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

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
Post Reply
_GlennThigpen
_Emeritus
Posts: 583
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 5:53 pm

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

Post by _GlennThigpen »

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


GlennThigpen wrote: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.


Jersey Girl wrote:Glenn,

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


Jersey Girl in another post wrote: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?


Jersey Girl wrote: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?


1. The LDS and RLDS claim the the Oberlin manuscript is the only such novel or novelette length manuscript that Solomon ever produced. No one is on record that Solomon ever claimed to have called any manuscript he was writing "Manuscript Story, Conneaut Creek". The title in pencil on the wrapper is of unknown origin, not in Solomon's hand and is therefore a later addition by no known authority. The Oberlin manuscript is the one that the witnesses saw, and it is really the one Solomon called "Manuscript Found" after the manner in which it is discovered in the story. And that is what the LDS and RLDS published it as when they obtained copies after it was unearthed in 1884.


Jersey Girl wrote:Given the testimonies of the witnesses to the contrary, how could they be the same document?


You need to go back and read the discussions that have ensued on this thread already. There is only one witness who is on record as having backtracked and said that Spalding started writing for amusement, then altered his plans and started writing a history of the lost tribes. (And that was after he was presented the Oberlin manuscript and saw that it had nothing to do with the Book of Mormon.) That was Aron Wright. Firstly, there is no lost tribes story in the Book of Mormon. Secondly, he and Oliver Smith contradict each other because Oliver says that Solomon started writing his "Nephi and Lehi" story when he first came to the area. This gives him no chance to go back and rewrite that story. And Oliver is contradicted by Josiah Spalding and Matilda Spalding Davison who note that Solomon started writing the manuscript in 1812. Matilda actually puts it in August of 1812 tying her memory to Hull's surrender of Detroit in that month and year.
Josiah's description of the manuscript's contents match that of the one now at Oberlin college very closely. Matilda only notes one such manuscript that fell into her hands and carefully preserved after Solomon's death, along with some of his sermons and short stories. She even noted that the manuscript was about a third the size of the Book of Mormon, which also fits the Oberlin manuscript very well.

That is it in a nutshell. All of the witnesses are describing the same manuscript, and the Conneaut witnesses (only) throw in names from the Book of Mormon, after hearing from Hurlbut and looking at the Book of Mormon. But aside from the Book of Mormon names, much of their descriptions of the contents fit that of the Oberlin manuscript better than that of the Book of Mormon. I have already pointed those out in a previous post.

Glenn
In order to give character to their lies, they dress them up with a great deal of piety; for a pious lie, you know, has a good deal more influence with an ignorant people than a profane one. Hence their lies came signed by the pious wife of a pious deceased priest. Sidney Rigdon QW J8-39
_MCB
_Emeritus
Posts: 4078
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 3:14 pm

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

Post by _MCB »

Thank you, Glenn. I moved the Nehemiah King reference to Aaron Wright's draft letter.

Dr. Cephas Dodd wrote a complaint about the plagiarism in his copy of the Book of Mormon.

All other witnesses, even hearsay witnesses acknowledged as so. The entire collection of 30+ witnesses is not "underwhelming" but needs to be considered in the context of all the arguments.
their descriptions of the contents fit that of the Oberlin manuscript better than that of the Book of Mormon
That is because the Oberlin Manuscript was a predecessor of the Manuscript Found (and Lost). The frequency of mention of lost tribes is beginning to indicate that it was in the original beginning of the Book of Mormon [as well as MF(aL)].

However- I have re-titled that appendix to "The Existence of Manuscript Found (and Lost)" That should keep most people happy.

Joseph Miller, an Amity witness, is not the same as John Miller, a Conneaut witness. Joseph made two statements, John made one.
Last edited by Guest on Mon Apr 18, 2011 1:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
Huckelberry said:
I see the order and harmony to be the very image of God which smiles upon us each morning as we awake.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/a ... cc_toc.htm
_Dan Vogel
_Emeritus
Posts: 876
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 1:26 am

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

Post by _Dan Vogel »

Nice summary, Glenn. Thanks.
I do not want you to think that I am very righteous, for I am not.
Joseph Smith (History of the Church 5:401)
_GlennThigpen
_Emeritus
Posts: 583
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 5:53 pm

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

Post by _GlennThigpen »

glenn wrote:their descriptions of the contents fit that of the Oberlin manuscript better than that of the Book of Mormon
MCB wrote:That is because the Oberlin Manuscript was a predecessor of the Manuscript Found (and Lost). The frequency of mention of lost tribes is beginning to indicate that it was in the original beginning of the Book of Mormon [as well as MF(aL)].


You need to find that second manuscript before you can make such an assertion valid. The frequent mention of the lost tribes was more likely a confusion of sources. The absence of any lost tribes emigrating to the Americas and becoming the ancestors of the American Indians in the Book of Mormon is an enormous problem for the witnesses and the S/R theory. marge has not gotten her head around that particular idea yet, but it is there nontheless.


MCB wrote:However- I have re-titled that appendix to "The Existence of Manuscript Found (and Lost)" That should keep most people happy.

Joseph Miller, an Amity witness, is not the same as John Miller, a Conneaut witness. Joseph made two statements, John made one.


True. I just noted that you listed Joseph Miller twice. The second time you noted two statements.

Glenn
In order to give character to their lies, they dress them up with a great deal of piety; for a pious lie, you know, has a good deal more influence with an ignorant people than a profane one. Hence their lies came signed by the pious wife of a pious deceased priest. Sidney Rigdon QW J8-39
_marg
_Emeritus
Posts: 1072
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2011 6:58 am

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

Post by _marg »

Glenn wrote:You need to go back and read the discussions that have ensued on this thread already. There is only one witness who is on record as having backtracked and said that Spalding started writing for amusement, then altered his plans and started writing a history of the lost tribes. (And that was after he was presented the Oberlin manuscript and saw that it had nothing to do with the Book of Mormon.)


A comment Glenn. If MSCC was the only manuscript why was it in Matlida's possession unfinished up to the point when Josiah read it which was before Pittsburg and Spalding spent another 4 years writing. The MSCC in existence has the last page half way completed..so if he was still working on THAT manuscript why doesn't it show continued work on it after Conneaut..in line with 4 years of time to do so? Why would he drop it, but then keep the unfinished story, start a new one of the same story ..which would require using up expensive paper. That whole scenario makes no sense. It's understandable to keep an unfinished work in progress manuscript, but it's not understandable to keep an unfinished one...while starting up the same story on more paper..especially with him being so poor and paper being expensive.

Some note and quotes which are relevant to your comments and show them to be inaccurate.

Howe p 287 She (Spalding widow) states that Spalding had a great variety of manuscripts, and recollects that one was entitled the "Manuscript Found," but of its contents she has now no distinct knowledge.

Howe: p 288 “This old M. S. has been shown to several of the foregoing witnesses, who recognise it as Spalding's, he having told them that he had altered his first plan of writing, by going farther back with dates, and writing in the old scripture style, in order that it might appear more ancient. They say that it bears no resemblance to the "Manuscript Found."

Aron Wright: (Aug 1833) Spalding had many other manuscripts, which I expect to see when Smith translates his other plates.

(Dec 1833) 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 the
particulars you will find in my testimony dated
Sept 18 August 1833-

WRITTEN ON THE BACK OF SPALDING’S “MANUSCRIPT STORY CONNEAUT
CREEK,” IN THE SAME HANDWRITING AS THE LETTER ABOVE (VERBATIM
TRANSCRIPTION):*
“The Writings of Solomon Spalding
“Proved by Aron Wright Oliver
Smith John N. Miller and others
“The testimonies of the above
Gentlemen are now in my
possession D P Hurlbut” /s/


John Miller: I was soon introduced to the manuscript of Spalding, and perused them as often as I had leisure. 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."

Note: Martha Spalding appears to have been exposed to his book before he left Conneaut 1812.

Note: John Spalding it appears was exposed in Pittsburg..he says 3 years after 1810 was when spalding informed him about writing a book. “In a few years he failed in business, and in the year 1809 removed
to Conneaut, in Ohio. The year following, I removed to Ohio, and found
him engaged in building a forge. I made him a visit in about three years
after, and found that he had failed, and was considerably involved in debt.
He then told me he had been writing a book, which he intended to have
printed, the avails of which he thought would enable him to pay all debts.”

Artemas Cunningham: Before showing me his manuscripts, he went into a verbal relation of its outlines, saying that it was a fabulous or romantic history of the first settlement of this country, and as it purported to have been a record found buried in the earth, or in a cave, he had adopted the ancient or scripture style of writing. He then presented his manuscripts, when we sat down and spent a good share of the night, in reading them, and conversing upon them. I well remember the name of Nephi, which appeared to be the principal hero of the story. The frequent repetition of the phrase, "I Nephi,"

McKee to Demin 1886: “But touching these I will give below his daughter's (Mrs. McKinstry's) recollections, recently narrated by her to me, which I think more full and explanatory than my own. This lady is still residing in Washington, D. C., with the family of her late son-in- law, Col. Seaton of the Census Bureau, in remarkably good health for a lady of her age. She corroborated her father's statement about his removal to Conneaut in 1809, his examining the Indian mounds &c., and distinctly recollected that he wrote two or more stories in support of the theory that the Indians of North America were lineal descendants of the Jews from Palestine. In the first of these he brought the Jews from Palestine to America via Italy during the reign of Constantine, and set forth that at Rome they engaged shipping to convey them to some place in Great Britain, but encountered stormy weather and were finally wrecked somewhere on the coast of New England. What became of the manuscript of this story she did not know with certainty but understood that it was published in some Eastern review or magazine.

This romance he afterwards abandoned and set about writing a more probable story founded on the history of the ten lost tribes of Israel.”



John and Martha Spalding appear to have been exposed in late 1812 to Spalding’s story. It looks like John went to Pittsburg Spalding lived there 1812-1814 and he appears based on his statement to have learned then that Spalding’s writings were intended for publishing. So both don’t appear to have been exposed to the earlier manuscript. Howe mentions Hurlbut showed MSCC to several witnesses who said Spalding went back in time and changed writing style to scriptural style. The witnesses shown MSCC were Aron Wright, Oliver Smith, John N. Miller ..according to what Hurlbut wrote on MSCC. so it is likely they are the ones Howe mentions as acknowledging Spalding going back in time and changing to scriptural style.

John Miller and Aron Wright in Aug 1833 statements before being shown MSCC mentioned Spalding wrote a number of manuscripts. Matida Spalding (widow) mentioned he wrote a number of manuscripts. The overall consensus is Spalding wrote more than one manuscript and on a similar theme.

Glenn wrote:“Secondly, he and Oliver Smith contradict each other because Oliver says that Solomon started writing his "Nephi and Lehi" story when he first came to the area. This gives him no chance to go back and rewrite that story. And Oliver is contradicted by Josiah Spalding and Matilda Spalding Davison who note that Solomon started writing the manuscript in 1812. “


MATILDA SPALDING DAVISON TO REV. DR. DAVID R. AUSTIN: c.1 MAR. 1839
(SIGNED)*

“At the time of our marriage
he resided in Cherry Valley, New York. From this place we removed
to New Salem, Ashtabula county, Ohio, sometimes called Conneaut, as it is
situated upon Conneaut creek. Shortly after our removal to this place, his
health sunk, and he was laid aside from active labors. In the town of New
Salem there are numerous mounds and forts, supposed by many to be the
dilapidated dwellings and fortifications of a race now extinct. These
ancient relics arrest the attention of the new settlers, and become objects of
research for the curious. Numerous implements were found, and other articles,
evincing great skill in the arts. Mr. Spalding being an educated man
and passionately fond of history, took a lively interest in these developments
of antiquity, and in order to beguile the hours of retirement and furnish employment for his lively imagination, he conceived the idea of
giving a historical sketch of this long lost race.”


So Glenn, Matilda does not say he started writing in 1812 ...but rather according to her shortly after his arrival in Conneaut he started..which was 1809.

Josiah was only visiting so he wouldn’t know when spalding started. Given that he appears to be familiar with the MSCC unfinished & not MF…there could be a number of explanations. Perhaps Spalding was writing MF while Josiah was reading MSCC..and with a 90 year old memory to him perhaps spalding while writing MF appeared to be continuuing to work on MSCC the one he was reading. He doesn't mention any discussions so his memory seems to be a function of reading, as opposed to listening or discussing with Spalding. In any event Josiah’s statement is supportive of the S/R theory as he recalls Matilida telling him Spalding continued writing but as well she told him told him about Rigdon in Pittsburg. There is no reason for her to lie to him. Josiah writes: “Likewise she informed me that soon after they arrived at Pittsburg a man followed them, I do not recollect his name, but he was afterwards known to be a leading Mormon. He got into the employment of a printer, and he told the printer about my brother's composition. The printer called and requested the privilege of taking it home to read. He, my brother, let him take it; he kept it some time, and then he urged him, my brother, to let him print it. He, my brother, would not consent, but took it back, and she said that she brought it to New York and put it into a chest where she lived. “ And we know from Matilda’s statement as well as McKee that was Rigdon.

MATILDA SPALDING DAVISON TO REV. DR. DAVID R. AUSTIN: c.1 MAR. 1839
". Here we found a friend
in the person of Mr. Patterson, an editor of a newspaper.(#) He exhibited
his manuscript to Mr. P, who was very much pleased with it, and borrowed
it for perusal. He retained it for a long time and informed Mr. S. that if he
would make out a title page and preface, he would publish it, and it would
be a source of profit.
“This Mr. S. refused to do, for reasons for which I can not now state. Sidney
Rigdon, one of the leaders and founders of the sect, who had figured so
largely in the history of the Mormons, was at this time connected with the
printing office of Mr. Patterson, as is well known in that region, and as Rigdon
himself has frequently stated. Here he had ample opportunity to
become acquainted with Mr. Spalding’s manuscript, and to copy it if he
chose. It was a matter of notoriety and interest to all who were connected
with the printing establishment."

McKee to Deming JAN1986:

"After consideration and further inquiry he concluded to remove his family to that village, and did remove in October 1814, rented the hotel and opened it, as a public-house, but without a bar. Mr. Spaulding told me that while at Pittsburg he frequently met a young man named Sidney Rigdon at Mr. Patterson's bookstore and printing-office, and concluded that he was at least an occasional employee. He was said to be a good English and Latin scholar and was studying Hebrew and Greek with a view to a professorship in some college. He had read parts of the manuscript and expressed the opinion that it would sell [readily]. While the question of printing was in abeyance Mr. S. wrote to Mr. P. that if the document was not already in the hands of the printer he wished it to be sent [out] to him in order that he might amend it by the addition of a chapter on the discovery of valuable relics in a mound recently opened near Conneaut. In reply Mr. P. wrote him that the manuscript could not then be found, but that further search would be made for it. This excited Mr. Spaulding's suspicions that Rigdon had taken it home. In a week or two it was found in the place where it had originally been deposited, and sent out to him. The circumstance of this finding increased Mr. S's suspicions that Rigdon had taken the manuscript and made a copy of it with a view [to] ultimately publishing the story as the product of his own brain. "

Oliver Smith may simply have not mentioned the MSCC because he may have figured it wasn't relevant or necessary to the statement. Apparently he was shown MSCC by Hurlbut ..and Howe says the witnesses shown MSCC after their original statement say Spalding wrote another going back in time and in scriptural language.
_marg
_Emeritus
Posts: 1072
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2011 6:58 am

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

Post by _marg »

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


That you reject all the evidence for the S/R theory is unmitigated nonsense. That you speculate the Book of Mormon witnesses to translation process are reliable is nonsense.

So many of the witnesses mention "lost tribes" as a theme in spalding's work and frankly...if Spalding has a character or characters leaving Jerusalem who are descendants of the Manasseh tribe...which is a lost tribe...which is what the Book of Mormon has..then there is a lost tribe connection which is in the Book of Mormon.

Spalding's story evolved over time from what looks like at least 1812 to 1816. So the witnesses's recall will be a function of when they heard him read or they read it. McKee probably has a memory of a more involved lost tribe story because he was with Spalding in 1814- 1816..and he recalls a more indepth version that earlier witnesses.. The earlier witnesses may have had few details..less focus perhaps on the lost tribe time period from leaving Jerusalem to before American. But there are just too many witnesses who recalled a different manuscript to MSCC..too many recalled scriptural style,too many recall a lost tribe storyline involved. False memory with so many witnesses, with statements with a high degree of consistency..is a nonsense theory.
_GlennThigpen
_Emeritus
Posts: 583
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 5:53 pm

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

Post by _GlennThigpen »

Howe p 287 She (Spalding widow) states that Spalding had a great variety of manuscripts, and recollects that one was entitled the "Manuscript Found," but of its contents she has now no distinct knowledge.

Howe: p 288 “This old M. S. has been shown to several of the foregoing witnesses, who recognise it as Spalding's, he having told them that he had altered his first plan of writing, by going farther back with dates, and writing in the old scripture style, in order that it might appear more ancient. They say that it bears no resemblance to the "Manuscript Found."


Howe offers no names to corroborate his statement. No affidavits. Unsupported.

McKee to Demin 1886:This romance he afterwards abandoned and set about writing a more probable story founded on the history of the ten lost tribes of Israel.”


McKee changed his statements and contradicts himself. His first statemement was about Canaan befor Joshua's invasion. At that time, there were no Israelites in Canaan. A totally different story than any other witness, not even set in the Americas. After reading McKinstry's statement he deferred to her memory which also was greatly enlarged over her first statement.

Glenn wrote:“Secondly, he and Oliver Smith contradict each other because Oliver says that Solomon started writing his "Nephi and Lehi" story when he first came to the area. This gives him no chance to go back and rewrite that story. And Oliver is contradicted by Josiah Spalding and Matilda Spalding Davison who note that Solomon started writing the manuscript in 1812. “


MATILDA SPALDING DAVISON TO REV. DR. DAVID R. AUSTIN: c.1 MAR. 1839
(SIGNED)*

“At the time of our marriage
he resided in Cherry Valley, New York. From this place we removed
to New Salem, Ashtabula county, Ohio, sometimes called Conneaut, as it is
situated upon Conneaut creek. Shortly after our removal to this place, his
health sunk, and he was laid aside from active labors. In the town of New
Salem there are numerous mounds and forts, supposed by many to be the
dilapidated dwellings and fortifications of a race now extinct. These
ancient relics arrest the attention of the new settlers, and become objects of
research for the curious. Numerous implements were found, and other articles,
evincing great skill in the arts. Mr. Spalding being an educated man
and passionately fond of history, took a lively interest in these developments
of antiquity, and in order to beguile the hours of retirement and furnish employment for his lively imagination, he conceived the idea of
giving a historical sketch of this long lost race.”


marge wrote:So Glenn, Matilda does not say he started writing in 1812 ...but rather according to her shortly after his arrival in Conneaut he started..which was 1809.


Now I am going to submit the part ofthe quote that you left out. It comes immediately after the part of your quote, and this is the place where she gives an explicit time frame and a point of reference.

Matilda Davison wrote:Their extreme antiquity of course would lead him to write in the most ancient style, and as the Old Testament is the most ancient book in the world, he imitated its style as nearly as possible.His sole object in writing this historical romance was to amuse himself and his neighbors. This was about the year 1812. Hull's surrender at Detroit occurred near the same time, and I recollect the date well from that circumstance


Note that this is not referring to the time he started reading the narrative to the neighbors. This is referring to the time he actually conceived of the idea and began writing his story.

Josiah was only visiting so he wouldn’t know when spalding started. Given that he appears to be familiar with the MSCC unfinished & not MF…there could be a number of explanations. Perhaps Spalding was writing MF while Josiah was reading MSCC..and with a 90 year old memory to him perhaps spalding while writing MF appeared to be continuuing to work on MSCC the one he was reading. He doesn't mention any discussions so his memory seems to be a function of reading, as opposed to listening or discussing with Spalding.


marge, Josiah gives a specific sequence of events initiated by problems initiated by the war of 1812. Because of those problems he went to stay with Solomon. Solomon began to compose his story. His desription is of the the manuscript at Oberlin College. His version corroborates that of Matilda Davison. Both of them use specific events as a timeframe.

Josiah's statement is in no way supportive of the S/R theory. Nor is Matilda Davison's. Redick McKee is a completely unreliable witness. Even some of his contemporaries recognized this. I will dig out the quote when I have more time.

Glenn
In order to give character to their lies, they dress them up with a great deal of piety; for a pious lie, you know, has a good deal more influence with an ignorant people than a profane one. Hence their lies came signed by the pious wife of a pious deceased priest. Sidney Rigdon QW J8-39
_Dan Vogel
_Emeritus
Posts: 876
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 1:26 am

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

Post by _Dan Vogel »

Marg,

That you reject all the evidence for the S/R theory is unmitigated nonsense. That you speculate the Book of Mormon witnesses to translation process are reliable is nonsense.


My support of the Mormon testimony is not speculation. I’m following standard historical protocol. Which group of witnesses is easier to believe? Which requires the least qualifications and ad hoc hypothesizing to defend? You have previously admitted that my position is the simplest and easiest to defend. Moreover, these witnesses are supported by implications of Joseph Smith’s being unable to replace the lost 116-page MS. So far, you have given no reasons for rejecting the Mormon testimonies. You have only called them liars without any foundation for doing so. Rather, the only reason you have given is that they contradict the Spalding witnesses and therefore have to be lying. Moreover, you have not responded to my questions:

The witnesses are inconsistent either way, because the Book of Mormon isn’t about the ten tribes. Either Spalding’s MS was about the ten tribes, and therefore contradicts the Book of Mormon, or it wasn’t about the ten tribes, and therefore the witnesses can’t be relied on.

Either Spalding’s MS was about the ten tribes, and therefore contradicts the Book of Mormon, or it wasn’t about the ten tribes, and therefore the witnesses can’t be relied on.

Either the witnesses were accurately recalling Spalding’s MS, and therefore it was not like the Book of Mormon, or they are mistaken about Spalding’s MS, and therefore can’t be relied on anyway.

So many of the witnesses mention "lost tribes" as a theme in spalding's work and frankly...if Spalding has a character or characters leaving Jerusalem who are descendants of the Manasseh tribe...which is a lost tribe...which is what the Book of Mormon has..then there is a lost tribe connection which is in the Book of Mormon.


Repeating nonsense doesn’t make it so. We have shown quite clearly that your ad hoc speculating is nothing but wishful thinking. You have not one shred of evidence and are contradicted by your own witnesses. I have shown quite clearly that the Book of Mormon rejects the ten tribe origin for the American Indian, while at the same time accepting the legend in Esdras for their location elsewhere. You have not responded to any of my arguments. You have only repeated your nonsensical speculation. This is hardly compelling argumentation.

Spalding's story evolved over time from what looks like at least 1812 to 1816. So the witnesses's recall will be a function of when they heard him read or they read it. McKee probably has a memory of a more involved lost tribe story because he was with Spalding in 1814- 1816..and he recalls a more indepth version that earlier witnesses.. The earlier witnesses may have had few details..less focus perhaps on the lost tribe time period from leaving Jerusalem to before American.


You don’t know that it was written, let alone that it evolved. Moreover, what you call evolved is contradiction between the witnesses. More speculation to harmonize and not deal with the issues.

But there are just too many witnesses who recalled a different manuscript to MSCC..too many recalled scriptural style, too many recall a lost tribe storyline involved. False memory with so many witnesses, with statements with a high degree of consistency..is a nonsense theory.


MCB gave us his list of thirty witnesses, which was padded with non-witnesses. I hope your definition of witnesses is better. My main concern is with the first nine Conneaut witnesses. There are also too many Mormon witnesses to the translation process to be easily dismissed, and their testimonies are less problematic. In such situations, I follow David Hume’s advice to believe the lesser miracle. Sometimes the evidence drives us to counter-intuitive conclusions.
I do not want you to think that I am very righteous, for I am not.
Joseph Smith (History of the Church 5:401)
_MCB
_Emeritus
Posts: 4078
Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2009 3:14 pm

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

Post by _MCB »

Dan,

MCB is a she.

In my appendix, I am placing the source first, and the informant second in brackets. I have also, as I said before, renamed that appendix.

Marg,

Dan V. is really not that far from us. Let us imagine a scenario in which Joseph Smith was the real primary author of the Book of Mormon. Hiram Smith attended a preparation school attached to Dartmouth college. He therefore had access to their library. In the evenings, especially in the winter, the family would read aloud for their own entertainment from books Hiram had brought home, and which they had borrowed from others, or the local library. They chose a wide range of literature available in that age. Joseph for reasons unknown at this time, had difficulty reading. However, he had excellent memory skills, and could combine the texts he had heard with great cleverness. When it came time for him to develop the Book of Mormon, all he had to do was continue as his mother related, weaving those stories together. Simple, isn't it?

However, if that were so, I Nephi and II Nephi and Jacob would be more similar to Mosiah and Alma and Helaman. But they are not.

Whatever the mechanics, the Book of Mormon was a product of the early 1800's. On that, we unbelievers can agree.

Always the peacemaker. LOL. Just trying to get everybody on a similar page, even if their page is not one I would prefer.
Huckelberry said:
I see the order and harmony to be the very image of God which smiles upon us each morning as we awake.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/a ... cc_toc.htm
_marg
_Emeritus
Posts: 1072
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2011 6:58 am

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

Post by _marg »

GlennThigpen wrote:
Howe offers no names to corroborate his statement. No affidavits. Unsupported.


Glenn on the back of MSCC..Hurlbut writes that he's shown it to Wright, Miller, O. Smith and others. so that backs up Howes statement.."that is was "shown to several of the fore mentioned witnesses". And the added evidence is the draft letter discovered I believe 1914..in which Aron Wright which says he was shown MSCC. Added to that is the fact that several of the witnesses mention many manuscripts. As for the ones who weren't specific about MSCC existing and that there were 2 manuscripts..for one that wasn't relevant to their main purpose in the statement which was identifying whether or not Spalding's manuscript matched in key respects the Book of Mormon. Their memory on all his manuscripts wasn't the issue. But in addition to that he was in the process of writing, neither of those manuscripts were finished and they likely didn't appear to be separate. The conneaut witnesses likely were exposed to MF ..in which battles were going on..the end hadn't been written. What spalding read to them was from sheets of paper not a bound book, even if they were aware of MS..to them that would have been a continuation in time of MF..it would appear as if one story. But they'd appreciate he wouldn't have to use it. The story was evolving and rather that developing the story into the future the one he started, he continued to develop along the same theme but went back in time.

McKee changed his statements and contradicts himself. His first statemement was about Canaan befor Joshua's invasion. At that time, there were no Israelites in Canaan. A totally different story than any other witness, not even set in the Americas. After reading McKinstry's statement he deferred to her memory which also was greatly enlarged over her first statement.


McKee was exposed to Solomon's writing during the period 1814 - 1816..so again Spalding had lots of time to add more material which would differ to the earlier witnesses..but still be along the same theme.

Glenn wrote:“Secondly, he and Oliver Smith contradict each other because Oliver says that Solomon started writing his "Nephi and Lehi" story when he first came to the area. This gives him no chance to go back and rewrite that story. And Oliver is contradicted by Josiah Spalding and Matilda Spalding Davison who note that Solomon started writing the manuscript in 1812. “


MATILDA SPALDING DAVISON TO REV. DR. DAVID R. AUSTIN: c.1 MAR. 1839
(SIGNED)*

“At the time of our marriage
he resided in Cherry Valley, New York. From this place we removed
to New Salem, Ashtabula county, Ohio, sometimes called Conneaut, as it is
situated upon Conneaut creek. Shortly after our removal to this place, his
health sunk, and he was laid aside from active labors. In the town of New
Salem there are numerous mounds and forts, supposed by many to be the
dilapidated dwellings and fortifications of a race now extinct. These
ancient relics arrest the attention of the new settlers, and become objects of
research for the curious. Numerous implements were found, and other articles,
evincing great skill in the arts. Mr. Spalding being an educated man
and passionately fond of history, took a lively interest in these developments
of antiquity, and in order to beguile the hours of retirement and furnish employment for his lively imagination, he conceived the idea of
giving a historical sketch of this long lost race.”


Glenn wrote:
marge wrote:So Glenn, Matilda does not say he started writing in 1812 ...but rather according to her shortly after his arrival in Conneaut he started..which was 1809.


Now I am going to submit the part ofthe quote that you left out. It comes immediately after the part of your quote, and this is the place where she gives an explicit time frame and a point of reference.

Matilda Davison": "Their extreme antiquity of course would lead him to write in the most ancient style, and as the Old Testament is the most ancient book in the world, he imitated its style as nearly as possible.His sole object in writing this historical romance was to amuse himself and his neighbors. This was about the year 1812. Hull's surrender at Detroit occurred near the same time, and I recollect the date well from that circumstance"


Note that this is not referring to the time he started reading the narrative to the neighbors. This is referring to the time he actually conceived of the idea and began writing his story.[/quote]

Glenn you are taking a few lines out of context of the entire statement. She said he started writing soon after they arrived in Conneaut due to his poor health and as a means to pass the time. You are reading into her statement more than she says. She remembers him reading to neighbours on that date, not beginning to write a manuscript.

Josiah was only visiting so he wouldn’t know when spalding started. Given that he appears to be familiar with the MSCC unfinished & not MF…there could be a number of explanations. Perhaps Spalding was writing MF while Josiah was reading MSCC..and with a 90 year old memory to him perhaps spalding while writing MF appeared to be continuuing to work on MSCC the one he was reading. He doesn't mention any discussions so his memory seems to be a function of reading, as opposed to listening or discussing with Spalding.


marge, Josiah gives a specific sequence of events initiated by problems initiated by the war of 1812. Because of those problems he went to stay with Solomon. Solomon began to compose his story. His desription is of the the manuscript at Oberlin College. His version corroborates that of Matilda Davison. Both of them use specific events as a timeframe.


No Glenn Matilda does not say Spalding started writing on that date. And as far as Josiah he's one witness amongst many..and it may well be that while spalding was working on the manuscript in which he takes it back in time, Josiah was reading the other one. Josiah may never have discussed the manuscripts with Solomon, nor listened to Spalding read..so Manuscript Found even if there has been a few discussions after 43 years may well have been forgotten.

Josiah's statement is in no way supportive of the S/R theory. Nor is Matilda Davison's. Redick McKee is a completely unreliable witness. Even some of his contemporaries recognized this. I will dig out the quote when I have more time.


Josiah's statement is supportive because he recalls Matilda talking about a Mormon in Pittsburg following them. And why would Matilida lie about that to him..she has absolutely no reason to do so.
Post Reply