New scholarly article on Rigdon-Book of Mormon connection

[Rachel_Malloy]

Just a reminder:

CONTENT RULES

1. 
   *]**Do not paste articles from web sites into a post. If you wish to reference an article on the web, link to its web address, instead. **
   *]Do not change the title of posted articles.
   *]Discussion of a controversial news event must reference at least one publicly-available news report on the subject. This can be in the form of a link, a partial quote and a link, or a posted photo (as appropriate).
   *]Do not post others’ e-mail addresses, private messages, or private e-mail sent by them unless they give you permission to do so.
   *]Do not post copyrighted material.
   *]Do not post material from unapproved private revelations.
   *]Do not post personal phone numbers and addresses.
   *]Do not post anything that can be construed as spam.
   *]Do not post anything that can be construed as a commercial advertisement or contains any form of commercial solicitation.
   *]Do not post anything that you do not want to be publicly read for an extended period

1. 
   forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=2
   
   To clarify, you are welcome to cite with sources a portion of the document you wish to use as evidence to your argument, but you should not post the whole thing - especially without proper citations.
   
   On with the discussion!
   
   

 

[BartBurk]

the data from the study indicate that Rigdon wrote 37%, Spalding wrote 28%, Isaiah-Malachi wrote 20%, Cowdery wrote 9%, and Parley Pratt wrote 5%. This does not eliminate the possibility of borrowings from people such as Buck Watie (cherokee Elias Boudinot) and Mr and Mrs Schoolcraft.

Spalding wrote the story, Rigdon wrote the theology and inserted passages from the Bible. :coffeeread:

We are definitely talking about multiple authorship in recent times (except for excerpts from the Bible) Nephi and Moroni, according to the Book of Mormon, “lived 1000 years apart”. Yet 1 Nephi 10 and Moroni 8 were both written by Rigdon to a more than 93 % probablility. Other evidence disconfirms Mormon apologetics for ancient multiple authorship.

And yet we’re supposed to believe there is no evidence for the Spalding-Rigdon theory. It seems to me there is lots of evidence, but Mormons just want to cast aside the inconvenient evidence. It makes the most sense to me of any theory, and it continues to be strengthened every year as more research is done.

 

[William_M]

Does this study/article:

1. Just analyze which, among the hypothesized group of five possible authors, is most likely to have authored each of the chapters of the BOM?

OR

1. Analyze whether the five hypothesized authors are more likely to have authored the chapters of the BOM than the follownig indidividuals:

Nephi
Jacob
Enos
Jarom
Omni
Mormon
Mosiah
Alma
Helaman
Ether
Moroni

If the article/study did the latter (option 2), what samples of writing of those eleven individuals did it use to compare to the BOM?

If the article/study did not do the latter (option 2), and did only option 1, then what use is it? Answer: unless one starts with Dr. Criddle’s presuposition that one or more of the five hypothesized authors wrote the BOM, then the study/article is useless.

More importantly, no one ever gained their testimony of the truth of the BOM based upon this sort of wordprint analysis, and no one ever lost their testimony on that basis either. For example, BartBurk lost his testimony before this article was published.

Which brings me to a question I have asked before. What are you up to BartBurk? Are you so insecure about your decision to leave the Church that you are looking for poor Dr. Criddle to assure you? Are you looking for ammunition to destroy the faith of your wife and children so that they will join you in apostasy?

Also, BartBurk, you occupy a responsible position at a major university (ND) so you are obviously an intelligent and educated man. How can you, in the context of your clearly profound questions about your spiritual life, cling to pseudo-intellectual claptrap like the “conspiracy theory” of the Spalding-Rigdon authorship of the BOM. If you do not believe that the BOM is true, then I will not blame you. Joseph said, in the KFD, that he did not blame any man for not believing him. But, as opposed to embracing crackpot theories, would not it be more reasonable to just admit that you do not know the origin of the BOM and leave it at that?

Lastly, BartBurk, in a previous post, you said two things. First, you said that you were happy being a Catholic. If that is truly and fully so, then why cannot you just believe and practice your new faith and leave us be? Second, you said that you missed the community of the Mormons. We miss you too.

 

[RAR]

I testify that the Catholic Church is the church of Jesus Christ himself - founded and given the means to stand the test of time against all form of heresy and subversion. This testimony was given to me by the Holy Spirit and nurtured by sound logic and God-given human reason.

Studies are published and lent credible by peer panel. This fact is not easily dismissed and should not be discredited without similar academic rigor.

RAR

 

[BartBurk]

Does this study/article:

More importantly, no one ever gained their testimony of the truth of the BOM based upon this sort of wordprint analysis, and no one ever lost their testimony on that basis either. For example, BartBurk lost his testimony before this article was published.

Which brings me to a question I have asked before. What are you up to BartBurk? Are you so insecure about your decision to leave the Church that you are looking for poor Dr. Criddle to assure you? Are you looking for ammunition to destroy the faith of your wife and children so that they will join you in apostasy?

Also, BartBurk, you occupy a responsible position at a major university (ND) so you are obviously an intelligent and educated man. How can you, in the context of your clearly profound questions about your spiritual life, cling to pseudo-intellectual claptrap like the “conspiracy theory” of the Spalding-Rigdon authorship of the BOM. If you do not believe that the BOM is true, then I will not blame you. Joseph said, in the KFD, that he did not blame any man for not believing him. But, as opposed to embracing crackpot theories, would not it be more reasonable to just admit that you do not know the origin of the BOM and leave it at that?

Lastly, BartBurk, in a previous post, you said two things. First, you said that you were happy being a Catholic. If that is truly and fully so, then why cannot you just believe and practice your new faith and leave us be? Second, you said that you missed the community of the Mormons. We miss you too.

The Mormon Church is false. I post here mainly because people like you need to know the truth. I could ask you the same thing. Why do you need to come to a Catholic board to defend your faith if you believe it is true? The whole Mormon religion is an attack on the Catholic faith which was the faith established by the apostles. I don’t go to Mormon boards to defend Catholicism or attack Mormonism. Why do you need to come here?

 

[Jerusha]

Yes. The Jocker’s study just analyzes which of the authors listed (Rigdon, Malachi-Isaiah, Pratt, Cowdery, Spalding, and for controls, Longfellow and Barlow) are most likely to have authored the Book of Mormon, broken down by chapter.

Although it does not effectively determine whether some chapters were written long before others, perhaps this chart might help you take a look at the distribution of chapters which seem to have been primarily written by Spalding.(Sorry, I have been unable to copy that chart in a readable form)

Much of Alma came from the core text for the Book of Mormon, well researched from legitimate sources.

• A simple statistical test was applied to the distribution of first place assignments. It is extremely unlikely that this happened by chance.
  Sort of like randomly pointing a telescope in the sky and looking directly at Jupiter.

Alma marks the point where Oliver Cowdery arrived with Sidney Rigdon’s adaptation of “Manuscript Found”

The whole Mormon religion is an attack on the Catholic faith which was the faith established by the apostles.

Another possible source for the Book of Mormon is the Jesuit Relations(begun in 1611). That part of the Book of Mormon was nothing more than a mockery of the Catholic missionary effort.

 

[William_M]

BartBurk:

Do you really think that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is an “attack” upon the Roman Catholic Church?

Do you think it would be accurate to characterize the establishment of Christianity as an “attack” upon Judaism?

Would not it be a more accurate characterization to say that Christianity built upon Judaism rather than attacking it?

Is it an “attack” when someone says “bring all of your great accumulation of good, and let us see if we can add to it”?

The life of Mankind, including spiritual life, progresses. The new accretes upon, and eventually submerges, the old. It is a natural process and not an attack.

Returning to the thread topic,would you please do me the favor of answering my question, in my prior post, as to what the Criddle study/article actually analyzed, in terms of my two options? Please ignore my personal questions in my prior post as they were impertinent of me.I apologize for that.Thank you.

 

[MGLechner]

The best research on the Rigdon connection to the Book of Mormon has already been done. See this article.

God bless us all,
Paul

Thank you for this link. I have long held that Rigdon was the true author of what later became known as: The Book of Mormon. I certainly do not believe that it was inscribed on gold plates! But, like the Queen in Alice Through the Looking Glass,some people can believe “as many as six impossible things before breakfast!”

 

[BartBurk]

BartBurk:

Do you really think that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is an “attack” upon the Roman Catholic Church?

Do you think it would be accurate to characterize the establishment of Christianity as an “attack” upon Judaism?

Would not it be a more accurate characterization to say that Christianity built upon Judaism rather than attacking it?

Is it an “attack” when someone says “bring all of your great accumulation of good, and let us see if we can add to it”?

The life of Mankind, including spiritual life, progresses. The new accretes upon, and eventually submerges, the old. It is a natural process and not an attack.

Returning to the thread topic,would you please do me the favor of answering my question, in my prior post, as to what the Criddle study/article actually analyzed, in terms of my two options? Please ignore my personal questions in my prior post as they were impertinent of me.I apologize for that.Thank you.

It analyzed the five authors it tested. My understanding is that it is now in the process of testing even more authors. You obviously can’t test the supposed ancient Book of Mormon authors against their other writings. The value of this study is that it shows that in spite of Mormon claims that Ridgon or Spalding had nothing to do with the Book of Mormon that indeed it is possible they did. It adds more ammunition to the claim by those living at the time of Joseph Smith that the Book of Mormon actually is the work of Rigdon using an old Spalding romance. It doesn’t prove it, but it does make it more likely they were involved. If the study had shown no similarity at all between the Book of Mormon and Rigdon/Spalding writings then we could have once and for all tossed out the connection. Now there is even more evidence that it is a plausible theory.

I don’t buy the idea the Mormon Church is not an attack on the Catholic Church and all other Christian assemblies. It calls them all the Whore of Babylon. That’s not an attack?

 

[Phinneas]

Here is the URL to an article reporting on a presentation criticizing the article that is the subject of this thread. It appears that the speaker was at times sarcastic, which is not best. However, the speaker did make the critical, and totally valid, point that the analysis presented in the article was whether, of a small group of selected “candidates” for the “real” author of the Book of Mormon, which one, relative to the others in that smalll group, was most likely to have been the “real” author. In terms of the Book of Mormon actually being what it purports to be, this article proves nothing. That is because the study reported in this article did not even remotely purport to compare whether anyone else was more likely the “real” author than any of the small group of persons studied. For example, the study did not address whether Nephi, Mormon and Moroni were more likely the “real” authors of the Book of Mormon. The article, and the study it reports, were a complete waste of time.

deseretnews.com/article/700169259/FAIR-Wordprint-analysis-and-the-Book-of-Mormon.html?pg=1

 

[RebeccaJ]

Yeah, and maybe Natty Bumppo wrote “The Leatherstocking Tales”.

 

[hosemonkey]

Yeah, and maybe Natty Bumppo wrote “The Leatherstocking Tales”.

Kinda reminds me of a group of secret Service agents speculating on how a counterfeit bill was made. Nobody has any doubt that the bill was bogus, they are simply speculating on how the job was done. The mormon “scriptures” are bogus, we just are not totally sure who the counterfiter was. My money is on Joseph Smith.