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

[_Uncle Dale]

...It would seem that Redick McKee's memory and statements are not to be trusted.
...

Never met a Mormon who trusted a single word that guy ever said.

But, perhaps we can state three conclusions, nevertheless.

1. Mr. Spalding never wrote anything about frogs in Connecticut.
2. Mr. Spalding never wrote about the ancient Canaanites.
3. D. P. Hurlbut did an excellent job implanting false memories.

Case closed -- The Church must be true.

UD

[_MCB]

Mormon logic is just amazing.

[_kairos]

mcb-can you point me to a link discussing your comment that Joseph Smith name is somehow "encrypted " in the anthon manuscript

thanx
kairos

[_marg]

Marg,

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.

You are right Dan, I knew your post was long and before getting into anything else I wanted to address and focus on the first issue which I thought needed to be discussed. I appreciate now, that what you mean and what Brodie likely meant by the witnesses hearing and reading Spalding’s manuscript once is that any particular passage they likely heard only once. That had not occurred to me and it likely did not occur to the authors of “Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon”.

As you point out in the quote below “if it was a unique experience each time, there would be no reinforcement”. One thing I would like to make clear at this point is that “frequency” is just one factor affecting whether a memory becomes deeply or elaborately encoded and hence into long-term memory that may endure with time. But if we look at just “frequency” alone in relation to the witnesses’ experiences what we have to determine is what items in their statements were general “gist” memories from discussions with Spalding, or from reading or hearing Spalding's manuscript; and differentiate those from items which were detailed specific memories.

When the witnesses stated Spalding’s manuscript was a historical novel or romance, that’s a “gist” item which doesn’t require frequency to encode. And the same with when they talk of the book being about first settlers arriving in America that too is a “gist” item which they could have picked up from conversations with Spalding and/or reading or hearing the book itself. No frequency is necessary to remember general "gist" items. There may be and were likely other factors why they would remember the “gist” of the storyline of the book. But when they mention specific names such as Nephi or Lehi, or Lamanites or anything specific then frequency or some other reason such as “uniqueness” or the witnesses relating it to their personal general knowledge could be reasons for example why they may have remembered those details.

When I did a search for the number of times Nephi/Nephites was mentioned in the Book of Mormon I came up with 3219 times, Laman/Lamanites I came up with 600 times but couldn’t continue because my search began to include Helaman..but even so 600 times is a fair number of times. Lehi I came up with 130 times. So it’s understandable that Nephi, Nephites would be remembered well due to frequency especially since many passages contained the words. And because they were given the retrieval cue from the Book of Mormon itself that too helped their recall. Laman/Lamanites as well they were likely exposed to frequently and with a retrieval cue would remember. Their memory though of Lehi seems to play a more prominent role in their memory than what one might expect given the frequency within the Book of Mormon of only 130 times. I realize only a portion of the witnesses mentioned the names in Spalding’s manuscript so I'm at this point focusing on their detailed specific memories. Their memory of Lehi seems to be on par as far as significance goes with Nephi, in that not only do they say they remember Lehi well but he was a commander or officer of the company and a principal hero along with Nephi. So if the witnesses were only using the Book of Mormon for recall and they didn't actually have any real memories of the details they mention...then Lehi should not have been equated as being equally important as Nephi. It would appear that they were truly basing their recall on a Spaulding manuscript rather than on the Book of Mormon.

The same goes for their memory of “lost Tribes”. As Glenn points out that’s not really in the Book of Mormon and it's only a brief mention. So the witnesses are not trying to copy from the Book of Mormon nor is the Book of Mormon creating a false memory of “lost Tribes” but rather it would seem that either through Spalding's manuscript or discussion with him along with their knowledge of lost tribes which would help them to place significance on Last tribes and remember it that his manuscript was about some Jews affiliated with Lost tribes going to America.


So Dan, while they may not have read particular passages frequently, on details such as names which would be difficult to remember-it would seem they are remembering detail of names based upon frequency and the Book of Mormon being a retrieval cue. The names would be hard to remember for other reasons such as relating to knowledge they already possess. Those names because they are unique would likely be difficult to remember with passage of time, but if they had been exposed frequently to the names and then given a retrieval cue then just as they said- those names would likely be brought back "fresh to their memory".

Dan this post is fairly long. I have been reading those two books I mentioned on memory and tomorrow all post some quotes which are applicable to the situation with the Conneaut witnesses..such as a person's knowledge being a factor to encoding of memories. Also I will continue on with the rest of your post and respond to it hopefully tomorrow if not by next week.

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.

[_MCB]

mcb-can you point me to a link discussing your comment that Joseph Smith name is somehow "encrypted " in the anthon manuscript

thanx
kairos

The only other time I ever mentioned it, was as a "word-find" puzzle.

"Jos." Line three, 20-22nd characters. Backwards with multiple reversals within.

"Joe" Line one, last three characters. Backwards.

"Joe" Line three, 14-16th characters. The clearest. Upside down.

I was not able to post the pictures of those "coincidences."

[_MCB]

When the witnesses stated Spalding’s manuscript was a historical novel or romance, that’s a “gist” item which doesn’t require frequency to encode. And the same with when they talk of the book being about first settlers arriving in America that too is a “gist” item which they could have picked up from conversations with Spalding and/or reading or hearing the book itself.

Long-term memory for meaningless information is much poorer than encoded memory. If the individual can peg the new information into previously existing information, memory of that new information can last. Thus, Redick McKee was able to relate Spalding's tale to Maccabees. He knew that it was not set in the same era as Maccabees, but a similar situation. Therefore, his mind erroneously set it in Joshua's era. Not being as familiar with the beginning of the book, he set it in Israel, because of its Maccabean character. Therefore, he erroneously reset it in a more believable context. Just as the other erroneous memories.

I disagree with you, Marg. I think there was some repetition, as in a radio serial. Spalding's readings may have been a hi-light of their recreational life. Mighty poor, but better than knitting by the fireplace.

[_Uncle Dale]

...Redick McKee was able to relate Spalding's tale to Maccabees. He knew that it was not set in the same era as Maccabees, but a similar situation. Therefore, his mind erroneously set it in Joshua's era.
...

Have you ever wondered what the Book of Ether (minus Moroni's
theologizing) would have looked like, when joined to the PGP's
Book of Moses, as a single Spalding document?

Such a text would have taken the ancient chronology from the
Creation up to the time of Joshua.

What would an addition to that record, penned in Amity, PA in
1815-16 have looked like? When did McKee inspect Spalding's
writings?

Criddle's most recent analysis concludes that the Book of Ether
and the Book of Moses were once a single text, that became
separated into two or more parts after Spalding's death. Did
Spalding ever write about Joshua and the Canaanites? Perhaps
we should make an effort to uncover more witness testimony
from the 1815-16 period.

UD

[_GlennThigpen]

When the witnesses stated Spalding’s manuscript was a historical novel or romance, that’s a “gist” item which doesn’t require frequency to encode. And the same with when they talk of the book being about first settlers arriving in America that too is a “gist” item which they could have picked up from conversations with Spalding and/or reading or hearing the book itself.

Long-term memory for meaningless information is much poorer than encoded memory. If the individual can peg the new information into previously existing information, memory of that new information can last. Thus, Redick McKee was able to relate Spalding's tale to Maccabees. He knew that it was not set in the same era as Maccabees, but a similar situation. Therefore, his mind erroneously set it in Joshua's era. Not being as familiar with the beginning of the book, he set it in Israel, because of its Maccabean character. Therefore, he erroneously reset it in a more believable context. Just as the other erroneous memories.

mcb, you have done a very good job of affirming the idea that the Spalding theory witnesses have memory confabulation problems. McKee's description of the story is nothing like anything in the Book of Mormon. It is unlike that of the Conneaut witnesses, who had a little help in the person or words of Philastus Hurlbut. The Conneaut witnesses also had some extra help arising from the frequent discussions of the mounds in the area and speculation that the American Indians are descendants of the lost tribes.

I disagree with you, Marg. I think there was some repetition, as in a radio serial. Spalding's readings may have been a hi-light of their recreational life. Mighty poor, but better than knitting by the fireplace.

As long as you do not turn a "may have been" into a certainty. Wonder what all of those people did before Solomon began his story, and after he left? Most accounts have him beginning his story sometime in 1812. That gives does not give them but a few months for Spalding to develop his story and begin reading it to them.
Of course, according to Oliver Smith, he started writing the story in 1810, well before he found out that the mounds were burial plots.

Glenn

[_GlennThigpen]

When the witnesses stated Spalding’s manuscript was a historical novel or romance, that’s a “gist” item which doesn’t require frequency to encode. And the same with when they talk of the book being about first settlers arriving in America that too is a “gist” item which they could have picked up from conversations with Spalding and/or reading or hearing the book itself. No frequency is necessary to remember general "gist" items. There may be and were likely other factors why they would remember the “gist” of the storyline of the book. But when they mention specific names such as Nephi or Lehi, or Lamanites or anything specific then frequency or some other reason such as “uniqueness” or the witnesses relating it to their personal general knowledge could be reasons for example why they may have remembered those details.

However, the story about the first settlers was also a common discussion item. Dale has already noted that he has read a couple of fictional novels about the lost tribes being ancestors of the lost tribes. It seems to have been something much discussed and written about. Remembering something about Spalding's romance being connected to to the mounds and other stories of the lost tribes in fiction and non-fiction, such as View of the Hebrews is fertile ground for memory confabulation.
Redick McKee's statements also show the good possibility of memory confabulation.

When I did a search for the number of times Nephi/Nephites was mentioned in the Book of Mormon I came up with 3219 times, Laman/Lamanites I came up with 600 times but couldn’t continue because my search began to include Helaman..but even so 600 times is a fair number of times. Lehi I came up with 130 times. So it’s understandable that Nephi, Nephites would be remembered well due to frequency especially since many passages contained the words. And because they were given the retrieval cue from the Book of Mormon itself that too helped their recall. Laman/Lamanites as well they were likely exposed to frequently and with a retrieval cue would remember. Their memory though of Lehi seems to play a more prominent role in their memory than what one might expect given the frequency within the Book of Mormon of only 130 times. I realize only a portion of the witnesses mentioned the names in Spalding’s manuscript so I'm at this point focusing on their detailed specific memories. Their memory of Lehi seems to be on par as far as significance goes with Nephi, in that not only do they say they remember Lehi well but he was a commander or officer of the company and a principal hero along with Nephi. So if the witnesses were only using the Book of Mormon for recall and they didn't actually have any real memories of the details they mention...then Lehi should not have been equated as being equally important as Nephi. It would appear that they were truly basing their recall on a Spalding manuscript rather than on the Book of Mormon.

Or, if the witnesses had only skimmed the first part of the Book of Mormon looking for those words because they had been suggested by Hurlbut. I actually agree with your assertion that repetition is not the only factor for deep encoding. Stroking features also can cause deep encoding, such as a beheading, none of which are mentioned by any of the witnesses. Joseph Miller does remember the Amalekites marking their foreheads with red in order that they could easily be distinguished from the Nephite enemies is another example, which, oddly enough, finds a counterpart in the manuscript now at Oberlin College.

The same goes for their memory of “lost Tribes”. As Glenn points out that’s not really in the Book of Mormon and it's only a brief mention. So the witnesses are not trying to copy from the Book of Mormon nor is the Book of Mormon creating a false memory of “lost Tribes” but rather it would seem that either through Spalding's manuscript or discussion with him along with their knowledge of lost tribes which would help them to place significance on Last tribes and remember it that his manuscript was about some Jews affiliated with Lost tribes going to America.

But that flies in the face of what those witnesses actually said about it. The story was supposed to be about the lost tribes. That should also be what the Book of Mormon is about if the witnesses were correct ("He had for many years contended that the aborigines of America were the descendants of some of the lost tribes of Israel, and this idea he carried out in the book in question.") and if they were correct that "the historical part of it, is the same that I read and heard read, more than 20 years ago" (Martha Spalding).

You can't have your witnesses and disregard them too.

Glenn

[_MCB]

Here is how I envision the scenario:

In the tradition of those times, people often read aloud to each other or to small groups of people. They then had the opportunity to discuss the text at the time. Remembering a text was much easier, given visual, oral, and kinesthetic sensory input. This is much a much more effective learning technique than today's solitary silent reader. In addition, the material was interesting to the listeners, because speculation on the origins of local archaeological finds and the natives of the Americas was rampant at the time. In order for an experience to be permanently encoded as meaningful information, the learner must be able to relate it to previously learned information.
For these reasons, given the lack of quality reading materials, with no television or radio, entertainment as mediocre as Solomon Spalding's Conneaut Manuscript Found would be valued. It is also reasonable to assume that some of the witnesses were exposed to the manuscript more than once, for the benefit of those who had missed a session. It is sufficient to say that the repeated exposure to names such as Nephi, Mormon, Laman, and Lehi would permanently encode those names.
One should not be surprised with the number of details, especially among those who had recently become acquainted with the Book of Mormon. Erroneous associations may happen upon retrieval of old memories. Thus, we see statements of a landing at the Straits of Darien, the lost tribes, or the military efforts of Joshua in the Promised land, as inaccurate retrieval cues. They were approximate, and imperfect, based on similarities and previous knowledge, rather than what they had actually heard. One of the most interesting inaccurate retrievals was that of Redick McKee, who heard the military accounts of later parts of the book. Before he had compared memories with Spalding's daughter, his encoding of the story as similar to Maccabees had generalized to the conquest of the land of Canaan.