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.
Nice to cyberly meet you Art. I have not read your new edition, but I read the first edition when it first came out. I couldn't locate that copy in my personal library, so I think I may have donated it to a theological school along with some other books. I don't consider myself an expert on the Spaulding theory. I investigated it long ago, formed my opinions about it, and determined it was a dead end. I haven't bothered to pursue it any further, but spend my time in areas I think are more fruitful. But I'm willing to hear what you have to say, perhaps you'll convince me to reconsider my position. However, I must admit I'm skeptical. But others reading along might think I'm full of it and decide to read your book anyway, if they haven't already. I have read Matthew Roper's review of your book and he seemed to bring up some valid criticisms (although I think sometimes he was too minimalistic with the evidence).
I could suggest that one cannot "properly" discuss Mormonism unless one has read all that is available to read--like my books. But we here are reckless and don't mind half-assed debates. Think of it as a 30-second commercial for your book. At the very least, we will all go away knowing a little more than we did before this exchange, me included.
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.
I said this based on my understanding of early Mormon sources and a reconstruction of early Mormon history, which seems to exclude the Spaulding theory. I said it flourished in Joseph Smith's day among non-Mormons who could not have assessed it validity because they did not know the circumstances surrounding the production of the Book of Mormon. To those who did know the facts--such as Cowdery, Harris, Emma, the Whitmers--the theory did not make any sense and was a mere annoyance. It is my opinion and experience that many (not all) advocates of the Spaulding theory are similarly uninformed about both early Mormon history and the contents of the Book of Mormon. This also includes a lot of Mormons. And when Mormons become former Mormons, it does not necessarily mean they have gained a good understanding of their former faith. So, I did not intend for my general comments to apply to every particular circumstance--that would be a fallacy.
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.
Long claimed by whom? Critics of the Spaulding theory? So you proved them wrong, but did you prove the Spaulding theory? I know how satisfying it can be to discover new evidence. That's what makes field work so much fun. But I somewhat agree with Roper when he states: "But while the authors must be commended for a good piece of detective work, they greatly exaggerate the implications of the find" (108). However, I also think Roper is too minimalistic in his critique of this evidence. But I would like to hear your response to his arguments that follow:
In 1879, Rebecca Eichbaum provided a statement to Spalding-theory proponent Robert Patterson Jr. Eichbaum was the daughter of John Johnston, a postmaster in Pittsburgh, and the wife of William Eichbaum, who continued to serve in that capacity after her father retired. William was postmaster from 1822 to 1833, but Rebecca assisted her father as a clerk from 1811 to 1816, before she married. There she was often involved in sorting and distributing mail. In her 1879 statement Rebecca Eichbaum said she remembered many of the people who came in to retrieve their mail. These included, she said, Robert and Joseph Patterson, J. Harrison Lambdin, Silas Engles, Sidney Rigdon, and Solomon Spalding. "I remember that there was an evident intimacy between Lambdin and Rigdon. They very often came to the office together." She said that while she did not know "what position, if any, Rigdon filled in Patterson's store or printing office," she was confident that Rigdon "was frequently, if not constantly, there for a large part of the time when I was clerk in the post-office." She said she remembered that Engles once told her, "Rigdon was always hanging around the printing-office."[275] She was describing people and events that were supposed to have taken place over sixty years earlier.
Partial support for Eichbaum's statement has been found in a list of unclaimed letters that had been held at the Pittsburgh post office for more than thirty days. Such lists were compiled and published in several newspapers. After surveying a list of such letters in the Commonwealth and Statesmen newspapers, Cowdrey, Vanick, and Davis located references to letters being held for several persons of interest, including Solomon Spalding, John Spalding, and Sidney Rigdon. Letters for Solomon Spalding are dated 30 April and 31 October 1813 and 30 June 1816, and for John and Solomon Spalding on 31 January 1815. Letters for Sidney Rigdon were dated 30 June 1816 and 31 August and 31 October 1818. Letters so dated were listed as having been unclaimed for at least thirty days at the Pittsburgh post office. This evidence gives partial support for Eichbaum's claim to have seen both Sidney Rigdon and Solomon Spalding in the Pittsburgh post office during the period from 1811 to 1816, showing that Rigdon likely did visit the post office in Pittsburgh on occasion to retrieve his mail during the same time that Spalding did the same thing. But while the authors must be commended for a good piece of detective work, they greatly exaggerate the implications of the find:
"The importance of this material cannot be overstated, for not only does it provide incontrovertible proof of Sidney Rigdon's presence in Pittsburgh well before 1821, but it places him there during the very time Solomon Spalding is known to have been involved with the Patterson brothers seeking publication of A Manuscript Found. At the same time, any question of Mrs. Eichbaum's credibility is effectively laid aside by the fact that these new revelations firmly support her 1879 statement." (p. 137)
There are problems with this reasoning. First, although the letters show that both Spalding and Rigdon had unclaimed mail at the Pittsburgh post office (which is not really that surprising since Rigdon lived only a few miles away at the time), the letters do not show that the two ever met, nor do they provide support for Eichbaum's claim that Rigdon was intimately associated with Patterson's business before 1822. Eichbaum's important claims remain unsupported. Second, although some critics of the Spalding theory may have been wrong in claiming that Rigdon never went to Pittsburgh before 1822, Rigdon himself never denied visiting the place before 1822; he only denied that he resided there before that time. The most important question with the Eichbaum statement is not whether Rigdon visited Pittsburgh, but whether he was connected with R&J Patterson prior to 1822. That has not been demonstrated.
--Matthew Roper, The Mythical "Manuscript Found", FARMS Review 17/2 (2005): 108-9.
It seems to me that you are arguing that Rigdon had opportunity to commit a crime that can't be proven has occurred. Nor can you demonstrate that Rigdon had access to a manuscript you can't prove even existed. Moreover, even if one accepts your two-MS theory, why should we assume the MS at the printing office was the hypothesized proto-BOM MS and not the Oberlin MS, or a version of it? Certainly, you must know that this new evidence only becomes significant if one allows a lot of other "ifs". I have the same reservations with Quinn's attempt to prove associations between people based on mere geographic proximity. Similar to your efforts, Quinn argues for an association between the Smiths and Vermont rod-worker Justice Winchell, partly based on letters in the Palmyra Post Office. And here we verge on the fallacy of possible proof. For those who may not know this fallacy, I offer the following:
The fallacy of the possible proof consists in an attempt to demonstrate that a factual statement is true or false by establishing the possibility of its truth or falsity. "One of the greatest fallacies of evidence," a logician has observed, "is the disposition to dwell on the actual possibility of its being false; a possibility which must exist when it is not demonstrative. Counsel can bewilder juries in this way till they almost doubt their own senses." This tactic may indeed prove to be forensically effective in an Anglo-American court of law, but it never proves a point at issue. Valid empirical proof requires not merely the establishment of possibility, but of probability. Moreover, it demands a balanced estimate of probabilities pro and con. If historians, like lawyers, must respect the doctrine of reasonable doubt, they must equally be able to recognize an unreasonable doubt when they see one.
David Hackett Fischer, Historians' Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought (New York and Evanston: Harper and Row,1970), 53.
This is the kind of circumstantial and possible evidence that conspiracy theories thrive on. The Spaulding theory needs substance--some "plain facts" as you call them, or at least some probable (not just possible) evidence--if it is to sustain the many possible proofs and speculations.
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.
Perhaps we should. The problem as I see it is that Holley's limited geography isn't consistent with the Book of Mormon. I also think saying Holley's geography is "consistent" with Spaulding's regional history is an overstatement since there is nothing that specifically in Spaulding's writings to either confirm or disqualify Holley's geography. Holley is trying to offer a limited geography that fits the Book of Mormon on the assumption that Spaulding wrote the Book of Mormon. His geography can't be used to prove what it assumes--that would be begging the question.