A brief discussion of Method

[Uncle Dale]

...

there is no evidence

...

What would constitute evidence?

I am not talking about proof of guilt, beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I am not talking about proof, possibly dismissible in some minds, due to doubt.

I am not talking about totally conclusive evidence falling a little short of proof.

I am not even talking about compelling evidence, which some will accept but not others.

I am simply talking about the level of "evidence" a debater might cite, if

a non-Mormon were to engage in a formal debate with a Mormon apologist.

Is there even one shred of evidence admissible, in support of the assertion that at

least part of the Book of Mormon originated with a 19th century writer, like Mr. Smith?

Uncle Dale

.

[why me]

What about this as an alternative?

Even if they knew the book was technically a fraud, they had a deep and unshakable belief in the divinity and truthfulness of the book's message.

I think that this would be an impossibility. Too many gave their deathbed testimony. Now if there were only one witness, it might be workable. But with so many involved, someone would have cracked. And then of course we still have the Emma problem. She was certain that JS did not write the book. I have no idea how he could have hidden the truth from her. A crack would have appeared.

And this is what makes mormonism a mystery and very powerful. And one reason why many who leave the fold just can't let it go. Because there is always a what if. And so, what do we trust: a word-print study or the testimony of 12 people? And remember, Emma still taught her children from the book of mormon after JS was murdered.

[why me]

I am simply talking about the level of "evidence" a debater might cite, if

a non-Mormon were to engage in a formal debate with a Mormon apologist.

Is there even one shred of evidence admissible, in support of the assertion that at

least part of the Book of Mormon originated with a 19th century writer, like Mr. Smith?

Uncle Dale

The problem is with the characters involved in the early beginning. Now if Sidney would have spilled the beans when JS asked his daughter to be sealed, well, that would have made sense. Or when Oliver is claimed to have been disappointed with the Fanny business, that would have made sense too. Or if the witnesses would have come clean when JS was languishing in liberty Jail, that would have made sense too. But, all still remained quiet. And this is the mystery that has no answers. And of course, we have Emma. Now if she would have come clean after D&C 132, now that would have make sense too. But...all remained silent. and that silence is what makes mormonism very powerful.

[Uncle Dale]

The problem is with the characters involved in the early beginning.

...

I don't think you were reading my question.

If I asked a Mormon if there was any evidence that the book was written by Nephites,

he would present me with the statements of the three witnesses and the eight witnesses.

The Mormon might admit that those two documents were NOT conclusive proof of Nephites,

ancient inscribed plates, etc., but he would also cite the fact that 13,000,000 investigators

have already accepted those documents as valid evidence.

Now you guys tell me that, in a debate with a non-Mormon, that the non-Mormon is NOT

allowed to present any similar opening statement, because there is ABSOLUTELY NO

evidence for a 19th century BoM origin?

This is like an creationist debating an evolutionist, by reading Genesis, and then

forbidding the evolutionist from citing anything in response, because it has been

predetermined that the evolutionists have not one shred of evidence to be presented.

If this is not a prime example of prejudice, I cannot think of a better one.

UD

.

[Uncle Dale]

...

If this is not a prime example of prejudice, I cannot think of a better one.

...

Or, we can here consider another Mormon claim, Vernal Holley ran into, years ago:

"There is absolutely no evidence that Joseph Smith, in 1828, was capable of

writing a single sentence of a book as complex and learned as the Book of Mormon."

Vernal refuted that charge in 30 seconds flat.

Uncle Dale

[Kevin Christensen]

I don't think you were reading my question.

If I asked a Mormon if there was any evidence that the book was written by Nephites,

he would present me with the statements of the three witnesses and the eight witnesses.

The Mormon might admit that those two documents were NOT conclusive proof of Nephites,

ancient inscribed plates, etc., but he would also cite the fact that 13,000,000 investigators

have already accepted those documents as valid evidence.

This hypothetical Mormon does not behave as I would. I'd go beyond the witnesses number of believers argument.

What you are involved in is a paradigm debate, and in paradigm debates, the issues are "Which paradigm is better? Which problems are more significant to have solved?" And the most rational ways of weighing those questions comes by considering "accuracy of key predictions, comprehensiveness and coherence, fruitfulness, simplicity and aesthetics, and future promise." The least rational ways of weighing those questions comes by uncritical deference to tradition, ideology, and personal relationships.

As examples of accuracy of key predictions, believers can cite conditions in Jerusalem, circa 600 BCE, the accurate depiction of geographical condictions and cultural mores on the trip to the Valley of Lemuel, Nahom, and Bountiful. We can cite the internal geography of New World portion of the text, add Larry Poulson's observation that the only river in the Western Hemisphere that matches the textual demands for the Sidon in the Grijalva. We can consider the text in that context, and see what happens. We can look at things like the Festival patterns in Mosiah's discourse, the accurate NDE account in Alma 36, the Forty Day Ministry and Pesher Teaching and Year Rite and volcanic events accurately described in 3 Nephi.

In looking at examples of comprehensiveness and coherence, we can consider how different kinds of evidence, from modern witnesses, to predictions of ancient ways in the Old and New Worlds, to prophetic passages like 1 Nephi 13, all fit together in mutually supporting ways.

In looking at fruitfulness, we can consider the kinds of unexpected discoveries that show up when we examine the text from a believing perspective. For instance, John Welch's 1967 discovery of chiasmus, or Ben McGuire's observations how complex allusions in the Laban account point to a primal version of the David and Goliath story, or Gordon Thomasson's and Lisa Hawkin's comparisons with Survival Witness literature, or, looking to the personal effect that the Book can have in our personal lives.

In looking at simplicity and aesthetics, we can consider the straight-forward story Joseph Smith tells versus the convoluted conspiracy stories, in which the conmen produce a text distinctly unlike any other modern gospel (Anderson), and behave unlike another other conmen or conspirators. We consider that the famous Sherlock Holmes statement, "When the impossible has been eliminated, what remains, no matter how unlikely, must be the truth," ought more reasonably be rendered, "When the ideologically unacceptable has been eliminated, what remains, no matter how unlikely, must be accepted and then defended as truth."

In looking at future promise, we can consider what the skeptics offer, and that Mormonism is expensive and inconvenient, that it involves living in the shadow of a great and building, filled with people who love to point and mock, that we drag scandals of polygamy, money digging, priesthood controversies, etc., as gaudy and noisy as the paint and cans on a newlywed's car, versus the promise that the fruit of the tree of life fills our souls with joy and promises the greatest of all gifts.

And we can, and in practice do, consider counter-explanations and evidences thrown at us constantly in the media, press, and libraries. In practice, I have found that I learn far more about the evidences offered by the critics of the faith by reading the apologetic literature, than I learn about the apologetic sources from the critics.

Now you guys tell me that, in a debate with a non-Mormon, that the non-Mormon is NOT

allowed to present any similar opening statement, because there is ABSOLUTELY NO

evidence for a 19th century BoM origin?

But there is. The question is with that evidence is better than the evidence for a 19th century inspired translation of an ancient text. "Better" requires comparison. And a gathering of all of the evidence for a 19th century origin that does not involve open comparison with the opposition is more an expression of ideology than an engagement in a real paradigm debate.

For example, any presentation of the latest relative probability word-prints that does not include and respond to Ben McGuire's astute observations of critical flaws is ideology in action (in practice, if not in concious intent). Not a comprehensive argument for "better."

One of the things that I've enjoyed about my personal encounter with LDS apologetics is the degree to which LDS defenders fully engage the critical perspectives. Quoting, pointing, citing, exploring, etc., as Kirkham did, for instance. More recently John Clark set out to catalogue every critical argument, so he can map trends in resolution over time. What critic has done anything like that? John Charles Duffy came closest, but failed, from my perspective. I've found that when I've gone on and read the critic's arguments, I've usually been very well prepared by what I've found. And on the occasion I've been surprised, all I had to do was wait a while, to give things a little time, and reaxamine my own assumptions, that resolutions come along. It's fun.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Uncle Dale]

...

But there is. The question is with that evidence is better than the evidence

for a 19th century inspired translation of an ancient text....

Correct.

Thank you for refuting the statements of the previous two defenders. Such folks

have obviously confused "evidence" and "proof."

If I walk into a meeting of American historians, and offer them Fawn Brodie's

book and the recent Spalding-Rigdon theory book, they are very likely to tell

me that their review of the "evidence" leads them to conclude that Joseph Smith

wrote the Book of Mormon and that Fawn Brodie's "evidence" leads them to conclude

that Spalding and Rigdon had nothing to do with the text.

At least, today I'm constantly being reminded that "all serious scholars" have

long since abandoned the Spalding-Rigdon theory, for lack of evidence, and thus

only two explanations stand worthy of investigation: Smith or Nephites as author.

"Lack of evidence" in this case does not mean "zero evidence." What such terms

mean (when we encounter them nowadays) is that most non-Mormon scholars have

concluded that there is INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE to prove the Spalding-Rigdon theory,

but that there is indeed SUFFICIENT evidence to convince those scholars that writers

like Fawn Brodie, Sandra Tanner and Dan Vogel are correct.

Posters glennthigpen and why-me are confusing the terms "insufficient evidence"

and "absolutely no evidence." And -- it seems to me -- they are confusing the

very words "evidence" and "proof" themselves.

Thank you for clearing this up for us.

UD

[Glenn101]

Posters glennthigpen and why-me are confusing the terms "insufficient evidence"

and "absolutely no evidence." And -- it seems to me -- they are confusing the

very words "evidence" and "proof" themselves.

Thank you for clearing this up for us.

UD

Dale, I don't want to get into a argument over semantics here. My problem with most of the critical input here and on other boards is just about what constitutes evidence. I think that I understand the difference between evidence and proof. In another post, stated that there is a differnce between facts and evidence. Facts are linked together to provide evidence. For example, a man is found standing over a dead body with a smoking gun is his hand. There is a hole in the dead man's forehead. What are those facts evidence of? A murder? Self defense? There may be cases where facts alone can be evidence. I'll not be dogmatic about it.

I stated elsewhere also that in this life we have the impossible, the possible (with different levels of possibility ranging fom remotely possible, to very possible), the plausible (with ranges from not very to very), the probable (with ranges from not very probable to very probable), and the certainty. Others may throw in some other items also. I do not subscribe to either extreme very much.

I am not one who has denied that there are elements in the Book of Mormon that can be construed as being of a nineteenth century origin? But are those elements evidence that the Book of Mormon is indeed of a product of the nineteenth century in part or in whole? Not unless someone can string together some other facts that will make this into a plausible theory.

The Rigdon/Spaulding theory, after how many years and iterations?, rests upon a few facts and tenuous conjecture. I also noted that you now are saying that the Rigdon/Spaulding theory is in a bit of trouble now. The Rigdon/Spaulding theory brings up so many questions that none of it proponents can answer, and it seems that they do not even try. Kevin Christensen's post has just a few of them.

If I said that there is "absolutely no evidence" for this or that theory about the origins of the Book of Mormon, let me modify it just a bit to say that there is no credible evidence.

Glenn

[Uncle Dale]

...

there is no credible evidence.

...

Let's modify that statement just a little more, to say that you and many

others (including reputable Gentile scholars) believe that there is

little or no credible evidence for 19th century multiple BoM authorship.

I can quote Rigdon's LDS biographer, Van Wagoner, as stating the opinion

that Rigdon knew of the Book of Mormon before 1830, along with at least

two of his pre-Mormon followers, Orson Hyde and Eliza R. Snow.

Now, to most general observers, such stuff may sound like the most trivial

of "evidence;" hardly worth a single mention.

But, in a debate with an LDS apologist, I would probably begin by quoting

a list of previous Mormon scholars who agreed with or accepted some of these

trivial points of evidence.

If I did not do such a thing, I would be conceding that even LDS agreement

with some of the points I wished to make, was valueless.

I understand the Mormon reluctance to agree that there are any such bits

and pieces of "evidence." After all, anti-Mormons have been yelling at the

tops of their voices for decades that there is "no LDS evidence."

As for myself, I think there is indeed credible LDS "evidence" -- most of

which comes from David Whitmer. I also feel that Fawn Brodie and Dan Vogel

have done as good a job as possible in compiling what they deem credible

evidence for a "Smith-alone" authorship theory.

There is "credible evidence" on all sides of the controversy. The question

is, how much?

We can assemble a group of non-Mormon scholars and students of American religious

history, in order to get some idea of the relative merits of the three stacks of

contradictory "evidence." If we did that, I have no doubt whatsoever that those

"experts" would choose the Brodie-Vogel stack of "evidence."

It would be you and me who would be left behind in the dust.

Uncle Dale

.

[Glenn101]

Let's modify that statement just a little more, to say that you and many

others (including reputable Gentile scholars) believe that there is

little or no credible evidence for 19th century multiple BoM authorship.

I can quote Rigdon's LDS biographer, Van Wagoner, as stating the opinion

that Rigdon knew of the Book of Mormon before 1830, along with at least

two of his pre-Mormon followers, Orson Hyde and Eliza R. Snow.

1. An opinion is not evidence. You and I both have opinions about the subject.

2. Let's grant the assumption that Rigdon, Orson Hyde, and Eliza R. Snow all three had heard of the Book of Mormon prior to 1830, what is that evidence of?

Now, to most general observers, such stuff may sound like the most trivial

of "evidence;" hardly worth a single mention.

But, in a debate with an LDS apologist, I would probably begin by quoting

a list of previous Mormon scholars who agreed with or accepted some of these

trivial points of evidence.

It is not whether I or anyone else accept those trivial points of evidence. The question is, what are those points evidence of?

If I did not do such a thing, I would be conceding that even LDS agreement

with some of the points I wished to make, was valueless.

I understand the Mormon reluctance to agree that there are any such bits

and pieces of "evidence." After all, anti-Mormons have been yelling at the

tops of their voices for decades that there is "no LDS evidence."

As for myself, I think there is indeed credible LDS "evidence" -- most of

which comes from David Whitmer. I also feel that Fawn Brodie and Dan Vogel

have done as good a job as possible in compiling what they deem credible

evidence for a "Smith-alone" authorship theory.

There is "credible evidence" on all sides of the controversy. The question

is, how much?

We can assemble a group of non-Mormon scholars and students of American religious

history, in order to get some idea of the relative merits of the three stacks of

contradictory "evidence." If we did that, I have no doubt whatsoever that those

"experts" would choose the Brodie-Vogel stack of "evidence."

Dale, I do agree with you on this point. If you could get non-LDS scholars and students of American religious history to undertake such an effort, I suspect that they would accept the evidence that most coincides with their pre-conceived notions. That is human nature.

I surely have a preconceived notion and for someone to disabuse me of that notion, it would take some convincing evidence, not a bunch od unconnected dots of facts (or evidence if you must). Any theory that is proposed must not only be credible in and of itself, it must also explain away satisfactorially the records of all of the contemporary witnesses who were involved in the production of the Book of Mormon, and the internal and external facets of the Book of Mormon that tend to support the Book of Mormon's claim to an ancient, Hebrew provenance.

It would be you and me who would be left behind in the dust.

Uncle Dale

.

Well, we'll all be left in the dust eventually, unless we survive until the mellenium.

Glenn

[Uncle Dale]

...

what are those points evidence of?

...

Good question. I would be happy to present them before an audience and

allow that audience to make the determination.

I would start with various LDS assertions, that Sidney Rigdon was

(as the D&C section says) the forerunner of Mormonism, but knew it not.

I would quote Rigdon himself, and Pratt, and various others who have

based their arguments upon the supposed "fact" that Rigdon knew

absolutely nothing of Mormonism prior to October of 1830.

That would be my beginning, in a debate with a modern LDS defender.

I would then proceed to demonstrate that Rigdon had a long history as

a religious liar and had written pseudo-scripture as early as 1824.

Once all of that was on the table, and had been responded to by my

LDS opponent, I would ask the audience whether or not they wished

to hear the recorded statements of Rigdon's followers and associates,

testifying to the fact that he not only knew of Mormonism and the

Gold Bible before 1830, but that he had discussed the matter with

various other Campbellites.

If the audience said "No," then I'd concede the outcome of the debate

to my LDS opponent, and the "evidence" of the three witnesses and the

eight witnesses would stand unchallenged.

If the audience said "Yes," then I'd present the Campbellite witness

statements regarding Rigdon's pre-1830 religion, activities and professed

knowledge of the Gold Bible.

If the statements of the LDS witnesses were entered as "evidence" in

such a debate, what basic law of debating precludes the submission of

the Campbellite statements to the audience, as possible "evidence?"

UD

[Glenn101]

Good question. I would be happy to present them before an audience and

allow that audience to make the determination.

I would start with various LDS assertions, that Sidney Rigdon was

(as the D&C section says) the forerunner of Mormonism, but knew it not.

I would quote Rigdon himself, and Pratt, and various others who have

based their arguments upon the supposed "fact" that Rigdon knew

absolutely nothing of Mormonism prior to October of 1830.

That would be my beginning, in a debate with a modern LDS defender.

I would then proceed to demonstrate that Rigdon had a long history as

a religious liar and had written pseudo-scripture as early as 1824.

Once all of that was on the table, and had been responded to by my

LDS opponent, I would ask the audience whether or not they wished

to hear the recorded statements of Rigdon's followers and associates,

testifying to the fact that he not only knew of Mormonism and the

Gold Bible before 1830, but that he had discussed the matter with

various other Campbellites.

If the audience said "No," then I'd concede the outcome of the debate

to my LDS opponent, and the "evidence" of the three witnesses and the

eight witnesses would stand unchallenged.

If the audience said "Yes," then I'd present the Campbellite witness

statements regarding Rigdon's pre-1830 religion, activities and professed

knowledge of the Gold Bible.

If the statements of the LDS witnesses were entered as "evidence" in

such a debate, what basic law of debating precludes the submission of

the Campbellite statements to the audience, as possible "evidence?"

UD

Dale, you have a lot of dots, but the connections that the proponents of the Spaulding theory have not connected those dots. The theory rests upon speculation and some bid "if's" unsupported by documentary evidence. It also relies upon character assassination of Rigdon, his family, and all of the others involved in the production of the Book of Mormon or knowledgeable of it. They all had to be liars. It also relies upon recollections by people long after the events were cold. None of those theorists have any answers for the other questions that the Book of Mormon raises for Rigdon being the author of the Book of Mormon.

This goes back to the OP on a Discussion of Method. Applying a bit of method to our madness.

As far as a debate goes, this topic would not fit an oral debate agenda very well. The audience would not have the chance to examine the evidence for themselves and it would be the skills of the dabaters that would be the major factor in determining the "winner".

However, this is a forum in which all of the best evidence for the Spalding/Rigdon theory could be laid out and debated.

Glenn

[Uncle Dale]

Dale, you have a lot of dots, but the connections that the proponents

of the Spaulding theory have not connected those dots.

I, for one, would say that a full, reasonable and clear articulation of how the

Book of Mormon was composed by multiple 19th century writers has NEVER yet been

set forth for investigators to examine. What we have seen are parts of an

explanation, coming from different persons at different times.

The theory rests upon speculation and some bid "if's" unsupported by documentary evidence.

If by "supported" you mean "proved" I'll agree. If by "evidence" you mean absolute

conclusive evidence, I'll also agree.

But you know my position by now. That "evidence" need not be conclusive, if all

we are trying to accomplish is to formulate the explanation as a hypothesis, and

begin to test it.

If you are saying there is no stack of evidence, sufficient to cause a Mormon to

abandon his testimony, I'll agree. If you say that the evidence is so minuscule

as to preclude even a testing of the hypothesis, I will very strongly disagree.

It also relies upon character assassination of Rigdon, his family, and all of

the others involved in the production of the Book of Mormon or knowledgeable

of it.

The character assassination of President Rigdon was carried out during the

summer of 1844 (and thereafter) by Brigham Young, Orson Hyde, and many of

Rigdon's pre-Mormon followers. Go back and read his excommunication trial

record, and the additions to it made in LDS publications and other communications

from that time forward. Anti-Mormons need not add one single word to that pile

of character assassination -- except to say "Amen, Brigham!"

They all had to be liars. It also relies upon recollections by people long

after the events were cold. None of those theorists have any answers for the

other questions that the Book of Mormon raises for Rigdon being the author of

the Book of Mormon. This goes back to the OP on a Discussion of Method. Applying

a bit of method to our madness.

I take it you would be happy if the entire controversy just "went away." But

you know that it will not. Whether Smith wrote the book by himself, or with

the help of others, he will always be called a liar by non-Mormons. Even the

most polite, sympathetic historian, attending as a guest of a BYU symposium,

will be saying under his breath, "This stuff is not true." You know that as

well as I do. Since it is not going to go away, I suggest you find some better

way of dealing with the issue, than just trying to belittle my postings here.

As far as a debate goes, this topic would not fit an oral debate agenda very

well. The audience would not have the chance to examine the evidence for

themselves and it would be the skills of the dabaters that would be the major

factor in determining the "winner".

In fact, just such debates were held at Kirtland in the 1880s and at Lamoni,

in the 1890s, and I've posted the relevant excerpts on my web-site. The

audience appears to have concluded that the Latter Day Saint side of the issue

was the "winner." But, since the audience was overwhelmingly Latter Day Saint

in its make-up, perhaps that was to be expected.

However, this is a forum in which all of the best evidence for the Spalding/Rigdon theory could be laid out and debated.

Glenn

Well, I'm busy right now with textual studies, which will not be completed until

next month. So I'm not available to re-play Rev. Clark Braden's 1884 debate role.

Craig Criddle's PowerPoint presentation and video of that presentation should be

uploaded to You-Tube by early next week.

After viewing that, perhaps you could open the debate by presenting the statements

of the three witnesses and the eight witnesses (unless you have anything earlier).

Those 1829 documents are, I suppose, the beginning of the LDS evidence for an

ancient Nephite-Mulekite-Jaredite civilization in the Americas. So start there...

UD

.

[Glenn101]

I, for one, would say that a full, reasonable and clear articulation of how the

Book of Mormon was composed by multiple 19th century writers has NEVER yet been

set forth for investigators to examine. What we have seen are parts of an

explanation, coming from different persons at different times.

I agree.

I take it you would be happy if the entire controversy just "went away." But

you know that it will not. Whether Smith wrote the book by himself, or with

the help of others, he will always be called a liar by non-Mormons. Even the

most polite, sympathetic historian, attending as a guest of a BYU symposium,

will be saying under his breath, "This stuff is not true." You know that as

well as I do. Since it is not going to go away, I suggest you find some better

way of dealing with the issue, than just trying to belittle my postings here.

UD

.

It doesn't matter to me whether it "goes away" or not. I do agree that it will not. However, I have not been trying to belittle your postings. I have certainly voiced my disagreement with your conclusions and the evidence that they are based upon. You evidently feel that your evicence is sufficient and credible enough to make the Rigdon/Spaulding theory plausible. I do not. Honest disagreement is not belittlement. I try very hard not to make any of my posts personal or ad hominem and to make my points logically and rationally. That is all I would ask of anyone with whom I engage debate with.

Glenn

[Uncle Dale]

...I try very hard not to make any of my posts personal or ad hominem

and to make my points logically and rationally.

...

Then I stand corrected.

If you wish to prepare some sort of debate, I suggest that you pre-write

a number of medium-length postings in advance, and present your case at

the beginning of each, in sequence -- saving some space at the bottoms

to respond to whatever I might have to say, along the way.

I would guess that in 25 or so postings each, we could both present our respective

sides of the controversy. Since I'm busy right now, you would probably have to go

first, with only brief, occasional responses from me.

I'm sure you could do two things at once -- that is, present the classical LDS

argument for an ancient text, while at the same time showing that any attempted

explanation of the volume as a 19th century creation should be rejected by

rational, non-prejudiced auditors. You could probably even mention the two major

non-traditional authorship explanations in passing, providing me with a starting

point for my case, once I begin to have time to present it here.

Like I said earlier, my approach would be to show that prior claims for a Rigdon

involvement (beyond the D&C admission of knowing it not) are not absurd, and

are worth investigating -- at least that would be what I had in mind, as I began

to respond to whatever evidence and assertions you had to offer.

Perhaps in November?

UD

[Glenn101]

Then I stand corrected.

If you wish to prepare some sort of debate, I suggest that you pre-write

a number of medium-length postings in advance, and present your case at

the beginning of each, in sequence -- saving some space at the bottoms

to respond to whatever I might have to say, along the way.

I would guess that in 25 or so postings each, we could both present our respective

sides of the controversy. Since I'm busy right now, you would probably have to go

first, with only brief, occasional responses from me.

I'm sure you could do two things at once -- that is, present the classical LDS

argument for an ancient text, while at the same time showing that any attempted

explanation of the volume as a 19th century creation should be rejected by

rational, non-prejudiced auditors. You could probably even mention the two major

non-traditional authorship explanations in passing, providing me with a starting

point for my case, once I begin to have time to present it here.

Like I said earlier, my approach would be to show that prior claims for a Rigdon

involvement (beyond the D&C admission of knowing it not) are not absurd, and

are worth investigating -- at least that would be what I had in mind, as I began

to respond to whatever evidence and assertions you had to offer.

Perhaps in November?

UD

Dale, the LDS position/story line on the coming forth of the Book of Mormon is well known. At this point we were discussing the Rigdon/Spaulding theory. As you noted, it has not been articulated in any coherent fashion. You feel that there is sufficient evidence to warrant further investigation. The invitation is for you to lay out your evidence, to connect the dots and let the pro's and cons be debated. You are well respected on this board and I do not feel anyone will "take pot shots" at you or belittle your posts.

For me to start a thread opposing your position and evidence before it is presented would serve no purpose and only make me to appear more foolish than ever.

When you have the time, that is.

Thanks,

Glenn

[Uncle Dale]

...

and only make me to appear more foolish than ever.

...

I don't feel that you are one bit foolish. You defend the amount of truth and light

you've found in this world, and I can only laud you for doing that -- even when

the Spirit of God bears witness in my heart that you have more to experience.

I think that in any proposed debate, that you (or somebody) will have to at least

summarize and defend the traditional LDS position on BoM origins. Not that we

do not know it -- but to have it available for easy consultation. As I said earlier,

the LDS position appears to be based upon the statements of the 3 and 8 witnesses.

If the disinterested, unprejudiced investigator is to choose between the LDS version

and the non-LDS version of possible origins, I think it important to have that LDS

explanation available for quick reference -- along with some argument telling us

why the witness statements constitute valid/authentic evidence.

I'm busy with a hundred responsibilities at the moment. It will be mid-November

before I can put together the arguments for my side of an on-line debate.

Hopefully somebody will start a thread which will quickly lead to that debate.

In the meanwhile, I can only offer this, as an introduction:

http://solomonspalding.com/Lib/ExM2009.htm

UD

[Uncle Dale]

...

http://solomonspalding.com/Lib/ExM2009.htm

...

The opening slide in the recent Criddle lecture:

UD