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

[_MCB]

Right. Memory does not generally work in a photographic or phonographic manner. Encoding and relating it to other known information has to occur before it can be stored in LTM. That is the reason why children from impoverished environments have learning problems-- they don't have as much learned material to associate new memories with. Or minority children might associate with information that seems strange to people from a majority culture. Affective components, such as liking the author, or interest in the subject material are also important.

Thanks, marg. I am going to have to order some of his books. He has quite a few that are relevant. I have a slightly different perspective when discussing the issue, since I have an Ed. S. in school psychology. I think I will have to digest it on my own.

[_marg]

They related the story to the local mounds… that alone made it stand out to them personally ..since it was a local interest. They knew the author personally and he read to them personally..seeing and hearing him read would stand out from other experiences in their lives. That there was no known history of the Indians and people were curious about it, would make a historical account potentially interesting and memorable.

Deep encoding involves the context of the event, how one relates the event to ones life and knowledge, the visual and other perceptual senses involving, sight, taste, smells, feelings contribute to memory.

marge, they had not been around Solomon for twenty years. There were other books being written about the mounds and the American Indians in the intervening years. There were fictional books written about the Amrican Indians as descendants of the lost tribes, according to Dale. There was The View of the Hebrews by Ethan Smith, which was very popular. It was released in 1823 and again in 1825.

Glenn, based upon my readings on memory, the way it works is that people make associations of events based on their past knowledge as well as their perceptual senses at the time of the event. So when we remember an event we pieced together bits and pieces such as the context, what we were doing at the time, what we saw, heard, smelled, felt, thought and that helps us construct later the recall of the event by making associations.

What you are suggesting is that all the witnesses are confused. According to your theory they were exposed to a popular storyline of the day after Spalding’s death and they are confusing that exposure to what they heard Spalding read. But what the memory studies are finding out is that when source memories of when, where and from whom the memories are associated with is known... confusion between memories is much less likely. When you look at the studies where subjects are confused between different memories it appears to be mainly because of a weak source memory of the event.

But with the witnesses they say they were frequently exposed to Spalding reading or they themselves read often or discussed often Spalding’s manuscriptand consequently they would have developed good source memories. They could likely visualize seeing and hearing him read for example which would strengthen the particular memory and diminishes the likelihood of confusing it with another event in which that didn't occur. When you can differentiate easily one event from another confusion of different memories is less likely. So there are reasons why even if they had heard or read similar stories about American Indians being descendents of the lost tribes because those experiences at the time of the event would have been very different in other words would’ve had very different memories associated with them it is not likely they would confuse those memories.

The way we remember is that we recall the bits and pieces stored in our brain together that are associated with one another. So remembering Spalding’s manuscript by the witnesses would require associating the source memories to their memory of the content of Spaulding manuscript.

Four of the Conneaut witnesses said that Spalding's story was about the lost tribes coming to the Americas and becoming the ancestors of the American Indians. If that was the case, it should be in the Book of Mormon because just about all of the Conneaut witnesses said that the historical parts of the Book of Mormon read almost identical to Solomon's story, with the word verbatim used by a couple of the witnesses.
If Spalding's story was about the lost tribes, then the Book of Mormon could not read almost identical to that story in the historical parts. If Solomon's story was not about the Lost tribes, then four of those witnesses were absolutely wrong.

Based upon my understanding which is limited with regards to what is contained in the Book of Mormon, I believe Spalding’s book began further back in time than what the Book of Mormon begins at. Even though it began further back in time, the essence of the book was still about the American Indians being descendents of some lost tribes..that was really the essentially point of the book. So my guess is that Spalding’s book started out even before the lost tribes period which I believe is around 720 BC. But I don’t think that it was the essence of what the book was about. In addition people remember by associating to their knowledge base. And perhaps they were knowledgeable about the lost tribe myth through their religious training and that aspect of Spalding’s book would have stood out as memorable to them. Also too, some of them may have been exposed to later portions than right from the very beginning of spalding's book.

What is of interest is that if the Book of Mormon makes hardly any mention of lost tribes it means that the Book of Mormon was not something they were trying to duplicate. So what they were remembering or described was the essence or gist of Spalding’s book. And that is something else that memory studies have found that the "gist" can be recalled much more easily than details, over time. And what we see in their statements is essentially for the most part “gist” recollection with a few details which were brought to recollection from reading the Book of Mormon. Their memory experience appears to be typical of what is found in memory studies. They recall a few details which were brought fresh to recollection by the Book of Mormon and they comment they clearly remember those details, which is the case of people who have good source memory of an event, who are able to tie the associations together into a memory. And then they have a general or gist knowledge of the essence of what the entire Spalding book was about.

So I think for the Book of Mormon writers, it was an easy thing to do to mention in a few places with a line or two, in the Book of Mormon that lost tribes lived elsewhere. That could easily have been done and especially since the Book of Mormon starts out later than Spalding..whereas spalding's comment with Lost tribes was at the beginning of his book, since the beginning of his book was not included in Book of Mormon...the writers may have added some reference anyhow.

If this was supposed to be so meaningful to those people, why didn't Josiah Spalding, Matilda Spalding Davison (the widow), Matilda McKinstry (the daughter), Redick McKee, and Joseph Miller have those same recollections? You cannot argue that Josiah was exposed to a different manuscript. His report was from the same time period as that of the Conneaut witnesses. Just about all of the witnesses put the time frame sometime in 1812. Solomon's wife was there more than any of theose witnesses. Redick McKee and Joseph Miller were probably exsposed to the manuscript even more than the Conneaut witnesses in 1814, 1815, and part of 1816. The one common thread to the Conneaut witnesses and their retrieval cues is Hurlbut.

I believe Josiah was only exposed to an MSCC not MF. I’m not sure what you mean by Matilda Davison (the widow) Matilda McKinstry (the daughter), Redick McKee and Joseph Miller having different recollections. I’m not aware that they recollect conflicts in any significant manner with the Conneaut witnesses. Of course they would have some different recollections.

The discrepancies between the Hurlbut witnesses and the other witnesses plus the lost tribes no show, plus the straits of Darien by only one witness, who just happened to live in an area where that subject had been fairly recently discussed in a newspaper, are supportive of memory confabulation.

Glenn, one would expect some differences between witnesses statements and what they recollect. But I’m not aware of major discrepancies conflicting with one another, other than Josiah having a different memory that of MSCC which can be explained by his exposure to it and not being around Spalding later on when he began Manuscript Found. One mention of Darien is not an indication of memory confabulation particularly when it can be explained that Miller actually did hear Spalding explain it as the intended landing spot in America. It does make sense that Darien would have been the location that Spalding had his characters land. That is why a missionary would have speculated that in the first place.

[_GlennThigpen]

Based upon my understanding which is limited with regards to what is contained in the Book of Mormon, I believe Spalding’s book began further back in time than what the Book of Mormon begins at. Even though it began further back in time, the essence of the book was still about the American Indians being descendents of some lost tribes..that was really the essentially point of the book. So my guess is that Spalding’s book started out even before the lost tribes period which I believe is around 720 BC. But I don’t think that it was the essence of what the book was about. In addition people remember by associating to their knowledge base. And perhaps they were knowledgeable about the lost tribe myth through their religious training and that aspect of Spalding’s book would have stood out as memorable to them. Also too, some of them may have been exposed to later portions than right from the very beginning of spalding's book.

marge, if you do not think that Solomon's book is essentially about the lost tribes, the lost tribes as the people in Conneaut would have understood it, then you are ignoring what four of the witnesses stated. There is no lost tribes connotation at all in the Book of Mormon. Lehi learns from the Brass Plates that he is a descendant of Joseph, but there is no mention of the lost tribes at all. No one reading the Book of Mormon would come up with a lost tribes as ancestors of the American Indians theme. You just cannot logically make the Book of Mormon into a lost tribes story, or even one of the lost tribes story.
If you think that Solomon's story went back further in time than the Book of Mormon, then it would not have read nearly identical to Spalding's story in the historical parts, as the Conneaut witnesses averred. And yet, to be about the lost tribes, it had to start back earlier in time than the Book of Mormon.
So, if Solomon wrote a story about the lost tribes coming to America and becoming the ancestors of the American Indians, it did not read the same as the Book of Mormon in the historical aspects and the witnesses lied.
If Solomon only wrote the Roman story, then those witnesses were confusing their sources, and their memories were cued by Hurlbut's interrogations. Or they lied.

What is of interest is that if the Book of Mormon makes hardly any mention of lost tribes it means that the Book of Mormon was not something they were trying to duplicate. So what they were remembering or described was the essence or gist of Spalding’s book. And that is something else that memory studies have found that the "gist" can be recalled much more easily than details, over time. And what we see in their statements is essentially for the most part “gist” recollection with a few details which were brought to recollection from reading the Book of Mormon. Their memory experience appears to be typical of what is found in memory studies. They recall a few details which were brought fresh to recollection by the Book of Mormon and they comment they clearly remember those details, which is the case of people who have good source memory of an event, who are able to tie the associations together into a memory. And then they have a general or gist knowledge of the essence of what the entire Spalding book was about.

The only real gist items that have been brought forward are the mounds and the American Indians. That is a common to Solomon's Roman story, to the interests of the time, and to the Book of Mormon. The lost tribes story is noted explicitly by four of eight witnesses. Why not all of them? Whay is John Miller the only one that mentions the straits of Darien? Surely the others heard the story and knew where the party had landed (although this was erroneous.)

So I think for the Book of Mormon writers, it was an easy thing to do to mention in a few places with a line or two, in the Book of Mormon that lost tribes lived elsewhere. That could easily have been done and especially since the Book of Mormon starts out later than Spalding..whereas spalding's comment with Lost tribes was at the beginning of his book, since the beginning of his book was not included in Book of Mormon...the writers may have added some reference anyhow.

Again, such a scenario would not allow the Book of Mormon to read essentially the same as Solomon's tale in the historical aspects. That is something that none of you theories really address. You cannot have two books read nearly the same if they are not nearly the same. That is the problem that the witnesses produce. They say that X was what the Spalding story was about, and they say that the Book of Mormon was the same as X, but without the religious (y) part. But when you read the Book of Mormon, it is not about X at all.

If this was supposed to be so meaningful to those people, why didn't Josiah Spalding, Matilda Spalding Davison (the widow), Matilda McKinstry (the daughter), Redick McKee, and Joseph Miller have those same recollections? You cannot argue that Josiah was exposed to a different manuscript. His report was from the same time period as that of the Conneaut witnesses. Just about all of the witnesses put the time frame sometime in 1812. Solomon's wife was there more than any of theose witnesses. Redick McKee and Joseph Miller were probably exsposed to the manuscript even more than the Conneaut witnesses in 1814, 1815, and part of 1816. The one common thread to the Conneaut witnesses and their retrieval cues is Hurlbut.

I believe Josiah was only exposed to an MSCC not MF. I’m not sure what you mean by Matilda Davison (the widow) Matilda McKinstry (the daughter), Redick McKee and Joseph Miller having different recollections. I’m not aware that they recollect conflicts in any significant manner with the Conneaut witnesses. Of course they would have some different recollections.

Why would they have different recollections of the same material that of the Conneaut witnesses? Why wouldn't they remember Nephi, Lehi, Lamanites, Nephites, by "land and sea", etc. just as did the Conneaut witnesses? The names are the things that you feel that cued the retrieval by the Conneaut witnesses. Why did not reading the Book of Mormon cue the same retrieval by the other witnesses? What occasioned such a sharp difference between the recollections of the Conneaut witnesses and the others? The main differing factor is Hurlbut.

The discrepancies between the Hurlbut witnesses and the other witnesses plus the lost tribes no show, plus the straits of Darien by only one witness, who just happened to live in an area where that subject had been fairly recently discussed in a newspaper, are supportive of memory confabulation.

Glenn, one would expect some differences between witnesses statements and what they recollect. But I’m not aware of major discrepancies conflicting with one another, other than Josiah having a different memory that of MSCC which can be explained by his exposure to it and not being around Spalding later on when he began Manuscript Found. One mention of Darien is not an indication of memory confabulation particularly when it can be explained that Miller actually did hear Spalding explain it as the intended landing spot in America. It does make sense that Darien would have been the location that Spalding had his characters land. That is why a missionary would have speculated that in the first place.

Why would Josiah have been exposed to a different manuscript? He said that he went to stay with Solomon after the war (of 1812) broke out. That was in June. He said that Solomon began to compose his novel then. The year 1812 is in line with most of the other statements. You are correct that he would have been exposed to the Roman story, as were all of the other witnesses. If he were not around later on, for Solomon to go back and change his story, then there would have been very little time for the neighbors to have heard that story very many times either.
Why does it make sense that Spalding would have had his party land at the straits of Darien? The prevailing theory of the time was that the American Indians had come over via the Bering straits.
Have you read Redick McKee's first statement? He said that Solomon's story was about Canaan before the invasion by Joshua?
The differences in what the Conneaut witnesses remember and what the others remember do not appear to be retrieval cues from the Book of Mormon, but from another source. Just for fun, I asked my wife how the party led by Lehi and Nephi got to the America's. Her answer, "On the ship that Nephi built." Isn't it strange that none of the witnesses mentioned that? That is a "gist" item for the Book of Mormon.

Glenn

[Guest]

(Edit note: Glenn, I know there are some errors that need correcting. Late last night I was correcting and during the process the power went out. I'm not sure if I have time today to look at this.)

Glenn, I wrote this “I believe Spalding’s book began further back in time than what the Book of Mormon begins at. Even though it began further back in time, the essence of the book was still about the American Indians being descendents of some lost tribes..that was really the essentially point of the book.” And then you wrote: “ if you do not think that Solomon’s book is essentially about the lost tribes…”


I do believe the witnesses. And I don’t understand why you have a problem with what they say. I appreciate in the Book of Mormon there is a very brief mention that lost tribes lived somewhere else than America. But I think that was added, not something in Solomon’s book. Solomon’s book was used to write the Book of Mormon but it’s not a duplicate of Solomon’s book. So I don’t see a problem with Solomon’s book having lost tribes and then a few descendents being in Jerusalem such as Nephi and Lehi, and them making their way to American. Even Spalding’s story once they were in America there would be no need to mention them again as being descendents of some lost tribes.

You said, “If you think that Solomon's story went back further in time than the Book of Mormon, then it would not have read nearly identical to Spalding's story in the historical parts, as the Conneaut witnesses averred.” Well I disagree we do know a portion of Solomon’s book was in the lost 116 pages. But in addition to that, if the witnesses recognize portions such as battles, character names, place names, sawme themes, to them that would seem like it was similar or the same as what Spalding wrote. None of them said it was exactly the same.

You wrote “If Solomon only wrote the Roman story, then those witnesses were confusing their sources, and their memories were cued by Hurlbut's interrogations. Or they lied.” Well some people were shown the Roman story and they say that’s not the one they had referenced in their earlier statement to Hurlbut. They do not sound the least bit confused. And I see no benefit to them to lie.

The only real gist items that have been brought forward are the mounds and the American Indians. That is a common to Solomon's Roman story, to the interests of the time, and to the Book of Mormon. The lost tribes story is noted explicitly by four of eight witnesses. Why not all of them? Whay is John Miller the only one that mentions the straits of Darien? Surely the others heard the story and knew where the party had landed (although this was erroneous.)

When John Spalding said, “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”. That’s a summary of the essence of Spalding’s book. That’s what I mean by gist. If not about a particular passage, or anything thing remembered of a particular detail. As far as why didn’t they call mention lost tribes well for some it may have had more meaning and was more memorable than for others. As Straits of Darien and John Miller being the only one to mention it perhaps he was the only one Spalding mentioned it to. Or perhaps others didn’t think details like that were important to mention. I don’t think the witnesses put much effort into their statements I don’t think they tried to put as much as they possibly could into their statements. I think all they thought that was necessary was that they recognize key portions of Spalding’s work in the Book of Mormon. They were criminals, they didn’t have to give every single detail that they could possibly remember. All that was important was whether or not they recognized Spalding’s work in the Book of Mormon. They were unaware that Spalding’s manuscript still existed or at least one did. So what difference would it have been if they wrote an extensive statement listing every possible detail that they could remember.

You wrote: “Again, such a scenario would not allow the Book of Mormon to read essentially the same as Solomon's tale in the historical aspects. That is something that none of you theories really address..” Glenn I do think in key respects, the general outline of the story the character names, the place names, the particulars of battles were the same and the impression that the witnesses had was that Spalding’s book was nearly the same.

You wrote: “They say that X was what the Spalding story was about, and they say that the Book of Mormon was the same as X, but without the religious (y) part. But when you read the Book of Mormon, it is not about X at all.” I’m sure you are convincing yourself, that the lost tribes not being in the Book of Mormon is a clincher but as I explained above I do not see a problem with Solomon’s book having his characters being descendents of the lost tribes and they make their way to America whereas the Book of Mormon starts out later in the lost tribes business is not important and it simply has its characters coming out of Jerusalem to America.

Why would they have different recollections of the same material that of the Conneaut witnesses? Why wouldn't they remember Nephi, Lehi, Lamanites, Nephites, by "land and sea", etc. just as did the Conneaut witnesses? The names are the things that you feel that cued the retrieval by the Conneaut witnesses. Why did not reading the Book of Mormon cue the same retrieval by the other witnesses?

Glenn, they wrote what they felt was important and what they remembered. You can’t criticize them for not writing exactly the same thing. If there are major disagreements or conflicts with what they wrote then that’s different. For example if some said it was not written in biblical language then that would be an issue. I don’t see where you’ve explained or shown that there is a major conflict between their statements. I’m aware that Josiah ‘s statement appears to be describing MSCC and I will quote from “Who Really Wrote The Book of Mormon?” to explain that.

although there were differences, Josiah Spalding’s description fits the mold of Manuscript Story–Conneaut Creek reasonably well. Moreover, he seems to have arrived at his brother’s home just after Solomon had begun to compose that work “merely for amusement”; and, by his description of the events in the plot, he seems to have left at just about the same time Solomon stopped work on it and began his new project. The title recalled by Josiah Spaulding, Historical Novel, or Manuscript Found, may have been an alternative or working title that Solomon ultimately shortened to a Manuscript Found.

With respect to the chronology, we know that Josiah was not at Conneaut in May 1811 because his name is not on Nehemiah Kings census of all males over 21 (Solomon and John show up, but not Josiah). And we may presume that he was not there in the late summer of 1812 as well, because John’s wife Martha was staying at her brother in-laws just before his move to Pittsburgh, and she did not mention him in her story. Moreover, the story she claims to have “read and heard” while there is obviously not the same one with which Josiah was familiar. These circumstances, coupled with the date of January 1812 that appears by accident in Manuscript Story–Conneaut Creek just 37 pages from its end (see later in text), and with Josiah’s own statement that his brother “soon after moved to Pittsburgh,” all strongly suggest that Josiah visited Conneaut during the winter of 1811-12, and that he left in the spring just about the time Solomon stopped work on Manuscript Story–Conneaut Creek. Such reasoning leads to the conclusion that work on Manuscript Found began in earnest in the spring of 1812 and that Spalding had a reasonably complete manuscript in his possession by the time he departed for Pittsburgh six months later.

Although he may have started to compose it at an earlier day, then laid it aside, a Manuscript Found emerged as the one project Solomon Spaulding (perhaps after consultations with friends such as Aron Wright) felt had the greatest potential for rescuing him and his family from an otherwise bleak financial future. In order to ensure its success, Spalding would test the quality of his work as it progressed by regularly reading chapters aloud to family and neighbors. Most likely these occasions were also used to solicit suggestions that would be helpful in polishing the story, while at the same time gaining insight into the book’s sales potential by watching the reaction of his audience.

Why does it make sense that Spalding would have had his party land at the straits of Darien?

Because it’s central and on a narrow neck of land.

The prevailing theory of the time was that the American Indians had come over via the Bering straits.

My understanding is that it wasn’t prevailing it was simply one of 2 popular theories at the time.

Have you read Redick McKee's first statement? He said that Solomon's story was about Canaan before the invasion by Joshua?

What’s the problem? Why couldn’t Spalding have added material that went further back in time to what the Conneaut witnesses had seen.

The differences in what the Conneaut witnesses remember and what the others remember do not appear to be retrieval cues from the Book of Mormon, but from another source.

And what other source are you suggesting for the names, Nephi etc if not from a retrieval cuequeue by the Book of Mormon… Hurlbut? I don’t understand what you’re saying ..you will have to explain.

Just for fun, I asked my wife how the party led by Lehi and Nephi got to the America's. Her answer, "On the ship that Nephi built." Isn't it strange that none of the witnesses mentioned that? That is a "gist" item for the Book of Mormon.

[/quote]

That’s not a gist item. It is a particular detail. You ask a question with particular names and she replies with a particular name in the answer. And it is a particular detail of a ship that was built by that person.

I see, you want the witnesses to have given all sorts of particular details… but why should they have? All that was at issue for them was not their credibility, there was no way as far as they were concerned at the time that their statement would be verified by comparing it to Spalding’s manuscript. They had no idea that anything of Spalding’s was still available, in fact they must have thought nothing of his would be around still. So why should they have given all sorts of details. What would be the point? If that was their intent, to lie, because in this post of yours you have accused them of that, then all they had to do was go through the Book of Mormon picking out details and give them in their statements. The purpose of their statements was simply to give enough detail as to why they thought the Book of Mormon contained Spalding’s writings based on their memories. Anything more served no purpose. Long extensive statements wouldn’t have proved a thing.

[Bedlamite]

Here's a graphic excerpt from his updated (2011) presentation --

http://premormon.com/resources/r001/Criddle2011z.jpg

UD

And another...



UD

[_MCB]

Dale, that is pretty impressive, especially for people who are not statisticians.

Thanks, marg, I did an ILL request for all three of Schacter's books on memory.

[_Uncle Dale]

Dale, that is pretty impressive, especially for people who are not statisticians....

The Mormons and their Smith-alone allies are still fighting a
useless battle over claims that the Conneaut witnesses are
wrong in their testimony.

Either those witnesses' testimony is "too much alike" or else it
is "too different" from what Redick McKee said, etc. etc.

In the meanwhile, Craig Criddle is forging ahead with new textual
discoveries and employing multiple methods to look at the Book of
Mormon, in order to determine its multiple authorship details.

I can just imagine the Mormons' and Brodieites' rebuttal of Criddle's
explications of Cowdery and Smith contributions to that text:

"...but what Henry Lake said does not match what Aron Wright said!!!"

A losing battle -- if only they would pull their heads out of the sand
long enough take a look at their own sacred "Nephite record."

UD

[_MCB]

Yeah, Craig and I have some overlap in our work, even though we haven't communicated much. Researchers coming to the same conclusions, working independently of each other validates things more. I definitely need to expand the cognitive area with memories of the witnesses.

Hopefully Craig and I can work out those boundaries and sharing of work.

[_GlennThigpen]

Dale, that is pretty impressive, especially for people who are not statisticians....

The Mormons and their Smith-alone allies are still fighting a
useless battle over claims that the Conneaut witnesses are
wrong in their testimony.

Either those witnesses' testimony is "too much alike" or else it
is "too different" from what Redick McKee said, etc. etc.

In the meanwhile, Craig Criddle is forging ahead with new textual
discoveries and employing multiple methods to look at the Book of
Mormon, in order to determine its multiple authorship details.

I can just imagine the Mormons' and Brodieites' rebuttal of Criddle's
explications of Cowdery and Smith contributions to that text:

"...but what Henry Lake said does not match what Aron Wright said!!!"

A losing battle -- if only they would pull their heads out of the sand
long enough take a look at their own sacred "Nephite record."

UD

I think that the head in the sand is applicable more to the S/R theorists Dale. Is Craig going to submit his work to the LLC and have it peer reviewed. Or doesn't that matter any longer, since Bruce did submit a paper which has been peer reviewed and has been promptly ignored by Craig and other S/R theorists who are going their own way since science does not sem to back them up.

Glenn.

[_MCB]

Here is a book about statistics.

http://www.amazon.com/How-Lie-Statistic ... 0393310728

It is a bit old, but still popular. Really a classic in the field. It is amazing how much people can obfuscate with unnecessarily complex tools.