Roman Story & Book of Mormon Similarities

[_Roger]

marg:

I've not in these discussions out of the blue brought up someone's beliefs, as a counter. If the evidence I bring up for the S/R theory is attacked with the intent on dismissing it, then I'm interested in how the person doing the dismissing...evaluates evidence across the board in all competing theories.

Agreed.

The point is that sure, a religious individual can argue for a Smith alone theory, but the same evaluation criteria they apply to it, should apply across the board to all the evidence for other theories. They shouldn't favor evidence because it is in line with faith based beliefs. And bringing up names or saying they know lots of historians who agree with them with regards to the Smith alone theory, is not presenting evidence.

Absolutely correct.

What I find disturbing about mikwut and Ben's position is their desire to leave their testimonies at the door and yet still criticize S/R as though they believed like Vogel. That's just really weird. I don't see the need for that. I really don't.

In other words, for example I believe that Jesus Christ rose from the grave, however I acknowledge that such a belief is inherently irrational because normally people don't rise from the dead after being crucified and in the tomb for 3 days. Therefore if someone wanted to argue that the non-believer's p.o.v. is more rational than mine in that regard I would simply agree, but then counter with: but I have rational reasons why I believe a supernatural event occured in this very unique case....

Ben and mikwut are apparently not willing to do that in this case. In fact they apparently don't even want us to consider that there is such a thing as an official explanation for the Book of Mormon that is built on the supernatural... which really seems strange. --but then even stranger when mikwut (at least) still wants the unchecked freedom to characterize our sincerely held arguments for S/R--which are based on tangible and testimonial evidence--as "silly."

[_Roger]

mikwut:

Roger and Marg,

Who is the professional historian that accepts the Spalding theory.

If it explains the data the best why are they so lacking?

mikwut

Oh geez, ya got me. I give. You win.



mikwut... before 1850, who was the professional historian who did not accept the Spalding theory?

[_mikwut]

Roger,

Don't be coy. You are presenting a theory as the historically evidenced best explanation. Yet, no professional historian today agrees with you. It isn't a trick question. Why don't they see what you see?

regards, mikwut

[_marg]

Roger,

Don't be coy. You are presenting a theory as the historically evidenced best explanation. Yet, no professional historian today agrees with you. It isn't a trick question. Why don't they see what you see?

regards, mikwut

What professional current historian is there that has not been Mormon accepts the Smith only theory? Any historian who has been Mormon may have difficulty overcoming lifelong indoctrination. They also may have friends and family still in the Church who wouldn't take kindly to their work. There may be a propensity to use Smith only theory because to bring in the S/R theory in details requires extensive information..it's just a lot simpler and easier to use the assumption of Smith only. In addition, financial reason may play a part. The target market for Mormon historical text is mainly Mormons and a S/R theory proposes wouldn't help sell their book. There are really not many people in this world interested in the S/R theory. And the church's influence and power may play a role. They can discredit those professionals and attack their work, such that it can have a negative impact on their reputation and financial returns.

Who are you referring to? If it's D. Vogel he's been on this board and was not convincing in dismissing Conneaut witnesses and it's possible that a reason or two above may apply to him.

[_Daniel Peterson]

mikwut... before 1850, who was the professional historian who did not accept the Spalding theory?

There were very, very few professional historians in the United States before 1850.

I would be interested in the names of a few of the professional historians, prior to 1850, who endorsed the Spalding/Rigdon theory.

W. H. Prescott wrote about Spain and Mexico. John Lothrop Motley wrote about the Netherlands. Who do you have in mind?

[_Roger]

mikwut:

Roger,

Don't be coy.

Sorry, I have a weakness for being coy every now and then.

You are presenting a theory as the historically evidenced best explanation.

Actually I am presenting a few of the reasons on a public discussion board to explain why I believe the S/R authorship claims best explain the data and then asking for feedback from those who agree and disagree. I am certainly not qualified to "present a theory."

Yet, no professional historian today agrees with you.

Well who is to say whether you're right about that or not? Sort of depends on your definition of professional historian and your knowledge of who every one of them is and exactly what they believe, doesn't it? You have a tendency to overstate your case which makes it less credible overall... even if you had said something like: why do most LDS historians disagree with you? I could have accepted that as a sincere question.

But "no professional historian today..." agrees with me?! Geez, I guess you really want marg and Dale and I to think we're the last of the Mohicans, don't you?!

It isn't a trick question.

Well forgive me, but given your previous rhetoric I sort of got the impression that it is.

If you're asking me why people who are supposed to know about this stuff generally don't accept a S/R model for Book of Mormon production, I have to admit I'm sort of at a loss on that. From what I've seen, I have to agree with marg in that--again from what I've seen--Vogel et al's arguments appear weak. That is not to say they are weak, but from my perspective I sure haven't seen anything from a Smith-alone pov that really makes me shake my head and go, wow, maybe I'm wrong about all this.

Why don't they see what you see?

Now you're really asking the impossible of me. You want me read to other people's minds and I just can't do that. I might ask the same of you.... name any non-LDS scholar who accepts the Book of Mormon as being what it claims to be... and then tell me why the bulk of his peers reject it. Why don't they see what he does?

I have my possible theories....

Could it be that most prominent but non-believing LDS historians have too much invested in a Smith-alone explanation that they gravitate toward easy dismissals of an S/R framework without really giving it a fair shot? Possibly. Or maybe they just really think the witnesses were coached. I don't--on either count.

[_Roger]

DCP wrote:

There were very, very few professional historians in the United States before 1850.

I would be interested in the names of a few of the professional historians, prior to 1850, who endorsed the Spalding/Rigdon theory.

W. H. Prescott wrote about Spain and Mexico. John Lothrop Motley wrote about the Netherlands. Who do you have in mind?

Nice of you to drop by, Dan.

Must you pick at rhetoric like this?

mikwut brought up the term by stating that:

no professional historian today agrees with you.

Which begs the question of how he is privy to such omniscience? And aside from severely damaging my self-esteem, what does he hope to accomplish by making such an assertion?

I countered with what I thought was an equally unanswerable retort:

before 1850, who was the professional historian who did not accept the Spalding theory?

And now you want me to start pulling names of historians out of a hat. Do they treach you to be this nit-picky at BYU or does it just come naturally?

In general can we agree that most of the earliest critics of Mormonism (at least after 1834) were generally in agreement that a Spalding ms was used to produce the Book of Mormon? Or are you going to fight me on that too?

[_mikwut]

Marg,

What professional current historian is there that has not been Mormon accepts the Smith only theory

There are many marg, this is just another example of how you don't know the playing field. Lawrence Foster is one example.

Who are you referring to? If it's D. Vogel he's been on this board and was not convincing in dismissing Conneaut witnesses and it's possible that a reason or two above may apply to him.

I am afraid he mopped the floor with you, I realize you don't share that opinion, but I assure you for anyone who has historical understanding of Mormonism saw how inept you were and how he clearly, more than once, showed the historical difficulties (to be kind) the Spalding theory has.

Any historian who has been Mormon may have difficulty overcoming lifelong indoctrination.

And you call me gullible. Those that dismiss the indoctrination have difficulty with the indoctrination. Got it.

They also may have friends and family still in the Church who wouldn't take kindly to their work.

But would have no problem with a Smith alone secular history that dismisses the divine? Are you reading yourself?

There may be a propensity to use Smith only theory because to bring in the S/R theory in details requires extensive information..

Oh sure, none of the history that historians write and study on requires the use of "extensive information.."

it's just a lot simpler and easier to use the assumption of Smith only.

Got it. Marg, really this is ridiculous.

In addition, financial reason may play a part. The target market for Mormon historical text is mainly Mormons and a S/R theory proposes wouldn't help sell their book.

Right. I am sure Brent Metcalfe is making a fortune writing to a Mormon audience.

There are really not many people in this world interested in the S/R theory.

Yes, for very good reason.

And the church's influence and power may play a role. They can discredit those professionals and attack their work, such that it can have a negative impact on their reputation and financial returns.

Of course.

You can have the last word Marg, I won't respond to this kind of "critical thinking" nonsense any further. It is absurd and ridiculous.

my regards, mikwut

[_Daniel Peterson]

Must you pick at rhetoric like this?

I was just curious to know which historians you had in mind.

Apparently, though, it was just rhetoric? Sorry. I hadn't realized that.

no professional historian today agrees with you.

Which begs the question of how he is privy to such omniscience? And aside from severely damaging my self-esteem, what does he hope to accomplish by making such an assertion?

I'll let him explain what he hopes to accomplish. I think he's right, though, about today's professional historians. I can't think of a single one -- member or non-member, believer or non-believer -- who accepts the Spalding/Rigdon theory.

And now you want me to start pulling names of historians out of a hat. Do they treach you to be this nit-picky at BYU or does it just come naturally?

My apologies. I thought you actually meant what you said.

In general can we agree that most of the earliest critics of Mormonism (at least after 1834) were generally in agreement that a Spalding ms was used to produce the Book of Mormon? Or are you going to fight me on that too?

No, I think that's a fair statement. It was the critical fashion for a while.

[_Roger]

UD:


Yours is probably the sanest voice on this board. Which is amazing considering how long you've been at this.

I still identify myself as a Latter Day Saint, and I can freely admit "that there never really were
ancient plates with ancient writing on them." I'm not sure that a Mormom is allowed to say that,
without facing a possible church court and excommunication.

Back when I was a little more supportive of the CoC beliefs, somebody demanded that I produce
the Nephite "golden plates" -- as a sort of physical evidence for a truly ancient Book of Mormon.

My reply was that I need not exhibit those particular plates, because nobody on earth has access
to them today -- but that ANY preColumbian artifacts inscribed with Reformed Egyptian characters
should be sufficient "proof" that a truly ancient Book of Mormon was at least a good possibility.

That shut up my anti-Saint kibitzer -- but my victory in that case was a shallow one. He ought to
have demanded of me at least one ancient American plate, thus inscribed -- to demonstrate that
I was talking about real physical evidence.

And there you go! Absolutely. One wonders why he didn't? The fact that we have virtually zero examples of the type of writing alleged to have been on the plates--and you can't really count the Anthon Transcript unless LDS apologists are willing to say that those characters actually come from the BOM--The fact that we can talk about the "straits of Darien" but no one today is so bold as to indentify ANY Book of Mormon location.... even the hill Cumorah is no longer the hill Cumorah... none of that is allowed to enter the discussion... let's just as narrowly as possible consider parallels and let's not consider what anyone said about their author.

Inscribed plates of that sort were so common in Book of Mormon times, that a wandering band of
explorers could happen upon 24 of them (containing the record of Ether) purely by chance. But
today we have nothing left but a single "Kinderhook Plate," and B. H. Roberts was the last
notable LDS GA to accept it as a true artifact from Nephite times.

No metal plates inscribed in "Reformed Egyptian" ever existed -- none will ever be found -- none
will ever be exhibited by Mormon defenders as "true evidence."

And yet S/R theorists are the "silly" ones.

Were we to assemble 100 of the world's most reliable experts on ancient Near Eastern documents,
and hand them the Book of Mormon, I am convinced that the overwhelming majority of that group
of experts would pronounce the text to be something other than an authentic ancient document.
Remove any BYU professors from that group of 100, and I'm sure their answer would be unanimous.

Show 100 experts on early American literature the Oberlin Spalding manuscript, and I'm sure that
they all would agree that its is an authentic document from the first part of the 19th century.

Now -- combine those two groups of experts and ask them all the simple question: "Is it possible
that text penned by the author of the Oberlin document could have been included in the original
manuscripts for the Book of Mormon?" and I think I know what their answer would be:

That they do not know if such a thing happened -- but, given what they
can (and do) know, a Spalding contribution to the Book of Mormon is NOT impossible.

Absolutely correct. And that's when it's time to take a fair look at the testimonies of witnesses.

Finally -- ask the same question of 200 Mormon scholars, academics, PhDs,
or textual experts. All 200 will says that it is IMPOSSIBLE that anything from
Spalding's pen could have made it into the Mormon book.

Why would they say that?

Because it was written before Spalding was born.

Why would they say that?

Because if they did not say it, they would be accused by fellow Mormons of
having lost their testimonies, and thus might face unpleasant consequences
in a church that demands such a testimony from its "best and brightest" members.

Uncle Dale

Yep. You've pegged it.

UD, with the posts flying, you may have missed this... and I'm hoping you can let me know if I'm putting too much stock in Cephas Dodd or not:

I've been running across some additional items that strike me as interesting so I will throw them out here to see what others think....

The first is an apparent testimony of Dr. Cephas Dodd. This is interesting because of the date and the details given. Dr. Dodd is the physician who treated Spalding at the time of his death in 1816 and so he would have had the opportunity to talk to Spalding first hand. In 1831 Dr. Dodd purchased a copy of the Book of Mormon and allegedly wrote the following inside the cover: (bold mine)

This work, I am convinced by facts related to me by my deceased patient, Solomon Spaulding, has been made from the writings of Spaulding, probably by Sidney Rigdon, who was suspicioned by Spaulding with purloining his manuscript from the publishing-house to which he had taken it; and I am prepared to testify that Spaulding told me that his work was entitled, "The Manuscript Found in the Wilds of Mormon; or Unearthed Records of the Nephites." From his description of the contents, I fully believe that this Book of Mormon is mainly and wickedly copied from it (Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon?, Davis, Cowdrey, Scales p. 74).

I haven't seen much about this quote which leads me to wonder about it. The reference given in the Davis book leads to Creigh, History of Washington County which can be found online at: google books (link too long, but anyone can find it) But I can't find any verification (online) that Dodd actually wrote the above in his copy of the 1830 Book of Mormon.

Now... it seems to me that if Dodd really did write the above in his Book of Mormon on June 5th or 6th (I've seen it both ways) of 1831, then this is a pretty powerful piece of evidence against the case Ben is attempting to make discrediting Hurlbut's witnesses, because 1831 is a long time prior to 1833. Hurlbut hadn't even become a Mormon in 1831 so he could not have coached Dodd.

I would think the only way for S/R skeptics to get around this is to argue that Dodd never wrote such a thing or that the date must be off.

But if Dodd did write the above in 1831 then it seems hard to believe that Dodd did not have a conversation with Spalding in which Spalding claimed Rigdon was suspected of stealing his manuscript and in which Spalding mentions "MF" and "the Wilds of Mormon" and "Nephites."

The second observation goes along with the "Straits of Darien" discussion... John Spalding mentions the "isthmus of Darien" in 1851. Of course Ben, no doubt, concludes that Solomon's brother is getting that information from the newspapers rather than from his brother's manuscript... but in the same testimony John Spalding also says:

"In this work he mentioned that the American continent was colonized by Lehi, the son of Japheth, who sailed from Chaldea soon after the great dispersion, and landed near the isthmus of Darien." - (Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon?, Davis, Cowdrey, Scales p. 34

So not only is John Spalding talking about the "Isthmus of Darien" which does not appear in either the Book of Mormon or the Roman story, but now he's also giving Lehi a father named "Japheth."

Where does John Spalding come up with this? Newspaper accounts? As far as I know, there is no mention of a "Lehi son of Japheth" in the Bible. It's not in the Book of Mormon and it's not in Roman story. Did John Spalding make this up? Did he get it from a newspaper? Or is it possible that Solomon Spalding wrote of a "Lehi son of Japheth" in his Manuscript Found?