aussieguy55 wrote:Dale
We now have the three theories of the origin of the Book of Mormon. These theories have been defended by each propopent, each with what they feel is their eternal salvation. The stone in the hat theory accepted by TBMs, the Smith with sources argued by Vogel and Chris Smith, the S/R theory argued by Dale, Jockers and Criddle.
Of course there have been a few other, different explanations for
Mormon origins. The modern Community of Christ explanation
seems to be that Smith wrote "scriptures" such as the Book of
Moses, Book of Mormon, and Book of Abraham -- and that they
are not "true," in the sense of being authentic ancient texts.
I've also encountered Christian evangelicals who are willing to
grant that the Church was founded through truly supernatural
manifestations --- manifestations orchestrated by Satan.
Some folks believe that Joe Smith wrote his gold Bible through
the inexplicable phenomenon of automatic writing, and was a
true believer in his own fraud.
So, there are a variety of explanations regarding Mormon origins,
and I would not be too quick to summarize them as three
competing "theories." I do, however, think that three-fold choice
does present itself to each reader of the Book of Mormon. That is,
either the book is what it says it is, or else it was a 19th century
production which only incorporated a few succinct ancient texts,
in the form of copying from the King James Bible. Did a portion
of the remaining narrative come from Spalding and Rigdon? (Or
from Alvin Smith, Oliver Cowdery, Parley Pratt or Lucy Mack Smith?)
In answering such queries, the 19th century explanation naturally
divides into "yes" and "no" camps --- thus, three reader choices.
With the two papers now published, has Bruce S knocked your theory out the ring?
I doubt that 99% of Latter Day Saints have ever heard of either
of these two computerized studies -- and that 99.9% of Gentiles
have not only never heard of them, they will never hear of them.
What the two papers have accomplished, is to better define the
proper limitations of NSC computerized analysis of the text. If we
consult Bruce's results, it is 100% certain that Joseph Smith
wrote Enos and 100% certain that he did not write Jarom. I say
that there is sufficient contradictory data in those results so as
to render them worthless in determining exactly what Smith
contributed and did not contribute to the text. It is rather odd
that his 1830 Preface was not even included in Bruce's report --
so we do not know whther Bruce is saying that it is 100% certain
that Smith wrote that part of the book, or 100% certain he did not.
On the other hand, I feel that Bruce's reporting has served to
clarify the limitations of Matt's study results. Those results are
RELATIVE to the combined word-print data included for the
several author-candidates consulted in the study. It is more
probable (from the Stanford team's reporting) that Smith, Cowdery,
Pratt, Rigdon and Spalding wrote CERTAIN parts of the text, than
that they respectively wrote OTHER parts of the text.
Given some refinement and expansion of the field of authors'
selected for word-printing, I believe that Matt's methods can
eventually tell us which parts of the Book of Mormon most
resemble the language used by Smith, the language used by
Cowdery, etc. etc.
Should the S/R supporters fold up their tent and leave. Will certain Mormons in their BYU campus wards now be crowing about how they demolished the arguments of the Stanford crowd? Or are we left now with the stone in the hat story or the Smith alone (using local materials) story (Vogel)?
In my opinion, the artificial categorization of "three theories" is
beginning to crumble -- and we are now on the verge of learning
what the text(s) can tell us, in conjunction with all the compiled
historical data.
I believe that the Smith-alone "theory" and the Spalding "theory"
are beginning to merge into a single authorship explanation. Think
back to the days before Fawn Brodie's book. If we could ask a
Spalding "theory" advocate from that period, just how much of
the Book of Mormon Joe Smith wrote, the answer would likely
have been "Zero!" (minus the Preface, of course). But the careful
student of the Spalding-Rigdon claims today would be practically
compelled to admit that Smith wrote some part of the text.
If we could have questioned the Mormon scholars of Brodie's day,
as to how much of his own language Smith interjected into the
book, their probable answer would have been "Zero!" (minus the
Preface, of course). But the educated Mormon today must admit
that Smith inserted his own language, along with language taken
from the KJV Bible and possibly from other published sources.
Computerized analysis of the book has not yet reached the level
of perfection whereby we can positively identify the writer of
each and every page of the Book of Mormon ---- but several
different studies have reported the text to be the composite
production of MORE THAN ONE writer (even when the biblical
borrowings are excluded). I think that finding is an important one.
This "theory" convergence I'm speaking of will effect the way in
which Spalding-Rigdon proponents articulate their "theory." Any
competent future explanation from their ranks has to acknowledge
the known (and likely) actions of Smith and Cowdery, at the very
least. Their combined efforts provide the frame into which future
renditions of the Spalding-Rigdon claims are set. That requires our
careful consideration of scholarship that previous S-R advocates
would have naturally overlooked.
If I am correct in what I am saying, then the biblical religion was
a far greater motivation/model in the composition of the Book of
Mormon, than was any early 19th century notion regarding the
mound-builders, vanished races, etc. --- That means Ethan Smith
and Solomon Spalding must be de-elevated from positions of
purportedly having originated the polemics of the "Nephites," down
to the lower status of having been mere "influences."
The Spalding-Rigdon "theory" of 2020 will be a much scaled-down
version of its former self -- better fitted to known history, and
practically encompassed by the Smith-authorship explanations.
Paradoxically, the S-R claims will thus become stronger and more
reasonable, rather than being demolished (as Mormons might hope).
In all of this transformation, I expect that the Brodieites will be
our (S-R advocates') greatest enemy (and not the LDS Church).
UD
