Spalding-Rigdon Theory: Fatal flaws

[_Jersey Girl]

Hello Jeff,

And thank you for posting on this thread. I agree that when presumably isolated pieces of evidence, of which there are far more than have been represented on this thread, are laid end to end and in sequence, an entirely plausible picture emerges.

[_Jason Bourne]

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.

Thanks Ray

[_Ray A]

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

I think Vogel summed it up precisely (in the thread I linked earlier):

The only evidence for a curtain separating Joseph Smith from the scribe is Anthon's report of what Harris told him. That was only during the initial stages of the dictation, probably when Joseph Smith copied the characters from the plates and the plates could not be seen. After that and from then on, all the testimony is uniform in stating that Joseph Smith was in the open with his head in the hat. That's why the Spaulding theory never made sense to those who knew the circumstances of dictation, and why the myth flourished among the less informed. With all the sources and information we have today, I'm at a loss to explain its appeal.

[_jhammel]

Thanks Ray.

That argument makes sense to me. I would agree that if Joseph really did dictate a large amount of the Book of Mormon while looking into a hat, then I might have a wholly different impression of where the Book of Mormon likely came from.

My issue with that argument isn't so much the logic of it, but the idea that Joseph really dictated a large portion of the Book of Mormon with his head in a hat. I've never been inclined to believe (even before I ever heard of Spalding) that the head in the hat was much more than just a show. I've tended to see some eyewitness statements more as what Joseph wanted them to believe (and was successful in convincing them) to add a supernatural and revelatory element to the Book of Mormon as opposed to an accurate description of the underlying principal process of Book of Mormon dictation. Of course that raises a whole bunch of questions that I need to have answers for, and I hope you will forgive me if I end up without time for that discussion. I just figured I'd throw in the quick response to the issue you raise, but you probably already knew what my objection would be, and I expect Dan Vogel would anticipate such an objection as well.

Jeff

[_Ray A]

I think I may have had some email communication with you on this subject some years ago, Jeff. If nothing else I'm fascinated by your fascination with the subject. In any case throw out whatever you like. I'm prepared to listen to your further reasoning on the subject, out of interest.

[_marg]

I'm prepared to listen to your further reasoning on the subject, out of interest.

I highly doubt that Ray. The problem lies not so much with what evidence there is but rather with how that evidence is evaluated. For example if one wishes to they can discount the Spalding witnesses, can say they have false memories, implanted memories, were coached..whatever. This is the approach I believe that Vogel and Brodie took. The fact is those witnesses had no motivation to lie, it is not likely they all were so intellectually dishonest or stupid that coaching or implanted memories would not have been appreciated by at least one of them.

The Spalding theory complicates the issue. It is so much easier to just say Smith could have written the Book of Mormon. Biographical authors on Smith benefit by presenting the Smith could have written the Book of Mormon in 2 ways. (1) They can sell more books. Mormons are not likely to read a biography of Smith if the theory being presented is he didn't write the Book of Mormon. At least if he wrote it even though the author may not think it divinely orchestrated Mormons readers can still tolerate that perspective. But the Spalding theory can not be tolerated under any circumstances by a Mormon. (2) The LDS church itself is less likely to put out a smear campaign against any author suggesting Smith could have written the Book of Mormon than an author who supports the Spalding theory.

Now Vogel and Brodie may truly believe Smith could have written the Book of Mormon. But their dismissal of the Spalding witnesses is very poor reasoning in my opinion and is the reason I don't respect their opinion on the Spalding theory.

[_Trevor]

I highly doubt that Ray. The problem lies not so much with what evidence there is but rather with how that evidence is evaluated. For example if one wishes to they can discount the Spalding witnesses, can say they have false memories, implanted memories, were coached..whatever. This is the approach I believe that Vogel and Brodie took. The fact is those witnesses had no motivation to lie, it is not likely they all were so intellectually dishonest or stupid that coaching or implanted memories would not have been appreciated by at least one of them.

What about misremembering or conflating memories? How unlikely is it that two authors of ancient American romances came to be associated with each other over time? As famous as the Book of Mormon became, I should think it would be natural to place memories of Spalding in that context.

[_marg]

I highly doubt that Ray. The problem lies not so much with what evidence there is but rather with how that evidence is evaluated. For example if one wishes to they can discount the Spalding witnesses, can say they have false memories, implanted memories, were coached..whatever. This is the approach I believe that Vogel and Brodie took. The fact is those witnesses had no motivation to lie, it is not likely they all were so intellectually dishonest or stupid that coaching or implanted memories would not have been appreciated by at least one of them.

What about misremembering or conflating memories? How unlikely is it that two authors of ancient American romances came to be associated with each other over time? As famous as the Book of Mormon became, I should think it would be natural to place memories of Spalding in that context.

I really don't understand what you are saying, could you expand further. What 2 authors, Spalding and who else? I don't even understand your last sentence.

[_Trevor]

I really don't understand what you are saying, could you expand further. What 2 authors, Spalding and who else? I don't even understand your last sentence.

Spalding and Smith.

[_marg]

I really don't understand what you are saying, could you expand further. What 2 authors, Spalding and who else? I don't even understand your last sentence.

Spalding and Smith.

Ok I still don't get what you are saying.


You wrote: How unlikely is it that two authors of ancient American romances came to be associated with each other over time?

Spalding we know for a fact is an author of ancient romances. We don't know for a fact Smith ever was. And I don't get the point of your sentence. Could you expand please.


You wrote: As famous as the Book of Mormon became, I should think it would be natural to place memories of Spalding in that context.

I'm sorry I don't follow you. I appreciate you are talking about the witnesses but to understand you I need further expansion on your point. I'm simply not following it.