Shedding New Light on Solomon Spalding

[_DarkHelmet]

Dale has spent years and years attempting to prove the Spaulding theory. And so far, he has failed. The Book of Mormon authorship is a hard nut to crack for the critics.

Does that include everyone that does not believe Joseph Smith's claims? The vast majority of people just don't buy it. If it's such a hard nut to crack, why does it have so few believers? In reality, it is a very easy nut to crack. Just about any theory is more believable than Joseph Smith's story.

[_Drifting]

Dale has spent years and years attempting to prove the Spaulding theory. And so far, he has failed. The Book of Mormon authorship is a hard nut to crack for the critics.

Does that include everyone that does not believe Joseph Smith's claims? The vast majority of people just don't buy it. If it's such a hard nut to crack, why does it have so few believers? In reality, it is a very easy nut to crack. Just about any theory is more believable than Joseph Smith's story.

Well we know Isaiah wrote a significant chunk of it...

[_why me]

The Spalding theory may appear to be anti-mormon however it is a high probability historical theory. There is a lot of information and evidence supporting it. I have noticed on this board, few people take much of an interest in it, for whatever reason. I wish people like sockpuppet and Darth who are very analytically minded and well spoken did take an interest.

The Spalding theory is not antimormon but the hay that antimormons attempt to make of it is. It has been around for a long time, in fact, it has been around since the beginning of Mormonism. And I am sure that Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon were asked about it often. And of course,they must have had answers for the new saints that joined. I don't think that many people left the church left because of the spalding theory. I think that they left because of Joseph Smith not seemingly acting like a prophet.

[_Equality]

The Spalding theory may appear to be anti-mormon however it is a high probability historical theory. There is a lot of information and evidence supporting it. I have noticed on this board, few people take much of an interest in it, for whatever reason. I wish people like sockpuppet and Darth who are very analytically minded and well spoken did take an interest.

The Spalding theory is not antimormon but the hay that antimormons attempt to make of it is. It has been around for a long time, in fact, it has been around since the beginning of Mormonism. And I am sure that Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon were asked about it often. And of course,they must have had answers for the new saints that joined. I don't think that many people left the church left because of the spalding theory. I think that they left because of Joseph Smith not seemingly acting like a prophet.

Every once in a blue moon, why me and I agree on something. The moon must be a shade of azure today.

[_marg]

Why me,

your comment to my post has virtually nothing to do with what I wrote. The fact is that the main argument against the Spalding theory has been that the Mormon witnesses to the dictation process claimed Smith used no other material..and some claimed that he had his head in the hat so therefore how could he have employed a manuscript. I pointed out to you beefcalf's post in which he argues with evidence that Smith had an established history of obtaining affidavits from loyal Mormons testifying to claims which are now established false.

The argument that the Mormon witnesses to the dictation process are credible and reliable is a very weak one especially when they had a vested interest in Mormonism. And if that is the main argument against the spalding theory...which is essentially what I have determined from discussions on the net with Smith alone advocates..then they have an extremely weak argument.

[_Equality]

Why me,

your comment to my post has virtually nothing to do with what I wrote. The fact is that the main argument against the Spalding theory has been that the Mormon witnesses to the dictation process claimed Smith used no other material..and some claimed that he had his head in the hat so therefore how could he have employed a manuscript. I pointed out to you beefcalf's post in which he argues with evidence that Smith had an established history of obtaining affidavits from loyal Mormons testifying to claims which are now established false.

The argument that the Mormon witnesses to the dictation process are credible and reliable is a very weak one especially when they had a vested interest in Mormonism. And if that is the main argument against the spalding theory...which is essentially what I have determined from discussions on the net with Smith alone advocates..then they have an extremely weak argument.

marg,

Can you address the question raised about the fact that Joseph Smith would have been six years old at the time he is alleged to have purloined (or borrowed) the manuscript from Spalding? Thanks.

[Guest]

And Why Me

Your attack against individuals who subscribe to the Spalding theory as being "anti-mormon" critics is fallacious ad hominem. Surely someone should be able to subscribe to a historical theory based upon evidence and reasoning without being accused of doing so for being "anti-mormon".

To note why me..none of the witnesses to spalding's Manuscript Found..who were friends, neighbours, business partners were anti-mormon. Hurlbut sought them out for their statements..they had virtually no interest in Mormonism other than their connection via Spalding. And Hurlbut who went about obtaining their statements...claimed eventually to have not found Manuscript Found but instead another manuscript which did not match Book of Mormon. And that manuscript he gave to Howe and is currently available. So even he can not be claimed to be so anti-mormon because if he had been..why shoot himself in the foot by handing over to the Howe the very manuscript currently available which didn't match the Book of Mormon. He'd have been better off to destroy that and just use Spalding witness statements.

[_marg]

marg,

Can you address the question raised about the fact that Joseph Smith would have been six years old at the time he is alleged to have purloined (or borrowed) the manuscript from Spalding? Thanks.

I wish you'd read the thread, I did already. Please just go back and read my post. thanks

Edit: Here I went back for you: "As B. McGuire points out based upon ages of Smith relative to Rev. Spaulding..it is highly unlikely to have happened. Added to that I've never read from any witness who testified to Hurlbut that either J. Smith attended..nor Rigdon. And I think Hurlbut who sought testimonies from friends and neighbours of Spalding would have been very alert to that fact had it occurred."

[_Equality]

marg,

Can you address the question raised about the fact that Joseph Smith would have been six years old at the time he is alleged to have purloined (or borrowed) the manuscript from Spalding? Thanks.

I wish you'd read the thread, I did already. Please just go back and read my post. thanks

Edit: Here I went back for you: "As B. McGuire points out based upon ages of Smith relative to Rev. Spaulding..it is highly unlikely to have happened. Added to that I've never read from any witness who testified to Hurlbut that either J. Smith attended..nor Rigdon. And I think Hurlbut who sought testimonies from friends and neighbours of Spalding would have been very alert to that fact had it occurred."

Many thanks, marg. I missed it in my quick survey of the thread. Been preoccupied with other threads here of late. I appreciate your kind response and patience in re-stating what you had already answered.