Mormonism debunked by Spalding!!

[zoegirl]

seems a reasonable challenge to me.

If, in fact, the parallels are weak and not indicative of similar sources, then it shouldn't be incorrect to seek many parallels with other books.

I think we should clarify between the themes and plots. Similarities between themes I could dismiss easily, similarities between plots are harder to dismiss.

Let's look at some of the most prolific writing today... the paperbacks. Western paperbacks have been lampooned because of their similar themes. Every western plot starts with the hero (similar descriptions ), provides the problems (evil guys stealing land, money, girl), and then provides some action. Similar themes are one thing.

However, it is easy to tell when one novelist has borrowed/been inspired by the plot from another. Some regency era romance books borrow from Jane Austen and it is not just the theme that is similar, but also those bits and pieces that clue you in. I can provide two regency era novels, one written in the 1940's by Geogette Heyer and one written later in the 1980's that was a watered down version of her book. Not hard to find the parallels. Name of the characters were different, name of the town different, and the style was less polished, but they were the same plot. Tough to argue that they were just thematic element that were the same.

So....plot the same? Or simply similar themes...What I have bee reading of the posts leads to the conclusion that the plots are awfully similar.

[Gman]

So....plot the same? Or simply similar themes...What I have bee reading of the posts leads to the conclusion that the plots are awfully similar.

Very true zoegirl... On top of that, both discoveries of their ancient records took place just within a few years of each other.. Of course it was Spalding's record before Joseph's finding.... AND they were very close to each other as well... Hmmm...

Quote from Dale R. Broadhurst: "In the first decades of the 19th century; also, both discoveries purportedly occurred within about 200 miles of each other, amidst the "mound-builder" hills on the southern shore of the Great Lakes. Considering the vast reaches of this planet and the millenia of recorded history, the two discoveries of ancient records happened in practically the same place (in terms of time and space)."

In order to better visualize this uncanny correspondence, see the figure provided below...



Source: //solomonspalding.com/SRP/SRPpap04.htm

[Gman]

Gman,

It is no use for me to continue debating this issue with you. We simply will not agree. You are not familiar enough with the BoM to understand how different it is from MS/MF.

No Sargon, everyone knows what the plot of the BoM is....

The parallels you cite are interesting, but don't hold that much weight beyond that. They are not as impressive as you would like to think, and though I have tried to point that out for only a few of them, you simply did not understand.

Again, I challenge you to find another book or manuscript that closely parallels the BoM as the Spalding manuscript does....

I can't make you see if you don't want to.
I could explain why many of the other parallels simply fail the test, but I really don't think it will do any good. Your challenge would be quite a challenge if indeed the parallels you suggest existed between the BoM and the MS, but they do not.

Are you going to give up that quickly?

Others have successfully argued that the Spalding Theory is a weak house of cards, fully dependent on a few important details that simply do not have impressive evidence to support them.

Others have successfully argued that the Spalding Story is weak? Who are these people? How did they successfully argue against it? Then why are you giving up?

I do not own the book you are depending so heavily on, and I will no longer attempt to rebut it. Others who are much more informed on the issue have already done that, and they aren't all LDS.
So go ahead and continue this charade if you must. I will not participate.

Oh, I really haven't addressed the book yet... The book really addresses those 4 objections to the Spalding theory.. I was going to get into that, but I wanted to focus on the parallels first.. The parallels are all online for all to read...

Oh yeah, one more thing. The title of the thread is not descriptive of what you are actually preaching. According to your theory, Spalding did not debunk the Book of Mormon. Spalding didn't even know about the Book of Mormon.

Oh come now Sargon... You don't like my title? I thought it was an eye catcher... You see, because Spalding's manuscripts really does debunk the Book of Mormon...

You might more accurately label it "Mormonism debunked by angry excommunicated immoral former mormon Philastus Hurlburt seeking to tarnish Joseph Smith's name by digging up "evidence" against him".

Angry excommunicated immoral former mormon Philastus Hurlburt? Did he write the Spalding manuscripts? I don't think he did Sargon...

[Sargon]

Angry excommunicated immoral former mormon Philastus Hurlburt? Did he write the Spalding manuscripts? I don't think he did Sargon...

Sometimes I wonder why I invest any time in you.

Sargon

[Gman]

Sometimes I wonder why I invest any time in you.

Sargon

Sargon, please don't take my comments about Mormonism personal.. I'm not attacking you, I'm only attacking Mormonism. I have no qualms with you...

[Sargon]

Gman,
This isn't about taking your comments about mormonism as personal. Your comments about mormonism are often ill thought out, and sound crazy to those who understand LDS thought. My comment about investing time in you was a manifestation of my frustration at the fact that often you simply do not understand what I say. It isn't about your position, it is about the way we communicate. I don't know how to make more clear sometimes, yet I can't seem to make you understand.

Sargon

[Judah]

Sargon, in quietly following this dialogue here, I am wondering if you are not expecting understanding to be indicated by a degree of agreement. I note your frustration, but one can follow the sequences of an argument (and recognize any flaws it contains) and so understand it in that way, but for good reasons still not agree with it.
What specifically would indicate to you that your arguments have been understood?

[Gman]

Gman,
This isn't about taking your comments about mormonism as personal. Your comments about mormonism are often ill thought out, and sound crazy to those who understand LDS thought. My comment about investing time in you was a manifestation of my frustration at the fact that often you simply do not understand what I say. It isn't about your position, it is about the way we communicate. I don't know how to make more clear sometimes, yet I can't seem to make you understand.

Sargon

Sargon... I think part of the problem here is that you are only going to Mormon sources to defend your faith.. You are really not reading or addressing what is being written here and you are only relying on what your pro-mormon sources say.. Unfortunately many of these sources have NOT correctively examined the evidence and leave their followers hanging when they are confronted with opposing evidence (like in a debate)...

And this is why I believe you are frustrated...

Sargon, you need to understand that there are two sides to every coin.. To simply dismiss contrary evidence to the BoM as being anti-Mormon rhetoric can stifle your free thinking and your soul.. And once these sources have relinquished their vice on you, this is when I believe real understanding can occur.. But you need to realize this first...

Remember before I told you of that group I belonged to once? They told me that they had it all together and that all the other religions were corrupt.. This is one of the first stages you go through with these groups.. They try to make you feel superior to everyone else so that you feel unique.. But sometimes we need to step off our pedestals and realize that we are humans and make mistakes just like everyone else...

Sargon, if I was to tell you all the mistakes I've made in my life, I would be writing to you in the late hours. But this is something we all need to confess if we want to get along with each other.. No one is above it all... No one..

[Sargon]

Gman and Judah,

My frustration is not at all linked with Gman's refusal to agree. I have held lengthy conversations with many anti-mormons, such as Fortigurn, who simply were not capable of agreeing with my points of views, but who at least were able to comprehend my arguments correctly. Repeatedly throughout the course of this thread, and many others, I have said one thing and Gman heard something very different. I do not experience that with other critics. It isn't about being frustrated with his position, or with his arguments, it is frustration over the fact that he simply has failed time and again to understand my comments.
Yes, most of my material does come from pro-Mormon sources. And I have noticed that all of your material has so far come from anti-mormon sources. You have cited very heavily from Dale Broahurst, and from Vanick and co. That has been the basis for most of your Spalding Theory arguments. But that is ok with me. I recognize that they share similar ideas that you do, and the have done extensive research that you rely on.
By the same token I rely on sources that have done extensive research but from the perspective that I share. I have reviewed the evidence presented by Gman, and I have perused Dale's websites. I am not one to turn a blind eye to opposition. Were it so I would not be on this board.

There are two main reasons why I have not ventured to provide a thorough rebuttal of your arguments.

1) I am not extremely interested. The topic does not excite me, and I do not view it as particularly captivating. I view it as something noteworthy, but not very important.

2) I simply do not have time. I have not had the opportunity to do exhaustive research. Art Vanick has. I do not have time right now to devote hours to this issue. I do not have all the answers yet, so I am not ready to discuss every detail. There are things I do understand, after having read the Book of Mormon, and having read Manuscript Found. And from that knowledge I am able to see what I view as major flaws in Gmans' parallels.

What specifically would indicate to you that your arguments have been understood?

An indication that my arguments have been understood would be a rebuttal that actually addresses the point I made. Often I am replied to with information that does not accurately address the topic. It would be a tedious chore to read through all these posts and find all of these instances, so I will save myself the trouble. I don't see any need to prove the source of my frustration.

Sargon

[Gman]

This is going way off the Spalding topic, but I will address this anyways..

Gman and Judah,

My frustration is not at all linked with Gman's refusal to agree. I have held lengthy conversations with many anti-mormons, such as Fortigurn, who simply were not capable of agreeing with my points of views, but who at least were able to comprehend my arguments correctly. Repeatedly throughout the course of this thread, and many others, I have said one thing and Gman heard something very different. I do not experience that with other critics. It isn't about being frustrated with his position, or with his arguments, it is frustration over the fact that he simply has failed time and again to understand my comments.

Sargon, it's not only me that has had a problem with your comments. Just look at the other threads yourself.. Also, what about the fact that you can't answer my questions then? And no I DON"T agree with Mormonism or comments that don't address the issue.. Are you surprised by this?

Yes, most of my material does come from pro-Mormon sources. And I have noticed that all of your material has so far come from anti-mormon sources. You have cited very heavily from Dale Broahurst, and from Vanick and co. That has been the basis for most of your Spalding Theory arguments. But that is ok with me. I recognize that they share similar ideas that you do, and the have done extensive research that you rely on.

Well then why can't your pro-mormon sources answer my questions?

By the same token I rely on sources that have done extensive research but from the perspective that I share. I have reviewed the evidence presented by Gman, and I have perused Dale's websites. I am not one to turn a blind eye to opposition. Were it so I would not be on this board.

There are two main reasons why I have not ventured to provide a thorough rebuttal of your arguments.

1) I am not extremely interested. The topic does not excite me, and I do not view it as particularly captivating. I view it as something noteworthy, but not very important.

So you are not interested in this topic, but then again you will post contrary evidence against it? Sargon, I don't what you are saying here..

2) I simply do not have time. I have not had the opportunity to do exhaustive research. Art Vanick has. I do not have time right now to devote hours to this issue. I do not have all the answers yet, so I am not ready to discuss every detail. There are things I do understand, after having read the Book of Mormon, and having read Manuscript Found. And from that knowledge I am able to see what I view as major flaws in Gmans' parallels.

No, you are not reading the parallels at all... You are simply going to your pro-Mormon sites, posting their information, and are now finding out that they don't have their facts straight on the Spalding case..

An indication that my arguments have been understood would be a rebuttal that actually addresses the point I made. Often I am replied to with information that does not accurately address the topic. It would be a tedious chore to read through all these posts and find all of these instances, so I will save myself the trouble. I don't see any need to prove the source of my frustration.

Sargon, you are not asking enough questions here.. You are simply playing the victim.. If you don't want to address my numerous questions to you or you don't have the time to do the research on Spalding then please move to a different topic.

Thank you,
G -

[Sargon]

While I am not very interested in the topic, I still find it worthwhile to provide some opposition to the lies spoken against God's prophets. But I am not as dedicated to the Spalding issue as you are, I do not see it as a real threat.

Yes Gman, your psycho-analysis is dead on. You have got me figure out. I might as well crawl into my hole and whimper.



Sargon

[zoegirl]

Just another reference on the Spalding debate. This from a former Mormon, but not angry or vengeful

http://www.i4m.com/think/history/Book-of-Mormon.pdf

LOng, but worthwhile.

[Gman]

While I am not very interested in the topic, I still find it worthwhile to provide some opposition to the lies spoken against God's prophets. But I am not as dedicated to the Spalding issue as you are, I do not see it as a real threat.

Sargon, he is NOT God's prophet... He was a con man abusing his power over others.. And he probably could care less about you or his followers...

Yes Gman, your psycho-analysis is dead on. You have got me figure out. I might as well crawl into my hole and whimper.

You already have kiddo...

[Gman]

I would like to take the opportunity to take a closer look at how both accounts (the Spalding and the BoM) were found..



The discoverers of both books claim to have discovered the records by using a lever to remove a rock under which the records were deposited on a top of a mound..

Place of the Finding of the Ancient Records

Spalding Account

"Near the west bank of the
Coneaught River there are the
remains of an ancient fort."
MS:001

Mormon Account

"Convenient to the village of
Manchester stands a hill of
considerable size."
T&S III:771

The Exact Location

Spalding Account

"on the top of a small mound"
MS:001

"Near the west bank of the
Coneaught River..."
MS:001

Mormon Account

"on the west side of this hill not far from the top"
T&S III:771

"near the bank of the river..."
"on the west of the river Sidon"
BoM:343

Discovery of the Stone

Spalding Account

"I happened to tred on a flat stone . . exactly horizontal"
MS:001

Mormon Account

"under a stone of considerable size"
T&S III:771

Lifting of the Stone

Spalding Account

"With the assistance of a lever I raised the stone"
MS:001

Mormon Account

"I obtained a lever which I got fixed under . . . the stone and raised it up"
T&S III:771



Under the Stone

Spalding Account

"its ends and sides rested on
stones... an artificial cave... its
sides were lined with stones"
MS:001

Mormon Account

"The box . . . was formed by laying
stones together"
T&S III:771

The Cover Stone (second iteration)

Spalding Account

"Here I noticed a big flat stone
fixed in the form of a door"
MS:002

Mormon Account

"under a stone of considerable size"
T&S III:771

The Record Box

Spalding Account

"I found an earthen box
with a cover which shut
it perfectly tight. The box was
two feet in length"
MS:002

Mormon Account

"The box in which they lay
was formed by laying stones
together in some kind of cement"
T&S III:771

Inside the Box

Spalding Account

"I found that it contained 28
(rolls) of parchment"
MS:002

Mormon Account

"I looked in and there
indeed did I behold the plates"
T&S III:771

Source: //solomonspalding.com/SRP/SRPpap04.htm

[zoegirl]

Sargon,

First, I feel led to apologize if I was less than civilised. My hope is always that my arguments are led by reason. I wish that I felt that you are willing to address and debate. Your arguments come off as dismissive (don't have time, not interested, not what I wanted to talk about, not a threat)

You should view the Spalding as a real threat, if only because it strikes at the heart of your religion. Just as the recent claims that archaeologists have found Christ's tomb strikes at the heart of Christianity, the Spalding model strikes at the foundations of the credibility of Joseph Smith and the Book. Now, while we as Christians may scoff at the tomb evidence and indeed it is ridiculous, we would be silly to not address it. The Da Vinci code is ridiculous, yet we must address it as a real threat because it does real damage.


I would encourage you to read the link I posted before http://www.i4m.com/think/history/Book-of-Mormon.pdf

(when you have time hope you do well on Calculus exam!

Your resistance on reading or researching non-Mormon scholars is clear. Let me encourage you to fully exmaine all of the evidence. Let me tell you my background. WHile I loved Biology, there was always this fear that the more I studied it the more I would weaken my faith. I was fearful when I started my undergraduate and graduate studies. My prayers to God would be that He would provide me evidence of Him even within this venue where God was often dismissed. "Give me wisdom and discernment. "

How wondrous God is...The more I read, the more convinced I am of His authorship of this amazing world! I am constantly reading research papers from those opposed to my view.

My encouragement to you is to never be afraid to seek out other scholars. AND I would be afraid if ever I was told that I shouldn't.

In my mind these would be my top questions
1) credibility of Joseph Smith himself
2) authorship of Book
3) archaeological evidence of Pre-Columbian races (not limited to horse fossils )
4) DNA evidence of Pre-Columbian races

I'm sure there are others....again, hope the exam goes well