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

[_marg]

It is not a given that the witnesses would have good source memories of the Spalding story. The repetition of which you speak is not evident in but a few cases, John Miller being one of them. And John has his own issues which I brought up in another post.

Source memory Glenn is the context in which a memory is formed...which generates associations in memory to an event. It's not just a matter of repetition is also the various inputs such as all the perceptions encoded tied to that event. A memory isn't simply stored as a unit in one place in the brain. All the encodings involved are stored in different areas of the brain..and recall is about bringing up those encodings which are linked together to form a memory. So for example a song might be linked to a particular episodic memory such that when you hear it, it might bring back a feeling that you had linked to that song, or smells, tastes,touch, visual whatever in that encodings linked to that song. The song is the retrieval cue to the encodings..which bring up the episodic memory.

So with the various exposures of all the witnesses...sight, sound, smells, repetition etc...all of the encodings which were various would enable a number of encodings to be recalled and linked to a memory. Repetitions would help enforce memory but so would having various and numerous encodings help. For example if students want to remember something for a test, it helps to listen to the material, not just read it. The more different associations made the better the chance for recall.

As far as confusing MSCC with MF…what they say they clearly remember, is not contained in MSCC.

On that point, you are a bit inaccurate. Check out Matthew Roper's little treatise on the subject and look at the similarities that he lists between some of the witnesses statements and material from the Oberlin Manuscript. Matt has a chart for easy cross checking.

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publications/review/?vol=17&num=2&id=584

Humor me, Glenn, please quote the portion or portions in the article that specifically shows my statement to be inaccurate.

(Ok I'm leaving the board for the rest of the day whatever is left of it, I might get back on tonight)

[_GlennThigpen]

Source memory Glenn is the context in which a memory is formed...which generates associations in memory to an event. It's not just a matter of repetition is also the various inputs such as all the perceptions encoded tied to that event. A memory isn't simply stored as a unit in one place in the brain. All the encodings involved are stored in different areas of the brain..and recall is about bringing up those encodings which are linked together to form a memory. So for example a song might be linked to a particular episodic memory such that when you hear it, it might bring back a feeling that you had linked to that song, or smells, tastes,touch, visual whatever in that encodings linked to that song. The song is the retrieval cue to the encodings..which bring up the episodic memory.

So with the various exposures of all the witnesses...sight, sound, smells, repetition etc...all of the encodings which were various would enable a number of encodings to be recalled and linked to a memory. Repetitions would help enforce memory but so would having various and numerous encodings help. For example if students want to remember something for a test, it helps to listen to the material, not just read it. The more different associations made the better the chance for recall.

I understand quite well that repetition is not the only way that memory is encoded. For instance, John Miller remembering that Solomon would read humorous passages from the manuscript to those present. There are such passages in the Oberlin manuscript, but that is not a feature of the Book of Mormon.

And then there is this:
In the Oberlin manuscript, Solomon is describing the fictional documents he unearthed and fictionally translated to become the "Manuscript Found".
"They were written on a variety of Subjects. But the Roll which principally attracted my attention, "

And this from John Miller's statement"
"He had written two or three books or pamphlets on different subjects; but that which more particularly drew my attention, was one which he called the "Manuscript Found."

Good memories of material from the Oberlin manuscript, but not the Book of Mormon.

As far as confusing MSCC with MF…what they say they clearly remember, is not contained in MSCC.

On that point, you are a bit inaccurate. Check out Matthew Roper's little treatise on the subject and look at the similarities that he lists between some of the witnesses statements and material from the Oberlin Manuscript. Matt has a chart for easy cross checking.

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publications/review/?vol=17&num=2&id=584

Humor me, Glenn, please quote the portion or portions in the article that specifically shows my statement to be inaccurate.

(Ok I'm leaving the board for the rest of the day whatever is left of it, I might get back on tonight)[/quote]

Witness quotes:
They afterwards had quarrels and contentions (John Spalding)

disputes arose between the chiefs (Martha Spalding)

Solomon Spalding:
Frequent bickerings, contentions & wars took place among these Chiefs, which were often attended with pernicious consequences (60).



Witness Quotes:
Their arts, sciences and civilization were brought into view (John Spalding)

Solomon Spalding:
religion & arts and sciences (21)

the arts and sciences (28)

Witness Quotes:
Cruel and bloody wars ensued, in which great multitudes were slain (John Spalding)

Between these were recounted tremendous battles (Martha Spalding)

Solomon Spalding:
On the ground wher thou [ ] treadest many an hard fou a bloody Battle hath been faught & heroes by thousand have been made to bite the dust (12).

An emence slaughter was made. Near One hundred thousand were extended breathless on the field (121).

Witness Quotes:
Some of these people he represented as being very large (Martha Spalding)

Solomon Spalding:
As to their persons, they were taller on an avarage than I hade ever seen in any nation—their bones wer large, limbs strait & shoulders broad (34).


The references are from the RLDS publication transcribed from the Oberlin copy.

Many of the descriptions that those witnesses gave describe ideas presented in the Oberlin Manuscript.

Glenn

[_Jersey Girl]

The RLDS and LDS maintain that the "Manuscript Story - Conneaut Creek" is the "Manuscript Found" and published it as such.

Why?

Because there is so very little evidence that Solomon ever wrote another story similar to the Book of Mormon.

Glenn

Are you saying that because there is so very little evidence that Solomon Spalding ever wrote another story similar to the Book of Mormon, that the RLDS and LDS elected to give the manuscript a second title, "Manuscript Found", which is the title of the very manuscript testified to by the Conneaut witnesses and thereby, confirming the testimonies of the Conneaut witnesses?

Why would either the RLDS or LDS choose to do anything that supports the Spalding/Rigdon theory with regards to Book of Mormon authorship?

Glenn,

I will overlook, for the moment, that in your response below, you failed to answer the two questions that I posed to you.

We don't know who gave the manuscript the title "Manuscript Story, Conneaut Creek". It was written in pencil on the wrapper, not on the manuscript itself. The handwriting does not appear to be that of Solomon. He does not appear to have titled his manuscript himself.
It is the only such manuscript ever found known to be authored by Solomon and the LDS and RLDS were simply giving it the name that the witnesses had noted that Solomon gave it.

Glenn

If we don't know who wrote the title "Manuscript Story, Conneaut Creek" on the wrapper, why did the LDS and RLDS choose to publish it as "Manuscript Found"?

[_GlennThigpen]

Glenn the witnesses were recalling Spalding's story.

As you pointed out what was commonly appreciated and accepted by many was Ethan Smith's theory that American Indians were descendants of the Lost tribes which had dispersed out of N. Israel in 720 B.C.

And yet the Book of Mormon is not consistent with that theory..correct? But it's okay for the Book of Mormon to not be consistent..that is for the Book of Mormon to have Am. Indians descendant of a family (as opposed to being consistent with Ethan Smith's view of Am.Indians descendant of all the lost tribes or even one entire specific lost tribe) and okay for the Book of Mormon to link Am Ind to an ancestor who may or may not be a direct blood line down from the dispersed 720 B.C.lost tribe group.

The Book of Mormon does not claim to be a lost tribes story. As I have pointed out, it explicitly says that the lost tribes are somewhere else.

That's interesting that's it's okay according to you that the Book of Mormon was inconsistent with the popular Jewish Am. Indian theory of the day, but not okay for Spalding to be.

And you expect the witnesses to not only appreciate Ethan Smith's Jewish-Am Indian theory and to reject spalding's story if it differed, but to be fully knowledgeable about the lost tribe myth per Esdras and to point out in their statements that although Spalding's main character was related blood wise to the lost tribes that relationship was not part of the lost tribe myth per Esdras. You crucify them for recalling Spalding's writings being about showing Am Ind being descendants of the lost tribes..all because it is not consistent with popular theories of the day (which the Book of Mormon isn't either) and not consistent with a prophecy/speculation written in the first century A.D. of descendants of the lost tribes being from the dispersed group migrating to far lands.

The fact is Glenn their statement is not about the lost tribe myth, it's about Spalding's story. And it's quite possible that Spalding if he wanted to have some consistency with the lost tribe myth simply presented Lehi as being a descendant of those who escaped the deportment in 720 B.C. and instead of going where the rest of those 10 tribes went, they went to Jerusalem. That's all it would take for the witnesses to accurately recall Spalding's story being about Am. Indians descendants of the lost tribes..with "lost tribes" being the term or name used for the general storyline associated with that group of people.

marge, I not only pointed out to you Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews, but also Abner Jackson's statement. I will reproduce it once again for you:

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.

I am not crucifying any witnesses. There is no evidence from the statements that the witnesses made that they thought Solomon's story was anything but the standard legend that they were familiar with. That is what the witnesses are saying. You have not provided any evidence from the witnesses that Solomon deviated from the standard. Those witnesses are what you have been going by to try to enable a Spalding connection. You need to produce such evidence for your conjecture to be tenable.
I do not think Solomon ever wrote a story about the lost tribes migrating to the Americas and becoming the Ancestors of the American Indians, as defined by the witnesses themselves. If he did, it still is not in the Book of Mormon and those witnesses are incorrect. If he did not, the witnesses are still incorrect.

Glenn

[_GlennThigpen]

Why would either the RLDS or LDS choose to do anything that supports the Spalding/Rigdon theory with regards to Book of Mormon authorship?

It should be apparent that the manuscript does not support the Spalding/Rigdon theory with regards to the Book of Mormon authorship. That is the only such manuscript that Solomon is known to have produced and it bears no real resemblance to the Book of Mormon.

If we don't know who wrote the title "Manuscript Story, Conneaut Creek" on the wrapper, why did the LDS and RLDS choose to publish it as "Manuscript Found"?

I think that you will have to check with the publishers for that. I have given some speculative answers. You can read the preface to the RLDS version and form your own opinion. But basically, the argument is that the "Manuscript Story, Conneaut Creek" and "Manuscript Found" are one and the same document.

Glenn

[_MCB]

And then there is this:
In the Oberlin manuscript, Solomon is describing the fictional documents he unearthed and fictionally translated to become the "Manuscript Found".
"They were written on a variety of Subjects. But the Roll which principally attracted my attention, "

And this from John Miller's statement"
"He had written two or three books or pamphlets on different subjects; but that which more particularly drew my attention, was one which he called the "Manuscript Found."

Good memories of material from the Oberlin manuscript, but not the Book of Mormon.

The preface to the Oberlin Manuscript Story only needs to be adapted in a few features in order to be applied to Manuscript Found (and Lost) There is nothing earth-shattering about this. He abandoned his earlier story because it just wasn't turning out the way he wanted it. He then radically rewrote it, keeping some features in common. This is what Dale's work was about.

Again, Manuscript Found (and Lost) is not the Book of Mormon. We don't know for sure what was in it, except for the witnesses' (especially the later ones) testimonies that it resembled the Book of Mormon more than it resembled Oberlin Manuscript Story.

Glenn, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT NEARLY 30 WITNESSES, HERE!!!

[_GlennThigpen]

And then there is this:
In the Oberlin manuscript, Solomon is describing the fictional documents he unearthed and fictionally translated to become the "Manuscript Found".
"They were written on a variety of Subjects. But the Roll which principally attracted my attention, "

And this from John Miller's statement"
"He had written two or three books or pamphlets on different subjects; but that which more particularly drew my attention, was one which he called the "Manuscript Found."

Good memories of material from the Oberlin manuscript, but not the Book of Mormon.

The preface to the Oberlin Manuscript Story only needs to be adapted in a few features in order to be applied to Manuscript Found (and Lost) There is nothing earth-shattering about this. He abandoned his earlier story because it just wasn't turning out the way he wanted it. He then radically rewrote it, keeping some features in common. This is what Dale's work was about.

Again, Manuscript Found (and Lost) is not the Book of Mormon. We don't know for sure what was in it, except for the witnesses' (especially the later ones) testimonies that it resembled the Book of Mormon more than it resembled Oberlin Manuscript Story.

Glenn, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT NEARLY 30 WITNESSES, HERE!!!

MCB, Yes, we are talking about nearly thirty witnesses. You don't have to shout. And they do not all agree with each other. I have been pointing out those inconsistencies. I have pointed out in an earlier post other things that the witnesses said that are found in the Oberlin manuscript story. But they are not found in the Book of Mormon except by inference.
John Miller's statement also talks about the Darien Straits which none of the other Conneaut witnesses mentioned, shortly after an article about he subject appeared in a newspaper local to his residence.
The problem with the later witnesses is that some of them changed their stories over time and some had remarkable memory enlargements. Also, many of the later statements were very much later. Howe's book had been printed and many other articles printed on the subject.
And to top it all off, Matilda Davison only speaks of one obtaining and preserving one manuscript along with some of Solomon's sermons and short stories. The only witness that even comes close to being on record during the "early witness" period of 1833 or so that stated that Solomon altered his plans and went back to write a history of the American Indians is Aron Wright. And he says that history was one of the lost tribes emigrating to the Americas and becoming ancestors of the American Indians.
Matilda Davison says that Solomon conceived of the idea and began his story in August of 1812. She fixes the time by the Hull's surrender of Detroit. This is corroborated by Josiah Spalding's memories of going to stay with Solomon for some time after the war broke out (in June of 1812) and the ensuing financial difficulties. Josiah said that he went to stay with Solomon and Solomon began his romance. Josiah's description of the manuscript fits the one at Oberlin College very well, but the Book of Mormon not at all.
That the manuscript now at Oberlin College is the one that Solomon was working on after he left the Conneaut area is borne out by the date (January 1813) on an unfinished letter which is on the reverse of page 131 of the Oberlin manuscript.

In other words, there never was any second manuscript.


Glenn

[_Dan Vogel]

MCB.

The preface to the Oberlin Manuscript Story only needs to be adapted in a few features in order to be applied to Manuscript Found (and Lost) There is nothing earth-shattering about this. He abandoned his earlier story because it just wasn't turning out the way he wanted it. He then radically rewrote it, keeping some features in common. This is what Dale's work was about.

He abandoned what was a plausible story—one which adapted the best science of his day—for one which was fanciful and had no connection to reality? You say this despite previous assertions that Solomon chose the lost tribe in order to make fun of it—which is it?

Again, Manuscript Found (and Lost) is not the Book of Mormon. We don't know for sure what was in it, except for the witnesses' (especially the later ones) testimonies that it resembled the Book of Mormon more than it resembled Oberlin Manuscript Story.

But as we have seen, their testimonies are problematic to say the least.

Glenn, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT NEARLY 30 WITNESSES, HERE!!!

I haven’t been keeping count on this matter, but you aren’t suggesting that there are thirty individuals to whom Spalding read his MS? That is certainly not the case.

[Guest]

And they do not all agree with each other. I have been pointing out those inconsistencies.

That is as expected. We know, because of memory studies, that there would be inconsistencies.

I am glad that you acknowledge that there are almost thirty witnesses. Yes, Dan, some are hearsay. Not admissable in court, but legitimate in this kind of exchange. And backing up the veracity of the original.

1. Cephas Dodd [Solomon Spalding]
2. John Spalding
3. Martha Spalding
4. Henry Lake
5. John Miller
6. Aaron Wright (two statements)
7. Oliver Smith
8. Nahum Howard
9. Artemus Cunningham
10. Matilda Spalding Davison
11. Robert Patterson
12. Josiah Spalding
13. Redick McKee (two statements)
14. Joseph Miller
15. Rev. Kirk and two others [Dr. Winter]
16. George French [Cephas Dodd] gist statement
17. James Briggs (multiple short statements)
18 & 19. Mr and Mrs Hurlbut (internally inconsistent with anxiety)
20. Eber Howe
21. Ann Treadwell Redfield [Matilda Spalding Davison] gist statement
22. Hiram Lake [Conneaut witnesses] gist statement
23. Lorin Gould [Conneaut witnesses] gist statement
24. Joseph Miller (two statements)
25. Rachel Miller Derby [John Miller] gist statement
26. Charles Grover [J.C. Dowen] character witness
27. Jacob Sherman [Hurlbut and J. C. Dowen] gist statement
28. J. C. Dowen gist statement
29. Matilda Spalding McKinstry (three statements)
30. Abner Jackson
31. James Jeffries [Sidney Rigdon]

Am I missing any of them? Three secondhand accounts of Rev. Winter surprising Rigdon in his study. Some ambivalence on whether Rev. Winter ever made notes about that,

You say this despite previous assertions that Solomon chose the lost tribe in order to make fun of it—which is it?

Those are two different theories, not totally incompatible. Remember, we don't have the text.

[_Dan Vogel]

That doesn't answer J.G's question Glenn. Why would the church choose to name the manuscript by what the witnesses claim it was called when the witnesses are accused of faulty memory?

When Spalding’s MS was published in 1910 by the “Millennial Star Office” in Liverpool, England, “Manuscript Found” was placed in quotations on the title page, while “Manuscript Story” wasn’t. The implication there, as well in the preface, is that the witnesses were also wrong about the title.