Spalding: The Dead Horse that Won't Die

[Benjamin McGuire]

Roger writes:

So what you're saying is that Rigdon left whatever financial security he had in Mentor for a purpose he strongly believed in. That's exactly what we're saying.

This isn't well thought through either. What would he need a Spalding manuscript for to accomplish this? Why does he need Joseph Smith? Wasn't this something he could accomplish through his own established ministry?

Ben M.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Dale writes:

I say that Rigdon gave up nothing to join the Mormons -- nothing that he was not already on the verge of losing anyway.

But in some ways, Dale, this doesn't mean a whole lot. We are talking about the way things were at the time he joined the Mormons - not at the time that the conspiracy must have begun. Are you suggesting that had Rigdon managed to sway Campbell to his thinking that the Book of Mormon might not have happened? I am not sure exactly what you are suggesting here vis-a-vis the S/R theory.

Ben M.

[Glenn101]

Glenn:

So what you're saying is that Rigdon left whatever financial security he had in Mentor for a purpose he strongly believed in. That's exactly what we're saying.

That is what the LDS are saying, but that it was in 1830 and not before. You are saying that he believed in Joseph Smith as a prophet etc. but lied about it and produced a fraud based upon the Spalding manuscript, and lied about it right up to his death. That does not make sense.

Glenn

[Benjamin McGuire]

Roger writes:

My next question is, can Ben now produce mention of seer stones from that same text? Are there any chaisms in Around the World In 80 Days? (I am asking because I really don't know). How about battle parallels to the BOM? Do they exist in the same text and if so how detailed are they? Does Verne tell us that his book is a translation into English of an ancient manuscript that he discovered while walking near his home and using a lever to remove a stone?

Chiasmus is something I know just a wee bit about. I don't think its very compelling evidence in the Book of Mormon - but it is evidence. It's my turn though. So, why do you provide evidence of Chiasmus in Spalding. And if I agree that it is real chiasmus (as opposed to merely a coincidental thing caused by a restructuring of the text to suit your purposes), then I will take a look at Verne. Chiasmus is a rhetorical figure - meaning that by definition, real chiasmus (as opposed to merely a structure) is written with a purpose. Real chiasmus doesn't cross natural textual boundaries. It fits within narrative units that are usually well defined. So give me your best Spalding chiasmus and let me respond to it - and then if its necessary, I can examine Verne.

My next question is, can Ben now produce mention of seer stones from that same text? Are there any chaisms in Around the World In 80 Days? (I am asking because I really don't know). How about battle parallels to the BOM? Do they exist in the same text and if so how detailed are they? Does Verne tell us that his book is a translation into English of an ancient manuscript that he discovered while walking near his home and using a lever to remove a stone?

If Ben can provide evidence that Verne's book also fulfills these requirements (as does Spalding's piddly story), I will really be impressed and Ben will have earned an A+. (Although if Ben gets to that point there will still be some more requirements to meet before we can agree that Around the World in 80 Days is equally impressive in terms of comparison to the BOM as Spalding's piddly novel, but if Ben can pass this test, he will be well on his way!)

Now, we run into a great piece of irony. It was only a day ago that Roger made this comment:

So 9-11 parallels that follow a sequential order "doesn't even begin to approach something" unique? How many does it take to get your attention?

and

You seem to want the same story reprinted word for word before you will accept it as something unusual.

You see, now the momentum swings the other way. I have some limitations here - the Book of Mormon was, of course, was published almost half a century before the English translation of Around the World in 80 Days was made. Not that I mind this limitation. It is a book more or less devoid of military action. Were I to look through some of the more contemporary accounts of the revolutionary war, I could do far better in many ways. The reason why Verne is interesting (from my perspective) is that it is written after the Book of Mormon - and so changes your position a bit in response.

But back to your comments - and here you are doing again the exact same process that I told you was misleading and deceptive. Let's analyze it a bit shall we (and I know you are familiar with this discussion as we had it a little over a year ago in June and July of 2009 on that other forum):

Does Verne tell us that his book is a translation into English of an ancient manuscript that he discovered while walking near his home and using a lever to remove a stone?

No, Verne doesn't tell us this. Although the theme was not all that uncommon. The thing is, in the early 19th century, how else are you going to lift a heavy stone? The lever (which could be any sturdy stick) was simply how they describe it - consider this excerpt from the Waverly Novels by Sir Walte Scott (published in 1814):

... he at length proceeded to a corner of the building where a flat stone lay upon the ground, bearing upon its surface the effigy of an armed warrior in a recumbent posture carved in bas-relief. He muttered to Sir Arthur, " Mine patrons, it is here-Got save us all!" Sir Arthur, who, after the first moment of his superstitious fear was over, seemed to have bent up all his faculties to the pitch of resolution necessary to carry on the adventure, lent the adept his assistance to turn over the stone, which, by means of a lever that the adept had provided, their joint force with difficulty effected. No supernatural light burst forth from below to indicate the subterranean treasury, nor was there any apparition of spirits, earthly or infernal. But when Dousterswivel had, with great trepidation, struck a few strokes with a mattock, and as hastily thrown out a shovelful or two of earth (for they came provided with the tools necessary for digging,) something was heard to ring like the sound of a falling piece of metal, and Dousterswivel, hastily catching up the substance which produced it, and which his shovel had thrown out along with the earth, exclaimed, "On mine dear wort, mine patrons, dis is all

[Glenn101]

How do you know that it would be the Oberlin manuscript rather than the other MF?

What other MF? The Oberlin manuscript was the one that was returned to Spalding's widow by one of the printers. That was the one that Sidney would have had to purloin. Mrs. Davison put it in a trunk where she had carefully preserved all of Spalding's writings.

No one has even come up with a plausible explanation of why Sydney would have ever been interested in that manuscript, how he would have even have come across it. The key word here is plausible.

Glenn

[Benjamin McGuire]

By the way, Roger, here is another account I want you to read in terms of the issue above:

On the 23rd, he and quite a number of the citizens, with myself, repaired to the mound; and after making ample opening, we found plenty of rock, the most of which appeared as though it had been strongly burned; and after removing full two feet of said rock, we found plenty of charcoal and ashes; also human bones that appeared as though they had been burned; and near the encephalon a bundle was found that consisted of six plates of brass of a bell shape, each having a hole near the small end, and a ring through them all, and clasped with two clasps. The rings and clasps appeared to be iron very much oxydated.

The plates appeared first to be copper, and had the appearance of being covered with characters.

It was agreed by the company that I should cleanse the plates. Accordingly I took them to my house, washed them with soap and water and a woolen cloth; but, finding them not yet cleansed, I treated them with dilute sulphuric acid, which made them perfectly clean, on which it appeared that they were completely covered with hieroglyphics that none as yet have been able to read.

Wishing that the world might know the hidden things as fast as they come to light, I was induced to state the facts, hoping that you would give it an insertion in your excellent paper; for we all feel anxious to know the true meaning of the plates, and publishing the facts might lead to the true translation.

They were found, I judged, more than twelve feet below the surface of the top of the mound.

So, what is the relationship between this and the earlier narratives?

Ben M.

[Glenn101]

So, despite John W. Rigdon's glowing recollections of his father

(he was a baby at the time) at Mentor, history says otherwise.

They people who really stayed loyal to Rigdon were impoverished

members of the commune on the Morley farm and a few neighboring

folks in Kirtland. Those people were not major lights among the

Reformed Baptists, but several of them became notable Mormons.

I say that Rigdon gave up nothing to join the Mormons -- nothing

that he was not already on the verge of losing anyway.

UD

Dale, the fact that he may have been on shaky ground in Mentor, Ohio in 1830 is irrelevant to the theme. For a conspiracy theory to be workable, it had to have been in progress long before 1830. It would have had to started during his golden years in Mentor. Sidney had his own congregation there and was not beholden to Campbell for that. 1827,28, and 29 were probably some of Sidney's best years as an evangelist, the time when he would have been secretly conspiring to throw it all over.

Glenn

[Benjamin McGuire]

Oh, one more thing I forgot to mention Roger ...

I am not sure that finding the lever issue and the manuscript is at all analogous to finding parallels in the Verne book to Spalding's manuscript. Joseph didn't use the "lever" or the the rest of the stuff you mention in the Book of Mormon. Those are parallels being drawn to his later personal history (which is a rather unique problem in and of itself). In a sense, you have to be assuming that the Joseph Smith History is itself a work of fiction - not based on real events but based on the previous manuscript by Spalding. I am curious - is this what you are asserting?

Ben M.

[Uncle Dale]

Dale, the fact that he may have been on shaky ground in Mentor, Ohio in 1830 is irrelevant to the theme. For a conspiracy theory to be workable, it had to have been in progress long before 1830. It would have had to started during his golden years in Mentor. Sidney had his own congregation there and was not beholden to Campbell for that. 1827,28, and 29 were probably some of Sidney's best years as an evangelist, the time when he would have been secretly conspiring to throw it all over.

Glenn

There were no golden years in Mentor.

There was a very short period in 1828-29, following

Scott's famous "siege of Warren" in which the new

conversion techniques of the Reformed Baptists were

applied to northern Ohio.

The Mentor congregation and some associated northern

Ohio congregations were kicked out of the Grand River

Association for heresy, and found brief respite in the

Mahoning Association -- a few months only -- before all

of the surrounding Baptist churches denounced and

disfellowshiped the Mahoning rebels.

Thus, even Rigdon's ostensible reputation as the "great

orator of the Mahoning Association" can be measured in

weeks, not in years.

When Rigdon first moved to Geauga Co., Ohio, in late 1825,

he was rejected by the Grand River Baptists. He remained

in that association only until his opponents could form a

consensus and expel him. His securing the pastorate of the

Mentor branch was doubtless the impetus needed, to convince

his opponents in the Grand River Baptists, that Rigdon needed

to be totally disfellowshiped/excommunicated -- which he was.

If Rigdon had input into the Book of Mormon, that literary work

MUST have been conducted prior to 1828-29, when he was briefly

successful in the Mahoning group. There simply was no time for

him to have re-vamped Spalding's manuscript during his busy

years of 1828-1830.

If Rigdon had plans to issue a new scripture, to his Christian

neighbors and hoped-for new converts, that project must have been

initiated prior to 1828.

Your homework: Write a detailed exposition of Sidney Rigdon's

theology, religious career, and growing deviation away from

"Campbellism" during the years 1826-27.

UD

[Uncle Dale]

Dale writes:

But in some ways, Dale, this doesn't mean a whole lot. We are talking about the way things were at the time he joined the Mormons - not at the time that the conspiracy must have begun. Are you suggesting that had Rigdon managed to sway Campbell to his thinking that the Book of Mormon might not have happened? I am not sure exactly what you are suggesting here vis-a-vis the S/R theory.

Ben M.

Why do you suppose there was any "conspiracy?" There was

secrecy, yes --- Rigdon himself addressed these charges

in his April 6, 1844 Conference talk. But he also explained

how Mormon secrecy was godly, and a righteous reaction to

the machinations of the wicked Gentiles.

Rigdon had no chance whatsoever of swaying Campbell to

anything Campbell had not already embraced on his own.

Short of his witnessing Jesus Christ descending from the

clouds, destroying the cities of the wicked Gentiles on

every hand (ala 3rd Nephi) Alexander Campbell would never

have accepted the "gifts of the Spirit," "ministering of angels,"

and "continuing revelation" of an open canon of scripture.

But Rigdon's followers (whom Parley P. Pratt calls Rigdonites)

were a sub-group of the Reformed Baptists, and not necessarily

on the same intellectual level as the Campbells. The Rigdonites

and like-minded Reformed Baptists were clearly inclined to break

away from Campbell's religion -- as hundreds of them did in the

years immediately following 1830.

If you wish to understand the mind and desires of Sidney Rigdon,

you must first of all discern how he differed from Campbell --

and not concentrate on how he might have hoped to convert Campbell

to Rigdonism. You must go back to 1825, when the first branch of

the "Church of Christ" (in Pittsburgh) was dissolved, and both of

its presiding elders (Rigdon and Scott) were dispatched to Ohio.

Tell me what Sidney Rigdon thought of Alexander Campbell, when

Rigdon was ensconced in the frigid wilderness of Ohio during the

winter of 1825-26, fruitlessly trying to pedal copies of Campbell's

new Bible among the outraged members of the Grand River Association.

Go back to that time and place -- and try to understand how the

Rigdonites evolved, and how Pratt was a Rigdonite rather than

a Campbellite in the months that followed. Start there...

UD

[Glenn101]

There were no golden years in Mentor.

There was a very short period in 1828-29, following

Scott's famous "siege of Warren" in which the new

conversion techniques of the Reformed Baptists were

applied to northern Ohio.

The Mentor congregation and some associated northern

Ohio congregations were kicked out of the Grand River

Association for heresy, and found brief respite in the

Mahoning Association -- a few months only -- before all

of the surrounding Baptist churches denounced and

disfellowshiped the Mahoning rebels.

Thus, even Rigdon's ostensible reputation as the "great

orator of the Mahoning Association" can be measured in

weeks, not in years.

According to Richard McClellan, the Campbellite movement was burgeoning in the area during 1826 - 1829. Sidney, Walter Scott, and Adamson Bentley were bishops in different parts of the area. During 1828 and 1829, Sidney organized nine new congregations. Hardly a few weeks.

When Rigdon first moved to Geauga Co., Ohio, in late 1825,

he was rejected by the Grand River Baptists. He remained

in that association only until his opponents could form a

consensus and expel him. His securing the pastorate of the

Mentor branch was doubtless the impetus needed, to convince

his opponents in the Grand River Baptists, that Rigdon needed

to be totally disfellowshiped/excommunicated -- which he was.

The whole Mahoning Group was expelled, not just Rigdon, because they had embraced Alexanders Campbell's doctrines.

If Rigdon had input into the Book of Mormon, that literary work

MUST have been conducted prior to 1828-29, when he was briefly

successful in the Mahoning group. There simply was no time for

him to have re-vamped Spalding's manuscript during his busy

years of 1828-1830.

If Rigdon had plans to issue a new scripture, to his Christian

neighbors and hoped-for new converts, that project must have been

initiated prior to 1828.

When he was busy as the pastor of the Mentor congregation?

Your homework: Write a detailed exposition of Sidney Rigdon's

theology, religious career, and growing deviation away from

"Campbellism" during the years 1826-27.

UD

The main point of contention that I remember being brought up is that Rigdon was advocating a communal existence such as that spoken about the church at Jerusalem. Campbell felt that the practice had ended with the Ananias and Sapphira incident.

I don't see how that is relevant, since that dissension was in 1830. It may be relevant to why Rigdon was able to be converted.

Glenn

[Uncle Dale]

According to Richard McClellan, the Campbellite movement was burgeoning

in the area during 1826 - 1829. Sidney, Walter Scott, and Adamson Bentley

were bishops in different parts of the area. During 1828 and 1829,

Sidney organized nine new congregations. Hardly a few weeks.

The Reformed Baptist conversion successes in Ohio date to the post-1827

period. Scott was not a Baptist. He was employed as an inter-faith

evangelist by the Mahoning group at the behest of Campbell. They in

no way considered him a "bishop." That is Campbell's terminology for

Scott, dating back to 1824-25 when Scott and Rigdon were "bishops"

in the Pittsburgh "Church of Christ."

Adamson Bentley was a true Campbellite "bishop" and remained one.

The Grand River Baptists did not accept Rigdon as a "bishop." As

soon as he obtained the Mentor pastorate, the Grand River elders

went to work to get him expelled (as he had been in Pittsburgh in 1823).

They ended up disfellowshiping the entire Mentor branch -- but that

branch went into Campbellism, not Mormonism.

Rigdon's tenure in the Mahoning Association can be measured in terms

of many weeks (or a few months) and not in terms of several years.

Local newspaper reports from the late 1820s and very early 1830s paint

him in terms of a bad character, not a praised religious success.

Why was Sidney organizing new congregations in 1828-30? Because he

was out preaching the new conversion technique, which accepted just

about anybody who could say "baptize me." He was learning how well

those techniques worked. Some of the congregations he organized went

into Cambellism -- many of his converts went into Mormonism.

I do not see these as "golden years," but rather as the beginning of

Rigdon's success as a Rigdonite (not Campbellite) innovator and

faith converter.

The whole Mahoning Group was expelled, not just Rigdon,

because they had embraced Alexanders Campbell's doctrines.

Rigdon and his Mentor congregation were expelled from the

Grand River Association, and went into the Mahoning group for

one year. The surrounding Baptist organizations (with the

exception of the Washington association) declared the

Mahoning group anathema AFTER Rigdon's mortification among

the Grand River Baptists.

Finally, seeing that no other Baptists recognized the Mahoning

group, in 1830, Campbell pressed to have the name removed

altogether -- and it evolved into the core of the new Disciples

of Christ denomination during the early 1830s.

By that time Rigdon had publicly joined with Smith and had merged

his Rigdonites with Smith's Colesville, Fayette and Manchester

branches of the new "Church of Christ."

When he was busy as the pastor of the Mentor congregation?

By late 1826 Rigdon was spending part of his time in Mentor

and part of his time in the Hiram area, to the south. He thought

of himself as a roving evangelist -- rather like Scott had been

in 1827-30. By early 1827 Rigdon had permanently moved his family

up to Mentor and was thereafter "busy" with two jobs -- that of

a settled pastor in Mentor-Kirtland, and that of an evangelist in

Hiram-Mantua. His time for creating any new book of scripture

would have been severely limited after the beginning of 1827. He

started a school in Mentor at that time, but it soon dissolved,

due to his extended evangelistic absences. He may have had time

for composing sermons, but not Reformed Egyptian Bibles.

The main point of contention that I remember being brought up is that

Rigdon was advocating a communal existence such as that spoken about

the church at Jerusalem. Campbell felt that the practice had ended with

the Ananias and Sapphira incident.

And Rigdon thought that the dissolving of the Book of Acts commune

was the beginning of deviations from the gospel that led to the

Great Apostasy. This was only one feature of the growing divide

between Rigdon and Campbell. Rigdon was an advocate of the FULL

restoration of Apostolic Christianity, as a precursor to the

Second Coming of Christ. Campbell was an advocate of continuing

the post-Apostolic Church, in which continuing revelation was

unnecessary -- in fact, had ended with the Apostles. For Campbell,

"gifts of the Spirit" and the "ministering of angels" need not

prepare the way for the Millennium -- and the canon was closed.

I don't see how that is relevant, since that dissension was in 1830.

It may be relevant to why Rigdon was able to be converted.

Glenn

Like I said, trace backwards the ideological split between Campbell

and Rigdon. Since Parley P. Pratt identifies his pre-Mormon

association with the "Rigdonites," the trace backwards their origin.

You do not seriously believe that it was Alexander Campbell who

sent Pratt eastward in 1830 on his proselytizing mission, do you?

As the Times and Seasons history of Joseph Smith indicates, it was

Sidney Rigdon who dispatched Pratt on a Rigdonite mission. The

breach between Rigdon and Campbell began before the fall of 1830.

UD

.

[Uncle Dale]

...

trace backwards the ideological split between Campbell and Rigdon.

...

But, of course, Mormons will now say that such a split only began

in the fall of 1830, when Campbell refused to endorse Rigdon's

"2nd Chapter of Acts -- All Things in Common" experiment at the

Morley Farm at Kirtland.

In the LDS version of history, Rigdon was a happy camper with

Brother Alexander, spending many nights in the comfort of his

hospitality and many episodes at Alexander's dinner table and

preaching from Alexander-favoring Baptist pulpits.

Then, suddenly, for no other reason than a difference over

Christian communism, Rigdon splits away from Alexander -- to

the point that he abandons the ministry altogether, and,

according to the Times and Seasons account, becomes a farmer.

Meanwhile, the Campbellite Parley P. Pratt -- sent eastward on

a mission by Alexander -- returns to Mentor with a new Golden

Bible, and Rigdon is miraculously converted to a new church,

leaving poor befuddled Alexander in the apostate dust.

A pretty picture, no doubt.

I say it is a great whitewash -- retaining a scant few facts

of history, and filling in the rest of the scene with obscuring

paint -- designed to keep us from investigating Rigdon's actual,

earlier deviations from Campbellism...

UD

[why me]

Roger, let's do an exercise in common sense. you have stated that you are a business man and I will accept your word on that, and go so far as to assume that your business is profitable.

Now I have this scenario for you. You walk away from your business lock stock and barrel, then take a scheme to an uneducated underage boy with no business experience and convince him to be a front man for another, very risky business. There will be no signed contracts, nothing with your name on them. You will have no protection whatsoever.

Sounds good????

Glenn

And then, when Joseph asks Nancy, Sidney's daughter to be sealed to him, she says no but sidney has no reaction to Joseph's proposal. I would have hit the roof if I were sidney knowing that it all was a fraud.

[Glenn101]

I say it is a great whitewash -- retaining a scant few facts

of history, and filling in the rest of the scene with obscuring

paint -- designed to keep us from investigating Rigdon's actual,

earlier deviations from Campbellism...

UD

There is no whitewash involved. The Rigdon/Spalding theorists have not been deterred from nor even discouraged from beating their heads against any wall they choose. The communal living thing may not have been the only cause of a rift between Rigdon and Campbell. The fact remains that Sidney was quite heavily involved in pastoral and evangelical activities in the Mentor, Hiram, Kirtland areas from 1826 until 1830. He still was the pastor of the Mentor Ohio congregation. To quote from McClellan, "As the 1820's ended, Rigdon's territory included seventeen congregations. Disciple records mention seven leutenants who traveled with Sidney and preached to congregations other than their own: William Collins of the Chardon congregation, Matthew Clapp of Mentor, Symonds Ryder and Zeb Rudolph of Hiram, John Murdock of Orange, Lyman Wight of Kirtland, and Orson Hyde of Florence."

Sidney seemed to have a strong following in his own right and McClellan attributed much of Mormonism's early success in the are to Rigdon's prestige.

The question has not been well answered yet as to why Sidney would throw all of that up to latch onto the coat tails of an ignorant farm boy. Not in 1830 after the difference between Campbell had become acerbic, but in 1826 when you feel he would have had to do the majority of the work of producing the Book of Mormon for Joseph Smith to take credit for.

A man who desired the limelight, a man who desired to lead.

I am afraid that we will have to continue to disagree on this one as well. It makes no sense to me.

Glenn

[4truth]

Ben writes:

This simply isn't true. Here are some of the reasons why I believe that the S/R theory doesn't work:

1: There is no evidence of another Spalding manuscript. We don't have a single word from the missing text that can be demonstrated as being from that missing text.

2: There is no evidence that Rigdon knew Joseph Smith prior to the publication of the Book of Mormon. They claim to have never been introduced.

3: The production of the Book of Mormon requires a conspiracy theory. There is no actual evidence of such a conspiracy.

4: The Book of Mormon does not look or read like the existing Spalding manuscript.

5: There is evidence that the 1833 witness accounts were based on a common template - either as a text prepared by Hurlbut, or as a text coached by him.

Do I need to go on? I certainly could. This isn't based on a caricature of what the S/R theorists believe, its based on the fact that S/R theorists do not have actual evidence but massive quantities of speculation. Things could change. We could certainly find new documentation that indicates some part of the S/R theory could be accurate. But, such evidence hasn't apparently come forward in 180 years of looking for it.

1. I addressed #1 and conceded it's the weakest part of the theory. But I also explained--and this is why it is necessary not to consider these theories in a vacuum--that the Official story suffers from the exact same problem. In fact the problem for the Official Version is much worse because it theorizes the existence of plates with a type writing on them that has never been shown to exist written by a people who have never been shown to exist... or if I were to state it in less benevolent language, it postulates mythical plates with a mythical language from a mythical people--all before we even get to an angel delivering it. That right there is a fatal blow, which then leaves us debating S/R vs Smith Alone. Smith alone does not suffer nearly so badly on this issue because it postulates no non-extant material or documents but it too begins to break down for other reasons.

2. There is indeed testimony from more than one witness (who's claims have to be considered because he or she was at the right place at the right time) that he or she saw the two together. That you choose to reject such testimony is not the problem of the S/R theory. And both Smith and Rigdon claim other things that have proven demonstrably false.

3. Dale responded well to this when he asked: Why do you assume "conspiracy?" We assume secrecy... which, by the way, you do too.

4. I don't know what the point is to number 4. You do recognize (right?) that when I asserted that your demand for the same text reprinted word for word was absurd I wasn't kidding? Yet you seem to still want to press that issue. Of course "The Book of Mormon does not look or read like the existing Spalding manuscript" from a cursory, on the surface, reading. If it did we wouldn't even be having this discussion because the correlation would be obvious. Nor does it have to. You yourself want to highlight the differences and say those differences have meaning.... but the similarities don't! I am beginning to suspect you of Differences-o-mania.

5. So what? Are you saying they lied?

But, motivation is certainly an issue. After all, if we are talking about a book that was substantially written by Smith, Cowdery and Rigdon (and perhaps even Pratt), then why the need for a Spalding manuscript at all? What was so unique about the Spalding text that its existence is even necessary to explain the Book of Mormon?

A good example of caricature (strawman) battling. S/R asserts--and Jockers demonstrates--that the substantial portions were written by Spalding and Rigdon and the King James Bible, with additional help from Cowdery, Smith and Pratt.

With regard to why, I should first point out that the theory is not obligated to answer that question in order to remain viable and that any answer would be speculation. (Which I have no problem with). And before I answer, this is also a great time, once again, to ask how the other theories fare when handling the same motivation question? So then let's consider all three on equal footing responding to your question of motivation....

S/R ...why the need for a Spalding manuscript at all?

There are several viable possibilities, but one of them would be that being an avid reader, student of history and religion, Sidney Rigdon read everything he could get his hands on. Spalding's novel caught his attention and captured his interest. Like Smith (and not coincidentally) Spalding claims that he has found an ancient manuscript and proceeds to translate it. I think Rigdon believed Spalding's tale, concluding that the result was an accurate account of the ancient inhabitants of this continent and that the unpublished whole was divinely placed into his care for him--Rigdon--to add further revelational truths. The need for Spalding then, is divine purpose (in the mind of Sidney Rigdon).

Official Version ...why the need for the Book of Mormon?

Perhaps you would be better answering this one, Ben, but I assert that it likely comes down to the same alleged motivation... divine purpose--at least in the mind of Joseph Smith.

Smith Alone ...why the need for the Book of Mormon?

To get gain? To become an influential cult leader?

The point is that, once again, we see that asking the same question of all three theories illustrates that they all share a common "problem" if we're going to call it that. You're asking me to speculate about motivation for the S/R hypothesis, which I can do, but the other hypotheses are equally speculative. The bottom line is no one knows the real motivation. All answers are speculative.

The real truth behind the matter is that Spalding theorists like to claim that it is the early witnesses that make the theory credible - and yet, they minimize the impact of the early witnesses who claimed that Smith wrote it, the early witnesses that claim that it was translated ... it is really a classic example of a theory that is assumed as absolute truth, and then a search for evidence that proves it. And here we are, 180 years later, and no proof. Just a house of cards.

Ben, the exact same argument can be made against both of the competing theories with better results. Both you and Chris discount witness testimony just like I do (but you from your own star witnesses!) that disagrees with your theory. You also do the same thing when you (both) accept the word of the witnesses when they claim Joseph put his head in his hat and every word that appears in the BOM was translated that way--oops, I mean every word except those that were obviously lifted from the King James Bible--and we all know there's quite a few of those! Your theory suffers (fatally) from this problem because your star witnesses fail to mention any reliance on a King James Bible and, instead, insist that every word came from the stone, lest any man should boast, and is further weakened when those same witnesses contradict each other in their later individual statements. You speculate (but can't prove) that Hurlbut wrote statements for the Conneaut witnesses, effectively putting words in their mouths, but we know Joseph Smith (or someone) actually did this (no speculation required) since your star witnesses sign ONE pre-worded statement(!) and then later they each proceed to contradict various elements of it(!) as Vogel aptly points out in American Apocrypha.

So when it comes to evaluating witness statements WE ALL pick and choose which witnesses we want to believe. But the Spalding witnesses win this one hands down because UNLIKE all of your star witnesses NONE of ours ever contradicted their earlier statements and UNLIKE your star witnesses, they were later corroborated by unsolicited additional witnesses! And then, over 150 years later they were further corroborated by peer-reviewed word print studies!

So if you want to talk about witness credibility, I am more than happy to have that debate.

Gotta run for now.

All the best.

[Uncle Dale]

And then, when Joseph asks Nancy, Sidney's daughter to be sealed to him, she says no but sidney has no reaction to Joseph's proposal. I would have hit the roof if I were sidney knowing that it all was a fraud.

As Sidney Rigdon told Orson Hyde (and Orson Hyde relayed to

Brigham Young, in a document preserved in the LDS Archives)

Rigdon knew secrets about Smith that could have been used to

hurl him from the First Presidency years before 1844.

But Rigdon chose to stay quiet.

Why?

He didn't think anything was "a fraud;" but that he (Rigdon)

was the man best prepared to understand the ancient scriptures

and their prophecies for the last days --- as Rigdon says himself

in a document preserved in the LDS Archives.

It is obvious that Rigdon believed in the "Restoration;" but

he also believed that some of its secrets must be kept from

the knowledge of the wicked Gentiles --- as he said himself

on April 6, 1844 in a document preserved in the LDS Archives.

What was Rigdon supposed to have done when Smith tried to

seduce his engaged daughter? Yell out the Mormon secrets?

Tell the world about the secret Council of Fifty? Tell the

world about Smith's polygamy? Reveal the private conversations

of the Anointed Quorum? Expose Smith's being crowned King of

the World? Talk about the Church leaders' counterfeiting of

Mexican and US silver coins at Nauvoo? Pull out that old

evidence that would have hurled Smith from the Presidency,

if ever revealed?

To what purpose? To destroy God's Chosen Seer and holder of

the keys to the Final Dispensation?

Rigdon had his revenge, a few months later, when he published

in Pittsburgh that Smith was a fallen prophet.

That way, Rigdon got to have his cake and eat it too. He partly

exposed Smith's polygamy, etc., while at the same time soliciting

Smith's followers and their tithing.

Bottom line: ---> In Rigdon's eyes, Smith was a fallen prophet

of the Lord God Almighty, and not a fraud at all...

UD

.

[why me]

Meanwhile, the Campbellite Parley P. Pratt -- sent eastward on

a mission by Alexander -- returns to Mentor with a new Golden

Bible, and Rigdon is miraculously converted to a new church,

leaving poor befuddled Alexander in the apostate dust.

A pretty picture, no doubt.

I say it is a great whitewash -- retaining a scant few facts

of history, and filling in the rest of the scene with obscuring

paint -- designed to keep us from investigating Rigdon's actual,

earlier deviations from Campbellism...

UD

Rigdon didn't need the book of mormon to found a new faith. He could of formed his own church without such a book and have a nice quiet life without Joseph Smith. Rigdon must have cursed his miserable existence for writing the book of mormon and for having Joseph be his front man. He gained nothing from the book of mormon, if he wrote that book.

[Uncle Dale]

Rigdon didn't need the book of mormon to found a new faith. He could of formed his own church without such a book and have a nice quiet life without Joseph Smith. Rigdon must have cursed his miserable existence for writing the book of mormon and for having Joseph be his front man. He gained nothing from the book of mormon, if he wrote that book.

Reformed Baptists did nothing that was not codified in scripture.

They believed nothing that was not published scripture. They upheld

no religious practiced that were not spelled out in scripture.

Rigdon could have imposed nothing new upon the Reformed Baptists,

unless he first of all convinced them that those innovations were

set down in the Holy Word of God.

Do you really suppose he could have used their current Bible

(Alexander Campbell's 1822 edition), to convince the Reformed

Baptists to migrate to Missouri, there build a glorious temple,

restore Israel, and engage the Lamanites in a civil war against

the wicked Gentiles, to pave the way for the Second Coming?

Rigdon really believed that stuff. His post-1844 "revelations"

are jam-packed with such religious junk -- he was obsessed by it

all, in everyday life and in his powerful visions.

You just refuse to believe that --

UD

[why me]

What was Rigdon supposed to have done when Smith tried to

seduce his engaged daughter? Yell out the Mormon secrets?

Tell the world about the secret Council of Fifty? Tell the

world about Smith's polygamy? Reveal the private conversations

of the Anointed Quorum? Expose Smith's being crowned King of

the World? Talk about the Church leaders' counterfeiting of

Mexican and US silver coins at Nauvoo? Pull out that old

evidence that would have hurled Smith from the Presidency,

if ever revealed?

To what purpose? To destroy God's Chosen Seer and holder of

the keys to the Final Dispensation?

Rigdon had his revenge, a few months later, when he published

in Pittsburgh that Smith was a fallen prophet.

That way, Rigdon got to have his cake and eat it to. He partly

exposed Smith's polygamy, etc., while at the same time soliciting

Smith's followers and their tithing.

Bottom line: ---> In Rigdon's eyes, Smith was a fallen prophet

of the Lord God Almighty, and not a fraud at all...

UD

You see uncle dale, if I wrote the book of mormon and then used a front man to bring it forth and this front man made a move on my daughter, I would be more than angry. and yes, I would be yelling and screaming. And it is obvious that Nancy knew nothing of her fathers fraud. Nor does it seem did she ever know.

However, a fallen prophet would seem logical especially if he believed JS to be a prophet.

[Calm]

Spalding's manuscript was a true translation of their ancient books

Why would he believe this? Did Spalding ever claim his work was anything but fiction?

[Uncle Dale]

You see uncle dale, if I wrote the book of mormon and then used a front man to bring it forth and this front man made a move on my daughter, I would be more than angry. and yes, I would be yelling and screaming. And it is obvious that Nancy knew nothing of her fathers fraud. Nor does it seem did she ever know.

However, a fallen prophet would seem logical especially if he believed JS to be a prophet.

If Sidney Rigdon had false visions, gave false revelations,

spoke falsely in the name of the Lord, established a false

Church at Pittsburgh in 1844, falsely said that the keys

were taken from the Church in 1832 (and was disfellowshiped

and deprived of his elder's license for that falsehood) and,

in the summer of 1844 was excommunicated for spreading religious

falsehoods secretly at Nauvoo ------> then Nancy knew.

She did not die a Mormon.

She knew that her father was mentally unstable and prone

to secrecy and falsehoods -- but he was her father and

she was loyal to him.

When questioned years later about what she knew of plural

marriage at Nauvoo, she answered that she had no such

knowledge, of any such thing having ever existed there.

Nancy imitated her father's own lies, when she felt it

was the best thing to do.

So did Emma -- when she practically founded the Reorganization

in the spring of 1860 at Amboy, Illinois -- upon the basis of

her husband having been a monogamist and Brigham Young having

invented Mormon polygamy.

People will tell lies when they think they have no other

choice -- in the name of God -- when they feel they are

God's chosen ones.

Even Abraham would lie about his wife and call her a

sister -- because he felt he was chosen by God. Even

David would sent Bathsheba's husband off to certain

death, when he knew he himself was God's own prophet,

king and writer of holy psalms.

Even the Catholic Church would rely upon a bogus

"Donation of Constantine," in order to extend God's

civil power upon the face of Europe.

Holy believers tell lies and keep secrets.

Get over it...

UD

[4truth]

Calmoriah:

Why would he believe this? Did Spalding ever claim his work was anything but fiction?

Good question. His neighbors--the people who gathered to hear him read from his novel for entertainment--obviously understood it was fiction. Still they were interested because Spalding's fiction was answering questions about the mysteries around them... the origin and purpose of the Indian mounds and relics. There was widespread belief that a more civilized race was wiped out by the more barbaric tribes and though his neighbors understood the story was fiction, it's thesis was, nonetheless, plausible.

But Rigdon had no such exposure to Spalding's novel. He was not among the listeners who nightly gathered to hear Spalding read his account and see how the translation was progressing. Rather he encountered it in a publishing house where it was awaiting publication that never came.

The manuscript he read almost surely contained something similar to this:

Near the west bank of the Coneaught River there are the remains of an ancient fort. As I was walking and forming various conjectures respecting the character, situation, and numbers of those people who far exceeded the present race of Indians in works of art and ingenuity, I happened to tread on a flat stone. This was at a small distance from the fort; and it lay on the top of a small mound of earth exactly horizontal. The face of it had a singular appearance. I discovered a number of characters which appeared to me to be letters, but so much effaced by the ravages of time that I could not read the inscription. With the assistance of a lever I raised the stone. But you may easily conjecture my astonishment when I discovered that its ends and sides rested on stones and that it was designed (( as )) a cover to an artificial cave. I found (( by )) examining that its sides were lined with (( stones )) built in a conical form with (( the point )) down -- and that it was about eight feet deep. Determined to investigate (( the )) design of this extraordinary work of antiquity, I prepared myself with necessary requisites for that purpose and descended to the bottom of the cave. Observing one side to be perpendicular nearly three feet from the bottom, I began to inspect that part with accuracy. Here I noticed a big, flat stone fixed in the form of a door. I immediately tore it down and lo, a cavity within the wall presented itself; it being about three feet in diameter from side to side and about two feet high. Within this cavity I found an earthen box with a cover which shut it perfectly tight. The box was two feet in length one and half in breadth and one and three inches in diameter. My mind filled with awful sensations which crowded fast upon me (( and )) would hardly permit my hands to remove this venerable deposit, but curiosity soon gained the ascendancy (( and )) the box was taken and raised to open (( its cover. )) When I had removed the cover I found that it contained twenty-eight (( rolls )) of parchment; and that when (( examined ))appeared to be manuscripts written in elegant hand with ROMAN letters and in the Latin Language. They were written on a variety of subjects. But the roll which principally attracted my attention contained a history of the author's life and that part of America which extends along the Great Lakes and the waters of the Mississippi. Extracts of the most interesting and important matters contained in this roll I take the liberty to publish. Gentle Reader, tread lightly on the ashes of the venerable dead. Thou must know that this country was once inhabited by great and powerful nations, considerably civilized and skilled in the arts of war; and that on ground where thou (( now )) treadest many a bloody battle hath been fought, and heroes by thousands have been made to bite the dust. In the history given of these nations by my author you will find nothing but what will correspond with the natural sentiments we should form on viewing the innumerable remains of antiquity which are scattered over an extensive country. This is an evidence of the author's impartiality and veracity. But if any should pretend that the whole story is fictitious or fabulous. . . To publish a translation of every particular circumstance mentioned by our author would produce a volume too expensive for the general class of readers. But should this attempt to throw off the veil which has secluded our view from the transactions of nations who, for ages have been extinct, meet the approbation of the public, I shall then be happy to gratify the more inquisitive and learned part of my readers by a more minute publication. Apprehensive, that skeptical, illiberal, or superstitious minds may censure this performance with great acrimony, I have only to remark that they will be deprived of a great fund of entertainment (( which those ))of a contrary disposition will obtain. My compassion will be excited more than my resentment and there the contest will end. Now, Gentle Reader, the Translator who wishes well to thy present and thy future existence entreats thee to peruse this volume with a clear head, a pure heart, and a candid mind. If thou shalt then find that thy head and thy heart are both improved it will afford him more satisfaction than the approbation of ten thousand who have received no benefit.

Remember, according to Ben if that account reminds you of anything you've heard before it's merely coincidence.

All the best.

[Uncle Dale]

...

But Rigdon had no such exposure to Spalding's novel.

...

We shall probably never know how much "exposure" Rigdon

had to the facts surrounding the composition and submission

of a certain manuscript to Robert Patterson, Sr., in Pittsburgh

in 1812 or shortly thereafter.

Patterson himself called the production a story written in

the Biblical style. At least the hopeful publishers knew it

to be fiction.

However, if Spalding's story was about Israelites migrating

to the Americas and there becoming messianic Jews or even

proto-Christians, then Sidney Rigdon might well have been

irresistibly intrigued with such a scenario. According to

Parley P. Pratt and others who knew Rigdon prior to his

conversion to Mormonism, these were exactly the topics which

most interested the visionary Rigdon.

Whether he thought of Spalding's writings as historical fiction,

for as historical fact, may have not made much difference to

Elder Rigdon. He believed that Christianity had been practiced

in the Americas in ancient times, and that America would be the

New Zion of the latter days.

I assume that the story in the Biblical style spoken of by

Mr.Patterson provided some interesting ideas along those lines.

UD

[Glenn101]

But Rigdon had no such exposure to Spalding's novel. He was not among the listeners who nightly gathered to hear Spalding read his account and see how the translation was progressing. Rather he encountered it in a publishing house where it was awaiting publication that never came.

The manuscript he read almost surely contained something similar to this:

All the best.

This is what is known as non sequitur. There is no evidence that Sidney ever saw that manuscript anywhere. The evidence that he was ever at the printing office is nebulous. The idea that he purloined that manuscript and somehow extracted the book of Mormon out of its contents, then returned it is rather far fetched. He would have had to have the document in his hands before 1816, when Spalding died, have done his work, and slipped it back before the printer returned it to Spalding. This was long before Joseph Smith came on the scene.

Now let us take a look at just how reliable are the witnesses, the ones who claimed that they remembered so well those names of Moroni, Lamanites, Nephites, etc. These were the Ohio neighbors who "gathered nightly" to hear Spalding regale them with the tales of Roman soldiers and Indian mounds with the names Nephi and Laman, and Lemuel, names which do not occur in the Oberlin manuscript.

When Hurlbut obtained the manuscript, he found to his consternation that it did not read as expected. When he went back to his "witnesses", they were placed in a very uncomfortable position. They had, in their eagerness to discredit Joseph Smith and Mormonism, allowed Hurbut to lead them into making some statements which turned out to be rather fanciful, rather innovative with the truth. Of course, that was not the manuscript that they had seen and heard those words from. Very embarrassing. They had to wiggle out of this somehow, so another, mythical, second manuscript was born.

But the problem is, there were other witnesses who were around when Spalding was writing that story. The Oberlin manuscript was the one that Spalding was writing in Ohio. He was still working on it well into 1811 and maybe 1812. If he started another manuscript, went back to write it in the "old Biblical style", it would have to have been in late 1812, and more probably after he moved to Pennsylvania. Even more probably, there never was a second manuscript.

Spalding's daughter, Matilda, tells us an interesting tale. I will excerpt a little from her affidavit.

"During the war of 1812, I was residing with my parents in a little town in Ohio called Conneaut. I was then in my sixth year. My father was in business there, and I remember his iron foundry and the men he had at work, but that he remained at home most of the time, and was reading and writing a great deal. He frequently wrote little stories, which he read to me. There were some round mounds of earth near our house which greatly interested him, and he said a tree on the top of one of them was a thousand years old. He set some of his men to work digging into one of these mounds, and I vividly remember how excited he became when he heard that they had exhumed some human bones, portions of gigantic skeletons, and various relics.

He talked with my mother of these discoveries in the mound, and was writing every day as the work progressed. Afterward he read the manuscript which I had seen him writing, to the neighbors, and to a clergyman, a friend of his who came to see him. Some of the names that he mentioned while reading to these. people I have never forgotten. They are as fresh to me to-day as though I heard them yesterday. They were Mormon, Maroni, Lamanite, Nephi.

We removed from Conneaut to Pittsburg while I was still very young, but every circumstance of this removal is distinct in my memory. In that city my father had an intimate friend named Patterson, and I frequently visited Mr. Patterson's library with him, and heard my father talk about books with him. In 1816 my father died at Amity, Pennsylvania, and directly after his death my mother and myself went to visit at the residence of my mother's brother, William H. Sabine, at Onondaga Valley, Onondaga county, New York. Mr. Sabine was a lawyer of distinction and wealth, and greatly respected. We carried all our personal effects with us, and one of these was an old trunk, in which my mother had placed all my father's writings which had been preserved. I perfectly remember the appearance of this trunk, and of looking at its contents. There were sermons and other papers, and I saw a manuscript about an inch thick, closely written, tied with some of the stories my father in had written for me, one of which he called "The Frogs of Wyndham." On the outside of this manuscript were written the words, "Manuscript Found." I did not read it, but looked through it and had it in my hands many times, and saw the names I had heard at Conneaut, when my father read it to his friends. I was about eleven years of age at this time."

There are a couple of things to note. Matilda never mentions a second manuscript in this affidavit. But she does remember the names Mormon. Maroni, Lamanite, Nephite. She frequently went through the trunk and scanned through the Manuscript Found document and still remembers those names. However, when Hurlbut obtained that manuscript, those names had disappeared. Strange?

Glenn