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

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Roger writes:

And of course Ben is well aware--or at least he should be--that in making this accusation he is being disingenuous. The case for S/R has been, is, and continues to be made by more minds than merely Roger's, although I have also contributed a few observations from the layman's vantage point here and there as well.

Actually, Roger, the S/R theory has relatively very few proponents. And the problems raised by it have never really been addressed. So, I stand by my comments. In a rather insulated environment like this, it may seem like there is a lot of support. There isn't.

The problem, as Ben well knows, or at least I should say as has been pointed out to him, is that EACH of the main Book of Mormon production theories has their own unique weaknesses but Ben has a fascination with zeroing in on what he perceives to be the weaknesses of S/R (as defined by Ben) to the exclusion of the others. In fact he refuses to defend what I thought was his own Book of Mormon theory (presumably on the grounds that it won't pass his own scrutiny) but instead seems to prefer Dan Vogel's point of view.

Actually, this isn't true. I am more than willing to tackle the others as well (and I have). But these discussions are about the Spalding/Rigdon theory. I am more than happy to defend my point of view, but that's an entirely different subject. I just want to get the angel out of the way, because no matter where my discussion with you has ever gone on these forums, it has always come to a dead end at the angel. You refuse to discuss the Spalding theory on its own merits. You always have to have something else so that you can win by knocking down what you perceive as the only alternative. The Spalding theory does not stand on its own feet with you Roger.

Well it's fine if Ben want's to convert to Dan Vogel's point of view, but then the discussion changes, because Dan's Book of Mormon production theory suffers from different weaknesses than the one (I thought) Ben maintains.

Do you see what I mean? For you, it's never about your theory, you want to win by making a caricature of anything else, and eliminating it, thus as the only thing left standing (in your opinion) you win be default. Your approach suggests quite clearly to me that you recognize that the Spalding theory is indefensible, and so you never try to actually defend it. And of course, everything else is merely distraction. I have every right to question your theory on its own merits without having a need to provide something in return. It's not a question of whether yours is the best fit as you see it, its whether your position is a good fit at all.

Ben McGuire

[_Uncle Dale]

...
This can be done. So, let's start here. Perhaps you could outline what models you want to see applied here. And I will produce such an author. I might even produce a post-1830 writer. Since we no there can be no connection there. The point being if a chronologically excluded author matches up better than Cowdery or Rigdon, then clearly that would exclude Cowdery or Rigdon, is that right?
...

I'll bypass the list of methodology which I cannot produce nor effectively
contribute to -- though others may be able to make good use of some
of the suggestions I made there.

Getting down to the methodology which I can employ, I will discuss that --

Somebody once coined the term "parallellomania," and I think that is a summary
of the comparison method I found Vernal Holley using to identify authorship
in the 1980s. Briefly, Vern would take a pre-1830 text, such as the Preface to
the KJV Bible, and attempt to discover three or four words in a row which
occurred in both texts. When I asked him what his criteria for selection of
"significant" examples of shared phraseology, he essentially said "I know it when
I see it." I tried the experiment of using Vern's method in two papers I wrote
during the early 1980s, and soon discovered its practical limitations.

Lists of phrases shared by two texts can be impressive -- even compelling --
but they are only a beginning point. Hugh Nibley once stated that the greater
the resemblance, the greater the relationship (or words to that effect) and
copyright plagiarism law seems to recognize that principle. That is to say,
the longer and more unique the alleged plagiarism, the greater the chance for
a legal judgment. But what constitutes "long" and "unique?"

Vern could never answer such questions in such a way as to be set down
in a mathematical formula. Nor was he prepared to consider anomalies to
his supposed instances of textual borrowing, such as two independent texts
relying upon prior, but unwritten popular expressions.

He made some small attempts at what we would today call "word-printing,"
but they were very primitive and obviously ineffective -- so his major line
of argument was that of phraseology comparison.

My own response to Vern's method was to try and compare vocabulary overlap
between two texts. I did not begin that task with the aim of proving textual
borrowing, but rather to identify portions of the Book of Mormon which most
resembled other, pre-1830 writings.

Here I soon encountered a few problems -- 1. A very lengthy text will often
show a greater vocabulary overlap with the Book of Mormon than does a
shorter text by the same author. 2. Generally speaking, any two texts from
the early 19th century which share a few attributes will produce relatively
high vocabulary overlaps -- there is no agreed upon standard as to what
might constitute "significant" vocabulary sharing (though I think greater than
95% might qualify). 3. A text by a known author, when compared against a
compilation of his other writings, may show sections in which the vocabulary
overlap drops to obviously low percentages -- sometimes for lengthy spans
of text. These, and other discoveries lead me to believe that simple reliance
upon vocabulary overlap can be problematic.

My next thought was to combine documentation of vocabulary overlap with
an author's known combining of words. An author who invariably resorts to
dangling infinitives and other unusual language might thus leave his "tracks,"
even where his vocabulary overlap with an unattributed text was equivocal.
Although this further development of vocabulary comparison may indeed
provide some useful information, I have found no way to exhaustively employ
the comparisons by "eyeball" -- the task is terribly time-consuming and runs
into problems such as non-uniform punctuation breaks, word-strings broken
by pagination or slightly different spellings, etc.

My last hope was to refine the identification of shared word-strings, by
documenting "significant" instances of such occurrences -- either on the
basis of the length of the shared strings, or upon their relative uniqueness,
or both. While the shared string length can be objectively ascertained and
detection automated, the identification of "relative uniqueness" must either
rely upon superhuman objective judgment or agreed upon parameters for
what is more a coincidence or less of a coincidence.

Having begun in the realm of subjective decision making with Mr. Holley,
and having attempted to find some objective means of comparing texts,
I new find myself back on the subjective ground of attempting to identify
and document "relative uniqueness."

Returning to our old standard -- "I, Nephi, having been born of goodly parents;"
WHY do we recognize that passage as possessing "relative uniqueness?" If we
found a pre-1830 text containing the exact same word-string, WHY would we
tend to equate the two passages as constituting more than a coincidental
relationship? Is it the length of the string -- 8 shared words in a row? Or is it
the grammatical ordering of the words that would catch our attention? The
answer cannot simply be that we have discovered two different examples of
"Nephi" in the context of 7 other shared words.

Thus, I propose an even more subjective level of shared word-string documentation,
and that is the conveying of a common/shared/identical message. The seemingly
significant shared string of words should not only be lengthy, share the same word
order, and meet some standard for non-coincidence -- but the shared word-string
should be used for essentially the same purpose in the two texts compared.

At this point I have exhausted the comparison tools at my disposal. I can only
put them all together and attempt to compile "word maps" of the comparisons.
Unless we can come up with some agreed upon standards, for what is "normal"
and what verges upon "abnormal," the results of that mapping will be controversial.

I am resigned to the fact that even the most striking, unexpected of textual
overlaps can only provide us with an incentive to seek out additional, new historical
information. We are dealing with historical writings, produced in a certain language
and within a certain time span. Either our textual discoveries will help us better
understand what could have (or did) happen in the past, or else they are useless.

If anybody can take my mapping suggestion seriously enough to employ some
version of the process, and provide some compelling results, I still stand ready to
exclude Oliver Cowdery and Sidney Rigdon from any contribution to the Book
of Mormon. Perhaps that exclusion can be carried out for distinct sub-sections of
the text right away -- even if other sections are left to more examination and debate.

UD

[_Benjamin McGuire]

Dale writes:

Briefly, Vern would take a pre-1830 text, such as the Preface to
the KJV Bible, and attempt to discover three or four words in a row which
occurred in both texts.

Ok, this I can do very easily. I have automated tools to produce comparisons between texts using 2 and 3 and 4 word locutions. (I could go further, but what you learn from 5 isn't any improvement on what you learn from 4, and the time involved becomes larger and larger). So we can produce these lists along with frequencies for identical 2, 3 and 4 word locutions very easily.

But what constitutes "long" and "unique?"

Well these are generally quantifiable. The question of uniqueness is more problematic within this context because it amounts to a question of what we have readily available to search. I suppose though, that not being able to find it elsewhere might provide us with a sufficiently unique label as opposed to any kind of absolute uniqueness. Perhaps more to the point, we might recommend a point at which something cannot possibly be unique. That is, the question of relative uniqueness would be open ended except when we can find more than X examples in other texts. A phrase, for example, that can be found in the KJV, will never be considered unique for the purposes of this discussion. Long phrases only have a couple of issues - and long can be rather relative. Five words is actually (in the scope of comparison) fairly long. "And it came to pass" might qualify on length and fail on uniqueness. Some long phrases can be montages - and if the components are quite common, then the longer phrase itself shouldn't be seen as particularly noteworthy.

1. A very lengthy text will often show a greater vocabulary overlap with the Book of Mormon than does a shorter text by the same author.

This is very true. It is a problem compounded by the fact that the Book of Mormon has a relatively small vocabulary (for a work its size).

2. Generally speaking, any two texts from the early 19th century which share a few attributes will produce relatively high vocabulary overlaps -- there is no agreed upon standard as to what might constitute "significant" vocabulary sharing (though I think greater than 95% might qualify).

I think that you will need to revise this a bit. The truth is, that most early 19th century books will share a huge overlap with modern books as well. The most frequently used 100 words in English (which generally amount to between 40 and 50 percent of the total text of any work by word count) haven't changed all that much since the early 19th century. So you have to look at this in two ways. The first is to look at unique vocabulary, and the second is to look at total vocabulary. I think you will find that 95% would fall more into the typical range than the atypical range, meaning that results as high as 95% would be expected in books from the same milieu whose authors had no connection. So, I am not sure that you want to maintain a 95% overlap as the precipice. The problem of course is that 5% doesn't leave a lot of room for statistical variance.

3. A text by a known author, when compared against a compilation of his other writings, may show sections in which the vocabulary overlap drops to obviously low percentages -- sometimes for lengthy spans of text. These, and other discoveries lead me to believe that simple reliance upon vocabulary overlap can be problematic.

And it is easy to find glaring exceptions to the rule. I don't think in this case (since we are not engaging in significant method building, but in testing your process) that we need to suppose that every case that we are working with is an exception. If we can find several cases that seem to reject the model, we can assume that there is a problem with the model - not that each of those cases is an exception.

My last hope was to refine the identification of shared word-strings, by documenting "significant" instances of such occurrences -- either on the basis of the length of the shared strings, or upon their relative uniqueness, or both.

I am not sure what you mean by relative uniqueness. For me, to make it significant based on uniqueness means that you would have to rule it out of the environment. As far as determining coincidence goes, I think that we merely have to start from the position that some coincidence occurs. We don't have to quantify it for the moment.

Thus, I propose an even more subjective level of shared word-string documentation, and that is the conveying of a common/shared/identical message. The seemingly significant shared string of words should not only be lengthy, share the same word order, and meet some standard for non-coincidence -- but the shared word-string should be used for essentially the same purpose in the two texts compared.

I think this is very good.

So lets review this with my modifications and see what you think of it. (Some of these are designed around easiness to automate the process, and not for detailed points).

We compare two texts - Individually using Alma 32, 33 and 34 in comparison with a much longer text by another author. (Using a smaller text for Alma won't skew the data since we aren't concerned with direction movement from the Book of Mormon to another text).

1: We compare unique words in the vocabulary for overlap.
2: We compare total word count for vocabulary overlap.
3: We detail shared 3 and 4 word locutions. In doing this, we provide two sets of data. One is as a percentage of all 3 and 4 word locutions. The other is a set of statistics identifying the local frequency of these phrases when unusual (for example, the Book of Mormon uses "and it came" a great many times relative to most other books infrequent use of it - when they use it). The three and four word locutions become our significant examples. Each of these can be examined to discover if they are part of a larger shared piece of text.
4: I spread a broader net looking for these phrases. If I can find the phrase in several other texts (more than 5 before say 1/1/1840), the phrase is no longer considered unique.

If I can find several authors that have a high vocabulary overlap, that have a high total word count vocabulary overlap, and that have impressive lists of 3 and 4 word locutions (or longer - and indicated where they are unique or not), would that be sufficient to show you that your assumptions about your method are flawed?

Ben McGuire

[_Uncle Dale]

...
1: We compare unique words in the vocabulary for overlap.
2: We compare total word count for vocabulary overlap.
3: We detail shared 3 and 4 word locutions. In doing this, we provide two sets of data. One is as a percentage of all 3 and 4 word locutions. The other is a set of statistics identifying the local frequency of these phrases when unusual (for example, the Book of Mormon uses "and it came" a great many times relative to most other books infrequent use of it - when they use it). The three and four word locutions become our significant examples. Each of these can be examined to discover if they are part of a larger shared piece of text.
4: I spread a broader net looking for these phrases. If I can find the phrase in several other texts (more than 5 before say 1/1/1840), the phrase is no longer considered unique.

If I can find several authors that have a high vocabulary overlap, that have a high total word count vocabulary overlap, and that have impressive lists of 3 and 4 word locutions (or longer - and indicated where they are unique or not), would that be sufficient to show you that your assumptions about your method are flawed?
...

I think you are on the right track, methodology-wise. To a certain extent the
non-expert, sitting at home behind his own computer, can begin to employ at
least the lower stages of such a methodology. While it may not lead to proof
of plagiarism, it at least allows the student to engage the text(s) and to begin
to look at them as constructions of language building blocks, assembled in
order to communicate certain ideas.

So -- if we agree in advance that proof of authorship and proof of textual
borrowing are unlikely fringe benefits of the process, then exactly what is
it that we are attempting to learn about the text?

In most cases, I suppose the end sought is a discernment of resemblance.
How closely do two Book of Mormon pages credited to Zeniff's authorship
resemble each other? How different are two Alma sermons? Are they different
enough to lead us to postulate editorial changes (via Mormon's redaction, or
some other secondary influence)?

Regardless of whether we can establish compelling evidence for textual
borrowing, or author identification, we can nevertheless employ such mapping
methods to better understand the structure of the library of texts comprising
the book. Although our testing for resemblance to the known writings of
Lucy Mack Smith may seem at first thought to be a cumbersome and strange
way to shine light upon Book of Mormon structure, there remains the likelihood
that we will learn new and unexpected information about the text by even
such an oddball examination.

But we must be careful not to throw babies out with what might seem
to be discardable bath water. Suppose that we do locate a few examples
of 5-word-strings in a text, all of which also occur in numerous other
pre-1830 writings. We should program our methodology not to ignore
such discoveries simply because they are less rare than others. We also
need to look at patterns of distribution. A half dozen such examples, all
occurring in the same order on a textual sub-division, might take on new
importance if we determine that elsewhere they do not occur in that order.

I believe you asked once what I mean by "clustering." I cannot easily define
that term, but it is somehow the opposite of uniformity -- it is a change in
the otherwise regular pattern of phraseology in a text. Say, for example, we
noticed a couple of words that consistently occur in close proximity at a
generally even rate throughout the Book of Mormon -- perhaps "it was," or
some other frequent word-string. Now suppose that the construction was
absent throughout the Isaiah chapters. In my mind THAT would constitute
a "cluster." In the example I just gave, the clustering would be a negative
one -- but it would still be a significant change in the average/expected
rate of occurrence.

If we set up a textual comparisons process which overlooks such patterns,
we will have defeated our purposes before ever implementing the process.
It thus needs to be tested upon known texts with the authorship/borrowing
information known in advance, in order to see if the process overlooks
significant patterns of occurrence. How such a refinement could be built into
an automated process, I do not know. At some point the human eyeball and
human brain must be brought in for a check upon the computerized methods;
and introduction of human judgment can easily lead to human subjectivity.

UD

[_Roger]

Ben writes:

I am more than happy to defend my point of view, but that's an entirely different subject.

No it isn't. That's where you're wrong from the get-go. That you want your point of view to be "an entirely different subject" is obvious.

I just want to get the angel out of the way,

Obviously. Which is odd because it's integral to your point of view.

because no matter where my discussion with you has ever gone on these forums, it has always come to a dead end at the angel.

This is not true. In fact what often happens, as even occurred in this thread, is your hyper-sensitivity to anything smacking of criticism of any aspect of the necessary supernatural element to your point of view, invariably raises the angel invocation objection from Ben. If it dies there, it's only because you refuse to defend what are unavoidably integral elements to your point of view.

You refuse to discuss the Spalding theory on its own merits. You always have to have something else so that you can win by knocking down what you perceive as the only alternative. The Spalding theory does not stand on its own feet with you Roger.

This is also not true as my conversation with Dan Vogel on this thread clearly illustrates. In my discussions with Dan I do not have to face the perplexities that would result if Dan were to hold the point of view he currently holds, yet argue the merits of yours, while simultaneously insisting that certain elements of his own point of view are off limits.

Nevertheless I am interested to see where the possible methodology you are hashing out with Dale will lead. That you say:

Ok, this I can do very easily.

...and...

I think this is very good.

...are encouraging signs.

I would also really appreciate it if you could provide at least one example of the following:

I would like to see an example of two texts that are not otherwise known to be related, BUT that share a number of parallels, AND that YOU have made the determination that the author of text B likely borrowed from text A. HOWEVER, I would like to qualify that by asking you to either:

1. NOT give the best example you can find, but instead to provide an example that contains the least amount of qualifiers that still allows you to draw the conclusion of reliance

or

2. provide examples of both the weakest and strongest cases.

The reason for this should be clear. I would like to see an actual example that meets with your minimum standards.

Thanks.

All the best.

[_GlennThigpen]

Yes, Roger, it must have been mass hallucination -- so strong that Mr. Leffingwell
reported he had actually corrected Spalding's biblical-sounding story at Conneaut.
An hallucination so strong, that Mr. Miller's daughter heard her father describing
Spalding's story and surprising D.P. Hurlbut with the details, before Hurlbut could
relate what was printed in the Mormon book -- An hallucination so strong that
Aron Wright and other Conneaut residents actually took the trouble to refute
the claim it was only the Roman story they had seen -- before Howe's book was
ever published.

UD

I presume that this is the William Leffingwell that claimed that:
1. Solomon Spalding never was a preacher, but rather a lawyer? (This despite the note by Spalding's wife that some of Solomon's sermons were also in the trunk with the manuscript.
2. That Spalding wrote a drama called "The Book of Mormon" (not Manuscript Found) while living in a hotel in Conneaut.
3. That he, Leffingwell was the editor and corrector of the document, and that his "notes and pencil marks may be found on every page".

Also, you have the problem that both reports of any manuscript taken to either Engles or Patterson in Pittsburgh also report that said manuscript was returned also. With only one manuscript of any size being found by Hurlbut, which he did not print. All of the second manuscript "now I recall's" are reported after Hurlbut found Spalding's romance "did not read as expected."

Also, there is the fact that there was no mention that Solomon had been writing a first manuscript then later decided to go back and redo it, in the original statements. It seems evident that Spalding was still working on the Oberlin manuscript as late as 1813, after he had moved to Pittsburgh.

And the more interesting items are that none of the non Hurlbut witnesses mentioned any of the Book of Mormon names or "by land and sea" phrases that the Hurlbut coached witnesses used. Not Josiah Spalding, not the widow, not the adopted daughter, not Joseph Miller, not the Amity witnesses. Of course, years, later, the daughter did have a remarkable expansion of memory, which defies standard logic.

Glenn

[Bedlamite]

GlennThigpen wrote:

...
I presume that this is the William Leffingwell that claimed that:
1. Solomon Spalding never was a preacher, but rather a lawyer?

There is no indication that Solomon Spalding was ever an ordained
minister, for either the Congregational Church in New England nor
for the Presbyterian Church in New York -- no record of his baptizing
anybody -- or ordaining preachers -- or administering the Lord's Supper
-- or even of his conducting a marriage or a funeral.

Rather, Spalding was licensed as a Congregational evangelist in
Connecticut -- a position similar to that of a Methodist exhorter --
and a time-limited occupation. Typically such an evangelist would
serve for two or three years, and then his license would expire.

In Cherry Valley Mr. Spalding evidently filled in the role of a
congregational pastor for a short while -- that is, he conducted
business meetings, spoke at Sunday services, and perhaps taught
the Calvinist catechism -- none of which made him an Elder. He
was instead dismissed from his teaching position and reportedly
criticized by the real, ordained Presbyterian minister who eventually
arrived to fill the pastor's role. Perhaps Spalding overstepped his
limits and actually preached a few sermons in Cherry Valley -- if so,
that marked the end of his function as a religious administrator.

Spalding had trained for the career of a lawyer and when he arrived
in the wilds of Ohio he put that training to use in drafting legal
agreements, real estate transfers, etc. He may have advised clients
brought before the local justice of the peace for minor infractions.
In those days that sort of paralegal work did not require any sort of
official licensing or professional recognition.

To the people of northeastern Ohio, Solomon Spalding would have looked
(and functioned) more like a lawyer than a preacher. His wife and his
brother John (who lived in the area) may have known that he had once
been temporarily licensed by the Congregational Church, but they probably
had no compelling reason to share such private information. John's own son
in later years did not know that his uncle Solomon had been an evangelist.

All of which proves what? --- That Mr. Leffingwell did not know Solomon's
full history, but observed his lawyer-like activities in Ohio? Such a mention
by Leffingwell in no way marks him as a liar, making up a story about an
Ohio writer he had never met, etc. etc.

(This despite the note by Spalding's wife that some of Solomon's sermons were also in the trunk with the manuscript.

.

In Calvinist practice there is a difference between the type of exhortation
given by an evangelist and a proper sermon delivered by an ordained Elder.
The evangelist can call folks to church -- admonish them to pray and repent --
remind them of their moral obligations, etc. The Elder's sermon, on the other
hand, announces and expounds official church doctrine. Did Solomon Spalding
ever compose such an ordained minister's sermons? If he did, he probably
never delivered them before a congregation at Sunday services. In my own
seminary training I composed "practice" sermons -- which were delivered
before my teacher and perhaps a handful of fellow seminarians. I was never
ordained as a minister in that seminary's sponsoring church -- but I did give
occasional "talks" before Protestant (and RLDS) congregations. A couple of
them are preserved in my personal papers, along with a manuscript for a
story I wrote about a traveler to another planet. Are my "talks" actually
"sermons?" My widow or some other surviving relative might so describe them,
but they could never have been delivered as doctrine from the pulpit.

2. That Spalding wrote a drama called "The Book of Mormon" (not Manuscript Found) while living in a hotel in Conneaut.

Spalding was known to have moved around in the Conneaut area. Oliver Smith
said he played host to the man for a while. He seems to have also resided for
a period with Oliver's neighbors, the Rudd family. The proprietor of the first
inn (hotel) established in Conneaut was Henry Lake -- Solomon Spalding's
business partner. It would not have been unusual for Solomon to have spent
time in Lake's inn -- perhaps even staying there for free, taking his meals
and enjoying a warm bed, when his own lodgings were unavailable or not
suited for such comfortable occupation. Spalding is described as a near invalid,
who had a bad hernia and who could not actively participate in running the
business he and Mr. Lake owned. A visitor spoke of Spalding spending his
days in the firm's business office -- probably Lake's inn.

Who knows exactly what heading Mr. Spalding labeled his "manuscripts" with?
If the preserved Roman Story is a fair example of his literary creations, they
consisted of sheets of paper, folded in four and gathered into sewn folios
of 12 or 16 pages each. What headings were written atop these folios, or
upon the paper of their presumed wrapper? Leffingwell said he remembered
the name as "Book of Mormon," but did not elaborate on that memory. The
current LDS volume of that title also includes a sub-section called "Book of
Mormon." If Solomon Spalding is credited with writing the entire volume, he
would naturally be credited with writing that sub-section, no matter what
label was scribbled on the manuscripts' (folios') wrapper. Perhaps that
wrapper said "Manuscript Story -- Book of Mormon." Perhaps Leffingwell never
saw such a wrapper. Perhaps his whole basis for remembering a specific title
was simply a sentence or two spoken to him by Mr. Spalding, about "my
book, edited under the pseudonym of 'Mormon.'"

Again, dismissing Mr. Leffingwell as a liar, because he recalled the volume
under that name does not make any sense. Leffingwell may have seen it as
a dramatic story (or a melodrama) edited by a fictional "Mormon."

3. That he, Leffingwell was the editor and corrector of the document, and that his "notes and pencil marks may be found on every page".

Indeed they may have been. Robert Patterson, Sr. says nothing about the
internal markings upon the manuscript submitted to him by Spalding, c. 1812.
It may have contained hundreds of such markings -- or Spalding may have
been savvy enough to make a clean copy for submission to Patterson. Unless
we can locate a more detailed description of what Patterson received from
Mr. Spalding, we cannot know how closely Leffingwell's description matches
what Patterson says he received, and passed on to Silas Engles.

Also, you have the problem that both reports of any manuscript taken to either Engles or Patterson in Pittsburgh also report that said manuscript was returned also. With only one manuscript of any size being found by Hurlbut, which he did not print.

You are not making any sense. Unless you can supply evidence of what
Spalding submitted to Patterson, it does not matter what Hurlbut said he found.

Also, there is the fact that there was no mention that Solomon had been writing a first manuscript then later decided to go back and redo it, in the original statements. It seems evident that Spalding was still working on the Oberlin manuscript as late as 1813, after he had moved to Pittsburgh.

That is not correct -- Aron Wright's Dec. 31, 1833 letter mentions this, as
does Howe's book -- in commentary accompanying the original statements.
Unless you can better describe what Patterson received, you have no case.

And the more interesting items are that none of the non Hurlbut witnesses mentioned any of the Book of Mormon names or "by land and sea" phrases that the Hurlbut coached witnesses used. Not Josiah Spalding, not the widow, not the adopted daughter, not Joseph Miller, not the Amity witnesses. Of course, years, later, the daughter did have a remarkable expansion of memory, which defies standard logic.

Glenn

By "land" across Asia from Assyria --and then by "sea" across the narrow
expanse of the Behring Straits -- as recalled by several witnesses (but
not found in the text of the 1830 book). Why did Hurlbut coach Erastus
Rudd, Abner Jackson, and other early observers to bear witness to events
not even in the book? Was Hurlbut that stupid?

Why did you make no mention of Leffingwell agreeing with Patterson, on the
literary style of the manuscript in question? That was the purpose of my
initial remark, and you have totally avoided that subject.

UD


--- added -----

The LDS rebuttal of Leffingwell reminds me of my wife's experience
in a Hawaii court room a couple of years ago. The defendant was
charged with child molestation and the prosecution's star witness
was the little girl's mother, who stopped the incident before it
progressed to rape, and called the police. There was also a second
witness for the prosecution, who merely observed the molestation
from a distance, while seated in a parked car.

Rather than attacking the mother's credibility, the defense's entire
cases rested upon the fact that the second witness saw the events
from several yards away. That was the whole case -- and it failed.

Why didn't the defense attack the testimony of the mother? Probably
because it was convincing and unshakeable. But, by attacking the
credibility of the witness in the car, "reasonable doubt" might somehow
be introduced into the jurors' minds. Conviction might be avoided.

Same thing with Mr. Leffingwell -- he gave his testimony years later,
and did not see Solomon Spalding submit the manuscript to Patterson.
Had the Mormon's attacked Patterson's testimony, respectable members
of his Presbyterian congregation and other prominent Pittsburghers would
have no doubt come to his rescue, either verifying his credibility or even
actual details in his pro-Spalding statement.

On the other hand, Leffingwell gave his report four decades after Patterson,
and was not an eye-witness to events in Pittsburgh. So he would have
made a better target for LDS denials and refutations. His account was
widely reprinted --- so why didn't an LDS defender like George Reynolds
go after Leffingwell in 1884-85?

The answer is simple. Both the LDS and RLDS had been citing the opinion
of Lewis L. Rice, of Honoloulu, guessing that the Roman story was the
only one Spalding had ever written. Lewis was quoted as a knowledgeable
observer who knew a great deal about the controversy --- he having been
the first publisher to reprint Howe's book, as well as being the inadvertent
possessor of Spalding's Roman story.

But Lewis knew Leffingwell from their old days together in northern Ohio,
and Lewis learned from Leffingwell new information which changed his opinion
regarding Solomon Spalding's literary output. So Lewis evolved his judgment
of the old controversy in a way not at all helpful to the LDS/RLDS cause.
Writers for those two churches wished to continue to quote Lewis' old
opinion, without having to change what they had already published about
his reliability, expert witness status, etc. For them to attack Leffingwell
would have exposed these two sets of Latter Day Saints as having failed
to report L. L. Rice's later testimony. So the whole Leffingwell affair was
avoided. Eventually L. L. Rice died, and his demise was reported upon in
the Salt Lake City Deseret News, without any mention of his having
publicly vouched for Leffingwell, or having changed his opinion on Spalding.

Now that many decades have passed, it is safe to rebut Leffingwell -- so
long as the Book of Mormon defenders do not dig into his past and reveal
that he truly was in Conneaut at the time Spalding was there, that he
had a good reputation in Ohio, that L.L. Rice (the Mormon's own witness)
knew him to be reliable, etc.

Why not cut to the chase, and just accuse Patterson of having lied about
receiving a biblical-style story from Spalding? Patterson is dead and gone --
he is not around to defend his old testimony.

Or, is there something preserved in Apostle John E. Page's interview of
Patterson that would hinder the LDS cause, were it now brought to light?
Is THAT why Patterson's testimony is never mentioned by Mormon writers
(save in edited form, by our own resident defenders)?

UD

[_MCB]

Dale, just to change the subject.

Once I finish reading as much Swedenborg as I can find, I will send you the parallels I find. Given the sheeeeeeeeeeeeer volume of his work, we will need to look for more objective characteristics in common, like shared vocabulary and word-strings, in the critical areas of the PoGP and the Book of Mormon and the targeted passages of Swedenborg. I'll need your technical expertise for this.

[_Dan Vogel]

Roger,

Well this works both ways, doesn't it? Don't you have to accept that a Bible was not used, because "you have no way of rejecting [Knight]’s testimony besides speculation that depends on assuming what you are trying to prove"?

In any event, the bottom line is really as simple as: I do not believe David Whitmer. Either he was lying about a Spalding ms or he was not privy to that information. I am willing to give him the benefit that he was not privy to that information.

You keep giving polemical answers, rather than historical ones. You can’t reject Whitmer’s testimony based on Knight’s statement. You’re playing games with these sources. This is another ad hominem circumstantial argument. I find it ironic that you have at least twice stated that you are not out to win this debate. Obviously you can’t deal with Whitmer’s testimony directly. So you lose.

It’s difficult to argue with someone who is not bound by the rules of reason. You have just told me you are going to believe whatever you want about Whitmer despite the evidence. So why need we talk further?

It’s up to you to prove Whitmer lied or that he didn’t know what he was talking about. That is, you must formulate a convincing historical case for either of these propositions. Otherwise, it’s just your opinion.

Why not? Knight was a witness. He speaks authoritatively and his statement does not contradict the statements of other witnesses. In fact, I would argue that it fits nicely with the strong implication of the other statements.

You are the one who quoted Knight as contradicting Whitmer. The “strong implication” you see is only the polemical use you can make of them. You apparently have no historical use for them. To assert that Knight speaks authoritatively for all the witnesses is just silly.

Okay I see your point that "Observation of events is not the same as an interpretation of them" but Whitmer's conclusions are tied to his alleged observations. He is not merely an impartial, unbiased observer.

And I don't see it as my job to overturn the multiple witnesses. As I mentioned, even hostile witnesses said Smith put his head in his hat and dictated. My only point is that not all of the Book of Mormon had to have been produced in that manner, which, oddly enough, you seem to agree with, at least when it comes to borrowing from a Bible.

No witness is impartial when it comes to Mormon origins. Mormons distrust non-Mormon testimony, and non-Mormons distrust Mormon witnesses. It’s not that simple. Historians don’t have the luxury of dismissing sources out of hand. Given Whitmer’s firsthand knowledge of the translation process, he (as well as other witnesses) rightly concluded that the unfounded assertions that the Spalding MS was used by Joseph Smith were wrong. I have given reasonable explanations about the Bible’s use, which is a relatively small part of the Book of Mormon when compared to allegations about the massive use of the Spalding MS. You are stuck with the multiple witnesses since you are trying to explain the origin of the greater portion of the Book of Mormon. The needs of the Spalding theory can’t be reconciled with the eyewitness testimony.

Okay, we agree then. But didn't you speculate earlier that Cowdery may have copied from the KJVB when Smith was gone to Palmyra?

You’re still trying to sidestep my point about the variant readings coming from the stone. It’s this kind of thing that wearies me.

Well that's... how did you put it? "speculation that depends on assuming what you are trying to prove." Whether Rigdon was in Fayette at the time is irrelevant. Production came to a grinding halt after the loss of the 116 pages. There was ample time to get word to Rigdon in Ohio and for him to have produced a portion of the filler material.

It’s not speculation to say that Rigdon wasn’t in Fayette, he and Joseph Smith and all others involved denied it. Only convoluted logic gets Smith and Rigdon together before 1830. So Joseph Smith was responsible for the variant readings, not Rigdon. The same is true for the Inspired Version. The idea that Joseph Smith needed Rigdon flies in the face of all the evidence.

I am not saying that religion was not important to him... and especially not in later years. I am saying, as I stated, that the nuanced theological implications that arise from the subtle changes to KJVB italics--that David Wright points out in his essay--seem to fit Rigdon's concerns in 1829 more so than Smith's. Do you disagree? If so on what basis?

I think the italic happens to be where the English translation of the KJV becomes awkward. The Book of Mormon doesn’t target the italic exclusively. I don’t know what Joseph Smith knew about the italic in 1829. Regardless, to build an argument on this aspect isn’t going to produce anything meaningful to this debate.

Okay, this is where you lose me. When you say "the stone was not used is probably not correct" --it sounds as though you are saying that even for the Isaiah quotations, Joseph stuck his head in his hat and rattled off Isaiah chapters, apparently making subtle, italics-based changes on the fly. If not that, then how do you conceive of reliance on a Bible and "use of the stone" as coinciding?

The important thing is that the variant readings were certainly explained in the context of revelation. You need to acknowledge the problem that the variant readings give to your assumption that the Isaiah chapters were simply copied from the Bible. I believe it was Parley P. Pratt who said Joseph Smith used the stone to correct the Inspired Version.

Of course not, but it is a viable conclusion and at least one witness explicitly tells us exactly that! Why am I not allowed to overrule Whitmer, yet you are allowed to overrule Aron Wright?

“Spalding had many other manuscripts” [Howe,284]. I didn’t say Spalding didn’t have other writings, but you are trying to tell us what was in them. One of those other writings was apparently his “Romance of the Celes.” He was also a minister and undoubtedly had MS sermons and who knows what?

This is going to be losing battle for you because I have my own personal experience to draw from. I'm afraid all the textbooks in the world can't overrule that for me. In the case that someone actually was exposed to something 20 years in the past, I know what to look for and that's what I see from the Conneaut witnesses. I will grant that they could be lying, but not that they were mistaken but sincerely thought they were telling the truth.

You have what is called anecdotal evidence. Memory theory has been extensively tested. You should really give it more respect.

The problem is, we have both documents. We have the Book of Mormon and we have the ms that HAD TO HAVE BEEN the one they were exposed to if your false memory theory is going to work. They are hardly even remotely similar unless you really take the time to look for parallels (which is why the RLDS church printed it claiming S/R was dead). So right from the start, this book does not sound vaguely similar. Ironically, there are some parallels if you know where to look, but none of those actual parallels were mentioned by the Conneaut witnesses. Instead we hear about stuff we can find in the Book of Mormon.

MS found is in the same genre. Similar stories with made-up names. That’s all you need for false memories. You seem to be insisting that both books have to be the same in order for the witnesses to have false/true memories. You keep denying that false memories are possible. You really need to read up on this.

So here we see a balancing act of some sorts. On the one hand, Brodie wants us to believe that MSCC is just similar enough to the Book of Mormon to "have given rise to the conviction of Spalding's neighbors that one was a plagiarism of the other" but not similar enough "to justify the thesis of common authorship."

This is a tenuous at best case to be making.

I could make the exact opposite case that upon close examination MSCC is just similar enough "to justify the thesis of common authorship" but not so obviously similar on the surface to "have given rise to the conviction of Spalding's neighbors that one was a plagiarism of the other." And I think a careful reading of Spalding's manuscript would back up my conclusion over Brodie's.

This is meaningless polemics.

But again, memory substitution simply does not account for the specific claims about "and it came to pass" and nicknaming the fellow "old came to pass" as a result. This sort of claim goes beyond honestly thinking you're telling the truth. This goes beyond the mind playing tricks on you about what you did or did not hear read to you from a book. Either they called Spalding "old came to pass" or they did not, and if the only ms on the topic he ever wrote was MSCC then there is no reason for them to be calling him "old came to pass."

You don’t see a problem here? Where are those “came to pass” in MS found? Why would they call him “old came to pass” based on one MS?

But as you probably know, the case for two manuscripts doesn't end there. There are additional reasons to conclude there were at least two manuscripts. MF was alleged to have been written on Foolscap paper. MSCC is not. MF was sent to Patterson for consideration for publication. MSCC is by no means ready for publication. It is a jumbled mess that switches names has no ending and even has a page missing from the middle. Beyond that, witnesses in 1833 claimed to have seen and examined MF including Judge Dowen as well as James Briggs. When you add that to Aron Wright's specific denial of MSCC, that's a lot of testimony and evidence you have to overrule in order to make your memory substitution theory work.

And the fact is, a lot is hanging on the memory substitution thing. If you were to give in on that, then you'd have to take the claims of the S/R witnesses at least as seriously as you do the Book of Mormon witnesses. Think of the implications of that!But again, memory substitution simply does not account for the specific claims about "and it came to pass" and nicknaming the fellow "old came to pass" as a result. This sort of claim goes beyond honestly thinking you're telling the truth. This goes beyond the mind playing tricks on you about what you did or did not hear read to you from a book. Either they called Spalding "old came to pass" or they did not, and if the only ms on the topic he ever wrote was MSCC then there is no reason for them to be calling him "old came to pass."

But as you probably know, the case for two manuscripts doesn't end there. There are additional reasons to conclude there were at least two manuscripts. MF was alleged to have been written on Foolscap paper. MSCC is not. MF was sent to Patterson for consideration for publication. MSCC is by no means ready for publication. It is a jumbled mess that switches names has no ending and even has a page missing from the middle. Beyond that, witnesses in 1833 claimed to have seen and examined MF including Judge Dowen as well as James Briggs. When you add that to Aron Wright's specific denial of MSCC, that's a lot of testimony and evidence you have to overrule in order to make your memory substitution theory work.

And the fact is, a lot is hanging on the memory substitution thing. If you were to give in on that, then you'd have to take the claims of the S/R witnesses at least as seriously as you do the Book of Mormon witnesses. Think of the implications of that!

This doesn’t respond to my statement that I’m not trying to overturn the Spalding witnesses with false memory theory, only explain how it’s possible the first witnesses could have been mistaken. The whole body of testimony, particularly later statements, is a different matter.

[Guest]

There is no indication that Solomon Spalding was ever an ordained
minister, for either the Congregational Church in New England nor
for the Presbyterian Church in New York -- no record of his baptizing
anybody -- or ordaining preachers -- or administering the Lord's Supper
-- or even of his conducting a marriage or a funeral.

However, it was reported by some of his family, Josiah and John, that he had been a preacher and had retired due to his health.

Spalding had trained for the career of a lawyer and when he arrived
in the wilds of Ohio he put that training to use in drafting legal
agreements, real estate transfers, etc. He may have advised clients
brought before the local justice of the peace for minor infractions.
In those days that sort of paralegal work did not require any sort of
official licensing or professional recognition.

To the people of northeastern Ohio, Solomon Spalding would have looked
(and functioned) more like a lawyer than a preacher. His wife and his
brother John (who lived in the area) may have known that he had once
been temporarily licensed by the Congregational Church, but they probably
had no compelling reason to share such private information. John's own son
in later years did not know that his uncle Solomon had been an evangelist.

All of which proves what? --- That Mr. Leffingwell did not know Solomon's
full history, but observed his lawyer-like activities in Ohio? Such a mention
by Leffingwell in no way marks him as a liar, making up a story about an
Ohio writer he had never met, etc. etc.

All of that is irrelevant to Leffingwell's assertion that Solomon had never been a preacher. He asserted that he had known Spalding since he was thirty-five years old. Either he does not know what he is talking about, or those of his family who averred that Solomon had been a preacher did not know what they were talking about.

Who knows exactly what heading Mr. Spalding labeled his "manuscripts" with?
If the preserved Roman Story is a fair example of his literary creations, they
consisted of sheets of paper, folded in four and gathered into sewn folios
of 12 or 16 pages each. What headings were written atop these folios, or
upon the paper of their presumed wrapper? Leffingwell said he remembered
the name as "Book of Mormon," but did not elaborate on that memory. The
current LDS volume of that title also includes a sub-section called "Book of
Mormon." If Solomon Spalding is credited with writing the entire volume, he
would naturally be credited with writing that sub-section, no matter what
label was scribbled on the manuscripts' (folios') wrapper. Perhaps that
wrapper said "Manuscript Story -- Book of Mormon." Perhaps Leffingwell never
saw such a wrapper. Perhaps his whole basis for remembering a specific title
was simply a sentence or two spoken to him by Mr. Spalding, about "my
book, edited under the pseudonym of 'Mormon."

Again, dismissing Mr. Leffingwell as a liar, because he recalled the volume
under that name does not make any sense. Leffingwell may have seen it as
a dramatic story (or a melodrama) edited by a fictional "Mormon."

While the Conneaut witnesses aver it was called "Manuscript Found"?

3. That he, Leffingwell was the editor and corrector of the document, and that his "notes and pencil marks may be found on every page".

Indeed they may have been. Robert Patterson, Sr. says nothing about the
internal markings upon the manuscript submitted to him by Spalding, c. 1812.
It may have contained hundreds of such markings -- or Spalding may have
been savvy enough to make a clean copy for submission to Patterson. Unless
we can locate a more detailed description of what Patterson received from
Mr. Spalding, we cannot know how closely Leffingwell's description matches
what Patterson says he received, and passed on to Silas Engles.

I thought that the copy was delivered to Engles, who showed it to Patterson?

Also, you have the problem that both reports of any manuscript taken to either Engles or Patterson in Pittsburgh also report that said manuscript was returned also. With only one manuscript of any size being found by Hurlbut, which he did not print.

You are not making any sense. Unless you can supply evidence of what
Spalding submitted to Patterson, it does not matter what Hurlbut said he found.

Unless you can show that manuscript was the "second manuscript" or that the one that the widow reportedly brought to Patterson and returned was the "second manuscript", you have no case.

Also, there is the fact that there was no mention that Solomon had been writing a first manuscript then later decided to go back and redo it, in the original statements. It seems evident that Spalding was still working on the Oberlin manuscript as late as 1813, after he had moved to Pittsburgh.

That is not correct -- Aron Wright's Dec. 31, 1833 letter mentions this, as
does Howe's book -- in commentary accompanying the original statements.
Unless you can better describe what Patterson received, you have no case.

My statement is correct. The letter, not in Wright's handwriting, and unsigned, is after the fact. It is a desperate attempt by Hurlbut to salvage some credibility for his assertions since the document he recovered from the trunk "did not read as expected." It reports an an alleged incident that has no support from any source before Hurlbut found his disappointment.

And the more interesting items are that none of the non Hurlbut witnesses mentioned any of the Book of Mormon names or "by land and sea" phrases that the Hurlbut coached witnesses used. Not Josiah Spalding, not the widow, not the adopted daughter, not Joseph Miller, not the Amity witnesses. Of course, years, later, the daughter did have a remarkable expansion of memory, which defies standard logic.

Glenn

By "land" across Asia from Assyria --and then by "sea" across the narrow
expanse of the Behring Straits -- as recalled by several witnesses (but
not found in the text of the 1830 book). Why did Hurlbut coach Erastus
Rudd, Abner Jackson, and other early observers to bear witness to events
not even in the book? Was Hurlbut that stupid?

No contemporaneous witnesses mention the Bering Straits. All of the Bering straits testimony came years later, even that of Daniel Tyler. By the way, just for fun, I asked my wife how Nephi and Lehi got to the new world. "On the ship that Nephi built" was her prompt answer.

Why did you make no mention of Leffingwell agreeing with Patterson, on the
literary style of the manuscript in question? That was the purpose of my
initial remark, and you have totally avoided that subject.

UD

Because I have some problems with the Patterson statement. It is in the third person, but yet it is recorded a being signed by Robert Patterson. Is there another statement than the one from the 1842 "Moronism Exposed" by S. Williams?

I am going quote it so we will all be on the same page.
[quote]
"R. Patterson had in his employment Silas Engles at the time a foreman printer, and general superintendent of the printing business. As he (S. E.) was an excellent scholar, as well as a good printer, to him was entrusted the entire concerns of the office. He even decided on the propriety or otherwise of publishing manuscripts when offered -- as to their morality, scholarship, &c., &c. In this character he informed R. P. that a gentleman, from the East originally, had put into his 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. He (the author) failing to comply with the terms, Mr. Engles returned the manuscript, as I supposed at that time, after it had been some weeks in his possession with other manuscripts in the office.

"This communication written and signed 2d April, 1842,

"ROBERT PATTERSON."

That text was supposedly received by Williams as being from and signed by Patterson himself, but again, it is all in the third person, which sems very strange for a document supposedly authored by the signer.

Glenn