DAN VOGEL DISCUSSES THE SPALDING/RIGDON THEORY

[_DonBradley]

Hi Unk,

Thanks for the references. I'm thinking that perhaps what I read was either a summary or extension of Whitsitt's view that the Roman story evolved into a Jaredite/patriarchal story and from there into some sort of lost tribes story that was either the Book of Mormon narrative or its immediate precursor. But I still don't remember exactly where I encountered it.

Don

[_Uncle Dale]

Hi Unk,

Thanks for the references. I'm thinking that perhaps what I read was either a summary or extension of Whitsitt's view that the Roman story evolved into a Jaredite/patriarchal story and from there into some sort of lost tribes story that was either the Book of Mormon narrative or its immediate precursor. But I still don't remember exactly where I encountered it.

Don

Craig Criddle has come to the interesting conclusion -- that the Jaredite story
in Ether is directly related to the Book of Moses and Book of Enoch. That is to say,
that Solomon Spalding wrote a sort of English language targum on the creation and
earliest biblical histories -- a work of fiction more or less separate from his
purported "Manuscript Found."

Craig says that he has the computerized word-study documentation to back up
this conclusion. I've yet to see all of his "evidence," so I'm not fully convinced.

However, if he is correct in this viewpoint, I suppose we must ask ourselves
how such multiple Spalding stories ever got into the texts of the Book of Mormon and JST.
One possible explanation is that the poverty-stricken farmboy, Sidney Rigdon,
used to copy books in his own handwriting for home-study, and that he somehow
got hold of Spalding's writings, long enough to copy a substantial part of them.

Sidney lived within the distance of a long walk from his aunt, Mary Rigdon, and
her children -- who were residents of the tiny hamlet of Amity, Washington Co.,
PA, at the time Solomon Spalding lived there and operated the village's only inn.
Perhaps Rigdon obtained access to Spalding's multiple writings, long enough to
make copies, for the innocent purpose of studying the writer's unique stories.

It's a long-shot, and I do not know how to investigate this idea, to obtain any
confirming evidence --- but it is an interesting possibility.

UD

[_Dr. Shades]

Dan:

Perhaps you've addressed this earlier, but just to be sure, let me ask:

If Joseph and Sidney really did use the/a Spalding manuscript to cook up the Book of Mormon, would that alter your opinion of Joseph as a pious fraud?

[_dilettante]

Sidney lived within the distance of a long walk from his aunt, Mary Rigdon, and
her children -- who were residents of the tiny hamlet of Amity, Washington Co.,
PA, at the time Solomon Spalding lived there and operated the village's only inn.
Perhaps Rigdon obtained access to Spalding's multiple writings, long enough to
make copies, for the innocent purpose of studying the writer's unique stories.

The problem that I have with this idea is that "make copies" was not the same in the early 19th century as it is today. If copies were to be made, it was just as easy to modify them as they were being "copied."

It would be difficult to positively tie supposed "copies" to an original if they weren't word for word.

[_dilettante]

Dan:

Perhaps you've addressed this earlier, but just to be sure, let me ask:

If Joseph and Sidney really did use the/a Spalding manuscript to cook up the Book of Mormon, would that alter your opinion of Joseph as a pious fraud?

Actually, I've never seen an opinion from Dale on the term "pious fraud."

[_Uncle Dale]

Dan:

Perhaps you've addressed this earlier, but just to be sure, let me ask:

If Joseph and Sidney really did use the/a Spalding manuscript to cook up the Book of Mormon, would that alter your opinion of Joseph as a pious fraud?

Actually, I've never seen an opinion from Dale on the term "pious fraud."

I've used the term in some situations, in my on-line comments --- but Doc. Shades' query
was here directed to Dan Vogel, (who bases part of his Smith-alone theory of Book of Mormon authorship
upon the notion that Joseph Smith was generally "pious" but also used some fraudulent methods to bring
sinners to faith in Jesus Christ).

My point of view shifts fram Dan's, in that I envision Sidney Rigdon and Oliver Cowdery as
probably having been the actual "pious frauds," and that Joseph Smith was a cunning con man who was
only occasionally "pious," (and in a different sort of way than Rigdon and Cowdery, whom I
believe to have been true Christians in their belief systems).

From my perspective, Rigdon saw himself as a sort of Almulek -- and he saw the young Joseph Smith
as a sort of Alma. -- Rigdon was willing to overlook (and even make good use of) Joseph Smith's frauds,
because Rigdon thought that the true apostolic religion has disappeared from the earth, and
that God would make use of whatever "weak things" were then available for a restoration.

I may be wrong --- Dan may be right. -- But he has yet to give a full explanation of Rigdon and
Rigdon's interactions with Joseph Smith. I suspect that anybody who devotes a goodly measure of time
to the study of Sidney Rigdon, will eventually come to realize and admit Rigdon's great influence
upon Joseph Smith and upon the birth of Mormonism. Those who ignore or dismiss Rigdon, as nothing more
than a deluded Smith follower and his occasional scribe, are ignoring and dismissing the true origin
of Mormonism, its earliest doctrines and its secretive methods and objectives. IMHO...

UD

[_dilettante]

Wow! That's actually much more than I expected.

If I may ask, Dale, do you believe (as I do) that Sidney Rigdon was also involved with the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible?

[_dilettante]

Wow! That's actually much more than I expected.

If I may ask, Dale, do you believe (as I do) that Sidney Rigdon was also involved with the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible?

by the way: At this point, I'm of the opinion that Sidney Rigdon was NOT involved with the Book of Abraham.

[_Dan Vogel]

Dan:

Perhaps you've addressed this earlier, but just to be sure, let me ask:

If Joseph and Sidney really did use the/a Spalding manuscript to cook up the Book of Mormon, would that alter your opinion of Joseph as a pious fraud?

I see no need for hypotheticals, but here is my reaction. Assuming SR was the author of the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith's motivations are no longer relevant to the question of why the fraud got started.

[_dilettante]

I see no need for hypotheticals, but here is my reaction. Assuming SR was the author of the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith's motivations are no longer relevant to the question of why the fraud got started.

I guess you may not feel that it's relevant in regard to why the fraud got started, but I feel that it is. Assuming Rigdon was involved in writing of the Book of Mormon, the motivations of Smith getting it published are very relevant.

Let's not forget that we are NOT saying that Rigdon was the sole author of the Book of Mormon. In fact I think that the Book of Mormon is a composite of several writings, including that of Smith with the help of Cowdery.