Rigdon Authorship Theory

[robuchan]

The Rigdon Authorship theory is interesting to me. My assumption is that the BOM author is either Joseph or someone (more than one?) he conspired with or combination of the two.

Looking at the text, if I had to choose between Sidney and Joseph as authors, I choose Sidney. Rigdon was the preacher interested in detailed Christian doctrine. Joseph was more interested in the big picture and soon completely dumped the mainstream Christian doctrine the church started with in the Book of Mormon.

I think the clues are in the text and that's where ultimately we'll find the answers.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The Rigdon Authorship theory is interesting to me. My assumption is that the BOM author is either Joseph or someone (more than one?) he conspired with or combination of the two.

Looking at the text, if I had to choose between Sidney and Joseph as authors, I choose Sidney. Rigdon was the preacher interested in detailed Christian doctrine. Joseph was more interested in the big picture and soon completely dumped the mainstream Christian doctrine the church started with in the Book of Mormon.

I think the clues are in the text and that's where ultimately we'll find the answers.

Sorry but you have to account for the complete lack of evidence that JS even knew who SR was prior to 1830. Not to mention Vookman brings up some really nice points. I think you should mull that over then get back to us. The internal evidence in no way point to SR, any more that it points to JS or any one else writing it. I find some pretty good argumetns for antiquity with in the pages.

[robuchan]

I think Ockham's Razor is a pretty good tool. Let's use it:

1. Joseph Smith must meet SR prior to 1823 to get his Indian story in place: Evidence for or against?

2. SR must keep his 1823 meeting with JS a secret from the Smith family until 1829 (the earliest I am aware of a third party claims SR is seen at the Smith family home)? Evidence for: Strong/Weak? Probability based on Cowdrey, Emma Smith, Knight family, Emma's family and Martin Harris statements of the translation (harder to measure, but critical since the conspiracy would require all of these people to be lying in concert about the translation, the non-use of manuscripts, etc.). Probability: Strong/ Weak?

3. After the tarring and feathering of 1832, during which SR suffered severe head injuries, I remember folks saying basically SR was never completely "right" in the head. He was not delirious, but he was a couple of beats behind the music. So an impaired guy maintains a broad conspiracy requiring constant evaluation of choices to maintain. Probable: Yes / No?

The previously mentioned items of no Spaulding manuscript corresponding to the BofM, etc., with no cogent time line or evidence to refute these issues, the only thing which would over rule this would be one's pre-disposition to reject evidence which supports the LDS position.

I don't take this as proof. It certainly is not. Ockham's Razor is not about proof, it is about determining the best probability based on the circumstances.

While angels giving records does not conform to the scientific method for repeatability, rejecting it as not possible in the face of no other viable alternative answer is illogical, in light of Ockham's Razor. Especially in light of 12 witnesses supporting the view. Then again, we have statements about exploding stars being seen in the sky dating back nearly a thousand years which have long since lost their light and for which we lack exact locations. Yet we accept that supernovas do take place, and though the specific incident is not documentable or provable based on our current capabilities, we don't assume they were delirious. Or maybe one should, lacking reproducible evidence or witnesses.

I love using Ockham's Razor with critics. Dropping the pretense of unbiased intellectual pursuit leads us squarely to pre-disposed prejudices. All of us have them, but critics usually try to maintain they are unbiased, but then regularly reject eyewitness accounts or related "coincidences" which in total defy chance or, for that matter, conspiracy.

The LDS Church's origins require a conspiracy of dozens of people who eventually often hate each other, and who demonstrably care about their personal reputation and have a good report in other areas of their life, to accept public criticism and reject opportunities for financial gain by uncovering the fraud, to stick it out. It also requires one to reject the testimony of some critics who provide circumstantial confirmation of the Smith story. No every storyline supports the JS account, but the complete absence of conspiratorial confession when dozens of individuals are involved is so improbable that it requires a new religion, the "I don't believe anything about the Mormons" faith, because it certainly requires rejection of most evidence in favor of a highly selective, unrelated to probability, disposition. I think we call that the "Oliver Stone method".

So I think one should be willing to endure the shave that Ockham's Razor slaps on us. Just let's include the broad list of circumstantial evidences in calculating that probability. In the end, it is about the likelihood of human behavior being altered, in the case of the JS story. Which in and of itself defies Ockham's Razor.

Bob

Good post, Bob. What do you mean by this? "1. Joseph Smith must meet SR prior to 1823 to get his Indian story in place: Evidence for or against?"

Also, I agree with your idea that the critic's view of LDS foundations require a conspiracy of some sort. I don't know if it's dozens as you state, but there seems to be a requirement for some level of conspiracy. For example, Oliver was with Joseph for multiple angelic visits, Sidney was a co-receiver of the Section 76 vision, and so forth. So if you're a critic, you have to support some level of conspiracy between these men. My opinion: OC and SR were in on it. Some of the others like Martin Harris I believe were duped. And some of the others like Whitmer, Knight, Paige maybe wanted to see things hard enough that they thought they saw them.

[robuchan]

Sorry but you have to account for the complete lack of evidence that JS even knew who SR was prior to 1830. Not to mention Vookman brings up some really nice points. I think you should mull that over then get back to us. The internal evidence in no way point to SR, any more that it points to JS or any one else writing it. I find some pretty good argumetns for antiquity with in the pages.

I don't have to account for anything. I have no idea who wrote it. I find the Rigdon authorship theory interesting. That's as far as I go.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I don't have to account for anything. I have no idea who wrote it. I find the Rigdon authorship theory interesting. That's as far as I go.

Oh, sorry I misunderstood you. I find aspect of it interesting too. I see were you are comming from.

[gdog]

I don't know your schedule, work load, or background, but you come across as a reasonably intelligent person. This theory has been discussed many times here (and elsewhere). But up til now, no Rigdon theorist has presented a cogent, coherent, and plausible theory, connecting the dots with evidence.

So, maybe you can do for us what no one else has done so far, connect all of the dots with some solid evidence, or at least enough of the dots to show some plausibility. Possibility does not show plausibility. That is where evidence comes into play.

I am not being facetious or sarcastic in the least. But you have some difficult hurdles to overcome.

Glenn

Connecting the dots?? Can you connect the dots that Joseph literally looked into a hat and translated the Book of Mormon via a stone? How can those dot be connected?

[SlackTime]

Connecting the dots?? Can you connect the dots that Joseph literally looked into a hat and translated the Book of Mormon via a stone? How can those dot be connected?

I am very curious as to what "translating by the gift and power of God" should look like to you? Would you like to describe for me a process that would be more believable? Exactly what should have an uneducated farm boy, translating a document he couldn't read, into English that he was unprepared to write (OK, so the scribes helped here) by inspiration, have looked like?

- SlackTime

[wenglund]

Good post, Bob. What do you mean by this? "1. Joseph Smith must meet SR prior to 1823 to get his Indian story in place: Evidence for or against?"

If I recall correctly, the history of Joseph Smith, written by his mother, has Joseph recounting to his family regarding the first and subsequent visits of the angel and things he had learned regarding the presumed ancestors of the indians, and this during nightly chats around the fireside beginning in 1823. If one accepts as accurate mother Smith's recollections, then for the Rigdon Authorship theory to be correct, JS and SR would have to have met prior to 1823.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Glenn101]

Glenn101, on 28 July 2010 - 12:50 PM, said:

I don't know your schedule, work load, or background, but you come across as a reasonably intelligent person. This theory has been discussed many times here (and elsewhere). But up til now, no Rigdon theorist has presented a cogent, coherent, and plausible theory, connecting the dots with evidence.

So, maybe you can do for us what no one else has done so far, connect all of the dots with some solid evidence, or at least enough of the dots to show some plausibility. Possibility does not show plausibility. That is where evidence comes into play.

I am not being facetious or sarcastic in the least. But you have some difficult hurdles to overcome.

Glenn

Connecting the dots?? Can you connect the dots that Joseph literally looked into a hat and translated the Book of Mormon via a stone? How can those dot be connected?

We are not discussing the translation methodology or even Joseph Smith as the author here. We are discussing the possibility/plausibility of Sidney Rigdon as the author of the Book of Mormon. The Rigdon theorists have been preaching Sidney as the possible author but there are many gaping holes in that theory which they have never filled. It is their burden to produce such evidence.

Althoug it is probably the theory most bandied about, buried, and resurrected, it is probably the theory held least credible by most critics of the Book of Mormon.

Glenn

[why me]

If he was a fraudster, then yes he would easily lie on his deathbed.

What does he gain by telling everyone he was a fraud for most of his life. At least, if his lie lives on, he still is viewed by followers as having been a good man. I swear we have gone through this same discussion regarding Joseph too. You are just pumped about the sincerity of death bed confessionals. Do all people come clean about everything in their life on their deathbed?

I haven't seen sidney being considered a good man at all. For critics he wrote the book of mormon and lied about it his entire life. For mormons, he left the lds church. For his followers now, all ten of them, he is a good man. And for this, he lies on his deathbed, and since he believed in god, he faces that god as a liar. And he also lies to his son and wife. Yep, he is certainly a good guy if true.

I find deathbed testimonies very telling. And in this case, his deathbed testimony and the deathbed testimonies of the witnesses are very compelling. There is a difference between a deathbeed testimony and confessional.

[why me]

Oh that is interesting. If it was a fraud, I cannot fathom SR not spilling the beans here. What would SR gain by not spilling the beans?

By spilling the beans he prevents others from taking over on his hard work of putting forth the fraud.

Good point.

And he also sticks it to brigham if he came clean. But here we have sidney quietly going away, forming his own church eventually and allowing the brighamites all the glory. He died a broken man, I believe.

[why me]

I just want to note that there are plenty of murderers who, moments prior to their executions, still maintain that they are innocent of the crimes for which they are being executed.

And maybe they are innocent. But in the case of sidney, it seems that he was a god fearing man. I find it hard to believe that he would give a deathbed testimony that he did not write the book as he faced his maker, if he did write the book. He had nothing to gain by giving a deathbed testimony but he had something to lose, if we consider Pascal's wager.

[why me]

Yeah, he went away and started a break-off group that still believed in the BoM... So, why would he admit he wrote it??????

He wouldn't. But on his deathbed he would if he wanted to make it right with his maker. But he gave his testimony that he did not write the book. And that is the point. Now this would make sense only if he were an atheist. But I don't think that he was an atheist.

[Cold Steel]

Yes, it would require some conspiracy on their part to conceal any relationship earlier than 1830. Is that surprising? That's hardly a big hole. If they conspired to create the BoM, they would surely do all they could to keep their relationship, before its publication, secret.

The biggest hole (gaping, in fact) is the large number of things in the Book of Mormon that no one could have known. We've already discussed and are awaiting answers for how anyone would know about Nahom and Bountiful. Also the valley and the "river of water" that critics for years have been poking us in the chest about. And though some critics contend that they're really not impressed with the chiasms in the Book of Mormon, they're still there, and they're fairly complex. Then there's the whole "land of Jerusalem" thing where Christ was said to have been born, and Alma being a male name.

Of all these, the greatest is the location of Bountiful. It alone, without any of the rest, being precisely where Nephi said it would be, and its containing plenty of ore, wood, grains, honey, hills, cliffs, harbors and so forth, is something that Solomon Spalding, Rigdon, Joseph Smith nor anyone else could have foretold. We may not have the New World settings down, but whoever wrote the Book of Mormon (at least the first portion of it) was minutely familiar with the details of geography of the old world, down to distances and directions. Had anyone tried to write such a book, they would have failed on all of these points.

Even if it could be proved that Joseph Smith met Rigdon in 1828 and that Rigdon had just spent two months living with Solomon Spalding and that a manuscript had disappeared just after he left, it would still not explain the above, nor account for the accuracy. The Book of Mormon is filled with Hebraisms that weren't even known about in Joseph Smith's day, and the original Book of Mormon manuscript is laced with them. (Most of these have been documented by Daniel Peterson here. He also has two very good CD sets on the topics, which include outstanding synopses of the lives and testimonies of the Book of Mormon witnesses which, in turn, were based on Richard L. Anderson's research). As a convert to the church, myself, these testimonies not only are some of the most compelling evidences for the Book of Mormon, but are far too casually dismissed by critics. (If you don't believe me, try to talk 10-12 friends with good reputations to lie for you, risk those reputations and then, take it to their graves.)

These are all holes big enough to drive trucks through.

[why me]

These are all holes big enough to drive trucks through.

Rigdon was an established preacher with a following. Joseph Smith was a young man and a nobody. Just looking into Joseph's background would convince any preacher that he was not reliable as a partner nor was he intelligent. When I stress unreliability I am not referring to lying or cheating but as to his profession as farmer and treasure hunter. Why would sidney want to team up with Joseph?

But as we have seen in the old and new testaments, god seems to pick the strangest partners to do his work. Paul, for example. The 12 apostles as an another example. They were not the best and the brightest. But made so, as they grew into their new callings.

[Vookman]

robuchan asked:

What do you mean by this? "1. Joseph Smith must meet SR prior to 1823 to get his Indian story in place: Evidence for or against?"

Also, I agree with your idea that the critic's view of LDS foundations require a conspiracy of some sort. I don't know if it's dozens as you state, but there seems to be a requirement for some level of conspiracy

Wade Englund hits the 1823 issue for me. It is beyond question that JS is declaring by 1823 that angels are visiting him telling him about the circumstances of the Book of Mormon.

As for the scope of the conspiracy, you have the 3 and 8 witnesses, Emma, all the people who saw Joseph Smith with his head in the hat translating the BoM. This includes the non-witness Smith children, the Knight family, the non-witness Whitmers, Josiah Stowell, Lucy Smith, Ruben Hale, and especially Oliver Cowdery, who states he wrote nearly all of the BoM. This is the same O. Cowdery who is described by those who knew him in his later legal career as one of impeccable character, and who felt his character was attacked as he left the Church and by members during his absence from the Church. He had every reason to deny the reality of the plates and the translation.

Anyway, because the plates were out in plain view for much of the translation in a box or under a cloth, and JS was visible dictating, it would require a conspiracy to maintain this "lie" if it did not happen as they said.

Also, don't forget the competing theories to SR providing the story. I mean in particular "The Golden Pot"-theory offered by that expert on LDS history, Grant Palmer in offering E.T.A. Hoffmann's story as the basis of JS entire purpose of his life. To Palmer, JS doesn't need SR, as he is completely committed to "The Golden Pot" story after supposedly learning of the story from Luman Walters during some money digging experiences. As most folks know who have looked at Palmer's theory, Hoffmann's story is not available in English until 1829, so he proposes that Hoffmann's German edition was brought by Walters to Palmyra, and, prior to 1823, he reads from it and translates it into English, which has such a profound impact on JS, that it becomes the pattern for his entire life. Don't let it bother anyone there is no evidence that Walters was familiar with the book or possessed it, or, for that matter, that Joseph was in any way influenced by Walters except in a NEGATIVE way, as, according to Willard Chase, Walters' contended that he was able to know where treasure was, and Joseph Smith Sr. spent several days fruitlessly digging a hole looking for treasure based on Walters' supposed vision.

In any event, I think it is in fact a couple of dozen folks who need to be lying to support JS. No one steps forward, like Lucy Harris would certainly have done, to say that JS got his material from someone else. Also, if there was some outside source, the loss of the 116 pages would have been completely irrelevant, as they could have restored it word for word, and done it multiple times, if need be.

ETA Hoffmann's work, and it being thrown into the mix as an explanation of the origin of all Mormonism is really identical to anything related to an early appearance of SR. Take a very, very limited historical evidence (for Hoffmann, the German origins of Walters; for SR, his close proximity to Spaulding) and then assert that even in the absence of any other supporting evidence, this is a supposedly plausible alternate explanation from the much more factually conforming description offered by JS and those dozens of witnesses and historical accounts.

Possible is not plausible, as several have noted. Or maybe OJ was innocent.

[robuchan]

robuchan asked:

Wade Englund hits the 1823 issue for me. It is beyond question that JS is declaring by 1823 that angels are visiting him telling him about the circumstances of the Book of Mormon.

As for the scope of the conspiracy, you have the 3 and 8 witnesses, Emma, all the people who saw Joseph Smith with his head in the hat translating the BoM. This includes the non-witness Smith children, the Knight family, the non-witness Whitmers, Josiah Stowell, Lucy Smith, Ruben Hale, and especially Oliver Cowdery, who states he wrote nearly all of the BoM. This is the same O. Cowdery who is described by those who knew him in his later legal career as one of impeccable character, and who felt his character was attacked as he left the Church and by members during his absence from the Church. He had every reason to deny the reality of the plates and the translation.

Anyway, because the plates were out in plain view for much of the translation in a box or under a cloth, and JS was visible dictating, it would require a conspiracy to maintain this "lie" if it did not happen as they said.

Also, don't forget the competing theories to SR providing the story. I mean in particular "The Golden Pot"-theory offered by that expert on LDS history, Grant Palmer in offering E.T.A. Hoffmann's story as the basis of JS entire purpose of his life. To Palmer, JS doesn't need SR, as he is completely committed to "The Golden Pot" story after supposedly learning of the story from Luman Walters during some money digging experiences. As most folks know who have looked at Palmer's theory, Hoffmann's story is not available in English until 1829, so he proposes that Hoffmann's German edition was brought by Walters to Palmyra, and, prior to 1823, he reads from it and translates it into English, which has such a profound impact on JS, that it becomes the pattern for his entire life. Don't let it bother anyone there is no evidence that Walters was familiar with the book or possessed it, or, for that matter, that Joseph was in any way influenced by Walters except in a NEGATIVE way, as, according to Willard Chase, Walters' contended that he was able to know where treasure was, and Joseph Smith Sr. spent several days fruitlessly digging a hole looking for treasure based on Walters' supposed vision.

In any event, I think it is in fact a couple of dozen folks who need to be lying to support JS. No one steps forward, like Lucy Harris would certainly have done, to say that JS got his material from someone else. Also, if there was some outside source, the loss of the 116 pages would have been completely irrelevant, as they could have restored it word for word, and done it multiple times, if need be.

ETA Hoffmann's work, and it being thrown into the mix as an explanation of the origin of all Mormonism is really identical to anything related to an early appearance of SR. Take a very, very limited historical evidence (for Hoffmann, the German origins of Walters; for SR, his close proximity to Spaulding) and then assert that even in the absence of any other supporting evidence, this is a supposedly plausible alternate explanation from the much more factually conforming description offered by JS and those dozens of witnesses and historical accounts.

Possible is not plausible, as several have noted. Or maybe OJ was innocent.

Two areas I'd like to follow up. I'm not an expert on this, so I'm not challenging you, just probing.

1. The 1823 reference. What accounts were made at the time and what was made after the fact referencing back to 1823?

2. Let's get into the dozens of folks you think need to be lying. I see a few categories. 1) flat out conspirators 2) believe in Joseph Smith badly enough that they created their own visions. This group is not terribly unlike a typical LDS that testifies they have spiritual witness and know beyond shadow of doubt Joseph saw God. This group also may be guilty of overtestifying for the greater cause and not see it directly as lying and may not even understand it's lying on a conscious level. Also remember, many of these people clarify that their experiences were seen with "spiritual" eyes. 3) were tricked by Joseph or other conspirators and I think it's hard for someone to read everything about Martin Harris and not believe he's in this category.

I feel like SR and OC were conspirators (and possibly Emma and Lucy Mack Smith) and the rest were in one of the other two categories. Do you think this is possible?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Two areas I'd like to follow up. I'm not an expert on this, so I'm not challenging you, just probing.

I feel like SR and OC were conspirators (and possibly Emma and Lucy Mack Smith) and the rest were in one of the other two categories. Do you think this is possible plausible?

There fixed it for you.

The answer is no. IF you think the answer is yes, please presnet your evidence.

[robuchan]

There fixed it for you.

The answer is no. IF you think the answer is yes, please presnet your evidence.

This is not some competition for me. I'm only interested in it for myself.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

This is not some competition for me. I'm only interested in it for myself.

I am not in the competing business. This is how you should approach this theory. You should look at it if it is plausible. Saying "I think this is possible" as a reason to believe it is a good theory is a really poor reason to believe it. I am trying to help you here.

[robuchan]

I am not in the competing business. This is how you should approach this theory. You should look at it if it is plausible. Saying "I think this is possible" as a reason to believe it is a good theory is a really poor reason to believe it. I am trying to help you here.

The faithful version is completely implausible to me, so I'm looking for another explanation.

When I read the primary accounts of the three witnesses story, it reads like a con on Martin Harris to me. When I read the primary accounts of the sec 76 vision, it reads like a con perpetrated by JS and SR on the audience. When the visionary experiences of Moroni, Fist Vision, John the Baptist, Peter James John Mel priesthood all were written and rewritten after the fact, it feels plausible to me that they didn't occur exactly as the faithful view states.

When people of all different faiths in all different times have conflicting interactions with God and angels, I may not write them all off as liars or conspirators, but I think it's plausible there are other explanations other than God and real angels were involved every time.

[steelyray]

Here's what Wikipedia has to say about it currently.

"A 2008 computer analysis of the text of the Book of Mormon compared to writings of possible authors of the text shows a high probability that the authors of the book were Spalding, Rigdon, and Oliver Cowdery; concluding that "our analysis supports the theory that the Book of Mormon was written by multiple, nineteenth-century authors, and more specifically, we find strong support for the Spalding-Rigdon theory of authorship. In all the data, we find Rigdon as a unifying force. His signal dominates the book, and where other candidates are more probable, Rigdon is often hiding in the shadows".^[14] This study did not include Joseph Smith as one of the possible authors, arguing that because of Smith's use of scribes and co-authors, no texts can be presently identified with a surety as having been written by Smith.

The Stanford group (Jocker et al., 2008) found a strong Spalding signal in Mosiah, Alma, the first part of Helaman, and Ether. The Spalding signal was weak in those parts of the Book of Mormon likely produced after the lost pages incident (1 Nephi, 2 Nephi, some of the middle part of 3 Nephi, Moroni). They found the Rigdon signal distributed throughout the Book of Mormon (except for the known Isaiah chapters), and a weak Pratt signal in 1 Nephi. They also found a strong Cowdery signal in mid-Alma and weaker Cowdery signals in locations that contain content similar to Ethan Smith's "View of the Hebrews".

Previous wordprint or computer studies have come to different conclusions (for a history of such studies from the perspective of a LDS group, see http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Wordprint_studies). A 1980 study done by John Hilton with non-LDS colleagues at Berkeley concluded that the probability of Spaulding having been the (sole) author of book of Nephi was less than 7.29 x 10^?28 and less than 3 x 10^?11for Alma^[15].

In the Stanford group (Jocker et al., 2008) peer-reviewed publication in the "Journal of Literary and Linguistic Computing", they reviewed the (non-peer reviewed) Hilton study and pointed out numerous flaws in it.

They (Jocker et al., 2008) found that the Book of Alma is a mixture of Rigdon, Cowdery, and Spalding. The Hilton study does not indicate what text they used for Alma. If one lumps all the signals for Rigdon, Cowdery, and Spalding together, one is left with a corrupt signal that does not match Spalding."

It seems they have some issues with the fairmormon account of Hilton's study.

[oremites]

Also remember, many of these people clarify that their experiences were seen with "spiritual" eyes.

CFR on this. Who specifically were these many people who clarified this?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Here's what Wikipedia has to say about it currently.

"A 2008 computer analysis of the text of the Book of Mormon compared to writings of possible authors of the text shows a high probability that the authors of the book were Spalding, Rigdon, and Oliver Cowdery; concluding that "our analysis supports the theory that the Book of Mormon was written by multiple, nineteenth-century authors, and more specifically, we find strong support for the Spalding-Rigdon theory of authorship. In all the data, we find Rigdon as a unifying force. His signal dominates the book, and where other candidates are more probable, Rigdon is often hiding in the shadows".^[14] This study did not include Joseph Smith as one of the possible authors, arguing that because of Smith's use of scribes and co-authors, no texts can be presently identified with a surety as having been written by Smith.

The Stanford group (Jocker et al., 2008) found a strong Spalding signal in Mosiah, Alma, the first part of Helaman, and Ether. The Spalding signal was weak in those parts of the Book of Mormon likely produced after the lost pages incident (1 Nephi, 2 Nephi, some of the middle part of 3 Nephi, Moroni). They found the Rigdon signal distributed throughout the Book of Mormon (except for the known Isaiah chapters), and a weak Pratt signal in 1 Nephi. They also found a strong Cowdery signal in mid-Alma and weaker Cowdery signals in locations that contain content similar to Ethan Smith's "View of the Hebrews".

Previous wordprint or computer studies have come to different conclusions (for a history of such studies from the perspective of a LDS group, see http://en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Wordprint_studies). A 1980 study done by John Hilton with non-LDS colleagues at Berkeley concluded that the probability of Spaulding having been the (sole) author of book of Nephi was less than 7.29 x 10^?28 and less than 3 x 10^?11for Alma^[15].

In the Stanford group (Jocker et al., 2008) peer-reviewed publication in the "Journal of Literary and Linguistic Computing", they reviewed the (non-peer reviewed) Hilton study and pointed out numerous flaws in it.

They (Jocker et al., 2008) found that the Book of Alma is a mixture of Rigdon, Cowdery, and Spalding. The Hilton study does not indicate what text they used for Alma. If one lumps all the signals for Rigdon, Cowdery, and Spalding together, one is left with a corrupt signal that does not match Spalding."

It seems they have some issues with the fairmormon account of Hilton's study.

This word study has been discredited (I beleive). you can read about it from the link that I linked to at the first of this thread.

Amoung other things there is very very little external evidence that this conspiracy acutally happened. Hence this thread was born. And so far no evidence has been put for more than "I just find X to be possible." Not very good if you ask me. And it would seem that other reject the churches stance out right because they don't accpet supernatural things.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The faithful version is completely implausible to me, so I'm looking for another explanation.

So it is implausible because you say so.

When I read the primary accounts of the three witnesses story, it reads like a con on Martin Harris to me. When I read the primary accounts of the sec 76 vision, it reads like a con perpetrated by JS and SR on the audience. When the visionary experiences of Moroni, Fist Vision, John the Baptist, Peter James John Mel priesthood all were written and rewritten after the fact, it feels plausible to me that they didn't occur exactly as the faithful view states.

So it feels plausible so it must be. That is good to know. And you think it reads like a con. Just what does a con read like? Can you demonstrate this more than mere assertion?

When people of all different faiths in all different times have conflicting interactions with God and angels, I may not write them all off as liars or conspirators, but I think it's plausible there are other explanations other than God and real angels were involved every time.

Ah is it plausible that all of everyones experiances really are not of God? That is that every time some one claims a spiritual experiance it must be fake. That seems to be the position you have taken. How do you suppose that we can test this hypothosis?

It's like saying because Joe claims to love his wife but clearly doesn't that means that every one must not love their wife. Because we can find a conflict with some people.