Who really wrote the book of Mormon?

Don't let the title fool you. Even though it's called Who Really Wrote The Book of Mormon? and it's published by a religious publisher, this is NOT a religious book; it's a book ABOUT a religious book. The historical mystery here makes for a fascinating tale, even for readers who have no interest in religious books and care nothing about Mormonism. Indeed, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle himself would have been hard-pressed to come up with a better detective story, or a more colorful set of characters to go with it. As the story goes, on the night of the autumnal equinox in the year 1827, young Joseph Smith, Jr. encountered an angel. According to Smith, this angel, whose name was Moroni, gave him an ancient book written in strange hieroglyphics on sheets of gold. Later, after Smith had translated these hieroglyphics by miraculous means, and after this translation had been duly recorded by a carefully chosen scribe, the angel came again and took the original back. Smith's translation, which he called The Book of Mormon, was published in 1830 and shortly thereafter became the a cornerstone of a new religion. Today that religion is known as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints--the Mormons--and Joseph Smith is the man they revere as their prophet. The inherently theocratic nature of Mormonism coupled with its obvious financial strength and political influence in today's world, explain why it might be useful to inquire further into the obscure historical origins of a faith which few, even those who are part of it, know much about. Did Joseph Smith really get The Book of Mormon from an angel, or did it perhaps have some other, more mundane, origin? Although Smith is unquestionably one of the more important figures in 19th century American history, the nagging question of Who Really Wrote The Book of Mormon? has never really been laid to rest except by those willing to accept Smith's version of events on strength of faith alone. In exploring the mystery, and the controversy surrounding it, the authors weave a fascinating tale of intrigue and conspiracy. Let us begin with poor old Solomon Spalding, a well-educated but pathetic once-reverend who, amidst ill health and profound doubts about his faith, foresook his western New York ministry shortly after 1800 to speculate in real estate along the shores of Lake Erie--an area then on America's wild frontier. Perhaps he would have prospered, had it not been for the callous maneuverings of a nefarious partner with political ties to president Thomas Jefferson, or the general havoc wreaked upon his land and its tenants by the coming of the War of 1812. Unable to absorb the financial shock of this one-two punch, Spalding found himself not only broke, but in declining health. Up to that time, he had often occupied himself with writing for amusement. Now, apparently out of sheer desperation, he decided to compose a novel in hopes that the money raised from its publication could provide for his family once he

I finished the book tonight. I was enthralled with the subject matter, and I read it with enthusiasm. I am as much a product of mormonism as anyone. I challenge anyone to claim more pioneer ancestry than myself. I split with mormonism, for my own purposes, at the age of 19. I probably don't need to explain to most why I was compelled to make a decision at this point. Anyhow, I was most receptive to the material in this book. Yet, living with my parents, I hid the book in fear of sparking holy jihad if you know what I mean. To date, my doubts have mostly been gut feelings. With the reading of this book and "Losing a Lost Tribe" I am beginning a process of methodical analysis of evidence. To say that there is any fully unbiased view on this subject probably isn't realistic. Obviously, the name Cowdrey in the list of authors is a give away that perhaps at least one of these authors carries it in their blood. To those who vehemently discredit this book, it is completely understandable and acceptable. Your right to your faith is respected by the authors of this book in the afterword. They accept that you won't be dissuaded from your beliefs, and I firmly believe that this isn't their intent. I started this book with the full understanding that history is an imperfect science at best. With the recent explosion of multimedia access to historical information, one may deduce from study that very few things in history are known for certain. The authors concede that the challenges of mormon history, assuming a conspiracy, are daunting due to the fact that those involved wouldn't want their history known. This same type of dilemma dates even to the time of Julius Caesar. My enthusiasm for this book is admittedly fueled by my background. The names and places are part of my tutelage. I am admittedly a skeptic. This allowed me to read the full volume without fuming or turning red. To say this volume is disorganized is probably asking a bit much of mormon history. One must certainly try to be in more than one place at once to see all the nuances. The authors simply put the reader in several times and places. It's their style. I felt comfortable by the end of the book that I understood the conclusions the authors had come to. I knew when they were theorizing. It was easy for me to spot. I felt the book was well presented. Certainly this book is best appreciated by one who is thoroughly interested in American religious history. It most certainly will not be appreciated by faithful Latter day saints. Don't even try reading it unless you are an official apologist, or you know that the material won't offend to the point of an apocalyptic rampage. I noticed 2 reviewers on this list to whom I wouldn't recommend the book. I don't know why you wanted to read it unless you care enough to make objective retorts. If you are happy with your faith, then stay away from this material! I seek the truth. As long as mankind is able to think, they

For those who give this book low ratings, while talking about reading it and praying, I have done that. I spent 40 years doing it. This is one of the books which shows the inaccuracies and obvious hidden history of the Mormon faith. The notes and ties are copious. For a Mormon reader, familiar with the characters and history, there is a gold mine of documentation of the Mormon practice of denying and hiding history, or in Mormon words, writing "faithful" history. According to Mormon history, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdrey did not meet until 1829, however Oliver was hired to teach at a local school in 1827. One of the people doing the hiring was Hyrum Smith. Oliver was also a printers devil in Palmyra in 1822. An employee of the printer wrote of an association with both Oliver Cowdrey and Joseph Smith. Here is a little family information: Mary Mack, sister of Joseph Smith's grandmother married Nathan Cowdrey Jr. a brother of Oliver's grandfather. This made them aunt and uncle to both Lucy Mack Smith and Oliver Cowdery's father. Oliver Cowdery's mother was second cousin once removed of Lucy Mack Smith. Oliver's great aunt married Obediah Gates who was either a brother or cousin of Lydia Mack Gates. If the relationship was brother, this would have made a second common aunt and uncle to both Oliver's father and Lucy Mack Smith. And other information: In 1821-22 Oliver Cowdery was attending school in Wells, VT and from there went to Palmyra, NY per historian Robert Parks. Parks was about the same age as Oliver, and was a school teacher in Wells for many years. Orsamus Turner, a pioneer newspaper editor reported that while in Palmyra, Oliver Cowdery worked as a printer's devil with him. Orsamus Turner wrote that he (Orsamus) delighted in using ink to "once in a while blacken the face of [Joseph Smith,] the then meddling inquisitive lounger-but afterwards Prophet." The book is full of documentation of relationships, people living in the same towns or being members of the same organizations at the same time. Anyone familiar with Mormon apologetics will understand the need for the copious documentation. A very strong case is made for a troika of Smith, Rigdon and Cowdrey creating the book. The Campbellite doctrine found in the Book of Mormon is evidence of the early involvement of Rigdon.

Only a few pieces of evidence presented in this book are really astonishing. Most of the evidences are small; but added up they deliver a more persausive argument, to me, that Joseph Smith is a false prophet than the Pro-Mormon literature offers in Smith's favor. Not every puzzle is solved in a glitteringly bright climax; some are solved only by patience and an appreciation for both reason and intuition. My primary reason for leaving the Mormon church is not connected to reason or to deductive arguments against it; I left because my heart tells me it is false. Now, after analysis, and after talking with missionaries, Mormon family members, and seekers from all spiritual directions, my mind tells me it is false, too. The head can cloud the heart and the heart can cloud the mind. ...Finding truth, I've found, is rarely accomplished through "Eurekas," but more often through assimilating experiences, sifting them, checking for inconsistencies, listening to your inner self, and accepting you may be wrong. I wouldn't say "Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon?" is tedious, or disorganized--I would just say that it's a book only for patient people, and people willing to do a little thinking and feeling for themselves. The oft cited passage from Moroni contains, by the way, a logical fallacy. The scripture suggests that if you pray with "a sincere heart" then you'll be told that the Book of Mormon is true. This implies that if you pray with an insincere heart, then you'll receive the wrong answer. The subtext is: it's true because it's true. That is circular reasoning. Also, disbelieving the affidavits of the friends of Spalding because so many years had passed between their hearing of the manuscript and their interviews with Hurlbut or Dickinson is understandable--but only to a point. Don't you remember the names of characters or scenes from movies that you only saw a couple of times twenty years ago? Would you be surprised if a person who read, and who had heard read the Book of Mormon, several times over a period of months in which missionaries visited them, remembered details of the story and characters' names? If all the copies of the Book of Mormon were somehow destroyed today, do you believe that in fifty years, surviving Mormons (even ones who'd only been members for six months) wouldn't remember their holy book? "Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon?" is worth the money and time. It is dense. It isn't a Reader's Digest treatise on the origins of Mormonism. It's long, but worth it.

I have read *ahem* my share of books on Mormon history, and this is one of the very best, hands-down. The authors examine tax records, census records, poll tax documents, county histories, family histories, etc.--seemingly no stone is left unturned as they carefully trace which key player in the Spalding-Rigdon controversy was where and was in a position to know what. Most discussions of the Spalding-Rigdon theory center around the Conneaut Witnesses, the people who knew Solomon Spalding and identified his story when they heard the Book of Mormon preached to them. I was amazed to learn of the hundreds of additional witnesses whose statements had remained forgotten or undiscovered until now, especially a man to whom an embittered Rigdon "spilled the beans" after his loss to Brigham Young for the leadership of the church. The authors painstakingly trace the Spalding Manuscript from its genesis to its final incarnation as the Book of Mormon, and all the twists and turns in between. They deal with every objection to the theory ever raised since the very beginning--such as the reliability of Hurlbut, the witnesses' accuracy, and the manuscript taken from Mrs. McKinstry's trunk, for example--and thoroughly analyze and disect them point-by-point using counterexamples, eyewitness accounts, and other sources. Mormon apologists have long been challenging critics to a) come up with a more plausible account of the creation of the Book of Mormon than their official one, and b) come up with original material. This book succeeds masterfully at both. I'd always had nagging questions about how the Book of Mormon came to be, but this book answered each one of them clearly and decisively. In my opinion, if you only read a single book on Mormon history, this is DEFINITELY the one. Highly recommended!