Spalding Theory -- Mormonleaks.com

[_Dr. Shades]

Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the Spalding theory require a missing manuscript?

Yes.

But the Golden Plates Theory requires missing golden plates, so I'd say the score is about even in that regard.

[_why me]

I find Ralph Waldo Emerson, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Emily Bronte, etc from the same century to be much better reads. The reason there are no real in-depth literary analyses of the Book of Mormon from non-mormon scholars is because it is not a good piece of literature, it doesn't claim to be itself and I'm not sure why Mormons say it's so amazing how could a kid under the age of 25 have written it (the book wasn't published until he was almost 25, I don't know why they say at the pulpit a 14 year old boy couldn't have wrote it)?

Well, I don't know...stick your head in a hat and write a book like the Book of Mormon. Also, Emerson was highly educated as were the others for that time. It is a good piece of literature when we consider the literary and religious angle. But one would need to look at it all in context. Whoever wrote that book, a great knowledge of the Bible was necessary and it was not a book to write off the top of the head when that said head was in a hat. What is amazing is that when we compare his personal writings at that time in letters, we find terrible sentence structure and a not very creative mind.

[_why me]

Howe wasn't a historian. I had many more sources than Howe. My primary sources were Joseph Smith's 1838 History and Lucy Smith's 1845 History. However, you can't simply dismiss Howe based on Mormon apologetic assessments. The key documents are statements by Joseph Smith's former neighbors and relatives. These are primary documents and can't be dismissed as biased simply because they relate what you don't want to hear.

The well was so poisoned at the time when it came to Joseph Smith that it would be hard to imagine anyone without an axe to grind when it came to Joseph Smith. Thus, the problem that we have with any source about him. Likewise for the other side. What we do have however is the book. Could Joseph have written it with a head in a hat? What about the 11 witnesses who claimed to either have a heavenly vision with the plates or seen and handled the plates. And Joseph was not seen with any manuscript nor with many feathered pens and paper in hand. If there was a manuscript he had to hide it, destroy all drafts and scrap paper etc. Not easy to do within a small environment.

[_why me]

The Spalding theory is not necessary to be able to say that it is highly unlikely that Joseph Smith was the principal author.

It does not require having the missing manuscript. It only postualtes a missing manuscript.

And him memorizing it and sticking his head in a hat to recite it. Quite a feat if I say so myself. Also he needed to travel around with manuscript in hand, work on the farm, purchase pens and paper and then make metal plates... and quite a conspiracy of 14 people: 11 witnesses, emma, sidney, who else? Hyrum? And of course Joseph. And for what? To establish a new church? I can think of an easier way to do so. But the list of conspirators grows and grows.

[_why me]

Joseph Smith had a LOT of help.

He sure did. And all behind closed doors. Quite a conspiracy theory. Of course, we also need to imagine a cigar filled room with the conspirators hatching the plan to establish a new church based on a book. Not to mention the chewing tobacco involved. And the time involved to plan such an event. And the whispering behind closed doors. This was the best kept secret imaginable. And even on their deathbeds as they were getting ready to face their maker, they gave their testimony to family about the truth claims of the Book of Mormon. Quite amazing, really.

[_why me]

This guy makes a good case:

http://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-conte ... N03_91.pdf

[_Darth J]

I agree with Tobin and Why Me that we should go with the theory that has the most plausible explanatory power and accounts for all of the evidence.

So how about the Nephites-Really-Existed-In-The-Real-World Theory? Or the Voices-In-My-Head-Told-Me-To-Believe-Things-That-Are-Inconsistent-With-Verifiable-Reality Theory?

How does the evidence for those theories compare to alternative theories about how the Book of Mormon came into being?

[_Darth J]

And him memorizing it and sticking his head in a hat to recite it. Quite a feat if I say so myself.

Yeah. Or like Penn and Teller. When they put on their magic shows, they're really doing magic, you know.

Also he needed to travel around with manuscript in hand,

Yeah. It would be really hard to hide a stack of papers in all the things you would be bringing with you when you move to live in a new place.

work on the farm,

use magic rocks to find silver deposits, get a gullible farmer to bankroll you,

purchase pens and paper

Yeah. It would be really hard to purchase "pens" and paper, which nobody disputes were present when the Book of Mormon manuscript was created.

and then make metal plates...

I know! How ridiculous, right? Next they'll be saying that you could make metal plates in Kinderhook, Illinois or Voree, Wisconsin.

and quite a conspiracy of 14 people:

See: straw man

11 witnesses,

http://www.mormonthink.com/witnessesweb.htm

emma,

You mean the same Emma who lied about her late husband ever practicing plural marriage, right?

sidney,

Yes, the Spalding Theory posits that Sidney Rigdon helped write the Book of Mormon.

who else? Hyrum?

You mean the same Hyrum who lied about his brother practicing plural marriage, right?

And of course Joseph.

You're right. Joseph Smith would never have lied about anything.

And for what? To establish a new church? I can think of an easier way to do so. But the list of conspirators grows and grows.

Yeah. Nobody would lie to start a church. Therefore, everyone who starts a new church is telling the truth. Every church is true. And of course nobody has ever gotten personal aggrandizement from being the leader of a church, so we can summarily rule out any motive other than truth.

[_why me]

I agree with Tobin and Why Me that we should go with the theory that has the most plausible explanatory power and accounts for all of the evidence.

So how about the Nephites-Really-Existed-In-The-Real-World Theory? Or the Voices-In-My-Head-Told-Me-To-Believe-Things-That-Are-Inconsistent-With-Verifiable-Reality Theory?

How does the evidence for those theories compare to alternative theories about how the Book of Mormon came into being?

Voices in the head? Nephites really exited in the real world theory? Please address my points not give one line bulldinky like ceeboo.

[Guest]

The well was so poisoned at the time when it came to Joseph Smith that it would be hard to imagine anyone without an axe to grind when it came to Joseph Smith.

Because he was a loose cannon with a tough row to hoe who started off with a clean slate.

Thus, the problem that we have with any source about him. Likewise for the other side.

And since it is likewise for the other side, we have no reliable information about Joseph Smith, which negates our ability to say anything about him. Thank you for surrendering the discussion, Why Me.

What we do have however is the book.

And absolutely nothing else to substantiate a vast, advanced pre-Columbian polity that allegedly existed for a thousand years, nor to substantiate the existence of their Jaredite forerunners.

Could Joseph have written it with a head in a hat?

No. And nobody who disbelieves the Book of Mormon thinks he really did that.

What about the 11 witnesses who claimed to either have a heavenly vision with the plates or seen and handled the plates.

Or what about the witnesses to Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster or Our Lady of Fatima? What about them?

And Joseph was not seen with any manuscript nor with many feathered pens and paper in hand.

And since he was never seen with these items, but he supposedly had these items to compose the Book of Mormon manuscript that was given to E.B. Grandin to print, there must not have really been any manuscript given to Grandin, and so we can logically conclude that the Book of Mormon does not exist.

If there was a manuscript he had to hide it, destroy all drafts and scrap paper etc. Not easy to do within a small environment.

No kidding! How the hell could you possibly get rid of a stack of paper in an open, rural environment surrounded by forest? Or how could a manuscript have been destroyed so long before modern science discovered (a) how to make fire, and (b) paper is flammable? How could he have done it?