The Case Against Rigdon, Spalding, Pratt, Cowdery, et al

[Uncle Dale]

...

The methodology is not suitable to answer the question. As has been pointed out by numerous readers

of the Jockers paper, the method is forced to choose an author.

...

How about avoiding that seeming problem, by re-running the computerized testing?

Include the 1830 "Preface." Then you will have at least one

known author, among the author-candidates. Joseph Smith's

word-print should only match that Preface at a high degree

of probability, and not the rest of the text.

Include Isaiah, Malachi, and Matthew for three more known

contributors. Their word-prints should only match their

respective quotations in the BoM at a high degree.

Then derive a word-print for Helman, using those

contiguous chapters from the last part of Alma which

consistently group together, in all of the different

sorts of graphs. Say, Alma 48-49-50, or some other

section attributed by the BoM itself to Helaman,

redacted by Mormon.

That will provide you with a number of known contributors

to the text. You might add Lucy Mack Smith and W. W. Phelps

as controls.

There would be no need to "force" any authorship attribution.

For all the chapters not registering a high degree of

probability, simply call them "unattributed."

I know that Jockers will eventually produce just such a study;

or, at least one of his "students" will, after consulting

with him. Why not beat them to the punch, and produce your

own study results -- showing that Smith only wrote his Preface?

UD

[hagoth7]

...The arguments I hear over and over again here, might be useful

in encouraging a disgruntled member that the 19th century BoM

authorship explanations are not worthy of further investigation.

People are of course free to explore that as much as they wish. If that's how they opt to utilize their time, fine.

I would simply recommend they bone up on statistics and sampling theory first. Because much of the wordprint discussion glosses over the disturbing reality alluded to in my first point - that one can find statistical wordprint matches both prior to 1830, and long after. If you think that reality isn't germane to your preferred point, and doesn't speak to the entire wordprint issue, I'd be interested to hear why.

It's like having a fingerprint-match technology that the inventor is attempting to get admitted into court, even though the technology finds a match with at least 2% of people tested, regardless of the test. Such an attempt would cause alarm for advocates of justice and fair trials - out of concern for the miscarraige of justice from false positives. That issue of false positives is precisely the central concern with wordprint methodology - a valid concern which some wordprint-study advocates prefer to dismiss out of hand.

But -- what is there in these pro-LDS arguments, that will

re-convert a "Smith-alone" or a "Smith+helpers" investigator

over to the LDS explanations.

If Mormons are interested in advertising their conclusions to

non-LDS, they will have to do better than what I see in this

thread.

Is there a logical argument that ever converted anyone?

On the other hand, if people are looking for evidence to warrant a closer investigation of the Restoration, many threads in this forum corroborate Joseph's testimony - from a broad array of directions.

I don't think this thread was intended to be a catch-all for such things. So I wouldn't suggest drawing a final conclusion from such a limited sampling (hint...nudge). As Glenn said in the OP:

There is a lot more.

[Glenn101]

Dale, you actually addressed a couple of the points I made concerning Hebraic structures in the Book of Mormon. However, you stilled provided little more than conjecture. I purposely left out Joseph Smith from the mix because he is not one of the proposed authors. His lack of writing skills at that point in his life pretty well eliminate him.

As to Spalding's possible exposure to the chiastic structure of some of the texts of the Bible, I do not know. It is possible. It would be interesting to know just what was taught in the classes Spalding took. Was the chiastic structure actually being taught during that period of time? Was it something recognized as a literary device in the Bible during that period of time? Then comes the problem of actually composing the chiasmus. The current example is Alma 36.

The hebraisms are interwoven so well into the fabric of the book of Mormon text that it comes forth looking like an authentic hebrew document, according to the resident LDS experts. Could any of the proposed authors, singly or together, produced such a document? Pratt, Rigdon, and Cowdery would have had to had that ability if they authored entire chapters individually.

The problem of integrating over three hundred and thirty proper names with one hundred eighty-eight into the book of Mormon narrative has not really been addressed, but rather brushed off. That would have been a formidable task without computers and or even typewriters during that period.

The problem with the large cast of characters has not been addressed. Over two hundred different characters are intertwined into the book of Mormon narratives. Any such an undertaking writing a piece of fiction as complex as the Book of Mormon would require a lot of work. A lot of rewriting. A lot of rough drafts. Tolstoy's "War and Peace" took several years to write and did not have as large a cast of characters. He had to keep track of those characters on paper, to keep from getting them confused and mixed up. Any human who wrote the Book of Mormon from whole cloth would have had to do the same. As 4truth is fond of saying, the Book of Mormon was not produced in a vacuum. All of those people lived, worked, and moved among other sentient, living, breathing people. Could such an endeavor have been hidden so well? All of those drafts, all ofthat work done in such secrecy so as not to excite the curiosty of anyone, and not leaving a single telltale sign? All of that is as absent as that second Spalding manuscript.

Glenn

[Gervin]

The problem with the large cast of characters has not been addressed. Over two hundred different characters are intertwined into the book of Mormon narratives. Any such an undertaking writing a piece of fiction as complex as the Book of Mormon would require a lot of work. A lot of rewriting. A lot of rough drafts. Tolstoy's "War and Peace" took several years to write and did not have as large a cast of characters. He had to keep track of those characters on paper, to keep from getting them confused and mixed up. Any human who wrote the Book of Mormon from whole cloth would have had to do the same. As 4truth is fond of saying, the Book of Mormon was not produced in a vacuum. All of those people lived, worked, and moved among other sentient, living, breathing people. Could such an endeavor have been hidden so well? All of those drafts, all ofthat work done in such secrecy so as not to excite the curiosty of anyone, and not leaving a single telltale sign? All of that is as absent as that second Spalding manuscript.

I think you overstate the complexity of the characters in the Book of Mormon. Generally speaking, characters are very linear; they appear, they do some things, they die. Look at Ether 1: it's a very basic genealogy and the majority of these people simply live, rule, battle, and die in the space of a few verses before their descendants do the same. Many of the cities are mentioned for the first time in the context of their destruction - no prior mention whatsoever. Geographical place names are sparse. There are only a small handful of women named in the entire book, etc. When the 12 disciples are finally named it is the last mention for most of them. I agree that tracking characters on a separate piece of paper might be necessary, but see nothing in the book to make me believe this couldn't be accomplished fairly easily and I see nothing requring multiple drafts or rewrites. It's no Bros Karamazov.

[TAO]

I think you overstate the complexity of the characters in the Book of Mormon. Generally speaking, characters are very linear; they appear, they do some things, they die. Look at Ether 1: it's a very basic genealogy and the majority of these people simply live, rule, battle, and die in the space of a few verses before their descendants do the same. Many of the cities are mentioned for the first time in the context of their destruction - no prior mention whatsoever. Geographical place names are sparse. There are only a small handful of women named in the entire book, etc. When the 12 disciples are finally named it is the last mention for most of them. I agree that tracking characters on a separate piece of paper might be necessary, but see nothing in the book to make me believe this couldn't be accomplished fairly easily and I see nothing requring multiple drafts or rewrites. It's no Bros Karamazov.

No, I disagree, the characters are not so simple. We have Moroni getting confused over his leadership. We have Nephi wandering throughout his own thoughts. We have the sons of Alma all with their own problems. And we have Moroni, who you can feel the deep emotion coming from his writing. It is not so simple and clear-cut as you make it out to be. The characters aren't so linear, if you look into the places that are descriptions of their personality and own thoughts rather than the sections about history.

Na, let me tell you why it would require multiple rough drafts. Look at Mormon and Moroni's abridgements - seeming put at random throughout the whole book. Sometimes in the middle of chapters. They interject their own speech in places. That takes tracking. Then look at the references to the different plates in the book (there are several). That takes tracking. Then look at the names, and all the times people are named the same thing (sometimes, with different personalities, believe it or not), and that takes references. And then, those people are mentioned once randomly later on in the book. No, the book had to have taken ALOT of tracking - it's not something that could be written in two months. You would have to have a historical time-line down to the very detail. I suspect it took Mormon about half his lifetime just to compile the entire thing. Half a man's lifetime. Even putting that to Rigdon and others is a stretch, and people are forced to come up with ever more complex conspiracy theories... it's really kinda sad.

[Ariarates]

Most of the Book of Mormon attacks I have encountered have debated the time-line in which the Book of Mormon was produced. They believe that the book was produced over years and not just (translated) in the few months that is claimed by Joseph Smith Jr. They have to claim this, or their entire argument falls apart.

It's not so much a matter of "having to claim this" as it is a matter of following the evidence. Did Joseph Smith ever claim to have translated the BoM in a few months like you say? I don't know. But I do know that he mentioned the plates and their subject matter a number of years before 1830. Lehi's dream is even older than that, attributed by Joseph's mother to Joseph Sr.

It's not the critics who are in need of verifiable arguments for a production time of a number of years. It's those who insist on the BoM's miraculous nature who need the "few months" to make it even more miraculous and divert attention away from more obvious, natural explanations.

While there are still a number of "misses" as far the Book of Mormon and archeology are concerned, there are still more "hits". Such as the locations of Nehom and "Wadi Sayq/Khor Kharfot" for Bountiful.

I'm curious as to your math. As far as I know, apologists claim Nahom and Bountiful while the BoM has many more place names that cannot be tied with any degree of certainty to any known location. Purely on the matter of place names, I'd say the number of misses is far, far greater than the two hits (that are considered such by no one except LDS apologists).

[Uncle Dale]

...

The hebraisms are interwoven so well into the fabric of the book of Mormon text that

it comes forth looking like an authentic hebrew document, according to the resident

LDS experts.

...

But then again, those LDS experts all have testimonies that it

is an authentic Hebrew text, translated into early 19th century English.

That is why I proposed translating the BoM back into idiomatic

biblical Hebrew of the early post-exilic period -- the Hebrew of

Ezra's day and age.

Then give that Hebrew text to non-LDS, Jewish experts and ask them if

the "hebraisms are interwoven so well into the fabric of the book"

as to prove its antiquity and authenticity.

As for the level of biblical Hebrew taught at Dartmouth in the

time of Ethan Smith, Solomon Spalding, Hyrum Smith, and Stephen

Mack's sons (all of whom were on campus at one time or another),

there was an article published in an old volume of the "William

and Mary University Journal" on that very subject. I'll try to

obtain a copy, if you cannot locate it yourself.

Let me tell you how I was introduced to the subject, when I took

Hebrew classes ---- The teacher began by citing a Bible verse,

in which both Jerusalem and Zion were mentioned. "Why did the writer

use the same geographic location, twice, providing alternative names?"

That was my teacher's question -- and in our study of the Bible, in

its original Hebrew, we came across this poetic parallelism again and

again -- often several times in a single chapter.

After showing us many such instances, our teacher then isolated

a number of verses in which the poetic parallelism included two

simple sentences, the second of which repeated the message of

the first in roughly a reverse order.

That is -- in some cases the re-ordering of the message was rough;

but in other cases, it was refined, so as to preserve a cadence

or a rhythm to the poetry (or semi-poetic prose).

Having introduced us to paired repetitions, simple reversed

re-statements, and poetic structure, our teacher went on to

discuss chaistic structures of four, six and eight lines.

This instruction was intermixed with a lot of teaching about

proper grammar, word-roots, vocabulary development, idioms,

-- and even obscure Hebrew puns -- which I've mostly forgotten.

It was all part of learning biblical Hebrew -- it was not an

independent lecture on chaistic prose or chaistic poetry.

I mostly recall the instruction, because we were forced to

compose sermons based upon the same sort of reverse parallelism.

That is, we began with a statement (usually a biblical quote)

and then worked through the body of the sermon to a central

point (the teacher called it the "watershed point") -- and

then repeated the sermon in more or less reverse order, ending

with some remark about the beginning quotation.

Without any thoughts of the Book of Mormon, I tied these two

concepts together in my own head -- that is, the structures

found throughout the Hebrew Bible, and the "in-and-out"

ordering of a religious sermon. In fact, there were some

cases in which the Bible itself supplied the chaistic structure,

and all I needed to do was to insert remarks, here and there,

appropriate to a modern audience.

Beyond all of that -- there were, in Spalding's day, specific

references to chiasmus in published writings, available to

poets, preachers and other writers. It was not an unknown subject.

Among the Jewish rabbis, who continually used biblical Hebrew,

it was not at all unknown.

Obscure?

Yes.

Arcane?

Yes.

Limited to the intellectuals?

Yes.

Unlikely to have been known to Joseph Smith?

Yes.

Impossible to have been a 19th century creation in the BoM?

No.

UD

[ELF1024]

It's not so much a matter of "having to claim this" as it is a matter of following the evidence. Did Joseph Smith ever claim to have translated the BoM in a few months like you say? I don't know. But I do know that he mentioned the plates and their subject matter a number of years before 1830. Lehi's dream is even older than that, attributed by Joseph's mother to Joseph Sr.

It's not the critics who are in need of verifiable arguments for a production time of a number of years. It's those who insist on the BoM's miraculous nature who need the "few months" to make it even more miraculous and divert attention away from more obvious, natural explanations.

I'm curious as to your math. As far as I know, apologists claim Nahom and Bountiful while the BoM has many more place names that cannot be tied with any degree of certainty to any known location. Purely on the matter of place names, I'd say the number of misses is far, far greater than the two hits (that are considered such by no one except LDS apologists).

I don't feel like re-writing the entire page. http://www.jefflinds...Evidences.shtml

Futhermore:

A New Evaluation of the Smithsonian Institution Statement regarding the Book of Mormon by John L. Sorenson

Authorship of the Book of Mormon, The by Noel B. Reynolds

Barley and Wheat in the Book Mormon by Robert R. Bennett

Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon by William J. Hamblin

Cement in the Book of Mormon by Robert R. Bennett

Evidences of the Book of Mormon by Daniel C. Peterson

Horses in the Book of Mormon by Robert R. Bennett

[Uncle Dale]

...

Impossible to have been a 19th century creation in the BoM?

No.

...

As I've already stated -- I think it is very unlikely that

Joseph Smith could have first of all composed the BoM in biblical

Hebrew, and then translated that composition into vernacular

English, preserving the many Hebraic structures he had originally

inserted into the text. I'd put the odds at one-in-a-million.

I think it equally unlikely that Hyrum could have pulled off a

similar trick -- even if he did obtain access to some materials

on biblical Hebrew during his studies on the Dartmouth campus.

Therefore -- if the world's expert scholars agree that the book

was originally composed in biblical Hebrew, that consensus

conclusion would strike a great blow against the Smith-alone

authorship theory, and would also impact the Smith+helpers

explanation adversely. While it is possible that Ethan Smith, or

Solomon Spalding, or their Dartmouth Hebrew professor, could have

first of all composed the Nephite Recoord in Hebrew; it is also

very unlikely that actually happened. I'd say that the odds of

these Dartmouth people having done such a thing are something

like one-in-ten thousand.

So, if the Mormons can get a consensus established, including the

non-LDS experts on biblical Hebrew's translation into English,

then THAT NON-SECTARIAN CONCLUSION would destroy the Smith-alone

authorship theory and cripple the Smith+helpers theory.

I doubt, very much, however, that the Apostles in Salt Lake City

would approve and authorize such a program of study, cooperating with

the Jewish rabbis and other non-Mormon language experts.

Uncle Dale

[Glenn101]

But then again, those LDS experts all have testimonies that it

is an authentic Hebrew text, translated into early 19th century English.

That is why I proposed translating the BoM back into idiomatic

biblical Hebrew of the early post-exilic period -- the Hebrew of

Ezra's day and age.

Wouldn't it be better to translate the Book of Mormon into pre-exilic Hebrew. That is the time frame for Lehi and his group. However, to find a scholar well versed in that area and willing to do a translation may be problematic. There have been a couple of attempts at a Hebrew translation which have failed due to the difficulty in finding a someone well versed in Biblical Hebrew.

However, it seems to me that the best method is to take what we have work with it. I think that Royal Skousen's critical text project may be the best candidate for a qualified and non-interested party (if such an one can be found) to look for evidences of Hebrew construction.

As for the level of biblical Hebrew taught at Dartmouth in the

time of Ethan Smith, Solomon Spalding, Hyrum Smith, and Stephen

Mack's sons (all of whom were on campus at one time or another),

there was an article published in an old volume of the "William

and Mary University Journal" on that very subject. I'll try to

obtain a copy, if you cannot locate it yourself.

I have been to the William and Mary website and can find no mention of a William and Mary Journal. I need some help in the right direction here. Do you know approximately when the article was published? I will try to do my homework but I need a little more information. An author or title would be helpful.

Let me tell you how I was introduced to the subject, when I took

Hebrew classes ---- The teacher began by citing a Bible verse,

in which both Jerusalem and Zion were mentioned. "Why did the writer

use the same geographic location, twice, providing alternative names?"

That was my teacher's question -- and in our study of the Bible, in

its original Hebrew, we came across this poetic parallelism again and

again -- often several times in a single chapter.

After showing us many such instances, our teacher then isolated

a number of verses in which the poetic parallelism included two

simple sentences, the second of which repeated the message of

the first in roughly a reverse order.

That is -- in some cases the re-ordering of the message was rough;

but in other cases, it was refined, so as to preserve a cadence

or a rhythm to the poetry (or semi-poetic prose).

Having introduced us to paired repetitions, simple reversed

re-statements, and poetic structure, our teacher went on to

discuss chaistic structures of four, six and eight lines.

This instruction was intermixed with a lot of teaching about

proper grammar, word-roots, vocabulary development, idioms,

-- and even obscure Hebrew puns -- which I've mostly forgotten.

It was all part of learning biblical Hebrew -- it was not an

independent lecture on chaistic prose or chaistic poetry.

I mostly recall the instruction, because we were forced to

compose sermons based upon the same sort of reverse parallelism.

That is, we began with a statement (usually a biblical quote)

and then worked through the body of the sermon to a central

point (the teacher called it the "watershed point") -- and

then repeated the sermon in more or less reverse order, ending

with some remark about the beginning quotation.

Without any thoughts of the Book of Mormon, I tied these two

concepts together in my own head -- that is, the structures

found throughout the Hebrew Bible, and the "in-and-out"

ordering of a religious sermon. In fact, there were some

cases in which the Bible itself supplied the chaistic structure,

and all I needed to do was to insert remarks, here and there,

appropriate to a modern audience.

Beyond all of that -- there were, in Spalding's day, specific

references to chiasmus in published writings, available to

poets, preachers and other writers. It was not an unknown subject.

Among the Jewish rabbis, who continually used biblical Hebrew,

it was not at all unknown.

Obscure?

Yes.

Arcane?

Yes.

Limited to the intellectuals?

Yes.

Unlikely to have been known to Joseph Smith?

Yes.

Impossible to have been a 19th century creation in the BoM?

No.

UD

Thanks for the info. As for your last statement, we are not looking for impossible. Plausible or probable will suffice.

(I.E. it is plausible that Solomon Spalding received training in Biblical Hebrew while at Dartmouth.)

By the way, what was your first reaction to the news that chiasmus has been found in the Book of Mormon?

Glenn

[Ariarates]

I don't feel like re-writing the entire page. http://www.jefflinds...Evidences.shtml

Futhermore:

A New Evaluation of the Smithsonian Institution Statement regarding the Book of Mormon by John L. Sorenson

Authorship of the Book of Mormon, The by Noel B. Reynolds

Barley and Wheat in the Book Mormon by Robert R. Bennett

Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon by William J. Hamblin

Cement in the Book of Mormon by Robert R. Bennett

Evidences of the Book of Mormon by Daniel C. Peterson

Horses in the Book of Mormon by Robert R. Bennett

I have not asked you to "re-write the entire page". I only asked how you reckon that two hits (Nahom and Bountiful) outnumber the misses (or lack of hits) on all the other BoM place names. Seems like a simple enough question.

I fail to see the relevance to this question of all the links you posted. I tried one link that looked relevant by the face of it, though. This is what I found:

First sentence: "Most anti-Mormon attacks on the authenticity of the Book of Mormon suffer from several severe logical flaws". Nothing like a broad generalization to dazzle your readers from the start. Pity though that there is not a single example to back up the assertion that "most anti-Mormon attacks" are like that. And what constitutes "anti-Mormon attacks" anyway?

But wait, it seems I spoke too soon: according to the abstract, the article is "Using arguments found in a recent anti-Mormon critique by Luke Wilson as a foundation". Sure, one reference is all it takes to dismiss a whole body of literature ("anti-Mormon attacks"). A body, I might add, that is not at all defined in the article under consideration. All the author does is pick out random arguments from his one source and proclaim them typically anti-Mormon.

I guess the author knows he's preaching to the choir and apparently doesn't think his audience merits the effort of decent scholarship. In fact, he admits as much at the end of his article: "[dismissing the BoM out of hand] has been the approach taken by anti-Mormons such as Wilson, and it is the reason why Wilson's criticisms can also be dismissed out of hand".

It would have been better to have started the article with that last sentence. That way, the unsuspecting reader is given fair warning that reading the article is, by the author's own admission, a waste of time.

[ELF1024]

I have not asked you to "re-write the entire page". I only asked how you reckon that two hits (Nahom and Bountiful) outnumber the misses (or lack of hits) on all the other BoM place names. Seems like a simple enough question.

I fail to see the relevance to this question of all the links you posted. I tried one link that looked relevant by the face of it, though. This is what I found:

First sentence: "Most anti-Mormon attacks on the authenticity of the Book of Mormon suffer from several severe logical flaws". Nothing like a broad generalization to dazzle your readers from the start. Pity though that there is not a single example to back up the assertion that "most anti-Mormon attacks" are like that. And what constitutes "anti-Mormon attacks" anyway?

But wait, it seems I spoke too soon: according to the abstract, the article is "Using arguments found in a recent anti-Mormon critique by Luke Wilson as a foundation". Sure, one reference is all it takes to dismiss a whole body of literature ("anti-Mormon attacks"). A body, I might add, that is not at all defined in the article under consideration. All the author does is pick out random arguments from his one source and proclaim them typically anti-Mormon.

I guess the author knows he's preaching to the choir and apparently doesn't think his audience merits the effort of decent scholarship. In fact, he admits as much at the end of his article: "[dismissing the BoM out of hand] has been the approach taken by anti-Mormons such as Wilson, and it is the reason why Wilson's criticisms can also be dismissed out of hand".

It would have been better to have started the article with that last sentence. That way, the unsuspecting reader is given fair warning that reading the article is, by the author's own admission, a waste of time.

There are more than just the two hits.

And since you choose not to respond to the articles meat, but to the fluffy beginnings, I assume that you don't wish to have a serious discussion.

[Glenn101]

Ariarates, on 25 October 2010 - 03:36 PM, said:

I have not asked you to "re-write the entire page". I only asked how you reckon that two hits (Nahom and Bountiful) outnumber the misses (or lack of hits) on all the other BoM place names. Seems like a simple enough question.

I fail to see the relevance to this question of all the links you posted. I tried one link that looked relevant by the face of it, though. This is what I found:

First sentence: "Most anti-Mormon attacks on the authenticity of the Book of Mormon suffer from several severe logical flaws". Nothing like a broad generalization to dazzle your readers from the start. Pity though that there is not a single example to back up the assertion that "most anti-Mormon attacks" are like that. And what constitutes "anti-Mormon attacks" anyway?

But wait, it seems I spoke too soon: according to the abstract, the article is "Using arguments found in a recent anti-Mormon critique by Luke Wilson as a foundation". Sure, one reference is all it takes to dismiss a whole body of literature ("anti-Mormon attacks"). A body, I might add, that is not at all defined in the article under consideration. All the author does is pick out random arguments from his one source and proclaim them typically anti-Mormon.

I guess the author knows he's preaching to the choir and apparently doesn't think his audience merits the effort of decent scholarship. In fact, he admits as much at the end of his article: "[dismissing the BoM out of hand] has been the approach taken by anti-Mormons such as Wilson, and it is the reason why Wilson's criticisms can also be dismissed out of hand".

It would have been better to have started the article with that last sentence. That way, the unsuspecting reader is given fair warning that reading the article is, by the author's own admission, a waste of time.

There are more than just the two hits.

And since you choose not to respond to the articles meat, but to the fluffy beginnings, I assume that you don't wish to have a serious discussion.

While I appreciate the comments from both of you, they are not really pertinent to the OP of this thread. I am not trying to make a case for or against the Book of Mormon. I am only trying to establish an evidence based case against the four named in the title as possible authors of the Book of Mormon. I have asked those who disagree to do so with some type of evidence, not just assertions.

Thanks,

Glenn

[Ariarates]

OK, I'll shut up. But not before reaffirming my attraction to the Rigdon hypothesis.

[Uncle Dale]

...

By the way, what was your first reaction to the news that chiasmus has been found in the Book of Mormon?

...

That, when Virgil wrote the Aeneid, he emulated Homer -- but

largely reversing the flow of poetic narrative after the

mid-point of the story.

It was a subtle and complex way of composing an epic, and I

was curious as to whether or not the entire BoM might have

been constructed in a manner similar to the Aeneid.

Then I forgot about the whole matter, until I was in graduate

seminary and was asked to offer up some reasons for why a

Latter Day Saint would attend a Protestant Institution. I

think I rattled off a few areas in which adherence to a

Nephite origin of the BoM could be defended ---- or, at least

investigated in a scholarly manner, without pre-judgment.

UD

[Glenn101]

That, when Virgil wrote the Aeneid, he emulated Homer -- but

largely reversing the flow of poetic narrative after the

mid-point of the story.

It was a subtle and complex way of composing an epic, and I

was curious as to whether or not the entire BoM might have

been constructed in a manner similar to the Aeneid.

Then I forgot about the whole matter, until I was in graduate

seminary and was asked to offer up some reasons for why a

Latter Day Saint would attend a Protestant Institution. I

think I rattled off a few areas in which adherence to a

Nephite origin of the BoM could be defended ---- or, at least

investigated in a scholarly manner, without pre-judgment.

UD

Thanks for the info. As for Dartmouth, I can find no divinity school listed. You have an article on one of your myriad websites which has a list of courses for circa 1800 and it does not list any divinity classes or Hebrew classes. Did Spalding do his divinity studies elsewhere?

Glenn

[Glenn101]

OK, I'll shut up. But not before reaffirming my attraction to the Rigdon hypothesis.

Although silence is maybe golden, I was only asking that you stay with the OP. For the Rigdon hypothesis to be plausible, it has some high hurdles to overcome. I have been pointing out a few of them and asking for some logical evidence based responses. I have not had much if any evidence au contraire as of yet, but plenty of opinions.

Glenn

[Uncle Dale]

Thanks for the info. As for Dartmouth, I can find no divinity school listed. You have an article on one of your myriad websites which has a list of courses for circa 1800 and it does not list any divinity classes or Hebrew classes. Did Spalding do his divinity studies elsewhere?

Glenn

You have to remember that Dartmouth offered its Divinity

courses as extra-credit work, supervised by an experienced

minister. Those courses were what we today would call

"graduate work."

The supervising minister would have generally lived at

or near Hanover (Dartmouth campus) and would have kept

in contact with the Dartmouth staff, regarding the student's

progress. Some course work would have been completed in

the minister's congregation, and some at his home, and

some on campus.

This was exactly the same system I went through in 1979-81

in obtaining my own MA degree and student pastorship.

The Divinity courses at Dartmouth were not a separate "school"

in the 1700s -- they were adjunct offerings for ministers-in-training.

Not all ministers would have taken a full course of biblical

Hebrew; but they would have completed courses in Greek, as

part of their under-graduate requirements.

I suggest you contact the Dartmouth Historian for details.

UD

[Uncle Dale]

...For the Rigdon hypothesis to be plausible

...

Once again, I need to ask "plausible to whom?"

If I can make it plausible to Sandra Tanner,

and she one day accepts the evidence, would

THAT meet the requirement?

Or, do we have to make it plausible to the

LDS First Presidency and Apostles? --- They

cannot ever declare it "plausible," without

first of all giving up their testimonies.

???

UD

[Glenn101]

Once again, I need to ask "plausible to whom?"

If I can make it plausible to Sandra Tanner,

and she one day accepts the evidence, would

THAT meet the requirement?

Or, do we have to make it plausible to the

LDS First Presidency and Apostles? --- They

cannot ever declare it "plausible," without

first of all giving up their testimonies.

???

UD

Read the rest (first) of the story.

Dale, the LDS scholars use widely accepted methods in developing their ideas and conclusions from the data they have at hand, in this case, the text of the Book of Mormon. To this point, no non-LDS scholar has challenged most or maybe any of their work. It may be that there are no non-LDS scholars who are interested in this, or that there are none who feel that it is worth their time, or maybe it is because the work of the LDS scholars is pretty good.

On the other hand, the LDS scholars do respond to work produced by other scholars. The Jockers study is a prime example. We are awaiting the published results of that as we print.

The work of the LDS scholars are freely available to be torn apart, critiqued, or whatever. It should be trivial for a qualified scholar to burst the bubble if it is so weak as you seem to think. But, up to now, it has not been done. No one seems to want to engage the body of scholarship produced by LDS scholars on the Book of Mormon. Why should I or any other person, LDS or not, buy into a theory when there is so much evidence against it that is not being addressed with any scholarly rigor?

Glenn

[Uncle Dale]

Read the rest (first) of the story.

...

"I, Nephi, having been born...."

Oops -- wrong story.

UD

[Glenn101]

"I, Nephi, having been born...."

Oops -- wrong story.

UD

(I edited my previous post also.)

Glenn

[charity]

I think you overstate the complexity of the characters in the Book of Mormon. Generally speaking, characters are very linear; they appear, they do some things, they die. Look at Ether 1: it's a very basic genealogy and the majority of these people simply live, rule, battle, and die in the space of a few verses before their descendants do the same. Many of the cities are mentioned for the first time in the context of their destruction - no prior mention whatsoever. Geographical place names are sparse. There are only a small handful of women named in the entire book, etc. When the 12 disciples are finally named it is the last mention for most of them. I agree that tracking characters on a separate piece of paper might be necessary, but see nothing in the book to make me believe this couldn't be accomplished fairly easily and I see nothing requring multiple drafts or rewrites. It's no Bros Karamazov.

How many complex, hundreds of word, hundreds of characters, a thousand years of time novels have you written? Oh, and have you read the Book of Mormon? The convoluted story of the groups that go off looking for the other breakoff groups, come across others not the breakoff group. . . it takes charts to keep it all straight. I sounds to me that your light dismissal of the ocmplexity comes from a base of no knowledge of the Book of Mormon at all.

[Maya]

About possible BoMs hebrew roots http://www.lds.net/forums/jewish-perspective-book-mormon/

Just a jewish rabbi telling his IMHO.

Why would JS ask Emma if there was a wall around Jerico... who was writting at that moment? Why JS never asked where they had stopped, before ... dinner... but just continued translation direct, where he had been? Even if done just for show it would require very special consentration as NEVER to go back to anything on the script.

[44Foxtrot]

- - - LDS scholars use widely accepted methods in developing their ideas and conclusions from the data they have at hand, in this case, the text of the Book of Mormon. To this point, no non-LDS scholar has challenged most or maybe any of their work.

LDS "scholars" who wish to remain LDS scholars start with the assumption that "The Church is True". This where their scholarship ends and their apologetics begins. This is especially the case when working in areas where LDS doctrine can be in conflict with science. LDS scholars who follow the data instead of the doctrine, and have the temerity to publish their findings, often end up as non-LDS scholars.

It may be that there are no non-LDS scholars who are interested in this, or that there are none who feel that it is worth their time, or maybe it is because the work of the LDS scholars is pretty good.

Any number of non-LDS scholars have looked at the testable truth claims of the Book or Mormon and of the Mormon religion. When hypotheses based on these truth claims are tested using logic and weight of evidence, the null hypothesis cannot be rejected and thus the alternative is invariably selected.

Any credible scientists who looks at the Book of Mormon is immediately struck by the large number of anachronisms contained therein. Unresolved anachronisms are a sure indication that the document or data set containing them is fraudulent. No credible scientists would bother to spend time working on a fraudulent data set. If you wish to understand this, just look at the careers of scientists who have been associated with fraud in their work. If the term "fraudulent" makes you uncomfortable, you can substitute "wholly unsupported by verifiable physical evidence" instead.

The work of the LDS scholars are freely available to be torn apart, critiqued, or whatever. It should be trivial for a qualified scholar to burst the bubble if it is so weak as you seem to think. But, up to now, it has not been done. No one seems to want to engage the body of scholarship produced by LDS scholars on the Book of Mormon. Why should I or any other person, LDS or not, buy into a theory when there is so much evidence against it that is not being addressed with any scholarly rigor?

Please see comments above. What is so hard to understand about the fact that credible scientists have no interest in working with demonstrably fraudulent data sets? The "work" of LDS scholars to understand and explain the "science" or even "facts" related to the BoM has about as much value to society as the work of "trekkies" to understand the science and fact associated with Star Trek. To mainstream scientists, the two pursuits have near identical value.

Both the Smithsonian and the National Geographic Society have released documents to the public explaining why the Book of Mormon is of no scientific interest whatsoever. Apparently many LDS scholars, and LDS members in general, have yet to get the message.