DAN VOGEL DISCUSSES THE SPALDING/RIGDON THEORY

[_Uncle Dale]

I guess my position is that I have made few assertions -- given some possibilities -- and asked many questions.
It is Art Vanick, Ted Chandler and Craig Criddle who have made assertions requiring a "defense."

Actually, when I referred to "defense" presentations, I was referring to Dan's very well prepared posts in defense of his position.

See: http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/viewtopic.php?p=29522#29522

Yes -- I see what you mean now.

My position has been, that not enough solid evidence has been presented and articulated, so that the general
student of Mormon history can make an informed conclusion in the matter. But that is a minority viewpoint, and I
have long realized that there is little I can do to influence the majority view (which seems to be that no additional
investigation of Mormon origins is advisible or necessary).

Since a "comfortable consensus" has been reached, among the leading scholars and academics, that the focus of
attention should remain upon Joseph, Smith, Jr., with no need to speak of any possible conspiracies, in the origin
and development of Mormonism, then my minority viewpoint is perhaps destined to remain forever unpopular.

Still -- when all is said and done -- I fail to see how a "well defended position" can come to the conclusion, that
all further investigation is unwarranted. Imagine where we would be today, if that viewpoint had been agreed to
in the case of planetary "epicycles," or the existence of "phlogiston" --- or many other old paradigms that were
eventually overturned by painstaking investigation and experimentation.

The paradigm before us -- that I think we should ever keep in mind -- is that Mormonism is a benign force in the
world, because it is not, and never was, a conspiracy designed to delude and control people, religion, politics, etc.
If that be true, then of course "well defended positions" should help us all comprehend such good knowledge.

But if that paradigm be not a true reconstruction of history, then we might all be making a great mistake to let
the matter stand unexamined and unchallenged.

That is my position -- it naturally leads to my studies on the subject -- and I think I need not defend that.

Uncle Dale

[_dilettante]

My position has been, that not enough solid evidence has been presented and articulated, so that the general student of Mormon history can make an informed conclusion in the matter. But that is a minority viewpoint, and I
have long realized that there is little I can do to influence the majority view (which seems to be that no additional
investigation of Mormon origins is advisible or necessary).

The majority and minority view really has nothing to do with truth. We are all here seeking the truth, not the majority view.

Since a "comfortable consensus" has been reached, among the leading scholars and academics, that the focus of attention should remain upon Joseph, Smith, Jr., with no need to speak of any possible conspiracies, in the origin
and development of Mormonism, then my minority viewpoint is perhaps destined to remain forever unpopular.

I also think (as my own opinion) that we are here to speak about the truth and we should not center on Joseph Smith Jr. Any viewpoints should not be discounted or disparaged, no matter how unpopular.

Still -- when all is said and done -- I fail to see how a "well defended position" can come to the conclusion, that all further investigation is unwarranted. Imagine where we would be today, if that viewpoint had been agreed to
in the case of planetary "epicycles," or the existence of "phlogiston" --- or many other old paradigms that were
eventually overturned by painstaking investigation and experimentation.

Absolutely! If anyone has a pre-determined conclusion, then they should not be here. I think that Dan's arguments are as useful today as they were in 1840.

The paradigm before us -- that I think we should ever keep in mind -- is that Mormonism is a benign force in the world, because it is not, and never was, a conspiracy designed to delude and control people, religion, politics, etc.
If that be true, then of course "well defended positions" should help us all comprehend such good knowledge.

I think that just could be a rash statement. I have watched many modern "educational" videos, but I never discount them as less than an attempt to delude and control people.

But if that paradigm be not a true reconstruction of history, then we might all be making a great mistake to let the matter stand unexamined and unchallenged.

That is my position -- it naturally leads to my studies on the subject -- and I think I need not defend that.

I have no defense.

[_Merry]

The frustration is that I, upon discovering that LDS culture is racist, went on to ask why it is racist (blinding its members to their own racism). I am then challenged by the apologists to refute the charge that I proceeded from preconceived assumptions. I really don't think they want my testimony of what I experienced (with witnesses and other documentation). However, if they really want it------ Where are the smilies on this board?

I would really prefer that my pains be private.

[_Uncle Dale]

The frustration is that I, upon discovering that LDS culture is racist, went on to ask why it is racist (blinding its members to their own racism). I am then challenged by the apologists to refute the charge that I proceeded from preconceived assumptions. I really don't think they want my testimony of what I experienced (with witnesses and other documentation). However, if they really want it------ Where are the smilies on this board?

I would really prefer that my pains be private.

All societies and religions are racist -- though some are less so than others.

It is the minority groups who feel the pain of this situation the most, and who most
often speak out about the problem -- but it remains a predictable part of human society.

Solomon Spalding was racist -- as can be seen in reading his one preserved novel.
So were the founders of Dartmouth College -- though they thought they were performing
a wonderful service for the native tribes, in trying to turn them into Europeans.

The Puritans were racists -- as were many New Englanders, from whence came most of
the first Mormons (my own ancestors included). I think that Spalding, Smith, Cowdery,
Rigdon, etc. merely injected their unquestioned racist views into Mormon roots, without
giving much thought to the matter.

For the first Mormons, the precept was "the whiter the better;" as can be found throughout
the Book of Mormon. Those first Mormons viewed "Ephraim" as the whitest of the white --
the Anglo-Saxons and Scandinavians. Like the founders of Dartmouth, those Mormons
thought they were doing the native tribes a great favor, by trying to make them into Christian
European-Israelites -- no matter that it meant destroying whole cultures and superimposing
a phoney pre-history upon the Native Americans.

I was just reading Indian complaints published during the 1820s, about how the "blackcoats"
working as Presbyterian missionaries west of the Missouri were imposing upon the Indians
there -- not living up to their promises -- breaking up Indian families, etc. -- and all in the
name of spreading Christianity. When the first Mormon missionaries went west, they intended
to build upon this Indian discontent. The first tribe they visited were Seneca living on the
outskirts of Buffalo, whose tribe had become divided over the Christianity/missionary issue.
In that place the "Four Missionaries to the Lamanites" found educated Seneca who had accepted
the Bible and who could read English. But those people rejected the Book of Mormon and they
rejected the notion of surrendering themselves to the Mormon religious establishment.

The same thing happened when the Mormons got into "Indian Territory" west of the Missouri.
There they found Shawnee who could read and write English -- but who were not interested
in becoming "junior partners" in the Mormon scheme to overthrow the US Government, etc.

Find me a culture and a religion that is not racist, and I will be very interested in looking
at its people. The closest I have ever found are Thai Buddhists ---- which may have something
to do with the fact that Siam was never conquered by any European nation.

I wonder what Solomon Spalding would have thought about the idea of subjegating the Indians
by converting them to a false religion, and then turning them upon American settlers and troops?

Look here (as well as elsewhere on the same web-page):
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/OH ... tm#112431a

UD

[_Merry]

Find me a culture and a religion that is not racist, and I will be very interested in looking
at its people. The closest I have ever found are Thai Buddhists ---- which may have something
to do with the fact that Siam was never conquered by any European nation.

Point well-made. Seems like it is a European poison-- again, European racism. That interpretation of the story of the Garden of Eden certainly is worth closer examination. The knowlege of race accompanies the tendency to believe "we are good and you are evil, and we can become as gods compared to you". And such a tendency is a part of human nature.

Personally, I would do well if I would never personally meet a practicing LDS for the rest of my life-- the burns reach to the core of my being. There will never be any trust.

To turn the Book of Mormon right-side out certainly is worth considering. Fur-side inside is very warm and inspiring.

LDS "scriptures", as presently interpreted by many of them, certainly perpetuates racism among them.

Don't have enough time to read the web-site stuff today. Hope to soon.

[_Merry]

Here you have a fair specimen of the method adopted in the Book of Mormon, and preached by the Mormonite teachers, for the purpose of enlisting the feelings, and ingratiating themselves with the Indians; and should success attend their endeavours; and the minds of the Indians become inflamed with that enthusiastic spirit which Mormonism inspires, they may be inclined to try the experiment, whether "by the shedding of blood," they can expel the white inhabitants, or reduce them to a state of servitude; and by this means, regain the possession of the lands occupied by their forefathers.

Yes, I like that. Someone quoted "shall rise up as a rose"-- my response was-- yes if it is in reaction to and against the LDS-- if the LDS is the harlot church described in I Nephi.

[_dilettante]

I personally don't like to see racism disputes when discussing modern Mormonism issues. There was plenty of racism in the 19th and 20th century to go around. It doesn't seem to me to have a huge impact on the Spalding issue, or in modern Mormon studies as a whole. We all know the Lamanite BS here.

Anyone reading Ethan Smith today should be offended by his anti-semite and anti-american rhetoric.

[_Uncle Dale]

I personally don't like to see racism disputes when discussing modern Mormonism issues. There was plenty of racism in the 19th and 20th century to go around. It doesn't seem to me to have a huge impact on the Spalding issue, or in modern Mormon studies as a whole. We all know the Lamanite BS here.

Anyone reading Ethan Smith today should be offended by his anti-semite and anti-american rhetoric.

Indeed -- after receiving some complaints from Jewish readers, I was convinced to add a disclaimer to my
own web-publication of Ethan Smith's 1823 book. I had been accused of speading "anti-Semitic hate rhetoric."

This thread originated as a vehicle for Dan to articulate his refutation of the Spalding-Rigdon authorship stuff,
and it should probably be reserved for that core topic. I previously bowed out of any continued argument
over the subject matter, but was convinced to return to the thread by a couple of requests from folks who
desired "more information." On that basis, (and only on that basis) I'll participate a little more.

An analysis of the Book of Mormon racism, in comparison to that of Cowdery, Smith, Rigdon and Spalding may be of
some use -- as a potential tool in our unravelling Book of Mormon authorship. Cowdery and Smith were of differing
opinions regarding the Jews -- Spalding appears to have have been a product of the Dartmouth viewpoint
regarding Indians -- Rigdon had things to say about both races in his post-Nauvoo scribblings. Maybe in all
of that, we can pick out a few authorship clues.

So far as I can see, the most basic racist assumption of the Book of Mormon (and its early 19th century American context),
was the absurd notion that Indians were incapable of having built the massive earthworks of the Mississippi-Ohio
river valley (supposedly due to low population and too primitive a culture) --- and this from educated Americans
who had Spanish accounts of Aztec city-building available to them!!!

Somehow, given this European arrogance and ignorance, it was easier for the American settlers to envision a
"lost white race" having built the dilapidated earthworks, etc. DeSoto had recorded historical Natchez, still
preserving a Mississippian Culture "mound-builder" lifestyle, but English-born Americans distrusted the Spanish
accounts and those of British ancestry were more interested in imagining Welsh or Israelite "mound-builders."

This was Spalding's "jumping-off point," and it served as the basis for the first Mormons' beliefs as well. I think
it is unfortunate that such a racist element is preserved by a powerful contemporary religion, of course -- and
it is a bit daunting for me to accept that the next US President may well be an advocate for "Nephite history"!!

Perhaps -- in anticipation of that unsettling possibility -- our discussions here in this thread have some greater
potential value, than just some banter within the context of our own, limited interests and motives.

UD

[_Dan Vogel]

Dale,

This thread originated as a vehicle for Dan to articulate his refutation of the Spalding-Rigdon authorship stuff,
and it should probably be reserved for that core topic. I previously bowed out of any continued argument
over the subject matter, but was convinced to return to the thread by a couple of requests from folks who
desired "more information." On that basis, (and only on that basis) I'll participate a little more.

Please do. And thanks for the reminder to stay on topic.

[_Uncle Dale]

Dale,

This thread originated as a vehicle for Dan to articulate his refutation of the Spalding-Rigdon authorship stuff,
and it should probably be reserved for that core topic. I previously bowed out of any continued argument
over the subject matter, but was convinced to return to the thread by a couple of requests from folks who
desired "more information." On that basis, (and only on that basis) I'll participate a little more.

Please do. And thanks for the reminder to stay on topic.

I do not know why the Walker articles are not coming up. I see them in my
Firefox browser, but my Netscape browser appears to be stuck reading the
outdated web-page. Maybe it is a server error --
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/OH ... tm#052934a
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/OH ... htm#061234
etc.

UD

update #1: --- cleared the Netscape cache and removed pop-up blocker and
all articles are now accessible via that browser also -- don't have Explorer

update #2: --- Through the kind assistance of a fellow student of Mormon origins I have
now acquired a lengthy index to early land transactions in Geauga Co., Ohio, as well
as property maps of the area around the Joseph Smith, Sr. farm in Manchester, NY,
etc. Given a little time in which to cross-reference these and other population records, I
should be able to eventually construct a tabulated list of Manchester area pioneers who
moved to Auburn twp., Geauga Co., before and during the time that Rigdon lived in
that region (all of which was prior to the publication of the Book of Mormon).

In the 1881 Chicago "Inter-Ocean" and the RLDS "Saints' Herald," Dr. John Stafford of
Rochester is quoted in ways that appear to downplay the money-digging activities of
the Smiths, as well as the Staffords' connections in that regard with the Smiths. Dr. John
challenged Tucker's 1867 portrayal of his father (William Stafford) as having been closely
associated with Joseph Smith, Jr. But William's own 1833 statement, given to Hurlbut,
confesses a certain amount of money-digging cooperation between the two families,
and Tucker was probably only making a slight exaggeration when he called William and
his son-in-law, second cousin Gadius, a couple of Smith-followers, before Gad moved
to Rigdon's neck of the woods in Ohio.

It will be interesting to see if Sidney Rigdon had any special dealings with the Staffords
and other Manchester area people who came to Geauga Co., before the Book of Mormon was published.
I am currently looking for Rigdon's possible presence at weddings, baptisms, funerals,
document witnessings, etc. and will eventually report my findings on the subject.

UD