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

[_Dan Vogel]

MCB,

Dan, MCB is a she.

Sorry about that! I should have known by your avatar.

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.

I don’t see Hyrum walking away with books from the Dartmouth library. Dartmouth and Lebanon were some distance from one another, and I don’t believe Hyrum lived at home during his attendance there. But the Smiths probably had access to books, pamphlets, etc., especially in Palmyra. I don’t see Joseph Smith as terribly bookish.

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?

I’m not sure where you get Joseph Smith couldn’t read. His father was a teacher part of the time. I’ve heard the accusation based on bad information and reasoning, but I can’t remember where I heard it or exactly what it was based on.

[_MCB]

I said difficulty reading, as in, perhaps, dyslexia. I didn't say incapable of reading. I have a speshulist in eddacation in scuool sykology (MA+30). I have collected some significant documentation on whether he was capable of producing the Book of Mormon on his own. It seems to be an impossibility. The Hancock County historians [Deming and Gregg (and perhaps also Sharp)], with whom I share cultural heritage were firmly convinced of this.

I don’t see Hyrum walking away with books from the Dartmouth library. Dartmouth and Lebanon were some distance from one another, and I don’t believe Hyrum lived at home during his attendance there.

I completely agree.

No need to apologize about the gender mistake. I know that you still carry with you some Mormon cultural characteristics.

[_GlennThigpen]

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. [/marge]

marge, Howe did not name any names. Hurlbut's statement is cryptic there. Here is the full quote:

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

This evidently was written before Hurlbut had actually browsed through the manuscript and found that it did not read as expected. He had been on a lecture tour before he went back to see Aron Wright.
You are making speculations about the manuscript that are not supported by any evidence, i.e. that they were probably not separate. The Conneaut witnesses were all exposed to the same manuscript. It is the memories that play tricks with them, a la lost tribes, straits of Darien, etc.

McKee changed his statements and contradicts himself. His first statement was about Canaan before 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.

Again you are speculating without any evidence whatsoever to back you up. Joseph Miller certainly did not echo anything that Mckee said. And Canaan, before the invasion of Joshua is not supported by any other witness, no where, no how. His first statement is so far out of the park that it brings up suspicions that it is entirely made up. There were no Israelites in the land before Joshua's invasion. It is far fetched to imagine Solomon going back that far in time. The Israelite invasion of Canaan is believed by scholars to be in the 1400-1190 B.C. time frame. They have not been able to actually pinpoint it closer than that. But at the closest, it is 470 years away from the exile of the ten tribes. There is no way to connect a story about Canaan without Israelites to a lost tribes story at least five hundred years later, or a Jerusalem exodus by a small group of people over six hundred years later.

Now I am going to submit the part of the 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.

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.

marge, I am not quoting out of context at all. I just added context to your quote. I am going to give the full quote for context:

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 delapidated 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. Spaulding 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. 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. As he progressed in his narrative, the neighbors would come in from time to time to hear portions read, and a great interest in the work was excited among them. It claimed to have been written by one of the lost nations, and to have been recovered from the earth, and assumed the title of Manuscript Found. The neighbors would often enquire how Mr. S. progressed in deciphering the manuscript, and when he had a sufficient portion prepared, he would inform them, and they would assemble to hear it read. He was enabled, from his acquaintance with the classics and ancient history, to introduce many singular names, which were particularly noticed by the people, and could be easily recognized by them. Solomon Spaulding had a brother, John Spaulding, residing in the place at the time, who was perfectly familiar with the work, and repeatedly heard the whole of it read.

Matilda does not give a time frame for the "short time" after they moved to Ohio that Solomon's health sunk and that he was stopped being actively engaged in any type of work. But she does give a time frame for Solomon conceiving of writing a story. If you read that paragraph, the time frame she mentions, August of 1812, clearly refers back to Solomon conceiving the idea of writing his story. It does not refer ahead to the Solomon reading to the neighbors. She does not explicitly state that he began writing the story in August of 1812, but I don't think that you would argue that he started writing the story before he had the idea.
The information that the neighbors would come in from time to time to hear him read as the narrative progresses comes after the idea conception and the time frame of August of 1812. In order for your argument to have any merit, the bit about the neighbors would have to come before the date statement.

Glenn

[_marg]

Matilda does not give a time frame for the "short time" after they moved to Ohio that Solomon's health sunk and that he was stopped being actively engaged in any type of work.

Well I believe it was in Josiah's statement that his health wasn't very good even before Solomon went to Conneaut. When Solomon left college he says "he was out of health". But Solomon and Matilda moved to Conneaut 1809 (I believe). And she says "shortly after our removal his health sunk" so it sounds like his health wasn't good to begin..at the time of their marriage... but deteriorated in Conneaut shortly upon arriving in Conneaut. It was due to his poor health that he spent time writing and when one considers this with other statements such as Oliver Smith who said that Solomon upon arriving in Conneaut bought land surveyed it and commenced selling and during this time period was writing and John Mill who was employed by Spalding in 1811 and Spalding was writing them..the evidence is not consistent with your interpretation that Matilda was referring to a particular date that he started to write ..as being in 1812 Aug (I believe) Matilida also has been known to be wrong with her dates when she said Hurlbut visited her in 1834.

So you are forcing the evidence and picking only a small portion that you can force into by your interpretion, when if you look at the context of her entire statement along with what others say, it's obvious she is not saying that's when he started writing.

But she does give a time frame for Solomon conceiving of writing a story. If you read that paragraph, the time frame she mentions, August of 1812, clearly refers back to Solomon conceiving the idea of writing his story. It does not refer ahead to the Solomon reading to the neighbors. She does not explicitly state that he began writing the story in August of 1812, but I don't think that you would argue that he started writing the story before he had the idea.

You are being too literal with how she worded it. No I do not interpret her comment of that data as being a date when he commenced writing. It's also not consistent with the evidence in existence of MSCC which has a letter written on one page Jan 1812..but then only 37 more pages written after that. How would he have commenced writing in Aug 1812...and a letter written on a page at the 132 page spot I believe was written in Jan 1812.

I'm not going to continue arguing this point with you Glenn...the evidence is not consistent with your interpretation of her words.

The information that the neighbors would come in from time to time to hear him read as the narrative progresses comes after the idea conception and the time frame of August of 1812. In order for your argument to have any merit, the bit about the neighbors would have to come before the date statement.

Right and so how did that letter with a date of Jan 1812...get there if he started writing in Aug 1812.

Edit : by the way you did the same thing with your interpretation of Josiah's statement in which because he mentions the war ..you interpreted that the date the 1812 war in June was when Josiah was saying MSCC was started by Spalding.I didn't agree with your interpretation. And the letter indicates your interpretation is highly unlikely. The letter is on page 132..dated Jan 1812..and there are only 37 more pages. So what Josiah was reading was a manuscript up to page 132...written had been written already by Jan 1812.

Josiah: "We soon after went into a large speculation in new land in
Pennsylvania and Ohio, and after a few years he moved out there with his
wife; she never had any children. He sold a large amount of land on credit,
principally to people in Ohio. The war that broke out with England seriously
affected that country. That circumstance, with some other misfortunes
that happened, placed us in difficult circumstances. We were
under the necessity to make great sacrifices to pay our debts. I went to see
my brother and staid [sic] with him some time. . I found him unwell, and
somewhat low in spirits. He began to compose his novel, which it is conjectured
that the Mormons made use of in forming their Bible.

So as I said to you the first time, I think his remark about the war as meant to highlight ..the misinfortunes ..which was a reason to visit him...his remark was not meant to indicate when Spalding started to write MSCC.

[_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?

No it doesn't account for the witness statements. Why is Matilda telling Josiah a Mormon was following them in Pittsburg..Josiah had no interest in Mormonism..why would she lie to him? Why would she tell Hurlbut about Rigdon in 1833. Why would McKee talk about Spalding telling him Rigdon took the manuscript (If I recall correctly). What evidence is there that Smith had amazing memory skills that he could preplan in his head, create in his imagination the story as he dictated ..without any revisions. The whole scheme is too intricate for one person to plan it all, not to mention the various witnesses who recognized Spalding's work in the Book of Mormon. Spalding had the interest in such a story theme and history, Rigdon had the interest, but not Smith.

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.

I'm not sure what you are suggesting, if you are suggesting that I don't think Smith had any input, well that's not the case, I think he worked with Cowdery and they added material.

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.

I suppose my response must have come across as critical...I haven't had the time to read Dan's posts. Reading more on the S/R theory is time consuming, responding to some posts has been time consuming and I've had to pick and choose what to respond to. That was a quick response to a first line comment that my ideas/reasoning were nonsense. We obviously don't have agreement or we wouldn't be in discussion..so while someone might think my reasoning is nonsense, I too might think the same of theirs.

[_MCB]

No, Marg, that reasoning was nonsense, and I knew it when I typed it. I was playing Devil's advocate, demonstrating the high probability that Joseph could not have been the primary author, by presenting a scenario by which Joseph Smith, with his limitations, could have written the book. Very easy to shoot down, but within Dan V's belief parameters.

When arguing in a civil environment, it is often advantageous to explore the opponents' argument with information that has been ignored by the opponent.

Smith did contribute, and Dan has done a good job showing the autobiographical content in I Nephi, which Jockers et al confirmed. However, Dan goes on to generalize it to the entire Book of Mormon.

[_marg]

When arguing in a civil environment, it is often advantageous to explore the opponents' argument with information that has been ignored by the opponent.

Ok, for the record the reason I didn't respond to the rest of Dan's post, is that I essentially spent a night of reading and had responded to Glenn at which point it was 5 a.m. my time, and I hadn't slept. So I responded to Dan's first line and never got passed to the rest of the post. And even today, I haven't had time to go back and read the rest of it, nor his response today, or deal with posts from over the weekend.. A good deal of my time, is spent reading..other things besides the actual thread, such as on "lost tribes" various evidence in the S/R theory. The time goes by too quickly.

[_Dan Vogel]

DMC,

I said difficulty reading, as in, perhaps, dyslexia. I didn't say incapable of reading. I have a speshulist in eddacation in scuool sykology (MA+30). I have collected some significant documentation on whether he was capable of producing the Book of Mormon on his own. It seems to be an impossibility. The Hancock County historians [Deming and Gregg (and perhaps also Sharp)], with whom I share cultural heritage were firmly convinced of this.

I have heard this dyslexia thing before, but I doubt such was the case since his holographs don’t show any transposition of characters, only expected spelling problems. But even if there was such evidence, that would not prevent him from dictating to others. He wasn’t dumb and he apparently had no trouble reading the Bible. Many assumed the quiet, folksy Joseph wasn’t smart enough to write the Book of Mormon. Usually these people didn’t know Joseph Smith well enough, nor had they read the Book of Mormon. Mormon apologists like to point out parallels between the Book of Mormon and ancient history and say Joseph Smith wasn’t smart enough to get them right. This ignores all the historically wrong things—anachronisms—and plagiarism from the KJV. It’s also possible that Joseph Smith got some things right, but for the wrong reason. At any rate, I’m guessing that you might be doing the same thing, only with parallels to the 19th century.

[_MCB]

his holographs don’t show any transposition of characters,

That won't necessarily happen in an adult with dyslexia. However, someone else a long time ago found them in an unexpected place. Check my past posts, not very long ago. LOL.

At any rate, I’m guessing that you might be doing the same thing, only with parallels to the 19th century

That is why I enjoy debating with you. you are honing my thinking.

(10) Specific learning disability —(i) General. Specific learning disability means a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, that may manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathematical calculations, including conditions such as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia.

(ii) Disorders not included. Specific learning disability does not include learning problems that are primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor disabilities, of mental retardation, of emotional disturbance, or of environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage. [34 CFR §300.8(c)(10)]

http://nichcy.org/disability/specific/ld#idea

Although we know that he was educationally disadvantaged, that does not eliminate the possibility of dyslexia. Compounded problems.

It is possible to have a learning disability and also be gifted. And Joseph Smith certainly had some gifted traits.

[_GlennThigpen]

Well I believe it was in Josiah's statement that his health wasn't very good even before Solomon went to Conneaut. When Solomon left college he says "he was out of health". But Solomon and Matilda moved to Conneaut 1809 (I believe). And she says "shortly after our removal his health sunk" so it sounds like his health wasn't good to begin..at the time of their marriage... but deteriorated in Conneaut shortly upon arriving in Conneaut. It was due to his poor health that he spent time writing and when one considers this with other statements such as Oliver Smith who said that Solomon upon arriving in Conneaut bought land surveyed it and commenced selling and during this time period was writing and John Mill who was employed by Spalding in 1811 and Spalding was writing them..the evidence is not consistent with your interpretation that Matilda was referring to a particular date that he started to write ..as being in 1812 Aug (I believe) Matilida also has been known to be wrong with her dates when she said Hurlbut visited her in 1834.

I agree that Solomon is reported to having chronic health problems. However the time frame of just when his health became so bad that he could no longer work the forge is the question. He was actively surveying and laying out land tracts when he first moved to the area in 1809. He engaged in a partnership with Henry Lake to rebuild an iron forge in March of 1811. Part of the agreement was that, after a four month start up, each would take turns working the forge, but if one partner missed his turn, the other would have the right to work the forge for their own profit until the other was again able to take his turn.
There is no time frame given that I know of for the failure of the forge and Solomon's health failing to the point that he could no longer work.
John Miller's statement is a bit of a cipher. He notes staying with Solomon for some time, but does not give any time frame. He does note that Solomon would read humorous passages (found in the Oberlin manuscript but not the Boo of Mormon) to those present. That agrees with Matilda's statement about Solomon reading to the neighbors, but the time frame is 1812.

Matilda had a very good encoding event for her memory of the time frame that she said Solomon conceived the idea of writing that story.

Oliver Smith's testimony is very problematic for the S/R theory because he has Solomon writing that story when he first came to the area. That leaves no room for him to have "altered his plan and commenced writing a history of the first Settlement of America the particulars you will find in my testimony Dated Sept 1833." (Aron Wright)

So you are forcing the evidence and picking only a small portion that you can force into by your interpretion, when if you look at the context of her entire statement along with what others say, it's obvious she is not saying that's when he started writing.

I am looking at her statement in the context of what she said and the English that she used in making it. In her statement she is clearly saying that Solomon conceived his idea to write his story in August of 1812. To interpret that statement as saying that was the date he started reading the narrative to the neighbors is forcing the text to refer to a statement that had not been made ratherthan refer naturally to a previous statement. I am looking at Josiah Spalding's statement in the context that he made it, and the English that he used in doing so. That is that he came to stay with Solomon due to difficulties caused by the war, among other things, but his visit came after the war broke out and caused those difficulties. Then came the statement that Solomon began to compose his story. Again, he gives a very good place marker for the time frame of his visit. The war of 1812, which began in June of 1812.

But she does give a time frame for Solomon conceiving of writing a story. If you read that paragraph, the time frame she mentions, August of 1812, clearly refers back to Solomon conceiving the idea of writing his story. It does not refer ahead to the Solomon reading to the neighbors. She does not explicitly state that he began writing the story in August of 1812, but I don't think that you would argue that he started writing the story before he had the idea.

You are being too literal with how she worded it. No I do not interpret her comment of that data as being a date when he commenced writing. It's also not consistent with the evidence in existence of MSCC which has a letter written on one page Jan 1812..but then only 37 more pages written after that. How would he have commenced writing in Aug 1812...and a letter written on a page at the 132 page spot I believe was written in Jan 1812.
I'm not going to continue arguing this point with you Glenn...the evidence is not consistent with your interpretation of her words.

The date is probably not 1812, but 1813. Here is a link to a blowup that Dale has of that portion of the letter.
http://solomonspalding.com/Lib/Bsh1977a.htm#msp135
The date is almost certainly 1813, not 1812, although it really does not make much difference for a probable August beginning date. There is no time frame given for the insertion of that letter. It could not have been earlier than January of 1812. If the date was 1812, it could have been any date after that. If it were 1813, it could have been any time after that. But the fact is, that either of those dates are problematic for Oliver Smith's story. It is not my interpretation that is inconsistent, it is the statements of the witnesses.

The information that the neighbors would come in from time to time to hear him read as the narrative progresses comes after the idea conception and the time frame of August of 1812. In order for your argument to have any merit, the bit about the neighbors would have to come before the date statement.

Right and so how did that letter with a date of Jan 1812...get there if he started writing in Aug 1812.

Edit : by the way you did the same thing with your interpretation of Josiah's statement in which because he mentions the war ..you interpreted that the date the 1812 war in June was when Josiah was saying MSCC was started by Spalding.I didn't agree with your interpretation. And the letter indicates your interpretation is highly unlikely. The letter is on page 132..dated Jan 1812..and there are only 37 more pages. So what Josiah was reading was a manuscript up to page 132...written had been written already by Jan 1812.

Josiah: "We soon after went into a large speculation in new land in
Pennsylvania and Ohio, and after a few years he moved out there with his
wife; she never had any children. He sold a large amount of land on credit,
principally to people in Ohio. The war that broke out with England seriously
affected that country. That circumstance, with some other misfortunes
that happened, placed us in difficult circumstances. We were
under the necessity to make great sacrifices to pay our debts. I went to see
my brother and staid [sic] with him some time. . I found him unwell, and
somewhat low in spirits. He began to compose his novel, which it is conjectured
that the Mormons made use of in forming their Bible.

So as I said to you the first time, I think his remark about the war as meant to highlight ..the misinfortunes ..which was a reason to visit him...his remark was not meant to indicate when Spalding started to write MSCC.

marge, I have already covered the 1812 or 1813 date earlier in my response. Josiah's statement was in response to a request apparently by a Reverend S. J. Spalding in 1855 for information on his deceased brother, Solomon. S. J. Spaulding was evidently compiling information on the descendants of one Edward Spaulding and was not aimed at the Book of Mormon or Solomon's story. Josiah was only relating events as he remembered them, and seems to have a pretty good recall of the sequence of events when they are compared to John Spalding's statements. Josiah did not say or even intimate that Solomon was already writing the story when he arrived. He said that he began to compose his novel. The plain reading of that statement concludes that Solomon began to write the story after Josiah arrived.

Glenn