I have tremendous respect for the work of the Tanners, and it is my understanding that they refuted the Spaulding theory about the origin of the Book of Mormon, and concluded that Joseph Smith probably wrote the BOM himself. Does anyone know if they ever changed their views?

Given the position of the Tanners on this issue, I was suprised to see there is support for the Spaulding theory on this forum. Obviously I need to know more about the current thinking about this, but more evidence must have come to light since the Tanners came to their conclusion that is causing people to reopen the Spaulding theory. Is there a succinct summary on the Internet anywhere of evidence about the Spaulding theory that has come to light more recently?

>Does anyone know if they ever changed their views?

In 2000, when Art Vanick's book came out, I hand delivered
a copy to the Tanners. Jerald (who was then quite ill)
expressed a mild interest in the book. Sandra was less
enthusiastic and evidently did not wish to pay the small
cover price, in order to read the contents. When I offered
to trade it for anything they had in their sales room, she
exchanged a Vogel book for Art's publication.

I never heard back after that -- so I assume that they found
nothing of interest in Art's detailed documentation.

Again, when the Jockers' computerized BoM study was published,
I heard via a friend, that Sandra was unimpressed. Possibly,
if several other computer analysts eventually agree with
Jockers' conclusions, Sandra may take a second look.

A defender of the Tanners once summed up their viewpoint,
saying that there is sufficient evidence linking Joseph Smith
with the authorship of the book -- and that there was no
credible evidence showing that anybody else could have been
involved in the writing (that Smith was capable of doing it
all on his own, off the top of his head, during dictation).

I doubt that any sort of evidence that could reasonably be
expected to come forth during the remainder of Sandra's life
would serve to convince her otherwise.

Dale R. Broadhurst
web-host
SidneyRigdon.com

http://llc.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/4/465.abstract

Here is a very succinct summary.

In addition, people of Antie tradition with roots in Hancock County Illinois, exemplified by the writings of Arthur Deming and Thomas Gregg, and oral tradition, are of the sincere belief that Joseph Smith was not capable of having written the book. The most obvious fall-back position is the Spalding theory, which Arthur Deming was tragically unable to prove at the time he did his work. There are other probable sources, primarily Maccabees of the Catholic Bible, and Francesco Clavigero's History of Mexico.

Thanks, Dale. Our posts, as usual, complement each other.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/07/2010 04:44PM by me.

There are people like the Tanners and Fawn Brodie who rejected it, and they are people I respect greatly.

There are others who pursue it, including Dale Broadhurst, Craig Criddle. I respect them and their opinions as well.

This theory does attempt to plug some holes in history, like where the heck Rigdon came from and why he was immediately accepted and promoted by JS. It has new evidence that supports it. Most of all, it paints JS in an even worse light as just one of a set of co conspirators :)

In science, there are always older supporters of original theories who have invested too much time and energy to be able to let go when new evidence and ideas emerge from younger people. I see this in that light.

http://www.utlm.org/booklist/titles/josephsmithsplagiarismofthebible_ub007.htm

Their updated Joseph Smith's Plagiarism book has a chapter on Spalding theory.

And I see it in this light; there are people who have been silenced by intimidation for generations, who finally get the courage to re-approach the problem.

>Craig Criddle...

I think that Craig's new on-line presentation will be very
helpful, to those who wish to learn more about the topic:

It's the first item listed on this web-page:
http://premormon.com/Talk1.htm

Craig says that he will release the "under construction"
portions of the new presentation early next year.

We are all waiting for that development...

Uncle Dale

>Their updated Joseph Smith's Plagiarism book has
>a chapter on Spalding theory.

A friend promised to send me a xerox copy of chapter 9;
but I never received it. Living on Social Security provides
me with an even $1.00 spending money per month...


>Chapter 9: The Solomon Spalding Theory
>Family Statements
>Who Could Have Given It to Smith
>Record Hid in an Underground Box
>Two Manuscripts?
>Same Names?
>Writing Styles
>"And It Came To Pass"
>The Use of "Therefore" and "Wherefore"
>Spalding and the Missing 116 Pages
>Books About the American Indians Before 1830
>"The Language of the Egyptians"
>Ancient Records
>Slipping Treasures
>Masonic Influences


UD

Uncle Dale Wrote:
>
> I think that Craig's new on-line presentation will
> be very
> helpful, to those who wish to learn more about the
> topic:



I can also testify that Craig's new presentation is definitely a good read. It adds more historical references, new source material and matches against new authors too.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/07/2010 05:19PM by Jesus Smith.

I knew that they were working on it. Great insights on the time-line for Ether. I had totally missed it. Smith & Co. must have really mangled the immense amount of time in which Ether "happened"

Everyone will interpret things to their liking. All humans do that. I have intelligent friends who are devout Christians that believe in the invisible. Doesn't mean they are wrong in everything. LOL. Or so says this agnostic.

Thanks for all the information! I think it would be great if a sizeable group of academic scholars would work intensely and continuously on the Book of Mormon authorship problem. Apparently some are already doing so.

flipper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks for all the information! I think it would
> be great if a sizeable group of academic scholars
> would work intensely and continuously on the Book
> of Mormon authorship problem. Apparently some are
> already doing so.

I'm not sure what the incentive would be, for objective
scholars to investigate BoM authorship. There's just
not sufficient interest, outside of Mormon/ex-Mormon
circles -- and the qualified ex-Mormons are very few.

There is an on-line forum where such investigations
could be reported, if anybody ever became interested:

http://www.premormon.com/Index.htm

Uncle Dale