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

[_TAK]

Still, you've evidently forgotten folks like Davis Bitton (of the University of Utah), Dean May (of the University of Utah), Leonard Arrington (of Utah State University), Richard Bennett (of the University of Manitoba), Stanley Kimball (of Southern Illinois University), and Richard Bushman (formerly Gouverneur Morris Professor of American History at Columbia University and now at Claremont Graduate University). Neither the University of Utah nor Utah State University nor the University of Manitoba nor Southern Illinois University nor Claremont Graduate University nor Columbia University is funded by the Church, so far as I'm aware.

Bitton and Arrington were church historians. Richard E. Bennett, left University of Manitoba in 1987 and is employed today at BYU.. They have all been employed by the Church. Clearly you know that so I assume you just lied.

[_Daniel Peterson]

1-800-Exx-them?

Silly harmony. As usual, you're talking about things you don't know.

It's 1-800-666-NAZI.

Go with the flow of the myth, and these things will come to you.

[_Ray A]

It's 1-800-666-NAZI.

Go with the flow of the myth, and these things will come to you.

Sorry Dan, I tried that and someone answered and said, "Wheat is not home at the moment".

[_harmony]

1-800-Exx-them?

Silly harmony. As usual, you're talking about things you don't know.

It's 1-800-666-NAZI.

Go with the flow of the myth, and these things will come to you.

Silly Daniel. Trying to entice me to follow your red herring. (Now if it was chocolate and involved some sort of massage therapy, I'd be tempted, but I don't follow smelly fish).

No, I think I'm correct. I looked it up in the SCMC website, http://www.ldssnoop, and the number is clearly 1-800-EXX-THEM.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Still, you've evidently forgotten folks like Davis Bitton (of the University of Utah), Dean May (of the University of Utah), Leonard Arrington (of Utah State University), Richard Bennett (of the University of Manitoba), Stanley Kimball (of Southern Illinois University), and Richard Bushman (formerly Gouverneur Morris Professor of American History at Columbia University and now at Claremont Graduate University). Neither the University of Utah nor Utah State University nor the University of Manitoba nor Southern Illinois University nor Claremont Graduate University nor Columbia University is funded by the Church, so far as I'm aware.

Bitton and Arrington were church historians. Richard E. Bennett, left University of Manitoba in 1987 and is employed today at BYU.. They have all been employed by the Church. Clearly you know that so I assume you just lied.

Bitton and Arrington believed in Joseph Smith's account long before they were called to serve as Church historians (they wouldn't have been called to the Church Historian's Office, presumably, had they not) when they were simply professors at, respectively, the University of Utah and Utah State University -- public institutions that employ lots and lots of inactive Mormons, ex-Mormons, non-Mormons, and, even, anti-Mormons. Their beliefs did not depend upon their paychecks then, as you misleadingly sought to imply. And even after they were called to the Church Historian's Office -- for which I assume they were paid something -- Leonard Arrington continued his day-job at Utah State University for a while before coming to BYU and Davis Bitton continued as a professor at the University of Utah until his retirement (serving, among other things, as director of graduate studies for the Department of History).

Richard Bennett had a substantial actively-publishing nine-year career at the University of Manitoba prior to coming to BYU, where -- contrary to your misleading insinuations -- he apparently believed in Joseph Smith's account even while not on the Church's payroll. (Had he not, he would likely not have been hired at BYU.)

I note with interest your accusation that I'm a liar. That's what passes for serious discourse and discussion among many on this board, which is why this board has signally failed to attract many believing Latter-day Saints and has repelled even some non-believers who dislike incivility. (Which is, of course, perfectly fine with me!)

[_marg]

I think there is greater incentive to choose a route of least resistence. Any historian who would promote the Spalding theory as a high probabilty would likely be attacked by the Church, as far as their credibility. The Church is an extremely powerful organization both in manpower and financial resources.

Are you saying you don't think the church attacked Fawn Brodie?

There are degrees of attacks, but as you'll notice DCP will use Brodie and Vogel when it suits his purpose to attack the Spalding theory, so apologist use to their fullest Vogel and Brodie's position on this, which from my readings, their position is very weak.

This is what the Jockers et. all 2008 paper has to say on this issue.

"Throughout the 19th and early 20th century, the Spalding-Rigdon Theory was the favored explanation for the origin of the Book of Mormon, but Fawn Brodie's (1945) rejection of this theory in her controversial biography of Smith marked a turning point in the debate. Invoking witness tampering and 'false memory syndrome' , Brodie dismissed the affidavits collected by Hurlbut. Despite having no evidence that the Honolulu manuscript was the same text that the Conneaut witnesses heard Spalding read to them (and subsequently recognized as a source text for the Book of Mormon), Brodie nonetheless concluded that Spalding could not have been an author of the Book of Mormon because the similarities between the Book of Mormon and the text found in Hawaii were 'not sufficient to justify the thesis of common authorship'. Her rejection of the Spalding-Rigdon Theory came to be regarded by most students of Mormon history as 'an historiographical artifact without credibility among serious scholars' (Bushman,2005)."

If one looks at the reasoning given by both Brodie and Vogel, one can see that their justification to dismiss the Spalding witnesses was extremely weak. But apologists and the Church are able to accept their position, a very subjective weak one, because at least it has Smith being the sole author.

If I was a writer of Mormon history, I would much prefer to hold to the Smith as sole author theory, knowing full well I'd be given a level of credibility that I certainly wouldn't receive from the church and their apologists if I supported the Spalding Rigdon theory.

So it's no surprise the DCP and others bring up Brodie and Vogel on this particular issue, in their arguments as if they are the ultimate authority.

[_Ray A]

Exhibit A: Stephen Robinson's review of The Word of God: Essays on Mormon Scripture, Dan Vogel, ed.

Korihor's back, and this time he's got a printing press.

The uniformity of perspective among the essays, the pervasive use of the straw man, and the absence of any opposing viewpoint identify The Word of God as a work of propaganda. It is designed not to investigate Latter-day Saint thought, but to change it. It certainly would have been more honest to entitle this work The Words of the Disaffected: A Criticism of the LDS Concept of Scripture, but Signature has lately developed a habit of disguising the critical stance of its works with misleading titles. However, three exceptions to this criticism would be the essays by Lancaster and Bush, who have done good historical work apparently without the Korihor agenda, and the essay of Curtis, who, though she takes the naturalistic approach, does not appear to have an interest in attacking or modifying the religion of the Saints.

Give me a Walter Martin anytime, a good stout wolf with his own fur on, instead of those more timid or sly parading around in their ridiculous fleeces with their teeth and tails hanging out. Give me "Ex-Mormons for Jesus" or the Moody Bible Tract Society, who are at least honest about their anti-Mormon agenda, instead of Signature Books camouflaged as a "Latter-day Saint" press. I prefer my anti-Mormons straight up.

Nice review, Steve, and very objective.

[_Daniel Peterson]

It was a great review, and very well written.

[_TAK]

DCPI note with interest your accusation that I'm a liar. That's what passes for serious discourse and discussion among many on this board, which is why this board has signally failed to attract many believing Latter-day Saints and has repelled even some non-believers who dislike incivility. (Which is, of course, perfectly fine with me!)

I challenged you to come up with historians that have not been employed by the Church. I will grant you Bushman- but I would suggest that his belief is not based upon historical facts to any great degree. You also identified Leonard, Bitton and Bennett citing non – LDS employment, while you knew that they had all worked for the Church. You lied. Period.

As to "serious discourse", lose the indignity.. you have stated many times that you will not waste your effort discussing topics here.. And you have not.. By enlarge you direct people to links, mock people and derail where you can.

For my limited perspective the board seems to be doing just fine..

[_harmony]

You lied. Period.

Back off, TAK. The man is entitled to be wrong, the same as any of us is. It's also possible he misunderstood your request. A simple clarification is all that's needed.