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

[_Roger]

Jersey Girl wrote:

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

That's exactly what he's saying... without realizing it.

[_marg]

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.

Martha said Spalding "had for many years contended that the aboriginies of America were the descendants of some of the lost tribes of Israel, and this idea he carried out in the book in
question." I can not envision Hurlbut or anyone else implanting a false memory for Martha of spalding discussing with her or others that Am. Indians were descendants of lost tribes. I can't accept that she got confused when others may have described the Book of Mormon as being about Am. Indians being of lost tribes. If she says she remembers him discussing this then either she does remember or she is lying. Spalding discussing this is not something which could easily be implanted into her memory nor is it something she is likely to confuse with some other memory. In fact those 2 scenarios are virtually not even probable.

I don't believe she's lying as I see not motive to do so. And her statement is consistent with not only witnesses in Conneaut, but with the printer R. Paterson and Amity witnesses ...that whatever manuscript they are recalling is NOT MSCC..as it has biblical language, and "it came to pass" clearly remembered... not in MSCC.

So what I'm left with is an attempt to understand inconsistencies which make no sense of what the witnesses recall of spalding's manuscript versus the Book of Mormon. At the moment I don't fully appreciate what the inconsistences are or what you see them as.


You tell me it's not about the lost tribes, but I see a connection to Lost tribes. According to the Book of Mormon the lamanites are remnants of the House of Israel. So that means they are remnants of the 10 lost tribes.

This is what I understand:

Israel was divided into House of Israel in the north and House of Judah in south. The Lamanites are remnants of house of Israel and House of Israel is 10 lost tribes. Therefore Lamanite are descendants of a lost tribe, they aren't descendants of Jews. They are descended through Lehi their ancestor who is a descendant of a lost tribe individual, therefore Lehi was not a Jew as his ancestors were not from the House of Judah.

Therefore the Book of Mormon ties the Lamanites to the 10 lost tribes.

Unless someone knowledgeable and objective can add input into this discussion I probably will have to leave this issue because I can't figure out what the problem is. I see the Book of Mormon being connected to the lost tribe myth. The witnesses say Spalding's story was about Am. Indians being descended from lost tribes. I see the lamanites as being descendants of a lost tribe. I see in Martha's statement that she recalls many discussions with spalding on this theme. I reject faulty memory..that is your theory of confusion via talks with others or newspapers or by Hurlbut or the Book of Mormon being about lost tribes or that memories were implanted via suggestion by Hurlbut or the Book of Mormon. I don't see any of that as a possibility and that's based upon my readings on memory by Daniel Schacter..which stress source memory as a key factor in memory. By source memory I mean the associated episodic memories of the context in which the events occurs ... which is how people remember and are able to recall events via those associations. It is when source memory is not present or vague or weak that confusion of memories occurs.

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.

"This isn’t fulfilled by Lehi’s being of the tribe of Joseph."?-- it seems to me it is fulfilled, the lamanites are a remnant of the House of Israel. House of Israel is the lost tribes.

If there is a conflict between the witnesses statements and the Book of Mormon I suspect it is a result of the changes and/or additions made to spalding's story by the Book of Mormon writers. In otherwords you say above "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. "..but what if in spalding's story he does make it known that Lehi is a descendant of a lost tribe?

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.”

How could the Lamanites be remnants of the House of Israel if Lehi was Jewish? if he was Jewish he'd be of the House of Judah which was separate from the House of Israel..after the division of Israel.

How is it the Book of Mormon can have Lehi leaving Jerusalem and the Lamanites be remnants of the House of Israel which are the lost tribes, but Spalding can't have his characters leave Jerusalem and be remnants of the House of Israel/lost tribes?

[_GlennThigpen]

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?

There is too little information to provide any answers except via speculation. Lehi seemed to have some ties to Egypt, being that he was trained in the Egyptian language. It is possible that he lived near Jerusalem because he was a businessman or trader that traveled to Egypt on a fairly regular basis and the business is what kept him near Jerusalem. But it is more likely that his own ancestors had departed from the northern tribes long before they were exiled to escape that exile.
Remnants of the House of Israel can be applied to any of the groups of people that had departed from Israel proper over the centuries. The Book of Mormon indicates that there were remnants of the House of Israel scattered on the "isles of the sea" and that the Nephites were just one of those groups.

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.

marge, if you read the Book of Mormon and look at everything in context, you will understand that it is not a lost tribes story. The Book of Mormon peoples were never lost. They were led away by the Lord while the northern tribes of Israel were forcibly exiled to the Chaldean lands and lost to the knowledge of the Jews and what became the Christian world.

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?

Number one is because the the Book of Mormon officially and explicitly declares that such is not the case, and number two, because it has no resemblance to the lost tribes myth that I understand and that was understood by the denizens of Conneaut during the time frame we are discussing.

Here is a quote from an Abner Jackson letter available on Dale's site:

A note in Morse's Geography suggested it as a possibility that our Indians were descendants of the lost tribes of Israel. Said Morse, they might have wandered through Asia up to Behring's Strait, and across the Strait to this continent. Besides there were habits and ceremonies among them that resembled some habits and ceremonies among the Israelites of that day. Then the old fortifications and earth mounds, containing so many kinds of relics and human bones, and some of them so large, altogether convinced him that they were a larger race and more enlightened and civilized than are found among the Indians among us at this day. These facts and reflections prompted him to write his Romance, purporting to be a history of the lost tribes of Israel.

here is the link:
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/PA/penn1860.htm

That is what the witnesses understood and were talking about.

Glenn

[_GlennThigpen]

Jersey Girl wrote:

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

That's exactly what he's saying... without realizing it.

I'm not saying there were two manuscripts.

If Solomon ever thought about writing a lost tribes story, he may have made some notes, etc. but they were not in the form of a manuscript that Hurlbut recognized. And that story line definitely did not find its way into the Book of Mormon.

Glenn

[_GlennThigpen]

[quote="marg]How is it the Book of Mormon can have Lehi leaving Jerusalem and the Lamanites be remnants of the House of Israel which are the lost tribes, but Spalding can't have his characters leave Jerusalem and be remnants of the House of Israel/lost tribes?[/quote]


marge, the House of Israel includes all of the tribes which are the descendants of the sons of Jacob who was renamed Israel by the Lord. There are actually thirteen because Joseph was given a double inheritance portion through his sons Manasseh and Ephraim, but there is no tribe actually named Joseph.
So a remant of the House of Israel could be from any of the tribes, including Judah and Benjamin which were the southern tribes.

Glenn

[Guest]

Morse's Geography suggested it as a possibility that our Indians were descendants of the lost tribes of Israel.

It could have very well been a source for Spalding. http://books.google.com/books?id=ICIwAA ... &q&f=false

That section refers you on to these two books.

xRbRrT5Ihre3hWC0X0a9giaxw&hl=en&ei=cjmoTcLvBYH10gG55fX4CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
Provides you with a basic plot. I won't give you the page numbers. Very interesting book. (If the link won't work, it is Henri Mallet's Northern Antiquities).

http://olivercowdery.com/texts/1806Clv3.htm
http://olivercowdery.com/texts/1806Clv1.htm
Provides you with the details.
All available before 1812.

[_GlennThigpen]

Morse's Geography suggested it as a possibility that our Indians were descendants of the lost tribes of Israel.

It could have very well been a source for Spalding. http://books.google.com/books?

If he ever wrote or had any idea of writing a lost tribes story, it very well could have influenced him, that is if he actually believed in the lost tribes myth in 1812.

Glenn

[_Dan Vogel]

Jersey Girl,

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

Ask her! Really, it happened. Does it matter why? Unfinished MS are presented to publishers all the time. Likely, the Reverend wanted to know if it was worth his while to finish, that is, assuming the extant MS is complete. Matilda knew where the MS was and directed Hurlbut to it. When Hurlbut located it, he believed it was the MS referred to by Solomon’s widow, and noted it on the last page:

The Writings of Sollomon Spalding
Proved by Aron Wright Oliver Smith John Miller and others
The testimonies of the above Gentlemen are now in my possession
D P Hurlbut

Imagine his surprise when he finally read it!

[_MCB]

Imagine his surprise when he finally read it

We don't know if he knew about the lost 116.

Glenn;
If Clavigero and Norse content coincide with Spalding-like content by all other measures, would you consider the possibility?

Unfinished MS are presented to publishers all the time. Likely, the Reverend wanted to know if it was worth his while to finish, that is, assuming the extant MS is complete

Upon the first submission, Spalding may have received some advice on how to radically modify it, without a contract. But she then submitted it after the author had died. Therefore, submission followed by a contract to finish was impossible.

[_GlennThigpen]

Imagine his surprise when he finally read it

We don't know if he knew about the lost 116.

Glenn;
If Clavigero and Norse content coincide with Spalding-like content by all other measures, would you consider the possibility?

I would consider it a possibility that Solomon may have made some notes on the lost tribes legend and discussed them with other people, at least before he lost his faith.

What do you really know about the lost 116 pages? Please be specific.

Glenn