DAN VOGEL DISCUSSES THE SPALDING/RIGDON THEORY

[_Dan Vogel]

MORE EVIDENCE Book of Mormon WAS DICTATED AND NOT COPIED FROM PRE-EXISTING MANUSCRIPT

In his post of 8 February, Dale made the following assertion:

I add to that two acknowledgments -- 1. That lengthy parts of the Book of Mormon may indeed have been "finalized" in a dictation process. But I see no reason to conclude that every passage of the book was so dictated. Were the witness statements dictated? was Joseph Smith's "Preface" dictated? was the title-page dictated? was the KJV material dictated?

We have already discussed the testimony of eye witnesses to Joseph Smith's method of dictation, which included the following steps:

1. Joseph Smith puts his head in a hat and dictates phrases and sentences at a time.
2. A scribe writes quickly what is dictated.
3. The scribe repeats what was written.
4. Joseph Smith either corrects what was written or dictates another passage or phrase.

Evidence of dictation from O-MS

Textual critics of the Bible deal with problematic passages due to mishearing quite regularly.

It is easy for someone with perfect hearing to hear incorrectly when words are confused because of similarly sounding letters. The scriptorium -- the ancient "copy center" -- worked by having one person dictate to a group of scribes who produced the copied manuscripts. Even when a scribe copied a manuscript alone, he would have read a portion out loud and then written it down. During the time from reading a text to writing it down, errors are bound to happen. Writing down something that sounds the same as that which was read is a common error that is detectable.

http://www.earlham.edu/~seidti/iam/errs_hear.html

Royal Skousen maintains the original Book of Mormon MS (O-MS) supports the eye witness testimony, and that there are errors caused by mishearing, rather than visually caused errors. Skousen has presented his arguments in

Royal Skousen, "Translating the Book of Mormon: Evidence from the Original Manuscript," in Noel B. Reynolds, ed., Book of Mormon Authorship Revisited: The Evidence for Ancient Origins (Provo, UT: FARMS, 1997), 61-93.

I will summarize Skousen's evidence as follows:

[symbols= <word> for strikeouts; \word/ for above the line; <%word%> for erased word; {<%word%>| new word} for new word written over erased word]

1. Scribe 2 mishears and for an in 1 Ne. 13:29

O-MS: & because of these things which are taken away out of the gosple of the Lamb & exceeding great many do stumble

Skousen: "The use of the ampersand (&) shows that the error was not based on visual similarity. Hearing an, the scribe interpreted it as the casual speech form an' for and." (67)

2. Cowdery mishears weed for reed in 1 Ne. 17:48

O-MS: & whoso shall lay their hands upon me shall wither even as a dried weed

3. Cowdery mishears meet for beat in Alma 57:22

O-MS: for it was they who did <meet> \beat/ the Lamanites

4. Cowdery mishears him for them in Alma 55:8 and Ether 8:17

O-MS: & behold they saw him <a> comeing & they hailed him but he sayeth unto <him> them not

O-MS: wherefore Akish administered it unto his kindreds & friends leading (<%him%>|them) away by fair promises

Skousen: "One particular difficulty for the scribe occurred whenever Joseph Smith pronounced unstressed 'em (for either them]/i] or [i]him)." (68)

5. Cowdery mishears sons for son in Alma 41:14

O-MS: therefore my Sons see that ye are merciful unto your Brethren

Skousen: "The source of this error is the following word see, whose initial s sould have made it hard for Oliver Cowdery to hear any difference between son see and sons see. This passage comes from Alma's discourse to his son Corianton; he is speaking to only one son." (69) This error is corrected by Cowdery in the Printer's MS (P-MS).

This kind of error can be found in 1 Thess. 2:7:

This is another instance in which ending sounds can become combined with the beginning sounds of the next form. Here a closing consonant could also be the opening consonant of the next form. A scribe would not be able to hear the difference.


http://www.earlham.edu/~seidti/iam/errs_hear.html

Evidence from P-MS of visual copying

Skousen is looking for words that do not sound the same, but might be mistaken for one another at a quick glance.

[symbols= underlined words indicate substitutions]

O-MS: yea & I always knew that there was a God (Alma 30:52)
P-MS: also

O-MS: & also among the People of liberty (Alma 51:7)
P-MS: many

O-MS: and he also saw other multitudes pr*ssing their way towards that great and specious bilding (1 Ne. 8:31)
P-MS: feeling

Skousen: "[T]he hand in O is scribe 3's. This scribe's open p has a high ascender, which makes his p look like an f. The e vowel is missing. And the first s in pressing was an elongated s (represented as *s in the above transcription), which Oliver interpreted as an l." (70-71)

The preceding examples were left uncorrected by Cowdery, although they created problems in reading. Skousen also gives examples of words initially miscopied, but discovered and either corrected above the line or on the line immediately after the incorrect word.. These are the kinds of mistakes scribes make when visually copying a MS, which do not show up in the O-MS. All the examples below are from P-MS with all corrections bringing the text in line with O-MS.

[symbols= <word> for strikeouts; \word/ for above the line insertions]

Mosiah 15:9: <sanctified> \satisfied/
Mosiah 27:37: <deliver> declare
Alma 8:13: <cursed> \caused/
Alma 34:10: <sacrament> \sacrifice/
Alma 56:27: <prisoners> \provisions/
Alma 58:22: <suppose> \suffer/
Hel. 4:25: <cause> \cease/
3 Ne. 8:25: <burned> \buried/
3 Ne. 20:42 <reward> \rearward/


Further Evidence of Visual Copying in P-MS, Not Found in O-MS

Skousen does not discuss very important evidence for visual copying in P-MS, which does not happen in O-MS. There are two types of typical copying errors that scribes make when visually copying manuscripts--dittography and haplography.

Dittography.

The error of parablepsis (a looking by the side) is caused by homoeoteleuton (a similar ending of lines). Dittography is when a word or group of words is picked up a second time by the scribe and as a result the same line is copied twice when it only appears once.

http://www.earlham.edu/~seidti/iam/dittography.html

Haplography.

The error of parablepsis (a looking by the side) is caused by homoeoteleuton (a similar ending of lines). The omission referred to as haplography occurs when text is missing owing to lines which have a similar ending in a manuscript.

http://www.earlham.edu/~seidti/iam/haplography.html

An example of haplography from P-MS

Page 165: therefore the king couldD not confer the kingDom upon him; \neither would Aaron take upon him the kingdom/ neither was any of the Sons of Mosiah willing to take upon them the kingDom

Here Hyrum Smith missed a phrase because his eye skipped to the next neither. Cowdery restored the lost phrase.

This kind of visual error is difficult to detect without an original to compare or an above the line insertion by a proof reader. If Cowdery proofed P-MS against O-MS, could we not expect him to have proofed O-MS against the Spalding-Rigdon MS? Regardless, there is no evidence for haplography in O-MS.

Examples of dittography from P-MS

There is also no evidence for dittography in O-MS, although there are numerous examples in P-MS, of which the following are examples:

[symbols= <word> for strikeouts; \word/ for above the line insertions; numbers in first column represent page numbers in P-MS]


2 of my father <of my father>
4 thou Nephi <because> because
9 my <Mother> Mother Sariah
10 to give <to give> a full account
11 & I stood before my Brethren & spake unto them again & it came to pass <& I stood before m)> that they were angery
16 <& behold> & behold this thing
16-17 the <spirit> spirit
18 & beheld <the land> the land of promise
20 & I beheld <& I beheld> the wrath of God
23 stumbling Blocks <if it so be that they> \&/ hearden not their hearts against the Lamb \God/ <if it so be that they hearden \not/ their hearts against the Lamb of God> they shall be numbered among ...
24 he was <dressed> dressed
25 <behold> behold
62 & shall <& shall>
80 the Jews do understand the things of the Prophets, & there is none other People that understand the things <of the Prophets> spoken unto the Jews ...
89 & <lull> lull them
101 I <take> take away
106 & the size thereof & ye shall not clear away the bad ther <eof the size there of & ye shall not clear away th> \eof all at once lest the roots thereof should/ be to strong for the graft
124 which hath been <prepare from> prepared from the foundation
158 for there was nothing preached in all the church <es in the land of Zarahmela> -es except it were repentance and faith in God and now there was Seven churches in the land of Zarahmela and ...
198 by the Devil and led by <the chains of Hell and Amulek> his will down to destruction, now this is what is meant by the Chains of Hell and Amulek hath spoken ...


While it's certainly possible to have a repeated word in oral dictation from false starts, other types of dittography are clearly from the scribe's eye skipping lines. Dittographic evidence is absent from the O-MS, but frequently appears in P-MS.


Conclusion

Evidence from the O-MS supports eyewitness testimony of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was dictated to scribes. This is a serious problem for Spalding advocates. One Spalding apologist--Ted Chandler--has tried to overturn Skousen's presentation of the evidence here--


http://mormonstudies.com/scribe.htm

He attempts to cite spelling error in O-MS as examples of copying mistakes, rather than mishearing mistakes.

Craig Criddle has referenced Chandler's study in on line discussions with critics--

http://2thinkforums.org/phorum3/read.php?f=1&i=17703&t=17697&v=f

http://2thinkforums.org/phorum3/read.php?f=1&i=8791&t=7606#reply_8791


Unfortunately, Chandler's observations are based on a very poor understanding of O-MS as well as the mechanics of Skousen's transcription to which Chandler relies for his knowledge. He has very little understanding of the original handwritings. He originally failed to consider the malformation of letters due to hurried writing from dictation. He tried to respond to this criticism, but very poorly. If necessary, I will put together a detailed response to Chandler.

[_Jersey Girl]

Dan,

O-MS...is that the Oberlin Manuscript?

Jersey Girl

[_Dr. Shades]

O-MS...is that the Oberlin Manuscript?

I'm sure "O-MS" means "Original Manuscript (of the Book of Mormon)."

[_avanick]

Hi Marg,
I'll put my comments down among yours.

How Rigdon and Spalding might fit into all of this, I'm not really sure yet.

Rigdon and Spalding fit in only indirectly.

Sorry, but I have to disagree with you on this point. Without Spalding's material, much more would have had to have come from Smith's fertile imagination than just a few items here and there, and without Rigdon's involvement, much, if not most of the religious material in the Book of Mormon wouldn't have ever made it into the book at all. I think that even Mr. Criddle would agree with me on this, though he disagrees with us on how many manuscripts Spalding wrote. If the LDS have problems with Spalding writing two manuscripts, they would have a field day with Criddle and his claims that Spalding wrote three of them.

There are many "Rigdonisms" throughout the Book of Mormon - what you might almost call "trademark" phrases, which Rigdon used in his various sermons throughout his career in the Mormon hierarchy. Those very phrases are used in the Book of Mormon, and not paraphrased, but word for word.

Being the skeptic that I am I don't assume the supernatural. So I reject seer stones having magical abilities as described by witnesses. So if Smith could dictate the Book of Mormon story (as I believe Dan suggests) just from his own imagination he needed no props.

Or he could have just had a very good memory, as people claimed.

The fact that the witnesses descibed the process as reading from "something" when it would have been unnecessary if he was the sole author sitting in the room, suggests that he did in fact read off of "something". So this is reasoning which supports use of a manuscript as opposed to Smith's on his own without any material dictating to scribes. Again applying reasoning, why the prop, it's just extra baggage.

The question is easily answered: he was a showman, and he loved the attention, notoriety, and it enhanced his claims that it was of a supernatural source, ie, from God.

Is it really likely he's going to go through the entire process with his head in the hat. Again using reason ..how is he going to fit papers into a hat, turn pages, read words up close.

Were there not differeing accounts as to how Smith did his "translating"? Did not some claim that they saw him stick his head into a hat and others claim that he spoke from behind a curtain? In the end, aren't all of the accounts, as well as responding to or commenting about them, just dignifying rather tenuous claims with little basis in fact? Don't they pretty much have about as much validity as Smith's claims that there were actually metal plates that were given to him for a time by an angel?

Try it Dale, up too close you can't read words on a paper. But besides that he has to turn pages. The witnesses also described him being stumped on reading some words and having to spell them. So it's likely they were telling the truth about him reading from "something" there's no reason to lie about that. But there is reason to make up a story to hide the fact that a manuscript was used.

And that's where Rigdon and Spalding come in.

Once again, no Spalding and no basis for the Book of Mormon, and without Rigdon, you have nobody to provide the religious content for the Book of Mormon. Not only that, but Rigdon's motivation behind helping to bring forth the Book of Mormon was his desire to be a sort of New World "Paul", to finally make a name for himself as a great "man of God", and best of all, to get his own kind of revenge on Campbell and others whom Rigdon thought were only trying to keep him from his true destiny.

All the data supports Rigdon being a preacher, educated, good writer ..capable of writing the Book of Mormon. Smith on the other hand hadn't displayed interest in writing, was't educated. Other evidence which can't be dismissed because it's strong evidence are independent witnesses who upon hearing the Book of Mormon in their town recognized portions as being Spalding's. (I'm preaching to the choir)

But, I hope I made it a little clearer why this all fits in together.

And I hope that I've made it clearer how it really came together.

Art

[_avanick]

Dear Dan,
Pardon me if I'm laboring under a false impression, but it seem to me that you accept almost without question, anything published by the church or by LDS apologists or authorities without question, no matter how littel it may or may not be based on "facts" as defined by yourself, but by the same token, you almost completely reject just about everything said in defense of the Spalding authorship claims, plus you seem to refuse to read what we have to say, so you can't possibly know whether we have in fact provided "facts", also by your own definition, but rather you just assume that what we say is false, based on what others say and not because of anything you have read for yourself. I find that to be rather disturbing, if not, and pardon me if I sound harsh, intellectually dishonest.

Art

CONVERSION OF SIDNEY RIGDON

If Rigdon aided Joseph Smith in writing the Book of Mormon and his conversion to Mormonism was a sham, it was aided by a rather fortuitous event--the conversion of Parley P. Pratt. Note the following chronology of events leading to Rigdon's conversion, largely taken from the The Autobiography of Parley P. Pratt, ed. Parley P. Pratt, Jr. (New York: Russell Brothers, 1874; rept. 1976). Page numbers herein cited are to the reprint; here is a link to the first edition.

http://contentdm.lib.BYU.edu/cgi-bin/docviewer.exe?CISOROOT=/NCMP1847-1877&CISOPTR=2912

9 September 1827. Parley P. Pratt marries Thankful Halsey in Caanan (NY).

October 1827. The Pratts move to northern Ohio.

Circa. April 1829. Pratt hears Sidney Rigdon preach.

About this time one Mr. Sidney Rigdon came into the neighborhood as a preacher, and it was rumored that he was a kind of Reformed Baptist, who, with Mr. Alexander Campbell, or Virginia, a Mr. Scott, and some other gifted men, had dissented from the regular Baptists, from whom they differed much in doctrine. At length I went to hear him ... (31)

August 1830. Pratt sells his farm and with his wife starts on his mission to preach the gospel. While traveling up the Erie Canal on his way to Caanan (NY), Pratt stopped in a small town near Rochester (NY) to preach. It was there that he heard about the Book of Mormon.

We visited an old Baptist deacon by the name of Hamlin. After hearing of our appointment for evening, he began to tell of a book, a STRANGE BOOK, a VERY STRANGE BOOK! in his possession, which had been just published. This book, he said, purported to have been originally written on plates either of gold or brass, by a branch of the tribes of Israel; and to have been discovered and translated by a young man near Palmyra, in the State of New York, by the aid of visions, or the ministry of angels. I inquired of him how or where the book was to be obtained. He promised me the perusal of it, at his house the next day, if I would call. I felt a strange interest in the book. I preached that evening to a small audience, who appeared to be interested in the truths which I endeavored to unfold to them in a clear and lucid manner from the Scriptures. Next morning I called at his house, where, for the first time, my eyes beheld the "Book of Mormon," ...(36-37)

Late August 1830. Parley P. Pratt arrives in Manchester and speaks with Hyrum Smith; both men then walk to Fayette, arriving the same evening.

Circa 1 September 1830. Parley P. Pratt is baptized in Seneca Lake, confirmed, and ordained an elder by Oliver Cowdery.

19 September 1830. Parley P. Pratt baptizes Orson Pratt at Canaan (NY.

10 October 1830 (?). Ezra Thayre visits Joseph Smith in Manchester (NY); Parley P. Pratt baptizes Ezra Thayre and Northrop Sweet.

17 October 1830. Oliver Cowdery, Parley P. Pratt, Ziba Peterson, and Peter Whitmer sign "Missionaries Covenant" in Manchester (NY).

17-21 October 1830. Oliver Cowdery, Parley P. Pratt, Ziba Peterson, and Peter Whitmer depart Manchester (NY) in "late" October 1830.

Circa Early November 1830. Oliver Cowdery, Parley P. Pratt, Ziba Peterson, and Peter Whitmer arrive in the Mentor (OH) area.

... Thence [from Buffalo] we continued our journey, for about two hundred miles, and at length called on Mr. [Sidney] Rigdon, my former friend and instructor, in the Reformed Baptist Society. He received us cordially and entertained us with hospitality.

We soon presented him with a Book of Mormon, and related to him the history of the same. He was much interested, and promised a thorough perusal of the book.

We tarried in this region form some time, and devoted out time to the ministry, and visiting from house to house.

At length Mr. Rigdon and many other became convinced that they had no authority to minister in the ordinances of God; and that they had not been legally baptized and ordained. They, therefore, came forward and were baptized by us, and received the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands, and prayer in the name of Jesus Christ. ... (47-48)

Circa 8 November 1830. Sidney Rigdon is baptized in Mentor (OH).

In a letter dated 12 November 1830, Kirtland, Ohio, Oliver Cowdery states:

... seventeen went immediately forward and were baptized, between eleven and twelve at night, and on the 6th there was one more, on the 7th nine in the day time and at night nineteen, on the 8th three, on the 9th three, on the 10th at night one, on the 11th one, on this day another, making in the whole fifty five, among whom are brother Sidney Rigdon and wife.

--(Newel Knight, Journal, circa 1846, private possession).

Circa 7 December 1830. Sidney Rigdon and Edward Partridge arrive at Fayette (NY), and Joseph Smith receives a revelation for each of them.

Now, it seems to me that Spalding advocates, in addition to asserting that Rigdon pretended his conversion, would by necessity also have to include Parley P. Pratt in their conspiracy theory. And thus we add yet another layer of improbability.

[_Uncle Dale]

Dear Dan,
Pardon me if I'm laboring under a false impression, but it seem to me that you accept almost without question, anything published by the church or by LDS apologists or authorities without question, no matter how littel it may or may not be based on "facts" as defined by yourself, but by the same token, you almost completely reject just about everything said in defense of the Spalding authorship claims, plus you seem to refuse to read what we have to say, so you can't possibly know whether we have in fact provided "facts", also by your own definition, but rather you just assume that what we say is false, based on what others say and not because of anything you have read for yourself. I find that to be rather disturbing, if not, and pardon me if I sound harsh, intellectually dishonest.

Art

Until Dan reads your book, I suppose that there is little he can say in reply to you, Art. I still have 2 or 3 copies of
your 2000 CD-ROM version and would be happy to send him one for free, if that would help speed things up a little.

Anybody who choses to speak as an authority (pro or con) on the Spalding-Rigdon-Smith authorship explanation,
is simply NOT an authority, if they do not have your book not only on their library shelves, but open to all of the
witness statements and in their lap as they type away in threads like this.

But I think that the Roper-Brown-Englund argument goes something like this: "I know the Book of Mormon is true; I have read
Spalding's 'Manuscript Found;' I know that is not the Book of Mormon -- therefore the 8 Conneaut witnesses lied,
and therefore I do not need to read any more witness statements to know that the Spaulding Lie is of the Devil!!"

Perhaps I'm being a littke too hard on Bro. Roper -- but he himself admits that he begins his examination of the
subject by knowing for certain, in advance, that it is all untrue. I see that as a bad start for any investigator.

If you had cancer, how would you feel if you went to a doctor who said "I know already you'll die soon: I needn't look!"

Or, if the doctor did take a quick look at you, and then said: "Just as I knew already -- you'll be dead before Sunday!"
???

Dale

[_marg]

Art, my response to Dale was not very clear, I apologize. He had asked the question in regards to a post of mine of how spalding and rigdon fit in. I assumed he was referring to my lack of a mention of anything with regards to Rigdon and Spalding in my post, i.e. how does the Rigdon Spalding fit in to my response, so what I meant by my reply to him, was that they fit in indirectly to my particular post, I didn’t mean to the whole theory that they fit in indirectly.

Art

Sorry, but I have to disagree with you on this point. Without Spalding's material, much more would have had to have come from Smith's fertile imagination than just a few items here and there, and without Rigdon's involvement, much, if not most of the religious material in the Book of Mormon wouldn't have ever made it into the book at all. I think that even Mr. Criddle would agree with me on this, though he disagrees with us on how many manuscripts Spalding wrote. If the LDS have problems with Spalding writing two manuscripts, they would have a field day with Criddle and his claims that Spalding wrote three of them.

There are many "Rigdonisms" throughout the Book of Mormon - what you might almost call "trademark" phrases, which Rigdon used in his various sermons throughout his career in the Mormon hierarchy. Those very phrases are used in the Book of Mormon, and not paraphrased, but word for word.

Thanks for pointing this out. While I am convinced that Spalding’s manuscript formed the bulk in the Book of Mormon I don’t have an appreciation for the religious parts in the Book of Mormon and how they relate to Rigdon, or Smith or Spalding. Sure I’ve read explanations but I don’t appreciate it well.

Previously: Being the skeptic that I am I don't assume the supernatural. So I reject seer stones having magical abilities as described by witnesses. So if Smith could dictate the Book of Mormon story (as I believe Dan suggests) just from his own imagination he needed no props.

Art:

Or he could have just had a very good memory, as people claimed.

While there are people with amazing memories, I’m very skeptical that J. Smith could memorize the entire manuscript for the Book of Mormon. I also don’t think he was that industrious an individual. I think it more likely that the witnesses who all ended up being part of the hierarchy that is I’m referring to those who observed extended periods of J.Smith (alledgedly) translating and gave their witness statements were in on the hoax. I'm aware there are some people who observed for brief periods of time, and I'm not referring to them. I don't presume the witnesses to Smith translating were honest in their claims of angels, plates, Jesus, voice of God, visual of Jesus and how the process was done. Had Smith and company involved someone or someones independent to them, with no interest in Mormonism, no later pay off of some position in the organization to be a scribe the descriptions of not using a manuscript or some written source to read would carry weight., at which point I might consider Smith had memorized material to dictate to scribes.

Previous: The fact that the witnesses descibed the process as reading from "something" when it would have been unnecessary if he was the sole author sitting in the room, suggests that he did in fact read off of "something". So this is reasoning which supports use of a manuscript as opposed to Smith's on his own without any material dictating to scribes. Again applying reasoning, why the prop, it's just extra baggage.

Art:

The question is easily answered: he was a showman, and he loved the attention, notoriety, and it enhanced his claims that it was of a supernatural source, ie, from God.

Showman or not, he’d still have to have the industry to spend long hours on a regular basis , memorizing. Why bother when an easier method is available using his chosen scribes. Is there any reason why I should think the scribes were honest when they claim he had no manuscript?

previous: Is it really likely he's going to go through the entire process with his head in the hat. Again using reason ..how is he going to fit papers into a hat, turn pages, read words up close.

Were there not differeing accounts as to how Smith did his "translating"? Did not some claim that they saw him stick his head into a hat and others claim that he spoke from behind a curtain? In the end, aren't all of the accounts, as well as responding to or commenting about them, just dignifying rather tenuous claims with little basis in fact? Don't they pretty much have about as much validity as Smith's claims that there were actually metal plates that were given to him for a time by an angel?

I have read about different methods but I’m not sure what the source/evidence is. I believe Cowdery said he used a Urim and Thummim. I've read about a blanket at the door while Cowdery and he were working. I believe I read about a sheet between him and Harris but I'm not sure of the source for that. The most common description was his head in the hat, so I’ll assume that and not reject the witnesses' claims to process based on inconsistency of descriptions. But as you point out, where’s the validity in their claims. The church can’t duplicate what was claimed. There is no way to verify. The claims include the supernatural which right away leads me to be skeptical with regards to truth. So unlike Dan who seems to assume that the presumption rests with the witness as telling the truth, I see no good reason to presume athat. There are plenty of reasons to presume otherwise. The major one being they lacked objectivity being as they all ended up in positions of importance within the organization. It would appear there was a pay-off for them to support this hoax, which they may have viewed not in a negative but rather positive way.

previously :Try it Dale, up too close you can't read words on a paper. But besides that he has to turn pages. The witnesses also described him being stumped on reading some words and having to spell them. So it's likely they were telling the truth about him reading from "something" there's no reason to lie about that. But there is reason to make up a story to hide the fact that a manuscript was used.

And that's where Rigdon and Spalding come in.

Art

Once again, no Spalding and no basis for the Book of Mormon, and without Rigdon, you have nobody to provide the religious content for the Book of Mormon. Not only that, but Rigdon's motivation behind helping to bring forth the Book of Mormon was his desire to be a sort of New World "Paul", to finally make a name for himself as a great "man of God", and best of all, to get his own kind of revenge on Campbell and others whom Rigdon thought were only trying to keep him from his true destiny.

Thanks for the comments and insights.

previously: All the data supports Rigdon being a preacher, educated, good writer ..capable of writing the Book of Mormon. Smith on the other hand hadn't displayed interest in writing, was't educated. Other evidence which can't be dismissed because it's strong evidence are independent witnesses who upon hearing the Book of Mormon in their town recognized portions as being Spalding's. (I'm preaching to the choir)

But, I hope I made it a little clearer why this all fits in together.


Art

And I hope that I've made it clearer how it really came together.

Yes, I certainly welcome input from anyone who is knowledgable on this subject, no matter what side of it they are on. We do happen to be on the same side, but I don't for a second think I'm nearly as knowledgable as those who have spent much time and energies studying it.

[_Dan Vogel]

Art,

Pardon me if I'm laboring under a false impression, but it seem to me that you accept almost without question, anything published by the church or by LDS apologists or authorities without question, no matter how littel it may or may not be based on "facts" as defined by yourself,

Of course, what you say here is not true since I'm arguing the Joseph Smith is the sole author of the Book of Mormon. However, I do not automatically reject everything Mormon apologists say either. I try to assess the merits of the research and arguments made on either side of any issue, which is what I hope readers of this post will do. Apologists are not always wrong, and critics are not always right. It appears to me that you and Dale question everything that comes from Mormons, even if you don't have sufficient grounds for doing so. If you expect me to assess your evidence and arguments fairly, then you should not be surprised when I extend the same courtesy to Mormon apologists. If you recall, I quoted Roper's review of your book and invited you to respond, which I don't think you did to my satisfaction.

but by the same token, you almost completely reject just about everything said in defense of the Spalding authorship claims, plus you seem to refuse to read what we have to say, so you can't possibly know whether we have in fact provided "facts", also by your own definition,

I haven't responded to "everything" said in defense of the Spalding theory. I haven't refused to read what you have to say; I just haven't been motivated to read it because it doesn't fit with what I DO know about early Mormon history and the contents of the Book of Mormon. So, far you and Dale haven't done much to change that opinion. I only have so much time to investigate Mormon origins, so I can't go off on a wild goose chase. I must make decisions of where best to spend my time. However, I think I know enough to have an informed opinion and determine that it doesn't figure in my interpretation of Mormon origins. But it's not me that you necessarily need to convince, but readers of this thread. I'm not one to tell internet readers they need to buy my books, because I take the time to explain my views to them here. That's what you should be doing now. (by the way, if you respond point-for-point, either learn how to use the quote fuction or write your reponse at the end--I'm having trouble separating your comments from who you're responding to, and there is a danger that those not following the discussion closely will conclude you have not responded.)

but rather you just assume that what we say is false, based on what others say and not because of anything you have read for yourself. I find that to be rather disturbing, if not, and pardon me if I sound harsh, intellectually dishonest.

Here is your chance to make some points for your views. The ground here is level as I have the same restructions as you do. There is nothing intellectually dishonest in my critique for the Spalding theory. I stated up front that I did not consider myself an expert on Spalding, but I do know early Mormon history and the Book of Mormon well. I could say you weren't intellectually honest for not reading my books and trying better to accommodate your theory with a more accurate understanding of my theories and interpretations as well as Mormon apologetics. Now, while you flounder around with ad hominal insinuations, I will continue presenting facts and evidence Spalding advocates need to respond to and critiquing the Spalding theory as I find presented here and elsewhere on the net.

[_Dan Vogel]

Dale,

Until Dan reads your book, I suppose that there is little he can say in reply to you, Art. I still have 2 or 3 copies of
your 2000 CD-ROM version and would be happy to send him one for free, if that would help speed things up a little.

Hey, I might read the book someday, but there happens to be other reading that needs to be done first. I already have a copy of the CD-ROM, which I believe you sent to me long ago. I find it odd that it was dedicated in part to Wes Walters, who as far as I know wasn't a supporter of the Spalding theory.

Anybody who choses to speak as an authority (pro or con) on the Spalding-Rigdon-Smith authorship explanation,
is simply NOT an authority, if they do not have your book not only on their library shelves, but open to all of the
witness statements and in their lap as they type away in threads like this.

I do not claim to be an authority of the Spalding theory, nor do I wish to be. I'd rather be an expert on Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. Someone like that could bring a lot to discussions like this.

But I think that the Roper-Brown-Englund argument goes something like this: "I know the Book of Mormon is true; I have read Spalding's 'Manuscript Found;' I know that is not the Book of Mormon -- therefore the 8 Conneaut witnesses lied, and therefore I do not need to read any more witness statements to know that the Spaulding Lie is of the Devil!!"

Well, I'm not a Mormon apologist--although some of the hardliners at RfM confuse me for one. Also, my impression is that the Spalding theory is still very much a minority opinion among those who reject the Book of Mormon as authentic history. Although I think Roper-Brown-Englund have a more sophisticated critique than (the strawman!) you represent, but those in the non-apologist group have additional reasons--which by and by we might get to.

Perhaps I'm being a littke too hard on Bro. Roper -- but he himself admits that he begins his examination of the subject by knowing for certain, in advance, that it is all untrue. I see that as a bad start for any investigator.

If I need to debunk anything, it's probably the myth of the unbiased investigator. There's no such thing. In historiography, it's called the Baconian fallacy.

"The Baconian fallacy" consists in the idea that a historian can operate without the aid of preconceived questions, hypotheses, ideas, assumptions, theories, paradigms, postulates, prejudices, presumptions, or general presuppositions of any kind. He is supposed to go a-wandering in the dark forest of the past, gathering facts like nuts and berries, until he has enough to make a general truth. Then he is to store up his general truths until he has the whole truth. This idea is doubly deficient, for it commits a historian to the pursuit of an impossible object by an impracticable method.

David Hackett Fischer, Historians' Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought (New York and Evanston: Harper and Row, 1970), 4.

Think of it like a court of law where both sides of the issue are vigorously debated. Now, what good does it do to argue that the prosecuting attorney is biased against your client? Shouldn't you rather focus on overturning the arguments and evidence? Focusing on bias is ad hominal and a waste of time.

If you had cancer, how would you feel if you went to a doctor who said "I know already you'll die soon: I needn't look!"

Or, if the doctor did take a quick look at you, and then said: "Just as I knew already -- you'll be dead before Sunday!" ???

Who said I wouldn't look? That's what I'm doing now. But I think this analogy works against you as well. How would you like your physician to dismiss more certain evidence for less certain and prefer his/her speculations above more factual evidence? Do you follow the lead of 20 year-old vague and unconfirmed memories, or do you follow independent multiple witnesses about Joseph Smith not using a MS source, which are supported by the original MS?

But what would you say if the physician wanted to indiscriminately check for every disease? What if it were life threatening and and early diagnosis would save your life? Would you want him/her to start by eliminating the least likely diagnoses first and work up to the most likely? Or would you want him/her to follow the most likely diagnosis first? Once the correct diagnosis is made, the others are automatically eliminated without having to extensively test them.

[_Uncle Dale]

Focusing on bias is ad hominal and a waste of time.

Talking about what is "a waste of time;" my views are somewhat different.

There are times that the argumentum ad hominem may be worth considering -- not in the proverbial
"shooting of the messenger," but in considering the character and honesty of a man like Sidney Rigdon. If
I give such a historical figure an "even break" and disregard all of the testimony previously offered against
his character and honesty (even against his sanity), then I will be purposefully excluding a large portion
of the very historical source material which may provide me with clues about the man's motives and methods.

What then do I consider to be a waste of time?

---> There is "bias;" and then there is an LDS testimony that the Book of Mormon is true --- no matter what.

I view those two predispositions as related but essentially separate phenomenon. A person who has a bias
towards believing that the Earl of Oxford wrote some of the Shakespeare plays might eventually be convinced
otherwise, by patient counter-arguments and by patient self-education.

A person who says, right out in front, that God has told him that Shakespeare wrote all of the plays himself ---
and who admits that if he disagrees much at all with that voiced testimony, he will be cut off from the One True
Shakespeare Society (to which he has dedicated his efforts and 10% of his pre-taxed income for all his life) ---
would be a different matter altogether.

Talking to the first guy -- the biased one -- may eventually be productive for somebody, somewhere.
Talking to the second guy -- whom God has given a testimony -- is not only an utter waste of time,
it provides him with a propaganda opportunity to try and influence others to convert to his illogic.

Uncle Dale