Looking for " other side " of Mormanism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Carl_Nicholas
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Carl_Nicholas

Guest
Hi to all,

I ( Catholic ) have recently had some " back and forths " with a few Mormans regarding my " skeptisism " of the very birth and origin of what their faith is grounded in. ( J Smith/ birth of BoM)

One Morman offered me a link ( I believe the offer was truly trying to help me to gain prespective as that is what I WAS asking for) I aprreciated that. ( the site is below )

www.jefflindsay.com/LDS_Intro.shtml - 71k - Similar pages

After navigating through some of it ( there is alot ) I, now , atleast have a better understanding of the " defense " they put forth.

I am asking for (name removed by moderator)ut , thought, knowledge, as to the " OTHER SIDE of what is found on the Jeff Lindsay site.

Thanks in advance for the contributions,
God bless,
Carl
 
Thanks for putting in the effort to read some of that, Carl. I appreciate it.
 
 
BDawg said:
Thanks for putting in the effort to read some of that, Carl. I appreciate it.
Click to expand...
Hi BDawg,
I have apprecaited several of the efforts you have made to me. ( including your patience in the light of my being " skeptical " of what you hold precious )

As I told you before , I am really trying to gain knowledge and prespective of what I struggle with.

Thanks for ALL your contributions you make and more importantly ( in my humble opinion ) for the kind way you make them.

God bless,
Carl
 
Lehl said:
Here you go:
catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0305fea4.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9712fea2.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9905fea2.asp
catholic.com/library/problems_with_the_book_of_mormon.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9203fea.asp
catholic.com/library/distinctive_beliefs_of_mormon.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9207fea2.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9701fea2.asp
catholic.com/library/mormonism_baptism_for_the_dead.asp
catholic.com/library/lor_010801a.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9909fea4.asp
catholic.com/library/mormon_stumpers.asp
catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9603fea2.asp
Click to expand...
Hello Lehl,

I Greatly appreciate your info posted,
I have just read the first link you offered ( of several ).
WOW very interesting. ( exactly the " other side " I was looking to see )

Thanks again,
God bless,
Carl
 
Carl_Nicholas said:
Hello Lehl,

I Greatly appreciate your info posted,
I have just read the first link you offered ( of several ).
WOW very interesting. ( exactly the " other side " I was looking to see )

Thanks again,
God bless,
Carl
Click to expand...
As a caution, the following from the first article has been debunked:
The climax came in 1976 when Cowdrey and his friends were examining some old manuscripts in an LDS church library. They came across a few pages from the Book of Mormon in handwriting no one had been able to identify. But before this the researchers had managed to track down some undisputed samples of Spalding’s handwriting at Oberlin College in Ohio, including a deed from January 1811 bearing his signature.
Click to expand...
There, amid the quiet and rather dull surroundings of paper and bookshelves, the awesome truth dawned on them: These harmless-looking scraps of aging paper had the potential to shatter once and for all the myth of Joseph Smith the saint and prophet—a great, historic, American myth for which men and women had lived and died and suffered and killed; a myth that had pioneered part of the Wild West, built the state of Utah, and now ruled the hearts and lives and fortunes of millions round the world.
Click to expand...
This extract from the Book of Mormon (“translated” from “golden plates” in 1828) was in the handwriting of Solomon Spalding (died 1816)! What the young men had stumbled on was part of the long-lost manuscript of Spalding’s second novel—crushing evidence of Smith’s plagiarism and deceit that had been preserved by the unsuspecting Mormons themselves.
Click to expand...
The three men proceeded to write a book detailing the results of their research (Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon? Vision House Publishers, 1977). The LDS Church issued denials of the identification and prohibited any further examination of the relevant manuscript. But the detailed testimonies of two independent handwriting experts, William Kaye and Henry Silver, are photographically reproduced for all to see: the unquestioned Spalding documents and the supposed Book of Mormon extract are judged professionally to be definitely in the same hand (Walter Martin, The Maze of Mormonism, pp.62–64).
Click to expand...
The handwriting of Spalding is not in the Book of Mormon manuscript. The three authors have taken this claim out of the latest edition of their work. The handwriting experts no longer make the claim the writing of Spalding and the manuscript is the same.
 
BartBurk said:
As a caution, the following from the first article has been debunked:

The handwriting of Spalding is not in the Book of Mormon manuscript. The three authors have taken this claim out of the latest edition of their work. The handwriting experts no longer make the claim the writing of Spalding and the manuscript is the same.
Click to expand...
Please show your references. I’ve googled it, but I can’t find where these experts have retracted.
 
Carl_Nicholas said:
Hi to all,

I ( Catholic ) have recently had some " back and forths " with a few Mormans regarding my " skeptisism " of the very birth and origin of what their faith is grounded in. ( J Smith/ birth of BoM)

One Morman offered me a link ( I believe the offer was truly trying to help me to gain prespective as that is what I WAS asking for) I aprreciated that. ( the site is below )

www.jefflindsay.com/LDS_Intro.shtml - 71k - Similar pages

After navigating through some of it ( there is alot ) I, now , atleast have a better understanding of the " defense " they put forth.

I am asking for (name removed by moderator)ut , thought, knowledge, as to the " OTHER SIDE of what is found on the Jeff Lindsay site.

Thanks in advance for the contributions,
God bless,
Carl
Click to expand...
I am interested in what lies on the “OTHER SIDE” of Catholicism. Do you think you could show us some good links to that? 😃

zerinus
 
Lehl said:
Please show your references. I’ve googled it, but I can’t find where these experts have retracted.
Click to expand...
Read this:

solomonspalding.com/tanrpg/TanrRev1.htm

Broadhurst believes that a Solomon Spalding manuscript influenced the writing of the Book of Mormon. The Tanners, influential “anti-Mormons”, helped debunk the claim that Spaldings handwriting appeared in the Book of Mormon manuscript. As the article explains, the handwriting experts all backed out:
Jerald Tanner’s personal account (pp. 4-5) of the events of those days is especially interesting:
Click to expand...
Code: 
STATEMENT BY JERALD TANNER,
Click to expand...
Code: 
In our book Mormonism -- Shadow or Reality? page 166, we printed a photograph of the top of a page of the original Book of Mormon manuscript... one of the California researchers was reading Mormonism -- Shadow or Reality? when he ran into this photograph of the manuscript of the Book of Mormon. He had previously been examining the handwriting of Solomon Spalding... and was struck with the fact that there was a resemblance between the two writings. Subsequently three handwriting experts were consulted and are reported to have given support to this theory.
Click to expand...
Code: 
Several months before the discovery was announced a friend of the Spalding researchers came to Sandra and I with the startling announcement that the source of the Book of Mormon had definitely been found... I noticed, however, that there were dissimilarities between the two documents. For example, the manuscript written by Spalding uses capital letters where proper names are given, whereas the writer of the Book of Mormon manuscript seems to omit this in most cases. We have "nephi "jerusalem," and etc. Another dissimilarity is that Spalding usually uses the ampersand (&) instead of writing out the word "and." In the Book of Mormon, however, it is usually written out. Sandra pointed out that some of the similarities between the documents could be explained as peculiarities of the time period in which the documents were produced... we cautioned this friend of the researchers that they should be very cautious in putting forth such a sensational claim. Since it was such a secret matter, none of the documents were left with us for further inspection. From our brief examination of the documents, however, we had some grave doubts about the whole thing.
Click to expand...
Code: 
After the discovery was announced... I received a phone call from a friend of the California researchers. He said that Mr. William Kaye, a hand-writing expert from Los Angeles had been sent to examine the original Book of Mormon pages in the Church archives, and he wondered if I would accompany Mr. Kaye to be sure that he was shown the right documents...
Click to expand...
Code: 
...As I was driving Mr. Kaye to Mormon headquarters, however, I became impressed with the fact that I should go in with him. I had heard that the Church had a revelation, dated June, 1831, which contained hand-writing which resembled that found in the 12 contested pages of the Book of Mormon manuscript, I thought that this was a very important matter, and I felt that I might be able to talk Church officials into showing Mr. Kaye this document.
Click to expand...
Code: 
After we parked the car... I mustered up my courage and proceeded with Mr. Kaye to the Church archives. I followed behind Mr. Kaye as he was directed from one office to another and finally to the conference room. I sat down close to him so that I would be able to have a good look at the documents. We were alone in the room for a few minutes, but then Donald Schmidt, Church Archivist, entered with a cart containing a large number of documents... Dean Jessee and Don LeFevre then entered the room, and I was introduced by my full name.
Click to expand...
Code: 
...as Mr. Kaye and myself continued to examine the documents we were treated with courtesy, I began to note and discuss the important dissimilarities between the photocopies of the Spalding manuscript and the writing in the Book of Mormon manuscript. Then the final blow came to the California researchers' theory. This was the revelation dated June, 1831, Section 56 of the Doctrine and Covenants. The Church voluntarily produced this revelation and invited Mr. Kaye to inspect it. The claim has been made that Mr. Kaye did not see the original of this revelation. I am absolutely certain this is incorrect. Both the original revelation and a photocopy were given to us for inspection. I noted the date at the top and the fact that the paper appeared to be very old. After looking carefully at the revelation, I became convinced that it was probably written by the same scribe who wrote the 12 contested pages in the Book of Mormon manuscript. Both manuscripts in turn differed from Spalding's work in important features.
Click to expand...
Code: 
I felt that the evidence furnished by the revelation was so devastating that I immediately went to the press with a statement hoping that the whole matter could be resolved before more damage was done.
Click to expand...
Code: 
Jerald Tanner [signature]
Click to expand...
Following this statement, the Tanners provide some information on how another of the California researchers’ hired handwriting experts, Henry Silver, withdrew from the affair at about the same time that expert William Kaye was delaying offering any final decision on the handwriting. As it worked out at the time, the California researchers’ third expert, Howard Doulder, also soon withdrew from the investigation. By September 24th Doulder was telling the Times that the Spalding MS and the questioned 12 pages had been written by “different authors.” When Howard Davis and friends’ book Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon? appeared in late 1977, the California researchers were forced to admit that Doulder was saying “Solomon Spalding is NOT the author of the unidentified pages.” Thus, in the end, two of the experts never provided the California researchers with positive final reports and the third expert (William Kaye) only issued an opinion (not a detailed report) on September 8th, that Spalding was the writer of the 12 pages. The Tanners’ initial premonition against this conclusion and their “grave doubts” on the whole matter, prior to the examination of the documents, appear to have been well founded and were confirmed by their own conclusion “that the discovery would not stand up under rigorous examination.”
Click to expand...
Even though Broadhurst believes Spalding’s manuscript contributed to the Book of Mormon, he accepts the Tanners conclusion in accord with the handwriting experts that Spalding’s handwriting does not appear in the Book of Mormon manuscript as Davis, etc. originally contended. As I mentioned, this claim is not included in the latest edition of their book, “Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon.”
 
zerinus said:
I am interested in what lies on the “OTHER SIDE” of Catholicism. Do you think you could show us some good links to that? 😃

zerinus
Click to expand...
Just like the " Z " I have come to appreciate. always answering questions with questions.

Well to answer your question to me, ( NOTICE I WILL ANSWER )
No, I will not show such links. The origin/birth of "THIS ONE "
is mine. ( lol )

Peace,
Carl
 
Carl_Nicholas said:
Just like the " Z " I have come to appreciate. always answering questions with questions.

Well to answer your question to me, ( NOTICE I WILL ANSWER )
No, I will not show such links. The origin/birth of "THIS ONE "
is mine. ( lol )

Peace,
Carl
Click to expand...
Don’t worry, I can always find some for you. 🙂

Here are just a few. Rather than give you loads of links from the same site (as Lehl did), I will let you pick them out yourself: LOL 😃

carm.org/catholic.htm

zerinus
 
BartBurk said:
Read this:

solomonspalding.com/tanrpg/TanrRev1.htm

Broadhurst believes that a Solomon Spalding manuscript influenced the writing of the Book of Mormon. …

Even though Broadhurst believes Spalding’s manuscript contributed to the Book of Mormon,
Click to expand...
Another part of Broadhurst’s theory is that there was also a “Nephite record” that was included in the Book of Mormon. My work is based on that part of his theory. Here is an old edition: solomonspalding.com/SRP/saga2/sagawtOJ.htm I have reworked it substantially.

Even if that handwriting sample was not Solomon’s, there is plenty of other evidence.
 
Jerusha said:
Another part of Broadhurst’s theory is that there was also a “Nephite record” that was included in the Book of Mormon. My work is based on that part of his theory. Here is an old edition: solomonspalding.com/SRP/saga2/sagawtOJ.htm I have reworked it substantially.

Even if that handwriting sample was not Solomon’s, there is plenty of other evidence.
Click to expand...
I think there is a lot of evidence Rigdon had a Spalding manuscript which he, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdrey reworked to become the Book of Mormon. Unfortunately, the handwriting comparison didn’t support the idea that Spalding’s actual written material were pasted into the Book of Mormon manuscript.

By the way your link doesn’t seem to be working.
 
BartBurk said:
I think there is a lot of evidence Rigdon had a Spalding manuscript which he, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdrey reworked to become the Book of Mormon. Unfortunately, the handwriting comparison didn’t support the idea that Spalding’s actual written material were pasted into the Book of Mormon manuscript.
Click to expand...
Yeah, apparently, wherever they borrowed something from other authors, they reworked it so that it would be in that imitation King James English. That is pretty well consistent throughout the book. Sort of like building a cabinet from whatever pieces of wood are laying around in the lumberyard, then painting it all to match, oak, maple, pine, cherry—
 
BDawg said:
Honestly, guys–no serious historians take the Spaulding Theory of Book of Mormon origins seriously, anymore. None. Not even non-LDS historians, or even ex-LDS historians. Even most critics of the LDS Church who aren’t even historians reject it. See the following link for some sources.

en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon_and_Spaulding_manuscript
Click to expand...
There aren’t that many serious non-Mormon historians. And the Mormon ones are obviously not going to take it seriously. I would suggest to you though that Dale Broadhurst and several other people who have researched it have found some interesting details regarding the connection between Sidney Rigdon and Solomon Spalding. The Mormon historians don’t want to open the issue up to scrutiny. Go look at Broadhurst’s web site and tell me he hasn’t done some serious historical research worthy of consideration.

I agree there may be a danger in depending upon the Spalding research to try to debunk the Book of Mormon. While the Spalding connection has the potential to be the silver bullet, the Book of Mormon is so easily debunked just on the face of its contents that delving into a Spalding connection is unnecessary. The idea that a Hebrew family came here 600 years before Christ and started a Christian civilization in Ancient America is simply without any merit at all. The biggest problem for the Spalding theory is that no academic historian takes the Book of Mormon seriously enough to waste their time pursuing the Spalding theory.
 
Ugh…I haven’t read all of this thread, but out of sheer curiosity I clicked the “other side of catholicism” link, and I am disgusted. That the author writes as if he has any authority on the matter, and blatently percieves himself as having better understanding of scripture than the Holy Catholic Church (because everybody knows of course, the catholic church doesn’t teach the Bible!) makes me absolutely sick to my stomac to read. Even more so, that for years of my life I believed the same lies and heresies about the Church only saddens me all the more, because I know there are those out there who will read articles such as his and believe they are the final, theological word on the matter.
Forgive me for not being more “opened minded” but I don’t take kindly to “scholarly people” quoting the sacred scriptures to fit their own purposes. Praise God for building His church on earth, where even the gates of hell cannot prevail against it, or Scripture would be little more for anybody, except a piece of literature to be analyzed and interpretted to our own human evaluations.
 
BDawg said:
Honestly, guys–no serious historians take the Spaulding Theory of Book of Mormon origins seriously, anymore. None. Not even non-LDS historians, or even ex-LDS historians. Even most critics of the LDS Church who aren’t even historians reject it. See the following link for some sources.

en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon_and_Spaulding_manuscript
Click to expand...
Hi BDawg,

After navigating through some ( alot there ) of Lehl’s links provided from post # 3, I have a few questions I would like to either confirm or not confirm directly from a Morman.

If you would be so kind to lend some perspective.

Is it a valid belief that you may become a God yourself of another planet ( if earned )??

Is it " true " that ALL others ( Non-Morman ) will be sent to hell??? unless baptized after death ( second chance to become a faithfull Morman) ???

Is it the doctrine of LDS that the ONLY way to salvation is not available to any of us and thus available only to the Temple worthy that once they earn " recomend " they are then and only then shown the secret to salvation???

( I have several more questions but to try and maintain some sort of Back and forth, I will stop there for now )

I freely admit that these questions I have are in response to the info that was offered in post #3, and wanted to allow you ( Morman) an opportunity to respond.

God bless,
Carl
 
Carl_Nicholas said:
Is it a valid belief that you may become a God yourself of another planet ( if earned )??
Click to expand...
No.
Is it " true " that ALL others ( Non-Morman ) will be sent to hell??? unless baptized after death ( second chance to become a faithfull Morman) ???
Click to expand...
No.
Is it the doctrine of LDS that the ONLY way to salvation is not available to any of us and thus available only to the Temple worthy that once they earn " recomend " they are then and only then shown the secret to salvation???
Click to expand...
No.

zerinus
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top