Talk:Solomon Spalding
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Spalding or Spaulding?
I saw an article in the Pittsburgh City Paper (May 15, 2008) that mentions Solomon Spaulding, and it includes a picture of his grave site.[1] In the picture, the gravestone lists his name as "Solomon Spaulding"[2], though it isn't the original gravestone (the article says), I was wondering how his name was really spelled? Some places online spell it "Spalding" while others spell it "Spaulding" (most seem to spell it "Spalding".) Spaulding's grave site is located in the cemetery of the Lower Ten Mile United Presbyterian Church (one of two adjacent churches) on Route 19, in the town of Amity, Washington County, Pennsylvania. Here's what the article by Al Hoff of the Pittsburgh City Paper says about him:
"Solomon Spaulding Grave [3]
Was the Book of Mormon a work of plagiarism? If so, the aggrieved party is buried in this small Washington County churchyard.
The theory is thus: Solomon Spaulding was a clergyman who lived in Southwestern Pennsylvania and Conneaut, Ohio, near Erie, in the early 19th century. He wrote an unpublished work of fiction called The Manuscript Story, which told of America's ancient tribes. Spaulding died in 1816.
Almost 20 years later, Conneaut residents heard preaching from the new Book of Mormon, and called foul. Portions of the Book of Mormon, they charged, were identical to the fanciful constructions in Spaulding's work, which they had previously read or heard. These accusations soon became enshrined in denunciations of Mormonism.
How could an unpublished novel from Washington County wind up as the Book of Mormon? Proponents of the "Spaulding Theory," as the controversy is known, point to Sidney Rigdon, a Pittsburgh-area minister and right-hand man of Mormon church founder Joseph Smith, who may have obtained the manuscript from a local publisher.
Speaking of not-quite-original, the headstone marking Spaulding's grave is relatively new, a replacement for the original that succumbed to the elements. Or so they say."[4]
Geneisner (talk) 09:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV article
This article is extremely NPOV and reads like a propaganda piece from mormons against the character of Solomon Spaulding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlechem (talk • contribs) 14:12, October 23, 2006
- I agree. It really seems like whoever wrote this article is pro-Mormon or heavily biased toward them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Otter272 (talk • contribs) 11:51, April 6, 2007
This article goes to great lengths to list the assertions of a Spalding authorship but only breifly mentions that the view is controversial. Perhaps dissimilarities could be listed?--Mokru 23:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] A summary of edit history
- Up until this edit April 1, 2006, nothing controversial.
- Then in this edit April 13, 2006, a minor POV slant is introduced.
- Then in this edit May 3, 2006, a wikilink to Sidney Rigdon is removed from the See also section.
- Then in this edit August 12, 2006, the following unsourced text is removed from the article's first paragraph:
-
- "Since 1833 he has been credited by some scholars and writers as being the original author of a portion of the Book of Mormon."
- Other changes done in this edit have so far been uncontroversial, except for the removal of the term "Spalding-Rigdon" so that the article from this point on is lacking any reference to Sidney Rigdon.
- Then in this edit August 24, 2006, a paragraph summarizing the story in Spalding's story is added. Also, some, in my view, npov redacting is done of the text concerning the spalding manuscript which was uncovered in 1884.
- Then the subsequent edit August 24, 2006, reverts this.
- In this edit March 26, 2007, a wikilink to Aaron Wright is removed from the See also section.
- Then in this, this and this edit April 13 - 15, 2007, Category:Mormonism-related controversies is removed, re-inserted and then removed again. The last removal with the explanation: "inappropriate categorization"
The above is not an exhaustive summary of all changes made to the article, but it is complete in my view in displaying any controversial editing that has taken place. __meco 10:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)