DAN VOGEL DISCUSSES THE SPALDING/RIGDON THEORY

[_Brent Metcalfe]

Hi CaliforniaKid,

Thanks for your queries. A couple of quick comments and then I’m off to dreamland.

1) It seems that Phelps was the first known person to make the Cumorah connection. That still may mean that Joseph was not the first (though in light of the Woodruff journal entry about Zelph, we can probably conclude that he did so very early on).

Or Joseph Smith may have in fact been the first to identify the oversized grassy knoll as “Cumorah.” The point is that such evidence doesn’t tell us one way or the other.

2) Do you find lexical shifts and autobiographical content in the latter third of Alma?

I’m not sure what you’re asking since the lexical shifts involve the BoMor author favoring one word through the first half of the BoMor and then favoring a synonym in the second half. In Alma, for instance, the word therefore occurs 289 times, the word wherefore 3 times; later in the dictation, in 2 Nephi, therefore occurs 5 times, wherefore 137 times. The therefore > wherefore shift occurs gradually over the course of the entire BoMor dictation.

My best,

Brent

[_Uncle Dale]

2) Do you find lexical shifts and autobiographical content in the latter third of Alma?

I’m not sure what you’re asking since the lexical shifts involve the BoMor author favoring one word through the first half of the BoMor and then favoring a synonym in the second half. In Alma, for instance, the word therefore occurs 289 times, the word wherefore 3 times; later in the dictation, in 2 Nephi, therefore occurs 5 times, wherefore 137 times. The therefore > wherefore shift occurs gradually over the course of the entire BoMor dictation.

I browsed your links but did not see a chapter by chapter breakdown of your attribution conclusions. It seems that
you view the entire Book of Mormon text as being largely homogeneous. So, you'll have to spoon feed me your conclusions
as to why you do not think Joseph Smith used any source material for the last 1/3 of Alma and the adjacent part of Helaman.

If your "lexical shifts" rule out any possible redaction, you'll have to explain that to me in simple English.

Once again, to make myself clear -- I want to know what the textual evidence is, for and against Joseph Smith having made
use of any pre-existing texts. I assume you have applied your "lexical shifts" and other literary criticism methods
to the Isaiah chapters of 1st Nephi and Mosiah, and can say how they fit into your over-all scheme of things.

Sorry to be so dense -- I am in a state of continuing neurological degeneration, so my thought processes can be
very s-l-o-w at times.

Dale

[_Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Dale,

Before I doze off, let me recommend that you read my essay:

B. Metcalfe, “The Priority of Mosiah: A Prelude to Book of Mormon Exegesis,” New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology, B. Metcalfe, ed. (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1993), 395–444 (see especially 408–415 where I discuss the therefore > wherefore lexical shift in considerable detail)

I simply don’t have the time (nor the inclination) to restate what has already been in print for well over a decade.

My best,

Brent

[Bedlamite]

Hi Dale,

Before I doze off, let me recommend that you read my essay:

B. Metcalfe, “The Priority of Mosiah: A Prelude to Book of Mormon Exegesis,” New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology, B. Metcalfe, ed. (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1993), 395–444 (see especially 408–415 where I discuss the therefore > wherefore lexical shift in considerable detail)

I simply don’t have the time (nor the inclination) to restate what has already been in print for well over a decade.

My best,

Brent

Yes -- I have that right here in front of me while I'm responding to you. To me it looks like a case for redaction
by a final editor of the text, but evidently you see it as an argument for a homogeneous, non-composite text.

That is about as far as I can go, unless you tell me what else to look for.

Once again, my purpose is to determine whether the Book of Mormon is internally consistent and the product of a single writer
(as Dan seems to argue) -- or whether there is a possibility that it contains embedded source material.

You can pretty much answer my question with a "yes" or "no," and the discussion can move on to other matters.

I'll paste in below some more documentation of page 374 in the 1830 Book of Mormon:



The above image is a screen shot of the page 374 URL I provided earlier in this thread. The highlighted .981"
at the top of the page is the 98.1% overlap with Spalding's "Oberlin MS" vocabulary (highlighted in brown text).
The brown underlinings are some word-strings found in both the Book of Mormon and Spalding.





The next graphic is a small excerpt from my 1830 Book of Mormon chart, comparing the text to Spalding vocabulary and
non-contxtual word markers.

As can be seen in the bottom bar graph, the non-contextual word indications rise continually through 1830 Book of Mormon
Ch. XXIV, and then drop off suddenly near the end of that chapter.

As can be seen in the coordinated top line graph, the 1830 Book of Mormon Ch. XXIV vocabulary overlap rises on a similar
slope and then suddenly drops off after page 374 (near the end of that chapter).

Consulting my previously linked scans of the modern LDS Book of Mormon pages 330-331 (which are roughly the same as
the 1830 page 374-375), it can be seen that phraseology overlap between the two texts (red underlines) remains
high through the end of the modern LDS Ch. 53, but then suffers a sudden drop-off a few sentences of the chapter
break (on LDS page 333).
http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/MEDIA/P4/330.JPG
http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/MEDIA/P4/332.JPG

As though anticipating this coming change, the text at the end of LDS Cg. 53 contains some anomalies at
LDS 53:2, 53:9-10, 53:15 and 53:21. These passages aree so unlike the surrouding test, that they evidently impose
a severe change upon both the vocabulary overlap and the non-contextual word markers.

In other words, although Spaldingish phraseology continues through the end of LDS Ch. 53, changes in the text
begin to make it far less Spaldingish than it had been a couple of pages below.

For three different reasons (vocabulary, phraseology and non-contextual words markers) I see what had been
a very highly corresponding Book of Mormon narrative very quickly lose its previous correspondence with Spalding right
around the chapter break.

This indicates (to me at least) a literary transition from one writer to another, though the break is not a sharp one.
I credit most of the 1830 Ch XXIV (LDS 52 & 53) to Spalding, but with a transition near the end to another writer
or editor's voice.

So far, in my charting of the 1830 Book of Mormon text, page 374 bears the highest similarity with Spalding's known writings.
I therefore cite it as a "benchmark" by which I compare and categorize other 1830 Book of Mormon pages as being "high,"
"moderate," or "low" in their similarity to Spalding.

Dale

[_Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Dale,

This is precisely the type of interminable online discussion that keeps me away from message boards. (Feel free to take my grumpiness as a byproduct of sleep deprivation.)

You now tell me concerning my New Approaches essay …

Yes -- I have that right here in front of me while I'm responding to you. To me it looks like a case for redaction by a final editor of the text, but evidently you see it as an argument for a homogeneous, non-composite text.

Yet you had just finished posting, among other things, …

I assume you have applied your "lexical shifts" and other literary criticism methods to the Isaiah chapters of 1st Nephi and Mosiah, and can say how they fit into your over-all scheme of things.

Well, you tell me, Dale; you’re the one with my essay “right … in front of” you.

(Here’s a hint: I address the implications of the BoMor author’s appropriation of the KJV and its effect on the therefore > wherefore lexical shift on pp. 411–13 and again on pp. 435–37 [in B. Metcalfe, “The Priority of Mosiah: A Prelude to Book of Mormon Exegesis,” New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology, B. Metcalfe, ed. (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1993)].)

by the way, how did you edit your post without a note appearing to indicate that you had edited it? (Cool trick.)

In any event, sleep well, Dale.

My best,

Brent

[_Uncle Dale]

(Here’s a hint: I address the implications of the BoMor author’s appropriation of the KJV and its effect on the
therefore > wherefore lexical shift on pp. 411–13 and again on pp. 435–37 [in B. Metcalfe,
“The Priority of Mosiah: A Prelude to Book of Mormon Exegesis,” New Approaches to the Book of Mormon:
Explorations in Critical Methodology, B. Metcalfe, ed. (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1993)].)

I'll have to go back and read this stuff, sentence-by-sentence, with a red pen in my hand. I am up three hours
past my regular bed-time, waiting for a phone call from the mainland -- but I give up. I can hardly remember
my own name at this point.

by the way, how did you edit your post without a note appearing to indicate that you had edited it? (Cool trick.)

Perhaps Shades gave me uber-mod status and over-ride access to the server. If so, I cannot tell you without
your signing away all rights to your soul first.

In any event, sleep well, Dale.

That shall commence in 30 seconds -- if I can make it over to the bed without falling asleep on my way.

Dale

[_CaliforniaKid]

Or Joseph Smith may have in fact been the first to identify the oversized grassy knoll as “Cumorah.” The point is that such evidence doesn’t tell us one way or the other.

True.

CaliforniaKid wrote:
2) Do you find lexical shifts and autobiographical content in the latter third of Alma?

I’m not sure what you’re asking since the lexical shifts involve the BoMor author favoring one word through the first half of the BoMor and then favoring a synonym in the second half. In Alma, for instance, the word therefore occurs 289 times, the word wherefore 3 times; later in the dictation, in 2 Nephi, therefore occurs 5 times, wherefore 137 times. The therefore > wherefore shift occurs gradually over the course of the entire BoMor dictation.

I guess I'm just wondering if this portion of Alma is an exception to the trend. Years ago I did a book-by-book breakdown of the ratios of usage of certain words in the Book of Mormon. Tomorrow I will compare it with your data in the paper you linked above. But for now I should be in bed.

-CK

[_marg]

Brent

In short, Jeff, a Spalding theory isn't only speculative, it's unnecessary.

The Spalding theory is not necessary, it is based on what the evidence indicates happened. Sure simpler theories can be created but they don't include all the evidence. So do you want the simplest theory that one can construct , or do you want a theory representative of what actually happened?

[_jhammel]

Hi Brent,

I think others, yourself included, are more qualified than I to assess the Book of Mormon text and content, so I prefer to be a curious bystander when authorship is discussed based on examinations of the text itself. I've never been able (or even tried) to make a case for Spalding or Rigdon authorship by a thorough examination of the text, but I have to add to that that I've never seen what I think is a convincing set of arguements to rule them out. So, I can't say I find too much problem with someone not introducing Rigdon into the picture based just on examination of the Book of Mormon text. If, on that basis, you start with Rigdon out and see no reason to rule him in, I can understand that.

My reasons for favoring some significant contribution of Spalding and Rigdon are much more based on the aroused suspicions of each of these men as contributors to the Book of Mormon by those who knew them, demonstrated both in short time and over several years by statements that shed varying degrees of light on what may have happened. Now, perhaps such things are mostly a product of false memory, deceit, or wishful thinking, and there is certainly an inherent amount of skepticism and critical examination one should aim at such evidence, but as far as I have studied until now, I think much of it stands as at least plausible - the amount of which is enough to paint a vague picture of how the Book of Mormon may have originated. It is also enough to make it difficult for me to assess the entire set as useless in determining Book of Mormon origins, which would seem to necessarily be the case if neither Spalding nor Rigdon contributed to the Book of Mormon. (One could posit Spalding contribution without Rigdon, or Rigdon without Spalding, but I think the involvement of both is a cleaner fit to the body of testimonial and circumstantial evidence.) So, there is a large body of evidence which I think rules Spalding and Rigdon in, or at least highly suspect, and I'm curious to see if arguments from the text should convince me to rule either of them out, and I'm also curiously watching to see what else may be learned about pre-1830 activities in Ohio, in case there is anything still there to be learned. That's where I'm coming from at the moment.

Jeff

PS - Happy Chinese New Year!

[_Jason Bourne]

a. Rigdon was an intellectual convert -- he heard the Mormon gospel and accepted its doctrines

b. Rigdon was an emotional convert -- he read the Book of Mormon and felt a "burning in his bosom," etc.

c. Rigdon was an opportunistic convert -- he may not have agreed with all of Mormonism, but "knew a good thing."

d. Rigdon was a convert before he ever read the Book of Mormon -- Mormonism was the same as Rigdonism.

# 4 but in order to respond in greater detail I'd need time, a day at least. In essence I don't think Rigdon was a religious follower, having been thrown out of a Baptist group for having different ideas. He was opinionated and not particularly open to persuasion. His eagerness to join so quickly bascially within a day, having only read the Book of Mormon in the evening and without having spent much time in evaluation leads one to question why would he act so fast. What was his primary motivation, what were his rewards? He already had a congregation, actually I believe 2 so why give them up to another authority unless he was offered a position within the new sect. And why would he be offered a position by them so soon as they had only just presented the Book of Mormon to him. So with the speed of events being so quick, it appears it was all planned out well in advance.

This is a weak argument. First, people often converted to religions quickly and rapidly, even at times on the spot, ministers of other faiths not excluded. Even today people may convert quickly. Second, Rigdon was constantly searching for the right religion. His background with the Cambelites already demonstrated that he believed in a restoration of primitive Christianity. He pushed for that more and more with Alexander Campbell. So, one could argue that he was ripe to accept the Book of Mormon and Mormonism quickly given his prior disposition and attitudes. Rigdon seemed given to radical decisions and actions. He already lost one flock due to his changing religous views. Losing another may not have been that traumatic to him given that perhaps his quest for "truth" was paramount for him.