DAN VOGEL DISCUSSES THE SPALDING/RIGDON THEORY

[_Uncle Dale]

The one piece of relevant corroborating evidence is a record of an unclaimed letter in Pittsburg,
addressed to Rigdon, and dated the end of June of the very year that Spalding died in Amity, PA.
Who knows if or when Rigdon may have eventual retrieved the letter?...

Actually, as you have just cited in your previous paragraph, there were more than one such letter.
Either the letters were eventually picked up (and that is why they were no longer advertised in the letter
lists) -- or they were destroyed as unclaimed mail by the tiny Pittsburgh Post Office. Either way, the
letter lists (including one with Spalding's and Rigdon's names) show that somebody, somewhere, expected
to be able to reach Sidney Rigdon at that Pittsburgh Post Office.

We have another such letter addressed to Rigdon, in a letter list for Manchester, New York, from early 1831.
The fact that somebody expected to be able to reach Sidney Rigdon in Manchester at that time does not
prove that Rigdon ever went there -- not even Partridge's account of he and Rigdon going there proves
anything. But such evidence can become cumulative, when it opens our minds to possibilities. When we say
to ourselves "It is possible that Rigdon visited Manchester at the end of 1830," then we will generally conduct
our research differently, than if we begin by saying "It is impossible..." Our having the 1831 letter list from
the Manchester Post Office adds credibility to Partridge's statement -- just as our having the 1816 list adds
credibility to the Eichbaum statement. In each case, the enhanced credibility ought to encourage us to conduct
further, careful investigations.

For example, a Jan. 1st 1831 Palmyra newspaper quib mentions Rigdon having been there and having preached
from the Gold Bible --- the Manchester letter list was what prompted me to search out the Palmyra newspaper --
and the Palmyra newspaper mention caused me to take more seriously the later Tucker account of Rigdon having
preached the first Mormon sermon in Palmyra, before he even went to Kingdon to meet Joseph Smith.

That is what I mean by "cumulative."

I spoke with Roper on the phone for an extended time -- he did not seem much interested in asking anybody in
the Pittsburgh area to conduct any further research into Sidney Rigdon's possible presence there. I find that
reaction disappointing -- and I ask myself, how much MORE evidence will scholars like Roper have to encounter,
before they are compelled to do some research of their own?

Here are some "what-ifs" and perhaps you can tell me if any of them would provide the incentive I speak of.

1. What if Rigdon's name could be found in the records of a pre-1817 Pittsburgh lending library?
2. What if Rigdon's name could be found in the pre-1817 accounts ledger for a Pittsburgh publisher?
3. What if Rigdon's name could be found in the preserved papers of his Aunt Mary Rigdon of Amity, PA?
4. What if Rigdon's name could be found in the pre-1817 records of a Pittsburgh area tannery, as an apprentice?
5. What if Rigdon's name could be found in the pre-1817 records of the Pittsburgh Steam Paper Mill?
6. What if Rigdon's name could be found in pre-1817 legal or police records from Pittsburgh?
7. What if an account can be found, by a person who claims to have known Rigdon in Pittsburgh prior to 1817?

Would any such discovery -- or even all of the above added together -- provide sufficient incentive for a single
Mormon scholar to spend a single hour conducting research on this matter in primary source material?

If not, then we can safely assume that any new discoveries along these lines will be explained away among the
LDS scholars and apologists, as being unreliable -- because they have been published by non-Mormons. I was
told by F. Mark McKeirnan once, that he would look at nothing related by Hurlbut, Howe or Deming, no matter
how important I thought the information they supplied might be. Mark only browsed Howe in the most superficial
manner, and would not credit a word coming from any "darned old anti-Mormon."

We sometimes hear LDS/RLDS scholars pointing to Sidney Rigdon's strange 1839 letter of denial in the Quincy Whig;
but how often will the same scholars take the trouble to read on a few pages in the same 1839 newspaper, to this:

"Messrs. Editors: I saw in your last number an article signed S. Rigdon... since it has appeared,
having a personal knowledge of some of the matters to which he adverts, I deem it proper to reply...
Now, I ask the candid reader to compare the logic, the sentiment, and the spirit of the article with that
of the gospel and he will find that it gives the [lie] to Rigdon's pretence to a preacher of righteousness.
Moreover, it evinces the strongest presumptive evidence that he is guilty of the crime with which he is
charged. In addition to the presumptive evidence, we have proof of the positive kind, showing that he is
void of moral honesty. With all of his precaution to keep back the date of his residence at Pittsburgh,
he does not reach the end of his introductory paragraph, before he betrays himself and tells a palpable
falsehood, which is manifest to every reader.... Yes, Rigdon lied . -- What a Saint!"
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/IL ... 9.htm#0629

Here is a person who claims to have "personal knowledge" Rigdon and about Rigdon's alleged activities
or connections in Pittsburgh -- and yet I have never yet seen a single Mormon acknowledge the reply --
much less suggest that it be investigated -- and even less than that, look into the "W. Patten" evidence.

This is but one small (almost insignificant) example of a historical "lead" that somebody might follow up on.
Take my 7 "what if" examples given above, and add the "what if Patton's name was there also?" idea. Would
that be enough evidence to warrant further investigation by the Mormons themselves?

Is ANY of this stuff worthy following up? The answer I have received in the RLDS Church for almost 30 years
has been ----- "No, not unless it makes us look good and our enemies look bad."

Will the Saints ever get beyond that sort of thinking, and get out ahead of the Spalding-Rigdon advocates,
with proactive investigative reporting of their own?

Dale

[_avanick]

Hi Wade,
Thought I might bump into you here, and welcome to the group. Two things: first I refer you to Dale's comments about David Copperfield and what people think they see, and second, ever watch "The O'Reilly Factor" on Fox News? If so, do you watch the email segment at the end of the show? If so, isn't it amazing how different people hearing Bill O'Reilly say something on his show and yet come up with completely different interpretations of what he said? I submit to you that that is my response to your three-legged stool being on the brink of collapse, in light of the material we present in our book. If I were a card-playing betting man, I would stand on my hand, regardless of what you have offered so far.

As I said already, even though our book has gone to print, the research has gone forward and new discoveries continue to be made. Even so, I've always tried to have an open mind about the subject, and should the trail take a turn in favor of what you and others have always claimed, then so be it. I don't think that anyone can ask for more in objectivity than that.

Art

...But, as I said, even if these links come apart, major segments of the chain remain -- and those segments can probably be re-assembled into a stronger chain of evidence, once the weak links are strengthened....
Dale

I view it more like a three-legged stool, with the legs consisting of: 1) Rigdon/Spalding connection; 2) Rigdon/Smith connection; and 3) the manuscript(s). If any of these thre legs collapse, the entire theory collapses, regardless of how much evidentiary wood and glue may have gone into constructing the Spalding stool.

From what I have gathered from my own research, at least the first two legs have thoroughly collapsed, and the third leg is teetering quite precariously. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Uncle Dale]

I view it more like a three-legged stool, with the legs consisting of:
1) Rigdon/Spalding connection;
2) Rigdon/Smith connection; and
3) the manuscript(s).

If any of these thre legs collapse, the entire theory collapses,
regardless of how much evidentiary wood and glue may have
gone into constructing the Spalding stool.

From what I have gathered from my own research, at least the first
two legs have thoroughly collapsed, and the third leg is teetering quite precariously. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I guess that's ONE way to look at it -- but you appear to be saying that all of the objective, non-Mormon
investigators agree with you. If that is the case, and we go back to Bushman's challenge, WHO should they
research next as the source Bushman rhetorically asks for? Porter Rockwell? Joseph Knight? Josiah Stowell?

I look at the "three sources" concept, not as the legs of a stool, but as spotlights aimed at a stage. If we
construct a certain type of red spotlight, yellow spotlight and blue spotlight, and train them all upon an actor
on the stage below, the additive properties of the three beams of light will result in a bright white illumination.

For me, the first light (call it the red one) is external evidences for a 19th century Book of Mormon compilation.
These sources would include all sorts of documents, records, testimony, chronologies, news items, etc. For
the Spalding-Rigdon authorship theory, they would, of course, contain all of the witness statements pro and con,
for what Spalding was alleged to have written, said, done, etc.

The second light (call it the blue one) is internal evidences for a 19th century compilation/creation. These sources
would include the Book of Mormon text itself, related JST and revelation texts, and deconstructive analysis of the Book of Mormon text.
For the Spalding-Rigdon authorship theory, they would, of course, contain several sorts of comparisons and
contrasts between Spalding's preserved writings and the Book of Mormon.

The final light (call it the yellow one) is contextual evidences for the cover-up of a literary fraud; or for a conspiracy;
or for Mormon leaders knowing and using Book of Mormon theologizing (or not knowing and not using it). For the Spalding-Rigdon
authorship theory, they would, of course, contain all that Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon and their associates are
known to have said and done in response to those allegations made against them

By your analogy, the electrical power has already been cut off to two of the spotlights, and the diminishing, flickering
light from the final lamp is illuminating only the dim outline of Joseph Smith, Jr. upon the stage below.

I think THAT is exactly what Mormons want to see themselves -- and what they want objective non-members to see.
I think THAT is the primary purpose behind books like those of Givens and Bushman, when they are carefully crafted
to appeal to a Gentile readership, as well as an LDS audience.

Do you have any objections, if folks like Art Vanick and Craig Criddle attempt to brighten that illumination a little?

Dale

[_wenglund]

The one piece of relevant corroborating evidence is a record of an unclaimed letter in Pittsburg,
addressed to Rigdon, and dated the end of June of the very year that Spalding died in Amity, PA.
Who knows if or when Rigdon may have eventual retrieved the letter?...

Actually, as you have just cited in your previous paragraph, there were more than one such letter.
Either the letters were eventually picked up (and that is why they were no longer advertised in the letter
lists) -- or they were destroyed as unclaimed mail by the tiny Pittsburgh Post Office. Either way, the
letter lists (including one with Spalding's and Rigdon's names) show that somebody, somewhere, expected
to be able to reach Sidney Rigdon at that Pittsburgh Post Office.

True. But they expected (whether correctly or not) to reach Rigdon in Pittsburgh (rather than on his farm some 10-15 miles outside of Pittsburgh) around the time of Spalding death in Amity. And they expected to reach Rigdon a year after other people thought they could reach Spalding in Pittsburgh (who had actually left Pittsburg for Amity several months previously). I can understand why people might expect to reach Spalding in Pittsburg during 1913, since that is where he lived at the time, while Rigdon was still managing his fathers farm some 10-15 miles from Pittsburgh.

In other words, the expectations for finding Rigdon and Spalding in Pittsburgh don't line up. They are years apart.

But even still, I, like Dan, don't see how this evidence is at all helpful to the Spalding theory.

We have another such letter addressed to Rigdon, in a letter list for Manchester, New York, from early 1831.
The fact that somebody expected to be able to reach Sidney Rigdon in Manchester at that time does not
prove that Rigdon ever went there -- not even Partridge's account of he and Rigdon going there proves
anything. But such evidence can become cumulative, when it opens our minds to possibilities. When we say
to ourselves "It is possible that Rigdon visited Manchester at the end of 1830," then we will generally conduct
our research differently, than if we begin by saying "It is impossible..." Our having the 1831 letter list from
the Manchester Post Office adds credibility to Partridge's statement -- just as our having the 1816 list adds
credibility to the Eichbaum statement. In each case, the enhanced credibility ought to encourage us to conduct
further, careful investigations.

For example, a Jan. 1st 1831 Palmyra newspaper quib mentions Rigdon having been there and having preached
from the Gold Bible --- the Manchester letter list was what prompted me to search out the Palmyra newspaper --
and the Palmyra newspaper mention caused me to take more seriously the later Tucker account of Rigdon having
preached the first Mormon sermon in Palmyra, before he even went to Kingdon to meet Joseph Smith.

That is what I mean by "cumulative."

In other words, there is a difference between evidence of "proof", and evidence that may give some people cause for further consideration. The credibility that the UNCLAIMED letters give to Eichbaum's statement is nominal at best. And, the aspects of the Eichbaum statement that the letters lend credibility to, have little if any probative value for the Spalding theory. That is, in part, Dan's and my point.

Granted, such pieces of information may motivate those inclined to investigate the matter further. But, absent further investigation and findings, the existing evidence is non-probative.

I spoke with Roper on the phone for an extended time -- he did not seem much interested in asking anybody in
the Pittsburgh area to conduct any further research into Sidney Rigdon's possible presence there. I find that
reaction disappointing -- and I ask myself, how much MORE evidence will scholars like Roper have to encounter,
before they are compelled to do some research of their own?

Here are some "what-ifs" and perhaps you can tell me if any of them would provide the incentive I speak of.

1. What if Rigdon's name could be found in the records of a pre-1817 Pittsburgh lending library?
2. What if Rigdon's name could be found in the pre-1817 accounts ledger for a Pittsburgh publisher?
3. What if Rigdon's name could be found in the preserved papers of his Aunt Mary Rigdon of Amity, PA?
4. What if Rigdon's name could be found in the pre-1817 records of a Pittsburgh area tannery, as an apprentice?
5. What if Rigdon's name could be found in the pre-1817 records of the Pittsburgh Steam Paper Mill?
6. What if Rigdon's name could be found in pre-1817 legal or police records from Pittsburgh?
7. What if an account can be found, by a person who claims to have known Rigdon in Pittsburgh prior to 1817?

Would any such discovery -- or even all of the above added together -- provide sufficient incentive for a single
Mormon scholar to spend a single hour conducting research on this matter in primary source material?

If not, then we can safely assume that any new discoveries along these lines will be explained away among the
LDS scholars and apologists, as being unreliable -- because they have been published by non-Mormons. I was
told by F. Mark McKeirnan once, that he would look at nothing related by Hurlbut, Howe or Deming, no matter
how important I thought the information they supplied might be. Mark only browsed Howe in the most superficial
manner, and would not credit a word coming from any "darned old anti-Mormon."

I think you are mistakenly conflating two different things: 1) the lack of motivation to investigate matters further, and 2) the perceived credibility of the sources. If LDS scholars are disinclined to pursue the seemingly wild geese of Spaldingists, it is not because it will enable them to dismiss whatever information may be found by critics, but because they have no incentive, and perhaps even a disincentive (there not being inclined to chase wild geese), to do the research.

Granted, an LDS scholar wishing to explore more indepth the life of Sidney Rigdon may want to research the answers to your questions above. But, I can't see other LDS scholars and amateurs like myself researching them in terms of the Spalding theory--which we don't believe to be at all convincing.

We sometimes hear LDS/RLDS scholars pointing to Sidney Rigdon's strange 1839 letter of denial in the Quincy Whig;
but how often will the same scholars take the trouble to read on a few pages in the same 1839 newspaper, to this:

"Messrs. Editors: I saw in your last number an article signed S. Rigdon... since it has appeared,
having a personal knowledge of some of the matters to which he adverts, I deem it proper to reply...
Now, I ask the candid reader to compare the logic, the sentiment, and the spirit of the article with that
of the gospel and he will find that it gives the [lie] to Rigdon's pretence to a preacher of righteousness.
Moreover, it evinces the strongest presumptive evidence that he is guilty of the crime with which he is
charged. In addition to the presumptive evidence, we have proof of the positive kind, showing that he is
void of moral honesty. With all of his precaution to keep back the date of his residence at Pittsburgh,
he does not reach the end of his introductory paragraph, before he betrays himself and tells a palpable
falsehood, which is manifest to every reader.... Yes, Rigdon lied . -- What a Saint!"
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/IL ... 9.htm#0629

Here is a person who claims to have "personal knowledge" Rigdon and about Rigdon's alleged activities
or connections in Pittsburgh -- and yet I have never yet seen a single Mormon acknowledge the reply --
much less suggest that it be investigated -- and even less than that, look into the "W. Patten" evidence.

That is just it...the accusations, sans evidence, about Rigdon and others lying, were profuse. What interest is there to the LDS in chasing down these baseless claims? That is the burden that the Spaldingist must bear. If they are not up to the task, then so be it. But, to try and shift that burden to LDS scholars, seem unreasonable. And, to make a point of it seems even less reasonable.

This is but one small (almost insignificant) example of a historical "lead" that somebody might follow up on.
Take my 7 "what if" examples given above, and add the "what if Patton's name was there also?" idea. Would
that be enough evidence to warrant further investigation by the Mormons themselves?

Is ANY of this stuff worthy following up? The answer I have received in the RLDS Church for almost 30 years
has been ----- "No, not unless it makes us look good and our enemies look bad."

Will the Saints ever get beyond that sort of thinking, and get out ahead of the Spalding-Rigdon advocates,
with proactive investigative reporting of their own?

What motive would they have for chasing the potential wild geese of the Spalding-Rigdon advocates, particularly if the advocates lack the motivation to do the research themselves. It would be like asking scientists who disbelieve in extra-terrestrial visitations, and who feel that alien abduction and citing claims have been somewhat discredited, to research further claims which the ET advocate wont even research. Sorry, it just doesn't make sense, and it is a request that seems not only beside the point, but also may suggest a lack of conviction on the part of Spaldingists. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Uncle Dale]

What motive would they have for chasing the potential wild geese of the Spalding-Rigdon advocates,
particularly if the advocates lack the motivation to do the research themselves.

The same "motivation" that RLDS leaders SHOULD have possessed, when I used to challenge them to open
up Smith family personal papers and other materials held in the RLDS Archives and elsewhere, in order to help
determine whether or not Joseph, Hyrum and William had been secret polygamists at Nauvoo.

On one hand, those same RLDS/CoC leaders would get up in front of an audience of thousands, and proclaim
that they were on the side of Truth -- ready to defend Truth at every step -- unafraid of the Truth -- and
welcoming any questions that would help the advancement of Truth in the Church.

On the other hand, in private, those same leaders would say "For heaven's sake, do not research Nauvoo
polygamy!! -- you're going to damage wavering testimonies and cause the Church harm!!!"

They saw no contradictions in all of that.
I did.

It's as simple as that. But will the Community of Christ ever take the lead in polygamy scholarship?
Not on your life, buddy!

I'm sick and tired of "one true churches" that have no interest in uncovering the truth of their own origins.
Sorry -- but that's the way I see it, and I'm stumped as to how you can make me see it any other way.

Dale

[_wenglund]

By your analogy, the electrical power has already been cut off to two of the spotlights, and the diminishing, flickering light from the final lamp is illuminating only the dim outline of Joseph Smith, Jr. upon the stage below.

I think THAT is exactly what Mormons want to see themselves -- and what they want objective non-members to see.
I think THAT is the primary purpose behind books like those of Givens and Bushman, when they are carefully crafted
to appeal to a Gentile readership, as well as an LDS audience.

Do you have any objections, if folks like Art Vanick and Craig Criddle attempt to brighten that illumination a little? Dale

I have no objections at all. I may be baffled by what may motivate them to spend so much time, energy, and money pursuing this dubious theory, particularly after so many failed tries over the last century and a half. But to each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

What motive would they have for chasing the potential wild geese of the Spalding-Rigdon advocates,
particularly if the advocates lack the motivation to do the research themselves.

The same "motivation" that RLDS leaders SHOULD have possessed, when I used to challenge them to open
up Smith family personal papers and other materials held in the RLDS Archives and elsewhere, in order to help
determine whether or not Joseph, Hyrum and William had been secret polygamists at Nauvoo.

On one hand, those same RLDS/CoC leaders would get up in front of an audience of thousands, and proclaim
that they were on the side of Truth -- ready to defend Truth at every step -- unafraid of the Truth -- and
welcoming any questions that would help the advancement of Truth in the Church.

On the other hand, in private, those same leaders would say "For heaven's sake, do not research Nauvoo
polygamy!! -- you're going to damage wavering testimonies and cause the Church harm!!!"

They saw no contradictions in all of that.
I did.

It's as simple as that. But will the Community of Christ ever take the lead in polygamy scholarship?
Not on your life, buddy!

I'm sick and tired of "one true churches" that have no interest in uncovering the truth of their own origins.
Sorry -- but that's the way I see it, and I'm stumped as to how you can make me see it any other way. Dale

I can't speak to your experience with the RLDS, but I see myself and members of my own faith as pursuing "truth" (at least the "truth" that is of significance and of value in becoming more like Christ) where we think we are most likely to find it, and not where we least expect it (such as with the Spalding theory and associated evidence). It doesn't make sense for you to expect us to pursue those avenues, particularly when the Spaldingist aren't pursuing those avenues themselves. It doesn't make sense for you to get sick and tired that we don't look for "truth" in areas that not only conflict with the "truths" that we believe we have already found, but are also deemed by us, and others not of "the only true Church", as quite dubious and somewhat discredited. In short, it only makes sense for good folks like you, to shoulder the burden of finding the "truth" (of what ever significance and value to you) where you think you will find it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_marg]

I can't speak to your experience with the RLDS, but I see myself and members of my own faith as pursuing "truth" (at least the "truth" that is of significance and of value in becoming more like Christ) where we think we are most likely to find it, and not where we least expect it (such as with the Spalding theory and associated evidence).

You add lots of qualifiers to the word "truth" The essence of what is meant by truth in this case...is how the Book of Mormon came about, the actual events which likely occurred. Scholars are supposed to be interested in that truth not in their own choosing of what they want the truth to be.

So those who claim to be scholars or represent themselves as scholars, should be as objective as they possibly can be and search for what really happened.

Of course there is no motivation for any devoted Mormon scholar to search for any evidence which might be damning to their beliefs. But an honest individual worthy of being viewed and respected as a scholar will. So those scholars who aren't seeking an unqualified "truth" such as you expressed lack credibility. And consequently their dismissal of evidence for the Rigdon Spalding theory as well lacks credibility.

[_Uncle Dale]

I can't speak to your experience with the RLDS, but I see myself and members of my own faith as pursuing "truth" (at least the "truth" that is of significance and of value in becoming more like Christ) where we think we are most likely to find it, and not where we least expect it (such as with the Spalding theory and associated evidence). It doesn't make sense for you to expect us to pursue those avenues, particularly when the Spaldingist aren't pursuing those avenues themselves. It doesn't make sense for you to get sick and tired that we don't look for "truth" in areas that not only conflict with the "truths" that we believe we have already found, but are also deemed by us, and others not of "the only true Church", as quite dubious and somewhat discredited. In short, it only makes sense for good folks like you, to shoulder the burden of finding the "truth" (of what ever significance and value to you) where you think you will find it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Correct me if you feel I am misstating things, but I take it that your feel that research conducted by scholars like
Dan Vogel and Richard L. Bushman can be useful in determining the "truth" of Mormon origins?

In my visit a couple of years ago with the head of the LDS Library/Archives, I noticed that he had the full set of
Dan's Early Mormon Documents in his bookcase, and that one volume was lying open on his desk, with bookmarks,
note paper, etc. with it.

???

Dale

[_marg]

Dale,

I don’t want to bog down this thread or you with peripheral issues but I do want to comment without expectation of a response from you.

Beastie the words I’m reply to I’m downsizing, sorry if you can’t read but I’m simply responding to a copy of the previous post by Dale to me.


previously I wrote: But how do you explain the head in the hat process?...


Dale: Wish I could -- it might help if I could see somebody performing the same activities today. All I have to work
with are reports of what people SAY they witnessed. Go to a David Copperfield stage show in Las Vegas,
where he makes a full-grown tiger disappear in front of an audience of hundreds -- then take down their
accounts of what they SAY that they SAW. Will you then have a reliable explanation for what DID happen?

===David Copperfield performs in front of an independent objective audience. Smith’s audience is connected to him, wife, cousin and business associate with vested interests. Based on the testimonies alone of Harris, Cowdery & Whitmer, there is reason to be skeptical of their honesty. They invoked the supernatural as proof for their claims. Their evidence being unverifiable make their claims weak at best. I’m skeptical for good reason they were telling the truth in their signed testimony.



Dale: “Take William Riley Hine's recollections of being in the Harmony area in 1829:

"I learned that Jo claimed to be translating the plates in Badger's Tavern,
in Colesville, three miles from my house. I went there and saw Jo Smith
sit by a table and put a handkerchief to his forehead and peek into his hat
and call out a word to Cowdery, who sat at the same table and wrote it
down. Several persons sat near the same table and there was no curtain
between them."

What should I do with such a recollection? Add it to the faith-promoting Mormon accounts? Or throw it away
as having come from an anti-Mormon source? Or try to discover something more from an independent source?

===That evidence adds no value to the case. This event performed by Smith can easily be performed. It’s not a trick and not relevant to the Book of Mormon production. One would have to verify that what is in the Book of Mormon is what he dictated with his head in the hat to have any significance to the case.

Dale:

Did Joseph Smith have his head buried deep within his hat for hours at a time? Did he occasionally take
his head out of the hat and look around him? Did he make use of the hat in every single instance in which
a Book of Mormon sentence was written down on paper by Cowdery? Did he and Cowdery really do such
things at Badger's Tavern, as Riley recounts? If so, why? To what effect?

David Copperfield and the disappearing tiger keep coming to my mind -- I can't say why.

===Let’s assume for argument sake, that Smith wrote the Book of Mormon without manuscript by telling the story to all the scribes with his head in the hat. So if this is how the Book of Mormon was produced, why didn’t he procure people trusted in the community, independent from him who could also later verify that what he dictated was in the eventual printed Book of Mormon. Occasionally there were people not likely to be in on the hoax such as Emma’s dad, but that feat could easily be accomplished temporily when they control the event. Just because some may have viewed Smith for a brief period of time dictating does not mean that the dictation ever ended up in the Book of Mormon. There was no independent verification, yet if Smith were telling the truth he’d have gone out of his way to get that. But instead he and scribe would use a blanket so that passerbys couldn’t observe. They controlled who and when anyone could observe.

Smith only needed the head in the hat scenario as a prop to convince people not in on the hoax he had special powers. But with Emma, Cowdery and Harris, assuming they are in on it, no props are necessary and nor with the Whitmer family. The head in the hat prop is to dupe those not in on the hoax. That’s the trick Dale, only it’s not being performed in front of your eyes, it simply requires him having willing accomplices and an appreciation that most people are trusting of others. You reject or are skeptical that 11 or so could all be in on it such that they’d all be lying re: the “head in the hat”. But it would be an easy lie for accomplices to stick to. Instead of a manuscript from which he read they could easily replace that with saying he used a hat from which he read. These 12 people are also closely related. It takes convincing one family, Smith’s family, a cousin and an investor. How they behave as individuals but also part of the group and related to one another with life long connections is not comparable to the behavior of 12 completely independent of one another individuals.