The authors of the Enigma have attempted to answer, to one degree or another, the questions that I asked regarding the Polmeroy Tucker statement. In response to each of their answers (typed in all caps below, which is how they sent them to me), I have made some remarks and asked some follow-up questions.
Question #1. Since when does a 40 year old rumor about an alleged rumor and corresponding conjectures become considered as "evidence"?
CO-AUTHOR'S ANSWER: WHENEVER ANYONE IS OPEN-MINDED ENOUGH TO ACCEPT IT WITHOUT ALLOWING "THAT WHICH HE WANTS TO BELIEVE (OR PERHAPS HAS BEEN BRAINWASHED FROM EARLY CHILDHOOD INTO BELIEVING)" TO GET IN THE WAY.
Does the reader agree with this answer? Apart from the fact that the author's answer commits the fallacy of opposition, I am curious if they would say the same about any and all rumors, irrespective of untimeliness and lack of substantiation, regardless of whether it supported or conflicted with their theory? (Well, we shall see below how consistent these guys are in following your own "open-minded" standard, or whether--to use your own words--they let their beliefs, or perhaps their "brainwashing", get in the way.)
Dale Barnhurst's correctly argues that reporting of certain kinds of rumors may, at times, act as collaborative "evidence" in support of primary "evidence", though certainly not "proof" of one's assertion.
However, given that, in this instance, the reporting of the rumor was untimely--i.e. approximately 40 years after the alleged events; the fact that the rumor, though untimely, preceded the supposed primary "evidence" by a number of years--thus bringing into question the possibility that the primary "evidence", may have been based, in part, on the rumor; the lack of specificity of the rumor--see questions 2, 3, and 6; and even the fact that the rumor contradicts portions of the supposed primary "evidence"--see the related section under collectively.htm (forthcoming); it is fair to ask whether Tucker's rumor about an alleged rumor even qualifies as supportive "evidence?"
Question #2. Even assuming that a "mysterious stranger" was rumored to have been at the Smith's, does that necessarily mean that the rumor is true, or even that all parts of the rumor are true--i.e. is it possible that the "mysterious stranger" may have only been at the Smith's once, or that different "mysterious strangers" may have visited the Smiths, and that Tucker and others may have confused them as repeat visits by a single "mysterious stranger"? (For more on this, please see below.)
ANSWER: NO, IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE "RUMOR" IS TRUE.
Then we are in agreement on this specific point.
HOWEVER, IF IT ISN'T, THEN WHAT EVIDENCE CAN YOU PRESENT THAT IT IS NOT?
That is yet to be seen (see the section under construction on contrary evidence--forthcoming). But, first things first--i.e. the cross-examination of the evidence you have already put into record. (By the way, thanks Art for suggesting the web site with all the resources, some of the diaries have been a great help in this regard!)
OR COULD IT BE THAT YOU JUST DON'T LIKE WHAT TUCKER HAS TO SAY AND SO IT MUST NOT BE TRUE BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT IT TO BE?
Isn't this the fallacy of interrogative presupposition raising its ugly head? And, of course, couldn't the same question also be asked of the authors in reverse? Shouldn't we avoid such speculative, insinuating, diversionary, and counter-productive questions?
IN SHORT-- IF TUCKER DELIBERATELY LIED IN HIS BOOK, WHAT WAS HIS MOTIVE?
Given that none of my questions regarding Tucker's statement (or any of my investigations of the statements of other witnesses for that matter) do not question his integrity or motives, why are the authors asking this question as though my questions do?
"TO SELL BOOKS," YOU SAY?
Could the authors please point out where I ever said that, because I am quite certain that I have not? Aren't the authors trying to put words into my mouth, and fallaciously propping up a straw man here?
BUT THEN, WASN'T THAT ALSO JOSEPH SMITH'S MOTIVE IN CREATING THE BOOK OF MORMON?
Apart from this being besides the point (the red herring fallacy), do the authors have any record where Joseph stated this as his motive? In fact, didn't he suggest motives quite to the contrary? Aren't the authors going from trying to put words into my mouth, to now attempting to put words into Joseph's mouth.
CERTAINLY MARTIN HARRIS SEEMED TO THINK IT WAS, AS DID A NUMBER OF OTHERS AMONG JOSEPH SMITH'S CONTEMPORARIES.
Isn't it fallacious, and counter-intuitive, for the authors to accept second and third-hand speculation over consistent first-hand testimony (i.e. the fallacy of appeal to authority). But, this again is also irrelevant.
PERHAPS YOU WOULD JUST RATHER ATTRIBUTE TUCKER'S MOTIVES TO "ANTI-MORMONISM", IN WHICH CASE PLEASE PROVIDE SOME OTHER EXAMPLES OF TUCKER'S ANTI-MORMON WRITINGS AND/OR ACTIVITIES SO THAT ALL MAY BE UNEQUIVOCALLY CERTAIN THAT HE WAS INDEED THE ANTI-MORMON YOU SAY HE WAS.
Again, where have I mentioned Tucker's motives, or suggested that his writings were "anti-Mormon"? My interest is in determining the validity of Tucker's 40-year-old rumor about a rumor. I will leave the determination about Tucker's objectivity, if needed, to a later time when I consider all of the relevant "evidence" you have presented regarding the issue at hand.
Question #3. Even assuming that the rumors about the "mysterious stranger" were true, does that necessarily mean that Tucker's insinuations about Rigdon being that "mysterious stranger", is true? Couldn't one correctly assume that it was two different "strangers" mentioned in Lucy Smith's history of Joseph Smith? And, since neither of the strangers were named by Lucy, doesn't that implying that it was not Rigdon, because Lucy Smith, at the time she wrote her history of Joseph Smith, was familiar with Rigdon, and would have know if it were he? Also, wouldn't it be counter-intuitive for her to refer to the man who helped Joseph on the stage in July of 1828 as a "stranger", if that were the same "stranger" who, according to Tucker's reported rumor, had supposedly visited the Smith's "repeatedly" prior to that time? Furthermore, if one assumes that Lucy Smith didn't name Rigdon because she, too, was deeply involved in the alleged conspiracy to commit fraud, then why would she supposedly risk exposing the alleged attempt to conceal the supposed pre-1830 Rigdon/Smith association by disclosing the story of the stranger to begin with?
ANSWER: OBVIOUSLY IF LUCY WERE TRYING TO CONCEAL RIGDON'S PRESENCE, SHE WOULD NOT NAME HIM. EQUALLY OBVIOUSLY, IF SHE WERE TRYING TO CONCEAL HIS PRESENCE, SHE MIGHT WELL BE MOVED TO INVENT OR EMBELLISH STORIES ABOUT OTHER "STRANGERS" IN ORDER TO DELIBERATELY CONFUSE THE ISSUE.
Will the authors be answering the first several, and most important, parts of this multi-part question?
While the authors' contradictory and baseless conjecture seems only marginally plausible (to be addressed in the next several paragraphs) in answer to this question, is it plausible in light of my question #7—where, as pointed out, several of their other "witnesses" claim to have been informed by members of the Smith family of the identity of Rigdon? What sense would it make for Lucy to try and "confuse the issue" if the identity of the "mysterious stranger" has supposedly already been disclosed by those closest to her?
And, how would it "confuse the issue" about who the "mysterious stranger" was, if Lucy does not name the stranger? (What the authors suggest doesn't make sense.)
Besides, the earliest extant record of the rumored frequent visits by the "mysterious stranger" is the quote from Tucker now under examination, printed approximately 12 years after Lucy wrote Smith's history. So, why would Lucy try and "confuse" an issue that had yet to be raised? (Again, it doesn't make sense.)
This is not even to mention the fact that the authors quote Lucy Smith's history as though it is a credible source at the beginning of Chapter 11? Is it consistent for them now to attempt to discredit her history? Doesn't this commit the fallacy of corrupt source?
MOREOVER, ONE COULD EFFECTIVELY ARGUE THAT TUCKER IS MORE CREDIBLE THAN LUCY SMITH BECAUSE, AS A NON-MORMON OUTSIDER RATHER THAN A TRUE BELIEVER, HE IS POTENTIALLY A MORE IMPARTIAL REPORTER THAN SHE IS. CLEARLY ANYTHING LUCY SAYS, OR AT LEAST ANYTHING THAT THE CHURCH'S FAITHFUL MINIONS RECORDED HER AS HAVING SAID, MUST BE VIEWED AS POTENTIALLY SELF-SERVING AND THUS AS OPEN TO SUSPICION.
No doubt the authors could argue this, but wouldn't they be doing so ineffectually as well as fallaciously (the fallacy of poisoning the well). And, speaking of self-serving, haven't they just irrationally discredited any potential contrary witnesses to their theory who are LDS—not to mention having self-servingly overlooked Tucker's possible partiality? Using this "rationale," what does that say about their and Tucker's credibility?
Besides, as pointed out previously, isn't it counter-intuitive and fallacious for them to suggest that a 30-year-old third-hand statement is more credible than a 17-year-old first-hand account?
Question #4. Wasn't Tucker jumping to conclusions by insinuating that the "mysterious stranger" was Rigdon? After all, if the identity of the stranger was a mystery (hence "mysterious stranger") to those ("some") who supposedly observed the "repeated" visits--reportedly because Rigdon's identity had been "withheld", then how would Tucker then know who he was? Could Tucker's conclusion have been conveniently derived from his Hurlbut/Howe-inspired theory?
ANSWER: MAYBE, AND THEN AGAIN, MAYBE NOT. LIKE THE RESULTS OF THE FLORIDA VOTE TABULATION, WE MAY NEVER KNOW FOR SURE.
Will the authors be answering the first part of this multi-part question?
Question #5. Since Tucker, according to the Preface of his book, was familiar with the Smith's during the time they lived in Palmyra, and was familiar with the Smith's neighbors (the alleged "some" and "observers") during that same time--and even for several neighbors, he knew them for years after the Smiths had moved away; and since Tucker was a newspaper man, and a self-styled historian; why do we not find any record of him having conducted first-hand interviews with, and reporting of, the supposed eye witnesses to the alleged visits of the "mysterious stranger"? In other words, why, after 40 years with assumed access to the supposed "witnesses", would Tucker resort to using rumor when he could have establish what supposedly happened for a fact--that is, unless there were no eye witnesses, or the "facts" did not support his theory? (And, by extension, why do you Spalding theorists, after 173 years, resort to using Tucker's rumor about rumors instead of facts?)
I could not find the answers above to any portion of this multi-part question. Perhaps the authors could favor me by specifically pointing them out—that is, if they can.
Question #6. Your citation of Tucker begins: "a mysterious stranger now appears at Smith's. . .". We are given no sense for when "now" is. Does the text of Tucker's book, prior to the quote, give any indication of the supposed time of the first arrival of the alleged "mysterious stranger"? As it is, we are not given any specific dates or even months, seasons, or years. All we are told is that the visits were supposedly "frequently repeated." The importance of this information to the question at hand is in checking the timing of these supposed frequent visits with your Rigdon time-line, and to get a sense for how many times, over what period, Rigdon would have had to traverse the 250 - 300 miles each way, from Mentor, Ohio to Palmyra, New York, in order to have "frequently repeated" visits.
ANSWER: YOU CAN FIND THE ANSWER IN TUCKER'S BOOK, AND WE SUGGEST YOU READ IT.
Since it is pertinent and important information, why is it not included in the context of the statement the authors quote? And, why are they asking the reader and evaluator to compensate for their obvious oversight? If they know the answer to the question, why not just state it so we can move on? Perhaps I will discover the reason for their reluctance when I do their research for them.
Question #7. Tucker asserts that, "For a considerable time no intimation of the name or purpose of this stranger transpired to the public," and that there was supposedly "withheld all explanations of his [the "mysterious stranger's"] identity and purpose." How does this square with 3 of Lorenzo Saunders' statements to the effect that Harrison Smith had supposedly told him the name of the "stranger"; 2 of Saunder's statements in which Ingersoll supposedly told him the name of the stranger; Abel Chase's claim that: "they said was Rigdon"; S. F. Anderick's statement that: "she [Sophronia Smith] told me that a stranger. . .was Rigdon," and James Bennett who said, "At last some person who joined them spoke of a person in Ohio. . .the famous Ohio man made his appearance. His name I believe is Henry Rangdon or Ringdon or some such word"? Which of your witnesses, in this case, is wrong, Tucker or the others sited above?
ANSWER: TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE OBSERVING THE SAME EVENT WILL OFTEN REPORT SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT ACCOUNTS. DOES THIS MEAN THAT THE EVENT ITSELF NEVER OCCURRED?
I agree with the authors' first statement. In fact, I would go one step further and suggest that each of the people who observe an event may, themselves, give slightly different accounts on different occasions (sans the First Vision accounts, and Mother Smith's account, etc.). And, I would answer "no" to their question.
But, I find it odd that they can so easily see contradictions where they do not exist (i.e. the accounts of the First Vision), but are incapable of seeing the obvious contradiction here. And we aren't talking about two observers, we are talking about one person who hears a rumor which directly conflicts with what a group of other people (the only group on record) allegedly observed. Either the rumor was wrong about nobody being told the identity of the stranger, or the several people (those presumably who would have been the source of the alleged rumor) who claim they were freely told the name, were wrong about being told the name, or Tucker was in error about what the alleged rumor actually said. Again, which is it?
Question #8. How do you reconcile the contradiction between Tucker referring to Rigdon as a "stranger" whose identity was withheld, and Bennett's assertion that Rigdon was "famous"?
ANSWER: BENNETT'S USE OF THE WORD "FAMOUS" WAS INTENDED AS A REFERENCE TO "RANGDON'S" REPUTATION IN OHIO, NOT IN NEW YORK.
Yes and no. How else did Smith and "the person" come to allegedly know of "Rangdon" unless by his supposed "famous reputation" having spread to New York? Besides, there is nothing in the text that suggests that "Rangdon" was only famous in Ohio, and not New York. Could the authors be reading things into the text? And, if "Rangdon" were so famous, why was his name not remembered correctly--that is, unless there was a famous person named Rangdon, who was not Sidney Rigdon.
Question #9. How do you reconcile Tucker's assertion that the visits were "frequently repeated", with his later statement that they were "occasional"?
ANSWER: IT REALLY ALL COMES DOWN TO HOW "FREQUENT" THE "OCCASIONS" WERE, DOESN'T IT?
It would if "occasional" were a noun like "occasion", but it is not. It happens to be an adjective that modifies the noun, and it is defined by Random House Dictionary as: "occurring or appearing at INFREQUENT intervals" (emphasis added)—which is all together quite different from "FREQUENT". Do the authors care to try and answer the question again. . .this time sensibly?
Question #10. What difference would it have made to conceal Rigdon's identity "until all things were in readiness" if Rigdon's alleged visits to Smith were supposedly observed as "frequently repeated"? And, once the alleged "frequent" observations were made, and supposedly rumored about and speculated on, sufficient that Tucker, an admitted non-observer, would have supposedly known about it, then wouldn't the cat have been let out of the bag, so to speak, and it would have been pointless to continue the alleged ruse? In other words, what would be the point of supposedly keeping Rigdon's name a secret when his face was supposedly well known around Palmyra?
ANSWER: YOU ASSUME THAT RIGDON'S FACE WAS SUPPOSEDLY WELL-KNOWN AROUND PALMYRA,
The assumption is not mine, but Tuckers. I was just trying to follow his reasoning using his assumption, which, as the authors go on to point out, doesn't add up. But, I am pleased to see that the authors have inadvertently impeached their own witness. That certainly makes my job much easier.
WHEN IN FACT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT IT WAS.
Then Tucker must have errantly jumped to that conclusion, and the authors have just effectively negated the value of Tuckers rumor of rumor being "evidence." Great! I hope they keep this coming.
RIGDON'S VISITS WERE LARGELY IN-SECRET-- KNOWN ONLY TO A FEW "INSIDERS" AND A LIMITED OF OTHERS (LIKE SAUNDERS) WHO HAPPENED TO ENCOUNTER HIM BY CHANCE.
Who, then, was the source for the alleged rumors mentioned by Tucker? It couldn't be Saunders because, depending upon which conflicting account one may accept from him (I am still waiting for the authors to address these questions), he only saw Rigdon on two or three occasions, which by no stretch of the imagination could be considered "frequent", and he was allegedly told Rigdon's name. If not Saunders, then who? Certainly not the other "witnesses" cited in Enigma, because they, too, were allegedly told his name. Or, are the authors conceding that Tucker may have been wrong about the "frequency" of the visit, or may have been wrong about Rigdon's identity allegedly being withheld? And, how do the authors know it was known by a "few insiders"? Do they have statements from the "insiders" to that effect? If so, why are they not disclosed in Chapter 11? If not, then aren't the authors just speculating like Tucker—which can in no way legitimately be considered as "evidence" (primary or supportive)?
Quote #11. Does Tucker explain the rationale behind why the alleged conspirators would think to conceal Rigdon's identity? Can you think of a logical reason? If you are going to suggest that it was done so as to prevent detection of the alleged Rigdon/Spalding connection, and Rigdon's supposed part in the creation of the Book of Mormon from the "Manuscript Found", then wouldn't that same argument always hold true, and hence, Rigdon's identity should have always been concealed? Doesn't the fact that Rigdon unabashedly presented himself to the citizens of the Palmyra area in December of 1830, counter the whole notion of the supposed concealment and conspiracy?
ANSWER: ONCE AGAIN, THE ANSWER IS IN OUR BOOK. READ IT!
If the authors will please send me a complimentary copy, I will read it. But, in the interim, why do the authors have a problem answering the question directly, as it relates to the question at hand?
Question #12. I already asked you in my Gilbert questions about the Major's negative impressions of Tucker. But, what do you think of the several comments made by Dr. Strattford's in the Kelley interview ("He was a real clever, jovial boy. What Tucker said about them was false, absolutely. . . .Well, Doctor, you know pretty well whether that story is true or not, that Tucker tells. What do you think of it? 'I don't think it is true. I would have heard more about it, that is true.'")? (William Kelley Interviews, Saints' Herald, 1 June 1881, p.167)
ANSWER: AS OUR TEXT EFFECTIVELY DEMONSTRATES, THE KELLEYS ARE SIMPLY NOT RELIABLE REPORTERS, AND ON THAT BASIS THEIR UNCORROBORATED REPORTAGE MUST EITHER BE REJECTED OUT-OF-HAND OR PRESENTED WITH THE ATTACHED CAVEAT THAT THEIR RELIABILITY IS SUBJECT TO SERIOUS QUESTION. ONCE AGAIN, READ THE BOOK, THEN ASK QUESTIONS.
That is quite interesting given that one of the statements from Saunders, cited by the authors, is a direct quote from the Kelly interviews. And, I am curious to find out what it was about the Kelley interviews that supposedly made them unreliable, as contrasted with Tucker's statement. Could this be another case of the authors commiting the fallacies of corrupt source and/or special pleading?