Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon?: The Spalding Enigma (ISBN 0758605277)

Excellent Book!:
This book exposes Mormon Apologetics at their worst. They feel they have completely discredited the "Spalding Theory" regarding who wrote the Book of Mormon or what information was used by Joseph Smith to write the BofM. Unfortunately, these apologists discredited the wrong manuscript and they also forget to add that there were actually TWO Spalding manuscripts. The one Joseph Smith had and used was very close (using the same names, locations, events, etc.) to the Book of Mormon. This wonderful book written by Wayne L. Cowdery exposes the apologetic's dishonest tactics and also reveals which manuscript was actually used for the inspiration behind the stories in the Book of Mormon.

This book delivers what it promises!:
When I first read the Book of Mormon, I questioned it's validity. Natives to both American continents where not nearly as advanced as the societies described in the BOM. Additionally, Native Americans had arrived far earlier that the BOM indicates. Then there was the literary issue of, "it came to pass," occurring again and again and again. Clearly it was not written by a first rate author. Mormon friends and relatives had always told me Joseph Smith could not have written the BOM, he wasn't well educated enough. This book answers the question of who really wrote the Book of Mormon. The level of detail involved in the research lends to its credibility; the research can easily be reviewed. The authors do an excellent job hypothesizing as to how Rigdon, Smith and Cowdrey may have come together to complete the book. What they left little doubt about was that Solomon Spalding wrote the basic story behind the BOM. Exactly how this happened no one will ever know. I was disappointed with the Christian message in the forward. This book stands alone as a well researched historical document. The question of whether or not Mormons are "Christian" should be left to another forum. This book will leave no doubt about who really wrote the BOM.

"Not anti-anything, but pro-history"!:
Cowdrey, Wayne L., Howard A. Davis and Arthur Vanick, Who Really Wrote The Book of Mormon? (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2005). On page 479, Note # 19, Cowdrey mentions that he wrote an earlier book with the same name (with Howard Davis and Donald Scales) published at Santa Anna, CA by Vision House, 1977. This 2005 edition is greatly expanded and improved over the much smaller earlier 1977 edition, of which I also have a copy. This 2005 edition is a massive and somewhat rambling historical study of 558 pages that reads like a detective's report, though the joint work of three authors. It will appeal more to serious historians and dedicated students of Mormonism, rather than to general readers,because it is not very "reader-friendly." It contains extensive documentation and argumentation based on very detailed research, with 12 chapters, many endnotes and 7 appendices, but unfortunately it lacks an Index and Bibliography. The Dedication tells a lot about its orientation: "Dedicated to the Rev. Wesley Walters and Dr. Walter Martin, whose work has been painstakingly continued in this volume; To Solomon Spaulding, MA, that he may at last rest in peace; and To the good people of Amity, Washington County, Pennsylvania, who never had any doubts as to who really wrote The Book of Mormon." In their "Afterward" (pp.367- 368) the authors present a masterful attempt to anticipate their critics: "Although the authors have made every effort to present the material in this volume as accurately and completely as possible, it is inevitable in a work of this size that some errors will occur. It is also inevitable that these will be eagerly sought out by critics and offered to the public as proof that the entire work is flawed. No doubt the motives of the authors themselves will also be questioned, based upon the ancient practice of taking the messengers to task when one is unable to digest the message itself. Whichever the case, the reader is urged to consider critical comments about this volume and its authors in a skeptical light and, always taking their source and the motivation behind them into account, to weigh them carefully against the evidence presented herein. "The issue here is not the writers, nor is it the many millions of good, industrious, and productive people for whom faith in Joseph Smith and his church is an ongoing way of life. We are dealing with history here, not religion. ... To those who will acknowledge that we have presented much new information, but with a distinctly ant-Mormon tone, let it be said that we are not anti-anything--we are pro-history." On page 369 the authors cite a "quotation attributed to pro-Mormon historian Hugh Nibley: `There is wisdom in the rule laid down by Blass, ... that whoever presumes to doubt the purported source and authorship of a document cannot possibly escape the obligation of supplying a more plausible account in its stead.' We quite agree, and we believe we have done just that." The authors marshal massive bits and pieces of historical data gleaned from extensive and careful researches, with convincing arguments supporting their essential thesis, as stated on pages 363-364: "As for the single most important secret of all--that of The Book of Mormon's true origin--it seems clear that Sidney Rigdon was the only person who was in a position to know all of it. In the final analysis, this quite literally means that both Oliver Cowdrey and Joseph Smith were actually his unwitting dupes, though each for very different reasons. Indeed, the key to solving the Spalding Enigma is the inescapable conclusion that Rigdon was the only person who knew for certain the manuscript that he, Smith, and Cowdrey had transformed into The Book of Mormon was really nothing more than an embellished and paraphrased version of a novel once known as A Manuscript Found and originally penned by an obscure and broken man named Solomon Spaulding. ... Above all else, Rigdon's thoughts and concepts were largely Machiavellian in nature. If the cause of the God he worshipped could best be advanced by a bit of fraud here and there, then fraud was the order of the day. Lies, deception, and secrecy were all part of the process. And there is no question that everyone who knew him well--from Alexander Campbell to Brigham Young himself--described him in those terms." A concise summary and conclusion to this book, with the crux of the problem faced by its authors, is stated on page 356 in this one short but significant paragraph: "All things considered, we are left to decide whether Joseph Smith was truly a prophet of God, or one of the greatest and most enduring showmen in American history. Almost certainly the dividing line will be drawn between those who choose to approach the problem from the standpoint of evidence and logic, and those who will, in spite of it all, continue to see Joseph Smith as the foundation and strength of a deep and abiding personal faith. To the former, it is hoped that this volume will prove enlightening. The latter will no doubt take comfort from pro-Mormon historian Richard L. Bushman's admonition... (This short quote the authors give here, is even more revealing in full context as it appears in Note #10, pp. 550-551) "{W}hat would we {Mormons} do if six eminent anthropologists presented `conclusive proof' that The Book of Mormon were fraudulent {?} The question I have in mind is how much does our faith depend on supporting historical evidence. On the one hand, we make a great deal of it. Mormons delight in Hugh Nibley's arguments in behalf of The Book of Mormon.... On the other hand, we are prone to dismiss all this as irrelevant. I have heard Professor Nibley himself summarize a long argument for The Book of Mormon, to which his Mormon audience had listened raptly, by saying, that of course none of this really matters. The important point for him was that God had revealed the truth to Joseph by the Holy Spirit; the historical case was mere trimmings, the game played for the sheer fun of it.... Granted that negative historical evidence would not destroy the faith of the faithful. For those blessed with it, spiritual experience is the most compelling data. Honesty requires that one remain true to it even in the face of other evidence to the contrary.") Certainly to have one's spiritual foundations called into question by such revelations as these must be truly disconcerting. Yet as Gandhi once observed, even if a person is a minority of one, the truth is still the truth." This is similar to the "identity crisis" that another Christian denomination with heterodox beliefs, Seventh-day Adventism, now faces. The Church of God, founded by Herbert W. Armstrong, recently actually went through such an "identity crisis." After Armstrong's death, the church's leaders honestly confronted the fact that some of their heterodox beliefs received from Armstrong were unbiblical. After a period of careful study they confessed and repented of their errors, making an almost unprecedented move toward reforming their beliefs and practices toward closer harmony with NT Christianity. But their action caused a schism in their church, with some factions going different ways. Seventh-day Adventists and Mormons, recognizing this very real danger of schism, have thus far generally chosen to continue their heterodox belief systems based on their past "spiritual experiences" rather than honestly confronting the objective facts of their history. The Church of God's revolutionary action was "unprecedented" because, once a religious community establishes a fixed tradition of faith and practice, it is almost unprecedented to see a later admission of error and fundamental corrective action. Mormons have a rarely-used limited "escape mechanism" allowing for theological change--their apostles occasionally have a new "revelation"--e.g., polygamy was seen to be no longer allowed on earth (although plural marriages are still "sealed" in heaven), and men of color, once formally discriminated against, are now allowed to become Mormon priests. This "escape mechanism" helps to release critical pressure building up due to the "cognitive dissonance" between the discovery of disconfirming facts versus traditional Mormon beliefs, and/or the societal pressures toward conformity coming from the larger "gentile" society in which Mormons live. Theological changes in Adventism take place more gradually as reinterpretation of the writings of their extra-biblical prophet, Ellen G. White, may allow. But there are some "non-negotiables," such as the "Investigative Judgment" that is tied to the fixed date of Oct. 22, 1844 that is practically impossible to change without complete rejection. The Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, and some other writings of Joseph Smith also function as "non-negotionables" in Mormonism, because they have been "canonized." To grow up in a religious system believing it is led of God, and then to later discover it is out of sync with newly discovered objective facts, is a wrenching experience. To admit this is usually seen as tantamount to heresy and a denial of one's faith in God and His prior leading through His Holy Spirit, which is viewed as the "unpardonable sin." Science resolves this problem of how to accommodate itself to "progressive truth" with the "adjustment mechanism" of tentative "hypotheses" that may or may not prove to be in harmony with the natural world. These hypotheses are formulated in the form of valid disconfirmable "theories" not carrying "inerrant" or "sinful" religious connotations. If they are eventually disconfirmed they can be simply discarded without prejudice. (Given human nature, this process doesn't work quite that smoothly!) But most religious systems have no similar "neutral" adjustment mechanism for coping with "new light" so they usually cannot (or will not) chose to "repent." The prime example (from the Christian point of view) is that of the Jewish Sanhedrin that refused to "repent" and accept Christ as their Messiah, because they believed God had called Abraham and they were Abraham's children led of God, God's own chosen people, given God's laws through Moses at Sinai, so therefore they could not be in theological error and in need of corporate repentance and reformation. To "repent" means "to feel such regret or dissatisfaction over some past action, intention, belief, etc. as to change one's mind about it and change one's ways in accordance with the revised view." But Jesus came preaching He was "the truth and the life," and by rejecting Him and choosing to cling to their false "traditions of the elders" He said they were making the Law of God of "none effect." He also told them they were not Abraham's children or they would be doing what Abraham did. This was strong "medicine" very difficult for any faithful Jew to swallow. When faced with such a faith-shattering "identity crisis," to choose to follow the "greater light" rather than cling to old familiar traditions and creeds, is almost "unprecedented" in religious history. This is a primary reason we see so much religious factionalism and sectarianism. Rather than repentance and reformation occurring, with the entire group wholeheartedly accepting the new facts and moving forward in faith and unison, most groups experience schism when confronted with such an "identity crisis." The only alternative for those accepting larger views of truth and duty is to separate and form new sects. There is thus a continual process of revolution and excommunication, rather than repentance and reformation. When religious faith is based on a belief that God has revealed "inerrant" truths to revered leaders, when faced with new facts as history unfolds, most religious groups usually lack the means and/or the motive to see facts objectively, repent, and change their ways. Thus there is a continual need for the messages of John the Baptist and Jesus to "Repent, and believe the Gospel." Given a group's "faith" that God was leading them in the past, they find it almost impossible to admit a group error or mistake could have occurred that needs corporate repentance. "Wasn't God leading our church? Does God lead into error?" Yet the paradox is that in our secular affairs we humans readily admit "to error is human." But when it comes to our "holy experience," how could it have been mistaken or erroneous? Our "holy religious experience," is considered not subject to error! But why is it so hard to accept the fact that though the Infinite God is holy and without error, yet even the best "saints" are finite beings often lacking faith and making mistakes and errors, even while under God's leading and tutelage? Witness Abraham, Moses, and David, and ultimately both Israel and Judah, both going into exile and ruin! (The Biblical theology of this paradox and conundrum of the Christian's struggle with progressive revelation and acceptance of new truth is discussed in John 3:10-21; 1 Cor. Chapter 2; Matt. Chap. 5; Matt. 9:16-17; 10:34-39; 13:52 and many other passages.)

Common sense combined with thorough research:
Excellent book! I recommend it to everyone who is curious about the Mormon religion's origins. As well-researched as this book is, let's face the truth ... anything would be more believable than the Mormon church's version of how The Book of Mormon came to be.

Placing June 30, 1816 On the Historical Map:
The authors of this lengthy volume have one goal in mind--to prove the original Protestant theory of the Book of Mormon. This theory holds that a disgruntled religious enthusiast, Sidney Rigdon, stole the manuscript of the Rev Solomon Spalding's romantic novel `Manuscript Found' from a Pittsburgh printing shop, and then conspired with the self-appointed prophet Joseph Smith to use it as the basis for founding a new religion. This is a very ambitious goal given the fact that few have taken the traditional theory seriously since the publication of Professor Fawn Brodie's world classic biography of Joseph Smith, `No Man Knows My History', in 1945. Yet the authors' research is so complete that consideration must now be given to the case for there being some deficiencies in a world classic. The most amazing piece of evidence which Cowdrey, Davis, and Vanick uncovered was the June 30, 1816 issue of the Pittsburgh Statesman which showed that Solomon Spalding and Sidney Rigdon both had unclaimed mail being held on the same day at the Pittsburgh Post Office. It is the position of the LDS Church that Sidney Rigdon was never in Pittsburgh until well after Spalding had died. This book is a triumph of historical research and primary documentation over political correctness, official positions, and the hunches of over-confident historians. It can hardly be considered the perfect book. The authors veer off course too often in presenting minor details of family histories, and their writing style can hardly be considered exciting. Solomon Spalding is certainly not the "real" author of the Book of Mormon. Still the authors have restored the traditional Protestant understanding of the origin of the LDS religion to its original credibility. This is a major accomplishment indeed.