Dan wrote:
Are you arguing the witnesses had to know every detail of the 1838 account to make a connection between Joseph Smith’s discovery and Spalding’s?
No. I am pointing to the fact that
they did not make the connection. They had the same Oberlin manuscript you have and they are the ones who were familiar with Spalding's work and yet they
did not make the connection. They had the Roman story in 1834 but no one ever used it as a basis for the connection they were asserting. It is therefore not logical to conclude that the parallels we can plainly see and have been discussing were observed but discarded by them, when it would have served their purpose. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the reason they did not use the parallels is because they were not aware of their existence. They were likely not aware of their existence because they did not exist (until they were put into print in 1838).
Whether Joseph Smith obtained an account similar to the one we find in the Roman story before 1834 and orally disseminated portions of it prior to 1838 is not clear. The important point is that he apparently had the story to borrow from in 1838. The likely time for him to have obtained the story, (if he did not receive it from Rigdon in 1828-29) would have been January, 1834.
Chase describes the plates in a “stone box”—that, together with location on a hill’s summit and possibly the use of a lever, is enough. When you condense Dale’s parallels, that’s all you have anyway. You need to keep your argument about what the witnesses needed to know to make a connection separate from your charge that Joseph Smith borrowed his 1838 account directly from Spalding’s MS.
Well certainly they are two separate but related questions. The fact remains that no S/R proponent or witness ever made the connection prior to the ms's rediscovery in 1884. The parallels did not exist, intact, in printed form until 1838.
Your assumption that the witnesses needed to know all the elements in the 1838 account (as Dale arranges them) is wrong.
Well I disagree, but that's not important. What's important is that no S/R proponent or witness ever made the connection prior to the ms's rediscovery in 1884. The parallels did not exist, intact, in printed form until 1838.
Nothing the Spalding advocates suggest is clear. It’s not clear that Spalding’s writings had anything to do with Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. It’s certainly not clear that Hurlbut recovered two MSS from the truck, and sold one to the Mormons. It’s not clear that the conjectured text contained a discovery narrative. However, we do know Hurlbut and Howe had MSCC, which contained the discovery narrative under discussion. Yet, Howe for whatever reason didn’t mention it, probably because the rest of the MS didn’t match. The witnesses didn’t mention lots of things, and their comments were general and limited to what they found similar in the Book of Mormon.
Clearly the parallels weren't mentioned because they did not yet exist. An oral detail here and there was not enough, otherwise the Roman story would have been retained and used as evidence.
Of course, I can’t claim similarities in discovery aided the witnesses in 1833 if the only source is an 1838 text. But that’s your construction, which as I said conflates two separate arguments.
No, those are simply the facts. The parallels were not put into print, intact, as the story we see today until 1838. A detail or two here and there was obviously not enough for a connection to be made.
So I’m arguing that the stories were the result of independent invention and that the similarities are the result of the demands of the story and limited choice available to the authors.
Which is a fancy way of saying coincidence. Your case rests on the notion that severe limitations are at play here. The authors simply had no choice but to write what they wrote. Nonsense. I've already mentioned that the lever did not have to be a lever but could have been a shovel or an axe. No hill was necessary. Some form of concealment was needed but neither story required stone. If the ancients wrote on metal plates then they were capable of constructing a metal box. The box could have been brick, or wood. The writing surface
was indeed different, so obviously choices exist.
Number of parallels doesn’t matter—its quality.
Both matter. As does sequence.
The number here is artificial since it’s simply about ancient records concealed in some kind of vault designed to preserve them located on some kind of elevated ground. The only reason to divide the major elements into smaller unites would be to show the smaller parts are exactly the same or very similar—but Dale’s aren’t. You say there are 18 parallels. Let’s see what we really have. Since you are arguing Joseph Smith’s 1838 discovery narrative was plagiarized from Spalding’s MS, let’s exclude elements in Dale’s list that are not parallel or don’t have anything directly to do with the discovery narrative (meaning Dale had to go outside the 1838 account to get):
1. Date of the Finding of the Ancient Records Not the same.
Of course not, Spalding's account predates Smith's. that's the important thing.
12. Format and Language of the Records Not mentioned in 1838 account. Dale quotes from Book of Mormon. (This element could have been known to witnesses.)
What is important is that the language was ancient and needed translation.
14. A Personal History Not mentioned in 1838 account. Dale quotes from Book of Mormon. (This element could have been known to witnesses.)
15. Multiple Histories and Complex Compilations Not mentioned in 1838 account. Dale quotes from Book of Mormon. The part Dale quotes from 1838 ("an account of the former inhabitants of this continent") doesn’t support the claim. (This element could have been known to witnesses.)
16. The Records are an Abridgment Not mentioned in 1838 account. Dale quotes from Book of Mormon. (This element could have been known to witnesses.)
17. The Future Audience Not mentioned in 1838 account. Dale quotes from Book of Mormon. (This element could have been known to witnesses.)
18. A Carefully Hidden Record Not mentioned in 1838 account. Dale quotes from Book of Mormon. (This element could have been known to witnesses.)
19. A Word to the Reader Not mentioned in 1838 account. Dale quotes from Book of Mormon. (This element could have been known to witnesses.)
Seven parallels have nothing to do with the 1838 text; and one serves only to give different dating.
None of this is relevant. Joseph Smith, for sure, knew all of this as well. Whether the witnesses did or not is not relevant. What is relevant is that no S/R proponent or witness made the connection until after 1884 because the parallels did not exist until 1838.
Dale uses parts of the 1838 account for the remaining thirteen, but they are improperly split for effect or aren’t parallels:
IMPROPER SPLIT
2. Place of the Finding of the Ancient Records
"Near the west bank of the Coneaught River there are the remains of an ancient fort."
"Convenient to the village of Manchester stands a hill of considerable size."
What is similar here (in addition to the parallels) is writing style.
3. The Exact Location
"on the top of a small mound"
"on the west side of this hill not far from the top"
NOTE: The records are located at or near the top of an earthen mound of some kind. I should point out that this part of the 1838 account was added after James Mulholland “mentioned to President Smith that I considered it necessary that an explanation of the location of the place where the box was deposited would be required in order to that the history be satisfactory” (attached note in Book A-1).
(This element could have been known to witnesses. It was well known the plates came from a hill in Manchester. E.g., Willard Chase mentions the “singular looking hill” [Howe, 243]. Hurlbut’s trial included Joseph Smith telling his story in great detail.)
Whether or not it was known, a connection was not made. The stories are similar.
West bank river > west side hill
hill of considerable size > small mound
The parallels stand.
TRITE PARALLEL
4. The Finder of the Ancient Records
"As I was walking" / "I arrived there"
I'll grant the inclusion of your adjective.
IMPROPER SPLIT
5. Discovery of the Stone
"I happened to tred on a flat stone... exactly horizontal"
"under a stone of considerable size"
8. The Cover Stone (second iteration)
"Here I noticed a big flat stone fixed in the form of a door"
"under a stone of considerable size"
NOTE: The element from 1838 account is made to do double-duty.
Here a major difference instead of being a problem is used to create two parallels. The second time the stone is a door, not a cover stone.
Trite complaint! A door can also be a cover. The only difference appears to be the shape of the stone. Smith is not only free to change details, but we would expect him to.
(This element could have been known to witnesses. Willard Chase mentions the “a stone box” with a “top stone” [Howe, 242].)
No connection was made by them.
TRITE PARALLEL
6. Lifting of the Stone
"With the assistance of a lever I raised the stone"
"I obtained a lever which I got fixed under... the stone and... raised it up"
NOTE: Use of lever similar, but story demands it.
Nonsense. I've already demonstrated that the story demands no lever.
IMPROPER SPLIT
7. Under the Stone
"its ends and sides rested on stones... an artificial cave... its sides were lined with stones"
"The box . . . was formed by laying stones together"
9. The Record Box
"I found an earthen box with a cover which shut it perfectly tight. The box was two feet in length"
"The box in which they lay was formed by laying stones together in some kind of cement"
NOTE: Some quote from 1838 account used twice to describe Spalding large vault and small clay box.
It's amazing to watch the zeal with which you attempt to downplay clear parallels. Dale's explanations should be self-explanatory.
(This element could have been known to witnesses. Willard Chase mentions the “a stone box” with a “top stone” [Howe, 242]. Geauga Gazette, ca. 23 Nov. 1830. Reporting what the first missionaries taught in northern Ohio: “Smith repaired to the spot, and on opening the ground discovered an oblong stone box tightly closed with cement …”)
But no one made the connection until well after 1838.
ANCIENT RECORDS
10. Inside the Box
"I found that it contained 28 (rolls) of parchment"
"I looked in and there indeed did I behold the plates"
(This element could have been known to witnesses. Book of Mormon itself mentions gold plates.)
NO PARALLEL
11. Removal of the Ancient Records
"My mind filled with awful sensations which crowded fast upon me (and) would hardly permit my hands to remove this venerable deposit"
"I made an attempt to take them out but was forbidden (by Nephi)
"immediately I was seized upon by some power which entirely overcame me"
NOTE: A closer look reveals Spalding’s “awful sensations” are not from an attempt to remove the plates, but happen even before he opens the box to find the parchments. Joseph Smith’s 1838 history only mentions being forbidden—his being seized by unseen power is from the account of the First Vision.
Again, you're pressing for a verbatim copy and such a demand is unreasonable. The negative feelings and ancient records are parallels. That you think they are trite and out of sequence is duly noted, but not important. My little foray into plagiarism clearly demonstrates that a plagiarizer is free to adjust the sequence at will. What is significant is that by and large the sequence is nearly identical.
TRANSLATION
13. A Translation Needed Not part of discovery in 1823, but 1827 removal of plates. (This element could have been known to witnesses.)
"To publish a translation... the translator who wishes..."
"Through the medium of the Urim and Thummim I translated the record by the gift, and power of God"
NOTE: Both stories demand a translation.
We've been through this. A stupid author could have had the account in English. That you think the story
demands a translation has got to be a fallacy of some sort. The choice
exists because both accounts are fictional. And multiple choices exist with regard to languages. Even more choices appear with regard to how the translation can take place.
(This element was of course known to the witnesses.)
But none of them used it to assert a connection.
NO PARALLEL
20. A Bedroom Vision
"(Spalding?) dreamed that he himself... opened a great mound... found a written history... respecting the civilized people... This story suggested . . . (his) writing a novel" 1855 Josiah Spalding Letter
"I had retired... for the night...a personage appeared at my bedside standing in the air . . . He called me by name, and said ...there was a book deposited written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants"
NOTE: Even if one assumes Spalding had a dream, no one knew until 1855. Joseph Smith could not have known this personal information about Spalding.
(This element could have been known to the witnesses.)
You may have a case on this one. It's possible that MF contained something like that however since MSCC follows a similar line. I'll grant that you have reasonable doubt here.
A SEALED BOOK
21. Part of the Record Kept Back
"should this attempt to throw off the veil... meet the approbation of the public, I shall then (issue)... a more minute publication"
"the volume was something near six inches in thickness, a part of which was sealed" (to come forth only at a future time when humankind is ready to read their content)
NOTE: A sealed portion of the plates was part of the story from the beginning.
(This element was of course known to the witnesses.)
But it wasn't used to establish a connection. Nevertheless, the parallel stands.
Cutting out the unnecessary splitting, we have possibly ten parallels. Of these, we must exclude as irrelevant for your plagiarism thesis: 4. Finding the Record, since walking isn’t significant; 20. A Bedroom Vision, since Spalding’s account doesn’t include it; 11. Removal of the Record, since Spalding’s character wasn’t really prevented from taking the record. What remains is discovery (by different means) of ancient records (different in number, materials, and language), in a stone box (of different construction), located on or near the summit of a hill (one man made the other naturally formed). And you wonder why I don’t see the connection?
Actually I don't wonder much about that. It conflicts with honest Dave Whitmer's testimony that no Spalding ms was used.
In 1986, I quoted Spalding’s discovery narrative as an example of what one of Joseph Smith’s contemporaries (working independently) might imagine the discovery of an ancient America record might be like. And that’s all there is to it.
A valiant attempt but I'm not buying it. B.H. Roberts--no friend to S/R--was apparently at a loss on how to explain these parallels. Like him, you have done nothing to explain them other than attempting to
downplay them which boils down to the old stand-by: coincidence.
You continually point out elements that the witnesses
might have known but you don't know what they knew. What
is known is that none of them used any of these parallels to help establish the connection they were asserting and that this set of parallels simply did not exist until 1838.
So we've come full circle. You're back to coincidence as the only explanation--which
might work if they had turned out to be parallels to some obscure story written by someone totally unconnected to Joseph Smith--although it would still be odd. But that's not what happened. No, the really odd thing is that these parallels turned out to occur between a production of Joseph Smith and a story written by the very man people had been connecting him with by allegation at least 5 years before the time he produced the specific set of parallels we're discussing. Coincidence doesn't work.
"...a pious lie, you know, has a great deal more influence with an ignorant people than a profane one."
- Sidney Rigdon, as quoted in the Quincy Whig, June 8, 1839, vol 2 #6.