DiscussMormonism.com

why me wrote:And again, social pressures can work only until no one separates themselves from such pressures. And in this case, the main so-called conspirators did separate themselves from the social pressure.

Not so. A few of the so-called conspirators made attempts to reform the Church from within and got themselves excommunicated for it, but they were still a fairly tightly-knit group. It's possible that if one of the Whitmers had denied his testimony after their excommunication, the others would have followed suit. But the power of family pride and solidarity to prevent that should not be underestimated. Moreover, notice that I'm saying they "conspired" to keep certain inconsistencies and embarrassing facts out of the public eye for the simple reason that they really did believe in the Church, and they really were happy there. I'm absolutely not saying that they conspired to create the Book of Mormon, which would be fraud of a different kind and on a different level.

The end result of Joseph Smith's supposed imagination was his death and up to that time, persecution. Any fraudster would have to have balls of steel to keep it all going. It really wasn't worth the suffering.

Do you really think it would have gone better for Joseph if, on the way to Carthage Jail, he had announced, "Surprise everyone, I was just kidding about that whole Book of Mormon thing. I banged all those women because I'm a sex-fiend, and I've been duping all you poor sods out of your money for the last fifteen years. Now I'll be exonerated and my life will be spared, right?" He'd have been shot by a Mormon mob, if the locals hadn't still gotten to him first.

-Chris

CaliforniaKid wrote:...
This makes the most sense if Cowdery was originally supposed to have been the spokesman.
...

Well, like I said, I know of no instance where Oliver claimed that title -- while Sidney certainly did.
Had D&C sect. 100 spoken of Oliver as being the "spokesman," then I might be more open to
the notion that he was being groomed for that role. But Rigdon is the one this identified. I think
that is why most faithful LDS naturally tie Rigdon to the Nephi prophecy --- the "standard works"
are supposed to agree on such important points.

By the way, sect. 100 dates to Oct. 1833, when Smith and Rigdon were tracking D. P. Hurlbut
on Hurlbut's eastward journey to Palmyra, etc. At Buffalo Smith and Rigdon broke off the chase
and instead went north to Canada. Cowdery went on eastward to Canandaigua, to arrange
for the delivery of a printing press to Kirtland. He also visited his brother, Lyman, who by then
had moved to Manchester and lived next to the Stafford family -- within walking distance of
the old Smith residence. Thus Oliver was in Manchester at the same time Hurlbut was poking
around in that same vicinity.

Rigdon was the eloquent spokesman, delivering missionary sermons at Smith's side -- while
Oliver played the low snoop, hiding in the bushes and shadowing Hurlbut.

Notice the remark from Oliver's Ohio neighbors, in the article I posted for Why-Me:
"Oliver... had no gift for public speaking" -- I agree.

UD

Roger wrote:You touched on plagairism, but only briefly. You mentioned Vogel... I'm pretty sure Vogel sees the evidence for plagiarism from VOTH as valid (and probably other sources too although I am not sure about that).

Dan periodically quotes from Ethan Smith to illustrate the Moundbuilder myth from which he and I both believe Joseph Smith drew, but I have not seen him argue for direct plagiarism from Smith's book. I would be very surprised if he held that view. More likely, the Moundbuilder myth was simply "in the air" in upstate New York in the 1820's, perhaps particularly among the money-diggers who saw the great mounds as vast storehouses of ancient Indian coins and treasures. The views Ethan Smith expressed in his 1823 book were hardly unique.

I am surprised that you would disagree.... so can you please clarify... do you reject the notion that Smith plagiarized from any source other than the KJB?

I certainly believe that Smith borrowed ideas from his environment, and that he in some cases may even have plagiarized wholesale certain stories that he had heard or scenes that he had seen (like his father's dream, a frontier camp meeting, and perhaps sermons he had heard on such topics as salvation and natural theology). But I am not of the opinion that he did a lot of copying out of books besides the Bible, no.

One difference between the Bible and View of the Hebrews as far as plagiarism goes is that there are very lengthy, substantial, word-for-word passages from the Bible that are replicated in the Book of Mormon, whereas with View of the Hebrews what we get are some very broad conceptual and thematic similarities that I don't find terribly persuasive.

Perhaps an even more important difference is that we know for a fact that Joseph Smith owned and read the Bible-- he tells us as much himself-- but we do not know that he had read View of the Hebrews, or that it is really even plausible he might have done so. Ben is exactly right when he describes the normal method historians follow in assessing the value of parallels. If it cannot be established from historical evidence that an author was exposed to a particular work, then any parallels to that work are seriously in question. This is as true for scholars trying to establish Luther's dependence on Wyclif as for those attempting to show Joseph's dependence on Ethan. As a trained and practicing historian, I can tell you from experience that this sort of methodological safeguard exists for good reason.

Also... if one is genuinely skeptical of Smith and genuinely rejects the official version, then I think one has to honestly figure out how to deal with the S/R witnesses. How do you handle them? All of them had faulty memories? Hurlbut implanted false memories in their brains? They were out and out lying?

I believe that the witnesses did see some broad parallels between the Spalding story and the Book of Mormon-- because of course there are some-- but that, having once made the connection, their memories supplied details that were not true. Did your parents ever tell you a story about something you did when you were little, or perhaps show you picture of it, that you didn't remember at the time they told you but subsequently remembered thereafter? This is called a false memory. It is manufactured-- not deliberately, mind you, but by the subtle power of suggestion. (As an aside, this may be part of how Smith altered his associates' memories of early Mormon events.) Law enforcement officers and judges are very well-aware of this problem, which is endemic in criminal investigations. Studies have show that eyewitnesses to crimes are extremely unreliable and tremendously susceptible to suggestion. Here's a video about it if you want to know more.

As to Ben's nonsense (sorry but that's the way I see it), Ben is a believer and has a strong incentive to not see parallels that are actually parallels. If you are truly a skeptic, then you should have no reason to turn a blind eye to parallels--if they are genuinely parallels...

Actually, the true skeptic should be the first to feel skepticism about such claims, no? :-)

Now if Rigdon & a Spalding ms had nothing to do with Smith's construction of the Book of Mormon, aren't you at least willing to admit that it's a pretty amazing coincidence that Smith would write a discovery narrative in 1838 with striking similarities to a narrative written by the very guy people had already been associating with the Book of Mormon since 1833? That doesn't strike you as just a little wierd?

Not really. I actually don't consider the parallels all that striking, either. The most impressive parallel between the two works is in the manner of Joseph's discovery of the plates and the manner of Spalding's reported discovery of his Roman manuscript: prying the lid off a stone box. But this is commonplace stuff in the treasure-lore of upstate New York, so there's certainly no need for Smith to have modeled his tale of finding the plates on a stolen manuscript.

-Chris

Chris:

Dan periodically quotes from Ethan Smith to illustrate the Moundbuilder myth from which he and I both believe Joseph Smith drew, but I have not seen him argue for direct plagiarism from Smith's book.

Well then maybe that's true. Dan made a few posts here a while back but I never saw any clarification by him on this one way or another.

I would be very surprised if he held that view. More likely, the Moundbuilder myth was simply "in the air" in upstate New York in the 1820's, perhaps particularly among the money-diggers who saw the great mounds as vast storehouses of ancient Indian coins and treasures. The views Ethan Smith expressed in his 1823 book were hardly unique.

It would be interesting to find out, nevertheless, I assume the above is your view?

I certainly believe that Smith borrowed ideas from his environment, and that he in some cases may even have plagiarized wholesale certain stories that he had heard or scenes that he had seen (like his father's dream, a frontier camp meeting, and perhaps sermons he had heard on such topics as salvation and natural theology). But I am not of the opinion that he did a lot of copying out of books besides the Bible, no.

Well, I will grant that that is rational, however, the boundary you draw with the Bible seems, to me, arbitrary. If you truly grant that Smith--or somebody--copied words from the KJB (and unless Smith had an amazing memory I think the evidence for that is undeniable)--then you sacrifice the eyewitness testimony in the process that has Smith dictating every word. Once you open that door, it seems arbitrary for you to then say that he--or somebody--couldn't have done the same thing with any other book. Agreed?

Even if Smith did have a remarkable memory and he quoted the Bible using it, he still could have employed the same technique when plagiarizing from any other source.

So in my view, once you open the door to plagiarism of any kind, you open the door to plagiarism of the one source people claimed was indeed used from nearly the beginning of Mormonism.

One difference between the Bible and View of the Hebrews as far as plagiarism goes is that there are very lengthy, substantial, word-for-word passages from the Bible that are replicated in the Book of Mormon, whereas with View of the Hebrews what we get are some very broad conceptual and thematic similarities that I don't find terribly persuasive.

And there is an obvious reason for that--the sections taken from the Bible are alleged quotes(!) which, of course, gives the author the freedom to quote verbatim. The concept was a beautiful ploy to quickly fill pages after the 116 page loss. It would have worked better, had Smith--or somebody--not copied sections of the KJB where King James' translators actually made identifiable grammatical errors which subsequently found their way into the Book of Mormon.

Perhaps an even more important difference is that we know for a fact that Joseph Smith owned and read the Bible-- he tells us as much himself-- but we do not know that he had read View of the Hebrews, or that it is really even plausible he might have done so.

Correct! However, I believe there is evidence that Spalding knew Ethan Smith! Another "coincidence" I suppose.

Ben is exactly right when he describes the normal method historians follow in assessing the value of parallels. If it cannot be established from historical evidence that an author was exposed to a particular work, then any parallels to that work are seriously in question.

Well maybe so, but parallels, for pete's sake, are either parallels or not. Question them all you want. Apply whatever historian's caution you want. Parallels are parallels.

This is as true for scholars trying to establish Luther's dependence on Wyclif as for those attempting to show Joseph's dependence on Ethan.

Again, there is no need to "show Joseph's dependence on Ethan" if Spalding knew him and shared his beliefs.

As a trained and practicing historian, I can tell you from experience that this sort of methodological safeguard exists for good reason.

I suppose you are right about that, but there is a time for common sense. If Joseph Smith--or somebody--did make use of various other sources in constructing the Book of Mormon how likely would it be that we would find a confession? I dare suggest that Luther's literary exposures would be easier to establish than those of an 1828-29 Joseph Smith!

Nonetheless, are you willing to grant that Smith was "exposed" to Emmanuel Swedenborg?

Also, have you taken a look at Donofrio's work in relation to Spalding's dependance on sources like Mercy Otis Warren? Do you see warrant to Donofrio's conclusions when it comes to Spalding borrowing from other sources?

I believe that the witnesses did see some broad parallels between the Spalding story and the Book of Mormon-- because of course there are some-- but that, having once made the connection, their memories supplied details that were not true. Did your parents ever tell you a story about something you did when you were little, or perhaps show you picture of it, that you didn't remember at the time they told you but subsequently remembered thereafter? This is called a false memory. It is manufactured-- not deliberately, mind you, but by the subtle power of suggestion.

Appealing to my personal experience is not going to work because I have my own experience that directly mirrors that of the Conneaut witnesses.

In the first place your example doesn't work because the memory of a child is different from that of an adult or even an adolescent.

In the second place, as I have stated elsewhere, I read two novels when I was in my teens--about the time I graduated from High school. (Over 25 years ago). They were fictional novels but based on a Second World War setting. One was a sequel to the other. I read them both through once and then started to reread the first but got bored with it and put it down and never touched them again. Remembering those novels during a discussion like this one on Spalding, I decided to test my memory by seeing how many names I could recall from those novels I hadn't touched in over twenty five years. I hit the nail on the head for all of the main characters and remembered a few of the secondary characters.

There were certainly a few names I forgot, but--here's the kicker--it only took briefly glancing at the novels again for a flood of details to come back. This is exactly what the Conneaut witnesses claim happened to them. We hear them claiming things like 'Having recently read the Book of Mormon brings these memories fresh to my mind.' This is exactly my own personal experience. LDS apologists have been allowed to get away with the argument that these people were too far removed to remember the names they claim to remember or that Hurlbut was implanting these names in their minds that they actually never read. I'm sorry but that is just bogus. No one could have convinced me that the lead character in the novels I read 25+ years ago was anything other than Captain (and later Admiral) "Pug" Henry. No one could have convinced me that maybe his name was really Frank Jones. The idea that Hurlbut got a bunch of people--and not just any people but people who legitimately knew Spalding--to remember false names of people they claim were the lead characters in a story they read or heard read many times is simply ludicrous. And then that more unsolicited but supporting testimony would continue to come forth over the next 50 years clinches it.

I simply do not accept the notion that Hurlbut manipulated these people to the extent that they ALL remembered false names and stood by those claims with comments like "I well remember." That idea simply does not stand to reason. The only other possibility is that they were all patent liars. That too seems equally unlikely.

So what does that leave us with... the notion that, by george, could they have actually been telling the truth?

(As an aside, this may be part of how Smith altered his associates' memories of early Mormon events.) Law enforcement officers and judges are very well-aware of this problem, which is endemic in criminal investigations. Studies have show that eyewitnesses to crimes are extremely unreliable and tremendously susceptible to suggestion. Here's a video about it if you want to know more.

Of course that may be true... it probably is. But we're talking about something completely different here. We're talking about a group of people remembering names and other details from a manuscript that was read to them and that they read on many occasions as a means of entertainment. There was no trauma involved. This was not a test, it was amusement. It was voluntarily and willfully engaged in. There is a world of difference.

Actually, the true skeptic should be the first to feel skepticism about such claims, no? :-)

Not to the point of being blind. You yourself admit to "parallels" ...well, parallels are parallels regardless of how "striking" they appear. And when it comes to the Book of Mormon there is a limited number of possibilities. You agree with me that there were no plates with reformed Egyptian writing on them. The only question then, is whether the available evidence points to Smith producing the text on his own or, as Dale says, multiple authors.

Not really. I actually don't consider the parallels all that striking, either. The most impressive parallel between the two works is in the manner of Joseph's discovery of the plates and the manner of Spalding's reported discovery of his Roman manuscript: prying the lid off a stone box. But this is commonplace stuff in the treasure-lore of upstate New York, so there's certainly no need for Smith to have modeled his tale of finding the plates on a stolen manuscript.

Of course not, so why would there be ANY parallels at all? Look you are not a Mormon, so you agree with me that there were never any plates with ancient writing on them that had been buried for centuries in a hill. You have to agree with me that Smiths' story was made up... it did not happen. Maybe he's incorporating elements of a treasure dig into his official discovery narrative, but either way, he is free to produce whatever false discovery narrative he thinks will best suit his needs.

Why then are there parallels to a Spalding ms at all?

If Smith's discovery narrative is later found to parallel a treasure hunting narrative from Joe Schmo then, maybe he borrowed from Schmo or maybe they both employed similar phraseology, but why would we find a very similar discovery narrative with more than one parallel in terms of location, method, chronology and the material being discovered between something Smith wrote in 1838 and something a guy wrote before 1816 who had already been associated with Smith/Book of Mormon for years prior to 1838? Even if you are correct, and there was no connection between them, that is a wierd coincidence. And the thing is, that's not the only one.

Roger,

We probably are not going to make much more progress here, so I'll try to be brief and just hit on the things I think are important.

Roger wrote:

the Moundbuilder myth was simply "in the air" in upstate New York in the 1820's, perhaps particularly among the money-diggers who saw the great mounds as vast storehouses of ancient Indian coins and treasures. The views Ethan Smith expressed in his 1823 book were hardly unique.

It would be interesting to find out, nevertheless, I assume the above is your view?

Yes.

Well, I will grant that that is rational, however, the boundary you draw with the Bible seems, to me, arbitrary. If you truly grant that Smith--or somebody--copied words from the KJB (and unless Smith had an amazing memory I think the evidence for that is undeniable)--then you sacrifice the eyewitness testimony in the process that has Smith dictating every word. Once you open that door, it seems arbitrary for you to then say that he--or somebody--couldn't have done the same thing with any other book. Agreed?

I think that Joseph sitting there with a Spalding manuscript dictating word-for-word what's written on the manuscript is rather different than him periodically whipping out a Bible to consult it for lengthy quotations. The former would have raised more red flags in the minds of his scribes and observers than the latter, which could be justified by saying that he was just using it for convenience. Moreover, I still do think that Smith dictated every word. Given the subtle changes to italicized portions of Isaiah and other KJV passages, I think Smith would have to have been dictating or directing precisely what was being written here, even if he is doing so with reference to a printed Bible. (I don't rule out the possibility of memorization, either, though it strikes me as unlikely.)

However, my point is not that Joseph can't have done the same thing with some other work. My point is that there is little or no good reason to hypothesize that he did.

And there is an obvious reason for that--the sections taken from the Bible are alleged quotes(!) which, of course, gives the author the freedom to quote verbatim.

I agree, which may be why this didn't raise red flags for the scribes. However, there are a lot of shorter Bible passages that show up in the Book of Mormon that aren't explicitly represented as quotes, as well. These may have been memorized, either consciously or unconsciously.

The concept was a beautiful ploy to quickly fill pages after the 116 page loss.

Yes, the Tanners may be on to something there... although I have to point out that lengthy Bible passages are reproduced in other parts of the Book of Mormon, as well... most notably the Sermon on the Mount.

Correct! However, I believe there is evidence that Spalding knew Ethan Smith! Another "coincidence" I suppose.

I've not seen convincing evidence of that. However, if they were somehow acquainted, then yes, I would consider it coincidental. It was a smaller world back then.

I dare suggest that Luther's literary exposures would be easier to establish than those of an 1828-29 Joseph Smith!

The plausibility of the exposure has not even been established to my satisfaction, let alone the likelihood of it.

Nonetheless, are you willing to grant that Smith was "exposed" to Emmanuel Swedenborg?

No. The evidence I've seen suggests that someone described a few of Swedenborg's teachings to Smith once at Nauvoo and solicited comment on them, and Smith commented favorably. But even the few descriptions that were given were largely incorrect.

Also, have you taken a look at Donofrio's work in relation to Spalding's dependance on sources like Mercy Otis Warren? Do you see warrant to Donofrio's conclusions when it comes to Spalding borrowing from other sources?

I recall thinking that his connections between Spalding and Warren were stronger than between the Book of Mormon and Warren, though I didn't look over them that carefully and don't have time at the moment to revisit them.

The idea that Hurlbut got a bunch of people--and not just any people but people who legitimately knew Spalding--to remember false names of people they claim were the lead characters in a story they read or heard read many times is simply ludicrous.

It isn't ludicrous.

You gave the example of books that you had read carefully and enjoyed. They impacted you, and you remembered the names well. Hurlbut's witnesses do not seem to have read Spalding's manuscript carefully-- or at all, in some cases. And even if they had read it, it's not exactly compelling fiction. I remember the names of the characters in my favorite book. But mediocre books that I read 3 or 4 years ago are another matter. There are many books and movies that I remember virtually nothing about, though if you suggested a name or two you could probably convince me that yes, I remember now, I do believe that's right, his name was Nephi...

I will say that you have a remarkable memory if you remember fictional names from twenty-five years ago. I remember the names of exactly 2 of my elementary school teachers, and exactly one of my junior high teachers. And I'm only twenty-four years old, so it's not like this was that long ago for me. I suspect that most people do not have your memory for details.

Well maybe so, but parallels, for pete's sake, are either parallels or not. Question them all you want. Apply whatever historian's caution you want. Parallels are parallels.

...You yourself admit to "parallels" ...well, parallels are parallels regardless of how "striking" they appear.

Don't be silly. The issue is not whether there are parallels. The issue is what the parallels mean. Do they indicate plagiarism? Coincidence? Common sources? Sorry to break it to you, but in these kinds of judgments, how "striking" they are is exactly what makes or breaks your case.

Of course not, so why would there be ANY parallels at all?

I could find parallels between Marilyn Monroe and Mother Theresa if I wanted to. And any parallels I found would prove exactly nothing.

-Chris

Roger,

I wasn't kidding about the parallels between Uto-Aztecan and Hebrew or the Anthon Transcript and Demotic. They're quite impressive. Non-LDS Egyptologist Richard Parker agreed with Crowley that the transcript's character's are Egyptian, though he felt they were closer to Meroitic than Demotic. He told Richard Bushman that he thinks Joseph Smith must have copied them out of some book. I'm very much inclined to think that there is enough flexibility in Demotic to accommodate most of the random scribblings along these lines that you could come up with, but I can see why someone who hasn't done a lot of comparative study would think there's something here that demands explanation. Perhaps instead of the Spalding manuscript we should be looking for a book that contains these particular characters...

-Chris

CaliforniaKid wrote:Roger,

We probably are not going to make much more progress here...

However, my point is not that Joseph can't have done the same thing with some other work.
My point is that there is little or no good reason to hypothesize that he did....

And yet -- without a hypothesis in mind, it becomes very difficult to conduct useful research and
to direct investigations along potentially fruitful paths.

If "progress" is not made by discussion, then at the very least such discussion can differentiate
and articulate various hypotheses, which in turn can be tested, verified or invalidated.

The question is -- Will anybody even be interested in such an approach? Does it have any purpose?
Is there anything to be gained in our understanding more fully what went on in the past, and
particularly what the circumstances surrounding the compilation fo the Book of Mormon were?

My answer is -- That for 90% of the people generally interested in Mormonism (the Saints themselves)
there is no value in such research and reporting -- other than to occasionally confirm Mormonism itself.

For the other 10% -- the Evangelical Christians who are trying to convert Mormons; the opponents
of powerful religio-political institutions; the unhappy ex-Mormons; and the disinterested observers,
there is also little value placed in any such investigations. Most of these people can get along with
a hazy explanation of Mormon origins, because their primary interest lies in subsequent developments,
no matter where the book and religion came from.

That leaves a very small remnant, from out of the entire population of people interested in Mormonism,
who might actually be curious to find out how the whole thing started and why it succeeded.

And -- among that tiny fragment of interested persons, a certain percentage of the students of
Mormonism are content to see the religion as a benign phenomenon -- an organization of "peculiar,"
and yet harmless people, who have practically no significant impact upon modern society. For those
students of the Mormon past, it is a very convenient modern paradigm to attribute the entire
phenomenon to the inner workings of Joseph Smith's mind -- to the curious utterances of his tongue.
That paradigm greatly simplifies explanations of how Mormonism originated and why it is benign --
that it was never a conspiracy -- never a program to accomplish anything beyond saving human souls.

Having accounted for 99.99% of all persons interested in Mormonism, we see that they have no stake
in conducting additional studies to try and determine the exact nature of Mormon origins. They have
no need to determine whether the phenomenon can be attributed to any source greater than the
mind of a single man.

That leaves the other 0.01% of us -- those of us who are very interested in researching Mormon origins,
because we believe that there is value in accounting for more of the early history -- that there is value
in determining whether the phenomenon is the product of a single mind, or the product of a conspiracy.

If it can be shown to be the latter -- the product of a conspiracy -- then that fact becomes THE PRIMARY
CONSIDERATION in assessing the nature and consequences of the spread and growth of Mormonism.
If the movement was a secret conspiracy at its inception, then very likely it has continued to develop as
a secretive organization, dedicated to something more than simply sending saved souls to heaven.

I, for one, support intensive additional research into the context and content of incipient Mormonism --
into the religion's earliest texts, as well as into the lives of its earliest prominent members.

It's a lonely road -- but the same can be said for the explorations of any trail-breaker. The pioneer must
always expect the disdain and disinterest of those who see no value in opening up new frontiers.

Uncle Dale

Uncle Dale wrote:...
the context and content of incipient Mormonism
...

So, the question might well be asked, "Why concentrate on Rigdon?"

If we take the trouble to examine "the context and content of incipient Mormonism,"
then why not devote an equal amount of our attention to Harris, Knight, Stowell, Whitney,
Patridge, Wight, Morley, the Whitmers, etc.? Why single out Sidney Rigdon for undue
"persecution?"

My first answer, is that every biographer of Rigdon somewhere offers the conclusion
that the man was a great influence upon early Mormonism -- that his contributions in
that regard have been under reported, neglected and forgotten. Of all the very early
prominent Mormons, Rigdon is the one for which a great deal of primary information
exists, from numerous early sources. Only Joseph Smith himself (and perhaps his mother)
offer a greater amount of historical information, to be located, studied and reported upon.

My second answer, is that Rigdon was singled out, almost from the very beginning,
as the probable writer of the Book of Mormon, and as the originator of Mormonism. In
looking at the very earliest reporting upon this topic, only Joseph Smith himself and
Oliver Cowdery are mentioned as possible alternative originator/authors. Both of those
two men's names appear in the book itself -- with Smith being credited there as "author."
Cowdery, on the other hand, was sometimes credited as the originator/author by people
who had either encountered him or knew something about him. Thus, of these three
earliest "suspects," Rigdon remains notable as a man pointed out by his contemporaries.
That early identification provides a reason for our at least considering his possible role.

My third answer, is that numerous observers have pointed out that the Book of Mormon
is full of practically unique "Campbellite" theology -- and, where that book's teachings on
religion deviate from Campbell's teachings, those differences always agree with the theology
preached by Sidney Rigdon, both before and after his Mormon conversion.

My fourth answer, is that the Mormon scriptures single out Rigdon as both a "spokesman"
for Joseph Smith, and as the man who prepared the way for the advent of Mormonism.
Rigdon himself, in later years, promoted himself as a unique leader among the Saints,
based upon these references to a "spokesman" and an innovator is the origin of Mormonism.

My fifth answer, is that various word-print studies generally agree that the Book of Mormon
contains the input "voices" of more than one author ---- and that the most recently published
of these various studies, points out specific chapters in the Book of Mormon where Rigdon's
"voice" is not only the primary candidate for authorship; it is also statistically so "strong" as
to be the only known viable candidate for authorship.

Of all of the above reasons for conducting further investigations on Rigdon's life and theological
writings, the one that I suppose my opponents will offer the least objection to, would be my
suggestion that we study the Book of Mormon for "Campbellite" and "Rigdonite" theologizing,
and report on the textual distribution of that material, along with the probable date of its
injection into the supposed narrative of the ancient Americans.

What is the worst that might happen, so far as my own efforts are concerned?

Perhaps it can be shown that there are no unique "Campbellite" religious teachings/practices
evident in the book --- that any such identified material was commonplace among religionists
who had no ties whatever to Campbell. If so, then let us at least have that discussion, and
make that determination.

If the Book of Mormon does not offer the same religion preached and predicted by Sidney
Rigdon, prior to the fall of 1830, then I will have to admit that Rigdon's candidacy as a
probable author is, unhappily, a "lost cause."

UD

Uncle Dale wrote:...
unique "Campbellite" religious teachings/practices evident in the book
...

One of the arguments once presented to me, in refutation of the S-R authorship theory,
is that, if Rigdon stole Spalding's writings to create a fake Bible in the 1810s, then why
does the Book of Mormon echo the "ancient gospel" method of Christian conversion --
a method only developed and put into practice after 1827?

The question is a good one -- for the Book of Mormon clearly advocated adult immersion
for the remission of sins -- a response to an immediate (or near immediate) conversion.

This tenet was not put into public practice until after 1827, when Elder Walter Scott
(an early follower of Alxander Campbell) "married" the recent innovation of an "altar call"
to the "five first principles of the gospel."

The "altar call" for an immediate baptism, logically only worked for believer adults --
it had no place in Calvinist Christianity, and began as an innovation among non-Calvinist
revivalists in the 1820s (with preachers like Barton Stone, Finney, etc.) However, even
among the Methodists, the "altar call" was not generally followed by an immediate baptism.
Instead, the Methodists would place the new convert in a "class," and instruct him or her
for a certain period of time, before accepting the convert into the Methodist church.

The idea of a newly minted convert simply standing up in the congregation, and professing
a conversion readying him/her eligible for immediate baptism, was something first put into
wide-scale practice by Elder Walter Scott, beginning in 1828. From Scott, the innovation
spread to Adamson Bentley and then to Sidney Rigdon. In practice, the "altar call" was
accompanied by the preaching of adult immersion for the remission of sins -- based upon
the new convert simply accepting the process. There was no need for Methodist classes,
nor for Calvinist "spiritual experience" examinations by the elders -- hundreds of new
converts could be "made Christians" in a single week. Even if they had been sprinkled as
infants -- even if they had been baptized as adults by a Calvinist or Methodist minister.

So -- if this tremendously important new tool for Christian conversion had only been put
into successful practice in the spring of 1828 -- how could Sidney Rigdon have written it
into a book Joseph Smith said he obtained in the fall of 1827???

That as my dilemma -- how to account for the "ancient gospel" (as Campbellites called
their 1828 innovation) in the 1827 Book of Mormon?

Why would Sidney Rigdon steal Campbell's writings in the 1810s, in anticipation of the
implementation of the "ancient gospel" mode of conversion, 18 years down the road?
It does not make sense.

If, on the other hand, the Book of Mormon began as what was essentially a non-religious
book -- an ancient record of Nephites and their buried treasures, etc. -- then the insertion
of the Campebllite "ancient gospel" into its pages could only have been carried out through
a conscience effort to Christianize and Campbellize the entire manuscript volume.

How could Sidney Rigdon have entered the picture, as late as, perhaps, the summer of 1828,
and directed Joseph Smith to insert the Campbellite "ancient gospel" into a complex
narrative, whose "translation" was already under way.

Without the "ancient gospel," Sidney Rigdon seemingly had no reason to desire (or need)
any new scripture for his pre-1828 Campbellite congregation(s). With the "ancient gospel,"
the process of writing and publishing the Book of Mormon (in a matter of a few months)
seems utterly impossible.

This was the dilemma offered to me, in refutation of the S-R authorship theory...
How was I to respond?

And, to further complicate matters, Dan Vogel offers the opinion that the Campbellite
practice of baptism for the remission of sins is NOT the tenet we find advocated and
practiced in the Book of Mormon. Vogel sees no evidence for the insertion of the
Campbellite practice into an already written (in Smith's head) Nephite record. Instead,
Vogel asserts that the various instances of baptism found in the Book of Mormon are
consistent -- probably based upon Peter's call to immersion for remission in the 2nd chapter
of acts -- and not agreeing with the Campbellite mode of confirmation.

So, is the entire argument for the injection of Campbellite/Rigdonite theologizing into
the Book of Mormon a "dead issue?" Are any similarities with Rigdon's and Campbell's
religion, simply creditable to the "common practice" of American Christians in the 1820s?

How can I best respond to these difficulties?

UD

Uncle Dale wrote:The pioneer must always expect the disdain and disinterest of those who see no value in opening up new frontiers.

You'll get no disdain from me. Your work has been tremendously valuable, regardless of whether I think it has largely been in pursuit of a mistaken hypothesis.