Announcement

Collapse

Message to all users:

https://carm.org/forum-rules

Super Member Subscription
https://carm.org/carm-super-members-banner-ad-signup

As most of you are aware, we had a crash to forums and were down for over two days a while back. We did have to do an upgrade to the vbulletin software to fix the forums and that has created changes, VB no longer provide the hybrid or threaded forums. There are some issues/changes to the forums we are not able to fix or change. Also note the link address change, please let friends and posters know of the changed link to the forums. For now this is the only link available, https://forums.carm.org/vb5/ but if clicking on forum on carm.org homepage it will now send you to this link. (edited to add https: now working.

Again, we are working through some of the posting and viewing issues to learn how to post with the changes, you will have to check and test the different features, icons that have changed. You may also want to go to profile settings,since many of the notifications, information in profile, also to update/edit your avatar by clicking on avatar space, pull down arrow next to login for user settings.

Edit to add "How to read forums, to make it easier."
Pull down arrow next to login name upper right select profile, or user settings when page opens to profile,select link in tab that says Account. Then select/choose options, go down to Conversation Detail Options, Select Display mode Posts, NOT Activity, that selection of Posts will make the pages of discussions go to last post on last page rather than out of order that happens if you choose activity threads. Then be sure to go to bottom and select SAVE Changes in your profile options. You can then follow discussions by going through the pages, to the last page having latest responses. Then click on the other links Privacy, Notifications, to select viewing options,the forums get easier if you open all the tabs or links in your profile, user settings and select options. To join Super Member, pull down arrow next to login name, select User Settings and then click on tab/link at top that says Subscriptions.

Thank you for your patience and God Bless.

Diane S
https://carm.org/forum-rules
See more
See less

Spalding MANUSCRIPTS in the plural, got it Mormons?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Spalding MANUSCRIPTS in the plural, got it Mormons?

    Did Spalding write One manuscript, or several? Undeniable proof from those who lived in that era, is that "Manuscript Found" was just one of several. For instance:

    "The evidence is cumulative from this on, for many years. And now a surviving witness of those times has come to add testimony which ought to be final. Mr. James A. Briggs writes from Brooklyn to The Watchman of the 9th instant that in 1833-34 he was one of a self-appointed committee that met in Mentor, O., the former parish of the apostate Rigdon, and close to the "Zion" which the Saints had set up at Kirtland, to investigate the origin of the Book of Mormon. His article is long and interesting throughout; but the pith and point of it are in his first paragraph as follows: "We had the manuscripts of Rev. Solomon Spaulding before us [italics ours], that we compared with the Mormon Bible; and we had no doubt that from Spaulding's writings Rev. Sidney Rigdon got up the Mormon Bible." This conclusion he supports by a lengthy recital of facts and arguments that cannot be broken. He has a copy of the Honolulu find, as printed at Lamoni, and [avers] emphatically that "this is not a copy of the 'Manuscript Found, of Solomon Spaulding."

    The deceitful Mormon claim that they have "Manuscript Found," written by Spalding is spurious. The have "A" manuscript, and that is all. So tired of having to deal with the deceit of this horrendous cult. There is evidence that "Manuscript Found" was sold to the Mormons by Hurlbut. I wouldn't be surprised. The Oberlain manuscript is "Manuscript Story," not "Manuscript Found."

    see: http://www.truthandgrace.com/1886MCHerald0916.htm
    Last edited by Catherine Aurelia; 09-16-18, 11:47 AM.
    Christian scholar John MacArthur about Mormonism: “Mormonism is wrong in epic proportions.”

  • #2
    Originally posted by Catherine Aurelia View Post
    Did Spalding write One manuscript, or several? Undeniable proof from those who lived in that era, is that "Manuscript Found" was just one of several. For instance:

    "The evidence is cumulative from this on, for many years. And now a surviving witness of those times has come to add testimony which ought to be final. Mr. James A. Briggs writes from Brooklyn to The Watchman of the 9th instant that in 1833-34 he was one of a self-appointed committee that met in Mentor, O., the former parish of the apostate Rigdon, and close to the "Zion" which the Saints had set up at Kirtland, to investigate the origin of the Book of Mormon. His article is long and interesting throughout; but the pith and point of it are in his first paragraph as follows: "We had the manuscripts of Rev. Solomon Spaulding before us [italics ours], that we compared with the Mormon Bible; and we had no doubt that from Spaulding's writings Rev. Sidney Rigdon got up the Mormon Bible." This conclusion he supports by a lengthy recital of facts and arguments that cannot be broken. He has a copy of the Honolulu find, as printed at Lamoni, and [avers] emphatically that "this is not a copy of the 'Manuscript Found, of Solomon Spaulding."

    The deceitful Mormon claim that they have "Manuscript Found," written by Spalding is spurious. The have "A" manuscript, and that is all. So tired of having to deal with the deceit of this horrendous cult.
    Thatís a bit of revisionist history. The Spaulding manuscript exists and is published and has nothing at all to do with the Book of Mormon. So you postulate that there must be another, missing, manuscript that contains whatever you want it to contain in order to fit the narrative.

    You cannot even show that the Spaulding manuscript, any Spaulding manuscript, made its way to Joseph Smith. Sidney Rigdon was once in close proximity to Spaulding. But we have no record that they ever met or that Rigdon ever saw the manuscript. And Sidney Rigdon was close to Joseph Smith, but not until a year after the Book of Mormon was completed.

    And by the way, manuscript or manuscripts, with or without the plural, can correctly be used to describe an unbound sheaf of papers whether it is a single story or several.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by JustaLurker View Post

      That’s a bit of revisionist history. The Spaulding manuscript exists and is published and has nothing at all to do with the Book of Mormon. So you postulate that there must be another, missing, manuscript that contains whatever you want it to contain in order to fit the narrative.

      You cannot even show that the Spaulding manuscript, any Spaulding manuscript, made its way to Joseph Smith. Sidney Rigdon was once in close proximity to Spaulding. But we have no record that they ever met or that Rigdon ever saw the manuscript. And Sidney Rigdon was close to Joseph Smith, but not until a year after the Book of Mormon was completed.

      And by the way, manuscript or manuscripts, with or without the plural, can correctly be used to describe an unbound sheaf of papers whether it is a single story or several.
      Bologna. Not revisionist at all. Tell me how many books by non-Mormons you have read on the subject, LURKER? Are you an expert on Spalding. Why not read the latest book "The Spalding Enigma" for proof that Rigdon stole the manuscript from the print shop, reworked it, and funneled it to Joey the Liar through the Liar's cousin. I really can't discuss this with somebody who just doesn't study the facts.
      Christian scholar John MacArthur about Mormonism: “Mormonism is wrong in epic proportions.”

      Comment


      • #4
        How seriously inept can a person be not to see that Rigdon, who predicted the publication of the Book of Mormon, to several people way before 1830, was implicated in its manufacture. I mean just how credulous does one have to be not to see a problem with that?

        see: http://www.mormonthink.com/mormonstudiesrigdon.htm

        I guess those "experts" who get their info from FAIR have no desire for truth at all.
        Christian scholar John MacArthur about Mormonism: “Mormonism is wrong in epic proportions.”

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Catherine Aurelia View Post
          Did Spalding write One manuscript, or several? Undeniable proof from those who lived in that era, is that "Manuscript Found" was just one of several. For instance:

          "The evidence is cumulative from this on, for many years. And now a surviving witness of those times has come to add testimony which ought to be final. Mr. James A. Briggs writes from Brooklyn to The Watchman of the 9th instant that in 1833-34 he was one of a self-appointed committee that met in Mentor, O., the former parish of the apostate Rigdon, and close to the "Zion" which the Saints had set up at Kirtland, to investigate the origin of the Book of Mormon. His article is long and interesting throughout; but the pith and point of it are in his first paragraph as follows: "We had the manuscripts of Rev. Solomon Spaulding before us [italics ours], that we compared with the Mormon Bible; and we had no doubt that from Spaulding's writings Rev. Sidney Rigdon got up the Mormon Bible." This conclusion he supports by a lengthy recital of facts and arguments that cannot be broken. He has a copy of the Honolulu find, as printed at Lamoni, and [avers] emphatically that "this is not a copy of the 'Manuscript Found, of Solomon Spaulding."

          The deceitful Mormon claim that they have "Manuscript Found," written by Spalding is spurious. The have "A" manuscript, and that is all. So tired of having to deal with the deceit of this horrendous cult. There is evidence that "Manuscript Found" was sold to the Mormons by Hurlbut. I wouldn't be surprised. The Oberlain manuscript is "Manuscript Story," not "Manuscript Found."

          see: http://www.truthandgrace.com/1886MCHerald0916.htm
          I read the Honolulu Manuscript Found some years ago and it isn't like the BoM at all with different names and such. But this is interesting news. I had read someplace that Spalding wrote 3 books--Manuscript Story, Manuscript Lost, and Manuscript Found.

          How did they come to the conclusion that Rigdon wrote most of the BoM?
          "I am tired of being treated like a mushroom--they keep me in the dark and feed me manure!" (reasons why a Mormon was leaving the LDS church)
          "What people don't realize is how much religion costs. They think faith is a big electric blanket, when of course, it is the cross."--Flannery O'Connor
          "I am a Missouri Synod Lutheran--NOT REFORMED/CALVINIST. PLEASE learn the difference."
          "The truth may hurt for a little while, but a lie hurts forever."--anonymous
          "If Jesus isn't THE WAY, then there is nothing else."--Bob

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Catherine Aurelia View Post
            Did Spalding write One manuscript, or several? Undeniable proof from those who lived in that era, is that "Manuscript Found" was just one of several. For instance:

            "The evidence is cumulative from this on, for many years. And now a surviving witness of those times has come to add testimony which ought to be final. Mr. James A. Briggs writes from Brooklyn to The Watchman of the 9th instant that in 1833-34 he was one of a self-appointed committee that met in Mentor, O., the former parish of the apostate Rigdon, and close to the "Zion" which the Saints had set up at Kirtland, to investigate the origin of the Book of Mormon. His article is long and interesting throughout; but the pith and point of it are in his first paragraph as follows: "We had the manuscripts of Rev. Solomon Spaulding before us [italics ours], that we compared with the Mormon Bible; and we had no doubt that from Spaulding's writings Rev. Sidney Rigdon got up the Mormon Bible." This conclusion he supports by a lengthy recital of facts and arguments that cannot be broken. He has a copy of the Honolulu find, as printed at Lamoni, and [avers] emphatically that "this is not a copy of the 'Manuscript Found, of Solomon Spaulding."

            The deceitful Mormon claim that they have "Manuscript Found," written by Spalding is spurious. The have "A" manuscript, and that is all. So tired of having to deal with the deceit of this horrendous cult. There is evidence that "Manuscript Found" was sold to the Mormons by Hurlbut. I wouldn't be surprised. The Oberlain manuscript is "Manuscript Story," not "Manuscript Found."

            see: http://www.truthandgrace.com/1886MCHerald0916.htm
            Interesting articles...so, if I am reading these correctly, the "Manuscript Found' supposedly found in Honolulu was NOT the actual "Manuscript Found" but was actually "Manuscript Story" judging by what was written in pencil on the wrapper around the manuscript? So, the true "Manuscript Found" was the one that members of Spaulding's family and friends heard years later, when they heard stuff preached from the BoM? Did I read that correctly?
            "I am tired of being treated like a mushroom--they keep me in the dark and feed me manure!" (reasons why a Mormon was leaving the LDS church)
            "What people don't realize is how much religion costs. They think faith is a big electric blanket, when of course, it is the cross."--Flannery O'Connor
            "I am a Missouri Synod Lutheran--NOT REFORMED/CALVINIST. PLEASE learn the difference."
            "The truth may hurt for a little while, but a lie hurts forever."--anonymous
            "If Jesus isn't THE WAY, then there is nothing else."--Bob

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Bonnie View Post

              I read the Honolulu Manuscript Found some years ago and it isn't like the BoM at all with different names and such. But this is interesting news. I had read someplace that Spalding wrote 3 books--Manuscript Story, Manuscript Lost, and Manuscript Found.

              How did they come to the conclusion that Rigdon wrote most of the BoM?
              Hi, yes Spalding wrote several manuscripts. The Honolulu manuscript is in a more modern setting than Manuscript Found. Manuscript Found is the one Spalding's widow believed was used to create the BoM. Spalding created the manuscript, but Rigdon swiped it from the print shop and reworked it at his home. There are several affidavits stating that Rigdon was working on a manuscript. He ordered all his papers burned at his death - makes you wonder. In any case, if you read the revised "Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon," and the latest book, "The Spalding Enigma," the latest evidence finds that Rigdon, was in deed living in Pittsburgh, the town the print shop was situated in, and had a PO box there. Mormons have always tried to deny Rigdon's Pittsburgh connection. Also, there is a connection established between Rigdon and Cowdery (a travelling peddler), who was probably the initial liaison between Spalding and Smith. There is simply no doubt that Rigdon knew about the BoM before it was published, as he predicted the book. Furthermore, Spalding practically hand-delivered to Smith his own congregation in Kirtland, Ohio. That is not something a good pastor would do, as you must know. The evidence of collusion is pretty solid. Rigdon not only stole the manuscript, but reworked it to add Campbellism into the text. Rigdon would pretty much go to any lengths to establish his own belief system. Cowdery was the middleman, and the "polisher" of the BoM (Cowdery was a school teacher). These three, Rigdon, Cowdery and Smith are the UNHOLY TRINITY of Mormonism. I think the character of Cowdery needs a closer examination. He's not the innocent cousin he is portrayed to be. He wanted money above all things, and this was a quick method to get some - take a cut from Joey from the sale of the book.
              Christian scholar John MacArthur about Mormonism: “Mormonism is wrong in epic proportions.”

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Bonnie View Post

                Interesting articles...so, if I am reading these correctly, the "Manuscript Found' supposedly found in Honolulu was NOT the actual "Manuscript Found" but was actually "Manuscript Story" judging by what was written in pencil on the wrapper around the manuscript? So, the true "Manuscript Found" was the one that members of Spaulding's family and friends heard years later, when they heard stuff preached from the BoM? Did I read that correctly?
                That's one thing that always made me adhere to the Spalding theory. When Spalding's family and friends heard portions of the BoM they immediately concluded that Smith had ripped off Spalding's manuscript. That was their first gut reaction, and psychology tells us that those first gut reactions are usually absolutely right. All these years, I've held to the Spalding origin of the BoM, even though many others frowned on it. Now it's come full circle, and the Mormons can no longer lie about "Manuscript Story," and the fact that the Spalding theory is dead. Truth takes a while, but it comes out eventually.
                Christian scholar John MacArthur about Mormonism: “Mormonism is wrong in epic proportions.”

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Catherine Aurelia View Post

                  Bologna. Not revisionist at all. Tell me how many books by non-Mormons you have read on the subject, LURKER? Are you an expert on Spalding. Why not read the latest book "The Spalding Enigma" for proof that Rigdon stole the manuscript from the print shop, reworked it, and funneled it to Joey the Liar through the Liar's cousin. I really can't discuss this with somebody who just doesn't study the facts.
                  Iíll be happy to read the Spaulding manuscript that you claim is the source of the Book of Mormon. Where can I access that?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Catherine Aurelia View Post

                    [B]Hi, yes Spalding wrote several manuscripts.
                    So you claim. There is absolutely nothing supporting that claim.

                    Originally posted by Catherine Aurelia View Post
                    The Honolulu manuscript is in a more modern setting than Manuscript Found.
                    And that is pure fiction, since you are expounding on a manuscript that nobody has ever read and that probably never existed.

                    Originally posted by Catherine Aurelia View Post
                    Manuscript Found is the one Spalding's widow believed was used to create the BoM.
                    More revisionist history. The manuscript, the only manuscript that anyone knew of, was claimed to be the source of the Book of Mormon. That claim held until the manuscript was located and published (by the Church). Realizing that there was zero possibility of the manuscript being the source document for the Book of Mormon, suddenly there was another manuscript because there just had to be one to explain the Book of Mormon.


                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by JustaLurker View Post

                      So you claim. There is absolutely nothing supporting that claim.

                      Really. So you've read all the affidavits, right? You've read books on Spalding, right? How about naming them. You are always making sweeping claims, and never backing them up. Scholarly research determines that he wrote at least two, one called Manuscript Found and another called Manuscript Story which your cult tries to palm off as his only manuscript, while his wife and family wrote affidavits stating that there was at least one more manuscript (Manuscript Found). But then, of course, affidavits by his wife and friends are meaningless to those Mormon who aren't really interested in the truth.



                      And that is pure fiction, since you are expounding on a manuscript that nobody has ever read and that probably never existed.

                      So nobody has read the "Honolulu" manuscript that Oberlin college has in its archives? Bonnie read it. Lots of people have read it. And golly gee it just happens to be in PDF form on the Internet. https://archive.org/stream/manuscrip...00spau#page/n7 So what are you trying to say? That nobody has read "Manuscript Found?" Actually that's not true, as many people in affidavits written in the 19th century attest to the fact that Spalding often read it to them. That the names of Nephi, and Lehi, and the land of Zarahemla, etc. were mentioned. Tell us LURKER, were all these people just LIARS, making this stuff up? If so, prove it.



                      More revisionist history. The manuscript, the only manuscript that anyone knew of, was claimed to be the source of the Book of Mormon. That claim held until the manuscript was located and published (by the Church). Realizing that there was zero possibility of the manuscript being the source document for the Book of Mormon, suddenly there was another manuscript because there just had to be one to explain the Book of Mormon.

                      Apparently you never read the OP, or the evidence presented. Go back and read the OP. Especially this:

                      "But the Oberlin advocates have not yet, as the lawyers say, "made their case." The older theory does not rest, as Mr. Gibson seems to think, upon dim recollections of what was "heard over twenty years before," nor upon "the shadowy resemblance of a few names and incidents common to both." It rests upon historical facts impossible to be gainsaid, impossible to reconcile with any other theory than that of absolute theft and fraud in the evolution of the Book of Mormon. When that shameless product of imposture appeared, in 1830, it was subjected to crucial tests, which are as conclusive to-day as they were half a century ago. Numbers of the relatives and old neighbors of Solomon Spaulding were still living when the Mormon emissaries appeared at Conneaut with the new revelation; and when extracts from it were read in their meetings, Mr. John Spaulding arose, and bursting into tears denounced indignantly the outrageous larceny that had been made of the well-remembered writings of his brother. Mr. Lake, a former partner of Spaulding's in business at Conneaut, and many others, clearly recognized passages read as identical with those they had often heard from the lips of their friend and neighbor, as he rehearsed the beloved pages of his "Manuscript Found."

                      The evidence is cumulative from this on, for many years. And now a surviving witness of those times has come to add testimony which ought to be final. Mr. James A. Briggs writes from Brooklyn to The Watchman of
                      the 9th instant that in 1833-34 he was one of a self-appointed committee that met in Mentor, O., the former parish of the apostate Rigdon, and close to the "Zion" which the Saints had set up at Kirtland, to investigate the origin of the Book of Mormon. His article is long and interesting throughout; but the pith and point of it are in his first paragraph as follows: "We had the manuscripts of Rev. Solomon Spaulding before us [italics ours], that we compared with the Mormon Bible; and we had no doubt that from Spaulding's writings Rev. Sidney Rigdon got up the Mormon Bible." This conclusion he supports by a lengthy recital of facts and arguments that cannot be broken. He has a copy of the Honolulu find, as printed at Lamoni, and [avers] emphatically that "this is not a copy of the 'Manuscript Found, of Solomon Spaulding."
                      Notice, LURKER, that Briggs indicates they had MANUSCRIPTS, that is in the plural, before them written by Spalding. Was Briggs a liar? Was Spalding's brother, John a liar as well? Yeah, everybody must be lying. Gosh, the whole world was lying and persecuting Mormons, that's it. Persecution and mob violence, it followed the Mormons everywhere! Sure!

                      If you had even bothered reading the OP, and its title, you would see this thread is about the number of manuscripts written by Spalding, not about the idiotic Mormon view that he only wrote one manuscript and nothing else. Who do Mormons make such a childish observaton? What evidence do YOU have that the writer, Spalding, only wrote one manuscript? That is plainly naive. By the way, have you located evidence of all those horse stables in Tikal?


                      Christian scholar John MacArthur about Mormonism: “Mormonism is wrong in epic proportions.”

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        For those who actually research things and aren't just born "experts" on everything, I am linking to a PDF written by the authors of The Spalding Enigma," responding to Mormon criticism. On page 28 onward, the subject of the number of manuscripts Spalding wrote is addressed, and affidavits are posted.

                        link: http://thedigitalvoice.com/enigma/pd...20rebuttal.pdf

                        What are the chances, folks, that a man like Spalding who wrote one romance would never write another? But that's what the Mormon cult wants us to believe........and frankly, we all know that the Mormons will believe what they are told regardless of the fact that the assertion is CHILDISH.

                        Christian scholar John MacArthur about Mormonism: “Mormonism is wrong in epic proportions.”

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Catherine Aurelia View Post

                          Bologna. Not revisionist at all. Tell me how many books by non-Mormons you have read on the subject, LURKER? Are you an expert on Spalding. Why not read the latest book "The Spalding Enigma" for proof that Rigdon stole the manuscript from the print shop, reworked it, and funneled it to Joey the Liar through the Liar's cousin. I really can't discuss this with somebody who just doesn't study the facts.
                          Proof! Amazing. You can prove that Rigdon stole the manuscript?

                          Where is the smoking gun?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Catherine Aurelia View Post
                            Really. So you've read all the affidavits, right? You've read books on Spalding, right? How about naming them. You are always making sweeping claims, and never backing them up. Scholarly research determines that he wrote at least two, one called Manuscript Found and another called Manuscript Story which your cult tries to palm off as his only manuscript, while his wife and family wrote affidavits stating that there was at least one more manuscript (Manuscript Found). But then, of course, affidavits by his wife and friends are meaningless to those Mormon who aren't really interested in the truth.
                            You simply repeated the claim. What do you have that supports it? Spaulding wrote a single manuscript that he was never able to publish. They called it Manuscript Lost for the obvious reason that it was a manuscript and it was lost. Then they found in it Hawaii so they began calling it Manuscript Found. On rare occasions someone would refer to it as Spaulding’s manuscript story since the manuscript never had an actual title.

                            Finding references to Manuscript Lost, Manuscript Found, and manuscript story doesn’t magically create three manuscripts.



                            Originally posted by Catherine Aurelia View Post
                            So nobody has read the "Honolulu" manuscript that Oberlin college has in its archives? Bonnie read it. Lots of people have read it. And golly gee it just happens to be in PDF form on the Internet. So what are you trying to say? That nobody has read "Manuscript Found?" Actually that's not true, as many people in affidavits written in the 19th century attest to the fact that Spalding often read it to them. That the names of Nephi, and Lehi, and the land of Zarahemla, etc. were mentioned. Tell us LURKER, were all these people just LIARS, making this stuff up? If so, prove it.
                            I don’t recall ever having claimed that the manuscript had never been read. You were expounding on the content of a second or third manuscript, one that doesn’t exist and obviously has never been read.

                            Originally posted by Catherine Aurelia View Post
                            Apparently you never read the OP, or the evidence presented. Go back and read the OP. Especially this:

                            "But the Oberlin advocates have not yet, as the lawyers say, "made their case." The older theory does not rest, as Mr. Gibson seems to think, upon dim recollections of what was "heard over twenty years before," nor upon "the shadowy resemblance of a few names and incidents common to both." It rests upon historical facts impossible to be gainsaid, impossible to reconcile with any other theory than that of absolute theft and fraud in the evolution of the Book of Mormon. When that shameless product of imposture appeared, in 1830, it was subjected to crucial tests, which are as conclusive to-day as they were half a century ago. Numbers of the relatives and old neighbors of Solomon Spaulding were still living when the Mormon emissaries appeared at Conneaut with the new revelation; and when extracts from it were read in their meetings, Mr. John Spaulding arose, and bursting into tears denounced indignantly the outrageous larceny that had been made of the well-remembered writings of his brother. Mr. Lake, a former partner of Spaulding's in business at Conneaut, and many others, clearly recognized passages read as identical with those they had often heard from the lips of their friend and neighbor, as he rehearsed the beloved pages of his "Manuscript Found."

                            The evidence is cumulative from this on, for many years. And now a surviving witness of those times has come to add testimony which ought to be final. Mr. James A. Briggs writes from Brooklyn to The Watchman of
                            the 9th instant[COLOR=#FF0000] that in 1833-34 he was one of a self-appointed committee that met in Mentor, O., the former parish of the apostate Rigdon, and close to the "Zion" which the Saints had set up at Kirtland, to investigate the origin of the Book of Mormon. His article is long and interesting throughout; but the pith and point of it are in his first paragraph as follows: "We had the manuscripts of Rev. Solomon Spaulding before us [italics ours], that we compared with the Mormon Bible; and we had no doubt that from Spaulding's writings Rev. Sidney Rigdon got up the Mormon Bible." This conclusion he supports by a lengthy recital of facts and arguments that cannot be broken. He has a copy of the Honolulu find, as printed at Lamoni, and [avers] emphatically that "this is not a copy of the 'Manuscript Found, of Solomon Spaulding."

                            Notice, LURKER, that Briggs indicates they had MANUSCRIPTS, that is in the plural, before them written by Spalding. Was Briggs a liar? Was Spalding's brother, John a liar as well? Yeah, everybody must be lying. Gosh, the whole world was lying and persecuting Mormons, that's it. Persecution and mob violence, it followed the Mormons everywhere! Sure!
                            So you have nothing to give us? Briggs is the originator and author of this pack of lies and providing us with a quote from him does nothing but identify the source. They are his claims rather than yours. He provided no more substantiation for them than you did. He claimed the manuscript was subjected to rigorous testing. He never said what testing, by whom, or who verified them. He simply assured us that the tests were conclusive. The tests never existed.

                            The funny part about it is that Briggs used the words Manuscripts and Writings but was specifically talking about a single work. The idea of multiple manuscripts never occurred to anyone until after 1884.


                            Originally posted by Catherine Aurelia View Post
                            If you had even bothered reading the OP, and its title, you would see this thread is about the number of manuscripts written by Spalding, not about the idiotic Mormon view that he only wrote one manuscript and nothing else. Who do Mormons make such a childish observaton? What evidence do YOU have that the writer, Spalding, only wrote one manuscript? That is plainly naive. By the way, have you located evidence of all those horse stables in Tikal?
                            You have been talking about a number of manuscripts, one real and the rest imaginary. I’m talking about Manuscript Found.

                            PACUNAM just published the results of the LiDAR survey. You’ll find their website using their name and .org (sorry, it’s in Spanish). They report finding ...
                            65,000 structures
                            vast networks of elevated highways
                            fortresses, ramparts and defensive walls
                            public works, dikes, damn, canals, and ditches
                            agricultural terraces and irrigation systems
                            animal pens
                            stone quarries

                            They never specified what specific animals occupied the pens. How could they using LiDAR. I specifically stated that there was no way to determine whether a stable housed a horse or a llama. But animal pens were found.

                            You're welcome.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Catherine Aurelia View Post
                              For those who actually research things and aren't just born "experts" on everything, I am linking to a PDF written by the authors of The Spalding Enigma," responding to Mormon criticism. On page 28 onward, the subject of the number of manuscripts Spalding wrote is addressed, and affidavits are posted.

                              link: http://thedigitalvoice.com/enigma/pd...20rebuttal.pdf

                              What are the chances, folks, that a man like Spalding who wrote one romance would never write another? But that's what the Mormon cult wants us to believe........and frankly, we all know that the Mormons will believe what they are told regardless of the fact that the assertion is CHILDISH.
                              Are you disavowing all other theories of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon and putting it all into the basket of Spaulding/Rigdon?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X