glenn wrote:But once he changed the story to that point it would no longer be a lost tribes story.
marg wrote:You mean it's no longer in line with the biblical Esdras. So this is sort of like Christians saying Mormonism isn't Christian. To them Mormons have changed the storyline..and it's no longer Christianity, their version. And what do you argue against that Glenn. Do you agree with them or do you still argue it's Christianity. So why would you assume the witnesses would think that just because Spalding changed the version in Esdras, that it's no longer about lost tribes? They don't need to involved themselves in all this minutia that you are arguing. If Spalding mentioned his story was that Indians were descended via blood line from lost tribes..then that's all they need, they don't need to analyze how he may have veered off from the original myth.
marge, you seem to have made my point without realizing it. Many mainstream Christians do not view members of the LDS Church as Christians because the LDS tenets contain many elements that are not taught by mainstream Christian denominations and thus do not recognize LDS beliefs as Christian beliefs. That is the same type of reaction that Solomon would have had if he had tried to pawn off a reworked story such as you are hypothesizing as a lost tribes story It would not have fitted with their current beliefs and there would have been some rather strenuous discussions about it. But none of the witnesses hinted that their discussions with Solomon were anything but orthodox.
glenn wrote:And, for Solomon to actually be writing about that, this is a themes that should have been apparent to all of the witnesses. But it is mentioned by only four.
marge wrote:Once again, I've pointed this out in the past, if they contradict each then you have a point, the fact that some don't mention lost tribes is not a contradiction. And when there are contradictions sure sometimes it could be accounted for by faulty memory, perhaps lying, perhaps even Spalding changing or evolving his story over time and some witnessess being exposed to additions others weren't.
I do not agree that the point is only valid if it presents a contradiction. If four witnesses say that X is what a story is about and none of the other witnesses either near or far say anything that can logically be construed as being about X, there is a problem. It's not about some possible additions or deletions, its about the theme, the main story line.
glenn wrote:And the timeline is still messed up. According to S/R theory, Solomon began writing the Roman story first, then, according to Aron Wright, "altered his plan and commenced writing a history of the first Settlement of America."
marge wrote:I fail to see where the time line is messed up. He said:.. this is therefore to
inform you that I have made a statement
to D P Hurlbut relative to Writings of S Spalding
Esq. SD Hurlbut is now at my store I have
603
examined the writings which he has obtained
from SD Spaldings widowe I recognize them to
be the writings handwriting of SD Spalding but not
the Manuscript I had refferance to in my statement
before alluded to as he informed me he wrote in the
first place he wrote for his own amusement and
then altered his plan and commenced writing a
history of the first Settlement of America.
By history of first settlement it implies an explanation how America was settled, the MSCC doesn't do that.
I was talking about the timeline for the production of the manuscripts, not the timeline for the storyline itself. I did not make myself clear enough on that.
glenn wrote:The devil is in the details though, because Oliver Smith says that he was writing the "Manuscript Found" when he first came to the area. Oliver claims that Solomon stayed with him during that time, maybe six months. If he was already writing that story in late 1809 and early 1810, when did he alter that plan and begin his new story?
Why then would Josiah Spalding be exposed to the Roman story in 1812, when everyone else is talking about the alleged "Manuscript Found" during that period of time?
marge wrote:Well Josiah doesn't mention Spalding reading to him or to anyone and Josiah is recalling memory 43 years after the event and he's 90 years old...we've been through this before Glenn. If spalding was writing for all of them it would be difficult to differentiate when or if he stopped writing MSCC. How would they really know when he stopped. As far as when he started, that too how would they really know when he started. What they would know if what they were exposed to, but even that one would have to appreciate that dates are confusable. However of course, witnesses exposed when he lived in one area versus another would not be a matter of recall of date when we can verify from an outside source when that occurred.
I really must pull away from this at least this weekend, so if I don't respond you'll know why.
Glenn
I think that you missed my point. Oliver Smith does not name dates. He says that Solomon stayed with him about six months when Solomon first came to the area. It has been pretty much established by several witnesses that Solomon moved to Ohio in late 1809 or maybe very early 1810. Oliver also states that Solomon was already working on his story and had finished one hundred pages or more.
It is not apparent when Aron Wright first saw Solomon's manuscript, but when Hurlbut brought it by and he found out that i did not read like the Book of Mormon at all, he then "remembered" that Solomon had told him about first writing for his own amusement, the altering his plan and going back to write a history.
This contradicts Oliver Smith. If Aron Wright is correct, then Solomon could not have been writing the alleged "Manuscript Found" when he first came to the area. He had to have been writing the story found in the manuscript now at Oberlin. If Aron Wright is correct, then Solomon had to be writing the Oberlin manuscript first, which causes problems with the statements of Oliver Smith, Henry Lake, and John Miller.
Leaving out Josiah's statement, we have those of Matilda Davison who reported that after Solomon's death, that the manuscript fell into her hands and that she carefully preserved it. You know the story of the trunk and her giving permission to Hurlbut to retrieve it. And we know what Hurlbut retrieved from that trunk, do we not?
Glenn
Don't worry that you have to withdraw for a while. This post should still be around when you are able to return.