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

[_GlennThigpen]

I was being facetious. That is not significant.

It can happen when one engages in too much giggling. However, that little tidbit has been criticized by a lot of people. Just google for Shakespeare and the Book of Mormon. There are a lot of people who dig in their heels over that and a many other phrases found in the Book of Mormon which find echoes in different bodies of literature.

Glenn

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Dale writes:

I suggest, however, that before Mormons accuse others of
being ridiculous in their acceptance of the existence of "lost"
texts, that they (the LDS) stop and think for a moment how
ridiculous they themselves appear in the eyes of many, when
Mormons appeal to the validity of a dozen or more of these sorts
of "lost" items themselves.

There are some significant differences for many of these though, Dale.

Take the Book of Mormon as a translation of the now "lost" Gold Plates. It is a text that remains. Because it remains, we can discuss its contents and compare it. This is not the same as the mythical Manuscript Found of which we don't have so much as a single unique identifiable word or phrase. Apart from which, we do have a manuscript that seems to be the Manuscript Found. The only accounts that disagree with that identification are in fact that same polemical statements attacking the Book of Mormon.

The Johannine papyrus never existed in modern times. It was never described as something physical in the possession of the church. Ditto for an original Book of Moses. The Book of Lehi, on the other hand is well documented, as well as accounts (which may or may not be accurate) of its destruction. I don't think anyone questions its existence. The other artifacts you mention are largely irrelevant. They aren't useful in this discussion (you merely present them as things claimed to exist which don't seem to exist right now).

The problem, Dale, isn't really in any of this. The problem is that you are clearly frustrated by the fact that we don't even have a fragment of your missing manuscript. It isn't an issue you can defend. Your theory has to assume that such a manuscript existed - but, since you cannot defend that assertion, perhaps you feel the need to suggest that we ought not to be critical of it merely because we believe in documents that no longer exist as well. We may well believe in such things - but clearly, it is not something that helps your case. And not all of the opponents of a Spalding/Rigdon theory have such a situation. Vogel, for example, does not believe in these missing things either (except perhaps as modern creations). And so we get back to the argument about the angel. But this comparison doesn't make the Spalding theory any better, it doesn't make it convincing, and it gets a little tiresome hearing this litany when it has absolutely no bearing on the question of whether the Spalding/Rigdon theory can stand up to scrutiny.

For you to keep making these kinds of statements comes across more as a reflection of the weakness of your own arguments than anything else.

I'm not married to the explanation of Spalding and Rigdon having
contributed portions of the text. What I am interested in is the
truth. So, if the truth is that Cowdery and Smith put the thing
together, then so be it.

Dale, we would never know this from your discussions here other than the fact that you assert it. You can't even tell me what would constitute real evidence that Spalding and Rigdon were completely uninvolved in the production of the Book of Mormon. Your assertion aside, everything you write here suggests quite strongly that you are in fact married to the explanation that Spalding and Rigdon contributed portions of the text, and that you also believe that this is the gospel truth.

Or -- if Dan can convince us that Cowdery had no hand in the
fraud -- then I suppose I could be convinced that it was Smith
alone. But so far, neither you nor anybody else has been able
to do that.

Exactly, in your view, what would this argument even look like? What would it take to convince you of this?

Ben McGuire

[_MCB]

It can happen when one engages in too much giggling.

Don't worry. I will re-check my work on this hypothesis, and subject it to a statistical test.

Preliminary results are in, and it looks like the witnesses to MFCC were right.

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Roger writes:

Well then, in essence, your calling them liars. Lake, for example, whom we have been discussing claimed to have been reading the Book of Mormon months before and leading up to his interview with Hurlbut. He's either lying, or Hurlbut had nothing to do with prompting him to read the Book of Mormon.

They may have lied, they may not have lied (lying is about what people believe, not about factual accuracy). And you after all, in essence are calling another group of people a bunch of liars. So, I find it better not to worry about who is lying or not. In some ways, its really kind of irrelevant.

What we do have are a bunch of statements. If we treat them in the same way that you want to treat the Book of Mormon and the Spalding texts, then we can clearly assume that there is a close relationship between these texts. When we throw in details like Pratt's geography, then we have a text based suggestion that the writer of the statement was familiar - not so much with his much older recollections of a personal conversation with Spalding (which is completely unprovable), but rather on the more recent details published about Pratt's theory.

More to the point, the close connection in language between the witnesses statements means that they are not using their own words or language to describe things. There could be many reasons for this, but, for all intents and purposes, they are not independent accounts. And this is based on the textual evidence. It doesn't matter how long before Hurlbut was involved that these statements were produced, they are still connected. And given the nature of these texts, that connection calls into question their reliability as evidence for another Spalding manuscript.

Which really makes me curious about Pratt! On what authority was Pratt giving lectures on Book of Mormon geography? Where did Pratt come up with this idea "in connection to the straits of Darien"? Revelation?

As far as I can tell, he offered it as his own theory. Certainly he never claimed revelation as his source.

Ben McGuire

[_marg]

Post reference: link

Marge, you keep asserting that the Loftus studies are not applicable at all.

I also explain why.

As I mentioned before, she has done more than one study, much more than one.

If she has done one which you find very applicable then cite it. I've explained why the "misinformation" studies in which subjects are briefly shown a scene and later questioned on some details is not applicable. I've explained why the "rich-false" memory studies of enlisting help of authority such as parents and of testing a one time alleged event of the subjects at the age of 5 isn't applicable. These studies had only a 25% success rate. She does mention she was an expert witnesses in cases in court in which through therapy patients acquired memories of abuse which were absent before therapy. In those cases, the therapy went on for long periods of time, patients were vulnerable and trusted the therapists but even in those cases when therapy ceased (because insurance would no longer cover it) ex-patients eventually disbelieved those memories. And to note ...she was only testifying in court with successful cases, which does nothing to establish how rare it might have been for such success. And yet Hurlbut was apparently virtually 100 % sucessful in implanting memories of a story they say aspects they clearly remember which is not part of the MSCC but can be found in the Book of Mormon.

What is different about the conneaut witnesses versus Loftus' studies is that the Conneaut witnesses say they were well familiar with Spalding's story having heard and read it many times. What you are alleging is that Hurlbut implanted the memory of a story written in biblical language, implanted the memory of a phrase "and it came to pass"..and did so with virtual 100 % success rate in only one session. This does not jive with the studies by Loftus.

What is applicable in the one you are citing is that it is possible to implant totally false memories in people and to misdirect memories with false or misleading information.

You're stretching it too far to be solely concerned with possibility and remote at that. If it if highly improbable and not backed up by studies you are using and your main motive for using Loftus's name is to warrant dismissal of the Conneaut witnesses then you aren't being intellectually honest.

Memory confabulation is very possible in the cases of the Conneaut witnesses. John Spalding exhibits just that in his later statements. The lost tribes motif is evidence of possible memory confabulation because it was a theme in Ethan Smith's "View of the Hebrews" among other sources, and was of recent vintage. You say that it does not matter if it is not in the Book of Mormon, it may have been in Spalding's book. However, you then have to disregard parts of the testimony of some of your witnesses.

John Spalding said:

I find nearly the same historical matter, names, &c. as they were in my brother's writings.

It seems to me this is nit picking with regards to this Lost Tribes business. I gather the Lehi's tribe Manasseh was not a Lost Tribe. by the way I don't know who the Lost Tribes are..it's too confusing for me. However in the Book of Mormon it still was talking about Jewish ancient tribe and it may well have been that in Spalding's book he talked about Lost tribes..but even if he didn't you are right John Spalding may have assumed it was in the book perhaps because in conversation with Spalding, Lost Tribes were discussed in connection with his book.

Martha Spalding said:"I have no manner of doubt that the historical part of it, is the same that I read and heard read, more than 20 years ago. "


Henry lake said:" I have more fully examined the said Golden Bible, and have no hesitation in saying that the historical part of it is principally, if not wholly taken from the "Manuscript Found." "

John Miller said: "I have recently examined the Book of Mormon, and find in it the writings of Solomon Spalding, from beginning to end, but mixed up with scripture and other religious matter, which I did not meet with in the "Manuscript Found." "

Aron Wright said: " In conclusion, I will observe, that the names of, and most of the historical part of the Book of Mormon, were as familiar to me before I read it, as most modern history. "

Oliver Smith said: " no religious matter was introduced, as I now recollect. ......When I heard the historical part of it related, I at once said it was the writings of old Solomon Spalding.

All of those witnesses are saying the same thing, that the historical part of the Book of Mormon reads almost exactly like that of the Spalding romance and they say that there was no religious material in the Spalding romance, ergo, they are treating the lost tribes motif as a historical and not a religious series of events. Yet, that historical material is not in the Book of Mormon. There is one thing evident from all of this. Those witnesses were not very familiar with the Book of Mormon at the time of their interviews by Hurlbut. And memory confabulation is a very real possibility, although not absolutely proven.

[/quote]


Is this notion of 10 Lost Tribes supposed to be religious..I don't get your point.
If the witnesses remembered in spalding's book the mention of Jewish Lost tribes generally then it was probably in there but taken out by the writers of the Book of Mormon who shifted their focus and replaced that concept with one particular main Jewish tribe reaching America.

(This will be my only post today.)

[_GlennThigpen]

What is different about the conneaut witnesses versus Loftus' studies is that the Conneaut witnesses say they were well familiar with Spalding's story having heard and read it many times. What you are alleging is that Hurlbut implanted the memory of a story written in biblical language, implanted the memory of a phrase "and it came to pass"..and did so with virtual 100 % success rate in only one session. This does not jive with the studies by Loftus.

Aye, some of them did say they were familiar with Spalding's romance. Some of them after only seeing it the once, such as Artemas Cunningham. John Spalding notes only that Solomon read "many passages" to him while he was on a visit with Solomon not long before he moved to Pittsburgh. His wife evidently was with him on the visit. What the work of Loftus and others have done shows us that mamory is malleable and oftimes many of the things we think we remember clearly may not have been as we remember them. That is all I am using the Loftus work for.

What is applicable in the one you are citing is that it is possible to implant totally false memories in people and to misdirect memories with false or misleading information.

You're stretching it too far to be solely concerned with possibility and remote at that. If it if highly improbable and not backed up by studies you are using and your main motive for using Loftus's name is to warrant dismissal of the Conneaut witnesses then you aren't being intellectually honest.

You are a bit incoherent here. I am not asserting that any of the Conneaut witnesses had false memories of events etc. implanted. Rather, I am suggesting that there is a good possibility that the witnesses had memory confabulations by ideas being discussed much more recently such as the Indians being descendants of the lost tribes and exposure to the Book of Mormon in conjunction with Hurlbut's questioning.

Memory confabulation is very possible in the cases of the Conneaut witnesses. John Spalding exhibits just that in his later statements. The lost tribes motif is evidence of possible memory confabulation because it was a theme in Ethan Smith's "View of the Hebrews" among other sources, and was of recent vintage. You say that it does not matter if it is not in the Book of Mormon, it may have been in Spalding's book. However, you then have to disregard parts of the testimony of some of your witnesses.

John Spalding said:

I find nearly the same historical matter, names, &c. as they were in my brother's writings.

It seems to me this is nit picking with regards to this Lost Tribes business. I gather the Lehi's tribe Manasseh was not a Lost Tribe. by the way I don't know who the Lost Tribes are..it's too confusing for me. However in the Book of Mormon it still was talking about Jewish ancient tribe and it may well have been that in Spalding's book he talked about Lost tribes..but even if he didn't you are right John Spalding may have assumed it was in the book perhaps because in conversation with Spalding, Lost Tribes were discussed in connection with his book.

Marge, you are disregarding his statements here. And those of three of the other Conneaut witnesses about the lost tribes. Four of the eight witnesses identified the lost tribes motif in Spalding's romance. All of the witnesses said that the historical part of the Book of Mormon read the same as Spalding's romance. Aron Wright goes so far as to say

I find much of the history and the names verbatim

Is this notion of 10 Lost Tribes supposed to be religious..I don't get your point.
If the witnesses remembered in spalding's book the mention of Jewish Lost tribes generally then it was probably in there but taken out by the writers of the Book of Mormon who shifted their focus and replaced that concept with one particular main Jewish tribe reaching America.

(This will be my only post today.)

No, the lost tribes is supposed to be a historical part of the Spalding romance. In it he was supposed to show how the lost tribes, the Northern Kingdom of Israel conquered by the Assyrian King Shalmaneser V and exiled to upper Mesopotamia sometime around 722 N.C., had come to the Americas and become the ancestors of the American Indians. The point is that four of the eight witnesses clearly identified the lost tribes as being part of the Spalding story. All eight of the witnesses said that the Book of Mormon read the same as Spalding's story except for the religious aspects. If some of the writers of the Book of Mormon had taken out anything about the lost tribes, the witnesses would not find much of the history and the names verbatim". For those witnesses to be found credible, after four of them had mentioned the theme as a main part of the romance, the lost tribes motif should be in the Book of Mormon. It is not.

Glenn

[_Uncle Dale]

Hi Dan,

You're debating with a book reviewer who has never read the book s/he is reviewing.

Marg is a True Believer in the Spalding/Rigdon doctrine who has acknowledged multiple times that s/he has never read the BoMor. Talk about a black hole of productivity.

I do suspect, though, that Dale's reply to Ben was intended to accentuate Ben's hypocrisy in lieu of presenting a logical argument. But I may be wrong. For what it's worth, my own experience with Ben is that he often critiques others for their perceived methodological failings while wantonly committing the same errors in his own analyses. I've called him out on this on more than one occasion.

by the way, congrats on nearing the end of your source-critical study of the History of the Church.

Kind regards,

</brent>


http://mormonscripturestudies.com
(© 2011 Brent Lee Metcalfe.)
------------------------------
The thesis of inspiration may not be invoked to guarantee historicity, for a divinely inspired story is not necessarily history.
—Raymond E. Brown

I don't suppose that Ben is any more (or less) of a hypocrite than am I,
or many other Latter Day Saints, who were raised to believe that we
possessed the one great truth, while others have no such authority.

But our personalities and idiosyncratic tendencies really should not be
the issue here. One of the potential values of discussion is that it may
now and then result in a consensus view that is greater/better than
the individual professions of those engaging in the dialog/sharing.

It is possible that further investigation of the Book of Mormon text
will offer us all a better understanding of how its component parts
came together. At least a few students of Mormon history will look
to such textual studies as providing new clues regarding authorship.

Others here will declare that the issue has already been settled, one
way or the other -- and that additional textual analysis is a waste of
time. But --- as I tried to say at the beginning of this posting ---
those personal views and arguments should not stand in the way of
uncovering and presenting facts.

For eons people accepted that the sun orbited around the earth --
it does not matter what arguments might then (or now) be offered
up regarding personal views, hypocrisy, etc. --- The fact of that
matter is that the sun does not so move. That is a fact.

If the facts of Book of Mormon authorship (and thus Mormon origins)
can ever be established with the same degree of consensus and
rational acceptance, perhaps web postings such as these will no
longer be necessary (or even meaningful).

UD

[Gadianton]

One of the most significant challenges I have found for those proferring a non-extant Spalding manuscript as the alleged source of the Book of Mormon, is that whatever paper trail is used to establish it, will invariably and significantly impeach some of the Spalding witnesses.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

However I have read the Book of Mormon. Frankly it's a blur and I can remember very little of it...

So much for your arguments against memooy issues and your defense of the distant recollections of the Conneaut and other Spalding witnesses.

Here's a potentially enlightening question: How many of the Spalding witnesses read the Book of Mormon all the way through so as to credibly make the kind of comparative analysis they witnessed to?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Roger]

Glenn wrote:

At odds with? I don't think so.

In the fact that none of those witnesses mention the names, any of the Conneaut witnesses. Miller remembered the Amalekites and the red paint on their foreheads, which has a similar episode in the Oberlin manuscript, but with no Amalekites.

These witnesses can't win either way. If they mention something in or similar to the Book of Mormon you claim that is where it came from. If not, then you claim they are at odds with each other. The fact is you refuse to take their statements at face value. That is a choice you are free to make, but you have done nothing to show any good reason not to simply accept their statements.

Show me something that would lead us to believe they were pathological liars, conspirators or rabid anti-Mormons.

What body of scholarship? LDS scholarship? Why would I expect anything different from LDS apologists?

That is a cop out Roger. There is research and articles produced by competent LDS scholars. Much if not all of it is available for anyone to read and respond to. However, many critics such as yourself steadily refuse to deal with it.

It's not a cop out, Glenn, its just a fact. The fact is LDS scholarship is decidedly pro-LDS (which is pretty much anti-S/R by definition). All I am saying is: that apologists conclude against S/R is no surprise.

I am not talking about similarities or parallels. I am talking about literary expressive ability.

Show me how the latter third of Alma exceeds Spalding's prose when it comes to "literary expressive ability."

I don't recall any LDS, especially Bruce, has been claiming that his extensions to the Jockers methodology proves that Rigdon and Spalding had nothing to do with the Book of Mormon authorship.

Do I need to pull the quotes? When you claim Bruce's study indicates that "none of the above" was the author of the Book of Mormon, that's pretty much "claiming that his extensions to the Jockers methodology proves that Rigdon and Spalding had nothing to do with the Book of Mormon authorship."

It does rate the chances as statistically very low.

Which is good to hear you acknowledge. According to people smarter than me there is a reason for that. My basic common sense concurs.

And this falls in line with other word print studies on the same subject. You may not be able to follow the math, but you can follow the logic. Bruce published his work in the same magazine in which the original Jockers study was published to appease those who refuse to accept anything from an LDS source that is not peer reviewed. In other words, his math has been checked.

It's not the math I disagree with.

I am not hanging my hat entirely on that either. As I mentioned, there is much more. Any of the scholarship that you care to dispute is there for you to find an expert to challenge for you if you cannot do so yourself.

Math is most certainly not my thing.

The thing I have stated before, but doesn't seem to get through to you, is that even if the Jockers study proves to be fatally flawed (which it hasn't and I don't think it will) it would only prove that the method is flawed. It would say nothing about who did or did not write the Book of Mormon. My reasons for thinking S/R best explains the Book of Mormon existed before Jocker's study came out. They still exist.