DiscussMormonism.com

Personally, what I am getting from this is that non-Mormons still have little idea about how the Book of Mormon came about, despite over 100 years of theories and research. Now it's just down to bashing each other over who has the better theory. I think Mormons love threads like these.

[MODERATOR NOTE: Folks, let's keep the Spalding/Rigdon thread clean & pristine for just discussion of the Spalding/Rigdon theory and the merits (or demerits?) thereof. For commentary on the thread itself--as opposed to analysis of its subject matter--let's put all our comments here, not there.

Thanks in advance.]

Fortigurn wrote:Personally, what I am getting from this is that non-Mormons still have little idea about how the Book of Mormon came about, despite over 100 years of theories and research. Now it's just down to bashing each other over who has the better theory. I think Mormons love threads like these.

I don't see it that way Fortigurn. What this thread demonstrates is that taking a naturalistic approach, there are some plausible possibilities for how various parts of the Book of Mormon were constructed. No-one denies that a particular copy of the KJV of the Bible was used, so we know it's at least partly a composite text.
I'm sure that those who have investigated the Book of Mormon text recognise 'echos' of other works contemporary (and pre-dating) with Joseph Smith.

Don't you think it's an area worth investigating???

Miss Taken wrote:
I don't see it that way Fortigurn. What this thread demonstrates is that taking a naturalistic approach, there are some plausible possibilities for how various parts of the Book of Mormon were constructed. No-one denies that a particular copy of the KJV of the Bible was used, so we know it's at least partly a composite text.
I'm sure that those who have investigated the Book of Mormon text recognise 'echos' of other works contemporary (and pre-dating) with Joseph Smith.

Don't you think it's an area worth investigating???

Well, yes, miss taken, there are some plausible possibilites but then again a plausible possibility just does not cut the liverwurst sandwich, does it? There is also plausible possibility the that LDS version is the true one. Right? We should not limit our plausible theories as the thread as done. And I do think that there are people out there that deny a king james Bible was used. And finally, those who have investigated the echoes could also be echoing in the wrong mountain range.

Is it worth investigationg? Probably not. What is done is done and any new information will come on the scene by accident. But not through investigation. Thus, the thread will end just I said it will end...nothing conclusive, two or three protagonists shooting each other in the foot and the book will still stand with its witnesses intack.

Such is life in mormonland.

Fortigurn wrote:Personally, what I am getting from this is that non-Mormons still have little idea about how the Book of Mormon came about, despite over 100 years of theories and research. Now it's just down to bashing each other over who has the better theory. I think Mormons love threads like these.

Yes, you are right. Mormons do like these threads. I welcomed this thread because I knew its ending. Nothing conclusive, and more speculation.

For me, I got a warm fuzzy when Uncle Dale was challenged by Dan and Dan made good points about the Spalding theory being a stretch.

And yes, after more than a hundred years, the book still stands for what it is. A testament of Jesus Christ. And it will remain so until by accident something is discovered to prove it a fraud or to prove it true. Such is life. What to do?

And I might add, this is what makes it so difficult for critics. For in the back of mind, there is always a possibility that it is true and they got it all wrong. Glad that you are thinking yourself through the process.

Removed my post to keep to topic at hand..Commentary on spalding thread.

Miss Taken wrote:

Fortigurn wrote:Personally, what I am getting from this is that non-Mormons still have little idea about how the Book of Mormon came about, despite over 100 years of theories and research. Now it's just down to bashing each other over who has the better theory. I think Mormons love threads like these.

I don't see it that way Fortigurn. What this thread demonstrates is that taking a naturalistic approach, there are some plausible possibilities for how various parts of the Book of Mormon were constructed.

I certainly agree.

No-one denies that a particular copy of the KJV of the Bible was used, so we know it's at least partly a composite text.

I think Mormons deny it, but I don't.

I'm sure that those who have investigated the Book of Mormon text recognise 'echos' of other works contemporary (and pre-dating) with Joseph Smith.

I'm sure they do.

Don't you think it's an area worth investigating???

I certainly do. But I don't think that the discussion is worth it when it descends to bitter and rancorous arguments defending pet theories. That makes it very difficult for a novice to the subject (as I am), to come to actually learn effectively from the exchange.

marg wrote:Unless people are contributing evidence and reasoning or indicating some sort of effort and seriousness in the topic at hand..I think their posts should be removed, perhaps to a peanut gallery type thread.

Well said.

I personally am following along, putting in lots of time reading, appreciating the extent of effort of posters...

I am trying to, but I find wading through the personal abuse and meta-debate over who said what or misrepresented whom very time consuming. It gets in the way of what is otherwise a very good read.

This thread is not about bashing each other fortigurn...

It shouldn't be, and that's not how it started, but that is what it has descended to.

I edited/removed my post to stay on topic of thread "a commentary of spalding theory thread"

All I commented on was the importance of a better signal to noise ratio in this thread. I don't think that's too much to ask. You might not think that the personal attacks here are detracting from the debate, but I do. I came here to learn, not to see people take shots at each other. This particular part of the forum is supposed to have the highest standards of behaviour, after all. I don't see the need for you to initiate a new round of personal attacks, this time directed at me.

All I am saying is what Dan said here:

Dan Vogel wrote:I hope we all can have a lively discussion without taking it personally.

I'm glad to see that Art has finally jumped into the discussion. I only wish that he will stick with the subject and leave the personal jabs out.

Was this post offtopic, or did it need to be said? I think it was on topic, and it needed to be said.

I edited/ removed my post here, so that the topic of this thread "a commentary of the spalding thread" can stay on topic.