Second Thoughts

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
_Runtu
_Emeritus
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am

Post by _Runtu »

Dr. Shades wrote:
Ray A wrote:Because criminality has nothing to do with this. It's off the point. So tell me, how does a 23 year old produce a 500 page book in some 65 days. If you have a theory something akin to Spalding or Rigdon which is conclusive, I'd like to see it.


It's all in the book I mailed you.


I recall Dale Broadhurst's statement that copying 500 pages in 65 days is not particularly remarkable.
_Ray A

Post by _Ray A »

Dr. Shades wrote:
Ray A wrote:Because criminality has nothing to do with this. It's off the point. So tell me, how does a 23 year old produce a 500 page book in some 65 days. If you have a theory something akin to Spalding or Rigdon which is conclusive, I'd like to see it.


It's all in the book I mailed you.


Did you see UD (Uncle Dale's) thread on FAIR which explained how much the Spalding theory accounts for in the Book of Mormon? I might do a separate thread later.
_Ray A

Post by _Ray A »

I won't take up anymore of Runtu's thread on this subject after this post, but I'll summarise the problem with Spalding by "stealing" a few paragraphs from Criddle's site, an advocate of the theory, by the way:

The weakest points of the Spalding-Rigdon Theory are:

(1) The Spalding manuscript that contemporary witnesses described as similar to The Book of Mormon - a document ironically named "Manuscript Found" - is missing. Its absence can be compared to the absence of a murder weapon in a murder case. In such cases, circumstantial evidence can often still secure a conviction, but it is an uphill battle.

(2) There is uncertainty about how and when Rigdon first came into contact with a member of the Smith family. But while the exact circumstances have not been established, there is evidence that contact did occur. Several scenarios are plausible. Different theories propose as Smith's initial middlemen Alvin Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and Parley Pratt.

(3) Word print studies have not connected Spalding or Rigdon to The Book of Mormon. However, as I will discuss in the companion essay, these studies were not designed in a way that would enable a fair assessment of the Spalding-Rigdon Theory.

(4) Some of the testimony cited in support of the Spalding-Rigdon Theory came many years after the alleged incidents and can be questioned on the grounds of memory fallibility. These are lightly shaded dots. Other pieces of evidence can be questioned on other grounds, such as bias. Where I am aware of such issues, I will address them in this and the companion essay. The fact that some pieces of evidence have more uncertainty than others when they are analyzed in isolation does not change the evidentiary value of the more certain evidence nor does it negate the value of lightly shaded dots when they are internally consistent and numerous and when they provide clues for additional investigation.


On point 3 I don't place much credence in wordprint studies either. I'm still slowly ploughing through the book Shades, but it's tedious going, almost Nibleyesque. I put it down for a long time because I was having a hard time "connecting the dots", and many assumptions have to be made to get this theory together. But I will finish it (while reading about six other books at the same time).

My theory of automatic writing is not popular because it involves "metaphysical assumptions", ie, that there is "spirit communication". But just some thoughts. It seems to me that many aspects of the Book of Mormon incorporate Joseph Smith's personal experiences, such as Lehi's dream and his father's dream, and the Lehi family resembles Joseph Smith's in many ways. Joseph seems to be the "Nephi character". The references to Joseph of Egypt and his relationship to another Joseph, "who shall be called after the name of his father", and Joseph Smith's role in prophecy in the Book of Mormon as a latter day prophet, seem to reflect either conscious and/or subconscious motives. In other words, the Book of Mormon was a combination of external influences and Joseph's conscious/subconscious mind. You'd have to understand examples of AW. If I can put is roughly, the Book of Mormon was a combination of external influences and Joseph Smith religious imagination. It must also be remembered that according to Phillip Barlow, Joseph Smith had almost a photographic memory of the Bible, which he was reading before the FV. In fact, Joseph didn't conclude that there is no true church on the earth from what the Father and Son told him in the vision. He concluded this before he had the vision. This is all in his personal journals. Yet in his account he says that he was "told" this in his vision:

No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.


He did this (in the FV account) to give his own conclusions authority, and this is also what he did in the Book of Mormon. It was the same with the restoration of the higher priesthood, which came by "revelation" in 1831, but Peter, James and John were added to give this "revelation" more authority. There is no contemporary record, anywhere, of Peter, James and John appearing in 1829. This was later added, and which Whitmer objected to.

In very short summary, when you weigh the Spalding theory and the AW theory, Spalding leaves a lot to be desired. It may explain part of the Book of Mormon, but it does not entirely explain it.

Okay, I'll leave Runtu's thread in peace from any more of this, but might say more elsewhere.

Edit: Go to PP's thread in the Terrestrial Forum to discuss this post. I transferred it.
_marg

Post by _marg »

Ray A wrote: There are so many theories of Book of Mormon production, and not one has conclusively nailed it. That is why I think my theory fits best. Do you have a conclusive answer? If so, what is it?


The reason your theory should best fit (if it does) is because it explains the most likely scenario considering ALL the data, not just select pieces of data. The fact that no one theory (at present) is conclusive is irrelevant to reach a most probable conclusion and is NOT good reasoning to give for why you think your theory is best fit.

All theories (for Book of Mormon) production are not equal in probability...and especially not for the reason you seem to give that none are conclusive. I've noticed in a few of your posts you ask others to provide a conclusive theory for whatever, i.e. the Book of Mormon production, J. Smith bedding women other than his (legal) wife. Conclusive proof is not a requirement to critically think to a best/most probable conclusion. It would be nice to have, but is not a necessity in order to make good strong theories.
_ozemc
_Emeritus
Posts: 397
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 3:21 pm

Re: Second Thoughts

Post by _ozemc »

Runtu wrote:This last year has been very difficult for me and my family owing to my figuring out what Mormonism really is. It's only been a couple of months since I told my wife that I would no longer attend church services with her and my children. Since then, Sundays have been very difficult. My kids tell me that she cries at the drop of a hat in church, and she has sent not-so-subtle hints that she wants me to reconsider, even though she tells me she's OK with my decision.

I'm wondering if my staying home is worth it. Is it selfish of me to stay home when it causes her such pain? On the other hand, what kind of example am I giving to my kids if they know I won't stand up for truth? I'll never be a believer again; of that I'm quite sure. But I wonder if I should just suck it up and go with her. I guess I'm just having second thoughts about things. What do you think?


For what's it worth, I am a member of the Disciples of Christ denomination.

I married a Mormon lady, both of us knowing full well that we had different beliefs.

I go with her to sacrament meetings, and then leave just before it's over to go to my church.

Sometimes, she leaves to go with me, sometimes not.

She has a son from a previous marriage that is a Mormon, but he knows I'm not. He never goes to my church.

They both probably know that I never will be a Mormon, but that doesn't stop us from trying to do things as a family, and from recognizing and respecting each other.

I would think that as long as the kids know where you stand (of course, depending on how much you think you should tell them based on their ages), it would be OK to go to show your support and love for their mom and them.

I would continue on your own spiritual path, however, and if it leads you to go somewhere else, then, hopefully by then, your wife will understand.

Good luck.
_Pahoran
_Emeritus
Posts: 1296
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 2:20 am

Re: Second Thoughts

Post by _Pahoran »

Runtu wrote:This last year has been very difficult for me and my family owing to my figuring out what Mormonism really is. It's only been a couple of months since I told my wife that I would no longer attend church services with her and my children. Since then, Sundays have been very difficult. My kids tell me that she cries at the drop of a hat in church, and she has sent not-so-subtle hints that she wants me to reconsider, even though she tells me she's OK with my decision.

I'm wondering if my staying home is worth it. Is it selfish of me to stay home when it causes her such pain? On the other hand, what kind of example am I giving to my kids if they know I won't stand up for truth? I'll never be a believer again; of that I'm quite sure. But I wonder if I should just suck it up and go with her. I guess I'm just having second thoughts about things. What do you think?

Having read through this thread, and seen the responses you have received, here is what I think.

First of all, I think that you ought to love your wife more than you love the people who are telling you to stick it to her as much as possible.

Second, I think you ought to realise that much of their "advice" to you is based upon the fact that they find your reports of her unhappiness to be a source of malicious amusement, and they want it to continue as long as possible.

Third, I think you also ought to consider the fact that they ultimately don't care whether you, your wife, or your children live or die. Just for example--and not that I think for one moment that you would do this--if you were to report that you had flown into a rage and beaten your wife to a senseless pulp, Polygamy Porter would likely respond with something like "good for you, buddy. It just goes to show what a blankety-blank system like blankety-blank Mormonism does to you."

Fourth, it wouldn't hurt you to admit to yourself that that stuff about your "figuring out what Mormonism really is" is simply not true. You don't have to come out and say it--I know that it's the kind of untestimony that's expected around here--but if you give the matter a moment's thought you will realise that it's not what you "know," but what you don't--namely, your unanswered questions--that make it possible for your doubts to beguile you.

Fifth, I would ask you to consider this question: what good principle, whether of personal integrity or otherwise, tells you that spending Sunday mornings with your family would be a bad thing? You asked, "what kind of example am I giving to my kids if they know I won't stand up for truth?" I ask you, what part of "standing up for truth" makes it impossible to spend Sunday mornings in church meetings?

And I ask you further: what kind of example would you be giving to your kids if they knew how you were talking about their mother, behind her back, to total and perfectly hostile strangers who rejoice at her distress? Why ask rabid anti-Mormons if you are treating your Mormon wife kindly enough?

Finally, I think you know what the right thing to do is; I think you knew it all along. I think posting this question in this forum was a way of getting the answers you wanted to hear.

So, are you going to go with your conscience, as you know you ought to, or go with the crowd, as you want to?

Regards,
Pahoran
_Roger Morrison
_Emeritus
Posts: 1831
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 4:13 am

Post by _Roger Morrison »

Hi Pahoran, you dug deep for this one :-) Did you give any notice to many other than Poly-Porter? Seems a biase here??? For your consideration i've dragged my comments from page 2 (???) Bond and Ray come to my memmory as counters of PP... Not all here are to be painted with the same brush:
Runtu, some good advice here. Especially the first response from Bond, excellent!

"to thine own self..." Who said, why and under what circumstances? BUT it does call You to look at your priorities and values.

IF "THE CHURCH" is the most important, then stay home and let your family deal with it!!! IF your family is more important, then go with them to church. A lot of details missing here, children ages, meetings attended, distance from church, ever/never missed a service, other interests, etc...

Dealing with "things" is a very personal thing. Your disposition, etc. I don't think many resposible family contributers NEVER sacrifice time and energy for the benefit of the family. How many just LOVE their job, the commute to work, EVERY household chore, etc. etc???

IMSCO too many spouses--and i suspect more men, cuz a real-man don't let no-one manipulate/tell HIM--do not understand the skill, and necessity of compromise. Might your kids learn the value of that here? Might they learn what holds a family together? That is certainly needed...

How are the other hours of the week filled??? This is more than about church Bro. Warm regards, Roger (Bold added)



Pahoran, you further say:
Finally, I think you know what the right thing to do is; I think you knew it all along. I think posting this question in this forum was a way of getting the answers you wanted to hear.

So, are you going to go with your conscience, as you know you ought to, or go with the crowd, as you want to?


I think you judge too harshly, Bro. Clairvoyant, Seer or Revelator?? Reread the WHOLE thread IF You really want to be fair. OK, maybe you did already and did so with some prejudice?? As you suggest to Runtu, maybe you just see, "as you want to?" Warm regards, Roger
_Pahoran
_Emeritus
Posts: 1296
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 2:20 am

Post by _Pahoran »

Roger Morrison wrote:Hi Pahoran, you dug deep for this one :-) Did you give any notice to many other than Poly-Porter? Seems a biase here??? For your consideration i've dragged my comments from page 2 (???) Bond and Ray come to my memmory as counters of PP... Not all here are to be painted with the same brush:

I'm sorry if you felt I was tarring everyone with the same brush. My response wasn't meant to reply to the entire thread, but simply taking into account "the people who are telling you to stick it to her as much as possible." I acknowledge that a number of posters did not.

Pahoran, you further say:
Finally, I think you know what the right thing to do is; I think you knew it all along. I think posting this question in this forum was a way of getting the answers you wanted to hear.

So, are you going to go with your conscience, as you know you ought to, or go with the crowd, as you want to?

I think you judge too harshly, Bro. Clairvoyant, Seer or Revelator?? Reread the WHOLE thread IF You really want to be fair. OK, maybe you did already and did so with some prejudice?? As you suggest to Runtu, maybe you just see, "as you want to?" Warm regards, Roger

Actually I'm giving Runtu credit for more of a moral compass than he gives himself credit for. ;)

Regards,
Pahoran
_Roger Morrison
_Emeritus
Posts: 1831
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2006 4:13 am

Post by _Roger Morrison »

Pahoran says:
Actually I'm giving Runtu credit for more of a moral compass than he gives himself credit for. ;)

Regards,
Pahoran

Are you? A strange way of showing confidence in a person. From what 'model' to validate and encourage personal positive change is insulting-technique taken? Bishop's Hand Book, Law Practice or personal ideology? ;-)

But, tis nice that you have his, and his family's best interest at heart. :-) Warm regards, Roger
Post Reply