I wasn't aware that he (D. Pawl Trebas) has written a book on the research he did. I would buy it if he had. I would like to check out all his reference materials and take a closer look at his findings.
I would also like him to visit our discussion so we could ask questions about some of the things in his video. I was curious as to how he was able to research thousands of books. I assume he has some method of digitizing those books and doing quick searches of certain topics and key words and phrases.
My information was that D. Pawl Trebas' book was a work in progress so maybe it not yet finished. Hope so as I would also like to check out some of his interesting and novel findings (such as the Smith boys making money by engaging in the nighttime activity of grave robbing).
I just finished watching the whole segment on youtube, and it was very good. The biggest takeaway I got was the early Smith occupations. He theorizes that the Smith boys earned their living secretly as grave robbers employed by Dartmouth College. They needed bodies for their medical students. And gold digging was just a cover story.
Michael Quinn on the other hand put forth the idea that they were digging up bodies to call back the dead through over the top magical rituals and to practice sorcery, for no important reason. I find that hard to believe but he has certain evidence for the worship of the occult, such as a picture of the Jupiter talisman Joe use to wear.
The Lucy code also argues the idea that the writers of the BOM were Lucy Mack, Hyrum, Old Joe Sr. Who were the brains and Young Joe Jr was the charmer. The face to sell the book. Interesting idea????
In her book. "A history of Joseph Smith by his Mother." She records 5 visions I believe of Joseph Smith Senior. Including the Iron rod and tree of life. These visions were from before the book of mormon was wriiten.
She also states the Joseph Jr. would tell his family stories of the native Americans including their manner of dress, building, warfare, agriculture and religion.
But, what about the notion that Cowdery and Rigdon hatched up the BOM. I thought that had been determined by reputable forensic document examiners (can't remember their names, but I think that one has been a poster here).
So now, let's talk about the mummy. Does it make one wonder where that damn mummy really came from? Hmmmmmm?
Craig Criddle and others have been behind the research on who actually authored the BOM... They've used forensic tools whose scientific merit has been established. Craig has posted here in the past.
As for the mummy, it was part of a "traveling show"* that was orchestrated by a man named Chandler; JS's followers arranged to purchase the mummy along with some papyrus that Joseph Smith declared "was written by his own hand [Abraham's] upon papyrus.
This is the definitive book on the subject; its author, Charles M. Larson, was fired from a public teaching job in Utah County for writing it (working from memory, but I'll Google his name; got it). As I recall, he later won a court decision in his favor.**
*Recall that this was the first half of the 19th Century, and "Egypt was a hot topic" (in part because of its "biblical" connections). Mummies, papyrii, and other artifacts were often part of such traveling shows ("Mummy dust" was often promoted as a folk remedy).
**Somebody want to elaborate on this? I'm having a senior moment...
Who knows if we'll ever know for certain "the" origin of the Book of Mormon, that boring, boring book, but it sure is fun to play the detective in the meantime.
D. Pawl Trebas in The Lucy Code brought up information about Hyrum's education at Dartmouth that I found intriguing; Hyrun had excellent schooling and for longer than I realized. And, Joseph himself had more schooling than I realized. Also, the parents of the Smith clan were no dummies either, so maybe the whole bunch, meaning the Smith family members, and Sydney Rigdon, and Oliver Cowdery put their scheming heads together and came up with this hoax and VERY BORING BOOK. (of course, the more people in on it, the harder to keep the secret).
I agree that Joseph Smith, Jr. was the pretty-narcisstic boy who seemed to be nominated by the clan to be the one to talk to the angels and get the visions. Was he lucky or unlucky in this calling? I personally think he ate up the attention and spotlight....after all, it brought in the adoration of the young, beautiful ladies. And, don't forget the access to the moolah, money that people were all to willing to donate to establish the "truest church on earth". And, no receipt necessary!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/08/2018 02:20PM by presleynfactsrock.
Eric and CZ always have my contact info, and having met both in person, I know they don't have any doubt whose side I'm on...
Right now I'm "struggling" with D.P. Trebas' presentation; I've misplaced my copy of Brodie, and I want to use it to subject this to some serious fact checking. Well, my friend Tony Weller can always use an extra sale, and I'm sure he has a used copy cheap. Ken Sanders is also a possibility...
(okay, sorry; I slipped into a bit of name-dropping again. I can also check my folks tonight)
I note that Trebas apparently doesn't have even an undergrad degree,* and that--coupled with his LDS "indoctrination"--leaves me, frankly, flabbergasted. Rather than listen to his presentation last fall, I was busy organizing a little luncheon with an "Inner Circle of Outer Darkness Denizens."
Just off the top-of-my head, he's attached himself to "anti-Masonry," and that is a subject I've looked at extensively. Each Masonic lodge was essentially an "entity unto itself," and I find his "generalizations" unwarranted at this point.
__________ *having finished my BA on the "12-year program" (and later matriculating in an MA program I left in good standing, hoping to complete at some point), that's a subject I feel qualified to speak to. I understand the issues some truly gifted sorts have with "academia," but there is also a "discipline" to one's thinking acquired that I believe to be paramount in spite of all the butt-ugly politics that arise (and they are legion, yes).
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/12/2018 03:13PM by SL Cabbie.
Any study, whether in physics or Women’s Studies, is going to have parameters around it. Those parameters need to be justified because, at least since the rise of postmodernism in the humanities and social sciences, it is recognized that the parameters will affect the outcome of the study. Criddle, et al, provide an excellent example of this. In Women’s Studies this, and similar issues, have been most thoroughly set out by Joan Scott in “Gender, a Useful Category of Analysis.” To paraphrase the point I want to make here, if you don’t look at women, you are guaranteed not to find them. If you don’t include Emma, you are guaranteed not to find Emma in the results.
In a word study of the Book of Mormon, who are you going to include, who are you going to exclude and more importantly, why? PP Pratt is included as a control. An interesting choice. I have no problem including Rigdon, a major figure who’s pre BofM contact with JS has been disputed prior to Criddle, et al. Spaulding has long been seen as the source. Who else? The people who produced the manuscript: Emma, Harris, Emma’s brother and Cowdery.
Emma’s brother can quickly be dropped as his contribution was less than minimal. Harris’s contribution was lost but that does not mean that his ideas did not reappear in the balance of the manuscript. Most of Emma’s writing was lost as it preceded Harris’s. Her handwriting is detected in a few parts of the manuscript of what was published as the BofM. However, Emma was present during the whole production of the manuscript except for the time spent at the Whitmers. No one else can claim this. If you buy the Gold Plates part, faked per Vogal, or otherwise, Emma was required to be present when they were retrieved. In other words, the only person who had a longer history with the alleged Gold Plates and the resulting manuscript than JS was Emma.
Emma had been to boarding school and had received more formal education that anyone else in the Smith family. She was possibly even better educated than Cowdery at the time. Furthermore, Emma admits that on at least one occasion she and Joseph talked through what should go in the manuscript, contradicting a companion statement by her that Joseph “translated” continuously. Such continuous translation was to be a sign of JS’s divine dictation. The incident is not trivial even if it was brief. Their discussion was whether Jerusalem had walls. Joseph didn’t know, Emma did. (The issue is not in the BoM and presumably was part of the 116 pages). But the big issue is what the hell else did they talk about now that Emma has shown her cards? If even her hand writing is mostly gone, how many of her ideas or how much of her verbiage remains? She’s certainly no more remote than Spaulding?
Bringing together, Emma, Scott and the need to defend parameters, if Criddle, et al, in their technically brilliant study, do not want to include Emma they need to say why. Perhaps the results will be negative, that would have been a possibility with any of the candidates. But there is too much of a possibility that she was involved with the text and she has left enough letters that there is a sample that can be used by the program.
Otherwise, Criddle, et al, will have committed what is known in at least some Women’s Studies circles, as an erasure.
I sincerely appreciate your detailed explanation of "erasure" because I was guilty of this with my superficial awareness of who may have been the real authors of the Book of Mor-men or should I say now, The Book of More-women.