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

[_Dan Vogel]

Marg,

I think your position is not warranted. The items for example of a highly repetitive phrase, common in the Bible "and it came to pass" and King Jame English writing style are not easily confusable items. One can associate those with the Bible, which can aid in one's memory.

So you haven't made an argument which justifies that these items which are easily remembered due to high repetition and association with the Bible could possibly have been implanted by Hurlbut in all the witnesses or that the witnesses would have confused these items in the Book of Mormon with Spalding's MSCC.

It doesn’t matter what you think. I have never accused the witnesses of lying, and you are misrepresenting me when you say otherwise. I think your position amounts to mind reading and unwarranted speculation, but I wouldn’t try to misrepresent your position. I have always argued that false memory is a likely explanation in light of evidence that Joseph Smith did not use a MS in the production of the Book of Mormon. In the process of this discussion, my theory has gotten stronger, while yours requires ad hoc hypotheses and wild speculation.

The KJV English is a confusable item, especially for a minister who wrote many items. If it’s true that Spalding was called “Old came to pass,” it’s doubtful that that appellation resulted from one MS. Finally, you can’t say what is confusable and what isn’t based on such meager sources. You can’t tell what associations the witnesses made since they didn’t themselves say how or why they remembered such things after twenty years. I don’t think Hurbut is responsible for all the content in the witnesses’ statements, but he likely transmitted information from one witness to another. For example, he could have infected a witness by asking: so and so says they remember the MS was written in the Old English, do you remember that too? And they might say: “I have a vague memory of his reading to me in that style—it could have been the MS Found.” Loftus’s research would suggest that this could become a more certain memory over time. So when you read their statements, you are reading the end result and do not know the process by which the came to remember things after reading the Book of Mormon, or being told what was in the Book of Mormon.

[_Dan Vogel]

Marg,

I’ll tell what is unreasonable, your insistence that I say the Book of Mormon is about the 10 lost tribes and that the Conneaut witnesses say that as well. What the witnesses said was only about what Spalding’s book contained with respect to lost tribes. They said nothing about the Book of Mormon with respect to that, and they didn’t say the Book of Mormon brought back memories about lost tribes either.

What I said Dan, is that there is a connection . I’ve speculated that Spalding didn’t write about the lost tribe myth based on Esdras . The lost tribes story is essentially about the Northern Israelites dispersion out of N. Israel and speculation of what happened afterwards, since the Bible has no stories of their lives after this point. I’m not suggesting Spalding wrote about where they all went, but rather that he may have suggested some went south to Jerusalem and Lehi was a descendant..and ultimately the story was that the Am Indians were of Mideastern ancestry as opposed to Asian because those were the 2 theories at the time, and his main character happened to be a descendant of someone from a Lost tribe (from the middle east).

Do you have any evidence for your speculation? No. But part of your reasoning rests on the assumption that parts of the Book of Mormon and Spalding’s MS are the same. So what the witnesses said about Spalding’s MS, they also believed about the Book of Mormon—that’s why they are making their statements. Why hedge on this matter? The also said “lost tribes”, not “lost tribe”—although Martha Spalding hedged and said some of the tribes, while admitting her memory wasn’t good on this issue. I know you are speculating that Spalding wrote along the same lines as the Book of Mormon, so his MS wasn’t about all the tribes either—but that’s not what the witnesses say. Not even Martha’s statement supports your view. Can’t you see how heavy handed you are being with these sources? They are not reliable witnesses, but you are not a reliable interpreter either.

It doesn’t make sense to you because you want the lost tribe myth to be set in stone according to Esdras with no possibility of any variation or changes possible, because that suits your purposes for argumentation. But that was a myth, essentially one speculation which could easily be changed by a writer. If there was no historical evidence where the Northern Israelites went after being kicked out of their territory, then a story teller can have them go anywhere and not just en masse as you and Glenn argue, particular if the focus was not on Lost tribes but rather on who were the ancestors of Am. Indians.

The witnesses say the Indians are descendants of the “lost tribes” according to Spalding’s MS. This isn’t fulfilled by Lehi’s being of the tribe of Joseph. We don’t know that his living in Jerusalem was the result of his ancestors being dispersed from the northern kingdom at the time of the Assyrian captivity. These are the facts. The conflict between the Book of Mormon and the witnesses’ statements is real. Your attempt to overcome this problem with speculation and convoluted logic isn’t working. I seriously doubt that other Spalding advocates support you on this.

Why should they be knowledgeable about the lost tribe myth per Esdras? Martha said a few lost tribes, her husband said Jews or Lost tribes..so yes, they don’t know the Esdras lost tribe myth, 2 others said lost tribes but in the context that they were under the impression that Spalding's story had only a few migrate to America, so again they don't appear to appreciate the Esdras myth version.

If they knew the lost tribe myth better, they would have been better witnesses; but since they obviously didn’t know, it doesn’t matter what they thought about the myth because they are unreliable witnesses willing to testify to things they don’t understand. Likely, they assumed the Book of Mormon was about the lost tribes because Lehi was Jewish; hence, John Spalding says “Jews, or lost tribes.”

If they don’t know the lost tribes story per Esdras, then they don’t know the difference between Jews and Lost tribes, or what the Esdras myth says with regards to mass migration. And even if they did know that myth, that doesn’t mean Spalding couldn’t have changed it and they simply appreciated his version. Would you really expect them if this was the case to get into a long discussion on how spalding's lost tribe ideas differed to the myth particulars set out in Esdras?

It seems doubtful that Spalding wrote another Indian origin MS besides the one at Oberlin; but if he did, these witnesses couldn’t tell us anything reliable about it. Moreover, assuming he decided to write a story about Indian-Israelite origins in America, it seems likely he would have followed the expected storyline—something like McKee described in his statement to Deming:

This story he called "The Manuscript Found." It purported to give a history of the ten tribes, their disputes and dissensions concerning the religion of their fathers, their division into two parties; one called Nephites the other Lamanites; their bloody wars, followed by reunion and migration via the Red Sea to the Pacific Ocean; their residence for a long time in China; their crossing the ocean by Behrings Straits in North America, thus becoming the progenitors of the Indians who have inhabited or now live on this continent. This was the story which her Uncle John, Mr. Lake, Mr. Miller and other neighbors heard him read at Conneaut on different occasions.

[Guest]

Your attempt to overcome this problem with speculation and convoluted logic isn’t working. I seriously doubt that other Spalding advocates support you on this.

My silence tells volumes. It is sufficient for me to say that only one witness described Oberlin Manuscript Story. The others described something that has features of the Book of Mormon.

Manuscript Found (and Lost) is not the Book of Mormon. I will re-iterate that, MF(aL) was probably used in the composition of the Book of Mormon. One key reason for saying this is the fact that the first 116 pages were lost, and the beginning of the Book of Mormon, re-written, has very few features that we would expect in something derived from Spalding's work. This includes the "lost tribes" that Marg is harping on.

[_Roger]

Dan wrote:

But if they were wrong about the lost tribes, they were probably also wrong about the language style and names.

Why? I don't see why it must be either/or. Glenn raises the point that what is important is the witnesses' understanding of what it meant to say: "lost tribes story" but that is an entirely different question from whether they could accurately remember the names Lehi or Nephi vs substituting those names for the names they were actually exposed to like Lobaska and Fabius. It is an entirely different question from whether or not they accurately remembered archaic King James language in Spalding's ms and whether they actually teased him about it.

The fact is they could have been fuzzy (and likely were) on the lost tribes and how it might not or might not fit with the Book of Mormon, but still have accurately remembered those names and their teasing of Spalding.

All of this information came from the Book of Mormon, or what they thought was in the Book of Mormon.

And therein lies the problem.... either the witnesses were fuzzy on the lost tribes, or fuzzy on the Book of Mormon... or both. So what? It does not follow from that that they made up teasing Spalding about his over-use of archaic language or were conned into substituting names that don't even have a mild phonetic connection.

The problem here--for S/R critics--is that MSCC does not provide fertile ground from which to grow the memory substitution theory in anything but vague generalities. When asked to provide specific evidence to connect the alleged false memory with a legitimate one, the discussion goes cold.

Miller’s statement that he could remember verbatim passages from Spalding’s MS after twenty years, and could find them in the Book of Mormon, is highly questionable.

Why? It is only questionable to those who wish to neatly box S/R within certain workable limits. It would have been quite easy to take an existing, largely secular, fictitious account of the history of American Indians and embellish it by adding religion into the story. Certainly, such a feat would have been difficult to accomplish on the fly, but that's not what S/R postulates--or at least S/R is not bound by that assumption.

The idea that there were many verbatim passages in the Book of Mormon from Spalding’s MS is problematic since Miller and other Spalding witnesses also advanced the idea that the religious material in the Book of Mormon was added.

I don't see that as problematic at all.

It is difficult to find any passage, especially in the beginning portion, that doesn’t have religion in it. The idea that the Book of Mormon’s history can be separated from its religion is absurd—without it the stories don’t work.

Not absurd at all. Margy Miller and a colleague of hers (I can't remember his name at the moment) have done that very thing and claim to have a coherent story.

The point is that you are looking at the end result and from that claiming it could never have been a largely secular tale. But that is simply not the case. If I had the time, I could take MSCC and embellish it by adding in a bunch of religious material. I could easily rewrite his battle stories and incorporate the popular faith doctrine into them... making the victors victorious only because they pray and have faith in God to win the day for them, etc. Writing popular religion into a largely secular history would have been an easy task, given enough time, for a fellow like Sidney Rigdon.

[_MCB]

(I can't remember his name at the moment)

Ron Dawbarn.

[_Jersey Girl]

Didn't realize that he had finished it. The document ends on page 172.

Glenn

You mean the document referred to in this piece?

Spalding STORY REFUTED.

We have received the following items from Br. William Small of Philadelphia, in relation to the "Spalding Story" of the origin of the Book of Mormon. It was written by request of Br. Walmart. W. Blair, while he was in Philadelphia this fall. Br. Small writes as follows:

"While I was living in Pittsburgh in 1841, at the time so much was said of the Book of Mormon, and in connection with the Solomon Spalding Story. It was stated that the Spalding manuscript was placed in Mr. Patterson's hands for publication, and that Sidney Rigdon was connected with him at the time. In connection with John E. Page I called upon General Patterson, the publisher, and asked him the following questions, and received his replies as given:

Q. -- Did Sidney Rigdon have any connection with your office at the time you had the Solomon Spalding manuscript?
A. -- No.

Q. -- Did Sidney Rigdon obtain the Spalding story at that office?
A. -- No.

He also stated to us that the Solomon Spalding manuscript was brought to him by the widow of Solomon Spalding to be published, and that she offered to give him half the profits for his pay, if he would publish it; but after it had laid there for some time, and after he had due time to consider it, he determined not to publish it. She then came and received the manuscript from his hands, and took it away. He also stated that Sidney Rigdon was not connected with the office for several years afterwards. Gen. Patterson also made affidavit to the above statement.
Your brother in Christ,
WILLIAM SMALL."
Philadelphia, Sept. 13th, 1876.

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/IL/sain1872.htm#101576

Do you think the above refers to the same unfinished Oberlin Manuscript?

Yes.

Glenn

Why would Matilda hand over an unfinished manuscript to be published?

[_GlennThigpen]

Why would Matilda hand over an unfinished manuscript to be published?

I am not sure that she ever read the manuscript. I am not sure that the manuscript was never finished. Josiah Spalding thinks that Matilda communicated to him later that Solomon had finished the story with the savage tribe overcoming the cultured tribe.
One the reverse of page 131 is an unfinished letter with the date of January 1813. This indicates that Solomon was still working on the document after he left the Conneaut area. Redick McKee note that he was working on the manuscript still in 1814 and maybe 1815. There are only 172 pages in the manuscript at Oberlin, and it is very possible that Solomon did finish the manuscript. His widow said that she carefully preserved it, but we do not know how careful Hurlbut and Howe were with it once it was discovered not to be of any anti-Mormon propaganda value.
Am I waffling? No, just thinking about it a bit more.

Glenn

[_Jersey Girl]

Why would Matilda hand over an unfinished manuscript to be published?

I am not sure that she ever read the manuscript. I am not sure that the manuscript was never finished. Josiah Spalding thinks that Matilda communicated to him later that Solomon had finished the story with the savage tribe overcoming the cultured tribe.
One the reverse of page 131 is an unfinished letter with the date of January 1813. This indicates that Solomon was still working on the document after he left the Conneaut area. Redick McKee note that he was working on the manuscript still in 1814 and maybe 1815. There are only 172 pages in the manuscript at Oberlin, and it is very possible that Solomon did finish the manuscript. His widow said that she carefully preserved it, but we do not know how careful Hurlbut and Howe were with it once it was discovered not to be of any anti-Mormon propaganda value.
Am I waffling? No, just thinking about it a bit more.

Glenn

Are you saying that you think there could have been two manuscripts?

[_GlennThigpen]

Are you saying that you think there could have been two manuscripts?

No, I think that he only wrote the one. After reading what his wife said about the time that he started the manuscript, which coincides very well with Josiah Spalding's memories, I do not believe that he ever wrote but one "major" manuscript, and that is the one now in residence at Oberlin college.

Glenn

[_marg]

Post reference: link

Ok so I believe I finally figured out what Glenn and Dan see in the lost tribe myth that I didn't..and that is that near the end of times according to the Esdras myth the lost tribes will return to Israel so if that is the case why would descendants of lost tribes living in Israel ever leave Israel.

They left because God told them to, according to the Book of Mormon. At that point in time, Lehi did not know his ancestry, according to the Book of Mormon. But all of this is irrelevant to the story.

Glenn, if the lost tribes/Israelites of Northern Israel were deported by the Assyrians to Assyria in 720 B.C., why would there be any descendents of lost tribes living in Jerusalem in 600 B.C.? What would Lehi's relationship be to the Lost tribes of 720 B.C.?

Also what does it mean to be a “remnant of the House of Israel? And how does a “remnant of the House of Israel” compare to the lost tribes or descendants of lost tribes?

However it may be that Spalding didn't follow or believe that myth...but that he informed his listeners his characters were lost tribe descendants whose ancestry at some point went to Judah and assimilated with the population. People believe that today so why shouldn't Spalding. And I know what you are going to say Glenn, that he wouldn't have referred to them as lost tribes because of his theological training. But if the ancestors of the characters were exiled from Northern Israel, then they would be of the lost tribes..their written history lost after being exiled.

Because that was not something that anyone was talking about. It would not be a lost tribes story. That is something that you just cannot logically do. You cannot logically condense a story about the lost tribes down into a small group of people and still expect it to read as a lost tribes story. It does not matter what Solomon actually believed, it is what the witnesses reported and what they would have understood about a lost tribes story.

Well that’s what I’m trying to understand. If Martha Spalding says : “He had for many
years contended that the aborigines of America were the descendants of
some of the lost tribes of Israel, and this idea he carried out in the book in
question.” That isn’t simply a memory of a story he was writing but a memory of many discussions about Am. Indians being descendants of lost tribes. So in my opinion that’s not something she’s confusing with some other book or talk about town..she’s talking about many discussions he had with her or others. So what I’m trying to figure out is in what way or how does the Book of Mormon negate its relationship to the lost tribes. Is it really completely and totally unassociated with the Lost tribes myth? You'll probably say yes, but I'm not convinced of that yet.

I've been saying in this thread that it seems to me there is a connection to the lost tribes myth by the Book of Mormon storyline. The Lamanites are a remnant of the House of Israel, the House of Israel was exiled ..they are the 10 lost tribes...therefore the Lamanites are a remnant of the Ten Tribes..therefore they are a small part, member, or trace remaining of the Ten tribes. How can you say then that the Book of Mormon has nothing to do with the 10 lost tribe myth?