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

[Guest]

Dale;
Joseph Smith delighted in the belief that, although others thought he was mentally deficient, he was able to prove himself more intelligent than them, through his con. This also provides an explanation for his name encoded in the Anthon Manuscript, and the fanciful stories of visions and interpretation of golden plates, when divine inspiration of his writings would suffice, as in Mohammed's case.

Yeah, my analysis pretty well depends on how Craig's work develops. Still waiting. :)

Criddle will be looking for is NOT computerized
results assigning authorship; but rather, analysis depicting the
most like textual matches to various purported contributors

A semantic error on my part. Usage of "assign" and "attribute" reviewed and modified.

In the discussion since you posted this, it has become clear that the apologists don’t support everything I say, so I’m pretty much on my own here.

LOL with Dan. Definitely not surnamed Peterson.

[_marg]

Maybe I wasn’t clear. You have argued that the witnesses’ memories were accurate because they heard Spalding read on several occasions (although Glenn countered this claim), ...

First of all Dan, before the rest of your post let's address your comment "(although Glenn countered this claim)" because you seem to be suggesting that Glenn successfully argued against what I'd said that they had frequently either read or heard Spalding's manuscript in progress.

I know you also commented in a post that the witnesses had only heard or read Spalding's manuscript only once..at least that's my recollection without quoting you.

To simplify my work, I'll quote from the digital (year 2000) version of Who Really Wrote The Book of Mormon ? by By Wayne L. Cowdrey, Dr. Howard A. Davis,Hugh Leo O’Neal, and Arthur Vanick, in which they are addressing F. Brodie's comment that 5 of the 8 witnesses had heard Spalding's work only once.

I'll underline key points

Brodie’s statement that five of the eight had heard Spalding’s work read only once is
completely out of line with the context of the statements themselves. For example:

-Henry Lake: “He [Spalding] very frequently read to me from a manuscript which he was
writing, which he entitled the ‘Manuscript Found.’”

-John N. Miller: “I was soon introduced to the manuscript[s] of Spalding, and perused them
as often as I had leisure. He had written two or three books on different subjects; but that
which more particularly drew my attention, was one which he called the ‘Manuscript
Found.’ From this he would frequently read some humorous passages to the company
present.”

-Aron Wright: “When at his [Spalding’s] house one day, he showed and read to me a history
he was writing, of the lost tribes of Israel, purporting that they were the first settlers of America,
and that the Indians were their descendants. Upon this subject we had frequent conversations.”

-Oliver Smith: “All his [Spalding’s] leisure hours were occupied in writing a historical
novel, founded upon the first settlers of this country... During the time he was at my house
[nearly six months], I read and heard read one hundred pages or more.”

-Dr. Nahum Howard: “He [Spalding] then told me that he was writing a history of that race
of people; and afterwards frequently showed me his writings, which I read.”

Thus, Brodie’s assertion is clearly refuted by five of the eight witnesses themselves.

Of the remaining three, only Artemas Cunningham would appear to fit into Brodie’s mold
without significant objection.

In the case of John and Martha Spalding, since the duration
of their visit to Solomon’s home “a short time before he left Conneaut” could have been
anywhere from a day to a couple of months, there is no way of knowing exactly how much
contact they may have had with his manuscript and thus no basis for challenging the accuracy
of their recollection of it. In addition, it must be noted that John Spalding resided
either with or near his brother in Conneaut until at least the summer of 1811 since his
name appears along with Solomon’s on “A List of the Number and Name of the Free White
Male Inhabitants above twenty one years of age in the township of Salem in the County of
Ashtabula and State of Ohio” which is dated 28 May 1811-- list compiled by Nehemiah
King. (See Western Reserve Historical Society, Cleveland, Ohio, MSS 2065.) Also, at
least one letter was mailed to John Spalding in Pittsburgh during (probably) November of
1814, from which it may be inferred that John was visiting his brother that winter and
could well have gained additional familiarity with the manuscript during his stay (see
Chapter IV for a more complete discussion of this.)

As to the rest of your post, I'll try to respond soon ..I doubt I will tomorrow, hopefully by Sunday.

[_GlennThigpen]

First of all Dan, before the rest of your post let's address your comment "(although Glenn countered this claim)" because you seem to be suggesting that Glenn successfully argued against what I'd said that they had frequently either read or heard Spalding's manuscript in progress.

I know you also commented in a post that the witnesses had only heard or read Spalding's manuscript only once..at least that's my recollection without quoting you.

To simplify my work, I'll quote from the digital (year 2000) version of Who Really Wrote The Book of Mormon ? by By Wayne L. Cowdrey, Dr. Howard A. Davis,Hugh Leo O’Neal, and Arthur Vanick, in which they are addressing F. Brodie's comment that 5 of the 8 witnesses had heard Spalding's work only once.

I'll underline key points

Brodie’s statement that five of the eight had heard Spalding’s work read only once is
completely out of line with the context of the statements themselves. For example:

-Henry Lake: “He [Spalding] very frequently read to me from a manuscript which he was
writing, which he entitled the ‘Manuscript Found.’”

marge, this still does not denote repeated reading of the same passages.

-John N. Miller: “I was soon introduced to the manuscript[s] of Spalding, and perused them
as often as I had leisure. He had written two or three books on different subjects; but that
which more particularly drew my attention, was one which he called the ‘Manuscript
Found.’ From this he would frequently readsome humorous passages to the company present.”

Miller's statement could be construed to say that he had read the same pasasages repeatedly, but it does not explicitly say so. He recalls Solomon reading humerous passages to the company present, which describes the Oberlin manuscript but nothing in the Book of Mormon.

-Aron Wright: “When at his [Spalding’s] house one day, he showed and read to me a history
he was writing, of the lost tribes of Israel, purporting that they were the first settlers of America,
and that the Indians were their descendants. Upon this subject we had frequent conversations.”

Aron Wright's own statement says the he was at Solomon's house one day and was shown the history. He admits only actually seeing it once. The subject upon which they had many discussions was the lost tribes as the ancestors of the American Indians.

-Oliver Smith: “All his [Spalding’s] leisure hours were occupied in writing a historical
novel, founded upon the first settlers of this country... During the time he was at my house
[nearly six months], I read and heard read one hundred pages or more.”

Having heard read one hundred pages or more does not connote repeatedly hearing the same passages read over and over.

-Dr. Nahum Howard: “He [Spalding] then told me that he was writing a history of that race
of people; and afterwards frequently showed me his writings, which I read.”

The same here. Nothing notes that Howard read and reread the same passages over and over.

Thus, Brodie’s assertion is clearly refuted by five of the eight witnesses themselves.

Of the remaining three, only Artemas Cunningham would appear to fit into Brodie’s mold
without significant objection.

In the case of John and Martha Spalding, since the duration
of their visit to Solomon’s home “a short time before he left Conneaut” could have been
anywhere from a day to a couple of months, there is no way of knowing exactly how much
contact they may have had with his manuscript and thus no basis for challenging the accuracy
of their recollection of it. In addition, it must be noted that John Spalding resided
either with or near his brother in Conneaut until at least the summer of 1811 since his
name appears along with Solomon’s on “A List of the Number and Name of the Free White
Male Inhabitants above twenty one years of age in the township of Salem in the County of
Ashtabula and State of Ohio” which is dated 28 May 1811-- list compiled by Nehemiah
King. (See Western Reserve Historical Society, Cleveland, Ohio, MSS 2065.) Also, at
least one letter was mailed to John Spalding in Pittsburgh during (probably) November of
1814, from which it may be inferred that John was visiting his brother that winter and
could well have gained additional familiarity with the manuscript during his stay (see
Chapter IV for a more complete discussion of this.)

As to the rest of your post, I'll try to respond soon ..I doubt I will tomorrow, hopefully by Sunday.

John Spalding's statement only says that that Solomon read "many passages" to him during his visit. Nothing in his statement denotes repeatedly reading the same passages over and over. Martha Spalding does not even say that she heard read or read anything herself. Whatever she heard would more than likely be the same as what her husband had experienced. John's statement does not note living with Solomon or near him during that period, only two visits.

There is not much of a case for repeatedly hearing the same passages or the whole of the work read over and over to accomplish the "deep encoding" that you are attempting to show. The closest that anything comes is the discussions of the lost tribes as ancestors of the American Indians noted by Aron Wright. However, I have noted that there is no lost tribes story in the Book of Mormon. Especially one that would have been recognized as such by Aron Wright.

The witmesses really show only having skimmed the first two books of the Book of Mormon looking for some key names and travel to the new world "by land and sea."

Glenn

[_Uncle Dale]

...John's statement does not note living with Solomon or near him during that period, only two visits.
...

During the War of 1812 John was a member of the militia
formed at Salem (Conneaut), Ohio. After that he occupied a
farm on the Pennsylvania side of the border. Eventually he
moved his family a few miles south, to a farm near the town
of Conneautsville, in Crawford Co., Pennsylvania.

Although there was no 1810 Federal Census conducted in
what is now Ashtabula Co., Ohio, there are other citizens'
lists, such as tax records, church records, etc.

John was living within walking distance of Solomon for at
least a few years.

Dale

[_GlennThigpen]

...John's statement does not note living with Solomon or near him during that period, only two visits.
...

During the War of 1812 John was a member of the militia
formed at Salem (Conneaut), Ohio. After that he occupied a
farm on the Pennsylvania side of the border. Eventually he
moved his family a few miles south, to a farm near the town
of Conneautsville, in Crawford Co., Pennsylvania.

Although there was no 1810 Federal Census conducted in
what is now Ashtabula Co., Ohio, there are other citizens'
lists, such as tax records, church records, etc.

John was living within walking distance of Solomon for at
least a few years.

Dale

That is interesting. After rereading John's 1833 statement, it says that he "the year following, I removed to Ohio ", which I presume to mean that he actually moved there as it is the same wording that he used for Solomon's move in 1809, which would make John's move some time in 1810. It does not seem that John visited Solomon all that often even though he may have lived within walking distance. He states, "I made him a visit in about three years after;" at which time Solomon told him of his literary endeavors. If John lived within walking distance, this would probably mean that the visit was for an evening. Looking at it from that perspective, it would seem that John and Martha were not part of any group that listened to Solomon read "some humorous passages."

Glenn

[_Uncle Dale]

...John and Martha were not part of any group that listened to Solomon read "some humorous passages."
...

Possibly you are correct. I have the impression, from reading
various sources, that Solomon maintained a closer relationship
with his brother Josiah, than either of those two maintained
with John. It is possible that John moved out to Salem with an
understanding that Solomon would help him get a farm there.
But something must have gone wrong.

There is no record of John homesteading a farm on the Ohio
side of the border -- so his residence there c. 1810-1812
was likely that of a renter, or perhaps a tenant farmer. His
brother Solomon was selling tracts of land on both sides of
the OH/PA border, but there was a large zone of property
owned by the Moravians, between Solomon's two sets of
real estate parcels. Since John did not gain property on the
Ohio side, his farm on the Pennsylvania side must have been
set back at least a couple of miles to the east. Unfortunately
the Erie County property records from those early years are
missing, and we cannot locate John exactly until after the
War of 1812, when he shows up several miles to the south.

Thus, I would conclude that John and his family lived in Salem
village (Conneaut area) c. 1810-1812, and then moved over
to Pennsylvania, c. 1813-1814. I think he probably transported
Solomon's family down to Pittsburgh in his wagon, late in 1812;
but I cannot prove that assumption.

That places John in close proximity with his brother Solomon in
1810-1812, until Solomon moved to Pittsburgh. But living in
close proximity is not the same thing as being on close terms.
If I am correct in my assumptions, John was angry with Solomon
for not providing the farm Johnand his family needed -- and thus
John may have not been a frequent, happy visitor to Solomon's
residence. I cannot provide any better evidence, and so I may
be wrong --- but, I'd say that if the two brothers had a close
personal relationship prior to the War of 1812, John and his
family never provided any indications of such a thing.

Years later, after John had moved to Illinois, a couple of his
near relatives joined the Mormons in Crawford Co., Pennsylvania.
One of the Johnson brothers visited with them at one point,
and determined that they were not heirs to any knowledge of
the late Solomon Spalding's writings. So, it seems that John did
not take any pains to inform his extended family of what he knew
about Solomon. John's son later reported that Solomon was
something like a land cheat -- or, at least a failed speculator in
real estate who left hard feelings in his wake.

UD

[_Dan Vogel]

Marg,

First of all Dan, before the rest of your post let's address your comment "(although Glenn countered this claim)" because you seem to be suggesting that Glenn successfully argued against what I'd said that they had frequently either read or heard Spalding's manuscript in progress.

I know you also commented in a post that the witnesses had only heard or read Spalding's manuscript only once..at least that's my recollection without quoting you.

You obviously didn’t read my post, but I would expect you to have at least finished the paragraph you partially quoted, which was as follows.

Maybe I wasn’t clear. You have argued that the witnesses’ memories were accurate because they heard Spalding read on several occasions (although Glenn countered this claim), but now you are arguing they remembered because it was a unique experience—which is it? Your first argument works if they read the same thing each time and their memories were reinforced. However, if it was a unique experience each time, there would be no reinforcement. In other words, if a different part of the MS were read on different occasions, then Glenn was right that they head it read only once, by piecemeal. You think Spalding’s reading to friends and family was unique in those days? You’re clutching at straws here. There’s no guarantee that their memories would be accurate or impervious to suggestion. …

I meant that if there were multiple readings, it’s not likely to have been the same parts over and over and thus reinforce memory. However, Glenn questioned your assertion of multiple readings. It is also possible that Spalding discussed (rather than read) the ten tribe theory of Indian origins (as opposed to his thesis of Roman origins), which was popular at the time. The Book of Mormon appears to be unique in claiming Jewish origins from Jerusalem. I hope that’s more clear.

Glenn, responded—again—so maybe you’ll understand our position on this at last.

[_MCB]

John's son later reported that Solomon was
something like a land cheat -- or, at least a failed speculator in
real estate who left hard feelings in his wake.

That explains some of the negative reports in the testimonies. Wondered where that came from.

[_GlennThigpen]

John's son later reported that Solomon was
something like a land cheat -- or, at least a failed speculator in
real estate who left hard feelings in his wake.

That explains some of the negative reports in the testimonies. Wondered where that came from.

The War of 1812 evidently dealt a blow to Solomon and Josiah Spalding's land speculations. I would not lay to bad character what can more easily be explained by bad circumstances. But it is natural for those left holding the bag so to speak, to have had some less than generous feelings.

Glenn

[_MCB]

The War of 1812 evidently dealt a blow to Solomon and Josiah Spalding's land speculations.

I knew that. I just didn't connect the two. DUH!!