Book of Mormon authorship: A closer look
Holley, Vernal. 1992. Book of Mormon authorship: A closer look. 3rd ed. Vernal Holley.
Rating:
4
Summary:
The book is a short, self-published treatise looking at the similarities between an unpublished manuscript written by a relatively unknown pastor, Solomon Spaulding, and the Book of Mormon. Spaulding’s book was written about 20 years before Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon, around 1812. Starting in around 1833, rumors and speculation started that Spaulding’s unpublished manuscript was the original source for the Book of Mormon, finding its way into Sidney Rigdon’s hands and allowing Rigdon to write the Book of Mormon (Rigdon was an early Mormon leader along with Joseph Smith). The rumors abounded until 1884 when the Spaulding manuscript resurfaced. At that point it was shown that the similarities between the two books were not particularly overwhelming. Since 1884, the theory/rumor has continued, but in a crippled form – it is basically considered to have very little credibility.
Holley’s book is trying to bring the issue back to the fore by minutely cataloging every possible similarity between the two. Holley shows that there are, in fact, a number of similarities, “While the Book of Mormon contains much more religious material than the Spaulding text, the outlines of the two stories are essentially the same. Each record was found in exactly the same way; was written for the same purpose; tells the story of the same ancient American inhabitants; has the same sea voyage; has light- and dark-skinned people; tells of the same arts and sciences; has a comparable Christian theology; presents a white Godperson; involves the use of seer stones; and tells of a war of extermination between two nations whose people were once brothers. The final battle in each story is fought on a hill. I also find a remarkable similarity in the literary style of the two works” (pp. 10-11).
The author carefully documents these and many other similarities.
Review:
While the number of similarities are actually surprising, the book is ultimately not very convincing in its primary argument – that Solomon Spaulding actually wrote the original draft of the Book of Mormon. I think Holley recognizes that such a claim is pretty ridiculous, so he proposes a few others. For instance, Holley hints at the idea that maybe Joseph Smith stole the manuscript from the widow of Solomon Spaulding and used it as an outline for the Book of Mormon. However, I think the most likely explanation for the similarities is something else, another point Holley makes, “It seems improbable to me that two writers, living less than one hundred fifty miles apart in the northeastern part of the United States, during the same early nineteenth century time period, could produce writings so much alike, unless there was some borrowing one from the other or dependence upon a common source” (p. 11). Spaulding and Smith never knew each other. And while it is impossible to to rule out Joseph Smith seeing a copy of the Spaulding manuscript before writing the Book of Mormon, I think the most reasonable explanation of the similarities is that these two people lived at roughly the same time and in roughly the same place and had access to basically the same sources. Drawing upon the surrounding cultural zeitgeist (which was explaining the origins of the Native American Indians at the time), the two authors crafted similar stories. The similarities in writing probably owe to similar educations and similar reading material. They don’t have to have worked together; what is most likely is that they drew on similar sources. Joseph Smith had the help of Ethan Smith’s “View of the Hebrews,” but it was published after Spaulding died, so Spaulding must have used sources similar to those used by Ethan Smith. In summary, Holley’s implications and assertions ultimately come up short and feel very unsatisfactory.
That said, his short monograph illustrating the similarities is intriguing reading and a nice little contribution to the debate. He does a good job documenting the similarities in writing, phrasing, etc. He is not a gifted writer and the speculation is rampant, but the idea is a good one.
A couple other points are worth mentioning. Holley claims that, because both books employ chiasmus (which is an idiotic premise if there ever was one), they were written by the same people. Chiasmus is prevalent in just about everything, meaning you could make the same argument about Wikipedia articles and the Book of Mormon – clearly they don’t have the same author. This is a poor argument.
Holley also points out a couple of contradictions in the Book of Mormon that gave me a good laugh, even though that wasn’t his intent, “The Book of Mormon author writes: “And I did teach my people… to work in all manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores, which were in great abundance. And I, Nephi, did build a temple; and I did construct it after the manner of the temple of Solomon save it were not built of so many precious things; for they were not to be found upon the land . . .” (2 Nephi 5:15-16) Another example from the Book of Mormon: “And there were some who died with fevers, which at some seasons of the year were very frequent in the land — but not so much so with fevers, because of the excellent qualities of the many plants and roots . . .” (Alma 46:40)” (p. 33).
Finally, I think Holley’s understanding of the Spaulding and Book of Mormon geography is probably the most accurate there is and is really the best contribution of the book. In fact, this is one of the areas where Holley’s assertion that Smith drew on Spaulding almost seems plausible. I think Holley is right in asserting that Smith used the geography and topography of upstate New York and the surrounding area for the setting of the Book of Mormon, as did Spaulding. Smith just did a slightly better job covering it up.
Overall, I don’t recommend this book except for the most ardent students of these obscure controversies. It’s short and quick reading, but ultimately the argument is not all that convincing. It has some good information, as far as detailing the similarities, but the speculation is so off the wall that it’s really not worth reading. A much better treatise is Lester Bush’s 1977 Dialogue Article, “The Spaulding Theory Then and Now.”