Two voices in the Book of Mormon

[Kevin Christensen]

1. Combine the great doctrinal discourses in the BOM. I'll quickly throw out a group, though this is obviously not exhaustive. 2 Nephi 2, 2 Nephi 9, 2 Nephi 31, Mosiah 2-5, Mosiah 16, Alma 5, Alma 7, Alma 34, Alma 40-41, Ether 12, Moroni 7, Moroni 10. This set of verses spans multiple BOM voices, yet they are all extremely consistent. They read like one voice.

By what standard of measure do they read like one voice? I see a Patriarch giving a dying blessing to a son, that son presiding in a Day of Atonement discourse, and editor/author giving testimony, an elaborate coronation discourse involving themes from the Day of Atonement, Feast of the Tabernacles, Sabbath Year and Jubilee. Just for starters. John Welch noted that Benjamin's discourse is the only place where the extended names like Lord God Omnipotent are used, and that they happen to be use at important ceremonial breaking points in the disourse, the correct number of times to fit the utterance of Yahweh by the High Priest on the Day of Atonement. If we consider this distinctive feature, for instance, as unique to Benjamin, what happens to the notion of "one voice?" Then of course, I have also to consider Alma speaking distinctively as a near-death experiencer versus Moroni and Mormon speaking distinctively in the mode of Survivor Witnesses (see the Thomasson-Hawkins paper on Survivor Witness in the Book of Mormon. Grant Hardy, wrote a paper about the unique style of Jacob.

The point is, how do you measure? What do you notice and what do you value to come up with the judgment? And in making those selections and valuations, are you overlooking anything crucially distinctive?

2. Take these chapters as one doctrinal work and compare them to doctrine in various time periods. Anything resemble it in Israel 600 BC? or any other time prior to the ministry of Christ? Nope, nothing even close. What about early Christianity? Not really. What about modern Christianity? Not so much. What about modern LDS teachings? No, you get some crossover but a typical general conference is much more doctrinally diverse. What about 1840's Mormonism? Not even close. What about early 1800's American Christianity? Bullseye.

What about First Temple Theology? Even Margaret Barker herself is impressed.

3. Then, this is where I think it gets interesting. If you only had to choose as possible authors between Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon as the author of this work, who would you choose? This is a very limited theology. Joseph was always interested in the grander scheme. The magical, mystical things in his younger years and then after the organization of the church, quickly into the cosmos and exaltation of man and the unique doctrines. Joseph wan't interested in the finer arguments within the Christian community. Rigdon definitely was.

Generalizations should have something behind them (specific evidence), and should be able to provide accurate predictions (more specifics).

I was very impressed by John Gee's little essay, The Wrong Type of Book, which pointed out telling stylistic and thematic commonalities between Spalding, View of the Hebrews, and The Book of Puki, some related to Classical education and style, and to contrast with the Book of Mormon.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=8&chapid=66

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Ariarates]

Persoanlly, i think it one of the weakest. Beyond the unwieldiness of the conspiracy, would anyone care to explain why there is no contact with Rigdon until after the church was organized?

That, I agree, is an intriguing and puzzling bit. But not as puzzling as the magic stone in the hat, I would say.

[robuchan]

By what standard of measure do they read like one voice? I see a Patriarch giving a dying blessing to a son, that son presiding in a Day of Atonement discourse, and editor/author giving testimony, an elaborate coronation discourse involving themes from the Day of Atonement, Feast of the Tabernacles, Sabbath Year and Jubilee. Just for starters. John Welch noted that Benjamin's discourse is the only place where the extended names like Lord God Omnipotent are used, and that they happen to be use at important ceremonial breaking points in the disourse, the correct number of times to fit the utterance of Yahweh by the High Priest on the Day of Atonement. If we consider this distinctive feature, for instance, as unique to Benjamin, what happens to the notion of "one voice?" Then of course, I have also to consider Alma speaking distinctively as a near-death experiencer versus Moroni and Mormon speaking distinctively in the mode of Survivor Witnesses (see the Thomasson-Hawkins paper on Survivor Witness in the Book of Mormon. Grant Hardy, wrote a paper about the unique style of Jacob.

The point is, how do you measure? What do you notice and what do you value to come up with the judgment? And in making those selections and valuations, are you overlooking anything crucially distinctive?

What about First Temple Theology? Even Margaret Barker herself is impressed.

Generalizations should have something behind them (specific evidence), and should be able to provide accurate predictions (more specifics).

I was very impressed by John Gee's little essay, The Wrong Type of Book, which pointed out telling stylistic and thematic commonalities between Spalding, View of the Hebrews, and The Book of Puki, some related to Classical education and style, and to contrast with the Book of Mormon.

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=8&chapid=66

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Did John Welch check Handel for other uses of Lord God Omnipotent? (edit, I think I misunderstood you. Do you mean it is the only time in the BOM that this title is used? i.e. distinguishing it from other BOM passages?)

I'm aware of the King Benjamin comparison to Old Testament and modern temple rites. I don't find it that compelling.

I haven't read the Gee essay. I'll check it out, thanks.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

That, I agree, is an intriguing and puzzling bit. But not as puzzling as the magic stone in the hat, I would say.

So the stone in the hat is hard to swallow but not the U&T?? I think you just have a problem with a supernatrual explination. All other theories that don't involve a supernatural explination fail miserably to explain some major issues with the BoM. Just stating that JS wrote or SR or SS wrote it has always been a weak case built on a string of very loose facts.

Surely you could answer Volga's question? I mean you guys are really good at comming up with possibilites and then running with it.

[Kevin Christensen]

Did John Welch check Handel for other uses of Lord God Omnipotent? (edit, I think I misunderstood you. Do you mean it is the only time in the BOM that this title is used? i.e. distinguishing it from other BOM passages?)

I'm aware of the King Benjamin comparison to Old Testament and modern temple rites. I don't find it that compelling.

I haven't read the Gee essay. I'll check it out, thanks.

You are welcome. I think Gee produced an insightful gem.

Welch's essay discussed the unique use in the Book of Mormon. The ritual comparisons that Nibley, Welch and Szink, and others have done is with ancient temple rites and Israelite traditions, much of which is not found in the Old Testament. And Hashbaz (Mark Wright), for instance, compared the account of King Benjamin's discourse with recently discovered San Bartelo Murals, which are not modern, but exactly contemporary with Benjamin, and geographically not all that far from Nephite territory. I know that Palmer borrowed Brent Metcalfe's four-step revival formula as an explanation. But whereas Brent did at least footnote other approaches, though without confronting them, Palmer didn't even do that, even when his sources (Blake Ostler, for example), did.

Notice the title: "King Benjamin's Discourse in the Context of Ancient Israelite Festivals:"

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=31&chapid=119

And the Ancient Farewell Address form:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=31&chapid=117

And the Ancient and Medieval Coronation comparison by Nibley:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=31&chapid=118

And Tvedtnes on the Feast of the Tabernacles:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=109&chapid=1259

I put some of the Mesoamerican stuff from San Bartelo in here:

http://www.meridianmagazine.com/bookofmormon/080519king.html

Hashbaz did a much better job in his posting on the topic here.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[robuchan]

You are welcome. I think Gee produced an insightful gem.

Welch's essay discussed the unique use in the Book of Mormon. The ritual comparisons that Nibley, Welch and Szink, and others have done is with ancient temple rites and Israelite traditions, much of which is not found in the Old Testament. And Hashbaz (Mark Wright), for instance, compared the account of King Benjamin's discourse with recently discovered San Bartelo Murals, which are not modern, but exactly contemporary with Benjamin, and geographically not all that far from Nephite territory. I know that Palmer borrowed Brent Metcalfe's four-step revival formula as an explanation. But whereas Brent did at least footnote other approaches, though without confronting them, Palmer didn't even do that, even when his sources (Blake Ostler, for example), did.

Notice the title: "King Benjamin's Discourse in the Context of Ancient Israelite Festivals:"

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=31&chapid=119

And the Ancient Farewell Address form:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=31&chapid=117

And the Ancient and Medieval Coronation comparison by Nibley:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=31&chapid=118

And Tvedtnes on the Feast of the Tabernacles:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=109&chapid=1259

I put some of the Mesoamerican stuff from San Bartelo in here:

http://www.meridianmagazine.com/bookofmormon/080519king.html

Hashbaz did a much better job in his posting on the topic here.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

Just a generic comment here, I think a lot of times you scholar types value academic standards over logic.

I don't really care if someone stole an idea from someone or didn't footnote their material perfectly. This is a good time to mention the Gee piece you link. Lots of footnotes, well documented, zero point to it. Sorry, but totally not compelling.

When I look at the three articles. 1) the first one I link to from Donofrio, 2) the parallel article by Ben McGuire, 3) this Jon Gee piece on parallels in BOM, here's the lay man analysis. Donofrio: worst of the three as far as academic standards, doesn't prove anything but brings up some somewhat compelling points. McGuire: provides some good overall principles of evaluating parallels. Gives me a reason to doubt Donofrio's assertions, but doesn't prove anything and leaves me still wondering. Gee: top notch academic standards, absolutely worthless as far as furthering light and knowledge on anything whatsoever. Doesn't even make me take a one second pause in reevaluating anything Donofrio said.

Finally, I just want to say I didn't start this thread to argue Donofrio's case of finding parallels between BOM and various sources. The point I wanted to make for this thread was discussing the potential value of dividing the BOM into the historical narrative and the doctrinal discourses and pursuing the textual analysis, the word print studies, etc as two separate documents. And of the two, I'm more interested in the doctrinal discourses and the Rigdon connection with those than the historical narrative and the Spalding connection.

[Glenn101]

Just a generic comment here, I think a lot of times you scholar types value academic standards over logic.

I don't really care if someone stole an idea from someone or didn't footnote their material perfectly. This is a good time to mention the Gee piece you link. Lots of footnotes, well documented, zero point to it. Sorry, but totally not compelling.

When I look at the three articles. 1) the first one I link to from Donofrio, 2) the parallel article by Ben McGuire, 3) this Jon Gee piece on parallels in BOM, here's the lay man analysis. Donofrio: worst of the three as far as academic standards, doesn't prove anything but brings up some somewhat compelling points. McGuire: provides some good overall principles of evaluating parallels. Gives me a reason to doubt Donofrio's assertions, but doesn't prove anything and leaves me still wondering. Gee: top notch academic standards, absolutely worthless as far as furthering light and knowledge on anything whatsoever. Doesn't even make me take a one second pause in reevaluating anything Donofrio said.

Finally, I just want to say I didn't start this thread to argue Donofrio's case of finding parallels between BOM and various sources. The point I wanted to make for this thread was discussing the potential value of dividing the BOM into the historical narrative and the doctrinal discourses and pursuing the textual analysis, the word print studies, etc as two separate documents. And of the two, I'm more interested in the doctrinal discourses and the Rigdon connection with those than the historical narrative and the Spalding connection.

Just what is it that you are not impressed with about John Gee's little essay? It is one thing to airily dismiss his work as not compelling or shedding no useful light on anything. If you feel this way, you must have completely missed the points he was making. Would you care to give us your expert analysis of the essay and help us understnad why it is useless? Others have been pretty impressed with it.

Glenn

[robuchan]

Just what is it that you are not impressed with about John Gee's little essay? It is one thing to airily dismiss his work as not compelling or shedding no useful light on anything. If you feel this way, you must have completely missed the points he was making. Would you care to give us your expert analysis of the essay and help us understnad why it is useless? Others have been pretty impressed with it.

Glenn

You have 10,000 variables you can correlate on between BOM and Ethan Smith or whatever you're looking at. One guy sees 100 variables that match and writes about it, saying it's proof it was used as source material. OK, decent case, maybe maybe not, let's look into a little more. To answer that, Gee finds 10 variables that don't match and writes about it, asserting it proves the first guy wrong. But it's footnoted, so it impresses people?

[Pahoran]

Personally, I find the Spalding-Rigdon theory the most convincing of the lot.

Thank you for that confession, Aria. It must be true, given that it reflects so poorly upon you.

That said, whatever theory you come up with, it always has to compete with the current official story of an angel appearing to Joseph Smith telling him where to find ancient gold plates which he then translated from an unknown language by means of looking at a magic stone in a hat (I say "current official story" because the magic stone in the hat has only relatively recently become known in somewhat wider circles, although I am pretty sure that there are plenty of LDS still unaware of this little tale).

So, is the Spalding-Rigdon story more likely to be true than the official one? I'd say...

Aria, I don't know if you've ever actually looked at an official LDS source long enough to figure out what it says, but there is no source that talks about "a magic stone in a hat." No credible source, anyway. Those who introduce derisive terms like "magic" into discussions about the events of the Restoration never do so in good faith. They are always, and without exception, doing so to prejudice the outcome of the discussion.

And yes, I am in this instance using the bolded terms with mathematical precision.

Regards,

Pahoran

[LinuxGal]

And not so incidentally, in the Book of Mormon, the lost 10 Tribes are lost, and are expressly not the Book of Mormon peoples. Many readers, including Harvard's Harold Bloom, assume otherwise, but in so doing only demonstrate that they have not bothered to read closely.

In the Book of Mormon, the "lost" tribes are not lost, only led away by the father to a place that the Nephites and Lamanites knew not, and Jesus appeared to them as well. If they are still around, they are doing better than the Nephites and Lamanites did, because those particular branches of Judah truly are lost today.

3 Nephi 17:4 But now I go unto the Father, and also to show myself unto the lost tribes of Israel, for they are not lost unto the Father, for he knoweth whither he hath taken them.

[Ariarates]

So the stone in the hat is hard to swallow but not the U&T?? I think you just have a problem with a supernatrual explination. All other theories that don't involve a supernatural explination fail miserably to explain some major issues with the BoM. Just stating that JS wrote or SR or SS wrote it has always been a weak case built on a string of very loose facts.

Surely you could answer Volga's question? I mean you guys are really good at comming up with possibilites and then running with it.

I cannot answer Volga's question in detail but I propose we hold the two categories of explanation (supernatural and natural) to the same standards. For example, if you accept the official story and explain the supernatural aspects of it by invoking faith or saying "nothing is impossible with God", surely you can apply the same explanation to the difficult aspects of the Spalding-Rigdon theory. Likewise, if you're going to reject the Spalding-Rigdon theory on rational grounds, surely the same fate will befall the official version?

[USU78]

I cannot answer Volga's question in detail but I propose we hold the two categories of explanation (supernatural and natural) to the same standards. For example, if you accept the official story and explain the supernatural aspects of it by invoking faith or saying "nothing is impossible with God", surely you can apply the same explanation to the difficult aspects of the Spalding-Rigdon theory. Likewise, if you're going to reject the Spalding-Rigdon theory on rational grounds, surely the same fate will befall the official version?

Your faith is vain . . . believe me!

[Ariarates]

Aria, I don't know if you've ever actually looked at an official LDS source long enough to figure out what it says, but there is no source that talks about "a magic stone in a hat." No credible source, anyway. Those who introduce derisive terms like "magic" into discussions about the events of the Restoration never do so in good faith. They are always, and without exception, doing so to prejudice the outcome of the discussion.

I was born and raised with the official story. I agree that you will be hard-pressed to find official sources for the "magic stone in a hat" story (which is why I pointed out that most LDS are still unaware of it) but they are there, like Elder Nelson's 1993 General Conference talk. Are you denying that this is how the BoM was translated?

Applying the label "derisive" to the term "magic" is entirely your own interpretation, as is your definition of "good faith" and your attributing ulterior motives to people using the term. Most people who are less defensive than you would readily apply the term "magic" to a stone which lights up in the dark, shows characters of an unknown language on a parchment (although the actual characters are engraved on gold plates) with English subtitles. If you don't believe me, go out on the streets and ask: what would you call a stone that has the following qualities...?

[volgadon]

I cannot answer Volga's question in detail but I propose we hold the two categories of explanation (supernatural and natural) to the same standards. For example, if you accept the official story and explain the supernatural aspects of it by invoking faith or saying "nothing is impossible with God", surely you can apply the same explanation to the difficult aspects of the Spalding-Rigdon theory. Likewise, if you're going to reject the Spalding-Rigdon theory on rational grounds, surely the same fate will befall the official version?

One can reject both. Forget the official version, involving miraculous means such as the U&T and the stone in the hat, and focus on why the central player in the S-R conspiracy would have no role in the restoration until AFTER the BoM was published and the church organised? Who was the connection between Rigdon and JS?

[Cold Steel]

1. I think the latest Stanford study is somewhat compelling.

2. No other theory is satisfactory to me.

You've pretty much dismissed everything else, then.

3. Romantic and mysterious--would make a good movie.

Given the sworn statements of many of Smith's enemies, one would expect the Book of Mormon to be full of serpents and bloody spirits, with treasures and curses. Instead, we get a book that no one in the 19th Century could have written. When people from the Nephi Project can take a Book of Mormon, a compass and a land rover and end up in an area that matches Nephi's description, not to mention Nahom and Bountiful and the dozens of other scores the author makes, tell me, how could Rigdon or Spalding have done it? How could Joseph Smith have done it? Remember, gold plates hadn't been found anywhere when the BOM was published! And there are many, many other things going for the Book of Mormon which have been discussed here.

The Stanford study didn't even use a sample from Joseph Smith's writing which, alone, disqualifies it, as far as I'm concerned.

.

[noel00]

Craig Criddle in an email said:

"We found Rigdon's signal throughout nearly the entire Book of Mormon, with much smaller signals for Smith, Cowdery, and Pratt. We have also now have evidence that Rigdon was the major author of the Book of Commandments and the Book of Abraham"

CK1) There are quite a few autobiographical elements in the Book of Mormon. Dan Vogel has done a fantastic job of illustrating this.

Criddle - There are some places in the text that do suggest Smith influence, and, interstingly, that's where we do see a Smith signal in our latest attributions. Some of Dan Vogel's ideas may be correct, particularly in the replacement to the lost 116 pages, but he applies that approach through the entire Book of Mormon in a forced and highly speculative manner. I disagree that he has done a "fantastic job of illustrating this".

CK 2) The Book of Mormon text reacts to issues in Smith's immediate environment. For example, Don Bradley has shown how King Benjamin's sermon is directly addressed to Martin Harris, following the 116 pages incident. Thus when it says, "whosoever among you borroweth of his neighbor should return the thing that he borroweth," the 116 pages are in mind. Benjamin

[Ariarates]

One can reject both. Forget the official version, involving miraculous means such as the U&T and the stone in the hat, and focus on why the central player in the S-R conspiracy would have no role in the restoration until AFTER the BoM was published and the church organised? Who was the connection between Rigdon and JS?

Interesting questions, that I don't know the answer to. I don't have an issue with the timing ("no role in the restoration until AFTER the BoM was published"). JS and SR hooked up the same year the BoM was published, so there's no big gap there. Also, I don't consider the restoration to be a single moment in time but a gradual process. If you then compare what happened before and after Rigdon joined the church, most things we now associate with the restoration occurred after he joined.

[robuchan]

I don't know how the Book of Mormon was created. I don't believe it is an ancient record. It's hard to believe Joseph wrote it. The Rigdon theory intrigues me, though I think it also is full of holes.

As for the conspiracy and Rigdon's involvement in the restoration, consider this. The first time I read the account of the Section 76 vision with SR and JS in Bushman's RSR, it really made my jaw drop. It reads like a bad con. JS and SR both looking up. All the onlookers watching them with anticipation. JS describes what he sees. SR responds "errr ummm yeah I see the same thing wink wink". So I believe JS and SR entered into a sort of conspiracy at some point. And obviously that conspiracy was never broken, and SR never admitted it was a fake. So to take it a little further, is it that hard to believe the conspiracy started a couple years prior?

[Anijen]

I don't know how the Book of Mormon was created. I don't believe it is an ancient record. It's hard to believe Joseph wrote it. The Rigdon theory intrigues me, though I think it also is full of holes.

As for the conspiracy and Rigdon's involvement in the restoration, consider this. The first time I read the account of the Section 76 vision with SR and JS in Bushman's RSR, it really made my jaw drop. It reads like a bad con. JS and SR both looking up. All the onlookers watching them with anticipation. JS describes what he sees. SR responds "errr ummm yeah I see the same thing wink wink". So I believe JS and SR entered into a sort of conspiracy at some point. And obviously that conspiracy was never broken, and SR never admitted it was a fake. So to take it a little further, is it that hard to believe the conspiracy started a couple years prior?

Lets stick to the facts;

Sidney Rigdon joined the church after the Book of Mormon was published. Any who subscribe to a BofM with Rigdon as the author has to overlook or disregard completely the compelling evidence that they never met before his conversion. Criddle disregards it and has stuck to his own biased one sided far-fetched opinion.

[volgadon]

Lets stick to the facts;

Sidney Rigdon joined the church after the Book of Mormon was published. Any who subscribe to a BofM with Rigdon as the author has to overlook or disregard completely the compelling evidence that they never met before his conversion. Criddle disregards it and has stuck to his own biased one sided far-fetched opinion.

And after the church was organised. Same goes for parely P. Pratt, the connection between Sidney and Joseph.

[Ariarates]

Lets stick to the facts;

Sidney Rigdon joined the church after the Book of Mormon was published. Any who subscribe to a BofM with Rigdon as the author has to overlook or disregard completely the compelling evidence that they never met before his conversion. Criddle disregards it and has stuck to his own biased one sided far-fetched opinion.

While I don't know of any evidence that they did meet before his conversion, I don't know of any "compelling evidence that they never met before his conversion" either. Can you elaborate on that?

[robuchan]

Lets stick to the facts;

Sidney Rigdon joined the church after the Book of Mormon was published. Any who subscribe to a BofM with Rigdon as the author has to overlook or disregard completely the compelling evidence that they never met before his conversion. Criddle disregards it and has stuck to his own biased one sided far-fetched opinion.

Well obviously the Spalding-Rigdon theorists have an explanation for that. I agree it doesn't seem probable. But then neither does the explanation that a group of Israelites took boat to America, having their language, DNA, and all shreds of evidence get swallowed up by a larger culture that they never mention in the book, the book having various anachronisms, plagiarizing Bible passages not yet written, having an early 19th century understanding of Christianity, written in a language that doesn't appear to exist, the gold plates given to someone who stores the plates in the woods while he translates by looking into rock in hat, and the book is rejected by 99.9% of the world. Any theory that's at least equally plausible as that should be explored.

[Kevin Christensen]

You've got to love the conspirators. After Joseph Smith's 1826 trial for "glass looking," they pool their massive intellects (implied by all research they had to have done on the sly), and shrewd knowledge of human behavior, and say, "This could still work." Seriously, don't you think they might have come up with a less scandalous front man?

And after Joseph proposes to Nancy Ridgon, and later when Sidney is out of the Church, and after Joseph's martyrdom, after failing in his bid to return, and later on his death bed, Sidney Rigdon still insists to his own son that he had nothing to do with the Book of Mormon, and had never seen it until Pratt showed it to him. What possible motivation could he have at that point?

Whatever else you can say of them, the "conspirators" have a remarkable plasticity, stretching every which way to fill the demands of the conspiracy theory. Of course, conspiracy theories thrive best in the absence of evidence, running on the "insinuate and run" method of persuasion. And of course, uncritically dismissing all actual comparisons with antiquity (such as the Arabian Journey, or the Sidon/Grijalva correlation, or First Temple theology, etc.)

Criddle's tests aren't capable of objective identification of authorship "signals" but only of relative probabilities of their carefully selected candidates. If they had put in Harpo Marx, John Lennon, Thomas Jefferson, and Charles ****ens, their approach would still sort these figures as more and less likely Book of Mormon authors relative to that pool of candidates. Attempting to build credibility by calling it "peer reviewed" only devalues the peer review process. It's still lame.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Anijen]

While I don't know of any evidence that they did meet before his conversion, I don't know of any "compelling evidence that they never met before his conversion" either. Can you elaborate on that?

That there is no evidence of the two meeting before his conversion outweighs heavily the speculation that they met.

Robuchan

Well obviously the Spalding-Rigdon theorists have an explanation for that. I agree it doesn't seem probable. But then neither does the explanation that a group of Israelites took boat to America, having their language, DNA, and all shreds of evidence get swallowed up by a larger culture that they never mention in the book, the book having various anachronisms, plagiarizing Bible passages not yet written, having an early 19th century understanding of Christianity, written in a language that doesn't appear to exist, the gold plates given to someone who stores the plates in the woods while he translates by looking into rock in hat, and the book is rejected by 99.9% of the world. Any theory that's at least equally plausible as that should be explored.

You are incorporating two different arguments here. One requires faith to believe in the BofM and the church. The other we can research and find connections. Criddle has played six degrees of separation with Rigdon and the authorship of the BofM I can do the same with the actor Kevin Bacon as the author it doesn't mean he wrote it either. Six degrees of separation see here

[volgadon]

Ariarates, perhaps it wasn't Sidney Rigdon but Nathaniel Hawthorne that wrote the BoM. After all, he and Joseph probably hatched the scheme when recuperating as children from serious illnesses in the same town. I don't know of any compelling evidence that they did not hatch the scheme together then.