Resuming my response to the "Pratt Keeps Spalding Secret?" posting:
If what you are saying is true, why wouldn't Rigdon "implant" in Pratt's mind to go to Manchester or Fayette?
Why would Rigdon want Pratt to go to a little town near Rochester to learn about the Book of Mormon from an unbeliever?
Pratt wasn't looking for the Gold Bible, he was looking to preach. The Book of Mormon was a total surprise.
Again your conclusions bewilder me, Dan. I can understand your saying "I think the Book of Mormon was a total surprise." I can
even understand your saying, "I am totally convinced that the Book of Mormon was a total surprise." But when you make such an
assertion, with the same conviction as your saying "2+2=4" that scares me. It really does!
I'll admit that it is possible that Pratt did not get off the canal boat at Newark (if his story is true at this
point) with the specific intention of obtaining a copy of the Book of Mormon. But, on the other hand, he may have
been "sent" to that general area (between Palmyra and Lyons), with the charge to remain there until he encountered
a promised "revelation from God" and with the knowledge that there were people in that place who were already following
after a prophet. Pratt's exact instructuons, in his being "sent" to that area may have very specific or not; all
that we know is that he was soon baptized a Mormon and extended his "mission" after that. None of this means that
Pratt knew Rigdon had a role in writing the Book of Mormon. I am only saying that the book and the Smith followers
may have matched Pratt's religious beliefs so precisely that his "conversion" then and there was inevitable (and that
his religious superior, Sidney Rigdon, may have understood this would be the probable outcome when he sent Pratt there).
So, Dan -- I am expressing this scenerio with words like "may" and "probably" -- I am suggesting it as an operating
theory for some future investigators to keep in mind as they search for new information on Pratt and the Mormons during
the second half of 1830. You, on the other hand, are saying "The Book of Mormon was a total surprise," in the same way that you
might cite a law of physics. To me, at least, that sort of response is very, very reminiscent of the sort of reply I
would expect to hear from a faithful LDS, who was relying upon an unshakable testimony for his knowledge of "facts."
Whatever newspaper accounts or rumors Pratt and others in the Western Reserve may have been exposed to could not
have connected Joseph Smith's translation of an Indian history with restorationism. Not until after publication in March
1830 could its contents be known to the public and reported in newspapers. Hyde and Snow said the reports were
"vague" and dismissed by them as a "hoax".
Again, you make a statement which you seem to believe stands with the same authority as a mathematical
theorem's proof. All the "rumor" that needed to reach the ears of the Reformed Baptists of the Ohio Western Reserve
in 1829-30, was that God was again speaking revelation unto his chosen disciples on earth --- But there was MORE:
The
Painesville Telegraph of Sept. 22, 1829, reported that "the spirit of the Almighty" was again giving revelations
unto His chosen servants, providing them with a new "Bible" of "divine nature and origin," the "doctrines" of which
were then being claimed by the "blindly enthusiastic" as being "far superior to the book of life!"
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/OH ... htm#092229Had Hyde, Snow, Pratt, Rigdon, or any other Reformed Baptist taken the time to visit with editors Howe or Perkins
in neighboring Painesville, and there consulted their exchange newspapers (from which editors then obtained such news
items), they might easily have run across the more detailed original article, or one of its eastern reprints, in which
the Book of Mormon title page was reproduced, along with a mention that the new Bible's revelations already had
"proselytes" who were claiming it "to be superior in style, and more advantageous to mankind, than the Holy Bible."
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/NY ... htm#081129What more could a Rigdonite of the late 1820s have wanted? God was again speaking to men and giving revelation,
and the proselytes of
that restored divine communication were claiming that their new Bible was more plain
and precious than were such old scriptures as Alexander Campbell's revised New Testament.
Which is more probable -- that none of Rigdon's parishoners ever saw such an announcement in their "hometown paper,"
or that at least one of them did, and directed Rigdon's attention to the reports of a new revelation from God? Recall
also that the
Painesville Telegraph was a local newspaper that now and then mentioned Rigdon himself in its columns.
The secrets Rigdon mentions deal with future plans, particularly those dealing with the New Jerusalem government
in Missouri, league with the Indians, and possible overthrow of the US government. To suggest the church leaders
could have kept Spalding secret is the same as demonstrating they DID keep Spalding secret. It's up to you to impeach
Pratt. So far, you haven't. Pratt's story makes sense to me, your version doesn't.
I'll grant that as early as 1829-30 the first Mormons may have had their eyes trained upon the impending transfer of
most of the Indian tribes west of the Missouri -- if that is what you mean by "government in Missouri." Independence
was the trailhead for the very lucrative Santa Fe silver and fur trade, and any people who managed to take control
over such a "port of entry" would be in a similar position as a modern "chosen people" who somehow managed to wrest
control of Los Angeles from the USA. But whether or not such things were discussed in the secret meetings Rigdon admits
were a part of the Mormon leadership's activities in New York in 1830, I have no way of knowing.
The point I was trying to make, is that Rigdon himself admitted to these secret meetings, while addressing the Saints
assembled to listen to him, Joseph and Hyrum, at the 1844 Nauvoo spring Conference. While the remainder of Rigdon's
3-part speech was suppressed and never published, at least he was not halted in his address by his co-members of the
First Presidency, as he explained the need for such secrecy in 1830 -- he said:
"I recollect in the year 1830, I met the whole church of Christ... and we began to talk about the
kingdom of God as if we had the world at our command... we began to talk like men in authority and power --
we looked upon the men of the earth as grasshoppers... we knew the whole world would laugh at us, so we
concealed ourselves; and there was much excitement about our secret meetings, charging us with designs
against the government, and with laying plans to get money, &c. which never existed in the heads of
anyone else, and if we had talked in public, we should have been ridiculed more than we were,
the world being entirely ignorant of the testimony of the prophets and without knowledge of what God
was about to do; treated all we said with pretended contempt, and much ridicule; and had they have heard
all we said, it would have made it worse for us...
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/RigWrit/1844Conf.htmThat is all I am saying, Dan ---- That if others had heard "all" that Smith, Rigdon, Pratt and Cowdery discussed
among themselves in such secret meetings, and understood "all" that they "said," it indeed would have made it
"worse" for these topmost leaders. I take that as my starting point, Dan ---- that the very week (perhaps the
very day) that Rigdon appeared in New York in Dec. 1830, he was instantly admitted into these secret meetings
and was a trusted participant in their planned acts and manipulations. Quite an honor for a brand new convert!
As David Whitmer later reported:
"In December, 1830, Sydney Rigdon and Edward Partridge came from Kirtland, Ohio, to Fayette,
N.Y., to see Brother Joseph...
Rigdon was a thorough Bible scholar, a man of fine education, and
a powerful orator. He
soon worked himself deep into Brother Joseph's affections, and had more
influence over him than any other man living. He was Brother Joseph's private counsellor, and his
most intimate friend and brother for some time after they met.... Sydney Rigdon was the cause of
almost all the errors which were introduced while he was in the church."
http://www.olivercowdery.com/smithhome/ ... htm#pg035aThis situation -- of Rigdon's special position -- is hinted at here. in the LDS D&C:
Behold, verily, verily, I say unto my servant Sidney, I have looked upon thee and thy works.
I have heard thy prayers, and prepared thee for a greater work. Thou art blessed, for thou shalt do
great things. Behold thou wast sent forth, even as John, to prepare the way before me, and before
Elijah which should come, and thou knewest it not....
And I have sent forth the fulness of my gospel by the hand of servant Joseph; and in weakness
I have blessed him; And I have given unto him the keys of the mystery of those things which have
been sealed, even which where from the foundation of the world, and the things which shall come
from this time to the time of my coming, if he abide in me, and if he not, another will I plant in his
stead. Wherefore, watch over him that his faith fail not, and it shall be given by the Comforter,
the Holy Ghost, that knoweth all things. And a commandment I give unto thee -- that thou shalt
write for him; and the scriptures shall be given, even as they are in mine own bosom...
What talk was there, in those secret Mormon meetings of 1830, of Rigdon having to watch over Joseph Smith, so that
"his faith fail not;" or that Joseph Smith might not "abide in me;" or that "another" might be planted "in his stead?"
What talk was there, in those secret meetings of 1830, of Rigdon having been chosen to "write for him?"
And to be Joseph Smith's "spokesman" (just as predicted in the Book of Mormon), and of Rigdon's being "sent forth" that he
might "prepare the way" for Mormonism among the Rigdonite Reformed Baptists of Ohio?
Rigdon's peculiar preoccupation with the seer/spokesman dual leadership of the restired church crops
up again and again in his writings. Near his death he finally gave the pronouncement that the restored
church no longer existed on the face of the earth, because this seer/spokesman dual leadership was missing
(Rigdon himself having by then taken on the role of seer, but finding no better spokesman than Elder Post).
Is it a total coincidence that the very first restored "Church of Christ," established in Pittsburgh, PA
in 1823-24, also had the dual leadership of two elders (Rigdon and Scott), one of which (Walter Scott) was
the main spokesman for the new dispensation?
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/1824Scot.htm#page27aIs there anything specific in these charges that bear on the issue at hand? We have several instances where
these church courts drum up charges against an individual in order to maintain the status quo.
I'll leave that question for others to ponder and attempt to answer. I have placed the Grant and Hyde pamphlets
on the web. The "Times and Seasons" account of Rigdon's trial is also on-line -- as are reports in the Mormons'
New York "Prophet," the "Frontier Guardian," and citations in Rigdon's own "Mesenger and Advocate." Interested
readers can compare those accounts of Sidney Rigdon's secretive religious manipulations, false revelations, etc.,
with what writers like Van Wagoner and Whitsitt have reported. The independent reporting of the Campbellites
reinforces the Mormons' own dismal picture of Rigdon's bizzare behavior and untrustworthiness. Had Rigdon been
a member of the Mahoning Baptist Association (where Campbell had his power base), then the Campbellites might
have reined him in a little better -- but Rigdon was in the Grand River Association in 1826-29 and out of their
jurisdiction. See what Campbell himself had to say about the man (in a purposefully guarded disclosure):
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/VA ... 020731-100I see nothing suspicious in Pratt's countering Spalding any more than the dozen other subjects he wrote on --
after all he was the leading pamphleteer in the early church. Given his knowledge of how Rigdon came to be
converted, why shouldn't Pratt take a special interest in the issue? Can you give us a reason to doubt Pratt's
account of his presenting the Book of Mormon to Rigdon?
I was concentrating more upon the fact that he was a partisan with authority to speak for the Church on this
matter. When you turn on your TV and hear a lawyer speaking for his client (even if the client is a church)
do you automatically conclude that you are receiving the full and unvarnished truth?
And if that same lawyer were later to take the witness stand, and there provide testimony exhonorating both
himself and his client, would you not hope that he would be carefully cross-examined by an opposing attorney?
I said before that I do not view my own work on this topic as being the same as prosecutor, judge and jury in
a legal case, and I do not present my findings and provisional conclusions with that same degree of precision
and adversarial process. But I will say that I see Pratt acting somewhat like a partisan lawyer-spokesman whose
main concern is in defending his client and himself -- and not in his disclosing facts harmful to his case.
They may have heard rumors or read a newspaper report about some plates being translated, but such vague reports
would probably only take on significance after their conversions.
Maybe so. See Eliza R. Snow's pre-1830 poem about an angel restoring God's truth, etc. When she re-published
the poem, she made it a more specific reference to the Book of Mormon. No doubt many Rigdonites and former
Campbellites went through this sort of mental revision of their earlier beliefs and anticipations:
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/features/RigSmth3.htm#SnowFunny how Atwater and Pratt say the same thing, but you only believe Atwater.
Oh, I said I was ready to believe 99% of what Pratt reported in his posthumous autobiography. I think in doing that
I am bending over backward, trying to make use of "single source" reporting. I also hold open the possibility that
Atwater (who was still alive when his account was published, and open to investigation) may have told the truth.
Do you automatically assume that he did not? Here is a link to information about him -- investigate for yourself:
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/features/Ri ... tm#AtwaterIf Pratt's late arrival argues against his participation in the plot, then why not use the same argument
against Rigdon's?
I think you misunderstand what I was trying to say.
My meaning was that by the time Pratt arrived on the scene, the Book of Mormon text was either finalized or nearing
its final, published form. Unless I can find at least one scrap of testimony or other evidence providing a contrary
conclusion, I'll give Pratt the benefit of the doubt and say he could not have much influenced the Book of Mormon story/doctrines.
On the other hand, if Pratt did not begin any close association with Sidney Rigdon until after the Book of Mormon contents
were finalized, that would also mean that he evidently did not have the opportunity to view the same semi-secretive
pre-1829 manuscript writing activities that some other Rigdon associates and observers reported.
Even B. H. Roberts was ready to concede that Rigdon had then been writing some sort of religious stuff. Are you such
a supporter of the official LDS line, regarding Sidney Rigdon, that you will even go so far as to discredit Roberts'
unusual concession in this instance?
But, let's not spend forever on Parley P. Pratt's 1830 relationship with his religious boss, Sidney Rigdon --
Here are some other people to whom we might also pay some special attention:
Aaron Wright
John N. Miller
Nahum Howard
Henry Lake
Oliver Smith
Art Cunningham
John Spalding
Martha Spalding
Solomon Spalding
Matilda Sabin Spalding Davison
Matilda Spalding McKinstry
Josiah Spalding
Abner Jackson
William Leffingwell
Daniel Spalding
Daniel M. Spencer
Lyman Jackson
Robert Harper
Erastus Rudd
Nehemiah King
Joseph Miller
Redick McKee
Cephas Dodd
Robert Patterson
http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/saga/saga02a.htm
I can add more to the list, after we have looked at what these folks did and said.
Uncle Dale