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

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

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

Post by _Jersey Girl »

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?
<
<
<
<
<
<
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

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

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

A solid historical case would be a good start.
_TAK
_Emeritus
Posts: 1555
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 4:47 pm

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

Post by _TAK »

Ashame we can't get one from the LDS Church who has buried much of its history..
God has the right to create and to destroy, to make like and to kill. He can delegate this authority if he wishes to. I know that can be scary. Deal with it.
Nehor.. Nov 08, 2010


_________________
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

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

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

If you've been expecting the LDS Church to furnish you with a solid case for the Spalding theory, I'm not surprised that you imagine the Church has been covering things up.

Ashameindeed.

:razz:
_TAK
_Emeritus
Posts: 1555
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 4:47 pm

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

Post by _TAK »

Daniel Peterson wrote:If you've been expecting the LDS Church to furnish you with a solid case for the Spalding theory, I'm not surprised that you imagine the Church has been covering things up.

Ashameindeed.

:razz:


Of course not..
Why would the Church shoot themselves in the foot any more than they do by supporting FARMS..
God has the right to create and to destroy, to make like and to kill. He can delegate this authority if he wishes to. I know that can be scary. Deal with it.
Nehor.. Nov 08, 2010


_________________
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

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

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

TAK wrote:Why would the Church shoot themselves in the foot any more than they do by supporting FARMS..

Oooooh.

Does my mother wear army boots, too?

Can neeener neeeener neeener be far behind?

This is Scratchism on the Junior Sunday School level, I take it.
_TAK
_Emeritus
Posts: 1555
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 4:47 pm

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

Post by _TAK »

Daniel Peterson wrote:
TAK wrote:Why would the Church shoot themselves in the foot any more than they do by supporting FARMS..

This is Scratchism on the Junior Sunday School level, I take it.


Of course..
that's where FARMS scholarship belongs - Jr Sunday School..
God has the right to create and to destroy, to make like and to kill. He can delegate this authority if he wishes to. I know that can be scary. Deal with it.
Nehor.. Nov 08, 2010


_________________
_antishock8
_Emeritus
Posts: 2425
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2008 2:02 am

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

Post by _antishock8 »

Anyway. Back to the OP. *Please don't let anyone derail this thread Mods*

I always thought the Spaulding Manuscript was the most plausible explanation for the Book of Mormon. This recent study completely substantiates that. I'm not really sure what more a Mormon, Ex-Mormon, or non-Mormon could possibly need to understand the historicity behind the Book of Mormon. It is what it is... A plagiarism of the SM.

Now, I did wonder who was the primary author behind the Book of Mormon. I didn't realize that Joseph Smith was so completely absent from the authorship of the plagiarism. This was definitely a revelation to me.

I wonder how a thinking Mormon, upon reading the study, might react to it? I wonder how many will actually read it? Probably very few...
You can’t trust adults to tell you the truth.

Scream the lie, whisper the retraction.- The Left
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

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

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

TAK wrote:that's where FARMS scholarship belongs - Jr Sunday School..

Zing!

I am hurt. . . . I am sped.
Ay, ay, a scratch, a scratch; marry, 'tis enough.
No, 'tis not so deep as a well, nor so wide as a
church-door; but 'tis enough,'twill serve: ask for
me to-morrow, and you shall find me a grave man. I
am peppered, I warrant, for this world.
Help me into some house, Benvolio,
Or I shall faint. A plague o' both your houses!
They have made worms' meat of me: I have it,
And soundly too: your houses!
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

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

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

Daniel Peterson wrote: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.
Post Reply