Jersey Girl wrote:Are there any particular points you'd like to raise based on Roper's piece?
No, not really. I've never found the Spalding theory very plausible or interesting, and am, frankly, amazed that it continues to flourish in some (fairly marginal) circles.
Is Roper's piece based on the absence of Manuscript Found? Do you think that's a significant factor in what you see as the lack of success in the S/R theory?
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
Jersey Girl wrote:I'd like to hear from any interested parties what they think the fatal flaws are in the Spalding-Rigdon theory thus far. In your view, what sinks the boat.
That's it. Have at it.
Jersey Girl
As noted before, there is no link between Joseph Smith and Rigdon before 1831 and well after the Book of Mormon was finished. Tell you prove that you have nothing.
Would you see the theory as being more successfully convincing if someone were to be able to supply a link?
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
I just want to note yet again for whoever may post or read here that I'm not planning to debate anything here. The sole purpose of this thread is that of inquiry.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
Jersey Girl wrote:I'd like to hear from any interested parties what they think the fatal flaws are in the Spalding-Rigdon theory thus far. In your view, what sinks the boat.
That's it. Have at it.
Jersey Girl
As noted before, there is no link between Joseph Smith and Rigdon before 1831 and well after the Book of Mormon was finished. Tell you prove that you have nothing.
Would you see the theory as being more successfully convincing if someone were to be able to supply a link?
If it could be demonstrated that Rigdon and Smith knew each other and had interaction before 1831 yes, I think it would be more compelling.
Jason Bourne wrote:As noted before, there is no link between Joseph Smith and Rigdon before 1831 and well after the Book of Mormon was finished. Tell you prove that you have nothing. . . If it could be demonstrated that Rigdon and Smith knew each other and had interaction before 1831 yes, I think it would be more compelling.
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
Daniel Peterson wrote:I've never found the Spalding theory very plausible or interesting, and am, frankly, amazed that it continues to flourish in some (fairly marginal) circles.
That's funny, most people don't find Mormon apologetics very plausible or interesting, and are, frankly, amazed that they continue to flourish in some (fairly marginal) circles.
But, I also do see that the basic premises of the Spalding-Rigdon theory are problematic.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
John Larsen wrote:I think that the actual text of the Book of Mormon doesn't warrant such grandiose theories of its origin.
Indeed, nor the grandiose claims that Joseph Smith made about its origins.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
Jason Bourne wrote:As noted before, there is no link between Joseph Smith and Rigdon before 1831 and well after the Book of Mormon was finished. Tell you prove that you have nothing.
That is a problem, although there are some suggestive evidences. I think, however, that a couple of these evidences better attest to the involvement of Luman Walter, but he is something of a minor preoccupation of mine.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
I think you misunderstand the premise of the OP. It is simple inquiry and nothing more. I'm not planning to debate the S/R Theory and it wouldn't matter to me if Uncle Dale were here to post on this thread. I am interested in hearing where people think the fatal flaws are and why. That's all I want to have happen on this thread.
I didn't misunderstand anything. Uncle dale could give a good overview.
when believers want to give their claims more weight, they dress these claims up in scientific terms. When believers want to belittle atheism or secular humanism, they call it a "religion". -Beastie
yesterday's Mormon doctrine is today's Mormon folklore.-Buffalo