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

[lostindc]

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.

UD

Big difference in theories, one was well documented, the other has speculations such as train rides with people having the last name of Smith and Rigdon and a lost manuscipt.

The later theory is ambitious, but also (I do not want to be insulting because you seem like a good person) ridiculous

[lostindc]

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

I like many others disagree that Rigdon ever claimed to author the BOM. What I can offer as evidence is his denouncing of such media and his committed testimony to the BOM into the afterlife. As Witmer and others have proclaimed, the media has not been fair nor honest with people such as them

[Uncle Dale]

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.

In 1887 RLDS President Joseph Smith III attempted to respond to

allegations of Ethan S. Smith, that his grandfather (Ethan Smith)

and Solomon Spalding met at Dartmouth College and were associates --

that Spalding had borrowed and never returned a certain manuscript

of Ethan's, regarding the early Indians, etc.

President Smith did not make much headway in refuting Ethan S. Smith.

He published an account of Ethan's allegations in the RLDS newspaper,

but evidently never bothered to investigate the purported connection.

The two men evidently did overlap their studies at Dartmouth by one

semester. Spalding's widow is reportedly buried in (or adjacent to)

the Ethan Smith family plot in the old Congregational churchyard in

Belchertown, Mass. David Persuitte mentions some of this in his book.

Ethan lived within walking distance of Middletown, Vermont, when he

was pastor of the Poultney Congregational church. Middletown was

founded by the Spalding family -- and in the 1870s, a Solomon Spalding

manuscript story was reportedly on file there. Or, perhaps it was

the same story Ethan S. Smith said was borrowed from his grandfather.

There are purportedly some Ethan-Spalding letters, preserved somewhere

in New Hampshire. But, if so, the must be of no relevance to the origins

of the Book of Mormon, etc.

UD

[Cold Steel]

...only a dissenting Campbellite theologian (such as Rigdon) could have compiled the book.

Rigdon's knowledge was indeed impressive. But keeping in mind that Campbell was himself a dissenting Baptist, we must inquire as to which principles he dissented from in Campbell's theology? According to Parley P. Pratt, both he and Rigdon acknowledged that Campbell's views were complete except in the area of divine authority.

As Pratt noted:

About this time one Mr. Sidney Rigdon came into the neighborhood as a preacher, and it was rumored that he was a kind of Reformed Baptist, who, with Mr. Alexander Campbell, of Virginia, a Mr. Scott, and some other gifted men, had dissented from the regular Baptists, from whom they differed much in doctrine. At length I went to hear him, and what was my astonishment when I found he preached faith in Jesus Christ, repentance towards God, and baptism for remission of sins, with the promise of the gift of the Holy Ghost to all who would come forward, with all their hearts, and obey this doctrine!

Here was the ancient gospel in due form. Here were the very principles which I had discovered years before; but could find no one to minister in. But still one great link was wanting to complete the chain of the ancient order of things; and that was, the authority to minister in holy things-the apostleship, the power which should accompany the form. This thought occurred to me as soon as I heard Mr. Rigdon make proclamation of the gospel.

Peter proclaimed this gospel, and baptized for remission of sins, and promised the gift of the Holy Ghost, because he was commissioned so to do by a crucified and risen Saviour. But who is Mr. Rigdon? Who is Mr. Campbell? Who commissioned them? Who baptized them for remission of sins? Who ordained them to stand up as Peter? Of course they were baptized by the Baptists, and ordained by them, and yet they had now left them because they did not administer the true gospel. And it was plain that the Baptists could not claim the apostolic office by succession, in a regular, unbroken chain from the Apostles of old, preserving the gospel in its purity, and the ordinances unchanged, from the very fact that they were now living in the perversion of some, and the entire neglect of others of these ordinances; this being the very ground of difference between the old Baptists and these Reformers.

Again, these Reformers claimed no new commission by revelation, or vision from the Lord, while they had not the least shadow of claim by succession.

It might be said, then, with propriety: "Peter I know, and Paul I know, but who are ye?"

However, we were thankful for even the forms of truth, as none could claim the power, and authority, and gifts of the Holy Ghost-at least so far as we knew.

After hearing Mr. Rigdon several times, I came out, with a number of others, and embraced the truths which he taught. We were organized into a society, and frequently met for public worship.

Autobiography of Parley P. Pratt, edited by his son, Parley P. Pratt, pgs. 13-14

If one assumes that Rigdon, knowing this one defect, sought to remedy the situation by crafting Joseph Smith's theology to seal up these loose ends, then a motive begins to take shape. But did he have the means? Instead of working with and through Smith, why didn't he claim to have the vision himself? When Joseph and Hyrum were martyred, he sought the lead position then; but why not from the beginning? And what if the Pratts and Rigdon were actually correct? What if the divine authority issue was the one problem with Campbell's approach?

There's two ways of looking at it. Many of the early converts to Mormonism were attracted to it because they saw the divided Christendom and wondered, why did prophets and prophecy cease? Why are there no apostles, and why can't God send them in our day? Even Roger Williams had written: "There is no regularly constituted church on earth, nor any person authorized to administer any church ordinance; nor can there be until new apostles are sent by the Great Head of the Church for whose coming I am seeking." Yet the Baptists could not fix this one problem, nor could Campbell. So one could say that God was preparing the way for the Restoration of the Gospel by inspiring this way of thinking. Or, if one is so disposed, Rigdon could have seen this as a problem he could fix by giving God a nudge and working through a local bumpkin whose strings he could pull from the side.

But why would he do this? Why would he laboriously work up the Book of Mormon, and how did he think he could control Smith, the Pratts and others of a similar mind? Eventually the book would need witnesses. How did he know that would all work out and that someone wouldn't blow it? How did he know he could trust Smith not to blow it?

The questions don't stop there. How about the prophet's mother and father, both of whom firmly embraced the prophet's story? Lucy testified that Joseph would tell the family stories of the Nephites, their modes of travel, their manner of husbandry and war. Smith's father was a noted religious cynic (as were his brothers and his own father). Why would he take part in advancing the false claims of Rigdon and his son when the thing he hated most about religion were the false claims of the sectarians? Nothing about this makes sense, but it's your only alternative.

Rigdon, as well as Smith, endured incredible persecutions and was one time beaten senseless by the mob. Some say he was never quite the same after that, and others suggest we might want to cut him some slack before we seek to judge him too harshly. In fact, I don't think Rigdon ever wanted to take Joseph's place in the church as much as he wanted to be considered Joseph's equal. He'd received revelations with Smith and was, in every sense of the word, a prophet in his own right. He, more than any other, would have had the motive to expose the prophet and the church, yet he didn't. He'd left Campbell; why couldn't he have left Smith?

To me, it wouldn't make sense to suppose that Rigdon would have played a great part in either writing the Book of Mormon, the Book of Moses or Smith's revelations. Joseph never seemed to be concerned that Rigdon might expose him if this were the case. What does make sense, and what is consistent, is that it all happened the way it is said to have happened. The church came forth, apostles were called and ordained, keys were restored, the holy land dedicated for the return of the Jews (which actually began to happen), temples and temple work were restored (something Campbell had no interest in) and prophecies given and fulfilled. It's just too much to attribute to Rigdon or, for that matter, the Book of Mormon.

.

[Uncle Dale]

I like many others disagree that Rigdon ever claimed to author the BOM.

...

No problem there.

At least you do not say that "like many others" you cannot

believe that Rigdon ever denounced Mormonism. His renunciation

was short-lived, but his words led the LDS who monitored his

activities to conclude that he never had believed Smith to be

a true prophet. That published assertion was deadly to Rigdon --

who at the time was promoting himself, based upon his joint vision

of the "three degrees of glory" with Smith. When the LDS leaders

pointed out Rigdon's actual disbelief in Smith's prophethood,

they pulled the rug out from under his "vision" self-promotion.

I believe that was part of the reason Rigdon was never able to

form a viable post-Nauvoo church under his own leadership.

[Uncle Dale]

Rigdon's knowledge was indeed impressive. But keeping in mind that Campbell

was himself a dissenting Baptist,

Not exactly correct. He and his congregation associated with the Redstone Baptist

Association, but never offered a copy of the congregation's article of faith

that agreed with Calvinism. Campbell was actually a a dissenting Presbyterian.

we must inquire as to which principles he dissented from in Campbell's theology?

Rigdon was interested in forming a Christian community in which the members

took care of each other materially. See the Book of Mosiah for the type of

community Rigdon hoped to see. Campbell disagreed, saying that the short-lived

attempt at Christian communitarianism mentioned in the Book of Acts was a failure.

Rigdon tried to follow Campbell's teachings, that Christian ministers should

receive no salary. But unlike Campbell (who was rich) Rigdon felt the need to

provide for his family. He accepted a church-provided house at Kirtland, and

along with Smith, voiced the need for a ministerial salary at Far West. Again,

see the Book of Mosiah, were the unpaid priests and teachers are nevertheless

supported by the members, if they are in need.

Rigdon evidently held onto his Baptist belief in a direct intervention of the

Holy Ghost in convert's lives -- something like a Calvinist conversion experience.

He attempted to follow Campbell's "word alone" belief system, but eventually

opted for the return of miracles and direct influence of the Holy Ghost in the

pre-millennial period, Again see the Book of Mosiah, were converts are made on

"the words alone," but experience the outpouring of the Holy Ghost at baptism.

Rigdon evidently believed that the Holy Ghost became a continual companion of

the baptized convert -- a teaching of Campbell's -- but Rigdon looked for a

more tangible manifestation of that continuing spiritual presence than Campbell

admitted possible. There are reports from the early 1830s of Campbellite elders

bestowing the Holy Ghost -- but they are rare and obscure. Campbell himself

never approved of that aspect of the ordinance. Conferring the Holy Ghost by

the laying on of hands is not found in Mosiah, but can be seen elsewhere in

the Book of Mormon.

Rigdon believed in latter day miracles and the ministering of angels -- at least

in the period leading up to the "latter day glory." Campbell did not promote

such tenets and refused to say what the situation would be during the millennium.

Again, see the Book of Mormon, throughout.

According to Parley P. Pratt, both he and Rigdon acknowledged that Campbell's views were complete except in the area of divine authority.

An over-simplification. I'd say that in 1825 Rigdon accepted 95% of Campbellism.

In 1828 about 90%. In 1830 about 75%.

If one assumes that Rigdon, knowing this one defect, sought to remedy the situation

by crafting Joseph Smith's theology to seal up these loose ends, then a motive

begins to take shape. But did he have the means? Instead of working with and

through Smith, why didn't he claim to have the vision himself?

My own theory is that Smith believed Rigdon to be the recipient of divine miracles

and that Rigdon truly believed Smith to be a prophet -- as much so as Amulek

believed in Alma the younger.

When Joseph and Hyrum were martyred, he sought the lead position then; but why

not from the beginning? And what if the Pratts and Rigdon were actually correct?

What if the divine authority issue was the one problem with Campbell's approach?

Why not from the beginning? Because Rigdon believed himself to be the spokesman

for the latter day "choice seer." That viewpoint stuck with Rigdon all through

his life. It probably helps account for why he failed in leading his own church.

There's two ways of looking at it. Many of the early converts to Mormonism

were attracted to it because they saw the divided Christendom and wondered,

why did prophets and prophecy cease? Why are there no apostles, and why can't

God send them in our day? Even Roger Williams had written: "There is no regularly

constituted church on earth, nor any person authorized to administer any church

ordinance; nor can there be until new apostles are sent by the Great Head of the

Church for whose coming I am seeking." Yet the Baptists could not fix this one

problem, nor could Campbell.

Campbell would have said it was no problem. Anybody could baptize -- although

confirmation was entrusted to elders, selected by the the congregation. Rigdon

obviously disagreed at some point -- but he kept functioning as a Campbellite

elder until c. 1828-29, when Pratt first speaks of "Rigdonism."

So one could say that God was preparing the way for the Restoration of the Gospel

by inspiring this way of thinking. Or, if one is so disposed, Rigdon could have

seen this as a problem he could fix by giving God a nudge and working through a

local bumpkin whose strings he could pull from the side.

I think that Rigdon looked into Smith's eyes and saw God -- or at least thought

he did. So, in 1844, when the LDS leaders published the assertion that Rigdon

never had believed in Smith's powers, I think they were wrong.

But why would he do this? Why would he laboriously work up the Book of Mormon,

and how did he think he could control Smith, the Pratts and others of a similar

mind?

Perhaps Rigdon left that matter in God's hands. If he truly believed Smith to be

a prophet, seer, revelator and translator, perhaps he just hoped for the best.

Eventually the book would need witnesses. How did he know that would all work out

and that someone wouldn't blow it? How did he know he could trust Smith not to

blow it?

I don't know. James J. Strang manipulated "witnesses" to testify for him -- but

apparently did not worry too much that his phony plates would be exposed. Strang

perhaps also believed his was destined to succeed.

The questions don't stop there. How about the prophet's mother and father, both

of whom firmly embraced the prophet's story? Lucy testified that Joseph would tell

the family stories of the Nephites, their modes of travel, their manner of

husbandry and war.

Rev. MacMaster says that Joseph was doing the same thing down in the Bainbridge

area, just a little later. Probably he did tell such stories.

>Smith's father was a noted religious cynic (as were his brothers and his own

>father). Why would he take part in advancing the false claims of Rigdon and

>his son when the thing he hated most about religion were the false claims of

>the sectarians? Nothing about this makes sense, but it's your only alternative.

I think Joseph Sr. was more interested in promoting the "Gold Bible Company,"

than he was in seeing his son found a church. Read here:

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/IL/mischig.htm#101488

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/UT/utahmisc.htm#111088

>Rigdon, as well as Smith, endured incredible persecutions and was one time beaten senseless

>by the mob. Some say he was never quite the same after that, and others suggest we might

>want to cut him some slack before we seek to judge him too harshly. In fact, I don't think

>Rigdon ever wanted to take Joseph's place in the church as much as he wanted to be

>considered Joseph's equal.

I think he was more interested in jump-starting the millennium, than in exactly

what position he held in the latter day church. I think Rigdon expected the return

of Christ, to Jackson County, Missouri, within his own lifetime -- and died wondering

just what had gone wrong, that the temple was never built there. Just my guess.

He'd received revelations with Smith and was, in every sense of the word, a prophet

in his own right.

But he wasn't a seer.In Rigdon's mind a seer was much greater than a prophet,

A choice seer was necessary to open the final dispensation of the gospel Rigdon

had visions, of course. He continued to receive "revelations" long after Nauvoo.

But he had no peep-stone. He could not look into the future. He could not look

across vast distances. Only Joseph Smith could do that, in Rigdon's belief.

He, more than any other, would have had the motive to expose the prophet and the church,

yet he didn't. He'd left Campbell; why couldn't he have left Smith?

By the late 1830s Rigdon's only claim to glory and power was his association

with the Mormons. Apostle Orson Hyde says that in the summer of 1844 Rigdon

threatened to expose Smith (then deceased) in such a way that would have hurled

Smith from the First Presidency years before. The New York LDS newspaper reported

on Rigdon's denunciation of Mormonism, in Missouri, after his excommunication.

However -- as I just said -- Rigdon's claim to divinely anointed status was fixed

upon his joint vision with Smith, at Kirtland -- in which he had seen Christ in

a face-to-face encounter (making him a sort of apostle). For Rigdon to have denied

that godly encounter would have destroyed any possibility of his ever being a

church leader, collecting tithing from his followers, etc.

Eventually, in his post-Nauvoo writings, Rigdon denounced Smith more and more --

to the point that, in Rigdon's insinuations, Smith had become a fallen prophet.

But, like I said, Rigdon would not deny his joint-vision with Smith. He could

denounce Smith, but he could not renounce the Smith of the Kirtland era.

To me, it wouldn't make sense to suppose that Rigdon would have played a great part

in either writing the Book of Mormon, the Book of Moses or Smith's revelations. Joseph

never seemed to be concerned that Rigdon might expose him if this were the case.

Perhaps Smith knew that Rigdon would forever revere him as God's prophet,

holding the keys to the last dispensation. As the D&C says, the prophet

could fall through transgression -- but he still held the power, even then,

to appoint his successor. That's tremendous power, even for a fallen prophet.

I think Rigdon believed all of that. He believed the D&C section in which God

identified him as having prepared the way for Mormonism -- and God told him

to watch over Smith, so that Smith did not trangress. Even if Sidney Rigdon

wrote that revelation with his own hand, I think he still believed it to be true.

Why should Joseph have supposed that Rigdon would ever renounce him, while he

(Smith) was yet alive. Within hours Danite gunmen could have been at Rigdon's door.

What does make sense, and what is consistent, is that it all happened the way it is

said to have happened. The church came forth, apostles were called and ordained, keys

were restored, the holy land dedicated for the return of the Jews (which actually began

to happen), temples and temple work were restored (something Campbell had no interest in)

and prophecies given and fulfilled. It's just too much to attribute to Rigdon or, for that

matter, the Book of Mormon.

Don't you have to say that?

If you said anything different, wouldn't you risk excommunication?

I risked excommunication from Community of Christ, when I said I thought Smith

was a secret polygamist, and that the 1860 Reorganization had no basis. So, I know

what it is like to be constrained by the doctrines of a church and its members.

UD