A coupla days ago, I posted some documentation which supports the Spalding-Rigdon theory of the BOM's origin. Below are some very early newspaper reports which go a long way towards learning exactly how the whole thing came about.

Like most people, I never knew much about the Spalding theory. I knew that people like Fawn Brodie and the Tanners rejected it because they believed that Joseph Smith could have produced it on his own. Around 1998, I bought a copy of the 1977 book "Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon?" It documented a lot of the statements of Ohio associates of the late Solomon Spalding who stated in 1832 that the newly-published BOM was similar to a manuscript of Spalding's which they had knowledge of years before. Reading that book piqued my interest.

Then around 2000, I began reading historical documents on Dale Broadhurst's websites and found several very early newspaper articles that told me a lot more. When reading these articles, keep in mind that the church's apologists have asserted, beginning in the 1830s, that the "Spalding theory" was concocted by an apostate named Philastus Hurlburt. The problem with the apologist's assertions is that Hurlburt did not even leave the church, nor begin investigating Joseph Smith's background or the Spaulding connection, until AFTER these newspaper articles were published. So keep that in mind when reading this info.

I had originally written these remarks to Dale in a post on the alt.religion.mormon newsgroup. So there are comments from me interspersed with the articles.

Dale, that's an impressive collection. A few comments--- Your first article, from the Cincinnati Advertiser of June 2, 1830, is quite revealing:

"A fellow by the name of Joseph Smith, who resides in the upper part of
Susquehanna county, has been, for the last two years we are told, employed in
dedicating as he says, by inspiration, a new bible. He pretended that he had
been entrusted by God with a golden bible which had been always hidden from
the
world. Smith would put his face into a hat in which he had a white stone, and
pretend to read from it, while his coadjutor transcribed."

The article corroborates the "stone in the hat" version of the "translation,"
as opposed to Smith's later story of "two stones in silver bows." Considering
the earliness of the article, June 1830, it is closer to the original method
of
the "translation" as told by Smith's first "scribes"----Emma, Harris, Whitmer,
Joseph Knight, etc.---before Cowdery "happened" upon the scene. That makes
it
more obvious that Smith and Cowdery invented the "two stones in silver bows"
story sometime after June, 1830. Of course, we already know that Cowdery
and/or Phelps invented the "Urim and Thummim" story sometime after
that---meaning that the occultic, yet original "peep-stone" story evolved over
time into the "Urim and Thummim" version, in an attempt to give Smith's
practice
a Biblical stamp, and to shed the image of his 1820s "peep-stoning."

Next, the Cleveland Advertiser of August 31, 1831:

"Rigdon was formerly a disciple of Campbell's and who it is said was sent out
to make proselytes, but is probable he thought he should find it more
advantageous to operate on his own capital, and therefore wrote, as it is
believed the Book of Mormon, and commenced his pilgrimage in the town of
Kirtland, which was represented as one of the extreme points of the Holy
Land."

This assertion that Rigdon may have been the BOM's secret producer is the
earliest I've seen. Needless to say, it also dynamites the oft-repeated
Mormon
fallacy that
"Hurlbut invented the Spalding/Rigdon theory," because Hurlbut did not begin
his investigation until fully two years after this article was published.

Next, from the New York Inquirer of August 31, 1831:

"A few years ago the Smith's and others who were influenced by their notions,
caught an idea that money was hid in several of the hills which give variety
to
the country between the Canandaigua Lake and Palmyra on the Erie Canal. Old
Smith had in his pedling excursions picked up many stories of men getting rich
in New England by digging in certain places and stumbling upon chests of
money.
The fellow excited the imagination of his few auditors, and made them all
anxious to lay hold of the bilk axe and the shovel. As yet no fanatical or
religious character had been assumed by the Smith's. They exhibited the simple
and ordinary desire of getting rich by some short cut if possible. With this
view the Smith's and their associates commenced digging, in the numerous hills
which diversify the face of the country in the town of Manchester. The
sensible
country people paid slight attention to them at first. They knew them to be a
thriftless set, more addicted to exerting their wits than their industry,
readier at inventing stories and tales than attending church or engaging in
any
industrious trade. On the sides & in the slopes of several of these hills,
these excavations are still to be seen. They Would occasionally conceal their
purposes, and at other times reveal them by such snatches as might excite
curiosity. They dug these holes by day, and at night talked and dreamed over
the counties' riches they should enjoy, if they could only hit upon an iron
chest full of dollars. In excavating the grounds, they began by taking up the
green sod in the form of a circle of six feet diameter--then would continue to
dig to the depth of ten, twenty, and sometimes thirty feet."

This August, 1831 documentation of the Smith's money-digging practices is
important for at least two major reasons: One, it corroborates the affidavits
of the 1833 Palmyra and Harmony testators of the Smith's treasure-digging, yet
they were published two years before Hurlbut even went to NY to interview
Smith's neighbors; that again destroys the Mormon apologetic line that
Hurlbut
either invented his testators' stories or coached them.
Secondly, this article fleshes out both the intent and the extent of the
Smiths' money-digging band. Today's Mormon apologists trust Smith's story
that
he only treasure-hunted because Stowell talked him into looking for a "Spanish
silver mine," and that he only did it for about a month, and that Smith
advised
Stowell to
drop it. This article reveals that the Smiths' involvement was extensive,
well-known, and long-lasting, rather than the downplayed "about a month" story
Smith told in 1838. It gives high credibility to the accounts from Willard
Chase & Co. that the Smiths had been peep-stoning and/or treasure-digging
since
at least 1822. The 1831 article could not have come from Hurlbut; the news
had
to have come from people who actually knew the Smiths intimately in the late
1820s.

Of course, we already know all of this from other pre-Hurlbut sources,
including Cole's 1830 "Palmyra Reflector" articles and A. W. Benton's 1831
relating of Smith's 1826 and 1830 peep-stoning trials. The benefit of all
these articles is that they both pre-date, and are independent of Hurlbut, yet
they corroborate Hurlbut's findings; thus, it's disingenuous for Mormons
to
claim that Hurlbut invented it all.

It's one thing for Mormons to try to discredit Hurlbut's findings, or W. D.
Purple's or Emily Pearsall's much-later publications of the 1826 Bainbridge
trial account; it's quite another for Mormons to explain how numerous
articles
published in 1830
and 1831 could corroborate those from Hurlbut, Purple, and Pearsall, if the
latter three were false.

"At last some person who joined them spoke of a person in Ohio near
Painesville, who had a particular felicity in finding out the spots of ground
where money is hid and riches obtained. He related long stories how this
person
had been along shore in the east--how he had much experience in money digging
-- how he dreamt of the very spots where it could be found. "Can we get that
man here?" asked the enthusiastic Smiths. "Why," said the other, "I guess as
how we could by going for him." "How far off?" "I guess some two hundred miles
-- I would go for him myself but I want a little change to bear my expenses."
To work the whole money-digging crew went to get some money to pay the
expenses
of bringing on a man who could dream out the exact and particular spots where
money in iron chests was hid under ground. Old Smith returned to his
gingerbread factory -- young Smith to his financing faculties, and after some
time, by hook or by crook, they contrived to scrape together a little "change"
sufficient to fetch on the money dreamer from Ohio."

This "person from Ohio near Painesville---money dreamer from Ohio"---Who could
that have been?

"After the lapse of some weeks the expedition was completed, and the famous
Ohio man made his appearance among them. This recruit was the most cunning,
intelligent, and odd of the whole. He had been a preacher of almost every
religion -- a teacher of all sorts of morals. -- He was perfectly au fait with
every species of prejudice, folly or fanaticism, which governs the mass of
enthusiasts. In the course of his experience, he had attended all sorts of
camp-meetings, prayer meetings, anxious meetings, and revival meetings. He
knew
every turn of the human mind in relation to these matters. He had a superior
knowledge of human nature, considerable talent, great plausibility, and knew
how to work the passions as exactly as a Cape Cod sailor knows how to work a
whale ship. His name I believe is Henry Rangdon or Ringdon, or some such
word."

Yep, there it is---none other than Sidney Rigdon, of Ohio. Rigdon swore that
he had never met Smith before late 1830; yet, here's a newspaper article from
August 1831 naming him, and installing him into the Smith's circle of
occultists, before Smith
ever published the BOM or founded his church, and two years before Hurlbut
interviewed Smith's neighbors.

"About the time that this person appeared among them, a splendid excavation
was
begun in a long narrow hill, between Manchester and Palmyra. This hill has
since been called by some, the Golden Bible Hill. The road from Canandaigua to
Palmyra, runs along its western base. At the northern extremity the hill is
quite abrupt and narrow. It runs to the south for a half mile and then spreads
out into a piece of broad table land, covered with beautiful orchards and
wheat
fields. On the east, the Canandaigua outlet runs past it on its way to the
beautiful village of Vienna in Phelps. It is profusely covered to the top with
Beech, Maple, Bass, and White-wood -- the northern extremity is quite bare of
trees. In the face of this hill, the money diggers renewed their work with
fresh ardour, Ringdon partly uniting with them in their operations."

And here the article places Rigdon smack-dab in the middle of the diggings on
"Gold Bible Hill", known to Mormons as the "Hill Cumorah."

Now, how and why did this band of occult treasure diggers transform themselves
into a religious enterprise?

"It was during this state of public feeling in which the money diggers of
Ontario county, by the suggestions of the Ex-Preacher from Ohio, thought of
turning their digging concern into a religious plot, and thereby have a better
chance of working upon the credulity and ignorance of the [their] associates
and the neighborhood. Money and a good living might be got in this way. It was
given out that visions had appeared to Joe Smith -- that a set of golden
plates
on which was engraved the "Book of Mormon," enclosed in an iron chest, was
deposited somewhere in the hill I have mentioned. People laughed at the first
intimation of the story, but the Smiths and Rangdon persisted in its truth.
They began also to talk very seriously, to quote scripture, to read the bible,
to be contemplative, and to assume that grave studied character, which so
easily imposes on ignorant and superstitious people. Hints were given out that
young Joe Smith was the chosen one of God to reveal this new mystery to the
world; and Joe from being an idle young fellow, lounging about the villages,
jumped up into a very grave parsonlike man, who felt he had on his shoulders
the salvation of the world, besides a respectable looking sort of a blackcoat.
Old Joe, the ex-preacher, and several others, were the believers of the new
faith, which they admitted was an improvement in christianity, foretold word
for word in the bible. They treated their own invention with the utmost
religious respect. By the special interposition of God, the golden plates, on
which was engraved the Book of Mormon, and other works, had been buried for
ages in the hill by a wandering tribe of the children of Israel, who had found
their way to western New York, before the birth of christianity itself. Joe
Smith is discovered to be the second Messiah who was to reveal this word to
the
world and to reform it anew.
In relation to the finding of the plates and the taking the engraving, a
number
of ridiculous stories are told.--Some unsanctified fellow looked out the other
side of the hill. They had to follow it with humility and found it embedded
beneath a beautiful grove of maples. Smith's wife, who had a little of the
curiosity of her sex, peeped into the large chest in which he kept the
engravings taken from the golden plates, and straightway one half the new
Bible
vanished, and has not been recovered to this day. Such were the effects of the
unbelievers on the sacred treasure.
There is no doubt but the ex-parson from Ohio is the author of the book which
was recently printed and published in Palmyra and passes for the new Bible. It
is full of strange narratives--in the style of the scriptures, and bearing on
its face the marks of some ingenuity, and familiar acquaintance with the
Bible.
It is probable that Joe Smith is well acquainted with the trick, but Harris
the
farmer and the recent converts, are true believers."

Next:

"They were called translaters, but in fact and in truth they are believed to
be
the work of the Ex-Preacher from Ohio, who stood in the background and put
forward Joe to father the new bible and the new faith."

Once again, this article from August of 1831 asserts that Rigdon was the
actual
producer of what became the "Gold Bible."
It predates Hurlbut's investigation by two years, yet tells the same story.
That should effectively end, for intellectually honest people at least, the
Mormon contention that "Hurlbut invented the stories because he was a
'bitter apostate.' " Because of that, it gives even more credence to
Hurlbut's Ohio witnesses who testified of the Spalding/Rigdon connection.

Such published reports certainly sped Joseph Smith's removal from New York to
Ohio; his 1820's occultic activities were simply too well-known for him to
succeed as a "prophet" in his own country. Once he settled in Ohio, he began
downplaying his money-digging and "peep-stoning," and re-invented himself into
a Biblical-style "prophet" that was more conducive to drawing a following on
the frontier. It was during that same period that he penned the first version
of his "first vision," and the evidence indicates that he wrote that to
replace
his occultic past with a religious one, and to counter published reports of
his
1820's activities.

Deriving "Sidney Rigdon" from "Henry Rangdon or Ringdon" is almost as bad as deriving "Nahom" from "NHM".



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/16/2014 11:02PM by archytas.

...the article didn't describe the guy further:

"the famous
Ohio man made his appearance among them. This recruit was the most cunning,
intelligent, and odd of the whole. He had been a preacher of almost every
religion -- a teacher of all sorts of morals. -- He was perfectly au fait with
every species of prejudice, folly or fanaticism, which governs the mass of
enthusiasts. In the course of his experience, he had attended all sorts of
camp-meetings, prayer meetings, anxious meetings, and revival meetings. He
knew
every turn of the human mind in relation to these matters. He had a superior
knowledge of human nature, considerable talent, great plausibility, and knew
how to work the passions as exactly as a Cape Cod sailor knows how to work a
whale ship. His name I believe is Henry Rangdon or Ringdon, or some such
word."

It's not unusual for a frontier newspaper to get a name wrong---and we don't know his source, either. The source may have been someone peripherally involved, and he simply didn't know the exact name. If you don't believe that these articles refer to Sidney Rigdon, you're welcome to offer an alternate theory. You familiar with any other "ex-preacher from Ohio" who was associated with Joseph Smith circa 1830-31?

Honestly, I'm more interested in knowing why Rigdon would give the original copy of his "opus" to Joseph Smith when he could have given a copy.

If Rigdon had the patience to allow a confederate to pretend to divine his work over the course of a year, then I think he would have the patience produce a hand copy of his manuscript. This way he wouldn't have to give away an original. This would have completely avoided the 116 pages issue. JS's act of re-producing it word for word would have solidified his skills in the eyes of his target audience.

CraigC says that I'm assuming that his audience was full of skeptics, but I'm examining the situation as a street magician would.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/16/2014 11:43PM by archytas.

...to every detail of every question re: the BOM's origin, Mormonism would have died in 1833, and we wouldn't be here discussing it. But we don't know all the answers. The documentation I provided wasn't intended to try to answer the questions you ask; it's to provide evidence that

a) Rigdon and Smith were involved with each other for at least a year or two before they claimed to be, and

b) Mormon apologists' assertion that "Philastus Hurlbut concocted the Spalding theory" is false.

And if you believe that Spalding's writings had nothing to do with the BOM, perhaps you could explain why the "Joseph Smith story" mirrors so many details of the first few paragraphs of "Manuscript Found."

OK, let's suppose Rigdon did not trust Smith, and that he made a back-up copy of at least some of the original document, as you suggest, before giving the marked-up original to Smith. Why would Rigdon let Smith know of the back-up? And why would he let Smith have access to the back-up after Smith had lost the first 116 pages? After the lost pages, Rigdon would have had even less reason to trust Smith.

From the historical record, we know Smith was distraught and vulnerable after the lost pages incident and the death of his son. If Rigdon had a back-up, he was now in a position of great power over Smith. Would it be wise to give Smith a word-for-word copy? Absolutely not. It would be incredibly stupid. He would be empowering Smith, just as you have reasoned.

What could Rigdon do then? How about modifying the back-up to better suit his own purposes? But of course any new text could not contradict the original. Under this scenario, it would be even easier for Rigdon to ensure consistency. From my perspective, it could explain some of the Spalding chapter attributions we see in the replacement to the lost pages (1 Nephi to Words of Mormon).

Of course, Joseph Smith said he would not reproduce the 116 pages because evil men would change the words themselves and make it look as though he had made a mistake. True or not, all this doesn't really help indicate evidence for or against his ability to rewrite those pages. There's an alibi each way.

As to your comment about the early newspaper accounts calling Rigdon "Rangdon" or "Ringdon," and you questioning the credibility of the reports on that basis, the "Cleveland Advertiser" of February 15, 1831 also carried a story in which they had Rigdon's name right:

"VOL. I. CLEVELAND, OHIO, TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 1831.
NUMBER 5.

MORMONISM -- or Grand Pugilistic Debate. The Painesville Telegraph of this
morning has the particulars of the acceptance of a challenge by Thomas
Campbell, given by a noted mountebank by the name of Elder Rigdon, who has
flourished in and about the "openings," for the last few years, and to the no
small wonderment of all the old women round about that country, to test the
validity of the doctrine contained in the Book of Mormon! It is something
singular that this subject should have created such a stir. The Editor of the
Telegraph has opened his paper to a discussion of its merits and demerits!

Rigdon was formerly a disciple of Campbell's and who it is said was sent out to
make proselytes, but is probable he thought he should find it more advantageous
to operate on his own capital, and therefore wrote, as it is believed the Book
of Mormon, and commenced his pilgrimage in the town of Kirtland, which was
represented as one of the extreme points of the Holy Land."

So here we have another report, published just ten months after the founding of Mormonism, opining that Rigdon was the brains behind the BOM.

I'll admit that my comment about Rigdon/Rangdon was a cheap quip.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/17/2014 10:00PM by archytas.

Your comment reminded me of when the Mormon radio talk show host Van Hale came on here in 2005 and debated the BOM's virtues with us. Regarding these same newspaper articles I've posted here, Hale responded:

"You include an article from the New York Inquirer, Aug 31, 1831 which is so filled with historical inaccuracies and logical absurdities that it has never been considered credible by any historian, LDS or non-LDS. It claims that Henry Rangdon, an ex-preacher from Ohio, was the author of the BM. No Henry Rangdon has turned up in any of the massive research of Mormon history in Ohio. If the author is referring to Sidney Rigdon, it seems strange to accept his farfetched details (purported money digging, collaborating with 23 year old JS 250 miles away etc.) as credible when he does not even know the Ohio preacher's name."

This is a typical tactic of Mormon apologists: if an unfriendly-to-Mormonism document gets ONE WORD WRONG, the apologists posit that that discredits the entire document. When the fact is, media gets names wrong all the time, even today. This was the frontier, where info was harder to get correct. The important thing is, *somebody* who knew Rigdon and Smith was telling newspapermen what they knew about Mormonism's origins mere months after the church was founded.

Frankly, I don't know why any honest researcher of Mormon origins would dismiss ANY published articles from 1830-31 which reveal info about the early days of Mormonism. ALL of it should be considered and added to the mix of figuring out how it all came about.

randyj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Your comment reminded me of when the Mormon radio
> talk show host Van Hale came on here in 2005 and
> debated the BOM's virtues with us. Regarding
> these same newspaper articles I've posted here,
> Hale responded:
>
> "You include an article from the New York
> Inquirer, Aug 31, 1831 which is so filled with
> historical inaccuracies and logical absurdities
> that it has never been considered credible by any
> historian, LDS or non-LDS. It claims that Henry
> Rangdon, an ex-preacher from Ohio, was the author
> of the BM. No Henry Rangdon has turned up in any
> of the massive research of Mormon history in Ohio.
> If the author is referring to Sidney Rigdon, it
> seems strange to accept his farfetched details
> (purported money digging, collaborating with 23
> year old JS 250 miles away etc.) as credible when
> he does not even know the Ohio preacher's name."
>
> This is a typical tactic of Mormon apologists: if
> an unfriendly-to-Mormonism document gets ONE WORD
> WRONG, the apologists posit that that discredits
> the entire document. When the fact is, media gets
> names wrong all the time, even today. This was
> the frontier, where info was harder to get
> correct. The important thing is, *somebody* who
> knew Rigdon and Smith was telling newspapermen
> what they knew about Mormonism's origins mere
> months after the church was founded.
>
> Frankly, I don't know why any honest researcher of
> Mormon origins would dismiss ANY published
> articles from 1830-31 which reveal info about the
> early days of Mormonism. ALL of it should be
> considered and added to the mix of figuring out
> how it all came about.

typos = ignurence therefore debunked, end of story.


OTOH, I have fond memeories of ole Van Hale.

It was back in 05 when Simon Southerton deighned to show up at mi casa whilst on a US tour, upon the condition that he could fulfill his date with the Van Halester and carry out the scheduled radio show, live from my home phone, but in a secluded setting, of course.

Simon pulled it off with nary a hitch and showing Van as the fool, after which he emerged and mingled with the assembled exmos and made us all feel proud.

It was a night I'll never forget, I tell ya.

Van Hale invited me to be on his show too, but I disrespectfully declined. I'm too impatient to sit through those commercial breaks and have to listen to that annoying church music. Also, Hale talks so s-l-o-w-l-y and blathers on and on without letting his guest speak very much. I get the feeling he does that as a means of "running out the clock," and make his fans believe that he "won" the debate.

Also, he constantly makes assertions as though they were fact, most of them so faulty that it requires research and documentation to refute him point-by-point. A radio show just isn't conducive to that. I thought it was better for me to take his spoken statements which were transcribed by Nightingale and refute them in print. My responses are archived on Deconstructor's website and elsewhere.

http://www.i4m.com/think/leaders/van_hale_responses.htm

http://www.i4m.com/think/leaders/van_hale_polygamy_response.htm

randyj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Van Hale invited me to be on his show too, but I
> disrespectfully declined. I'm too impatient to
> sit through those commercial breaks and have to
> listen to that annoying church music. Also, Hale
> talks so s-l-o-w-l-y and blathers on and on
> without letting his guest speak very much. I get
> the feeling he does that as a means of "running
> out the clock," and make his fans believe that he
> "won" the debate.
>
> Also, he constantly makes assertions as though
> they were fact, most of them so faulty that it
> requires research and documentation to refute him
> point-by-point. A radio show just isn't conducive
> to that. I thought it was better for me to take
> his spoken statements which were transcribed by
> Nightingale and refute them in print. My
> responses are archived on Deconstructor's website
> and elsewhere.
>
> http://www.i4m.com/think/leaders/van_hale_response
> s.htm
>
> http://www.i4m.com/think/leaders/van_hale_polygamy
> _response.htm

That's how I remember the old coot. All the exxies were listening to the feed in the next room but we had to stay mum for the show or you know we'd have been howling.

If you know Simon, he's the kind of man with the patience to engage such a man as VH. It was clear Dr Simon ruled the airwaves that night and VH was the anti-scientist nut.

randyj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Also, Hale
> talks so s-l-o-w-l-y and blathers on and on
> without letting his guest speak very much. I get
> the feeling he does that as a means of "running
> out the clock," and make his fans believe that he
> "won" the debate.

Hale has those kinds of sentences that you have to drop bread
crumbs on the way in so you can find your way out. They start
with a whole slew of caveats then take a bunch of detours
through some asides and conditionals before finally stating,
with a bunch of personal mini-testimonials, his point. He makes
the Book of Mormon look positively Hemingwayesque.

I enjoyed reading this. These articles sound like they could have been written by Mark Twain! Maybe Sidney and Joe were like the King and the Duke. Regardless of how the con came too be we all got swindled by the Royal Nonesuch at least for a little while. Smith and Rigdon deserved a good tar and feathering. So many parallels!

The western frontier was exploding with purveyors of unorthodox religious sects, alternative lifestyle communes, and hucksters of every stripe. And there were a lot of unlearned, superstitious, gullible people to market their schemes to.

It was an ideal time and place to concoct a scheme like the Gold Bible. Rigdon had the religious background and revenge against Campbellitism motive, and Joseph Smith had the "farmboy visionary seer" background and a desire for money and power. They were a good match.

randyj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> It was an ideal time and place to concoct a scheme
> like the Gold Bible. Rigdon had the religious
> background and revenge against Campbellitism
> motive, and Joseph Smith had the "farmboy
> visionary seer" background and a desire for money
> and power. They were a good match.


Yes they were.

Alas, a match made in somewhere other than heaven.

And while we're on the subject, I'll always remember the reverence my dear old dad held for Sydney. For some reason there was always space on his nightstand for the Rigster.

Gawd I wish I could ask him what that was all about. Even though Syd wasn't kinfolk like Horny Joe, why such an affection held for him, along with the blind devotion to BY.

Just ramblin in my ole 60's Rambler.

Though I side with the various hypotheses,one thing that has always puzzled me: why didn't Crawly nor Rigdon ever tell of that supposed association/complicity with JS in the days of their disillusionment. ever, not a hint. Something like "if you knew what I know", kind of thing?

Elbert: "Though I side with the various hypotheses,one thing that has always puzzled me: why didn't Crawly [Cowdery] nor Rigdon ever tell of that supposed association/complicity with JS in the days of their disillusionment. ever, not a hint. Something like "if you knew what I know", kind of thing?"

Actually, there is evidence that both men did hint at their involvement after their disaffection.

Here is evidence of Rigdon spilling the beans (from a 2008 essay I wrote on Rigdon, http://sidneyrigdon.com/criddle/rigdon1.htm#26):

On 20 January 1884, James Jeffery, an acquaintance of Rigdon's, wrote: "Forty years ago I was in business in St. Louis. The Mormons then had their temple in Nauvoo Illinois. I had business transactions with them. I knew Sidney Rigdon. He acted as general manager of the business of the Mormons (with me). Rigdon told me several times in his conversations with me, that there was in the printing office with which he was connected in Ohio, a MS of the Rev. Spaulding, tracing the origin of the Indians from the lost tribes of Israel. This MS was in the office several years. He was familiar with it. Spaulding wanted it published but had not the means to pay for printing. He (Rigdon) and Joe Smith used to look over the MS and read it on Sundays, Rigdon said Smith took the MS and said "I'll print it," and went off to Palmyra New York."
http://home1.gte.net/dbroadhu/RESTOR/Lib/Prp1844a.htm

Fawn Brodie (1945) characterized Jeffery's testimony as an example of faulty memory. But Jeffery's testimony is supported by a Nov 16, 1844 article entitled "Rigdon's Folly... What Does it Mean?" -- probably written by Sam Brannan or William Smith. In the article, the author reports: "...we had the word of a man, that while in Missouri, he [Rigdon] stood up and cursed God to his face and pronounced Mormonism to be a delusion."
http://home1.gte.net/dbroadhu/RESTOR/Lib/Prp1844a.htm

Some support for the Jeffery testimony can be found in an 1844 letter written by Orson Hyde, at St. Louis, and sent to Brigham Young in Nauvoo. In his letter Apostle Hyde mentions that the recently excommunicated Sidney Rigdon was saying that he "was in possession of facts and power to have hurled Joseph from his station long ago." Since "facts" such as secret polygamy and the Nauvoo Council of Fifty were relatively new to Mormonism, they would not fit well with "facts" known to Rigdon "long ago." Whatever those "facts" may have been, Rigdon appears to have quickly abandoned any attempts at detailed public exposure of Joseph Smith.
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/Hyd1845A.htm#9-12-44

As noted by Chandler (2005), at the time Rigdon purportedly made his statement to Jeffery, his leadership had been rejected in favor of Brigham Young, and he was trying to obtain documents from Emma. He may actually have fulfilled his earlier threats to "expose the secrets of the church." It is worth noting that in the Jeffery's statement, Rigdon identifies Smith as the plagiarizer of Spalding's work, omitting a role for himself, except as the one who provided access to the document. This would be expected for a person attempting to minimize self-incrimination while pronouncing Mormonism a delusion and exposing "the secrets of the church." http://www.mormonstudies.com/author2.htm

Here is evidence for Cowdery spilling the beans (from a compilation prepared by Steve Benson at http://exmormon.org/d6/drupal/Unholy-Cow,-and-How!--How-the-Mormonm-Cult-Created-the-Cowdery-Myth-.-.-.):

As reported by author Charles Shook, after being excommunicated from the Mormon Church, Cowdery moved to Ohio, where he set up a law practice. According to his close friend and law firm colleague, Judge W. Lang, Cowdery admitted that the Book of Mormon was a hoax, manufactured from Solomon Spaulding's unpublished novel, "Manuscript Found.” In a letter from Lang to Thomas Gregg, 5 November 1881, Lang wrote: "Dear Sir: . . . Once for all I desire to be strictly understood when I say to you that I cannot violate any confidence of a friend though he be dead. This I will say that Mr. Cowdery never spoke of his connection with the Mormons to anybody except to me. We were intimate friends. The plates were never translated and could not be, were never intended to be. What is claimed to be a translation is the 'Manuscript Found' worked over by C[owdery] . He was the best scholar amongst them. Rigdon got the original at the job printing office in Pittsburgh, as I have stated. I often expressed my objection to the frequent repetition of 'And it came to pass' to Mr. Cowdery and said that a true scholar ought to have avoided that, which only provoked a gentle smile from C[owdery]. Without going into detail or disclosing a confided word, I say to you that I do know, as well as can now be known, that C[owdery]. revised the 'Manuscript' and Smith and Rigdon approved of it before it became the 'Book of Mormon.' I have no knowledge of what became of the original. Never heard C[owdery] say as to that. . . . C[owdery] never gave me a full history of the troubles of the Mormons in Missouri and Illinois, but I am sure that the doctrine of polygamy was advocated by Smith and opposed by Cowdery. Then when they became rivals for the leadership, Smith made use of this opposition by Cowdery to destroy his popularity and influence, and which finally culminated in the mob that demolished Cowdery's house the night when he fled. This Whitmer you speak of must be the brother-in-law of Cowdery whose wife was a Whitmer. . . .

“Now as to whether C[owdery] ever openly denounced Mormonism let me say this to you; no man ever knew better than he how to keep one's own counsel. He would never allow any man to drag him into a conversation on the subject. Cowdery was a Democrat and a most powerful advocate of the principles of the party on the stump. For this he became the target of the Whig stumpers and press, who denounced him as a Mormon and made free use of C[owdery's] certificate at the end of the Mormon Bible to crush his influence. He suffered great abuse for this while he lived here on that account. In the second year of his residence here he and his family attached themselves to the Methodist Protestant Church, where they held fellowship to the time they left for Elkhorn. . . . .”

Writer Stephen Van Eck offers this telling interpretation of Lang's account to Gregg: "Apparently Cowdery had admitted the hoax to Lang, but took all the credit for it. This is not consistent with Cowdery being the servile follower of Smith that he had been. Had Cowdery given Smith the completed manuscript, furthermore, losing the first 116 pages of the dictated 'translation' would have scarcely been a problem. Cowdery, despite his apparent boasting to Lang, can be considered a collaborator at best, but a conspirator at least."

I'm told by Mormons there are too many people involved in this conspiracy to make it plausible. Someone would have turned coat if this conspiracy were true. Seems to me Rigdon and Cowdrey both let the cat out of the bag so the conspiracy is plausible.

...to various people at various times. Just because neither of them held a press conference in the town square and spilled all the beans to the mass media doesn't mean we should ignore their private statements to individuals, or to ignore all the other evidence of the Spalding-Rigdon connection outside of such statements.

When I began studying this issue about 15 years ago, I just read everything I could find, and let the evidence lead me to the most likely and logical conclusions.

To spill the beans against your co-conspirator is to admit that
you, yourself, are a conspirator--a mountebank--a fraud--a liar.

baura Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To spill the beans against your co-conspirator is
> to admit that
> you, yourself, are a conspirator--a mountebank--a
> fraud--a liar.


bullseye

I find the Spalding-Rigdon theory fascinating, but I don't buy it either, for much the same reason the Tanner's don't go along with it. The Book Of Mormon is such a cheesy, piece of cornball fluff, that I don't have a problem imagining Joseph Smith or his family writing it. However, I think if someone other than Joe Smith wrote the BoM, then the real authors of the Book of Mormon is Joseph Smith Sr. Like his son, Joe Sr. was also a conman, who would run scams alternatively as a man of faith, and as a peepstone reading seer.

She replied curtly that it isn't necessary, and that Joseph Smith had the ability to come up with it by himself. Well, that's okay, BH Roberts thought the same thing. And I assumed it as well. When I first started studying my way out of the church around 1996-7, I read Brodie and the Tanners' works, and they both said Smith-alone, so I didn't really bother with it anymore---until I found a copy of "Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon?" in a used bookstore.

Reading that, I thought to myself, "There are a lot of accounts here from 1832 onwards giving evidence for Spalding-Rigdon. Why don't the Tanners consider it?" The impression I got from Sandra was that her mind was made up, so she wasn't interested in studying the subject any more. I approached the subject differently; my approach was to not make my mind up one way or another, but rather to GO WHERE THE EVIDENCE LEADS ME, just as any honest researcher should do.

Just because one may believe that Smith had the ability to do it all himself doesn't force one to ignore all the evidence for the Spalding-Rigdon connection. I'm still completely open to either theory, but the great amount of evidence for the Spalding-Rigdon theory prevents me from rejecting it. And the scholarly work that Craig Criddle, Dale Broadhurst, and others have done also keeps me from rejecting it.

There have been lots of historical incidents of which scholars believe happened one way, but further research or discoveries causes scholars to alter their views. Who knows, one day something might be discovered which gives us the complete story of the BOM's origins.

Forbiddencokedrinker: "I find the Spalding-Rigdon theory fascinating, but I don't buy it either, for much the same reason the Tanner's don't go along with it...I think if someone other than Joe Smith wrote the BoM, then the real authors of the Book of Mormon is Joseph Smith Sr. Like his son, Joe Sr. was also a conman, who would run scams alternatively as a man of faith, and as a peepstone reading seer."

When I read comments like this, I can't help but wonder whether the commenter is aware of the huge (and growing) body of evidence indicating that Smith had help from outside his family, including multiple lines of theological, historical, textual evidence. If so, how does the commenter blow it all off as meaningless? I just don't get it.

...do those commentors who reject the Spalding-Rigdon theory even bother to read the 1830-31 newspaper articles which I copied here, which were the basis of this thread?

Thank you, RandyJ & CraigC. The articles are truly enlightening. I was not aware of these that predated Hurlburt.

The other incident that I think has bearing on this was when Sidney Rigdon threatened to expose Joseph. Next thing you know, Sidney is beaten by two "angels" - flung about the room like a rag doll - and he is laid up recuperating for 2 weeks. Now, does anyone really think that God sends his angels to beat the crap out of someone if they're about to speak evil of the Lord's anointed?

I think this incident also indicates that he was in on it.


(I don't remember all the details, I'm sure someone here has a link to share...)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/18/2014 09:50PM by dot.

I am not familiar with this story about the angel beating, but am interested also if someone has the source.

"Thank you, RandyJ & CraigC. The articles are truly enlightening. I was not aware of these that predated Hurlbut."

You're welcome. The pre-Hurlbut reportage altered my views as well, because it destroyed the Mopologists' oft-repeated lie "Hurlbut concocted the Spalding theory."

"The other incident that I think has bearing on this was when Sidney Rigdon threatened to expose Joseph. Next thing you know, Sidney is beaten by two "angels" - flung about the room like a rag doll - and he is laid up recuperating for 2 weeks. Now, does anyone really think that God sends his angels to beat the crap out of someone if they're about to speak evil of the Lord's anointed?"

Maybe they were "destroying angels." :-)