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

[_Roger]

Glenn:

I am not going into the B. H. Roberts discussion. That would take up another thread entirely. Suffice it to say that he never tried to claim that the Book of Mormon was about the ten tribes. As you said, he knew the Book of Mormon very well and knew what it had to say about itself and the lost tribes.

That's a cop-out Glenn, because you know it destroys the point you are desperately trying to make. I will say it again... if you are correct then B. H. Roberts should have just used your logic to claim that the Book of Mormon couldn't have borrowed from VOTH because the former is not about lost tribes and the latter is. Why didn't he make use of your logic, Glenn?

[_Roger]

Glenn:

Here's why you don't want to discuss B. H. Roberts (bold mine):

So far, then, as Hebrew origin of the American Indians contributes a cardinal trait of the Book of Mormon, the book by Ethan Smith might readily have supplied that suggestion, and the evidence of it is incontrovertible from the contents of the book itsef, and the fact of its publication and circulation in the vicinity of the Smiths' places of residence. That the Ethan Smith book held that the American Indians are descendants of "the lost tribes of Isreal" and the Book of Mormon theory is built upon the idea that they were descendants of the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, through the family of Ishmael and Lehi respectively with an infusion from the tribe of Judah through the colony of Mulek, is a variation of slight importance, since the main idea is, so far as this peculiar matter is concerned, that the American Indians are descendants of the Israelites. The racial traits--language, traditions, customs, physical characteristics and the like--that would tend to prove the American race to be the "ten lost tribes," would be just as available to prove that they were of Israel through families of the tribes of Ephraim, Manasseh, and Judah. And hence I say the variations from being the "ten lost tribes," to being descendants from these three tribes of the same people, is of slight importance. - B. H. Roberts, Studies of the Book of Mormon, edited by Brigham D. Madsen, p 160

[_GlennThigpen]

Glenn:

I am not going into the B. H. Roberts discussion. That would take up another thread entirely. Suffice it to say that he never tried to claim that the Book of Mormon was about the ten tribes. As you said, he knew the Book of Mormon very well and knew what it had to say about itself and the lost tribes.

That's a cop-out Glenn, because you know it destroys the point you are desperately trying to make. I will say it again... if you are correct then B. H. Roberts should have just used your logic to claim that the Book of Mormon couldn't have borrowed from VOTH because the former is not about lost tribes and the latter is. Why didn't he make use of your logic, Glenn?

So far, then, as Hebrew origin of the American Indians contributes a cardinal trait of the Book of Mormon, the book by Ethan Smith might readily have supplied that suggestion, and the evidence of it is incontrovertible from the contents of the book itsef, and the fact of its publication and circulation in the vicinity of the Smiths' places of residence. That the Ethan Smith book held that the American Indians are descendants of "the lost tribes of Isreal" and the Book of Mormon theory is built upon the idea that they were descendants of the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, through the family of Ishmael and Lehi respectively with an infusion from the tribe of Judah through the colony of Mulek, is a variation of slight importance, since the main idea is, so far as this peculiar matter is concerned, that the American Indians are descendants of the Israelites. The racial traits--language, traditions, customs, physical characteristics and the like--that would tend to prove the American race to be the "ten lost tribes," would be just as available to prove that they were of Israel through families of the tribes of Ephraim, Manasseh, and Judah. And hence I say the variations from being the "ten lost tribes," to being descendants from these three tribes of the same people, is of slight importance. - B. H. Roberts, Studies of the Book of Mormon, edited by Brigham D. Madsen, p 160

And to contextualize what you have quoted, I will quote from a letter to the first presidency in 1922 or 1923:

Let me say once and for all, so as to avoid what might otherwise call for repeated explanation, that what is herein set forth does not represent any conclusions of mine. This report [is] ... for the information of those who ought to know everything about it pro and con, as well that which has been produced against it as that which may be produced against it. I am taking the position that our faith is not only unshaken but unshakeable in the Book of Mormon, and therefore we can look without fear upon all that can be said against it.

B. H. Roberts to the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, March 1923. (See Studies of the Book of Mormon (1992), p. 58. On page 33, note 65, the editor of this work states that the date on this letter should be 1922 rather than 1923.)
[note] Brigham H. Roberts, Conference Report (April 1930): 47.

Are you saying that the Book of Mormon was based on the View of the Hebrews?

That's a red herring Roger. Roberts accurately predicted the reductionist methods that critics would use draw parallels to the View of the Hebrews. Reductionist theories are inaccurate, no matter who uses them, including B. H. Roberts. But this still has nothing to do with the what the prevailing idea of a lost tribes theme was during the early 1800's especially as it relates to a migration via the Bering straits and how the witnesses represented it.

I am not desperately trying to make a point. I am just following the leads that the literature of the time takes me, and the statements of the witnesses.

B.H. Roberts was not one of those witnesses. But he did very well show how critics would contort the normally accepted meaning of something and ignore what the Book of Mormon actually says about itself to promote their agenda.

Glenn

[_marg]

Dan I will respond to your post by the end of this week.

But this still has nothing to do with the what the prevailing idea of a lost tribes theme was during the early 1800's especially as it relates to a migration via the Bering straits and how the witnesses represented it.

Glenn, I addressed this in greater detail in this post (link to post) in response to you making the same argument.

I said then…"that some highly religious individuals wrote from time to time about lost tribes per myth being ancestors of Am. Ind. is not evidence that everyone accepted that as literally true."

And: "Religious people tend to have agendas associated with their religious beliefs which they are passionate about..anti-abortion, creationism, Intelligent design, racism against blacks who are inferior to whites per God's actions, antisemitism...

People who are passionate about their agendas who are writers are bound to write about those agendas.

Does that mean every religious person accepts all those agendas written by ever religiously motivated writer...even if lots of books are written on the subject...i.e. intelligent design/creationism?"

And: "On the whole ..the side promoting and writing books about lost tribes are religious individuals promoting their religious agenda and beliefs. And the side without a religious agenda... is a scholarly well respected encyclopedia ( believe) Morse's Geography which wrote that the Indians were of Asian descent.

When you think about it, who was going to write books to counter those religiously motivated writers promoting the lost tribe myth? As that historian you cited pointed out that few did any research. .H. H. Bancroft wrote: "The theory that the Americans are of Jewish origin has been discussed more minutely and at greater length than any other. Its advocates, or at least those of them who have made original researches, are comparatively few

So what can someone countering write about in a whole book, it's not like they could counter with evidence and reasoning...enough to fill a book. There were no scientists at the time with good evidence to establish where the Indians came from. The writers promoting lost tribes were not using evidence..they were using the Bible, their religious beliefs and speculations."

So Glenn you may think Ethan Smith's book and others written previously were widely accepted, but having some writers sell books doesn’t establish that the vast majority of people at the time were interested and/or bought into those views. I believe Dan mentioned Ethan's book sold about 20,000 ..and I believe If I recall correctly when I looked into the population at the time in the U.S. it was 20 million. So relative the population ..the number of books sold doesn't indicate what most people believed.

[_Roger]

Glenn:

And to contextualize what you have quoted, I will quote from a letter to the first presidency in 1922 or 1923:

Let me say once and for all, so as to avoid what might otherwise call for repeated explanation, that what is herein set forth does not represent any conclusions of mine. This report [is] ... for the information of those who ought to know everything about it pro and con, as well that which has been produced against it as that which may be produced against it. I am taking the position that our faith is not only unshaken but unshakeable in the Book of Mormon, and therefore we can look without fear upon all that can be said against it.

B. H. Roberts to the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, March 1923. (See Studies of the Book of Mormon (1992), p. 58. On page 33, note 65, the editor of this work states that the date on this letter should be 1922 rather than 1923.)
[note] Brigham H. Roberts, Conference Report (April 1930): 47.

Glenn, the question of whether B. H. Roberts ended up losing his faith or clinging to it by a thread, is beside the current point--although that might make an interesting topic in and of itself. There is no question that B. H. Roberts was one of the greatest thinkers the LDS have ever produced. I greatly respect the man, whether he lost faith or not--and I happen to believe he did. But that's a diversion. That's not what you were attempting to challenge S/R on. Your point, that you've stated many times now, is that S/R witnesses claimed that MF was a lost tribes account, but the Book of Mormon is not a lost tribes account--or so you think--therefore, in your own words: "there is a contradiction there, a big one."

I directly confronted that claim of yours that "there is a contradiction there, a big one" with B. H. Roberts expressing his own opinion on the matter and he very plainly states:

The racial traits--language, traditions, customs, physical characteristics and the like--that would tend to prove the American race to be the "ten lost tribes," would be just as available to prove that they were of Israel through families of the tribes of Ephraim, Manasseh, and Judah. And hence I say the variations from being the "ten lost tribes," to being descendants from these three tribes of the same people, is of slight importance.

Now you can argue that Roberts is merely presenting the data that critics will use to attack the Book of Mormon all you want--even though he plainly writes this in first person, but the fact remains, B. H. Roberts is flat out telling us that the issue you want to make a big deal over because you think it allows you to dismiss the S/R witness testimony, is of slight importance. And I agree with Roberts. In fact that's what I've been saying since you brought this up!

In fact Roberts himself was as much of an S/R critic as you are! And yet he never attempts to argue against S/R using the issue you are trying to use here. Why not? Because he knows the issue is of little consequence.

And as you well know, when Roberts presented this material to the brethren he was hoping for a better response than "my testimony tells me the Book of Mormon is true." But, to his great disappointment, that's all he ever got. We may never know for sure whether B. H. internally lost his faith or not. I think the evidence is clear that he did. But even if he did not, so much the better for the case I am making now as in that case you can't simply dismiss the logic as that of an apostate.

Are you saying that the Book of Mormon was based on the View of the Hebrews?

My personal opinion is that Ethan Smith and Solomon Spalding got their ideas for a Hebrew origin of the Indians from the same source: Dartmouth College. I think Ethan Smith believed it, while I think Spalding saw it as an opportunity to use the idea to sell books.

That's a red herring Roger. Roberts accurately predicted the reductionist methods that critics would use draw parallels to the View of the Hebrews. Reductionist theories are inaccurate, no matter who uses them, including B. H. Roberts. But this still has nothing to do with the what the prevailing idea of a lost tribes theme was during the early 1800's especially as it relates to a migration via the Bering straits and how the witnesses represented it.

Glenn, whether Roberts lost his faith or not is not the issue--at least not in this discussion. Roberts presents a compelling case for parallels to the Book of Mormon and was hoping for compelling answers from the brethren... and he never got them.

But the clear point that you cannot avoid is that B. H. Roberts--pretty much an expert on the Book of Mormon--saw the very issue you raise (in hopes of using it against S/R) as being "of slight importance." And I couldn't agree more.

[_GlennThigpen]

Glenn, whether Roberts lost his faith or not is not the issue--at least not in this discussion. Roberts presents a compelling case for parallels to the Book of Mormon and was hoping for compelling answers from the brethren... and he never got them.

But the clear point that you cannot avoid is that B. H. Roberts--pretty much an expert on the Book of Mormon--saw the very issue you raise (in hopes of using it against S/R) as being "of slight importance." And I couldn't agree more.

Roger, I was not bringing up the subject of whether or not B.H. Roberts lost his faith in the Book of Mormon. That has nothing to do with this issue. Roberts did not make a compelling case for parallels between the Book of Mormon and the View of the Hebrews, but that is not what this little debate is about.

Roberts was deliberately using tactics that critics use on the Book of Mormon, which is playing a reductionist game, ignoring contrary evidence, and ignoring what the Book of Mormon says about itself. That is the game you are playing. You are scouring the internet for anything and anyone that would support your variant theory instead of dealing with the evidence produced by the various witnesses surrounding the S/R theory. Whatever Roberts may of may not have though has nothing to do with what the S/R witnesses would have thought.

The evidence that was introduced in the statements of the witnesses that the S/R theorists have trotted out to make their case for a Spalding connection are the relevant players in this game. What they understood and believed about a lost tribes story is the relevant and what is important.
None of the literature that was written before and just after Solomon Spalding's time supports your strained interpretation. None of the statements of the witnesses support your strained interpretation. You have offered not one bit of evidentiary support from the witnesses for your strained interpretation.

I put into evidence statements from Abner Jackson and Daniel Tyler, two independent witnesses, in addition to the statements of the regular suspects, to support the fact that a migration via the Bering Straits was the prevailing idea of the time and specifically what the witnesses were talking about.
Here is what Abner Jackson said:

These facts and reflections prompted him to write his Romance, purporting to be a history of the lost tribes of Israel.
He begins with their departure from Palestine or Judea, then up through Asia, points out their exposures, hardships, and sufferings, also their disputes and quarrels. especially when they built their craft for passing over the Straits.

Here is what Daniel Tyler said:

A superannuated Presbyterian preacher, Solomon Spauldin[g] by name, had written a romance on a few mounds at the above named village, pretending that the ten tribes crossed from the eastern hemisphere via the Bering Straits to this continent,

Both of those quotes reflect what most people of the time understood and believed about the lost tribes and specifically what Solomon Spalding believed and supposedly incorporated into his manuscript.

Whatever reductionist theory you have come up with does not comport with that evidence. You have to show some evidence that Abner Jackson and Daniel Tyler were wrong about what was in Solomon's supposed second manuscript to even begin to have a case.

Glenn

[_marg]

Roberts was deliberately using tactics that critics use on the Book of Mormon, which is playing a reductionist game, ignoring contrary evidence, and ignoring what the Book of Mormon says about itself.

I don't see that at all.

You say at the time 1833 there was only one prevailing accepted view and that is that the Am. Ind were descendants of the 10 lost tribes. That view Glenn is a view by Ethan Smith and some early writers who were extremely religious and using the Biblical book Esdras.

Whoever wrote the Book of Mormon didn't follow that view...despite that being what you claim was the prevailing view. Whoever wrote the Book of Mormon still connected the characters historically by blood to the lost tribes...which B.H. Roberts in that quote Roger posted pointed out.

As far as what the witnesses understood, they didn't get into a discussion of lost tribes, they mentioned that Spalding's story was to have the moundbuilders and Am Indians be decendents of the lost tribes ..but he had their ancestry come out of Jerusalem. The witnesses were relating Spalding's version. Spalding according to the note with MSCC in his handwriting..said he believed the Bible was mancreated ..not of God. So there is no reason to assume Spalding accepted the religious view..that God quided all exiled 10 tribes after their exile. Spalding being educated in theology and history, would have appreciated the biblical story of the Assyrians exiling the tribes as historically true, the rest which incorporates God involved as man created myth or religious speculation.

So just as the writer/writers used the lost tribe exile..(and they are lost because after that event they are lost to history), as a historical backdrop to tie Lehi's decendants to and have them be Israeli ..so too could Spalding. I know others have mentioned that the first 116 pages of the Book of Mormon while being written were lost, and so if spalding was used, whatever he wrote and was used may have been changed in the rewriting. But if it is conceivable and acceptable for the writers to essentially use the lost tribes.for ancestral purposes, so too could have Spalding..even if there were religious writers using Esdras and claiming the AM. Indians were descendents of all the 10 lost tribes. And the witnesses were recalling Spalding's story..so whatever religious writers wrote, does not mean they were interested in those views or accepted them.

Whatever Roberts may of may not have though has nothing to do with what the S/R witnesses would have thought.

The witnesses were recalling discussions with Spalding..and Spalding rejecting the christian God of the Bible is not likely to have thought it necessary to adhere to any religious views.

The evidence that was introduced in the statements of the witnesses that the S/R theorists have trotted out to make their case for a Spalding connection are the relevant players in this game. What they understood and believed about a lost tribes story is the relevant and what is important.

Correct but they weren't just saying what they understood, they were recalling what Spalding had said.

None of the literature that was written before and just after Solomon Spalding's time supports your strained interpretation.

And that literature was written by highly religious individuals promoting their religious agenda and beliefs. Just as we have creationists today promoting their religious agenda and beliefs it doesn't mean all religious individuals accept their theories or even care or are interested.

If it's okay for the Book of Mormon writers in 1833 to change what you claim is the prevailing view that the Am. Indian were descendants of all 10 lost tribes, and have them be descendents by bloodline to one or two lost tribes, then I see no reason why it's not okay for Sol. Spalding to have written a different view to the one you claim was the one and only acceptable prevailing view. Without using all 10 tribes he can use one or a few and tied the Am. Ind and moundbuilders to a point in time in ancient history that was accepted as historical true..the exile of Israelis in 720 B.C.

None of the statements of the witnesses support your strained interpretation. You have offered not one bit of evidentiary support from the witnesses for your strained interpretation.

It's your view which appears strained to me Glenn. You have the witnesses mistakenly reading the Book of Mormon and thinking it's a lost tribe story, despite the fact that the words "lost tribe" are rarely mentioned and there was no reason to think it was a lost tribe story as per the religious view which you said was prevailing and accepted. And you also have them, fully committed to that religious view because you think that if some writer such as Ethan Smith writes a particular view, every person at the time must have accepted it. You ignore that whatever their thoughts were on lost tribes, they were giving a statement of what they knew Sol. Spalding to have written about. And we know Sol. spalding was not a religious Christian.

I put into evidence statements from Abner Jackson and Daniel Tyler, two independent witnesses, in addition to the statements of the regular suspects, to support the fact that a migration via the Bering Straits was the prevailing idea of the time and specifically what the witnesses were talking about.
Here is what Abner Jackson said:

These facts and reflections prompted him to write his Romance, purporting to be a history of the lost tribes of Israel.
He begins with their departure from Palestine or Judea, then up through Asia, points out their exposures, hardships, and sufferings, also their disputes and quarrels. especially when they built their craft for passing over the Straits.

And Abner Jackson is one witness who overheard his dad talking with Spalding during a visit Spalding had with the dad. Abner also recalled that Spalding used Morse's geography and Morse's geography had the Am. Ind being of Asian descent via the Bering Str. So Abner may have gotten mixed up with what he understood of lost tribes and with what Spalding was talking about.

The fact is, Abner does remember Spalding discussing lost tribes. And with so many witnesses recalling this was something Sol Spalding used for his story, it seems likely it was. However, Glenn that doesn't mean Spalding followed the religious view or promoted it in his story. There is the secular view that "lost tribes" simply represents the exiled Israelie tribes by Assyrians in 720 B.C, and lost to history from that point forward.

Here is what Daniel Tyler said:

A superannuated Presbyterian preacher, Solomon Spauldin[g] by name, had written a romance on a few mounds at the above named village, pretending that the ten tribes crossed from the eastern hemisphere via the Bering Straits to this continent,

And how many conversations did Daniel Tyler have with Spalding? Spalding apparently used "lost tribes" but is Daniel making an assumption here which could be very easy to do, that Spalding wrote about all 10 tribes. In addition Spalding's story was an evolving one. The S/R theory is that a Spalding manuscript was taken from the printers but after taking it to the printers and it being rejected Spalding continued to write his story and may have added more details not in the printer one.

Both of those quotes reflect what most people of the time understood and believed about the lost tribes and specifically what Solomon Spalding believed and supposedly incorporated into his manuscript.

Those quotes do not reflect what Spalding likely believed. Spalding clearly in that note, says he believes the Bible is man created. The lost tribes story you want to pin on him, is a Christian based religious view. Daniel tyler may have believed the religious view, but that doesn't mean Spalding did.

Whatever reductionist theory you have come up with does not comport with that evidence. You have to show some evidence that Abner Jackson and Daniel Tyler were wrong about what was in Solomon's supposed second manuscript to even begin to have a case.

[/quote]

If the writer/writers of the Book of Mormon can be inconsistent with the religious view that was supposedly prevailing and tie the Am. Indians to Israeli's at the time period of the exile of 720 B.C. , so too could Spalding.

[_Roger]

Glenn:

Roger, I was not bringing up the subject of whether or not B.H. Roberts lost his faith in the Book of Mormon.

Uhm... yeah, actually that was you when you went off on this irrelevant quote:

And to contextualize what you have quoted, I will quote from a letter to the first presidency in 1922 or 1923:

Let me say once and for all, so as to avoid what might otherwise call for repeated explanation, that what is herein set forth does not represent any conclusions of mine. This report [is] ... for the information of those who ought to know everything about it pro and con, as well that which has been produced against it as that which may be produced against it. I am taking the position that our faith is not only unshaken but unshakeable in the Book of Mormon, and therefore we can look without fear upon all that can be said against it.

B. H. Roberts to the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, March 1923. (See Studies of the Book of Mormon (1992), p. 58. On page 33, note 65, the editor of this work states that the date on this letter should be 1922 rather than 1923.)
[note] Brigham H. Roberts, Conference Report (April 1930): 47.

I agree, its not relevant, but you brought it up.

That has nothing to do with this issue. Roberts did not make a compelling case for parallels between the Book of Mormon and the View of the Hebrews, but that is not what this little debate is about.

Actually he made such a compelling case that in response, the brethren could only quote their testimonies. I think they were surprised at how capable a devil's advocate Roberts could be.

Roberts was deliberately using tactics that critics use on the Book of Mormon, which is playing a reductionist game, ignoring contrary evidence, and ignoring what the Book of Mormon says about itself. That is the game you are playing.

No Glenn, I'm not playing a game. I'm answering you directly and pointing out that what you're trying to present as a major contradiction simply isn't. I'm doing that by showing you an expert on the Book of Mormon who agrees with me. B. H. Roberts is not "playing a reductionist game, ignoring contrary evidence, and ignoring what the Book of Mormon says about itself," that is absolutely ridiculous. B. H. Roberts is saying, look, these are the best arguments that can be raised about the Book of Mormon, brethren, now how do you propose we deal with them? And the answer--my testimony tells me the Book of Mormon is true--greatly disappointed him.

Here's what you wrote earlier:

But he did very well show how critics would contort the normally accepted meaning of something and ignore what the Book of Mormon actually says about itself to promote their agenda.

Okay then please quote where Roberts says that, and please show me his answers to the problems. The fact is, Roberts was too intellectually honest to use the tactics of current LDS apologists. He wanted real answers and he was willing to confront a problem for what it was. Earlier in his career, he was a stalwart defender of Mormonism, but his great dilemma when it came to the Couch questions was that he could not find rational answers to these questions about the Book of Mormon, and that really bothered him--as it should. So on more than one occasion he took the material to the GA's of the church and their response was always that they simply knew the Book of Mormon was true.

So please show me where B. H. himself backs up what you are now trying to claim he did. You'll notice in the quote you did provide, he's merely arguing that his faith is unshakable with no support for it other than his personal testimony, but that's an entirely different thing from rationally answering the specific questions he had set out to answer.

You are scouring the internet for anything and anyone that would support your variant theory instead of dealing with the evidence produced by the various witnesses surrounding the S/R theory. Whatever Roberts may of may not have though has nothing to do with what the S/R witnesses would have thought.

Exactly! But you are trying to make it the same thing! Bingo! B. H. Roberts was an expert on the Book of Mormon, the S/R witnesses were not! They had simply been exposed to what Solomon Spalding had written and they claim the Book of Mormon reminded them of it. But B. H. Roberts was an expert on the Book of Mormon and he tells us that the difference you are trying to make something out of "is of slight importance."

You're trying to make them out to be group liars on a trivial technicality that:

1. they would not have understood (obviously they didn't)
2. B.H. Roberts characterizes as "of slight importance" (and I agree!)
3. can't even be proven since your star witness lost the only evidence that had any potential to support or refute your case!
4. even that manuscript would not have had to follow Spalding's ideas exactly, especially when it comes to ten lost tribes vs descendants from three tribes of the same people

That's why this whole approach of yours is so ridiculous. I have adequately demonstrated that all of the S/R witnesses could be accurately and honestly telling the truth. Yet you keep beating a dead horse.

The evidence that was introduced in the statements of the witnesses that the S/R theorists have trotted out to make their case for a Spalding connection are the relevant players in this game. What they understood and believed about a lost tribes story is the relevant and what is important.

Not really. Not to the point you are trying to make. All that matters was that whatever Spalding wrote, they believed in some manner, qualified as a lost tribes account. But even that does not have to conform to your narrow definition. And even if it did, so what? Like I said, one of your star witnesses lost the evidence you need to make your case. Without that evidence you have nothing because your other star witnesses flatly admit that the story was changed. And even if a miracle occurs and someone stumbles upon those lost 116 pages, and even if there was no greater lost tribes connection in it than descendants from three tribes of the same people it still wouldn't prove your case because Sidney Rigdon had plenty of opportunity to alter that minor detail that B.H. Roberts correctly identifies as "of slight importance."

Your horse is dead.

None of the literature that was written before and just after Solomon Spalding's time supports your strained interpretation.

So what? In the first place that is a sweeping statement you cannot possibly prove. In the second place, Spalding is writing a fiction novel, Glenn, he doesn't have to follow Glenn's narrow idea of what constitutes a ten tribes account, and in the second place, he doesn't have to write about all ten tribes for it to still be based on a lost tribes backdrop, and in the third place he may have started out with a general description of the movement of ten lost tribes and then narrowed the focus to a few families.

What is absolutely clear is that MSCC has none of this. It's not even close. So the S/R witnesses could not be suffering from group memory confabulation. They're either lying or telling the truth.

None of the statements of the witnesses support your strained interpretation. You have offered not one bit of evidentiary support from the witnesses for your strained interpretation.

What are you demanding? That I produce Manuscript Found to prove my point? If so, I demand you produce your lost 116 pages to prove yours.

I put into evidence statements from Abner Jackson and Daniel Tyler, two independent witnesses, in addition to the statements of the regular suspects, to support the fact that a migration via the Bering Straits was the prevailing idea of the time and specifically what the witnesses were talking about.
Here is what Abner Jackson said:

These facts and reflections prompted him to write his Romance, purporting to be a history of the lost tribes of Israel.
He begins with their departure from Palestine or Judea, then up through Asia, points out their exposures, hardships, and sufferings, also their disputes and quarrels. especially when they built their craft for passing over the Straits.

Here is what Daniel Tyler said:

A superannuated Presbyterian preacher, Solomon Spauldin[g] by name, had written a romance on a few mounds at the above named village, pretending that the ten tribes crossed from the eastern hemisphere via the Bering Straits to this continent,

Both of those quotes reflect what most people of the time understood and believed about the lost tribes and specifically what Solomon Spalding believed and supposedly incorporated into his manuscript.

In the first place, marg is correct to point out that Solomon Spalding likely believed none of this! We don't know for sure, but his letter makes it clear he had rejected religion. Whether he actually believed the Indians were descendants of Hebrews is unclear. But none of that even matters. He did not have to write a novel using "what most people of the time understood and believed about the lost tribes" in order for what he did write to be understood as a lost tribes account. But even if he did, that's okay too because:

1. Sidney Rigdon may not have liked Spalding's idea as presented so he could have changed that minor detail and
3. your star witness, Martin Harris lost 116 pages that then had to be rewritten and changed and
2. the difference between the two ideas that you are trying to make out as a major contradiction is, in reality, "of slight importance."

Whatever reductionist theory you have come up with does not comport with that evidence. You have to show some evidence that Abner Jackson and Daniel Tyler were wrong about what was in Solomon's supposed second manuscript to even begin to have a case.

Huh? No I don't. I think Abner Jackson and Daniel Tyler were probably correct. Instead, I've been showing that you're the one who's wrong.

[_Roger]

So, after 24 hours with no response from Glenn, I take it that I can officially declare victory. ; ) (or that Glenn is burying his horse... in which case a moment of silence is in order.)

[_marg]

I'm still planning to respond to Dan, but not until Friday. (too much else to do currently)