Spalding-Rigdon

One criticism of the Book of Mormon that still seems to make the rounds far more frequently than it deserves is the Spalding-Rigdon Theory (the SRT). According to the SRT, Sidney Rigdon is supposed to have stolen a manuscript from a man named Solomon Spalding. That manuscript is supposed to have been similar, at least in key respects, to the Book of Mormon. Rigdon is then supposed to have sent the manuscript to Joseph Smith, who is supposed to have used that manuscript as the basis for the Book of Mormon.

In attempting to support their claims, SRT advocates talk about the "best fit" of evidence. One Stanford professor in particular has amassed a lot of data to try to demonstrate that the SRT is the "best fit" for the origination of the Book of Mormon.

This emphasis on evidence is, it turns out, deeply ironic. And there's no need to be overly intellectual about it to see where these SRT people get it wrong. It's pretty simple.

Let's look at the most objective analysis available: let's say Spalding had sued Rigdon and Joseph Smith in tort for plagiarism (we'll keep the legalistic part of the analysis simple, notwithstanding that plagiarism probably isn't a cause of action as such in many jurisdictions).

Now before any "scientists" get up in arms about this analytical approach, let me make clear that this is the best framework for examining the SRT, for two reasons. First, the standard for deciding a tort case is which argument has a preponderance of evidence (there's no presumption of innocent until proven guilty). So you're just looking at which side has the stronger evidence, as you would in a scientific analysis. Second, and more importantly, framing the analysis as a tort case forces one to think about the evidence objectively, as an impartial judge would do -- something which even alleged scientific observers seem unable to do consistently.

The Spalding "case"

So if Spalding had sued Rigdon and Joseph Smith for plagiarism, would he have won on the merits (ignoring procedural issues like the statute of limitations)? Let's look at the evidence.

The Book of Mormon was published in 1830. Allegations were first made in 1834 that the BoM was a ripoff of the Spalding manuscript. The only evidence for the existence of the Spalding manuscript at the time was hearsay. In the roughly 175 years since the allegations first arose, the manuscript still hasn't been found.

Let's take an analogous situation. Radiohead published their album "In Rainbows" in 2007. Let's say in 2011 a Mr. Spilling comes forward and says, "hey, wait a minute -- those are my songs!" But Spilling can't produce any written lyrics or music or any recordings supporting his claims. All he has to go on is his word and the words of a few of his friends (one of whose father worked in a music studio that Thom Yorke's buddy may or may not have visited at some point in his life).

So, in short, the defendant (Radiohead) has direct evidence of authorship (the publication of the work in question), while the plaintiff (Spilling) has only circumstantial evidence from friends that he originally generated the work.

Case over. Thrown out of court. Plaintiff to be ridiculed during appearances on second-rate daytime talk shows (while flicking through channels several years ago, I once saw exactly that happen to a woman who claimed Michael Jackson had plagiarized her work).

It boggles my mind that, in all their talk of evidence, SRT supporters routinely fail to acknowledge that circumstantial evidence is useless without the most basic and most relevant bit of evidence in favor of the SRT: the Spalding manuscript itself. We don't even get to begin debating the authenticity of the manuscript, because it can't be produced!

The lack of the Spalding manuscript is enough for any reasonable person to ignore the SRT in good conscience, just as one would be very reasonable to ignore Mr. Spilling and accept Radiohead's assertion of authorship of In Rainbows.

Just in case that isn't enough . . .

But lest any SRT supporter think I am dodging the issue, I am happy to take on anything such supporter might try to pass off as evidence. I think it's safe to say that there are two main categories of such passing-offs of alleged evidence:

1) the presentation of various after-publication statements, together with the assertion of (1) the rectitude and insight of the people who made after-the-fact statements that might support the SRT and (2) the moral depravity of the people who made after-the-fact statements that would debunk the SRT; and

2) the analysis of meaningless data -- meaningless because it relies on dubious and/or subjective assumptions, leading to questionable (at best) conclusions.

The guy from Stanford provides some great examples of the latter category. For instance, he analyzes the frequency of the occurrence of the phrase "children of men," which he (dubiously and subjectively) claims would have come from Sidney Rigdon, in BoM passages which he (dubiously and subjectively) claims would have corresponded to Sidney Rigdon's and not Joseph Smith's belief systems at the time they were written! Inferring the preferred phrases of people who have been dead for 100+ years based on their inferred religious views at certain times in their lives doesn't yield good evidence. In fact, it can hardly be called evidence at all. That the process is asserted as scientific inquiry by slapping on a statistical analysis is a mockery.

There's no disputing that the best and only meaningful evidence -- the publication of the BoM by Joseph Smith's hand -- points to Joseph Smith as the author of the BoM. Whether you believe that he authored it through a divine translation process or straight from his head is another matter. But asserting the SRT or some other theory of the origins of the BoM is nonsense, *especially* if one is interested in evidence and best fits.