Steve Benson's bizarre behavior on the RfM board

[_marg]

Hi Dan,

I just spent at least 1/2 hr.if not longer writing a reply to you and went to post and lost it because somehow I got logged off. I hate that, I should know better to write on word first, because it's happened to me enough times with this site.

Give me some time to get back to you, I'm currently on cough syrup medication and didn't sleep well last night. I noted you'd be interested in a fair discussion moderated on the topicof spalding theory. I'm going to look into if I can find someone knowledgable and willing. Shades is quite interested in this topic and perhaps he'd oversee the moderation. I'll get back to you on this. I really would love to see you poke some fairly large holes in this theory.

[_wenglund]

Hi Dan,

I just spent at least 1/2 hr.if not longer writing a reply to you and went to post and lost it because somehow I got logged off. I hate that, I should know better to write on word first, because it's happened to me enough times with this site.

Give me some time to get back to you, I'm currently on cough syrup medication and didn't sleep well last night. I noted you'd be interested in a fair discussion moderated on the topicof spalding theory. I'm going to look into if I can find someone knowledgable and willing. Shades is quite interested in this topic and perhaps he'd oversee the moderation. I'll get back to you on this. I really would love to see you poke some fairly large holes in this theory.

Hi Marg,

I am not sure that it is possible to poke large holes in the Spaulding theory because there isn't much in the way of confirming substance to poke holes in. It would be like trying to poke holes in a dust storm or flack.

Part of the staying power of the Spaulding theory is that it can't entirely be refuted or negated (due to the lack of confirming substance).

It is also why, as Dan intimated, it is somewhat pointless to debate the theory. What really is there to debate?

However, others of us look at the theory from a different perspective. We aren't so much asking the question whether it can be disproved, but rather whether it is believable or not.

We also ask the comparative question of how it stacks up to other theories (as well as the authoritative version) in best explaining all the historical data.

The answer to both questions, in the minds of many of us, is that the Spalding theory is unbelievable and woefully inadequate as compared with other the explanations.

For my part, I think the Pious Fraud theory is unbelievable and woefully inadequate compared with the authoritative version of Book of Mormon origins, but I think it somewhat superior to the Spalding theory.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_SatanWasSetUp]

Well, I know a little about the Book of Mormon myself. I have also seen both Broadhurst's and Criddle's sites. Evidence for the Spaulding theory is extremely weak and amounts to wishful thinking. Sure, they have a mountain of sources (after all, it was the reigning theory for about 100 years). But the analysis of those sources is what is lacking: lack of critical tools, poor logic, and one ad hoc rationalization after another, beginning with the invention of a second manuscript.

I'm not a big fan of conspiracy theories, which is why I'm not a big fan of the Spaulding theory. The Spaulding theory plays right into the apologists hands. It suggests that Joseph Smith could NOT have produced the Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith as ignorant farm-boy is a myth that the church has been pushing for a long time, but anybody can attempt to write a book. The original 1830 Book of Mormon was very rough. The church has spent the past 170 years polishing the turd, and in 1981 they unveiled the final draft, which has finally been accepted as a religious text, but is NOT accepted by anyone outside the faith as an actual translation of an ancient document. Joseph attempted to write a book about Ancient Native Americans and failed. Nobody fell for it, except for his tiny fan base. It doesn't take a top-secret conspiracy to write the 1830 Book of Mormon.

That being said, the Spaulding THeory is far more believable than the angel and gold plate with magic seer stone story.

[_marg]

However, others of us look at the theory from a different perspective. We aren't so much asking the question whether it can be disproved, but rather whether it is believable or not.

We also ask the comparative question of how it stacks up to other theories (as well as the authoritative version) in best explaining all the historical data.



The answer to both questions, in the minds of many of us, is that the Spalding theory is unbelievable and woefully inadequate as compared with other the explanations.

You're precious Wade. Yes the church's theory is believable but the Spalding theory is really way out wacky. Sigh...

[_marg]

I'm not a big fan of conspiracy theories, which is why I'm not a big fan of the Spaulding theory. The Spaulding theory plays right into the apologists hands. It suggests that Joseph Smith could NOT have produced the Book of Mormon.

It's irrelevant if the theory plays into any apologists hands that's not a criteria to even contemplate in dismissing it. It also does not suggest J. Smith could not have produced the Book of Mormon that also is another criteria which is irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether or not J Smith could produce the Book of Mormon...what matter is the BEST FIT of ALL data

[_wenglund]

Of course believability is in the mind of the beholder.

However, while the proportion is rather small of those who believe in the Book of Mormon as compared to those who don't, when it comes to the number of people who accept the authoritative version as compared with other theorized explinations for the Book of Mormon origins, the proportion is rather overwhelming wouldn't you say? (Not that the numbers are necessarily an indication of truth and verity, but rather in terms of believability).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Furthermore, while one may not believe the authoritative version, and may be inclined to dismiss and weight differently certain pieces of evidence, there is no getting around the fact that the authoritative version best accounts for all the historical data.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Dan Vogel]

Hi Dan,

I just spent at least 1/2 hr.if not longer writing a reply to you and went to post and lost it because somehow I got logged off. I hate that, I should know better to write on word first, because it's happened to me enough times with this site.

Give me some time to get back to you, I'm currently on cough syrup medication and didn't sleep well last night. I noted you'd be interested in a fair discussion moderated on the topicof spalding theory. I'm going to look into if I can find someone knowledgable and willing. Shades is quite interested in this topic and perhaps he'd oversee the moderation. I'll get back to you on this. I really would love to see you poke some fairly large holes in this theory.

Take your time. I'm in no hurry. I can only take in small doses anyway. Not cough syrup ... I mean posting. I have a mountain of work. I'm presently proofing my response to Quinn's review essay in Journal of Mormon History due out this spring, reviewing a chapter on the Book of Mormon for Mark Sheerer's history of the RLDS church, as well as preparing my own critical edition of the LDS 7 vol. History of the Church.

[_Dan Vogel]

Wade,

For my part, I think the Pious Fraud theory is unbelievable and woefully inadequate compared with the authoritative version of Book of Mormon origins, but I think it somewhat superior to the Spalding theory.

I know you have a problem with the fraud part, but you would support the pious part, right? Marg and others on RfM can't see any pious aspects in Joseph Smith's character. So, assuming the Book of Mormon is not historical, would you conclude Joseph Smith was a simple charlatan, or would you find PF fits the situation better?

[_Dan Vogel]

Well, I know a little about the Book of Mormon myself. I have also seen both Broadhurst's and Criddle's sites. Evidence for the Spaulding theory is extremely weak and amounts to wishful thinking. Sure, they have a mountain of sources (after all, it was the reigning theory for about 100 years). But the analysis of those sources is what is lacking: lack of critical tools, poor logic, and one ad hoc rationalization after another, beginning with the invention of a second manuscript.

I'm not a big fan of conspiracy theories, which is why I'm not a big fan of the Spaulding theory. The Spaulding theory plays right into the apologists hands. It suggests that Joseph Smith could NOT have produced the Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith as ignorant farm-boy is a myth that the church has been pushing for a long time, but anybody can attempt to write a book. The original 1830 Book of Mormon was very rough. The church has spent the past 170 years polishing the turd, and in 1981 they unveiled the final draft, which has finally been accepted as a religious text, but is NOT accepted by anyone outside the faith as an actual translation of an ancient document. Joseph attempted to write a book about Ancient Native Americans and failed. Nobody fell for it, except for his tiny fan base. It doesn't take a top-secret conspiracy to write the 1830 Book of Mormon.

That being said, the Spaulding THeory is far more believable than the angel and gold plate with magic seer stone story.

I agree that the Spaulding theory plays into the apologists hands. I also agree that those who advocate it have fallen for Joseph Smith's self-description as the unlearned man as well as the apologists' myth making. The Book of Mormon isn't as good as represented, and Joseph Smith wasn't as ignorant as claimed. One of my series of threads on the MA&D board is titled "Things that Don't Make Sense in the Book of Mormon," wherein I'm attempting to show that the apologetic claim that the Book of Mormon is internally consistent rests on a question-begging apologetic reading of the text. So, when I show contradictions and incongruities in the text, which might be expected from an impromptu dictation of the text (something you might not expect in prepared text), the apologists respond by adding information to harmonize the texts. So, the claim that the Book of Mormon is contradiction-free can only be maintained if they control the interpretation, which renders the claim quite meaningless.

The best parts of the Book of Mormon are the sermons, which would be expected from a charismatic leader of Joseph Smith's caliber.