Rigdon Authorship Theory

[robuchan]

CFR on this. Who specifically were these many people who clarified this?

Nice.

[USU78]

Nice.

Are you unable to provide a reference for the person(s) who referred to "spiritual eyes" being involved in viewing the Plates?

[robuchan]

So it is implausible because you say so.

So it feels plausible so it must be. That is good to know. And you think it reads like a con. Just what does a con read like? Can you demonstrate this more than mere assertion?

Ah is it plausible that all of everyones experiances really are not of God? That is that every time some one claims a spiritual experiance it must be fake. That seems to be the position you have taken. How do you suppose that we can test this hypothosis?

It's like saying because Joe claims to love his wife but clearly doesn't that means that every one must not love their wife. Because we can find a conflict with some people.

I'm not sure the plausibility test works with the BOM. I haven't found a single plausible explanation yet.

I believe in spiritual experiences. But if I see many purported spiritual experiences that conflict with each other, then I can assume some or all of them are not accurate. So if I say God told me I'm his only true prophet. And if you say the same thing. It doesn't mean neither are accurate, but at least one isn't. So if we are both very sincere, but at least one of us is not accurate, then I can conclude that some people claim to have spiritual experiences that aren't lying, they just aren't accurate. Which is my most likely would place most of the "dozens" of people Vookman refers to.

[robuchan]

Are you unable to provide a reference for the person(s) who referred to "spiritual eyes" being involved in viewing the Plates?

I'll let the scholars handle it. Since I'm not trying to convince anyone, it only matters to me. If you're interested in convincing me, go ahead. If not, we're good.

[USU78]

I'll let the scholars handle it. Since I'm not trying to convince anyone, it only matters to me. If you're interested in convincing me, go ahead. If not, we're good.

So . . . here's what you said:

Also remember, many of these people clarify that their experiences were seen with "spiritual" eyes.

You made a declarative statement as though it were true. You have been called on it to provide a reference for the "many." You have attempted to dodge by saying you didn't make a declarative statement of ostensible fact, but rather, presumably, "puffery," which no one should take seriously.

Are you, then, withdrawing your declaration of ostensible truth?

[robuchan]

So . . . here's what you said:

You made a declarative statement as though it were true. You have been called on it to provide a reference for the "many." You have attempted to dodge by saying you didn't make a declarative statement of ostensible fact, but rather, presumably, "puffery," which no one should take seriously.

Are you, then, withdrawing your declaration of ostensible truth?

lol, I withdraw!

[Walden]

The biggest hole (gaping, in fact) is the large number of things in the Book of Mormon that no one could have known. We've already discussed and are awaiting answers for how anyone would know about Nahom and Bountiful. Also the valley and the "river of water" that critics for years have been poking us in the chest about. And though some critics contend that they're really not impressed with the chiasms in the Book of Mormon, they're still there, and they're fairly complex. Then there's the whole "land of Jerusalem" thing where Christ was said to have been born, and Alma being a male name.

Of all these, the greatest is the location of Bountiful. It alone, without any of the rest, being precisely where Nephi said it would be, and its containing plenty of ore, wood, grains, honey, hills, cliffs, harbors and so forth, is something that Solomon Spalding, Rigdon, Joseph Smith nor anyone else could have foretold. We may not have the New World settings down, but whoever wrote the Book of Mormon (at least the first portion of it) was minutely familiar with the details of geography of the old world, down to distances and directions. Had anyone tried to write such a book, they would have failed on all of these points.

Even if it could be proved that Joseph Smith met Rigdon in 1828 and that Rigdon had just spent two months living with Solomon Spalding and that a manuscript had disappeared just after he left, it would still not explain the above, nor account for the accuracy. The Book of Mormon is filled with Hebraisms that weren't even known about in Joseph Smith's day, and the original Book of Mormon manuscript is laced with them. (Most of these have been documented by Daniel Peterson here. He also has two very good CD sets on the topics, which include outstanding synopses of the lives and testimonies of the Book of Mormon witnesses which, in turn, were based on Richard L. Anderson's research). As a convert to the church, myself, these testimonies not only are some of the most compelling evidences for the Book of Mormon, but are far too casually dismissed by critics. (If you don't believe me, try to talk 10-12 friends with good reputations to lie for you, risk those reputations and then, take it to their graves.)

These are all holes big enough to drive trucks through.

If your argument is that there were just too many things contained in the Book of Mormon that no one could have known, then what about the errors contained in the Book of Mormon? What about the mentioning of animals (horses, sheep, etc.) for which there is no evidence of ever having been in the Americas before the arrival of Europeans? What about the mentioning of crops (barley, wheat, etc.) for which no evidence exists before the arrival of Europeans? What about the mentioning of steel and other metals, when they did not exist within the timeline as portrayed in the Book of Mormon. These are just a few of the historical inaccuracies present in the Book of Mormon.

If all you are looking for is the links in the Book of Mormon, then you will find them. If all you are looking for is the errors in the Book of Mormon, you will find them. But to say that the Book of Mormon must be true because nobody could have known about the factual truths contained therein completely ignores the numerous historical mistakes contained in the book.

[Walden]

Are you unable to provide a reference for the person(s) who referred to "spiritual eyes" being involved in viewing the Plates?

I know that the LDS scholars have brought arguments against these statements attributed to Martin Harris, but a quick look at the wiki page for Martin Harris states the following:

Although he was estranged from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for most of his life, Harris continued to testify to the truth of the Book of Mormon. Nevertheless, at least during the early years, Harris "seems to have repeatedly admitted the internal, subjective nature of his visionary experience."^[22] The foreman in the Palmyra printing office that produced the first Book of Mormon said that Harris "used to practice a good deal of his characteristic jargon and 'seeing with the spiritual eye,' and the like." ^[23] John H. Gilbert, the typesetter for most of the book, said that he had asked Harris, "Martin, did you see those plates with your naked eyes?" According to Gilbert, Harris "looked down for an instant, raised his eyes up, and said, 'No, I saw them with a spiritual eye."^[24] Two other Palmyra residents said that Harris told them that he had seen the plates with "the eye of faith" or "spiritual eyes." ^[25] In 1838, Harris is said to have told an Ohio congregation that "he never saw the plates with his natural eyes, only in vision or imagination."^[26] A neighbor of Harris in Kirtland, Ohio, said that Harris "never claimed to have seen [the plates] with his natural eyes, only spiritual vision." ^[27]

In March 1838, disillusioned church members said that Harris had publicly denied that neither he nor the other Witnesses to the Book of Mormon had ever seen or handled the golden plates

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I'm not sure the plausibility test works with the BOM. I haven't found a single plausible explanation yet.

Well I disagree, but that is fine. Just mentioning possibilities and then running with them is not working very well.

I believe in spiritual experiences. But if I see many purported spiritual experiences that conflict with each other, then I can assume some or all of them are not accurate.

Yes, you might be able to assume that some are not accuarte. However how would you test if which one is wrong and which one is right? So have just said" All are wrong" and they take the easy road out.

So if I say God told me I'm his only true prophet. And if you say the same thing. It doesn't mean neither are accurate, but at least one isn't. So if we are both very sincere, but at least one of us is not accurate, then I can conclude that some people claim to have spiritual experiences that aren't lying, they just aren't accurate. Which is my most likely would place most of the "dozens" of people Vookman refers to.

Dozens? So with the context of the BoM and the theory that SR wrote how does this all play into that?

[robuchan]

Dozens? So with the context of the BoM and the theory that SR wrote how does this all play into that?

How this evolved was that Vookman said a conspiracy would require dozens of people who testified of various aspects of the restoration. I'm probing that assertion.

Of course everyone knows a conspiracy involving dozens would never keep the lid on. My theory is that if there was a conspiracy (and I think there likely was a conspiracy at least at some level--even if it didn't involve writing the BOM together), the lower the number involved the more likely it stayed under wraps, so I only put in that category a limited few--SR and OC and maybe Emma and Lucy Mack Smith. The rest of these "dozens" I feel like I can explain in a similar way we just walked through an example of someone who claimed to have a spiritual witness which turns out not to be accurate. And then of course there is a third category of people that were duped. I don't know how many of those "dozens" would be in that category but I imagine there are some.

[Cold Steel]

If your argument is that there were just too many things contained in the Book of Mormon that no one could have known, then what about the errors contained in the Book of Mormon? What about the mentioning of animals (horses, sheep, etc.) for which there is no evidence of ever having been in the Americas before the arrival of Europeans? What about the mentioning of crops (barley, wheat, etc.) for which no evidence exists before the arrival of Europeans? What about the mentioning of steel and other metals, when they did not exist within the timeline as portrayed in the Book of Mormon. These are just a few of the historical inaccuracies present in the Book of Mormon.

I can't speak for others, but I believe these issues have all been credibly dealt with by a number of people. You can check

and

, and

to begin with. As they say out in the country, "That's my story and I'm stickin' with it." What seems to be valid criticisms have always turned out to work in our favor. But just to add something to the place called Nahom, this was where Ismael was buried. No one knew until 1996 that Nahom was a burial place. So how could anyone in Joseph Smith's day?

.

[Cold Steel]

Rigdon was an established preacher with a following. Joseph Smith was a young man and a nobody. Just looking into Joseph's background would convince any preacher that he was not reliable as a partner nor was he intelligent. When I stress unreliability I am not referring to lying or cheating but as to his profession as farmer and treasure hunter. Why would sidney want to team up with Joseph?

Good point. Why can't people get through their thick heads that people like Parley P. Pratt and Sidney Rigdon and others departed theologically from Alexander Campbell over Campbell's primary theological shortcoming, and that is that he had no authority from heaven. It's one thing to notice the other churches were in states of apostasy. It's quite another to establish a church with authority and revelation.

Parley P. Pratt records:

About this time (1828-1829) 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. (Parley P. Pratt, Autobiography of Parley P. Pratt, edited by his son, Parley P. Pratt, p.13)

There were many that felt this way and that's why the church grew so rapidly. I never would have bought into "Mormonism" if it had been on the testimony of just one man, though. Glenn Beck likes to point out that placard that Ronald Reagan had on his desk. It said something to the effect that there's no lengths a man cannot go if he's not concerned in who gets the credit. Joseph Smith was such a man, and look at the great leaders that were produced while he was still alive. Look, too, at the number of people who had visions, saw angels, received instruction through revelation (just like the ancient church). It was anything but a one-man show. It wasn't just two or three people having these experiences. There were good women who received amazing revelations and visitations, as well as men. And what they went through! I don't think they could have endured for a hoaxster.

.

[why me]

It was anything but a one-man show. It wasn't just two or three people having these experiences. There were good women who received amazing revelations and visitations, as well as men. And what they went through! I don't think they could have endured for a hoaxster.

.

Some of the women Joseph asked to be sealed to, were repulsed at the notion at first. It was only after receiving a very powerful spiritual witness did they acccept. Most critics overlook this aspect of polygamy and Joseph Smith.

The book of mormon was more than a one man show. And this is also a problem for critics, especially the witnesses to the book. Many fraudsters are caught in the fraud, especially when there are more than 10 in on it. All can't keep their mouths shut. Someone would have leaked it, especially when JS was in prison with sidney.

[maupayman]

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.

Sorry all, was away on holidays for a bit and this thread seems to have died. About 3 pages of posts to respond to, but I will give it a go.

I have heard many on this board claim that Joseph and Sidney claimed they had never met before the church formed. If evidence to the contrary was found, that would be evidence that they lied about their relationship. Would that evidence affect you in any way?

[Glenn101]

Sorry all, was away on holidays for a bit and this thread seems to have died. About 3 pages of posts to respond to, but I will give it a go.

I have heard many on this board claim that Joseph and Sidney claimed they had never met before the church formed. If evidence to the contrary was found, that would be evidence that they lied about their relationship. Would that evidence affect you in any way?

After 180 years, that evidence is still lacking. There are a few who claimed, fifty or more years after the fact, that Sidney did visit the Smith's prior to 1830 however the accounts are contradictory. Wade Englund has a critique of those accounts somewhere. You might want to pm him for the url. I don't recall it offhand.

Glenn

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Sorry all, was away on holidays for a bit and this thread seems to have died. About 3 pages of posts to respond to, but I will give it a go.

I have heard many on this board claim that Joseph and Sidney claimed they had never met before the church formed. If evidence to the contrary was found, that would be evidence that they lied about their relationship. Would that evidence affect you in any way?

I would first need evidence that JS and SR claimed to have never met, from there I would need to see the evidenec that they did indeed meet each other.

Ultimatly it would not really do much as there needs to be a whole lot more that needs to be established besides them meeting prior to 1830. Lets says the past each other in 1827 at a store. Would the be evidence that they lied? I would need something a little more then that. Such that they meet and knew each other and conspired. So far the evidence is really non exsistance.

[maupayman]

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).

This is why I started this thread, to see if it is indeed ridiculous. To me, it sounds far more likely than the mormon version of the story.

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

I have read numerous people's claims that the manuscript existed. My understanding of the theory is that Rigdon would have stolen the manuscript from Spalding, while in Pittsburgh. Therefore, it is not surprising that he would have possibly destroyed the manuscript after having used it to help create the BoM narrative.

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

I have read evidence that they lived close to each other in Pittsburgh. They very likely could have known each other during that time period. As I recall, someone even claimed that Rigdon had stolen the manuscript long before it was thought Rigdon and Smith had used it to make the BoM.

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

There is also no evidence as to how the book of Jeranack was written. If someone is trying to commit a fraud, they will obviously try to keep evidence of this nature secret. This is not surprising in the least.

Really, this is just a fantisy.

That is quite possible, though your beliefs on the matter are likely to be fantasy as well. Probably more so.

[maupayman]

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

I don't see it as a problem. The explanation I have heard is that he thought people would suspect it to be a fraud if Rigdon was the source of the BoM. By using Joseph and a miraculous translation problem, Rigdon would have had more success convincing people the work was from God.

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.

Where is the evidence for how the Quran was written?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

This is why I started this thread, to see if it is indeed ridiculous. To me, it sounds far more likely than the mormon version of the story.

I have read numerous people's claims that the manuscript existed. My understanding of the theory is that Rigdon would have stolen the manuscript from Spalding, while in Pittsburgh. Therefore, it is not surprising that he would have possibly destroyed the manuscript after having used it to help create the BoM narrative.

I have read evidence that they lived close to each other in Pittsburgh. They very likely could have known each other during that time period. As I recall, someone even claimed that Rigdon had stolen the manuscript long before it was thought Rigdon and Smith had used it to make the BoM.

There is also no evidence as to how the book of Jeranack was written. If someone is trying to commit a fraud, they will obviously try to keep evidence of this nature secret. This is not surprising in the least.

That is quite possible, though your beliefs on the matter are likely to be fantasy as well. Probably more so.

Please present your evidence for each of these claims. Possible is meaningless and that is all that you have thrown around here. We are looking for plausible. Do you understand the difference?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Where is the evidence for how the Quran was written?

There is also no evidence as to how the book of Jeranack was written

I sense some deflection here. Neither of these have anything to do with the Spaulding/Rigdon theory.

[maupayman]

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

Bernard

Good question, I would say:

1) Word print findings

2) The mail list etc. placing Rigdon and Spaulding in Pittsburgh at the same time

3) Claims by family and friends of Spaulding that the BoM contained names, ideas etc. from Spaulding's manuscript

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You should check out this thread.

[USU78]

BoM contained names, ideas etc. from Spaulding's manuscript

What names are those?

[maupayman]

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-

Thanks Wade, I have looked through most of your material on this site. I have not heard many of the claims that you are trying to refute in your article. For example: "the history of Alma is the same as spaulding's manuscript".

[maupayman]

So why didn't Sidney take the credit.

Because that would be expected by those who knew his ambitions.

He certainly was ambitious enough and had more credibility as a scholar.

That's the beauty of it. The unschooled farm boy is the perfect man to have bring forth the BoM. Miraculous!

This argument makes no sense. I can't believe people are still using it.

It makes sense to me.