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

[_Uncle Dale]

...we are supposed to believe the Brodieites when they tell us that
in December of 1830, Smith issued a revelation subjugating himself to
the oversight of a stranger named Sidney Rigdon???
...

But -- I perceive that the disciples of Brodie and their Mormon cousins
will be "on the same page," when it come to examining that revelation:

19 And in weakness have I blessed him, and I have given unto him the keys of the mystery of those things which have been sealed, even things which were from the foundation of the world, and the things which shall come from this time until the time of my coming, if he abide in me, and if not, another will I plant in his stead.

20 Wherefore watch over him that his faith fail not, and it shall be given by the Comforter, the Holy Ghost, that knoweth all things:

21 And a commandment I give unto thee, that thou shalt write for him...

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/RigWrit/1833_BoC.htm#pg077a

These folks will say that the "another will I plant in his seed" could not
possibly be Rigdon -- that Joe Smith's replacement would have to be
Hyrum, or perhaps Joe's father -- certainly not the newcomer Rigdon.

Again, the Mormons and Brodieites will argue that Rigdon is merely
given the command to "watch over" Joe Smith -- and not to judge
whether or not "he abide in me." Thus, Sidney Rigdon exercised no
power over young Smith. Ergo: Smith composed the "revelation."

Finally, these folks will argue, that by 1835 Smith was exercising total
control over his church. If the Dec. 1830 "revelation" had any input
from Rigdon, then Smith could have removed that hindrance when he
republished the text in his 1835 D&C. Many other texts were changed
in the 1835 publication, but NOT the words to Rigdon -- again proving
that Smith himself penned those things, and was not uncomfortable
in allowing them to be proclaimed as holy writ in 1835.

However ---->

I'd like to see the original text -- the wording BEFORE the "revelation"
ever made it into the 1833 Book of Commandments.

Many months passed between the pronouncement of the "revelation"
and its printing. Was it changed in any way? Did the original command
explicitly grant Rigdon even MORE power over Smith?

UD

[_Uncle Dale]

And we are supposed to believe the Brodieites when they tell us that
in December of 1830, Smith issued a revelation subjugating himself to
the oversight of a stranger named Sidney Rigdon???

If one wants to find out why people do things, look for what their rewards are. I don't see any reward for Smith to voluntarily give over any authority he doesn't have to. And especially in the early stages of the church's establishment why would he. A more likely explanation is he is under pressure to give up authority, because there is no reward or apparent benefit to himself not even the church to hand over any authority to a newcomer.

According to David Whitmer, in Dec. 1830 Rigdon appeared upon the
scene, as if from out of nowhere -- and became the second most
powerful leader in the Church -- exercising great personal influence
over Smith -- becoming his closest friend and confidant. At least
that is how I interpret Whitmer's recollection of that abrupt change.

And yet, we are asked to believe that Rigdon could not have possibly
exerted any pressure upon Smith. Rigdon was simply an honest and
innocent Christian, who was co-opted and corrupted by Smith.

???

UD

[_Uncle Dale]

20 Wherefore watch over him that his faith fail not
...

Consider this "revelation" from the standpoint of Sidney Rigdon -- who had
just completed a long and tiring journey across two state lines, and many
miles of western New York, in order to meet the pastor of the new church.

After little more than a handshake and a welcoming cup of tea, you are
commanded by God to watch over this young pastor.

Your family, home, friends and business contacts are many miles away,
back in Ohio. You are a stranger in a strange place -- probably with
very little cash in your pocket and no employment -- no line of credit.

And yet, you must now keep a close watch on the church's pastor, in
order to make sure that he does not fall victim to his own "weakness"
and have his "faith" begin to "fail."

The Smith-alone advocates will tell us that Rigdon was an innocent dupe
and a creature now under the hypnotic control of Smith the con man.
There has been no "revelation" commanding that church to relocate to
Ohio. There is no evident means available for Rigdon to move his family to
the New York congregation -- no job offer waiting for him.

Actually -- at this point in the history -- the Mormon position comes
out looking far better than the Smith-alone doctrine.

At least the Mormons provide a reason why Rigdon chose to obey the
commandment ----> because it really came from God and Rigdon had
undergone the baptism of fire and had the continual presence of the
Holy Ghost, and thus an automatic confirmation of the "revelation."

In the Smith-alone version of history we are asked to believe that
Rigdon simply accepted this tremendous and unexpected new calling,
without any hint that Joe was actually pulling the wool over his eyes
in an elaborate hoax.

There is a third explanation, however -----> That Rigdon was largely
directing the marvelous events, and that Rigdon had already obtained
Smith's agreement, to move the New York congregations west to
Ohio and Missouri (where Rigdon really could "watch over" young Joe).

UD

[Guest]

There is a third explanation, however

But that would make him a "co-conspirator" and we can't have any of that. Sidney the amiable dupe, corrupted by Smith must surely be the answer.

What is really interesting, though, is that Joseph had the foresight while dictating on the fly, with head in hat, while conning Emma, the Whitmers and anyone who happened to walk into the room, to not only write himself into Nephite prophecy but to also predict Rigdon's future coming as follows:

14And thus prophesied Joseph, saying: Behold, that seer will the Lord bless; and they that seek to destroy him shall be confounded; for this promise, which I have obtained of the Lord, of the fruit of my loins, shall be fulfilled. Behold, I am sure of the fulfilling of this promise;

15And his name shall be called after me; and it shall be after the name of his father. And he shall be like unto me; for the thing, which the Lord shall bring forth by his hand, by the power of the Lord shall bring my people unto salvation.

16Yea, thus prophesied Joseph: I am sure of this thing, even as I am sure of the promise of Moses; for the Lord hath said unto me, I will preserve thy seed forever.

17And the Lord hath said: I will raise up a Moses; and I will give power unto him in a rod; and I will give judgment unto him in writing. Yet I will not loose his tongue, that he shall speak much, for I will not make him mighty in speaking. But I will write unto him my law, by the finger of mine own hand; and I will make a spokesman for him.

18And the Lord said unto me also: I will raise up unto the fruit of thy loins; and I will make for him a spokesman. And I, behold, I will give unto him that he shall write the writing of the fruit of thy loins, unto the fruit of thy loins; and the spokesman of thy loins shall declare it.

2 Nephi 3: 14-18

This prophetic ability while pulling off a con-man's hoax must have surprised even Joseph Smith who later understood the meaning of his own words as follows:

3Behold, verily, verily, I say unto my servant Sidney, I have looked upon thee and thy works. I have heard thy prayers, and prepared thee for a greater work.

4Thou art blessed, for thou shalt do great things. Behold thou wast sent forth, even as John, to prepare the way before me, and before Elijah which should come, and thou knewest it not.

- D & C 35

...and...

9And it is expedient in me that you, my servant Sidney, should be a spokesman unto this people; yea, verily, I will ordain you unto this calling, even to be a spokesman unto my servant Joseph.

10And I will give unto him power to be mighty in testimony.

11And I will give unto thee power to be mighty in expounding all scriptures, that thou mayest be a spokesman unto him, and he shall be a revelator unto thee, that thou mayest know the certainty of all things pertaining to the things of my kingdom on the earth.

D & C 100

Even Pres. George Q Cannon thought that was pretty impressive:

“Those who knew Sidney Rigdon, know how wonderfully God inspired him, and with what wonderful eloquence he declared the word of God to the people. He was a mighty man in the hands of God, as a spokesman, as long as the prophet lived, or up to a short time before his death. Thus you see that even this which many might look upon as a small matter, was predicted about 1,700 years before the birth of the Savior, and was quoted by Lehi 600 years before the same event, and about 2,400 years before its fulfillment, and was translated by the power of God, through his servant Joseph, as was predicted should be the case.” - Journal of Discourses, 25:126.

I might start believing my own propaganda too if I could predict the arrival of my own divinely ordained "spokesman" I had never met while dictating on the fly with my head in a hat.

[_Uncle Dale]

...
I might start believing my own propaganda too if I could predict the arrival of my own divinely ordained "spokesman" I had never met while dictating on the fly with my head in a hat.

I think that the Brodieite explanation is that Cowdery was supposed
to be the "spokesman" -- but later on, when another D&C "revelation" was
added to the pile, the name was changed from Cowdery to Rigdon.

Odd though -- that Oliver himself never made any reference to being
thus passed over, in this spokesman line of work.

UD

[_Roger]

I think that the Brodieite explanation is that Cowdery was supposed
to be the "spokesman" -- but later on, when another D&C "revelation" was
added to the pile, the name was changed from Cowdery to Rigdon.

Odd though -- that Oliver himself never made any reference to being
thus passed over, in this spokesman line of work.

In the first place, what other possible explanation is there? It pretty much had to be Cowdery, right? But is there any proof for that? Not to my knowledge. Like you say, it's odd that Cowdery never seems to have asserted himself to be the spokesman. And so far as I know, Cowdery was never much of a public speaker. Sure, he wrote newspaper articles, but that does not seem to be what the prophecy is implying:

and the spokesman of thy loins shall declare it.

Like so many other elements of Mormon scripture, the specific reference is ambiguous enough to leave room for more than one interpretation, but, in my mind "declaring" it means speaking it, which is pretty much what a "spokesman" does.

Regardless, it is clear that Rigdon, not Cowdery, is the guy who eventually fulfills that "prophecy" so if Smith was just dictating off the top of his head while thinking of Cowdery, it is certainly fortuitous that he never had the ancient Joseph mention the name of this latter-day spokesman.

[_Uncle Dale]

...
Regardless, it is clear that Rigdon, not Cowdery, is the guy who eventually fulfills that "prophecy"
...

I'll go out on a rhetorical limb here, and predict that some Occam enthusiast
will soon argue that Cowdery did indeed fulfill the original Nephite oracle,
and that Rigdon only came along later -- as an ad hoc, unnecessary
complicating factor, to an otherwise perfectly elegant authorship theory.

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/NY ... htm#060130

On the other hand, we have this:

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/NY ... htm#010131

UD

[_Roger]

Do we know when and where Smith met Luman Walters? I find it interesting that the O. Dogberry satire article right below the one you cited connects Walters with reading an old book that was written in an unknown tongue.

[_Roger]

So I was looking at Bruce's chart you posted, Dale. For some reason it made my computer run about 60x slower so I eventually had to close it, but while it was open an interesting thing jumped out at me.... guess who Bruce attributes 2 Nephi 3 to?

Interesting that we should be discussing Joseph Smith's prediction of a coming spokesman--who had to have been Cowdery!--and yet Bruce gets a "false" positive for Rigdon! The irony!

[_Uncle Dale]

Do we know when and where Smith met Luman Walters? I find it interesting that the O. Dogberry satire article right below the one you cited connects Walters with reading an old book that was written in an unknown tongue.

Maybe at the Wayne County Fair -- or some such venue. Smith lived on
the southern border of Wayne Co. and Walters on the northern border.

Did they have con men conventions back in those days?

Better quit while we're ahead -- or else somebody will protest our vicious
ad hominem attacks on these innocent folks. (All carried out in pushing our
boneheaded belief -- that the book was not written by a single author)

UD