DAN VOGEL DISCUSSES THE SPALDING/RIGDON THEORY

[Bedlamite]

I am interested in seeing Dan or Brent respond to your methodology here without engaging in summary dismissals.

-CK

Dismissal is really the best way for historians of Mormon origins to go, CK.

Any validation of what I am saying, would terribly upset the current common consensus, of there having been
no CONSPIRACY behind the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.

So long as that paradigm can be maintained, the LDS, RLDS and Gentile scholars can all get along,
and we can continue to enjoy Sunstone symposiums and Mormon History Association yearly paper readings.

Re-introduce the old CONSPIRACY explanations for Mormonism, and all of that goes down the drain, and the
Mormons will have to get defensive again, and shut us non-LDS out from having access to research materials
and scholarly assistance.

Bad show all around. The scholarly/academic community does not need the Splalding/Rigdon explanations,
and can get along very well without them, thank-you very much!

No wonder nobody is very eager to investigate conspiracy theories -- they are disruptive, even if true.

Uncle Dale

[_Dan Vogel]

Dan,
I think you're genuinely afraid to read our book.

That will be the day. You try to write multi-volume works and see if you don't become selective about what you read.

You can accuse me of ad hominem attacks until you're blue in the face, but the simple truth is that you refuse to view our arguments as stated in our book. As for Roper, he has picked and chosen little pieces here and there to try to make some big points, which the various supporters of different variations of the "Smith wrote it" club gleefully accept without putting any of his claims to any sort of test. Can you honestly tell me that you have examined ANY of Roper's claims in detail. I seriously doubt it. Yet you say that it is somehow up to me to prove our claims? This goes back to the entire issue of Mormonism, which, living in its dream world, tells Christianity that it must somehow "prove itself", while the Johnny-come-lately Mormonism need not offer any proof of its legitimacy.

You ARE using ad hominem instead of discussing Spalding. Why don't you respond to the part of Roper I quoted instead of attack him also? Our discussion about Spalding has nothing to do with the dream world of Mormonism vs the dream world of Christianity.

All of your posturing tells me something very significant. I see you bringing up Roper all the time, as if he were some knight errant who is going forth to slay the mighty Spalding dragon, yet I don't see much mention of Brodie. Has she somehow been diminished due to our book? Of course, there are those who still stubbornly cling to Brodie, like Sandra Tanner, but I think that even she will eventually change her mind.

Asking you to defend your thesis is posturing? What does your hedging mean? I bring up Rope because I quoted his comments about the second Spalding MS, which you have yet to respond to. I doubt Sandra will change her mind if you keep on the way you are.

Getting back to you wondering why I don't just do all of your work for you and print up answers to Roper's claims for you, mainly, I have neither the time nor the inclination at this point to print out page after page of refutation when you and I both know, based on what you have already said, that I probably couldn't offer enough of what you consider "evidence" to convince you of anything.

So instead of debate, ad hominem is the only alternative? It's OK for me to put my arguments together, but you can't be bothered? So why are you here?

As I said before, we are working on a public reply to Roper, and when it is finished, we will release it publicly for all to see. In the meantime, read our book. Even the CD-version which Dale gave to you will go a long way toward showing you our evidence, and since it is in a PDF document, you can rapidly go to any portion of the text and look at whatever you wish.

You don't think I have been doing that? You can just go read my biography for all my refutations! That settles that. I guess there is nothing for us to talk about then. ... Come on, Art! Get off your lazy butt and defend your thesis.

You want answers, then fire up your computer, put in the disc, and do some reading. In the meantime, please, no more smokescreens about what Dale and I will or won't do for you. Frankly, I find it a waste of the forum's bandwidth.

Give me a reason to want to read what you have written. So I can be more informed about the Spalding theory? I need more than that Art! It IS a waste of bandwidth if you are going keep up ad hominal attacks and not contribute anything of substance. So, please reserve the space for those who want to contribute something. If we are unworthy of your time, then go elsewhere. Otherwise, I will find myself asking the mods to delete your posts as non-responsive and indistinguishable from what comes out of trolls.

[_avanick]

Dan,
Here's a little tidbit for you.

REASONS WHY THERE HAD TO HAVE BEEN MORE THAN ONE SPALDING MANUSCRIPT:

Here are seven reasons why Spalding must have written more than one manuscript. (Can anyone produce seven equally credible reasons why he must have written only one?)

(1) Aron Wright to Hurlbut, August 1833: “Spalding had many other manuscripts.” (ref: Howe, 284)

(1a) Aron Wright, December 31, 1833: “Hurlbut is now at my store. I have examined the writings which he has obtained from [said] Spalding’s widowe[.] I recognize them to be the writings handwriting of [said] Spalding but not the Manuscript I had reference to in my statement before alluded to as he informed me he wrote in the first place he wrote for his own amusement and then altered his plan and commenced writing a history of the first Settlement of America the particulars you will find in my testimony dated Sept 18 August 1833 . . . ” (ref: Aron Wright’s unsigned letter of December 31, 1833)

In order to successfully argue that Spalding produced only one manuscript, one must first convincingly impeach Judge Aron Wright’s testimony, yet there is absolutely nothing on record which would give reason to question either his accuracy or his honesty or to suggest that he was actively anti-Mormon. Wright’s testimony is crucial. If one cannot impeach Wright, the argument that Spalding only had one manuscript fails de facto.

(2) John N. Miller to Doctor Philastus Hurlbut, September 1833: “I was soon introduced to the manuscripts of Spalding and perused them as often as I had leisure. He had written two or three books or pamphlets on different subjects; but that which more particularly drew my attention was one which he called the Manuscript Found.” (ref: Howe, 282–83)

(3) Mrs. Matilda Spalding-Davison, November, 1833: According to Howe’s account, the widow Spalding informed Hurlbut that her husband “had a great variety of manuscripts,” and recalled “that one was entitled the Manuscript Found. . . .” (ref: Howe, 287-288)

(4) Matilda Spalding McKinstry, April 3, 1880: “My father was in business there [Conneaut], and I remember his iron foundry and the men he had at work, but that he remained at home most of the time and was reading and writing a great deal. He frequently wrote little stories, which he read to me. . . . In 1816 my father died at Amity, Pennsylvania, and directly after his death my mother and myself went to visit at the residence of my mother’s brother William H. Sabine, at Onondaga Valley, Onondaga County, New York. Mr. Sabine was a lawyer of distinction and wealth, and greatly respected. We carried all our personal effects with us, and one of these was an old trunk, in which my mother had placed all my father’s writings which had been preserved. I perfectly remember the appearance of this trunk, and of looking at its contents. There were sermons and other papers, and I saw a manuscript about an inch thick, closely written, tied with some of the other stories my father had written for me, one of which he called, The Frogs of Wyndham. On the outside of the manuscript were written the words, Manuscript Found. I did not read it, but looked through it and had it in my hands many times, and saw the names I had heard at Conneaut, when my father read it to his friends . . . The Manuscript Found, she [my mother] said, was a romance . . . She had no special admiration for it more than other romances he wrote and read to her.” (ref: Statement given at Washington, DC, April 3, 1880)

(4a) Matilda Spalding McKinstry, November 2, 1886: “I have read much of the Manuscript Story Conneaut Creek which you sent me. I know that it is not the Manuscript Found which contained the words ‘Nephi, Mormon, Maroni, and Laminites.’ Do the Mormons expect to deceive the public by leaving off the title page—Conneaut Creek and calling it Manuscript Found and Manuscript Story[?]” (ref: McKinstry to Deming, Nov. 2, 1886, Chicago Hist. Soc.)

(5) Rachel Derby, daughter of John N. Miller, December 9, 1884: “Father told him [Hurlbut] that the Manuscript Found was not near all of Spalding’s writings. . . .” (ref: Deming, 1,1, col.7)

(6) L. L. Rice, May 30,1885: “there is no outcome of the quarrel, as the story is evidently unfinished, and stops abruptly.” (ref: Rice to James Fairchild, May 30, 1885) This in itself indicates Manuscript Story cannot have been a copy of the manuscript that Spalding had prepared for the Pattersons, because that manuscript was said to have been complete except for a preface and title page (see chapter 5 of our text).

(7) E. D. Howe to Elder T. W. Smith, July 26, 1881: “The manuscript you refer to was not marked on the outside or inside Manuscript Found . . . it was not the original Manuscript Found.” (ref; Howe to Smith, in Shook, 75-76)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FIVE ADDITIONAL POINTS:

(A) Benjamin Winchester’s premise that Hurlbut, motivated by a desire “to obtain revenge,”(ref: Winchester [1840], 6) concocted a notorious fabrication around Spalding and then sought to deceive the world with it, is both illogical and untenable in light of Hurlbut’s subsequent behavior. If he knew from the very beginning that the entire story of a Spalding-Book of Mormon connection was nothing more than the product of his own vengeful imagina­tion, a creation deliberately designed to deceive, then it makes no sense whatsoever that Hurlbut would devote all of his energies over the next several months to seeking out the very manuscript which, once found and compared to The Book of Mormon, would not only destroy the theory he had striven so hard to promote, but would likely wreck whatever was left of his own reputation in the process. In other words, the presumption that Hurlbut would actively promote a lie and then set out on a quest to uncover the one piece of evidence capable of exposing him as a liar is patent­ly absurd.

(B) In December of 1833, Hurlbut returned to Conneaut with Spalding’s “Manuscript Story” in hand and proceeded to show it to Spalding’s former neighbors, who verified that it was NOT the manuscript to which they had referred in their various statements. (ref: Howe, 288; Aron Wright’s unsigned letter of Dec. 31, 1833) In order to refute this, one must claim that Hurlbut initially manipulated his witnesses, and that the deception stuck even after they were shown the original manuscript containing the very same story about which their memories had allegedly been manipulated in the first place. Isn’t it odd that, upon being confronted with Spalding’s original, not one of them ever said, “Why yes, this is the story you were trying to get me to recall, and it’s nothing like you coached me into saying it was”?

(C) Concerning the existence of more than one Spalding manuscript, the words of Rev. Robert Patterson, Jr. are worth repeating (ref: Patterson Jr. to J.H. Fairchild, Sept. 22, 1885):
“When so many hearers of the story in different places concur in their recollections of names constantly recurring in the story, and when some of them heard it read again and again, it seems impos­sible that, after twenty years, they should confound it with a story [i.e. Manuscript Story]... in which not one of these familiar and unique names of persons and places did once occur. The memory of people who, at that period, read or heard very few romances, would be all the more tenacious of the few (it might be the only one) they did hear....
“Moreover, it is unitedly testified by these witnesses that before Spalding became a bankrupt, and when he wrote only to while away the hours of his illness, without any thought of making money by publishing his book, his purpose in the story they heard him read was to show (seemingly) that our Indians were descended from the ten lost tribes. He therefore started the colonists from Jerusalem. This was the raison d’être-- the very foundation-- of the whole fiction. How is it possible that such a story in 20 years became confused in the memory of those who heard it with a story which left the Jews out altogether?”

(D) The very physical appear­ance of the Oberlin manuscript itself virtually destroys the Mormon argument that this was the same work Spalding submitted to the Pattersons for their consideration.
First of all, Story was never finished. It progresses, howbeit fitfully, up to the point of a final war, devotes about forty pages to a description of that war, and then ends abruptly in the middle of a page just as the two opposing armies appear ready to begin the final battle.
Secondly, this manuscript cannot possibly have been the one Spalding took to the Pattersons, for it is hardly fit for publication. For example, a number of changes in the spellings of proper names occur through­out the text; Siota becoming Sciota, Hadokam changing to Hadoram, Bombal to Banbo, Labarmock to Labamack, Lambon to Lambdon (note the similarity to Lambdin here-- q.v. Chapt. IV), and Mammoons being later designated as Mammouths. In one especially confusing passage, two Kentucks who sneak into the Sciotan camp by night are identified as Thelford and Hamkien on one page, and as Kelsock and Hamkoo on the next. Later, even Hamkoo changes to Hamko” Aside from the fact that the manuscript itself is incomplete, can anyone imagine that Spalding actually submitted such a work to the Pattersons for their erudite consideration?
Furthermore, Story begins as a first-person narrative told by its hero Fabius, and remains thus through chapter four. In chapters five through eight however, only a few passages are in the first person; and in all the remaining text (which comprises more than half the manuscript) everything is written in the third-person. These chapters contain lengthy and often intimate conversations, but provide the reader with no explanation as to how Fabius could have obtained such information. “As Spalding neared the end of his story, he must have realized that he had no plausible way to return to his first-person account,” and that radical changes to his manuscript would be necessary in order to reconcile this difficulty.
Consider also the circular logic used by Mormon writers when they criticize supporters of the Spalding Enigma who hold that there must have been at least one other Spalding manuscript in existence. The Mormons claim, of course, that Spalding wrote only one manuscript, the one which Hurlbut found in the trunk, Manuscript Story-- Conneaut Creek, which, as we have shown, is obviously unfinished and in no condition to be presented to a publisher. Yet they do not question that Spalding took a manu­script to the Patterson brothers for their consideration. If not this one, then which one?

(E) Another piece of evidence indicating that Manuscript Story and A Manuscript Found were not one and the same can be found in the recollections of Redick McKee and Joseph Miller, Sr., both of whom befriended the Spaldings during their residence at Amity between 1814 and 1816, and later recorded statements providing many details about Solomon, his family, and his manuscript. What is important here is the fact that both individuals recalled a certain specif­ic detail about Spalding’s A Manuscript Found which seems to have escaped prior notice.
According to Miller: “...When Mr. Spalding lived in Amity, Pa., I was well acquainted with him.... He had in his possession some papers which he said he had written. He used to read select portions of these papers to amuse us of evenings. These papers were detached sheets of foolscap. He said he wrote the papers as a novel. He called it the Manuscript Found, or The Lost Manuscript Found. He said he wrote it to pass away the time when he was unwell; and after it was written he thought he would publish it as a novel, as a means to support his family.”(ref: Washington, PA, Reporter, April 8, 1869; Creigh, [1870], 89-93. Miller’s statement is dated March 26, 1869) And, “...Mr. S. was poor but honest. I endorsed for him twice to borrow money. His house was a place of common resort especially in the evening. I was presenting my trade as a carpenter, in the village and frequented his house. Mr. S. seemed to take delight in reading from his manuscript written on foolscap for the entertain­ment of his frequent visitors, heard him read most if not all of it, and had frequent conversations with him about it.”(ref: Pittsburgh Telegraph, Feb. 6, 1879)
According to Redick McKee: “One day when I called he [Spalding] was writing upon foolscap paper, taken from some old account book. My curiosity was excited, and I said to him, that if he was writing letters I could furnish him with more suitable paper. He replied that he was not writing let­ters, but... [a] story he called The Manuscript Found. It purported to give a history of the ten tribes, their disputes and dissentions... etc.”(ref: McKee to Deming, Jan. 25, 1886, in Chicago Hist. Soc.)
These memories constitute an extremely important detail because foolscap was a very special kind of paper with particularly distinguishing and readily identifiable characteristics. An examination of the original manuscript of Spalding’s Manuscript Story, conducted at our request by Roland M. Baumann, Archivist of Oberlin College’s Mudd Library, revealed that no foolscap was employed in the creation of that work.

Art

[_CaliforniaKid]

Interesting, Art. I can see I am going to have to read your book. (Which, by the way, arrived in the mail from Amazon last week.)

[_Uncle Dale]

If Cowdery is Rigdon's accomplice, why does he stop with the Smith's for the winter to teach school?
Like Parley P. Pratt's story, it was rather fortuitous that Cowdery's brother Lyman suggested to
Hyrum Smith that his brother teach in the Manchester school. It was also fortuitous for the Smiths
to offer Cowdery room and board -- by which means he was able to learn about the plates and get an
introduction to Joseph Jr.

Unfortunately all of this comes from a single source and is not reliable history. Until more confirmation
can be located in other old (preferrably older than the 1850s) sources, the choronology of events here
is provisional, at best.

It does not make sense that Lyman, who had an occupation of his own in the Lyons/Arcadia area, would have
gone so far afield as Manchester seeking part-time work, and leaving his family behind. So, I question the
notion that Lyman was first contracted to teach school in Manchester and then backed out, allowing his younger
brother to fill in for him. On the other hand, Mother Smith knew very well who Lyman was, since he soon after
was in court, "persecuting" the earliest Mormons on behalf of Lucy Harris. Mother Smith may have some wires
crossed here.

David Whitmer (and others) say that Oliver was previously (1826-27?) a school-teacher in the Fayette/Waterloo
area. He was receiving mail nearby during that period, so it may well be that Oliver was already a teacher in
the area. This possibility should be checked out --- but do not expect Richard L. Anderson or Scott Faulring to
divulge any of their findings on the subject very soon --- I doubt there will be much additional information in the Cowdery
volume due out from BYU later this year, as it will mostly reprise the "vanilla" Cowdery symposium papers.

Lorenzo Saunders recalled Oliver having taught the winter before (1827-28?) at the next school-house south of
the Manchester school near the Smiths. If true, this would have put Oliver in the Stafford family's money-digging
realm (see Bushman). It is altogether possible that Oliver's divining rod skills brought him into contact with
both the Staffords of southern Geauga Co., Ohio and the much closer money-digging Staffords of Manchester, NY.
At least these things ought to be investigated. It is possible that additional sources mentioning Oliver in NY in
the 1820s may yet turn up.

If Cowdery brought a revised MS with him containing a rewrite of the lost 116 pages (which according to
Criddle included Rigdon's new Walter Scott-inspired theology), why did Cowdery want to try his hand at
translation only to fail?

Again, this is a single-source account originating with Smith and Cowdery themselves. If there was a conspiracy
in process, involving the two of them, we cannot simply take their word as being the unvarnished truth. I think
it would be better to try and find out exactly what Cowdery's "translation" efforts consisted of. According to some
experts, he drafted the 1835 D&C section on monogamous marriage, as well as the earlier EMS/BoC section on
the Articles of the Church. Did Cowdery himself write any of the Book of Mormon text? I would not close the door too fast
upon that possibility.

As for Cowdery serving as a middle-man between Rigdon and Smith, that is pure speculation. It may be true,
but until some sort of reliable evidence surfaces in support of that idea, it cannot be relied upon as history.

However, if Cowdery was involved in writing/editing some of the O-MS, (or even attempted to offer some
contribution that was refused) such a possible involvment on his part neither negates nor demonstrates another
contribution from Rigdon. The better "contra" argument in this case would be that Cowdery's "word-print" has
yet to be conclusively shown within the Book of Mormon text; and that, even if there were such indications, conspiracy
theories grow exponentially more improbable with the addition of each new conspirator after the first two.

When Smith and Cowdery sit down to translate, why does the text seem to reflect issues emanating from their
new relationship--rather than from Rigdon's world?

Probably so, because that was exactly the situation -- much of the provisionally "identifiable" material does
"seem to reflect issues emanating from their... world," and that should tells that theirs was the final redaction
of the narrative. None of which rules out an underlying contribution from Rigdon. It would be useful if some
investigator were to tabulate the purported Rigdonite contributions and the purported NY/PA-originating
stuff in the book. But that would call for a "fancy chart" and the results could be summarily dismissed over a
quibble about some "more part" of the text, I suppose.

This last point needs some background. In my analysis of the Book of Mormon, there seems to be an interweaving of
the Book of Mormon's text with Joseph Smith's ongoing experiences in Harmony.

I think that is very possible. A student at my wife's highschool wrote a novelette called "Huck Finn in Hawaii."
She used a couple of chapters of the basic Mark Twain story, but changed the setting to Hawaii and interjected
a bunch of local culture and events from her own family life. The results were not terribly good, but then again
not too bad for a 13-year-old. I suspect that something along these same lines could have been accomplished
by Smith and Cowdery, working from a pre-existing source, which they had "permission" to edit to some extent.

...I have argued that this pre-Cowdery dictation was probably limited to King Benjamin's three-part speech.
The following is a probable reconstruction... Appealing to a sense of guilt for inadequacy, which was both
universally applicable and particularly relevant to Harris’s loss of the manuscript, Benjamin declares:
“For behold, are we not all beggars? ... And behold, even at this time, ye have been calling on his name,
and begging for a remission of your sins” (Mos. 4:19, 20). The speech becomes even more specific: “And
I would that ye should remember, that whosoever among you should return the thing that he borroweth,
according as he doth agree, or else thou shalt commit sin; and perhaps thou shalt cause thy neighbor to
commit sin also” (v. 28). In most cases, it is the borrower who bears the guilt, but in this case the lender is provoked to sin as well (D&C 3:9).

All of which falls outside of the "Spaldingish" sections of the text -- and probably also outside of the Rigdonite
sections. Spalding was dead and could not have crafted the "contemporary" additions. Rigdon was probably
far away, and his imput in creating "contemporary" stuff is problematic but not impossible. Smith and Cowdery
were on the scene and are the most likely of the "likely suspects" for such stuff (assuming it to be an addition).

April 1829 -- Oliver Cowdery and Samuel Smith arrive at Harmon... [and the Book of Mormon translation is then] virtually
paralleling Joseph’s own story of translating the gold plates and their history of a lost race, Ammon’s words to
Limhi include subtle responses to Joseph’s immediate environment. Ammon’s words also helped to define the relationship between Smith and Cowdery. Shortly after the new scribe’s arrival, it became apparent to Smith
that Cowdery had come with his own competent gifts, one of which was working with a divining rod. Perhaps through Ammon’s exchange with Limhi, Joseph was asserting the superiority of his gift over that of Cowdery’s,
as if to say that “a seer is greater than a rodworker.” ... D&C 6 ... D&C 7 ... etc....

Indeed --- much of your interpretation of things at this point may be right "on the money," but that does not
mean that you have uncovered the full story.

Were I you, Dan, I'd hold open at least the slender possibility that there is more to the story than that,
and that (perish the thought!) you may even be wrong in a few of your historical re-interpretations.

Allow a .000001% chance for a pre-Dec. 1830 Rigdon contact, and you'll have no enemy in me.

It is when you get so adament that you are so correct that you can summarily dismiss alternative possibilities,
that I lose patience with you.

Dale

[_avanick]

Dear Dan and Dale,
While there are some overlaps here and there with my previous post, I thought that you might find this interesting. Since we are still in the process of putting together our Roper rebuttal, perhaps these comments made in rebuttal to an interview with Van Hale, a Salt Lake City talk show host, will suffice for now. Dale knows that we disagree with him in some areas regarding the Spalding claims and there is certainly room for disagreement. Dan, like Dale, what irritates me are your various pronouncements made throughout your various posts where you act as though you are totally correct and that the Spalding claims are completely wrong, whether you have said it or not, and without fully investigating the Spalding claims. By the way, I believe that you may find some of Roper's points addressed in this rebuttal.

In any case, here is our Hale rebuttal:

PROGRAM: Mormon Miscellaneous
HOST: Van Hale
DATE: Sunday, December 4
TIME: 5:00 - 7:00 pm MST

SUBJECT: "Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon?"
RADIO STATION: KTKK 630 AM, Salt Lake City (with LIVE INTERNET FEED)

============= Notes for December 4th program ==================

1. Mr. Hale said he was skeptical of reminiscences provided by persons as late as 50 years after the publication of The Book of Mormon. He implied that he wished to see pre-1831 sources which described Solomon Spalding's literary production and/or Sidney Rigdon's opportunities to have contacted members of the Joseph Smith, Sr. family living in western New York.

Reply: We all have our wish-lists. Wouldn’t it be nice to have non self-serving, pre-1831 accounts of the Smith family’s activities instead of having to base nearly the entire early history of a church upon one’s faith in the integrity of a young man whose several accounts of his alleged first meeting with divine beings are self-contradictory and, even in the earliest instance, were not recorded until a dozen years after the fact? Meanwhile the best we can do as responsible historians is to carefully analyze the evidence we DO have in-hand and base our arguments and conclusions upon it rather than waste valuable time and resources lamenting about that which we not only do not have but which seems unlikely to exist in any case.

2. Mr. Hale said that testimony of early neighbors of the Smith family should have included specific points later brought up by Lorenzo Saunders, if those points were common knowledge. The fact that Howe did not include statements about Rigdon impregnating Catherine Smith seems to show that Saunders was not being truthful about that particular allegation. Mr. Hale said he did not believe that such a story was in circulation at an early date. Mr. Hale wished to know WHEN Lorenzo Saunders moved from the Palmyra area -- was he still there in late 1833?

Reply: Lorenzo Saunders moved to Michigan in 1854 at the age of 43 [Gilbert to Cobb, Oct. 14, 1879; L. Saunders, July 21, 1887]. The story about Rigdon’s having impregnated Catherine Smith first appears in L. Saunders to Walmart.H. Kelley, Sep. 17,1884 [see Spalding Enigma, 318], wherein Saunders was asked “What kind of a woman was old Mother Smith?” and replied, “She was a poor simple thing, about 1/2 witted-- could not tell a straight story. In 1828 or 30 the story was around the neighborhood that Catherine Smith was pregnant by Rigdon and there was a young Savior to be born, but at the birth it was a female child. This story was only hearsay.” This last sentence alone should be sufficient to dismiss this issue [J.H. Gilbert, affidavit, July 12,1881; Gilbert to T. Gregg, June 19,1881] .
As a matter of record, Saunders was not the only one to comment upon Catherine Smith’s morals. Christopher M. Stafford (born in Manchester, NY in 1808) stated to Deming on March 23, 1885 that “Catherine’s reputation for virtue was not good;” and Elisha W. Vanderhoof (who was born in Palmyra in 1832 and had apparently heard the story from neighborhood sources) adds that the child only lived a few hours and that those who attributed its paternity to Rigdon were “scoffers and the unregenerate” [1907, pp.166-7].
Fortunately there are more important points to be made about Saunders’ testimony, such as his correctness concerning an 1826 Cowdery-family connection with a town named Kirtland in Ohio, and the fact that Oliver Cowdery had taught two terms at schools near the Smith’s farm instead of only one as previously thought. No one had recognized either of these significant details prior to the publication of The Spalding Enigma.
As to why Howe [1834] makes no reference to Lorenzo Saunders in his book, perhaps Saunders was not interviewed by Hurlbut for some reason, or perhaps he was and his statement was among the many omitted by Howe from his book for lack of space, and later lost in the fire which destroyed the Telegraph office about 1841 [Howe toDeming, April 8, 1885, “I published only a small part of the statements Hurlbut let me have...”; and, in re the fire, Howe to T.W. Smith, July 26, 1881]. Let us remember that lack of evidence does not, in and of itself, constitute proof that no such evidence ever existed.

3. Mr. Hale said that he did not believe that the "Henry Ringdon" mentioned by Bennett in 1831 had anything to do with the ex-Baptist preacher, Sidney Rigdon of Ohio, Mr. Hale said that he felt that the Ringdon reference was a mistaken reference to the Palmyra area money-diggers having solicited the help of Walters the Magician.

Reply: Mr. Hale unfortunately fails to note that James Gordon Bennett specifically identifies “Ringdon” or “Rangdon” as an ex-preacher from “near Painesville,” Ohio, on no less than six different occasions in his New York Morning Courier and Enquirer articles of Aug.31-Sept.1, 1831; as well as in his diary (where the name is given as “Henry Rigdon”). There can be NO mistake about the intended reference here since Luman Walters, the Magician, was neither an ex-preacher, nor did he ever live anywhere near Painesville, Ohio. Moreover it seems unlikely that Palmyra residents would confuse Rigdon, a complete outsider, with Walters, the notorious local (if one dares credit his press).
If Mr. Hale’s objection is based upon his difficulty with seeing Rigdon as a money-digger, we would remind him of Rigdon’s documented participation in the ill-fated treasure-seeking mission to Salem, Massachusetts in 1836, and his fascinating 1853 letter to Lyman Wight about wanting to seek gold in Texas. Both of these speak to Rigdon’s interest in treasure hunting-- a subject he would hardly talk about in his public sermons-- whereas Mr. Hale offers nothing to the contrary except to cite Rigdon’s “public” reputation. The rest of the business about his having been all along the Eastern shore, etc., is typical hype—whoever was recounting the tale was simply telling the other money-diggers what they wanted to hear so they would help raise the money needed to fetch Rigdon.
In the final analysis, Mr. Hale’s totally unsupported and shamelessly self-serving conjecture, however interesting it may be, is simply not strong enough to overcome the reportage of a credible, veteran newsman like James Gordon Bennett. Let us not forget that Bennett troubled to record the results of his investigation, not 50 years after the fact, but in the summer of 1831, when events were still fresh in people’s minds, and fully a year before Joseph Smith, Jr. first undertook to record an account of his alleged encounter with divine beings which, he said, had taken place some 12 years earlier.

4. Mr. Hale asked why E. D. Howe had left out material connecting Sidney Rigdon with the origin of the Book of Mormon, if he had such statements available to him for publication. Mr. Hale mentioned that Howe's attempt to make such a connection did not come until the last pages of his book.

Reply: Hurlbut’s apparent failure to ask ANY of his witnesses about Rigdon is easily explained if one accepts the argument that Hurlbut remained unaware of any Spalding-Rigdon-Pittsburgh connection until just before he dropped out of the game and turned everything he had collected over to Howe, and that Howe, for his part, was a businessman more interested in seeing his book into print than he was an intrepid investigator bent upon trying to put more pieces of the puzzle together. Remember that Howe sold the Telegraph and left Painesville to run a woolen mill less than six weeks after his book Mormonism Unvailed was published [Howe, Autobiography (1878),46; and Howe to Deming, April 8, 1885], after which he had nothing more to do with the Spalding Enigma for nearly another half-century. The tragedy for history here is that BOTH Hurlbut and Howe failed to take their investigation to Amity, PA, where they would undoubtedly have found many more answers at that early date. Had they done so, Mr. Hale might well be a Lutheran today instead of a Mormon.

5. Mr. Hale said that he believed that Solomon Spalding only wrote one fictional story, and that when this story was shown to them late in 1833, that they only then began to provide reminiscences which included the insertion of BoM-specific names and narrative information into their public statements.

Reply: Mr. Hale’s argument that Spalding wrote only one manuscript is supported only by his own conjecture. Here are seven reasons why Spalding must have written more than one.
-(A) Aron Wright to Hurlbut, August,1833: “Spalding had many other manuscripts” [Howe,284]; and (A1), Aron Wright, December 31, 1833: “Hurlbut is now at my store. I have examined the writings which he has obtained from [said] Spalding’s widowe[.] I recognize them to be the writings handwriting of [said] Spalding but not the Manuscript I had reference to in my statement before alluded to as he informed me he wrote in the first place he wrote for his own amusement and then altered his plan and commenced writing a history of the first Settlement of America the particulars you will find in my testimony dated Sept 18 August 1833...” [Aron Wright’s unsigned letter of December 31, 1833]. See our reply to point #8 below for additional comment on Aron Wright.
-(B) John N. Miller to Hurlbut, September 1833: “I was soon introduced to the manuscripts of Spalding and perused them as often as I had leisure. He had written two or three books or pamphlets on different subjects; but that which more particularly drew my attention was one which he called the Manuscript Found...” [Howe, 282-3].
-(C) Mrs. Matilda Spalding-Davison, November, 1833: According to Howe’s account, the widow Spalding informed Hurlbut that her husband “had a great variety of manuscripts,” and recalled “that one was entitled the Manuscript Found...” [Howe, 287-8].
-(D) Matilda Spalding McKinstry, April 3, 1880: “My father was in business there [at Conneaut], and I remember his iron foundry and the men he had at work, but that he remained at home most of the time and was reading and writing a great deal. He frequently wrote little stories, which he read to me.... In 1816 my father died at Amity, Pennsylvania, and directly after his death my mother and myself went to visit at the residence of my mother’s brother William H. Sabine, at Onondaga Valley, Onondaga County, New York. Mr. Sabine was a lawyer of distinction and wealth, and greatly respected. We carried all our personal effects with us, and one of these was an old trunk, in which my mother had placed all my father’s writings which had been preserved [Statement given at Washington, DC, April 3, 1880]. Also, (D1) Matilda Spalding McKinstry, November 2, 1886: “I have read much of the Manuscript Story Conneaut Creek which you sent me. I know that it is not the Manuscript Found which contained the words ‘Nephi, Mormon, Maroni, and Laminites.’ Do the Mormons expect to deceive the public by leaving off the title page—Conneaut Creek and calling it Manuscript Found and Manuscript Story[?]” [McKinstry to Deming, Nov. 2, 1886]
-(E) Rachel Derby, daughter of John N. Miller, December 9, 1884: “Father told him [Hurlbut] that the Manuscript Found was not near all of Spalding’s writings....” [Deming, Truths 1,1, col.7]
-(F) L. L. Rice, May 30,1885: “there is no outcome of the quarrel, as the story is evidently unfinished, and stops abruptly” [Rice to James Fairchild, May 30, 1885]. This in itself indicates Manuscript Story cannot have been a copy of the manuscript that Spalding had prepared for the Pattersons, because that manuscript was said to have been complete except for a preface and title page.
-(G) E. D. Howe to Elder T. W. Smith, July 26, 1881: “The manuscript you refer to was not marked on the outside or inside Manuscript Found . . . it was not the original Manuscript Found” [Shook, 75-76].

FIVE ADDITIONAL POINTS:
(1) Benjamin Winchester’s premise that Hurlbut, motivated by a desire “to obtain revenge” [Winchester (1840),6], concocted a notorious fabrication around Spalding and then sought to deceive the world with it, is both illogical and untenable in light of Hurlbut’s subsequent behavior. If he knew from the very beginning that the entire story of a Spalding-Book of Mormon connection was nothing more than the product of his own vengeful imagina­tion, a creation deliberately designed to deceive, then it makes no sense whatsoever that Hurlbut would devote all of his energies over the next several months to seeking out the very manuscript which, once found and compared to The Book of Mormon, would not only destroy the theory he had striven so hard to promote, but would likely wreck whatever was left of his own reputation in the process. In other words, the presumption that Hurlbut would actively promote a lie and then set out on a quest to uncover the one piece of evidence capable of exposing him as a liar is patent­ly absurd.
(2) As already noted above, in December of 1833 Hurlbut returned to Conneaut with Spalding’s “Manuscript Story” in hand and proceeded to show it to Spalding’s former neighbors, who verified that it was NOT the manuscript to which they had referred in their various statements [Howe, 288; Aron Wright’s unsigned letter of Dec. 31, 1833]. In order to refute this, one must claim that Hurlbut initially manipulated his witnesses, and that the deception stuck even after they were shown the original manuscript containing the very same story about which their memories had allegedly been manipulated in the first place. Isn’t it odd that, upon being confronted with Spalding’s original, not one of them ever said, “Why yes, this is the story you were trying to get me to recall, and it’s nothing like you coached me into saying it was”?
(3) Concerning the existence of more than one Spalding manuscript, the words of Rev. Robert Patterson, Jr. are worth repeating [Patterson Jr. to J.H. Fairchild, Sept. 22, 1885]: “When so many hearers of the story in different places concur in their recollections of names constantly recurring in the story, and when some of them heard it read again and again, it seems impos­sible that, after twenty years, they should confound it with a story [i.e. Manuscript Story]... in which not one of these familiar and unique names of persons and places did once occur. The memory of people who, at that period, read or heard very few romances, would be all the more tenacious of the few (it might be the only one) they did hear.... Moreover, it is unitedly testified by these witnesses that before Spalding became a bankrupt, and when he wrote only to while away the hours of his illness, without any thought of making money by publishing his book, his purpose in the story they heard him read was to show (seemingly) that our Indians were descended from the ten lost tribes. He therefore started the colonists from Jerusalem. This was the raison d’être-- the very foundation-- of the whole fiction. How is it possible that such a story in 20 years became confused in the memory of those who heard it with a story which left the Jews out altogether?”
(4) The very physical appear­ance of the Oberlin manuscript itself virtually destroys the Mormon argument that this was the same work Spalding submitted to the Pattersons for their consideration. First of all, “Manuscript Story” was never finished. It progresses, howbeit fitfully, up to the point of a final war, devotes about forty pages to a description of that war, and then ends abruptly in the middle of a page just as the two opposing armies appear ready to begin the final battle. Secondly, this manuscript cannot possibly have been the one Spalding took to the Pattersons, for it is hardly fit for publication. For example, a number of changes in the spellings of proper names occur through­out the text; Siota becoming Sciota, Hadokam changing to Hadoram, Bombal to Banbo, Labarmock to Labamack, Lambon to Lambdon (note the similarity to Lambdin here), and Mammoons being later designated as Mammouths. In one especially confusing passage, two Kentucks who sneak into the Sciotan camp by night are identified as Thelford and Hamkien on one page, and as Kelsock and Hamkoo on the next. Later, even Hamkoo changes to Hamko” Aside from the fact that the manuscript itself is incomplete, can anyone imagine that Spalding actually submitted such a work to the Pattersons for their erudite consideration? Furthermore, Story begins as a first-person narrative told by its hero Fabius, and remains thus through chapter four. In chapters five through eight however, only a few passages are in the first person; and in all the remaining text (which comprises more than half the manuscript) everything is written in the third-person. These chapters contain lengthy and often intimate conversations, but provide the reader with no explanation as to how Fabius could have obtained such information. “As Spalding neared the end of his story, he must have realized that he had no plausible way to return to his first-person account,” and that radical changes to his manuscript would be necessary in order to reconcile this difficulty. Consider also the circular logic used by Mormon writers when they criticize supporters of the Spalding Enigma who hold that there must have been at least one other Spalding manuscript in existence. Mormons claim, of course, that Spalding wrote only one manuscript, the one which Hurlbut found in the trunk, “Manuscript Story-- Conneaut Creek,” which, as we have shown, is obviously unfinished and in no condition to be presented to a publisher. Yet they do not question that Spalding took a manu­script to the Patterson brothers for their consideration. If not this one, then which one?
(5) Another piece of evidence indicating that “Manuscript Story” and “A Manuscript Found” were not one and the same can be found in the recollections of Redick McKee and Joseph Miller, Sr., both of whom befriended the Spaldings during their residence at Amity between 1814 and 1816, and later recorded statements providing many details about Solomon, his family, and his manuscript. What is important here is the fact that both individuals recalled a certain specif­ic detail about Spalding’s “A Manuscript Found” which seems to have escaped prior notice.
According to Miller: “...When Mr. Spalding lived in Amity, Pa., I was well acquainted with him.... He had in his possession some papers which he said he had written. He used to read select portions of these papers to amuse us of evenings. These papers were detached sheets of foolscap. He said he wrote the papers as a novel. He called it the Manuscript Found, or The Lost Manuscript Found. He said he wrote it to pass away the time when he was unwell; and after it was written he thought he would publish it as a novel, as a means to support his family.”[Washington (PA) Reporter, April 8, 1869; Creigh, (1870), 89-93] And, “...Mr. S. was poor but honest. I endorsed for him twice to borrow money. His house was a place of common resort especially in the evening. I was presenting my trade as a carpenter, in the village and frequented his house. Mr. S. seemed to take delight in reading from his manuscript written on foolscap for the entertain­ment of his frequent visitors, heard him read most if not all of it, and had frequent conversations with him about it.”[Pittsburgh Telegraph, Feb. 6, 1879]
According to Redick McKee: “One day when I called he [Spalding] was writing upon foolscap paper, taken from some old account book. My curiosity was excited, and I said to him, that if he was writing letters I could furnish him with more suitable paper. He replied that he was not writing let­ters, but... [a] story he called The Manuscript Found. It purported to give a history of the ten tribes, their disputes and dissentions... etc.”[McKee to Deming, Jan. 25, 1886]
These memories constitute an extremely important detail because foolscap was a very special kind of paper with particularly distinguishing and readily identifiable characteristics. An examination of the original manuscript of Spalding’s “Manuscript Story,” conducted at our request by Roland M. Baumann, Archivist of Oberlin College’s Mudd Library, revealed that no foolscap was employed in the creation of that work.

6. Mr. Hale argued that Solomon Spalding could not have possibly begun work upon a second fictional story regarding the ancient inhabitants of the Americas, until some time after June, 1812, because of the beginning of a draft letter bearing that date in the Oberlin MS. -- Thus Oliver Smith could not testify that he read BoM-specific information in a Spalding MS as early as 1809, etc.

Reply: First, the date on the draft letter in question is January 1812, not June. The writing reads “Jan” and January is commonly abbreviated as such, whereas it is difficult to imagine anyone abbreviating June when it contains only four letters.
Secondly, is Mr. Hale trying to argue that it would have been impossible for Spalding to have been working on two or more different manuscripts at the same time; or that he could not have started one, perhaps during the time he was staying with Oliver Smith, then laid it aside for a while to work on another, and then went back to the first again after some time had passed? In fact, the only thing the “draft letter” really tells us by its place in the manuscript is that Spalding only added 37 more pages to this particular work between January of 1812 and his death at Amity almost five years later—which hardly suggests this was the manuscript he had so painstakingly prepared for the Pattersons.

7. Mr. Hale argued that since early witnesses for the Spalding authorship claims spoke of a story in which the Israelite "Ten Tribes" began a journey from Jerusalem to the New World, that the claims were untrue -- that Spalding would never have brought the ten tribes forth from Jerusalem.

Reply: And precisely HOW does Mr. Hale presume to know this? Spalding was writing fiction, remember; and fiction, by definition, is invention. Historically speaking however, it seems reasonable to presume that immediately after the fall of the Northern Kingdom (the House of Israel) to the Assyrians in 723BCE, a flood of refugees would have headed south into Judah, and that some of these could have stopped in Jerusalem for a time and then migrated elsewhere taking their traditions with them. In support of this, both Jeremiah and Ezekiel testify to the continuing presence of Israelites in Judah before the Babylonian invasion of that land in 586 BCE [Ezek. VIII:9, IX:9; Jer. XXXII:31].

8. Mr. Hale dismissed the Dec. 31, 1833 Aron Wright letter as useless for historical evidence, since Wright said in that letter that he had recognized Solomon Spalding's handwriting -- and that it was very unlikely that he could do that, since even modern investigators were on record as disagreeing over which old specimens of handwriting can actually be traced back to Spalding's pen.

Reply: What is the point of this argument? Is Mr. Hale trying to suggest that the manuscript Hurlbut showed to Aron Wright and others wasn’t in Spalding’s handwriting? If so, has he forgotten that Hurlbut obtained it from the widow Spalding’s trunk at Hartwick? The fact that Wright recognized it as “the writings handwriting of [said] Spalding but not the Manuscript I had reference to in my statement before alluded to” clearly speaks for itself. Moreover, the only basis Mr. Hale provides for denying that Aron Wright could have recognized Solomon Spalding’s handwriting, is Mr. Hale’s own self-serving pronouncement that this was unlikely. For all we know, Spalding’s handwriting could have been as familiar to Wright as his own.
Moreover, it is important to note that Judge Wright first said he recognized the manuscript he was shown as “the writings” of Solomon Spalding, and then corrected his wording to say “handwriting,” thus suggesting that he recognized BOTH the manuscript AND the handwriting as belonging to Spalding. If one wished to make an issue of it, one might argue that Wright changed his words so as to make it clear to anyone reading his statement that the manuscript he had examined was Spalding’s original and not a copy made by someone else—an important point of distinction to someone with a legal mind.
We concede that in order to prevail with the argument that Spalding produced only one manuscript, one must first convincingly impeach Judge Aron Wright’s testimony. Yet there is absolutely nothing on record which would give reason to question either his accuracy or his honesty, or to suggest that he was actively anti-Mormon. Wright’s testimony is crucial. If one cannot impeach Wright, the argument that Spalding only had one manuscript fails de facto.

9. Mr. Hale said that the title "Manuscript Story" could not have been applied by Solomon Spalding to the Oberlin MS, because it was found wrapped in a sheet of paper which did not contain Spalding's handwriting. Mr. Hale deduced this fact (?) based upon his comparison of a very faint penciled "C" at the beginning of the first title written on the wrapper, with other capital "Cs" written by Spalding.

Reply: To argue that the title “Manuscript Story” cannot have been Spalding’s title simply because the handwriting on the wrapper does not appear to match Spalding’s handwriting is both irrelevant and something of a stretch. Perhaps the writing was his wife’s, placed there when she packed her husband’s manuscripts for shipment to New York. Since no samples of her handwriting appear to be readily available for comparison, no one can say for sure. Clearly the writing is not Hurlbut’s, since the script does not match his either; nor, for the same reason, can it be that of the mysterious writer of the January, 1812 draft letter which appears in the manuscript at page 132. The handwriting could be that of Eber Howe, based upon the limited sample of his writing that we have in-file. In the final analysis however, both the nature of the wrapper and the handwriting which appears upon it are largely irrelevant to the matter at hand, and therefore to avoid further dispute we are more than happy to concede that the writing in question is probably not that of Solomon Spalding, nor of Hurlbut, nor of the unknown writer of the draft letter dated January, 1812. All things considered, we venture to postulate that it is most likely the handwriting of Spalding’s widow, and that she placed the wrapper around the manuscript and wrote the inscription while packing her late husband’s effects for shipment to New York c.1817. An alternative possibility is that both the wrapper and the inscription originated with Howe, who, according to his statement of April 8, 1885, indicates that he was at least aware Spalding had entitled this work “Conneaut Story,” although, unfortunately, he provides no indication of how he came to know this.

10. Mr. Hale discounted Mrs. Eichbaum's reminiscence, because it was first written down at a late date (1879) and because Howe's book quotes a Mr. Patterson as saying he did not know about Spalding's MS. Mr. Hale did not acknowledge the 1840 Robert Patterson statement in Samuel Williams' pamphlet, nor the later reminiscence provided by Elder William Small.

Reply: It is not the date of Mrs. Eichbaum’s statement which is at issue here, but rather the fact that what she said can now be reliably substantiated. She said in 1879 that Rigdon received his mail in Pittsburgh. We proved in 1999 that she was entirely correct in spite of a long history of Mormon denials.
A careful examination of the circumstances surrounding Howe’s report that Robert Patterson failed to recall anything about Spalding’s manuscript suggests that whoever conducted the interview approached the wrong Mr. Patterson with the wrong question. The existence of TWO Mr. Pattersons is carefully documented in The Spalding Enigma, as is the reasoning behind our conclusion that it was Joseph and not Robert who was Spalding’s principal contact at the Pattersons’ print shop.
Finally, the date of Robert Patterson’s statement to Samuel Williams (mentioned above but not acknowledged by Mr. Hale) was April 2, 1842, not 1840 [Williams, Mormonism Exposed, 16].

11. Mr. Hale admitted that Sidney Rigdon probably visited Pittsburgh as a young man, but his only response to the appearance of Rigdon's name in published Pittsburgh letter lists, was that the printing of such a list showed that the recipient had NOT picked up any such letters waiting for him -- thus tending to demonstrate that he had NOT been to the Pittsburgh Post Office, and contradicting the Eichbaum testimony.

Reply: Whether Rigdon did or did not pick-up specific letters on-time is irrelevant. The fact remains that both he and Solomon Spalding received their mail through the same post office just as Mrs. Eichbaum said they did. Moreover, if one is to accept Mr. Hale’s logic, one could equally argue that ALL of the unclaimed letters on those mail lists had been mistakenly sent to the Pittsburgh post office, and that NONE of the people named on those lists ever lived in Pittsburgh or got their mail there. Finally, the multiple presence of people’s names on early mail lists is widely accepted by modern historians as strong evidence connecting the individual with the location.

12. Mr. Hale appeared to eliminate all of Arthur B. Deming's published statements, as providing historical facts, because Deming offered to pay contributors to his newspaper for their submission of materials he might find useful for publication. Evidently Mr. Hale suspected that Deming paid money for the signed, dated and notarized statements which he obtained PRIOR to publishing his 1888 solicitation.

Reply: Whether Deming did or did not compensate his witnesses for their trouble is largely irrelevant unless it can be shown that specific witnesses deliberately invented, altered or embellished their testimony in order to receive payment. Even today, it is a common practice to pay expert witnesses to offer their testimony in court. In order for Mr. Hale’s blanket dismissal of the Deming witnesses to prevail, it remains incumbent upon him to convincingly demonstrate that any or all of those witnesses effectively purjured themselves for filthy lucre or some other equally nefarious purpose. Failing such impeachment, the testimony of these various witnesses must stand as offered since there is absolutely no valid reason to disbelieve them.

Art

[_Uncle Dale]

3. Mr. Hale said that he did not believe that the "Henry Ringdon" mentioned by Bennett in 1831 had
anything to do with the ex-Baptist preacher, Sidney Rigdon of Ohio, Mr. Hale said that he felt that the
Ringdon reference was a mistaken reference to the Palmyra area money-diggers having solicited the help
of Walters the Magician.

I recall sitting at my computer, listening to that exchange, Art. When Bro. Hale said that the character in the
1831 newspaper account could NOT POSSIBLY be Sidney Rigdon, I almost fell off my chair!!

Here is another example of a summary dismissal -- the sort I have heard for decades in the RLDS Church,
when ANY topic came up for discussion or mention, not precisely in line with Church doctrine and policy. So, I
wonder if this is all just another example of Latter Day Saint arrogance? At times the patronizing condescention
of these "defenders of the faith" makes me downright angry!

I think that Van was far, far more interested in defending the faith, than he was in determining the facts of history,
Art. I later had an opportunity to go through a lengthy dialogue with him on the old FAIR Message Board, as
well as an extension of that on-line conversation by private e-mail.

When I spoke with him, he kept calling the character in the 1831 report from the Manchester, NY area "Henry
Rangdon," saying that the name was not at all like that of "Sidney Rigdon."

I pointed out these facts, at that time:

1. The newspaper article also gave the name as "Ringdon."

2. Sidney's name is occasionally spelled "Ringdon" in other old sources.

3. Some of the Ohio newspapers reprinting that article, changed the spelling to "Rigdon."

4. The article called "Ringdon" an ex-preacher from Ohio. Sidney was a defrocked Baptist preacher from Ohio.

5. Parley P. Pratt said that in 1831 Sidney was accused of writing the Book of Mormon; just as "Ringdon" is so accused.

None of this had the slightest effect upon Van Hale --- his reply was that there was no resemblance between
the two men -- and since there was no resemblance, THAT proved Rigdon was never in NY before late 1830.

So much for Van Hale.

He did make one point worth keeping in mind, Art. And that is the description given of ex-Rev. "Ringdon"
DOES more closely fit the person of Walters the Magician than Sidney Rigdon in some parts. It is possible
that the people Bennett interviewed confused the secretive actions of Walters with some equally secretive
actions of a visiting Sidney Rigdon. So much was done out of sight that they probably were not sure of it all.

There is another fly in the ointment -- and that is Sidney Rigdon made an open visit to the Manchester/Palmyra
area at the end of 1830, a few months before Bennett wrote his article. That Rigdon visit was publicized in the
newspapers and word of his coming from Ohio would have naturally spread among the same sorts of people whom
Bennett interviewed. Thus, we cannot be positive that all the information about "Ringdon" came from before
Dec. 1830 ---- some of what Bennett said about the shady character may have come from the public visit.

There is a silver lining in my cloudy view though, Art -- and that is the part about the Palmyra area money-diggers
sending a representative to summon the treasure-dreamer from Ohio. I have increasing reason to believe that
this was a true recollection, and that the visionary man then summoned was indeed Sidney Rigdon.

I am still investigating a 1945 unpublished paper, written by Carl M. Brewster, about Sidney Rigdon. Unhappily,
I do not have the entire paper, and am left to try and piece together some fragments of Brewster's research. His
family came from southern Geauga Co., Ohio and married into the same local family as did Sidney Rigdon's kids'
nursemaid (who lived in the Rigdon cabin at Bainbridge, Ohio, in 1826-27). Brewster's research in Geauga Co.
sources uncovered early local traditions of Sidney Rigdon being a vision-experiencing, self-proclaimed voice for
dead holy men of the distant past -- of his consorting with a confidence man and crystal-gazer -- of Joseph
Smith, Jr. visiting that same place in 1825-26 -- of Smith and Rigdon meeting and cooperating together -- and of
Rigdon leaving the area for a while, in company with Smith.

I say that all of these allegations ought to be investigated and some determination made as to whether any of
them can be further documented.

On the other hand, Brent advises that I give up this whole subject.

What do you think, Art? Has he given us sufficient reason for us to throw 35 years of work into the toilet and
go take up team bowling as an alternative vocation --

???????????

Uncle Dale

[_Dan Vogel]

WHAT IS A WORD-STRING AND DOES IT HAVE ANY SIGNIFICANCE?

Here is Dale's definition of a word-string.

A "word-string" is simply that -- a string of words in sequence, which generally is shorter than a full sentence. Clauses and phrases are word-strings; but even simple two-word sequences are strings of a sort.

For example, here is a rather long word-string:

I, Nephi, having been born of goodly parents, therefore I was taught somewhat in all the learning of my father

If you or I were looking through the pages of some very obscure pre-1830 book in English, and we ran
across such a lengthy set of identical words, all in the same order, we might say it is "significant" because most people would agree with us, that is signifies that the Book of Mormon plagiarized that obscure volume; or else both books plagiarized some third, earlier and unknown source.

Now, that would be impressive. Unfortunately, so far as I can determine, none of Dale's word-strings rise to that level, which is what one would expect if Spalding's Manuscript Story was the basis for the postulated rewrite called Manuscript Found, which in turn became the historical basis for Rigdon's MS. Instead, what Dale offers us as evidence is based on the weakest definition of term word-string. He has stretched it to the point of being pointless. He seems to know this when he explains--

But what if all we found in that old book was "I Nephi...." or "was taught somewhat in all the learning of my father" what then? Could we say that such word strings were significant?

Perhaps, if they both occurred on the same page of that obscure book -- then it would be a significant find.

Or, if on that same page, we found all of these word-strings:

I, Nephi,
having been born
of goodly parents,
therefore I was taught
somewhat in all the learning
of my father

However, in this last example, no two of the word strings occur in the same sentence in that obscure book.

Would they still be "significant?"

Actually, Dale's examples from the Book of Mormon do not occur on the same page in the Spalding MS, but rather pages apart. For demonstration purposes, I have taken one of Dale's marked up Book of Mormon pages (page 374 in the 1830 Book of Mormon; Alma) and separated the so-called word-strings as he designated himself by underlining. Because it would be too long--owing to the fact that Dale's strings are so short--I have decided to do one paragraph on that page.

After breaking up the word-strings as Dale had underlined them, I searched for them in Spalding's MS at Dale's site--

http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/MEDIA/ob.htm

Here I found that many of the word-strings were really several independent phrases put together in longer strings. Dale acknowledged this at the bottom of the above link.

Dale also gives an example and explains--

And it = common Spalding word group ubiquitous in English texts

came to pass = "came to"/"to pass" (two adjacent Spalding word groups)

Since Dale acknowledged that words like "And it" are "ubiquitous", I have labeled it and other similar with "ubiquitous" in my analysis below. Phrases that were not found in Spalding are followed by 0, or "not found" followed by a breakdown into smaller units that are found in Spalding--e.g., "they should/perform their/their labor". When a phrase appears only once, I have included the page number in parentheses.




And it = ubiquitous
came [to] = found
to pass = found
that they did = not found; "that they/they did"
set guards = 0
over the = found
prisoners of the = found (170)
Lamanites, and did = 0
compel them to = found (154)
go forth and = 0
bury their dead; = found (153)
yea, = 0
and also = ubiquitous (101)
the dead = found
of the = ubiquitous
Nephites = 0
which were slain; = not found; "which were/were slain"
and Moroni placed men = 0
over them to guard them = not found; "over them/to guard them"
while = 0
they should perform their labors. = not found; "they should/perform their/their labor"
And Moroni = 0
went to the city of
Mulek with Lehi, = 0
and took = found (146)
command of the city and gave it = not found; "command of the/of the city and/and gave/gave it"
unto Lehi. Now behold this Lehi = 0
was a = ubiquitous
man who had been = not found; "men who/who had been"
with Moroni = 0
in the more =not found; "in the/the more"
part of all his = not found; "part of/of all his"
battles; = 0
and he was a man = not found; "and he was/was a/a man"
like unto Moroni; = 0
and they = ubiquitous
rejoiced = 0
in each other's = not found; "in each/each other's"
safety; yea, = 0
they were = ubiquitous
beloved by = 148
each other, = found
and also = ubiquitous
beloved by all the people of = not found; "beloved by/by all/all the/the people of"
Nephi. = 0
And it came to pass = same as above
that = 0
after the = found
Lamanites = 0
had finished = found (152)
burying their dead, = not found; "burying the dead" (151)
and also = ubiquitous
the dead = found
of the = ubiquitous
Nephites, = 0
they were = ubiquitous
marched back = 0
into the land = not found; "to the land" (32, 33)
Bountiful; and Teancum, = 0
by the orders of = not found; "by the/the orders of"
Moroni, caused = 0
that they should commence = not found; "that they should/should commence"
laboring in digging a ditch round = 0
about the land, = not found; "about the/the land"
or the city = not found; "or the/the city"
Bountiful; = 0
and he =ubiquitous
caused = 0
that they should = ubiquitous
build a = found
breastwork = 0
of = ubiquitous
timbers = not found; "timber"
upon the = ubiquitous
inner = 0
bank of the = "bank of the river"
ditch; = 0
and they = ubiquitous
cast up = "cast up his eyes" (125)



I must confess that I'm of a similar mind to Brent. I have trouble when Dale breaks up units that are clearly meant to go together--like "and it came to pass" and "in the more part". One of the most common word-strings in the BOM--"and it came to pass"--is not found in Spalding. So should we be impressed that Dale can find and/it/came to/to pass on various pages? I would suggest that its absence is far more significant than Dale's questionable methodology. Dale has essentially stacked the deck in his favor. He is comparing a few Book of Mormon chapters against Spalding's entire MS. Should we be surprised that he finds a higher vocabulary correspondence when the two authors are discussing the same subject in a novelistic way? I fail to see the significance of this methodology. Perhaps Dale can explain it to us.

[_Uncle Dale]

Now, that would be impressive. Unfortunately, so far as I can determine, none of Dale's word-strings rise to
that level, which is what one would expect if Spalding's Manuscript Story was the basis for the postulated
rewrite called Manuscript Found, which in turn became the historical basis for Rigdon's MS.

An interesting idea, Dan -- but I'm not sure where you heard me say that -- maybe back in the 1980s? It is
certainly not a notion that I am pushing these days. Did Spalding write a pseudo-history in biblical English?
Several people say that he did, including the Pittsburgh publisher to whom he submitted the manuscript (and
to whom his widow tried to re-submit it, after the would-be author's death in 1816). Was that biblical story
titled "Manuscript Found"? I have no idea -- some witnesses gave that title, so perhaps it is the correct one.
Did this much-remembered biblical story build upon the discarded, unfinished, amateurish Oberlin manuscript?
I doubt it --- or if the two stories did have much in common, I'd guess only as much as two Zane Gray novels,
or two Clint Eastwood Italian westerns.

So why do we even bother looking at the Oberlin manuscript? Obviously the answer is, "Because that is all we
have from the man, of sufficient length to make much use of." I think it would be a great mistake for anybody
to simply assume that the lost "Manuscript Found" was a re-write of the Oberlin story. On the other hand, it
seems that Spalding was working with a general theme of trans-oceanic colonizations of the ancient Americas;
and in consequence of that, speculation regarding the origin of the indians and the fate of the "mound-builders."
My guess is that if we took one of Edgar Rice Burroughs' Tarzan novels and compared it to one of his savage
romances without that same character, the overlap in story-line for these two Spalding pseudo-histories might
have been about the same as for the very predictable, limited-theme Burroughs stories.

But then again, I do not know for sure -- that is my best guess, after several years of pondering this stuff.

Instead, what Dale offers us as evidence is based on the weakest definition of term word-string. He has
stretched it to the point of being pointless.

For the zillionth time, Dan -- knock it off! I am not offering evidence that is intended to convince you of anything
other than the fact that a few researchers may wish to investigate this material in greater depth than I
have. I am NOT TRYING TO PROVE SOMETHING TO YOU!!! ----- get the message?

My "evidence" says -- "Here is a method by which we can discern those parts of the Book of Mormon mostly likely to have
depended upon a Spalding original text." If you, Dan (or Brent, or whoever) can figure out a better way to
locate and delimit those parts of the Book of Mormon most like Spalding's writings, go ahead and show me. I'll learn from you.

He seems to know this when he explains--

But what if all we found in that old book was "I Nephi...." or "was taught somewhat in all the learning of my father" what then? Could we say that such word strings were significant? Perhaps, if they both occurred on the same
page of that obscure book -- then it would be a significant find. Or, if on that same page, we found all of these word-strings: "I, Nephi, having been born of goodly parents, therefore I was taught somewhat in all the learning
of my father." However, in this last example, no two of the word strings occur in the same sentence in that
obscure book. Would they still be "significant?"

Actually, Dale's examples from the Book of Mormon do not occur on the same page in the Spalding MS, but rather
pages apart.

Let's take a minute and parse your sentence, OK, Dan?
[1] "Dale's examples" ----- now what examples would those be? Certainly not the first line of 1Nephi,
which I never in a million years have said were/are/can be in anything Spalding wrote. I was giving a
simple example of what "word-strings" are, for heaven's sake! [2] "do not occur on the same page" ---
I was making use of a totally fanciful illustration, in order to show what "significance" might entail for
some observers: the example has nothing to do with Spalding! [3] "in the Spalding MS" -- The Oberlin
story has some pages containing many shared word-strings with the Book of Mormon and some pages which do not.
I find such patterns of clustering to be very interesting -- but the clusters do not depend upon the arbitrary
limitation that their contents must all come from a single page of any other source!

If this sort of thing is the best sophism available these days, then the Sophists have truly fallen on hard times!
But I've come to expect this sort of thing from Latter Day Saints and ex-Latter Day Saints. They are a people
typified by limited, concrete literalism, who generally seem unable to work well with abstractions and subtle
analogies. I truly think that "growing up Mormon" stunts the imaginative portions of the brain. At least I see a
fair demonstration of just that sort of thing here in front of me! How is anybody supposed to respond to such
literalist tempests in literalist teapots????

For demonstration purposes, I have taken one of Dale's marked up Book of Mormon pages (page 374 in the 1830 Book of Mormon;
Alma) and separated the so-called word-strings as he designated himself by underlining. Because it would be
too long--owing to the fact that Dale's strings are so short--I have decided to do one paragraph on that page.

After breaking up the word-strings as Dale had underlined them, I searched for them in Spalding's MS at
Dale's site--

http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/MEDIA/ob.htm

Here I found that many of the word-strings were really several independent phrases put together in longer
strings. Dale acknowledged this at the bottom of the above link.

Not just at the bottom of some far-off web, page ----- but right here in this thread, Dan. Remember? It was
not that long ago. I can recite to you what I already said, if that is necessary. I said that in html coding I am
unable to duplicate the double underscoring, indicating OVERLAPPING STRINGS, produced by the word-processor
program which I used to make the underlined words in the color-coded Alma web-page? ---- Remember now,
Dan? I also said that the strings you see in that web-page were not the sum-total of the ones used to
create the red column chart.

Remember now, Dan? The underlinings in that Alma txt web-page are SUPPLEMENTAL -- no computation of
their occurrence went into the vocabulary overlap percentage given at the top of each Alma page? Recall
my saying that, now Dan???? The vocabulary overlaps have no direct relationship with the underlining.

OK? Do you understand now?

Dale also gives an example and explains--

And it = common Spalding word group ubiquitous in English texts

came to pass = "came to"/"to pass" (two adjacent Spalding word groups)

Since Dale acknowledged that words like "And it" are "ubiquitous", I have labeled it and other similar with "ubiquitous" in my analysis below. Phrases that were not found in Spalding are followed by 0, or "not found" followed by a breakdown into smaller units that are found in Spalding--e.g., "they should/perform their/their labor". When a phrase appears only once, I have included the page number in parentheses.


And it = ubiquitous
came [to] = found
to pass = found
that they did = not found; "that they/they did"
set guards = 0
over the = found
prisoners of the = found (170)
Lamanites, and did = 0
compel them to = found (154)
go forth and = 0
bury their dead; = found (153)
yea, = 0
and also = ubiquitous (101)
the dead = found
of the = ubiquitous
Nephites = 0
which were slain; = not found; "which were/were slain"
and Moroni placed men = 0
over them to guard them = not found; "over them/to guard them"
while = 0
they should perform their labors. = not found; "they should/perform their/their labor"
And Moroni = 0
went to the city of
Mulek with Lehi, = 0
and took = found (146)
command of the city and gave it = not found; "command of the/of the city and/and gave/gave it"
unto Lehi. Now behold this Lehi = 0
was a = ubiquitous
man who had been = not found; "men who/who had been"
with Moroni = 0
in the more =not found; "in the/the more"
part of all his = not found; "part of/of all his"
battles; = 0
and he was a man = not found; "and he was/was a/a man"
like unto Moroni; = 0
and they = ubiquitous
rejoiced = 0
in each other's = not found; "in each/each other's"
safety; yea, = 0
they were = ubiquitous
beloved by = 148
each other, = found
and also = ubiquitous
beloved by all the people of = not found; "beloved by/by all/all the/the people of"
Nephi. = 0
And it came to pass = same as above
that = 0
after the = found
Lamanites = 0
had finished = found (152)
burying their dead, = not found; "burying the dead" (151)
and also = ubiquitous
the dead = found
of the = ubiquitous
Nephites, = 0
they were = ubiquitous
marched back = 0
into the land = not found; "to the land" (32, 33)
Bountiful; and Teancum, = 0
by the orders of = not found; "by the/the orders of"
Moroni, caused = 0
that they should commence = not found; "that they should/should commence"
laboring in digging a ditch round = 0
about the land, = not found; "about the/the land"
or the city = not found; "or the/the city"
Bountiful; = 0
and he =ubiquitous
caused = 0
that they should = ubiquitous
build a = found
breastwork = 0
of = ubiquitous
timbers = not found; "timber"
upon the = ubiquitous
inner = 0
bank of the = "bank of the river"
ditch; = 0
and they = ubiquitous
cast up = "cast up his eyes" (125)


I must confess that I'm of a similar mind to Brent.

"Truth is mighty and shall prevail," I've heard it said.

I have trouble when Dale breaks up units that are clearly meant to go together-- like "and it came to pass"
and "in the more part". One of the most common word-strings in the BOM--"and it came to pass"--is not
found in Spalding. So should we be impressed that Dale can find and/it/came to/to pass on various
pages?

So then, Dan, tell me --- where did I ever say that I used either of those two words strings, to accomplish
anything, other than give an example? Do those sorts of minor, accidental parallels enter into my lists and
calculations? If so, not as any major part of my work. If so, only for purposes of my being a little more
complete in making those sorts of lists, where I'd be criticized for having "left stuff out" if I did not include such
trivia. Remember my grandmother and the wrongly dated signature? In a stack of legal papers a half-inch
high, that insignificant mark was what the lawyers pointed to, when they said "Sorry, you're out of luck."
That seems to be your method here too, Dan. You take the underlinings on a web-page wherein the word-strings
do not even enter into the purpose and calculations of that page, and then concentrate upon a trivial detail
that you find bothersome, in order to present the illusion of having found the crack in the House of Usher!

I would suggest that its absence is far more significant than Dale's questionable methodology. Dale has
essentially stacked the deck in his favor. He is comparing a few Book of Mormon chapters against Spalding's entire MS.
Should we be surprised that he finds a higher vocabulary correspondence when the two authors are discussing
the same subject in a novelistic way? I fail to see the significance of this methodology.

Whatever are you talking about? Do you even know, Dan? My suggestion to you, was for you to take 500
shared Spalding/Book of Mormon word-strings of your own choice, and to chart them out all across the expanse of the
Book of Mormon text, to SEE WHAT PATTERNS THEY PRODUCE ---- And then, after you have made that determination,
then repeat the test, with an additional 500 other shared word-strings of your choice. My prediction is that the
PATTERNS of distribution will be very similar, in the outcomes for each test. And I also predict that those
PATTERNS will closely match the ones I have already demonstrated, with a major Spalding cluster in the
latter third of Alma, and a few minor clusters elsewhere.

So --- what is the purpose of doing all of that? The purpose is to delimit the sections of the Book of Mormon which most
resemble Spalding's known fiction-writing language, so that we can give people a fair chance of consulting
the correct part of that book, in order to see why the old witnesses said it read like Spalding's fiction.

THAT is the purpose, Dan. THAT is step #2 in about a ten-step process.

So, what do you do? You look at a single paragraph, and say "Nope, no elephants here -- we must not be in
Africa yet!" Your sample is interesting to me, however -- because it demonstrates the sort of word-strings I
purpposely LEFT OUT of my red column chart calculations.

See below, for the entire page 374, with your additions marked "Dan." That is, I inserted a few of your "finds."
Now, take a step back and look at the whole page, to see what sort of word-strings I made use of in giving it
a high rating, as being "Spaldingish."

218 . JACOB was determined to slay them and cut his way through
307 . cut his way through to the city of MULEK
249 . they fought on both hands with exceeding fury
282 . MORONI was wounded and JACOB was killed
181 . the remainder of them, being much confused, knew not whither
249 . pressed upon their rear with such fury... that
250 . LEHI pressed upon their rear with such fury
352 . and the remainder of them... knew not whither to go
007 . chief captains... threw down their weapons of war
026 . that they should do the same
037 . their chief captains, all those who were not slain
332 . threw down their weapons of war at the feet of MORONI
451 . that when the LAMANITES had heard these words
240 . they were compelled to march with their brethren
094 . they were compelled to march with their brethren
263 . And now the number of prisoners who were taken
385 . the number of those who had been slain
263 . who were taken exceeded more than the number of
Dan . And it came to pass
Dan . And it came to pass
Dan . did set guards over the
106 . did set guards over the prisoners of the LAMANITES
Dan . compel them to go forth
286 . compel them to go forth and bury their dead
Dan . the dead of the NEPHITES
298 . the dead of the NEPHITES who were slain
Dan . and took command of the city
040 . MORONI... took command of the city and gave it unto LEHI
257 . and also beloved by all the people of NEPHI
307 . And MORONI went to the city of MULEK
Dan . beloved by each other
431 . they were beloved by each other, and also beloved by
Dan . beloved by all the people of
432 . and they rejoiced in each other's safety
292 . the LAMANITES had finished burying their dead
Dan . had finished burying their dead,
Dan . also the dead of the Nephites
Dan . by the orders of Moroni
389 . TEANCUM, by the orders of MORONI, caused that they should
026 . that they should commence laboring in digging
402 . that they should commence laboring in digging a ditch
Dan . upon the inner bank of the ditch
Dan . and they cast up dirt

See this web-page for an explanation of the 3-digit numbers on the left:
http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/MEDIA/BookSol3.htm

Dale

[_Dan Vogel]

Dale,

Good for you, Dan -- no matter what you may think of me and my work, I am your constant well-wisher and
have no bones to pick with you. I may question you on small matters of detail (a date, a name, etc.) here and
there but I have no reason nor desire to attack and refute your work.

And I wish you no ill will. I hope we all can have a lively discussion without taking it personally.

I'm glad to see that Art has finally jumped into the discussion. I only wish that he will stick with the subject and leave the personal jabs out.

Brent wants me to pass on a message to CK and the rest of you that he has just moved and won't have internet access at his new home for a while.