Dan Vogel versus the late Ted Chandler

[_vessr]

So as not to leave out the other side to this debate, my question for the anti-Spaulding theorists is why you generally accept the stories of those who claim they could see that Joseph was not dictating from another source (presumably, some of these testimonies were given to contest the Spaulding theorists); and yet you do not give any credence to the Spaulding witnesses who claimed that the original Spaulding manuscript contained many of the elements of the Book of Momron, including similar or identical names, etc.

[_Themis]

So as not to leave out the other side to this debate, my question for the anti-Spaulding theorists is why you generally accept the stories of those who claim they could see that Joseph was not dictating from another source (presumably, some of these testimonies were given to contest the Spaulding theorists); and yet you do not give any credence to the Spaulding witnesses who claimed that the original Spaulding manuscript contained many of the elements of the Book of Momron, including similar or identical names, etc.

There is some evidence to make the theory interesting, such that I cannot totally reject the idea. One interesting thing to keep in mind about witness statements on the production of the Book of Mormon, is that they would not actually account for most of the time needed to create the Book of Mormon through the power of God. I would be surprised for even 1%. We have no idea what was going on at these other times. It also doesn't preclude showmanship from Joseph, who had experience doing such with his treasure hunting.

[_vessr]

So as not to leave out the other side to this debate, my question for the anti-Spaulding theorists is why you generally accept the stories of those who claim they could see that Joseph was not dictating from another source (presumably, some of these testimonies were given to contest the Spaulding theorists); and yet you do not give any credence to the Spaulding witnesses who claimed that the original Spaulding manuscript contained many of the elements of the Book of Momron, including similar or identical names, etc.

There is some evidence to make the theory interesting, such that I cannot totally reject the idea. One interesting thing to keep in mind about witness statements on the production of the Book of Mormon, is that they would not actually account for most of the time needed to create the Book of Mormon through the power of God. I would be surprised for even 1%. We have no idea what was going on at these other times. It also doesn't preclude showmanship from Joseph, who had experience doing such with his treasure hunting.

Thanks for the comments. Are you a Spaulding or anti-Spaulding theorist? That is, do you find the Spaulding witnesses, who claimed that Spaulding’s work included some of the same names (Nephi, etc.) as found in the Book of Mormon, to be credible as witnesses?

[_Themis]

Thanks for the comments. Are you a Spaulding or anti-Spaulding theorist?

Neither.

That is, do you find the Spaulding witnesses, who claimed that Spaulding’s work included some of the same names (Nephi, etc.) as found in the Book of Mormon, to be credible as witnesses?

Credible enough not to dismiss them outright as apologists would want. Eye witness accounts need to be taken carefully. They are not as good as we would like for various reasons.

[_vessr]

Thanks for the comments. Are you a Spaulding or anti-Spaulding theorist?

Neither.

That is, do you find the Spaulding witnesses, who claimed that Spaulding’s work included some of the same names (Nephi, etc.) as found in the Book of Mormon, to be credible as witnesses?

Credible enough not to dismiss them outright as apologists would want. Eye witness accounts need to be taken carefully. They are not as good as we would like for various reasons.

Of course that cuts both ways. There were eye witness accounts of Smith translating the Book of Mormon; and there were eye witness accounts of those who claimed to have seen words found in the Book of Mormon in an earlier Spalding manuscript.

On both sides of the debate, substantial time had elapsed from when the witnesses claimed they saw what they alleged to have seen. The testimony of those friendly to the Spalding theory claimed that many names mentioned in the Book of Mormon were also mentioned in Manuscript Found. These included "Nephi," "Lehi," and "Zarahemla." But, if it is true that the eyewitness testimony re the Book of Mormon was intended, at least in part, to discount the Spalding theory, we must also say that ALL of the eyewitness testimony re Manuscript Found was given to support the Spalding theory. That puts the Spalding theory in jeopardy under the standard of objective proof.

If we have no Spalding theory, the theories left, other than divine origin, are that Smith made up everything, or he relied on still another text, which he borrowed, such as View of the Hebrews, which is also difficult to prove.

[Guest]

Of course that cuts both ways.

As it should.

There were eye witness accounts of Smith translating the Book of Mormon; and there were eye witness accounts of those who claimed to have seen words found in the Book of Mormon in an earlier Spalding manuscript.

Can both sides be accurate? Remember that the eyewitnesses are not witnesses to Joseph actually translating from one language to another. They didn't get to see the plates, or any words appearing on his seer stone. Accounts from both sides can still be accurate. Also, the main witnesses were not heavy involved in the claimed translation, but only viewed maybe minutes to hours of it. Joseph was a showman so he could have been putting on a show at times to those less involved.

On both sides of the debate, substantial time had elapsed from when the witnesses claimed they saw what they alleged to have seen.

Memory can be altered over time.

The testimony of those friendly to the Spalding theory claimed that many names mentioned in the Book of Mormon were also mentioned in Manuscript Found. These included "Nephi," "Lehi," and "Zarahemla."

Could the person who gathered these statements have influenced them. Influencing people to remember things differently then they really happened is common, and not always intentional.

But, if it is true that the eyewitness testimony re the Book of Mormon was intended, at least in part, to discount the Spalding theory, we must also say that ALL of the eyewitness testimony re Manuscript Found was given to support the Spalding theory. That puts the Spalding theory in jeopardy under the standard of objective proof.

Here we are bringing up lying. Certainly this could be true for witnesses for both sides, but I would think those who lie for Joseph have a motivation to do so. I don't see as much of a motivation to do so from those who knew Spaulding. If The Book of Mormon has nothing to do with Spaulding's writings, why lie about it? None of them had anything against the Mormons.

If we have no Spalding theory, the theories left, other than divine origin, are that Smith made up everything, or he relied on still another text, which he borrowed, such as View of the Hebrews, which is also difficult to prove.

There are a number of ways to look at. I remember Runtu saying that we don't need to know how a one dollar bill was counterfeited to know that it is a counterfeit.

What books like View of the Hebrew do is show that the it and the Book of Mormon have a common source, not that Joseph copied from it. The core story of the Book of Mormon was already in existence in Joseph's world long before the Book of Mormon was created.

[_marg]

Here are 2 links to previous spalding discussion threads,

DAN VOGEL DISCUSSES THE SPALDING/RIGDON THEORY:

viewtopic.php?p=16918#p16918


Response to Jockers, Criddle, et al., Now Available:

viewtopic.php?p=404296#p404296

[_vessr]

Here are 2 links to previous spalding discussion threads,

DAN VOGEL DISCUSSES THE SPALDING/RIGDON THEORY:

viewtopic.php?p=16918#p16918


Response to Jockers, Criddle, et al., Now Available:

viewtopic.php?p=404296#p404296

Thanks, Marg. Yes, I relied on the Dan Vogel thread to summarize his position earlier in this thread; but I wasn't familiar with the thread re Jockers, Criddle. That thread proved to me that we will never reach a consensus among those who deny the divine origin of the Book of Mormon. There continues to be a strong Spalding/Rigdon group and a strong single author group (and probably a strong group of proponents of multiple authors who didn't include Spalding or Rigdon).

I started this thread with the hope that the two or three sides had finally achieved a consensus; but, obviously, that didn't and won't happen. With your help, with Dan's help, and with the help of so many others, I think we can now put this thread to bed, until a singular theory is adopted by the above groups, which is likely never to happen.