True Doctrine

[_Gazelam]

What doctrines, exactly, do you have a problem with?

[_Jason Bourne]

Joseph Smith had no contact with Rigdon prior to Rigdon's conversion by Parley Pratt in 1830 thus that theory falls rather flat.

It is generally much easier to prove with a high degree of probability to a virtual certainty that someone had contact with a particular individual if there is affirmative evidence, such as first hand observations and/or reliable eyewitness accounts. It becomes much more difficult to prove with any degree of certainty that a particular individual did NOT come in contact with another individual if those individuals were within a reasonable travel distance of each other and had the time and means. Absence of evidence (of the event/meeting) is not evidence of absence (of the event/meeting). In addition it would be expected that evidence would be absent if the parties had reason to want to keep their contact a secret.

So what evidence do you have that J. Smith & Rigdon could not possibly have met before 1830..to enable you to state with such complete confidence..."the theory falls flat"?

Sorry. I am not playing that game. You accuse Rigdon of using Smith as a puppet. There is nothing in the historical record to indicate Rigdon knew anything about Smith before Pratt preached Mormonism to him. It is your accusation and speculation and thus up to you to prove. So, give me evidence of Rigdon/Smith contact prior to 1830. Otherwise I can dismiss your argument outrigth. Where are your first hand witnessed or reliable eyewitness accounts?

Jason

[_harmony]

Joseph Smith had no contact with Rigdon prior to Rigdon's conversion by Parley Pratt in 1830 thus that theory falls rather flat.

It is generally much easier to prove with a high degree of probability to a virtual certainty that someone had contact with a particular individual if there is affirmative evidence, such as first hand observations and/or reliable eyewitness accounts. It becomes much more difficult to prove with any degree of certainty that a particular individual did NOT come in contact with another individual if those individuals were within a reasonable travel distance of each other and had the time and means. Absence of evidence (of the event/meeting) is not evidence of absence (of the event/meeting). In addition it would be expected that evidence would be absent if the parties had reason to want to keep their contact a secret.

So what evidence do you have that J. Smith & Rigdon could not possibly have met before 1830..to enable you to state with such complete confidence..."the theory falls flat"?

Sorry. I am not playing that game. You accuse Rigdon of using Smith as a puppet. There is nothing in the historical record to indicate Rigdon knew anything about Smith before Pratt preached Mormonism to him. It is your accusation and speculation and thus up to you to prove. So, give me evidence of Rigdon/Smith contact prior to 1830. Otherwise I can dismiss your argument outrigth. Where are your first hand witnessed or reliable eyewitness accounts?

Jason

Jason, you might want to soften your hardline stance, in light of the lack of first hand witnesses or reliable eyewitness accounts for the restoration of the Melch priesthood. How can you demand that marg give you something you aren't willing (or in this case, can't) show yourself?

[_harmony]

What doctrines, exactly, do you have a problem with?

I have relatively few problems with doctrine, Gaz (which is why I maintain my death grip on my membership). I have a whole slew of problems with policy and culture.

[_Gazelam]

Please be specific

[_harmony]

Please be specific

Specifically:

Doctrines:

1. Plural marriage
2. restoration of anything prior to the Atonement
3. mandatory tithing
4. non-scriptural temple ceremonies

Policy:

1. closed books
2. follow the prophet, even when the HG tells you he's wrong (interference with personal revelation)
3. obedience required even in the face of poor, inadequate, or incompetent leadership
4. closed temple marriages
5. Mormon royalty
6. unpaid clergy
7. priesthood ban for Blacks and women
8. veiled women
9. baptism of 8 year olds
10. elevation of policies to doctrinal status (specifically WOW)

Culture:

1. slavish attention to inconsequentials (earrings, tattoos, beards, clothing)
2. elitist BYU attitude
3. material greed valued over Christlike attributes
4. spending church money on malls and real estate instead of helping those in need
5. shunning of ex-members
6. more concerned with outward appearances than inward attributes
7. over-reverence for pioneers
8. unnecessary callings, unnecessary intrusion on family life
9. boring uninspired meetings
10. overstating the numbers

Those will do for starters.

[_Jason Bourne]

Jason, you might want to soften your hardline stance, in light of the lack of first hand witnesses or reliable eyewitness accounts for the restoration of the Melch priesthood. How can you demand that marg give you something you aren't willing (or in this case, can't) show yourself?

The two are not related. The postition espoused it Rigdon used Joseph Smith as a tool to bring forth the Book of Mormon. This theory requires evidence that there is a connection between the two men prior to 1830, which evidence seems lacking. The MK priesthood is entirely a different subject which we can discuss elsewhere, especially since you do not know my position on that topic.

Jason

[_Gazelam]

I'm sorry i can't get to your post tonight, I will try soon, thanks for your patience. its just gotten too late, and I have the bad habit of responding to these boards from the botom up.

all the best

Gaz

[_marg]

Jason:

Sorry. I am not playing that game. You accuse Rigdon of using Smith as a puppet. There is nothing in the historical record to indicate Rigdon knew anything about Smith before Pratt preached Mormonism to him. It is your accusation and speculation and thus up to you to prove. So, give me evidence of Rigdon/Smith contact prior to 1830. Otherwise I can dismiss your argument outrigth. Where are your first hand witnessed or reliable eyewitness accounts?

A case for Rigdon meeting Smith prior to 1830 Book of Mormon publication is presented in Chap. 11 ..of the book "Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon" by Cowdery, Davis. & Vanick. The chapter is called the " Mysterious Stranger" . As well, there are web sites with extensive research and notes on the Spalding-Rigdon theory. Of note would be Dale Broadhurst’s web sites.

But let’s address the logic in your reasoning. Even if there were no witness statements/evidence “of Rigdon/Smith contact prior to 1830” that wouldn’t justify dismissing outright the Spalding-Rigdon theory. You have not destroyed that theory.

Only if it could be shown that it was impossible for Rigdon to have met Smith prior to 1830 would the theory be destroyed.

[_Jason Bourne]

Jason:

Sorry. I am not playing that game. You accuse Rigdon of using Smith as a puppet. There is nothing in the historical record to indicate Rigdon knew anything about Smith before Pratt preached Mormonism to him. It is your accusation and speculation and thus up to you to prove. So, give me evidence of Rigdon/Smith contact prior to 1830. Otherwise I can dismiss your argument outrigth. Where are your first hand witnessed or reliable eyewitness accounts?

A case for Rigdon meeting Smith prior to 1830 Book of Mormon publication is presented in Chap. 11 ..of the book "Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon" by Cowdery, Davis. & Vanick. The chapter is called the " Mysterious Stranger" . As well, there are web sites with extensive research and notes on the Spalding-Rigdon theory. Of note would be Dale Broadhurst’s web sites.

But let’s address the logic in your reasoning. Even if there were no witness statements/evidence “of Rigdon/Smith contact prior to 1830” that wouldn’t justify dismissing outright the Spalding-Rigdon theory. You have not destroyed that theory.

Only if it could be shown that it was impossible for Rigdon to have met Smith prior to 1830 would the theory be destroyed.

I do not own the book nor do I plan on buying it. If you have weblinks I will look at those. On the other point, destroy may be too strong. But let's look at it in a court of law. You want to convict Rigdon of using Smith as his Book of Mormon pawn. In order to to so the lynch pin is whether Rigdon had contact with Smith prior to 1830. To completely dismiss the theory, yes one may need to show it impossible. But to convict Rigdon one must have convincing evidence and the burden of proof is on the prosecutor as the prosecutor is making the accusation. That really is what the issue is, and as far as I have seen I see very little or no evidence. Can you post some here instead of sending me to some book I do not want to buy?

Jason