Response to Jockers, Criddle, et al., Now Available

[_Uncle Dale]

...
At least we have developed a scenario with the Conneaut witnesses that explains some of the inconsistencies, although their most basic observations, I believe, were correct.

I have yet to see our critics point out a single item in those 1833
witnesses' statements which is demonstrably false. You may recall
that Robert and Rosemary Brown attempted to publish such falsehoods,
but failed. -- http://solomonspalding.com/Lib/Brn1984b.htm

LDS writer Richard I. Winwood also attempted to prove the 1833
statements false, but again that attempt failed.


http://solomonspalding.com/Lib/winw1995.htm

The "basic observations" of the 8 witnesses published in the Howe book
include their names, personal facts, periods of residence near Spalding,
etc. Evidently their memories of this information is no longer subject
to question, and we will see no more attacks along the lines pushed by
the Browns and Winwood.

I'm prepared to admit that SOME of the information supplied by those
8 witnesses may be wrong. I'll leave it to others to PROVE them wrong.

Assuming that at least a few of the assertions in the Howe book's
statements are true, I believe that additional research will tend to
support those truths. In other words, my contention is that we folks
who support the conclusion of a 19th century multiple authorship have
nothing to fear from modern investigation of historical sources. Nor do
I suppose that new textual discoveries will prove us wrong.

If our goal is to ascertain historical truths, we should be prepared to
accept (and build upon) any new discoveries. We should welcome any
new perspectives offered regarding the composition and coming forth
of texts such as the Book of Mormon, Book of Moses, etc. I honestly
believe that all additional evidence brought forth in the months and
years to come will support the 19th century multiple authorship claims.
The part played by Rigdon and others in that multiple authorship is
a minor factor, far less important than the multiple authorship itself.

UD

[_GlennThigpen]

Glenn, I note that you choose to oppose anything that I write, and particularly your interpretation of my meaning. Cows eat straw men. People should ignore them.

Dale, excellent post.

MCB, I see no interpretation of your meaning in my post. I asked you to clarify your meaning, which I note that you did not do, nor respond with it's a straw man argument. I did not erect any straw man argument. I only have noted things that the witnesses have said about the theme of Solomon Spalding's story and have noted that no one has provided a coherent reply.

Glenn

[_GlennThigpen]

...
Many readers of the Howe book condemn its proffered information
out of hand -- and then seem to also dismiss all corroborating
evidence surfacing in the years that followed.

...

UD[/quote]

The "corroborating" evidence is second and third hand information with witnesses whose memories grow "better" with age, as with Matilda McKinstry and John Spalding and Redick McKee.

Glenn

[_GlennThigpen]

...
I have yet to see our critics point out a single item in those 1833
witnesses' statements which is demonstrably false.
...

UD

Since we do not have a the alleged second manuscript available, it is difficult to confirm or rebut some of those statements.

But it is demonstrable by reading the Book of Mormon to show that it is not a story of the lost tribes coming from Jerusalem and becoming the ancestors of the American Indians. The Book of Mormon itself denies that in Third Nephi.

The Book of Mormon also is not about the people of Lehi landing near the Straits of Darien, or Zarahemla. John Spalding's statement in 1851 "corroborated" John Miller so well on this aspect of the resemblance, with the added information that Lehi had come to the Americas first, from Chaldea, as the leader of the Jaredites, with Nephi coming much later from Jerusalem.

Yet, the Book of Mormon is supposed to read almost identical to Spalding's "second" manuscript in the historical aspects. as testified by witness after witness.

Glenn

[_Uncle Dale]

...
I have yet to see our critics point out a single item in those 1833
witnesses' statements which is demonstrably false.
...

UD

Since we do not have a the alleged second manuscript available, it is difficult to confirm or rebut some of those statements.

But it is demonstrable by reading the Book of Mormon to show that it is not a story of the lost tribes coming from Jerusalem and becoming the ancestors of the American Indians. The Book of Mormon itself denies that in Third Nephi.

The Book of Mormon also is not about the people of Lehi landing near the Straits of Darien, or Zarahemla. John Spalding's statement in 1851 "corroborated" John Miller so well on this aspect of the resemblance, with the added information that Lehi had come to the Americas first, from Chaldea, as the leader of the Jaredites, with Nephi coming much later from Jerusalem.

Yet, the Book of Mormon is supposed to read almost identical to Spalding's "second" manuscript in the historical aspects. as testified by witness after witness.

Glenn

Show me, with certainty, the manuscript viewed/heard
by Spalding's assocoates and then we can talk about
how well the witnesses' match with the "Book of Lehi."

That issue aside, I've noticed that the Mormons and
their Gentile "Smith-alone" allies are not bringing forth
much in the way of new historical sources. Perhaps
such students of history believe that the matter has
been settled, once and for all.

I recall reading Fawn Brodie back in about 1956, and
even then feeling that the whole story of Mormon origins
was not being told. The Smith-alone advocates do not
seem to have added much at all to our store of evidence.
No doubt they sympathize with Brodie's mistrust of
affidavits and authorship testimony. As for the Mormons,
they've done a bit better -- at least they now assure
us that the book had multiple authors. They even admit
that Oliver Cowdery may have "translated" Alma 45:22.

I place my hopes upon Mormon pioneers like Skousen in
our investigation of how the Book of Mormon text came
together. I do not suppose that the Smith-alone advocates
will uncover a single new historical source or textual
discovery.

As for the secular 19th century multiple authorship proponents,
I trust that they will continue to uncover old historical sources,
such as previously unreported letters to the editors of old
newspapers, etc. Perhaps we shall see some more of those
discoveries announced in the next few months.

UD

[_MCB]

As for the secular 19th century multiple authorship proponents,
I trust that they will continue to uncover old historical sources,
such as previously unreported letters to the editors of old
newspapers, etc. Perhaps we shall see some more of those
discoveries announced in the next few months.

There is nothing new under the sun, in some areas, at least. Just a renewal of the old, as more evidence accumulates. What was thrown in the dust-heap, or worthy of disappearing from libraries, becomes MORE available than ever,
http://books.google.com/

[_GlennThigpen]

...
I have yet to see our critics point out a single item in those 1833
witnesses' statements which is demonstrably false.
...

UD

Since we do not have a the alleged second manuscript available, it is difficult to confirm or rebut some of those statements.

But it is demonstrable by reading the Book of Mormon to show that it is not a story of the lost tribes coming from Jerusalem and becoming the ancestors of the American Indians. The Book of Mormon itself denies that in Third Nephi.

The Book of Mormon also is not about the people of Lehi landing near the Straits of Darien, or Zarahemla. John Spalding's statement in 1851 "corroborated" John Miller so well on this aspect of the resemblance, with the added information that Lehi had come to the Americas first, from Chaldea, as the leader of the Jaredites, with Nephi coming much later from Jerusalem.

Yet, the Book of Mormon is supposed to read almost identical to Spalding's "second" manuscript in the historical aspects. as testified by witness after witness.

Glenn

Show me, with certainty, the manuscript viewed/heard
by Spalding's assocoates and then we can talk about
how well the witnesses' match with the "Book of Lehi."

UD

It is difficult to show anything about an alleged manuscript that no one has found and which seems to be more of the mythical variety. The Book of Lehi is a non-issue. No one knows what actually was in it, but it supposedly was a retelling of the Nephi story from Lehi's perspective.

In any event, the 1830 Book of Mormon is the book that the witnesses compared to the alleged second manuscript and declared to be the same as Solomon's story in the historical aspects.

The two verifiable discrepancies are still there.

Just a thought. I have no way of verifying this, but it is doubtful that Solomon Spalding would have brought his lost tribes from Jerusalem as the witnesses are wont to say. As a superannuated clergyman, Solomon would have been aware that the lost tribes were not in Jerusalem, but had been carried away to parts of Assyria. That is may be why John Spalding changed his story later to have Lehi come from Chaldea rather than Jerusalem. It still shows that John read very little of the Book of Mormon and his changing story line were more probably due to conversations about the Book of Mormon and Solomon's romance than to any actual knowledge of either.

Glenn

[_Uncle Dale]

...
John read very little of the Book of Mormon
...

That is entirely possible. In 1832-33 he and his wife were
living in Crawford County, PA, at some distance from the Mormon
missionary activity. D.P. Hurlbut is the only Mormon elder known
to have preached as far afield from Kirtland as John's residence,
and we have no record of the Book of Mormon being sold there.

When Samuel H. Smith and Orson Hyde passed through Conneaut
early in 1832, their journals indicate that they sold two copies of
the Book of Mormon in that area, before passing on to the east.

It may well be that those two initial copies of the text were the
only Mormon books available to the Conneaut residents for quite
a period of time. A copy belonging to Aron Wright was donated to
a library in Pittsburgh during the 19th century -- but it is uncertain
whether he purchased his Book of Mormon from Hyde and Smith in
1832, or whether he acquired it at some later date.



From the inscription in his handwriting on page 590, an 1832 date
appears at least plausible.


If John Spalding made it up north to Conneaut, he might possibly have
perused Wright's copy of the book. Another possibility is that he saw
a copy being used by Hurlbut in Crawford County, back while Hurlbut
was still a Mormon missionary.

http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/saga2/As ... m#1830page

At any rate, I would expect that John and Martha's statements --
which were evidently taken in June/July 1833 -- might have been
based upon a casual reading of the Book of Mormon, and without
much consultation among their old neighbors, like Aron Wright.

UD

[_Uncle Dale]

...it is doubtful that Solomon Spalding would have brought his lost tribes from Jerusalem as the witnesses are wont to say.
...

I addressed this topic earlier in the thread -- so you can go back
and look at the posting where I spoke of King Josiah's "Great Passover"
in which a remnant of the northerners living under Assyrian occupation
were invited to make the short journey down to Jerusalem.

A departure by a few dozen northerners at this time would have been
a logical and reasonable way for them to have escaped the Assyrians
AND to have escaped Josiah's imposition of his version of religion upon
the "idolatrous" northerners.

Had Spalding seized upon this historical opportunity, he could have
developed a manageable storyline, bringing a few northerners to
the New World, without having to write a story with a cast of
thousands of ancient characters. Such a plot would also have allowed
him to depict these northerners, escaping from the land of Jerusalem,
as a relatively "non-religious" people, in a non-religious story.

Getting back to recent research on the Book of Mormon itself,
what two or three discoveries published by the Smith-alone folks
would you say best support their authorship theory? I can think
of nothing new that they are offering for our study.

UD

[_MCB]

Since we do not have Spalding's manuscript, or the 116 pages, we really can't say how closely the witnesses' statements match the text of either.

Again, not having Spalding's manuscript, we are forced to look for themes and parallels in the literature to which people in that area and era had access. And there are plenty of such parallels, for someone who is motivated to look.


(I love the expression "area and era" if you haven't noticed.)

Dale said:

At any rate, I would expect that John and Martha's statements --
which were evidently taken in June/July 1833 -- might have been
based upon a casual reading of the Book of Mormon, and without
much consultation among their old neighbors, like Aron Wright.

Thank you