B
BartBurk
Guest
llc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/fqn040
After reading this study again, I find it to be significant. Dale Broadhurst and others had previously accumulated a vast deal of evidence that suggests Sidney Rigdon may have been involved in the creation of the Book of Mormon. Whatever flaws might be found in the Jocker study, the reality is it does agree with what the earlier evidence suggests. It shows that it is plausible that Sidney Rigdon, using a Spalding manuscript, could have been involved in creating the Book of Mormon. If the study had shown no Rigdon/Spalding signal we could have tossed the theory out. Since it showed such a signal, further study is warranted. I will be interested in seeing what further studies like this show. As for myself I am satisfied there is enough evidence to believe those early witnesses who claimed a Spalding/Rigdon connection to the Book of Mormon were telling the truth.
I guess it comes down to which theory is more plausible. Is it more plausible to believe that an angel of God delivered gold plates to Joseph Smith which he translated or is it more plausible to believe in some other explanation? When we find another explanation which makes sense like the Spalding/Rigdon theory does, do we just toss it out because it doesn’t fit our preconceptions? I used to believe in the Book of Mormon, but with the kind of evidence we have that it is a 19th century document I am unable to stake my eternal life on Joseph Smith’s story.
After reading this study again, I find it to be significant. Dale Broadhurst and others had previously accumulated a vast deal of evidence that suggests Sidney Rigdon may have been involved in the creation of the Book of Mormon. Whatever flaws might be found in the Jocker study, the reality is it does agree with what the earlier evidence suggests. It shows that it is plausible that Sidney Rigdon, using a Spalding manuscript, could have been involved in creating the Book of Mormon. If the study had shown no Rigdon/Spalding signal we could have tossed the theory out. Since it showed such a signal, further study is warranted. I will be interested in seeing what further studies like this show. As for myself I am satisfied there is enough evidence to believe those early witnesses who claimed a Spalding/Rigdon connection to the Book of Mormon were telling the truth.
I guess it comes down to which theory is more plausible. Is it more plausible to believe that an angel of God delivered gold plates to Joseph Smith which he translated or is it more plausible to believe in some other explanation? When we find another explanation which makes sense like the Spalding/Rigdon theory does, do we just toss it out because it doesn’t fit our preconceptions? I used to believe in the Book of Mormon, but with the kind of evidence we have that it is a 19th century document I am unable to stake my eternal life on Joseph Smith’s story.