Revisiting Elder Holland's Sermon

[Daniel Peterson]

I've rebuked you? No, I've not done that.

Here (with apologies for the font gibberish) are a couple of typical items from 5 December 2004 :

Who are we suppose to lean upon to interpret scriptural texts when there are difficulties to be had:

[ ] prophets & apostles

[ ] school teachers

My choice is clear. I believe the vast testimonials given by the prophets & apostles and pretty much disregard the apologists and back peddling of GA's who don't want to go on record for making a clear stand.

I was recently involved in a long discussion about this topic and posted a string of references given by GA

[Paul Osborne]

Whos to say that is womens dress?

Scots wear kilts. One wonders where they got the idea

Now, Zakuska. A kilt IS a dress. You wouln't want to be wearing one to work or church, now would you?

Paul O

[Daniel Peterson]

And if your trajectory in the past few years is any indication, it continues to get darker with each passing day.

It's sad to watch.

Though I don't post there, I do still check in on the Dr. Dahesh board from time to time. I find it fascinating.

Paul's evolution there has, indeed, been very, very sad to watch.

[Zakuska]

Now, Zakuska. A kilt IS a dress. You wouln't want to be wearing one to work or church, now would you?

Paul O

The tongans in our stake wear their "dresses" to church. I see no probelm with it. Do you?

[Nevo]

So I've just watched the first excruciating hour of Craig Criddle's Ex-Mormon Conference presentation on the Spalding-Rigdon theory. So far I haven't heard anything particularly new. (Or maybe he's saving the best stuff for last. I guess I'll find out tomorrow.) If Criddle's talk represents the latest, cutting-edge research on the Spalding-Rigdon theory, then Book of Mormon defenders have nothing to worry about. Criddle is clearly no historian, and seems to have only a passing familiarity with the Book of Mormon. It's been rather eye-opening.

[Paul Osborne]

I've rebuked you? No, I've not done that.

Daniel,

I've not rebuked you as of late. I've pledged nothing but to express kindness and love even when we differ in opinion. I've made that very clear on the board that has no name. I will keep that promise. My errors of years gone by are over. I've learned from those mistakes.

Obviously, you have a fantasic memory and many wonderful skills that I admire. I'm wondering now if you are a bit of a grudge holder? Regardless, I love you all the same. I think you are a wonderful person.

Paul O

[Zakuska]

I've heard that he is seathing with anger.

[Paul Osborne]

The tongans in our stake wear their "dresses" to church. I see no probelm with it. Do you?

Yes I do. I wouldn't be caught dead wearing one, would you? You can wear a Tonga dress to church but not me.

Paul O

[Zakuska]

Id much rather go to church in my robe, and Sandals. Like Jesus did.

[Paul Osborne]

Id much rather go to church in my robe, and Sandals. Like Jesus did.

Yes! Yes! I hate suits and ties. Infact, I tossed all my suits and ties in the trash.

I like a nice pair of pants and a dressy shirt.

Paul O

[Uncle Dale]

...

I haven't heard anything particularly new.

...

I've been looking at this stuff for three decades, and had

never before seen a half dozen different "Spaldingish"

distributions, gathering in different ways and measured

in different ways, all plot out with "strong signals" in

Mosiah, Alma and Ether.

I had pointed out those parts of the BoM as having the highest

phraseology overlap with Spalding, back in 1982, but Lester Bush

faulted me for not presenting quantified data to back up my

conclusions. Now Criddle finally gets the quantitative stuff

graphed out, and I suppose folks can say it's nothing new.

If five different hunting dogs bark up a tree, perhaps it's

worth looking in the tree, to see what's there.

Now, as I said earlier in this thread, it can be argued that

all these recurring textual distribution patterns are happening

by coincidence -- or are real, but meaningless. Either way,

Dr. Bush now has the answer he demanded of me in his response

to my early paper on this very subject.

Craig really needed 2 hours to go through his entire powerpoint

presentation. If you'd like, I, Dale, being born of goodly parents,

can go through and make an abridgment, yea a record unto thee.

Just give me some time to get this stuff on the web. I just went

through six months of eye surgeries, remember.

UD

[Daniel Peterson]

I'm wondering now if you are a bit of a grudge holder?

Nope. That's not among my flaws. Quite the opposite, in fact. I find it hard to retain a grudge even when I want to. I simply get distracted.

But I do have a good memory, and I remember very well the endless stream of posts in which you denigrated me as a mere "school teacher" and sought to depict a battle between the prophets and apostles and the "school teachers." You, of course, were on the side of the prophets and apostles. But now, it seems, the school teacher is on the side of a prophet and apostle, and you're against both. On the Dr. Dahesh board, where you used to routinely announce that you disliked me, you've recently been announcing that you dislike Elder Holland. I find that curious, and striking.

[Paul Osborne]

Nope. That's not among my flaws. Quite the opposite, in fact. I find it hard to retain a grudge even when I want to. I simply get distracted.

But I do have a good memory, and I remember very well the endless stream of posts in which you denigrated me as a mere "school teacher" and sought to depict a battle between the prophets and apostles and the "school teachers." You, of course, were on the side of the prophets and apostles. But now, it seems, the school teacher is on the side of a prophet and apostle, and you're against both. On the Dr. Dahesh board, where you used to routinely announce that you disliked me, you've recently been announcing that you dislike Elder Holland. I find that curious, and striking.

My advice is to completely forgive me of any offenses you feel I dished out and try and forget them. You can be assured that I like you as a person and anyone who knows anything about me on the Internet knows I'm pretty honest in what I say.

My dislike towards elder Holland stems from that one talk and not from any other talk. It really turned me off! It was dark. I think he has some issues he needs to work out with his priesthood leader. It's a fine line between me judging another person and simply trying to give my reasons why someone upset me. Something seemed really off and I expressed my views about it. That's what we do on these boards.

Paul O

[Nevo]

Now, as I said earlier in this thread, it can be argued that all these recurring textual distribution patterns are happening by coincidence -- or are real, but meaningless. Either way, Dr. Bush now has the answer he demanded of me in his response to my early paper on this very subject.

Craig really needed 2 hours to go through his entire powerpoint presentation. If you'd like, I, Dale, being born of goodly parents, can go through and make an abridgment, yea a record unto thee. Just give me some time to get this stuff on the web. I just went through six months of eye surgeries, remember.

That's a kind offer. I actually wouldn't mind seeing what you thought were the salient points, at your convenience of course.

I think I am fairly familiar with Mosiah, Alma, and Ether, and I've read some of Spalding's Oberlin MS. But strong Spalding-ish wordprint signals or not, I see no grounds for positing a relationship between the two texts. Spalding's style could hardly be more different than that of the author(s) of the Book of Mormon. And in terms of content any points of comparison are superficial at best.

In my estimation, Spalding's writing (aptly described by John Hamer as "utterly artless") displays none of the qualities that make the Book of Mormon great.

[Uncle Dale]

...

I see no grounds for positing a relationship between the two texts

...

Do you see any grounds for positing a relationship between Treasure Island

and Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde? Or between Huckleberry Finn and

A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court?

If you did not know that two books were written by a common author, you probably

would "see no grounds for positing a relationship between the two texts," unless

their common phraseology (or common story themes) were pointed out to you.

With the alleged Spalding/BoM relationship, it is not even that clear-cut,

because, going back to 1834, the claim has always been that ONLY PART of the

BoM originated with Spalding.

An earlier poster here asked me what Elder Holland meant by the word "deconstruction?"

I suppose that the Apostle was referring to something along the lines of what Criddle

and I are attempting to do ---- that is, to separate out the sections of text which

can be reasonably attributed to Spalding (by one method or another).

Until that task has reached completion, I do not expect you to "see grounds for positing

a relationship between the two texts." Can you look at a hunk of metallic ore and

judge the relationship of its copper content, versus its silver content? Probably not.

Once that ore is refined and the metals separated, you can determine whether the

silver content was 10% or 90%.

Give me some time to put this stuff together.If you have suggestions, fine -- but

merely informing me that you hold to your old LDS viewpoint does nothing to help.

Even today there are fundamentalist Christians who reject the multiple authorship

of Genesis. They say that the book was written by Moses, because that is their belief.

To change their belief would change their religion. Other people says that Isaiah

was the author of the entire book bearing his name -- that it is impossible that

the book had two, or even three, writers.

I expect that there will always be Mormons who reject data indicating multiple

19th century sources evident in a composite BoM text. Those people are not my

intended audience. I do not expect to change their minds, any more than I expect

to change the mind of a fundamentalist Christian who rejects multiple Genesis

authorship.

So why do I post on this MB, if I already know that 99.99999% of all Mormons

will reject multiple 19th century BoM authorship? Primarily I do so in order

to garner constructive criticism. Now and then I receive such input, and it

helps me re-work my explanations and to make better presentations of my material.

But mostly I get dismissals -- sometimes polite, sometimes snide.

UD

[Theseus]

When considering these competing explanations for the origin of the Book of Mormon, how do the Spalding and Ethan Smith theories compare to the supernatural explanation in terms of being "pathetic"? I would venture a guess that if someone asked me where I thought the text for the Book of Mormon came from and I answered that it was transmitted from golden plates (which were hidden in the woods) by God's power through a peep stone placed in a hat by a young treasure seeker who later had 30 wives, they would be more likely to say that the Spalding and Ethan Smith theories were less pathetic in comparison. I realize there are some holes and tough questions facing both of the critical theories, but if they are "pathetic", what would we call the supernatural explanation?

Theseus

[Uncle Dale]

When considering these competing explanations for the origin of the Book of Mormon,

how do the Spalding and Ethan Smith theories compare to the supernatural explanation

in terms of being "pathetic"?

If by "supernatural" you mean the explanation which involves the ministering of angels

and claims for direct, plenary revelation from God Almighty, I'd say that the LDS

explanation of things relies far more on "pathos," than does the 19th century explanation.

A few years back I had the opportunity of re-visiting the Liberty Jail Visitors' Center

and was conducted through that modern shrine by the guide then on duty, Elder Bear. After

recounting the Mormon prisoners' experience inside the jail, the LDS guide bore his very

emotional testimony of the authenticity of the BoM -- breaking into tears at the point

where he mentioned the extermination of the Nephites. He felt it a terrible tragedy that

those armies -- once so white and Christian -- had dwindled in unbelief, to the point

that God abandoned them, and those savages, cursed with a skin of blackness, killed them.

That was an effective use of pathos, in communicating the LDS explanation of the book.

The guide also wept over the vast destruction of human life accompanying the descent of

Christ from the heavens, in 3rd Nephi. I had the audacity to ask whether he was crying

for Christ's murder of the innocent infants in those destroyed Nephite cities, but the

good elder misunderstood my question. His final tears were shed for the Mormons departing

Missouri in the winter of 1838-39 -- who, he told us, walked from Far West to Nauvoo,

bare and bloody-footed, in the deep snow. I did not have the heart to inform Elder Bear that

it had been a cool, dry winter and that the Mormons found help along the way -- including

rags to wrap their bleeding (?) feet in, when necessary.

At any rate, I have never heard an advocate of Ethan Smith/Solomon Spalding influence

upon the BoM text break into sobs, when setting the stage for a baptismal challenge.

As I left Liberty Jail, I had the feeling that Elder Bear was about to invite me into

the baptismal pool -- as Alma had done with his supposed ancient audience.

I would venture a guess that if someone asked me where I thought the text for the

Book of Mormon came from and I answered that it was transmitted from golden plates

(which were hidden in the woods) by God's power through a peep stone placed in a hat

by a young treasure seeker who later had 30 wives, they would be more likely to say

that the Spalding and Ethan Smith theories were less pathetic in comparison.

Yes -- I might cry for those deflowered virgins as well. They deserved a better husband

than Brother Joseph. I doubt that their mother-in-law ever even invited the poor things

over to the Smith Homestead cabin in Nauvoo, for a warm cup of Postum. Their weddings

announcements were not published in the Times and Seasons. Pathetic creatures!

I realize there are some holes and tough questions facing both of the critical theories,

but if they are "pathetic", what would we call the supernatural explanation?

Theseus

If we stand back and take a broad over-view of the "supernatural explanation," perhaps

we can somehow discern the hand of God in those purported events. At least that seems

to be the conclusion of the leaders of Community of Christ. Visit the bookstore in their

Jackson County Temple, and you'll see Dan Vogel's books, displayed for sale, next to

the official RLDS standard works, containing the witnesses' statements of their divinity.

If that does not strike the customer as something odd, I know not what else would.

UD

[Uncle Dale]

...

In my estimation, Spalding's writing (aptly described by John Hamer as "utterly artless") displays none of the

qualities that make the Book of Mormon great.

Sidney Rigdon would probably have agreed with you. If my estimation of our history

is correct, Rigdon came upon Spalding's writings experiencing the same feelings of

frustration I get when I read that writer's "Roman story." There Spalding tells of

the first preColumbian Christians in America -- he even recounts their experience

of a miracle sent from God, accompanied by direct, Divine revelation. But that account

is utterly artless and insipid. Imagine Rigdon's frustrations in reading such stuff.

It has a tremendous theme and a piddling style. It literally begs for editing --

for re-writing by a true believer in preColumbian American Christianity.

You see, Nevo, the chart I presented in this thread earlier only has the Spalding

language parallels displayed. Rigdon's contributions are only represented by the

small, blue-colored chapter-designations at the top of the chart.

In order to fully appreciate Rigdon's revamping of Spalding, you need to get deep

into the text -- looking at redaction on the sentence and paragraph level. It is

Rigdon's additions, reformulations and (I suspect) deletions, of Spalding's

"utterly artless" narration, which gives the Book of Mormon its theological richness.

Spalding's Conneaut auditors did not recall any religious material in the portions

of his fictional history presented to their eyes and ears in Ohio. Perhaps they were

mainly familiar with what we now call the lost Book of Lehi. But Spalding went on

to Pennsylvania, and it is reported that the local publisher rejected his submission

and advised him to make revisions. He is reported to have then spent the winter of

1813-14 in the home of Alexander Campbell's friend and associate, Hugh Wilson,

re-writing his "Manuscript Found." My conclusion is that it was there, in the Wilson

home, that Spalding inserted his Christian Nephites. If so, he made a lengthier

insertion of preColumbian Christianity there, than he had done in the Roman story.

Hugh Wilson was on hand, in 1823, inside of Rigdon's chapel in Pittsburgh, when

Rigdon was expelled from his own congregation, by Baptists assembled from all

around the region. By then Solomon Spalding was dead, of course. But Rigdon and

Spalding were linked by "one degree of separation," not only in the person of

Hugh Wilson, but in the person of Rebecca Johnston, who knew both men in Pittsburgh,

and by Mary Rigdon, Sidney's aunt, who lived in the tiny hamlet of Amity with the

Spalding family. Solomon's path and Sidney's path crossed now and then. And, in

one of those crossings, I'm convinced that Rigdon was just as much appalled as

you and I are, at Spalding's "utterly artless" account of King Benjamin, etc.

Perhaps you will object, saying that Dale Broadhurst is the only person in the world

who presents such a crazy theory, as to say that Christian Nephites were Spalding's

invention. Perhaps it is a crazy theory --- but one that I adopted only very slowly

and reluctantly, after re-reading, many times over, those parts of our BoM where

Spalding's vocabulary and phraseology are the strongest. That overlap of language

is not limited to the "war stories" in both texts. The overlaps may be most easily

noticed in the "war stories," but they occur again, at a less blatant level, in the

"more religious part" of our Book of Mormon as well. Critics of the Spalding-Rigdon

authorship explanation have said that the BoM could never have been first written

as a secular fiction, and then transformed into a religious revelation by Rigdon.

I'm beginning to agree with those old LDS critics -- I think they were right in

that conclusion. Rigdon had to start off with a story containing religious material.

If anybody is interested, I'll try "deconstruct" Spalding's presumed mild account

of Nephite religion, and postulate how Rigdon redacted it, into what Craig Criddle

calls "restoration religion on steroids."

UD

.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Do you see any grounds for positing a relationship between Treasure Island

and Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde? Or between Huckleberry Finn and

A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court?

If you did not know that two books were written by a common author, you probably

would "see no grounds for positing a relationship between the two texts," unless

their common phraseology (or common story themes) were pointed out to you.

This would be more persuasive if Spalding had any writing talent, but he didn't.

[LifeOnaPlate]

You see, Nevo, the chart I presented in this thread earlier only has the Spalding

language parallels displayed. Rigdon's contributions are only represented by the

small, blue-colored chapter-designations at the top of the chart.

In order to fully appreciate Rigdon's revamping of Spalding, you need to get deep

into the text -- looking at redaction on the sentence and paragraph level. It is

Rigdon's additions, reformulations and (I suspect) deletions, of Spalding's

"utterly artless" narration, which gives the Book of Mormon its theological richness.

This reminds me, from the Revelations and Translations volume of the JSPP we learn that Rigdon was not a fan of thee's and thou's and so forth, he would change them. This is peculiar given that the Book of Mormon isn't too shy about these terms.

[William Schryver]

UD:

If we stand back and take a broad over-view of the "supernatural explanation," perhaps we can somehow discern the hand of God in those purported events. At least that seems to be the conclusion of the leaders of Community of Christ. Visit the bookstore in their Jackson County Temple, and you'll see Dan Vogel's books, displayed for sale, next to the official RLDS standard works, containing the witnesses' statements of their divinity. If that does not strike the customer as something odd, I know not what else would.

I know it struck me as odd, as also did the same scenario in the bookstore at the CoC visitor's center in Kirtland, OH, adjacent to their apparently not-so-treasured-anymore temple which, when I visited, was in serious need of some maintenance, although the grounds were nicely kept.

In any case, it is, I believe, a telling (and sad) commentary on our now-distant restoration cousins that Vogel's "biography" and the "CoC" scriptures are displayed side by side in their bookstores.

[Nevo]

His final tears were shed for the Mormons departing Missouri in the winter of 1838-39 -- who, he told us, walked from Far West to Nauvoo, bare and bloody-footed, in the deep snow. I did not have the heart to inform Elder Bear that it had been a cool, dry winter and that the Mormons found help along the way -- including rags to wrap their bleeding (?) feet in, when necessary.

You're quite right, Dale. They did often have rags to wrap their bleeding feet in, and the snow was only six inches deep.

Daniel and Martha Thomas left Far West on 14 February with one wagon and five children who had but one pair of shoes among them. Martha was eight months pregnant. The snow was six inches deep. Martha recalled, "To hear them [the children] crying at night with their feet cracked and bleeding was a grievous sight for a mother to bear. I would often grease them and put on clean stockings instead of making them wash them [feet] when going to bed." At the river, they stalled for two weeks. They gave up their wagon for use to bring others from Far West. Daniel rigged a tent out of forked stakes, poles, and quilts. "Our corn bread was frosen so hard I had to take the ax and break it and give it to the children to gnaw at, the bread looking like chunks of ice," Daniel said.

----------------------------------

Nancy Hammer, whose husband had been killed in the Haun

[William Schryver]

You're quite right, Dale. They did often have rags to wrap their bleeding feet in, and the snow was only six inches deep.

I'll bet I've had winter walks out to retrieve the newspaper that were equally as trying, "cool and dry" though they might have been.

[rockslider]

I'll bet I've had winter walks out to retrieve the newspaper that were equally as trying, "cool and dry" though they might have been.

man up dude, we are talking women and children here ... ya sissy

[Uncle Dale]

You're quite right, Dale. They did often have rags to wrap their bleeding feet in, and the

snow was only six inches deep.

A cool dry winter, the meteorological records say -- the local papers say.

The Mormons who walked on the roadway to Illinois did not leave bloody footprints

in the snow. The roadway was clear, except perhaps after one or two light

snow-falls. Walking on the frozen mud (or the thawing mud, on some warmer days)

would have been no picnic -- but no different from the experience of any poor

Missourians who could not afford shoes, out on the frontier in that season.

My own ancestors made that trip. If you read the LDS history, you'll see that

they volunteered to stay until the end, helping out the last destitute families.

By then (March-April of 1839) the snow was gone. Snow never lasts long in Missouri.

They had more trouble in finding feed for their starving livestock -- since

departing Mormons ahead of them had bought up all the hay/grain/grass along the way.

Like the Rigdon and Smith families, my ancestors left in wagons -- at least they

were in wagons when they reached Illinois, because they had to wait for ferries

to get them across the thawing river.

None of which has much bearing on Book of Mormon authorship. The plight of my

ancestors and the last, poorest Saints they rescued from Missouri was indeed

"pathetic." Perhaps the extermination of the Nephites was equally pathetic.

But I'll reserve my feelings of pathos for real ancestors, thank you -- and

not for Mr. Spalding's fictional ancient mound-builders.

UD

.