DAN VOGEL DISCUSSES THE SPALDING/RIGDON THEORY

[_dilettante]

HEAD IN THE HAT AND NO USE OF MS

All I can say is that it is shame that no one has dared to post anything against this crap.

[_Dan Vogel]

HEAD IN THE HAT AND NO USE OF MS

All I can say is that it is shame that no one has dared to post anything against this crap.

Define crap.

[_Uncle Dale]

HEAD IN THE HAT AND NO USE OF MS

All I can say is that it is shame that no one has dared to post anything against this crap.

This is what I was taught in Sunday School:



Notice that The Prophet (honored and blest be his ever great name) is wearing the sacred
breastplate of the Nephite High Priests, to which is attached the Urim and Thummim brought
from Jerusalem to the Land of the First Inheritance by Father Lehi.

As The Prophet (great is his glory and endless his priesthood) gazes prayerfully through
the urim (the right diamond lens) and the thummim (the left diamond lens) the precise
English translation appears beneath each Nephite reformed Egyptian character respectively.
Only when The Prophet (mingling with gods, he can plan for his brethren) has called out
to his scribe the exact translation -- and the scribe has correctly written down the words --
does God permit a translation to appear below the next Nephite character.

This, then, was the "gift and power of God," whereby the "most correct book," containing
the fulness of the everlasting gospel, was translated.

Or so says the text in my RLDS Sunday School manual (from whence the picture comes).
Entire contents approved by President Israel A. Smith.

No mention of a hat -- nor a stone -- nor any manuscript. ----- My only question was: "How did
the breastplate, and the sword of Laban, and the liahona, the brass plates, the small plates of
Nephi, and the large plates, (and heaven knows what all else), fit into such a small stone box,
atop our sacred Hill Cumorah?"

UD

[_dilettante]

HEAD IN THE HAT AND NO USE OF MS

All I can say is that it is shame that no one has dared to post anything against this crap.

Define crap.

Alright, firstly the definition of what I intended for "crap":

–noun:
3. refuse; rubbish; junk; litter: Will you clean up that crap!
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

Secondly, I could not undertand that many did not have comments on that particular post.

Lastly, I do not believe in your "head in the hat and no use of a MS" theory. After several attempts, I've not been able to get a single direct response from you to this post: http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... 8562#28562

And now I don't even expect to get a response!

[_Uncle Dale]

It seems to me that investigators of Mormon origins are left with three major possibile explanations of
the "translation" of the Book of Mormon:

1. That is was conducted very much in the manner taught by the LDS and RLDS Churches over the past decades --
that is, "by the gift and power of God," with the aid of "interpreters," or "urim and thummim," or seer-stone(s),
or simply by direct divine impress upon the mind of Joseph Smith, Jr. (or some combination of all of the above).

2. That there was no true "translation," and that the process of simulating a translation was conducted in the
manner given in fragmentary accounts of early witnesses and reporters -- to wit: with Smith calling out passages
to be written down by a scribe, and with his face hidden in a hat, and, in the beginning with Smith behind a curtain.

3. That there was no true "translation," and that the "head-in-the-hat" activity was primarily utilized by Smith in
order to gull his early followers -- who were already greatly impressed with his "seer's" reputation. However, in
this this possible explanation of things, Smith and his co-conspirator(s) might have largely compiled the "O MS"
by methods that did not involve any head-in-the-hat or recourse to ancient interpretation devices, etc.

As a non-believer in ancient Nephites and ancient Nephite records, I have long since abandoned explanation #1 as
holding any valid information regarding Book of Mormon origins.

There is, however, some possible overlap in the details of explanations #2 and #3 -- and I suppose that the truth of
the matter lies in our proper articulation of those sundry historical details (some of which I doubt we can ever fully
resolve to everbody's satisfaction).

In other words, there is a spectrum of possibilities, ranging from the official Mormon doctrine on the "translation"
at one end, to the Spalding-Rigdon ethusiasts' speculations at the other end. Given this situation, it is no wonder
that various investigators and writers have come to differing conclusions as to how the "translation" was carried
out (and what source materials were used) -- and from those initial conclusions, these people (myself included)
have come up with widely different theories.

UD

[_dilettante]

It seems to me that investigators of Mormon origins are left with three major possibile explanations of
the "translation" of the Book of Mormon:

1. That is was conducted very much in the manner taught by the LDS and RLDS Churches over the past decades --
that is, "by the gift and power of God," with the aid of "interpreters," or "urim and thummim," or seer-stone(s),
or simply by direct divine impress upon the mind of Joseph Smith, Jr. (or some combination of all of the above).

2. That there was no true "translation," and that the process of simulating a translation was conducted in the
manner given in fragmentary accounts of early witnesses and reporters -- to wit: with Smith calling out passages
to be written down by a scribe, and with his face hidden in a hat, and, in the beginning with Smith behind a curtain.

3. That there was no true "translation," and that the "head-in-the-hat" activity was primarily utilized by Smith in
order to gull his early followers -- who were already greatly impressed with his "seer's" reputation. However, in
this this possible explanation of things, Smith and his co-conspirator(s) might have largely compiled the "O MS"
by methods that did not involve any head-in-the-hat or recourse to ancient interpretation devices, etc.

As a non-believer in ancient Nephites and ancient Nephite records, I have long since abandoned explanation #1 as
holding any valid information regarding Book of Mormon origins.

There is, however, some possible overlap in the details of explanations #2 and #3 -- and I suppose that the truth of
the matter lies in our proper articulation of those sundry historical details (some of which I doubt we can ever fully
resolve to everbody's satisfaction).

In other words, there is a spectrum of possibilities, ranging from the official Mormon doctrine on the "translation"
at one end, to the Spalding-Rigdon ethusiasts' speculations at the other end. Given this situation, it is no wonder
that various investigators and writers have come to differing conclusions as to how the "translation" was carried
out (and what source materials were used) -- and from those initial conclusions, these people (myself included)
have come up with widely different theories.

UD

I would be more apt to accept explanation #1 (which I do not believe) rather than some alternative "head in the hat and no MS." But.... There was at least one manuscript used... the KJV.

by the way... There is a reason why Biblical scholars are not speaking out about the Book of Mormon.

[_Uncle Dale]

I would be more apt to accept explanation #1 (which I do not believe) rather than some
alternative "head in the hat and no MS." But.... There was at least one manuscript used... the KJV.

Well, I suppose so -- if we decide to call the KJV text a "manuscript." If we consider this fact,
there seems to be two possible ways that the KJV excerpts were incorporated into the Book of Mormon:

A. By unusual memorization abilities, Smith was able to call out the lengthy KJV excerpts, while his
head was in a hat -- and his scribe(s) wrote down the excerpts as they were thus dictated.

or --

B. Smith and/or his scribe(s) merely copied the KJV excerpts directly out of the published Bible.
In which case, those excerpts may or may not have been dictated. If they were dictated, and Smith
was not hiding behind a curtain -- then Oliver Cowdery (and possibly others) must have seen Smith
reading from the KJV Bible, while the "Nephite Record" was being rendered into Oliver's handwriting.
The fact that this process is nowhere mentioned in early witness statements may be problematic.

by the way... There is a reason why Biblical scholars are not speaking out about the Book of Mormon.

My guess is that the vast majority of "Biblical scholars" have no interest in the Book of Mormon -- and that
those who know its contents have no desire to tarnish their scholarly/academic reputations, by
"getting down into the mud" of ersatz scriptural explication. In other words, these scholars are
"not speaking out" about the Book of Mormon for the same reasons they do not speak out about the Koran,
or about "Oahspe: A Kosmon Bible," or about "A Fiery Flying Roll," or a dozen other "scriptures."

I have heard it said by orthodox Baptists and Evangelicals, that the Book of Mormon is essentially a Christian
book, and that it contains no especially censorable doctrines. Perhaps this is so -- but the book
does set the stage for a "literal gathering of Israel" upon the American continent, under the direction
of latter day seers and revelators. In other words, as Sidney Rigdon said, the book establishes
the basis for the "millennial church" under a rigid and exclusive theocracy. Perhaps contemporary
Biblical scholars are unaware of this danger, as they avoid "speaking out" about the book.

UD

[_Merry]

Just as there has been too little written about these more genuine writings:

http://www.gnosis.org/library/gs.htm

There is much of value in them.

Less value in the Book of Mormon, but still some "good stuff". I think that the reasons why there has been so little scholarship on the Book of Mormon from non-Mormons are:

1. Superstitious fear that reading it will lead to conversion. Unfounded.

2. Fear that a merciless critique would lead to Danite reprisals. Some validity-- as Krakauer pointed out.

3. Fear that objective study of the Book of Mormon by non-Mormons would lead to objective study of the Bible by non-Christians. Why should that be feared?

Helen Keller was once accused of plaigirism-- evidently when she was quite young, Anne read a book to her, and she, quite unconsciously, integrated the material in one of her later writings.

orthodox Baptists and Evangelicals, that the Book of Mormon is essentially a Christian
book, and that it contains no especially censorable doctrines.

The racism doesn't scream at them???? :o They must have some Mormon-like cultural traits, then, and that is not uncommon in this country.

[_Uncle Dale]

orthodox Baptists and Evangelicals, that the Book of Mormon is essentially a Christian
book, and that it contains no especially censorable doctrines.

The racism doesn't scream at them???? :o
They must have some Mormon-like cultural traits, then, and that is not uncommon in this country.

More the other way around, I would guess -- the old-fashioned Mormons typified the racism
of European Christians, and that of the early USA -- and their successors are only slowly coming
to grips with the fact that a "world church" must view and treat all of the world's peoples equally.

Christianity inherited a great deal of racist doctrine from the Israelite/Jewish religion. The Hebrew
Bible was obviously NOT written by the offspring of Lot, Ishmael and Esau -- nor by the slaughtered
Midianites, nor the condemned Canaanites (sons of despised Ham in biblical tradition).

When in the early 1830s, Mormons began pouring into western Missouri, they brought with them
this same "slaughter-the-Canaanites" mentality, in their possessing "the Land of Promise" and
the "Center Stake of Zion." What was different about Joe Smith's minions and the forces of Joshua,
is that the American "Promised Land" was already occupied by people racially related to the Mormons.
Thus, the distinction of being "Ephramite Elect" or "Missourian Reprobate" was not determined by
language, or skin color, or hair curliness --- it was determined by "Patriarchal blessing lineages"
and by "continuing revelation." Maybe it was the same in Joshua's day -- and the fiction of the
Canaanites being the children of Ham was created to obscure the same fanatical fratricide.

All of this history is lost upon the typical modern Biblical scholar, who might undertake a study of
the Book of Mormon doctrines -- its racist doctrines included. The pro-slavery Baptist preachers
of the Confederacy are but four generations behind us, after all ---

As I said in a previous posting in this thread, the diverse elements of racism in the Book of Mormon may one day
help us to untangle the respective authorship of what I believe to be a highly complex, composite text.

In the meanwhile, the world watches to see when the first American Indian, or Korean, or Latino,
or African is set apart and ordained to the LDS Quorum of Twelve. The spirit of Walmart. McLellin looks on.

UD

[_Dan Vogel]

HEAD IN THE HAT AND NO USE OF MS

All I can say is that it is shame that no one has dared to post anything against this crap.

Define crap.

Alright, firstly the definition of what I intended for "crap":

–noun:
3. refuse; rubbish; junk; litter: Will you clean up that crap!
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

Secondly, I could not undertand that many did not have comments on that particular post.

Lastly, I do not believe in your "head in the hat and no use of a MS" theory. After several attempts, I've not been able to get a single direct response from you to this post: http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... 8562#28562

And now I don't even expect to get a response!

Define crap means you tell me why the head in hat and no MS is wrong. You haven't done that. If it seemed like I iggnored your post, it was because I spent my time on what I considered the larger issues. So let's see what you have to overturn a great deal of eyewitness testimony.