Nevo wrote: Of course, the Prince study is almost universally ignored now, and I expect Jockers et al. will suffer the same fate.
I wouldn't say the study has been "universally ignored," as there are those among us who have read those findings. However, your point does echo Uncle Dale's prediction that the Stanford word-print study is likely to suffer a similar fate.
What are your thoughts on the study you reference? Do you simply dismiss their findings out of hand? If so, why?
Nevo wrote:Margaret Barker frequently offers ingenious readings of the evidence to advance her problematic theories about preexilic Israelite religion, but I nevertheless remain unconvinced--as do virtually all of her colleagues.
Interesting. Thanks for that insight, Nevo.
As far as the Stanford study is concerned, I'd like to hear what critics like Vogel and Metaclfe have to say.
Dr. Shades wrote:Which parts of that thread do you consider "eccentric" and "implausible," and why?
Well, for starters, I find the whole Spaulding theory eccentric and implausible, not least because Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon didn't meet until after the Book of Mormon was published.
How do you know?
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
silentkid wrote:When discussing Mormonism with my family, they often feel I'm being cynical when I feel I'm simply being critical. I'm not quite sure how to resolve this without avoiding sensitive issues entirely.
You can't. You know how the conversation goes:
Now I totally respect your beliefs Mom and Dad. The Bible is totally literal. Totally. Every world from Genesis right on down to Revelation......um now would you please look at this list of the thousands of species of mammals and explain to me how they all fit on a boat 150 ft by 450 ft?
After they respond about how God can make all things possible, you grit your teeth and have to open up with:
Yeah but....
And so on and so forth. You're either going to come off sarcastic or cynical. It's the only position to be found besides not saying anything. Not saying anything is the only way to be respectful of such beliefs.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Jan 07, 2009 11:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded.-charity 3/7/07
MASH quotes I peeked in the back [of the Bible] Frank, the Devil did it. I avoid church religiously. This isn't one of my sermons, I expect you to listen.
Daniel Peterson wrote: Yes, I suppose my egregious incivility and bad behavior must pain a sensitive soul like yours considerably.
LOL
You probably don't even see the irony in that statement, do ya?
Quite the contrary.
Some Schmo wrote:
Daniel Peterson wrote: That makes sense. Ornithologists must be birds. Coin collectors must surely be minted metallic tokens for exchange. No student of Chinese history is non-Chinese.
I love it when you act stupid like this (or is it really acting?)
Reductio ad adsurdum.
Logic 101. That's the ticket.
Some Schmo wrote:Ahhh, the classic apologist trick of focusing on the tree instead of the forest, thinking nobody else sees the forest either. Funny how it only works on apologists themselves.
Nevo wrote: Of course, the Prince study is almost universally ignored now, and I expect Jockers et al. will suffer the same fate.
I wouldn't say the study has been "universally ignored," as there are those among us who have read those findings. However, your point does echo Uncle Dale's prediction that the Stanford word-print study is likely to suffer a similar fate.
What are your thoughts on the study you reference? Do you simply dismiss their findings out of hand? If so, why?
My thoughts on the Prince study? Well, I don't find it a very helpful guide to determining the authorship of the Book of Mormon. You really need to see it for yourself to appreciate how flimsy the arguments are. The author clearly started with the conclusion that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon and then applied "psychological tests" that yielded precisely this result.
Of course, if Prince's study is valid then the Book of Mormon could not have been written by Sidney Rigdon, since his analysis of the proper names in the Book of Mormon shows that it was produced in western New York between 1825 and 1829 and that the author "was either Joseph Smith himself or a man many of whose personal antecedents and relationships duplicated those of Joseph Smith to a degree unheard-of and incredible" (Prince, 375).
Nevo wrote:Well, for starters, I find the whole Spaulding theory eccentric and implausible, not least because Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon didn't meet until after the Book of Mormon was published.
How do you know?
Because Rigdon was a Reformed Baptist minister in Ohio in the late 1820s and is not known to have been in the Palmyra area until late 1830. Later reports claiming that Rigdon was a frequent visitor to the Smith home between 1827 and 1830--even impregnating Catherine Smith!--are simply not credible.
Nevo wrote:Because Rigdon was a Reformed Baptist minister in Ohio in the late 1820s and is not known to have been in the Palmyra area until late 1830. Later reports claiming that Rigdon was a frequent visitor to the Smith home between 1827 and 1830--even impregnating Catherine Smith!--are simply not credible.
Nevo, I think you could inject your comment into the existing thread. That Rigdon was not known to have been in the Palmyra area until late 1830, does not rule out that contact was made elsewhere or that contact included one or more "middle men" such as Cowdery or Pratt. This was, infact, discussed on the existing thread.
As for your hurting my feelings. I'm a smidge tougher than that and I suspect that you know it. I was surprised at your cavalier response which was, in my experience, out of character for you.
Last edited by Google Feedfetcher on Thu Jan 08, 2009 1:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
Jersey Girl wrote:That Rigdon was not known to have been in the Palmyra area until late 1830, does not rule out that contact was made elsewhere or that contact included one or more "middle men" such as Cowdery or Pratt.
This is precisely the kind of conspiracy theorizing, frankly, that has always left me so unimpressed with -- and, really, so bored by -- the Spalding/Rigdon hypothesis.
It requires too many cycles and epicycles. Mormon apologists at their absolute worst have nothing on the devotees of Spalding/Rigdon when it comes to couldabeens and mightbe's. Maybe the go-between for Smith and Rigdon was the young Abraham Lincoln, or the aging James Fenimore Cooper, or the Illuminati, or the Jesuits, or shape-shifting alien lizard men.
Jersey Girl wrote:That Rigdon was not known to have been in the Palmyra area until late 1830, does not rule out that contact was made elsewhere or that contact included one or more "middle men" such as Cowdery or Pratt.
This is precisely the kind of conspiracy theorizing, frankly, that has always left me so unimpressed with -- and, really, so bored by -- the Spalding/Rigdon hypothesis.
It requires too many cycles and epicycles. Mormon apologists at their absolute worst have nothing on the devotees of Spalding/Rigdon when it comes to couldabeens and mightbe's. Maybe the go-between for Smith and Rigdon was the young Abraham Lincoln, or the aging James Fenimore Cooper, or the Illuminati, or the Jesuits, or shape-shifting alien lizard men.
Or maybe it was St. Paul who was short had a big nose and spoke with a whistle? Or is it only okay for one side to use implausible characters to prop up their stories?