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

[_MCB]

Notice it has been just you and me on this thread lately?

Looks like I have a lot more to read while waiting for Daniel Schacter's books.

What do you think about Shook's belief that Conneaut Manuscript Found never made its way back to Matilda Spalding, and she allowed Hurlbut to take Oberlin Manuscript Story? That they destroyed Conneaut Manuscript Found as they worked?

[_Uncle Dale]

Notice it has been just you and me on this thread lately?

What can the Mormons say, when the topic turns to Oliver Cowdery
and his association with the coming forth of the Book of Mormon?
The LDS dogma on that point is set in stone.

And, I suppose that the Brodieite dogma is equally set in concrete:
Oliver could not have contributed to the text, because Smith MUST
have created it all himself. To admit even a chapter from Oliver
would open the door to OTHER possible non-Smith contributions.

What do you think about Shook's belief that Conneaut Manuscript Found never made its way back to Matilda Spalding, and she allowed Hurlbut to take Oberlin Manuscript Story? That they destroyed Conneaut Manuscript Found as they worked?

I'm fairly convinced that the widow brought a finished manuscript,
ready for publication, to Patterson at the end of 1816, before she
packed up and left for New York. Assuming Patterson was correct
in his memory of returning a Spalding manuscript for the second
time, I suppose that the widow left Pennsylvania in about 1817
with a copy of the notorious "Manuscript Found."

Whether or not there was another, earlier draft copy in Spalding's
handwriting, left to gather dust on some Pittsburgh office shelf, I
know not. I think it more likely that the young Sidney Rigdon made
some hand-copied excerpts from Spalding's writings and later
incorporated those excerpts into his own stacks of notes, etc.

As for the text Cowdery and Smith had in front of them in 1829 --
I doubt that they possessed any document from Spalding's pen.
More likely they were given a production from Sidney Rigdon, to
which Cowdery was allowed to make suitable additions, along with
some insertions from Smith. Spalding's contribution would thus
have only survived in Rigdon's (and Pratt's?) copy-work.

However, such an Ur-text would necessarily have been destroyed --
perhaps a chapter at a time -- after its contents had been
finalized in the dictation/transcription process. Anything left in
Smith's possession after the fall of 1829 could not have contained
handwriting from any other source than his ostensible "scribes."

I do suppose that Smith's inability to reproduce the "Book of Lehi"
came as a result of BOTH the original document and the dictated
version (in Martin's handwriting) being unavailable to him. The
easiest explanation for that problem is that it occurred because
the "Book of Lehi" pages had been destroyed about as quickly as
they were re-copied in the dictation to Martin Harris.

UD

[_MCB]

Seems reasonable. My hypothesis is that the widow Spalding knew that Rigdon was the one who had stolen it, because of her husband's accusations. She was finally successful in getting that copy back, not knowing that Rigdon had already used it in concocting his own version. Which Cowdery took to Smith, and they in their turn made their own adaptations, and destroyed Rigdon's adaptation as they went.

Shook's hypothesis is simpler, but the Geyauga county committee did see Conneaut Manuscript Found, and did see the parallels with the Book of Mormon.

Reading Prophet of Palmyra right now. Seems like Gregg was angrier for that book than he was while writing History of Hancock County. It is not available at Google. Incomplete at your website. I assume that this is because of duplication from other sources?

[_Uncle Dale]

Seems reasonable. My hypothesis is that the widow Spalding knew that Rigdon was the one who had stolen it, because of her husband's accusations. She was finally successful in getting that copy back, not knowing that Rigdon had already used it in concocting his own version. Which Cowdery took to Smith, and they in their turn made their own adaptations, and destroyed Rigdon's adaptation as they went.

Shook's hypothesis is simpler, but the Geyauga county committee did see Conneaut Manuscript Found, and did see the parallels with the Book of Mormon.

Reading Prophet of Palmyra right now. Seems like Gregg was angrier for that book than he was while writing History of Hancock County. It is not available at Google. Incomplete at your website. I assume that this is because of duplication from other sources?

I just never got around to copying and pasting the text from here:
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query ... Palmyra%22

UD

[_marg]

Post reference: link


Glenn,

but I can show you a Book of Mormon that is not about the lost tribes.

I did a search of the Book of Mormon and “lost tribes” was mentioned 3 times, of that twice in one sentence. On page 500 and on page 2098. So what else in the Book of Mormon would indicate that Lehi and family were not descended from the lost tribes? In other words what was it about the story that makes it obvious the characters could not have any association the mythical storyline of the lost tribes?

I am not concerned about "exactly the same thing" except for the fact that several of the witnesses used the same exact phrases. But only the Hurbut witnesses.

What is it about exact phrases that bothers you? Obviously the Conneaut witnesses were aware that their statements would be read by others. When looking at their statements I notice similarities in their descriptions of what Spalding’s book was about. John Spalding said “first settlers of America”, Martha Spalding said “founded upon the first settlers of America” Oliver Smith said “founded upon the first settlers of this country”, Oliver Smith said “account of the inhabitants once in this country, Aron Wright said “first settlers of America, John Miller said “it purported to be a history of the settlement of America, before discovered by Columbus” Artemis Cunningham said “of the first settlers of this country… account of the first inhabitants of America”. Are you suggesting that they are lying? That they are simply copying the first person who suggested it was about first settlers to America? And if Hurlbut was putting words in their mouths why was he putting “lost Tribes” into their heads?

As far as the other witnesses and your concerns of “why didn't Josiah Spalding, Matilda Spalding Davison (the widow), Matilda McKinstry (the daughter), Redick McKee, and Joseph Miller have those same recollections?” could you be more explicit. I’ve addressed Josiah Spaulding and that he was in contact with his brother before he began the second manuscript Manuscript Found. I don’t see anything in the other witnesses statements that conflict with the Conneaut witnesses and indicate faulty memory or lying.


Redick McKee:.
He doesn’t say he has read or looked at the Book of Mormon, so it would be understandable that many of the details such as names he would not recall with no retrieval cue as the Conneaut witnesses had. So that answers your question why he didn’t say he recalled names. Generally people can remember information long term that they can visualize and or relate to themselves and their knowledge. So when we look at what Redick remembers of the story he doesn’t offer many details. I believe he takes it back a little bit further in time than what the Conneaut witnesses say it began at. He says it began with tribes inhabiting Canaan, before that country was invaded by the Israelites. So perhaps Spalding wrote more after leaving Conneaut and took the story back further in time than what the Conneaut witnesses were exposed to. And there is the possibility since he’s the only one who’s mentioned this detail that his memory is faulty on this particular item, he's got the general idea but it's a little before the lost tribe time. He does say “I recollect quite well Mr. Spalding spending much time in writing on sheets of paper torn out of an old book, what purported to be a veritable history of the nations or tribes,…. He described with great particularity, their numbers, customs, modes of life, their wars, strategy and, victories, and defeats, etc.” And he also says “I read, or heard him read, many wonderful and amusing passages in different parts of his professed historical records;”
So if we look at what he remembers its for the most part pretty general, virtually no details, but he gives a general description. And the purpose of his tatement is to support Mr. Miller’s statement, which he had recently read and relay what information he could remember. He notes that he doesn’t remember the detail which Mr. Miller remembered of the Amelekites making a cross with red paint on their foreheads. But he points out that despite not remembering that the manuscript had “equally ludicrous descriptions”.

Redick McKee statement is consistent with memory studies which point out that details typically are forgotten long-term though they can be recalled with appropriate retrieval cues, general information is remembered much longer and especially when it can be visualized and/or associated with the rememberers knowledge.

Joseph Miller:

Wrote in his statement he was given the Book of Mormon and his son was reading it to him and he recollected several passages that he had heard Spalding read. One being “the Amelikites had marked themselves with the red on their foreheads to distinguish them from the Nephites. The thought of being marked on the forehead with red was so strange, it fixed itself in my memory.” When an individual visualizes information it becomes more deeply encoded, and with a retrieval cue it is reasonable why Joseph Miller recalled a passage which for him was visual and memorable.

As far as Spalding’s wife and daughter, what is it they said that contradicts the Conneaut witnesses or that you have a problem with?

It is understandable Glenn that the Conneaut witnesses were shown by Hurlbut previous statements given as an aid to encourage and as well as make it easier for the witnesses to prepare their own statements. That doesn’t mean that when they say they "well recollect" that they are mistaken on that.

This is incorrect in at least two areas. One is that Josiah's statement says that he went to Ohio and stayed with Solomon for a while after the war broke out and their financial calamities began. That would have been the war of 1812

I see nowhere in his statement that he says he stayed with Solomon after the war broke out.

And a noteworthy point is that his description is that of Manuscript Story Conneaut Creek and leaves off where the Manuscript Story Conneaut Creek which resurfaced in 1880 leaves off. But he notes that Spalding’s wife informed him that Solomon had continued his history of the civilized nation and the progress of war until the triumph of the savages to the destruction of the civilized government.

The story is already incoherent enough. Joseph Miller, another Amity witness said not a thing about it. McKee says nothing about the Americas. He changed his story in a later statement also. But who cares if the witnesses are consistent?

Re: Canaan..I discussed this above however, Joesph Miller wrote his statement before R. McKee so there is no reason for him to comment on something that McKee stated. J. Miller doesn’t say in his statement as the Conneaut witnesses did what the general story was about. Instead in his statements he points only a particular details that he notes from the Book of Mormon was in Spalding's book and that he notices there were others, though he doesn't explain which ones. So his statement does not contradict McKee.

As far as McKee saying nothing about the Americas I think you’re nitpicking it’s just an oversight that he likely figured was basic to the storyline. Had Mckee gone into lots of details and then failed to mention that you'd have a point.

Oh yes I am suggesting Hurlbut. Because only the witnesses that Hurlbut contacted came up with those names. That is the point that you do not seem to understand. If the other witnesses had come up with the same type of names and phrases as the ones Hurlbut contacted, there would be less suspicion of witness leading. None of the other witnesses, in their initial statements, talked about Lehi, Nephi, Lamanites, Nephites, "by land and sea" etc. The witnesses contacted by Hurlbut show a uniformity and coherence that hte other witnesses do not

All those witnesses that Hurlbut took statements from said they read or reviewed the Book of Mormon., so as I’ve pointed out before with the retrieval cue of the Book of Mormon it is understandable why some would recollect names that had been used often in Spalding’s book. Joseph Miller’s son read to him passages from the Book of Mormon and he recognized some as Spalding’s and one in particular, he does mention Amelikites. He also may have been aware of Howe’s book and the Conneaut witnesses’ statements and appreciated … that giving details they had already given would not add any value.

Hurlbert likely asked witnesses questions to encourage them and he likely showed them previous statements to also encourage and make it easier for the witnesses. I pointed out previously that if lost tribes is not in the Book of Mormon that would be evidence that Hurlbut was not trying to put words false ideas in the minds or get them to lie. And the fact that he submitted Manuscript Story Conneaut Creek which worked against his plan to expose the Book of Mormon as a conspiracy indicates he wasn’t so devious as to destroy that evidence against his plans.

That is one of the reasons that most historians, pro and con LDS, have dismissed them. Not out of hand, but after analyzing them and the statements made by other witnesses.

The statements are not inconsistent with one another. If they were you’d have a point.

Isn't that exactly what a gist item is? Something that people remember well because it is well encoded? The point is, that none of the witness gave that detail, although the building of the ship is a prominent historical feature. But maybe it wasn't in Solomon's book. Maybe Book of Mormon did have in it "the writings of Solomon Spalding, from beginning to end, but mixed up with scripture and other religious matter, which I did not meet with in the "Manuscript Found." This would more logically explain why there were so few details.

People remember general features easier and generally longer than details. So for example when an entire book is summarized in a few sentences to give the essence of it that’s what I consider a gist memory. The witnesses summarized Spalding’s book in a few sentences in their words. It’s not a matter of it being well encoded it’s a matter of it’s just easier to remember general features as opposed to details. After 20 years recalling details would be difficult and only after being cued well would they likely remember details.

marge, I pointed out inconsistencies that were either inaccurate recollections or lies. It does not matter which one as to the accuracy of their statements.

I don’t find anything that you pointed out so far to come even close to being justifiable reasons to dismiss any of the Spalding witnesses statements. First there were the attacks on their memories and in essence those doing the attacking have little appreciation of how memory works and what the memory studies do say. You’ve tried to attack their statements based on inconsistencies but you’ve not shown how any of the witnesses statements contradict one another. And as far as “lost Tribes” you've not explained how absent those few sentences containing the words “lost Tribes” in the Book of Mormon why the characters could not be fairly recent descendents of the mythical “lost Tribes.” So what is left ...is to accuse them of lying. Yet none of them went out of their way to give statements they were the ones who were approached. They had nothing to gain, they were not anti-Mormon, and if anything giving statements was a hassle and inconvenience to their lives. These witnesses were honest, intelligent, respected citizens of the community.

[_Uncle Dale]

...what else in the Book of Mormon would indicate that Lehi and family were not descended from the lost tribes?
...

Perhaps the fact (?) that their scriptures, brought to America on
plates of brass, were called "the stick of Judah" and represented
the religion of the Jews.

The biblical text does not mention "Jews" until after the Exile, in
times when the northern tribes had disappeared, save for a
Samaritan offshoot.

I've even heard Mormons speak of the Lehites as "Jews."

No doubt Glenn can clear up this oddity for us, however.

UD

[_marg]

My knowledge of the Bible is minimal so it's difficult for me to make heads or tails of this "lost tribes" issue.

Dale, I did a search in the Book of Mormon to see if I could find any mention of "stick of Judah or Emphraim" . Couldn’t find anything. Then I did a search on the Net to find something on this to try to get an understanding of what you are talking about.

I came upon this site http://www.bible-truth.org/twostick.htm which I’ll summarize.

- Stick of Ephraim and Judah mentioned in Bible not in Book of Mormon

The word of the LORD came again unto me, saying, Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and [for] all the house of Israel his companions: And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand. (Ezekiel 37:15-17)

- The Hebrew word translated "stick" in Ezekiel 37 is pronounced "ets" and is translated in the Old Testament by ten different English words: 1) gallows, 2) helve, 3) plank, 4) staff, 5) stalk, 6) stick, 7) stock, 8) timber, 9) tree, 10) wood. "Ets" is never translated "roll," "scroll," "book," "record," "parchment," "plate," or "papyri."

- Ezekiel 37:15-17 speaks of one stick for Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: and another stick for Joseph, the stick of Ephraim. Even if we were to accept the idea that the sticks referred to by Ezekiel are books, still the Book of Mormon could not fulfill this prophecy. To fulfill this prophecy the Nephites (who supposedly wrote the Book of Mormon) would have to be descendants of Joseph through his son EPHRAIM (Ezek. 37:16).

- The Book of Mormon could not fulfill this prophecy.
- To fulfill this prophecy the Nephites (who supposedly wrote the Book of Mormon) would have to be descendants of Joseph through his son EPHRAIM (Ezek. 37:16). The Book of Mormon, however, teaches otherwise.

And Aminadi was a descendant of Nephi, who was the son of Lehi, who came out of the land of Jerusalem who was a descendant of MANASSEH, who was the son of Joseph who was sold into Egypt by the hands of his brethren" (Alma 10:3).

Ok so given the above and that Lehi is a descendant of Manasseh (according to the Book of Mormon), isn’t Manasseh a descendant of Joseph which is one of the “lost tribes”?

Also correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Manasseh only mentioned once in the entire Book of Mormon?

[_MCB]

"Ets" is never translated "roll," "scroll," "book," "record," "parchment," "plate," or "papyri."

However, Natives of North America used sticks in various ways, using menomics, to encode messages. For example, Tecumseh's and Tenskawatawa's "missionaries" used them to recruit tribes for their "jihad," and the Walam Olum was also encoded on sticks.

[_marg]

"Ets" is never translated "roll," "scroll," "book," "record," "parchment," "plate," or "papyri."

However, Natives of North America used sticks in various ways, using menomics, to encode messages. For example, Tecumseh's and Tenskawatawa's "missionaries" used them to recruit tribes for their "jihad," and the Walam Olum was also encoded on sticks.

Well that's how totem poles were used isn't it? The carved out pictures represented stories which were past down through the generations.


But the Book of Mormon was not supposedly put on sticks, it was supposedly engraved word by word in "reformed egyptican" whatever that looks like...onto metal plates .

[Bedlamite]

My knowledge of the Bible is minimal so it's difficult for me to make heads or tails of this "lost tribes" issue.

Dale, I did a search in the Book of Mormon to see if I could find any mention of "stick of Judah or Emphraim" . Couldn’t find anything. Then I did a search on the Net to find something on this to try to get an understanding of what you are talking about.

I came upon this site http://www.bible-truth.org/twostick.htm which I’ll summarize.

- Stick of Ephraim and Judah mentioned in Bible not in Book of Mormon

The word of the LORD came again unto me, saying, Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and [for] all the house of Israel his companions: And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand. (Ezekiel 37:15-17)

- The Hebrew word translated "stick" in Ezekiel 37 is pronounced "ets" and is translated in the Old Testament by ten different English words: 1) gallows, 2) helve, 3) plank, 4) staff, 5) stalk, 6) stick, 7) stock, 8) timber, 9) tree, 10) wood. "Ets" is never translated "roll," "scroll," "book," "record," "parchment," "plate," or "papyri."

Biblically speaking, such a "stick" would likely have been a "staff,"
which connotes royal or tribal-chief authority. It would not be a
set of metallic plates.

However, Mormons interpret the "brass plates of Laban" to have
been just such a metaphorical "stick" as the "golden plates." This
doctrine is superimposed over the actual wording of the Book of
Mormon -- but it fits so well as to likely have been a doctrine
brought forth as the same time the book was (1830).

- Ezekiel 37:15-17 speaks of one stick for Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: and another stick for Joseph, the stick of Ephraim. Even if we were to accept the idea that the sticks referred to by Ezekiel are books, still the Book of Mormon could not fulfill this prophecy. To fulfill this prophecy the Nephites (who supposedly wrote the Book of Mormon) would have to be descendants of Joseph through his son EPHRAIM (Ezek. 37:16).

- The Book of Mormon could not fulfill this prophecy.
- To fulfill this prophecy the Nephites (who supposedly wrote the Book of Mormon) would have to be descendants of Joseph through his son EPHRAIM (Ezek. 37:16). The Book of Mormon, however, teaches otherwise.

And Aminadi was a descendant of Nephi, who was the son of Lehi, who came out of the land of Jerusalem who was a descendant of MANASSEH, who was the son of Joseph who was sold into Egypt by the hands of his brethren" (Alma 10:3).

Mormons I've encountered state that there was an admixture of
Ephraimite bloodline either through Lehi's wife, or through the
joining of the Mulekites with the Nephites, later in the history.
I've also heard it said that the "stick of Ephraim" refers to the
scriptures intended FOR Ephraimite descendants (LDS) whose
ancestral bloodlines are discerned in patriarchal blessings. Either
way, a major purpose of the Book of Mormon is to fulfill the
promises made to Ephraim in the Bible -- thus "stick of Ephraim."

Ok so given the above and that Lehi is a descendant of Manasseh (according to the Book of Mormon), isn’t Manasseh a descendant of Joseph which is one of the “lost tribes”?

Also correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Manasseh only mentioned once in the entire Book of Mormon?

Yes, only once, outside of Isaiah: the implication is that Amulek was
a direct descendant of Lehi, a Manassehite. Since membership in
an Israelite tribe was passed down through the Mother, it remains
possible that Amulek was an Ephraimite (if Lehi's wife was one).
That is, if one accepts the Nephite FANTASY as fact.

UD