Origins of the Book of Mormon

[_Jersey Girl]

Hi charity,

This thread took off since I last read it! In another post you stated that the "other" Spalding manuscript wasn't even mentioned until after the first one was found. (Apparently the one you have a copy of).

Why do you think it wasn't mentioned until after the first one was found and how is that a problem? Or is it a problem and for whom?

Jersey Girl

(I appreciate all that you've taken on in this thread!)

Hurlburt was a rabid anti-Mormon. I don't know about the others. But it was clearly on the agenda of the anti-Mormons to try to discredit the Book of Mormon with the claim that the Spaulding manuscript was the basis for the Book of Mormon. And very convenient for them that the manuscript was lost and no one could compare the two.

So after years of saying, "Golly gee, we could show you if we just had the manuscript" the manuscript was found. And what do you know, it wasn't anywhere close, besides a few superficial similarities. So, they had to concoct a new "missing" manuscript. Now, they are back to "golly, gee, we could show you if we just had the manuscript" again. "

It keeps their myth alive. The only problem is for the anti's. It really stretches things to have made the claim twice. The first one didn't work and so they tried it again. Pretty laughable, actually.

And thanks for asking.

I don't see how this is different than that "Missing Papyrus" theory regarding the Book of Abraham, charity. Having said that, what about the witnesses whose comments testify to what the Spalding manuscript contained?

[_charity]

remember charity that the Book of Mormon calls all the other churchs a whore.

Quite rightly there are passages which indicate that there is one Church of God and another of Satan. That is also Biblical. Then, of course, Jesus said that all the CREEDS were an abomination. He didn't say churches. CREEDS.

[_beastie]

Quite rightly there are passages which indicate that there is one Church of God and another of Satan. That is also Biblical. Then, of course, Jesus said that all the CREEDS were an abomination. He didn't say churches. CREEDS.

I'm sure that's a very meaningful distinction to those so targeted.

[_charity]

I don't see how this is different than that "Missing Papyrus" theory regarding the Book of Abraham, charity. Having said that, what about the witnesses whose comments testify to what the Spalding manuscript contained?

I think there are some differences, which you may or may not find significant. The statements from the "witnesses" to the Spaulding manuscript gave their testimonies years after supposedly seeing the Spaudling manuscript and after reading or skimming through the Book of Mormon. "Yes, I remember hearing X read me passages from the Spaudling manuscript and as I recall the Book of Mormon sounded like that." So the main problems are the length of time between exposure to the Spaulding manuscript and giving their depositions, and the confabulating the two sources.

With the Book of Abraham, there are accounts of the descriptions of the papyrus. Those descriptions were recorded at the time or within days, not years, of exposure to the papyrus. Are there missing papyri, not recovered and given to the Church? It appears so.

The descriptions include several talking about the length of the papyrus that was on the table, went to the floor, across the room and into another. There was no such long piece recovered. Another description talks about a beautifully done papyrus with black and red "painting" on it. Nothing like that was among the recovered pieces.

Then, on a more scientific note, just recently John Gee presented a calculation of the total amount of papyri there would be given the recovered pieces. It is a calculation used by Egyptologists, not LDS, that measures the curvature of a papyri fragement and then yields a good estimation of the entire size of the scroll it would have been on. Using the fragments, this calcuation indicates that a majority of the papyrus was not recovered.

I don't understand the method fully, but it was not invented by Dr. Gee. This was presented at the FAIR conference in August. One of these days it will be published and then you can read it.

I think that puts this missing papyri claim on a higher plane than the missing Spaulding claim. You can look at the facts yourself and decide.

[_mentalgymnast]

I find your arrogance pertaining to what constitutes evidence to be pathetic. You have a lack of skepticism to something that is an obvious fraud and no skepticism towards someone who was a convicted confidence gamer.

I know everything about what you percieve as "spiritual matters". You know nothing of me but let me drop you a little hint. I am an RM, I was a member for 25 years until I finally decided to stop lying to myself and I posess more skepticism in my thumb than you do in your whole body.

True. We are message board entities. My entity implements skepticism and study in employing rational thought to discern truth. Your entity is a carbon copy of every other mountebank, a brainwashed tool who's purpose in life is to deny the more rational path and follow foolishly chasing after invisible dragons. Step outside your comfort zone and realize that your opinion is not supported by the evidence we both have.

Shall we try to Trump each other? I have served a mission. I have been an adult member for 47 years. I have a master's degree in psychology. I wrote a master's thesis using a scientific study and statistical analyis. Maybe this statement will help you a little. Although he may not have said it first, Isaac Newton said, "If I have seen further than others, it is because I have stood on the shoulder of giants." I just see further than you do. But you can climb on the shoulders of giants and enjoy the view, too. It really is a good view from up here.

Isaac Newton also believed that by reading the Bible he could discern alchemical secrets. But that's irrelevant to the discussion and your pissing contest extolling your irrelevant academic history is equally irrelevant. So lets get back on track, shall we douche?

Let me break it down for you: EVERY academic opinion outside of those who have a religious "duty" to support Mormonism categorically finds Mormon assertions to be baseless. There is no archaeological evidence. There is as much Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon as there is in a Dr Seuss book. I guess Dr Seuss was practicing Hebrew writing forms in an attempt to...aww f*ck who cares.

There is nothing in the Book of Mormon that is furthered by apologists that can't be explained as straining at gnats, reaching and pethetic conclusions and wannabe intellectuals mixing religious truthiness with laughable "scholarship".

So far you have given us nothing but whiny useless statements along the lines of "Oh YAH?!?! IS TOO!!".

Use that education you state you have and apply objectivity to the evidence. And don't run home to your "spiritual validation" mommy when you can't back your sh*t up.

(Moderator Note---Merc...babe...I beg of you..please...keep the language "Terrestral". Thanks, my friend! Liz)

Mr. Merc, I'm sure that your fluent use of profanity is used for a reason/purpose? To give the impression of rational thought? If your frequent use of potty mouth language is any indication of the potential fruits of apostasy...I'll pass. Also, if your use of profanity is any indication of the health status of the human mind...you're a sicko.

I'm assuming Charity is a woman. How can you use such ugly forms of profanity to her face?

Shame on you.

Regards,
MG

[_beastie]

Mr. Merc, I'm sure that your fluent use of profanity is used for a reason/purpose? To give the impression of rational thought? If your frequent use of potty mouth language is any indication of the potential fruits of apostasy...I'll pass. Also, if your use of profanity is any indication of the health status of the human mind...you're a sicko.

I'm assuming Charity is a woman. How can you use such ugly forms of profanity to her face?

I don't support personal attacks on charity, but do want to point out that there are many ways to be profane, and I've seen quite a few believers engage in the sport as well.

In fact, I think one could well make the argument that insinuating or stating that sincere people who struggled with Mormonism's claims before eventually rejecting them are associated with satan is more profane than "bad words".

[Guest]

Hurlburt was a rabid anti-Mormon. I don't know about the others. But it was clearly on the agenda of the anti-Mormons to try to discredit the Book of Mormon with the claim that the Spaulding manuscript was the basis for the Book of Mormon. And very convenient for them that the manuscript was lost and no one could compare the two.

So after years of saying, "Golly gee, we could show you if we just had the manuscript" the manuscript was found. And what do you know, it wasn't anywhere close, besides a few superficial similarities. So, they had to concoct a new "missing" manuscript. Now, they are back to "golly, gee, we could show you if we just had the manuscript" again. "

It keeps their myth alive. The only problem is for the anti's. It really stretches things to have made the claim twice. The first one didn't work and so they tried it again. Pretty laughable, actually.

Charity, I can't really understand how you arrive at the conclusion that Spalding theorists simply concocted a missing Spalding manuscript when you haven't taken the time to read the Cowdery/Davis/Vanick book all the way through. Whether they are correct about it or not, to characterize it as an ad hoc concoction is really a gross misrepresentation of the facts, at least as it stands now. There are a number of evidences that at least suggest the existence of a second manuscript. I recommend that before you continue to spout distortions you read the actual book from cover to cover instead of relying on a single review and your skimming.

Secondly, I would hardly lump all Spalding theorists into the category of "antis." Uncle Dale is one of the most dedicated and careful of the Spalding theorists. After interacting with him and reading his posts for so long at FAIR and eslewhere, I think it is rather sloppy of you to throw him into the anti-Mormon category. I think the same could be said of others who argue for the Spalding theory.

It is regretable that you take it upon yourself to represent the LDS position on the Spalding theory when you are so poorly informed about the issue. Since you are poorly informed, you should perhaps not be so cavalier and dismissive. It does you no credit.

[_mentalgymnast]

I cannot comment on the Hebraic side of the equation, because it doesn’t interest me enough to study.

Why is that? I've seen you mention this a few times now.

Regards,
MG

[_Trevor]

With the Book of Abraham, there are accounts of the descriptions of the papyrus. Those descriptions were recorded at the time or within days, not years, of exposure to the papyrus. Are there missing papyri, not recovered and given to the Church? It appears so.

The descriptions include several talking about the length of the papyrus that was on the table, went to the floor, across the room and into another. There was no such long piece recovered. Another description talks about a beautifully done papyrus with black and red "painting" on it. Nothing like that was among the recovered pieces.

Other than Nibley's report of the secondhand, distant recollection of Joseph F. Smith, what evidence do you have that there was a real long papyrus that is now missing? I seem to recall someone mentioning another evidence, but I cannot recall it now.

Then, on a more scientific note, just recently John Gee presented a calculation of the total amount of papyri there would be given the recovered pieces. It is a calculation used by Egyptologists, not LDS, that measures the curvature of a papyri fragement and then yields a good estimation of the entire size of the scroll it would have been on. Using the fragments, this calcuation indicates that a majority of the papyrus was not recovered.

From what I understand, this calculation places the text in a tiny minority of similar collections, if not by itself. Is this not true?

I think that puts this missing papyri claim on a higher plane than the missing Spaulding claim. You can look at the facts yourself and decide.

Once again, since you don't seem to know that much about the Spalding theory, I don't know how you can make such a declaration.

[_Jersey Girl]

charity,

Thanks for your reply about the Missing Papyrus vs Missing Spalding Manuscript. I think I'll refrain from attempting to engage you on that further because I don't want to derail the thread into a Book of Abraham tangent and there are folks here who know much more than I do about the Spalding issues.

Thanks,
Jersey Girl