I see that a thread has been set up by Shades already as a sticky, so I’ll answer your post but don’t want to bog you down. If you don’t respond that’s fine.
Regardless, I referred to two studies that attempted to debunk the theory, but no one bothered to tell me why those studies were wrong. That would have been the place to start.
Actually I haven’t looked at those studies..I’ll assume they are on the net and later on look for them.
by the way, I could find nothing on the link you gave to support your views about Spaulding. I'm sure Criddle is intelligent, but so was Nibley. Intelligence is no guarantee of sound arguments. Arguments and evidence are all that matter.
I’m sorry the reason I mentioned the site was simply to let you know how I know Craig would be a worthwhile individual for you to discuss this with, having observed his interactions over the years with others. My current understanding is that he doesn’t have the time atm. So maybe others knowledgable could participate.
Well, you seem sold on Spaulding based on the knowledge of others. Why do you choose to believe their arguments over the arguments of the vast majority of scholars who do no believe the Spaulding theory?
Well actually I have read bits and pieces over the years on various web sites. And read Vannick’s book about 2 years ago. It was from my readings on the net, that I concluded the Spalding theory made sense. Reading Vannicks book added more information. But the data is extensive, and I don’t study it to memory. I’ve not seen any convincing arguments against it.
Previously: I'm not the one to argue against. Perhaps if Craig has the time or someone else more knowledgable on the theory they'd be willing to come here and discuss it with you in the forum which is moderated...but I'm not the one who would or could do it. And by the way, I don't find J. Smith's witnesses convincing. They'd tend to lack objectivity in this don't you think?
Yet, you know enough to form an opinion about the theory and to use it against pious fraud. At least Beastie didn't defer to others in her discussions about pious fraud, but defended her position herself. But perhaps we should put your accusations of me to you. How is it that you can reject pious fraud based on evidence that you don't seem to understand or defend yourself?
There are a number of reasons why I wouldn’t want to be the one to argue it with you. I know there are others who have done much more research than I. I have difficulty recalling details. I’m not a very good writer, nor do I argue as well as many others who I know are knowledgable in this area. I've never been Mormon and don't know the Book of Mormon well. But I have done research, not original sources obviously and I don’t defer to others except in their knowledge of the Book of Mormon. It wasn’t Craig or Vannick’s book which influenced me ..it was all my various readings over the years ..added to that my reasoning. If I was to be influenced by authority per se then I should be agreeing with you. Right :-)
Regarding objectivity: How is dismissing out of hand the testimony of believers any better than Mormon apologists who dismiss non-Mormon/anti-Mormon testimony, including the Spaulding witnesses?
Well it’s a matter of evaluating the witnesses as to likely objectivity, evaluating their character and what they say etc. Smith’s witness are somewhat flaky, are motivated to support Smith, have testified to nonsense, actually. Spalding witnesses are stronger in many ways. Many are noted to be trustworthy in their community, they have little motivation to make up stories regarding the manuscript. Investigators had to track them down, not vice versa.
However, both believers and non-believers testified to Smith's method of dictating the Book of Mormon with his head in the hat. That's not to say he didn't use the Bible for the long chapters from the KJV, but the testimony is uniform for no manuscript being present from which Smith read. This is where some Spaulding theorists introduce elaborate conspiracy speculations.
I don’t believe Craig speculates on J.S's method but if we know the KJV was copied then why not a manuscript? It’s not as if all questions are answered with the spalding theory however the main part of it fits the data best. To ignore the theory means ignoring very strong evidence and lots of it.
Serious Book of Mormon scholars are rare. Many of the Spaulding advocates are weak on the Book of Mormon. I haven't relied on Brodie. I do point out that leading scholars are dismissive of Spaulding. But scholars are also dismissive of conspiracy theories in general. For example, serious scholars would also avoid debating some of the JFK assassination conspiracy theorists. Evolution scientists avoid debating with Creationists. This is mostly because no one wants to spend the time untangling the web of fallacious argumentation. I avoid it because the theory has little scholarly currency and devoting huge amounts of time to dismantle a minority theory is not economical.
There’s another reason why few take interest in the Spalding theory. There is no reward, infact there are costs, hence no to little motivation for determining that others may have written the Book of Mormon besides J Smith. I have a saying which I tell myself often. That which gets rewarded gets done. So if anything is getting done…look for what is being rewarded. If not getting done, look to see if there are rewards.
Yes, people wanted to discuss it with me. But it's not about debating with me; it's about meeting the burden of proof to the scholarly community, and the theory hasn't done that.
Yet, the scholarly community really doesn’t care, do they? It actually adds further complexity and would require a great deal of work to present the case for it. It’s much easier to ignore it and assume Smith wrote the Book of Mormon. I’d bet my life on it Dan, that he didn’t write it himself and was not the initiator. I notice Shade’s first post in the sticky section in which he points out Smith didn’t know the location of the Book of Mormon. You and I both know, a god wasn’t involved. So someone or someone's wrote the Book of Mormon, created the storyline. So if he’s going to write the Book of Mormon why the mystery in the geography of where events happened.? But I’ll let you address that with Shades.
It is in the realm of wild speculation. The Spaulding theory is either true or it is not. There are no degrees of acceptance. Pious fraud is a completely different animal. When one discusses motives, there is never direct evidence. But assigning one motive to the exclusion of others is the reductionist fallacy. Pious fraud it a theoretical construct that explains more pieces of evidence than simple fraud. To maintain simple fraud one has to dismiss all evidence of sincerity as pretense. This inevitably leads to declaring Joseph Smith had no sincere religious beliefs whatsoever. Pious fraud forces people to listen closer to what Joseph Smith said and did--and a very complex person emerges, who is neither a complete hero or villain.
Theories shouldn't be developed in order to encourage people to learn about an individual. Smith is still a complex individual even if the Rigdon/Spalding theory holds. Sure the Rigdon/Spalding theory adds a whole new level of complexity, a lot of complexity which most people can’t be bothered with, but if one is interested in what is the right theory, the most likely true one,the one which correlates best with all the data..complexity shouldn’t matter.
I don't think you understood what I said about theory and underdeterminism. You are placing too much reliance on a Spaulding debate. I have already told you that such a notion is fallacious. You can't dismiss pious fraud based on another theory which has no definitive evidence in its favor. Given the lack of direct evidence, the outcome of such a debate could only be inconclusive (as with Creationists and JFK conspiracy theorists). However, we do have direct evidence that Joseph Smith dictated the Book of Mormon, which overturning will require convoluted and cumbersome ad hoc rationalizations and special pleadings.
I don’t dismiss Smith as pious fraud solely because of the Spalding/Rigdon theory. It’s one factor in dismissing it. I can think of a number of reasons why the Spalding/Rigdon theory hasn’t caught on. The church is against it, and they’ve got the money and manpower to work against it. It is very complex compared to Smith as sole writer. There is no reward for scholars to persist with it, in fact the church would probably make their lives difficult in some way. But myself ..after looking at the evidence for it, I’m sold. Now if you can put holes in it that would be great.
Why not defer to critics of the Spaulding theory? Why should I rehash arguments they should have dealt with on their own?
Well I should look into the critics you mentioned but in my readings so far on the net, I’ve not seen anything yet which debunks the theory.
I think the person defending the Spaulding theory should begin the discussion by outlining the strongest evidence (perhaps with links to longer discussions of each piece of evidence) so that we can see the entire flow of the arguments and conclusions. Then we can examine each point in more detail and debate the merits.
I hope you don’t get inundated with posts. Hopefully only those very knowledgeable will write.