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

[_MCB]

that they had faulty recollections, at least in some areas of their statements.

This explains the inconsistencies, and resemblances with the beginning of the Book of Mormon, particularly since they did not know about the lost 116 pages. Shoots Glenn's contention about "lost tribes" down, easily.

People subpoenaed as witnesses at a trial are forbidden to discuss what they are going to say beforehand with each other for this same reason.

[_marg]

What inconsistencies and what resemblances are you referring to? How does it shoot Glenn's "lost tribes"?

As I've mentioned before this "lost tribes" business I don't understand. So let me run it by you. The Book of Mormon characters..Lehi and Co are supposed to be descendants of a tribe Joseph of the House of Israel. And therefore they are of the Lost tribes..yes or no..why not?

[_MCB]

It is irrelevant, since that part of the Book of Mormon was not derived directly from Spalding's manuscript. Perhaps that is why I have monitored this thread without responding very often.

[_marg]

Ok so you aren't saying there are inconsistencies between themselves and their statements..that is their statements disagree with each other. You are saying there are inconsistencies with their statements ..compared to the Book of Mormon.

But what I was trying to get at was if you thought that discussions between the witnesses which you think occurred with them all..whether or not that resulted in faulty memory..such that their statements with regards to what they remember are unreliable.

Do you think their statements due to discussions are unreliable from faulty memory for example confusing what they remember with what they discussed (which is what you think they did)?

[_Uncle Dale]

Ok so you aren't saying there are inconsistencies between themselves and their statements..that is their statements disagree with each other. You are saying there are inconsistencies with their statements ..compared to the Book of Mormon.

But what I was trying to get at was if you thought that discussions between the witnesses which you think occurred with them all..whether or not that resulted in faulty memory..such that their statements with regards to what they remember are unreliable.

Do you think their statements due to discussions are unreliable from faulty memory for example confusing what they remember with what they discussed (which is what you think they did)?

There were almost certainly conversations between the
Conneaut area "old-timers" who had known Spalding, over
the possible relationship of his writings to the Mormon book.

As best I can understand, such conversations would have
been carried on in Salem (re-named Conneaut in 1834),
and across the Pennsylvania border in Springfield, Albion
and Conneautville. Early in 1833 Mormon missionaries
preached in the latter three areas, founding branches in
Springfield and Albion. My ancestral relatives and direct
ancestors lived in both places and I am heir to family
traditions concerning those very same "conversations"
and their outcomes among area residents.

So -- we must concede that people from Conneautsville
(John and Martha Spalding lived near there) interacted
with people around Albion (where the Winchester and
Jackson families were located), who, in turn, no doubt
interacted with folks in Springfield (where Oliver Smith,
Miller, the Rudds, etc. lived).

The pre-1834 interactions between these various people
no doubt helped shape their reporting on what Spalding's
fictional writings contained. I think that is a given.

Why such an interaction would have resulted in the
testimonies of Matilda Spalding Davison, Walmart. Leffingwell
and Robert Patterson, Sr., I cannot imagine. All three
witmesses (as well as several others) testified to the
fact that Spalding once wrote a pseudo-history in the
scriptural (KJV biblical) style.

The Oberlin "Roman story" only contains such a style
in a few short fragments -- and there mostly on the
pages where Spalding was creating fictional scripture
allegedly preserved from ancient American records.

The Oberlin "Roman story" does not match what we
hear from Davison, Leffingwell and Patterson -- nor is
it likely that their memories were corrupted by pre-1833
interactions between Conneaut area old-timers.

True -- Robert Patterson, Sr. did live in the Conneaut
area, before he ended up in Pittsburgh. He was Miller's
pastor at one point -- but Patterson, Leffingwell and
Davison had all moved away from Conneaut before the
1831-33 interactions went on among the old-timers.

Thus, I conclude "memory swapping" or standardization
MAY have occurred between the first seven of the
Conneaut witnesses published by Howe in 1834. As for
Cunningham, I believe he lived at a distance from them
and his testimony was solicited independently by Howe.
As for Davison, Leffingwell, Patterson, McKee, etc., I
believe that their testimony stands apart from what was
going on in the Conneaut area in 1831-33.

THE GOAL OF S-R CLAIMS DENIERS IS TO PAINT ALL
WITNESS TESTIMONY WITH THE 1831-33 BRUSH, and
thus dismiss the recollections of witnesses such as the
three I've mentioned -- of Dency Thompson, George
Wilbur, Isaac Butts, Adamson Bentley, Darwin Atwater,
the Clapps, Kirtland area attendees of Hurlbut lectures,
etc. But this is unreasonable.

A proper historical examination of those subsequent
sources must be conducted aside from the question
of 1831-33 interaction between the Conneaut people.
The subsequent testimony (beginning with Davison in
1839) cannot be discarded, simply because the student
of history decides that the testimony published by Howe
in 1834 is suspect.

UD

[_GlennThigpen]

Dan wrote:

Thus, discussions about Spalding's writings and the Book of Mormon were circulating for a year before Hurlbut came, allowing one witness to contaminate another.

I agree. Brodie said that the consistency of their statements indicated coaching by Hurlbut. That is not the case. Just as John and Martha extensively discussed it, so did the others discuss it.

There is no indication that John and Martha extensively discussed the manuscript. They only visited with Solomon a short time before he left moved to Pittsburgh. John only notes that Solomon read "many passages" to him during that visit. There is little indication that any of the other witnesses did a lot of discussions among themselves. Especially in the ensuing twenty plus years. The report of any discussions a la Nehemiah King is reported only after the Oberlin manuscript was shown to Wright. It is an uncorroborated hearsay statement.

"Was it Spalding' s manuscript that was burned?"

Hurlburt waited a moment before answering, his wife looking at him with a pleading, sad expression of countenance.

"Mrs. Davison thought it was; but when I just peeped into it here and there and saw the names Mormon, Maroni, Lamanite, Nephi, I thought it was all nonsense; why, if it had been the real one I could have sold it for $3000; but I just gave it to Howe because it was of no account."

http://www.solomonspalding.com/docs2/18 ... htm#pg062a

So when Hurlbut paged through it, and the first part didn't match, he just chucked the whole thing, without realizing that it was the second half that bore the compelling resemblances.[/quote]


If Hurlbut had paged through it and found the names Mormon, Maroni, Lamanite, and Nephi, he would have known that it was not nonsense. Those are the names that supposedly caused the Conneaut witnesses to smell a rat. You are not even in the ball park here.

Glenn

[_GlennThigpen]

It is irrelevant, since that part of the Book of Mormon was not derived directly from Spalding's manuscript. Perhaps that is why I have monitored this thread without responding very often.

MCB what part of the Book of Mormon are you saying was not derived directly from the alleged manuscript? The witnesses declared that the Book of Mormon read from beginning to end almost identical to that alleged manuscript, except for the religious parts. The names that the witnesses noted are mainly from the first two books of the Book of Mormon. The coming to the Americas and becoming the ancestors of the American Indians was supposed to have been the central theme of Solomon's rewritten romance.

Glenn

[_MCB]

Glenn, I note that you choose to oppose anything that I write, and particularly your interpretation of my meaning. Cows eat straw men. People should ignore them.

Dale, excellent post.

[_Uncle Dale]

Glenn, I note that you choose to oppose anything that I write, and particularly your interpretation of my meaning. Cows eat straw men. People should ignore them.

Dale, excellent post.

My belief is that the 8 "Conneaut witnesses" published by Howe in
1834 should be viewed as a forewarning of the S-R testimony that
was to follow in the years to come. I do not think we can count
upon their testimony as perfect -- or even as correct on all points.

The 1834 Howe book stands as a compilation of the first indications
of a multiple authorship for the book. An "indication" should not be
taken as the final word on any subject. It is just that -- a sign that
more information is probably available to those who look for it.

Many readers of the Howe book condemn its proffered information
out of hand -- and then seem to also dismiss all corroborating
evidence surfacing in the years that followed.

These people must believe that discrediting the Howe book's message
amounts to a discreditation of 19th century Book of Mormon
authorship -- or, at least some sort of proof that no early Mormons
were involved in the founding of that religion. Thus, the entire
"Restoration Movement" is condensed to the single proposition of
"either Smith founded the Church by God's will, or as his own fraud."

I personally do not believe that Mormonism can be condensed down
into that particular proposition, when it comes to discovering its origin.

However -- since the inclination of the S-R explanation opponents
is so strong, in this historical question, I suppose that we who seek
evidence for a MULTIPLE 19TH CENTURY AUTHORSHIP must go along
with the crowd, and research the Smith and Cowdery contributions
to Mormon origins, before we can get around to talking about other
early historical figures, such as Sidney Rigdon.

I thus suggest that the S-R claims be temporarily relegated to
footnote status, and that we concentrate our efforts upon showing
how Smith and Cowdery put the book together. We can return to
Rigdon and Spalding AFTER we have demonstrated how Cowdery's
contribution amounted to multiple authorship (and not just his
"translation" of the single verse in Alma 45).

While we retrace that early history, making new discoveries, we
can expect others to mindlessly repeat their slogans of how the
1834 Mormonism Unvailed is untrue. I suggest that we try
not to be too distracted by such noise -- and move around it in
our pursuit of rediscovering Mormon origins.

UD

[_MCB]

However -- since the inclination of the S-R explanation opponents is so strong, in this historical question, I suppose that we who seek evidence for a MULTIPLE 19TH CENTURY AUTHORSHIP must go along with the crowd, and research the Smith and Cowdery contributions to Mormon origins, before we can get around to talking about other early historical figures, such as Sidney Rigdon.

And my strategy for getting around that basic disagreement is by temporarily shelving the authorship issue. I look for sources available to the nineteenth-century authors. I use the basic information that Joseph Smith, by himself, was not literate enough to have accumulated such a wide range of sources. "Automatic writing," bosh and humbug.

At least we have developed a scenario with the Conneaut witnesses that explains some of the inconsistencies, although their most basic observations, I believe, were correct.