I have not read every word of every post on this thread, but most of it, so, sorry if I rehash old material….

Clear back on #62 MH wrote:

Let’s look at your theory. For Joseph to have been able to view maps at Dartmouth (no evidence he visited NH),

As Margie Miller posted on the other thread, there are some amazing “coincidences” with regard to Dartmouth College and Moors Academy. Joseph Smith never attended a formal school (at least not to my knowledge) but his brother Hyrum did. Hyrum attended Moors, which was sort of a prep-school for Dartmouth. Coincidence? Probably not… since Joseph & Hyurm’s uncle (Soloman Mack) had a son attending Moors as well, and, no doubt, he recommended the school to his sister Lucy. (They were quite close). Interestingly enough, Solomon Spalding also attended Dartmouth as did Ethan Smith. Spalding was older, however, but may actually have been on campus with Ethan for one year while Spalding was studying for his Master’s degree–Ethan would have been a freshman. I am not sure whether Ethan attended Moors–which was part of the Dartmouth campus–but if he did, then there could have been overlap there as well.

As Margie pointed out in her post on the other Spalding thread, there are still more “coincidences.” Hyrum, of course, was younger than Ethan and much Younger than Solomon Spalding, but he did in fact attend Moors/Dartmouth at the same time as Solomon’s nephew Eli Spalding and Ethan’s son Lyndon Smith! Coincidence? Ah, but it gets even more weird… as Margie points out:

a student at Dartmouth also reported that he had felt remorse and concern over the fate of his immortal soul and retired to the woods to pray. There he saw a light brighter than the noon day sun and was assured of his forgiveness. He reported this on campus and Wheelock wrote to his sister that it resulted in one of the greatest revival experiences at the school. The young man was Levi Spaulding a classmate of Hyrum and a son of Solomon Spaulding’s relative.

(BTW, Spalding is spelled both with and without the “u.” I don’t use the “u” since that is the way Solomon himself wrote it).

Now if there is no Spalding connection to the BOM all that would certainly constitute some interesting coincidences, however, there is yet another element to this that ties it all together… namely a professor at Moors/Dartmouth named John Smith. (As far as I know, no relation to Joseph/Hyrum). This Prof. Smith, may be the common link between all these individuals and the idea that the American Indians are descended from one of the lost ten tribes of Isreal. John Smith was an advocate of this theory. I am currently looking into this connection, but I find it all just a little too coincidental.

MH continues:
plagiarize both View of the Hebrews and Manuscript Found,

..so we see then that this is too simplistic. As it usually is, real life is not so cut and dried. The S/R (Spalding/Rigdon) theory does not hold that Joseph Smith plagiarized “both View of the Hebrews and Manuscript Found.” Although that is a remote possibility, it is more likely that “View of the Hebrews” simply mirrors “Manuscript Found” since both authors attended Dartmouth and were students of John Smith. (As was Hyrum Smith). Of course this may ALSO explain the parallels between VOTH and the BOM –either via Hyrum to Joseph or via Spalding to Rigdon to Joseph or via Ethan to Oliver to Joseph.

But the coincidences just keep on coming… Oliver Cowdery, who was a second cousin of Joseph Smith, attended a Congregationalist church in VT who’s pastor was none other than Ethan Smith. So it is certainly likely that Oliver–who was a part-time traveling book peddler–was familiar with VOTH.

There are, then, mulitple ways for the basic premise of one of the lost ten tribes being the ancestors to the Indians finding its way into the BOM.

MH continues:
incorporate Reformed Baptist preaching, know what was in Sidney Rigdon’s brain without meeting Sidney,

Again… too simplistic. S/R postulates that Rigdon himself would have done this, not Joseph Smith. Rigdon had ample opportunity–years worth–to embellish Spalding’s ms.

change both manuscripts into KJV style,

Again, not quite correct. The S/R theory maintains that Spalding himself altered the style of his earlier ms when he decided to start over, going back further in time and adopting the “old scripture style” of language. The earliest witnesses themselves attest to this. Either they were lying, or had false memories implanted by Hurlbut (which I suggest is absurd), or they were telling the truth.

figure out Egyptian names (Pahoran, Paanchi), and figure out chiasmus before any modern scholars were aware of this literary device,

Again… probably not attributable to Joseph Smith, but instead to the well educated Solomon Spalding or the well educated Sidney Rigdon.

requires Joseph to have done the kind of research that Dan Brown does. I do not believe Joseph is as smart as Dan Brown, he was not college educated like Dan Brown, and did not have the time to study all these various manuscripts that Dan Brown has, doing all this while treasure digging, farming, romancing and eloping with Emma.

The only book that we know for sure Joseph read is the Bible. Yet you seem to want to think Joseph is every bit as good an author as Dan Brown. Emma said he couldn’t write a coherent letter when they first married, and you think he’s practically Dan Brown. Now, obviously Joseph grew in knowledge, but Dan Brown was 34 when he wrote Digital Fortress, his first novel. You really think that Joseph with 10 fewer years, no college eduation, could write something that intricate?

This actually supports the S/R theory. I agree with you.

Emma knew Joseph better than you. I’m sorry, but your theory just doesn’t add up to me from what I know about Joseph, even if he was smarter than the church and his contemporaries acknowledge. If Joseph had read so much material, why couldn’t he spell better? Have you seen letters Joseph wrote? Wouldn’t such a smart man be able to pick people who wouldn’t turn on him? If you think Joseph is as good of a writer as Dan Brown, you need to get a paper trial of evidence to show that he really did have access to all this material, rather than innuendo.

Again, still more reasons to conclude in favor of S/R rather than Smith-alone.

In my opinion, the paper trail connecting Spaulding to Rigdon is weak

In the first place, what kind of evidence would you EXPECT to find? I dare suggest that we are being unrealistic if we expect to find a written confession. On the other hand, how about witnesses who knew both of them and put the two together? We have exactly that, and up until just a few years ago we only had that. However I think it was in 2004 when a mail-waiting notice from an 1816 Pittsburgh newspaper was discovered that had BOTH Solomon Spalding’s name as well as Sidney Rigdon’s name on it telling them they had mail waiting at the Pittsburgh post office! This was a major piece of previously unknown documentary evidence IN SUPPORT OF the S/R authorship claims. Major, in that it corroborates the testimony of Rebecca Eichbaum who said that Rigdon used to come into the Pittsburgh post office regularly with his pal Lambdin (of the Patterson Bookstore/Print shop). It is also major in light of the fact that Sidney Rigdon passionately denied being in Pittsburgh prior to 1822 and we can now see that that is simply not true.

Couple that with the findings of a recent word-print study done at Stanford whose authors, among other things, concluded that:

The NSC results are consistent
with the Spalding-Rigdon theory of authorship.
Evidence supporting this conclusion includes the
prominence of signals for Spalding and Rigdon;
the presence of strong Spalding signals in sections
of the Book of Mormon previously linked to
Spalding; the presence of a dominant Rigdon
signal in most theological sections, and a strong
Spalding signal in the more secular, narrative sections.
Our findings are consistent with historical
scholarship indicating a central role for Rigdon in
securing and modifying a now-missing Spalding
manuscript. The high number of Spalding-Rigdon
pairings in first and second place strongly suggests
that Spalding and Rigdon were responsible for a
large part of the text.

Now of course this study is being scrutinized and criticized for ‘this and that’ alleged weakness, but the bottom line is–regardless of whether Joseph Smith was included or not–when they tested for signals from Rigdon and Spalding the test results could have come back low or even negative. The fact is this study could easily have made the S/R theory most doubtful…. try promoting an S/R theory in the face of a word-print study that comes back negative for Spalding and Rigdon! The point is, it did not. The results support S/R.

So… we have a lot of elements all converging that lend support to the oldest non-divine theory for the production of the BOM there is. I think that is significant.

I said this backwards, I meant that Ethan Smith could have incorporated Spaulding’s writings and ideas in his book instead of the other way around…

Ok, so I’m getting old…

Let me just state that you’re reading things into my theory that I didn’t say or even infer. Again, if you go back and read MY posts from the beginning, I would challenge you to quote me and show where I’ve changed my theory or been inconsistent with it. I used things like the “Book of Abraham” and the “Kinderhook plates” to make points about translation methodologies and apologetics. This theory, which I freely admit is my own construction based on what I believe to be accurate facts from a host of different authors both pro and con, is unique to me.

As for the problem with Oliver Cowdrey becoming suspicious in seeing “View of the Hebrews” in the BoM, I think just the opposite happened. I think he firmly believed Ethan Smith was right about the origin of the American Indians and therefore would have rejected the BoM had it not agreed with Ethan Smiths book. I’ve read “View of the Hebrews” and I didn’t find any evidence of plagiarism. Ethan Smith goes to great lengths to try and show the Indians had legends that supported his theory. He also used some archeological evidence. (Later scientist found much better explanations for his “evidences” which killed his book. It would be totally unknown today if it wasn’t for its similarity to the BoM.) Many of the ideas are the same, but they’re expressed in very different ways. Therefore, I reject the idea that Oliver would have had red flag go up while scribing for JS.

As for Rigdon’s education, I know I read somewhere that he attended a seminary. I thought it was at Dartmouth, but I don’t seem to be able to produce the reference. If you google Alexandra Campbell and Sidney Rigdon you will find several articles detailing Campbell’s doctrines and Rigdons preaching before meeting Pratt. Critics maintain that in doctrinal areas where Rigdon disagreed with Campbell are strongly reinforced in the BoM. Grant Palmer stated in his interview with John Delhin, that the similarities between revival meetings in the 1800’s and sermons in the BoM was the first thing he noticed in researching a paper he was writing under the name Paul Pry. He goes on to state that members don’t realize that when they’re reading the BoM, they’re really participating in revival meetings by proxy.

I don’t know if I can make the link between Ethan Smith and Rigdon. I think there is strong evidence that Ethan Smith knew Spaulding and therefore Spaulding could have incorporated Smith’s research into whichever manuscript you care to believe he produced. Proponents of the Spaulding connection claim he wrote another story after writing “Manuscript Found”. I don’t think he needed to for my theory to hold water. There are enough similarities between Spaulding’s known document and the BoM to allow Rigdon to put it all together and write his paper. For that matter, even if Rigdon didn’t attend Dartmouth, he certainly could have gotten a copy of Ethan Smith’s book. According to critics, most of the ministers believed the Indians were descendents of one of the lost tribes of Israel.

I could go on and list all the similarities between Spaulding’s manuscript, “View of the Hebrews”, and the BoM. As all of you have the internet, I’ll encourage you to do that on your own and see of you reach the same conclusion I did. There almost certainly must be a link somewhere, because they all speak much the same story.

I think that sums it up pretty well for me. If Oliver Cowdrey was not part of the alleged fraud then he likely would have called bulls__t during the translation when he recognized the obvious Ethan Smith influence on what Joseph was “translating”. Part of what makes the whole official story so unbelievable is wide number of correlations that existed among these early figures in Church history. If we dismiss these correlations as coincidence then the official story actually becomes more likely from where I stand. Again Doug, can you show why your theory is more correct than the many other broader possibilities.

Just a side note, memorizing five pages of text daily would be a pretty daunting task. If Joseph Smith was creative enough and insightful enough to accomplish what your claiming, wouldn’t he be smart enough to find a better (easier) way to accomplish this task. Reading behind a curtain, for example, becomes a much more reasonable solution.

Ok, you’ve got another theory that it’s Rigdon, but that’s not what Palmer said. Sorry I’m so confused, but it sounds like you only believe about half of the thoeries you quote, so it is pretty hard to follow your thinking here. When you quote Spaulding Theory, I think you mean plagiarism, and when you quote Palmer, I think you mean Cowdery, not Rigdon. As such, sections 6, 8, 9 still stand, IMO.

You’re claiming that Ethan Smith and Sidney Rigdon attended Dartmouth at the same time, but I can’t find any evidence that Sidney Rigdon attended Dartmouth at all. In fact, just the opposite. Sidney’s father wanted him to work on the farm, and wouldn’t allow him to go away to college. Once Sidney got out on his own, he met up with Alexander Campbell, and became a preacher through Campbell’s mentoring. Van Wagoner doesn’t mention Dartmouth at all, and I don’t believe Rigdon ever attended there. Perhaps you can find me a reference to prove me wrong.

I did find a reference connecting Solomon Spaulding to Ethan Smith. “Ethan Smith, born in 1762 in Belchertown, Massachusetts, like Solomon Spalding was a graduate of Dartmouth College. Their education at the New Hampshire school overlapped for the year 1786-87.” See http://sidneyrigdon.com/RigHist/RigHist2.htm Are you mixing up your connections too?

While it is interesting that Spalding and Ethan Smith attended the same school in 1787, Spalding finished his manuscript 23 years later in 1809, and Smith finished his 36 years later in 1823. I wouldn’t call that a strong connection for Rigdon to steal both manuscripts–certainly not from Dartmouth. (Is Nahom in Ethan or Spaulding’s books?) Cowdery’s connection is much stronger to Ethan Smith.

So, it seems to me your theory would be more plausible if Cowdery was the source for View of the Hebrews, and that Cowdery was a co-conspirator too. Right? The Spaulding Theory makes no claims about View of the Hebrews, so I have a real hard time believing Rigdon got 2 manuscripts, especially when Cowdery’s connections to Ethan Smith are so much stronger than Rigdon’s.

Can you provide references for contemporaries who saw Rigdon’s sermons in the BoM? I’m just not familiar with Rigdon’s sermons enough to make the connections you are making. I don’t believe the Spaulding theory makes these claims, and I know you use the Spaulding theory as a very loose basis for your theory, but I would think that contemporaries would make these connections if they were so obviously copied from Rigdon. Alexander Campbell probably knew Rigdon’s sermons better than anybody for 3 reasons: (1) he trained Rigdon, (2) he listened to Rigdon, (3) he debated Rigdon. If Campbell thought Rigdon had nothing to do with it, then that’s a pretty strong witness against your theory.

(Minor correction–King Benjamin didn’t teach against infant baptism, Mormon did in his letter to Moroni at the very end of the BoM.)

I think you’re confusing something someone else said with my theory again. As I stated, I don’t think Oliver was in on it. What I said earlier was that SR could have read “View of the Hebrews” and incorporated some of Ethan Smith’s ideas in his manuscript. I pointed out (in a previous thread) that both SR and Ethan Smith attended Dartmouth at the same time. Some have stated that they may have even been roommates once, but I haven’t been able to find good backing for that statement. My point is simply that SR would have done his due diligence in creating his manuscript and that would mean reading about the mound builders, looking at good maps, studying people like Ethan Smith’s writings as well as Spaulding’s and whatever else was available in 182X.

Does that answer your concern about Oliver? In learning about Oliver’s struggles, I find it hard to imagine him being part of the deception. Rigdon is a whole other matter. He was focused and driven his entire life with little confusion about what he thought was right and why Christianity needed to change.

My belief about SR’s sermons and doctrines involve much more than just infant baptism. King Benjamin’s address was a very common theme for camp meetings. The role of works and faith as taught in the BoM was perfectly aligned with SR’s ideas about it. As some historians have noted, reading the BoM is like attending revival meetings in the 1820’s. The preaching is the same. So if SR were preaching talks like King Benjamin’s address including infant baptism, or Alma’s explanation of faith vs works, Ether’s pre-mortal Christ, and other doctrinally significant ideas that didn’t follow the main stream of Christian worship, then yes I believe he needed a third party to show that he didn’t contrive the whole thing to make people accept his new understanding of the scriptures. We are just talking theory here, so I’m not asking for you to believe it, I just don’t think it’s as easy to dismiss as you seem to be implying. People would ask themselves; what would be the chances of this Baptist minister finding the gold plates that just happened to back-up most of his unique views on the bible? Come on MH, you don’t think that would raise an eyebrow or two…

D&C 6, 8, and 9 refer to Oliver, who surely could have slipped in View of the Hebrews during the translation, yet Oliver apparently didn’t memorize the book as you claim Joseph did, nor did Oliver copy directly from his own manuscript. If this was the translation Oliver was supposed to do with or without a rod, surely Oliver “did not study it in his mind” or “study the manuscript” for the translation. This would have been a piece of cake for Oliver, yet mysteriously, Oliver failed in something so obvious for your theory.

As I said in 99,

Surely, Joseph was open to collaboration, and would have allowed Sidney the same opportunity. If Oliver and Sidney had a manuscript, it would have been relatively easy for them to assist in the translation–there is even a revelation making a much more convenient way for Doug’s theory. It would have been much easier to have Oliver and Sidney slip their manuscripts in at this point, then all the cloak and dagger stuff, IMO. They would have been prophets nearly equal in stature as Joseph, and who would pass up on that opportunity? Such a collaboration would have greatly amplified Rigdon’s future claims to the church presidency after Joseph’s death….Clearly, Oliver had the motive, means, and opportunity to be a co-collaborator here.

In fact Oliver had a much greater opportunity than Rigdon. Yet Rigdon is a conspirator and Oliver is not?

Why couldn’t Sidney have been a translator just as Oliver? Your thought that people would recognize his sermons strikes me as odd. Sidney didn’t believe in infant baptism. If that part of the BoM was Sidney’s work, surely people would have jumped all over that strange coincidence in Sidney’s beliefs. I guess I’m not buying your explanation that Sidney needed a front man. Oliver didn’t need a front man for getting View of the Hebrews into the BoM. To me, that is a big inconsistency in your theory.

I’ve heard lots of competing stories about how JS could have fooled the people that scribed for him. I don’t think he would have tried to put the manuscript in the hat. As you said, Martin or Oliver would have discovered the crib notes eventually. Just as a magician uses a diversion to cover what he’s really doing, I think JS must have had a method that allowed him to read from the script or recite from memory while he spoke to the scribe. Too make my point; I refer you to the fact that entire chapters were translated which match the KJV of the bible. Critics can even tell which particular printing JS was using based on the errors and italicized words. So how did he get so much of the bible into the text without reading out of it? Grant Palmer thinks he memorized each day’s translation before he and the scribe began. He asserts that Joseph may have had what equates to an almost photographic memory. In reality, he would have only had to memorize about five pages a day and his memorization didn’t need to be perfect as no-one would be checking on him.

Just as I don’t believe David Copperfield makes things or people disappear because I don’t understand the trick, I’m not ready to throw out the theory because I haven’t been able to figure out JS trick. The fact that he had used the hat and the seer stone before to fool treasure seekers would lend some credence to his use of it to fool the scribes.

MH,

I haven’t responded to your comment about D&C 6, 8 and 9 because I didn’t see the problem as it equates to my theory. The fact that Oliver couldn’t get his divining rod to help him “see” the correct translation is a mystery to me. What am I missing?

Thanks for your response, both of your comments are actually the points I was trying to make. If there was no curtain dividing the group, it is more likely that the fraud (assuming that divinity was not in play here) included all members who later on told fictitious stories to serve the agenda, such as Martin Harris switching Joseph’s Seer Stone with an ordinary rock.

Either of those is a possibility, of course, but the latter is far more likely under ordinary circumstances. (And, of course, the story itself might never have happened. It could be a lie told to bolster Joseph’s claims.)

Still if that is the case, we might consider how Joseph was able to smuggle a text past them while they wrote for him.

The idea that Joseph was reading a manuscript to his scribes works really well with the idea of “Joseph behind the curtain” and picking up every day exactly where he left off and so on, but it doesn’t work at all with “Joseph looking into his hat.” If he really spent most of the dictation time with his face in a hat, then I don’t see how he could have been reading a manuscript.

Just a quick question and response. Are you suggesting that Joseph could tell the difference because the “ordinary” rock lacked certain supernatural properties, ie revelation, or that perhaps Joseph could just look at the rock and see that it was not his Seer Stone?

I considered that latter option, and looking back should have listed this possibility as a third option. In other words, yes they tried to fool him by swapping his stone, but when he saw it he immediately recognized that they switched it and were trying to trick him. Admittedly that possiblity does give greater sway to the notion that perhaps Joseph’s scribes were unaware of any fraud. Still if that is the case, we might consider how Joseph was able to smuggle a text past them while they wrote for him.

Wait, why do we have to assume that Joseph had a genuine “seer stone”? All that story (if true) proves is that Joseph could tell his rock apart from the rock they substituted.

To me it just seems more likely that if The Book of Mormon was a fraud, all or most of those who had a hands on interaction, that were responsible for it’s coming forth were likely involved in the hoax at some level or another. This group at minimum probably includes Oliver Cowdrey, Joseph Smith, probably emma, probably even Joseph Smith Sr and at least Hyrum. Given that Martin Harris and David Whitmer were the two more superstitious of the group, I might be able to concieve that mabey either one of them where totally unawares of the fraud. If I were to pin it on one of them I would probably guess Martin Harris, but not both. Finally, with a little creativity perhaps even Sidney Rigdon, but that would possibly also implicate Parley P. Pratt, since it was he who according to official history brought Rigdon into the Church. This is all conjecture however.

Doug, to narrow it all down, the number of possible and compatable theories is the total number that we can all contrive plus one. The theories, while exciting to contrive, really don’t accomplish much of anything unless we demonstrate in a much more confined way how a specific theory should not only be plausible, but preferential to all others. That in short is the biggest problem with your theory.

Miss Scarlett with the wrench in the kitchen. Case closed.

Don’t give up though; I would like some constructive criticism of why my theory can’t work. Kind of like the game “Clue”. I think Col Mustard, (Rigdon) did it in his study with the pen. I would like you to show me the “card” for why my theory is unworkable.

Want to play?

Your theory keeps changing. Earlier in comment 60 you said, “There are the literary precedents, including the fact the A View of the Hebrews was written by Ethan Smith, a relative (I think cousin) of Joseph Smith Sr, Ethan Smith was also the pastor of the Church that Oliver Cowdrey and family attended for years.” Your comment 53 also claims many other sources of evidence.

Now you’re claiming only Rigdon is involved? I thought there was a connection with Oliver and Warren Cowdery for View of the Hebrews in Palmer’s book. And with Oliver as scribe, how can he not be part of the conspiracy? Honestly, I think I need to see your whole theory, because 94 doesn’t seem to include the Dartmouth Library, Kinderhook plates, Book of Abraham, and all the other things you claimed earlier. I’m sorry, but it’s really hard to follow where you’re going. And if Sidney is so involved, why is Oliver collaborating so much in D&C sections 6, 8, and 9 instead of Sidney?

Perhaps we should put this to bed….My original intention was to talk only about the Spaulding Theory. I don’t mind going into Doug’s theory a little, since he inspired the post, but we’re really meandering now.

None of the scribes needed to be involved in the conspiracy. If you go back and read what I said about JS using the hat and the stone thing, you should be able to deduce that the propose for that methodology was to leave Martin, Emma, and Oliver in the dark with regards to him using the document Rigdon provided. Therefore, no big conspiracy or cover-up required by anyone besides JS and SR. If I didn’t make that point clear, then I missed the boat, as that’s the crutch of the argument. With only SR and JS in the loop, it becomes much more believable. As for the witnesses, I would refer you to Brodie’s explanation of JS ability to “help” people see visions with their “second sight”. I think Grant Palmer makes the same point in his book, “An Insider’s View…”.

I’m being honest here; I don’t see why the theory I laid out in post #94 is so hard to believe. SR certainly had enough time to write the manuscript, recourses and information readily available at his fingertips, a good University education behind him or just in the process of being finished up, motive, desire, and a willing partner who needed to produce something based on the stories he’d been telling about the angel Moroni. This model is unlikely because…oh yea, no one can prove the two met before 1830. Well guess what, if I was trying to pull this off, I would have met with JS in secret too.

Ok, now for the disclaimer, my theory is just a theory and therefore could easily be dead wrong, but I don’t think there are compelling reasons to throw it out just based on a lack of evidence. If we’re in that mode, then you must also throw out the entire BoM as there is a huge amount of missing evidence…

Ray,

Glad I could make your day…

He himself testified of a personal revelation when asking God why he should not follow the Saints to Utah in which he said he was told “…because the light in which you stand is greater than theirs.”

The evidence of Joseph Smith’s involvement in polygamy has grown over time, but in Emma Smith’s time was quite easy to disbelieve as coming from anti-Mormons or contending factional leaders within the church “spinning” history to match their post-Carthage actions.

“By all accounts that seems to be incorrect, shall I say a lie, so her testimony to any effect should be taken with a grain of salt.”

You make an excellent point.

Jeff:

We have mentioned Emma in this discussion, the short response is that in the same interview you mention Emma is on record denying any knowledge or participation in Polygamy. By all accounts that seems to be incorrect, shall I say a lie, so her testimony to any effect should be taken with a grain of salt.