My sister just put this link on her facebook page. There are so many things wrong with it. The blogger claims to be unbiased, but also can't look at any "anti" literature because the spirit immediately departs.

I just thought I'd throw this out for your reading pleasure.

http://unblogmysoul.wordpress.com/2012/03/06/the-spaulding-manuscript/

Do any of you have a good reply I could use?

What's the point? This guy clearly indicates right from the start that his mind is made up and nothing will convince him otherwise.

If a person wants to believe that the most likely explanation for the Book of Mormon is that an angel appeared with golden plates which were translated from an unknown language by looking at a magic rock in a hat - fine, but don't expect sane and rational people to take seriously anything you say. Just go sit at the kiddy table.

There is nothing "wondrous" or true about the Book of Mormon. It has failed every test thrown at it. It's full of errors, anachronisms and plagiarism. DNA evidence proves that it's a false story. That's how people know it's not true. Now for those who want to "feel" that it's true, go ahead.

When he said something to the effect.....even if the spaulding manuscript had been the BoM word for word, I would have assumed some kind of deceit....

You can't reason with the unreasonable. His mind is going to stay put. You can't teach anything to someone who refuses to learn.

This is a good example of why there will always be mormons. Once they think they know something, they stay stuck. They love being stuck. They think they have all the answers. They think if they don't look, that means there are no other options. I suppose for them that's true.

I myself have stayed stuck on a recipe for years. But, when I found a better tasting version, I changed. If everyone used the same old recipes, we would be missing out on so much. His reasoning would be the same as if the only chocolate you've ever had is hershey's. It's good. Then a friend sends you some Fran's chocolates for Christmas. You've decided ahead of time that anything but hershey's is going to give you a bad feeling. You don't even open the box, let alone taste the fabulous beautiful chocolates. Nope, you just toss $50.00 of the most wonderful chocolates in the garbage. You take great pride in yourself for this. You go online and brag about it. You sound like a complete idiot.

"If it was found that some old novel was found to be a word for word duplicate of the Book of Mormon, I would still know it is true, and assume that deceit, lies and treachery had produced the latter".

OY VAY!!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/07/2012 03:10PM by bignevermo.

I only got a couple paragraphs in before I couldn't take it any more. "Manuscript Found" was not in the bottom of the trunk. The document taken from the trunk was called "Manuscript Story," and Howe clearly referenced it as being completely different from "Manuscript Found."

We don't know, and will probably never know what happened to "Manuscript Found," but one thing we know for certain. "Manuscript Story" was definitely not used in the creation of the Book of Mormon. It's intellectually dishonest for apologists to equate "Manuscript Found" with "Manuscript Story," as all evidence, including Howe's own words, is to the contrary. I guess apologists like to cling to the word "Manuscript" and twist everything else to make it appear that the Rigdon-Spaulding theory is a fraud.

For you reference, here are Howe's words from "Mormonism Unvailed," printed in 1834, which this guy thinks is when the Rigdon-Spaulding theory was invented:

"The trunk referred to by the widow, was subsequently examined, and found to contain only a single M.S. book, in Spalding's hand-writing, containing about one quire of paper. This is a romance, purporting to have been translated from the Latin, found on 24 rolls of parchment in a cave, on the banks of the Conneaut Creek, but written in modern style, and giving a fabulous account of a ship's being driven upon the American coast, while proceeding from Rome to Britain, a short time previous to the Christian era, this country then being inhabited by the Indians. This old M. S. has been shown to several of the foregoing witnesses, who recognize it as Spalding's, he having told them that he had altered his first plan of writing, by going farther back with dates, and writing in the old scripture style, in order that I might appear more ancient. They say that it bears no resemblance to the 'Manuscript Found.'"

There was also a reputed copy of the 1830 Book of Mormon that Dr. Cephas Dodd had bought, in which he wrote the following on an empty page.

"This work, I am convinced by facts related to me by my deceased patient, Solomon Spaulding, has been made from the writings of Spaulding, probably by Sidney Rigdon, who was suspicioned by Spaulding with purloining his manuscript from the publishing house to which he had taken it; and I am prepared to testify that Spaulding told me that his work was entitled, "The Manuscript Found in the Wilds of Mormon; or Unearthed Records of the Nephites." From his description of its contents, I fully believe that this Book of Mormon is mainly and wickedly copied from it.
Cephas Dodd
June 5, 1831"

If this is accurate, then it shows that the Rigdon-Spaulding theory did not originate with Hurlebut and Howe, but was first mentioned 3 years earlier.

Of course, the maker of this blog will never listen to anything "anti" like this.

Makes me think of a little child who covers his eyes, and thinks nobody can see him.

Surprise! We see you! And you look childish and pathetic.

OK, the best art of the whole thing is in the Conclusion where he writes about having read parts of Manuscript Found and concluded its nothing like the Book of Mormon. Hilariously, he states that "there is no use of King James English..." which, of course, begs the question: Why in the hell were agent Jews living in America writing in King James English?

I thought it begged the question of how he has read "Manuscript Found" when no document by that title has been discovered yet.

Though from his description, it was probably "Manuscript Story" which Howe said was written with modern language.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/07/2012 03:38PM by kimball.

I said:

“To put it more simply, if someone handed me a recipe for a cake, and I baked many cakes using the recipe, and found each of them delicious, nobody could convince me that the recipe was not “true”. The cake is all the evidence I require.”

The logical fallacy of this statement is that you assume your recipe is the only one that makes cake. There are a lot of variations out there – some make good cake, some don’t. But unless you try them all, you never know which is best. Maybe your cake is delicious, and therefore “true enough”, but there could be a lot of other recipes out there that are even more delicious, and by comparison “more true” (sorry, equating cake-iness to truth-iness is a bit of a stretch. I’m doing my best).

To keep the somewhat discombobulated metaphor going, I have an aunt who can’t get enough Dutch apple cake. To my mother, if it isn’t chocolate it isn’t worth it. Everyone has different tastes. What’s right for some is not necessarily right for all. Each of those millions of different recipes is going to be somebody’s favorite, somebody’s “true” cake. What you’re essentially saying is that because your religion works for you, that makes it universally true. That’s a pretty bold statement for someone who openly admits to not even cracking open books that contain opposition to your beliefs.

If your belief system makes you happy and works for you, kudos. Congratulations on finding something that makes you feel fulfilled. I genuinely mean that. But if you do have thousands of readers, as you say, then I think it’s somewhat irresponsible of you to discourage them from exploring the other options out there to see what makes THEM happy and what works for THEM.

Maybe your cake is Dutch apple, and they’d like chocolate if they gave it a chance. Maybe you would, too.

I don’t necessarily believe that this Spaulding Manuscript theory has merit, and though I do not share you beliefs, my intention is not to attack them. I simply came across this blog and was struck by the opening statements. You seem like an intelligent person (this is a certainly well-written post), but the opening paragraph represents such a disconnect in logic that I was surprised you were able to form a cohesive argument further down.

I hope you don’t mind me throwing my two cents in. Happy trails!

With all the talk of chocolate and cake I've completely lost the thread of this thread...