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

[_beastie]

LOL. I have been criticized by bigger minds than yours—I certainly can take it, Marg. But “verbal diarrhea” might be a projection on your part. You might lack the background necessary to even judge the value of my analysis in such harsh terms. The part you are referring to partly reflects my discussion with Bob Anderson, a psychotherapist who wrote Inside the Mind of Joseph Smith (Signature Books), where he has a similar discussion. I think you should just stick with what I wrote, which were parallels between the Lehi family and Joseph Smith’s family.

First disclaimer: I have only read a portion of this thread to this point, so wasn't going to participate at all, but wanted to add a comment on this.

I just recently reread Anderson's book Inside the Mind of Joseph Smith. And, of course, I read your Indian Origins years ago. I admit to having fallen off the Rigdon wagon, after veering in that direction for a while. I am uncomfortable with the continued lack of supporting evidence, although the idea of Rigdon's involvement (more than Spalding) appealed to me. But rereading Anderson's book has persuaded me that there is simply too much of Joseph Smith in the Book of Mormon to warrant the assumptions that the involvement of another party entail.

[_MCB]

Dan V and beastie:

I am up to the challenge of convincing you that it came from more than the mind of Joseph Smith.

LOL I have re-explored something the past few days that will clinch it.

[_beastie]

Dan V and beastie:

I am up to the challenge of convincing you that it came from more than the mind of Joseph Smith.

LOL I have re-explored something the past few days that will clinch it.

Go for it! My mind is definitely not made up, but I am leaning more towards Joseph Smith as sole author now-a-days, that's for sure.

[_Roger]

beastie:

Good to hear from you:

Go for it! My mind is definitely not made up, but I am leaning more towards Joseph Smith as sole author now-a-days, that's for sure.

Great. Please give me your opinion--from the position of a mind "not made up"--on the parallels between Spalding's discovery narrative and Smith's.

I'm sure you know what I am referring to... both walking near home, both contemplating the ancient inhabitants of the land, both walk up a hill, both stumble upon a flat stone, both use a lever to dislodge it, both discover ancient manuscripts written in an ancient language underneath the stone, both eventually translate the manuscripts, both contain a history of the former inhabitants of this continent, etc.

What do you think is the best explanation for these parallels?

All the best.

[_Roger]

Dan wrote:

As I have argued and to which you have never responded, if Spalding wrote about a family of the scattered tribes traveling to America, he would have had the family go to Assyria with the others, then leave from there to America. There would have been no reason for him to have them go to Jerusalem and leave several generations later. It works in the Book of Mormon because Lehi’s colony has nothing to do with the lost tribes of a previous generation and place.

It's fairly ridiculous to attempt to put such restrictions on what Spalding would and would not have done. To argue that Spalding could not have had an Israelite family flee to Judah and from there leave to America has no basis. Of course he could have done exactly that and such a storyline could have indeed been characterized as a "lost tribes account" for the ancestors of the American Indians.

It may "work" in the Book of Mormon as is, but the fact is no one knows the storyline of the 116 lost pages--and even that would not have had to have been a direct copy of Spalding's novel and storyline. The Conneaut witnesses never claim that Spalding wrote the Book of Mormon.

As I have said and you never have acknowledged, either the witnesses accurately remembered Spalding’s MS, and therefore Spalding’s not the Book of Mormon’s author, or they are inaccurately remembered Spalding’s MS, and therefore can’t be trusted.

False dichotomy. First, no one--except S/R critics who are attempting to mischaracterize S/R--ever suggested that Spalding wrote the Book of Mormon. Second, no one has demonstrated that the Conneaut witnesses were inaccurately remembering Spalding's ms. There are only two ways to arrive at that conclusion and both are faulty. Either one must assume that MSCC is all Spalding ever wrote on the subject of the former inhabitants of North America (contrary to what his contemporaries pointedly tell us) or one must assume that whatever Spalding wrote that is no longer extant would have to have been faithfully carried through to the Book of Mormon (despite the loss of the first 116 pages) so that we can now conveniently evaluate the comparison (apples to apples) as you and Glenn seem to want to do. While both assumptions could be true, they could just as easily be false.

[_marg]

LOL. I have been criticized by bigger minds than yours—I certainly can take it, Marg.

That's good to hear.

But “verbal diarrhea” might be a projection on your part. You might lack the background necessary to even judge the value of my analysis in such harsh terms.

Yes I agree I lack knowledge.

The part you are referring to partly reflects my discussion with Bob Anderson, a psychotherapist who wrote Inside the Mind of Joseph Smith (Signature Books), where he has a similar discussion. I think you should just stick with what I wrote, which were parallels between the Lehi family and Joseph Smith’s family.

Perhap's I stumbled across a apart which differs to the rest of the book. The introduction which I read year's ago I had problems with as well. While I understand it would appear likely that the problem I'm having is because I accept the S/R theory...I believe it's much more than that.

You appear to be accepting dreams which are highly detailed, written I believe in Lucy's book in which she's recalling of Joseph Sr. and herself which occurred decades previously. Personally my dreams are never that vivid, and I can barely recall them upon awakening let alone hours, day, years and decades later. It would seem to me that quite possibly the Book of Mormon has dreams written in..and that could be Smith's input..but that later Lucy's dreams are manufactured and not necessarily by her, for her book.

So then what you do is take the dreams and storyline in the Book of Mormon and look for parallels to Smith and family...but the part I disagree with the most is your added psychoanalysis. Finding parallels is not difficult. If you are focused on finding parallels you will find them, but that doesn't mean there actually is a valid connection and a valid reason to psychoanalyze. And that's what the critic was criticizing you for.

Let's look at this:

You write: " It was fitting that Joseph’s book began with a family that was, in many ways, comparable to the Smith family. Both were displaced and disinherited, having left the land of their inheritance to settle in a more promising region. More importantly, both were conflicted over religion, particularly over the validity of a father’s dreams."

-First of all, when people move more often than not they move to find something more promising,otherwise they wouldn't be moving. So a parallel to that is meaningless.
-The Smith family were not disinherited, they had a farm, Lucy was $1,000 given as a wedding gift but Joseph Sr. in his business venture which was high risk... lost all they had. rom that point forward they struggled and moved to find something better. This isn't the same as Nephi's family per the story. Moving is common in everyone's lives, every person has a moving story.
-The dream in the Book of Mormon was written perhaps by Smith, the dream recalled by Lucy Smith was written well after when the dream was supposed to have occurred, I believe it was allegedly 1811 that Joseph Sr. had the dream you are referring to. But why accept her dream stories at face value, who on earth remembers dreams decades ago anyhow..and with detail.
- both were conflicted over religion? That's a storyline the smith's created after the Book of Mormon was written. They were no more conflicted than anyone else. I also don't get where you see that Nephi and Lehi were conflicted.

Nephi’s struggle fits well with the overall autobiographical tone of Joseph’s quest, involving certain moral sacrifices in order to get the gold plates. Nephi, as alter ego, tells us something of Joseph’s attitudes about his own mission and his decision to cross moral lines to accomplish God’s errand

As I pointed out to you Dan, Joseph had no moral dilemma in promoting a type of polygamy which treated women as breeding animals and slaves. You have not established that he ever had great morals previous to the Book of Mormon. You are assuming he has moral dilemma's without establishing that he ever had.

On a deeper level, the story of Laban perhaps reflected an aspect of Joseph’s relationship with his father. Whereas Lehi represented the idealized Joseph Sr., the drunken Laban personified the side of Joseph Sr. that the son most hated–the backsliding Universalist and the sword-bearing treasure seeker that Joseph Jr. wanted extinguished. With God’s permission, the son symbolically slays the evil father with his own weapon, that is, through belief in magic, hidden treasures, and inspired dreams, thus allowing the good father to emerge. Nephi’s beheading of Laban may also symbolize an attack on Joseph Sr’s tendency to intellectualize and allegorize the Scriptures, the trait undoubtedly inherited from his own father, Asael, and reinforced by his Unitarian–Universalist leanings. In this sense, Joseph Jr. wanted to free the Bible from the intellectualizing grip of his father and those like him, to interpret the scriptures for himself more literally and through the spirit of God. Thus like Nephi, Joseph Jr. crossed moral boundaries and used deception to take the Bible from the errant father and deliver it to the inspired dreamer father. (note 8)

Wow you show great creativity. Do you really believe any of the above?

I've only pulled out a few paragraphs to comment on. Perhaps this chapter9 is not indicative of the rest of the book, but even if I was a Smith alone advocate, I wouldn't be accepting your psychoanalysis and I'd appreciate finding parallels while ignoring the dissimilarities..is far from good science or reasoning.

[_Uncle Dale]

...
Maybe a good time for us both to bow out. We have gone circular.
...
Glenn

I've been watching here for over a week, and have not come across
anything I felt even slightly like responding to.

Now and then somebody will actually add some now information, not
otherwise available -- and those sorts of discoveries have always been
my primary interest.

There are participants in this extended forum who really do conduct
investigative research, and who occasionally inform us of something
from that past that is truly germane to Mormon history, scriptures, etc.

But those folks appear to have put their communications of anything
really useful here "on hold" and are offering nothing that even begins
to address Dr. Peterson's original intent for this thread.

Along those lines, that 2010 "Response to Jockers, Criddle, et al." is
receiving wide interest. A correspondent of mine mentioned that
the subject had been brought up recently in his EQ meeting, and
that 40 digital copies of the paper had been sent out -- I presume
by i-phone e-mail, or some such communication.

If nobody is interested in adding anything new or useful, I'll make
one final stab at it, before retiring from this thread entirely.

Here is a hunk of Spalding text, not contained in the Oberlin MS.
Perhaps it will be useful to compare it with the man's fictional
writings -- in order to discover just how much overlap in language
we should expect, when comparing two writings by the same author.

A respectable number of citizens of different political sentiments in the town of Richfield, met on the 4th inst. at the house of Mr. Jacob Brewster. It was unanimously agreed to join in the celebration of Independence. Col. John Abbot was chosen President of the meeting, and Solomon Spalding, Esq. to deliver an Oration. Having partook of an elegant entertainment, and drank a number of patriotic toasts, through which the greatest harmony and cheerfulness prevailed, it was voted to publish the proceedings of the meeting in the Albany Register and Centinel.

The speaker having delineated, in a concise manner, the principal causes which contributed to the origin and establishment of our Independence and National Government, and likewise the prosperous situation of the United States since the adoption of the federal constitution, concludes the oration as follows:

Not to explore futurity to behold the immense population, wealth, grandeur and power of this nation, her present prosperous situation may be viewed with joy and gratitude.

What serenity and cheerfulness are conspicuous among citizens of all professions. The farmer is stimulated to enlarge his improvements and accumulate wealth from a firm assurance that he shall not be robbed of his hard earnings by an haughty tyrant or imperious landlord. The mechanic knows that the law secures to him his wages, he therefore, with alacrity, repairs to his employment, and sings in the midst of his toils. The merchant rejoices to see so many customers from all classes, who have the inclination and the means to purchase his goods. The mariner, finding sufficient employment, either in fishing or navigation, and expecting an ample compensation for his fatigues, his sufferings and dangers, makes the ocean resound with his merry songs. Amd here the enterprising and ambitious find the most powerful incentives to induce them to improve their minds with knowledge, and to regulate their conduct by the rules of virtue and honor; for learning and virtue are generally respected, and form the basis for learned employments and promotion in the community. As the beams of literature have spread, and knowledge has generally been diffused among the citizens of America, hence clerical despotism has fled, and hereditary titles have no existence. The ignorant domineering priest is spurned by every enlightened citizen; and the conceited empiric cures but a few patients by necromancy, and finds but a small sale for his specifics and nostrums. Talents, virtue and patriotism are required for office; of consequence none, without possessing these, can justly promise themselves sufficient confidence and esteem to be promoted in any of the departments of government. If, by impositions and intrigues, any are raised into conspicuous stations, the confidence will be, that their characters will be more effectively known, and they will incur a more universal contempt and hatred, and sink deeper into the mire of ignominy and reproach.

Impressed with these ideas, which the occasion naturally suggests, we all rejoice that we are citizens of America -- that we live in a land where, without molestation, we can enjoy our own rights, and where such encouragement is given to virtue and mental improvements. The prospect affords such rational and sublime pleasure, that we would not exchange situations with any state or kingdom under heaven.

-----
Dear Billy, I heard you had gone east. My anxiety for your success was such, as the greatest friendship would naturally excite for the precarious adventures of a generous and good friend. I am not a little pleased to hear you are in business which probably will procure you a little of the root of all evil. For my part, I am so unfortunate as not to be engaged in any lucrative employment. I have but just recovered my health, so as to be able to seek out for business. I intended to have keept a school, but I imagine those which are worth keeping are principally taken up. At the expiration of your school it is probable I should be glad to be your successor. I wish you to write me upon the subject. Perhaps I may make you a visit, but it is uncertain. I am now at your Dada's, agreeably entertained. Your company would make my felicity complete. Where are those inestimable hours we have spent together in ...

Necessity obliges me to be short. If you see droll sensible Mr. Shepard and good Mr Crane give my best compliments -- I would have written, but have not time.

Dear Billy yours
Sn Spalding

Mr Elijah Parish


-----


Lyme Oct 8th 1794

Dear Brother, When I wrote last to Ashford, it was uncertain whether I should tarry in this town any longer. But Mr. Wiggins receiving an appointment to go on a mission to the northward for four months he applied to me to supply his desk until his return I engaged and returned back with him from New Haven.

Last Sunday I began my term. I expect within less than a fortnight to take a ride to Ashford and shall likely tarry in three or four days. If you can in the course of that time procure me from Ephraim a good full-welled saddle and a genteel portmanteau made in the newest mode I shall be glad and much obliged to you -- Solm Spalding.



Dear Sister Soldendia, When I read your letter I could scarcely refrain from shedding a empathetic tear over it -- But whilst I felt the most sincere commiserates, I was highly pleased with the fortitude and resignation which you manifested. Trials an afflictions spring not from the dust -- Our benevolent Sovereign has made a wise arrangement of all his dispensations.

A wise improvement on our part will issue in our highest benefit. -- This consideration is sufficient to support us under the greatest misfortunes. But I hope for S. P. Josiah please to let [Lendee] have this. Miss Sadie Gilbert has recovered health and sends compliments


http://premormon.com/resources/r010/Solomon4.txt
cf:
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/NY ... htm#080401

UD

[_Dan Vogel]

Roger,

It's fairly ridiculous to attempt to put such restrictions on what Spalding would and would not have done. To argue that Spalding could not have had an Israelite family flee to Judah and from there leave to America has no basis. Of course he could have done exactly that and such a storyline could have indeed been characterized as a "lost tribes account" for the ancestors of the American Indians.

Of course, the claim that Spalding wrote such a document is disputed. We are only talking about it in theoretical terms—of what would be more probable among our choices. The burden is on those who claim he did write such a document. To argue that he wrote fiction and therefore could have written anything you need him to write is not an argument. You have to tell us why your view is more probable than an alternative view. The “restrictions” you mention are an attempt to boundaries on speculation. Interpreting the phrase “lost tribes” when applied to the Indians had a limited meaning when you compare such terms against the lexicon of the Spalding witnesses’ culture. They didn’t go into detail because they assumed everyone would understand what was being referenced. It is less likely that the witnesses had the rarified definition that you and Marg have invented to bring their statements in line with the Book of Mormon. Compare with that kind of analysis, which is standard scholarly fare, the position adopted by you and Marg is extremely weak and a far less probable explanation. As I have said, you can’t get any further away from the lost tribes myth and still be talking about an Israelite migration to America than the Book of Mormon. A single family from another generation and place couldn’t be more unlike the lost tribes myth. Indeed, nothing in the Book of Mormon connects Lehi with the lost tribes. Having the same bloodline as one of the tribes that were lost in a previous generation doesn’t qualify as a “lost tribes account”. You can put this down as another ad hoc speculation involving convoluted logic designed to save a disintegrating theory.

It may "work" in the Book of Mormon as is, but the fact is no one knows the storyline of the 116 lost pages--and even that would not have had to have been a direct copy of Spalding's novel and storyline. The Conneaut witnesses never claim that Spalding wrote the Book of Mormon.

As I have pointed out to you before, you can’t use ignorance as an argument. This is also a fallacy of possible proof, with the added twist that no matter what was in the 116-page MS, it wouldn’t be evidence against your theory. Not only can’t your theory be tested, it can’t be disproved either. Miller claimed passages in the Book of Mormon were taken verbatim from Spalding’s MS. If both sides of a debate were allowed such latitude in handling sources and unbridled speculation, nothing would ever get resolved. That’s why I have tried to encourage you and Marg to do some reading on logic and rules of debate.

As I have said and you never have acknowledged, either the witnesses accurately remembered Spalding’s MS, and therefore Spalding’s not the Book of Mormon’s author, or they are inaccurately remembered Spalding’s MS, and therefore can’t be trusted.

False dichotomy. First, no one--except S/R critics who are attempting to mischaracterize S/R--ever suggested that Spalding wrote the Book of Mormon. Second, no one has demonstrated that the Conneaut witnesses were inaccurately remembering Spalding's ms. There are only two ways to arrive at that conclusion and both are faulty. Either one must assume that MSCC is all Spalding ever wrote on the subject of the former inhabitants of North America (contrary to what his contemporaries pointedly tell us) or one must assume that whatever Spalding wrote that is no longer extant would have to have been faithfully carried through to the Book of Mormon (despite the loss of the first 116 pages) so that we can now conveniently evaluate the comparison (apples to apples) as you and Glenn seem to want to do. While both assumptions could be true, they could just as easily be false.

[/quote]

This is a dichotomy, but it’s not false. On the matter of the “lost tribes”, the witnesses either remembered Spalding’s MS accurately, or they didn’t. Is there a third choice?

You place too much stock in your lost-116 page MS argument since the witnesses accused Joseph Smith of plagiarism based on the present text. They said it was the same, only without the religious matter. Miller said there were verbatim passages in the present text, despite the fact that it had been rewritten twice. The loss of the first MS actually works against your theory, not only for that reason but also because it shows that Joseph Smith didn’t work from a MS that he could use to replace the stolen MS.

No one can show that the witnesses were inaccurately remembering Spalding’s MS for the simple reason that there is no extant MS, or ever was, by which to test their memories--hence, my use of a dichotomy to show that either way, there are problems. Notice my dichotomy assumes Spalding wrote the MS in question, so what you say about MSCC is irrelevant.

[_MCB]

Welcome back. That speech by Spalding certainly reflects my opinion of his beliefs.

[_Uncle Dale]

Welcome back. That speech by Spalding certainly reflects my opinion of his beliefs.

He certainly does not have anything good to say about religion.
His tone was typical for a Jeffersonian Deist or Tom Paine
agnostic of the times -- not anything like the hyper-religionist
Ethan Smith (who overlapped Spalding's tenure at Dartmouth,
and who was also trained as a Congregationalist minister).

In my notes to the 1801 address excerpt, I say:

the Centinel's Richfield correspondent says:
"Having partook of an elegant entertainment, and drank
a number of patriotic toasts... the speaker... delineated..."

and Spalding in his Oberlin manuscript says:
"having partook of an elegant dinner and drank
a bottle of excellent wine.. The Captain... made the
following address."

Now our friend Ben and other critics would doubtless
condemn my little textual comparison here as a flaming
example of "parallelomania" -- but our questioning must
begin some where, I'd say.

I begin by looking at similar use of language in these old
texts, and then asking: COULD they have the same writer?
That is not saying: DID they have the same writer...

My contention is that language parallels can serve as an
investigative starting point. Such textual overlap can raise
pertinent questions in our minds --- questions that can
serve as valid reasons to conduct additional historical inquiry.

The 1801 article does not definitely state that Solomon
Spalding composed the introductory words to the report on
his 4th of July address --- but that would be a reasonable
conclusion for the reader to make (if that reader was already
familiar with Spalding's known phraseology).

Perhaps one of our critics can point out the error in my
line of reasoning here -- and why we should NOT reasonably
conclude that Spalding composed the "having partook" part.

My interest in this Spalding excerpt is --- that we can make
use of it as a test in comparative textual analysis. We can
place it side-by-side with the Oberlin manuscript, to see what
oddities in vocabulary, grammar, spelling, phraseology, word
order, orthography, word clustering, etc. occur in BOTH
Spalding documents.

That sort of analysis should result in our knowing more about
Spalding's literary peculiarities.

That sort of analysis should better prepare us in our looking
at the Book of Mormon, to determine which sections of that
text Mr. Spalding COULD have written.

Anticipating the coming condemnation for my parallelomania.....

Uncle Dale