(For my analysis of the Brodie-Bush argument, see "Book of Mormon Authorship.") ![]() He does not deal with the Spalding text, and he assumes a supernatural explanation for Joseph Smith's ability to write a complex book. However the very same criticism can be directed against Bushman. Bushman complained that Howe and Hurlbut acknowledged the complexity of the Book of Mormon "by hypothesizing a novelist as co-author but did not discuss the story itself" (Bushman 1984, 128). In fact none of these people have pointed out even one of Brodie's mistakes. Bush states that Brodie's argument is "the first in-depth assessment of the Hurlbut-Howe thesis by a modern historian" (Bush 1977, 57), but he fails to note that Brodie piled error upon error. The "prophet puzzle" cannot be solved until we know the origin of the Book of Mormon, and that question cannot be settled without an honest appraisal of the Spalding theory. ![]() But Shipps has eliminated Spalding from the milieu of possible influences on Joseph Smith, has not searched the Mormon canon for information and insight into the Spalding theory, and has closed her mind to any "evidence that appeals to reason" which supports the Spalding thesis. Shipps argued that scholars must view Joseph Smith "in the context of the social, political, economic, and theological milieu from which he came the range of resources must be expanded to utilize the information and the insight that can be found in the Mormon canon and the entire project must be approached with an open mind, a generous spirit, and a determination to follow the evidence that appeals to reason from whatever source it comes, wherever it leads" (Waterman 1999, 28). To borrow a phrase from Thomas O'Dea, the Spalding manuscript "has not been universally considered by its critics as one of those books that must be read in order to have an opinion of it" (O'Dea 1957, 26). Of course, none of these people made any effort to systematically study the Spalding manuscript and compare it with the Book of Mormon. Richard Bushman dismissed the Spalding theory, claiming that Lester Bush's article is "the most definitive discussion" (Bushman 1984, 231). echoed O'Dea and Shipps in his 1977 article: "Since 1945 serious students of Mormonism have treated the Spalding theory as little more than a historical curiosity." Bush also expressed his hope that "Spalding might be forever buried in obscure academic footnotes or among the equally remote vestiges of the anti-Mormon publishing industry" (Bush 1977, 57). In a 1974 article, Jan Shipps wrote: "In 1945 Fawn Brodie completely demolished the Spaulding manuscript myth" (Waterman 1999, 33). Thomas O'Dea wrote in 1957: "Few, if any, scholars take it seriously today" (O'Dea 1957, 24). After Fawn Brodie published her 1945 "refutation" of the Spalding theory, interest in this explanation of the Book of Mormon vanished among scholars. That is the Great Myth, which has been perpetuated by both Mormon and non-Mormon scholars. ![]() NOTE: This webpage taken entirely from mormonstudiesĪppendix: Sidney Rigdon in New York Before 1830
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |