Spalding-Rigdon Theory: Fatal flaws

[_Trevor]

It helps. I don't know about necessary, but things in the Spalding/Rigdon context make more sense to me with it, and I was always suspicious of Cowdery anyhow (even well before I heard of Spalding) so for me it was just a carry-over, and not something I accepted to make Spalding/Rigdon work. It's been a while now, so I can't say for sure exactly what things made me suspicious of Oliver during my earliest investigations, but I'm guessing they included the much greater efficiency of the Book of Mormon production process and some of the early visions and revelatory experiences he had with Joseph Smith that I tended to see as BS.

So, my answers to some questions are likely to involve Cowdery as accomplice since that is what makes most sense to me, but I may occasionally speculate about things as if he weren't or as if it doesn't matter.

Both Cowdery and Rigdon are "suspicious," but what do we have that clearly suggests they were accomplices in a Book of Mormon scheme? I mean, it is one thing to say Rigdon had access to a Spalding manuscript at the right time, or that Cowdery had sufficient education, but such things only make it possible. They do not constitute compelling evidence that either one was an accomplice of Smith in a scam.

[_Ray A]

I don't think that the Spalding-Rigdon theory is impossible. I just find myself unconvinced by the evidence presented thus far.

Ditto, Trevor.

[_Jersey Girl]

It helps. I don't know about necessary, but things in the Spalding/Rigdon context make more sense to me with it, and I was always suspicious of Cowdery anyhow (even well before I heard of Spalding) so for me it was just a carry-over, and not something I accepted to make Spalding/Rigdon work. It's been a while now, so I can't say for sure exactly what things made me suspicious of Oliver during my earliest investigations, but I'm guessing they included the much greater efficiency of the Book of Mormon production process and some of the early visions and revelatory experiences he had with Joseph Smith that I tended to see as BS.

So, my answers to some questions are likely to involve Cowdery as accomplice since that is what makes most sense to me, but I may occasionally speculate about things as if he weren't or as if it doesn't matter.

Both Cowdery and Rigdon are "suspicious," but what do we have that clearly suggests they were accomplices in a Book of Mormon scheme? I mean, it is one thing to say Rigdon had access to a Spalding manuscript at the right time, or that Cowdery had sufficient education, but such things only make it possible. They do not constitute compelling evidence that either one was an accomplice of Smith in a scam.

Trevor,

What about Rigdon's disputes with the Campbellites? I'm thinking in terms of who (Rigdon vs Joseph Smith) had a historical and deep involvement in religion and who had the more compelling motive to spearhead a new religious movement.

Whatcha think?

[_Trevor]

Trevor,

What about Rigdon's disputes with the Campbellites? I'm thinking in terms of who (Rigdon vs Joseph Smith) had a historical and deep involvement in religion and who had the more compelling motive to spearhead a new religious movement.

Whatcha think?

That is one part (among others) of the Spalding business that I think has real merit. The content of the book seems to reflect theological and praxis-oriented concerns that someone grappling with Campbellite issues would have included. This was in fact recognized in that day, If I recall correctly. It should be included in a list of evidences for the Spalding theory. I grant that. On the other hand, my guess is that Smith often formulated his ideas in response to people with whom he was interacting. This is another way the Campbellite stuff could have found its way into the book.

Listen, you take someone like Uncle Dale, who has spent as much or more time on this than anyone, and he will tell you that a lot of work remains to be done. This guy wants to comb every archive for contemporary hotel receipts, in short, to do what ever it takes to nail down the earlier association of Smith and Rigdon, etc. It is not as though circumstantial evidence and evidence from textual interpretation does not have worth, but there are still a number of hurdles that remain before Joseph Smith's authorship/translatorship can be attributed to someone else. Should such evidence arise, I will happily go with it.

At present, however, I see a day when Don Bradley publishes his book on Book of Mormon origins and Joseph Smith's authorship is secured once and for all.