Two voices in the Book of Mormon

[noel00]

Did the Historical Dept say why you cannot quote them?

[Chris Smith]

The texts remain the intellectual property of the LDS Church, and despite asking in person at the Historian's Office (actually the Archivist's sub-office), I've never been given permission to quote so much as a single sentence.

I have extensive notes -- but cannot share them -- sorry.

How can they copyright 19th century autographic texts?

[Uncle Dale]

Did the Historical Dept say why you cannot quote them?

"The Brethren" are not interested in examining the apostate

doctrines of Rigdon, any more than they are interested in

having Church resources devoted to the study of Warren Jeffs, etc.

UD

[mfbukowski]

Nothing could be more obvious from the wording of the earliest Book of Mormon text than that it was generated (whether by composition or translation) by someone uneducated. Any theory that fails to account for this fails to account for the Book of Mormon. And the Spalding-Rigdon theory does not account for it.

Absolutely positively without a doubt right on the money. The first time I read it I thought- "Man- I don't believe that these doctrines came from someone who wrote like a person with a third grade education". Horrible run-on sentences, "And it came to pass" every other verse, obtuse language and tortured syntax- this was not written by an educated guy.

But wow- where did those ideas come from?

[Uncle Dale]

How can they copyright 19th century autographic texts?

It isn't a copyright -- it's exclusive intellectual property rights granted

by the original owners of the documents (the heirs of Stephen Post).

I could violate those rights, I suppose -- but that would pretty much end

my years of open access to LDS manuscript materials. Not the best idea.

UD

[noel00]

Don,

I am surprised that you see no evidence of conspiracy in Smith's life. To me, his entire life was a con. How about conspiracy to cover-up plural marriage? How about the conspiracy of banking fraud? How about the Danites? I could go on.

I'm also surprised to hear you say "I think one can ONLY explain that Joseph Smith.. was the author or translator".

There is more than one way to account for poor grammar and syntax. Perhaps the dictation reflected Smith's ability to read out-loud from manuscripts stuffed in a hat. Perhaps the dictation reflected Smith's ability to recite memorized passages.

Finally, let's not forget Alexander Campbell's analysis. Campbell at first noted the poor grammar of the Book of Mormon and fingered Smith as the author. But later, after he had read Mormonism Unvailed, he was persuaded that Rigdon was the mastermind. Clearly, Campbell was very well aware of the grammar and syntax in the Book of Mormon, yet he came to believe that Rigdon was behind its production:

[Daniel Peterson]

I am surprised that you see no evidence of conspiracy in Smith's life. To me, his entire life was a con. How about conspiracy to cover-up plural marriage? How about the conspiracy of banking fraud? How about the Danites? I could go on.

No doubt you could . . .

[Glenn101]

Don,

I am surprised that you see no evidence of conspiracy in Smith's life. To me, his entire life was a con. How about conspiracy to cover-up plural marriage? How about the conspiracy of banking fraud? How about the Danites? I could go on.

I'm also surprised to hear you say "I think one can ONLY explain that Joseph Smith.. was the author or translator".

There is more than one way to account for poor grammar and syntax. Perhaps the dictation reflected Smith's ability to read out-loud from manuscripts stuffed in a hat. Perhaps the dictation reflected Smith's ability to recite memorized passages.

.......

Craig

This is so cool!!! One hundred and eighty years of intense scrutiny by multiple critics with multiple theories, all of which require a conspiracy by several people, and yet no smoking gun, no conspiracy confession by a smarting former member, no credible evidence for the provenance of the Book of Mormon being anything other than what the producer claimed for it.

Ignored is the accumulating body of evidence that the structure and grammar of the Book of Mormon appears to be so clunky and unwieldy in English because it of its Hebraic construction. But why ruin perfectly good conspiracy theories with a few unwanted facts.

Glenn

[DonBradley]

Absolutely positively without a doubt right on the money. The first time I read it I thought- "Man- I don't believe that these doctrines came from someone who wrote like a person with a third grade education". Horrible run-on sentences, "And it came to pass" every other verse, obtuse language and tortured syntax- this was not written by an educated guy.

But wow- where did those ideas come from?

Yeah!

Are you a convert, MFB?

Don

[DonBradley]

Hi Craig,

You wrote:

Don,

I am surprised that you see no evidence of conspiracy in Smith's life. To me, his entire life was a con. How about conspiracy to cover-up plural marriage? How about the conspiracy of banking fraud? How about the Danites? I could go on.

OK, Craig, certainly if one regards the Danites as a conspiracy, then he was measurably involved in a conspiracy. What I meant was more specific--that I don't see evidence that his religious claims were put over on people by a conspiracy.

I'm also surprised to hear you say "I think one can ONLY explain that Joseph Smith.. was the author or translator".

I'm surprised to have you hear me say that too! But I wouldn't be surprised if you heard me say, "I think one can only well-explain that by positing that Joseph Smith (or someone of similar education) was the author or translator--i.e., that the words are his."

What I meant by this is:

If one hypothesizes educated 19th century authors, then one has to account for the pervasiveness of the grammar, syntax, and vocabulary of the uneducated in the book. But one can only well explain these facets of the text--so far as I can see--by positing that it was worded by someone with a poor education--Smith or someone like him. (On which, more below.)

There is more than one way to account for poor grammar and syntax. Perhaps the dictation reflected Smith's ability to read out-loud from manuscripts stuffed in a hat. Perhaps the dictation reflected Smith's ability to recite memorized passages.

Far from refuting my argument, I see these suggestions as confirmation that S-R theorists require ad hoc explanations to account for the uneducated grammar, syntax, and vocabulary of the text. And not only are these suggestions ad hoc, they don't work--particularly not with putative wordprint evidence.

Joseph Smith's reading the text aloud screwed up its grammar and syntax and reduced its vocabulary down to the level of the uneducated? I don't see how it could systematically do this, particularly in the case of the vocabulary.

In any case, we can test this idea. Joseph Smith dictated the Bible text to his scribes, both as part of the Book of Mormon and in the JST. Did his doing so butcher the KJV's grammar and syntax, decimate its vocabulary, and put in the the language of rural America, as in, "And it came to pass that they was a fleeing from him who had smote them"? If not, it seems incredibly unlikely that his dictation of another text would so warp it?

Though I greatly respect Joseph Smith's memory--and have argued on this board that he had an excellent memory, I have seen no evidence that his memory was sufficient to memorize the text well enough to retain the wordprints of the original authors. So, positing such a prodigious memory on his part is ad hoc--a hypothesis added to S-R theory with no backing and with no purpose but accounting for this lacuna in the theory's explanatory power. And if he did memorize the text that well, it shouldn't have his uneducated wording and syntax throughout. How can it reflect his grammar, syntax, and vocabulary and reliably reflect their word choices for wordprinting purposes? And how would his memory systematically reduce the authors' vocabulary? (Also, if the manuscript was memorized, why not posit the same for the biblical text, which, as noted, was not similarly butchered?)

It's not that S-R theorists can't raise possible explanations for the text's uneducated grammar, syntax, and vocabulary. It's just that it's hard for me to see how they can present good non-ad hoc explanations for these pervasive textual features. I'm always open to being wrong on this point (heaven knows it's happened enough!), but I would wager strongly against it.

Finally, let's not forget Alexander Campbell's analysis. Campbell at first noted the poor grammar of the Book of Mormon and fingered Smith as the author. But later, after he had read Mormonism Unvailed, he was persuaded that Rigdon was the mastermind. Clearly, Campbell was very well aware of the grammar and syntax in the Book of Mormon, yet he came to believe that Rigdon was behind its production:

[mfbukowski]

Yeah!

Are you a convert, MFB?

Don

I am. I converted at the age of 31 while a grad student in Philosophy at a secular university.

So I was aware of both the poor syntax but also the amazing doctrines.

[DonBradley]

I am. I converted at the age of 31 while a grad student in Philosophy at a secular university.

Are you sure? I mean, after all, educated people don't join Mormonism, do they?

That's cool. Thanks for sharing. Have you posted your story anywhere that I might read it?

Don

[Uncle Dale]

...

I don't see evidence that his religious claims were put over on people by a conspiracy.

...

If somebody could take a few minutes, to go into the

LDS First Presidency's vault, and copy off several pages

out of the manuscript minutes of the Council of Fifty,

I'm convinced that you could document some elements of

a secret religious conspiracy to crown Joseph Smith

king of a world-wide religious empire, designed to roll

forth in the world, replacing all other religious and

civil governments.

Of course, if that sort of documentation is not forthcoming,

I too could assert that "I don't see evidence" of secret

conspiracies.

Secret conspiracies are, by their very nature, unlikely to

be discerned from easily located, mundane evidence.

UD

[DonBradley]

Hi Dale,

First, the Historical Department hopes that the Cof50 minutes will be included in the JSP.

Second, for Joseph Smith to be crowned prophet, priest, and king of Israel, or even the world, isn't a conspiracy unless the Mormons are planning to make it a political reality by treasonous intrigue--which I don't see the evidence of.

And, third, to reiterate and clarify, I'm talking about a conspiracy to dupe people into believing his prophetic claims. What evidence have you got that, outside of the alleged Book of Mormon conspiracy, he did this?

Cheers,

Don

[Uncle Dale]

Hi Dale,

First, the Historical Department hopes that the Cof50 minutes will be included in the JSP.

Second, for Joseph Smith to be crowned prophet, priest, and king of Israel, or even the world, isn't a conspiracy unless the Mormons are planning to make it a political reality by treasonous intrigue--which I don't see the evidence of.

And, third, to reiterate and clarify, I'm talking about a conspiracy to dupe people into believing his prophetic claims. What evidence have you got that, outside of the alleged Book of Mormon conspiracy, he did this?

Cheers,

Don

I've written an entire web-paper on this subject, here:

http://sidneyrigdon.com/criddle/Smith-ConMan.htm

I can understand why loyal Mormons (and a few traditionalist RLDS)

might believe that Smith never conspired with anybody in order to

further his religious projects -- but I'm puzzled as to why non-LDS

would adopt such a conclusion as a default position.

I suppose that Dan Vogel's recent proposal for Smith having

fabricated some fake golden plates, in order "to dupe people into

believing his prophetic claims," cannot be elevated to a

"conspiracy," if nobody other than Smith ever knew of the fraud.

Thus, on technical grounds, we might say that there is no reason

to believe that Smith participated in any conspiracies -- because old

testimony, circumstantial evidence and forensic historical

reconstructions do not amount to proof.

In that case, I have no irrefutable evidence to offer up, that

Joseph Smith, Jr. ever told a lie -- much less cooperated with

any contemporaries to promote a patent falsehood.

Perhaps he was God's righteous servant, after all.

UD

[DonBradley]

Hi Dale,

It mischaracterizes my request for evidence to say I'm requiring "proof."

And as you probably realize I'm aware of various arguments that Joseph Smith lied and conned people. You may have even recall having read arguments I once posted along these same lines.

But the specific question I raised, and that is significant to the Spalding-Rigdon theory in particular, is what evidence--outside the claims of S-R theory itself--can be presented that Joseph Smith conspired with others to fool people into believing his religious claims. If good evidence for such conspiracies cannot be adduced, then his alleged engagement in a conspiracy in the case of the Book of Mormon would be a sui generis in his known life, something that would not bode well for S-R theory.

What is the evidence that Joseph Smith conspired with others to fool people into believing his religious claims, that his prophethood was created and supported by conspiracies?

Don

[mfbukowski]

Are you sure? I mean, after all, educated people don't join Mormonism, do they?

That's cool. Thanks for sharing. Have you posted your story anywhere that I might read it?

Don

Well thanks for asking!

It's quite a long story, because I found that the philosophy I was studying dovetailed perfectly with Mormonism. I have posted the short form, but that is not the philosophical part. I am trying to figure out how to put it all together so that I can both explain the philosophy behind the story and the story itself in a way that most average people would understand the philosophy AND the story together-- maybe there is a book in there if I ever get it figured out.

[Uncle Dale]

...

What is the evidence that Joseph Smith conspired with others to fool people into

believing his religious claims, that his prophethood was created and

supported by conspiracies?

Don

None whatsoever.

It must be admitted that there is a very real possibility that Joseph Smith

never conspired with anybody, to do anything wrong or dishonest.

On the other hand, had his alleged attempt to have Grandison Newell murdered

been proven in court, then the sworn testimony given in his Ohio trial (including

that of Orson Hyde and Sideny Rigdon), might be set forth as evidence of a

conspiracy set in motion by a self-proclaimed oracle of God.

But those charges were dismissed, for lack of confirming witnesses -- and

Smith went free. Just because a witness like Orson Hyde testified against

Smith, does not mean that such sworn evidence was truthful.

The same may be said of the assertions of John C. Bennett, the testifiers

in the "Nauvoo Expositor," and Sarah Pratt's late testimony in the "NY Herald."

Unproven assertions of conspiracies do not amount to irrefutable evidence.

I'll make a comparison, which many readers here will doubtless object to --

but it seems analogous to Smith's situation, in my estimation.

Here on the Big Island, where I live, there is a village called Pahoa which

has a reputation for harboring illegal activities. Such accusations can be

encountered here, on a daily basis, in everyday conversations with the locals.

In that village is a particular residence, which has been the site of several

police raids. Although its residents have been arrested and criminal charges

brought against them, no conviction for criminal activities has ever been

rendered and/or upheld in court.

If my neighbors want to purchase a stash of pot, they know which house to

go to, how much money to bring along, and how to avoid police surveillance.

There is no tenable "evidence" for a crime.

Therefore, it can be reasonably stated that the residents of that house

are innocent of drug-dealing, and related criminal acts.

Ask me to produce some "evidence," and I cannot do that. Ask my neighbors

for some illegal drugs and they'll go into that house, and come out with

your requested purchase.

That's the best analogy I can think of.

UD

[Kevin Christensen]

Or, rather than spinning unverifiable fantasies about what people might have been doing when no one was watching, and why they behaved in ways that are consistent with their faith regarding the Book of Mormon, up to and including offering their lives, we could actually go about testing the claims it makes for itself. As Nibley pointed out in the Improvement Era in the early fifties (New Approaches to Book of Mormon Study, http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/transcripts/?id=11), that is the method that the Renaissance Scholars developed for authenticating documents. And the longer the text, the better that test works.

That may take a lot of work. But a lot of people are working on it. And it seems obvious to me that Criddle's approach (relative comparisons of selected candidate "authors") will never find or explain anything really interesting about the Book of Mormon. Why do Mormon and Moroni show all the characteristics of Survivor Witnesses, as it emerges from the Des Pres study of the survivor witnesses of Nazi and Soviet Death camps? Does that distinct "voice" not count? Or why does Alma the Younger not only display all of the traits of a Near Death experience, but the after effects and voice of such an experiencer? Will Criddle's approach ever be capable of discerning that voice? Or, how about the distinctions between Mormon and Moroni that Grant Hardy recently discussed? One author emphasizing prophetic fulfillment, and the other only interested in the Spirit's witness. And that difference being clear despite both speaking distinctly as survivor witnesses? Or how about what Welch noticed in the different literary styles? Say Nephi's traditional use of chiasmus, versus Alma's creativity? Or, how about Welch's essay on 10 Testimonies of Christ in the Book of Mormon, that showed that the divine titles used by different authors tended to express in distinct ways, how each author intimately related to Christ?

Will Criddle be able to explain Ben McGuire's observation that the allusions to the David story in 1 Nephi seem to point to only one of two sources spliced together in our current Bibles? Or Sorenson's arguments, supported by Steve St. Clair's work, that the Book of Mormon reflects an E source, associated with the Northern King tradition? Or the way that Jacob talks like a 1st Temple High Priest, concerned with issues distinctive to his heritage in the Ancient Near East, and addressing issues that Brant Gardner has correlated to his distinctive New World setting? Or that the Allegory of the Olive tree has so many authentic details about the craft? Or how about John Clark's observation that the more time that goes by, and the more we learn about the New World setting, the more resolution we regarding questions raised?

Or, taking another tack, how does Criddle's study deal with details in the text best explained by an eye-witness report? Such as the distinctive features of the Arabian journey, or way that Poulson showed that the description of the Sidon in the Book of Mormon uniquely matches the features of the Grijalva? Or the way even the first chapter of the Book of Mormon takes us into a world view that according to Margaret Barker, "would have been lost except for the accidents of archeological discovery," most of which discoveries have occurred since the publication of the Book of Mormon? And indeed, will Criddle's approach even consider how that circumstance is prophesied in 1 Nephi 13?

Paradigms, as Kuhn says, not only define maps, but map making. Where people look, what they look for, what they notice, how they value what they notice. Joseph as con man or front man for conspirators are models, paradigms offered to explain him. Since there a competing paradigms out there, paradigms have to compete. And "at least it doesn't involve angels" and inconveniently binding reality and socially embarrassing scandals like polygamy and MMM and the priesthood ban and Prop 8, not to mention the Word of Wisdom and tithing, may be attractive to some, but it doesn't predict, nor account for, much that I have seen and value in my own readings over the years. Until the critics make an effort to fully define the problem that the Book of Mormon represents and to account for the observations that believers have made, they are not competing at the level that the game is now being played.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[DonBradley]

Hi Again Dale,

In the Grandison Newell criminal case you mention, there was evidence (e.g., Hyde's testimony that Joseph Smith said it would be better if Newell were dead), but ultimately there was not a case beyond reasonable doubt.

But I didn't ask for evidence that would meet the standard for conviction, and I didn't ask for "irrefutable" evidence. Nor did I even ask for evidence that Joseph was never implicated in violent rhetoric, nor even in dealing pot. I just asked for evidence (preferrably good evidence, but at this point I'll settle) outside of Spalding-Rigdon hypothesis in question that he used a conspiracy to promote his prophetic claims.

Am I to take it that your answer to this is as already stated?

None whatsoever.

Cheers,

Don

[Glenn101]

........

I'll make a comparison, which many readers here will doubtless object to --

but it seems analogous to Smith's situation, in my estimation.

Here on the Big Island, where I live, there is a village called Pahoa which

has a reputation for harboring illegal activities. Such accusations can be

encountered here, on a daily basis, in everyday conversations with the locals.

In that village is a particular residence, which has been the site of several

police raids. Although its residents have been arrested and criminal charges

brought against them, no conviction for criminal activities has ever been

rendered and/or upheld in court.

If my neighbors want to purchase a stash of pot, they know which house to

go to, how much money to bring along, and how to avoid police surveillance.

There is no tenable "evidence" for a crime.

Therefore, it can be reasonably stated that the residents of that house

are innocent of drug-dealing, and related criminal acts.

Ask me to produce some "evidence," and I cannot do that. Ask my neighbors

for some illegal drugs and they'll go into that house, and come out with

your requested purchase.

That's the best analogy I can think of.

UD

Dale, I think that your analogy is a bit strained unless you can amplify a bit further. It seems that you have a whole community that has a reputation for harboring illegal activities. I assume that you mean that members of that community collaborate in keeping the illegal activities hidden from the law. Has anyone ever turned state's evidence against the people in that house? If so, the law is pretty inept if they cannot make charges stick. We have a similar situation in a small town I grew up around. There was a drug house near a school. Everyone knew it was a drug house, but no one was ever arrested and convicted ...... until a new police chief was hired who knew what he was doing.

Joseph Smith was not facing friendly courts that had the rules of evidence that we have today. Grandison Newell is reported to have initiated thirty suits against Joseph himself. Yet he could not produce a credible witness and had no credible evidence to convict Joseph.

There are people hoping against hope that someone, sometime, will find something concrete they can pin against Joseph. That is their perogative. But the Book of Mormon is a testament of his work. See Kevin Christensen's post. The critics do not engage the facts, but would rather pursue a will o' wisp.

Glenn

[Uncle Dale]

...

Am I to take it that your answer to this is as already stated?

...

Yes.

Unless you wish to define a spectrum of meanings for the word "evidence."

At the low end of such a spectrum would be simple conjecture. It is my

conjecture that illegal drugs are being sold in the house, based upon

my own, unverified investigations. (Such stuff is not very convincing)

Next on the scale comes eye-witness assertion. My neighbor tells me that

he purchased illegal drugs in the house, (but offers no proof).

Near the middle of the scale we might locate multiple, independent

eye-witness assertions. Perhaps there is some truth to be discovered,

regarding drugs in the house -- (because so many people say so).

Closer to the high end of the spectrum would be irrefutable evidence,

such as the discovery of drugs in the house, or the discovery that the

house residents had served prison time for past drug dealing.

At the high end of the spectrum we might expect such documentation as

confessions from the drug-house residents, video-tapes of drug buys,

fingerprint evidence, etc.

So -- there's a sort of reference spectrum you can keep in mind, when

it comes to citing "evidence."

Joseph Smith, Jr. is a well regarded fellow, whose general reputation

for honesty and pure intentions will be highly rated by the vast majority

of participants in this message board. Any "evidence" of his wrong-doing

offered here for serious consideration, would necessarily have to be

evidence evaluated as being "near the top of the scale."

Any evidence for his secretly conspiring with anybody to promote a

falsehood, would have to be at the "top of the scale."

Any evidence for his secretly conspiring with anybody to falsely

promote a dishonest "religious" act, as confirming his "prophethood,"

would probably have to amount to "solid proof," in order to be

seriously considered by most participants here.

Criddle has cited Smith's secret polygamy at Nauvoo as being an

instance in which Smith conspired with others to promote a falsehood

related to Smith's claims to be a prophet of God. This would probably

be the best example to investigate. With a great deal of work, a

good argument might be made for Andrew F. Smith's conclusions, as

reported in "The Saintly Scoundrel."

I seriously doubt that most Mormons would believe a single word

voiced by John C. Bennett --- but they might believe that Bennett

was engaged in a fraudulent religious conspiracy with J. J. Strang.

So, at the very least, it might be established that Bennett was

the sort of accomplice Joseph Smith MIGHT have associated with in

a religious conspiracy, IF Smith can ever be convincingly accused.

At least that's where I'd start -- if I were Criddle.

UD

[Uncle Dale]

...

The critics do not engage the facts, but would rather pursue a will o' wisp.

...

Which is one reason that I generally avoid discussions such as this one.

If such evidence against Smith were strong enough for seriousdiscussion here,

there probably would not even be a Mormon Church today.

The likelihood of my discovering some new example of damning evidence

is very, very low -- (given past failures of critics on that score).

UD

[noel00]

> OK, Craig, certainly if one regards the Danites as a conspiracy, then he was measurably involved in a conspiracy. What I meant was more specific--that I don't see evidence that his religious claims were put over on people by a conspiracy.

>

Now you are narrowing down the **acceptable** frauds to only include those with religious claims. That's just not defensible. We have plenty of evidence that Smith was acting as a fraud and con man in his treasure hunting activities with spirit guardians and slippery treasures, which then evolved into the gold plates scam.

> What I meant by this is:

> If one hypothesizes educated 19th century authors, then one has to account for the pervasiveness of the grammar, syntax, and vocabulary of the uneducated in the book. But one can only well explain these facets of the text--so far as I can see--by positing that it was worded by someone with a poor education--Smith or someone like him. (On which, more below.)

>

First of all, I don't find the pervasiveness of the uneducated grammar, syntax and vocabulary to be even throughout the book, as you do. Secondly, I don't believe you can only explain them with someone with a poor education. Third, there's good evidence that Rigdon and Spalding were both far less competent as writers than you depict them.

My point with the examples of Smith dictation was just to show that there are other alternative explanations - you do not have the ONLY possible explanation.

> I suppose you're saying that if Campbell, who knew Rigdon well, was able to find this believable, then it must be more believable than I would think. But I think the logic of the case is against authorship by someone of Rigdon's education, regardless of what Campbell came to believe.

>

I completely disagree with you there. Campbell was completely familiar with Rigdon and Rigdon's preaching style and he was also fully aware of the grammar, syntax errors, etc. of the Book of Mormon, yet he came to believe that Rigdon was the author.

> BTW, have you done comparative vocabulary studies of the BoM, Spalding, Rigdon, and Cowdery?

>

We've done unique word studies for them. And the basic patterns throughout the text are consistent with the frequent word usage patterns.

[noel00]

Don,

The more I think about your response you gave to my examples of Smith conspiracies, the more I feel that you have pulled a "bait-and-switch" on me. I gave three examples of conspiracies involving Smith: the plural marriage conspiracy, banking conspiracy and the Danite conspiracy. You focused on the Danite conspiracy, then attempted to limit the scope of allowable conspiracies: "I don't see evidence that his religious claims were put over on people by a conspiracy". You ignored the other two examples that I gave. Why? Are you claiming that plural marriage did not involve collaboration and religious deception?

Below are some more of my thoughts on this issue (written for an upcoming essay):

Conspiracies can be hard to accept because they involve a level of deception that most of us do not experience in our everyday lives. It is likely true that few people are willing to engage in conspiracies and fewer still are capable of doing so. But when the alleged participants are known to have participated in other conspiracies, the probability that the same individuals would participate in other such conspiracies becomes higher. This is the case for Rigdon, Smith, and Cowdery. All three are known to have conspired to rewrite and revise scriptures, to create faith-promoting versions of Church history, and to perpetrate financial fraud and counterfeiting for which they were prosecuted. And Smith is known to have conspired to keep polygamy secret, to keep the Council of Fifty secret, and to keep the temple endowment and its blood oaths secret.

Of the different classes of conspiracy that involve deception (political, corporate, etc.), those involving religion are likely the most difficult to admit as possible. One reason is because the teachings of virtually every religion condemn deception, though exceptions may be justified when God commands it, or when it is deemed necessary to preserve the faith[1]. The Book of Mormon, for example, has harsh words for lying and liars (