The Book of Mormon... have you read it?

[lax16]

lax,

"Many critics of the Book of Mormon reject the Spaulding theory as unworkable:

Davis H. Bays, The Doctrines and Dogmas of Mormonism Examined and Refuted, (St. Louis: Christian Publishing, 1897), 22, 25

**Answer David H. Bays is a critic of the Book of Mormon? Then why is he called Elder **Davis H. Bays?

[This theory is] “erroneous, and it will lead to almost certain defeat… The facts are all opposed to this view, and the defenders of the Mormon dogma have the facts well in hand… The Spaulding story is a failure. Do not attempt to rely upon it — it will let you down.”

Fawn Brodie, No Man Knows My History (New York, A. A. Knopf, 1945), 453

“*The tenuous chain of evidence accumulated to support the Spaulding-Rigdon theory breaks altogether when it tries to prove that Rigdon met Joseph Smith before 1830.” *

Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Did Spaulding Write the Book of Mormon? (Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1977).

One might ask the question: If Mormonism’s most prominent critics find the Spalding theory unworkable, then what motivates those who tenuously hold to this theory and continue to pursue it? Those that continue to promote this theory have not effectively dealt with the major objections highlighted by other anti-Mormon critics."

** Answer Thank you for this. I did reading on their own independent study re: the topic and their conclusions seem quite credible. Based on their writings, I would have to agree that the Spalding theory is not credible. **

Sidney Rigdon to his son John, just prior to Sidney’s death

"My father, after I had finished saying what I have repeated above, looked at me a moment, raised his hand above his head and slowly said, with tears glistening in his eyes: “My son, I can swear before high heaven that what I have told you about the origin of [the Book of Mormon] is true. Your mother and sister, Mrs. Athalia Robinson, were present when that book was handed to me in Mentor, Ohio, and all I ever knew about the origin of [the Book of Mormon] was what Parley P. Pratt, Oliver Cowdery, Joseph Smith and the witnesses who claimed they saw the plates have told me, and in all of my intimacy with Joseph Smith he never told me but one story.”

en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Authorship_theories/Spalding_manuscript

However, it is much more possible that the BoM was actually a (not so loose) copy of the View of the Hebrews by Rev Ethan Smith.

B.H. Roberts, a member of the LDS council of the Seventy and considered to be the first Mormon apologist, has written what he considered to be many correlations between the BoM and the View of the Hebrews.

Also, based on his research, they would have all known about each other or known each other personally.

Because B.H. Roberts was Mormon until his death and never spoke as an anti, he would be considered a very reliable source.

I would like to discuss the similarities between the BoM and the View of the Hebrews as found by B.H. Roberts.

 

[dianaiad]

Did people write and sell books back then for money like they do now?

Why, yes, lax, they did…and the more florid and sensationalistic the topic, the more money they made, EXACTLY the way it works now. People haven’t changed a bit.

How many people were there that would have bought books re: Mormonism?

Oh, come on. We have a religious group that is rumored to be polygamous, steal slaves from their masters, eat babies…are you kidding? There was a ‘tell all expose’ of the Shakers that was written in the mid 19th century that made more money than Mark Twain made for “Tom Sawyer…” and THAT was a best seller. “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” made a fortune, too. Anti-Mormon diatribes were almost guaranteed to make money, no matter how badly written they were, pretty much like now.

Was there a nationwide interest in Mormonism that would have made the book a best-seller at a time when people were not buying books? Why would Oliver Cowdery or anyone around him think there was money to be made in his story?

Because, well…there was.

****B]From the Introduction to Uncle Tom’s Cabin by Harriet Beecher Stowe:

When Calvin Stowe negotiated *Uncle Tom’s * contract on his wife’s behalf, he confided to the publishers that **he hoped the novel would be successful enough so that his wife ****could buy a “good black silk dress”. **The novel turned out, of course, to be far more successful than that. Within the first week of publicaton, *Uncle Tom’s Cabin * sold 10,000 copies, within its first year, 300,000 **(this in a nation with a total population of ****only 24 million). ***Uncle Tom’s Cabin *was the first American novel to sell more than a million copies, and no book of any kind, except for the Bible, had ever sold so well. Astonishing as the sales figures are, even they fail to suggest the full extent of Uncle Tom’s popularity. **For the book was published in an era when novels were still ****treated as a kind of communal property, borrowed from circulating libraries, passed ****from hand to hand, read aloud to entire households at a time; **knowing this, one reviewer speculated that *Uncle Tom *had ten readers for every copy sold.

This excerpt from the Intro explains very well that **people were not **writing books with the idea of getting rich and that because of the library system people were not buying books, they shared them. (And Harriet Beecher Stowe was an award-winning writer by the time she wrote Uncle Tom’s Cabin).

The book was written in 1850.
When did Oliver Cowdery die? What a coincidence! 1850.

Your example is a perfect example of MY point, not yours. It is an example of a book that was wildly successful…because of the content. As it happens, “Mormonism Unvailed” did very well, too not in the same level as “Uncle Tom’s Cabin,” of course, but I’m not certain the success of that book was rivaled until Harry Potter came along. However, it did better than most such efforts, and is still in print. The author of that book was never persecuted by the saints, his family did very well, and the book certainly paid the bills—and similar success was enjoyed by the other anti-Mormon diatribes that were published around the same time.

 

[barnesms]

Can you, for a minute, just close your eyes and imagine the horrible persecution his family would have had to endure if he had come clean? His estate could have been sued and any belongings his family had would have been lost. What kind of man would want his family to go thru that?

And that does not even include how his friends would have been prosecuted and sued.

Would you want your friends to go through that?

I certainly wouldn’t. And I doubt seriously Oliver would have wanted that.

What you are proposing is that a man that had been excommunicated from the LDS Church, treated poorly by the citizens of the USA, lost a recent election because of his past relationship with the Mormons, would not, just before death, look at his family and for their eternal welfare not say, it is a hoax? Run from it. You think he would be more concerned for their current welfare in the state of Missouri when the vast majority of the saints were living out west. Would you not be more concerned for their eternal welfare? You actually think a little persecution here is more important than an eternity in Heaven?

Would that we could ask all the Catholic Saints what they think of persecution as compared to salvation.

 

[SirThomasMore]

What you are proposing is that a man that had been excommunicated from the LDS Church, treated poorly by the citizens of the USA, lost a recent election because of his past relationship with the Mormons, would not, just before death, look at his family and for their eternal welfare not say, it is a hoax? Run from it.

Yes, sir. That is exactly what I am proposing. He had gotten back in good graces with the LDS Church. If he tells the truth, that is was all a hoax, then his family is hated by Mormons and Non-Mormons alike. Where would they go?

You think he would be more concerned for their current welfare in the state of Missouri when the vast majority of the saints were living out west. Would you not be more concerned for their eternal welfare? You actually think a little persecution here is more important than an eternity in Heaven?

Yes, I believe making sure his family was taken care of here was that important to him. Besides, I have no clue as to what he really believed, at the time of his death, regarding eternity.

Would that we could ask all the Catholic Saints what they think of persecution as compared to salvation.

Not really relevant as we would not be talking about his persecution, but that of his family. I would gladly face persecution for something I believed in, but, if you threatened me with the death and or persecution of my wife and children, I am not sure what I would do.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

We need to remember what happened before his deathbed testimony. Oliver came back to the church with his wife and child. Now lax, oliver could have made a fortune if he would have come clean about the mormon church. And he did need money. When he left the church and eventually faced financial difficulty, one good book about the con would have made him rich and a hero for many. And if there were a con, he would have done so because he had nothing to lose. Imagine the impact of oliver writing such a book! The lds church would have collasped like a house of cards. But instead, we have him coming back to the lds church and restate his testimony to the lds members and to his family on his deathbed and goes to meet his maker happy and peaceful.

It would be his word against the word of may believers. Unless he had some pretty strong proof, the book would be toothless. And of course your recounting proves a motive to maintain a fiction… Oliver came back to the church with his wife and child. If he had ever flipped on the alleged co-conspirators, he and his surviving family would have been shunned by the community. One does not simply write an expose’ unless one has multiple sources and real proof to back up the facts being exposed. So, I concur with others here that your post is speculation at best.

Peace,
Robert

 

[lax16]

Why, yes, lax, they did…and the more florid and sensationalistic the topic, the more money they made, EXACTLY the way it works now. People haven’t changed a bit.

True!

Oh, come on. We have a religious group that is rumored to be polygamous, steal slaves from their masters, eat babies…are you kidding? There was a ‘tell all expose’ of the Shakers that was written in the mid 19th century that made more money than Mark Twain made for “Tom Sawyer…” and THAT was a best seller. “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” made a fortune, too. Anti-Mormon diatribes were almost guaranteed to make money, no matter how badly written they were, pretty much like now.

Tom Sawyer was not published until 1876.
Protocols of the Elders of Zion - 1897

As far as the expose on the Shakers, do you mean The Quaker City by George Lippard (1842)? This was an expose on the hypocrisy of the Philadelphia elite. Yes, it sold many copies making him a financially successful author. However, he, like other famous others of his day, had already earned a reputation for his writing and had a large following.

Because, well…there was.

****B]From the Introduction to Uncle Tom’s Cabin by Harriet Beecher Stowe:

When Calvin Stowe negotiated *Uncle Tom’s * contract on his wife’s behalf, he confided to the publishers that **he hoped the novel would be successful enough so that his wife ****could buy a “good black silk dress”. **The novel turned out, of course, to be far more successful than that. Within the first week of publicaton, *Uncle Tom’s Cabin * sold 10,000 copies, within its first year, 300,000 **(this in a nation with a total population of ****only 24 million). ***Uncle Tom’s Cabin *was the first American novel to sell more than a million copies, and no book of any kind, except for the Bible, had ever sold so well. Astonishing as the sales figures are, even they fail to suggest the full extent of Uncle Tom’s popularity. **For the book was published in an era when novels were still ****treated as a kind of communal property, borrowed from circulating libraries, passed ****from hand to hand, read aloud to entire households at a time; **knowing this, one reviewer speculated that *Uncle Tom *had ten readers for every copy sold.

This excerpt from the Intro explains very well that **people were not **writing books with the idea of getting rich and that because of the library system people were not buying books, they shared them. (And Harriet Beecher Stowe was an award-winning writer by the time she wrote Uncle Tom’s Cabin).

The book was written in 1850.
When did Oliver Cowdery die? What a coincidence! 1850.

Your example is a perfect example of MY point, not yours. It is an example of a book that was wildly successful…because of the content. As it happens, “Mormonism Unvailed” did very well, too not in the same level as “Uncle Tom’s Cabin,” of course, but I’m not certain the success of that book was rivaled until Harry Potter came along. However, it did better than most such efforts, and is still in print. The author of that book was never persecuted by the saints, his family did very well, and the book certainly paid the bills—and similar success was enjoyed by the other anti-Mormon diatribes that were published around the same time.

No, my point was that **despite her previous success **as an author, she was not expected to earn a lot of money for her book. Famous authors were not making a great deal of money for their books.
For someone to assume that by a death bed confession his family would be able to write an expose on the Mormons and therefore pull themselves out of financial distress is a stretch.
That would be an interesting conversation to have as someone is breathing their last breath though.

 

[dianaiad]

dianaiaiad:

Why, yes, lax, they did…and the more florid and sensationalistic the topic, the more money they made, EXACTLY the way it works now. People haven’t changed a bit.

True!
dianaiaiad:

Oh, come on. We have a religious group that is rumored to be polygamous, steal slaves from their masters, eat babies…are you kidding? There was a ‘tell all expose’ of the Shakers that was written in the mid 19th century that made more money than Mark Twain made for “Tom Sawyer…” and THAT was a best seller. “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” made a fortune, too. Anti-Mormon diatribes were almost guaranteed to make money, no matter how badly written they were, pretty much like now. /quote]

Tom Sawyer was not published until 1876.
Protocols of the Elders of Zion - 1897

The date of publication is irrelevent; we are comparing money earned, not publication dates.

[As far as the expose on the Shakers, do you mean The Quaker City by George Lippard (1842)? This was an expose on the hypocrisy of the Philadelphia elite. Yes, it sold many copies making him a financially successful author. However, he, like other famous others of his day, had already earned a reputation for his writing and had a large following.

No sir, not QUAKERS, SHAKERS . The Shakers (noted for their communal living, their belief in universal celibacy, great furniture and “Simple Gifts,” ) have nothing at all to do with the Society of Friends.

No, my point was that **despite her previous success **

as an author, she was not expected to earn a lot of money for her book. Famous authors were not making a great deal of money for their books.

WOMEN were not. Men, however, supported themselves and their families very well indeed. I’m afraid that gender discrimination was alive and very well throughout that period of time, hence…George Sand…

For someone to assume that by a death bed confession his family would be able to write an expose on the Mormons and therefore pull themselves out of financial distress is a stretch.
That would be an interesting conversation to have as someone is breathing their last breath though.

I think that the point was, he could have done this BEFORE his death quite easily. Others did, and did quite well for themselves. Their families were not harmed, sued or other wise persecuted, so Cowdery knew very well that his family was also safe. Consider; if his death bed statement was a lie because he was afraid of the consequences to his family, then why did he leave the church in the first place? He wasn’t exactly terrified during his life time; there is no reason to assume that he would be so at his death.

In fact, to assume that is not a reason, it’s an excuse and flies in the face of all legal and human history regarding statements made in the anticipation of death. To simply dismiss such a statement because you assume that he was afraid is to ignore the fact that he didn’t act on that fear at any other point in his life and career. It is ludicrous to suppose that he would do so at that point. In fact, the only reason for entertaining such an idea is because one simply doesn’t want to believe the truth of what he said.

…and that’s fine, actually, as long as one acknowledges it.
[/quote]

 

[lax16]

The date of publication is irrelevent; we are comparing money earned, not publication dates.

No it’s not. We are discussing the idea of someone in 1850 thinking there was money to be made as a writer of a book. Those examples you provided were from a different point in America’s literary history.

No sir, not QUAKERS, SHAKERS . The Shakers (noted for their communal living, their belief in universal celibacy, great furniture and “Simple Gifts,” ) have nothing at all to do with the Society of Friends.

I did a search of sensationalist books of the 1850’s and that is what I came up with.

WOMEN were not. Men, however, supported themselves and their families very well indeed. I’m afraid that gender discrimination was alive and very well throughout that period of time, hence…George Sand…

No, men were not either. I will provide a link to where I got my info.

I think that the point was, he could have done this BEFORE his death quite easily. Others did, and did quite well for themselves. Their families were not harmed, sued or other wise persecuted, so Cowdery knew very well that his family was also safe. Consider; if his death bed statement was a lie because he was afraid of the consequences to his family, then why did he leave the church in the first place? He wasn’t exactly terrified during his life time; there is no reason to assume that he would be so at his death.

Please provide examples of people who did well. I have researched Eber D. Howe and Mormonism Unvailed and nowhere did I read that he was well-off.
I agree with STMore that they would have more to worry about if they did confess than if they did not.
Didn’t he leave the church because he was angry over JS affair with Fanny Alger and didn’t condone polygamy?

In fact, to assume that is not a reason, it’s an excuse and flies in the face of all legal and human history regarding statements made in the anticipation of death. To simply dismiss such a statement because you assume that he was afraid is to ignore the fact that he didn’t act on that fear at any other point in his life and career. It is ludicrous to suppose that he would do so at that point. In fact, the only reason for entertaining such an idea is because one simply doesn’t want to believe the truth of what he said.

…and that’s fine, actually, as long as one acknowledges it.

Uh, no. I think the LDS posters and their reading into his deathbed scenario is what is being debated here. Ludicrous, I agree.

 

[lax16]

From the Elisha Kent Kane Historical Society

**Writing in America **

The **1840s and 1850s **are now recognized as America’s literary renaissance as figures such as Hawthorne, Poe, Melville, Emerson, Thoreau, Longfellow, Dickinson, Whitman, and Stowe all produced their most influential works during this time. **Though these authors ****certainly provide some insight into the times, it is important to recognize that **many of them were only marginally successful, if not completely unknown, during the period itself. Certainly Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin, Emerson’s lectures, and Longfellow’s poems were successful; **but Hawthorne, Poe, ****Melville, Whitman, and Thoreau experienced limited success at best while Dickinson was **completely unknown. Melville’s South Seas adventure tales, Typee and Omoo, sold well, but his classic, Moby Dick, sold only 60 copies in its first ten years. (6) Most of Thoreau’s books were returned to him unsold, Hawthorne unfairly complained that the “damned mob of scribbling women” were flooding the book market, and Dickinson’s poems literally never saw the light of day as she bundled them up in neat blue ribbons and shoved them in a drawer. By contrast, readers bought Kane’s Arctic Explorations by the thousands.

The “best-sellers” of the 1840s and 1850s were not the books now held up as “classics,” but exciting and emotional tales that provided America’s growing population a literary escape from their mundane lives. **Exploration and travel accounts, along with sensational literature such as George Lippard’s The Quaker City, or Monks of Monks Hall (1845), **the sentimental literature of the “scribbling women,” and the chivalrous tales of Sir Walter Scott, were what the public was reading. (7)

 

[why_me]

It would be his word against the word of may believers. Unless he had some pretty strong proof, the book would be toothless. And of course your recounting proves a motive to maintain a fiction… Oliver came back to the church with his wife and child. If he had ever flipped on the alleged co-conspirators, he and his surviving family would have been shunned by the community. One does not simply write an expose’ unless one has multiple sources and real proof to back up the facts being exposed. So, I concur with others here that your post is speculation at best.

Peace,
Robert

You need to know about Oliver. Before he came back to the church he was experiencing financial difficulties. During that time he left the church and began to experience money problems, he could have made some money with a book about the con of mormonism. Oliver who was one of the witnesses and claimed the restoration of the priesthood through a visitation of heavenly beings that gave him and Joseph Smith the priesthood keys would have been a great person to expose the con, if it were a con. He was the second elder of the lds church.

Oliver was there from almost the beginning with Joseph Smith.

 

[why_me]

The “best-sellers” of the 1840s and 1850s were not the books now held up as “classics,” but exciting and emotional tales that provided America’s growing population a literary escape from their mundane lives. **Exploration and travel accounts, along with sensational literature such as George Lippard’s The Quaker City, or Monks of Monks Hall (1845), **the sentimental literature of the “scribbling women,” and the chivalrous tales of Sir Walter Scott, were what the public was reading. (7)

At that time, mormonism was a polarizing factor in american life. Many hated the religion. If oliver would have written a book about his experiences in the con and how it all came about with joseph smith, the church would have fallen like a house of cards. And that book would have been read by many people. And oliver would have been on a charles dickens like speaking tour in the US.

 

[why_me]

Didn’t he leave the church because he was angry over JS affair with Fanny Alger and didn’t condone polygamy?

fairlds.org/FAIR_Brochures/Book_of_Mormon_Witnesses_1.pdf

Oliver was no fan of polygamy and in fact, this was one obstacle for him coming back into the church.

Joseph Smith did not have an affair with fanny. She was his first plural wife. Both her parents were proud of their daughter as was her brother. And her parents and brother went to utah to be with the saints and were quite okay with the sealing of their daughter. Both parents and brother remained lds and saw nothing evil in the relationship.

 

[SirThomasMore]

You need to know about Oliver. Before he came back to the church he was experiencing financial difficulties. During that time he left the church and began to experience money problems, he could have made some money with a book about the con of mormonism. Oliver who was one of the witnesses and claimed the restoration of the priesthood through a visitation of heavenly beings that gave him and Joseph Smith the priesthood keys would have been a great person to expose the con, if it were a con. He was the second elder of the lds church.

Oliver was there from almost the beginning with Joseph Smith.

Actually, since Oliver was part of the con, he could not have written a book. He would not have been able to benefit from his crime. Even had he been able to write the book and sell it, he would not made nearly enough money to cover the lawsuits from the thousands of people who had followed a fraud he helped perpetrate.

 

[lax16]

At that time, mormonism was a polarizing factor in american life. Many hated the religion. If oliver would have written a book about his experiences in the con and how it all came about with joseph smith, the church would have fallen like a house of cards. And that book would have been read by many people. And oliver would have been on a charles dickens like speaking tour in the US.

I see now that you are referring to him writing a book before his death bed.

However, please note that during the 1850’s while sensationalist literature was very popular, it is very difficult to pin down just how lucrative it actually was.

Also it seems the authors that found success with sensationalist literature, such as George Lippard, did have a literary career that preceded their success. He did not come on the scene and make it big out of thin air. He was already popular.

To assume a book about Mormonism being a hoax in 1850 would be a big enough success to bring a person monetary gain has yet to be proven.

I have spent a couple of hours researching this topic and if anyone has any credible sources on this subject I would be glad to read about it. It is actually quite interesting to read about what Americans were reading in the 1850’s.

I appreciate the discussion as it is an area I knew nothing about…now I know a tiny bit!

 

[lax16]

Didn’t he leave the church because he was angry over JS affair with Fanny Alger and didn’t condone polygamy?

fairlds.org/FAIR_Brochures/Book_of_Mormon_Witnesses_1.pdf

Oliver was no fan of polygamy and in fact, this was one obstacle for him coming back into the church.

Joseph Smith did not have an affair with fanny. She was his first plural wife. Both her parents were proud of their daughter as was her brother. And her parents and brother went to utah to be with the saints and were quite okay with the sealing of their daughter. Both parents and brother remained lds and saw nothing evil in the relationship.

I don’t accept that because her parents and brother were proud of it that makes it okay.
Interesting that you used the word “proud” seeing as how it involved their daughter/sister being married/sealed to a prophet.

I also don’t believe in married people being involved with anyone outside of marriage.

I guess Oliver Cowdery was right on this subject.

 

[lax16]

Actually, since Oliver was part of the con, he could not have written a book. He would not have been able to benefit from his crime. Even had he been able to write the book and sell it, he would not made nearly enough money to cover the lawsuits from the thousands of people who had followed a fraud he helped perpetrate.

STMore -
Because I don’t know the details and I am not a lawyer such as yourself, please explain what OC would have been sued for etc.

This is a very interesting point that you are bringing up.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

You need to know about Oliver. Before he came back to the church he was experiencing financial difficulties. During that time he left the church and began to experience money problems, he could have made some money with a book about the con of mormonism. Oliver who was one of the witnesses and claimed the restoration of the priesthood through a visitation of heavenly beings that gave him and Joseph Smith the priesthood keys would have been a great person to expose the con, if it were a con. He was the second elder of the lds church.

Oliver was there from almost the beginning with Joseph Smith.

Again, it would be his word against the word of dozens of other persons claiming a similar pedigree. You are assuming that he could have written a book backed by proof, which is very difficult when one is trying to prove a negative - i.e. that something did NOT happen. I don’t think his position (one he turned from and returned to) would be sufficient evidence and as a publisher of a work of non-fiction I would not want to run the risk of a libel action by printing a book that could not be substantiated by other witnesses or at least a mountain of written documentation. I don’t think Oliver had that.

Again, I’m not saying this because I believe in Mormonism. I’m suggesting that “writing a book” under the circumstances you presented is going to do much to pull Oliver out of debt.

Peace,
Robert

 

[SirThomasMore]

STMore -
Because I don’t know the details and I am not a lawyer such as yourself, please explain what OC would have been sued for etc.

This is a very interesting point that you are bringing up.

Fraud, for one. If Oliver was part of a conspiracy to defraud people into believing a book was translated from gold plates, that is a crime. Many people died becoming LDS and traveling to the US because of Mormonism. If it was fraud (a felony) that caused their deaths, then you would have the felony-murder rule (a death caused in the commission of a felony, evein if accidental). Now, granted, I am not sure what penal laws existed back then, but most of what we have now existed then. If they took any money at all for the books they sold, or for tithes, or to build Joseph a house, then you can have various theft crimes. And these are just off the top of my head.

As far as civil lawsuits, every single mormon would have a claim for damages against Oliver, Joseph’s estate, and any other of the founders. Those that lost money, lives, or who gave up good jobs, etc, got ill, or etc. in furtherance of bvecoming Mormon and moving to any of the places they moved, would have a lawsuit against the founders. That would have been in the billions of dollars, even back then.

No, Oliver HAD to keep quiet. They all did.

 

[lax16]

Fraud, for one. If Oliver was part of a conspiracy to defraud people into believing a book was translated from gold plates, that is a crime. Many people died becoming LDS and traveling to the US because of Mormonism. If it was fraud (a felony) that caused their deaths, then you would have the felony-murder rule (a death caused in the commission of a felony, evein if accidental). Now, granted, I am not sure what penal laws existed back then, but most of what we have now existed then. If they took any money at all for the books they sold, or for tithes, or to build Joseph a house, then you can have various theft crimes. And these are just off the top of my head.

As far as civil lawsuits, every single mormon would have a claim for damages against Oliver, Joseph’s estate, and any other of the founders. Those that lost money, lives, or who gave up good jobs, etc, got ill, or etc. in furtherance of bvecoming Mormon and moving to any of the places they moved, would have a lawsuit against the founders. That would have been in the billions of dollars, even back then.

No, Oliver HAD to keep quiet. They all did.

Was OC involved in the bank problem in Ohio(?) with JS?

 

[SirThomasMore]

Was OC involved in the bank problem in Ohio(?) with JS?

not sure, but that doesn;t matter. If the whole first vision and all is a fraud, Oliver is as guilty as anyone of all that happened after that.