New scholarly article on Rigdon-Book of Mormon connection

[SamTheMan]

Well the story of how the Bible came out is just as shady and suspicious as the story of the Book of Mormon. For example the Catholics claim the church never left the earth since the time of Jesus and yet they don’t have any original copies of the Bible, which you’d think would have been kept. My point is merely that for every hole you try to poke in the Book of Mormon story, you can turn around and poke a hole in the Holy Bible story.

 

[ralphinal]

Well the story of how the Bible came out is just as shady and suspicious as the story of the Book of Mormon. For example the Catholics claim the church never left the earth since the time of Jesus and yet they don’t have any original copies of the Bible, which you’d think would have been kept. My point is merely that for every hole you try to poke in the Book of Mormon story, you can turn around and poke a hole in the Holy Bible story.

Different holes. Totally different holes.

The fact that there is not an existing “original” Bible is really not that shocking. First, there was no “Bible” as you use the term for a few hundred years. Second, the paper it was written on is not eternal. It can burn up, decay, rot, be eaten by bugs, etc. Third, the fact is that the books of the Bible can be traced to the correct eras.

I do not want to go on the Great Apostacy wild goose chase, but you cannot provide the dates and means by which the church vanished from the earth.

 

[BartBurk]

Well the story of how the Bible came out is just as shady and suspicious as the story of the Book of Mormon. For example the Catholics claim the church never left the earth since the time of Jesus and yet they don’t have any original copies of the Bible, which you’d think would have been kept. My point is merely that for every hole you try to poke in the Book of Mormon story, you can turn around and poke a hole in the Holy Bible story.

Give me a break. There is no comparison. The New Testament wasn’t supposedly dug up out of the ground after an angel appeared to Peter or some other apostle. It wasn’t translated from an unknown language by a guy peering at a stone in a hat. The New Testament doesn’t claim to be about a civilization for which there is no record. Not even close.

 

[Snow]

I don’t know of any good reason to believe Joseph Smith did much but serve as front man for the Book of Mormon. The “translation” was all just show.

Am I to take it then that you can’t name any compelling evidence against the standard take?

I only asked for 4.

 

[Snow]

Gave his life? He shot two people as they entered his jail cell. He had commanded the Nauvoo Legion to come rescue him at the jail, but they decided it wouldn’t be a good idea. Joseph Smith hardly “gave his life.” He probably figured he would escape in Carthage just as he always had before. His plans failed.

What evidence do you have that JS figured he would escape Carthage.

Please be precise.

Sidney Rigdon and the rest of the crowd tried to pick up the pieces and profit from the fraud they had committed. They failed, but didn’t want to implicate themselves in the fraud. Is that too hard to understand?

Evidence please.

 

[Snow]

Give me a break. There is no comparison. The New Testament wasn’t supposedly dug up out of the ground after an angel appeared to Peter or some other apostle. It wasn’t translated from an unknown language by a guy peering at a stone in a hat. The New Testament doesn’t claim to be about a civilization for which there is no record. Not even close.

Well then let’s ask some legitimate questions then.

What is the evidence that Christ was born of a virgin?

Please be specific.

What is the evidence that Christ was was “kidnapped” by Satan and taken to the top of a high mountain?

Specifics please.

What is the evidence that Christ died and was resurrected and eventually ascended to heaven?

Please provide the relevant details.

 

[Stephen168]

Yes and no. The problem with any sort of accusation along the same lines is one of time.

You can prove that books from the Bible were written centuries ago, using the same techniques. You can also prove that different men wrote them. It is also possible using history to establish a rough time line of when each work was written. Simply put, all of the NT was there by 200 AD and all of the OT was there by 1 AD.

. Third, the fact is that the books of the Bible can be traced to the correct eras.

And the article makes a scientific claim that the writings of the Book of Mormon are less than 250 years old.

Well then let’s ask some legitimate questions then.

What is the evidence that Christ was born of a virgin?

Please be specific.

What is the evidence that Christ was was “kidnapped” by Satan and taken to the top of a high mountain?

Specifics please.

What is the evidence that Christ died and was resurrected and eventually ascended to heaven?

Please provide the relevant details.

How does this prove the writings of the Book of Mormon is more than 250 years old?

 

[Snow]

How does this prove the writings of the Book of Mormon is more than 250 years old?

Are you confused about something?

What on earth makes you think that I assert that the questions asked in my post have anything even remotely related to the age of BoM authorship?

 

[why_me]

i did. harris was unstable and easily duped. he didn’t see gold plates.
why me;4533692:

His wife did influence him and this is why he didn’t want to be duped. But he claimed to see the plates and was one of the three witnesses.[/quotes] he also claimed an even greater testimony of teh shakers…you keep overlooking that.

so the child died of measles. the “mob” was made up of mormons who were angry at JS womanizing
the LDS church didn’t give her anything. she won quite a lot of property in court. she was a lot wealthier than she would have been without JS scam. and she managed to start another church still using the BoM.
unless you think you can still profit from the same fraud.

unless you think you can still profit yourself. you might also plot their downfall and try to takeover yourself. like rigdon did.

Nice try with disinformation and spin. You need to read a book about JS. Try Rough Stone Rolling by Richard Bushman. It got academic acclaim for its information and it will be the standard reference point about JS’s life.

However, you of course can still throw charged sentences to dupe the lurkers here!

 

[why_me]

at best that puts in teh same boat as jim jones and david koresh…amazing

More nonsense. But nice try!

 

[Snow]

at best that puts in teh same boat as jim jones and david koresh…amazing

I’ll take grammar, spelling, punctuation and cogency for $1000 Alex.

What did you intend to say?

 

[BartBurk]

What evidence do you have that JS figured he would escape Carthage.

Please be precise.
Here’s your evidence on Smith:

i4m.com/think/history/fallen_prophet.htm

Read Quinn’s entire book for all the evidence you need.

Evidence please.

The evidence is that Rigdon tried to become head of the Mormon Church. After he was rejected he tried to start other churches with the Book of Mormon as the basis of the church. Haven’t you ever read any LDS Church history? This is all common knowledge.

 

[BartBurk]

Well then let’s ask some legitimate questions then.

What is the evidence that Christ was born of a virgin?

Please be specific.

What is the evidence that Christ was was “kidnapped” by Satan and taken to the top of a high mountain?

Specifics please.

What is the evidence that Christ died and was resurrected and eventually ascended to heaven?

Please provide the relevant details.

The evidence of that is the New Testament itself of course. You are free to accept it or reject it. The difference between the New Testament and the Book of Mormon is that with the New Testament we can be sure the writers were contemporary with those who experienced the history written there. The writers had access to Mary and the other apostles or other people who might have known them. We have no such assurance with the Book of Mormon. Any first hand source in history is only as good as the writer who wrote it whether we are talking about the New Testament or some ancient Roman battle, but at least we can say the writers lived contemporary to the event. There is no such assurance with the Book of Mormon. The evidence points to it not being an ancient source, but instead a 19th century creation from whole cloth. Now there is evidence (and again you can accept it or reject it, but it is evidence) that Sidney Rigdon and Solomon Spalding were among the writers of the Book of Mormon.

 

[BartBurk]

Am I to take it then that you can’t name any compelling evidence against the standard take?

I only asked for 4.

What evidence do you have for the standard take beyond the words of of early Mormons? What real evidence do you have that Joseph Smith was telling the truth about an angel leading him to a set of plates? Maybe you should read Criddle’s essay – that gives several reasons to accept something other than the standard account. More than four in fact though I’m not sure why the number four is important.

mormonstudies.com/criddle/rigdon.htm

That’s compelling to me.

You seem to be in denial about the problems to be found in the Mormon Church’s official history. You also seem to want to denigrate the New Testament as a way to bolster the Book of Mormon. Of course the whole basis of the Book of Mormon is found in the Biblical story so you can’t denigrate the Bible without denigrating the Book of Mormon. Denigrating the authority of the Bible is a common Mormon tactic, but it does nothing to help one believe in the Book of Mormon.

 

[Snow]

The evidence of that is the New Testament itself of course. You are free to accept it or reject it. The difference between the New Testament and the Book of Mormon is that with the New Testament we can be sure the writers were contemporary with those who experienced the history written there. The writers had access to Mary and the other apostles or other people who might have known them. We have no such assurance with the Book of Mormon. Any first hand source in history is only as good as the writer who wrote it whether we are talking about the New Testament or some ancient Roman battle, but at least we can say the writers lived contemporary to the event. There is no such assurance with the Book of Mormon. The evidence points to it not being an ancient source, but instead a 19th century creation from whole cloth. Now there is evidence (and again you can accept it or reject it, but it is evidence) that Sidney Rigdon and Solomon Spalding were among the writers of the Book of Mormon.

You must have misunderstood the question. I asked for evidence.

Do you have any?

 

[BartBurk]

You must have misunderstood the question. I asked for evidence.

Do you have any?

Back to my post 27, which you seem to be avoiding:

"Enlighten us. What are the four most compelling pieces of evidence that JS did translated/author/whatever the BoM himself.

Try and wow us will you please."

Why do I need to waste my time proving that Joseph Smith was the main translator of the Book of Mormon? That’s the normal understanding of faithful Mormon history. Try reading it sometime.

 

[Snow]

What evidence do you have for the standard take beyond the words of of early Mormons? What real evidence do you have that Joseph Smith was telling the truth about an angel leading him to a set of plates? Maybe you should read Criddle’s essay – that gives several reasons to accept something other than the standard account. More than four in fact though I’m not sure why the number four is important.

mormonstudies.com/criddle/rigdon.htm

That’s compelling to me.

You seem to be in denial about the problems to be found in the Mormon Church’s official history. You also seem to want to denigrate the New Testament as a way to bolster the Book of Mormon. Of course the whole basis of the Book of Mormon is found in the Biblical story so you can’t denigrate the Bible without denigrating the Book of Mormon. Denigrating the authority of the Bible is a common Mormon tactic, but it does nothing to help one believe in the Book of Mormon.

That’s it?

You wow us by linking to an anti-Mormon site?

On principle I don’t read anti-Mormon and anti-Catholic sites. Not knowing what it was in advance, I skimmed it. Had you bothered to do the same you might have had some insight into the author’s credibility and purpose.

Why are you avoiding the question? Let’s have some evidence.

 

[Snow]

Why do I need to waste my time proving that Joseph Smith was the main translator of the Book of Mormon? That’s the normal understanding of faithful Mormon history. Try reading it sometime.

… perhaps because I don’t think you can.

 

[BartBurk]

… perhaps because I don’t think you can.

I’m not here to play games with you. Read B.H. Roberts’ book “Studies of the Book of Mormon” and you will get all the evidence you need that Joseph Smith had the imagination and the talent to write the Book of Mormon. And of course the Tanners believed Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon himself. Here’s the Tanners’ article demonstrating their reasons for rejecting the Spalding theory and assigning authorship to Joseph Smith:

solomonspalding.com/tanrpg/1977Tanr.htm

I’ve read just about everything I can on this subject. I’ve concluded the best evidence says that Rigdon and Cowdrey helped Joseph write the Book of Mormon based at least in part of a long missing Spalding manuscript.

 

[BartBurk]

That’s it?

You wow us by linking to an anti-Mormon site?

On principle I don’t read anti-Mormon and anti-Catholic sites. Not knowing what it was in advance, I skimmed it. Had you bothered to do the same you might have had some insight into the author’s credibility and purpose.

Why are you avoiding the question? Let’s have some evidence.

If you don’t want to read the evidence from that site then go read Michael Quinn’s book which is cited on that page. Michael Quinn still believes in Mormonism. He had access to the LDS Church history office and took copious notes for years. If you don’t want to read anti sites you’ll never learn anything. I read both anti-Mormon and pro-Mormon sites and then decide where the evidence lies. I do the same for Catholicism. Based on the information I’ve received I’ve rejected Mormonism and accepted Catholicism. I’m certainly not going to waste time typing out information which can be readily had at other places on the internet. If you label something “anti-Mormon” just because someone who has rejected Mormonism presents it then we are wasting time here.