Spalding-Rigdon Theory: Fatal flaws

[_Jason Bourne]

As noted before, there is no link between Joseph Smith and Rigdon before 1831 and well after the Book of Mormon was finished. Tell you prove that you have nothing. . . If it could be demonstrated that Rigdon and Smith knew each other and had interaction before 1831 yes, I think it would be more compelling.

In the book Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon? The Spalding Enigma, the authors demonstrate how the two of them most likely did indeed know each other and worked together before the Book of Mormon made its advent.

Can you summarize has argument? Is is speculative or is there hard evidence?

[_marg]

I'd like to hear from any interested parties what they think the fatal flaws are in the Spalding-Rigdon theory thus far. In your view, what sinks the boat.

That's it. Have at it.

Jersey Girl

There is no fatal flaw., if there was then it would be very unlikely that the theory would not only still be be floated around but also taken quite seriously. The theory has been up against a powerful force, the Church which has done it's best to discredit it from the beginning. The biggest problem in my opinion with the theory is few people are motivated to understand it, it is too much work to do so. There are so many pieces of data involved that it is difficult to remember and piece them together into a whole picture, it takes memory and a level of intelligence that lots of people don't have. Few people have an interest in putting in the required investigation. Members on average are not the least bit motivated to look objectively at the data, non-members on average have little interest in spending time on something which doesn't involved them.

But the theory is the best fit theory for the data. It is the most plausible one. And people who wish to pooh hoo it yet believe the Church version of con-artist Joe with his fairy tale stories, reveal just how gullible and weak their rational thinking is on this issue.

by the way..Jersey Girl before you respond with "that's not what I was asking I only want flaws", let me just respond in advance so we can do away with that side trip..I don't care what exactly you were asking and before you take exception to my "I don't care "remark, please don't go there, don't go on any side trips, because I'm not interested and I won't respond to it.

[_Dr. Shades]

Can you summarize has argument? Is is speculative or is there hard evidence?

I don't have the book with me anymore--I mailed it to Ray A some time ago--but I remember the following points:

• Smith's neighbors and friends remember annual visits by Rigdon, which Smith later reworked into the annual visits by the Angel Moroni
• Evidence was listed showing that Rigdon was involved in a few of Smith Sr.'s money-digging ventures
• Rigdon was the one who dispatched Parley P. Pratt to Smith's area
• Oliver Cowdery was employed by Rigdon for a time selling religious pamphlets

Of course, those are only the ones I remember off the top of my head.

[_Jersey Girl]

I've never found the Spalding theory very plausible or interesting, and am, frankly, amazed that it continues to flourish in some (fairly marginal) circles.

That's funny, most people don't find Mormon apologetics very plausible or interesting, and are, frankly, amazed that they continue to flourish in some (fairly marginal) circles.

But, I also do see that the basic premises of the Spalding-Rigdon theory are problematic.

What do you find problematic about the basic premises of the theory, Trevor? Could you briefly list your reasons?

[_Jersey Girl]

Tarski,

I think you misunderstand the premise of the OP. It is simple inquiry and nothing more. I'm not planning to debate the S/R Theory and it wouldn't matter to me if Uncle Dale were here to post on this thread. I am interested in hearing where people think the fatal flaws are and why. That's all I want to have happen on this thread.

I didn't misunderstand anything. Uncle dale could give a good overview.

Then I misunderstood you, Tarski. My apologies.

[_Trevor]

What do you find problematic about the basic premises of the theory, Trevor? Could you briefly list your reasons?

First of all, that Joseph Smith would have been incapable of writing the book himself.

[_Phaedrus Ut]

I think that the actual text of the Book of Mormon doesn't warrant such grandiose theories of its origin.

I'm in agreement here. I don't see speculative sources about the Book of Abraham or the D&C yet by language, ideas, word choice, and voice they all seem to share a common author.

Phaedrus

[_Daniel Peterson]

I've never found the Spalding theory very plausible or interesting, and am, frankly, amazed that it continues to flourish in some (fairly marginal) circles.

That's funny, most people don't find Mormon apologetics very plausible or interesting, and are, frankly, amazed that they continue to flourish in some (fairly marginal) circles.

Cute.

But the equation Peterson::Spalding theory = most people::Mormon apologetics founders on the fact that, whereas "most people" don't even know that Mormon apologetics exists, Peterson is quite familiar with the Spalding theory.

[_Mike Reed]

What do you find problematic about the basic premises of the theory, Trevor? Could you briefly list your reasons?

First of all, that Joseph Smith would have been incapable of writing the book himself.

Agreed. The old tripe that Smith was just an ignorant illiterate farmboy doesn't fly with me.

[_Trevor]

But the equation Peterson::Spalding theory = most people::Mormon apologetics founders on the fact that, whereas "most people" don't even know that Mormon apologetics exists, Peterson is quite familiar with the Spalding theory.

While not logically parallel, it is nonetheless true. Perhaps I should have put it this way, "most non-LDS who know about Mormon apologetics..." and so forth.