answers regarding their similarities in areas of story lines, exact wording, etc).


Steve Benson
A personal sidenote on Holley:

Holley lived in Roy, Utah, where he died a few years ago. I telephoned him one day and expressed to him my thanks for the research he had done--informing him how pivotal it had been in helping me reach my own conclusions about the falsity of the Book of Mormon.

Holley was quite gracious and shared some of his own experieces regarding his personal sojourn away from Mormonism. He told me that during the course of his own studies, he began asking questions of his local Church leaders about the Book of Mormon which no one could, or seemed willing, to answer.

So, Holley just continued to plug away doing his own research. (A BYU professor eventually referred me to Holley's Book of Mormon studies, telling me that, in this professor's opinion, it significantly undermined the veracity of the Book of Mormon and, in fact, noted that Holley's work had had an effect on the beliefs of some Mormons whom this professor knew).

For a link to the entire contents of Holley's masterful expose' of the Book of Mormon as plagiarized fiction, see: link to Vernal Holley's "Book of Mormon Authorship"
http://www.mormoncurtain.com/topic_spal ... cript.html

UD

[_Dr. Shades]

William H. Whitsitt's unpublished manuscript, Sidney Rigdon: The Real Founder of Mormonism, has been mentioned many times in this thread. If it hasn't been linked to already (and even if it has), here is the link to it:

http://sidneyrigdon.com/wht/1891WhtB.htm

[_Uncle Dale]

William H. Whitsitt's unpublished manuscript, Sidney Rigdon: The Real Founder of Mormonism, has been mentioned many times in this thread. If it hasn't been linked to already (and even if it has), here is the link to it:

http://sidneyrigdon.com/wht/1891WhtB.htm

Those wishing to browse a summary of that book's content, may find its essential
points briefly listed in this 1891 article:

http://sidneyrigdon.com/wht/whitidx0.htm#1891

The LDS leadership appears to have taken a dim view of Whitsitt's reporting. That
same year, the weekly edition of the Deseret News published this response:

...It has been established beyond reasonable doubt and successful dispute, that Sidney Rigdon
knew nothing about the Book of Mormon until many months after it was printed and published.

And no one who has carefully examined the Book could rationally come to the conclusion that a
preacher and writer with the scholarship attainments of Mr. Rigdon, had anything to do with its
compilation.

It is certain, too, that even if the book is of human origin, it was not produced under the influence
of any so-called "Disciple" or Campbellite, for the doctrines it contains are opposed to notions
entertained by that body, and are far in advance of its theology as well as that of every other religious
sect in Christendom.

http://sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/UT/utahmisc.htm#022191

So -- there we have it, on authority of LDS Apostle Charles W. Penrose.

1. It has been "established beyond reasonable doubt" that Sidney Rigdon knew nothing of the Book of Mormon before 1830

2. The PhD level scholar, Sidney Rigdon, could never write such bad prose as the Book of Mormon

3. Even an idiot can see that the Book of Mormon contains nothing similar to Campbellism in its sacred pages

No wonder FARMS is reluctant to review the Whitsitt book -- a General Authority has already spoken.


UD

[_ByronMarchant]

Mormon Apostle Dallin Oaks was quite correct in his admonition to Steve and Mary Ann Benson when "It was during our discussion with Oaks and Maxwell about these matters that Oaks ultimately acknowledged that parts of the Book of Mormon might be plagiarzed but compared belief in it to an imperfect marriage: You don't abandon the marriage, he said, just because it's not altogether right...He continued, 'It's like being married to our wives. I'm sure there's more than 5% of me that my wife finds disagreement with, but she puts up with it anyway. It's kind of like being married to the Book of Mormon. Don't let your doubts keep you out of the mainstream." except Oaks has it backward. The mainstream is not Mormonism (belief in The Book of Mormon) but, rather, disbelief in Mormonism and their Book of Mormon. The following April 1999 General Conference speech by Oaks (you will note that his Bibliography fails to include Whitsitt's work, in which much is written about Martin Harris, so Oaks is, quite possibly intentionally deluded) shows the limited understanding he has of this important subject:

http://www.lightplanet.com/Mormons/conf ... martin.htm

If Dallin Oaks were to ever look at Uncle Dale's Mormon "scriptures," he would find a great deal more than 5% underlined there (and for good reasons); but Dallin Oaks prefers to include himself in the majority of his very small minority (those Mormons who still believe, after refusing to investigate the available research, that their holy scriptures, including The Book of Mormon, are with us today due to some alleged Gold Plates and alleged heavenly visits to Joseph Smith, Jr., in the early 1800s).

Byron

[_Uncle Dale]

So -- there we have it, on authority of LDS Apostle Charles W. Penrose.

1. It has been "established beyond reasonable doubt" that Sidney Rigdon knew nothing of the Book of Mormon before 1830

2. The PhD level scholar, Sidney Rigdon, could never write such bad prose as the Book of Mormon

3. Even an idiot can see that the Book of Mormon contains nothing similar to Campbellism in its sacred pages

No wonder FARMS is reluctant to review the Whitsitt book -- a General Authority has already spoken.

I think that Elder Penrose's response is more than just a little disingenuous.

1a. If Rigdon's parishioners/students, Orson Hyde and Eliza R. Snow, knew of the book before
1830, then why did their pastor who was preparing the way for Mormonism, (according to the
D&C) NOT know what is own congregation knew?

1b. If Rigdon was telling his parishioners/students/associates, like Darwin Atwater, Adamson
Bentley, Thomas Clapp, and Alexander Campbell about such a forthcoming book, before 1830,
why did Rigdon NOT remember having spoken of such a marvelous work and wonder?

1c. If Rigdon's own home-area newspaper (The "Painesville Telegraph") and other newspapers
in the Great Lakes area were publishing articles about the "Golden Bible" before 1830, then
why did Sidney Rigdon NOT know what his own Ohio neighbors must have known?

Second Amendment. If Sidney Rigdon really did achieve such wonderful academic accomplishments, well before the
Book of Mormon was submitted for publication in 1830, then where are his diplomas and records
of his class grades? He never finished grade-school, much less attended college, like his brother did.

2b. Even if Sidney Rigdon were a self-educated genius, by the mid-1820s, why would such an
accomplished writer NOT "dumb-down" a text meant to be distributed among the American Indians
and among the common people of that era?

2c. Even if Sidney Rigdon wrote sterling, polished prose -- not "dumbed-down" whatsoever; how
would such a text sound, when paraphrased in dictation by an admitted ignoramus who was literally
"talking through his hat?"

3a. If the Book of Mormon contains no Campbellism, then why did Alexander Campbell accuse Sidney Rigdon of
having written Campbellite "baptism for the remission of sins" into the text?

3b. If the Book of Mormon contains no Campbellism, then why were the first Mormon missionaries, who preached
the book's version of religion, able to repeat the Campbellites' "five first principles of the gospel"
exactly as the Campbellites had been doing -- as being that book's own "first princples?"

3c. Since Dr. Whitsitt specifically states that Rigdon preached a modified, evolved version of the
Campbellite doctrines, why does Apostle Penrose choose to overlook that key distinction, and to
concentrate instead, only upon the book's differences with Campbellism?

3d. Since Whitsitt specifically states that where the Book of Mormon differs with Campbellism, it agrees with
Rigdon's evolved doctrines, why does Apostle Penrose choose to overlook the fact that Rigdon
had separated himself from Campbellism prior to the book's publication?

3e. Since Parley P. Pratt details how Rigdon's religion was different from Campbellism, why does
Apostle Penrose choose to overlook the published counsel of his own apostolic forerunner, in
relating what Elder Sidney Rigdon could (or could not) have done, in relation to writing the Book of Mormon?

I think Apostle Penrose has done a crappy job of refuting Whitsitt ---- but his response still stands
as the ONLY OFFICIAL LDS rebuttal of Dr. Whitsitt's claims and conclusions.

Can the LDS leadership possibly still look upon the Penrose rebuttal with pride? They have allowed
contemporary LDS scholars to update and correct Penrose in the matter of the Mountain Meadows
Massacre. Is there some reason they choose not to allow that same high level of saintly scholarship
to be applied to the updating and correcting of Elder Penrose, when it comes to Whitsitt's claims?

Uncle Dale

[_harmony]

Can the LDS leadership possibly still look upon the Penrose rebuttal with pride? They have allowed
contemporary LDS scholars to update and correct Penrose in the matter of the Mountain Meadows
Massacre. Is there some reason they choose not to allow that same high level of saintly scholarship
to be applied to the updating and correcting of Elder Penrose, when it comes to Whitsitt's claims?

Uncle Dale

Don't you think they just want it all to go away, so they ignore everything about it? And this new study is not at all what they want to see... and because the leadership is kinda old and slow, they're more likely to procrastinate until anyone who might be interested either withers up or dies from old age?

[_Ray A]

Don't you think they just want it all to go away, so they ignore everything about it? And this new study is not at all what they want to see... and because the leadership is kinda old and slow, they're more likely to procrastinate until anyone who might be interested either withers up or dies from old age?

Not Dale, but anyway. Realistically, no. The first job, in my opinion, will be to convince the critics (like Vogel, Metcalfe). Even Jerald Tanner opposed the Spalding theory, but Dale has written his opinion about that elsewhere. My guess is that the apologists are completely unfazed, and even view it as a merry-go-round theory, and the leaders are too busy running the Church to even bother. But in any case I wish Dale the best. It's still interesting reading what he has to say.

[_ByronMarchant]

Not Dale, but anyway. Realistically, no. The first job, in my opinion, will be to convince the critics (like Vogel, Metcalfe). Even Jerald Tanner opposed the Spalding theory, but Dale has written his opinion about that elsewhere. My guess is that the apologists are completely unfazed, and even view it as a merry-go-round theory, and the leaders are too busy running the Church to even bother. But in any case I wish Dale the best. It's still interesting reading what he has to say.

Ray,

If apologists could logically refute they would be here doing it instead of coming for an occasional visit and then going away. If critics who are supporters of Fawn M. Brodie (like Sandra Tanner) could refute they, too, would be here doing it. We are now in a post New Mormon History period (the fifty-sixty or so years following the publication of No Man Knows My History). It is apparent that the old arguments (by Spalding/Rigdon opponents) no longer apply; Vogle, Metcalf, Peterson, Tanner, The Mormon Brethren (and others with similar mind sets) must now re-frame or restate their position(s) in order to adjust to this newest and latest development (as expressed in this thread) or become more and more excluded from the scholarly dialogue of Mormon History and discussions on the subject of Mormon origins. I don't believe they are ignoring the present situation, they are only trying to figure out how to adapt (a sort of evolution, slow or rapid, in their thinking) to the current reality.

Byron