If NAMIRS is dying, which LDS apologist responds to this...?

[_Uncle Dale]

http://mormonleaks.com/library/episode-03/



At least Craig Criddle comes up with some pretty pictures...

UD

[_Uncle Dale]

http://mormonleaks.com/library/episode-03/
At least Craig Criddle comes up with some pretty pictures...

This topic is getting a bit of discussion at another message
board -- so I thought I'd share my comments from there:

> I like the [S-R] theory and think there might be
> something to it. Didn't one of the founders work
> in the print shop where the spaulding manuscript
> went missing?

That idea was a fiction concocted by British writers
and editors who were too distant from America to ferret
out sufficient information to fill up their newspaper
and magazine columns ---- so, they made Sidney Rigdon
out as having been the employee of a printer named
Robert Patterson. In the popular literature of the
late 1840s and early 1850s, Rigdon was mischaracterized
as having been Patterson's "journeyman printer."

In fact, the Rev. Robert Patterson was not a printer,
nor did he own a printshop, nor was Rigdon his employee.

Among other things, the young Sidney Rigdon was an
apprentice tanner -- spending at least part of his days
learning the tanning trade a few miles south of the
(then) little town of Pittsburgh.

Rev. Patterson operated a bookstore in Pittsburgh and
he occasionally gathered up enough cash to get some
text printed, so that he could sell it in his store.
His cousin (a fellow named Silas Engles) owned a press
and did some job printing for Patterson and his brother
now and then. Engles knew the young Sidney Rigdon, but
did not employ him as a printer. Rigdon was not a printer.

The book pages that Engles printed eventually got bound
together as books (in leather bindings) or pamphlets (in
paper bindings) -- and some were sold in Patterson's store.
Robert Patterson and his brother also employed a bindery
staff, which probably overlapped Engles' binders.

We could thus say that those people furnishing leather
book bindings to Engles and the Pattersons, during the
1810s and 1820s, were CONNECTED to the Pittsburgh
publishing business -- but they were not printers and
did not work in any "print-shop" run by the Pattersons.

Sidney Rigdon could thus easily refute any published
claims, identifying him as a printer or as having been
an employee of any Patterson who ran any printing shop.

Rigdon's ***CONNECTION*** with Silas Engles (and thus,
indirectly with Robert and Joseph Patterson) was as a
supplier of leather book-bindings.

> It makes sense that they then
> justified their actions for what they considered a
> "greater good"

That "greater good" idea may have come into play at a
later date -- when the Book of Mormon manuscript was
being finalized. But I seriously doubt that it was
Sidney Rigdon's motivating factor back during the 1810s
when he first ran across Spalding's unpublished story.

Rather, I suppose that Spalding's writings intrigued
the young Rigdon and he took the trouble to obtain a
copy (or a partial copy) of the interesting stuff.

At some point later on, somebody said: "Hey, this Nephite
story would work perfectly as the outline for some fake
ancient American scriptures! We could start a whole new
church, using the Nephite chronology as a sort of backbone
for our narrative pushing new doctrines and commandments!"

Maybe that person was Sidney Rigdon.
Maybe it was Joseph Smith.
Maybe they both came up with the same idea.

It really doesn't matter any more.

The Nephites are a lie... end of story.

UD

[_Fence Sitter]

Thanks UD.

You always have such interesting stuff.

[_Uncle Dale]

Thanks UD.

You always have such interesting stuff.

I believe it is important for us to dig out these little
historical details and to make them available for modern
investigators to examine and absorb.

The typical LDS polemics against a 19th century origin
for the Book of Mormon includes misleading (but possibly
convincing) arguments, such as:

1. Sidney Rigdon could have had no contact with Spalding's
writings, because he never even went to Pittsburgh until 1823.

----> False (and historical details supply the contra evidence)


2. Sidney Rigdon had no contact with anybody in Pittsburgh
who was in any way involved with Mr. Spalding's writings.

----> False (and historical details supply the contra evidence)


3. Sidney Rigdon had no idea that there was any such thing as
Mormonism, Joseph Smith or the Book of Mormon until Nov. 1830.

----> False (and historical details supply the contra evidence)


None of the historical evidence PROVES that Rigdon wrote any
part of the early Mormon scriptures. Nor does it PROVE that the
writings of Solomon Spalding ended up in the Gold Bible. What
these historical details demonstrate is the fact that the apologists
for the Mormon Church have frequently stooped to dishonesty
and knowing cover-ups, in publishing what they portray as being
solid, objective facts from the 1810s and 1820s.

Don't trust those pro-LDS presentations, without first of all
consulting the evidence on the other side of the controversies.

UD

[_Mary]

Dale, thanks for this. Such an interesting area. The Disciples look like such an interesting group. The early members seem very coy about linking Sidney to knowledge of the Book of Mormon before 1830. How reliable are D Atwater's recollections?

[_Uncle Dale]

Dale, thanks for this. Such an interesting area. The Disciples look like such an interesting group. The early members seem very coy about linking Sidney to knowledge of the Book of Mormon before 1830. How reliable are D Atwater's recollections?

Hi Mary -- I hope you're getting through life OK -- I know
how complex things can become at certain points.

There was a natural, expected reticence on the part of the
Campbellites, to admit that the first Mormons were religiously
very much like themselves. For that very reason it is surprising
to occasionally see some of their 1820s members point the
finger at Sidney Rigdon, for having stolen some parts of their
religion to interject into Mormonism. It is equally surprising
to see even topmost leaders (like Alexander Campbell himself)
accuse Rigdon of having a hand in composing the Book of Mormon.

By the 1870s-1880s that Campbellite embarrassment had diminished
to the point that more early Disciples of Christ members were willing
to discuss openly the links between their "restoration" and the LDS
"restoration." It was at that time -- late in the game -- that the
Darwin Atwater testimony surfaced. It might have been more
effective, had Atwater and his associates spoken out years earlier.

Clark Braden, a Disciple minister, eventually cast off all the old
Campbellite embarrassment, and loudly accused Rigdon of having
fashioned Mormonism out of the more radical doctrines and ideas
of Campbellism. But by Braden's time, it really was too late. The
old Campbellite leaders were dead -- Rigdon himself was dead --
the age-old battle against the Mormons was drawing to a close
and Utah statehood was on the horizon.

Had those early Campbellites spoken out earlier -- there might
have been better opportunities to cross-check their testimony,
and to force the Mormon leaders to respond.

All we can do now is to examine whatever fragments of the
past still survive, and attempt to determine whether witnesses
like Darwin Atwater are reliable. Some Mormon origins "experts"
will try to tell us that such an examination is meaningless,
because Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon, and because
Sidney Rigdon had nothing to do with that program. That there
never was a cover-up and whitewashing of any conspiracy to
fabricate Mormonism.

I'd say Craig Criddle is doing a good job countering those "experts."

As for the Mormon establishment -- they'd better get Givens and
Bushman, right out in front, with an Oxford University Press book
to refute Criddle, or else they will soon be behind the curve of
discovery and behind the curve of history itself.

UD

[_DrW]

UD,

Very interesting posts. Most TBMs I know, if they know anything about Criddle at all, believe that his work has been completely discredited (because the apologists have said so).

Nice to have authoritative information that shows that the apologists have been less than accurate (and sometimes less than honest) in their attempts to refute the R-S theory (which I happen to think has a great deal of explanatory power).

[_Uncle Dale]

UD,

Very interesting posts. Most TBMs I know, if they know anything about Criddle at all, believe that his work has been completely discredited (because the apologists have said so).

Nice to have authoritative information that shows that the apologists have been less than accurate (and sometimes less than honest) in their attempts to refute the R-S theory (which I happen to think has a great deal of explanatory power).

Glad to be of help.

Science always admits to possible errors, and welcomes corrections.
So, if the Mormons can offer facts useful to our examination of
the Jockers' word-print studies, or Craig Criddle's conclusions, then
I say more power to them.

However -- I'd say that the "apologists" need to do a lot more
now, than just "say so," in regard to Criddle's multi-part thesis.
Only about one-half of his illustrated presentation has been
so far posted on the web. I've been lucky enough to read the
entire thing (along with its extensive footnotes).

Sooner or later the Mormons will be compelled to respond. I'd
recommend that they do so cautiously, and utilizing the scientific
method as much as possible.

Criddle's explanations are currently mostly "What Could Have Happened;"
but if they hold up to examination, I think that one day in the not too
distant future, most of them will be accepted as "What Really Happened."

Uncle Dale

[_why me]

http://mormonleaks.com/library/episode-03/
At least Craig Criddle comes up with some pretty pictures...

This topic is getting a bit of discussion at another message
board -- so I thought I'd share my comments from there:

Maybe that person was Sidney Rigdon.
Maybe it was Joseph Smith.
Maybe they both came up with the same idea.

It really doesn't matter any more.

The Nephites are a lie... end of story.

UD

Maybe it was a woulda; maybe it was a coulda; maybe it was a shoulda. And maybe the nephites are a lie.

But maybe not. Oh well...and the circle goes round and round on the merry-go-round of time.

[_why me]

UD,

Nice to have authoritative information that shows that the apologists have been less than accurate (and sometimes less than honest) in their attempts to refute the R-S theory (which I happen to think has a great deal of explanatory power).

I think that you mean authoritative speculation. There is a difference between information and speculation.