Spalding-Rigdon Theory: Fatal flaws

[_Trevor]

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.

What do you call the Book of Mormon?

[_marg]

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.

What do you call the Book of Mormon?

We know for a fact Spalding had an interest in writing. He wrote for many years stories which while in progress he read to many people, family, friends, neighbours, business associates. We have a copy in his handwriting of some of his work including and ancient romance. There is no equivalent evidence that Smith had any interest in story writing before Book of Mormon publication, in fact it was the opposite. The creation of the Book of Mormon, the facts surrounding it, the time period involved in it's production, is more in line with him and others copying some work than it is in creating the work pretty much from scratch since no one was aware of him writing in his spare time.

[_Trevor]

We know for a fact Spalding had an interest in writing. He wrote for many years stories which while in progress he read to many people, family, friends, neighbours, business associates. We have a copy in his handwriting of some of his work including and ancient romance. There is no equivalent evidence that Smith had any interest in story writing before Book of Mormon publication, in fact it was the opposite. The creation of the Book of Mormon, the facts surrounding it, the time period involved in it's production, is more in line with him and others copying some work than it is in creating the work pretty much from scratch since no one was aware of him writing in his spare time.

Every novel writer has a first novel. Not a few write a first novel when they have not written anything significant before.

Most evidence points to Joseph Smith being the writer or (for the faithful) translator of the Book of Mormon. The only significant challenge to that view is the Spalding theory. Still, those who argue in favor of the Spalding theory bear the burden of arguing against the most obvious explanation. As this is the case, it is not reasonable to rob Smith of the credit for writing the book just yet. It is, contrariwise, perfectly within bounds to use him as an example of an author of an ancient American romance.

[_marg]

We know for a fact Spalding had an interest in writing. He wrote for many years stories which while in progress he read to many people, family, friends, neighbours, business associates. We have a copy in his handwriting of some of his work including and ancient romance. There is no equivalent evidence that Smith had any interest in story writing before Book of Mormon publication, in fact it was the opposite. The creation of the Book of Mormon, the facts surrounding it, the time period involved in it's production, is more in line with him and others copying some work than it is in creating the work pretty much from scratch since no one was aware of him writing in his spare time.

Every novel writer has a first novel. Not a few write a first novel when they have not written anything significant before.

Yes but we are dealing other facts which must be taken into consideration as well. I would say typically a writer shows an interest previous to writing as well as reading. They show a natural interest or inclination in that area. Smith showed none. In fact he had little interest in school previous to the Book of Mormon, in writing or in reading.

Most evidence points to Joseph Smith being the writer or (for the faithful) translator of the Book of Mormon. The only significant challenge to that view is the Spalding theory. Still, those who argue in favor of the Spalding theory bear the burden of arguing against the most obvious explanation. As this is the case, it is not reasonable to rob Smith of the credit for writing the book just yet. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to use him as an example of someone who wrote and ancient American romance.

As to your first sentence, I disagree. When you have looked at and objectively evaluated all the data most evidence points to a Spalding Rigdon involvement primarily.

As far a burden goes, we are not in court. in my opinion the burden has already been met. As I pointed out previously it is much easier to assume Smith wrote it. "Easier" doesn't correlate with truth. It is much harder to gather, evaluate and look at the vast additional facts involved with the spalding theory, and quite frankly I think few people do, and the majority of people don't care. I myself only care to a certain extent. Sure i've read information off the net, read Vanick's book, even printed out vast numbers of pages from the net but in the scheme of things because there is so much information, I'm not willing to commit to memory all of it, nor to waste vaste amounts of time thinking about this or arguing about it either. But I will say, having spent a fair amount of time, it is the most plausible theory currently available. It is not highly plausible that Smith not a noted writer dictated day after day without revision a complicated storyline involving lots of details. The spalding theory has the author, an author with an interest in ancient history, has witnesses who noted his interest and noted he had written such a book. Those witness are highly credible as they had absolutely no reason to lie, nothing to gain from making up their testimonies. Rigdon another player again also had an interest in history, well educated, interest in reading & writing, interest in religion. It simply is unrealistic to think that one man day after day dictated I believe at the rate of 6 pgs per day without notes, draft, some sort of outline. And this man -Smith previously gave no inkling he wanted to write or even could write, to family friends and neighbours. by the way I've spent too much time today on the computer and must leave it for today as far as posting.

[_jhammel]

Hi Trevor,

I've never had much of an issue with people wondering if the witnesses to Spalding's writings might have conflated memories of those writings with material in the Book of Mormon. I think it's perfectly reasonable to construct and speculate on possible scenarios by which the Conneaut witnesses and other made their statements, yet their statements not be accurate. Conflated memories (particularly if suggested by Hurlbut or other interviewers) and outright dishonesty on the part of the witnesses, interviewers, or reporters should be considered and are real possibilities. I ponder them too.

My issue is that such speculations are sometimes brought up as a reason to dismiss the statements altogether, as if they are almost proven inaccurate. I think it is unwise for someone to read the Conneaut witnesses and Spalding family statements and instantly accept them as truth and I cringe somewhat when I see an insistent Spalding authorship argument based on those alone, but I think it's also unwise to dismiss them simply because they could conceivably be based on conflated memories. by the way, I don't think you are doing or suggesting such a dismissal - I'm just commenting on my perception of how I have seen this issue treated in some cases.

To summarize, my view on the conflated memories is that it is a plausible explanation for the witnesses' statements, but another plausible explanation is that their memories are generally correct. I do tend to see the witnesses' statements as part of a bigger picture of evidence in support of Spalding authorship, but I'll definitely grant the possibility of their inaccuracy for reasons possibly intentional or not.

Jeff

[_jhammel]

We know for a fact Spalding had an interest in writing. He wrote for many years stories which while in progress he read to many people, family, friends, neighbours, business associates. We have a copy in his handwriting of some of his work including and ancient romance. There is no equivalent evidence that Smith had any interest in story writing before Book of Mormon publication, in fact it was the opposite. The creation of the Book of Mormon, the facts surrounding it, the time period involved in it's production, is more in line with him and others copying some work than it is in creating the work pretty much from scratch since no one was aware of him writing in his spare time.

Every novel writer has a first novel. Not a few write a first novel when they have not written anything significant before.

Most evidence points to Joseph Smith being the writer or (for the faithful) translator of the Book of Mormon. The only significant challenge to that view is the Spalding theory. Still, those who argue in favor of the Spalding theory bear the burden of arguing against the most obvious explanation. As this is the case, it is not reasonable to rob Smith of the credit for writing the book just yet. It is, contrariwise, perfectly within bounds to use him as an example of an author of an ancient American romance.

I would disagree (now) that most evidence points to Smith as the author. Rather for me, I would describe my studies in this way: all the initial evidence I saw pointed to Smith as the author, but most of that was based on the most obvious of circumstances. I mean, he was the only one who seemingly got or wanted any credit for it, and it was he who was the prophet of the church from the beginning, and he was seemingly intimately involved in and physically close to Book of Mormon translation from day 1 to the end, unlike anyone else. Those were some of the first things I learned, long before ever hearing of Spalding. That certainly made Smith the prime candidate in my mind to be its author early on in my investigations. But at some point, after seeing more evidence, I formed a different opinion of what was more likely, and in my own estimation it is very much evidence-based, and I now think the evidence is more in favor of multiple authorship (including Spalding and Rigdon, and perhaps with Smith only in a minor role) than of primarily Smith authorship.

So for me, the Spalding evidence won out (or let's say is currently winning) over my first impressions. It probably is true that most new investigators on the scene would also form an early impression that Smith wrote the book, so I see your point about burden of proof, though I would modify your point in practice to say that for most investigators the Spalding evidence has to overcome a more likely initial belief in Smith authorship in order to be convincing or even just tip the scales in its favor. But if I were an investigator who happened to stumble upon certain sources first, I may never form that first impression about Smith authorship. For example, if I first encountered the Book of Mormon through a study of Sidney Rigdon by someone who believed in Rigdon authorship, I might read about how Rigdon obtained a Spalding manuscript and authored the Book of Mormon, using Joseph Smith as a means to bring it forth to the world without bringing suspicion upon himself. Now that in itself might not be convincing to everyone, but I'm sure at least some people's first impressions might hardly involve Smith authorship at all and would focus largely on the motives and means that Rigdon had for producing the Book of Mormon. Smith authorship might be a starting point for some, but I can imagine that in some cases it may not be. I'm wondering too if more published studies of Rigdon might produce a different distribution of first impressions on the matter. I don't know if that will happen - just wonderin'.

Jeff

[_marg]

Regarding burden of proof for myself it doesn't automatically rest with Smith that he is presumed to have written the Book of Mormon and never did. If how the book was produced wasn't so "fishy" then I probably could have accepted Smith as the author. If the Book of Mormon had taken him a reasonable amount of time to dictate, if there were no obvious cons being presented such as seer stones, head in the hat type stuff. If he had sat down with Oliver and dictated and credible independent witnesses observed this and later it was verified to be the same as in the final version then I would agree burden of proof would rest with critics while Smith was presumed to be sole or primary author. But one doesn't accept an established con artist's version of events and his accomplices without a high degree of skepticism.

[_jhammel]

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.

Yep, Ray. I think you are correct.

It seems that in those days, of my time devoted to the subject, I spent about 85% thinking and reading about it, 10% doing 'on the ground' research in old libraries and special collections, and about 5% communicating with others online about it.

Now, I'd place that at about 95%, 4%, and 1% (maybe 2% after the last 2 days), respectively, though my overall time spent with it has been cut drastically. I'm in Ohio, and with the exception of the Romney campaign and a couple missionaries knocking on our door a couple months ago, I probably wouldn't ever be exposed to Mormonism outside my own motivation, so I think I have naturally lost some interest as time has moved on. Before I had many more Mormon acquaintances through some work connections. I was also single then, married now, which explains a lot less time spent on just about everything from the past.

Anyhow, I hope you are well, and I'm also listening to anything you and other folks have to say - even though I go through long periods without ever saying anything myself.

Jeff

[_Trevor]

Yes but we are dealing other facts which must be taken into consideration as well. I would say typically a writer shows an interest previous to writing as well as reading. They show a natural interest or inclination in that area. Smith showed none. In fact he had little interest in school previous to the Book of Mormon, in writing or in reading.

Joseph shows the precise literary interest one would expect from the author of the Book of Mormon. He was a deeply reflective student of the Bible, and he was a talented storyteller. I think you underestimate the extent of his qualifications to author the Book of Mormon. I am not surprised, since those who emphasize the miraculous nature of the Book of Mormon and those who support the Spalding theory seem predisposed to do so.

As to your first sentence, I disagree. When you have looked at and objectively evaluated all the data most evidence points to a Spalding Rigdon involvement primarily.

Funny how I have managed to read the Vanick book, have spent much time with Uncle Dale's material, and I still don't agree with you. And believe me, I have no problem with the idea that someone else wrote the Book of Mormon. I simply need better evidence before I'm convinced.

As far a burden goes, we are not in court. in my opinion the burden has already been met. As I pointed out previously it is much easier to assume Smith wrote it. "Easier" doesn't correlate with truth. It is much harder to gather, evaluate and look at the vast additional facts involved with the spalding theory, and quite frankly I think few people do, and the majority of people don't care.

You might be surprised, with your vast experience in academia, to find that scholars also think in terms of the burden of proof. It is a handy intellectual tool. Also, the principle of lectio difficilior is much more useful in textual criticism than it is in history. In other words, the less likely scenario is not preferred for being less likely in history. I know you think Smith's authorship is the less likely scenario, but it really is not. It is the most obvious explanation.

Those witness are highly credible as they had absolutely no reason to lie, nothing to gain from making up their testimonies. Rigdon another player again also had an interest in history, well educated, interest in reading & writing, interest in religion. It simply is unrealistic to think that one man day after day dictated I believe at the rate of 6 pgs per day without notes, draft, some sort of outline. And this man -Smith previously gave no inkling he wanted to write or even could write, to family friends and neighbours. by the way I've spent too much time today on the computer and must leave it for today as far as posting.

A witness may deeply believe something happened, have no reason to lie, and still misremember. Whole groups of people may trade in a false memory, like the memory of Gore's claim to have invented the internet, because it seems to accord so well with what we know and want to believe. This is precisely the kind of thing I am talking about with the Spalding witnesses. If Spalding didn't write the Book of Mormon, he should have, based on what we know of him and Joseph Smith. Unfortunately, that doesn't make it true.

[_jhammel]

Regarding burden of proof for myself it doesn't automatically rest with Smith and never did. If how the book was produced wasn't so "fishy" then I probably could have accepted Smith as the author. If the Book of Mormon had taken him a reasonable amount of time to dictate, if there were no obvious cons being presented such as seer stones, head in the hat type stuff. If he had sat down with Oliver and dictated and credible independent witnesses observed this and later it was verified to be the same as in the final version then I would agree burden of proof would rest with Smith as sole or primary author. But one doesn't accept an established con artist's version of events and his accomplices without a high degree of skepticism so high that no burden of proof should be given them.

Hi Marg,

just curious - I'm wondering by reading your post if your initial impression was some sort of con that likely involved more than Smith (maybe w/ Oliver or others) and then you updated that to include Spalding and Rigdon, too, after learning about them? or were you exposed to a Spalding/Rigdon explanation from the beginning? I'm not asking becasue I think it matters to anything - it really is just out of curiosity. (Hmmm, I'm sensing some chiasmus in my e-mail.)

Jeff