anyone interested in the origins of the Book of Mormon

[_Ray A]

1) divine inspiration, angels, golden plates, standard Book of Mormon apologetics
2) automatic writing, the spiritual world wide web
3) a conspiracy of regular 19th century human beings

Take your pick. You have pointed the finger at me, saying I am a hard materialist. Shall I point a finger at you and label the underlying reason why you favor #2?

Dude, I don't point the finger at anyone. If the Spalding Theory has substance, I would like to see the "hard" connections. So far it's all theory, much of it conspiracy theory. Yes, the characters of some of the witnesses is questionable. Rigdon's denials of authorship may mean nothing. But if Rigdon was so much at odds with Joseph, WHY did he not "reveal the plot"? He had every opportunity to do so and expose Joseph Smith as a plagiarising fraud. If you have read Van Wagoner's biography of Rigdon you will see that Rigdon came to regard Joseph Smith as a fallen prophet LONG after the production of the Book of Mormon.

Let me quote to you from Van Wagoner:

Nancy R. Ellis, Rigdon's most anti-Mormon offspring, recalled in an 1884 interview of the missionaries in her mentor, Ohio, home when she was eight years old: "I saw them hand him the book, and I am as positive as can be that he never saw it before...She further stated that her father in the last years of his life called his family together and told them, as sure as there was a God in heaven, he never had anything to do in getting up the Book of Mormon, and never saw any such thing as a maunscript written by Solomon Spaulding". Richard S. Van Wagoner, Sydney Rigdon: A Portrait of Religious Excess, Signature Books, Salt Lake City, 1994, p.134

More from Van Wagoner:

If any one single item defined Sydney Rigdon it was his untiring belief in the authenticity of that 'ancient voice from the dust'. It provided him the shelf on which he rested his soul. And in the end, when he was disillusioned and bereft of faith in Joseph Smith, he still avowed that the Book of Mormon was precisely what it claimed to be - the word of God.

Provide your evidence of Rigdon authorship.

[_Gazelam]

How do you claim that there were no Christians in 600 B.C.? or 70 B.C. ?

Heres the result of a single random google search on the fullfillment of OLD TESTAMENT prophecies of the coming Messiah, and their fullfillment in Christs ministry.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/prophchr.html

The entire Law of Moses pointed to a Savior.

[_Bond...James Bond]

How do you claim that there were no Christians in 600 B.C.? or 70 B.C. ?

Heres the result of a single random google search on the fullfillment of OLD TESTAMENT prophecies of the coming Messiah, and their fullfillment in Christs ministry.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/prophchr.html

The entire Law of Moses pointed to a Savior.

How can there be Christians before Christ?

[_Yoda]

How do you claim that there were no Christians in 600 B.C.? or 70 B.C. ?

Heres the result of a single random google search on the fullfillment of OLD TESTAMENT prophecies of the coming Messiah, and their fullfillment in Christs ministry.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/prophchr.html

The entire Law of Moses pointed to a Savior.

How can there be Christians before Christ?

If you believe Christ to be the God of the Old Testament, then all who followed him are Christians.

[_The Dude]

If the Spalding Theory has substance, I would like to see the "hard" connections. So far it's all theory, much of it conspiracy theory. Yes, the characters of some of the witnesses is questionable. Rigdon's denials of authorship may mean nothing.

.....

Provide your evidence of Rigdon authorship.

If we had a smoking gun the discussion would be over -- but there are a few clues. Similarities to View of the Hebrews. Similarities, reported by early witnesses, to a Spaulding manuscript that no longer exists. Similarities to Campbelite theology. These are things Rigdon would have had access to, but Joseph Smith probably would not (unless he logged on the spiritual World Wide Web with his automatic writing modem).

But if Rigdon was so much at odds with Joseph, WHY did he not "reveal the plot"? He had every opportunity to do so and expose Joseph Smith as a plagiarising fraud. If you have read Van Wagoner's biography of Rigdon you will see that Rigdon came to regard Joseph Smith as a fallen prophet LONG after the production of the Book of Mormon.

It's a good question, but more complicated than you suggest. If Rigdon had outed Joseph Smith for fraud, he would have implicated himself as well. Maybe he decided it wasn't worth it to call Joseph Smith a fraud prophet when he could make just as much noise by calling him a fallen prophet. And if some Mormons left Joseph "the fallen" they might come over to Rigdon's side. If they left Joseph "the fraud" there would be nothing for Rigdon to claim except a share of the guilt and dishonesty. What would you do?

Let me quote to you from Van Wagoner:
....
More from Van Wagoner:

Rigdon's denials of authorship mean nothing if he was a crazy liar. Or they make perfect sense if he was calculating the sort of cost-benefit I just described.

[_Ray A]

How do you claim that there were no Christians in 600 B.C.? or 70 B.C. ?

Heres the result of a single random google search on the fullfillment of OLD TESTAMENT prophecies of the coming Messiah, and their fullfillment in Christs ministry.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/prophchr.html

The entire Law of Moses pointed to a Savior.

The first time the term "Christians" was used was in Antioch, some estimate in the 40s or 50s of the 1st century. A study of Jewish beliefs will show that Christianity, as it evolved, did not exist before Christ, and its evolution was influenced by many sources.

[_wenglund]

Major challenges to the theorized Rigdon connection go beyond the issue of whether Rigdon meet with Smith in Palmyra prior to 1930 (see my critique of this point HERE), and beyond the unreliability and contradictions of the Spalding Witness (see my critique of this point HERE, but extend also to the nature and whereabouts of the Spalding manuscript(s) (see my critique of this point HERE).

To me, while each of these points have been found fatally problematic, the most fatal is the last point. Even were one to generously grant the demonstrably false assertion that Rigdon was connected with Smith prior to 1830, and even were one to generously grant the demonstrably false assertion that the Spalding Manuscript was the "same as" the historical parts of the Book of Mormon, that would not be sufficient evidence that the Spalding Manuscript was plagerized by Rigdon et. al. What is needed is for Spalding's manuscript to have been demonstrably put in the hands of Rigdon, and used by him and the other alleged co-conspirators in allegedly fabricating the Book of Mormon. Unfortunately for the Spaldingists, if one follows the most credible evidence for the manuscript's whereabouts (see my timeline), it remains in the hands of the Spalding family until it is obtained by Hurlbut years after the Book of Mormon was published, and eventually ended up in the possession of L.L. Rice, who later gave it to Oberlin College. In other words, Rigdon didn't have the manuscript. Spalding's widow did.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_The Dude]

Major challenges to the theorized Rigdon connection go beyond the issue of whether Rigdon meet with Smith in Palmyra prior to 1930... but extend also to the nature and whereabouts of the Spalding manuscript(s).

It's generous of you to include that "(s)" at the end, since that's the key to squirming out of your timeline.

....Unfortunately for the Spaldingists, if one follows the most credible evidence for the manuscript's whereabouts (see my timeline), it remains in the hands of the Spalding family until it is obtained by Hurlbut years after the Book of Mormon was published, and eventually ended up in the possession of L.L. Rice, who later gave it to Oberlin College. In other words, Rigdon didn't have the manuscript. Spalding's widow did.

Okay, okay, the published manuscript is accounted for. But you said "manuscript(s)"...!

Now for my argument --

1. Spalding-knowing witnesses described a document they called "Manuscript Found"
2. In the fall of 1833, D. P. Hurlbut recovered at least one Spalding story (now at Oberlin)
3. In 1884-1885 the RLDS and LDS obtained the Oberlin document's text and published it
4. The published Oberlin text is NOT "Manuscript Found." Spalding DID write more than one such story.
5. This publication resembles the Book of Mormon signficantly, but "Manuscript Found" remains Not-found...

Or, at least if it was found, nobody saw it after D. P. Hurlbut turned over his papers to Howe in Feb. 1834.

For your argument and timeline to silence this theory, you would have to demonstrate that all manuscripts have been accounted for.

[_wenglund]

Major challenges to the theorized Rigdon connection go beyond the issue of whether Rigdon meet with Smith in Palmyra prior to 1930... but extend also to the nature and whereabouts of the Spalding manuscript(s).

It's generous of you to include that "(s)" at the end, since that's the key to squirming out of your timeline.

....Unfortunately for the Spaldingists, if one follows the most credible evidence for the manuscript's whereabouts (see my timeline), it remains in the hands of the Spalding family until it is obtained by Hurlbut years after the Book of Mormon was published, and eventually ended up in the possession of L.L. Rice, who later gave it to Oberlin College. In other words, Rigdon didn't have the manuscript. Spalding's widow did.

Okay, okay, the published manuscript is accounted for. But you said "manuscript(s)"...!

Now for my argument --

1. Spalding-knowing witnesses described a document they called "Manuscript Found"
2. In the fall of 1833, D. P. Hurlbut recovered at least one Spalding story (now at Oberlin)
3. In 1884-1885 the RLDS and LDS obtained the Oberlin document's text and published it
4. The published Oberlin text is NOT "Manuscript Found." Spalding DID write more than one such story.
5. This publication resembles the Book of Mormon signficantly, but "Manuscript Found" remains Not-found...

Or, at least if it was found, nobody saw it after D. P. Hurlbut turned over his papers to Howe in Feb. 1834.

For your argument and timeline to silence this theory, you would have to demonstrate that all manuscripts have been accounted for.

Not really. The theory is silenced until the theorists can move beyond their ad hoc hypothesis and produce a substantiatable timeline for the other alleged manuscript that doesn't conflict with the timeline of the extant manuscript. The question you Spaldingists need to ask yourself is, was the Manuscript Found in Spalding's possession at the time of his death in 1816, and then put in his wife's trunk from 1816 to 1833.

If so, then how is it that Rigdon would have had it in his possession during that same time period, allegedly in Palmyra? (If you suppose that Rigdon made a copy of Spaldings manuscript, then please specify when that copy was made, and provide evidence that a copy was made.)

If not, then why not?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_The Dude]

Not really. The theory is silenced until the theorists can move beyond their ad hoc hypothesis....

I think "silenced" is not the word you should be using. An argument is silenced when it is shown that it is not even plausible, and this one will forever be plausible because nobody can account for all possible hypothetical documents. It is, however, lacking data since the key documents, are... hypothetical.

I'm not hiding the fact that it is a conspiracy theory, and it is mighty difficult to silence such a theory. Better to ignore such a theory if you, personally, find another theory more plausible. I'm only thinking about it since it's the most plausible theory that accepts the nature of the Book of Mormon without appealing to the supernatural.