University of Stanford Shows that Book of Mormon......

  • Thread starter Thread starter SirThomasMore
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SirThomasMore

Guest
was not translated by joseph Smith…but was written by helpers using the Spaulding Manuscript

“Our findings support the hypothesis that Rigdon was the main architect of the Book of Mormon and are consistent with historical evidence suggesting that he fabricated the book by adding theology to the unpublished writings of Spalding (then deceased).”

llc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/fqn040
 
This is bizarre.

If we take the study at face value, there would have been a concerted effort of two or more people to create the book, and they would have had to cooperate in presenting the cover story to the public.

I wounder where one can get a copy of the original Spaulding manuscript?
 
I don’t know about this article.

We have an Enlgish professor, a Statistics professor, and an Engineering professor attempting to analyze and discredit an alleged book of history/Theology.

I think some folks should stick to their own fields. Remember when that really famous biologist wrote about The God Delusion and Theologists and Philosophers across the world laughed at him and told him to go back to his laboratory?
 
solomonspalding.com/docs/rlds1885.htm He abandoned it when the plot became unworkable. He then had a better idea. He was apparently reading Clavigero’s History of Mexico at the time, and enjoyed the military narratives. He was a veteran of the American Revolution. It also reminded him of Maccabees. Although he was Protestant, he had a divinity degree, and was familiar with that.

Apparently, Mormons destroyed “Manuscript Found” The manuscript used for this study was another, entitled “Manuscript Story” There were many witnesses to “Manuscript Story,” because Solomon Spalding read it frequently to members of his community as he was writing it. Oral tradition in the Nauvoo area, from families who have been there continuously since before 1844 also supports the contention that a manuscript by Spalding was plagiarized.

The engineering professor is an ex-Mormon who has studied the Spalding theory for years. An English professor would be interested in authorship attributions because of questions surrounding such issues as what did Shakespeare write and what did he not write. It is definitely relevant to the study of English literature.

In addition, another area of specialty is Irish literature. He therefore may be Catholic, and probably understands the problems of Mormonism quite well.

Any more questions?
 
I don’t mean to be a nudge in the discussion, but we have to also remember that secular scientists in the fields of biology, chemistry etc. have “proved” our own beloved Catholic faith “wrong” based on “evidence” many times too. I’m not saying the Book of Mormon is what the LDS faithful claim it to be, I just don’t think these would be the three I would use to “disprove” the BoM. That’s just me though.
 
If you can prove the study wrong, I would love to see it.

In the meantime, mere doubts do not refute anything.
 
One criticism of the study is that it does not include military narratives (other than Spalding) to test the hypothesis that Jockers is assessing content, rather than author. I am perfectly open with Jockers using Maccabees and Clavigero to test that, since it is apparent that Spalding did not plagiarize from them, but, rather, borrowed themes from them.

I am on the same page as “Joseph onlyites” on this.
 
LongJourney said:
Apparently, Mormons destroyed “Manuscript Found” Any more questions?
Click to expand...
No, but the mormons did not destroy Manuscript Found.

Conclusion
Modern supporters of the Spaulding authorship theory simply ignore the inconvenient fact that the manuscript recovered in the late 19th century bears no resemblance to the Book of Mormon and that no second manuscript has been discovered.

They also ignore the complete lack of any persuasive evidence for contact between Sidney Rigdon and Joseph Smith prior to the Book of Mormon’s publication.

Until the purported second manuscript appears, all these critics have is a nonexistent document which they can claim says anything they want. This is doubtlessly the attraction of the “theory” and shows the lengths to which critics will go to disprove the Book of Mormon.

It is interesting to consider that the best explanation such critics can propose requires that they invent a document, then invent its contents, and then invent a means of getting the document to Joseph via Rigdon.

en.fairmormon.org/Book_of_Mormon/Authorship_theories/Spalding_manuscript
 
Hesychios said:
This is bizarre.

If we take the study at face value, there would have been a concerted effort of two or more people to create the book, and they would have had to cooperate in presenting the cover story to the public.

I wounder where one can get a copy of the original Spaulding manuscript?
Click to expand...
And that it going to be a tough peanut to crack. Let me put it this way and of course we need to piece together all the claims that have been made about the book of mormon on the mormon threads.

But lets try this one: Sidney Rigdon writes the book. He spends a lot of time writing it. Why is he writing this book? And why Joseph Smith, a young man with no reputation. Why does sidney chose him to bring forth the book with an elaborate story of visions etc? And then we have the translation process. Supposively Joseph Smith stuck his head in a hat and read off the words to a scribe. No manucript was seen during that process. Which means that Joseph Smith had to memorize the manucript. And add some of his own thoughts in the process. And where is sidney? He is waiting to be tract out by mormon missionaries so he can join the lds church. And he is tracted out by mormon missionaries and he joins the lds church. And plays second or third fiddle to Joseph Smith, even though sideny supposively wrote the book.

And then on his deathbed, sidney denies to his son that he wrote the book of mormon. Now isn’t this story bizzare?
 
And how about this:

1)Solomon Spalding wrote “Manuscript Found”
2) He took it to Pittsburgh to inquire about publication.
3) Sidney Rigdon stole it.
4) Sidney Rigdon spent the next ten years reviewing and revising it.
5) Sidney Rigdon could not publish it, because he was the prime suspect in the theft of the manuscript.
6) Sidney Rigdon’s friends found someone who would be willing to claim authorship and publish it.
7) Sidney Rigdon’s friends carried it from the Rigdon home to the Smith home.
8)Joseph edited it into final copy.
9)When the first 116 pages were lost, Smith and his team wrote a new beginning which has the same content that one would expect given what we know about Smith and Rigdon, including their Masonic associations. In the first books of this collection of works, there is minimal Spalding content.
10) The Geauga Co. Anti-Mormon Committee employed D. Philastus Hurlbut to collect information on Spalding’s manuscript, and the character of the Smith family.
11) Hurlbut obtained the manuscript from Spalding’s widow, with substantial documentation.
12) Hurlbut turned his information, including “Manuscript Found,” over to the Anti- Mormon committee, who reviewed it. Apparently, they then turned the information over to Eber Howe, the editor of the local newspaper.
13) The Mormons framed Hurlbut for a number of crimes, and apparently prevailed with assistance from a corrupt judge.
14) McKee reported that Hurlbut sold the manuscript to the Mormons, for a Judas’ pittance of $500. It is also possible that either Hurlbut or Howe sold “Manuscript Found” to the Mormons, or the Mormons stole it from them.
15) Howe revisited Conneaut to verify the witnesses’ testimonies.
16) Howe published the information, minus “Manuscript Found,” as Mormonism Unvailed.
17) Howe ceased his public anti-Mormon statements, having lost his wife to the polygamist Mormons.
18) In 1880, Hurlbut, by that time a victim of a stroke, wrote Howe, requesting that he return “Manuscript Found” to him.

Now, with #7, that is the minimalist explanation. Even it works, although it may have been more complicated than that. Note that there were many witnesses to Solomon Spalding’s manuscript.

Can you see your nose yet?
 
LongJourney said:
And how about this:

1)Solomon Spalding wrote “Manuscript Found”
2) He took it to Pittsburgh to inquire about publication.
3) Sidney Rigdon stole it.
4) Sidney Rigdon spent the next ten years reviewing and revising it.
5) Sidney Rigdon could not publish it, because he was the prime suspect in the theft of the manuscript.
6) Sidney Rigdon’s friends found someone who would be willing to claim authorship and publish it.
7) Sidney Rigdon’s friends carried it from the Rigdon home to the Smith home.
8)Joseph edited it into final copy.
9)When the first 116 pages were lost, Smith and his team wrote a new beginning which has the same content that one would expect given what we know about Smith and Rigdon, including their Masonic associations. In the first books of this collection of works, there is minimal Spalding content.
10) The Geauga Co. Anti-Mormon Committee employed D. Philastus Hurlbut to collect information on Spalding’s manuscript, and the character of the Smith family.
11) Hurlbut obtained the manuscript from Spalding’s widow, with substantial documentation.
12) Hurlbut turned his information, including “Manuscript Found,” over to the Anti- Mormon committee, who reviewed it. Apparently, they then turned the information over to Eber Howe, the editor of the local newspaper.
13) The Mormons framed Hurlbut for a number of crimes, and apparently prevailed with assistance from a corrupt judge.
14) McKee reported that Hurlbut sold the manuscript to the Mormons, for a Judas’ pittance of $500. It is also possible that either Hurlbut or Howe sold “Manuscript Found” to the Mormons, or the Mormons stole it from them.
15) Howe revisited Conneaut to verify the witnesses’ testimonies.
16) Howe published the information, minus “Manuscript Found,” as Mormonism Unvailed.
17) Howe ceased his public anti-Mormon statements, having lost his wife to the polygamist Mormons.
18) In 1880, Hurlbut, by that time a victim of a stroke, wrote Howe, requesting that he return “Manuscript Found” to him.

Now, with #7, that is the minimalist explanation. Even it works, although it may have been more complicated than that. Note that there were many witnesses to Solomon Spalding’s manuscript.

Can you see your nose yet?
Click to expand...
That’s a pretty long journey you’re on.
 
Its gotta be a long journey to satisfy all their objections to our reasoning. Even though only God can truly show them. That particular debater constantly brings up the witnesses to the BoM, so I stopped him at the pass by presenting him with the witnesses to Spalding’s book.
 
The witnesses to the B of M do not help the B of M. The fact Joseph said they are not to be trusted is the nail in the coffin. If They cannot be trusted, then we cannot trust their testimony. But, if they are honest, then Joseph is dishonest to bear false witness against honest men, so then Joseph cannot be trusted.

Either way, the B of M fails
 
SirThomasMore said:
was not translated by joseph Smith…but was written by helpers using the Spaulding Manuscript

“Our findings support the hypothesis that Rigdon was the main architect of the Book of Mormon and are consistent with historical evidence suggesting that he fabricated the book by adding theology to the unpublished writings of Spalding (then deceased).”

llc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/fqn040
Click to expand...
It is hard to give any comment on this article, because your link goes only to an abstract, so we can’t evaluate the actual arguments given. While I have no good opinion of the BOM, I doubt that the Spaulding hypothesis is a winner, and a lot of Mormon apologists have done good work showing its weaknesses. There may be some merit in saying that the existence of Spaulding’s manuscript shows that Smith’s basic ideas were not very remarkable in the context of his time, but that is about as much as you can show. There is not enough evidence that Smith was at all in contact with Spaulding to make the case, and the BOM has too many stylistic differences.

Furthermore, virtually all claims of composite authorship for the BOM run aground for the same reasons as most conspiracy theories. If the BOM was a fraud, it was a very evil fraud, and it would have been hard to everyone silent about in the following years as it lead to bloodshed and persecution, etc. If it really was a crime, we should expect it to have had only one culprit.
 
Are there any characters in the early/founding Mormon church that have been identified as 'good and holy men"?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top