The Case Against Rigdon, Spalding, Pratt, Cowdery, et al

[Glenn101]

And yet it is done all the time.

Granted, it would have been practically impossible for

Joseph Smith to have accomplished such a creation,

on-the-fly, while dictating to Oliver Cowdery.

But Edgar Rice Burroughs created hundreds of unique

names, ape-language words, and character-relationships

which play, and re-play, and re-play again throughout his

22 or so "Tarzan books." I think somebody one pointed out

one inconsistency among all of that literary creation.

How did Burroughs accomplish such a feat? By breaking the task

into smaller portions, and writing one story at a time. In some

cases he foresaw what characters or names he would develop in

a later part of the Tarzan epic, and merely planted the plot

"seeds" in an earlier book. In other cases, he left open the

exact number of members in a certain family, or some similar

set of relationships -- so that he could expand upon the

prior information in a later segment of the saga.

Are you saying that Robert Southey could NOT have written

"Madoc" (the story admittedly most like the BoM) because it

contains many characters, and a complex plot, wherein the

Old World migrants cross back and forth, over the Atlantic,

before finally engaging in wars of extermination -- which lead

to the eventual extinction of the preColumbian Christians of

ancient mesoAmerica?

If Southey could not have written such a lengthy, complex

saga, full of authentic preColumbian mesoAmerican names,

thirty years before the Book of Mormon, then who wrote "Madoc?"

Angels?

UD

Dale, you have completely missed the point. Writers can and do write complex novels with large character casts. But they have to do a lot of work keeping track of those characters and the plots to keep from getting them mixed up. Before the advent of the computer, they had to generate a lot of paperwork in doing so. The larger the cast of characters, the greater the amount of tracking that has to be done. It had to be done on paper. Just check out the problems that some fiction writers have undergone in keeping track of their characters, far fewer than in the Book of Mormon. The paperwork required to keep track of hundreds of characters and events is tremendous.

Here is an excerpt from an article that Diana P. Francis wrote concerning her tracking problems.

"Things important for me to track include page and chapter reference locations, historical background, changes I made that might need to be dealt with elsewhere, and obviously extensive notes on characters

[sethpayne]

Another key component to me, is the fact that Smith's discovery narrative for the BOM was not written until 1838... five years AFTER Hurlbut did his muckracking. By then, Howe's book was old news. I fail to understand how critics like Ben Maguire or Chris Smith can write that off as an insignificant coincidence. It's interesting to consider that Smith may have gotten that set of parallels from a Hurlbut-supplied Spalding manuscript!

Ben is not a critic.

[Glenn101]

I would also criticize serious creationists for spending a lot of time and effort on "creation science", once I had seen enough of it to know it is a useless endeavor that can add nothing of value to society. I do not see a need to address creationism in a "meaningful" way, once sufficient information is collected to ascertain its real value.

And I am sure you would agree that Scientology can be safely criticized after the most cursory consideration of its truth claims.

Is one obliged to seriously consider and address every absurdity in a "meaningful way" before passing judgment and moving on?

Please tell me the absurdity of such ancient Hebrew literary conventions as merismus, exquisite chiasmus, simile curses, authentic ancient Middle Eastern proper names for people and places, synonymous parallelism, antithetic parallelism, repeated alternate, the prophetic perfect tense, poetic climax, compound prepositions, plural amplification, the construct state, repetition of the definite article, use of the cognate accusative, the use of many

[Uncle Dale]

...

In order to produce a work with the characters so well managed as they appear

in the Book of Mormon would have required copious notes of some form.

Where is the evidence for any of that?

...

Let's say you write a story about Chinese coming to America in

preColumbian times. It is many pages long -- has several chapters

and many characters. I do not need to see your notes, when you

submit that tale for publication. If you kept your notes, then fine.

If you discarded your notes when you finished up writing, fine also.

But, for analogy's sake, let's also say that you pass away and

I have your unpublished story. I decide to insert paragraphs and

sentences, giving it a Buddhist flavor. I also insert a few more

characters in certain parts of your story --- and then submit the

whole thing for publication.

The publisher will not demand to see my own notes. All he wants is

a clean copy of the story, already proofread and corrected for errors.

But, you ask, how did I insert material into your manuscript? Well,

the deletions were easy -- I simply crossed out parts I did not

want to keep -- maybe even threw away a few of your pages. Where

I made minor insertions, I simply wrote them in, in small script,

above your lines. Where I made longer insertions, I put them in

the margins, or on the blank, back sides of your manuscript pages.

In a few spots I inserted whole new pages.

I admit, it was a cluttered mess when I was finished. So I asked

my friend to make a clean copy to submit to the publisher.

The publisher never asked to see my mess of insertions and deletions,

so I tossed it into the fireplace. The publisher was unaware that you

were the original writer, of the basic story -- so, of course he never

asked to see your notes either.

I think all of that is possible -- without my having to keep massive

lists, tables, outlines, etc. A couple of pages listing characters and

the basic storyline might be useful -- but the rest I could insert

piecemeal, over many months of laboring over your manuscript.

It certainly is not an impossibility.

What is more problematic, is how two visionaries might create a text --

say, the Rigdon & Smith's vision of the three degrees of glory, in 1832.

They almost had to have employed a scribe, to get all of the details

written down properly, while the two seers were in the midst of the vision.

How could Rigdon and Smith (or Rigdon and Pratt, or Rigdon and Cowdery)

have produced mixed (or alternating) chapters, inserted into a Spalding

original manuscript, without employing a scribe?

Try that argument out on Matt Jockers, and see what he has to say.

UD

[Uncle Dale]

Ben is not a critic.

Good -- I was afraid he might criticize the Spalding-Rigdon authorship theory.

I feel better about that now.

UD

.

[44Foxtrot]

Please tell me the absurdity of such ancient Hebrew literary conventions as merismus, exquisite chiasmus, simile curses, authentic ancient Middle Eastern proper names for people and places, synonymous parallelism, antithetic parallelism, repeated alternate, the prophetic perfect tense, poetic climax, compound prepositions, plural amplification, the construct state, repetition of the definite article, use of the cognate accusative, the use of many

[Uncle Dale]

...

Along with the evidence for the knowledge of such ancient Hebrew literary conventions as merismus, exquisite chiasmus, simile curses, authentic ancient Middle Eastern proper names for people and places, synonymous parallelism, antithetic parallelism, repeated alternate, the prophetic perfect tense, poetic climax, compound prepositions, plural amplification, the construct state, repetition of the definite article, use of the cognate accusative, the use of many

[Glenn101]

There are a few simple rules that a good scientist, or any critical thinking person, does well to keep in mind.

The first is, "What is claimed without evidence can be dismissed the same way".

And the second is, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."

When it comes to extraordinary and outlandish claims, Mormonism remains unsurpassed among religions. When it comes to proof for these claims, there is no proof, let alone extraordinary proof. From Mormonism and the Book of Mormon in particular, we have claims without evidence.

As I have repeatedly said, I am not debating whether or not the Book of Mormon is true, or a historical document, or that it came about by supernatural means. The only thing I am debating is whether Solomon Spalding, Sidney Rigdon, Parley P. Pratt, or Oliver Cowdery could have authored the Book of Mormon. I have posted four problems which they would face. No one has replied with any evidence.

What you cite as evidence is, in fact, no such thing. Evidence would be one of the gold plates covered with enough reformed Egyptian to constitute a chapter or two in the BoM (and and the discovery of other works rendered in this Reformed Egyptian such that the gold plates could be translated and shown to conform to the appropriate BoM text by a qualified and neutral third party).

I am not debating the Gold Plates. They are not part of the Rigdon/Spalding et al theory.

What you are in fact doing is making a simple argument from ignorance. You claim not to understand how a few individuals with access to the necessary underlying information could have written the BoM, so you wish to attribute the BoM to the supernatural. You then challenge others to explain what you claim not to understand. When they give a reasonable explanation, backed by facts, as UD has done, you simply re-state your argument from ignorance.

"What is claimed without evidence can be dismissed the same way" nicely summarizes your own arguments.

You keep harping on the supernatural. That is not part of my argument. No one has given an explanation backed by facts. U.D. nor anyone else has shown evidence of any underlying information that was available to those proposed authors. You are making naked assertions unsupported by any facts. I have given you some facts to explain with supporting evidence.

The fact is that these literary forms and styles you claim are extraordinary were readily available to be copied or emulated by one or more of a number of individuals who could have reasonably contributed directly or indirectly to the BoM.

CFR?

"What is claimed without evidence can be dismissed the same way"

You cannot prove that this is not possible, so you can see the problem with your argument. If you want us to believe that the BoM is other than a work of fiction, provide some physical evidence, not questions about aspects of the BoM that are difficult for you to explain from where you stand.

You cannot prove that the Book of Mormon is not of supernatural origin. So you see the problem with your argument. If you want us to believe that the Book of Mormon is other than a divinely scripture, provide some physical evidence that there was a document with the underlying information. (I have not even asked for proof. I have only asked for evidence.)

I don't have the problem with explaining anything. It is the Spalding theorists who have to provide something credible to fill the huge holes in the theory. Just stay with the topic. Leave out the supernatural. Explain with logical, scholarly evidence how the four horsemen in the OP could have produced the Book of Mormon. The points I have enumerated are not all. I presented them as a starting point. But none of the Spalding theorists have dealt with what I have presented. Instead they go off on tangents and erect strawman arguments that I am not advocating in this thread.

Glenn

[Gervin]

No one has replied with any evidence.

What is your response to Dale's post #71?

Also, your OP had 5 points. Are you conceding that you were wrong that Jos Smith wouldn't/couldn't write without punctuation?

[Bruce Schaalje]

There are a few simple rules that a good scientist, or any critical thinking person, does well to keep in mind.

The first is, "What is claimed without evidence can be dismissed the same way".

And the second is, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."

Given your superior scientific intellect, I

[Glenn101]

What is your response to Dale's post #71?

I would send him here, except it is by an LDS scholar, so his opinions and qualifications do not matter, at least to Dale.

Also, your OP had 5 points. Are you conceding that you were wrong that Jos Smith wouldn't/couldn't write without punctuation?

I wasn't talking about Joseph Smith. He is not part of the authorship candidate set.

Glenn

[Gervin]

I wasn't talking about Joseph Smith. He is not part of the authorship candidate set.

5. Punctuation. Think about it. No one writes English without punctuation. Not even Joseph.

Kindly clarify the last name of Joseph. If I show you someone (other than ee cummings) who writes English without punctuation will you concede you were wrong about point 5?

[Glenn101]

Kindly clarify the last name of Joseph. If I show you someone (other than ee cummings) who writes English without punctuation will you concede you were wrong about point 5?

Okay, I will concede I was wrong about point five in the case of Joseph. However, the point remains that Joseph did not write any portions of the Book of Mormon. He only dictated. The proposed authors in the S/R camp all were adequate or better with the pen and did use punctuation.

Glenn

[Uncle Dale]

...

The SR theory doesn

[Gervin]

Okay, I will concede I was wrong about point five in the case of Joseph. However, the point remains that Joseph did not write any portions of the Book of Mormon. He only dictated. The proposed authors in the S/R camp all were adequate or better with the pen and did use punctuation.

Glenn

thanks - actually, I recall an Oliver C letter (there may be more than one), written in English, without punctuation.

[Gervin]

I would send him here, except it is by an LDS scholar, so his opinions and qualifications do not matter, at least to Dale.

But you're not following your own criteria. Your link appears to be some scholarly paper about word origins - it doesn't show that names couldn't come from known or modern sources. You claim

As I have repeatedly said, I am not debating whether or not the Book of Mormon is true, or a historical document, or that it came about by supernatural means. The only thing I am debating is whether Solomon Spalding, Sidney Rigdon, Parley P. Pratt, or Oliver Cowdery could have authored the Book of Mormon

Dale is simply pointing out that Spalding - or really anyone with access to a map - could have come up with these names.

[Uncle Dale]

I would send him here, except it is by an LDS scholar, so his opinions

and qualifications do not matter, at least to Dale.

...

So long as his conclusions are accepted by a consensus of non-sectarian

scientists, scholars, academics or other experts, I'll provisionally

accept anything published in the general professional literature by an LDS.

As for what they publish in their own, in-house books and periodicals,

I give them as much credit as I do the offerings of the North Koreans

or the Scientologists.

Any Mormon who can publish his scientific studies, free of the pre-condition

that he must sustain the BoM, in order to remain a member, I will also read

with interest.

It would really be refreshing, for example, to read a Mormon's discoveries

about the Nephites, who began thusly:

"When I first initiated my research I had no testimony of the Book of Mormon;

and I did not know whether its purported history was true or false. I felt

under no pressure or obligation to verify the book. I was prepared to submit

my findings, even if they disagreed with the LDS leaders' counsel. However,

I truly believe I have uncovered valid evidence of a preColumbian Israelite

colony in meso-America, which will stand the scrutiny of professional review..."

Wouldn't that be a thousand times more interesting reading, than the canned,

off-the-shelf, faith-promoting stuff of a writer whose conclusions we know,

before we ever open the covers of his Deseret Books-featured volume?

UD

.

[Glenn101]

And, if I simply sat down and copied off a hundred paragraphs

out of the "Old Testament" section of the King James Bible,

would I probably include any of that sort of stuff?

Could I not gain an exposure to such linguistic details, just

by paying close attention to how biblical writers structured

their sentences and their sets of sentences?

What would somebody have to do to convince Mormons of this?

Emulate the Bible so perfectly that Jewish rabbis concluded

that they were in fact reading ancient Hebrew, translated

into English?

I think that is possible --- or, at the very least, that we

could convince those same rabbis to the extent that we might

convince them that the Book of Mormon is ancient Hebrew, set

in modern English -- in ways that could not have been copied

from biblical texts.

UD

.

Dale, I am not a literary expert or even a novice at Hebrew. Actually writing good English is difficult enough. I am actually taking an online English course right now and am finding out that writing good English does not come easily. I imagine after I practice daily and work on my rules of grammar I will be able to produce acceptable copy without the effort and headaches that I am experiencing now.

However, that will not make me a poet. I tried my hand at poetry when I was young and thought I had something of a literary bent. But when we studied poetry in my high school literature class, I was horrified to learn of all of the strictures the poet must follow. The only thing I can remember now is "iambic pentameter" and could not write a single line in that whatever it is.

This leads me to the conclusion that merely copying or reading portions of the Bible will not enable a person to write in a Biblical style with the underlying Hebrew idioms and constructs. I will have to leave it to those with training in the areas of Hebrew linguistics for their expert opinions, but I do not see how one could become familiar enough with merismus, exquisite chiasmus, simile curses, authentic ancient Middle Eastern proper names for people and places, synonymous parallelism, antithetic parallelism, repeated alternate, the prophetic perfect tense, poetic climax, compound prepositions, plural amplification, the construct state, repetition of the definite article, use of the cognate accusative, the use of many

[Uncle Dale]

...

This leads me to the conclusion that merely copying or reading portions of the Bible will not enable a person to write in a Biblical style with the underlying Hebrew idioms and constructs. I will have to leave it to those with training in the areas of Hebrew linguistics for their expert opinions, but I do not see how one could become familiar enough with merismus, exquisite chiasmus, simile curses, authentic ancient Middle Eastern proper names for people and places, synonymous parallelism, antithetic parallelism, repeated alternate, the prophetic perfect tense, poetic climax, compound prepositions, plural amplification, the construct state, repetition of the definite article, use of the cognate accusative, the use of many

[Glenn101]

But you're not following your own criteria. Your link appears to be some scholarly paper about word origins - it doesn't show that names couldn't come from known or modern sources.

I was not trying to prove that the names could not have come from modern sources. There are several names in the Great lakes and New England areas from which sound much like Book of Mormon names. I was only pointing out that the name Kishkumen also could come from a more ancient setting, and fits the context for other Book of Mormon names. Read the part on prefixes and suffixes.

Dale is simply pointing out that Spalding - or really anyone with access to a map - could have come up with these names.

They could have come up with some of them. There are 188 to come up with remember? The etymologies of all have not been determined yet, as far as I know but many have been found to have authentic Hebrew origins. To make up a name is one thing, but to make up 188 and have many of them attested by later discoveries. I am sure that you have encountered discussions on the name Alma before and it being attested to in the Lachish letters? Then there is Sariah. It has been attested to in papyrus found in Elephentine Egypt in the 20th century. The Egyptian names, Paanchi and Pahoran are problematic for any proposed authors of the Book of Mormon. Where would they have come up with them?

Glenn

[Uncle Dale]

...

Where would they have come up with them?

...

To begin with, he might have taken instruction from scholars

at Dartmouth College who had read the obscure literature and

knew that such names as "Hophni" and "Phinehas" (in I Sam. 3)

were of Egyptian origin.

Those are "ph" names, with an initial consonant shared with

the Egyptian Ptah (Pteh, Peteh) and other related proper nouns.

These "p," "ph" and "pt" names were carried over into Coptic

and preserved among the Egyptian peasantry, long after the

glory of the Pharaohs had faded.

A glance at Clarke's Commentary might have provided

some clues, as would have a study of what was known of ancient

Egypt during the early 19th century.

I do not think it impossible, that a Dartmouth scholar could

have located or derived some quasi-Egyptian proper nouns, given

a little effort and consultation with his professors.

Let's make a list of all the Egyptian/Coptic/Arabic names beginning

with P, that a Dartmouth scholar might have discovered in the

literature available between 1780 and 1816.

If the total is zero, then I'll concede the point.

UD

[Glenn101]

If you can back this statement up, with confirmation from a consensus

of non-LDS experts in the subject, I'll concede the issue. Certainly,

after all these years, the world's experts in Hebrew have been consulted.

What opinion did they render to the Mormons?

Like I said, I WILL accept LDS scholarship, so long as it is confirmed by a

scholarly consensus, outside of the Church membership.

So, I can say then that I will accept scholarship outside of the Church as long as it is confirmed by LDS scholars?

All I look for is outside confirmation for such extraordinary claims.

Why should I accept them, if the vast majority of the world's educated

people do not accept them? Obviously, I should at least exercise caution.

UD

.

That is exactly what I am asking in this thread. I am asking for something more than conjecture concerning the points I made. I am not asking for you to accept any extraordinary claims about the Book of Mormon in this thread but the claims for a Rigdon/Spalding/Pratt/Cowdery collaboration are rather extraordinary also.

The Book of Mormon names, characters, idioms, structures are not extraordinary. They are consistent with the premise that the Book of Mormon was written by Hebrew authors, some of whom were also poets. Grammatically and structurally chapters do not reflect a nineteenth century product.

However, it is not my burden to disprove the S/R theory. It is the S/R enthusiasts' burden to show something concrete as a backbone upon which that theory would rest. I have merely demonstrated some of the road blocks for that theory.

Glenn

[Glenn101]

To begin with, he might have taken instruction from scholars

at Dartmouth College who had read the obscure literature and

knew that such names as "Hophni" and "Phinehas" (in I Sam. 3)

were of Egyptian origin.

That's still nothing more than conjecture.

Those are "ph" names, with an initial consonant shared with

the Egyptian Ptah (Pteh, Peteh) and other related proper nouns.

These "p," "ph" and "pt" names were carried over into Coptic

and preserved among the Egyptian peasantry, long after the

glory of the Pharaohs had faded.

A glance at Clarke's Commentary might have provided

some clues, as would have a study of what was known of ancient

Egypt during the early 19th century.

I do not think it impossible, that a Dartmouth scholar could

have located or derived some quasi-Egyptian proper nouns, given

a little effort and consultation with his professors.

Let's make a list of all the Egyptian/Coptic/Arabic names beginning

with P, that a Dartmouth scholar might have discovered in the

literature available between 1780 and 1816.

If the total is zero, then I'll concede the point.

UD

What was known about Egyptian in the early 1800's? The Rosetta Stone was discovered in 1799. Chompollian's book was not published until 1822, in French.

The problematic part is why would a Congregationalist minister throw in two pagan Egyptian names in the first place?

Glenn

[Uncle Dale]

...

The Book of Mormon names, characters, idioms, structures are not

extraordinary. They are consistent with the premise that the

Book of Mormon was written by Hebrew authors

...

Then, if that is true, tell me where in the non-sectarian literature

to find confirmation of what you are saying.

Show me names in the Book of Mormon, which no scholar before 1830

could have known were Egyptian, for example.

why would a Congregationalist minister throw in two pagan Egyptian

names in the first place?

I can easily imagine Ethan Smith, or his fellow Dartmouth student,

Solomon Spalding, asking their Hebrew teacher about some odd-sounding

names in the Bible:

Pashur... Potiphar... Potipherah...

"Teacher, is 'Pashur' a Hebrew name?"

"No, Ethan -- it is Egyptian. We can find it today

among the Coptic-speaking peasants, along with 'Pahur'

and 'Papherah.' -- Dont you recall what I told you

about Hophni and Phinehas being Egyptian?"

"But, Teacher, they were Hebrew high priests!"

"Solomon, don't you know that 'Moses' and 'Levi'

and 'Hur' were also Egyptian? An Israelite high

priest in those days could easily have had an

Egyptian name. I'll make one up for you -- 'Pahoran,'

-- there could have been an Israelite priest of that name."

"Teacher, you are truly wonderful. I read all the biblical

commentaries and none of them explain these things so well

as you do!"

UD

[Uncle Dale]

...

The Rosetta Stone

...

Goodness gracious! Why would a scholar in 1800

have needed that? The old Egyptian vocabulary was

preserved in Coptic. The Arabic speaking Egyptians

never managed to suppress that ancient tongue.

It was from Coptic that the Rosetta Stone's preliminary

translations were extended and verified.

UD