DAN VOGEL DISCUSSES THE SPALDING/RIGDON THEORY

[_Uncle Dale]

2. None of Dale's individual word-strings are especially significant.
Certainly, none are any more significant than those I found in Cooper...

3. ... Dale might try reversing his method by trying to find the Book of Mormon in Spalding.
I think we know what would happen. There would not only be a fairly even distribution,
but much of Spalding's distinctive vocabulary and phrasing would remain untouched...

When you're wrong Dan, you certainly do a good job of it ---

"Book of Mormon in Spalding" as you requested --- one very, very short example:

http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/MEDIA/Bo ... sack-gamba




heaps of them to lie prostrate in the narrow passage

about four thousand from his band to enter the city through that passage
and to fall upon the rear of the Kentucks

killing the inhabitants who had not made their escape

The leader of this band was Lamoch the eldest son of Labanco

a party of about four thousand from his band to enter the city
through that passage and to fall upon the rear of the Kentucks


Nope -- no elephants here -- we must not be in Africa yet....

Cooper wrote about a ship full of Old World colonists, blown by storms
to the Americas -- in fear of a watery grave -- but saved by God and
given revelation and a protected arrival in the New World?

Cooper wrote about his ancient Americans preserving their sacred and secular
abridged records in a box buried atop a hill on the southern shore of the
Great Lakes -- found in the first years of the 19th century by a translator
who had to lift a flat stone with a lever, in order to retrieve the hid-up record?
A translator who was at first held back by strange phenomena, but who eventually
recovered the record, rendered it into English -- for intended audience, the
descendants of European Gentiles who had come to rule North America?

Really now? -- Cooper told how the editor of his record spoke to the modern
reader, cautioning him to read the narrative with a pure heart and good intent?
Cooper told how the record was written in unique characters -- and how part
of it was being held back, to come forth at a later day? Cooper's book included
samples from unique ancient American scripture -- and told of metal pieces being
coined to pay public officials, like judges, who might be bribed with such lucre?
Cooper had his ancient Americans planting both maize and wheat, knowing modern
astronomy, using steel, horses and New World elephants?

Cooper told of "little bands" numbering in the thousands attacking and defending
earthen forts topped with a wall of timbers?

Well, yes, maybe Cooper did have such a fort or two -- and even a Lamanite ---
er, ah, Mohican, who was the last of his race.

Yup -- Cooper wrote the Book of Mormon -- no doubt about it!

UD

[_avanick]

Hi Marg,
I'll just put all of my remarks up at the top of this post, as I don't intend to take much space with my replies.

Being skeptical is fine, but being skeptical about something doesn't make it true or false - all it "does" is show one's skepticism about something. Also, about the witnesses' memories and the quality of same, I notice that Dan has no trouble accepting equally old, and equally "problematic" memories from people who support the "party line" with respect to the origin of the Book of Mormon. In fact, Dan appears to only subject the pro-Spalding witnesses to close scrutiny while giving pro-Book of Mormon witnesses a free ride. When Dan subjects ALL witness testimony to ALL of the same criteria for determining whether it is valid or not, then I'll give more consideration to his statements.

As for his claims about the foolscap paper material becoming a non-issue, wishful thinking on his part.

To answer Dan's question about the "Roper Response", it will be forthcoming fairly soon, possibly in the next couple of weeks, and by the way it is taking shape, it could run as much as 60 pages, and I have some media lined-up and with ample time to discuss at least most of the major points in our rebuttal.

Finally, regarding his earlier comment which was a response to something I said about Brent and what I considered to be his ad hominem attacks, by Dan's own definition, that is exactly what Brent did more than once with regard to Dale.

Art

previously I wrote: Art’'s post did much more than ““simply quote sources”” I'll give you the benefit of doubt and assume you missed it. I’’ll repeat some of the other evidence he provided.

Of course, I know what Art said. For now, I'm focusing on the witnesses and the historical evidence. However, his mention of the discrepancies between the physical MS Story and the descriptions of the witnesses is also ultimately a question of the witnesses. If one is skeptical of the witnesses' memories about names like Lehi and Nephi, it follows that details about foolscap paper hardly matter.

I disagree Dan, if one is skeptical of the witnesses’ memories such as Lehi and Nephi it does NOT follow that details about foolscap paper hardly matters. “Skepical” does not mean complete rejection. The “foolscap paper” memory of Joseph Miller and Redick Mckee is another piece of evidence which requires evaluation in light of other evidence to determine significance if any.
For example when Joseph Miller made the statement in which he briefly mentions Spalding using foolscap paper, the Roman Manuscript was not available having been lost among Howe’s papers. If J. Miller had in fact observed the Roman/Oberland MS, which wasn’t on foolscap, why even mention foolscap at all? The fact that he menions “foolscap”, that it is even noteworthy to him, that the Oberland is not on “foolscap, and not available at the time in the public eye…leads to a good probability that J. Miller did remember another different manuscript on foolscap. Sure he could be in error. But his claim/observation is reinforced by McKee later. So Dan it’s just additional evidence which supports the idea that a different manuscript in addition to the Oberland one existed. Of course good investigation would have been if investigators asked all witnesses what kind of paper Spalding wrote the Manuscript Found story on. But the investigation was admittedly poor.

With regard to your skepticism of witnesses’ ability to remember names such as Lehi and Nephi , I do not concur with you that these names were most likely a result of implanted memory. To illustrate a personal experience, just yesterday I had a conversation with someone who asked me it I knew what street a mutual friend of ours lived on. It had been 2 years since I’d heard the street name but I seemed to remember it started with a “C” and after telling her that, she asked me, if the street is “Canterbury” to which I replied “yes”. Now had she not mentioned Canterbury it is quite likely I wouldn’t have been able to remember but once she said Canterbury I knew without the slightest bit of doubt, 100% certainty that was in fact the correct street name. My memory had been jogged.

So Dan, yes, the witnesses’ had they been quizzed without first reading the Book of Mormon and if they had been carefully questioned such that controls were in place to avoid leading them, implanting ideas..what would result is their actual long term memory after 20 + years. It is possible and even likely they’d not remember all the names, perhaps even none. Some ideas would likely stick though. But the fact that they wouldn’t have remembered names such as Lehi and Nephi had that been the case would not have been proof they didn’t hear such names from Spalding's readings. Yet upon hearing the names twenty years later, it is reasonable that their memories would have been jogged and they would know with certainty whether or not those were the names they had been somewhat familiar with. Since they were later shown the Oberland Ms. had they been wrong about Lehi and Nephi, it is likely then that the Oberland MS would have jogged or refreshed their memory and they would have appreciated their error. (assuming these are truthful witnesses not intent on lying – which Dan you say is your argument position) There is no indication that these people were not attempting to be truthful, and therefore with that assumption would not have hesitated admittance of their mistakes. If they were anti-mormon it would be more likely they wouldn't have admitted errors, but these people do not appear to be anti Mormon, but rather non Mormon.

Art reasons about this in his post “B) In December of 1833, Hurlbut returned to Conneaut with Spalding’s “Manuscript Story” in hand and proceeded to show it to Spalding’s former neighbors, who verified that it was NOT the manuscript to which they had referred in their various statements. (ref: Howe, 288; Aron Wright’s unsigned letter of Dec. 31, 1833) In order to refute this, one must claim that Hurlbut initially manipulated his witnesses, and that the deception stuck even after they were shown the original manuscript containing the very same story about which their memories had allegedly been manipulated in the first place. Isn’t it odd that, upon being confronted with Spalding’s original, not one of them ever said, “Why yes, this is the story you were trying to get me to recall, and it’s nothing like you coached me into saying it was”?

For the witnesses to continue to stick with a faulty memory of Lehi and Nephi after reviewing the Oberland MS. would mean that in effect, they would most likely have been lying, because the Oberland should have refreshed their memory. While the procedure of investigation had flaws, the fact that the witnesses’ did not attempt to hide that they had reviewed the Book of Mormon, works against their credibility, but their admittance works in favor of their honesty that it was not something they felt they needed to hide. It would appear their and Hurlbut’s objective was less about their credibility and more about a determination of whether the Book of Mormon did contain words from the Spalding manuscript read to them by Spalding years past.

previously: by the way, while it is prudent to be skeptical of Spalding witnesses, one factor which is important to consider is ““motivation.”” Did these witnesses seek out reporters to tell their story to? Were these witnesses anti Mormon or were they non Mormon? Did they seem to have a overly keen interest in promoting their recollections of Spalding’’s manuscript having similarities to the Book of Mormon? Is it likely they conspired together?

I haven't accused the witnesses of lying. I have suggested that their memories played tricks on them. Please read what I say; it will save us both from wasting time responding to non-issues. I have implied that the interviewers may have been overzealous. They sought the witnesses out and pressured them for information.

You haven’t directly accused the witnesses of lying but indirectly one can make that assumption as I point out above. If their memories are corrupted by information given them, i.e. the Book of Mormon and whatever Hurlbut or other witnesses have said, then the Oberland manuscript later shown them should have helped to rectify their faulty memory. That the Oberland didn’t change their memory leads one to a likely conclusion, of either they remembered correctly or if not, they were likely lying.

I’m not convinced by your suggestion that the witnesses were pressured too much. It seems to me there are too many witnesses independent of one another, respected in the community, who were not anti Mormon, who all remembered a different manuscript to the Oberland one. And Hurlbut was zealous, but in the end, he didn’t produce evidence favorable to the Spalding theory, so he couldn’t have been too zealous to the point of deliberately corrupting the evidence in favor of the Spalding theory.

previously I wrote:
Spalding witnesses all say it was common for Spalding to read to friends, boarders, family, business acquaintances quite regularly so it’’s understandable there will be many witnesses to his readings. This recollection seems to credible. The witness statements support the actual evidence that Spalding wrote, and wrote more than just one piece of work, that the Roman story in existence is unfinished and therefore probably not the one brought to the printers upon completion. Yes, the witnesses may have had faulty memory, may remember some things based on planted memories but the witnesses were consistent that the Roman story was not the one they had previously told Hurlbut about.

Stick with me and you will see that things aren't as they appear. Of course, if the witnesses were victims of something like false memory syndrome, then they were sincere, and when confronted by the physical MS Story, they gave what was the only answer that made sense to them. Are you sure an incomplete MS would not have been taken to the printers? According to Spalding's daughter, the MS given to the printer wasn't finished:--


My mother mentioned many other circumstances to me in connection with this subject which are interesting, of my father's literary tastes, his fine education and peculiar temperament. She stated to me that she had heard the manuscript alluded to read by my father, was familiar with its contents, and she deeply regretted that her husband, as she believed, had innocently been the means of furnishing matter for a religious delusion. She said that my father loaned this "Manuscript Found" to Mr. Patterson, of Pittsburg, and that when he returned it to my father, he said: "Polish it up, finish it, and you will make money out of it." My mother confirmed my remembrances of my father's fondness for history, and told me of his frequent conversations regarding a theory which he had of a prehistoric race which had inhabited this continent, etc., all showing that his mind dwelt on this subject. The "Manuscript Found," she said, was a romance written in Biblical style, and that while she heard it read she had no special admiration for it more than other romances he wrote and read to her.

--Matilda Spalding McKinstry Statement of 3 Apr. 1880, in Ellen E. Dickinson, "The Book of Mormon," Scribner's Monthly, Aug. 1880, 616ff. 3 Apr. 1880; also quoted in Deseret Evening News 14 (3 Jan. 1881).

Dan if all the the witnesses had faulty memories..a few of them at the very least should have had their memory jogged by the Oberland Ms. and remembered those names in it as being correct and not Lehi and Nephi or whatever else they remembered through faulty memory. Remembering a repeated phrase such as “And it came to pass” is also significant. It is likely such a phrase would stick in their memory if it was something repeated frequently to the point of annoyance. I’m extremely skeptical that all the witnesses were attempting to tell the truth but were suffering from faulty memories and hence when shown the Oberland didn't appreciate that was the one they had been referring to in the affidavits. I don’t find that to be highly probable, it seems to be a low probability to me given the circumstances.

Regarding the manuscript being finished I seem to remember something about Spalding’s wife remembering the manuscript lacked mainly a preface. Again Dan, given what I’ve read of the evidence it is not likely Spalding submitted an uncompleted manuscript. However perhaps one could argue that the manuscript submitted was a completed version of the Oberland one. But, I find this not likely given the evidence of the witnesses. It seems to be that the Oberland one was remembered by some but that Spalding had continued on with another story taking place earlier on in time period and in biblical style in contrast to the Oberland one. As well the Oberland Ms.had many corrections in it indicating it was a working copy but it had stopped without completion. And witnesses did mention that Spalding had decided to write another similar similar themed story in biblical style, earlier time period. Sorry I don’t remember the source of that information.

previously:
Given the fact that the Roman story was unfinished and that strong evidence supports that a completed manuscript had been brought to the printers by Spalding, it is with high probability likely there were 2 different stories and this is consistent with the witnesses’’ statements.

I think the probability is high that there was only one MS. The invention of a second MS was to explain the discrepancies between the witnesses and the physical evidence. This happens all the time in trial cases.

So according to you the non Mormon witnesses rather than honestly admit they made a mistake, instead went along with pressure from Hurlbut to agree there was a second manuscript. I don’t know about your observation being "that sort of thing happening all the time" . I doubt the witness had much interest in this Spalding theory other than their unfortunate part in being witnesses to Spalding’s readings. What happens all the time, if that’s under consideration, is that physical evidence by those committing criminal acts is destroyed by the criminal. I read online @ http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/CA/natr1988.htm

STATEMENT OF J. C. DOWEN to Deming

The intro before Dowen’s statement mentions In January of 1885 Dowen was on his deathbed and he probably had no reason to inject any great falsehoods into his statement of recollections concerning the Kirtland Latter Day Saints.

In last line reads: I have heard Mr. Deming read this statement distinctly and make it as the last important act of my li[fe], hoping it will prevent people from embracing the Mormon Delusion.

In the statement he says : "Hurlbut staid at my house every three or four days for as many months. I read all of his manuscript, including Spaulding's Manuscript Found, and compared it with the Book of Mormon, the historical part of which is the same as Spaulding's Manuscript Found, which is about the size of the papyrus Jo had with his Egyptian mummies. Hurlbut said he would kill Jo Smith. He meant he would kill Mormonism. The Mormons urged me to issue a writ against him. I did, as recorded in my Docket, Dec. 27, 1833, on complaint of Joseph Smith, warrant returnable to William Holbrook, Esq., at Painesville, Ohio. He was brought to trial, and over 50 [15?] witnesses were called. The trial lasted several days, and he was bound over to appear at the Court of Common Pleas at Chardon. Hurlbut let E. D. Howe, of Painesville, have his manuscript to publish. I should not be surprised if Howe sold Spaulding's Manuscript Found to the Mormons. There was all kinds of iniquity practiced at that time."

Of course this statement is not proof but it is conceivable that Hurlbut showed the judge the manscript before Mormons had a chance to talk to him, And if the Mormons had been harassing Hurlbut as indicated by the trial and likely also threatening him…Hurlbut was one man against many…plus the Mormons were hihgly motivated to get ahold of the Spalding manuscript ..it is likely they would pay him for the incriminating manuscript . As John Dowen says… I should not be surprised if Howe sold Spaulding's Manuscript Found to the Mormons.



I’m going to leave off at this point in response to your post…I’m sorry to do this it seems often, but there is so much information and it becomes overwhelming. I will attempt to continue later.

[_marg]

You write on p 59 of your book: (I've bolded some words)

"Proof that Doctor Hurbut never had A Manuscript Found in his possession and that he recognized the difference between it and Manuscript Story-Conneaut Creek lies in the fact that at the end of December 1833, only days after Judge Dowen's write had been lodged against him, Hurlbut returned to Conneaut with Manuscript Story-Conneaut Creek in hand and showed to to several key witnesses who, upon examination, quickly recognized that it was indeed Spalding's work, but verified that it was definitely no A Manuscript found. One again, such is hardly the vehavior of one intent upon subterfuge and deceit. "

The above seems to be poor reasoning and/or poor choice of words.

That Hurlbut showed various witnesses the Manuscript Story is not PROOF that a Manuscript Found was NEVER in his possession. So I fail to understand why you are reaching that conclusion and using those words were reflect absolute certain knowledge.

What about credible witnesses that I've read statements of i.e. from lawyer Briggs and Judge Dowen that they saw and read portions of Manuscript Found after Hurlbut had returned with Spalding's papers and they compared it to the Book of Mormon and found same sentences?

I can think of a few good reasons why Hurlbut would have handed over the Manuscript Found to Smith and other Mormons in town.

[_Dan Vogel]

SPALDING THEORY: HURLBUT CONTINUED


August 1833
Hurlbut obtains statements of Aron Wright, Oliver Smith, and Nahum Howard in Conneaut (OH).

Although there are no dates on the statements of John and Martha Spalding and most researchers have dated them "ca. August 1833" because Howe put them first, it is possible that the following three affidavits were actually Hurlbut's first witnesses and what they said influenced his approach with the Spaldings.

I first became acquainted with Solomon Spalding in 1808 or 9, when he commenced building a forge on Conneaut creek. When at his house, one day, he showed and read to me a history he was writing, of the lost tribes of Israel, purporting that they were the first settlers of America, and that the Indians were their decendants. Upon this subject we had frequent conversations. He traced their journey from Jerusalem to America, as it is given in the Book of Mormon, excepting the religious matter. The historical part of the Book of Mormon, I know to be the same as I read and heard read from the writings of Spalding, more than twenty years ago; the names more especially are the same without any alteration. He told me his object was to account for all the fortifications, &c. to be found in this country, and said that in time it would be fully believed by all, except learned men and historians. I once anticipated reading his writings in print, but little expected to see them in a new Bible. Spalding had many other manuscripts, which I expect to see when Smith translates his other plate. 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. If it is not Spalding's writing, it is the same as he wrote; and if Smith was inspired, I think it was by the same spirit that Spalding was, which he confessed to be the love of money. -- AARON WRIGHT.

--Howe, Mormonism Unvailed 284.

I have numbered the following elements in Wright's August 1833 statement for analysis in connection with his December 1833 statement to follow in chronological order.

1. When at his house, one day, he showed and read to me a history he was writing, -- Note that Solomon was apparently in the process of writing, and that it wasn't finished.

2. of the lost tribes of Israel, purporting that they were the first settlers of America, and that the Indians were their decendants. -- Wright's language is very similar to John and Martha Spalding's:--

John Spalding -- "It was a historical romance of the first settlers of America, endeavoring to show that the American Indians are the descendants of the Jews, or the lost tribes."

Martha Spalding -- "he was then writing a historical novel founded upon the first settlers of America. ... He had for many years contended that the aborigines of America were the descendants of some of the lost tribes of Israel, and this idea he carried out in the book in question."

Note the same three elements:--(1) first settlers of America, (2) lost ten tribes, and (3) Indians are Jewish. As discussed in my previous post, the Book of Mormon does not claim that the first settlers were Jewish, or that the Indians descended from the ten tribes. I raise here the question of which came first? It is quite possible that Wright's statement influenced Hurlbut's questioning and documenting of the Spaldings.

3. Upon this subject we had frequent conversations. -- Although Spalding didn't assign origin to the Mound Builders in his Roman story, it is quite possible he discussed the ten tribe theory with Wright and that he planned to include something along those lines in MS Story--but never did.

4. He traced their journey from Jerusalem to America, as it is given in the Book of Mormon, excepting the religious matter. -- Having the lost tribes coming out of Jerusalem makes no senses. So it is likely an indication that Wright's memory is tainted by what he knows about the Book of Mormon.

5. The historical part of the Book of Mormon, I know to be the same as I read and heard read from the writings of Spalding, more than twenty years ago; -- What does he mean by "the same"? The same story, or the same words? I will shortly show from another statement he gave to Hurlbut the following December just how sure he was--perhaps a little too sure.

6. the names more especially are the same without any alteration. -- How he could be so sure after 20+ years that the names were even spelled the same is to be seriously doubted and reason to call the veracity of Wright's statement into question. Spalding tended to spell his invented names differently within the same MS. Did Wright remember that Spalding spelled the name of the hill around which the Nephites met their destruction "Camorah" or "Cumorah"? because Cowdery wrote "Cumorah", but the typesetter for the 1st edition set "Camorah".

7. He told me his object was to account for all the fortifications, &c. to be found in this country, -- This was the aim of the Mound Builder Myth, and anyone who adopted it.

8. Spalding had many other manuscripts, which I expect to see when Smith translates his other plate. -- Of course Spalding had other writings, but did he have two romances numbering in the hundreds of pages dealing with ancient America? As we will see, given the testimonies of Spalding's widow and daughter, that possibility is highly questionable.

9. 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. -- All the names? Note that it is not qualified, as with "most of the historical part." Seems to be an over-confident statement that raises questions about Wright's credibility.

10. If it is not Spalding's writing, it is the same as he wrote; and if Smith was inspired, I think it was by the same spirit that Spalding was, which he confessed to be the love of money. -- Why does he speculate about Joseph Smith's motives? Seems to reveal a motive and a bias that would explain his willingness to overstate what his memory could supply.

When Solomon Spalding first came to this place, he purchased a tract of land, surveyed it out and commenced selling it. While engaged in this business, he boarded at my house, in all nearly six months. All his leisure hours were occupied in writing a historical novel, founded upon the first settlers of this country. He said he intended to trace their journey from Jerusalem, by land and sea, till their arrival in America, give an account of their arts, sciences, civilization, wars and contentions. In this way, he would give a satisfactory account of all of the old mounds, so common to this country. During the time he was at my house, I read and heard read one hundred pages or more. Nephi and Lehi were by him represented as leading characters, when they first started for America. Their main object was to escape the judgments which they supposed were coming upon the old world. But no religious matter was introduced, as I now recollect. Just before he left this place, Spalding sent for me to call on him, which I did. -- He then said, that although he was in my debt, he intended to leave the country, and hoped I would not prevent him, for, says he, you know I have been writing the history of the first settlement of America, and I intend to go to Pittsburgh, and there live a retired life, till I have completed the work, and when it is printed, it will bring me a fine sum of money, which will enable me to return and pay off all my debts -- the book, you know will sell, as every one is anxious to learn something upon that subject. This was the last I heard of Spalding or his book, until the Book of Mormon came into the neighborhood. When I heard the historical part of it related, I at once said it was the writings of old Solomon Spalding. Soon after, I obtained the book, and on reading it, found much of it the same as Spalding had written, more than twenty years before. -- OLIVER SMITH.

--Howe, Mormonism Unvailed 284-85.

While engaged in this business, he boarded at my house, in all nearly six months. -- This would have been in 1803-10, according to Cowdrey et al. (57 note 70), who interpret "first came" as 1803 and "in all" as a total spread throughout the seven years. Regardless, during these earliest years of Spalding's residence in Conneaut--if we follow the two-MS theory--Spalding would have been supposedly writing MS Story, not MS Found.

All his leisure hours were occupied in writing a historical novel, founded upon the first settlers of this country. -- Same claim made by John and Martha Spalding and Aron Wright, which happens to be incorrect for the Book of Mormon.

He said he intended to trace their journey from Jerusalem, by land and sea, till their arrival in America, -- Unlike other witnesses, there is no mention of lost tribes, although the wording is very similar to John Spalding's statement.

John Spalding -- "It gave a detailed account of their journey from Jerusalem, by land and sea, till they arrived in America ..."

Again, which came first? Did Oliver Smith's statement influence the form that John Spalding's statement took?

give an account of their arts, sciences, civilization, wars and contentions. In this way, he would give a satisfactory account of all of the old mounds, so common to this country. -- As previously discussed, anyone under the influence of the Mound Builder Myth is going to have two groups warring until one is annihilated and buried in the mounds. So this similarity is not surprising since it shows up in MS Story, View of the Hebrews, and the Book of Mormon. And again, we find that there is a strong parallel to John Spalding's statement:--

John Spalding -- "Their arts, sciences and civilization were brought into view, in order to account for all the curious antiquities, found in various parts of North and South America."

During the time he was at my house, I read and heard read one hundred pages or more. -- It's not likely that Spalding would have written 171 pages of MS Story, set it aside, and commenced writing more than 100 pages while yet living with Oliver Smith prior to 1810.

Nephi and Lehi were by him represented as leading characters, when they first started for America. -- The same two names mentioned by John and Martha Spalding.

John Spalding -- "It gave a detailed account of their journey from Jerusalem, by land and sea, till they arrived in America, under the command of NEPHI and LEHI."

The compact version of the same words in Spalding's statement would tend to point to Oliver Smith's being the first. However, one should be skeptical of the credibility of Smith's 24-year-old memory of two specific names being linked in the same story. As a missionary, I might recount the storyline of the Book of Mormon to prospective converts, or even show them a slide presentation on the Book of Mormon, but could any of them remember the unusual names a week later? None that I can recall. How about 24 years later? Not a chance. And so many people? The best explanation of the phenomenon I think is false memory syndrome. Apparently, none could remember names in areas of the Book of Mormon that they had not read.

Their main object was to escape the judgments which they supposed were coming upon the old world. But no religious matter was introduced, as I now recollect. -- These two sentences seem contradictory to me, unless he means no long quotes from the Bible and miracles, which is true for MS Story.

Just before he left this place [ca. 1812], ... I have been writing the history of the first settlement of America, and I intend to go to Pittsburgh, and there live a retired life, till I have completed the work and when it is printed, ... -- About 1812, according to Oliver Smith, Spalding was still working on the same MS that he was working on when he first arrived in Conneaut and while he lived with him, and it was that unfinished MS that he intended to publish in Pittsburgh.

This was the last I heard of Spalding or his book, until the Book of Mormon came into the neighborhood. When I heard the historical part of it related, I at once said it was the writings of old Solomon Spalding. Soon after, I obtained the book, and on reading it, found much of it the same as Spalding had written, more than twenty years before. -- Excluding the names Lehi and Nephi and the place for origin--Jerusalem--Oliver Smith was perhaps confused by the similarity both books had to the Mound Builder Myth.

I first became acquainted with Solomon Spalding, in Dec. 1810. After that time I frequently saw him at his house, and also at my house. I once in conversation with him expressed a surprise at not having any account of the inhabitants once in this country, who erected the old forts, mounds, &c. He then told me that he was writing a history of that race of people; and afterwards frequently showed me his writings, which I read. I have lately read the Book of Mormon, and believe it to be the same as Spalding wrote, except the religious part. He told me that he intended to get his writings published in Pittsburgh, and he thought that in one century from that time, it would be believed as much as any other history. -- NAHUM HOWARD.

--Howe, Mormonism Unvailed 285-86.

He then told me that he was writing a history of that race of people;

and afterwards frequently showed me his writings, which I read. I have lately read the Book of Mormon, and believe it to be the same as Spalding wrote, except the religious part. -- Howard may have believed the two works were "the same", but his lack of detail perhaps indicates that his belief was based on general similarity and a very dim recollection of Spalding's MS.


September 1833
Hurlbut obtains statements of Henry Lake in Conneaut (OH), John N. Miller in Springfield (PA), and probably Artemas Cunningham of Perry, Geauga county (OH).

I left the state of New York, late in the year 1810, and arrived at this place, about the 1st of Jan. following. Soon after my arrival, I formed a co-partnership with Solomon Spalding, for the purpose of re-building a forge which he had commenced a year or two before. He very frequently read to me from a manuscript which he was writing, which he entitled the "Manuscript Found," and which he represented as being found in this town. I spent many hours in hearing him read said writings, and became well acquainted with its contents. He wished me to assist him in getting his production printed, alleging that a book of that kind would meet with a rapid sale. I designed doing so, but the forge not meeting our anticipations, we failed in business, when I declined having any thing to do with the publication of the book. This book represented the American Indians as the descendants of the lost tribes, gave an account of their leaving Jerusalem, their contentions and wars, which were many and great. One time, when he was reading to me the tragic account of Laban, I pointed out to him what I considered an inconsistency, which he promised to correct; but by referring to the Book of Mormon, I find to my surprise that it stands there just as he read it to me then. -- Some months ago I borrowed the Golden Bible, put it into my pocket, carried it home, and thought no more of it. -- About a week after, my wife found the book in my coat pocket, as it hung up, and commenced reading it aloud as I lay upon the bed. She had not read 20 minutes till I was astonished to find the same passages in it that Spalding had read to me more, than twenty years before, from his "Manuscript Found." Since that, 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." I well recollect telling Mr. Spalding, that the so frequent use of the words "And it came to pass," "Now it came to pass," rendered it ridiculous. Spalding left here in 1812, and I furnished him the means to carry him to Pittsburgh, where he said he would get the book printed, and pay me. But I never heard any more from him or his writings, till I saw them in the Book of Mormon. -- HENRY LAKE.

--Howe, Mormonism Unvailed 281-82.

He very frequently read to me from a manuscript which he was writing, which he entitled the "Manuscript Found," and which he represented as being found in this town. -- True for MS Story, which is probably why many called it "Manuscript Found."

This book represented the American Indians as the descendants of the lost tribes, gave an account of their leaving Jerusalem, their contentions and wars, which were many and great. -- Again, we see the combination of the Mound Builder Myth and lost tribes theory, as in Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews, of which the Book of Mormon is a clever variation.

One time, when he was reading to me the tragic account of Laban, I pointed out to him what I considered an inconsistency, which he promised to correct; but by referring to the Book of Mormon, I find to my surprise that it stands there just as he read it to me then. -- While this statement is intended to give proof for a specific memory of a specific item in the Book of Mormon, it is the lack of specificity that neutralizes the effect. What did Lake consider an "inconsistency" in the Book of Mormon story of Laban? He doesn't say. There are so many. Was it that Laban had a "steel" sword? Was it that Nephi cuts off Laban's head and then puts his bloody armor? Was it that Nephi could fool Laban's servant into thinking he was Laban and giving him the brass plates? Was it that righteous Nephi committed murder to get the plates? How does that square with the consistent claim that Spalding's MS was primarily historical without the religious parts? And what would Spalding's Nephi want with brass plates with the Old Testament on them? Roper suggests that Lake may have confused Laban with Spalding's Labanko:--

Lake never specified what the inconsistency was, nor did he describe the details of a Laban story in either the Book of Mormon or Spalding's manuscript. There is, though, nothing particularly tragic about the death of Laban in the Book of Mormon; he was a wicked and greedy individual who tried several times to murder Nephi and Nephi's brothers (see 1 Nephi 3–4). The description fits quite well, however, with Spalding's narrative of honorable Labanko, whose death at the hands of the villain Sambal led to further hostilities and bloodshed among the opposing groups in Spalding's story. One might argue that Lake is remembering another manuscript, but a more plausible interpretation is that he had a vague recollection of the Labanko episode and, in 1833, after hearing of the Book of Mormon, confused the two somewhat similar names.

Roper then quotes from MS Story:--

While Labanko was engaged in combat with another chief, Sambal thrust his sword into his side—Thus Labanko fell lamented & beloved by all the subjects of the empire of Kentuck. His learning wisdom & penetration of mind—his integrity, firmness & courage had gained him universal respect & given him a commanding influence over the Emperor & his other Councellors—He was viewed with such respect & reverance, that the death of no man could have produced more grief & lamentation—& excited in the minds of the Kentucks a more ardent thirst for revenge.—The officers of his phalanx exclaimed revenge the death of Labanko (MS, 148).

Personally, despite the similarity between names, I doubt Lake remembered either the name Laban (note that he doesn't claim to remember the name Laban) or the story of Labanko. The only similarity that probably existed was that Lake was good for pointing out inconsistencies in both stories.

Some months ago I borrowed the Golden Bible -- Use of this pejorative term is indication of bias and possible influences.

I was astonished to find the same passages in it that Spalding had read to me more, than twenty years before, from his "Manuscript Found." Since that, 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." -- I'm "astonished" that Lake could be so confident about 20-year-old memories, but perhaps he was bolstered by other witnesses.

I well recollect telling Mr. Spalding, that the so frequent use of the words "And it came to pass," "Now it came to pass," rendered it ridiculous. -- A very similar statement is found in John Spalding's statement:--

John Spalding -- "I well remember that he wrote in the old style, and commenced about every sentence with "and it came to pass," or "now it came to pass," the same as in the Book of Mormon, ..."

This is Lake's second criticism of Spalding's writings. One gets the impression he prides himself as a literary critic, both of the Book of Mormon and Spalding's writings. Apparently, Spalding was trying to interest Lake in financing the publication of his book, which he at first entertained doing. No doubt Lake offered many such criticisms over the course of the years that Spalding read his MS to him as he tried to coax Lake to finance his book project. But when their business failed, Lake changed his mind. While I think it is probable that Lake gave Spalding abundant critique and criticism, I doubt that the two he gave of the Book of Mormon were among those he gave Spalding 20= year earlier. But since he was certain about the plagiarism, he was probably certain the two he gave were among the many criticisms he had offered Spalding.

In the year 1811, I was in the employ of Henry Lake and Solomon Spalding, at Conneaut, engaged in rebuilding a forge. While there, I boarded and lodged in the family of said Spalding, for several months. I was soon introduced to the manuscript of Spalding, and perused them as often as I had leisure. He had written two or three books or pamphlets on different subjects; but that which more particularly drew my attention, was one which he called the "Manuscript Found." From this he would frequently read some humorous passages to the company present. It purported to be the history of the first settlement of America, before discovered by Columbus. He brought them off from Jerusalem, under their leaders; detailing their travels by land and water, their manners, customs, laws, wars, &c. He said that he designed it as a historical novel, and that in after years it would be believed by many people as much as the history of England. He soon after failed in business, and told me he should retire from the din of his creditors, finish his book and have it published, which would enable him to pay his debts and support his family. He soon after removed to Pittsburgh, as I understood. 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." Many of the passages in the Mormon Book are verbatim from Spalding, and others in part. The names of Nephi, Lehi, Moroni, and in fact all the principal names, are bro't fresh to my recollection, by the Gold Bible. When Spalding divested his history of its fabulous names, by a verbal explanation, he landed his people near the Straits of Darien, which I am very confident he called Zarahemla, they were marched about that country for a length of time, in which wars and great blood shed ensued, he brought them across North America in a north east direction. -- JOHN N. MILLER.

--Howe, Mormonism Unvailed 282-83.

He had written two or three books or pamphlets on different subjects; but that which more particularly drew my attention, was one which he called the "Manuscript Found." -- If MS Found is referred to, what about it would draw attention more than MS Story? The two MSS would not be easy to distinguish. In fact, if Miller had seen both MSS, he would here be compelled to make a distinction. It seems likely that among the "books or pamphlets" was only one of substantial size that dealt with ancient American history.

From this he would frequently read some humorous passages to the company present. -- The humorous passages must have been deleted by Rigdon. Roper observes:--

Any reference to "humorous passages" in the Book of Mormon is untenable, though, as anyone who has read it can attest. However, obvious attempts at lowbrow humor are found in the Spalding manuscript.[97]

It purported to be the history of the first settlement of America, before discovered by Columbus. He brought them off from Jerusalem, under their leaders; detailing their travels by land and water, their manners, customs, laws, wars, &c. -- Like Oliver Smith, there is no mention of lost tribes. This might be because Miller read the Book of Mormon closer.

He soon after failed in business, and told me he should retire from the din of his creditors, finish his book and have it published, which would enable him to pay his debts and support his family. He soon after removed to Pittsburgh, as I understood. -- Miller here testifies that as of ca. 1811, just prior to Spalding's removal to Pittsburgh, he had read an unfinished MS.

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." -- How could he know how Spalding's book ended since, as he himself states, the MS he saw was unfinished? Such overstatement calls into question Miller's objectivity and credibility as a witness.

Many of the passages in the Mormon Book are verbatim from Spalding, and others in part. -- Excuse me while I roll my eyes. Right! No way, no how! What parts, I wonder, could be verbatim, when nearly every passage has religious woven into it?

The names of Nephi, Lehi, Moroni, and in fact all the principal names, are bro't fresh to my recollection, by the Gold Bible. -- There's that "Gold Bible" bias indicator. Excuse me, again, if I'm skeptical about Miller's claim that he could remember "all the principal names" in Spalding's MS after 20+ years. Not even if his life depended on it. Note that the names are brought to his recollection "by the Gold Bible." One wonders how many names he could remember without such prompting?

When Spalding divested his history of its fabulous names, by a verbal explanation, he landed his people near the Straits of Darien, which I am very confident he called Zarahemla, they were marched about that country for a length of time, in which wars and great blood shed ensued, he brought them across North America in a north east direction. -- Cowdrey et al. make a big deal out of Miller's statement here:--

[Spalding] had his immigrants land in Central America, and not in the area of the Chesapeake Bay as is found in Manuscript Story—Conneaut Creek. ... Because Miller could not have gotten the name "Darien" from The Book of Mormon, it becomes difficult to explain where he did get it, unless it was from Spalding himself—which means that the literary creation recalled by Miller could not have been Manuscript Story—Conneaut Creek, but rather had to have been some other Spalding work" (p. 87) (as quoted in Roper's essay; 119-20 on 2000 CD).

According to Miller, "Darien" didn't appear in the MS either, but rather strange names that Spalding had to explain. In those verbal explanations, it is possible that Spalding also discussed his views about the origin of the Mound Builders, who were already in America when his Roman group landed "in the area of the Chesapeake Bay." Although not explained in MS Story, it is possible that Spalding believed the Mound Builders had landed near the Isthmus of Darien, or south of it in Peru, which is what many in his day DID believe. Here is an excerpt from my Indian Origins and the Book of Mormon:--

Many early writers explicitly linked the North American mounds with the ruins of Mexico, Central America, and Peru. James Sullivan writing in 1795 asserted that the Ohio mounds and fortifications "must have been raised by the people of Mexico and Peru, because the northern nations never possessed the art."45 Thaddeus Harris asserted in 1805 that North American burial mounds and fortifications were of "the same structure" of those of the Mexicans.46 Yates and Moulton also saw the ruins of their own state as part of one great project:

These remains of art may be viewed as connecting links of a great chain, which extends beyond the confines of our state, and becomes more magnificent and curious as we recede from the northern lakes, pass through Ohio into the great vale of the Mississippi, thence to the Gulf of Mexico, through Texas into New Mexico and South America. In this vast range of more than three thousand miles, these monuments of ancient skill gradually become more remarkable for their number, magnitude, and interesting variety, until we are lost in admiration and astonishment.47

In 1824 the Columbian Historian described this chain of ruins in much the same way:

An observing eye can easily mark in these works, the progress of their authors, from the lakes to the valley of the Mississippi; thence to the Gulf of Mexico, and round it, through Texas, into New Mexico, and into South America; their increased numbers, as they proceeded, are evident; while the articles found in and near these works, show also the progressive improvement of the arts among those who erected them.48

Such descriptions of course imply that all structures were engineered by one group--the mound builders. Many writers speculated that this group originated in the north and then migrated south into Mexico and Peru, building greater and greater mounds. Others believed the group originated in the south and was pushed into North America by savage tribes. The fortifications in the Great Lakes region would thus have been a last desperate effort at defense. In 1829 the American Monthly Magazine (Boston) printed a variation on both of these theories: the first settlers had crossed the Bering Strait, migrated to the warmer climates of Mexico and Peru where they built their mighty cities, and only later wandered to the Great Lakes region searching for more fertile lands.49 Whatever the theory, the northeastern mounds were prime focal points--either the beginning or the end. Western New York was right in the center as one observer would write in the Ohio Gazetteer, "The place where they commence, or at least, where they are very remarkable, is in the western part of the state of New York, near the southern shores of lake Ontario."50

--http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/indian/indian2.htm#Origins

Artemas Cunningham, of Perry, Geauga county, Ohio, states as follows:--

"In the month of October, 1811, I went from the township of Madison to Conneaut, for the purpose of securing a debt due me from Solomon Spalding. I tarried with him nearly two days, for the purpose of accomplishing my object, which I was finally unable to do. I found him destitute of the means of paying his debts. His only hope of ever paying his debts, appeared to be upon the sale of a book, which he had been writing. He endeavored to convince me from the nature and character of the work, that it would meet with a ready sale. Before showing me his manuscripts, he went into a verbal relation of its outlines, saying that it was a fabulous or romantic history of the first settlement of this country, and as it purported to have been a record found buried in the earth, or in a cave, he had adopted the ancient or scripture style of writing. He then presented his manuscripts, when we sat down and spent a good share of the night, in reading them, and conversing upon them. I well remember the name of Nephi, which appeared to be the principal hero of the story. The frequent repetition of the phrase, "I Nephi," I recollect as distinctly as though it was but yesterday, although the general features of the story have passed from my memory, through the lapse of 22 years. He attempted to account for the numerous antiquities which are found upon this continent, and remarked that, after this generation had passed away, his account of the first inhabitants of America would be considered as authentic as any other history. The Mormon Bible I have partially examined, and am fully of the opinion that Solomon Spalding had written its outlines before he left Conneaut."

--Howe, Mormonism Unvailed 286-87.

Before showing me his manuscripts, he went into a verbal relation of its outlines, ... He then presented his manuscripts, when we sat down and spent a good share of the night, in reading them, and conversing upon them. -- In such situations, it would be easy to confuse extraneous elaborations with what was actually in the MS. Perhaps in providing background for his Roman story, Spalding would talk about the Mound Builders as well as the ten tribe theory, and it was this information that witnesses believed was also part of the story.

I well remember the name of Nephi, which appeared to be the principal hero of the story. The frequent repetition of the phrase, "I Nephi," I recollect as distinctly as though it was but yesterday, although the general features of the story have passed from my memory, through the lapse of 22 years. -- He remembers a name, but not the story? However, there is a serious problem with this memory. "I Nephi" could not have been used in Joseph Smith's first dictation of the lost 116 pages. It would have most likely been "I, Mormon ...", because it was Mormon's abridgment of the record of Nephi. Then, it would have been "I, Lehi", because Mormon was abridging the record of Lehi, which now appears as Nephi's abridgment of his father's record in 1 Nephi 1-10.

The Mormon Bible I have partially examined, and am fully of the opinion that Solomon Spalding had written its outlines before he left Conneaut. -- It's not much of an opinion since it is based on one conversation with Spalding, an admission that 22 years had erased "the general features of the story," a partial reading of Book of Mormon, and the remembrance of a single name.

[_Uncle Dale]

4. He traced their journey from Jerusalem to America, as it is given in the Book of Mormon, excepting the religious matter. -- Having the lost tribes coming out of Jerusalem makes no senses. So it is likely an indication that Wright's memory is tainted by what he knows about the Book of Mormon.

Totally wrong -- as any first semester seminarian at even the most "hick" of the hick Bible colleges will tell you.

The Assyrians left a sizeable remnant of the northern tribes in Israel after they had deported the elite of Ephraim.
The biblical books of Kings and Chronicles detail how King Josiah conducted monotheistic reforms in the occupied
land -- obviously with Assyrian consent.

Josiah also taxed or "billed" the remaining Israelite leaders in the north -- none of which must have set very well the
the people there. He also celebrated a Great Passover for all the monotheists to attend -- both from Israel and Judah.
Thus, Jerusalem was a place that northerners (or at least those northerners who were welcome in Judah) still visited.
That was the whole purpose of Josiah's destroying the independent henotheistic shrines in both realms -- so that the
worshippers of YHWH would COME TO JERUSALEM for their rites and ceremonies.

Solomon Spalding knew enough of the Bible to be aware of this, Dan -- even if you do not. He also had Josephus and
Clarke's Biblical Commentary to help him out with the stories and traditions.

A group of the northern tribal remnant would naturally depart from near the vicinity of Jerusalem, if they expected to
escape both their Assyrian overlords and King Josiah's reforms -- They might have used the TransJordan as a route
around Assyrian controlled territory and traveled through Arabia and Persia to find a land where never man had dwelt
(save for a handful of savage Scythians). From Persia these refugees might have wandered to Siberia and over into
North America -- just as several Spalding witnesses claim.

Those same witnesses say that either all or most of these northerners were idolators -- probably worshippers of the
young bull (as the footstool of El or YHWH). Whether Spalding took the trouble to spell out such subtle stuff, I have no
idea -- but my guess is that the so-called 116 "lost pages" of the Book of Lehi told the story of these notherners
traveling from Jerusalem by land and by sea, until they reached the Americas -- a land where never man had dwelt --
and there they eventually divided into two factions, one of which preserved nothern Israelite "idolatry," with the other
one opting for what was becoming Judaism at about this same time in Babylon and Palestine.

Disagree with Spalding authorship testimony all you want Dan -- but at least get your biblical history right.

OK?

Dale

[_Uncle Dale]

7. He told me his object was to account for all the fortifications, &c. to be found in this country, --
This was the aim of the Mound Builder Myth, and anyone who adopted it.

Which was also a primary purpose of the Book of Mormon, according to its early advocates:

Consider this:

IN 1830 the Rev. David Marks was traveling through western New York and there he heard of the recent publication of a very strange book. When Marks heard the claims being made for this book -- that it told the hitherto unpublished story of the ancient inhabitants of the Americas -- it occurred to him that the book, if true, might help answer some questions he had been pondering about the origin of the ancient earthworks of the Ohio Valley. In his 1831 account of his encounter with that strange book, Rev Marks says:


"When I was in Ohio, I had quite a curiosity to know the origin of the numerous mounds and remains
of ancient fortifications that abound in that section of the country; but could not find that any thing
satisfactory was known on the subject. Having been told that the 'Book of Mormon' gave a history
of them, and of their authors, some desire was created in my mind to see the book, that I might
learn the above particulars. I wished to read it, but could not, in good conscience, purchase a copy,
lest I should support a deception; so they lent me one, and I read two hundred and fifty pages;
but was greatly disappointed in the style and interest of the work... I thought it probably had been
written originally by an infidel, to see how much he could impose on the credulity of men, and to get
money. Yet, I expected they would make converts; for there are many people who are fond of new
things; and there is scarcely any system so absurd as to obtain no advocates. "

Although the Rev. David Marks discovered the Book of Mormon to be a great disappointment, many other comtemporary investigators found within its pages exactly the answers they had been looking for, on questions ranging from the proper mode of Christian baptism to the origin of the American Indians. By the time Marks published his opinion of the book, several hundred people had joined the ranks of its believers and become Mormons -- the followers of Joseph Smith, Jr. History has preserved very little in the way of what the earliest Mormons were preaching and teaching about America's ancient mounds, but, as reporters like Marks bear witness to the fact that verbally, at least, the Mormon elders were claiming the Book of Mormon "gave a history of them" and their builders.

The Earliest Mormon Teachings on America's Mounds:

Elder Charles B. Thompson was one of the first Mormon writers to identify the "mound-builders" with the Nephites whose
story is told in the Book of Mormon. There were, no doubt, similar claims made in earlier LDS publications, but Elder
Thompson's 1841 report is representative of what Mormon authorities were saying about these things during the decade
of America's new religion:


Now the Nephites were a civilized, industrious people... whereas the Lamanites became an idle,
savage, and vicious people delighting in war and bloodshed... Therefore the Nephites had to prepare
themselves for self defence which they did by fortifying their cities and casting up banks of earth
round about their armies, and sometimes building walls of stone to encircle them about, which
accounts for the numerous fortifications and works of defence found so profusely scattered over
this land [North America]. And when the people of these nations became numerous they had extensive
wars; in some battles thousands were slain who were piled up in heaps upon the face of the land and
then earth thrown upon them, and this accounts for the numerous mounds and tumuli found in this
country [North America].

I will next introduce the descriptions of some of these ancient fortifications and military works of defence,
as recorded in the American Antiquities, by Josiah Priest, and also introduce a history of the building
of these fortifications and works of defence, as recorded in the Book of Mormon... corresponding accounts
of fortifications and works of defence there are to be found in the Book of Mormon and American Antiquities...
the people whose history is contained in the Book of Mormon, are the authors of these works [American
mounds, etc.]... And thus we have abundance of proof from recent discoveries, American Antiquities and
prophecy, that the history contained in the Book of Mormon is true.

Again; this history informs us that about four hundred years after Christ, this nation of Nephites were
brought down and destroyed by the Lamanites... God stirred up the Lamanites to camp against them
round about, and to raise forts against them with a mount, and thus they were brought down. But just before
their final overthrow, a man by the names of Mormon took their record containing their history and
sacred writings... to come forth in due time for a sign to Israel, that the time of their redemption had come...

This account also agrees with the Indian traditions which I have quoted in a former part of this work.
It says, that their forefathers were once in possession of a sacred Book, which was handed down from
generation to generation, and at last hid in the earth; but these oracles are to be restored to them again
and then they shall triumph over their enemies and regain their ancient country.

But again, when this Book was taken from the place of its deposit, the words thereof were delivered
to the learned Dr. Mitchel of New-York, with a request that he should read them, but he could not;
thus fulfilling the 11th verse of the 29th chapter of Isaiah, which says, the words of a Book which is sealed
men deliver to one that is learned, saying, read this I pray thee; and he saith I cannot for it is sealed.
And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying read this I pray thee; and he saith I am
not learned.


It would be misleading to say that the early Mormon leaders pointed only to the "Mound-Builder" remains in the eastern United States as surviving examples of the allegedly exterminated Jaredite and Nephite civilizations. As early as 1830 newspaper reports were being published, telling of Mormon elders claiming that the ancient Old World peoples who migrated to the Americas came ashore in places as far away as the shores of South America: "on the coast of Chili 600 years before the coming of Christ..." and that from these Old World colonists "descended all the Indians of America." The pre-Columbian Indian cultures of Meso America and South America were not only better reported (mostly in English translations of the early Spanish historians) than North America's "Mound Builder" remains, the published accounts of the southern peoples and their artifacts were generally far more spectacular. From 1822 onward the popular press was filled with discoveries of new and perplexing southern ruins and relics. It is only natural that the Mormon preachers and apologists looked more and more to these amazing evidences of ancient Indian civilizations as proof for the reliability of the Book of Mormon story. In the process, descriptions of "Mound-Builder" earthworks, like those given by Elder Thompson, were crowded out by a growing LDS interest in the southern Indian civilizations.

See also contemporary newspaper reports to see what Mormon missionaries were teaching about the people of the
Book of Mormon during the 1830s. In later years Orson Pratt identified the mound-builder artifacts as Nephite -- the
various Mormon defender of the "Great Lakes Geography" such as Delbert W. Curtis and Phyllis Carol Olive have
written whole books on this subject, providing many, many Latter Day Saint references to Nephite mound-builders.
The description of the city walls and other earthen fortifications given in the Book of Alma are consistent with the
mound-builder fortifications of the Ohio Valley.

To pretend that the Book of Mormon does not talk about these remains -- mounds heaped up over thousands of the
battlefield dead -- is dishonest, Dan.

Need I quote back to you pages out of Indian Origins and the Book of Mormon, to refresh your memory?

Or, perhaps you'd like me to reproduce several pages on this particular subject from the informative 1994 volume:
Hidden Cities: The Discovery and Loss of Ancient North American Civilization, by the noted writer Roger G. Kennedy.

You're slipping, Dan -- going too fast and relying too much upon your partisan prejudgments, rather than the literature.

UD

[_Uncle Dale]

I well remember the name of Nephi, which appeared to be the principal hero of the story. The frequent repetition
of the phrase, "I Nephi," I recollect as distinctly as though it was but yesterday, although the general features of the story have passed from my memory, through the lapse of 22 years. --

He remembers a name, but not the story? However, there is a serious problem with this memory.

Upon what basis do you say that, Dan? I cannot recall all of the many skits of the old TV program, "Laugh-In," but I
recall the general format of the program, many of its performers, and phrases which were used over and over and
over again, such as "You bet your bippy!" and "Very interesting -- interesting, but stupid."

Now, Dan, I will be the first to admit that there is a serious problem with my memory -- it is disappearing at a very
frightening rate. But do I really have to remember every Laugh-In skit, before you will allow me to remember phrases
used on that old program many, many times? On what basis do you disallow this?

"I Nephi" could not have been used in Joseph Smith's first dictation of the lost 116 pages. It would have most likely been
"I, Mormon ...", because it was Mormon's abridgment of the record of Nephi.

How in heaven's name can you say that, Dan? Were you there with Martin Harris on his side of the curtain? Can
you be 100.00% positive that when the 1830 edition was handed to Martin, he did not say: "Gee, there sure is a lot
of stuff here I never knew about -- and a lot of the stuff I wrote down for Joe isn't here, either!" ???

When you tell us what was in the Book of Lehi, you are overstepping your bounds as a recognized scholar and putting
your hard-earned reputation in jeopardy. You do not know what was said in those lost pages -- other than the fact
that their replacement story fits in fairly well with the rest of the book. Then again, according to Bro. Brent, all the rest
of the book had already been set down on paper, before the replacement account was prefixed to them ---- so it
would not have been difficult to match its essentials to the already written part of the narrative (and especially so, if
that already written part were compiled in anticipation of what would be written into the replacement text).

Thus, for all you know, the 116 pages (or how ever many there were) told the story of Ephraimite and Manassehite
idolators who escaped Assyrian bondage in Samaria by pretending to attend King Josiah's Great Passover in nearby
Jerusalem, and then escaped across Asia to the Americas, bringing along with them a few monotheists in their midst.

What was Martin more interested in, Dan -- getting word to future generations about how much or how little the Book
of Lehi matched up with the "small plates of Nephi"? -- or making a juicy profit in his publishing investment?

Then, it would have been "I, Lehi", because Mormon was abridging the record of Lehi, which now appears as
Nephi's abridgment of his father's record in 1 Nephi 1-10.

If we had some eggs we could have ham and eggs.
...... If we had some ham.

Admit it, Dan -- you have no idea what the Book of Lehi was about. The narrator may have been Lehi largely quoting
Nephi -- or Nephi quoting some Lehi -- or some Nephi and some Lehi both quoting God Almighty.

Your scholastic deduction is reaching the point of absurdity --- a bridge of "ifs" and "maybes" that goes nowhere.
Didn't they teach you in law school how to make use of induction as well as a priori reasoning and deduction?

The Mormon Bible I have partially examined, and am fully of the opinion that Solomon Spalding had written
its outlines before he left Conneaut. --

It's not much of an opinion since it is based on one conversation with Spalding, an admission that 22 years had
erased "the general features of the story," a partial reading of Book of Mormon, and the remembrance of a single name.

So then, complain away all you want about the quality of the testimony. I thought you were here to refute the
Spalding authorship claims, based upon evidence that you were willing to share with other investigators. If this
is the best you can do, Dan, I think you must realize by now that you are failing in your purpose.

Instead of presenting all of this armchair pontificating, why don't you go out and uncover some primary evidence
of your own? Go transcribe a few of Spalding's letters, preserved in various archives, or dig up a few journal entries
from his day that mention him and his activities.

Heck, Dan -- with ten minutes' consultation of Ancestry.com, you can report back to us how close Mary Rigdon lived
to Solomon Spalding's "temperance tavern" in Amity in 1814, and how often her nephew Sidney Rigdon might have
walked over from Library, to visit his cousins in good old Aunt Mary's household.

Got time to consult the 1810 census for Washington Co., PA -- Amwell twp.? Or do you want me to do that for you?

UD

[_Dan Vogel]

Dale,

Perhaps so, Dan -- I recall my years of attending JWHA meetings and being told almost to "a surety," by my
peers there, that certain areas of Mormon history were open to study and reporting and that other areas had been
so well researched and agreed upon, that they really did not need any further inquiry. Thus, we might study and
report upon the Mormon efforts to bring forth and establish the sugar beet industry in the Intermoutain West, until
the cows come home -- but there was absolutely no need whatsoever to study our ancestors' attempts to bring
forth and establish the Book of Mormon, or their methods in covering up the "eternal covenant of patriarchal marriage."

I have no problem with your choice of subject. I'm not one to say it's a waste of time, or to cut off dialogue. The more we know about everything, the better we are. I just disagree with your conclusions--and you have some despite your denials. The Spalding saga is very much a part of Mormon history, even if mistaken. I think your website is a valuable resource for anyone researching both sides of the issue. In the process of digging, you have turned up some important newspaper sources that I prize very highly.

Although Dan Peterson and his crowd might grumble a little at your Smith bio, most of the scholars and academics
will not complain too loudly, because you leave the status quo paradigm intact and all our concentration remains
centered upon Smith and not upon any dangling loose threads of an initial conspiracy in the founding of Mormonism.

I think they are grumbling a lot. My biography has gotten lots of attention in the pages of FARMS Review.

That's the difference between you and myself, Dan. You are a published writer who must come to some sort of
final conclusions in order to have your books say anything definite -- in order to communicate a message or to
set up a recommended path for further historical inquiry. But I am a professional researcher and not much of a
writer at all.

You are published ... on the internet. And now days that counts. As I said, you have plenty of conclusions, although sometimes your love for sources makes it difficult to let go. It's not a matter of coming to conclusions, but in deciding which reconstructions are more probable given our current state of information. At some point, you have to make sense of all the little bits of information. There are always going to be anomalies, or things that can't be perfectly explained.

So, yes, I admit a skepticism when it comes to accepting any old Mormon source upon its face value. Sidney Rigdon
accused The Twelve of counterfeiting at Nauvoo -- and Orson Hyde, speaking on behalf of The Twelve, accused Elder
Rigdon and his followers of being the counterfeitors. Which source am I to believe? I am naturally skeptical regarding
either source, but I am convinced that such counterfeiting of Mexican and US silver coins did go on in the town, under
the protection of some high officials in the Church. As a researcher, my perceived task is to investigate such controversy
and to see if I can come up with hitherto unknown or unexamined relevant source material for further study.

But, as a book writer, Dan, you would come out looking rather badly, to write on Nauvoo counterfeiting and not to come
to some final conclusions on the subject, before you brought your book to an end.

That's the difference I see.

Sometimes, you don't come to a conclusion yourself, but rather you simply describe the data and the implications, especially if it's not central to your thesis. If the evidence is inconclusive, then don't use it as evidence.

Let's take another example. Mother Smith says that Alvin was enthusiastic about the Nephite Record -- perhaps even
more enthusiastic about it than was Joseph himself. What do I do with such a single source report? How much trust do
I put in it? I can only be skeptical --- but when Orsamus Turner claims that he knew (or was told) at an early date,
that Alvin was the family choice for a prophet, ahead of Joseph, then I begin to place a little more reliance upon
Mother Smith's testimony. And if I can locate a third and a fourth confirming source, then I will place even more
trust in her recollections. Isn't that a natural sort of way to organize research priorities, Dan?

I think you put too much stress on single or multiple sources. A false rumor can have many sources, while an accurate account can have one single source. More stress should be placed on firsthand and second hand accounts, especially in this instance. Assuming Martha Coray got it right, what motivation would Lucy have for inventing her story? It's not exactly controversial--not like claiming a vision or finding gold plates. Unfortunately, you are not confirming Lucy's account with Turner, but interpreting Lucy using Turner's likely garbled thirdhand account. There are many factors to consider when analyzing historical sources.

That may be true. So please spell out exactly what I "got wrong," because my hypothesis is that Cowdery was actually
involved in the "translation" process in ways that might have allowed him to contribute to the language of the text, if
not to its basic subject matter. If my notions are anywhere near correct, the report of Oliver's translation failure was a device whereby Oliver was either exhonorated of any outside accusations of having so contributed to the narrative,
and/or he was thus halted in his expectations of making any further contributions. None of which has much to do with
what might have been in his peddler's pack, as he journeyed back and forth across New York or Pennsylvania.

I referred to D&C 9 to argue that it would be odd that OC would try to contribute to the Book of Mormon when he had just handed Joseph Smith the replacement MS. Of course, that's Art's thesis. But you want to deny me the use of D&C 9, because it is a single source from people you accuse of being deceptive. Nevertheless, you want to use it to show that Cowdery contributed to the Book of Mormon. That's odd. However, the revelation makes it clear that OC did not translate because he didn't know the secret. But now that he just learned how it should be done, the revelation revoked the offer. All of which is very curious indeed, but unfortunately doesn't support your interpretation. OC was the scribe; there is no evidence that he was anything more than that. If he had something in his pack from Rigdon, why stop in Manchester and teach school and pretend not to know anything? His introduction to the Smith was by happenstance. It doesn't make sense to me.

Because -- and like I have said many times -- my work is basically that of an investigative reporter who has not yet
published his reporting. In carrying out such a task, I try to be skeptical as to the validity and fulness of disclosure
for each additional source I come upon. When those sources begin to provide a pattern of information, contrary to
the common consensus paradigm of Mormon origins, I become progressively more interested in that pattern. And, as
you yourself mention, I become progressively more concerned with possibilities of "cross-contamination" of the basic
evidence thus presented. But, until I can uncover and compile enough information to form a reasonably predictive
pattern, I cannot say for certain whether I am dealing with valid, authentic historical communications or not.

You seem to have a fascination with patterns in sources, which tends to be the mantra of conspiracy theorists. The pattern endows the sources with greater significance than otherwise. But sometimes patterns can distort the sources themselves by making artificial connections that contaminate a sources meaning--just as you did with Lucy.

That is why I am so uneasy with single sources -- whether they might support one of my working hypotheses or not.
Single sources do not establish a probable pattern of past events and they are only predictive, if and when a second
source is uncovered and compared in its contents to the original source.

What you describe is an ideal situation that is not the rule. There are ways of dealing with single and biased sources. One way is by reading across the gain, meaning using sources for purposes other than what they were intended for.

My theory is that the writer(s) of the Book of Mormon compiled the book, not to make money nor to gain notoriety, but to establish the "one true church," the leaders of which would be able to extend their power and influence in a
world-wide, exclusive organization -- just as Sidney Rigdon outlined in the published 1/3 of his 1844 spring conference
talk in Nauvoo. My theory also relies upon the view that one (or more) of the writers of the book actually believed in
Nephites, in the "power of the restored priesthood," and in the expected millennium -- no matter what elements of
fraud had to be resorted to, in order to get the book distributed among that section of the American public susceptible
to hearing and "obeying" its peculiar "gospel."

Good luck on that one.

Now -- back to Oliver's "translating" efforts -- and back to his writing the "Articles of the Church revelation," as reported
by Bro. Faulring.....

It was actually a rewrite of Joseph Smith's June 1829 revelation (D&C 18), which had assigned Cowdery and David Whitmer the task of naming 12 apostles, and that the 12 would then ordain priests and teachers. This revelation essentially cut Cowdery out of the hierarchy, which also ran counter to what he and the Whitmers believed a church government should be like. Cowdery's revelation declared himself to be an apostle, and called him to organize the church by ordaining priests and teachers. Joseph Smith declared it of the devil, but when he organized the church the following year he didn't organize 12 apostles. Instead, he said an elder was an apostle. This was a compromise with OC and his supporters. Not until after Cowdery was made co-president in December 1834 was the Quorum of 12 organized. There is more, but that will do for now. I would much rather pursue the Spalding theory.

[Bedlamite]

From this he would frequently read some humorous passages to the company present. -- The humorous
passages must have been deleted by Rigdon. Roper observes:--

Any reference to "humorous passages" in the Book of Mormon is untenable, though, as anyone who has read it can attest. However, obvious attempts at lowbrow humor are found in the Spalding manuscript.[97]

Gee, Dan -- why don't you just quote the Prophet, Seer, Revelator and Translator, President Joseph F. Smith from now
on, if you want LDS authorities who gave pronouncements upon what the Book of Mormon contains -- or does not contain. As that
worthy Utahan said, the Conneaut witnesses were under the control of Satan in a vast conspiracy against God and Mormons.

But, since the best you seem able to do here is to stand up Bro. Roper for us as an expert on J. Golden Kimball and
the Mormon Catskill Comedy Hour, allow me the honor of playing his "warm up act." ------>



Here we are in Las Vegas tonight -- and you're quite a crowd, folks -- Seriously, you're a great audience and
I really know great audiences... Take my wife, for example ---- puhleeeze, take her!

Thank you -- thank you very kindly!

Say, did you catch that dude Ammon on the Leno show last night? The guy is a real "sharpie" eh!

Thank you -- thank you very kindly!

So this guy walks up to Ammon and he says, "Yuh got change for a shiblon?" And Ammon says to him, who's that
lady I saw you with last night?" And the guy says "That was no lady, that was my wife!"

Thank you -- thank you very kindly! -- You know that Ammon, he has a very serious butcher's bill.
Yeah -- he can't keep his blade out of the army club! Get it? the arm--ee club!

Anyway, this first clubsman, he walks up to Ammon, and he says, "man, I'ma gonna knock you silly!"

And Ammon -- you know what he does -- this is hilarious, folks! -- Ammon chops off the guy's arm, club and all!

So then another guy walks up and says the same think -- and Ammon chops his arm off as well!

Now this goes on for about an hour, and a cop comes along and he sees the line of clubsman, all ready to confront
Ammon. And the cop says to Ammon, "I've gotta arrest you, son!" And Ammon says, "Why? For loitering?" And the
cop answers, "No, for littering! Unless you've got those hacked-off arms cleaned up by the time I come back here!"

Har-- har har!

Anyway, the last clubsman finally gets up to Ammon -- and Ammon he says to the guy, "I really hate having to
hack your arm off as well! Why don't you people just throw your clubs at me?"

And the clubsman says, "Gee, that's a great idea, but these are Arnold Palmer clubs with custom grips -- and they
cost a fortune. We can't go throwing these things around like they were Spauldings!"

Get it, folks? "Like they were Spauldings!"

Well, you've been a great crowd and I thank you very much -- and I hope to see you all in Reno next week.
I'll be opening at the Sahara, with an all new act!

UD

[_Dan Vogel]

Dale,

The invention of a second MS was to explain the discrepancies between the witnesses and the physical evidence.
This happens all the time in trial cases.

I can understand your adopting this old Mormon excuse as a working hypothesis, Dan --- but I cannot for the life
of me comprehend why you would state for all the world to see, that this is your final and unalterable conclusion.

You are reading too much in my statement. As you would have it, one would have to tranced their humanness before having any confidence about an opinion. This is my opinion and analysis of the sources as they stand at the moment. I do not believe there was a second MS. Given the nature of the evidence, I certainly understand why you aren't so sure.

Let's look at some evidence to the contrary --

Solomon's brother Josiah stated in later years, that he had visited his brother at the outset of the War of 1812
(probably during the summer of 1812, prior to General Hull's surrender) at what is now Conneaut and that at
the time Solomon Spalding "began to compose his novel, which it is conjectured that the Mormons made use
of in forming their Bible. Indeed, although there was nothing in it of Mormonism or that favored error in any way,
yet I am apprehensive that they took pattern from it in forming their delusion. "

This seems to conflict with some of Hurlbut's witnesses, who date their experiences with the MS before 1812.

Josiah goes on to describe either the Solomon Spalding document now at Oberlin, or else perhaps an earlier draft of
that same basic story, and then says that he left his brother while the story was yet unfinished (and evidently before
its author had written down the events of the great war of mound-builder extermination). Josiah then states that he
later heard from Solomon's widow, "if I recollect right, that my brother continued his history of the civilized nation
and the progress of the war until the triumph of the savages to the destruction of the civilized government."
http://www.solomonspalding.com/docs1/18 ... htm#pg254b

Certainly Solomon's Oberlin manuscript was carried on past the mention of conflicts of its civilized mound-builders with
their surrounding savage neighbors, but the draft we see preserved at Oberlin College does not tell of the destruction
of the "civilized" ancient Americans by "the triumph of the savages." Such and ending of the tale, in a subsequent draft,
might have made it a more saleable literary commodity.

There is other testimony supportive of Josiah's recollections, and that comes from the Rev. Abner Jackson, the son of
the man to whom Solomon sold land on the OH/PA border, prior to 1812. Jackson says:

[Spalding wrote a story] purporting to be a history of the lost tribes of Israel... he gave an account of their divisions
and subdivisions... They soon quarreled, and then commenced war anew, and continued to fight... until finally a
terrible battle was fought, which was conclusive. All the Righteous were slain, except one, and he was Chief Prophet
and Recorder. He was notified of the defeat in time by Divine authority; told where, when and how to conceal the
record, and He would take care that it should be preserved, and brought to light again at the proper time, for the benefit
of mankind. So the Recorder professed to do, and then submitted to his fate. I do not remember what that fate was.
He was left alone of his party... Spaulding's Romance professed to find the Record where the Recorder concealed it, in one of those mounds, one of which was but a few rods from Spaulding's residence.
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/PA ... htm#010781

Thus, like Josiah Spalding, Abner Jackson reports that Solomon's novel was brought to a conclusion, in which the savages
exterminated the civilized mound-builders. Unlike Josiah (who left his brother while he was still writing, in the summer
of 1812), Abner Jackson says that the story which was brought to such a conclusion was about Israelite tribes.

One of my own Mormon relatives was a friend of Erastus Rudd, the Mormon brother-in-law of Abner Jackson. Rudd also
had recollections of a Spalding story, which he provided as an independent source. Rudd reportedly said Spalding:

"had written a romance on a few mounds at the above named village [New Salem] , pretending that the ten tribes
crossed from the eastern hemisphere via the Behring Straits to this continent, and that said mounds were built by
a portion of them, to bury the dead after some hard fighting. The novel, as I was told by those who heard it read, referred to them as idolaters and not otherwise religious."
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/LD ... htm#011678

Elder Rudd conveyed essentially the same account as did Jackson, but Rudd reportedly told all of this to my relatives
in the Andrews Tyler family, during the 1820s.

Why would Jackson and Rudd make up stories about a second "lost tribes" manuscript? I do not comprehend why they
would "invent" such accounts or why Rudd would have invented such a description before the Book of Mormon appeared.

Again, we have this published account from Spalding's intented publisher, the Rev. Robert Patterson, Sr.:

"a gentleman, from the East originally, had put into his [Silas Engles'] hands a manuscript of a singular work,
chiefly in the style of our English translation of the Bible, and handed the copy to R. P., who read only a few pages,
and finding nothing apparently exceptionable, he (R. P.) said to Engles, he might publish it, if the author furnished
the funds or good security. "
http://www.solomonspalding.com/docs/1842Wilm.htm#pg16b

In the same pamphlet, immediately alongside Patterson's signed statement, the Rev. Samuel Williams (a fellow Calvinist
minister with Patterson in Pittsburgh at that time) states: "Mr. Patterson firmly believes also, from what he has heard
of the Mormon Bible, that it is the same thing he examined at that time."

Rev. Williams' published 1842 report from Patterson evidently so troubled the resident LDS Apostle in Pittsburgh
(Elder John E. Page) that he visited with Patterson himself and obtained his own information. This information he and
Rigdon intended to announce to the world in the summer of 1844, but after the publication that announcement in the
newspaper, Williams' charges were never met and refuted. All the while Rev. Patterson was living in the city -- and
all the while Apostle Page and his opponents were carrying on a running battle over the merits of Mormonism in the
city's popular press. Rev. Patterson never objected to nor corrected his fellow minister's 1842 report -- and it stands
as uncontroverted evidence of a Spalding story "chiefly in the style of our English translation of the Bible."

Finally, the very first mention we have of the "two manuscripts" came from Aron Wright, at the end of 1833, eleven
months before Howe's book was published.

Why would Patterson and Wright "invent" "a second MS" ???? What "discrepancies between the witnesses and the
physical evidence" were Patterson, Wright, Rudd and Jackson all trying to cover up???

Your conclusion does not make sense to me, Dan. It sounds more like Mormon apologetics than it does scholarship.

Here are some possibilities for you to consider:

1. The Oberlin MS itself shows signs of having been partially re-copied from an earlier source.

2. Several witnesses said that Spalding finished his story, bringing an end to the mound-builder civilization

3. Robert Patterson, Sr. had no objections to putting the name of his publishing company upon the book's title page.

4. Numerous early sources say that the the story in which the mound-builders were exterminated was about Israelites.

5. The first extant document in the Spalding claims library says that Solomon wrote a second story.

Why, after all of this --- and much more that I can (and will) cite, do you continue to say that Spalding could have
never written a second draft of his one extant story???? Can't you at least hold open the slender possibility that the
writer wrote a cleaned-up version of his Roman story, and that Patterson was not such an idiot as to accept the draft
now on file at Oberlin??? I have a dozen different 1810s and 1820s books published by Patterson & Hopkins, by
Patterson & Patterson, and by Patterson and Lambdin ---- all are quality volumes, meant to sell and make a profit.

Your lack of judgment in this matter clouds your entire refutation of the Spalding claims, Dan.

As I said, I'm trying to examine the Spalding theory as a phenomenon. It's too easy to jump ahead and quote from sources that reflect later developments. Those sources can't be understood in context and assessed for reliability until one knows the developments. One can't just look for similarities. A number of sources "confirm" Spalding's MS was about the lost tribes, but how meaningful is that when that is not what the Book of Mormon is about?