The story of the labans plates explains how the spaulding story was stolen. The names and other details are changed but i believe it follows the laban story. The men made someone in the print shop drunk they they came in and stole them.

Interesting and highly plausible theory.

No, appealing but it won't work.

" This book represented the American Indians as the descendants of the lost tribes, gave an account of their leaving Jerusalem, their contentions and wars, which were many and great. One time, when he was reading to me the tragic account of Laban, I pointed out to him what I considered an inconsistency, which he promised to correct; but by referring to the Book of Mormon, I find to my surprise that it stands there just as he read it to me then. --"

http://www.truthandgrace.com/StatementLake1.htm

Henry Lake's statement about the manuscript is one of the most credible.

Very good point, but remember that the Manuscript Found had no religious content, and the purpose for Nephi taking the plates was largely religious in nature. It's possible that the theft of the plates was added in by Joseph Smith, but the fact that it is so closely tied to the death of Laban, and that the death of Laban was apparently part of the Manuscript Found story, and that at least one aspect of Laban's tragedy was exactly identical between the two works, doesn't speak well for this theory.

nessy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The story of the labans plates explains how the
> spaulding story was stolen....


Whoever wrote that story in the Book of First Nephi
had some bothersome thoughts regarding genealogy,
intoxication, impersonation, theft of records, murder,
etc. It is a strange and troubling "pious fiction."

But -- does it provide us with any insight as to WHY
a dishonest contemporary would have expropriated any
of Mr. Spalding's unusual early American fiction?

I'm not so sure about that.

My best guess is that the various sources that went
into the compilation of the Book of Mormon were taken
more or less at random, out of the mass of available
literature available in the northeastern USA during
the first part of the 19th century.

Except for the biblical borrowings -- some of which
were copied for specific doctrinal purposes -- I'd say
that most of the rest of the pre-existing literary
sources were simply "stuff" that was close at hand
and easily inserted into the Book of Mormon, wherever
useful. A now missing epic pseudo-history of America
before Columbus may have provided a framework for
the Mormon book -- and may have provided some of its
characters and plot-lines -- but I doubt very much
that the Spalding stuff was originally "stolen" by
anybody scheming to one day write a fake bible.

I may be wrong -- but my prediction is that we will
one day look back upon Mormon origins as having been
an ad hoc, slipshod set of circumstances that, despite
all the odds against it, just happened to have survived
long enough to congeal into a viable new sect.

The personality, drive and cunning of Joseph Smith, Jr.
were obviously very important factors in that success,
no matter how he obtained the source materials that
ended up contributing to the Book of Mormon narrative.

Uncle Dale

Uncle Dale Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I may be wrong -- but my prediction is that we
> will
> one day look back upon Mormon origins as having
> been
> an ad hoc, slipshod set of circumstances that,
> despite
> all the odds against it, just happened to have
> survived
> long enough to congeal into a viable new sect.
>
> The personality, drive and cunning of Joseph
> Smith, Jr.
> were obviously very important factors in that
> success,
> no matter how he obtained the source materials
> that
> ended up contributing to the Book of Mormon
> narrative.
>
> Uncle Dale

Mormon organizations have survived just like the piss ant you didn’t step on this morning—pure happenchance.

Had Joe lived to die of old age; had Brigham not grappled the headship away and led those who followed him to an isolated location; had they not surrendered “eternal” conventions in favor of avoiding war with the US and gaining statehood; had they not abandoned racist rules; had any number of fluky things not happened, the SLC Mormons would be no more impressive than the dozens of other Joe Smith “inspired” splinter groups out there.

http://4mormon.org/mormon-splinter-groups.php

True.

The morg's ability to change, adapt and "play the game" has allowed the cojcolds to flourish. This is an ongoing process. Just as they dropped polygamy and the priesthood ban, thay are going to one day announce that the Book of Mormon is inspired fiction, not literal history. Will we ever see that day?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/29/2012 03:23PM by canadianfriend.

canadianfriend Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> The morg's ability to change, adapt and "play the
> game" has allowed the cojcolds to flourish. This
> is an ongoing process. Just as they dropped
> polygamy and the priesthood ban, thay are going to
> one day announce that the Book of Mormon is
> inspired fiction, not literal history. Will we
> ever see that day?


I don't think their ability is to change and play the game. They were forced to ban polygamy - not an ability - a legal requirement if they were going to stay a cult,

and not too dissimilar from the need to lift the polygamy ban for fear of racism suits during an era when equal rights were a hot legal topics in media. They have far too many other quirky and strange doctrines that they haven't abandoned which would help them easier fit in and play the game. But they don't abandon them unless they are forced; which is why they are pretty much still in tact.

No my fellow Canadian, I think it's more their ability toward secrecy and deception while proselyting and sharing their beliefs right from the top down. Secrecy has managed to get them converts who are ignorant of the details while none of them are taught the details. That's why Smith was goal oriented toward secrecy.

Consider this religious thought just for the fun of it:
If Jesus has no need for secrets and dwells in the light and Satan/devil dwells in darkness and secrecy, then which of the 2 best reflect the root basis and originator of Mormonism?

People who are doing wrong like to do it in secrecy. SEx offenders, all kinds of abusers all have an underlying creed to their victims to not tell.

(I don't mean to split hairs but I just thought it was a noteable difference.) :)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/01/2012 08:34PM by dec.

I like the theory and think there might be something to it. Didn't one of the founders work in the print shop where the spaulding manuscript went missing? It makes sense that they then justified their actions for what they considered a "greater good".

onendagus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I like the theory and think there might be
> something to it. Didn't one of the founders work
> in the print shop where the spaulding manuscript
> went missing?

That idea was a fiction concocted by British writers
and editors who were too distant from America to ferret
out sufficient information to fill up their newspaper
and magazine columns ---- so, they made Sidney Rigdon
out as having been the employee of a printer named
Robert Patterson. In the popular literature of the
late 1840s and early 1850s, Rigdon was mischaracterized
as having been Patterson's "journeyman printer."

In fact, the Rev. Robert Patterson was not a printer,
nor did he own a printshop, nor was Rigdon his employee.

Among other things, the young Sidney Rigdon was an
apprentice tanner -- spending at least part of his days
learning the tanning trade a few miles south of the
(then) little town a Pittsburgh.

Rev. Patterson operated a bookstore in Pittsburgh and
he occasionally gathered up enough cash to get some
text printed, so that he could sell it in his store.
His cousin (a fellow named Silas Engles) owned a press
and did some job printing for Patterson and his brother
now and then. Engles knew the young Sidney Rigdon, but
did not employ him as a printer. Rigdon was not a printer.

The book pages that Engles printed eventually got bound
together as books (in leather bindings) or pamphlets (in
paper bindings) -- and some were sold in Patterson's store.
Robert Patterson and his brother also employed a bindery
staff, which probably overlapped Engles' binders.

We could thus say that those people furnishing leather
book bindings to Engles and the Pattersons, during the
1810s and 1820s, were CONNECTED to the Pittsburgh
publishing business -- but they were not printers and
did not work in any "print-shop" run by the Pattersons.

Sidney Rigdon could thus easily refute any published
claims, identifying him as a printer or as having been
an employee of any Patterson who ran any printing shop.

Rigdon's ***CONNECTION*** with Silas Engles (and thus,
indirectly with Robert and Joseph Patterson) was as a
supplier of leather book-bindings.


> It makes sense that they then
> justified their actions for what they considered a
> "greater good".

That "greater good" idea may have come into play at a
letter date -- when the Book of Mormon manuscript was
being finalized. But I seriously doubt that it was
Sidney Rigdon's motivating factor back during the 1810s
when he first ran across Spalding's unpublished story.

Rather, I suppose that Spalding's writings intrigued
the young Rigdon and he took the trouble to obtain a
copy (or a partial copy) of the interesting stuff.

At some point later on, somebody said: "Hey, this Nephite
story would work perfectly as the outline for some fake
ancient American scriptures! We could start a whole new
church, using the Nephite chronology as a sort of backbone
for our narrative pushing new doctrines and commandments!"

Maybe that person was Sidney Rigdon.
Maybe it was Joseph Smith.
Maybe they both came up with the same idea.

It really doesn't matter any more.

The Nephites are a lie... end of story.

UD

I read a paper comparing the BoM story with another pre-existing text that was fairly compelling.

thingsithink Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I read a paper comparing the BoM story with
> another pre-existing text that was fairly
> compelling.

This is precisely why I caution folks not to equate
the Book of Mormon with Mr. Spalding's old writings.
Some of Spalding's historical fiction may have indeed
ended up in the Mormon book --- but other old texts
may have also been consulted by the book's writer(s).

In my mind, it is more important that we establish
the book as a composite text, containing material
from more than one author, than it would be to
assign the authorship to Solomon Spalding or to
Sidney Rigdon, etc.

UD

Uncle Dale, from my research, (and I admit you are one of thee go-to authorities on the bom - far more so than myself) I have have to agree with you.

Spaulding was only a part of it.

It is most obvious to me a smattering of injections of different info from that era. That's why none of it can be traced easily to any one thing. He was a very good plagiarist who could put a new spin on a bunch of old stories.

dec Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Uncle Dale, from my research, (and I admit you are
> one of thee go-to authorities on the bom - far
> more so than myself) I have have to agree with
> you.
>
> Spaulding was only a part of it.
>
> It is most obvious to me a smattering of
> injections of different info from that era.
> That's why none of it can be traced easily to any
> one thing. He was a very good plagiarist who
> could put a new spin on a bunch of old stories.

As for myself, I'm convinced that Spalding's unpublished
pseudo-history furnished the basic chronology for the
Book of Mormon -- and the basic idea of Israelites
coming to America to give rise to the American Indians.

If that was so, then there is a Spalding "backbone"
inside most of the Book of Mormon -- but the "meat"
that hangs upon those bones may have come from almost
anywhere. Excluding the obvious biblical material,
large sections of the "Nephite record" may have been
adapted from the experiences of the Smith family. And,
in some cases, some stories out of the book may have
been copied into Smith family history, even though they
were fiction to begin with.

Proponents of the Spalding-Rigdon authorship theory have
generally attributed too much of the book to Spalding,
and have thus fallen easy targets to Mormon attacks upon
their unsupported theorizing.

If we ever fully unravel the authorship mystery, I suppose
the results will provide us with some strong hints at what
Joseph Smith and his early associates had read, heard read,
discussed, etc. -- as well as some idea of what their
secret interactions were, before and after the book was
published. It is THAT sort of analysis that I would like
to one day see published. No matter how much or how little
Spalding's writings got copied into the text.

UD

Me too Uncle Dale.
Me too.

That era was a hotbed of archaeological fascination of meso-america and Smith was a man trying to ride the wave.
At one point I began to research all the info that was around at that time, from meso-american info to other religious writings around the world.
If they ever kept a journal of all the info they discussed I suspect it would be locked up in the archives somewhere hidden. One thing was for certain, he and his mason buddies were smart as foxes.

Well except for the three Nephits, they are real.

I also think it's highly plausible, kind of like code-speak hidden in the text telling about how the deed was done.

A great book on the subject:

WHO REALLY WROTE THE BOOK OF MORMON

Here is a link to a few of the chapters of that book:

http://thedigitalvoice.com/enigma/wrw/1977DavA.htm

I've read the above book and can highly recommend it. Another excellent book on part of this subject is: THE WIDOWS SON: THE ESOTERIC HISTORY OF THE PROPHET JOSEPH SMITH by my friend Kerry O'Boren. Both available on Amazon.com

The Errors of Mormonism

By Pastor D. S. Calkin

       About the year 1812, Rev. Solomon Spaulding (1761-1816), a worn out Presbyterian preacher in Ohio, wrote an imaginary history entitled: "The Manuscript Found in the Wilderness of Mormon." He offered it to a printer who kept it in his printing shop, but never was printed. Sidney Rigdon, a disappointed preacher, saw the manuscript and realized it would make a good foundation for a new religion. Rigdon showed it to Joseph Smith and together they thought up Mormonism.

Let us look at this fanciful piece of fiction written by Spaulding who was nicknamed "Old Came to Pass" because he used that phrase so often in his book. It is a fantastic and foolish story of two imaginary families; Lehi, and Ismael who supposedly left Jerusalem about 600 B.C. They landed on the south western coast of South America. A little later two of the sons of Lehi, Nephi and Laman by name, got into a mix-up and the people took sides and commended to fight it out. Then God took a hand in it. He showed his displeasure with the Lamanites by cursing them with a black skin and they became the ancestors of the American Indians. But God showed Himself favorable to the Nephites. They began to migrate northward and about the time of Christ settled in Central America. Just after His crucifixion, Christ came to America and the population of both continents were converted, Lamanites as well as Nephites.

For about two hundred years, according to the tale, things went along splendidly and then apostasy came and everyone who left the faith was called a Lamanite. About one hundred and fifty years later these irreligious Nephites "hit the war path" again, with the result that in 384 A.D. the Nephites were wiped off the face of the map and the infidel Lamanites were left in possession of the land, where Columbus discovered them when he landed on these shores in 1492.

Now the commander-in-chief of the Nephites was a prophet and priest by the name of Mormon. When he saw that his people were about to be defeated, he gathered up all the records of his predecessors, made an abbreviated history, wrote in on some golden plates and gave this to his son Moroni. Moroni hid them in a hill near Palmyra, New York, and fifteen hundred years later appeared as an angel to a visionary, fortune-telling money-digging by the name of Joseph Smith and told him where to find the plates. In the box that held the plates was also found a huge pair of spectacles - one glass was called Urim and the other was called Thummin - and by the help of these spectacles this ignorant fellow was able to translate the hieroglyphics into English. And so we have the speculative and imaginative story of the Book of Mormon and how it got into the hands of Joseph Smith.

Joseph Smith tried to derive the name "Mormon" from the Egyptian "me" meaning "good" and "mor" a contraction of the English "more". The Greek word "mormon" means a hideous "she monster," a "bugbear". No wonder Joe's father-in-law is quoted as saying: "The whole Book of Mormon is a silly fabrication of falsehood and wickedness, got up for speculation."

What became of the golden plates? Smith said that God took them and hid them from human sight. It was easy to see that Smith was anxious to get rid of something that never really existed.

Joseph Smith, ignorant and illiterate, hardly able to read until he was a grown man, organized his Mormon Church with six members on April 6th, 1830, using the just-published Book of Mormons as his thesis. Here was Smith with the brains of Rev. Sidney Rigdon, deposed Campbellite, beginning to propagate their dishonest scheme with avaricious cunning . In 1834, they took the name, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints." When a Mormon called, not so long ago, upon one of the ladies of our Immanuel congregation, he said, "We are of the Church of the Latter Day Saints." "Oh," this clever woman replied, "but I belong to the Church of present day saints - the Baptist Church."

1. Mormons believe in many gods. The earth has its god and the other planets have theirs. The god of this world is Adam. In a Mormon Catechism you find the question, "Are there more Gods than one? Answer, "Yes, many." Joseph Smith said, "The head of the gods appointed one god for us" (June 1844, Millennial Star, pg. 108). Brigham Young, successor to Smith, said, "How many gods there are I do not know, but there never was a time when there was no gods and worlds" (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, pg. 33). In "Pearl of Great Price," we are told 48 times that the "gods" did this and that. Well, this is unadulterated heathenism; the very contradiction of God's Truth as seen in Exodus 8:10; Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah 44:8; Mark 12:32; Hebrews 6:13.

Further, Mormonism hold that God is a "tangible thing." "The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's" (Doc. and Cov. 130:22). Brigham Young is recorded in Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, page 50, as saying, "Now hear it, O inhabitant of earth, Jew and Gentile, saint and sinner! When our father Adam came into the Garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body and brought Eve, one of his wives with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is Michael, the archangel, the Ancient of Days! about whom holy men have written and spoken. He is our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do." Joe Smith said: "The idea that the Father and the Son dwell in a man's heart is a sectarian notion and it is false" (Doctrine and Covenants 130:3).

Such nonsense is pure paganism. More nauseating still, "Each God through his wife or wives raises up a numerous family of sons and daughters...for each father and mother will be in a condition to multiply forever and forever." The Seer 1, 37. This comes from the Doctrine and Covenants 132:37: "Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him. And he ... Isaac ... and Jacob ... have entered into their exaltation... and sit upon thrones, and are no angels, but are gods." This is not according to God's Word: "There is none other God but one." (1st Corinthians 8:4). "I am the Lord and there is none else, there is no God besides me" (Isaiah 45:5a).

2. What is their teaching about Christ? Brigham Young taught that Christ was the natural son of Mary and Adam (Adam as God of this world). They teach that Christ (may He forgive the words) was a polygamist, wedded at Cana of Galilee to Mary and Martha (sisters of Lazarus) and then later to Mary Magdalene. Apostle O. Hyde in a sermon said, "We say it was Jesus Christ who was married at Cana to the Marys and Martha, whereby He could see His seed before He was crucified." They further hold that Christ was simply a superior man who, by His devotion and faithfulness in His generation, was exalted to Deity and is now a god, second in glory to Adam.

What shameful blasphemy! God's Truth declares: "I and my Father are one" (John 10:30), "For in Him (Christ) dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily (Colossians 2:9). "God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory" (1st Timothy 3:16).

3. What has Mormonism to say about salvation? Mormonism teaches that to be saved you must believe in Joseph Smith, his book and his revelations. Brigham Young declared: "Every spirit that confesses that Joseph Smith is a prophet and that he lived and died a prophet, and that the Book of Mormon is true, is of God and every spirit that does not is of anti-Christ" (from Millennial Story vol. 5, p.118). He further declared: "Will all the people be damned who are not Latter-Day Saints? Yes, and a great many of them except they repent speedily" (Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, pg. 339).

Then, Mormonism teaches that the atonement of Christ, covered original sin only; that is, the sin of Adam. Sin committed now, they say, are to be pardoned on the basis of the good works of the sinner. The third article of faith written by Smith declares: "We believe that through the atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel."

Mormons will not say that they are saved; they think salvation is future and its final attainment dependent on works. And chief among its works is baptism. So thoroughly do Mormons believe in baptismal regeneration that they have been rebaptized after each backsliding and a good Mormon is supposed to be baptized once a year. Their Catechism says: "No person has arrived at the years of accountability and has heard the Gospel can be saved without baptism."

Work for the dead can be done vicariously by their living relatives. This may be done by baptism for the dead and it is often performed.

But God's precious Word says: "What must I do to be saved? Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved" (Acts 16:30,31).

Joseph Smith gradually assumed the status of one of the gods, standing next to Jesus Christ. Brigham Young affirmed, "What God was once, we are now; what God is now, we shall become." Prophet Smith had many wives and concubines. His successor, Brigham Young, died in Salt Lake City in 1877 leaving two million dollars, 17 wives, 56 children and an unknown number of grandchildren.

We need to beware of this insidious religion of Mormonism. They send their missionaries to call at our home. Remember the words of John: "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God; because many false prophets are gone out into the world" (1st John 4:1).

doc21hansen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
...

I'll offer a few possible corrections to the following:

> About the year 1812, Rev. Solomon
> Spaulding (1761-1816), a worn out Presbyterian
> preacher in Ohio, wrote an imaginary history

I'm convinced that he began his imaginary history
well before 1812 -- but it probably went through a
number of successive drafts after he arrived in
Ohio, and after he moved to Pennsylvania in 1812.

I do not think Spalding can be characterized as a
Presbyterian preacher. He was licensed as a Congregational
evangelist in Connecticut -- and when he moved west to
New York he naturally attended a Calvinist congregation;
but I do not think he was ordained a Presbyterian minister.

> entitled: "The Manuscript Found in the Wilderness
> of Mormon."

I conclude that this extended title was concocted by
late 19th century anti-Mormons, in order to make the
man's writings' title(s) sound more like that of the
Book of Mormon. More likely: he wrote a series of
draft stories under the generic title of "Manuscript
Found," with no Mormon reference on the title page.

> He offered it to a printer who kept it
> in his printing shop, but never was printed.

As far as I can determine, he offered one of his
manuscript stories to a sometimes publisher in
Pittsburgh, who relayed the text to the printer
who occasionally worked on contract for that
publisher. Perhaps the manuscript did indeed end
up in a printing shop for a while -- but that same
publisher also reported that the manuscript was
returned to Spalding's widow, c. 1817, after a
second submission to the publisher's office.

> Sidney Rigdon, a disappointed preacher, saw the
> manuscript and realized it would make a good
> foundation for a new religion.

I doubt that Rigdon was yet a preacher (or even a
baptized Christian) when he first encountered Mr.
Spalding's writings in Pittsburgh, c. 1812-1815.
Rather than that, I suppose Rigdon was simply an
inquisitive young fellow who could not afford to
buy books, but who sometimes made handwritten copies
of texts that caught his interest.

At the time Rigdon first encountered Spalding's
writings, I doubt that he had any thoughts about
establishing a new religious sect. He may have been
interested in the notion that America had been first
settled by ancient Israelites -- or even interested
in the idea that the latter day "restoration of Israel"
included convincing Indians that they were Israelites;
but I see no reason to think Rigdon copied any of
Spalding's writings with the idea in mind that those
particular writings could be passed off as scripture.

> Rigdon showed it to
> Joseph Smith and together they thought up
> Mormonism.

I'd guess that a great deal of what became "Mormonism"
in 1828-1829-1830 was doctrine/ideas that already
existed in some of American's smaller, Christian
primitivist sects during that period. I do not think
that the Mormonism of 1830 had much in it that was
truly original, nor even distinctive.

But I do agree that some interesting parts of early
Mormonism were born along with the finalization of
the Book of Mormon text in 1828-29.

The question to be asked, is: "Which parts of Mormonism
existed in the Book of Mormon text prior to 1828; and
which parts of the new religion were concocted more or
less as the book itself was being put into Oliver Cowdery's
handwriting, in preparation for the 1829-30 printing?"

Perhaps, with some careful study, we can begin to unravel
that early, hidden history. At least we can probably try.

UD

May I just say... this is the type of information and dialogue I come to this site to digest.

Thanks for the post and the responses.

DT

I also think the BoM was a composite of several books out there in the "ether" at the time. A View of the Hebrews contains the same mis-translation of the (Greek?) word for "isles" as does a similarly worded passage in the BoM.

Can someone elaborate on the fact that the first edition of the Book of Mormon listed Jos Smith as "author" (not translated from Gold Plates) and its religious pretensions seemed to evolve after that?

I read an apologist response to the listing of Smith as 'author and proprietor' that claimed that wording was actually the only choice on forms he filled out, not something he came up with.

On later forms, one was allowed to use 'translator' instead.

I don't know if that is true.

Heresy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I read an apologist response to the listing of
> Smith as 'author and proprietor' that claimed that
> wording was actually the only choice on forms he
> filled out, not something he came up with.
>
> On later forms, one was allowed to use
> 'translator' instead.
>
> I don't know if that is true.


In a round about way, it may be partly true. In order
to secure a copyright back then, Smith had to submit
the title-page of the book for governmental recording.
Such title-pages generally had an author's name
included in their unique text. Smith probably became
aware of this requirement before the book was fully
written out in Oliver Cowdery's handwriting.

But I suppose Smith misunderstood the meaning of an
"author and proprietor," and thought the words could
apply directly to a "translator." Hints of this misuse
of the word "author" occur in the 1830 preface and
in the witness statements -- all of which were changed
for the 1837 second edition.

So, I do not think Smith was consciously betraying the
fact that he composed some of the fictional narrative
found in the text -- nor that he was even admitting
that is was a work of fiction. I think that the copyright
regulations and requirements simply confused him a little.

UD

Any one care to weigh in on the similarities in a view of the Hebrews and the BoM?

theoneandonly Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Any one care to weigh in on the similarities in a
> view of the Hebrews and the BoM?


There are indeed many similarities -- mostly centering
around the idea that the tribes of Israel must have
their ancient blessings and promises fulfilled prior
to the second coming of Christ and the beginning of
the Christian millennium.

Ethan Smith, author of View of the Hebrews, borrowed
a good deal of his theory (Indians being Israelites)
from Elias Boudinot, a fellow who wrote in 1816. The
major difference was that Boudinot was a lay enthusiast
and Ethan Smith was a recognized Christian minister
who had published several books previously, and who
scored some valuable recommendations from reviewers.

That still left Ethan Smith in a fringe minority, however.
Nearly all mainstream Christian leaders of his day felt
that the ancient promises and blessings had been fulfilled
in the advent of the Christian church -- and that there
was no need for literal fulfillment of OT predictions
for all the world's Israelites.

So -- Ethan Smith differed from his fellow ministers, on
opting for a literal fulfillment of ancient promises to
the descendants of Israelite tribes (the Indians, Jews, etc.)

But -- Ethan also differed from the earliest Mormon viewpoint,
in that he did not support an American Zion. In his theory,
the scattered Israelite tribes would not form a new Zion
in America. The Indians thus had to be converted and shipped
over the ocean to Jerusalem, to fulfill prophecy.

Joseph Smith avoided this problem, by advertising America
as the new Zion (co-equal with Jerusalem) for a separate
millennialistic gathering in North America --- where he
could comfortably reign as the great prophet, without
having to take a ship to the ancient Holy Land.

Because Elias Boudinot, Ethan Smith, and the writer(s) of
the Book of Mormon all depended upon OT prophetic passages
to shore up their profession of Israelite Indians, all
three texts (and several other independent writings of
that period) depended upon the same Old Testament passages
to justify their conclusions. This mutual dependence
serves to make the writings all look rather similar. They
all mistook the artifacts of North America to be the ruins
of a vanished Israelite civilization, and that sort of
thinking also made them resemble each other.

There is reason to conclude that the writer(s) of the
Book of Mormon knew something about Ethan Smith's book:
but the Mormon message included different elements and
shows a dependence upon more sources than Ethan Smith.

UD

I have always found it difficult - since the very first time I read the BoM - to reconcile "murder" with "faith" in the story of how Nephi and his brothers got the plates from Laban, regardless of how TSCC's leaders put a spin on it, especially after knowing what I know now about religious extremisms.

Anyone with an interest in Spaulding and Sidney Rigdon should be reading the new episodes as they are posted:

http://mormonleaks.com/