Robert Christian Kahlert, while critical of the historicity of the Book of Mormon, wrote the following against the Spaulding-Rigdon theory of Book of Mormon origins:
Rigdon’s Conversion
One of the main arguments behind the Spaulding-Rigdon Thesis lies in the assumption that the Book of Mormon was too good a fit for Rigdon to be authored independently of him. Supports of the Spaulding-Rigdon Thesis place a special emphasis on the observation that the Book of Mormon presents a “Campbellite” style of theology and, on numerous theological issues, sides with Rigdon against Campbell.
But that argument inverts the logic of conversion. It is like saying, that Goldilocks must have helped to make the porridge, since she thought it tasted “just right”. The potential compatibility of a theological message is the precondition for its acceptance. Indeed, if the Book of Mormon was incompatible with Rigdon’s thinking, why would have accepted it as a revelation? Assume for sake of argument that the Book of Mormon had rejected the restoration of the apostolic charismata, and thus sided with Campbell against Rigdon and his congregations, Rigdon would have disavowed the book outright, and his students—e.g. Parley P. Pratt—and congregation members would have refused it as well. Far from the compatibility being a smoking gun indicating nefarious activities, it was the necessary precondition for the success of the corporate raid. (Robert Christian Kahlert, Salvation and Solvency: The Socio-Economic Policies of Early Mormonism [Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte 133; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2016], 166)
