Solomon Spalding

[mysteryman]

This is interesting since Spaulding died in 1816 and the Book of Mormon was translated in ... Never mind, those are facts. I apologize. Now just where is that second manuscript???

Glenn

What are facts? That Spalding died in 1816? Your point is what? I don't know that there is a second manuscript, do you think there is?

[Ray Agostini]

Is there one place I can read a summary of Uncle Dale's theory. Or highlights of the pertinent information. There is a lot of information on his websites but it all seems scattered about and I get lost.

Go to Mormon Discussions ,The Celestial Forum, page 2. He discusses it there with Art Vanick, Dan Vogel and Brent Metcalfe.

[mysteryman]

Which is exactly my point. It is so easy to see that Spalding did not write the Book of Mormon.

All you have to do is read both MF and the BoM. I reject the expert conclusion that Spalding

wrote Alma 52. It really is that simple.

Bernard

Everything you pointed out in your excercise can easily be explained since they are two different stories. But an author could have easily invented new names, places, peoples, wars, in a different story. Your excercise is simply too simplistic to demonstrate the author's are different. I reject the expert opinion too, but not because the stories have different names, which I would expect even if the author was the same.

[noel00]

There is a responce to "Matthew Roper offers a careful evaluation of the Spalding/Rigdon theory of the origin of the Book of Mormon" in http://thedigitalvoice.com/enigma/pdf/roper%20rebuttal.pdf

[wenglund]

which is exactly my point. It is so easy to see that Spalding did not write the Book of Mormon. All you have to do is read both MF and the BoM. I reject the expert conclusion that Spalding wrote Alma 52. It really is that simple. Bernard

While you make some excellent points that I agree with, the Stanford study isn't arguing that the BoM was copied or plagerized from the extant Spalding manuscript (I think this is pretty much undisputed by anyone, including modern Spalding theorists, who has read both the extant manuscript and the BoM), but that the BoM may have been authored by Spalding and Rigdon (allegedly al la the hypothesized second manuscript that is nowhere to be found).

It will be interesting to see what the BYU scholars have to say about the Stanford study.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

There is a responce to "Matthew Roper offers a careful evaluation of the Spalding/Rigdon theory of the origin of the Book of Mormon" in http://thedigitalvoice.com/enigma/pdf/roper%20rebuttal.pdf

I love this little bit of well poisoning. "The Importance of Being Honest:" I guess all apologists just are not really honest.

[Daniel Peterson]

I love this little bit of well poisoning. "The Importance of Being Honest:" I guess all apologists just are not really honest.

Moreover, Matt Roper isn't done with . . . um, lying about the Spalding/Rigdon theory. There's more to come.

I admire him for it. I can't even stay awake when contemplating this hackneyed and noxious notion.

It's been killed and buried and killed again and reburied and pronounced dead yet again and reburied so many times that it puts me in mind of the film that Bill Hamblin and I have long wanted to do: Bill and Dan's Excellent Adventure in Anti-Mormon Zombie Hell.

[AndyOne]

Moreover, Matt Roper isn't done with . . . um, lying about the Spalding/Rigdon theory. There's more to come.

I admire him for it. I can't even stay awake when contemplating this hackneyed and noxious notion.

It's been killed and buried and killed again and reburied and pronounced dead yet again and reburied so many times that it puts me in mind of the film that Bill Hamblin and I have long wanted to do: Bill and Dan's Excellent Adventure in Anti-Mormon Zombie Hell.

It's still the most "obvious" naturalistic theory - so is likely to die anytime within any of our lifetimes. It can never be proven - and lives in the realm of "can't prove the negative". I think we're all stuck with it to some degree or another.

[SeattleGhostWriter]

The importance of actually providing an honest critique of another persons work.

I find the following rather pathetic, lacking any form of intellectual understanding. I will quote the â??Manuscript Foundâ? and the Moroni Myth: The Importance of Being Honest:

Unfortunately, BYU Professor Dr. Daniel C. Peterson, the man who seems to have inspired Mr. Roper to write his review, strikes us as more of a preacher of LDS orthodoxy than a scholar of Mormon history. If we have assessed him correctly, from his 2004 editorial on the subject and from his subsequent remarks, he appears to be of the rigid opinion that practically all non-Mormon response to The Book of Mormon has come as a result of persecution from anti-Mormon ingrates and ex-Mormon apostates, who have either manufactured or misused historical evidence in order to counter the Mormon establishment claims, and to defame Joseph Smith, Jr.

Now, what I find rather disturbing is that they title this work with the idea that they are being "Honest" in their approach. Yet, as we shall see, the author's of this rebuttal are far from being honest.

Their words, bare in mind, state that 1) Peterson commissioned/inspired Mr. Roper to write the review. Question: How do they know this? Do they provide evidence showing this? Simply put, they made a statement that they have no point of reference too. This is poor academic criticism. Now, the only plausible way would be that Dr. Peterson most likely asked Roper to 'write a review' on the particular work concerning the Spalding Theory. In academics, scholarly work, and in journalism all together this is not a problem. Why? Because most Journals of Academic persuasion have writers that are assigned to write articles. In this sense, I would not say that Dr. Peterson "inspired" Mr. Roper to write the review, but find it plausible that Mr. Roper was "assigned" and called upon "to write a review". However, let us not negate the fact that it could very well have been that Mr. Roper approached Dr. Peterson and presented the Review for possible inclusion of the particular periodical.

What this means is that this follows appropriate and ethical guidelines for those who are in any form of a communication field where there is the writer and the editor. The writer pitches to the editor. The editor likes it and requests the writer to fulfill that pitch. And, the Editor may very well give an assignment to a writer who is on the staff to write up the review to be included. This happens in any magazine and academic Journal.

Again, in their own words, 2) They describe Peterson and Roper to have made a false assumption because of the next statement we read in the quote about Ropers "Rigid" conclusions that those who challenge the claims of the Book of Mormon and the LDS Faith are "Anti-Mormon ingrates" or "Ex-mormon apostates". The latter is a double redundancy. Seriously, if someone is an ex, are they not also an apostate? It is like saying the Dog Canine bit me. Furthermore, and again as a point of reference, they do not make any connection to their conclusion and any supportive evidence as to how and where Roper made this claim. Thus, we go to Ropers article and see what Roper actually said that could have caused these writers to make their "honest" conclusions:

In 1834, relying on testimony gathered by one Doctor Philastus Hurlbut (a former Mormon who had been excommunicated from the church for immoral behavior), E. D. Howe suggested that the Book of Mormon was based on an unpublished novel called "Manuscript Found," written by a former minister named Solomon Spalding.[1] In statements collected by Hurlbut, eight former neighbors of Spalding said they remembered elements of his story that resembled the historical portions of the Book of Mormon. Some said they recalled names shared by Spalding's earlier tale and the Book of Mormon. Others claimed that the historical narrative of both stories was the same with the exception of the religious material in the Book of Mormon. Howe suggested that, by some means, Sidney Rigdon, a former Campbellite preacher in Ohio and Pennsylvania who had joined the church in November 1830, had obtained a copy of "Manuscript Found" years before and had used it as the basis for the Book of Mormon, to which he also added religious material. Rigdon, Howe argued, must have conspired with Joseph Smith to pass the Book of Mormon off as a divinely revealed book of ancient American scripture as part of a moneymaking scheme.[2] Subsequent variants of this hypothesis have been published from time to time.[3]

Even more interesting is that the writers of the rebuttal to Roper's is that they "present an honest historical perspective". Do they make any mention of how Roper could have come to the conclusion of Doctor Philastus Hurlbut?

Well, they don't. They casually brush off Roper's statement with a standardized reasoning of "They (the Mormons) did not like the truth Hulburt brought against their faith and still are saying he is an "Ex Mormon Apostate".

I did some quick search on Hulburt and found this information http://solomonspalding.com/Lib/2000Adam.htm. It is interesting to read that such evidence that the rebutters to Roper perport to achieve actually fail miserably in their criticism of Ropers assessment of the issue.

This leads me to believe that Roper has more credibility than these rebutters who know nothing of proper Academic Criticism and presenting supportive evidence to establish their "facts".

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Again, in their own words, 2) They describe Peterson and Roper to have made a false assumption because of the next statement we read in the quote about Ropers "Rigid" conclusions that those who challenge the claims of the Book of Mormon and the LDS Faith are "Anti-Mormon ingrates" or "Ex-mormon apostates". The latter is a double redundancy. Seriously, if someone is an ex, are they not also an apostate? It is like saying the Dog Canine bit me. Furthermore, and again as a point of reference, they do not make any connection to their conclusion and any supportive evidence as to how and where Roper made this claim.

Oh boy that is really bad. I am laughing right now. I needed a good laugh too. Oh well.

[SeattleGhostWriter]

Oh boy that is really bad. I am laughing right now. I needed a good laugh too. Oh well.

Hey, Ex Mormon Apostate could also mean a Former Apostate right? Because to be an apostate, you have to have apostasized right? So then these Ex Mormon Apostates are those who have apostatized from the Ex Mormon Camp...lol...

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Hey, Ex Mormon Apostate could also mean a Former Apostate right? Because to be an apostate, you have to have apostasized right? So then these Ex Mormon Apostates are those who have apostatized from the Ex Mormon Camp...lol...

That is certainly one way to look at it. Ah, good times.

[Daniel Peterson]

They're right, of course. I did inspire Matt Roper to write his review.

I appeared to him in a series of dreams. Don't ask me how I did it. That's proprietary Maxwell Institute or FARMS information. You have to have the decoder ring. And if you need to ask about it, you plainly don't have it.

And, yes, I'm of the rigid opinion that practically all non-Mormon responses to the Book of Mormon have come as a result of persecution from anti-Mormon ingrates and ex-Mormon apostates, who have either manufactured or misused historical evidence in order to counter the Mormon establishment claims, and to defame Joseph Smith, Jr. I've never said such a thing, either privately or publicly, and I've never even thought it -- but that doesn't mean that they're not right. Even the response of not reading the Book of Mormon is plainly an evil ploy by anti-Mormon ingrates and ex-Mormon apostates who, in the act of ignoring the book, are falsifying history (or something like that) in order to defame the Prophet. And there are billions of anti-Mormon ingrates and ex-Mormon apostates, world wide, who haven't read the Book of Mormon.

Whatever.

[SeattleGhostWriter]

They're right, of course. I did inspire Matt Roper to write his review.

I appeared to him in a series of dreams. Don't ask me how I did it. That's proprietary Maxwell Institute or FARMS information. You have to have the decoder ring. And if you need to ask about it, you plainly don't have it.

And, yes, I'm of the rigid opinion that practically all non-Mormon responses to the Book of Mormon have come as a result of persecution from anti-Mormon ingrates and ex-Mormon apostates, who have either manufactured or misused historical evidence in order to counter the Mormon establishment claims, and to defame Joseph Smith, Jr. I've never said such a thing, either privately or publicly, and I've never even thought it -- but that doesn't mean that they're not right. Even the response of not reading the Book of Mormon is plainly an evil ploy by anti-Mormon ingrates and ex-Mormon apostates who, in the act of ignoring the book, are falsifying history (or something like that) in order to defame the Prophet. And there are billions of anti-Mormon ingrates and ex-Mormon apostates, world wide, who haven't read the Book of Mormon.

Whatever.

Wow... I almost sprayed my computer screen when I read this..... never take a drink of something and then read the sarcastic rebuttal of Dr. Daniel Peterson lol....

I am just amazed at how some of these people make such "factual" claims without any basis of "factual" evidence.

[noel00]

On Shades' board the link to what the discussion was about on By Common Consent does not work anymore (http://bycommonconsent.com/2009/07/18/the-Spalding-fable/. page not found) I did a search on "spalding" and the blog debate did not come up. Anyway I thought DCP could have contributed more.

Marg made a comment in response to DCP "Daniel all you ever offer is snide remarks. I rarely see you offer anything of substance in a discussion. Your whole focus just like Mikwut is to try to annoy the other person, and get them to shift focus from the issues into defending themselves." I never saw you offer much on substance in that discussion on the Spalding theory.I know Hamer and McGuire did but Marg like a terrier dog was getting up their noses.

[Ray Agostini]

Marg made a comment in response to DCP "Daniel all you ever offer is snide remarks. I rarely see you offer anything of substance in a discussion. Your whole focus just like Mikwut is to try to annoy the other person, and get them to shift focus from the issues into defending themselves." I never saw you offer much on substance in that discussion on the Spalding theory.I know Hamer and McGuire did but Marg like a terrier dog was getting up their noses.

The problem with paying to much attention to the Spalding Theory is that it has been done to death over the last 30 years and still no slam dunks, Noel. Primary witness evidence is ignored, and all of the firsthand witnesses have to be reduced to base and corrupt liars, or schemers trying to foist a fraud on the gullible, starting with Rigdon, for whom there's no credible evidence (only suspected "leads", in some cases from witnesses writing 50 years after the fact) of his meeting Joseph Smith before 1830. Even if that's established, which it hasn't, then the elaborate scheme between himself and Joseph Smith will have to be explained in detail. With what evidence? Both Metcalfe and Vogel categorically reject Spalding partly for these reasons.

As for Marg, do I really need to give you my opinion of her "objectivity"?

[Bernard Gui]

Everything you pointed out in your excercise can easily be explained since they are two different stories. But an author could have easily invented new names, places, peoples, wars, in a different story. Your excercise is simply too simplistic to demonstrate the author's are different. I reject the expert opinion too, but not because the stories have different names, which I would expect even if the author was the same.

Right. Today I was reading a story by some guy named Edgar Poe but I'm positive it was actually written by

Jack Kerouac.

Bernard

[Daniel Peterson]

On Shades' board the link to what the discussion was about on By Common Consent does not work anymore (http://bycommonconsent.com/2009/07/18/the-Spalding-fable/. page not found) I did a search on "spalding" and the blog debate did not come up. Anyway I thought DCP could have contributed more.

Marg made a comment in response to DCP "Daniel all you ever offer is snide remarks. I rarely see you offer anything of substance in a discussion. Your whole focus just like Mikwut is to try to annoy the other person, and get them to shift focus from the issues into defending themselves." I never saw you offer much on substance in that discussion on the Spalding theory.I know Hamer and McGuire did but Marg like a terrier dog was getting up their noses.

I don't make any secret of the fact that I'm profoundly, passionately, deeply uninterested in the Spalding theory.

To me, it's a rickety and hypercomplex structure of conjectures built upon hypotheses resting on possibilities sitting on top of guesses that, in any event, accounts for little of the relevant known data.

It doesn't interest me at all, and I have to force myself to read anything about it.

Wherever possible, I avoid it altogether.

So sue me.

.

[noel00]

Thats odd, one moment you make a comment about it as a disputed theory and next thing you say you are not interested. I think your strategy is to overplay what an evil person you are thought by others to be, so as to distract from the discussion. I think there was some serious discussion among Ben, Dale, Roger and Marg. I really do not care about all the stuff Scatch etc bring up, I just look for some good discussion.

Some of your contributions

You'll watch in amazement as absence of evidence becomes evidence!

You'll gasp in wonder as a rickety tower of conjectures becomes fact before your astonished eyes!

Not true, marg. Though I readily admit that I find your posts pretentious and absurd, and sometimes say so.

Truthfully, I'm just not interested enough in the Spalding/Rigdon theory to want to go anywhere for a sustained discussion of it. I think it's silly, a tissue of baseless conjectures and speculations, and boring as all get-out. It seems to me, on the whole, the province of cranks, amateur hobbyists, and anti-Mormon zealots, not of serious historians.(This strategy is used by Bill O'Reilly who calls people on the left at demonstrations "loons" while supporting those engaged in shouting matches in Town Hall meetings on healthcare)

So, since divine involvement is impossible according to TAK's worldview, the Spalding/Rigdon theory must be true. my comment (but then Spalding did not have the advantage of writing something after looking at a stone in a hat)

[why me]

I don't make any secret of the fact that I'm profoundly, passionately, deeply uninterested in the Spalding theory.

To me, it's a rickety and hypercomplex structure of conjectures built upon hypotheses resting on possibilities sitting on top of guesses that, in any event, accounts for little of the relevant known data.

It doesn't interest me at all, and I have to force myself to read anything about it.

Wherever possible, I avoid it altogether.

So sue me.

.

The problem Dan is that certain people are digging it up from the grave and attempting to give it life. Mormon apologists are now finding themselves attempting to rebuke such claims that Rigdon stole the manuscript and used it for the book of mormon (for the life of me, I don't know why he needed that manucript at all). And so, the lds need scholars such as yourself to weigh in on it.

[Daniel Peterson]

Thats odd, one moment you make a comment about it as a disputed theory and next thing you say you are not interested.

What's "odd" about saying that it's a disputed theory in which I have essentially no interest?

There are lots of disputed theories that don't interest me much. About all sorts of things.

I think your strategy is to overplay what an evil person you are thought by others to be, so as to distract from the discussion.

Don't give up your day job to become a professional mind-reader. There's nothing here to suggest that you have the gift.

I think there was some serious discussion among Ben, Dale, Roger and Marg.

If you think so, you're perfectly free to follow their discussion. Who's stopping you? I'm certainly not.

What's it got to do with me?

Some of your contributions

You'll watch in amazement as absence of evidence becomes evidence!

You'll gasp in wonder as a rickety tower of conjectures becomes fact before your astonished eyes!

Yup. My opinion of the Spalding-Rigdon theory has been consistent over a long period. And that's it.

Not true, marg. Though I readily admit that I find your posts pretentious and absurd, and sometimes say so.

Again, that is indeed my opinion of Marg's posts. Which is why I scarcely ever interact with her.

So what?

Why is this even on your mind? I've posted nothing at all over on that board for weeks now.

Even when I did post there, I paid minimal attention (at most) to the thread in which, you claim, Ben, Dale, Roger, and Marg were having a "serious discussion" of the Spalding/Rigdon theory. If that conversation is faltering now, it's not because of me. If it still interests you, that has nothing to do with me.

Truthfully, I'm just not interested enough in the Spalding/Rigdon theory to want to go anywhere for a sustained discussion of it. I think it's silly, a tissue of baseless conjectures and speculations, and boring as all get-out. It seems to me, on the whole, the province of cranks, amateur hobbyists, and anti-Mormon zealots, not of serious historians.

Precisely right. Still my opinion. Which is why I pay little or no attention to discussions of the topic.

Do you really need me to participate there, for some reason? If so, just come out and say it.

(This strategy is used by Bill O'Reilly who calls people on the left at demonstrations "loons" while supporting those engaged in shouting matches in Town Hall meetings on healthcare)

What on earth are you talking about?

So, since divine involvement is impossible according to TAK's worldview, the Spalding/Rigdon theory must be true.

An obvious logical fallacy, as I was pointing out.

You don't like to have logical fallacies pointed out? You want me to point them out more often? What is it, exactly, that you crave from me?

****

The problem Dan is that certain people are digging it up from the grave and attempting to give it life. Mormon apologists are now finding themselves attempting to rebuke such claims that Rigdon stole the manuscript and used it for the book of mormon (for the life of me, I don't know why he needed that manucript at all). And so, the lds need scholars such as yourself to weigh in on it.

Oh, I agree that LDS scholars ought to weigh in on the Spalding/Rigdon fantasy. Fortunately, some have done so, and they're not yet finished. (Good stuff is on its way.) I'm just glad that I don't have to be among their number.

[Glenn101]

What are facts? That Spalding died in 1816? Your point is what? I don't know that there is a second manuscript, do you think there is?

The fact that Spaulding died in 1816 but shows up as the most probable author of some of the chapters in the Book of Mormon according to this latest offering from Stanford. The only manuscript ever found bears no resemblance to the Book of Mormon. Some of the proponents of the Spaulding theory have posited a second manuscript by Spaulding which was supposed to have its roots or inspiration from the Bible and read more like the Book of Mormon. A manuscript which has not been found and for which there is tenuous evidence for it ever existing. I do not think there is or ever was such a manuscript.

It would seem that you have engaged in much Spaulding theory discussion prior to this thread, so much of what may be tossed back and forth may seem crazy to you. It might help if you would check up on the history of the Spaulding theory and the key players, if you have not already done so.

Glenn

[SeattleGhostWriter]

Here is a question.

Why don't the critics of the Book of Mormon stop to think that the same conjectures, the same arguments, the same fabrication of supposed evidence is similiar to the atheists argument against the Bible.

[clairc829]

Here is a question.

Why don't the critics of the Book of Mormon stop to think that the same conjectures, the same arguments, the same fabrication of supposed evidence is similiar to the atheists argument against the Bible.

That question has been asked many times on this board, I'm not aware of anyone giving a satisfactory answer.

[mysteryman]

The fact that Spaulding died in 1816 but shows up as the most probable author of some of the chapters in the Book of Mormon according to this latest offering from Stanford. The only manuscript ever found bears no resemblance to the Book of Mormon. Some of the proponents of the Spaulding theory have posited a second manuscript by Spaulding which was supposed to have its roots or inspiration from the Bible and read more like the Book of Mormon. A manuscript which has not been found and for which there is tenuous evidence for it ever existing. I do not think there is or ever was such a manuscript.

It would seem that you have engaged in much Spaulding theory discussion prior to this thread, so much of what may be tossed back and forth may seem crazy to you. It might help if you would check up on the history of the Spaulding theory and the key players, if you have not already done so.

Glenn

Hi Glenn, I've been out a couple days, if you are even still reading this thread, I am very familiar with the Spaulding theory and I am still confused about what the point was of your original post to me. You stated that Spaulding died in 1816, but I am not sure of why that matters since proponents believe that Rigdon had gotten a copy or the original MS. Then you asked me where the second manuscript was, I said I don't know that there is one which sounds like you agree.