For reasons known only to themselves, the authors of the Spalding Enigma presented me with a series of questions in connection with my inquiry into the Polmeroy Tucker statement. They informed me that they would not respond to any of my other inquires until I had answered, to their satisfaction, the questions below.
However, as the reader will quickly note, the questions they asked are completely irrelevant in determining the reliability and applicability of the Tucker statement. This is clearly a diversionary tactic (i.e. red herring fallacy), which I believe says a lot about the authors' lack of interest in determining the truth about Rigdon's alleged visits.
In an effort to move things along, and to get things back on track, I have provided answers to their irrelevant questions as they asked. Time will tell whether my answers are to their "satisfaction", and whether they will take up answering the examinations of their other "witnesses", or continue to divert and stall.
For purposes of clarification, their questions will be in ALL CAPS (that is the way their questions were sent to me), and my answers will be in regular font.
QUESTION #1: WHICH ONE OF JOSEPH SMITH'S VARIOUS CONTRADICTORY ACCOUNTS OF HIS ALLEGED 1820 THEOPHANY ARE WE EXPECTED TO ACCEPT-- ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING THAT HE DID NOT BOTHER RECORDING EVEN THE EARLIEST OF THESE UNTIL 1835-- FULLY FIFTEEN YEARS AFTER THE FACT?
Aside from having already addressed this question, in part, in a previous email to Art Vanick, one of the authors of Enigma, here is my four-part answer:
OR SHOULD WE, PERHAPS, ACCEPT MOTHER SMITH'S PERSONAL ACCOUNT (NOT RECORDED UNTIL 1844/5), WHICH IS DIFFERENT STILL?
I believe you are obliged to accept this also (see above)—particularly when you deem Mother Smith's history sufficiently credible to warrant your quoting from it in support of the first point you attempted to make in Chapter 11.
(PLEASE NOTE, BY THE WAY, THAT J.G. BENNETT'S ACCOUNT OF RIGDON'S [RANGDON'S] INVOLVEMENT WITH THE GOLD-BIBLE SCHEME PREDATES SMITH'S EARLIEST VERSION OF HIS THEOPHANY BY FOUR FULL YEARS. THUS IF VALIDITY BE DETERMINED BY PRIORITY OF DATE, THEN THIS MUST BE THE MOST VALID EVIDENCE OF ALL-- UNLESS, OF COURSE, YOU HAVE ALREADY DECIDED WHAT IS ACCEPTABLE AND WHAT ISN'T.)
Your note fallaciously presupposes a single standard of validity (that being the "timing" of the earliest extant statement), and falsely superimposes, through implication, it on to me (the straw man fallacy). To remind Art once again, it has been my stated position all along that there are a number of factors that must be weighed in the balance when determining validity (see my list in the Methodology section).
Beside, your note, like your original question, commits the fallacy of false dichotomy (bifurcation) by assuming that one account cannot be believed given the other. Bennett's account does not preclude Smith from having a "theophany". And, this is not even taking into account whether Bennett's account is valid or not—which is currently under investigation.
QUESTION #2: HOW MANY HONEST AND TRUSTWORTHY NON-MORMONS WERE DEFRAUDED AND LOST HUNDREDS OR EVEN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS BECAUSE OF JOSEPH SMITH'S ILLEGAL KIRTLAND BANKING SCHEME OF 1836-38, AND WHY DID THE PROPHET CHOOSE TO FLEE THE STATE OF OHIO TO ESCAPE JUSTICE RATHER THAN PLACING HIS TRUST IN THE POWER OF GOD TO PROTECT HIM FROM HIS ALLEGED OPPRESSORS? (PLEASE PROVIDE A SPECIFIC, NOT A GENERAL ANSWER HERE.)
Let me answer each part separately:
QUESTION #3: TAKING #2 AND #3 (ABOVE) TOGETHER, WHY IS IT THAT YOU CHOOSE TO CALL POMEROY TUCKER INTO QUESTION WHILE AT THE SAME TIME YOU FAIL TO OFFER SIMILAR OBJECTIONS TO LUCY SMITH'S CLEARLY SELF-SERVING ACCOUNT (GIVEN IN 1844/5, VIRTUALLY A QUARTER-CENTURY AFTER THE FACT)?
Setting aside the fallacious assertion about Lucy Smith's account being "self-serving," and the self-undermining fact, previously pointed out, about your having quoted Smith to support the first point in Chapter 11, the answer to your question is very simple, and one that has been explained to you several time during the course of our correspondences (why you fail to grasp this elementary point is curious, though consistent with your apparent limited powers of comprehension manifest thus far). Being subject as I am to the laws of physics (time and space), it should be obvious that an evaluation needs to begin somewhere, and it will take some time to complete—particularly given the host of priorities that tend to preempt, at least for me, this evaluation. What better place to start than with the "evidence" that has already been placed into record—particularly the single, and only, chapter you have sent to me? And, more specifically, so as to keep things manageable, I have thought it wise to restrict my current examination to the "evidence directly related to the alleged pre-1830 Rigdon/Smith visits." As you may no doubt deduce from my emails (or subsequently with what I have posted on the web), I have been working my way through the nine "Exhibits" of Chapter 11, having mostly completed the first four. Concurrently, as mentioned to you more times than I care to remember, I am gathering the contrary evidence conspicuously absent from your "study." As things proceed, there will be time enough to evaluate and weigh all the various strengths and weakness of the witness statements from both sides—but each in their own order. For you to suggest that I have "failed" to evaluate Lucy's account, and go on to question whether it was a "double standard" for me to have supposedly done so, when I have yet to have the time to get to it, is form of the fallacy of multiple assertions.
IN ADDITION, IT MIGHT BE OF INTEREST TO KNOW WHICH VERSION OF LUCY MACK SMITH'S HISTORY YOU HAVE CONSULTED AS THEY ARE NOT ALL THE SAME DUE TO "OFFICIALLY SANCTIONED" REARRANGEMENTS.
I have used the version that is currently available to me on the LDS Collectors 97 CD-ROM, which is the "First Utah Edition." But, I am open to suggestions if you think there is a better version, though I doubt that it will make much difference in terms of the pertinent evidence in question.
QUESTION #4: GIVEN THE MANY ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING JOSEPH SMITH'S FLIRTATIONS WITH ALCOHOL, HOW CAN WE EVER KNOW FOR CERTAIN THAT HIS ALLEGED "ENCOUNTERS WITH DIVINE BEINGS" WERE NOT SIMPLY DRUNKEN HALLUCINATIONS BROUGHT ON BY EXCESSIVE PERSONAL COMMUNION WITH ST. JOHN BARLEYCORN?
Here we find you employing another diversionary tactic in the form of the fallacy of humor and ridicule.
To answer your question, though, contrary to what you suggest, belief in revelation and divine visitations are a matter of faith, not certainty. And, I suppose we can know, with some level of confidence, that Joseph's "encounters with divine beings" were actual and not "hallucinated", in the same way that we know, with some confidence, that Christ's "encounters with divine beings" were actual and not "hallucinated," even though Christ was also rumored to have been a drunk and a wine bibber.
I suppose, too, that the question can be turned and asked if the inane drivel we find coming from you on this page, are delusions resulting from your own imbibing of chemical enhancements of choice, even absent any rumors to that effect. But, I shan't do so because I risk being guilty of the same fallacy as you.
BY THE TESTIMONY OF HARRIS, WHITMER & COWDERY, YOU SAY?
Straw man alert! And, no, that is not what I would say (as evidenced above).
HARRIS' TESTIMONY IS DISCREDITED BOTH BY HIS OWN LATER STATEMENTS AND THOSE OF HIS FIRST WIFE; COWDERY'S INVOLVEMENT AND MOTIVES ARE CALLED INTO QUESTION BY A PROMINENT AND WIDELY-RESPECTED NEW YORK HISTORIAN (O. TURNER) WHO STATES FROM FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE (15 YEARS BEFORE TUCKER, BY THE WAY!) THAT COWDERY AND HIS COUSINS THE SMITHS WERE IN CAHOOTS TOGETHER AS EARLY AS 1822; AND WHITMER DISCREDITS HIMSELF BY HAVING STATED FOR THE RECORD THAT HE NEVER SAW THE GOLDEN PLATES EXCEPT THROUGH "SPIRITUAL" EYES (WHICH COULD EASILY BE INTERPRETED TO MEAN "WHILE IN A HYPNOTICALLY-INDUCED TRANCE).
All of these irrelevant assertion will be examined in due time—i.e. when they become relevant.
IF TUCKER'S STATEMENTS ARE THE RESULT OF "CONVENIENT RUMORS,"
Who said they were "convenient"? I was merely trying to ascertain the source of Tucker's insinuation. Straw man alert!
WHY NOT CALL A SPADE A SPADE AND ARGUE THAT HARRIS, COWDERY & WHITMER'S ALLEGED EXPERIENCES WERE THE RESULT OF "CONVENIENT HALLUCINATIONS" IF NOT OUTRIGHT LIES? WHY ATTEMPT TO PILLORY THE ONE BY ASKING ENDLESS QUESTIONS WHILE AT THE SAME TIME ACCEPTING THE OTHER WITH NO QUESTIONS AT ALL?
I find it interesting that with all the mockery you subject my faith to in your book, that you would be concerned with the supposed "pillory" of your witness by my asking straightforward and objective questions. But, in the spirit of "calling a spade a spade," what you set forth above can be rephrased as saying, "why don't I, like Art and friends, make baseless and fallacious (ad hominem) insinuations about the Three Witnesses? And, why is it that I have been asking legitimate and searching questions about pertinent 'evidence' placed into record, when I haven't asked uniformed questions about irrelevant 'evidence' not yet placed into record?" The answer to these questions is also very simple. Unlike you, I have refrained from these things because they would be counter-productive to determining the truth of the matter at hand.
IF YOU FIND POMEROY TUCKER'S HONESTY, INTEGRITY AND MOTIVATION TO BE QUESTIONABLE,
The only questions I have raised are regarding the reliability, or lack of evidentury nature, of Tucker's rumors, conjectures, and insinuations. I have yet to question Tucker's character and motives. I will leave that kind of mongering to you fellows, since it seems to be the primary road you wish to travel--your declaration on your web site about presenting only the facts notwithstanding.
THEN YOU MUST ALSO FIND THAT JOSEPH SMITH'S HONESTY, INTEGRITY AND MOTIVATION ARE EQUALLY QUESTIONABLE WHEN THE VERY SAME HISTORICAL STANDARD IS APPLIED TO BOTH.
What "standard" are you talking about?
(BUT OF COURSE, YOU CAN'T ACCEPT THAT, CAN YOU, BECAUSE YOUR "MORMONISM" GETS IN THE WAY-- AND UNDER THAT STANDARD, MY FRIEND, IT IS YOU THAT EMERGES AS THE PROBLEM RATHER THAN THE EVIDENCE ITSELF. INDEED, AS LONG AS YOU REMAIN A TRUE-BELIEVING MORMON, ANY CLAIM YOU MAY HAVE TO OBJECTIVITY GOES RIGHT OUT THE WINDOW.)
You continue to try and put words in my mouth and wrongly accuse me of that which you are most guilty (at least in principle), and in the process you commit the fallacies of ad hominem, straw man, special pleading, and ad lapidem, to name just a few. Unlike you, my only consideration has been the "evidence." I have yet to interject my faith into my questions, and I have yet to state any conclusions.
QUESTION #5: HAVE YOU, MR. ENGLUND, PURCHASED AND READ OUR ENTIRE VOLUME COMPLETELY THROUGH FROM COVER-TO-COVER? IF NOT, ON WHAT BASIS ARE YOU ASKING THESE QUESTIONS?
For reasons iterated and reiterated to you, I have yet to obtain a copy of your book, and since you have only furnished me with a single chapter, that is all, understandably, that I have been able to read thus far—and I have done so, carefully, from the beginning of the chapter to the end.
The basis upon which I have asked the questions is one of common course for critical analysis. As I have explained in the past, each piece of "evidence" you have presented in your book will be, and should be, evaluated on their own merit, and then collectively on the merits as a related set, and later on examined according to the merits of the universe of evidence you have presented in your volume. Since I am just now in the process of evaluating the only evidence you have supplied me (that which is presented in chapter 11), and I have only begun to do so at the first level (each piece of "evidence" on its own merits), it is unnecessary, at this point, for me to have read your entire volume. But, if you will provide me with a copy, at no expense to myself, I will be happy to do as you suggest.
QUESTION #6: IN RE RIGDON'S TRAVEL TO AND FROM OHIO, WHY DO YOU ASK QUESTIONS LIKE THIS WHEN THE ANSWERS CAN BE FOUND IN OUR TEXT?
The answer, again, is very simple. Since I have yet to have access to all but the eleventh chapter of your book, it would be humanly impossible for me to know the contents of that which I have not read (were not talking rocket science here guys, this should be obvious to you). So, I ask the questions because I don't know if or what answers may be found in your text. And, if you know the answers that are found in your text, then why are you reluctant to provide them to me?
QUESTION #7: MOREOVER, IF THE ACCOUNTS [the Tucker accounts as contrasted with the other Enigma "witnesses"] WERE 100% IN AGREEMENT WITH ONE-ANOTHER, WOULD YOU NOT THEN ATTEMPT TO ARGUE COLLUSION (AS FAWN BRODIE ONCE DID WITH RESPECT TO THE CONNEAUT WITNESSES' STATEMENTS)?
While I may ask questions regarding the possibility of collusion where warranted, unlike you (or Brodie) I would not attempt to argue it unless there was valid evidence (beyond circumstantial or hearsay) to support the argument.
Now, least you mis-think that I have created a no-win situation for you (as intimated above), let me reiterate that I am not troubled by differing versions of an observed event. In fact, I expect it—which is why I may question accounts that are in 100% agreement. But, contradictory accounts are a whole different matter. In such cases (as is true between those who claim that Rigdon and Smith had visited each other in Palmyra before 1830, and those who strongly and consistently deny it) one must decide which, if either of the contradictory accounts, is true (which is all that I have asked you to do with your own contradictory witnesses).
WHY, SINCE YOU OBVIOUSLY ACCEPT PRO-MORMON "EVIDENCE" AT FACE-VALUE, DO YOU BALK AT ACCEPTING NON-MORMON EVIDENCE AT AN EQUAL FACE-VALUE?
Straw man alert! I don't balk. As I have iterated, and reiterated to you, I am more than willing to subject all the evidence from both sides to the same multi-variable and equally weighted tests, and let the results speak for themselves.
But, speaking again of the fallacy of special pleading, why do you balk (as evidenced by your repeatedly asking why I ask the questions, and your "pillory" remark) at my gradual and objective evaluation of the evidence you have already placed in record? And, had you subjected some of your own "evidence" to the same level of scrutiny as you have given some of the pro-Mormon "evidence", and had you given "equal face value" to the pro-Mormon "evidence" that you have given the pro-Spalding theory "evidence", then do you think there would have been a need for me to do what I am now in the process of doing? I know there wouldn't.
COULD IT BE THAT DOUBLE STANDARD AGAIN—
Yes, but as has been demonstrated, the double standard is yours, not mine.
WHEN ONE SAYS WHAT YOU WANT TO HEAR, IT'S OK, BUT WHEN ANOTHER SAYS SOMETHING YOU DO NOT WANT TO HEAR, THEN IT'S NOT OK?
Straw man alert! And, again you are falsely accusing me of that which you are most guilty (demonstrably so).
QUESTION #8: WHY DOES THE CHURCH [I am assuming that you meant to include the word "not" here] PROSCRIBE THE USE OF ALCOHOL AND TOBACCO WHEN JOSEPH SMITH'S OWN DIARY (THE UNADULTERATED ORIGINAL, NOT THE LATER CONVENIENTLY-SANITIZED ONE) CLEARLY SHOWS THAT HE USED BOTH?
I suppose it is for the very same reason that the Church doesn't proscribe getting tared and feathered, or ingesting poisonous food (both of which are clearly shown to have happened to Joseph Smith in his diaries), because neither is healthy for the body. (Strange, with all the modern scientific evidence regarding the health risks of alcohol and tobacco, that you would think to ask such an absurd questions.)
QUESTION #9: DO YOU NOT FIND IT AT LEAST SUSPICIOUS THAT COWDERY'S BROTHER WAS A CLOSE NEIGHBOR OF SIDNEY RIGDON'S DURING THE 1820s IN TRUMBULL COUNTY, OHIO (NOT TO MENTION THE PRESENCE OF AN ENTIRE HOST OF OTHER COWDERY RELATIVES IN THE SAME "KIRTLAND" AREA)?
I find it no more "suspicious" than the likelihood that you all, and members of my family, may at times been "close neighbors" without actually knowing it. In fact, in this age of mass communication and speedy travel, I would think it more "suspicious", if you can call it that, that you and they may have been "close neighbors" than it would be for the Cowderys and Rigdon. Even as supposedly famous as Rigdon was in Ohio, Philo Dibble, who lived not far from Kirtland, appears not to have been aware of Rigdon until after their nearly simultaneous conversions in late 1830. The same seems to be the case with Reynold Cahoon and Levi Hancock. (Again, thanks Art for pointing me to the on-line resource for these diaries.)
WHY IS THIS SOMETHING THAT HAS NEVER, UP UNTIL NOW, BEEN REPORTED IN MORMON HISTORIES?
Primarily because your suspicions about this are not close to being comparable with history, and your suspicions about this lack demonstrable relevance.
QUESTION #10: IN YOUR EFFORTS TO DISMISS ALL OF THE VARIOUS ACCOUNTS OF RIGDON'S PRESENCE IN NEW YORK PRIOR TO THE FALL OF 1830, ARE YOU IN FACT ALLEGING THAT ALL OF THESE PEOPLE WERE ACTING IN CONSPIRACY WITH ONE-ANOTHER JUST FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCREDITING JOSEPH SMITH? IF SO, UPON WHAT EVIDENCE DO YOU SO ARGUE? IF NOT, HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN ALL OF THOSE ACCOUNTS?
Again, my intent is but to investigate, and raise pertinent questions. If any dismissing occurs, it will be because the reader comes to that logical and rational conclusion.
But, as to the question of "conspiracy", or "group think," or more likely the "Hawthorn effect" (where people hear about an event often enough, or impressionably enough, that they were not a part of, but it somehow becomes implanted in their memory such that they "recollect" it as though they were there), this will be investigated when I begin examining the statements collectively, their history and timing, how and why they were obtained, and the sources from whence the were quoted, and your treatment of them as compared to contrary statements. Again, I will leave it to the discretion of the reader to decide.
QUESTION #11: HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN SIDNEY RIGDON'S OWN 1844 SLIP-OF-THE-TONGUE STATEMENT (CONFIRMED BY W.W. PHELPS' LETTER) THAT HE WAS IN NEW YORK IN APRIL OF 1830? HOW ALSO DO YOU EXPLAIN RIGDON'S APPARENT DISAPPEARANCE FROM OHIO FOR EXTENDED PERIODS OF TIME ON EVERY OCCASION WHEN HE WAS REPORTED TO HAVE BEEN IN NEW YORK?
First of all, I haven't had a chance to examine Rigdon's alleged "slip-of-the-tongue". But, from what little I know of it at this time, in light of various historical accounts (diaries, statements, etc.) of people who were in attendance at the April meeting in 1830, where Rigdon is conspicuously unmentioned, or where there is consistently inferred against or directly denied that he was there (including by Rigdon, himself), it may be assume either that: 1) he was speaking in the first person for Joseph Smith or the attendees as a whole, similar to what we find on occasion with his accounts of the pre-1830 History of the Church recorded in personal letters, and published in the Times and Seasons; 2) he wrote it down incorrectly; 3) Or, he may have been suffering mildly from the "Hawthorn effect" (see above), not unlike what may have occurred with all of your pre-1830 Rigdon "eye-witnesses."
QUESTION #12: ON WHAT BASIS DO YOU DISMISS THE ARON WRIGHT EVIDENCE, INCLUDING HIS HANDWRITTEN INSCRIPTION IN WHAT GIVES EVERY APPEARANCE OF HAVING BEEN HIS OWN PERSONAL COPY OF THE BOOK OF MORMON, HIS SECOND STATEMENT TO HURLBUT DATED 31 DEC. 1833, AND J.J. MOSS' ACCOUNT AS GIVEN IN HIS LETTER TO COBB? PLEASE TO BE SPECIFIC.
Having no current knowledge of the "evidence" you list (is this in one of your other chapters that I have yet to receive a complimentary copy of?), I have no basis, or business, to do or say anything about it (I hope that "be specific" enough for you). But, if you will supply me with the pertinent information, I would be pleased to examine it in due course (at least following the examination of the "evidence" you have already put forward, and sent to me in Chapter 11).
AND FINALLY, ON OUR PART, QUESTION #13: WHY, MR. ENGLUND, ARE YOU SO AFRAID OF THE TRUTH?
Like several other questions you pose, this one is based on a false premise. I am not afraid of the truth. In fact, as iterated and reiterated, that is what I am in search of. But, given your strenuous resistance to my persistent efforts to engage you in a meaningful examination of the validity of the only "evidence" you have sent me, isn't your question better asked of you? Isn't the pot errantly calling me a black kettle? I will let the reader decide.
DO YOU NOT KNOW THAT IT IS TRUTH THAT WILL SET YOU FREE?
Yes, I know this by first-hand experience.
P.S. UNTIL WE RECEIVE FULL, DETAILED AND COMPLETELY ACCEPTABLE (TO US) ANSWERS TO OUR THIRTEEN QUESTIONS AS GIVEN ABOVE, ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS/COMMUNICATIONS FROM YOU WILL BE SUMMARILY IGNORED. MOREOVER, SOME OF OUR TEAM MEMBERS TAKE UMBRAGE WITH THE FACT THAT YOU EXPECT DETAILED REPLIES FROM US WHEN YOU HAVEN'T READ OUR BOOK FIRST.
I believe this statement is evidence enough of who really are the ones that "fear the truth". No matter, an effective examination of YOUR "evidence" can be done with out your cooperation. And, given the evasive and diversionary responses from you on this "Exhibit" alone, as well as the unprofessional whining and self-indicting (not to mention false) accusations, it is likely that the investigation would be better served to have you cowering on the sidelines, while those of us who wish to get to the bottom of this, carry on.
And, I take "unbrage" with the fact that you expect me to read your book when you refuse to send me a complimentary copy.
REMEMBER, YOU CANNOT DEFEND YOUR FAITH IF YOU CANNOT DEFEND THE "HISTORY" THAT LIES BEHIND ITS CREATION.
Equally true, you cannot defend your "evidence" by refusing to address reasonable questions raised about it, and refusing to send me the "evidence" so as to avoid questions being raised about it--while repeatedly, and inanely, criticizing me for having not read what you refuse to send me.
APPLY WHATEVER HISTORICAL STANDARDS TO THE EVIDENCE THAT YOUR HEART DESIRES. IF THE SPALDING EVIDENCE FALLS ON THE BASIS OF THOSE STANDARDS, THEN BOTH SMITH AND MORMONISM FALL WITH AN EQUALLY LOUD THUD
I am confident enough to reserve judgement, and let the reader decide. Your continual resistance says otherwise about your own confidence.
WHEN THAT VERY SAME STANDARD IS APPLIED TO THEM! SORRY, MY FRIEND, BUT THIS IS ONE ARGUMENT YOU CAN'T WIN.
Perhaps not in your mind. But, as I have told you, my audience is the rational reader (the jury of my peers). And since the "evidence" has not all been presented, let alone cross-examined, the jury, as they say, is still out. Besides, were you so confident, and not just posturing, would you be so resistent to examining your evidence? Again, I will let the reader decide.
INDEED, THE BEST YOU CAN POSSIBLY HOPE FOR IS A DRAW. ARE YOU REALLY SURE YOU WISH TO GAMBLE YOUR ETERNAL SOUL ON THOSE ODDS?
Naturally, I see the supposed "odds" a little bit differently, and in light of that, I don't feel that I am gambling my "eternal soul" at all. But, it does appear that the best I can hope for from you, at least in terms of examining your "witnesses," apart from evasiveness and ardent resistance, is the kind of hollow boasting and vain threats that I have just been treated to.
Last updated 01/28/01