Is the Spalding-Rigdon Theory Just as "Faith Based" as Joseph-Moroni?

[Olavarria]

Both recquire non-extant sources...hmmmm?

[Chris Smith]

A set of witnesses with questionable credibility claim to have seen a manuscript that has mysteriously (read: conveniently) disappeared... you might be on to something here.

[Uncle Dale]

Is the Spalding-Rigdon Theory Just as

"Faith Based" as Joseph-Moroni?

Both recquire non-extant sources...hmmmm?

Perhaps your question is relevant. Craig Criddle will attempt to

answer it -- this Saturday -- in Salt Lake City.

Then there is William H. Whitsitt, who said he had been inclined

scrap the entire Spalding part of the theory, for just the reasons

you imply. Whitsitt reluctantly included the Spalding stuff, but

only as a supplement to his major thesis --- that the BoM includes

religious doctrines and practices derived from (or evolved from)

those of Alexander Campbell; and that only a dissenting Campbellite

theologian (such as Rigdon) could have compiled the book.

If we go down Whitsitt's path of inquiry, we need not worry so much

about "non-extant sources," as we might about Rigdon's known theology.

Uncle Dale

[Olavarria]

that the BoM includes

religious doctrines and practices derived from (or evolved from)

those of Alexander Campbell; and that only a dissenting Campbellite

theologian (such as Rigdon) could have compiled the book.

How is this different from the idea that the BoM contains pre-exilic/first temple religious beliefs,Mary/Asherah,comes to mind.

[ttribe]

Perhaps your question is relevant. Craig Criddle will attempt to

answer it -- this Saturday -- in Salt Lake City.

Then there is William H. Whitsitt, who said he had been inclined

scrap the entire Spalding part of the theory, for just the reasons

you imply. Whitsitt reluctantly included the Spalding stuff, but

only as a supplement to his major thesis --- that the BoM includes

religious doctrines and practices derived from (or evolved from)

those of Alexander Campbell; and that only a dissenting Campbellite

theologian (such as Rigdon) could have compiled the book.

If we go down Whitsitt's path of inquiry, we need not worry so much

about "non-extant sources," as we might about Rigdon's known theology.

Uncle Dale

Then why didn't Rigdon take the lead on the ruse?

[lostindc]

Then why didn't Rigdon take the lead on the ruse?

I always wondered this also...the whole theory regarding Rigdon writing the BOM and then dishing the lead to a farm boy appears to be very lacking. Can someone put together the reason why Rigdon gave the lead to Joseph?

[Uncle Dale]

Then why didn't Rigdon take the lead on the ruse?

We might ask the same thing about his religious activities throughout most of his life.

In the 1820s he was content to play second fiddle to Alexander Campbell and Elder Scott --

when the first "Church of Christ" was established in Pittsburgh, in 1824, Rigdon appears

to have been the "second elder" -- much like Oliver Cowdery never rose above that title.

After his Mormon baptism, Rigdon was content to leave most of his theological writings

unsigned -- even though he is credited with numerous contributions to the early LDS

periodicals, as well as a book-length plea for redress on the Missouri troubles.

In 1863 Rigdon issued a special address to the Latter Day saints (again unsigned) in

which the argument was made that he was merely the "spokesman" for a "choice seer."

To his dying day Rigdon evidently held to this Aaron role -- never finding his Moses.

The one time that Rigdon did try to play President to the Saints (1845-47 in PA)

he failed miserably. Perhaps he knew that he was not good at sustained charismatic

leadership. He seemed to alienate people over a period of time. Some of his most

hostile accusers at the time of his 1844 excommunication had been his early disciples.

Had Rigdon suddenly published the "Nephite Record," c. 1828-30, he probably would have

met with the same response in the Ohio newspapers that came in 1830-31. At that time

Rigdon was accused of writing the book, and promoting a warmed over Campbellism. But

had he actually had his name on the title page, no doubt the accusations against him

would have been much louder.

It would have been pointed out that Rigdon had no reputation as a seer and revelator --

that he was pretending to powers never before noticed in his career. Had he been the

initial promoter, the book would have been much more closely scrutinized for evidence

of his theologizing (probably scrutinized by the Campbellite leaders themselves).

Could have Rigdon pulled off such a scam, in Ohio, c. 1828-30? I doubt it. But even

if he could have found a dupe rich enough to finance the printing, and even if he

could have used the book to start a church -- I think his followers would have been

few and the church would have failed.

Mormons -- ask yourselves if you would today accept the book as an ancient document,

given the added fact that you'd never heard of Joseph Smith and he never was a Mormon?

UD

[Avatar4321]

I think its much more faith based. We at least have the Holy Spirit and the witnesses to support us.

[HPMI]

I always wondered this also...the whole theory regarding Rigdon writing the BOM and then dishing the lead to a farm boy appears to be very lacking. Can someone put together the reason why Rigdon gave the lead to Joseph?

The theory that Joseph was inspired by Josiah Priest and/or Ethan Smith is extremely compelling to the point that I think it is certain he was. I think history shows time and again that Joseph borrowed from others works or ideas and then built on them with his creative imagination. I think there were numerous sourses available to him and I think he borrowed from several of them rather than just one.

[lostindc]

We might ask the same thing about his religious activities throughout most of his life.

In the 1820s he was content to play second fiddle to Alexander Campbell and Elder Scott --

when the first "Church of Christ" was established in Pittsburgh, in 1824, Rigdon appears

to have been the "second elder" -- much like Oliver Cowdery never rose above that title.

UD

How do you account for the fact that he sought to take leadership of the Church after Joseph and also started his own Church? It seems that he was quite the opposite of a person hoping to play second fiddle.

[Obiwan]

Both recquire non-extant sources...hmmmm?

The Spalding-Rigdon theory is MUCH LESS evidence based than the Churches side. Thus, I think the Spalding-Ridgon Theory requires MUCH MORE faith than the Churches side. Thus, who actually is it that believes in a "religious fantasy"? Not the mormons.... haa haa haa

Further, the Spalding-Rigdon theory is a classic example of weak and useless parallelism, rather than strong convergences. In contrast to LDS evidences in which there are variuos levels of parallelism, but a huge amount of strong parallels, and in all respects FULL of amazing convergences.

[ttribe]

We might ask the same thing about his religious activities throughout most of his life.

In the 1820s he was content to play second fiddle to Alexander Campbell and Elder Scott --

when the first "Church of Christ" was established in Pittsburgh, in 1824, Rigdon appears

to have been the "second elder" -- much like Oliver Cowdery never rose above that title.

After his Mormon baptism, Rigdon was content to leave most of his theological writings

unsigned -- even though he is credited with numerous contributions to the early LDS

periodicals, as well as a book-length plea for redress on the Missouri troubles.

In 1863 Rigdon issued a special address to the Latter Day saints (again unsigned) in

which the argument was made that he was merely the "spokesman" for a "choice seer."

To his dying day Rigdon evidently held to this Aaron role -- never finding his Moses.

The one time that Rigdon did try to play President to the Saints (1845-47 in PA)

he failed miserably. Perhaps he knew that he was not good at sustained charismatic

leadership. He seemed to alienate people over a period of time. Some of his most

hostile accusers at the time of his 1844 excommunication had been his early disciples.

Had Rigdon suddenly published the "Nephite Record," c. 1828-30, he probably would have

met with the same response in the Ohio newspapers that came in 1830-31. At that time

Rigdon was accused of writing the book, and promoting a warmed over Campbellism. But

had he actually had his name on the title page, no doubt the accusations against him

would have been much louder.

It would have been pointed out that Rigdon had no reputation as a seer and revelator --

that he was pretending to powers never before noticed in his career. Had he been the

initial promoter, the book would have been much more closely scrutinized for evidence

of his theologizing (probably scrutinized by the Campbellite leaders themselves).

Could have Rigdon pulled off such a scam, in Ohio, c. 1828-30? I doubt it. But even

if he could have found a dupe rich enough to finance the printing, and even if he

could have used the book to start a church -- I think his followers would have been

few and the church would have failed.

I'm curious, then, where did Rigdon find the time and resources necessary to create the BoM? And where was he, exactly, when the "pretended" translation was occurring...since there's no viable record of his affiliation with JS until after the publication of the BoM.

Mormons -- ask yourselves if you would today accept the book as an ancient document,

given the added fact that you'd never heard of Joseph Smith and he never was a Mormon?

Can you elaborate on why this is a relevant question?

[ttribe]

The theory that Joseph was inspired by Josiah Priest and/or Ethan Smith is extremely compelling to the point that I think it is certain he was.

FAIR Link: here.

I think history shows time and again that Joseph borrowed from others works or ideas and then built on them with his creative imagination.

Perhaps the notion of "Restoration" plays a part in you perception of this alleged pattern.

I think there were numerous sourses available to him and I think he borrowed from several of them rather than just one.

There's that HUGE Palmyra Public Library coming into play again. Oh, and never mind the fact that he could barely write at this point in his life....

[lostindc]

Dale,

Have you also considered the following thoughts from the late Dr. Nibley:

Assuming that it was not Joseph Smith but somebody else who wrote it gets us nowhere. If he did not write it, Joseph Smith ran an even greater risk in claiming authorship than if he had. For the first important man among his followers to turn against him would infallibly give him away. Sidney Rigdon, full of ambition and jealous of the Prophet, never claimed authorship of the Book of Mormon (which has often been claimed for him) or any part in it, nor in all the years during which he fought Smith from outside the Church did he ever hint the possibility of any other explanation for the Book of Mormon than Joseph Smith's own story.

Martin Harris, Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer all turned against the Prophet at one time or another, but neither they nor any other of the early associates of Smith, no matter how embittered, ever gave the slightest indication that they knew of anybody besides Smith himself who had any part whatever in the composition of the Book of Mormon.9 For years men searched desperately to discover some other possible candidate for authorship, making every effort to find a more plausible explanation of the sources of these scriptures.

http://farmsnewsite.farmsresearch.com/publications/books/?bookid=73&chapid=891

I agree with Nibley that Rigdon was rather ambitious to sit on the sideline and not take the lead.

[HPMI]

Huge? Was that sarcasm? I think B.H. Roberts was able to show that the library was at least adiquately stocked with material that likely was enfluential.

[ttribe]

BTW, the Rigdon/Spaulding plots require a conspiracy to commit fraud, the plausibility of which is highly doubtful when you look beyond 1830.

[ttribe]

Huge? Was that sarcasm?

Yes...it was.

I think B.H. Roberts was able to show that the library was at least adiquately stocked with material that likely was enfluential.

CFR please (that means "Call For References" if you aren't familiar with the acronym).

[HPMI]

I think the Spaulding theory is kinda lame. Its pure speculation and requires a lot of ifs. Maybe, somehow it was a factor but there is much better evidence for the Ethan Smith/View of the Hebrews and the Josiah Priest/Wonders of Nature sourses.

[Uncle Dale]

I'm curious, then, where did Rigdon find the time and resources necessary to create the BoM?

He was deposed from his pastoral position in Pittsburgh in 1823

and, by his own admission, spend the next few years studying biblical

prophecy, etc. At some point in this hiatus he also worked as a

tanner -- but for how long or for how many hours a day, he does not say.

In 1824 he and Walter Scott founded the "Church of Christ" in that

city -- but Rigdon was evidently the second elder. I do not suppose

his duties were very time-consuming. For example, either he or Scott

had the necessary free time to compose pseudo-scripture, in the form

of their published "Third Epistle of Peter."

And where was he, exactly, when the "pretended" translation was occurring...

At the end of 1825 Rigdon moved to Geauga Co., Ohio. After a brief attempt

to pastor a Baptist church there, he was again deposed. Evidently he again

turned to doing tanning work, in order to pay his grocery bill. But most

of 1826 would have been "free time" for Rigdon. Later in 1826 he began to

spend more and more time doing missionary preaching in northern Portage Co.,

so I believe his free time began to lessen towards the end of 1826. From

1827 onward he was increasingly engaged in pastoral work in northern Ohio.

There are gaps in the chronology of his known whereabouts, but I think

we can safely say that he had less and less free time after 1827.

since there's no viable record of his affiliation with JS until after the publication

of the BoM.

There are accusations along those lines, but a "viable record" would entail some

sort of contemporary documentary evidence. That sort of thing is hard to come by.

Try and document the whereabouts of Joseph Smith in 1826, after the month of March,

and you'll see the same problem with him. However, careful on-the-ground investigation

may yet turn up new evidence we previously had no access to. I'm open to discovery.

Can you elaborate on why this is a relevant question?

It may not be such a big problem among the LDS. In my own faith heritage, the book

and Smith are so intertwined that no RLDS could fathom the possibility of the book

being authentic, without Smith's story/history associated with it. Perhaps that comes

from our having so many of his descendants in prominent positions among the Saints.

UD

[ttribe]

He was deposed from his pastoral position in Pittsburgh in 1823

and, by his own admission, spend the next few years studying biblical

prophecy, etc. At some point in this hiatus he also worked as a

tanner -- but for how long or for how many hours a day, he does not say.

In 1824 he and Walter Scott founded the "Church of Christ" in that

city -- but Rigdon was evidently the second elder. I do not suppose

his duties were very time-consuming. For example, either he or Scott

had the necessary free time to compose pseudo-scripture, in the form

of their published "Third Epistle of Peter."

And yet, no one ever came forward saying - "Hey! Rigdon kept disappearing and I think he was buying up a lot of writing stuff!"

That was tongue-in-cheek, but you get the idea. There may be unaccounted for time, but not much in the way of contemporaneous, or even period-specific, tesimony or evidence that he was off carying out a project the size of the BoM.

At the end of 1825 Rigdon moved to Geauga Co., Ohio. After a brief attempt

to pastor a Baptist church there, he was again deposed. Evidently he again

turned to doing tanning work, in order to pay his grocery bill. But most

of 1826 would have been "free time" for Rigdon. Later in 1826 he began to

spend more and more time doing missionary preaching in northern Portage Co.,

so I believe his free time began to lessen towards the end of 1826. From

1827 onward he was increasingly engaged in pastoral work in northern Ohio.

There are gaps in the chronology of his known whereabouts, but I think

we can safely say that he had less and less free time after 1827.

Interesting information, but not really what I was asking at that point. Let me be more clear - JS was surrounded by various people during the "alleged" translation. Why was Rigdon never seen by any of these people?

There are accusations along those lines, but a "viable record" would entail some

sort of contemporary documentary evidence. That sort of thing is hard to come by.

Try and document the whereabouts of Joseph Smith in 1826, after the month of March,

and you'll see the same problem with him. However, careful on-the-ground investigation

may yet turn up new evidence we previously had no access to. I'm open to discovery.

Even if that evidence were to point you away from your lifetime's pet theory? Forgive me for my skepticism.

It may not be such a big problem among the LDS. In my own faith heritage, the book

and Smith are so intertwined that no RLDS could fathom the possibility of the book

being authentic, without Smith's story/history associated with it. Perhaps that comes

from our having so many of his descendants in prominent positions among the Saints.

I just think there's too much history, baggage, and risk of the application of presentism to even ask the question.

[Uncle Dale]

Dale,

Have you also considered the following thoughts from the late Dr. Nibley

I was just reading some of his writings on teh subject today, as a matter of fact:

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/criddle/Smith-Sources.htm#1961-HN

It's always interesting to see what he had to say.

I agree with Nibley that Rigdon was rather ambitious to sit on the sideline

and not take the lead.

And yet he was content to do that for five years at Nauvoo.

Ambitious? yes.

Mentally stable? mostly.

Secretive? read his 1844 LDS excommunication trial report

Manipulative? read his excommunication trial report

Plotting? read his excommunication trial report

Underhanded? read his excommunication trial report

Working from the sideline? read his excommunication trial report

Like I said elsewhere, Rigdon tried to take the lead, in Pennsylvania

in 1845-47 and had little better luck than he had at Nauvoo. He briefly

organized a church of Saints opposed to polygamy, but it faded quickly.

Rigdon was not a leader -- he was more like a motivator.

UD

[lostindc]

I was just reading some of his writings on teh subject today, as a matter of fact:

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/criddle/Smith-Sources.htm#1961-HN

It's always interesting to see what he had to say.

And yet he was content to do that for five years at Nauvoo.

Ambitious? yes.

Mentally stable? mostly.

Secretive? read his 1844 LDS excommunication trial report

Manipulative? read his excommunication trial report

Plotting? read his excommunication trial report

Underhanded? read his excommunication trial report

Working from the sideline? read his excommunication trial report

Like I said elsewhere, Rigdon tried to take the lead, in Pennsylvania

in 1845-47 and had little better luck than he had at Nauvoo. He briefly

organized a church of Saints opposed to polygamy, but it faded quickly.

Rigdon was not a leader -- he was more like a motivator.

UD

I am trying to understand why he or any of the other witnesses kept the secret literally forever.

I am trying to understand why at no point he did not pull his trump card and reveal that he wrote the BOM (with or without the help of GOD) and take the glory and/or lead of the Church.

I am trying to understand why the person that authored the BOM, thus birthed the Church, could manipulate people such as Joseph to keep this secret but yet not be able to manipulate him to drop the idea and practice of polygamy.

I have yet to hear a reasonable answer.

[Uncle Dale]

There may be unaccounted for time, but not much in the way of contemporaneous,

or even period-specific, tesimony or evidence that he was off carying out a

project the size of the BoM.

There is some evidence -- but very little that is contemporary.

It does not amount to proof, but it does warrant investigation.

JS was surrounded by various people during the "alleged" translation.

Why was Rigdon never seen by any of these people?

Other than Mother Lucy and Oliver Cowdery, I doubt that many people

ever saw Rigdon in new York before late 1830. And, if those two were

strong supporters of Joseph, they had no reason to reveal Rigdon's role.

Three or four other people reported seeing Rigdon in New York. Added

to that are two or three second-hand accounts of his having been there;

along with an 1831 newspaper article, reported from the Manchester area.

But I do not suppose that Sidney Rigdon was in New York much, prior to

his known visit in December of 1830. The picture of Rigdon constantly

visiting young Joseph and advising him, over his shoulder, does not make

much sense to me. I'd be more inclined to envision three visits -- one

near the time of Alvin's death -- one at the time the Book of Lehi was

lost -- and one in late December, 1830.

Even if that evidence were to point you away from your lifetime's pet theory?

Forgive me for my skepticism.

It didn't become a "pet theory" until the late 1990s. Prior to that my

"pet theory" was that Joseph Smith was a secret polygamist. Although every

scholar and major leader in Community of Christ opposed my theory, I think

it turned out to be correct. That cost me a lot among the RLDS. So the

Spalding-Rigdon thing is small potatoes, when compared to debunking the

core reason of justifying the need to "The Reorganization" in 1860.

I just think there's too much history, baggage, and risk of the application of presentism to even ask the question.

Probably so. But we meet with something similar among the Bickertonites. They

hand you the book, but Rigdon gets ten times the mention of Smith, when they

explain to you why you should read and accept it. Strange, eh?

UD

[lostindc]

I think the Spaulding theory is kinda lame. Its pure speculation and requires a lot of ifs. Maybe, somehow it was a factor but there is much better evidence for the Ethan Smith/View of the Hebrews and the Josiah Priest/Wonders of Nature sourses.

With this we can agree. Ethan Smith theories would seem as the shots in the dark to make a kill on Mormonism. Although, I find them rather weak because the only commonality the two (BOM and VOH)) share is the Bible, just like Swedenborg, it still is a much better option than the spaulding theory.

[Uncle Dale]

I am trying to understand why he or any of the other witnesses kept the secret literally forever.

I am trying to understand why at no point he did not pull his trump card and reveal that he wrote the BOM (with or without the help of GOD) and take the glory and/or lead of the Church.

I am trying to understand why the person that authored the BOM, thus birthed the Church, could manipulate people such as Joseph to keep this secret but yet not be able to manipulate him to drop the idea and practice of polygamy.

I have yet to hear a reasonable answer.

The one time that he is alleged to have admitted to the authorship, was in

St. Louis immediately after his excommunication. The LDS paper in New York

soon afterward revealed that Rigdon had denounced Mormonism and Smith at

that time. But, within a few days, Rigdon was regrouping his little band of

followers and planning to establish a church in Pennsylvania. So, obviously,

his one confession was short-lived. Apostle Orson Hyde met with Rigdon in

St. Louis at that time, and wrote back to President of the Twelve, Young,

that Rigdon was threatening to reveal secrets about Smith that might have

much earlier hurled him (Smith) from the First Presidency. Whether real or

just bluff on Rigdon's part, it shows his state of mind at the time. After

that one lapse, I think Rigdon found it to his advantage to never again make

such a renunciation of Mormonism, or of Smith, or of the book, or of his

own role in Mormon origins.

UD