Rigdon Authorship Theory

[USU78]

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?

Rabbi Dale has the most comprehensive compilation of everything there is, and you can be confidant that, if there's anything out there, Dale's got it. In compiling this evidence, Dale has done an immeasurable service to all of us committed to or interested in the Restoration.

If you haven't gotten friendly with him, you really should.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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?

Yes, there is a little bit of evidence. I think that there is not much, which is the bigger problem. And Uncle Dale has the most extensive collection of all things Rigdon.

How ever, until evidence comes to light about the things discussed in this thread, I find little relevance in investigating this theory.

[maupayman]

Yes, there is a little bit of evidence. I think that there is not much, which is the bigger problem. And Uncle Dale has the most extensive collection of all things Rigdon.

How ever, until evidence comes to light about the things discussed in this thread, I find little relevance in investigating this theory.

agreed, so maybe people on both sides can stop being so hyperbolic. Huge holes, no evidence, these types of statements are simply dishonest, on both sides.

[maupayman]

Rabbi Dale has the most comprehensive compilation of everything there is, and you can be confidant that, if there's anything out there, Dale's got it. In compiling this evidence, Dale has done an immeasurable service to all of us committed to or interested in the Restoration.

If you haven't gotten friendly with him, you really should.

Dale is the man, I have read a lot of his material.

[cdowis]

"A 2008 computer analysis of the text of the Book of Mormon compared to writings of possible authors of the text shows a high probability that the authors of the book were Spalding, Rigdon, and Oliver Cowdery; concluding that "our analysis supports the theory that the Book of Mormon was written by multiple, nineteenth-century authors, and more specifically, we find strong support for the Spalding-Rigdon theory of authorship. In all the data, we find Rigdon as a unifying force. His signal dominates the book, and where other candidates are more probable, Rigdon is often hiding in the shadows".

I need to see the details of the methodology in order to judge this conclusion. Hilton's study included a validation study of their methodology. The team that selected the text included nonLDS, including an atheist, which would give some credibility to the objectivity.

Now tell us about this study -- validation, the members of the team and their possible agenda and bias, their background. I need to look under the hood before I can assess their conclusions.

Steelray, if you are going to quote this study, you need to give us the details and not expect us to blindly accept its conclusions. I have no reason to trust their judgement, nor their research methods.

"Peer reviewed" == I think we can do our own review.

[cdowis]

duplicate

[why me]

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

Any possible motive would have been burned away with the first house burning by the mobs. It is one thing to start a fraud, it is quite another to continue it with such loses that happened in the first twenty years of mormonism. Someone would have given it up for what it was: a failure as a fraud, since mormons were being murdered and driven out of their homes. In fact, when JS and Rigdon were sharing a cell together for treason and facing the death penality, the witnesses would have come clean since the game seemed more or less up. the pain of this fraud was immense. No one to my knoweledge got rich and moved in Paris.

[why me]

Dale is the man, I have read a lot of his material.

The problem with my Don Ho loving friend, Uncle Dale, is that he is the master of woulda coulda shoulda happenings to prove the book of mormon false. But he does give a good attempt at doing so. Now he is banked into the criddle study.

[maupayman]

Any possible motive would have been burned away with the first house burning by the mobs. It is one thing to start a fraud, it is quite another to continue it with such loses that happened in the first twenty years of mormonism. Someone would have given it up for what it was: a failure as a fraud, since mormons were being murdered and driven out of their homes. In fact, when JS and Rigdon were sharing a cell together for treason and facing the death penality, the witnesses would have come clean since the game seemed more or less up. the pain of this fraud was immense. No one to my knoweledge got rich and moved in Paris.

Then surely, David Koresh, James Jones, and Muhammed all admitted it was a fraud at the first sign of danger to their members. Honestly, why me, you're posts about motives are increadibly closed minded. Think about it!!

Godwin's Law revokes your right to post in this thread.

[cdowis]

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?

Both sides agree that JS could not have written the BOM. So the critics are fishing around for a likely candidate for the author, and Rigdon pops up as a possible candidate. Given enough circumstantial evidence from our friend Dale, he becomes the favorite, despite the obvious problems. Namely, it is unlikely that Rigdon could have kept his mouth shut, and not at least hint at his involvement at the death of JS, and when he was attempting to become the head of the church. It just very unlikely that Rigdon would not have somehow let it be known that he was the architect of this whole thing. Even when he was rejected, he "kept his mouth shut" about his involvement.

I just don't believe it was in the author of the Salt Sermon to keep quiet.

Was he the man behind the curtain. Very unlikely, and you are going down a rabbit hole.

[why me]

Then surely, David Koresh, James Jones, and Muhammed all admitted it was a fraud at the first sign of danger to their members. Honestly, why me, you're posts about motives are increadibly closed minded. Think about it!!

These comparisons don't fit. We need to remember that in mormonism there are many witnesses to the book of mormon. All of which would have to be very gullible to be fooled for a lifetime. Then, if it were a fraud, we have sidney in on it too. The list is quite long. Each situation between the names listed and the experience of early mormonism, don't add up to comparisons.