Commentary on the Spalding/Rigdon thread

[_Uncle Dale]

So when you ask the question, "So -- was the Prophet, Seer, Revelator and Translator, President James J. Strang any more or less of a "trickster" than was Joe Smith?", I would say that the answer may be related to the fruits of each one of these organizations and/or prophets...

From all of my years with the RLDS, I became used to the Mormon criticism that the Reorganized Church could not be
true, because it was not as large as that of the Mormons. Then again, the followers of Jesus were not so large as were
the Jerusalem Temple priesthood in his day -- nor were the Pilgrims and Puritans who fled to America so large as was
the Church of England, with its many fine cathedrals, charitable works, loyal membership, etc.

I cannot speak for the Strangites, but I know that they would say that their church only had 6 members in April of 1830 --
and so they have at least multiplied that number several times over and expect to one day grow to fill the entire earth.
I suppose the only "fruits" they would offer for inspection is the quality of their family life, the strength of their faith and
the presence of continuing miracles and revelation among them.

Both Strangites and old-time Reorganized LDS will say that the Mormon Church was rejected of God, when it failed
to finish the Nauvoo Temple -- which was only completed in part at the time of its consecration, with the upper story
not even entirely framed in on the interior and the basement totally unfinished, save for the area around the font.
Whether that view of history be true or not, I cannot say. But I think most Strangites might say that the RLDS, LDS
and FLDS are rejected, withered branches and apostate splinter groups, no matter how many temples they build.

If we want to see a great religion, that preserves and sustains its people, builds thousands of religious buildings, and
has tremendous faith, we might look to the Muslims. They certainly outnumber the Latter Day Saints many times over,
and I have never known one of them (and I have lived among them) to deny their testimony of the Koran or Prophet.

So -- perhaps among Strang, Smith and Mohammed there were at least two tricksters -- or at least more than one
prophet who was not totally honest about his polygamy (both Smith and Strang denied theirs in public, but the Muslim
leader was honest about his wives).

Were Strang's scriptures produced in a way different from the Koran? Was the Koran produced in a way different from
the Book of Mormon? Are at least two of these examples of holy writ actually faked scriptures of their own day? Or, can
it be possible that all three examples are something different than what their believers testify to?

But you raise the question that has bothered me for many years --- and that question is, "Can the fruits of the RLDS
be counted as godly ones, even if some sentences from Solomon Spalding or Sidney Rigdon somehow made it into
the text of the Book of Mormon?"

Or a similar question -- "Can we still trust the sections of the D&C if we ever discover that Sidney Rigdon and Joseph
knew each other before 1830?" After all, an early D&C section says that Sidney Rigdon prepared the way for Smith and
Mormonism, but that "servant Sidney" he "knew it not." If we ever find that he DID know it -- must we throw the baby
out with the bath-water and deny each and every fruit of the LDS, RLDS and any other latter day churches which have
built their organization and faith upon the D&C?

Weighty questions -- I think.

And when I talk of Solomon Spalding, it is not a subject I tend to approach lightly. The spiritual lives if my fellow RLDS
are part of the consideration, and their tremendous testimony cannot be easily overlooked, no matter what happened
with our ancestors and our leaders nearly 200 years ago.

Uncle Dale

[_Fortigurn]

I have to say, I find Dale's argument powerfully convincing. The Vogel case appears overcomplicated, and reliant on tenuous arguments.

[Bedlamite]

I have to say, I find Dale's argument powerfully convincing. The Vogel case appears
overcomplicated, and reliant on tenuous arguments.

It's always good to have an adversary -- it keeps investigators on their toes and provides a good reason for
them to check and re-check their research agenda.

The Conneaut witnesses were obviously not perfect statement-givers; but if they had been lying through their
teeth and plotting with Hurlbut to cover up those lies, then I truly believe that the Mormon leaders would have
exposed them back in 1833 or '34. Instead, they exposed some of Hurlbut's alleged sexual misconduct.

Just by the law of averages, some of the old testimony will be unreliable -- that is why I look for predictive
patterns in the witnesses' reports, and try to uncover evidence that will either confirm or refute the various bits
and pieces of testimony. My general "rule of thumb," is that if old reports are true, then most all subsequent
evidence uncovered by hunting up hitherto unexamined sources will tend to confirm the original testimony.

Allow me to give an example --

Elder Richard I. Winwood had a book published in 1995 in which he asserted that the Spalding witnesses must have
been liars because most of them had not lived in the area when Mr. Spalding resided in northeastern Ohio. The last
time I was in the Idaho Falls Deseret Books outlet, they had several copies of the Winwood book for sale, so I
assume it was yet in print as late as 2005. Thus an official business of the LDS Church has been promulgating these
assertions about the dishonesty of the old witnesses:
http://solomonspalding.com/Lib/winw1995.htm

In order to check this allegation out, I researched Ohio sources for voter lists, property lists, land documents, marriage
records, newspaper articles and advertisements, etc. Since two of the "Conneaut witnesses" were Pennsylvania
residents (living within walking distance of the Ohio border), their records were harder to come by. The regional public
records had not been so well preserved there as in neighboring Ohio.

But after a few months' searching, I was able to document the presence of each and every witness in exactly the places
history had previously recorded them. Only Mr. Cunningham lived a little farther away -- but he never claimed to
reside in the same village as Spalding had.

Thus, by 2000, I knew for certain that the witnesses were truthful in at least THAT part of their testimony -- and that
it was Elder Winwood's book that was telling falsehood, not the witnesses. I sent a letter to Deseret Books in Utah,
complaining about their selling a book containing such a patent set of falsehoods, but never received a reply.

That is what I mean when I say "predictive." The evidence seemed to indicate that the witnesses had indeed lived
where they said they had resided -- and each new piece of documentation I uncovered only confirmed that viewpoint.

Had I discovered sources which agreed with Elder Winwood, I would not have suppressed them nor ignored them --
I would have posted the discrepancies to one of my web-pages, for all the world to see.

It is entirely possible that Vogel is correct in some of his ideas -- even in some of what I see as his slandering of
good people, like the Honorable Aron Wright. But if that is so, then I must be prepared for the confirming evidence,
if and when it becomes available. To date, after years of researching, the only complaint I ever uncovered about Wright's
ethics, or his morality, or his character, was the fact that he married a very young wife. Given the circumstance that
she was the only unmarried girl within a hundred miles at the time -- and that he had saved her life and loved her and
remained married to her for life -- I am persuaded to forgive Judge Wright on that one lapse.

I hope I am proceeding properly with my investigations -- if not, I am prepared to pay the price, when reputable
scholarship proves me wrong.

Uncle Dale

[_marg]

I have to say, I find Dale's argument powerfully convincing. The Vogel case appears overcomplicated, and reliant on tenuous arguments.

It's the weak reasoning Dan has presented against the Spalding witnesses which loses me. I actually think Dale's position is much more complicated. But complicated in a way that it is realistic and looks at evidence good and bad, but at least where the evidence leads to as opposed to trying to fit evidence into a predetermined position..at all costs.

[_Uncle Dale]

I have to say, I find Dale's argument powerfully convincing. The Vogel case appears overcomplicated, and reliant
on tenuous arguments.

I had a couple of ideas to add -- and the first one is that I do not have a total explanation for the Book of Mormon,
all neatly figured out and communicated in a published book. Although I have considered the Spalding-Rigdon theory
an explanation worthy of careful study, and have spent a considerable amount of time looking into the matter, it was
relatively recently that I adopted that theory as my primary belief. That evolution in my thinking came over a long
period of studying the internal evidence, the external evidence and what I call the contextual evidence (or the Mormon
reaction, signs of a cover-up, etc.)

So I do not have "arguments" so carefully thought out and articulated as do several investigators who have published
their respective books on the topic of a 19th century origin for the Book of Mormon. With luck and help from others, I
may get such a book published within a couple years. If so, it will only be after that is accomplished that I will be in a
position to stand up a set of "arguments" against the Smith-alone advocates; and even then my probable position will
be that those advocates have uncovered and discerned at least part of the process by which the Book of Mormon text was created.

You elsewhere asked why it was that Solomon Spalding's neighbors (or perhaps mostly the children of those neighbors)
took to calling him "Old Come to Pass"?

I do not think there is currently enough evidence available for us to make a firm determination on that odd recollection.
As I recall, three of the Connneaut witnesses said that the phrase "and it came to pass" was frequently repeated in
some of Spalding's fiction they had read or heard read. But none of those witnesses specifically stated that he was given
a nick-name due to his general use of that term in his writings or conversations.

The next place that a "new" reference to Spalding and his using the term pops up, is many years later in the published
recollections of Joseph Miller of Amity, PA. He is quoted as saying:

"Sometime ago, I had in my possession, for about six months, the Book of Mormon and heard most of it read
during the time. I was always forcibly struck with the similarity of the portions of it which purported to be of
supernatural origin to the quaint style and peculiar language that had made so deep an impression on my mind
when hearing the manuscript read by Mr. S. For instance, the very frequent repetition of the phrase,
"and it came to pass."
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/PA ... htm#020579

Notice that here Mr. Miller only says that the term was "very frequent" in a certain "manuscript" that he heard Spalding
read aloud. There is no indication that the phrase was applied to the man as a nick-name.

A couple of years later, the statement of Abner Jackson was published, and there, for the first time I can determine,
the assertion was made in the public press that Spalding was actually called by that name:

Spaulding frequently read his manuscript to the neighbors and amused them as he progressed with his work.
He wrote it in Bible style, "And it came to pass" occurred so often that some called him "old come to pass."
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/PA ... htm#010781

In the same statement, Jackson also relates this unsual bit of information:

When it was brought to Conneaut and read there in public, old Esq. Wright heard it, and exclaimed,
"'Old come to pass' has come to life again." Here was the place where Spaulding wrote and read his
manuscript to the neighbors for their amusement and 'Squire Wright had often heard him read from
his Romance.

I cannot determine when or how Jackson came across this information. The preserved record is too scant for us
to know at this point. All I can say is that it is an interesting claim and deserves further investigation.

The next item of interest, I think, would be an elaboration of Joseph Miller's, written a little after Abner Jackson's
claims had seen print:


I was familiar with Solomon Spaulding. I worked in Amity, where he lived, and as the fashion was at
that day, we all assembled at his house in the evenings (as he kept tavern), and he frequently would
read from his manuscript. The work was very odd. The words 'Moreover,' 'And it came to pass,' occurred
so often that the boys about the village called him 'Old Came to Pass.'
http://www.solomonspalding.com/docs1/1890GrgD.htm#pg441

Mr. Miller's recollection came AFTER the publication of Abner Jackson's statement -- and Miller would have likely
read what Jackson had to say, since it was published in the local newspapers in the part of PA where Miller lived.
Thus, the possibility cannot be entirely ruled out that Miller's memory was jogged by Jackson's assertion, or that
Miller unconsciously appropriated Jackson's report and wove it into his own, subsequent testimony.

Rev. Clark Braden and Elder E. L. Kelley debated this matter as far back as 1884, without shedding much light
on the matter. Here is an excerpt from the RLDS newspaper of that year:

The evidence from their own witnesses are complete in showing one thing, that is, that Spaulding never
wrote an article of any kind that would in size, character, style, sense, taste, sentiment, or in any manner
compare with the Book of Mormon. But how about "old come to pass," says one. Like the pretended
remembrance of the names Lehi and Nephi, the false story of it was put into these witnesses' mouths
and they thought it a smart thing to say; that is evident to a man who will think. Why should they so
persistently call Spaulding "old come to pass?" Turn to the Bible in almost every part it abounds with the
expression. In some parts of Luke's gospel it is as frequent as in the Book of Mormon. How could it
receive the title of "old come to pass," from a singularity, when the expression was already a familiar one?

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/IA ... htm#071284

Before we can say much more on the subject, some further evidence will have to be uncovered and reported.
I've been told that there is a published recollection of Spalding being called "Old Come to Pass" that pre-dates
the Jackson statement by a decade, but have never located and examined a copy of that item.

The general explanation I have heard, in this regard, is that Spalding was parodying the Bible in his lost tribes tale,
and that part of his over-done pastiche included the ridiculous repetition of some typical biblical terms. As Elder Kelley
pointed out, such a use of the term "come/came to pass" was not unique to the recollections of Spalding witnesses.
For example, in old newspapers of the early 19th century we sometimes find political or social satire, composed in the
form of a biblical chronicle. I have a couple of examples posted on my newspaper articles web-pages. Part of the
intended humor of such satires was their mock-serious and mock-pious repetition of phrases like "and then it came
to pass," "Lo and behold!," "wherefore," etc. One explanation of the witness reports was that Spalding made use of
this already popular satirical device in some (but not all) of his writings, as well as in his periodic public readings of
the "biblical" (but fictional) "Manuscript Found."

If Solomon Spalding only began to compose his "Manuscript Found" a few months before he left Ohio, I am not
sure that a sufficient amount of time had elapsed, before he departed that place for Pittsburgh, for such an odd
nick-name to have developed and "stuck" to him.

On the other hand, if Spalding had been writing in biblical language even BEFORE the time he composed his Roman
story, then the writing sequence of the Oberlin Roman tale, the reported lost tribes epic, etc., would not make much
of a difference, and the nick-name might have been coined earlier than the summer of 1812. There are reports of his
having communications back and forth with his fellow Congregational minister and Dartmouth College classmate,
the Rev. Ethan Smith, on "lost tribes" fiction, and a certain Spalding manuscript on that subject reportedly was
preserved in Middleton, VT as late as the 1870s. That town was within walking distance of Poultney, where Ethan Smith
was once a pastor -- so perhaps the Solomon/Ethan connection did produce some ersatz biblical fiction even before
Solomon Spalding left New England for the west.

However, it doesn't make sense for us to examine the Roman story text and to try and make firm conclusions based
upon its phraseology, since it is not written in pseudo-scriptural "King James" English. We might just as well try and
determine Mark Twain's Mississippi river boat jargon by consulting his "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court."

It is a part of the Spalding authorship claims that I think still remains to be investigated, before we try to rely upon
the nick-name as an established fact of history. It may well be that the man was called by that name in more
than one place that he lived ---- but until some earlier (and less polemic) evidence turns up, I remain a bit skeptical.

Uncle Dale

[_mentalgymnast]

The burden of proof has always been on the church, and its claims to the Book of Mormon being historical, to God interfering, to plates containing an ancient record, to J Smith being chosen by some god, to later prophets being divinely guided.

MG: no wonder you're all screwed up! It's up to you, baby!

Same thing with God. Of course, no one is going to convince you otherwise...

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

I have to say, I find Dale's argument powerfully convincing. The Vogel case appears overcomplicated, and reliant on tenuous arguments.

It's the weak reasoning Dan has presented against the Spalding witnesses which loses me. I actually think Dale's position is much more complicated. But complicated in a way that it is realistic and looks at evidence good and bad, but at least where the evidence leads to as opposed to trying to fit evidence into a predetermined position..at all costs.

MG: well, if Vogel's got it wrong and the Unc is having a difficult time with grasping how Joseph Smith and buds could be all on the same page spiritually hood-winking everyone in sight then we could look at another possible alternative.

Moroni and Co. rather than Spalding and Co.

Unc, I have this gut feeling that you're going to wear your life out, "Ever learning and never coming to a knowledge of the truth." Better to do it in Hawaii than anywhere else though, huh?

OTOH, maybe you're right... and if Vogel is wrong, you could singlehandedly bring down the whole kitten-ka-boodle! Worth a shot anyway, right?! Take time to smell the orchids now and then though.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

So when you ask the question, "So -- was the Prophet, Seer, Revelator and Translator, President James J. Strang any more or less of a "trickster" than was Joe Smith?", I would say that the answer may be related to the fruits of each one of these organizations and/or prophets...

From all of my years with the RLDS, I became used to the Mormon criticism that the Reorganized Church could not be
true, because it was not as large as that of the Mormons. Then again, the followers of Jesus were not so large as were
the Jerusalem Temple priesthood in his day -- nor were the Pilgrims and Puritans who fled to America so large as was
the Church of England, with its many fine cathedrals, charitable works, loyal membership, etc.

I cannot speak for the Strangites, but I know that they would say that their church only had 6 members in April of 1830 --
and so they have at least multiplied that number several times over and expect to one day grow to fill the entire earth.
I suppose the only "fruits" they would offer for inspection is the quality of their family life, the strength of their faith and
the presence of continuing miracles and revelation among them.

Both Strangites and old-time Reorganized LDS will say that the Mormon Church was rejected of God, when it failed
to finish the Nauvoo Temple -- which was only completed in part at the time of its consecration, with the upper story
not even entirely framed in on the interior and the basement totally unfinished, save for the area around the font.
Whether that view of history be true or not, I cannot say. But I think most Strangites might say that the RLDS, LDS
and FLDS are rejected, withered branches and apostate splinter groups, no matter how many temples they build.

If we want to see a great religion, that preserves and sustains its people, builds thousands of religious buildings, and
has tremendous faith, we might look to the Muslims. They certainly outnumber the Latter Day Saints many times over,
and I have never known one of them (and I have lived among them) to deny their testimony of the Koran or Prophet.

So -- perhaps among Strang, Smith and Mohammed there were at least two tricksters -- or at least more than one
prophet who was not totally honest about his polygamy (both Smith and Strang denied theirs in public, but the Muslim
leader was honest about his wives).

Were Strang's scriptures produced in a way different from the Koran? Was the Koran produced in a way different from
the Book of Mormon? Are at least two of these examples of holy writ actually faked scriptures of their own day? Or, can
it be possible that all three examples are something different than what their believers testify to?

But you raise the question that has bothered me for many years --- and that question is, "Can the fruits of the RLDS
be counted as godly ones, even if some sentences from Solomon Spalding or Sidney Rigdon somehow made it into
the text of the Book of Mormon?"

Or a similar question -- "Can we still trust the sections of the D&C if we ever discover that Sidney Rigdon and Joseph
knew each other before 1830?" After all, an early D&C section says that Sidney Rigdon prepared the way for Smith and
Mormonism, but that "servant Sidney" he "knew it not." If we ever find that he DID know it -- must we throw the baby
out with the bath-water and deny each and every fruit of the LDS, RLDS and any other latter day churches which have
built their organization and faith upon the D&C?

Weighty questions -- I think.

And when I talk of Solomon Spalding, it is not a subject I tend to approach lightly. The spiritual lives if my fellow RLDS
are part of the consideration, and their tremendous testimony cannot be easily overlooked, no matter what happened
with our ancestors and our leaders nearly 200 years ago.

Uncle Dale

MG: sounds like the Strangites' fruit is pretty much garden variety. Just another denomination/sect? What happened to the fruits that were to result from their temple building described in the revelations? Work for the dead, endowments, etc.?

Again, if there was a trickster between Joseph Smith and Strang...I'd look at the fruits before making any judgements.

Regards,
MG

[_Uncle Dale]

[

MG: sounds like the Strangites' fruit is pretty much garden variety. Just another denomination/sect? What happened to the fruits that were to result from their temple building described in the revelations? Work for the dead, endowments, etc.?

Again, if there was a trickster between Joseph Smith and Strang...I'd look at the fruits before making any judgements.

Regards,
MG

I suppose it is all a matter of viewpoint. Born again Christians profess that the Mormons' attempts to become
"saviors on Mr. Zion" are mere dead works and endless genealogies. Reorganized Latter Day Saints have come to
the view that temple work, sealings, etc. is not something mankind is responsbile for -- that God has the power and
concern to bring souls to eternal life in ways not comprehensible to mere mortals.

But, as I said, it is all a point of view -- and I would not knock the Strangites nor my fellow RLDS behind their backs,
no matter what I perceive their fruits to be. In the case of the Community of Christ wing of that bunch, we see their
prophet disgraced and out of office due to transgression -- so I suppose that ought to be considered a "bad fruit," and
perhaps the fundamentalist RLDS who have left Community of Christ are thus justified in leaving when they did.

If the restored Gospel is mainly building temples, then the Mormons need to do some catching up with their building
of the ones at Far West and in Independence. I do not think that they can criticize the FLDS for having only one
temple, nor the RLDS for having only two, so long as they themselves have left their own promised and dedicated
temple sites empty. If Mormons say "it will take a little more time to show forth those fruits," then perhaps they should
allow the Strangites and RLDS a "little more time" as well.

But, getting back to Spalding, Rigdon, etc., I have often thought that it would be good if some total outsider and
disinterested historian compiled a lengthy history of the various attempts to assign Book of Mormon origins to somebody
other than Nephites. There has been a long history of these theories and authorship claims, going back to the days before
the Church was founded. Surely nobody can complain that there is TOO LITTLE material to write about, nor that there
have already been TOO MANY objective studies of the topic.

But then again, other than you and me, who would bother to read such a book? -- if its writer declined to come to any
firm conclusions on Book of Mormon origins, and just wrote a detailed historical report on the subject? Surely the Latter Day Saints
would say that he/she was prejudiced against them, for not having "accepted the latter day work and obeyed the gospel."
And the Gentiles would probably say that the writer must be a rather wishy-washy, pro-Mormon, not to have proved
the Nephites a hoax.

Still, I would welcome such a book -- and if it covered the Spalding stuff and the Brodie stuff, perhaps people like myself
could retire from the quest, knowing that a good book had finally been written and published.

A final thought -- I think God can make use of the weak things of the earth, to further the divine plan -- no matter if
those weak human beings are "tricksters," "money-diggers," or even "rough stones rolling." Whatever complaints I
have today, may end up being pretty much insignificant, when viewed from a "celestial" perspective.

UD

[_marg]

The burden of proof has always been on the church, and its claims to the Book of Mormon being historical, to God interfering, to plates containing an ancient record, to J Smith being chosen by some god, to later prophets being divinely guided.

MG: no wonder you're all screwed up! It's up to you, baby!

Same thing with God. Of course, no one is going to convince you otherwise...

Regards,
MG

My remark MG was in reply to your comment regarding the Book of Mormon. You said "It can be dissected/handled to see if that is indeed what it is. Great minds have attempted to prove that the Book of Mormon is not a connection between God and man...but without success to this point." And to that comment I pointed out the burden of proof is on those making the claims.

Contrary to your illogical thinking, there is nothing up to me with regards to these claims. And I don't need to go through mental gymnastics in order to dismiss the Book of Mormon and assume it part of an elaborate hoax. If the church or you wants to overturn the presumption that it's a hoax ...then go ahead..knock yourselves out.

by the way, this is the upper level forum in which there is a requirement to be respectful of others. Your comment to me is inappropriate. Don't refer to me again as baby..nor screwed up. Stick with the issues and drop the ad hominems.