DAN VOGEL DISCUSSES THE SPALDING/RIGDON THEORY
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 9589
- Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 8:19 pm
Re: Head in the Hat and no MS
[quote="Dan Vogel"]HEAD IN THE HAT AND NO USE OF MS
This is so well documented, but I will give some of the main sources. First, recommend the following essays:
quote]
Why me wrote:
And this dan in one of the reasons I cannot buy into the Rigdon/Spaulding idea. Now only if we could get Uncle Dale to see the light of day, we will all live longer.
However, this is also the reason why I cannot buy into Joseph Smith writing it. The book itself seems to be beyond his reach or intellect. Well, anyway, you gave us all something to think about when it comes to the Book of Mormon and just a few reasons why the book has not been kicked to the curb just yet.
The book is an enigma that is for sure. But I still cannot see Joseph Smith writing it.
This is so well documented, but I will give some of the main sources. First, recommend the following essays:
quote]
Why me wrote:
And this dan in one of the reasons I cannot buy into the Rigdon/Spaulding idea. Now only if we could get Uncle Dale to see the light of day, we will all live longer.
However, this is also the reason why I cannot buy into Joseph Smith writing it. The book itself seems to be beyond his reach or intellect. Well, anyway, you gave us all something to think about when it comes to the Book of Mormon and just a few reasons why the book has not been kicked to the curb just yet.
The book is an enigma that is for sure. But I still cannot see Joseph Smith writing it.
Re: links for interest
Sorry to make you work Marg, but I think instead of firing off links you need to at least summarize why you are making a link. What are you trying to prove here. This is a discussion board. Make your best arguments, with a link if necessary. I want to know why you are so convinced by the Spaulding theory that pious fraud seems so out of the question. Thanks
I understand your point Dan. I made the links for information purposes only and review, because some of what will likely be discussed has been discussed on 2think. But I'm not making any point. If anything I have to reread some of those posts by Craig and I thought other's might be interested. When individuals put in lots of time on posts and are knowledgable I think it is of value to save those and reread them. What spurred me to post the links initially is the discussion in this thread on the 116 lost pages. Craig who's much more knowledgable than I makes comment on this. One being he speculates that Smith had original copies and then burned them after dictation to Harris. So once they were taken away, Smith wouldn't have been able to reproduce them. That's one idea. In addition Craig mentions that the religious ideas changed after the time period of these missing pages. This sort of detail I'm not conversant with, but others might find it of interest. It's not the sort of detail that ended up convincing me, but for those deep into this, it probably would.
At this point Dan I'd rather read your responses to Shades and perhaps others. I don't want to clutter the thread, so I tried to write the minimal numbers of words in the post with links.
Last edited by _marg on Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 876
- Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 1:26 am
Re: Head in the Hat and no MS
Why me wrote:
And this dan in one of the reasons I cannot buy into the Rigdon/Spaulding idea. Now only if we could get Uncle Dale to see the light of day, we will all live longer.
However, this is also the reason why I cannot buy into Joseph Smith writing it. The book itself seems to be beyond his reach or intellect. Well, anyway, you gave us all something to think about when it comes to the Book of Mormon and just a few reasons why the book has not been kicked to the curb just yet.
The book is an enigma that is for sure. But I still cannot see Joseph Smith writing it.
If there is no way Joseph Smith could have used a MS, then the only alternative is that he DID write it. Just like he dicated all those revelations, the Book of Moses, the Book of Abraham, and the Liberty Jail letters, the last of which are arguably his best stuff. Really, you have bought into two false premises of the apologists: first, the Book of Mormon is great literature; and, two, Joseph Smith wasn't literary. Joseph Smith had charisma and eloquence as a speaker. It was a minimum requirement for the job. Nevertheless, I think you are not alone in your thinking, but it's backwards. Let me explain why. You are attempting to put a subjective judgment--like an assessment of the Book of Mormon's quality and Joseph Smith abilities--before more objective evidence--like those who saw him dictate the Book of Mormon, as well as his revelations. Which kind of evidence do you trust more?
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 9589
- Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 8:19 pm
Re: Head in the Hat and no MS
Dan Vogel wrote:
Why me wrote:
And this dan in one of the reasons I cannot buy into the Rigdon/Spaulding idea. Now only if we could get Uncle Dale to see the light of day, we will all live longer.
However, this is also the reason why I cannot buy into Joseph Smith writing it. The book itself seems to be beyond his reach or intellect. Well, anyway, you gave us all something to think about when it comes to the Book of Mormon and just a few reasons why the book has not been kicked to the curb just yet.
The book is an enigma that is for sure. But I still cannot see Joseph Smith writing it.
If there is no way Joseph Smith could have used a MS, then the only alternative is that he DID write it. Just like he dicated all those revelations, the Book of Moses, the Book of Abraham, and the Liberty Jail letters, the last of which are arguably his best stuff. Really, you have bought into two false premises of the apologists: first, the Book of Mormon is great literature; and, two, Joseph Smith wasn't literary. Joseph Smith had charisma and eloquence as a speaker. It was a minimum requirement for the job. Nevertheless, I think you are not alone in your thinking, but it's backwards. Let me explain why. You are attempting to put a subjective judgment--like an assessment of the Book of Mormon's quality and Joseph Smith abilities--before more objective evidence--like those who saw him dictate the Book of Mormon, as well as his revelations. Which kind of evidence do you trust more?
I tend to trust my instinct. To tell you the truth, I just can't see him writing it. So much time and so much paper and ink and in secret with such grand visions of glory...that I find it all impossible. Of course you have done more research in the area but really dan, where does this farmer find the time...and what about emma? If no one saw the manuscript, then what is there to see? Except his head in the hat and him moving around a heavy piece of material, perhaps metal.
And it is one thing to be charismatic, it is quite another thing to write a book that can be cross-referenced with the Bible and stand the test of time. And as you know, the LDS would claim that he wrote nothing that you listed above, except his jail house letters. It all came from god.
And I saw nothing in your quotations that even hinted at the people involved doubting that the Book of Mormon is not what it claims to be. What should I think?
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 3685
- Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 7:02 am
Book of Mormon Discussion
I might also add, that in thirty years of my studying this particular topic, I have heard
just about every possible reason given, as to why it should be avoided and ignored.
In 1979, while I was conducting my studies at Oberlin College and elsewhere in Ohio,
I was pretty much kicked out of the Worthington RLDS branch because of that research.
My membership had been transferred there from Wyoming, but the local pastor was
adament, that my conducting such studies was a "sure ticket to hell." I moved my RLDS
membership from there to nearby Westerville, but again met with a very chilly reception.
At first I was told that such research was a "waste of time," and that I ought to do something
more productive. Then, when that did not phase me, the Westerville pastor told me that
such studies tended to destroy testimonies and that he did not want that sort of disruption
in the congregation. At last, I was reduced to occasional visits to the Columbus branch,
where the local Church Appointee, Seventy Stan Hunt, supported my work.
Among RLDS scholars (such as F. Mark McKiernan), the most typical reason I encountered,
for why I should discontinue my studies, was that the Church had published Spalding's
only fictional manuscript and that the text proved that Solomon Spalding could not have
possibly written a word of the Book of Mormon. When I gave an interim report on my
research, to the John Whitmer Historical Association in 1980 at Omaha, RLDS scholar and
educator Wayne Ham again told me that I should read Spalding's manuscript. When I
informed him that was the very topic of my paper, he switched his argument, to saying
that "external evidences" proved that Spalding could have had nothing to do with the Book of Mormon.
I would estimate that in about 100 different encounters with Reorganized LDS officials and
scholars (from Richard P. Howard to Grant McMurray) I was only encouraged in my studies
two or three times, and was almost always given counsel to cease and desist.
So, if modern critics have the same advice -- I can only say that they are too late. The work
has largely been accomplished and now only the reporting remains to be done. I hope to
begin that with the publication of a book on the pre-Mormon religious career of Sidney Rigdon
in 2009 or 2010. I have already received plenty of advice on why I should NOT write such a
book -- but, surprisingly, Steve Sorenson of the LDS Church Archives said he would welcome
such an addition to his library -- (which has over 100 books on Smith, but only 3 on Rigdon).
Dale R. Broadhurst
Hilo, Hawaii
just about every possible reason given, as to why it should be avoided and ignored.
In 1979, while I was conducting my studies at Oberlin College and elsewhere in Ohio,
I was pretty much kicked out of the Worthington RLDS branch because of that research.
My membership had been transferred there from Wyoming, but the local pastor was
adament, that my conducting such studies was a "sure ticket to hell." I moved my RLDS
membership from there to nearby Westerville, but again met with a very chilly reception.
At first I was told that such research was a "waste of time," and that I ought to do something
more productive. Then, when that did not phase me, the Westerville pastor told me that
such studies tended to destroy testimonies and that he did not want that sort of disruption
in the congregation. At last, I was reduced to occasional visits to the Columbus branch,
where the local Church Appointee, Seventy Stan Hunt, supported my work.
Among RLDS scholars (such as F. Mark McKiernan), the most typical reason I encountered,
for why I should discontinue my studies, was that the Church had published Spalding's
only fictional manuscript and that the text proved that Solomon Spalding could not have
possibly written a word of the Book of Mormon. When I gave an interim report on my
research, to the John Whitmer Historical Association in 1980 at Omaha, RLDS scholar and
educator Wayne Ham again told me that I should read Spalding's manuscript. When I
informed him that was the very topic of my paper, he switched his argument, to saying
that "external evidences" proved that Spalding could have had nothing to do with the Book of Mormon.
I would estimate that in about 100 different encounters with Reorganized LDS officials and
scholars (from Richard P. Howard to Grant McMurray) I was only encouraged in my studies
two or three times, and was almost always given counsel to cease and desist.
So, if modern critics have the same advice -- I can only say that they are too late. The work
has largely been accomplished and now only the reporting remains to be done. I hope to
begin that with the publication of a book on the pre-Mormon religious career of Sidney Rigdon
in 2009 or 2010. I have already received plenty of advice on why I should NOT write such a
book -- but, surprisingly, Steve Sorenson of the LDS Church Archives said he would welcome
such an addition to his library -- (which has over 100 books on Smith, but only 3 on Rigdon).
Dale R. Broadhurst
Hilo, Hawaii
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 876
- Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 1:26 am
Why Me,
Instinct is good, but it should be balanced with reason. But what is instinct? Is it not a hunch based on the available information preliminary to a more formal investigation? Some instincts prove valid, while others do not. Certainly, you don't think instinct can't be sharpened and enhanced with training?
I don't want to tell you how to think. Unlike some on the RfM board, I'm not insistent that everyone accept my views. I like putting my arguments out there and letting everyone decide for themselves what they think. I'm just saying instinct shouldn't be a barrier to accessing the strengths and weaknesses in opposing views, because instinct has a lot to do with what we know. Gather more facts and analyze better the one's we already have, and instinct changes.
I don't see Joseph Smith writing the Book of Mormon on paper. There was no MS from which he read, not Spaulding's and not his own. The process was more working it out in his mind until he felt good about it, and then he dictated it. With only a few hours of dictation each day, he had plenty of time to work it out in his mind.
You see only what Joseph Smith wants you to see. And what you see is an illusion created with your assistance, because it exploits your belief that a farmer couldn't write something like the Book of Mormon (perhaps we need to look at the Book of Mormon with a critical eye), or no one would dare deceive in God's name, or that deception is easily detected, or that manmade scripture couldn't possibly produce spiritual feelings and change people's lives.
Joseph Smith's real achievement wasn't the Book of Mormon; it was the church he established. Without the church, I doubt the Book of Mormon would still be read by anyone. Moreover, the Book of Mormon didn't even stand the test of time during Joseph Smith's own life time, because his revelation quickly moved beyond the Book of Mormon. Today, the book is revered more as a symbol of the restoration, than for its contents.
Yes, I know. But I'm not speaking to the inspiration of the BOM--that assessment is beyond scholarship. The fact that Joseph Smith could stand in front of people or sit at a table and dictate long revelations that are in every way comparable to the Book of Mormon is evidence that he had the ability to dictate something like the Book of Mormon without the use of a MS, irregardless of whether you think his revelations were inspired. In fact, that is my thesis--JS believed he was inspired as he dictated the Book of Mormon.
They can only testify to what they observed. What they believed is irrelevant. Like in court, the witness can only testify to observations, but their speculations and interpretations are irrelevant. Perhaps if they knew what we know, they might have come to different conclusions.
Now, this kind of discussion might be beneficial, but we should keep it on Spaulding.
I tend to trust my instinct.
Instinct is good, but it should be balanced with reason. But what is instinct? Is it not a hunch based on the available information preliminary to a more formal investigation? Some instincts prove valid, while others do not. Certainly, you don't think instinct can't be sharpened and enhanced with training?
I don't want to tell you how to think. Unlike some on the RfM board, I'm not insistent that everyone accept my views. I like putting my arguments out there and letting everyone decide for themselves what they think. I'm just saying instinct shouldn't be a barrier to accessing the strengths and weaknesses in opposing views, because instinct has a lot to do with what we know. Gather more facts and analyze better the one's we already have, and instinct changes.
To tell you the truth, I just can't see him writing it. So much time and so much paper and ink and in secret with such grand visions of glory...that I find it all impossible.
I don't see Joseph Smith writing the Book of Mormon on paper. There was no MS from which he read, not Spaulding's and not his own. The process was more working it out in his mind until he felt good about it, and then he dictated it. With only a few hours of dictation each day, he had plenty of time to work it out in his mind.
Of course you have done more research in the area but really dan, where does this farmer find the time...and what about emma? If no one saw the manuscript, then what is there to see? Except his head in the hat and him moving around a heavy piece of material, perhaps metal.
You see only what Joseph Smith wants you to see. And what you see is an illusion created with your assistance, because it exploits your belief that a farmer couldn't write something like the Book of Mormon (perhaps we need to look at the Book of Mormon with a critical eye), or no one would dare deceive in God's name, or that deception is easily detected, or that manmade scripture couldn't possibly produce spiritual feelings and change people's lives.
And it is one thing to be charismatic, it is quite another thing to write a book that can be cross-referenced with the Bible and stand the test of time.
Joseph Smith's real achievement wasn't the Book of Mormon; it was the church he established. Without the church, I doubt the Book of Mormon would still be read by anyone. Moreover, the Book of Mormon didn't even stand the test of time during Joseph Smith's own life time, because his revelation quickly moved beyond the Book of Mormon. Today, the book is revered more as a symbol of the restoration, than for its contents.
And as you know, the LDS would claim that he wrote nothing that you listed above, except his jail house letters. It all came from god.
Yes, I know. But I'm not speaking to the inspiration of the BOM--that assessment is beyond scholarship. The fact that Joseph Smith could stand in front of people or sit at a table and dictate long revelations that are in every way comparable to the Book of Mormon is evidence that he had the ability to dictate something like the Book of Mormon without the use of a MS, irregardless of whether you think his revelations were inspired. In fact, that is my thesis--JS believed he was inspired as he dictated the Book of Mormon.
And I saw nothing in your quotations that even hinted at the people involved doubting that the Book of Mormon is not what it claims to be. What should I think?
They can only testify to what they observed. What they believed is irrelevant. Like in court, the witness can only testify to observations, but their speculations and interpretations are irrelevant. Perhaps if they knew what we know, they might have come to different conclusions.
Now, this kind of discussion might be beneficial, but we should keep it on Spaulding.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 876
- Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 1:26 am
Re: Book of Mormon Discussion
Uncle Dale wrote:I might also add, that in thirty years of my studying this particular topic, I have heard
just about every possible reason given, as to why it should be avoided and ignored.
In 1979, while I was conducting my studies at Oberlin College and elsewhere in Ohio,
I was pretty much kicked out of the Worthington RLDS branch because of that research.
My membership had been transferred there from Wyoming, but the local pastor was
adament, that my conducting such studies was a "sure ticket to hell." I moved my RLDS
membership from there to nearby Westerville, but again met with a very chilly reception.
At first I was told that such research was a "waste of time," and that I ought to do something
more productive. Then, when that did not phase me, the Westerville pastor told me that
such studies tended to destroy testimonies and that he did not want that sort of disruption
in the congregation. At last, I was reduced to occasional visits to the Columbus branch,
where the local Church Appointee, Seventy Stan Hunt, supported my work.
Among RLDS scholars (such as F. Mark McKiernan), the most typical reason I encountered,
for why I should discontinue my studies, was that the Church had published Spalding's
only fictional manuscript and that the text proved that Solomon Spalding could not have
possibly written a word of the Book of Mormon. When I gave an interim report on my
research, to the John Whitmer Historical Association in 1980 at Omaha, RLDS scholar and
educator Wayne Ham again told me that I should read Spalding's manuscript. When I
informed him that was the very topic of my paper, he switched his argument, to saying
that "external evidences" proved that Spalding could have had nothing to do with the Book of Mormon.
I would estimate that in about 100 different encounters with Reorganized LDS officials and
scholars (from Richard P. Howard to Grant McMurray) I was only encouraged in my studies
two or three times, and was almost always given counsel to cease and desist.
So, if modern critics have the same advice -- I can only say that they are too late. The work
has largely been accomplished and now only the reporting remains to be done. I hope to
begin that with the publication of a book on the pre-Mormon religious career of Sidney Rigdon
in 2009 or 2010. I have already received plenty of advice on why I should NOT write such a
book -- but, surprisingly, Steve Sorenson of the LDS Church Archives said he would welcome
such an addition to his library -- (which has over 100 books on Smith, but only 3 on Rigdon).
Dale R. Broadhurst
Hilo, Hawaii
Dale,
Just be glad you weren't trying to spread the "good news" about Spaulding in the LDS church. At least the RLDS let you stay in the church. I can remember some 20 years ago trying to sleep down in Mike Marquardt's basement and you upstairs diligently pounding away on the typewriter late into the night excerpting page after page of Spaulding documents. Although I'm not convinced about Spaulding, I do appreciate your efforts to uncover early Mormon sources and put them on the internet. I hope your health holds up long enough for you to complete your projects.
Dan "I don't have carpel tunnel yet" Vogel
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 3685
- Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 7:02 am
Re: Book of Mormon Discussion
Dan Vogel wrote:Dale,
Just be glad you weren't trying to spread the "good news" about Spaulding in the LDS church.
Actually, Leonard Arrington was very nice about the whole thing -- although, had I been a member of that church,
he might have been less helpful.
At least the RLDS let you stay in the church. I can remember some 20 years ago trying to sleep down in Mike Marquardt's basement and you upstairs diligently pounding away on the typewriter late into the night excerpting page after page of Spaulding documents. Although I'm not convinced about Spaulding, I do appreciate your efforts to uncover early Mormon sources and put them on the internet. I hope your health holds up long enough for you to complete your projects.
Dan "I don't have carpel tunnel yet" Vogel
My doctor advises my getting away from the computer and enjoying the next couple of years of so.
I am taking longer and longer breaks these days. The Rigdon book will be the last thing I do on my
own -- after that, it's up to Craig Criddle and others to follow up on anything I have missed or have
failed to make good use of.
Don't look for much more on the web from me. Two of the sites are already in the hands of another person
and the Rigdon site may pass away, next time the domain is up for renewal (2010, I think).
Dale
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 876
- Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 1:26 am
Dale,
I'm glad that your sites are safe for the time being. Now, don't be timid. Is there something you can contribute here. I suggested at the beginning an outline of the major arguments in support of the Spaulding theory and links to longer discussions. Obviously, there is a lot on the web. Much too voluminous for us to survey here. Can you help us get to the meat of what you find compelling about the Spaulding theory?
I'm glad that your sites are safe for the time being. Now, don't be timid. Is there something you can contribute here. I suggested at the beginning an outline of the major arguments in support of the Spaulding theory and links to longer discussions. Obviously, there is a lot on the web. Much too voluminous for us to survey here. Can you help us get to the meat of what you find compelling about the Spaulding theory?
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 9207
- Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:00 pm
Re: links for interest
marg wrote:I'm posting a few links to a message board in which Craig Criddle wrote some posts on the Rigdon/Spalding theory. I haven't heard from him personally but my understanding is that he will be unable to participate in this. I'm posting these for information only which may possible add value to the discussion. Use Flat view and focus on Craig's posts. I might add others later.
http://2thinkforums.org/phorum3/read.ph ... 91&t=17791
http://2thinkforums.org/phorum3/read.ph ... 31&t=17731
http://2thinkforums.org/phorum3/read.ph ... 68&t=12168
Some more added:
http://2thinkforums.org/phorum3/read.ph ... 97&t=17697
http://2thinkforums.org/phorum3/read.ph ... 68&t=12168
http://2thinkforums.org/phorum3/read.ph ... reply_5827
http://2thinkforums.org/phorum3/read.ph ... reply_4941
Ihave read the Criddle paper finally. Some of it is a good argument, some weak. The Smith/Rigdon connection still seems weak. The idea that the beginning and end of the Book of Mormon contains Rigdon's post 1828 theology seems weak. If the book were his invention why not just send Joseph Smith new material and make the Book of Mormon consistent through out? They certianly had the time.