DAN VOGEL DISCUSSES THE SPALDING/RIGDON THEORY

[_Dan Vogel]

Dale,

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.

The following is from Scott H. Faulring, Kent P. Jackson, and Robert J. Matthews, Joseph Smith's New Translation of the Bible (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center BYU, 2004), 46.

His [Rigdon's] labor as scribe for the JST dictation extended from December 1830 to 24 March 1832, and over half of its pages are in his handwriting. In addition, he was the primary scribe for most of the changes that the prophet made after the original dictation, and thus most of the insertions written on small pieces of paper and pinned to the manuscript are in his handwriting.

The following is a rough estimate of number of pages each scribe contributed to the Bible Revision MSS:

Old Testament & New Testament MSS #1

Oliver Cowdery 10

John Whitmer 4

Emma Smith 4

Sidney Rigdon 109

Old Testament & New Testament MSS #2

John Whitmer 83

Sidney Rigdon 129

F. G. Williams 63

Joseph Smith 4

[_Dan Vogel]

Beastie,

Oh yes, I also consider the previously mentioned fact that Rigdon flat out lied about when he first heard about the Book of Mormon to be important. Other members of his congregation, including Miss Snow If I recall correctly, admitted they had heard about the gold Bible long before it came out. Van Wagoner provided evidence of that, as well. So why the adamant denial that he had ever HEARD of the book before it was placed in his hands??? I find that suspicious.

Perhaps we should examine this claim closer. Perhaps you or Dale or Art could lay out the argument for this. It seems to me that the conclusion that Rigdon lied rests on the credibility of the sources that claim he knew about the Book of Mormon before ca. Nov. 1830.

[_Uncle Dale]

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.

Well, I will not try to convince you one way or the other. But I will ask you to keep your eyes open for any
additional evidence that might surface --- we never know when some old trunk in a Palmyra attic might
yield something worth our looking at.

You seem to have a lot more regard for the "eye witnesses" than I do. Perhaps your earlier years among the
LDS conditioned your thinking along those lines -- I see something similar in Brodie and other Utahans. A good
deal of my Latter Day Saint environment was one in which the old witnesses and history compilers were held
suspect at every turn and twist of the past.

I'm not entirely convinced that Joseph Smith had a Rigdon document in his hands in Harmony and Fayette, but I'm obviously
thinking along those lines more than you are.

It will be a few months before I begin to assemble the possible pieces of a 1826 Rigdon-Smith encounter in Ohio.
As you correctly pointed out, the leads I mentioned previously do not add up to a "case." But at some point I
expect to be able to present at least a plausible scenerio in which a portion of the Book of Mormon was compiled
in Ohio. I suppose that if I can get that far along, the next step would be to find some compelling evidence of such
a compilation being taken to New York and to the Susquehannah, and there transformed into Cowdery handwriting.

It would be helpful if other people could now and then add in some missing pieces for me. Perhaps Art and his
friends will come across something new -- or even you might stumble upon a primary source that helps me out.
We shall see -- that is perhaps beyond my alloted time for such future historicizing.

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.

Well, we shall see on that score as well -- ever read any Edgar Cayce? or better yet, Ellen G. White? or even
better than that, any Oahspe?

When Sidney Rigdon claimed to be speaking for dead prophets or other biblical figures, in his post-Nauvoo
revelations, would you be more inclined to chalk that up to outright fraud, or some mental delusion?

Dale

[_Uncle Dale]

The following is a rough estimate of number of pages each scribe contributed to the Bible Revision MSS:

Old Testament & New Testament MSS #1

Oliver Cowdery 10

John Whitmer 4

Emma Smith 4

Sidney Rigdon 109

Old Testament & New Testament MSS #2

John Whitmer 83

Sidney Rigdon 129

F. G. Williams 63

Joseph Smith 4

Like I said, I'll have to go through my photocopies of the texts of the Books of Moses and Enoch to count the pages
and see what percentage are in Rigdon's handwriting. This would be in the MS #1, and in only part of that.

Dale

[_Uncle Dale]

Perhaps we should examine this claim closer. Perhaps you or Dale or Art could lay out the argument for this.
It seems to me that the conclusion that Rigdon lied rests on the credibility of the sources that claim he knew
about the Book of Mormon before ca. Nov. 1830.

Of course there is no incontrovertable proof -- elsewise we would no longer be here having this discussion.
But the circumstantial evidence was enough to convince Richard S. Van Wagoner (then still a tithe-paying LDS,
I'm told) in 1994, that Rigdon must have known of the book. Van Wagoner came to this conclusion upon his
consultation of much less of the possible evidence than he might have dug up. For example, he does not cite
the 1829 Painesville Telegraph report, nor the recollections of Adamson Bentley, Alexander Campbell,
Darwin Atwater, and other "Reformed Baptist" associates of Rigdon.

The jist of their combined testimony is that Rigdon was very interested in the lost Israelite tribes being the
American Indians, and of the Ohio mounds being an evidence of a superior ancient race, and of the primitive
Christian gospel having been preached in ancient America, etc. Even Parley P. Pratt adds a bit of confirming
testimony to that description of Rigdon. I have not yet, however, pinned down precisely that Rigdon was preaching
the literal gathering of Israel upon the American continent. In light of the D&C section saying that he was preparing
the way for Smith and Mormonism, I suspect that Rigdon did preach an American Zion at an early date, and that
he was the primary Mormon proponent for the odd conceit that Jerusalem and Zion were two very different places.
At any rate, the Campbellites say Rigdon was talking about a forthcoming book very much like the Book of Mormon
before 1830, and William H. Whitsitt, in his unpublished Rigdon biography, tried to pin down the exact circumstances
under which Bentley and Campbell heard this directly from Rigdon.

Here is what I have put together so far -- with more to follow from lesser sources at some later date:
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/features/RigSmth3.htm

Dale

[_avanick]

Hi "who knows",
Your name reminds me of some of the Abbott and Costello routines. Oops, I guess I'm dating myself!

With regard to your question, I believe that I've seen several sources who claimed that Joseph Smith had quite a memory, so if he in fact did have a powerful memory, it would be possible for him to memorize a passage and then "translate" it later while looking into a hat, or whatever. Dr. Howard Davis, one of my co-authors has a nearl photographic memory, and has recited whole chapters of the Bible to me during Bible studies he use to hold at his apartment years ago. On that basis, I would say that it is easily possible for Joseph Smith to have done the same thing with Spalding's manuscript.

Art

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?

[_avanick]

Hi Bond... James Bond,
In a nutshell, according to our research, my co-authors believe that Spalding wrote the basis for the Book of Mormon and that Sidney Rigdon and Smith probably wrote parts of it as well. There are many "Rigdonisms" that are apparent in the Book of Mormon, as one can see if one compares phrases Rigdon liked to use in his sermons with certain passages in the Book of Mormon.

Art

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]

There are many "Rigdonisms" that are apparent in the Book of Mormon, as one can see if one compares
phrases Rigdon liked to use in his sermons with certain passages in the Book of Mormon.

Unfortunately we do not have any of Rigdon's pre-1830 sermons to compare with the Book of Mormon text.
After 1830, Rigdon was so steeped in "Mormon-talk" that we must expect that a portion of his theological writings
(in the LDS periodicals, the Lectures on Faith, etc.) would come out sounding like Book of Mormon language.

Clark Braden says that Rigdon's vocabulary is detectable within the Book of Mormon in some places, and that
it represents his known, pentecostal style of Campbellite theologizing --- what Whitsitt calls the "Bethany dialect"
or some such term.

While all of this is interesting stuff, probably a better indication of "Rigdonisms" in the Book of Mormon text can
be determined by computerized plotting of "non-contextual words" -- a team of computer users at a major
university are right now charting just such Rigdon-like language in the book. Some pages come out very low in
their correspondence to Rigdon's word profile -- other blocks of text have a much higher correspondence.

It will be interesting to compare the charted results with those sections of the Book of Mormon that Whitsitt, Braden
and others have attributed to Rigdon's pen.

The study should see publication in 2008 or 2009,

Dale

[_marg]

I’m going to throw out some thoughts here, a non scholarly skeptical naturalistic perspective. It's a comment on the credibility of the scribes and witnesses. It relates to the Rigdon/Spalding theory because a reason for rejectng that theory is assuming Smith dictated without the aid of a manuscript and from his mind only. I think though if we question the claims of Smith, the witnesses and scribes, question their honesty it can all make sense. But I'm not going to argue the evidence for the Rigdon/Spalding theory. Others are doing that.

There seems to be an assumption in all discussions on how the Book of Mormon was written that only a small core group of no more than 4 perhaps could pull off this hoax. For discussion purposes I’m assuming it’s a hoax. But why should we assume that? If we look at the 3 witnesses who signed the statement for the Book of Mormon they willingly testified to knowing that plates were translated by the power of God. Claimed they heard his voice. Then they claim the engravings on the plates are of God not of man. How would they know that? That an angel came down. What is the likelihood of their claims being true. I don’t think very likely at all. What evidence did they supply for their claims…nothing. So why should anyone in this discussion find them reliable? I think all 3 knowingly signed that statement knowing they were lying. Now the notion of pious frauds has been discussed. What if they viewed themselves as pious frauds. Were convinced that all the local Christian religions were vehicles to worship a personal Christian god. It may as well be them creating another Christian religion than some other group. And it could financially rewarding while helping and serving spiritual needs of others.

So on their Book of Mormon statements alone I don’t find these 3 witnesses credible.

Then there are the other 8 witnesses who signed a testimony of seeing the plates. Which in itself isn’t saying much, and can be true. But again I don't think likely..whatever happend to those plates? But all these witnesses are related to the other witnesses, are family, families talk and the first 3 witnesses have no credibility based on their signed testimony alone. Basically 2 families are involved, plus a brother in law H. Page, Martin Harris the investor ( his wife wasn’t allowed to know anything) And then Emma. Emma’s father claims J. Smith informed him that the stone in the hat was a hoax and I doubt Emma was oblivious of J. Smith’s confession to her dad. Since the writing process was often in front of these people, and they lived in close quarters, it would be much easier than not if they were in on the hoax.

The scribes, as far as I know were emma, cowdery and harris, all described the process similarly, J. Smith using stone in a hat. And they all made sure to be clear no manuscript was used. Besides flat out saying this, they described that Joseph would have problems with some words and would need to spell them out. Well that goes against him telling the story without a source material present. As well they claimed that they knew Smith was seeing letters in the hat. Why claim something as fact they didn’t see for themselves. Again that takes away from their credibility as they are making claims to things of knowledge which they themselves did not experience. At least one scribe perhaps all (I’m not sure) claimed that one sentence would be transcribed at a time and only when it was correct would the letters in the hat disappear. Again claims to things they could not have known but could only be informed of.

If we speculate/assume they were all in on this hoax then the pieces fit. We don't have to figure out how Smith could possibly read from a manuscript with his head in a hat. We don't have to assume feats of memorization when there isn't evidence to support Smith had this capability. The whole group were all often times observant of the translation process going on. Then there is the KJV which was either copied from or memorized. The more likely scenario is the KJV portions were copied from a source material. If that can be done for the KJV and no one admit it, it can be done for a manuscript. Now with this group of about 12 who were all related to one another except the investor Harris, they could from time to time, set it up to show "the head in the hat" process, to others being as it would only be necessary to do so for short periods temporarily.

So why would a group of related individuals do this and keep it a secret? They probably didn’t think it would harm anyone. It was a good potential business venture for both families. They wanted a church, why not set up their own. With J. Smith being a good salesman, he could easily talk them into this and have them viewing it as pious fraud that is a fraud meant to benefit others. If everything was as the scribes said why would any have questioned Smith ever. For example , if Emma was convinced this was all god's doing and direction Emma would have believed “polygamy was of god”. And same with others, they would not have left the church.

Emma was right, Smith couldn’t have written the book on his own, but they knew expressing that worked in their favor as a good storyline to convince others the Book of Mormon was of God. So Smith didn’t dream this elaborate hoax up himself. It’s just too elaborate. There is evidence which I’m not going to get into..that Rigdon with the aid of a Spalding's manuscript came up with the idea, approached Smith or someone connected to Smith, to help him get this church started.

The above is speculation but it fits with data. There’s no supernatural invoked. It’s a doable hoax. Whereas putting a head in a hat and attempting to read off some hidden manuscript is not likely..nor is memorization for the Book of Mormon by Smith likely.

There is no reason to assume all these witnesses are trustworthy, reliable witnesses telling the truth. There is reason to assume they were all in on the hoax.

[_Uncle Dale]

... There is evidence which I’m not going to get into..that Rigdon with the aid of a Spalding's manuscript
came up with the idea, approached Smith or someone connected to Smith, to help him get this church started....

This has been one of my biggest obstacles in reconstructing a plausible scenerio for the beginings of Mormonism --
how to explain any sort of conspiracy. Even in the most simple and logical conspiracy (say Joseph and Hyrum, or
Joseph and Alvin, or Joseph and Mother Lucy), there must be the element present of two or more people agreeing to
tell lies as holy truths.

Even if all of the conspirators believe what they are doing is for a good purpose -- even if they are very deluded, or
are hallucinating, or believe they are blessed with spiritual gifts -- there still remains the problem of getting people to
agree to do things in secret that they must deny ever having done, when they are out in public.

In some ways Joseph Smith was able to accomplish this with secret polygamy, or with the Danites, or with the Council
of Fifty --- but each one of those secret schemes was eventually exposed. Yes, many people were induced to tell holy
lies in public to cover up secret activities ar Far West and Nauvoo -- but the secret always leaked out eventually.

For this reason I cannot accept a conspiracy of 12 or 13 persons in the origin of Mormonism. I can, however, accept a
compartmentalization of secrecy -- much as goes on in national security agencies with different levels of security
clearances. In such a scenerio, the lower levels of the 12 or 13 conspirators only told an occasional lie and had very
little of substance that they could reveal about "Mormon secrets."

At the inner core of this compartmentalized secrecy would be two or three (at most four) people who knew that much
of what they were doing was fraudulent on some level. Perhaps they felt their efforts to bring forth a new church were
less fraudulent than "apostate Christianity" and that they were at least the best of all fraudulent religions in the world.

At any rate, I am having a great headache in trying to work through some possible ways in which Joseph Smith could
have met Sidney Rigdon and could have begun to cooperate with Rigdon in "bringing forth the Book of Mormon." Even
if both men were visionaries -- even if both men were subject to automatic writing -- even if both men sincerely
believed that what they were doing would induce a speedy approach of Judgment Day and the Millennium.

The best I can come up with, in the way of an idea, would have been some joint effort in which the two men might have
worked together and slowly gained each other's trust -- possibly treasure-seeking, or faith healing, or even the taking
of drugs or engaging in some other vision-producing activities.

Without some early sources, claiming to provide an explanation of how the two men might have met and became so
psychologically intimate, as to be able to plan fraudulent methods to found a new church, I am pretty much lost.

I think both men were "true believers" in certain aspects of their religion and of "the Restoration," but how they could
have ever joined such supernatural beliefs or delusions or paranormal experiences into a church-founding conspiracy,
still eludes my grasp.

Dale