More Book of Mormon Studies

[Uncle Dale]

...

1. Nephites were having the exact same religious discussions that

Campbell and Rigdon were having pre 1830

...or....

2. Joseph Smith was deeply concerned about settling all those theological

questions before he even met Rigdon and was undecided as to which church to join?

...

You must not forget, Roger, that we Latter Day Saints are taught

from the cradle that the Gospel was "from the beginning;" that

is, Christianity has sprung up seven times on the earth, and each

time (save for the last) it has withered and died in universal

apostasy. In each of those seven dispensations the "one true church"

is the same as it is today.

We RLDS, as kids, were given Sunday School lessons in which Peter,

James and John were juxtapositioned along side Israel A. Smith

and his two counselors in the First Presidency. Enoch's congregation

was pictured gathered under a great cross -- Nephi and Lehi were

illustrated predicting that Jesus would be born of Mary at Jerusalem.

For a Latter Day Saint, it all flows together --- of course the Nephites

had Christian baptisms, and sang Christian hymns, and knew all about

John the Baptist, ere he was ever born.

No doubt the Jaredites quoted Paul's letters and the Book of Revelation.

Adam was immersed in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost and

took upon him the name of Jesus, when Palestine had not a single inhabitant.

So --- of course the ancient Nephites argued theology like Alexander Campbell;

but they also had godly prophets among them, to set those arguments to rest.

When Joseph Smith appeared upon the scene (with his trusty sidekick spokesman)

he too put latter day Campbellite arguments to rest.

And, could there be an eighth dispensation, Bruce's counterpart would be

challenging some geeky critic of future "restoration scriptures," and the

claims that the recovered record of the Lost Tribes was really written by

Dale Broadhurst back in the year 2012...

The more it changes, the more it stays the same.

UD

[Gervin]

Bruce has gone to great lengths to explain why the conclusions that were drawn from the data are flawed, but there are a few who either do not understand the import of the things Bruce has said, or think he does not know what he is talking about.

I fall into the third category of someone who will withhold judgement until they've read his published article.

So we will have to wait for the peer reviewed article ...

Oh! You're waiting for the same article.

... before those parallels once again bite the dust.[/

You just act like you've read it. Funny.

[Uncle Dale]

...

You also produced a "heat chart," which I have replicated (minus the heat)

for a useful "similarities tree" of the Book of Mormon. I've included the

19th century authors' texts also, in an extended version). Examining that

"tree" we see the 19th century authors once again grouping closely together.

But the Nephite Record fragments into a number of "branches" on the tree,

so that contiguity and continuity in the narrative is rarely preserved in

the "similarities" groupings....

A reduced-size image of the above-mentioned "tree." I can supply

a larger picture, if anybody is interested:

The texts list on the left hand side of the image is illegible

in the reduced-size graphic, so here it is in spreadsheet form:

http://sidneyrigdon.com/criddle/BS/BoMtree1.xls

It should be recalled that the relationships between the texts,

as depicted in the "tree" are pre-NSC analysis --- that is, the

calculations for which text most resembles some other text are

not made using the NSC classification nor the Delta methodology.

Two texts included in the same "node" bear a closer resemblance

(in terms of frequently occurring non-contextual word patterns)

than do any two texts NOT grouped within the same node.

Inside any particular node there are "branches." Two texts

joined near the left-hand side of the chart in a single branch

are relatively similar. This relationship can be best visualized

in the case of "Spalding03" and "Spalding02" -- which are actually

the same text, repeated in Jockers' study as a checksum control.

Both of those two "leaves" on the "tree" join at the zero marker,

because they are identical.

Two texts which line up near each other within a node, but are NOT

joined at a low comparison value (nearer the left-hand side of the tree)

are less alike than two texts joined in the same sub-branch of the node.

There are different possible ways to arrange these sub-branches within

a node, so do not count on my method as the best one.

UD

[Uncle Dale]

...

I can supply a larger picture, if anybody is interested

OK -- here's a zoom-in of the same textual similarities "tree."

The 19th century authors' texts are indicated on the left-hand

size of the chart, with short colored bars" Yellow for Cowdery,

Greenish-Blue for Pratt, and Bluish-Lavender for Rigdon.

Spalding is Pink.

The longer colored bars are BoM chapters' authorship attributions,

combining my own determinations for Spalding and Jockers' preliminary

attributions (all in Pink). The Long Brown bars represent Biblical chapters.

As can be seen, the Spalding authorship attributions (made long before

this "tree" was ever envisioned) more or less cluster in two groups.

This clustering effect may indeed be due to "Genre;" -- but, if so,

nobody has yet explained to me how "Genre" so markedly effects the

distribution of frequently used non-contextual words.

Recall the fact that this "tree" is constructed only upon the patterns

produced by the percentages and distributions of those words in the texts.

Uncle Dale

.

[4truth]

Glenn:

Agreed Hurlbut did not "invent" the Spalding claim. However, his Conneaut witnesses show all of the earmarks of being led. Their statements, as pointed out by Ben, are so similar that more than a little leading is indicated.

Even conceding (which I don't) that "his Conneaut witnesses show all of the earmarks of being led," so what? It's a moot point if you're willing to concede (as you just did) that Hurlbut did not invent these claims.

The fact that non of the Book of Mormon names described by those witnesses is present in the Oberlin manuscript is fatal to that theory.

You've stated this several times, but it's simply not correct. The only way it's fatal to the theory is if the Conneaut witnesses were all just a pack of rabid anti-Mormon liars, willing to say anything to bring Joseph Smith down. But if that's the case, then you've got a conspiracy to explain.

The fact that all the Conneaut witnesses described almost exactly the same "historical" events generically, but left out many other striking historical events is also highly suspect.

No it isn't. In the first place, you've mischaracterized. There is some overlap, sure, which is what we would expect due to shared experience. But there are plenty of unique elements in their testimonies as well. All you have to do is look at the first sentence of each statement to see variety. In the second place, the witnesses are describing a manuscript they were exposed to over 20 years in the past with elements of their memories being jogged by recent exposure to the BOM. Their testimonies are quite consistent with what we would expect from that. They are insistent that the lead characters were Nephi and Lehi. And that is consistent with what we would expect if either:

A. they had actually been exposed to Nephi and Lehi repeatedly as the lead characters in Spalding's novel

or

B. they were all lying through their teeth.

I don't see any room for compromise on this. The notion that Hurlbut implanted false memories into their brains but, by george, they believed they were telling the truth is ridiculous, IMHO.

The only item that half-way makes a Spalding connection plausible is the Jockers NSC study.

But Jockers wouldn't have even done a study if it weren't for the witnesses telling us as early as 1832 there was a connection.

Bruce has gone to great lengths to explain why the conclusions that were drawn from the data are flawed, but there are a few who either do not understand the import of the things Bruce has said, or think he does not know what he is talking about.

So we will have to wait for the peer reviewed article before those parallels once again bite the dust.

Yes, the peer review will be quite informative.

All the best.

[4truth]

UD wrote:

So --- of course the ancient Nephites argued theology like Alexander Campbell;

but they also had godly prophets among them, to set those arguments to rest.

When Joseph Smith appeared upon the scene (with his trusty sidekick spokesman)

he too put latter day Campbellite arguments to rest.

You know, Uncle Dale, if that's what they want to argue to explain those sections of the BOM, I'm fine with that. Trouble is, they seem to prefer silence.

Of course, they are free to believe whatever they want and I suppose it's a fair way to reduce the impact of what otherwise would be a weird coincidence by redefining it as something more akin to a cycle. In the same way they don't seem to have a problem with God predicting the arrival of Joseph Smith in the latter days through Nephite prophets as opposed to Joseph simply writing himself into the book.

The issue might die there at an impasse if there weren't other solid reasons to reject the orthodox version of how the BOM came to be. But in light of the fact that there is no archeological support for the existence of Nephites or their alleged reformed Egyptian; given that there are no ancient extra-BOM texts mentioning Nephites or any of their cities, given that there are no extant plates and even the alleged characters from those plates are disputed (plus a number of other reasons) I think it's safe to conclude Rigdon's theological debates paralleling Nephite debates is neither cyclical nor coincidental but rather quite suspect.

If we rule out the orthodox version, we're left with either Rigdon producing those sections or Joseph Smith. Not surprisingly, Jockers attributes them to Rigdon.

Until the Chris Smith's out there can show evidence that Joseph Smith was highly involved in the great theological debates of the mid to late 1820s and believed he had the answers to those controversies such that he could authoritatively write them into an emulation of a new Bible in order to produce ancient scripture to bolster his position, I conclude that Rigdon is indeed the more likely author of those sections.

All the best.

[Uncle Dale]

Even conceding (which I don't) that "his Conneaut witnesses show

all of the earmarks of being led," so what?

...

We might also ask whether the BoM's "three witnesses" and its

"eight witnesses" were "led" by any designing prompter.

Why did they not each make out a separate certificate, in their

own words, if they were not "led?"

Hurlbut obviously accomplished something similar in late 1833,

in getting numerous witnesses in Manchester to sign a joint

statement. He did the same thing with some Palmyra witnesses

Interviewers "lead" witnesses. Larry King "leads" the President

of the Mormon Church, when appearing for a televised interview.

That's life.

But the LDS polemicists want to discredit the Conneaut witnesses

to the point that no subsequent testifiers are even offered up

for examination. If the Conenaut people were such liars, then so

might be Robert Patterson of Pittsburgh -- who testified to Spalding's

submitting to him a manuscript story written in the Biblical style,

which Patterson came to believe was the basis for the Book of Mormon.

But, If old Aron Wright, Henry Lake and John Spalding were Satan's

henchmen, in a devious attempt at destroying Christ's one true church,

then so might have been Redik McKee, Abner Jackson, and two dozen

other witnesses who added evidence after the Conneaut people were

interviewed.

Even an anti-Mormon like Dan Vogel takes that road --- why even look

at subsequent testimony, if we can be certain that the Conenaut people

were not telling us anything truthful?

Joseph Smith Jr., himself could come down from Heaven, in a swirl of

glory in the midst of General Conference, edging past the current

President of the Church on the podium and speaking into the microphone:

"Sorry, folks, Rigdon and Spalding wrote it!" and the LDS polemicists

would still be badgering the reputations and recollections of old-timers

in Conneaut, Ohio in the 1830s.

It's become the LDS "default" position --- Attack the witnesses and say

that Spalding only ever wrote one story in his life, which the Church

has published, and which belies the witnesses' testimony.

Case closed...

UD

.

[Uncle Dale]

...

Until the Chris Smith's out there can show evidence that Joseph Smith was

highly involved in the great theological debates of the mid to late 1820s

and believed he had the answers to those controversies

...

He was a-workin' along that line, way back in '26, I'd reckon.

Weren't 'til he set himself up at Nauvoo that ol' Jo got it down

as pat as a riverboat gambler's draw to an inside straight, though.

Shucks, ol' Jo coulda been anything he'd set his mind to, if he'd

just gotten the itch to do it -- Rich man, Poor man, Beggar man, Thief.

Doctor, Lawyer, Indian Chief. Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Sailor,

Gentleman, Ploughboy, Merchant, Chief. He was all o' them...

UD

.

[why me]

So let me see if I understand this: First we have rigdon stealing a spaulding manuscript, a manuscript that we do not have but believed existed. We do have a manucript but it was the wrong manucript. Second, we have rigdon inserting various text into the spaulding manucript. He inserted the religious parts among the text and of course that was not all, but mainly the religous parts. He slaves away doing this because he wants to create a new religion to grip the masses. Third, when he is finished he askes Smith, Cowdery, Pratt to also insert tbeir own text into the book. Now of course, no one is revising what spaulding wrote, they are just inserting text. And no one is revising what rigdon wrote, they are just inserting text. Fourth, the manucript is being carried around by all these people without a problem. And no rough drafts are left hanging around for someone to read. All are dutifully collected and destroyed. Or was there any rough drafts involved? If we are dealing with sidney's manucript, and all the others are adding to it, there must have been rough drafts since it would be impossible to just add text to the original. Fifth, when sidney stole the phantom manucript, how could he know that spaulding also did not have a copy kept for safe keeping? Did most writers at that time, only have one copy of their work in progress? And what about spauldings own rough drafts? Usually, people leave around rough drafts that they have been working on and not just the original. Just one page of a rough draft would have destroyed Rigdon.

And it would seem to me, that all the socalled authors of the book of mormon must have revised Rigdon's and spaulding's work that was already in the manucript when they added to the text. But I must say that the whole story of how the book came to be with a few authors in the 19th century is quite amazing. I am just surprised that no one saw this massive manucript being carried around...and without pages being lost or destroyed by fire, rain or snow. And for what end? To start a new religion?

[4truth]

why me:

So let me see if I understand this:

In a word: no.

[Uncle Dale]

So let me see if I understand this: First we have rigdon stealing a

spaulding manuscript, a manuscript that we do not have but believed

existed.

I doubt he bothered to "steal" anything. More likely he just copied

out the sections that interested him. His subsequent mentor, Alexander

Campbell used to hand-copy entire theological books. He was a penny-pincher

and Rigdon was a penniless apprentice tanner, but I'll wager both copied stuff.

We do have a manucript but it was the wrong manucript.

We even have a letter revealing Spalding's greatest desires

after college graduation; but it is the "wrong" letter to

prove he came up with a character named "Nephi." Why on

earth would anybody even think of preserving such trash?

It is a wonder that we have a full sentence in the guy's

handwriting. But, perhaps if you took the trouble to go

looking, you could find more than the two letters I found.

Second, we have rigdon inserting various text into the spaulding

manucript. He inserted the religious parts among the text and of

course that was not all, but mainly the religous parts.

I have a book I "insert" my random thoughts into. It is a

leather-bound Bible given me in the 1950s. The margins are

full with my jottings. So are the endpapers and the fly-leaf.

Some clever writer could probably make a book out of it all --

or at least a unique commentary upon the scriptures.

I suppose that any such "insertions" Rigdon made into any

pre-written pages in his keeping, were something similar --

his literary arguments for and against whatever was already

written on those pages. And stuff from his visions -- just like

he continued doing, on odd scraps of paper, right down to 1876.

He slaves away doing this because he wants to create a new

religion to grip the masses.

You are getting far ahead of yourself here. First he compiles

his occasional jottings, over a period of years -- say, 1818-1824 --

and then he is pressed into peddling Elder Cambell's new Bible,

which all the Reformed Baptist elders had to use and promote.

Then he writes his "Third Epistle of Peter" in biblical style.

All along, he sees that Campbell's so-called "Restoration" is never

going to set the stage for the Second Coming and the Millennium. If

Bro. Alexander has his way, Sidney will never see Christ face-to-face

this side of the veil.

Third, when he is finished he askes Smith, Cowdery, Pratt to also

insert their own text into the book.

You keep racing ahead of yourself. First of all, Sidney has to

meet young Joe the Seer and be overawed to encounter such a visionary

as himself -- the only other man on earth who can unseal the secrets

prepared before the foundations of the heavens and the earth.

And, having once found this choice seer, Sidney has to win his trust

and friendship -- not an easy nor a quick task.

Now of course, no one is revising what spaulding wrote, they

are just inserting text.

Oh, I suppose that Sidney had retained enough fragments of old Solomon's

scribblings that he could at least re-construct the murder of Laban,

the divine gift of the Liahona, and the stormy ocean passage to America.

True -- 116 pages of Spalding were lost forever, but Sidney and the Saints

knew that each and every Gospel dispensation was very much like all the rest.

With Oliver's divining rod to guide them -- and Joe's peepstone to confirm

what they had first of all "worked out" in their minds, a burning in the

bosom was not far off. Nephite history didn't have to be perfect; it only

had to be faith-promoting. Anything that leads to Christ is truth, you know.

And no one is revising what rigdon wrote, they are just inserting text. Fourth,

the manucript is being carried around by all these people without a problem.

No doubt Pratt became weary of all that carrying about -- but when he found

that Joe had lost 116 pages, the "problems" of toting manuscripts about paled

in comparison to the "problems" of re-writing so much missing Nephite history.

And no rough drafts are left hanging around for someone to read.

Not much -- or else the Saints of 1828 could have reconstructed the

missing 116 pages without much effort. The rough drafts probably ended

up in the outhouse, for the most part -- that, or the Harmony fireplace.

All are dutifully collected and destroyed. Or was there any rough drafts

involved? If we are dealing with sidney's manucript, and all the others

are adding to it, there must have been rough drafts since it would be

impossible to just add text to the original.

How would you and a group of two or three friends accomplish such a

task today -- if you chose not to use e-mail and computer word-processing?

Yes, it would be tedious and problematic --- but not impossible.

Fifth, when sidney stole the phantom manucript, how could he know that spaulding

also did not have a copy kept for safe keeping?

It probably did not matter to him. He put his faith in God and assumed

all would work out for the best. Silas Engles was dead. J. H. Lambdin was

dead. The Patterson brothers had split up. Spalding's widow was long-gone.

The old stories of preColumbian America were truths belonging to nobody,

and to everybody. Like Indian legends. They were up for grabs.

What Rigdon did not (evidently) know, was that Spalding had shared his

story with folks in Amity, Washington, and Conneaut. Had Rigdon known

such facts, he might have been more cautious in retaining names like

Kishkumen and Helorum.

Did most writers at that time, only have one copy of their work in progress?

And what about spauldings own rough drafts? Usually, people leave around rough

drafts that they have been working on and not just the original. Just one page

of a rough draft would have destroyed Rigdon.

Spalding re-cycled his rough drafts. We can see discarded hunks of one of

them, crossed out and re-written in the Oberlin manuscript itself. But

Rigdon knew that keeping pages written in his own handwriting would prove

a problem. I do not suppose that a single such "Nephite Record" page was kept,

after it had served its intended purpose.

And it would seem to me, that all the socalled authors of the book of mormon must have revised Rigdon's and spaulding's work that was already in the manucript when they added to the text. But I must say that the whole story of how the book came to be with a few authors in the 19th century is quite amazing. I am just surprised that no one saw this massive manucript being carried around...and without pages being lost or destroyed by fire, rain or snow. And for what end? To start a new religion?

Not to start a new religion -- but to correct Alexander Campbell, in restoring

the only true religion.

Blame it on Alexander -- much of this was his fault.

UD

.

[Uncle Dale]

In a word: no.

You asked earlier about which parts of the Book of Mormon

resemble Spalding's writings.

I'll reproduce the bottom my my previously featured "tree"

of BoM textual similarities.

As you can see, the "Record of Helaman" chapters near

the end of Alma are split between two different "nodes"

on the tree. This seems odd to me, since most of these

same Alma 43-44, 46-53 chapters cluster near each other

in various different chartings.

Perhaps we'll have to re-read the Book of Mormon, with

this new "tree" in hand, skipping from chapter to chapter,

based upon what it is telling us, in order to find answers.

UD

[Glenn101]

You just act like you've read it. Funny.

I've read the prepublication draft.

Glenn

[why me]

I have a book I "insert" my random thoughts into. It is a

leather-bound Bible given me in the 1950s. The margins are

full with my jottings. So are the endpapers and the fly-leaf.

Some clever writer could probably make a book out of it all --

or at least a unique commentary upon the scriptures.

I suppose that any such "insertions" Rigdon made into any

pre-written pages in his keeping, were something similar --

his literary arguments for and against whatever was already

written on those pages. And stuff from his visions -- just like

he continued doing, on odd scraps of paper, right down to 1876.

UD

I still see a problem. We have a manuscript---the phantom spaulding manucript and then we have Rigdon's manuscipt. In Rigdon's manuscript we have spaulding and rigdon with rigdon making insertions with his inkwell and feathered pen in the margins. Or do we just have the phantom spaulding manuscript with rigdon making insertions in the margins? Sooner or later spaulding's manuscript will need to be revised and rewritten for rigdon to include his writings in the manuscript. And then, if we include oliver and joseph, more rewritings and revising. All with inkwells and feathered pens.

Your random thoughts are margined in the margins with a ball point pen. Please sit down and use an ink well and feathered pen and let me know what happens. And then, begin to write the book of mormon with feathered pen and passing it around to others, allowing them to add text in the margins with a feathered pen or rewrite the text with a feathered pen and pass it back to you for approval. Eventually, spaulding's work will begin to disappear with every addition since it would need to be rewritten to fit the new additions.

My point: this is a painful process for writing a book based on someone else's manuscript. Not to mention ink blots and ink spills etc. I just don't see how it can be done...without leaving traces of the work behind for seeings eyes. The rough drafts will be a killer not to mention ink on the fingers. And yet, JS managed to keep it all a secret when he had the manuscript as he read and made additions with feathered pen in hand.

[why me]

why me:

In a word: no.

Well, maybe you can explain to me just how all this was done with feathered pen and inkwells, having the manuscipt passed around for others to make additions and corrections, with rough drafts and ink blots galore. And rewriting the text over and over again...And yet, maintaining the secret from roving eyes. We are dealing with a manuscript with well nigh to a thousand pages of feathered pen ink.

[Uncle Dale]

I still see a problem. We have a manuscript---the phantom spaulding manucript

No need to call it a "phantom." Robert Patterson, Sr. said in 1842 that

he had received a manuscript written in Biblical style which he later

came to believe was the basis for the Book of Mormon. This he related

to Samuel Williams, who published the statement that year and advertised

it in the local newspaper. Williams and Patterson knew each other --

they were both Calvinist ministers in Pittsburgh when it was still a

small city. Both were associated with the local theological seminary.

Patterson allowed Williams' interview with him to be published and

circulated in Pittsburgh and abroad -- there is today a copy of it

preserved in the LDS Archives.

The published Patterson statement so bothered the local LDS leader

(Apostle John E. Page) that he went to Patterson to conduct his own

interview. Page came away from that second Patterson interview with

no useful criticism. All that we know of the outcome is that Page

learned that Spalding's widow had re-submitted the same manuscript

to Patterson, after her husband's death -- probably in late 1816.

This adds a double confirmation to the assertion that it was Spalding's

writings which were first submitted to Patterson.

But there is a bit more that came out of the second Patterson interview,

and that fact was his accepting the late Solomon Spalding's story for

a second consideration. Patterson held onto the writings for awhile this

second time, but again decided not to publish Spalding's story. Had this

document been the infamous Oberlin Roman story, he no doubt would have

rejected it out of hand, as unpublishable. The second submission might

possibly have been a revised, finished, polished (more "biblical"?) version

of the Roman story --- but, if so, then why would Patterson say in 1842 that

he believed it formed the basis for the Book of Mormon???

With Patterson's two interviews we have evidence of a Biblical-sounding

Solomon Spalding manuscript narrative, twice submitted and of sufficient

quality for Patterson to at least contemplate its publication. I would not

call this a "phantom." Go to the LDS Archives and read Apostle Page's

1842 reports back to the First Presidency and The Twelve.

and then we have Rigdon's manuscipt. In Rigdon's manuscript we have spaulding

and rigdon with rigdon making insertions with his inkwell and feathered pen

in the margins.

Not necessarily just in "the margins." Since we are only speculating here,

we can also speculate that in Rigdon's initial copying effort, he left

the back sides of his pages blank. Pittsburgh was the region's paper-making

center, and even a penniless apprentice tanner could obtain reams of scrap

paper for practically nothing. So, let's speculate that Rigdon had lots of

paper and that only part of that stack of pages contained his copying from

Spalding. He may have made similar copyings from the works of Adair on

Hebrew Indians, from Clavigerio on preColumbian American history, etc. He

may have kept this stack of pages on a bookshelf, and hauled out the writings

for study each evening, before going to bed.

Or do we just have the phantom spaulding manuscript with rigdon making insertions

in the margins? Sooner or later spaulding's manuscript will need to be revised and

rewritten for rigdon to include his writings in the manuscript.

Yes -- I think so. Eventually Sidney Rigdon became a Baptist preacher and

gained some experience in writing out his own sermons, no doubt. He also

gained some experience in writing fake KJV verses in his 1824 "Third Epistle

of Peter." So, perhaps the day came that he assembled his various notes and

copyings, into a more orderly, legible compilation -- call it "Sidney's Stuff"

version 1.0.

And then, if we include oliver and joseph, more rewritings and revising.

All with inkwells and feathered pens.

Much the same as went on in the Johnson house at Hiram, Ohio in 1832,

when Joseph and Sidney were revising the Bible and receiving revelations.

We have some testimony regarding the day that the two men had their

joint vision of the "three degrees of glory" there. Smith would relate

what he was experiencing in part of the vision; and Rigdon would relate

what supernatural sights he was seeing. Somebody in the Johnson house was

evidently there with pen and paper, taking notes. The outcome was a D&C

section -- perhaps re-written from the disjointed utterances of the two

seers. I suspect that Rigdon and Smith worked together composing scripture

in this manner, on more occasions than the one particular day thus reported.

Your random thoughts are margined in the margins with a ball point pen.

Please sit down and use an ink well and feathered pen and let me know what

happens. And then, begin to write the book of mormon with feathered pen and

passing it around to others, allowing them to add text in the margins with

a feathered pen or rewrite the text with a feathered pen and pass it back

to you for approval.

No -- I do not see it that way at all. I see "Sidney's Stuff" version 1.0

as a stack of paper. Some sheets have writing on them and some are blank.

It is a loose-leaf compendium -- new material can be added by inserting an

additional blank page here and there. Old material can be corrected by

cross-out lines and occasional insertions.

Go look at the Post Collection in the LDS Archives, to see what a pile

of Sidney's scraps of paper looks like:

http://sidneyrigdon.com/Postidx1.htm

Eventually, spaulding's work will begin to disappear with every addition since

it would need to be rewritten to fit the new additions.

Eventually, I suppose in 1825-26, Rigdon separated out the pages that

he was then most concerned with, and made a clean copy of the "Nephite"

portion. We can call it "Sidney's Stuff" version 1.1N (N for "Nephite").

My point: this is a painful process for writing a book based on someone else's manuscript. Not to mention ink blots and ink spills etc. I just don't see how it can be done...without leaving traces of the work behind for seeings eyes. The rough drafts will be a killer not to mention ink on the fingers. And yet, JS managed to keep it all a secret when he had the manuscript as he read and made additions with feathered pen in hand.

You obviously do not look at the process in the same way

that I envision it. I see Sidney, first of all, having a

pile of copied texts that interested him. He may have also

been writing down his own visions at an early date -- his

first pastor indicated that Sidney made a great thing of his

c. 1817-1818 Baptist conversion experience. Perhaps young

Rigdon was also keeping copies of that sort of personal stuff.

Later, I see Sidney assembling his notes and copyings into

what I call "Sidney's Stuff" version 1.1N --- only at that

point (1824? 1825?) does he get the idea of continuing the

pseudo-biblical format/method of his critical "Third Epistle

of Peter" in the compiling of his material on preColumbian

Christianity:

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/1824Scot.htm#page37a

What were young Rigdon's interests? Exterminated mound-builders,

prophecies to be fulfilled in the Americas, the concept of a

latter day Zion, gathering of Israel, etc. Only at THAT point

does his copying of Spalding take on special significance, as

a chronological "backbone" for Sidney's preColumbian compilation.

If Spalding also wrote in the "biblical" style of the "Third

Epistle of Peter," then Rigon's style was converging with Spalding's

writings at that point (1824-25?).

What was the process by which a Sidney Rigdon revelation was

put into human words, in handwriting, for preservation? We have

only the materials that ended up in the Post Collection to

consult -- and most of these Rigdon writings are "clean copies,"

shared as letters to one of his disciples. We cannot clearly

see how Sidney progressed from personal vision to written revelation.

Perhaps his wife acted as a scribe, writing down his utterances,

in the way that the later Edgar Cayce's visions were recorded.

We do not know. But perhaps we could learn.

If you are so very interested in this subject, take a week or so

and visit the LDS Archives. While you are there, read through the

Rigdon collection and through the John E. Page papers -- and then

report back to us what you've discovered in your research.

UD

.

[Kevin Christensen]

From Robert Alter, The World of Biblical Literature, 204-5

The difference between the project of the new literary criticism of the Bible and that of modern historical criticism may be usefully conceived as closing the distance between the reader and the text versus an interposition of distance between the reader and the text. Although the historical critic may regard the religious character of the text with utmost seriousness, his method implies an underlying view of the text as an inert object of investigation--stratified verbal deposits of the life of ancient Israel that need to be carefully gauged, discriminated, and classified so that we can build hypotheses about both the evolution of the text and the life behind the text. What is tacitly assumed, though rarely admitted is a vantage point of cognitive superiority from the which the modern investigator overviews the ancient text, with that assumption of superiority that entails a sense of existential distance from the text.

Alter gives an example of Speiser's analysis of the meeting of Jacob and Esau "surely one of the great surprising climaxes of the patriarchal narratives" with all its narrative and emotional complexity, noting that "For the documentary critic, however, the real concern is not the imaginative coherence of the narrative invention--Frie's 'realism'--but the historical mediation of the text. Thus in Speiser's commentary, it is not Jacob and Esau, but E, J, and P who become the subject of investigation. In this way the text is held at a distance for inspection, and any voice that might speak from its imagined situation to our real one is in effect suppressed." (Alter, 206)

And that distancing from the text and its message seems to me the whole point of the conspiracy approach, with or without NSC statistical approaches. Quite the opposite happens when I read Grant Hardy, Ben McGuire, Terryl Givens, and Alan Goff, for instance, who offer literary approaches. And for that matter, the same closing of distance from the text to reader happens to me when I read Nibley, Gardner, Poulson, Sorenson, Welch (even reading his book of Legal Cases of the Book of Mormon), Peterson, Bushman, Tvedtnes, Thomasson, Reynolds, Boylan, Gee, the Astons, Potter and Wellington, Bokovoy, Barker, and many more. That kind of information closes the distance between me and the text, helping me to see what it is saying and putting me into the physical and cultural contexts in which it says it was written. Say, Gordon Thomasson's observation that Alma's discussions with his sons fall into a recommended pattern for the Passover.

The stuff that I find most interesting about the Book of Mormon never shows up in the charts and speculations about secret meetings and hypotheses about unseen manuscript and secrets never told by a scattered band of extraordinary scholars who never bothered to brag about their best research, or squeal in the face of death threats, prison, and bitter divisions. I can see minds captured with that approach, as neatly as Iago hoists Othello with nothing but hints, winks, inflections, and playing on fear, insecurity and pride.

Nibley's essay method notes that:

The rules given by Blass are all obvious enough to experience and reflection, but every one of them is a stumbling block to the superficial critic, and they have all been scrupulously avoided by those attacking the Book of Mormon.

To begin with, says Blass, "We have the document, and the name of its author; we must begin our examination by assuming that the author indicated really wrote it." You always begin by assuming that a text is genuine. What critic of the Book of Mormon has ever done that? One can hear the screams of protest: "How unscientific! How naive! How hopelessly biased!" Yet to the experience of the centuries Blass adds perfectly convincing reasons for his shocking rule. It is equally biased to accept or reject a text at first glance, but still one must assume at the outset that it is either spurious or genuine if one is to make any progress.

Jacoby, the foremost authority on Greek historical writing, observes that no great historical writing was ever produced "sine ira et studio"

[Uncle Dale]

...

If we assume the Book of Mormon is true

...

Scientific inquiry cannot allow that.

What it can do, is to test the hypothesis, theory or speculation

that the text is truly ancient -- and whether or not any of its

historical/concrete claims can be verified.

So -- since Science does not deal with the supernatural, where

should the scientific researcher begin, in order to confirm or

refute the assertion of a preColumbian text, allegedly written

on golden plates, and preserved in what later became New York?

Whenever I ask my Mormon friends a question like this, they

either refer me to the 1830 statements of the three witnesses

and the eight witnesses -- or they refer me to some Mormon

apologist's polemics. They rarely refer me to scientific findings

dealing with ancient American societies and their preserved texts.

Where, in your opinion, should the scientific researcher begin his

inquiry into the claim that Nephites and Nephite writings are not

fictional creations -- could not possibly be fictional???

UD

[Gervin]

I've read the prepublication draft.

Glenn

If I said I could read your mind you'd say I'm crazy. Yet you can read the minds of those peer-reviewing the paper (both pre-publication and post-publication, I assume). You exemplify the close-mindedness you rail against. I liked you better as town cryer: "Dead Horse Beatings Continue Unabated." At least your hypocrisy was humerous.

[Uncle Dale]

...

I liked you better as town cryer:

...

I don't suppose he is any better or worse than the rest of us.

I too can be a hypocrite when it comes to the voting booth --

not following through in there, what I'd voiced outside, in public,

so often.

And we must remember that Glenn also has a Church membership

to protect. Should he walk into Sunday meetings next week and

mention to the folks there that he no longer has a testimony of

Nephites, things could get rather bad for him in a hurry.

Luckily I come from another version of Latter Day Saintism --

in which a member can say aloud that he/she never believed in

Nephites in the first place, and still be served the sacrament,

get sent on a mission or marry an Apostle's daughter.

I think we have to hold open a certain amount of leeway, in

conversing with folks like Glenn. If we try push them too far over

into our beliefs & realizations, they can no longer be Mormons.

Uncle Dale

[Kevin Christensen]

Scientific inquiry cannot allow that.

Ideologically driven inquiry cannot.

And I guess you grant my point that the NCS and conspiracy theoriest approaches do, in fact, put an existential distance between readers the text. In this case, a very wide distance.

What it can do, is to test the hypothesis, theory or speculation

that the text is truly ancient -- and whether or not any of its

historical/concrete claims can be verified.

In practice, as Ian Barbour says, general theories are neither verified or falsified, but assessed against a variety of criteria.

So -- since Science does not deal with the supernatural, where

should the scientific researcher begin, in order to confirm or

refute the assertion of a preColumbian text, allegedly written

on golden plates, and preserved in what later became New York?

By scientific, do you mean ideologically committed to naturalistic explanations? Or do you mean willing to take Blass on the accumlated experience of the Renaissance Scholars? Or willing to grab onto whatever looks remotely promising, such as the claim, a few decades back, that some investigators had identified Spalding's hand writing on the one of the original Book of Mormon pages? (The claim fell apart rather quickly, on further reflection.)

Whenever I ask my Mormon friends a question like this, they

either refer me to the 1830 statements of the three witnesses

and the eight witnesses -- or they refer me to some Mormon

apologist's polemics. They rarely refer me to scientific findings

dealing with ancient American societies and their preserved texts.

Have you read Sorenson's paper?

http://sino-platonic.org/complete/spp195_mesoamerica.pdf

Do you see anything non-scientific in it?

Where, in your opinion, should the scientific researcher begin his

inquiry into the claim that Nephites and Nephite writings are not

fictional creations -- could not possibly be fictional???

UD

Anywhere they like, if they can come up with a testable hypothesis that could not possibly give an answer they don't like. But what would be the point of that? Sort of like running and NCS analysis on a limited set of candidates as a way of guarenteeing that the wrong answer (in that case, that the Book of Mormon could possibly have been written by Nephi, Mormon, and Moroni) won't show up.

As Nibley says, Anything goes in a free discussion. As long as it goes on, everything comes out in the wash. (From Bird Island.

The according to Kuhn, the first and formost value to use in judging a theory is whether it "permits puzzle formulation and solution." (Kuhn 185)

But it is much more reasonable to come up with a wide variety of tests, testing the Book of Mormon from a wide variety of angles, as an ongoing exercise. For example, if Margaret Barker wrote in 1987:

The life and work of Jesus were, and should be, interpreted in the light of something other than Jerusalem Judaism. This other had its roots in the conflicts of the sixth century BC when the traditions of the monarchy were divided as an inheritance amongst several heirs. It would have been lost but for the accidents of archaeological discovery and the evidence of pre-Christian texts preserved and transmitted only by Christian hands.

That suggests an interesting test. If many of the texts she is using for her reconstruction of First Temple theology were unknown in Joseph Smith's day, is it not at least conceivably possible that her reconstruction might disconfirm 1 Nephi?

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Uncle Dale]

...

Do you see anything non-scientific in it?

...

Ask the scientists of the world, not me.

For example, if the theory is offered, that iron melts

at 1538 degrees Celsius -- that theory can be tested and

either verified or refuted.

If the theory is offered, that Nephites are real -- that

theory can be tested and either verified or refuted.

Such verification cannot be confined to the sectarian

literature published by a church, or by its members

for the use of that church.

Even if a true statement is made within that church's

publications, confirmation must eventually come from

scientists in general -- not merely from church members.

You have not given me a place to begin a scientific inquiry

in the matter of Nephites either being historical or fictional.

They are obviously one of those two things. If "real," then

a scientific inquiry can only use the evidence and assertions

of a church membership as a beginning point for testing.

In nearly 200 years of publicizing this matter, the church

still has not convinced scientists and non--sectarian scholars

that Lehi was real, that Nephi was real, that Mulek was real,

that Zarahemla was real, that reformed Egyptian was real, or

even that the golden plates were real.

If you're suggesting that modern scientists begin their examination

of these matters by reading the publications of Mormons -- then

how should scientists test those Mormon claims, to determine

whether or not Nephites were real?

Science does not recognize claims for the supernatural. At the most,

it can examine the outcomes and results of what others claim were

supernatural events. Scientists cannot consult spirit mediums to

determine whether the Aztec nation ever existed.

Apply the same question to Aztecs, or Mandans, or Natchez.

How does Science go about determining if these reported societies

were real?

UD

[Gervin]

I think we have to hold open a certain amount of leeway,

point taken. thanks

[Glenn101]

If I said I could read your mind you'd say I'm crazy. Yet you can read the minds of those peer-reviewing the paper (both pre-publication and post-publication, I assume). You exemplify the close-mindedness you rail against. I liked you better as town cryer: "Dead Horse Beatings Continue Unabated." At least your hypocrisy was humerous.

Ad hominem is not an effective debating device. I do not understand why reading the prepublication draft make me a hypocrite. I have never tried to read anyone's mind. I know what I have read. Bruce has explained some of the implications. I have been told that his article has been reviewed by I think two people and that it has been submitted for publication. I am awaiting, along with the rest the actual publication of that paper.

I do not "rail" against any other poster. I disagree with some and when I do, I try to present my reasons carefully and rationally. I do not take any disagreement with me personally and only engage the arguments that are presented.

Glenn

[Glenn101]

I don't suppose he is any better or worse than the rest of us.

I too can be a hypocrite when it comes to the voting booth --

not following through in there, what I'd voiced outside, in public,

so often.

And we must remember that Glenn also has a Church membership

to protect. Should he walk into Sunday meetings next week and

mention to the folks there that he no longer has a testimony of

Nephites, things could get rather bad for him in a hurry.

Luckily I come from another version of Latter Day Saintism --

in which a member can say aloud that he/she never believed in

Nephites in the first place, and still be served the sacrament,

get sent on a mission or marry an Apostle's daughter.

I think we have to hold open a certain amount of leeway, in

conversing with folks like Glenn. If we try push them too far over

into our beliefs & realizations, they can no longer be Mormons.

Uncle Dale

Dale, you don't have to worry about pushing me over into any of your beliefs. You may flail away at your pleasure. I am curious, though, as to why you seem to agree with Gervin that I am a hypocrite. I am wondering what in my posts would garner such a distinction.

Glenn