Rigdon Authorship Theory

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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.

Okham's razor does not establish probability or plausibility. That is a really week argument sorry. THere is scant evidence that JS conspired with Rigdon. The same scant evidence exsists that he even knew who Rgidon was prior to 1830. Like I said just asserting that something is possible does nothing.

That is the whole point, behind there being numerous holes. There is really poor evidence to back up the assertions.

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.

Who are these numerous people that claimed there was a manuscript?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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

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

Didn't he come back to the church?

And that venture with the Rigdonites made him rich and powerful huh? Any way this stuff is irrelevant if I mix uped his history with some one else.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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.

THis is but one hole and it is quite large. If the theory is to be taken seriously in any regards there needs to be substiancal evidence that JS knew SR let along conspired in a fraud. Simply stating Okhams razor is just not justification for accepting something.

Okham's razor dictates in many instances that the BoM is what it claims. In other areas the opposite is true.

[why me]

Didn't he come back to the church?

Sidney tried to become the next prophet of the lds church but Brigham took the spot. He then went away without exclaiming that he was the author of the book of mormon. Quite a happening if one is a fraudster. He allowed brigham to lead the church and he becomes less than second fiddle even though he wrote the book. So goes the critic logic in the sidney wrote the book theory.

[maupayman]

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.

If he was a fraudster, then yes he would easily lie on his deathbed.

Where was the gain in that denial?

What does he gain by telling everyone he was a fraud for most of his life. At least, if his lie lives on, he still is viewed by followers as having been a good man. I swear we have gone through this same discussion regarding Joseph too. You are just pumped about the sincerity of death bed confessionals. Do all people come clean about everything in their life on their deathbed?

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

Oh, well in that case....its like talking to a kid here. "But, he said he didn't do it"

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Sidney tried to become the next prophet of the lds church but Brigham took the spot. He then went away without exclaiming that he was the author of the book of mormon. Quite a happening if one is a fraudster. He allowed brigham to lead the church and he becomes less than second fiddle even though he wrote the book. So goes the critic logic in the sidney wrote the book theory.

Oh that is interesting. If it was a fraud, I cannot fathom SR not spilling the beans here. What would SR gain by not spilling the beans?

By spilling the beans he prevents others from taking over on his hard work of putting forth the fraud.

Good point.

[maupayman]

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.

Agreed, though I seem to recall the author of Who really wrote the Book of Mormon claiming there was some evidence they had met before 1830.

http://www.mikeadkins.com/article/who-really-wrote-the-book-of-mormon-the-spalding-enigma/

[maupayman]

Okham's razor does not establish probability or plausibility. That is a really week argument sorry.

which is why i never made it. I was simply saying, by using Okham's razor, it is more likely that Rigdon and others wrote the Book than Joseph read the words from God on a stone.

THere is scant evidence that JS conspired with Rigdon. The same scant evidence exsists that he even knew who Rgidon was prior to 1830. Like I said just asserting that something is possible does nothing.

Agreed, just like saying there is scant evidence does not mean it couldn't have happened.

That is the whole point, behind there being numerous holes. There is really poor evidence to back up the assertions.

Agreed, though this is the same problem your side of the argument faces.

Who are these numerous people that claimed there was a manuscript?

His family and friends, who claimed he had shared portions of the manuscript with them.

[maupayman]

THis is but one hole and it is quite large. If the theory is to be taken seriously in any regards there needs to be substiancal evidence that JS knew SR let along conspired in a fraud. Simply stating Okhams razor is just not justification for accepting something.

Okham's razor dictates in many instances that the BoM is what it claims. In other areas the opposite is true.

Let me ask you something, if evidence was found, that Smith and Rigdon knew each other before 1830, what would change in your beliefs?

[All-Seeing Eye]

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.

I just want to note that there are plenty of murderers who, moments prior to their executions, still maintain that they are innocent of the crimes for which they are being executed.

[maupayman]

Sidney tried to become the next prophet of the lds church but Brigham took the spot. He then went away without exclaiming that he was the author of the book of mormon. Quite a happening if one is a fraudster. He allowed brigham to lead the church and he becomes less than second fiddle even though he wrote the book. So goes the critic logic in the sidney wrote the book theory.

Yeah, he went away and started a break-off group that still believed in the BoM... So, why would he admit he wrote it??????

[maupayman]

I just want to note that there are plenty of murderers who, moments prior to their executions, still maintain that they are innocent of the crimes for which they are being executed.

But when why me imagines himself in the same situation, he can't see himself doing that. Therefore, its a terrible point.

[All-Seeing Eye]

It's probably old news, but still germane to this discussion, I think. The material at the following link alleges that Rigdon's grandson said that the Rigdon family knew that the Book of Mormon was to be treated as a fraud.

http://sidneyrigdon.com/criddle/rigdon1.htm#14

[maupayman]

It's probably old news, but still germane to this discussion, I think. The material at the following link alleges that Rigdon's grandson said that the Rigdon family knew that the Book of Mormon was to be treated as a fraud.

http://sidneyrigdon.com/criddle/rigdon1.htm#14

Thanks for that, it was news to me.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Let me ask you something, if evidence was found, that Smith and Rigdon knew each other before 1830, what would change in your beliefs?

THat in and of it self wouldn't do anything other than they they knew of each other prior to 1830. It would take a whole lot more evidence for me to say "Ah SR and JS really did conspire to commit a fraud". That is but one piece in the puzzle and it is a big piece.

After this one piece, I would need evidence that they hung around each other and talked with each other on a frequent basis. From there we would need more evidence that they were conspiring to commit fraud.

[mapman]

Dude, try to put the events required by the theory into a chronilogical story. It will sound as rediculous as it is (or if you're not up to it, read it here).

Some of the holes I can think of off the top of my head:

1. There is no evidence for there being a manuscript by Spaulding resembling the Book of Mormon

2. There is no evidence Sidney or Joseph ever even knew Spaulding existed

3. There is no evidence that Sidney knew Joseph prior to the Book of Mormon was published

Really, this is just a fantisy.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

It's probably old news, but still germane to this discussion, I think. The material at the following link alleges that Rigdon's grandson said that the Rigdon family knew that the Book of Mormon was to be treated as a fraud.

http://sidneyrigdon.com/criddle/rigdon1.htm#14

More hearsay? 50 years after the fact.

Here is a good one.

" At that time he had no ideas of making money. Indeed, while he was with the Mormons, his chances to make money were good enough for most men; but he came out of it about as poor as he went in."

So he has no reason to leave his old life behind but he got "cracked". That does not suggest to me that SR was in on the fraud but got hood winked.

Thanks for the link I think it proves valuable.

[Glenn101]

While the psychological aspect of Rigdon's makeup which would make it doubtful that he would have been willing to play second fiddle to a callow farm boy is problematic for the Rigdon theorists there are other much more glaring weaknesses in the theory that have not been addressed. The biggest problem is the paucity of evidence. It just is not there.

This is the most often revived theory. It will probably never go away because there is the slimmest of chances that Rigdon could have written the Book of Mormon. I would say that Rigdon authorship of the Book of Mormon is slightly more possible statistically speaking than life beginning by accident.

Glenn

[Pahoran]

As per Mola Ram's request:

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

IOW, you seem to be saying, "prove to my satisfaction that it's false."

Sorry, Maups; no can do. You want to foist this tinfoil-hat conspiracy theory onto us, you assume the burden of proof.

For my money, there's only one hole in the Spaulding-Rigdon "theory" that counts; it's hopelessly false.

The fact that only fringe loonies believe it is a bonus.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Bernard Gui]

Yeah, he went away and started a break-off group that still believed in the BoM... So, why would he admit he wrote it??????

What are your three best points of evidence that Rigdon wrote the Book of Mormon?

Bernard

[Vookman]

I think Ockham's Razor is a pretty good tool. Let's use it:

1. Joseph Smith must meet SR prior to 1823 to get his Indian story in place: Evidence for or against?

2. SR must keep his 1823 meeting with JS a secret from the Smith family until 1829 (the earliest I am aware of a third party claims SR is seen at the Smith family home)? Evidence for: Strong/Weak? Probability based on Cowdrey, Emma Smith, Knight family, Emma's family and Martin Harris statements of the translation (harder to measure, but critical since the conspiracy would require all of these people to be lying in concert about the translation, the non-use of manuscripts, etc.). Probability: Strong/ Weak?

3. After the tarring and feathering of 1832, during which SR suffered severe head injuries, I remember folks saying basically SR was never completely "right" in the head. He was not delirious, but he was a couple of beats behind the music. So an impaired guy maintains a broad conspiracy requiring constant evaluation of choices to maintain. Probable: Yes / No?

The previously mentioned items of no Spaulding manuscript corresponding to the BofM, etc., with no cogent time line or evidence to refute these issues, the only thing which would over rule this would be one's pre-disposition to reject evidence which supports the LDS position.

I don't take this as proof. It certainly is not. Ockham's Razor is not about proof, it is about determining the best probability based on the circumstances.

While angels giving records does not conform to the scientific method for repeatability, rejecting it as not possible in the face of no other viable alternative answer is illogical, in light of Ockham's Razor. Especially in light of 12 witnesses supporting the view. Then again, we have statements about exploding stars being seen in the sky dating back nearly a thousand years which have long since lost their light and for which we lack exact locations. Yet we accept that supernovas do take place, and though the specific incident is not documentable or provable based on our current capabilities, we don't assume they were delirious. Or maybe one should, lacking reproducible evidence or witnesses.

I love using Ockham's Razor with critics. Dropping the pretense of unbiased intellectual pursuit leads us squarely to pre-disposed prejudices. All of us have them, but critics usually try to maintain they are unbiased, but then regularly reject eyewitness accounts or related "coincidences" which in total defy chance or, for that matter, conspiracy.

The LDS Church's origins require a conspiracy of dozens of people who eventually often hate each other, and who demonstrably care about their personal reputation and have a good report in other areas of their life, to accept public criticism and reject opportunities for financial gain by uncovering the fraud, to stick it out. It also requires one to reject the testimony of some critics who provide circumstantial confirmation of the Smith story. No every storyline supports the JS account, but the complete absence of conspiratorial confession when dozens of individuals are involved is so improbable that it requires a new religion, the "I don't believe anything about the Mormons" faith, because it certainly requires rejection of most evidence in favor of a highly selective, unrelated to probability, disposition. I think we call that the "Oliver Stone method".

So I think one should be willing to endure the shave that Ockham's Razor slaps on us. Just let's include the broad list of circumstantial evidences in calculating that probability. In the end, it is about the likelihood of human behavior being altered, in the case of the JS story. Which in and of itself defies Ockham's Razor.

Bob

[wenglund]

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

Apparently, you didn't see this earlier post from me:

The Rigdon Authorship theory is another name for the Spalding Theory. If you are looking for holes in the 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!.

If you would like, we can discuss each in succession here.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Deborah]

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

So why didn't Sidney take the credit. He certainly was ambitious enough and had more credibility as a scholar. This argument makes no sense. I can't believe people are still using it.

[Glenn101]

So why didn't Sidney take the credit. He certainly was ambitious enough and had more credibility as a scholar. This argument makes no sense. I can't believe people are still using it.

Because any theory, no matter how implausible is still better than the alternative to those who do not want to believe the Book of Mormon to be divinely inspired and produced.

Glenn

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I think we call that the "Oliver Stone method".

Bob

Oh snap, that was witty.