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

[_GlennThigpen]

Glenn:

I am approaching the subject based upon what a person in 1812 to 1833 and even to the present would understand when someone mentioned the lost tribes of Israel.

Do you understand the points I have tried to establish?

Yes, I get your point, Glenn. You did not address my question at all. How do YOU explain the Martin Harris quote?

I did not address your question because the Martin Harris quote is not relevant to what the Conneaut witnesses were talking about. The Book of Mormon does not have a lost tribes coming to the Americas and becoming the ancestors of the American Indians. It has as its theme, a small group of people being led away from Jerusalem to escape the pending destruction was being prophesied. You have to do some amazing logic gymnastics to get from ten to one.

If you have read the Book of Mormon, did you see a lost tribes coming to America and becoming the ancestors of the American Indians theme?

Glenn

[_karl61]

Marg is back :) :) :)

[_Roger]

Glenn:

You are not getting my point.

I did not address your question because the Martin Harris quote is not relevant to what the Conneaut witnesses were talking about.

I think you are quite wrong about that. I think it's much more relevant than you realize.

The Book of Mormon does not have a lost tribes coming to the Americas and becoming the ancestors of the American Indians.

Correct.

It has as its theme, a small group of people being led away from Jerusalem to escape the pending destruction was being prophesied. You have to do some amazing logic gymnastics to get from ten to one.

Agreed. So why did Harris say:

The angel declared that the Book of Mormon was correctly translated by the power of God and not of man, and that it contained the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ to the Nephites, who were a branch of the lost sheep of the House of Israel, and had come from the land of Jerusalem to America.

Harris is claiming he got that information directly from the angel, Glenn. And yet as you say: "The Book of Mormon does not have a lost tribes coming to the Americas and becoming the ancestors of the American Indians." So, was Harris wrong? Was the angel wrong? Or was Harris privy to some information you and I are not privy to?

The lost tribes, according to those witnesses, was the main theme of Spalding's story. If those witnesses were remembering correctly, that should have been the main historical theme of the Book of Mormon, not a "bit of a mention" since all eight of the Conneaut witnesses averred that the historical parts of the Book of Mormon read identical, the same as, verbatim, to Spalding's story. If you have some plausible explanation of how all eight of those witnesses could have missed a story shift so great, i.e. the lost tribes of Israel, of which there are ten, to a small group of people fleeing Jerusalem, please enlighten me.

Well there's this little detail about the first 116 pages getting lost. And then there's also a little detail that if you're going to borrow the work of a dead guy, you are generally free to mix it up in whatever manner best serves your purposes. The replacement to the lost section is described as more religious and less historical. Therefore we do not encounter the more historical/secular narrative until we get to Mosiah. When the witnesses refer to the historical part of the Book of Mormon sounding very similar to what they remember of Spalding's manuscript, I strongly suspect they can only be referring to Book of Mormon books that follow Mosiah. Yet they remember Nephi and Lehi. It is perfectly understandable, then, that they would describe things the way they did... as Spalding's novel with a lot of religious stuff added in.

The lost tribes and the American Indians had been a popular theme since the 1600's. Ethan Smith's book, "View of the Hebrews", published first in 1823 and again in 1825 revived that theme and was a popular book. This is a possible source of memory confabulation.

So did Martin Harris suffer from the same memory confabulation? Did the angel that spoke to Harris suffer from memory confabulation?

The Spalding saga was reported by four of the witnesses to be about the lost tribes being the ancestors of the American Indians.

The Book of Mormon theme is about a small group of people led away from Jerusalem to escape the coming prophesied destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians. Entirely different themes.

The Spalding story had no religious material according to the witnesses. In other words, it was entirely historical. The lost tribes would be a historical part, and the main part of his story. And they all agreed that the historical part was the same as, and at least two witnesses used the word "verbatim". And in that story, you would expect to find some kind of account of those tribes being led from their exile in Chaldea to the Americas.

If you take them at their word, you would expect to see that in the Book of Mormon also. Is it there?

It very well could be, in the lost book of Lehi. That would make sense of ALL of this, wouldn't it, Glenn?! Yep. It would not only make sense of the Conneaut statements, it would also make sense of Harris's statement! So, we see that S/R has an explanation that makes sense out of both non-LDS and LDS statements.

How do YOU make sense out of Martin Harris' statement?

All the best.

[_Dan Vogel]

Glenn:

I'm pressed for time at the moment and have not read all the posts on this thread yet, but I do notice you keep harping about the lost tribes thing....

How do you explain this quote from Edward Stevenson attributed to Martin Harris:

Brother Harris said that the angel stood on the opposite side of the table on which were the plates, the interpreters, etc., and took the plates in his hand and turned them over. To more fully illustrate this to them, Brother Martin took up a book and turned the leaves over one by one. The angel declared that the Book of Mormon was correctly translated by the power of God and not of man, and that it contained the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ to the Nephites, who were a branch of the lost sheep of the House of Israel, and had come from the land of Jerusalem to America.

http://www.gapages.com/harrim1.htm

You are really getting desperate here, Roger. Lost sheep is not the same as lost tribes. You should know this—John 10:16. Moreover, the Book of Mormon makes clear that the Nephites were the lost sheep (3 Nephi 15:21), and that the ten tribes were somewhere else (16:1-3; 17:4).

[_GlennThigpen]

It very well could be, in the lost book of Lehi. That would make sense of ALL of this, wouldn't it, Glenn?! Yep. It would not only make sense of the Conneaut statements, it would also make sense of Harris's statement! So, we see that S/R has an explanation that makes sense out of both non-LDS and LDS statements.

How do YOU make sense out of Martin Harris' statement?

All the best.

Roger, Whether it is in the Lost book of Lehi is irrelevant. It is not in the Book of Mormon. FOur of the witnesses flat out said that Spalding's story was about the lost tribes. There were/are ten of them. All of the Conneaut witnesses said flat out that the Book of Mormon and the Spalding story were the same as, identical, verbatim, as to the historical parts. And the lost tribes as ancestors of the American Indians is not in the theme of the Book of Mormon. That is a credibility issue for the Conneaut witnesses. Whether they are conflating ideas from the "View of the Hebrews", just plain mistaken, or lying is irrelevant to those facts.

Although the statement attributed to Harris is completely irrelevant, you should have already seen Dan Vogel's response. He points you to the correct scriptures, so I'll leave it at that.

Glenn

[_Uncle Dale]

...
1 Nephi, Chapter 5.
...

So, before his family made it to the Land of Promise, Father Lehi
had discovered he was not of the tribe of Levi and therefore he
and his sons were not entitled to function as priests in the temple?

So much the worse, I'd say.
But that was not the point, was it?

The point was that Yahweh reportedly made promises to some of
the northern Israelite tribes which had to be fulfilled -- and so
Lehi and his group could not be southerners. They had to belong
to the confederation of the Ten Tribes (9 1/2 actually) in the
North -- in order to help fulfill those biblical blessings/promises.

So -- the Book of Mormon does deal with promises to Ephraim
(as all the North was generalized in many biblical texts) -- and
does fulfill important blessings laid upon the northern tribes.

Thus the "stick of Ephraim" was reunited with the "stick of Judah,"
when Elder Sidney Rigdon preached in Palmyra in Dec., 1830,
holding the Bible in one hand and the Nephite record in the other,
and bringing his hands together to form a single, unified Gospel.

Northern Tribes -- Israelites -- not Jews.

But we return to the problem of non-Levite temple priests in the
Americas, after Lehi suddenly discovered who his people really
were. Evidently you have not been reading your Hebrew Bible
very closely -- for Elijah (not of Levi) offered sacrifice and
called down fire from heaven. And David (not of Levi) made his
sons priests in the Jerusalem Tabernacle which became the Temple.

There are arguments that will allow a non-Levite to build and
operate a Temple in America, under the Mosaic Law (or, at least
a version of the Yahwist religion).

So, rather than a Jewish temple in Guatemala, we have an
Israelite (northern) temple, lost somewhere in that same jungle.

Solomon Spalding, from reports given, would have concurred.

UD

[_Roger]

Dan wrote:

You are really getting desperate here, Roger. Lost sheep is not the same as lost tribes. You should know this—John 10:16. Moreover, the Book of Mormon makes clear that the Nephites were the lost sheep (3 Nephi 15:21), and that the ten tribes were somewhere else (16:1-3; 17:4).

Yes I know. Desperate times call for desperate measures and I'm desperately attempting to see the difference from Martin's perspective--or the angel's for that matter--or the Conneaut witnesses. I see no clarification in 3 Nephi 16 that the "sheep" being spoken of there are "lost tribes" whereas the previous usage of that same term is not or cannot refer to a branch from the lost tribes. But then, my desperation, no doubt, renders me blind.

Regardless, Harris reports the angel as saying:

the Nephites, who were a branch of the lost sheep of the House of Israel,

Given that sheep and tribes are used interchangably in the previous chapter:

15Neither at any time hath the Father given me commandment that I should tell unto them concerning the other tribes of the house of Israel, whom the Father hath led away out of the land.

16This much did the Father command me, that I should tell unto them:

17That other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

I'd like to hear the explanation of the difference and how that changes anything. Please explain how Martin Harris' concept of

a branch of the lost sheep of the House of Israel

....would be radically different from the concept of "a branch of the lost tribes of the House of Israel"

[_Roger]

Glen wrote:

Roger, Whether it is in the Lost book of Lehi is irrelevant. It is not in the Book of Mormon.

It's not irrelevant.

FOur of the witnesses flat out said that Spalding's story was about the lost tribes.

And his Roman story isn't.

There were/are ten of them. All of the Conneaut witnesses said flat out that the Book of Mormon and the Spalding story were the same as, identical, verbatim, as to the historical parts. And the lost tribes as ancestors of the American Indians is not in the theme of the Book of Mormon.

No they said some of it is nearly the same. Here, for example, is what John Spalding says:

I find nearly the same historical matter, names, &c. as they were in my brother's writings. 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, and according to the best of my recollection and belief, it is the same as my brother Solomon wrote, with the exception of the religious matter.

The book of Lehi likely contained a connection to the lost tribes, Glenn. The 116 pages changed things. You are set on the idea that what is now found in the Book of Mormon has to be the same as what was in the 116 pages. That's only true if Nephites actually existed. If not, all bets are off.

Consider again what John Spalding says:

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. 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.

John doesn't even see a difference. He's not like you, studying every nuance of the Book of Mormon as it relates to the "Jews, or the lost tribes." All he knows is that Spalding wrote a novel "endeavoring to show that the American Indians are the descendants of the Jews, or the lost tribes" and now he sees nearly the same stuff in the Book of Mormon with a lot of religious stuff thrown in.

Just forget your pet theory for a moment and think logically... if the book of Lehi--penned by Spalding--contained a story about members of the lost tribes coming across the Bering straits but 116 pages were lost and then replaced, and Spalding's tale only picks up at Mosiah, but from then on the witnesses recognize a heck of a lot of Spalding with a bunch of religious stuff mixed in... --in what way would you have expected their statements to turn out any different than they did?

That is a credibility issue for the Conneaut witnesses. Whether they are conflating ideas from the "View of the Hebrews", just plain mistaken, or lying is irrelevant to those facts.

Although the statement attributed to Harris is completely irrelevant, you should have already seen Dan Vogel's response. He points you to the correct scriptures, so I'll leave it at that.

How does Vogel's quoting of the Book of Mormon fix Harris's statement? He says there is a huge difference between lost sheep and lost tribes. Even if that were the case it would not have been apparent to people who had been exposed to Spalding's Bering straits story who were only reading the Book of Mormon to see if it reminded them of Spalding's novel--not because they actually believed Nephites really existed or that they could find powerful doctrinal truths there.

Look up the phrase "remnant of the house of Isreal" and see how often it appears in the Book of Mormon. You and Vogel are splitting hairs over the alleged huge difference between lost sheep and lost tribes of Isreal. I am saying whatever difference there might be would not have been apparent to people who knew the whole thing was fiction anyway. Again, all they knew was that Spalding wrote a novel and now they see some of the same names, nearly the same historical material and a lot of added religious stuff.

[Guest]

FOur of the witnesses flat out said that Spalding's story was about the lost tribes.

And his Roman story isn't.

No one is disputing that. But it is not in the Book of Mormon either.

There were/are ten of them. All of the Conneaut witnesses said flat out that the Book of Mormon and the Spalding story were the same as, identical, verbatim, as to the historical parts. And the lost tribes as ancestors of the American Indians is not in the theme of the Book of Mormon.

No they said some of it is nearly the same. Here, for example, is what John Spalding says:

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

Roger, go back and read what all of the witnesses said. Two of them used the word "verbatim" to describe the historical part of the Book of Mormon. They said that most of it reads the same as or is identical.

The book of Lehi likely contained a connection to the lost tribes, Glenn. The 116 pages changed things. You are set on the idea that what is now found in the Book of Mormon has to be the same as what was in the 116 pages. That's only true if Nephites actually existed. If not, all bets are off.

You are making an assumption with absolutely no evidence to back you up. From reading the various accounts of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, there is nothing to indicate that it would have contained a lost tribes motive. All of the indications are that it would have been the story of the exodus from Jerusalem from the view point of Lehi and in his words.

Consider again what John Spalding says:

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. 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.

And you are ignoring what the other witnesses said.

Now consider John Spalding's later statement where he says Lehi was the leader of the Jaredites and came from Chaldea while Nephi came from Jerusalem much later. The more he amplifies, the worse he gets.

Just forget your pet theory for a moment and think logically... if the book of Lehi--penned by Spalding--contained a story about members of the lost tribes coming across the Bering straits but 116 pages were lost and then replaced, and Spalding's tale only picks up at Mosiah, but from then on the witnesses recognize a heck of a lot of Spalding with a bunch of religious stuff mixed in... --in what way would you have expected their statements to turn out any different than they did?

You lose the logic when you say "if". They averred that that they remembered Lehi and Nephi names and the divsion into the Lamanite and Nephite tribes, all of which occur before Mosiah. But they could not distinguish between ten lost tribes and a small group of people in the story lines?

How does Vogel's quoting of the Book of Mormon fix Harris's statement? He says there is a huge difference between lost sheep and lost tribes. Even if that were the case it would not have been apparent to people who had been exposed to Spalding's Bering straits story who were only reading the Book of Mormon to see if it reminded them of Spalding's novel--not because they actually believed Nephites really existed or that they could find powerful doctrinal truths there.

Roger, the Martin Harris quote is not in the Book of Mormon. It is unconnected to the witnesses in Conneaut. Go back and read Dan's quotes. Remember the parable of the Lost Sheep and the Good Shepherd? That is what those quotes are referring to. There is a huge difference between Christ's parable and the lost tribes story. The reference to the lost sheep occurs much later in the Book of Mormon narrative. None of those witnesses have shown any indication they had read that part. Most show only a very rudimentary familiarity with the first two books, first and second Nephi, and little else.

Look up the phrase "remnant of the house of Isreal" and see how often it appears in the Book of Mormon. You and Vogel are splitting hairs over the alleged huge difference between lost sheep and lost tribes of Isreal. I am saying whatever difference there might be would not have been apparent to people who knew the whole thing was fiction anyway. Again, all they knew was that Spalding wrote a novel and now they see some of the same names, nearly the same historical material and a lot of added religious stuff.

Roger, you are trying to reduce two different complex themes to the lowest common denominator in order to minimize the differences and maximize the similarities. John Spalding's 1851 statement, although even more inaccurate as to the Book of Mormon indicates that he understood the lost tribes theme when he had Lehi as head of the Jaredites bringing them to the Americas. It shows a complete lack of knowledge of the Book of Mormon, even after saying that he had read it.

Roger, I suggest you just do a google search for "lost sheep" and "lost tribes" deleting the Book of Mormon from the search and see just many sites equate "lost sheep" with "lost tribes". You might find a few who try to make the connection, but the preponderance of sites and people do not see a connection. The do a google for "View of the Hebrews" and read up a bit. That will give you a better idea of what the people in Ohio would more than likely expect from a story about the lost tribes.

Glenn

[_Dan Vogel]

How does Vogel's quoting of the Book of Mormon fix Harris's statement? He says there is a huge difference between lost sheep and lost tribes. Even if that were the case it would not have been apparent to people who had been exposed to Spalding's Bering straits story who were only reading the Book of Mormon to see if it reminded them of Spalding's novel--not because they actually believed Nephites really existed or that they could find powerful doctrinal truths there.

Look up the phrase "remnant of the house of Isreal" and see how often it appears in the Book of Mormon. You and Vogel are splitting hairs over the alleged huge difference between lost sheep and lost tribes of Isreal. I am saying whatever difference there might be would not have been apparent to people who knew the whole thing was fiction anyway. Again, all they knew was that Spalding wrote a novel and now they see some of the same names, nearly the same historical material and a lot of added religious stuff.

Like I said--desperate!