Spalding: The Dead Horse that Won't Die

[4truth]

Glenn wrote:

However the events that transpired later where people stopped living that principle agrees more with Campbell than Rigdon.

4 Nephi 25 And from that time forth they did have their goods and their substance no more common among them.

Rigdon would have had that continue to the bitter end.

I love it when you make my case for me. Note this from the same chapter:

4 And it came to pass that the thirty and seventh year passed away also, and there still continued to be peace in the land.

5 And there were great and marvelous works wrought by the disciples of Jesus, insomuch that they did heal the sick, and raise the dead, and cause the lame to walk, and the blind to receive their sight, and the deaf to hear; and all manner of miracles did they work among the children of men; and in nothing did they work miracles save it were in the name of Jesus.

Campbell believed all those things ended with the Apostles. Rigdon did not. Now he's got American scripture to back up his argument against Campbell! Surely everyone will now see Sidney was right all along!

And as to the notion that having all things in common ended... how did it end?

23 And now I, Mormon, would that ye should know that the people had multiplied, insomuch that they were spread upon all the face of the land, and that they had become exceedingly rich, because of their prosperity in Christ.

24 And now, in this two hundred and first year there began to be among them those who were lifted up in pride, such as the wearing of costly apparel, and all manner of fine pearls, and of the fine things of the world.

25 And from that time forth they did have their goods and their substance no more acommon among them.

26 And they began to be divided into classes; and they began to build up churches unto themselves to get gain, and began to deny the true church of Christ.

Well there you go! More proof ole' Sidney was right about this stuff all along!

Which of my arguments do you want to make for me next?

All the best.

[Calm]

Campbell believed all those things ended with the Apostles. Rigdon did not. Now he's got American scripture to back up his argument against Campbell! Surely everyone will now see Sidney was right all along!

What is the date that you would give around which "these things ended with the Apostles"?

[TAO]

Umm... 4truth... actually, JS did perform some things according to those scriptures... it was called the United Order.

Unfortunately, we were not righteous enough to live the law (it takes a ever-so-righteouss people), so the lord retracted the law, and replaced it with the law of tithing.

Someday he will re-establish it, and we wait for his word.

[4truth]

Tao:

Not to be contentious or anything, but...

Aren't you guys remembering that Rigdon didn't know of the Book of Mormon at the time of it's publication... in fact, it had been published several years before he met the missionary that introduced him to the church.

Tao, no problem, you're not being contentious... just incorrect. Let's break this down....

Rigdon didn't know of the Book of Mormon at the time of it's publication...

Yes, that is what the orthodox version claims and the Smith Alone theory does too. S/R claims that Rigdon not only knew about the BOM before it was published, he was the most instrumental person in putting it together. He had more to do with the BOM than even Joseph Smith did.

There are quotes from some of Rigdon's earlier parishioners claiming that Rigdon made comments in 1829 alluding to a new Bible that would be forthcoming.

in fact, it had been published several years before he met the missionary that introduced him to the church.

Incorrect. Parley Pratt was a member of one of Rigdon's congregations before either of them (allegedly) knew anything about the BOM or Joseph Smith. So Rigdon sends Pratt on a trip to New York and according to Pratt he just happens to be diverted to Palmyra where he hears of the BOM and Joseph Smith and becomes a convert. Then Pratt comes back to Kirtland with Cowdery (I think?) and the two of them present Rigdon with the BOM at the end of 1830, only 9 months after the BOM was printed, not several years.

All the best.

[4truth]

Hi Calmoriah:

What is the date that you would give around which "these things ended with the Apostles"?

Huh? Why does my opinion matter? I don't know whether miracles ended with the Apostles or not. But that's not what's being discussed here. The point was that the S/R theory asserts that Sidney Rigdon wrote his own theology into the BOM while he was reworking a manuscript he had obtained from a Pittsburgh publishing house that was originally written by a (by then deceased) clergyman named Solomon Spalding.

The point I was making is that Rigdon--who was in a dispute at the time with the founder of the Disciples of Christ, Alexander Campbell--was writing his own theology into the BOM, such that when he agreed with Campbell the BOM did too and when he disagreed with Campbell, the BOM supported Rigdon's theology over Campbell's. Miracles as a sign accompanying God's one true church was one such area of disagreement in which the BOM supports Rigdon over Campbell.

All the best.

[TAO]

Yes, that is what the orthodox version claims and the Smith Alone theory does too. S/R claims that Rigdon not only knew about the BOM before it was published, he was the most instrumental person in putting it together. He had more to do with the BOM than even Joseph Smith did.

There are quotes from some of Rigdon's earlier parishioners claiming that Rigdon made comments in 1829 alluding to a new Bible that would be forthcoming.

I'm sorry, I need a CFR here.

Incorrect. Parley Pratt was a member of one of Rigdon's congregations before either of them (allegedly) knew anything about the BOM or Joseph Smith. So Rigdon sends Pratt on a trip to New York and according to Pratt he just happens to be diverted to Palmyra where he hears of the BOM and Joseph Smith and becomes a convert. Then Pratt comes back to Kirtland with Cowdery (I think?) and the two of them present Rigdon with the BOM at the end of 1830, only 9 months after the BOM was printed, not several years.

This is an assumption though, and cannot be supposed in the area of 'sight proof'. There needs to be much more strong evidence for the theory to be considered.

Another question indeed, why would Joseph Smith, who many characterized as being very honest, humble, and uneducated (but later educated) got along with something that directly contradicts his personality. Indeed, if he is as he was described by many, the 'Joseph deceived people' argument kinda falls apart.

[4truth]

Tao:

Umm... 4truth... actually, JS did perform some things according to those scriptures... it was called the United Order.

Unfortunately, we were not righteous enough to live the law (it takes a ever-so-righteouss people), so the lord retracted the law, and replaced it with the law of tithing.

Someday he will re-establish it, and we wait for his word.

Tao.... I think we're on majorly different pages here. You may not be aware that I am not LDS. I do not believe the BOM is true. I don't believe there ever were ancient Nephites. I do not believe Joseph Smith was a prophet.

I think Sidney Rigdon stole or copied a manuscript that was originally written by Solomon Spalding; that he added his own material and then handed it over to Joseph Smith who added even more material.

As to holding all things in common, yes, I agree, despite the best efforts of the early Saints, it didn't work, as communism rarely does.

All the best.

[TAO]

Tao:

Tao.... I think we're on majorly different pages here. You may not be aware that I am not LDS. I do not believe the BOM is true. I don't believe there ever were ancient Nephites. I do not believe Joseph Smith was a prophet.

I think Sidney Rigdon stole or copied a manuscript that was originally written by Solomon Spalding; that he added his own material and then handed it over to Joseph Smith who added even more material.

As to holding all things in common, yes, I agree, despite the best efforts of the early Saints, it didn't work, as communism rarely does.

All the best.

Yah, I think I was responding to something you said in a different way than you meant it... sorry 'bout that.

Anyways, yah concerning the rest, I have a gut feeling that we will never know till the second coming of Christ. That's why I put my trust in faith through the Spirit, rather than research alot of history stuff. I look on sites with history when I have to, but I don't seek it out, that I don't. For it gives the wrong feeling, it makes life a burden of visual proof, it destroys faith. And ultimately, that's why I believe - because I asked in faith, and I find all this proving, even my own, to be rather apalling at times. For I know it will get nowhere with the truth.

[4truth]

Tao:

I'm sorry, I need a CFR here.

Okay...

Your request that I should give you all the information I am in possession of respecting Mormonism. I know that Sydney Rigdon told me there was a book coming out (the manuscript of which had been found engraved on gold plates) as much as two years before the Mormon book made its appearance in this country or had been heard of by me. The same I communicated to brother A Campbell.

--Adamson Bentley to Walter Scott, Jan. 22, 1841

...and...

The conversation alluded to in brother Bentley's letter of 1841, was in my presence as well as in his, and my recollection of it led me some two or three years ago to interrogate brother Bentley touching his recollections of it, which accord with mine in every particular, except the year in which it occurred -- he placing it in the summer of 1827 -- I, in the summer of 1826 -- Rigdon at the time observing that in the plates dug up in New York there was an account not only of the Aborigines of this country but also it was stated that the Christian religion had been preached in this country during the first century just as we were preaching it on the Western Reserve.

Alexander Campbell, Millenial Harbinger, Jan. 1844

...and...

Sidney Rigdon preached for us, and notwithstanding his extravagantly wild freaks, he was held in high repute by many. For a few months before his professed conversion to Mormonism, it was noticed that his wild, extravagant propensities had been more marked. That he knew before of the coming of the book of Mormon is to me certain, from what he said the first of his visits at my father's, some years before. He gave a wonderful description of the mounds and other antiquities found in some parts of America, and said that they must have been made by the Aborigines. He said there was a book to be published containing an account of those things. He spoke of these in his eloquent, enthusiastic style, as being a thing most extraordinary. Though a youth then, I took him to task for expending so much enthusiasm on such a subject, instead of things of the gospel. In all my intercourse with him afterward he never spoke of antiquities, or of the wonderful book that should give account of them, till the book of Mormon really was published. He must have thought I was not the man to reveal that to.

--Reminiscences of Darwin Atwater, 1873

"Elder Adamson Bentley told me that as he was one day riding with Sidney Rigdon * and conversing upon the Bible. Mr. Rigdon told him that another book of equal authority with the bible, as well authenticated and as ancient, which would give an account of the history of the Indian tribes on this continent, with many other things of great importance to the world, would soon be published. This was before Mormonism was ever heard of in Ohio, and when it appeared, the avidity with which Rigdon received it convinced him that if Rigdon was not the author of it he was at least acquainted with the whole matter some time before it was published to the world,"

--Letter from Thomas J. Clapp, Mentor, Ohio, April 9, 1879.

That should answer the CFR.

That's why I put my trust in faith through the Spirit, rather than research alot of history stuff. I look on sites with history when I have to, but I don't seek it out, that I don't. For it gives the wrong feeling, it makes life a burden of visual proof, it destroys faith. And ultimately, that's why I believe - because I asked in faith, and I find all this proving, even my own, to be rather apalling at times. For I know it will get nowhere with the truth.

So how does that work, exactly? Why would studying history destroy faith?

Does studying history written by Mormons destroy faith?

All the best.

[4truth]

Okay so going way back and responding to some of what I was not able to get to by Ben...

Right, but conspiracies have motives and other things going on. You use this magic blanket of conspiracy to cover up all these other problems - but it doesn't work well. The conspiracy works just fine without a Spalding text. The conspiracy has to include a coherent reason for actually using it - particularly since it doesn't seem at all necessary. The primary areas of supposed influence are not the religious sections but the parts on warfare. And yet, warfare was a particularly prevalent subject in early 19th century literature (coming on the tails of the revolutionary war as it does).

I'm not sure what your point is here... you seem to be saying that since there was plenty of other history to choose from there was no need to choose to copy Spalding.... ? While I do think there is a coherent reason, I disagree that I have to come up with the reason. It could have been as simple as, Spalding was available... as were Swedenborg's ideas or Joseph Senior's dreams.

But my take on it is that Spalding's novel captured Rigdon's attention precisely because it was a novel purporting to be a history of the former inhabitants of this continent written in the authoritative scriptural style with nearly every other line commencing with "and it came to pass." I think Rigdon was intrigued and I think Rigdon believed it was an authentic translation of an ancient record. I think he believed God placed this manuscript into his care so he could add new revelational truth and publish it to the world, effectively ushering in the restoration of all things. He was sane enough, however, to understand that if he released the work himself it would not be received as the true revelation it was since people in the area would quickly figure out that the underlying text came from Spalding. He was too close geographically to Spalding's friends and family. Not to worry... God had providentially placed the manuscript in his care, so God would providentially provide a chosen seer to complete the divine work. When he met Joseph Smith everything came together. Spalding had (unwittingly) prophesied of Joseph Smith when he wrote about Gazelem. Joseph Smith, of course was all too willing to accept the role and as Rigdon would soon find out, played it far too well.

The problem here remains - the same kind of parallels you suggest I have been able to duplicate in other kinds of texts. And every time I do, you simply ratchet up the requirements. Take my list of fifteen parallels in sequential order. You then want to move beyond that - when not even Holley produces something of quality. On some level, your demands become silly because your own parallels don't begin to come close to meeting the kinds of requirements that you expect me to suddenly find.

Okay, so I knew this kind of protest would be forthcoming. The point is, it is not I who "ratchet up the requirements" it's simply that Spalding's novel sets a standard you can't match. Like Pharaoh's magicians you can duplicate some of the requirements, but you can't put the package together. What you still fail to acknowledge is that Spalding's manuscript meets all the requirements I demand of you. Sure, you claim the parallels aren't that impressive (and you downplayed the last eleven I listed, but 1. your criticism was not as damaging as you seem to think and 2. there were still more parallels within that set I failed to point out, which is my fault not Spalding's or Holley's). But the fact is, that is merely one set of parallels discovered by Holley. He found a lot more. And he also discovered chiasms in both Spalding and the BOM. Then there's the discovery narrative parallels which you also say are a dime a dozen.

Okay, so show me a text with discovery narrative parallels to how Joseph claimed to discover the BOM and sequential battle parallels to the BOM that also mentions seer stones, has chiasms and which the writer claims to have translated the text from an ancient language that was written by the former inhabitants of this continent and left deposited in a stone container on a hill near the writers home town. When you find a text that meets all those requirements, I will be impressed, but you still won't be quite there. You'll need verify whether credible witnesses who knew the writer made claims of a connection between your author's work and the BOM. And then we'll need to test your author's work via Jocker's method and see how it comes out.

But, when I manage to point out that the parallels you raise are not all that impressive when we actually look at them in context, you tend to just brush it off. And then we have that point that you yourself made about not having actually read the Spalding text - that raises some eyebrows. Your entire perspective on the parallels is coming from material you have read - that you simply accept uncritically it seems to me.

No, I said I don't have a hard copy so whenever I want to check on something I have to go online and it is cumbersome so I don't do it as often as I should and I am therefore not as familiar with it as I should be. But Uncle Dale has solved that little problem by posting the text online, and I copied it off and now have a hard copy.

I think this is an important point to make.... you want to break Spalding's novel into little chunks you can then produce something equivalent to without ever bringing it all together in one package. And you also want to downplay the significance of each separate chunk.

I realize, of course, that you can't find a single text that meets all of those requirements, so your only recourse will be to downplay the significance of each of the things I mentioned. Either that, or you could become an S/R theorist. We would welcome you.

All the best.

Roger

[why me]

Tao:

There are quotes from some of Rigdon's earlier parishioners claiming that Rigdon made comments in 1829 alluding to a new Bible that would be forthcoming.

So, here we have sidney slaving away writing the book of mormon to scam the world, looking for a dupe that he met before on the road, in the name of Joseph Smith, and broadcasting to his parishers that soon a book will come forth as the new bible? This is just a little unbelievable. Would he really broadcast his fraud in such a way? I doubt it. Also, I am sure that any normal parisher will seek from sidney some information about this new bible. But that doesn't seem to have happened.

Here is my take: some parishers make a claim about sidney announcing to them that a new bible will be forthcoming in order to cultivate doubt about the orgins of the book of mormon.

[why me]

But my take on it is that Spalding's novel captured Rigdon's attention precisely because it was a novel purporting to be a history of the former inhabitants of this continent written in the authoritative scriptural style with nearly every other line commencing with "and it came to pass." I think Rigdon was intrigued and I think Rigdon believed it was an authentic translation of an ancient record. I think he believed God placed this manuscript into his care so he could add new revelational truth and publish it to the world, effectively ushering in the restoration of all things. He was sane enough, however, to understand that if he released the work himself it would not be received as the true revelation it was since people in the area would quickly figure out that the underlying text came from Spalding. He was too close geographically to Spalding's friends and family. Not to worry... God had providentially placed the manuscript in his care, so God would providentially provide a chosen seer to complete the divine work. When he met Joseph Smith everything came together. Spalding had (unwittingly) prophesied of Joseph Smith when he wrote about Gazelem. Joseph Smith, of course was all too willing to accept the role and as Rigdon would soon find out, played it far too well.

All the best.

Roger

Great speculation but much with a lot of illogical leaps.

[Glenn101]

Roger, a couple of points (too many posts to respond to individually). On Rigdon and the communal order. I doubt that he would have had it end as it did but would have shown that a faithful few continued to hold fast to the true principles of the gospel. As it is, he ends it in the Campbel fashion.

On Hurlbut. He mentioned only one manuscript and according to Matilda Davision he wrote back to her later that it would not be published because it did not read as expected.

So now let's see what we have.

Sometime between 1813 to 1816 Sidney Rigdon purloined a manuscript from the Patterson printing office in Pittsburg. We have no evidence for this, ony conjecture. We have no earthly idea how Rigdon even came to view the manuscript much less read through it. We have no earthly idea why Rigdon, at the age of from twenty to twenty-three years of age would have been intrigued by this tale. We have no idea why he would purloin it for later use.

And for all of this we have no evidence, just desperate conjecture.

He becomes interested at some point in preaching and becomes a student of the Bible. He becomes an ordained minister in Pittsburg, but is expelled for some of his radical views but finds a home in Mentor Ohio where his views are more readily received by some. He has great success in his new area and is seen by many as equal if not superior to Campbell as an orator. Even after the split with Campbell, he still has his congregation in Mentor.

Yet all of this time, at least from 1826, he is actively planning his demise. He is planning to turn all of his work over to a callow farm boy with no preaching experience, a boy who has no good reputation after having claimed to seen an angel, and is involved in several scrapes with the law. He is going to leave his congregation and subordinate himself to this farm boy, who will get all of the credit.

And the evidence for this? Nothing but more conjecture.

There is no second manuscript. There are no Book of Mormon words in the only manuscript that Spalding has been shown to have been in the process of writing.

There is no case. The horse is really dead.

Glenn

[Kevin Christensen]

From Ben, particularly impressive insight:

And, given the very high overlap in vocabulary and common phrases

[Gervin]

There is no case. The horse is really dead.

You and others repeat this mantra ad nausea. In truth, it shows that the theory is very much alive; why write dozens upon dozens of posts attempting to make an argument for the LDS position if this truly is a

[Gervin]

I would also expect conspirators who behaved in realistic fashion during times of crisis.

From the "why me" school of personal motivation, no doubt. If recent business conspiracies like Enron and Mr. Madoff are any indication, the crises mode is to obfuscate, deny, and divert attention.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Roger writes:

Yet here, talking about the parallels between Spalding witnesses, you are making the exact opposite case... you are agreeing with me that those parallels are not coincidental but result from common ground between them. My explanation for that common ground is simply shared experience! In other words, if the witnesses are telling the truth, what else would you expect but that their stories sound similar? Of course you would expect them to tell the same story in their own words, but they do exactly that!

Ahhh yes, the sweet irony. You have to paraphrase to make the Roman Story and Joseph's discovery narrative sound like each other. Here, I am using often exact phrasing - and where it is not exact phrasing , it remains very, very close.

Lets use one example of the details I provided:

John Spalding tells us

[Benjamin McGuire]

You're welcome to add another shell and then defend it.

I have no interest in providing another theory, or one of the other existing theories and defending it. This is all about the Spalding theory. Does it have enough plausibility to stand on its own two feet. That is the question I am asking. I am completely disinterested in how it stacks up to your perception of the other theories. That could be a more interesting issue if you would actually address the other theories - but I haven't seen you do that either. Most of your comments with regard to them seem to be of the variety of comment that states that you don't need to worry about this problem, or that problem, since the same problems exist elsewhere. You simply use this tactic to avoid having to cogently deal with the real problems created in the Spalding theory.

Amusing? Why do you find that amusing? Witnesses who knew Spalding said he wrote many manuscripts. Apparently it is more frustrating to you than amusing.

Its not frustrating at all. It has never been asserted that more than one Spalding manuscript was used by Joseph Smith. So whether he wrote more than that one is largely irrelevant. However, having people suggest that he wrote many manuscripts seems to conflict with the actual evidence - that is, we don't have more manuscripts. We have some material that he wrote. So, if he did write a great deal more, it seems forever lost to us. The bigger issue is that the so-called Roman story seems to fit the bill for a manuscript titled "Manuscript Found". That is, what we have seems to be the book that he was supposed to have written that everyone actually knew about. And no, the 1833 testimonies don't qualify as evidence. I have impeached them.

In the spirit of fairness, you may be correct about that. I will have to look into that question. I think the Straits of Darien thing fits that, but you, of course, are convinced he just lifted it from Pratt. More on that in a moment. {actually, I am coming back in here to add... what about all the non-textual-related context they include? You don't dispute that that material is uniquely their own, do you? Did Hurlbut invent that Spalding was building a forge, etc?}

I am not saying it was invented. What I am saying is that the recollections of all the people seem to revolve only around several very specific points. Those points can be easily identified by the identical and nearly identical language that gets used. These points include a great deal of material that is not coming from an alleged source - that is, it isn't limited merely to the content of the book, but to the way that these individuals describe their interactions with Spalding. It would seem remarkable indeed that each of these short accounts would happen to portray in each individuals own language (which is identical to all the other accounts language) several very specific elements of a relationship twenty years ago - and only those very specific elements. So there was, I am certain, a forge. But why do half of the people there mention it? I am sure that the Book of Mormon describes a journey from Jerusalem to America, but, why do so many of these accounts all use the exact phrase "their journey from Jerusalem, by land and sea, till they arrived in America" if they are simply using their own words? Clearly, these texts are related to one another. They are related very closely. And that means that these accounts are not in their own words.

So then... where did Pratt come up with the idea, Ben?

I would think that's pretty simple. The Isthmus of Darien is known today as the Isthmus of Panama (which has featured prominently in several theories of Book of Mormon geography). In Pratt's case, though, he published his geography in 1840. And he describes a bit how his geography connects the various elements. His published geography lines up fairly well with the account published in 1832 of the missionary preaching which gives this same geography.

The underlying issue here is that there is nothing in these eight statements that would require any real knowledge of any Spalding manuscript let alone the mythical lost "Manuscript Found". Everything in them can be traced to other sources. And that causes problems for the assumption that another manuscript must exist - one that must resemble the Book of Mormon (except for the places it doesn't ...)

What about "the old scriptural style" and nearly every phrase commencing with "and it came to pass"? Except for a few poetic sections, that also does not describe the Oberlin Manuscript. And you are (apparently) merely parroting Brodie's argument that the Oberlin Manuscript is totally devoid of religious material. I know you said you haven't read Brodie, so apparently you are merely parroting someone else who has. Contrary to Brodie, the Oberlin Manuscript does contain religious material. It even has a chapter on religion.

The problem, Roger, is that the notes about the "old scriptural style" and the "and it came to pass" and so on are part of the list of shared features among the witnesses. And, these observations were made about the Book of Mormon - so they could just as easily come from reports about the Book of Mormon as opposed to reports about some unknown Spalding Manuscript. You seem to be missing the point. These statements DO NOT provide evidence for a missing Spalding manuscript. They can easily be explained from the data that they were produced - based on a common narrative - to formulate a consistent attack on the Book of Mormon.

Again, how does each theory handle that question?

Who cares? It doesn't matter here. You keep introducing these distractions when you obviously cannot support your own argument.

Ben M.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Roger writes:

Correct, and as I pointed out, S/R predicts that Rigdon rather than Spalding or Smith or Cowdery is largely responsible for those sections. Jockers' study could have falsified that prediction. Instead it supports it.

The Jockers study is incapable of supporting that argument.

Onward:

I'm not sure what your point is here... you seem to be saying that since there was plenty of other history to choose from there was no need to choose to copy Spalding.... ? While I do think there is a coherent reason, I disagree that I have to come up with the reason. It could have been as simple as, Spalding was available... as were Swedenborg's ideas or Joseph Senior's dreams.

Ahh but here is the problem. We can draw the same kinds of parallels (as I demonstrated) to other sources. So why Spalding in particular? I think it is a relevant and important question that you have failed to answer.

But my take on it is that Spalding's novel captured Rigdon's attention precisely because it was a novel ...

But this doesn't make a lot of sense. When was Rigdon able to read the text - how did he know what it contained prior to his stealing it? Or was he simply in the habit of stealing manuscripts to see what they contained? This seems like more wild speculation here now.

Okay, so I knew this kind of protest would be forthcoming. The point is, it is not I who "ratchet up the requirements" it's simply that Spalding's novel sets a standard you can't match. Like Pharaoh's magicians you can duplicate some of the requirements, but you can't put the package together.

Actually, I can put the package together. That's the problem here.

Sure, you claim the parallels aren't that impressive (and you downplayed the last eleven I listed, but 1. your criticism was not as damaging as you seem to think and 2. there were still more parallels within that set I failed to point out, which is my fault not Spalding's or Holley's).

It isn't just my criticism - its also the fact that within reputable scholarship, this entire process of using parallels like this has been discredited for a century now. So its not just that I can show how your parallels fall to widely accepted scholarship (in ways that the scholarship itself actually predicts), its the fact that I can duplicate the kind of effort you make in virtually no time at all. That's part of what is so fun about these kinds of things. It used to be that it took long hours of tedious work to produce deceptive looking lists of parallels (just ask Dale how tedious it was). Today, it takes me almost no time at all with my computer and my custom lexical tools. It's not hard, its easy (and still just as deceptive). What I love about this, is that you have historically in these discussions always offered your best evidence up front. I don't mind if you keep pouring out the parallels. I can keep demolishing them. There is a reason why this process was discredited and the conclusions derived from this process ignored and forgotten. It is because it is so easy to tear it down. You can keep putting stuff up here - but it won't get any better. And your argument that I cannot deal with the whole thing is wrong. I can deal with it, and I will deal with it. Let's face it - you wouldn't have issued the challenge regarding Verne's novel if you had remotely considered it would be so easy for me to complete it ...

But the fact is, that is merely one set of parallels discovered by Holley. He found a lot more. And he also discovered chiasms in both Spalding and the BOM. Then there's the discovery narrative parallels which you also say are a dime a dozen.

To quote an early expert on the subject (who I already quoted) Byrne noted this: "Mere accumulation of ungraded parallels proves nothing." It won't matter how many parallels you produce. It won't add up to evidence. Instead of simply coughing up more, and more, and more, you need to go back to my criticisms and show how I am wrong (assuming that I might be). You need to show how the parallels are significant. Making generalizations is not going to be sufficient.

Okay, so show me a text with discovery narrative parallels to how Joseph claimed to discover the BOM and sequential battle parallels to the BOM that also mentions seer stones, has chiasms and which the writer claims to have translated the text from an ancient language that was written by the former inhabitants of this continent and left deposited in a stone container on a hill near the writers home town. When you find a text that meets all those requirements, I will be impressed, but you still won't be quite there. You'll need verify whether credible witnesses who knew the writer made claims of a connection between your author's work and the BOM. And then we'll need to test your author's work via Jocker's method and see how it comes out.

Why? I already went through a very detailed analysis with you over the discovery narrative to show that your alleged parallels aren't. I have pointed out to you that there is no chiasmus in Spalding. I have pointed out that reducing parallels to complete generalities doesn't do anything. And of course, I did provide a set of parallels in the excerpt from the Walter Scott narrative - but then you simply ignored it. As I said the other day - its my turn. So let's keep it quite simple. Why don't you provide your best argument for chiasmus in Spalding's material. I am going to grade it based on current understandings of chiasmus. And then I can present one to you from the Book of Mormon (my favorite) and a similar analysis. And you can decide if the two are equal. Sounds like a plan?

I think this is an important point to make.... you want to break Spalding's novel into little chunks you can then produce something equivalent to without ever bringing it all together in one package. And you also want to downplay the significance of each separate chunk.

Oh no, I am completely willing to take the text on as a whole. Its you that seems to be avoiding that. When I post comments from Spalding (or witnesses or whatever) I try to keep the text as contextual as I can. No paraphrasing, no ellipses. You haven't done the same - preferring to use paraphrases and very small phrases and singular words. The same can also be said of Dale and the Book of Mormon. He (and you) don't want to look at the Book of Mormon as a whole. You first want to take out what you feel is the most Spalding-like and only work with that little bit. I would be ecstatic if you actually took your own advice here. Having read both books (more than once), I know that Spalding is nothing like the Book of Mormon.

Ben M.

[Calm]

Hi Calmoriah:

Huh? Why does my opinion matter? I don't know whether miracles ended with the Apostles or not. But that's not what's being discussed here. The point was that the S/R theory asserts that Sidney Rigdon wrote his own theology into the BOM while he was reworking a manuscript he had obtained from a Pittsburgh publishing house that was originally written by a (by then deceased) clergyman named Solomon Spalding.

The point I was making is that Rigdon--who was in a dispute at the time with the founder of the Disciples of Christ, Alexander Campbell--was writing his own theology into the BOM, such that when he agreed with Campbell the BOM did too and when he disagreed with Campbell, the BOM supported Rigdon's theology over Campbell's. Miracles as a sign accompanying God's one true church was one such area of disagreement in which the BOM supports Rigdon over Campbell.

However, the timeline of miracles in the West according to the BoM was pretty close to the East so I am not sure how that proves anything different for Rigdon. Perhaps I have missed your point in your referring to those particular verses for support.

[Calm]

Tao:

Okay...

That should answer the CFR.

4truth, if you are using someone else's work even if all you are doing is citing references they've typed it, the polite and proper thing to do is to cite a link to the work (unless the reference is well known and available allover). I am assuming you got this stuff from sidneyrigdon.com?

[Kevin Christensen]

From the "why me" school of personal motivation, no doubt. If recent business conspiracies like Enron and Mr. Madoff are any indication, the crises mode is to obfuscate, deny, and divert attention.

Madoff is actually an instructive contrast Ridgon. From Wikipedia:

On December 10, 2008, [Madoff] suggested to his sons, Mark and Andrew, that the firm pay out over 170 million dollars in bonuses two months ahead of schedule, from $200 million in assets that the firm still had.[12] According to the complaint, Mark and Andrew, reportedly unaware of the firm's pending insolvency, confronted their father, asking him how the firm could pay bonuses to employees if it could not pay investors. Madoff then admitted that he was "finished", and that the asset management arm of the firm was in fact a Ponzi scheme. Mark and Andrew then reported him to the authorities.[13]

The secretive Madoff caved in to his family when the financial pressure got close. And he spilled his guts on his operations for the whole time, "On March 12, 2009, Madoff appeared in court in a plea proceeding, and pled guilty to all charges."

Ridgon, on his deathbed, when grilled by his son, denied the Spalding myth. And long before that moment of truth, Rigdon felt heat of physical mob violence, a potential firing squad in Missouri, long months of misery in the Liberty Jail, estrangement from Joseph Smith, and a very public rejection of his bid for leadership after Joseph Smith's death, followed by years, according to the theory, to ponder all that had gone wrong.

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Gervin]

Madoff is actually an instructive contrast Ridgon. From Wikipedia:

The secretive Madoff caved in to his family when the financial pressure got close. And he spilled his guts on his operations for the whole time, "On March 12, 2009, Madoff appeared in court in a plea proceeding, and pled guilty to all charges."

I don't see Madoff as a shining example of coming clean. At his sentencing Judge Chin faulted Mr. Madoff for failing to be more forthcoming with authorities since his Dec. 11 arrest. "I don't get a sense that Mr. Madoff has done all he could, or told all that he knows," the judge said.

At his sentencing, Madoff continued to insulate his family and co-workers, saying they were lied to. However, his wife, Ruth, initially tried to keep assets worth millions of dollars, but agreed to give up $85 million in assets to keep $2.5 million in cash. Also, Massachusetts regulators allege Ruth withdrew $15.5 million (U.S.) from company accounts just before her husband confessed. Like I said, obfuscation.

Ridgon, on his deathbed, when grilled by his son,

Grilled? I could find only one question asked by the son, "Is it true?" Any chance that Rigdon tries to insulate his family like Madoff appears to have done?

btw, our disagreements may run deeper than this: if you're a Pens fan, then this Caps fan is going to to do a double-cringe.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I don't see Madoff as a shining example of coming clean. At his sentencing Judge Chin faulted Mr. Madoff for failing to be more forthcoming with authorities since his Dec. 11 arrest. "I don't get a sense that Mr. Madoff has done all he could, or told all that he knows," the judge said.

At his sentencing, Madoff continued to insulate his family and co-workers, saying they were lied to. However, his wife, Ruth, initially tried to keep assets worth millions of dollars, but agreed to give up $85 million in assets to keep $2.5 million in cash. Also, Massachusetts regulators allege Ruth withdrew $15.5 million (U.S.) from company accounts just before her husband confessed. Like I said, obfuscation.

Grilled? I could find only one question asked by the son, "Is it true?" Any chance that Rigdon tries to insulate his family like Madoff appears to have done?

btw, our disagreements may run deeper than this: if you're a Pens fan, then this Caps fan is going to to do a double-cringe.

You are missing the bigger picture. Maddof eventually caved and confessed. No one argued that he was a "shining example of comming clean". That is a straw man.

Can't say so much for any of the witnesses to the BoM caving. Do you have any evidence that they did?

[Glenn101]

I don't see Madoff as a shining example of coming clean. At his sentencing Judge Chin faulted Mr. Madoff for failing to be more forthcoming with authorities since his Dec. 11 arrest. "I don't get a sense that Mr. Madoff has done all he could, or told all that he knows," the judge said.

At his sentencing, Madoff continued to insulate his family and co-workers, saying they were lied to. However, his wife, Ruth, initially tried to keep assets worth millions of dollars, but agreed to give up $85 million in assets to keep $2.5 million in cash. Also, Massachusetts regulators allege Ruth withdrew $15.5 million (U.S.) from company accounts just before her husband confessed. Like I said, obfuscation.

Madoff didn't even have to face the threat of to induce him to if not come clean, at least fess up to the ponzi scheme. Can you provide us a reference to a conspiracy where the conspirators were found out but none of them ever cracked?

Grilled? I could find only one question asked by the son, "Is it true?" Any chance that Rigdon tries to insulate his family like Madoff appears to have done?

What is the consensus on death bed confessions? Has there ever been a study on their validity and the veracity of deathbed statements?

Madoff to the world insulating his family, privately confessing. If Sidney had confessed to a conspiracy, he had an example of a person that was welcomed with open arms despite an unsavory reputation, when he turned on his former religion, Mr. Hurlbut. If Sidney had turned also against the church, he could have expected a warm reception from the enemies of the church. If he had ever harbored hopes of returning as "the man" in the church, when his sone asked him that question, here was the opportunity for him to at least give his progeny fame if not fortune. Had he confessed to a conspiracy then, his children would have been famous for their expose. This did not happen.

Glenn