DAN VOGEL DISCUSSES THE SPALDING/RIGDON THEORY

[_CaliforniaKid]

Dear friends,

I apologize for presuming to interject myself into this conversation at this point, after so many relevant aspects of the Spalding theory have been discussed by persons far more knowledgeable than myself. However, I felt it was important to interject some brief comments on some points that thus far have been largely neglected.

Finally, another bit of evidence that Smith was unfamiliar with his own book's contents is that he placed the Hill Cumorah virtually in his own backyard, when according to the book's internal geography it should've been in Canada, not the United States.

According to the testimony of Peter Ingersoll, Joseph Smith told him that he had found a Golden Bible in Canada. This may reflect an early variant of Smith's claims that he later gave up on. In any case, the Book of Mormon actually does not require that the hill Joseph Smith found the plates in be the Hill Cumorah. Mormon buried some of his plates in the Hill Cumorah and then passed the rest on to his son Moroni, who may have buried these in a completely different hill. That's how Sorenson arrives at his Two Cumorahs theory.

It should also be noted that Joseph Smith was not the one who placed the Hill Cumorah in New York. I have not read so many early Mormon documents as Dan, but when I looked into this question some time ago, I learned that the earliest known reference to tis hill as Cumorah comes from Oliver Cowdery. I was unable to find any place where Smith referred to this hill as Cumorah save one (D&C 128:20), late in his life, by which time he may have resigned himself to the prevailing view held by his followers that this hill and Cumorah were one and the same. (Of course, the fact that this one reference is canonized means that Mormons who want to propose a LGT still need to reckon with it.)

Someone also mentioned the internal consistency of Book of Mormon geography. I'm not convinced that the geography is internally consistent. The Book of Mormon speaks of a "narrow neck" and a "narrow passage," which I suspect are supposed to refer to the same thing. The apologists who construct Book of Mormon geographies take them as referring to different things, because to read it as I do with lead to internal inconsistency. If the narrow neck and the narrow passage are the same, then a lot of Book of Mormon locations are suddenly up in the air, like for example the locations of Zarahemla (which the Times and Seasons later placed in Guatemala, north of Panama, which it identified as the narrow neck) and the Hill Cumorah.

All this is to say that I don't think issues of geography provide us with any definite answers as to Book of Mormon authorship.

[*]Speed of translation of Book of Mormon vs. Book of Abraham. It's hardly arguable that Smith produced the text of the Book of Abraham essentially by himself, much like the "Smith-as-sole-author" adherents believe he did with the Book of Mormon. Yet Smith had the Book of Abraham manuscripts in his possession since Kirtland, but never finished the translation (and didn't even start on the Book of Joseph). So Smith is a painstakingly slow translator. Yet years earlier, when Cowdery shows up on Smith's doorstep, voila! Smith finishes the bulk of the Book of Mormon in c. 60 days. Why so quickly in this case, if he didn't have a manuscript off which to read?

As best we can tell, Smith only spent a total of maybe ten days on his Book of Abraham translation, much of which was dedicated to the production of the GAEL-- which is a pretty considerable collection of papers. Between 1835 and 1842, Smith doesn't seem to have worked on the Book of Abraham at all. He apparently finished the second half of the book in two afternoons between March 1, 1842 and March 15, 1842. Again, I don't think there's enough information on the "speed of translation" to make meaningful comparisons between the Book of Abraham and Book of Mormon. If anything, the fact that Smith was capable of producing the Book of Abraham speaks to his ability to produce a lengthy theological/narrative text, whose midrashic content is very similar in character to the book of Moses, Book of Mormon, and the JST (Anthony Hutchinson wrote a great article in Dialogue about the evolution of Joseph Smith's midrash on the Genesis creation narratives in his various dictated revelations, including the books of Moses and Abraham. They approach Genesis in a very similar way, though Joseph's theology has obviously evolved in the interim.) This actually is the strongest reason to reject the Spalding-Rigdon theory in my opinion. By the time we acknowledge that Smith must have made substantial insertions into the Book, that he later produced very similar texts without Rigdon's input, etc., Spalding-Rigdon seems to be-- as DV put it-- an unnecessary hypothesis.

I find Shades' initial list of reasons to accept the Spalding-Rigdon theory uncompelling. However, there are other reasons that I think are much more interesting:

1) The story of how Solomon Spalding discovered his ancient manuscript in a stone box bears some important similarities to Joseph Smith's dicovery of the Book of Mormon in a stone box.

2) Uncle Dale has discovered some consecutive pages in the Manuscript Story that are very similar to consecutive pages in the Book of Mormon, and one page has something like 98% of the same vocabulary. That's pretty good, I'd say.

3) The late John L. Hilton concluded on the basis of his wordprint studies (whose methodology appears to me, at least, to be sound) that neither Joseph Smith, nor Solomon Spalding, nor Oliver Cowdery were the author of the Book of Mormon. I should point out that Hilton's sample sizes were very small, and therefore measure the authorship of only a couple portions of the Book of Mormon. But at least for these two or three portions, he seems to have sorely afflicted the theory that Joseph Smith was the author. There is an important omission from the Hilton study: Sidney Rigdon. If Oliver Cowdery, Solomon Spalding, and Joseph Smith were not the authors of this portion of the Book of Mormon, Sidney Rigdon seems the next likely choice. And if Uncle Dale is to be believed, his friends in California have obtained some very promising results by comparing Sidney Rigdon's wordprint to the Book of Mormon. I look forward to the publication of that study.

Uncle Dale also mentioned at one point in this thread that some simpler conspiracy theories might have Joseph conspiring with Alvin, Hyrum, or Lucy. In my opinion these options leave out the more likely conspirator: Joseph's father!

Here is a letter I addressed to Jerald and Sandra Tanner in May 2005, which they published in the Messenger:

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Tanner,

I recently did some research for an article on my website about seer stones, and came across what I think is good evidence that the Book of Mormon, Joseph's receiving revelations through a seer stone, and indeed the whole Restoration may been been Joseph Smith, Sr.'s idea! If you are interested, indulge me for a few minutes by reading the quotations below.

1. Joseph Smith, Sr., was present, and sworn as a witness. He confessed at great length all that his son had said in his examination. He delineated his characteristics in his youthful days-his visions of the luminous stones in the glass--his visit to visit to Lake Erie in search of the stone--and his wonderful triumphs as a seer. He described very many instances of his finding hidden and stolen goods. He swore that both he and his son were mortified that this wonderful power which God had so miraculously given him should be used only in search of filthy lucre, or its equivalent in earthlytreasures and with along-faced, "sanctimonious seeming," ****he said his constant prayer to his Heavenly Father was to manifest His will concerning this marvelous power. He trusted that the Son of Righteousness would some day illumine the heart of the boy, and enable him to see His will concerning Him.**** These words have ever had a strong impression on my mind. They seemed to contain a prophetic vision of the future history of that mighty delusion of the present century, Mormonism. The "old man eloquent" with his lank and haggard visage--his form very poorly clad-indicating a wandering vagabond rather than an oracle of future events, has, in view of those events, excited my wonder, if not my admiration.

William D. Purple's account of the 1826 trial
(http://www.whichprophets.com/purple.htm)

2. At a time when the money digging ardor was somewhat abated, the elder Smith declared that his son Jo had seen the spirit, (which he then described as a little old man with a long beard,) and was informed that he (Jo) under certain circumstances, eventually should obtain great treasures, and that in due time he (the spirit) would furnish him (Jo) with a book, which would give an account of the Ancient inhabitants (antideluvians) of this country, and where they had deposited their substance, consisting of costly furniture, &c. at the approach of the great deluge, which had ever since that time remained secure in his (the spirits) charge, in large and spacious chambers, in sundry places in this vicinity, and THESE TIDINGS CORRESPONDED PRECISELY WITH REVELATIONS MADE TO, AND PREDICTION MADE BY THE ELDER SMITH A NUMBER OF YEARS BEFORE.

Palmyra Reflector, [edited by Abner Cole] February 14, 1831

3. Barnes Frisbie, the historian of Middleton, Vermont, knew better and noted that the rodsmen who flourished at Wells, Middleton, and Poultney at the turn of the century were a religious group. They saw themselves as the children of Israel and believed in impending judgments. They were primitivists who hoped for the restoration of the true church and for healing gifts. ...When their leaders prophesied an earthquake in 1802 which did not occur, many fled to Lawrence, New York. Frisbie insisted that Oliver Cowdery's father was a member in Orange County.

Marvin S. Hill, Secular or Sectarian History?, Reconsidering No Man Knows My History: Fawn M. Brodie and Joseph Smith in Retrospect. Newell G. Bringhurst, ed. Logan, Utah: Utah State University Press, 1996, p. 70.

Hill seems to think that Joseph Smith and his father may have been in some way affiliated with this group, or may at least have held similar religious views. [Joseph Smith's mother wrote]

About this time my husband's mind became much excited upon the subject of religion; yet he would not subscribe to any particular system of faith, but contended for the ancient order, as established by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and his apostles... [after having a dream on the subject] my husband seemed more confirmed than ever in the opinion that there was no order or class of religionists that knew any more concerning the kingdom of God, than those of the world, or such as made no profession of religion whatever.

Lucy Mack Smith, Biographical Sketches, ch. 14.

We know, from elsewhere, that Joseph Sr. wanted his son Alvin to be a preacher. Could he have had similar—but higher—ambitions for another son, who seemed to have the miraculous gift of seeing in a stone? If Joseph Sr. was a religious rodsman of the sort described by Hill, and if the comments of Purple and Abner Cole can be trusted, then it may well have been Joseph Smith Sr. who suggested that his son might one day restore the church by receiving divine revelation through his stone and even by finding an ancient Indian record...

[_Uncle Dale]

3) The late John L. Hilton concluded on the basis of his wordprint studies (whose methodology
appears to me, at least, to be sound) that neither Joseph Smith, nor Solomon Spalding, nor
Oliver Cowdery were the author of the Book of Mormon....

See also --

"A Multivariate Technique for Authorship Attribution and its Application to the Analysis of
Mormon Scripture and Related Texts." by David I. Holmes, Senior Lecturer in Statistics
at Bristol Polytechnic, pub. by Oxford Univ. Press for the Assoc. for History and Computing.

Holmes compared fourteen large blocks of text from the Book of Mormon with known writings
of Joseph Smith, Jr. from 1828-33, samples from the early D&C revelations, etc. Holmes found
that the claim of multiple authorship for the Book of Mormon was false.

However, the major reason why Holmes came to this conclusion is because he assumed that the
"prophetic voice" used in the Book of Commandments/Doctrine and Covenants was Smith's voice
when in reality it may have been that of some other person (such as Rigdon's). The frequent
occurrence of that same prophetic voice throughout the Book of Mormon convinced Holmes that
there was a single author and that Smith had to be that author. Holmes himself admitted that Smith's
"normal voice" was unlike the "prophetic voice," and that the normal Smith voice did not match up
well at all with any large segments of the Book of Mormon text. Moreover, Holmes (like Hilton)
did not test any text from Rigdon. -- If they had done so, they would likely have had a very different
result: the prophetic voice" would have clustered with Rigdon; the Alma voices would have clustered
with Spalding, the Jacob voice would have clustered with Cowdery.....

Or so I am informed by people using computers to examine the 1830 Book of Mormon text right now.

If both Hilton and Holmes avoided Rigdon, I think there is much room for a re-examination here.

The question asked of the computer program should not be not "who wrote the book," but rather,
"What parts of the book's text best match Rigdon and which parts least match Rigdon?" -- and so on
for Smith, Cowdery, Spalding, Pratt, etc. That would be a good beginning, I think.

UD

[_Dan Vogel]

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!!!

Well, Beastie, let's keep at it. This is a big subject. While I've been away, I have been working on a post that will deal with showing from the original Book of Mormon MS that it was dictated just as the eye witnesses testified, and not copied from another MS as the Spalding advocates claim. I think the combination of evidence from eye witnesses and the original MS is a serious challenge to the Spalding theory. I was about half finished when I lost the file due to a computer glich.

As I have discussed, the claim that there was a second Spalding MS is very problematic.

There is also no credible evidence that Rigdon and Smith met before December 1830, and plenty of testimony to the contrary.

Perhaps at some point we can discuss the content to the Book of Mormon, comparing what Spalding advocates find supportive with possible reflections from Joseph Smith's life.

[_Uncle Dale]

There is also no credible evidence that Rigdon and Smith met before December 1830,
and plenty of testimony to the contrary.

What would you consider to be "credible evidence" of such a meeting -- as, say compared to
"compelling evidence" or "conclusive evidence"???

I would say that "credible evidence" might consist of basically the same allegation, made by two or more
independent early sources. For me, "credible evidence" would be assertions, or news items, or public
records, or some such sources, which have a strong enough probability to warrent follow-up research.

For me, "compelling evidence" would consist of something like a pre-1830 hotel ledger, or transport way-bill,
or Justice of the Peace's docket, which placed the two men in the same town (or better yet, the same building)
at the same time.

For me, "conclusive evidence" would consist of something like a personal journal entry, or a letter, or
perhaps a court record (certifiably pre-December 1830), which documents the two men being in exactly
the same place at the same time. Such evidence would not necessarily need to say that the two men had
met -- but something like a donation list, drawn up at an 1829 Rochester camp-meeting which listed the
names of Sidney Rigdon, Joseph Smith, Jr. and Joseph Smith, Sr., for example.

Going back to the category of "credible evidence" --- if I had that sort of report or document in hand, I would
attempt to raise its historical value to the level of "compelling evidence" by locating one or more supporting
sources. Again, no single record or document would have to say that the two men actually met -- and what I
call supporting evidence might not even give both of their names.

Let me give you an example, and you can tell me how you yourself would go about following up the leads:

1a. If Rev. Lawrence Greatrake's 1826 pamphlet, "Letters on the Religious Notions of A. Campbell and Others,
as exhibited in their Writings, Orations &c. Addressed particularly to the Baptists Composing the Mahoning
Association, by a Regular Baptist," (Ravenna, Ohio; Office of the Western Courier, 1826) made mention of
the (then) Baptist minister, Rev. Sidney Rigdon, preaching heretical doctrine in Auburn, Bainbridge, Mantua,
Hiram, etc., Ohio -- and in one or more of these places, keeping company with a crystal gazer and con man.

1b. If an 1840s issue of the Chardon, Ohio Geauga Democrat (a.k.a. Geauga Republican) published
an article on the early history of Auburn, Ohio pioneers, mentioning Porter Rockwell's Stafford relatives as
having lived in Auburn since the early 1820s and of Rockwell and his friend, Joe Smith, having been seen in
that same vicinity, c. 1826, could be located and authenticated.

1c. If one of more 1820s newspaper articles detailing treasure-seeking going on in the Auburn-Bainbridge area,
in much the same manner as at Newport (Albion), New York in 1825: "A few days since was discovered in this
town, by the help of a mineral stone, (which becomes transparent when placed in a hat and the light excluded
by the face of him who looks into it, provided he is fortune's favorite..." etc. could be located and authenticated.

To me, at least, three pieces of evidence of that nature, when added together, would constitute sufficient new
source material, to be called "credible evidence" --- Not "compelling evidence" I supppse -- but evidence of a
sort, nevertheless -- and evidence sufficient to warrant further careful investigation, as well as reassessment of
corroborative, restrospective testimony from a later date.

If I could document such evidence as in my example (or something very similar), and manage to get my report
published in a reputable media outlet (say "Geauga Magazine," published in Mentor, Ohio) .............
would that be enough for you to revise your current statement, about "no credible evidence"???

And, if so, how would you go about verifying the composite picture provided by the evidence?

Dale

[_Dan Vogel]

Dale,

Let me give you an example, and you can tell me how you yourself would go about following up the leads:

1a. If Rev. Lawrence Greatrake's 1826 pamphlet, "Letters on the Religious Notions of A. Campbell and Others,
as exhibited in their Writings, Orations &c. Addressed particularly to the Baptists Composing the Mahoning
Association, by a Regular Baptist," (Ravenna, Ohio; Office of the Western Courier, 1826) made mention of
the (then) Baptist minister, Rev. Sidney Rigdon, preaching heretical doctrine in Auburn, Bainbridge, Mantua,
Hiram, etc., Ohio -- and in one or more of these places, keeping company with a crystal gazer and con man.

1b. If an 1840s issue of the Chardon, Ohio Geauga Democrat (a.k.a. Geauga Republican) published
an article on the early history of Auburn, Ohio pioneers, mentioning Porter Rockwell's Stafford relatives as
having lived in Auburn since the early 1820s and of Rockwell and his friend, Joe Smith, having been seen in
that same vicinity, c. 1826, could be located and authenticated.

1c. If one of more 1820s newspaper articles detailing treasure-seeking going on in the Auburn-Bainbridge area,
in much the same manner as at Newport (Albion), New York in 1825: "A few days since was discovered in this
town, by the help of a mineral stone, (which becomes transparent when placed in a hat and the light excluded
by the face of him who looks into it, provided he is fortune's favorite..." etc. could be located and authenticated.

Credible evidence is a combination of--

1. Credible sources.

You haven't given us enough information to make that determination. You need to quote the source and convince us that the source contains reliable information. I suspect that 1b will cause you the most difficulty.

2. Credible and responsible use of each source.

Again, not enough information, and you have made no effort to convince us that you are handling the sources responsibly.

3. Making credible connections between the three sources.

You have only implied certain connections, but you have not established the three sources relate to the same thing. I suspect you will have difficulty connectig 1a and 1c with 1b .

Dale, it would be helpful if you gave us more information and committed yourself to an argument that we could test.

[_Tom Donofrio]

Hello everyone.

I have research on the web at

www.mormonstudies.com/early1.htm

where I itemize language and themes from histories of the American Revolution and show their duplication in the Book of Mormon.

I realize it is difficult to prove absolutely that these sources were consulted in the construction of the Book of Mormon. I also recognize that there is a mathematical probablility that some of the parallels could be accidental.

Nevertheless, the fact that they exist at all does not help the case for the Book of Mormon being of divine origin.

Spaulding fought in the Revolution. Later in life he left Conneaut Ohio because of the war of 1812. No doubt he was distraught over the thought that he may have wasted his life in the service the country only to see it threatened again.

Spaulding's Conneaut Creek story is not so much an attempt to recreate actual Indian history as it is a retelling of the causes of the Revolution. His indians act out themes and borrow verbiage from Mercy Otis Warren's history of the American Revolution.

Warren was a pious lecturer, warning America sermon style that if they did not remember God (in 1805) that they would lose their freedom.

Spaulding would have been more passionate on the subject than Joseph Smith. There is a greater chance of Spaulding having been exposed to more Revolutionary writers than Smith.

If Smith was lifting from a Spaulding manuscript, and that manuscript was full of Revolutionary borrows, Smith would have had to read the same sources as Spaulding in order to recognize them. So too for Sidney Rigdon.

If Smith or Rigdon did not recognize the borrows due to ignorance then they had no reason to alter the wording to guard against regonition later.

One might ask why Joseph Smith would be so cavalier in his plagiarism. The answer is he was probably too uneducated to notice that what he thought was original by Spaulding was actually Spaulding's liberal appropriation of Mercy Warren, David Ramsay and George Washington.

Unwittingly, Smith passes the borrows along oblivious to their ability to convict him later.

[_Uncle Dale]

Dale,

Credible evidence is a combination of--

1. Credible sources.

You haven't given us enough information to make that determination. You need to quote the source and
convince us that the source contains reliable information. I suspect that 1b will cause you the most difficulty.

2. Credible and responsible use of each source.

Again, not enough information, and you have made no effort to convince us that you are handling the
sources responsibly.

3. Making credible connections between the three sources.

You have only implied certain connections, but you have not established the three sources relate to the
same thing. I suspect you will have difficulty connectig 1a and 1c with 1b .

This is very discouraging, Dan. Your reply, while technically correct perhaps, has the same effect as all of
the instances in which RLDS have tried to tell me that there is no use in our investigating the claims for
Joseph Smith's alleged secret polygamy at Nauvoo, because none of the evidence rises to the level of proof.

Thus, when I would point out the accounts of women who testified that they had been plural wives of Joseph Smith, etc.,
my RLDS superiors would always tell me that there was no way to know if the testimony was "credible." For
me, that word meant "sufficiently probable to warrant careful investigation;" but for them it meant sufficiently
probable to warrant their losing their RLDS testimonies -- which would have to happen, before they could
deem any such "Reorganization-attacking" evidence worthy of their serious consideration.

Of course I will have "great difficulty connecting" the bits and pieces of history (or alleged history) I've been
able to assemble from a distance, sitting nearly paralyzed and without ten bucks in my pocket, here in Hawaii.
All I can do is to sift through what I do have available to me, and try interest a few other people in chasing
down some very obscure published and manuscript sources for closer scrutiny.

My theory, that Sidney Rigdon was writing a lengthy religious manuscript while living in southern Geauga Co.,
Ohio, is not something I dreamed up -- it was brought together as a possibly true scenerio by my consulting a
number of independent reports from different sources; and each time I looked more closely into where Rigdon
actually was, what he was known to have been doing, and what people were saying about him, the more
"credible" that scenerio has become in my own mind, at least. That is to say, each hitherto unknown or unexamined
piece of evidence that has come my way has added to that picture of Rigdon as a manuscript-writer, rather than
detracted from it. I suspect that any additional independently derived source material I can locate will also fit in
with the scenerio I have described, and will not automatically prove it wrong.

Dale, it would be helpful if you gave us more information and committed yourself to an argument that we could test.

I am a little reluctant to start laying out the sources and possible inter-connections my research associate and I
have so far assembled. I have made promises to that second person, not to "give away" the basis for our projected
papers, and not to divulge hitherto unknown sources before we can obtain certified copies of important documents,
etc. However, if you are ever at the Ohio Historical Society Library in Columbus, I can provide you with the catalog
number for Lawrence Greatrake material which the Library has not cataloged under his name, as author. There are
reportedly two items in a single folder (or in consecutively numbered folders) -- one a full pamphlet and the other a
single sheet comprising four pages of a dis-assembled tract or pamphlet. The pages are too fragile to photocopy and
no microfilm exists. They will have to be inspected in person.

Beyond that, perhaps we should confine our discussion here to published material or material generally known to
scholars, and get back to our potential examination of the alleged 1825-26 presence of Joseph Smith in Auburn, Ohio later on.

There are plenty of other things we can discuss -- in the meanwhile I will contact my co-writer to get some advice.

Dale

[_Uncle Dale]

If Smith was lifting from a Spaulding manuscript, and that manuscript was full of Revolutionary borrows, Smith
would have had to read the same sources as Spaulding in order to recognize them. So too for Sidney Rigdon.

If Smith or Rigdon did not recognize the borrows due to ignorance then they had no reason to alter the wording to
guard against recognition later.

Yes, I understand your point, Tom. However, getting from that observation to anything like a convincing
demonstration of the same Revolutionary War textual material being duplicated in both Spalding's writings and
in the Book of Mormon is a tough row to hoe.

You and I have talked about this before -- I still have the rough draft of your lengthy report (almost a book) on my
desk here as I'm typing this posting. I would like to web-publish it, and I'm working towards that end. However
there are numerous difficulties in presenting your findings as anything more than interesting speculation. Perhaps
some folks already know that Ben McGuire has offered his objections to your conclusions, here:
http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/parallels.htm

Somehow we need to get past the points he raises -- either that, or simply present your work as a theory
which has not yet been adequately tested. I would really like to see some sort of quantification of your textual
parallels -- as well as some graphics showing their patterns of occurrence in the various texts you've worked with.

Probably we can come up with something worthy of placing on the web, but I think it is going to take some time.

There are numerous similarities between the Book of Mormon war stories and Spalding's war stories, but we need
to locate and quantify what parallels are truly unique to the two texts before our talking about them means much
of anything. That, and we also need to demonstrate their patterns of occurrence, as I said. The parallels you have
found with Ramsay and Otis then need to be factored into the Book of Mormon/Spalding comparison. At the end of the day, I
need to be able to see which textual parallels are common to the Book of Mormon, Spalding and pre-1830 Revolutionary War
accounts, as well as which Rev. War parallels are only common to one or the other of Spalding and the Book of Mormon and your
several sources. That is a difficult task, even though you have made a good start.

There are, for example, several parallels in Spalding and the Book of Mormon of "bloodless stratagems," that is, war and battle
tactics which a wise leader conceives as a near-miraculous plan to defeat the enemy without any loss of life. The
whole subject of battle trickery was a topic of debate during Revolutionary War times -- but the idea of a bloodless
stratagem that ended a raging conflict would have generally been considered impractical and ridiculous. Spalding
copied at least part of his idea for these absurd sort of battle tactics from Plutarch's life of Orsiris -- probably the
similar stratagems in the Book of Mormon are modeled upon a classical source as well (although the Bible has a few interesting
stories of its own) and thus have considerable thematic overlap with Spalding "built in."

I presume that these bloodless stratagem stories are NOT much to be found in your Revolutionary War sources --
even Washington's crossing of the Delaware resulted in hostile combat. So perhaps we will be able to factor out
those sorts of passages in the Book of Mormon and Spalding, as NOT being copied from Revolutionary War accounts.

At any rate, such analysis is tedious work and it does not lend itself well to quantification -- it's going to take a while.

Uncle Dale

[_beastie]

I've gotten behind again and am catching up.

Dan, you asked for more details about Rigdon lying about when he first heard of the Book of Mormon.

here is the evidence from Van Wagoner that I found pretty compelling, although I don’t remember Van Wagoner noting its significance.

On page 133, Van Wagoner quotes Rigdon:

“I testify in the presence of this congregation, and before God and all the Holy Angles up yonder, (pointing towards heaven), before whom I expect to give account at the judgment day, that I never saw a sentence of the Book of Mormon. I never penned a sentence of the Book of Mormon. I never knew that there was such a book in existence as the Book of Mormon, until it was presented to me by Parley P. Pratt, in the form that it now is.”

Van Wagoner states that this was his stance until his deathbed, repeated by his children as well.

However, earlier in his book, Van Wagoner said, on pages 55, 56, and 61, that several witnesses stated that the publication of the “Golden Bible” was talked about quite a bit in the news, and that “there can be little doubt that Rigdon, an enthusiastic reader of newspapers, was aware of the book before it was placed in his hands.” Both Eliza Snow and Orson Hyde were members of Rigdon’s congregation, and stated that they had been aware of the oncoming “Golden Bible” and its possible religious significance in “breaking up all our religion, and change its whole features and bearing” before 1830. Rigdon’s brother in law stated in 1841 that he knew that Rigdon told him “there was a book coming out (the manuscript of which had been found engraved on gold plates) as much as two years before the Mormon book made its appearance in this county or had been heard of by me.”

Anyway, there are more statements on pages 55, 56, and 61 that demonstrate it is highly likely Rigdon knew about the Book of Mormon, and its possible impact, long before Parley P. Pratt placed it in his hands. I think you have the book so I won’t quote anymore from it.

I think this is significant for two reasons:

1) Rigdon lied about when he first saw the Book of Mormon. There is a reason he lied. What would it matter if he had known about the book from newspaper accounts like so many others? It seems an odd thing to lie about.

2) Contemporary witnesses immediately suspected Rigdon was involved in the creation of the Book of Mormon. I think this is due to the similarity between the preaching in the Book of Mormon and what Rigdon had already been preaching – some of which is quite different than what smith would later embrace as theology.

[Guest]

CONVERSION OF SIDNEY RIGDON

If Rigdon aided Joseph Smith in writing the Book of Mormon and his conversion to Mormonism was a sham, it was aided by a rather fortuitous event--the conversion of Parley P. Pratt. Note the following chronology of events leading to Rigdon's conversion, largely taken from the The Autobiography of Parley P. Pratt, ed. Parley P. Pratt, Jr. (New York: Russell Brothers, 1874; rept. 1976). Page numbers herein cited are to the reprint; here is a link to the first edition.

http://contentdm.lib.BYU.edu/cgi-bin/docviewer.exe?CISOROOT=/NCMP1847-1877&CISOPTR=2912

9 September 1827. Parley P. Pratt marries Thankful Halsey in Caanan (NY).

October 1827. The Pratts move to northern Ohio.

Circa. April 1829. Pratt hears Sidney Rigdon preach.

About this time one Mr. Sidney Rigdon came into the neighborhood as a preacher, and it was rumored that he was a kind of Reformed Baptist, who, with Mr. Alexander Campbell, or Virginia, a Mr. Scott, and some other gifted men, had dissented from the regular Baptists, from whom they differed much in doctrine. At length I went to hear him ... (31)

August 1830. Pratt sells his farm and with his wife starts on his mission to preach the gospel. While traveling up the Erie Canal on his way to Caanan (NY), Pratt stopped in a small town near Rochester (NY) to preach. It was there that he heard about the Book of Mormon.

We visited an old Baptist deacon by the name of Hamlin. After hearing of our appointment for evening, he began to tell of a book, a STRANGE BOOK, a VERY STRANGE BOOK! in his possession, which had been just published. This book, he said, purported to have been originally written on plates either of gold or brass, by a branch of the tribes of Israel; and to have been discovered and translated by a young man near Palmyra, in the State of New York, by the aid of visions, or the ministry of angels. I inquired of him how or where the book was to be obtained. He promised me the perusal of it, at his house the next day, if I would call. I felt a strange interest in the book. I preached that evening to a small audience, who appeared to be interested in the truths which I endeavored to unfold to them in a clear and lucid manner from the Scriptures. Next morning I called at his house, where, for the first time, my eyes beheld the "Book of Mormon," ...(36-37)

Late August 1830. Parley P. Pratt arrives in Manchester and speaks with Hyrum Smith; both men then walk to Fayette, arriving the same evening.

Circa 1 September 1830. Parley P. Pratt is baptized in Seneca Lake, confirmed, and ordained an elder by Oliver Cowdery.

19 September 1830. Parley P. Pratt baptizes Orson Pratt at Canaan (NY.

10 October 1830 (?). Ezra Thayre visits Joseph Smith in Manchester (NY); Parley P. Pratt baptizes Ezra Thayre and Northrop Sweet.

17 October 1830. Oliver Cowdery, Parley P. Pratt, Ziba Peterson, and Peter Whitmer sign "Missionaries Covenant" in Manchester (NY).

17-21 October 1830. Oliver Cowdery, Parley P. Pratt, Ziba Peterson, and Peter Whitmer depart Manchester (NY) in "late" October 1830.

Circa Early November 1830. Oliver Cowdery, Parley P. Pratt, Ziba Peterson, and Peter Whitmer arrive in the Mentor (OH) area.

... Thence [from Buffalo] we continued our journey, for about two hundred miles, and at length called on Mr. [Sidney] Rigdon, my former friend and instructor, in the Reformed Baptist Society. He received us cordially and entertained us with hospitality.

We soon presented him with a Book of Mormon, and related to him the history of the same. He was much interested, and promised a thorough perusal of the book.

We tarried in this region form some time, and devoted out time to the ministry, and visiting from house to house.

At length Mr. Rigdon and many other became convinced that they had no authority to minister in the ordinances of God; and that they had not been legally baptized and ordained. They, therefore, came forward and were baptized by us, and received the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands, and prayer in the name of Jesus Christ. ... (47-48)

Circa 8 November 1830. Sidney Rigdon is baptized in Mentor (OH).

In a letter dated 12 November 1830, Kirtland, Ohio, Oliver Cowdery states:

... seventeen went immediately forward and were baptized, between eleven and twelve at night, and on the 6th there was one more, on the 7th nine in the day time and at night nineteen, on the 8th three, on the 9th three, on the 10th at night one, on the 11th one, on this day another, making in the whole fifty five, among whom are brother Sidney Rigdon and wife.

--(Newel Knight, Journal, circa 1846, private possession).

Circa 7 December 1830. Sidney Rigdon and Edward Partridge arrive at Fayette (NY), and Joseph Smith receives a revelation for each of them.

Now, it seems to me that Spalding advocates, in addition to asserting that Rigdon pretended his conversion, would by necessity also have to include Parley P. Pratt in their conspiracy theory. And thus we add yet another layer of improbability.