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

[_MCB]

This confusion was brought about by a relative of Dr. Rice's over-enthusiastic report about the existence of a previously undiscovered Spalding manuscript in Hawaii. Initial enthusiasm was followed by disappointment. RLDS and LDS capitalized on and mocked that disappointment by the way they retitled the manuscript.

[_Dan Vogel]

Marg,

Since you refer me to this post to Glenn, I’m going to respond to it first.

But the Lamanites are not descended from just any tribe, in particular they are according to the Book of Mormon descendants from the tribe of Manasseh..a lost tribe. So if spalding did the same, it would be understandable why the Conneaut witnesses would mention his story was to show the Indians were descendants of the lost tribes. I know you and Dan think the witnesses should have said "tribe" as opposed to "tribes". But lost tribes is a label..it represents a unit. If one is not specific as to a particular lost tribe its is understandable to use the name "lost tribes" without intending to refer to all all the lost tribes.

Utter nonsense. Evidently you will invent anything to keep from backtracking on this issue. This is what happens when you over-commit yourself on issues you know very little about. Perhaps you should Google special pleading.

Just as the Book of Mormon is not about where all the lost tribes went to, nor even where all the Manasseh tribe went to, so too, based on the statements of the Conneaut witnesses Spalding’s book was not about where all the lost tribes went to or where the lost ancestral tribe related to his characters went.

You are not saying anything meaningful here. You are simply repeating your unfounded assertion that such was the case. Again, your witnesses don’t support you on this. Even Martha’s hedge—“some of the lost tribes”—is at odds with your contortions as well as the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon isn’t even about where one of the “lost tribes” went too. Having a lineage that can be traced to one of the tribes that were lost or taken captive to Assyria doesn’t make one a descendant of the “lost tribes”; hence, it affords no explanation for the whereabouts of the “lost tribes”—not even one of the lost tribes. You have no evidence outside these witnesses for the second part of your assertion, and given the present discussion are unreliable to the point that you are force to take extreme measures to defend them.

Just as the Book of Mormon if we take out the religious sections out focuses on who are the ancestors of the Lamanites are so too did Spalding's book focus according to the Conneaut witnesses on who the ancestors were of the Am. Indian..and in both cases the blood line traces to a lost tribe..still lost at the time the Book of Mormon is published or when Spalding was hoping to get his published.

There is no “just as” comparison between the Book of Mormon and a missing MS; we only have the witnesses statements, which are on extremely shaky ground. You should do an exercise and try to take the religious matter out of the Book of Mormon and see if you can get passages you can call “verbatim” from Spalding’s MS. You are attempting to make the remotest possible connection between the Book of Mormon and the “lost tribes” that one can make and still be talking about Israelites. Again, you are special pleading. I have no doubt that if you were on the other side of this debate, you would be all over us for such sloppy thinking.

Just as the Book of Mormon has a descendant of the tribe Manasseh living in Jerusalem , so too could Spalding.

The Book of Mormon could do it because it rejected the ten tribe theory, but why would Spalding do it? He had no reason to do that.

Just as the Book of Mormon had lost tribes living elsewhere, so too could Spalding.

Spalding could do anything the Book of Mormon does, but did he? That’s the issue you are trying to prove, but you can’t do that by simply assuming that—that’s begging the question.

The Lamanites per Book of Mormon aren't meant to be representative of all the descendants living of the Manasseh tribe so too Spalding’s surviving characters wouldn’t have to be representative of all descendants living of the tribe in his story. And yet despite the story not being about where all a certain tribe went to or all the lost tribes went to, the story would none the less be about Am. Indians being descendant of a lost tribe, just as the witnesses described.

The Book of Mormon doesn’t represent the Lamanite/Indians as any of the lost tribes—Lehi is from the tribe of Joseph, but the lost tribe of Joseph is with the other tribes in an unexplored region in the north. So saying the Book of Mormon is about the “lost tribes” is completely wrong, and if Spalding’s MS said the same thing it would also be wrong. The only matter to decide here is whether the witnesses were wrong once or twice?

3 or 4 of the witnesses talk about the purpose of Spalding’s book was to show Am. Indians are descendants of the lost tribes. That is not the same thing as saying the book was about lost tribes or the lost tribe myth.

That is a distinction without a difference.

John Spalding doesn’t appear to know the difference between Jews and lost tribes so he’s obviously not very familiar with the lost tribe myth.

The term “Jews” doesn’t only refer to those of the tribe of Judah, but also those who lived in the kingdom of Judah regardless of actual tribal affiliation. Hence, you find Nephi talking about the Jews at Jerusalem, as well as a revelation of Joseph Smith’s calling the Indians “Jews”. Similarly, “Israelite” can refer to member of any one of the tribes, regardless of location, but it also refers to the northern kingdom. I doubt John knew the difference between Israel and Judah, or a Jew from an Israelite, as many people are confused on this subject today.

His wife mentions Indians being descendants of some of the lost tribes..not all the lost tribes.

This hedge by Martha is still troublesome for your assertion, as I mentioned above. Her doubt may reflect her uncertainty about the contents of Spalding MS after many years, as she admits, or about the contents of the Book of Mormon, in which she probably only has passing interest. At any rate, it’s not because her memory was better than all the others.

Lake said ..descendants of the lost tribes. The only one who implies the book is about the lost tribes..as opposed to it being about Am. Indians was Aron Wright who said “read to me a history he was writing, of the lost tribes of Israel, purporting that they were the first settlers of America”. Given that Aron Wright is the only one implying the story was about lost tribes..I suspect he worded his statement as he did ..as a function of poor knowledge of the myth.

Again, you are making a distinction without a difference.

[_Dan Vogel]

MCB,

1. Nehemiah King
2. John Spalding
3. Martha Spalding
4. Henry Lake
5. John Miller
6. Aaron Wright
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 [Dr. Winter]
16. George French [Cephas Dodd]
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]
22. Hiram Lake [Conneaut witnesses]
23. Lorin Gould [Conneaut witnesses]
24. Joseph Miller (two statements)
25. Rachel Miller Derby [John Miller]
26. Charles Grover [J.C. Dowen]
27. Jacob Sherman [Hurlbut and J. C. Dowen]
28. J. C. Dowen
29. Matilda Spalding McKinstry (three statements)

This list is misleading and inaccurate, as well as padded with names that don’t belong with the first nine. Howe and Hurlbut didn’t read the MS in question, nor do they claim to have done so, which brings Briggs’s testimony into question. Others are not material witnesses to having read or heard read the MS in question. Hiram Lake and Lorin Gould are not witnesses to Spalding’s MS by any stretch of the imagination. They only affirm the testimony of some of Hurlbut’s Conneaut witnesses, and claim no firsthand information.

[_Jersey Girl]

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.

I thought it was published as both "Manuscript Found" and "Manuscript Story" in 1885. Am I wrong about this?

[_Dan Vogel]

I thought it was published as both "Manuscript Found" and "Manuscript Story" in 1885. Am I wrong about this?

Look it up and tell me.

[_Dan Vogel]

Marg,

Spalding could have done the same thing as the Book of Mormon, and had a character descended from the tribe of Manasseh a lost tribe, living in Jerusalem in 600 B.C. ..migrate to America and the survivors be ancestors of Am Ind. I explain this above in my post to Glenn ..”lost tribes” is a name representing a group/unit, dispersed out of an area at a point in time. And any one or any group in the world who claims affiliation via blood line can claim to be from the “lost tribes”. It wouldn’t mean by saying in the plural “lost tribes” that the person or group affiliated by blood to the “ lost tribes” is claiming to be affiliated to every one of the 10 lost tribes.

As I said, this is special pleading. Utter unmitigated nonsense.

And as far as your comment “We don’t know that his (Lehi) living in Jerusalem was the result of his ancestors being dispersed from the northern kingdom at the time of the Assyrian captivity” well heck Dan we are only dealing with fictional stories and maybe the witnesses didn’t know either but assumed it.

Well heck, should I just accept this nonsense as evidence? I don’t know what the witnesses thought, and neither do you. This is more about what you need them to think in order to defend your theory. Why would the witnesses assume what you need them to assume? They would also have to have your specialized definition of “tribes”. Nonsense. We only know for sure that they were wrong about the Book of Mormon being about the lost tribes—stick with that!

You are too technical with what the witnesses are supposed to know with regards to Spalding’s characters as far as this lost tribe myth goes. For most people not highly familiar with the details of the myth “being descended” would simply mean “related to” and it wouldn’t be a critical factor to consider in listening to a story whether the lineage involved directly related to the dispersed group or indirectly related. And I don't know what Spalding wrote but maybe he set it up that a few people got away from that dispersed group headed north and they went south. I don't see that as something highly unlikely in a storyline that a few could escape the enemy.

Well, now that you have had this long discussion about the topic and know the contents of the Book of Mormon—and have adopted a unique interpretation of the lost tribes theory—perhaps you could write a novel along those lines. There is, however, no evidence that Spalding’s thinking could have made the same journey. You don’t know what “most people” think, let alone how they define “being descended from”. Seriously, you must think any argument is a good argument. Why waste our time with this crap?

Their description and use of “lost tribes” is appropriate without it having to mean they are referring to all the lost tribes. Here’s an analogy:

“September Six” is the name which represents 6 people excommunicated from the Church in Sept 1993. “Lost tribes” is the name which represents the 10 lost tribes dispersed in 720 B.C. out of Northern Israel.

Let’s say for illustrative purposes we were interested in following the genetic blood line of the Sept Six as a whole. And let’s say a Sept Six individual has 2children ..Bob & Jim..

So American Indians are descendants genetically of the “lost tribes”.

Bob & Jim are descendants of the excommunicated “Sept Six”.

That doesn’t mean Am. Indians are descendants of all the10 lost tribes genetically even though the name “lost tribes” is used , just as it doesn’t mean Bob & Jim are descendants of every one of those individuals in the named group, the "Sept Six".

Wow! You are really losing it if you think the above analogy makes sense. As I keep saying, analogy isn’t proof of anything; it only tells us how you see it—which judging from the above analogy isn’t very clear! No one under the circumstances you describe would say—“I’m related to the ‘Sept Six’”, but rather: “I’m related to one of the ‘Sept Six’”. You are making our case for us now!

As far as Spalding not following the myth per Esdras, well Esdras was written in the first century A.D. and Spalding not being a literal Bible believer would appreciate it was mere speculation. He could easily add to it. As I pointed out previously in another post, myths are changed and people buy into them ..Christians changed Hebrew myths, Mormons changed Christian myths. Mormons still expect to be considered Christians, because they have Jesus Christ in their storyline. Spalding's story would still be about "lost tribes" because he has a lost tribe ancestor to Indians in his storyline..and that's all that the Conneaut witnesses need to know to consider Spalding's story was to show Am Ind..descendants of the lost tribes.

Still not listening, Marg. That’s been answered. Myths change, sure, but why would Spalding change the ten tribe myth and for what purpose? One reason the Book of Mormon changed it was to accommodate the Jaredite story. It’s clear that the author of the Book of Mormon believed the ten tribe theory according to Esdras, even using the phrase “where never mankind dwelt” (Book of Mormon: “where never mankind had been”) and keeping them together in a northern region, so if Spalding didn’t believe that theory, he wasn’t the author of the Book of Mormon. This is only an assertion posing as an argument. But even assuming Spalding’s MS was like the Book of Mormon, the witnesses would not have made the connection to the lost tribes unless there was explicit reference to the captivity of the lost tribes. Still, Lehi’s descent from one tribe would not explain the Indians’ relationship to plural “tribes” and no solution the “lost” as implied by discovery of the Indians in the New World. You essentially have the same problem with the witnesses’ statements regarding the Book of Mormon as you do for your conjecture about Spalding’s lost MS. So you have doubled the problem, not solved it.

And one more comment..you say and Glenn does as well that Spalding wouldn't have changed the myth that was commonly accepted such as by Ethan Smith , among others..that Am Indians were descendants of the dispersed lost tribes from the 720. B.C. group out of Northern Israel...because people wouldn't accept it. And yet, the Book of Mormon changed that myth. The Book of Mormon writers don't have Am. Ind being descendants of that dispersed 720 B.C. group, which Ethan Smith and others speculated they were. The ancestors of Am. Ind per the Book of Mormon are only descendants of a family which might or might not be descended from the dispersed 720 lost tribe group. And yet, despite the Book of Mormon not being consistent with the Jewish-Am Indian theory commonly accepted in the 1800's ..people still bought into it.

You are still not listening, Marg. You should know the answer to this. The Book of Mormon didn’t change the myth at all—it only disconnected it from Indian origins. The myth is verified by having them in another unknown region in the north, and it promises further scriptures to come from them in the future. Nevertheless, the change was acceptable to those who believed the Book of Mormon was inspired scripture—not a novel. It wasn’t the explanation give for Indian origins that mattered—what mattered most was the Book of Mormon was scripture and evidence that God was speaking through a living prophet.

You say, Dan that's because it was presented as scripture..but as I've pointed out to you Spalding's could sell as a believable story, just as the Book of Mormon did, because it's presented as a story written by ancient people of the time.

I think what I explained above has more force and explanative power than some half-baked idea you toss out. Two questions to help you think about this: Was Spalding an author primarily trying to make a living, or was he a novelist with an ideological agenda? Was Joseph Smith an author primarily trying to make a living, or was he an author with an ideological agenda?

[_MCB]

This list is misleading and inaccurate, as well as padded with names that don’t belong with the first nine.

I don't consider it to be misleading and inaccurate, since I made appropriate notations. I will add "gist statements" to further clarify.

[_Jersey Girl]

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.

Glenn,

Please do not fragment my original posts to you when you respond. The first quote you used, was part of this full paragraph:

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?

As you can see, Glenn, my question had to do with the second title given to the manuscript. The second title is that which was testified to by the Conneaut witnesses, the same witnesses that are considered support evidence to the S/R theory.

With regards to your above comment, if the manuscript bears no resemblance to the Book of Mormon as the Conneaut witnesses claimed it bore, why give it the title of the manuscript they testified to?

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

Given the testimonies of the witnesses to the contrary, how could they be the same document?

[_Dan Vogel]

This list is misleading and inaccurate, as well as padded with names that don’t belong with the first nine.

I don't consider it to be misleading and inaccurate, since I made appropriate notations. I will add "gist statements" to further clarify.

That would be helpful!

[_GlennThigpen]

This list is misleading and inaccurate, as well as padded with names that don’t belong with the first nine.

I don't consider it to be misleading and inaccurate, since I made appropriate notations. I will add "gist statements" to further clarify.

MCB, I have taken your list of witnesses and made some notes from their reports. Please feel free to correct any mistakes I may have made.

1. Nehemiah King is not a witness. There is one uncorroborated report by Aaron Wright, for which he gives no explanation of how he got the information.

2. John Spalding - John Spalding made two contradictory statements. He is also a lost tribes witness, which is not in the Book of Mormon.

3. Martha Spalding - Also a lost tribes witness. Not in the Book of Mormon. Never even admitted reading the manuscript.

4. Henry Lake - Also a lost tribes witness. Not in the Book of Mormon

5. John Miller - The "humorous passages" witness, which are not in the Book of Mormon. Also the only straits of Darien witness, which reported by a newspaper local to his are not long before he made his statement.

6. Aaron Wright - Another lost tribes witness. Not in the Book of Mormon

7. Oliver Smith - Said that Solomon Spalding began working on a story when he first came to the area. Description of the contents much closer to the Oberlin manuscript except for the names Nephi and Lehi. If Solomon working on a manuscript that supposedly contains name Nephi and Lehi it contradicts Aaron Wright's statment that Solomon altered his plan, went back and began writing the lost tribes history.

8. Nahum Howard - Only states that he believed that the Book of Mormon was the same as Oberlin manuscript, except for the religious parts.

9. Artemus Cunningham - Spent part of one night discussing manuscript. Language "account for the numerous antiquities which are found upon this continent" reminiscent of language in the Oberlin manuscript.

10. Matilda Spalding Davison - says that Solomon conceived of the idea to write his manuscript in August of 1812 (using Hull's surrender of Detroit as a reference). This is the most specific time frame given by any of the witnesses.

11. Robert Patterson - Several statements attributed to him. In some he denies ever seeing manuscript. In others, says widow brought it to him to be published for half the profits. Decided not to publish. Denied that Rigdon had anything to do with the printing office.

12. Josiah Spalding - put the beginning of Solomon's composition after he went to stay with Solomon sometime after the war of 1812 broke out (June 1812) which fits in very well with what Matilda Davison remembers.

13. Redick McKee (two statements) - Contradictory statements. First statement says that the story was about the inhabitants of Canaan before the Israelite invasion under Joshua. Those inhabitants were not Israelites. Second statement was after he read Matilda McKinstry's and he deferred to her.

14. Joseph Miller - Main recollection is an event from the Book of Mormon that dovetails nicely with a similar scene from the Oberlin manuscript.

15. Rev. Kirk [Dr. Winter] Neither one a witness. Never read the manuscript. Never saw it.

16. George French [Cephas Dodd] Not a witness. Hearsay on Cephas Dodd who believed that Solomon's story had been plagiarized by Sydney Rigdon. No evidence.

17. James Briggs (multiple short statements) - James Briggs statements were from much later in life. He also is a demonstrated liar as per his report that it was Hurlbut that brought charges against Joseph and that it was Joseph that was bound over. Doubtful, especially in the absence of the manuscript at the 1834 trial where it could have been put to good use.

18 & 19. Mr and Mrs Hurlbut (internally inconsistent with anxiety) Maria's only witness is that D. P. Hurlbut only obtained one manuscript. D. P. denies selling any manuscript to the Mormons and states that he knew that the manuscript was of no use to him and turned it over to Howe.

20. Eber Howe - His only witness is that the manuscript he received had nothing to do with the Book of Mormon.

21. Ann Treadwell Redfield [Matilda Spalding Davison] Not a witness. Never read the manuscript or heard it read. Only remembers hearing about it.

22. Hiram Lake [Conneaut witnesses] Not a witness. Never read the manuscript. Remembers excitement about Mormonism and hearing his father say story was called "Manuscript Found" or Lost tribes.

23. Lorin Gould [Conneaut witnesses] Not a witness. Never read or even admits to seeing the manuscript. Repeats Hiram Lake's story about hearing it was "Manuscript Found" or "Lost Tribes."

24. Joseph Miller (two statements) - you already mentioned him

25. Rachel Miller Derby [John Miller] - Never read the manuscript. Memory of Hurlbut's visit from fifty years ago. Hurlbut read from the Book of Mormon. John Miller says that he had recently examined the Book of Mormon in his statement.

26. Charles Grover [J.C. Dowen] Statement in 1885 just months before Grover died. Said that he read parts of manuscript that Hurlbut stated was written by Spalding. Grover did not confirm or deny that any of Hurbut's allegations. No way to tell what manuscript that Grover actually saw.

27. Jacob Sherman [Hurlbut and J. C. Dowen] Taken in 1885. Never read the manuscript. Only heard Hurlbut read from a manuscript which Hurlbut said was Solomon's work.

28. J. C. Dowen statement made a month or so before he died. Long and rambling. Doubtful, especially in the absence of the manuscript at the 1834 trial where it could have been put to good use if it had all those alleged earmarks.

29. Matilda Spalding McKinstry (three statements) In her first statement, she did not remember any of the names from either the Book of Mormon nor her father's manuscript. Yet, in her much later statements, she showed a remarkable resurgence of memory. Wonderful(ly suspicious).


Added by Glenn
30. Abner Jackson - Did not read manuscript. Heard his father and Solomon discussing stories. Lost tribes story. Not in Book of Mormon.


All in all, a very underwhelming morass of contradictions and hearsay statements that do not bear up well under critical assessment.

Glenn