I was surprised at the recent burst of activity on my post back in April titled, Debunking the Spaulding Manuscript Theory. One of my commenters (Roger) seem to believe the Spaulding Theory still has merit. I even had Craig Criddle stop by. He is a leading proponent of the theory and published a peer-reviewed article at Oxford in support of this theory. (You need a subscription to read it, but the abstract can be found there.)
Roger took issue Brodie’s characterization that Spaulding’s manuscript was “devoid of religious material”, and made several references to religious writings in this comment. So, if Roger is right, it seems there should be quite a few religious similarities between this Spaulding manuscript, and the Book of Mormon, right?
As the theory goes, Joseph wasn’t smart enough to write the Book of Mormon by himself. Sidney Rigdon must have stolen a copy of Spaulding’s manuscript, secreted it away to Joseph Smith somehow, and then Sidney pretended to convert in Dec 1830. According to the theory, both Rigdon and Spaulding lived in Pittsburgh, PA, so Sidney must have come across the manuscript at a printer’s office.
Spaulding’s manuscript was discovered by Doctor Hurlburt (Doctor is his first name–he is not a “real” doctor) in the home of Spaulding’s widow, Matilda Davison, who gave the manuscript to Hurlburt. Spaulding died on Oct 20, 1816, so this document was written well before Joseph Smith’s First Vision in 1820. While there are some very general similarities, according to Brodie on page 144 of her book No Man Knows My History,
Now to his bitter chagrin he found that the long chase had been vain; for while the romance did concern the ancestors of the Indians, its resemblance to the Book of Mormon ended there. None of the names found in one could be identified in the other; the many battles which each described showed not the slightest similarity with those of the other, and Spaulding’s prose style, which aped the eighteenth-century British sentimental novelists, differed from the style of the Mormon Bible as much as Pamela, or Virtue Rewarded different from the New Testament.
LL Rice purchased the assets of the Painesville Telegraph in 1839-40. In 1885 or so, he looked through the assets and discovered Spaulding’s Manuscript. The manuscript was donated to Oberlin College after being discovered in Hawaii. You may view the manuscript here. Due to the obvious differences between the manuscript and the Book of Mormon, proponents of the theory have postulated that Spaulding must have another manuscript which is similar to the Book of Mormon. Proponents think that perhaps Smith and Rigdon burned the manuscript after completing the Book of Mormon.
So, after hearing Roger talk about how much religion was in the book, I decided that I must read it. I plan to review the introduction today, and in some future posts, I’ll outline the book, and offer my commentary on it.
Pages 3-11 tell how the document came into the hands of Oberlin College, and has letters to Joseph Smith III (Joseph’s son), who was ordained prophet of the RLDS church on April 6, 1860. Apparently the RLDS church published the manuscript sometime around 1885. Some interesting quotes from these pages start on page 5-6. The document was discovered in Hawaii by Rice who was a friend Fairchild, president of Oberlin College in Ohio. Many people wanted to claim the manuscript, but they felt it best to offer it to Joseph III, since he is the son of Joseph Smith. I have underlined some points I find interesting. Let me quote from pages 5-6,
“There seems to be no reason to doubt that this is the long-lost story. Mr. Rice, myself, and others, compared it with the Book of Mormon, and could detect no resemblence between the two, in general or in detail. There seems to be no name or incident common to the two. The solemn style of the Book of Mormon, in imitation of the English Scriptures, does not appear in the manuscript. The only resemblance is in the fact that both profess to set forth the history of the lost tribes. Some other explanation of the origin of the Book of Mormon must be found, if any explanation is required.”
Signed, James H. Fairchild.
From page 7 is another interesting difference between the Book of Mormon and this Oberlin College Manuscript. This is the second half of a letter written March 28, 1885 from LL Rice to Mr. Joseph Smith III. Rice bought the assets of the Painesville Telegraph in 1839-40. President Fairchild of Oberlin College thought there might be some interesting slavery documents in the Telegraph assets. While searching through the assets, Rice discovered Spaulding’s Manuscript titled, “Manuscript Found.” Rice states that he unknowingly had the document for over 40 years. Rice describes the manuscript on page 7.
This manuscript does not purport to be “a story of the Indians formerly occupying this continent;” but is a history of the wars between the Indians of Ohio and Kentucky, and their progress in civilization, etc. It is certain that this manuscript is not the origin of the Mormon Bible, whatever some other manuscript may have been. The only similarity between them, is, in the manner in which each purports to have been found–one in a cave on Conneaut Creek–the other in a hill in Ontario County, New York. There is no identity of names, of persons, or places; and there is no similarity of style between them. As I told Mr. Deming, I should as soon think the Book of Revelations was written by the author of Don Quixote, as that the write of this Manuscript was the author of the Book of Mormon. Deming says Spaulding made three copies of “Manuscript Found,” one of which Sidney Rigdon stole from a printing-office in Pittsburg. You can probably tell better than I can, what ground there is for such an allegation.
As to this Manuscript, I can not see that it can be of any use to any body, except the Mormons, to show that IT is not the original of the Mormon Bible. But that would not settle the claim that some other manuscript of Spaulding was the original of it. I propose to hold it in my own hands for a while, to see if it can not be put to some good use. Deming and Howe inform me that its existence is exciting great interest in that region. I am under a tacit, but not a positive pledge to President Fairchild, to deposit it eventually in the Library of Oberlin College. I shall be free from that pledge, when I see an opportunity to put it to a better use.
Yours, etc.,
L.L. Rice
P.S.–Upon reflection, since writing the foregoing, I am of the opinion that no one who reads this Manuscript will give credit that Solomon Spaulding was in any wise the author of the Book of Mormon. It is unlikely that any one who wrote so elaborate a work as the Mormon Bible, would spend his time in getting up so shallow a story as this, which at best is but a feebile imitation of the other. Finally I am more that half convinced that this is his only writing of the sort, and that any pretence that Spaulding was in any sense the author of the other, is a sheer fabrication. It was easy for anybody who may have seen this, or heard anything of its contents, to get up the story that they were identical.
L.L.R.
Another letter is found on page 8 dated May 14, 1885, also addressed to Joseph Smith III.
My opinion is, from all I have seen and learned, that this is the only writing of Spaulding, and there is no foundation for the statement of Deming and others, that Spaulding made another story, more elaborate, of which several copies were written, one of which Rigdon stole from a printing-office in Pittsburg, etc. Of course I can not be certain of this, as of the other two points. One theory is, that Rigdon, or some one else, saw this manuscript, or heard it read, and from the hints it conveyed, got up the other and more elaborate writing on which the Book of Mormon was founded. Take that for what it is worth. It don’t seem to me very likely.
Finally, Rice says on page 10,
It devolves upon their opponents to show that there are or were other writings of Spalding–since it is evident that the writing is not the original of the Mormon Bible.
So, that’s the introduction. In the coming days, I’ll post some excerpts from the book, and you can see how similar/different it is to the Book of Mormon. What do you think of Rice and Fairchild’s descriptions so far?
Mormon Heretic 
It’s not going to work Mormon Heretic. You can’t keep a good conspiracy theory down. No matter how many holes you punch in it, people WANT the conspiracy to be true – and they will search for new ways for it to be true.
Kind of like the people going on about Obama’s birth certificates. Produce the birth certificates, and they must be forged. Produce a history of the documents and people must have effected a cover-up.
These kind of stupid theories never go away. As long as people want to believe there is something big, threatening, secretive and scary in their lives, you can’t make them go away. Conspiracy theories are too much fun, and the feeling of heroism, self-importance, and belonging to a “brave band of rebels” that they encourage are too sweet to people to give up for something as trivial as complete lack of credibility or fact.
I agree with the Spaulding manuscript theory is baseless. The only similarity that stuck out to me was the description of finding the scrolls in his story. It sounded a lot like Joseph’s description of when he found the plates. For example: (see here)
(and here)
Seth,
You’re right that the Spalding conspiracy theory isn’t likely to die any time soon. But posts like this one might at least help some folks to jump off the right side of the fence.
Yes Jack and Seth, I agree. I must say that Roger seemed pretty convinced of the theory, but as I have read through the Oberlin document, I am amazed at how poor of a writer Spaulding was. The spelling was horrible, and I thought the first few chapters were laughable. At first I was keeping track of the misspelled words, but I quit counting after a while. Perhaps I’ll list a bunch of misspelled words from the first few chapters just to give everyone an idea of how poorly written “Manuscript Found” is.
AYdubAY, thanks for the links. I also included a link to the actual document where you can actually view the cover of the book in my original post. My next post is going into the similarities of Spaulding’s introduction and Joseph Smith History. While the flat stone is similar, there is no cave in Joseph Smith’s version of the story, there is no angel in Spaulding’s story, and the stone in Spaulding’s story has writing on it, while Joseph’s stone has no writing. So while there are some parallels, there are some significant differences too. Of course Latin vs Reformed Egyptian and 600 BC vs 300 AD is a pretty big difference too, as well as Spaulding referring to the Indians as “savages” throughout the book, while the BoM refers to the Nephites as highly civilized (though the Lamanites could be construed as “savages” too.) There are no wigwams in the BoM, and it doesn’t sound to me like Spaulding’s Mammoons are similar to the Cureloms and Cummins of the BoM. (But that’s just a sneak preview of my next post.)
Yeah I don’t see how anyone who actually reads the Spaulding manuscript could continue to believe it was the basis for the Book of Mormon. Something it does illustrate though is the level of interest in early and mid 1800’s in the origins of native Americans and the idea of connecting them with biblical history. Even though it is a work of fiction, other publications of the time indicate this was a popular theme.
The very first post I ever put on my own blog was about the necessity of using multiple scientific perspectives to evaluate the Book of Mormon. In evaluating the 19th Century fiction theories of the BofM, I noted:
“Orson Scott Card, a world famous and award winning science fiction author who is also a Mormon, has written the most devastating criticism I have ever read of the notion that the Book of Mormon is “sacred fiction” or, in fact, any document made up by a 19th Century author. The criticism is devastating precisely because it comes from a professional who tries to make up fiction about “alien” cultures for a living, and is acknowledged to be able to do it better than almost anyone in the Western world.”
I agree with Bushman’s assessment in Rough Stone Rolling: any theories of fabrication require considerable fabrication themselves.
At the same time to me the science raises questions about the Book of Mormon’s authenticity. Some call it a fraud – I think that mischaracterizes Joseph and his followers. But I can’t just ignore the relevant science and history that doesn’t support the Book of Mormon’s claims.
One example I am sure you’ve heard is the text as a record of ancient people in America doesn’t match up to any archeological findings. Specific examples include the different kinds of animals, grains, metals, etc. that just were not present here in MesoAmerica.
Any insights?
AW
AYdubYA:
I tend to think that the scientific evidence for MesoAmerica is anomalously BETTER than it ought to be, although I would certainly not be convinced by the scientific evidence alone without personal testimony. My training is in disciplines where I recognize that the science of 1820-1830 was flat out wrong in several cases, yet Joseph got it right. And things like that tend to impress me enough to keep my position as “true on faith, an anomaly neither explainable yet as an ancient or 19th Century document”. Of course, I remind people that my physics discipline is one in which one famous member once condemmed another by noting that his ideas were crazy, but probably not crazy enough to actually be correct.
MH has several posts here — I’m thinking of the one on the Malay theory, in particular, MH — where I suggest that some of the things people think are wrong about the BofM actually show a great deal of internal consistency with the scientific evidence in areas like horses and chariots, scimitars, barley, modern plate tectonics and oceanography, etc.
There is some more discussion in some of the posts on my blog, which MH has linked under the Community of Christ (The Fire Still Burning).
In fact, I’m drafting a post now on learning to love the DNA evidence for the settlement of America.
Although I don’t know much about the subject, the linguistic evidence sounds quite impressive as well, because, again, it’s an area where the best science of Joseph’s time doesn’t match current knowledge as well as the BofM does. I’d certainly recommend Givens “By the Hand of Mormon” for a summary of all the pros and cons if you haven’t read it.
Yes, AydubYa, there does seem to be quite a bit of evidence that 19th century thinkers thought the Indians descended from the 12 tribes. As for science and geography, you might want to click my categories for more info–I’ve posted a few articles on them. See “Geography” and “DNA” for some good stuff.
FireTag already reference my Malay Article. You might want to check Part 1 and Part 2. On the one hand, it takes care of all the horses, metals, chariots, sheep and even DNA problems that seem to plague American theories. On the other hand, it does introduce some problems of its’ own–the most obvious is (1) how did the plates get to NY? (2) How come Joseph said the BoM dealt with “this continent”? Olsen has unsatisfactory answers to both questions, but I find that American geographers have unsatisfactory answers about horses, chariots, and DNA too, so none of the theories are without holes.
I also did a post on Nahom, which I believe is the best archaeological evidence for the BoM. I need to do a future post on Nephi’s harbor–there are 2 excellent candidates in Yemen.
If DNA is your thing, here’s a couple articles on the Lemba, and Cohen DNA found in South America.
FireTag has some interesting things as well–I encourage you to check out his blog. I’m in a book club, and “By the Hand of Mormon” is our book in a few months, so I’m sure I’ll be writing some posts about it in the future.
[…] I’ve previously discussed the Spalding Theory of Book of Mormon origins, and given an introduction to Spalding’s only known manuscript discovered by LL Rice in Hawaii. The original manuscript […]
It is possible that the concept behind the BoM could have come from the Spaulding manuscript, but I think its obvious that Spaulding did not write the BoM.
FT, be careful with making claims that Joseph got it right concerning science. That statement is hard to defend.
Bishop Rick, welcome back. I have been wondering where you have been, and hoped you’d check in for some of these Spalding posts.
BR:
I’ll try to restrict myself to “aware of cases where Joseph got it more right than the science of the 1820″s.” That’s more supportable, although it’s truth is more obvious in the hard than soft sciences.
MH:
(I know I said in my email I likely wouldn’t post, but I couldn’t resist). Glad to see you’re still reading MS and commenting on Spalding…. apparently folks can leave Spalding but they just can’t leave him alone! LOL! In any event, I would love to banter back and forth with you as we did on your previous thread, but this is a very busy time of year for me, and getting busier so I just don’t have much time.
Just from reading the comments so far on this thread, it would take quite a while to answer all the mistaken assumptions about what S/R actually postulates and what it doesn’t.
For example as early as the second paragraph you state:
Roger took issue Brodie’s characterization that Spaulding’s manuscript was “devoid of religious material”, and made several references to religious writings in this comment. So, if Roger is right, it seems there should be quite a few religious similarities between this Spaulding manuscript, and the Book of Mormon, right?
Wrong!
Again, what this demonstrates is a FUNDAMENTAL lack of understanding what the S/R theory is actually postulating vs the strawmen arguments it’s critics suggest it is postulating.
If I say that Solomon Spalding wrote a novel we call Manuscript Story (because it has no title and we don’t have a clue what he actually called it) and I further suggest he wrote another novel we call Manuscript Found (because that’s what the witnesses who were there, knew Spalding well and heard him read from many times said,/i> he called it), we might then conclude that the religious material between those two ms’s MIGHT have some stylistic similarities and overlap. I say “might” because the witnesses very plainly state that Spalding changed his style (from MS to MF), going farther back in time and copying the King James style of language. So, the fact is, we don’t know how much stylistic change he made. We can compare the BOM with MS and see both similarities as well as differences, but finding differences does not rule out an underlying Spalding MS for the BOM for more than one reason.
But that’s just point one… point two–which is even more important–is that S/R critics want to simplify the playing field by doing what you just did:
So, if Roger is right, it seems there should be quite a few religious similarities between this Spaulding manuscript, and the Book of Mormon, right?
It sounds logical… if MS was used to produce the BOM then the BOM must parallel MS. Right?
Wrong! This is what S/R critics are constantly getting wrong. NO ONE (except S/R critics) postulates that MS was used to produce the BOM. Rather, the theory suggests that MF was used to produce the BOM. And as our critics are so apt to point out, MF is no longer extant. (Of course they doubt that it ever was). But adding to that is the fact that S/R ALSO postulates that ADDITIONAL material–especially religious material–would have been added to MF–most likely by Sidney Rigdon, but certainly also possibly by Cowdery and, of course, by Smith himself.
So what is the net result? A conglomeration of material from a wide range of sources. Remember that Spalding himself plagiarized from various sources! So the result is a conglomeration of material coming from Spalding as well as the sources he borrowed from; then from Rigdon and the sources he borrowed from; then to Smith/Cowdery and the sources they borrowed from! Surprisingly, this is what the official history of the text claims(!) …that the BOM is an amalgamation of abridgements!
So… no, we cannot simply expect to find magical parallels between the BOM and MS and then when we don’t see them claim that means there is no connection between the author of MS and the BOM.
But on the other hand, what are we to make of it when we DO see parallels between the two? Does that mean something? Well a few scattered parallels here and there probably don’t mean much, but the more parallels we actually DO see, the more we start to wonder if, by george, maybe there is some connection here.
MS is structured in such a way that one does not generally notice the parallels from a cursory reading. But there are indeed parallels. The question is, how much of them can be chalked up to mere coincidence?
Tying this all together, what I was objecting to about Brodie is that she characterized MS as being altogether DEVOID of religious material and from that erroneous observation drawing an equally erroneous conclusion. I don’t care if someone wants to legitimately criticize the S/R theory where it is legitimately weak, but it makes one wonder why it’s critics often can’t seem to distinguish between reality and strawmen. If S/R is really as weak as it’s critics characterize it to be, then why the need to distort the facts? The fact is there IS religious material in MS, so Brodie’s conclusion in that regard is simply wrong. But again, it goes a lot deeper than that since MS is not even the document S/R postulates was used in BOM creation! It was merely a ms written by the same author.
But as one can see, it takes several paragraphs and lot’s of time to respond to just one simple error in S/R criticism. There are lots of similar errors and I just don’t have the time, at present to get into all of them.
One final observation for those who love to label S/R adherents as something akin to those who believe in alien abductions…. it’s certainly a convenient tactic, but the fact is, S/R has quite a lot of supporting evidence….
We have testimony from credible witnesses; later testimony from unsolicited witnesses that supports the earlier testimony and none (to my knowledge) that claims the earlier testimony was either contrived or in error; documentary evidence supporting early testimony (a mail-wating notice discovered only a few years ago); an extant ms written by Spalding with strange parallels to the BOM and Joseph Smith’s discovery narrative; a word print study that could have made S/R very unlikely but did just the opposite; necessary gaps in Rigdon’s and Smith’s itinerary at critical points (ie. how fortunate for S/R theorists that Smith’s whereabouts for late summer and early fall 1826 are unknown, etc.)
I would put the weight of this (and more) up against the evidence supporting either of the two main competing production theories for the BOM any day–and smarter people than me already have!
With regard to your criticism of the poor grammar in Spalding’s extant ms, what point do you hope to make here? You are aware, I’m sure, of the poor grammar in the 1830 BOM text? If anything, the poor grammar is consistent in the two documents and therefore tends to support rather than refute S/R.
All the best!
>Spaulding’s prose style, which aped the eighteenth-century British
>sentimental novelists, differed from the style of the Mormon Bible
>as much as Pamela, or Virtue Rewarded different from the New Testament.
Perhaps so — But Spalding’s “prose style” varies in his known extant writings.
Some pages read a little more like the BoM than others. Looking at the BoM, we
might ask ourselves WHICH of its pages read MOST like Spalding’s fiction? Are
there a few which were similar enough to have caused the Spalding authorship
claims to have originated in the minds of his old neighbors? Or can we reasonably
say every single Book of Mormon page is totally unlike every single Spalding page?
Dale R. Broadhurst
>Are there a few [pages] which were SIMILAR ENOUGH to have caused
>the Spalding authorship claims to have originated in the minds of
>his old neighbors?
Perhaps this was not the case, however. If we look at what we
know is in the Book of Mormon, and what we know of Spalding’s
stories, can we conclude that the claims for his authorship of
the BoM DID NOT arise from any textual resemblance?
If the initial (1832-33) Spalding authorship claims did not
develop from his old neighbors recalling that parts of his
stories resembled the Book of Mormon; HOW DID THEY ARISE in
the first place? Can we say that D. P. Hurlbut invented those
authorship claims, without seeing Spalding’s writings, and was
somehow successful in getting the old neighbors to agree with
his concocted assertions? What have LDS leaders said about it?
Dale R. Broadhurst
>What have LDS leaders said about it?
Here is what President Joseph F. Smith, the LDS Prophet, Seer,
Revelator and Translator had to say, shortly before his ordination:
>The affidavits [of Spalding’s old neighbors] themselves…
>are deliberate, unqualified falsehoods, without a scintilla
>of truth in them. It is scarcely possible to think that a
>number of otherwise reputable men would combine to put forth
>such base statements. It is more probable that some fanatical
>opponent of The Church, an enemy to the truth, without
>conscience or scruple, concocted those statements,after those
>men were dead, and put the falsehoods into their speechless
>mouths.
>…
>”Spaulding’s writings” escaped the destruction intended for
>them by Hurlburt, Howe & Co., and by all other schemers, in
>this cunningly-devised plot to defeat the divine purpose,
>and in due time they were again brought forth to show how
>crafty, how vile, how unscrupulous, desperate and damnable
>are the ways of those who oppose the truth.
In other words, President Smith here bears his testimony, that the one
Spalding manuscript discovered in 1884 in no way resembles anything in
the Book of Mormon — and that anybody who reads it will see that the
entire set Spalding-Rigdon authorship claims are a carefully designed
scheme, to destroy the Church and its latter day work.
President Smith also says: —
>the testimonies given in the book of Mr. Patterson [reprinting Howe]
>are self-evidently false and contradictory, being based not upon what
>the witnesses themselves knew, but rather upon the cunningly devised
>conspiracy and lies of men who combined to destroy the value of the
>Book of Mormon
If this is the inspired counsel of God’s Living Prophet on earth, what
are we to conclude was the Source of the “cunningly devised conspiracy?”
What sort of “conspiracy” brings together people otherwise unknown to
one another — many of whom have no tangible connections — separated
in time and space — to try and convince us the BoM is not authentic?
Can any other Master-Mind, than Lucifer himself, maintain such a
terrible “conspiracy,” as the Prophet of God has here testified to?
A conspiracy reaching out over many decades, almost around the world?
And, — if this is indeed Satan’s “cunningly devised conspiracy” —
should we not expect to find some evidence confirming President Smith,
as we compare the language in Spalding’s text with the Nephite record?
Dale R. Broadhurst
Now that Dale has joined the discussion I’m going to have to make time! LOL.
MH, is there a way to preview a post before actually posting it? I always seem to find errors after I post and then I have no way to correct them. To clarify one sentence, I wrote:
“but finding differences does not rule out an underlying Spalding MS for the BOM for more than one reason.”
…I had previously used MS as an abreviation for “Manuscript Story” but in this case I was using it as a shortcut for “manuscript” so I should have used small letters as in “ms.”
Continuing with commentary on your initial post, in paragraph 3 you wrote:
As the theory goes, Joseph wasn’t smart enough to write the Book of Mormon by himself.
I realize this is a simplification, but the way you phrased this is not really accurate. Even most S/R theorists accept that Joseph was “smart enough” to fool a lot of people. Similarly, even most Mormons are fond of portraying Joseph as an uneducated farm-boy, hardly capable of producing the BOM. Where does the truth lie? Somewhere in the middle? I think so. In my view Joseph was indeed a very “smart” or quick thinking con-man. Certainly he had a poor education, but he more than made up for that in wits.
As an S/R advocate, what I do not see evidence of is Joseph putting the BOM together in the time-frame allotted by the official version. I also don’t see the notion of Joseph coming up with the text of the BOM off the top of his head–certainly some of it came off the top of his head, but there is plenty of evidence for plagiarism. So, given that, one must ask when and where did the plagiarism occur? Is it likely that all the evidence for plagiarism in the BOM goes back to Joseph Smith alone? I don’t think so. So it’s a bit more complex than simply, “As the theory goes, Joseph wasn’t smart enough to write the Book of Mormon by himself.”
Next, you write:
Sidney Rigdon must have stolen a copy of Spaulding’s manuscript, secreted it away to Joseph Smith somehow, and then Sidney pretended to convert in Dec 1830.
Essentially this is correct, but again, the way you phrase it is weak. It implies that S/R theorists were faced with a perplexing dilemma–how do we tie the BOM to Rigdon?–and then found a way to solve that dilemma. That is not an accurate description of the develeopment of the S/R theory. Certainly Rigdon’s rapid rise to power after his conversion inspired people to begin thinking there may be more to this than meets the eye, but it was only after people (who knew Spalding and were familiar with his ms’s) began stating that MF was similar to the BOM that still more people began to put the two thoughts together and realize there was a possible connection between Spalding and the BOM through Rigdon. At that point, the facts simply began to make sense.
You continue:
According to the theory, both Rigdon and Spaulding lived in Pittsburgh, PA, so Sidney must have come across the manuscript at a printer’s office.
Again, not quite accurate. Rigdon did live in Pittsburgh, PA. There is no question about that. Even he admits he lived there AFTER 1822. Spalding never did, but he lived close enough (in Amity) to be collecting his mail there. What is often overlooked is that Rigdon grew up in nearby Library, PA, which would certainly have given him opportunity to go to Pittsburgh frequently. What the theory suggests is that Spalding took a copy of his ms (called Manuscript Found) to a Pittsburgh publisher for their consideration in the hopes that they would publish it. It so happens that witnesses claim Rigdon was “connected” with that same publishing house. He was probably not a direct employee, but may have supplied them with leather goods and also had a close friend–Jonathan Lambdin–who was an employee there. Rebecca Eichbaum’s testimony is key here since she claims Rigdon and Lambdin came into the post office together regularly on Sundays. Until recently, LDS apologists simply dismissed Mrs. Eichbaum’s testimony as being the unreliable musings of an old woman. That approach is no longer possible since her testimony is now supported by documentary evidence in the form of an 1816 mail-waiting notice that has both Sidney Rigdon’s and Solomon Spalding’s name on it.
Again, if S/R is all contrived, how fortunate for S/R theorists that Rigdon was anywhere geographically close to Pittsburgh at all during the time frame suggested by the theory that he had to be! And yet we’re all just a bunch of wacked out conspiracy theorists on the same level as alien abduction believers! LOL.
All the best!
>Rigdon did live in Pittsburgh, PA. There is no question about that.
>Even he admits he lived there AFTER 1822. Spalding never did, but he
>lived close enough (in Amity) to be collecting his mail there.
Abner Jackson, whose brother was in Pittsburgh during the War of 1812,
reported that Spalding was then living there and managing a small
store that sold prints (probably wall-paper, table cloths, etc.) I
have some reason to think that the actual landlord was Joseph Patterson
but cannot yet prove it, so I’ll just continue. Spalding is next
reported in adjacent Washington, PA, in the home of Hugh Wilson,
in what must have been the winter of 1813-14. I assume that his store
in Pittsburgh had not worked out and that he accepted Wilson’s charity
in order to have a place to stay, less expensive than the city. I also
assume that Spalding’s wife and daughter continued to live in the
city (sewing solders’ uniforms) until 1814, when they joined Spalding
in Washington County — at that time they went to nearby Amity.
Rigdon’s relatives testified that he “returned” to Pittsburgh in 1822,
after a tenure in adjacent regions. Rigdon’s son stated that his
father had occasionally preached in Pittsburgh before 1822. Rigdon
evidently did not maintain a residence there until 1823, but he
lived within walking distance of the city and evidently picked up
his mail there.
The time that Solomon Spalding and Sidney Rigdon might have crossed
paths was between late 1812 and mid 1816, in Pittsburgh or in what
are now its southwestern suburbs and outlying residential areas.
The Mormons ought to give up on their arguments, that Rigdon was
never in Pittsburgh until many years after Spalding died. Such
assertions just makes them look foolish and uninformed.
Dale R. Broadhurst
Dale:
reported that Spalding was then living there
Good catch. My mistake.
The Mormons ought to give up on their arguments, that Rigdon was
never in Pittsburgh until many years after Spalding died. Such
assertions just makes them look foolish and uninformed.
I heartily agree.
Wow, what a burst of activity! Welcome back Roger, and welcome Dale. Roger, you do realize that you’re the reason for this post–I just had to see what Spalding actually wrote! I would have left Spalding alone a long ago if it weren’t for you reviving the topic… 🙂 There’s so many things to review, I’ll probably have to break up my comments. I don’t want my website freaking out again–it was down a bit this weekend due to some server problems. (Sorry Roger, there is no comment preview feature that I’m aware of before submitting comments.)
Roger, you keep referring to strawman arguments. Well, the biggest issue I have with this whole Spalding-inspired conspiracy is this whole idea of a missing Spalding manuscript–the manuscript we do have seems so utterly unconvincing in its parallels to the BoM that Spalding advocates have to cling to another unknown manuscript to make their case. Perhaps this doesn’t fit the classic definition of a strawman on your part, but it is a BIG weakness with the theory.
I want to remind you of LL Rice’s opinions, which I stated above, but I think bear repeating.
(1) “I am more that half convinced that this is his only writing of the sort, and that any pretence that Spaulding was in any sense the author of the other, is a sheer fabrication.”
(2) “My opinion is, from all I have seen and learned, that this is the only writing of Spaulding”
(3) “It devolves upon their opponents to show that there are or were other writings of Spalding–since it is evident that the writing is not the original of the Mormon Bible.
I’m sorry I wasn’t 100% precise in what I said regarding Spalding and Rigdon in Pittsburg. (I tried to be more precise in my previous post on the theory–this post is more focused on the Oberlin document.) But my basic point is that Spalding advocates believe there was some sort of way the manuscript got from Spalding to Rigdon in Pittsburgh, whether that be in 1812 or 1822, via Spalding or Lambdin, the point is that Spalding advocates can’t point to a specific incident, but point to possibilities that Rigdon could have obtained it. Is that a fair statement?
It doesn’t seem to me that Spalding theorists have precisely narrowed down the exact day, time, and place with precision, and it seems to be somewhere in a 10 year time frame that Rigdon could have obtained it. There is no “smoking gun” that Rigdon did obtain Spalding’s manuscript–only speculation that he could have obtained it. Critics and advocates of the theory will have to agree to disagree as to whether Rigdon obtained it, because there is no conclusive evidence either way.
But rather than focus on petty disagreements about Rigdon–the point is that somehow Rigdon must have obtained the manuscript according to advocates. So, once again, I’m sorry I wasn’t precise–I was more precise in my previous post when it was fresh on my mind 6 months ago.
So, assuming Rigdon obtained the manuscript, LL Rice makes it pretty clear that he believes the manuscript found in Hawaii is the manuscript in question. Rice believes no other manuscript exists. Now, as we look at it, there are some interesting points of agreement between critics and advocates. Rice bought the assets of Lambdin. So, it appears that Spalding did try to get the book published. From my reading of the Oberlin document, it seems to me that Spalding made corrections, and this was probably some sort of rough draft: the Oberlin document shows crossed out words (shown as underlined in the Oberlin document–I tried to show them crossed out in my other post, as they would have appeared.)
So, I’ll try to give some credit to Spalding advocates. It appears that Spalding did get his manuscript to Lambdin, though it seems unlikely Lambdin ever published the book (probably due to it’s lack of quality.) Rice concludes that this is probably the only novel Spalding ever wrote, and it is incumbent upon advocates to produce a better manuscript from Spalding. I have to agree with Rice. While I am aware of witnesses who think there are other manuscripts, it seems to me that this was probably Spalding’s first attempt at writing a book. Since Lambdin didn’t publish it, it seems to me that Lambdin wasn’t impressed with it. I’m not impressed with it, though I admit I have chuckled while reading it. It seems quite unlikely that Spalding possessed very much writing ability to produce a better, KJV style novel. Of course this is speculation on my part, but no different than advocates’ speculation that another manuscript exists. Based on reading this known manuscript, it seems unlikely to me that he would write something better, along the lines of the Book of Mormon.
>There is no “smoking gun” that Rigdon did obtain Spalding’s
>manuscript–only speculation that he could have obtained it.
Of course there was late testimony from Amity, that Rigdon and Spalding
had met and that Spalding at least suspected the young tanner apprentice
of having gained access to his writings, while they were with Silas Engles,
a printer to whom Rigdon sold leather book-bindings. Whether or not this
is true testimony is subject to debate, but it is a beginning for further
investigation. Spalding’s widow speaks as if she knew Sidney Rigdon at an
early date. His father’s farm was withing walking distance of the Spalding
inn at Amity, and Rigdon’s aunt, Mary Rigdon, lived in Amity at the time
the Spaldings operated their inn there. At that time it was a tiny hamlet
of 25 or 30 adults. The Spaldings knew of the Rigdons, even if they were
not close acquaintances.
Mary Rigdon was a Baptist and probably attended the Tenmile Baptist church
outside of Amity. Another Baptist in the area at the time was Hugh Wilson.
He was a member of the Washington Baptist congregation in the 1820s, but
earlier the nearest chapel was the Tenmile Baptist church. Wilson must
have known Mary Rigdon. In 1823 Hugh Wilson was in Rigdon’s Baptist
chapel in Pittsburgh, when the Redstone Baptist Association expelled
Sidney Rigdon from his own church. This was the same Hugh Wilson with
whom Solomon Spalding had spent the winter of 1813-14. The area that
the Rigdons, Spaldings and Wilsons lived in was relatively small and the
people tended to know one another. So I find it entirely believable that
Spalding’s widow actually knew Sidney Rigdon during his Amity years.
Whether or not Rigdon had access to manuscripts left in Engles’ keeping
is subject to debate, I suppose.
>Critics and advocates of the theory will have to agree to disagree
>as to whether Rigdon obtained it, because there is no conclusive
>evidence either way.
I look at it as being a research challenge — an area of past history
worthy of further investigation. We had such a research challenge with
the postal clerk’s testimony and eventually discovered Rigdon’s name
and Spalding’s name on the same postal list on the same day, in the
1816 newspapers. Like I said — it was a relatively small area.
>But rather than focus on petty disagreements about Rigdon–the point
>is that somehow Rigdon must have obtained the manuscript according
>to advocates…. So, assuming Rigdon obtained the manuscript, LL Rice
>makes it pretty clear that he believes the manuscript found in Hawaii
>is the manuscript in question. Rice believes no other manuscript
>exists.
That is not my reading of the testimony. Rice says:
“The Spaulding Manuscript recently discovered in my
possession, and published by the Mormons, in no wise
determines the question as to the authorship of the
Book of Mormon, or of Spaulding’s connection with
the latter. It shows conclusively that this writing
of Spaulding was not the original of the Book of Mormon
— nothing more in that regard. It gives the Mormons
the advantage of calling upon their opponents to produce
or prove that any other Spaulding Manuscript ever
existed — and that is the gist of the whole matter.
Until lately I have been of the opinion that there was
no tangible evidence that any other production of
Solomon Spaulding, bearing upon the question, could be
shown as having ever existed. But correspondence and
discussions growing out of the publication of this
document, have shaken my faith in that belief, and
indeed produced quite a change of opinion on that subject.
… My belief is, from the above and other testimony
in my possession, that either Hurlburt or Howe sold it
[‘Manuscript Found’] to the Mormons, who of course
destroyed it, or put it out of the way.”
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/HI/mischawi.htm#031186
Rice cites two of his Ohio correspondents on this topic, as well
as an old neighbor of Spalding’s from Conneaut, who claimed to
have proof-read a Spalding story written in the biblical style
in about 1812. Robert Patterson, Sr. stated that Spalding had
submitted to him a story written in the biblical style for
publication. He put it in the hands of his printer, Silas Engles.
It was this sort of testimony which influenced L.L. Rice’s
conclusions on the subject in 1886.
Dale R. Broadhurst
MH:
Thanks for the welcome. With Dale taking part in this discussion you have an opportunity to question/challenge a leading–if not the leading–living authority on the Spalding/Rigdon authorship claims.
Roger, you keep referring to strawman arguments. Well, the biggest issue I have with this whole Spalding-inspired conspiracy is this whole idea of a missing Spalding manuscript
I will concede to you on that. But that’s a different matter than attacking the witnesses or Hurlbut or whether Spalding’s Roman Story has any religious content, etc. You have now reached the legitimate weak spot. You have abandoned Brodie’s misguided attacks and gone for the jugular. Yes, it is true, the weakest part of the theory is that there is no Manuscript Found for us to point to. There is indeed no Manuscript Found to compare with the BOM. I dare suggest that if there was, we would not be having this conversation since the production of the BOM would no longer be debatable. But as Dale points out above, if MF ever did exist, it was almost surely destroyed.
Here is a key difference… the missing plates of the Book of Mormon are alleged to have been taken back to heaven or at least taken somewhere by an angel but no reason is given why their removal was necessary. Certainly if they were never removed, we could then have a tangible item to observe and compare with the English translation of the BOM. We might even learn something about reformed Egyptian. But for some unknown reason, God allegedly decided it would not be good to allow anyone other than Joseph Smith to actually observe the plates (even though early accounts claim that they would be presented to the world in about two years). So, at least in my view, there is no good reason why the plates don’t exist–other than that they probably never existed.
By contrast, there is a very good, sound, rational, logical reason why Spalding’s Manuscript Found does not exist. No doubt it was destroyed because Smith & Rigdon knew that it’s existance threatened that of Mormonism.
So on the one hand we have a theory that claims a basis on a tangible item that probably never existed and on the other we have a theory that claims a basis on a tangible item that probably did exist but was destroyed for a very rational reason. If the document you are reading (Spalding’s Roman story) is not the one seen and heard by the Conneaut witnesses, then Manuscript Found almost surely existed at one time.
But you are correct to point out that it does not exist now and, yes, that surely is the biggest weakness of the S/R claims. But if destroying evidence was all it took to get away with crimes and deception, then we could convict no one of murder unless the murder weapon was discovered. We could convict no one of theft unless the stolen item was recovered, etc. Obviously a missing MF is a weakness, but certainly nothing even close to being a fatal one.
It doesn’t seem to me that Spalding theorists have precisely narrowed down the exact day, time, and place with precision,
Not yet but they are working on it.
and it seems to be somewhere in a 10 year time frame that Rigdon could have obtained it.
And my point is–how fortunate for conspiracy wackos that a convenient ten-year window of opportunity even exists in the first place. It’s one of those annoying things that allows the conspiracy notion to keep breathing.
There is no “smoking gun” that Rigdon did obtain Spalding’s manuscript–only speculation that he could have obtained it.
Well consider what would happen if there were a smoking gun. Would that impact your thinking on this? And then ask yourself how would you define a smoking gun? How many coincidences does it take to make you wonder if there might be something to this? If there is evidence in the BOM for theology that supports Rigdon’s pre-1830 theology, is that coincidence or smoke? If there are “prophecies” speaking about Rigdon in the BOM is that evidence for the divinity of the BOM or still more smoke?
Critics and advocates of the theory will have to agree to disagree as to whether Rigdon obtained it, because there is no conclusive evidence either way.
Conclusive? That is a subjective matter. It’s conclusive for me. Certainly far more conclusive–to me–than the notion that golden plates containing reformed Egyptian writing ever existed.
All the best!
>Critics and advocates of the theory will have to agree to
>disagree as to whether Rigdon obtained it, because there is no
>conclusive evidence either way.
Of course if there were “conclusive evidence,” there would probably
be no Mormon church, and we would not be having this discussion.
My opinion is that further historical research will bring forth more
compelling evidence — but will not uncover “conclusive evidence.”
What is the difference between the two? Being faced with conclusive
evidence that Rigdon wrote parts of the Book of Mormon, as an addition
to Spalding’s writings, most likely would compel many LDS to deny their
respective testimonies. I doubt many of them would then remain in the
Church. Faced with conclusive evidence that Rigdon wrote parts of the
Book of Mormon, many RLDS/CoC members would be compelled to relegate
the Book of Mormon to the same low status they give the Book of Abraham.
But “compelling” evidence would only cause the LDS to admit that the
S/R authorship theory was about as viable as Fawn Brodie’s authorship
theory for the book — a problem to be taken seriously, but probably
not a “testimony-buster.” LDS leaders and scholars already have to
deal with the effects of Brodie’s authorship theory, when they interact
with non-members, such as participants in the Mormon History Association
or the John Whitmer Historical Association. The situation gets a little
uncomfortable at times, but once attention is drawn to something other
than Book of Mormon origins, all of the participants get along OK.
So, if an articulation of “compelling evidence” (such as Dr. Criddle’s
Oct. 10th lecture in Salt Lake City) isn’t going to damage many Mormon
testimonies, why are Mormons and non-Mormons even discussing the topic?
Perhaps because a widespread acceptance of the S/R authorship theory
might affect conversions in the mission field, or otherwise damage the
LDS reputation among non-Mormons. Bad publicity could be a problem.
Certainly there is no need to reassure faithful LDS, who already have
their minds made up on the topic, and who cannot change their minds
without having to also leave the Church.
Dale R. Broadhurst
>It seems quite unlikely that Spalding possessed very much writing ability
>to produce a better, KJV style novel.
At this point we simply do not know. We have one very poorly written romance
and a three page draft letter from Spalding, giving his views on religion.
Whether or not he COULD HAVE written those parts of the BoM most like his
known writings, is a debatable question. Certainly he could not have written
sections of the book like 2nd Nephi or Moroni. I’d probably have a heart
attack, if somebody could prove such a thing.
Stories are made up of chapters and paragraphs and sentences. Different
authors put words together in different sorts of ways, and may make a
repetitive use of certain phrases, word-strings and grammatical structures.
They construct their descriptions, or dialogues or narratives out of these
smaller literary “building blocks.” If we can identify vocabulary/phrase
“building blocks” typical of a known author’s writings, we may be able to
identify his authorship of some parts of an unattributed text. If those
“building blocks” cluster together, in what appear to be statistically
unlikely conglomerations, in the unattributed text, that phenomenon may
help us in discovering their true authorship.
Let me give an example, from the end of the first part of king Benjamin’s
sermon in Mosiah — this particular word-string:
“he cast his eyes round about on the multitude, and behold, they had fell”
At first glance there appears nothing unusual about the clause. Possibly
you or I might utter such a thing. At least we would not be surprised to
find it elsewhere in 19th century publications.
However, since we are here addressing the question of whether or not Mr.
Spalding had the creative ability to construct sentences found in the BoM,
let’s look at some similar examples from his Roman story:
“He cast his eyes on the lifeless body… and fell…”
“Sambal cast his eyes upon him; and, as he beheld him…”
“turning his eyes round, he beheld…”
“their chief prophet… cast up his eyes towards Heaven”
After examining these examples, I conclude that Solomon Spalding was
indeed capable of stringing these words together, into a clause:
HE + CAST + HIS + EYES + ROUND + ON + THE + BEHOLD + FELL
In other words, Solomon Spalding could have written that particular
short excerpt from Mosiah.
But what does this really tell us? Not much, I’m afraid. We only know,
from such examinations, that Spalding could have composed many of the
short textual “building blocks” we find in the Book of Mormon. There
is not much significant about this minimal fact.
In order to add significance to such discoveries, we need to map out
their distribution across the Book of Mormon text, and then examine
chapters/pages/paragraphs where such shared word-strings cluster. When
we do that, we should also keep an eye on the percentage of shared
vocabulary in those textual blocks — in raw word counts, how much of
Spalding’s vocabulary is measurable in those BoM blocks? We can also
look at measurements of “non-contextual words” occurrence, story theme
overlap, patterns in forming unique proper nouns, grammar, etc.
Having determined that Spalding was capable of writing a single sentence
found in Mosiah, we next look at the paragraph level of textual overlap,
and the page level of textual resemblance.
Could Spalding have written any particular paragraph in the BoM? Are
there any pages in the book which he was capable of writing?
So far, at least, I’ve found nobody other than Craig Criddle who has the
interest and capability to examine the texts in order to try and answer
such questions.
>It seems quite unlikely that Spalding possessed very much writing ability
>to produce a better, KJV style novel.
Perhaps so. But if Sidney Rigdon acted as Spalding’s posthumous editor,
could have the two men’s writings been combined to produce something like
this example of “KJV style”?
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/1824Scot.htm#page37a
Dale R. Broadhurst
I really don’t know very much about this subject, so forgive me for not engaging in a scholarly-type debate with you. Since I don’t know much about it and it appears to me that both sides of the issue seem to make a plausible case, if I were to join the scholarly debate it would probably turn out to be something like spitting in the wind. I suppose I could study the issue in depth, but that would take a lot of time, and frankly, I’m not really that interested. So instead of joining in the scholarly debate, I will just mess everything up and approach this from a different angle.
The problem with most conspiracy theories is that people don’t take into account human nature and actually apply it to their theories. People get so caught up with the facts, the coincidences, the parallels, that they don’t even take the time to factor in the human element. Or, if they do, they dismiss it because all the evidence is, in their mind at least, too compelling to ignore. Certainly, we can’t get into people’s minds and know exactly what they are thinking, so it’s easy enough to convince ourselves that there are always oddities, and maybe this time the people involved didn’t exhibit expected human behavior? Well, I just think there are too many coincidental oddities to ignore in this case.
First of all, why would Joseph and Sidney hide their connection until AFTER the BOM came forth? What would be their purpose in intentionally keeping their acquaintance secret? Did they think their fraud would be so easily discernable that the only way they could keep from letting the cat out of the bag was to pretend that they didn’t know of each other before or during the translation of the BOM? It seems that only someone with hindsight, such as we have, would’ve really found a reason to suspect that an acquaintance prior to the BOM would be problematic. If they thought their fraud was so bad that hiding their earlier relationship was necessary, then they certainly didn’t have much confidence in their fraud and were taking a huge risk on something so shaky. But in the minds of Joseph and Sidney, how likely would it have been for the people at that time to have made a connection between Sidney Rigdon and the Spaulding manuscript?
By concealing their earlier acquaintance, Sidney gave up a lot. Accounting for human nature in this instance, you would expect that if Sidney’s involvement was so necessary to the creation of the BOM, he would’ve wanted to be a part of the discovery of the gold plates. But he wasn’t. However, he should’ve at least served as Joseph’s scribe and gotten to “pretend” to use the Urim and Thummim like Oliver Cowdery did, right? No. Maybe Sidney would’ve been able to get the translation thing right and would’ve at least been able to say he had a part in the actual translation too. Still coming up empty. Well, what about being second to the throne at the Church’s founding? Nada. Okay, well perhaps he must’ve been one of the three witnesses, or the eight witnesses so his name could at least appear SOMEWHERE in the book since he was, perhaps, one of the “real” authors, right? A big, fat NOPE. He didn’t even get to be the first convert to the church. In fact, it was one of Rigdon’s congregants that introduced him to the church and the BOM, and not the other way around. It seems it would’ve been very poetic if it were Sidney who was the one who introduced the BOM to his congregants. Certainly he would’ve thought he deserved at least this one privilege, right? Apparently he didn’t. Or maybe he just didn’t think about that.
Okay, so maybe all this is no big deal. Maybe Sidney was after something else and was willing to make a whole bunch of concessions and bide his time for something really big. Power perhaps? Well, he did eventually get to be first counselor to Joseph….BUT, did Joseph ever include any revelations in the D&C (I should say Book of Commandments) that said “Sidney Rigdon will be my successor”, or “my first counselor will be my successor” so that Sidney would be guaranteed the role of President and Prophet? I would expect that at the end of it all, Sidney would’ve made sure to guarantee that he got something really big out of the deal. But what did he get instead? Near the end, Joseph completely disses Sidney and wants him out of the presidency. If it were me, I would worry that Sidney might expose our whole plot if I were to try and get rid of him. Curious, but that didn’t seem to be a concern of Joseph’s. Then, after Joseph’s death, Sidney has to fight to try and become Joseph’s successor, and in the end is unsuccessful, so he goes off and forms his own church which never amounts to much. So yeah, Sidney tried to take Joseph’s place after he was killed. He definitely wanted power. But why didn’t he make sure that Joseph clearly spelled out that Sidney was supposed to be successor to the throne and threaten Joseph with exposing the whole thing if he didn’t? After all, Joseph would’ve been nothing without Sidney’s creative genius. Oddly enough, even to his death, Sidney never claimed at least partial authorship of a scam that surely should’ve been his to claim. He should’ve been able to claim a bigger stake in it all, but he didn’t. Some might say that Sidney didn’t want to tarnish his good name by revealing himself to be the author of such a huge fraud, but then if he did, wouldn’t he possibly come to be regarded as having pulled off one of the most ingenious hoaxes ever? That seems like an appealing way to go out of this life if you didn’t get much for all that talent and effort in the end, and would be a good way to tarnish the man who was ready to cast you off.
And if Sidney was the actual author, you would expect his stake in all of this to be much higher than it would be if he were just the one who provided the Spaulding manuscript and were an equal party to the whole fraud.
Very little of what we should see with regards to human nature is evidenced in what one would actually expect to see if the conspiracy were true. That, or Sidney was just a rare oddity.
>Okay, so maybe all this is no big deal. Maybe Sidney was after
>something else and was willing to make a whole bunch of concessions
>and bide his time for something really big. Power perhaps?
I don’t think “power,” exactly. I think he felt called to set the stage
for the Second Coming of Christ — by whatever means were workable: in
a totally lost and depraved world, in which even the foremost religious
were a bunch of hypocritical “hireling priests.”
All through his life — long after the Nauvoo period — Sidney professed
to be the designated spokesman for God’s Prophet. He saw himself as the
Aaron for some latter day Moses. There is a passage in the Book of Mormon
and two passages in the D&C which identify Sidney as being the type of
preacher who fulfilled this necessary role. I think that Sidney valued
those passages above all else in life.
After 1844 he tried for a while to head up his own church, and was a
dismal failure. He had a preacher’s eloquence and a theologian’s logic
but he had no leadership skills. His devious ways undermined his acts,
everywhere he went. His former Baptist friends reviled him — his
former Campbellite friends reviled him — some of his earliest followers
from Kirtland showed up at his 1844 excommunication trial in Nauvoo to
heap insults and very bad accusations upon him. Nearly all of his
splinter group followers abandoned him in the late 1840s — some with
very bitter feelings towards Sidney.
Later in life, when he had only a handful of followers, he looked back
on his earlier experience as a spokesman for God’s Prophet, and said
that until such a prophet and spokesman could again be raised up, the
Latter Day Saints as a church could not exist. He saw Smith as a true
prophet, but a fallen prophet. And he (Sidney) could not replace him.
I think Sidney died, puzzled as to why the Christian Millennium had
never dawned during his lifetime. I think that to his dying day he
held out hope that he would witness the Second Coming of Christ.
Dale R. Broadhurst
So Sidney thought he could “set the stage for the Second Coming of Christ” by perpetrating a fraud?
Tara:
So Sidney thought he could “set the stage for the Second Coming of Christ” by perpetrating a fraud?
You correctly point to the human factor and, in my opinion, one cannot understand this whole topic without having a basic understanding of the type of person Sidney Rigdon was. He was seriously injured from a horse accident as a young man and many believed it affected his personality the rest of his life. All who knew him described him as having wildly variant mood swings. When depressed, he was seriously depressed and when happy he was elated and these wild swings were apparently frequent and pronounced. Today we would likely identify him as a manic depressive.
As you say, we cannot get inside the man’s mind, but what we can do is reasonably guess what his frame of mind might likely have been based on his known behavior and documented words as well as the opinions of those who observed him. Given that, it is quite likely that Rigdon either did not see the use of a Spalding manuscript to produce a new scripture which would usher in the glorious millenium as you and I would likely think of a “fraud” or a “con.”
This is a very difficult concept for a 21st century rational mind to comprehend. It was one of the more difficult stumbling blocks for me when considering the S/R authorship claims. In short, we tend to see it as either divine or fraud, but I have come to the point where I don’t believe Rigdon saw it that way at all. Of the two, Smith was more likely to knowingly participate in and cover up blatant fraud. Rigdon’s mindset–I believe–was quite different. He would not have viewed it as “fraud” but rather making use of something to help bring about a glorious result. It is likely he even believed Spalding’s novel was true. It was widely agreed that the Indians were indeed descended from the lost tibes of Isreal. No doubt Rigdon was convinced of this even before he read Spalding.
And Spalding had died back in 1816. What harm was there–from Rigdon’s perspective–in making use of a novel from a man who had died over a decade ago and never saw his work published? He may have viewed it as a divine gift–God, not allowing his plans to be thwarted by Satan, put this novel into Rigdon’s hands because he knew Rigdon was the man to add proper theology and see it through to publication.
So you are correct, when one begins to consider the human factor–from a 19th century perspective–the picture begins to make sense.
>So Sidney thought he could “set the stage for the Second Coming
>of Christ” by perpetrating a fraud?
I’m not sure HE would have called it “a fraud.” We know of other times in
his life, when he appears to have been 100% sincere, but those around him
came to view his actions as dishonest or manipulative. We see this image
of the man emerge from the testimony brought against him at his 1844
excommunication trial at Nauvoo.
The more I look at Rigdon, the more I feel that he believed that
“whatsoever men thing persuadeth men to do good, is of Christ:
for good cometh of none, save it be of Christ.”
I’m fairly certain that Rigdon believed and accepted every single bit
of doctrine and religious practice included in the Book of Mormon, when
it was presented to him by Pratt and Cowdery in 1830.
I’m also fairly certain that Rigdon believed and accepted every single
bit of doctrine and counsel included in the texts of his many post-1844
“revelations;” even if the rest of us might reject them as delusions or
perhaps even outright religious fraud.
I think that the key to understanding Rigdon at the end of the 1820s, is
that he saw all of Christendom as totally perverted and almost Satanic:
that even his own “Campbellite” group of believers was terribly wrong in
what they believed and what they were doing.
I think the key to understanding Rigdon is that one part of his brain
believed it was receiving Divine revelation, while the other part of
his brain was exploring devious ways to try and make people believe.
“Believe” was a very, very important word for Rigdon. Through correct
belief we can come to the truth — even if lies must at first be used
to “prime the pump” of human belief. Good ends justify any means.
Either that, or everything said against him at his excommunication trial
was true, and Sidney Rigdon was a knowing tool of the Devil.
Dale R. Broadhurst
>It is likely he even believed Spalding’s novel was true….
The problem is, that we do not have “Spalding’s novel” to consult. If it
was something very much like the “Roman story” at Oberlin College, I think
even zealous Sidney Rigdon would have rejected it. His disciple, Orson
Hyde, remarked that Rigdon had absolutely no interest in such romance.
If Spalding added a great deal of “restorationist” Christian religion to
his missing story, then I suppose that would change things.
Rigdon was a radical dispensationalist, who viewed the Gospel as having
already been given and taken from the earth 6 times. If there had been
ancient Christian Nephites (fictional or otherwise), I suppose Rigdon
pretty much knew in advance what there religion would have to be, if it
were the true Christianity of other dispensations.
But — did Solomon Spalding invent the Christian Nephites? I’d need
to see some very convincing evidence, before I could give that notion
any serious consideration. King Benjamin a creation of Spalding? The
very idea seems patently absurd.
Dale R. Broadhurst
Tara wrote:
BUT, did Joseph ever include any revelations in the D&C (I should say Book of Commandments) that said “Sidney Rigdon will be my successor”, or “my first counselor will be my successor” so that Sidney would be guaranteed the role of President and Prophet?
The following is interesting (italics in original, bold mine):
From a book of Mortgages and Bonds, page 95,
“City of Nauvoo, Hancock County, Illinois
February 2, A.D. 1842
“To the County Recorder of the county of Hancock:
Dear Sir, —
“At a meeting of the ‘Church of Latter Day Saints’ at this place, on Saturday the 30th of January, A.D. 1841, I was elected sole Trustee for said Church, to hold my office during life, (my successor to be the First Presidency of said church)…”
“Joseph Smith, [L.S.]”
History of the Saints, John C. Bennett, page 96
>my successor to be the First Presidency of said church…
Yeah, but that was almost certainly Hyrum. Bennett was a sort of
Counselor pro tem, for a while — as was William Law — but Rigdon
was in the Presidency as a mere formality. Everybody in Nauvoo
knew that (except perhaps Sidney himself).
Dale R. Broadhurst
Dale:
except perhaps Sidney himself
…which is the main state of mind we’re interested in.
>which is the main state of mind we’re interested in.
As I recall, there are three different old churches in Spain which
each claim guardianship of the sacred relic of Jesus’ foreskin. Now if
that is indeed the case, at least two (and perhaps three) of those
Catholic congregations are perpetrating a holy fraud. Perhaps they know
that to be the case — or perhaps by now, the do not. But the Pope
must know that Jesus was not circumcised three times.
If Sidney Rigdon wrote most of the Book of Mormon, then Joseph Smith
must have discovered that fact — if not as early as 1826, then
certainly by late 1833, when D.P. Hurlbut was lecturing in and around
Kirtland, claiming to be exhibiting Spalding’s “Manuscript Found.”
So — was Joseph Smith the 1820s equivalent of the Pope, overseeing
two churchly frauds (and perhaps three) — or was Smith not aware
that there never had been any Nephites? I have the nagging feeling
that for awhile at least, Smith did not know — perhaps did not care
to know — the details of Rigdon’s mysterious ancient records.
I doubt we’ll find much evidence for an 1820s holy fraud — but we may
yet discover some evidence of a saintly cover-up. It’s generally the
whitewashing that’s easier to spot than the original manipulations.
If only I could get a handle upon Sidney’s “state of mind,” perhaps I
could better guess where to look for additional evidence.
Dale R. Broadhurst
So much activity, I can’t possibly cover all the topics mentioned. Dale, you must have much more free time than Roger or I…. I’m jealous.
I have a very hard time believing Dale’s belief “that either Hurlburt or Howe sold it [‘Manuscript Found’] to the Mormons, who of course destroyed it, or put it out of the way.”
Hurlburt threatened to “wash his hands in Joseph’s blood”, which got him arrested. Someone that angry wouldn’t sell the crown jewel of the theory. I understand that Howe took over Hurlburt’s cause, and as editor of the newspaper, held both considerable clout and considerable hostility toward the Mormons. If my memory serves me correctly, Howe was furious that his wife and daughter joined the Mormons, which is why he joined forces with Hurlbut. So, I just don’t see either one of them selling the crown jewel document to the Mormons to be destroyed. That makes no sense.
I’ve made the same statement that Tara has made regarding Sidney’s motivations for participating in the fraud. This whole cloak and dagger conspiracy with Sidney pretending to convert makes no sense, especially when Joseph was open to others joining in the translation process. In D&C 6:25 (received in 1829), Joseph receives a revelation that Oliver can collaborate in the translation.
“25 And, behold, I grant unto you a gift, if you desire of me, to translate, even as my servant Joseph.
Then in D&C 8:1, “1 Oliver Cowdery, verily, verily, I say unto you, that assuredly as the Lord liveth, who is your God and your Redeemer, even so surely shall you receive a knowledge of whatsoever things you shall ask in faith, with an honest heart, believing that you shall receive a knowledge concerning the engravings of old records, which are ancient, which contain those parts of my scripture of which has been spoken by the manifestation of my Spirit.
Then in D&C 9, Oliver is rebuked because he did not study it out in his mind (the famous verses 8-9), yet Oliver is still promised to translate future records, (see 9:2) which he never does. Surely, Joseph was open to collaboration, and would have allowed Sidney the same opportunity. If Oliver or Sidney had a manuscript, it would have been relatively easy for them to assist in the translation–there is even a revelation making a very convenient opportunity for Rigdon. It would have been much easier to have Oliver and/or Sidney slip their manuscripts in at this point, then all the cloak and dagger stuff, IMO. They would have been prophets nearly equal in stature as Joseph, and who would pass up on that opportunity? Such a collaboration would have greatly amplified Rigdon’s future claims to the church presidency after Joseph’s death.
I still don’t understand why Oliver wasn’t more of a collaborator in this theory, and was only a scribe in this. Clearly, Oliver had the motive, means, and opportunity to be a co-collaborator here. While I haven’t studied the “View of the Hebrews” theory as much as Spalding, it seems to me that the links between Cowdery and Ethan Smith are much more compelling than any of the myriad of possible meetings Spalding theorists have proposed for Rigdon and Lambdin/Spalding. If we choose to look at Cowdery for a moment, why would he want his failures published in the 1833 Book of Commandments when he really had “View of the Hebrews” the whole time? I know people don’t always act rationally, but this is really strange. Oliver had it handed to him on a silver platter to collaborate and/or plagiarize, yet couldn’t do it.
Dale, I don’t know if you’re aware, but I did a 5 part series on Sidney Rigdon; I don’t know if you’d be interested in reviewing it, but here is part 1. I generally agree with many of your assertions about Sidney. After reading the Van Wagoner book, I felt sorry for Sidney, and I feel he made great contributions to the early church, that aren’t fully appreciated by modern Mormons. But I don’t think he would support the idea that ‘lies must at first be used to “prime the pump” of human belief. Good ends justify any means.’
Sidney stood his ground as I talked about in he and Joseph’s Strained Friendship. He supported his daughter Nancy when Joseph asked her to be a plural wife. He debated Campbell after his conversion to Mormonism. While I believe he was sincere in his revelations and beliefs, I never got any idea that Rigdon believed that “Good ends justify any means.” I think Sidney would have been more accepting of polygamy if he believed “Good ends justify any means.” Like Van Wagoner, I believe Rigdon’s denials of his participation in any Spalding conspiracy.
>Hurlburt threatened to “wash his hands in Joseph’s blood”, which got
>him arrested.
I think that the actual course of events was that Hurlbut attended
an evening meeting of Mormons in the schoolhouse on Kirtland Flats in
late December of 1833, and attempted to address the assembled Saints
when the meeting was winding down. Joseph Smith had him thrown out
and in the process Hurlbut was injured (or at least claimed injury).
Hurlbut went to a justice of the peace to file a complaint against
Smith — but in the mean time, Smith’s lawyer, Bissel, filed his own
complaint, on Smith’s behalf, with the Kirtland JP, John Dowen.
Hurlbut fled the county and stayed in Ashtabula for a few days —
then returned to try and get his complaint processed, and was arrested
for attempted (or threatened) murder.
>Someone that angry wouldn’t sell the crown jewel of the theory.
Hurlbut was taken from Paineville to Kirtland by the Mormon constable
and was efefctively in Joseph Smith’s power for a few days. Then
Hurlbut’s lawyer (Briggs) got custody transferred to Painesville, and
Hurlbut escaped Smith’s jail.
We do not know what went on during the time that Hurlbut was in jail
in Kirtland, awaiting his hearing in Painesville. Any interaction he
may have had with the Mormon leaders was probably negative in its
effects upon Hurlbut. Then came the hearing at Painesville, before
two JPs — perhaps because Hurlbut’s complaint had to first of all
be weighed against Smith’s complaint. Hurlbut was bound over to the
State court at Chardon for trial. In the weeks between his hearing
and his trial he totally abandoned all attacks against the Mormons,
and remained quiet and “out of the way” for the rest of his life.
In 1839, in Missouri, Thomas B. Marsh, W. W. Phelps, Orson Hyde,
William Smith and other leaders left the Church. Phelps was
reported as preparing a book to expose Mormonism — but he, Hyde
and Smith came back into the Church. During their apostasy it
was reported in Missouri that the leadership had paid Hulrbut
money for a Spalding manuscript. Whether this report was true or
not, it circulated as far east as Massachusetts and was published
in 1841. That is the source of the tradition of Hurlbut having
sold a manuscript to the Mormons.
Since John C. Dowen testified that Hurlbut was writing a book of
his own, in 1833-34, it is possible that the reported sale was
merely Hurlbut’s turning over of his own scribblings. Sidney Rigdon’s
son John did something similar around 1900, when he sold a certain
manuscript to the LDS First Presidency. If this is what happened in
Hurlbut’s case, it might explain how he was able to purchase a farm
in Girard twp. Erie Co., PA, which passed into his hands from a
Mormon — an odd transaction, given Hurlbut’s reputation after 1834.
However, if all Hurlbut sold to the Mormon leaders was his own writings,
then he is innocent of passing on to them a true Spalding manuscript.
>I understand that Howe took over Hurlburt’s cause, and as editor of
>the newspaper, held both considerable clout and considerable hostility
>toward the Mormons. If my memory serves me correctly, Howe was furious
>that his wife and daughter joined the Mormons, which is why he joined
>forces with Hurlbut.
I don’t think he joined forces. Most of Howe’s 1834 book is taken from
reprints of his own newspaper’s 1831-33 articles on the Mormons a little
over two chapters were compiled from Hurlbut’s affidavits, etc. Storm
Rosa and his brother Esak were the true editors. They had evidently been
working on the book before Hurlbut showed up. The book was published
piecemeal, over several months, whenever the newspaper press was available.
It was finally bound up and made ready for sale in November of 1834.
Hurlbut left the area, for his new farm in PA, after April of 1834. So
I think it is wrong to suppose that Hurlbut and Howe worked together.
>So, I just don’t see either one of them selling the crown jewel document
>to the Mormons to be destroyed. That makes no sense.
And if you were being held in Joseph Smith’s Kirtland jail, on charges
that might eventually get you imprisoned for several years, wouldn’t
you consider “cutting a deal,” whereby you’d quit attacking Smith?
If Hurlbut was so “gung ho” in his revenge, he went about fighting the
Mormons in a very strange way — lecturing in Kirtland, Chardon,
Painesville, Willoughby, etc., displaying what he calimed was a Solomon
Spalding manuscript resembling the Book of Mormon. If Hurlbut really
wanted revenge, he could have avoided walking into Mormon meetings and
openly challenging Smith.
I think Hurlbut was baiting Smith — trying to cause a commotion — and
hoping to get a payment to go away and leave the Mormons alone. At least
he got a farm in Pennsylvania in the end. Better than nothing, I suppose.
Dale R. Broadhurst
>Dale, I don’t know if you’re aware, but I did a 5 part series on
Sidney Rigdon
Yes, I read it. There was not enough difference between what Van Wagoner
published, and what you wrote, to warrant much of a response.
If you’d like to add a section to that series, detailing Rigdon’s activities
between the end of 1825 and the middle of 1827, I’d be interested in setting
up some links to such a report.
Perhaps you’ll do something along those lines, if others start saying a
lot more about that period — as Criddle did in his Oct. 10th lecture:
http://solomonspalding.com/Lib/ExM2009.htm
Dale
>He debated Campbell after his conversion to Mormonism.
I’d be interested in hearing the details on that…
Dale
Dale,
This is what Brodie wrote on page 145 concerning the sale of the manuscript. (Perhaps you’ll disagree…)
Apopletic with rage, Hurlbut began publicly to threaten the life of the prophet. This gave Joseph an opportunity for which he had scarcely dared to hope. Early in January 1834 he issued a complaint and Hurlbut was brought to trial on April 1. Hurlbut lost the case and was held in a two-hundred-dollar bond to keep the peace for six months.
The adverse reaction shattered his influence. He sold his manuscript for five hundred dollars to Howe, who printed the book Mormonism Unvailed under his own name.
>This is what Brodie wrote on page 145 concerning the sale of the
>manuscript. (Perhaps you’ll disagree…)
>Apopletic with rage, Hurlbut began publicly to threaten
>the life of the prophet. This gave Joseph an opportunity
>for which he had scarcely dared to hope.
Brodie provides no source for public threats. I see no evidence
for public threats, other than Smith’s own journal — which has pages
missing or out of order at this point. The hearing and trial records
are also silent about the exact circumstances. As best I can determine
the only altercation leading to charges was a hostile encounter
between Smith and Hurlbut in the Kirtland schoolhouse.
Here’s what Dale W. Adams says:
>Hurlbut returned to Kirtland about the middle of December [1833]
>and began attacking Joseph Smith. Understandably, Smith and his
>supporters lashed back and this may have involved publicizing
>allegations about Hurlbut’s alleged indiscretions with women.
>Whatever was said — possibly including statements that threatened
>his budding romance with his future wife, or he may have felt some
>of the statements smeared her — Hurlbut reacted violently. The
>mud slinging on both sides quickly escalated until Hurlbut
>threatened Joseph Smith. This caused Smith to file a complaint on
>December 21, 1833 against Hurlbut before the Justice of the Peace
>in Kirtland, J.C. Dowen. A warrant for Hurlbut’s arrest was issued
>and William Holbrook who was the constable for Kirtland Township
>served the warrant. Hurlbut appeared before the Justice of the
>Peace in Painesville Township, William Holbrook, on January 4th,
>1834 and requested a continuance. Early in January 1834 he issued
>a complaint and Hurlbut was brought to trial on April 1. Hurlbut
>lost the case and was held in a two-hundred-dollar bond to keep the
>peace for six months.
>The adverse reaction shattered his influence. He sold his manuscript
>for five hundred dollars to Howe, who printed the book Mormonism
>Unvailed under his own name.
I disagree with Dale’s last sentence. Hurlbut sold affidavits to
Howe, but not a manuscript. Howe’s book was written by the Rosa bros.
See also David W. Grua’s 2005 paper — “Joseph Smith & the 1834
D.P. Hurlbut Case” — BYU Studies 44, no. 1 (2005): 33-54 —
which cites my research on the subject:
http://olivercowdery.com/hurlbut/1834DPH2.htm
Brodie was frequently wrong.
She never cited sources like this one:
>Mr. Thomas, Oct. 10. ’84: Knew Hulbert intimately, and talked
>with him about the Mormons a great deal. Told me he had
>obtained Manuscript of Spaulding, and its names and B. of M.
>were identical. Attended Mormon meeting at the school house.
>At close Hulburt arose and began telling the audience that
>B. of M. and S. Spaulding’s MSS. were identical. Joe Smith
>called on God to curse him and told the audience to leave,
>which they did.
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/IA/misciow2.htm#062591B-e
See also here:
http://olivercowdery.com/hurlbut/HChron4.htm#r036
Dale R. Broadhurst
Sorry if I rehashed an old argument, MH. I didn’t go back to the original post on Sidney Rigdon 6 months ago, so I don’t know what was discussed.
In short, we tend to see it as either divine or fraud, but I have come to the point where I don’t believe Rigdon saw it that way at all.
But you are working from the assumption that the Spaulding manuscript was the source of the BOM. You are working from the assumption that Sidney knew that too, but somehow in his twisted mind, he justified that what he was doing wasn’t fraud. If you don’t assume that the whole thing was a fraud then you come away from it with a totally different picture, which is that Sidney didn’t think he was doing anything fraudulent because he wasn’t doing anything fraudulent. That seems to be the easiest explanation. Occam’s Razor.
I have come to the point where I don’t believe Rigdon saw it that way at all.
I suppose that in order to justify your position, you would need to come to that conclusion.
It is likely he even believed Spalding’s novel was true.
Then why create a “pseudo” version of it if the truth was already written?
I’m fairly certain that Rigdon believed and accepted every single bit of doctrine and religious practice included in the Book of Mormon, when it was presented to him by Pratt and Cowdery in 1830.
Wait a minute, didn’t Sidney have some kind of a hand in the creation of the BOM? So whether it was true or not, he would’ve believed it, or at least professed to, so there would be no way if knowing he didn’t.
I think that the key to understanding Rigdon at the end of the 1820s, is that he saw all of Christendom as totally perverted and almost Satanic: that even his own “Campbellite” group of believers was terribly wrong in what they believed and what they were doing.
First of all, is there any evidence that he believed the Campellites (prior to his conversion) were wrong? If he did, then why didn’t he just start a movement within his own congregation? And what did he need Joseph Smith for? He was the one with the oratorical skills. So how did he come to believe that Joseph was the prophet he was supposed to follow? Did he just select Joseph randomly or did Joseph come to him? Was it just a chance meeting and Sidney said, “hey, do you want to be a prophet?” If Sidney was the one who was feeding Joseph the material for the BOM, then why did he think that Joseph was a true prophet? I’m guessing he knew very little about Joseph from what little time they had to get acquainted in their secret meetings. This just doesn’t add up to me. If he can set up a prophet and a religion to prepare the way for the second coming, then why couldn’t he do the same thing after Joseph’s death? Had he just run out of ideas?
Sidney professed to be the designated spokesman for God’s Prophet. He saw himself as the Aaron for some latter day Moses.
Did he make this profession before or after his conversion, or is there any evidence that suggests he had held this view prior to his conversion? I think that knowing that would be key to determining whether he was using any means necessary to set the stage for the second coming or whether his conversion was genuine and not staged. Not that it would provide a definitive answer because it’s possible that he was inspired of God early on, but it would make your case more plausible.
Also, if he saw himself only as a spokesman, then why did he vie to be Joseph’s successor? Seems he should’ve been content to be the spokesman for Brigham Young, if he indeed felt that was his most important role. The fact that he wasn’t content to not gain the presidency and went on to form his own church seems to suggest that he felt he had a higher calling, at least then anyway. Why would he try to take on a calling that he knew he wasn’t destined to hold? If I recall correctly, before Brigham Young had even returned after Joseph’s death, Sidney was already at work trying to assert his authority. It seems that he should’ve been championing someone whom he thought would be a suitable replacement for Joseph.
(my successor to be the First Presidency of said church)…” “Joseph Smith, [L.S.]”
Surely Sidney knew about this. So why didn’t he use it to convince people that he was Joseph’s legal successor?
Also, notice that it says First Presidency, not first counselor. So, how can two people both be prophet? They can’t. This is a legal document that had to do with the church’s property and who would take custody of it after Joseph’s death. That’s all. It had nothing to do with who would lead the church after Joseph’s death. Now, I don’t know, but I suspect that there are no legal documents stating who will lead the church after the death of a prophet. I can’t imagine any prophet turning power over to the courts to decide who would lead in the event that there was some dispute. I imagine that’s a matter to be left to the 12 apostles to decide. Perhaps I am wrong there.
>>It is likely he even believed Spalding’s novel was true.
>Then why create a “pseudo” version of it if the truth was already written?
At this point I can only speculate. Perhaps additional historical and/or
textual research will supply new information in the future.
If Rigdon did somehow inherit the dead Spalding’s writings, Rigdon may
have believed Nephites were real, but may have thought Spalding did a
poor job in telling their story — and that Spalding’s writings did not
prepare tge world for the restoration of Apostolic Christianity.
>>I’m fairly certain that Rigdon believed and accepted every single
>>bit of doctrine and religious practice included in the Book of Mormon,
>>when it was presented to him by Pratt and Cowdery in 1830.
>Wait a minute, didn’t Sidney have some kind of a hand in the creation
>of the BOM? So whether it was true or not, he would’ve believed it,
>or at least professed to, so there would be no way if knowing he didn’t.
Whether he had a hand in its production or not, my feelings are that
he believed its message to be true — that he believed the new
scriptures were exactly what the people of his day and age needed to
read and believe — that they presented the “fulness” of the Gospel
in plain and precious language missing from the Bible.
But, like I said, these are just my personal conclusions. Perhaps new
discoveries can help change my thinking — if any new information on
Rigdon can be located and presented to us at this late date.
Dale R. Broadhurst
>First of all, is there any evidence that he believed the Campellites
>(prior to his conversion) were wrong?
Yes — some evidence. His followers in northern Ohio were called
Rigdonites in the late 1820s. Parley P. Pratt was one of them, and
used this name to designate Campbellites who were turning to Rigdon
as their leader. But at that point in history the Campbellites were
not yet a distinct religious denomination. So Rigdon’s moving away
from Campbell in 1829-30 was not seen as his breaking away from any
established church. Campbellism was not a strict set of doctrines
with a creed, which members had to follow. In 1829-30 Campbellism
was much less organized and much less structured than its 1830s
evolution (the Disciples of Christ) became under Campbell’s control.
>If he did, then why didn’t he just start a movement within his own
>congregation?
To some extent Rigdon had begun to do that. But if we look at the
congregations under his direct influence in 1829-30, only a couple
of them went into Mormonism with most of the members. In other words,
Rigdon had great influence over SOME of his 1820s parishioners, but
not over ALL of them. He did not have the power/authority/skills
necessary to convert ALL of his followers to become a new group.
>And what did he need Joseph Smith for? He was the one with the
>oratorical skills. So how did he come to believe that Joseph was
>the prophet he was supposed to follow?
Good question. I can only assume that Rigdon did not believe he had
a hope of being successful without a noted miracle worker to attract
converts. Rigdon received mental “revelations” but he was not a seer,
possessing the gift and power of God, necessary for a new Pentecost.
I do not think he had the means nor the audacity to have published the
additional latter day scriptures he publicly embraced in Oct. 1830.
Has Rigdon tried to promote the Book of Mormon on his own — with no
latter day seer — I think he knew he would fail. He knew people
would accuse him of being the book’s author — accuse him of having
already been teaching its unique doctrines — accuse him of having no
seer’s gift for translating ancient records — etc. etc.
>Did he just select Joseph randomly or did Joseph come to him?
I can only guess. My guess is that Rigdon encountered the Smith family
as a result of publicity for the 1823-24 religious revivals in upstate
New York, particularly among Baptists, when Rigdon was already known
to be a Baptist who traveled long distances to serve his denomination.
Whenever Rigdon met Joseph Smith, I believe Rigdon saw in him a kindred
spirit — a fellow prophet — but that he saw as more than a prophet.
He accepted Smith as a seer. If Joseph came to Rigdon, it was probably
in April of 1826, after the two men had already met previously.
>Was it just a chance meeting and Sidney said, “hey, do you want to
>be a prophet?” If Sidney was the one who was feeding Joseph the material
>for the BOM, then why did he think that Joseph was a true prophet?
Like I said, I think Rigdon believed that both he and Smith were prophets,
but that Smith was the “choice seer” necessary to open the 7th Gospel
dispensation.
>I’m guessing he knew very little about Joseph from what little time they
>had to get acquainted in their secret meetings.
If they met first of all in or near the Baptist congregation in Manchester
New York, their first encounter need not have been “secret” — just not
well known. Perhaps it was so casual and unremarkable that practically
nobody at the time took any notice of the two men crossing paths.
If their second meeting was in Auburn or Bainbridge, Ohio, in the spring
of 1826, they might have had more time to become acquainted with each
other, in an unhurried situation, away from public notice.
>This just doesn’t add up to me. If he can set up a prophet and a
>religion to prepare the way for the second coming, then why couldn’t
>he do the same thing after Joseph’s death?
I do not think Rigdon was ever a good leader of men. Eventually all of
those who honored him as a leader turned against him. They all came to
see him as dishonest and incapable of bringing forth the latter day glory.
Rigdon was already “locked into” the Book of Mormon and D&C revelations
in 1844. He based his entire claims of Divine authority upon his joint
vision with Joseph Smith, of the three degrees of glory. Rigdon in 1844
could not walk away from all of that and sart something new. His few
followers in 1844 were form believers in the BoM and the D&C and in the
prophethood of Joseph Smith. Had Rigdon walked away from those people,
he would have walked away from their tithing contributions as well. I
think Rigdon temporarily renounced Mormonism, in St. Louis, after his
excommunication — but quickly realized he could not go on and gather
a religious following without his current followers. Besides which, even
if he renounced certain aspects of 1840s Mormonism (such as polygamy)
he obviously still believed in 1830s Mormonism — it was his very life.
Dale R. Broadhurst
>Did he make this profession before or after his conversion, or is
>there any evidence that suggests he had held this view prior to
>his conversion?
That Sidney saw himself as the forerunner of the restoration of ancient
Apostolic Christianity? The only “evidence” I can think of, off hand,
would be the recollections of his former fellow Campbellites. Maybe we
can sift through their statements, to see what they recalled.
If word-printing can establish that Rigdon himself wrote the Dec. 1830
D&C section, identifying him as having prepared the way for Mormonism,
then I suppose that might be cited as “evidence.”
>I think that knowing that would be key to determining whether he was
>using any means necessary to set the stage for the second coming or
>whether his conversion was genuine and not staged.
Oh, I think his conversion was “genuine,” in the sense that he was
waiting for the restoration of Divine authority to conduct church
ordinances, speak in the name of God, etc. My opinion is that Rigdon
felt that a process had been set in motion, whereby his re-baptism
(at the hands of Pratt and Cowdery in Nov. 1830) would bestow upon
him the authority to carry out the “Restoration of all things” in the
ancient biblical religion.
My opinion is that BELIEF was very important to Rigdon’s way of thinking.
It was important that his followers and like-minded people BELIEVE that
he had received a Divinely authorized “baptism of fire” and ordination
as an elder, at the hands of true leaders in the Church of Christ.
Without that congregational BELIEF, there was no remission of sins and
no salvation in the restored Gospel.
So I do think Rigdon saw his Mormon baptism as genuine — but he also
knew that his outward signs displayed, of first of all rejecting the book,
praying about it, and receiving confirmation in an angelic visitation,
were, to some extent “staged.”
Than agin these are my opinions only. I was not there and did not witness
the events I’m here speaking of. If somebody else can better reconstruct
that 1830 history, based upon available evidence, I’d like to hear it.
I’m not trying to convince you, or anybody else, that I am always right.
Perhaps together we all can come up with better, more detailed answers.
Dale R. Broadhurst
>Dale, you must have much more free time than Roger or I…
Not really. I only devote a couple of hours a week to my historical
studies at this point. Due to physical problems, I no longer travel or
do on-the-ground research. My trip a few years ago, to the site of
Rigdon’s cabin at Bainbridge, Ohio, was my last research trip.
What I mostly do these days is to transfer texts from my filing
cabinets to the web — and engage in a little on-line conversation
when I’m finished doing the textual updates for the day/week.
I have the luxury, however, of merely consulting my past research,
when I engage in discussions. That quick ease of documentary access
probably makes it look like I’m more engaged in these studies now;
but exactly the opposite is the case — I’m far less engaged now,
and mostly rely upon past work (and others’ work) for discussions.
Dale R. Broadhurst
Dale, it was Van Wagoner who stated on page 136 of his Sidney Rigdon book,
Smith and Rigdon were quick to defend the Mormon cause. And at some point in the passion of a heated exchange, Hurlburt publicly threatened that he would “wash his hands” in the prophet’s blood. In January 1834, Smith filed a legal complaint bringing Hurlburt to trial on 1 April. The court found him guilty, fined him $200, and ordered him to keep the peace for 6 months.
The notoriety surrounding Hurlbut, compounded by an embarrassing incident when his wife was discovered in bed with Judge Orris Clapp, tarnished his image. He sold his research to Eber D. Howe, editor of the Painesville Telegraph, who held a long-term grudge against Mormonism for converting his wife and daughter.
I don’t have the book in front of me, but I copied this from my previous post on Sidney. Since I seem to keep referring back to the book, I bought it online and should have it in a few days, but something tells me you can check the footnotes, or provide a refutation. So, it seems both Van Wagoner and Brodie both mirror the claim that Hurlbut threatened Joseph, and both authors also claim he sold the manuscript to Howe. Their accounts agree with yours that Hurlbut was found guilty, and fined $200, so it seems like there is some agreement among basic facts here. You seem to emphasize the more salacious rumors against Joseph, yet you also seem to downplay Hurlbut and Howe’s connections in the supposed sale of the manuscript.
Tara, thanks for bringing up what you did–Dale wasn’t part of that argument 6 months ago either, and I think you brought some valuable points to the discussion. I’ve never understood why Spalding advocates seem to downplay Oliver Cowdery’s role in this. As scribe, it seems to me that he would have played a conspiracy agent much more easily than Rigdon. This whole need for Rigdon to use Joseph as a front man just doesn’t make any sense to me. As I said before, Joseph was open to collaboration, and I have no doubt he would have allowed Sidney to translate, just as he allowed Oliver. Sidney could have easily snuck the manuscript in at this time without all these weird meetings proposed by advocates. If he had acted as scribe, certainly it would have been much easier to perpetrate this fraud, and would have cemented his status as #2 even earlier.
I don’t buy the arguments that people would have recognized Sidney’s writings, so that’s why Sidney needed a front man. With Joseph as Sidney’s puppet prophet, Sidney risked losing the church to Joseph (which of course he did.) Sidney was a much more respected and eloquent preacher than Joseph was, especially in the 1820-1830’s. For him to trust such a much younger, more controversial figure seems odd for a smart man involved in such an elaborate conspiracy.
I also don’t buy the argument that Sidney believed Spalding’s manuscript was true. Once again, for a man to concoct such an elaborate conspiracy to use Joseph as a puppet prophet, I can’t imagine why he would have deluded himself to believe the Spalding manuscript was true. Spalding never represented it as a true story. It seems that advocates have almost a Jekyll and Hyde persona in Rigdon. There’s the devious, smart, Jekyll-like conspirator side of Ridgon, but then the bumbling visionary who can’t tell Spalding’s fiction from fact, manicly depressed, bad leader Hyde-side of Rigdon. These two images just don’t seem compatible to me. Surely someone capable of pulling off this conspiracy would be a better manipulator of people than Rigdon seemed capable of on his own.
Brodie writes on page 455-6,
Alexander Campbell, who knew Rigdon intimately, described his conversion to Mormonism with great regret in the Millennial Harbinger, attributing it to his nervous spasms and swooning and to his passionate belief in the imminent gathering of Israel. But of the authorship of the Book of Mormon he wrote bluntly: “It is as certainly Smith’s fabrication as Satan is the father of lies or darkness is the offspring of night.”
I just don’t think “nervous spasms and swooning” are consistent with the devious mind it would take to pull off the conspiracy that advocates claim Rigdon was capable of.
>I don’t have the book in front of me, but I copied this from my previous
>post on Sidney…
The “‘wash his hands’ in the prophet’s blood” comes from George A. Smith’s
1864 discourse, which you’ll find at my old Mormon news articles site. I
do not find Smith credible — if you do, fine — go with a single source
and presume Hurlbut was actually plotting bloody murder. None of which
changes the situation relating to the authorship of the Book of Mormon.
Whether or not Hurlbut sold any sort of manuscript to Mr. Howe cannot be
documented at this late date. Howe wrote to Isaac Hale, relating just a
little of how he came to possess some of the materials Hurlbut collected.
None of which matters at this point. Lewis L. Rice, from contacts in Ohio,
came to believe, in 1886, that Hurlbut OR Howe had sold a Spalding MS
to the Mormon leaders. It doesn’t matter today whether I agree with Rice
or not. The matter cannot be settled, without additional evidence.
>I don’t buy the arguments that people would have recognized Sidney’s
>writings, so that’s why Sidney needed a front man.
At any rate, he was accused of being the book’s author in the local press
almost immediately upon its appearance in Ohio and his Campbellite
associates later accused him of being the author. In other words, there
certain were people in Ohio who were ready to compare his religious
career with the contents of the book, and conclude he was the author.
But, if it makes you feel like you have company, I do not think that
Rigdon’s main reason for seeing that the book came to the world through
Smith, had much to do with Rigdon’s concerns with his enemies in Ohio.
My working hypothesis is that Rigdon believed Smith to be a choice seer
and that such a choice seer was needed to open the 7th dispensation,
which would be the final, pre-millennial dispensation. I do not think
Rigdon ever felt authorized to take the entirety of that responsibility
upon his own shoulders. The voices in his head told him he was the
spokesman for the latter day work — not its oracle. If you get a
chance to read Sidney’s post-Nauvoo writings and revelations, you’ll
see that this was his situation.
>I also don’t buy the argument that Sidney believed Spalding’s
>manuscript was true. Once again, for a man to concoct such an
>elaborate conspiracy to use Joseph as a puppet prophet, I can’t
>imagine why he would have deluded himself to believe the Spalding
>manuscript was true.
You were not there to hear the voices in Rigdon’s head, telling him
that the preColumbian Americans had been Christians of the 6th
dispensation, who had become extinct. You were not there to hear the
voices in Rigdon’s head, telling him that America was the location
of Zion, the gathering of latter day Israel and the seat of the coming
Millennial rule of Christ. If Spalding was the inventor of Christian
Nephites, the semi-sane Rigdon would have found the account of their
rise and fall to be irresistible — the basic theme would have been
“true” to Sidney Rigdon in the 1820s just as much as in the 1830s.
Read what Rigdon’s Campbellite associates (including Parley P. Pratt)
had to say about his pre-1830 interests and preoccupations. Read
what the D&C has to say about his preparing the way for Joseph Smith.
>Spalding never represented it as a true story.
Except to say that one of the pseudo-histories he was writing might one
day be believed as ancient America’s true epic past.
>Surely someone capable of pulling off this conspiracy would be a
>better manipulator of people than Rigdon seemed capable of.
Had Rigdon been fully in charge of any “conspiracy,” it no doubt would
have eventually failed. Read his 1844 Spring Conference talk, where he
relates some of the earliest secrets of the Church in new York. Had
Rigdon been in charge, he would have ruined the latter day work. But
he was not “in charge” — not any more than Parley P. Pratt’s account
of the “Angel of the Prairies” Like that “angel,” Rigdon was the source
of inspiration and preliminary direction — and not a controller.
>…the Book of Mormon… is as certainly Smith’s fabrication…
Is there a reason why Brodie suppressed Campbell’s 1835 and 1844
articles, identifying Rigdon as the author of the Book of Mormon?
You’ve cited L.L. Rice, without providing the entirety of his testimony;
and now we see Campbell cited, without the entirety of his testimony.
Next thing we know, we’ll be looking at Jame H. Fairchild though the
eyes of Fawn Brodie, without the entirety of his testimony.
If we must quote these old fellows, let’s quote them in full, and not
“pull a Sandra Tanner” by leaving out their most relevant statements.
Dale R. Broadhurst
Dale, I think people often say things in the heat of the moment without “plotting bloody murder.”
Oakland Raiders coach Tom Cable allegedly threatened to kill his assistant coach on this article at ESPN. Quoting from the article,
Cable had been accused of assaulting and threatening to kill Hanson at a meeting at the team’s training camp hotel in Napa on Aug. 5. Hanson was treated for a broken jaw following the incident.
Here’s Randy Hanson’s side of the story at NBC:
“From my blindside, Tom Cable threw me from my chair and into a piece of furniture that a lamp sat upon,” Hanson told Silver. “He was screaming, ‘I’ll f–king kill you! I’ll f–king kill you!’ And I have no reason to believe he wouldn’t have killed me if they hadn’t pulled him away.
“If my head would’ve hit a different way, I might be dead right now.”
Now, I know that no charges were filed, but I think it’s reasonable to conclude Cable probably said he wanted to kill the assistant coach, but I don’t believe Cable was “plotting bloody murder.” I think Hanson might be embellishing a bit when he said he might be dead, but I do believe Cable probably said what Hanson claims.
Likewise, I think it is reasonable to conclude that Hurlbut may have uttered such words in the heat of the moment, and didn’t really intend to “plot bloody murder.” Are you saying it is not plausible Hurlbut could have said that? Of course, you’re welcome to your belief that it wasn’t said, but the $200 fine and 6 month probation to “keep the peace” wasn’t because Hurlbut was professing his love for Joseph, was it?