I've been reading/watching Craig Criddle's excellent research on the theories on the authorship of BoM, and it all seems very compelling:

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/criddle/rigdon1.htm

http://mormonleaks.com/authorship-who-really-wrote-the-book-of-mormon/

I haven't yet read or watched all of it, but does anyone know if there's a debunking to the apologist's explanations, like this one?

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/ask-the-apologist-solomon-spaulding-and-the-book-of-mormon

Even though there are conflicting theories about the origin of the BOM that may never be resolved, I have concluded that is not of divine origin. That's good enough to reject it, but it's quite interesting to speculate anyway. It does seem that it is at least possible that Rigdon and Smith might have known each other when the book was being concocted.

Same here. I actually hold to the theory that JS did it mostly on his own, perhaps with some help from OC. But in the end it doesn't really matter. The scientific evidence in no appreciable way supports the historicity of the BoM.

What apologist arguments have not been addressed? There is plenty of evidence that Spalding wrote multiple manuscripts (not just the manuscript recovered in Hawaii) and that one of his manuscripts was similar to the Book of Mormon. There is also good evidence of pre-1830 contact between Smith and Rigdon.

I have really appreciated your work. What are your thoughts regarding the research from Chris Johnson and William Johnson findings of word patterns of then contemporary historical novels? Such as the Book of Napoleon and the Late War

Do you think it is possible the Rigdon plagiarized Spalding, who had plagiarized other works?

> What are your thoughts regarding the research from Chris Johnson and William Johnson findings of word patterns of then contemporary historical novels? Such as the Book of Napoleon and the Late War

> Do you think it is possible the Rigdon plagiarized Spalding, who had plagiarized other works?

I really appreciate the work of the Johnson's. They have uncovered important evidence that needs to be explained. More work needs to be done to say how their work connects to other evidence. I suspect Spalding plagiarized The Book of Napoleon. We have some evidence suggesting that Pratt plagiarized the Late War and used it to re-write Spalding documents. We'll have more to say about that later in MormonLeaks.

Thanks Craig! I was just reading about the evidence for the additional manuscripts. I need to finish watching the rest of your presentation, which I've found very compelling. One thing I saw in the video but I didn't see your online research was about the BoM names and how the variants came from Spaulding. Is there a link that addresses the issue more? Thanks for all the great research.

> One thing I saw in the video but I didn't see your online research was about the BoM names and how the variants came from Spaulding. Is there a link that addresses the issue more? Thanks for all the great research.

Check out Episode 2 at MormonLeaks. Slide 72 and 73 show how Spalding constructed proper nouns. This episode now has 6 lines of text evidence linking Spalding to specific parts of the Book of Mormon. The Spalding method of name construction is just one of the six lines of evidence.

http://mormonleaks.com/library/episode-02/

Ah, if only evidence were proof... Then the church would have crumbled years and years ago.

About evidence not being proof? I played a round of golf with OJ Simpson, during the civil trial. It was out at Hansen Dam, an LA City course. I was there as a single and was informally inspected, and then allowed to join him and the two white dudes who were with him. I walked, they rode. He proposed a dollar a hole bet and I ended up losing $3. I didn't have the guts to call him on his habit of dropping another ball after a poor shot, and hitting it. He didn't put the better shot in play, but it was in contravention of the rule that hitting a ball not your own during the playing of a hole requires a two stroke penalty.

Anyway, when I asked him how he was feeling during the criminal trial about all the evidence mounting up, he cackled and said, "Evidence ain't proof, and the jury saw that!" (Okay, I didn't ask and he never said that, but if I had asked, I bet he would have answered in that vein.)

There were always be TBMs, because evidence simply isn't proof! They'll wait for the judge to render a verdict, which obviously does not happen during their lifetimes.

You didn't challenge OJ's cheating because you didn't want him to beat you to death with a golf club. :-)

As for his snarky remark "Evidence ain't proof, and the jury saw that!" The evidence isn't what got OJ off, but rather the fact that he was a privileged celebrity who had enough money to hire some of the best lawyers in the country, who attacked the character and credibility of the investigating officers and played the race card well enough to create reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors.

Sorta like Mormon apologists who, when anyone publishes anything which opposes Mormon claims, the apologists' go-to response is to assault the character or credibility of the publisher.

Well, if evidence "ain't proof", then we might as well just give up trying to figure anything out.

No, as I have pointed out many times, evidence isn't proof.

BUT When weighing the evidence to establish the truth of any assertion, it has long been customary to set a certain standard for how much evidence is enough. It is very rare that any proposition can ever be proven with 100% certainty, so that we generally are satisfied with somewhat less. But how much less? For any issue where the consequences are so great that it will affect one's life (such as a criminal accusation) the general standard is that the evidence should be so strong that there is no "reasonable doubt" about it. Surely, then, any religious claims which (if true) would place on us the obligation of changing our lives, following a certain path, obeying certain rules, and being required to lend our time, our energies, our finances to it, should be supported by convincing evidence that all its claims are beyond any reasonable doubt.

Do Mormon claims fail this test? Are there "reasonable doubts" about Mormon claims? Yes.

All you need is a reasonable doubt about Mormon claims (including whether the BoM is historical or divine or somehow miraculous) to reject it.

The "apologist" position essentially relies on statements from the potential fraudsters themselves (Rigdon, Cowdery, Smith and his family) that they weren't fraudsters. As such, it's circular and not at all convincing.

We may not ever have enough evidence to *know* who wrote what parts of the BoM, and/or where parts were plagiarized from (other than the direct KJV Bible parts). That doesn't really matter. Massive evidence shows the book is NOT historical, accurate, or "divine." So while how it was produced is intellectually interesting, ultimately it's not important. It's not what Smith claimed it was, period. There doesn't have to be convincing evidence of how it WAS produced to accept that fact. Mormons either don't get that or don't care, often using the fallacious, "If you can't prove how it came to be, then it must be what Smith said." Nope.

I didn't bother to read beyond this part:

"But in 1834 a new theory for the origin of the Book of Mormon was proposed by a man named Philastus Hurlbut."

It wasn't necessary for me to read one word more from this Matthew Brown guy. He's ignorant. He has no clue of what he's talking about. The Spalding-Rigdon theory of the BOM's origin began before Philastus Hurlbut even joined the church, let alone before he left the church and journeyed to NY to investigate Joseph Smith's background.

Freeatlast2015, in addition to Craig Criddle's work, I suggest that you read these newspaper articles quoted below, which were published within mere months of the founding of Mormonism---which was before Hurlbut had anything to do with the church. The long-time RLDS researcher Dale Broadhurst, with help from Jeff Hammel, pored through early newspapers and discovered these articles which revealed a lot about the early days of Mormonism. Dale put the articles on his website and publicized them on the alt.religion.mormon forum in 2001.

Upon reading them, I recognized that there was a lot more to the Spalding-Rigdon theory than the church's apologists, or even Fawn Brodie and the Tanners had considered. Along with the newspaper quotes, I included some comments which flesh out the subject.

Dale, that's an impressive collection. A few comments: your first article, from the
Cincinnati Advertiser of June 2, 1830, is quite revealing:

"A fellow by the name of Joseph Smith, who resides in the upper part of
Susquehanna county, has been, for the last two years we are told, employed in
dedicating as he says, by inspiration, a new bible. He pretended that he had
been entrusted by God with a golden bible which had been always hidden from the
world. Smith would put his face into a hat in which he had a white stone, and
pretend to read from it, while his coadjutor transcribed."

The article corroborates the "stone in the hat" version of the "translation,"
as opposed to Smith's later story of "two stones in silver bows." Considering
the earliness of the article, June 1830, it is closer to the original method of
the "translation" as told by Smith's first "scribes"----Emma, Harris, Whitmer,
Joseph Knight, etc.---before Cowdery "happened " upon the scene. That makes it
more obvious that Smith and Cowdery invented the "two stones in silver bows"
story sometime after June, 1830. Of course, we already know that Cowdery
and/or Phelps invented the "Urim and Thummim" story sometime after
that---meaning that the occultic, yet original "peep-stone" story evolved over
time into the "Urim and Thummim" story, in an attempt to give Smith's practice
a Biblical stamp, and to shed the image of his 1820s "peep-stoning."

Next, the "Observer Telegraph" article of November 18, 1830:

"They [the Mormons] are now on their way to the Western Indians, for whose
benefit the new Revelation was especially designed. The Indians, as fast as
they are converted are to become white men."

This shows that the idea that Indians were to literally turn "white" upon their
conversion to Mormonism was known about very early--enough to have made it into
a newspaper by late 1830. That means that the idea had to have come from the
earliest of Mormons. That refutes the modern Mormon apologetic line that the
"turning white and delghtsome" is only figurative, and the modern BOM change to
"pure and delightsome" was a departure from the original assertion of a literal
skin color change.

Next, the Cleveland Advertiser of August 31, 1831:

"Rigdon was formerly a disciple of Campbell's and who it is said was sent out
to make proselytes, but is probable he thought he should find it more
advantageous to operate on his own capital, and therefore wrote, as it is
believed the Book of Mormon, and commenced his pilgrimage in the town of
Kirtland, which was represented as one of the extreme points of the Holy Land."

This assertion that Rigdon may have been the BOM's secret producer is the
earliest I've seen. It predates James Gordon Bennett's similar assertions by
half a year.
Needless to say, it also dynamites the oft-repeated Mormon fallacy that
"Hurlbut invented the Spalding/Rigdon theory," because Hurlbut did not begin
his investigation until fully two years after this article was published.

Next, from the New York Inquirer of August 31, 1831:

"A few years ago the Smith's and others who were influenced by their notions,
caught an idea that money was hid in several of the hills which give variety to
the country between the Canandaigua Lake and Palmyra on the Erie Canal. Old
Smith had in his pedling excursions picked up many stories of men getting rich
in New England by digging in certain places and stumbling upon chests of money.
The fellow excited the imagination of his few auditors, and made them all
anxious to lay hold of the bilk axe and the shovel. As yet no fanatical or
religious character had been assumed by the Smith's. They exhibited the simple
and ordinary desire of getting rich by some short cut if possible. With this
view the Smith's and their associates commenced digging, in the numerous hills
which diversify the face of the country in the town of Manchester. The sensible
country people paid slight attention to them at first. They knew them to be a
thriftless set, more addicted to exerting their wits than their industry,
readier at inventing stories and tales than attending church or engaging in any
industrious trade. On the sides & in the slopes of several of these hills,
these excavations are still to be seen. They Would occasionally conceal their
purposes, and at other times reveal them by such snatches as might excite
curiosity. They dug these holes by day, and at night talked and dreamed over
the counties' riches they should enjoy, if they could only hit upon an iron
chest full of dollars. In excavating the grounds, they began by taking up the
green sod in the form of a circle of six feet diameter--then would continue to
dig to the depth of ten, twenty, and sometimes thirty feet."

This August, 1831 revelation of the Smith's money-digging practices is
important for at least two major reasons: One, it corroborates the affidavits
of the 1833 Palmyra and Harmony testators of the Smith's treasure-digging, yet
they were published two years before Hurlbut even went to NY to interivew his
witnesses; that, again, destroys the Mormon apologetic line that Hurlbut either
invented his testators' stories or coached them. You'd think that Brodie would
have noticed that, if she had access to your articles. Maybe she didn't.

Secondly, this article fleshes out both the intent and the extent of the
Smiths' money-digging band. Today's Mormon apologists trust Smith's story that
he only treasure-hunted because Stowell talked him into looking for a "Spanish
silver mine," and that he only did it for about a month, and that Smith advised
Stowell to
drop it. This article reveals that the Smiths' involvement was extensive,
well-known, and long-lasting, rather than the downplayed "about a month" story
Smith told in 1838. It gives high credibility to the accounts from Willard
Chase & Co. that the Smiths had been peep-stoning and/or treasure-digging since
at least 1822. The 1831 article could not have come from Hurlbut; the news had
to have come from people who actually knew the Smiths intimately in the late
1820s.

Of course, we already know all of this from other pre-Hurlbut sources,
including Cole's 1830 "Palmyra Reflector" articles and A. W. Benton's 1831
relating of Smith's 1826 and 1830 peep-stoning trials. The benefit of all
these articles is that they both pre-date, and are independent of Hurlbut, yet
they corroborate Hurlbut's investigation; thus, it's disingenuous for Mormon to
claim that Hurlbut invented it all.

It's one thing for Mormons to try to discredit Hurlbut's findings, or W. D.
Purple's much-later publication of the 1826 Bainbridge trial account; it's
quite another for Mormons to explain how numerous articles published in 1830
and 1831 could tell the same story as those from Hurlbut and Purple, if the
latter were false.

"At last some person who joined them spoke of a person in Ohio near
Painesville, who had a particular felicity in finding out the spots of ground
where money is hid and riches obtained. He related long stories how this person
had been along shore in the east--how he had much experience in money digging
-- how he dreamt of the very spots where it could be found. "Can we get that
man here?" asked the enthusiastic Smiths. "Why," said the other, "I guess as
how we could by going for him." "How far off?" "I guess some two hundred miles
-- I would go for him myself but I want a little change to bear my expenses."
To work the whole money-digging crew went to get some money to pay the expenses
of bringing on a man who could dream out the exact and particular spots where
money in iron chests was hid under ground. Old Smith returned to his
gingerbread factory -- young Smith to his financing faculties, and after some
time, by hook or by crook, they contrived to scrape together a little "change"
sufficient to fetch on the money dreamer from Ohio."

This "person from Ohio near Painesville---money dreamer from Ohio"---Who could
that have been, but Sidney Rigdon?

"After the lapse of some weeks the expedition was completed, and the famous
Ohio man made his appearance among them. This recruit was the most cunning,
intelligent, and odd of the whole. He had been a preacher of almost every
religion -- a teacher of all sorts of morals. -- He was perfectly au fait with
every species of prejudice, folly or fanaticism, which governs the mass of
enthusiasts. In the course of his experience, he had attended all sorts of
camp-meetings, prayer meetings, anxious meetings, and revival meetings. He knew
every turn of the human mind in relation to these matters. He had a superior
knowledge of human nature, considerable talent, great plausibility, and knew
how to work the passions as exactly as a Cape Cod sailor knows how to work a
whale ship. His name I believe is Henry Rangdon or Ringdon, or some such word."

Yep, there it is---none other than Sidney Rigdon, of Ohio. Rigdon swore that
he had never met Smith before late 1830; yet, here's a newspaper article naming
him, and installing him into the Smith's circle of occultists, before Smith
ever published the BOM or founded his church.

"About the time that this person appeared among them, a splendid excavation was
begun in a long narrow hill, between Manchester and Palmyra. This hill has
since been called by some, the Golden Bible Hill. The road from Canandaigua to
Palmyra, runs along its western base. At the northern extremity the hill is
quite abrupt and narrow. It runs to the south for a half mile and then spreads
out into a piece of broad table land, covered with beautiful orchards and wheat
fields. On the east, the Canandaigua outlet runs past it on its way to the
beautiful village of Vienna in Phelps. It is profusely covered to the top with
Beech, Maple, Bass, and White-wood -- the northern extremity is quite bare of
trees. In the face of this hill, the money diggers renewed their work with
fresh ardour, Ringdon partly uniting with them in their operations."

And here the article places Rigdon smack-dab in the middle of the diggings on
"Gold Bible Hill", known to Mormons as the "Hill Cumorah."

Now, how and why did this band of occult treasure diggers transform themselves
into a religious enterprise?

"It was during this state of public feeling in which the money diggers of
Ontario county, by the suggestions of the Ex-Preacher from Ohio, thought of
turning their digging concern into a religious plot, and thereby have a better
chance of working upon the credulity and ignorance of the [their] associates
and the neighborhood. Money and a good living might be got in this way. It was
given out that visions had appeared to Joe Smith -- that a set of golden plates
on which was engraved the "Book of Mormon," enclosed in an iron chest, was
deposited somewhere in the hill I have mentioned. People laughed at the first
intimation of the story, but the Smiths and Rangdon persisted in its truth.
They began also to talk very seriously, to quote scripture, to read the bible,
to be contemplative, and to assume that grave studied character, which so
easily imposes on ignorant and superstitious people. Hints were given out that
young Joe Smith was the chosen one of God to reveal this new mystery to the
world; and Joe from being an idle young fellow, lounging about the villages,
jumped up into a very grave parsonlike man, who felt he had on his shoulders
the salvation of the world, besides a respectable looking sort of a blackcoat.
Old Joe, the ex-preacher, and several others, were the believers of the new
faith, which they admitted was an improvement in christianity, foretold word
for word in the bible. They treated their own invention with the utmost
religious respect. By the special interposition of God, the golden plates, on
which was engraved the Book of Mormon, and other works, had been buried for
ages in the hill by a wandering tribe of the children of Israel, who had found
their way to western New York, before the birth of christianity itself. Joe
Smith is discovered to be the second Messiah who was to reveal this word to the
world and to reform it anew.
In relation to the finding of the plates and the taking the engraving, a number
of ridiculous stories are told.--Some unsanctified fellow looked out the other
side of the hill. They had to follow it with humility and found it embedded
beneath a beautiful grove of maples. Smith's wife, who had a little of the
curiosity of her sex, peeped into the large chest in which he kept the
engravings taken from the golden plates, and straightway one half the new Bible
vanished, and has not been recovered to this day. Such were the effects of the
unbelievers on the sacred treasure.
There is no doubt but the ex-parson from Ohio is the author of the book which
was recently printed and published in Palmyra and passes for the new Bible. It
is full of strange narratives--in the style of the scriptures, and bearing on
its face the marks of some ingenuity, and familiar acquaintance with the Bible.
It is probable that Joe Smith is well acquainted with the trick, but Harris the
farmer and the recent converts, are true believers."

Next:

"They were called translaters, but in fact and in truth they are believed to be
the work of the Ex-Preacher from Ohio, who stood in the background and put
forward Joe to father the new bible and the new faith."

Once again, this article from August of 1831 asserts that Rigdon was the actual
producer of what became the "Gold Bible."
It predates Hurlbut's investigation by two years, yet tells the same story.
That should effectively end, for intellectually honest people at least, the
Mormon contention that "Hurlbut invented the stories because he was a
'bitter apostate.'" Because of that, it gives even more credence to
Hurlbut's Ohio witnesses who testified of the Spalding/Rigdon connection.

Randy J.

These remarks are from Craig Criddle:

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,819013,819737#msg-819737

The "Conneaut witnesses" are people who spoke of the Spalding theory before Philastus Hurlbut became involved.

A general statement I make whenever this subject come up: Out of all the varying theories of the BOM's origin, the one which we can dismiss outright is Joseph Smith's version. The text of the BOM itself proves it to be a fraud, so we must consider the other theories. IMO, the most likely theory involves the Spalding-Rigdon origin.

Yes, BH Roberts, Fawn Brodie, and the Tanners all believed that Smith could have produced the BOM on his own, but I don't believe that's the most likely scenario. One reason being, if Smith could concoct the BOM completely from his own imagination in two years' time, then he should have been able to produce similar lengthy works over the next 14 years, instead of brief, occasional efforts such as the Book of Moses, Book of Abraham, his "revelations," etc. For example, the fact that it took Smith seven years (1835 to 1842) to produce the 15 pages of the BOA hints that he had help with the BOM.

Thanks Randy! Some really interesting information there. I know ultimately it doesn't matter who really wrote the BoM once you understand it's not true, but as someone who loves history, I find it very interesting. Plus, I want to know who I can blame for bamboozling me and millions of people. :|

Here I am - must be another Spalding or karaoke thread.

There are numerous problems with the FairMormon article by Mathhew Brown.

RandyJ pointed out one: Rigdon's involvement with the BoM was not Hurlbut's invention. It was suspected by some in Ohio very shortly after the book's arrival, where people knew Rigdon; and as Randy pointed out in the 1831 New York Inquirer article, it must have been believed by at least some in New York. Brown quotes Alexander Campbell to suggest that early detractors uniformly believed Smith was solely responsible for the BoM. To my recollection, most early commentators on the BoM made no such claim and left all possibilities open. Also, Campbell had not known or met Smith, so his opinion of Smith's authorship doesn't mean much. Brown should come up with examples of commentary from people who actually knew Smith expressing the opinion that he was the sole author, and that would begin to be impressive.

Also, Brown reports the early opinions of Rice and Fairchild, but fails to report their later views that were much more receptive to the idea that other Spalding writings were used to create the BoM.

Just as Hurlbut did not invent the idea that Rigdon was involved in the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, nor did he invent the claims that Spalding's writings were connected to the Book of Mormon. Hurlbut's connection of the claims made by those familiar with Spalding's writings led him on an investigation, during which the he drew a connection between Spading and Rigdon. One can claim he concocted a connection between Spalding and Rigdon, but he is not responsible for the further reports and evidence suggesting that Rigdon may have accessed some of Spalding's writings through common associates in Pittsburgh over 10 years before the BoM's reported discovery. There are currently evidence gaps in any supposed chain of events that would begin with Spalding writings in Ohio and end with the publication of the Book of Mormon - that much anyone would admit. But apologists tend to either ignore evidence what evidence does exist, or tend to give Hurlbut far too much credit for it.

The rest of the article asks us to take the word of some of those about whom we might be most suspicious in the first place, so that might be convincing to some, but the words of Emma Smith, Parley Pratt, and Oliver Cowdery aren't convincing to me.

JeffH