DAN VOGEL DISCUSSES THE SPALDING/RIGDON THEORY

[_Uncle Dale]

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?

Although I am not in a position to prove it, my personal conclusion is that Sidney Rigdon
was the motivating factor in the production of the JST text -- that is, I think he had mostly
prepared the additions before his ostensible Mormon conversion and that he was the
main author of the multitude of textual corrections evident throughout the JST.

In fact, I believe the Book of Mormon and JST to simply be two halves of a single latter day scriptures
writing/publishing program -- only for various reasons the JST was never published to
stand along side the Book of Mormon in the Kirtland/Missouri/Nauvoo period.

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.

Unfortunately "thinking" that something was actual history, and articulating a compelling case
for those conclusions are not one in the same thing. It is easy to "think" something happened in
the past --- but even if it did so happen, convincing others of that fact may be a very difficult task.

I think that Craig Criddle's forthcoming Book of Mormon wordprint studies/charts may be of some use --
as may be our coming to a better understanding of Rigdon's pre-1830 religious career. Those
two elements of the "articulation" may be of some use in the near future.

But, standing alone, even those two reports will not be enough to convince the vast majority of
interested persons, that Rigdon and Smith cooperated together to produce the first Mormon
scriptures. More supporting evidence must be located and compiled --- and, at the moment, I do
not see where such information will come from or what form it will take.

At the very least, the day is coming when we will be able to publish a reasonable explanation of
how and why Rigdon and Smith (with Cowdery as a helper) would have begun such a secretive
cooperation. Perhaps that will have to be enough for a while -- and the supporting evidence will
not come until later.

In the meanwhile I plod along, doing what I can.

UD

[_Dan Vogel]

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.

As I understand YOUR speculations, SR would still be the prime mover of the conspiracy. It was his brain child. The motivations of those who join the conspiracy would not be relevant to SR's motivations for beginning the fraud. So if Joseph Smith's or OC's motivations were not pious, the fraud and its author still would be.

[_Bond...James Bond]

So is this thread pretty much finished or are you guys just regrouping?

[_dilettante]

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.

As I understand YOUR speculations, SR would still be the prime mover of the conspiracy. It was his brain child. The motivations of those who join the conspiracy would not be relevant to SR's motivations for beginning the fraud. So if Joseph Smith's or OC's motivations were not pious, the fraud and its author still would be.

I don't think that is what I said, Dan. I believe that Signey Rigdon was involved with writing the the Book of Mormon text. I'm not sure that it was exactly understood there was a "conspiracy" in the beginning, but I believe that is what it became.

Let's just imagine a pious preacher with a plagiarized book having someone else publish it for him. Is this completely beyond reason?

And again, I will state, that I AM NOT saying that I KNOW Joseph Smith's and Oliver Cowder's intentions were purposely fraudulent from the beginning.

P.S. Before my words get twisted around again.... I did not say that I believe Joseph Smith was a prophet!

[_Dan Vogel]

dilettante:

I don't think that is what I said, Dan. I believe that Signey Rigdon was involved with writing the the Book of Mormon text. I'm not sure that it was exactly understood there was a "conspiracy" in the beginning, but I believe that is what it became.

I'm not sure what you are arguing here. You need to be more explicit. Are you arguing that SR stole the MS, rewrote it, and joined with Joseph Smith (and possible OC) without a purpose? At what point do you suggest SR discovered he was in a conspiracy? Why do you think a conspiracy is necessary for SR to be viewed as a pious fraud? You also seem to imply that SR's motivations could be different than what is expressed in the book, when the book is the only thing we have to go by where SR is concerned.

Let's just imagine a pious preacher with a plagiarized book having someone else publish it for him. Is this completely beyond reason?

I don't understand your logic here. If SR feared being associated with a "plagiarized book," and so fronted the fraud with Joseph Smith, then why would he ever want to be associated with it? Why feign conversion? You have just made SR the prime mover and manipulator, which seems to contradict your previous suggestion that he didn't know he was in a conspiracy in the beginning, when it was Joseph Smith who didn't know he was fronting a plagiarized book.

And again, I will state, that I AM NOT saying that I KNOW Joseph Smith's and Oliver Cowder's intentions were purposely fraudulent from the beginning.

What does this mean? Are or are you not arguing against pious fraud?

P.S. Before my words get twisted around again.... I did not say that I believe Joseph Smith was a prophet!

Whatever you might think, I wasn't intentionally "twisting" your words. I was trying to respond honestly to your position, which sometimes is not expressed fully. I'm quite willing to revise and correct my arguments when you clarify them.

[_dilettante]

I'm not sure what you are arguing here. You need to be more explicit. Are you arguing that SR stole the MS, rewrote it, and joined with Joseph Smith (and possible OC) without a purpose? At what point do you suggest SR discovered he was in a conspiracy? Why do you think a conspiracy is necessary for SR to be viewed as a pious fraud? You also seem to imply that SR's motivations could be different than what is expressed in the book, when the book is the only thing we have to go by where SR is concerned.

I'm not sure we are actually talking with the right person. You should already know the answers to these questions, Dan.

don't understand your logic here. If SR feared being associated with a "plagiarized book," and so fronted the fraud with Joseph Smith, then why would he ever want to be associated with it? Why feign conversion? You have just made SR the prime mover and manipulator, which seems to contradict your previous suggestion that he didn't know he was in a conspiracy in the beginning, when it was Joseph Smith who didn't know he was fronting a plagiarized book.

Again, it's almost as if we were are talking with some ignorant Mormon historian. Are you actually asking me why someone would feign conversion when they were involved with a fraud?

[_Dan Vogel]

I'm not sure what you are arguing here. You need to be more explicit. Are you arguing that SR stole the MS, rewrote it, and joined with Joseph Smith (and possible OC) without a purpose? At what point do you suggest SR discovered he was in a conspiracy? Why do you think a conspiracy is necessary for SR to be viewed as a pious fraud? You also seem to imply that SR's motivations could be different than what is expressed in the book, when the book is the only thing we have to go by where SR is concerned.

I'm not sure we are actually talking with the right person. You should already know the answers to these questions, Dan.

Are you going to engage the discussion or not? I'm asking these questions because I think you will have trouble being explicit. I think the more explicit you are, the less reasonable it will sound. Remember, you are trying to explain why SR wasn't involved in a pious fraud.

I don't understand your logic here. If SR feared being associated with a "plagiarized book," and so fronted the fraud with Joseph Smith, then why would he ever want to be associated with it? Why feign conversion? You have just made SR the prime mover and manipulator, which seems to contradict your previous suggestion that he didn't know he was in a conspiracy in the beginning, when it was Joseph Smith who didn't know he was fronting a plagiarized book.

Again, it's almost as if we were are talking with some ignorant Mormon historian. Are you actually asking me why someone would feign conversion when they were involved with a fraud?

And your ad hominal diversionary tactics reminds me of some Mormon apologists. Of course, I haven't asked the question as you have asked it. And, in isolation, it's perfectly reasonable to believe SR would pretend coversion as part of a fraud. But that's not what I asked, is it? My questions had to do with the contradiction in asserting that SR had Joseph Smith bring the book out because he wouldn't want to be associated with a "plagiarized book" and his later joining and taking a leading role in the organization that might be exposed as being founded on fraudulent scripture. It seems the risk of exposure would be the same. Could he reasonably expect Joseph Smith, once exposed, would remain silent about the book's true author? And what about the contradiction between your original position that SR didn't know he was part of a conspiracy, and suggesting that it was he who was manipulating Joseph Smith to be the front man? It seems to me you have some explaining to do.

[_why me]

I think Dan that the Ridgonites do have difficulties in explaining the Ridgon Theory. It does seem almost impossible that Sidney had something to do with the writing of the Book of Mormon but since at that time, people had difficulties in believing Joseph Smith authorship because of his perceived limited intelligence this theory of Rigdon authorship will continue to have play. But how it could have been done (Rigdon authorship) and then get others involved in it does seem to be nearly impossible in my opinion.

However Uncle Dale is giving it a shot. And others are coming up with theories that have yet to be proven. And so the speculation will continue to doomday. If I were Sidney, I would claim it as my work and create a Joseph Smith type story behind it...most likely he could have gotten away with it since Rigdon did have some of following at that time. Why give someone else credit for a book that he wrote? And then leave the work or be forced to leave the work and remain silent? When individuals involve themselves in a fraud, there is usually for some gain in the fraud. However, in this instance, I see no gain in it for anyone. Oliver left the church, sidney got the boot, David left the church, and Joseph Smith had mobs on his tail for most of the time. No gain in my opinion. And yet, the enterprise survived. I suppose that this will need to go down as one of those great unsolved mysteries of all time. And the church survives quite nicely to this day.

And so, where are we on the Ridgon theory and your theory? Has the thread reached a solution or is it as I claimed it would be at the very beginning...no winners or losers, just speculations?

But I am a simpleton in these matters as you can see.

[_Dan Vogel]

I think Dan that the Ridgonites do have difficulties in explaining the Ridgon Theory. It does seem almost impossible that Sidney had something to do with the writing of the Book of Mormon but since at that time, people had difficulties in believing Joseph Smith authorship because of his perceived limited intelligence this theory of Rigdon authorship will continue to have play. But how it could have been done (Rigdon authorship) and then get others involved in it does seem to be nearly impossible in my opinion.

The theory was got up by those who knew neither Joseph Smith nor the content of the Book of Mormon. Some may have had the rationale you posit, but that's not the rationale that began the theory.

[_Uncle Dale]

were Sidney, I would claim it as my work and create a Joseph Smith type story behind it...

Almost to his dying breath, Sidney Rigdon expressed the unwavering conviction that there must be two
latter day leaders -- one an oracle and the other the spokesman for that oracle. This was a Moses-Aaron
relationship in the "restored church" that Rigdon never departed from --- (though in his old age he seems
to have been ready to see Stephen Post become the spokesman for a Rigdon-oracle).

Had Rigdon operated on his own -- claiming to have discovered the book -- how would he have introduced
his much-needed oracle into the picture? He would have been an Amulek without an Alma -- an announcer
with nothing more than the book itself to announce.

But there would have been additional problems for Rigdon. According to several old sources, Rigdon himself
was predicting a new revelation forthcoming -- was professing that the Campbell-Scott brand of Christian
primitivism had been taught in America in ancient times, etc. etc. For Rigdon to have proclaimed himself as
the finder of the new revelation would have reminded far too many nay-sayers that it was Rigdon who was
promoting this "restored religion" well before he made the wonderful discovery.

Add to all of that, the fact that Rigdon was an educated man, and additional problems arise. He reportedly
taught Greek to Zeb Rudolph and other early Campbellites -- he seems to have known some Hebrew as well.
Rigdon was schooled in divinity (and languages?) by the noted Rev. Andrew Clark, but Rigdon was also
self-educated in history, politics, science, etc. He was far "too learned" to have been trusted by the religionists
of his day as one of "the weak things of the earth" God made use of in such situations. It would be far, far
better to have the "finder and translator" be an uneducated man -- a simple farmer, with no knowledge of
ancient history and ancient languages -- a fellow who had NOT been proclaiming the forthcoming millennium,
restoration of apostolic spiritual gifts and an "ancient gospel" once before preached in the Americas.

What if.........

What if Rigdon, in 1826, believed Smith to be a true prophet -- and Smith believed that Rigdon had a true
"second witness for Jesus Christ" of ancient origin -- a book nearly finished, but needing more revelations????

What might have come of an 1826 cooperation between two such visionaries, each of whom believed the
other to possess the needed "keys of the Kingdom" ????

UD