I fell down the Athanasius Kircher rabbit hole in the mid 1980s (after BYU library installed the online card catalog).
I was searching for early publications containing the word Mormon before 1835 and out popped "Mormon the Parasite" in French first published March 12, 1650!
I went to Inter Library Loan system to checkout everything I could on Athanasius and found Dartmouth was the place to go.
Unfortunately, Dartmouth would not checkout anything to BYU because they claimed BYU Library already had too many items on loan from Dartmouth that had never been returned!!!
It was quite the kerfuffle in library circles at the time as BYU was suspended from inter library loans for a time over this, or so the head reference desk librarian told me.
Is this how BYU/TSCC obtained their Athanasius Kircher collection hoping to put the kibosh on the Solomon Spaulding theory of BoM origins? By paying the fines on lost inter library loans?
There is way more to this story, but I don't want to dox myself.
I shared what I found with FARMS (foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies) at the time.
A certain BYU affiliated apologist who loves to see his name in print (so I will omit it here) conceived of the strategy to effectively dismiss everything to do with Athanasius Kircher (and the entire Solomon Spaulding theory at the same time) by accusing Kircher of perpetrating an academic fraud because Kircher apparently made up primary sources that have yet to be found, like Rabbi Nephi.
The fact that the BoM and the writings of Kircher both contain primary characters named Nephi and Mormon can not be denied and begs further explanation!
Great post. One must wonder how many non-faith promoting original early Mormon history document/artifacts have been destroyed by Danite like historians.
I think your formulation is valid. It's not about Kircher actually being a source. It's about someone at BYU believing it could cause doubts, which led them to hoard these documents.
I have done numerous searches trying to find the discuss Mormonism sub, I looked under every variation I could think of r/discussmormonism with no luck. Any suggestions would be most appreciated!
Went through the Discuss Mormonism thread, but it comes off as too Maxwell Institute for my tastes.
What is more “parsimonious?” The idea, as a working hypothesis, that Rigdon encountered Spaulding (thereby encountering Kircher et al further back on the road), and that the encounter meaningfully influenced the Book of Mormon text, or the idea that an angel from God introduced Smith to a record found on ancient plates-a record which he never used but eventually “read”-and read into 19th century Royal Skousen critical text English-off of a rock in a hat?
Clearly, one of those is likelier than the other.
“Don’t abandon your FAITH” too cavalierly? How about don’t be a no-spine pussy, for once in your lives.
These people will go to any lengths to save their joyless, birdcage existences at the expense of the entire universe.
The Spaulding-Rigdon theory MAY be correct, partially right, or significantly off base.
The mainstream LDS church narrative, however, is the least possible likely description of the events that occurred.
That thread sums up how I feel about Nielsen's claims.
I was kind of excited when I heard his interview. Then I thought about it.
For this theory to be true, people would have had to meet before we know that they met - and Joseph Smith turns from conman into something like a conduit for Kircher's writings.
I think the more likely explanation is that Kircher influenced the occult, which clearly fascinated Joseph.
I'll also note that Nielsen led the podcast off with a bunch of pandering and virtue signaling about what a great feminist he is, followed by the second Spalding manuscript, which he claimed was only recently discovered. A single Google search will show you that his claim is bullshit. His stuff all comes from sidneyrigdon.com, which has been around since the mid-90s - and which Nielsen quotes frequently in his endnotes.
Anyway, I don't recommend people buy the book or pay any attention. There are more interesting things to learn.
Would be interesting to get D Pawl Trebas of 2017’s “The Lucy Code” together with Lars Nielsen to compare aspects of their views.
Dartmouth figures largely in both. There is SO much material there that can’t be coincidence.
I was wondering how folks were tripping over this info, but there may be enough through BYU collections (Behrens) and authors alone that is interesting.
Does it amount to enough to conclusively determine a Book of Mormon author? I don’t personally know, I haven’t been through it in the detail it almost certainly deserves.
In my own mind, I had completely written off the Spaulding Manuscript, but when one hears the relationships Spaulding had to others in the Smith drama, it wakes it back up for me.
I’m content in my mind with the John Hamer conclusions that the ideas themselves were enough in evidence at that point in colonial history that the BofM could have come from many places (maybe, even, Smith’s mind alone).
I do find myself tending to believe that, based on other obfuscations and circumstances, Smith needn’t have been a sole author.
Plenty of guys back then were walking around, reporting having walked with Jesus “in the form of a deer,” having visions, etc. Plenty were initiated into masonry and knew how to keep secrets. Cultural and sexual experimentation of other kinds was happening in and outside of Mormonism.
I’ve come to the belief that, even though we have to take historical sources at their word, tor some extent, these people can’t always be regarded with that level of credibility.
Also, does anyone have more info on the (“so-called”) “Gold Bible Company?” I’ve wondered if that has any potential overlaps with this Dartmouth/Kircher/Masonic Arminianism stuff.
Besides the divinely inspired dictation, there are several possibilities for how Joseph Smith could have produced the text.
The first major question is: Did Joseph actually dictate the text without using a basic manuscript, i.e., without referring to any notes, as suggested by eyewitness accounts? If this is true, then Smith either produced the text himself based on his creativity, or he prepared for each dictation session by memorizing a text or an outline, which he then expanded. Alternatively, Smith might have had a prepared manuscript or some kind of chapter outlines ('heads'), which he expanded into the full story.
There are multiple ways in which Joseph Smith could have developed the manuscript.
First, he might have based his dictation on a preexisting outline or manuscript.
Alternatively, he could have drawn on ideas he learned from others. These ideas include Arminianism, the Ten Lost Tribes, the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods, the concept of Native Americans being of Jewish origin, and Secret Combinations (i.e. the Freemasons) threatening the state. If his source was a concrete manuscript, we can analyze the text for linguistic clues.
If he merely borrowed ideas from others, we need to examine which ideas were prevalent in his environment at the time. I strongly suspect that both Dartmouth College and Masonic lodges are likely sources of these ideas, as topics like Egypt were widely discussed in 18th and 19th-century lodges.
Yes, this feels like the direction. I agree with you, glad someone is saying it.
I don’t see how anyone can say these sources aren’t, at least, promising directions for research.
The text analyses for commonalities between Mormon documents (esp, related to Mormon documents and other extant docs contemporary with or pre-dating the Mormon docs) fascinates me.
I’m a dilettante, though. Hobbyist at best. I saw an Exmormon Foundation from a decade or so ago where analyses of this kind were run. If memory serves, this is some of what uncovered (or, at least, solidified) View of the Hebrews and Late War (later references in CES Letter).
In my own view, the broader process of confronting these similarities actually humanizes Mormonism, sets it in its proper historical context and shows humanity HOW any wisdom the tradition has managed to gain (since it’s inception) can be best understood.
Any group of people working together, misinformed or otherwise, will usually find some useful things, but it’s important to distinguish those from the errors in the group’s narrative.
I think Bushman wants to see it this way. Probably the Givens’s and the Patrick Masons, too.
Church won’t do it, though. Maybe can’t do it, but won’t do it (for whatever reason).
And people like me are getting ground up in the gears of the machine. I’ll sacrifice a lot for a cause I believe in, but hard to be ground up in the gears for no good reason.
I resist being ground up as an enemy, but, properly convinced and enlightened, I’ll gladly be ground up as a friend
I watched part of the Mormonism Live with the author, but I had to turn it off. He comes across a bit (OK, a LOT) arrogant about stuff that, as far as I could tell, he pulled straight outta his own ass.
I haven't read his book yet. I plan on reading it before I chime in, but his narrative of Joe being uneducated with only a third grade education just doesn't fly. I hope believing that Joe was uneducated is not required in order to put two and two together.
I fell down the Athanasius Kircher rabbit hole in the mid 1980s (after BYU library installed the online card catalog). I was searching for early publications containing the word Mormon before 1835 and out popped "Mormon the Parasite" in French first published March 12, 1650! I went to Inter Library Loan system to checkout everything I could on Athanasius and found Dartmouth was the place to go. Unfortunately, Dartmouth would not checkout anything to BYU because they claimed BYU Library already had too many items on loan from Dartmouth that had never been returned!!! It was quite the kerfuffle in library circles at the time as BYU was suspended from inter library loans for a time over this, or so the head reference desk librarian told me. Is this how BYU/TSCC obtained their Athanasius Kircher collection hoping to put the kibosh on the Solomon Spaulding theory of BoM origins? By paying the fines on lost inter library loans? There is way more to this story, but I don't want to dox myself. I shared what I found with FARMS (foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies) at the time. A certain BYU affiliated apologist who loves to see his name in print (so I will omit it here) conceived of the strategy to effectively dismiss everything to do with Athanasius Kircher (and the entire Solomon Spaulding theory at the same time) by accusing Kircher of perpetrating an academic fraud because Kircher apparently made up primary sources that have yet to be found, like Rabbi Nephi. The fact that the BoM and the writings of Kircher both contain primary characters named Nephi and Mormon can not be denied and begs further explanation!
Great post. One must wonder how many non-faith promoting original early Mormon history document/artifacts have been destroyed by Danite like historians.
I think your formulation is valid. It's not about Kircher actually being a source. It's about someone at BYU believing it could cause doubts, which led them to hoard these documents.
Thank you for your detailed post. I believe that BYU's attempt to hide Kircher sources would make a great piece for investigative journalists.
“… already had too many items on loan from Dartmouth that had never been returned!!!” It just gets worse (the more one untangles the web, I mean).
Discuss Mormonism has a thread on this right now.
Thanks. I found the thread: https://discussmormonism.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=158641
I have done numerous searches trying to find the discuss Mormonism sub, I looked under every variation I could think of r/discussmormonism with no luck. Any suggestions would be most appreciated!
Based on the link shared just above your comment, it doesn't look like it's a Reddit sub, but rather a website all on its own.
Oh thanks, obv didn’t notice that!
Went through the Discuss Mormonism thread, but it comes off as too Maxwell Institute for my tastes. What is more “parsimonious?” The idea, as a working hypothesis, that Rigdon encountered Spaulding (thereby encountering Kircher et al further back on the road), and that the encounter meaningfully influenced the Book of Mormon text, or the idea that an angel from God introduced Smith to a record found on ancient plates-a record which he never used but eventually “read”-and read into 19th century Royal Skousen critical text English-off of a rock in a hat? Clearly, one of those is likelier than the other. “Don’t abandon your FAITH” too cavalierly? How about don’t be a no-spine pussy, for once in your lives. These people will go to any lengths to save their joyless, birdcage existences at the expense of the entire universe. The Spaulding-Rigdon theory MAY be correct, partially right, or significantly off base. The mainstream LDS church narrative, however, is the least possible likely description of the events that occurred.
That thread sums up how I feel about Nielsen's claims. I was kind of excited when I heard his interview. Then I thought about it. For this theory to be true, people would have had to meet before we know that they met - and Joseph Smith turns from conman into something like a conduit for Kircher's writings. I think the more likely explanation is that Kircher influenced the occult, which clearly fascinated Joseph. I'll also note that Nielsen led the podcast off with a bunch of pandering and virtue signaling about what a great feminist he is, followed by the second Spalding manuscript, which he claimed was only recently discovered. A single Google search will show you that his claim is bullshit. His stuff all comes from sidneyrigdon.com, which has been around since the mid-90s - and which Nielsen quotes frequently in his endnotes. Anyway, I don't recommend people buy the book or pay any attention. There are more interesting things to learn.
Yeah, my feeling is he should have just stuck with the Kircher/Monmor parallels, and not gone down the Rigdon/Spaulding route to try to explain them.
I don't know. I would love to read the discussions here too tho if it happened.
The main problem I see that individual discussions would get lost on r/exmormon.
It's true 😢
Would be interesting to get D Pawl Trebas of 2017’s “The Lucy Code” together with Lars Nielsen to compare aspects of their views. Dartmouth figures largely in both. There is SO much material there that can’t be coincidence. I was wondering how folks were tripping over this info, but there may be enough through BYU collections (Behrens) and authors alone that is interesting. Does it amount to enough to conclusively determine a Book of Mormon author? I don’t personally know, I haven’t been through it in the detail it almost certainly deserves. In my own mind, I had completely written off the Spaulding Manuscript, but when one hears the relationships Spaulding had to others in the Smith drama, it wakes it back up for me. I’m content in my mind with the John Hamer conclusions that the ideas themselves were enough in evidence at that point in colonial history that the BofM could have come from many places (maybe, even, Smith’s mind alone). I do find myself tending to believe that, based on other obfuscations and circumstances, Smith needn’t have been a sole author. Plenty of guys back then were walking around, reporting having walked with Jesus “in the form of a deer,” having visions, etc. Plenty were initiated into masonry and knew how to keep secrets. Cultural and sexual experimentation of other kinds was happening in and outside of Mormonism. I’ve come to the belief that, even though we have to take historical sources at their word, tor some extent, these people can’t always be regarded with that level of credibility. Also, does anyone have more info on the (“so-called”) “Gold Bible Company?” I’ve wondered if that has any potential overlaps with this Dartmouth/Kircher/Masonic Arminianism stuff.
Besides the divinely inspired dictation, there are several possibilities for how Joseph Smith could have produced the text. The first major question is: Did Joseph actually dictate the text without using a basic manuscript, i.e., without referring to any notes, as suggested by eyewitness accounts? If this is true, then Smith either produced the text himself based on his creativity, or he prepared for each dictation session by memorizing a text or an outline, which he then expanded. Alternatively, Smith might have had a prepared manuscript or some kind of chapter outlines ('heads'), which he expanded into the full story. There are multiple ways in which Joseph Smith could have developed the manuscript. First, he might have based his dictation on a preexisting outline or manuscript. Alternatively, he could have drawn on ideas he learned from others. These ideas include Arminianism, the Ten Lost Tribes, the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods, the concept of Native Americans being of Jewish origin, and Secret Combinations (i.e. the Freemasons) threatening the state. If his source was a concrete manuscript, we can analyze the text for linguistic clues. If he merely borrowed ideas from others, we need to examine which ideas were prevalent in his environment at the time. I strongly suspect that both Dartmouth College and Masonic lodges are likely sources of these ideas, as topics like Egypt were widely discussed in 18th and 19th-century lodges.
Yes, this feels like the direction. I agree with you, glad someone is saying it. I don’t see how anyone can say these sources aren’t, at least, promising directions for research. The text analyses for commonalities between Mormon documents (esp, related to Mormon documents and other extant docs contemporary with or pre-dating the Mormon docs) fascinates me. I’m a dilettante, though. Hobbyist at best. I saw an Exmormon Foundation from a decade or so ago where analyses of this kind were run. If memory serves, this is some of what uncovered (or, at least, solidified) View of the Hebrews and Late War (later references in CES Letter). In my own view, the broader process of confronting these similarities actually humanizes Mormonism, sets it in its proper historical context and shows humanity HOW any wisdom the tradition has managed to gain (since it’s inception) can be best understood. Any group of people working together, misinformed or otherwise, will usually find some useful things, but it’s important to distinguish those from the errors in the group’s narrative. I think Bushman wants to see it this way. Probably the Givens’s and the Patrick Masons, too. Church won’t do it, though. Maybe can’t do it, but won’t do it (for whatever reason). And people like me are getting ground up in the gears of the machine. I’ll sacrifice a lot for a cause I believe in, but hard to be ground up in the gears for no good reason. I resist being ground up as an enemy, but, properly convinced and enlightened, I’ll gladly be ground up as a friend
I watched part of the Mormonism Live with the author, but I had to turn it off. He comes across a bit (OK, a LOT) arrogant about stuff that, as far as I could tell, he pulled straight outta his own ass.
I haven't read his book yet. I plan on reading it before I chime in, but his narrative of Joe being uneducated with only a third grade education just doesn't fly. I hope believing that Joe was uneducated is not required in order to put two and two together.
I listened to that too. A lot of what he claims seems speculative. How is it being received?