DAN VOGEL DISCUSSES THE SPALDING/RIGDON THEORY

[_Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Dale,

Your commentary is interesting, perhaps even telling.

I have read it -- a couple of times when I first bought the book and a couple of times again in the last two days.

When I asked Brent how his findings prove that the Book of Mormon does not incorporate pre-existing text, he simply referred me back to the article -- as though it were a universal law of physics, or something.

No, not a universal law of physics—just a few factual tidbits that you seem unable to grasp or come to terms with (I suspect the latter), but more on that later.

Two words—just two—in your analysis of Spalding terminological convergences with the BoMor (see here) are sufficient to illustrate a lack of rigor in your approach.

Here is how you present an instance of the BoMor author’s dependency on your elusive Spalding manuscript (the underlined portions are your parallels between Spalding and the BoMor):

… with Moroni in the more part of all his battles … [bold/italic emphasis added].

Your parallels suffer from several interpretive deficiencies:

1) In the context of Alma 53, the two-word construct “more part” is a distinct semantic unit—especially since it is preceded by a definite article and followed by a preposition.

Thus you must justify why you have separated these two words to accommodate your parallels.


2) The phrase “more part” has a linguistic history in English:


… and after their deaths, by the Mayor and his brethren of the Council-house, or the more part of them [An Account of the Many and Great Loans, Benefactions & Charities, Belonging to the City of Coventry (Coventry: J. Turner, 1802), 53, emphasis added].

… if it so be that hereafter the seid reaume of Scotlande, or the more part therof, be conquered … [The Lord of the Isles; a Poem by Walter Scott, Esq., 3rd ed. (Edinburgh: James Ballantyne & Co., 1815), 282, emphasis added].

If we take a careful survey of American society, I believe we shall find that the more part of the families who have experienced a distressing reverse in their circumstances … [Ezra Sampson, Remarks on Troubles of Our Own Making (New York: Mahlon Day, 1821), 11, emphasis added (in Tracts Published by the Tract Association of Friends in New-York [New York: Mahlon Day, 1824])].


Thus you must justify why early-19thC usage fails to inform your parallels involving “more part.”


3) The phrase has KJV antecedents:


… and the more part knew not wherefore they were come together [Acts 19:32].

… the more part advised to depart thence also [Acts 27:12].


Thus you must justify why KJV usage fails to inform your parallels involving “more part.”


4) The phrase is pervasive throughout the BoMor and is not limited to the supposed Spalding-dependent portions (see 1 Ne. 9:4; 19:2; 22: 4; Alma 14:2; 47:2; Hel. 5:50; 6:1, 21, 31, 32, 38; 11:21; 13:12; 14:21; 16:6, 10; 3 Ne. 1:22; 7:8, 26; 26:7; Ether 9:11).

Thus you must justify why BoMor usage fails to inform your parallels involving “more part.”

This example is symptomatic of your ailing Spalding/Rigdon theory.

In your mind:

I am quite content to suppose Joseph Smith and associates continued "bringing forth" the books from Mosiah forward, after the loss of the Book of Lehi. I have no trouble in supposing that Moroni and 1st/2nd Nephi were the last texts finalized.

But if the argument is stated, that Rigdon could not have had a hand in compiling the text, because no person would switch from using "therefore" to "wherefore," then that argument must be applied to all potential authors for the text. And if it is stated that Smith could have been influenced to change his word useage, then I'd say that the same could be supposed for Rigdon.

One thing that I did notice, and that is, while Solomon Spalding made use of "therefore" about 20 times in his extant writings, he did not use "wherefore" (unless it was in a legal document).

Thus, Spalding's known use of the word pair falls 100% on the "therefore" side of word choice. The same may be said of the "Book of Solomon" portion of Alma/Helaman I've been studying. And, a quick check of the other, shorter Book of Mormon sections I've long attributed to Spalding's pen, only turns up a couple of "wherefores."

What on earth are you talking about, my friend? I addressed these issues in my essay in ways that fundamentally undermine each of your assertions.

To help me better appreciate how you understand my several arguments, perhaps you can summarize my two primary controls for testing whether the “therefore”/”wherefore” lexical shift can be reasonably attributed to anyone other than Joseph Smith.

I look forward to your thoughtful reply.

Kind regards,

Brent

[Bedlamite]

I look forward to your thoughtful reply.

We seem to be talking at cross-purposes here Brent --

My questions are really rather simple -- and perhaps your research findings can supply short answers:


1. Is the Book of Mormon a uniform text, from a single author, or is it a composite text from more than one?

2. If LDS Alma 43 to Helaman 2 is not the part of the Book of Mormon best matching Spalding, what part is?

3. Based upon the internal structure of Alma 43 to Helaman 2, why could it not have originated with Spalding?

4. Based upon your research and similar investigations, what is the best argument against Spalding authorship?


I am still attempting to fathom how your paper elucidates any of this -- though perhaps my question #1 is the
one best addressed by your textual findings (since you say: "To help me better appreciate how you understand
my several arguments, perhaps you can summarize my two primary controls for testing whether the “therefore”/”wherefore” lexical shift can be reasonably attributed to anyone other than Joseph Smith.") --

As I said, I'm quite content to picture Joseph Smith as the one who finalized the Book of Mormon text. If he changed from dictating
"therefore" over to dictating "wherefore," I do not argue that he was deviating from the words on the so-called
golden plates (or Spalding's story, or from another written text, or from his own "on-the-fly" mental creation).
By the same token, don't argue that he was not changing any one of those sources. For all I know, his
original source had hundreds of "And then it happened" and he changed them all to "And then it came to pass."
Whether he thus changed ideas in his own head, or translations, or English words from a pre-existing source
matters not to me.


Also, as I said before, I am not here to articulate nor defend the Spalding-Rigdon-Smith authorship explanation.
I am here to help me determine which research paths might possibly bear fruit, and which ones are dead ends.

I'll read your paper one more time, and try to extract some sort of facts or ideas to help me answer my own
four questions, and will later post those extracts here (if not so lengthy as to violate your copyright).

Till then,
Dale in Hawaii

[_Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Dale,

1. Is the Book of Mormon a uniform text, from a single author, or is it a composite text from more than one?

As I’ve stated on numerous occasions, I see no reason to attribute BoMor authorship—divine or human—to anyone other than Joseph Smith. And you certainly haven’t given me reason to think otherwise.

2. If LDS Alma 43 to Helaman 2 is not the part of the Book of Mormon best matching Spalding, what part is?

In what way do you feel this responds to my critique of your methodology?!

3. Based upon the internal structure of Alma 43 to Helaman 2, why could it not have originated with Spalding?

Again, in what way do you feel this responds to my critique of your methodology?!

4. Based upon your research and similar investigations, what is the best argument against Spalding authorship?

Are you serious? Dale, do you feel even the slightest inclination to seriously justify your speculations against a sound critique? I raised specific issues about your methodology and you’ve offered literally nothing in response.

Again, Dale, to help me better appreciate how you understand my several arguments, perhaps you can summarize my two primary controls for testing whether the “therefore”/”wherefore” lexical shift can be reasonably attributed to anyone other than Joseph Smith.

My best,

Brent

[_Uncle Dale]

As I’ve stated on numerous occasions, I see no reason to attribute BoMor authorship—divine or human—
to anyone other than Joseph Smith. And you certainly haven’t given me reason to think otherwise.

OK -- that is what I read in your article -- but most of us will concede that the Book of Mormon makes use
of pre-existing text in its embedded Isaiah chapters. Therefore, unless Joseph Smith first wrote Isaiah (an impossibility),
then the Book of Mormon is a composite text, finalized (in some degree or another) by Joseph Smith.

Perhaps a careful search of the Book of Mormon text might also turn up a sentence attributable to Ethan Smith, or to
William Shakespeare, or to the Westminster Confession of Faith. In that case, I would say that the text makes
use of more pre-existing source material than just its Isaiah chapters, or its use of Matthew for the "Sermon
at the Temple,"etc. Based upon this minimal evidence and logic, I say it is a composite text.

Dale, do you feel even the slightest inclination to seriously justify your speculations against a sound critique?
I raised specific issues about your methodology and you’ve offered literally nothing in response.

But I do not see that. My "speculation" is that further investigation of the probability of the Book of Mormon being a
composite text is warranted. In other words, if a graduate student came to me and asked, "Dale, should
I devote my next two years to writing a thesis about Joseph Smith's composing of the Book of Mormon, or should I
study some other possibilities?" my answer would be -- "It would be worth your time to study other possibilities."

Now you may think I was giving that new researcher some bad advice, and you might interject your conclusions,
in hopes of saving the poor student two wasted years of inquiry -- but I doubt any of that would change my
opinion of things.

How can I better articulate my position? Perhaps by an analogy. My wife tells me that she has lost her car keys,
and knows for certain she has locked them in her car. When I ask if she has bothered to look under the car for
the keys, she says "Absolutely not! I have concluded they are in the car. Although I cannot exactly see them
there, I am determined to stick with my well-reasoned conclusions no matter what!" So I ask her, "Do you mind
then, if I take a look under your car?" To which she answers: "Haven't you been listening to me? I just told you
there is no chance in the world that they are there -- if you go and look, I'll be angry at you for weeks to come!"
"And if I go and look, and find your keys there, then what?" is my reply.

Again, Dale, to help me better appreciate how you understand my several arguments, perhaps you can
summarize my two primary controls for testing whether the “therefore”/”wherefore” lexical shift can be
reasonably attributed to anyone other than Joseph Smith.

I suppose I can cut and paste that information from your article into this thread (as I've before suggested).
But I have already conceded the strong probability that Joseph Smith was the one who finalized the text. In other words,
his was the last hand upon the page, even if Oliver was holding the pen.

What you are asking me to do, is to move back an existential level from that scene, and make the conclusion that
Joseph Smith could have made use of no pre-existing sources, based upon your word-shift analysis.

It is not that I am refusing to do that, Brent -- I am just saying I am incapable of doing it. Unless you are willing
to accept a falsehood from me, offered only to sooth your own feelings here. And I think you are too careful a
scholar to accept such short-cuts.

So where am I to go with this? So far as I can see, my only possible alternative would be to say that the Book of Mormon
is NOT a composite text -- ergo, Joseph Smith wrote Isaiah.

????????

Dale

[_Brent Metcalfe]

Hi Dale,

You’ve not addressed any of my concerns about your methodology; but you’ve thoroughly convinced me that you fail to appreciate the significance of the “therefore”/”wherefore” lexical shift in the BoMor. You wrote:

So where am I to go with this? So far as I can see, my only possible alternative would be to say that the Book of Mormon is NOT a composite text -- ergo, Joseph Smith wrote Isaiah.

????????

Good grief, Dale; the fact that Joseph Smith did not write KJV Isaiah is one of the two very controls that I’ve alluded to for testing whether Smith alone was responsible for the “therefore”/”wherefore” lexical shift. *sigh*

Sleep well, Dale.

Cheers,

Brent

[_Uncle Dale]

Hi Dale,

You’ve not addressed any of my concerns about your methodology; but you’ve thoroughly convinced me that you fail to appreciate the significance of the “therefore”/”wherefore” lexical shift in the BoMor. You wrote:

So where am I to go with this? So far as I can see, my only possible alternative would be to say that the Book of Mormon is NOT a composite text -- ergo, Joseph Smith wrote Isaiah.

????????

Good grief, Dale; the fact that Joseph Smith did not write KJV Isaiah is one of the two very controls that I’ve alluded to for testing whether Smith alone was responsible for the “therefore”/”wherefore” lexical shift. *sigh*

Sleep well, Dale.

Cheers,

Brent

Finally we are making a little progress -- we have an agreement here, and that is the fact that Joseph Smith did not
write Isaiah, and therefore the book is a composite text, (to at least that initially agreed upon extent).

Now that we have some common ground to stand upon. let us see how far it might be extended, and in what
directions. I previously mentioned pasting in some of your article here, so I'll begin with an excerpt and see
if I can find anything there to agree with:

Implications for Book of Mormon Authorship

Smith's loss of the 116 pages is Book of Mormon interpreters' gain. The misplacement, theft, or destruction
of the Book of Lehi, eventually leading the despondent prophet to dictate 1 Nephi-Words of Mormon last,
unveils an unprecedented glimpse into the formation of a sacred text. Intrinsically woven into the Book
of Mormon's fabric are not only remnants of the peculiar dictation sequence but threads of authorship.
The composite of those elements explored in this essay point to Smith as the narrative's chief designer.

I suspect that most Book of Mormon students prior to reading this essay considered the dictation sequence
relatively insignificant. This essay begins to explore some of the evidences for and implications of Mosian
priority. More study will undoubtedly follow, [[49 Other areas of research needing further exploration include
the ideational chasm or so-called "black hole" left by the loss of the Book of Lehi; effects of Mosian priority on
Book of Mormon internal organization; Words of Mormon functioning as both preface and epilogue; whether
Moroni was dictated in May or June 1829; and theological ramifications of the dictation history. end49]] but
Mosian
[p.434]
priority is certainly a sound direction for future exegesis.

Antagonists typically condemn Smith as a slavish plagiarist, while apologists exonerate him as an inspired
marionette. Both models envision an unimaginative rustic parroting his sources or his God. I accept neither of
these reductionist portrayals. The evidence invites a critical reappraisal of Smith's role in the formation of the
Book of Mormon. The question is no longer whether Smith influenced the content of the Book of Mormon, but
how much. [[50 For a discussion of broader issues relating to historical and authorial concerns, see my essay
"An Introduction to Problems of Book of Mormon Historicity" (Metcalfe 1992). end50]] Engaging in the
re-interpretive task promises to disclose a charismatic seer who was more than a mere copier or puppet but
an imaginative prophetic author.

New Approaches to the Book of Mormon:
Explorations in Critical Methodology
Brent Lee Metcalfe (editor)
Salt Lake City: Signature Books
© 1993 Smith Research Associates.

OK -- Joseph Smith as "chief designer," is a concept I can at least try on for size (depending upon how "chief" that
chief designation may be. At the very least we can agree that there must have been a chief designer.
The book's narrative and interwoven concepts are far too complex to have been assembled by one or
more incompetent "rustics."

So -- you see -- we are already making progress here.

Next we have "evidences for and implications of Mosian priority," and I at least agree with the "evidences"
part. As for "implications," those are intangibles and you cannot expect me to recognize and appropriate all
that you see implied here. But we can at least begin to explore such implications, as you view them, and
determine if we share any mutual perceptions along those lines.

As to "whether Moroni was dictated in May or June 1829," that is a matter that catches my attention. My view
is that it was practically the last thing written, even if it were being constructed at the same time 2nd Nephi
was being finalized. At least it is a historical item that I find interesting.

Now for your most important rhetorical question, Brent:

"The question is no longer whether Smith influenced the content of the Book of Mormon, but how much."

Again we are in complete agreement. I have never opined that Joseph Smith did not influence Book of Mormon content ---
though I certainly leave open some mental room for "influence" from Oliver and others. So here we have
a topic of great mutual interest. We might even draw a line, ranging from "none" to "all" and attempt to place
ourselves in our respective positions along that gradation. I suspect that you will be standing so close to
the "all" end of the spectrum that you can touch it. But I hope it will not displease you if I do not step directly
upon your toes, but move a little to one side of your position?

Is that alright with you? I hope so. If you will give me some reciprocal respect, not to be standing precisely
where you are standing, then we can begin to measure the distance remaining between our two positions and
attempt to figure out how the gap might be narrowed.

My first request, along those lines, is to ask of you the boon that I might continue my investigations without any
interference from you. I do not mind your questioning my provisional conclusions, or my methods, or even my
ultimate goals ---- but one thing I do strongly take offense at, is any patronizing counsel saying that my studies
are worthless and ought to be quickly ended. You speak of "implications," and you may imply that is your opinion
as much as you see fit as a gentleman and a scholar. But when you begin to speak in absolutist terms, as though
you are citing the theorums of mathematics, or some such golden standard, be prepared for my timely exit.

You do not have to agree with one conclusion I now have or may arrive at -- but my right to investigate and
come to my own understandings of things is not open to argument -- period.

Lastly, I quote your saying: "Engaging in the re-interpretive task promises to disclose a charismatic seer
who was more than a mere copier or puppet but an imaginative prophetic author."

This is what Stan Larsen might call historical revisionism --- but being a Latter Day Saint and a restorationist,
I am all for the serious consideration of revisions and re-interpretations. I would be the last person in the
world to call Joseph Smith a "puppet." As to his being a "copier," we all know that he copied Isaiah, Matthew and other
pre-existing scriptural texts. So he was indeed a "copier." But was he a "mere copier?" Some Spalding advocates
may think that -- certainly most all Mormons think so, by "the gift and power of God."

But I do not view him as a "mere copier" either. I think that the story of Mormon origins is a complex and
convoluted one, which has been purposely hidden, obscured and falsified at many turns along the way. I trust
the compiled LDS and RLDS "History of the Church" about as far as I'd trust a North Korean history book.

All of that said and put to one side, I will continue to elucidate my Spalding-Rigdon studies. If you encounter any
glaring errors, I welcome your corrections. And if you see problems in my logic (or lack thereof) I welcome
your critiques ---- so long as you hold open at least a .00001% possibility that the keys really are beneath the car.

Dale

[_CaliforniaKid]

>> http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/MEDIA/phrchrt2.gif

This reminds me of the words of Al Gore... "did these ever fit together?"

[_Uncle Dale]

Thus you must justify why you have separated these two words to accommodate your parallels.

Brent, I really do not know what you are talking about. I have parsed your message about a dozen times, and
I still fail to see its import.

But, I will attempt to address the word-string context you have pointed out:

Here is that part of the text you wanted me to talk about:



And here is a rough data-dump from my tabulations for that part of the text:

now = Spalding word
behold = Spalding word
this = Spalding word
Lehi = semi-unique proper noun
was = Spalding word
a = Spalding word
man = Spalding word
who = Spalding word
had = Spalding word
been = Spalding word
with = Spalding word
Moroni = semi-unique proper noun
in = Spalding word
the = Spalding word
more = Spalding word
part = Spalding word
of = Spalding word
all = Spalding word
his = Spalding word
battles = Spalding word

now behold = non-Spalding word-string
now behold this = non-Spalding word-string

this SUPN was a = This Bombal was the most haughty and powerful prince [p.071]

was a = Spalding word-string (12 places)
was a man = non Spalding word-string
a man = Spalding word-string (4 places)
a man who = non-Spalding word-string
man who = Spalding word-string (4 places)

man who had = Spalding word-string: = any man who had ever appeared before him [p.068]

who had = Spalding word-string (8 places)
who had been = those who had been his enemies [p.162]
had been = Spalding word-string (13 places)
had been with = non-Spalding word-string

with SUPN = Spalding word-string (7 places)
with SUPN in = but a few moments with Lamesa, in [p.170]

in the more = non-Spalding word-string
in the = Spalding word-string (168 places)
more part = non-Spalding word-string
part of all = non-Spalding word-string
of all his = the pomposity of all his movements [p.106]
all his battles = non-Spalding word-string
all his = Spalding word-string (18 places)
his battles = non-Spalding word-string

--------------- end of list -----------------------



OK -- do you follow me that far, Brent?

My purpose in creating the web-page you have pointed out, was to determine the percentage of vocabulary
overlap, between the 1830 Book of Mormon and Spalding's Oberlin manuscript -- and to display in a color-coded html
web-document, that percentage on each 1830 Book of Mormon page between Alma XX and Helaman I.

Are you still with me, this far along?

The words overlapping between the two texts are coded in brown in my web-page. Words not overlapping
are coded blue. Words having a common root, but varying slightly in format are coded in pink (but counted
as though they were blue words).

Semi-unique proper nouns (Moroni, Lehi, etc.) were counted, but removed from my calculations of percentage
of word overlap.

Now, Brent, you point out the word-string "more part" --- both "more" and "part" are coded brown and are
counted as Spalding words in calculating the percentage of word overlap (which I think was 98.1% in this page).

Nothing you have said about "more part" changes that word overlap percentage. And, if you recall my saying so
from just a few sentences previous, THAT was the purpose of the web-page and its reproduction of the text in
color-coded format.

I suppose what you are asking, is why I did not insert some sort of symbol in my web-document, so as to tell
the reader that "more part" is not a word-string found in the Oberlin manuscript. I would be very happy
to insert such marker symbols into my web-page, if you can counsel me on how best to do that.

Let's look at that text again:



If you look carefully, you will see a dotted brown line which underlines "This Lehi was" --- that means that
I have located a similar word-string in Spalding, but without the exact semi-unique proper noun.

Follow me there, Brent?

I do not know how to depict this dotted underlining in html coding, so it has disappeared in my web-page.

If you look again at the text, you will see some parts that have a double underline. In my original document,
created in word-processor format, this double underscoring is easy to create, and I used it all through the text
to indicate those spots where two or more word-strings overlapped one another --- For example:

a man = Spalding word-string (4 places)
man who = Spalding word-string (4 places)

Since these two word-strings overlap in the text, the "man" segment of the text is double underlined in the
original word-processor document (as are other adjacent words, because two or more overlapping strings
occur at this spot in the text).

But I do not know how to depict this double underlining in html coding, so it has disappeared in my web-page.

To sum up: You seem to be asking me to find a way to show the reader that non-parallels occur in my
color coded pages. I would think that any reader might understand so simple a fact, without my having to spend
time and effort explaining why I have not marked all of the non-parallel word-strings. Also, you seem to want
me to produce an exhaustive itemization of ALL shared word-strings in the two source documents. This is what
Lester Bush demanded of me. I simply do not have the software programming skills necessary to create an
automatic method whereby to generate such an exhaustive list. Tell me how, Brent, and I will try.

But you might just as well ask me to indicate that the "Book of Solomon" text does not speak of Antarctic
penguins, or Zulu royal genealogy, or any one (or all) of ten zillion other things NOT shared by that text and
some other source.

However, if it will make you feel any better, I will here admit -- for all the world to take note of -- that the words
"more part" are a non-parallel and do not occur in Spalding.

None of which changes the 98.1% vocabulary overlap on that particular page -- unless my neuropathy has become
so bad that my eyes and internal logic are now failing me.

What else can I say? Tell me what words you wish to hear from me, and I will attempt to say them for you.

?????

Dale

[_Jason Bourne]

Dan,

One other example in which I find your critical evaluation on this Pratt issue rather weak. I'm not going to quote or get the exact details but off the top of my head..my understanding is that Pratt sold his farm and went with his wife on a journey to preach and visit relatives. And I believe at the point of starting out he had been associating with Rigdon. So he goes on this journey along some waterway (I believe) and makes a pit stop by himself and has his wife go ahead of him alone..though I believe he escorted her quite a few miles. I believe you said something along the line that Pratt gave his reason for this pit stop..as the spirit had moved him to stop...and that this reasoning he gave, you accept because you have no reason to doubt Pratt.

The trip was along the Erie Canal in western and central NY. The purpose of the trip was that if an itinerant preacher which Pratt was and viewed part of the purpose of the trip to seek and preach. For that time, being moved on by the spirit and acting upon it was not uncommon.

Well what husband goes on a journey with a wife, in pretty much the wilderness..

It was not the wilderness per say. The Erie canal was a commercial route and went through all the commercial villages and towns that were established then.

and has her continue on alone..even if a feeling/spirit had moved him? Doesn't it seem strange to you that he apparently didn't want his wife with him? Why does she go on alone? What reason did he give for that? Doesn't it seem as if he had business or something to do, which he'd rather she be not present for?

If I recall she went on to stay with family.

So he makes this pit stop and just happens to come across the Book of Mormon, just happens to be converted, just happens to go back to Rigdon with the Book of Mormon. Is my understanding wrong in this? Is my skepticism too extreme? I appreciate you seem to have a problem with skepticism ..arguing that it's a slippery slope leading to nihilism...but do you not see there is good reason to be skeptical of Pratt's actions and his justification for them?

If you had been more familiar with the facts and history of the journey you may have not been as skeptical.

[_Jason Bourne]

Dan, the fact that Mormon leaders were able to keep secrets such as polygamy is evidence. It’s evidence that secret were able to be kept and therefore it’s not unreasonable to carry the reasoning further based on that evidence and assume the possibility that other secrets which may not be fully appreciated were kept.

Once again because you are not familiar with the history you make an error. Polygamy was not kept a secret well at all. The cat was out of the bag pretty early even before Smith was murdered. Some of the leaders who became disaffected because of it, publicized it abroad. William Law tops that list.