I won't take up anymore of Runtu's thread on this subject after this post, but I'll summarise the problem with Spalding by "stealing" a few paragraphs from Criddle's site, an advocate of the theory, by the way:
The weakest points of the Spalding-Rigdon Theory are:
(1) The Spalding manuscript that contemporary witnesses described as similar to The Book of Mormon - a document ironically named "Manuscript Found" - is missing. Its absence can be compared to the absence of a murder weapon in a murder case. In such cases, circumstantial evidence can often still secure a conviction, but it is an uphill battle.
(2) There is uncertainty about how and when Rigdon first came into contact with a member of the Smith family. But while the exact circumstances have not been established, there is evidence that contact did occur. Several scenarios are plausible. Different theories propose as Smith's initial middlemen Alvin Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and Parley Pratt.
(3) Word print studies have not connected Spalding or Rigdon to The Book of Mormon. However, as I will discuss in the companion essay, these studies were not designed in a way that would enable a fair assessment of the Spalding-Rigdon Theory.
(4) Some of the testimony cited in support of the Spalding-Rigdon Theory came many years after the alleged incidents and can be questioned on the grounds of memory fallibility. These are lightly shaded dots. Other pieces of evidence can be questioned on other grounds, such as bias. Where I am aware of such issues, I will address them in this and the companion essay. The fact that some pieces of evidence have more uncertainty than others when they are analyzed in isolation does not change the evidentiary value of the more certain evidence nor does it negate the value of lightly shaded dots when they are internally consistent and numerous and when they provide clues for additional investigation.
On point 3 I don't place much credence in wordprint studies either. I'm still slowly ploughing through the book Shades, but it's tedious going, almost Nibleyesque. I put it down for a long time because I was having a hard time "connecting the dots", and many assumptions have to be made to get this theory together. But I will finish it (while reading about six other books at the same time).
My theory of automatic writing is not popular because it involves "metaphysical assumptions", ie, that there is "spirit communication". But just some thoughts. It seems to me that many aspects of the Book of Mormon incorporate Joseph Smith's personal experiences, such as Lehi's dream and his father's dream, and the Lehi family resembles Joseph Smith's in many ways. Joseph seems to be the "Nephi character". The references to Joseph of Egypt and his relationship to another Joseph, "who shall be called after the name of his father", and Joseph Smith's role in prophecy in the Book of Mormon as a latter day prophet, seem to reflect either conscious and/or subconscious motives. In other words, the Book of Mormon was a combination of external influences and Joseph's conscious/subconscious mind. You'd have to understand examples of AW. If I can put is roughly, the Book of Mormon was a combination of external influences and Joseph Smith religious imagination. It must also be remembered that according to Phillip Barlow, Joseph Smith had almost a photographic memory of the Bible, which he was reading before the FV. In fact, Joseph didn't conclude that there is no true church on the earth from what the Father and Son told him in the vision. He concluded this
before he had the vision. This is all in his personal journals. Yet in his account he says that he was "told" this in his vision:
No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.
He did this (in the FV account) to give his own conclusions authority, and this is also what he did in the Book of Mormon. It was the same with the restoration of the higher priesthood, which came by "revelation" in 1831, but Peter, James and John were added to give this "revelation" more authority. There is no contemporary record, anywhere, of Peter, James and John appearing in 1829. This was later added, and which Whitmer objected to.
In very short summary, when you weigh the Spalding theory and the AW theory, Spalding leaves a lot to be desired. It may explain
part of the Book of Mormon, but it does not entirely explain it.
Okay, I'll leave Runtu's thread in peace from any more of this, but might say more elsewhere.
Edit: Go to PP's thread in the Terrestrial Forum to discuss this post. I transferred it.