True Doctrine

[_Runtu]

I think the Spaulding-Rigdon theory is pretty speculative, as well. I think it stems from the widespread belief that Joseph simply wasn't smart enough or educated enough to create the Book of Mormon.

[_marg]

Jason

(1)Since Rigdon meeting Smith prior to 1830 is critical to the Spalding theory those making the accusation have the burden of proof that it did happen. (2)I have seen scant evidence to conclude that he did.

(3) Of course it is possible. (4)They only lived 300 miles apart. (5)But those making the claim need to demonstrate it is probable not just possible and I have seen nothing to convince me it was probable.

I’ve numbered your sentences to address each.

#1) I’ll repeat because you fail to grasp the concept logically..it is NOT necessary for the Spalding/Rigdon theory to have witness statements of Rigdon meeting Smith prior to the Book of Mormon. Witness statements support Rigdon meeting Smith pre Book of Mormon but are not essential to it.
#2) You may very well have seen scant evidence but then for that to be relevant and important to me, I’d want to know how much investigation you’ve done into the issue of how the Book of Mormon came about. How emotionally invested you are in any particular theory? Do you have a personal stake in one theory over another? How well do you critically think and evaluate evidence?
#3) You are now contradicting yourself from your initial claim to me. Initially you said “Joseph Smith had no contact with Rigdon prior to Rigdon's conversion by Parley Pratt in 1830 thus that theory falls rather flat. You said, THEY DID NOT MEET. Now you are saying it is possible they could have met. If that is the case…then your conclusion “the theory falls flat” is not justified. And that was the main point I was making to you..that logically your conclusion fails because you do not know for a fact they didn’t meet.
#4) In that newspaper article I quoted you I believe, it mentioned 200 miles not 300 ..is the article wrong? If so please give details.
#5) What I said above for # 2 applies. Craig Criddle has a web site in which he also addresses the Spalding Rigdon theory and has a section regarding Rigdon meeting Smith pre Book of Mormon. If you take a look at it and argue what he says I’ll address your comments. http://mormonstudies.com/criddle/rigdon.htm


------------------------------------

Runtu:

I think the Spaulding-Rigdon theory is pretty speculative, as well. I think it stems from the widespread belief that Joseph simply wasn't smart enough or educated enough to create the Book of Mormon.

It is a matter of where the evidence leads and the best scenario to fit the data.

[_Jason Bourne]

#1) I’ll repeat because you fail to grasp the concept logically..it is NOT necessary for the Spalding/Rigdon theory to have witness statements of Rigdon meeting Smith prior to the Book of Mormon. Witness statements support Rigdon meeting Smith pre Book of Mormon but are not essential to it.

I will repeat because you seemt to fail to gradp the concept logically. If Rigdon used Smith as a puppet it is necessary for them to have met, had contact, planned the subterfuge, etc.

#2) You may very well have seen scant evidence but then for that to be relevant and important to me, I’d want to know how much investigation you’ve done into the issue of how the Book of Mormon came about.

What is important to me as well is what other theories you have investigated as well as to how the Book of Mormon came about and whether you have explored the ones the Smith claimed for it with any seriousness at all, or whether you dismiss it out of hand.

How emotionally invested you are in any particular theory?

You have a lot of qualifiers now don't you.

Do you have a personal stake in one theory over another?

More qualifiers.

How well do you critically think and evaluate evidence?

This is not a job interview. It is a internet discussion board. Your requirements are now extending to the ludicrous for such a forum.

#3) You are now contradicting yourself from your initial claim to me. Initially you said “Joseph Smith had no contact with Rigdon prior to Rigdon's conversion by Parley Pratt in 1830 thus that theory falls rather flat. You said, THEY DID NOT MEET. Now you are saying it is possible they could have met. If that is the case…then your conclusion “the theory falls flat” is not justified. And that was the main point I was making to you..that logically your conclusion fails because you do not know for a fact they didn’t meet.

Since you parse words I will be sure to be careful. Essentially the point is that there is little evidence that they met, had contact, planned the subterfuge, etc. It seems that Rigdon did not know about Joseph or the Book of Mormon prior to Parley Pratt preaching it too him.

#4) In that newspaper article I quoted you I believe, it mentioned 200 miles not 300 ..is the article wrong? If so please give details.

My you are picky. Kirtland Ohio is aproximatly 300 miles from Palmyra NY. Check out a map. But this is a minor point.

#5) What I said above for # 2 applies. Craig Criddle has a web site in which he also addresses the Spalding Rigdon theory and has a section regarding Rigdon meeting Smith pre Book of Mormon. If you take a look at it and argue what he says I’ll address your comments. http://mormonstudies.com/criddle/rigdon.htm

I have read Criddle before and did not find the section on the Rigdon Smith connection compelling. But again, your position in on trial here as you made the accusation. You prove it. The burden is on you, not me. This is how it works in a court of law. Feel free to cut and paste the sections you find compelling and we can discuss them further.

Jason


------------------------------------

Runtu:

I think the Spaulding-Rigdon theory is pretty speculative, as well. I think it stems from the widespread belief that Joseph simply wasn't smart enough or educated enough to create the Book of Mormon.

It is a matter of where the evidence leads and the best scenario to fit the data.[/quote]

[_marg]

Previously I wrote:

#1) I’ll repeat because you fail to grasp the concept logically..it is NOT necessary for the Spalding/Rigdon theory to have witness statements of Rigdon meeting Smith prior to the Book of Mormon. Witness statements support Rigdon meeting Smith pre Book of Mormon but are not essential to it.

Jason

I will repeat because you seemt to fail to gradp the concept logically. If Rigdon used Smith as a puppet it is necessary for them to have met, had contact, planned the subterfuge, etc.

You are failing to comprehend. I’ve addressed this already in 2 posts to you. There is little more I can do, if you either refuse to acknowledge what I write or you simply don’t comprehend.

I wrote: “…your characterization that evidence of Rigdon meeting Smith must be established or the theory fails is incorrect. It is not a necessary component of the Spalding-Rigdon theory. Witness statements strengthen the theory but if there were no witness statements it wouldn’t destroy the theory.

It is to be expected in any case in which participants have reason to hide evidence that evidence will be lacking. Despite this though, there is good evidence that Rigdon did meet Smith, but unfortunately I can not do justice on a message board to what is presented in a fairly large chapter of a book. Nor do I get the sense you are interested and open-minded being as you were so eager to dismiss the theory for an unjustifiable reason.”

And in another post I wrote: “Of course, an actual meeting of the two men is critical, but the actual meeting versus evidence of the meeting are different things. A compelling case could still be presented even if no evidence existed. However, I'm talking theoretical, in fact there is evidence of them meeting.”

Previously I wrote:

(#2) You may very well have seen scant evidence but then for that to be relevant and important to me, I’d want to know how much investigation you’ve done into the issue of how the Book of Mormon came about.

Your response:

What is important to me as well is what other theories you have investigated as well as to how the Book of Mormon came about and whether you have explored the ones the Smith claimed for it with any seriousness at all, or whether you dismiss it out of hand.

Jason you are the one telling me to dismiss the Spalding theory giving me as your reasoning that you’ve come across scant evidence of the men meeting pre Book of Mormon. So if I took your comment seriously and thought you were intellectually honest in this discussion, I’d ask you questions to get a better sense of how knowledgable you are but even more important how objective you are.

Previously I wrote:

How emotionally invested you are in any particular theory?

Jason

You have a lot of qualifiers now don't you.

I’d ask that questions to determine if there is anything which might affect your objectivity on the issue.

Previously:

Do you have a personal stake in one theory over another?

Jason:

More qualifiers.

Again my interest would be your objectivity.

previously

How well do you critically think and evaluate evidence?

Jason

This is not a job interview. It is a internet discussion board. Your requirements are now extending to the ludicrous for such a forum.

In order to have a productive discussion on an issue such as ‘who wrote the Book of Mormon’, an ability to critically assess evidence well is important. You’ve given me the impression you are not very logical by my having to repeat 3 times the concept ‘that evidence of a Rigdon/Smith meeting pre –Book of Mormon is not essential to the R/S theory’.

Previously:

#3) You are now contradicting yourself from your initial claim to me. Initially you said “Joseph Smith had no contact with Rigdon prior to Rigdon's conversion by Parley Pratt in 1830 thus that theory falls rather flat. You said, THEY DID NOT MEET. Now you are saying it is possible they could have met. If that is the case…then your conclusion “the theory falls flat” is not justified. And that was the main point I was making to you..that logically your conclusion fails because you do not know for a fact they didn’t meet.

Jason:

Since you parse words I will be sure to be careful. Essentially the point is that there is little evidence that they met, had contact, planned the subterfuge, etc. It seems that Rigdon did not know about Joseph or the Book of Mormon prior to Parley Pratt preaching it too him.

I quoted your exact words Jason. They were not taken out of context.

One would not expect to find much evidence for those who conspire together to commit a crime/fraud. One would also expect little evidence when no one is aware of a fraud being planned and therefore no one is taking particular note.

However I do think there is good evidence Rigdon met Smith pre Book of Mormon which I’ve mentioned to you is in a book and a web site article by Criddle.

Previously

#4) In that newspaper article I quoted you I believe, it mentioned 200 miles not 300 ..is the article wrong? If so please give details.

Jason

My you are picky. Kirtland Ohio is aproximatly 300 miles from Palmyra NY. Check out a map. But this is a minor point.

I checked ..it said 259 miles.

Previously:

#5) What I said above for # 2 applies. Craig Criddle has a web site in which he also addresses the Spalding Rigdon theory and has a section regarding Rigdon meeting Smith pre Book of Mormon. If you take a look at it and argue what he says I’ll address your comments. http://mormonstudies.com/criddle/rigdon.htm

Jason

I have read Criddle before and did not find the section on the Rigdon Smith connection compelling. But again, your position in on trial here as you made the accusation. You prove it. The burden is on you, not me. This is how it works in a court of law. Feel free to cut and paste the sections you find compelling and we can discuss them further.

Jason, I find what Craig Criddle lays out on his web page for the Spalding/Rigdon theory quite compelling. I’m not going to paste and quote for you, it’s there for you to read. Craig in my opinion has met the burden of proof for the theory. Your one line “I have read Criddle before and did not find the section on the Rigdon Smith connection compelling” is no refutation of the argument for the theory Craig lays out in detail. If you want to refute what he wrote you will need to supply your reasoning.

You have a burden as well ..it’s called a burden of rejoinder. If you do not overturn/refute using good reasoning the argument Craig lays out, then his argument rests.

[_Runtu]

Runtu:

I think the Spaulding-Rigdon theory is pretty speculative, as well. I think it stems from the widespread belief that Joseph simply wasn't smart enough or educated enough to create the Book of Mormon.

It is a matter of where the evidence leads and the best scenario to fit the data.

In that case, I think Dale Broadhurst has made a good case for Rigdon's involvement in constructing the text of the Book of Mormon. That said, I can't quite figure out how it would have worked. I have a good friend who is convinced that the Book of Mormon was written by Alvin Smith (hence the importance of Alvin in Joseph's descriptions of the recovery of the plates) in concert with Rigdon. Yes, it's purely speculative, but interesting.

[_marg]

Runtu:

I think the Spaulding-Rigdon theory is pretty speculative, as well. I think it stems from the widespread belief that Joseph simply wasn't smart enough or educated enough to create the Book of Mormon.

previously I wrote: It is a matter of where the evidence leads and the best scenario to fit the data.

In that case, I think Dale Broadhurst has made a good case for Rigdon's involvement in constructing the text of the Book of Mormon. That said, I can't quite figure out how it would have worked. I have a good friend who is convinced that the Book of Mormon was written by Alvin Smith (hence the importance of Alvin in Joseph's descriptions of the recovery of the plates) in concert with Rigdon. Yes, it's purely speculative, but interesting.

You are replying to myself not Jason. I think the most important figure in the Spalding/Rigdon theory is Rigdon. I would think that it wouldn't make much difference to the theory whether it was J. Smith or A. Smith who Rigdon had first contact with.

Both Craig Criddle and the book Who Really WRote the Book of Mormon heavily relied upon Dale's research. I'm not aware of Dale putting it all together and presenting the theory. Is there a particular link or somewhere on Fair where he does this?

[_Jason Bourne]

You are failing to comprehend. I’ve addressed this already in 2 posts to you. There is little more I can do, if you either refuse to acknowledge what I write or you simply don’t comprehend.

Ii understand your point quite well. I just do not agree with you. I think no Rigdon Smith contact is fairly fatal to the idea that Rigdon was the books author and used Smith, which is the crux of the spalding theory, oh that and the lost manuscript. That is another huge problem.

It is to be expected in any case in which participants have reason to hide evidence that evidence will be lacking.

So that means that we should convict on lack of evidence right. "Your honor! This man is guilty of the crime because we cannot find evidence he did it....because he covered it up so well he must be guilty." Damn! And you accuse me of lacking logic.

Despite this though, there is good evidence that Rigdon did meet Smith, but unfortunately I can not do justice on a message board to what is presented in a fairly large chapter of a book.

Well you lose then. You made the claim, I challenged it. It is up to you to prove it not me.

Nor do I get the sense you are interested and open-minded being as you were so eager to dismiss the theory for an unjustifiable reason.”

In other words "I will marginalize you to make it look like I did not cop out."

Jason you are the one telling me to dismiss the Spalding theory giving me as your reasoning that you’ve come across scant evidence of the men meeting pre Book of Mormon. So if I took your comment seriously and thought you were intellectually honest in this discussion, I’d ask you questions to get a better sense of how knowledgable you are but even more important how objective you are.

wrong marg. You made a sweeping statement as if it were a fact. And I challenged it and called for proof. All you have done since then is try dance around it and put the burden back on me. That duck does not fly.

I’d ask that questions to determine if there is anything which might affect your objectivity on the issue

.

Ii have not asked for a resume from you for proof of your objectivity. I do not even know what you believe, nor you me. In my opinion you are just working hard to obsfucate.

Again my interest would be your objectivity.

Total objectivity is an impossibility. I do not see much objectivity from you at all. Have you ever seriously considered that Smith might have been telling the truth? Have you actively pursued that claim? If not you are less objective then you may think me.


]

In order to have a productive discussion on an issue such as ‘who wrote the Book of Mormon’, an ability to critically assess evidence well is important. You’ve given me the impression you are not very logical by my having to repeat 3 times the concept ‘that evidence of a Rigdon/Smith meeting pre –Book of Mormon is not essential to the R/S theory’.

And you give me the impression you are not logical by attempting to convict someone because there is little evidence. As we see again by the following ge,.

One would not expect to find much evidence for those who conspire together to commit a crime/fraud. One would also expect little evidence when no one is aware of a fraud being planned and therefore no one is taking particular note.

Thus they are guilty because they hid the fraud so well!! I hope you are never on a Jury.

However I do think there is good evidence Rigdon met Smith pre Book of Mormon which I’ve mentioned to you is in a book and a web site article by Criddle

I don't.

I checked ..it said 259 miles.

Really!!! You really checked? Wow. How funny. So I gues I win since 259 is closer to 300.

Jason, I find what Craig Criddle lays out on his web page for the Spalding/Rigdon theory quite compelling.

I am happy for you. I disagree.

I’m not going to paste and quote for you, it’s there for you to read.

I have read most of it.

Craig in my opinion has met the burden of proof for the theory. Your one line “I have read Criddle before and did not find the section on the Rigdon Smith connection compelling” is no refutation of the argument for the theory Craig lays out in detail. If you want to refute what he wrote you will need to supply your reasoning.

And your one line

I find what Craig Criddle lays out on his web page for the Spalding/Rigdon theory quite compelling

is no proof of the argument for the theory either. You like what he says. I don't. Why should I take your word for it if you do not take mine. You are playing a double standard here. You want me to go read, cut and paste and argue what I do not agree with, but you will not go and read and provide what you do agree with. You made the blanket claim initially. It is your job to prove it not mine. If you won't you lose.

You have a burden as well ..it’s called a burden of rejoinder. If you do not overturn/refute using good reasoning the argument Craig lays out, then his argument rests.

I have no obligation to provide a rejoiner to your initiall claim at all until you substantiate it further.

Jason

[_marg]

previously I wrote: You have a burden as well ..it’s called a burden of rejoinder. If you do not overturn/refute using good reasoning the argument Craig lays out, then his argument rests.


Jason responded : I have no obligation to provide a rejoiner to your initiall claim at all until you substantiate it further.


Well then Jason you do not understand what an intellectually honest discussion is about and who has a burden to support their argument and why. I endorse Craig’s web site completely and it lays out the reasoning for the Spalding/ Rigdon theory. He also addresses a section on Spalding meeting Smith pre_BOM publication.

The burden is now yours Jason to argue using good reasoning against the Spalding theory presented on there if you disagree with it.

----------------------------------------------------------------
I wasn't planning on responding to the rest of your post because you are exhibiting again and again to me your inability or stubborn refusal to acknowledge the point being made that while an event may be critical to the S/R theory, evidence of the event is not critical.

Jason:

i understand your point quite well. I just do not agree with you. I think no Rigdon Smith contact is fairly fatal to the idea that Rigdon was the books author and used Smith, which is the crux of the spalding theory, oh that and the lost manuscript. That is another huge problem.

This is the 4th time I'm addressing this Jason. I guess I'm the one being stupid in continuuing to address this since you are so intent to ignore the point made.

Evidence in the form of witness statements of Smith & Rigdon together pre-BOM strengthens the S/R theory. However witness statements are not a necessity for the theory. The theory does not fall flat..even if no witness statements were available or even if they are dismissed as unreliable. The reason is that Smith and Rigdon had good reason to make attempts to conceal their meetings from others..so it is to be expected that there would be few witnesses of them conspiring.

Jason:

So that means that we should convict on lack of evidence right. "Your honor! This man is guilty of the crime because we cannot find evidence he did it....because he covered it up so well he must be guilty." Damn! And you accuse me of lacking logic.

Not only do you express stupid remarks but you are also being arrogant. I would hope you'd appreciate that the case for the Spalding/Rigdon theory is supported by various pieces of evidence while not equal in value, are often connected and when they support one another the case strengthens. Witness statements are a small part of the whole picture. The S/R theory is not critically reliant on witness statements of a bre-BOM meeting of S & R, nor does it fall apart if one chooses to ignore the available statements.


previously: Despite this though, there is good evidence that Rigdon did meet Smith, but unfortunately I can not do justice on a message board to what is presented in a fairly large chapter of a book.
Jason

Well you lose then. You made the claim, I challenged it. It is up to you to prove it not me.

Shaking my head! What you are responding to is my quote of what I'd written earlier. It was necessary to quote myself so as to avoid typing it all out again to respond to you. However if you are following this discussion, which I'm having my doubts, Jason you should have noted that since I wrote that remark about not rewriting Chap 11 on this M.B, I've added Craig Criddle's web site..which you DO have access to and which you can argue against.

Jason:

Total objectivity is an impossibility. I do not see much objectivity from you at all. Have you ever seriously considered that Smith might have been telling the truth? Have you actively pursued that claim? If not you are less objective then you may think me.

Have I considered that Smith told the truth? Sure I've considered it Jason.

previously: Craig in my opinion has met the burden of proof for the theory. Your one line “I have read Criddle before and did not find the section on the Rigdon Smith connection compelling” is no refutation of the argument for the theory Craig lays out in detail. If you want to refute what he wrote you will need to supply your reasoning.


Jason:

And your one line
Quote: I find what Craig Criddle lays out on his web page for the Spalding/Rigdon theory quite compelling
is no proof of the argument for the theory either. You like what he says. I don't. Why should I take your word for it if you do not take mine. You are playing a double standard here. You want me to go read, cut and paste and argue what I do not agree with, but you will not go and read and provide what you do agree with. You made the blanket claim initially. It is your job to prove it not mine. If you won't you lose.

The difference Jason is that the web site while not my words...meets the burden of proof. It offers evidence and reasoning. It presents an argument/reasoning for the S/R theory.
The ball is in your court now Jason to counter, to refute what it says.

I'm not against you showing if you can that the S/R theory is a poor one or one which should be dismissed in favor of another...but you have to accomplish this by employing reasoning. Simply complaining that you don't like what is said on the web site ..is NOT using reasoning. You've not met your burden to counter the argument made there.

You see Jason that's what intellectually honest discussions should be about. A back in forth discussion between parties in earnest search for truth. I will admit Jason that I too, like Craig points out for himself, have a bias against the supernatural. I most definitely expect extraordinary evidence to support extraordinary claims. That means I have a much higher threshold for the quality of evidence needed for the supernatural to the point that I assume supernatural claims can for all intents and purposes be ignored.

[_Runtu]

Runtu:

I think the Spaulding-Rigdon theory is pretty speculative, as well. I think it stems from the widespread belief that Joseph simply wasn't smart enough or educated enough to create the Book of Mormon.

previously I wrote: It is a matter of where the evidence leads and the best scenario to fit the data.

In that case, I think Dale Broadhurst has made a good case for Rigdon's involvement in constructing the text of the Book of Mormon. That said, I can't quite figure out how it would have worked. I have a good friend who is convinced that the Book of Mormon was written by Alvin Smith (hence the importance of Alvin in Joseph's descriptions of the recovery of the plates) in concert with Rigdon. Yes, it's purely speculative, but interesting.

You are replying to myself not Jason. I think the most important figure in the Spalding/Rigdon theory is Rigdon. I would think that it wouldn't make much difference to the theory whether it was J. Smith or A. Smith who Rigdon had first contact with.

Both Craig Criddle and the book Who Really WRote the Book of Mormon heavily relied upon Dale's research. I'm not aware of Dale putting it all together and presenting the theory. Is there a particular link or somewhere on Fair where he does this?

Not that I'm aware of. He's just made the case over a series of threads for several years. If nothing else, there's certainly evidence that the text itself looks a lot like something Rigdon could have written. As I said, I haven't figured out how it would have worked, but the textual evidence seems pretty solid to me.

[_Jason Bourne]

Marg,

You call me arrogant and say I make stupid remarks, then call me to defend something that you claimed. Take a look in the mirror.

Let's lay this out and see what you have provided in convicting anyone to the truth of your claim.

1: You state that Rigdon used Smith and his puppet.

2: I said that I had found no compelling evidence that Rigdon had contact with Smith.

3: You said there is good evidence out there and called on my to refute it.

This is where things broke down. Look, you made the claim. Do you need to first provide reasonable evidence that the claim warrants examination. You refuse to do so other then to send me to someone else's web site. You need to convince a grand jury that there was fraud committed and that the case should go on trial. I am not under any obligation to provide me defense until you do so. You preposterously suggest that lack of evidence means that it is highly likely a crime occurred. Would that convince a grand jury?

You seem to think pretty highly of yourself and your debating skills and so called intellectual honesty. And you may well be a great debater. However when one makes a claim, and another challenges the claim, it is up to to he accuser to provide the first good argument. You have not done so other then to refer me to another's work. You jump on me because I state I have read Criddle and did not find him compelling. You cry for me to defend what I did not find compelling. Yet you say you have read Criddle and find him compelling but you refuse to show what you find compelling and why. So you call on me to do exactly what you refuse to do, and then you call me intellectually dishonest or whatever else you have bantered around.

This duck just does not fly. My time is limited and I do not have the desire to provide a point by point refutation of the Spalding theory. Others have done that, in my opinion, to my satisfaction. Have you read any of those refutations in your supposed intellectual honest approach to the issues?

So there you have it.

Regards

Jason