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

[_Roger]

Glenn:

Roger, you are trying to get Dan to accept as "gospel" a statement that is unsigned and not in Aron Wright's handwriting. At this point in time, you are probably correct that false memory does not cut it any longer, hence the desperate attempt on his and coach Hurlbut's part to salvage some credibility.

It's good to see you are coming around, Glenn. It's only a matter of time before you'll be advocating for S/R with Dale, MCB and I. ; )

But as has been pointed out repeatedly, not one single document has been unearthed that indicates any controversy over the matter until Hurlbut raised the issue. All such "remembrances" are ex post facto.
Nehemiah King was already dead at the time so this statement of Wright's could not be verified. But there is absolutely no corroborating witnesses or documents.

Why would you expect anything previous to that? Who would have felt the need to write anything down at that point and what reason is there to think it should have survived? That the 1833 Wright letter survived is a minor miracle.

Wright and King were close friends and colleagues, by the way. Both were Justices of the Peace.

Ironically some of the journals of LDS missionaries provide clues, but, as might be expected are not specific as to what was the cause of the resistance they were receiving in that particular area in 1832.

For example, even Matt Roper concedes that:

In 1832, Samuel Smith and Orson Hyde traveled through northeastern Ohio and western Pennsylvania. On 2 February, Hyde and the Prophet's brother preached in Perry, Ohio, to "a large congregation, principally Campbellites; much prejudiced and hard against the work and they were much stirred up to oppose and to contend."[189] Nine days later they passed through Salem, Ohio: "Found some friendly and some enemies."[190] The next day, according to Samuel Smith, they preached to a congregation: "They paid good attention; were much disappointed in the things we declared unto them for they had heard much evil concerning this sect. They [the congregation] requested us to tarry and preach again, accordingly the next evening."[191]
http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... 84#_ftn129

...and...

In speaking of the "great opposition" of 1832 in the Conneaut Creek area, LDS missionary Jared Carter does not say exactly why the new members had deserted the Mormon cause, or from whence this "great opposition" first sprung. The nearest population centers in those days were New Salem, Conneaut Twp., in OH (three miles west of the Rudd farm) and East Springfield (five miles east of the Rudds). As New Salem was the closer and larger of these villages, it is likely that the "great opposition" came from there. Whatever the original source may have been, this "great opposition" seems to have been influencing the newly-minted Springfield Mormons in their renunciations of membership during the spring of 1832.

http://olivercowdery.com/hurlbut/HChron1.htm

Benjamin Winchester's pamphlet on the matter is just as credible as that statement.

You are aware of Winchester's apostasy, correct?

However, unless you can establish that the manuscript that was reported to be delivered to the printing establishment twice, and twice returned was the mythical "second" manuscript, you have no case.

Why do you keep asserting this?

All the best.

[_Dan Vogel]

...
The ten tribes didn’t come out of Jerusalem.
...

Actually, there was a period during the Assyrian occupation when that
could well have happened -- and I would think that somebody back at
the beginning of the 19th century would have been a good enough
biblical scholar to spot that particular opportunity in the narrative.

When Josiah began his reforms -- near the end of the Davidic monarchy
in Judah -- the Assyrian occupiers evidently allowed him to extend those
religious improvements into what had been the northern kingdom.

At the time Josiah held his "Great Passover" in Jerusalem, notable
Israelites still living in the north were no doubt invited to travel the
short distance southward and demonstrate their religious fealty to
the new order being established there.

Just before, during, or after that religious gathering would have been an
opportune time for a few hundred northern tribesmen to have escaped
their Assyrian overlords, and to escape Josiah as well -- if they had not
really accepted his religion.

In the eyes of the Judah Yahwists these devious northerners would have
been viewed as traitors and backslidden idolators -- Israelites who had
rejected the "true" religion that was on its way to becoming Judaism.

Such a band of rebel northerners (representing members of various tribes)
would have been a much more manageable set of story characters than
would have been the case for thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of
their kinfolk who were reportedly re-settled by the Assyrians.

Whether this was ever the basis for any 19th century "lost tribes" tale,
I do not know -- but it could have made for an interesting plot. Recall
also that the Book of Mormon refers to northern Judah as the "land of
Jerusalem" -- a regional designation which contemporary LDS have been
happy to find inscribed in the ancient Amarna tablets.

A relatively small band of northern tribesmen, escaping from the "land of
Jerusalem" right after King Josiah's great passover would have been both
historically plausible and fictionally interesting. As "idolators" they would
not have followed the branch of Israelite religion which evolved into
Judaism -- and thus might more easily have given rise to American Indians
who were not "religious" in the biblical sense. In other words, their story
could have avoided the "more religious part" we find in some other tales
of the lost tribes journeying to the New World.

The range of choices for my idea, as a 19th century story, are:

1. impossible
2. plausible, but improbable
3. possible, but undocumented

That is, "undocumented," if we choose to ignore a considerable body of
witness testimony which centered on just such an Israelite migration from
Jerusalem, by land and by sea, across the Behring Straits, etc. etc.

UD

Dale,

You must know that you are reaching on this one. The lost ten tribe theory (of which the Book of Mormon isn’t) was based on the Apocrypha book Esdras, and had the migration of the northern tribes. The Book of Mormon, on the other hand, has one family leave Jerusalem at a completely different time. True, it mentions the land of Jerusalem, but it also talks about the walls of the city, etc.

The fact that Aron Wright and others talk about the ten or lost tribes leaving Jerusalem is problematic for the Spalding theory, and shows that their memories are being tainted by the contents of the Book of Mormon, which probably includes the names they thought they remembered.

[_Dan Vogel]

Wright's testimony is as blatant a denial of what you are alleging as Whitmer's is of what I am alleging.

So now YOU are going to have to deal with Wright's denial. False memory doesn't cut it, because he flatly denies it after seeing the manuscript you allege was the only one he could have been exposed to. And if you can't come up with an answer that is not based on a polemical desire to maintain your one-manuscript theory, you lose.

All the best.

Roger, you are trying to get Dan to accept as "gospel" a statement that is unsigned and not in Aron Wright's handwriting. At this point in time, you are probably correct that false memory does not cut it any longer, hence the desperate attempt on his and coach Hurlbut's part to salvage some credibility. But as has been pointed out repeatedly, not one single document has been unearthed that indicates any controversy over the matter until Hurlbut raised the issue. All such "remembrances" are ex post facto.
Nehemiah King was already dead at the time so this statement of Wright's could not be verified. But there is absolutely no corroborating witnesses or documents.

Benjamin Winchester's pamphlet on the matter is just as credible as that statement.

However, unless you can establish that the manuscript that was reported to be delivered to the printing establishment twice, and twice returned was the mythical "second" manuscript, you have no case.

Glenn

Glen,

Roger, you are trying to get Dan to accept as "gospel" a statement that is unsigned and not in Aron Wright's handwriting. At this point in time, you are probably correct that false memory does not cut it any longer, hence the desperate attempt on his and coach Hurlbut's part to salvage some credibility. But as has been pointed out repeatedly, not one single document has been unearthed that indicates any controversy over the matter until Hurlbut raised the issue. All such "remembrances" are ex post facto.
Nehemiah King was already dead at the time so this statement of Wright's could not be verified. But there is absolutely no corroborating witnesses or documents.

Thanks. In studies of false memory, those who had such memories implanted continued to believe they were real memories despite the researchers explaining what had actually happened. In other words, once the memory is formed, it’s real to that person.

[_GlennThigpen]

Roger, you are trying to get Dan to accept as "gospel" a statement that is unsigned and not in Aron Wright's handwriting. At this point in time, you are probably correct that false memory does not cut it any longer, hence the desperate attempt on his and coach Hurlbut's part to salvage some credibility.

It's good to see you are coming around, Glenn. It's only a matter of time before you'll be advocating for S/R with Dale, MCB and I. ; )

Not coming around at all. You misunderstood what I was saying. When Aron Wright saw the manuscript, he was faced with the truth of the matter, that what he had been led into believing was not the reality. The Nehemiah King story was convenient, because it could not be verified.

But as has been pointed out repeatedly, not one single document has been unearthed that indicates any controversy over the matter until Hurlbut raised the issue. All such "remembrances" are ex post facto.
Nehemiah King was already dead at the time so this statement of Wright's could not be verified. But there is absolutely no corroborating witnesses or documents.

Why would you expect anything previous to that? Who would have felt the need to write anything down at that point and what reason is there to think it should have survived? That the 1833 Wright letter survived is a minor miracle.

The "letter" survived because Hurlbut gave it to Howe, unsigned. That was no miracle. What I am saying is that there would have been an uproar when the missionaries preached in Salem if there had been any suspicion that the Book of Mormon came from Solomon's pen. It would have been picked up by the papers. Some were quick to print any controversy concerning the Mormons. They certainly did after Hurbut came through with his allegations. Henry lake spread the word into neighboring counties after he had met with Hurlbut. One of the witnesses claimed to have remarked about the Book of Mormon being like Spalding's romance after he had heard his wife read from the Book of Mormon sometime in 1832. But the first we hear of it is when Hurlbut interviewed him. He made no noise about it at the time he allegedly made the connection.

Ironically some of the journals of LDS missionaries provide clues, but, as might be expected are not specific as to what was the cause of the resistance they were receiving in that particular area in 1832.

For example, even Matt Roper concedes that:

In 1832, Samuel Smith and Orson Hyde traveled through northeastern Ohio and western Pennsylvania. On 2 February, Hyde and the Prophet's brother preached in Perry, Ohio, to "a large congregation, principally Campbellites; much prejudiced and hard against the work and they were much stirred up to oppose and to contend."[189] Nine days later they passed through Salem, Ohio: "Found some friendly and some enemies."[190] The next day, according to Samuel Smith, they preached to a congregation: "They paid good attention; were much disappointed in the things we declared unto them for they had heard much evil concerning this sect. They [the congregation] requested us to tarry and preach again, accordingly the next evening."[191]
http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... 84#_ftn129

That is conceding what? The LDS missionaries ran into opposition everywhere they preached, not just in the Conneaut, Ohio area.

I deleted Dale's musings. But he has noted the Erastus Rudd was among those that did join the Church in the area. Daniel Tyler stated that much of the Spalding romance was written at Rudd's home. If that were true, Rudd obviously did not see the connection reported by the Conneaut Eight.

Benjamin Winchester's pamphlet on the matter is just as credible as that statement.

You are aware of Winchester's apostasy, correct?

Yes, I have noted such. Even after his apostasy he still denied that Spalding had anything to do with the Book of Mormon. He was from the area himself. His 1840 pamphlet came after the publication of Howe's "Mormonism Unvailed", but there is one detail in his report that is not shown elsewhere, that Spalding's romance was a "small work" which accurately describes the Spalding manuscript.

However, unless you can establish that the manuscript that was reported to be delivered to the printing establishment twice, and twice returned was the mythical "second" manuscript, you have no case.

Why do you keep asserting this?

All the best.

That should be obvious. If there was never a manuscript in the printer's establishment or with Robert Patterson that matches the Book of Mormon story, there is no case. There has not even been a prima facie case for that.

Glenn

[_Dan Vogel]

...
The Spalding theory requires the use of a MS for the greater part of the Book of Mormon, something the witnesses coming in and out of the room would have seen and Joseph Smith could not have hid.
...

I do not recall any version of those early authorship claims which would have
required Joseph Smith to have created "the greater part of the book" out of
a pre-existing manuscript -- unless we are here talking about something like
half to a third of the "large plates." At least the theory put forth by Criddle
would have only required a handful of pre-existing folios -- comprising
perhaps a third of the text as we have it now.

However, if Sidney Rigdon is added to the mix -- then, yes, perhaps more
than half of the book would be credited to a Rigdon/Cowdery expansion
of Spalding, to something like half or more of the 1830 book.

Assuming that the Whitmers kept a close watch on Smith and Cowdery,
I suppose that such a set of manuscript folios would have been difficult
to conceal -- even if they were only used one at a time.

So let's agree that as he sat at his table, or otherwise remained in close
proximity to his scribe(s) that Smith couldn't have concealed even a few
manuscript pages from the close observation of the Whitmers. And perhaps
he did not even have a Bible open in the room during the times that the
Whitmers were wont to wander in and out of that place.

That much agreed to -- can we also agree that for some of that "translation"
Smith claimed that the "plates" were secreted away from the dictation --
or perhaps even absent from his environs altogether?

If so, then let's hold that image in our mind -- of Smith dictating his text,
while maintaining that the "plates" were hidden "out in the woods" -- with
poor old Mr. Harris wandering through the snow, looking for the pile of gold;
or the Whitmers convinced that the plates were elsewhere than in their house.

That image remaining in our mind, let us inquire of the witness testimony
whether or not Smith ever left the scene of the dictation -- whether or
not he took "bathroom breaks" -- or went off to argue with Emma (or to
apologize to her) -- or simply broke off from his head-in-the-hat routine
to get a little fresh air -- or engage in "mighty prayer?"

There is a reason I place these two scenarios together -- the location of
the "plates" (the purported source of the Nephite record) and Smith's
absences from the translation room.

And perhaps some answers can be found here:
http://sidneyrigdon.com/Classics1.htm#Whitmer

UD

Are you making an argument of some kind? If so, make it explicitly.

[_GlennThigpen]

Thanks. In studies of false memory, those who had such memories implanted continued to believe they were real memories despite the researchers explaining what had actually happened. In other words, once the memory is formed, it’s real to that person.

Dan, you and I will probably disagree with one another than we will agree, but on this one, I am confident that history and science is in our favor. Roger has yet to come up with any scientific rebuttal on this. His example of his memories of the "Winds of War" is not really on target because there was no reason for a false memory to have been implanted.

Glenn

[_Uncle Dale]

...
Are you making an argument of some kind? If so, make it explicitly.

Not an argument -- but a call for inquiry into what the
Whitmers and other early witnesses had to say about
Smith's periodic absences from the "translation" process.

Is there any basis for an investigation into the possibility
of Smith's consulting texts while out of sight of the Whitmers,
the Hales, Harris, etc.?

If that is an impossibility, then we can end my inquiry with a
sentence or two. If it is a possibility, then somebody really
ought to explore Smith's ability to memorize texts.

UD

[_GlennThigpen]

If that is an impossibility, then we can end my inquiry with a
sentence or two. If it is a possibility, then somebody really
ought to explore Smith's ability to memorize texts.

UD

Somebody should also investigate the Martin Harris stone substitution.

Glenn

[_Uncle Dale]

...
Somebody should also investigate the Martin Harris stone substitution.
...

I haven't heard of any additional sources on that -- but if your
research has turned up anything more, then please share it.

My own opinion is that Smith may have really said something
like "it's as black as Egypt here inside my hat," in order to
respond to Harris' actions.

But I'd have to see some additional evidence, before I'd
believe that Smith did not recognize a substitution had been
made, for a stone that he must have known very, very well.

UD

[_Uncle Dale]

...The Book of Mormon, on the other hand, has one family leave Jerusalem at a completely different time.
...

So, the main point of contention here is that northern tribesmen
could have left the Jerusalem area during the reign of Zedekiah,
but that a somewhat larger group of northern tribesmen could
not have left the Jerusalem area during the reign of Josiah?

I suppose that is a viable assertion, if we are looking for Israelites
leaving under God's direction. Northerners departing in Josiah's time,
(because they did not accept his religion), would have been idolators
or apostates under the orthodox biblical religion -- and therefore
unlikely to receive God's prophetic patronage in their migration.

Did any of the pro-Spalding witnesses ever claim that his departing
Israelites were led away from the Jerusalem area under God's direction?

UD