Rigdon Authorship Theory

[maupayman]

As per Mola Ram's request:

Why don't you start a new thread so we don't hijack it and we can go from there. Clearly you think that theory is a sound one

What are the "many many holes" in the Rigdon as a principle author theory?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

As per Mola Ram's request:

What are the "many many holes" in the Rigdon as a principle author theory?

:et me look through some of the last threads and pull waht I think is relevenat. Some one else might have more information readily at their finger tips.

[SlackTime]

Hmmm... I thought Sydney Rigdon was first made acquianted with Joseph during the preaching to the Campbellites in 1830. A little bit after the Book of Mormon was translated and printed. So to get him in on the authorship would require some major work of conspiracy unmasking or something.

- SlackTime

[maupayman]

Hmmm... I thought Sydney Rigdon was first made acquianted with Joseph during the preaching to the Campbellites in 1830. A little bit after the Book of Mormon was translated and printed. So to get him in on the authorship would require some major work of conspiracy unmasking or something.

- SlackTime

Yes, it would require some conspiracy on their part to conceal any relationship earlier than 1830. Is that surprising? That's hardly a big hole. If they conspired to create the BoM, they would surely do all they could to keep their relationship, before its publication, secret.

[SlackTime]

Yes, it would require some conspiracy on their part to conceal any relationship earlier than 1830. Is that surprising? That's hardly a big hole. If they conspired to create the BoM, they would surely do all they could to keep their relationship, before its publication, secret.

So the hole remains that there is no such conspiracy. Ah well, enjoy your fantasy!

- SlackTime

[why me]

On his deathbed, Sidney again denied he wrote the book of mormon. If he lied on his deathbed, he would be rotting in hell right now. I don't think that sidney would lie on his deathbed. He seems to be a religious man who would not want a fraud hanging over his head as he met his maker.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Yes, it would require some conspiracy on their part to conceal any relationship earlier than 1830. Is that surprising? That's hardly a big hole. If they conspired to create the BoM, they would surely do all they could to keep their relationship, before its publication, secret.

The problem is that you have to establish through evidence that they had conspired. Just asserting it does nothing. Or claiming that "it is a possibility". That is worthless talk. You need to show plausability. Plausability and possibility are not the same thing.

Any way to another post from Uncle Dale

Matt Roper has reviewed all of this in his two recent papers on the

subject. He is one of the most informed LDS writers in this regard.

He comes to the conclusion that Solomon Spalding only ever wrote

one fictional story about the ancient Americans -- but he also holds

open the probability that Spalding's story was re-written at least

one time prior to his death in 1816.

Another hole is that there is only one manuscript from Spaulding, and it does not really resemble the BoM really in any way. Shall we continue?

Here are few paper written by Roper.

The Mythical "Manuscript Found"

http://maxwellinstit...17&num=2&id=584

Myth, Memory, and "Manuscript Found"

http://maxwellinstit...21&num=2&id=778

[why me]

And if sidney wrote the book of mormon and spent a lot of time writing it, why would he be okay with Joseph sticking his head in a hat to 'translate' it? It seems too crazy for me t

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

On his deathbed, Sidney again denied he wrote the book of mormon. If he lied on his deathbed, he would be rotting in hell right now. I don't think that sidney would lie on his deathbed. He seems to be a religious man who would not want a fraud hanging over his head as he met his maker.

This is another hole for the theory. Sydney never denied what the BoM was/is. He never lead on that it was a fraud. If he was in on the fraud what would he gain?

Also didn't he go with James Strang and then later leave? Or am I getting him confused.

Another thing about the Srangite following is that some of the people that were with Strang at the beginning latter admitted to him being a fraud and that they fabricated the plates.

FYI I am referencing this thread below with the posts that I have offered so far.

[Glenn101]

Yes, it would require some conspiracy on their part to conceal any relationship earlier than 1830. Is that surprising? That's hardly a big hole. If they conspired to create the BoM, they would surely do all they could to keep their relationship, before its publication, secret.

I don't know your schedule, work load, or background, but you come across as a reasonably intelligent person. This theory has been discussed many times here (and elsewhere). But up til now, no Rigdon theorist has presented a cogent, coherent, and plausible theory, connecting the dots with evidence.

So, maybe you can do for us what no one else has done so far, connect all of the dots with some solid evidence, or at least enough of the dots to show some plausibility. Possibility does not show plausibility. That is where evidence comes into play.

I am not being facetious or sarcastic in the least. But you have some difficult hurdles to overcome.

Glenn

[Walden]

And if sidney wrote the book of mormon and spent a lot of time writing it, why would he be okay with Joseph sticking his head in a hat to 'translate' it? It seems too crazy for me t

[why me]

This is another hole for the theory. Sydney never denied what the BoM was/is. He never lead on that it was a fraud. If he was in on the fraud what would he gain?

Also didn't he go with James Strang and then later leave? Or am I getting him confused.

Another thing about the Srangite following is that some of the people that were with Strang at the beginning latter admitted to him being a fraud and that they fabricated the plates.

FYI I am referencing this thread below with the posts that I have offered so far.

Also,since Joseph and sidney shared a prison cell along with other leaders, it would be quite amazing that the two 'fraudsters' would not be exchanging faces with each other. How to remain passive and quiet when facing a death sentence with each other? Now that would be quite amazing if they both were in on the fraud.

[why me]

Wait, Joseph sticking his head into a hat to translate "reformed Egyptian" text is not the thing that strikes you as crazy?

But Sidney Rigdon conspiring with Joseph is the crazy part?

Let me put it this way: if you wrote the book of mormon and it took a lot of paper and ink and found a young man to take all the credit, would you want him to stick his head in a hat to translate it?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Let me put it this way: if you wrote the book of mormon and it took a lot of paper and ink and found a young man to take all the credit, would you want him to stick his head in a hat to translate it?

Well you see it is so crazy that it is believable..........Er uh....

[Walden]

Let me put it this way: if you wrote the book of mormon and it took a lot of paper and ink and found a young man to take all the credit, would you want him to stick his head in a hat to translate it?

Of course I would if I wanted people to believe that it was divinely inspired and not a work of man.

[SlackTime]

Of course I would if I wanted people to believe that it was divinely inspired and not a work of man.

I don't know. If I was looking to fake a "translation" that was given "by the gift and power of God" I'd have had Joseph go into some kind of "spiritual trance", maybe foam at the mouth, and speak incoherently, and then write down the translation by the gift of tongues. It was a far more common approach to "spiritual manifestations" back then. And would have been much more convincing than putting a rock in a hat.

- SlackTime

[Jason]

I don't think that sidney would lie on his deathbed.

You would expect him to stand on his deathbed?

Ba-DUM-dum.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You would expect him to stand on his deathbed?

Ba-DUM-dum.

Oh boy, my elbow hurts now.

[maupayman]

The problem is that you have to establish through evidence that they had conspired. Just asserting it does nothing. Or claiming that "it is a possibility". That is worthless talk. You need to show plausability. Plausability and possibility are not the same thing.

I have never claimed that I could prove the theory, I simply asked what the holes were in the theory. Smith and Rigdon creating the book is far more plausible than what you believe about the book. Okham's razor is pretty obvious in this regard.

Another hole is that there is only one manuscript from Spaulding, and it does not really resemble the BoM really in any way. Shall we continue?

So, the hole is that we don't have a manuscript which was claimed to exist by numerous people? There is evidence this manuscript existed, just as there is evidence the gold plates existed.

[wenglund]

The Rigdon Authorship theory is another name for the Spalding Theory. If you are looking for holes in theory, I list a number of potentially fatal ones here: Spalding Enigma: The Fallacy of Repetition Continued?, particularly the section on "Rigdon Did Not Visit Smith Prior to 1830!.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[maupayman]

This is another hole for the theory. Sydney never denied what the BoM was/is. He never lead on that it was a fraud. If he was in on the fraud what would he gain?

He continued on as leader of the Rigdonite religion. He had lots to gain.

Also didn't he go with James Strang and then later leave? Or am I getting him confused.

No he lead the Rigdonites, from what I have read.

[maupayman]

Also,since Joseph and sidney shared a prison cell along with other leaders, it would be quite amazing that the two 'fraudsters' would not be exchanging faces with each other. How to remain passive and quiet when facing a death sentence with each other? Now that would be quite amazing if they both were in on the fraud.

Use your imagination man, your posts are about the most trivial reasons.

[Jason]

I have never claimed that I could prove the theory, I simply asked what the holes were in the theory...So, the hole is that we don't have a manuscript which was claimed to exist by numerous people? There is evidence this manuscript existed, just as there is evidence the gold plates existed.

It sounds to me like the biggest hole is that Sidney didn't meet Joseph Smith until after the book was printed. Unless you have some evidence that they did meet earlier that's a serious problem.

[why me]

Use your imagination man, your posts are about the most trivial reasons.

Actually, I take a very human position and attempt to place myself in that position if I were a fraudster with someone else. So, we have joseph and sidney sharing a prison cell facing death and both remain silent about the fraud and act as if all is well in Zion around the other lds prisoners with no hint of anxiety of facing death on behalf of a fraud. I find that amazing if they were fraudsters. Use your imagination.

[why me]

He continued on as leader of the Rigdonite religion. He had lots to gain.

No he lead the Rigdonites, from what I have read.

And so, on his deathbed he lies about not writing the book of mormon and faces his maker with a lie on his lips. Quite a happening for a religious fraudster...especially since he made his deathbed testimony in front of his son.

Where was the gain in that denial?

And his wife claimed that he did not write the book of mormon.