guy sajer wrote:The whole debacle of James Strang, where he too produced his "witnesses," ougt to be enough by itself to dispel any notion that such witnesses demonstrate the truth of anything.
This is new to me. Do you have a link where I can read more about this? Or would you care to give us the readers digest version?
You don't know the story of the Strangites, Scottie? Or do you mean the particulars of his witnesses?
“I testify in the presence of this congregation, and before God and all the Holy Angles 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 penned a sentence of the Book of Mormon. I never knew that 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 now is.”
Van Wagoner states that this was his stance until his deathbed, repeated by his children as well.
However, earlier in his book, Van Wagoner said, on pages 55, 56, and 61, that several witnesses stated that the publication of the “Golden Bible” was talked about quite a bit in the news, and that “there can be little doubt that Rigdon, an enthusiastic reader of newspapers, was aware of the book before it was placed in his hands.” Both Eliza Snow and Orson Hyde were members of Rigdon’s congregation, and stated that they had been aware of the oncoming “Golden Bible” and its possible religious significance in “breaking up all our religion, and change its whole features and bearing” before 1830. Rigdon’s brother in law stated in 1841 that he knew that Rigdon told him “there was a book coming out (the manuscript of which had been found engraved on gold plates) as much as two years before the Mormon book made its appearance in this county or had been heard of by me.”
Anyway, there are more statements on pages 55, 56, and 61 that demonstrate it is highly likely Rigdon knew about the Book of Mormon, and its possible impact, long before Parley P. Pratt placed it in his hands.
I think this is significant for two reasons:
1) Rigdon lied about when he first saw the Book of Mormon. There is a reason he lied. What would it matter if he had known about the book from newspaper accounts like so many others? It seems an odd thing to lie about.
2) Contemporary witnesses immediately suspected Rigdon was involved in the creation of the Book of Mormon. I think this is due to the similarity between the preaching in the Book of Mormon and what Rigdon had already been preaching – some of which is quite different than what smith would later embrace as theology.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
beastie wrote:On page 133, Van Wagoner quotes Rigdon:
1) Rigdon lied about when he first saw the Book of Mormon. There is a reason he lied. What would it matter if he had known about the book from newspaper accounts like so many others? It seems an odd thing to lie about. 2) Contemporary witnesses immediately suspected Rigdon was involved in the creation of the Book of Mormon. I think this is due to the similarity between the preaching in the Book of Mormon and what Rigdon had already been preaching – some of which is quite different than what smith would later embrace as theology.
Do you know if Alexander Campbell ever made this connection or claim? Campbell did a critique of the book and I do not recall that he ever claimed Rigdon as it author.
beastie wrote:On page 133, Van Wagoner quotes Rigdon:
1) Rigdon lied about when he first saw the Book of Mormon. There is a reason he lied. What would it matter if he had known about the book from newspaper accounts like so many others? It seems an odd thing to lie about. 2) Contemporary witnesses immediately suspected Rigdon was involved in the creation of the Book of Mormon. I think this is due to the similarity between the preaching in the Book of Mormon and what Rigdon had already been preaching – some of which is quite different than what smith would later embrace as theology.[/quote
Do you know if Alexander Campbell ever made this connection or claim? Campbell did a critique of the book and I do not recall that he ever claimed Rigdon as it author.
After writing the critique that you refer to, Campbell did embrace the Spalding/Rigdon theory.