If plates then God

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

https://olivercowdery.com/

Dale Broadhurst was a regular participant on the boards when I began to participate and his website is a treasure trove of historic information. It's interesting to read non-Salt Lake oriented material, read folks words as they wrote them, and see a picture of the people behind the glossy one the church has made of the early leadership. The more one reads Cowdery, and realizes what he was doing between 1829 and 1837, the less one can see him as riding Smiths coattails. Smith clearly was a charismatic and inventive guy. He was capable in many ways. But he absolutely relied on capable people to make the Mormon church project work. The Book of Mormon NEEDED Cowdery. That's a hill I'll fight atop all day long because the more one looks into the details and facts, the more apparent it becomes.

Given the circumstances around the three witnesses, it's pretty clear Cowdery and the Whitmers brothers were in on the scheme. The Book of Mormon was written at the Whitmers farm. The use of stones in hats, etc., were props pulled out for show when needed, but the actually work was largely Smith and Cowdery talking at a table. This is apparent when one reads how their discussions on the Book of Mormon led to their invention of the priesthood, their baptism accounts, some of the other "revelations" presented based on them discussing a topic and voila, here's a revelation on that.

Thank you for your perspective, Honor, and the references that helped shape your view of the matter.

One of the ‘you got to be crapping me moments’ I vaguely remember from Dale Broadhurst’s contributions to the board, and since my memory is super crappy please feel free to correct me, was that Joseph Smith “based” the Book of Mormon off some other minister’s or some other congregant’s story/manuscript (<- I’m beginning to hate that word thanks to apologists). I couldn’t believe my eyes, but it made so much sense since that’s what Joseph Smith did, plagiarize ideas from others and tweak them to weave his own story. It was that moment when it clicked for me that Joseph Smith must’ve collaborated with others, and especially so with ‘the school teacher’ Cowdery when creating the whole story of the restoration and the Book of Mormon.

- Doc

[honorentheos]

Hi Dr Cam,

I believe he was a regular poster on the Solomon Spaulding and Sidney Rigdon document theory. It involves interesting ideas, similar to the theory that Smith had plagiarized Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews. My take away from all of that is a point already made in this thread. That being, how the Book of Mormon was produced is likely never going to be satisfyingly resolved compared to the main issue of its content being clearly a product of the 19th century American frontier. There is a reason MG demands it be the million dollar question because he can hide from the real problems.

[honorentheos]

Speaking of Rigdon, a biography on Rigdon I found in a used book store years ago is what changed my view of Smith's relationship to the people around him. It was a biography with more of a pro-Rigdon perspective than I'd read before so it had its biases. But it was clear even when that was accounted for that Rigdon was using Smith as much as Smith used Rigdon, and much of the religious evolution of the church at the time was coming from Rigdon.

Consider: we actually have an example of a formerly canon scripture in Mormonism that was removed in the Doctrine section of the D&C, Lectures on Faith, with tacit acknowledgement Smith wasn't their only or even main source but rather Sidney Rigdon heavily influenced them at minimum. They were removed in the 1920s without formal explanation but the understood reason is they contradict modern Mormon views on the godhead. And the apologetic claim is they were likely written by Rigdon whose views on the godhead were more trinitarian.

Smith is an example of the myth of The Great Men of History. That being the outdated idea history is largely the equilibrium of society being disrupted by genius usually men whose influence changed history. The term is kinda derogatory as the counter was a theory that the environmental influences give rise to someone filling a role where it was likely someone would become the "great man". The more balanced view is history ebbs and flows with both genius and the zeitgeist giving rise to change.

I think we are raised and educated with a great men theory influenced approach but we should realize very few people nor great ideas really solo projects. Obama's "I built this!" critique drew fire because of the bias we have in favor of individual boot strapping being behind the advance of civilization when it does usually take a village. Or something.

[Res Ipsa]

Hi Dr Cam,

I believe he was a regular poster on the Solomon Spaulding and Sidney Rigdon document theory. It involves interesting ideas, similar to the theory that Smith had plagiarized Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews. My take away from all of that is a point already made in this thread. That being, how the Book of Mormon was produced is likely never going to be satisfyingly resolved compared to the main issue of its content being clearly a product of the 19th century American frontier. There is a reason MG demands it be the million dollar question because he can hide from the real problems.

His screen name was Uncle Dale. You can find his posts by searching by author: *Uncle Dale

[honorentheos]

Is it? We've had plenty of discussions over the years and it's pretty easy to summarize what you think is evidence against the assistance Smith received being mundane rather than divine in origin. What wasn't listed that isn't captured in people believe it, folks involved in writing it claim divine participation, and Smith not appearing to have been able to write it on his own?

It appears that you may be jumping in on the thread not having read all that came before. For your benefit and more especially for others that may be reading this thread but not participating directly here are just some links that you might find helpful that were embedded in previous posts.

https://latterdaysaintinsights.BYU.edu/ ... he-plates/

https://scholarsarchive.BYU.edu/cgi/vie ... ntext=jbms

https://open.spotify.com/episode/7HikZ4 ... sktop&nd=1

https://rsc.BYU.edu/sites/default/files ... 0smith.pdf

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.o ... anslation/

https://interpreterfoundation.org/estim ... vidence-1/

https://interpreterfoundation.org/estim ... vidence-3/

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blo ... nd-the-gap
(go to handout link)

It’s a lot to read, but I’ve found that the information is sound and has relevance to the plates and also to Joseph’s ability to write the Book of Mormon on his own.

For those that are looking at different views in regards to the information found within these documents go back in time and read the thread. More often than not, I am the only one that takes these documents and findings seriously.

But that should come as no surprise.

Honor, I’ve spent a lot of time online recently. You’re coming in at a point where I have grown a bit weary of my iPad and this thread in particular. I just received the new Romney/A Reckoning book today and want to spend some time reading it in addition to getting some other things done.

I’m going to leave this thread for now (as I’ve done a few times already) and check back in at a later date.

I expect that there will now be some armchair psychoanalysis and reinterpretations of what I’ve said. So be it. I would only ask that others go back and read what I’ve actually said rather than edited versions.

Regards,
MG

For MG, I gave a couple of your links a look and you won’t be surprised to find I’m not impressed. To advance the discussion, though, let me take a sample from the last link by Brian Hales and the handout at the link. Of the many items we could discuss, the idea that the Book of Mormon contains information Smith couldn’t have known about at the level in the Book of Mormon is misrepresenting the content. The three examples noted, olive arboriculture, warfare, and biblical law, have been discussed quite extensively in my own time on the boards.

I posted years ago at MAD/MDB on the fact the description of olive arboriculture in the Book of Jacob better reflects apple production in the frontier west. Apples had been introduced from China into the United States but the majority of the apples that grow wild from seed are not particularly sweet or good to eat. But due to water impurities and germ theory not yet leading to boiling being a purifying technique folks knew about, most of bitter apples were used to make cider. But folks wanted to have reliable sweet apples as well and grafting was very well known and widely practiced throughout the US at the time the Book of Mormon was written. And guess what? The Book of Jacob exactly described apple tree grafting while talking about olives.

We also had a long debate about warfare, with the most glaring issue being the idea Mormon was the general of a large army but didn’t know the adage, “Amateurs debate tactics, pros speak of logistics” and how the logistics of the Book of Mormon are either missing or laughable given even the reduced concepts of the number of warriors involved in the kinds of fighting described in the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon doesn’t get warfare right if you actually know about large scale warfare because it is a fantasy novel describing fighting rather than what warfare actually largely consists of and what the leading general would have been dealing with every damn day of the fighting. But fortifications the apologists cry! How could Joseph have known about those?...but he lived through the War of 1812 in Boston where the US had coastal fortifications designed to resist ship cannon fire. We tend to forget he was alive and present in the middle of a war while convalescing from his leg surgery at his uncles in Massachusetts.

Chiasmus, Hebrew weights, law, language…it’s all been shown to be smoke and mirrors that actually undermine the claim it is of ancient origin and much more deeply tied into the 19th century context in which Smith and co. lived.

[Morley]

Thank you for weighing in, honor. It's always thought-provoking to read your commentary.

[Doctor Steuss]

I had never considered Cowdery having any role beyond scribe (and my brain is giving serious resistance to the idea); but, it certainly puts the disagreements about the level of power that Cowdery should have in the Church in a different light. It also is interesting to consider given the role of -- and confusion between -- the “Nephite interpreters” and the seer stone, and the difference in Cowdery’s accounts of the translation process compared to other “witnesses.”

[honorentheos]

Yeah. It really doesn't matter that much, as it doesn't change the issues with the content of the Book of Mormon. But in my mind it has explanatory power for a number of issues starting with the timeline.

The timeline for Book of Mormon production is partially independent of a person's bias in favor or against Smith. Harris was a scribe for what was lost in June 1828 which at most was less than 2 pages a day of content, very little was produced thereafter until April 1829 which is when Cowdery began his direct involvement. Then 500 pages were put out in three months or so.

It has explanatory power regarding the role of the witnesses. Cowdery and David Whitmer being involved with knowledge it was composed rather than translated makes more sense than Smith deceiving them in addition to Harris in an attempt to claim they saw the plates and an angel.

It explains the many, many important events and even matters authored by Cowdery in the startup of the church.

It illuminates the dynamic between Cowdery and Smith with regard to Smith's infidelities. Cowdery led the Church to vote on the Article on Marriage in 1835 specifically against polygamy and in defense of traditional marriage, he knew about Smith and Fanny Alger. He was engaged with Smith in the production of Jacob where polygamy is discussed in the Book of Mormon. If Cowdery is invested in the outcome of the Book of Mormon project and the opportunities it created, he's handling Smiths indiscretions more like he actually historically did than if he was a believing pawn.

It illuminates the early D&C.

It illuminates why it was Cowdery and not Smith who first drafted the articles for the formation of the church.

It illuminates the dynamic and tension between Cowdery plus the Whitmers on one side and Smith and Rigdon on the other.

It makes their subsequent lives more logical as Cowdery didn't run off from the church attempting to sink Smith but instead attempted to create distance from his involvement. His personal life suffered whenever his involvement in Mormonism came to light in his later life with little reason to protect Smith unless it also was necessary to protect himself.

There are more, but it essentially has explanatory power beyond just a theory for how the Book of Mormon came to be.

[honorentheos]

Similarly, it helps one understand Sidney Rigdon to see his relationship with Smith as more of a partnership in a venture than as a true believer and follower. Bennett? Yeah, same deal.

Prior to Oliver it seems Smith relied on his father and family. In the end it landed on Hyrum to be his supporting partner. But Smith always had a supporting partner.

[Marcus]

I posted years ago at MAD/MDB on the fact the description of olive arboriculture in the Book of Jacob better reflects apple production in the frontier west. Apples had been introduced from China into the United States but the majority of the apples that grow wild from seed are not particularly sweet or good to eat. But due to water impurities and germ theory not yet leading to boiling being a purifying technique folks knew about, most of bitter apples were used to make cider. But folks wanted to have reliable sweet apples as well and grafting was very well known and widely practiced throughout the US at the time the Book of Mormon was written. And guess what? The Book of Jacob exactly described apple tree grafting while talking about olives.

Wow, i remember that conversation about olive growing. And yes, mentalgymnast did his best to play the antagonist in that encounter, but he failed miserably--the arguments were superb. That was a fascinating discussion.

And, like doc cam's experience, i came away with my mind blown regarding how obvious the deception became when the facts were known.