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

[_GlennThigpen]

Dan, Spalding did not write the Book of Mormon. And we don't know exactly what was in the book he wrote. But the witnesses were describing something that was NOT Oberlin Manuscript story.

If you take out the Book of Mormon names, their description fits the Oberlin manuscript as well they do the Book of Mormon, or maybe even the View of the Hebrews when you throw in the lost tribes story. Essentially what the witnesses contacted by Hurlbut were describing is a mishmash from different sources, i.e. lost tribes discussions, Spalding's only known story, and the Book of Mormon.

I don’t see the Book of Mormon as an academic production--imaginative, creative, poetic, certainly, but not academic.

However, there were many sources which point to an academic author from whom Joseph Smith & Co. borrowed. And Spalding is the most logical choice.

The evidence that has propounded for the existence of a second manuscript is so tenuous as to be 99 percent imagination. Contradictions have been pointed out in the time lines by different witnesses as well as problems with the information provided by the witnesses when compared with what is actually in the Book of Mormon.
Wade Englund, in a critique of The Spalding Enigma and in relation to the "Manuscript Found" of myth quoted a little poem from Ogden Nash.

Yesterday upon the stair,
I met a man who wasn't there.
He wasn't there again today.
Gee, I wish he'd go away.

Seems to be an apt description of the alleged second manuscript.

Glenn

[_marg]

Maybe you should slow down and only answer when you have time.

Well I'm not rushing through your entire previous post, I am focusing in on one area. Have you ever heard of the "swiss cheese method"?

Whether you see it or not, your theory is contradicted by the evidence. The witnesses said they remembered Spalding’s MS explained the origin of the Indians,

correct

that they were descended from the lost tribes,

Well a few of the lost tribes and not directly from the entire original lost tribes fut a few people who descended from the original.

and that the Book of Mormon was the same as Spalding’s MS.

the historical part the same. But I know what reading the Book of Mormon is like, and I put myself in their shoes, so when they say the same historically or in part historically or almost the same..I think they mean in key respects based on the parts they read...such as the part of a few people migrating to America and being descendants of tribe of Joseph, such as a few of the battles, such as particular names. I don't think they had any interest in carefully studying or devouring every word of the Book of Mormon..but rather their interest was in identifying key areas which matched and once they saw a few such as names, phrasing, biblical language, some battles..they believed it agreed essentially for the most part historically.

The problem is that Lehi wasn’t descended from the lost tribes, because they were gone into a far-away country “where never mankind dwelt” a hundred years before he was born.

I see, so what you are saying is they assumed the Book of Mormon was about the lost tribes story..because according to the Book of Mormon ...the characters went to a place where "never mankind dwelt" and America would seem a logical place and in their day that was a common speculation for the "lost tribes".

It seems possible to me, that Spalding didn't adhere to the Lost Tribes theory in all respects, but changed it to have only a few descendants of lost tribes migrate to America and their descendants be Am Indians. You are expecting Spalding to have adhered to a myth in all respects..I don't see that as a necessity.

Whatever is in the Book of Mormon is irrelevant, witnesses were recalling Spalding's book. And if you are right, then there was no reason for the witnesses to mention "lost tribes" based on exposure to the Book of Mormon.

You contradict yourself here. How can the content of the Book of Mormon be irrelevant when your witnesses are testifying it was the same as Spalding’s MS? Either the witnesses are accurately recalling Spalding’s MS, and therefore it was not like the Book of Mormon, or they are mistaken about Spalding’s MS, and therefore can’t be relied on anyway. More likely, the witnesses’ memories were tainted by what they thought the Book of Mormon was about based on popular misconceptions about its contents.

In answer to your first question, because the Book of Mormon itself, specifically says Lost tribes lived elsewhere and there is only a brief mention of lost tribes throughout the book. In addition if the witnesses are supposed to be familiar with the lost tribes myth, then they wouldn't have assumed that Lehi and family, a small group who migrate to America in 600 BC... and that information is easy to pick up in the Book of Mormon's first few pages ...could possibly be a historical explanation of the lost tribe myth commonly accepted and understood, since Lehi and co as you say lived in 600 B.C. in Jerusalem.."not in a far away place". So apparently they do not know the "lost tribe myth" in all its detailed respects enough to appreciate the Book of Mormon does not jive with it, or the myth in all respects was not used by Spalding... but none-the-less his explanation for Am. Indians is that they were descendants as far as blood lines go to a few lost tribe descendants.

Even in the Book of Mormon it mentions Lehi is a descendent of the tribe of Joseph..and that is a lost tribe. So I fail to see why Spalding couldn't have written the same, and the witnesses understood that to be a story that American Indians are descended ultimately from a blood line of lost tribe ancestry.

The ten tribe theory is based on the passage in Esdras, which says they traveled over land and water for a year and a half into a far-away region, and eventually into a land called Arsareth. What actually happened and what legend says happened can be separate things. Even when the Book of Mormon rejects the ten tribe theory of Indian origins, it maintains the legend by having them in an unexplored region of the earth. The question for you is: why would Spalding reference the ten tribe theory for Indian origins, but then depart from the passage that inspired the theory in the first place?

Well the person or persons reworking Spalding's manscript saw the problem with Spalding's story and being believers couldn't accept a story which didn't jive with the Bible, so that may have bothered them, that his story deviated from the Bible and they adjusted it easily by placing a few lines in the Book of Mormon mentioning "lost tribes" lived elsewhere. But Spalding was writing his own fictional history, wasn't a Bible believer, and didn't have to adhere to the lost tribe myth exactly. Once the Lost tribes dispersed according to the mythical story and something which most christians would have accepted..where they went no one knew according to the story ..so a fiction writer could place them anywhere and create any story and ultimate scenario for them.

McKee also made his statement much later than the other witnesses. A more likely explanation is that the witnesses were confusing both the Book of Mormon and Spalding’s MS with the ten tribe theory. In other words, they believed the Book of Mormon was about the lost tribes and that corrupted their memories about Spalding’s MS, which wasn’t about the ten tribes either.

The Book of Mormon doesn't mention Am. Indian, has a few mentions of lost tribes living elsewhere within the book, has a few people living in Jerusalem in 600 B.C. who migrate to America and that is in the first few pages. Why should they assume the Book of Mormon is about the lost tribe myth?

Yes Mckee made his statement later. When spalding left the conneaut witnesses he was still working on the story. If he had a history of working backwards time-wise in the storyline, that is he started off with MSCC and took the historical story back further in time, it seems reasonable, that he might take it back further in time to 720 B.C. as McKee describes. So it's conceivable the witnesses in Conneaut were only exposed to a story involving a small group in around 600 B.C. descendants of some lost tribes who migrate to America. by the way..this may account for why some of them may be unsure...whether it was lost tribes, jews, lost nation...because Spalding's story differed to the lost tribe myth in some respects. So therefore in confusing their knowledge of Lost tribes myth versus Spalding's would be confusable with time. But there is no reason for the Book of Mormon to create any confusion since the Book of Mormon doesn't mention lost tribes migrating en masse to America.

The Apocrypha was included in Bibles at Joseph Smith’s time, but was being questioned and eventually removed. What I’m saying here is what I said above when I asked the question: why would Spalding reference the ten tribe theory for Indian origins, but then depart from the passage that inspired the theory in the first place? The authority for believing the Indians were descended from the ten tribes was the passage in Esdras. If Spalding wrote in this genre, he would not have chosen a southern migration a hundred years later. Joseph Smith could do that, but Spalding wouldn’t have, that is, if he wrote in the ten tribe genre.

In response to "but then depart from the passage that inspired the theory in the first place" ..the question is why would he stick to the myth in all respects? How would he write a story explaining who the Am. Indians were and have it be based on millions migrating to America in 720 B.C. or even 600 B.C. and it being a satire of the Bible in which belief in God is what morals boil down to? It would be easier to focus on a small group landing in America..personalize those characters and expand on them. Make the morals boil down to belief in God..the good guys white and believers in God, the bad guys the non-believers who God turns dark skinned. If he brought the millions to America and then focused on only a few he could not whittle those few down to 2 groups fighting each other and then the dark skinned one surviving because the millions would be spread across the Americas. By having a small group, he can easily divide them easily into groups at the beginning...light skinned ones descending from one person..Nephi and dark skinned from another Laman..with the dark skinned ones being the ultimate survivors..being Am. Indians.

[_marg]

Marg, you are depending too much on the witnesses to Spalding's manuscript. There are too many reasons to be skeptical about them. In the context of the whole picture, they are validated, but by themselves, they are actually quite flimsy. That is one complaint that I have about both sides (or all sides) of the argument; people tend to hone in on just one aspect, rather than taking the gestalt.

What I'm interested in is your take on the "lost tribes" issue. I'm told (at least I think so) that people back then understood the lost tribes myth to be about the millions of dispersed Israelites in 720 B.C. of Northern Israel..dispersing en masse in the millions to some far away land. And for some reason I'm told, though I don't understand or follow their reasoning..but Spalding would not have deviated from that mythical story. Consequently Spalding would not have had a small group migrate to America and then refer to them as descendents of some lost tribes. Consequently the witnesses could not be recalling Spalding's story but must have assumed the Book of Mormon was about the traditional lost tribes myth even though that's not what the Book of Mormon is about..but in their confusion and misunderstanding are recalling a storyline for Spalding's book based upon their misunderstanding of what the Book of Mormon is about. Whew!!!!

Is any of this making sense to you. Anyhow...I fail to see why spalding must adhere to some traditional mythical story. And I fail to see how the witnesses could possibly be confusing the Book of Mormon as being this story if it also does jive with the traditional lost tribe myth theory.

So maybe you can shed some insights of your own on this..because according to Glenn and Dan, this appears to be a deal breaker to them..and I'm at a loss because I don't see a problem that they do.

[_MCB]

Glenn and Finrock;

I am working this out on my own. Please refrain from telling me what to believe. Right now I am working out a middle ground between Dale and Dan. That is demanding enough in itself.

Finrock;
Your adversarial approach is not appropriate for the Celestial room.

Glenn;
As always, I appreciate your approach. Not all LDS are alike.

[_marg]

Glenn;
As always, I appreciate your approach. Not all LDS are alike.

I like Glenn's approach as well, at no time have I ever seen him resort to condescension.

[_GlennThigpen]

What I'm interested in is your take on the "lost tribes" issue. I'm told (at least I think so) that people back then understood the lost tribes myth to be about the millions of dispersed Israelites in 720 B.C. of Northern Israel..dispersing en masse in the millions to some far away land. And for some reason I'm told, though I don't understand or follow their reasoning..but Spalding would not have deviated from that mythical story. Consequently Spalding would not have had a small group migrate to America and then refer to them as descendents of some lost tribes. Consequently the witnesses could not be recalling Spalding's story but must have assumed the Book of Mormon was about the traditional lost tribes myth even though that's not what the Book of Mormon is about..but in their confusion and misunderstanding are recalling a storyline for Spalding's book based upon their misunderstanding of what the Book of Mormon is about. Whew!!!!

Is any of this making sense to you. Anyhow...I fail to see why spalding must adhere to some traditional mythical story. And I fail to see how the witnesses could possibly be confusing the Book of Mormon as being this story if it also does jive with the traditional lost tribe myth theory.

So maybe you can shed some insights of your own on this..because according to Glenn and Dan, this appears to be a deal breaker to them..and I'm at a loss because I don't see a problem that they do.

marge, I think that it would help your understanding of the lost tribes issue if you were to talk to a few Christian theologians not connected with this discussion. Christians that are steeped in the lost tribes saga recognize what is normally meant by a lost tribes story. I would wager that just about any divinity trained Christian minister today understand that story pretty much as did the people of Solomon's era, with the exception that they most do not entertain the idea that the lost tribes are ancestors of the American Indians.

There have been discussions about that scenario on both sides of the Atlantic since some time in the 1600's. Spalding may or may not have held that viewpoint. If that unsigned letter that was found with the Oberlin Manuscript is indeed from Solomon's pen, there is much doubt as to his views on the subject, which only injects another aura of uncertainty to the mix.

Dan is no longer a professing Christian, but was raised in a culture that teaches about the lost tribes quite a bit. That is why he rejects the statements of those witnesses who averred that Solomon's story was about the lost tribes migrating to America and becoming the ancestors of the American Indians, yet also aver that the Book of Mormon and Solomon's story read almost identically as to the historical parts.

This post is not pressing the argument, only trying to maybe help you to understand the perspective that a Methodist, a Presbyterian, a Baptist, a Congregationalist, etc. would have on the subject today and probably even more strongly during Solomon's time. It is not how logical or illogical it may be, it is about what most Christians of the era would have believed and understood.

Glenn

[_marg]

vague references to the lost tribes

I need to be more specific when communicating with you. The Spalding text, (and also the Book of Mormon) was not specifically and accurately referring to the lost tribes, because that is not what the core story is about. It only brought in the subject because it was the theory then current, and had some similarities with the story of the lost Hebrew tribes. The witnesses could encode that, because it was what they were familiar with. Therefore, the recurring statements about lost tribes.

So I just noticed this post of yours MCB. I'm not sure who you are talking to. In any event...I would agree with you that the core of Spalding's story was not the "lost tribes" based upon the witnesses statements ..in that they didn't appear to think it was the core of the story.

On wiki it says in the lost tribe section the following:

"Furthermore, 2 Chronicles 30:1-11 explicitly mentions northern Israelites who had been spared by the Assyrians in particular members of Dan, Ephraim, Manasseh, Asher and Zebulun and how members of the latter three returned to worship at the Temple in Jerusalem at that time.

The Book of Tobit additionally records that Sargon had taken other captives from the northern kingdom to the Assyrian capital of Nineveh, in particular Tobit from the town of Thisbe in Naphtali.

In medieval Rabbinic fable the concept of the ten tribes who were taken away from the House of David (who continued the rule of the southern kingdom of Judah) becomes confounded with accounts of the Assyrian deportations leading to the myth of the "Ten Lost Tribes". The recorded history differs from this fable: No record exists of the Assyrians having exiled people from Dan, Asher, Issachar, Zebulun or western Manasseh. Descriptions of the deportation of people from Reuben, Gad, Manasseh in Gilead, Ephraim and Naphtali indicate that only a portion of these tribes were deported and the places to which they were deported are known locations given in the accounts. The deported communities are mentioned as still existing at the time of the composition of the books of Kings and Chronicles and did not wholly disappear by assimilation into the Assyrian populace, although a portion may have."

>>

"Some evidence exists of a continuing identification in later centuries of individual Jews to the Lost Tribes. For example, in Luke 2:36 of the New Testament, an individual is identified with the tribe of Asher. In recent years many group have claimed descent from these Lost Tribes, some of which have been upheld by Israel's rabbinic authorities."

-----

So Spalding studied the Bible and history associated and ...and based on Luke 2:36 of the N. T. alone...he could have assumed in his fiction that a few descendants of lost tribes migrated to American ..and his story would be consistent with the Bible/ N. T. and would still be consistent with the witnesses who say his story was about Am Ind descending from a few of the lost tribes..at least for those witnesses who stated that in their statements.

The 8 conneaut witnesses on the whole may have had some confusion because they would have to remember what spalding's story was about and might have confused some aspects of his story with the Lost tribe myth..and so in recall would have difficulty in remembering..was it Jews who migrated or lost tribes, or lost nation. The confusion they would have is in differentiated their common knowledge from Spalding's story. After 20 years differentiating between the two might be difficult.

[_marg]

marge, I think that it would help your understanding of the lost tribes issue if you were to talk to a few Christian theologians not connected with this discussion.

And yet Glenn I think your problem is that you don't appreciate that a fictional writer like Spalding could possibly deviate to what you assumed most Christians must have accepted as literal history. It's not that his lost tribes story is totally out of whack as a possibility, it's that you can't comprehend how or why he'd changed it in any respect. You don't think he could possibly have written about a fewer descendents of lost tribes migrating to America because you think he must have conformed to the mythical story. But there is no reason why he had to. And if you see my previous post with quotes from wiki apparently even in the Bible there are deviations to the en masse mythical story of all lost tribes migrating to a far away land. So if the Bible can deviate so can Spalding who was well familiar with the Bible.

Now the witnesses might have some confusion as I mentioned previously and difficulty remembering what Spalding's story was versus their common knowledge hence there would be some inconsistencies...was it lost tribes, or Jews , or lost nations...that sort of thing. But there is no reason that the Book of Mormon would create that confusion for them.

That is why he rejects the statements of those witnesses who averred that Solomon's story was about the lost tribes migrating to America and becoming the ancestors of the American Indians, yet also aver that the Book of Mormon and Solomon's story read almost identically as to the historical parts.

They don't say it was all the lost tribes who migrated but rather Lehi and co were descendants of a lost tribes or a few which migrated. And they briefly read the Book of Mormon looking for items which matched spalding...so to them in most respects it would have matched historically if Spalding has a few migrate who were descendents of a few lost tribes, if he divided these people into 2 groups, white and dark skinned, if they fought battles, if phrasing was the same in parts, if biblical style the same...to them the historical parts seemed the same. And frankly I'm not sure where the Book of Mormon would differ. You think it would differ because you don't think it possible that Spalding's story was about a few descendants of lost tribes migrating. And you assume they must be confused and think the Book of Mormon was about lost tribes since it was about people inhabiting a land far away and uninhabited. And yet the Book of Mormon barely makes mention of lost tribes...so then you assume it must be something they've read in a newspaper in which the article was confused. Well I don't think you've explained how Spalding could not have written about a few descendants of lost tribes migrating to America. And I don't think Spalding wrote a serious book of actual history. I think turning people into black being the bad guys and white being the good guys is a give away that it is meant to be a satire of a ridiculous biblical concept and I don't think he felt he was constricted to complying with a myth.

[_Dan Vogel]

MCB,

You said

Again, I stand by the belief that Joseph Smith was not academically qualified to write such a story. And I have plenty of information to substantiate that. It is not a mere assertion.

Now you’re saying

However, there were many sources which point to an academic author from whom Joseph Smith & Co. borrowed. And Spalding is the most logical choice.

You first said Joseph Smith “was not academically qualified”, and I responded that the Book of Mormon was not academic. Now you say “many sources” say an academic author wrote the Book of Mormon. Are these sources Mormon apologists? If so, you have bought their apologetic tricks. However, you confuse this further when you begin by saying “Spalding did not write the Book of Mormon,” then in the next sentence “Spalding is the most logical choice.”

[_GlennThigpen]

And yet Glenn I think your problem is that you don't appreciate that a fictional writer like Spalding could possibly deviate to what you assumed most Christians must have accepted as literal history. It's not that his lost tribes story is totally out of whack as a possibility, it's that you can't comprehend how or why he'd changed it in any respect. You don't think he could possibly have written about a fewer descendents of lost tribes migrating to America because you think he must have conformed to the mythical story. But there is no reason why he had to. And if you see my previous post with quotes from wiki apparently even in the Bible there are deviations to the en masse mythical story of all lost tribes migrating to a far away land. So if the Bible can deviate so can Spalding who was well familiar with the Bible.

marge, I am not talking about what Solomon may or may not have written, or whether he may have deviated from the "standard script". I am talking about the witnesses themselves and what they most likely would have understood about a lost tribes as ancestors of the American Indians story. It would have been easy for them to have vaguely remembered Solomon's story was about two warring tribes of Indians, a boat trip, remembered discussions with Solomon about the lost tribes and interconnected the two. And that would also describe vaguely, the Oberlin manuscript.

Now the witnesses might have some confusion as I mentioned previously and difficulty remembering what Spalding's story was versus their common knowledge hence there would be some inconsistencies...was it lost tribes, or Jews , or lost nations...that sort of thing. But there is no reason that the Book of Mormon would create that confusion for them.

marge, you are almost saying what Dan and I have been saying all of this time. That the witnesses were confusing details of Solomon's story with their commonly held knowledge and understanding of the lost tribes migration to the Americas and becoming the ancestors of the American Indians legend. You are correct that the Book of Mormon should not have created that confusion for them.

That is why he rejects the statements of those witnesses who averred that Solomon's story was about the lost tribes migrating to America and becoming the ancestors of the American Indians, yet also aver that the Book of Mormon and Solomon's story read almost identically as to the historical parts.

They don't say it was all the lost tribes who migrated but rather Lehi and co were descendants of a lost tribes or a few which migrated. And they briefly read the Book of Mormon looking for items which matched spalding...so to them in most respects it would have matched historically if Spalding has a few migrate who were descendents of a few lost tribes, if he divided these people into 2 groups, white and dark skinned, if they fought battles, if phrasing was the same in parts, if biblical style the same...to them the historical parts seemed the same. And frankly I'm not sure where the Book of Mormon would differ. You think it would differ because you don't think it possible that Spalding's story was about a few descendants of lost tribes migrating. And you assume they must be confused and think the Book of Mormon was about lost tribes since it was about people inhabiting a land far away and uninhabited. And yet the Book of Mormon barely makes mention of lost tribes...so then you assume it must be something they've read in a newspaper in which the article was confused. Well I don't think you've explained how Spalding could not have written about a few descendants of lost tribes migrating to America. And I don't think Spalding wrote a serious book of actual history. I think turning people into black being the bad guys and white being the good guys is a give away that it is meant to be a satire of a ridiculous biblical concept and I don't think he felt he was constricted to complying with a myth.

The lost tribes story concerns ten tribes. The Conneaut witnesses were not confused as to their understanding of what the lost tribes fable was about. In their statements, those who mention the lost tribes do not even hint that Solomon's story is about a portion of the lost tribes, just one of the lost tribes, or a minute group of people that were descendants of just one of the lost tribes. When it comes to the Book of Mormon, their statements show very little knowledge of the Book of Mormon, but rather seem to reflect browsing through the first couple of books looking for key words which had already been supplied to them.

Glenn