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

[_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?
<
<
<
<
<
<

[_Daniel Peterson]

A solid historical case would be a good start.

[_TAK]

Ashame we can't get one from the LDS Church who has buried much of its history..

[_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.

[_TAK]

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.

Of course not..
Why would the Church shoot themselves in the foot any more than they do by supporting FARMS..

[_Daniel Peterson]

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]

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..

[_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...

[_Daniel Peterson]

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]

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.