DAN VOGEL DISCUSSES THE SPALDING/RIGDON THEORY

[Bedlamite]

===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.

I think that the probable answer to your question lies somewhere in the fact that Smith's "translation" activities
and his small circle of associates at that time, evolved out of his previous money-digging activities and from
the somewhat overlapping circle of associates he had around him at that earlier stage in his "seership."

The head-on-the-hat activity was not unique to Smith, but I see him as having picked up that method
and having used it with some success with the money-diggers, he continued its use with the Gold Bible
company. In the process his religiosity increased, but his methodology stayed much the same.

To his credit, Bushman has begun to touch upon these historical elements a little (very little). Dan Vogel is
much more open and thoughtful about Smith's evolution from treasure seer to Gold Bible seer.

I wish I knew more. I remain hopeful that some lengthy piece of evidence will one day surface from a
source like Hine ---- though I think that whatever went on in Badger's Tavern was more for "publicity"
than for any "religious" purpose.

How Rigdon and Spalding might fit into all of this, I'm not really sure yet.

edited: [I still think that if Rigdon was involved before 1830, that he was a true believer AND a con man;
just as I picture him being with his own post-Nauvoo church, strange revelations from the dead, etc. My
problem still lies in coming up with a plausible way for Rigdon to meet Smith and for the two of them to
begin work together, even if Smith was a totally non-believing opportunist. I can connect Spalding's writings
to Rigdon in ways that make sense and I can connect Rigdon's religion with the Book of Mormon in ways that
make sense -- but without some plausible way for the two men to meet (probably in Auburn, Ohio in 1826),
I do not know where/how to search for supporting evidence.]

Dale

[_marg]

How Rigdon and Spalding might fit into all of this, I'm not really sure yet.

Rigdon and Spalding fit in only indirectly. Being the skeptic that I am I don't assume the supernatural. So I reject seer stones having magical abilities as described by witnesses. So if Smith could dictate the Book of Mormon story (as I believe Dan suggests) just from his own imagination he needed no props. The fact that the witnesses descibed the process as reading from "something" when it would have been unnecessary if he was the sole author sitting in the room, suggests that he did in fact read off of "something". So this is reasoning which supports use of a manuscript as opposed to Smith's on his own without any material dictating to scribes. Again applying reasoning, why the prop, it's just extra baggage. Is it really likely he's going to go through the entire process with his head in the hat. Again using reason ..how is he going to fit papers into a hat, turn pages, read words up close. Try it Dale, up too close you can't read words on a paper. But besides that he has to turn pages. The witnesses also described him being stumped on reading some words and having to spell them. So it's likely they were telling the truth about him reading from "something" there's no reason to lie about that. But there is reason to make up a story to hide the fact that a manuscript was used.

And that's where Rigdon and Spalding come in. All the data supports Rigdon being a preacher, educated, good writer ..capable of writing the Book of Mormon. Smith on the other hand hadn't displayed interest in writing, was't educated. Other evidence which can't be dismissed because it's strong evidence are independent witnesses who upon hearing the Book of Mormon in their town recognized portions as being Spalding's. (I'm preaching to the choir)

But, I hope I made it a little clearer why this all fits in together.

[_why me]

===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.

How Rigdon and Spalding might fit into all of this, I'm not really sure yet.

edited: [I still think that if Rigdon was involved before 1830, that he was a true believer AND a con man;
just as I picture him being with his own post-Nauvoo church, strange revelations from the dead, etc. My
problem still lies in coming up with a plausible way for Rigdon to meet Smith and for the two of them to
begin work together, even if Smith was a totally non-believing opportunist. I can connect Spalding's writings
to Rigdon in ways that make sense and I can connect Rigdon's religion with the Book of Mormon in ways that
make sense -- but without some plausible way for the two men to meet (probably in Auburn, Ohio in 1826),
I do not know where/how to search for supporting evidence.]

Dale

Well this is quite an admission on your part. And you may have a big hurdlel to jump. To tie all this together into a pretty package could be difficult. I do not have a good impression of Ridgon. I see him as an opportunist in the Mormon fold who wanted to be known and who wanted to have power. But I also believe that he believed in the Book of Mormon but his negative human characteristics got in the way of the faith.

Rigdon being a con man, as you put it, makes him an unlikely candidate for the Book of Mormon con, if only because 'his' con was not successful, at least not for him, especially after the beating that he took. Plus the power plays with Joseph Smith and the eventual falling out. And if he was the con man, he got conned out of his own con. And Ridgon just doesn't seem to fit that playbill in my opinion.

At the end of the day, he was unsuccessful as was Joseph Smith. One was murdered and the other had a failed enterprise. Was the Book of Mormon story a con? Or was it real? Ahhh...that is the question, isn't it? The book failed both men in the end and yet, it has been successful for countless of millions. Now that is an enigma, con or no con.

[_beastie]

Just a couple of comments, although take them with a grain of salt because the main thing I've learned from this thread is what I already suspected - I really don't have adequate background knowledge to evaluate the issue with any respectability. But that won't stop me from making a couple of observations -


I'm not convinced that we can ever find the smoking gun, so to speak, nor do I completely understand why we have to (except if one hopes to convince true believers, which I view as largely impossible and not of particular interest to me in the first place). Some of this reminds me of conversations with believers, who assert that Joseph Smith could NEVER have know X information in the Book of Mormon, which has now been shown to be correct!!!! and when shown how X information was actually accessible during Joseph Smith' time period, the standard shifts to demands of putting the actual source in his hands. All I think is necessary is to demonstrate that it's possible Rigdon and Smith met one another prior to Rigdon's conversion, and that, in my opinion, has indeed been demonstrated. I really don't care about a smoking gun for that meeting.

I also don't believe it has to be demonstrated Smith could NOT have written the Book of Mormon himself in order to consider a Rigdon connection. It's possible Smith could have written it himself, but Rigdon was already engaged in writing a new scripture. If Joseph Smith had gotten the idea first, he probably would have run with it on his own, hence avoiding the potential serious power struggle.

So why do I even consider Rigdon's involvement a serious possibility? Because so many of the sermons sound like him, rather than Smith. But it may be that I just don't have a complete understanding of Smith's theology and need to reread Dan's book. (it has been a couple of years since I read it and may have forgotten that he addressed my concern) It also seems to me that there are almost two competing, and somewhat opposing, world views in the Book of Mormon - universalism versus hellfire. I know that this was a dichotomy in Joseph Smith' own life, but the Book of Mormon almost seems bipolar in that it takes alternating "sides" on the issue. I think this could mean that two authors were involved, one who was hellfire (Rigdon), and one who was more friendly to Universalism (Smith). Mormonism, even today, has some universalist tones.

Of course, given that I think it is a good possibility that Joseph Smith may have had bipolar, or more likely developing bipolar during those years, that doesn't eliminate the possibility of a sole author, either.

Durn. I thought that reading the exchange of such well informed individuals debating the issue would help clarify it in my mind, and I think I've ended up even murkier!!!

[_beastie]

At the end of the day, he was unsuccessful as was Joseph Smith. One was murdered and the other had a failed enterprise. Was the Book of Mormon story a con? Or was it real? Ahhh...that is the question, isn't it? The book failed both men in the end and yet, it has been successful for countless of millions. Now that is an enigma, con or no con.

No enigma. Just look at the world around you. Unless you want to argue that every piece of literature that has been "successful" in that high numbers of people view it as God-given and providing some special insight is just that (ie, being God-given and having special insight), then the answer is already obvious. Human beings, in their drive to find meaning and purpose, can find "success" even in theologies and texts that just about everyone else views as having little to verify it and even of being patently ridiculous. (see scientology for a good example, in my opinion)

To put it more bluntly and possibly offensively, although that is not my intent, human beings, in their drive to find meaning and purpose and God, can make a silk purse out of many a pig's ear.

[_Uncle Dale]

I'm not convinced that we can ever find the smoking gun, so to speak, nor do I completely understand
why we have to (except if one hopes to convince true believers, which I view as largely impossible and
not of particular interest to me in the first place).

Yes, I think we do need to find the proverbial "smoking gun." Allow me to explain.

Nobody will ever "convince true believers" of anything new. Even their topmost leaders are in a difficult
position when it comes to that sort of thing. Major shifts in religious paradeigms are measured in decades
and not in hours or days. A few "true believers" may turn apostate at any moment, of course, but they do so
largely for unseen reasons, and not because Solomon Spalding suddenly makes sense to them.

The big problem is that the "true believers" and their spokespersons have been able to convince the writers
of encyclopedias and American church history reference books that the "Spaulding Lie" was long ago disproved
and that even the "Gentiles" (i.e. Fawn Brodie, Sandra Tanner, Dan Vogel, etc.) have accepted that fact. The
Mormons do not take the trouble to formulate their own anti-Spalding arguments very often any more. Rather,
they point to the oft-requoted boilerplate of James H. Fairchild, Lewis L. Rice, Whitney R. Cross, or any other
non-member who can be held up as being some sort of "expert" on the subject.

The tactic has worked wonderfully --- today the advocate of the Spalding-Rigdon authorship explanation gets
much the same reception before a learned audience as does the vocal advocate for a flat earth, or the odd
character who is out to tell the world about his theory regarding the little green men from Mars.

In order for Spalding proponents to get past this carefully crafted smoke-screen, they really do need to come up
with something equivalent to a smoking gun.

The rise and fall of the 1977 "Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon" volume illustrates my point well -- after
many halcyon years of disregard, the old authorship theory was temporily revived with that book and the flurry
of news reports surrounding its strange new premise. The story went as far as it did, because public interest in
the Mormon Church (along with public suspicion) had been greatly aroused by the ongoing news stories of LDS
intolerance of Black members' full rights within the Church, and the ersatz Howard Hughes "Mormon will." Once
that "background noise" died down (with the will being pronounced a forgery in 1978 and the SWK revelation
on Blacks in the priesthood that same year), public interest in things Mormon also faded away and the Spalding
authorship claims faded from the public eye as well.

If we go back and look at the over-all LDS reaction to that 1977 book, almost the entire response can be typified
as an appeal to Gentile authority. The Church leaders were happy to see non-Mormon handwriting experts fail
to issue any final, formal reports backing the book's innovative allegations. The Mormon-directed periodicals
were happy to quote worn-out anto-Spalding conclusions offered by dead Gentiles. The scholars were happy to
find out that their great Fawn Brodie had been correct all along.

Today Richard L. Bushman can get a lengthy Joseph Smith biography published by a noted Gentile publisher,
in which he can firmly state, "on further consideration the experts [non-LDS handwriting experts] backed off,
and the theory assumed the status of an historiographical artifact without credibility among serious scholars."

In other words, were a Spalding advocate to now approach the Alfred A. Knopf company with a newly-written
book on the topic, the editors there would consult Bushman and quickly inform the hopeful writer that he/she
could not possibly be a "serious scholar." If the writer argued back, those same editors (or editors at almost
any other book or journal publishing concern) would ask: "Where is the scholarly literature to support your
book's assertions? Who are the learned academics recommending its publication? What new arguments have
you made, and where are your scholarly credentials to back them up? Show us your smoking gun?"

Absent a new frenzy of public interest in the Mormon Church, surpassing that of 1976-78, the would-be book
author cannot expect the general readership of America or of the world to "Trump" the "experts" and thus
generate enough curiosity to gain newsworthiness in the popular media nor in the scholarly literature.

Time Magazine published an illustrated article on Howard Davis and Solomon Spalding in 1977 -- in 2007 not
even Publisher's Weekly can be talked into running a review of Davis, Cowdery and Vanick's new book.

That is greatly due to the stigma of Solomon Spalding -- and it is a circular, self-feeding stigma. The encyclopedia
article writer looks to the scholarly literature -- the learned editors look to the scholars and academics -- the
writers look to published sources like Brodie, Bushman and Vogel -- the small segment of the public audience
that has any interest in the matter buys those books -- and perhaps nowdays glances at WikiPedia for more information.

All of this makes the "smoking gun" a near-essential requirement for Spalding advocates. They must break
through the several layers of smokescreen that continues to obscure the subject. And, like the little boy who
cried "wolf!" they cannot resort to temporary publicity-seeking with some half-baked, sensational pronouncement.
Any true "smoking gun" must be establishec by meticulous, methodical evidence, presented in reputable media
and made plausible by supporting facts -- not by hype and "little green men" sort of speculative assertions.

The "smoking" gun need not be a confession in the certified hand-writing of Joseph Smith, Jr. -- signed, sealed,
notarized and delivered to the county recorder -- but it must have about that same level of impact upon the
supposedly "objective" non-Mormon "experts." Only when they are convinced that the Spalding stigma has
been removed, will the encyclopedia writers begin to re-write their Mormonism articles. And only when such
reputable reference sources are updated and in the hands of new investigators of the LDS Church will the LDS
themselves begin to respond in a serious way.

Uncle Dale

[_beastie]

Dale,

I get your point in terms of the necessity of a smoking gun in order to get the attention of a larger audience. I was thinking more in terms of private conclusions about the origins of the Book of Mormon. I'm perfectly content to consider Rigdon a potential originator without the smoking gun. But yes, clearly, to "startle" the larger audience enough to reconsider the theory, a smoking gun would be needed.

I have found your posts on FAIR very persuasive, Dale, although I have always found Dan's writings to be very persuasive. as well. It was largely your writings on FAIR that resulted in my own attempts to reconcile the two seemingly opposing viewpoints. Parts of Dan's argument regarding the "voice" of Joseph Smith are just too strong to discard, in my opinion. The text really does echo his own life in many ways. That's why, in the end, even with my revised viewpoint that it is entirely possible Rigdon was involved, as well, I've had to kind of meld the two together, and come up with (what appears to be quite reasonable to me) the possibility that they both had input in the creation of the text.

I'm so glad you all were willing to discuss this here. It helped me to see my own areas of weaknesses in background and understanding, for one thing, and I will have to consider myself a fence-sitter on the subject (not an unusual position for me, since I'm also a fence sitter on the Pious Fraud theory, although I tend to lean a bit towards the PF side of the fence).

[_Uncle Dale]

Dale,

I get your point in terms of the necessity of a smoking gun in order to get the attention of a larger audience. I was thinking more in terms of private conclusions about the origins of the Book of Mormon. I'm perfectly content to consider Rigdon a potential originator without the smoking gun. But yes, clearly, to "startle" the larger audience enough to reconsider the theory, a smoking gun would be needed.

I have found your posts on FAIR very persuasive, Dale, although I have always found Dan's writings to be very persuasive. as well. It was largely your writings on FAIR that resulted in my own attempts to reconcile the two seemingly opposing viewpoints. Parts of Dan's argument regarding the "voice" of Joseph Smith are just too strong to discard, in my opinion. The text really does echo his own life in many ways. That's why, in the end, even with my revised viewpoint that it is entirely possible Rigdon was involved, as well, I've had to kind of meld the two together, and come up with (what appears to be quite reasonable to me) the possibility that they both had input in the creation of the text.

I'm so glad you all were willing to discuss this here. It helped me to see my own areas of weaknesses in background and understanding, for one thing, and I will have to consider myself a fence-sitter on the subject (not an unusual position for me, since I'm also a fence sitter on the Pious Fraud theory, although I tend to lean a bit towards the PF side of the fence).

Yes, you've summed things up quite well.

My own work remains unpublished, because I have undergone a very slow conversion to the Spalding-Rigdon
authorship claims that spanned three decades -- and because during almost all of that time I was under some
Reorganized LDS constraints, which effectively kept me from publishing.

Looking back, I'm glad of that now. Had I rushed into the literature with any of my early reports, the results
would not have been positive ones.

But now, with Vogel and Bushman published, the waters have cleared and the murk has settled into solidifying
strata --- the time for a new paradeigm is ripe. That is why I am finally working in the 1820-1830 Rigdon book.

My views do not conflict with Vogel's, except in his own way of thinking. I am perfectly willing to picture Joseph Smith as
having interjected a good deal of material into a fluid, pre-existing "one true church" scheme. I am content to
give him top billing in the finalization of the Book of Mormon text. None of that presents major problems to me. Even if the
majority of sentences in that final text were dictated to Oliver Cowdery, that is not a road-block for me.

The story of Sidney Rigdon's 1820-30 religious career has never been told in detail. The reading public and the
scholars are largely unaware of where he was, what he was doing, and why he was acting as he did during
that period. So far as I know, nobody has ever before put forth a plausible scenerio for Rigdon's writing a lengthy
pseudo-historical, pseudo-scriptural thesis for the "restoration" of Apostolic Christianity. Nobody has ever taken
the time to match his religious activities and religious views to any sort of time-line for the compilation of the
Book of Mormon.

My providing that "plausible scenerio" would not be the "smoking gun" we are looking for -- but it may offer up
the first really useful road-map for future investigators who wish to search for that smoking gun.

If we begin with the 1824 pseudo-scriptural "Third Epistle of Peter" and end with the 1829 finalized Book of Mormon text,
that allows for five to six years of Rigdon's alleged holy writ fabrications. Where was he then? What were his
religious views? What did people say about him? How loyal was he to the Campbellite cause? How did he differ
from his fellow Campbellites? What were his stated goals? What was it in Mormonism that so closely matched
(or fulfilled) his expectations and desires? How could he have turned a pseudo-historical "romance" into a text
purporting to be a revelation from God? How might he have worked with a young Joseph Smith to finalize that revelation?
Why would they do such a thing? What were their immediate and long term goals? How is any of this intent
and process reflected in the words of the Book of Mormon itself?

These are the sorts of questions I wish to address -- even if nobody is listening. And, perhaps with some
plausible answers in place, future investigators can locate and publicize the necessary evidence to make the
Spalding-Rigdon-Smith theory hold together.

I am still hopeful.

Uncle Dale

[_why me]

At the end of the day, he was unsuccessful as was Joseph Smith. One was murdered and the other had a failed enterprise. Was the Book of Mormon story a con? Or was it real? Ahhh...that is the question, isn't it? The book failed both men in the end and yet, it has been successful for countless of millions. Now that is an enigma, con or no con.

No enigma. Just look at the world around you. Unless you want to argue that every piece of literature that has been "successful" in that high numbers of people view it as God-given and providing some special insight is just that (ie, being God-given and having special insight), then the answer is already obvious. Human beings, in their drive to find meaning and purpose, can find "success" even in theologies and texts that just about everyone else views as having little to verify it and even of being patently ridiculous. (see scientology for a good example, in my opinion)

To put it more bluntly and possibly offensively, although that is not my intent, human beings, in their drive to find meaning and purpose and God, can make a silk purse out of many a pig's ear.

But I am not sure that what you wrote has much to do with smith and rigdon. If it was a con, the con did not work. It failed. It took BY to make the con work, and most likely he didn't see the con. Both sidney and smith failed in their endeavor, if it were a con. And joseph sacrificed his children, his life and parts of his marriage. And sidney, lost his reputation. And yet, both stuck with the so called con if it were a con.

Bushman in part 4 of his interview with John speaks about the Book of Mormon and how the book can be interpretated by critics and believers. But he also claims that the book is very complicated in design. And this is the enigma too. The book is a complicated book with people constantly finding new insights in it. It would be quite an accomplishment for smith and for sidney. But in the end, they failed. And if it were a con, I can say with conviction, that they, for all their intelligence, were not very adept. And they were failures.

[_Uncle Dale]

If it was a con, the con did not work. It failed....

Perhaps you are putting too much emphasis on the "fraud" half of "pious fraud."
By the same token, we might say that if Islam was a con, it too has failed.

Have you never in your life known of a person who lied, or cheated, or fabricated things, in order to promote
a version of religion which that person fully believed in?

If not -- then good for you. Unfortunately I spent many years in a church where I saw that happening on an
all too frequent basis. True, the examples I might cite were generally little cons and small lies, but some were
truly significant ones, reaching back to Saint Emma herself.

The remnant of Sidney's church are the Monongahela Mormons (or Bickertonites) -- a sect with several dozens
of branches and several thousands of members. Were you to go to one of their prayer meretings; or attend a
wedding or a funeral in one of their chapels; or observe their baptisms and ordinations -- then you might not be
so quick to call President Rigdon a total failure. His seemingly dwindling flock later managed to become the
third largest Latter Day Saint denomination (larger than the FLDS and larger than the Temple Lot group).

Do these folks know that the key person in their history was a con man? Yes, it seems so -- at least they know
this at about the same level that the RLDS know enough to throw the Book of Abraham in the trash as a Joseph Smith fraud, and the
Temple Lot Saints know enough to throw the 1835 Kirtland D&C in the trash as a Rigdon fraud.

The Rev. Dr. William H. Whitsitt, once President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary at Louisviile, had to
struggle with Rigdon's con-man activities in writing his 1880s Sidney Rigdon biography. Whitsitt came to the
conclusion that Rigdon truly believed he was doing God's work, in a world where every other church was lost in
hopeless apostasy. In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king (and prophet), we might say. And in the
land of the utterly lost, even a prophet with a phoney road-map can lead his followers to a better place.

I think that the Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite) actually became a better legacy than Rigdon deserved.

And, if the LDS Church is also Rigdon's unacknowledged legacy..... well, we can cross that bridge when we come
to it, I suppose.

UD