Response to Jockers, Criddle, et al., Now Available

[_Uncle Dale]

...I am going to quote from "Defense of the Faith" Vol. II by B.H. Roberts.
...

A red herring -- and not even a very good one at that.

Roberts quoted this:

1. Rigdon's relatives at Library, Pa., Carvil Rigdon (his brother) and Peter Boyer (his brother-in-law), in a written statement dated Jan. 27, 1843, certify to the facts and dates as above stated in regard to his birth, schooling, uniting with the church, Licensure, ordination, and settlement in Pittsburgh in 1822. Mr. Boyer also, in a personal interview with the present writer in 1879, positively affirmed that Rigdon had never lived in Pittsburgh previous to 1822, adding that "they were boys together and he ought to know." Mr. Boyer had for a short time embraced Mormonism, but became convinced that it was a delusion and returned to his membership in the Baptist Church.
http://solomonspalding.com/docs/1882PatA.htm#pg431d

Both Carvil Rigdon and Peter Boyer were Mormons -- converted by Sidney
Rigdon. Carvil was, in fact, the Patriarch of Rigdon's splinter group. But,
just because they were Rigdonites does not mean that they purposefully
told lies to protect their leader. They probably told the truth.

Sidney Rigdon did not own a house within the city limits of Pittsburgh
prior to 1822 -- and even after he had moved his household furniture into
that town, he probably was furnished a Baptist parsonage, and later
lived on the property of the tannery owned by his brother-in-law.

So, yes -- Rigdon did not have a residence within city limits until 1822.

That is like my saying that a person living in Sugarhouse, or Murray, or
North Salt Lake does not live in Salt Lake City.

Sidney Rigdon lived within walking distance of the bridge across the river
to city center. As a young man, he lived within walking distance of the
ferry that operated before the bridge was built.

But since Brothers Rigdon and Boyer are being summoned for testimony
here, let's see what they said back when Sidney was still alive, and they
were loyal to him, and would not have risked saying anything to offend
their relative and religious superior:

(S. Rigdon)... was ordained a regular Baptist preacher, and returned to Pittsburgh
in the winter of 1821 and '22...
http://www.solomonspalding.com/docs/Page1843.htm#pg07c

This agrees precisely with the biographical history supplied by Sidney's son
John -- stating that his father occasionally preached in Pittsburgh BEFORE
the family moved their belongings there in 1821-22.

And why not? --- Whenever Sidney was in Library, at Peters Creek, he was
operating on his home turf -- in what is now the southern suburbs of
greater Pittsburgh. About as far from city center as downtown Murray is
from Temple Square.

In 1817 Sidney was converted to his parents faith and studied to be
a minister in the adjacent county -- very near Pittsburgh. Whenever
he was on his home turf, in and around his father's old farm, he was
within walking distance of city center. He could travel to the Baptist
congregation in Pittsburgh, attend Sunday morning services, and be
back at his mother's side two or three hours later -- And even more
quickly, if he had a horse at his disposal.

There was rarely a season between the time of his birth and the
end of 1825 that Sidney Rigdon could not have conveniently made
his way to Pittsburgh, and home again for supper. Even when he
was learning how to be a minister, on the Ohio-Pennsylvania border,
he was only a day's ride away from his mother's house in what is
now the southern suburbs of Pittsburgh.

The old Mormon farce -- objecting that Rigdon could not possibly
have been in Pittsburgh at an early date -- is just that, a stupid
story with no basis in fact. But, if Sister Fawn Brodie said it was
true, then LDS will forever believe her and B.H. Roberts -- sigh! --

UD

[_Roger]

Glenn:

I'll give you an A for persistence, but your thesis gets a D-.

It's a nice history lesson, but none of those quotes negatively affect S/R.

Robert Patterson was the person, according to his own words, to whom the widow brought the manuscript a second time. And according to his own words, the widow retrieved it once he decided not to publish it. He denied that Rigdon had any connection with the shop until several years later.
The widow left the Pittsburgh area in 1817.

So what? As I already stated, Engles complained that Rigdon was always hanging around. That agrees with Patterson's statement. Why would Engles complain if Rigdon had a legitimate reason to be hanging around?

We only need to show opportunity, Glenn, and there is ample opportunity.

But even if he was buddies with Lambdin, that is not evidence that he stole the manuscript. Wishful thinking does not evidence make.

Like I said, apparently the only thing that will satisfy you is a notarized, signed confession by Rigdon which, I am confident, you would then find a way to disavow.

You don't want to believe Rigdon purloined a manuscript because that doesn't agree with what you already believe about the Book of Mormon. Fine. That's your choice. But Rigdon had ample opportunity to do what he denies doing. And that's why Rebecca Eichbaum's testimony is so important. He WAS in the right place, at the right time, hanging around the right people. He did have the right interest and as we learn when we learn more about Rigdon, he did have the right personality, religious beliefs and even mental instability to have followed through with what S/R suggests he did.

Dale is talking about additional supporting evidence--some of the textual evidence. That's why evidence for S/R cannot easily be dissected and taken in little chunks. It has to be considered as a whole, but as a matter of practicality we can only talk about one or two things at a time on a website. That's what makes S/R complex and difficult to both explain and understand. That's what makes S/R an easy target for strawman manufacturers.

Keep in mind, Glenn, that the first recorded assertion identifying Rigdon as the likely mastermind behind the Book of Mormon was in 1831--well before anything was known publicly about any printing office, manuscript, post office, Spalding, widow or even Rigdon's history. It was certainly a stroke of good luck that Rigdon's history later proved so accommodating to the original assertion. And certainly good fortune that everything else fell in line as well.

All the best.

[_Uncle Dale]

...
So what? As I already stated, Engles complained that Rigdon was always hanging around.
...

Hanging around where?

The Patterson brothers operated a paper mill, a book-bindery,
a stationery business, and a bookshop. Robert Patterson went
broke trying to ship supplies of Pittsburgh paper down the
Mississippi in 1819 or so. He lost all of his business operations
and eventually went to work as a sales agent in what had once
been his own bookstore.

J.H. Lambdin was also set back financially in the paper sales fiasco.
He ended up with another piece of the former Patterson business,
and operated his own small shop in Pittsburgh until his death.

Silas Engles was an independent printer, occasional publisher,
local politician, etc. His print-shop was never owned by the
Pattersons, although he was reportedly their cousin. At one point
his printing press was located either adjacent to the Patterson
bookstore, or in a separate room in the same building.

Sidney Rigdon might have been "hanging around" in any number
of places where the Pattersons would not have crossed paths
with him.

For example, as an apprentice tanner, he would have likely
delivered leather goods into the city -- at least he did that in
his later years, when he was a journeyman tanner. The logical
place for a leather book-bindings delivery boy to have been
"hanging out" would have been the Pattersons' bindery -- where
Rigdon could have read books for free.

Had Rigdon been often hanging around the Patterson's bookstore,
the brothers would have probably remembered him. So, he
probably did not spend his free time in town, blocking the aisles
of the bookstore. A more convenient place for him to hang out
would have been the brothers' warehouse, where they also stored
wall paper and sheets of paper used to make decorative prints.
Solomon Spalding briefly operated a store near the Pattersons,
selling those decorative prints.

Rigdon could also have hung out in Engles' print-shop, out of
sight of the Pattersons -- who were not printers. Again, that
would have been a convenient place for the young man to
procure free reading material. He was largely self-educated,
after a few years of grade school -- and probably too poor to
have purchased textbooks for that self-education.

It is yet another red herring, drug across the investigator's path,
when apologists argue that Rigdon did not work in Patterson's
bookstore -- or in Patterson's publishing office. He need not have
hung around those particular rooms, when the print-shop, the
bindery, and the warehouse were available, for a young man seeking
an isolated spot to catch up on his reading about Indians and the
lost tribes of Israel.

UD

[_Uncle Dale]

One of the reasons I chose Alma 34 for closer inspection, is that it is
one of the few Book of Mormon chapters Bruce Schaalje's classification
method assigned to a 19th century author.

The same 19th century author is assigned (by Schaalje and Jockers, oddly
enough) to Alma 7. So perhaps there is some special relationship connecting
the contents of Alma 34 and Alma 7.

And, the same 19th century author is assigned (by both scholars) to
Alma 5. So, I began to think Alma 5, 7, and 34 may share authorship.
...

Although it is not finalized yet, my recent investigation of
Alma 32-33-34 is on-line, here:
http://premormon.com/resources/r010/010CowAlma1.htm

I hope to add to the Appendix a tabulation of language overlap
with BoC 7 & 8 next week.

UD

[Guest]

Dan:

Thanks for your response. I have to say I thought maybe you felt personally attacked and I wondered if you would return. I am glad you did and I certainly appreciate your willingness to discuss this with me.

I also realize these posts are getting huge, but I am very interested in your responses. I apologize in advance for the length this post will surely end up being.

Regarding your previous post, I was glad to see you reading about these fallacies. They are important in scholarly discourse. They help keep us on track and judge which evidence deserves greater respect.

I can understand that, but the fact is I am a layman and generally don't give the technical aspects of web discussion much thought one way or the other. I am simply interested in attempting to answer the question of who produced the content of the Book of Mormon.

Also, none of the quotes you gave supported your assertion that Whitmer (or anyone for that matter) said every word came through the stone. General statements about translating with stone do not preclude the use of a Bible. And Knight’s saying the “whole” was translated with the stone was according to his limited exposure to the translation; there was no intentional withholding of information on his part.

Well it certainly seems from a simple reading that Knight was suggesting that the ONLY way Book of Mormon words got put on paper was by Joseph dictating what appeared in the stone when he says "the whole." I don't know how to take that any other way, limited exposure or not. You can argue that he didn't have enough exposure to make the claim, but it appears as though he's making the claim nonetheless.

As I said, the variant readings likely came from the stone.

What do you mean by that, exactly? Are we talking about the same variant readings? Isaiah/Malachi quotations?

You do realize the statement isn’t true to begin with.

Yes, I'm glad we agree on that, because I was starting to wonder whether you simply accept it because early LDS testimony is to be believed.

Nevertheless, it’s intended as a general statement for general consumption. There is no expectation that a full statement is being given here—indeed, no mention of a hat and characters appearing on the stone with English underneath, etc.

Sure, but my point is that Joseph was intentionally ambiguous and was not forthcoming with any description of how the translation occured. I don't think you disagree with that, do you? That, to me, is a red flag that has to be considered as part of the context of "eyewitness testimony" and whether there was anything intentionally withheld.

My criticism of your argument from silence is no small matter. It is an obvious standard critique that any scholar would point out, not just me. There is no occasion on which an eyewitness would have been expected to divulge the information and did not. Therefore, no scholar can accept your argument from silence. There might be situations when a case might be made from deliberate silence, but this is not one of them. Rather, this is a textbook example of what is not permitted in scholarly discourse.

Why is this not one of them?

What I am saying is that copying large chunks of a King James Bible is a completely different method from the one otherwise described. I am arguing that that is NOT something trivial or that would have been forgotten because of the volume of copied material and because it is so different from the described method.

You seem to be saying it is trivial and could have been forgotten or simply not mentioned--as opposed to intentionally withheld.

But you can't possibly know that.

Therefore, I sincerely do not see how you can simply dismiss that argument on the basis that no scholar would accept it. Maybe I just don't understand the case you are making yet.

I didn’t say you were “attacking” me—that would be ad hominem abusive. Ad hominem circumstantial is more subtle. Let me break it down. Since I believe the Bible was used and there was no mention of that, he can’t argue that the Spalding MS wasn’t used because it was also not mentioned. Rather than proving the Spalding MS was present (the same way the presence of the Bible is proved), you want me to accept your proposition based on what you see is an inconsistency in my position. Thus you are attempting to take advantage of my circumstances. It’s like saying: if you believe A, you have to also believe B in order to be consistent.

Okay, I'm glad you stated it this way. I am not trying to be obnoxious here, but I really think you are making too much out of what I am actually saying. I think I am going to have to break your quote down to show what I mean....

Since I believe the Bible was used and there was no mention of that, he can’t argue that the Spalding MS wasn’t used because it was also not mentioned.

No. You are jumping the gun. I am saying since we agree that a Bible was used BUT WAS NEVER MENTIONED what reason is there to suspect that nothing else besides the Bible was used?

It's a legitimate question, as opposed to an attempt to tell you what you can or can't believe/argue.

I am saying we agree that:

A. A Bible was used but no witness ever mentioned it

therefore we should also agree that:

B. there is no good reason to conclude that nothing else could have been used.

I haven't even mentioned a Spalding manuscript at this point.

Rather than proving the Spalding MS was present (the same way the presence of the Bible is proved), you want me to accept your proposition based on what you see is an inconsistency in my position.

No I don't. That is where you are really jumping the gun.

Thus you are attempting to take advantage of my circumstances. It’s like saying: if you believe A, you have to also believe B in order to be consistent.

Not at all. All I am asking at this point is:

If we can agree that a Bible was used but not mentioned--and we do--then what is to prevent us from asking whether any other source might have been used but not mentioned?

The answer is obviously, nothing.

With all due respect, I know you are smart enough to see where the logic ends up and I have never attempted to hide my position, but putting that aside for the moment, I really, sincerely think you have to agree that once you acknowledge a Bible was used--in spite of the fact that you cannot support that conclusion with any eyewitness statement--then you are bound to at least be open to other possible sources being used, whether they be a Spalding ms or not.

I think your hesitancy to simply agree with that comes into play because you are smart enough to know where the next logical step leads after agreeing to that and you don't want to go there. Am I wrong?

But, beyond that here's where I think your logic goes astray... you seem to argue that since they were specifically asked about a Spalding ms and denied it, then that settles it. A Spalding ms was not used. But, they were never asked about a KJVB, therefore no denial exists, therefore we are free to conclude from other data that a KJVB was used. I say, that places way too much confidence in the word of these witnesses. I wish someone would have asked if a Bible was used, because I think they would have denied it. From what I am hearing you say, it seems that you would predict that they would have acknowledged it.

Dan believes the Spalding MS was not present during translation (based on eyewitness testimony)
But Dan also believes the Bible was present (which was not mentioned by eyewitnesses)
Therefore, Dan should reject the first proposition

No. That's too much of a leap and I'm not asking you to do that based on what we have agreed to at this point.

Bottom line on this is that scholarly discourse should not include such argumentation, or any variation of it. The eyewitness testimony is as good as it gets for historians, and it shouldn’t be dismissed so easily.

Well, in the first place, I am not a scholar. And in the second place I have other reasons to reject much of what the Book of Mormon witnesses say, especially Joseph Smith, and it appears you do as well. But in the third place, that "it shouldn’t be dismissed so easily" is exactly what I think you are doing in the case of the Conneaut eyewitnesses.

You can agree that a Bible was used and you are still free to reject that other sources were used. But then, of course, I am going to ask what makes the difference? The fact is I DO think there IS additional reason to consider Spalding as a possible source, but I am not asking you to accept that a Spalding ms must have been used simply on the basis that a Bible was used. That is merely step 1 in the logic.

On the Book of Mormon witnesses:

I find it interesting that you characterize the discrepancies in various Book of Mormon witness statements as “different readings” rather than simply inconsistent testimonies. That is perhaps the most revealing aspect of this conversation for me.

You are not following me here. I was talking about the published Testimony included in every Book of Mormon. That is a single document, which as I argue in my essay was ambiguously worded and therefore allowed for different readings by different readers. The Testimony described seeing an angel showing the plates, but later interviewers of the witnesses were surprised about how spiritual and subjective the vision was.

I agree. But I am considering all of the words of these witnesses and making a judgement about their character based on that.

On the Spalding witnesses:

Like Brodie, you assume you know better than they do and apparently simply disregard the specific denial (by Aron Wright) of the charge (false memories) you level against them, choosing instead to believe other witnesses (David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery). Yet, like Brodie, you are hesitant to characterize them as outright liars, but instead choose to think of them as sincerely mistaken, even though the specificity of the claims they make does not fit that mold.

Since I also reject the two-MS theory, I believe their memories were proven false with the discovery of the MS. The false memory theory I mention is one way of explaining the disparity between their memories and the physical evidence we have. You are mistaken in the assumption that false memories can’t be specific.

First, I am not making that assumption. I agree that false memories can be specific.

Second, I agree that "The false memory theory [you] mention is one way of explaining the disparity between their memories and the physical evidence we have." I just don't think it's a very good way in light of what we do know about this specific case. There is too much working against that conclusion when one considers all the factors which would take a lot of space for me to lay out here in what is already a very long post.

Let me just quickly try to sum it up.... I've posted a personal experience I had several times on this board already so I don't want to belabor the point, but very quickly, about the time I graduated from high school I read a novel called the Winds of War and it's sequel called War and Remembrance. I was arguing with someone a couple years ago online about this topic and I realized I could test my own memory because I had not cracked those novels open in the intervening 20+ years. So I attempted to remember various details about the novels. In short, I got the general outline but not a lot of specifics OTHER THAN the names of the leading characters. I remembered instantly that the name of the main hero was "Pug" Henry. I did not instantly remember, however, that his real name was "Victor" since the name I had been repeatedly exposed to was "Pug." At first I remembered his son's name as "Brian" but something did not sound quite right about that. I eventually remembered it was actually "Byron." I got Byron's love interest correct: Natalie Jastrow, (probably because I like the name) which then reminded me of her uncle Aaron Jastrow. I remembered Pug's wife as "Ronda" but it was only after I opened the book again to check that I realized I was wrong about that one, it was actually "Rhoda" but as you can see, my memory was phonetically close.

I've shared this personal test with LDS (realizing, of course, that it is only my personal experience and does not count as "evidence") who's reaction is almost unanimous: well you must have an exceptional memory! No, not at all. My memory is quite normal, if not on the weak side. The point is that the names of the lead characters in a novel are exactly what we would expect someone to remember from a novel because they are repeatedly exposed to it. And that's exactly what the Conneaut witnesses are adamant about remembering. Hence, my conclusion, they were either lying or telling the truth.

If there were parallel names in the extant Spalding ms I might be more inclined to accept memory substitution, but there is nothing even close.

Now, to your point about coaching by Hurlbut, sure, I think a case can be made that Hurlbut may have done some coaching, but to suggest that he read about Nephi and Lehi in the Book of Mormon and then convinced them those were the names they had been exposed to when there is nothing even close to that, is beyond reasonable to me--IF WHAT THEY HAD ACTUALLY BEEN EXPOSED TO was the extant Spalding ms. If that's what happened then I could much easier believe Hurlbut simply manipulated them into agreeing to blatant falsehoods than that they actually thought they were telling the truth but were (obviously) mistaken.

But the other thing my own personal experience demonstrates to me (if to no one else) is that even if someone would have come along and jogged my memory by giving me hints, that doesn't mean I never read the novel in the first place! All it means is that my memory was being jogged. And--for all the benefit you are willing to give the Book of Mormon witnesses (despite the "different readings" thing) why can't you at least consider that even if Hurlbut did some memory jogging, their statements are exactly what we would expect them to be if they were actually telling the truth? Brodie's logic assumes they were not exposed to what they claim to have been exposed to. On what basis? Inconsistent testimony? No! On the contrary, the testimony is too consistent for her tastes! (Never mind the differences). But it fails to take into consideration the possibility that these people might have been telling the truth, and if so--if we put ourselves in their shoes--what would we expect their statements to look like?

There's more to it than that, obviously, but maybe that at least helps to clarify my argument that you see as a false dichotomy.

For me, the key questions that remain are:

1. If Smith, Cowdery and Whitmer could simply forget to mention that a Bible was used in Book of Mormon production, what was to prevent them from forgetting to mention any other sources that may have been used? I think the answer is clearly: nothing.

You don’t know that they forgot to mention the Bible, only that the sources we have do not mention that subject.

Correct, which is why I wanted to approach this from the standpoint that you and I agree that a Bible was used.

2. Do you welcome and encourage further research into other possible sources that may have been used in Book of Mormon production?

Of course, but to find parallels does not necessarily mean plagiarism occurred, that is in the sense you seem to imply—that Joseph Smith read directly from the Westminster Confession while dictating the Book of Mormon, for instance. He may have read it, or knew its principles from discussions with his Presbyterian mother, and was influenced in its wording while dictating the Book of Mormon—that’s as far as I’m willing to take it. The Bible is a different matter.

Agreed, but in the case of the Bible as well as the Westminster Confession, etc. we don't have specific allegations arising from otherwise credible witnesses indicating that they had heard these sources before and now recognize them again in the Book of Mormon with some additional religious material inserted. The allegations should play a part in our investigations--unless it can be shown that the statements of the witnesses are not credible.

There’s a difference between saying Whitmer contradicted himself, and that various interviews have contradictory elements. Given the different interviewers and time span, these things are to be expected, and it is the historian’s job to try, as far as possible, to reconstruct the story. Some contradictions are only apparent. The part about Whitmer is not a contradiction. I was using his clear statement about not touching the plates in the vision to show how a witness could conflate his vision of seeing the plates with other occasions on which he handled the plates, undoubtedly when they were covered.

But the "other occasions" of which you speak are simply speculation on your part, no? Isn't that an argument from silence?

This was in support of my thesis that the Eight Witnesses statement only sounds like the saw and handled the plates together, whereas it possibly could be separate experiences. This is not an argument from silence. I’m only suggesting that Whitmer had plenty of opportunity to handle the plates, which is exactly what he says without being specific.

I'm still trying to digest the logic of that last sentence and see how it works with what I think is the reality here.

Let me just ask this....

In your opinion, is it more accurate to describe the apparent discrepancies in the various Book of Mormon witness accounts as "different readings" as opposed to "contradictory accounts"? If so, why?

On page 102 you talk about John Whitmer's testimony....

It’s equally possible that John did see the plates in vision, by a “supernatural power” as he said, but had come to reject Joseph Smith’s later teachings as he claimed. The problem your statement above doesn’t address is how does he get eleven men to lie in the first place?

Okay, I think that's a fair question, but it's somewhat beside the point I was making that from an outsider's perspective these accounts just do not have a ring of credibility, in contrast to the Spalding witness accounts (that may indeed support a more complex theory for the Book of Mormon but) that actually do have some real world support.

As to your question, I agree that Joseph Smith may have had some uncommon powers of persuasion, but certainly nothing supernatural or that can't be found in certain individuals today.

I am a videographer and I was hired by a "faith healer" several months ago, which gave me the (bizarre) opportunity to see this guy in action up close and then review the whole thing on the computer. I am convinced he has a certain persuasive "power" over his followers. I am sure, if he pressed it, he could make them believe they were seeing angels in vision--or whatever he wanted to make them believe. It is something that seems to be "worked up." It's not like he starts right in on the spectacular stuff. He builds up to an emotional climax and it takes a good hour or more to get there. And another thing I observed is that peer pressure was at work. Sister so and so got healed, so if I only have enough faith I should be getting healed too. I think there was a lot of this kind of thing going on in early Mormonism.

When considering that you suggest Smith may have had the power to induce corporate hallucinations in the minds of these impressionable witnesses, such that whatever "they saw" was likely "visionary" --how is this entire scenario any more believable than that of the Spalding witnesses? How is Hurlbut allegedly coaching witnesses any more egregious?

Your argument here doesn’t work. You obviously don’t believe Hurlbut coached the witnesses or that Joseph Smith could induce visions in others, yet both are possible.

Not correct on both counts. I do not think Hurlbut coached the witnesses to the extant that one would have to believe in order to induce the kind of false memories required to make Brodie's logic work, no. But I have no problem with the idea that Hurlbut got much information from John & Martha Spalding and then possibly showed the statements to the others to see if they remembered the same things. We don't know that is what happened, but I agree that there is a lot of consistency to their statements and that is one way to explain it. However, even if he did that, it does not follow that they were therefore only exposed to the Roman story.

And again, the main thing they are adamant about is the names of the heroes--which is exactly what I would expect regardless of which story they had been exposed to.

But even if there may be some evidence of coaching, there is still plenty of unique elements in their statements. Where did the unique stuff come from? Should we just ignore it?

However, I don’t believe Hurlbut manufactured the Spalding testimony since the witnesses were making these claims before he arrived to take their statements.

Well then, we agree on that! But that acknowledgement takes a lot of wind out of the argument against S/R! LDS want to put the blame on Hurlbut. He was out to get Smith, coached the witnesses, case closed. If Hurlbut did not start the rumors, then what or who did?

Oddly, it is this physical evidence that brings the Spalding witnesses’ statement into question. There has never been a question about Spalding’s writings, only one about its relationship to the Book of Mormon.

Agreed, but I think you too easily dismiss the Spalding witnesses and too easily accept the Book of Mormon witnesses. There are OTHER reasons besides the testimony to accept the word of the Spalding witnesses. For example, the discovery narrative parallels.

What reason, other than what the Book of Mormon witnesses tell you, is there to believe them? You already disbelieve them to a certain extent anyway, you just give them the benefit that they thought they were telling the truth. But in light of the very real discrepancies in their testimonies (that you had to write an essay on explaining why "different readings" are even possible--in contrast to Brodie complaining that the Conneaut witness statements are too tight) what reason do the Book of Mormon witnesses give us to assume they were not being deliberately deceptive by, at the very least, leaving out key information? Why should I believe them?

As for the Book of Mormon witnesses, it depends on how you view it. I think you are wrong about the lack of physical evidence for the Book of Mormon witnesses’ testimonies, that is, those that observed the translation process.

How so? Because of the skeptics like Isaac Hale and Arad Stowell, etc., I think Joseph Smith put on a show. You think he had the power to induce hallucinations. So we agree, Joseph Smith was a very charismatic figure. But I know all too well that that does not mean he or his followers had to have been telling the truth!

And yet I still think Smith himself might actually have believed the Book of Mormon was at least partially what it claimed to be. I see no reason for him to have doubted that Rigdon had really gotten a hold of a manuscript who's author had truly translated a history of the former inhabitants of this continent. And I see no reason why Rigdon would have doubted that either.

The dictated MS does support their descriptions that Joseph Smith dictated it sentence-by-sentence, and that Cowdery was the scribe who wrote most of it down as it was being dictated.

In places, yes. But even so it could have been dictated from manuscripts as easily as "from the stone." If Smith's memory was as good as some claim, then he could have memorized whatever he wanted to memorize.

The lack of physical evidence supporting Book of Mormon historicity, however, only casts doubt on the verity of the witnesses’ visions of the plates, not on their sincerity.

I think it could just as easily go either way. Are the followers of the faith healer I videotaped dishonest when they claim to have been healed? Do they really believe it? Or did their faith & euphoria combine to help give them temporary relief? Or perhaps they believe the very statements they make help to create a certain reality. Saying "I saw the plates and handled them" demonstrates their faith in the same way saying "I'm healed" demonstrates faith that (they believe) brings it about. The very confession helps to produce it as reality. In time, they convince themselves it was reality. Or, it's possible they are just flat out lying because they think telling the truth would demonstrate their lack of faith to their peers.

My opinion is that Rigdon probably thought he had a truly ancient manuscript containing a translated history of the Native Americans and that he told that to Smith who may have believed him. My opinion is that Rigdon believed he received direct communications from God and was authorized to add to the manuscript that had been divinely placed in his care. I think that explains their devotion to the Book of Mormon. It explains why most of them (with exceptions like John Whitmer) never denied their testimonies of the Book of Mormon. It explains why they would be willing to convince themselves that what they were doing was not "fraudulent" but was instead being divinely orchestrated by God. It explains how they could believe that and yet still realize they had to put on a show for outsiders and even believers who were not privy to the intricacies of God's plan.

I suppose you may have too much invested in the Smith-alone premise to give any of this much of a second thought. In any case, the exchange has been enlightening.

There is also the possibility that I know the Spalding theory well and still reject it.

Okay, I agree, that's possible!

Thanks again for discussing this with me.

All the best!

[_GlennThigpen]

There was rarely a season between the time of his birth and the
end of 1825 that Sidney Rigdon could not have conveniently made
his way to Pittsburgh, and home again for supper. Even when he
was learning how to be a minister, on the Ohio-Pennsylvania border,
he was only a day's ride away from his mother's house in what is
now the southern suburbs of Pittsburgh.

The old Mormon farce -- objecting that Rigdon could not possibly
have been in Pittsburgh at an early date -- is just that, a stupid
story with no basis in fact. But, if Sister Fawn Brodie said it was
true, then LDS will forever believe her and B.H. Roberts -- sigh! --

UD

That he could have and indeed probably did go to Pittsburgh at various times is a given. I don't think that any LDS is arguing the case. The farm, by all reports was maybe twelve miles from Pittsburgh. There was no rural mail delivery at the time. I doubt that there were any grocery or hardware stores at Peter's creek. Sidney would have had to visit Pittsburgh to obtain supplies and mail. But all reports also indicate that he lived on the farm and worked it until 1818.

The other items quoted just give weight to Robert Patterson's report that Rigdon had any connection with the printing shop during that period of time.

Glenn

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Dale writes:

A. It was composed, as the book itself claims, by ancient Americans
B. It was written by the man who in 1830 called himself its "author"
C. It was partly written by that "author," from multiple modern sources

Your option A is still facetious Dale - because in the context of examining particular words and phrases, in English no less, whatever ancient American author there might have been certainly didn't write in English. And so for us to be comparing words and phrases, you have to include the notion that it was allegedly translated in 1830 in some fashion, and that the translation process is the process that results in the choice of English words and phrases that are found in the book. But yet, in your arguments here in this thread on that topic, you repeatedly impute the English phrasing and verbiage to the ancient American author and not to the translator. So, I don't accept your list of three simple options - because you are not merely presenting three simple options. And you are not seriously accepting Joseph Smith's version of events or presenting them as one of the options here.

Ben McGuire

[_GlennThigpen]

So what? As I already stated, Engles complained that Rigdon was always hanging around. That agrees with Patterson's statement. Why would Engles complain if Rigdon had a legitimate reason to be hanging around?

Complained to whom? Read those quotes again. People who claimed to have an intimate association with Engles, Lambdin, et al said they had never heard Rigdon's name mentioned.

We only need to show opportunity, Glenn, and there is ample opportunity.

Maybe that is all you need. If that were all needed to convict a person, just about everyone ever put on trial would be found guilty.

As I noted in an earlier post, Rigdon also had the opportunity to perform robberies in Pittsburgh during that period of time. There are many times between 1810 and 1818 that we do not know Rigdon's whereabouts. Robberies did occur in Pittsburgh during that period of time. Therefore, Rigdon performed some of those robberies. The ones that were not solved, of course.
We actually have more evidence that Rigdon performed some robberies for pecuniary gain than we do that he stole a manuscript. We have historical evidence for the robberies. We have no evidence that the manuscript was ever stolen.

You don't want to believe Rigdon purloined a manuscript because that doesn't agree with what you already believe about the Book of Mormon. Fine. That's your choice. But Rigdon had ample opportunity to do what he denies doing. And that's why Rebecca Eichbaum's testimony is so important. He WAS in the right place, at the right time, hanging around the right people. He did have the right interest and as we learn when we learn more about Rigdon, he did have the right personality, religious beliefs and even mental instability to have followed through with what S/R suggests he did.

Eichbaum does not give the times she purportedly saw Rigdon and Lambdin together. Was it in the 1813 to 1814 time frame? When Lambdin was fifteen and sixteen years old? Rigdon would have been about twenty or twenty-one. That was the time period when the manuscript was with Engles. But it was returned because the Amity witnesses heard and saw Spalding reading from it. Was Rigdon already into his religious ferver then? He was not baptized until May of 1817.

If Eichbaum saw Rigdon and Lambdin together after that time, it is irrelevant because the manuscript was not anywhere around the Patterson or Lambdin offices, according to the historical information we have.

Eichbaum was not involved with the post office in 1816 and 1817 according to her own statement. That is the time frame that Solomon's widow would have brought the manuscript to Patterson, and retrieved it. Patterson does not indicate that he even showed it to Engles, but let it lay around, most likely in his office until he determined not to publish it. Lambdin was not associated with the Book Store. According to Patterson, the widow retrieved. She left the area in 1817 which would probably delineate the end time frame.
As I said, there is more evidence that he stole into establisments unawares and stole cash from the tills than there is that he purloined a manuscript. There is historical evidence that unsolved robberies occurred. There is no evidence that the manuscript was ever purloined.

Dale is talking about additional supporting evidence--some of the textual evidence. That's why evidence for S/R cannot easily be dissected and taken in little chunks. It has to be considered as a whole, but as a matter of practicality we can only talk about one or two things at a time on a website. That's what makes S/R complex and difficult to both explain and understand. That's what makes S/R an easy target for strawman manufacturers.

Dale's textual evidence has no scientific or literary basis. Have you been following the Ben McGuire series with Dale?
Until you start using evedentiary methods that pass the common rules of preponderance of evidence and when you start using accepted methods of literary science, you will have a small audience. Of course, when you start using those methods, the S/R theory is ashes.

All the best.

And to you.

Glenn

[_Uncle Dale]

I don't accept your list of three simple options
...

Simplified list of options:

1. The book is a translation of an ancient text, as it purports to be.

2. The book was not written by ancient Americans.

I do not think it is possible to present the book's reader with a
more basic choice. But, if so, I'd be happy to see what it might be.

UD

[_Uncle Dale]

...
all reports also indicate that he lived on the farm and worked it until 1818.
...

No doubt he always had a bed in the Rigdon cabin and work to
do in the fields, whenever he was there -- even after the death
of his father and his own education as a Baptist minister.

However, Sidney Rigdon was also a tanner and a leather-finisher.
Those trades required lengthy, specialized training, under the
supervision of an experienced master tanner. BY 1823-24 Sidney
was a journeyman in that trade. That is to say, he had in his
back pocket a signed certificate from some master tanner, showing
that he had finished his apprenticeship and should be accepted as
a trained tanner, in any place he might journey to.

It is very unlikely that Sidney received his apprentice training
during the time he was a ministerial candidate and a preacher.
In those days, apprenticeships were almost always granted to
young boys, who could spend several years in company with a
master tanner, away from their families.

My own mother was an apprentice milkmaid in Minnesota during
the 1930s. She spent four years on a dairy farm adjacent to her
parents' farm -- returning home for a few hours each evening to
do chores and sometimes to have supper and spend the night.
Other nights she remained on the dairy farm. Each Sunday morning
she would rejoin her family in order to attend local church services.

I imagine that Sidney Rigdon also served such an apprenticeship
with a tanner located not far away from his father's farm. That is
the most logical explanation of how he gained the necessary
experience to be certified as a journeyman tanner.

But Sidney was also a leather-finisher. That occupation was a notch
above the job of a common tanner. When he was living in southern
Geauga county, Ohio in 1825-27, the local grocery store's records
show that he sometimes paid for his groceries with finished leather
goods (such as book-bindings, purse and wallet leather, etc.).

He obviously received significant training during his life -- to the
end point that he became a master tanner himself, operating the
Church's tannery at Kirtland.

So -- don't imagine that Sidney was working from dawn to dusk upon
the family farm on the Piney Fork of Peter's Creek until the day he
left there to become a Baptist preacher.

The major market for leather goods would have been in Pittsburgh,
and not in the environs of a rural tanning yard near the Rigdon farm.
At some point we know Sidney Rigdon began selling sheepskin
book-bindings to the Pittsburgh printer, Silas Engles. If we can
locate some of Engles' old business records, we might be able to pin
down the year when Sidney first began that connection with Engles.

UD