Spalding-Rigdon Theory: Fatal flaws

[_Jersey Girl]

I don't discount all the spalding witnesses Trevor they are simply highly credible and there are too many to discount all of them. It would be too time consuming for me to elaborate in greater detail the evidence pertaining to the witnesses. One the one hand we have Smith and a few friends who come up with a highly unrealistic story, who are motivated to concoct such a story in order to sell a book. On the other hand we have Spalding witnesses who didn't seek out anyone to discredit Mormonism. Some missionaries happened to come into their town to sell the Book of Mormon and a few recognized it as essentially the same story their deceased friend had told them. With greater investigation other witnesses who were not interested in getting involved, they were sought out, and when questioned remembered part of the Book of Mormon being the same as Spalding's work. The investigation may not have been ideal by today's standards but these witnesses were intelligent obviously honest individuals and i simply can not discount all their testimonies and think they all had false memories.(Emphasis added)

Note the following:

Regarding Sidney Rigdon's alleged involvement, Rigdon's son John recounted an interview with his father in 1865:

My father, after I had finished saying what I have repeated above, looked at me a moment, raised his hand above his head and slowly said, with tears glistening in his eyes: "My son, I can swear before high heaven that what I have told you about the origin of [the Book of Mormon] is true. Your mother and sister, Mrs. Athalia Robinson, were present when that book was handed to me in Mentor, Ohio, and all I ever knew about the origin of [the Book of Mormon] was what Parley P. Pratt, Oliver Cowdery, Joseph Smith and the witnesses who claimed they saw the plates have told me, and in all of my intimacy with Joseph Smith he never told me but one story."

What would be the motivation for lying here, marg, on the part of Ridgon, or his son?

Ray,

The question that I posed to you regarding the motivation for selling the copyright of what was purported to be a sacred text came directly from the above exchanges between yourself and marg.

What would be the motivation for such thing?

[_Ray A]

The question that I posed to you regarding the motivation for selling the copyright of what was purported to be a sacred text came directly from the above exchanges between yourself and marg.

What would be the motivation for such thing?

I think Deconstructor gives a good summary of that: http://www.i4m.com/think/history/sell_BOM_copyright.htm

It still doesn't explain anything about the Spalding/Rigdon idea, nor how the Book of Mormon was really produced, and that was my point. There's no lying involved in this episode of the copyright, and Whitmer later used this to show how Joseph Smith could be deceived (especially in regard to his later revelations, which Whitmer rejected.)

[_Dr. Shades]

Here is another, counter question for the Spalding crowd. When did Joseph exhibit the ability to memorize and repeat long passages of text that he stole from other authors and passed off as his own?

He didn't need to memorize something he had right in front of him.

[_Trevor]

Take your pick.

Thanks, Ray. Of course, you now know which theory I favor. I also think it is the one that is more consistent with the possibility that Joseph Smith could have been sincere, whereas the Spalding-Rigdon theory basically requires conscious dishonesty. I can imagine, after all, that Joseph could compose the Book of Mormon in his mind and believe that he was receiving revelation, and in the very manner he describes. I don't think that the Spalding-Rigdon theory is impossible. I just find myself unconvinced by the evidence presented thus far.

[_Trevor]

He didn't need to memorize something he had right in front of him.

Granted, but I am waiting for the evidence that he did.

[_TAK]

Here is another, counter question for the Spalding crowd. When did Joseph exhibit the ability to memorize and repeat long passages of text that he stole from other authors and passed off as his own?

He didn't need to memorize something he had right in front of him.

Considering that a significant portion of the Book of Mormon was lifted nearly word for word from the New Testament .. its kinda foolish to assume Jos. Smith head was buried in a hat the whole time.

[_Trevor]

Considering that a significant portion of the Book of Mormon was lifted nearly word for word from the New Testament .. its kinda foolish to assume Jos. Smith head was buried in a hat the whole time.

Unless, of course, he had large portions of the Bible memorized, which is far from impossible. I get your point, however, and I think you have me there. It is not so much the volume of text as the nature of the differences between the Book of Mormon quotations of the Bible and the Bible itself. There is a clear pattern in the differences, which suggests a deliberate editing of a written text instead of a misremembering of some kind. It is a problem for my view.

[_jhammel]

What I said above was what I was trying to get at, not what you are saying here. I don't think their intimate familiarity with the Book of Mormon or lack thereof is the issue. It is instead the fact that the Book of Mormon was more widely known at that point, and it is also possible that in the process of questioning these witnesses, specific contents of the Book of Mormon were used to trigger memories. It is one thing to ask, "can you tell me about the Spalding writings?" and another to say, "here we have a book that contains "x." Do these contents remind you of Spalding's writings in any way?"

True, it would have been ideal to keep knowledge of 'x' in the Book of Mormon from the any witnesses of Spalding's writings prior to their being interviewed about Spalding's writings. To some degree that's not Hurlbut's fault since the witnesses had opportunity to be exposed to the Book of Mormon prior to his presence in the area and any of his interviews. But I also think that the content of the Conneaut statements strongly suggest that there was triggering going on, in part, during the interviews. Some of the similarities I think reveal that Hurlbut likely involved some pointed questions in his interviews that included specific characteristics of the Book of Mormon. And yes, pointed questions could have triggered memories about Spalding's writings. The disagreement I would probably have with you is with respect to an assessment of the likelihood that the triggered memories are false. But we carry different impressions of lots of other evidence into our focus of the Conneaut witnesses' statements, so I think our differing assessments on their degree of reliability isn't something we are going to reconcile here.

Here is another, counter question for the Spalding crowd. When did Joseph exhibit the ability to memorize and repeat long passages of text that he stole from other authors and passed off as his own?

If the uniqueness of the feat is to be the question, this is just as good a question as the ones you pose."

It's not uniqueness, but the seeming inconsistency with what would be expected of the person. Uniqueness itself doesn't imply such inconsistency (though non-uniqueness does help dispell notions of inconsistency), and unique circumstances can call for unique actions.

When it comes to producing the Book of Mormon, we are talking about an event that would have presumably required some level of literary interest, or knowledge, or skill. It might seem unusual for someone with reportedly poor levels to pull off something like the Book of Mormon on his own since it would demonstrate a seeming inconsistency. That makes the question of whether such reports exist relevant. It may be, however, that a clear picture of his abilities can't be determined.

With respect to your question, it would be likewise unusual for someone with a poor memory to accurately recite long passages from a source text with his head placed in a hat. The difficulty I'm having in assessing this, however, is that I don't really know how long the passages were that were recited or how accurate his reproduction had to be. Keep in mind that I view the head in the hat routine as something he only did on necessary occasions. Combine that with a reassurance from Joseph (possibly backed up by his scribe) that this was what was always happening, and I think Joseph could have convinced his audience of that without having to achieve fantastic feats of memorization. Then in private, if a source document was consulted directly, no memorization skills would be necessary at that time. Also, it seems reasonable to me that his words would not have to be an exact reproduction of the source text (since nobody would ever be able to check). And if the text dictated during such shows was scrapped in favor of the exact intended text later, it may be unlikely that small differences would be recalled by anyone. But even with that, an inquiry into Joseph's memorization abilities does seem to be of some relevance here since it might suggest limits on what his true abilities were and therefore render some versions of events highly unlikely. I'm suspicious though that a clear picture of his memorization abilities probably can't be determined either.

Sorry if anyone replies and I'm unable to address anything. must do work.

Jeff

[_Dr. Shades]

Of course, you now know which theory I favor. I also think it is the one that is more consistent with the possibility that Joseph Smith could have been sincere, whereas the Spalding-Rigdon theory basically requires conscious dishonesty.

Why is it so necessary for you to believe that Joseph was sincere?

Why are you so against a theory that requires conscious dishonesty?

He didn't need to memorize something he had right in front of him.

Granted, but I am waiting for the evidence that he did.

Here you go.

[_Trevor]

But I also think that the content of the Conneaut statements strongly suggest that there was triggering going on, in part, during the interviews. Some of the similarities I think reveal that Hurlbut likely involved some pointed questions in his interviews that included specific characteristics of the Book of Mormon. And yes, pointed questions could have triggered memories about Spalding's writings.

That is precisely what I was talking about, but you expressed it much better.

The disagreement I would probably have with you is with respect to an assessment of the likelihood that the triggered memories are false. But we carry different impressions of lots of other evidence into our focus of the Conneaut witnesses' statements, so I think our differing assessments on their degree of reliability isn't something we are going to reconcile here.

I am not doubting that a recollection that Spalding's work was somehow similar is quite likely. I simply think that contamination (during the questioning especially) could have rendered vague similarities very striking and specific.

Here is another, counter question for the Spalding crowd. When did Joseph exhibit the ability to memorize and repeat long passages of text that he stole from other authors and passed off as his own?

If the uniqueness of the feat is to be the question, this is just as good a question as the ones you pose."

It's not uniqueness, but the seeming inconsistency with what would be expected of the person. Uniqueness itself doesn't imply such inconsistency (though non-uniqueness does help dispell notions of inconsistency), and unique circumstances can call for unique actions.

I believe that over the course of the discussion uniqueness became an issue, although it did not start out as the issue. The issue of consistency is, in my view, weaker than uniqueness. If it were somehow the case that only people who demonstrated a long track record in writing and interest in writing wrote novels, then I would be more impressed. The simple fact is that people are not always consistent in their behavior. Big changes occur, and the seemingly unlikely can and does happen. I see what you are saying, though.

When it comes to producing the Book of Mormon, we are talking about an event that would have presumably required some level of literary interest, or knowledge, or skill.

As something of a student of literature, I think you are being a little overly generous in your estimation of the Book of Mormon's literary polish. It is a work that shows some promise, but it is an uncut diamond, and here many would say that I am being too generous.

Keep in mind that I view the head in the hat routine as something he only did on necessary occasions.

Since he didn't use the curtain very much, what do you think he was doing most of the time?

But even with that, an inquiry into Joseph's memorization abilities does seem to be of some relevance here since it might suggest limits on what his true abilities were and therefore render some versions of events highly unlikely. I'm suspicious though that a clear picture of his memorization abilities probably can't be determined either.

Since I have seen no eye-witness evidence that Joseph consulted a text, then I must confront the issue of memorization. If he was not known to memorize long texts before this, it would be at least as unusual as his not having shown an interest in writing before. What we can examine is his ability to employ Biblical allusions. I know the scholarship has been done, at least in part, and what it does show is Joseph's ability to use complex, layered Biblical allusions in his sermons. That should be a clue, I think.