Spalding: The Dead Horse that Won't Die

[Benjamin McGuire]

btw, our disagreements may run deeper than this: if you're a Pens fan, then this Caps fan is going to to do a double-cringe.

Does it really matter? Neither one is original six ....

Ben M.

[4truth]

Ben:

I find this...

Again, how does each theory handle that question?

Who cares? It doesn't matter here. You keep introducing these distractions when you obviously cannot support your own argument.

...just a bit ironic in light of this...

You're welcome to add another shell and then defend it.

I have no interest in providing another theory, or one of the other existing theories and defending it.

This discussion clearly illustrates your lack of desire to actually defend a BOM production theory. I pointed that out in the beginning of this thread and, true to form, you have made me an accurate prophet. But it's completely hypocritical to then turn around and erroneously chastise me for allegedly not doing what you patently refuse to do.

Unlike you, I have defended the theory I hold. Of course you are free to criticize my defense, call it weak, incompetent, incomplete, naive, juvenile... whatever you like. But at least I have made a defense.

Since you refuse to defend the BOM production theory you (presumably) hold because you don't like defending angels, I guess we can conclude that the orthodox version loses in this debate due to lack of support.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Roger writes:

Since you refuse to defend the BOM production theory you (presumably) hold because you don't like defending angels, I guess we can conclude that the orthodox version loses in this debate due to lack of support.

That's fine. I will (as I have said before) simply concede the point that the Book of Mormon is of modern authorship for the purpose of this discussion. Conceding that point is completely irrelevant (as I point out over and over again to you over the last couple of years) to the question of whether or not the Spalding theory actually holds water. I simply don't care to deal with the angel at every turn. Having conceded that point, lets get back to the question of how the Spalding theory works in light of all the problems with the evidence that I have been raising.

Ben M.

[4truth]

Calmoriah:

4truth, if you are using someone else's work even if all you are doing is citing references they've typed it, the polite and proper thing to do is to cite a link to the work (unless the reference is well known and available allover). I am assuming you got this stuff from sidneyrigdon.com?

Yes. All the links can be found here:

http://sidneyrigdon.com/features/RigSmth3.htm

under "Note 2"

[Pahoran]

In their scripted statements, the Spaulding "witnesses" chant, in unison, about how the Spaulding manuscript they remember so very vividly from all those years ago was just like the Book of Mormon except for the religious material.

They also vividly -- and uniformly -- remember the very prominent names of Lehi and Nephi.

Clearly the Spaulding "witnesses" -- much like the Spauling tragics who so desperately cling to them today -- were quite unacquainted with the role of Nephi and Lehi in the Book of Mormon. Everything they did was religious in nature, and/or brimming over with religious significance. You simply cannot produce a recognisable Book of Mormon narrative, starring Lehi and Nephi, that is not obtrusively and insistently religious.

Sorry.

Regards,

Pahoran

[noel00]

Have people see this on the Spalding Theory

http://exmormonfoundation.org/files/ExmoConfTalkCriddle.pdf

[4truth]

Glenn wrote:

Roger, a couple of points (too many posts to respond to individually). On Rigdon and the communal order. I doubt that he would have had it end as it did but would have shown that a faithful few continued to hold fast to the true principles of the gospel. As it is, he ends it in the Campbel fashion.

In the first place you're attempting to play mind reader with a guy who was mentally unstable to begin with. You speculate as to what he "would have done" whereas I have cited evidence for what I conclude he did do. In the second place, if you want to belabor this point, which is fine by me, then I think it's worth mentioning that you are backpeddling from your initial assertion that there was nothing in the BOM on communal property and that that alleged lack shows Rigdon had nothing to do with composing the BOM. When I produce evidence to the contrary you move the goal posts, now saying, well if those sections would have been produced by Rigdon he would have done it differently.

No. Rigdon was not bound by what you think he should have done. Rigdon was a proponent of communal property and miracles in contrast to Campbell and, lo and behold, the BOM backs up Rigdon. And not coincidentally in the sections attributed to him by Jockers. That's significant. That's an example of S/R making a prediction and science backing it up.

On Hurlbut. He mentioned only one manuscript and according to Matilda Davision he wrote back to her later that it would not be published because it did not read as expected.

So now let's see what we have.

Sometime between 1813 to 1816 Sidney Rigdon purloined a manuscript from the Patterson printing office in Pittsburg. We have no evidence for this, ony conjecture.

Wrong. We have both testimony and circumstantial evidence. That you choose to reject it does not reduce it to "conjecture."

We have no earthly idea how Rigdon even came to view the manuscript much less read through it.

His friend was J. Harrison Lambdin, an employee of the shop.

We have no earthly idea why Rigdon, at the age of from twenty to twenty-three years of age would have been intrigued by this tale.

But by all accounts he was an avid reader, a student who, by his own account, took pride in his own education and he read anything he could get his hands on. A history of the ancient inhabitants of this continent would have been right up his alley--obviously so, since he was captivated by the BOM. The quotes I listed from Bentley and Campbell--who knew Rigdon well--flatly tell us that is exactly the case. He was intrigued with the topic.

We have no idea why he would purloin it for later use.

And for all of this we have no evidence, just desperate conjecture.

Nonsense. In the first place the theory is not obligated to read Rigdon's mind, but there is testimony from his contemporaries indicating he did exactly that. Look at the Darwin Atwater quote I just listed in response to TAO's CFR:

He said there was a book to be published containing an account of those things. He spoke of these in his eloquent, enthusiastic style, as being a thing most extraordinary.

--Darwin Atwater

So right there we're way beyond "conjecture." Here we have a man who knew Rigdon well enough to take him to task, even as a youth! A member of Rigdon's own congregation telling us Rigdon knew about the BOM before it was published and that he spoke about it enthusiastically "as being a thing most extraordinary" (!) before it was even published.

So you've got a problem. Your conjecture charge is obviously baseless. Now you have to reject this statement by Atwater outright because your own concept of where the BOM came from fatally suffers if you were to consider Atwater's assertion objectively. You have no choice but to call Atwater a liar. And yet Atwater is not the only one saying this.

He becomes interested at some point in preaching and becomes a student of the Bible.

Rigon himself would take you to task for this. He was a student of the Bible from his youth.

He becomes an ordained minister in Pittsburg, but is expelled for some of his radical views but finds a home in Mentor Ohio where his views are more readily received by some. He has great success in his new area and is seen by many as equal if not superior to Campbell as an orator. Even after the split with Campbell, he still has his congregation in Mentor.

Yet all of this time, at least from 1826, he is actively planning his demise.

Nonsense. He's not planning his demise. He's receiving revelation from God and putting it to paper. God is using him to accomplish a great work. To prepare the way to usher in the restoration. Campbell and Scott had a partial truth, but they failed to understand that miracles and communal living would necessarily accompany a restoration of the one true church. Rigdon was the one man God was using to accomplish a restoration of all things. (All of this, of course, according to Rigdon).

You are making the mistake of attempting to get inside Rigdon's brain from a rational, 21st century mindset.

He is planning to turn all of his work over to a callow farm boy with no preaching experience, a boy who has no good reputation after having claimed to seen an angel, and is involved in several scrapes with the law. He is going to leave his congregation and subordinate himself to this farm boy, who will get all of the credit.

And the evidence for this? Nothing but more conjecture.

Again, it's easy to construct strawman arguments in order to knock them over. Rigdon was not planning on leaving his congregation and subordinating himself to Joseph Smith. In fact several from his congregation followed him into Mormonism--that's what he was hoping for. And we all know that the original "revelation" spoke of Smith's role as translating the BOM and pretending to no other gift. Rigdon believed he could assume command down the road. In that, he greatly underestimated Joseph Smith and greatly overestimated himself.

There is no second manuscript. There are no Book of Mormon words in the only manuscript that Spalding has been shown to have been in the process of writing.

There is no case. The horse is really dead.

?? That sounds like either desperation or ignorance speaking. Even Ben acknowledges that there is overlapping vocabulary and phrases between the two works. He just brushes it all off as the result of coincidence.

All the best.

[TAO]

That should answer the CFR.

However, these sources cannot be trusted as they all wrote literature against Mormonism in their time - and if we trusted them, we'd also have to trust Sidney Rigdon's and Orson Hyde's account.

So how does that work, exactly? Why would studying history destroy faith?

Because then one relies on the history for your testimony. I'm not saying studying history is a bad thing, but when one takes history as proof or your religion, things go the wrong way.

Does studying history written by Mormons destroy faith?

Lol, as I said, studying history isn't bad, it just isn't something I consider when I look at religion. I don't know how it is for other people, but for me, doing that would be corrupting. Not because Mormonism would be proved wrong, but because than I'd use history for everything, rather than tell them to use the spirit, which is alot more edifying imo.

[Glenn101]

Have people see this on the Spalding Theory

http://exmormonfoundation.org/files/ExmoConfTalkCriddle.pdf

I idled through the document in question and have appended some comments. I am excerpting from the document under the Fair Use Doctrine. The document is a PDF apparently of a slide show. I use the PDF page numbers. They should correspond with the same slide numbers if anyone has the Power Point Presentation.

Page 8

Scientific theories about the past are narratives constructed from the best available evidence.!

Great idea.

Page 17

Spalding wrote at least two major manuscripts He shared his work with friends, neighbors, and associates.

Manuscript Story - Conneaut Creek 1809-1812 (unfinished, and now available)

Manuscript Found 1810-16 (finished, but now lost)

Existence of second manuscript unsubstantiated. Evidence is vaporous to non-existent

Page 21

on February 14 or 15, 1832, Elders Orson Hyde and Samuel H. Smith visited Conneaut, Ohio.

Judge Nehemiah King claimed that they were preaching from the work of his deceased friend, Solomon Spalding.

Statement unsupported by any first hand accounts. No statement from King ever recorded. In other words, hearsay.

Page 22

At least 19 different witnesses tied Manuscript Found to the Book of Mormon.

The earliest witness statements came 19-22 years after the witnesses had heard or read Spalding

[Glenn101]

Wrong. We have both testimony and circumstantial evidence. That you choose to reject it does not reduce it to "conjecture."

Please provide a witness that Rigdon stole any manuscript from the Patterson Printing establishment. give me a time frame.

Nonsense. In the first place the theory is not obligated to read Rigdon's mind, but there is testimony from his contemporaries indicating he did exactly that. Look at the Darwin Atwater quote I just listed in response to TAO's CFR:

So right there we're way beyond "conjecture." Here we have a man who knew Rigdon well enough to take him to task, even as a youth! A member of Rigdon's own congregation telling us Rigdon knew about the BOM before it was published and that he spoke about it enthusiastically "as being a thing most extraordinary" (!) before it was even published.

So you've got a problem. Your conjecture charge is obviously baseless. Now you have to reject this statement by Atwater outright because your own concept of where the BOM came from fatally suffers if you were to consider Atwater's assertion objectively. You have no choice but to call Atwater a liar. And yet Atwater is not the only one saying this.

Atwater's testimony came just before his death in 1874. He tells us of remonstrating with Rigdon because of his supposed fascination with the mounds and antiquities in the area and remembers rigdon saying that here was coming out a book that would explain all of that. Atwater was there when the "great Mormon defection" took place. He was there when the Book of Mormon was preached. And he said nothing? He did not jump up and shout that it was a fraud, that Rigdon had been talking about this two years or so prior? Not rational.

Now who else was saying that Rigdon knew about the Book of Mormon before it came out? And when did they say it? Why did not they all rush in and denounce the fraud then and there?

Again, it's easy to construct strawman arguments in order to knock them over. Rigdon was not planning on leaving his congregation and subordinating himself to Joseph Smith. In fact several from his congregation followed him into Mormonism--that's what he was hoping for. And we all know that the original "revelation" spoke of Smith's role as translating the BOM and pretending to no other gift. Rigdon believed he could assume command down the road. In that, he greatly underestimated Joseph Smith and greatly overestimated himself.

Whoa there, you were just taking me to task for trying to get into Rigdon's head and here you are telling me what Rigdon believed. However, Rigdon himself tells us another story. Why do you not believe him?

?? That sounds like either desperation or ignorance speaking. Even Ben acknowledges that there is overlapping vocabulary and phrases between the two works. He just brushes it all off as the result of coincidence.

All the best.

He has demonstrated why he believes it is coincidence.

Glenn

[4truth]

Glenn:

Please provide a witness that Rigdon stole any manuscript from the Patterson Printing establishment. give me a time frame.

Is this a baited question? You know (I assume) I can't give you a witness and never claimed I could. Do you need a witness to rationally conclude O.J. killed Nicole? What I stated is that we have testimony indicating he did coupled with circumstantial evidence, ie. he was in the right place at the right time, namely Pittsburgh prior to 1817. Oddly enough he denied it. Oddly enough a recently discovered mail waiting notice showed him to be lying. Why would he lie about being in the right place at the right time?

Atwater's testimony came just before his death in 1874. He tells us of remonstrating with Rigdon because of his supposed fascination with the mounds and antiquities in the area and remembers rigdon saying that here was coming out a book that would explain all of that. Atwater was there when the "great Mormon defection" took place. He was there when the Book of Mormon was preached. And he said nothing? He did not jump up and shout that it was a fraud, that Rigdon had been talking about this two years or so prior? Not rational.

Like I said, you have no other recourse.

Whoa there, you were just taking me to task for trying to get into Rigdon's head and here you are telling me what Rigdon believed. However, Rigdon himself tells us another story. Why do you not believe him?

Why should I? We already know he was lying about being in Pittsburgh prior to 1822--or at least deliberately making it sound as though he never even had the opportunity to commit the crime. Do you believe him when he says Joseph Smith is a fallen prophet and Brigham Young led the Saints into apostasy? Do you believe him when he claims there never was a seer as eloquent and knowledgeable in the things of God as Sidney Rigdon?

He has demonstrated why he believes it is coincidence.

Sure but that's not the issue. You said:

There are no Book of Mormon words in the only manuscript that Spalding has been shown to have been in the process of writing.

If your case is solid you shouldn't need to exaggerate.

All the best.

[4truth]

Tao:

However, these sources cannot be trusted as they all wrote literature against Mormonism in their time - and if we trusted them, we'd also have to trust Sidney Rigdon's and Orson Hyde's account.

So anyone who writes "literature against Mormonism in their time" can't be trusted?

So let me see if I am understanding you.... anyone who is in the Mormon church and writes in favor of it, can be trusted. But anyone who leaves the Mormon church and writes against it, can't be trusted?

So what about David Whitmer? He left the Mormon church but still retained a testimony of the Book of Mormon.... but he says Joseph Smith became a fallen prophet. Can we trust David Whitmer?

So how does that work, exactly? Why would studying history destroy faith?

Because then one relies on the history for your testimony. I'm not saying studying history is a bad thing, but when one takes history as proof or your religion, things go the wrong way.

But isn't your testimony supposed to be a testimony of something you know to be true?

Does studying history written by Mormons destroy faith?

Lol, as I said, studying history isn't bad, it just isn't something I consider when I look at religion. I don't know how it is for other people, but for me, doing that would be corrupting. Not because Mormonism would be proved wrong, but because than I'd use history for everything, rather than tell them to use the spirit, which is alot more edifying imo.

But isn't religion situated within a historical context? Especially the history of Joseph Smith and the Mormon church? Isn't there a rich history there? When the missionaries knocked on my door back in 2001, they gave me a Mormon history lesson. They claimed that certain events happened in history that I should know about. They did not teach me about Mormon doctrine. Instead they gave me a history lesson about the Book of Mormon. Were they wrong to do that? Would it have been more edifying for them to tell me about Mormon doctrine?

All the best.

[Glenn101]

Why should I? We already know he was lying about being in Pittsburgh prior to 1822--or at least deliberately making it sound as though he never even had the opportunity to commit the crime. Do you believe him when he says Joseph Smith is a fallen prophet and Brigham Young led the Saints into apostasy? Do you believe him when he claims there never was a seer as eloquent and knowledgeable in the things of God as Sidney Rigdon?

We do not know that he was lying about being in Pittsburg prior to 1922. Are you relying on the letter in the post office for that or do you have sonething else?

Glenn

[Glenn101]

While we are talking about the witnesses and memories, Roger (4truth) mentioned an exercise that he had done concerning a book he had read sometime around his high school graduation. He was able to tease out of his memory all of the principle characters' name. After checking his memory against the actual book, he found that he had gotten only one name wrong, but it sounded very close. So I did a ten minute exercise on the Book of Mormon. It has not been twenty years since I read it, but I just wanted to see what stand out in my mind.

Since all of the Conneaut witnesses agreed so well with one another, I will only summarize what they agreed on.

1. was not particularly religious

2. was about the ancestors of the American Indians, that they were of the Lost Tribes of Israel

3. told about the travels of a group from Jerusalem to the Americas by land and by sea.

4. Split off into two groups with terrible wars between them.

5. principle leaders were Lehi and Nephi. I think on mentioned Moroni as well. But Nephi and Lehi were the main names.

6. All claimed to have read or examined at least parts of the Book of Mormon.

6. book of Mormon was nearly identical to Spalding's romance except for the religious parts.

It took me ten minutes because I had to separate the religious from historical. The book of Mormon is permeated through and through with religious material, but even with that restriction, several vivid events come readily to mind.

First of all, a couple of points. The Book of Mormon details three groups who came to the Americas, not just one. It is not about the lost tribes of Israel.

Things that come to mind right off.

1. I Nephi, having been born of goodly parents. That phrase wormed its way into my conciousness the first time I read the Book of Mormon.

2. Lehi, Nephi, Laman, and Lemuel

3. the liahona (some may quibble that this is religious. if any object, I will discard it)

4. three days of darkness so thick as to be almost tangible

5. the Gadianton robbers

6. the Jaredites and their escape the babel effect.

7. and who can forget the epic battle between Coriantumr and Shiz with Shiz being decapitated then rising up on his hands gasping for breath.

I if think about it, there are many more of course. And I bet that any of you who have read the book of Mormon will come up with a list both similar and different.

I hope that someone sees the point.

Glenn

[Kevin Christensen]

Tao:

So what about David Whitmer? He left the Mormon church but still retained a testimony of the Book of Mormon.... but he says Joseph Smith became a fallen prophet. Can we trust David Whitmer?

Whitmer's oft repeated testimony regarding, the plates, the translation, and the angel, does not favor the Spalding conspiracy theory. A fallen prophet is not the same as never was a prophet. Whitmer frequently testified that he was a witness to Joseph as a prophet. As to fallen, I having gathered 28 Biblical Keys for Discerning True and False Prophets. (The long essay is at FAIR). I can compare those keys with the things that bothered Whitmer, which he was kind enough to publish to the world. In my view, his eye-witness testimony remains of value. He provided reasons and arguments for his later judgments that are easy to review. This, for example, from RBBM 4:2.

Kuhn notes that the "more precise and far-reaching a paradigm is, the more sensitive an indicator it provides of anomaly and hence an occasion for paradigm change."14 Thus we need to pay close attention to background expectations, especially those background expectations held or attacked as if they were creeds.

For example, consider David Whitmer's background expectations as he objects to the changes in the Book of Commandments: "As if God had changed his mind after giving his word. No, brethren! God does not change and work in any such manner as this."15

Whitmer clearly outlines the premise that underlies his distress over the changes, a premise that is precise and far reaching and therefore highly sensitive to anomaly. But at this point, we need to invoke what I call the "Mote-Eye" rule (from Matthew 7), and ask whether Whitmer is, in this instance, seeing clearly. How would Whitmer's premise explain the story of Abraham's arrested sacrifice of Isaac? Also, notice the variant wording of the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20 compared to the wording in Deuteronomy 5. Then compare these differences in what Whitmer would regard as "written in stone" with the changes in the Doctrine and Covenants.16

Also, contrast Whitmer's premise with the formula, "Ye have heard that it hath been said, . . . but I say unto you," used by Jesus several times in Matthew 5:19-48, and Joseph Smith's remark: "a man would command his son to dig potatoes and saddle his horse, but before he had done either he would tell him to do something else. This is all considered right; but as soon as the Lord gives a commandment and revokes that decree and commands something else, then the Prophet is considered fallen."17

Clearly, Whitmer's rigid premise cannot account for these conspicuous examples of divine and prophetic behavior. If Whitmer had accepted these particular examples as paradigmatic, and built his premises from these observations, he could have arrived at a more tolerant and robust set of background expectations. The Mote-Eye rule shows that on this point, however attractive the premise, however sincere his belief, and however logical his argument from that belief, Whitmer was not seeing clearly.

Whitmer was very conservative, and could not well adapt to change. He wanted an "only true" gospel, static, unchanging, a crystal, rather rather than a "true and living, with which the Lord is well pleased collectively, and not individually".

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Uncle Dale]

...

Whitmer was very conservative, and could not well adapt to change.

He wanted an "only true" gospel...

In one of the 1870s or 1880s letters from a Mormon visitor

at the Whitmer household, the correspondent wrote back to

Utah something along the lines that God had preserved

David Whitmer in his latter day testimony.

Do you suppose God was truly interacting in David's life

at that late date, sustaining him as a voice of truth?

UD

[Kevin Christensen]

In one of the 1870s or 1880s letters from a Mormon visitor

at the Whitmer household, the correspondent wrote back to

Utah something along the lines that God had preserved

David Whitmer in his latter day testimony.

Do you suppose God was truly interacting in David's life

at that late date, sustaining him as a voice of truth?

UD

If God "remembers the heathen" (Alma 29) why not David Whitmer? None of us have be to perfect, let alone LDS, to be useful to God. I like Isaiah 55:11-12

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.

9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my aways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

10 For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater:

11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Uncle Dale]

...

why not David Whitmer?

...

I find it encouraging that after so many years we can agree

that God was active in Brother David's life -- sustaining him

as a new creature in Christ Jesus -- a born-again member of

the Body of Christ who had the continual presence of the

Holy Spirit and the manifestation of spiritual gifts.

David would have appreciated your vote of confidence -- not

so much for himself, but for The Christ, to whom he dedicated

his heart, soul and life's work.

UD

[TAO]

Tao:

So anyone who writes "literature against Mormonism in their time" can't be trusted?

Well I suppose they could if you know, Joseph Smith could be trusted, Rigdon could be trusted, Pratt could be trusted, etc. It's all on even ground, ya' know. There's no reason to say one is trustable, where the other is not. Either could be telling the truth, and the other would be lying. Thus, these quotes are as ineffectual as ones by the stated church members.

So let me see if I am understanding you.... anyone who is in the Mormon church and writes in favor of it, can be trusted. But anyone who leaves the Mormon church and writes against it, can't be trusted?

No, I was just pointing out that if you are going to disclude Rigdon's own statements in trustability, you must disclude those author's statements as well. And since there weren't any people who were 'neutral', it kinda gets us nowhere, no?

But isn't your testimony supposed to be a testimony of something you know to be true?

It is based on what you feel to be true, through the spirit. Not what you see in physicality.

But isn't religion situated within a historical context? Especially the history of Joseph Smith and the Mormon church? Isn't there a rich history there? When the missionaries knocked on my door back in 2001, they gave me a Mormon history lesson. They claimed that certain events happened in history that I should know about. They did not teach me about Mormon doctrine. Instead they gave me a history lesson about the Book of Mormon. Were they wrong to do that? Would it have been more edifying for them to tell me about Mormon doctrine?

Yes, it is, but history isn't quite of concern to me. Yes it's interesting and all, but I find much more interest in the lessons God would have us learn from things like the Book of Mormon. That's waaaaaayyy more important to me.

There is a rich church history, true, but really, I will let others defend it most of the time. As said, much more interested in the good that comes out of the book than 'proving the book in physicality', rather than through faith.

So you ask, why is church history taught then? Because some people are curious about it. Just not me. As I said, if I focused so much on proving the Book of Mormon through physicality, I'd corrupt my testimony (not that I'd lose it, simply that it would be based on physical evidence rather than faith).

[Gervin]

It is based on what you feel to be true, through the spirit.

I don't think this is Biblical. I would say I don't believe this is Biblical, but I may want to use that word with a different definition.

[Uncle Dale]

I don't think this is Biblical. I would say I don't believe this is Biblical, but I may want to use that word with a different definition.

Among the Reorganized LDS, at least, a "testimony"

is your life changed -- made new -- by being born again.

The member gains a "testimony" by gaining a spiritual experience

which is a total conversion -- a regeneration -- a resurrection,

here in this world's life.

The member knows if he/she has been born-again. It is the most

important transformation in a person's life, this side of the veil.

That life-changing experience is generally followed by faith,

repentance, a request for baptism, the remission of sin, and

the life-long continuing presence of God's Holy Spirit.

It is not something that can be faked -- because everybody

around you sees the conversion (the "before" and "after").

90% of modern Christian Praise music deals with such conversion.

The music itself is testimony.

If a Mormon is going to base his entire life upon a "feeling;"

my recommendation is that he first of all get saved, and then

request a new baptism.

UD

[TAO]

I don't think this is Biblical. I would say I don't believe this is Biblical, but I may want to use that word with a different definition.

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/heb/11/1#1

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_cor/5/7#7

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/gal/3/2#2

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/heb/6/12#12

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_pet/1/7#7

Now, you can also look at these in the BoM.

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/1_ne/7/12#12

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_ne/31/19#19

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/alma/32/21#21

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/ether/3/19#19

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/ether/12/6#6

The entire list is here: http://scriptures.lds.org/en/tg/f/6

[TAO]

Among the Reorganized LDS, at least, a "testimony"

is your life changed -- made new -- by being born again.

The member gains a "testimony" by gaining a spiritual experience

which is a total conversion -- a regeneration -- a resurrection,

here in this world's life.

The member knows if he/she has been born-again. It is the most

important transformation in a person's life, this side of the veil.

That life-changing experience is generally followed by faith,

repentance, a request for baptism, the remission of sin, and

the life-long continuing presence of God's Holy Spirit.

It is not something that can be faked -- because everybody

around you sees the conversion (the "before" and "after").

90% of modern Christian Praise music deals with such conversion.

The music itself is testimony.

Oh lol, your the guy who's website I looked at when seeing whether those people were biased XD.

If a Mormon is going to base his entire life upon a "feeling;"

my recommendation is that he first of all get saved, and then

request a new baptism.

UD

Read the links.

[Glenn101]

It appears that this thread may be dying an unnatural death. As I contended earlier, the horse is actually dead, but there are those who cannot bear to bury him.

At this point in time, the only real scientific evidence supplied for the sustenance of the Spalding theory is the Jockers study. It has provided for the seeming resurrection of the poor beast once again. Everything else is anecdotal and untestable. Therefore the validity of the Jockers study rationally is important to the LDS and S/R proponents alike. We are going to have to see how that plays out.

Glenn

[Uncle Dale]

...

At this point in time, the only real scientific evidence supplied for

the sustenance of the Spalding theory is the Jockers study. ...

As i mentioned, there is a new Jockers paper upcoming in LLC,

in which he DOES include Joseph Smith's word-print. He also has

expanded the original study to include many more texts.

The only one of the three BoM origins explanations which gathers

new evidence each year is the S-R authorship explanation.

The "Smith-alone" theory is dead in the water -- without a single

shred of new evidence being offered these days to shore it up and

get it moving forward.

The "Nephites-wrote-it" theory hasn't had an interesting new

addition since chiasmas and NHM.

My prediction is that in the near future we will see more and

more examples of the Craig Criddle phenomenon ---- in which

bright young Mormons leave the church and investigate the

"Smith-plus-helpers" authorship explanation.

Check back in ten years and the evidence for that paradigm

will have expanded many times over. Once scientists hit upon

basic truths, it is not all that difficult to fill in the blanks.

Uncle Dale