After leaving TSCC, I have been researching and studying Church history like crazy-- as much as I can read. As a brainwashed TBM, I only believed the Church-approved version of Church history and was skeptical of any data that fell outside of this. Now, it is remarkable how obvious the fraud and deception are when the whole story is taken into consideration. I just want to kick myself for not seeing it before! It's ironic that leaving the Church actually peaked my interest in Church history...

Anyway, I am very interested in the different theories explaining the origins of the Book of Mormon. I just read "Sidney Rigdon: Creating the Book of Mormon" from Craig Criddle at sidneyrigdon.com, which seems to offer compelling evidence supporting Rigdon's authorship based on a Spalding manuscript.

Does anyone have any book suggestions or links to alternate theories? I am soaking up as much information as I can get my hands on.

It might be helpful to start with Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_Book_of_Mormon


While I haven't explored to much regarding specific theories on the BoM's origin, one thing is clear: no traditional "God" was responsible for that book.

One longstanding and widely accepted explanation is that
Joe wrote the whole thing, off the top of his head, by
dictating it to the scribe Oliver Cowdery.

In this view of things, Oliver Cowdery, Hyrum Smith, Emma
and the other earliest Mormons were true believers who
saw nothing deceptive in Joe's bringing forth the text.
They saw him dictating the book, with his head in a hat,
by which means he could not possibly have copied material
from any other, pre-existing literary sources.

This explanation does not account for the very lengthy
sections of the book which duplicate material from the
"King James" bible. But some say that Joe knew the bible
by heart -- as did Martin Harris and other devout
Christians of those times. If Joe had indeed memorized
the bible, then it stands to reason that he might have
also memorized other works -- such as Ethan Smith's
"View of the Hebrews." While there are no lengthy quotes
from Ethan Smith appearing in Joe's Book of Mormon, the
overlap in the two books' ideas of biblical prophecy,
the origin of the Indians, etc., is so great that it
may show that Joe's writings depended upon Ethan Smith.

At least that is one explanation -- and the explanation
you will most commonly meet with if you talk to non-LDS
historians who make some reference to the book's origin.

http://www.olivercowdery.com/smithhome/jowrote.htm

UD

I think this may be by the same guy but its the best resource I've seen on the topic:
http://mormonleaks.com/

Info on view of the hebrews as a source by bhroberts:
http://www.mormonhandbook.com/home/view-of-the-hebrews.html

http://mormonprobe.com/treeoflife-jsmithsr.htm

Side note: You may find my website interesting/helpful in general in your research. http://www.mormonprobe.com

The BOM was plagiarized from multiple sources. Get “Who really wrote the BOM” and this one from non-mormons just out “Book of Mormon Book of Lies” http://www.amazon.com/Book-Mormon-Lies-Meredith-Sheets/dp/1939179009/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1376931439&sr=1-1&keywords=book+of+mormon+book+of+lies

You will not believe the outrageous direct plagiarism that went on.
Check out the reviews by the faithful who have not and dare not read BOM Book of Lies. It is hilarious. The believers won’t read the book and yet will do a review and give it a one star all in the name of truth?

I own an 1830 reproduction of the BOM so I can check the research Meredith and Ray sheets have done.

Do I think Sidney Rigdon and Cowdery were deeply involved? You bet you sweet petutie I do! The BOM was stolen from a mass of other well-known and available sources. A 14 year old know nothing my ass!

It's like seeing how a majic trick was done. Once you see it you marvel at how simple the con really was.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/19/2013 01:19PM by AmIDarkNow?.

Book of Mormon Book of Lies didn't convince me (but I am convinced the BoM is a fraud mind you).

I haven't read Book of Mormon Book Of Lies but haven't seen very good reviews on it - it seems to be less factual and researched than other hypothesis from what I've gathered.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/19/2013 01:26PM by The Oncoming Storm - bc.

The premise is that as they jump back and forth to different parts of different books, and compare them to passages from the BoM at roughly the same percentage of the way through both books, they see similarities.

So, for example, at 5% of the way through both books, you would see a reference to dwelling in tents (with completely different wording), thus evidence that the Smiths had ripped off some book or another.

It is a serious stretch, repeated over and over, and in some cases they really stretch even their own logic, finding a similar concept in two different areas of the two books (percentage-wise) but still count it.

The whole thing is full of confirmation bias and shoddy logic, and I consider it money wasted.

That said, I will concede that the author of the BoM was likely well-read, but BoM:BoL did not convince me of that.

AmIDarkNow? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The
> BOM was stolen from a mass of other well-known and
> available sources. A 14 year old know nothing my
> ass!

Joseph was not 14 when the BOM was "translated". He was 14 when he allegedly had his first vision. But he didn't (allegedly) receive the plates til several years later, and he was twenty or more when he "translated" the book.

The BOM is based on ideas of prehistory, religion and American Indians that were all prevalent in Joseph Smith's days. There is nothing in it that could not come from either such ideas or the author's creativity. I find the Spaulding-Rigdon hypothesis to be unneccessary and superfluous.

egomet Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...There is nothing in it that
> could not come from either such ideas or the
> author's creativity. I find the Spaulding-Rigdon
> hypothesis to be unneccessary and superfluous.

Not only that, but we should also take into consideration
the fact that NOT EVEN ONE notable, respected non-LDS
scholar has accepted the validity of any element of the
Spalding-Rigdon authorship claims. There are literally
hundreds of historians of American religion and of the
period in which Joe's book was compiled. We might think
that at least one of these many non-Mormon authorities
and experts would have found some significance in some
portion of the non-Smith authorship studies.

But they have not.

The last major book on this topic was published over a
decade ago, and has received absolutely no confirmation
or recommendations from reputable historians. Its only
readers appear to be a handful of Mormon apologists who
dismissed its contents, in LDS articles which no historian
has ever bothered to criticize.

In 2000 I attended a meeting of a good number of historians
and serious students of early Mormon history. I asked one
noted, non-LDS scholar if he had heard if the Spalding
claims -- "Oh, yes," he replied -- "They were concocted
as part of a persecution against the Saints at Kirtland
by some disreputable doctor. They have been thoroughly
refuted by the most knowledgeable investigators. Read
Bancroft's 'History of Utah' for the definitive report."

I doubt that the opinion of those renowned scholars will
change in another ten years, or even in a hundred years.

UD

Hopefully the ongoing wordprint studies will do something to change this.

Chris Smith's "genre" objection does deal the death-blow to the studies that the apologists would like to think IMHO.

Have you followed the use of wordprint analysis to determine the authorship of the latest J.K.Rowling book? It worked just fine across-genre on that occasion.

spanner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hopefully the ongoing wordprint studies will do
> something to change this.

I suppose it would require the publication of some reputable
independent researchers, who more or less confirmed and/or
duplicated the wordprint studies. Even if this happens in
abundance, it might be many years before the professional
historians took any notice.

>
> Chris Smith's "genre" objection does deal the
> death-blow to the studies that the apologists
> would like to think IMHO.
>
> Have you followed the use of wordprint analysis to
> determine the authorship of the latest J.K.Rowling
> book? It worked just fine across-genre on that
> occasion.

I heard about the detection of the Rowling authorship,
via computerized comparisons with her known writings. But
in that case we have extended writing samples from a
single, known author, as part of the comparison analysis.

With the Book of Mormon, both the LDS and the non-Smith
advocates say there was multiple authorship -- even
multiple overlapping authorship, due to editing. Even
the pro-Smith advocates admit that Joe copied a lot of
material from the bible -- thus introducing another kind
of multiple authorship. Different from Rowling's case.

Craig Criddle is currently "marrying" the textual findings
with a great deal of historical reconstruction. The results
look encouraging for a Spalding-Rigdon-Cowdery-Smith
solution to the authorship problem.

But, again, the professional historians will shun any hint
of a conspiracy explanation -- and especially so for a
conspiracy involving more than two people. A secret "deal"
between Smith and Cowdery they might possibly accept, if
evidence for a Cowdery wordprint in the BoM is overwhelming.
But even that much of a concession would be too much for
many professional historians to accept. A single person
authorship is simpler, more elegant and easier to write
about in future history books.

UD

Regardless of who actually composed the book, the evidence for a conspiracy is there:

Oliver confirmed accounts of visitation and interaction with John the Baptist, and Peter, James, and John. He also played a significant part in inducing David Whitmer's vision of the plates. While I think Joseph could have induced spiritual-eye type visions in the other witnesses, Oliver's retrospective accounts stretch Joseph's abilities too far. Oliver was actively engaged in creating the mythical history of the church right from the start.

Sydney's collaboration on the rewrite of the remaining scripture and his input to doctrine via the visions/visitations at Kirtland. It is possible Sidney was "mesmerised" by Joseph, but the degree to which Joseph deferred to Sidney is telling. If Sidney was such a dupe as to be led in visions/translations (automatic writing?) by Joseph, Joseph would not have needed to humor Sidney so much and for so long.

The case for Oliver is quite strong at least, I think.

As to authorship, the converging lines of evidence from several sources, in particular the overlap between your work and the wordprints is what turned me from the "Smith-alone" camp. Different approaches to analysis of the text getting similar results is hard to see happening by random chance alone. And then when the work of Dan Vogel and Tom Donofrio is overlaid as well, it just gets more persuasive (although I think DV is still in the Smith-alone camp). I suspect that some people think the S/R hypothesis excludes Joseph and don't look into it further, but as Craig has developed the "Gold Bible Company" theory, it doesn't exclude his input at all.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/19/2013 05:24PM by spanner.

spanner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...I suspect that some people
> think the S/R hypothesis excludes Joseph and don't
> look into it further, but as Craig has developed
> the "Gold Bible Company" theory, it doesn't
> exclude his input at all.

Most of the Smith-alone advocates I've conversed with are of
the mistaken opinion, that the Spalding-Rigdon explanation
has no place for Joe, other than his taking the manuscript to
the printer in Palmyra.

Nothing could be farther from the truth --- The way that
the S-R explanation has developed in recent years not only
provides a "place" for Smith in the final editing/dictation
of the text; it also credits him with the composition of
certain chapters, pretty much exclusive of Spalding and
Rigdon -- seemingly inserted chapters, dealing with a
"choice seer," the magic stone Gazelem, slippery treasure,
etc. Craig Criddle has even come up with a timeline showing
how he thinks that control over the "translation" project
gradually passed from Cowdery to Smith (with Rigdon mostly
watching things from many miles away, in Ohio).

I think that there will eventually be a consensus among
S-R authorship advocates, embracing Criddle's view of how
Joseph Smith had an important (critically important) role
in the whole scheme.

At that point, the Smith-alone advocates will have to modify
their resistance to the S-R authorship explanation -- maybe
by their saying it does not provide a large enough role for
Smith in the bringing forth of the book, canonization of
the revelations, compiling of the JST bible, etc.

UD

I'm reminded of some of the lame homework assignments I did as a 3rd grader, cobbled together from the Encyclopedia Brittanica, my mom and dad's comments, and magazine articles.

Maybe unnecessary, but there's plenty of evidence to suggest that Rigdon and Cowdery were involved early on...well before Smith claimed to have even met them. I find it interesting that JS made a point of writing "this being the first time I had ever seen him", or something along those lines, when describing his meeting both Rigdon and Cowdery. Multiple witnesses claimed to have seen Rigdon around Palmyra for years before he supposedly met Joe. Considering how they rose in leadership, what Rigdon was teaching his congregation before 1830 and their conversion afterwards, his ideas on communal society, etc... I could go on and on. Rigdon's family also acknowledged that he requested that his wife burn all his manuscripts upon his death, which she did. It all smells a bit fishy. It's still just a theory, but it's pretty convincing. Yes, Joseph probably could have written the book himself, and maybe he did write parts of it on his own, but I don't see much evidence for it besides the fact that he wasn't as dumb as people claim(ed).

I also read "Who really wrote the BOM?". In Fawn Brodie's "No Man Knows My History" she briefly touches on the theory and more or less discounts it due to the similarities in the affidavits collected by Philastus Hurlbut...meaning she felt people were coached as to what to say.

My official stance as to the authorship of the BoM is "who knows?", but...there is a TON more evidence presented in "Who really wrote the BOM?" which I found very convincing, and their theory is the most feasible of any I've looked at to date.

Insiders View of Mormon Origins by Grant Palmer. Highly recommend this book. He explains where most of the source material for the bom came from.

In my view, it's less important to know how it was done than that it is in no way a translation of an ancient document. The Book of Mormon screams "19th-century Mound-Builder fan fiction." It is exactly what you would expect to come out of that particular environment.

Here's something I wrote a few years ago that I think provides a good context for where the book came from:

http://runtu.wordpress.com/2008/03/31/vintage-runtu-book-of-mormon-evidence/

Hope it helps.

I really am of the option that Spaulding/Ridgeon/Smith/Cowdery origin is how it came to be.

I always ask mo'shaters this question: Gold plates vs. a con. Really???

Best to all,

Merrill

I'm Craig Criddle, the author of the essay that you read.

If you'd like more information on Book of Mormon origins (beyond the essay), I hope you'll check out MormonLeaks.com.

A small group of us has been working for more than a year now to create the site. Here is a link to the site:
http://mormonleaks.com

This site currently consists of a series of episodes on the origins of Mormon scripture. We will eventually cover the Book of Mormon, the Book of Moses, the Book of Commandments (first part of the Doctrine and Covenants), the Book of Abraham, the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants, the rest of the modern Doctrine and Covenants, and more (including unpublished revelations).

Last week, we had to take the site down for software upgrade and maintenance, so only the first four of the eight planned episodes are up as of now.

Episode 1 is an introduction to the different theories:
http://mormonleaks.com/library/episode-01/

Episode 2 focuses on Spalding:
http://mormonleaks.com/library/episode-02/

Episode 3 focuses on Rigdon:
http://mormonleaks.com/library/episode-03/

Episode 4 focuses on Smith:
http://mormonleaks.com/library/episode-04/

Episodes 5 and 6 are being converted into the format we need to use with the newly upgraded software.

Episode 5 explains the Rube Goldberg complexity of the Book of Mormon.

Episode 6 explains the origins of the "Thus Saith the Lord"style revelations that you find in the Doctrine and Covenants.

The Spalding-Rigdon theory has expanded since I wrote the essay that you read. We now think of it as the "layered collaboration theory". MormonLeaks is an effort to weave together many lines of historical and textual evidence from many sources to give a well integrated explanation of the origins of the Mormon cannon.

Thank you Craig for responding to my post and sharing the links. This is great information and I like the slideshow approach. I am really looking forward to episodes 5-8 as well as the upcoming series on the other "scriptures". I now have mormonleaks.com bookmarked-- nice work so far!

hangar18 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>...I now have mormonleaks.com bookmarked-- nice
> work so far!

The "slides" of his "Alternative Accounts" presentation
now have clearer graphics and are easier to discern.

Also, the timing of the viewability of those slides now
appears to be matched better with the amount of content.
Slides with short texts move past the viewer fairly
quickly, while the more complex slides stay on-screen
for a longer period of time.

All of this makes the viewing experience easier and
more "comfortable."

Still -- there will be site visitors who will wish that
the entire contents of "Alternative Accounts" might be
published in some big, thick coffee table style volume.

Anybody know any oddball multi-millionaires who would like
to finance the money-losing publication of such a book?

UD

The Spaulding Theory versus The Ethan SMith theory, are they necessarily mutually exclusive ? Do they even matter that much?

Spaulding Manuscript, or Smith Manuscript, I thought /heard that one actually used the very names for the main characters Lehi, Nephi that BOM scam cohorts just rolled with the same names / did not even bother to change the names for the BOM scam. Is this so ?

Granted I posed these questions before reading your essay. Now I will go read. Thanks.

lucky Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Spaulding Theory versus The Ethan Smith
> theory, are they necessarily mutually exclusive?...

Not really. The grandson of Ethan Smith said that the two
men knew each other and that Ethan loaned Solomon some of
his writings about the Lost Tribes of Israel.

What one man identified as a Spalding manuscript on that
topic was located in the 1870s, within walking distance
of Poultney, Vermont, where Ethan was once a minister. So
perhaps Spalding also sent one of his own Israelite Indian
stories to Ethan Smith.

If Solomon Spalding returned to Dartmouth College to finish
up his Masters degree, then he overlapped Ethan Smith's
tenure at that school by a semester or more. They would
have had ample opportunity to get acquainted. The school
was small back then, so the two men would have shared some
of the same instructors. They both became Congregational
clergymen in tiny New England.

After Solomon died, his wife moved to New York and then
to Massachusetts. She herself died in the early 1840s and
some researchers claim to have located her grave in the
village of Belchertown, in the old Congregational church's
graveyard -- where members of Ethan Smith's family are
buried. The two families must have been aware of each
other. The township adjacent to the one where Ethan Smith
served as pastor to Oliver Cowdery's mother was founded
by the Spalding family.

But Ethan Smith never published any fictional accounts of
Israelite Indians, and he is not known to have ever made
any comments concerning the Book of Mormon.

Too bad nobody ever thought to interview Ethan on the
subject of Mormonism, before he died.

UD

Joseph Smith's mother wrote that Joseph often told the family stories of the inhabitants of ancient America to include thier manner of dress, warfare, buildings and materials, religion and animals.
See "History of Joseph Smith by His Mother" Chapter 18.

This occured years before he had the plates.

Heartless Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Joseph Smith's mother wrote that Joseph often told
> the family stories of the inhabitants of ancient
> America to include thier manner of dress, warfare,
> buildings and materials, religion and animals.
> See "History of Joseph Smith by His Mother"
> Chapter 18.
>
> This occured years before he had the plates.


Maybe he did -- sounds quite possible.

Then again, I would not trust a single thing that Mother
Lucy Mack Smith ever said or wrote, without confirmation
from a second, non-faith-promoting source.

She was my ancestral relative, and I'm confident that
what I'm alluding to is a valid conclusion about her.

UD

I read portions of Lucy's bio. I thought she was a much better/MORE entertaining story teller than Joe. Very possibly just as big of a LIAR.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/20/2013 03:42AM by lucky.

There's no way Joe wrote the whole thing off the top of his head, or even with the help of Sidney Rigdon. The only way this came about was with someone with deep knowledge of the Bible (Joe Sr and Sydney Rigdon) and access to someone who wrote fiction and had deep knowledge (at the time) of Indians and some archaeology (Solomon Spaulding and Ethan Smith).

Until I read about Mormonism Unvailed (written in 1834), I was skeptical of Solomon Spaulding being the author; considering Eber Howe wrote this so close to the beginnings of Mormonism, I am almost totally convinced that Spaulding and View of the Hebrews are the major sources of the Book of Mormon along with the Bible. Sydney Rigdon knew a lot of educated people in different states, and could relatively easily get access to this stuff. This was like Steve Jobs meeting Steve Wozniak (who's Rigdon).

I'm so glad to see people going after the facts and studying. The more we know about the Joe, Lucy, Emma situation the more we'll know how things came about and why.

The family connections and how they played out are fascinating. The answers lie in the family connections. I've been convinced of that for a long time. When the dirty family laundry is aired we will have so many answers that we didn't have before.

I'm quite convinced Joseph Smith was the sole author. He was smart, well read, had a vivid imagination and a talent for mimicry. He was an observer and readily absorbed things. This are fairly common traits in fiction, especially science-fiction, writers. His own claims fit the pattern as well.

I believe he originally started the idea as a get rich quick scheme to capitalize on the popularity of the Hebrews as Indian sub-craze. Like many writers (and many crazy people) it quickly became an obsession. His mother's description of him telling stories fits the descriptions of families of many writers.

By the time he did the "translation", he already had the whole story worked out in his mind. And, contrary to the above claim, it didn't require a deep knowledge of the Bible, Indians or geography--only a relatively superficial one since the Book of Mormon is actually pretty ignorant of all three, especially the latter two.

The key is that the parallels in the Book of Mormon are to Joseph Smith, not to Sidney Rigdon, Oliver Cowdery, Spaulding or anyone else. They all link back to Smith.

My view is that Oliver Cowdery was mesmerized by Smith, like many since. I think Rigdon was essentially a restorational Christian who saw in what Smith was doing the chance to create a religion. By 1830, I think Smith, who already truly believed believed he had supernatural gifts, began to believe in own divinity.

Another strong evidence that Joseph Smith was the author vs Sidney Rigdon is that the original printing of the Book of Mormon had a lot of Methodist overtones, especially in relation to the Godhead, that were subsequently removed and those sections realigned with Sidney Rigdon's views. Ironically, the redaction was incomplete and 3 Nephi still has remnants of this.

(What became the pre-Utah Mormon church was, in my opinion, largely the work of Sidney Rigdon. [Sidney Rigdon was severely beaten in Missouri and was never the same since--it's telling that it was then that Smith departed radically from Rigdon's ideas.] Brigham Young took over and largely created the modern physical church, but the doctrinal aspects of the modern church were heavily influenced, if not downright invented, by Orson Hyde and Orson Pratt.)

Except that computer analysis of writing composition styles of the BOM text shows several different authors, and further, that the various writing styles exhibited can then be matched with those of various instrumental cohorts in the foundation of MORmONISM.

JasonK Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm quite convinced Joseph Smith was the sole
> author. He was smart, well read, had a vivid
> imagination and a talent for mimicry.
...


This may indeed be the case (see my first posting in
this thread for the web-page I created on that notion),
but I seriously wonder why you would choose to exclude
Mother Smith and Oliver Cowdery from the Gold Bible project.

Dr. John Stafford, who lived immediately south of the
Smith cabin in Manchester, and whose family was intimately
acquainted with their Smith neighbors, recalled that
people in the area believed that Lucy Mack Smith helped
write the book. Orsamus Turner, who was a newspaper man
at the time the Smiths lived in Manchester, concluded
that Mother Smith and Oliver Cowdery were in on the scam
and helped write the book.

One LDS scholar has even isolated the passage that Oliver
was supposed to have translated, using his divining rod.
The manuscript wording for that entry is in Joseph's
handwriting -- while the text before and after is in
Oliver's handwriting. This fact seems to show that they
at least occasionally worked as a team, trading off the
roles of translator and scribe.

Lucy later demonstrated that she had writing abilities
herself, by penning a biography of her son, in which an
almost exact duplicate of the Book of Mormon's "Lehi Dream"
is credited to her husband's vision. This parallel serves
to link Lucy to the text of the Book of Mormon, at least
tangentially, and perhaps even more closely than that.

Now I may be wrong, and Mother Lucy, Brother Hyrum and
Cousin Oliver Cowdery may have been credulous dupes who
had no idea that Nephites were a fiction -- they may
never have for a moment suspected that young Joe was
spending his alone hours at a writing table, turning out
a fake bible.

But, if that was indeed the case, I'd like to hear some
reasoning that supports such a conclusion.

If Oliver truly believed he had seen John the Baptist,
and later the angel with the plates, that is remarkable.
Perhaps Joseph was able to hypnotize him, or otherwise
fool Oliver. But I am very skeptical that such foolery
would have extended to Oliver testifying to meeting Peter,
James and John -- and later, in the Kirtland Temple, the
risen Jesus Christ himself.

If Oliver was not playing along with Joe's con job, then
he must have been one of history's most gullible and
easily influenced dupes -- a strange mindset for a guy
who studied the law and worked as a professional lawyer.

UD