It seems to be pretty well established that Joe and Sidney didn't meet until after the BoM was published. Why do people think he helped write it? Surely a better case can be made for Joe and Joe Snr putting it together with the help of Cowdery?

I'm skeptical of the Spaulding-Rigdon theory myself, but it's treated like doctrine around here for some reason.

I think the authorship debate is a bit of a distraction from the authenticity debate. In the fact that the first is debatable while the second isn't. While it might be fun to talk about who authored the BOM it has no relevance on it's authenticity.

That said, well established by whom?

I agree with jacob. Authenticity is not in question. The BoM is the proverbial three dollar bill.

Authorship is an intriguing question. Who knows? New evidence may come to light.

If you are interested in this issue, you should read "The Spalding Enigma: Who Really Wrote The Book Of Mormon?" by Wayne L. Cowdrey, Howard A. Davis and Arthur Vanick. In my opinion, there is sufficient evidence to make the theory quite plausible. There are a few eye witness accounts placing Smith and Rigdon together before the Book of Mormon was published. Also, there is some evidence that Rigdon was working on a book similar to the Book of Mormon, and he can be placed at the print shop where the Spalding manuscript was last seen. Spalding's widow and his brother and other witnesses were familiar with his book and said they believed the Mormons had plagiarized it. It goes on and on. It's not iron clad, but it's a plausible theory.

Edit: One other thing I'd like to add. This is a tremendous book just for the research into the friends and family of the usual characters you read about in early Mormon history. It provides a context I haven't seen anywhere else in addition to the excellent introduction to the Spalding-Rigdon theory.

Another good book is "Sidney Rigdon: A Portrait of Religious Excess" by Richard S. Van Wagoner. That one follows Rigdon's life before Mormonism and long afterward into the 1870s. It gives you a sense of what he brought to Mormonism so that you can see it in the writing of the Book of Mormon.

Finally, I recommend "Inside the Mind of Joseph Smith: Psychobiography and the Book of Mormon" by Robert D. Anderson. The primary purpose of this book is to provide a hypothetical diagnosis of Joseph Smith's mental illnesses by the author who is a psychiatrist, but the research into the Smith family and their possible influence on the Book of Mormon is also interesting. Lehi's family is very similar to Joseph Smith Sr.'s family, and the moves they made are similar to the moves made by the Smith family.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/09/2013 02:05AM by Makurosu.

Makurosu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you are interested in this issue, you should
> read "The Spalding Enigma: Who Really Wrote The
> Book Of Mormon?" by Wayne L. Cowdrey, Howard A.
> Davis and Arthur Vanick.

Yes, they present considerable circumstantial evidence linking Spaulding to a very BoM-like manuscript, linking SR to SS's manuscript, and linking JS with SR early on before the Mormon version of history links them. I also recommend this book.

So how could an ignorant boy like JS write the BoM? Well, he didn't. Not only that SS and SR were educated enough to write it. Don't forget also that far as literature it's no masterpiece. It certainly bears the characteristics of neophyte authors as SS and SR were.

NeverBeenaMormon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It seems to be pretty well established that Joe
> and Sidney didn't meet until after the BoM was
> published. Why do people think he helped write it?
> Surely a better case can be made for Joe and Joe
> Snr putting it together with the help of Cowdery?

I'll restate a slightly exaggerated "attack" that I made
upon this subject, tithe late Vernal Holley c. 1975:

1. Sidney Rigdon, Parley P. Pratt and Oliver Cowdery all
swore that Rigdon knew absolutely nothing about Joseph
Smith, the golden plates, or Mormonism, before Cowdery
and Pratt presented Sidney with the BoM late in 1830.

2. Rigdon, Pratt and Cowdery were all honest, trustworthy
men, whose testimonies are frequently cited by objective
historians. There is no reason to doubt their testimony.

3. From late 1824 until late 1830, when he met Cowdery
and Pratt, Rigdon lived in a remote frontier town, farm
from Joseph Smith. From 1824 to 1827 he was not even
on a stage route, had few neighbors -- there is no way
that he could have even known of an obscure farm boy
in far off New York; much less have met him.

4. Rigdon was a popular Cristian preacher by 1830. He
was well respected and trusted by hundreds of devout
Christians. None of his parishioners knew anything about
Joseph Smith, or any gold bible. Had Rigdon been in
contact with Smith, somebody would have noticed that
and reported it. Nobody ever accused Rigdon of any
such connection with Smith, until the Spalding lie
was first published by E.D. Howe at the end of 1834.

5. Considering points 1-4, we can safely assume that
Rigdon was telling the truth, that he never knew nothing
about the gold plates, Book of Mormon, Mormonism, or
Joseph Smith until months after the book was published.

Therefore, there is no reason to even begin investigating
all the other claims of the Spalding-Rigdon lie.

Needless to say, Vern had a compelling counter-argument.

UD

Uncle Dale Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ...
> Therefore, there is no reason to even begin
> investigating all the other claims of the
> Spalding-Rigdon lie.
>
> Needless to say, Vern had a compelling counter-argument.

The way Vern started to change my mind, was by showing
me some of Solomon Spalding's writings. That's how he
got my attention.

But, getting back to Rigdon, what really surprised me
was the material Vern had assembled, in order to show
that Sidney Rigdon DID know about the Gold Bible, prior
to his famous meeting with Cowdery and Pratt late in 1830.

Vern began by showing me a series of Ohio newspaper
clippings that he had obtained from Max Parkin -- or,
rather, indirectly from articles Parkin had collected
in writing his "Conflict at Kirtland" CEP class text.

I'd never before seen Ohio news reports from the very
time when Sidney Rigdon was residing in that state.
It didn't take long for Vern to change my mind regarding
Rigdon's honesty/dishonesty -- Also, Vern convinced me
that Rigdon MUST have known about the Gold Bible well
before he saw Cowdery and Pratt carrying the BoM.

Years later, Rigdon's biographer came to the same conclusion.

If we cannot trust Rigdon's denials on this subject, then
it's rather obvious that we cannot use them as an excuse
to block investigating charges made against him in the
local newspapers as early as 1831.

Yes, Sidney Rigdon was accused of having a hand in writing
the Book of Mormon, by people who knew him, years BEFORE

anything was ever published regarding Solomon Spalding.

That came as an astounding revelation to this (then)
young and observant Latter Day Saint.

UD

You can also read Craig Criddle's study "Sidney Rigdon: Creating the Book of Mormon"

http://www.mormonthink.com/mormonstudiesrigdon.htm

He addresses the issue of Rigdon and Smith meeting.

P.S. I think Jacob is right on in regard to the authenticity issue. I don't believe in the Book of Mormon because I don't believe in angels delivering gold plates to be translated by a rock in hat by a treasure hunter.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/08/2013 09:29PM by robertb.

There is strong evidence for a collaborative authorship model for the Book of Mormon, starting with Solomon Spalding and gradually engaging Rigdon, Smith, and others, with Rigdon playing a major role from behind the scenes.

Rigdon was highly motivated to produce a work of scripture as a response to Alexander Campbell (Rigdon's mentor/nemesis), and especially as a response to Campbell's 1825 plan to produce a revision of the Bible. There are many reasons why Rigdon would need to conceal his role in such a scheme if he hoped to attract away followers from Campbell (to "puke Campbellism" as he put it). And he clearly needed help in bringing the new scripture to light in a way that would seem miraculous. He was not a magician, but Smith was. This is documented in Episodes 3 and 4 at http://mormonleaks.com.

In 2008, Jockers et al. published a paper supporting the conclusion that Rigdon was a major contributor. The preprint is available here: http://www.matthewjockers.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/LLCPreprintReassess1.pdf.
The final published paper is available here: http://llc.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/4/465.abstract?sid=9d31ab0c-5ea4-4409-98a6-d9daa858a33a

Here's a 2009 summary of the multiple lines of historical and textual evidence implicating Rigdon:
http://sidneyrigdon.com/criddle/rigdon1.htm

Since 2009, additional historical and textual evidence has been assembled. You can see it at Episode 3 at http://mormonleaks.com. There is plenty of documentation in the footnotes.

The following are some of the arguments that seem especially strong to me:

- Rigdon was named as a likely author of the Book of Mormon before his connection to Solomon Spalding was known. Spalding was named as a contributor to the Book of Mormon before anyone knew about his connection to Rigdon. Separate groups of people independently made these allegations. We now have both historical and textual evidence linking Rigdon to Spalding.

- Rigdon had motive, means and opportunity to modify the Spalding base text to create the Book of Mormon (Episode 3 at http://mormonleaks.com) and to conceal his connections.

- Computer text analyses attribute specific sections of the Book of Mormon to Rigdon based on his usage of frequently used words (Episode 3 at http://mormonleaks.com). These attributions align well with usage of "Wherefore" and the phrase "children of men" in the front & back of Book of Mormon. They also align with an unusual Early Modern English usage of "that", and with content similar to "View of the Hebrews". Most of this evidence is presented in Episode 5 at http://mormonleaks.com.

- Theology taught by Rigdon before 1830 appears in the Book of Mormon. In particular, a conversion sequence taught in 1828 by preacher Walter Scott (Rigdon's preaching partner) appears in the front & back of the Book of Mormon, parts of the Book of Mormon created after the lost pages incident - and the same sections where Rigdon's "word print" is strongest. Campbell considered the appearance of this conversion sequence in the Book of Mormon to be conclusive proof of Rigdon's involvement. This evidence is available in Episode 5 at http://mormonleaks.com.

I second Mormonleaks as the best resource presenting the Rigdon theory.

(Note to Craig though: I personally find the slideshow format frustrating/annoying it takes me 3-4 times as long to read the information that way.)

The alleged second manuscript is huge weakness to me. It's an ad hoc adjustment to the theory which was only proposed after the first manuscript was shown to not work.

That being said. Although I'm skeptical about the theory, I am interested in your ongoing computer analysis.

archytas Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The alleged second manuscript is huge weakness to
> me. It's an ad hoc adjustment to the theory which
> was only proposed after the first manuscript was
> shown to not work.
>
> That being said. Although I'm skeptical about the
> theory, I am interested in your ongoing computer
> analysis.

I suppose it all depends upon the date we might want to
assign to "only proposed after the first manuscript
was shown to not work."

If we assign that date as Dec. 31, 1833, and the place
as being the Aaron Wright grocery store in Ashtabula
County, Ohio -- then we'd at least have a starting point.

After D. P. Hurlbut had published in Joseph Smith's
hometown newspaper, that he had indeed located and
secured a Spalding manuscript identical to portions
of the Book of Mormon, he was recorded displaying
that same document in northern Ohio, to various groups
of onlookers. However, the first documentary proof
of his having anything actually written by Spalding's
hand, came a few days later, in Wright's grocery store.

There Mr. Wright composed a statement, stating that
Spalding had written a story like the Book of Mormon,
but that it was NOT the document that Hurlbut was then
exhibiting to him. Wright did not say whether the item
he then saw was the same manuscript Hurlbut had lately
been displaying before assembled crowds in nearby
Geauga County.

So, if that's the date we've settled upon, we can try
to trace backwards (and forwards) from that event
whatever other evidence we might wish to examine.

UD

In August 1833, Aaron Wright, one of Spalding’s neighbours, recalled his memories of Spalding’s “Manuscript Found”, then added: "Spalding had many other manuscripts, which I expect to see when Smith translates his other plate" (Howe 1834, p. 283-84).

John Miller, an employee and tenant of Spalding’s in 1811, said that Spalding wrote “two or three books or pamphlets on different subjects”. This was confirmed by Rachel Derby, daughter of John Miller, a Spalding employee who lived for a time with the Spalding family. Describing the visit of D. Hurlburt to collect her father’s testimony, Derby said “Father told him [Hurlburt] that the "Manuscript Found" was not near all of Spaulding's writings and that probably there would soon be another prophecy out.” Joseph Miller, Spalding’s neighbor in Amity, PA from 1814 to 1816, also declared that “Manuscript Found was not near all of Spaldings writings”.

Some of the Spalding witnesses (Hiram Lake, Matilda Spalding, Jason Briggs) reported reading "Manuscript Found" and a second manuscript written by Spalding.

Hiram Lake was one of the 8 Conneaut witnesses who gave testimony of Manuscript Found in Howe's "Mormonism Unveiled" (1834). In 1914 Mrs. Hiram Lake, daughter-in-law of Henry Lake, donated two documents to the New York Public Library. One of these is a draft copy of an unsigned statement, dated 31 December 1833, which reads: "this is therefore to inform you that I have made a statement to D P Hurlbut relative to Writings of S Spalding Esq. SD Hurlbut is now at my store I have examined the writings which he has obtained from SD Spaldings widowe I recognize them to be the writings handwriting of SD Spalding but not the Manuscript I had refferance to in my statement before alluded to as he informed me he wrote in the first place he wrote for his own amusement and then altered his plan and commenced writing a history of the first Settlement of America the particulars you will find in my testimony." dated Sept 18 August 1833. (Cowdrey et al. 2000).

From its context, it is clear that Hurlbut showed Henry Lake a Spalding manuscript in 1833, and that Lake recognized that it was not the manuscript he had previously identified as the basis for the Book of Mormon.
 
A similar statement is found in an unsigned letter attributed to Aaron Wright, another of the Conneaut witnesses:

"Dear Sir, Whereas I have been informed that you have been appointed with others to investigate the subject of mormonism and a resolution has been past to ascertain the real orrigin of the sd Book this is therefore to inform you that I have made a statement to D P Hurlbut relative to writings of S Spalding Esq sd Hurlbut is now at my store I have examined the writings which he has obtained from sd Spaldings widowe I recognise them to be the writings hand writing of sd Spalding but not the manuscript I had refferance to in my statement before alluded to as he informed me he wrote in the first place he wrote for his own amusement and then altered his plan and commenced writing a history of the first Settlement of America the particulars you will find in my testimony Dated Sept 1833 August 1833 -- for years before he left this place I was quite intimate with sd S Spalding we had many private interviews the history he was writing was the topic of his conversation relating his progress and Contemplating the avails of the same I also contemplated reading his history but never saw it in print untill I saw the Book of Mormon where I find much of the history and the names verbatim the Book of mormon does not contain all the writings sd Spladings I expect to see them if Smith is permitted to go on and as he says get his other plates the first time that Mr Hyde a mormon Preacher from Kirtland preached in the centre School house in this place the Hon Nehmiah King attended as soon as Hyde had got through King left the house and said that Hide had preached from the writings of S Spalding. In conclusion I will observe that the names and most of the historical part of the Book of Mormon is as familiar to me as Most modern history if if is not Spaldings writings copied it is the same as he wrote and if Smith was inspired I think it was by the same Spirit that Spalding possessed which he confessed to be the love of money"
 
Matilda Spalding McKinstry was 10 years old when her father (Solomon Spalding) died. After his death , she read through her father's manuscripts in the hair-covered chest where he had stored his manuscripts. Matilda later recalled many details about the manuscripts, and many of these details have been confirmed. Among other things, she recalled that the Oberlin manuscript was a precursor to Manuscript Found:
 
“But touching these I will give below his daughter's [Mrs. McKinstry's] recollections, recently narrated by her to me [Redick McKee], which I think more full and explanatory than my own. This lady is still residing in Washington, D.C., with the family of her late son-in-law, Col. Seaton of the Census Bureau, in remarkably good health for a lady of her age. She corroborated her father's statement about his removal to Conneaut in 1809, his examining the Indian mounds &c, and distinctly recollected that he wrote two or more stories in support of the theory that the Indians of North America were lineal descendants of the Jews from Palestine. In the first of these he brought the Jews from Palestine to America via Italy during the reign of Constantine, and set forth that at Rome they engaged shipping to convey them to some place in Great Britain, but encountered stormy weather and were finally wrecked somewhere on the coast of New England. What became of the manuscript of this story she did not know with certainty but understood that it was published in some Eastern review or magazine. This romance he afterwards abandoned and set about writing a more probable story founded on the history of the ten lost tribes of Israel. She thought her father must have had wonderful powers of imagination and memory, great command of language and facility of description. Many of his descriptions were of a historical and religious character. Others were grotesque and ludicrous in the extreme.
 
She remembered that in one of them, touching the mode of warfare in that day, (being hand to hand or man to man) he represented one of the parties having streaks of red paint upon their cheeks and foreheads to distinguish them from enemies in battle. The story he called "The Manuscript Found."
 
On November 20, 1886, Matilda wrote this letter to Deming:
 
Mr. A. B. Deming,

Dear Sir,

I have read much of the Manuscript Story Conneaut Creek which you sent me. I know that it is not the Manuscript Found which contained the words "Nephi, Mormon, Maroni, and Lamanites." Do the Mormons expect to deceive the public by leaving off the title page -- Conneaut Creek and calling it Manuscript Found and Manuscript Story?

Mrs. M. S. McKinstry.

See: http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/CA/natr1988.htm#120088-1c2
 
James A. Briggs, the lawyer for D. P. Hurlburt, claimed that Hurlbut recovered both Manuscript Found and the Oberlin Manuscript from the Spalding widow, and that Hurlbut compared Manuscript Found to the Book of Mormon at the home of Warren Corning, jr. in Mentor, in December 1833. On March 22, 1886, Briggs wrote to Arthur B. Deming to say that the Spalding manuscript at Oberlin College was not Manuscript Found, and was of inferior writing quality: "…I have just read the Manuscript Story [The Oberlin Manuscript] sent me a few days ago, by request of my old and much valued friend, Mr. L.L. Rice, of Honolulu, and in my opinion it settles nothing, save that the author of the story was a very weak brother, and if written by Rev. Solomon Spaulding, he was a man of indigent talents, and the money paid for his college expenses was wasted. Allow me to doubt if he wrote it. You must get some better and more positive link in the chain of evidence than this story, recently printed, to convince the world that the original "Manuscript Found," written by Solomon Spaulding, was not the basis for the historical portion of your Mormon Bible. I have no doubt we had the "Manuscript Found" before us, that we compared it with the Mormon Bible, that the style in which the "Manuscript Found" was written was the same as that of the Mormon Bible. The names -- peculiar -- were the same, not to be forgotten. The names Lehi, Nephi, Maroni, etc., and the expression "and it came to pass" often repeated. This manuscript did not go to Mr. Howe. What did Hurlbut do with it? Some few years ago I wrote to him and asked him who had it -- what he did with it. He did not answer my letter. He received it, as [it was] not returned to me. Dr. Hurlbut died in Ohio two years ago last June. He is silent now, the grave closed over him . . ."

See: http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/SRP13p2.htm#Refs2

Craig C Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
...
> Spalding wrote several manuscripts.
> This was known before discovery of
> the Oberlin Manuscript.
...

I suppose that Mormon polemicists would dispute that statement.
Probably they would say that NOTHING relating to Spalding was
published (or readily available for publication) before Mr.
Hurlbut had his Dec. 1833 letter published in Joseph Smith's
hometown newspaper.

If we agree with this assertion, then the probable response
would be, that we cannot consider anything promulgated
AFTER that date as being confirmatory evidence. Anything
truly authentic and germane must have been produced BEFORE
December of 1833.

In other words, if we could locate a letter sent by Spalding
to some known publisher, outlining his proposed "Nephite
story," then THAT sort of old evidence would be worthwhile
to look over. Perhaps that is the sort of thing Richard L.
Anderson was looking for when he visited Cherry Valley,
New York in the 1960s and left his BYU calling card there.

I do not necessarily agree with this line of reasoning,
but I do understand why LDS apologists would want to
lead us off in that direction of investigation.

"The 'second manuscript' ploy was only invented by you
anti-Mormons after 1885, when James H. Fairchild found
the _real_ Spalding tale; and now you try to pawn off
this ad hoc addition to your original persecution of
God's Chosen People! For shame!" etc. etc. etc.

UD

I have tended to discount Hurlburt because he had an agenda. My theory is that the book was pretty much a family project. Those Upstate New York winters were long.. plenty of time for the Smiths and cousin Oliver to cook up the BoM, I think it may have been a scheme to make money selling the book originally, although many things are possible, as the evidence was intentionally hidden. Affidavits and testimonies were often unreliable, as those who gave them were in many cases biased. We may never know, but I'm satisfied that the historical case is completely refuted and the book is a fantasy, so I go with that in rejecting it.

rationalguy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have tended to discount Hurlburt because he had
> an agenda. My theory is that the book was pretty
> much a family project. Those Upstate New York
> winters were long.. plenty of time for the Smiths
> and cousin Oliver to cook up the BoM, I think it
> may have been a scheme to make money selling the
> book originally, although many things are
> possible, as the evidence was intentionally
> hidden. Affidavits and testimonies were often
> unreliable, as those who gave them were in many
> cases biased. We may never know, but I'm satisfied
> that the historical case is completely refuted and
> the book is a fantasy, so I go with that in
> rejecting it.


John Stafford, who lived immediately south of the Smiths
in Manchester, testified that Joseph Smith's mother had a
hand in the book's production -- that the villagers in
that neighborhood believed her to have been involved in
its authorship. We know Lucy was capable of writing a book.

I have no reason to distrust Stafford's testimony, and
especially to accept it, because another resident of
that area (Orsamus Turner) reported that the mother and
Oliver Cowdery were part of the authorship conspiracy.

Obviously, we cannot add too many additional names to
the list of probable conspirators. Each addition we might
choose to list will only make the conspiracy less probable.
But I'm open to adding Parley P. Pratt and Sidney Rigdon.

Future independent authorship studies may either add some
weight to this conclusion, or offer some textual reason
as to why we should eliminate Pratt and Rigdon.

UD

Many people just dismiss the Conneaut witness statements out-of-hand (often without even reading the statements!) because of their justifiable misgivings about Hurlbut. But there is very good reason to believe that the Conneaut witness statements are reliable. If you haven't actually read the statements, I hope you will. Dale Broadhurst has made them available here: http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/saga/saga02a.htm

Evidence supporting the reliability of the witnesses is summarized below and in Episode 2 at http://mormonleaks.com.

After missionaries Orson Hyde and Samuel Smith visited Conneaut and read from the Book of Mormon, Nehemiah King, a respected citizen of Conneaut, said the missionaries were reading from the book of his deceased friend Solomon. John Spalding, Solomon's brother, also recognized his brother’s work in the Book of Mormon. John likely made this allegation when he lived in Crawford county (western PA) before he moved to Conneaut. Hurlbut was a Mormon missionary there and likely learned of the connection to Spalding from John. http://solomonspalding.com/Lib/2000Adam.htm. Adams, Dale W. 1995. ”Judge Not: The Saga of D.P. Hurlbut” The Ohio State University, April 18, 1995.

Mormon apologists and Smith-as-Sole-Author advocates dismiss the Conneaut statements claiming that Hurlbut coached the witnesses, resulting in common elements in their statements. But there are many reasons to accept the Conneaut witness statements as accurate. After collecting witness testimony in Conneaut, Hurlbut travelled hundreds of miles searching for Spalding’s Manuscript Found. This indicates that he thought there really was such a manuscript. The 8 Conneaut witnesses' statements were individually produced, dated and witnessed by Hurlbut and Howe. Howe traveled to Conneaut to interview the witnesses and confirm the facts before he printed their statements.

In an article published in the Hudson Ohio "Observer", (Masthead of Vlll:15 - June 12, 1834), the editor interviewed some of the witnesses, who told the editor the same thing that they told Hurlbut, even though they could have said anything they wished. This article appeared shortly after Hurlbut's trial in April 1834 and around six months before "Mormonism Unvailed", was published, thus refutes the claims that the witnesses had been coached by Hurlbut or that he had inaccurately reported their testimony.

The Conneaut witnesses were reporting on actual events from memory. They lived in the vicinity of Spalding from 1809 to 1812, and personally knew him. While there are some common elements in their statements, there are also important differences, contrary to Fawn Brodie's incorrect analysis.

One way to crosscheck the reliability of the memory of a witness is to seek corroborating evidence regarding the witness – his/her reputation, attention to detail, memory skills, biases, and trustworthiness. Many of the Conneaut witnesses were leading citizens of the community. One was John Spalding who reportedly heard Manuscript Found repeatedly and in its entirety. Artemus Cunningham was owed money by Spalding. Another was Henry Lake, Solomon's business partner. Yet another, Aaron Wright, was a Justice of the Peace who investigated the mounds of Conneaut and described finding bones in the mounds that disintegrated when he dug them up. These were credible people, with no known conflicts of interest. They had no connection to Mormonism either before or after their statements were published. They didn't retract or modify what was quoted in “Mormonism Unvailed”.

Howe published the witness statements in "Mormonism Unailed" in 1834. He was reportedly friendly with Joseph Smith, married to a Mormon, and had dinner at Joseph Smith's house after he published “Mormonism Unvailed”. "Mormonism Unvailed" is widely respected and widely quoted by both Mormon scholars and non-Mormon scholars. In it, Howe acknowledged that the Spalding manuscript he received from Hurlbut (the Oberlin Manuscript also called Manuscript Story) was not Manuscript Found, and he connected Rigdon to Spalding. Howe said he didn't know what happened to the Spalding manuscript he received from Howe but assumed it was lost in a fire after he sold the print shop. Later, the new print shop owner, L.L. Rice, found the manuscript in among the texts shipped to Hawaii. These data do not indicate lying or bias on Howe’s part.

The Conneaut witnesses lived only 40 miles from Kirtland, headquarters of the Church. You would expect Rigdon and other Church leaders to immediately refute the allegations in "Mormonism Unvailed", but they did not. And the Conneaut witnesses never backtracked on their testimonies after "Mormonism Unvailed" was published.

The 8 Conneaut statements are the tip of the witness iceberg. At least 19 different witnesses linked Spalding to the Book of Mormon. Besides the eight published Conneaut witnesses, additional credible witnesses in Conneaut and in Amity, stated that they saw the Spalding manuscript that identified Lehi and Nephi. The biggest problem with much of this evidence was the time period that elapsed between their encounters with Spalding’s work and their statements. The earliest statements came 18-22 years after Spalding allegedly exposed them to his work; the latest came 74 years after the alleged encounter with Spalding.

Old evidence is admittedly susceptible to memory fallibility, and the possibility of witness tampering. The 8 Conneaut witnesses were remembering events that transpired about 18-22 years before their statements were taken. But it is speculation to claim that they could not recall the names or events after 18-22 years. Most people remember many people's names and details after 18-22 years. Another way to crosscheck the Conneaut witness testimony is to test its predictive power. Based on their statements and Howe’s analysis, we can expect to find a link between Spalding and Sidney Rigdon. A strong connection to the Pittsburgh post office comes through the testimony of Rebecca Eichbaum. Eichbaum’s testimony was not collected until September 18, 1872 - over 56 years after the alleged incidents! The reliability of her memory could be a problem, but in her case, the details have checked out. Eichbaum was the clerk in the post office where Spalding and Rigdon collected their mail. Several witnesses testified that Eichbaum had a superior memory and was superbly attentive to detail. Her testimony connects Rigdon to printer Silas Engles and to J. Harrison Lambdin, the ward of Robert Patterson and eventual junior partner in the Patterson printing and book selling operation. When researchers crosschecked her testimony by investigating post office records, they found the names of both Spalding and Rigdon on the same June 30, 1816, list of unclaimed letters.

One of the later witnesses for Manuscript Found was Hurlbut's lawyer, Jason Briggs, who wrote five letters to newspapers later in his life claiming that he had seen and handled Manuscript Found in December of 1833. This lawyer had a distinguished career unrelated to Mormonism. Another person was J.D. Dowan, the Justice of the Peace who signed the warrant against Hurlbut. Dowan also had no alleged interest against Mormonism. His statement says that Spalding's manuscript conformed specifically to the Book of Mormon. The statement is attested by his grandchild, and is kept in the Chicago Historical Society.

I gave the wrong link for the Conneaut witness statements.

Here is a good link:

http://www.mormonthink.com/mormonstudieswitness.htm

Also worth reading are the statements and letters of Matilda Spalding McKinstry (daughter of Solomon Spalding) available in the Appendix here:

http://www.mormonthink.com/mormonstudiesmatilda.htm

Mormon Apostle Orson Hyde claimed to have interviewed the
Conneaut people who knew Spalding, and to have concluded
that their testimony invalidated the Spalding authorship
claims. Hyde had been Hurlbut's senior missionary companion
and documents from early 1833 verify that both of them were
operating together in the Conneaut Creek area at that time.

So, it is reasonable to assume that Hyde heard some of the
same things regarding Spalding that Hurlbut then heard.

Why then do we not just accept Elder Hyde's dismissal of
those authorship claims and declare the Spalding-Rigdon
theory dead on arrival?

In fact the Mormons DO accept Hyde's statement, and use it
to "prove" that the Conneaut witnesses were cross-examined
and found to be worthless in their testimony.

But, as some folks may have expected, there is a catch.

Hyde likely investigated the whole Spalding fiasco at the
very time he and Hurlbut were still operating as missionaries
in the Conneaut Creek area -- but Hyde's reported results
only came out AFTER Howe's book had been in circulation
for several years. And it was published in an obscure
source, outside of the country. There was little chance
that the actual residents of Ashtabula County, Ohio would
ever see it, or be called upon to refute it.

And another point, worth considering:

The bulk of Hyde's interviews must have been on the east
side of the Ohio/Pennsylvania border, where the Mormon
branches (Springfield and Elk Creek) were located. Hyde
interviewed Mormon converts who had known Spalding --
people like Elder Erastus Rudd. And then Hyde summarized
those old pioneers' testimony in a couple of sentences,
without providing any real quotations. And... Hyde
published his purported findings after those Mormon
branches had been dissolved and the members moved west.

One of the old Spalding neighbors Hyde must have known
was the above-named Erastus Rudd. We have an independent
report of his knowledge of Spalding's writings which
works against Apostle Hyde's argument.

So -- did the Mormons REALLY cross-examine the Conneaut
witnesses and thus refute the Spalding authorship claims?

When a Mormon apologist tells you "yes," don't believe it.

UD

"'Historical evidence connecting Rigdon to Smith before 1830'

"Prior to 1830, Rigdon reportedly made several statements in which he indicated his foreknowledge of The Book of Mormon and the impending rise of a new religion.

'At a Reformed Baptist convention in Aug 1830, Rigdon spoke of a fuller revelation about to come forth and the need for a complete restoration of the gospel.

"Rigdon denied meeting Smith before 1830, but several people reported seeing him at or near the Smith's prior to that date and Rigdon's calendar contains gaps at critical time periods when he would have had time to visit Smith.

"In 1868 Rigdon wrote a letter in which he claimed to know the contents of the sealed portion of The Book of Mormon.

"James Jeffery, a friend of Rigdon's, testified that in 1844 he heard Rigdon say that Smith used a Spalding manuscript to fabricate The Book of Mormon."

("Could Joseph Smith have written the Book of Mormon?," under, "Historical evidence connecting Rigdon to Smith before 1830," at: http://www.mormonthink.com/josephweb.htm)
_____


Now, connecting points between Rigdon and Spaulding:

"'Historical Evidence Connecting Rigdon to Spalding'

"Rigdon Shared a Post Office with Solomon Spalding and Evidently Frequented a Print Shop Where Spalding Had Left a Manuscript Entitled "Manuscript Found" for a Time. The Manuscript Disappeared. Spalding Reportedly Suspected Rigdon Had Taken It.

"John Winter Reported that Rigdon Kept a Copy of a Spalding Manuscript in His Study

"Witnesses Familiar with Spalding's 'Manuscript Found' testified that it was Similar to the Book of Mormon but Lacked the Religious Content

"Rigdon and Spalding were Independently Named as Authors Before Anyone was Aware of a Connection Between Them.

"In 1839, Rigdon Wrote a Letter Denying his Role in the Composition of The Book of Mormon. His Letter Contained Demonstrable Falsehoods.

"In 1888, Walter Sidney Rigdon, Sidney Rigdon's Grandson, Said that his Grandfather's Role in Fabrication of the Book of Mormon was a Family Secret."

("Sidney Rigdon: Creating the Book of Mormon," by Craig Criddle, at: http://www.mormonthink.com/mormonstudiesrigdon.htm#20)



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/08/2013 10:43PM by steve benson.

jacob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> n/t

There is proof that Rigdon met with Pratt and Cowdery in
November of 1830.

There is no proof that he met with them, or with Joe Smith,
prior to the end of that year. Unfortunately compelling
evidence, even in great quantities, is not the same as proof.

Thus, the "well established" part falls upon the Mormon
side of the argument. The problem being, that they take
what little defensible historical ground that they might
reasonably occupy, and extend it far beyond propriety.

That's what cults do -- even the scholars of the more widely
respected cults. It shouldn't come as a surprise to anybody.

UD

Not true.
There is both witness affidavit and circumstantial evidence that Rigdon associated with Smith BEFORE and DURING the manufacture of the BoM. Cowdery too.

Rigdon's "conversion" was rigged (no pun intended).
He pretended to wait and then hold back before jumping in the deep end.
Then, he participated in "translating" and writing revelations.
If you believe Rigdon was an unwitting victim of the fraud, this in itself is problematic.
If the translations were frauds, then it's almost certain Rigdon had to be in on it.
This leads to a trail of circumstantial evidence going back many years to Pittsburgh where Rigdon and Spalding crossed paths in VERY unlikely ways if it were mere coincidence. And, Rigdon vigoriously LIED about it.

A proponent of another counter-theory not invloving Rigdon has to explain evidence that Rigdon was a collaborator.

Interesting... that the local newspaper advertised that
Rigdon would be preaching several miles away from his
home -- on the very road that the Missionaries to the
Lamanites would soon be traveling -- shortly before
they arrived in Mentor, Ohio, to publicly greet the
famous Campbellite preacher.

Interesting... that this was the only known advertisement
placed by Rigdon in the newspaper for such an occasion.

Interesting... that any Mormon missionary entering the
State of Ohio that week needed only look in the newspaper,
in order to determine where Sidney Rigdon would be
available for contact, away from his home, his usual
companions and parishioners.

Now, I'm not accusing the good Reverend of secretly meeting
with Oliver Cowdery and Parley Pratt, a couple of days
before they showed up on his Mentor doorstep. I'm just
pointing out the odd coincidence -- that Sidney and those
same Mormon missionaries must have been within walking
distance of each other, well before his famous public
"first meeting" with the conversion-minded lads.

Merely a coincidence.... I'm sure. Yeah, that must be it.

UD

I don't spend a huge amount of time 'defending' it, but the amount of evidence Dale and Craig have amassed simply can't be dismissed because it is old or imperfect. Did people back then have any more 'anti' agenda than we do? It's the facts that support Spaulding, not the agendas of the many people who contributed those facts.

I agree there is substantial evidence to support the Spalding-Rigdon theory, but I don't know whether it is correct. I don't know what to do with all the bad grammar and all the ridiculously absurd stories that sound so much like Joseph like hundreds of people standing in line to thrust their hands into Jesus's wounds and Shiz struggling for breath after his head was cut off and on and on. One thing I am very confident of is the the Church's version of what happened--like almost everything else the Church spins--is false. I believe it very likely that Rigdon and Cowdery both had a major hand in writing the BOM for many of the reasons discussed above. I think it is very unlikely that Pratt would just happen to run into Joseph and be immediately converted when Pratt was very close to Ridgon or that a relatively well-known, egotistical man like Rigdon would almost immediately convert to Mormonism and bring his 200 followers with him and agree to be subservient to a 24 year old nobody like Smith. It's also a little too much of a coincidence that Rigdon's doctrines found their way into the book and Campbell's conflicting views did not. Finally, Cowdery had to be in on it for among other reasons that Joseph did not put up a curtain while he was supposedly dictating to Cowdery like Joseph did with Harris. Cowdery had to know that large portions of the Bible and other books were being plagerized, but never said anything.