anyone interested in the origins of the Book of Mormon

[_The Dude]

Yeah, who knows? Some speculations (guesses, not serious attempts at history):

First of all, Rigdon thought (correctly, it turns out) that people would suspect he wrote it himself. You know, it's like Lenin said, "you look to the one who would benefit, and..." Rigdon would benefit, and people would know he had the ability to create the Book of Mormon. Joseph also would benefit, but people wouldn't think he had that ability, and so that would protect both Rigdon and Joseph from suspicion. It still makes the best defense for Joseph to this day.

Rigdon thought Joseph was in a good position to attract a nucleus of believers, with his treasure hunting posse already believing he had some powers. Joseph was obviously the more charismatic, but Rigdon thought (incorrectly, it turns out) Joseph lacked the ability to sythesize theological concepts and lead the church over the long term. He though Joseph would come to need Rigdon's support. I wonder if Rigdon was surprised and a little worried when he first read Joseph's "Book of Mormon" -- maybe there were some major differences from the version Rigdon had passed off to him, differences that proved Joseph's ability and willingness to do things after his own mind (or what he thought god was telling his mind, if you think he was like a pious fraud).

Rigdon thought he could eventually take the reins back from Joseph, but he underestimated Smith Jr's leadership ability. And overestimated his own ability.

[_Ray A]

I see too many loopholes in the Spalding Theory. Even if a Rigdon connection is established, and even if he was a liar, Rigdon authorship is far from established. And the Spalding Theory does not account for whole of the Book of Mormon, nor the "translation" process, nor various eyewitness evidence of how the book was produced. It is no happenstance that the most informed scholars of the Book of Mormon also do not accept it, pro and con.

[_Runtu]

I wonder what it says about me that both charity and Hammer are calling me delusional.

[_The Dude]

I see too many loopholes in the Spalding Theory. Even if a Rigdon connection is established, and even if he was a liar, Rigdon authorship is far from established. And the Spalding Theory does not account for whole of the Book of Mormon,

More specifics here?

nor the "translation" process,

Yeah, what is the "translation" process? Tight? Loose? KJV Bible open in front of him, or not? If it's just a black box (translation process with "quotes") then it can be anything we want/need to imagine.

nor various eyewitness evidence of how the book was produced.

There were no eyewitnesses from start to finish. Just because something wasn't "witnessed" doesn't mean it didn't happen, so what exactly has to be accounted for here?

It is no happenstance that the most informed scholars of the Book of Mormon also do not accept it, pro and con.

Certainly not for the believers. LOL
For the critics, according to Dale they're a bunch of irresponsible Brodieites, and even Bushman relies on her authority. Again LOL.

[_Ray A]

There were no eyewitnesses from start to finish. Just because something wasn't "witnessed" doesn't mean it didn't happen, so what exactly has to be accounted for here?

Don't have much time as I'm off to work in a couple of hours, but will comment on this briefly for now. I mean the witnesses to the Book of Mormon "translation". Notes were not used, the plates were not in sight, sometimes Joseph would take a break and come back and take up the "translation" exactly where he left off. There was NO punctuation in the OM, no paragraphing, no chapters or verses, and incorrect grammar, particularly with the verb "to be". Does this sound like something the educated Rigdon would write, and Grandin try to correct? The Spalding Theory can only be sustained if you think every eyewitness was a pathological liar.

[_Ray A]

Here is what we know of the translation, from a site some call anti-Mormon:

After reviewing the accounts from Joseph Smith (1838, 1842), Emma Smith Bidamon (1870, 1879), David Whitmer (1875, 1879, 1881, 1885, 1886, 1887), Oliver Cowdery (1834, 1859), Martin Harris (1882), Elizabeth Ann Whitmer Cowdery Johnson (1870), Michael Morse (1879), Isaac Hale (1834), Alva Hale (1834), William Smith (1883, 1884, 1891), and neighbors of Joseph Smith collected in 1833 by Dr. Philatus Hurlburt, -- James E. Lancaster provides this summary:

"An examination of the foregoing eyewitness testimonies produces the following consensus on the method of translation of the Book of Mormon:
(1) Nephite interpreters often called "Urim and Thummim" were found with the plates on Hill Cumorah; [my note: The words "Urim and Thummim" were never used to describe the stones until after the Book of Mormon was published. Even then the term was first used by people other than Joseph Smith.]
(2) these interpreters were used first in the translation of the plates;
(3) the portion translated by use of the interpreters was copied into 116 pages of foolscap and was later lost by Martin Harris;
(4) because of the loss of the first 116 pages of translation, the interpreters were permanently taken away [June/July 1828];
(5) the Book of Mormon that we have today was translated by use of the seer stone;
(6) Smith translated by placing the seer stone in a hat and covering his face with his hat to darken his eyes;
(7) the plates were not used in the translating process and often were not even in sight during the translation;
(8) other persons were sometimes in the room while Smith dictated to a scribe; and
(9) [almost] all witnesses agree to these facts.
The earliest newspaper accounts do not differ significantly from this scenario." ("The Translation of the Book of Mormon", pp. 105-6)

http://lds-mormon.com/transltn.shtml

Dale may have some good ideas, but if he's trying to make the Spalding theory explain the production of the Book of Mormon, he's going against all the witness evidence we have, and his theory is all speculation. Not even the Tanners could run with that one.

[_Brackite]

Brackite:

Why should we believe anything Sidney Rigdon said? From reading Uncle Dale's threads, I've come to think he was nuts and a liar.

I heard that--in later years anyhow--this may have been caused by being involved in one two many beatings by mobs (I almost spelled that as mods).

Yes, I know that Sidney Rigdon was nuts. Most of the Moderators on the MA&D Board are also nuts. Anyway, just because Sydney was nuts, does Not mean that he was the main Person in the Production of the Book of Mormon. There is virtually NO evidence that Sydney Rigdon knew Joseph Smith before 1830.

[_Brackite]

Dale may have some good ideas, but if he's trying to make the Spalding theory explain the production of the Book of Mormon, he's going against all the witness evidence we have, and his theory is all speculation. Not even the Tanners could run with that one.

Thanks Ray for your imput and comments here. The Tanners are also Not supporters of the Spaulding-Rigdon theory for the Book of Mormon. Why are there a lot ofpeople now these days willing to go along with the Spaulding Rigdon theory for the Book of Mormon when there is hardly any evidence supporting it???

[_Jersey Girl]

Brackite:

Why should we believe anything Sidney Rigdon said? From reading Uncle Dale's threads, I've come to think he was nuts and a liar.

I heard that--in later years anyhow--this may have been caused by being involved in one two many beatings by mobs (I almost spelled that as mods).

Yes, I know that Sidney Rigdon was nuts. Most of the Moderators on the MA&D Board are also nuts. Anyway, just because Sydney was nuts, does Not mean that he was the main Person in the Production of the Book of Mormon. There is virtually NO evidence that Sydney Rigdon knew Joseph Smith before 1830.

There's no evidence that Moroni visited Joseph either, is there?

Jersey Girl

[_Brackite]

Brackite:

Why should we believe anything Sidney Rigdon said? From reading Uncle Dale's threads, I've come to think he was nuts and a liar.

I heard that--in later years anyhow--this may have been caused by being involved in one two many beatings by mobs (I almost spelled that as mods).

Yes, I know that Sidney Rigdon was nuts. Most of the Moderators on the MA&D Board are also nuts. Anyway, just because Sydney was nuts, does Not mean that he was the main Person in the Production of the Book of Mormon. There is virtually NO evidence that Sydney Rigdon knew Joseph Smith before 1830.

There's no evidence that Moroni visited Joseph either, is there?

Jersey Girl

And I also agree with that too.