Rigdon Authorship Theory

[USU78]

Because that would be expected by those who knew [Rigdon's] ambitions.

It doesn't bother you in the least that you have to make a presumption that Rigdon is a thief of the otherwise unattested and unknown "Manuscript [Never] Found" in order to connect your dots?

Is there other evidence of Rigdon's alleged cleptomania?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

It doesn't bother you in the least that you have to make a presumption that Rigdon is a thief of the otherwise unattested and unknown "Manuscript [Never] Found" in order to connect your dots?

Is there other evidence of Rigdon's alleged cleptomania?

Well, that is one thing that makes me scratch my head. You have to assume that SR was in on it first. Then and only then does it make sense. How one arrives at the conclusion that SR was in on it, I have no idea as the evidence does not suggest this at all. At the very least he would have been duped by JS, or that JS really did tell the truth.

SR being a co-conspiritor is untenable.

[maupayman]

I haven't seen sidney being considered a good man at all. For critics he wrote the book of mormon and lied about it his entire life. For mormons, he left the lds church. For his followers now, all ten of them, he is a good man.

Are you really claiming that only ten people followed Rigdon?

And for this, he lies on his deathbed, and since he believed in god, he faces that god as a liar. And he also lies to his son and wife. Yep, he is certainly a good guy if true.

I find deathbed testimonies very telling. And in this case, his deathbed testimony and the deathbed testimonies of the witnesses are very compelling. There is a difference between a deathbeed testimony and confessional.

Anyhow, it seems impossible for you to even imagine that Sidney may have been motivated by different things than you are.

[maupayman]

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.

I have seen Uncle Dale post maps from the time period, which could have easily helped with problems like this. In other words, all they had to do was look at existing maps from their time period.

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.

Even given all this remarkable evidence, mormons can't even agree where the BoM lands are.

[maupayman]

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?

ok, it may take me a while to find all this, as it was some time ago that i saw this explained. I'm at work now, but will try to get it for you soon.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

ok, it may take me a while to find all this, as it was some time ago that i saw this explained. I'm at work now, but will try to get it for you soon.

Cool, take the time you need.

[LeSellers]

Are you really claiming that only ten people followed Rigdon?

That was not what he claimed.

He said that there are ten people today who follow the Bickertonite offshoot. That's a bit hyperbolic, but not too far off the mark. There are 12,100 throughout the world today, and about 8,000 in USmerica.

Lehi

[Glenn101]

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.

The stories of angelic visitations and translating by the gift and power of God are hard for some to believe.

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.

You need to do some research on those claims. The "theory" about Rigdon stealing the manuscript from the printer's office and destroying it after getting what he needed from it falls apart at the seams. That "stolen and destroyed" manuscript was returned to Matilda Davison, the widow of Solomon Spalding by one of the Pattersons. That was the one that she put in a trunk and subsequently allowed D.P. Hurlbut to take with him. Tat is the same one that Hurlbut delivered to E.D. Howe and which finally wound up at Oberlin College in Ohio. That manuscript and the writing style displayed therein bears no resemblance to the book of Mormon.

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.

You have quoted a lot of "I reads" and "someone claimed" items. None of those were backed up by any type of proof. An assertion is not proof, and that is mostly what has been the story of the Spalding debacle.

Glenn

[maupayman]

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

The point is that many people on here are demanding the evidence how Rigdon wrote the BoM, before they would question the validity of the book. I doubt they require as much evidence about the Quran, or the book of Jeranack, before they would discount those claims. Most of you would likely assume that it is far more likely they were written by natural and simple means.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The point is that many people on here are demanding the evidence how Rigdon wrote the BoM, before they would question the validity of the book. I doubt they require as much evidence about the Quran, or the book of Jeranack, before they would discount those claims. Most of you would likely assume that it is far more likely they were written by natural and simple means.

And neither of them have anything to do with this thread. THere is not much to compare the BoM to the book of Jeranack. Nothing really seems to be known about this supposed book of scripture.

BTW, have you read anything from teh book of Jeraneck? Here is from the first part of the book.

"

But it is from

my Mother that I have learnt a greater understanding of

humility"

"Learnt" is not even a word. Good grief.

Have you noticed that most names in the BoJ end in neck?

Zioneck, Lioneck,Shibineck,Bribeneck,Hadjaneck,Sharaneck,

Misamaneck,Jeraneck,Seeraneck,Asaneck,Rismaneck,

Wisneck and so on.

Here is something else I think is interesting.

of Lioneck and the Lord made it possible for him to ride a

horse away to safety, and he rode for 5 days and he

walked for three months until he came to the sea, and he

came upon his ship and the Lord blessed his journey home

to the Land of Light.

I bet you could cross the whole of the British Isles in less then 3 months.

Another interesting thing is that there seems to be almost no testifing that Jesus is our Savior and there seems to be little mention of him in the whole book.

Here is another issue

Now a problem occurred that when Lioneck drew away

his people, there began to be more men than women so

that not every woman had a husband, now this was

because the priesthood was not given to unworthy males

and only worthy males could marry worthy females.

Does this one even need to be explained?

Also they need to reconcile this

4 For thus shall my church be called in the last days, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

As they claim to believe everything up until 1844. They changed the name of their church. This was given in 1838.

The book, or the portions that I read really did not seem at all relevant to anything. Any way lets stay on your theory.

[Jason]

I have seen Uncle Dale post maps from the time period, which could have easily helped with problems like this. In other words, all they had to do was look at existing maps from their time period.

As far as I know there are no maps from the time period that show Nahom.

[maupayman]

As far as I know there are no maps from the time period that show Nahom.

Here is the thread I mentioned:

[why me]

Are you really claiming that only ten people followed Rigdon?

Anyhow, it seems impossible for you to even imagine that Sidney may have been motivated by different things than you are.

I just find it hard to imagine the witnesses plus Ridgon all confirming their testimony about the book of mormon on their deathbeds. That is a very strong plus for the book of mormon. Now if we take sidney and his deathbed statement that he did not write the book of mormon, I think is very powerful. He had nothing to lose by coming clean about the fraud if he was involved. And he would have gotten back at good ol' Brigham. Why pass it up?

Rigdon's followers are just a spot on the USA religious landscape. There is no reason to be a Ridgonite since Sidney was either a fraud or a fallen member of the lds church.

[maupayman]

I just find it hard to imagine the witnesses plus Ridgon all confirming their testimony about the book of mormon on their deathbeds. That is a very strong plus for the book of mormon. Now if we take sidney and his deathbed statement that he did not write the book of mormon, I think is very powerful. He had nothing to lose by coming clean about the fraud if he was involved.

I have already outlined what he had to lose by admitting that most of his life was a fraud. You clearly don't agree with it, but i'm not wasting anymore time trying to present possible motives to you.

[Glenn101]

I have already outlined what he had to lose by admitting that most of his life was a fraud. You clearly don't agree with it, but i'm not wasting anymore time trying to present possible motives to you.

The possible motives that Sydney may have had are irrelevant. The evidence or the lack of it is what is relevant. The Rigdon theorists have fallen flat on their face in this area. You have produced nothing new, no evidence to back up your opinions. Without any evidence, your opinions are valuable in what way?

Glenn

[maupayman]

The possible motives that Sydney may have had are irrelevant. The evidence or the lack of it is what is relevant. The Rigdon theorists have fallen flat on their face in this area. You have produced nothing new, no evidence to back up your opinions. Without any evidence, your opinions are valuable in what way?

Glenn

Why me's posts are all about motives, so, yes they are relevant. I have mentioned evidence that I have seen and said that I will look it up as soon as I get a chance. I also never claimed it could be proven, I have repeatedly said that i am not surprised that this evidence is wanting. If it was a fraud, they would have surely done all they could to keep such a relationship secret. I have seen evidence to support certain parts of the story, not overwhelming evidence, but evidence none the less.

I am concerned in what is the most likely scenario for the books authorship. Not in proving how Rigdon or others wrote the book. You and I cannot prove that Mohammed wrote the Quran without the help on angels, yet i'm sure neither of us demand such evidence before we discount Mohammed's claims. I extend that thinking to mormonism and you don't. That's where we differ.

[maupayman]

Obviously, most of you don't give much credit to the Criddle word print study done on the BoM. I would like to better understand why this study does not constitute evidence. Any critical papers written about this? Thanks.

[maupayman]

Criddle outlines evidence for this theory here. Again, i'm not saying that this evidence is overwhelming, but it certainly constitutes evidence.

http://www.i4m.com/think/history/Book-of-Mormon.pdf

[Glenn101]

I am concerned in what is the most likely scenario for the books authorship. Not in proving how Rigdon or others wrote the book. You and I cannot prove that Mohammed wrote the Quran without the help on angels, yet i'm sure neither of us demand such evidence before we discount Mohammed's claims. I extend that thinking to mormonism and you don't. That's where we differ.

I do not discount the possibility that Mohammed had inspiration from a supernatural entity. I do not doubt the fact that he dictated most of the Q'uran to scribes, since he supposedly could not read nor write. My basis for accepting the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Bible and excluding other books are based upon spiritual testimonies I have received. But the Q'uran authorship is irrelevant to the Book of Mormon authorship question.

Criddle outlines evidence for this theory here. Again, i'm not saying that this evidence is overwhelming, but it certainly constitutes evidence.

http://www.i4m.com/think/history/Book-of-Mormon.pdf

Bruce Schaalje has written a paper delineating the problems with the Jockers/Criddle study. It was posted on BYU statistics but the link is now broken. The paper was up for per review and publication in the Oxford Literary Linguistic Computing magazine in April of Last year. I have saved a copy but would need Bruce's permission to send a copy to you. In fact, I guess I should check with him to see if he is okay with the copy I have saved.

There have been other word print studies with which the Jockers/Criddle study have not aligned very well. Here is one such article on word print studies and the Book of Mormon on the Maxwell Institute web site. Check it out and just do a search for "word print" and follow the links. It may help you to have a broader picture of the genre.

Glenn

[ERayR]

I have already outlined what he had to lose by admitting that most of his life was a fraud. You clearly don't agree with it, but i'm not wasting anymore time trying to present possible motives to you.

Your possible motives are nothing more than your guesses and are worth exactly nothing, zip,zero,nada.

[ERayR]

Obviously, most of you don't give much credit to the Criddle word print study done on the BoM. I would like to better understand why this study does not constitute evidence. Any critical papers written about this? Thanks.

I have trouble withall wordprint analysis. It may me that I don't know enough about it but then it may be that I may be right. My opinion is that there are too many variables to be of much use.

[maupayman]

Your possible motives are nothing more than your guesses and are worth exactly nothing, zip,zero,nada.

Well then, I guess they are about as valuable as your post here ERay Getting a little worked up are we?

[ERayR]

Well then, I guess they are about as valuable as your post here ERay Getting a little worked up are we?

You know the folklore about opinions and their worth. You have one I have one. Your welcome.

[maupayman]

You know the folklore about opinions and their worth. You have one I have one. Your welcome.

If you read the thread, you would realize that Why me has been asking about posible motives. Should I not answer him?

[maupayman]

I forgot about this thread. I'm curious if people like Mola Ram etc. will acknowledge that there is, at least a little, evidence to support a Rigdon authorship theory? Its not like this theory has come out of nowhere. I admit, more evidence needs to be found to link Smith to Rigdon, pre-publishing period. However, I think there is enough evidence to warrant further investigation into this theory. Can we at least agree on that? I can admit that Nahom and other things constitute evidence for the church's claims. Can we agree that both sides have a basis for their argument?