DAN VOGEL DISCUSSES THE SPALDING/RIGDON THEORY

[_Uncle Dale]

... the secondary point I wanted to make is in regards to the Pious Fraud theory and how that works into this whole
possible Rigdon connection. I do not believe that positing Rigdon as an author with a possible spalding manuscript
as a framework discounts the Pious Fraud theory. I believe that Dan has made such an excellent case for the FACT -
and it does seem so clear as to be a FACT to me - that Joseph's own life is mirrored in the Book of Mormon that I am forced to
concede that he had to author at least part of the Book of Mormon - or add his own special tidbits along the way. But I can see
this happening so easily....

Allow me to move from your observation to something I recently had to say elsewhere:

Near the end of his recent Joseph Smith biography, Dr. R. L. Bushman has issued a rhetorical
challenge to his readers, to begin to explain the origin of the Book of Mormon and incipient Mormonism.

Such a response to Bushman can follow any one of several possible paths:

1. The Book of Mormon is essentially what it claims to be -- an ancient record with Smith as translator
2. The Book of Mormon is not what it claims to be, and Smith created its contents
3. Smith compiled its contents, but relied in part upon pre-existing sources (Isaiah, Ethan Smith, etc.)
4. Smith compiled the contents, but had some input from close associates (Oliver, Hyrum, etc.)
5. Smith edited the contents for publication, but the book was compiled by somebody else

Response #1 requires no additional research and reporting -- it is a matter of faith alone.

Responses #2 and #3 would allow for Smith being a "pious fraud," but perhaps a believer in the book's message
Response #4 would allow for a "pious fraud," but would include a small conspiracy of possibly true believers

Response #5 would diminish the "pious" aspect of the fraud, but still could allow for Smith and a very few other
"conspirators" to have believed that their ends justified their secretive, fraudulent means in creating the book.

How should the non-believing, non-Mormon go about conducting his/her research and reporting? Should one of these
possible responses be chosen as representing the greatest likelihood, and should the investigator pursue that line
of research and reporting? --- Or, should the investigation be conducted on a broader scale, allowing for any one of
responses 2-5 in the final reporting?

Obviously an investigator who is attempting to respond to Dr. Bushman's challenge cannot research ALL possibilities --
as with any other line of study, that investigator would have to narrow down his/her field of inquiry.

A person might spend years looking into the possibility of Oliver Cowdery being Smith's only "conspirator" in the
compilation of the Book of Mormon -- early material from Orsamus Turner, D. H. Bays, Benjamin Winchester and
others might be searched for clues -- and a proper investigation of such clues might take many years.

Art and his friends have put a great deal of time into studying Oliver, but they have barely touched upon his possible
connections with William Morgan, Lucinda Morgan Harris Smith, etc.

The point I am trying to make here, is that while each one of us may follow up leads on some evidence or theory that
seems particularly promising, we should also keep on the look-out for material useful to other scholars and readers
who may not share our particular interests or postulations.

Lastly, the larger a "conspiracy theory" becomes, with the addition of new participants and new interactions, the less
reasonable and likely it becomes. If anybody besides Joseph Smith, Jr. knew fully what was going on, that circle of
co-conspirators must have been very, very small indeed. And any anybody else besides Smith knew even half of what
was going on, and still believed it all to be a godly work for godly ends, those co-conspirators must have been an
equally small number ---- perhaps one who knew it all --- one or two more who knew much --- and all the other
earliest Mormons knowing hardly anything at all.

Dale

[_Who Knows]

Wow, great thread. Thanks Dan, Art, Dale, etc.

I have a question for Dale and Art: What do you make of the accounts of the translation process that Dan provided earlier - that seem to indicate that Joseph Smith could not have used a pre-existing manuscript - that he could not have been reading from anything? Is it something along the lines of what beastie mentioned - that he simply memorized it all?

[_Bond...James Bond]

I also have a question for you experts (and everyone else smarter than me concerning the Book of Mormon origins):

Could you please give who you think wrote the Book of Mormon?

When I ask this I don't want to demean your scholarship and knowledge, I would just like it stated in simple terms. I ask this because it's confusing for the laypeople to keep up with whats what.

So please simplify with: "I think Joseph Smith" or "I think Joseph Smith and his Uncle Bob" or whatever.

Thanks for helping out we mortals,

Bond

[_Uncle Dale]

Wow, great thread. Thanks Dan, Art, Dale, etc.

I have a question for Dale and Art: What do you make of the accounts of the translation process that
Dan provided earlier - that seem to indicate that Joseph Smith could not have used a pre-existing manuscript -
that he could not have been reading from anything? Is it something along the lines of what beastie
mentioned - that he simply memorized it all?

I begin with three facts -- 1. That the Printer's Manuscript was copied from an existing source (the first Book of Mormon MS)
and 2. That the Isaiah chapters of 1st Nephi and Mosiah were copied from an existing source (a certain KJV edition).
3. Oliver Cowdery attempted to produce some Book of Mormon text by means other than hearing dictation, but we
do not know how much (if any) of his "translation" was incorporated into the book before his "stupor of thought."

I add to that two acknowledgements -- 1. That lengthy parts of the Book of Mormon may indeed have been "finalized" in a
dictation process. But I see no reason to conclude that every passage of the book was so dictated. Were the
witness statements dictated? was Joseph Smith's "Preface" dictated? was the title-page dictated? was the KJV material dictated?
2. That Joseph Smith may have possessed the ability to memorize lengthy texts -- either consciously or subconsciously.

Sidney Rigdon is credited by one source, at least, with participating in automatic writing -- some of his post-Nauvoo
"revelations" also appear to have been presented as communications from the dead, or perhaps as spirit writing.

Can a person also perform "automatic dictation?" ---- That is, can we be certain that the subconscious mind only gives
back its "automatic" contents in the form of handwriting/typing, or can this occur orally as well?

In at least some instances of automatic writing, subsequent investigation has shown that the writer had been previously
exposed to the subject matter that crops up in the automatically written text --- that is to say, the writer's subconscious
mind may have stored away vast quantities of pre-existing source material in such a way that his/her conscious mind
is unware of that accumulation. Just as dreams are concocted out of bits and pieces of perceptions from our waking
moments, so can "automatic writing" be assembled by the mind in a more structured, coherent literary or artistic output.

While I cannot prove any "automatic writing" on the part of either Rigdon or Smith, I do not rule it out and would advise
others to keep an open mind on the subject. The Book of Mormon text may be a product of multiple sources, brought
together by one or two compilers with some automatic writing input, who indeed dictated large parts of the text.

But somebody is going to have to prove it to me, in no uncertain way, before I will believe that each and every page
of the Book of Mormon was created though dictation and dictation ONLY.

Dale

[_Uncle Dale]

I also have a question for you experts (and everyone else smarter than me concerning the Book of Mormon origins):

Could you please give who you think wrote the Book of Mormon?

When I ask this I don't want to demean your scholarship and knowledge, I would just like it stated in simple terms. I ask this because it's confusing for the laypeople to keep up with whats what.

So please simplify with: "I think Joseph Smith" or "I think Joseph Smith and his Uncle Bob" or whatever.

Thanks for helping out we mortals,

Bond

I think that the same people who were responsible for the text of the Book of Moses and Book of Enoch
were the writers/compilers of the Book of Mormon.

Hint: The books of Moses and Enoch manuscript pages are in the handwriting of Sidney Rigdon with some
known input from Joseph Smith, Jr. Prof. Craig Criddle believes a Solomon Spalding original text stands
behind most of the books of Ether, Moses and Enoch, and I support his conclusions.


Dale

[_Dan Vogel]

Hi Art,

Thanks for including me on the 1977 edition, which has turned into a bit of a collector's item, I guess, but all I did was some of the more tedious research on the first book as, well as help to procure one or more of the handwriting experts. By the way, there is a huge story just in the saga of the handwriting experts and their findings. I'll leave it alone except to say that not only did all three experts state the the unidentified scribe writing was Spalding's, one of them later on, when shown some unknown handwriting in a completely unrelated book, the Cowdery family genealogy, stated quite plainly that it was Spalding's, and then asked Wayne why Spalding's handwriting was in the Cowdery family genealogy. Any ideas?

So much for handwriting experts. It's difficult to make judgments without access to originals. It is also easier if one is choosing among handwritings of known participants. Handwriting analysis is not a perfect science. I can't remember if the experts were trained in nineteenth century handwriting or not. I'm not a handwriting expert, but I challenged Dean Jessee's identification of John Whitmer's handwriting in the original Book of Mormon MS in 1 Nephi and convinced Brent Metcalfe not to use that argument in his Mosiah-first essay. In fairness, Jessee did put "John Whitmer?" But it was a stretch. Now, that possibility has been abandoned by Royal Skousen, and we now have two unknown scribes. Of course, you are no doubt aware that your unknown scribe also authored one of Joseph Smith's revelations, which makes identifying it with Spaulding quite impossible. Still, the idea that some pages from Spaulding's MS had been slipped into the Book of Mormon MS was quite preposterous to begin with.

The idea for the 2005 book was mine, and I approached Davis and Cowdrey in 1993, telling them that we needed to bring the book back before the public eye, and to answer the many questions that arose over the years. In 2005, the new book became a reality, and the only similarity between the old book and the new one, besides both of them speaking about the Spalding authorship claims, was the title. Outside of that, the two books are considerably different. There is far more evidence in the new book, in spite of what Mr. Roper, or rather he and the people who helped him, say to the contrary, even though not nearly so sensational as with the handwriting issue, which also in spite of what many have said, is far from being dead. Ever wonder why such a tight lid has been put on access to the unidentified scribe pages? Perhaps someone else someday can resolve that mystery.

Hearing that the book has dramatically change is certainly encouraging. I'm not sure what you mean by tight lid on the unidentified pages. The original MS is quite fragile and for the most part unreadable without infrared light. In fact, the infrared photos are preferable to use. Skousen took great pains to identify all the handwritings, but was unsuccessful in identifying two scribes, largely due to the lack of handwriting samples of the Whitmers. Both John and Christian Whitmer are said to have acted as scribes, but so far can't be linked to either unidentified scribe.

I wouldn't say that this is a reckless discussion or half-assed, just restricted perhaps.

Watch out for my dry sense of humor.

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.

My friend, here is where faith and such come into play. When people are convinced in their hearts that something is not right, they don't necessarily need to know the history or validity of every jot and tittle of something to believe it true or false, so understanding can be a relative term here. I'm also not surprised that Spalding is left out of early Mormon history, though one could suggest that Spalding is a necessity when doing a proper study of said history. Once again, our new book is quite a different animal than its predecessor and should be considered on its merits without being compared to the earlier edition.

I'm not sure what you mean here. But I would like to see an acknowledgment that the multiple testimony of Joseph Smith's method of dictation is a major hurdle for the Spalding theory.

We have never made the claim that our book "proves" that Spalding wrote the basis for the Book of Mormon. What we have said, is that we are offering an equally plausible, if not more so, explanation for how the Book of Mormon really came into being. Once again, I have to strongly suggest that you read our book rather than just parse out what may appear to be good arguments made by Roper et all. Without a doubt we have amassed a mountain of circumstantial evidence in support of our claims, but at the same time, it takes more than just circumstantial evidence to "prove" something, but we have not made that claim. However, I would put this question to you: how much evidence will be enough? How much testimony will it take? how many early documents will it take to finally "prove" the case, one way or the other? Who will make that determination?

No response to Roper? I take it that you generally agree with his criticism, but because you are not trying to "prove" your case you are allowed to exaggerate the significance of your evidence. It seems to me you have verified Eichbaum's statement as having factual basis, but her statement still has questionable relevance to the Spalding theory.

I'm not sure what you mean by "equally plausible"--"equally plausible" to what? The less cumbersome, less circumstantial, less speculative Joseph Smith as sole author theory? You might regard the Spalding theory as "plausible", but I regard the Joseph Smith as sole-author theory to be probable. Plausible isn't saying much. Any false theory has plausibility. If I were in court, I would hope my attorney has more than a plausible defense. Speculations about Big Foot are plausible, but not probable.

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.

I would submit to you that the Mormons cannot have it two different ways either. Obviously the manuscript that was found in Hawaii was Manuscript Story, not Manuscript Found, even though it was given that name later on, perhaps as wishful thinking. Yet discussions have included both names over the years. So then if there was only one manuscript, then it was/is Manuscript Story, and Manuscript Found doesn't exist, unless it is indeed the second manuscript, the one which Solomon Spalding did indeed submit to a print shop in Pittsburgh. The point of contention then becomes whether that manuscript later became the basis for the Book of Mormon.

Can you establish that the two titles are definitely different MSS? Are you sure Manuscript Found wasn't inadvertently given by witnesses because Manuscript Story is about a manuscript found? It's always possible that Spalding retitled his MS before submitting it to the printer. But, then, why would the basis for the Book of Mormon be titled "Manuscript Found" when there are no manuscripts mentioned in the book, but rather metal plates? Lots of metal plates, but not one MS--odd, don't you think?

On the matter of the two-MS theory, I think Roper's discussion of the 1839 letter of Solomon's widow, Matilda Spalding Davidson, that appeared in the Boston Recorder, is devastating, unless you can come up with a good response. Roper discusses and quotes from this Davidson's letter:

Howe's suspicious behavior. On 19 April 1839, a letter appeared in the Boston Recorder over the name of Matilda Spalding Davison, widow of Solomon Spalding. Davison recounted memories of her late husband, his deteriorating health, and his work on a story called "Manuscript Found." She said that while they lived in Pittsburgh, her husband had taken the manuscript to the office of a Mr. Patterson, a printer, who suggested that if Spalding made revisions and polished the tale, he might consider it for publication. Davison claimed that Sidney Rigdon, who she thought was associated with the printer, must have made a copy of the manuscript. However, "At length the manuscript was returned to its author, and soon after we removed to Amity, Washington county, Pa., where Mr. S. deceased in 1816. The manuscript then fell into my hands and was carefully preserved."[78] Later, she said, when a Mormon preacher visited the Spaldings' former neighborhood in Pennsylvania and read from the Book of Mormon, residents of the town, including Spalding's brother John, recognized her husband's writings in the Book of Mormon and suspected fraud.

"The excitement in New Salem became so great, that the inhabitants had a meeting and deputed Dr. Philastus Hurlbut, one of their number to repair to this place and to obtain from me the original manuscript of Mr. Spaulding, for the purpose of comparing it with the Mormon Bible, to satisfy their own minds and to prevent their friends from embracing an error so delusive. This was in the year 1834. Dr. Hurlbut brought with him an introduction and request for the manuscript, signed by Messrs. Henry Lake, Aaron Wright and others, with all whom I was acquainted, as they were my neighbors, when I resided in New Salem."[79]

Since 1839 Latter-day Saint critics of the Spalding theory have noted irregularities in how the Davison statement was prepared and presented to the press, sometimes attempting to show that enemies of the church falsified the widow's testimony. However, Cowdrey, Davis, and Vanick correctly observe that while she did not draft the statement, the elderly widow had apparently given tacit approval for the statement. More significant, in my view, is the information the widow's statement reveals about Hurlbut, Howe, and the Spalding manuscript itself. Davison identified the manuscript entrusted to Hurlbut as "Manuscript Found." It was the same manuscript that Spalding took to the printer in Pittsburgh and that ended up in the widow's trunk in New York, from which it was retrieved by Hurlbut. This information seems to contradict the earlier claim of Howe and of Spalding's Conneaut neighbors that "Manuscript Story" was not the same as "Manuscript Found." Upon reading the Davison statement, one non-Mormon observer noted that the statement stopped short of providing a most important piece of information:

"The writer does not tell us, whether the manuscript was sent to New Salem—whether it was compared with the Mormon Bible, what was the result of that comparison, or where it may now be found, and in what manner these facts can be proved, other than by her attested statements! . . . And again, what became of the manuscript? It had just been proved to be an important document, and it surely could not have been wantonly destroyed? if still in existence can it not be produced to corroborate the statements of Mrs Davison?"[80]

Parley P. Pratt pointed out that

"the statement does not say whether he [Hurlbut] obtained the manuscript ["Manuscript Found"], but still leaves the impression that he did, and that it was compared with the Book of Mormon. Now whoever will read the work got up by said Hurlburt, entitled "Mormonism Unveiled," will find that he there states that the said manuscript of Spaulding's romance was lost and could no where be found. But the widow is here made to say that it is carefully preserved. Here seems to be some knavery or crooked work. . . . Now if there is such a manuscript in existence, let it come forward at once, and not be kept in the dark."[81]

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

[79] Davison, "Origin of the 'Book of Mormon.'"

[80] C., "For the Register and Observer," Christian Register and Boston Observer (11 May 1839), emphasis added.

[81] Parley P. Pratt, letter to the editor of the New Era, 27 November 1839, in Weekly Democratic Republican New Era and American Courier (between 27 November and early December 1839), emphasis added; reprinted in the Times and Seasons 1/3 (January 1840): 46.

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

--Matthew Roper, The Mythical "Manuscript Found", FARMS Review 17/2 (2005): 29-31.

Roper's full discussion of Howe's coverup is quite stunning. It can be read at the link below:


http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/display.php?table=review&id=584

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".

No, the only way it doesn't become significant is if the testimony of the Conneaut witnesses and others are impeached, and contrary to Brodie and those who would hide behind her book, that is simply not the case. That is why Eichbaum and others are attacked, because if their testimony is somehow impeached, it goes a long way toward destroying the Spalding claims. Once again, we discuss this in our book. Many libraries have copies of our book. While Brodie clearly has valid points in other areas, she is wrong about the Conneaut witnesses.

I think the best explanation of the Conneaut witnesses comes from the study of Elizabeth Loftus on planted memories and false memories.

Elizabeth F. Loftus, "Creating False Memories," Scientific American 277 (Sept. 1997): 70-75.

http://faculty.washington.edu/eloftus/Articles/sciam.htm

Loftus, Elizabeth (1996) Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 24 (3) 281-295.

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:5JAnx3OZI-cJ:cogprints.org/599/00/199802009.html+&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=10&gl=us

Michael H. Brown, "False-Memory Syndrome."

http://www.gospa.org/pl/pages/articles/catholic-news.html?ra=1;id=111

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.

Perhaps not, but then aren't you making the assumption that Holley is wrong, based on the assumption that the Spalding authorship claims are wrong? From what I have seen of Holley's work, I find it to be another link in the ever-growing chain of evidence which may someday show that Spalding did in fact write the basis for the Book of Mormon.

I'm supposed to assume it's wrong since Holley has the burden of proof. However, as I said, Holley's geography has to demonstrate that it fits Book of Mormon geography better than with hemispheric geography does. However, even if Holley's fit better, what relevance would that have for the Spalding theory? Spalding favored local Indian legends, but would he have given such elaborate geography descriptions in his book and would it be that geography? Seems like another remote speculation that is pointless since hemispheric geography is the best fit.

I do not say that he wrote the Book of Mormon, as there are clearly many parts which bear the unmistakable stamp of Sidney Rigdon and his religious views. That is a whole side topic all by itself.

Really? Many of the major elements are Christian Primitivism and Religious Seeker concepts, which Joseph Smith was exposed to in his own home. Joseph Smith was certainly exposed to revivalism, Arminianism, Calvinism, and Unitarian-Universalism. The Book of Mormon is preoccupied with Unitarian-Universalism, but was Rigdon? Campbellites rejected the term Holy Ghost, and preferred the term Holy Spirit. Rigdon was likely a binitarian, but the Book of Mormon fails to distinguish between the Father and Son. If Rigdon had been the author of the theological portions of the Book of Mormon, one would have expected a much more pronounced restorationism. The term "restoration" appears in discussions of resurrection and salvation, but not in terms of the gospel and church.

by the way, thanks for participating, Art.

[_Dr. Shades]

[MODERATOR POST:

why me, I respectfully request that if you want to discuss whether the Book of Mormon is or isn't true, or how/why Joseph could or couldn't have written it himself, that you start a new thread on the topic.

Please, let's preserve this thread for discussion of the Spalding/Rigdon Theory only.

Thanks in advance!]

[_Dan Vogel]

I also have a question for you experts (and everyone else smarter than me concerning the Book of Mormon origins):

Could you please give who you think wrote the Book of Mormon?

When I ask this I don't want to demean your scholarship and knowledge, I would just like it stated in simple terms. I ask this because it's confusing for the laypeople to keep up with whats what.

So please simplify with: "I think Joseph Smith" or "I think Joseph Smith and his Uncle Bob" or whatever.

Thanks for helping out we mortals,

Bond

I think that the same people who were responsible for the text of the Book of Moses and Book of Enoch
were the writers/compilers of the Book of Mormon.

Hint: The books of Moses and Enoch manuscript pages are in the handwriting of Sidney Rigdon with some
known input from Joseph Smith, Jr. Prof. Craig Criddle believes a Solomon Spalding original text stands
behind most of the books of Ether, Moses and Enoch, and I support his conclusions.


Dale

25-30 (?) June 1830
"A Revelation given to Joseph the Revelator June 1830" (Moses 1; i.e., Old testament Manuscript #2, RLDS Church Library-Archives, in handwriting of Oliver Cowdery). An insertion in Smith's History in the hand of W. W. Phelps seems to imply that the revelation detailing Moses' encounter with Satan as an angel of light was dictated at Colesville: thus 25-30 June (I.A.15, JOSEPH SMITH HISTORY, 1839, 48, addenda A-1; Matthews 1975, 26-27). However, the revelation might actually have been dictated in Fayette earlier that month.

Circa June-October 1830
Joseph Smith receives revelation and revises Genesis: "A Revelation given to the elders of the church of Christ on the first Book of Moses / Chapter First," and "Chapter 2nd--A Revelation Concerning Adam after he had been driven out of the garden of eden" (Moses 2:1-5:43a; i.e., Old Testament Manuscript #2, RLDS Church Library-Archives, in handwriting of Oliver Cowdery; see Matthews 1975, 64, 68). Robert Matthews has suggested Harmony (PA) for these early writings, but the reference to elders of the church may point to the church conference of 9 June 1830 (or 26-27 September 1830) held at Fayette (NY) (Matthews 1975, 27).

21 October 1830
Joseph Smith revises Genesis (Moses 5:43b-51), in Fayette (NY). Old Testament Manuscript #2 (RLDS Church Library-Archives) bears the date 21 October 1830 for this section of the Book of Moses and John Whitmer's handwriting begins (Matthews 1975, 27-28, 64, 68).


30 November 1830
Joseph Smith revises Genesis (Moses 5:52-6:18), probably in Fayette (NY). Old Testament Manuscript #2 (RLDS Church Library-Archives) bears the date 30 November 1830 and John Whitmer's handwriting continues (Matthews 1975, 28, 64-65, 68).

1 December 1830
Joseph Smith revises Genesis (Moses 6:19-7:2), probably in Fayette (NY). Old Testament Manuscript #2 (RLDS Church Library-Archives) bears the date 1 December 1830, written by Emma Smith (Matthews 1975, 28, 65, 68-69; FARMS Update, August 1996).

7-24 December 1830
Smith revises Genesis (Moses 6:52a-68; 7:1-8:12) which included the "Prophecy of Enoch" (I.A.15, JOSEPH SMITH HISTORY, 1839, 81-87). Old Testament Manuscript #2 (RLDS Church Archives) bears the handwriting of John Whitmer and Sidney Rigdon (Matthews 1975, 65-66, 69). John Whitmer describes the Enoch revelation as occurring in Fayette (NY) shortly after the arrival of Rigdon in early December 1830. Afterwards, according to Whitmer, "Joseph and Sidney went to the several churchs preaching and prophesying wher=ever they went" (VI.B.1, JOHN WHITMER HISTORY, CIRCA 1836-1838, 5).


Now, it would seem Joseph Smith's dictation of the Book of Moses was progressing just fine before Rigdon's arrival. His handwriting begins at Moses 7:2. Although more than half of the Bible Revision is in Rigdon's hand, there are seven other scribes taking turns.

[_Uncle Dale]

Now, it would seem Joseph Smith's dictation of the Book of Moses was progressing just fine before Rigdon's arrival.

So it would "seem" -- but then again, things are not always what they seem. A few pages of the Book of Moses
had been thus dictated, but from whence? Can we know with any certainty?

Perhaps some people will answer that Smith's own mind appears to be the most likely candidate for the source.
But, as with the Book of Mormon and several of the early "revelations," we really do not know the source of the
text for certain. Like the blind men attempting to discern what an elephant is, we each seize upon that part of
the recorded history or that part of the recorded text "closest" to our ability to perceive, and we then base our
explanations upon an extention of our limited perceptions and their meanings to us as individuals.

In the case of the blind men feeling different parts of the elephant -- each one comes to a different and apparently
mutually-excluding conclusion. But how would the story of their "research" change, if each one were sharing his
perceptions with the others, and at the same time listening to each of those other reports?

What do we know about the content of the Moses and Enoch texts, apart from what a small circle of early Mormons
have told us? And, apart from their questionable, partisan accounts, what do we know about the sequence of events
which brought those texts together into the so-called JST?

I would argue that we know precious little and that it is best to hold a few options open, no matter what each of
our shaped opinions have become. For example, Criddle feels he sees an interconnection between the narratives
of Moses, Enoch and the Jaredite story, by which they all fit into a shared literary/polemical context. Now maybe
he is right, or maybe he is not -- but, as for myself, I am inclined to support his position until some better
explanation meets my eye.

His handwriting begins at Moses 7:2. Although more than half of the Bible Revision is in Rigdon's hand,
there are seven other scribes taking turns.

True -- but each of those scribes wrote only short segments, almost all of which are confined to the opening pages.
Rigdon's written contribution is much more than half. I'd have to count the number of lines in the manuscript(s)
to be certain, but my recollection is something like 90% is in his handwriting and a few lines are in Smith's; and a
few markings/notations in the accompanying Bible are in Smith's hand.

I have dismissed from my answer those other people --- scribes, as I think you correctly identify them. Perhaps I
ought to factor Cowdery back into the equation, as possibly having been more than a scribe. But my current
thoughts weigh against that. I do not see Cowdery as having been a theologian nor a homilist, nor much of an
exhorter. He did not spend the better part of his life receiving revelations and preaching doctrine. I am more
inclined to dismiss his contributions as merely scribal ones.

But in the case of Rigdon, I see things differently. I hold open the possibility that he was a mere scribe at about a
10% probability -- and that he was a textual compiler/creator at about 90%. I could've course be wrong, but I
would have to see a great deal of opposing evidence, before those percentages would change much in my mind.

So, I go back to my earlier statement, that I am very much inclined to see the compilers/creators of Book of Mormon
text as being the same as those who produced the Moses and Enoch passages -- and probably that each text was
produced in a similar manner as the others. So far, I exclude the Book of Abraham -- and I have never seen a
word from the Book of Joseph (reportedly found with the mummies).

Is it possible that I am wrong? Yes, that is possible -- but until convinced otherwise, that remains my working view
of the past. I would be happy to see primary source material brought to light in a non-biased way, which could
help me fill in the blanks in my own scant knowledge.

Dale

[_Dan Vogel]

Dale,

I add to that two acknowledgements -- 1. That lengthy parts of the Book of Mormon may indeed have been "finalized" in a
dictation process. But I see no reason to conclude that every passage of the book was so dictated. Were the
witness statements dictated? was Joseph Smith's "Preface" dictated? was the title-page dictated? was the KJV material dictated?
2. That Joseph Smith may have possessed the ability to memorize lengthy texts -- either consciously or subconsciously.

I do not see the probability of copying or dictating from the KJV to be an opening for the introduction of a MS (such as Spalding-Rigdon's), which was expressly denied by the eye witnesses.

Sidney Rigdon is credited by one source, at least, with participating in automatic writing -- some of his post-Nauvoo
"revelations" also appear to have been presented as communications from the dead, or perhaps as spirit writing.

Can a person also perform "automatic dictation?" ---- That is, can we be certain that the subconscious mind only gives
back its "automatic" contents in the form of handwriting/typing, or can this occur orally as well?

In at least some instances of automatic writing, subsequent investigation has shown that the writer had been previously
exposed to the subject matter that crops up in the automatically written text --- that is to say, the writer's subconscious
mind may have stored away vast quantities of pre-existing source material in such a way that his/her conscious mind
is unware of that accumulation. Just as dreams are concocted out of bits and pieces of perceptions from our waking
moments, so can "automatic writing" be assembled by the mind in a more structured, coherent literary or artistic output.

While I cannot prove any "automatic writing" on the part of either Rigdon or Smith, I do not rule it out and would advise
others to keep an open mind on the subject. The Book of Mormon text may be a product of multiple sources, brought
together by one or two compilers with some automatic writing input, who indeed dictated large parts of the text.

But somebody is going to have to prove it to me, in no uncertain way, before I will believe that each and every page
of the Book of Mormon was created though dictation and dictation ONLY.

Despite my including Scott Dunn's essay in American Apocrypha, I don't give any credence to automatic writing. I included the essay as a caution to apologists who think rapid dictation or writing of a book is impossible.