However, the nuggets that I mentioned, a Roman story, the Latin parchment and the fact that the manuscript was a small work are noteworthy because they are details that are mostly accurate, indicating that either Winchester or the "Jackson" had actually seen the manuscript.
GlennThigpen wrote:...
either Winchester or the "Jackson" had actually seen the manuscript.
...
Uncle Dale wrote:...
The fact remains that Erastus Rudd and Rosanna Jackson Rudd
became Mormons, while knowing that Spalding had written fiction
about the ancient Americans being the Ten Tribes of Israel. They
obviously were not much bothered by this fact.
...
"A note in Morse's Geography suggested it as a possibility that our Indians were descendants of the lost tribes of Israel. Said Morse, they might have wandered through Asia up to Behring's Strait, and across the Strait to this continent. Besides there were habits and ceremonies among them that resembled some habits and ceremonies among the Israelites of that day. Then the old fortifications and earth mounds, containing so many kinds of relics and human bones, and some of them so large, altogether convinced him that they were a larger race and more enlightened and civilized than are found among the Indians among us at this day. These facts and reflections prompted him to write his Romance, purporting to be a history of the lost tribes of Israel...."
(Abner Jackson, 1880)
Uncle Dale wrote:W. W. Phelps probably saw the Roman story -- since Mr. Howe knew
him before be became a Mormon -- and said that Phelps had come to
see him, regarding the planned publication of "Mormonism Unvailed."
In the last chapter of that book (available for sale in Nov., 1834)
Howe gave almost exactly the same description of the Roman story
as supplied by Winchester. Winchester does not add even a single
new, unique detail regarding the Roman story. {/quote]
Except that it was a "small work", which it is.Lyman Jackson died in 1835 -- probably at about the same time that
Orson Hyde was interviewing the Conneaut witnesses. Hyde may not
have taken a statement from Lyman -- but he probably solicited
information from Lyman's daughter, Rosanna Jackson Rudd (1782-1866)
who was by then a Mormon.
The fact that Orson Hyde did not publish his Conneaut interviews can
be coupled with the testimony of Lyman's son Abner -- who recalled
a Spalding story rather like the Book of Mormon, and with the
testimony of Rosanna's brother-in-law, Erastus Rudd -- who also
recalled a Spalding story somewhat like the Book of Mormon.
Do you have an actual quote from Erastus Rudd? The only thing I have been able to find is a report by Daniel Tyler attributing most of what he knew about the Spalding affair to Rudd. This was in 1878 or 1880. I don't know how well his memory would hold out to those details after all those years.
But, as you noted, there was nothing in Rudd's knowledge of Spalding's writings that stopped Rudd from joining the Church.Thus, the preponderance of the evidence weight is on the side of
Spalding having written a novel resembling the Book of Mormon, and
not upon the side of Lyman Jackson saying there was no such story.
We do not know if it was Lyman Jackson at all. There is a paucity of evidence contemporary to the time for Solomon to have written such a book. Josiah Spalding's recollections do not support such a story.
Here is his quote, which I am sure you are familiar with:In the town where he lived, which I expect is now called Salem, Ohio, there is the appearance of an ancient fort, and near by a large mound, which, when opened, was found to contain human bones. These things give it the appearance of its being inhabited by a civilized people. These appearances furnished a topic of conversation among the people. My brother told me that a young man told him that he had a wonderful dream. He dreamed that he himself (if I recollect right) opened a great mound, where there were human bones. There he found a written history that would answer the inquiry respecting the civilized people that once inhabited that country until they were destroyed by the savages. This story suggested the idea of writing a novel merely for amusement. The title of this novel, I think, was "Historical Novel," or "Manuscript Found." This novel is the history contained in the manuscript found. The author of it he brings from the Old World, but from what nation I do not recollect, I think not a Jew; nor do I recollect how long since, but I think before the Christian Era. He was a man of superior learning suited to that day. He went to sea, lost his point of compass, and finally landed on the American shore, I think near the mouth of the Mississippi River. There he reflects most feelingly on what he suffered, his present condition and future prospects; he likewise makes some lengthy remarks on astronomy and philosophy, which I should think would agree in sentiment and style with very ancient writings. He then started and travelled a great distance through a wilderness country inhabited by savages, until he came to a country where the inhabitants were civilized, cultivated their land, and had a regular form of government which was at war with the savages. There I left him and never saw him nor his writings any more. He soon after moved to Pittsburg, in Pennsylvania, where he lived a while and then moved farther, to a place where he died. His widow then returned to the State of New York, and lived there a while and then came to Connecticut. She informed me, 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.
That is a much more apt description of the Oberlin manuscript than the Book of Mormon. Also, there are no mention of the names Moroni, Laman, Lemuel, Nephi, etc. that the Hurlbut coached witnesses reported.Winchester, soon after publishing his 1840 pamphlet, left the Mormons
and subsequently related many, many things about Joseph Smith and
early Mormon activities which LDS historians consider to be outright
lies. For example -- he said that Oliver Cowdery helped write the Book of Mormon
narrative, etc. etc. If the Mormons consider Winchester to have been
such a blatant liar, I suppose we must at least consider that his
assertions regarding Lyman Jackson could also be lies.
I actually agree with that point. If there is nothing unique enough from Winchester's report to allow it to stand on its own merits, his subsequent actions bring his integrity into question. I do not believe that a person becomes a saint just by becoming LDS. I still do not know that it was Lyman Jackson of whom he spoke though. We do not have enough information to make that assumption.The fact remains that Erastus Rudd and Rosanna Jackson Rudd
became Mormons, while knowing that Spalding had written fiction
about the ancient Americans being the Ten Tribes of Israel. They
obviously were not much bothered by this fact. Their relative,
Abner Jackson, claimed to have known more about the story and
to know that it more closely resembled the Book of Mormon than
is explainable by sheer coincidence. Abner never became a Mormon.
All in all, I'd say that Winchester's vague quoting of an unidentified
"Mr. Jackson" does not add a single bit of knowledge to the Roman
story description published by Howe in 1834 -- and that Winchester
may well have been putting words into "Mr. Jackson's" mouth.
UD
GlennThigpen wrote:...
Why do you think Howe would have shown Phelps the manuscript?
...
For example -- he said that Oliver Cowdery helped write the Book of Mormon narrative, etc. etc. If the Mormons consider Winchester to have been such a blatant liar, I suppose we must at least consider that his assertions regarding Lyman Jackson could also be lies.
That is a much more apt description of the Oberlin manuscript than the Book of Mormon. Also, there are no mention of the names Moroni, Laman, Lemuel, Nephi, etc. that the Hurlbut coached witnesses reported.
Roger wrote:...Could you link to that quote? Do you know the background on what made Winchester come to that conclusion?
Finally he [Smith] took the notion to get up a book. Then he claimed to have made the discovery of the plates. Then he got Cowdery, Harris and Whitmer into it."
"Cowdery was his scribe, or the writer of the book, as Smith dictated it. It was done this way. The report went out about the plates and a mob gathered to get hold of them. Smith fled to Pennsylvania, and Oliver Cowdery went with him. They either built, or went into a shanty already built, and hung blankets across the room. Smith was behind the blankets in the dark with this 'peep stone' in his hat and then his face in the hat. As he looked into the hat there would come sentence after sentence upon the stone, and he would dictate it to Cowdery, and Cowdery would write it down.
"Q. Have you any theory as to the origin of the Book of Mormon?"
"A. I am satisfied that it originated with Smith and Cowdery and possibly Harris contributed some to it. Afterward as Smith was very quarrelsome -- the most abusive man I ever saw -- he quarreled with the three witnesses, and all the other witnesses only his own family. Cowdery at the time however, claimed to not know the source of the book. ...
[Q.] "How would you account for so much truth being brough[t] forth in the Book of Mormon ?"
[A.] "Cowdery was the scintific man of the age and well informed generally, and what he [had?] Smith lacked...
http://www.solomonspalding.com/docs/1900winc.htm
Joseph Smith had a fair degree of dramatic talent by nature and he was cut out by nature for a writer of fiction. Although not an educated man he had a wonderful capacity for weaving and unraveling plots. I believe that the Book of Mormon was mainly the production of the brains of himself and Cowdery...
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/UT ... htm#092289
I'm curious as to whether you would agree that a King James Bible was likely used in Book of Mormon production?
On some level, Roger, this isn't a very relevant question. It comes from the problematic way that you view as the relationships between texts. There is no question that language in the Book of Mormon occurs in the way it does precisely because of the way the language occurs in the King James version of the Bible. There is then, a genetic connection between the two. Exactly how that connection occurs is far less important than the fact that the connection occurs. We can say with a fair degree of certainty that the Book of Mormon relies on the KJV. We can't say with any certainty at all that a copy of the KJV was used during the production of the Book of Mormon.
Roger also wrote this:If Ben's earlier observation that Jocker's methodology works "very, very well" when the real author is in the mix, I take that as rather encouraging given that I don't believe Nephi was a real person (for reasons other than word print data). If Ben is correct in that observation then the only way Bruce's results are meaningful is if Nephi was indeed a real person.
I disagree with you. It is always easier to disqualify a candidate for authorship than to prove that someone is an author of a disputed text. What Bruce's method does is to put a control into the Jockers method to eliminate false positives - by creating a limit at which point we can suggest that a proposed author cannot be the real author of a text. That Bruce's method can be applied to other text cases means that Bruce's results are meaningful even if there were no real Nephi. What we can conclude from Bruce's study (assuming that it works well) is that Neither Rigdon, nor Spalding, nor Cowdery were the authors of any of the chapters in the Book of Mormon. And this is the case whether there was a real Nephi or not. Bruce simply demonstrates that the real author of the Book of Mormon chapters simply wasn't in the list of proposed authors that Jockers made.
You can be as confident as you want to about the fact that the real author is in the mix - but what is clear is that you can no longer use the Jockers study as evidence for that argument.