The Spaulding Theory........what most Mormons don't know

[_Roger]

Chris:

Why do you say that? I, for one, was enjoying the discussion. Quite honestly very few Smith-alone advocates are willing to discuss this very deeply and you were doing a good job.

[_Uncle Dale]

...Smith-alone advocates
...

I, for one, would certainly be interested in seeing the Smith-alone authorship theory articulated in a
few paragraphs -- I mean, the reasons why it is today considered the most viable explanation for
Mormon origins and the compilation of the Book of Mormon text.

Of course, when Mormons talk among themselves (such as we see on the MAD board), they are quite
content to assume that God inspired the text, written by ancient Americans, whose ruins and artifacts
for some strange reason have yet to be uncovered.

But when Mormons talk either directly, or indirectly, to non-Mormons, they appear to consider the
Smith-alone authorship notion to be the most viable theory for Mormon origins. At least they
are observant enough to realize that the Smith-alone explanation is indeed a theory.

But Fawn Brodie did not communicate her deductions in that regard as a theory, and neither have
the Tanners, nor has Dan Vogel. In reading the productions of these writers, we get the distinct
impression that they are reporting what they see as indisputable facts -- and not some theory.

It's rather like the heliocentric theory of the solar system -- nobody has used that term since the
days of Galileo. The fact that the earth revolves around the sun has become indisputable.

But, as I said, the Mormons still speak of the Smith-alone explanation as a theory and we
non-Mormons ought to support and advocate that sort of vocabulary. It cannot be demonstrated
as A FACT, that neither Alvin Smith, Hyrum Smith nor Lucy Smith had any role in writing the book.
Much less, can it be demonstrated that Oliver Cowdery had no such role.

The Smith-alone advocates have generally avoided addressing these considerations -- they move
along like a navigator who has sailed his ship into port so many times, that he can do so blindfolded.
Both ship and port have become so thoroughly familiar, that there has become no reason to question
the procedure -- the method of presenting the Smith-alone authorship argument.

Usually it goes something like this:

Mormon: "Refute the Eleven witnesses for the Book of Mormon!"
S-A advocate: "Smith wrote the book and fooled those witnesses."

Mormon: "Oh yeah? Nobody even knew about meso-American ruins in 1830!"
S-A advocate: "Some people did -- Smith could have read their reports."

Mormon: "That's crazy -- he was an illiterate farm boy!"
S-A advocate: "He was more literate and more capable than he's given credit for...."
etc. etc. etc.

Thus, the arguments always center upon what Smith could (or could not) have known
and have done, on his own -- unaided by any close associate (secret or otherwise).

The Mormon and the Smith-alone advocate appear to be arguing "facts," -- but the
Mormon (bless his heart) knows that the S-A advocate is theorizing, and tries to
trip him up by citing "facts." The S-A advocate, on the other hand, has concluded that
the Mormon is too deluded to recognize "facts" when he/she encounters them.

And so it goes.

I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation of why we should automatically discount
the possibility that Smith had one or more secretive helpers, in bringing forth his book.

Theories are made for testing -- and they should be first of all tested by their own advocates.
Since Fawn Brodie's time, such Smith-alone theorizing has been little tested and little
documented with historical evidence. So far as I know, not one witness has ever been
brought forth to demonstrate that Smith was a fiction writer -- an author -- even a reader
of the sort of material (other than the Bible) necessary in order to compile the Book of Mormon.

Perhaps the reason that S-A advocates do not wish to speak of their claims as "a theory,"
is that proper theories should generally be predictive of future observation -- of future
evidence discoveries -- of future evidence testing.

Everybody calls the Smith+Spalding+Rigdon authorship explanation "a theory;" and I think
the time has come to start reminding the Brodieites that the Smith+nobody authorship claims
are also "a theory" -- a theory requiring proper articulation, proper evidence, and proper testing.

UD

[_Uncle Dale]

...
I think the time has come to start reminding the Brodieites that the Smith+nobody authorship claims
are also "a theory" -- a theory requiring proper articulation, proper evidence, and proper testing.
...

As I mentioned previously, one of the reasons that the Smith-alone authorship advocates have avoided
talking about their claims as constituting a theory, is that they have primarily been arguing the matter
with loyal Mormon defenders, whom they (the Smith-alone advocates) have generally viewed as uninformed
and/or deluded religious apologists. This model of argument was set down by Fawn Brodie (if not by I. W. Riley,
four decades before her). Although Brodie writes as though she is speaking to a disinterested readership
of history students, her real audience always was the LDS membership itself. She speaks to that invisible
audience like a psychologist on the witness stand, giving expert testimony regarding the inner workings
of a particular criminal's mind -- all the while making reference in scholarly footnotes, to supporting "facts,"
she supposes her invisible audience knows little about.

This method has been carried on by Brodie's successors in the "expert" witness stand -- usually with their
own offerings of supporting "facts" they suppose their invisible audience knows little about. In the case of
the Tanners' reporting, these "facts" are frequently presented IN UNDERLINED CAPITAL LETTERS, so as
to challenge the LDS reader to consult the Journal of Discourses, or some other problematic LDS source.

Dan Vogel has "gone the Tanners one better" by presenting his supporting evidence in the form of five
thick volumes of old documents, news reports, eye-witness recollections, etc. -- Again, challenging the LDS
reader to consult old material, problematic to the LDS view of past events.

Since Brodie's day, the Smith-alone advocates have been spared the necessity of defending their own
authorship theory -- Brodie having "buried" the Spalding-Rigdon explanation for Book of Mormon origins.
Instead, the Smith-alone advocates have merely been faced with the need to show Mormons that they
are wrong -- and that even some old LDS sources can be used to argue against an authentic Nephite record.
All of the energy, in the Smith-alone camp, is spent in attacking the Mormon position, and in providing
documentation, showing how weak that LDS position is, in terms of reason, logic, secular history, etc.

The Smith-alone advocates thus have no practice in confronting students of the Spalding-Rigdon authorship
explanation. The Smith-alone people are unprepared to discuss the matter, on a theory-vs-theory basis,
because all of their experience (of the past six decades) has been gained in arguing against the LDS position.

The Smith-alone advocates have little experience in conducting the real, on-the-ground research, necessary
to effectively promote their theory in the midst of a non-LDS audience. Yes -- they have nowadays compiled
a great deal of "early Mormon documents" material into several expensive volumes. But 99% of that material
was known to interested scholars, before people like myself and Mike Marquardt ever sat down at an old
Apple-II computer, beginning to assemble the diverse materials into a single collection.

Remove the pseudo-discoveries of Mark Hoffman from the mix, and what are we left with, in terms of new
research, conducted in order to assist in assessing the Smith-alone authorship claims?

Damn little, I'd say. -- Perhaps the work of Dean Jessee and the products of the current "Smith Papers" project
might be mentioned, as providing useful source material for further investigation. But we can hardly credit
their publication to the efforts of Smith-alone advocates. Instead, we are left with such contemporary reporting
as William D. Morain's The Sword of Laban: Joseph Smith, Jr. and the Dissociated Mind; or R. D. Anderson's
Inside the Mind of Joseph Smith: Psychobiography and the Book of Mormon. Not much new there.

The one Smith-alone researcher that I have any deep regard for, has been Mike Marquardt. But his interest in
the literary aspects of Book of Mormon origins is minimal, and his research has not been directed at shoring
up the notion that Smith must have acted alone in producing the book.

The near future will present more reports from reputable computerized studies, showing that the Book of Mormon
is a complex text, containing the distinct "voices" of two or more authors. The evidence in this respect will continue
to pile up. It will be supplemented both by LDS investigators and by non-LDS investigators.

The day is fast approaching, when the Smith-alone advocates will have to defend their theory, against a substantial
backdrop of evidence for multiple authorship in the Book of Mormon.

I doubt the Smith-alone advocates will be able to bend and shape their theory in any plausible way that can account
for multiple-authorship, coming from the mind of a single writer. I sincerely doubt that "multiple personalities" disorder,
or "automatic writing" examples will rescue the Smith-alone advocates from their fast approaching textual dilemma.

Uncle Dale

[_Roger]

Excellent posts, Uncle Dale.

I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation of why we should automatically discount the possibility that Smith had one or more secretive helpers, in bringing forth his book.

The almighty Occam and his razor overrule any other consideration!

(Regardless of whether the more complex explanation better explains the evidence.)

Dan Vogel has "gone the Tanners one better" by presenting his supporting evidence in the form of five thick volumes of old documents, news reports, eye-witness recollections, etc.

In which he has edited out early references to Spalding! I was flabbergasted to discover this! You're reading Pomeroy Tucker, for example, up to the point where he starts talking about a Spalding connection and now, suddenly, there is not enough space to print his comments in full!

If there is a better example of this:

In reading the productions of these writers, we get the distinct
impression that they are reporting what they see as indisputable facts -- and not some theory.

...I don't know what it is.

[_Uncle Dale]

...
If there is a better example of this
...

I cannot speak for Dan -- but I can mention a visit I had to see Steve Sorenson, in the
LDS Archives. In his bookcase were four of the EMD volumes -- and on his desk was
one more of them, open to what I think was Orsamus Turner's reporting.

The reader of that open book could be spared the "waste of time" entailed in looking
over outdated, disproved, and totally unreliable pseudo-source materials -- such as the
Mark Hoffman forgeries or the totally spurious "Cowdery Defence." All good and well, no
doubt. But who is it that determines what is valid historical information, and what is not?

Perhaps that responsibility rested upon the shoulders of Mr. Vogel -- or perhaps his patrons
in the Church Office Building offered some judicious suggestions. Whatever the document
editing (and elimination!) process may have been, it was faulty enough to admit the fake
"Daniel Hendrix testimony" into EMD volume 3 -- where it stands today, providing the
reader with bogus "historical information."

Somehow -- the same process that added the fake Hendrix statement also led to the
editing (or total elimination) of various documents crediting Sidney Rigdon with making
a contribution to the text of the Book of Mormon (and/or using Spalding's writings).

At least Brother Sorenson seemed pleased with the published results.....

UD

[_CaliforniaKid]

Roger,

The discussion has been fun, and it actually helped me crystallize some important thoughts, but I have so little time these days that I have to weigh the costs and benefits of any expenditure of my time, and I think this discussion has passed the point where the payoff will be worth the investment, is all. So, nothing personal or anything.

Unk,

It sound like you should put together a supplement to EMD with all the major Spalding sources. Realistically, I realize, the work may have to fall to the pen of a younger scholar. But then again, you've done most of the work for your website already anyway...

-Chris

[_Uncle Dale]

...
a supplement to EMD
...

Well, as you know, I never sell my research findings, nor my studied comments on such things -- so I have
no personal need to compile a book.

Also, I'd like to see any future effort conducted along those lines to include testimony and early reporting
linking both Oliver Cowdery and Parley P. Pratt to Book of Mormon authorship and Mormon origins -- so any
new compilation would necessarily have to extend past Spalding and Rigdon authorship claims.

If such a product is ever created, it will be posted to the web, for all interested parties to consult,
download, or print out in hard copy -- at no charge.

UD

[_Roger]

Chris:

Roger,

The discussion has been fun, and it actually helped me crystallize some important thoughts, but I have so little time these days that I have to weigh the costs and benefits of any expenditure of my time, and I think this discussion has passed the point where the payoff will be worth the investment, is all. So, nothing personal or anything.

I completely understand the time issue. I am severely limited myself. But for now the Spalding issue is my primary area of interest so I will continue to devote what little free time I have mainly in this direction.

I glanced at your blog. From a surface reading it appears we have more in common than what we disagree on. So, when you get some time, please feel free to pop back in and hit me with your best shot. : )

.......


Well since we seem to have run our lone Smith-alone advocate out the door... I guess we will have to go back to debating ourselves:

That leading LDS apologist, Dale B wrote:

I'll summarize it:

1. The more conspirators in a secret plot, the less likely it is to succeed undetected.
Therefore the best chance of the Book of Mormon plot succeeding, is if the book had a single author.

I have come to the opinion that we can throw out the norm no matter which way we choose to interpret the data when it comes to Book of Mormon production theories. In short, there is no explanation for the Book of Mormon that does not involve something out of the ordinary. Either we have a genuine boy prophet receiving direct communication from God in the midst of an apostate world; or we have something of a wonder-boy who, despite his lack of formal education, nevertheless, devised a scheme whereby he convinced his closest followers that he was receiving direct communication from God and that the words he dictated were coming straight from God when in fact they were coming from his own fertile imagination; or we have a conspiracy. In light of the possible choices, I really don't think conspiracy is all that unrealistic.

2. The apparent interaction of Smith family activities/interests points to a close relationship
between that family and parts of the Book of Mormon text. The more simple explanation is that the
Smiths' experiences are mirrored in the book --- since having them emulate the book's story
is more difficult and problematic.

This may be true, but Joseph could have written himself & family into or around a pre-existing narrative just as easily as he could have placed it into his own imaginative story of Nephites & Lamanites or just as easily as writing himself into material he was plagiarizing. I don't see Smith's input as a problem at all for S/R.

3. The apparent interaction between the earliest "revelations" and the Book of Mormon "translation"
process, seems to indicate that Smith and Cowdery's daily activities were having an impact
upon the content of the text at near the time it was being finalized in Cowdery's handwriting.
The likelihood of Sidney Rigdon's being in Ohio during most of 1828-29, makes it hard to
believe that he was present, along with Smith and Cowdery, as these daily activities took place.
It is easier to postulate Smith and Cowdery finalizing the Book of Mormon text, than it is to postulate a
process by which Rigdon carefully oversaw that work.

Which is not a problem for the S/R theory at all. Once Ridgon relinquished control to Smith it was, for the most part, out of his hands. Smith was at liberty to dress up the text any way he desired--in precisely the same manner that Smith-alone advocates believe he dressed up various outside sources or put the final touches on his own imaginings.

4. The argument, that Smith was too illiterate to write the text, disappears when possible
input from Alvin Smith, or other Smith family members, or Oliver Cowdery is considered. For
example, Hyrum Smith was fairly well educated and could have supplied a great deal of
literary information to his younger brother --- even if Hyrum was unaware that Joseph was
compiling that material into a book. Same goes for Oliver Cowdery.

No doubt Cowdery did have some input. Whether Hyrum or Alvin or Lucy did is an open question. Nevertheless any such postulating...

A. is not a problem for the S/R theory and
B. serves to undermine the conspiracy criticism directed to S/R since including Cowdery and Smith family members brings up exactly the same conspiracy questions

5. Although the Book of Mormon reflects a good deal of "Campbellite" theology, it also differs from Campbellism
is several key factors. Sidney Rigdon managed to stay on relatively good terms with the topmost
Campbellite leaders, even as late as 1830, when the Book of Mormon was first being sold.

I'm not so sure Rigdon was on great terms with either Campbell or Bentley as late as 1830... but maybe I'm wrong about that.

It is difficult to account for Rigdon's continued acceptance as a prominent Campbellite preacher, if he
was still promulgating practically the entire Campbellite "party line," as late as 1830. It is more
likely that a private person (like Smith), who was not in the public eye and not closely associated
with the Campbellites, could have selectively appropriated some of their theology, while rejecting
other important elements of that religion.

You may need to step in here and set me straight, but my understanding is that Rigdon's theology was evolving practically every day and that he had been removed from the Pittsburgh Bapt. church for preaching abberant doctrine while still a Baptist reverend. What reason is there to believe his doctrine ceased to evolve when a Campbellite?

6. Smith's later production of "revelations," the "Book of Moses," "Book of Abraham," pretensions to
understand the Kinderhook plates' text, etc., point to a person interested in producing ersatz
scripture -- and able to foist off such fabrications upon his followers -- without special help from
associates such as Sidney Rigdon *

This is the area I am least familiar with. It would really be nice to know how much input Rigdon actually had with these "revelations."

[_CaliforniaKid]

Well, as you know, I never sell my research findings, nor my studied comments on such things -- so I have no personal need to compile a book.

Also, I'd like to see any future effort conducted along those lines to include testimony and early reporting
linking both Oliver Cowdery and Parley P. Pratt to Book of Mormon authorship and Mormon origins -- so any
new compilation would necessarily have to extend past Spalding and Rigdon authorship claims.

If such a product is ever created, it will be posted to the web, for all interested parties to consult,
download, or print out in hard copy -- at no charge.

UD

Unk,

Your website is vast and virtually all-inclusive, and thus tremendously difficult to really get a handle on. What I would really love to see is a volume of the best, earliest, and most important sources related to Spalding-Rigdon (and perhaps Pratt-Cowdery) authorship claims. Perhaps a volume about the length of EMD and on more or less the same model-- with critical data as to the reliability and provenance of the source, but without a great deal of interpretive commentary. Were such a volume available, I think I could not help but give it a read, even though I am skeptical of the theory.

If you don't want to profit from such a volume, it could be published through Lulu.com, which can be set up to allow both free downloads of the PDF and at-cost purchase of books, printed on demand.

On the other hand, there is something about publishing a book with a respected academic press that makes it quite a bit more credible than an e-published pay-on-demand book. It would probably even get greater circulation if it were published with such a press. If you went this route, I suppose you could donate any earnings to charity... or set up a Spalding research foundation, to host lectures on the subject!

Just something to chew on while sipping those pina coladas on the beach. ;)

-Chris

[_aussieguy55]

Chris have you read Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon? I just bought it from Amazon so looking forward to an interesting read on my holidays