Jockers et al. (2008) study. What more is needed? (S/R)

[_TAK]

A solid historical case would be a good start.

Incidentally, Jersey Girl, my answer above was a serious one.

The arrival of the Junior Sunday School brigade on this thread probably obscured that, but the response was intended in earnest. I agree with every serious historian, believer and non-believer, who has considered this matter, that the historical case for the Spalding theory is, to put the best face on it, weak.

In all seriousness, the likely event that Sidney Rigdon and the missing Spaulding Manuscript is the genesis for the Book of Mormon is far more believable, than the version offered by Joseph Smith that it came from an angle on gold plates.

[_Lamanite]

Now that folks have had a chance to begin reading, processing and/or discussing the "Jockers et al. (2008) study" from Stanford U, I'd like to hear from those who have serious doubts regarding the Spalding/Rigdon theory itself. What more is needed to remove or begin removing doubts regarding the theory to your intellectual satisfaction?
<
<
<
<
<
<

Can you tell me how I might obtain a copy of this study?


Big UP!

Lamanite

[_Daniel Peterson]

In all seriousness, the likely event that Sidney Rigdon and the missing Spaulding Manuscript is the genesis for the Book of Mormon is far more believable, than the version offered by Joseph Smith that it came from an angle on gold plates.

That depends entirely on the prior assumptions brought to the question.

I really think that courses in logic ought to be required for undergraduate degrees.

[_TAK]

In all seriousness, the likely event that Sidney Rigdon and the missing Spaulding Manuscript is the genesis for the Book of Mormon is far more believable, than the version offered by Joseph Smith that it came from an angle on gold plates.

That depends entirely on the prior assumptions brought to the question.

I really think that courses in logic ought to be required for undergraduate degrees.

Please, Good Dr.. lay out a logical case for an angel and gold plates.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Can you tell me how I might obtain a copy of this study?

It's time for the infamous FARMSite mind trick:

Eeevil FARMS Review editor: This is not the kind of study you want to read.

Lamanite: "Never mind. This is not the kind of study I want to read."

Eeevil FARMS Review editor: You would rather watch Dan Peterson on BYU-TV while writing out a check to the Maxwell Institute and sending it in via the Institute's clandestine and secretive fundraiser, Ed Snow.

Lamanite: "I think I'll see if there's something with Dan Peterson on BYU-TV. And maybe I'll write out a check to the Maxwell Institute and send it in via the Institute's clandestine and secretive fundraiser, Ed Snow."

Eeevil FARMS Review editor: Heheheheh. Another mind neutralized! Another virtual lobotomy! Our fiendish plan of concealing our fundraising by publicizing it works just as well as our scheme to ensure that the Sheeple remain unaware of Brethren-unapproved books by reviewing those books! We need not fear the Scratch/Kishkumen/Gadianton Tri-Unity. It cannot stop us!

[_Daniel Peterson]

Please, Good Dr.. lay out a logical case for an angel and gold plates.

That case is available in multiple places. I suggest Richard Anderson's Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses as a good starting place. Happy reading!

[_Kishkumen]

I don't expect the historical case for the Spalding theory will ever be made absent the kind of textual project Jockers et al. were attempting, nor will it likely be made with it. This is not to say that I find early Mormon history reliable, particularly pre-1831. After all, Joseph and his compatriots had every reason to fashion and edit the record in ways that would be appealing to potential converts to their church. That the Book of Mormon project began as a treasure hunt is not the kind of thing they were liable to promote, to cite but a single example.

[_TAK]

Please, Good Dr.. lay out a logical case for an angel and gold plates.

That case is available in multiple places. I suggest Richard Anderson's Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses as a good starting place. Happy reading!

I don't think Anderson's book and witnesses that saw with spiritual eyes is going to help with that case of logic...

“Perhaps one should not expect that a book about the witnesses to the Book of Mormon published by Deseret Book Company would be anything other than an attempt to strengthen the reader's faith in the Book of Mormon. This book will be convincing to those already certain that the gold plates actually existed and that the eleven witnesses saw them. And even the detached reader will probably be convinced by Anderson's research that the witnesses were honest men who sincerely believed their signed testimony and probably stuck by their story as long as they lived. But Anderson is really trying to have us conclude more than this. He would have the reader be convinced that because these men were honest and reaffirmed their testimony when asked, they actually saw and handled plates which contained the records of an ancient people. I believe that Anderson-- like the eleven witnesses--is an honest and sincere man when he writes: ‘After years of working with their lives and their words, I am deeply convinced that their printed testimonies must be taken at face value’ (p. xii). But I don't believe that his research by itself requires this conclusion. As he admits, ‘spiritual truths must be spiritually verified’ (p. 82). Believers must make a ‘leap of faith,’ apprehending with their ‘spiritual eyes’ rather than their ‘natural eyes’ (“Investigating the Investigation,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Vol.16, No.2, pp.132-133). emph added..

[_Danna]

As I understand it there was originally a general suspicion that Rigdon wrote the book (based on how fortuitous it was for him and his theological claims, and his rapid rise to power); and then there were separate claims that Spaulding's work was used in the writing of the book (based on recognition by those familiar with his work).

Subsequently Hurlburt may have contaminated his witnesses in attempting to make a strong link between the two theories. So conservatively, one could exclude Hurlburt's collected evidence. But excluding that evidence does not mean throwing out the whole case.

There were still the original two suspicions - which Jocker's et al. have now tested and supported. To my mind, we have reasonable support for a theory that Rigdon's work contributed to the book, and reasonable support for a second theory that Spaulding's work contributes to the book.

Uncle Dale, Prof Criddle and others have presented evidence indicating that Rigdon had the opportunity to obtain a copy of Spaulding's work. They have also shown that there was the opportunity for a Rigdon/Smith/Cowdery (and later Pratt) conspiracy to produce the Book of Mormon.

I think that given the new authorship findings, that the Rigdon/Spaulding theory is the most likely. Even if the link between Spaulding and Rigdon cannot be proven, the two separate components of the theory seem pretty solid now.

When I speculate, I don't think that Rigdon was too worried about using the Book of Mormon as scripture - to him its value was in confirmation of his theological ideas. Maybe originally, Joseph had rights to the book and overall story to make money (hence the attempted sale), while Rigdon was to use its discovery and contents to reinforce his concept of restoration and his status as a preacher. Pratt was an opportunist - once polygamy was established he was bedded in (so to speak). I think Cowdery thought or was led to believe that he was doing the lord's work. He could even have been pursuaded that Spaulding's work had been inspired somehow and was a true history, and that the tale of discovery was necessary to restore the gospel/do the lord's work. His attempts at revelation, apparent belief in Joseph's powers, and reaction to Fanny make him seem like an idealist to me.

[_Kishkumen]

As he admits, ‘spiritual truths must be spiritually verified’ (p. 82). Believers must make a ‘leap of faith,’ apprehending with their ‘spiritual eyes’ rather than their ‘natural eyes’ (“Investigating the Investigation,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Vol.16, No.2, pp.132-133). emph added..

And believers do look at it with their spiritual eyes, as they freely admit. We, of course, are not obliged to join them in making that leap of faith. Let's face it. Mopologetics is mostly about helping members feel that their fondly held beliefs are not ludicrous, but respectable and plausible. Anyone who attacks that sense of respectability and plausibility is bound to be a target for the Mopologist. But, I am not sure why anyone aside from the faithful or would-be-faithful should particularly care.