marg wrote: Dan Vogel's reasons against the Spalding theory are extremely weak. In essence he believe the Book of Mormon witnesses who claimed to have seen an angel but discounts all the Spalding witnesses who had no motivation to lie, nor were they all likely to have been mistaken.
Fawn Brodie's reasoning was as well very poor.
There may be motivation for historians to discount the Spalding theory, for one by doing so they protect themselves from significant heavy Church attack.
Brodie and Vogel have never been under heavy Church attack? They were afraid of it and wanted to protect themselves?
marg wrote: Dan Vogel's reasons against the Spalding theory are extremely weak. In essence he believe the Book of Mormon witnesses who claimed to have seen an angel but discounts all the Spalding witnesses who had no motivation to lie, nor were they all likely to have been mistaken.
Fawn Brodie's reasoning was as well very poor.
There may be motivation for historians to discount the Spalding theory, for one by doing so they protect themselves from significant heavy Church attack.
Brodie and Vogel have never been under heavy Church attack? They were afraid of it and wanted to protect themselves?
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.
marg wrote:but discounts all the Spalding witnesses who had no motivation to lie, nor were they all likely to have been mistaken.
I really have to ask this question, marg. How do you know that they had no motivation to lie?
Ray what would be their motivation? At the time they gave their statements, Mormonism was a very small start up religion, not on many people's radar screens. What on earth would any of them gain by claiming they had heard Spalding read to them a story with the same characters as are present in the Book of Mormon. Why would all of them, neighbours, fellow business men, brother, sister in law, wife, daughter etc...all of them make it up.
At that time when Mormonism was in the beginning stages no one gave it much thought. And Spalding witnesses did not track down the press, or anyone else so that they could be listened to, they were the ones contacted.
Daniel Peterson wrote:Anyway, I was talking about nineteenth-century scenarios, apples to apples. No serious historian -- Mormon, non-Mormon, or ex-Mormon -- has taken the Spalding theory seriously for at least the past sixty years.
So which serious Historian that has not been employed by the Church accepts the LDS version of events? Bonus points for Non and Ex Historians. .
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
marg wrote: 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?
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
marg wrote: 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?
She was excommunicated for the book but I don't know that she was "attacked"
Q: Do you get a lot of "anti" mail from devout Mormons?
A: No, I have had surprisingly little over the years. I have had a great deal of mail--some of it very touching--but mostly from the young people who are on their way out of the church, are doubting, are unhappy, and are running into trouble with their families, and are writing for a little moral support. I have had many letters like that.
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
harmony wrote:Are you saying you don't think the church attacked Fawn Brodie?
She was excommunicated for the book but I don't know that she was "attacked"
I think that qualifies as an attack. I'm surprised you don't agree.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
harmony wrote:I think that qualifies as an attack. I'm surprised you don't agree.
No - it was a Court of Love!!!
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
I'm quite certain that Brodie was subjected to much criticism from the Church (if you want to call it "attacks" or not), but I'll have to mine that one some more.
But no one can say that Dan Vogel has never been attacked. As one example, go back over the FAIR archives and witness Schryver's constant attacks on him.