Could an atheist have written the Book of Mormon?

[_Uncle Dale]

Is there any chance Spalding could have been a universalist?
...

In his Roman story Spalding gives a brief place for Universalism,
disguised as American Indian beliefs regarding the "Great Spirit."

What that says about his personal beliefs, I do not know. Universalism
was brought over from England during Spalding's lifetime. It would
have still been a relatively new religious phenomenon when Spalding
was writing his fiction.

After his late 1812 move to Pennsylvania Spalding probably came in
contact with followers of the Prophet Abel M. Sarjent, whose career
began just south of Pittsburgh. Sarjent was once the editor of the
first Universalist periodical in America:



But I doubt Spalding was anything like an active Universalist member.
He evidently took an interest in the various religious movements he
encountered -- but I think it was just that, "interest" and not an active
"involvement."

There is an anti-Universalist (and anti-Unitarian) message in the Book of Mormon;
but both Smith and Rigdon evolved into semi-Universalists with their
"vision of the three degrees of glory" -- a sort of Swendenborgian
universalism, I'd call it.

UD

[_Uncle Dale]

...
How far are you willing to credit the "religious" part to Spalding? At some point you
come into conflict with the witnesses who claim there was no religious content in MF.

My guess is that the Conneaut people were mostly exposed to what the Mormons
call the "Book of Lehi," and that its story involved northern Israelite tribesmen
migrating to the Americas, across Asia, at about the time of King Josiah of Judah.
Those northerners who had not been carried off by the Assyrians came under
Josiah's religious influence -- but perhaps Spalding envisioned a few of them
taking off for new lands, and retaining their northern "idolatry." Their story would
have not been "religious" in the same way that the Lehite story is "religious."

But Spalding moved on to Pennsylvania, and I think it was while he was living
there that he expanded and revised his Israelite Indians story -- to center upon
proto-Christian Nephites. This evolution of his story would have never met the
eyes of his Conneaut neighbors --- but might have met the very interested eyes
of a young and impressionable Sidney Rigdon.

My theory is that Spadling could have written within a general religious context
without his neighbors considering it "religious material" as compared to the blatantly
religious sections of the final Book of Mormon. Thus Spalding may have created the
idea of Christianized Nephites but Rigdon developed the idea into what we have today.

Well, that is a sub-theory to be tested as we delve into comparing the texts,
and attempting to sort out the Spalding original from the Rigdon expansion.
However, my study of the texts is presenting me with a more complex situation.

Whoever revised the Isaiah sections was willing to rework the text around the
preconceived notion that it was deficient in a certain area--that it had been poorly
translated--and that he, probably Rigdon, was able to restore it to its original purity.

Yes -- true. And yet we find a quote from Isaiah presented in the Abinadi account,
which is integral to the Book of Mormon storyline -- and, I think, a Spalding literary device. If
Spalding got the "ball rolling" with Isaiah providing messianic forecasting, then
somehow his beginning in that direction was greatly amplified by Rigdon. It is a
sub-theory that never crossed my mind until recently.

So if Rigdon was revising the KJV based on a preconceived notion of restoring a faulty
text to purity, why not do the same with a faulty or incomplete Spalding text? This
would seem to agree with a 50-50 Spalding/Rigdon ratio since Rigdon would have
likely been revising more than just italicized words in MF.

Perhaps -- but I think we must attribute this textual revision work to a young Rigdon,
to a Rigdon who was still a follower of Alexander Campbell and a self-identified
Baptist. That young Rigdon was not then actively planning to foist a Golden Bible
upon a gullible populace. So, I'm still trying to fathom his motives, in spending time
with Spalding's writings. Rigdon must have been addicted to them -- but why?

You mention an "uneasy feeling" and that you can only hope you are wrong about this...
why? What is it that makes you uneasy?
...

It is a branching off from the main S/R theory that has little (if any) supporting evidence.
I'm cautious not to make the already complicated authorship theory even MORE complex
and LESS understandable to the uninformed reader.

But my working hypothesis also speculates that Spalding was writing fake-scripture
as an obscure form of satire -- a satire that probably never could be sold to the public,
even if it were disguised as ancient American history.

Look at it this way:

------ Spalding's motivations ---------> ??? <------- Rigdon's motivations -------

Somehow the two men's interests come to an intersection, in the (revised) Book of Mormon text.
But why?

why? why? why?

UD

[_Danna]

These are really interesting ideas. I think that a very religious person who became an atheist would have the knowledge. There is also that class of atheist who doesn't trust the masses to behave well if everyone learns the truth. Atheism is a secret for the 'elect' while religion is used to control the underclasses (and women!).

[_Uncle Dale]

These are really interesting ideas. I think that a very religious person who became an atheist would have the knowledge. There is also that class of atheist who doesn't trust the masses to behave well if everyone learns the truth. Atheism is a secret for the 'elect' while religion is used to control the underclasses (and women!).

Solomon Spalding's hero appears to have been Tom Paine. There are traces of Paine's
thought in both the Roman story and in the Book of Mormon (see I. W. Riley's book).
His contemporaries viewed Paine as irreligious or atheistic -- but that hardly describes
the man. Whatever his views of God were, Paine subjected them first of all to Reason.

The freemasonry of the early 19th century allowed for members from different religions
(not just from different Christian sects) -- and thus was something vaguely like Deism
or Tom Paine's mildly religious views. And yet Spalding's wife recalled that he rejected
freemasonry. So, if Spalding was a Deist, it was not of masonic version.

I presume that Spalding evolved away from Calvinism during his brief tenure as a
Presbyterian elder, in Cherry valley, NY. He was actually a Congregationalist, but
the two churches had agreed to cooperate in the west, and thus Spalding found
himself the most educated man in a pastorless Presbyterian congregation. He
evidently served as its presiding elder for a while, and then suffered local disgrace
and moved several miles away. He was bitter towards the ordained pastor who
eventually replaced him.That's the last we hear of Spalding's religious activities.

His Roman story shows him to have been a very poor imitation of Jonathan Swift
and other satirical writers of that period -- as well as a literary fraud of the
MacPherson sort (of "Ossian" infamy). In other words, Spalding was not only
ready to create fictional worlds, mimicking "Gulliver's Travels;" he was also
willing to mask such fictional creations with some verisimilitude -- giving them
the surface appearance, at least, of true historical records.

Operating under that pseudo-historical guise, Spalding was free to express his
disdain or hostility to various social and religious institutions. He was interested
in what factors caused a social decline -- and what might have led to the
extinction of America's previous civilization (the ancient mound-builders).

Spalding betrays a fascination with false religion as a means of keeping a society
"moral" or cohesive. Had he been a freemason, he might have looked to that
organization's quasi-religious teachings as supplying an American priesthood.
But, having rejected freemasonry as well as Calvinism, Spalding was left with
Tom Paine --- and Paine supplies no deep-rooted human social cohesion.

If my hypothesis is correct, Spalding was ready to foist a certain kind of
anti-Calvinist, anti-Universalist, anti-masonic religion upon people, as a means
of social control -- to preserve a young and vulnerable republic that had
already rejected a state church. At the same time, Spalding was also ready to
stand above that false religion as a Promethean figure, who taught a false
Divine revelation, rather like his own fictional Lobaska character.

I suppose all of this was confined to Spalding's vivid imagination -- he had no
intention of carrying out such a social revolution: he could not even sell it as
pseudo-historical fiction in Pittsburgh.

But, to a young Sidney Rigdon, it was Gospel Truth -- not religious satire.

I doubt that the modern LDS will want to hear any of this.

UD

[_Nightlion]

A simple enough question. -- By "atheist" I do not mean a person who is
entirely devoid of superstitions, or of notions of guilt, conscience, truth, etc.
I merely mean a writer who did not believe in the biblical God, and therefore
feared no Divine retribution in composing a fake latter day revelation.

1. Could an atheist know enough about the biblical religion to mimic it?
2. Would an atheist care enough about that religion to spend time mimicking it?

Uncle Dale

I would leave just a link if anyone had substantively engaged my topic. As it is I will just post the OP.

Living But Hidden Proof That Joseph Smith Was a True Prophet
by James Q. Muir
October 10, 2009

The most vexing and yet sublime truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ is that its greatest reality remains hidden within the hearts of those who actually receive it. By observation it is not apparent. It can only be manifested, revealed and bestowed by God.

This is not to say that there is no evidence for it. What is significant towards proving Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God is that his culture was patently unaware of the exact dimensions of this element.

Although Joseph himself experienced this event during the First Vision there is no record that he comprehended it sufficiently until the last few years of his life. For he said: " I will have a Reformation." (History of the Church Vol 5. Chapter 27 page 510)

This hidden element manifests its singularity in every era of scriptural reckoning. It is always largely unknown to the majority of people. Even among the people of a righteous legacy there is little of a conscience awareness of it. The days of Eli and Hanna could be an exceptional era. As she told Eli; "Count not thine handmaid a daughter of Belial." Samuel 1:16

Even so, Joseph Smith included this hidden element in the Book of Mormon. Not only slightly. It is in fact its major theme. And so, this becomes all the more fantastic today, as the LDS Church is unaware of it. Not that they cannot read about it. They have talked about it and with their lips honor it. But their hearts are far from it. They have supplanted their own way which is after the likeness and image of the world.

The Mormons have no appreciation of the singularity of the real essence of the hidden element of the gospel of Jesus Christ. They are as blind to it as any generation in spiritual history ever was, and three fold more the tragedy, as the entire world needed them to get it right.
Have they ever used this argument to prove Joseph Smith a prophet and the Book of Mormon true? No, never! Fantastic! You have to wonder why. All this time and it has never dawned upon them that this absolute proof exists.

I am getting weary of all the fashionable Joseph Smith bashing that falls out of the LDS Church. A moment’s reflection against this obnoxious momentum was sufficient for me to make this realization.

There is no possibility of explaining away the inclusion in the Book of Mormon of this hidden but commanding and dominant element that ratifies all things between men and God. The hidden element is of course the core of the gospel of Jesus Christ, even the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost. How it is accomplished is made plain while it remains hidden from all those who are not made partakers of the Heavenly gift. This is like a fail-safe God utilized to keep pure his kingdom. Pretense and apostasy will in time, slough off unto absurdity.

The Puritans were the nearest to getting religion right in their time. But it was yet only the getting of religion, as it were, like most Protestants today. Regardless of all their strained imitations of Holy Ghost signs and saying that they are born again, born of God, there is no competent understanding. All is exuberance and ecstatic chaos. An outward show is demonstrated rather than an inward reality. It misses on every consistency with what is written.

And of course, since it is a hidden element, only to be understood and realized by those upon whom the Lord will bestow the gift, all the world can do is make up their best guesses. And ludicrous are all those imitations in the eyes of a true initiate.

So all the more the wonder that Joseph Smith avoided all such contemporary characterizations of a frenzied promotion and wrote about the hidden element with precision, reflecting perfectly the earnest of its most sublime hallmarks that are tucked away in obscurity, here a little and there a little throughout all the Bible.
Indeed the Book of Mormon exceeds the Bible in its gospel comprehension. Such cannot possible occur without God's intervention, thus proving both God and his prophet true.

This hidden element is also what makes a prophet a prophet. If it were missing that would be proof enough of pretense. So who can account for this hidden element overflowing nearly every page of the Book of Mormon other than it must be of God? Well?

Now that Joseph Smith is proven a cardinal prophet, can we please cut him some slack? Enough and away with the manipulation of his history by every craven despoiler who wants to validate every previous despoiler and call it scholarship? More needs to be said about this. Another time.

A word to the wise. Better to keep this hidden element a secret from the LDS people. Their heads might explode trying to wrap their minds around it. They must convict themselves of the gravest hypocrisy to appreciate it.

[_Uncle Dale]

...
keep this hidden element a secret
...

OK

[_MCB]

UD

I would never want to keep Spalding's probable satire of fundamentalist Christian values a secret. It is so obvious, once one untangles the pseudo-KJE.

I think Rigdon was appalled at Spalding's satire, and added his embroidery to obscure it, because the story was so believable. And this was because the underlying plot had some truth to it.

[_Uncle Dale]

UD

I would never want to keep Spalding's probable satire of fundamentalist Christian values a secret. It is so obvious, once one untangles the pseudo-KJE.

I think Rigdon was appalled at Spalding's satire, and added his embroidery to obscure it, because the story was so believable. And this was because the underlying plot had some truth to it.

Unfortunately we do not have Spalding's "Israelite" story available for study -- so almost
anything we attempt to say about it might eventually be shown as am error.

I'll present my hypothesis, as it stands at the moment, however:

1. Solomon Spalding wrote a story of Israelites coming to America after the fall of
the northern kingdom to the Assyrians. That story was largely non-religious. It
ended up as the "Book of Lehi," but the Book of Mormon pages were lost.

2. Solomon Spalding continued his fictional writing after he had moved to Pennsylvania,
and in his expanded account he included a second "Mulekite" migration of pious
Israelites to the Americas. We read an abbreviated version of their story in the
1830 Book of Mormon, but re-written to form the record of the Lehites (Nephites) in America.

3. In his expanded story Spalding included king Benjamin and the introduction of
a type of proto-Christianity among his fictional Nephites.

All of the above writing was created by Spalding as a work of fiction. He had
become an atheist or Deist himself, and was no longer a believer in Christianity;
but he nevertheless made use of his previous ministerial training and study to
concoct his preColumbian society's contentions, wars and eventual extinction.

Before the time he had finished his writing (c. 1815) Spalding realized that it was
not the sort of story that could be sold as fiction. Since he did not have to worry
about offending Christian believers, with a story that would never be printed,
Spalding allowed his imagination to run wild, and inserted numerous satiric
episodes (even absurd episodes) into his final draft. He created a Nephite
Christianity which was outwardly similar to ancient Apostolic Christianity, but
with various differences -- some of which he expressed as exaggerations or
absurdities. In the end Spalding was more interested in concocting a compelling,
but imaginary, Christian past for the Americas, than he was in writing good fiction.

4. At some point Sidney Rigdon came across some portion of Spalding's writings,
and was fascinated by such themes as an Israelite origin for the Indians, the
supposed promise of a latter day Zion in the Americas, examples of apostolic
Christianity among the "Nephites," etc. etc. However Rigdon was also bothered
by Spalding's poor writing abilities, numerous writing errors, and (most of all) by
the man's satirization of something very close to Rigdon's own religious beliefs.

5. Rigdon began to "edit out" the more offensive Spalding passages. At that
point Rigdon had no other plan than to keep Spalding's writings as a curiosity,
or as his private hobby -- a literary forum in which Rigdon could project his
own views on religion. However Rigdon was also a victim of an unusual mental
derangement -- that phenomenon caused him to react in unreasonable ways,
and to occasionally imagine that he was receiving supernatural communications.
Rigdon's mental illness, coupled with Spalding's imaginative writings, became
the basis for Sidney Rigdon editing and embellishing Spalding -- to the point
of creating a pseudo-scripture called the Book of Mormon.

Maybe.....

UD

[_MCB]

It sounds good to me. Very good match, as you know, to the direction in which I am going. And my aim is not to present literal truth but to free people from religious fundamentalist stritjackets.

We also can be fairly sure that Rigdon did not include some of the romantic aspects of Spalding's writings.

Polish polish shine polish elbow grease and more polish. :)

[_Uncle Dale]

...
We also can be fairly sure that Rigdon did not include some of the
romantic aspects of Spalding's writings.
...

Here is the sort of stuff (from the Book of Ether) that I credit to Rigdon, and which
I doubt very much Spalding would have written, to any readership:

>And now, if I have no authority for these things,
>judge ye, for ye shall know that I have authority
>when ye shall see me, and we shall stand before
>God at the last day...

That's a very strong assertion for a work of fiction -- my guess is that the
writer of that sentence believed every word of it.

UD