Commentary on the Spalding/Rigdon thread

[_avanick]

Hi folks,
It took me a couple of days to get to this forum, but here I am. Our rebuttal of the Roper/FARMS/BYU review of our book is nearly done - I've been editing the final version of it today and hope to have it done very soon. To MG, I have to disagree that the claims of the LDS regarding the origin of their most holy book haven't been disproved in some way or another, and would suggest that the Spalding claims be examined more closely, but with an objective mind. Are the Spalding claims the "be all and end all" explanation? Who knows at this point. They are a big start in the right direction, and verifiable enough to show at the very least that LDS claims as to the origin of the Book of Mormon are flawed. It is obvious from the desperate attempts to parse out words and small phrases in order to change the meanings of what people have said that the people who are employing such tactics have no real evidence to back their claims. More evidence in support of a Spalding origin of the Book of Mormon is coming in on a semi-regular basis, including some new pre-1830 material, which could prove VERY interesting indeed, should it be verified. Verification is vital for any evidence, is it not?

Art

[_Uncle Dale]

... More evidence in support of a Spalding origin of the Book of Mormon is coming in on a semi-regular basis, including some
new pre-1830 material, which could prove VERY interesting indeed, should it be verified. Verification is vital for
any evidence, is it not?

Art

Yes -- I think it is very much worthwhile to "verify" source material. I was conversing today by e-mail with an
old researcher buddy in Pennsylvania and he asked me a little about Eber D. Howe and his Mormon wife Harriet.
When I mentioned that Joseph Smith went to visit the Howe residence in Painesville (a short ride form Kirtland),
this friend was curious to know what else Smith was doing in Painesville besides visiting the wife of Mr. Howe. I
replied that I thought Smith spent time with "Sister Howe" and then went to the local bank to get some money
for her, and then came back and stayed for dinner with the Howe family.

My friend informed me that I was wrong -- that Smith did not go to the bank that day. So, I decided to "verify"
my notes on the subject, and looked over photocopies of Smith's private journal for Dec. 1, 1835. Sure enough,
he says that he went to the bank -- and that he transacted business with "Brother Kingsbury." For some reason
this information was suppressed in June of 1852, when the Smith history was being published weekly in the LDS
paper in Salt Lake City, the "Deseret News."

So, my verification attempt paid off. But now I am left to wonder which version of the story to trust. Did Smith go
to the bank in Painesville, as he said in 1835 when Oliver Cowdery made the journal entry? Or was that a falsehood
or mistake, corrected in 1852 by George A. Smith and other Mormon editors in Utah?

There is a hint that the original account may be the correct one, in two textual oddities in the original 1835 page:
(one): Smith's scribe (Cowdery) had summarized the events of the day by simply recording that Smith had engaged
in some business in Painesville that day --- but then the summary was crossed out and details added in. The Utah
editors reverted back to the crossed-out summary and suppressed the details about the bank and about Kingsbury
being called "Brother." My guess is that the editors did not want this information put before the public, as Kingsbury
was something of a financial advisor and investor for Smith and Mormon business (like the Kirtland Bank). Perhaps
the man's cooperation (to the extent of calling him "Brother," or a fellow Mormon) was information best not shared
with the public --- and (two): Smith's trip to the bank may have been an embarrassment to the 1852 editors, if he
truly did go their to obtain money to give to the wife of that terrible ant-Mormon, Eber D. Howe (who had, strangely
enough, suddenly become a very, very quiet anti-Mormon in 1835, for reasons never very well explained).

So, Art -- yes -- as a fellow once said, "Trust, but verify."

If I am to "trust" the old Mormon sources, experience has taught me to verify what they really said, and then to
compare that information with non-Mormon sources. Thus, I trust Lucy Mack Smith saying that her son's first
vision came AFTER the death of his brother Alvin, because I verified that the famous Great Palmyra Revival did
not occur in 1820 (as the LDS PGP says), but happened about four years later.

Of course our Mormon friends are invited to do the same for the 1833 "Conneaut Witnesses." I advise folks to go look
at the old historical records and verify that these witnesses who who they said they were -- that the lived where they
said they did -- that they truly engaged in the activities they said they did, etc. etc.

Uncle Dale