Spalding-Rigdon Theory: Fatal flaws

[_Daniel Peterson]

Perhaps I should have put it this way, "most non-LDS who know about Mormon apologetics..." and so forth.

Now you're wandering into tautology territory.

I would venture to say that all of those who are unconvinced by whatever your particular academic positions happen to be are unconvinced by your academic positions.

[_Trevor]

Now you're wandering into tautology territory.

I would venture to say that all of those who are unconvinced by whatever your particular academic positions happen to be are unconvinced by your academic positions.

Only if we conflate your statement with mine, which seems to be what you are doing. I don't find the notion "those non-LDS who are aware of LDS apologetics don't find them plausible or interesting, and are, frankly, amazed that they continue to flourish in some (fairly marginal) circles" to be tautological at all.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Now you're wandering into tautology territory.

I would venture to say that all of those who are unconvinced by whatever your particular academic positions happen to be are unconvinced by your academic positions.

Only if we conflate your statement with mine, which seems to be what you are doing. I don't find the notion "those non-LDS who are aware of LDS apologetics don't find them plausible or interesting, and are, frankly, amazed that they continue to flourish in some (fairly marginal) circles" to be tautological at all.

Well, it's true that I omitted a call for supporting data. Since your statement at least appears, at first blush, to make a factual statement, it would have been proper for me to ask for some evidence to back it. Representative statements that they find LDS apologetics implausible and uninteresting from a representative sample of non-LDS people who follow LDS apologetics -- one wonders why they follow it if they find it uninteresting, so that might be another question to ask -- would be helpful, along, perhaps, with some numbers. Do those non-LDS who find LDS apologetics uninteresting and implausible represent a majority of the non-LDS who pay attention? A minority? How closely do they pay attention? Are they competent to judge? Are their reasons sound?

But one also wonders about the signfiicance of the proposition you advance: Does it matter that some group of indeterminate size finds some position or other implausible? Did geologists' resistance to Wegener's theory of continental drift during his lifetime prove him wrong? Does the fact that Flat Earthers find arguments for a spherical earth unbelievable constitute an argument for a flat earth? A large number of Americans reject Darwinism. Does that persuade you to join them?

And, finally, there is the matter of tautology. While your statement isn't fully or precisely tautological, it tends in that direction. Do non-LDS find LDS claims generally, and not merely apologetic arguments, implausible, and largely uninteresting? Most probably do. Do believing LDS find LDS claims plausible and interesting? Of course. It goes with the territory. Is it significant? In and of itself, not very.

[_Ray A]

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?

The book contains many primary sources and documents, but one downfall is that it has no index, which makes searching difficult. Chapter 11, "The Mysterious Stranger", contains documents from witnesses (first and second hand), who claim that Rigdon had contact with Joseph Smith as early as 1827. The following is a chronology of some of the witnesses and the dates they claim Rigdon was in contact with Joseph Smith:

Lorenzo Saunders (1827 date for Smith/Rigdon contact)
James Gordon Bennett (1827)
Abel Chase (1827)
Pomeroy Tucker (1828)
Mrs. S.F. Anderick (1828)
W. A. Lillie (1828)
Orasmus Turner (1830, just prior to publication)

According to Saunders he ate supper at the Smith's in March 1827 and saw five or six men standing talking: "It was Peter Ingersol, Samuel Lawrence, George Proper, the old man Rockwell [father of Porter]. They stood about ten rods from the road. When I got to the house Harrison [Smith] told me that it was Sidney Rigdon. i.e. the well dressed man."

Chase was not certain he saw Rigdon (he was told it was Rigdon), but Saunders said that Rigdon was in contact with the Smith's before 1830, "in my opinion". Saunders wrote several letters claiming the same thing. According to Saunders:

Q: Did you see him [Rigdon] after that prior to 1830?

A: Yes. I saw him in the fall just before Joseph went to Pennsylvania [Dec.1827]. Peter Ingersol and I met him [Rigdon] in the road between Palmyra and Ingersols. I never saw him any more until he came to Palmyra to preach the Mormon Bible.

There's no record of Ingersol confirming this meeting, and he's not listed as one of the witnesses.

The authors indulge in some speculation. In a detailed chronology of Rigdon's movements between January 1827 - December 1827, the following is recorded:

September 14 - October 8 [1827] Rigdon's whereabouts are unknown during these 25 days. Ashtabula is one day's travel along the road to New York. If Rigdon is planning to meet Smith on the night of September 21 to deliver the reworked Spalding manuscript, this is a good beginning. A departure from Ashtabula on September 14 gets him to Manchester with several days to spare. And if he stays there a week , he still gets back to Mentor in plenty of time for the following marriage...[the marriage of Stephen Sherman and Wealthy Matthews on Oct.9]

Witnesses say that prior to 1830 Rigdon often spoke of the coming of a new religion, but no certain connections to Mormonism can be made. in my opinion none of these witnesses constitute "hard evidence", with the possible exception of Saunders, who appears to be the most prominent witness. If Ingersol had confirmed the 1827 meeting of Rigdon, it would have been more impressive, but there's no record of that.

Wade Englund put this critique together : http://www.scn.org/~bp760/visit.htm and I think he makes some valid points, one being the length of time between the events and the recollections:

Saunders: 50 years
Chase: 50 years
Anderick: 60+years
Hendrix: 70+ years
Emily Coburn Austin: 50 years

Hearsay accounts:

Pomeroy Tucker: 50 years
W.A. Lillie: 50 years
Erasmus Turner: 20 years

In November 1830 Rigdon told his congregation that the Book of Mormon "might be true".

I don't think this case is watertight, especially if Saunders is the main witness. If this is the case, that there was some kind of "conspiracy", then it would make Rigdon and Cowdery (and Joseph Smith) brazen liars (I suppose some might agree with that).

According to an entry in the Times & Seasons (1843):

"In the spring of 1833 or 1834 at the house of Samuel Baker, near New Portage, Medina County, Ohio, we whose signatures are affixed, did hear Elder Sidney Rigdon, in the presence of a large congregation, say he had been informed that some in the neighborhood had accused him of being the instigator of the Book of Mormon. Standing in the door way, there being many standing in the door yard, he, holding up the Book of Mormon, said, "I testify in the presence of this congregation, and before God and all the Holy Angels up yonder, (pointing towards Heaven), before whom I expect to give account at the judgment day, that I never saw a sentence of the Book of Mormon, I never penend [sic] a sentence of the Book, I never knew there was such a book in existence as the Book of Mormon, until it was presented to me by Parley P. Pratt, in the form that it is now in."(A letter to Joseph Smith III, from Phineas Bronson, Hiel Bronson, and Mary Bronson, Princeville, Ill., March 14, 1872, as quoted by Dale Broadhurst)

A thorough discussion of this, including comments from one of the book's authors, Arthur Vanick, is already on this board: http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... sc&start=0

I'm more inclined to Dan Vogel's view, because there are more accurate accounts given by witnesses who were present, and Vogel lists them. Happy searching.

[_Trevor]

one wonders why they follow it if they find it uninteresting, so that might be another question to ask

One might wonder the same about your avowed knowledge of the Spalding-Rigdon theory.

As for much of the rest, it is clear to me that you are devoting way too much effort to this.

While your statement isn't fully or precisely tautological, it tends in that direction.

And while you did say that, you followed it with a classic tautology which tended toward suggesting that I had actually indulged in one myself. Tedious.

[_Daniel Peterson]

one wonders why they follow it if they find it uninteresting, so that might be another question to ask

One might wonder the same about your avowed knowledge of the Spalding-Rigdon theory.

One might wonder, and one might be given the answer: The Spalding theory has been a big deal in some circles for a century and a half. I felt the need to learn about it.

Like Lester Bush and Dan Vogel and Fawn Brodie and a host of others, believers and non-believers, I don't find it plausible. And I don't find it very interesting or illuminating.

[_Trevor]

One might wonder, and one might be given the answer: The Spalding theory has been a big deal in some circles for a century and a half. I felt the need to learn about it.

As I suppose the people (pastors, concerned Christians) who deal with the fact that Mormons come knocking on the doors of non-LDS Christians to offer them what the former view as a heresy might have good reason to have taken an interest in Mormonism and Mormon apologetics. This has been the case for just about as long.

Like Lester Bush and Dan Vogel and Fawn Brodie and a host of others, believers and non-believers, I don't find it plausible.

Neither do I. Do you want a cookie or a beanie button? Pick your prize. It was never a very plausible hypothesis in the first place. It is not surprising that many critics and apologists can agree on that.

[_Daniel Peterson]

One might wonder, and one might be given the answer: The Spalding theory has been a big deal in some circles for a century and a half. I felt the need to learn about it.

As I suppose the people (pastors, concerned Christians) who deal with the fact that Mormons come knocking on the doors of non-LDS Christians to offer them what the former view as a heresy might have good reason to have taken an interest in Mormonism and Mormon apologetics. This has been the case for just about as long.

Well, if they've mastered the subject to any notable extent, that'll be news to their fellow evangelicals Paul Owen and Carl Mosser.

[_Trevor]

Well, if they've mastered the subject to any notable extent, that'll be news to their fellow evangelicals Paul Owen and Carl Mosser.

Well, they may not be "mastering the subject" in a manner that meets with the approval of you, Owen, or Mosser, but they seem to have a good deal of impact on their target readers anyway.

[_jhammel]

I find it more likely than not that Spalding and Rigdon were contributors to the Book of Mormon. It's not that I rule out other explanations for the book's origin that exclude either of those two men, but simply a matter of what I find more likely. I'm not sure I can quantify how likely, but if I had to bet my life on a generally correct guess at the Book of Mormon's origin, it would be my choice, though I'd still be nervous about it.

The problem I see is that my own ideas of how things might have gone down are built upon a large amount of questionable evidence. If I isolate any particular piece of my own theory, then I know that for some such pieces the evidence, that piece alone may be quite poor. For example, here are some questions one could consider...

- While in Conneaut OH and later in Pittsburgh prior to his death, was Spalding writing a story that was identical to the Book of Mormon in some particulars?

- Did Rigdon have business or other associations with the printer to whom Spalding's writings were taken in hopes of publication?

- Did Rigdon possess a manuscript in 1823 that he himself stated had been the writings of Spalding?

- Did Rigdon possess a manuscript in which he seemed to have an intense interest while residing in Bainbridge Ohio?

- Did Rigdon and Joseph Smith meet in Ohio in 1826?

- Did Rigdon appear in the Palmyra/Manchester area in the period of 1827 to 1830?

- How similar are the teachings in the Book of Mormon to what would be expected of a Campbellite preacher on the Ohio Western Reserve, or expected of Rigdon himself?


I could think of more, but my point is that if I were to look in isolation at the evidence for any of the above questions or others that may be pertinent, I don't see enough to prove anything, and if I were trying to argue a theory based on that piece alone, I probably couldn't convince myself. But none of the above examples are without evidence, and the fact is that I can't consider such pieces in complete isolation - I don't think the brain does or should work that way. Even with questionable evidence, I just find it unlikely that the body of evidence that I have seen can be placed in the categories of circumstantial, false memories, and/or lies (on the part of the witness or the reporter), wihch it seems so much of it would have to do.

This post isn't meant to even approach a full description or any kind of defense of a Spalding theory - just pointing out that for some of us, it's not a matter knowing that the evidence on many particulars is questionable. I fully acknowledge that, and I hope others would too. My point is simply that to some of us the evidence does seem to create a rather believable big picture of how the Book of Mormon may have come to be, even if evidence is weak in many particulars, and even if we disagree or have varying speculations on much of the details.

Back to the original question... Is there something that anyone knows or reasons that they think brings down the whole idea that Spalding and Rigdon could have had involvement in the production of the Book of Mormon? I haven't come across any evidence or argument yet in my investigation that would do that trick for me, but I am genuinely curious if someone has an angle at this that I haven't seen or should re-evaluate.

Thanks.

Jeff