"There are some significant differences for many of these though, Dale."
Take the Book of Mormon as a translation of the now "lost" Gold Plates. It is a text that remains. Because it remains, we can discuss its contents and compare it. This is not the same as the mythical Manuscript Found of which we don't have so much as a single unique identifiable word or phrase. Apart from which, we do have a manuscript that seems to be the Manuscript Found. The only accounts that disagree with that identification are in fact that same polemical statements attacking the Book of Mormon.
This is the first actual defense of your position I can remember seeing. So let's see how logical it is....
You argue that what makes your hypothesized, non-extant items credible is that a text that we "can discuss its contents and compare it" remains, whereas that is not so with S/R's hypothesized manuscript.
Sounds reasonable. But is it?
The fact is that your theory suggests what remains was originally embodied in what is hypothesized, with some (even many?) phrases possibly being superimposed by the language of Joseph Smith. Our theory, suggests basically the same thing: that what remains was also originally embodied in what is hypothesized, with some (major) additions primarily by Sidney Rigdon and Joseph Smith.
There is not a whole lot of difference there except with respect to how much additional material came from Smith and others and what was the original source. There is certainly nothing there, however, from which you can justifiably claim superiority for your theory! In fact, as we consider more factors, your theory begins to encounter serious problems that do not encumber ours.
1. The alleged language of your hypothesized manuscripts (because in order for your theory to be correct there would have to have been more than one manuscript at some point--yet none of them exist today which is greater weakness for your theory right there) also does not remain. In fact, there is no evidence that such a language ever existed. There is no known document that uses the same language. There are no known characters for this language. By contrast, the language of our hypothesized manuscript is English, and specifically the King James style, which is actually what we find in the Book of Mormon text that remains.
2. There is no evidence that the alleged writers of your hypothesized manuscript(s) ever existed. There is no evidence that any of their descendants ever existed. There is no evidence any of their cities ever existed. By contrast, the writer of our hypothesized manuscript not only existed, he was an actual writer of manuscripts. He was known to write in the English language. He lived in real cities, in a real house and had relationships with real people.
3. The materials your hypothesized manuscripts were allegedly preserved on (metal plates) are far more durable than ours (paper). It would stand to reason that metal plates would be much more difficult to destroy. These plates were alleged to have existed not only in ancient America but also in New York state in 1829. They no longer exist. Why not? I'd like you to explain that one so I am not accused of misrepresenting your theory.
By contrast (to whatever your theory holds as the reason your hypothesized manuscripts no longer exist), our theory has a perfectly rational, and quite logical reason to suggest why our hypothesized manuscript no longer exists: because Joseph Smith would have a keen interest in making sure it no longer exists. Simply placing it in the fire is all it takes, and the evidence is gone.
4. What you argue as a strength for your theory, in reality is actually a glaring weakness. All you have to "compare" the Book of Mormon to is itself. You can't compare the Book of Mormon to your hypothesized ms's because they don't exist. Neither, of course can we. HOWEVER, it doesn't end there. By contrast, S/R has ANOTHER manuscript written by the same author who allegedly wrote our hypothesized manuscript. This is actually a huge difference and one that not only typically gets overlooked, but, ironically, the overlooking of that fact is what then allows you to erroneously claim superiority! The fact is, since you actually have NOTHING to compare to the Book of Mormon, your theory does not have to face any potential criticism that such a comparison might generate. You erroneously (and quite egregiously) see this as a strength to your own theory when it is nothing of the kind. It must always be kept in mind that no one can critically compare the Book of Mormon to your hypothesized manuscript precisely because not only does it not exist, but neither does there exist ANYTHING else by even one of your theory's alleged authors that we can compare to the Book of Mormon.
5. And this is where it really gets interesting.... after failing to acknowledge the aforementioned glaring weakness from the get-go, you then want to tear apart the actual parallels that--surprise, surprise!--we actually do find when we compare the Book of Mormon with our actual manuscript that DOES exist and we CAN compare to the Book of Mormon. And what response does that elicit from you? Those parallels are nothing! I can come up with hundreds like them! But, of course, you can't precisely because these parallels are not like any of the hundreds you can come up with because these parallels were written.... drum roll please... by the same author OUR theory says wrote the hypothesized manuscript! Let's not forget, your theory can't even offer a manuscript by ANY of your alleged authors from the get-go! But you can bet if you could, and if it had parallels to the Book of Mormon you would be claiming them as evidence in support of your theory as opposed to arguing that you can find hundreds more just like them!
So, when it comes right down to it, there are indeed differences, but those differences work against your theory and in favor of S/R when compared on an equal footing. I would say fatally so for your theory.
The Book of Lehi, on the other hand is well documented, as well as accounts (which may or may not be accurate) of its destruction. I don't think anyone questions its existence.
?? Are you serious? You can only be referring to the lost 116 pages, I assume. But that is NOT the book of Lehi. It's merely 116 modern pages claiming to be a translation of the the book of Lehi.
The problem, Dale, isn't really in any of this. The problem is that you are clearly frustrated by the fact that we don't even have a fragment of your missing manuscript. It isn't an issue you can defend.
Why would we expect to find a fragment? That Joseph Smith would have an interest in destroying our hypothesized manuscript is what our theory predicts. I would NOT expect our hypothesized manuscript to still exist unless a copy managed to escape Smith's attention--and I doubt that happened.
Your theory has to assume that such a manuscript existed - but, since you cannot defend that assertion, perhaps you feel the need to suggest that we ought not to be critical of it merely because we believe in documents that no longer exist as well.
No. Not correct. We don't have to assume anything. We have multiple eyewitnesses telling us it did exist and claiming they were exposed to it, some prior to 1816 and others in 1833-34. So then, we should compare the statements of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon with those of the witnesses for the Spalding manuscript and compare for credibility. I have been having an interesting discussion with Dan Vogel on that very subject. Dan wrote an entire essay explaining why there are "apparent contradictions" between the written statements of the 3 and 8 Book of Mormon witnesses and their later accounts. And yet, for some odd reason, he still wants me to believe them--even though he agrees with me there never really were any ancient plates.
The fact is, your theory has to assume ancient plates existed and the witnesses who testify to it are not very credible witnesses.
We may well believe in such things - but clearly, it is not something that helps your case.
Of course it does! This is yet another area in which you are simply wrong. If YOUR theory is eliminated from the mix of possible explanations, then there is one less theory to contend with.
And not all of the opponents of a Spalding/Rigdon theory have such a situation. Vogel, for example, does not believe in these missing things either (except perhaps as modern creations).
Sure, but Vogel's theory has it's own problems as my conversation with him on this thread illustrates. He is extremely reluctant to divulge how he envisions the Isaiah plagiarisms coming about. He acknowledges that a King James Bible was used but is (intentionally) ambiguous about how he envisions that happening. The reason for that, I am sure, is that he understands that whatever method he might come up with potentially opens the door to other materials his theory says could not have been used.
He says he can safely conclude that a Bible was used (but nothing else) since none of the witnesses ever denied it, since no one thought to ask. But you know as well as I do that Knight claimed "the whole" came from the urim and thummim and the others strongly implied the same thing. I'm pretty sure I could pull a Skousen quote or two to back me up on that.
He says he can rule other materials out because Bible use would not have raised suspicions while a manuscript would have. On that point, Vogel seems to be as willing as you are to believe whatever the witnesses tell us, (which I still find ironic). But then he is forced to conclude that virtually every other possible parallel came from the public awareness rather than actual plagiarism. (I'm sure you agree with that, but I don't think it's that simple.)
So sure, Vogel's position gets around reliance on either your hypothesized manuscripts or S/R's one hypothesized manuscript. But his acceptance of plagiarism from a KJVB opens the door to other possible sources including S/R's--whether he wants to admit that or not--and explains why he is generally unwilling to speculate how a Bible may have been used while acknowledging that one probably was.
And so we get back to the argument about the angel. But this comparison doesn't make the Spalding theory any better, it doesn't make it convincing, and it gets a little tiresome hearing this litany when it has absolutely no bearing on the question of whether the Spalding/Rigdon theory can stand up to scrutiny.
It has bearing, Ben, and I think you are smart enough to know that. We're trying to answer the question of how the Book of Mormon got here. It may be a slight oversimplification, but it basically boils down to three main competing answers to that question. In short, we can simply call them: Ben's answer, Dale's answer and Dan's answer. If we eliminate Ben's answer, then we are left with Dale's vs. Dan's. Simple math.
For you to keep making these kinds of statements comes across more as a reflection of the weakness of your own arguments than anything else.
I have just demonstrated that when things are placed side by side, your theory has the least real-world support. in my opinion, Dale was politely attempting to remind you that you should not revel too much in the stones you can throw from your own glass house.
Yes, for the umpteenth time, we S/R advocates publicly acknowledge that our hypothesized manuscript is not extant. Yes, we acknowledge that is a weakness we are forced to deal with. The thing is we do deal with it. We can rationally explain why it no longer exists, and the explanation is one any rational human being can understand and agree with the logic.
That is simply not the case for your theory's explanation of why your hypothesized manuscripts do not exist.
Yes we acknowledge Dan's position has the luxury of not having to defend the existence of a hypothesized manuscript. But Dan DOES have to explain HOW he envisions a Bible was used and why he draws the line at the Bible and nothing more. So far, I am not satisfied with his answer, and there is nothing he has stated so far to make me think his answer is superior to S/R's. If anything his answer is too simplistic to actually explain the BOM--and you and I might even agree on that!
All the best.