TBM's: Killer blow to the Book of Mormon?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Post by _Jersey Girl »

charity wrote:
Jersey Girl wrote:
Well, let me ask you this, charity. If you think that Joseph couldn't have come in contact with the Septuagint much less have been able to read it...do you think Sidney Rigdon might have read it?


Okay. Let me concede that Sidney Rigdon might have read it. Then you are saying that Sidney wrote the Book of Mormon. Do you really give any credence to this theory? The multiple witnesses to the Book of Mormon production tell us that Joseph was not reading off any manuscript pages. Critics agree with this as they gleefully make fun of the "face in the hat" picture of Joseph.

This leaves this "Sidney wrote it" theory with the idea of Joseph reading off some hidden manuscript and memorizing a minimum of 8 pages of the Book of Mormon over night to dictate it to Oliver the next day. And consider how close in correspondence to the Bible Isaiah the Book of Mormon Isaiah is.

You really think that is a reasonable theory?


No, I'm saying that I think Rigdon was largely responsible for the production of the Book of Mormon AND the religion, charity. Take the witnesses out of the picture for a moment and consider these questions.

Who was more literate, Joseph or Sidney?

Who was more doctrinally aware, Joseph or Sidney?

Who was the superior orator, Joseph or Sidney?

Who had a reason to branch off into a new religion?

When you take the witnesses out of the picture, what I think we are left with is a direct line to Rigdon. I'll try to add more soon.
Last edited by Google Feedfetcher on Thu Jan 03, 2008 3:50 am, edited 2 times in total.
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Post by _Jersey Girl »

charity,

Let me ask you this. What was the point of dispute that led to Rigdon's break from the Campbellites? If anyone else would care to supply an answer (so charity doesn't feel more hopped on than she already is), I'll take it!
_charity
_Emeritus
Posts: 2327
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 3:30 pm

Post by _charity »

cacheman wrote:
A knockoff nothing line is not an explanation. AFter spending paragraphs in not addressing the issue at all, he says well, maybe Joseph Smith could have known that the variant translations were around.

What is a knockoff nothing line? And what are you talking about with the variant translations? Wright explicitly addresses the exact wording that is in the Book of Mormon, and gives an explanation, however unsatisfactory to you, as to how this may have occured.

Listen up. This does not address the issue! Let me explain it.

The passage in the Book of Mormon Isaiah has 3 ideas-- (1)all the ships at sea, (2)the Ships of Tarshish and (3)the pleasant or fine ships. All of them agree on the (3). But each of the other 2 has only 1 of the ideas that the Book of Mormon Isaiah has.

Actually, the KJV has two of them, and the third is available in biblical commentary, that you describe as esoteric. Please provide you reasoning for the term esoteric.

The logic here is unassailable. The Book of Mormon Isaiah came from a different, more complete source than did the KJV or the LXX. If it were a simple matter of "all" and "Tarshish" could be the same thing, it would not have come up in the Book of Mormon Isaiah. This seems too simple to try to talk around. Wright's little one liner doesn't do it.

How can you say that Joseph, or anyone who may have been involved in the Book of Mormon text, could not have had access to the fact that the "ships of Tarshish" also referred to the "ships of the sea"? Did you really read Wright's article? He provided multiple pre-1830 references that connected those phrases in specific reference to the Septuagint. Why is it not possible that the writer of the Book of Mormon simply added known facts to the KJV phrase?

Are you going to even answer the questions that I asked? Do you really believe that a "logical reasonable mind" must accept the same conclusion that you have come to?

cacheman


Okay. You win. It is perfectly reasonable that Joseph Smith could have heard someone talk about how "all the ships at sea" and "the ships of Tarshish" meaning the same thing. And that on one of those translation days where he was dictating what would become 8 pages of Book of Mormon text, he spent enough time to just stick that in. Or reasonable scenario #2 Sidney Rigdon spent hours away from his Campbellite ministry to slog through the Book of Isaiah and stick in that little snippet before he gave the manuscript to Joseph Smith to memorize overnight 8 pages to bring out from memory the next day. Or Reasonable Scenario #3, Solomon Spaulding knew all about the different variants and he stuck it in some still lost manuscript that--here comes the chorus--that Joseph Smith memorized overnight the 8 pages, ta dah.

I really do understand that people can come to a different conclusion. But I can't see how many of these conclusions are reasonable. I am accused of being blind, not being able to see anything that is anti. But what I see is a lot of critics who have determined that the Book of Mormon is not true. Then they have to look for any other explanation. Any other explanation.
_charity
_Emeritus
Posts: 2327
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 3:30 pm

Post by _charity »

Jersey Girl wrote:
charity wrote:This leaves this "Sidney wrote it" theory with the idea of Joseph reading off some hidden manuscript and memorizing a minimum of 8 pages of the Book of Mormon over night to dictate it to Oliver the next day. And consider how close in correspondence to the Bible Isaiah the Book of Mormon Isaiah is.

You really think that is a reasonable theory?


No, I'm saying that I think Rigdon was largely responsible for the production of the Book of Mormon AND the religion, charity. Take the witnesses out of the picture for a moment and consider these questions.


But you can't take the witnesses out of the picture! This is where critics always land in the mud. You can't account for those 11 men in any other scenario that includes Sidney Rigdon or Solomon Spaulding or anyone else.

Jersey Girl wrote:Who was more literate, Joseph or Sidney?


Not that it matters, but Sidney obviously, in the early years. I think Joseph eventually caught up and passed him.
Jersey Girl wrote:
Who was more doctrinally aware, Joseph or Sidney?


Of correct doctrine, Joseph. He was being tutored by the Spirit.
Jersey Girl wrote:Who was the superior orator, Joseph or Sidney?


Maybe Sidney. But what did that matter? Stephen Douglas was the superior orator, but Abraham Lincoln was elected president.
Jersey Girl wrote:Who had a reason to branch off into a new religion?


Joseph, because he had been told by Jesus himself that all the religons were wrong. Sidney only knew that through Joseph.
Jersey Girl wrote:When you take the witnesses out of the picture, what I think we are left with is a direct line to Rigdon. I'll try to add more soon.


Again Jersey Girl, you can't take them out. They will always be the 500 pound gorilla in the room with any kind of flimsy little alter-explanation.
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Post by _Jersey Girl »

I'm going to bold my comments here since I don't know of a better way to follow the dialogue:

charity wrote:
Jersey Girl wrote:
charity wrote:This leaves this "Sidney wrote it" theory with the idea of Joseph reading off some hidden manuscript and memorizing a minimum of 8 pages of the Book of Mormon over night to dictate it to Oliver the next day. And consider how close in correspondence to the Bible Isaiah the Book of Mormon Isaiah is.

You really think that is a reasonable theory?


No, I'm saying that I think Rigdon was largely responsible for the production of the Book of Mormon AND the religion, charity. Take the witnesses out of the picture for a moment and consider these questions.


But you can't take the witnesses out of the picture! This is where critics always land in the mud. You can't account for those 11 men in any other scenario that includes Sidney Rigdon or Solomon Spaulding or anyone else.

Back up the truck a sec. 11 witnesses to what, charity? Clarify?

Jersey Girl wrote:Who was more literate, Joseph or Sidney?


Not that it matters, but Sidney obviously, in the early years. I think Joseph eventually caught up and passed him.
Jersey Girl wrote:
Of course it matters. Rigdon wasn't an ignorant farm boy. He was entirely literate. He had the "means" to put the text together.

Who was more doctrinally aware, Joseph or Sidney?


Of correct doctrine, Joseph. He was being tutored by the Spirit.
Jersey Girl wrote:
Are you certain it was Joseph's correct doctrine? Have you researched Campbellite doctrine?

Who was the superior orator, Joseph or Sidney?


Maybe Sidney. But what did that matter? Stephen Douglas was the superior orator, but Abraham Lincoln was elected president.
Jersey Girl wrote:
It is evidence that Rigdon had a grasp of theology superior to that of Joseph and the literacy to put the book together.

Who had a reason to branch off into a new religion?


Joseph, because he had been told by Jesus himself that all the religons were wrong. Sidney only knew that through Joseph.
Jersey Girl wrote:
Have you read about Rigdon's departure from the Campbellites? Are you aware of Campbellite doctrine, what Rigdon was preaching and the issue he attempted to forward that led to his breaking away from the Campbellites?

When you take the witnesses out of the picture, what I think we are left with is a direct line to Rigdon. I'll try to add more soon.


Again Jersey Girl, you can't take them out. They will always be the 500 pound gorilla in the room with any kind of flimsy little alter-explanation.


Okay, let's keep the witnesses in. Who were the witnesses to the Gold Plates? What was their testimony of the Gold Plates? Was their testimony of the Gold Plates consistent over time? Who were the witnesses to the Translation? Were the Gold Plates ever seen during the translation? Were the Gold Plates used throughout the translation process? If not, why not? And I guess I should ask if you think a person could read off copy inserted into a hat even though I'm not keen on that being the case, worth considering though. Tell me watcha know there, sis.

And if we keep the 11 witnesses in, can we keep the Conneault Witnesses too?
_cacheman
_Emeritus
Posts: 225
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 6:22 pm

Post by _cacheman »

I really do understand that people can come to a different conclusion. But I can't see how many of these conclusions are reasonable.

Can you not see that others with "logical and reasonable minds" might see this explanation provided by Wright as reasonable?

I am accused of being blind, not being able to see anything that is anti.

I haven't made those accusations, so I'm not sure why you include this in your response to me. I'm simply trying to show that reasonable and logical minds can come to conclusions different than yours. It's obviously not working, as shown by your mocking sarcasm in response to my comments.

I have not mocked your conclusions. I have not even stated that they are unreasonable. It would be nice to be allowed some respect for my conclusions.

by the way, Here is what Andrew Hedges says about the text you describe as esoteric.
Three commentaries commonly used by scholars, ministers, and churchgoers alike in early America were the multivolume sets by Thomas Scott, Adam Clarke, and Matthew Henry.

http://farms.BYU.edu/publications/books ... chapid=172

cacheman
_charity
_Emeritus
Posts: 2327
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 3:30 pm

Post by _charity »

I am going to put my comments in red so you can see my answers.

Jersey Girl wrote:I'm going to bold my comments here since I don't know of a better way to follow the dialogue:

charity wrote:
Jersey Girl wrote:
charity wrote:This leaves this "Sidney wrote it" theory with the idea of Joseph reading off some hidden manuscript and memorizing a minimum of 8 pages of the Book of Mormon over night to dictate it to Oliver the next day. And consider how close in correspondence to the Bible Isaiah the Book of Mormon Isaiah is.

You really think that is a reasonable theory?


No, I'm saying that I think Rigdon was largely responsible for the production of the Book of Mormon AND the religion, charity. Take the witnesses out of the picture for a moment and consider these questions.


But you can't take the witnesses out of the picture! This is where critics always land in the mud. You can't account for those 11 men in any other scenario that includes Sidney Rigdon or Solomon Spaulding or anyone else.

Back up the truck a sec. 11 witnesses to what, charity? Clarify?

The eleven witnesses were shown the plates by Joseph Smith. They were allowed to touch them, to turn the pages, or as they called them, the leaves of the plates.

Jersey Girl wrote:Who was more literate, Joseph or Sidney?


Not that it matters, but Sidney obviously, in the early years. I think Joseph eventually caught up and passed him.
Jersey Girl wrote:
Of course it matters. Rigdon wasn't an ignorant farm boy. He was entirely literate. He had the "means" to put the text together.

Not everyone who can read and write can write something like the Book of Mormon. You are probably as literate as Sidney Rigdon. When you have your 500 page book written with consistent doctrine, and complicated plot ready, just let us known. Then you can have 60 days to memorize it and dicatate it off to a scribe. We are anxiously waiting for you to do accomplish this task which you seem to think is a breeze.


Who was more doctrinally aware, Joseph or Sidney?


Of correct doctrine, Joseph. He was being tutored by the Spirit.
Jersey Girl wrote:
Are you certain it was Joseph's correct doctrine? Have you researched Campbellite doctrine?

There are going to be some similarities. There are similar doctrines in any other denomination you can find. The point is that while there may be pieces of the truth in all denominations, none of them contain the fulness of the Gospel. Just us
.

Who was the superior orator, Joseph or Sidney?


Maybe Sidney. But what did that matter? Stephen Douglas was the superior orator, but Abraham Lincoln was elected president.
Jersey Girl wrote:
It is evidence that Rigdon had a grasp of theology superior to that of Joseph and the literacy to put the book together.

Being a great orator doesn't say any such thing.

Who had a reason to branch off into a new religion?


Joseph, because he had been told by Jesus himself that all the religons were wrong. Sidney only knew that through Joseph.
Jersey Girl wrote:
Have you read about Rigdon's departure from the Campbellites? Are you aware of Campbellite doctrine, what Rigdon was preaching and the issue he attempted to forward that led to his breaking away from the Campbellites?

So? Wasn't it fortuate for Sidney that he found Joseph when he did.
When you take the witnesses out of the picture, what I think we are left with is a direct line to Rigdon. I'll try to add more soon.


Again Jersey Girl, you can't take them out. They will always be the 500 pound gorilla in the room with any kind of flimsy little alter-explanation.


Okay, let's keep the witnesses in. Who were the witnesses to the Gold Plates? What was their testimony of the Gold Plates?
There were many witnesses. Three Witnesses were shown the plates by an angel and told they were of God. They didn't handle them. Eleven others were shown the gold plates by Joseph Smith and allowed to touch them. Emma saw the shape of them as they were contained in a pillowcase and knew that the pages rustled. There were others who knew there was something, even though they didn't see the plates.


Was their testimony of the Gold Plates consistent over time?

Yes. The Three and the Eleven and Emma testified repeatedly of their experience.

Who were the witnesses to the Translation?
Martin Harris, Emma Smith, Olivery Cowdery all acted as scribes at different times. Various other people who were not as involved.

Were the Gold Plates ever seen during the translation?

No. Not that we know.


Were the Gold Plates used throughout the translation process?

There two different times. The first was with the 116 pages which were lost. We aren't told much about that time. Then when Oliver Cowdery became scribe it doesn't appear that they were at that time.



If not, why not?

You can ask Joseph or God when you see them.

And I guess I should ask if you think a person could read off copy inserted into a hat even though I'm not keen on that being the case, worth considering though. Tell me watcha know there, sis.

The people who watched the translation process said that Joseph Smith had no manuscript pages in the hat. Besides, if he had the hat closed around his face to keep out light, he couldn't have read it anyway. Duh.
T

here were many witnesses. Three Witnesses were shown the plates by an angel and told they were of God. They didn't handle them. Eleven others were shown the gold plates by Joseph Smith and allowed to touch them. Emma saw the shape of them as they were contained in a pillowcase and knew that the pages rustled. There were others who knew there was something, even though they didn't see the plates.

And if we keep the 11 witnesses in, can we keep the Conneault Witnesses too?


You mean the CONNEAUT witnesses? The ones whose documents are obviously tampered with, written down 50 years after Joseph was murdered, the ones published by a known anti-Mormon who couldn't vouch for the story? That witness?
_Dr. Shades
_Emeritus
Posts: 14117
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:07 pm

Post by _Dr. Shades »

Jersey Girl wrote:charity,

Let me ask you this. What was the point of dispute that led to Rigdon's break from the Campbellites? If anyone else would care to supply an answer (so charity doesn't feel more hopped on than she already is), I'll take it!


The major points of dispute were Rigdon's assertion of the corruption/apostasy of modern Christianity and the need for a restoration. Campbell disagreed with both of these points.

charity wrote:You mean the CONNEAUT witnesses? The ones whose documents are obviously tampered with, written down 50 years after Joseph was murdered, the ones published by a known anti-Mormon who couldn't vouch for the story?


They were never tampered with, they were written down at least 11 years before Joseph was murdered, and the known anti-Mormon could vouch for the story.
"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?"

--Louis Midgley
_Jersey Girl
_Emeritus
Posts: 34407
Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:16 am

Post by _Jersey Girl »

Going to have to work my way from the bottom to top of your post, charity. I won't be able to finish today but here is a beginning:

You mean the CONNEAUT witnesses? The ones whose documents are obviously tampered with, written down 50 years after Joseph was murdered, the ones published by a known anti-Mormon who couldn't vouch for the story? That witness


Alright, spell checker! This is obviously payback for correcting Shades spelling on another thread...goes around, comes around.

What is the evidence that suggests the testimonies of the CONNEAUT witnesses were tampered with?
_Abinadi's Fire
_Emeritus
Posts: 246
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 4:49 pm

Post by _Abinadi's Fire »

Hi Jersey Girl,

I don't know if this is a killer blow to the Book of Mormon, but it is an interesting historical account that I believe hints at the origin of the book.

I don't think Rigdon wrote the entire book himself, though I do think he plagiarized considerable amounts of Spalding's work; he appears to have borrowed heavily from Spalding for the "War Chapters." Broadhurst has shown through his word-print studies a heavy concentration of correlations between the "War Chapters" and the Spalding manuscript.

What is missing in the Spalding theory is an account of the Anthon incident and other stories from Joseph Smith Jr's life, the visions of his father as compared to Lehi, and the story of Limhi and Ammon leading to the translation of the plates found within the book. I see that inner translation event as a direct reflection of Martin Harris and Joseph Smith Jr's early efforts.

However, back to the original point -- in 1826, Alexander Campbell, founder of the Campbellite “Restoration Movement” and early LDS church leader Sidney Rigdon's mentor, began work on a translation of the Bible, which he called the “Living Oracles,” into English, using words that tended to support his doctrine.

For example, Campbell used the word "immerse" instead of a more generic "baptize," and also made frequent use of the word "messenger" in place of "angel" in his translation.

This altered the "old-fashioned" concept of angelic wings and cherubic faces found on European paintings and minimized the concept of an angel as a separate spiritual species of representative of God in the human world. Angels became "fellow laborers" or "fellow servants in the gospel." While the term is a biblical one, it also overlaps the jargon of the Campbellites of the late 1820s and the language of self-identification of "angels" appearing to Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and others in the early group of "believers."

A distinction developed between Campbellite angels and Mormon angels, in that the followers of Campbell believed that angelic visitations were a thing of the past, but early followers of Joseph Smith Jr believed they still ministered to men. This argument appears to be echoed within the pages of the Book of Mormon in Moroni 7:36 Or have angels ceased to appear unto the children of men?

During the period of 1929-30, Sidney Rigdon was in the process of separating himself religiously and ecclesiastically from Campbell. Parley P. Pratt, who was then one of Rigdon's followers, spoke of the group as "Rigdonites."

Parley P Pratt describes a “vision” he had, and I think Pratt is here describing a “Rigdonite angel,” in this vision of his:

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/1880PrtA.htm (with thanks to Dale Broadhurst)

I've concluded since this "Angel of the Prairies" Pratt speaks of foreknew the future establishment of the Church that the "Angel of the Prairies" who outlined to Pratt his then contemplated and now executed religious plan, was none other than Sidney Rigdon himself, and that this fact accounts for Pratt's failure to give the name of his host or the date of his first meeting with Rigdon.

Comparing this story with the events described in the D&C which refer to the restoration of the Aaronic Priesthood by an angel has led me to believe that the restoration angel was also Rigdon, as D&C 35 tells us that Sidney Rigdon came forth "even as John."

D&C 27:7 And also John the son of Zacharias, which Zacharias he (Elias) visited and gave promise that he should have a son, and his name should be John, and he should be filled with the spirit of Elias;

8 Which John I have sent unto you, my servants, Joseph Smith, Jun., and Oliver Cowdery, to ordain you unto the first priesthood which you have received, that you might be called and ordained even as Aaron;

D&C 35:3 Behold, verily, verily, I say unto my servant Sidney, I have looked upon thee and thy works. I have heard thy prayers, and prepared thee for a greater work.

4 Thou art blessed, for thou shalt do great things. Behold thou wast sent forth, even as John, to prepare the way before me, and before Elijah which should come, and thou knewest it not.

Taking all of these facts together, it is difficult to ignore the role Sidney Rigdon had in the founding of the Church, both in the coming forth of the Book of Mormon and establishment and development of Authority.
Post Reply