anyone interested in the origins of the Book of Mormon

[_wenglund]

Not really. The theory is silenced until the theorists can move beyond their ad hoc hypothesis....

I think "silenced" is not the word you should be using. An argument is silenced when it is shown that it is not even plausible, and this one will forever be plausible because nobody can account for all possible hypothetical documents. It is, however, lacking data since the key documents, are... hypothetical.

I'm not hiding the fact that it is a conspiracy theory, and it is mighty difficult to silence such a theory. Better to ignore such a theory if you, personally, find another theory more plausible. I'm only thinking about it since it's the most plausible theory that accepts the nature of the Book of Mormon without appealing to the supernatural.

But, I don't see it as plausable. In fact, I think it quite generous to even consider it remotely possible. So, at least to me the theory is silenced.

I and other believing members of the Church are certainly not alone in thinking this. Not a few critics of the Church tend to view it similarly (Brodie, Metcalfe, Vogel, etc.).

But, I can accept that there are those who may think otherwise. To me, if there can exist a Flat Earth Society in our day and age, then why not Spalding theorists? ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_The Dude]

But, I don't see it as plausable. In fact, I think it quite generous to even consider it remotely possible. So, at least to me the theory is silenced.

Your personal incredulity means little to me, especially when your own credulity is on display: angels, gold plates, oh my!

I and other believing members of the Church are certainly not alone in thinking this. Not a few critics of the Church tend to view it similarly (Brodie, Metcalfe, Vogel, etc.).

No, Wade, they don't view it similarly. An important difference between the Brodie-ites and you believing members is the amount of credit given to the mind of young Joseph Smith. Brodie, Metcalfe, Vogel, etc. think the Book of Mormon is something Joseph Smith could have written himself.

I am impressed by the simple apologetic that Joseph Smith DID NOT have the capability to produce the Book of Mormon out of his own pure imagination. Believers mock the Brodie explanation, and for good reason. But at the same time, I don't think there is anything in the Book of Mormon that is so fantastic that the Rigdon-Spaulding theory (or something close to it) couldn't account for it. It lacks evidence, but at least it offers an explanation that could, in principle, account for the Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith as a lone author just doesn't cut it for me.

But, I can accept that there are those who may think otherwise. To me, if there can exist a Flat Earth Society in our day and age, then why not Spalding theorists? ;-)

Not a good comparison. A flat earth cannot, in principle, account for countless attested facts of geography.

I hope you aren't serious.

[_wenglund]

But, I don't see it as plausable. In fact, I think it quite generous to even consider it remotely possible. So, at least to me the theory is silenced.

Your personal incredulity means little to me, especially when your own credulity is on display: angels, gold plates, oh my!

The sentiment, then, is mutual.

I and other believing members of the Church are certainly not alone in thinking this. Not a few critics of the Church tend to view it similarly (Brodie, Metcalfe, Vogel, etc.).

No, Wade, they don't view it similarly. An important difference between the Brodie-ites and you believing members is the amount of credit given to the mind of young Joseph Smith. Brodie, Metcalfe, Vogel, etc. think the Book of Mormon is something Joseph Smith could have written himself.

I am impressed by the simple apologetic that Joseph Smith DID NOT have the capability to produce the Book of Mormon out of his own pure imagination. Believers mock the Brodie explanation, and for good reason. But at the same time, I don't think there is anything in the Book of Mormon that is so fantastic that the Rigdon-Spaulding theory (or something close to it) couldn't account for it. It lacks evidence, but at least it offers an explanation that could, in principle, account for the Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith as a lone author just doesn't cut it for me.

Actually, they do view it similarly in that both the believing members of the Church, as well as Brodie, Metcalfe, Vogel, etc., think the Spalding theory stinks.

You, on the other hand, appear to prefer the stench.

To each their own.

But, I can accept that there are those who may think otherwise. To me, if there can exist a Flat Earth Society in our day and age, then why not Spalding theorists? ;-)

Not a good comparison. A flat earth cannot, in principle, account for countless attested facts of geography. I hope you aren't serious.

I am serious (at least somewhat so), and that is because the Spalding theory cannot LEGITIMATELY account for various facts of history--not the least of which is the very manuscript they base their entire case on, and their theory also conflicts with various historical facts. Instead, they, of necessity, have resorted to a truckload of lame ad hoc hypotheses, oh my!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Jersey Girl]

wade: I am serious (at least somewhat so), and that is because the Spalding theory cannot LEGITIMATELY account for various facts of history--not the least of which is the very manuscript they base their entire case on, and their theory also conflicts with various historical facts. Instead, they, of necessity, have resorted to a truckload of lame ad hoc hypotheses, oh my!


Jersey Girl: When you say "the manuscript" are you thinking about the lost Manuscript Found? Why is that a problem? What about the missing papyrus theory for the Book of Abraham? What about the missing Gold Plates for the Book of Mormon? Aren't those the same types of situations where there are witnesses and no physical evidence?

[_Who Knows]

I thought the mysterious Spalding manuscript was still 'missing' - that 'manuscript found' is not the missing manuscript originally believed to be the source of the Book of Mormon.

[_The Dude]

I wonder if Wade's going to say something like what he just posted (in response to me) over on MA&D.

Use of faith and belief in describing one's personal experience and in proferring explanations, while perhaps not acceptable to the unbelievers, may not rightly be considerd as "ad hoc". Whereas, when Spalding theorists and others wildly conjecture about things that are purely naturalistic, that may rightly be considered as ad hoc.

See? Missing papyrus and Gold Plates is different than a missing Spalding manuscript, because of faith. Spalding theorists aren't allowed to posit such things because they are naturalistic and don't have faith.

Furthermore,

From the Church's position, unlike the Spadingists and others, they aren't stating a theory. Rather, they are presenting a documented history of the people and events that were principly involved, using the people's firsthand testimonies and eyewitness accounts. There is no ad hoc hypothesizing about what happened.

So it's also different because it's authoritative history coming from the Church's position, unlike the Spalding theory, which comes from an outsider position.

It's apples and oranges, guys.

[_Dr. Shades]

I thought the mysterious Spalding manuscript was still 'missing' - that 'manuscript found' is not the missing manuscript originally believed to be the source of the Book of Mormon.

You are correct.

[_beastie]

It's apples and oranges, guys.

Well, durn. I guess I have to logically give up on the Rigon theory.

Maybe if I pray about it....