DAN VOGEL DISCUSSES THE SPALDING/RIGDON THEORY

[_marg]

Finally -- we were speaking of the Book of Mormon witnesses -- who reported paranormal or supernatural
events. I can understand that sort of thing. I can choose to believe them, or not ---- but regardless
of that, I can still study other, less remarkable, things they said and did, somewhat aside from
the "spiritual" phenomena -- or delusions -- or mesmerism, or whatever.

That was the basic point I was trying to make, for your benefit and for Dan's.

UD

I was asking questions in light of the Book of Mormon witnesses descriptions of their experiences. I note that your experience and description of what an angel is differs to theirs. Shouldn't they be very similar if such things exists or if such things exist then shouldn't there be some consensus of description such that one can discern who is making things up and who isn't. You are more obscure than the Book of Mormon witnesses ...who described their experience as the angel being a male, wore a white robe, looked like a person, a little taller than the average. I was a little surprised that you interpreted your experience as representative of real existing angels. But reading people's comments on the Net, who have grown up or spent many years exposed to the Mormon culture nothing shocks me anymore as to what they will say they believe. May I add though it is very strange to anyone who is not from a culture which encourages the supernatural. It seems to me there different reasons why people are predisposed to believing in entities such as aliens, angels, ghosts. My impression is they either have had lots of exposure growing up to adults who believed in such things and look at their experiences in light of what they've learned. So for example, I believe that is what's occurred with you. I believe through your religous upbringing you had an idea already that angels exist and what they might look like and applied that to an experience which might have altered your consciousness such as stress. And then there are those who aren't brought up in that culture and I think they tend t be rather poor critical thinkers. I a brother in law who after surgery and under heavy meds believed he truly did float around the hospital and observed different floors. He knew he had been on meds but just the same he interpreted it that it really happened. Since he won't read this board, my brother in law is an old hippie who has taken lots of drugs in his life, not too bright and believes in lots of weird stuff despite that he wasn't exposed to it from his family . The rest of my family and my husband's have no such weird experiences. We are not likely to interpret experiences as supernatural. As a for instance my 24 year old son heard voices in his head about 5 years ago. It was a weird experience, which he related to me, but he certainly didn't attribute it to the supernatural. He attributed it to a medical issue.

I appreciate you doing your best to describe your experience. I evaluate it that you are honest, truly had the experience but not for a second do I think there were angels in reality. Your explanation was very obscure and I have no doubt the experience occurred solely in your mind and was a function of how you interpreted it. Given what I've read of the Book of Mormon witnesses, for example both Cowdery and D. Whitmer I don't believe they had the experiences they described. I think they made it up with Smith's help. I don't think they were under stress of any kind and it's too coincidental that 2 of them should claim to experience the same thing at the same time. Harris though was probably a highly hypnotizable person, and wanted to believe. When someone wants to believe something badly, they can convince themselves..and that's what I think Harris did.

am a unitarian with a small "u" -- so I profess a unity in all things. At the basic level of
reality, I do not differentiate between an external "other" and my internal ego or self-identity.
Given that world-view, there is not much difference in my way of thinking, between another
person who interacts with me, and my own mental preceptions and interpretations of that
person. On the other hand, I see and talk to my next door neighbor on a continuing basis --
whether he is a figment of my imagination, a phantom, a delusion, or a physical person.

Irrespective of what you profess there is a difference between what occurs in your mind versus the physical reality outside it.

[_Uncle Dale]

... It seems to me there different reasons why people are predisposed to believing in entities such as
aliens, angels, ghosts. My impression is they either have had lots of exposure growing up to adults
who believed in such things and look at their experiences in light of what they've learned. So for
example, I believe that is what's occurred with you. I believe through your religous upbringing you
had an idea already that angels exist and what they might look like and applied that to an experience
which might have altered your consciousness such as stress....

That's one explanation -- then there's my explanation -- and, perhaps, if some third
person were to read and ponder what we've said here, they would come up with yet a
different explanation.

I believe there could be intelligent life forms living on other planets -- so the basic concept
of an alien intelligence is not something I discard as impossible. Heck, an octopus is pretty
much an "alien" to my way of thinking -- give them a few million years and the proper stimuli
and they may be piloting spaceships in our far distant future, for all I know.

I also believe in ghosts -- not as living beings, but as artifacts of past happenings -- much like
a fossilized footprint or the lingering perfume of a person who left the room ten minutes ago.

As for angels, I seriously doubt about 99% of the tradition and folklore associated with the
phenomena --- but if it is an experience that diverse groups of people have had, in widely
separated times and places, I suppose that it at least deserves an entry in the "unexplained
happenings" encylopedia.

If I did not have the scriptural vocabulary available to explain what I encountered, then,
as I said, I might struggle to describe in other, less ideological terms. But the deduction that
it was all merely a mental illusion is only one of several possible explanations. I am interested
in those sorts of diverse opinions and theories -- I find value in the fact that human beings
are able to discern and evaluate their experiences in different ways.

In all my years of giving RLDS sermons, I never spoke of the experience -- though had I done
so, it would have been to a very receptive audience ---- perhaps TOO receptive an audience.

I once had a discussion with a fellow who was determined to convince me that there was no
such thing as motherly affection, and that my mother could never have truly loved me -- that
all affectionate emotion and seemingly altruistic acts are simply species and individual
survival skills, developed over eons by the process of natural selection.

The fellow failed to convince me of his conclusion -- which brought him to a second conclusion --
that I was a bone-headed sentimentalist and an obstacle to others' progress.

So be it, then.

As for the Book of Mormon witnesses' supernatural experiences, I believe some were contrived falsehoods; some were
induced delusions; some were self-delusions; and some were misinterpretations of actual "spiritual" events.

Then again, I discount about 99% of religious teachings as similar misinterpretations.

Perhaps Dan is right, and all my past studies are leading me nowhere useful. But if I am correct, in my
attribution of most of Mormonism to the injured brain of Elder Sidney Rigdon -- then THAT would be a story
well worth telling (no matter my own paranormal interpretations, nor my reliability on anything in particular).

UD

[Bedlamite]

But -- until some distinct evidence can be obtained for what I am suggesting, my hypothesis remains only
a possibility -- and one requiring additional, reliable evidence to establish as a reasonable explanation.

No, it doesn't. You are trying to make it possible, but in the world of historiography multiple witnesses, both friendly and hostile, carries a lot of weight. They specifically deny that there was anything like the Spalding MS being used. The Bible was not mentioned, because that was not the concern of those questioning the faith. If Joseph Smith used the KJV as a translation aid, it would not have aroused suspicion.

Well, you say one thing -- somebody else says another thing. I have been wrong many times
in my life, but not wrong in all suppositions, and not wrong in all conclusions. No matter what others
have to say, I see the "hypothesis" as "a possibility," and only time will tell whether the majority of
interested persons end up agreeing or disagreeing; and I won't be around to see those eventual outcomes.

Looked at it from another perspective, practically everybody in the world might one day agree with my line
of investigation, and I might still be wrong. I doubt the day will ever come when Mormons, anti-Mormons,
and neutral observers will ever much agree on whether there were Nephites, or whether your Joseph Smith bio is
accurate, or whether the Council of the Twelve has truly forever abandoned its Political Kingdom of God
goals and expectations.

But, like I said -- it's an interesting hobby.

UD

[_Merry]

Vary few things are 100% wrong, and very few things are 100% right. Joseph must have made some contributions from his own experiences. I appreciate it that you two can get along in a scholarly fashion.

I would hope that someday

Mormons, anti-Mormons,
and neutral observers will ...... agree on whether there were Nephites

That hinges upon the multiple authorship theories being proven beyond a doubt, at least to rational people. My work is ahead of its time, just like your original study was ahead of its time.

From my vantage point, now--- well out of the fray, I will simply be satisfied if racist religion would die.

Check your e-mail for further information.

[_Dan Vogel]

Marg,

I appreciate you doing your best to describe your experience. I evaluate it that you are honest, truly had the experience but not for a second do I think there were angels in reality. Your explanation was very obscure and I have no doubt the experience occurred solely in your mind and was a function of how you interpreted it. Given what I've read of the Book of Mormon witnesses, for example both Cowdery and D. Whitmer I don't believe they had the experiences they described. I think they made it up with Smith's help. I don't think they were under stress of any kind and it's too coincidental that 2 of them should claim to experience the same thing at the same time. Harris though was probably a highly hypnotizable person, and wanted to believe. When someone wants to believe something badly, they can convince themselves..and that's what I think Harris did.

I can see that you are making these judgments on little information. You find it easy to believe Harris could be hypnotized. That's probably because you know more about him than the other two. You know he had a predisposition for visionary experience, and continued to have them afterwards. What you don't know is that Cowdery and Whitmer have a similar history. Cowdery came to Joseph Smith as a rod worker. He also had already had a vision of the Lord showing him the plates. He asked to have the gift of translation himself. In the same month that he saw the angel and plates, he received his own revelation calling him to be an apostle. Despite what Mormon apologists say about him, he wasn't a level-headed teacher, later lawyer, but he was quite obsessed about the plates, according to Lucy. David Whitmer, Cowdery's brother-in-law, reportedly said "in many respects" he was "a peculiar man."

David Whitmer had already seen what he believed were three angels sowing in his field, the angel on the road between Harmony and Fayette, and thought he felt the presence of the angel under his father's shed. On the same day of his vision, an angel appeared to him while plowing. Later in life, he founded a church and received his own revelations.

One of the strongest indicators for susceptibility to hypnosis is a predisposition for physical kinds of religious experience. None of which, however, makes one an unrealiable witness for things that happen in everyday life. A court of law would not include it, contrary to your speculations.

[_Dan Vogel]

But -- until some distinct evidence can be obtained for what I am suggesting, my hypothesis remains only
a possibility -- and one requiring additional, reliable evidence to establish as a reasonable explanation.

No, it doesn't. You are trying to make it possible, but in the world of historiography multiple witnesses, both friendly and hostile, carries a lot of weight. They specifically deny that there was anything like the Spalding MS being used. The Bible was not mentioned, because that was not the concern of those questioning the faith. If Joseph Smith used the KJV as a translation aid, it would not have aroused suspicion.

Well, you say one thing -- somebody else says another thing. I have been wrong many times
in my life, but not wrong in all suppositions, and not wrong in all conclusions. No matter what others
have to say, I see the "hypothesis" as "a possibility," and only time will tell whether the majority of
interested persons end up agreeing or disagreeing; and I won't be around to see those eventual outcomes.

Looked at from another perspective, practically everybody in the world might one day agree with my line
of investigation, and I might still be wrong. I doubt the day will ever come when Mormons, anti-Mormons,
and neutral observers will ever much agree on whether there were Nephites, or whether your Joseph Smith bio is
accurate, or whether the Council of the Twelve has truly forever abandoned its Political Kingdom of God
goals and expectations.

But, like I said -- it's an interesting hobby.

UD

How interesting would it be, if it weren't so controversial?

[Bedlamite]

I will simply be satisfied if racist religion would die.

And I would be happy if church and state were forever kept separate -- but we both
know that our wishes along these lines will never "come to pass." Racism and the need
for religio-political domination are so much a part of the human experience that they
will always be cropping up in new forms to threaten us.

When we try and fathom who wrote the Book of Mormon, and for what purposes, I
think it is useful to recall exactly what its first promoters were preaching to the general
public in the year or two following its publication --- back when Mormonism was still
largely based upon the message of the book.

Take, for example, the reported preaching of (soon-to-be) Apostles Pratt and Johnson, in 1832:
"the prophet Lehi... his descendants here, their rebellion against God, and the curses consequent
upon that rebellion, one of which was a red skin, which they wore to this day."
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/NE ... htm#051132

No farther back than the beginning of this year I was engaged in a virtual dispute with a
zealous LDS defender, who maintained that "The Church" did not teach (and had not taught)
the the skin coloration of the American Indians was the result of a "curse" set upon the
descendants of the Book of Mormon's Laman and Lemuel, etc. etc.

But history tells us otherwise, and at least a few of us should be curious enough to try
and discover WHY the Book of Mormon teaches such an ungodly falsehood -- and WHO set down that
racist garbage in the pages of the supposedly "most correct book" ???

Going back to 1830-31-32, who among the first Mormons was the most dedicated and
energetic in trying to convince the Indians that they were the degraded and devolved
offspring of Laman and Lemuel? Who among those first Mormons (who might conceivably
have made a contribution to the Book of Mormon text), most advocated turning the armed "Lamanites" upon
the American Gentiles -- so that they might rage amongst them as bloodthirsty "young lions?"

Who, among the earliest Mormons, would have been happy to have seen thousands of
the American tribesmen slaughtered, in order to establish a Mormon domination in the
West (and throughout North America generally)?

And, I must admit, in this particular instance, the indicators point back to Joseph Smith, Jr.
Was he the ORIGINATOR of these racist, co-opt-the-Indians for warfare schemes? Or, was
he simply the FIRST CONVERT among the Mormons, to accept the idea of turning Indian skins
white by having elders with the "proper authority" baptizing them?

Read Smith's own view of things, as written down at the end of 1832, and decide for yourself:

http://www.centerplace.org/history/ts/v5n21.htm#705
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/NY ... htm#020233

Read also my notes, at the end of another 1832 report on elders Pratt and Johnson, to see what
the earliest BoM-based missionary teachings were:

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/OH ... htm#041432

UD

[_Uncle Dale]

[
How interesting would it be, if it weren't so controversial?

I plead fuzzy-minded thinking once again. I go back and
read my own words and can barely comprehend them.
Like in the 1968 Cliff Robertson movie "Charly."

Funny -- I can recall the movie perfectly, but can't remember
what I had for breakfast this morning.

I think I'll quit posting until after my late June return from "O Ye Mountains High."
I'll say hello to Mike for you --

UD

[_dilettante]

You should know the answer to this one. Emma was scribe for the lost book of Lehi, which had less religious than the replacement text. So, it is doubtful that there were long chapters from Isaiah in it, and no need to use the Bible. I was thinking of David Whitmer's statements, because it was at his father's home that 1 Nephi to Words of Mormon was dictated. (Even then, in the context of her statement, using the Bible for the Bible passages isn't exactly plagiarism.)

Yes, I'm aware of Emma's use as a scribe, but it is interesting that you did not defend her testimony in that particular interview that absolutely no manuscript or book was used. This would lend great support to your "HEAD IN THE HAT AND NO USE OF MS" theory.

Well, I'm trying to draw out reasons Spalding theorists dismiss the eyewitness testimony. Dilettante only said they were Mormons.

I actually said much more than that, Dan. Is this high school debate?

I'm not suggesting that Joseph Smith dictated cold. I think he had years to think about it. He also could work out his story as he went. What he produced is a great imitation of scripture, but it's not great literature.

You and I have a point that we agree on. I believe that there are indead facts from his own life in the Book of Mormon. As I'm sure you have read, I think he redacted, but I also think he used more than his own life and the KJV to do it.

You both are totally off base here. Because someone has visionary experiences does not make them unreliable witnesses of everyday experiences, unless you can show they have some psychiatric problem that renders them incapable to tell the difference between a vision and ordinary events. From all appearances, the witness had not lost touch with reality; they knew when they were experiencing second sight and when they weren't. This is called Pseudohallucination.. There are two generalized categories of hallucination: true and pseudo. True hallucinations are experienced and accepted by the person as real, usually occur in psychotic states and organic mental disorders, and involve an impairment of reality testing. Pseudohallucinations, on the other hand, "are experienced by the subject who, at the time of the experience, is fully aware of the unreality of the perceptions" (Dr. Ghazi Asaad, Hallucinations in Clinical Psychiatry (New York: Brunner/Mazel, 1990). As described by Ghazi Asaad, Clinical Associate Professor of Psychiatry at New York Medical College (Valhalla, New York),

I recall reading quite a bit about the Kirtland Temple dedications. I don't believe in the stability of the human mind enough to disbelieve (or shrug-off) the many statements, but it certainly doesn't mean they actually happened. Our brain is much too frail, suggestible, suspectable, etc.

I would still be interested in looking over any old source, where a witness stated that Joseph Smith made use of
a Bible during "translation;" whether a "regular" Bible, or one with the KJV Apocrypha and excerpts from
Josephus added in -- or whatever.

Yes, so would I.

---
Sometimes, book sales, politics and profit get all confused with reality.

[_marg]

I believe there could be intelligent life forms living on other planets -- so the basic concept
of an alien intelligence is not something I discard as impossible. Heck, an octopus is pretty
much an "alien" to my way of thinking -- give them a few million years and the proper stimuli
and they may be piloting spaceships in our far distant future, for all I know.

I also believe in ghosts -- not as living beings, but as artifacts of past happenings -- much like
a fossilized footprint or the lingering perfume of a person who left the room ten minutes ago.

As for angels, I seriously doubt about 99% of the tradition and folklore associated with the
phenomena --- but if it is an experience that diverse groups of people have had, in widely
separated times and places, I suppose that it at least deserves an entry in the "unexplained
happenings" encylopedia.

Dale,

Since life exists on earth, I think there is a possibility it exists elsewhere or at one time in the past it existed elsewhere, perhaps sometime in the future it will exist elsewhere than earth. We have evidence of life no reasn to think otherwise. Whether life forms exist elsewhere doesn’t affect my life in any way. There is little I can do about it and I certainly don’t spend an enormous amount of time attempting to figure it out. I leave that to those with the instruments to do research.

When it comes to concepts such as ghosts and angels, which are claims people make but they are unable to duplicate for verification and testing I pretty much ignore those claims. For practical operating purposes I assume they don’t exist except in the imagination of people and I waste no time investigating. But anytime someone is able to give evidence for such concepts, I’d listen and so would scientists.

For myself I don’t think I benefit assuming anything exists which lacks information for some way to observe or verify.

I note though there is a certain mindset either acquired through indoctrination from an early age and/or some people have a tendency to believe in such things which I think is a function of poor critical thinking, at least in the particular area of the unknown paranormal.

If I did not have the scriptural vocabulary available to explain what I encountered, then,
as I said, I might struggle to describe in other, less ideological terms. But the deduction that
it was all merely a mental illusion is only one of several possible explanations. I am interested
in those sorts of diverse opinions and theories -- I find value in the fact that human beings
are able to discern and evaluate their experiences in different ways.

Just because I dismiss claims of the supernatural does not mean I’m closed minded. But it has always been the case that these claims are personal and can not be verified objectively. So without evidence I don’t operate as if they might exist. I see no benefit in doing so.

I once had a discussion with a fellow who was determined to convince me that there was no
such thing as motherly affection, and that my mother could never have truly loved me -- that
all affectionate emotion and seemingly altruistic acts are simply species and individual
survival skills, developed over eons by the process of natural selection.

Love can be observed in the way people treat another. Infatuation type love can be tested by heart rate changes or brain scans, it’s a physical reaction. Love is a word which describes what is observable. A mother may have children she doesn’t love. One observes a mother’s love by the way she talks to and treats her children. People who claim love do not necessarily love.

As for the Book of Mormon witnesses' supernatural experiences, I believe some were contrived falsehoods; some were
induced delusions; some were self-delusions; and some were misinterpretations of actual "spiritual" events.

I’m not convinced of “spiritual” events. I think people may interpret events as having to do with a God and call it spiritual, but I doubt I’d call that experience spiritual if they explained to me what they had experienced. The Mormonism hoax is all too elaborate in my opinion for the Book of Mormon witnesses to all be delusional or credulous. I suspect if they had better means to earn a living than to get into the religion business or if they appreciated the hardships they’d eventually endure the Whitmers, Cowdery perhaps Harris and maybe some of the Smiths would not have gone along with it all. I think when it started up they envisioned a wonderful opportunity and future.

Perhaps Dan is right, and all my past studies are leading me nowhere useful. But if I am correct, in my
attribution of most of Mormonism to the injured brain of Elder Sidney Rigdon -- then THAT would be a story well worth telling (no matter my own paranormal interpretations, nor my reliability on anything in particular).

I think Dan and perhaps yourself may misunderstand my position. Evaluation of anyone, yourself, the witnesess, is a matter of looking at various data. It’s not just because the Book of Mormon testimony witnesses claimed to see an angel that their reliability is shot in my view. It’s other factors combined which leads to my rejection of their testimony and treat is as unrealiable.

If one looks at yourself and your research, one notes you have gained little personal advantage by the work you’ve done other than personal satisfaction. You have been opposed by a multibillion dollar organization. Your motivation hasn’t been money or glory, it’s likely been that the subject interested you and truth is likely important. The nature of your work is researching to obtain evidence. Therefore if you write a book on Rigdon, the contents are subject to verification. No one will accept solely on your personal say so. So of course, there is no reason to think that because you once had an experience visualizing an angel it’s going to affect your reliability with regards to a book on Rigdon.

The Book of Mormon witnesses on the other hand were related to Smith, or knew him well. There weren’t many witnesses, essentially 2 families. They got involved in Mormonism hence they had a vested interest. Religion is a business and there are benefits such a power and money. In those days there weren’t many paying jobs. Their claims are extraordinary which they seem non skeptical of. They are vague in their claims, there is inconsistency in their claims. So when I look at lots of data, and evaluate the poor evidence for the extraordinary claim of “head in the hat, while reading words off a stone” theory, I find the witnesses unreliable. Dan thinks they are good, I think they are extremely poor, to the point of it being ridiculous to even argue about.

So my point is, evaluating the Book of Mormon witnesses is a function of looking at various data, weighting it as to importance and reaching a judgment call conclusion.