DAN VOGEL DISCUSSES THE SPALDING/RIGDON THEORY

[_Uncle Dale]

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?

My genesis on this came in the form of a chance encounter with the late Vernal Holley in Sam Weller's book store in
1975 (I think it was). One thing led to another and Vernal grabbed a copy of the 1910 LDS "Manuscript Story" off the
shelf and began showing me word-strings of 3 to five words in length, that he said were also in the Book of Mormon. I dismissed
his examples as odd coincidences, but kept in contact with him. A year or two later Howard Davis of the "California
Researchers" got in touch with me through Phyllis Farkas, an Evagelical Christian who was trying to convert me out
of the RLDS Church. Davis was interested in the fact that one of my ancestors was the first Mormon to leave the Church
over the Spalding authorship claims -- but he gave me no new information and again I dropped the matter.

Then, in 1977, I took Vernal's textual findings and presented them to Richard P. Howard, RLDS Church Historian --
asking if they ought not be investigated, in light of an advertised, upcoming Spalding book from the "California
Researchers." Dick Howard was very uninterested and again I let the matter drop, until the next year, when a set of
photocopies of the Oberlin Spalding manuscript were floating around Ogden and a friend gave me a copy. At almost
the same time another associate forwarded to me a solicitation for grant proposals from LDS CE head, Jeffery Holland.
At that time I still looked at the whole matter as merely an oddity, but I was a bit miffed when Holland's secretary
informed me that my grant proposal on the subject would not be funded until "after your baptism."

In 1978-79 I re-wrote the grant proposal and submitted it along with my application to several different graduate
schools. Methodist Theological Seminary in Ohio was the only school that accepted me with an assistantship -- so I
took up their offer and used their money to study the Oberlin Spalding manuscript at nearby Oberlin College.

Still, in all of that time, I was not convinced that the Spalding-Rigdon authorship claims had any basis in fact --- but my
continued bout of bad experience with the RLDS officials and scholars convinced me that, like Smith's polygamy, the
"conspiracy theory" of Book of Mormon orgins was a stone they did not want turned over. That resistance sparked my further
interest, but I still did not personally accept the theory as fact -- only as a potential fact, and even then only parts of it.

When, in 1982, Lester E. Bush responded to a MHA paper I wrote on the subject, and advised me to drop the topic
altogether and "go on a mission," I did just that -- and have never returned to the US mainland for more than a few
days at a time since then.

My acceptance of a key piece of the Spalding-Rigdon explanation came in 1994-95 when I read Richard S. Van Waggoner's
report -- saying that Rigdon knew of the Book of Mormon before the published book was ever placed in his hands. I
guess ever since then it has been a downhill slide for me, with each new piece of evidence that came into my hands
serving to reinforce all of the rest. My happening upon the 1945 manuscript of Prof. Carl M. Brewster, who quoted an
1826 pamphlet accusing Rigdon of associating with a "crystal-gazer and confidence man" in southern Geauga Co., Ohio
in 1825-26 was pretty much the "straw that broke the camel's back" for me, I guess. I had already made a public
statement in support of the Spaldimg-Rigdon claims, but after 2005-06 there was no going back.

Paralleling all of this, I left Community of Christ -- so I no longer feel the pressure to hold back my findings.

I hope to provide better details in due time.

Dale

[_avanick]

Dear Mr. Vogel,
I'm going to just focus on the quote at the end of your post:

"JFK assassination theorists have lots of circumstantial arguments as well. And Creationist have mountains of evidence as well. I'm well aware of the tangled web of unsupported inferences Spaulding advocates have woven over the years, but to those who are knowledgeable about the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, and early Mormon sources, it doesn't fit. The best cure for the Spaulding theory is a better understanding of Mormon history and contents of the Book of Mormon. It's not as exciting and sensationalistic as conspiracy theories, but it interesting enough for me."

My name is Arthur Vanick, I am one of the co-authors of "Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon? - The Spalding Enigma", and I have basically just one question: have you read our book or are you basing your comments on information other than what is contained in our book? While our book certainly contains much in the way of circumstantial evidence, it also has much in the way of plain fact. I would submit at this point, that it is difficult to properly discuss the Spalding authorship claims (thanks Dale for the phrase) if one hasn't read our book, since it contains information that has never before been available in print. To say, or to infer, that only people who aren't knowledgeable about the Book of Mormon spend time studying the Spalding claims is about as fallacious as stating or inferring that only people who ARE knowledgeable about the Book of Mormon research into the Spalding claims, especially without any evidence to back it up.

It has long been claimed that Sidney Rigdon was never in Pittsburgh before 1820, thus not possibly having the chance to know about Spalding's manuscript. In our book we show that Sidney Rigdon did in fact visit Pittsburgh early enough to have known Spalding and about his manuscript. The source of the information was "The Commonwealth", a Pittsburgh newspaper. Had we done as told by many, "not to waste our time on a dead issue", that important discover may never have seen the light of day. Does it prove anything? Yes, that indeed Rigdon had been in Pittsburgh, not only before 1820, but also early enough to have known Spalding and known about his manuscript. This is just one of the many new items published in our book. No, I'm not trying to sell my book on this forum, just trying to level the playing field a bit.

Finally, with regard to the limited vs. hemispheric geography thing, I would suggest that this forum look at the work of Vernal Holley, which is very consistent with Spalding and which shows a very limited geography, which only makes sense, given Spalding's background and love of the local history which he fictionalized in his manuscript.

Thai is all I can post for now. I look forward to your reply.

[_Uncle Dale]

It has long been claimed that Sidney Rigdon was never in Pittsburgh before 1820, thus not possibly having
the chance to know about Spalding's manuscript. In our book we show that Sidney Rigdon did in fact visit
Pittsburgh early enough to have known Spalding and about his manuscript. The source of the information
was "The Commonwealth", a Pittsburgh newspaper....

Art -- I find it interesting that one issue of that newspaper had printed, within a couple of inches of each other,
the names of young Sidney Rigdon and the soon-to-pass-away Solomon Spalding. Too bad you guys did not
print a photo of THAT in your book --- I would have placed it on the front cover, underlined in red ink.

Of course all of the Mormon argument against Rigdon being in Pittsburgh before 1822 was mostly just bluster.
B. H. Roberts certainly knew that Rigdon had been in Pittsburgh at an early age -- but Roberts used carefully worded
"lawyerese" to make it sound as though he had not.

In a Jan. 27, 1843 letter, Rigdon's Pittsburgh area relatives state that Sidney Rigdon: "RETURNED to Pittsburgh in
the winter of 1821 and '22, and took the care of the First Regular Baptist Church." This statement agrees with
the family history shared years later by Rigdon's son, John Wycliffe -- who was under the impression that his Dad
had occasionally preached in the Pittsburgh Baptist Church before he returned there to become its pastor in 1822.

I think that the Mormon writers and officials simply wanted to put up a smoke-screen, to keep investigators from
looking more closely into HOW MANY YEARS before "the winter of 1821 ands '22" Sidney Rigdon had been there.

The smoke screen worked well for many decades -- and was made even thicker when Fawn M. Brodie reported that
a very credible eye-witness in this regard could not be trusted. Thus, for many years the LDS Church has been able
to say that even Fawn Brodie and Sandra Tanner agree that Rigdon could have not been involved. That misstatement,
or others of a very similar content, has persuaded numerous non-Mormons to stop looking any further, I'm sure.

Your finding of the Rigdon/Spalding postal letter list from 1816 adds much weight to other reports, saying that Rigdon
WAS associated with a print shop in that city -- that he supplied leather book-bindings to printers there, etc. While
none of this PROVES the Spalding-Rigdon claims, your discovery helps us to know WHERE to look for possible additional
evidence. I wonder what Mormon apologists would say, if you could uncover a pre-1817 account ledger from the
Patterson publishing company of Pittsburgh, recording their purchase of some leather book-bindings, delivered to
them by a part-time tanning apprentice from what is now the southern Pittsburgh suburbs -- apprentice Sidney Rigdon?

I hope you can get one of your associates back to Pittsburgh one of these days, to search for just such evidence.

Dale R. Broadhurst

[_why me]

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?

But here we have my diagreement about your statement: 'then the only alternative is that he DID write it'. I cannot be as sure as you since the orginal claim of the LDS church could be true too. First, my instinct comment was not wholly true. I also base my judgement on another source: Imagination. When I put myself back into that time frame, my imagination fails me when I try to conjure up your scene or Uncle Dale's. My imaginative mind just cannot come to grips with your theory or with Uncle Dale's theory in progress.

Recently I taught a reading comprehension class where I informed the students that in academic settings the imagination does not have to die. Rather, we can use the imagination to grasp more meaning from the text, especially if the text puts us in real lived situations.

But when I read your explanations or when I read Dale's, my mind goes blank on imagination because I just can't imagine Joseph doing what you said, around people in the way you say he did. Seems impossible to me. Plus, to gather witnesses in the process, organizing the restoration of the priesthood, complete with angels and heavenly visitations. And basically, keep it all together is a superman feat.

And I have the same problem with Uncle Dale's idea. I find it all unimaginable that so many people were involved in the fraud. And the logistics of it.

Now I am not saying that your theory couldn't hold water...I am just saying that my creative and imaginative mind has trouble to grasp your concepts and Uncle Dale's as I put them into real lived life.

[_Mary]

Why me,

If you put the coming forth of the Book of Mormon in the context of 19th century frontier America, that saw the rise of a number of now standard religious movements like the 7th Day Adventists and the Jehovah Witnesses, as well as not a few smaller minority groups that experimented with different lifestyles, then it is very easy to imagine.

Ethan Smith is near contemporary, Spaulding...

Joseph, along with others, must with his 'magical thinking' have asked who the ancient inhabitants of the continent were, what was their relationship to the christian background with which they were familiar, if there was any relationship at all.

You already have Ethan Smith asking this very same question.

It's very EASY to imagine.
It's also very easy to imagine Joseph using a number of books, including the King James Bible to put together this book. Though I find it easier to imagine that it was at the very least a group effort.

And why (seeing the success of the church and the relative wealth and power that it brought its main leaders) would anyone want to fezz up...
It made a lot of sense at the time. Probably made a lot of people feel more comfortable about living in this land. (the USA)
Heck, not only were they living on a continent 1000's of miles away from the culture that their ancestors had lived in but they get the great link of even having the garden of Eden only a few miles away from them, they have Jesus visiting that continent 2000 years before. I expect it made a big, scary world seem a little more familiar.

I could be completely wrong of course.

[_why me]

Why me,

Joseph, along with others, must with his 'magical thinking' have asked who the ancient inhabitants of the continent were, what was their relationship to the christian background with which they were familiar, if there was any relationship at all.

It's very EASY to imagine.

Oh no, this 'magical thinking' word seems to making the rounds. In one way I like it, but in this context, I can't say that I do. But I will explain later. But at this moment, I just wanted to pinpoint this word and eventually, give it my own interpretation.

[_marg]

Why Me in response to Dan:

But here we have my diagreement about your statement: 'then the only alternative is that he DID write it'. I cannot be as sure as you since the orginal claim of the LDS church could be true too.

Why Me,

Your partial statement “the original claims of the church could be true” is not even up for consideration in this thread. Please don't argue using this counter argument, which includes invoking a God. It's irrelevant what your personal religious beliefs are, God is not a factor for consideration in this thread.

This thread is about discussing whether Smith did it on his own, or whether he did it with the help of others and/or other sources. The supernatural is not included for discussion purposes.

[_why me]

Why Me in response to Dan:

But here we have my diagreement about your statement: 'then the only alternative is that he DID write it'. I cannot be as sure as you since the orginal claim of the LDS church could be true too.

Why Me,

Your partial statement “the original claims of the church could be true” is not even up for consideration in this thread. Please don't argue using this counter argument, which includes invoking a God. It's irrelevant what your personal religious beliefs are, God is not a factor for consideration in this thread.

This thread is about discussing whether Smith did it on his own, or whether he did it with the help of others and/or other sources. The supernatural is not included for discussion purposes.

Actually, if you read Dan in context, he said that one must reach a conclusion: that Joseph Smith did write it. But of course there are other conclusions to make. And I did write the LDS version 'could' be true. All alternatives need to be considered since the other two claims can also be false. And of course the other sources can be god. All premises need to come into the picture in order to reach a good debate that will probably reach a non-conclusion. One can not argue two premises that may be false and reach a true conclusion. All must be considered.

I also mentioned 'imagination'. I have tried to imagine Dan's idea and Uncle Dale's idea but my imagination just can't gets its grip around the possible conclusions of dan and dale when I put the 19th century actors involved in the picture.

[_why me]

Why me,

Joseph, along with others, must with his 'magical thinking' have asked who the ancient inhabitants of the continent were, what was their relationship to the christian background with which they were familiar, if there was any relationship at all.

It's very EASY to imagine.

Oh no, this 'magical thinking' word seems to making the rounds. In one way I like it, but in this context, I can't say that I do. But I will explain later. But at this moment, I just wanted to pinpoint this word and eventually, give it my own interpretation.

I like the term magical thinking but not in the postmormon sense of the word. To view the Joseph Smith story at this time, perhaps one needs magical thinking...or the thinking of a child. The whole religious idea is magical and certainly if we put Dan's idea into the picture one can picture something magical going on. When however, we put spaulding in the picture, one does not picture the magical but rather plagarism and a con job.

And if one considers the LDS version of events, one can also picture the magical since god can be considered a wonderful magician as miracles are made and lives are transformed.

But in the Book of Mormon story there are at least two forms of magical thinking: Dan's view of automatic writing or the Joseph Smith version of heavenly personages. Dan's view is certainly magical in a positive way because he has a human being doing something truly magical with automatic writing and the Joseph Smith version is truly magical because Joseph Smith is seeing visions, doing magical translations and experiencing 'magical' gifts with the help of god. The question is: Which form of 'magical thinking' should be embraced as credible?

And here we need imagination since magical thinking needs imagination. We need to put ourselves in this time frame and imagine ourselves as Joseph Smith at this time in early LDS history. Did he have the gifts of automatic writing? Did he have the gifts of a prophet? Or the less magical...did he know sidney and help forge the way for the greatest fraud in the religious world? Lets use our imagination.

[_Uncle Dale]

And I have the same problem with Uncle Dale's idea. I find it all unimaginable that so many people were
involved in the fraud. And the logistics of it.

Now I am not saying that your theory couldn't hold water...I am just saying that my creative and
imaginative mind has trouble to grasp your concepts and Uncle Dale's as I put them into real lived life.

We have had this discussion before, why me -- I keep saying that the Spalding Rigdon explanatuon for the
authorship of the Book of Mormon is predictive and that by following its chain of evidence we can uncover
more, hitherto uncited supporting evidence. Each time I have challenged you to join in this search to try
and uncover such new source material, you have broken off our conversation, or changed its subject.

I am not asking you to spend long hours in dusty library back-rooms, far from your home -- or even to spend
much beyond what a couple of family nights at the movies might cost. Much of this sort of research can be
done by "mail-order," and will take up less than an hour of your weeks, each month. When you have the
experience of making new "finds" yourself, of Rigdon's 1820s activities, or related matters, you will see -- I hope.

Take, for example, the early 1846 published claim of Thurlow Weed, who had previously interacted with Joseph Smith
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/NY/miscNYSi.htm#010046 -- Mr. Weed says:
"In 1824 or 1825, he [Joseph Smith] went a vagabonding off into western Pennsylvania, where, nobody knows how,
he got possession of the manuscript of a half-deranged clergyman, with which he returned to Palmyra, where
he pretended that he was directed in a dream to a particular spot in the woods..."

How might we follow up on this potential "lead," in order to help us determine whether Weed was talking from
knowledge or from speculation? Would it not be worth our while to try and locate an earlier instance of the same
report (preferably from Weed himself) and to make attempts to compare the allegations to other reports of Joseph Smith's
early, secretive activities? If I could show you an 1830 example of the same story (or, better yet, you could find
it for yourself) in Mr. Weed's unpublished correspondence --- would that not make the "unimaginable" more real?

In the preserved record of his 1826 trial, Joseph Smith reportedly told of a westward trip he had recently taken, to the border
of PA (or beyond), to get a seer stone. http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/NY/miscNYSi.htm#010046
How might we research this allegation, in light of Mr. Weed's report?

In 1877, John P. Greene, who had operated a hotel in Batavia, NY, reported that he had encountered Joseph Smith at an early
date, and that the young fortune-teller and treasure-seeker "seemed to be thoroughly acquainted with the route
from Canandaigua to Buffalo." http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/NY ... htm#010046
How might we conduct further research to determine whether Greene ever did encounter Joseph Smith in western NY?

From the 1945 Carl M. Brewster manuscript, I have taken notes on the allegation that Joseph Smith came to Auburn twp. in
southern Geauga Co., Ohio (in company with Porter Rockwell) in about 1825 to consult with a local treasure-seeker
named Stafford, who had previously lived in Manchester twp., Ontario Co., NY.
How might we determine which members of the STafford family were actually living in that place at the time?

In an 1831 article, written from interviews conducted in and around Palmyra, NY, the traveling journalist J. G. Bennett
reported the story that treasure-seekers associated with the Mancherster Smith family had sent one of their number
westward to Ohio at an early date, to "fetch" a fellow from that state who "had much experience in money digging."
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/NY/courier.htm#083131
How might we conduct some research to see where treasure-digging was going on in Ohio during the mid-1820s?
How might we determine whether or not members of the extended Stafford family were so engaged in Ohio?

Prof. Brewster also points out early Ohio newspaper reports, saying that Joseph Smith had come to Auburn twp., Geauga Co.,
Ohio, in search of a fellow treasure-digger (or words to that effect) and that he brought with him Porter Rockwell,
whose sister was married to one of these Staffords, and who in 1830 herself moved to Auburn. twp. I have located
one of Brewster's sources: http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/OH ... htm#120968
How might we determine if an earlier article in the same newspaper gave more information about Joseph Smith being in Auburn?

A member of an early pioneer family in Auburn, George Wilber, reportedly took a school-teaching job across the
township line in Bainbridge township, (about 4 miles to the west of his home) in 1825-26, and that he there met Rigdon:
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/OH ... htm#031486
How might we determine whether Mr. Wilber actually taught at that school and whether Rigdon's cabin was next door?

George Wilber also says that Joseph Smith, Jr. was then in the area, and that Joseph Smith also met with Rigdon.
How might we determine whether this encounter was possible (Rigdon's cabin being about 6 miles west of the Staffords)
and how might we go about locating early supporting evidence to help us determine whether it was even possible for
Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon to have both been in the Auburn-Bainbridge part of Geauga Co., Ohio in 1825-26 and which
members of the Stafford family (which Richard L. Bushman identifies as money-diggers) were then living in that area?

The nursemaid for the Rigdon children, Dency Thompson Henry, reportedly witnessed what appears to have been
automatic writing in Rigdon's Bainbridge cabin: http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/NW/miscnw04.htm#090980
Her recollection evidently was that "that there was in the family what is now called a "writing medium," also several others
in adjacent places, and the Mormon Bible was written by two or three different persons by an automatic power which
they believed was inspiration direct from God."
How might we conduct research to determine if there were early reports of automatic writing going on "in adjacent places,"
such as among the Staffords in adjacent Auburn twp.? How can we verify that Miss Thompson lived with the Rigdons?

You see -- I have here presented you with a dozen possible "leads" that you yourself can attempt to follow up on. And I
assure you that there is more relevant information than I have outlined here, on events in Auburn, Bainbridge, Joseph Smith trips
to the west, the "fetching" of a treasure-seer back to Palmyra from Ohio, etc. etc. Looking on from a distance you can
say that all of these bits and pieces of history are probably phoney and that they do not at all tie together. But were you
to become involved in the search for additional historical information of this type, I think the Spalding-Rigdon-Smith
connections would become more and more "imaginable" to you with each new discovery you made.

In her 1945 Joseph Smith biography, Fawn M. Brodie asserts that Sidney Rigdon could have never confessed any involvement in
the production of the Book of Mormon, because he never lived in St. Louis. No doubt you and others have read and
accepted Brodie's words as gospel truth. But you also know that I have pointed out a witness who testifies that Rigdon
divulged exactly this sort of information to him in St. Louis, as Rigdon was on his way back to Pittsburgh, after having
been excommunicated at Nauvoo. You know that I have given contemporary Mormon published sources, saying that
Rigdon was at that very time renouncing and denouncing Mormonism in Missouri. And yet you have repeatedly said to
me that you cannot believe Rigdon ever made the confession, that he and Joseph Smith used to meet in Ohio and there worked
together on Sundays, preparing the Book of Mormon from Spalding's manuscript(s).

Here is a matter you can easily research for yourself -- and it will take little of your time or money. I challenge you
to do some follow up investigation of Mr. Jeffery and his testimony, and, if after doing that, you can sincerely say that
you believe what Fawn Brodie said was true, I will excuse you from ever having to hear of such stuff from me again:
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/PA ... htm#021384
http://solomonspalding.com/Lib/Brd1945b.htm#pg429a

Think of the benefits, why me, if you can say that you still believe Brodie, you will not have to hear me arguing that
Sidney Rigdon was writing pseudo-scriptural rhetoric as early as 1824, nor that the Rev. Lawrence Greatrake
accused him in a pamphlet published two years later, of consorting with a crystal-gazer and confidence man in Auburn
twp., Geauga Co., Ohio. That should make your life far easier, from here on out -- fully "imaginable," no?
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/1824Scot.htm#page36a
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/1836Grtk.htm
etc. etc. etc.

Dale